Village of Lombard Legistar System

President Mueller stated that he will present the proclamation to the Toastmasters at

their banquet Saturday night. He further stated that 300 members from their

organization, which encompasses the City of Chicago and counties of Cook, Lake,

McHenry and DuPage, will be meeting Friday and Saturday at the Westin Hotel.

Trustee Tross announced that President Mueller will be receiving an award from the

Toastmasters and asked him to explain it. President Mueller said that he will be

receiving an award for Communication and Leadership and that past recipients of this

award were Harry Porterfield, Mike Ditka and Bill Curtis. He stated that he looks forward

to representing the Village of Lombard and that he will be accepting the award on behalf

of the Village Board and staff for everything they have accomplished. Trustee Tross

further stated that President Mueller will be receiving the award for all of his

contributions to the Village and many other organizations.

President Mueller asked if there were any comments from the public and stated that

comments on Item PC 07-37 would be held until Items for Separate Action later in the

agenda.

Trustee Fitzpatrick stated that the committee held a special meeting October 29, 2007 in

which members of the Xilin Association Senior Housing Initiative gave a brief

presentation and answered questions regarding the proposed project. They did not

have a quorum but still held the question and answer session. She reported that

according to the U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder, there are 4600 senior

citizens over the age of 65 living in Lombard. The senior low income housing proposal

will address the needs in Lombard and DuPage County to provide homes for seniors

who can no longer afford to live in a single family home in the area and would like to

remain as part of the Lombard community. She felt it is important in community

relations for the Village to address the concerns of the residents of Oak View Estates

and some of the promises made to these residents by the current developer. Some of

those concerns would be addressed by the amendment of adding 11 new parking

spaces.

Trustee Fitzpatrick stated that she received a letter of resignation from Sandra Hill

whose responsibility as District 44 School Board President has left her with very little

time for other meetings and said that she will be missed.

She explained that this meeting was considered the November meeting and that the

next meeting will be January 21, 2008.

Mr. Lichter reported that tonight was the last Village Board Meeting for Public Works

director Wes Anderson, who has taken the position of Public Works Director in

Greenville, North Carolina. He thanked Mr. Anderson for his three years of service to

the Village of Lombard and his excellent contributions, especially managing the recent

August storm cleanup. President Mueller introduced Assistant Public Works Director

Dave Gorman, who will become Acting Public Works Director when Mr. Anderson

leaves.

Trustee Moreau stated that she would like clarification from Trustee Tross regarding

allegations he made regarding the East St. Charles Road project.

President Mueller stated that this was regarding an email exchange between Trustee

Moreau and Trustee Tross and suggested that they talk to each other.

Trustee Moreau further stated that if the allegations are correct, it affects the Village as a

whole.

Trustee Tross remarked that in the email, he made no accusations, but that he had

questions, and an answer was not returned. He reported that he and Trustee Fitzpatrick

had a conversation wherein she told him that she had worked for the organization

involved. His question was regarding whether this work needed to be disclosed. He

also remarked that going to a special meeting of the Community Relations Committee to

review a planned unit development, that is statutorily reviewed by the Plan Commission

and brought to our attention, would be a violation of the Open Meetings Act if more than

two trustees showed up and discussed the issue. Trustee Tross asked if there was a

staff member present at this meeting, and Trustee Moreau assured him that there was.

President Mueller asked if there were any questions or comments on the Consent

Agenda.

Trustee Tross commented that Item H, Road Ranger, the alcohol liquor license codes

reflects a change in the corporation. He stated that in his view, gas stations should not

have liquor licenses. President Mueller clarified that this item reflects a change in name

and ownership of the corporation and that is why it is on the Consent Agenda.

Trustee Tross stated that Item N under Other Matters regarding the mailbox policy was

referred back to the Public Works Committee for review, and it comes back to the board

unchanged. He stated that this policy very clearly clarifies the Village's replacement of

parkway mailboxes that have been destroyed or damaged via snow removal or other

actions of the Village. And it very clearly says that the mailbox will be replaced by the

Village in similar fashion, not the cheaper mailboxes, to the mailboxes that the property

owners had. He reported that one reason it was sent back to committee is that he

knows of three residents that were given notice requesting that their mailboxes to be

removed. He stated that these three notices are needed.

PC 07-03: 19W471 Roosevelt Road and 351 E. Roosevelt Road (Lombard

Crossing) ((Continued from October 4, 2007) (Request to Continue to December 6,

2007)

Requests that the Village take the following actions on the subject property:

A. Approve an annexation agreement.

B. Annex the portion of the subject property not currently within the Village of Lombard.

C. Approve a map amendment rezoning the entire property to the B4 Corridor

Commercial District.

D. Approve a conditional use for a planned development, with the following companion

conditional uses, deviations and variations, as follows:

1. For Lot 1 (Parcel A) of the proposed resubdivision, approve:

a. A conditional use pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance

for a drive-through facility;

b. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(19)(a)(2) of the Sign Ordinance to allow

for more than one wall sign per street frontage;

c. A deviation from Section 155.414 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot area from 40,000 square feet to 36,549 square feet;

d. A deviation from Section 155.414 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot width from 150 feet to 137.54 feet.

2. For Lot 2 (Parcel B) of the proposed resubdivision, approve a deviation from

Section 155.414 (F) of the Zoning Ordinance reducing the required east interior side

yard from ten feet (10') to two feet (2').

3. For Lot 3 (Parcel C) of the proposed resubdivision, approve:

a. A conditional use pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance

for a drive-through facility;

b. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(19)(a)(2) of the Sign Ordinance to allow

for more than one wall sign per street frontage;

c. A deviation from Section 155.414 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot area from 40,000 square feet to 30,799 square feet;

d. A deviation from Section 155.414 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot width from 150 feet to 121.03 feet.

4. For Lot 4 (Parcel D) of the proposed resubdivision, approve:

a. A deviation from Section 154.506 (D) of the Subdivision and Development

Ordinance to allow for a lot without public street frontage;

b. A planned development use exception for a storage center in the B4 District;

and

c. A variation from Section 155.508 (B)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to

the Standards for Planned Developments with Use Exceptions to allow a use exception

to exceed 40% of the total floor area for the overall planned development.

5. For Lot 5 (Parcel E) of the proposed resubdivision, approve:

a. A deviation from Section 154.506 (D) of the Subdivision and Development

Ordinance to allow a lot without public street frontage;

b. A deviation from Section 154.507 (D) of the Subdivision and Development

Ordinance requiring an outlot to have at least thirty feet (30') of frontage along a public

street;

c. A deviation from Section 155.414 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot area from 40,000 square feet to 20,203 square feet for a detention outlot;

and

d. A deviation from Section 155.414 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot width from 150 feet to 138.17 feet for a detention outlot.

