naperville planning and zoning commission ... - City of Naperville

CALL TO ORDER:NAPERVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONCOUNCIL CHAMBERS – MUNICIPAL CENTERFINAL AGENDA05/15/2013 -A. ROLL CALLB. APPROVE MINUTES1. Approve the minutes of the May 1, 2013 Planning and ZoningCommission meeting.C. OLD BUSINESSD. PUBLIC HEARINGS1. PZC Case # 13-1-015 Goldfish Swim School Monument SignPetitioner: Randall Barba, 1264 Muirwood Ct., Rochester Hills, MI48306Location: 1688 Quincy AvenueRequest: The petitioner requests that the public hearing be continuedto the June 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.Official Notice: Notice Published in the Naperville Sun on Sunday,April 14, 20132. PZC Case # 13-1-025 1309 Margate Ct. Deck EncroachmentPetitioner: Leroy and Debra KlimekLocation: 1309 Margate CourtRequest: Conduct the public hearing regarding a rear yard setbackvariance for the property located at 1309 Margate Circle.Official Notice: Naperville Sun April 28, 20133. PZC Case # 13-1-030 725 Willow Road VariancePetitioner: Douglas L. Davis, 725 Willow Road, Naperville, IL 60540Location: 725 Willow Road

AGENDANAPERVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION05/15/2013 - 7:00 p.m. - COUNCIL CHAMBERSPage 2Request: Conduct the public hearing for a variance request fromSection 6-6A-7 (R1A: Yard Requirements) to reduce the 8’ interiorside yard setback requirement for the property located at 725 WillowRoad.Official Notice: Published in the Naperville Sun on Sunday, April 28,20134. PZC Case # 13-1-020 Ashwood PointePetitioner: Pulte Home Corporation, 1901 North Roselle Road, Suite1000, Schaumburg, IL 60195Location: West of 248th Avenue and south of Wolf’s Crossing RoadRequest: Conduct the public hearing for the petitioner's requests forrezoning from R1A (Low Density Single-family Residence District)and R3A (Medium Density Multifamily Residence District) to R2(Single-Family and Low Density Multifamily Residence District) andapproval of a preliminary subdivision plat for Ashwood Pointe, a finalsubdivision plat for Ashwood Pointe Phase 1A and a final subdivisionplat for Ashwood Pointe Phase 1B for the property generally locatedwest of 248th Avenue and south of Wolf’s Crossing Road.Official Notice: Published in the Naperville Sun on Sunday, April 28,2013E. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONSF. CORRESPONDENCEG. NEW BUSINESS1. PZC Case # PZC 13-1-036 Request to Initiate An Amendment toTitle 6 Regarding Training Studios/Automotive UsesPetitioner: City of Naperville Planning Services TeamRequest: Initiate an amendment to Title 6 pertaining to training studiosand automotive uses.H. ADJOURNMENTAny individual with a disability requesting a reasonable accommodation in order toparticipate in a public meeting should contact the ADA Compliance Specialist at

AGENDANAPERVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION05/15/2013 - 7:00 p.m. - COUNCIL CHAMBERSPage 3least 48 hours in advance of the scheduled meeting. The ADA Compliance Specialistcan be reached in person at 400 S. Eagle Street, Naperville, IL., via telephone at 630-420-6725 or 630-305-5205 (TDD) or via e-mail at manningm@naperville.il.us.Every effort will be made to allow for meeting participation.

NAPERVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONDRAFT MINUTES OF MAY 1, 2013Call to Order7:00 p.m.A. Roll CallPresent:Absent:Student Members:Staff Present:Bruno, Coyne, Dabareiner, Frost, Gustin, Hastings, Messer, Meyer, WilliamsPlanning Team – Ying Liu, Timothy FelstrupEngineer – Pete ZibbleB. Minutes Approve the minutes of the April 17, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commissionmeeting.Motion by: MeyerSecond by: WilliamsApproved(9 to 0)C. Old BusinessD. Public HearingsD1. 13-1-015PZC CaseGoldfish SwimSchool SignThe petitioner, Randall Barba, requests approval of a variance from Section 5-4-5:2.1 (Commercial Signs; Monument Signs) of the Naperville Municipal Codeto allow construction of a second monument sign, 5.7’ tall and 27.5 square feetin area, on the property located at 1688 Quincy Avenue.Tim Felstrup, Planning Services Team, gave an overview of the request.Planning and Zoning Commission inquired about:• Can the existing non-conforming sign be changed to accommodate anadditional panel for Goldfish Swim School? Felstrup responded that avariance would be required to modify the existing non-conforming sign.• Has any adjacent businesses contacted staff? Felstrup indicated no.• Will changing out an existing panel on the existing non-conforming signtrigger a variance? Felstrup indicated that no; however, the current signdoesn’t have a vacant panel left for the petitioner’s use.• Is a wall sign allowed for the business? Felstrup confirmed yes.• The history of the existing sign. Felstrup indicated that the existing signwas installed in the 90s prior to the current sign code.• How does the proposed sign compared to the existing sign in size?Felstrup indicated that the proposed sign is considerably smaller than theexisting sign.

Naperville Planning and Zoning CommissiondatePage 2 of 10Jacklyn Michael, the Naperville Goldfish Swim School Manager, spoke onbehalf of the petitioner:• The adjacent businesses don’t have any issues with the additional sign.Planning and Zoning Commission inquired about:• Whether the petitioner has any contractual obligation to keep the existingsign on the property. Michael indicated that she doesn’t have theinformation.• Did staff discuss with the petitioner about allowing the proposedmonument sign subject to the condition that no wall signage be allowed.Felstrup responded that staff discussed a condition of approval with thepetitioner that they forgo adding a panel on the existing sign. Thepetitioner is permitted to have wall signage under the sign code.• Do other training studios in the area have monument signs? Felstrupindicated that Kidz Kabaret has a monument sign across street.• What is the hardship of the sign variance? Felstrup responded that thehardship with this case is that the existing sign advertises businesses noton the subject property. Without the existing sign, the petitioner ispermitted to have a monument sign on the property.• Williams stated that he would prefer that the petitioner be permitted toinstall a wall sign and add a panel to the existing sign.Planning and Zoning Commission Discussion: NonePlanning and Zoning Commission moved to table the case to May 15, 2013 andrequested the owner to be present at the meeting to answer questions.Motion by: WilliamSeconded by: MeyerApproved(9 to 0)D2.PZC 12-1-154Mayfair Phase 2The petitioner, M/I Homes, requests approval of a variance from Section 5-4-5:2.1 (Commercial Signs; Monument Signs) of the Naperville Municipal Codeto allow construction of a second monument sign, 5.7’ tall and 27.5 square feetin area, on the property located at 1688 Quincy Avenue.Ying Liu, Planning Services Team, gave an overview of the request.Planning and Zoning Commission inquired about:• How viable is this area for commercial? Liu responded almost allcommercial buildings in this area are entirely occupied.• What are the main differences between this proposal and The Oaks atNaperville Crossings? Liu responded that the property for The Oaks wasinitially designated for residential uses and there was not a request toconvert commercial land to residential. In addition, the commercial

