Good evening.

I would like to call the planning and zoning commission meeting for February 18th, 2026 to order.

Secretary Wright, please conduct roll call.

Abu Baker?

Here.

Bonzo?

Here.

Castignoli?

Here.

Longama?

Here.

McDaniel.

Here.

Namas?

Here.

Brucellia.

President Robins.

Here.

And right is here.

Madam Chair, we have a quorum.

Great.

Thank you.

The first order of business tonight is the public forum.

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

Please keep your comments limited to three minutes.

Also for the sake of all those in attendance.

Please refrain from clapping or shouting out in response to comments made by any speaker.

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

No one signed up.

Great.

Thank you.

Our next order of business is public hearings.

For each hearing, we will begin with a staff presentation or introduction, followed by the petitioner's presentation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please raise your right hand and respond.

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

Thank you.

All right.

The first case on tonight's agenda is DEV-0126-2025.

The public hearing is now open.

Therese Egner from staff will present the case.

Thank you, Chair.

Therese Egner with the planning services team.

DEV-0126-2025 is a request for annexation rezoning to the R1A low density single family residence district and approval of a preliminary final plat of subdivision to annex and subdivide the property into two single family lots at the subject property located at 26 West 021 Parkside Road.

The subject property is approximately 1.1 acres and is located on the southwest corner of Parkside Road and Charles Avenue.

The property is currently zoned R4 in unincorporated DuPage County and improved with a single family residence and detached garage.

The subject property is contiguous to the city of Naperville's municipal boundaries and is therefore eligible for annexation.

Staff finds the proposed R1A zoning to be compatible with the existing zoning of the surrounding properties and consistent with the land use master plan.

The petitioner's responses to the standards for granting a map amendment are included in the attachments.

Staff agrees with the petitioner's findings and recommends their adoption by the planning and zoning commission.

Please note that the property owners' annexation and subdivision requests are not reviewed by the planning and zoning commission, but information on these requests are provided for reference in the staff report.

The requests will be heard by city council at a subsequent meeting date.

Staff is available for questions.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

Will the petitioner please approach the podium?

Good evening.

Right right below.

Yep, there you go.

So uh she put it pretty plainly.

It's an unincorporated lot that we're looking to subdivide into the city of Naperville.

Um annex and subdivide into the city of Naperville, uh annexing the existing home and connecting uh the existing home to services, and then constructing a separate single family home on the second lot.

Um this is actually uh I live in the current home uh now, and the plan would be for uh us to build, and I would move into the home next door.

Yeah.

So any questions?

Yeah.

Uh I would like well, if are you done?

Yeah, okay.

At this point, I'd like to hear if there's any members in the public present tonight that would like to speak.

I'm assuming you're Mr.

Martinez.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, no one else on that.

All right, great.

Thank you.

Um any of the commissioners have any comments on the case?

Commissioner Longabot.

Thank you.

Um, I was just curious about the the timing for the second home.

If you know if this is if this goes through tonight, I mean I'm in support.

Will you start right away?

Do you have plans?

Uh yeah.

So uh I don't have uh plans uh submitted, but uh the architect is currently working uh on a final set of plans ready to submit.

So uh I'm hoping to start construction as soon as uh plans should be ready in the next four weeks or so.

We can submit those, and as soon as permits are ready, we can get started on construction.

Okay, and then my second question would be um, and so if you have any variances on those, those would come back here because that would be a separate deal.

I mean, obviously, this needs to go to city council next, but um yeah, hopefully there won't be any variances in the uh correct.

Uh as of right now, uh there won't be any variances of the way that uh the new home will set.

Yeah.

Okay, excellent.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

There are no additional comments.

Um you have any closing remarks?

Uh no.

Thank you.

All right, then I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for DEV 0126 2025.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right, motion carries.

Commissioner Longenbach, please read the motion.

Okay.

I would like to make a motion to adopt the findings of fact as presented by the petitioner and recommend approval of DEV-0126-2025.

A request to rezone the property located at 26 W021 Parkside Road to R1A low density single family residence district upon annexation to the city of Naperville.

Can I have a second?

Sorry.

All right, Secretary Wright, please conduct roll call.

I agree.

Costig Molly.

I agree.

Long and ball?

Agree with the motion.

McDaniel, I agree.

Nominus.

I agree.

Rachelio?

I agree with the motion.

Robins?

I agree.

And right, I agree with the motion.

All right.

Motion passes.

Congratulations.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

The next case on tonight's agenda is DEV-0144-2025.

The public hearing is now open.

Therese from staff will present the case.

Hello again.

Thank you, Chair.

Therese Eigner with the planning services team.

The subject property for DEV-0144-2025 consists of a nearly 50-acre L-shaped parcel with frontage along Route 59 and Aurora Road.

The property is zoned B2 community shopping district and is developed with a multi-tenant shopping center.

In November 2019, the property was subdivided into six lots to assist in redevelopment and retenanting efforts.

In January 2020, City Council passed ordinance 20-006, approving variances for two monument signs along Route 59 for West Ridge Court Shopping Center, and to allow two existing monument signs along Aurora Avenue to function as off-premise signage.

At this time, the petitioner is requesting sign variances for two ground signs for the Westridge Court Shopping Center located along Aurora Avenue as specified in the staff report.

Along Aurora Avenue, there is an existing ground sign located west of the southern entrance of Westridge Court Shopping Center.

The existing sign is currently a non-conforming sign in terms of height, sign area, changeable copy area, and setbacks.

The petitioner proposes replacing the sign while maintaining its current location and has indicated that the proposed sign will be similar in height and size as the existing sign.

The sign is proposed to be improved with updated branding of block 59 and West Ridge Court consistent with previous sign approvals for the properties.

Along Aurora Avenue, there is an existing monument sign at the east entrance to West Ridge Court.

The existing sign is currently non-conforming sign in terms of height and sign area.

The petitioner proposes replacing the sign while maintaining its current location and has indicated that the proposed sign will be similar in height and size as the existing sign.

The sign is proposed to be approved with updated branding of block 59 and Westridge Court consistent with previous sign approvals for the properties.

Staff is supportive of each variance due to the aesthetic enhancements and the design consistency with prior approved signs along Route 59, as well as the comparability to the attributes of the existing signs that they will replace.

The off-premise nature of the signs are reflective of existing conditions and at a result of the way the shopping center was subdivided in 2019.

If approved, the existing signs will be demolished and the proposed signs will be installed in the same footprint as the existing sign.

Staff is not aware of any issues or concerns associated with the existing signs.

Staff requests you conduct the public hearing, and I will be available for questions.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

Will the petitioner please approach the podium?

Thank you, Therese.

My name is Larry Spence with Doyle Signs, and I'm here representing uh Bricksmore property group.

Uh considering their property of Westridge Court.

We would like to beautify that corridor by putting up uh two nice new pylon signs and getting rid of the uh 25-year-old signs that are currently there.

These signs would be consistent, as Therese said, with the design of the other ones on Route 59, and being adjacent to that beautiful development block 59.

Uh these are really currently an eyesore.

We'd like to, you know, again, beautify that corridor by putting up some nice new signs using existing foundations, using the existing I-beams.

You got the engineering for it.

Um, and so they'd be in the same location.

So we are seeking uh relief on size and setback.

Do you have any questions?

Not quite yet.

Are you are you done with your done yet?

All right.

So at this time I'm gonna ask if there's anyone here in the mountain the public members uh present tonight to speak on the case.

Secretary Wright.

No one else signed up.

All right.

Do any other members of the public like to speak on the case?

No.

All right.

Do any of the commissioners have any comments for the case?

One quick comment.

Yes.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, I did.

I mean, this this makes a lot of sense.

Uh driving down Aurora Avenue, that the speed, the amount of traffic.

Um, I think oversized signs are really the only way to go in that area for old guy like me with glasses, anything smaller with the amount of retail that's in that shopping center would be too small, and you just wouldn't see it.

I think creates public safety.

So I'll be voting in favor for it.

Good.

Uh I'm gonna echo Commissioner Rice's comments.

Um, very nice update, uh, reflect the quality of uh the new stores tenants, uh block 59.

So it'll it'll it'll it'll be a very nice uh upgrade.

All right, do you have any closing remarks?

Uh I have a question.

Oh, yes, Commissioner Hansel.

Um what is the timeline of uh demolishing the existing sign and putting the new one?

We're looking at four to six weeks upon approval.

Um I was just actually concerned with the height and size of the sign.

So what do you think the impact of the driver uh visibility um driving along the Ottawa Avenue?

Is it gonna be a blocking of view with this such a uh huge sign?

Well, uh as Mr.

Wright stated, I mean uh I what's currently there is not working, and it's inadequate.

There's small letters.

Um really that doesn't work anymore.

Uh we're not really increasing the size of it.

Just I would say uh the overall uh tenants that would be displaying their logos there or their store.

Um it would be readable.

Um I think uh certainly much so than much more than what is currently there.

What's there does not work?

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

All right, any other commissioners?

All right, any other closing remarks?

Nope.

All right.

I would just say I think it's in line with everything that's been done on 59.

So I think it will look nice.

So I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing of DEV-0144-2025.

So muted.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

All right.

Motion carries.

Commissioner Rachelia, please read the motion.

I would like to make a motion to adopt the final facts as presented by petitioner and recommend approval of DEV 0144-2025.

Reverend to sections 6-16-5 and section 6-16-3 of the municipal code as outlined in the staff report to allow for the installation of two monument signs located along Laurora Avenue for the property located at 2823 Aurora Avenue for West Ridge Court.

Can I have a second?

Second.

All right, Secretary Wright, please conduct a roll call.

Albu Baker, I agree.

Bonzo.

I agree.

Cast Ignoli.

I agree.

Longball.

Agree with the motion.

McDaniel.

I agree.

Namas.

I agree.

Rochelia.

I agree with the motion.

Robins?

I agree.

And right, I agree with the motion.

Motion passes.

Great.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

All right.

The next case on tonight's agenda is DEV-0173-2025.

The public hearing is now open.

Anna Franken from staff will present the case.

Thank you, Chair.

Anna Franco with the city's planning services team.

The petitioner for DEV-0173-2025 requests approval of annexation into the city of Naperville, rezoning to the city's R1A low density single family residence district upon annexation.

Approval of a preliminary slash final plat of subdivision to subdivide the property into two lots and a variance to the peak building height for construction of one single family home on the larger northernmost lot at 7S731 Oleison, also known as Kerrigan Estates.

The property is located on the east side of Oleson Drive between Norwood Court and Johnson Drive and is currently zoned R3 in unincorporated DuPage County.

The 1.87 acre property is currently vacant due to the recent demolition of the existing single family home on the property.

Upon annexation, the petitioner seeks to rezone the property to R1A.

The two proposed lots meet the R1A lot size and excuse me with requirements.

Staff finds the proposed R1A zoning to be compatible with the existing zoning of surrounding properties and consistent with the future land use master plan.

The petitioner's response to standards for granting a map amendment are included in the attachments.

Upon review, staff agrees with the petitioner's findings and recommends their adoption by the planning and zoning commission.

The petitioner is also seeking a variance to the maximum peak building heights per the city's teardown infill regulations.

The property is unique in that it has a substantial grade of approximately 26 feet from the rear property line down to the front property line along Olison Drive.

Because the municipal code stipulates that the bottom elevation for measuring building height be from the grade at the front setback line, which is well forward and well lower in elevation than where the proposed home sits due to the change of grade on the property.

