Plan Commission
Village of Lombard
Meeting Minutes
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Rocco Melarkey |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
7:30 PM
Village Hall
Monday, July 28, 2003
SPECIAL MEETING
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Sondra Zorn and |
Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Call to Order and Roll Call of Members
The following staff members were present: David Hulseberg, Director of Community |
Development; William Heniff, Senior Planner; Angela Clark, Planner I; and George |
Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda. |
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws. |
Public Hearings
030466
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5347 Amen |
030467
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. |
There were no comments from the Commissioners. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval with one |
condition. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Enactment No: Ordinances 5339-5343 |
1. That the petitioner shall submit to the Village for review and approval a plat of |
consolidation for the subject property. |
030468
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that this |
matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Enactment No: 5344 - 5346 |
Business Meeting
Chairperson convened the business meeting at 8:19 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
There were no minutes to approve.
Public Participation
Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Plan |
Commission regarding anything not on the agenda. No one was present to speak. |
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County Hearings.
Chairperson's Report
Chairperson Ryan deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
Mr. Heniff referenced PC 03-21 that was considered by the Commissioners at their July |
21, 2003 meeting. He referenced the discussion by the Commissioners that estimated |
that about 100 residential units could be developed on the subject property under |
DuPage County regulations. As a point of clarification for the record, County regulation |
would allow for up to 81.7 units on the site. |
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
There were no subdivision reports.
Workshops
1. Lombard Hotel/Convention Hall |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, introduced the workshop discussion by noting the items |
that will be covered as part of the workshop session for the Lombard Hotel/Convention |
Hall. |
He noted the intent of the workshop was to: |
· Inform the Plan Commission regarding the history of the subject property (i.e., past |
planning/zoning actions by the Village) |
· Inform the Plan Commission of past activities by staff, the Village and the petitioner |
· Inform the public regarding the upcoming petition |
· Provide a project overview |
· Provide staff with direction as to what additional information will be needed in order for |
the Commissioner's to make an informed recommendation |
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. |
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m. on July 28, 2003.