Good evening.

I would like to call the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for December 17th, 2025 to order.

First, I would like to start by introducing one of our two planning and zoning commission student representatives, Zara Raman, who is a junior at NECWA Valley High School.

Our student representatives are encouraged to provide their insight on cases here before the PCC, but they will not have voting capacity.

Welcome, Zara.

Secretary Wright, please conduct roll call and please include Zara in that roll call.

Albubreaker.

Customer?

Here.

Longbaugh?

Here.

McDaniels.

Here.

Nomadies?

Here.

Richelia?

President.

Robins?

Here.

Wright is here.

Student Rama.

Present.

Madam Chair, we have a core.

Great.

Thank you.

The first order of business tonight is the public forum.

During the public forum, members of the public have the opportunity to address the planning and zoning commission on issues which are not part on part of tonight's agenda.

Please keep your comments limited to three minutes.

Also, for the sake of all those in attendance, please refrain from clapping or shouting out in response to comments made by any speaker.

Secretary Wright, do we have anyone signed up from public forum?

No one's signed up.

Great.

Thank you.

Our next order of business in public hearings for each hearing, we will begin with the staff presentation or introduction followed by the petitioner's presentation.

We'll then take public testimony to ensure that we have the opportunity to hear from each person wishing to speak.

Please keep your comments specific to the request under consideration and try to avoid repetitive comments.

Also, for the sake of all those in attendance, please refrain from clapping or shouting out in response to comments made by any speaker.

Following all public testimony, the petitioners will provide closing remarks just prior to the closure of the public hearing.

No further public hearing or testimony will be taken after the petitioner begins their closing remarks or during the planning and zoning commission deliberation.

I will now swear in any member of the public wishing to speak.

For those who wish to provide testimony, please stand up.

Please raise your right hand and respond, I do.

I swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

All right, great.

Thank you.

The only case on tonight's agenda is DEV-0100-2025.

The public hearing is now open.

Anna Franca from staff will present the case.

Thank you, Chair.

Anna Franco at the city's planning services team.

The petitioner for this case seeks approval of a conditional use for an automobile service station and a variance to the bypass lane requirement to add a drive-thru lane for a proposed quick service restaurant to the existing automobile service station.

The subject property is approximately 1.37 acres and is located near the southwest corner of the intersection of North Rora Road and Ogden Avenue.

The property is currently improved with a BP2Go convenience store, a fueling station, and uh fueling canopy structure.

The subject property is zoned B3, General Commercial District, and the B3 zoning district now classifies automobile service stations as a conditional use for a text amendment processed in 2016.

The gas station on the subject property predates to 2016 code amendment and is there considered, therefore considered an existing non-conforming use.

However, the addition of the drive-through lane to the property triggers the requirement for the petitioner to seek and obtain conditional use approval pursuant to the list of B3 district conditional uses.

Given the property's location at a major intersection consistency with the land use master plan future place type designation and the existing land use of the subject property, staff finds the automobile service station to be compatible with the surrounding area.

The petitioner's responses to the standards for granting or amending a conditional use can be found in the attachments, and upon review, staff agrees with the petitioner's findings and recommends their adoption by the PCC.

The petitioner is proposing to add the drive-thru lane with a menu board and drive-through window on the east side of the existing convenience store building for the proposed fast service restaurant.

The drive-thru is designed in a U layout, and cars entering the drive-thru will be permitted to stack along the east side of the existing paved area on the property, compliant with stacking and setback requirements.

A partial bypass lane is provided for approximately 66 feet of length at the end of the drive-thru to allow vehicles to exit before the pickup window.

The municipal code requires a 10-foot bypass lane for the entirety of the drive-thru, and therefore a variance is required.

Strict enforcement of the code and requirements would result in the need for a parallel pavement section to be added to the entirety of the drive-through lane, which is not feasible due to the location of the existing building and setback requirements.

Given that a partial bypass lane is included to provide customers with the ability to exit the drive-thru and considering site limitations, staff finds the variance request reasonable.

