Monday, July 16, 2007
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall
Plan Commission
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Richard Nelson |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Meeting Minutes
Plan Commission
Meeting Minutes
July 16, 2007
Call to Order
Vice Chairperson Flint called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner |
Martin Burke and Commissioner Richard Nelson |
Present:
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Ronald Olbrysh and Commissioner |
Sondra Zorn |
Absent:
Also present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; Michael Toth, Associate Planner; |
and George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan Commission. |
Vice Chairperson Flint called the order of the agenda.
Public Hearings
070407
PC 07-23: 1025 E. Madison |
A. Approval of a conditional use for an existing religious institution and elementary |
school on property located in the R2 Single Family Residence District; |
B. Approval of a conditional use for a Planned Development with the following |
variations: |
1. Allow a variation from Section 155.406 (H) of the Village Code to allow a reduction |
in the required open space and approval of a variation from Section 155.508 (C)( 7) to |
allow for a reduction in the minimum open space requirements required for a planned |
development. Section 155.508 (C)(7) requires that open space in a planned |
development must be at least 25% more than is required in the underlying district; |
2. Allow a variation from Section 155.602 (C) to deviate from the design and |
dimension standards for parking lots; |
3. Allow a variation from Section 155.706 (B)(1) & (2) to reduce the minimum interior |
parking lot landscaping requirement; |
4. Allow a variation from Section 155.706 (C)(1) & (2)(a) to reduce the perimeter |
parking lot landscaping; |
C. Approval of a development agreement for the subject property. |
Vice Chairperson Flint indicated that there was a request to have this petition continued. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, verified that staff had received a letter from the petitioner |
asking for a continuance to the August 20, 2007 meeting. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that |
this matter be continued to the August 20, 2007 meeting. The motion carried by |
the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Sweetser, Burke and Nelson
4 -
Absent:
Ryan, Olbrysh and Zorn
3 -
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws.
070436
PC 07-24: 330 E. North Avenue |
Requests conditional use approval to allow for a day spa (i.e., massage establishment, |
as defined and regulated by Chapter 12, Section 122 of the Code of Ordinances), in the |
B4 Corridor Commercial District. (DISTRICT #4) |
presented the petition. He noted their conditional use request and described his |
business. Heavenly Massage & Spa is a day spa that provides manicures, pedicures, |
massages, waxing and facials. They have been in business for twelve years and they |
have multiple locations around the Chicago area. They are proposing to expand into |
Lombard with a new establishment and they have submitted plans to the Village for |
approval. |
Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in |
favor of or in opposition to the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and submitted it to the public |
record in its entirety. He noted that the day spa use is considered to be a type of |
massage establishment, which is classified as a conditional use in the B4 District. The |
proposed use will occupy a currently vacant 6,053 square foot space within the |
Overlook on North, a 17,500 square foot multi-tenant building. Prior to commencing the |
proposed massage establishment, the applicant is required to submit an application and |
receive approval for a Massage Establishment Business License with the Village. |
Regarding the Inter-departmental Review Comments, the Building Division has been |
reviewing their build-out plans and they have provided comments directly to the |
petitioner on the submitted plan set. |
With respect to Planning Services division, the Zoning Ordinance lists “Physical culture |
and massage establishments” as conditional uses within the B4 District. While the |
petitioner denotes that they are a day spa, staff has made the land use interpretation |
that the day spa use is most closely akin to a massage establishment, based upon the |
representations made by the petitioner as well as the review of the submitted interior |
build out plans. |
Prior to commencing the proposed massage establishment, the applicant is required to |
submit an application and receive approval for a Village Massage Establishment |
Business License. Individual masseurs/masseuses are licensed through the State of |
Illinois and are required to provide a copy of their license as part of the overall business |
license application. |
The concept floor plan, proposes to have eighteen massage rooms, four |
restroom/shower rooms, two restrooms, a manicure/pedicure area, a hair cutting area, |
and a front counter/waiting area. No external improvements are proposed as part of the |
business operation and the business use will be entirely within the enclosed building. |
He noted that the use would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and would be |
compatible with the adjacent land uses. |
Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan |
Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser inquired about the hours of operation of the establishment. Mr. |
Dagrizikos stated that he proposed the business to be open from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. |
Monday through Saturday and 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Sunday. |
Village Counsel George Wagner noted that condition 2 should be amended to reflect |
that the required license from the Village is a business license. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that |
this matter be Recommended for approval to the Corporate Authorities subject to |
the amended condition(s). The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Sweetser, Burke and Nelson
4 -
Absent:
Ryan, Olbrysh and Zorn
3 -
1. The conditional use for the physical culture and massage establishment is |
exclusively for the tenant space at 338 East North Avenue. Any expansion of the |
establishment within the existing shopping center beyond what was submitted as part of |
PC 07-24, shall require an amendment to the conditional use approval. |
2. Any massage establishments to be located on the premises shall apply for and |
receive a business license from the Village of Lombard. Said establishments shall meet |
all provisions of Chapter 12, Section 122 of the Village Code and shall keep their license |
in good standing. Moreover, all massage therapists employed on the premises must |
have a current license from the State of Illinois for the conditional use to apply. |
3. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for any improvements to |
the interior of the tenant space prior to starting and build-out of the tenant space. |
Moreover, the petitioner shall apply for and receive approval of a Certificate of |
Occupancy/Zoning Certificate prior to opening the business establishment. |
070437
PC 07-08: 600 W. North Avenue |
Requests that the Village amend Ordinance 4920 and take the following actions on the |
property located within the B4 Corridor Commercial District. |
1. A conditional use for a second drive-through facility. |
2. A variation from Section 153.505(B)(16)(2)(a) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to |
increase the number of permitted wall signs. |
Mario Valentini of Warren Johnson Architects, 19 North Greely, Palatine, IL presented |
the petition. He stated the property is improved with a Shell gas station. Within the |
convenience center is a deli counter. Dunkin Donuts has partnered up in several |
locations to incorporate their use. This Dunkin Donuts will operate differently than their |
freestanding locations. Donuts are not cooked at this location - it will only have a retail |
shop and they will also sell beverages. He noted this is one of a few stations that would |
accommodate a drive through. |
Continuing, Mr. Valentini stated that Warren Johnson Architects came before the Plan |
Commission when Shell initially went through the initial zoning approvals. They do not |
believe site plan will negatively impact their day-to-day operations. He indicated that the |
staff report mentions the operations and peak times. The drive through wouldn't |
interfere with gas and daily deliveries of the convenient store. He felt comfortable with |
implementing what they thought would work successfully. |
He noted the variation to increase the number of wall signs. They need to identify |
Dunkin Donuts. The majority of the customers will be people that are using this as a |
point of destination for both gas and food purposes. The drive-through accommodates |
both activities. He then described the internal design of the building. |
Mark Hawkinson the construction manager with Dunkin Donuts, 1160 Ridgewood, West |
Chicago, stated the desire to add their stores to a number of Shell locations. They have |
stringent criteria, and only two sites met their criteria. They have a high level of comfort |
that the plan will work. |
Mr. Valentini stated that Shell has stringent requirements before they let Dunkin Donuts |
enter the site. The staff report notes the outdoor sales and that concern is about items |
on pallets. The response was if they have notice of a problem, they would limit the |
amount of material or product that was out on the pallets. |
Vice Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in |
favor or in opposition to the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
William Heniff referenced the staff report, which was submitted to the public record. In |
2000, the Village Board approved a conditional use for a gas station and a car wash on |
the property. The car wash and convenience mart are in separate buildings, and the |
gas station has a large canopy covering the fuel pumps. The Shell gas station has |
entered into an agreement to lease the portion of the convenience store that is currently |
used as a deli counter to Dunkin Donuts. The petitioner is proposing a drive-through |
associated with the Dunkin Donuts, which requires an additional conditional use |
approval in the B4 Corridor Commercial District. The petitioner also seeks an |
amendment to the previous sign approvals to allow for two additional wall signs on the |
property. |
Referencing the IDRC comments, the Bureau of Inspectional Services comments that |
with the possible vehicle stacking at the drive thru and the car wash, proper emergency |
