Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

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.

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:

1. Building Exterior

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.

2. Roof Construction

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.

3. Balconies

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.