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, December 20, 2004
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Sondra Zorn, |
Commissioner Martin Burke and Commissioner Rocco Melarkey |
Present:
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, Senior Planner and George |
Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan Commission. |
Public Hearings
040624
H. PC 04-37: 1000 N. Rohlwing Road (Waiver of First Requested) |
Requests that the Village approve a conditional use for a religious institution located |
within the B3 Community Shopping District. The petitioner is requesting a waiver of first |
reading as well as a waiver of the Village portion of the Plan Commission public hearing |
fees. (DISTRICT #1) |
Joe Basile, 5538 Celebrity C. West, Hanover Park, stated that he is the Senior Pastor of |
the Church in Lombard. They have been holding their services at Madison Elementary |
School and they are proposing to relocate their worship services to the proposed theatre |
site at Northgate Shopping Center. In his presentation, he reviewed the standards for |
conditional uses and noted that the church would not have an adverse impact on |
surrounding properties. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one |
present to speak for or against the petition. |
Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated |
that the petitioner, The Church in Lombard, is seeking a conditional use to have religious |
services within one of the former theatre spaces within the former Northgate Theatre |
property. This property in general, and the location of the proposed church specifically, |
is currently operating under a conditional use for an indoor amusement establishment |
that was approved as PC 02-31. |
The congregation, which has approximately 250 members, is proposing to occupy one |
of the existing theatre spaces that was not converted as part of the Kool Zone teen club. |
The Church anticipates that it will primarily operate on Sunday mornings. |
Mr. Heniff summarized the IDRC comments and stated that the proposed religious |
institution has been holding services at Madison Elementary School. They are |
proposing to relocate into the theatre space in the Northgate Shopping Center as it is |
already set-up to accommodate a larger assemblage of people. |
The Comprehensive Plan recommends Corridor Commercial uses for the subject |
property. Religious institutions can have much in common with many uses commonly |
found in corridor commercial areas, as both attract visitors from wide area. Therefore, |
the proposed use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan when such uses are |
located within the B3 Community Shopping District. |
With the approval of PC 04-22 earlier this year, religious institutions are classified as |
conditional uses within the B3 zoning district. The subject property already has a |
conditional use for an indoor amusement establishment, which is another assembly-type |
land use. |
The petitioner proposes to use the existing area within the building largely as it currently |
exists. They propose to modify the front of the seating area to accommodate a stage to |
facilitate their worship services. The theatre seating area will remain as it currently |
exists. |
From staff's perspective, we find the proposed religious institution use, as proposed, to |
be quite similar to the past theatre use, which is a permitted use in the B3 District. |
Outside of worship services, they are not proposing any other ancillary activities (e.g., |
day-care, pre-school, Sunday school, etc.) that can frequently accompany religious |
institutional uses. Therefore, as the use will be operated similar to other permitted uses |
within the B3 District, staff is supportive of the request. |
Mr. Heniff stated that the theatre space was originally included as part of the indoor |
amusement establishment conditional use. At the time of the original approval, the |
operator of the teen club proposed to show second-run movies in the theatre area. |
However, those plans never came to fruition. |
Given that the teen club already accommodates large numbers of visitors, staff believes |
that the proposed use would not be detrimental to neighboring land uses and would |
have a minimal impact on the area. The Church in Lombard anticipates that it will offer |
services on Sunday mornings, which is a low-activity time for the rest of Northgate |
Plaza. The shopping center provides adequate parking and circulation, and any noise |
or traffic that could possibly be generated by the proposed use would not negatively |
impact the surrounding commercial properties. |
Mr. Heniff stated that it is important to recognize the inter-relationship between the teen |
club and the religious institution. The Church will use the same main entrance and |
restroom facilities as the teen club. However, the actual operation of the respective |