6. For each of the proposed lots, grant a variation from Sections 155.706 (C) and

155.709 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance reducing the required perimeter parking lot

landscaping from five feet (5') to zero feet (0') to provide for shared cross-access and

parking.

7. Approve the following Sign Ordinance deviations:

a. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(6)(e) to allow for more than one

freestanding sign on a property;

Mr. Lichter asked Mr. Hulseberg to give a review of the Plan Commission

recommendation.

Mr. Hulseberg reported that this property is at the northeast corner of Grace and St.

Charles Road. The property in itself was formerly an improved planned development

consisting of two building of 40 units each of multi-family housing. There were two

components to this. There was a development agreement, at that time, that provided

that 80 percent of the total units would have to be market rate units. The Fair Housing

Act does not allow us to make any distinction on multi-family housing whether they're

apartment rentals or condominium dwelling units. Within the development agreement,

since the Village did agree to commit funds up to $400,000, limitations were put on this

particular development to make sure that it was a condominium development on both

aspects. On October 15th, the Planning Commission heard a request to change the

western building, that 40-unit condominium building which was consisting primarily of

two bedroom units, to become 52 one-bedroom units instead.

There is a request coming before the board this evening looking to change the density

occurring on this property. In all other regards, the property will be meeting the various

approvals that it was previously granted with that one exception. The footprint of the

building will remain the same. The parking layout remains functionally the same, as was

previously granted. There were some conditions that were established by the Plan

Commission that required that the developer would provide an additional 11 car parking

spaces for the building to the east to assist them on some of their parking issues. The

Village Code requires 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit when it relates to regular

market rate housing. When it comes to senior housing, code allows .25 parking spaces

per dwelling unit. In total, there will be 131 parking spaces provided as part of this

planned development between both structures, 67 on one piece and 69 on the other.

John Mulherin, 211 South Wheaton Avenue, Wheaton, Illinois, , contract purchaser of

the property at 400 East St. Charles Road, appeared on behalf of the Xilin Association.

Mr. Mulherin stated that Xilin's petition is to change the density and the utilization of the

units in the western building, however, virtually everything else would remain as is. The

footprint of the building would be the same. The exterior would be the same. They are

not certain that all the windows would be exactly where they were designed, but the

indications are that they are going to be the exactly the same. So the buildings would

be mirror images of one another. He indicated that the use of the property would be

independent senior living in which the residents would be income qualified seniors who

would be screened by the property manager. There would be an on-site property

manager and screening would be done by the association. Xilin has received approval

from IHDA, the primary funding agent, to maintain two wait lists, one for people who

resided in Lombard and another for individuals who reside outside of the Village limits of

Lombard. The preference schedule would be two Lombard residents would be approved

and then one outside person and then back to the list for two.

John Cronin, 303 Elm Park Avenue, Elmhurst, Illinois is the principal architect of Number

Nine Design, an architecture firm out of Elmhurst working with Xilin Association. He

stated that the initial design of the project was done by Neri Development. Their

involvement in this project consists of taking the existing design of the building, which is

identical to the building that's constructed at 500 East St. Charles Road, and figuring out

a way to recut the interior to allow for 52 apartments. He explained that virtually

everything else, aside from the way that the interior is laid out, will remain the same.

The footprint of the building is the same. It's located at the same location on the site

plan. The entrance, driveways, parking lots, landscaping, all the exterior materials,

window placement, everything else would be virtually identical to that design that was

originally approved by this body for the PUD for the Oak View Estates. It's a mix of one

bedrooms and two bedrooms, primarily one bedrooms that vary in size but are roughly

800 square feet for a one bedroom and up to 1,000 square feet for a two bedroom. But

the stairways, egress, everything remains virtually the same as what was originally

proposed. He pointed out that from all appearances from the street, it would look

exactly like the building that's to its east.

Mr. Mulherin stated that one of the issues raised during the course of the Plan

Commission hearing was the impact on the market value of the adjoining condominiums

if this project went forward as proposed. He stated that he has extensive experience in

dealing in real estate for many years and practicing law and stated that in his opinion,

the factors that generally influence market value of real estate, as related to the location,

will not be a deterrent. He said that a developed building on the site would be more

beneficial to property values than a vacant site. He pointed out that they will be taking

half of the potential competitors for sale out of the mix by converting the use to senior

housing.

Mr. Mulherin said that Oak View residents were concerned about the ability of Xilin to

manage this property and how it would be funded. He reported that the primary

funding will come from the Illinois Housing Development Authority and other minor

sources. And a regulatory land use agreement will compel this property to this use for

30 years. Xilin will be required to demonstrate the compliance with the standards

established by IHDA. In answer to the question, what if Xilin goes out of business, he

responded that it would go to some other organization that does this, such as the

Community Housing Association in DuPage. Community Housing Association is a

not-for-profit organization in Villa Park which operates over 400 housing units throughout

the county.

He stated that Mr. Paul Davis, Xilin's tax counsel, will be available to answer questions

about funding from the standpoint of tax credits.

President Mueller noted that there were 20 speakers and he asked them to limit their

comments to three minutes, so there would be time for all who wished to speak. He then

described the procedure for speakers.

Christine Blanchard, 500 East St. Charles Road, stated that she is a new owner and

new to Lombard. She stated that she closed on her real estate property September

28th of this year and did not learn about this particular project until that following

Sunday. She said that the developer representatives at the closing had assured her

that the original plan development of the 40-unit luxury condominium building was due to

be completed in 2009.

Ms. Blanchard stated that there are some major changes here that are being requested

of the Board of Trustees that the Planning Committee has already recommended, such

as changing of the number of units from 40 to 52. They are being told that that's not

going to be a problem in an area that is already zoned for medium density, that it would

not contribute to high density because these would be senior citizens, most likely not

gainfully employed in any manner. The amount of vehicular traffic will be declined and

decreased. She stated that if you would take a look at some of the senior citizen

housing developments in and around the City of Chicago and other cities, you would see

that there were a lot of cars parked in their lots. Just because the person is old does not

mean they are not going to be driving. There is no guarantee that maybe ten percent of

the people who would move into this place and would be impaired, handicapped, and

not able to drive because there are people now in their eighties who are handicapped

and driving. People are all living longer and healthier lives and driving longer.

Ms. Blanchard noted that because Oak View Estates residents will have to share their

driveway with the new development, she believes that poses a problem because there

is still going to be more traffic. The original building was scheduled for 40 units. If you

say that 2 to 3 percent of the 40 units residents probably would not have been driving,

that would bring that down to about 38.6 person driving, as opposed to the proposed

new plan. If you take ten percent off, you are looking at maybe 46.8 persons driving, so

that is more traffic.

Ms. Blanchard feels that Xilin residents should not have to use Oak View Estates'

driveway. For example, in the original plan that they submitted to the Plan Commission,

they stated that their residents would be entering their property west of our building to

the right, and they would be exiting their property to the right. Well, now they want to

use our driveway to come in and out; and there is already a lot of traffic in our area with

40 parking spaces, 12 parking garages on the outside and 8 parking spaces that are

open, which simply means now you got've to be watching in all sorts of ways and turns

of people coming in and out so there is no fender bending, which we feel that there will

be some fender bending.

