Village of Lombard Legistar System

Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the petition. Staff has received comments from

Trustees and residents based upon enforcement of Section 155.220 of the Village Code.

This provision requires the property owner that constructs any addition or accessory

structure that requires a new foundation, footings, or piers to obtain a plat of

resubdivision if their property is not a lot of record. This requirement was instituted as a

result of the previous text amendments, which limited development to single lots of

record.

Parcels subdivided for tax assessment purposes are not recognized as buildable lots of

record. These parcels are essentially portions of a larger lot or multiple lots and can be

sold independently of the original lot. Section 154.101 of the Village Code requires that

any subdivision of land be submitted to the Village for approval. Hence, approval of the

plat of resubdivision creates a legal lot of record for development purposes. The

proposed text amendment is intended to relax the standards for requiring a plat of

resubdivision.

Staff research has found that the majority of surrounding communities require that the

subdivision of land within their corporate boundaries be approved by the jurisdiction.

However, many communities will recognize the zoning lot even if it is not a lot of record

for the purposes of issuing building permits. A lot of record is largely defined as a lot

that is part of a subdivision, the plat of which was recorded in the office of the DuPage

County recorder of deeds, or a parcel of land, the deed to which was so recorded, prior

to the adoption date of the ordinance. A zoning lot may be a single lot or a combination

of lots that are used as one lot.

The purpose of the Village's subdivision requirements is to ensure that new

development will meet the Village development standards. Staff believes that the

current requirement could be relaxed to allow property owners to make modest

additions to their residences without obtaining a plat of resubdivision. The proposed text

amendments would continue to require a plat of resubdivision for large-scale

developments, such as the construction of a principal structure or large additions. Staff

believes that the proposed amendments will provide property owners additional latitude

without compromising the integrity of the development standards. She then referenced

the proposed text amendment language.

Ms. Clark and William Heniff, Senior Planner then reviewed the standards for text

amendments as expressed in the Zoning Ordinance and noted how the proposed

amendments will meet these provisions.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Michael Biscan, 109 W. Greenfield, Lombard, asked for clarification on what is a

large-scale addition. Ms. Clark stated that a residential addition over three hundred

(300) square feet and an accessory structure over eight hundred (800) square feet

would be considered large scale.

Mr. Biscan stated that his lot conforms to current lot size requirements. He stated that

he had met with William Heniff, Senior Planner, and William Lichter, Village Manager,

earlier in the year seeking guidance as to how he should proceed in light of the

requirement for the plat of resubdivision. Mr. Biscan noted that had he known that the

text amendments would consider three hundred (300) square feet as a large-scale

addition he would have reduced the size of his addition by twenty feet (20') to comply.

Mr. Biscan also stated that he had previously received permits for a deck and driveway

without having to obtain a plat of resubdivision.

Chairperson Ryan stated that Mr. Biscan's situation was not under the purview of the

Plan Commission and he needed to discuss his situation with Village staff.

Mr. Heniff stated that specific properties or permit applications were not considered

when drafting the language of the text amendments. He also noted that the Village

Board initially suggested that the plat requirement could be tied to a dollar amount

($50,000). Staff believes that tying the proposed amendment to a square footage is

more desirable as it automatically addresses the inflation issue and also ties in the

physical size of the improvement. Using this approach, staff thought that a 300 square

foot addition requirement was established as a reasonable proxy to the suggested dollar

amount.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the text amendments appeared to take a very

pragmatic approach and made sense.

Commissioner Sweetser concurred with Commissioner Olbrysh's statement.

Mr. Biscan asked how the new requirement would apply to his property since he would

exceed the new requirement by twenty feet (20'). He stated that he had placed a bond

with the Village in order to receive his permit while the plat of resubdivision requirement

was under review.

Chairperson Ryan stated that Mr. Biscan's building permit was issued under previous

code requirements. He stated that Mr. Biscan was welcome to address the Board of

Trustees when they review the proposed text amendments. He stated that Mr. Biscan

would need to work out any previous arrangements with Village staff.

Presenting the petition was John Ranieri, for KinderCare. He opened his presentation

by stating that they were looking for annexation and the continued use for a child care

center. They currently have licensing for 119 children. Right now they have 62 children

registered ranging from 6 months old to 12 years old. Their hours of operation are

Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. They also bus children to four local

schools. He concluded that they are not proposing any improvements to the property.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor

or against the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the Village has pursued annexation of areas

within Lombard's ultimate boundaries. This property is now contiguous to the Village via

the Kitchen & Bath Home Improvement Gallery property to the north, the Village is now

pursuing annexation of the site.

He noted that the property is currently developed as a child-day care facility. To

facilitate this development, the Village entered into an agreement to provide public utility

services to the subject property. As contiguity has been established to the property, In

consideration of the annexation, the petitioner is looking for assurances that they have

the appropriate zoning approvals through the Village in order to continue to operate their

business as a legal conforming use. No site improvements are being proposed with this

petition.

He then noted that the Long-Range Plan Map of the Comprehensive Plan recommends

that the property be used for estate residential purposes. Staff requests that a

Comprehensive Plan change be made for the subject property in order to allow for the

property to be rezoned to the B-3 District. The Village previously entered into an

agreement with the petitioner in order to allow for the connection to the Village's utility

system and executed a Facilities Planning Area (FPA) amendment in 1989 to allow for

the transfer of the subject property into the Glenbard Sanitary District. Based on these

actions, it appears that the Village was supportive of the business and took substantial

actions in order to facilitate the existing development. In light of these actions, staff

believes that the proposed change can be supported.

He noted the property is located south of the Roosevelt Road corridor and bordered on

the north by a commercial use and a non-conforming single-family residence. On the

other sides, the property is bordered by single-family residences. Given that the

property has existed at its present location for fifteen years, the neighboring property

owner's expectation of a non-residential use on the property is established. Therefore,

staff feels that the use is appropriate at the location.

The property has residential zoning through DuPage County. Child day-care facilities

are listed as conditional uses in the DuPage County Zoning Ordinance. However, the

Village of Lombard only permits facilities of this nature as conditional uses in the

Business Districts. Hence, the map amendment request is requested. Staff notes that

the subject property is located adjacent to recently annexed property that was also

designated into the B-3 District as well. Recognizing that the property fronts an arterial

roadway (Meyers Road), the rezoning seems appropriate. Staff also feels that the

conditional use can be supported for the subject property as the existing use is a good

transitional use from the commercial uses to the north on Roosevelt Road and the

residences to the south. As several other institutional uses front Meyers Road near the

subject property, the petitioner's land use is not inconsistent with development along

Meyers Road.

He noted that a plat of consolidation should be required to consolidate the property into

a single lot of record. This consolidation can be approved administratively.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners.

Presenting the petition was Lennard Lund, 435 Madison Avenue, Villa Park, Illinois. He

noted that his son, Jeffery Lund, lives in the residence on the subject property. He

discussed the history of the property and noted that he originally sought approval for the

house though DuPage County. He entered into a utility agreement with the Village so

that he could connect to the Village utilities.

He then described the proposed lot divisions and noted that the lots would meet setback

requirements and the area requirements.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor

or against the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the subject property currently consists of two

assessment lots. The northern tract is improved with a single-family residence. The

southern tract of land is vacant. The petitioner entered into an agreement in 1999 in

order to allow him to connect to Village utilities. A condition of that agreement is that the

petitioner would agree to annex his property to the Village once contiguity is established.

As contiguity is now being established via the KinderCare property to the north, this

petition is being brought forward.

As a companion to the annexation, the petitioner proposes to resubdivide the subject

property from two assessment lots into three lots of record. The petitioner requests

approval of a Minor Plat of Resubdivision to include a variation from Section 155.405 (E)

of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum lot width in the R1 Single-Family

Residence District for one of the lots (Lot 2) from 75 feet to 73 feet.

He noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the subject property be

developed as Estate Residential, which recommends development of four dwelling units

per acre. The petitioner's proposal will establish three lots of over ¼ acre each. The R1

zoning classification is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that identifies the

subject property for Estate Residential development. Therefore, the resubdivision is

consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. He also noted that the

proposal would be consistent with the existing neighboring residential properties.

Upon annexation, the subject property will automatically be placed within the R-1

Single-Family Residence District. No changes to the zoning designation are requested.

The proposed three-lot subdivision requires variation for a Minor Plat of Resubdivision

as part of this request. Section 155.405 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a

minimum lot width of seventy-five feet (75') in the R1 Single-Family Residence District.

The petitioner's existing lots total 223 feet in width, which would make them two feet

short of code. Rather than requesting a map amendment to rezone the property to R2,

the petitioner is requesting a variation to the lot width instead.

Staff feels that keeping the property zoned as R1 is more desirable as the interior side

yards are wider (7.5 feet versus 6 feet). This will give the properties a greater amount of

open space between the yards. Staff also notes that even the smallest lot will be

seventeen percent larger than the underlying lot size requirements. The petitioner also

placed the narrowest lot in the center of the entire subject property so as to minimize

any impact on neighboring properties. Staff is supportive of the configuration as shown

on the submitted plans as the exterior lots would be meeting all underlying provisions.

Outside of the lot width provision, the lots as proposed will meet the standards of the

Subdivision and Development Ordinance.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan

Commissioners.

He noted that he has no problems with the petition. Commissioner Olbrysh stated that

he felt this is a minor variation.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that they have voted against on past petitions that fall

short of the lot width requirement. Chairperson Ryan noted that the proposed lots are

larger than what they normally see.

He then noted that the idea of a conference or convention center in southern Lombard is

not new. Initial discussion of such a facility dates back to the mid-to late 1980s.

However, in recent years, the Village Board has identified such a facility as a

cornerstone of economic and community development and has identified the

development of a facility within their annual strategic planning activities.

In 2000, the Village Board entered into an exclusivity agreement with the Harp Group.

The Village also supported legislation to allow non-home rule communities of over

40,000 in population to have bonding authority for the development of hotel/convention

halls. With the passage of this legislation, the Village has the ability to issue bonds to

facilitate the project. With a tentative agreement between the relevant parties in place,

staff has now begun to proceed with the site design/development and official review

processes.

Mr. Heniff then noted the history of the site:

· In 1965, site originally included as part of the Yorktown Planned Development.

· In 1995, the Yorktown Peripheral Planned Development was approved which removed

the subject property (as well as other perimeter lands) from the Yorktown Planned

Development.

· In 1997, the Yorktown Peripheral Planned Development was amended for Lots 5 & 6

(the lots immediately south of the subject property) for the purpose of constructing the

existing parking lot on the subject property.

· In 1999, Parcel 3 (the Marriott Town Place Suites parcel) was removed from the

Yorktown Residential Planned Development and a new planned development was

created.

Staff will present the following items as two separate Plan Commission cases. PC

03-29 will address text amendment issues pertaining to the site, including establishing

"hotel/convention hall" as a conditional use within the B3 Community Shopping District

and adding parking and loading regulations for such a use. PC 03-30 will be for the site

specific requests for the center, including but not limited to:

1. Conditional use approval for a hotel/conference center in the B3 Community

Shopping District;

2. Approval of an amendment to the Yorktown Peripheral Planned Development;

3. Site plan approval of the proposed development with the amendments and/or

deviations from the Zoning Ordinance reducing the required rear yard, increasing in the

maximum building height; allowing for more than one wall sign per tenant space, and

allowing for more than one wall sign per street frontage.

He noted that staff is looking for feedback and direction from the Commissioners. In

addition to the materials, staff has ordered a traffic study for the proposed development.

David Hulseberg, Director of Community Development, introduced the proposed

development team members and discussed the details of the proposed facility.

Referring to the materials board prepared by VOA Architects, he noted the terraced

nature of the proposed building. The 18-story structure is lower than originally

envisioned in earlier plans. Referencing the overall site plan, he noted the proposed

reconfiguration to the existing detention pond to provide a real amenity to the hotel.

Around the perimeter of the pond, additional landscaping and pedestrian walkways will

be provided. He referenced other sites which were considered for the facility and noted

that the subject property best suits the project.

Vehicular access will be provided via a new access road to 22nd Street east of the

existing Target store. The new access roadway will be signalized at 22nd Street. This

new roadway will provide an additional access to Target, which will improve overall

traffic flow around the mall. The roadway will also direct traffic to 22nd Street, which will

relieve the impacts on the ring road and Butterfield Road. He noted that the purchase

and sale agreement for the property also provides for two million dollars for

improvements to the Yorktown Mall ring road.

Referencing the building elevation plans, he then described each of the proposed floor

plans. He noted that the loading functions would be placed at the northeast corner of

the building. This location will allow for unloading of trucks out of view from the front

elevation. West of the dock is a six-level parking structure.

The first floor of the facility will include, among other things, two signature restaurants,

20,000 square foot main ballroom space, plus several meeting room and junior ballroom

spaces. The mezzanine level will include administrative space and will be at the same

level as the first level of the parking structure. The second floor will include hotel rooms

and the hotel pool. He noted that the elevations would be terraced at various floors to

provide for an improved building design as well as allowing for an additional amenity to

the proposed hotel suites.

He then referenced the side profiles of the building for reference purposes. He noted

that the parking structure would not be visibly prominent, as the existing Mid-Con

parking garage, the Target store and the hotel itself will screen it.

Discussing site amenities, he mentioned the desire to link the hotel with the Lindner

Conference Center and the AMC movie theatre. He then discussed the table of total

proposed square footages for the hotel facility.

He concluded his presentation by noting that the hotel has the backing of the Village -

staff is presenting the workshop to the Plan Commission to find out if all the site

development issues have been addressed and if the work completed to date is on-track.

Commissioner Sweeter asked for clarification regarding the use of the term "convention

hall" as compared to "conference center". Mr. Hulseberg stated that the convention hall

term is being used in order to be consistent with State Statutes. The terms are fairly

synonymous and are not tied by any specific square footages.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked about the state legislation authorizing the Village to fund

such a facility. Mr. Hulseberg stated that the legislation amended the population

requirement necessary for non-home rule communities to finance hotel/convention halls.

Commissioner Olbrysh liked the terracing or setbacks proposed on the building

elevations. He then referenced connectivity issues and asked if walkways would be

provided from the site to Fountain Square and the mall. Mr. Hulseberg noted that

currently pedestrian access is provided via 22nd Street - no walkways are proposed

through the Northern Baptist property. Referencing mall access, sidewalks will be

provided to the Target site and around the perimeter of the site. No elevated walkways

will be provided.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about shuttle service. Mr. Hulseberg referenced the

need to work with all hotels in the Village and to link the hotels with the downtown, the

water park and the Metra station. He stated that it would take about three years to ramp

up the hotel to a point where the demand can be fully identified. Commissioner

Sweetser also recommended looking at regularly scheduled, dependable service from

the beginning.

Commissioner Sweetser inquired about the parking facility amenities and the view from

the top. Mr. Hulseberg noted that the design of the hotel intends to minimize the garage

view. The roof will also have rooftop landscaping provided.

She also inquired about other amenities for hotel guests, such as a fitness track. Mr.

Hulseberg said that the agreement allows for the development of a fitness track with

apparatus to be located between the two detention ponds. He also referenced the trail

improvements along 22nd Street that were completed in 2000. She also requested that

it be designed as a wireless hot spot.

Referencing the floor plans, she confirmed that the business center space is for the

guests.

Commissioner Flint asked about the terracing of the hotel. Mr. Hulseberg noted that the

space would be used for outdoor balcony space for adjoining suites.

Commissioner Flint asked about proposed building materials. Mr. Hulseberg noted that

they would be provided for the Commissioner's review. Commissioner Flint also

recommended the use of up-lighting. He also referenced the relationship of the

proposed facility to the Lindner Conference Center. Mr. Hulseberg noted that they have

had a number of meetings with the Seminary to review the project and have explored

varying option to address site design issues.

Commissioner Flint asked about the ballroom size, for comparative purposes. Mr.

Hulseberg noted that all the ballrooms at the Drury Lane would be about the same size.

Commissioner Burke asked about detention issues. Mr. Hulseberg stated that the

existing pond would be reshaped and dug out deeper to maintain the same volume it

currently holds. The pond is sized to accommodate all of the proposed development

activity within the Yorktown Perimeter planned development.

Commissioner Burke asked about parking availability on the Target property. Mr.

Hulseberg noted that the proposed facility would have 910 spaces on-site. The Target

site was developed with excess parking that can be shared or utilized by other sites

within the planned development.

Commissioner Burke then asked about the Village's parking standards. Mr. Hulseberg

noted that as part of the petition, parking standards would need to be established for

hotel/convention hall land use. To confirm that the proposed parking is sufficient, the

Village's traffic consultant will review this issue in detail.

Commissioner Burke asked for a clarification in the floor room counts on the exhibit

boards.

Commissioner Zorn praised the layout of the proposed facility and hoped it would be

user-friendly. Mr. Hulseberg noted that all of the meeting rooms and most of the central

functions would be placed on the first floor.

Commissioner Olbrysh reiterated his concern regarding pedestrian access and would

like to see an easier way to get to the mall. Mr. Hulseberg stated that now may not be

the time to consider additional pedestrian improvements such as a walkway, but this

should be considered in the future. Commissioner Olbrysh mentioned that future

pedestrian demand might even necessitate traffic signals at the ring road. Mr.

Hulseberg stated that staff would be working with Yorktown Mall ownership relative to

the ring road improvements.

Chairperson Ryan referenced traffic issues, particularly the impact of the traffic from the

facility on existing Yorktown Mall traffic. Mr. Hulseberg referenced the ring road

improvements and how the two million dollars allocated for roadway improvements can

be utilized most efficiently.

Commission Burke referenced the new access roadway and questioned whether the

new access point will improve overall access circulation around the mall area. Mr.

Hulseberg stated that the traffic consultant would explore the design and nature of the

access roadway.

Commissioner Sweetser asked for clarification of the first floor plans, asking about coat

rooms, confirming that the BR stands for break-out rooms and noting proper sizing of

the restrooms.

Chairperson Ryan asked about the abutting land uses to the loading dock area. Mr.

Hulseberg noted that Mid-Con's recently completed 3.5 story parking garage is

immediately north of the loading dock, which will screen the dock from residential

properties.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked about pathways on Mid-Con's property. Mr. Hulseberg

noted their internal sidewalks that direct pedestrians to 22nd Street.

Commissioner Burke questioned the maneuvering for the trucks in the loading dock

area. Mr. Hulseberg discussed the proposed truck movements and the need for an

easement from Northern Baptist for truck maneuvering. He also noted that the design of

this area still needs to be refined to soften its appearance.

Chairperson Ryan asked about elevator connections between the hotel and the parking

garage. Mr. Hulseberg noted that one set of elevator banks would provided at the

southwest corner of the parking garage.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about the height of Oakbrook Terrace Towers for

comparative purposes. Peter Dumon of Harp Mid-America LLC noted that the Towers

are 31 stories of offices. Hotels differ in floor heights; the overall hotel building height

will be about 200 feet, which is more comparable to One Lincoln Center.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked about the number of elevators. Dumon noted that there

would be five or six oversized elevators. None of them will be express, as express

elevators tend to confuse guests. Oversized elevators are proposed to accommodate

life/safety issues for the Fire Department as well as providing for heavy use after various

conferences end.

Chairperson Ryan stated that he thought the work done to date is a great start to the

project.