2026-10-07 - Planning and Zoning Commission

09:39Good evening. I would like to call the

09:41planning and zoning commission meeting

09:42for October 7th, 2026 to order.

09:45Secretary Wright, please conduct roll

09:47call.

09:47>> Bonzo

09:48>> here.

09:49>> Kasanoli

09:50>> here.

09:50>> Langba

09:51>> here.

09:52>> McDaniel

09:52>> here.

09:53>> McGawan

09:54>> here.

09:54>> Name

09:55>> here.

09:56>> Robbins

09:56>> here.

09:57>> And right, Madam Chair, we have a

09:59quorum.

09:59>> Great. Thank you. The first order of

10:01business tonight is the public forum.

10:03During the public forum, members of the

10:05public have the opportunity to address

10:06the planning and zoning commission on

10:08issues which are not part of tonight's

10:10agenda. Please keep your comments

10:12limited to three minutes. Also, for the

10:14sake of all those in attendance, please

10:16refrain from clapping or shouting out in

10:18response to comments made by any

10:20speaker. Secretary Wright, do we have

10:22anyone signed up under public forum?

10:24>> No one signed up tonight.

10:25>> All right. Our next order of business is

10:27public hearings. We have one public

10:30hearing scheduled for tonight's meeting.

10:32For each hearing, we will begin with the

10:33staff presentation or introduction

10:35followed by the petitioner's

10:37presentation. We will then take public

10:39testimony to ensure that we have an

10:41opportunity to hear from each person

10:42wishing to speak. Please keep your

10:44comments specific to the request under

10:46consideration and try to avoid

10:48repetitive comments. Also, for the sake

10:51of all those in attendance, please

10:52refrain from clapping or shouting out in

10:55response to comments made by any

10:57speaker. Following all public testimony,

11:00the petitioner will provide closing

11:01remarks just prior to the closure of the

11:03public hearing. No further public

11:06testimony will be taken after the

11:07petitioner begins their closing remarks

11:09or during the planning and zoning

11:11commission deliberation.

11:13Welcome, Commissioner Shafi.

11:15I will now swear in any of the members

11:17of the public wishing to speak.

11:20Those who wish to speak to provide

11:22testimony, please stand up. Please raise

11:24your right hand and respond. I do. I

11:27swear to tell the truth and nothing but

11:29the truth.

11:30All right. Thank you. The only case on

11:33tonight's agenda is DEV-0042-206.

11:39The public hearing is now open. Sarah

11:41Kapensky from staff will present the

11:43case.

11:44>> Thank you and good evening. Sarah

11:45Kapinsky with the city's planning

11:47services team. The subject property for

11:49deev 422026

11:52includes 41 acres of vacant land at 1960

11:55Lucent Lane. Pyhome company plans to

11:58develop the property with the towns at

11:59Neap Commons which will include 262 town

12:03homes. Tonight they request PCC's

12:05consideration of reszoning the property

12:07from ORI to R2, a conditional use for

12:10town homes in the R2 district, variances

12:12to reduce front yard setbacks and

12:14parkway landscaping in various

12:16locations, and to allow height to be

12:18measured from grade to the mean of the

12:20roof and to exceed three stories in

12:21certain locations.

12:24On March 18th this year, PY attended a

12:26city council meeting to obtain

12:27preliminary feedback on the proposal.

12:30Development considerations raised at

12:31this meeting included incorporation of

12:34non-residential amenities, housing

12:36variety, consideration of the

12:38surrounding context, gateway signage,

12:39and walkability. PY has provided

12:42supporting documents and studies to

12:44address these items which have been

12:45attached to the agenda item.

12:49The proposed R2 zoning is consistent

12:51with the land use master plan's

12:52recommendation for medium density

12:54residential as well as with the zoning

12:56of the adjacent neighbors development.

12:58R2 classifies town homes as a

13:00conditional use with a minimum lot area

13:02of 4,000 square feet per unit. The

13:04development is planned to include 262

13:07units which results in 6,800 square feet

13:10per unit, therefore complying with the

13:12R2 density restrictions. Approximately

13:1550% of the property will be maintained

13:17as open space and for visual interest

13:19and housing variety, the development

13:20will include three distinct building

13:22types.

13:24Petitioner seeks approval of a variance

13:26to allow a reduced front yard setback

13:28for the rear-loaded town homes. Staff

13:30notes the areas impacted by reduced

13:32setbacks are internal to the development

13:34and not visible from Warrenville or

13:35Neapville Road. A variance is requested

13:38to reduce the number of parkway trees in

13:40certain locations throughout the

13:41development. The petition indicates that

13:44compliance with city requirements is not

13:46feasible due to limited parkway depths

13:48and required utility clearances. Staff

13:51has concerns with the reduction of

13:52parkway trees and recommends denial of

13:54this request.

13:56Lastly, PY seeks approval of two height

13:58related variances. The municipal code

14:00requires building height to be measured

14:02from a datim point intended to provide a

14:04uniform baseline for measuring height

14:06across a development. The proposal

14:09consists of 40 acres and will contain 56

14:11buildings.

14:13Applying the code's methodology in this

14:15case would require establishment of a

14:16separate data point for each building

14:18proposed which would be complicated and

14:20difficult to administer for a project of

14:22this size. Accordingly, approval is

14:24sought um of a variance to allow height

14:27to be measured from grade instead. The

14:29variance requested only modifies the

14:31methodology and is not intended to

14:33increase the building height or massing

14:35of the town homes. And lastly, code

14:37limits town homes to three stories in

14:39height, not to exceed 40 feet. The

14:41petitioner requests a variance to allow

14:43one of the three building types to have

14:45a fourth story. While the building will

14:47measure 36 feet 3 in and be less than

14:50the 40 foot height limit, the inclusion

14:52of a habitable attic space is classified

14:54as a fourth story per code. The other

14:56two building types will comply with the

14:58city's requirements. Tonight, staff

15:00recommends you conduct the public

15:01hearing and will remain available for

15:02any questions.

15:04>> Thank you. Will the petitioner please

15:05approach the podium?

15:17Good morning or good morning. Good

15:19evening. My name is Caitlyn Chuck with

15:20the law firm Rosenova and Whitaker here

15:22on behalf of the petitioner PY Homes. Uh

15:24with me this evening I have Matt Browley

15:26from PY Homes, Chris Morgart, our civil

15:29engineer, Dan Jablonsky, our certified

15:31arborist, Sharon Dixon our landscape

15:33architect, and then Andrew Bowen our

15:35traffic engineer. So we are all happy to

15:37answer any questions that you have.

