Good evening.

I would like to call the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for June 3rd, 2026 to order.

Acting Secretary Namez, please conduct roll call.

Abu Baker?

Here.

Bonzel?

Here.

Castanoli.

Loganbach?

Here.

McDaniel?

Here.

Namas here.

Robins?

Yes.

And right absent.

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 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.

Commissioner Namez, do we have anyone signed up under public forum?

No one signed up.

All right, great.

Our next order of business in public hearings.

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

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 an 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 deliberations.

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

Those who wish to provide testimony, please stand up.

Please raise your right hand and respond.

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

All right, thank you.

The first case on tonight's agenda is DEV-0053-2025.

The public hearing is now open.

Anna Franco from staff will present the case.

Thank you, Chair.

Anna Franco with the city's planning services team.

The petitioner for DEV-0053-2025 requests approval of a variance to the required front yard setback to construct a warehouse and office building on the subject property for his asphalt contractor business.

The 10-acre subject property is currently vacant and is zoned by Industrial District.

The property is zoned on the is located on the south side of North Aurora Road between Storage Mart to the east and Brickworks Supply Center to the west and is across the street from residential townhomes and duplexes on the north side of North Aurora Road.

The property was subdivided into its current configuration in association with the development of the storage mart property, previously Metro Storage, which received approval of a variance to the front yard setback in 2016.

The proposed 10,000 square foot warehouse and office building on the property will be used to store equipment for the asphalt paving business.

A total of 18 off-street parking spaces are provided along the north and west sides of the building with drive aisles provided around the perimeter of the building.

Access to the subject property is unique in that there is no direct access onto North Aurora Road.

Instead, cross access has been platted to permit vehicular access via the storage mart property to the east and the Brickworks supply center property to the west.

A large storage yard is proposed at the rear of the property, which is screened with a minimum six-foot high solid fence, and the petitioner has confirmed that no asphalt manufacturing will occur on the subject property.

The petitioner requests the variance from the yard requirements outlined in the II Zoning District to allow the front parking area to encroach into the 100-foot front yard setback that is required when an industrial district property is across the street from a residence district.

Because the property located on the north side of North Rora Road is improved with town homes and a residence district, a hundred foot parking setback is required.

The proposed building will be set back approximately 132 feet from the front property line, meeting this setback.

However, the parking lot at its closest point will be set back approximately 75 feet from the front property line, requiring the variance.

Given that the building will be set back greater than 100 feet from the front property line, and staff will ensure substantial landscaping will be provided in front of the parking lot.

Staff finds the parking lot will have minimal impact on adjacent properties and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.

The petitioners' responses to the standards for granting the variants are attached upon review.

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

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

Great, thank you.

Will the petitioner please approach the podium?

Is it supposed to be on the screen?

Oh, take a second.

Hello, thank you for hearing and thank you, staff for helping us to get this far.

Can you state your name, please?

Pardon?

Uh state your name, please.

Ellie Stevens.

Okay.

Scott Otis.

Thank you.

So it's asphalt paving professionals, and Scott's been the owner of the business.

I'm sorry, can you um just move that a little bit so you're speaking directly in?

Thank you.

Okay.

Oh.

Quiet.

That's all it's interesting.

Um, Scott Otis has been the owner and started the business about 40 years ago.

I'm sorry, I still can't hear you.

Oh, now I think it's on.

Okay.

And so this is what asphalt paving professionals the services that it provides, and so it definitely could help with all the building going on in Aprilville.

And this is what the building will look like from the north view, so very attractive for industrial property here in the south view.

For the trucks and then the corner, the handicapped parkings, but and that is actually why we need the variance for the handicapped parking and the corner views, and then the brick detail.

And this is what the property looks like now.

You can see the storage mark there, but the building will go on this property here, and the neighbor is a brick company, so um industrial, and in the area is the other industrial property.

So we're right in line with the zoning for the area, and this is the setback that is used from storage mart, which is what we're asking for similarly.

Um, you can't tell much from this picture, but um, that's what Anna was talking about, similar to what's there.

That's great.

Thank you.

Do you have anything else you want to add to that?

Alright.

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much.

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

Commissioner Namas, do we have anyone signed up?

No one's signed up.

All right, are there any other other members of the public that would like to speak tonight on this case?

All right.

Do any of the commissioners have any questions on this case?

All right.

Please note that the questions may not be directed at the petitioner or the members of the public.

We have no questions, so that's fine.

Um, all right.

Would the petitioner like to make any closing remarks?

You're good.

Thank you.

All right.

I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for DEV-0053-2025.

So moved.

Can I have a second?

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Motion carries.

Do any commissioners have any comments?

All right.

Uh Commissioner Longenbah, I would like you to read the motion.

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to make a motion to adopt the findings of fact as presented by the petitioner and recommend approval of DEV-0053-2025.

A request for a variance to allow a parking area to encroach into the required 100-foot front yard setback for the property located at 1756 North Aurora Road.

Thank you.

Can I have a second?

Second.

Alright, Commissioner Namez, please conduct roll call.

Abu Baker.

Bonzel.

I agree.

Long and Baugh, agree with the motion.

McDaniel.

I agree.

Namas agrees.

Robins?

I agree.

All right.

Motion carries.

Congratulations.

All right.

The next case on tonight's agenda is DEV-0167-2025.

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 0167 2025 consists of approximately 32 acres of unincorporated land on the south side of 75th Street west of Gladstone Drive.

The property is currently owned by the DuPage Water Commission and Pulti Homes is the contract purchaser of the site.

Pulti plans to develop the property with 94 market rate non-age restricted duplex units.

Tonight they request PCC's consideration of rezoning to R2 upon annexation, a conditional use for a PUD, and a preliminary PUD plat with deviations as outlined in the development petition.

The property is contiguous to the city's current municipal boundaries and is eligible for annexation.

Staff finds the proposed R2 zoning to be appropriate and consistent with the land use master plan's recommendations in the general area.

Pulti has designed the development around the site's natural features, including wetlands and required wetland buffers.

The site plan maintains approximately 55% of the site as open space, which will be owned by an HOA.

These natural features have influenced the design of residential lots, roadways, and utilities, and resulted in deviations to the city's setbacks and parkway tree requirements.

Staff notes these deviations do not increase building mass, height, or density on the site.

The petitioners also requested a deviation to allow an eight-foot-tall fence to be installed along the west, south, and east property lines to serve as a screening element.

Staff generally supports screening between land uses of varying intensities, but considers this proposal to be a low density development.

Staff is supportive of the eight-foot fence request along the east property line adjacent to multifamily, but recommends a six-foot fence be installed along the west and south property lines in accordance with code allowances.

Tonight we recommend that you conduct the public hearing and staff will remain available for any questions.

Thank you.

Will the petitioner please approach the podium?

All right.

Good evening.

My name is Caitlin Chuck with the law firm Rosanova and Whitaker, and I'm here on behalf of Poulti Homes.

With me this evening, I have Matt Brawley from Poulty Homes, Chris Morgart, our civil engineer, Dan Jablonski, our wetland specialist and certified arborist, Scott Breaka, our wetland scientist, Sharon Dixon, our landscape architect, and Javier Milan, our traffic engineer.

So we are all happy to answer any questions that you have this evening.

As part of this process, we formally submitted the professional documents that are listed on the slide, all of which were produced in support of the findings of fact and elements required to substantiate approval as detailed in my written petition, which was also submitted.

I'm asking that all these documents be incorporated as part of the record for this public hearing.

I will discuss the project as in each component at a pretty high level, but as I mentioned, all of the experts who prepared the documentation are all available to provide testimony on any specific questions on the documentation that might arise this evening.

So with that, I always like to start with a little bit of background on the developer.

Pulti is a publicly traded home building company and is the third largest home builder in the home builder nationally.

Locally, they sold over a thousand homes in the Chicago area just last year.

They've had the top-selling community in Illinois for the last four years straight, and they're currently actively selling in 17 different communities across the Chicago market.

Even more locally, Poulti has had a lot of recent success here in Naperville over at Wagner Farms, Neighbor Commons, and Neighborville Polo Club.

Subject property is approximately 32 acres on the south side of 75th Street, located east of Ranchery Drive and unincorporated DuPage County.

Specifically, the site is ordered or is owned by the DuPage Water Commission, who no longer needs a majority of the site for a water treatment facility.

By way of background, the DuPage Water Commission acquired property in Northbrook for construction of a new water treatment plant.

As such, the DuPage Water Commission passed a resolution declaring the 32 acres of property as surplus property and published a notice requesting offers to purchase the parcel.

After reviewing multiple offers, the DuPage Water Commission selected Poulte's offer based upon the type of development and considering the compatibility with the area.

With that, existing land uses surrounding the property are unincorporated single family residential to the north and south, Thornberry Wood apartments in Woodridge to the east, and then a single family subdivision in Naperville to the west.

You'll see you'll see on these zoning maps that we are surrounded by residential uses.

So specifically, we have R1, unincorporated, unincorporated properties to the north and south.

A2, which is the attached dwelling unit district zoning in Woodridge to the east, and which is comparable to something like an R4 or OCI in Naperville.

We have R1A and R1B PUD zoning in Naperville to the west.

So we are surrounded by all different types of residential zoning and uses, and thus the requested R2 zoning is an ideal transitional zoning designation for this property.

With that, we are proposing a 94 unit duplex community to be known as Naperville Ridge.

This community is proposed as a low maintenance community, meaning that there will not be exclusive private yards for the homeowner.

The HOA will handle all landscaping, snow removal, and exterior maintenance for the homes.

In looking at the site plan, you'll see that the community is essentially broken up into two different pods of homes.

The majority of the units will sit on that southeast corner, which is largely comprised of trees that were damaged by the tornado that came through Naperville and Woodridge in 2021.

Specifically, that tornado significantly damaged, knocked down, and topped many of the trees in that area and on the site identified here in red hatching, which makes up about 14 acres of the site.

The remainder of the development design is driven by the location and existence of the site's natural features, and there are a lot of them.

So specifically, we have critical wetlands identified here with the white crosshatch.

We also have delineated the required buffer area on this aerial in that transparent white so that you can see the exact parameters of where we're able to thoughtfully develop and which should be outside of that buffer in order to reduce the impacts to the wetlands.

You'll see that the buffer actually extends south and west of our property lines.

Putting this into context of the site plan, there are approximately 11 acres on this property that are made up of those critical wetlands and their buffers.

This area is off limits, so to speak.

So to clarify, we are not proposing any impacts to the wetlands on site.

The whole project is specifically planned to conserve and improve the quality of these natural features and provide the required buffers so that the wetlands can remain unimpacted.

As a point of reference, wetlands have a higher protection than trees in terms of priority from a conservation standpoint.

As noted previously, about 14 acres of the site suffers from damage, knockdown, or top trees from the 2021 tornado.

So we're doing our best to preserve the trees that we can, which is actually over 1,300 trees, not including the trees that we're proposing to plant as well.

So we're also making preservation of the critical wetlands the absolute highest priority here.

With that, we're able to provide an opportunity for Naperville residents to benefit from all these unique natural features.

So that being said, we have been working with the DuPage County Wetlands Department to see if there are opportunities to activate these natural areas without negatively impacting them.

So to this end, we are proposing a six-foot limestone path to extend throughout the wetlands and consciously avoiding and preserving trees all along the way.

In addition, we're proposing other conservation first related design efforts in order to activate these areas, such as housing and nesting habitats for wildlife, educational signage, and a hosting habitat where we can actually repurpose some of the damaged trees for seeding.

All of these amenities will be available for public use, where in comparison to today's condition, nobody is actually legally allowed to enter the private property and enjoy these natural features.

So we're excited for the opportunity to continue to work with the county in order to finalize these proposals.

In addition, we've engaged in conversations with the Conservation Foundation and we're hopeful that we'll be able to place a conservation easement over these areas to see that they're maintained appropriately in perpetuity.

So the Conservation Foundation would own and maintain these areas in addition to our stormwater management basins, but our HOA would fund the maintenance.

So this is very similar to what was achieved over at Water.

We will continue coordinating with the foundation as the project moves forward.

So I think the most notable component about this site plan is the vast amount of open space that we're providing and conserving.

So when you look at the site plan, I think it's instinct for our eyes to be drawn to all of the green areas that we're conserving in order to provide a very secluded enclave of homes with unique and very desirable use that aren't traditionally provided in new residential developments.

This is typically the type of plan that you might see after several iterations due to comments raised during public meetings, such as this one, and typically includes the result of reductions in density in order to increase usable open space for the community.

That said, we're here before you tonight presenting a plan with over 55% open space.

That's comprised of open space pursuant to Naperville's PUD standards.

So it's pretty astounding considering that the requirement is only 30% for a single family attached community.

But we believe these areas will create a very unique mix of open spaces, passive recreation, and environmental conservation and education for all these future residents and for the public to use.

In addition, the park district specifically requested a park site for this community based upon the resident feedback that there are not many parks in this area of town.

So to this end, we'll be dedicating out lot C to them, which is highlighted here.

This will be programmed with a small play area, a shade structure, and some benches.

Though not technically part of that open space calculation, it's another space that will be activated for recreational purposes, and it will be a nice natural extension from the limestone path that extends through that conservation area.

Taking all of these open spaces into consideration, we're only constructing 24% of the density that would otherwise be allowed under the code.

This design specifically allows us to reduce environmental impacts and have a larger contiguous open space central to the site in lieu of several small, small little pockets of green space that would be integrated throughout the development that would otherwise wipe out the wetlands and not provide much benefit to the residents.

Though we're significantly less dense than what the code allows, we still want to be cognizant of our neighbors.

So to this end, we're proposing an eight-foot-tall fence in the locations that are identified here in red.

Specifically, the fence is proposed anywhere that there will be a new duplex, new duplex building immediately adjacent to existing residential uses.

So that specifically means that there will be a fence adjacent to four residences to the south, three residences to the west, and then the apartment buildings to the east.

I'd also like to quickly take this opportunity to touch on the deviation that we are asking for from the rear yard setback.

This was brought up in a few of the written public comments, so I felt it would be best to address it.

This request is only applicable to a certain number of units that are highlighted here in red.

So specifically those units along the east property line adjacent to the apartment buildings and just south of the East Stormwater Management Basin.

And this design is driven by the location of the wetland buffers to the north and to the west.

So even so, we are not requesting relief along the west or south property lines, and in fact, we're actually we're actually in excess of the minimum rear yard setback along those property lines, and again, we will still plan on installing that eight-foot solid fence that we are requesting relief for.

With regards to access, we have been working with staff for quite a while on a plan that everybody's comfortable with.

So when we first submitted, we proposed one access to 77th Street, which is that plan all the way on your left.

This plan was designed to maximize the preservation of more trees and open space along the northern portion of the site along 75th Street.

But staff had requested that we provide a second point of access, and ideally from 75th Street.

So we then submitted the plan that's located in the middle.

That shows the 75th Street access in addition to the 77th Street access.

This required coordination with the DuPage County Department of Transportation since they have jurisdiction over 75th Street.

We held a resident meeting.

We heard many concerns about the proposed access to 77th Street.

We heard concerns about speeding, cut through traffic to Ranch View, and also concerns over the road extending adjacent to a few of the properties to the west.

Staff agreed that the access to 77th could be reserved for emergency access only, provided that DUDOT did approve the full access to 75th Street.

So with continued coordination with the county, we received that approval of full access on 75th Street, and we redesigned Road A to terminate just south of buildings one and 47.

So we will make sure that this area is, or I'm sorry, that road is gated to make sure that it is reserved for emergency access only and no vehicles can use it at any given town at any other given time.

With this modification, the project is expected to have a pretty minimal impact on existing conditions now that no cars will be routed to or from 77th Street.

So as you know, 75th Street is a major arterial.

It sees an average volume of about 28,400 cars per day.

With that, 75th Street can handle the expected traffic that should be generated from this development and identified here, which shows that it will only be at about a 0.4%, about 0.4% of the daily traffic.

So this is literally drops in a bucket in comparison to the average daily volume.

Again, discussed with DUDOT, who has jurisdiction over 75th Street, they approved our traffic study identifying that this access is safe and acceptable per their standards.

Lastly, I want to talk about why we're doing this.

We're currently facing a national housing shortage, and the only way to open up housing for families is to build more inventory and make sure current homeowners have a place to go.

Governor Pritzker has been a huge proponent of the build initiative where he addressed the overarching issue in today's housing market, being one of supply and demand.

He specifically stated the problem is clear.

Rent is too high and homeownership is too far out of reach.

The cause is clear too.

We are not building enough homes fast enough.

These specific remarks stemmed from a 2025 study from the University of Illinois titled You Can't Buy What You Can't Afford.

That study specifically stated that the market is currently short 142,000 homes.

We need to build 227,000 homes over the next five years to address the supply shortage.

And then the report goes on to make recommendations on how to facilitate new construction such as this.

Many of those recommendations, which were incorporated and part of the governor's build initiative legislation.

We understand the legislation did not pass, but the governor stated this was one session, and it's important things like this take time, and it's still very much a priority of his and the state.

So the takeaway of all of this is pretty simple in that the only way to tackle affordability concerns is to address the supply side shortage.

As more inventory becomes available, home prices certainly become more manageable.

On a local level, the goal remains the same.

Naperville had its own housing needs assessment completed in 2020, which noted Naperville would require between 6,900 and 8,600 new housing units by 2025 and 11,713,000 new housing units by 2040.