Naperville Planning and Zoning CommissiondatePage 3 of 10frontage in front of The Oaks is already well-established and thereforethe multifamily development didn’t have any negative impact on thecommercial land.• Does staff not object to the townhomes but to the density? Liuresponded that staff is not against townhomes on a portion of theproperty, but want to see a better design and more considerations givento protect the commercial frontage along Route 59.• Is it staff’s desire to keep the strip land on the south of the Urbanekproperty B2? Liu responded yes.• Is it staff’s desire to keep the south corner of the property as commercial?Staff responded yes. Liu indicated that staff is not proposing an arbitraryline, but would like the opportunity to work with the petitioner to keep aportion the land as commercial while still having a viable townhomeproject.• Is staff suggesting a greater depth for the remaining commercial landthan the Penny Mustard store? Liu responded yes. When the PennyMustard store was developed, it had substantially limited the visibility ofthe subject property and negatively impacted on the commercial viabilityof it. Staff wants to prevent the same from happening again andrecommends that the impacts of the rezoning proposal on adjacentproperties be addressed now.• Can commercial development still happen on the remaining commercialland without the subject property? Liu responded that the remaining landwould have very limited commercial opportunities without partneringwith adjacent property owners.• Due to the segmented ownerships of the area, is staff being presumptuousto wait for a consolidated commercial development to happen at thecorner? Liu indicated the City’s vision is to have commercialdevelopment at this location. The properties’ commercial opportunitiesshould be protected.Greg Collins, Land Acquisition Manager with M/I Homes, spoke on behalf ofthe petitioner:• M/I Homes is the contract purchaser of the subject property.• Collins gave an overview of the history of the existing Mayfairdevelopment.• Rich Olson, with Gary R. Weber Associations, Inc., gave an overview ofthe site layout and landscaping improvements for the project.• Dan Stevens with Spaceco Inc. discussed the transportation system andstormwater facilities associated with the development.Planning and Zoning Commission inquired about:• How would people traveling southbound of Route 59 access the site?Olson responded that they would be accessed from Audrey Lane or FortHill Drive.• Clarification of the density calculations for Mayfair and Mayfair Phase 2.• Whether the development meets the open space requirement? Liu

Naperville Planning and Zoning CommissiondatePage 4 of 10confirmed yes.• How many dwelling units are in each building? Collins responded that inPhase 1, they have 4 and 6 unit buildings. Phase 2 has 4-7 unitbuildings.• What area does the detention pond serve? Staff indicated that the pondappears to be only serving the Mayfair and Mayfair Phase 2.• Why the property should be rezoned to residential? Collins respondedthat the proposed townhome development is the best and highest use ofthe property. The existing conditions are difficult for commercialdevelopment and townhome is the trend of the development in the area.• Would the development allow future connection of adjacent properties toHenley Lane? Collins confirmed that Henley Lane will be dedicated as apublic right-of-way and future connection will be allowed.• What is the justification for the R3 zoning instead of R3A? Collinsresponded that the R3 zoning serves as a transition between the existingR3A properties and commercial uses.• Can the density and the number of dwelling units be reduced? Collinsresponded that they are amiable to work with staff, but doesn’t agreewith staff on fundamental issues such as land use and provision of theprivate road.Public Testimony:Joe Barbarotta, property owner to the south of the subject property, spokeagainst the petition:• The proposed development would negatively impact the adjacentcommercially zoned land.• If the property is rezoned to residential, it will promote individualdevelopment of the remaining properties, which will take more time andbe less successful.• We support staff’s assessment of the project.• We are opposing to the proposed density.• We have met with M/I Homes several times. While the meetings havebeen generally agreeable, it seems that M/I Homes wanted to wait for theoutcome of this meeting first.• We recommend leaving land south of the proposed Henley Lanecommercial.• Bruno asked whether the new setback requirement would affect theBarbarotta’s property. Barbarotta responded that yes, his property wouldhave a less viable commercial area.• Coyne asked whether staff agrees with the Barbarotta’s suggestion toleave the land south of Henley Lane commercial. Liu responded thatstaff will have to further evaluate the Barbarotta’s proposal, but it isdefinitely more consistent with staff’s recommendation.Rosalyn Urbanek, property owner to west of the subject property spoke against

Naperville Planning and Zoning CommissiondatePage 5 of 10the petition:• Changing the existing B2 zoning to R3 would change the character ofthis area.• The Urbanek family has a vested interest in the commercial developmentof this land.• Recommends that this case be continued so that more communicationcan be done with the surrounding property owners to discuss a viableoption for commercial development.• A water main is being proposed along the strip land south of theUrbanek’s property, which would prevent location of any future buildingor parking on top of the line.• Is open to discuss rezoning a portion of the site to residential, but thesouth portion of the site should be kept commercial.Sameer Handa, at 2765 Blakely Lane, spoke against the petition:• Traffic on Blakely Lane will be significantly increased.• It will have a negative impact on my HOA fees.• The developer is proposing to change the detention pond. I paid apremium to have a view of detention pond, which will be lost with theproposed construction.• The proposed higher density will have a negative impact on my propertyvalue.• I would prefer commercial development on the site. Many other existingcommercial developments in the area do not have visibility from Route59 and they are still viable.Srivatsan Jayaramason Darma, at 2756 Blakley Lane, spoke against the petition:• I am concerned with the additional traffic on Blakely Lane and its impacton the safety of the kids in Mayfair.• The design and setbacks of the new Phase 2 appear too crowded andwould negatively impact my property value.Erich Vora, 2768 Blakely Lane, spoke against the petition:• I am concerned with the additional traffic through Phase 1 and theproposed density of Phase 2.Naga SS Yerra, at 2753 Blakely Lane, spoke against the petition:• M/I Homes has proposed a number of options for the existing pond. Ischanging the pond the City’s requirement? Collins responded that inorder to meet the DuPage County BMP requirement for Phase 2, thepond will have to be changed to provide for stormwater treatment.• I am concerned with the lost of my pond view.• I am also concerned about the proposed density and its negative impacton my property value.• I would like to see commercial development on the site.

