Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Hotel Sites Ad Hoc Work Group

Agenda Village of Glen Ellyn Roosevelt Rd/Taft Ave Hotel Site Ad Hoc Work Group Meeting Wednesday, August 3, 2022 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Police Department, Community Room Visitors are most welcome to attend all public meetings and can find copies of the Agenda online at www.glenellyn.org prior to the meeting. Any individual with a disability requiring reasonable accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the Village of Glen Ellyn ADA Coordinator, 630-469-5000, at least five (5) business days in advance of the next scheduled meeting. A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes 1) June 13, 2022 Ad Hoc Work Group Minutes 2) June 22, 2022 Hotel Site Design Charette Minutes with Report D. Presentation 1) Presentation of Hotel Site Design Charrette Report (Valerie Kretchmer, Consultant) 2) Discussion of Five Concepts Derived from Charrette Report (Valerie Kretchmer, Consultant) E. Work Group Discussion 1) Comments from Work Group Members F. Audience Participation 1) Open: Members of the public are welcome to speak to any item not specifically listed on tonight's agenda for up to (3) three minutes. For those items which are on tonight's agenda, the public will have the opportunity to comment at the time the item is discussed. In either case, please complete the Audience Participation form and turn it in to the Work Group. It is requested that, if possible, one spokesman for a group be appointed to present the views of the entire group. Speakers who are recognized are requested to step to a microphone and state their name, their topic and the group, if any, they are representing prior to addressing the Work Group. Individuals wishing to address the Work Group shall exercise proper decorum and respect for the proceedings and the business of the Work Group, and shall refrain from abusive demeanor and language. The practice of ceding time to other speakers shall be prohibited, except in the discretion of the presiding officer of the meeting. Public officials are not obligated to respond to questions. In lieu of participating in the live meeting, the public may also complete a public comment form, which will be read into the record during the meeting. This form can be found at www.glenellyn.org/publiccomment. Village of Glen Ellyn Page 1 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Hotel Site Ad Hoc Work Group Agenda August 3, 2022 Page 2 G. Other Business H. Adjourn Village of Glen Ellyn Page 2 of 44  Glen Ellyn Roosevelt Road/Taft Meeting 8/3/2022 7:00 PM Avenue Hotel Site Ad Hoc Work Department: Administration Group Department Head: Emily Rodman 535 Duane Street Category: Minutes Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Prepared By: Meredith Hannah AGENDA ITEM (ID # 2022-2487) DOC ID: 2022-2487 June 13, 2022 Ad Hoc Work Group Minutes Statement of the Issue: Analysis: Budget Impact: Action Requested: Attachments: 1. Minutes June 13 2022 Page 3 of 44  Minutes Village of Glen Ellyn Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Hotel Site Ad Hoc Work Group Thursday, June 13, 2022 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Police Department Community Room 65 S. Park Blvd., Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 A. Call to Order President Senak called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. B. Roll Call The following Ad Hoc Work Group members were present. President Senak Trustee Payne Donna Kemp Kevin McGrane Marty Durkin Norris Eber Vik Mehta Nick Nelson Clara Hughes Renie Atchison Katie Kreller Rachna Thakkar Dr. Emily Tammaru Rev. James Shannon Mark Pfefferman Village Staff noted in attendance, Village Manager Mark Franz, Assistant Village Manager Emily Rodman, Economic Development Coordinator Meredith Hannah, Police Chief Philip Norton and Village Attorney Greg Mathews. C. Approval of Minutes Member Shannon noted he was left off Roll Call for both meetings. Member Hughes made the motion to approve the minutes of both April 6, 2022 and May 5, 2022, with the addition of Rev. Shannon in attendance at both meetings. Member Durkin seconded the motion and the approved minutes passed. Page 4 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Ad Hoc Work Group June 13, 2022 Minutes Page 2 D. Audience Participation President Senak asked for audience participation after each presentation. E. Presentations Regarding Potential Commercial Options for the Property 1. CJ McCann: Real Estate Broker, resident of GE. Real estate developer and investor. A couple ideas for the site. First retail: maintain commercial and retail. Restaurant vs retail: restaurant is more plausible. Lack of frontage on Roosevelt Road, reduces retail opportunity. Lacks size and scalability of true retail. Will impact rent per sq ft. Restaurant makes a lot of sense. Community likes restaurant. Restaurants are truly thriving as a market. 10-20k sq ft dining opportunity, i.e. Cooper’s Hawk & Maggiano’s. Village would need to court and pitch a suiter. Second, Multi-family, housing, mixed use development: Townhouses: not a viable solution, 2.2-acre site only allow 8-10 units per acre, doesn’t provide the pricing that would need to be met. Not the highest and best use. Mixed-use development: would be the best use of the space with an anchor restaurant and micro-unit apartments. Studios and 1-bedroom apartments, with high end finishes and higher end amenities. Create a semi-inclusive environment. Does not put the stress on the schools. Would accomplish something with significant demand. Greater tax revenue source. Provide the community with restaurant and housing. Virtually zero negative impact on schools. President Senak asked for comments and questions from the Work Group members. Member Rev. Shannon asked if affordable housing is an opportunity on the site. McCann explained the concept checks some of the boxes, not all. Units are smaller than average affordable housing opportunities. Have not explored density, Member McGrane