The building height for the one-story home is 42 feet by code definition.

However, the height of the home as measured from the average finished grade around the foundation is only about 27 feet.

Due to the significant grade of the property and the location of where building height must be measured per the municipal code, staff finds a hardship to exist on the property and is supportive of the proposed variants.

The petitioner's response to the standards for granting a zoning variants are attached upon review.

Staff agrees with the petitioner's findings and recommends their adoption by the planning and zoning commission.

In association with the rezoning requests, the petitioner is also requesting approval of annexation and a preliminary final plat of subdivision to incorporate the property into the city of Naperville and subdivide the property into two lots.

The plat of subdivision complies with all technical zoning requirements, including the 90% rule, and is therefore not subject to PCC review.

The subdivision plat along with the annexation request will be heard by the city council at a subsequent meeting date.

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

Great.

Thank you, Anna.

All right.

Will the petitioner please approach the podium?

There it goes.

I'm with Rosanova and Whitaker, 445 Jackson Avenue Suite 200 here in Naperville.

I'm here this evening on behalf of the property owners at 7S 731 Olison Drive.

I'm here with me as well, is John Green, our engineer on the project.

First of all, I'd just like to thank Anna and all of City staff for their help in getting us to this point this evening, as well as thank uh the commission for your time and consideration.

I will try to keep my presentation brief, then we will turn it over to you for any questions you may have.

So as Anna mentioned, um, we're here this evening with our formal formal request for annexation and subdivision in the city.

Um then um sorry, annexation and subdivision in the city, and then a rezoning to the R1A district upon annexation, and then for a height variance.

Um the property is currently located in Depage County and is zoned R3 and is comprised of about 1.9 acres.

For context, I've included a map of the property's location in comparison to those properties already annexed and located within the city confines, um, the city being in purple, the white being what is not yet been annexed.

So given the surrounding area is almost entirely next to Naperville, the requested annexation will be a logical expansion of the city's corporate limits.

I'd point out that the only real area not already annexed and highlighted here in turquoise or blue is the um is the carriageway estate subdivision to the north, and that our property is not part of that subdivision.

Um, in addition, it's worth noting that the property property two lots to the south of our property, which is shown where the star is, was annexed as recently as 2017.

Um so the trend in the area is certainly annexation to the city.

As we know, the city has a strong precedent of annexing property that is located within the city's planning jurisdiction.

Um turning to the comprehensive plan and its future land use map shown here, the subject property is slated for development or redevelopment in the city with a single family residential or a duplex use.

Um, this includes a density of up to four dwelling units per acre and lists the R1A zoning district as an appropriate zoning designation upon annexation, which is consistent with the proposal before you this evening.

Consistent with the future land use planned, and just for additional context, um, I've also included a slide or a map here showing the surrounding zoning designation, surrounding zoning designations, which are almost exclusively R1A, single family detached, and further supports the consistency of our request with the surrounding area.

Turning to the R1A bulk regulations, as Anna mentioned, we are 100% compliant with those bulk regulations in the R1A district.

Um, the only caveat being we are requesting a height variance.

That height variance actually isn't included in the R1A section of the code, it's separate and relates to infill and teardown and rebuild development.

Um so just by way of example, the front yard in R1A requires 30 feet.

We are at approximately 200 feet.

The interior side yard requires 20 feet combined.

We have a combined side yard setback of 78 feet, that's 47 feet to the north property line and 31 feet to the south property line.

The rear yard requires 30 feet.

We actually have a 72-foot setback to the rear yard or in the rear yard.

Um then, as Anna mentioned, we also comply with the 90% rule as well as the lot width requirements.

So the home itself will be a custom-built single-story town home, or sorry, not town home, ranch home, as shown here.

The home is um the home at the bottom left is not the home itself.

Um, however, it is a home or similar in style and built by the same home builder that we um that is proposed for the subject property.

Um, the proposed home will be approximately 3,800 square feet, a two-bedroom, four and a half bathroom, and we'll have a basement.

So as Anna noted, we are requesting a height variance.

Um, as depicted here, the peak height height of the home is just under 28 feet, with the mean of the roof height being at about 20 feet.

Um, this is measured from the finished grade and is well within the confines of the R1A bulk regulation requirements, um, except that the city is just a little bit unique in how it measures building height.

So I tried to put together a little exhibit here that shows exactly how this plays out on the subject property.

So there's significant change in topography as you move east from west across the property.

Um if you look, you see that the east property line is located at 716 feet elevation, while at the front right-of-way at 690 uh 690 feet of elevation, which results in a grade change of approximately 206 feet as we move across the uh the property.

So the way the code reads is that you must measure building height from the front setback line.

You see here the front setback line is at 690 feet, um, while where the home is actually built is at 709 feet at finished grade.

So that really skews the building height by about 14 feet.

So even though this is just a it's a single story ranch home, it requires the uh the height variance.

I'd also point out that the um the lot that I mentioned earlier that was annexed to the city um in 2017 requested and was granted the exact same um height deviation or variance, um, and it was for the reasons that I just explained here due to the a similar grade on that site.

So we do understand that there are neighbors north in the carriageway estates that may have concerns with regards to the proposed lot size sizes.

We're proposing two lots, um the northern lot being 1.3 acres and the southern lot being 0.5 acres, both of which all meet um the R1A zoning bulk regulations and those requirements.

Um so just a few things in that regards.

We did look at all the surrounding surrounding incorporated subdivisions.

Um, this includes the Hobson Village, Pine Ridge, Pembroke Commons, Johnson Estates, and Timberley subdivisions.

The average lot sizes in those subdivisions ran ranges from about 0.29 acres to 0.39 or 36 acres or about a third of an acre.

Um looking at the carriageway estates, um, we do acknowledge that the homes in those and those in that subdivision are are a little bigger, they are 1.1 acres.

Um, again, that is in unincorporated the Page County.

The other subdivisions that I noted are all already annexed into the city.

Um so given this from a land planning perspective, the more appropriate comparison is to surrounding subdivisions that are already annexed to the city, and not necessarily to those in the carriageway estate subdivision.

So finally, this is and this is my last slide.

Um I would point out that the larger of our two lots has been situated so that it's adjacent to the carriageway estate subdivision.

Um so it will provide really a natural transition between the the larger lots in the carriageway estate subdivision down to our smaller lot, which is still 0.56 acres, and that 0.568 acres is still significantly larger than the majority of the lots in the broader area.

So that's really all I have.

Um, thank you again.

We'd certainly be happy to answer any questions.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

I would like to hear from any of the members of the public present tonight to speak on this case.

Secretary Wright, please call the first speaker.

Carol Patterson.

Hi, my name is Carol Peterson, and I live at 7 South 700 Carriage Way in Naperville with my husband Tim Peterson.

We are literally joining at the back of that lot.

And we moved to Naperville in 1984, 42 years ago, and have stayed through many positive changes.

We've been in our home for almost 30 years, come January, and our lot is almost one and a half acres, not the one, what did he say, 1.1 or something?

This is a small unique area.

All the homes have approximately an acre lot.

My husband, our neighbors, and myself were in this same spot 22 years ago.

The lot directly behind us, right next to this lot that they're proposing now.

It was the same thing.

They wanted to divide that lot in half.

And unanimously they voted to stop it rather than hodgepodge everything and cut it up.

I didn't hear from this gentleman what's he gonna do with that other half of the lot.

Why does he want to divide it in half?

Why start doing that now?

Nothing's changed.

This is not a bunch of farmland that's waiting to be a subdivision.

These are homes, and everybody has their own acre, a little bit over an acre.

Why are we splitting them in half now?

What's being done with that other half?

It's all for profit and not for the betterment in Naperville.

We respectfully ask that you don't allow that lot to be cut in half.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, are there any other members in the public that would like to speak?

Melissa Hill.

Good evening.

My name is Melissa Hill, and my family and I live on Carriageway Court as well, uh, right down the street from the said property.

My husband and I chose this neighborhood with real intention with our three children, especially for our kids in mind.

We were drawn to this area because it has a it has open space and real balance.

And not very many areas in Naperville still have that here today.

And I'm here to firmly oppose both the request to subdivide the lot and the request for the height variance as proposed.

And I want to be clear, this isn't just my position or Carol's position, it's a stance of 16 homeowners as shown in our neighborhood petition as brought here tonight.

This is not the first time, as Carol referenced that our neighborhood has had to defend itself from this exact type of proposal.

In 2004, the plan commission reviews that similar request for the property to the north.

It was PC case 1441, Justin Woods.

That petition was unanimous unanimously denied by all eight commissioners.

And some of their comments really ring home and are still true today.

They recognize then what remains true.

Subdividing mid block lots in a subdivision violates long-term planning principles that exist to specifically protect areas like ours in Naperville.

Those principles haven't changed, and if anything, 20 years later, the importance has only increased.

During that 2004 hearing, Commissioner Grant Worley warned that this kind of lot split represents poor land use.

It's a beginning of a slow erosion of open space and the forcing of oversized homes onto split lots.

Commissioner Derek Price described it as plainly the first domino that could dramatically change our area.

Their insights were thoughtful then, and they are even more relevant today as teardown and infill pressures continue.

I respectfully urge the plan commission to deny both requests, not only for this parcel, but also for the precedence it sets for our area that we work so hard to live in today.

If you've driven down Olsen or bordering Carriage Way, you know how carefully balanced the area is and how dramatically approving requests like this would change that area.

The decision will signal whether we continue to uphold the thoughtful planning principles that have protected this neighborhood and the subdivision for decades, or whether we begin allowing the parcels to erode uh one by one.

It's scary to think how differently this area could look if one by one we start dividing all of the lots and build higher than code.

So, on behalf of my family and my neighbors and community that deeply value this special space, we ask you to safeguard the character of our neighborhood and deny both petitions.

Thanks so much for your time.

Thank you.

Is there any other members?

Kevin Hill.

I just wanted to say that uh can you put just wait to this one?

Thank you for your time.

I apologize.

I um a lot of what I had to say was has already been said, but what I do want to say is I've lived, I grew up in Green Trails, and I've lived in the Naperville area, went to Navyville schools.

I had a number of friends that live actually on that in that same area right off Olson.

And I don't know, just changing it from when I was a chill child.

I don't want that to be changed for the children to come.

Uh you having the nice size lots, it's fun to be able to play on football, baseball.

Any kid that wants to do that.

I mean, it's it's a great area.

It would be very different if we start changing it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Bob Wheeler.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Uh my name is uh Bob Wheeler, Robert Wheeler.

Uh I own the property with my wife at uh 1036 Olsen Lane, which is the second property to the south of the subject property.

Through an LLC, I also individually own the property at 7 South 751 Olsen, which is the property immediately adjacent to the subject property.

Uh my home that I built in 2017, for which we received virtually the identical variants that's being sought this evening, uh, is on about 1.2 acres.

And next to me, uh again, the property is about 1.3 acres.

The subject property is much larger in size.

I think it's 1.87 acres.

Uh and the proposal, as I understand it, would still allow one large lot of 1.3 acres and a smaller lot at some future date to be built upon of about uh half an acre.

And it's my understanding because I've had several conversations with Tom Kerrigan that his intention is to build the home that's been displayed, uh, and then at some future point uh build the second home where his daughter and son-in-law would live.

And Tom appears to be about my age, and he would probably take great comfort in having his daughter and son-in-law uh close by.

Um I am very, very sympathetic to what my neighbors have expressed.

I was attracted to this property.

We bought it in 2015.