The other thing is that Xilin would like to use Oak View's name. Many of the residents

do not want their name associated with the senior citizens building. For example, they

want to call it the Oak View Estate Senior Residence. Presently their building is called

the Oak View Estates Condominiums. She feels that would be confusing to people on

the outside, agencies, companies that they will be doing business with. To eliminate

that confusion, she would like for a restriction to be placed on the use of their name.

Since there is a problem and a concern with the driveway, she suggested the board to

consider making the two properties independent of one another, making them two

independent lots that would stand alone. She also stated that since they are new

residents of Lombard, they were not on the township assessor's payroll for last year's

taxes; so they did not receive any notices, not even a sign placed on our property

informing us about these proposed changes. But going forward, they are taxpayers

come June 1st and September 1st of 2008 for the 2007 real estate taxes. They will be

the ones paying those taxes and do have PIN numbers. She asked the board to give

Oak View residents the same kind of consideration they are giving Xilin and grant them

some of their wishes. She stated that even if this project is going to be approved, at

least make them a stand-alone project. Do not have the properties dependent on each

other. Have two lots that are totally independent of each other.

Mike Dale, 325 South Princeton, Itasca, Illinois, stated that his parents live in Oak View

Estates. He presented a list of questions to the board. This first question the lawyer

here kind of answered it. It started out that Lombard residents would get first

consideration, and tonight it was stated that once there is a waiting list that Lombard will

get two and others will get one. What happens with the initial placement of the people in

there? On their web site it says that preference will be given to people with special

needs, households with the lowest income and then Lombard residents. He asked is

that Lombard first, last or not at all?

Mr. Dale asked to have local real estate experts come in and testify how this

development will help or hurt them and also how common it is in today's market to have

commonly owned property by HUD housing and a luxury condo.

Parking has always been a premium at Oak View. He asked if visitor parking be

required in the new ordinance as it is currently with many other Lombard condos? He

said he believes that a lot of the new condos have changed their visitor parking due to

what's going on at this building.

On Page 4 of the Village of Lombard independent review group report, it says that they

want to build a first level parking minus a few, but then it wants to seek relief by

requesting parking requirements be lowered to one space per four? He stated that

parking is currently a problem and wants to know how reducing the number of parking

spaces per capita will help.

Access agreements. As it stands originally, there would have to be one association for

both buildings and the property. Now, it's going to be an association for the condo, you

will have management for the HUD building, and a separate association for the driveway

and the grounds. How is that going to work? There are standards for luxury condos.

There are standards for HUD housing. And then there is a conflict of fiduciary

responsibility. It's in the best interest of the developer to sell off the property given the

current real estate market to create cross access agreements to gain Village approval.

Yet he is representing both his corporation and the people who have already bought the

condos. The people in the condos, they don't have a say in this. They have already

spent their money. He has taken 8 to $10 million of their money already, and they don't

have a say in this.

The association with the HUD housing will be in existence for at least 31 years. Now

when things have to be done outside, the parking lots, the landscaping, what criteria are

they going to use to get it done? Are they going to agree to do it to HUD standards, or

are they going to agree to do it to luxury condo standards? Are you going to go back to

that association where you have the outside association by the luxury condos and then

management of the HUD housing, and what are they going to do? Is HUD going to be

represented by a lawyer and, in turn, are these people in the luxury condos going to

have to hire themselves a lawyer to do battle with them?

The state today is in limbo about transportation funding and bail out plans. The primary

transportation of the HUD apartments is free transportation via DuPage County Senior

Citizens from 8:30 to 2:30 each day. What is the contingency plan over the next 31

years if the transportation is cut from the budgets? Stores are not within walking

distance for seniors.

As far as insurance goes, there is the liability to Oak View for HUD apartments joined

only in maintaining the parking lot. What will the liability be in the cross access areas?

What will the insurance rates be for Oak View condos? What will they be increased to

when the property has access agreements in joint ownership with HUD apartments?

How can it be demonstrated that that luxury condos' real estate will not be compromised

by having multiple associations cross access agreements, joint ownership with the west

parking lot? The lot will no longer be accessible by commonly owned land by foot or

car. It will require condo owners and their visitors to travel through HUD housing

property. How will this affect the value and resale ability of the luxury condos for the

next 31 years? While senior HUD housing might have been a great idea prior to the

Village signing off on the condo development, they cannot be developed any longer

without creating a future hardship for the current condo owners. By the manner the

development was designed, there can no longer be separate property lines or parking

lots. Legislating a new ordinance will help both developers, and yet it cannot be

demonstrated how it improves or helps condo owners. As the condo community was

originally approved, all land would be governed by one association with condo owners

having input on its facilities. Now the proposed ordinance requiring sharing cannot be

considered as an asset to the condo community, nor has it even suggested that they will

have a voice in the future. It's unfortunate enough for a developer to pull the rug out

from investors in these condos for such an unprecedented proposed development. But

it would be more unsettling to have the Village vote on these changes without first

addressing all of the concerns.

Trustee Tross asked for clarification regarding the last speaker's reference to HUD

housing. He asked whether this building is a privately owned development that will be

receiving some government funding similar to an individual getting an FHA loan, but that

it will not be under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Mr. Mulherin replied that there might be a very small grant, but not from HUD. He

explained that there are mandatory escrows and set-asides.

Sandra Dilworth, 500 East St. Charles Road, Unit 307, said that she and her husband

are joint owners of Oak View Estates and she also worked in Lombard for 15 years. Her

family's business, Emeyer Service Auto Glass, chose Lombard as their base of

operation and operated here in Lombard for 20 years, and she has returned to be a

resident here. She further stated that she has ties to the community and roots here and

intends on staying here for a good long time.

They are very concerned about this proposed plan as owners of the building because

they bought with promises made. Based on those promises, they liked the idea of

having the sister buildings, that they were supposed to have certain amenities because

of those sister buildings, and now they are not. If this plan is approved, the developer is

going to go back on those promises. She further stated that this proposal is for an

organization that has no track record in managing senior housing. They are concerned

about the government funding and their rules and regulations. And should Xilin's plans

not go forward, as Mr. Neri's plans did not go forward, then what happens to this building

next door to their substantial investment?

There are issues with the parking and the driveway, such as the issues of the cross

easements of ingress and egress and the parking. Who is going to protect their

interests as owners on these easements? She stated that it is her understanding that

the buyer and the seller and their attorneys would draft these easements and they would

be recorded. Who is going to protect the interest of the owners when these easements

Larry Dilworth, 500 East St. Charles Road, #307.

A lot of things have been said senior citizens, low-income housing, HUD housing, TIF.