noted the housing product fits affordable because they are small but would still be luxury. Limited children. Do you see young professionals living here? McCann answered yes, and empty nesters. Naperville has some college students living in the similar units. Member McGrane asked about the anchor restaurant that could locate here. Do you need a certain number of units to entice a restaurant? McCann answered no not here specifically, it would be a value add. Not essential. Page 5 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Ad Hoc Work Group June 13, 2022 Minutes Page 3 Member McGrane asked depending on housing units, would entrance/exit just be on Roosevelt or Taft? How would it park? McCann answered he thought they would still utilize Exmore a little bit. Parking could be underground or podium parking. Member McGrane asked if there was a minimum number of units for a developer to proceed? McCann answered not precisely but developers will want more rather than less. Depending on cost and making the project economical. Member Thakkar commented she had no additional questions. Member Kemp asked would it be affordable housing for seniors? McCann answered it would differ from other communities. While it would be affordable, it would not be section 8. Member Durkin asked would restaurant face Roosevelt? McCann answered the bigger the better. Maybe two stories, facing Roosevelt. Maybe a balcony overlooking the park. Exposure to Roosevelt for sure. Member Durkin asked where would the residential be? Off Roosevelt? McCann answered on top and both ways on Exmore. 4-5 stories, podium parking to maximize the number of units. Studios 400 sq ft. Member Durkin asked how many units can go on 2.2 acres? McCann answered 100 units would be the goal. Ogden project in Naperville has 120 units on 2 acres. Would need to come in under 100 with restaurant. Member Durkin asked what the cost per square foot for the micro-apartments with high end finishes. McCann answered north of $200/sq. ft. Member Norris asked if McCann’s interactions with other brokers, led him to this concept or how are the other brokers looking? McCann answered concepts are driven from specifically looking at this parcel, and 80% of the site is off Roosevelt, that changes the dynamics for the site compared to other Roosevelt Road sites. Member Norris commented that if the Roosevelt Road side of the site is retail, some other commercial uses could face Taft rather than housing. Service businesses, self- storage could work on Taft providing alternate retail. Page 6 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Ad Hoc Work Group June 13, 2022 Minutes Page 4 McCann answered other solutions can work but won’t create the same tax revenue to have alternate retail. Member Norris noted if micro apartments are affordable, then taxes would be less. Not actually affordable. McCann stated when affordable can be based on price per square foot it checks those boxes. Member Norris asked but there are alternative uses for Taft. McCann answered yes. Member Nelson asked what McCann thinks of residential at this site with the neighbors on Roosevelt Rd. McCann answered that he hasn’t done a market study. Compared to the Naperville project, generally would be shocked if it wasn’t a demanded asset. Access to 355, commuter convenience. There is an overwhelming need for inventory like this. Member Nelson asked what type of turnover do you see in this type of building? McCann answered typically a 12-month lease, average turnover is 2-3 years. Member Nelson asked about the concept for one cornerstone commercial – could two fit? McCann answered it’s possible, but one big, beautiful restaurant is the vision. Member Nelson asked if McCann encountered any demand for childcare facility? McCann answered the site would make good sense for childcare facility on the Taft side. It is on the short list of viable options. Member Nelson asked if a developer was given a mandate to provide a certain amount of affordable housing on different type of measurement, would that deter the developer? McCann stated no, not to a developer. There may be other push back. Member Atchison stated this is not affordable housing, it’s small housing. What are the rents? McCann replied for a 433 sq ft unit, rents would be in the $1,200-1,400. Member Atchison asked if there is a demand for these units? McCann noted both Naperville and North Aurora were fully leased upon completion. Page 7 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Ad Hoc Work Group June 13, 2022 Minutes Page 5 Member Atchison stated so it’s not really affordable housing like we’ve been discussing. Member Shannon asked does it make a difference on financing? McCann stated yes. Member Atchison noted it’s important to note that they are professionals. If you have supportive, work force housing, it will not detract from any commercial or developer. Things have changed and these properties are upscale and are really nice. Like high end assisted living. She noted she likes one big restaurant with the concept. McCann said the concept checks a lot of boxes; we’ll never check all the boxes. Member Hughes questioned McCann’s reference to high quality tenants with high end income. Do you think that those tenants paying less income would not have disposable income? McCann replied no. Member Hughes asked if the micro-apartments could be a lower rate. McCann replied no, not for a developer who is for profit. Member Hughes stated you are speaking for for-profit developers not those that are subsidized. McCann stated this wouldn’t be on the luxury spectrum but on the higher end. Member Hughes about the size and storage for the micro-apartment units. McCann stated the apartments could be a mix of 400 sq ft studio and 600 sq ft one- bedroom. They would have storage and in-unit washer/dryers. Member Hughes asked about if Naperville micro-apartments would take vouchers and McCann stated they are still in for approvals. Member Pfefferman asked if larger apartment units would work at the site. McCann stated that