Good evening.

Welcome to the February 17th, Naperville City Council Meeting.

Roll call.

Worley.

Here.

Gibson.

Here.

Hold Tower.

Here.

Jane.

Here.

Kelly.

Here.

McBroom.

Here.

Cyan.

Yeah.

White.

Here.

Wilson.

Here.

Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Under God.

Our first item on the agenda is awards and recognitions.

Police Chief Aries will present the police department's Distinguished Service Award.

Chief.

Nobody's judging us.

Okay.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, members of council, and everyone in attendance this evening.

I'd like to take a few moments to recognize three individuals whose actions reflect the very best of who we are as a community.

On Friday, January 9th, just before 3 PM, our emergency communication center began receiving multiple 911 calls reporting a serious traffic crash on southbound Route 59, just south of Cantor.

A Tesla had left the roadway, struck a tree, and was fully engulfed in flames with the driver, Daniel, who's with us tonight, trapped inside.

Roger's here tonight, move the victim further away from the car after he was in the parkway.

And Lee Wolf, here with us tonight as well, helped provide first aid until the emergency responders arrived.

And let me say we are so thankful you're able to be here with us tonight.

It's awesome.

As I mentioned earlier, Officer Pogwiz was off duty that day.

And yet, when faced with a life-threatening situation, he did.

Police officers are wired to be decisive and act, even when those actions pose a great personal risk to themselves, to include when we're off duty.

It also looks like we may have two other individuals up here with us tonight that may have missed their true calling.

We're always testing, so you two feel free to apply.

And on top of that, we are awarding Officer Peter Pogwist the Medal of Distinguished Service, one of our highest honors for his extraordinary courage, decisive action, and willingness to place his own life at risk to save another.

So the photo on the left gives you some context.

The Tesla's behind that vehicle there, the type of smoke that was out there from the car being on fire.

And then the picture on the right, you see our firefighters who I'd be remiss not to say what an excellent job they did with a very difficult fire with that Tesla.

And that's what the car looked like after the fire had been extinguished.

So again, I'd hope you'd all please join me in recognizing these individuals for their bravery and their heroic actions during this incident.

Thank you.

Is that still the case?

Yeah, please.

It's amazing to think how different this night would have been had God not put these three heroes within my path.

Thank you.

Truly.

Thank you for saving my life.

Thank you for acting, and thank you for being heroes.

Thank you.

Personal attacks on council members' staff, other speakers, or members of the audience are not allowed.

If inappropriate language or comments are expressed during this meeting, you will be asked immediately to stop commenting.

Also, for audience members, there is no cheering and no jeering.

Actions such as applauding, cheering, booing, or any other noises during or at the conclusion of any remarks made by any speaker are not allowed.

This occurs, you will be asked to stop immediately.

And if it continues to persist, I will recess the meeting until the audience abides by the rules in our city code.

No speaker should ever feel intimidated by the crowd.

Audience disruption is meant to intimidate those speaking, and I will not allow it in the chambers.

Audience members with signs, the signs must not block any other audience members' view.

Speakers are given three minutes to address the city council to help speakers stay within the three-minute time frame.

We have a timer on the side die is located to your right.

It will give the visual cue when three minutes are expiring.

This helps speakers conclude their comments in a timely manner without being cut off.

The timer will buzz when it hits zero, and we will alert the speaker that their time is up.

If a speaker's name is called and they are not in the room, we will move on to the next speaker and will not go back.

Speakers are encouraged to remain in council chambers until the conclusion of public forum in the event council members want to ask any follow-up questions.

Mrs.

Schatz, please call the speakers.

We have two speakers in public forum.

The first speaker is John Doyle, followed by Marilyn Schweitzer.

We also had one written comment that has been posted to the website.

So when your name has been called, please come and have a seat in the front row, and we'll start with our first speaker.

Thank you, Council John Doyle, Naperville resident.

And I'd like to just revisit a comment that the uh council brought up at the last session regarding a subsidy program for utility subscribers who might uh struggle to pay their bill.

Well, I I love that idea, and I hope that we sincerely sincerely pursue it a little bit further.

So, as you guys probably know, we have an existing utility assistance program, and one of the key aspects of that is uh grants will be awarded until funds are exhausted.

So I, you know, I couldn't find any data on this, but if this program is running out of money before it's running out of applicants, absolutely, let's do something about that.

And let's do it now.

We do not have to wait till 2035.

This has nothing to do with IMEA.

If we have neighbors that are struggling, give us an opportunity to voluntarily donate, and we will we will help our neighbors.

And if you don't believe me, this is exactly how it works at NICOR.

You know, they have a number of assistance programs running.

Uh, the one I want to bring your attention to is the first one listed as a sharing program.

They've been doing this for a couple decades.

This is fully subscriber funded, voluntary, 100% voluntary.

It's revenue neutral for the utility, and they give away $700 to families in need.

100% voluntary.

We can do this.

Give us the opportunity, and we will help our neighbors.

But to be honest, I think we can go a lot further.

We can go a whole lot further than that.

And so, what I'm asking is if anybody on the council would be willing to sponsor uh, you know, what I have up here as as a official agenda item or something close to.

Uh by my calculations, you know, with public data available.

We currently have about 12 and a half thousand households that would be eligible for our existing program.

And at $600 a year, that's $7.5 million.

And I know we do not have seven and a half million dollars budgeted for this program.

Uh again, high-level estimates.

I can get into this a lot, lot deeper if we make this an official agenda item.

But 7.7 cents per kilowatt hour charge to the other 50,000 subscribers can pay for this.

The money is here.

We can help our neighbors.

Please, I hope you seriously consider an idea like this.

And again, it does not have to wait for 2035.

If any of our neighbors are struggling with their bills, we can help them.

Let us help them, and we'll show you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Marilyn Schweitzer.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh good evening.

Uh so my parents never swore, and I was probably 10 years old before I heard my mother say, shut up.

Before then, it was always simply be quiet.

I don't live up to my parents' standards, but I do try to watch my words.

Um, and I know I don't always, you know, say as I wish.

Um, but I appreciate the the rules of the public forum that we have in these chambers, and I wish they extended beyond the chambers into our community and particularly social media.

But on another note tonight, it is the um start of the lunar new year.

Well, it is the lunar new year, and it is the year of the horse.

And so I've given to you for each of your amusement a little origami horse.

And it's acrobatic.

If you flip on the tail, it should end up right side up again.

So thank you for your service, and I hope you have some time for verbality.

Thank you.

Any more speakers.

At this time, do any members of city council have an item for public forum as reminder for the code.

Council members have three minutes to speak during public forum.

We can speak up to two times.

Councilman White.

Thank you, Mayor.

We uh we're all hit uh this morning with uh some really sad news, and I like to read something off here.

Uh remembering Reverend Jesse Jesse Jackson uh losing his life today.

Um he was a fighter for fairness, a voice for those who often were unheard, and someone who never stopped pushing this country to be better than it was the day before.

Leaders like Reverend Jackson remind us that progress doesn't happen by accident, it happens because people are willing to stand up, speak out, and do the work.

One of his most enduring messages about unity was this.

America is not a blanket woven from one thread, one color, one cloth.

It is a quilt, many patches, many pieces, many colors, many sizes, all held together by a common thread.

Black, brown, white, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, young, old, poor, gay, straight.

We are all part of the American quilt.

That vision that everyone belongs is part of the legacy he leaves behind for all of us.

As a veteran, an educator, and someone who serves in local government, I've always believed service is about creating opportunity and removing barriers so others can succeed.

The best way we honor his life isn't just with words, it is by continuing the work in our own communities every day.

Keep hope alive, well done, good and faithful service.

And at this time, I would just ask for a moment of silence.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Wilson.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Uh thank you, Marilyn for the uh the horse.

Uh and then uh Mr.

Doyle uh for my my quote there.

Hopefully I said going to rather than gonna.

Uh regardless, um, I mean, I I certainly like the sentiment of uh subsidizing or or helping out those in need.

Um hopefully everybody here can.

Uh I mean, I don't know that what the best way to do that would be, but uh I could certainly point you to some neighborhoods that are in Naperville, and you could, or anyone here can knock on our door and offer them help.

Um this was more in the context of the IMEA discussion.

Uh regardless, I'm sure any help that's uh offered would be appreciated.

Um, but uh you know, in the context of the IMA decision, um part of that that may have been lost for those who aren't here is that uh enacting policy uh which would increase costs typically hurts those that are in uh need the most the worst.

Um and again, my point to that is that uh similar to the the talk around the stretch codes is that uh I haven't gotten many emails for those advocating for the increased costs to go offer and uh help or subsidize those who would be negatively impacted the most.

Um moreover, um we also heard this does this discussion around uh the people have spoken or this is what we voted for, or uh this is what the people want.

Uh as far as the IMA discussion went, um we also got a lot of emails for those that wanted to continue with IMA.

Um, just neglecting that.

So I guess my question around that is who what what are what people are um exactly who is being represented in that decision.

Um, you know, those who uh present poor data or those who aren't.

So uh just my comments around that.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Director Munch, since um Speaker Doyle's question came up or recommendation came up.

Can you just explain the existing program right now for assistance and how that works and what residents can do today to actually participate?

Absolutely, Ray Vunge Finance Director.

Uh so as it pertains to Mr.

Doyle's comments, we actually offer a program today that's very similar to what he described.

Um, this was a utility assistance program that really started during the early COVID period, uh, but the council made permanent in 2021.

Through that program, we partner with Loaves and Fishes Community Services.

They administer the program on behalf of the city of Neighborville.

Residents can contact Loves and Fishes.

The program offers up to $600 in utility assistance once on a rolling calendar year.

There are certain income qualifications.

Loaves and fishes will walk the customer through that process to determine eligibility.

And if they are in fact eligible, they will direct that utility assistance directly to the city's finance department to be applied against the uh customers' utility bill.

That program uh is funded at $300,000 per year uh by agreement.

Uh we have uh never exhausted that amount of money uh since we began the program in 2021.

So funds have been available every single year since we've started the program and and have not um been exhausted in any given year.

So if residents are in need of assistance, I would contact encourage you to contact Globes and Fishes or the city's finance department, and we can direct you to those resources.

And just one follow-up.

I assume Loaves has an opportunity for people to donate towards that fund if they choose to above and beyond the city's contribution.

Uh so the program is actually funded through the water and electric utility rates.

So it's self-funded through the city.

It doesn't have a donation component at this time, uh, but the program is actually coming up for renewal in uh at the end of this year.

So this is the final year.

So we will be looking at the uh funding mechanisms for this program when we look at it for renewal.

Fair enough.

Councilman McBroom.

Thank you, Mayor.

Merilyn, thank you.

Um yeah, that's good to know.

Uh Director Munch, I was gonna suggest that we implement a voluntary program.

We we do have a um renewable energy program.

Very few residents uh participate.

Um, some of that may just be uh awareness.

Um and we have a REC rec program as well.

And I believe I believe no one is is signed up for the rec program.

So um there's a lot of things that people can do on their own, and um whether it's just unwillingness or um or lack of awareness, maybe we can um get some more awareness on uh what people can individually do to to contribute.

Um along those lines, uh recently I've um questioned uh the decision that majority uh council made uh at our last meeting uh regarding pausing uh the discussion uh or negotiations with IMEA.

And um, you know, for me, I I would have preferred an end to discussion.

Um, you know, yeah, I I've been kind of pushing this discussion to be had, and uh whether or not you know obviously I've looked at the data and I I believe that our our uh alternatives to IMEA are not attractive.

Um but you know ultimately I think a decision needs to be made.

Um, and my my primary uh motivation to advancing this discussion is that energy markets are complicated, they take multi-decade planning strategies, and I'm not particularly clear on what pause means because I do believe I'm gonna assume it means there's a possibility that we're not gonna be an IMEA partner in the future.

And if that's the case, IMEA is is doing multi-decade uh financial planning.

Uh we need to do our own multi-decade financial planning.

Um so you know I I think that the council um, you know, if the position is paused, I I don't I don't think that that waiting is you know an option.

I think that planning needs to start now, and I think that some kind of direction from majority who pause direct staff to do something.

I don't know what that is.

Um and uh, you know, as far as uh, yeah, so as as far as moving forward, I guess that's that's my request or that's my ask.

I'm I'm happy to work with everyone anyone.

Uh ultimately my my motivation is is to plan for the future.

And and I I don't think uh I I have kind of you know um heard or I I guess uh I've been listening that um you know maybe this was a negotiation strategy.

I I would suggest the council, if that in fact is a motivation for pause, uh you probably should look into alternatives.

Um, you know, if this is a a car lot and you're leaving the car lot and you're expecting the salesman to come talk to you, you probably should show the salesman that you're looking at other cars.

Uh I think it it would help to uh and I think we need to anyway.

So thank you, Councilman Holzar.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um just somebody pointed out Chinese New Year here, and I wanted to throw out that this is actually kind of like a triple crown of holidays.

So we have Ramadan um beginning, depending where in the world you are on either tonight, or the 18th or 19th.

Um if you're the Christian faith.

Um, and it's not just the year of the horse, it's actually the year of the fire horse, which is something that uh only happens once in a great uh many decades.

We're also uh just closing up the uh Hindu festival of Maha Shivaratri.

Hopefully I got that right.

So uh just wanted to give a shout out to all the communities in April that are celebrating night.

Um also with regard to history in Naperville.

Uh, Councilman White gave a very moving tribute to um the late Reverend Jesse Jackson.

Um he actually spoke in Naperville to Naperville North High School, my alma mater in 1988.

It's a little before I was there.

Um this is Black History Month.

We also had Martin Luther King Jr.

come to our city uh during his lifetime, and President Barack Obama spoke at, in fact, a facility we will be landmarking later tonight, which is the first congregational church in 2004.

Um so all of that to say Naperville history, black history is American history, and uh just very proud that our community is a part of it.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Seeing no other council public agenda.

Our next item is the consent agenda.

We have a motion to use the omnibus method to approve the consent agenda.

Councilman White.

I move to use the omnibus method to approve the consent agenda.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

All those in favor sign aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion passes 90.

May have a motion to approve the consent agenda, pulling I 16, I-17, I-20, and I-21.

Councilman White.

I move to approve the consent agenda.

Uh removing items I 16, I 17, I-20, and I-21.

Councilman Kelly, second Kelly.

Mrs.

Schott, Mrs.

Schatz, please read the consent agenda, removing I-16, I 17, I-20, and I-21.

There are 16 positions of support and 16 written comments posted to the website for agenda item I 19.

Approval of the January cash disbursements for a total of 44,172,730 and 82 cents.

Approval of the February 3rd, 2026, regular city council meeting minutes.

Approval of the city council meeting schedule for March, April, and May 2026.

Approval of appointments to various boards and commissions.

Receiving the year-to-date investment and cash balance report through December 31st, 2025.

Receiving the year-to-date budget report through January 31st, 2026.

Approval of the award of the bid for vehicle emergency lighting and related equipment to the Terramar Group DBA Fleet Supply Safety Supply for an amount not to exceed 310,000 for one year term.

Approval of the award of the cooperative procurement for streetlight maintenance and LED streetlight materials to Gray Bar Incorporated and Westco distribution for an amount not to exceed $625,000.

Approval of the award of the cooperative procurement for Esri Advantage Program, Arc GIS Enterprise Consulting to ESRI for an amount not to exceed 119,000, 400 for one year term.

Approval of the award of option year number three to the contract for consulting engineering services for soils and materials testing to National Soil Testing LLC for an amount not to exceed 280,000.

Approval of the award of change order number seven to the contract for Columbia Street Roadway Widening to Schroeder asphalt services for an additional 13 months.

Approval of the award of change or award of change order number one to the contract for construction engineering, Columbia Street Roadway Widening to Baxter and Woodman for an additional eight months.

Approval of the award of change order number one to the contract for neighbor settlement winter operation services to Steve Miller Incorporated for an amount not to exceed 30,000.

Approval of the award of change order number one to the contract for 2025 new sidewalk program to Triggy Construction for an amount not to exceed 24,738 and 93 cents.

Approval of the recommendation by Alliance Insurance Services to award excess workers compensation insurance coverage to Midwest employers casualty company for an amount not to exceed 185,326 for a two-year term.

Passing the ordinance establishing temporary traffic controls and issuing a special event and amplifier permit for St.

Patty's Day 5K and the St.

Patrick's Day Parade scheduled on Saturday, March 14th, 2026.

Passing the ordinance designating night the 1906 building located at 25 East Benton Avenue, first congregational church as a historic landmark under the Naperville Municipal Code.

Waiving the first reading and passing the ordinance to establish a two-way stop control at the intersection of Josiah Road and Weatherby Lane.

Waiving the first reading and passing the ordinance, removing a no-left turn prohibition at the intersection of Chicago Avenue and Ellsworth Street.

Adopting the IDOT supplemental resolution in the amount of 104,231 dollars and ninety-seven cents to allow for the expenditure of state motor fuel tax dollars to fund 2025 roadway resurfacing program MFT and adopting the resolution approving the amended intergovernmental agreements and amended memorandums of understanding between the city of Naperville and Naperville Community Unit School District 203 and Indian Prairie School District 204 for school resource officers.

We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda minus I 16, I 17, I 20, and I 21 roll call.

Yes.

Gibson.

Hi.

Holzhour.

Hi.

Jane.

Kelly.

Hi.

McBroom.

Hi.

Cyan.

I wife.

Wilson.

All right.

Motion passes 90.

I 16.

Item I 16 is a recommendation to approve the proposed calendar year 2026 seek a grant fund program allocations.

We have three speakers.

The first speaker is Rahul Treved Trevetti, followed by Munesh Keza.

And just for a reminder on items that are poll that have speakers, the same rules apply in the council chambers.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, Councilman, Councilwoman, our brave uh police officers, and the people from the citizenship of Naperville.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about an important topic which is very close to my heart.

First, I will just like to borrow the three rules of public speaking from Raja Krishna Murti.

Be short, be sweet, and be gone.

So I will come right to the point that we have been organizing this Swadeshi Mela for last three years in Naperville.

Some of you have had an opportunity to come and visit the Mela.

We bring uh close to 100 vendors from uh US and uh international uh uh vendors also come participate in it.

It has been a great uh melting pot for our community.

Uh I know Naperville is known as one of the best places uh to live.

It has been rated multiple times by multiple magazines, but the calls we get from our friends from about this Mela and this cultural events being organized, that is something in new dimension which makes Naperville even better, more respected.

Uh uh, and that's around the US.