The problem remains the lack of supply to meet demand, and the only way to solve it is to provide more supply.

In Naperville, specifically south of 75th Street, housing in this area is predominantly single-family homes.

So our goal here for this project is to provide options.

Without options, people are not going to consider moving from their traditional single family home in order to open up inventory for families.

It's the same supply and demand problem that it was referenced on the broader platform within the U of I study and Neighborville's housing assessment.

On average, this buyer is living in a 3,961 square foot home that's over 35 years old with an average sales price of just over 1 million.

These potential buyers are looking to downsize, but they're not necessarily looking to move into an age-restricted or senior senior housing community.

They're looking to stay in town and move somewhere with limited maintenance and passive recreation.

So there is certainly a market for these folks, and this is exactly what Naperville Ridge is trying to accomplish.

In fact, the 50 ages 50 and up make up 35% of Naperville residents, which makes this the fastest growing demographic in town.

So this data all led us to the type of housing that we're proposing.

I think I mentioned earlier, this is going to be a low maintenance community.

So that means that the HOA will be responsible for lawn maintenance, exterior maintenance, as well as snow removal.

100% of the units will feature first floor master bedrooms, which is predominantly common in an empty nester or moved down buyer.

The community will not be age restricted.

So anyone can purchase any of these units, but with our experience with this type of product, also with that first floor master bedroom, it's highly popular among that empty nester buyer who does not want a large private yard or they don't want to handle exterior maintenance or snow removal and things like that.

The homes will range between about 2,600 and 2,700 square feet.

Every home will have that first floor master bedroom with an option for a flex room.

The upstairs will have two additional bedrooms and a loft space for additional gathering spaces for guest accommodations.

Important to note that once again, there is a market for this type of home.

One size does not fit all when we're talking about the aging demographic.

Different buyers have different wants and needs when it comes to downsizing.

So with that, we will offer two different types of duplexes, and they are the craftsman and contemporary tutor.

The craftsman will be primarily located in the southeastern quadrant.

These will have low-pitched roofs with broad eaves along with wide covered front covered front porches and square porch columns.

In addition, there's differing architectural materials throughout, such as the shingle-style siding, horizontal lap siding, and then the stone accents.

This will be offered in what's called evening blue and iron gray, and the color does not really show great on the screen, but we did bring color samples.

Should you want to see those this evening?

The contemporary tutor will be uh will be uh will be located, sorry, it will be located more so on the west side of the property, and it will be more um it will incorporate those traditional tutor styles while putting a modern spin on it.

We will have steeply pitched gables creating strong vertical emphasis, which differs from the craftsman and creates visual distinction between the two different styles.

We'll also have narrow and tall windows creating different differing visual interests as well, with a metal porch and garage roof.

So both elevation styles will also have windows on the garage doors, which is something that's been well received by our buyers over the last several years, and it creates a little bit more architectural interest as well.

So though the elevations are very different, uh we will have again two different colors per each elevation.

So we put together this assignment plan to see that homes are organized appropriately.

So you'll see the tutor is more so on the west side of the property, and then the craftsman will be on the east side of the property, and then each colored dot denotes an alternate color package.

So we will continue to work with staff on finalizing this document.

And lastly, I always like to end with some pretty pictures.

Uh these are some photos of other duplexes that were constructed in recently uh developed communities for Poulty.

So you'll see what you can expect here is an open space concept, large entertaining areas, high-end appliances, courts, countertops, and of course, again, that first floor master bedroom.

So, with that, we'd like to thank uh staff for all of their efforts and support to date, and we'd also like to thank this commission for your time and consideration this evening.

Like I said, we all of our experts are here for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

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

Commissioner Namez, please call the first speaker.

Otto Gwedelhopper.

Well, the presentation was enlightening.

I would like to point out that we own property immediately adjacent to the south elevation.

On any of the drawings that you see, we're lot number 17.

We have the unique distinction of having three uh duplexes in our backyard within 26 feet of our backyard.

And uh that poses a problem for us.

There are also a number of other unit owners, how homeowners on in Waywood that are adjacent to that south property line, which is where they seem to have concentrated the largest concentration of the 94 residents.

By my count, there's about 74 of the 94 residents concentrated within that area between the uh lake, as we used to call it, which is south of the water tanks, and our property line.

I'd like to take a trip down memory lane for very brief section second, just to tell you a little something.

We've lived there for 40 years, that's half my life.

Within that 40 years, we have seen remarkably little change up until now.

The changes that are being discussed now are fundamentally dramatic, significant, uh earth shaking, I would add.

To concentrate that many homes in a small area, does a number of things which by my read violates your Title VI zoning requirements.

Number one, if you cut clear cut all of that area in the middle portion, you effectively increase the noise level for those persons living south of 75th Street.

Nominally, you'll increase about 5 dB to 8 dB decibels for every hundred feet of woods you lose.

Now, those woods don't necessarily have to be 50 feet tall.

If you lose that much sound deadening or insulation, the increase in noise in the communities that surround the area are going to be certainly measurable and certainly significant, and more importantly, going to affect our property values.

Now, affecting property values is another condition on Title VI covers where they talk about no changes should be made that would affect the property value or the use or enjoyment of those who are surrounding the property.

The vast majority, as you saw in the slides, of the people that surround the project being in question are single family residents.

They may be on bigger or smaller lots, but with the exception of the area to the east, which also has single family residents, all of the other areas are single family residents that are in immediate adjacency.

The other thing I learned today was I saw a map that indicated where the tornado damage was.

And was along with the group that classified this tornado as an F3 tornado.

Now there was a lot of damage through the center of the wood lot, as we'd call it, but there were also a lot of trees that didn't get destroyed and were recoverable.

And that was shown on one of the slides that we were not presented with in their package.

Remember the slide with the red crosshatching?

There's an area on the southern side of that slide that shows there was not tornado damage.

Now it was hard to read, and I would appreciate seeing the slide so that I could see it more carefully, and showing it here isn't gonna help, it's it's simply not bright enough.

But I'm here to tell you that there are numerous trees of the old growth oak and hickory variety, hundreds of years old, that have survived the tornado, only to be confronted by Pulty and this development, who in their managed area has elected to put a storm sewer against the southern property line that runs along the property line east to west and then turns north toward the water tanks along the eastern property line.

That basically requires the removal of all the trees in that area.

If that wasn't bad enough, of those that do survive, many of the trees are situated in the duplexes that are along the southern border.

If the plot was further designated as having a duplex or a roadway on it.

If you look at their plots through the landscaping set of drawings, you'll find that the landscaping drawings predominantly concentrate on trees that are within the areas that they're beating their chest about, saving for their occupants to enjoy the vistas and the limestone paths and all the other aspects that constitute the 55% that again they claim to be a very important feature of this development.

Look at that carefully.

Ask yourself what needs to be demolished, what trees could be saved in the other portions that they fail to show us, particularly those along the buffers.

It's a 26-foot buffer between the south property line and the back side of those houses.

Many of the trees that survived are within that buffer and also within the footprint of the duplex.

Now, imagine coming on the property 40 years ago and seeing it, and I'm here to tell you it's going to look pretty much the same.

And what drew us to it?

Well, what drew it, what drew us to it was the privacy afforded by the large woods that represented the back property line, the large woods that represented our property and our neighbors' property, and the woods that surround that area.

You look from south to north, all the way from the Green Valley Forest Preserve all the way up to Hobson Road, and you see nothing but large one acre and greater homes, many of whom had stables and horses.

A horse came with our property, which was probably a mistake on my part, but we enjoyed the horse anyway.

But nonetheless, the this development is totally incongruous with that type of a concept.

Now, if you move to the west and you look at the area that's known as well, there's the Hatchwood Farm and then there's uh Cinnamon Creek.

If you look there, you also see one acre, not sorry, uh single family homes, and those single family homes again are pushed right up to the back side of these duplexes.

Think about it for a minute.

I have three duplexes that they've plotted directly behind my property.

Each duplex contains two families, and their density is big enough that I could have all seven of those homes, those three duplexes on my property and still have more space than they allotted for those three duplexes.

It's it's simply crazy to consider that situation.

So I would like to have offered an opportunity, an alternate, and I did through several iterations when the Thornberry group uh proposed their development.

I approached the uh Naperville, uh the DuPage uh Forest Reserve, and I said, your line, your lot line is adjacent.

What better situation could you have than to move that way and absorb that into Green Valley Forest Reserve?

They weren't interested.

Quite honestly, I think they were more interested in golf courses.

In this situation, the same thing happened with the water tank situation, and we offered again, tried to get this forest reserve to anticipate um uh acquiring that and providing an access way from the Green Valley to the DuPage Water Commission.

Again, crickets, nobody was interested in.

That's unfortunate because I agree with the shortage of housing.

I think we need more housing.

We just don't need it on inappropriate property like woodlots.

There are plenty of other places to put property.

This design appears to be focused on trying to create this open space concept, and they talk about vistas that are provided to the uh duplex owners.

I defy you to see anything but a water tank when you look at the confluence of uh duplexes in the center clusters.

You're not gonna see anything, but you can't see the woods because there aren't any.

They've eliminated them, they're way on the other side, the western side.

The last point I'd wish to make, and there are others who will talk specifically about the individual zoning title six areas that they've that they have uh in our opinion violated.

The other area was this curiosity about the uh saving of wetlands.

Um there's a wetland directly on in our backyard.

It's known as a uh an easement that's set aside for drainage.

It's a drainage easement.

The drainage easement stops at the southern property line.

Well, I'm here to tell you the drainage doesn't stop at the property line.

If you look at the contour maps, I'm a civil engineer also, the contour maps show them running down towards 75th Street to the north and east.

Today, I can take you there and show you there's water on their property in that area.

That if you added the buffers that are required, would disallow many of the uh duplexes that they have planned, particularly around I think it's number 23, is the one that's most effective, most affected.

So they never even showed that as a wetland.

Instead, they put a storm sewer in with drop inlets and wiped all the trees out to put the storm sewer in.

So I lied.

The final comment I'll make is coming, and that is that among the things that you as the zoning and planning commission have on your plate are the same kind of things that I have on mine as a professional engineer.

I take an oath basically that I'm going to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

It doesn't say use and enjoyment, it says welfare.

And I'm anticipating an argument that will say that.

Well, if you go back into the documents and you look at what a welfare is, the welfare embraces the use and enjoyment that every citizen has for their property.

And right now we love our property.

The wildlife comes through there.

We have uh deer that come through.

This one doe continually brings her fawn in.

I mean, there's nothing greater in life than having dinner with a fawn and a doe, trust me.

And the birds and everything else, they're not gonna be there.

They're gonna put an eight-foot fence around this area and sequester those animals from their normal natural habitat coming up out of Green Valley going into the water tank area, going into the water tank woods.

They can't get over that eight-foot fence.

I know I have a six-foot fence for my garden.

Six is about their limit.

I'm sure they're able to go across it, but they haven't so far eaten my beans and my other crops.

So, as an agent of the people, it's important to realize that we look to you, I look to you, our families look to you when we bought our property to believe that you would exercise the good judgment that we believe you have to make sure that we're able to sustain the environment and the living conditions that we want that are consistent with the living conditions around us and avoid having things like this literally put in my backyard.

So I thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Namas, next speaker.

Thomas Frost.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Thomas Frost.

I live on Wayward Lane, uh, directly south of and adjacent to the proposed Poulty Naperville Ridge PUD file number 26-0675.

I respectfully urge you to recommend denial of this planned unit development under the city rules in Title 6, Chapter 4, Section 7, the Commission must not approve a PUD unless it meets all of the required standards.

This proposal does not.

First, it fails the requirement for compatibility with adjacent properties.

Wayward Lane and the area is a long established neighborhood of single family homes on large lots with mature trees and wood buffers.

This plan squeezes 47 duplexes, a total of 94 units onto only about 12 acres of development, developmentable at land.

Many of the buildings are placed with very tight setbacks right next to our backyards.

The tree inventory shows that 865 trees, 39% of all trees on the site will be removed, especially along our southern border.

This will destroy our privacy buffers, our wildlife corridors, increased noise from 75th Street, and more traffic to Wayward Lane and local roads, and could create drainage problems onto our properties.

This is exactly the kind of sharp incompatible change that the compatibility rule is meant to prevent.

Second, the proposal fails the requirement of consistency with the comprehensive plan.

This it conflicts with several important goals, including avoidance overcrowding, preventing too much concentration of population, and protecting established neighborhoods from incompatible development.

The design also lacks meaningful innovation and does not properly address the added traffic it will bring to our local streets.

While preserving some wetlands is positive, it does not make up for these serious failures.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask the commission to recommend denial of file number two six-0675.

Because I thought I only had three minutes.

I I really like to ask questions than the answer questions.

I didn't think I'd have time for it, but if since I'm not limited to three minutes, I'd like to ask them.

You can ask questions.

I mean, you can talk to us.

Okay.

Okay, so these so these are the likely questions and responses that I had, and uh it just seemed like it was it was meaningful just just to like throw this out there.

So aren't you preserving a lot of wetlands?

Isn't that good?

Yes, preserving wetlands is positive.

However, the mandatory criteria in 647 require the PUD to meet all requirements, not just one.

Even with wetland preservation, the project still fails compatibility 1.6.

Consistency with the comprehensive plan 1.7 and innovation 1.1.

The extreme density and tree removal on the remaining 12 acres right next to our large lot homes creates the very incompatibility the code is designed to prevent.

Next question.

The traffic study says is accessible.

Why do you disagree?

The traffic study may show acceptable region numbers, but a 94 unit development will still add significant new traffic to the surrounding local roads near 75th street.

For residents on Wayward Lane, this means increased cut through traffic, more noise, and greater safety concerns on our narrow resident residential streets.

This added pressure on the local road network directly impacts compatibility under 6-4-7 colon 1.6.

This is a PUD is it's supposed it's supposed to be flexible.

Why shouldn't we approve it?

PUDs are allowed flexibility, but only if they meant meet all the mandatory criteria in 6-4-7.

This proposal does not.

It fails compatibility with our established single-family neighborhood.

It's not innovative, and it conflicts with the comprehensive plan.

Flexibility does not mean waiving the core requirements.

Don't we need more housing?

I understand the need for housing, but the zoning code requirements, this specific project to meet the approval criteria.

This location directly next to large lot single family homes is not compatible with 94 attached units under 6-4-7 colon 1.6.

The city can meet housing goals in more appropriate locations.

The open space looks good on paper.

Much of the open space is acquired wetlands in stormwater areas.

On the actual development of land, we're looking at a high density cram next to our homes with major tree removal.

That does not meet the spirit of the letter of the compatibility requirement in 6-4-7 colon 1.6.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Maria Digio.

Good evening, members of the planning commission.

My name is Maria De Joya, and I'm a member, a resident of the Cinnamon Creek for the last 23 years.

I'm directly adjacent to the west of the proposed Neighborville Ridge development.

I am also a licensed real estate professional and one of the many homeowners united in the position of this annexation.

I attended the Pulti open house on May 19th, and what I heard that evening deeply concerned me.

At the open house, I asked how Ranchview Elementary School would absorb the children from a 94 new duplex subdivision.

Poulty's answer was that data showed fewer than 30 families, and it may be 20 or 30.

Families with children are expected to move in.

Based on the price point of around 780,000, the floor plans having a primary bedroom on the main floor, this would be more targeted toward older people.

When I pressed them for specifics, the answer I simply got was the data shows.

As a licensed real estate agent, I need the commission to understand something critical.

There are fair housing laws that strictly prohibit marketing or steering a non-55 plus community based on family status.

You cannot legally guarantee that families with children won't move in.

This projection is not a plan, but it's just a wish.

Poulty said that they had received approval from Branch View Elementary, but based on the information they gave me, I'm not sure if Ranchary Elementary was provided with accurate information.

I do believe Ranchie Elementary deserves an independent verified capacity study, not a developer's optimistic forecast built on assumptions that they can't legally enforce.

The lands itself contain wetlands and native trees, which 900 of them will be removed by Pulty homes that are not damaged.

The land manages stormwater, supports biodiversity, and protects our environmental health.

This development will have a negative impact all around.

Their response was, and I'm quoting directly, Naperville has to say yes because the water lines in that area belong to Naperville.

I followed up with, but what if Naperville says no?

I receive no answer, no response.

Council, your existence here is to protect residents of this city, and all of us are here asking you to do so.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Rita Trionis.

I live on Wawood Lane.

I grew up in Naperville, attended Naperville schools, and completed my bachelor's and master's degrees at North Central College.

I love my home.

I love my neighborhood.

I love nature, and I love my community.

This proposed development is of great concern and consequence, and I am firmly against it.

According to the Planning and Zoning Commission's criteria for approval, the planned unit development is compatible with the adjacent properties and nearby land uses.

The planned unit development fulfills the objectives of the comprehensive plan and planning policies of the city.

This land is heavily wooded, contains significant wetlands, and is currently not indicated in Naperville's master land use plan.

And the overwhelming majority of adjacent land neighborhoods are currently zoned single family detached.

While this parcel is not included in Naperville's master land use plan, it is included in the conservation foundations.

In Naperville's master land use plan's summary of outreach, key themes included concerns with increasing traffic, making getting around increasingly difficult, concerns with Naperville being overdeveloped, which is impacting the quality of life in residential neighborhoods, and the increased growth and development negatively impacting the character of Naperville and threatening the preservation of green spaces.