in his opinion, it’s more challenging to get the same price points as town center. Upside to being close to Roosevelt Rd and 355. There is value on commuter size. If they can afford more, they are more likely to choose an Apex apartment over Roosevelt Rd. Member McGrane asked if there are any of these properties that have been around for a while. There is concern, the hotel was nice at one point, how do we protect it in aging. Page 8 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Ad Hoc Work Group June 13, 2022 Minutes Page 6 McCann shared protecting a development project in 20-30 years is dependent on outside factors, ownership groups determine investment on-going. As a whole there is a reason they are invested in they are looked at as 30-40 year investment. Asset is very safe if it is maintained. Member Shannon thanked McCann for putting the responsibility on property owners not tenants. Trustee Payne said his questions were already raised and discussed. President Senak noted that in the concept McCann shared, the restaurant would be facing Roosevelt Road and apartments would be on Taft. Manager Franz noted that there is significant infrastructure under Exmore Avenue so an easement will be needed in any development on the site. President Senak asked if sections of the site could be segmented off. McCann said yes. President Senak asked what the Village could do to incentivize development at this site. McCann indicated a decisive decision-making process. He does not see a large need for financial incentives unless trying to reduce rates for rents. President Senak asked how the zoning helps or hinders the development. McCann answered it doesn’t hurt it. any project will need to go through the zoning process for approvals. Member Norris stated your presentation seems to be 25% commercial and 75% residential. McCann said yes, it is, for the highest and best use this is what I think can work. There are no exact best uses. An argument could be made for any use. Member Atchison asked if McCann had any developers express interest in the property. McCann stated his group is interested. His firm approached the previous owners in 2018, but they have not approached the Village since the Village purchased the site. President Senak asked for comments and questions from the public. Priscilla Katchera: we need to decide affordable or another word to market the site. Bob Loro: have you considered higher buildings? McCann answered yes, the higher the better. Assistant Village Manager stated the R4 Zoning has a 35 ft. height limit; any higher request would need a variance. Page 9 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Ad Hoc Work Group June 13, 2022 Minutes Page 7 Member of the Audience asked if the micro use be better for downtown by metra? McCann replied, not sure it would be better or worse, but downtown is not the purpose of this meeting. Chuck Chejfec asked McCann if he contacted the Village about pursuing the property for developing the site. McCann replied that he had spoken to the village about the site generally but have not pursued the site personally at this time. Chejfec interjected that he believed that to not be true and asked to read an email into the record. President Senak declined that request and told him he would take the letter and look into the matter. Member Nelson commented that he spoke to McCann about this site months ago long before the work group was created and he finds Mr. McCann to be an upstanding and ethical individual. 2. Rick Massa: Real Estate Broker with American Realty Advisors. Presentation on commercial developments, selling real estate and ground up developments. Open for questions about development. Massa commented that McCann’s presentation and the market analysis were spot on. The community and the Village may set parameters but there are a lot of market conditions that will drive the uses for the site. Affordable and senior housing work for the site. Retail works, medical office is a good use for the site. Storage units could be use, doesn’t have to be industrial looking. Roosevelt Road lends itself to a single retail use whether it’s a restaurant or retail. Two sites, village could look at ways to vacate utilities, could make the site more attractive. From a developer standpoint, look at for long term viability. Housing has a lot of amenities with grocery and the park. Challenge is Roosevelt Road isn’t overall pedestrian friendly. Would be a drawback for a developer. Office and larger box retail are very challenging today, probably won’t find a developer for that. Residential on the Taft side could work. President Senak asked what types of trends are you seeing in development world. Massa commented that a lot of retail are to e-commerce, even pre-pandemic so that is not going away. Large box retail not happening, restaurants are a good option. Office is not an option unless you have a tenant in tow. Industrial is a hot trend, this is not an industrial site. Could be shallow bay industrial, smaller industrial with office. Self-storage is very attractive to developers. Housing, work-force housing, his group is currently working on raising capital for work-force housing projects. Any affordable housing would need financial assistance. Member Hughes asked if developers are interested in affordable housing. Massa commented no developer is nonprofit. They will get grants to make their return. Page 10 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Ad Hoc Work Group June 13, 2022 Minutes Page 8 Member Hughes asked does your organization provide financing for non-profit developers. Massa responded no. Member Hughes stated so you are not familiar with this? Massa stated his firm does do affordable housing projects. Member Shannon noted in Illinois, TIF can reduce the cost of developing, this is in a TIF, would you take advantage of that? Massa responded that any affordable development the Village can expect to contribute a sizable incentive. Member Nelson asked about demand for childcare on Taft. Massa responded that it is a