At that time, we had spent my word 35 years living at 1328 Gartner Road, not too far away.

And the idea of living across from the park and having all of this open land was very attractive.

And we bought and uh built a sizable home.

I don't know if any of you are familiar with that area, but ours is a prairie-style home, and it sits pretty high up.

We invested an enormous amount of money.

Uh, and in part it was for that reason that when the opportunity presented itself uh when the Atkins property immediately to our north became available.

We bought it because we did not want to have happen what has been suggested, a hodgepodge uh carving up of lots or a uh a domino effect that would result in a lot of smaller opportunities.

My fear was that somebody could come along and buy the Maxwell property, buy the Atkin property, come in and want to put in a cul de sac.

Uh as long as I'm alive, that property immediately to the south is not going to change.

Uh it's a single family home.

There's a wonderful young family.

Uh the uh Martins family who live there, they have a couple young kids uh and uh we're leasing it to them and will continue to do that as long as they want to lease it.

If they should move on, that property is not going to be subdivided, period.

As I look upon what the petitioner has presented on balance, I agree.

I would prefer to have this lot remain 1.87 acres.

I I actually would prefer to have more land available, but uh that's not uh possible.

But what the petitioner is presenting is a very reasonable development that from my point of view, and I have an enormous amount invested in Olson Drive.

This is reasonable and it's balanced, and it's not going to cause a cascading of other lots.

I've spoken to at least one individual uh further up uh to the north, uh Tom Hafner, and she said, I don't know how long they've lived there.

Uh and Tom is comfortable, he said that doesn't seem that bad.

Uh and and finally, on a personal note, uh, you know, I've been in Naperville now 41, 42 years, but the family heritage goes back to 1843 with the old Hilton brand line.

Uh Naperville is really close to my heart, and I wouldn't want to see anything happen that would detract from the quality that we have, and most especially I wouldn't want anything to detract from what my wife and I have on Olson.

So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

All right, do we have any other speakers tonight?

Uh Leo Picard Uh Leo Picard 7S 685 carriageway court.

Thank you, commissioners.

Um if you've driven down Olson and taken a look, all the homes sit quite a ways off the street.

Uh it's uniform.

And I am not in favor for splitting it up a little anymore.

We're gonna end up with uh smaller lots.

Um I used to live on Johnson Drive, which is quarter mile away from uh Carriageway Court, and I have a acre and a third, a little bit over that, and I waited eight years till something finally came up for sale on carriageway court in these bigger lots, and then spent a good amount of money to move down there instead.

And I waited eight years till something finally came up for sale on carriageway court in these bigger lots, and then spent a good amount of money to move down there instead.

So I just can't see a house sitting out by the street being beneficial to anyone in the Naperville area.

And thanks for your time tonight.

Thank you.

All right, do we have any other speakers tonight?

Uh John Green, uh you've already no further time.

Okay.

That's it.

All right.

Let's start with the commissioners.

Commissioner Langenbaum.

Thank you.

Um thank you all for um for speaking.

Um I took my run down there on on Saturday.

Um, I would like to say I would love to see more sidewalks along Alston because trekking through the the mud along the side is not that fun.

Um, but all the houses are you know set back and and lovely, they are all very very hilly as well.

Um question for the petitioner.

I I am wondering um like what is the plan for the the second lot as far as timing what kind of home, just given the the space it looks like you see seeing the the the pictures that that that really helped, but it's still a little bit gray area about what the second home would look like, and so I'm just kind of curious if it would be super close to the road, if it would be set back, like do you have any idea?

Sure.

So we don't have an exact time frame for the second home, which is why we don't have plans.

We would have showed the the elevations if we had them.

We're just not, frankly, we're not to that point yet.

Um it will, I I can't make promises, but given the the the length of that lot, I think it's still 350 feet deep.

So chances are it's not gonna be right up against the road, it's gonna be set back a significant amount.

And like I mentioned, the the home that we do have plans for is set back 200 feet.

So I would imagine it's something similar.

Um, but yeah, as far as timing, we don't have anything nailed down as far as timing.

Um if any variances were required, if it needed the height variance or any setback or side yard setback variants, we would obviously have to come back before you and make that request.

Okay, that was gonna be my third question was about that.

Thanks for answering that.

And then um my final question is given the grade, and Mr.

Rasanova, you're gonna know what I'm gonna ask now.

Um, is there any chance that this could be a visitable home, meaning that you would have a no-step entrance?

I mean, I know this is not a development, it's a single family home, and it's a unique thing, but I'm just curious if the grade would make that a visitable option or no.

I think there's always an option.

I don't know that it's designed that way.

Um, and I don't think it's necessarily due to the grade, just that it's that I don't I don't and do you have any idea if it's designed that way?

Yeah, the we don't have the architecture plans, they're still in the works.

So if that's I mean that's something we could certainly take a look at.

Okay, that's just a question I always ask because I had served on the um advisory commission on disabilities and visitability is a very big thing, and given um what um one of the the speakers was saying about how the the daughter and son-in-law are gonna be living at lot two, and the parents are gonna be in lot one, visitability could actually be a very useful and and and helpful thing in in that situation.

So correct and just just my my two cents on that.

And Mr.

and Mrs.

Kerrigan, given their age, could very well likely be designing that way.

I just don't want to say that being that was correct.

Just needed to put my plug in for that.

And um, yeah, I mean, usually with with cases like this, like I I'm I'm not a real big fan of of hardships when you're starting out with a with a clean slate like this, like you should be able to design to that.

But when I was down there, I mean it is clear the grade.

I I can I can definitely understand that, and this really seems more like a mathematical hardship rather than you know, a hardship of you know not being you know, not wanting to design within the within the ordinances.

So I drove by and that was my take as well.

You look at it and you can really understand that.

Oh wow, that that is a hill.

Yeah, so thank you very much for your presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner.

Uh, just want to thank uh the um neighbors who took time to come and explain their point of views.

It's always great to see that kind of a commitment and uh uh and feedback uh from the neighbors from the city staff.

I have a question like do you see any concerns or um you know do you have any inputs which other than what we already heard staff doesn't have any concerns?

Um I I there have been comments about the subdivision, um, especially in reference to that previous 2004 case.

Um, in this instance, there is no subdivision deviation request, so we do not have any concerns with the proposed subdivision.

Thank you.

No questions, Commissioner Wright.

Um, just one question.

Um, first of all, thank you again to the neighbors for coming out.

We really really appreciate hearing your stories and and understanding this.

I I understand the topography issue uh that makes a lot of sense.

Uh for staff, my one question would be on the subdividing of the lot.

Is there any alternative to subdividing?

Example, if now that we have heard that it would be a second resident for uh family members, is there auxiliary dwelling unit that could uh potentially be used rather than subdividing the lot of the that's a great question.

Uh the city of Naperville currently does not permit accessory dwelling units.

So if there if there was only one lot, legal lot of record, and they would like to do us uh the primary residence and then a secondary residence for family at this time that would not be permitted.

Thank you interesting.

Do we know why?

Government might change that so the city's future land use plan does recommend um permitting ADUs in the city.

Um it's it's uh we have we do not have the regulatory framework adopted at this time to officially permit them.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Mnamas.

Yeah, could you repeat, Anna, the um what you had said about what was outside of our purview?

Yes, so with this case, um it is an annexation into the city of Naperville, so that is uh not under the purview of the planning and zoning commission.

That will be heard that specific request will be heard in front of the city council.

And then for the subdivision request, since the subdivision does meet all technical requirements per our code, it does it would fall under the purview of the city council.

Now, if there was a deviation to the subdivision code that was requested, for instance to the 90% rule as outlined in the municipal code, then the PCC would have purview to review and make a recommendation on that request.

Thank you.

Commissioner Castellan, do you have any?

I like the use of the property.

I I know it very well.

I grew up near that property.

I would I personally would like to see that second lot be more towards a three-quarter to acre size, but that's not what we're discussing tonight.

But I do like the use.

Uh just for a little history's sake, that was to be Naper Boulevard.

That's why those lots are so far set back.

Just for anyone we wondered why they're so far set back.

So thank you.

Commissioner Rachelia.

All right, Commissioner McDaniel.

Um, you know, we uh you know whenever when the speakers come in, uh many people like to stand up and say, you know, we I've lived in town for X amount of years, it's very consistent with some of us up here who've also lived in town for a long time.

And then when you do, you have the opportunity to get around and see different pockets of Naperville, pockets that are very, very unique.

Some parts where you think, hey, I'm not even in Naperville anymore.

It's just very interesting charm and unique kind of characteristics.

Um and I I feel the same way about this, like uh Commissioner Custignoli.

I didn't grow up very far from there.

Um grew up, you know, running back and forth, playing in the woods and driving, you know, my uh, you know, drive my daughter, you know, past that school every day um on Olsen.

Um I guess what I'm trying to say is I think that we what we need to do is you know, Naperville always is gonna just can consistently evolve.

Um it's gonna we're gonna have to continue to find ways to evolve and adapt.

That's just the way it is.

Um, but at the same time, you know, I think we also need to support uh development uh that's reasonable, smart, uh thoughtful, uh consistent with with history and the surrounding you know, uh areas and pockets to really kind of just preserve that charm that many of us really do enjoy.

Um I'm not at all against uh you know development and and and change and growth, um, but I do think we need to have a really good balance, and I think this is a good example of it.

Um I know that ADUs are not a a something to consider.

I really do think that we should uh find a way to encourage council to um uh consider those.

Um that would be I think a really good solution here.

Um, but for the time being, I will be voting against this.

Um, just all right.

Um, I've got a couple comments.

Uh I'll piggyback a little bit off of what Commissioner McDaniel just said, and Commissioner Castanoli.

I too grew up in the area.

When I first saw the case, I immediately said the same thing that all the neighbors are saying.

I mean, my best friend lived across the street.

I spent many of hours maybe sneaking out at night running through those slots.

So I truly appreciate the green space.

I do.

I love it.

And I don't think all of Naperville needs to be dense.

We like to use that buzzword right now, and we're running out of space, so now we're trying to evolve.

Um, I walked in here, really unsure which way I was gonna go.

I will say the colored photos helped.

Um, I didn't see those in our packet.

Um, that was very hard to kind of see where we were going.

I appreciated that.

Um, immediately I was like, oh, that is a little bit more in line with what is happening over there.

Um, I also really appreciate the comments from Bob Wheeler tonight.

You you have you've invested a ton, you've evolved that road.

It does need to change.

That doesn't mean a pop-up subdivision or an apartment complex.

Um I do agree with Commissioner McDaniel regarding the ADUs.

I think that needs to be looked at and addressed.

Um, but I will say the more we talked and the more we looked at what was going on.

I I am comfortable with what you are proposing tonight.

Um, and I don't think it will take away from the character of Olsen.

I love that street, and I do have compassion for those residents.

I think that this is right in line though with what is going on.

So that's those are my thoughts.

So thank you.

Um does anyone else have any other comments?

All right.

I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for DEV-0173-2025.

So muted.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion ohpposed.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

All right.

Commissioner Namas, please read the motion.

I would like to make a motion to adopt the findings of fact as presented by the petitioner and recommend approval of DEV-0173-2025, a rezoning to the R1A low density single family residence district upon annexation into the city of Naperville, and a variance from section 6-2-264 of the municipal code to permit a single family home with a peak height of 43 feet for the property located at 7 South 731 Olson Drive, Kerrigan Estates.

All right, can I have a second?

Second.