According to Naperville's master land use plan, residents called for the preservation of green space moving forward and a careful consideration of development to ensure Naperville retains its landscape and identity.

The identity of this area is more than just east to west.

When looking north to south, the parcel is surrounded by the Green Valley Forest Preserve, unincorporated R2 single-family housing on minimum one acre lots, and unincorporated R1 single family, many over two-acre lots.

Most of the R1 and R2 properties are zoned with the right to have horses.

Many families do, and even more have the space and infrastructure to house them.

This is horse country, as evidenced by the horse crossing sign on 75th Street.

We want to maintain our ability to have barns, horses, chickens, and our peaceful, more rural way of life.

High density duplexes are not compatible with the sights, sounds, and smells of horses and chickens.

High density duplex housing is not compatible with these stately neighborhoods.

There isn't a shortage of underutilized commercial lots in the Neighborville area, and Poulte and other developers have been busy lately, buying them up and building on them.

There's absolutely a shortage of wetlands and woodlands left to preserve.

We're allowing our natural resources to be destroyed for the benefit of a multi-billion dollar corporation instead of protecting them for the benefit of everyone.

Going against the sustainability objectives of the land use plan, and going in direct opposition of what Neighborville residents have been asking those in charge to do.

The purpose and intent states the zoning title's purpose, improving and protecting the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the people via the following objectives.

To lessen the congestion on public streets.

This development does not.

To avoid the undue concentration of population?

It does not.

To zone all properties with a view to conserving the value in buildings, encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the city.

It does not.

To protect all areas alike from harmful encroachment by incompatible uses.

Again, it does not.

Planned use developments like the one Poulte is proposing here, are a strategy to usurp existing zoning standards and regulations.

The zoning code standards for conditional use require the PUD to not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, and general welfare, not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate area, nor substantially diminish and impair the property values within the neighborhood, and must not be in conflict with the adopted comprehensive master plan.

Poulty boasts unparalleled natural features for its duplexes by taking away the very unparalleled natural features that the surrounding landowners and communities have been anchored to.

Asking for zoning changes and variances, the reduced right of way, reduced setbacks, does nothing to support the surrounding neighbors and neighborhoods.

Building homes, fences, and drainage systems right up to property lines is injurious to the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties and detrimental to property values.

If the purpose and intent of the PUD is to provide more efficient use of the land and preserve natural features and environmental resources, how is the demolition of 850 or more mature trees on a lot with over 2,000 efficient and preservation-minded?

The HOA will manage the wetlands.

HOA mismanagement and fraud is a frequent news headline.

Are you okay with entrusting our wetlands to an HOA?

I'm not.

Does allowing this development support the preservation of green space and landscape identity that the residents demand?

It does not.

The property shares a corner with the Green Valley Forest Preserve.

Does the development here support their mission of protecting watersheds, floodplains, and remnant native areas, expanding existing preserves, connecting landholdings, and enhancing outdoor recreational and learning experiences?

It does not.

Does adding an additional 94 homes, and we know these aren't going to be single person households, lessen the congestion on public streets?

Here's an accident report map.

77th and Yackley in the bottom right corner is already the most dangerous intersection in the neighborhood.

75th Street ranks as one of the most dangerous streets in the county, and it already takes multiple light cycles to get through the intersections of 75th Street and Route 53 and 75th Street Neighbor Boulevard during rush hour, even when there hasn't been an accident.

Additionally, Poultey's traffic survey was conducted in December and does not take into account the significant increase in bike and pedestrian traffic in the area due to all the neighborhoods and the forest preserve.

Does this development improve safety and lessen congestion on public streets?

It does not.

Does this development avoid the undue concentration of population?

The footprint of these 94 homes is 5.62 acres, a majority of which is concentrated in the southeast quadrant.

Adjacent to neighbors on one acre parcels who purchased the properties with good faith that anything built on the parcel would adhere to the established R2 zoning one acre single family lots.

Going from abundant native plant life and zero rear neighbors to seven or more families staring into your yard and living room is certainly injurious to the use and enjoyment of property in the immediate area.

I doubt any of the unincorporated neighbors, myself included, would buy our houses, certainly not at the current valuation if they had seven families sharing a property line, instead of the one at most at the prescribed current zoning codes.

Building right up to the property line, removing all the trees, and digging a drainage system without providing protection for the critical root zones, damages risks damaging trees on the unincorporated yards.

The proposal also seeks to remove trees on property lines, which is against Illinois law without both property owners' consent.

This does not meet the objectives of avoiding inappropriate development of lands.

On the west side, 13 homeowners purchase their homes without a retention area, duplexes, road, or subdivision entrance adjacent to their backyards.

Changes to the landscape without appropriate protections and conservation buffers will reduce their property values and be injurious to the use and enjoyment of their properties.

For my young neighbors adjacent to the outlet eye and the potential road at 77th and Yackley, time spent in their backyards could literally be dangerous.

There's no guarantee that these 94 homes won't be purchased by families with children, as this is not an age-restricted community.

94 families would put an additional burden on an already strange 203 school district currently facing teacher and support staff layoffs and increased student-to-teacher ratios.

Does adding 94 families to Ranchview, Kennedy, and Neighborville Central lessen the congestion and improve the learning experience for existing students?

It does not.

Zoning changes and variance requests for reduced right of way with reduced building setbacks, waived parkway tree planting requirements, increased advertising signs, square footage, and no conservation easements on the south, east, and west sides.

Nothing in this proposal is for the benefit of current residents.

Poulty is trying to cram as many buildings as they can to get upwards of 80 million dollars in revenue.

Residents repeatedly express concerns about increased traffic and population density, the reduction in natural areas, and feel their wishes aren't being respected.

There has been a significant increase in multifamily homes being built in Naperville and DuPage County.

City Council members have noticed and expressed concerns with the increasing frequency of PUDs and high density housing proposals in Neighborville, too.

In every step of this proposed sale and development, from the DuPage Water Commission to County Board to the city of Naperville, citizens are concerned their voices aren't being heard and aren't being respected.

The only ones with anything to lose here are the neighbors and neighborhoods surrounding the parcel.

The residents and community members, the planning and zoning titles are adopted to protect.

Are you willing to sacrifice the welfare of our people for roughly 80 million in revenue for a multi-billion dollar corporation?

The volume of public comment emails and the presence tonight of voices in the neighbors and neighborhoods in this room tonight is sufficient evidence of the opposition to the proposed development.

Naperville is a great place to live, and we're all here because we want to keep it that way.

We love our homes and neighborhoods.

We believe our environmentally beneficial green spaces, lower population density, and property values are worth protecting.

I urge the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to not recommend nor approve this development as it is not compatible with the adjacent properties and nearby land uses, nor does it fulfill the objectives of the comprehensive plan for the city.

It does not meet all criteria for PZC approval and is directly in opposition to the voices of Naperville's residents and community members.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Scott Lee.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Scott.

Similar to Rita, I grew up in Naperville.

I was now born here.

I came here roughly 32 years ago.

I considered it my home.

I actually went to elementary school in Colisha.

I went to middle school at Still Elementary.

I went to the Gold Campus at Obanzi when they had a gold campus.

And obviously I graduated from Obanzi.

This was before Mateo, right?

So the only time I actually left this area was when I went to school in Champaign for college.

So, you know, I consider my home.

And I actually live at the south west corner of this proposed development.

So I guess you could say I am potentially one of the most affected, you know, kind of residents here, right?

So some of my neighbors, et cetera, I guess one positive benefit if I could look at this with some levity is that I got to know my neighbors a lot better.

Um I met a lot of people, and you know, we we have some shared interest, obviously, right?

So um, yeah.

So that's our house.

We we moved there probably uh a year and a half ago.

I have lived in other parts of um, you know, kind of Naperville uh for for the other uh the years, obviously, right?

Um so uh when I picked my home, it was advertised as being backed up to the Green Valley Forest Preserve.

Now I find that to be incorrect, right?

That is uh misleading at best and false advertising at worst, right?

So some of my neighbors are gonna touch on other parts, right?

Um, and I just want to focus on very specifically on the intersection between 77th and Yakley and the topic of safety, right?

So it is really hard.

I doubt many people in this room have actually been at this intersection.

Perhaps some people have, right?

This is probably one of the worst designed intersections in just the neighborhood, right?

I won't speak for the other parts of the city, right?

So I think you know, in a previous presentation, there is an abnormal amount of traffic incidents specifically at that site, right?

And I'm trying to figure out the best way to show this, so I took some pictures, right?

It is really hard to see on a map why it's so poorly designed because it is almost a straight 90-degree angle, right?

There's lots of vegetation, it's almost like completely, there's lots of dead spots, right?

And this is the view from the south, right?

And um, so that's my home right there.

This is a dangerous intersection, right?

So when the initial kind of plans came out for how there was going to be a full-on road there with a reduced right-of-way, um, I take it as a very significant safety concern, right?

Now I find that look, this has been amended, but while this is still in deliberation, I just want to raise, you know, kind of concern about any sort of increased traffic at this intersection.

Okay.

So uh with all the vegetation is hard to see, but there's been a lot of accidents, and there's actually uh some kind of barrier here that's been crashed into many, many times, right?

I actually think the previous thing that we were shown with the traffic incidents, because this is not like driver versus driver, is probably severely underreported, right?

I think one of my neighbors who's been here for over 20 years has some personal experience with actually helping people, you know, kind of who's crashed into that, right?

So overall here, I mean I think this intersection is really dangerous, and I, you know, am objecting to kind of any any kind of notion to increase the traffic here, right?

Um, and you know, uh beyond just the intersection, the proposed road is right in our backyard, right?

I don't know exactly, like I mean, if if this is still up for deliberation and this is the planning stage, we would request that to be moved back like 50 feet or something so that way the the the 13 homeowners who are bordering this are not all adversely affected by this development, right?

We want this to be moved back and kept as you know kind of an emergency access only um and then I want to also touch on just kind of I want to keep it kind of focused and not you know touch on other stuff that's irrelevant right so this is kind of a a tree removal uh map I find it uh there's many versions of this it's it's really confusing for residents to kind of keep up with the many iterations but you know if the if the road does get built right there's gonna be some trees removed there's a lot of trees like right up to the to my border right and I can't figure out which ones are gonna be removed which ones are not because I find this map to be highly inaccurate right and I find it just kind of interesting that look um to kind of um look I I have a full time job my wife also works I got two kids I'm not going out there with a ruler trying to measure which trees are going to be there okay um and I also want to just kind of touch on I understand um that you know you guys are probably more concerned with the Naplefield municipal code as opposed to whatever's happening on the site before annexation right so uh similar in theme you know I'm just a concerned citizen I'm reading this I'm looking at it I'm like this doesn't appear like it should pass because of these areas where you know it's clearly not up against the code right against the criteria so um you know that's kind of um you know some of my concerns primarily about safety and look I'm not against development right I think I work for a large Fortune 50 you know kind of manufacturing company right so we're everyone's under pressure for growth growth growth right and in for how for housing it is a supply and demand issue right it is a supply and demand issue totally get that I just think the site is really poor for development I mean 50 I think one of the development plans had like 61% was basically unbuildable right so I think this is a poor site and um for development and we should not really compromise you know our code to satisfy just kind of you know uh I mean I I get faced with all sorts of problems with look you can just say yes get this off your desk or you know we can kind of you know uphold our standards right I've been here for a long time and I have two daughters I I hope they do great things I would not be disappointed I would be secretly happy if they also chose to stay here and you know start their families here right and I think this type of development is against what I would like to see in my community.

Thank you.

Next speaker Jill Henry Good evening my name is Jill Henry and I live on the proposed I live on the western border of the proposed development site.

My family and I purchased our home almost 11 years ago when our realtor showed us the property for the first time I remember opening the sliding glass doors in the backyard and seeing like the nature and everything that was back there and it was just such a peaceful setting that I was just like I knew that was the house for us.

Our home was in the direct path of the EF3 tornado that struck on Father's day in 2021.

So my backyard view has changed a lot since we first moved in.

But that experience taught me how valuable nature mer nature and mature trees are and how long it takes to replace what is lost something that I probably won't even see in my lifetime the trees that I planted get to be the size of the trees that were uprooted.

I respectfully ask the commission to recommend denial of the annexation request or require substantial modifications that better protect the site's wetlands mature woodlands and natural resources this property is not simply vacant land.

It wasn't just farmland that's been sitting there for decades that is gone unused.

If you look back at photos from um the past we were able to pull up site pictures from almost a hundred years ago where it was still wooded property.

It contains forested wetlands and mature trees that provide real benefits to the community these wetlands help absorb stormwater reduce flooding filter pollutants and improve water quality.

I am deeply concerned about the scale of tree removal proposed by this development.

Poulte spoke or the proposal that was brought up earlier made it seem like that that a lot of damaged trees were going to be removed.

But as I went through the tree inventory and looked at how many trees were rated in good or excellent condition, I came up with some surprising facts.

According to that tree inventory, 847 trees are proposed for removal, including 377 trees.

That's nearly 45% that are classified as being in good or excellent condition.

These are healthy trees providing benefits today, not dead or hazardous trees that are just sitting there.

These are also mature trees.

So if you were to look at this property, you would see that nature is rebounding from that devastation of the tornado, and there are saplings coming up all around, and some of them have been, they're very successful in how they're continuing to grow.

The proposal would also remove approximately 93 potential bat habitat trees.

This was a fact that I never really thought about, but the bats are kind of the unknown that we don't really think about, but they provide many things that help benefit our surrounding communities.

They live in a tree called the Shag Bark Hickory, and there are lots of them on this property.

These trees support bats that help control mosquito and insect populations.

And if you think about it, we're in a wetland area, so there's water, and that leads to a lot of mosquitoes.

So they're part of a larger woodland and wetland ecosystem that can't simply be recreated with replacement plantings.

All of this ties into a concern about Pulti requesting a deviation from Naperville's parkway tree requirements under section 5-10-3.3 of the municipal code.

According to the staff's report, Pulti is trying to reduce the required number of parkway trees because the site design cannot accommodate the city's standard landscaping requirements.

This raises serious questions about whether the site is truly suitable for the intensity of development being proposed.

As a homeowner's property backs directly onto the site, I'm also concerned about the proposed eight-foot fence that is at certain parts along the property.

Naperville's municipal code establishes a maximum fence height of six feet, yet that yet Pulti is requesting approval for an eight-foot fence.

Rather than integrating with surrounding neighborhoods, this fence would create a substantial visual barrier and permanently block use of the natural landscape that currently exists.

When a project requires the removal of hundreds of mature trees, impacts wetlands and wildlife habitat and seeks multiple deviations from established standards, it truly raises an important question.

Is the site being designed around the land, or is the land being forced to fit the development?

The decision before you is not simply whether to approve another subdivision.

It is whether the long-term public benefits of preserving these wetlands, mature trees, and natural resources outweigh the benefits of this proposal.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to recommend denial of this annexation request or require a substantial redesign that prefer that preserves significantly more of the site's natural resources.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Bill Walsh.

Good evening.

That the extension of Yakley into the subdivision would be used exclusively for a fire lane, so not open traffic.

So I think that addresses the primary concern that I have in general.

I am fully supportive of this development.

I think to the arguments made earlier around the shortage of homes across the nation and within Naperville.

This provides an opportunity to address that issue.

Also by continuing to expand the uh housing stock, it extends the uh obviously the property tax base, putting uh less pressure on the existing property tax owners.

My only question for the petitioner or for the planning commission is: have there been any conversations with the park district about taking over management of the wetlands versus leaving that up to the HOA that doesn't necessarily have the expertise to do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Matt Baylor.

Good evening.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Uh I am a Naperville homeowner.

My property specifically backs up to this property based on the plan presented tonight by the petitioner.

Uh there would be a Naperville park approximately 12 feet off of my back patio with no barrier.

I had submitted advanced comments in opposition to this position, but to the uh petition, but I wanted to speak briefly to emphasize that this plan does not appear to be in line with the city's comprehensive plan, given that it requests numerous exemptions or exceptions from municipal code.

It's a proposal that's being submitted by a publicly traded company whose remit is to maximize value for their shareholders, not necessarily to integrate and align with our community.

This is why you see a plan from them that tries to shoehorn the maximum number of units into this property to maximize their profits through these exceptions, rather than a plan that complements and respects the surrounding community, respects our city's codes and values and the vision of the future outlined by the CID city and its published plans.

Instead, they're asking us to make compromises to our plans to maximize their shareholder profits.

The near universal opposition in the public comments and in commentary this evening indicates that this commission should stand with residents, taxpayers, and the community to reject this proposal.

I will just add that uh when my wife and I got married, uh Naperville was number one on the list of where we wanted to live to start a family that has the best schools.

It's a community that values its residents, and I'm just proud to stand with so many of them that have come up here and spoken tonight in opposition to to this development that doesn't truly respect the surrounding neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

I have to get a representation.

Okay.

All right.

All right, good evening.

Umbers, thank you for the opportunity for us to uh voice open cents here.

One second.

It's not projected.

There you go.

All right.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Uh this is Silash.

I'm Kanj, and we live in 1408 Hatchwood Code Naperville.

And uh, well, it's yet another or not another, not in my back yard perspective from both of us.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

We have lived in this property for over 20 years.

We custom custom built our home, and our kids attended the elementary school in Naperville, the middle school, and high school.

And we unfortunately live hundred feet away from one of the wetlands on the property, which is under review.

And this is our home, a side angle view of how the backyard looks.

Our backyard, uh, you can see on the left.