large site for single childcare facility, could be feasible. Childcare don’t pay high rent, so they would need incentive. Member Nelson asked if medical office could work here. Massa commented yes, that could potentially work on the entire site, more so on the back side. Maybe traditional building with medical tenants. Member Atchison commented that the hotels were for sale for 8 years, up to $4M, the Village bought them for $2.8M, what’s your professional opinion on why they didn’t sell before? Massa responded that a lot of it was marketing, don’t know how it was marketed. Finding someone to market it for you and hustle. Member Atchison asked could we list and sell it for our money’s worth? Massa stated that it is hard to answer. As a resident we wonder why it won’t sell. It takes time to make the economics work and make a profit. I think making a better marketing plan to demolish the buildings. Member Atchison asked if the Village should demolish the buildings and if that would make the site more attractive to a developer. Massa commented that yes, with the passage of time the buildings will continue to deteriorate. They’re not salvage and will have to be demolished. Member Atchison asked if the Village should invest another million and demolish the buildings. Massa replied that he would, it makes the site more attractive to a developer and diminishes the Village’s risk with the buildings. Accelerates the redevelopment process. Member Atchison asked, if we don’t take them down and keep them on the market, will we have diminished our opportunity to make the money back. Massa commented maybe. It depends on the ultimate use. Member Norris asked that as a developer, if there is 1.5 acres, is this really quality residential living or should we be looking at commercial on Taft. Massa commented commercial, alternative commercial is viable. Member Norris further asked is this site really prime residential? Massa commented it’s not perfect, but Taft is better than Roosevelt Road. Across from the park gives it appeal and the amenities help. But some of the other uses limit the developer appeal. It couldn’t work on Roosevelt Road but could work here. Affordable, senior, maybe. Less concerned about Taft. Page 11 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Ad Hoc Work Group June 13, 2022 Minutes Page 9 President Senak asked for Massa’s opinion on whether the Village should put up a for sale sign or wait and do an RFP process. Massa commented that those are the two most viable options. It can take a long time for the Village to go through the RFP process. Finding a good broker who will work hard for the Village and market the site for what is allowed and what the community will support may provide more results. President Senak asked how long should we give a broker to sell the site? Massa commented that’s a hard question to answer. Any of these sites take a long time to sell. If you have a broker packaged and ready to go. At least 12 months. Trustee Payne asked if we have an in between for an RFP, do we have to decide on one or the other for developer? Massa commented that it doesn’t need to be exclusive. You could go down mutual paths. The RFPs you’re not getting the greatest marketability for the site. Dual path could work. Member Norris stated between an RFQ/RFP’s, RFQ’s less commitment and risk for the developer. Only 2.2 acres makes it a challenge too, not enough meat. Massa responded yes, it’s a small site. But RFP or RFQ, hitting the most developers as possible. May see developers who don’t want to waste time. President Senak asked what can the Village do to incentivize a developer? Massa stated making the site as marketable as possible does make it easier. Look at demolishing the site and examining utilities and how they could be relocated or easement. Having a clear and concise message as to what would be permitted and approved. Here’s what’s allowed by zoning and here is the process for zoning changes. Member Kemp asked what is allowed in the zoning? Manager Franz commented that multi-use would need a PUD, the Village would negotiate with the developer to make the project feasible. Member Kemp continued, so if there is restaurant and beer garden and then to the left community center? Massa commented sure that could be an option, retail is a lot easier than community center. Member Kemp clarified she was thinking of a privately owned community center, like Carol Stream’s, Kids Strong. Massa commented that the question would be how a developer makes money on the parcel. It may be difficult to find a developer to do both. Member Durkin commented, I’m hearing, demolish the buildings and keep an open mind. Massa said yes, provide some guidance of what will be allowed. Too many strings attached the site loses its attractiveness and becomes harder to find a developer. President Senak asked for comments and questions from the public. Page 12 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Ad Hoc Work Group June 13, 2022 Minutes Page 10 Kim Reedy asked where are you working on workforce housing. Massa commented that is firm is partnering with someone for a larger community. Ryan Dodd commented that he heard it costs $1M for full demolition? Is there a different cost? Manager Franz shared that there has been a preliminary assessment, to raise the entire site. Resident asked about the possibility of another motel being built and bringing the same challenges? Someone commented a hotel could be an option, but a lot of it has to do with the ownership to continue to make investments in the property, then you should not have those problems. Member Nelson asked what the marketability of hotels/motels in the suburbs? Massa commented he has out of town guests stay at Crowne Plaza. This site doesn’t have visibility. But he can’t specifically speak to that option. F. Discussion of Vehicular & Pedestrian Traffic Near the Property (Police Chief Phil Norton) Chief Phil Norton shared the recent traffic study. Noted that traffic is all relative to the use and a full traffic study would