Naperville Planning and Zoning CommissiondatePage 6 of 10Collins responded to testimony on behalf of the petitioner:• We met with the Urbanek family to address her concerns. The watermain along the strip adjacent to the Urbanek’s property is proposed tomeet the City’s requirement for looping the water main. We agree tokeep the strip land south of the Urbanek’s property as B2.• The proposed street layout is the best plan for connectivity and access.• The proposed townhomes meet the 50% brick requirement.• We would like the Planning and Zoning Commission’s direction on thelane use issue.Planning and Zoning Commission Discussion:• Bruno – The strip south of the Urbanek’s property should stay B2 andadditional buffer should be provided from the existing commercial uses.I agree with the proposed street layout. However, this proposal doesn’tmeet the requirement for a PUD to be innovative and creative, as Phase 2as proposed is of a less quality than Phase 1 due to the increased density.I would also prefer that B2 zoning south of Henley Lane be keptcommercial if all parties can work together.• Meyer – I am in favor of keeping the B2 zoning on Route59. If aresidential zoning is to be approved, a R3A zoning should be approvedwith a less density. The 6’ fence should be placed around all perimeterof the development. The issues brought up by the adjacent commercialproperty owners should be addressed. I would like to more closely lookat the increased traffic in the existing Mayfair. I also don’t think thatthis development has met the PUD design criteria.• Williams – I agree with Bruno and Meyer except that I think the entireparcel should remain commercial. The proposed development is way toodense, and not consistent with the criteria of a PUD. There are stillmany questions yet to be answered.• Hastings – I understand the land has been vacant for some time and Iapplaud the petitioner’s effort to develop the land. However, all of Citystaff’s comments are very valid and I would ask the petitioner to addressthem.• Dabareiner – The City’s land use plan should not be changed unless it isfor something really desirable and I don’t think the desire exists for thisproject. I think the entire parcel should be kept commercial. Part of thereasons for planning and zoning is to set expectations for the future and Ithink the surrounding property owners have valid concerns.• Frost – B2 zoning should remain on the strip land south of the Urbanek’sproperty. However, I agree with the townhome development as long asthe setbacks of adjacent B2 land are addressed.• Coyne – I believe the property south of Henely should remain B2. Theresidential use north of Henley is fine; however, the density should bereduced.• Messer – I do not believe the request meets the standards for a zoningchange. The request for R3 is not consistent with the existing R3Azoning in the surrounding. There will be a substantial detriment to the

Naperville Planning and Zoning CommissiondatePage 7 of 10surrounding properties. The PUD standards have not been fully met. Iagree with the previous comments that the property south of Henley Laneshould remain B2. I agree with the street system as proposed.• Gustin – The land south of Henley Lane should remain B2. The densityshould be reduced to be consistent with Phase 1. The access on Route 59should be eliminated in order to help the traffic situation. There is a lackof buffer between the townhomes at the northwest corner of thedevelopment and the existing commercial uses. I would recommendcontinuing this public hearing to allow the petitioner the time to workwith staff to address the issues raised.Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing and directed thepetitioner to work with staff to resolve the issues raised.D3.PZC 13-1-004Freedom PlazaThe petitioner, Lakhany Group Investments, LLC, requests revocation of theexisting Freedom Plaza Planned Unit Development (Ordinances 11-187 and 11-190) and approval of a preliminary plat of subdivision, a conditional use for afull service hotel/conference center, a conditional use to establish a planned unitdevelopment for Freedom Plaza, a preliminary planned unit development plat,and associated zoning, landscape, subdivision and sign variances/deviations forthe property located on Abriter Court north of Diehl Road and south of Interstate88.Ying Liu, Planning Services Team, gave an overview of the request.Planning and Zoning Commission inquired about:• Clarification on the sign variances being requested.Russ Whitaker, Rosanova & Whitaker, Ltd., spoke on behalf of the petitioner:• Whitaker gave an overview of the request. The petitioner needs the 25’height for the Tollway sign to ensure its visibility. The petitioner doesn’tagree with staff’s condition to reduce the height of the sign to 20’.• The petitioner doesn’t agree with staff’s condition regarding the timingof the construction but is willing to continue to work with staff on thisissue. Staff’s condition will prohibit financing of the project and makethis project unworkable. The petitioner requests the commissioneliminate the condition.• The easement agreement will be recorded and a plat of easement shouldnot be required.• We agree with other conditions recommended by staff.• Geoff Roehll, Hitchcock Design Group, gave an overview of the layoutand landscaping for the development. Staff had recommended acourtyard between Restaurants 2 and 3. The details of the courtyard areahave not been finalized and it may include various functions.• Steve Carlson, Architect, gave an architectural overview of the proposedbuilding elevations.

Naperville Planning and Zoning CommissiondatePage 8 of 10Planning and Zoning Commission inquired about:• Is the petitioner willing to work with staff to address their concernregarding the building elevations? Whitaker indicated yes.The Commission voted to continue the meeting to 11:30 p.m.• The design of the detention pond. Brian Hager, VS Company, respondedthat the relocated detention pond will be much larger and they arelooking at naturalizing the pond.• Does the hotel need to be completed before the restaurants can open perstaff’s condition? Staff clarified that staff’s recommendation is that thehotel construction shall be underway prior to issuance of a buildingpermit for the restaurants.• Coyne – doesn’t see a problem with the sign.• Bruno and Coyne - Staff’s condition about the timing of the constructionis unreasonable and could hinder the financing of the project.Public Testimony: NonePlanning and Zoning Commission closed the public hearing.Planning and Zoning Commission Discussion:• Bruno – I commend the petitioner for bringing the project back.• Coyne – I commend the petitioner. The proposal is an improvement tothe previous one.• Dabareiner – This is an exciting project. The petitioner did a great job inthe overall design of the project.• Frost – This is an excellent project.• Gustin – This is an excellent project.• Hastings – The project looks great.• Messer – I am excited about this development. This is a significantimprovement to the previous proposal.• Meyer – I am excited about the project.• Williams – The development is exciting.The Commission voted to continue the meeting to 12:00 a.m.Planning and Zoning Commission moved to recommend approval of PZC 13-1-004 subject to the following conditions:• The petitioner shall work with staff on staging and timing ofconstruction.• The petitioner shall be required to provide for a cross access easementover the Fairfield Inn property.• The petitioner shall be required to establish a shared parking agreementwith a surrounding property owner to provide off-site overflow parkingfor large events at the conference center. The petitioner shall submit acopy of the signed agreement during the final PUD plat process for Lot 5.