There is a lot going on here. Xilin has no experience in the arena for property

management and senior housing. They admit they have none, except maybe in

Naperville where they cater to the Chinese community. They may have some there. It's

also public record that such a plan would require substantial investment from the Village

of Lombard through a TIF. Xilin has little or no equity tied to this development. Have

they looked at the reserves? Do they have sufficient reserves for this kind of a project?

Certainly we don't want the state to take over anything in Lombard. We talked about

this at the last meeting. We don't want them to take over responsibility for inspections,

don't want them to take over who is going to live there. You guys can talk about

Lombard residents getting preferential treatment. Let's talk about discrimination. If I

didn't live in Lombard and I wanted to come over and take advantage of $400 a month

rental and you said to me you cannot come because you are not a Lombard resident,

that's discriminatory. That's against the Fair Housing Act. There are probably loopholes

all around that. But that's discriminatory in my book. Xilin, on multiple occasions,

indicated that preferential treatment would be given to Lombard residents. I just don't

see it happening. They have also said that if the real estate market wasn't the way it is,

they might not be considering this project. The design is already made. The building is

already made. The property is available. But why this property? Tell me why this

property? Has this proposal ever been presented to other DuPage communities closer

to Xilin's base of operation? They do fine work in Naperville; I am sure they do for the

Chinese community. If so, what were the outcomes when they approached the other

villages in DuPage?

What is so imperative to make this happen within Lombard? I am going to tell you what

I heard. Like everybody says, rumors are rumors. I talked to Dana Moreau on the

phone not too long ago. I asked her a simple question, "Is the fix in? Should I be

worried about getting concessions?" And she said, "Yes, you should worry about

getting concessions. This thing is probably going to go through." That's what she said.

Don't call me a liar. But I talked to you on the phone.

Now after saying that, she can defend herself if she wants. That's not the way I do

business where I work. The city of Lombard is going to be bailing out Neri. He is in a

bad situation, in my opinion. He has got properties he cannot sell. He has got seven or

eight units in our building he cannot sell. He has got a whole piece of property. He is

trying to get bailed out. As a matter of fact, he is going to make money because he is

the builder. So he is golden. He has no problems whatsoever.

But what do we have? Let me tell you what problems we have. My wife and I have an

80 year old father-in-law in Sunrise Assisted Living in Glen Ellyn. Well, when he went in

there, he didn't have any dementia. He was an outstanding 75-year old man, didn't

have any dementia, didn't have any problems with his health. So let's say a resident

moves into Lombard Oak View Estates senior housing, 65 years old. They are in good

health. All of a sudden, their health starts to deteriorate. This isn't a senior citizens

home that you are talking about here. This is a senior citizens residence. That's the

worst place in the world for senior citizens to live. The traffic pattern is God-awful.

There is only one red light. How many times have you been out at Grace and St.

Charles? It's terrible. Traffic is bad. Speeders are bad. I implore the police officer,

please set up radar across from the park and stop the 50 and 60 miles-an- hour people

who come charging through there. People have been killed there already. Everybody

knows that story.

Now, you take a person who is in good health; two years later he is in bad health, and

they want to walk across the street to the park. Are they going to walk three blocks up

the street to a proposed over-pedestrian bridge, or are they going to walk down another

block and a half down the street to a very bad intersection with trains and four different

streets coming in and walk across the street? Someone with dementia and/or just a little

bit of self doubt or a little confusion that senior citizens get -- heck, I get them and I am

not even 60 yet. You walk across that street and want to go to the park. My goal is to

get to the park. Somebody is going to get killed. Somebody is going to walk out in front

of a car and get hit right there.

We have 40 units. If they average $300,000 a unit, it's $12 million these people, where I

live, have invested in this property. That's $12 million in taxes. Between $400 and $800

rental next door that they are going to build on our property, what kind of taxes are they

bringing into the Village of Lombard compared to us? If you had two luxury

condominiums there, you are looking at $24 million in property value -- five, $6,000 per

unit. That's a lot of money. What are they going to pay? Not as much as we are. Who

is going to pay for the assessment? Traffic coming in and out; they miss the curbs; they

break off the sidewalk, wear and tear; they tear up the curb; they tear up the sewers.

It's already happening in our unit, and we have 40 units. If they are planning on using

that east entrance, which isn't very wide to begin with, who is going to pay the

assessments? We are going to ask the $400 a month rental person or the Xilin

corporation to pay as much as us? If somebody comes to us and says hey, the parking

lot needs to be repaved and costs $20,000, is Xilin going to come up with ten? Or us,

as owners, who do get assessed end up having to pay this stuff? I don't know the

answers to these questions, but I would like to.

It's important that the residents of Oak View Estates get the passion. We are

passionate about the $300,000 or $400,000 that we invested. Close your eyes. You

are 50 years old. You are married. All your kids are gone, and all your grandkids are

living in other states. You want to downsize, move into a luxury condominium. I have

two bedrooms. All the kids cannot come over at one once.

Then all of a sudden, you spend your $300,000 or $400,000 that you had as equity from

your other home, and you brought it over and you built in the City of Lombard, luxury

condo here, high rise luxury going on downtown. The sign says, "City living in the

suburbs." That's how it's advertised. Hey, city living in the suburbs? Yeah, you are right.

Let me go build a condo right next to Cabrini Green, next to Robert Taylor Homes in

Chicago.

President Mueller asked Mr. Dilworth to wrap up to give everyone who signed up the

opportunity to speak.

Mr. Dilworth said that he understood. He asked the board to read the minutes of the last

meeting to get a better insight to what's going on.

Trustee Moreau clarified that she did receive an email from Mr. Dilworth, as well as two

follow-up emails from him and his wife. She stated that she thought the first email was

too important to send an email back, so she called and left a voice mail but does not

recall speaking to him personally.

Mr. Dilworth stated that they did speak personally the next day.

Trustee Moreau stated that she thought it was odd that she did not get a call back nor

copies of petitions from others.

Trustee Fitzpatrick said that disturbs her when there are references to Cabrini Green in

relation to this project.

Kevin Fitzpatrick, 348 South Lewis, said that he would not advise anyone to read the

minutes of the last meeting because the last speaker's behavior was very similar. He

said that the first speaker said that this was not a HUD project and that the last speaker

said HUD at least 30 times. He stated that one of the problems is that when you don't

have truth on your side, you decide to go with fear. And a lie will get on the back of a

gazelle, and the truth will get on the back of a turtle.

Mr. Dilworth asked if Mr. Fitzpatrick was calling him a liar.

Mr. Fitzpatrick responded that he was.

President Mueller stated that he would not allow this. He asked Mr. Fitzpatrick not to

aggravate the situation and said he would take care of it.

Mr. Fitzpatrick commented that Father Hesberg, the former president of Notre Dame,

used to say that values are caught, that they are not taught. He said that he has been

to every public meeting concerning this particular issue and that these are the kinds of

things that are going on. He stated that this is a wonderful senior project for Lombard.