Uh we have been managing this uh with the help of uh strictly with the help of the volunteers and over 300 volunteers, including uh student volunteers uh work tirelessly to make this Mila successful.

Uh the grant for this Mela has been uh reduced by the SECA commission and uh I urge the council to reconsider uh the zero grant to the Mila this year.

Um it will be very helpful uh for us in order to keep our uh legacy successful, and uh we want to uh keep the Naperville uh name bright and shining, known for not only all the other good things, but adding more dimensions of diversity and cultural uh openness.

Uh thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Munesh Kespa, followed by Nag J Swell.

Good evening.

Uh good evening, Mayor, uh, council members and city leadership.

My name is Manish Kasov.

First of all, thank you for the opportunity for me to speak for the support that CT has provided for the international trade fair in previous year.

We truly value the partnership.

The international trade fair is not just the event, it is an economic driver and a platform that position our city in the global state in the next level.

This is a direct economic impact, not just a cultural engagement.

Last year, the event brought together international delegates, total business, businesses, entrepreneurs, and community leaders.

Regionated significant footfall of 25,000, starting from 15 all the way to 25,000, 30,000 people.

And giving the lot of business to the hotels to transmoditions and uh restaurants, a lot of other things.

So when does the reported new business relationship cross borders and uh trade discussions, ongoing partnerships that continue well beyond if the event itself?

300 plus volunteers and hundred plus the youth, you talented.

We recruited those people.

So when the grant funding is reduced, the impact is not simply on our event budget.

It directly affects what?

The marketing reach to attract the international exhibitors, participation from the small and minor minority on businesses, and the scale of trade delegation, the city visibility as a global commercial, reduced support limit of our ability to amplify the city brand and economic development goals.

So we believe the international trade trail alliance with the strongly with the city um objectives, economic growth and small business expansion that will bring the city and us together.

Our goal is very simple to ensure that this event continue to grow, attract global attention, and deliver tangible economic benefits to our community.

We respectfully request reconsideration of the grant level in the light of documented and projected economic return to this event journeyed.

Seems like the grant has been reduced, as if that our we are disheartened and are being paralyzed.

So it's a request to reconsider the grant.

Thank you for your valuable time.

God bless.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The last speaker on this agenda item is Nag Jay Swell.

Good evening, uh Mayor, Councilman, and uh fellow Naperville citizens.

Um I am here on behalf of the community in support of uh Swadeshi Mela International Trade Fair.

Um, just to set a reference point, almost 35,000 plus Asians live in the city of Naperville, and about 25,000 of them are Indian origin.

Um the neighborhoods combined, we are close to 50,000.

Uh, just like Councilman uh Holzor just mentioned, Mahashivaratri has been recognized, uh, Eid and Marigra.

So we are we are a cultural pot, melting pot.

Um Sika has been a great support for a lot of organizations.

So we are talking about St.

Patty's Day and you know um all other uh celebrations.

We used to have India Day, and for the last two or three years, we had uh Swadeshi Mela bringing all of us together.

Uh they had programs in uh Spanish, you know, English music, we had kids coming in, volunteers.

Um, so it's very disappointing as a community when we see that two of the stalwart programs, both ICO India Day and uh Swadeshi Mela, the international trade fair that bought not just the Indian community but the overall community together uh has been uh taken off support.

So this is this is my request.

It is sending a very negative image.

We already have an anti-India sentiment going around the country.

We don't want that to reflect in the city of Naperville with this diverse councilman.

I would request to reconsider support for ICO and Swadeshi Mela.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Wine.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um so um I've been to the event, I believe, over at the mall of India.

And uh they always it's always a pretty good event, and a lot of people do show up.

Um, which one of our staff members works with Sika?

Anyone here could have director?

Oh, great.

Okay.

So my question can you uh maybe explain maybe what happened, why they their uh their funding didn't get approved, and what they need to do in order to be more competitive the following next year, so they can continue to do this event because it is a it is a good event.

Sure.

Melanie Marcurtis, director of community services.

So under SECA's current um allocation process right now, if a majority of commissioners assign a funding recommendation of zero dollars to an application, no funding is awarded.

And in this case, there were five commissioners that recommended zero dollars to this applicant.

They looked at it more as a business um as a business event, not a not a community event.

Um its presence in multiple cities was quite um was raised.

Questions related to the event's budget, revenue sources, sponsorship opportunities, vendor and admission fees, and efforts to reduce city service costs as well.

And some ex some commissioners also expressed concern about the level of funding requested relative to SECA's priorities and the number of applications under consideration as well.

Okay, thank thank you.

Uh that's a pretty good explanation.

And I'm not sure if the the speakers have been given that information.

Um for the future, if they wanted to do this again, should there would you recommend some aspect of their program be more community relatable types of thing and shot and maybe not so much of the business?

Would that make their application more competitive?

Based on the feedback that we've received from SECA commissioners, I would say yes.

Okay.

So uh so speakers, I just I just want to make sure you all get the feedback so that when you reapply for this, um you you'll know you take the lessons learned from tonight so that you can apply those for for the future for next year, because I like this.

I personally, and now I don't want to speak for everyone on the council, but would uh would like to see your event continue.

Um so uh look into that, learn uh get some lessons learned so that you can um make uh appropriate recommendations for next year.

Thank you.

Councilman McRoom.

Thank you, Mayor.

So um the event being a title as a trade fair was a hang up.

So kids matter has a job fair, but that's not that's not what they were granted for.

Is that is that something that would have not um isn't that the same thing?

So ask sorry, ask your question again.

Doesn't kids matter hold a job fair.

Do we the seek it uh provide grant money for that?

Um I'm looking at it right now, actually.

It's not they're not titled.

I I thought when I opened it up that maybe I would see job fair, so it seems to be consistent.

Yes, that would kind of be a knockout.

Okay, and we we haven't uh granted seeking money for job fairs in the past, trade fairs.

I I don't know if we've done it in the past.

Um and I and this event has been has received operations funding in the past.

Okay, um, this commission the way they've viewed it this year, they did not want to fund it, fund the operations.

So I I hope at some point we're gonna get a report on SECA back and we're gonna have a discussion here.

I don't know what that's gonna look like, but um some of this just seems like the SECA commissioners are not getting the right direction, and and there's some arbitrary uh decisions going on, but um this allocation is based on previous perhaps arbitrary uh guidance.

Um and my comments today, I I'm not really equipped to, or I don't think we are to add you guys back in.

Um but uh um you know, looking at at the list of um recipients here, you know, I don't see anything um controversial or or political in this list.

Um, you know, we could go through the list and say why does you know this organization get this for that?

But I don't see anything that is particularly controversial.

I I could argue that um you know accelerated climate solutions is political.

Um that is nest, but I would even let that one go.

But the the one that I can't let go is uh Almus.

So that's a political organization.

Uh it's not subtle.

Um, and just to be perfectly clear, political advocacy is fine.

None of us should have any problem with political advocacy.

Um, but uh I don't think that we should expect everyone who dines in Naperville to fund organizations that are organizing protests in town and getting involved in things that are controversial.

I I remember our conversation we had up here about Max's mural.

You know, if we could just think about Max's mural, there are things that everyone can get behind, and uh uh but I I think uh almus has gone over the line, and I I won't support this uh seek uh allocations with them included Councilman Wilson.

Sorry, thank you, Mayor.

Um I uh suppose I uh have similar comments and uh as Councilman McGroom, I'd hope to see a report on this.

Um I guess I would differ in his comments with regard to accelerate climate solutions.

Um just for some more context there.

The person that runs it used to be head of NEST.

Um there's a member on the board of Accelerate that is also holds a I guess you could say position on NEST.

Um if I'm councilman Said may or may not still be on the board of Accelerate.

So I'm not I don't have confirmation of that.

I know you were at one point, but not to call you out personally, but I guess this just goes to goes back to uh converse previous conversations we've had with regard to disclosure and potential conflicts of interest um uh around these, particularly when certain organizations advocate for certain policies, and then uh we as a council turn around and give them money.

Um so to me it just seems like conflicts there.

Um for those reasons, I mean, we don't have to go through every item on the list.

That's just one example.

Um so uh to for example and to the Max's mural point.

I would hope that if there are organizations like that pursuing pursuing great causes that uh everyone up here on council would offer to uh to uh uh open up their checkbooks and and help them out.

So um but yeah, with that I'll I'll be voting against this.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Jane.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I just wanted to share that I have gone to this event for the last few years and have enjoyed it.

Um it's unique.

Um it it definitely draws in the South Asian community and others.

Um I think my question is if we had the same criteria over the last few years, and at one point they did get some funding.

Did our criteria change from the time that they received it and then they didn't receive it?

No, the criteria is not changed, but the commission members have but their application and the commissioners have.

Okay.

So um that to me is a little bit concerning in that I do believe the community deserves some transparency on how the criteria is going to be applied, um, so that they go in, perhaps knowing what to talk about or how to frame their proposal.

Um if it was always a trade fair and they received funding, then it seems it does can it can come off as arbitrary that um they didn't receive funding this time, although I understand that's uh relative to the number of applicants and um what what is uh being proposed.

However, uh that is something I look forward to staff proposing in the future um when we do talk about the SECA process and and allocation of funds Councilman Alzar.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, just to uh state a couple of facts because facts do matter in our discussions.

First of all, acceleration climate solutions is a separate entity from NEST.

It is a 501c3 organization is determined by the IRS.

Um so at least as far as the IRS is concerned, that is not a political advocacy group.

Almost also a 501c3 organization as categorized by the IRS as not a political advocacy organization to the extent that these groups are advocacy.

I don't even want to use the word advocate to the extent that these uh groups exist for the purpose of climate solutions and advocating for the um Latin community.

Um I don't really know how they exist right now without some level of engaging with what's going on in um the world.

Uh with regard to um the three uh speakers, and you know, I know Mr.

Jaswell, we've worked together in the same campaigns before.

Uh appreciate you coming out.

Um I think to Councilwoman Jane's point, when the standards haven't changed and the old the only thing that's changed is personalities on the commission that you know I don't think that's a very satisfying answer for the for an organization, just as a matter of consistency, right?

You would think if you bring a application one year after another, um, you know, maybe there's new personalities, but they would change the standards or something so that people could be given a heads up.

But I think as members of the community, uh diverse members of the community that have had an event um that succeeded in the past, um, maybe a communication of how those standards might change in the future would be helpful if the commission is gonna say next year that uh trade events or something they don't support.

Maybe you reformulate the purpose of the event in a way you can work with the commission.

But I understand your frustration and I um I definitely hear the concern.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman Sayed.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you to the speakers from Suraja Chmela.

And I have attended last two years of your event, and you did a great job, I can say, you know, getting people together, businesses together, community and everybody.

I appreciate your work.

And I have seen four days of hard work you people have put together.

Safety-wise, security-wise, everything you have brought together.

So that is uh a great thing, what you people have been doing it.

And uh, so this time I have seen that it's a zero funding, and earlier you used to get around 10,000, 12,000, something like that.

Uh, maybe you know, you need to work with the staff to see for the next year how we can work together or you can work together, and maybe you know, international fair.

It uh it talks about international getting outside businesses to the city.

Maybe you know that is a trigger for the commissioners, but still you need to work with them to see, you know, how you can present your applications and uh your mail and all those things so that it benefits Naperville, Naperwell businesses and the community.

Thank you.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just a few quick uh points to hit.

One is I'll say I I don't think we've heard in a couple of years, but um for many years, uh Councilman Herolong used to always say probably the hardest job we have is giving away money, and and that is true.

Uh it's not easy for SICA commission or for council, and it's a question, you know, of the proper role of government, um, but it is in front of us, it's not easy to do.

I'll say the commissioners um just to give credit to the SECA commissioners, they they really do a deep dive.

It's not flippant or or quick or easy for them.

I watched the meeting where they came up with the proposed allocations and and a few of them in particular did very deep dives, reached out to many of the uh applicants for more information.

Some of the applicants they received information from, some they did not, and that informed, I think, uh, what their joint recommendations were going to be.

Um, and uh and another another thing uh that came up frequently in years past was uh Mayor Chirico used to talk about, you know, we wouldn't vote at all if everybody recused because they had some connection to one of the groups, one of the 50 or more groups that are on this sheet.

And it's really true.

I mean, if you look through the list, uh there were what eighty six applications, maybe it's 50 or 60 different organizations because there's a few uh multiple applications.

I I'm just looking through it very quickly.

At least 20 of these I can think off the top of my head, had either a current or a former council member on their board at some point in time, if not now, Sika commissioners at the moment.

I know have been on boards for some of these organizations, either currently or in the past.

Uh, these are all community or I'll say the vast majority of these are community organizations.

And when we're talking about 50 or more nonprofits, uh they're gonna touch almost every corner of our of our government structure here.

So it's not easy.

Um it's not always so simple.

But if you watch the meeting, I I put a great deal of faith into that joint recommendation, and uh so I will be supportive of it as it came to us as a council.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman White.

And thank you, Mayor.

Um I guess I I want to address the what I fill with with with almus.

Um first that the event that they're doing uh is not a political event.

Let's make sure we're we're clear we're clear on that.

Um the other thing is this, you know, we have organizations that have members in their organizations, and often and sometimes doesn't happen often, but sometimes things come out.

Uh they may be political uh things that happen that affects um members within their organization, and then they they may make a comment or uh uh or statement.

I don't think that you know, we can greet a disagree.

I don't think that makes them a political organization.

Um, but when members of their community are being directly affected by things that are happening from a government standpoint, I think they have a right to speak out against them against that if it affects their members.

It doesn't make them a political organization.

Um and I would not give uh I wouldn't recommend giving money to people or to events that were political in nature.

So um just my thoughts on it.

Thank you.

Councilman Sayed.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just wanted to clarify.

I'm not the board member member of IACS, so just for your clarification, councilman.

And I definitely want to defend my commissioners from SECA, who are very highly qualified community members of Naperville, who has a 30 years, 40 years community service, who are excellent volunteers of Naperwell who have been serving on different boards and commissions.

I met all this commissioners, and they have gone through, they have put their blood and sweat into this applications.

They have spent number of uh hours to review each and every applicant and then take your decisions.

So I will definitely give full credit to all the commissioners who have been serving on SECA.

And they had like four hours, five hours of meetings on this applications.

Each application, you know, they sat through the meetings, they discussed, they make sure, you know, they are not uh any issues and all those things, but maybe there can be improvements.

I I'll always talk to people that uh, you know, we all can improve and there can be room to improve, maybe, and definitely as a you know, uh rep for uh SICA Commission.

I'm going to talk to the commissioners about this and share my feedback also and see how we can improve for the next year.

Thank you.

Councilman McRoom.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Uh echo my colleagues' statements on the commissioners.

I mean, it's a hard job.

They they they I just think they need better guidance.

So hopefully we can create some consistency and um eliminate some of this arbitrary uh decision making, it seems like.

Uh I don't want to argue with anyone up here.

Uh I made my statement on my position.

Um this event, while it may not be political, it's pictured with political uh figures.

State representatives sponsor that event.

They regularly organize uh protests and activities in town.

It's controversial to some people.

This is a political advocacy group.

It's very clear in my mind.

We have a organization called DuPage Hispanic Alliance, who somehow doesn't get involved in these confrontations, uh, these uh confrontational uh topics.

So um that's you know, that's all I have to say about that.

All right, members of council, just uh for everybody's sake.

We will be seeing the entire SECA discussion coming back to us in April for further consideration as far as what council's direction to the commission should be as far as how they administrate and um uh what types of rules should be in place for the consideration of requests from all different organizations to the SECA commission.

So this will be a topic that will continue to have conversation here at the DIS in upcoming months.

So stay tuned.

All right, next item.

Oh, I'm sorry, we we need a uh motion, Councilman White on I 16.

Mayor moved approve the proposed um 2026 CECA grant fund program allocations.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on I 16 roll call.

Gibson.

Aye.

Hold tower.

Ine.

I Kelly.

I make Perome.

No.

Sayed.

I White, I Wilson, no.

White uh Worley.

Yes.

Motion passes 7-2 I 17.

Item I 17 is a recommendation to pass the ordinance amending chapter one building codes of Title V Building Regulations of the Naperville Municipal Code, adopting the 2024 International Code Council set of codes, including proposed local amendments.

There is one speaker, Barbara Benson.

Good evening.

I'm Barbara Benson, the chair of the building and development committee of NEST.

Um, I'd like to use this opportunity to clarify the current status of the Illinois Stretch Code.

Whilst city staff is not recommending adoption at this time, allowing more time for staff and community education.

NES supports the city's ongoing evaluation of the code's benefits.

I would like to remind everyone that the NES Sustainable 2036 plan revealed that over 75% of Naperville's CO2 emissions originate from buildings.

Strengthening our building codes is one of the most effective ways to reduce those emissions.

NES continues to recommend that the city adopt the stretch code to improve energy efficiency and new construction and major renovations.

This move will save building owners and renters money on utility bills, prevent the need for future retrofits, improve indoor comfort and air quality.

For those interested in the facts, I encourage you to explore the reputable resources that are outlined on the slide, um, which include information from the Capital Development Board, the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, the Illinois Green Alliance, the University of Illinois.

You can also find a recording of Nest's May 2024 community meeting on the NEST website, which had a detailed presentation on the stretch code.

As always, we look forward to working cooperatively with staff, council, businesses, and residents to create a more resilient neighborville.

So thank you for your service and thank you for hearing me out tonight.

Thank you.

Councilman White, why have a motion on I 17?

Mayor move to pass the ordinance amending chapter one building codes of Title V building regulations of the Naperville Municipal Code adopting the 2024 International Code Council set of codes, including proposed local amendments.

Councilman Killing.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on I 17 roll call.

Hold tower.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

I McBroom.

Aye.

Syed.

Hi.

White.

I.

Wilson.

Morley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Item I-20.

Item I-20 is a recommendation to waive the first reading and pass the ordinance amending section 3-3-11 of the Naperville Municipal Code pertaining to Class M recreational or lifestyle amenities facility cap by increasing the number of recreational facility liquor licenses available by two.

I ask that I 20 be pulled due to the appearance of a conflict.

I'll be recusing myself, Mayor, or I'm sorry, Councilman Kelly is the mayor pro tem tonight, and he will be running the meeting in my absence.

All right, thank you.

Councilman White, could we have a motion on item I 20?

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tam.

Mayor Pro Tem.

I um I move to waive the first reading and pass the ordinance amending section 3-311 of the Naperville Municipal Code pertaining to the Class M recreational or lifestyle amenities for facility cap by increasing the number of recreational facility liquor license available to two.