15:39Always like to start with a little bit

15:41of background on the developer public.

15:42Uh PY is a publicly traded home building

15:44company and is the third largest home

15:46builder nationally. Locally they sold

15:48over a thousand homes in the Chicago

15:49area just last year. They've also had

15:51the top selling community in Illinois

15:53for four years straight. We're also

15:55currently actively selling in 36

15:58different communities across the Chicago

15:59market. Even more locally, PY's had a

16:01lot of recent success at Wagner Farms,

16:04uh, Neighbor Commons, and Neapville Polo

16:06Club. Subject property, as Sarah

16:08mentioned, is approximately 40 acres on

16:10the northwest corner of Neapville Road

16:12and Warrenville Road in Neapville. Um,

16:14and was formerly part of the Nokia

16:16campus. Specifically, the property was

16:18the home to a 516,000 foot office

16:21building and again part of that broader

16:23Nokia campus. But after experiencing

16:25prolonged vacancy as we're seeing across

16:27the board with large office buildings in

16:29the suburbs, the owner demolished the

16:30building in 2024 uh to make way for a

16:33more viable use uh of the site. So the

16:37current zoning of the property is ORI

16:38which is office research and light

16:40industry district. The property to the

16:42north is the last remaining Nokia

16:44building zoned Ori. And then we also

16:46have Neighbor Commons to the north which

16:47is zoned R2 PUD in the city. East of the

16:50site is zoned O which is office research

16:52in Lyall and that's improved with

16:54science of spirituality. South of the

16:56site is vacant property zoned ORI in

16:58Neighborville and then west of the site

17:00is the Sherbon building zoned Ori uh in

17:03addition to unincorporated DuPage County

17:05residential.

17:07Given the context of the area and the

17:09underlying zoning, the owner of the

17:10property submitted an application to the

17:12city in April of 2025, seeking approval

17:15of a data center under the existing ORI

17:17zoning designation. In January 2026, the

17:20city ultimately denied that request and

17:22determined the proposed use was not

17:24consistent with the comprehensive plan.

17:27Though historically zoned Orai, the land

17:28use master plan was re-evaluated and

17:30they re-evaluated this corner

17:32specifically within the I88 uh corridor

17:34back in 2022 and they deemed medium

17:37density residential was the most

17:39appropriate use for the site under the

17:41new comprehensive plan. More broadly,

17:43the guiding principle number one of the

17:45comprehensive plan is to enhance

17:47Neapville's housing stock in the

17:48diversity of options, including a

17:50variety of residential types, styles,

17:52densities, and price points. Taking

17:54everything into consideration uh from

17:57the comp plan, we believe that the

17:59proposed development that we're

18:00discussing this evening will provide uh

18:02this area with a complimentary and

18:03cohesive use for this very important

18:05location within the corridor. With that

18:08being said, as I'm sure you're aware,

18:10we're facing a national housing shortage

18:12and this is a big deal. Uh locally,

18:14Neapville had its own housing needs

18:15assessment completed in 2020 which noted

18:17that Neapville would require between

18:196,900 and 8,600 new housing units by

18:222025. uh and then 11,700 between 11,700

18:27and 13,000 new units by 2040. The

18:30problem continues to remain the lack of

18:32supply to meet demand and the only way

18:33to solve it is to provide more supply

18:35and we're not currently on track to meet

18:37these goals. Similar conclusions were

18:39found in a report prepared by Tracy

18:41Cross and Associates. Uh this report

18:43concluded that there aren't many homes

18:45available for sale in the Neapville

18:46area. The shortage of newly built homes

18:49is also affecting the resale market.

18:51With regards to this housing demand, the

18:53report forecasted that the Neapville

18:55market would need to build at an

18:56absolute minimum 1,155

18:59units annually over the next five years.

19:02Taking this into consideration, there's

19:04currently less than 1,000 known future

19:06or for sale housing units in planning

19:09marketwide for Neighborville. Uh some

19:11which might not come to fruition.

19:12They're at the concept level right now.

19:15Uh with less than 1,000 units in the

19:17pipeline at this time and a demand

19:19totaling 37 75 units through 2031. We

19:24will continue it will be it will

19:25continue to be difficult to supply for

19:27supply to uh keep up with the demand

19:29which again warrants additional

19:31residential development. This site is

19:33specifically identified in this study as

19:35in this study as attractive due to its

19:38location and access to a variety of

19:41employment destinations. So lastly, I

19:44wanted to touch on the Neighborville uh

19:46development partnership who had an I8A

19:48corridor study prepared uh which set

19:50forth goals and objectives for this very

19:52important corridor. Some of those

19:54objectives included creating a live,

19:55work, and play environment, increasing

19:58housing options, and then providing

19:59infill development within the corridor

20:01and particularly along Warrenville Road.

20:04To this end, uh, we're taking the city's

20:07comprehensive plan, the IADA corridor

20:09study, and housing needs assessment

20:11analysis all into consideration

20:12alongside those recommendations that

20:14were set forth in the market study

20:16prepared by Tracy Cross and Associates.

20:18Uh, all of these findings throughout all

20:20of these plans align uh with the

20:23petitioner's proposal. Uh, with that,

20:25we're proposing 262

20:27uh town homes uh with a mix of 99

20:30front-loaded town homes and 163 rear

20:32loaded units. Uh, the community be known

20:34as towns of Neap Commons.

20:37Uh, bringing it back to surrounding

20:38context just for a minute. I mentioned

20:40Neapor Commons. It's in the name of the

20:42community. Neighbor Commons is a mixed

20:44residential community that was approved

20:45back in 2021. It was constructed by PY

20:49and it's located immediately north of

20:51the site. This property is 64 acres and

20:54was also part of the original Nokia

20:56campus. Prior to its approval, the city

20:58zoned the property in the R2 district,

21:00which provided clear direction uh that

21:02residential is appropriate uh in this

21:05area in order to reactivated blighted

21:07conditions within the corridor.

21:09Naper Commons, just for reference, is uh

21:11comprised of 161 single family homes and

21:1466 town homes. The town homes extend

21:17southeast along Weatherbe Lane and

21:18they're located immediately adjacent to

21:20the site. So with town homes on the

21:23opposite side of Weatherbe Lane, the

21:25towns at Neighbor Commons is intended to

21:27be a natural extension of Neighbor

21:28Commons and is directly in line again

21:30with that comprehensive plan

21:32designation. Specifically, the

21:34comprehensive plan calls for medium

21:35density residential up to 12 units an

21:37acre. At 6.4 units an acre, the

21:40petitioner's proposal is significantly

21:42less dense than what is called for under

21:44the comprehensive plan. And we're also

21:46well within the allowable density under

21:47code, as Sarah mentioned.

21:50Let me go back. There will be four

21:51points of iness and egress. Two from

21:53Lucent Lane, two from Weatherbeby Lane.

21:55Um and though this is not a plan unit

21:57development, about 50% of the community

22:00would be comprised of open space.

22:03Uh specifically, there will be several

22:05pocket pockets of open space corridors

22:07integrated throughout the development,

22:08but we're also planning for some passive

22:10park areas and courtyards for the

22:12residents to gather. In addition, the

22:14existing storm water management basin on

22:16the hard corner of Warrenville Road and

22:18Neighborville Road would be activated

22:19for use by the residents uh and will

22:22provide a connection to the existing

22:23sidewalk along these roadways. So having

22:25a nice uh passive recreational

22:27opportunity here

22:31I'm going backwards. Sorry. Um,

22:34specifically, we also have sidewalks uh

22:37that will be provided along Weatherbe

22:39Lane in order to encourage

22:40interconnectivity between Neighbor

22:42Commons and this new community. Uh, this

22:44will allow residents to gain access to

22:46the Neighbor Commons Park uh, which is a

22:48park district park and ultimately the

22:50Dana Forest Preserve in order to enjoy

22:52all of the amenities over there. We did

22:55engage with the park district and they

22:56concurred with this plan and they asked

22:58for a donation in lie of land for this

23:00site. With regards to visitability, 77

23:04homes out of the 262

23:06uh equating to 68% of the units will be

23:10visitable per the standard set forth by

23:12the National Council of Independent

23:13Living.

23:16In looking at the site plan, you'll see

23:17the community is actually made up of

23:18three different types of town homes. We

23:20wanted to add a variety of different

23:21units and make sure there's uh some

23:23anti- monotony here. So, specifically,

23:25we have the traditional front-loaded

23:26town homes in the northwest corner and

23:28very centrally located to the community.

23:30That's highlighted here in blue. Uh the

23:32remainder of the community will be made

23:34up of two different types of rear loaded

23:36units along both both Warrenville Road

23:38and Neighborville Road. And you can see

23:40um the uh units highlighted in yellow

23:44would be the flat roof uh row homes.

23:49Uh staff challenged us to come up with

23:51some more urban architecture for the

23:52site in order to enhance the appearance

23:54of this prominent quarter within the I8A

23:56corridor. So to this end, we have flat

23:58roof units along Warrenville Road uh to

24:00provide a more complimentary streetscape

24:02for the area. These units will be

24:04three-story rear loaded units ranging

24:06between about 2200 and 2,800 square

24:08feet. Uh they will have brick and

24:10horizontal siding along with vertical

24:12bays and facade articulation to try to

24:14uh break up that building massing. Uh

24:16the product would be uniquely designed

24:18for Neighborville and it lends itself to

24:20a much more urban site design with

24:22defined pedestrian entrances uh and

24:24walks along with landscaping that'll be

24:26integrated into the streetscape.

24:30In addition, all of these units will

24:31have the option for a rooftop deck. Uh

24:33pictured here is what this could look

24:35like as seen on another project with

24:37very similar architecture.

24:40The second rear loaded option would be

24:42uh that would be constructed in those

24:44locations identified here in the upper

24:46leftand corner. Uh this unit would also

24:48range between about 2200 square feet and

24:502,800 square feet. It will have a base

24:53threebedroom with an option for a fourth

24:56bedroom and a habitable attic space that

24:57will lead out to a rooftop deck off the

25:00rear of the building. So these units

25:01will have steeped pitch uh gable roofs,

25:04vertical and horizontal siding,

25:05significant number of uh black framed

25:08windows. We want to bring in a bunch of

25:09natural light into the units. Uh there's

25:11articulated front facades with some

25:13projecting bays and recessed areas which

25:15all allows for a much more contemporary

25:18appearance.

25:19Lastly, we have our traditional

25:21two-story front-loaded town homes which

25:23will have a base of about 1,800 square

25:25ft uh with three bedrooms. So on this

25:27unit, the buyers will also have the

25:29option to select a sun room option and

25:31or a habitable attic space with again

25:33another roof terrace. Uh this increases

25:36the unit to about 2500 square feet and

25:38can accommodate up to four bedrooms

25:40should the buyer make that selection.

25:41They can also select the habitable attic

25:43space without the addition of a fourth

25:45bedroom. So as you can see here um the

25:47units will be developed consistent with

25:49current design trends. Uh this includes

25:51both vertical and horizontal siding trim

25:54varying peaks dormers. Uh all of which

25:57will be constructed with high quality

25:58materials. the materials and colors

26:01proposed on all three types of units

26:02will uh complement one another and we

26:05want to make sure we're providing a

26:06cohesive community while also offering

26:08three different housing types to again

26:10avoid that anti- monotony um throughout

26:13the uh community. So, these are photos

26:16of just some other similar town homes in

26:17recently developed communities. Uh

26:19you'll see generally speaking, you can

26:21expect an open space concept with large

26:23entertaining areas, high-end appliances,

26:25and quartz countertops.

26:28Lastly, I'd like to wrap up the

26:29presentation with just a quick overview

26:31of benefits of the proposed development.

26:33Um, in addition to providing muchneeded

26:35additional housing stock, we also feel

26:37strongly that the community will support

26:39the nearby commercial areas and Freedom

26:41Commons. Uh, it'll help fill jobs within

26:43the corridor and enhance Neighborville's

26:45workforce to attract new investment and

26:47employers into the corridor. Um, and it

26:50will also generate and create new tax

26:51and income revenue for the city and

26:52community. So, with that, thank you for

26:54your time and consideration. Our whole

26:56team is here and available for

26:58questions.

26:59>> Thank you. I would like to now

27:01[clears throat] hear from any of the

27:02members public present tonight that

27:04would like to speak on this case.

27:05Secretary Wright, please call the first

27:07speaker.

27:08>> No one signed up, Madam Chair.

27:10>> All right.

27:11After that, are there any other members

27:13in the public that would like to speak

27:14tonight?

27:16>> Nope. Okay. Do any of the commissioners

27:19have any questions for staff, the

27:21petitioner, or members of the public on

27:23this case? Please note that these

27:25questions may not be directed to the

27:27petitioner or members of the public

27:29after the closure of the public hearing.

27:31Further comments should be saved for

27:33deliberation which will occur after the

27:35closure of the public hearing.

27:37Commissioner Longbot.

27:41Assume that I have questions.

27:43I do. Uh first off, great presentation

27:46and visitability. Thank you so much. um

27:49always love seeing that how you're just

27:52proactive about putting that in and and

27:54considering it um when you're doing the

27:56the initial engineering. So, thank you

27:58for that.

27:58>> Absolutely.

27:59>> Um just a few questions though. Um

28:03there was a letter from the DuPage

28:05Forest Preserve um

28:08and staff and I I wasn't thrilled about

28:11it either about the variance about the

28:15parkway trees. Um,

28:18staff's not in favor. DuPage Forest

28:20Preserves not in favor. I'm also not in

28:22favor. Um, I'm just wondering, I don't

28:25know if you know or if it's more of a

28:26question for staff. Per code, what is

28:28the required number of trees in the

28:31parkway?

28:33>> Um, code requires one parkway tree for

28:36every 40 feet.

28:38>> Okay. And so, how can we get to that?

28:42>> So, happy to talk through this. So, this

28:44is a little unique, right? So, we have

28:46rear loaded and we have front loaded

28:47units. The front loaded units is really

28:49where we have a little bit more trouble

28:51because we have all these driveway

28:52aprons. On the rear loaded units, we

28:55don't necessarily have that issue

28:56because there's just pedestrian walks.

28:58But that being said, I do want to point

29:00out um Neapville Road and Warrenville

29:02Road. We are not allowed to put parkway

29:06trees within the parkway for DuPage

29:08County. So, up here you'll see parkway

29:09trees along Neapville Road. Um those are

29:12actually on our site. So regardless of I

29:16mean we'll continue the conversation as

29:17well with the front-loaded units, but

29:19we'll still require the variance because

29:21we're just simply not allowed to put

29:23these within the parkway along that

29:25road. So we have to move them out of the

29:26right of way onto our property. They're

29:28not technically on the road, but they're

29:30they're fulfilling the same exact

29:31objective uh that staff would like to

29:34see in terms of maintaining that

29:35streetscape appearance. Um, that being

29:38said, on the front load product, um,

29:42looking at Neapor Commons, I wanted to

29:44pull their landscape plan and see what

29:45they did because you could see Josiah

29:47Road here. The these are the units

29:48immediately north of our site. Uh, very

29:50similar situation. They have a parkway

29:53tree um, shown all along Josiah Road.

29:56Um, ultimately this looks great on a

29:59landscape plan. Fantastic. Um, but in

30:03actual reality, I went we went out there

30:05and took some photos. Um there's such a

30:07small area between those driveways where

30:09we can actually accommodate parkway

30:11trees and they're not thriving. So

30:13Neighbor Commons was approved five years

30:15ago and you can see here these trees

30:18look brand new and a lot of it's very

30:20possible that a lot of them could have

30:21been replaced because they died um and

30:24they would be continued to be replaced.

30:26But here you can see a good example too.

30:28Um just right next to us in Neighbor

30:30Commons, this is a parkway tree that has

30:32some room to grow and it is doing its

30:34job and growing. And here we have

30:36probably what's a new parkway tree that

30:38had to be replanted because it died. Um

30:41so with that we have utility conflicts

30:43as well. So balancing the driveway

30:46aprons and utility conflicts. It's just

30:48been a little bit of a battle. Um that

30:50said, we are happy to continue working

30:52with staff if it's of the opinion of

30:54this council or this plan commission and

30:56staff that we want to see as many trees

30:59within the driveway aprons as possible.

31:00Understanding that they might not ever

31:02fully mature to these big beautiful

31:04canopy trees. We're happy to do that and

31:06that would bring us at or closer to that

31:08number, but knowing we'll still need

31:09that variance along Warrenville and

31:11Neighborville Road.

31:12>> Okay. Thank you for explaining and that

31:14that does make sense. And like what you

31:16have up on here now, I mean, it doesn't

31:18look like there's any trees along Josiah

31:20right now. I mean, I've been over there

31:21a bunch of times. It looks like nothing.

31:24So,

31:25>> if you can work with staff to try to

31:27figure that out, I know I would be in

31:29support of that.

31:31>> Absolutely. Um, the second thing in

31:33their their letter, um, like on the

31:36landscaping plan, I I really like how

31:38detailed it was. The fact that you

31:40inventoried all of it and you scaled

31:41them based on, you know, like crappy

31:44trees versus the great ones, that was

31:45really really helpful obviously for for

31:47us and for the forest preserve as well.

31:50Um, it sounded like there were still

31:53some invasive species like either on

31:55what you were going to be planting or

31:57still on there. And so, are you going to

31:59be addressing those concerns from the

32:01forest preserve as well and getting rid

32:03of the invasive ones?

32:04>> Yes, we'll take a look at that and see,

32:06you know, what we can do to make sure we

32:08we certainly don't want to maintain a

32:10ton of invasive species.

32:11>> Yeah, exactly. Okay, cool. Um, and then

32:14I had a question. Um, I I couldn't find

32:16it in the agenda. What school district

32:18will this feed and have they so it's 203

32:22and have they weighed in with any kind

32:23of letter and support or neutrality or

32:26what have they been brought in because I

32:28can imagine that this is going to bring

32:29in a lot of kids wondering where they're

32:31going to be going and and that.

32:33>> Sure. Um so we did meet with the school

32:35district and we shared with them some

32:37numbers and you know we talked about um

32:40the units generally speaking town homes

32:42they're all based threebedroom but we we

32:45kind of took the conservative approach

32:46and uh we showed them these numbers that

32:49are technically overestimating because

32:51it shows a 25% uh take on the

32:53fourbedroom on those habitable attic

32:55spaces. Uh that being said that that

32:57fourth bedroom is rarely taken. We we

32:59evaluated um how often that happens and

33:03it's it's pretty rare. I think it's like

33:04somewhere in the 3% something like that.

33:07That being said, we met with them. We

33:08talked about these numbers. We talked

33:10about the schools that they would go to.

33:11Um they would go to BB Elementary,

33:13Jefferson Junior High, Neighborville

33:15North. We can expect that, you know,

33:16potentially this number goes down just a

33:18little bit. Uh but ultimately 38

33:20students to BB, 15 to Jefferson Junior

33:23High, and then 17 to Neighborville

33:25North. Uh we've had an open line of

33:26communication with them. uh haven't

33:28received a letter necessarily, so to

33:30speak, but we have been talking to them

33:32certainly.

33:33>> So, do you know where they stand in this

33:35as far as support or neutral or

33:38>> Not at this point. I mean, like I said,

33:39we've been sharing information back and

33:41forth uh in terms of how many students

33:43are actually generated out of town home

33:45communities. So, we've actually been

33:46getting into depth with uh just details

33:49with them in general so that we can

33:50understand on future projects as well.

33:52It's helpful to know like how many

33:53students are actually generated from

33:54town homes um as opposed to what comes

33:57up on the density calculation tables.

34:00>> Okay, cool. And then my final question

34:02is just regarding affordability. Um at

34:05the council meeting in in March, they

34:07specifically asked for that. They wanted

34:10affordable units in here and yet it's

34:13not included. Um, and I know at our last

34:15PCC meeting for the Weston Ridge one,

34:17and I know we don't have precedent here

34:19from from case to case, but um, in that

34:23case, it included affordable units

34:25without any prompting, and so it was

34:27even stated that there wasn't a

34:29>> heavyhanded approach for affordability.

34:32In this case, council asked for it and

34:35yet it's not here. So, is there anything

34:37that can be done to have some affordable

34:40units included? And I know that's not

34:42necessarily within our remit to approve

34:45or deny or whatever, but it's definitely

34:47something that you should be considering

34:49when bringing it to council because they

34:51specifically requested it.

34:52>> Sure. And we're happy to talk about

34:53that. So, I mean, just going back to um

34:56just architecture, right? So, when we're

34:58talking about um the the types of units

35:03and having three different types and

35:04being asked to maybe come up with a

35:06brand new um type of unit that we have

35:09never constructed before, certain

35:12elements of something like this flat

35:13roof unit, which we haven't constructed

35:15yet, this exact unit will add

35:17significant cost to the home buyer. So,

35:19there's just kind of a give and take

35:21where it's the appearance of the

35:23corridor and where the um I guess

35:26priorities are aligning in terms of what

35:29we're trying to accomplish. But that

35:30being said, our price points that we're

35:31expecting for this community are between

35:33about 515 and 680 depending on the

35:36options for upgrades. I know that

35:38doesn't necessarily sound affordable,

35:40but we have a lot of units in

35:42Neighborville that are going upwards of

35:442 million, 3 million, uh 1.2 million. So

35:47like they are in the much more

35:48attainable range. I'd be happy to put

35:50together numbers in advance of city

35:52council to see where we fall within the

35:54Neighborville area median income and see

35:56if that's aligning because it might very

35:58well certainly align with that.

36:00>> Okay. Because usually in your

36:02presentation it's like you have that in

36:04there and you show the percentages and

36:06it falls within the 80% or 90% and in

36:09this case that wasn't done. And maybe

36:12that's something that you just do for

36:13rentals but it's it's always part of

36:15your presentation. And so I was kind of

36:17surprised not to see it here, which is

36:18why I bring it up.

36:20>> So thank you. That's it for me.

36:22>> All right. Commissioner Abu Baker.

36:24>> Thank you, Chair. Um,

36:26[clears throat] great presentation by

36:27the way.

36:27>> Thank you.

36:28>> Um,

36:30this is amazing and um the the the

36:33drawings looks beautiful. The only

36:35concern is actually the um or the

36:38inventory um what we have in Nepal um

36:41it's kind of like um the usage of that

36:44the you know the the shrinking or

36:46inventory so I would like to know like

36:49in the last few years like how much of

36:51or inventory has been converted into

36:54residential uh is there any data on that

36:58um

37:00>> um I don't have any available data right

37:03now staff could certainly look into

37:05that. Um but it's not something we can

37:07provide tonight.

37:07>> Okay. And then uh also like from a

37:09development standpoint, have you looked

37:11into uh utilizing this uh space into a

37:14mixed use facility in any way like um

37:17like residential and a kind of like some

37:20kind of commercial asphalt.

37:23>> Yeah. And we we certainly uh heard the

37:26council and uh residents who came to the

37:28concept meeting and made that comment.

37:30Uh that being said, the comprehensive

37:32plan does not recommend or does not have

37:35commercial listed as a primary or a

37:38supporting use under the comprehensive

37:40plan. So the seller of this property

37:43upon receiving a denial earlier this

37:45year on the prior proposal uh and being

37:48told that it needed to be compliant with

37:49the comprehensive plan sought out

37:51specific buyers for this property and

37:54proposals that were 100% compliant with

37:56the comprehensive plan. So that's really

37:57the main driver.

38:02Commissioner Pansa.

38:05>> U Thank you everyone for coming out this

38:08um evening and it's a great looking

38:10project. Uh reusing a long weekend

38:13property is a great idea. Moderate

38:16proposed density about 6.5 homes per

38:18acre below the plans guideline up to 12

38:21units per acre is great. Um the case of

38:25this project is strongest on the land

38:27use plan consistency and reusing the

38:29vacant land and the moderate density um

38:32is great but yes I just one of the

38:36concerns besides the other variances

38:38being asked and you have been explained

38:40the very nicely but in your presentation

38:43it's about the concern identified as

38:46reduction in a parkway trees in this

38:48project and I would like to acknowledge

38:50that you page u uh the forest preserve

38:52district letter as well to follow the

38:55existing park tree requirement within

38:57the Neapville municipal code.

39:00So I believe the residential use itself

39:03makes sense for this location and it is

39:06consistent with the city's long-term

39:09land use. But what you have explained

39:12about the parkway trees I understand but

39:14it's just my u only concern here and I

39:18would highly encourage if you can work

39:20with the staff and u reasonably

39:23accommodate the appropriate landscaping

39:26and issues with the parkway trees. Um

39:31I guess uh that's my one of the

39:35questions I had but and um yeah.

39:40>> All right, Commissioner.

39:41>> Thank you.

39:42>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh most of my

39:44questions were asked. I do have one

39:46question about uh the traffic study, and

39:48I just want to make sure I understand

39:50it. Um obviously, it was taken back in

39:53in two 2024 and 2025. Uh clearly the the

39:58property was vacant at that time um and

40:00I believe maybe even torn down in 2025.

40:02So uh I noticed in the traffic study

40:05that um there were some obscure days

40:08used to to to create the baseline. Um

40:12but I also understand that there's an

40:14escalation year overyear uh to kind of

40:17anticipate what that traffic will look

40:19like. I guess my only question is is is

40:21your traffic consultant um

40:25sure that that escalation is accurate

40:28and would they be willing to perhaps do

40:31an additional traffic study once the

40:32project is built

40:37>> in terms of just like traffic counts?

40:39>> Traffic counts.

40:40>> Yeah, I'm sure we'd be willing to

40:41traffic.

40:42>> Thank you.

40:44Yeah, the the um traffic counts were

40:47conducted on uh standard days. Um we

40:51only do, you know, middle of the week,

40:53Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday on days

40:55where we check to ensure that schools

40:56are open and all uh and other things in

40:59the area are representing normal

41:01activities. We have different dates here

41:04but um when we perform our analysis we

41:08take always take the highest volumes and

41:11adjust between different dates so to

41:14provide a conservative analysis. When we

41:16look at the future um we base those pro

41:20projections on the uh Chicago

41:23metropolitan area uh uh commission. So

41:26the cap that um gives us numbers based

41:30on all kinds of development that's

41:31planned for the area and they give us uh

41:33expected increases and we use those

41:36numbers to predict the future. So we're

41:37pretty confident in those.

41:40>> Thank you

41:42question.

41:43>> All right. Most of my questions have

41:45been addressed as well. I do have two

41:47though. One is in regards to the buffer

41:50uh between the development and Nokia. As

41:53far as I know, Nokia is still there.

41:55They're not going anywhere. Um, so have

41:58you guys looked at alternative ideas for

42:00buffering? Can you elaborate on that?

42:03>> Yep. We're actually in the works. Like

42:05we're we're working with staff on it and

42:06seeing what we can accommodate um along

42:08the north property line. I think there

42:10were some utilities up there that we

42:11need to be cognizant of. Uh but if we're

42:13able to work that stuff out, we're

42:15looking to plant some more trees up that

42:17in to the north.

42:18>> Great. I would definitely look to see

42:20that. And then the other question, I'm

42:21not sure if you have this or if staff

42:23will, but there is a paid de development

42:26going in at Mill and Warville. Do you

42:29have because I'm looking at that and I

42:31believe those are the same schools or

42:33would that be different elementary

42:35school but same junior high and high

42:37school and has the district responded to

42:40having both of those developments coming

42:42in at similar time frames?

42:44>> So that I can't confirm which schools uh

42:47Milan Deal will go to, but Again, our

42:50conversations with the school district

42:51are ongoing um in terms of our

42:55development and so I'm sure they're also

42:57fully aware of that development coming

42:58through as well at the same time. And

43:01when that project was getting approved,

43:03they were engaged as well. So again,

43:06ongoing conversations.

43:07>> All right. Uh that is it for now. I will

43:10move to Commissioner McDaniel.

43:12>> You know, my question's already been

43:13asked, but I'm gonna ask it again so I

43:15can just be on the record. And that's u

43:17mixeduse commercial development. Uh,

43:19it's not being considered for this site.

43:21>> Correct. It's not in line with

43:22comprehensive plan.

43:23>> Thank you,

43:25>> Commissioner Castelli.

43:26>> Thank you. Um, all my questions been

43:29answered. I just have a concern.

43:32We're losing an oi property. Seems

43:35that's all we've been doing lately is

43:37changing to residential. So, I'm

43:39concerned. Are we giving away valuable

43:41land that could have a much better use

43:43down the road? That's my only concern. I

43:45I know you can't answer that.

43:46>> Understood. Thank you.

43:50Commissioner Namz,

43:51>> my questions were answered. Thank you.

43:55>> Commissioner, you have a question.

43:56>> Uh, yes. Uh, regarding the affordability

44:00um in seeking this R2 designation is the

44:05the question that comes to my mind is

44:06the uh lack of affordable um housing

44:10units within this. Is this putting a

44:12burden on um neighboring properties uh

44:16the city as a whole by the absence of

44:19it?

44:21>> I can't particularly answer that because

44:23I'm not um an expert in the area, but

44:25just from the studies that we've read,

44:27obviously affordable housing is an

44:28ongoing discussion. A lot goes into the

44:31affordability of a unit. There's uh

44:33usually um massive relief that's

44:37obtained under the code, whether it's

44:38especially density. That's usually

44:40something people look or even uh federal

44:42assistance to make sure that it can be

44:46worked out on paper, penciled so to

44:48speak. Um, in terms of the national

44:51housing shortage, what we have seen in

44:53all of these reports that we're reading

44:55is adding supply to the market will help

44:58balance those affordable or balance the

45:00prices. It will help bring those uh the

45:03prices down, so to speak, because

45:06there's more inventory available. Right

45:07now, there's not enough inventory. It's

45:09too competitive. It's a sellers market

45:11and the prices continue to rise. So, it

45:13all kind of balances together. I can't

45:15answer whether it would put a burden on

45:18the adjacent properties, but we don't

45:20anticipate that it would. Uh, this would

45:22be a town home community immediately

45:24adjacent to town homes and residential

45:26to the north. The med the comprehensive

45:28plan recommends medium density

45:30residential. The property to the north

45:32is also recommended for medium density

45:34residential. Um so we anticipate that um

45:38this would not necessarily place a

45:40burden on those properties.

45:42>> So the existence of the of this

45:45development will

45:48bring about a price change in the larger

45:51market in Neighborville and that's your

45:52theory on how that will um create more

45:55affordable housing. I'm just stating

45:57that pursuant to studies, the more

45:59inventory that we can provide in order

46:02to fill the gap between supply and

46:04demand issues within the national

46:06housing shortage, it will help bridge

46:08that gap. So, the more inventory we can

46:10provide, the more the prices will

46:12stabilize. I can't say that this

46:14specific project will do just that, but

46:16it will help bring us closer to that

46:18goal.

46:19>> Okay. Thank you.

46:20>> Thank you.

46:22>> Oh, yes, Commissioner Wright.

46:23>> Sorry, Madam Chair. Thank you. Um, I do

46:25have one question. This is more of a

46:27process question for for staff. Um if

46:32if the commissioners have agreed to this

46:35project with a condition for the parkway

46:39trees and what I heard uh from the

46:42petitioner is that you're willing to

46:43continue to work with the city about the

46:47parkway trees, but you're not

46:49necessarily committing to meet it at

46:51this point. Is that a fair

46:53characterization?

46:54>> Kind of. Um [laughter]

46:56It's kind of complicated, right? So, as

46:57I was saying before on Neapville Road

46:59and Warrenville Road, we physically

47:00can't meet it because we're not allowed

47:02to put parkway trees within the parkway.

47:04So, regardless, we we require the

47:05variance, but regarding those units

47:08internal to the community, we are going

47:09to work with staff to make sure we meet

47:11internal to the community.

47:12>> Okay.

47:13>> Does that clarify it?

47:14>> That does. And so then I guess my

47:16question to staff really is if if we

47:18read the the motion to approve this

47:21because the Parkway trees are one of the

47:23variances,

47:25how do we include that as a condition

47:30when we

47:32do you understand what I'm saying?

47:34>> Yeah, I think I'm following what you're

47:35saying. Um, so I would recommend then

47:38making a motion to approve the

47:40development and all the entitlements

47:41requested subject to a condition that

47:44the petitioner work with staff to meet

47:46the city's parkway requirements um,

47:49internal to the development. And then

47:51following the planning and zoning

47:53commission hearing tonight, um, we'll

47:55work together and hopefully that can be

47:57achieved. If so, we'll make sure that

47:59that's reflected in the report to city

48:01council. Um if we fall a little bit

48:03short, we'll say where we're where we're

48:05still falling short and um if there's

48:07still any outstanding staff concerns at

48:09that point.

48:11>> Thank you. That makes sense.

48:13>> All right. Any other commissioners? Any

48:15other questions?

48:17>> Okay. Uh would the petitioner like to

48:20make any closing remarks?

48:21>> Nope. Just want to thank you all for

48:22your time and consideration. Again, I

48:24hope we clarify the Parkway Tree uh

48:27issue. We're again happy to work with

48:28staff to see where that can be uh worked

48:31out internal to the subdivision. Um

48:34again, if we do fall short, hopefully we

48:36align more with what staff wants to see

48:38in terms of the desired streetscape

48:40appearance, right? Making sure there's

48:42not so many uh gaps, so to speak,

48:44especially with those uh front-loaded

48:46units. So, with that, thank you so much.

48:49Uh thanks.

48:50>> Thank you. Appreciate it. I will now

48:53entertain a motion to close the public

48:54hearing for DEEB-0042-2026.

48:59>> So moved.

49:00>> Second.

49:00>> Second.

49:01>> All in favor say I.

49:03>> I.

49:04>> Motion carries. All right. Do any of the

49:06commissioners have any comments on the

49:08case? As a reminder, if you intend to

49:10recommend denial of this case, please

49:12state your reasons why.

49:16I will start with Commissioner.

49:19>> Thank you. I'll be very quick. Um, I

49:21just want to appreciate that you really

49:22listened to what the residents said and

49:24you listened to to council and and their

49:27guidance. Um, and so I will be in favor

49:30of this. Thank

49:33>> Commissioner Abu Baker.

49:37>> No comments.

49:37>> All right. Commissioner Wright,

49:42Commissioner Macau.

49:44Right. Commissioner.

49:47Um, I would suggest that we um if we do

49:51approve that we do take that parkway

49:53tree into consideration. All right,

49:55Commissioner Cast.

49:58>> I have nothing.

49:59>> Thank you.

49:59>> All right, Commissioner McDaniel.

50:00>> I have a few comments. [laughter]

50:02Um, so to begin with, uh, I think the

50:05pictures plans look very appealing. Um,

50:08I'm going to recommend denial. I have a

50:10few technical reasons why and then a few

50:12personal reasons why. technical uh

50:14issues revolve specifically about

50:16reszoning standards. Um the turn of

50:18development that was one of the points

50:19that we have to qualify for um or

50:22consider at least uh whether it's

50:23consistent with the requested uh uh

50:25amendment. I don't see a trend. I see

50:28one uh uh piece that was reszone oi to

50:31residential. Uh everything else around

50:33that area is still oi. Uh one point you

50:36know is not a trend and that's something

50:38that I remember from like high school

50:39math class. Um I also don't believe that

50:42residential zoning classification is

50:44more suitable. I think that oi is

50:46absolutely the most suitable uh

50:49classification for that area

50:51specifically as it relates to land use

50:52and that's what we have to decide here.

50:54Um now the subject property may be

50:57somewhat underutilized. We know that. Um

51:00but we also know from recent cases that

51:02there are other interested uh um uh uses

51:05potential uses or parties out there

51:07without having to reszone. Um and then

51:09on the the personal side, u you know, I

51:13think we absolutely have to maintain a

51:15balance in Neighborville between uh um

51:17uh commercial development and

51:19residential development. U the more we,

51:22you know, continue to allow resoning and

51:24residential, you can call it residential

51:26creep if you want. Eventually, you know,

51:27we're going to wake up one day and we're

51:29not going to have uh a whole lot of, you

51:31know, commercial uh um land to to to

51:33develop. Um,

51:36you know, every case we hear at PCC must

51:40be reviewed on its own merits. Uh, but

51:43it's also difficult to ignore uh some of

51:46the cases we've had in recent, you know,

51:48past few months related to residential

51:50cases like this. Um, and I guess the

51:52last thing I I'll I'll leave you with is

51:53that um I it it's easy to vote yes for

51:58residential development, but the easiest

51:59yes vote isn't always the best uh when

52:02it comes to long-term economic

52:03development for Neighborville. So,

52:04that's where I'm at.

52:06>> All right. Thank you. Um I do have a

52:09couple of comments myself. Uh along that

52:11line, I will say um I do feel the

52:14development aligns with the master plan.