conditional uses will be located within different areas, as shown on the submitted plan. |
Staff does not inherently see a conflict between these two district uses. However, staff |
recommends that a condition be added to the recommendation of approval that the area |
proposed to be used by the Church in Lombard is to be used exclusively for religious |
institution purposes and shall not be used by the teen club as part of their business |
operations. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission |
members. |
Commissioner Sweetser noted that in the letter from School District 44, it made a |
reference to the child care associated with the church, while the staff report noted that |
there will be no child day care operations associated within the church. Mr. Basile |
stated that the child care is only offered during worship services and they will not be |
having any daycare or pre-school activities. |
Commissioner Burke asked about the hours of operation for church and wondered if |
they did have a service at a time other than Sunday mornings, would that cause a |
problem. Mr. Heniff stated that while most of their services will occur on Sunday |
morning, there will be times that services may occur on other days (i.e., on Christmas). |
Additionally, as the site was originally designed and developed as a theatre, the site |
improvements already provide for large gatherings of people - even during periods when |
other business uses on the property would be open. |
Commissioner Burke then asked about condition 3 within the staff report that would |
restrict the use of theatre area by the church and not for the teen club. Does the Village |
have the ability to enforce this regulation? Mr. Heniff noted that the Village has rights to |
inspect the operations at the teen club as part of their licensing requirements. Mr. Basile |
said that they would not want the teen club to use the theatre area and they would keep |
the theatre area locked. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval |
subject to conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn, Burke and Melarkey
6 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5595 |
1. The petitioner's building and site improvements shall be designed and constructed |
consistent with Village Code and all also address the comments included within the |
IDRC report. |
2. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for any improvements |
associated with the conditional use. |
3. That the theatre space proposed to be used by the petitioner as part of this request |
shall only be used for religious institution purposes and shall not be occupied or used as |
part of the adjacent indoor amusement (i.e., teen club) establishment. |
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the November 15, 2004 Plan Commission meeting were approved by |
unanimous consent of the Plan Commission. |
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
The Chairperson deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
The Senior Planner had nothing to report.
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
040625
I. SUB 04-05: 645 W. North Avenue |
Motion requesting approval of a two-lot major plat of subdivision. (DISTRICT #1) |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He gave a description of the |
history of the Heron Point project, specifically noting that the proposed two-lot |
subdivision is intended to create separate lots for each of the constructed buildings on |
the property. He next stated that the proposed subdivision meets all the requirements |
of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision and Development Ordinance. The proposed |
subdivision does not affect the approved site plan. |
Mr. Heniff further stated that when the planned development was first approved, parking |
and access/egress needs for both buildings were combined and met on one lot. To |
ensure that the parking and circulation requirements are adequately addressed with the |
subdivision and that visitors to each building will be able to access the site using either |
the North Avenue or the Route 53 entrances, a shared access and shared parking |
agreement is therefore required. These provisions may be included on the final plat or |
as part of a separate agreement that would be recorded concurrent with the plat of |
subdivision. Mr. Heniff concluded by stating that staff recommended approval of the plat |
subject to this provision. |
There was no one present to speak in favor of or against this petition. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. There was no discussion among 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, Burke and Melarkey
6 -
1. That prior to submittal of the plat to the Village Board, the petitioner shall amend the |
plat to provide for cross-park and cross access provisions of the subject property. |
Workshops
There were no workshops.