Actually, we had a video on this because in the morning hours during sunrise, you can really hear the chirping of all kinds of birds.

Okay, okay.

We couldn't load that for some reason.

But this is our backyard, and on the right, also is a backyard, and we frequently see deers wandering in into our yard.

So, where is our home with respect to this development?

Is what you're trying to show here, right?

That's our home.

The one next to uh Scott Lee's home, so uh right there.

So, if you look at it, we are just about 20, 10 or 20 feet away from the property line uh under the biggest concern is about this road that's uh that's gonna is being proposed at the intersection.

Now I know uh pulti uh has changed plans.

Just I we just got to know about 15 minutes ago, maybe.

Uh, but the but I do feel that this keeps evolving with time because what was said to us a couple of weeks ago at the uh information session is different uh from uh what is being currently proposed is this is not gonna be a full-pled road, which is good, but I don't know if that's gonna stay that way.

Um, so if you look at this, the entrance to this road is kind of orderly position because the geography of the abutting properties is such, it just not mesh very well with the other true streets uh that go through that region.

The proposed fencing, the eight-foot fencing that Pulti suggested, uh it's not only transformative for us humans, but it's also for the deers and the other fauna that wander in.

And the proposed new uh new road, like my husband mentioned, and a lot of others, it's an intersection between a 77th and Yakley, and this is a blind spot.

Okay, uh, it's very prone to accidents during night times and winter season, and so over the past 20 years, we have personally observed four to five accidents with the car slamming right through that steel barrier that Scott showed in his picture, and uh that was installed by Diopage Water Commission.

And last January, uh, not this uh 2026 but 2025 January.

We he had personally helped push the car out of the trench to help the drivers involved, and this was a teenager.

And none of these, there are many accidents that don't get recorded because we went through the recording as to how many have been reported to the police.

Many of them have not been reported, and in this particular situation where we help this person out, there was no police there.

They did not call 911, nothing.

So we helped them out only because we knew we saw the bright lights and we helped them out.

So the oddly position entrance to this new road, even if it is an emergency um what did they say emergency access, it is prone to cause accidents and incidents.

We have no idea what emergency access means, which as he mentioned, we just learned about it.

At the information session, we also learned that number of trees are going to be removed.

This is something that I'm not saying something that's uh the others haven't mentioned, but what is not clear to us is how far this tree removal is gonna be, and uh in terms of how close, if you look at the width of these um easements or the space between the road and the property lines, it looks very narrow to us.

And one of our requests is gonna be that Pulti be fully uh transparent, and how these trees are going to be removed, and uh be in discussion with all the property owners that are uh abouting these properties in as far as how the trees are to be preserved or removed.

So here we have our list of concerns.

The proposed new road, which could be the emergency access, which is close to the property line, would result in increasing traffic flow, and it goes against or encroaches into the zoning code stipulations.

So 612-1 clearly says lessen the congestion on the public street.

612-3 says prevent the overcrowding of land, and the number two concern we have is the proposed fencing along the property lines, especially the height, eight-foot fencing of whatever it's going to be, and the structural makeup of it.

Again, this encroaches into the zoning code stipulation 612-9, standards to which buildings and structures need to conform to.

Number three, stop the water drainage consideration and maintenance of the buffer zone.

Again, this encroaches into the zoning code stipulation 612-8, inappropriate development of land from considerations for drainage, erosion, and flood damage.

Number four is the reduced property value with no bearing on our property taxes for sure.

And this the property tax is going to continue to rise, but we bought this property knowing that a backyard backs into a forest preserve.

So this is very concerning for us.

And again, it encroaches into the zoning code stipulation, 612-6, conserve the value of buildings.

So our requests are this, it's not a whole lot in terms of we would like the consideration being made to eliminate the fencing as far as possible, especially in terms of the height that is being proposed, right?

And preferably, between uh, as Scott said, the people that are mostly affected to the greatest extent is gonna be us and Scott.

So mixing this road that's being proposed along that in our backyards is something we want to request for, right?

And then if it if at all possible, it can be moved further away and made available only for MRGSC purposes.

That would be something that uh would be of uh great interest to us, and uh I would also request that Pulti be completely transparent about the tree removal plan, and they also told me the other day that they would be uh uh adding some new trees, especially ornamental ones because uh the nature uh nature of the current vegetation is not of high quality, that you would they would be replacing with better quality trees and shrubs, and that's something that they would be if there's a binding acknowledgement of such a uh how do you call request?

That would be something of interest to us.

So with that said, I think that's our last one.

So, big thank you for providing us this opportunity to express our concerns and hope they are considered by the zoning committee.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Ali Laskowski.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Allie Laskowski, and I grew up in Naperville.

I went to Maple Brook Elementary, Lincoln Junior High, and Neverville Central.

My husband went to Ranch View, then to Kennedy, then to Central.

I left for college in North Carolina and lived in California before deciding to move home into Naperville, which I know now from experience is the best possible place to raise a family.

I live on Wayward Lane, one of the properties adjacent to this development.

Like my neighbors have already expressed, I have numerous concerns about Fulti's development application.

Our house is at the end of the street and backs up primarily to the Green Valley Forest Preserve.

Through this development process, I learned that the northern edge of my property is adjacent not to forest preserve, but to the property owned by the Du Page Water Commission.

Our main reason for purchasing this house was the fact that we backed up to natural forested land.

On a typical day, we might look out our back window and see a family of deer or a pack of coyote wandering through.

We have hummingbirds and woodpeckers and goldfinches hovering around our bird feeders all day long.

We have a goldfinch that lives on top of our door handle to our deck and pecks at our back door constantly throughout the day.

We see bats flying around in the evenings, and there are two owls that live in a tree directly behind our property line.

Pulti is requesting allowances from the city that will result in fewer trees and far less green space in the development that they are building.

They're asking for the city to waive the requirements of plant parkway trees and to allow them to shorten the required setback distance for several of the proposed duplexes.

In their petition, Poulte responds to point 9E, which says that they prioritize Neighborville's city standard of not altering the essential character of the neighborhood.

The trees, native plants, and wildlife are the essential character of the neighborhood.

Pulti plans to remove nearly 900 trees and then go further by not planting the required parkway trees and shortening the green space in front of and behind numerous duplexes.

Nothing about a development that aims to cram as many luxury duplexes into the space to maximize profits fits with the essential character of the neighborhood we all know and love.

The emphasis on preserved space from Poulti sounds great on the surface, but in reality, the wetlands on this property are unusable for development, so every bit of usable space appears to be used for housing in this development.

I asked that the city deny Pulti's request for exemptions on parkway trees and setback distances.

Further, in point 9E, Poulte claims that they will not cause a substantial detriment to adjacent properties, and in 11B, they argue that they will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate area.

They repeatedly emphasize that they plan to preserve natural features to serve as defined separation between existing and proposed residential communities.

They emphasize the wooded and secluded nature of this new development.

If you look at these images, you can see that this is an absurd claim.

There is no seclusion from the Wayward Lane properties for our homes or for these newly developed duplexes.

Pulti's plan places the homes on the southernmost edge of the development, putting them directly against the Wayward Lane property lines.

The Poulty petition emphasizes the natural features that will provide a buffer between the properties.

This may be true along certain edges of their development, but certainly not the southern border with Waywood Lane.

From their proposal, it is clear that they intend to preserve no natural buffer within their development to maintain separation between the homes they build and Waywood Lane.

They propose to solve this lack of meaningful buffer by asking for another exemption to build an eight-foot fence along the edge of their development.

To claim that a massive fence is in line with the essential character of the neighborhood is absurd.

To go from a view of unaltered naturally wooded land to a massive eight-foot fence not only has an impact on property value but measurely impedes the enjoyment current residents get from their land.

And all of this doesn't even account for the devastating impact this will have on wildlife that inhabit the area.

This development will inevitably displace the owls that live behind our house, as well as eliminate our yards as viable pass-throughs for animals in search of food and shelter.

Pulte's petition misleadingly argues that the drainage easement on Wayward properties counts as a sufficient buffer.

Regardless of whether structures can be built on the property lines immediately adjacent to the proposed development, the drainage easement is livable, usable space.

Those of us who purchased homes on Wayward Lane did so because we make substantial use of our properties and spend considerable time outside.

Further, the drainage easement does not go for the entire length of their proposed development.

You can see in this image that there are in fact structures, including a barn and two gardens that are quite close to the property lines.

Pulte's petition to the city references the success they had working with the Conservation Foundation for the outwater development in Neighborville.

In contrast, that development was 204 acres with 152 homes on it, which resulted in a property with about 1.34 acres of land for every home built.

This proposed development is 32 acres with 94 homes, which is 0.34 acres for every home, a full acre of land less for each planned home.

To use any conservation success that they had with the outwater development as grounds for approval on this property feels entirely unfair if the conservation of land is so dramatically different between the two developments.

Additionally, Poulte claims these homes will contribute to housing diversity and that they specifically align with the aging in place objective of the city's comprehensive plan.

Their plan emphasizes that these homes are expected to appeal to an aging demographic.

They also use the phrase ranch style to describe this development.

As you can see from the images here taken from Pulti's proposal, these units are not ranch-style homes.

While the units have a primary bedroom on the first floor, they have a substantial portion of living space on a second floor in addition to each having a basement.

Not a real estate agent or a home buying expert, but using basic logic, the claim that these homes would appeal primarily to an aging population seems ridiculous.

My husband and I bought our legitimate ranch-style home to be our forever home because it did not have a second floor with stairs that would one day be challenging.

My grandfather is currently in the process of purchasing a one-story duplex because he no longer wants to navigate stairs after undergoing a hip replacement.

To build a neighborhood of two-story homes and then claim you are serving the needs of an aging population seems to defy all common sense.

These units are priced over $700,000 apiece, which provides no direct benefit to young people trying to afford housing.

Further, we heard tonight the argument that these homes would take people out of their existing homes to clear up more affordable homes for young people, which also feels absurd if we heard from Polte tonight that the average expected buyer of these homes currently lives in a home valued over one million dollars.

So again, not contributing to making housing more affordable.

Finally, the pace at which this project is advancing has been alarming to all of us in the neighborhood, particularly as we have continued to meet with dead ends when we try to engage professionals on our behalf.

We've lost track of the number of local law firms and experts that have told us they can't help us because they're already engaged on the Pulti side.

It's beginning to feel like we are boxed into a corner, left without professional expertise to organize a meaningful opposition to this proposal.

If all of the nearby experts on land use laws are already engaged to help the developer, it's inevitable that the citizens will be ill-equipped to leverage the appropriate legal justifications to oppose the development.

I appreciate your time this evening and want to echo the request already expressed by my neighbors for more meaningful conservation of excellent and good trees on the land, further traffic review conducted during summer months to account for increased bike and pedestrian traffic on Yackley and 77th, and further evaluation of the safety concerns of an exit onto 75th Street with no traffic signal.

Along with my neighbors, I ask that you deny Pulti's proposal for this development.

And at the very least, I respectfully ask that you consider the following requests.

One, enforce the city requirements on parkway trees and setback distances, denying Pulti's request for allowances to shorten any setbacks or avoid planting parkway trees.

Require a revised proposal that creates meaningful separation between the proposed homes and homes on adjacent properties.

Deny Poulti's request for an exemption to build an eight-foot fence along our property lines.

Reject Poulty's claims of meeting Neighborville's aging in place objective with this development and require a revision of their proposal if they choose to use that as justification for these proposed homes to require them to build homes more realistically aligned with this claimed goal.

And finally, provide a delay of 45 days or more to allow us in the neighborhoods surrounding more time to find and engage an attorney who can help us navigate this process with expertise.

Require Poulte to provide citizens with a list of all law firms and experts they have engaged so far so that we can find an attorney of our own to support our efforts to challenge this development.

Thank you for your consideration and your time tonight.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Caitlin, sir.

Oh, next speaker.

Yeah.

I believe it's Jack Stegman or Jake.

Um, or J.A.

Those of his size.

Okay.

Um, Joe.

Okay.

Got it.

Marilyn.

Schweitzer.

Okay, um, Marilyn Schweitzer, 39-year resident.

Um, so be patient with me while I sort of reprise my comments based on what other people have said.

Um, pretty much I agree with so many of the points that other people have said.

And and I want to say that overall I don't object to the concept in concept of a PUD or even our two zoning, and I'd either even be in favor of our four, you know, medi medium density zoning, but I object to all of the requested deviations.

I object to the way that the calculation is is um of density has been calculated because it includes stormwater and wetland areas, and I object to the layout of a PUD.

I think none of those, all of those are reasons for denying this request.

Um, so some municipalities consider or exclude the acreage of wetlands, detention stormwater facility, floodplains, and similarly constrained lands to be separate than the billable areas when they calculate their residential density.

Um, some of those communities are Aurora, Barrington Hills, Batavia, Elgin, Geneva, Hawthorne Woods, Plainfield, Schaumburg, and St.

Charles.

Schomburg is one of my favorite definitions.

And so, so when you look at 32 acres, and you say about half of it is sort of unbillable because it's wetland, floodplain, or stormwater, but then you calculate the density based on the full acreage, that is really skewing the calculation.

And it's just very difficult to even figure out what an R2 density would be based on the plans that were submitted tonight.

Features that do not make this a very good PUD, is like, I mean, the outlaw C, where the park is located in isolated position, closest to only 20 of the 94 units, is only three quarters of an acre.

It offers little active park space for residents, and it's not even clear who this park would appeal to.

And while there are natural areas for a PUD, there is no cultural or community gathering space.

You know, you have the natural areas, the park just has a park, but PUDs are supposed to have something else to attract and create a community that doesn't exist in this development, particularly because it's divided in half into the, you know, with the wetlands in in the middle.

And while there are natural areas, I said that it lacks affordable housing, it lacks visibility.

The entranceways, for example, have steps.

Upstairs bedrooms, and so it's not really clear, you know, who this is being designed for.

Parking is not even discussed.

Looking at the site plan, it seems to be very similar to some of the other very similarly dense developments, which currently we hear in the conversations of wanting overnight parking because there isn't sufficient room in the driveway, and there's even limited on street parking for people.

So I mean, you might have one downstairs bedroom, but if you have your adult children living upstairs and you have four cars, that means you have to park in the street and shuffle, and there I didn't see any kind of a parking consideration at all in this plan.

The limestone paths that go through here are only six feet wide, which is not great for sharing with bicycles, e-bikes, and the like.

Forces are limestone paths are typically 10 feet wide.

If you're talking about an aging population, I mean a limestone path is exceptionally difficult to maintain.

The emergency, I mean it's sort of weird to have this like emergency road and this cut through here, so sort of like you're making a PUD that has this huge community area for all of Naperville, and that and that separates the community again with no gathering space.

You're having sort of like the entire Naperville community cut through your PUD on something that is, I guess, an emergency access path, and they don't even, the paths don't even make a nice loop, they don't go through the roads nice.

So, I mean, in terms of the setbacks, um, reducing the rear and the front setbacks alters the neighborhood character.

I mean, the claim is well, there's all this other open space over there, but that's a very different kind of open space that you would have in a normal R2 development where you would have a 25-foot setback.

Even R4 has 20, 25 and 20 um 25 front and 25 set back.

And so, I mean, the type of space, you know, that that is in the wetland area is not the same thing that you would have like next door or in the cultural area or something, you know, amenity nearby you.

Fencing, as other people have mentioned, you know, is not a replacement for a buffer, and I don't understand any kind of the need for making it be eight feet.

Parkway trees are owned by the city, not by residents.

So by just saying, well, you know, we don't have enough room for because we've for design purpose for for the well, let me try wording this a different way.

The the right-of-way has been reduced, and I think the reducing of the right-of-way was just simply because of the type design.

You know, so I mean it's the design that is reducing it.

There's no natural feature that is causing the roadway to even need to be reduced.

And so then once this reduced, it sort of says, Well, we don't really have ample room to put the trees in here, so we'll put them in in people's yards.

None of the plans show that.

Um, and the ownership for that is very different, you know, in terms of like whether you can tear down a tree, and I mean removing 800 trees is is really you know, is really a lot.

I think this area would be much better developed as a forest reserve, maybe as part of it carved out, and maybe a little part, another park carved out for you know, senior housing with appropriate amenities.

But I mean, as a PUD that is like trying to be crammed into, you know, wetland area, it just doesn't make any sense.

And I guess I would also just conclude with I really have deep compassion for all the residents who have gone through a tornado and now have to deal with this.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Tom Gayla.

Good evening.

Thanks for letting us speak today.

Really appreciate that.

Um, I would say that Naperville is nationally known as a great place to live.

Uh, and it has high standards, and you don't uh maintain high standards by going through all the variances that these folks are asking you to go through the setbacks, the things like that.

My neighbors are very good at uh pointing out.

Oh, this is a wetland, and they're trying to put 94 homes in a wetland that is going to affect the rest of the wetlands around.

Um, one of the homes that's to the south of this, we're uh required to have part of our lots open for water to come through, and it's very common for all of us to have water, it comes from the north and comes down and goes into our yards.

I'm not sure how they've looked at they've looked at this piece of land instead of the other, not making it worse, but it's already got a problem.

And I don't know that they've taken uh the watershed to the south into consideration.

Um the other thing, speaking of water, is those people of the south are all on wells, and I don't know how this construction is going to affect the aquifier and what that's going to do to the water that we all drink uh day in and day out.

So that would be what I'd like to add.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Joseph Milas.