The petitioner does not have an end user identified for the drive-thru at this time, although queuing data has been provided for an existing Dunkin' Donuts and Jimmy John with the with this petition.

Ideally, the user would be known so that staff can verify that the drive-through design is sufficient to accommodate the user's demand.

So staff recommends the condition of approval outlined in the staff memo for the requested bypass lane variants to allow staff to evaluate stacking needs once a user has been identified.

Staff agrees with the petitioner's findings for the variance request and recommends their adoption by the planning and zoning commission, subject to the approval of the recommended condition.

Tonight that we ask you to conduct the public hearing and we are available for questions.

Thank you.

Well, the petitioner, please approach the podium.

You can hit the button.

Oh, there you go.

Turn on uh trust the one with the actually on my way.

Yeah.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

Good evening.

My name is Dan Sultis.

I'm with Chima Developers.

Chima Developers is the real estate and development arm of parent petroleum and the Pride Stores.

Um we're all part of the same company.

We we were here probably about four or five years ago.

That is our Pride of Napraville site that opened as a pride of AMB, it was an AMICO site.

Now it's a shell.

So that one is is doing very well.

We acquired this location uh beginning of 2025, and have been um uh trying to increase obviously volume, trying to do improvements to it.

We rebranded it to BP, we're doing some lighting on the canopies.

So the drive-through addition, we are talking with one of our current dealers.

We supply fuel to the Chicago land area.

So one of our particular dealers that we're talking to right now, he's a Dunkin' Donut franchisee.

So right now, the use for this particular use right now, the front runner is for a Dunkin' Donuts.

We've provided that with the staff reports.

I don't have a lease as of today.

He keep we keep talking, and I'm uh he knows that we're here tonight, but right now that is where we intend to um put into the site.

Okay.

And do you have anything else or I'll ask if anyone else has to do that?

I have Todd Abrams here.

He's with WT.

He did all the engineering on this location.

We feel that that the site lays out well for it.

It could have been built with the driver, we feel.

Um, like I said, we're just trying to maximize everything we can over there.

And at this point, right now, if you've seen all of the exhibits and and uh engineering plans and such landscape plans, we are adding additional landscape.

We're open for questioning, and uh we're hoping that uh that uh the city sees the the value in it as well.

Great, thank you.

Okay, so now I would like to hear from any of the members of the public present tonight speak on this case, Secretary Wright.

No one signed up.

All right.

Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak?

No.

All right, we'll move to the commissioners.

So I will start with Commissioner.

Well, I will ask Zara if you would like to add any comments.

All right, great.

Then I will start with Commissioner Long and Wall.

Thank you.

Um, I have a couple of questions for staff.

Um, just more kind of curious.

Um, how often does this happen where a petitioner comes and they don't have any like end vendor in in place?

How often does that happen?

Typically, uh it is rare.

Um, we don't have this happen very often.

Um, when they came in with a concept plan, uh, I believe we did ask for at least data for queuing data for potential users in substitution for knowing the end user.

Okay.

And then my second question is um, can you just kind of explain like the protections that you have in place?

I like that that you know, the the paragraph where you described in the agenda about that, but I mean, obviously the the worry when I was reading that was I immediately thought Dutch Brothers and Seven Brew, and so how do we how do we ensure that there are protections for something like that?

Yes, that's a great question.

Um, and that was uh exactly the users that you mentioned were a consideration when drafting the condition, um the recommending condition in the staff memo.

Um so essentially um once a certificate of occupancy is uh applied for for this fast service restaurant, uh all planning staff reviews certificate of occupancies, and we would um check that the user um that you know that they're compliant with the stacking requirements, which we think they will since the stacking provides 12 spaces, but also on addition to that that we think that the stacking spaces are sufficient for that proposed user.

So if someone came in with uh you know a history of uh quite a lot of traffic, like one of the you know fast drive through like the draft the coffee shops you mentioned, um we may find that the site is insufficient for that user and that they would need to then request a major change to the to the conditional use if it's approved, um, which would require review by the planning and zoning commission and city council.

Okay, so it basically comes back here if that gets triggered.