All right, Secretary Wright, please conduct roll call.

Abu Baker, I approve.

Bonzo.

I agree.

I agree.

Long and ball.

Agree with the motion.

McDaniel.

I do not agree.

Namas.

I agree.

Rachelia?

I agree with the motion.

Robins?

I agree.

And right, I agree with the motion.

Motion passes a lot.

Great.

Thank you.

All right.

The last case on tonight's agenda is DEV-2149-2025.

The public hearing is now open.

Sarah Kapinski from staff will present the case.

Thank you and good evening.

Sarah Kapinski with the city's planning services team.

The subject property for DEV 149 2025 is located at 2939 Audrey Avenue.

It consists of an approximately 6.2 acre L-shaped parcel with frontages along both Audrey and Route 59.

In 2023, ordinances pertaining to a convalescent home were approved for the property.

However, the property has remained vacant since these approvals.

The petitioner proposes revoking the previous approvals and seeking new entitlements to develop a 236-unit multifamily residential building on lot one.

Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the land use master plan, which designates the property as an urban center.

Urban centers are uh identify multifamily residential as an appropriate supporting use.

Several entitlements are requested as detailed in the staff report.

Staff is supportive of each zoning request and finds the development will provide an appropriate transition between the adjacent shopping center and town home developments while contributing to activity in the area.

Following revocation of prior approvals, the subject property will revert to its original B-2 zoning designation.

The petitioner seeks to rezone lot one of the subdivided property to OCI, which is a less intensive district than B-2, and X is a transitional zone between business areas and residential neighborhoods.

A conditional use for multifamily residential requested is requested with a target market of young professionals and active adults.

The development will feature on site amenities and be walkable to commercial businesses, Harris Faywell Park, and a pace bus stop.

Lot two will remain zoned B2 along the property's Route 59 frontage.

Multiple variances are requested for lot one.

In terms of density, the petitioner seeks approval of a variance to allow a density of one unit per 842 square feet of lot area for a total of 236 units.

The city's density limitations help ensure that public services are not overwhelmed by the number of people output from a development.

The proposed unit mix, which is 90% studio or one bedrooms, is not anticipated to overwhelm services in the area.

The petitioner has coordinated with the school and park districts, and the traffic study concludes that the existing roadway network can support the development's anticipated traffic.

The petitioner proposes a building height of approximately 55 feet when 43 is permitted.

Staff notes the elevations include quality materials, and the front and rear elevation include amenity areas that help reduce the perceived bulk and massing.

The proposed parking ratio is 1.36 spaces per unit in lieu of 2.25 spaces to support this request.

The petitioners provided a parking study that compares city parking requirements to the ITE parking generation manual and comparable residential developments.

Staff notes that one parking space per bedroom will be provided in addition to code required guest parking of 0.25 spaces per unit.

The petitioner's proposed parking layout maintains the five foot setback along the Audrey Avenue frontage where 20 feet is required.

Maintaining the five foot setback is consistent with the commercial development to the west and Springbook Springbrook Commons to the south.

Staff also notes that this requested variance does not bring the parking any closer to any residential developments than would otherwise be permitted.

And lastly, the petitioner seeks approval of a variance to install wall signage to identify the primary entrance to the atlas.

The proposed sign will be oriented towards Audrey Avenue and adjacent commercial properties and will not be visit visible to adjacent residential uses.

In summary, we anticipate the proposal will complement surrounding uses in that it is consistent with the land use master plan.

Tonight we request you conduct the public hearing and I'll remain available for any questions.

Thank you.

Would the petitioner please approach the podium?

Good evening, commissioners.

For the record, I'm Vince Rosanova with the law firm of Rosanova and Whitaker.

Our office is at 445 Jackson Avenue, right here in Naperville.

With me this evening, and also available for any questions are both Valerie Massey and Bob Landreth hiding in the back there.

Katie Lambert, our architect with OKW Architects, Taylor Eschbach, as well as Taylor Westerhof, our civil engineers, and last but not least, Emma Elbers, our traffic engineer also with Kimley Horn.

By way of background, the petitioner, BC Astoria is a subsidiary of Bridge Capital Partners.

Bridge Capital was founded back in 1985, and for the past 40 years, has specialized in multifamily development as well as property management.

Some of Ridge's more notable communities right here in Naperville include 119 on Maine, which some of us refer to as the Giordano's property, Fifth Avenue Station, certainly an iconic building adjacent to our Fifth Avenue train station and an integral part of our heritage here in Naperville.

The Arbors of Brookdale, River Run, the Grand Reserve at Naperville, and the Belvedere.

The Belvedere is actually bridge's most recent ground-up community, which was just completed in April of 2025, so about 10 months at this point.

Bridge now reports that that community is 98% occupied in 10 months.

And out of all the units, the one bedroom units were the most appealing.

That's already on a waiting list for two to three months just to get into one of those one bedroom units.

Much like you'll see from the Atlas building this evening, the Belvedere was very highly amenitized, including 10,000 square foot clubhouse, rather unique in this area, resort style pool, which actually those amenities help lead to that rapid lease up.

The fact that the Belvedere is already 98% occupied with the one bedrooms on a wait list, really goes a long way to show that in Naperville there's an unmet demand for a diversity of housing supply.

So looking at the subject property, as mentioned in Sarah's report, it consists of about 6.2 acres.

It's located east of Route 59, north of Audrey.

Property was actually annexed to the city back in 1997, and it was zoned B2 at that time.

Small portion along Route 59 originally developed as a crispy cream, didn't last long.

Now it's occupied by a mattress firm to complement the other three mattress firms within 50 feet.

And then the other 6.2 acres has continued to sit vacant, underperforming, contributes nothing to the surrounding area for approaching 30 years.

Certainly, that prolonged vacancy is evidence that the B2 zoning designation is somewhat unviable at this location.

Although the subject property is not viable for commercial purposes, it's actually a fantastic canvas to really enhance our housing supply.

And then the other significant benefit is not only do we enhance our housing supply, but then we create these residents that then shop at the Home Depot, shop at Whole Foods, and really create that vibrancy and that synergy between uses.

Properties certainly transitional in nature because then when you go north of Audrey, you go into the Mayfair Townhomes, very attractive community, was also rezoned out of the B2 zoning classification to R3 to allow for Mayfair to develop back in 2006 2014, respectively.

With respect to zoning, the properties actually zoned OCI at this point in time.

Back in 2023, the Audrey Avenue Senior Apartments came forward.

The property was then zoned B2 to OCI.

As part of our proposal, staff has requested that we revoke all those prior approvals upon revocation.

Then the property reverts back to B2.

Staff requests that then we seek OCI zoning, leaving the 1.6 acre portion adjacent to Route 59 is B2, which we're certainly willing to accommodate.

With regard to the city's vision for this property, we all know the city updated its comprehensive plan back in 2022 with a focus on identifying appropriate locations within the city to improve our housing options.

Accordingly, this property was identified as urban center.

Specifically, multifamily was identified as a supporting and appropriate use, not only providing that housing option, but also support the adjacent commercial.

Many other aspects of the comprehensive plan are satisfied by this proposal.

These are two at the top of the list, certainly enhancing the city's housing stock and the diversity of options, including a variety of residential types and price points, also serving folks at all ages of their lives, which we'll get into here shortly.

And the comprehensive plan also speaks to increasing the amount of rental options for those seeking to move to Naperville for the first time, for those seeking to stay in Naperville, but within a housing option that perfectly suits their current needs.

Property was rezoned to OCI at that point.

Audrey senior residences included 170 units, many of which had double occupancy.

There were 79 units for independent living, 63 units for assisted living, as well as a memory care component, which had roughly 28 units.

Also of importance is the fact that a height variance was approved as part of the Audrey Senior Apartments back in 2023.

The way that the city measures height, it was 57 feet to the midpoint of the roof, actually 66 feet to the peak.

And when we get into the atlas, you'll see that we're about six feet lower than the Audrey Senior residences.

So jumping into the development plans, first and foremost, here's the platter subdivision.

Property will actually be subdivided into two lots.

Lot one, hopefully, will be home to the atlas, and then lot two, in that it's adjacent to Route 59, has potential commercial viability.

There's no plans for any use with lot two right now.

The petitioner is not acquiring lot two.

That will stay owned by the current ownership group.

But the petitioner is taking steps to prime that for future development.

You can see in yellow at the bottom of the screen, we're reserving cross access.

So lot two, when the user does come forward, we'll have direct access down to Audrey to enhance circulation.

And the current owner is also reserving cross access on the western portion of the lot north south.

So if the property to the north develops, it will be convenient access for them down through lot two to Audrey as well as up to Henley.

That was something that was required by staff, and that's good planning practice and forward thinking.

Next slide is a site plan.

Most important aspect of the site plan is you can see how the building is oriented towards Audrey.

You can see the sidewalk all along Audrey, which doesn't exist today, which makes it very challenging for pedestrians.

Sidewalk will be installed by the petitioner connecting all the way to Route 59, all the way to Fort Hill, and then just on the east side of Fort Hill is Harris Faywell Park, which is very attractive.

And then you can see the sidewalks along the perimeter of the building to really enhance the pedestrian interconnectivity.

Parking will be located within the front setback along Audrey, which matches the existing streetscape very nicely.

Mattress firm has the same parking in the front yard as does Home Depot on the south side of Audrey, and also then allows us to shift the building forward because what we're really striving to do is create that separation from our building, and you can see the curvature at the building to create that maximum distance from the nearest townhomes at Mayfair.

So City Code in the OCI zoning district requires a 12-foot rear yard setback.

We're at 65 feet approximately, and then the nearest building to building separation is 133 feet, which is very significant.

Across the board, as it relates to the building, we far exceed all setback requirements.

Off of Audrey, the required building setback is 20 feet.

We're at 82 feet.

Side yards required 10 feet, we're at 81 feet.

We're approaching 65 feet, so five times the required setback.

Also very fortuitous when Mayfair developed, they took the adequate precautions too to create that separation.

This is a perspective looking from 59 at Mayfair.

First, you could see that they created an outlaw buffer here to create that separation, then they have their own six-foot wooden fence, evergreen trees within that six-foot fence, the change in topography.

They sit six or eight feet higher, and then they have the landscape trees more or less volunteers along the property line.

So not only are we taking the requisite precautions on our side to make sure that we get that distinction, that buffer, that separation, but they did a good job as well.

Most likely anticipating at the time that Mayfair developed, this property was zone B2, and they thought they could potentially get a high-intensity commercial use with loading docks.

So the end result will be about 130 feet from their nearest town home to our building.

A lot of thought and consideration went into traffic mobility.

City staff requested that we line up our access points directly with Home Depot and directly with Dick's sporting goods to make sure that there's no conflict, which we were certainly willing to accommodate.

We're also going to be installing left turn lanes into the site, which don't exist today to make sure that there's safe access.

And very important is that there's no roadway connections to Mayfair whatsoever.

Landscaping certainly very, very important to any well-designed plan.

We start out with a six-foot fence along the north and east property line where we're adjacent to Mayfair.

They have their own fence, but this creates additional delineation.

Then we have landscape buffer treatments all along the perimeter of the site, parkway trees along Audrey, as well as decorative trees to really enhance that streetscape, foundation planting, certainly go a long way to enhance the aesthetics of the building.

And then all throughout the site, you can see the landscape islands, additional trees, landscape materials to really enhance the overall visuals.

Stormwater is always a very legitimate area of concern.

This site functions independently.

So right now it's undetained stormwater.

It rains, stormwater hits, its sheet flows wherever it wants to go.

We're gonna employ modern stormwater practices.

That starts with grading the property correctly.

Then there's inlets that capture all the water.

There's an underground vault system, and then there's a restrictor pipe that lets out that stormwater at a greatly reduced rate, reducing the chances of downstream flooding.

Also, very important is Mayfair to the north has a beautiful detention basin, which we are not connecting to.

We are not utilizing that basin for any of our volume control.

We have our own system, underground vaults.

We then drain to the south, away from Mayfair to the north into the city system.

As you could see here, there's an inlet right in Audrey.

At this point, I'd like to introduce Katie, who will discuss the vision, the design intent, as well as the units, the amenities, the interiors.

And then I have a few more points just to wrap up.

Hi, good evening.

I'm Katie Lambert, partner at OKW architects and the lead designer on this project.

Happy to be here with you tonight.

So, similar to how Vince referenced this project, you know, architecturally, I think we take the context very seriously.

We really have thought about this project from the very beginning as being this buffer between low-scale residential and commercial properties.

And I think that's greatly affected the approach to the plan and the design.

The site plan.

So from an architectural standpoint, the footprint was really very intentionally conceived.

I think we think of this as what I'll call like a modified Z.

And that's important for a couple of reasons.

You know, Vince talked a little bit about this idea that the western half of the building is intentionally held as far away from the neighbors as possible, whereas the eastern half, closer to the retention pond, is able to get a little bit closer to that property line.

The other thing that interests happens that's pretty interesting architecturally is it creates this knuckle, which you can see highlighted in purple on the screen there.

And that knuckle serves not only as the main entrance into the building, but also the heart of the amenity program in the building, and also probably the thing that offers the most visual interest and aesthetic opportunity as we looked at the design of the building.

So just to kind of explain, I think how site circulation works.

We talked about the two access roads already into the site.

In the corner of that knuckle on the southeast corner, that's really the major drop-off point and entrance into the building.

I think we were very conscious about wanting to make sure that the majority of that traffic circulation would be happening on the south side away from the neighbors.

So anybody getting dropped off or picked up, you know, waiting for an Uber, all of that again is happening on the southeast.

On the northwest, you can see the pool deck that would be adjacent to the amenity deck, and it would be fenced in.

We have some visuals to show what that would look like as well.

These are typical floor plans.

So again, on the bottom, that's a zoom-in version of that first floor plan, and then up above you can see the typical plans.

Um really kind of shows how these double-loaded corridors of the units would lay out throughout the building on levels two through five.

Um, in the middle of the building, that dark gray box represents the elevators and one of the stairs.

Um, so anybody coming in and coming up to their unit would potentially be walking in through that main entrance straight to the elevator, lets you out at a nice elevator lobby, which actually overlooks the pool deck and creates really nice feature and interesting differentiator for this building.

Um, so again, we talked a little bit about the context and architecturally that's very important.

Typically, we don't like to design in a vacuum.

We like to design towards very specific criteria and parameters.

And so I think this was an interesting challenge because we knew that we were positioned next to the Mayfair neighborhood, next to lower scale residential, but also on the other side facing some you know large-scale commercial kind of big box stores.

And architecturally, we knew that an apartment building, multifamily housing is really neither of those.

In some ways, it sits somewhere between them in terms of the aesthetics.

Really doesn't want to have quite the low scale, you know, that sense of gables that you see on the townhomes, but it also wants to have a lot more detail and character than what you see on the neighboring commercial buildings.

The other thing that we thought a lot about in the design of this building was was the brand and really kind of where the owner was heading in terms of the vision for the property.

And so the owner's concept of naming this building the atlas is really an interesting idea.

And we we've been looking a lot at this idea of maps and globes and looking at it from a design standpoint.

What does that mean as architecture?

And I think we were really drawn to the idea of these lines of longitude and latitude crest crossing and creating some interesting compositional elements.

So you can kind of see that start to play out a little bit as you look at the renderings.

So this is a rendering from Audrey, looking at that entrance in the middle of the screen there, and looking really at strategies for breaking down the building and creating a more approachable five-story composition.

So at the first floor, there would be a single level of brick that basically encircles the entire building.

Those vertical lines come at various points throughout the composition of the building in these dark gray reveal moments, and you can see that intentional astriation that happens in those zones.

This is a close-up showing that entry.

And that wood look element on the facade above the entry really shows that idea of the woven facade and these lines crisscrossing at a single moment to create a really impactful entry.

In terms of materiality, we talked about brick at the first floor.

Levels two through five would be predominantly fiber cement in a couple of different materials.

And then we would have this woodlook siding that would appear in several strategic moments around the building to really add some warmth and depth to the facade.

There's another look at that entry.

And again, this team was really strategic and wanting to make sure that that outdoor space was on the Audrey side of the building, wanting to make sure that it was positioned away from the neighbors out of respect.

And here's a look at the elevation of that element, which you can see in the middle.

And then this is the rear of the building showing the pool deck.

There would be some adjacent lounge seating and some outdoor loungers, and everything would be fenced off and really protected, and obviously the hours of operation would be very carefully maintained.

Building elevations, really kind of formalizing those renderings that we were just looking at, showing how the brick would work at that first floor, as well as the fiber cement up above and the window fenestration carefully planned to correlate with that building design.

Materiality showing brick on the left, but also a couple different tones of fiber cement siding, and that wood look element that would be not only at that trellis, but also above the entrance and in a few other strategic locations.

So moving to the inside of the building, these are some examples of the direction that the units would likely be heading.

These are photos from the Belvedere, which again is the owner's most recent example of development.

And so I think that a lot of the functionality and the elements that you see in these would also be occurring in the atlas as well.

Units, you know, again, lots of one-bedroom units, some studio units as well as two bedroom units.

In terms of square footage, they're all relatively generous.

Um, not looking at any micro units, these units will really allow for a lot of very functional living.

And the amenity plan.

So this is really zooming in on those typical floor plans in the first floor plan to show you a little bit more detail about what the amenity package would look like.

Um, first floor would include a lobby with a fireplace, two-story space, um, substantial co-working space, which is meant to attract that you know working young professional who might want to be able to work from home and have functionality to be able to do so.

Um, a large fitness area that overlooks that outdoor terrace.

Um, and then you can also see a large leasing office on this floor as well.

Um, top floor, level five on the right, shows the clubroom, and you can see that white rectangle is the terrace that you could see from the renderings.

And these are some inspirational images to show the vision for what those spaces might start to look like.

Um, I think as we work through the interior design of these spaces, the idea is that theme of the atlas is going to really wee throughout every space.

Accessibility.

So we've been thinking quite a lot about this in the context of this project.

I think that one of the wonderful things about new construction of this scale is that there's a lot of opportunity to incorporate really inclusive spaces.

So the way that we are approaching it, 20% of the units or 48 units are going to be what we call adaptable, and they would be able to be almost instantly converted to accessible units if somebody needs them.

The remainder of the units will all have very generous clearances throughout, which would allow people to be able to invite friends over in wheelchairs and not really have any problem with that.

The elevators will access all five levels of the building, and also every amenity space in the building will be fully accessible.

Energy efficiency.

So the site is going to be EV-ready and allow for really a huge amount of future chargers to be installed.

I think there are a lot of other factors that are going to go into the energy efficiency of this building.

We're looking at highly efficient HVAC systems.

We're looking at a very efficient wall insulation system.

And so we're expecting this to really be a sustainable project.

Thank you.

Sure.

So I thought that Katie just did a fantastic job going over the amenities and designing them as well.

But for those that don't want to utilize the amenities on site, they want to get out and stretch their legs.

Harris Faywell Park is less than a third of a mile just to the east.

Sidewalk will take you all the way down Audrey.

That's a park district park.

It has a playground area, open space to get out and kick the ball, baseball, softball, as well as a shelter.

So on-site amenity package, second to none, but also a public park in very close proximity.

With regard to height, our building will be 55 feet tall as the city measures height.

They measure to the top of the roof structure, the roof deck.

There's actually a parapet wall though that is designed to shield or screen the RTUs, the rooftop mechanicals.

That's actually 62 feet.

So as the city measures height, the variance is for 55 feet, but the true height of the building is 66 feet.

Putting it into perspective, the prior approved project, Audrey Senior Residences, was actually 68 feet to the peak, 54 feet to the midpoint.

So if you're looking peak to peak or peak to parapet, that was actually six feet taller.

What Katie took a big look at, did an excellent job with is not only reducing that height from what was already approved, but maximizing the distance to the nearest home in Mayfair.

So as you can see here at the top left, prior project 91 feet to the nearest town home in Mayfair, but with the movement of our building, we've achieved 133 feet.

So we're six feet shorter, 40 feet further away, which is a good end result.

Parking, I'll spend just a couple minutes here.

First and foremost, this has been designed with the young professional in mind.

That's why we have 89% studio and one bedrooms and only 26 two-bedroom units.

Domain at City Gate, McDowell Point, Vantage, Ellsworth apartments, all one space for bedroom, all yielded excess parking.

We're at 321 spaces, that 175 spaces came from the Institute of Traffic Engineer Manual.

Also, Bridge, the petitioner owns and manages over a thousand units in town.

They have all their internal data, further evidencing the one space per bedroom is more than sufficient.

And lastly, we control all parking through the leasing, is permit parking.

Somebody comes in, they get the parking pass at the time of lease, so we have that extra layer of control.

Also making this site even more appealing and something that I was not aware of, and maybe others were not aware of public transportation and close proximity, reducing the reliance on passenger vehicles.

Just at the corner of 59 and Audrey is a pace bus stop about two miles down to the north on 59 is our train station to take you to Aurora, take you to the city of Chicago.

There's pace on demand on Audrey, and then there's a parking ride at the community Christian Church.

Not to mention every single convenience retail restaurant use is in walking distance.

So that will further reduce the reliance on transportation or passenger vehicles.

So really an optimal site when you start to dig in and you see everything that's available.

With regard to target market, this is so much of a purpose designed site.

Alex and his team knowing where the market's at, where they're on waiting lists at Fifth Avenue Station, where there's a void in the market.

We look at the census data, not to mention their data.

And what's very important is by 2030, the age group 25 to 34 is going to make up the largest population in our community.

36,000 of these folks within a five-mile radius of the subject property.

Then also folks that kids may be off and on their own in college and don't want to maintain a single family home anymore.

So there's no doubt that the census data is directly in line with the target market, how this was designed with the younger generation, professionals in mind, want to work from home, want to have that social environment, want to be able to walk to Whole Foods, walk to Buffalo Wild Wings, walk to the PACE bus stop, really an ultimate or ideal location.

Certainly living here is preference driven.

What our market research tells us is these folks prefer maintenance-free living, they like the flexibility for job mobility and travel, proximity to amenities, convenience uses, shopping, and also pet friendly environments.

Next very important aspect is the rents.

So studios are anticipated to lease for $17,25 a month, one bedroom, $2,015 a month, and then the two bedroom are estimated at 2465 a month.

And as you can see here, there's only 26 of those.

So you run the math out, and that looks like between 62 and 88,000 to afford to live at the Atlas.

We have a very high household income in Naperville.

On average, 150,000.

Why that's important is somebody making roughly between 40 to 50 percent of our average household income could afford a unit in the Atlas and be able to call the Atlas home.

So once again, in direct alignment with the comprehensive plan to provide a variety of housing options at all styles, types, and price points.