People who could use some affordable are living as seniors, that we all know

somebody. He remarked that it does a disservice to have people refer to this as HUD

housing or anything else when that's not the truth. He said that we welcomed the folks

who moved into this building into our community. By way of turn around, they don't

appear so welcoming to others. He stated that many of them have legitimate concerns

with parking and some of these things and that there has been a spirit of agreement on

that. But he thinks at this point, the decision has to be made whether we are going to

take a serious approach to seniors who can no longer afford to live in Lombard, seniors

who have spent their entire lives causing the property value here to be such that they

cannot afford to live here anymore. He said that we all know people like that and that

we should defer to them. He thinks they will be wonderful neighbors to the condo

association. He believes that when it comes time to fix the paving of the parking lot that

the one organization that controls 50 units will be much quicker to pony up the dough

than the group that has to get 50 percent plus as far as approval for that. He thinks that

we should never invoke Cabrini Green because you know what somebody like that is

saying. Just as Father Hesberg said, values aren't taught; they are caught. He grew up

in this community and thinks we caught the right ones here.

William Gebel, Jr., 440 North Stuart Avenue voiced his approval for the senior citizens

project. He thinks it's a great project and thinks there is a need for it in Lombard. He

said that there has been a search all over for senior housing and thinks that Lombard

opening their hearts to the senior citizens is very important. Senior citizens are people

that have probably bore the burden and worked in the greatest economy in the world,

and because of many circumstances don't foresee that they don't have a lot of money.

He thinks it is still very important to have independent housing for seniors. For those

who do open their hearts to seniors, he thinks it's a very great thing to do. He

commended those who are trying to see this project through.

Jeff Gullang, 193 South Grace, lived in Lombard for 15 years with his parents. For the

past five years he has been living at 193 South Grace Street, which is on the southwest

corner of Grace and Maple in the Lombard Commons Park. He reinvested $500,000

with his wife to rehab the house that was there. It was a single-family ranch house, and

they built a beautiful two-story house now on the basis of the proposed condos, the

redevelopment of the downtown and the pool. And so far redevelopment of downtown

has not happened, the pool is not opening up next year and the proposed condo is not

planned.

He stated there was mention earlier about restitution or compromise from the people

who bought the condos next to 500 East Saint Charles. And they invested $500,000 on

the basis of those condos coming in and everything else going on. He does not

specifically oppose the proposed senior center but would like comfort that those who

have reinvested in Lombard and have been here for 25 of his 32 years, that they

reinvested on the basis of what was promised to them. He said he interviewed the

proposed settlement even before they started for three months, "Hey, what are you guys

doing here? Is this going to increase my property?" Unfortunately, it's not coming

down. He just wants assurance and comfort that the board is keeping individuals like

himself and the condos next door in mind because they have invested a lot of money

back into Lombard. He doesn't want to see it diminished.

Brad Janisch, 109 South Charlotte. Two weeks ago he viewed the Plan Commission

meeting, and he heard a lot of concerns that residents were coming out with. As a

result, it got him to have a lot of concerns, not only to the residents of that condo, but

also residents of Lombard. In thinking of some of these questions, he actually sought

out and tried to get more information pertaining to the development. What did it mean

when it's called subsidized, low-income housing? He said he posed the appropriate

questions to the appropriate individuals, and hasn't gotten as clear of an answer. He

thinks one of the things that's fundamental to the concerns that the board is hearing is

this issue around trustworthiness. Mr. Fitzpatrick talked about values. Trustworthiness

is one of those values. Unfortunately, some of these individuals that reside within this

building have been somewhat misled about the overall outcome.

He understands where the emotion comes from. It's an emotionally charged topic.

These individuals have made a significant investment within their commitment to

Lombard. They have legitimate questions, and he thinks they deserve to be answered.

Some of the questions that he personally posed haven't necessarily gotten a clear

answer and he would encourage the board to consider as you move forward with your

decision, how and where did this proposal originally come from?

Kevin Fitzpatrick mentioned that we have got some wonderful senior housing within this

village; Lexington, Beacon Hill, Sunrise Senior Living and The Point at Lombard. These

are all fantastic senior developments that all of us within Lombard support. He voiced

concern about this aspect of low-income housing, and there are many components to it.

There has been the concern raised in terms of whether Xilin has previous property

management experience and, specifically, what are the outcomes if they should fail?

These individuals have committed, and they deserve an answer in terms of what are the

potential downstream effects if something were to go awry.

Another question that he has heard come out of this discussion is the rationale for the

development at this particular site being that there is a luxury condominium

development. This is located in a very awkward place for a senior development. No

public transportation, limited access to shopping, health care, so on and so forth. One

other question is pertaining to Xilin specifically, where do the residents and those

working with the Xilin group and those that they are servicing, where do they currently

reside? How many of these individuals actually live within the Village of Lombard? He

has heard these concerns come from the individuals here tonight. He asked the board to

give some consideration to these questions and also just give consideration to the fact

that also under ideal conditions, all parties involved would benefit from such a proposal.

He doesn't think we have ideal circumstances here. We have got a down real estate

market. And in the end, he doesn't know if the benefits distribute themselves across the

developer, the residents and the Village and the community as a whole. He asked the

board to give some serious consideration to those questions. He suggested that the

board help those residents get the answers to these questions because they have made

a significant commitment to this Village in purchasing these properties.

President Mueller clarified that only two of the senior developments mentioned are in the

Village of Lombard, that there are proposals for Sunrise Senior Living and The Point, but

they have not been developed in our community.

Rosalie Loeding, 2600 South Finley, Apartment 3701, which is Beacon Hill feels very

fortunate because she can afford to live at one of those senior communities. The ones

that he listed a lot of people can't manage to live there. That's what she is going to

address. She stated that there are many people who are 62 and over, that through

reduced circumstances not of their own choosing, cannot afford Beacon Hill. Some of

the others are living on their own in a nice house or apartment. Many of them are

women. For a couple that she knows, there was a pension plan that just went boom.

They were 66 years old, and it started taking their pension. They were in very good

circumstances until that point, and all of a sudden they were selling their house, their

second house, one of the cars. They were buying a condominium that was very small,

and they were having trouble paying their expenses. He was fortunate. He could get

some consulting, but they weren't traveling anymore. Their circumstances went down

like an avalanche. She has another friend who is a single woman who never married.

She had a very good job, a very good pension plan; and all of a sudden, she had none.

And she is now living in one room that she shares in somebody's home and sharing the

kitchen. She tries to get part-time work. She has no pension plan. She has no medical

plan because that was supposedly covered. She is scrounging and going to clinics and

trying to find out how to take care of her health, her medicine, and she is in trouble. She

would love to live in one of those apartments. She has a master's degree. She is

intelligent and charming. And a lot of these people that you are talking about are not the

scum of the earth. They are well educated, very intelligent people. And you don't hear

about them because they are ashamed, and they are humiliated that this has happened

to them. A lot of them would love to live in that affordable senior facility. They may have

money that they have saved. They may have some, but they are not in good

circumstances. All of a sudden their whole lives have changed.