Site Plan Approvals
040626
F. SPA 04-09: 2020 St. Regis Drive (Yorkbrook Condominiums)(Continued from |
January 6, 2005) |
Motion directing the Director of Community Development to approve the proposed minor |
changes to the development plan for Phases 2 and 3 of the Yorkbrook Condominium |
Planned Development, subject to the conditions enumerated within the |
Inter-departmental Review Committee report. (DISTRICT #3) |
Chairperson Ryan referred to William Heniff, Senior Planner, who introduced the |
petition. Mr. Heniff stated that the Yorkbrook Condominium development was originally |
approved by the Village in 1996, consisting of a single 120-unit condominium |
development to be constructed in three phases. Phase I of the project (45 units) started |
in 1999 with construction work continuing through 2001. The original developer, Fox |
Land Development, was unable to continue with the project and Phases 2 & 3 were |
placed into foreclosure. |
Hartz Construction, the contract purchaser of the two remaining phases of the |
development, has submitted new plans for Phases 2 and 3 of the development. Their |
intent is to complete the project as it was initially envisioned in 1996. The footprint of the |
building will remain essentially the same and the overall number of units will not change. |
However, they are proposing modifications to the exterior elevations and interior plans |
and will utilize a similar plan that was approved and constructed as part of the Liberty |
Square Condominium project south of the subject property. |
The petitioner's proposed changes would be classified as minor changes to the planned |
development, per the Zoning Ordinance. However, given the history of the project and |
the scope of the changes proposed by the petitioner, staff elected to bring this petition to |
the Plan Commission and Village Board for consideration. He then introduced the |
petitioner to discuss their proposed changes in detail. |
Elaine Pochiro, General Counsel for Hartz Construction, opened her presentation by |
giving an overview of the proposed project. She then introduced Bill Mathis of Linden |
Group Architects, who discussed the proposed changes in detail. |
He opened his presentation by noting that the number of units proposed in the |
development will not change from the initial approval in 1996. The development will |
meet the parking requirements of the Village and sufficient handicapped parking will be |
provided both inside and outside of Phases 2 and 3. |
He then noted the four major changes to the plan: |
The original building was approved with a stamped concrete and dryvit exterior. They |
propose to use full masonry around the exterior, as shown on the submitted materials |
board and building elevations. |
In lieu of a pitched metal roof, they are proposing a flat roof, with a exterior parapet. |
This design will be similar to the approved and constructed buildings within the Liberty |
Square development. |
The original plans had projecting balconies - their plans will include recessed balconies |
as shown on the submitted plans. |
4. Deck Area Over the Parking Structure |
In lieu on providing all the rooftop landscaping and furniture as depicted on the 1996 |
plans, they are proposing to provide a synthetic patio surface. |
Commissioners Sweetser and Burke inquired about the durability of the proposed |
synthetic surface and how it would be laid on top of the parking garage. Mr. Mathis said |
the material to be supplied will be a wearable surface that will allow for walking and |
active use. The surface will also provide for furniture if the resident desires to add it in |
the future. |
Mr. Heniff then reviewed the past approvals granted to the property as shown on the |
1996 plans and how the petitioner's plans will deviate from the initial approvals. He also |
referenced the adjacent land uses and how Phases 2 and 3 will be compatible with the |
built environment. He also discussed site line issues, noting that the single family |
residences to the north will not see the Phase 2 and 3 addition - the greatest visibility will |
be from the St. Regis Condominiums to the east of the project. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one |
present to speak for or against the petition. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission |
members. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked about the proposed change to the rooftop patio area - |
should the association propose to add landscaping and/or furniture, will they need to |
come back to the Plan Commission for approval? Mr. Heniff said the purpose of this |
requested change is to allow the new developer the flexibility of not providing the |
additional plantings and furniture as depicted in the 1996 approval. He then noted that |
all other items associated with the 1996 approval, including the perimeter and |
foundation landscaping provisions, would still need to be provided as part of the |
development. Staff will also work with the petitioner accordingly. |
Commissioner Melarkey asked about the overall height of the proposed rooftop patio |
area. Mr. Mathis noted it will be approximately 11'2" above grade. Units around the |
patio area will either have a fenced area for their individual balconies or a swing gate |
that would allow for access to the shared patio area. |
Commissioner Melarkey then inquired about the stairs to the patio area. Commissioner |
Sweetser also asked about security issues associated with the stairs from the patio area |
to grade. Mr. Mathis stated that these steps were needed for life/safety code reasons |
and it would be a secure environment, which will include fencing to preclude direct |
access onto the patio area from grade. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Melarkey, to |
recommend to the Corporate Authorities for approval with conditions. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn, Burke and Melarkey
6 -
1. That Phases 2 & 3 shall be constructed in accordance with the site plan and building |
elevations prepared by Linden Group, Inc., dated December 8, 2004 and made a part of |
this petition. |
2. That the petitioner shall address all concerns raised by the IDRC as noted within this |
report. |
3. That the petitioner shall meet all other provisions of the approval granted by the |
Village as part of PC 96-26 (Ordinance 4267) relating to site improvements, parking lot |
improvements, and landscape improvements. |
4. That in the event that Phases 2 and 3 are not constructed simultaneously that the |
petitioner shall provide a finished south exterior wall for Phase 2, with the design of the |
exterior wall being subject to the Director of Community Development. |
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m.
_____________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
______________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |