Good evening.

I would like to call the planning and zoning commission meeting for April 15th, 2026 to order.

Secretary Wright, please conduct roll call.

Long and here.

McDaniel?

Here.

Namas?

Here.

Rachelia.

Present.

Robins?

Here.

And Wright is here.

Student Raja Rahman.

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 under public forum?

Marilyn Schweitzer.

That one.

Okay.

It's the little person, not the three dots.

Marilyn Schweitzer, longtime Naperville resident.

And I just would like to say a few words about planning.

And not approval or disapproval of a development, but instead community planning.

And I can think of several planning concepts that were they up to date.

And so some examples are Fifth Avenue.

I mean, we we've just had plan after plan.

We just had a preview plan about a year ago by ULTAP that looked promising, and I know that that's something the council or somebody at some point is going to decide which is going to go forth.

There's the I 88 corridor, which caused a lot of sort of um a rather large cartoffle over whether it was housing, whether it was development, you know, and again, you know, had something sort of been up to date or sort of more in line there.

I think it would have helped a lot of resolved a lot of controversy, especially between the commission's decisions and council's decisions.

Um the downtown plan, I can think of like you know how that's 2030.

It was sort of designed for thinking of a more um vibrant retail um downtown than is currently thought.

You know, now the plan is sort of well, it's going to be more housing, and then that causes controversy for things like Maine and Benton that we just saw.

And then, of course, affordable housing, which has been off again, on again, off again on again for about the last 20 years.

So I really, you know, would like to say first I I very much appreciated having the um the owners of now I can't remember the address of the Lutheran property, you know, do the preview in front of um city council.

I think that that was very helpful, you know, just to give everyone sort of a uh a chance before they you know to sort of think about things before um they got too far into the process and um people were dug in and spent way too much money.

Um so my question is more tonight is just you know what can the commission do to maybe sort of help you know staff and to help each other sort of move ahead with some of these plans to give a little more certainty to the community.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, the first order of business tonight.

Oh, I we already did the public forum, so we're not gonna do that.

Um our next order of business in the public hearing.

We have four public hearings scheduled for tonight's meeting.

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

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

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

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

Following all public testimony, the 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 deliberation.

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

Those who wish to provide testimony, please stand.

Please raise your right hand and respond.

I do.

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

I do.

All right, thank you.

The first case on tonight's agenda is DEV-0156-2025.

I myself have a conflict of interest due to the employment with Verizon and will be recusing myself for this case and temporarily leaving the council chambers.

Once I leave the chamber, Vice Chair McDaniel will start the public hearing for this case.

Thank you.

Okay.

Public hearing for DEV 01562025 is now open.

Theresa Egner from staff will present the case.

Thank you.

Therese Eckner with the city's planning services team.

DEV-0156-2025 is a request submitted by the petitioner for approval of a conditional use and a variance to the setback requirements to allow a new telecommunications tower on the property located at 3712 Plainfield Naperville Road.

The subject property is zoned R1, low density single-family residence district, and is located south of 95th Street along the east side of Plainfield Neighborville Road.

The property is currently improved with the Springbrook Water Reclamation Center, the city's water treatment plant.

The city has leased space on the water tower to various telecommunication companies, including Verizon Wireless.

The lease was initiated in January of 1994 and expires in September 2026.

Telecommunication facilities in the city are regulated by the Naperville Municipal Code.

On April 4th, 2018, Ordinance 18-031 was approved to amend Chapter 13 of the municipal code and included provisions prohibiting the attachment of non-city-owned communication facilities to city-owned water towers in all zoning districts.

Since the current lease on 3712 Plainfield Naperville Road water tower water tower will expire in September of this year, and the city cannot renew the lease for space on the water tower.

The petitioner is seeking approval of an alternate location for their equipment to ensure no gaps in coverage are experienced.

Upon expiration of the lease, all equipment will be removed from the water tower.

Verizon Wireless proposes leasing space from the city of Naperville to allow for the construction of a new freestanding telecommunications tower with mounted antennas on the same parcel as the existing water tower and facilities.

The proposed tower has been designed to accommodate future carriers as well.

Approval of a conditional use is required for new telecommunication towers proposed on property in residential districts.

Accordingly, the petitioner has requested approval of a conditional use to permit an approximately 190 foot-tall telecommunication tower to be constructed on a property zoned R1.

To continue to provide service in this location, Verizon Wireless proposes constructing a new freestanding telecommunications tower on the same site as the company's existing equipment.

The proposed tower is approximately 190 feet tall, including the proposed lightning rod.

The petitioner states that the height is necessary to increase coverage, benefiting the city as the tower's wireless technology provides services to communicate vital information and emergency assistance.

To improve the appearance of the site and to screen the facilities from a street level perspective, the petitioner proposes to install a solid fence and landscaping on the property.

There is also an existing berm along the east property line that assists in screening the proposed telecommunications tower.

The proposed tower will have the capacity for additional carriers to co-locate, expanding the use beyond a single carrier and serving a larger population.

Staff finds the proposal to be appropriate since the telecommunication equipment has been operational on the property for approximately 30 years.

Staff has determined there will be no negative impact to city services and utilities on site, and the property will continue to be used for utility purposes.

Per the municipal code, a setback equal to at least 200% of the height of the tower shall be required for any lot line abutting or across a public right-of-way from residential uses or districts.

Residential uses and districts are adjacent to the west of the property.

Given the height of the tower is approximately 190 feet, a 380-foot setback from each property line is required per code.

The petitioner requires approval of a setback variance as the proposed tower has a 330.5 foot setback from the west property line.

To support the setback variants, the petitioner has provided a fall radius diagram and fall zone letter signed and stamped by a licensed structural engineer to indicate the impact.

In the rare instance, the tower should fail at breaking point.

Upon review, staff notes that the fall radius is restricted to the subject property and does not impact adjacent residential properties or right-of-way.

Staff has reviewed the information provided and finds the requested setback variants to be appropriate.

The proposed telecommunications tower is found to be consistent with the purpose of the telecommunications code.

Staff is supportive of the request.

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

Thank you very much.

I think it's all right.

Oh, yeah.

I think it's the one.

Yep.

Do you want the PowerPoint?

Yeah.

Yes, and then I'll just no, yeah, that's there it goes perfect.

Good evening, Vice Chair, Planning Commission.

My name is Ray Schenkel, and I'm here representing Verizon Wireless this evening.

Your staff did a great job of summing up the application.

Um I just plan to recap that and kind of explain how we got here, and then I can answer any questions about that or about the uh facility.

Um it was just a year ago that I presented to the Naperville Planning Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council for an identical request, but this was for T Mobile at the Clyde Drive water tank.

T Mobile had been has had been on that water tank for 24 and a half years, but because of the new ordinance, they could not renew the lease.

So they explained to the city how important it was to keep the coverage seamless.

So the city worked with them and designed a tower just like we're proposing tonight, but at the Clyde Drive tank that was approved.

Uh the site was built and it's been up for the last I think three or four months.

So Verizon is in the same position that T Mobile was last year.

Uh, as staff explained, they've been out there for 30 years, but because of the ordinance, they're unable to renew this lease.

So they need to maintain and keep their coverage that they've had for the past 30 years all along and in that area along uh Plainfield and Aprilville Road and uh the surrounding area.

So we approach the city with the same concept.

Um we need to be as close as we can to the water tank, so that's why we stayed on the parcel.

Here we have a much bigger parcel to work with, which makes it a lot easier to design uh a tower versus where Clyde Drive was a much tighter parcel.

Umriginally, T-Mobile wanted to be up closer to the tank, but after several months of working with the public works department, we finally agreed on the location that's marked below.

Um, as you can see, there is, well, if you know the area, there is a very large berm that's along uh Plainfield Neighborville Road that really blocks the view and the base of the tower, which is a nice natural screening, but we are adding additional landscaping uh to help disguise that as well, as long as well as a fence that was approved by staff.

We're also designing a identical monopole that we built at Clyde Drive.

Uh, you can see that Verizon only needs 130 feet, but we designed it for 190 because the city is gonna own the tower, and the city needs to cater to not only Verizon, but for the other carriers.

So we reached out to T Mobile and ATT, they both express interest and gave us their preferred center lines.

So ATT is going to go up on top at 180, and T Mobile is going to be at 160.

So once this is approved tonight, I think they'll be full steam ahead and designing something to co-locate on this facility and work out a lease with the city.

Uh we did some photo simulations to show kind of that berm and how even though it's 190 foot tower, it's it's really kind of tucked behind it'll be difficult to see.

And you could see the one on the left is before and afters on the right.

And the same here on the left and then on the right.

So what we're proposing uh on the right is the Clyde Drive tank that was just built uh in the last three or four months and that was approved last year, and then we have another sample of towers that are just north in uh Meadow Glens Park.

So what we're proposing is not unusual.

Um there's several towers that are in or near residential.

That's how the carries are able to provide uh the seamless coverage that the community uh depends on.

So we're very happy with the application.

We feel it's we're we're thrilled that staff supports it, that they feel it's within harmony of your zoning code.

Uh it not only enables Verizon to maintain maintain their coverage where they've been out here for 30 plus years, but it also provides a co-location opportunity to T Mobile and to ATT.

So I am here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Uh okay, so I'd like to hear from any members of the public now uh present to speak on this case, Secretary Wright.

Uh please call the first speaker.

Uh no one else signed up.

All right.

So uh any other members of the public would like to speak on this case this evening.

Okay.

Um any commissioners have any uh comments?

Um thank you.

Um I actually just have a question.

So the the current water tower on Springbrook, so it has a whole bunch of other communications towers or equipment on it already.

Yours, and then is ATT and T Mobile on top of that already.

I'm sorry, which which one?

The um the water tower, right?

So where the communications equipment exists right now.

So it's yours, and there are other companies on top.

Oh, just okay.

So, what are the other where do the other companies have theirs right now?

So ATT, from what I understand, has been trying to lease space on this water tank for several years, but because of the ordinance change, the city wouldn't do it.

So now that there's a tower here, they were immediately interested.

T Mobile is on the short comed tower that is just north of the water tank.

But working with Comed is not ideal because it's very expensive and time consuming trying to do maintenance upgrades, and it's a much shorter site.

I think they're at 85, 90 feet.

So they were thrilled with the opportunity and they want to relocate as soon as possible if this tower is approved.

Okay, great, thank you.

You're welcome.

Commissioner Wright.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um Ray, I know I know you answered this, but I want to make sure that I say it again because I think it's very important.

This the city is going to own this tower, correct?

Yes, that's a great question.

The city will own it and they will lease it.

So part of Verizon's taking the lead since they know how to build and design towers.

So they're worked out a lease with the city and a clause to help offset some of the costs, but the the city will own the tower and lease back to Verizon and to T Mobile and ATT.

Great, thank you.

And then one other thing that um we we had uh we had someone in the community write uh a letter to the commissioner.

So I want to make sure if the person is watching that they they hear the answer to this.

Um the 1900 or the 190 feet, the 30, 30 feet or 190 feet tower, is that the optimal height?

I mean, you couldn't make that any lower, correct?

Well, again, the reason that we have 190 is because ATT submitted a letter of 10 saying they needed 185.

So if Verizon was just caring for Verizon, they would build 130-foot tower and be done.

But they're trying to design a tower that not only meets their needs, but enables the city to offer co-location to Verizon and ATT.

And based on the feedback from Team Mobile and ATT, they needed to build a taller tower.

Okay, that makes sense.

And then the last question is again the the location of this tower, I'm assuming has to be within a certain radius of that water tower for the optimal coverage.

Come, you know, uh you you explained this at the last um at the last tower meeting in order to not create a dark spot within a certain range that that tower has to be within a certain radius of where it currently exists.

Is that that's correct?

And I like to use the analogy of installing a sprinkler system on your front lawn.

You want to have the sprinkler heads just overlapping with each other.

If they're too far apart, you have a dead spot in your yard, and if they're too close, you're covering an area that's already covered.

So when you're replacing a sprinkler that's pulled out, you need to put that sprinkler head just so because it is connecting to adjacent sites that are already in place.

It's like a honeycomb of a network.

So that's why they ideally wanted to be up as close as they could to the water tank, but because of everything that was on the property and what the city had planned, this is the only site on the property that the city would support, and it eventually did work for Verizon.

Great.

Thank you for that clarification.

That's it.

You bet.

Commissioner Chillia?

No.

Namas.

Um just to kind of either make a clarification to the other commissioners' comments.

I would prefer having a co-location opportunity for so by having it lar taller, right?

We're able to have those other telecoms on there rather than having separate towers that they could then come back for, correct?

If they weren't on there, they would have to come.

That's a that's a great point.

You'll see a lot of towers in Aprilville, even just south, where you'll see two or three towers right next to each other.

And the reason for that is when carriers were initially building after the telecom act, they only built for themselves.

And the municipalities and everyone smart enough saying if you're gonna build a tower, build it for everybody.

So that's what we're doing tonight.

I think that that's the right move to plan ahead for that.

I would also have a question on because this is going to be owned by the city as the city taking maintenance on the tower, and then the actual what Verizon owns on the tower, that would be maintained by Verizon.

Correct.

So once the steel is up in the air, there's really nothing to it.

Especially with the FAA approval, there's no maintenance for that.

So really the maintenance are the antenna facilities.

And the tower does not admit RF emissions, it's the antenna facilities.

So that'll be borne on the carrier, and all the access and maintenance is spelled out in the lease agreement.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Um our student rep, do you have any questions?

Uh okay.

Um so yeah, you know, I think uh by this time we all recognize this is you know critical infrastructure that that we all need.

Um staff, thank you very much for your work in this.

Thank you, petitioner.

And I also want to recognize the the comment that was submitted online.

Um it was uh mentioned uh um uh I think Commissioner Wright, you mentioned uh gaps if this wasn't uh um approved.

Uh did you have a map or a picture on here that you could provide if if this if this was not approved, what what would you say?

So on the left, you'll see um the yellow, the the dark blue represents excellent, the dark blue and the green represents excellent inbuilding coverage and in in vehicular coverage.

If the site were to go away, the yellow represents what would happen.

And that coverage is you know, the yellow is an area where the RF engineers have their their um their confidence in their coverage drops significantly, and that will only grow over time.

So on the right, you'll see this is the tower that replace it, and it does fill in that gap uh nicely.

So if the one on the left would be if the site were to go away, which again, Verizon has built their network around the site, it's been there for 30 years.

If they just pulled it out, it would it would not be good for their network or their subscribers for sure.

Um you mentioned uh Commissioner Namas mentioned uh co-location.

I think it's a fantastic point.

Um a bit of a twist on that question or that that that comment.

Um has Verizon explored co-locating the existing structure, you know, to look maybe something nearby other than a water tower.

So it's a job when they when they identify an area where they need to cover, it's they give it to someone like myself and we look for anything existing, anything.

Um, and unfortunately, and uh they're on water tanks all over uh the Chicagoland area and the country.

Um, but if this water tank is not viable, it's just like ATT, they have nowhere to go because the only existing structures that are surrounded by it, they're already on.

The towers that are to the south, they're already on those towers.

To the north, they're already on the towers at 87th and MODAF.

If you go to the west, they're already on the tower that's right behind Nequa Valley High School.

And then if you go to the east, they're already on the Bowling Brook water tank.

So they're already on existing structures.

If they could co-locate on an existing structure and not have to build a new tower, they would have been there a long time ago.

But they really did not have a choice here, and that's why they've been patiently working with the city to find uh an alternative alternate site.

Yeah, I know technology is moving super quick.

Who knows how long this will last?

Uh I know 30 years, I think was the length of time as uh how how long you can have these uh structures on a water tower.

Is that uh if and when you know 30 years from now, uh we don't need these structures anymore.

Is the city responsible for decombination them taken down or who's um um I am not sure at this time, but I'm happy to look into that information and follow up.

I I believe the answer is correct.

They will own the tower, so they would have to take that down.

But I can tell you this, uh Vice Chair is that uh when we were after the telecom act, all the carriers were signing 20 25 30 year leases.

Now they're signing 60 to 90 year leases.

This is really part of the landscape and this cut, you know, this community, this country has grown dependent on wireless communications.

They're not only continuing to build macros like this, they're building small cells in the right-of-way to complement it.

They're doing inbuilding solutions and stadiums and hotels.

So it it is wireless technology that it's not gonna be going anywhere in time soon.

Um, I guess my last question, staff, uh clearly very similar to you know something we did, you know, just one year ago.

Uh, was there any feedback from residents after the completion of the project?

I am not aware of any feedback that we've received at um at this point.

Cool.

Thank you very much.

Um would the petitioner like to make any closing remarks?

No, no.

Okay, so I'd uh like to understand a motion to close the public hearing for DEV 0156 2025.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Okay.

The motion carries.

Um read the motion.

Okay.

Uh you Commissioner Novas.

I would like to make a motion to adopt the findings of fact as presented by the petitioner and recommend approval of DEV-0156-2025, a conditional use in the R1 district, and a variance to the telecommunications tower setback requirement to allow a telecommunication tower at 3712 Plainfield Naperville Road.

Can I have a second?

Second.

Commissioner Wright.

Uh, would you please re-conduct the roll call?

Long and ball.

Agree with the motion.

McDaniel.

I agree with the motion.

Not miss.

I agree with the motion.

Rachelia.

I agree with the motion.

And right, I agree with the motion.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um thank you very much.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Um, best of luck.

Um, Chair Robbins may now rejoin the meeting.

Will someone from staff please go back out and bring her on in.

I'm back.

Uh the next case on tonight's agenda is DEV-0166-2025.

The public hearing is now open for Isaac Marlot from staff to present the case.

Thank you, Chair.

Isaac Marlott with the city's planning services team speaking tonight on behalf of Sarah Kapinski.

DEV-0166-2025 is a request submitted by the petitioner for approval of a revocation of the MOV-ROSS joint venture PUD.

Approval of a variance to Section 5-10-3, colon 4.3.2, and section 5-10-3, colon 5.2.4 to eliminate the requirement for a continuous fence and landscape buffer along the northern property line, and approval of a variance to section 6-6E-7 to eliminate the required 15-foot interior side yard along the east property line in order to demolish the existing transportation building on the site and construct a new transportation building and garage.

The subject property is located at 601 West Fifth Avenue and is owned by Naperville C USD 203 and is situated situated north of West Fifth Avenue and east of Pacific Drive.

The site is approximately 3.9 acres in size.

Subject property is zoned R3-PUD, medium density multiple family residence district, and it's part of the preliminary MOV-ROSS joint venture PUD, originally approved by ordinance 80-037.

The original PUD was comprised of a multifamily residential development with offices fronting Fifth Avenue in the current location of the school district transportation facility.

Staff is supportive of the request to revoke the PUD as the development of the site has not been in accordance with the preliminary plan, nor does the site meet the current regulations for PUDs in the Naperville Municipal Code.

Staff is providing this information to establish further context for the site, but would like to note that revocation of a PUD is under the purview of City Council rather than the PC.

The proposed improvements to the site require two variances, one relating to landscape and screening requirements, and one relating to required interior side yard setbacks.

Given the proposed land use of the subject property is non-residential and is adjacent to existing residentials to the north, sections 5-10-3, colon 4.3.2, and 5-10-3, colon 5.2.4 of the municipal code require that fencing and buffering is provided along the northern property line.

The residential properties to the north, commonly referred to as the windscape of Neighborville apartments, currently maintain a six-foot tall wood fence along said north property line, which serves the intent of the aforementioned landscape and screening requirements.

In place of the required fence, the school district plans to install extensive landscaping as part of their project, including new trees and shrubs along this northern property line.

This bolstered landscaping will enhance the buffering between residential and non-residential uses.

Moreover, the fence that is currently maintained by the windscape of Naperville Apartments if should the fence that is currently maintained by the windscape of Naperville Apartments ever become defunct, the school district agrees to installing fencing and or additional landscaping in its place.

Staff is supportive of the proposal and finds the petitioner's landscape plan to be in accordance with the intent of the aforementioned sections of the code.

Additionally, the proposed improvements to the site require variance to section 6-6E-7 governing the required interior side yard setback along the eastern property line.

The intent of Section 6-6E-7 of the Naperville Municipal Code is to ensure adequate space is provided between adjacent properties and land uses.

The requirement of a 15-foot interior side yard would inhibit site development within the interior side yard, impacting the circulation between the adjacent sites and further limiting parking on the site.

Considering the school district owns the subject property at 601 West Fifth Avenue and the immediately adjacent property at 595 West Fifth Avenue, and considering both properties are used and proposed to be used for the district's transportation needs.

Staff finds that strict enforcement of this code would result in hardship in the form of reduced parking and inefficient use of space for the school district.

City staff has reviewed the information provided and finds the requested variances and PUD revocation to be appropriate, and staff is supportive of the request.

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

Great.

Thank you.

Will the petitioner please approach the podium?

Thank you very much.

So you did that one and I just control that.

Okay.

All right.

Um thank you very much for uh allowing us to present this project tonight.

Uh my name is Dave Patton.

I'm with uh Haley Bender, Patent and Maine Architects, we're the architects for the project.

Um also with our office who's here tonight is uh Matt Jekka, who has worked extensively on the project.

Uh representing the school district, uh, district 203.

We have Melanie Brown, uh, who is uh director of buildings of grounds, and Chuck Freint, who is the assistant superintendent for administrative services.

Also also with us tonight is uh Pepper Construction, who's the construction manager who will construct the project.

Uh Joe DeSisio and Jeff Carlson are both here as well.

Uh this is a uh plan of the existing conditions.

So what we have out here is um two parcels.

Uh parcel one uh to the west is the 3.9 acres that is uh looking to have the uh PUD revoked.

Um, and then the existing bus parking uh currently out there is parcel two, uh 2.85 acres, and uh parcel one, three point nine acres.

Um the project is basically to develop the entire uh 6.75 acre site.

Uh you'll see there's currently two structures out there that are planned to be demolished.

There's an existing office uh facility on the uh parcel one and the existing uh bus maintenance garage on parcel two.

The plan is to construct a new single building that will have both the garage maintenance facilities as well as the office facilities.

Because they're actually storing some buses across the street at the transitions facility for the district.

They're trying to consolidate all the bus parking within one bus parking area.

And so what is happening is that the bus parking is kind of expanding a little bit to the west to pick up some additional capacity.

And the uh the gates are automatic opening uh sliding gates.

There is a connection not only to Fifth Avenue but to the transportation facility to the east from that bus parking area for uh to allow for uh a little bit easier access for buses that are being maintained at the facility.

Um you can see uh to the um to the left of the uh transportation building is a large parking area.

That's uh the parking for the drivers, the staff.

Um we have uh monitors for the buses, um, there's mechanics that have parking.

So we're providing 160 uh spaces for the employees, and uh on top of that, six additional would be uh handicap accessible stalls.

So there is some visitor parking there as well.

Uh in that uh parking area, you'll see kind of a yellow uh shaded area.

That's the underground stormwater detention facility, storm trap that is being used to handle stormwater detention for this development.

Uh that's been sized and approved by uh the city engineers was mentioned.

Um Isaac mentioned the the landscaping.

So there's quite a bit of landscaping on this project across Fifth Avenue to the uh east or to the west at Pacific along the north property line where that fence line is.

Um again, what we're we're trying to do is just you know maintain that existing six-foot fence.

It's a it's a decent fence rather than construct another fence in front of it.

That's uh one of the variances that we're looking for.

And then uh there was a suggestion about uh eliminating the interior side yard.

So you can see that uh tag number three, that's the interior side yard area that uh we'd be uh eliminating the requirements for the side yard as part of this development because it happens to be basically in the middle of the bus parking area, and then uh number one is uh just to revoke that uh the PUD that's been in place since I think it was the 80s.

Uh it just doesn't apply at this point, and uh we work with uh staff to suggest just to revoke that and convert revert back to I think it's R3 zoning.

Uh a couple uh quick images of the proposed facility.

Uh the new uh bus maintenance area will have uh four maintenance garages, and then the garage to uh the left is a bus wash bay.

Uh buses go in there and get washed.

Uh you can see the main entrance there with the flag, and then beyond that would be the office area.

Inside the office area will be a uh a pretty large uh room for the drivers.

There's um 125 drivers, so uh when they show up, they are uh you know they'll they'll sit in there, uh run their routes, and a lot of them will stay there during the day and then run the routes uh later in the afternoon rather than uh go because some of them live outside of Naperville quite a bit, so it's convenient.

So trying to make it comfortable for them so they can spend their day in there, and then uh there's obviously the administration of the transportation system.

Uh there's office spaces within that uh for that for that personnel as well.

And with that, I'll just open it up to any questions you might have about the project.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Um at this time I'd like to hear from the public though present tonight to speak in this case, Secretary Wright.

Do we have anyone signed up?

Uh Mr.

Patton, you have uh um Mr.

Mr.

or excuse me, Mrs.

Brown, Mr.

Carlson, and DeSico signed up.

Do you guys want to speak or okay?

Then we have no one else they didn't know they had to sign up or not.

No problem, no one has to.

They're not planning to speak to me.

Thank you.

Are there any other members in the public that would like to speak on the case?

All right.

Uh I will then turn to the commissioners.

Do any of you guys have comments or questions on the case?

Commissioner Longenbach.

Thank you.

Um apologies.

My my daughters graduated from from high school a while ago, so they're in college now.

Um I had heard in the news that District 203 was going to be getting EV buses, electric buses.

Is that still a thing or no?

Uh there are they currently own electric buses.

Um there was some um infrastructure improvements done last summer to add the charging stations for those buses at that current bus slot, and those buses will be maintained.

So they they currently have some and they're in operation.

Okay, where were those chargers on your map?

Or are they in a totally different location?

They're they're within the uh perimeter of the uh bus charging area or bus parking area, but they're um basically the stalls to the north.

Okay, could you just show us where that is?

I'm just curious where that where that is.

So there's stalls in this area that have that that those charging stations.

That's where those are kept.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

And let me um and then just I was just curious how many parking spots does the current does the current site has have for all of the the drivers and maintenance, because it definitely sounds like you're improving that with um with adding more spaces for them, like how many do you have now?

I'm not sure I have that number.

They they they fill the the driver lot currently, okay.

Um and then uh I think the main the maintenance staff park around the maintenance building, which is actually inside the the bus parking area.

So this is better.

Yeah.

Okay.

No more questions.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Wright.

Um, just two quick questions.

The the uh parcel number two, which is currently where the buses are parked, is it the intent that the school will continue to idle the buses in that lot and none in lot one?

There the district's looking to obviously use parcel two to the west for bus parking, but uh in order to try to increase the capacity for bus parking, the uh perimeter of that is expanding to the east and taking a little bit or some of the property in parcel one as part of this development.

Right.

Okay, and maybe I didn't ask that question right, so I apologize.

Um in the in the winter time, it seems that buses will idle for warm-up purposes.

Is is it the intent that that idling will still happen in in parcel two and it will not bleed over other than that little carve out?

It will not bleed out into parcel one, which I guess what I'm getting at, so that it's not closer to the apartments.

That that would be true.

Okay, all right.

Um, and then the overhead doors face Fifth Avenue for the face Fifth Avenue, yes, and there's nothing on the back side.

Uh there's a man door, but no overhead doors.

No pull in, pull out.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Commissioner Namas, or yeah, Commissioner Namas.

Do you have any questions?

No.

Commissioner Trellian.

Um, question for staff.

Um I I know PUD revocations are somewhat common.

Um when this occurs and there are other joint parties involved, uh, like in this case with uh was it Ross Joint Venture.

Uh are they notified of that request and do they have any obligations or outstanding rights ever?

No.

Um good evening, Pat Lloyd.

I'm an attorney in the legal department.

Um so your question, Commissioner, is when there's a revocation of a PUD?

Yes.

Are the other people notified of the revocation?

I believe they are.

Okay.

Now, as it relates to the fence.

I know that there's a I guess a wood fence currently owned by the apartment complex.

It's the apartments, yes.

Okay.

If and when no they were to take that down, is there a mechanism in place that would I guess require you guys to build an additional fence or is that on the schools on the uh apartment uh their their responsibility to put that up?

I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?

So uh the the wood fence owned by the apartment complex.

Uh if they were to take that down, it's their responsibility to build a new one, or is that on the school district and their their responsibility to build it?

So the the school district is in agreement that if that wood fence that's currently maintained by the apartments will ever be taken down or you know is destroyed, the school district will be responsible for improving that site to make sure the squeeze the screening is adequate.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I think it didn't sound to me like there's gonna be any additional traffic, it's gonna be kind of just nothing new coming.

No, it's it's basically uh consistent with what's happening out there now.

We're just trying to uh reorganize it, consolidate it, improve uh efficiency.

Okay, thank you.

That's all.

All right, student representative.

Do you have any questions?

Hi.

Um, I understand that this is like a pretty major project, and I know we already mentioned like the EV buses, but just in general, like has a district considered designing it with like special accommodations like for the future, like um just different transportation needs or like higher power needs, just so that like it doesn't need another major update later.

Um, I think some of the electrical improvements that were done uh last summer to accommodate these bus chargers, I think was those the transformer was I think oversized to allow for additional uh electric buses.

Uh we did talk to uh the district about their um plans for additional electric buses, and they indicated at least at this point they uh were not planning to expand the electric bus fleet, but again, that can change.

Um we did not build in extra capacity for uh on the building side for um electric bus charging.

There actually is one charger inside the building for electric buses if they have to take that in and service it.

So there is one charger within the building.

Any other questions?

All right, that was a great question.

Uh the one question I do want to ask regarding the idling.

I know currently today, just because I go down Fifth Avenue quite a bit, the buses idle on Fifth Avenue at times with this new proposal.

Will that eliminate that completely when these buses are waiting?

It's you know, the queuing to go in, they wait um until it's their time.

Will that be will that be removed with this new construction?

Um that's probably a question I would have to review with um the director of transportation.

I'm not sure how they would operate that, but I think Yeah, I because that's a that's a huge traffic congestion area for Fifth Avenue.

Hence, we also have the crossing guard now.

Um I'm guessing with this that will remove the crossing guard need.

Do you know that?

I do not know that either.

All right, and so once this is completed, there will be no need to use the facility across the street.

Is that correct?

The that's the plan is to not have to park anything outside the perimeter fencing.

I mean, it's a security issue, is you know, one of the reasons that they're doing this.

Um with the uh bus maintenance garage in the middle of the bus parking.

Obviously, it makes the ability to drive around, you know, you've got this building as an obstacle, so that's going away, so that's we're allowed you know, we're we're resulting in a more efficient layout of the bus parking area and hopefully get them off Fifth Avenue uh quicker than maybe what's happening now.

Yeah, I would be interested to know um what the plans are for Fifth Avenue in that idling process of going into the new proposal.

We'll uh ask the district to get it back with the uh transportation department and get you an answer on that.

That would be great.

Um do any of the commissioners have any additional questions?

All right, would you like to make some closing remarks?

Um, just to appreciate your time tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for development dash 0166-2025.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Motion carries.

Commissioner Richelia, please read the motion.

I would like to make a motion to adopt the finals of fact as presented by the petitioner and recommend approval of D E V 0166-2025.

Grant and approval forbearance to required fencing and interior side yard setbacks for the properties located at 595 and 601 West Fifth Avenue for School District 203 transportation building.

Second.

All right.

Motion carries.

Secretary Wright, please conduct the roll call.

Log and ball.

Agree with the motion.

McDaniel.

I agree.

Nominous.

I agree.

Richelio.

I agree with the motion.

Robins?

I agree with the motion.

Right.

I agree with the motion.

Motion passes.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

The next case on tonight's agenda is DEB-0170-2025.

The public hearing is now open.

Anna Franca from staff will present the case.

Thank you, Chair.

Anna Franco with the city's planning services team.

The petitioner for DEV-0170-2025 requests approval of a variance to the minimum parking facility setback and a variance to the required minimum number of off-street parking spaces for a private gym and lacrosse training facility at 655 North Washington Street.

The subject property is small in size at approximately 0.2 acres and is zoned B3 General Commercial District.

The property is improved with an approximately 6,500 square foot one-story vacant building that was previously used as an auto body shop, as well as gravel parking in an outdoor storage area.

Adjacent uses include a multi-tenant office building to the south, which shares a wall with the building on the subject property, single family residential across the public alley to the west, an auto shop and U-Haul facility to the north, and retail and multifamily uses across Washington Street to the east.

The petitioner proposes to renovate the interior and exterior of the existing building and construct a paved parking area north of the building to replace the current gravel surface and outdoor storage area.

There is limited width between the existing building and the north property line.

So the petitioner is proposing a one-way drive aisle with angled parking with ingress from Washington Street and egress onto the alley at the rear of the property.

A six-inch curb will provide a barrier between the parking area on the subject property and the parking area on the U-Hall property to the north.

The petitioner is requesting approval of a variance to section 6-9-2-4.2.2 of the Midfassel Code to decrease the required five-foot minimum parking facility setback along the north property line to zero feet.

Staff is supportive of the proposed parking variants as inadequate width is available on the property to provide both the required setback and the required parking spaces.

Further, the proposal brings the property more into compliance by providing a paved surface for the parking area and by providing an ADA accessible space.

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

The petitioner is also requesting approval of a parking variance to reduce the minimum number of parking spaces required for a fitness facility.

Per the municipal code, a fitness facility is required to provide four spaces per thousand gross square feet of floor area, or in this case, 26 parking spaces.

The petitioner is providing nine spaces, including the ADA parking spaces, which is 17 spaces short of the minimum requirement.

Due to the private nature of the gym and lacrosse facility, the petitioner says that the facility will have limited parking needs and estimates that no more than eight vehicles will be parked on the property at one time.

Based on this information, staff believes the provision of nine parking spaces is sufficient to meet the demand of the business and supports the request.

Staff agrees with the petitioner's findings and recommends their adoption by the planning and zoning commission, subject to the condition provided in the staff report that outlines required measures should should issues arrive meeting the parking demand on the property.

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

Thank you.

Will the petitioner please approach the podium?

How's it going?

Okay.

Sorry.

Oh, no problem.

Very less in the school district.

It's a tough crowd of file.

Okay.

And to go to the next slide.

Yeah, just take yourself.

Okay.

My uh, I guess proposal or presentation is very simplified.

What we have here is the existing structure.

I think it was built in the 1960s, as I mentioned before, used to be a previous and auto body shop to the north is the U-Hall quick serve that's currently joining there.

Um I purchased this building with the intent of basically playing lacrosse with my son.

He's nine years old and got you know, very avid lacrosse player.

Um this is a totally unusual use in the sense that we used to play in our backyard and then they built a home behind us, and it's literally right in the trajectory of the golf balls, and I've probably caused 10, 15 granite damage to my neighbor's property in the last six months.

So I did the math, and he's got you know maybe 13 more years with me, and it's gonna cost a lot more uh and damage to my new neighbor's property.

So look for a place within walking distance from my son gets older, he can go and throw the ball and play the cross and not hurt somebody.

Um so my parking demands are really zero, but I have to put a parking lot there, so that's fine.

Um and this is the proposed.

Um doesn't really feature too much of the parking lot subject, but um egress from Washington, eagle uh sorry, ingress from Washington egress through the alleyway.

Um when my son turns 16, he'll drive there and he'll park.

But till then he'll just bike.

So um that's the the structure.

I think you know the biggest improvement for Naperville is that it doesn't look like this anymore.

And um my son can't drive, so that's the plus for parking.

Uh so yeah, I would appreciate the review.

Happy answer any questions.

Um the private gym nature of it is is I do have a buddy who is a personal trainer, and to make any sense of this, um, since my use of this building is very sparse.

Um, primarily if it's you know summertime or if it's raining or cold outside, I'll be in there playing lacrosse with him.

Uh so my arrangement is that I'm gonna lease the front 1500 square feet um to my buddy who's a personal trainer, and he just does one-on-ones.

So um he's one guy, and he does personal training.

So it two cars maybe during business hours.

I don't know if all of a sudden it becomes super popular because of his location or Washington, but uh he's only one person.

So I don't imagine we'll have any overflow.

I think there was public comment about 8th Avenue.

I had to look up where 8th Avenue was, even though I've lived in Averville my entire life.

Um, I have no plans on parking on Eighth Avenue.

So happy answering any questions.

Thank you.

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

Secretary Wright, please call the first speaker.

Did the contractor want to speak on this?

Uh they're all here.

Rich signed up.

Did you want to speak?

Do you want to speak?

I signed up just in case.

Okay, no problem.

No one else wanted.

All right.

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

All right.

I will start with the commissioners.

Uh Commissioner Namez, do you have any questions?

Commissioner Ruchellia?

Um, I love lacrosse.

Uh my son plays.

I I think it's a great sport.

My um, I wish it was much more prevalent when I was growing up, and I'm glad it is now.

Um I I'm glad you clarify clarified the nature of the the private use.

Um, I I guess really my only question is you know, do you see your business model changing?

Um, and and if that were to change, and you can see where my question goes, um, related to uh you know parking in demand and spiking above the nine spaces that you that you need.

So it was a question of do I see the business or use changing?

Um, I mean, not really.

The place is not um, I mean, as you know, lacrosse field is bigger than a football field, right?

Um the ceilings are only 16 feet high, uh, clear span.

So, like there really isn't much you can do in here other than some basic drills.

So um, for my purposes, there's not a business model that would sustain.

Um, my business model is less destruction, repairs to my neighbor, ROI.

Hopefully, property taxes gets knocked down a little bit with some you know finagling.

Um, and then I break even or do that.

So this is definitely more of a passion project.

Uh 10 years left with my son, and I'm gonna maximize it.

So and he loves lacrosse, he's at lacrosse right now.

Thank you very much.

All right, Commissioner Longima.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, I love this building.

Um, I live in park addition, so see it all the time.

Um so I'm really happy that it's not gonna be torn down.

Although I have to admit, I really do like the brick, so I'm a little bummed that it's all gonna be covered up.

Sure.

But that's neither here nor there.

That is not something that we can weigh in.

That's just my opinion.

Um, I did want to address there was a letter from a resident that we received who lives on Eagle Street, and she was concerned about the fewer parking spots.

What you've described kind of alleviates my my fears on that.

Um, but I just had a question for staff.

Um, what is the the time limit?

Because I'm sure that that's restricted given its proximity to the train station.

What is the hourly time limit on Eagle right now?

And I just want to clarify do you mean the the street that was referenced behind the subject property?

Main Street?

Yeah, that's where the resident, or was it Maine?

Oh, yeah, it's Maine, not Eagle.

Yeah, I had the street names wrong.

Yeah, you're yeah.

Um I'm sorry, I'm going to refer this question to Chris Nichols, who's an engineer with uh 10.

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure we have four hour restricted parking in that neighborhood.

Is it the same as park condition?

That because it was just recently at the end of the day.

I thought we just four recently.

I think it's consolidated everything.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's four hours.

Okay, so it's already restricted, and so I just I kind of wanted to address that for the resident who is worried that there would be people parking all the time.

It doesn't sound like your your business model um will will cater to that.

Terribly unprofitable business model.

Yeah.

Um I did want to mention in in your picture right here, and this is just totally separate something that you might want to consider.

I see that you've got the the handicap spot.

Um you might want to consider using the active accessibility logo.

It's a new logo that it's more active, and if you Google it, it's something that um the accessible um commission on disabilities is something that they've been promoting, and if that's something that you would consider using instead of the kind of the old time one, that would be kind of a cool thing to do.

So just as long as I don't have to resubmit for permits, that's fine with me.

No, it's it's basically that's your decision.

Yeah, so I just I just wanted to mention that as something that that would be kind of a cool thing thing to do.

So I mean, as long as you go across the king play, you know, you can park there, go for it.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Wright.

So, first of all, father of the year.

I couldn't get a basketball, you buy your son a building.

I love it.

That's that's awesome.

Um, and and I do live on Eagle, so this is my this is my neighborhood, and I'm certainly excited to see this building.

It's been an eyesore forever.

And so I'm very, very excited to see this building uh get put to use.

So thank you there.

Um parking makes sense.

My my my only concern, and this is really more of a concern for staff or question for staff.

Um, when your son grows up and you sell this building, what mechanism is in place to prevent future owners from violating any sort of parking restrictions?

So the parking variants that would be approved with this case would only apply to this business.

So if another fitness facility wanted to come in or another use, they would need to comply with the parking uh requirements outlined in the municipal code.

That's why this building's been so depth, you know, such terrible farm for so long, is because there's been no one who's gonna be able to come in and meet any kind of use to make it sets.

Like, again, this is a terrible investment.

Um and whatever, right?

So that's why I hope you approve it.

Otherwise, no one else is gonna take the space.

Like it when I sell this thing, no one's gonna buy it.

I I've come to that conclusion.

I'm just gonna knock it down.

Well, I do know a few people they wanted that building, but uh they wouldn't ever they wouldn't have the use would never pass though.

Um I would just echo all the other commissioners.

Did you have any uh questions at this?

Okay, I just wanted to make sure.

Um I too live in that area, and I disagree about the property.

I think what you're doing is phenomenal.

It's been a long time coming, so I'm excited about that.

Cool.

Thank you.

It's going to add value to the area to that land.

Um, so hats off to you for that.

The parking, those concerns have been addressed by everybody else and staff.

So um at this time, if you want to make any closing remarks.

Um no, I mean I appreciate your time, and this has been I don't know where my tax dollars go as a citizen of you know, resident of Naperville, so this has been fun.

So learning experience.

Thank you for being patient with me.

I'm glad to hear that.

Thank you.

All right, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for DEB-0170-2025.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right, motion carries.

Commissioner Longenbach, 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 01702025.

A variance to decrease the parking facility setback along the north property line, and a variance to decrease the required minimum number of off-street parking spaces, subject to the recommended condition of approval for a private gym and lacrosse facility for the property located at 655 North Washington Street.

Can I have a second?

Second.

Secretary Wright, please conduct roll call.

Logan ball.

Agree with the motion.

McDaniel, I agree.

Not a miss.

I agree.

Richelia.

I agree with the motion.

Robins?

I agree.

Right.

I agree with the motion.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

All right.

The last public hearing the hearing case on tonight's agenda is DEB-0001-2026.

The public hearing is now open.

Therese Igner from staff will present the case.

Thank you, Chair.

Therese Egner with the city's planning services team.

DEV-001-2026 is a request submitted by the petitioner for approval of a variance to allow a proposed addition to a single family home to encroach approximately 10 and 14 inches into the required corner side yard.

The subject property 32 South Columbia Street is generally located at the northeast corner of the Columbia Street and Van Buren Avenue intersection and is approximately 11,250 square feet.

The property is improved with a 2.5-story single-family residence and detached garage.

The principal structure is non-conforming due to the south wall of the building encroaching into the 15-foot required corner side yard setback in the R2 single family and low density multiple family residence district.

Per the municipal code, alterations to a non-conforming principal structure shall comply with the current regulations and requirements for the zoning district.

The owners and petitioners, Mark and Melissa Erda are proposing an approximately 1,600 square foot addition.

The south exterior wall of the addition is designed to align with the south wall of the existing residence, requiring a variance for relief from the required corner side yard setback.

The municipal code provides that no portion of the principal structure shall encroach into the required corner side yard setback.

In order to construct the addition, the petitioner is requesting a variance from the code to permit the addition to encroach 10 and 14 inches into the 15-foot required corner side yard setback.

Staff does not have concerns with the proposed design as the petitioner identifies their proposed improvements, respect the aesthetic of the existing neighborhood.

Staff does not anticipate negative impacts to neighboring properties or users of the right-of-way and finds the requested variants to be appropriate.

A certificate of appropriateness COA is required because major work is proposed on the primary facades of the principal structure as described in section 6-11-8 of the historic preservation code.

The site plan and elevations for the proposed improvements were provided in the attachments.

On March 26, 2026, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval of the requested COA.

The HPC's approval of the COA is final.

Planning and zoning commission review of the COA is not required.

Per code, the HPC also provides a recommendation to the PCC regarding any variants that is sought in the historic district.

On March 26, 2026, the HPC also recommended approval of the required corner side yard setback variants.

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

Thank you.

Will the petitioner please approach the podium?

Good evening.

I've got how are you?

Great, that's right.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks.

Good evening.

Um I am Cathy Kathleen West of the law firm of Diamond Youth Colbine West Gensler et al.

And our law firm represents Mark and Melissa Urta, the owners of the subject property.

Mr.

and Mrs.

Urda wish to construct an addition to the house located at 32 South Columbia Street.

The proposed addition will encroach into the corner side yard setback by approximately 10 inches.

They are requesting a variance to reduce the minimum corner side yard setback from 15 feet to 14 feet 1 and 3 quarters inches.

The house is located at the northeast corner of Columbia Street and Van Buren Avenue.

The property is zoned R2, consists of 11,250 square feet, and is improved with a two and a half story single family residence.

The house is a Sears house constructed in 1912 and is designed in the Queen Anne style of architecture.

The house was constructed way before we had zoning in Naperville.

So it didn't have to meet any setback requirements.

And as Therese said, the existing house is considered a non-conforming structure.

The URDs intend to one preserve and restore the existing house, and two, to design an addition which complements the architecture of the existing structure.

The restoration and preservation work includes the installation of a gable over the front door, refinishing and replacing windows, refinishing the original front door, let's see, and adding some columns and refinishing columns and incorporating a limestone foundation which will match the existing foundation of the house.

And will include a master suite, a den, a laundry room, and an updated kitchen.

The addition will be set back approximately 36 feet from the front edge of the front porch, which faces Columbia Street.

And the addition will maintain the design elements and materials of the of the original house.

The addition really needs to maintain the same south line of the existing existing building.

One to allow the structure of the building, the roof and the foundation structure to maintain the same line.

If the roof is set back, that affects the structure of the roof.

The URTA submit that the that this request satisfies the criteria for the granting of variants.

The purpose and intent of the setback requirements is to ensure adequate separation for light and air.

The subject property is located at the south at the northeast corner of Columbia Street and Van Buren Avenue.

East of Columbia Street, Van Buren only extends another 150 feet and dead ends at an alley between Columbia Street and Julian.

So basically, the Van Buren Street is acting just as like a wide alley at that point.

The proposed addition will maintain that existing south line of the wall.

And the house and the house at the southeast corner of Columbia Street and Van Buren Avenue is oriented to Columbia Street.

The requested corner side yard setback variants will be keeping with the existing condition and provide adequate separation between the two houses, thereby being in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning regulations.

The special and unusual condition of the subject property is the encroachment of the existing house into the now required corner side yard setback.

As I said, the house was constructed in 1912 prior to the establishment of zoning regulations.

The addition to the house should be constructed along the same line as the south line of the house so as to maintain the aesthetics of the house and maintain the wall and resulting roof forms from the south and west elevations.

The existing encroachment has not negatively impacted the surrounding properties.

Also, the existing addition or the proposed addition is set back from the front of the house.

The granting of this variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood nor be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties.

The historic preservation commission approved the certificate of appropriateness for the building addition and recommended approval of the corner side yard setback variants.

The neighbor to the south has submitted a letter of support for this variance request.

Based on the information presented, Mr.

and Mrs.

Urda requests the planning and zoning commission to recommend approval of the variants to reduce the minimum corner side yard setback from 15 feet to 14 feet one and three-quarters inches.

Mr.

Urta is here tonight to help answer any questions.

Thank you.

At this time, I'd like to hear from any of the members of the public present tonight to speak on this case.

Secretary Wright.

No one signed up.

All right.

Are there any other members in the public that would like to speak on this case tonight?

All right, then I will turn it to the commissioners now.

Uh Commissioner Longenbah.

No comment.

Anyone?

Mr.

Erda, good to see you.

Glad you could join us this evening.

Thank you.

Uh I wish my wife said the same thing.

Uh any re this is a relatively larger uh addition.

Uh any reason to believe that it would encroach on any, I guess, sight lines from vehicles on Vim Duran.

Um, I do not believe that it's within the site triangle, um, but it is worth noting that it complies with all the other setbacks, including the interior side yard setback to the north, the rear yard setback um to the west.

Thank you.

Mr.

McDaniel, just just so you you realize the addition is behind the existing house, so it doesn't have any um issues with the site site distance along Columbia Street.

I would just add I walk past your house every single night with my dogs.

Um I think it's gonna be awesome.

I think there's been so much work done on that block, it's just gonna enhance it even more.

So I'm excited for you all.

Uh at this time if you'd like to make any closing remarks.

No.

All right.

I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for DEB-0001-2026.

Moved.

Second.

All right.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right, motion carries.

Commissioner Wright, please read the motion.

I would like to make a motion to adopt the findings of facts as presented by the petitioner and recommend approval of DEV-0001-2026, a variance to the R2 yard requirements outlined in section six-six C7 colon one of the municipal code to allow an addition to the principal structure at 32 South Columbia Street.

Can I have a second?

Second.

All right.

Uh Secretary Wright, please conduct roll call.

Long and ball.

Agree with the motion.

McDaniel, I agree.

Not Ms.

I agree with the motion.

I agree with the motion.

Robins.

I agree.

Right, I agree.

Motion passes.

Congratulations.

All right.

On to reports and recommendations.

Our next order of business is reports and recommendations.

We have three reports scheduled for tonight's meeting.

First is the approval of the proposed amendments to the PZ PCC bylaws to update current meeting processes, procedures, and requirements, as well as a change to the PCC meeting start time from 7 p.m.

to 6 p.m.

If there is a PCC consensus to do so, Anna Franco from staff will present the item.

Thank you, Chair.

Anna Franco with the City's planning services team.

At the February 18th PCC meeting, the commission discussed a potential change to the PCC meeting start time from the current start time of 7 p.m.

to 6 p.m.

in response to feedback that the current meeting start time poses difficulty for some to attend.

At the conclusion of discussion on February 18th, the Commission approved a motion to direct staff to prepare an amendment to the PCC bylaws to update the meeting start time, as well as make other staff recommended changes changes for approval at an upcoming PCC meeting.

Before you tonight are the proposed amendments to the PCC bylaws.

These changes are summarized in the staff memo and shown in the attached markup version of the bylaws and a clean version of the bylaws for ease of reading.

The amendments not only change the meeting time from 7 o'clock to 6 o'clock p.m.

but formalize written comment practices, update holiday and election days, clarify rules for electronic attendance and public form participation, update public hearing procedures related to evidence and cross-examination, public testimony, and the petitioners' presentation and closing remarks, and also update procedures regarding closure or continuance of the public hearing and PCC deliberations.

Further, public hearing procedures have been updated to clarify that commissioner comments and deliberations shall occur after the petitioner's closing remarks and after closure of the public hearing.

Following the commission's discussion and consensus regarding the PCC meeting start time, staff recommends approval of the proposed PCC bylaw amendments.

If the commission does not recommend changing the meeting start time, staff recommends approval of the proposed bylaw amendments without the time change.

And then myself and Pat Lord, Senior Assistant City Attorney, we are available for questions.

And she also reminded me that for the bylaws to be approved on tonight's agenda, uh, six votes are necessary for that approval.

All right, thank you.

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

Secretary Wright.

Marilyn Schweitzer.

Okay, thank you.

Um, Marilyn Schweitzer, longtime Neighborville resident.

Uh first I would prefer keeping the meeting time to 7 p.m.

One reason is compared to other um commissions and boards.

Uh there tends to be everything that pretty much goes in front of the PCC also goes on to city council, and having the same start time, I think is is easier for keeping that straight.

Um it's kind of my preference.

And also I I didn't see on where on social media things were posted for the public.

Um and I'm curious just to know what was the public response, you know, since it was sort of announced for this change, because I I didn't see that in the um tonight's agenda.

Um third, um, it may not need to be codified, but a separate means of submitting uh written comments to planning would be helpful.

Um at the moment, if you want to ask a question to planning, you know, about something where you're not ready to make your comments, you send it to planning at Napriville.il.us, and that's the same way that you submit public comments.

And it's hard to, I think, keep that sometimes separate, which I'll explain later on why that gets confusing.

Um fourth is if whether submitted comments can be included um prior to the meeting, like they do for city council, you know.

So you know, like at five o'clock, for example, you can go online and see what other people have sort of submitted for for written comments.

Um fifth is I'm sort of wondering what happened to my written comments that I submitted in February.

I thought they were supposed to be uh attached to meeting minutes, and I don't see them anywhere.

And that's something else that I wish we could sort of get clarified.

And this isn't the only commission that that happens.

Um somehow written public comments kind of just sometimes disappear.

And then fine, finally, I would greatly favor the commission returning to the policy that applications included on agendas that have been re reviewed, well, that they have been reviewed and approved by staff or compliance with city codes and ordinances before they come to the commission.

That used to be the policy, and um, when I noticed it wasn't being followed, it just sort of got removed from the website, and that was it.

So I would love to see that come back.

I think it's important for public view.

I think it would help both commissioners, the public in the long run, and I think it also in the long run it would help staff as well.

I think it causes some problems.

For example, if I can think of Benton and Maine, you know, with the issue where um the petitioner and staff hadn't resolved yet, you know, what they were going to be doing about the the parkways, and then you know that got did get resolved by the time it came in front of the city council, but then you know, some public members, for example, were unhappy that there weren't the same planters and things like that.

So I think you know, when things are more thoroughly reviewed before they come to this um commission, you know, meeting all of code that that can eliminate hardship later on.

Uh, thank you very much.

Thank you.

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

All right, I will open it up to the commissioners to have any comments.

Commissioner Longenbow.

Thank you.

Um I want to thank staff for the updates.

Um, I liked the the change of chairman to chair, so I like the more gender neutral.

That was good.

Um I also really appreciated um clarifying the the order.

So I think we did a really good job tonight of at asking all of our questions beforehand.

So thank you for that clarification.

That was that was really good.

Um I don't really have any um specific questions for you.

This is not a public hearing, so we can make our comments.

So this is a little bit different though.

Um, Ms.

Weisher, you you mentioned like what kind of feedback we had gotten from from the public about the meeting time.

Um, you know, if we've seen it from from both sides.

Um, you know, some people have you know said that they prefer the seven, some people prefer the six.

It's kind of a mixed bag.

I don't think unfortunately we're gonna be able to satisfy everyone because you've got pros and cons on both sides.

Um ultimately we want to maximize the ability for for people to be able to participate and participate safely.

So whether it's you know child care and and seniors attending, um, you know, we want to make it safe and easy for everybody to do it.

Um comparatively, I mean, boards and commissions have different times, you know, all over.

There are very important meetings that happen at five, like the PUAB, and we have all of the city council workshops, budget workshops that happen at six.

So there's certainly a precedent for having important meetings at six.

So, I mean, I am I'm in favor of it.

Um, you know, I can if if everybody else would prefer seven, I can certainly I will certainly attend either way.

That would be my preference.

So that's why I said thank you, Commissioner Wright.

Yeah, so I agree.

Thank you, staff for your hard work on this.

Uh, I know this took quite a while to get done, so thank you on that.

Um, regarding the times, I I am really neutral on that, as as Commissioner Longbaugh said, I you know, there was comments made on both sides.

This really became prevalent around some of the longer meetings that we've had.

Um, there was a comment made online uh for this particular night about 95% of our cases are are are under two and a half hours, which is true.

We're we're we're usually done fairly quickly.

Um, but when we had the data center case was really when it became very prevalent.

People would come up afterwards, they weren't necessarily submitting the the uh comments online, they would come up afterwards and and and requesting uh that we move the time up so that they didn't have to stay here with their children.

Um but again, that is few and far between.

So I see it both ways.

Um again, I'm pretty neutral on the time.

If we want to stay at seven, I'm fine.

I'm I'm curious to hear what the rest of the commissioners uh want on that.

Can I ask the question about some other areas in the bylaws?

Okay, so one one one of the things that jumped out to me was uh the cross-examination.

It seemed to be pretty broad and loose, um, and maybe would allow someone unlimited time to cross-examine the witness.

Would we be able to limit that cross-examination to material facts and not opinions?

Is that a possibility?

Uh again, Pat Lord with the legal department.

Um, one of the other changes that we made um in this set of bylaws is to make it clear that during public hearings there is no time limit.

We heard from somebody saying, you know, the petitioner gets forever to speak, and we get three minutes, and that's not fair.

That was a misunderstanding.

So we went out of our way to make it clear that public forum is three minutes and public hearing is not limited.

Cross-examination falls into that pot too.

But there are provisions in here, as there are in the current bylaws that say that the chair can request that you don't do repetitive comments, you can't, um, and that you consolidate witnesses and testimony to the extent that you can't.

So if people get obnoxious about it, uh you you do have some controls.

I thought the CARIS, I thought the CARIS hearing was interesting and impressive.

I am constantly impressed by the city's citizens.

They are intelligent, they're thoughtful.

I don't really see them abusing the process too much.

I just didn't see it much at all.

So I think there are controls, and I think mostly they're not necessary.

Great.

Well, thank you.

And I do agree.

Um, you know, our citizens are very studied, and I appreciate that.

I think it's what makes our community great.

Um, I you know, I do I do think that uh the broad nature of the guardrails around the cross-examination could lead to someone using it as a stall tactic.

And um, you're right, we didn't see that in the Keras case, um, but but I also think that it puts our chair in a position where she has to she or he has to determine what a good cross-examination question is, and if we put down that cross-examination was limited to material facts, which is what we need to hear, and not opinions, I think that that would make it very clear for all the commissioners that if someone started to offer a personal opinion versus material facts that it would automatically be cut off.

Does that make sense?

I I understand what you're saying, Commissioner, and I respect it, but I think that personal opinion is a great deal of what people come here to talk about, and that they need to have that opportunity to express their concerns.

They may not be and are not usually expert witnesses, they're coming in with their understanding of what the project will do to them and what they think it will do to them and what they're worried about.

A lot of that is opinions, so you need to be careful about barring opinion.

Although I thought Whitney did a fabulous job of dealing with Keris and and all of the um, you know, there were there were some tense moments during that, but I I think that if we work together, that works out.

I think you would really not want to say that you're barred from expressing opinions, and as to what material facts are, my material fact might not be your material fact.

And so you're better off in terms of defensibility of the proceeding to let people say what they want to say.

Okay.

From a legal perspective, we let people talk, let them talk, let them ask questions.

Now, if it gets obnoxious, we absolutely you know, where they're bullying somebody or they're asking the same question, or they're clearly trying to stonewall so that something can't go through.

We can stop that, and the chair can stop that.

And I understand the chair is not always in a happy position in doing that, but it it definitely can be done.

I agree.

And I and again, I'll I'll let I'll let this go.

But but I just again I just want to make sure I opinions are important.

I I I want to hear everyone's opinion.

I'm specifically talking about cross-examination, because I feel like we got very close at Keras, where we had a professional attorney here that started to cross-examine and went in a different direction.

I just don't want it to become a stall tactic, but I hear what you're saying, and I'll let it go.

I I really appreciate that because our position is to always try to protect the city.

The city is best protected if our p public hearing is as complete as it can possibly be.

So nobody can say, I didn't get a chance.

They didn't let me say my piece.

You know, as long as someone can say their piece, we are pretty much I don't want to say bulletproof, but we're in a much better position.

Understood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, and then my second one is the electronic attendance.

Could there be more flexibility on the electronic attendance to help protect maybe a quorum?

You know, tonight maybe would have been a good example where we might have been um we wouldn't have had a quorum if we'd had one more person gone, but if we had um someone electronically attend, that we could allow that to count towards a quorum.

Um so under the Illinois Open Meetings Act, you have to have a quorum physically present at the meeting in order to allow anyone to attend electronically.

Then you're allowed to have members attend electronically if you have adopted rules that describe how that will happen, which is what you're doing in your bylaws.

So I think I actually think the electronic rules are as flexible as anybody can make them because I agree with you.

It's unfortunate.

I've been around too many times where a PCC hearing where people flew in from Colorado, this was a while back, um, and and there wasn't a quorum, and it was like, what do we do here?

It's they spent a fortune coming out, and we can't have this meeting.

If you can't have, if you don't have a a quorum or majority physically present, you can't by law under the Illinois Open Meetings Act have electronic attendance.

Um then we do have provisions that up to two members can attend electronically.

We have notice provisions that say try to give the PZC liaison at least 24 hours notice, but if you can't give them whatever notice you can.

Then we adopted all of the state's reasons for allowing electronic attendance.

So they keep adding, they've added two or three in the last couple of years.

Um what's the other one?

They just added one that oh child care.

Oh, child care, which I thought was great.

I really wish they would add vacation.

I mean, if somebody was in, you know, Timbuktu and they want to call in electronically to participate, God bless them.

Right.

And why not?

But it's not one of the enumerated permitted reasons right now.

So we added another provision to your bylaws saying, and any future reasons the legislature might come up with in the future to allow electronic attendance.

You get two.

So I mean, we really tried to make it as as flexible as we possibly could.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Namez.

Um no, I think that any question I had was answered.

Um I would say just agree with everyone else on the time change.

I I do lean towards the 6 p.m.

mostly for accessibility reasons.

Um, especially I think it does improve attendance for those seniors, those with young children that are constrained by time or nighttime driving, um, especially in the winter, you know, it gets dark a lot earlier.

You know, it gets dark a lot earlier.

Um, so that that would be my reasoning for pushing me towards a 6 p.m.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Ricellia.

I'm neutral, either way, so McDaniel.

Uh my personal opinion is seven o'clock.

Keep it the same.

Um that's really all.

Thanks.

Um, I I'm neutral.

I will say, you know, first, thank you guys for all of you for the work that has been done on the bylaws, the support, all of it.

It's been great.

And I think KARIS being this example, and it wasn't just Keras, there was actually actually the mosque a few years back.

Those were good examples and cases to to talk about.

Oh, wait, do we need to revisit this process or these laws or the wording, chairman, chair, um, the timing, you know, what the reason was for doing 7 p.m.

Well, not everyone commutes anymore.

There's a lot of you know, remote working things like that, the child care.

I think even safety for the commissioners when we're here late, you know, we're walking into that parking lot alone.

You know, this is a volunteer position.

And um, so I think it just brought a lot of things to light, and I think it's been worth the discussion.

I think it's been worth updating the bylaws and recognizing oh, you know what?

We do do a pretty good job as is, but there's some things that we can do better.

And so I think this needed to happen.

I'm neutral, we've all been here at 7 p.m.

And we'd all be here if it was 6 p.m.

Um at this time.

We are uh without a couple of the commissioners, but I think you know it's worth the vote and the motion to go forward and propose the 6 p.m.

And we'll go from there.

So at this time, I would like to entertain a motion to approve the proposed amendments to the PCC bylaws to update current meeting processes, procedures, and requirements, as well as change the PCC meeting start time from 7 p.m.

to 6 p.m.

So move.

Can I have a second?

Second.

All in favors?

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Motion carries.

That's all right.

All right.

Next is the receipt of the report on the traffic impact study process within Naperville.

Andy Heinz, Ted Deputy Director, will present this item.

Thank you.

Andy Hines, City Engineer.

Uh, I'm here tonight just to have a general discussion on traffic impact studies.

So a traffic impact study is a site-specific study conducted to determine the impact of the traffic generated by a proposed development on the surrounding roadway network.

The study analyzes the road network, the roadway network for pre- and post-development scenarios to determine how the development impacts the operations of the road network, and if any site-specific improvements are needed to help mitigate those impacts.

When a new development concept is proposed, our transportation and engineering teams evaluate the need for a traffic impact study based on several factors, including is the development consistent with the city's land use master plan, or more specifically, will the proposed use generate significantly more trips than we have previously considered in our traffic models.

The conversion of the country lakes golf course uh to the Atwater subdivision is one such example.

Uh second, is there a need for geometric improvements such as uh left or right turn lanes into the site?

Uh one example would be the the Walmart store that was opened on 75th Street several years ago.

Uh and then the last criteria is will the proposed development uh generate significant public or board scrutiny regarding traffic issues, such as the polo club development on 119th Street or any one of numerous other developments.

So if any of these conditions are met, uh city staff will require a traffic impact study with the developments middle.

So I also wanted to discuss the larger roadway system uh that is comprised of various roadways under multiple jurisdictions in Naperville, the Illinois Department of Transportation, DuPage County, Will County, and various townships all maintain road segments in addition to the city.

When a development is proposed, uh directly adjacent to to their frontage, uh that agency will typically review the submittal, particularly if any changes in access are proposed.

Aside from the development process, the city has a road improvement plan that considers the arterial road network needs based on future regional development and projected traffic conditions.

Uh this plan identifies existing and future operational conditions of intersections and road corridors within Naperville based on this analysis, capacity improvements, which would be additional through lanes or turn lane turn lanes typically on city streets are recommended where feasible uh based on projected 2050 traffic conditions.

These improvements for streets under the city's uh jurisdiction are then programmed in the city's capital improvement budget for implementation over the next 20 plus years.

The current road improvement plan was developed and approved by the Transportation Advisory Board and City Council in 2025, and a copy of this uh current of the current roadway road improvement plan uh was included with the agenda packet.

Uh so with that I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Do any of the commissioners have any comments or questions regarding the report?

I would just say thank you.

Um I think this was a good follow-up from our last meeting, and I really appreciate those details.

So I'm good.

Um next is the approval of the minutes for March 4th, 2026 planning and zoning commission meeting.

Do we have any corrections to the minutes?

I would like to entertain a motion to approve the minutes of March 4th, 2026 planning and zoning commission meeting.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right, motion carries.

No old, no new.

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

Yes.

Sorry.

I just want to make a correction that I agree that it was part of this as part of the uh Jack Slax having talked into this as part of the JAX LAX development.

There was a question about uh parking restrictions on Main Street and 8th.

I reported, I believe it was four hours.

Uh unicipal code 7B.

It's actually a three-hour parking restriction from 6 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

on Main Street from Fifth to Ogden and 8th Avenue from Eagle to Maine and Maine to Washington.

So the area of concern.

So can I ask a question on that?

Um, so in park addition, it was recently updated for all of those streets because that was all broken up, two hour, four hour, and so we create we consistently updated to four hours.

Is there a reason that area was not updated?

I was just excited to correct.

I know I'm sorry.

No, I I thought we were in the process of trying to streamline and get everything on the same page.

I do not know why west of Washington is three hours and east is four.

It may be computer versus uh high school parking, but I can follow up with our transportation manager on that, who I believe led that effort, and we will respond again to you.

I'm sorry.

I appreciate the updates and following up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Do you need a roll call vote on the bylaw amendment?

I don't see a roll call.

Oh, what was the question?

Do we need a roll call vote on the bylaw amendment?

There was no you know, I don't think they require okay.

Uh Secretary Wright, roll call.

Logan ball.

Aye.

McDaniel.

I agree.

Not I agree.

Richelia.

I agree.

Robins.

I agree.

And right, I agree.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

All right, so now we'll go back to the meeting minutes.

Uh I would like to entertain a motion to approve the minutes of March 4th, 2026 planning and zoning.

So moved.

Second.

All right.

All in favor?

Aye.

All right.

Motion carries.

Old business, new business adjournment.

I will entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting.

So moved, second.

All right.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All right, meeting adjourned.

Thank you.