But the building will be on the tax rolls. And this is not a need that is going to get less as

time goes on. It's probably going to get worse because how many companies are doing

away with pension plans? She asked the board to let those of us who are more

fortunate be compassionate and provide a decent place for these people to live in their

later years, in a comfortable community, in a comfortable apartment with their friends

near their church. Some of the things may not be fixable, for instance, transportation.

She is also concerned about the people who bought the property and understands their

concern. She does not believe this is going to be Cabrini Green or anything even

approaching it, but she understands your concerns about the lot line, about the egress

and thinks those things should be addressed.

She encouraged the board to vote affirmatively on this very important issue that's

important to everybody, not just a few people.

Joseph Manzarra, 500 East St. Charles Road has been a resident of Lombard for over

half his life. He just closed on the condo on September 28th and believes that a lot of

truths are hidden in the fact that this project has been planned for some time, and it was

unbeknownst to him and the community. It just seems like they are trying to shove this

in a quick sort of way.

His concern is that this is supposed to be not an assisted living, but preference goes to

the community. Is there already a listing of Lombard residents who are looking to get

into this building? As time progresses for these residents when they may need

assistance -- they are supposed to go through a procedure where they are checking

who lives in this building. Will they be taking other people as caretakers to be living with

them to take care of them within this building? The location where they plan on putting

this senior housing, iis a very unique intersection. The traffic signals are a little

complicated, and he can foresee accidents happening there. It's very congested, and

there is going to be a lot of traffic going in and out of there even though they are seniors

and you are saying that they don't drive. There is no shopping or public transportation

around there.

He feels that he was deceived in this purchase. There are supposed to be certain

amenities available to those in this sister building which will no longer be there, along

with a lot of the other things the board has heard this evening. He asked the board to

look at this closely before making their decision.

Mary Mae Meyer, 414 West Windsor stated that she attended the Senior Fair on

October 3rd and thanked the board and staff for the worthwhile, good thing that the

Village did for the seniors of Lombard.

She stated that for several years she has been scoping out what she will do in the future

and thought she had it all together. She said that she and her husband Alan operate a

small home based graphic arts business to supplement their small pension. She did a

projection in the year 2000 and determined it would require them to have $36,000

annual income if their house is paid for to maintain their modest life-style.

A lot has happened since then. 9/11 happened and put about a 50 percent dent in their

investment savings. Now, the housing market is down. The health issues continue. It's

really important to be able to look at all your options. One of the things that happens

when you fall into this demographic group is you get on the mailing lists, and you just get

pitches from one retirement place after another. They are very interesting and

informative.

She feels as though she came in halfway through a movie, however, because she just

happened to see the last part of the Plan Commission meeting and listened to some of

these very articulate speakers and thought they make some very good points. She is

really not quite sure where all of this is coming from, but at first blush it sounded like this

is a good option. This sounds too good to be true. You end the home maintenance

issues, and have an affordable, manageable size. You've got underground parking and

in-unit laundry. But then when you look closer at things, two major issues really stand

out and need to be examined very closely. The first is the old real estate mantra of

location, location, location. And especially when you look beyond the structural and

financial consideration and you take into account the human factors that are unique to

those of us who are very well into the aging process, it just "ain't" all that simple, folks.

She feels that there has been a lot of disregard for the interests of the condo owners,

and there has been very little or no consideration given to the needs, comfort and well

being of prospective senior tenants. She suggests there are far too many questions that

cannot be satisfactorily answered here for you to positively vote on this tonight. Who

will determine who does or who does not meet the definition of independent? At what

point is that person no longer qualified to meet this independent status? Who oversees

that? And then what's going to happen when you are not qualified? You get evicted?

Where do you go? What happens? Some of the more structured retirement areas have

staged plans for this, and people who are trained and educated to work with seniors who

help you move through this process.

What studies have been done to determine the appropriateness of this site in meeting

the needs of seniors? She thinks it is wrong to put seniors in an area that is known to

be one of the most difficult pedestrian and vehicular traffic spots in our town. It is further

wrong to pit very well intended condo owners against unsuspecting seniors in a

contentious situation right at the outset.

Anyone who did any investigation at all would have to admit that this is a population that

is bound to experience some mental confusion, vision problems. She stated that the

National Institute of Health site reports the highest rates of depression and suicide

among the elderly. This petition plans to position a concentration of these people less

than a stone's throw from a very active railroad track.

Ms. Meyer urged the board to deny this plan. There are far too many highly intelligent

people in this room to not go back to the drawing board, take another look. This is on

the wrong side of the track for seniors who go to Walgreens and need to get to the

grocery store. She asked if any other studies could or should be done within Lombard

elsewhere to look at a similar construction, a similar building, a similar facility, but

somewhere away from that train track in a really well thought out location. She further

asked if the board does approve the petition, are there limitations as far as how much

subsidy is available to the Village? Is this our only shot? Is it just one chance? Or

might there be another project in another location?

Steve Sebby, 534 North Grace stated that he is concerned about the Oak View Estates

development and respects the board for their diligence in reviewing matters. He stated

that when he served on the Village Board, Oak View Estates Condominiums was

approved with two buildings. Those two buildings have stipulations which would limit the

amount of rental property that could be there. This petition would change that entire

package, and he said that raises some concerns of what that would potentially do to the

tax base for future effects onto all of the taxing districts. He understands what's going to

occur to the individual condominiums that sold out at $300,000 apiece, give or take.

That's roughly a $12 million tax base. He is concerned about the future impact on all of

the taxing districts, the Village of Lombard, specifically, if this turns into rental property or

low-income property. He believes there will be a substantial change.

He further stated that there is going to be a need for public transportation. He heard the

comments made that the management company is looking into that issue. However,

seniors need to have accessible public transportation. At this location at Grace and St.

Charles, where is the Pace bus going to stop? Where is the public transportation? He

has heard that it's going to pull into the facility. This is one of the more congested areas

that we have fought through for eight years. Seniors need to have adequate public

transportation, which should be an immediate concern. There is a definite need for

low-income senior housing in the Village of Lombard and in the communities of DuPage

County. He suggested that the board look at this location thoroughly to determine if this

is the right location. He does not feel it is. He thought when Mr. Neri came in front of

the Village Board with his development that it was questionable to begin with, but it was

a positive impact. Now that the market has changed and there are concerns here, it is

not the Village's responsibility to subsidize private development. It is up to the market to

dictate that.

Mr. Sebby stated that he respects Mr. Mulherin and his comments. The parking

requirements are changed based on 52 units as opposed to 40 units, and there will be

67 or 69 parking spaces. He believes the parking and traffic is going to be a nightmare.