Naperville Planning and Zoning CommissiondatePage 9 of 10• The sign along the Tollway shall include an architectural feature added tobe top consistent with the other two proposed signs so that the totalheight of the sign doesn’t exceed 25’.• No additional ground/monument signs shall be allowed within thedevelopment other than the three proposed signs.Motion by: WilliamsSeconded by: MeyerApproved(9 to 0)D4.PZC 13-1-037Fairfield InnThe petitioner requests a major change to the Diehl Road Campus Unit 3Planned Unit Development and a sign variance for the Fairfield Inn propertylocated at 1820 Abriter Court.Russ Whitaker, Rosanova & Whitaker, Ltd., spoke on behalf of the petitioner:• Whitaker gave an overview of the request.Public Testimony: NonePlanning and Zoning Commission closed the public hearing.Planning and Zoning Commission Discussion: NonePlanning and Zoning Commission moved to recommend approval of PZC 13-1-037 subject to the following conditions:• The petitioner shall be required to provide for a cross access easementover the Fairfield Inn property.• The petitioner shall be required to submit a final PUD plat to reflect thenew access and any resultant changes on the subject property, whichmust be processed and recorded concurrently with the final plat ofsubdivision for Freedom Plaza or any final PUD plat for Lots 1-5 inFreedom Plaza, whichever occurs first.Motion by: MeyerSeconded by: WilliamsApproved(9 to 0)E. Reports andRecommendationsF. CorrespondenceF1.PZC 13-1-039Planning TeamWork ProgramRequest: Information Only.

Naperville Planning and Zoning CommissiondatePage 10 of 10G. New BusinessG1.PZC 13-1-036Training Studios/Automotive UsesText AmendmentRequest: Initiate an amendment to Title 6 pertaining to training studies andautomotive uses.The Commission continued the case to May 15, 2013.H. Adjournment 12:00 a.m.

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIONAGENDA ITEMPZC CASE: 13-1-015AGENDA DATE: 5/15/2013/2013SUBJECT:LOCATION:CorrespondenceGoldfish Swim School Monument SignPetitioner: Randall Barba, 1264 Muirwood Ct, Rochester Hills, MI 483061688 Quincy AvenueNew Business Old Business ⌧Public HearingSYNOPSIS:The petitioner requests approval of a variance from Section 5-4-5:2.1 (Commercial Signs;Monument Signs) of the Naperville Municipal Code to allow construction of a secondmonument sign, 5.7’ tall and 27.5 square feet in area, on the property located at 1688 QuincyAvenue.PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN:Date Item No. Action12/5/12 C1Recommended approval of a conditional use for a training studio.5/1/13D1Recommended the item be continued to the 5/15/13 meeting toallow the petitioner time to appear and provide additionalinformation.ACTION REQUESTED/RECOMMENDED ED/RECOMMENDED THIS MEETING:Continue this item to the June 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting to allow thepetitioner to appear at the meeting to respond to Plan Commission questions.PREPARED BY:Tim Felstrup, Assistant PlannerACTION REQUESTED:Continue this item to the June 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting to allow thepetitioner to appear at the meeting to respond to Plan Commission questions.

PLANNINGNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONAGENDA ITEMCASE: PZC 13-1-025 AGENDA DATE: 5/15/2013SUBJECT:1309 Margate Ct. Deck EncroachmentPetitioner: Leroy and Debra Klimek, 1309 Margate Ct., Naperville, IL60540LOCATION:Correspondence1309 Margate CourtNew Business Old Business ⌧Public HearingSYNOPSIS:The petitioner requests a variance from Section 6-6A-7:1 (R1A Low Density Single-FamilyResidence District: Yard Requirements) of the Naperville Municipal Code to reduce the 30’ rearyard setback requirement in order to construct a roofed screened porch at a distance of 20’ fromthe rear lot line for the property located at 1309 Margate Circle.PLAN COMMISSION ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN:Date Item No. ActionN/A N/A N/AACTION REQUESTED/RECOMMENDED ED/RECOMMENDED THIS MEETING:Conduct the public hearing.PREPARED BY:Tim Felstrup, Assistant PlannerEXISTING ZONING, LAND USE, AND LOCATION:The subject property, zoned R1A(Low Density Single-Family Residence District), is located at1309 Margate Court and consists of 12,127 square feet. It is currently improved with a single-family residence with an unroofed rear deck that encroaches 10’ into the 30’ required rear yardsetback. The encroachment is permissible per Section 6-2-3:3.2 (Yard Requirements: PermittedObstructions in Required Yards) of the Municipal Code, which allows unroofed decks to extend10’ into the required rear yard.PLANNING SERVICES TEAM REVIEW:The petitioners propose to extend the roof on the rear of their house to cover the east third oftheir existing deck and construct a screened in area. Even though the new screened deck areawould maintain the same footprint as the existing deck, it would be subject to the 30’ rear yardsetback requirement as it would be a roofed structure. Therefore, the petitioner tioner is requesting avariance from Section 6-6A-7:1 (R1A Low Density Single-Family Residence District: Yard

1309 Margate Court (PZC 13-1-025)May 15, 2013Page 2 of 2Requirements) of the Naperville Municipal Code to allow the proposed screened deck area toencroach 10’ into the 30’ required rear yard setback.The proposed screened deck area will maintain the current extent of the encroachment (10’ in the30’ R1A rear yard area). Although a roofed structure, the screened deck area will be single storyand maintain a 20’ setback from the rear property line. Staff finds that such improvement willnot alter or destroy the essential character of the neighborhood or be a substantial detriment tothe adjacent property.The requested variance, if approved, will be subject to compliance with the site plan (Attachment3) and will only be applicable to the portion of the screened deck area inside the 30’ rear yardsetback as shown on the site plan. If the petitioner were to seek additional improvement in thefuture which encroaches further into the zoning setback, an additional variance and deviationwould be required to be processed.ATTACHMENTS:1. 1309 Margate Court – Application, Disclosure, and Standards – PZC 13-1-0252. 1309 Margate Court – Legal Description – PZC 13-1-0253. 1309 Margate Court – Site Plan – PZC 13-1-0254. 1309 Margate Court – Screened Deck Sample Rendering – PZC 13-1-025