With regard to property management, I'm not going to uh prolong the point here.

Property management will be first class.

I'm not standing up here saying uh trust us, I'm standing up here saying we have an operator that's been at it for 40 years, owns some very beautiful, nicely maintained communities in town, Fifth Avenue Station, and we know what their level of property management includes.

And it also is multifaceted, and it starts with the qualification, background checks, uh, income checks, credit history, rental checks, and certainly criminal history.

One of the most important aspects is safety for the residents.

This ensures that, but also the amount that goes into the qualification ensures safety for the entire surrounding neighborhood.

Schools, one of our most important partners, we met with them early due to the design of the atlas, studios, one bedrooms comprising almost 90%, very minimal student generation.

In fact, only 14 students are projected.

All of the assigned schools have capacity.

School district wrote us a letter of no objection.

And then we like to really analyze this and really understand the impact on the school district.

So if the projection of 14 students is accurate, we think it may be high, but we'll go with the 14.

And you look at the cost to educate those 14 students, about 228,000.

You look at the projected tax bill, over 600,000, a very revenue positive situation to the school district, and that it will generate a surplus over the cost to educate, approaching 400,000.

And then just uh in closing here, just a summary of the overall benefits.

We know that priority number one of this commission is to make sure that we have a robust housing supply meeting all age demographics, uh, studios, one bedrooms, highly amenitized, walkable environment, parks.

Uh this really uh does a fantastic job of meeting that objective, serving that niche, giving people an opportunity to move back to Naperville, establish the routes, then an attainable housing option, but then it also has that synergy that the comprehensive plan talks about.

So now you have the additional two or three hundred residents of the city that then go over to the Home Depot, the Whole Foods, Buffalo Wild Wings, home goods support the community, uh generate uh sales tax, generate grocery tax, generate utility tax, and more importantly, take a property that is sitting off the tax rolls for 29 years, improve it, and generate real estate taxes for the city and all supporting taxing districts.

Uh so that uh concludes the summary.

We're certainly available for any questions.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

All right, I would like to hear from any of the members of the public present tonight to speak on this case.

Secretary Wright, please call the first speaker.

Rosalyn Armic.

Good evening.

I'm going to read my uh written testimony into record.

Um, I oppose this development.

I oppose the downzoning from B2 to OCI.

The 236 apartment complex is not the type of product for the site.

Rezoning prime commercial land to residential use in this area without a mixed-use plan is detrimental.

Any other municipality would look at this area as their golden nugget and support commercial.

This area consisted of about 59 acres, which the city of Neighborville forced, annexed, and rezoned it to B2.

This included my parcel lot six.

The petitioner's parcel was not part of the 59 acres.

There is no need for more transitioning from commercial.

We need support for commercial.

OCI is said to be a transitional district between residential and intensive commercial uses.

The builds of Mayfair Phase 1, Mayfair Phase 2, and Sedgwick are all multifamily townhomes having higher residency, excuse me, having higher residential density to transition between the existing and future commercial.

When Mayfair phase two rezoned from B2 to R3A, they were required by the city of Naperville to do the commercial buffer setbacks of 25 feet and the landscape screening buffer.

You will find this as outlop E and outlock C on the petitioners submitted preliminary plat of subdivision.

Outlaw E abuts my parcels east lot line.

Just there to be picked up and used to explain rezoning, but what simply matters is the balance between commercial and residential.

OCI zoning refers to office commercial industrial, typically promotes a blend of commercial and industrial to enhance local service and economy.

OCI requirements are less intense than R3A.

OCI allows greater height, greater density, easier setbacks, and it is why the ATLAS has a five-story building on 4.566 acres with 236 units.

And yet variance requests are still needed because this build exceeds those OCI unit, OCI requirements.

Do not support the conditional use.

It provides no improvement.

It reduces the depth of commercial square footage, leaving frontage commercial parcels.

It warrants concerns if it would limit the B2 uses for the remaining future commercial parcels.

I do not agree with the petitioner's statement about the conditional use.

What are the petitioners' plans for the remaining 1.652 acres?

And um, with the petitioner's uh testimony, I think he did have that answer.

Um sometimes in good planning, it is better to look at a fact than exceptions.

We know it will be 236 units.

Majority of us have a vehicle and use it.

Maybe 10 units will not own a vehicle and do not drive and use Uber or using the PACE bus as mentioned in petitioners' documents.

Instead, 226 vehicles are concentrated in this area, adding to daily traffic, and to it the daily USPS vehicles, delivery vehicles, service vehicles, and food delivery traffic.

Majority of the time the pace bus is empty as it passes by Audrey Avenue going north on Route 59.

Not many people use the PACE bus in this area.

Route 59 is an arterial six-lane highway having about 50,000 vehicles per day using it.

I do not agree that traffic is greater with commercial use than residential use.

Commercial use may have more activity, but it will not add 236 vehicles to an already high volume traffic area.

The commercial customers are there on Route 59.

Ford Hill Drive will be negatively impacted.

The petitioners' traffic study shows weekdays and times, which mainly is commuter traffic.

The traffic study should be expanded to show commercial traffic counts and flow on a Friday evening, Saturday, 11 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

and Sunday, especially for Route 59.

The traffic study would show a much different picture.

Also, the perspective of adding 236 more vehicles to this area would give anyone second thoughts.

Petitioner talks about visibility.

If a commercial building was on the petitioner's site, it would likely face its front entrance west to Route 59.

Visibility is an exception, not a fact in this case.

Block 59 is a good example about visibility.

Their 50 million dollar project reinvented its commercial center at the corner of Route 59 and Roar Avenue.

A beautiful block 59 sign designates the area.

Do you really see all the commercial businesses?

Do you know there is a skating rink, chocolate cheese factory, stand stonuts, and many others are there without a small glimpse of them?

Black 59 works because the developer had a vision and made it special.

What works is business to business relation.

It's all commercial.

I could vision the Atlas being incorporated out of former Dominic's shopping center at Raymond Drive and Aurora Avenue, where dense population could revitalize that commercial center.

As an example, Fox Valley incorporated the Lumen and the Luca Luxury Apartments, and already had work in progress plans for a senior living complex.

It works there because there was a vision that complements the surrounding area without impact.

A developer with a vision for mixed use would be a better fit for this area here.

The petitioners petition does not bring harmony to this area.

Please vote no.

Please include my testimony in the record and in case file, and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Do we have any other speakers tonight?

No other speakers.

All right.

Then I will move on to the commissioners.

I'll start with Commissioner Namas.

I had a question for staff.

Um quickly.

Have they already revoked the um change in rezoning from before?

So what is the current?

I guess what is the current zoning for this um lot?

Sure.

Uh so the prior approvals are still currently in place.

The revocation of those ordinances is subject to city council's purview.

Okay.

Um, so they're requesting that concurrently with these entitlements.

The entitlements uh under consideration tonight are made with the assumption that city council approves that revocation.

Okay.

So what is the the current zoning for that lot then?

Uh it's currently zoned OCI.

Okay, thank you.

All right, Commissioner Castanoli.

I have a couple questions.

Um imposing it, you would prefer retail on this location.

Uh I don't see that working that well.

I do like the layout.

I wish it was one story shorter.

But overall, I think it does fit the area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ricellia.

I have a question about the traffic over there because um I go to that Home Depot all the time.

And if you come in from Route 59, you you first have like a I think it's like a two or three lane, then it goes down to one lane, which you have to like cars that are turned into the Home Depot, you gotta like kind of go around them to go to like you know if you go to the Whole Foods or going over to Dick.

So how are you gonna correct that or prevent some serious accidents from happening over there?

I'm going to introduce our traffic engineer, Emma Elbers.

Hello, um Emma Elvers for the record from Kimley Horn, um 4201 Windfield Road.

Suite 600.

Um okay.

So you're talking about the condition.

If you make a southbound left turn from 59 odd to Audrey, you're traveling eastbound, correct?

Right?

Because it's two lanes and then it drops to one with the merge.

Correct.

Um, so our project will not change the existing conditions of that situation, right?

We're not um changing that.

That said, I will just kind of testify on the whole about the low expected trip generation of the development.

So like added trips to that specific movement that you are referring to.

Is about is 10 trips in the morning peak hour and 20 trips in the evening peak hour.

So that's like one trip every like six minutes in the morning, and one trip every like three minutes in the evening.

So, like our impact to that movement and then kind of all the other movements in this area is just very low.

And so, you know, we're not going to change anything of the character of it, but our addition is you know, just very, very incremental to what currently exists there.

I agree with you on that there, but however, it's already a problem now.

And I've experienced it many times myself already, so that's why that's why I know I know that for a fact because the roads it's already so narrow, and then when a car is like, you know, I mean, everybody was pretty much speeding through there anyway.

So when you turn it in the Home Depot, the cars will go around you like this.

Now they're partially on the other side of the lane.

So now you're gonna have it where they're gonna be affecting your residence in your facility.

Because you did mention earlier that you're gonna have the access points directly across, like from the home depot, you know, to line up correctly.

So that's gonna be an issue.

Well, well, you on that, and and I understand the point completely.

Uh I was driving it uh a considerable amount of time looking at it today, looking at the pavement section, looking at the width of that pavement section along uh Audrey.

Uh so if you look at the um Home Depot and you look at the Dicks, how we lined up those access points.

But what's gonna help alleviate your concern to a large degree uh is that pavement width is wide enough that we're gonna cut in turn lanes.

So it's not like somebody's gonna be driving east uh on Audrey at either access and then stop in the middle of that lane.

We're gonna be cutting in turn lanes with the appropriate taper.

I believe the taper on the eastern turn lane is approaching uh 100, 150 feet.

MSE experts she'll correct me if I'm wrong.

100 feet.

So those turn lanes are gonna go a long way to keeping the traffic flow and eliminate that um uh conflict, and then also the alignment to Dixon Home Depot uh as well, and then as you can see here, uh there's the turn lane into the into the Home Depot uh that functions, so they're not the left-hand turn lane into Home Depot heading in the westbound direction to eliminate that conflict.

Okay, one last question.

Sure.

Pedestrian crossings from your facility, let's say to the Home Depot and also the whole food, you know, the um other uh businesses that I'm down down the road.

You know, that's uh another great question.

Something that I I have to look at mid-block.

I know that there's uh pedestrian crossings uh at Audrey and Fort Hill, and there's a pedestrian crossing at uh Audrey and 59.

I have to go out there and double check.

Emma might know if there's a pedestrian beacon there, uh, but I can uh tell you that there's no mid-block crossings.

Uh so if you want to cross without playing a little bit of frogger, uh, you could go down to Fort Hill, go down to 59.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you.

By the way, I I love the I love the um the the project though.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner McDowell McDaniel.

Thank you.

Uh I I do think um that uh pedestrian crossings uh is something that really should be considered um and and added at one or even both points.

Um I think it's in general it's a great project.

Uh this is definitely is a need uh uh for Naperville, um you know, studios, one bedrooms, recent grads for you know young professionals.

Uh it's great location 59.

You got all those restaurants.

I think it's it really is just a great location for this type of project.

So uh the adaptability is is fantastic, it's accessible, so you have my support.

Commissioner Wright.

Yeah, I just uh uh want to agree with everything the other commissioner said.

I have a couple of questions.

One is the um the current location.

Was that location ever developed?

It was it was B2 for many years, is my understanding, correct?

Yeah, that's uh that's uh my understanding as well.