He stated that he sincerely hopes the board will consider this and possibly take it back

and review it and look for an alternate location.

Joan Timborius, 1083 Cherry Lane has been a Lombard resident for 42 years. She

educated her children in the Catholic schools, so they did not take advantage of the

public school system, but she has great respect for it. Some of her friends are not here

tonight because they couldn't afford to come. Three of her friends have had to move

from Lombard, and she speaks for them. She stated they have contributed to Lombard

by serving as election judges and still do. They are drivers for Meals on Wheels. They

belong to organizations that support affairs in our city, such as PADS. They staff the

food pantries of so many churches in our community. Many are senior members of

American University of Women, and they sponsor a used book sale every summer.

They collect these books; they classify them, and they spend a weekend selling them.

And the purpose of this sale is to promote scholarships for deserving young graduates

of Glenbard East who are going to go on to college. If you shop at our local stores you

will see them with their cans for their local charities; the Deicke Home in Lombard, the

Lombard Historical Society, the Lions Club, VFW, the Knights of Columbus. The senior

men are walking between cars on Roosevelt Road and Main Street, and Roosevelt

Road and Westmore-Meyers.

Senior women serve on a volunteer basis for the book discussion group at Helen Plum

Library. She also substitutes for that. They present lectures on the Lyric Opera

presentations down in Chicago for Helen Plum Library. They staff and serve the

admission booths for Lilacia Week at Lilacia Park. They are very visible and want to

stay in Lombard. She remarked that she personally wants to stay in her own home.

She stated that she has no more control about the people that buy next to her than

anyone does. Some of them play very loud music. We live through it because we know

they are going to outgrow that stage or go deaf. In fact, Brad Janisch's parents live in

her neighborhood. She walks those blocks promoting her own charities.

She loves Lombard and doesn't mind paying property taxes because she knows the

biggest proportion of my taxes goes to the school children that are so important to our

future. It also pays for the plumbing service, the fire department, the police department.

She said it's obvious that the Board loves Lombard, too, because they give tireless

hours to this community. She believes this is a win/win situation by providing for senior

housing for our own citizens. It will support the public school system and our public

servants here in the city of Lombard. She wholeheartedly supports this project and

urged the board to support it.

President Mueller asked if anyone who passed wished to speak.

Barbara Temborius, 1083 Cherry Lane, stated that others have expressed her support.

President Mueller stated that before the board is Plan Commission Recommendation

07-37 pertaining to the request for a change in the density of the property. Maybe some

of the concerns that were raised are answered in the documents that we have before

us. Maybe some of them have not been.

He said that if board members have other issues that they want to discuss other than

the density from the Planning Commission recommendation, he suggested that this item

be turned over at a later date to a workshop session so there is an opportunity to do a

workshop. He reminded the board that if they are ready to proceed with the Planning

Commission recommendation, it be on the density issue alone.

Trustee Moreau asked for an explanation of what workshopping entails.

President Mueller explained that if came before the board for a workshop, if questions

are being raised and you feel as a board you want to discuss those more, we would

workshop it. We would put on the agenda, perhaps, under Agenda Items for

Discussion, so in an open meeting we discuss items, try to get your questions answered

so you can move forward. We can schedule it at that meeting for a vote or move it to

the next meeting for a vote.

He stated that the petitioner is dealing with deadlines, but that that's not always our

problem.

Trustee Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Hulseberg if this would be a problem for the developer to

workshop this instead of just voting tonight.

Mr. Hulseberg suggested asking the developer.

Mr. Mulherin stated that they have a December 3rd deadline and that there is no

flexibility to that date. They don't have to have everything in place, but they have to

have the zoning in place by the 3rd of December, which they had hoped to have first

reading this evening and then second reading on the 15th.

Trustee Soderstrom asked if it would be out of line to pose questions regarding the

change in the project and/or other considerations by discussing those based on what's

on the agenda.

Mr. Bayer stated that the board would not be out of line. He said if those questions and

concerns relate to how the board is going to analyze whether it's appropriate to increase

the density of this development, then they would be properly answered or properly

researched in order to respond. But what's here is a request to increase the density of

the plan that was prepared for the PUD. He explained that if all of these other questions

impact the board's decision on whether or not it's proper to increase the density, then

answers would be needed in order for the board to make its decision, so it wouldn't be

improper to ask those questions.

Trustee Soderstrom said that, hypothetically, a number of the residents have talked

about how it will impact them as condo owners next door. He asked if the board wished

to address that concern, could they do it within the parameters of what's before them on

the agenda, or would that be inappropriate?

Mr. Bayer stated that that wouldn't be inappropriate reasoning because in a zoning

decision, considering the impact on the surrounding neighborhood is one of the factors

you would look to.

Trustee Fitzpatrick asked with regard to the Fair Housing Act, if the board can make a

decision based on the income levels or the age group that's going into in that building.

Mr. Bayer explained that the Village's decision on whether or not the density is

appropriate should be how it impacts the surrounding neighborhood. The Fair Housing

Act really goes to making sure there is not discrimination as to race, sex, family status,

things of that nature. The issue of the income of the individuals is not necessarily what

you would be considering in a density decision because that wouldn't impact necessarily

whether increasing the density is a good idea or a bad idea.

Trustee Gron said that he agrees with resident Mary Mae where she said there are too

many unanswered questions here to be able to take a cognizant vote on just that issue. I

think it's unfair that we would be voting on this on the tails of people having invested in

the community without knowing fully what this all entails.

Trustee Moreau moved, and Trustee Fitzpatrick seconded, to workshop Item PC 07-37.

Trustee Tross agreed to the workshopping issue but thinks the issue before the board

should be dealt with first.

President Mueller said if the issue was moved to a workshop, to try to meet their time

schedule, workshop it and then schedule that same meeting as an action item, which

would be a waiver of first and passing second. This gives everyone an opportunity to try

to get facts based on the questions that were asked and give staff an opportunity to do

some more research. Concerns about traffic, ingress, egress are not decisions that we

should be making based on the Plan Commission's recommendations, but it fits into the

overall decision later on. Right now we are just dealing with the density. If you are just

concerned about the density and don't want to move forward on that, we would move

forward tonight based on that. Trustee Tross is right; we wouldn't have to take any

further action tonight.

Trustee Soderstrom asked Trustee Moreau if it is her intent to workshop it for the entire

merit of the project other than just the shared density.

Trustee Moreau said that she intended to increase the merit from density to more

because there are a lot more points that have been discussed.

Trustee Soderstrom asked if the point of a workshop is to address any questions,

concerns that we have about the property past density alone.

Trustee Moreau said that that would be her recommendation.

President Mueller explained that Mr. Bayer just clarified that we can workshop it that

way, but when we go into the action item, it has to be on the density.