Okay.

And then Lucy Chang Evans.

Hi, good evening, commissioners.

Thank you for listening to everyone tonight.

I'm Lucy Chang Evans.

I'm actually a DuPage County board member from District 3, and this is my district, and these are my constituents, and I came here to listen to everyone.

Um, it is very distressing for everyone who's been living there for so long to see plans for this development, and at the risk of my uh constituents getting angry with me.

I'm glad that I came here to listen to the presentation from Pulty Homes because it looks fairly responsible.

It's going to get developed.

I want to point out that this was never a forest preserve.

This was DuPage Water Commission land, and they had the right to develop it into more industrial uses on the same footprint that Pulte Homes is putting homes on.

So, you know, if it were me, I'd rather have homes there and then you know, a maintenance yard or um a pump station or another giant tank.

So I'm here to say that I really sympathize with all of these uh residents, and I hope their new neighbors are good neighbors, and I hope this development is responsible.

I love that the wetland is there.

You know, you can't develop the wetland.

I hope they take good care of whatever um native plantings are there, and I also wanted to kind of speak on a broader level of affordable housing.

So under state law, I believe we have to have 10% affordable housing.

We just keep getting all these luxury town homes, all these units of uh housing that are way above the median income.

So this townhomes, I would love to move into them when I retire.

I would love to downsize.

I can't afford it.

You know, this is not affordable housing, and it's going to bring the the number of housing units in Naperville up.

So are we going to go below?

We are just right at 10% affordable housing.

This isn't really a planning and zoning issue, but I would like to bring that up because when it comes to city council, it's something that they have to consider is that these housing um these housing projects are skewing our numbers, so we are going to go below that 10%.

Um trying to look at my notes here.

Yeah, I'm just really I was confused when I was watching this presentation because I had an old version of the plans, and I'm very relieved to see that the roadway that was going to be give access from 77th Street is gone.

And I I think that that was a great idea.

That was my number one concern was that everyone was going to be driving through Ranch View to uh to get to this housing um community.

So I think that was a very good change.

So in closing, I just want to say I I hope the new neighbors are good neighbors.

Um thank you so much to the commission for listening.

I I know these are tough decisions when you have so many residents that are opposed to these developments, but you know, there was a I'm sure it was a really nice area where my my uh neighborhood was once upon a time.

But I love living in Naperville, and we are victims of our own success.

Everyone wants to live in Naperville now, and so we need more housing.

I hope my kids can grow up and still come back to Naperville.

So we do need more housing, and um thanks for listening.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

No other speakers have signed up.

All right.

Uh, I would like to hear from any of the other members in the public present tonight that would like to speak.

Uh is there anyone else in the public?

All right.

I will ask uh any of the commissioners have any questions on this case.

Please note that those of yes, sir.

Hi, I'm Jerry Galloway.

And um hold on, Jerry.

Were you sworn in?

I was.

Okay, perfect.

Yeah, and I'm speaking for myself and uh I'm also speaking as a trustee in Lyle Township.

And I I surveyed um the other, for what it's worth, I surveyed my fellow trustees and our supervisor, and they're all in agreement with me uh that this is not a good idea.

And uh I believe I believe that this tract of land is a gem.

I believe, I believe that uh these old growth trees should not be destroyed uh to put in this housing.

It'd be different story if we were talking about uh someone earlier mentioned uh abandoned farmland uh or or a different type of a lot.

Uh it'd be a different story, and I I I'm completely aware of the need for housing.

Um, but I also I also think that uh that uh what we have here uh when we have uh these old growth um tracts of land, I think it's I think it's invaluable.

And then uh one other thought, and I I don't once again I don't know the legalities of this, but uh it would seem to me that uh perhaps an environmental impact study should be done on this uh property before uh this goes any further.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, is there anyone else that would like to speak?

All right, and I'm going to move to the commissioners and to see if they have any questions on this case.

Please note that these questions may not be directed to the petitioner members of the public after the closure of the public hearing.

Further comments should be saved for deliberation, which will occur after the closure of the public hearing.

Commissioner Longham, would you like to start?

Sure thing.

Thank you so much.

Um would like to say thank you for the presentation.

It was it's not working.

Oh, there we go.

Um, it's always good to see the things that are not in the agenda item, like seeing a lot of the things that you presented.

So I want to I want to thank you for that because that does clear things up.

Um, and especially the clarification on Yakley and 77.

That was a big concern.

Um, I just have a couple of questions.

Um, many of the the residents have also brought this up as well that the aging in place market claims.

So you've explained that the aging demographic, that that's what this is for, but the product is two-story duplexes, with around you know, starting at 700,000 and with no age restriction.

So, aside from the first floor master, like what design features specifically serve that buyer demographic and what is present preventing it from becoming a standard family subdivision, because I know I I would love to live there too with my kids because it's you know it's a nice area.

So I'm just wondering why and what it's going to be for them.

Absolutely.

So it as you just kind of mentioned the the first floor master is really the driving force behind that age targeted type of demographic, but that said it's not age restricted.

So dialing it back to like the district 203 comments, right?

We did not use age-restricted density calculations for to produce those numbers.

So the same numbers that were produced in terms of how many students would be generated, um, would be the same numbers that would have been produced for a 94 uh unit three-story row home development.

So the same impact of the school district.

This is not an age-restricted development.

Now, that being said, I mean, I kind of have a personal experience with this.

Um, my mother is 73 years old.

She and my father retired.

They specifically redesigned their house in a very similar manner to this type of floor plan.

So they have a first floor master bedroom, they have laundry on the first floor, kitchen, living area, first floor.

They also have an upstairs with two beds and a loft.

Do they go upstairs all the time?

No, they're probably downstairs on the first floor set 95% of the time.

There's also a basement, I should say.

Um, but that being said, they love having that upstairs.

They specifically design that house so that I can come visit with my kids so grandkids can come visit.

They did that in mind, and my parents are not young.

I hope they're not watching, but they're not young.

Um, they they specifically did that for that reason.

They're also active adults, they can do stairs.

You know, like this is kind of going back to the statement I said earlier.

This is not a one size fits all.

I understand some of the aging population wants a one-story typical ranch in an age restricted community, 55 and up with programming and a clubhouse, and that's not what this is.

This is specifically quote unquote targeting that demographic, but not restricting it.

It's just providing options for people to say, hey, maybe this will be a place that I do want to live in forever.

It has that master down.

Maybe they do move in with their high school age children.

Like I said, the school district calc the calculations we provided to district 203 represented a non-age restricted community.

And at the end of the day, the kids move out, they go to college, and parents can stay.

So that's really where our uh thought process went with this.

Okay, just to follow up on one of those things.

Well, first of all, my mom did the same exact thing with her house.

Um, so I totally understand that.

Um following up with the place to have a common area for the community, and that and Marilyn mentioned it in her comments as well that the PUD requires that, and all there is is just one little park.

How is that going to satisfy the the PUD requirement for having some kind of common area?

So we were able to activate with the with the coordination with DuPage County wetlands, we're able to activate all of those critical wetlands.

So we're putting that limestone.

I have a site plan, hold on.

We're we're including a six-foot limestone path that virtually extends throughout the whole community.

Um so anything in green on the site plan that I just pulled up meets the open space requirement under Naperville's PUD requirements.

And so the park site actually, to the contrary of those comments, the park site is not included in that calculation because it's going to be dedicated to the park district.

But ultimately, it's still going to be activated for, you know, recreational purposes.

And there's actually a nice little extension from the limestone path down here where people can be at the park and then they can go off and enjoy the wetlands and all of those natural features.

Okay, good.

So thank you for clarifying that.

And then just kind of following in from the whole aging in place thing.

And so I thank you for addressing that.

But it also said that because of the site challenges that they're not feasible.

So I'm just, I mean, I've I've sat with with you in previous developments where the developers worked with the topography to actually make those work.

So what is it about this spot that means that you couldn't do any?

Because I would have thought that maybe you could accommodate a few at least given the topography, but why not?

Yep.

And when I say we've went through this like very closely with a fine-tooth comb to see where we can accommodate it, it's just very difficult with those critical wetlands, the required buffers.

And what we're trying to do is we're trying to reduce the amount of pavement right throughout the site, the amount of disturbance throughout the site.

So in this instance, we found that we would need a 46-foot service walk to get to and from uh the front door to the garage in order to accommodate that zero step entry.

So I know we sat down before and showed you how we would need to, you know, incorporate those walks, and that's just extremely challenging on this site.

Uh, but that being said, that's not to say a ramp can't be built if asked for by a buyer.

Pull team makes accessibility accommodations upon request.

So that's something that they will continue to do as part of their practice.

Okay, um, I don't like that, but I mean, I'd also like to point out too like we we have very wide patio areas, so very maneuver, a lot of maneuverability there.

We have wide door frames, all hallways are wide.

So we're trying to uh incorporate accessibility and visitability, like wherever we possibly can.

Okay.

Um, and then my final question, um, I had asked staff about the threatened and endangered species report that came up in a lot of the public comments.

Um, and they provided me that eco cat letter, which you did mention at the beginning in your long list of things because it it wasn't in the original packet.

So in that it flagged the black billed cuckoo and recommended that no brush or tree clearing between May 1st and August 15th.

So is that clearing restriction reflected in your potential construction timeline as well?

Absolutely.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Alright, Commissioner Abu Bay.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, once again, give you great presentation and thank you, all the residents who came here today.

Uh, this is what makes Napaville Naperville and the fashion be up for the city.

Um just a few questions.

Um, you know, um, when you did this, like these three, have you looked in to see like if more trees can be saved in any base, you know, what kind of uh how did you come to the decision which you have come to today?

So and I I all I can say with respect to tree preservation before I bring up my expert is that we are not clear cutting the property, we're saving 1300 trees.

So this was all done uh tagged and surveyed by a certified arborist.

So I'm going to ask him to come up and respond to that.

Good evening.

Uh Dan Jablonski uh V3 companies certified arborists.

So the site plan kind of is dictated originally by the wetlands as was brought up originally.

Um as mentioned there are two critical wetlands on the site, so the site restraints and for the stormwater drainage kind of dictates where we put the housing units and where the stormwater basins are going.

Also, that is what is dictating most of the tree removal for this property.

Oh, a lot of the tree removal is associated with the stormwater basin in the northwest corner, as well as the grading associated with uh the access road to 75th Street.

Yeah, so I guess one more thing.

As we've gone through this to actually clarify a little bit more, each renders or each rendering of this, we've looked at this, you know, to make sure that we're maximizing the amount of trees.

So I think we've looked at eight or nine different site plans internally, and each one of those, you know, we continue to add trees, and as this progresses, we'll keep looking at a fine-tooth comb to make sure, you know, if there's one tree, we will definitely try to preserve it if it's an area that we can.

Okay.

Thank you.

And I'll also have my civil engineer come up as well, but I would like to point out I know I went through uh kind of a site plan evolution for when we were talking about, you know, this road and all of you know how we were how we were initially planning the road to go to 77th.

This initial plan that we submitted preserved a lot more trees up north.

There was a lot more preservation area and open space up north.

But based upon the feedback from the city engineering wanting that connection to 75th Street, which we completely understand.

And we've also heard the concerns from the residents about the connection to 77th Street.

That allowed us to put the road in, and that also impacts the amount of trees that we could preserve.

So I just wanted to make that clear as well.

Yeah, and to follow up on that, Chris Morgar was some con civil engineer for the project.

Um, when there's a lot of fall on this site, it's it's basically 30 feet fall from the south to the uh invert of the culvert that goes under uh 75th Street here.

So with that, that presents a lot of challenges.

Um we're gonna have to do grading.

You know, we've got to meet all the regulations of the city, and so we've got to do a uh a lot of grading to get to to handle that elevation fall, right?

So we've got you can see where we've got all this four to one grading because we're all higher up here because this is the high ridge of the site, and everything kind of falls off down to the to the southwest corner.

So we've got all this grading, we've got to we come down, so we we kind of lose all those trees kind of in there.

We also have the emergency access path that we got to cut in.

So you're gonna that forces us to lose those trees as well.

So that's kind of and then you've got obviously you've gotta for the stormwater ordinance, you've got to provide detention.

So you you lose all those.

So that's kind of where we're at with the tree preservation.

We've preserved as much as we can.

And I'd like to emphasize that we are preserving over 1300 trees, and we're still planting additional trees as well.

So I would like to make that clear.

And I'm sorry, what uh how many trees you said, like you were planning?

We're preserving over 1300 trees, and then we're going to be planting trees in accordance with like landscape plans and development requirements per city code.

Okay.

All right.

Commissioner Namaste.

The one of the items that was brought up was the emergency access road.

Um, was that required by staff?

Katie Rubush with the engineering department.

Uh, yes, we have a requirement for dead ends in our city that if any dead end is over a thousand feet, it requires two points of access.

Thank you.

Um, with where that looking at where it ends by those those homes right in their backyard, as the residents have stated, they would be losing those views, so on and so forth.

And I'm wondering, does the access road have to go directly in on those property lines?

It does, um, because of the location of the wetland buffers.

So we are staying out of the wetland buffer as much as possible.

We want to, you know, reduce pavement as much as possible.

I mean, the amount of times this will be utilized by emergency access is pretty probably infrequent.

I mean, we met with the fire district, they're supportive of this.

Um, they're likely to use the turnaround and go out along 75th street, but that said, um, it needs to be there for engineering.

Okay.

Um, another item that was brought up a lot was the fencing.

And one of the variances, I believe, is the eight-foot versus six foot.

Yes.

Um, could you either remind us or state why does it have to be eight feet and not six feet?

Sure.

It does not have to be eight feet.

So we did that specifically because we thought the residents might want that, like they might want an additional buffering.

Uh, we heard from staff that duplexes are compatible with single-family communities, and they don't they are not supportive of the eight-foot tall fence because of the compatible nature of the two or not two of the surrounding subdivisions.

Um, so we are happy to install whatever it is the recommendation of this plan commission and city council.

Um, and is is a fence required in general for new developments like that?

Uh, not when it's a residential development adjacent to residential, no.

Were there other buffer, I guess, options looked at rather than a fence?

Um, none that we've discussed.

I mean, we could certainly talk about um increasing the height of some of those shrubs or doing some additional landscaping along those property lines, uh, specifically the south and the west.

Uh, we have not had those discussions yet though.

I wonder if that's something that might be worthwhile to take back as the visual right has been brought up, having that site line into these wetland areas or kind of incorporating a development into an existing neighborhood.

Again, the animals being able to come and go as they please.

Um, that would be just a suggestion back.

Um, and then the parkway trees requirement that I believe that was a variance.

Um, and is I guess why why can't the development abide by the parkway trees requirement?

And just to be clear, these are all deviations under the PUD, they're not variances.

Just to just to kind of set up no all good.

Um, I wanted to also make that clarification for the residents as well.

Uh so there is a difference, but ultimately this is the result of we needed to reduce the right-of-way width again to stay out of the wetland buffers.

This is all a conservation first design approach.

That being said, the pavement width of our roads will be a standard 28-foot pavement.

So that is not being reduced to way traffic can still maneuver through the community just fine, just like any other street in Naperville.

That being said, it would the reduced right-of-way width reduces our parkway width.

So the ability to plant parkway trees within the actual parkway becomes limited because of the location of utilities.

We have required utility clearances that we can't necessarily meet because of that reduced right-of-way width, but we will be installing or I shouldn't say installing, we will be planting trees immediately adjacent to the parkway to still keep that streetscape that you would get from a parkway tree anyway, keeping in mind that this is all common ownership by the HOA.

These aren't private yards that you know these trees will be placed upon, so you'll still get that typical street streetscape appearance.

And then final question I had was surrounding the density of these um, I guess what what is the driver for 94 on, I believe a number was thrown out of they're on approximately a third of an acre, when the surrounding area is those residential areas require one acre.

So if we're creating this transitional space, that's a larger reduction or reduction in acreage per home.

And I think we're looking at the overall uh transitions, right?

So the zoning, if you're looking here, we have A2, which is that attached dwelling unit in uh Woodridge.

They that's comparable to like an R4 in Naperville.

So that's higher density.

Then you have kind of like a a low, a lower density over here.

You have a like estate style density down here.

So there is it is across the board, um, different types of densities.

So the duplex, probably most compatible with a single family home as opposed to, like I said, like three-story row homes or uh and another apartment building, which would have been compatible with the uh property next door.

Um duplexes, I mean the 94 units, there's not really a magic number, so to speak, but this is only 24% of the allowable density uh for the zoning district.

So I do want to point out we aren't requesting relief or density.

Any of the other deviations are not the result of us trying to squeeze in more units, it's just the result of, like I said, site challenges, and some don't even apply to all the units.

Thank you.

Sure.

All right.

Do you have any questions?

Actually, can I have Scott speak real quick?

Scott Braco with V3 Companies.

Just wanted to clarify again on one of your comments as far as the access roadway and why it had to be in that position.

So as the wetland and ecology group leader at our firm, we look at these holistically, but we have rules that have to be followed on the federal level as well as the local level.

The wetland delineation and the designation of those exact boundaries were through and followed the federal guidelines and local guidelines, but they were verified.

So the line itself of where those limits are verified by county wetland specialists in conjunction with us at the site.

So the number one priority being avoidance of those critical wetlands, thus shifting items and thoroughfares to where they are currently.

Thank you for that clarification.

Good evening.

My name is Sharon Dixon.

I'm a licensed landscape architect with Dixon Design Studio.

I appreciate all the residents' feedback tonight, and I thought maybe it would I would take this opportunity to walk through some of the actual numbers related to tree removal and tree preservation.

In general, when we looked at this site, we inventoried over 2,000 trees, so exactly 2,193.

Of those 2,193 trees, we are set to preserve 61%.

That would equate to a quantity of 1,343 trees.

The tree removals on the opposite end can comprise 39%.

And between the different plant iterations, we've come, we've moved around a little bit, but currently we're around 850 for removal.

I think it's also wise to kind of also break that 850 down into smaller bites related to the exact type and quantity of tree we are removing.

So when we look at the tree preservation and we look at the tree inventory and what exists on site, we categorize these trees.

We categorize them between high quality, average quality, low quality, invasive, and dead.

That's within the packet of your submittal tonight, those are listed A, B, C, D, and E.

So when we look at that 850 tree removal, that can seem jarring.

When we look at it in relation to the preservation, becomes a little bit more amenable.

And then when we look at it and we deduce what that 850 actually comprises, it to me seems a little bit more even more amenable.

So the high quality removals, which would be a variety of species between Shagwark Hickory and various oaks, is 338 trees.

So 338 trees of the 850 are considered high quality species.

Unfortunately, they are in the zone of development and stormwater management.

Because we are being sensitive and very um practical about highlighting that existing wetland and and not impacting the existing wetland and preserving that existing wetland, that only allows so much land outside of that wetland and wetland buffer to be developed.

And unfortunately, those 338 trees of high quality lie in those development zones in the stormwater management zone and the access to 75th Street.

When we step down and look at average quality trees, and my average quality trees, those are species related to American elm, black cherry, black walnut, hophorn beam, hackberry, and river birch, those trees are 312 in quantity.

So 312 of the 850 are considered average quality trees.

One of the final qual uh categories is low quality.

Those are either low quality species trees or actually in categorized as invasive trees that we don't want, regardless whether we develop or not.

These comprise of silver maple, osage Orange, eastern cottonwood, Mulberry, and Oriental Pear.

These are 200 trees in total.

So 200 of the 850 are considered low quality or invasive.

We also have some dead trees that we are removing, and those are 22.

Now on the opposite end of tree removal is tree installation and tree preservation.

We've already discussed tree preservation.

I'd like to take just one more minute to talk about the proposed trees that are going into the development.

So we kind of have two zones.

We have more of a manicured area that are in and around the homes and open space areas, and then we have the conservation zone that are in and around the wetland and the limestone trail.

The proposed new trees going in are a total of 384 trees.

Obviously, these would be of size that are code requirements.

They would be of species that relate to the code requirements.

They would be considered high quality trees.

So of those 384 new trees, 209 trees will be planted either in parkways or in and amongst the new duplex homes.

And then 175 trees would be in and around the conservation area, either within the wetland but for proper or outside of that.

So I just want to clarify of the 850 trees, it's only a 39% removal, but our anticipation is to plant a new tree quantity of 384.

Happy to answer any other questions, but I thought because of most of the comments related to tree removal, tree preservation, that we could really have real numbers to speak to.

Thank you.

All right, student representative.

Do you have any questions?

Thank you for all that information.

And I guess kind of like on the tree topic.

I know you mentioned that 61% and over 1300 trees are being preserved.

And I just want to know, like, are there any measurements to like specifically ensure that these trees aren't being damaged?

Because with all the renovations, I know that there could definitely be soil erosion, like there could be some vegetation damaged around it.

So are there any measurements to kind of prevent this?

Absolutely, and always.

Within the plan set before you today are notes related to tree preservation.

There is a detail related to tree protection fencing.

We are in preliminary stages, as we if we do and we are able to move through into final plans, we would actually have a formal tree preservation fencing plan before you that would indicate where that preservation fencing would be.

It's related to critical root zones, it's related to the access for development, and those go hand in hand, and all of that protection goes up before any construction equipment would be allowed on site.

And then I know you mentioned earlier about constructing like a limestone path.

And I understand that this could be really helpful with kind of maintaining like lowering soil acidity, but it could also kind of damage some of the plants and vegetation.

So I was wondering do you guys have anything in plan to kind of mitigate these risks?

It's a great question, and there's a couple schools of thought on whether a limestone path is good or bad within existing trees.

We're handling this on another project, specifically in Highland Park, on whether or not limestone would be allowed under existing trees.

And the school of thought for this approach in this development is that limestone is less impactful at installation for the existing root zones, and that's why we've chosen to one have the path quote unquote narrow at six feet rather than a 10-foot wide path, and also why we're choosing that material as opposed to asphalt or concrete.

Thank you.

Sure.

Thank you.

Commissioner Brownsal.

Hello.

Um, firstly, thank you all, everyone coming out tonight and expressing your concerns, especially everyone has the same concern about the material in the tree cutting, and all the letters submitted.

Uh, thank you all.

Uh, these concerns are important and truly deserve the careful consideration.

Um, I'm sure.

And uh as we are going along with the question and answer round, I really uh understood that the development has a meaningful plan to for the tree replacement uh plan and to preserve the character and environmental value of the area.

Um, well, I had two questions.

One you already answered about the eight feet fencing, which was really concerning, and I was uh bit uh that seems to be pretty high, but now you're saying that it's not uh I think so that's good.

Uh another quick question in reducing the right-of-way, you there is a mentioning about from 66 feet to 60.

Um, so I just wanted to know what is the benefit of doing that, and what could be the effect about street site parking or snow removal or any future maintenances with doing that?

So the reduc reduction of the right-of-way ultimately helps us with our site plan to shift those buildings away from those critical wetlands.

So that's primarily the drive behind that.

Um the actual pavement of the road will still be a standard 28 foot pavement.

So you will have uh two-way traffic can travel perfectly fine on street parking, can be accommodated pursuant to neighbor bill code, no issues there, it will be no different than any other roads in the city.

Okay.

Um yeah, I guess I think that's thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner McDaniel.

Thank you.

Um any time we have uh uh any like a single uh uh resident uh, you know, concern, you know, it's our responsibility to to listen uh clearly.

There are more than just one here tonight, and that makes it even that much more important for us to uh take all of your comments in consideration.

Um, I also want to say that uh it has been fantastic to sit in a room and hear everyone's comments, but in a very respectful manner for for each of us.

Um one of the beautiful things about going last is that everyone asked your questions already.

So I have one simple question.

Uh I do have a problem with all of the trees that are being removed, and I I think uh the you know one individual for being up here and being a bit more specific as to uh quality, non-quality, um, uh and so on.

Uh, but I am a little curious of the 600 quality trees that are being removed, is it ever possible to repurpose those for on-site use?

So what happens to them?

Should I go into the meeting here?

Yep.

So actually, we I kind of talked about this earlier, but we're working again with DuPage County to see how to activate these areas, and ultimately there's something called a hosting habitat, which is up here where we're able to kind of repurpose trees like maybe some of those damaged trees from the tornado or trees that need to be removed and allow them to be seeding areas so that they're not necessarily going away and they're still habitat within the community.

So we are taking steps and efforts to try to see where else we can repurpose these trees.

No good ones, all the 600, they just you're quoting 600.

We're used to the number.

338 of the high quality trees, yes.

Absolutely, yes.

What will they be reused for?

Will they be, I guess, sold off for development?

Can they be used?

Um right now we're looking at repurposing them for some of the activated um activities along the conservation pathway.

Um, if that was a driving force of the commission, we could certainly kind of brainstorm some other available options that make might make sense and and add to the activation of these conservation zones.

We certainly could consider that.

I the more that we you can keep on site, uh the better.

That's what I would say.

And if I could just add, I think again, it goes back to the shifting in the access, right?

When we didn't have that access to seventy fifth street, everything on the northern side, not everything, I shouldn't say everything.

A lot more of the trees on the northern side of the subject property were preserved under that plan.

So things just kind of shifted when we have to include a road, there's more grading, there's more disturbance, and then some trees have to come out.

Any other questions?

Yes, Commissioner.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh a couple more questions.

One, um, uh there was some there were some comments about uh wall, like the the fencing.

Um somebody you I believe you mentioned, like it's not required.

In that case, like uh as the residents are not really happy with that, uh, would you consider still keeping it or removing it?

We're happy to explore options.

I mean, it's really it this is one of those things that when we come in with the development, sometimes everybody wants a fence and then we're putting a fence in.

So in this case, we were trying to be proactive to include the fence, hoping that that would uh make people happier, but we've heard tonight that people are not as interested in the fence.

So we're happy to explore other options and work with staff and see what the best fit for this community is.

Okay, um the one other question I have is uh um who maintains this con I believe HOE.

Um we would just want to get a con like for the conservation areas?

No.

So we are working with the conservation foundation.

We've had meetings with them, we're working with them.

Our hope is that we will be placing a conservation easement on these areas, including our stormwater management basins.

They will own and maintain these properties to make sure that they're maintained properly in perpetuity.

Um we are HOA would help fund the maintenance.

That would be the limit of our HOA.

Our HOA would handle the exterior maintenance of our buildings, the landscaping around the building, so that area in the light green over here, uh, would be area that the HOA maintains in addition to snow removal.

Okay, thank you.

That's thank you.

Any other questions?

Yes, Commissioner Longba.

Thank you.

Yeah, actually, just to follow up on what he asked with the conservation foundation and the HOA, is there a binding agreement that's in place right now, or what is the the status of that?

What's the timing for something like that?

Not yet.

We met with them probably about a month ago.

Uh everybody's on the same page, but we have we will continue the conversation and get more formalized agreements in place as this progresses.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Uh kind of like what Commissioner McDaniel said, I think almost everything has been asked.

Um, I do like the idea of an additional agreement.

Um I like the discussion around the trees.

I do have a question on the group A, you said 338 uh were going, and that you were installing 384 and it would be a mix of the group A and then the average trees.

Have you looked at doing a one-to-one replacement of the group A or a two to one if possible?

Um we have not, no.

Um I think that there's um value obviously in the high quality trees.

I think there's still value in the average quality trees.

Um some of the listing on the average quality trees that we were would be removing, we would look to maybe reincorporate them into the site.

Um some we would not look to reincorporate.

Obviously, the black cherry um would not be amenable to a higher quality tree for a brand new tree on site.

Um we can certainly look at the ratios.

Um we just like to give actual numbers so that we can speak to that.

Understood.

I appreciate that.

And I'd just like to say, given the 55% open space, there's a limit to how many trees that we can accommodate, and there's also not a tree replacement ordinance to follow, so we're doing our best to do as much as we can.

Understood.

Thank you.

Uh, couple other questions regarding the wetlands.

So I know you're still working through it, but I'd really like to understand what does the maintenance of wetlands look like, whether it's HOA, is that a cost that's gonna go up every year?

Who funds those projects?

Like how how does that work?

So I'll have them come up, but just high level conservation foundation own and maintain HOA would fund.

So I think I'll have uh I'll have Dan speak to it specifically about how the funding and maintenance goes.

Yeah, so these wetlands currently, as they sit for the development of all of your DuPage County Stormwater jurisdiction, as part of that, there's a three-year mandatory maintenance and monitoring period that POLTE would have to follow and adhere to as well as have maintenance, send monitoring reports to DuPage County, and each year they would concur to make sure that during that three-year initial period that all these wetlands are being maintained and adhering to the standards set forth in the stormwater ordinance.

Then following that, as Caitlin mentioned, the goal is that the conservation foundation would take over maintenance and monitoring of that.

Would once they take over that three years up, is are they responsible for anything less than what the that Pulti would be responsible for?

So less than three years.

Typically, DuPage County does not give sign-off in less than three years.

All right.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

As far as traffic, I am relieved to hear about the 77th street in Yackley.

The one uh street that has not been discussed is 75th Street.

Um, I wanted to understand the full left turn lane.

If what's happening there, um so it's it's full access.

So uh when we met with DuPage County Department of Transportation, um, they had said this needs to meet our requirements, right?

It needs to meet our requirements from a site distance study analysis standpoint and needs to meet our requirements from a safety standpoint.

So we submitted all that detail to them.

Um they concurred and said this is a safe intersection based upon the site distance analysis that was provided.

So the caveat with staff and the access point uh with the 77th Street and 75th, having both of those roads being full access, they said they would only allow emergency access if DuPage County allowed full access, meaning not a three-quarter access, not right in right out.

So we met with them, they're comfortable with it.

They're kind of a more difficult, not more difficult, just more stringent, I guess, so to speak, in terms of review, um, and so receiving their sign-off and approval of the traffic study validated that for us.

Great, thank you.

Let's see what else was there I wanted to ask about uh fencing.

I I have been part of several of these cases where fencing was requested, so I I knew exactly where you're going with that.

I would want to make sure that um all neighbors were in alignment with what was happening, whether it be landscape barriers, buffers, obviously, this has a direct impact to them.

So let's see what else was there.

I like that the bats were taken care of.

Um, I feel like I'm missing one other question.

I apologize, but um, all right, it'll come to me.

But I do want to just thank everyone tonight.

The residents, you guys have been outstanding.

Everything that you've commented on is very worthy of discussion.

I am anxious to hear from the petitioner in their closing remarks as to what they're willing to do and and what they heard from these residents, because this is a change to to what they're used to.

Absolutely.

And before that, if I could just let Scott, sorry, I know I'm kind of jumping all over the place, but he has an important comment about how we're actually improving the wetlands based upon their current conditions.

So I do want to get the record.

Yes.

Uh, just to add on the existing conditions of the wetlands, they they've never been managed, right?

So, um, part of what we are doing is restoring and enhancing those existing wetlands.

So removal of invasives, incorporation and planting of other additional wetland species, that's all part of the restoration enhancement design process within the buffers and the wetlands.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

And then, in terms of closing remarks, again, I I appreciate all the residents' comments this evening.

I appreciate everybody coming out.

Uh, understand this is a change from the current conditions.

Um, I I did hear residents testify that they purchased thinking that they purchased adjacent to forest preserve district, and I'm sorry to hear that.

Um, I really am.

Um clearly that wasn't the case, and this is private property.

But that being said, again, I think I can't stress enough how much we are trying to preserve these critical natural features, improve these features, and also allow them for public use.

Right now, they can't be used by the public, right?

Nobody can access them legally right now, it's private property.

So, by virtue of our activation plan and working with the county wetland department and making sure that all of these incorporation and these details for nesting and hosting and making sure wildlife can still thrive there.

I think that's all very important.

And this provides a really unique community addition to Naperville.

Ultimately, again, happy to do whatever is in the best interest in terms of the fence versus no fence or enhanced landscaping and just talking to staff about that.

We're happy to address that.

Again, the fence was only proposed adjacent where it was where new duplex units would be immediately adjacent to existing residences.

So I think it was four properties to the south and then three properties to the west, and then the apartment building.

So we are happy to work with staff and see what the best fit is for that area.

So ultimately, again, I want to thank everybody for their time and consideration, and we are happy to be here and excited for the project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

All right.

With that, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for DEV-0167-2025.

So moved.

Can I have a second?

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Motion carries.

At this time, do any of the commissioners have any comments on the case?

Is a reminder.

If you intend to recommend denial of this case, please state your reason why.

Would you please read?

Oh, I'll wait to read the motion.

We've changed some of the language here, so I'm still getting used to that.

At this time, I will start with Commissioner Longenbaugh to see if you have any additional comments.

And I can ask staff questions at this point.

Isn't that correct?

Yes.

Yes, that's correct.

You can ask staff questions, but you cannot ask questions of the petitioner or the public.

Right.

Okay.

I just want to make sure.

Cool.

Thank you.

Um, all right.

So I do have a couple of questions for staff.

Um, first on the endangered species and the HOA conservation and the and the PUD.

The uh the letter that you had provided for me, um, it explicitly stated that it is not a substitute for a field survey.

And so I know they've made a verbal commitment with the conservation foundation, but is a field survey required as a condition of approval, and if no, why not?

Unfortunately, I don't believe that's a requirement of the city.

I think that's handled through other agencies, and I'm not able to speak to the requirements for those um field surveys versus consultations.

Okay, are there any enforceable conditions in the PUD agreement that would protect the nesting habitat during construction?

We can certainly look at incorporating conditions into the PUD ordinance, and then this is also an annexation case, so um we can also work with our legal department to incorporate anything into the annexation agreement as well.

Okay, and then um what happens if the HOA like fails to perform, you know, they've agreed with the conservation foundation to to do things, but is there anything in the PUD agreement that would um that would mandate that or make it enforceable?

I think that is um subject to language that we would be working out following the plan commission meeting.

Okay.

Um my second question is about the the tree deviation, um, and I do appreciate hearing about the breakdown of the trees and the numbers removed, um, but I am still uncomfortable with the number of 800 being cut down on a property that's adjacent to the Green Valley Forest Preserve, um, on top of the variance for the the parkway trees.

Um in the staff report you found that the parkway tree deviation was appropriate because of the utilities, but how does relocating those trees to front yards meet the intent of the parkway tree requirement given the scale of the overall loss of trees?

Sure.

I think staff's um understanding is that once those trees are matured and the canopy extends out over the parkway, it will be a similar effect and effect that is achieved uh with the parkway trees.

Largely the same number is going to be provided.

Um they'll be in the parkway where possible, but where they need to be relocated due to those utilities, they would be immediately adjacent to the parkway.

Okay, because they're in the front yards of the host rather than just in the strip of the parkway.

Correct, yes.

Okay.

And they did mention that because it's an HOA it wouldn't be incumbent on the homeowner to have to take care of those trees.

It would be the HOA that would do it.

Correct.

Yep.

Okay.

Um all right well this is like honestly kind of a a tough one and I appreciate everything I've heard tonight from both sides from both the petitioner and the residents there's a lot of information I have learned a lot here in hearing from everybody and reading everything and seeing the the presentations.

But based on what I have learned tonight I am really not prepared to recommend approval on this petition.

The petition acknowledges that a little over 50% um consist of stormwater, wetlands, special drainage, special areas, and really to fit 94 units on that buildable area just seems like they're asking for a lot of variants in order to to do that.

And so for me it adds up to a project that really can't meet Neighborville's standard um code requirements and so I'm just one wondering if it is the right use for the property.

I did hear a lot of things that I that I liked about the proactiveness but I'm I'm kind of concerned about whether or not the the um this EcoCat review has been fully vetted and it kind of hasn't been really resolved.

So for those reasons I will be voting no on this tonight.

And I just would like to also just note for the record that the annexation it was on the agenda but it's outside of PCC's purview.

And so these contingents will be or these entitlements will be contingent on annexation and that will come before city council um and so I just want to make sure that those are people know that those are separate votes annexation and all the entitlements that's something that that council can decide if they want to accept annexation but then make adjustments to the actual proposal.

So I just kind of wanted to note that for the record that that's outside of our purview here.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

One quick question for the staff um how do you how do you make sure that successful restoration is achieved.

I'm sorry uh restoration of restoration of trees uh little bit no red land and and uh the um uh the plat you know restoration redland restoration how do you make sure that is like that is something which the developer is um guaranteeing but how do we make sure what is the processing please?

Sure um i I believe with this development um if it moves forward through approvals it will have an approved landscape plan attached to it um that also identifies the trees that are removed and there will be true tree permit or tree removal permits required as well so when um we go out to inspect the development post construction we would be able to verify that everything is consistent with the plans that were approved.

Thank you thank you that that answers yeah um I will be supporting of this project and uh I believe it represents a structural development proposal um large open space preservation moderate density um and uh strong environmental restroom um restoration uh so I'll be in support of this budget.

Thank you Commissioner Namas.

Um I would I would like to start by reiterating what um Ms Chang Evans um brought up in her comments that the this is pri it was private land owned by Duke Water and it was sold for development to Poulty.

So I I think we know it will be developed.

Just that brings us to how important it is that we make sure it aligns with the area.

Based on what everyone has said tonight, all of the backup that was provided by Pulti, which I think is a great starting point.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that this is the iteration that meets the PUD PUD standards set forth specifically being compatible with the adjacent properties and nearby land uses.

So at this time, I will not be agreeing with the motion.

I would ask that Pulti take all of these comments suggestions back and revise some of it and work with staff to take that into consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ansel.

No comments.

So I'm going to vote to approve.

But that doesn't mean I don't have concerns because I, you know, I do.

No project is perfect, and this one, you know, definitely isn't.

I have concerns about the number of units that are being built.

Something that really hasn't been mentioned much is the fact that there's no stoplight on 75th Street.

I know most likely because lack of uh of traffic doesn't require it.

Uh, but you know, I've you know but like many of us have lived in town for a long time, driven up and down that street many, many times, and it could be really, really dangerous, especially during peak uh peak hours.

So that's a concern.

Um, and then you know, also uh concerns regarding uh trees, uh, free removal uh impact on wildlife.

Um Commissioner Longenbaugh uh had mentioned um uh zero step entry, which I actually do agree with.

I think that'd be very nice to have my in-laws live in a very, very similar uh format type of home.

Um, so why I agree, um, you know, at some point it is going to be developed.

That's the that's the reality.

Um, and really what I would like to do more than anything is to ensure that this parcel remains in Naperville, which would ensure that you know we have more control and oversight on how it and and what's developed on it.

Um, I think it's a good concept.

I think there's definitely a need for this type of uh um home.

Um, and I technically I do think that uh this this does meet the criteria for PZC approval.

Um, however, you know, Naperville does have fewer uh and fewer um uh available open spaces such as this.

Uh so we really just need to be increasingly careful as we move forward um and and proceed with developing these these you know pieces of land.

Um so I guess at the end of the day, what I really want is for city council to just take into all of our considerations, um, every single concern and and issue that was raised by residents as they really kind of go through this, um, but I will be voting to approve.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This one's a tough one for me.

Um because I I heard the residents loud and clear, and I thought it was uh very worthy, like I mentioned before, but I also heard uh the petitioner and you guys showed up tonight.

You have done a lot of work and a lot of the things that we ask from a planning and zoning uh standpoint, you've done those things.

I think you're still doing those things.

Um I am struggling because I want to move this case forward, and I also want to make sure, like Commissioner McDaniel said, there's some things that are tweaked along the way, you know, whether it's the trees, whether it's the 75th, um, whether it's also ensuring that the neighbors are feeling better about what's going on because the reality is this development is very different from what they are used to.

Um, so how do we make everybody feel good about it?

Um again, Lucy Evans made some very good points.

This is privately owned land.

This is not a forest reserve.

Um, unfortunately it's not, and there's no forest reserve looking to buy it either.

Uh so it is going to be developed, and I would like Naperville to have the opportunity to have control.

So for that, tonight I will move it forward, but looking for council to continue to work with the petitioner and work with staff to ensure that the neighbors are taken care of and they feel good about what is going in in their backyard.

So at this time, I will have Commissioner Bonsell read the motion.

And if you want to read um it was first with that.

I would like to make a motion to adopt the findings of fact as presented by the petitioner and remove recommend approval of DEV0167-2025.

Rezoning the subject property to R2 upon annexation.

A conditional use for a PUD and preliminary PUD plat with various deviations to the neighborhood municipal code as outlined in the staff memo for the vacant line on the south side of 75th Street west of Gladstone Drive, subject to the following conditions of the United States.

All right, can I have a second?

Sorry.

Alright.

Um, please uh conduct roll call.

Abu Baker.

I approve.

Bonzel?

I agree with the motion.

Longba long and bow.

Disagree with the motion.

McDaniel.

I agree.

Nonis disagrees with the motion.

Robins.

I agree.

Motion passed.

Thank you.

All right.

Tonight, the last case on tonight's agenda is DEV-0177-2025.

The public hearing is now open.

Anna Franco from staff will present the case.

Thank you, Chair Anna Franco with the city's planning services team.

The petitioner for DEV-0177-2025 requests approval of a major change to the City Gate Center plan unit development, a revised PUD plat with deviations, and a conditional use to construct a multifamily building on the subject property.

The five-acre property is located at the southeast corner of Ferry Road and Citygate Lane and is part of the City Gate Center Development and PUD.

The property is zoned OCI PUD and is prominently predominantly vacant, except for a surface level parking lot and a pickleball court.

The property was subdivided into its current configuration in association with the development of the domain City Gate apartment complex located directly to the west of the subject property and completed by the petitioner in 2022.

As the subject property is part of the City Gate Center PUD, the request for a conditional use for multiple family dwellings and the requested deviations trigger the requirement for a major change to the PUD.

With the major change requests, the petitioner proposes to construct a four-story 297 unit multifamily rental unit building with a total of approximately 476,000 gross square feet.

The development will include a five-story parking deck containing 414 parking spaces that will be completely enclosed and screened by residential liner units with access from Comfort Drive.

The proposed development provides about 33% open space in the form of a courtyard central to the building, a relocated pickleball court located south of the building, and passive green space, meeting the 20% open space requirement for PUDs.

Staff finds the proposed multifamily building is complementary to the office, hotel, retail, restaurant, and existing residential uses within the PUD and is in support of the request for a major change.

The petitioner also requests approval of a conditional use to the permit to permit multifamily dwelling units in the OCI zone.

Staff finds the proposed apartment is consistent with both the city's land use master plan and surrounding uses and is in support of the request for a conditional use.

The petitioner also requests several deviations, including a deviation to allow an increase in the maximum building height.

Per code, the maximum height for a residential building with a residential, for a building with a residential component in the OCI district is 43 feet.

The proposed building is approximately 53 50 feet 7 inches per the code definition and exceeds the maximum height requirement, about seven feet seven inches.

Staff finds the proposed building height is consistent with existing buildings in the city gate campus and is in support of the deviation.

The petitioner also requests a deviation to reduce the required lot area for multifamily dwelling units.

Per code, the lot area for a structure consisting of multifamily dwellings shall not be less than the number of dwelling units times 2,600 square feet of lot area.

Based on the code requirements, the petitioner would be permitted to construct 83 units on the subject property.

The proposed development consists of 297 units, which equates to approximately 730 square feet per dwelling unit.

Staff finds the proposed building mass is comparable to the existing campus and supports the deviation as the development meets the proposed FAR and setbacks for the property and the FAR in the PUD as a whole.

And just for clarification, FAR is floor area ratio.

The petitioner also requests a deviation to reduce the required number of parking spaces.

Per code, multifamily buildings require two parking spaces as well as 0.2 designated guest parking spaces per dwelling unit.

As such, the proposed 297 unit building is required to provide 594 parking spaces for residents and 74 designated spaces for guests for a total of 668 parking spaces.

The petitioner is providing 369 residential spaces, about one space per bedroom, and 53 designated guest spaces, which is about 246 spaces less than required by code.

In order to support the deviation request, the petitioner submitted a parking study, which includes data from other similar similar multifamily developments in Naperville and provides an analysis of parking capacity in the overall Citigate campus.

Staff finds the data provided in the parking study indicates that the proposed parking space supply is sufficient for the proposed development and that the removal of the existing surface parking lot on the subject property will not adversely affect overall parking supply for the City Gate campus, and we're in support of this deviation request.

Subject to the condition listed in the staff report.

In addition to the platted setback deviation, the petitioner is also requesting deviations to permit a pickleball court and associated 10-foot screening fence to be located in the 20 foot corner side yard setback along Westings Avenue.

Staff is in support of the requested deviations as the proposed location of the pickleball court is the only practical placement for relocating the court and thereby preserving this amenity on the property.

Additionally, the petitioner is requesting a deviation to permit a retaining wall to be located in the 20-foot corner side yard setback along Comfort Drive.

The proposed retaining wall is approximately 10 feet in height, plus a fall protection fencing that sits atop the retaining wall.

Staff is supportive of the requested deviation due to the need to locate the building to accommodate emergency access and grading limitations on the property.

And lastly, the petitioner is also requesting a platted setback deviation to allow a portion of the proposed apartment building and relocated pickleball court to be constructed within the 30-foot platted setback along Westings Avenue and Comfort Drive.

The petitioner's platted setback deviation request is not reviewed by the PCC, and therefore information on this request is provided for reference only.

The request will be heard by City Council at a subsequent meeting date.

The petitioners' responses to standards for all of these requested entitlements are available in the attachments.

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

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

Good evening.

My name is Eric Prechtel.

I am with uh Rosnova and Whitaker 445 Jackson Avenue Suite 200 in Naperville here this evening on behalf of the petitioner Willow Bridge.

I'm with me here as well, are a number of consultants you'll see you here behind me.

We have Joe Segobiano, who is with Willow Bridge as well as Taylor Ashbach and Odari Lewis, our civil engineers with Kimway Horn, Eric Burnshaw, our architect with H E D H E D K, John Clark, our landscape architect, and then Javier Mohan, traffic consultant with KLOA.

First of all, just wanted to thank you all for your time and consideration this evening.

Thank you, Anna, for your excellent staff report and the overview.

So just by way of background on Willow Bridge, Willow Bridge was founded back in 1965 and for the past 60 plus years to specialized in exceptional multifamily development as well as property management.

To date, Willow Bridge's Willow Bridge has built and managed over 220,000 apartment homes across the country and consistently is ranked top five among apartment managers by NMHC, which stands for the National Multifamily Housing Council.

Here locally in Naperville, Willow Bridge developed its domain citygate development, which consists of 285 apartment units or homes appealing to a wide variety of range of residents, including professionals working in the I 88 corridor and supporting the larger City Gate Center planned unit development.

Willow Bridge completed domain back in 2022 and in 2023 that development went on to win the NIAP Award for Excellence in Real Estate, which is certainly an accomplishment that Willow Bridge is very proud of.

Moving to the subject property, as mentioned in the staff report, the subject property consists of about five acres located south of Ferry Road and the City Gate Center campus, adjacent to the existing domain domain Citygate development.

Citigate Center has developed methodically over the past 20 years as a focal point, including providing over 2,000 jobs and featuring the award-winning Arista Hotel, restaurants, convenient convenience uses and service uses, which serve as a roadmap to what mixed-use development should and can look like based on the demand for high quality, safe, convenient residential options geared towards professional professionals working in the corridor, Citigate 2 will continue to build upon the momentum and keep the City Gate PUD thriving for many decades to come.

Given this context, I think it's important to note that Citigate 2 will be additive to the existing Citigate campus and this and that this land has remained vacant in perpetuity.

It's never had an office use on it nor commercial use on it, such that the addition of the this residential development would help fulfill a needed residential need in the community.

Zooming out a little bit here, residential use at this location will not only help fill jobs within the corridor, but will also provide safe and convenient access to I-88 as well as Route 59 for those future residents that may commute.

With respect to the zoning of the subject property, it is currently zoned OCI, which permits residential use and in particular permits multifamily use as a conditional use.

This is much different than other properties that are zoned ORI within the same I-88 corridor, which would not permit a residential use without being rezoned.

I think this distinction is really important here, given that the City Gate Center has always been intended to have a certain level of residential complex to it.

Whenever we look at new development in any municipality, we always think it's important to make sure that the proposed development is consistent with the municipalities' planning documents.

So in that vein, there are several that apply to this property.

The I-88 strategies the I-88 strategy study, which emphasizes revitalization of the I-88 corridor by providing homes to support jobs, diversifying the housing stock and enhancing the city's housing tax base through provide through providing residential use.

Likewise, the development is also consistent with the city's 2022 comprehensive Plan as well as its future land use plan, which in part focused on identifying appropriate locations within the city to improve housing options.

Accordingly, the comprehensive plan identifies the subject property as regional center, with multiple family and apartments being specifically identified as a supporting land use for the regional center designation.

Additional objectives of the comprehensive plan that will also be met by this project, include enhancing Naperville's housing stock, increasing the amount of rental options for those seeking to move or stay in Naperville, as well as bringing additional working professionals to the corridor to support employers throughout the corridor.

Just one final note with regards to sitting planning documentation.

This was actually listed by the last petitioner as well.

Naperville's 2020 housing needs assessment.

Noted that Naperville will require between 12 and 13,000 new housing units by 24 to accommodate by 2040 to accommodate projected population growth, such that its development will help satisfy that need.

So that backdrop brings me to the site plan that you see here.

The building will be comprised of 297 apartments and will be oriented towards Citigate Lane, Comfort Drive to the east, and then Ferry Road to the north, and it will provide an attractive complement to the existing Citygate campus and the existing domain City Gate development.

The main parking deck will be internal to the apartment building.

You see it in red on the east side here.

Additional surface parking will be located near the west side or the entrance to the building.

And you can also see the attractive landscaping that will be provided around the entire perimeter, helping screen the property from Ferry Road, Westings, Comfort Drive.

With regard to Citigate Lane along the main entrance to City Gate, I'm off of Ferry Road, the petitioner just designed the first floor to be an amenity space to give an active streetscape feel and to mirror the commercial nature of the City Gate development as it sits today.

Another attractive feature is just like the residents of Domain, the residents of City Gate 2 would also have access to the shared path adjacent to the Westings Association pond to the south, which provides additional opportunity to get out and walk.

If you drive over there at any point during the day, there are always a number of people out there walking and walking their dog, getting some fitness in.

With regard to distance to adjacent residential uses, with the exception of the existing domain development, the nearest residential neighbor is Monarch Landing, and that development is gated and over 470 feet away, so minimizing that really minimizes the impact to the surrounding community.

With regards to access, vehicle circulation will function well.

There will be full access from Ferry Road at both City Gate Lane to the west as well as Corp.

As well as Comfort Drive from the east.

There is also a write-in right out off of I-59.

We also submitted a traffic study and parking study to the city, which they have reviewed.

Landscaping will also have an important role along the entire perimeter of the site will be buffer landscaping to significantly improve the appearance of the site and complement Citigate.

The landscape plan also includes extensive foundation landscaping and parkway trees to complement the architecture and the community.

Further, a biospoil will be located along Westings Avenue Avenue to the south to enhance stormwater before it enters the stormwater basin, which is located a little bit further to the south, as I'll show here in a minute.

So the stormwater management facility will be enhanced from its current uncontrolled condition, and stormwater will now be conveyed to the existing basin located south of the site, circled here in red, which has already been designed to serve the site.

Now I just want to turn it over to our architect, Eric Earnshaw.

He's going to touch real quickly on the renderings, the interiors, as well as the ADA accessibility.

Good evening.

Thank you very much for having us tonight.

My name is Eric Earnshaw, principal in charge of HEDK architects.

I'm very happy to be here tonight because this is a wonderful location of a mixed-use horizontal development that we can be a wonderful second phase part of to the first development that was built adjacent to us here.

City Gate 2, a multifamily development, a contemporary urban residential character that balances clean modernism with a sense of warmth and livability.

Stretching across this site in a series of interconnected volumes, the building avoids the month, avoids the month, avoids the long, stretched out large buildings that multifamilies sometimes brings to the market by breaking its mass into distinct vertical and horizontal components.

The composition creates a rhythmic streetscape with recessed balconies, projecting frames, and varied facade treatments introduce depth, shadow, and visual interests.

The vertical frame elements emphasize key corners, entrances, creating focal points that help define the overall composition.

Large windows are arranged in a disciplined pattern, maximizing natural light for residents while contributing to the clean, ordinary, orderly appearance of the facade.

Balconies are integrated rather than applied, maintaining the architectural cohesiveness of the structure while providing private outdoor space for our residents.

Also within a compatibility to the overall built environment that we'll be nestled into.

The amenities within this structure will be over 11,000 square feet and will comprise of.

The garage and the access to the project, as you saw on the site plan being off a comfort, really takes the residents to their own private entry to their development and not coming through the main entry where they would have to add more comp uh more confusing traffic patterns and would be separated on the comfort side.

The building itself will be designed fully with accessibility in mind.

Of course, meeting the requirements of the Illinois Accessibility Code, the Fair Housing, International Building Code, IBC introduces the ANSI A117 standards throughout all public areas of the buildings, and of course, ADA, which is our federal accessibility code.

With 297 dwelling units, 60 of these units will be constructed as adaptable unit.

These 60 adaptable will consist of six ANCA type units and 54 Illinois accessible cold compliant units as well.

Parking and accessibility to parking.

With our parking structure, we will have our accessible parking spaces and van for our residents as well as surface parking spaces for guests and future residents to be.

The accessibility means throughout the development, connecting to the surface walkable areas, to the walking paths and to the overall horizontal development will be integrated to what's built there already.

We look forward to being the next neighbor and constructed project within this wonderful master plan development.

Thank you.

We had a couple slides on this that we can go back to if we need to.

So with regard to unit variety, this new community represents a thoughtful departure from the typical or traditional guard style apartments you would see that would be more designed for growing families.

Instead, we're focusing on highly amenitized and efficiently designed studios, one and two bedroom units.

Our target market here, as I'll touch on a little bit more detail here shortly, is going to be working professionals as well as the 55 plus active adult.

Out of the 297 units, I think it's important to point out that 75% of them will either be studio, one bedroom, or two-bedroom.

As I mentioned, there will be no three-bedroom, which would generally be more tailored towards a family.

Turning towards the amenities, so much of the success that we've attributed to domain is because of the high level of amenities that are provided there.

So here's pictures of the existing domain City Gate.

See the fitness room, the outdoor pool, the lounge area, and the grill space.

So, really with that in mind, we've made sure that we try to mirror that or not even or may even enhance that here with City Gate 2.

So our amenities here include things like the health club, the yoga room, sauna, and cold plunge, cold plunge, resort style outdoor pool, grill stations, pet spa for animal lovers, it's been brought up a couple times.

I think the pickleball court, bicycle storage, the list goes on.

So, really is a very highly amenitized community that we think will draw attractive residents to the location.

Something else we want to point out is that another popular feature that is incorporated into both domain and we will do again here, is the is that EV capable, will be incorporated so that if anyone has an EV vehicle, they will have a space to connect and charge.

Height as noted in the staff report, we are requesting a variance for building height.

The proposed apartments will contain four stories with the parking deck being five stories, with and per code will have a height of 51 feet.

That said, I would just like to point out that this is consistent with the area, including the domain Citygate building that is four stories and 77 feet and five stories once you factor in the event center.

The existing five-store parking deck on the site, the 12-story hotel arista, and then the seven and eight story office buildings in the immediate vicinity.

Likewise, Monarch Landing across Ferry Road to the north is six stories and is similar in height to what we are proposing.

Parking with regard to parking, we will have a total of 422 parking spaces to serve the 297 apartments.

This comes out to a ratio of 1.42 spaces per unit.

This includes one space per bedroom, as Anna mentioned, and then 53 guest parking spaces, which ratio in other communities has been proven to generate and provide sufficient or even excess in parking.

In fact, we looked at the empirical data of domain, which was constructed with one space per bedroom and 34 guest parking spaces for a ratio of 1.61 spaces per unit.

And as kind of highlighted here in the I guess third column over, that's resulted in an excess of 158 spaces that are not leased or used on a regular basis.

So with Citygate 2, we are certainly hoping to still provide more than adequate and sufficient parking, but without going so far and above and beyond that we're providing over 150 extra spaces.

There are also alternative transit options at this location that will be appealing to its residents.

Specifically, I would point out that there is a pace bus stop right at the corner, it's a block away, as well as the metro station that is about three miles away or less than a 10-minute drive.

Shifting to the target market, City Gate 2 will have a broad appeal, including professionals typically in the 25 to 34-year-old bracket, and then 55 plus residents.

It's important to note that per census data, 25 to 35 year old, 34-year-olds make up about 15% of the population within a five-mile radius of the site.

If you look at the 55 plus demographic, you're adding another 19%.

So that's about a 35% of the population in the five-mile radius.

That's who we're really targeting.

Looking just a little closer at these demographics, their housing needs are priority-driven and include priorities such as maintenance-free living, proximity, proximity to employment, flexibility for job mobility and travel.

We know that Naperville has an extremely high level of individuals that work from home, a safe and secure environment and pet-friendly locations.

As I mentioned earlier, we will have a grooming station on site, all of which these all of these priorities will be provided by the proposed development.

With respect to rent numbers, the units are estimated to range between $1,900 and $4,400 per month.

The general rule of thumb in the industry is that income has to be three times what is paid for rent, which puts the income range for the development of those that are for those who can afford to live in the development between about $68,000 and $160,000 per year.

So given that the city, given that the city has a high average household income of $150,000 a year, this means that someone could be making potentially $45% of the average median income in the city of Naperville and still could afford to live here and call Naperville home.

With respect to property management, Willow Bridge is a 60-year very seasoned owner and operator with many examples of first class management, including next door at Domain City Gate.

So this includes management items such as on-site community managers, 24-hour on call emergency maintenance for tenants.

Trash will be collected five times a week.

In addition to excellent management, potential tenants are also screened, and these extensive background checks include running credit criminal and rental history checks just to enhance the safety of the overall development and residents of the area.

Looking at impacts on schools, we reached out early to the school district and received no objection.

We actually have a letter of no objection on the next slide that I'll show.

But of note, I think it's important to point out that we are only projecting 26 students for the development, such that the three assigned schools shown here will certainly have sufficient capacity.

We also looked at the empirical data from domain, just so we know just how positive our impact to the school district will be.

Again, the domain developments 285 units compared to our 297, and that that development actually only ended up generating 15 students, which is less than what was projected via looking at the charts and the code requirements.

Just to the school district alone, domain generates over 730,000 in taxes for those 30 students or 15 students, sorry, which comes out to about 48,000 in taxes being generated per student, which is obviously significant higher than the cost to educate.

As I noted, we previously reached out to the school district and received a letter of no objection.

Lastly, and this is my final slide, I'll just wrap up with that in addition to enhancing the city's housing stock.

This new community will bring significant economic impact via local spending.

This includes supporting the nearby commercial area and City Gate Center, filling jobs in the corridor, enhancing our workforce and attracting new investment, and then generating tax revenue from sales tax, food beverage tax, grocery and utility tax, property tax, etc.

So with that, thank you.

We'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

I think Commissioner Namas, you said there is no one signed up.

Is there anyone here that would like to speak on the case?

All right, Marilyn.

Hi, Marilyn Schweitzer, and I didn't sign up, but I did just want to say I I really like this.

Um I you know, it really forms a sense of community.

I like the design, I mean the courtyard, you know.

I mean, we were talking about you know, PUDs earlier.

I mean, this has much more sense of a community, you know, than um then we saw in the previous one.

The courtyard's great, accessibility is great, you know, just the EV charging, a lot of these considerations, and even just looking at like the access, you know, to the other amenities in the area and that connectivity, I think is very strong.

So um I just want to offer my support, so thank you.

Thank you.

That's great.

All right, I will move to the commissioners at this time if there's no one else that would like to speak.

Um I will start with Commissioner Longenbahn.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I just have a a few questions.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um, one of the things you mentioned was the pace stop, just around around the corner.

Does the bus that stops there go to the metro station?

That is an excellent question, and not one that I know off the top of my head.

Um I'd be certain to double check that one follow up.

Okay, yeah, that it just because the metro station is just down the street.

I remember when it came up for the the atlas, which was the one down by Home Depot, and you know, we looked and the the stop right there did go straight up to the Metro.

So I'm just I was just curious.

I would imagine it would just because they all seem to tie in together, but I don't want to definitely say something that's incorrect.

Okay, so that was one question.

Um I saw in the the traffic study, it looked like a traffic signal wouldn't be warranted on ferry road.

Um when was the traffic study done?

Does that seem right?

Traffic consultants right here.

He can probably answer that better than I can.

Good evening.

My name is Javier Milan.

I'm a principal with KLOA.

And yes, we conducted the traffic study um in April of this year.

So we have new new updated counts, and hopefully you're aware that we also did the traffic study for the event center and for City Gate, you know, like or the domain, you know.

So we know the area well.

And the reason why it's not going to be warranted now is because of the new configuration and the access on the accessibility or where the parking lots are going to be.

Having said that, I believe there is a condition that a follow-up study could be done to determine if a traffic signal will be warranted at the sorry, eastern access drive.

Not the not the closest one to 59, but the other one.

Is that comfort?

Yes, I and again, I'm trying to remember out of the top of my head the the names, that would be comfort drive.

That's correct.

So right now it's not.

Right now, as it is with the projections and the and the arrangement of the parking where it is, no, but there is that caveat.

I think it was in the report that you know at a later date it could be looked at to see if a signal will be warranted.

And is that something that staff would then do if it turned out to be warranted and how would that be triggered?

Like is it complaints or typically typically something that staff would actually require and I'm I'm gonna say what I have seen in the past a year after, you know, like full occupancy follow-up study just to look at the volumes and see what's happening.

Because you don't want to do it too early because you're not you might not be too fully occupied, so you really want to see what's what's happening.

So typically that's what I have seen in the past.

Okay, cool.

That makes sense.

And then I I do have one final question.

Um, the pickleball court, because there is a variance for that.

Is it a move of the existing pickleball court that's at domain?

Is it just moving there or are you building another one right next to the one that's already there?

It is being shifted.

So it's currently on an angle, so they're bringing it down, and when they bring it down, that corner is going into the setback.

Okay, cool.

Um and just to follow up on your other two questions from earlier.

Yes, the pace um bus does go to the metro stop.

And um, with regards to the the warrants for the stoplight, if they are met at comfort in the future, there's an obligation in the agreement with domain one, um, that the developer has to install it.

So if and when warrants are met, that's the developer obligation.

Oh, excellent.

Cool, thank you.

Great.

Commissioner Abby.

Thank you, Chair.

Um uh if the you know, I I cannot think of another better place for a multi-unit development um then this space.

This is amazing.

Great good development proposal, and thank you for the wonderful presentation as well.

Um the only concern is if any of my friends move in there, I doubt that they will invite me for a dinner because there's no parking space.

That's the major concern I have.

Um, what occupancy rate uh existed a domain when you did the parking space count?

Um, do you remember?

Was it was it five percent or lesser vacancy or I almost dropped my papers.

Could you repeat the question again?

The question is uh the occupancy rate of domain when you did the parking lot.

Correct.

Uh I I believe when I was reading that it's a it's about 95% occupied, so very, very high.

I'm sorry, you were saying.

No, no, I saw that uh presentation, but was that at the time when you did the study of the parking thing available?

To the best of my knowledge, yes, because we did we gather all that information at the same time.

So that five percent unoccupied was part of it.

Uh we also received, and I that was in the traffic study, it's like a two-year uh information of the of the lease spaces as well as the uh uh guest parking permits, you know.

So so we have two years of of data of just seeing what's what's been happening.

So that's why we feel comfortable, and if you saw in the in the traffic study with the parking, based on what we have seen in the site.

This is not somewhere else, this is just right there.

It it really matches perfectly with what they're proposing to do.

Okay, okay, great.

Thank you.

That's all right, Commissioner Nan.

That's no questions.

All right, Commissioner Pansal.

Oh, do you have a question as well?

No, okay.

Hi.

So another great presentation.

Um, the definitely the proposed development uh gonna provide a lot of housing uh needs for the young professionals who want to live near the jobs and amenities.

Um this is thoughtful and very well planned, but I have concerns for the proposed level of density, is excessive for this location.

The court allows 83 units and the proposed 297.

That's 3.5 times more density than normally allowed.

Secondly, the parking reduction is going to be a major issue for most residents.

668 spaces proposed and 422, which is going to be a major issue going forward.

Um, just a quick question.

Would would this be possible?

There will be any possibility to reduce the number of units and make it less dense to better align with cities' suburban character.

Um great questions.

Uh so first with regards to density, um, there's a couple things I think to look at here.

The first being that, and this was alluded to a little bit in the staff report, that density requirement is for residential developments.

Um yes, this is a residential development, but the more appropriate um indicator here is the FAR, given the nature of the entire PUD.

Uh the PUD is not just residential.

Uh, that includes restaurants, retail uses, um, commercial uses.

So there's a variety.

So the really the more appropriate um indicator is the FAR.

If you look at the FAR, we are compliant, just our lot.

Um the requirements 1.5, we are 1.45.

If you actually look at the PUD as in its entirety, we're at one point or will be at 1.08, so significantly less than that 1.5 um threshold.

Um, I think something else to point out is that if anywhere is going to have a higher density, this is the spot for it.

Um we're not adjacent to residential neighborhoods or adjacent to an apartment complex or adjacent to retail uses, restaurants, hotel arista, um, we have easy access to both Route 59, I 88.

We're on a major artillery road, um, and ferry road.

So you're not driving through residential neighborhoods.

Um that's certainly echoed in the comprehensive plan, which as I mentioned, uh slates this as regional center, regional center is meant for higher intense uses.

Um it specifically calls out that apartments and multifamily developments would be appropriate here.

When you're looking at multifamily um developments like this, this is really it's the nature of apartment complexes.

If you look at the uh similar deviations were just granted uh for the atlas as well as the Heinz development, and then going back to domain one.

Very similar variances um were granted.

Um so I think that's so we certainly think that that level of density is appropriate here.

Um and you really want that level of density to be able to provide also the amenity spaces on site.

Um it really makes for a really single cohesive um development.

So I hope that answers your question with regards to density.

Thank you.

Is that it?

Commissioner McDaniel.

All right.

Sure.

Any other additional questions?

Um the only I just probably have a comment.

Um I think it's great.

I I'm not always in favor of such density, but like you mentioned, where it's sitting, it's right in line with what is already going on, and it just complements it.

So I'm okay with it.

Um at this time, do you want to make any closing remarks?

No, just thank you.

All right.

So moved.

Can I have a second?

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Alright, motion carries.

Um does anyone have any additional comments?

Yes.

Oh no, no problem.

So, I'll have it.

Do you?

Commissioner McDaniel.

Uh I think it's a great project.

Uh looking forward to it.

Um, my uh office is directly across the street, part of um City Gate.

I know that the business restaurants are gonna be very happy to have additional foot traffic there, so uh excited to see move forward.

Thank you.

Any other commissioners?

Yes, Commissioner Longover.

Thank you.

Um, I do have just a couple questions for staff.

Um, the parking overflow condition, um, it says it refers to review by the zoning um administrator.

So is that like data driven or is it complaint driven?

I was just curious as to how that would maybe trigger them having to have the overflow into the other lots.

And typically, if we see any problems, it is complaint-based, so that would be likely the trigger um that we'd see.

Okay, and then um is there really anything different between the domain city gate and this that is really different from the variances from that and the variances that they're asking here, or is it pretty much the same?

They're very similar deviations.

Um I think the I think the differences is that there are some um deviations for the pickleball court and retaining wall that um were not um uh identified for um the main at City Gate.

So they are very similar though, but that's right.

That's what I thought.

I just I just wanted to make sure.

So um, thank you.

Um, I I wanted to echo Commissioner Bonsell's concern that with the density.

I don't want to like over, you know, overshadow that at all because code re it permits eighty-three, and they're asking for 297, which is like four times the by right density, but the far is the better indicator for this space.

And so I just I didn't want to gloss it over because it is a pretty pretty big deviation, but I I think it's appropriate.

Um, and we have the domain as a precedent, and so um I'll be voting yes on this.

Thank you.

Any other commissioners?

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-0177-2025, a request for a major change to the planned unit development for City Gate Center, a PUD plan and plat with various deviations to the Naperville Municipal Code as outlined in the staff memo, and a conditional use for a multifamily building in the OCI zoning district to construct a 297 unit multifamily residential building for a property located at 1900 Ferry Road for City Gate Center 2, subject to the recommended condition of approval outlined in the staff memo.

I have a second, all right.

Commissioner Namas, please conduct roll call.

Abu Baker?

I agree.

I do not.

Okay.

Um Longenbaugh, agree with motion.

McDaniel.

I agree.

Namas, I agree, Robins, I agree.

Alright, congratulations.

Next is the approval of minutes of May 20th, 2026 Planning and zoning commission meeting.

Do we have any corrections to the minutes?

We do not.

I would like to entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the May 20th, 2026 planning and zoning meeting.

So moved.

Can I have a second?

Second.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right, motion carries.

There's no old, no new.

Can I have I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting?

So move.

Can I have a second?

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Meeting adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.

Oh, that was good.