Do we have a second?

Second whole tower.

Any discussion?

Roll call.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

I McBroom.

Aye.

Syed.

I.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Gibson.

Aye.

Whole tower.

Aye.

Motion carries 80.

You can bring back the mayor.

Item I-21 is a recommendation to waive the first reading and pass the ordinance to establish overnight parking exemptions for the townhouses at River Bre at River Bend.

On the website, there have been posted nine statements of support, 12 statements of opposition, and 24 written comments.

There are six speakers here this evening.

The first speaker is Trish Shacht, followed by Brian Dixon.

If you know you're speaking on the topic, please move to the front row here where the velvet ropes are so we can keep you going in a timely manner.

Mr.

Mayor and City Council members, good evening.

My name is Dr.

Trish Schacht, and I live at 472 Village Green Road.

I started the application process for an overnight parking exception and want to explain why.

If you look at the map and the pictures above, our 12 townhomes do not have a driveway.

We have what is considered a blocked alley.

It is a paved lane with small two-card garages directly across with one another with one way out.

At the TAD meeting a couple weeks ago, city staff member Miss Sidney Smith stated that the that our 12 townhomes of River Bend qualify for an exception because, quote, the alley is not in compliance with current off-street parking requirements per municipal code, end quote.

Currently, parking is a problem for most of us living on the alley, and here are some reasons why.

First, the alley is constantly congested with cars parked outside the garages, and it's very hard to get your car out of your garage if your neighbor is parked across in front of theirs.

It is almost impossible to turn around on the alley.

Safety-wise, it could be difficult for emergency vehicles to get past parked cars.

When pulling out of the alley, parked cars cause a blind spot when pulling onto Village Green, making it uh dangerous for oncoming cars and pedestrians.

It's also a quality of life issue.

We have nowhere to park a third vehicle if we have more than two licensed individuals living in our households.

Having a means to practically park a third vehicle will allow the townhomes to meet the needs of families as they grow.

Please note that the River Bend bylaws do not allow homeowners to rent their units, so only homeowners will utilize these permits.

Parking permits will be issued to and distributed by the HOA.

The president of our HOA communicated to the transportation board authority board that the distribution of the permits will be restricted.

We are not the first neighborhood in Naperville where there are multiple HOAs, and an overnight parking exception was granted to just one.

One such example is Foxcroft condos.

This proposal is only for well, sorry.

Um 12 of 44 units.

Those that reside on the blocked alley.

Cars without a permit will be ticketed.

Non-residents and unhoused individuals cannot park there overnight, and no other houses in the neighborhood qualify.

Um behind our houses, and next to a patch of grass and retaining wall.

It is a low traffic thoroughfare, and we do not expect it to impede our neighbors' quality of living.

In conclusion, this is something that we want, yes, but also that we need.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are Brian Dixon, followed by Celeste Buckingham and Suzanne Harris.

Thank you.

This is yours.

Yes, Mr.

Dixon.

No, no, you're good, but it's on, but then you can use that too.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening, City Council.

My name is Brian Dixon, longtime Naperville resident.

Uh thank you for allowing me to speak tonight.

Um, also thank you, Mike DeSantis, former Naperville North graduate with me there.

So nice to see you too.

Um, I'm representing the uh Village Green Homeowners Association, which is where this parking will take uh place right across the street.

I'm the president of the homeowners association there at Village Green.

Um, of course, we strongly object to this uh parking overnight.

Um, we've always had this policy in place uh that's been very um good for Naperville.

It's a main branch to our subdivision.

Um, when you come off of Aurora Ave, you pull right into Village Green, which goes around.

This is where they would be parking right outside our building, which was on that map that was shown.

I I've supplied some pictures here for you guys to get a good idea, too.

Um, there we have a unique neighborhood where we have five homeowners' associations.

We have five homeowners associations, as you see.

There's 12 people that uh made comments.

We only have one building that got this letter from the transportation department, which is eight units.

We have 12 opposition to this.

You're what you're doing is you're getting the opposition from the one building here, and we understand their concerns.

They did buy these condominiums knowing that they have two car garages.

Um, they have extra extra space.

We actually have less space than the than the homeowners over here on our riverfront building.

We have one car garages, it's almost vertical down by the DuPage River.

They only have two spots, they can't get into their they only can have two cars where the where these homeowners can have two cars.

What we object to is all my residents, all eight out of eight in Village Green that received this letter, and I know variance requests because I do this for a living, is I we were surprised that it wasn't sent to the whole entire neighborhood.

I had to share that with the other HOAs, which Julie Federico from the treasurer of the other homeowner associated, which is much larger than this association, is can completely objecting, and her comment is in there with the other 12 other commons.

Um, it's as far as uh being a safety hazard.

We have the snow snow plows that go from west to east.

There's not much way to put the snow, so they have to start right where these cars are overnight, and we want to make sure that area is clear.

We also have our landscapers that come in.

We have multiple landscapers that set up the beds in the summertime.

They will have no parking.

This will be directly affect the residents.

We have four single family residents.

It's right out their driveway.

They have a mailbox.

The parking is designated that line exactly right on top of their mailbox, which says no parking within 15 feet each way.

This policy has worked.

There's no reason to change this policy.

Oswegal has a great policy.

I work up north in Carroll Stream and Bartlett.

They have fantastic policies.

This is not intended for downtown Naperville.

Never was intended for downtown Aprilville.

It was descended for others, other issues outside, more on your outskirts.

I know I think Oncave has uh one that was done, but I do appreciate your time, and I hope this I can convince you the unanimous decision of no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Celeste Buckingham, followed by Suzanne Harris and Mike Kiernan.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor and the City Council for the opportunity to.

And could you bring the microphone down to you?

It's super sensitive to where it's located.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor and the City Council for the opportunity to address you on this issue.

I am Celeste Buckingham, one of the homeowners at 486 Village Green Road, directly impacted in the 12 units.

And I'm also the vice president of the townhomes of River Bend.

The 12 units in question do not have driveways.

The ingress and egress is more in line with the blocked alley.

There is only one way in.

Delivery trucks must pull in and back out because there is no room for a turnaround.

Deliveries are especially problematic when residents have to park behind their garages because there is no other place to park.

When the original PUD survey was drawn, this area of Village Green Road had sufficient ingress and egress.

I have a copy of that survey.

When the section, when our section of the subdivision was developed 40 years ago, the developer could not have anticipated that families would need two plus cars or oversized vehicles wherein one vehicle is able to access the garage and the other one is not.

And I'd like to remind everyone that overnight parking is only 2 a.m.

to 5 a.m.

We are the only units in this development of 44 units that do not have driveways.

We ask for the spots to enhance the quality of life for these 12 units only.

Extra cars for teen drivers, kids away at college when they come home, better access for emergency vehicles.

The board of the Riverbend Town Home Association has submitted a formal request for overnight parking along the north side of Village Green Road to be permitted for the use of these 12 units in this section only.

As vice president of the board, I can assure you that the board will control the issuance of a parking permit if they are approved and review each application carefully.

We are developing guidelines for the residents in these 12 units to request a permit.

As a board, we review each application on any project carefully.

We take our positions on the board very seriously.

We monitor the exterior of our units in this development, and issuance of a parking permit would be scrutinized to not allow for misuse.

We cannot make new driveways to meet the needs that families have 40 years after a subdivision was built.

But you can approve this request to improve the quality of life for these 12 units.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Suzanne Harris, followed by Mike Kiernan and Eva Chuse.

Good evening.

My name is Suzanne Harris, and I'm a resident of 479 River Bend Road.

I live in a neighboring homeowners association.

I live perpendicular to Village Green Road and have a clear view of the stretch being discussed for the overnight parking permits.

I'm here to express my strong support for the passage of the overnight parking ordinance for the residents of the village green.

We call it the alley.

Again, I am strongly in support of this ordinance, and I thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The final two speakers I'm are Mike Kiernan and Eva Tuzay.

Good evening.

I'm Mike Kiernan.

I'm at 488 Village Green.

I am one of the cars in the alley.

Um we really just need the parking permit between five uh 2 a.m.

and 5 a.m.

All of the talk about landscaping, other things on the street, we are not going to be bothering anything.

Nobody in our neighborhood is out at two in the morning to see the cars sitting on the street.

I see it when I get up at 5 30, 6 in the morning, and I'm walking my dog.

I feel very safe with cars on the street, which has happened many times.

We have a wonderful neighborhood.

Great people, they're like family.

And it's hard to see people not understanding where a need comes.

And that's my main point.

I just want to say these are wonderful people.

Even the people that are not agreeing on what our view may be.

We don't always have to agree, but I think this is fair and just thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The final speaker is Eva Tuzae.

I guess I'll echo Mike's sentiment that 25 years ago I moved here for the school districts and stayed for the community.

I am a resident of one of the town homes on River Bend in the horseshoe, um, away from the alley, as affectionately called.

And I want to give my support for this.

If I can borrow from Reverend Jackson, a community is made up of fabric, and that fabric expands, it grows.

We become multi-generational households.

I think because of the fact that we have children that grow up and need a car, or a child that comes back from college and needs a car.

I don't think that we should expect our neighbors to move just because of one car.

So I would implore the community to strongly consider the fact that we are all in this together.

We're all supporting our uh neighbors as they go through the phases and the fabrics of their lives.

And we've never had an issue with other cars parked there, even if they haven't been overnight.

Um, Mr.

Dixon's neighbors also park on River Bend Circle.

It's never been a hindrance to landscaping vehicles or any other vehicles.

So thank you very much for your support.

Thank you.

Councilman Holzer.

Thank you, Mayor.

I was hoping that I could uh call Ms.

Buckingham back up.

Um so first of all, I wanted to compliment you, Ms.

Buckingham, on the history lesson about the PUD in the 80s and the difference between that and how things were built in the 90s, and I think it is actually an important lesson to all of us to remember that those documents are there for a reason, they're important, and it's important that we um follow them.

Um a previous speaker had mentioned an issue with a mailbox and a concern about a mailbox getting blocked.

You're in HOA leadership for the petitioners, right?

Yeah tonight, correct?

Okay.

Um, you make sure that that mailbox isn't blocked.

Um I absolutely will, because I live in the 12 units, so I have direct access to those parking spaces, and I know exactly where that mailbox is.

Okay, and to be clear, that's there's there's signage that says you actually shouldn't park in front of that.

Yeah, I don't know who put the signage up.

Okay.

So you know, many of the people who live there are here tonight.

I would hope that everyone can have the respect to not park in front of a mailbox.

Certainly that is not a reason for me to deny a reasonable request, and I'll be voting for this.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and thank you to the speakers for uh for respectful dialogue tonight.

Uh so I I was actually there this morning.

I went around and looked at it.

I know a few people in that neighborhood personally and watched the tab meeting as well.

Um, and generally am supportive of this.

I think it's a reasonable request.

Uh, but I do have a little bit of a concern about the number and the placement of the specific spots that staff has proposed.

Um my understanding is that the HOA requested eight hang tags or 12, maybe I think 12 with eight spots.

It would regardless of the request, there's eight spots in the staff report today on the map.

That's part of the agenda.

Um and when I went out there and looked at it, the furthest three spots do look like they could pose a little bit of an issue with the one home that has a driveway right across from them, and those kind of line up with that mailbox as well.

So I maybe staff could clarify, but uh I guess one question is will there be actually line spaces?

Will they be demarcated uh specifically where these spots would be on the road?

Andy Hine City Engineer, uh we would put uh signs at either end of the uh area where we would allow overnight parking.

And would the signs um would the mailbox be within those signs if we approved it as it is with the eight proposed spots?

Uh correct, as it is right now, it would the mailbox would be within those limits.

Right.

And so I I for what it's worth, I think it would be a little better if if the mailbox was not included in those spots.

And if we pushed it a little bit to the I I think it's to the east, but I hope I'm not getting my directions wrong here.

Um that would also I think eliminate the spots directly across from the driveway, because the road is a little bit narrow there.

So if there were a car, if we allowed those spots all the way past the mailbox, and a car was trying to back out of that home with the driveway, I do think it would be a little tight to get out of there.

And what I heard one of the speakers mentioned tonight, I think they said three or four were really needed, and at the tab meeting, I think the association's president who's requesting it mentioned that maybe they didn't need quite as many as they were asking for.

So my my recommendation, I don't know what the rest of the council would think, but my recommendation would be to approve five spaces and eliminate those three that overlap the mailbox and are uh across the street from the driveway.

It sounds like that would be enough to satisfy the folks who really need it, and I think it would eliminate the pinch point for the folks who have concerns.

So that would be my recommendation.

Councilman White.

Thank you.

Uh question for public uh works.

Um any issue with uh the snow plows getting through.

You got are you guys good if with the cars parked there?

True.

Go ahead, Andy.

Uh yes, we we reviewed this with all the operating departments and uh they had no objections.

Okay, great.

Uh and if I could get Ms.

I'd say Ms.

Shock, if you mind uh thank you for your comments and for the other speakers as well.

You you brought up something that I've I've kind of been uh saying for quite a while right now.

I'm just curious of the 12 home the 12 homes that are in that area.

How many of those homes are now would you consider three car households?

Um so we probably have sorry I have to count.

Um one, two, three.

Probably three or four.

Three or four, okay.

And and it's a growing challenge we see in across the the city and excuse me.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Waite.

We have a new neighbor who just moved in, so I can't answer to that.

So I'm saying three or four without knowing about okay, that's fine.

That's fine.

Um we recognize that a lot of uh the kids are coming home um needing a third car and so on.

So I recognize that not just in your neighborhood, but also um throughout the community.

I'm sorry, I'm just making sure I'm not off giving it.

Exact number is not exactly important.

But I I I get I get it.

Um I understand what we're saying as far as you know the mailboxes and these other things, but really what we're arguing about is between two o'clock and five o'clock in the morning.

So all the issues that you all are that that might be opposing this, the cars can park there anyway throughout the day.

Right.

And if someone wants to get up at two o'clock in the morning, move it, then move it back at five, they can do that.

So uh and I don't I'm not I just don't think it's going to affect too many people during no that time of um of the of the morning.

So I'll I'll I'll fully support this.

Um I think uh it's a need and uh um you've got my I will vote for it.

Thank you.

Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um yeah, I had the same question as councilman White about uh plows getting through.

I guess that's been answered.

I guess my my only I guess possible uh ask would be maybe perhaps for someone from the HOA if you know there's gonna be a bunch of snow, maybe ask them to move or something like that.

Um I just have bad memories of uh people in Chicago on tow day trying to line up to get on one side of the one side of the street.

So um, yeah, but that was my only concern.

I'll be in support of those.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

If I could maybe ask a follow-up question to Ms.

Shot as well.

Um just curious your perspective, I guess.

Say, and I don't maybe it won't go this way, but if we were to approve five spaces, forget the number of hang tags for five spaces instead of eight that would be lined.

Would that be sufficient from your perspective?

I think so.

I I hesitate because I don't know, right?

Um we have 12 units, um, and our units have three bedrooms, you know.

Um, and then um with growing families.

So I have two I have two daughters, teenagers, my neighbors have two teen two teenagers, so growing families that we have access to downtown Aprilville, it's a great spot.

So um I don't know how many of our houses will need that access to overnight parking.

Um, I will kind of speak to this.

I've been researching this for very long because I've been in need of this.

Um, I did ask um city staff member Miss Smith about the mailbox, and she did say that um because I was concerned about it, and she said that the um city does not have an ordinance for mailboxes in terms of parking in front of it.

Um, we do claim as neighborly neighbors that we will not park in front of it, and we don't see mail being delivered between two and five.

Um, so that is kind of where we're going with that.

In terms of at the transportation authority board meeting, there was a question about backing out of that driveway.

And Ms.

Smith also stated that the city measured it and that there was adamant um distance from the person part uh backing out um to the parking spots.

Again, if we don't have to park in those spots directly behind the um driveways, we won't.

Um but I hesitate to say, yeah, we'll be fine without eight because we've been fighting for this and um we are need, and I but I'll take what I can get, Mr.

Kelly.

So um fair enough, yeah.

My thought, I guess I'm just trying to maybe decrease.

No, I understand and decrease the and I understand the hesitation.

I would have hesitation as well, especially if I thought that um it was for everybody, um, and that people could start asking for it in the HOA, but we are the only ones that are eligible for it.

Um, it is only from two to five.

Um, you heard my speech, so but like I said, I'll take what I can get.

I appreciate it.

And my thought is if a car parks are overnight, they certainly could move in the in the day, and certainly if it's not even available for overnight, somebody could park there.

It just seems more likely if you park overnight, you might stay throughout the morning.

So my thought is to try to decrease tension.

If it's not necessary, why why do it?

And it and if there's a need additionally in the future, there could come back and be a request.

Um, but it just seems like the easier solution from my perspective.

I don't know if anybody else agrees with that or not, but that's I agree with it.

So that's so that's where I'm at.

Councilman Sayed.

Thank you, Myth.

Thank you to the speakers who came and spoke from what the sites.

And I believe in working together.

I believe in understanding each other's problem.

I was dead in that situation four or five years ago.

Where, you know, me and my wife and my daughter.

We were not able to park.

So we used to go to somewhere else, park, come back, then early in the morning, pick up car, all those things.

The pain, you know.

Summertime is okay.

We all can manage it, but winter time, snow time, but still we used to do all those things.

So my request to the the site is please help, support.

We are one community, we have one neighbor will.

We all will have problems.

But look for solution.

Look how we all can work together, help together, and move forward together.

So definitely I will be supporting for this.

And uh, yeah, that's it.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gibson.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just want to take a moment to thank the speakers that came out tonight, um, but especially the speakers that are in neighboring HOAs, um, and that don't directly benefit from getting a hang tag from this program.

It's not often people take time out of their evening to come to a city council meeting um to advocate for something that doesn't affect them but affects their neighbors.

Uh as councilman White said, we've been hearing a lot about overnight parking lately, and we intend to address it in coming months.

Staff's gonna get back to us with the report.

Um, but a resident reached out last summer and was um talking to me about it, and one of the points they made was just the increase in multi-generational families.

Um we will be talking about affordable housing later tonight, and I think it's really important that we continually look at our city, our codes, our parking, and how we can help make it easier for people to live here, and especially people, you know, your members of our communities townhomes were built in 1990.

I know you all haven't been here since 1990.

Um, but things were built differently then, and how we can adapt our communities to the reality of living in 2026.

Um, so I will be in support of this.

I think it's a good compromise.

I also listened to the tab meeting.