I believe it was the next in 1997, uh, and then it was zone B2 and sat B2 until it was rezoned to OCI in 2023, and that project uh never moved forward.

So to my knowledge, always vacant since being annexed to Naperville, 29 years.

Yeah, okay.

That's what I figured.

Okay.

Um, you talked about the topography behind the Mayfair again, just so I'm clear.

Uh the Mayfair uh buildings behind it is the side profile, correct?

That is correct.

So there's no balconies creating privacy issues into someone else's backyard.

It's a it's a side profile, so that that's good.

Um also noticed that you had interior trash, um an interior trash unit in that building, which is great.

Um real quick, and I'm surprised Tom didn't ask this question.

Snow removal, I'm assuming will be taken off of the property because there's really not any place to pile snow.

That's absolutely correct.

Uh so smaller events certainly uh piled up, uh, but if there's a major event, then it's hauled off.

Awesome.

Okay.

Um and then you said the uh HBAC units are all rooftops.

Uh love that love that all of the um units are accessible.

Uh let's see, my last question was on parking.

So I I get I I I dived into the parking study quite a bit, and I love that um they're gonna be controlled really by by the lease, right?

Playing devil's advocate.

In the event that you get to the end and you run out of parking spaces, is there any overflow that has been planned, or do you just think that that's really not gonna be necessary?

Uh uh truthfully, I I don't even think that uh we're gonna get close.

So the Institute of Traffic Engineers, they recommend 175 spaces.

We're at 321.

Uh, and then also this same formula across uh town, every time we do one space per bedroom plus guest parking, it always yields um excess.

Uh so there could even be an instance um where you have a one bedroom or a studio, and and because of pace and proximity to whole food, somebody doesn't have a car.

And certainly with the 26 two bedrooms, uh, I would be surprised if uh more than a handful of them had two cars.

So we're really comfortable with this supply, and also uh bridge has the benefit of managing uh many many units in town, and and they feel comfortable with that as well.

Great, thank you.

Yeah, I just overall I think it's a great project.

You know, when I think about we talk a lot about uh uh uh chair chair person uh Robins said uh density in the last presentation, density has been talked about at every uh meeting that we have.

Density works in certain locations, and to me, this location is kind of a textbook example of where density works.

Um so I think that this is a great project, and I'll be voting in favor for it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Banson.

Yeah, um, I have a few questions.

Uh first from the staff.

By any chance, do we know why the project got abandoned by Ryan Holmes in 23?

Um unfortunately I don't have that information.

Okay.

Um yeah, I mean, the presentation and the project looks fabulous.

I the plan appeared really dense to me, or dear and I really had a lot of concerns, especially the traffic as we all are talking about.

Um the parking provision.

So I was just wondering since we have reduced the parking ratio.

Um what do you think during the peak periods the they're gonna be a lot of cars parked outside, like the guests and any event or any like holiday season?

So we um let me see if I could get to this slide, and as usual, uh let me see here.

Okay.

Uh so uh given the nature of the surrounding roadways, Audrey is a collector road designed for traffic.

Fort Hill is another collector road designed for traffic, and we all know that Route 59 is uh strategic regional arterial, 55,000 cars a day.

So the surrounding roadway network is designed for traffic.

It's not like we're putting this traffic on a local street which isn't designed for traffic.

Her team here prepared a comprehensive traffic analysis looking at the impact on the surrounding roadway network.

In my estimation, reading of this study, roadway network has more than adequate capacity to serve this development.

The intersections of Audrey and Fort Hill function at levels of service A B and C, which is all very good.

The intersection of 59 and Audrey functions very well, with except uh when you're heading west on Audrey to Route 59 to head north or south on Route 59.

That's a poor level of service because Route 59 is controlled by IDOT, and they leave that signal time for a very long time to let cars go north and south, and they give very little preference uh to Audrey.

But our impact on that existing condition is de minimis given the fact that we're drops in the bucket, considering the 55,000 cars that go down uh Route 59.

But one thing that we wanted to look at in detail is say, hey, this property did develop commercial over the last 29 years under the B2 zoning classification.

What would that look like?

Uh so we prepared a comparison, 40,000 square feet of retail, which is pretty uh modest on five acres versus uh what we're proposing.

Uh and what we determined is that there's about a 50% reduction in our use over what the retail use would be.

So uh certainly in my estimation, then a positive impact than if it would have gone retail.

Yeah, no, I agree.

Um I drive I live five minutes away from that area, and we drive all the time to Whole Foods or Home Depot, and that street is pretty narrow.

I mean, it's just as uh other commissioners just mentioned, so I was just concerned about that.

Um yeah, and I like that you have taken the ADA uh study and the safety considerations and the approvals from all the relevant city departments.

That that's just great.

Um I understand the property has been vacant for all these years, so this is a great way to get the revenue stream to the city.

The best part I like about this project is it is more it is both for youth centric as well as a senior, which is the need for the city of Napoleville.

Um it is always encouraging to retain our youth, and this is the best opportunity for them.

And uh with these factors in mind, I believe this development has the potential to provide meaningful long-term benefits to the neighborhood community.

And I wish if uh you could reconsider the density of this proposal, or maybe there is a possibility of scaling down a bit, it would have been even more wonderful.

But um, but I guess it's a great uh use of that land.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Athens.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um it's beautiful presentation for Sofall and the drawing, the pictureization of the building, it looks fabulous, wonderful.

Great job.

Um, as a person who lives in South Napalm and more than 13 years, 13 or 14 years ago, it is taking maybe in the last few years, it is taking 10, 20 minutes more to get out of Napleville to get on to I-88.

It's gonna take maybe another five, eight more minutes.

Um, but you know what?

It's a beautiful project, and the diverse living options you guys are offering to Napoleon, I'll I'll get up 10 minutes early.

Thank you.

Commissioner Longenbach.

Thank you.

Uh, and thank you for the informative presentation.

Um, most of the commissioners have have answered my questions about crosswalks, um, the running out of parking.

Um, but regarding um traffic, I am more worried, frankly, about the intersection of Audrey and Fort Hill.

I mean, that's one that I just I will avoid turning north at that intersection on any Saturday that I'm down there.

Um, I mean, I would probably opt if I was needing to get up to Ogden, I would probably opt to go north on Ogden or north on Route 59 around to Ogden, but I am worried about people possibly trying to cut through, I think it's on is it Blakely?

Like I would be worried about them trying to cut through that to get to Ogden.

So is there any concern that that people are going to do that, or is it kind of curvy enough that you don't think that that would happen?

You know, and and um that is uh that is something uh that we wanted to look at uh as well.

So first uh Emma prepared the uh estimated trip distribution.

How many uh of the vehicles leaving are gonna go down to uh Fort Hill versus go out to 59, and it's about uh 20 percent.

Uh 10 percent want to go south on Fort Hill, which isn't a problem, but to your point, uh it's the north on the Fort Hill.

So it's a it's a limited percentage, and I uh agree with that challenge as well because it's uh a median, it's divided, it's um it's dicey.

Uh so certainly uh Blakely to Shandrew to Ogden provides uh one way uh to get out to Ogden if that's where you're gonna go.

Uh so we timed it in a very uh unscientific study.

How long does it take to leave Audrey, make a right on 59, make a right on Ogden and get to Shandrew?

Minute 30.

Uh, how long does it take to go make that left on Blakely to Shandrew?

About a minute 40, minute 30.

So it's uh apples to apples.

So our hope uh would be that uh anybody wanting to avoid that left would make the right on uh 59 and then the right on Ogden.

Uh some fully acknowledge that they will cut through, but I think that's gonna be a very limited number based upon the trip distribution.

Okay, and what about during the summer when there are soccer games being played at the school right there?

Because that they're parked along the side there on Fort Hill, it is it's a nightmare.

And I think I think we're getting into maybe uh a bigger discussion that could actually lead to a bigger improvement.

Uh, when I was out there today uh considering your point, um, I'm thinking, why can't we put a four-way stop here?

Because if it's an existing condition and it's something that uh challenges life safety, maybe we could look at that with staff and engineering and see if we meet warrants for a stop there.

Okay, excellent.

So that could get on tabs radar later on.

So that's excellent.

Okay, good.

Um thank you for putting all the attainability analysis in there.

I mean, in light of last night's city council meeting where affordable housing was discussed.

I think it's it's really important and and really exciting that a hundred percent of this of the units in here are going to be affordable, and I think that's really important.

Um, I do also know that they're market rate though, and so the fact that you bring up the Belvedere and just how like excited people are and there's a wait list.

Do you see the the rents here staying affordable, or do you see them becoming just as sought after as the ones at the Belvedere?

You know, um from my personal perspective, I I think that um they they so clearly meet uh the attainability at the 80% AMI, the 100% AMI, and I think that they're gonna be pretty safe there at the 60% AMI, you could start to see where the studios qualify, some of the one bedrooms qualify, uh just a handful of the two bedrooms qualify, and it just always goes back to this uh supply and demand is as we pick up in the comprehensive plan.

Our supply is woefully uh deficient.

Uh the micro apartments, uh, which was another wonderful addition, haven't heard any complaints about them since they were built.

Uh, those leased up in three months, fastest we've ever seen.

That the the demand is uh outrageous.

So any time we could enhance the supply that has a a good effect on pricing, but I would anticipate that this would lease very quickly, and I would anticipate that uh the rents could uh rise.

Okay, I mean, just staying on that with with the micro apartments, I would even argue for more density here and adding micro apartments in that.

I mean, that again was something that came up last night at City Council for affordability, and so it quite possibly could come up again given the discussion last night.

Um, just something to keep in mind.

Um yeah, so I I think the you know the the term density does come up and people get worried about it, but I think this is an incredibly appropriate place for that given the location and proximity to um you know all the the walking trails and the home depot and the Costco and everything there, it is it's everything that it needs to be and in an appropriate place.

So um I will be supporting this.

So thank you.

Thank you.

I think most everything has been covered.

Um I do want to go back to I think it it does, it meets all the boxes, but I think from a city perspective, I think about the walking trails on the other side of 75th, I think about 59, some of the things that we've built around there, and if some of these uh renters or people who are living there are just going to walk, I do fear for their safety, um, because it is it's so heavily congested, whether it's a soccer game, whether it's school, whether it's Saturday going to Home Depot.

Because it is, it's so heavily congested, whether it's a soccer game, whether it's school, whether it's Saturday going to Home Depot.

So I feel like pedestrian safety needs to be addressed.

It needs to be identified.

However, that is, you guys need to take a further look at that.

I don't think a crosswalk in the middle of that street would be appropriate because it's already Frogger without.

So I don't recommend that.

But I think overall with the master plan, we do need to talk about if we're gonna have pedestrians out there trying to use the PACE bus, trying to get to some of the amenities that we have built off of 59.

We need to make it accessible.

So I do support the project.

I think it is a perfect example of density.

Um I think it was well presented.

I appreciate all of the details that you guys did tonight.

Um I do have one question, and I meant to look at this prior to coming, but as far as alignment with rent, um, where is it with Fifth Avenue and Belvedere?

Where does it fall as far as the average rent?

If you have that.

Yeah, I think um Belvedere.

I do not have with me this evening.

Uh Fifth Avenue Station, I do have with me this evening, and uh the range at Fifth Avenue Station is 1775 for a studio, so very consistent uh with us, but then Fifth Avenue Station has some larger units, and that goes all the way up to $3100 a month.

Nice.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, that is all I have for that.

So I think um, do you have any closing remarks for us?

Uh no, but thank you.

All right, great.