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONAGENDA ITEMPZC CASE: 13-1-030AGENDA DATE: 5/15/2013/2013SUBJECT:725 Willow Road VariancePetitioner: Douglas L. Davis, 725 Willow Road, Naperville, IL 60540LOCATION:Correspondence725 Willow RoadNew Business Old Business ⌧Public HearingSYNOPSIS:The petitioner requests approval of a variance from Section 6-6A-7 (R1A: Yard Requirements)to reduce the 8’ interior side yard setback requirement to 5.78’ in order to construct a second cargarage addition on the property located at 725 Willow Road.PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN:Date ActionN/AACTION REQUESTED/RECOMMENDED ED/RECOMMENDED THIS MEETING:Conduct the public hearing.PREPARED BY:Ying Liu, AICP, Planning Services TeamEXISTING ZONING, LAND USE, AND LOCATION:The petitioner, Douglas L. Davis, is the owner of two abutting single-family lots located at 827Diane Lane and 725 Willow Road. Both properties are zoned R1A (Low Density Single-FamilyResidence District) and are each improved with a single-family home. The petitioner intends toconstruct a second-car car addition to the existing one-car attached garage on the south side of thehome at 725 Willow Road, which the petitioner currently resides in. In order to make a biggerinterior side yard to accommodate the addition, the petitioner proposes to move the shared lotline between the two lots several feet to the south so that the house at 827 Diane Lane would be8’ from the new lot line (in compliance with the R1A setback requirements). However, theproposed addition at 725 Willow Road would still require a 2.22’ encroachment into the 8’ R1Ainterior side yard requirement.PLANNING SERVICES TEAM REVIEW:The petitioner has submitted a preliminary/final plat of subdivision for the lot line adjustment,which is subject to staff’s technical review and approval. The petitioner also requests a varianceto allow the garage addition to be 5.78’ from the new lot line, encroaching 2.22’ into the 8’ R1A

725 Willow Road Variance – PZC 13-1-030May 15, 2013Page 2 of 2interior side yard requirement. A site plan (Attachment 1) has been submitted to demonstrate theproposed lot line adjustment as well as existing and proposed improvements on both lots.The proposed second-car garage addition will be 8’ wide, maintaining a 5.78’ setback from thenew lot line and a 13.78’ setback from the house at 827 Diane Lane. Staff finds that suchimprovement will not alter or destroy the essential character of the neighborhood or be asubstantial detriment to the adjacent property. Rather, it will improve the functions of theexisting garage and allow the petitioner to continue to enjoy the subject property. While thehouse at 827 Diane Lane will still meet the 8’ interior side yard setback requirement after the lotline adjustment, an existing deck on the north side of the house will encroach into such setback.The petitioner has agreed to remove the deck to keep the property in compliance with the zoningsetback.The requested variance, if approved, will be subject to compliance with the site plan (Attachment1) and will only be applicable to the portion of the addition inside the 8’ interior side yardsetback as shown on the site plan. If the petitioner were to seek additional improvement in thefuture which encroaches further into the zoning setback, an additional variance would berequired to be processed.ACTION REQUESTED:Conduct the public hearing.ATTACHMENTS:1. 725 Willow Road Variance – Site Plan – PZC 13-1-0302. 725 Willow Road Variance – Legal – PZC 13-1-0303. 725 Willow Road Variance – Application – PZC 13-1-030

ATTACHMENT 1

LEGAL DESCRIPTIONLOTS 1 AND 2 OF BLOCK 6 IN MOSER HIGHLANDS UNIT NO. 5, A SUBDIVISION OFPART LOTS 1, 2, 5 & 6 OF VON OVENS ASSESSMENT PLAT OF PART OF SECTION 19,TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH, RANGE 10 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ANDPART OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH, RANGE 9 EAST OF THE THIRDPRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE LAT THEREOF RECORDED AUGUST 13,1956 AS DOCUMENT 811748, AND CORRECTION CERTIFICATE RECORDEDOCTOBER 16, 1956, AS DOCUMENT 820008, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.”PINs: 08-19-302-008 and 08-19-302-009.ADDRESSES: 725 Willow Road, Naperville, IL 60540827 Diane Lane, Naperville, IL 60540ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 3

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONAGENDA ITEMPZC CASE: 13-1-020AGENDA DATE: 5/15/2013/2013SUBJECT:Ashwood PointePetitioner: Pulte Home Corporation, 1901 North Roselle Road, Suite1000, Schaumburg, IL 60195LOCATION:CorrespondenceWest of 248th Avenue and south of Wolf’s Crossing RoadNew Business Old Business ⌧Public HearingSYNOPSIS:The petitioner requests rezoning from R1A (Low Density Single-family ily Residence District) andR3A (Medium Density Multifamily Residence District) to R2 (Single-Family and Low DensityMultifamily Residence District) and approval of a preliminary subdivision plat for AshwoodPointe, a final subdivision plat for Ashwood Pointe Phase 1A and a final subdivision plat forAshwood Pointe Phase 1B in order to develop 238 single-family lots on the property generallylocated west of 248th Avenue and south of Wolf’s Crossing Road.PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN:Date Item No. ActionN/A N/A N/AACTION REQUESTED/RECOMMENDED ED/RECOMMENDED THIS MEETING:Conduct the public hearing.PREPARED BY:Ying Liu, AICP, Planning Services TeamEXISTING ZONING, LAND USE, AND LOCATION:The subject property consists of 88 acres and is generally located west of 248th Avenue andsouth of Wolf’s Crossing Road. The property was annexed to the City in 2003 as part of thelager Ashwood (a/k/a 248th Assemblage) development. Based on the concept plans included inthe annexation agreements, the overall Ashwood development was designed to provide a varietyof residential housing products ranging from traditional single-family homes to townhomes.Specifically, the concept plan for the 248th Assemblage North (which includes the subjectproperty) proposed three residential areas including townhomes, duplexes and manor homes aswell as a community park and a forest preserve. The subject property, primarily consisting of thethree originally proposed residential areas, was rezoned to R1A, R2, and R3A upon annexationin accordance with the concept plan.

Ashwood Pointe – PZC 13-1-020May 15, 2013Page 2 of 3PLANNING SERVICES TEAM REVIEW:Subdivision PlatsThe proposed preliminary plat of subdivision for Ashwood Pointe includes 238 single-family lotsranging in size from 6,840 square feet to 15,799 square feet, in compliance with the minimum lotarea requirements in the proposed R2 district. The preliminary plat is divided into four phases:1A, 1B, 2A and 2B. The petitioner has submitted the final plats of subdivision for Phases 1Aand 1B and is seeking approval of those concurrently with the preliminary plat. Phase 1A and1B include a total of 129 lots.RezoningThe petitioner proposes to rezone the subject property from the existing R1A, R2, and R3Azoning designations to R2 in order to accommodate the proposed residential lots. The proposedsubdivision provides smaller lot sizes, smaller setbacks, and more affordable housing products ascompared to the rest of Ashwood (zoned R1A, including Ashwood Creek and Ashwood Park).Even though Ashwood Pointe deviates from the originally planned townhome concept, thedevelopment is consistent with the intent of Ashwood, which is to provide for a variety ofhousing products.The Southwest Community Area Plan (2002) designates the future land use of the subjectproperty as “High Density Residential (up to 15 units/acre)” and “Low Density Residential (up to2 units/acre)”. The gross density of the proposed Ashwood Pointe development is 2.7 units peracre, which is generally consistent with the average density of the overall property as designatedin Southwest Community Area Plan.Approximately 16 acres of land on the northern end of the property was designated as “HighDensity Residential” in the Plan partly due to its proximity to a future STAR Line station on 95thStreet. However, as construction of the future STAR Line has been indefinitely delayed,alternate locations in the Southwest Community Area that are close to shopping and othercommunity facilities may be considered to better fulfill the needs for multifamily housing. Forinstance, the City recently approved a 298-unit apartment development, The Oaks at NapervilleCrossing, at the corner of Route 59 and 95th Street, even though the Plan designates the land as“Medium Density Residential”. Given the high-density housing units that The Oaks will offer,staff finds that it is appropriate to rezone the subject property to R2 and allow development ofsingle-family lots on it.Landscape PlanThe proposed landscape plan provides the following:• Parkway trees in compliance with the City’s landscape code;• A 30’ wide buffer along 248th Avenue to include a solid wood fence, berms andextensive landscaping, consistent with the buffer provided along 248th Street in theAshwood Park and Ashwood Creek subdivisions; and• A bike trail connecting to the existing trials in Ashwood Park, along 248th Avenue, andin the Forest Preserve. Staff generally agrees with the proposed trails, but will work withthe petitioner to finalize the trail design.

Ashwood Pointe – PZC 13-1-020May 15, 2013Page 3 of 3The Forest District of Will County has voiced concerns regarding the proposed development inan email (Attachment 5). The petitioner has met with the Forest District to address theirconcerns and has included a response letter in Attachment 6.Amendments to the Annexation AgreementIn conjunction with the rezoning and subdivision requests, the petitioner seeks amendments tothe Annexation Agreement for 248th Assemblage North for the following purposes:• To update the concept plans attached to the Annexation Agreement to reflect the newsubdivision layout and zoning designation;• To provide for the petitioner’s obligations for future improvements of 248th Avenue,Trumpet Way and Wolf’s Crossing Road;• To provide for the petitioner’s obligations to improve off-site public stormwater, waterand sanitary sewer facilities; and• To provide for the petitioner’s obligations related to the required school and parkdonations (see Attachments 7 and 8).Such amendments to the Annexation Agreement are subject to the review and approval of theCity Council only, but are noted here for the Planning and Zoning Commission’s information.Please note that the existing Annexation Agreement stipulates that the developer shall provide tothe homeowner’s associations of the Tall Grass and Penncross Knolls subdivisions for theirreview, the architectural drawings for the residential buildings to be constructed. The petitionerhas indicated that they intend to comply with such requirement.ACTION REQUESTED:Conduct the public hearing.ATTACHMENTS:1. Ashwood Pointe – Preliminary Plat – PZC 13-1-0202. Ashwood Pointe – Final Plat for Phase 1A – PZC 13-1-0203. Ashwood Pointe – Final Plat for Phase 1B – PZC 13-1-0204. Ashwood Pointe – Preliminary Landscape Plan – PZC 13-1-0205. Ashwood Pointe – Forest District Email – PZC 13-1-0206. Ashwood Pointe – Petitioner’s Response to Forest District – PZC 13-1-0207. Ashwood Pointe – School District Letter – PZC 13-1-0208. Ashwood Pointe – Park District Letter – PZC 13-1-0209. Ashwood Pointe – Legal Description – PZC 13-1-02010. Ashwood Pointe – Application – PZC 13-1-020

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 4

From: Karen Fonte [mailto:KFONTE@fpdwc.org]Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:15 PMTo: Louden, JenniferCc: Andrew HawkinsSubject: FW: Ashwood PointHi Jennifer,Good to talk to you and hear you are well. Because of spring break for the Naperville projectmanager Rick, and myself next week, I thought I would include my supervisor Andrew Hawkins inour conversation.On March 25, the Pulte developers shared their plans for Ashwood Point which is north and southof the Com Ed line and east of our Vermont Cemetery. The plans differ from the originaldevelopment and the District has since constructed an access area and trail from VermontCemetery along the Com Ed line to the Tallgrass Greenway Trail using the escrow funds and apartnership with Naperville Park District.We have a few concerns that you can pass on to the project manager:Road Crossings of ComEd:The development shows two roads crossing the ComEd easement, one of which is only a lot awayfrom 248 th Street. Although this is a neighborhood road, it poses a safety hazard to inexperiencedtrail users as well as maintenance issues i.e. requiring full road crossing signage, striping, and tipdown bollards that need to be operated by emergency and maintenance staff. We are hoping youcould encourage them to loop their road north of ComEd and limit it to one trail crossing (as theoriginal plans proposed). Utility crossings are not an issue.Detention Pond and Trail maintenance:They claimed the detention ponds will be naturalized and maintained by the homeowner’sassociation. We are fine with that but if that is not your understanding, we need to talk. It appearsthat the District is not expected to maintain any trails as they are constructing them only in theroad right of way.ATTACHMENT 5

Normantown Road:We are wondering what will be required for Normantown Road Trail? There are sections south ofVermont Cemetery that are buried in berm material.This developer did not think they had any responsibility for Normantown Road.We understand that there is another developer south of this Ashwood Point that may beresponsible. We just don’t want this to fall through the cracks (pun intended!)Boundary Marking:We are concerned that the homeowners along the edge of Vermont Cemetery may not respect theproperty line. We have had too many experiences where neighbors expand their yards into theforest preserve. It is more of a problem with single family lots rather than townhomes thatcontract out the yard work. We would really like a fence along the entire property line, but wouldsettle for permanent corner posts with our boundary sign or corner sections of fencing. (We askedfor posts and signs at the meeting however on hindsight, we should have set higher goals!)Prairie:We have planted prairie on the entire Vermont Cemetery site and intend to use prescribed fire tomaintain it. We hope their construction does not impact the restoration and we also hope thehomeowners are aware of this before they purchase the property. Can the City require thatliterature regarding living adjacent to the FPD be distributed? Specifically, they need to know thatthey cannot move signs, move past signs and that the District will manage by fire. They need toknow that it will never look like a golf course!Thank you for your assistance.Have a good holiday.Karen FonteChief Landscape ArchitectForest Preserve District of Will County17540 W. Laraway RoadJoliet, IL 60433815 722-5943 Direct 24/7815 727-8700 GeneralFax 815 722-3608kfonte@fpdwc.orgATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 6

ATTACHMENT 6

ATTACHMENT 7

ATTACHMENT 7

ATTACHMENT 8

ATTACHMENT 8

ATTACHMENT 8

PARCEL 1:THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH, RANGE 9,EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEAST 1/4AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 25 SECONDS WEST,ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEAST 1/4, 1327.05 FEET TOTHE INTERSECTION OF SAID NORTH LINE AND THE EAST LINE OF THENORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 18MINUTES 54 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 414.73 FEET TO THE POINTOF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 42 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST, 13.67FEET; THENCE NORTH 44 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 44 SECONDS WEST, 117.18; THENCENORTH 58 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 05 SECONDS WEST, 124.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH72 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 26 SECONDS WEST 83.73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00DEGREES 18 MINUTES 54 SECONDS EAST, 1092.44 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THENORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEAST 1/4; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES52 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 277.78 FEET TO THEAFORESAID EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4; THENCENORTH 00 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 54 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE,909.02 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, IN WILL COUNTY,ILLINOIS.PARCEL 2:THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH, RANGE 9EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE AFORESAID NORTHEAST 1/4AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 10 SECONDS WEST,ALONG THE EAST LINE OF AFORESAID NORTHEAST 1/4 205.00 FEET, TO THENORTH LINE OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO THE COMMONWEALTH EDISONCOMPANY, PURSUANT TO DOCUMENT R75-33292 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 25 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID NORTHLINE, 723.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST,112.23 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 25 SECONDS EAST, 723.49FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCESOUTH 0 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 112.23FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ALL IN WILL COUNTY,ILLINOIS.PARCEL 3:THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH,RANGE 9 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE AFORESAID NORTHEASTQUARTER AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 10 SECONDSWEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF AFORESAID NORTHEAST QUARTER 317.23 FEETTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 25SECONDS WEST, 723.49 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 27 SECONDSWEST, 399.53 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 25 SECONDS EAST,722.36 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8;THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID EASTLINE, 399.53 FEET, MORE OF LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ALL IN WILLCOUNTY, ILLINOIS.ATTACHMENT 9

PARCEL 4:THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH,RANGE 9 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE AFORESAID NORTHEASTQUARTER AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 10 SECONDSWEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF AFORESAID NORTHEAST QUARTER 716.76 FEETTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 25SECONDS WEST, 722.36 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 27 SECONDSWEST, 295.65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 25 SECONDS EAST,721.53 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8;THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID EASTLINE, 295.65 FEET, MORE OF LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ALL IN WILLCOUNTY, ILLINOIS.PARCEL 5:THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH,RANGE 9 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE AFORESAID NORTHEASTQUARTER AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 10 SECONDSWEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF AFORESAID NORTHEAST QUARTER 1012.41 FEETTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 25SECONDS WEST, 721.53 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 27 SECONDSWEST, 388.20 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST,720.42 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8;THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID EASTLINE, 391.06 FEET, MORE OF LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ALL IN WILLCOUNTY, ILLINOIS.PARCEL 6:THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH,RANGE 9 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEASTQUARTER AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50MINUTES 25 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE AFORESAIDSOUTHEAST QUARTER 1327.05 FEET, TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID NORTH LINEAND THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SAID SOUTHEASTQUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 54 SECONDS EAST, ALONGSAID EAST LINE, 414.73 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 29SECONDS WEST 13.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 44 SECONDSWEST, 117.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 58 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 05 SECONDS WEST,124.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 72 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 26 SECONDS WEST, 83.73FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 72 DEGREES 35MINUTES 26 SECONDS WEST, 41.21 FEET; THENCE NORTH 86 DEGREES 23 MINUTES47 SECONDS WEST, 124.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 79 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 52SECONDS WEST, 124.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 65 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 31SECONDS WEST, 124.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 52 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 09SECONDS WEST, 124.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 38 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 48SECONDS WEST, 124.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 24 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 27SECONDS WEST, 124.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 10 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 06SECONDS WEST, 124.94 FEET;ATTACHMENT 9

THENCE SOUTH 3 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 15 SECONDS EAST, 124.94 FEET; THENCESOUTH 16 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 37 SECONDS EAST, 124.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH30 DEGREES 38 MINUTES 58 SECONDS EAST, 124.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44DEGREES 27 MINUTES 19 SECONDS EAST, 124.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 58 DEGREES15 MINUTES 40 SECONDS EAST, 117.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 60 DEGREES 52MINUTES 55 SECONDS EAST, 191.11 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85 DEGREES 14 MINUTES03 SECONDS EAST, 68.84 FEET, TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE SOUTHERLY,ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE WHOSE CENTER LIES EASTERLY AND HAS ARADIUS OF 790.00 FEET, 27.72 FEET, ARC, (CHORD BEARING SOUTH 3 DEGREES 45MINUTES 39 SECONDS WEST, 27.27 FEET, CHORD), TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THENORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCENORTH 89 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE,131.28 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 54 SECONDS WEST, 1092.44FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, IN WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS.PARCEL 7:THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH,RANGE 9 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEASTQUARTER AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 25 SECONDSWEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER,1327.05 FEET, TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID NORTH LINE AND THE EAST LINE OFTHE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH0 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 54 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 1323.75 FEET,TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEASTQUARTER, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 52MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWESTQUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, 409.06 FEET, TO A POINT ON A CURVE;THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE WHOSE CENTER LIESEASTERLY AND HAS A RADIUS OF 790.00 FEET, 41.08 FEET, ARC, (CHORD BEARINGSOUTH 1 DEGREE 15 MINUTES 57 SECONDS WEST, 41.08, CHORD); THENCE SOUTH 0DEGREES 13 MINUTES 27 SECONDS EAST; 209.62 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89DEGREES 46 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST, 410.52 FEET, TO THE EAST LINE OF THESOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCENORTH 0 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 54 SECONDS WEST, 250.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TOTHE POINT OF BEGINNING, IN WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS.PARCEL 8:THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH,RANGE 9 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEASTQUARTER AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 25 SECONDSWEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER, 833.46FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST 573.21 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 42 SECONDS WEST, 115.93 FEET, TO APOINT OF CURVE; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG A CURVE WHOSE CENTERLIES SOUTHERLY AND HAS A RADIUS OF 790.00 FEET, 242.68 FEET, ARC, (CHORDBEARING SOUTH 80 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 41 SECONDS WEST, 241.73 FEET,CHORD); THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 21 SECONDS WEST 68.84 FEET;ATTACHMENT 9