Um, I'm appreciative of staff and all the community members that work together to you know get a solution that hopefully worked for as many people as possible.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Jane.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just want to say that I think the request is completely reasonable.

And I I kind of disagree on modifying the ask from eight to five.

I um given the reason behind um supporting the proposal in the first place.

I I think this is potentially a growing changing um area and the homes may be growing, and to put any restrictions on it right now just seems uh to kind of negate what the whole purpose of allowing uh overnight parking between two and five for that limited time frame.

Um also since we will be looking at this program in general, um I I would hate to have to revisit this because five is no longer enough and sufficient.

So to ensure that um you know we're able to accommodate growing families.

Uh I would hate to modify that at this point, but I will be supporting the proposal.

Councilman McRoom.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Yeah, I think it's kind of unfortunate that uh there's so much disagreement on on this issue.

I I kind of appeal to Councilman Kelly's um uh compromise here.

I it you know we're frequently faced with um you know people that have oppos opposing views, and you look at them, and neither one of them are being totally unreasonable, so it's it's tough.

And um, you know, if there's a compromise here, I would support um you know moving it down to to five spots uh instead of the eight.

So councilman Holzor.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, I having heard all of this, and and I think the most compelling thing that I heard was maybe Councilman White's point, councilwoman Jane's point that these are spaces that are already available during the day.

Um we're talking two to five a.m.

And I also agree, you know, if we're that close to there's four or five people who need them, we're granting five.

I just don't think it's an efficient use of anyone's time, including commission's time to have a lot of meetings about the next two spots.

So however, I don't know how this is gonna come up with a motion or amendment or whatever, but I'm gonna vote for the full amount.

Thank you, Mayor.

All right, councilman Kelly.

Do you want to try to uh a motion where we can see if it and see if what happens?

And if not, we'll go from there.

Go for it.

All right, Mayor, I will move to waive the first reading and pass the ordinance to establish overnight parking exemptions for the townhouses at River Bend.

Point of order.

Councilman White.

Is this a motion to substitution or just adjusting them the most current motion?

There's no motion on the table yet.

So he's making the first motion right now rather than correct.

All right, I'll take it from the top.

And then if there if somebody else wanted to file motion to substitution, they certainly could.

So uh I will um move to waive the first reading and pass the ordinance to establish overnight parking exemptions for the townhouses at River Bend, but limiting the spaces to the proposed five westernmost spaces.

Is there a second?

I'll second we have a motion and a second on councilman Kelly's proposal for a maximum of five spaces.

Any discussion?

Councilman point of order.

Go ahead.

If this does not pass, we go back to the original motion.

That would be correct.

Just want to make sure you would go back to the motion that's in the if this fails, there could be another motion made, but there has been no original motion made yet.

So this is the original motion that's being voted on.

Correct.

So it it would go to the uh the original proposed a motion that's in the agenda.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Councilman Holzor, did you have a question?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

Um, so I'm curious about that, but but I actually it may be relevant because I'm gonna make a motion and substitution for the item that was originally on agenda with eight spaces.

Councilman, would you mind making the motion?

Say it again.

Please make the motion.

Yeah, uh, would you direct me the number?

I lost it.

21.

All right.

I'm gonna move to waive the first reading and pass the ordinance to establish overnight parking exemptions for the townhouses at River Bend for eight spaces.

Oh, motion substitution.

We knew second.

So we have a motion and a second on the motion substitution.

That would be based on the full eight space request.

Okay, we have a motion and a second on the motion substitution roll call.

Kelly.

Yes.

Gibson.

I'll Jane.

I motion passes eight one.

Council has been going since five thirty when we started closed session.

So we're gonna take a seven minute break.

We will be back at eight forty two.

Okay, at this time we're going to resume the council meeting.

Item L one.

Items L one through L three are receiving the staff report for one oh nine West Benton Avenue, one thirty-three West Benton Avenue, one twenty-nine West Benton Avenue, and five North Main Street.

Passing the ordinance approving a preliminary final plat of resubdivision and owner's acknowledgement and acceptance agreement and a conditional use for planned unit development and preliminary final PUD plat for Benton and Maine with various zoning deviations.

Then we will go into the public speakers who signed up for this agenda item.

Those three minutes will be on the three-minute timer located on the right.

They're currently building at Northwoods of Naperville on Warrenville Road.

They will soon be built building on 111th Street in South Naperville and have other projects in town in the works.

The property before you this evening sits at the northern edge of downtown Naperville, where the comprehensive plan explicitly contemplates transition from core commercial district to supporting higher density residential uses.

The future land use map from the city's downtown plan designate the proper designated the property as multifamily in north downtown special planning area, as you can see in the exhibit before you.

Notably, this multifamily designation is the same land use designation that we see across the street at the Benton Terrace condominiums.

The plan provides additional guidance on the development within these land use designations for the subject property.

Specifically, the plan calls for multifamily and attached residential uses.

We are proposing 13.8 dwelling units per acre with Benton and Maine.

The downtown plan includes some specific direction with respect to height of buildings.

Along Main Street, between Benton and Franklin, so the block we are on, 60 feet is established as the maximum height limitation.

In the multifamily district, so that portion of the property fronting Benton Avenue, the plan recommends 40 to 50 feet as a height limitation.

We'll take a detailed look at height in a moment, but suffice to say that we're within the count plan guidance.

I think context is always critically important.

I think the uh this following image does a nice job of establishing some context for the property.

Uh Webster Street on the sort of left side of your screen is very much a dividing line.

West of Webster Street, you have a very well established single family residential neighborhood.

South of Benton and facing Main Street, you have some massive structures.

You also have approvals that establish the framework for a significant additional development on the vacant corner of Maine and Benton with a structure up to 67 feet in height.

While we certainly have some smaller scale single family homes along Franklin, uh immediately north of the subject property, you also have the very large ATT building and multifamily structures on the north side of Franklin.

In other words, this is not the clearly defined single family area like you have west of Webster.

This is very much a transitional area, one in which the downtown plan specifically contemplated changes in land use with increasing height and residential density in support of the curbship.

This color site plan shows the proposed layout for Benton and Maine.

We're proposing 11 units to be constructed between three buildings.

We have a duplex unit that fronts Main Street.

The other buildings are all oriented to address Benton Avenue.

There is a rear loaded three-story, this is all rear-loaded three-story townhome product.

So all of the garages are tucked around to the side or rear of buildings, a feature that greatly improves streetscape appearance, as we'll see in the renderings.

You'll see permeable paved drive aisles between buildings one and two.

You'll see a second permeable paver drive aisle between buildings two and three.

Behind building three, we have a traditional 24-foot drive aisle, two-car garages, dedicated parking behind each unit, and six shared parking stalls on the north side of the drive aisle.

So good news, we won't be back here in 40 years looking for additional overnight entry parking because we've accommodated all of it on site.

We're proposing a 10-foot setback along the north side of Benton and Main Street.

The proposed setback was functionally driven by stormwater utility improvements that will be constructed behind building two.

There's an existing 39-inch storm sewer that runs through this area.

While building three could be shifted to the 15-foot setback required under code, we coordinated with city staff and ultimately decided to maintain a consistent setback along Benton.

Functionally, this reduced uh this reduced setback directly benefits a single family residence to the north, maximizing the separation between our building and the rear property line.

This cross-section exhibit shows the relationship of our building to the north property line.

The building is 45 foot hall, 45 foot tall to the roof peak, as you can see in this exhibit.

The setback to the rear property line is 62 feet.

This exhibit also shows a representation of the structure at 130 East Franklin based on Google Earth.

You'll see that there is a separation of almost 130 feet between the rear of structures.

We've updated the plan since the land uh since the plan commission hearing.

Umtably, we've and I know this was called out in the staff report.

Uh, we've eliminated uh some sidewalk on the north side of the six guest parking stalls in an effort to provide additional landscape material between the proposed townhomes and adjacent single family homes.

We're showing a decorative six-foot cedar fence on the property line.

We're showing groupings of 11 Nigra Eastern Arbor Vitae centered on each residential lot to the north.

These evergreens are relatively narrow at five to eight feet in width, but will ultimately grow to 25 to 30 feet tall.

Between each group of evergreens, we're proposing peaking lilacs with a collection of hydrangeous shrubs that will fill out the landscape border.

This is a rendering of the Benton Avenue frontage.

I would emphasize uh the structure of the building with the flat roof section along Benton Avenue and the habitable roof stage roof space pushed to the rear of the building.

We wanted to avoid rooftop decks oriented to the single family residences to our north.

I think it also made sense to orient these outdoor entertaining spaces towards the energy and activity of the adjacent downtown Naperville district.

From Benton Avenue, the building reads as three-story.

This rendering uh shows the relationship of the adjacent three-story home on Benton.

Um, this exhibit also shows uh also calls out some specific height measurements.

Um the top of the parapet wall along Benton Avenue.

Uh, the height is 37 feet and change.

Uh, this is in line with the adjacent residential structure.

The overall peak height of the Mansard Roof section is 45 feet, almost 46 feet.

By way of a reminder, under the downtown plan, 40 to 50 feet height was recommended in this area.

The other measurement I would call out is the 158 feet of linear frontage for building three along Benton Avenue.

I can I understand that it can be hard to uh comprehend the size and scale of a project like this when we're looking at exhibits.

I think the best way to truly comprehend a proposal is to consider existing complexing buildings of comparable scale.

The very obvious and close comparison in this case is Charleston Row.

Uh, this is the original Charleston Row, uh, just just across the street from us here.

Uh comparing apples to apples, the peak peak height of Charleston Row is 45 feet.

Benton and Maine is 46.

Charleston Row is 150 feet along the frontage of Aurora Avenue.

Benton and Maine is 58.

These minor differences in height and the length of the building will be indistinguishable to the naked eye.

Charleston Row was very well received by the community, so much so that it's been replicated in two other locations.

If the community was comfortable with Charleston Row, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the size and scale of Benton and Maine would be received any differently by the community.

I would note that both city staff and the city's planning commission agreed with this premise.

The project has staff support.

It's received a seven to two positive recommendation from the planning and zoning commission.

While there are some deviations under the PUD that is required for the property, as outlined in the staff report, those deviations are well grounded in the direction set forth in the comprehensive plan.

As such, we'd respectfully request council support for the project this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Call the first public speaker.

Sounds good.

There are 10 speakers.

The first four speakers are Tom Ryan, Marilyn Schweitzer, Julie Carducci, and Chris Carlson.

If you've heard your name called, please move towards the front row.

And if you know you're going to be called, also please move to the front row.

Thank you.

Go ahead, sir.

Good evening.

My name is Tom Ryan.

I'm an architect who's had a practice here in Naperville for the last 26 years.

I'm also Chief Preservation Officer for Naperville Preservation Inc., the only independent neighborhood organization dedicated to historic preservation, documenting and honoring the built heritage of our hometown.

My first comment is in regard to the 119-year-old historic church that was torn down on this site, the Bethel Church of the Brethren, whose members originally built, then occupied it for 60 years.

I'd like to propose that the city set up a simple notice of demolition framework that would provide a heads-up to an individual or group that might be interested in moving a historic building.

Moving buildings is not as uncommon and costly as you might think.

With the soaring cost of new construction and the bygone craftsmanship contained in most of these buildings, I think something like this would be a win for the building mover and the city of Naperville, who, as seen on their website, cares deeply about historic preservation.

My second comment is about the proposed development.

I am in favor of some type of development on this property, but I think the project should be designed to meet current zoning codes, not compared to other buildings in town.

Especially when there is a perfectly good example of a project immediately to its west at 183 West Benton that did just that.

It's never you don't see it in any of the site plans, but there's a building on the corner that meets the code.

As a practicing architect, I know for a fact that almost every property can be developed within an established zoning code.

And always remember that even though it's just the property owner, petitioner, neighbors, and miscellaneous speakers in this room tonight, there are 150,000 neighbor billions not in this room, who hope that zoning codes crafted by their own city are being enforced.

My final comment is about aesthetics, of course.

I've got to say something.

In my opinion, these types of row homes are the furthest thing from pedestrian oriented architecture, human skilled architecture, street vibrancy, or something that can complements the street without overpowering it.

All quotes from the response to standards as assembled by the petitioner.

This building type, as seen all over town, is unfortunately not connected to the sidewalk in any meaningful way.

Most are pretty lifeless up front because the first level has a door connected to a study and garage.

The only potential for street vibrancy are rooftop terraces 40 feet above the sidewalk.

So no street vibrancy at Benton and Maine.

And finally, I've got two comments on exterior materials.

Avoid asphalt shingles on almost vertical surfaces.

It's a 60 subdivision look and not suitable for luxury row homes.

Avoid using black windows.

The window assemblies during the day will appear as black holes unless a light source brighter than the sun is inside.

That's just science.

If you don't believe me, just drive around town during the day.

You'll see two versions of buildings to black windows.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Marilyn Schweitzer, followed by Julie Cardicci.

Okay, good evening.

So please do not approve this.

I'll just bring up one issue.

It's astounding that prior to the PCC meeting, the petitioner and staff had not determined who was responsible for ownership and maintenance obligations.

It took a member of the public to raise the concern during the PCC meeting, and the proposal presented tonight to resolve the issue is inadequate.

Either all of the property should be included in the downtown special planning area over Lake District, or none of it should be.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Julie Carducci.

Just use that.

It's not hard.

Good evening.

My name is Julie Carducci.

I'm representing a broader group of neighbors who couldn't be here today.

I live immediately behind this development.

My parents raised nine of us here, and many of us are raising our families in these same neighborhoods that shaped us.

I'm not anti-progress.

I am pro-development, but when we look at the giants who made Naperville what it is today, Jim Mosher, Harold Moser, Jean Darfler, etc., they had one thing in common.

They lived here.

This was their backyard, too.

Because they were our neighbors, they thought deeply about what was best for the community as a whole.

You're being asked to vote on a development that does not meet the requirements to be considered a PUD.

It does not comply with transitional use zoning and relies on interdependent waivers for every regulation.

The neighbors are all stunned by the proposed scale, density, and mass of the building blocks dominating their view.

We have come together with a proposal to bring the development closer to TU compliance, but all would still seek total adherence to regulations.

If this developer cannot produce such a design, we know there are other developers who can.

If multiple lots in this zoning district are to be consolidated versus a lot by lot development, the city regulations required it to be processed and approved as a PUD.

It's not a workaround.

A PUD exists to trade significant public benefit for limited design flexibility.

To qualify a project must satisfy at least two substantial public benefit conditions.

Beautification of public ways beyond city standards, mid-block pedestrian linkages, pedestrian seating and ski streetscape improvements, courtyards, parks, semi-public common areas, and so on.

In the design presented in October with the Planning Commission, a key element of the PUD qualification was a small two-foot high art monument and six very large city-style parkway planners along the length of Benton and Maine, each with decorative decorative lighting.

In the plan before you, five of the six have been deleted and replaced by minimal shrubbery around new parkway trees.

These are not permanent features and could disappear over time.

This is a major 80% reduction in what was presented publicly as the primary PUD benefit.

This creates a precedent problem.

If major reductions can occur after approval without renewed public findings, further reductions could occur during construction.

This project offers no significant public amenities needed to qualify qualify it for a PUD designation, and therefore this ordinance should be rejected.

I urge this council to think deeply about us, the residents who are staying, and not the outside developers who may only be focused on short-term financial gain.

Please let's build for the people who call Naperville home.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are Chris Carlson, followed by Meggie Chambers, Richard Lowry, and Alexis Lowry.

Oh gosh.

Hi, uh I'm Chris Carlson.

I live at 130 West Franklin.

Um, it's uh the development uh is going to be directly behind me.

I will be overlooked by this development looming over me.

First, uh the neighborhood is not asking for a cancellation of the project, just changes to the design to bring it in line with PUD qualifications and transitional use zoning.

Second, the current TU zoning calculation permits only five townhomes and two duplexes on the site.

Therefore, at least one mid-block unit should be removed and replaced by a park space amenity.

That would change, reduce the mass and wall effect that it's creating, give visual relief to the neighbors, provide a private or semi-public amenity required for PUD, and strengthen the legal foundation of the project.

Even with one building removed, the project would still not fully comply with TU density standards.

Concerns still remain as to why the regulations for setback, height, yard coverage, green space are all unnecessarily waived without the person showing any hardships.

Second, the five parkway planners that were presented and approved by planning commission should be reinstated.

They were relied upon for the PUD qualifications.

Heritage Place in uh Wright and Columbia is an example of a PUD development that meets qualifications.

Mid-block green breezeways, city-style children's playgrounds, decorative rose garden, semi-public park.

These are destination features that justify a PUD designation.

No comparable features are proposed for Benton and Maine.

Therefore, no vote is the only reasonable action.

The site was deliberately rezoned to TU to serve as a buffer between the high-density city zone and the low density residential neighborhoods.

The TU zoning already relaxes red residential standards.

It was meant to allow redevelopment without sweeping waivers or repeated hearings such as this.

Targeted adjustments tied to clear public benefit can earn a swift yes.

Raw overreach like this triggers ongoing reviews and public opposition.

This proposal violates every core TU standard, density setbacks, height, rear yard coverage, and green space.

These are not isolated problems.

They all stem from one root cause, too many units on too small a site.

This must be addressed.

Please vote no to this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Meggie Chambers.

Good evening.

My name is Maggie Chambers.

I grew up in Naperville and am a nearby resident.

The TU zoning has strict calculations needed for land for land needed for duplexes and townhomes.

The developer acknowledges that the plan requires a site of 40,000 square feet, and this site has less than 35, which allows for two duplexes and only five townhomes or six at a stretch.

They are insisting on seven and would like you to choose their private profit over your voters' community protection.

The proposal forces too many oversized buildings, too close to public sidewalks, adjacent homes, property lines, and rear yards.

The result is a project that overwhelms its site and defeats the very purpose of transitional zoning.

The developer has cited the waiver granted to the neighboring corner townhome as precedent.

However, that developer was made to comply with all TU zoning standards.

Compliance with TU zoning is precedent.

Compliance with TU zoning standards is precedent.

The corner building complied with all front, side, and rear setbacks.

The 35 foot height limit, yard coverage requirements, and accommodating a roof deck without adding a fourth story.

The later waiver was intended to soften the stark architecture by adding a wraparound pergola structure that created a visual transition from sidewalk to the mass of the building.

One waiver to correct a previous design issue, does not compare to a blanket waiver request for nearly every TU zoning regulation.

The developer has cited Charleston Row as a precedent because it has similar dimensions.