I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for DEV-0149-2025.

Submitted.

Second.

All in favor?

I all right.

Motion carries.

Commissioner Bonsell, please read the motion.

I would like to make a motion to adopt the findings of fact as presented by the petitioner and recommend approval of DEV 0149-2025, granting approval of rezoning the property to OCI, a conditional use for multifamily residential in the OCI district, and variances to density, height, bocking count, and setbacks and wall signage requirements as outlined in the staff report for 2939 Audrey Avenue, the Atlas.

Great.

Can I have a second?

Second.

All right, Secretary Wright, please conduct roll call.

I agree.

Bonzo.

I agree.

Costing Rolling?

I agree.

Long and Ball.

Agree with the motion.

McDaniel, I agree.

Nomas?

I agree.

Rochelio, I agree with the motion.

Robins?

I agree with the motion.

Right.

I agree with the motion.

Motion passes non-zero.

Great.

Congratulations.

All right.

Next on the agenda is the discussion of the potential change to the planning and zoning commission meeting start time and other bylaw amendments.

Before I open this to the public, I do want to clarify why this came to us tonight.

It was something that the commission had been talking about through the various cases, and it wasn't just recently, it's actually been over the years.

Whether it is has been the data center most recently or some of the previous ones, the mosque, a lot of comments were commented to us saying it was so late, I wasn't able to go, I didn't have child care, or you know, things like that.

And the argument could go the reverse as well.

I have work, I commute, I'm trying to get there, I can't make it any earlier.

So we all are obviously we're committed to being here, whether the meeting is at 6 or at 7.

Um, I do know several of the other commissions have changed their meeting time, or they I don't know that they necessarily changed it, but they are earlier.

Um, some are 6 30, there's some that are 6, 5 30.

So there is some change on that.

It's not consistently 7 p.m.

So we just thought it would be good for us to have that discussion to open it up to the public if anyone wants to speak on that.

Um, I just wanted to shed some light on where we were coming from.

There was no um hidden agenda on it, there was no you know, secret meeting discuss that we didn't want to be here at 7 p.m.

I mean, we're here, right?

So um we're flexible either way, but we thought we would open it up and hear what everyone has to say.

So with that, do we have anyone here that would like to speak?

No one signed up.

All right.

Do any of the commissioners have any comments?

I guess I just piggyback on what you said.

It to me it doesn't matter either way, 7 p.m., 6 p.m.

It really was about trying to accommodate what we've heard as commissioners on the late cases.

You know, it doesn't happen on any other cases when we we don't have big big uh topics of discussion.

But this was really more about trying to accommodate the public than trying to accommodate the commissioners.

I have a uh Commissioner Thomas.

Yeah, I just had a comment just that I thought that moving it to 6 p.m.

would improve that attendance and engagement that we are talking about.

It does increase accessibility for families with young children.

Um and also seniors who don't want to drive at night.

Um I know winter gets dark earlier, but even in you know, as it's getting lighter earlier, it doesn't keep everyone as late.

And again, later meetings mean that we have less engagement, people don't stay as late or can't stay as late.

So I think that that's something that I think is something for us to consider.

And we got a lot of that feedback in the last cases.

Commissioner McManny.

Um you know, personally, I can really go either way on this.

Uh I I did not uh uh personally feel it was an issue until it was raised.

Um read some of the uh feedback that was submitted prior to the meeting, and they have actually had some really good points.

Um so if it is best uh for the public to keep it at 7 o'clock, I'm happy to be here.

Uh I know we all are.

If it is best for the public uh to have it at 6, let's have it at 6.

But uh so I can go either way.

Yeah, I mean I I agree we have we are committed with that it's 5 p.m., 6 p.m.

7 p.m.

as a commissioner, we all are committed.

But if residents feel that way, I'm okay.

6 p.m.

and 7 p.m.

Uh yeah, whatever is the best in everybody's interest.

All right, Commissioner Langbach.

Do you have any comments?

Yeah, just want to say, like I agree with uh Commissioner McDaniel, like we are here for the community.

If it is 6 p.m.

or 7 p.m.

Uh, we'll be here.

Um I before this I was serving on the board of Island Police and the meetings were uh at 4 p.m.

And so we gotta leave from home at 3 p.m.

to be there at 3 30 to be on time for the four.

Uh that's the reason why I chose to be at this commission and doing it.

Seven is great, but if it six is better, I I'll come at six.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, I mean, I I echo all that.

Ultimately, what I want is to maximize the ability for residents to be able to be heard.

That's that's what this is.

And given the feedback that we were hearing during the data center, where people were saying they couldn't get child care, it just seemed to go hand in hand with my own personal preference.

I mean, I was liaison to a number of things, have had meetings, obviously, city council meetings at 7, and all of the budget workshops, any workshop at city council is also at 6.

Um, the number of the other boards and commissions are at different times.

I actually looked at all of them, and so here are the times.

Um 7 p.m.

city council meetings, this one obviously tab and the um HPC.

There are three at 6:30, the advisory commission on disabilities, human rights and fair housing, and six sister cities.

At 6 p.m., you have SECA, Fab, and all of the city council workshops, and then there's one at five, the PUAB, and just given how critical those decisions have been recently.

I think that they actually should consider a change to make it later so that people can actually attend because 5 p.m.

if your commuter is impossible to make.

Um, and then there are a whole number of them that even start at 8 a.m.

and go all the way to 4:30.

So moving this from 7 to 6 is not out of the normal, it's not like every single meeting is at 7, and then we are looking to buck the trend on that.

We're not looking to do that, it would be consistent with other um with other meetings.

And so that's it.

But ultimately, we are here to serve, I'm here to serve.

And if seven is what everybody wants, I'm fine with that.

Obviously, I would prefer six, but I I can go either way.

So that's what this is meant to be a just a discussion.

So and for the record, I agree.

Same thing here.

We signed up for it, we're okay with it, but like like they might mention here, it's the resident that brought it to our extension.

That's why we said, okay, hey, let's go ahead and bring it up.

So I'm I'm fine either way.

So last thing for me is being the uh elder statesman here in this crowd.

Um people my age, yes, 6 p.m.

I do believe would be much easier.

Um, if approves, when is this going to be an effect?

So, yes, so if we work towards changing the time and the bylaws, what is the process and how long would that take?

So the process would be tonight, you would direct staff to you'd make a motion to direct staff to make changes to those bylaws.

Um and we would then start working on those bylaw amendments and then provide a draft to you, you know, try to provide it to you sometime in a reasonable time before a planning commission meeting is scheduled.

Um, and then you would then ultimately at that future meeting uh adopt those amendments if you agree agree with them.

So the time frame, you know, we'd like to get it on, you know, a future if you do direct us to make the bylaw amendments, we would like to get it on a you know one of the next few um PCC meetings.

Um I don't want to commit us to a time frame just in case the bylaws become a little the changes become a little more extensive than we realized.

Um but I think it would be safe to say one of the next two or three meetings out, um, if not sooner.

All right, and then also for all the other commissions that have changed or have different times, have they too had to update the bylaws, or is it just planning and zoning based on the role that we play?

So I'm I'm I'm not sure what their each their bylaws say.

Um I can't speak to that.

In our case, it does say specifically in our bylaws when the meeting time starts, so it would require an amendment.

Sorry.

No, that's I understand.

I just wanted to clarify.

Yeah, sure.

So so if if we direct staff tonight to change the bylaws, does that give the public an opportunity at another PCC meeting to speak in public forum about it?

I would just really uh you know, tonight I I think this popped up very quickly, and I'm not sure that I mean we got a few comments, but I would really like to have the public have another opportunity to say what they want and go from there.

Yeah, and staff agrees with those sentiments exactly.

Um so one of the reasons for having it on tonight was of course to initiate those changes, but also to give um multiple opportunities for the public to have their input.

So they would, you know, they had their input for tonight, and then at the next meeting, when we do come forward with the actual amendment changes for approval, they can then um comment on that time.

And so if the planning commission does have changes or amendments at that meeting, they can always continue the bylaws, um, you know, reschedule it for another meeting based on the feedback if we get feedback that you want to consider in a new draft.

Thank you.

Commissioner Longamon.

Yeah, so say say that happens and we're all good with it.

Does it then need to go to city council for approval?

No, it does not.

Okay, I didn't think so.

And then as far as if it did go through and we approved it and changed all the the bylaws, what would the communication be to the public?

Because if they're not paying attention to the specific meeting and didn't know, how would they know that future meetings are at six instead of seven if that all went through?

Yes, that's a great point.

Um we would work with our communications department to ensure that it's it's covered in all typical outlets, whether it's like an e-news blast posted on the website in some specific way.

Um I can't say to the specifics at this point, but we would ensure that it's um comprehensively covered.

Okay, thank you.

Any other commissioners?

Yes.

Just one more question.

Um, so you did I hear like this is going to be discussed in the next couple um planning and zoning meetings.

Um so because this is buried within the agenda, I don't know how many of the residents are really seeing this, right?

Uh, is there a better way to let them know?

Because you know, you if we are going to discuss this, if we want to hear from the community from the residents, then we would like to have them here and have them say what they want to um, you know, what the change should be, right?

Maybe they may want to keep it at 7 p.m.

Maybe they want to move it to 8 p.m.

I'm just saying.

I'm just saying.

I'm just saying.

So in if that is the case, like you know, we just want to hear from them.

You're done.

We just want to assume what we just don't want to assume what they like, right?

So I'm just I'm just asking if there is a better way to communicate this and invite their um feedback or opinions uh before we make it, you know.

Um is it is that a I'm just asking, like, is there a better way to publicize this on through social media or other channels?

Yes, I think that's a great point.

Um, because you know, for tonight, for instance, you would have to have looked at the agenda to see that it was on there.

And so I I completely agree um that it would be good to have it, you know, somehow the public notification somehow amplified.

Um so I can discuss we can discuss amongst staff if you know, for instance, uh notice in the newspaper would be appropriate, or if there's other avenues to make this more of a public process and have more public input.

Um so we can look into that.

Sure.

So is it a bet is it a way to um like make it the first item in on the agenda so that at least in even if people people uh don't get it like through social media or other channels, those who are here can you know, opin give their opinions.

You know, is it's uh kind of funny that you bring that up.

I'd actually have to look at the bylaws to um ensure that we can change the order of that on the agenda.

So I'm not sure, but I will look into it.

That's interesting.

Thank you.

And I will also say, I mean, there's going to be arguments both ways.

So at the end of the day, we have to make that decision based off of what we've been, you know, communicated and what we've discussed.

So we did give everyone an opportunity.

We did get comments.

I read them.

I appreciate that the that feedback, and it's feedback that we ourselves are talking about.

We get it.

So I think after this discussion, I'd like to move forward with changing the bylaws and making the meeting change, and then in the next meeting based on your updates, then we can open that for discussion there.

Does that work?

Yes, that's perfect.

All right, great.

So I will make a motion to update the bylaws with a time change to six PM.

I would like to entertain a motion to direct staff to prepare an amendment to the PCC bylaws to update the PCC meeting time and other necessary bylaw content for overall approval at the upcoming PCC meeting.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Right.

Motion carries.

No.

I would like to entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the February fourth, twenty twenty-six planning and zoning commission meeting.

So we did.

All in favor?

All right, motion carries.

There's no old, there's no new.

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

Second.

Second.

Oh, we need a first.

All right, now we have a second.

Oh, so no, all right.

I think I think we're covered.

All right.

Meeting adjourned.