need to be conducted looking at specific uses. A traffic study would have professional traffic engineers evaluate the use and traffic relative to the site. There was a spike in 2019 in accidents from previous years. Accident rates across our community and across the nation increased during COVID. Roosevelt Road has 33,000 vehicles per day and Park Boulevard has 7,800 vehicles per day. Chief Norton then shared the following five year accident study for various intersections near the site: Roosevelt Road / Exmore Avenue - 6 Incidents total 2017 (0) 2018 (0) 2019 (0) 2020 (1) 1 PDO Incident 2021 (5) 2 PDO Incidents, 2 Personal Injury Incidents, 1 Hit & Run Taft Avenue / Exmore Avenue - 0 Incidents total 2017 (0) 2018 (0) 2019 (0) 2020 (0) 2021 (0) Page 13 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Ad Hoc Work Group June 13, 2022 Minutes Page 11 Taft Avenue / Park Boulevard - 20 Incidents total 2017 (3) 3 PDO Incidents 2018 (0) 2019 (4) 2 Unknown Incidents, 1 Private Property Incident, 1 Extraction 2020 (3) 3 PDO Incidents 2021 (10) 8 PDO Incidents, 2 Personal Injury Incidents Roosevelt Road / Park Boulevard - 107 Incidents total 2017 (7) 5 PDO Incidents, 2 Personal Injury Incidents 2018 (8) 7 PDO Incidents, 1 Hit & Run 2019 (24) 7 PDO Incidents, 3 Hit & Run, 1 Private Property Incident, 2 Personal Injury Incidents, 3 Unknown Injury Incidents, 8 Unknown Incidents 2020 (31) 17 PDO Incidents, 3 Delayed Hit & Run Incidents, 1 Unknown Incident, 4 Personal Injury Incidents, 2 Private Property Incidents, 1 Hit & Run PDO, 1 Unknown Injury Incident 2021 (27) 19 PDO Incidents, 5 Personal Injury Incidents, 2 Unknown Injury Incidents, 1 Minor Injury Incident Chief Norton noted there is nothing inherently dangerous about the site. Taft is safer than Roosevelt based on general traffic. Lambert and Taft was a multi-year project to reduce incidents. Major accidents are along RR at traffic lights. Crime at the hotel was basically generated by domestic incidents and then drugs. Member Shannon asked why cars coming out of Taft onto Park allowed to make a left turn. Chief Norton responded that depending on usage of the site, may determine whether left turns would be prohibited. Trustee Payne asked if we have a facility on the northside of the site that we’d like to leverage the park, could an on demand crossing signage could that help? Chief Norton responded that it could cause accidents, because it interrupts the known traffic patterns. On demand would be better than a stop sign mid block because it is not stopping all traffic just as needed. Member Norris asked if we put residential on Taft and speed limit is 35 mph. Should speed limit be reduced to 25? Restrict 40 footers? Chief Norton responded that all traffic laws exist to reduce or eliminate traffic crashes. It depends on type of residential. Will need to evaluate traffic flow and then decide. Page 14 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Ad Hoc Work Group June 13, 2022 Minutes Page 12 Member Atchison asked if we have affordable housing, including a mix of workforce, supportive, seniors, etc. Do you see this site as being dangerous? Not traffic that doesn’t seem to be an issue. How do you see it? A negative? Chief Norton responded it’s dependent on what the development looks like. Inherently it’s not a dangerous site for that but are there better areas for this in Glen Ellyn, yes. Depends on the design of the site for safety. Member Nelson asked do you have an idea of an over dense use on this site? Chief Norton responded no; it will depend on the usage. Housing with folks who can’t drive, could increase density, lower density if more cars. Member McGrane commented that on both Roosevelt Road and Park Boulevard there are people traveling from lots of directions. Also inquired about why the Village allows panhandling. Chief Norton responded that panhandling is allowed under freedom of speech. Trustee Payne commented that there is a degree of affordable housing across the village. What do the crime numbers look like for existing housing? Chief Norton responded that it comes down to density. Single family housing fundamentally has less calls. 400 Main St, statistics will show that more calls because it’s denser. A lot of the frequency are not necessarily high crime, usually calls are for noise, loud music complaints. We were always at the hotel, but it was the most transient community. President Senak recognized Terra Costa Howard in the meeting and opened the floor to questions from the public for Chief Norton. Member of the public commented that a neighbor was hit and killed nearby about 8 years ago. Was there a pedestrian hit on Tuesday during the day? Chief Norton said he didn’t believe so. G. Discussion of Design Charette Process and Schedule (Valerie Kretchmer, Consultant) Valerie Krechmer explained the process for the charrette. The meeting will be held on June 22 at 7 pm at Glen Crest Middle School with approximately 30 people. There will be a short presentation and then break out to groups to work with different uses cut to sizes to layout different uses on the site. Designs will be recorded and shared with the public. Member McGrane asked if all trustees are invited. Manager Franz answered yes, all have been invited and one has a conflict. Page 15 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Ad Hoc Work Group June 13, 2022 Minutes Page 13 Member Norris asked how will groups be determined? Seems there will be conflicts. Kretchmer commented that the groups will be chosen at random, and the consultants will outline the parameters for the groups. President Senak opened the floor to questions from the public. Julie Evans asked how the information from the charrette will be shared. Kretchmer explained that the consultants will record all the information gathered from the groups and that the concepts will be shared on-line for comments as well as shared with the plan commission and Village Board. Kim Reed asked if the Ad Hoc Work Group is done with their job after the charrette? President Senak responded