Yes.

So that's if staff does not find that there's sufficient um stacking or uh we don't find the sat the site is sufficient for that user.

So it does give a lot a lot of control to staff.

Okay, thank you.

Of course.

All right, commission.

Um just curious.

Um any kind of traffic studies or anything like that is required for um something like this.

We did not um identify a tr a traffic study being needed for this um when it did come in for concept.

Um Pete, do you have any?

Yeah.

Hi, I'm Peter Zibel.

I'm with Engineering Services.

I attend a lot of these meetings and I never get to speak, so I'm gonna take this opportunity.

Um yeah, so this is one of those um situations where we would not um request a specific traffic study.

Traffic studies generally are based on the um the the amount of traffic generated by a use.

Again, we don't know what the final user is for this one, and as we've all learned over the past couple of years, um drive-throughs are unique in how they operate.

So a traffic study, a formal traffic study really wouldn't be what we'd want to see.

We'd want to see cops um similar uses um and how they operate.

Uh obviously that's no guarantee that this one's gonna operate the same way.

Um some of the coffee shops we looked at a year ago, year and a half ago now, um there were a similar, you know, similar situations, same company, different cities operated just fine.

Um we just had, I guess, amazing luck or good or bad, depending on how you look at it here in Naperville.

Um so for this specific use, um, as we alluded to, we're gonna take a look at who the final user is and then determine if we need more information about comparable stacking at other stores.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Commissioner Wright.

Yeah, I uh both the commissioners kind of hit both of my points.

I was very curious about why the urgency in uh not having a concept already approved.

Was this was this merely uh an attempt to um was this something that Dunkin' Donuts requested or or any other uh vendor requested that the approval be had before they would sign onto a lease or a long-term commitment?

Is this is that the reason for the urgency?

As I understand it, the dealer has driven the site with Dunkin' Donuts.

There wasn't any specific request to have the zoning approved prior to.

This was just a request from ownership to to start the process.

Okay, that makes sense.

Um and then you know, overall I'm great with the conditions.

Um I do have a a little bit of concern about the traffic study as as Commissioner Albuquerque brought up.

Um, you know, while I don't necessarily think a Dunkin' Donuts will uh will drive that type of traffic, but we just need to be very careful that we look into that if in the event that you know I know we're very we we're very focused on stacking, which is important as well, but you know, during the peak hours where Dunkin' Donuts in the morning can be very uh very busy, you know, it could generate enough traffic that we might want to take a look at that.

But in general, I'm I'm okay with the conditions and I'll I'll be voting in favor of this.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

Commissioner Namas.

Um along those lines, do you have um certain end users that you have conveyed to them that you do want to look closer at, or is it just any user you're gonna take a closer look at?

We haven't identified any specific user we would look at more closely than another.

Um any user that they propose we will review um to be sufficient for the site.

Okay, thanks.

Commissioner Castanoli.

I just have one question.

Are you planning on building this before you have a user?

Because that would that could be problematical.

Can they I would probably answer that not until we have a user?

Um yeah, I I would say that we we'd want to lock in that.

Would the city allow them to build it before they had a user?

Yeah.

I think we I think we would um it's just when they need a certificate of occupancy, we um we would look at that drive-thru design that was um that would need to be complete.

The drive-thru would likely need to be completed before the certificate of occupancy.

Yes, so yes, then I think if they bring forward a Dutch brothers type user, then how can we stop them from going in?

So they're pre they're going forward at their their own risk if they do uh construct the drive-thru because we have put this condition in saying that we do have an extra level of review.

Uh so if they construct the drive-thru and they're then proposing like a Dutch brothers that or another use that we may not find sufficient for the site, then um that's at their own risk.

Okay, thank you.

Of course, thank you.

Mr.

Commissioner Rachelia.

No questions.

All right, Commissioner McDaniel.

Thank you.

Um I really don't have any uh issues with the the specific case.

My my question that I have is more general as it relates to the conditional use uh that was um uh uh initially put in place by I think in 2016 related to uh auto move automobile service stations on Ogden.