THENCE NORTH 42 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST, 177.44 FEET, TO APOINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE AFORESAIDSOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 54 SECONDSEAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE 909.02 FEET, TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THENORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCENORTH 89 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 42 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE1149.13 FEET, TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 180 FEET OF THE SOUTH 140 FEETOF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCENORTH 0 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 22 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID WEST LINE 140.00FEET, TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH 140.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89DEGREES 52 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 180.02 FEET,TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF AFORESAID SOUTHEASTQUARTER; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 22 SECONDS WEST ALONGSAID EAST LINE 1184.49 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,(EXCEPT THAT PART TAKEN FOR 248TH AVENUE) ALL IN WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS.PARCEL 9:THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH,RANGE 9 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEASTQUARTER AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 25 SECONDSWEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER,833.46 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 24MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST, 573.21 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 35 MINUTES42 SECONDS WEST, 115.93 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCESOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG A CURVE WHOSE CENTER LIES SOUTHERLY AND HASA RADIUS OF 790.00 FEET, 242.68 FEET, ARC, (CHORD BEARING SOUTH 80 DEGREES47 MINUTES 41 SECONDS WEST, 241.73 FEET, CHORD); THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES00 MINUTES 21 SECONDS WEST, 68.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42 DEGREES21 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST, 96.29 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 24MINUTES 22 SECONDS WEST, 474.85 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THEAFORESAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 25SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 440.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THEPOINT OF BEGINNING, ALL IN WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS.PARCEL 10:THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH,RANGE 9 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:COMMENCING AT THESOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE AFORESAID NORTHEASTQUARTER AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 10 SECONDSWEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE AFORESAID NORTHEAST QUARTER 205.00FEET, TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO COMMONWEALTHEDISON, PURSUANT TO DOCUMENT R75-33292; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50MINUTES 25 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 723.80 FEET TO THE POINTOF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 25SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 435.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0DEGREES 09 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST, 316.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 53DEGREES 30 MINUTES 58 SECONDS EAST, 442.73 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES09 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST, 536.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89DEGREES 36 MINUTES 50 SECONDS WEST, 159.88 FEET TO A POINT OFCURVATURE;ATTACHMENT 9

THENCE WESTERLY, ALONG A CURVE WHOSE CENTER LIES NORTHERLY ANDHAS A RADIUS OF 790.00 FEET, 410.17 FEET, ARC (CHORD BEARING NORTH 75DEGREES 30 MINUTES 43 SECONDS WEST, 405.58 FEET, CHORD), TO A POINT ONTHE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WOLF'S CROSSINGROAD, (33 FEET SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE THEREOF); THENCE NORTH 60DEGREES 13 MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 29.48 FEET TOA BEND POINT IN SAID SOUTH LINE OF WOLF'S CROSSING ROAD; THENCE NORTH60 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 05 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 48.24 FEET,TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVEWHOSE CENTER LIES NORTHERLY AND HAS A RADIUS OF 710.00 FEET, 319.69FEET, ARC, (CHORD BEARING SOUTH 77 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST,317.00 FEET, CHORD); THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 50 SECONDSEAST, 237.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 27 SECONDS EAST1195.61 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ALL IN WILL COUNTY,ILLINOIS.PIN’s01-08-200-01301-08-200-01401-08-200-01501-08-200-01701-08-400-015ATTACHMENT 9

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

NAPERVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONAGENDA ITEMCASE: PZC 13-1-036 AGENDA DATE: 5/15/2013/2013SUBJECT:Request to Initiate An Amendment to Title 6 Regarding TrainingStudios/Automotive UsesPetitioner: City of Naperville Planning Services TeamLOCATION:Correspondencen/a⌧New Business Old Business Public HearingSYNOPSIS:Title 6 currently includes regulations pertaining to training studios and automotive uses. Staffrequests that the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) initiate an amendment to review theallowances for such uses in various zoning districts, as well as considercorrespondingamendments to the definition and parking requirements for each.PLAN COMMISSION ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN:Date Item No. Action5/1/13 G1 PZC continued discussion of this item to the 5/15/13 meeting.ACTION REQUESTED/RECOMMENDED ED/RECOMMENDED THIS MEETING:Initiate an amendment to Title 6 pertaining to training studios and automotive uses.PREPARED BY:Allison Laff, AICP, Planning Operations ManagerBACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:In recent years, the City has received and processed numerous requests to locate training studiosand automotive uses on properties that first require approval of a conditional use prior tooccupancy. After a preliminary review of these cases and their approval proval records, staff believesthat some of the existing conditional use requirements may be overly burdensome and thatadditional code requirements may be put in place to ensure the appropriateness of these uses asof right. Members of the PZC noted similar findings during their recent review of conditionaluse requests for two training studios at the April 17, 2013 PZC meeting.Staff requests that the PZC initiate an amendment to Title 6 in order to:• Review the allowances (permitted vs. conditional) for these uses in the Business andIndustrial Districts;• Review and clarify the definitions provided for training studios and athletic trainingfacilities;

Text Amendment - Training Studios/Automotive UsesMay 15, 2013Page 2 of 2• Review and clarify the parking requirements for training studios, athletic trainingfacilities, and automotive uses.If initiated, staff will prepare additional background information for the PZC’s review at a futurepublic hearing, including case history, current code requirements, and proposed regulations.RECOMMENDATION:Initiate an amendment to Title 6 pertaining to training studios and automotive uses.