However, it is located on a busy road, not on a residential walking street, and has setbacks ranging from 15 to 25 feet from the sidewalk, not 10 feet as in this case.

For those reasons, this comparison is not appropriate.

Therefore, this project should qualify on its own merits.

As it currently stands, it does not.

Please vote no so it can be appropriately designed in compliance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Richard Lowry, followed by Alexis Lowry, Brian Davis, and Donald Boyd.

Good evening.

Hello, my name is Richard Lowry.

I live in the next next to the development.

The developers cited the city's 2030 plan as justification for overriding the existing TU zoning.

That document was drafted 15 years ago at a time of retail development expansion, which actually ended up stalling for the past 15 years.

No retail rezoning in this area has been needed, and by contrast, trending residential with two new single-family homes built on the block and one more contemplated.

An outdoor outdated report from 2011 that is not legal document, should not be used to bypass current law.

Current zoning law, not speculative future scenarios, must govern today's decision.

Zoning exists to prevent the market opportunism we see here today.

The more units the developer can cram the cram on the lot, the higher they can bid for the land.

Then to maximize their profits, they require blanket waivers that will destroy the quality of life for existing residents.

How much profit Calvary Church or the developer can squeeze out of this lot is not your problem to solve or justify for defending zoning is.

The developer claim that the root project is on an economical with one less unit and without fourth floor rooftops.

That is absurd.

Every lot in this town can be developed economically.

Builders are lining up to buy downtown lots.

Four standalone homes would sell in an instant.

A TU compliant townhome complex can definitely be built.

There is no panic here.

If this developer doesn't want to play by the rules, then the town is full of local developers that will.

The rules to protect this part of town are deliberately in place.

The council just has to enforce them.

It also sends an important message that developers coming to Naperville are expected to conform to zoning standards and to seek only limited waivers for conditions unique to a site, not to disregard those standards entirely and assume that neighborhood opposition will lack the resources or the council will lack the conferences to defend them.

There is no urgency here.

This land has been sitting unused for years.

And because no one wants it, is it was not because no one wants it, it wasn't for sale.

When it was, it had buyers.

The planning and zoning meeting on October 15th, the neighbors have been stand on standby every two weeks for four months to have their voices heard.

If you make the wrong decision today, we will have to endure the impact every day.

Please don't destroy the confidence that neighborhood citizens and home buyers have in the laws that exist to protect them and the people that we vote to enforce them.

The neighbors of this block are not asking you to do the right thing.

We are begging you to do the right thing.

Just enforce the well-considered rules, laws and zoning that are in place for a reason.

We respectfully ask the council vote no on Benson and Maine and submit the submitted and return it for redesigned within existing zoning standards.

Thank you for your attention.

The next speaker is Alexis Lowry, followed by Brian Davis.

Hello.

We've experienced many changes as our town has developed and evolved since then.

But Naperville has always been a great place to live for our family because of its small town feel, educational opportunities, pride in heritage, and its commitment to thoughtful growth and planning to balance neighborhood livability.

We moved to downtown to Benton and Webster 10 years ago and renovated an existing building to blend into the neighborhood by adding trees, greenery, and outdoor space.

Our neighbors consisted of a small 1920s cottage, a quaint clapboard church complete with stained glass windows, and a beautiful Japanese maple tree out front, and a large Victorian style house with a separate garage on the corner of Benton and Maine.

It was a leafy street with four large 35-foot high mature trees on the parkways and a tree-lined back area behind those properties.

We never imagined that view would change so soon, or that anyone would knock down the church.

We've since learned that these mature parkway trees will also be removed during the construction and replaced with smaller saplings that will take many more years to be something comparable.

Our neighbors in Franklin and Maine have now had their privacy and shaded backyard views removed by the developer, leaving them with a line of utility poles instead of trees.

Their future kitchen view every day will be a looming 46 foot high block of seven town homes stretching 150 feet across.

None of us are happy with this overwhelming prospect as presented.

Our neighbors across the street in the condos of Benton Terrace in the business zone have 12 balconies that face that proposed development, with many residents having lived there for 10 years or more.

They too will be looking at a very different view every day.

If the church property had been sold as single-family home sites, there would be space between them, including front and backyards with landscaping that could match the transitional character of the neighborhood more.

However, we understand town homes are allowed in this on this site.

Let me be clear.

But we, the people who live behind it, beside it, and in full view of it, will live with the result of that legacy every day thereafter.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Brian Davis.

My home was occupied and well built by Walter Wagan and a friend of his.

One plot of land where a turn of the century house stood would now have four units, each duplex with two town homes.

Each town home has three stories of windows and balcony.

Of the duplexes, look straight into my backyard.

Three box these stock boxy duplexes.

I have poor eyesight, so I'm having trouble reading this, even though I printed it in large print.

Zoning regularities, regulations prevent privacy infringement.

I do not want neighbors peering down top of us.

Setback should be according to according to code is twenty-five feet.

Twenty-five foot setbacks ensure a degree of privacy and neighborly distance.

The variance request brings it down to only eleven feet.

The variance should be denied.

Speaker's time is up.

Suffer for a buck.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Donald Boyd, followed by Mary Ann Curtis.

Good evening, everybody.

Thank you.

My name is Donald Boyd.

I'm a resident of 126th West Franklin, right across the street from the proposed development.

Me and my wife have been long-time residents of Naperville.

We also own two properties in a downtown area.

We feel this project, if approved, would be a detriment to our peace and well-being to our homes.

We cherish the privacy of our neighborhood.

The sheer size of this project would be looming over us every day.

We are totally against the project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The final speaker is Mary Ann Curtis, followed by rebuttal by Russ Whitaker.

Good evening.

I'm here tonight to oppose this property development.

Mostly and largely in terms of the developers' response to the question of affordability.

Response is that none of the units would be so-called affordable units.

Based on the decision that the property aligns with thoughtful planning principles specific to Benton and Maine market needs, recent census data.

What the neighborhood needs is housing for senior citizens on limited incomes and low and middle income workers and those employed nearby.

No consideration has been given to the staff that work at schools at the DuPage children's museum, the libraries.

No consideration has been given to the people that live, work there that desperately need affordable housing.

So I'm I'm speaking to that mostly.

I agree with my former neighbors, everything that they have said.

And I um living on people are familiar with the Shiffler builders, they had built the properties 133 West and 129 West Franklin Avenue.

12 units, two stories, rental, rental units.

My parents lived in them in the 80s and 90s.

I had the opportunity to live there for five years before I moved into senior housing.

There are other options.

And that's really what I have to say tonight.

I know you're talking about affordable housing later, but let's let's let's really get to it.

And I think the prop, I I wouldn't think my former neighbors would agree that that um that neighborhood is so special.

It is, and I urge all of you who do walk the neighborhoods to go visit because you will meet residents of all income levels, ages, um, and this is what Naperville's I know is striving for more equity.

And so thank you for hearing me tonight.

And I hope you decide to turn this down.

Thank you.

Any more speakers?

I don't even know what I'm doing.

Okay.

Um so there was a a lot thrown out there.

It's sometimes I think it's difficult when we line up seven people and they get three.

Sometimes I think it's difficult when we get to seven people and you've got a couple minutes to respond to a lot of different issues.

But um I I think fundamentally there's two things that I want to address.

And the first issue is the underlying zoning and it directs relates directly to the comp plan.

So we we have a downtown plan.

Um, we just updated the comp plan and we decided not with the the master plan for the entire town.

Um, we decided not to update the downtown master plan at that time.

So we have a plan that governs development in downtown Naperville.

Um, and when we I think when we get when when we go under contract with the property and we start looking at what are the opportunities, um, we're certainly looking at the underlying zoning because the underlying zoning is in fact the law at that time, right?

We talked about that a couple of weeks ago on the data center.

Um, but we also talked about on the data center that there's very important elements associated with the comp plan.

And the comp plan must be an important consideration in governing decision making on the the future development, what should happen with uh a property, not just um uh not just the underlying zoning.

So this is a case where I think when we started the process and we initiated conversations with city staff, there was certainly um, you know, there's a mention that um Benton Terrace is directly across the street, right?

Benton Terrace is zone B4.

Um, based on the based on the downtown plan, it certainly would have been a viable option to rezone this property to B4.

If we rezone this property to B4, there would have been a different set of issues that we would have heard tonight.

Um, but the the downtown plan suggests that the use of this property is the same as the use of the future use of this property that we're working on tonight is the same future land use designation as Benton Terrace.

So that is the framework when the when the city looked and the city, you know, the residents of the city, the plan commission for the city, um, the uh the city council at the time looked at the future development of downtown Neighborville and they said, what does the future entail?

They looked at this area and they said it looks more like Benton Terrace than it does the single family homes or the church that exists on the property or in the or on the uh the rest of this block.

I think they looked at the area and they said there's a bit of an amalgamation of uses, and it's directly adjacent to a developing downtown district that is uh that is very large in scale, massive buildings, and there was there was certainly consideration for changing the character of this block.

And so when we met with staff, we formulated a development proposal that maintained the underlying TU zoning.

I think that's an appropriate framework to work with because we also knew that there was a planned unit development.

And when we do a plan unit development, um, in this case, the planning unit development is actually required.

Uh, but when we do the planned unit development, there's availability for um for some deviations.

So rather than rezoning the property into a higher land use district, we we proposed a planning unit development and we move forward with deviations.

We do have a number of deviations.

I think a number of the deviations are all of the deviations are either consistent with uh the comprehensive plan, or I think work in favor of uh a number of the residents.

For example, um we heard argument over uh the 10-foot front yard setback uh along Benton Avenue.

But in fact, the for the reduction from 15 foot to 10 foot front yard setback is actually going to take the entire building structure and it's going to move it five feet further away from the single family homes on the on the uh on the Franklin Avenue block.

Um so I I think we've tried to make accommodations in that same ilk um throughout the development process, um, working around the edges of the development proposal, fitting within the the directives of the comp plan, looking at the planned unit development, figuring out appropriate deviations and modifying uh modifying those regulations to fit a development that is consistent with the character of how we have seen development occur.

Um it's Benton Terrace, it's not inconsistent with the framework of what's happened at Heritage Place.

I represented the development of Heritage Place.

That's that's a development that's six times the size of what we're doing here.

It was an entire city block, um, and as an entire city block, it created an entirely different framework for what we could accomplish.

There was space for a public park in that deal because of the size of the property under contract.

Um, unfortunately, this is not that case.

This is eight tenths of an acre.

Um it is a constrained site, it's not a square site.

Um, and by virtue of it not being a square site, that's driving a number of the deviations, um, as I think staff outlined in the report.

So I I know I'm short on time here, um, but we've we've worked hard on the proposal before you.

We have staff support, um, we have plan commission support, um, and we respectfully request your support this evening.

Okay, council questions.

What happened to the planners?

Yeah, great question.

Uh so when we were uh when we were moving through and developing the plans for this project, um, there was there was back and forth with city staff um with respect to what the streetscape wanted to be.

Um in downtown Naperville, there's well-established streetscape standards.

Um we kind of had a conversation and said this doesn't want to be exactly the same as the downtown Naperville streets streetscape standard because we're transitioning away from the larger intensity of downtown Naperville and we're transitioning it into more of a residential district.

So we developed a plan uh with the number of planters along Benton Avenue.

When we do, and and as you know, we do a lot of development work in town.

When we develop a property and we construct improvements in a right-of-way, um, 99 out of a hundred times the city takes ownership of those improvements.

Um, it wasn't until we were at the plan commission meeting um that it came up as an issue from staff that those improvements that we had scheduled and negotiated in the public right-of-way would not be taken as as property by the city of Naperville.

Um we could have uh at that point in time elected to make this property part of the downtown SSA, um, but if this property became part of the downtown SSA, which it is not today, the residents of this development would be paying for downtown parking garage maintenance.

Um, while owners of businesses, downtown Naperville benefit from that parking.

Um, this type of development should not be burdened with the cost of maintaining parking garages.

So we ultimately elected to uh to skinny up the number of planters that were scheduled um down Benton Street.

Uh we came up with an alternative design.

The alternative design has trees planted in the right-of-way, and it's got a collection of shrubs below them, so it's an increased level of improvement outside of what you would see in other areas of town and at the corner of Maine and Benton, where we have that uh that more significant that's really significant connection to the downtown core.

Um, we preserved the planner section with a seat wall in that area.

Uh we worked through some solutions, batted stuff back with the city staff.

We ultimately concluded that um MI Homes would construct that planter wall, um, the homeowners of the uh the the planter box with the fencing and the seat wall, uh, that the homeowners at Benton Terrace would be responsible for the landscaping, the city would be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of the hardscape improvement, but that MI would make a one-time contribution towards those future maintenance costs.

We arrived at 21,000 based on the the cost to construct plus some time value of money plus the the lifetime expectancy of the improvements.

Um so we got comfortable in a negotiation between city staff and us that this was a uh very workable solution.

And question for our our director is could that have been continued down the street?

Could there have been some sort of um payment plan for the planner boxes as originally proposed or director Lowden?

Yeah, Jennifer Loudin, director of Ted.

Um so we took a look at what the downtown streetscape standards showed.

Um and you know, we have different standards for different blocks, and I think our discussion um among staff was that um showing the the regular uh downtown streetscape that you're that you're seeing along uh Jefferson and Main Street to the south, um, and that we would be proposing um you know near Jackson, um, wasn't necessarily fitting with what was existing in this area, um, which was why we were pursuing a compromise.

Um, and again, also the discussion of the fact that this um it you know is not part of the downtown uh maintenance SSA, so that you know posed some challenges of how did we want to pursue um you know having this maintained to the quality that we would expect?

Um so it was you know, kind of a little bit of a back and forth discussion with those two considerations.

Okay, any other discussion?

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

Two questions for uh the petitioner.

One um you you hit it a little bit, but can you give a little more detail on the landscaping that was added recently and the timeline for when that was added or changed?

I just want to be sure that we're all looking at what the current plan is and and when that came to be.

And then uh the second question you gave dimensions about Charleston on Aurora, um, which has some similarities, but you know, the residents did mention it's on a much busy road, slightly different part of town.

If you said I might have missed it, but can you also give us the dimensions on Benton Terrace across the street?

Yeah.

Um, so while that's at the top of mine, I'll give you the dimensions on Benton Terrace across the street.

So Benton Terrace is 43 feet tall to the flat roof structure.

So it's the the parapet walls going, I'm sorry, as measured to the top of the parapet wall, they're 43 feet.

So comparison across the street to the top of our parapet wall were 37 feet.

So that that front parapet line that you're going to see um along Benton Avenue, we're gonna be a little bit shorter than what Benton Terrace would be.

There's the larger mansard roof section to the and I'm sorry, let me pull this back up.

Um so you see the parapet wall line there, that's gonna be at 37 feet.

Uh the larger mansard roof section, which is the black section to towards push towards the rear of the building, the the peak height of that is 45 feet.

Um, so that's going to be a or it's like 45-7, I think.

So call it 46 feet.

Uh so that's gonna be a little bit taller than the a couple feet taller uh than the peak height of the parapet wall that you would see at Benton Terrace.

Um your other question, I just totally uh the the rear landscaping of the remote properties.

So um when we were at Plan Commission, um we we have we have I I moved through it very quickly, but just delineating this real quickly.

There are there are two uh two garage spaces in each of these units, right?

There's seven units in this building three that I'm highlighting.

So this is gonna be a garage space.

There's going to be space for two cars to be parked behind the unit.

Um so we have four parking spaces for each unit in this building three.

Uh additionally, we have six parking spaces in this area.

Um, those six parking spaces are all constructed with permeable paver material.

When we were at Planning Commission, there was also a sidewalk delineated just north of that um of that parking area.

When we but in the last few weeks, we've been looking for ways that we could potentially work with and improve the plan for the benefit uh of some of the neighbors, and and one of the things we always look at is there something that we could do with respect to landscaping.

So we ultimately made a decision to pull out that that parking, uh I'm sorry, not the parking, pull out the sidewalk at uh north of the parking.

Uh thought being that it's additional hardscape, it's not necessary.

Um, the parking space width is oversized as it is.

Um normal parking width would be nine foot for these parallel spaces, we're at 10.5.

Um, so we were able to maximize the amount of green space in this rear section.

Uh it's about 15 feet wide.

Um, and we went from just sort of a single line of um of landscape material to trying to do uh a much denser installation of landscape material as you can see here um strategically.

Um you can see the lot lines extending to the north.

So this is a single family home to the north.

Um what we did is we scheduled 11 uh Nigara Eastern Arbor Vites on centered them on that property line um with then the um the deciduous lilac trees um kind of offsetting.

The goal wasn't to just create a wall of green 25 to 30 foot tall trees, uh, but to create something that was a little bit more interesting.

So having the the lilacs and the um and the hydrangeas breaking up the massing of the very tall arbor vitus was something that our landscape architect recommended.

Um this has been sort of an ongoing iteration.

Um we worked through it with staff um just as recently as today.

Um last week we had a a different species of the the high the arborvitas on it.

Um those species were a little bit wider, um, and so they would have compressed on the parking area a little bit more.

Um so the goal with these species was something that's a little more um a little more narrow in stature, providing a little room off of the back of that parking area, so there was some maneuverability around the parking.

All right, and then just circle back to Benton Terrace.

You you told us the hype, but what's the length of that building compared to the the length of the building is 178 feet?

So Benton Terrace, which is directly across the street from us, um, is is 20 feet longer in width than um what we are proposing.

Um I I would also note that our our units are 60 foot deep.

Um Benton Terrace is is an entirely different format structure, right?

Um that building is 127 feet deep.

So um, I mean it's twice if you talk about the depth of the building, it's over twice what we are um in depth.

All right, thank you.

All right, hearing no other question.

Councilman Holzar.

Uh thank you, Mayor Are we in comments at this point?

Sure.

Okay.

Excuse me.

I signed up under the second wait a second, you're you're out of order for can we clarify from the side, Dias, what what the gentleman's referring to.

A couple of the speakers signed up on more than one item.

But what we normally do is have all the speakers under one item, so L one, two, and three.

Okay, so I'm gonna ask for the the city attorney to clarify public speakers who signed up for L two in addition to L one, which I don't have on my list here.

So mayor, the city allows people to sign up for one topic.

So there's item one of three, item two of three, item three of three.

You can't sign up for each one of those items.

It's a comprehensive discussion of the entire project and development.

Okay, so you're only gonna be for one time as part of the city's process.

Councilman Holzar.

Um just as a point of order, this is obviously not something I thought about before.

Were there other speakers that also signed up for multiple items?

Uh I guess it'd be Miss Portner or anybody who would know.

I think we had two speakers that signed up for multiple items.

Okay.

Um this wasn't what I was thinking when I buzzed in, but just as a matter of um process, if our speakers didn't know, they wouldn't have a chance.

I'm I'm at if it's okay.

I'm actually gonna call them up and just to briefly say what the points they would have made.

Actually, we can give them with council's permission.

I mean, we could we could have a roll call vote or a uh uh just a voice vote of council to allow them to speak on L2 once we get to L2.

Yeah, um so yeah, thank you, Mayor.

In terms of protecting the record, just um I wouldn't want somebody to have that issue later to say, hey, I didn't have a chance to speak.

So I'm gonna ask for I guess a voice vote to allow the speakers to speak in L two when they when that comes up.

Yeah, all those in favor allowing speakers to speak in L2 signify by saying aye.

Opposed.

Yeah, I have it.

So you will give be given three minutes during item L2.

We're technically still on L one, Councilman.

I'll actually probably reserve my comments till after I hear the the second round.

Okay, thank you, Mayor.

All right, moving on to L two.

Item L two is a recommendation to pass the ordinance approving a preliminary final plattery subdivision and owner's acknowledgement and acceptance agreement for Benton and Maine.

So we have two public speakers.

When we combined the speakers, we did not have the second set.

So we know that Mr.

Lowerly signed up for one.

I don't know who the other one was.

I'm sorry.

Who who was the other speaker besides Mr.

Lowry?

Signed up for this one.

Right.

We're acknowledging you you're gonna be allowed to speak, sir.

But okay.

I will be speaking a second time.

Okay.

So just Mr.

Lowry then.

Mr.

Lowry, go ahead.

You have three minutes.

Thank you.

What is casually being overlooked here is not in reinstating the planters, not providing green space, not providing public amenity and everything.

To be regarded as a PUD to consolidate full lots in this area.

You can only do that if you petition and make application and get approval under a PUD, a planned urban development.

And to have a planned urban development, you have to meet at least two of a defined set of requirements.

This meets none.

And as such, it does not qualify as a planned urban development.

And the lots cannot be consolidated.

And what is casually, we're talking about this 2030 plan, which is a vision maybe written by some staff 11 years ago, 15 years ago.

It is not existing zoning.

This part of the block was specifically zoned, transitional use.

And transitional use is a step down from the construction.

It's a step down from the mass of Benton Terrace, which is city.

I don't care how deep that building is.

That's a that's an apartment complex.

It's not a town home.

And it's a it's it's it comes under city zoning.

The rest was all residential to provide a buffer, which is a step down intensity and step down in mass, a step down in height, and step down in everything, every requirement is a step down as the transition to the residential neighborhood.

This the this area has not developed.

The 2030 plan was if commercial pressure was for more retail, was going to expand anywhere, then it was logical it would expand further up North Main Street.

It hasn't even completed to Benton Avenue.

That lot has been empty for years.

There has been no pressure to move forward, and maybe never will be.

Thank you very much indeed.

I I really appreciate you.

Let me come back up.

Thank you, sir.

Uh just procedurally, Councilman.

I think I'm gonna entertain a motion and get the second, and then we'll go into discussion before just to follow up proper procedure.

Councilman White may have a motion on L two.

Mayor move the past ordinance approving a preliminary final plan of resubdivision and owners acknowledgement and acceptance agreement for Benton and Maine.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

Okay, we have a motion and a second on an L two.

Now discussion.

Councilman Halzar.

Thank you, Mayor.

And um I definitely am interested in hearing more uh of your thoughts.

Uh, you know, I know you brought up planters and and some of those things if if you have any.

Um I want to start out by thanking the many neighbors who came out here tonight, as well as the developer.

Um, I think this proposal raises legitimate concerns about the character of the area.

I don't live that far from there.

Um, things like building height, how it looks from the street, whether setbacks fit with the surrounding neighborhood.

And those are very reasonable things for people to care about, particularly people who live within a block of it.

To the extent anyone has argued the developer couldn't make money without uh building it this way.

I I don't buy that, as many speakers have stated, this is extremely valuable land, some most valuable land in Naperville.

It would make money built in a whole bunch of different ways.

Having said that, for me, it's really important to keep in mind where this development is being proposed.

In general, in America, we just don't have that many transit-friendly walkable spaces at all.

This is very walkable to the number two most used metro station in Chicagoland.

Adding homes in a transit-friendly walkable area near downtown tends to bring residents who are um walking more places, using their cars less, more connected to the neighborhood on foot, patronizing local shops and restaurants and making our our downtown more vibrant.

So it is just a general comment with regard to development downtown, that is important to me.

I think it helps the walkability of our community.

Virtually every city planner I've seen who talks about promoting a walkable downtown is in favor of having more multifamily units in a downtown area.

Um regarding affordability, realistically, I don't see limiting the number of units in this space on this valuable land as making it more affordable or or downtown more affordable.

I I do look forward to the affordability discussion later.

Um but I just don't think this is the space where that is um is going to be affected in a in a meaningful way.

So for me, um cutting the number of units is not something that that I'm uh going to entertain for the walkability reasons and the bringing transit-oriented development reasons I mentioned.

However, if you know, mayor, if you had uh thoughts um with regard to you know what came out of this proposal after plan commission or you know some of the other features of the building, I'm I'm all ears on that, but just throwing out there the numbers of units isn't isn't it for me.

Thank you, Mayor.

Council McKelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I I've struggled with this one uh to be honest with you for a couple of months.

I think I told the neighbors I I walk past this all the time, nearly every day, unless it's zero degrees.

Uh and again this week, um, trying to get a sense not only of this particular site but what's around it.

And and for what it's worth, I I did think cutting a unit was an advisable thing to do for kind of similar reasons to what we talked about the overnight parking earlier, just would have lowered the temperature, I think a lot.

You know, we've got what 10, 10 objectors, nine or ten objectors.

Um we did have a few written comments in favor of it.

I will say Benton Terrace came up.

We did have some positive emails from folks who live in Benton Terrace that are supportive of this.

Um, but certainly the the vast majority of the neighbors who live right there are are against it.

It seemed to me a pretty reasonable request from from most of them, maybe maybe not all of them, but most of them said, hey, if you cut one unit, we'll we'll be okay enough with it.

Um talking with the developer, they they just don't want to do it.

I thought would somebody else build something?

Sure.

I I think they definitely would, but I don't know that this particular plan was going to move forward.

Um, and and what ultimately did swing the decision for myself is is looking at those other buildings.

Um, and I was out there visually looking at them, but wanted to confirm the numbers precisely, is why I asked earlier.

And just the fact that you know granted, this is a different type of development townhomes as opposed to a uh large building with condos internally, um, but that the width is quite a bit shorter, and that Ben Terrace is directly across the street.

It's not something that's a few blocks away or or half a mile or a mile away, like Charleston.

Uh, that it is directly across the street and does have a lesser width.

Um I just struggle with telling the developer they've got to cut a unit when there's a building right across the street that's larger than what they're even suggesting suggesting.

Um height-wise, uh, the same kind of concept.

It's basically the same as Benton.

Uh you can get into how you measure that, whether you go to the top or not, but it's practically speaking the same, I think.

Um I also asked about the landscaping to the rear, because that was probably my uh biggest concern all along was how is this going to live and and look for the neighbors behind and all due respect to the Lowry's.

Your house is is great and immediately adjacent, but there are certainly more homes adjacent on Franklin.

Um, and and I you know, we're we don't have a crystal ball, we don't know exactly how this is going to look or feel.

Um we can speculate certainly, uh, but I I do think that landscaping is important, especially the height of it, maybe maybe not immediately, but I think realistically, when you stand there and and think about how tall those trees will be, I I think it provides a reasonable buffer, and I'm not sure there's that much more they can do um in terms of that than what they've got.

So it's kind of a close call.

I I certainly understand the uh concerns and objections, but all things considered, I I will ultimately support this.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

Yeah, maybe councilman White.

Thank you.

Um there's been some a lot of discussion with the master plan 30 uh 30-year plan.

Um we did recently had this discussion when it came to the uh to our data center, and uh to me that was a very important part when it came to making the decision on that, and I I really don't want to um say yes for the master plan on one project and say well it doesn't apply now.

So I'm trying to I'm gonna stay consistent.

Uh maybe it should be revisited and and updated.

I I get but right now I I have what I have in front of me.

Um but I do have a few questions.

Um it was somewhat mentioned uh in some of the discussion, but uh Meryland I thought brought up some pretty good points as far as um who's going to control the the maintenance and and so on.

Are we are we gonna is this gonna be an hoa thing?

Would it be or are we looking at a potential SSA?

How's that gonna work out with those things?

If you can re maybe re-explain it to the deputy laugh, sure, thank you.

Um so the developer will construct the improvements in the parkway and then they will deed them to the city to uh maintain moving forward, um, and that will really just be comprised of that corner seat wall.

That'll be what the city um has the responsibility to maintain.

They will give us a one-time payment that is anticipated to cover the cost of long-term maintenance that we felt comfortable with based on the um cost estimate that they provided us, and then as far as the planting goes, uh the homeowners association will do all the seasonal planting both within that planter as well as at the base of the parkway trees.

Okay, great.

Uh, thank you for clarifying that.

And the PUD standards has been discussed a lot.

So I like to get staff's perspective.

Um is the petitioner meeting the requirements for PUD.

Director Laugh.

Thank you.

Um, yes, we believe that they are.

So the the PUD standards for downtown are different than a location like Heritage Place.

So Heritage Place is considered a residential PUD, they have to provide 30% open space, which is why you see a lot more improvement on that site plan.

Uh for downtown PUDs, we understand that downtown property is very valuable and that the lots will not be as big as as larger residential developments.

So it's intended to allow more of like an urban improvement um to provide that amenity without being like a park space or things like that.

So the things that we would consider qualifying uh for the PUD requirements for this property, um they the developer is upsizing the parkway trees, so typically we require a two and a half inch caliper tree, they've upsized to four inches so that it looks a little bit more hardy upon installation.

Um the construction of the of the streetscape improvements that we already discussed, the HOA's ongoing responsibility to plant those um the planter and the base of the trees seasonally and keep that up.

Um upgrading the two driveway entrances to paper material, uh permeable paper, um, and then the uh enhanced landscaping that was just covered uh tonight at the rear of the property.

We would all consider those as complying with the PUD obligation.

Okay, thank you.

And and as we talk about public amenities, do those fall into what you just described, or are there additional things from a public amenity standpoint that you can uh speak on?

So what what we've covered is what we would say meets the obligation, all right.

All right, so you know, based on what I want I wanted to get that clarified because there were there were some good points brought up by uh many of the residents, which I uh greatly appreciate you all coming out and again voicing your opinion.

I had the opportunity to meet with you, I know once uh before uh met with uh petitioner uh as well, and I was really concerned with uh ensuring that both entities are somewhat you know, talking with each other to because that's usually the best way we've kind of figured these things out.

Um it seems like some things have been done, but um I'm not I'm I'm sure they're uh based on what I'm hearing.

Relative the uh residents aren't happy with uh still with what with what's going on.

Um but given that what I've uh said earlier with the conditional use piece of it, and I'm gonna be consistent in my thoughts and what I do uh as well as based off of what you were just telling me here, Miss Laugh, uh these other things being um addressed, and uh I will support it.

Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion on a second and L two.

Say no to the further discussion rule call.

Mm-hmm.

I side I White, I Wilson, aye Worley, yes, Gibson.

Aye, polls hour aye, Jane.

Aye, Kelly, aye.

Motion passes nine zero three, councilman White Mayor move to pass the ordinance approving a conditional use for a planned unit development and a preliminary final PUD plat for Benton and Maine with various zoning deviations.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

A motion and a second on L three.

Any discussion?

Roll call.

Syed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Waterley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holz Hour.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

I McBroom.

Aye.

Motion passes 90.

M1.

Councilman White.

Mayor move to approve the award of bid 25 das 206 East Highland Sanitary Sewer Replacement Phase 1 to Winninger Escaning Incorporated for an amount not to exceed 2,956,818.71 cent plus a three percent contingency.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and second on M1.

Councilman Sayed, did you have a question?

No.

Okay.

Roll call.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Waterley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holtz Hour.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

McBroom.

Aye.

Syed.

Aye.

Oh one.

Item 01 is recommendation to consider the staff recommendation allowing outside meeting room rentals on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings during business hours Monday through Friday and increasing the meeting room rental fees and providing increased security.

There are two speakers.

John Brubaker, followed by Marilyn Schweitzer.

Good evening, Council.

I am John Brew Baker, resident of Naperville.

I spoke to you at the December 16th council meeting on this topic.

After some discussion on that day, you agreed to investigate a substitute proposal to allow outside groups to meet only when the municipal center is being utilized for direct city business.

I completed my own analytical assessment of the substitute proposal and found it to be largely unworkable.

I appreciate that the city staff came around to essentially that same realization that this meeting room policy would be difficult to administer and highly unattractive to community groups.

Staff have instead recommended the compromise before you tonight.

That is to consolidate the community's evening use of this facility into three nights per week and increase fees to pay for prevailing costs to administer reservation and billing systems and maintain meeting rooms.

The existing policy apparently is a money losing proposition.

City staff advertised this new proposal as cost neutral, and perhaps it will prove so if only if enough outside groups continue to meet here to justify the higher cost envisioned for improved administration.

Should you approve staff's newest proposal though, there's really no way of telling just what the outcome will be until we have lived with it for at least a few months.

Given the fact that infrastructure already exists for this purpose and outweighs the relatively small administrative cost.

Well, three-fold increase in fees, limitations on available evenings, and increased competition for the time slots during those evenings.

We proposed draconian measures.

Speaker's time is up.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Marilyn Schweitzer.

Okay, good evening, Marilyn Schweitzer.

Um I have seven points.

Uh first, my thanks to staff for moving the start time of the Riverwalk PDC and commission meetings from 7 30 to 8 15 when the building is open.

This improves public access and overall security.

Second, my thanks to staff for agreeing to consider and pursue improved opportunities for reservation and payment systems offered through the new city website vendor, whoever that may be.

Third, my thanks to staff for recognizing the need to consistently enforce meeting space policies, and I welcome their commitment to follow through.

Fourth, if this policy is approved tonight, please publicly clarify when it will be implemented and what will become of the reservations and payments for non-governmental groups that have already made reservations inconsistent with the new policy beyond the effective date.

Sixth, I believe there is confusion as to which groups qualify to reserve space and for what purpose.

Even what may be considered internal or governmental groups is unclear.

For example, staff confirmed with me that a task force or committee is not a governmental entity, it would not be able to rent space unless it is incorporated as a nonprofit.

The policy should be made crystal clear on the city's website to avoid hardship and misunderstanding.

Seventh and finally, I do not find the proposed changes abhorred, but I hope staff and council recognize the difficulties nonprofits face in finding affordable and sufficient space.

It's a shame such wonderful rooms, including council chambers, to be unutilized.

And I hope the policy sometime in the future may be revisited.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Um councilwoman, can I get a motion on the table first, then we'll go to discussion.

Councilman White may have a motion on 01, and then we'll open up discussion.

My move to consider the staff recommendation allowing outside meeting room rentals on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings during business hours, Monday through Friday, increasing the meeting room rental fees and providing increased security.

Councilman Kelly.

Point of order.

I'm not exactly sure what the motion.

I think the motion councilman White stated was to consider it.

Um we probably need something more than consideration.

To either accept or approve or I'll modify that and um move it to approve the staff recommendation versus consider.

All right, second, Kelly.

Okay, we have a motion and a second discussion.

Councilwoman Gibson.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

I um have been pretty consistent since this topic came up in the summer.

Um, that this is the public's building.

I think it's important that the public's able to meet here.

Um we've made a lot of changes over the last couple of years to increase security, which is obviously very important.

Um, but I also think it has the unintended effect of making it a less welcoming place for our community.

Um I recognize compromise is important.

Um we don't allow meetings on the weekend.

I I'm willing to say, you know, Fridays, maybe we don't allow meetings on Fridays anymore, but I would like to see Monday added back in.

Um I'm also concerned about the price increase.

Um, especially considering um, you know, we've asked in previous QA's whether we've considered alternative scheduling options.

I know that was one of the reasons brought up is why we you know should stop holding meetings here, is that it's difficult to schedule, but I just feel like um there's a lot of options out there in 2026.

You know, the community deserves an exploration of cheaper options and easier ways to schedule before we're passing on, you know, these costs that are three times what they were before.

Um, so I'd be interested in hearing what my fellow council members have to say, but I do plan to propose, I can do it now or later a motion and substitution to I can read the whole thing if needed, but to approve staff's recommendation with the change of including Monday um evenings.

Do you make price on that?

What that is price part of it.

I'd like to hear more from staff on price.

I I don't want to set a price here upon the dais.

I definitely like Monday in, and I am concerned at a three-fold increase in price, probably effectively cuts out a lot of the groups that use our space.

Um councilwoman, just to clarify, you're you're putting up the motion right now to add Mondays back into the proposal.

I I can amend my motion based on comments after I make the motion, correct?

If we can discuss price and that's the case, yeah, but we would need to second it.

Okay.

So we have a motion and a second thanks on the motion of substitution, which would allow for adding Mondays back in the days, correct.

Okay.

So discussion on the amended motion.

Or I'm sorry, the motion of substitution, rather.

And we will continue with councilman Sayad.

Thank you, Matt.

Mr.

John Marilyn, thank you so much for coming and speaking on behalf of the community.

I've been very vocal about this particular topic because I feel the heat.

I know how important the spaces are.

And recently, I think you people have heard about the news about metrics, space that has been shut down.

And 37 different nonprofit organizations are struggling to get a space.

Space is a you know, is a concern in neighbor well.

We all talk about homes, houses and all those things, but definitely space is also a concern.

And I shared about my neighborhood liability.

Whenever we try to book at things, you know, at neighborhood library, we get challenges because it's already overbooked there.

We hardly get rooms.

So with other facilities also, same way, you know.

And uh after people communities saw this agenda item, and some of them reach out to me.

I said, Councilman Sayed, we are running short of spaces in Naperville, and you people are putting a lot of pressure on the community.

So people are really not liking it, did not like it earlier, also, but at least staff has worked on this thing, and they brought this little improvement, but still people are uncomfortable, not happy, and uh they want the space for their nonprofit work, but they have been doing it outside.

Definitely there have been some some businesses who are providing the space.

It's very, very expensive.

I have checked on that also.

It's not easy to get a you know, for a nonprofit organization of Naperville to get a expensive hotel or any other uh avenue.

But uh I will definitely support uh councilwoman Mary Gibson's motion so that we can add one more day, Monday, and cost definitely we can review and make sure you know we are not struggling ourselves because of the cost.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Holzauer.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I agree with Mr.

Brubaker's comments um that there's a philosophical aspect to this discussion.

Um in my view, government derives its authority from the people, and we shouldn't be seen as distancing ourselves from the people or charging them more to use what is actually their own space that they paid to build.

Um I'm not convinced on the fees argument.

Um, first of all, um, you know, looking at this in comparison to um the overall neighbor bill um budget.

And also Councilman Gibson brought up a great point, just looking at the current system.

So much of this is done by hand, right?

There are um software systems off the shelf.

You're talking under a hundred dollar a month subscription, things like calendarly that could probably cut the staff time on this by quite a bit.

I'm glad we're having this discussion, but I think it may have give us an opportunity um to tighten our belts and cut some of those costs instead of just passing them on kind of without question to um our residents.

Um it may seem to some people like hey, you know, an increase of 30, 40, 50 dollars.

You know, this is a wealthy community, maybe it wouldn't matter that much.

But you know, I'm gonna push back on that.

There are a lot of people in this community who really do want to be part of a group and increasing a meeting by that much on a recurring basis is a really big deal for them, and maybe that's the difference between their particular group, whether it's a faith group or a volunteer group or you name it, to be able to meet in a house they own or not.

Uh so I I just um I would really strongly prefer that we we not do that.

Um I think four out of five days, as Councilman Gibson has proposed is a is a good compromise.

If you looked at the staff report, four out of five days, we do have significant use of city halls.

I I think that's appropriate.

City halls where neighbors become citizens, both in official meetings and in volunteer groups, and uh I think it just gives our citizens the right message to keep City Hall open.

As a final comment, uh another productive part of this discussion is we learned about some of the gaps in security, and I appreciate that no matter you know which days of the week City Hall ends up being open, um, we are increasing tightening up our security protocols, and that that's just happening regardless.

So I I appreciate that aspect of it.

Um thank you, Mayor.

Councilman White.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Uh I've got a couple of questions here.

So, first of all, um part of the staff recommendation or justification for the recommendation was that there's um there's less number of groups who are requesting the use of the meeting spaces.

Is that correct?

Me shots?

That is correct.

Okay.

Um, so what would you say is the reduction of it?

If it, I mean, in other words, if it if it makes sense to go to three days because there's not the demand for the space, then I can be convinced.

But uh I mean, is it gonna be totally booked up over those three days?

Is that what you anticipate?

We saw the reduction from about 900 meetings annually when um we started assessing fees associated with meeting rooms about 10 years ago in 2015 to um a little over 200 meetings last year.

So that's gonna obviously vary from year to year.

Um, as we looked at the proposal of only having those meetings on meeting room on nights where the city was also having meetings, that we we mapped out several months of meetings and said, hey, is this gonna work for us?

And it did not.

I mean, it would be absolutely threading the needle to be able to even make um folks who are are already meeting here work.

Um, we felt comfortable in looking at it in taking a look at the existing meetings that are here having 12 days available um a month that they would be able to be accommodated.

Okay, so and so based on that, you you you feel like those individuals who would like to use the space will be able to do that based off the demand that you're currently seeing.

Based on the demand that we're currently seeing.

I'll say also that when we took a look at the number of days, we were um we also took cost into consideration.

There will be, as we talk about the fees, there's three different components associated with the fees.

There is the cost of setup and cleanup, um, which is what is charged today.

Those numbers, so that $30 for say one of our meeting rooms, meeting room A was established in 2015, and that number hasn't changed since 2015.

Um that actual cost of doing that today is sixty dollars.

We have not charged for administrative costs in the past.

Um, and absolutely thank you for the comments on continuing to look at at different systems, and as we look at our our new website, we are hopeful and optimistic that there might be an all an opportunity there to be able to streamline those processes, make it easier for our customers as well as for the city.

We aren't in a position to be able to do that right now, but that fee is also included at $30.

What is not reflected in any of this um is the additional security costs that we um will see because having that additional security here on um all of the nights where where meetings are available.

Okay, so um another question then.

So if a group wants to use the meeting space, let's say for a for sake of argument, a 30-minute meeting versus another group that wants to use it for three hours.

Is the price the same?

It is.

Wow.

Okay.

That is at that's actually um it's similar for um the the medium to larger scale uh meetings at the library.

Similarly, they work um in three-hour blocks.

We don't have um the library has three three-hour blocks available for one of their larger scale meetings.

We don't do that.

We allow a flex on kind of when people will start and finish, but we don't do it on an hourly basis.

Okay.

Um that seems that makes sense based off of what you said with the the setup and those different things, whether it's 30 minutes or an hour is still the same, although the I don't think the security piece of it matches up.

Someone who's who's gonna be here for an extended period of time compared to a short period of time.

Um is there any thought to uh making an adjustment there?

I'm I'm charging it as an hourly rate.

I I guess it could be an hourly rate, but uh someone who's using the facilities you know for 30 minutes versus two hours, uh and we have it, and you're saying the majority of the cost increases because of the security.

Um it seems like that person who's using it for a shorter period of time should not cover the same amount of cost as someone who's using it for more extended time.

So the only the only thing that the proposed fees are covering are the administration costs and the setup and cleanup costs.

We will incur as a city additional fees associated with security, but we have not built those into the proposed fees for the meeting rooms.

Okay, yeah, and I I don't want those to be a barrier for someone who wants to use the space.

Let me see I had another question here.

Okay.

No that's actually uh that's that's on my question.

So you you covered a lot.

One thing for uh for the motion it's currently there I'm more would like to see re see us revisit this after we experience it for six months maybe whatever it might be to determine that hey that we only need it for three or we do need it for four.

I I think we need to kind of experiment with it and kind of see so we we are as efficient and uh as possible with with the resources that we we've been given.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gibson um or councilman white we was that are you asking councilwoman Gibson to amend her motion of substitution to reflect the six month evaluation?

Yes for the elimination of potentially one night right to clarify is it uh mayor do you mind if we hear the remaining comments before I finalize my amendments to my motion.

Thank you.

I'm keeping track.

I don't want to add it in our no no worries no worries.

All right councilman McRoom.

Uh thank you mayor um so the the proposed fee we're going from 30 to 90 for meeting room A and B is that right meeting rooms A and B separately correct.

And then what's the 150?

That would be for both meeting rooms A and B okay.

I don't know yeah it it probably is a big jump for for some groups but I don't know prices from 2015 to today I don't is that that big of a jump when you consider what everything else costs I don't know.

But I uh you know the original proposal was to eliminate all meetings I thought I thought that was unacceptable.

I think everybody did so um I guess I'm looking at this and like staff listened and they came back and now we're gonna allow them during business hours and then three days a week I I think I'm okay with that.

I'm not totally clear on uh councilman white uh but uh I guess you know if there was a trial period um I would I would think you know you try this and if it turns out there's community demand and people are demanding we don't have enough then then maybe we add the other uh day I don't know if that's exactly what you're saying but um I'm okay as it proposed and and then uh looking at down the road if it it doesn't work and and we're getting complaints and we we need more another day we make that choice then so okay councilman Kelly thank you mayor I think I'm on a pretty similar page but I'd rather the opposite of that to be honest to start with more just to give more opportunity so I think if you start with less people will go away and you might not know that demand actually even exists but if we start with one day potentially too many and we're not getting the reservations then it's easier to scale it back I think so I I that's the way I understood councilman white's suggestion correct is that fair I was actually I could go either way but I was probably leaning more toward councilman McBroom's way actually my thought process I figured let's we could always increase the day but uh you're you're right as well we could either way works.

So it's up to councilwoman Gibson if she wants to amend the motion but I I would be in favor of starting with the four adding in Monday and then I don't know if it how formal it really has to be but I think it would make sense to have staff come back and whether it's a manager's memorandum or uh could be as informal or formal as staff would want it to be but I think it it's a change that would be worthwhile to have a look back at some period of time.

Councilwoman Jane thank you mayor just a quick question on um is there a limit to how many hours an organization could book a room there is there is not um we will see we will typically see two to three hours um and we'll typically have one or one group in in an evening in a meeting room but we do not have any limitation on a minimum or maximum okay yeah I I'm just thinking about the fee structure um and while I understand the rationale behind um the need to increase the fee I I also agree that it is a big it's it is quite a big of a jump um and um for all the reasons why we're making all these modifications I I hope we're not deterring or D's incentivizing uh organizations to come and use the space so I wonder if there is another option we might be able to explore around fees that wouldn't would allow us to um not deplete our resources but also be fair a a fair uh price uh I mean I know the library is around 200 for a three hour block um so you know uh depending on the size and things of that nature but just a thought I I don't know if other options were explored to councilwoman Gibson

So I wonder if there is another option we might be able to explore around fees that wouldn't would allow us to um not deplete our resources but also be fair a a fair uh price.

Uh I mean I know the library is around 200 for a three-hour block.

Um so you know uh depending on the size and things of that nature, but just a thought, I I don't know if other options were explored to Councilwoman Gibson's point on around uh fees well I I'd be supportive of um trying the Monday night in addition to the the other nights that staff recommended.

Um I'd I'd also um to Councilman White's point, think that maybe after six months we evaluate, see did anybody sign up or did only two people sign up over that entire period of time for Monday nights to see how we could potentially dial this in even even more efficiently.

Um I'm not supportive of us not charging what it costs us to turn the rooms and provide the the setup and uh takedown and the the staff costs.

I don't think those costs are inclusive of the what I would refer to as the common areas of the building as well.

For example, I don't think those costs that we're charging or proposed to be charging are going to cover bathroom maintenance and floor maintenance and mopping and and cleanups that might occur in other common areas of the building that are required and have to operate in order to allow the meeting rooms to operate.

So I think adjusting to at least cover our costs for the specific meeting rooms so those can be utilized as as efficiently as they possibly can is something I'd be absolutely supportive of.

So um councilman Holzer.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just very uh quick couple of comments.

Um one, uh there was a comment that you know we don't have the options for like a tech solution until the website's updated.

I I just don't agree with that.

Like our law firm schedules multiple appointments a day, we use software called Calendly.

It's extremely easy.

I would suggest just charge people more if they don't want to use Calendly.

I would bet you almost every organization would use that tech option and you'd solve it like that.

So I you know it and that's thirty dollars of the fee we're talking about.

Um also I just kind of want to point out we're talking about like a four-figure sum of money here, like a high four-figure sum of money.

How important is it to the city of Naperville to recover on that?

Like, look at all the things we do.

You know, if you go check out a concert at the Naperville municipal band, are we gonna charge people a few bucks to get in?

Because we have to move the benches twice a year, or there's a bathroom there, are we gonna charge people a janitorial fee?

Um, you know, this we're not the park district, but there's no entry gate to get into a park, you know.

This is a Italian marble cladded building that our taxpayers paid for.

I just don't think we need a nickel and dime them um coming here.

So I in the spirit of um the idea that councilwoman Kelly pointed out of let's try out four month uh four days a week for six months.

I would also say let's keep our fees where they are for six months and see if we can reduce some of that cost on our end during that time.

And if we really can't find a tech solution, then maybe we you know actually raise fees at that point, but I'll defer to the councilwoman.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, it's all up to councilwoman Gibson here.

Um just a suggestion.

I mean, it sounds like we've heard a few say leave the fees, a few say do what staff's saying uh maybe a middle ground, maybe gets everybody on board, you know, it's 30 is current, 90 is proposed, could it be 60 per room and a hundred for A and B combined?

Just something to try to get people on board, but just a suggestion.

Yeah, I I'm just gonna jump in with my amendments.

Uh councilwoman, go ahead.

All right, I'm sorry, Councilman.

Councilwoman, Councilman White, a question or I I I I I want one question, one one point, I guess.

Based uh if if we if we keep the fees the same, I because I I think that's going to affect the number of people that want to use the facility.

So for example, if we keep what staff has proposed, okay, I personally think it's going to reduce the number of people who want to use the facility because of those those fees.

So I I think there's a there's an there is an effect there.

So I think we I think we go with what uh councilwoman Gibson is proposing.

We look at it.

I would I'd like to see the fee stay the same during that trial mont time to see if it's going to affect the number of people who are going to request space in the building.

Councilman Wilson, sorry.

Uh I just for clear stay the same as what as opposed what they currently are or what is what's being proposed.

What staff is proposing.

Okay.

All right, Councilwoman Gibson, you want to all right.

Thank you all.

Um lots of really great points.

Um it up before I make the official motion.

Sounds like there's consensus on Monday.

I think we need to add back Monday.

Um in terms of the fees, I'm hearing from staff that the fees were set in 2015 to cover cleaning cost, and that the cost now in 2026 is $30 to clean the room.

Is that when the fees so for meeting rooms using uh meeting room A as an example was set in 2015 at $30, the cost of doing that work today is $60.

It's $60.

Um okay, with that in mind, I'm I'm comfortable increasing the to cover the cost of cleaning.

I think you know, I've we as we've discussed um there's technological solutions for the scheduling and administrative cost.

Um I'd like to stay consistent and have the fees cover the cleaning cost.

So in terms of the suggestion of a circle back, I don't really like that.

I think um if there's an issue, staff should always bring forth if there's an issue with us.

I don't want to add an administrative burden that in six months from now we definitely need to get this back on our agenda.

I think a manager's memorandum would be appropriate, but um, in the spirit of compromise on the fees, I'm happy to include a time frame for a reevaluation in the motion.

So with that, if I could make a motion to I'll mend my motion to accept staff's recommendation allowing outside meeting room rentals with the addition of Monday to include two Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday evenings during business hours Monday through Friday, and increasing meeting room rental fees only to cover the cost of cleaning for said rooms and provide increased security.

Get it?

Yep.

So we need the second second old tower, and just just want to make sure I have it right.

So the increased cost you're talking about is $60 now instead of 30.

Correct.

Okay to cover you right to specify 60, which for the purposes of cleaning.

Okay, we have a amended motion and a second a modified amended motion.

Modified and a second.

I'm sorry, point of um modified motion of substitution in a second.

It's getting late.

And a point of point where we're you also good with Councilman Kelly's proposed, what was it, $100 for A and B?

A and B.

A and B combined.

Yes, thank you.

Um would a hundred dollars cover the cleaning cost of A and B combined?

So A and B combined is 60 right now, and the cost of that would be 120.

So for meeting room A or meeting room B alone would go from 30 to 60, lunch room, same 30 to 60.

Meeting room A and B combined would go from 60 to 120.

Okay.

I I for the for what it's worth, I still liked Patrick's compromise.

I think two rooms, it makes sense.

Bulk discount, whatever.

Okay, so we got a motion and a second.

Um you would have to on 120 versus 100.

Um you would have to m amend your amended motion of substitution.

And then gain a second.

Okay.

If that's your choice.

Sure.

I will have to go through it all, Mike.

Or can I just say I think would help if we okay.

Um direct staff to allow outside meeting room rentals on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings during business hours Monday through Friday, and increase meeting room rental fees to $60 for meeting room A, B, and lunchroom, and $100 for the combined meeting rooms A and B.

Second whole tower.

And provide increased security.

Second whole tower.

Okay.

Okay, we have a we have a um uh modification to the second modification or third modification to the motion of substitution.

I think we all got it.

Roll call.

Wilson.

I guess Gibson.

Aye.

Hold tower.

I Jane.

I Kelly.

Mick Room.

Aye.

Syed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Motion passes 90.

Okay.

Item O two.

Agenda item O two is a recommendation to receive the report and provide direction regarding affordable housing.

Next steps.

There are four written comments posted to the website, and there is one speaker, Philip Mino.

My name is Phil Mino.

I'm a 35-year resident of Naperville and a member of the DuPage Housing Alliance.

I'd like to thank staff for so quickly responding to the direction from Council at its January meeting for a status check on affordable housing efforts in Naperville.

The summary history found under the agenda item was excellent.

I'd only emphasize that at the January 2023 council meeting mentioned the framework for an affordable housing incentive plan or AHIP was approved by a unanimous voice vote.

That followed several months of negotiation and compromise between the mayor, then mayor and council members.

The ordinance never got enacted, however.

Naperville needs an affordable housing ordinance now.

Affordability is a hot topic nowadays, but the alliance has been emphasizing affordable housing in Naperville for almost two decades.

Naperville's larger employers like Edward Hospital support these efforts.

An ordinance would not discourage development.

As your Fifth Avenue consultants just told you late last year, developers only need to know what the rules are.

They can work with that, applying for available incentives to make the economics work.

Further, the alliance strongly recommends a mandatory inclusionary zoning ordinance or IZO.

In 2021, Council, in a workshop led by SB Friedman, was not ready to take a mandatory approach, leading to the attempt at a voluntary or AHIP approach.

With vanish vanishing available land, we just don't think going forward that leaving the creation of affordable housing in larger developments up to developers opting in is advisable.

Multiple templates of working IZOs exist in the Chicago area and elsewhere.

Some will point out that affordable units have been built in recent years without any ordinance in place.

None of those units were long-term affordable.

So while they may technically have been affordable for the first year or two, they are lost leader years to get the building leased up.

After that, rents can and do soar.

The micro units at the vanish apartments by me are an example of this.

Touted as avoidable units, affordable units when opened.

Current rents for these 400 plus square foot apartments range from 140 to 220% of what would be considered affordable before even considering insurance and utilities.

An ordinance would specify that designated affordable units remain affordable, tied to government household income figures for a minimum period of years, often ranging from 30 years to forever.

That is the lasting sustainable solution to the lack of affordable housing in Naperville.

Thank you again, staff and council.

Thank you.

All right, Council.

We've got the report on O2.

I'll open up discussion.

Councilman Holzauer.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, as we think about an inclusionary zoning ordinance, I would like us to focus in the coming months on approaches that actually shape how new housing in Naperville is built.

You know, one of my big concerns when I look at these types of ordinances around the country is in some communities, it's just too cumbersome to comply with the ordinance or to to build a house that meets the ordinance.

So people just pay a cash buyout.

Um and what's the net result of that?

Actually, housing becomes more expensive in the community because every developer is now paying a cash buyout in addition.

And I I will just say that I have um significant concerns with council's ability to you know manage a fund uh that is being replenished over time with this money.

Um I would much much rather that we actually address the creation of more affordable units through our ordinance.

One promising direction is multi-generational housing, and we heard about some of it today, right?

And this could be homes that are designed with uh lock off suites, flexible layouts, um, extra kitchens, space for aging parents, adult children or caregivers.

Um they naturally lower lower per person housing costs, and they're especially especially helpful for people with limited um mobility without having to have an ongoing subsidy or uh responsibility of of oversight by the city.

Um specifically, I'd like to call out accessory dwelling units, um, sometimes known as like grandparent flats.

Um, something in my mind might be hey, if you're building a new development and the PUD includes accessory dwelling units by right, you are per se compliant with our inclusionary zoning ordinance, right?

So that's an easy thing for a developer to hit and shouldn't be too cumbersome for them.

Or I could see a menu of options.

Hey, if you don't if you don't have the ability to do that, if you have a portion of microunits, which have been very successful, if you have a portion of microunits and a multifamily development, you are per se compliant with the ordinance.

If you have a certain number of houses, 20% or whatever that are on smaller lot sizes under a certain square footage, ranch houses that are great for seniors, you are per se compliant.

Um if you incorporate multi-general generational designs or actual ADUs or ADU hookups, like I mentioned before, you are per se compliant.

So to just kind of sum that up, what I what I would love to see is a menu of options that are friendly to developers that they can really comply with, and they can kind of choose the easiest way for them or the most sensible way for them to comply with the ordinance as opposed to something that's really um cash based.

I think that um with the right brainstorming, Naperville can be what it always is, which is a leading community when it comes to housing policy.

And I think we can do this in a way where it's not punitive to our developers.

It's not um greatly cutting into their profit margins, but it is increasing the housing stock for um for for our affordable communities.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman Wilson.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Uh I see Mr.

Palm here, who was on the um the uh human rights and fair housing commission at the same time.

I was uh part of the discussion that was brought up in the um I didn't know he was gonna be here either.

So um I was wondering if you could shed a little light on the discussion that happened in his notes are on the site here under the agenda item around the uh discussion that happened um at that meeting, I guess what, four years ago now.

Um, just some of the uh um I don't know, pros and cons, concerns and benefits that some of the folks had raised that were um at that meeting at the time.

Um some of which were are involved in uh real estate, I guess, or who may or may not be on the commission at the time.

I was wondering if you could talk about that when this item was originally brought up, possibly.

If you you want to you want to come to the podium there and speaking to the microphone.

Sorry, Brian.

No problem.

I didn't want to presume that I would be heard either.

That's why I didn't want to come up to the mic right away.

Um, real quick, uh, my name's Brian Palm.

I had the privilege of serving on the Fair Housing and Human Rights Commission from 2019 to 2025.

I just rolled off.

Um to get into some of the discussions that were talked about.

Uh first I can address the Freedman report or the SB Friedman report.

Um that was thoroughly discussed.

It was actually presented to the commission in this room.

One of the main issues that the commission had with that report was uh SB Friedman did very detailed work on the city of Naperville, but then provided a menu of options on how to deal with affordable housing that didn't really seem to apply to the city of Naperville.

The commission really felt that they took and just gave us a menu of items that they gave to every city.

An example that comes atop my head is a land bank.

Um looking at the amount of available land in the city of Naperville at the time.

Uh a land bank just wasn't feasible.

And there were multiple items like that.

Uh the idea of inclusionary zoning also came up at the time.

And there was also the affordable housing um paperwork also came to, I believe, hit a 10% or 10 or 15% affordable housing stock inside Naperville.

So that was one of the other things and lenses that the uh commission was viewing everything through was could we hit that affordable housing marker as it was defined?

Um and what we found when looking at inclusionary zoning, and I do want to stress that the commission feels affordable housing is a critical issue and a very important one at that.

Uh, but what we were hitting with is when we were looking at inclusionary zonings, the majority of them and what was being proposed at that time said, okay, if you're building five units, one of them has to be affordable.

Um to come into that, then we were starting to come into the have and the have nots.

Um if you're going to make one unit affordable, you will have to drive up the cost of the other four.

Um offense to the attorneys that are on the dye or the attorneys have presented here tonight, but I'm like to become compliant with the inclusionary zoning ordinances require additional compliances, it costs extra money, which drives up the cost of the overall development.

Um I think that's kind of what Commissioner Holzauer was addressing is it's like if you don't make it easy, you will drive up the cost uh for the developer, and therefore you will have even more expensive units with a very cheap uh unit next to it.

Um, and then almost not making the math work.

Um a little bit to just uh on my background.

I am a uh Illinois licensed designated managing broker.

I am also an Illinois licensed community association manager.

Um it's kind of funny to hear about people talk about wanting an HOA tonight.

Normally we're the villains and some of the other issues that come up there.

Uh why, yes, some inclusionary zonings have expirations on them, uh, others don't time out, like some were mentioning tonight where the deeds uh have a restriction on it.

The thing is is normally you have an HOA at that point, and the commission ruled out the inclusionary zoning at that point because the HOA isn't in the inclusionary zoning, their costs still go up.

People talk about taxes being affordable, the HOA fees are now tackling it.

Uh so there were a lot of things at the time that were canceling it out.

Um, I can get into more detail, but I also want to be respectful of the time that it is right now.

Yeah, I think we got a wrap wrap your soul.

Thanks, thanks for thank you, Brian.

So thanks for all.

Right.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, I just wanted to provide a little context uh to what was talked about at the uh HR HR FHC meeting that night.

Um, or discussions, um, but I wasn't just coming from myself.

Uh yeah, that uh I did have some concern about when this was originally brought up.

Um, I don't think uh affordable was ever defined.

And as we can see, staff had come back to show that we are um compliant.

Um I'll try to stop here.

I just did have one quick question for staff.

Um I shouldn't say originally, but when this was previously talked about, uh I think there was math issues or concerns with how the state had done our calculation as opposed to how we viewed it ought to be done.

Um do you do you recall what I'm referencing?

Deputy laugh.

Yes, as we reviewed the data used to determine the 10% compliance.

Um, we found an error in the way that property tax was included, and that um the number that they referenced as the assumption of property tax paid was actually much higher than the value of the unit that they were paying on.

So when we were adjusting it, we found that um making that number more realistic significantly increased the affordable percentage in the city.

However, um, that is something that we appealed to the state on, and they have not made any changes to the way that it's calculated.

So the way it was done is per their regulations.

We just don't think it was an accurate reflection of actual affordable um allowances.

Thank you.

Councilman White, I need a motion to extend the meeting.

Mayor make a motion to extend the meeting to 1130.

Councilman Kelly, second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second to extend the meeting to 11:30.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, motion carries, we're extended to 11:30.

Um, somebody else was in the queue, Councilman White.

Go ahead.

I think uh I'm glad this this uh topic is back up for discussion.

Um I think it's important it to understand, even when we discussed this years ago, how things have probably even changed since then.

Um councilman Holzhauer, I I think hit the nail right on the head.

We we've got to be able to take a look at what do we see the future of our community looking like.

What what will be the needs?

I guess should maybe even a better example.

Um we're so multi-generational right now, uh, especially with the influx of people coming over from Asia that where that's a common thing, where the multi-generational housing is is common.

I recall uh when I was in Kuwait when I was active duty in the Army, driving you know, down the highway, seeing these huge literally mansions.

Um, and like you know, it must be a lot of rich people here.

And they explained to me, no, there's just four generations of people living in that house.

Now that's not proposing to do something that like that, but you did we do need to understand that um people are coming to Naperville, and that's their experience, and that's one thing they would probably like to have.

It's multi-generational homes.

So I would I'd like for us to explore that as we uh continue down this journey.

I mean, uh, how many homes uh have actually been modified where there actually are putting in a flat for mom or dad that uh that comes to live with them, and maybe those haven't even been captured yet.

I I don't know.

Um, and they should be part of our housing stock.

So I would ask for us to continue to do that.

We had the discussion uh as I was just saying earlier about parking and the and because kids are coming back home and all the additional now there's three cars and think about that.

That's that's kind of where we are right now.

Okay, it's not like it was maybe 10 years ago when we didn't necessarily have those issues.

So uh as we look at our future housing needs, those are things I think we need to consider.

Um, and a lot of it really kind of comes down to the multi-generational piece, whether it's you know, grandparents are living with you or just kids coming back that are uh looking for opportunities to to save before they can buy their own home.

Uh the dynamics have just changed.

So uh as we go through, please consider those um those options.

Thank you.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh it's late at night, so I don't want to get too in the weeds on on the history or uh the need for affordable housing other than other than to say I do think it's critically important, and we've been working on it for seven years as the staff write-up shows.

Um, and and I'm hoping that we can find a way to keep this moving forward.

Uh and you know, I I was uh originally on the housing commission with Mr.

Palm for a couple years and always appreciated his insight.

I'll say it was a diverse commission.

There's a lot of different opinions.

It was typically never uniform one way or the other.

Uh I think initially that commission on hold did want to drive forward an IZO.

That was meant so many years ago, and a lot's changed since then, uh, both on that commission and with the city.

Um I think uh I think there's um interest in learning more about an IZO and what that could look like.

My sense is there's more interest in that than the AHIP.

We you know we tried AHIP that that did not move forward.

Um I don't know what an IZO for Naperville would look like exactly.

Councilman Holzhauer raises a lot of good points.

I think where I'm at before you know the the very end of the staff write-up talks about the potential need to retain a consultant.

I don't know that we're ready to do that quite yet.

There's been a lot of conversations just in the past couple weeks, even one-on-one council members and with staff, and I have not heard yet a consensus regarding what exactly we want to do.

Um Councilman Holzhauer raised a lot of specifics.

I don't know if that's enough for staff or if you need more specifics than that to try to get us possibilities, information, and I I heard a reluctance about fees in lieu.

Uh for me, I'm just one out of nine, but I would like some more information at least.

I'm not saying that's going to be the answer, but most ICOs do have that as an option.

Um the two possibilities I've heard of from staff so far.

One, maybe the county has a community land trust fund that would be an easy way to administer it, but I don't know if we would love that outcome or not, but I would like more information on what it even is before deciding whether it's something we would want to pursue or not.

And then I'd also be interested in what city-led options could be, whether that's existing programs like the utility assistance fund we heard about earlier or the home rehabilitation fund for seniors in need that we run through CDGB.

Um I think knowing those range of options would be really helpful for us to give you then further direction on where we want to try to take this.

Um for myself, I'd like those financial options to know what those could potentially look like.

And then I would also be interested in the quote unquote easy ways for developers to try to meet an ordinance.

I just don't know exactly what those look like.

And I don't know, I guess so I'll ask staff.

I guess do you know where to look, whether that's other cities ordinances that you could send to council for us to review and get ideas, or or do you need more from council right now in order to do that?

Deputy Left.

Thank you.

Um, so I did include, I think there was five examples of IZOs in the QA um that you can take a look at to start with.

Those were the the sample communities that our prior consultant had looked at when talking about an IZO for an April, I think what you'll find is that those ordinances are totally dependent on the goals of the city that they're implemented for.

So you can really, there's like such a range of options in terms of like what you're classifying as affordable or the term of the affordability or um the income qualifiers.

So I think it I think the council really needs to give direction on what problem we're trying to solve, um whether it's multi-generational housing or additional units, or um, you know, if it's attainable housing versus affordable, I think we really need to narrow that down, and then the ordinance can start to be created once we have better direction of what we're trying to work towards.

Um I think that there's just so many options that I don't think it'd be super helpful to just throw all of them at you without knowing what direction you want to move in.

No, and I I I appreciate that, and I appreciate the speed you brought this back to us.

So it was very quick.

It almost might have been too quick because I'm not sure we have what you just asked for quite yet.

I mean, so I'm just thinking out a lot, but I'm wondering if maybe two by twos, you know, sometimes on some of these larger topics too, it's more structured, formal two by twos on a particular topic might be helpful to try to get a little better idea from council to staff, with hopefully my goal would be bringing this back to us as a more fully fleshed out agenda item to actually start taking action on within the next month or two.

Uh, I don't know if that sounds reasonable to others, but that's kind of where I'm at at the moment.

Well, I I'd add the request to also include some of our neighboring cities that have IZOs.

There, there's a handful of them in the Chicago suburbs outside of the city.

I think we can we could probably take Chicago out of the comp list of cities, but if we're gonna consider ICOs, we should be evaluating what those communities have passed and what the successes or maybe they're not so successful outcomes of those are, and also look at them from those who collected fee in lieu versus those that actually produced an affordable outcome.

So I I think some of the communities I've studied over the years and done business in, they have IZOs, but they haven't produced any affordable housing units.

So I mean it it's looks nice, but it's not really creating the outcome.

The other thing I think is important for us is what is our our goal is is there a percentage goal that we should have in mind.

The last time this topic was before the council, we were trying to meet a 10% goal, affordable goal that was set by Ida for our our city as well as other cities in the area.

And we have since met that goal, and it sounds like we will not be evaluated on that again for a couple of years, but that's what got this put in front of council years ago.

So now that we've met the goal, what's the new goal?

And can we define that to further guide council as to what we should be evaluating?

Me personally, I mean, if if there was a ability for us to create some solution to expand a Martin Avenue apartments, which is an outstanding facility in our community, I'd be fully supportive of it.

I just don't know how we get there, but I could certainly see housing like that that's already got a very successful model in our community being expanded in some way.

Councilman Halzar.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, yeah, a lot of your points are well taken, and that's kind of the exact crux of my concern.

Um, in many ways, I I'm not even sure the term IZO is like what I would be looking for in a model.

The ones I've studied in other cities, just by and large have not created actual affordable housing.

Um ends up being another revenue stream, and I just I really would consider that a fair I probably wouldn't even vote for that, to be honest, if that's the net result.

Um in my mind, whether we want to call it an IZO or something else, I actually look at it more qualitatively.

I think it's really hard to legislate the city into an extra five percent affordable housing.

I think what you added up with is deed restrictions on property that only lawyers can understand.

Brian brought this up.

Um that adds administrative costs to the builders and it makes it just makes it unattractive to build units and you just try to buy your way out of it.

Um but qualitatively, I think if if we say, hey, we have a menu of options and we're we're promoting microunits and we're promoting accessory dwelling units and we're promoting ranch houses that are friendly for seniors, and we're promoting you know, things like Martin Avenue and maybe five or six things that we're promoting.

I would view that as a win, even if even if you can't tie that to an item number, because I in my view, qualitatively, Naperville is just woefully behind in some of these areas.

It is really hard to find a ranch home in Naperville if you're a C like they're more expensive than two-story homes a lot of times, where it's really hard.

It's really hard for multi-generational families to make it work with existing zoning codes, right?

So even if we just incentivize developers to set up their PUDs to allow for that, I think those would be huge qualitative wins.

And I'm just not in favor at all of a bureaucracy that's gonna last, you know, beyond the builders' involvement in the project.

Uh and I want us to be the community that's actually successful at this instead of the like the mayor said.

I mean, I I just honestly think the majority of that aren't successful.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman White.

Yeah.

Um I would just advise us to be proceed with with with a level of caution.

Um I you're right.

We were striving to get to the 10%, as the mayor just said.

Um, and then not then we we met the goal, but I think we just have to be careful.

Uh it's not like we did anything different to meet the goal.

We met the goal because the median income for Naperville changed.

That's why we met the goal.

So I would say that to say that the need is still there.

Okay.

So uh when we again look at those great folks that work in our police department, our fire department, and and none of them, you know, a lot of them can't afford to live here.

So uh I so I don't want us to get you know fooled a little bit and they're thinking that we're we've made it when that I think that nothing's really changed.

It's just that the formula changed for us.

Okay, so the need is still there in my opinion.

Uh so as we go forward, let's keep those things into consideration.

Thank you.

Okay.

So just to clarify the official action that we need, uh, counselor, would you prefer a show of hands supportive of sending this to professional staff to bring back some ideas later on?

Is that is that sufficient, or do we need an actual motion and action from the council?

No formal motions required as long as staff believes that we have clear direction from council, we'll we'll bring it back.

Sure, or even doing sure or two by twos to solicit feedback from council deputy laugh, is that sounds like well, I think it would be helpful to understand just as a starting point if it is an IZ.

I think that what Councilman Holzauer is talking about is very different than I think what a traditional IZO is.

Um, I would say that when we were doing the land use master plan update, we actually proposed a lot of what you were saying.

We talked about creating like a single residential district and allowing ADUs and micro, it was met with a lot of resistance, and so that was kind of how that fell off.

So I think I would just like the clarity going into it if I'm working towards that or towards the IZO, because I think it's two very different discussions.

Mayor, if I could respond to that.

Go ahead, councilman.

Yeah, I I'm so glad you brought that up.

Um, I think the resistance that we had was people talking about their existing neighborhood changing, right?

But I think if new neighborhoods are encouraged to adopt uh ADUs or you know, new multiple family projects are having microunits.

I don't see why anyone object to that.

That's a non-existing, you know, constituency.

And and I think it also allows the developer multiple options.

So I yes, actually, that is like specifically what I would like to see.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilwoman Jaden.

Thank you, Mayor.

Could the ask be um in two parts?

One being um some research on Chicago suburbs that have implemented an IZO and some sort of a report delineating what's been successful and what has not, what's actually generated affordable housing, what has not.

Um sort of summary on that, because we've only looked at five based on the last consultant's report, but something more comprehensive on that.

And then the part two would be what Councilman Kelly suggested.

Um beyond that, understanding individual council members' priorities and values in terms of how what they think this means and where you know um whether it is attainable housing or or multi-generational, or all the wonderful options that were already discussed, perhaps that exploratory conversation might um provide some guidance on next steps.

So just a proposal.

I can definitely research other Chicago communities.

That part is clear.

And then I think we can just go from there in terms of maybe having the two by two meetings with council to get a little bit more clarity.

And I think taking the maybe IZO is not the proper term to your point, and maybe there's other ways of of getting at this.

I mean I I think it's fair to put whatever options on there on the table with those two by twos to try to get to the outcomes that council's discussing here, regardless of what it's called.

Okay.

Is that fair, counsel?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

I think we I've got that one done.

Uh any new business.

Councilman White, okay.

We didn't think that's okay.

We had to go.

Okay, Councilman White, new business.

Uh just when we uh did Councilwoman Gibson's um proposal.

I just want to um I would like to see staff come back in maybe six months kind of give us an update.

Can we uh can we do that?

Let us know how it's working.

All right.

That's it.

Okay, any other new business?

I have a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Is there a second?

Second, Kelly.

All those in favor adjourning, sign aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

We're adjourned.

Thank you.