Um it has done a it's been a great economic development tool uh throughout the Ogden corridor.

Um I guess my question is does city staff have a metric or ratio that they're monitoring to ensure that we're not uh taking I guess a few steps back and and um unintentionally adding more uh uh service stations that that we necessarily don't want to.

So do you do you understand that question?

So um it sounds like the question is it as it relates to the text amendment, is it necessarily encouraging more um automobile service stations?

No, I I guess my question is is zero metric or is a ratio that we can peg that we had back in 2016 as it relates to service stations relative to other type of businesses that we can look at now and say, well, now the ratio is this.

You know, do we want to keep it at a certain level or certain metrics so that we don't find ourselves adding service stations?

You know, I think I'd have to look back at the you know, the this the st the staff memo for the text amendment to see if there was anything about um any limitations or metrics for automobile service stations.

I do know that one of the reasons for the conditional use was to allow an extra level of review for those types of uses.

Um so I'd have to I'd have to look into that.

I uh I'd I'd personally be interested to hear if that's that's something that we have uh uh uh I guess in force or on the books or within the code.

Um so that just thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Of course, and I'll I I'll follow up with you.

Thank you.

All right, any any other questions?

Um I I would say that I all the questions that were asked from the commissioners, I am in alignment with.

Uh I will approve this case based off of my understanding of the conditional use and that our planning and zoning administrator administer comes back when you guys show up with a um a tenant, so when it comes in for review, it has to come back for approval for the administer, and then if it is beyond the scope in which the conditional use outlines, then it comes back through planning and zoning.

That's correct, right?

So sorry.

So if the if we find that the use the user's stacking needs and is beyond needs for their drive-through is beyond um what um we find sufficient for the property, then um then it would need to come back for uh conditional use approval for a major change.

All right, great.

Thank you.

Um so I am good.

I would like to hear from the petitioner if you have any closing remarks.

No, we just hope that uh you know, obviously if if we do move forward here, if we once we get approved or if we get approved, we would try to accelerate any type of lease come back in.

We'd like this to be a 2026 project.

Uh we do have to do some inside work as well, in addition to the tenant build out.

So there's still some work to do here.

But we are investing in the site.

I want to make sure that uh that the city knows that.

Um we we know it's it's not hitting its potential.

Uh I think not to throw the previous user down uh you know, under the you know, but anyways, um we we know that we could we could we could really get the sales up over there so great we look for your help thank you appreciate it uh I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for DEV-0100-2025.

So moved, second all in favor say aye.

Motion carries, Commissioner McDaniel, please read the motion.

I would like to make motion to adopt the findings of a fact as presented by the petitioner and recommend approval of DEV01002025, a conditional use for an automobile service station in the B3 zoning district pursuant to section 6-7c3 colon two of the Naperville Municipal Code and zoning variants to section 6-9-6, colon 2.2 of the Napoleonville Municipal Code to provide a part on my mass lane subject to the recommended conditional uh condition of approval for a quick service restaurant drive-through at 1532 North Aurora Road.

Great, Commissioner Ruchalia.

Can I have a second?

Second.

Great.

Secretary Wright, please conduct roll call.

Albert Baker.

I approve.

Casting Molly.

I agree.

Longama.

Agree with the motion.

McDaniel.

I agree.

I agree.

Ruchelia?

I agree with the motion.

Robins?

I agree with the motion.

Right.

I agree with the motion.

Great.

Thank you.

I would like to and oh, is that right?

Uh all right.

Next is the approval of the minutes for December 3rd, 2025 planning and zoning commission meeting.

Do we have any corrections to the meeting?

No, we do not.

I would like to entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the December 3rd, 2025 planning and zoning meeting.

So move.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Motion carries.

Next is the approval of the 2026 planning and zoning commission meeting schedule.

Do we have any comments on the schedule?

All right.

I would like to entertain a motion to approve the 2026 planning and zoning commission meeting schedule.

So moved, second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries.

There's no old or new business.

And I would like to entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Great.

Meeting adjourned.

Good job, guys.