that there will be one more meeting with the Ad Hoc group to share their opinions. Trustee Payne added that they will be asking the Ad Hoc members to write up their opinions after the process is over. A member of the public asked what the cost of the process to quantify the output of the charrette. President Senak said the Board will consider the proposals after the charrette and that financial assessments will be done before any decisions are made on moving forward. H. Presentation Regarding Affordable Housing (John Day) John Day, a resident of Glen Ellyn and has 25 years’ experience in affordable housing. He contacted President Senak and offered to share some information. Mr. Day shared a brief presentation on housing. Member Nelson commented that the numbers shared in the presentation didn’t seem to reflect correct tax impact. What do you think an appropriate level of affordable housing for Glen Ellyn would be? Day responded that it depends on the parameters, what is the need? Member McGrane noted whatever decisions the Village makes; stipulations need to be made to maintain the housing type for long-term. Day concurred stating they could make stipulations so long as you are not breaking any fair housing statutes. Member Norris commented that in ten years it’s a tax credit, it’s very marketable to flip, true? How many times can it be sold in ten years? Sell the entity and the tax credit continues on. Day concurred that a new tax basis starts with each sale. I. Audience Participation Page 16 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Ad Hoc Work Group June 13, 2022 Minutes Page 14 Karen Daley, vice president for the League of Women Voters have held our affordable housing position since 1984. We advocate for increasing affordable housing in Glen Ellyn. Mixed use provides housing and commercial options. Holding these meetings are commendable. Pete Ladesic, thank you John for the definitions. There are a lot of definitions being used for housing and clarifying those and providing those on the website. (it was noted that the definitions are available on the website) The property is zoned commercial and we should use this for the highest and best use for the site so we don’t take away core retail. Asked for more civil discord with these discussions. Supports demolishing the site soon to prepare the site for redevelopment and for safety. David Firchau, heard a lot about housing this evening rather than commercial. Has heard from a lot of people over the years that this site has been cited for residential low income housing for years. Chick-fil-A, swimming pool and day care could all work on this site or Northwestern Medicine. Would like to see improvements in Panfish Park. Ryan Dodd is interested in micro-apartments and their financial sustainability. Joel Spenadel provided a written statement, a resident of Mary Knoll. His son with Downs Syndrome has benefitted from the many services offered through the Glen Ellyn community. He could benefit from housing assistance. Limited charitable assistance housing programs available in DuPage County. Donna Jean Simone lives in Raintree and a small business owner. Her concern is we are not taking into account the young professionals who can’t afford to live in our community. Average income for recent college graduates is $43,000 annually. The report shared at the beginning of this work that we didn’t have residents in this age range. An opportunity for all who want to live and contribute in Glen Ellyn. Mark Wilson could be medical office all along Taft. You are limited by who you can rent to. Commercial office building could bring in more tax dollars. Traffic would be challenging for a restaurant. We don’t need affordable housing, we’ve done our part with 14% affordable housing. Does not support affordable housing. Patrick VanTiem concerned about traffic issues and real estate revenue issues that affect D89. It is a Glen Ellyn issue, but it is a southside issue. Consider the US Bank site for affordable housing. From 2013-2021, taxes went up $1,600; 87% of that is D89. D89 wants to issue new bonds, so our taxes could go down but won’t go down as much if the referendum is passed. Park District has a referendum for park Page 17 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Ad Hoc Work Group June 13, 2022 Minutes Page 15 improvements. Being asked to give more and more money. I’m not discounting anyone’s needs, but Glen Ellyn is above the target for affordable housing. Look at the highest and best use for the tax payers of Glen Ellyn, and the southside. Keith Lavin looking at where he can retire, and it won’t be in Glen Ellyn. Commend everyone who is participating on the committee. Village seems to pack in development. He and is neighbors feel like a decision has already been made for the site. Carlos Chivardi there are a lot of neighbors are interested in this site. It is not that affordable housing isn’t needed but is this the right place to have affordable housing. Appreciate hearing from commercial developers, listening to all concerns. What can we do to spark growth across the area, the commercial corridor? If it is going to be rezoned to residential, a cost benefit analysis should be done. Not the right site for affordable housing. 2012-2018, students grew 17%, then 2018-now students grew only 3%. Proportionately 23% of students are low income in D89 today. Should not keep stressing schools by overcrowding schools. Property taxes from commercial properties would benefit the community here at this site rather than residential. Should be focused on best commercial properties. Michael Chung, a resident for the past 6 years with his young family. Supportive of affordable housing, but not in this location. Cited the many comments presented already. Cost is too high and not the right location. The Board should listen to the residents in the area. Affordable housing is needed in the community, not in this location. J. Other Business One more meeting for discussion among the work group. Date to be announced. K. Adjourn Member Durkin motioned to adjourn; Member Norris seconded. Meeting adjourned at 11:12 pm. Page 18 of 44  Glen Ellyn Roosevelt Road/Taft Meeting 8/3/2022 7:00 PM Avenue Hotel Site Ad Hoc Work Department: Administration Group Department Head: Emily Rodman 535 Duane Street Category: Minutes Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Prepared By: Meredith Hannah AGENDA ITEM (ID # 2022-2488) DOC ID: 2022-2488 June 22, 2022 Hotel Site Design Charette Minutes with Report Statement of the Issue: Analysis: Budget Impact: Action Requested: Attachments: 1. Minutes June 22 2022 Page 19 of 44  Minutes Village of Glen Ellyn Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Hotel Site Charrette Wednesday, June 22, 2022 7:00 PM Spartan Hall, Glen Crest Middle School 725 Sheehan Ave., Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 A. Call to Order President Senak called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. The following Village Board Trustees, Ad Hoc Work Group members and Commissioners were present. President Senak Trustee Payne Trustee Kalinich Trustee Christiansen Trustee Fasules Trustee Thompson Ad Hoc Work Group Member Donna Kemp Ad Hoc Work Group Member Kevin McGrane Ad Hoc Work Group Member Marty Durkin Ad Hoc Work Group Member Norris Eber Ad Hoc Work Group Member Vik Mehta Ad Hoc Work Group Member Nick Nelson Ad Hoc Work Group Member Clara Hughes Ad Hoc Work Group Member Renie Atchison Ad Hoc Work Group Member Rachna Thakkar Ad Hoc Work Group Member Dr. Emily Tammaru Plan Commission Chairperson Tim Loftus Capital Improvement Commission Chairperson Steve Szymanski Environmental Commission Chairperson Christy Truitt Village Staff in attendance, Village Manager Mark Franz, Assistant Village Manager Emily Rodman, Economic Development Coordinator Meredith Hannah, Police Chief Philip Norton, Village Attorney Greg Mathews, Finance Director Larry Noller, Public Works Director Dave Buckley, Planner Atrin Khodadadi Fard, and Associate Planner Taylor Gendel. Page 20 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Charrette June 22, 2022 Minutes Page 2 B. Introductions & Welcome President Senak welcomed the participants and public to the meeting. C. Review of Process and Timeline Kon Savoy reviewed the process and timeline for redeveloping the site. D. Summary of Market Study Key Findings Valerie Kretchmer reviewed the findings of the market study and viable uses for the site. E. Review of Site Constraints Kon Savoy reviewed the site location, size, utilities, easements, and current zoning. F. Overview of Engagement Exercise Kon Savoy reviewed the materials for the charrette exercise and resources at the tables disposal as they worked. G. Small Group Work See attached reports for the table concepts and notes. Glen Ellyn Hotel Site Design Charrette Report H. Audience Participation Brian Milnamow shared concerns from neighbors about increasing not reducing tax burden, any development opportunity we want it to create revenue; concerns about added impact to the schools; concern about losing an opportunity to add a value- added space, concerns about being disenfranchised to the greater Glen Ellyn community. In support of mixed-use micro-unit development as presented at the last meeting. The process of this group has gone a long way in reducing the perception of inequitably. Still a lot to do but has been impressed by the progress and so many people invested in the process. Patrick VanTiem a resident. It’s a tax issue, taxes have gone up and school district taxes are a lot them. Looking for something that will maximize the tax revenue that will help D89 and residents. A lot of issues have been raised, but not addressing taxes. We need to push to help with the tax burden. Ryan Dodd a resident. Very interested in the charrette process, heard from a lot of folks that the decisions have already been made. Was pleasantly surprised with the Page 21 of 44 Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Charrette June 22, 2022 Minutes Page 3 process. Concerns about housing adding to the tax burden. Was pleased to see other commercial uses proposed for the site. David Firchau was very happy with the charrette process. Julie Evans a parent of person with disability. Advocate for individuals with disability. Complimented the leaders on listening to residents and for learning more about their advocacy. Will continue to advocate and work together to keep people here in Glen Ellyn. Carlos Civardi not opposed to affordable housing but not the best use for this site. It is a commercial property. The discussion should be about smart growth for the whole region. There is a need for affordable housing but let’s look for the best site in Glen Ellyn. Thank the Trustees for being open minded and for their efforts. Derek Anderson, thanks everyone for the work. Would like to see a standalone sports book, could make a lot of money. Not everyone goes there at the same time. It’s a wild idea but something he had in mind. Jan a resident for 51 years, came to learn and listen. Jeff Jordan just came to see everyone was doing their job. Redevelopment needs to be coordinated with other sites on Roosevelt Road. Safety at Park and Roosevelt is so busy, so expressed concerns about safety. How would residents here get over to the food pantry or Trader Joe’s across Roosevelt Road. I. Closing Remarks President Senak thanked the group for their work and the audience for their remarks. The discussion of affordable housing will continue beyond this site. Manger Franz added that the Village Board hired a consultant to conduct a housing study. One more meeting will be scheduled for the Ad Hoc Work Group to share their individual thoughts on the project and process. J. Adjourn Trustee Thompson motioned to adjourn; Kelly Kalinich seconded. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm. Page 22 of 44  Glen Ellyn Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Meeting 8/3/2022 7:00 PM Hotel Site Ad Hoc Work Group Department: Administration 535 Duane Street Department Head: Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Proclamation Prepared By: AGENDA ITEM (ID # 2022-2489) DOC ID: 2022-2489 Presentation of Hotel Site Design Charrette Report (Valerie Kretchmer, Consultant) Statement of the Issue: Analysis: Budget Impact: Action Requested: Attachments: 1. Charrette Summary Report Page 23 of 44 Glen Ellyn Hotel Site Design Charette June 22, 2022 Page 24 of 44 2 Charette Results Process Participants Community stakeholders participated in a 2 hour • Approximately 30 community interactive workshop, that provided both staff and stakeholders community leaders the opportunity to work • Approximately 10 community together in an informal setting to explore different observers development scenarios for the hotel • 5 Table Groups redevelopment area. Participants worked together to formulate various development scenarios using prototypical building types representing potential land uses (commercial, residential) that would be suited for the size and dimensions of this site based on a market study. The results summarized below do not represent all possible options and are not intended to a final determination on the appropriate land uses. Page 25 of 44 3 Charette Results Development Scenarios • 27 total development scenarios created by participants, including contributions from one member of the working group not present at the charette. • 12 (45%) of the 27 development scenarios include some type of multiple-family residential either as affordable or supportive housing. Housing types included 2-6 story buildings. • 25 (93%) of the 27 development scenarios place some form of commercial (retail building, fast food or larger high quality sit-down restaurant on Roosevelt Road. One scenario included a mixed-use building (commercial on first floor and residential above) on the entire site. • All of the housing scenarios place residential on Taft Avenue frontage, with 2 scenarios placing housing on the entire site. • 23 of the 27 scenarios included keeping Exmoor open for traffic, with a few using it for commercial parking. • 23 of 27 scenarios included providing ½ acre to the animal hospital for expansion of their parking. A few scenarios contemplated that this parking area could be shared with other uses. Page 26 of 44 4 Charette Results Development Scenarios • One proposal provided for the closing of certain portions of Taft Avenue and Exmoor to reduce through traffic. Page 27 of 44 5 Charette Results Development Scenarios Taft Avenue – Use Summary • Uses proposed for the Taft Avenue frontage included primarily non-commercial uses, including: • Pet grooming • Office (including medical service commercial uses – dentist, etc.) • Library or recreational use • Day Care • Additional parking to support other uses • 4 story mixed-use building (first floor commercial with residential above) • Food Hall • Commercial children's center/play space • Supportive housing (IDD and Senior) • Green space and recreational uses; bandshell • Recycling center • Medical uses • Relocation of fire station Page 28 of 44 6 Charette Results Development Scenarios Taft Avenue – Use Summary • Uses proposed for the Taft Avenue frontage included primarily non-commercial uses, including: • Garden nursery with ancillary retail • Public Services (combined kindergarten building for school districts; recreational center; community pool/amphitheater; • Senior center • Micro-apartments Page 29 of 44 7 Charette Results Development Scenarios Roosevelt Road – Use Summary • Uses proposed for the Roosevelt Road frontage included primarily commercial uses, including: • Fast Food restaurant with drive thru service • 4 story mixed-use building (retail on first floor with residential above. This option include Taft Ave) • Full service restaurant (associated parking and beer garden provided along Taft Ave.) • Bakery • Supportive housing • Small retail building • College of DuPage hospitality housing • Garden nursery Page 30 of 44  8 Charette Results Development Scenarios – Table Group Results • 27 total development scenarios were created by 5 table groups. Notes of all of the scenarios were provided by a recorder at each table, and most tables Parking provided photo images. The images are provided in the following pages. Retail/ Medical for Animal Restaurant Office Hospital Housing Page 31 of 44  9 Charette Results Development Scenarios – Table Group Results All Retail Housing/ Center various types Page 32 of 44  10 Charette Results Development Scenarios – Table Group Results Parking Medical Housing Retail Office Store Page 33 of 44 11 Charette Results Development Scenarios – Table Group Results Housing Page 34 of 44 12 Charette Results Development Scenarios – Table Group Results Retail/Drive- thru Page 35 of 44 13 Charette Results Development Scenarios – Table Group Results Page 36 of 44 14 Charette Results Development Scenarios – Other Concepts Page 37 of 44 15 Charette Results Development Scenarios – Other Concepts Page 38 of 44  Glen Ellyn Roosevelt Road/Taft Avenue Meeting 8/3/2022 7:00 PM Hotel Site Ad Hoc Work Group Department: Administration 535 Duane Street Department Head: Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Discussion Item Prepared By: AGENDA ITEM (ID # 2022-2490) DOC ID: 2022-2490 Discussion of Five Concepts Derived from Charrette Report (Valerie Kretchmer, Consultant) Statement of the Issue: Analysis: Budget Impact: Action Requested: Attachments: 1. Charrette Summary of Alternative Concept Designs Page 39 of 44 Option #1: All Commercial with Animal Hospital Parking Retail/ Fast Food Service Service Parking Commercial/ Commercial/Office Office Page 40 of 44 Option #2: Retail and Housing with no Animal Hospital Parking Retail/ Fast Food Housing Housing Page 41 of 44 Option #3: Retail and Housing with Animal Hospital Parking Retail/ Fast Food Housing Housing Parking Page 42 of 44 Option #4: All Retail/Commercial with Animal Hospital Parking Commercial Retail Restaurant/Beer Parking Service Garden Page 43 of 44 Option #5: All Housing with no Animal Hospital Parking Housing Housing Page 44 of 44