52:16I do believe that it aligns with what

52:18the residents came out and spoke to us

52:20about for months. Uh for myself

52:23personally, I hesitate and I pause when

52:25we take away an opportunity of economic

52:28development changing ORI to R2. But with

52:33that said, um I think the plan was well

52:35done. I think the additional concerns

52:37are outside of our purview and those

52:39need to be worked out through city

52:41council. Um, I think what you presented

52:43tonight and what we are here to do is to

52:47evaluate the petition and that was the

52:49towns of neighbor Commons against the

52:51specific findings of fact required by

52:53the mun municipal code. Each property

52:56that we look at has its own unique legal

52:59records and it has its own physical site

53:02characteristics and we have to look at

53:04that and that is all we are here to do

53:06is to look at that in our purview. And

53:08so tonight I vote in favor, but like I

53:11said, some of the things that I would

53:13want to see, but that needs to be worked

53:15out at city council is I agree with the

53:18forest preserve with the lighting and

53:20some of the trees. I agree with the

53:22buffering. You know, all those

53:23additional details I would like included

53:26in the motion so those can be agreed

53:28upon when you guys get to council. So

53:33>> Oh, Commissioner Robin Baker.

53:34>> Thank you. Um um thank you both the

53:38commissioners for uh sharing your

53:39thoughts and uh I was thinking about the

53:41same as well. I also will be voting in

53:44favor. However, I want the developers to

53:47consider this like the like Commissioner

53:49McDaniel mentioned like that we want a

53:52fair balance in Nepal and uh the

53:56development which happened on Route 15

53:58and when I drive through that area it

54:00actually it's amazes me when I see block

54:0315. It's so beautiful and we would like

54:06to see something like that on that part

54:08that side of the town as well. And it

54:10would have been beautiful if he had a

54:11mixed unit um in in that side. Um it

54:16this matches ma matches with our master

54:18plan of the of the city development. So

54:20because of that I would be voting yes

54:23but it would have been beautiful. Uh so

54:25I would um I don't I know I don't know

54:27what else I can request but it would

54:29have been nicer. Uh so please consider

54:31those kind of development in the future

54:33at least. Um we want to keep a beautiful

54:35neighbor and that's what we all strive

54:37for.

54:39All right, Commissioner Ray.

54:41>> All right. Thank you. I I wasn't going

54:42to make a comment, but since we since we

54:45we've had some objections. I just want

54:46to I want to make sure that I put this

54:48on the record. I too had some

54:50reservation about switching OI. I mean,

54:52I think that's just common sense. We

54:54don't, you know, once once we lose

54:55commercial property, uh you lose it for

54:58for a lifetime, at least in in our

54:59lifetime. So So that did bring me some

55:01hesitation. Um what what brought me back

55:04to the finish line of uh of a yes vote

55:07on this is thinking about the I88

55:10corridor study and what it specifically

55:13called for in that study. Um having

55:15additional housing units, maybe mixeduse

55:18units along the I the actual I88 uh

55:20corridor along De

55:24that area is much more valuable

55:26commercially than this property happens

55:28to be. It's kind of an offset property

55:31surrounded by uh housing, a forest

55:34preserve, and then there's not a lot of

55:37office uh beyond that down Warrenville.

55:40So, um thinking about it that way, I

55:43actually find this may be a huge

55:45complement to the I88 corridor study uh

55:48where we can use this property as uh the

55:51residential uh that they called for to

55:54support the businesses along the I88

55:56corridor. So, um, you know, for me, this

55:59this actually becomes an enhancement to

56:01the I8 quarter study because now maybe

56:04we don't have to look at I 888 and

56:06figure out where to put residential

56:07along the actual commercial property

56:09that I think is way more valuable than

56:11this, uh, particular property. So, um,

56:14that's what got me over the hump and I I

56:16will be supporting this project. Thank

56:18you.

56:19>> Well said, Commissioner Wright. And with

56:21that, I would like you to read the

56:23motion.

56:25Okay, let's see if I can get this right.

56:26We're going to make a few modifications

56:28here. Um, I would like to make a mo uh

56:31make a motion to adopt the finding of

56:33facts as presented by the petitioner and

56:36recommend approval of DEV 00-0042-206

56:43reszoning the subject property from ORI

56:45to R2 a conditional use for town homes

56:49in the R2 zoning district and variances.

56:53is

56:58this is the part I'm having problems

57:00with because we we want to approve the

57:02variances with the exception of the

57:04parkway trees. So we'll so we'll

57:10various to to to variances subject to

57:13the Neapville municipal code as outlined

57:16in staff report for the vacant land on

57:191960

57:21Lucent Lane subject to the following

57:23conditions. Can that be a following

57:25condition?

57:26>> Yep.

57:26>> Since it was actually Okay. So, you will

57:29continue to work with staff on the

57:31planning of the parkways trees and

57:33development uh uh in the development to

57:36uh comply with the code,

57:39attempt to apply with the code.

57:42You will continue to work with staff to

57:44improve buffering between the

57:47development and the Nokia building to

57:49the north. You will continue to work

57:51with staff to improve the buffering

57:54separation between the residential units

57:56and Warrenville and Neighborville Road.

57:59And you will continue to work with the

58:01forest preserve

58:03to address the comments outlined in the

58:06October 4th or October 5th, 2026

58:10uh letter replacing invasive plants on

58:12the landscape plan using and the use of

58:15the dark side compliance uh fixtures

58:18adhering to this. Nope.

58:22That's it. Compliance to the fixtures.

58:25Period.

58:27>> All right.

58:28>> Did we get that?

58:30>> Are we good?

58:31>> I think we got it. Yep.

58:32>> All right. Can I have a second?

58:34>> Second.

58:35>> Okay. Secretary Wright, please conduct

58:37roll call.

58:41>> Abu Baker, agree.

58:43>> Banzo,

58:44>> I agree with the motion.

58:46>> Castoli,

58:47>> I do not agree.

58:49Langenba

58:50>> agree with the motion.

58:52>> McDaniel,

58:52>> I do not agree.

58:55>> McGawan,

58:56>> I do not agree.

58:58>> Names,

58:59>> I agree.

59:01>> Robins,

59:02>> I agree.

59:03>> And right, I agree. Motion passes six to

59:07three.

59:08>> All right. Thank you. All right. Next is

59:11the approval of minutes of August 19th,

59:132026 planning and zoning commission

59:15meeting. Do we have any corrections to

59:17the minutes? I do not. I would like to

59:19entertain a motion to approve the

59:21minutes of August 19th, 2026 planning

59:23and zoning.

59:24>> So moved.

59:25>> All right. Can I have a second?

59:26>> Second.

59:27>> All in favor say I.

59:28>> I.

59:29>> Motion carries. There's no old new. I

59:31would like to entertain a motion to

59:33adjourn the meeting.

59:34>> So moved.

59:34>> Second.

59:35>> Second.

59:36>> All in favor say I. I.

59:37>> All right. Meeting adjourned.

59:40Good night.

```*