Mr. Bayer said that the discussion at the workshop will impact everyone's decision on

how they vote on the project, but that discussion should relate to how those items affect

whether or not density should or shouldn't be increased. For example, in the discussion

about traffic flow, how will the density increase negatively, positively or in a neutral

manner the traffic flow because that's one of the considerations you would be looking to

determine whether an increase in density is proper.

Trustee Soderstrom said that he was okay with going to the workshop. But if it means

having this extended discussion only to come back to the vote on density, the vote can

be taken tonight in his opinion. He said that if it's everyone's choice to have a workshop

in two weeks to discuss the same questions that they have tonight, he has no problem

with that.

President Mueller stated that staff has the answers for those questions too.

Trustee Moreau said that it was her sense that not everyone on the board felt fully

briefed and still had outstanding questions. She felt that some of the questions were

answered tonight.

Trustee Fitzpatrick said in regards to the word "density," the units would be more, but it

would not be more population in the new building. In fact, the condo building would be

more as far as the average amount of people in that building would have been 60. The

word "density" has different meanings, plus the cars may be less.

Trustee Gron asked how we address the other issues that are outstanding, such as

traffic flow, parking, the issue of the developer leading the existing residents to believe

that they were going to get this project, and they got the rug pulled out from underneath

them, if we are restricted only to the density issue.

President Mueller suggested that during the workshop session he can try to get the

answers as far as a compromise between the developer and the condo association. But

when you come back to the action item itself, it all reverts back to the zoning issue of

density.

Mr. Bayer explained that just as the Plan Commission sent the board a recommendation

that the density was acceptable subject to certain conditions being met by the property

owner or developer, conditions can be added to the ordinance approving the PUD

change in which someone might say that the density increase is acceptable if A, B and

C are also done in relation to the project, similar to what the Plan Commission did when

it made its recommendations.

Trustee Tross stated that he is all for a workshop. It's something that should have been

discussed, like other projects that have come before the board. He remarked that this is

the first he has ever heard density equate to the population in the legal terms. He

doesn't know how you workshop an item where you have the limitations on the petition

in front of you and you cannot even bring the parties to the table. He suggested that the

board deal with the issue before it, and parties have to be brought to the table. Items

have been offered to mitigate this. Investigations have been made, and now they want

to tie our hands and have us bite our tongues, and then say let's go to a workshop and

deal with it. Residents and citizens have been affected by this. The Plan Commission

in its determination said this mixed use does have an effect on those people. Trustee

Tross asked where the board would bring this together.

President Mueller said that the board hasn't workshopped a project like this for quite

some time because there hasn't been one that raised the questions that this has raised.

He said that he offered a workshop as a suggestion, that he is not saying that's the way

to go.

Trustee Tross stated that he is prepared to offer it after a vote on this issue, and then let

everybody start on even ground.

President Mueller said that there is a motion on the floor. He asked Trustee Moreau if

she wished to withdraw that motion.

Trustee Moreau withdrew the motion.

President Mueller asked Trustee Tross if he wanted to make a motion.

Trustee Tross suggested Trustee Moreau make her motion.

Trustee Moreau asked Trustee Tross to make his statement first.

Trustee Tross said that he believes District 2 is the only district in the Village that hosts

two sites that were built for, with and by government's direct and indirect resources, to

provide affordable hosting. These were not built without controversy. And even now

decades later, there are still pro and con issues as to their existence. He suggested that

these sites fulfill many community needs and are assets to our great Village. He

believes this proposal rises to the level of being an even greater asset to our

community, senior citizen affordable housing.

He reminded the board of the meticulous reviews, details, community discussions and

ownership that was applied to these two other sites many decades ago and said that he

sees no such in depth process in this proposal. The Village attorneys, Tom, yourself

and your colleagues at the Plan Commission, our staff members and certain officials

have chosen to limit the scope of this proposal to the simple question of land use and

density only on one single common property lot. Every member of the Plan

Commission, although it made a positive recommendation, raised concerns over the

mixed effect of this proposal on the condominium/property owners. They were dutifully

told and directed to the question of land use and density only.

In his opinion, this proposal needs more than a discussion of only land use and density.

He explained that if limited to only the land use and density question, then the

condominium owners in his opinion are jointly, while not simple title, the de-facto

owners of the property. The Village legally recognizes them as owners because it

statutorily notified them with a petition and notification. He believes his first obligation is

to protect property owners' rights and their interests. Then it is that of the community.

Then it is to find compromise, solutions to problems and common ground that we can

all come together on. He stated that there has been a sense expressed that this issue is

a foregone conclusion because of the nature of the petition, senior citizens and

affordable housing. The condo/property owners have been shut out of the equation.

They have been invited to hear but not partake. He indicated that he will be voting "no"

on this issue.

Trustee Tross stated that he and many other people have repeatedly questioned,

offered and attempted to investigate the mechanisms that would make this wonderful

housing proposal doable but have been stonewalled at every turn. The homeowners'

questions have not been answered. He said that the condo owners and residents of our

Village feel betrayed first by the developer and now potentially by the Village. He

suggested after the vote tonight that the board have a collaborative workshop

discussion on this proposal and, more importantly, future proposals that come into our

Village. Nothing is preordained. But the petitioner's urgency for a vote tonight denies

this board an open discussion on the merits and mechanisms to make this overall

proposal work.

He explained that the vote is limited to density and land use, his vote this evening will be

to deny. It does not mean that the issue is not open to reconsideration.

Trustee Moreau asked Trustee Tross what additional issues he would like to consider.

Trustee Tross said that he would defer to legal counsel so that he could express it in

understandable terms. But relative to the issue of the type of housing, the financing for

that housing, who is going to live there and who is not going to live there, he believes it

is inappropriate for the issue that is before us for us to discuss their funding, their

viability, whether it is a government funded subsidy. His understanding is that legal

counsel said you cannot use that as a criterion. But do we have an obligation to the

residents of this community to find out as much about affordable housing and the quality

and who is building it? Yes. This Village made a commitment. How do we make them

whole? He believes the very first speaker tonight came up with a suggestion and he

doesn't know why it hasn't been explored. He said he would not workshop it on a dais

under the pressure of a December 3rd date.

Trustee Moreau asked if Trustee Tross's questions were answered. She said she

knows what the board is not going to talk about but asked what additional things he

wanted to talk about.

Trustee Tross said that under the terms that are before the board, there is nothing to

talk about. He thinks there should be two parcels and let them stand alone on their own

parcel. He believes that these were issues that through the process and the protocol

that this took should have been discussed and were not. He does not know of any

discussion by any representative of the Village that indicated in any meeting style or any

phone call or email that he got that said we are listening to the residents, and here is

how we are going to try to deal with it.

Trustee Moreau remarked that part of those discussions that did happen went through

staff and should have been communicated in paperwork so things regarding the parking,

regarding the signage, regarding the name. One resident, Christine, was very articulate

in her suggestions on how we can make changes that would be acceptable. Not

everybody believed that those changes were going to be acceptable to all, but there

were definitely concessions.