vehicle/equipment access is to be maintained at all times. |
He then discussed Planning's issues. The petitioner is proposing a new drive-through |
window in conjunction with the Dunkin Donuts operations, which requires a conditional |
use approval. Four conditional uses currently associated with the property (gasoline |
sales, car wash, two principal buildings on one lot, and outside product display and |
sales). |
The drive-through is proposed to operate in a counter-clockwise manner. Vehicles |
using the drive-through would be directed to drive around the rear of the convenience |
store and stack in a parallel lane to the car wash drive-through lane. The menu board |
would be located behind the building and between the drive-through lanes and the |
vehicle delivery area. Once orders have been placed, he/she would proceed to the |
window placed on the west side of the convenience store. |
He noted that staff offers its concerns and findings. Many such establishments within |
the community offer additional retail uses (indoor or outdoor) as well as other auto |
service uses such as car washes, vehicle service activities or even restaurant |
drive-through facilities, such as the BP/McDonald's establishment east of the subject |
property. However, when reviewing this petition, staff finds that if a conditional use for |
the drive-through window is granted, the cumulative impact of this conditional use as |
well as all of the other conditional uses would negatively affect the property. |
The petitioner has represented that the Dunkin Donuts will have peak hours in the |
morning whereas the gas station will have peak hours in the afternoon and evening. |
However, once a conditional use for a drive-through window is granted it is tied to the |
property. There is nothing that would prevent a modification to the Dunkin Donuts |
business operations, whose peak hours may coincide with the gas station, from taking |
over the lease and operating the drive-through. Empirical evidence from similar types of |
coffee establishments finds that while their peak hour of generation may be in the |
morning, there will be business activity throughout the entire day. |
From a stacking and queuing standpoint, the petitioner's plan does provide the minimum |
number of stacking spaces for the drive-through window. However, when one looks as |
the cumulative impact of the use, staff notes that should the queue extend beyond eight |
spaces, it can impact the ability for other motorists to access the car wash lane, the |
parking spaces on the east side of the building and possibly even the access drive into |
the gas station along Route 53. The drive-through may also impact the ability for |
gasoline delivery vehicles from accessing the visit the site or may hinder the ability of |
motorists to circulate around the property during these periods. Staff also has concerns |
about the ability to maneuver emergency vehicles around the site if the site is |
“overloaded” with an excessive number of differing auto uses. |
Staff notes that no other gas station in the Village has approval for all of the conditional |
uses proposed for the petitioner's property. Staff has not supported conditional uses for |
restaurant drive-through windows on gas station that also have drive-through car |
washes. Staff believes that the cumulative impact of this window creates additional |
impacts on overall traffic congestion and as such does not meet the standards for |
conditional uses. |
He then discussed the signage relief. With the approval for the gas station and car |
wash, a signage variation was granted to allow five (5) wall signs. There is one wall sign |
on the convenient mart building, one on the car wash building, and one wall sign on |
each of three sides of the canopy structure. Staff finds that the gas station in |
combination with the other uses on the property present unique signage issues. |
Additionally, staff finds that the signs are appropriately sized and believes that the |
request is reasonable. |
Regarding compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, he questioned whether the |
existing commercial uses and the proposed drive-through are consistent with the Plan's |
recommendations, as the Plan notes as an objective to encourage quality site |
development and amenities in commercial areas. |
Vice Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for comment among the |
Commissioners. |
Commissioner Burke questioned how the queuing would conflict with the access to the |
car wash, stating that he did see a conflict. Mr. Heniff noted that excessive stacking |
past the menu board could create conflicts. It may start impacting the northeast corner |
of the property. |
Commissioner Burke restated that he does not see a conflict. He stated the |
drive-through option might minimize the parking demand on the property. |
Commissioner Sweetser agreed with Commissioner Burke's comments. Clear |
directional signage could eliminate conflicts in the queue lanes. So until it proves itself |
unworkable she doesn't see the problem either. The overall number of conditional uses |
should not be a problem if they all can be accommodated. She recognized the concerns |
raised by staff regarding changes of use, but would like to see how this issue could be |
addressed. |
Vice Chairperson Flint noted that if the queues are fully stacked, one would not stop |
there, or a customer will walk in. |
Commissioner Burke questioned whether the plan would affect emergency access, as |
this may be a common problem with all properties of this type. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked about the conditional use being tied to the property for |
future owners. She does not want to create a disadvantageous situation for the current |
property owners. She also asked if there were hours imposed of the drive-through and |
if those could those be modified. |
Mr. Valentini stated that they have agreed to this condition on other properties. |
However, you are on the right track. This happens in many cases that we work on, |
where they tied the approval to a business license. They did not want to overly restrict |
the hours of the drive through, as it would confuse customers. Mr. Hawkinson noted |
that their goal is to serve customers quickly and their average wait time is 57 seconds |
from the time you place your order until you drive away. |
Commissioner Burke suggested that the petition be continued so that the petitioners can |
work out additional details. |
Mr. Valentini asked if there were any concerns about the signage. The Commissioners |
did not express any. |
Commissioner Sweetser concurred that the petition be continued so that they could |
review the hours of operation, change of restaurant use conditions and review the |
outside display elements. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, that |
this matter be continued to the August 20, 2007 meeting. The motion carried by |
the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Sweetser, Burke and Nelson
4 -
Absent:
Ryan, Olbrysh and Zorn
3 -
070438
SPA 07-09ph: 2800 S. Highland Avenue |
Requesting that the Village take the following actions pursuant to the Highlands of |
Lombard Annexation Agreement and subsequent amendments thereto located within |
the Highlands of Lombard B3 Planned Development: |
1. Grant Site Plan Approval for a retail center with the following deviations from the |
Lombard Sign Ordinance: |
a. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(19)(b)(2)(a) to allow two (2) wall signs per |
tenant on a multiple-tenant building; and |
b. A deviation from Section 153.242(E) to allow wall signs to be placed on any |
building elevation. |
Larry Debb, 1011 Touhy, Des Plaines, presented the petition. He stated that he is |
proposing another development at the 2800 S. Highland site - an 18,000 square foot |
single-story retail building. Mr. Debb added that they are not asking for any variances |
for the Site Plan Approval in regard to height or setbacks, but rather only signage |
issues. He mentioned that he worked closely with staff who asked them to alter the |
north side of the building to remove parking, make the building smaller, to reserve that |
portion of the building for deliveries only. Mr. Debb stated that staff also asked them to |
improve the north side aesthetics due its location to the spine road and because the |
building technically has four street fronts. Mr. Debb explained that they will be using the |
same building materials as the Highlands II, which includes banding, and adding |
spandrel glass. He mentioned that the back of the building will also be designed to |
resemble a storefront. He stated he is very pleased with the end result and thinks the |
building and parking works. Mr. Debb mentioned that this building will be developed in |
conjunction with another building (a proposed restaurant) but it's not quite there yet. For |
informational purposes, they would like to come back to the Plan Commission for a |
stand alone sign at the right-in/right-out entrance, which would be north of the Amcore |
Bank and south of the future restaurant. Concluding, Mr. Debb mentioned that he was |
pleased with working with the Village and this would be a step up as all sides of the |
proposed building will resemble storefronts. |
Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in |
favor of or in opposition to the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
Michael S. Toth, Associate Planner, presented the staff report in its entirety for the |
public record. The petitioner is proposing an 18,055 square foot retail strip center to be |
located within the Highlands of Lombard Planned Development. The site occupies the |
western portion of the vacant parcel immediately north of an existing retail strip center |
(Highlands II). To avoid petitions for signage relief in the future, the petitioner wishes to |
address the future signage needs as part of the site plan review, with the |
aforementioned portions of the Sign Ordinance being deviated. He noted that many of |
the plans submitted by the petitioner depict a proposed free-standing restaurant building |
adjacent to the retail center. The approval for the restaurant, a companion resubdivision |
approval and companion signage relief will be considered as part of a separate petition. |
However, these conceptual plans are offered for contextual purposes. |
In regards to design standards, Mr. Toth stated that the Village can consider |
compatibility of building architecture, materials and design throughout the Highlands of |
Lombard development. During the April 16, 2007 Plan Commission Workshop, Plan |
Commission members stated their general satisfaction with the building elevations, but |
offered several comments. The petitioner modified his plan in the following respects, |
which Mr. Toth described before the Plan Commission: |
1. North elevation - the Plan Commission noted that the north side is the most |
prominent elevation because of its proximity to the spine road. It was recommended by |
Plan Commission members that the design be "broken up" and/or add more design |
elements. The petitioner modified their plans to provide greater building offsets, |
incorporate additional spandrel or pane glass windows and awnings and carry the |
common building elevation similarly to that which was required for the Pier One Center. |
This concept is being implemented by utilizing the same design as the south elevation, |
which includes the use of awnings and soft white brick, to compliment the red brick. |
Ultimately, these changes as well as additional wall signage, will attempt to give the |
north elevation more of a "storefront" appearance on the north elevation. |
2. East elevation - the Commissioners noted the prominence of this elevation from |
Highland Avenue. The petitioner has modified their plans to give the east elevation full |
front elevation treatments, including incorporating the second brick color and offering |
horizontal and vertical relief to the building. |
3. Building orientation - the petitioner, who also developed the other strip retail centers |
in the development, recognizes the unique nature of the subject property, as it |
functionally has four front elevations. The building's south orientation is intended to |
create a horseshoe effect within and between the other retail centers. Orienting the |
building in this manner will also minimize the "walling" effect of the Great Indoors by the |
buildings located closer to Highland Avenue. |
In regard to trash collection, Mr. Toth mentioned that the Development Agreement also |
denoted provisions to minimize the impacts of loading areas and trash collection |
activities. He added that this issue is of particular concern with this site, as the rear of |
the retail building will face the main access drive. Mr. Toth noted that the petitioner's |
proposal has all trash enclosures screened by masonry walls on three sides, similar to |
what was done at 2820 S. Highland Avenue. He then stated that the fourth side should |
be of a solid material as required by Village Code and that all enclosures for the retail |
building should be integrated into the building itself. He then added that staff suggests |
that these enclosures be designed to accommodate oversized containers to prevent |
trash collection issues such as those that have been experienced at Pier One Center. |
Mr. Toth stated that the petitioner has removed all perpendicular parking spaces along |
the north property line to address a concern raised at the Plan Commission Workshop |
session. As noted earlier, the plan shows circulation around all four sides of the |
building. Mr. Toth noted that parking and water detention is in compliance. He also |
added that there will be a pedestrian link between the retail center and proposed |
restaurant. He stated that this will be brought forward with the Patio submittal. |
For the proposed commercial retail strip center, the petitioner is requesting site plan |
approval for a signage deviation to allow for each tenant to erect two wall signs on any |
of the building elevations. The signage deviation would allow for signage that mirrors |
the front of the building to the rear of the building for all of the tenants. Staff feels that |
this relief can be supported given the location of the building as it relates to the overall |
planned development, the unique layout of the site and the fact that many visitors to the |
site will be approaching from the north side (access drive) of the building. Moreover, the |
use of the signage on the rear, particularly with the additional awnings and spandrel |
windows, gives a greater impression of a four-sided building. The petitioner will still be |
required to meet the size requirements for the underlying B3 District. Staff recommends |
as a condition that the signage shall only be of a channel sign design, to be consistent |
with other developments within the Highlands of Lombard. |
The petitioner will also be seeking approval of a freestanding sign along Highland |
Avenue that would be similar in design and appearance to the sign for The Great |
Indoors. Staff notes that as this sign will be located on an adjacent property in the near |
future, additional signage relief will be required as part of the approval for the Patio |
Restaurant development. However, the petitioner offers the free-standing concept for |
Plan Commission consideration as it would ultimately be tied to the center now under |
consideration. It appears that the proposed sign location is within the clear line of sight |
easement located at the driveway entrance. Since the Development Agreement and the |
Zoning Ordinance specifically prohibits any exceptions to the clear line of sight area, this |
sign would need to be located outside of any clear line of sight areas. |
Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan |
Commissioners. |
Commissioner Burke stated that he is struggling with the site plan, as it is still the same. |
He mentioned that it looks unsightly from the road because you still have trash |
enclosures and trucks parked in front of the building making deliveries. He added the |
plan is bringing down what is already a tremendous development. He stated that the |
building should be facing the road, and the trash enclosures and mechanical rooms |
should be facing the east. The submitted site plan doesn't make any sense to him. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that the development has great potential. |
Commissioner Sweetser verified that the comments from the workshop were made to |
tweak the plans. William Heniff added that staff did share those comments with the |
petitioner. Commissioner Sweetser added that this site will pose challenges, but we can |
remedy that by incorporating as many elements to soften it as possible. She mentioned |
that they also directed the petitioner to look at the east elevation and treat it as the front. |
Referring to the north elevation, Commissioner Sweetser stated that the intent was to |
provide as many elements as possible - signage, awnings, and spandrel glass to give a |
flavor of the retail element. She added that they wanted a horseshoe effect. She |
mentioned that it is a four-sided building and it will have one aisle at the back. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that the biggest thing is if you flip the building, the trash |
enclosures would face the development. She added that it would have a similar |
orientation and thought this was the best of the possibilities. |
Commissioner Sweetser commented that the submitted landscape plan does not give a |
clear depiction of what sort of screening will be available. She added that using |
landscaping would help to screen the northern portion of the building. Mr. Heniff |
answered that they are meeting the intent, but staff can take another look. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that anything that is recognizable as a trash enclosure is |
left per se. She added that this is a nicer north elevation, but it still looks like the back of |
a building. She stated that the only way to make it compatible is to soften with massive |
landscaping. |
Commissioner Burke commented that there is a landscaping plan, but no additional |
landscaping has been added. He mentioned that there are also transformers located on |
the northern portion of the property. Commissioner Burke then stated that the |
recommendation calls for the petitioner to submit a photometric plan. Mr. Heniff stated |
that they were going to propose up-lighting. We will look at that as part of the building |
permit process. |
Commissioner Burke asked if the existing trees in the parkway are deciduous. Mr. |
Heniff replied that there is a mix and most of the standard parkway trees have been |
there for about 5-6 years. Mr. Heniff also mentioned that the trees do not form a screen. |
Commissioner Burke questioned the reason for having two trash enclosures. Larry |
Debb replied that in an 8,000 square foot building, having two trash enclosures is |
typical. Mr. Debb also mentioned that the site is tough and there is no perfect solution. |
Mr. Debb stated that they wanted all the storefronts within the development to face one |
another. He added that the Commissioners' suggestions are great - we could bump |
them and there is space in the 15 foot median to clump evergreens. He added that they |
tried to upgrade, but you have to understand that we are a retail store and require |
deliveries and garbage pick up. Mr. Debb stated that they might be able to slide the |
dumpsters over, which would make it easier to shelter them and put trees from the |
parkway. |
Commissioner Burke stated that it is a tough site, but the solution is to build a smaller |
building on the site an provide and area for the transformer and trash enclosures so they |
are not right against the road. He added that if you are going to try to fit that building on |
such a small, odd-shaped site you are risking major compromises on site planning and |
the architecturals on the north side. He stated that it is better than it was, but it still |
appears to look like the back of the building and that is the problem. |
Commissioner Sweetser suggested that by taking off a bit of the northeast corner, it |
would allow better screening as it comes over to meet the straight line west would allow |
for different placement of the pieces and allow for more landscaping right against the |
building. She recommended that they go back to staff on that issue. |
Mr. Debb stated that we can add additional landscaping, but there has to be an area |
there to have additional landscaping. |
Commissioner Sweetser talked about bumping the northeast corner in to provide some |
space. According to the picture, there is no space for vegetation on the south side of |
the service road, and that would do the trick. |
Mr. Debb stated that the economics would not work with that. He mentioned that they |
could add more spandrel glass. |
Commissioner Burke stated that you lose less than 3,000 square feet to straighten that |
wall out, leave your driveway to the south, and landscape the area between the drive |
and the road resulting in a much better plan. |
Mr. Debb stated that the real estate is worth $400/square foot, which is approximately |
$1 million. By reducing a portion of the building it might impact his decision to continue. |
He added that the building meets all the requirements and setbacks of the Village code. |
If you want more spandrel glass or the relocation of both transformer enclosures so they |
are together, this would hopefully cover much of what you requested. |
Vice-Chairperson Flint stated that the petitioner should square off a potion of the |
building and rotate the trash enclosures where they can be turned and still be accessible |
and do some landscaping along the side. |
Mr. Debb stated that they could rotate the trash enclosures - make it all brick and have |
the doors face west so all you see is the brick wall and put spandrel glass. |
Vice-Chairperson Flint stated that the wall should be expanded as a screen. |
Mr. Debb stated that they will turn the doors to the west, which would work so you don't |
see the garbage. He added they will plant additional evergreen trees. |
Vice-Chairperson Flint stated that it would be easier for them then it is now. |
More discussion ensued as to how they could amend the plan to improve it. The |
petitioner approached the dais and showed the Commissioners the sketch he made |
showing the suggested improvements so they could verify the intent of making a better |
plan. |
Commissioner Burke stated that they would like to see something done with the |
transformer. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that they could work with staff on the landscape. |
Commissioner Burke felt there were too many issues to clarify and made a motion to |
continue the petition to the August 20, 2007 meeting. Mr. Debb remarked that his |
contract expires next week and asked them not to continue the petition but to make a |
motion and incorporate the changes as made. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if staff could get something in writing because she didn't |
want to negatively impact the petitioner. |
William Heniff stated that they could bring back this petition for discussion purposes as |
an old business item (under unfinished business) and let the Plan Commissioner know |
what we came up with. He added that if this were to be approved, he would have the |
legal right for his plan, but we could bring back for a final nod for the north elevation. |
No one seconded Commissioner Burke's motion, the motion failed. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, that |
this matter be approved with amended conditions. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Sweetser, Burke and Nelson
4 -
Absent:
Ryan, Olbrysh and Zorn
3 -
1. The site improvements shall be constructed in compliance with the submitted plans |
included within the plan submittal packet prepared by GVA Williams, dated July 2, 2007 |
and made a part of this petition, except as amended by the conditions of approval. |
2. The petitioner shall submit a final photometric plan to the Village for review and |
approval. The photometric plan shall include any parking or driveway lighting on the |
subject property. The plan shall also depict a combination of up lighting and down |
lighting on the building and landscaping. |
3. The petitioner shall meet all development and building codes of the Village of |
Lombard and shall follow the provisions set forth within the highlands of Lombard |
planned development approval. |
4. All wall signs on the proposed buildings must be of a channel letter design. |
5. If in the event that the proposed center is not developed concurrent with the |
proposed Patio Restaurant development proposed for east of the retail center, the |
petitioner shall install requisite parking stalls and drive aisles to ensure full access and |
circulation around the proposed center. |
6. The trash corral gate design shall be modified to minimize its visual impact by |
incorporating exterior screening materials compatible with the proposed building |
elevations (a solid beige metal gate shall be deemed to be acceptable). |
7. The petitioner shall submit to the Plan Commission for review and site plan approval |
a revised plan for the north side of the subject property to address the following issues: |
a. additional landscape screening/vegetation along the north property line and |
foundation landscaping along the north building elevation; |
b. relocate/modify/screen the proposed electric transformer; and |
c. modify the design of the proposed trash enclosure areas to orient them westward |
and reconfigure/consolidate the enclosures to minimize their impact. |
070439
PC 07-25: Text Amendments to the Lombard Zoning Ordinance (Accessory |
Structures) |
The Village of Lombard is proposing text amendments to Section 155.210 of the Zoning |
Ordinance (and any other relevant sections for clarity) pertaining to accessory building |
and structure regulations, in the following respects: |
1. Amending provisions for attached accessory structures; and |
2. Amending provisions pertaining to the maximum lot area coverage for accessory |
buildings and structures. |
Michael Toth, Associate Planner, presented the petition. He provided a general |
description of the cause for concern regarding this issue. |
Mr. Toth stated that staff recognizes that the intent of the regulation was to ensure that |
accessory buildings do not overwhelm the principal residence and become the de facto |
principal use on the property. He added that while the provision is intended to reduce |
structural bulk on residential properties, all accessory buildings and structures including |
pools, decks, patios, sidewalks, or even driveways would by definition be included in |
the calculation, thus resulting in insufficient allowable square footage for many |
residential properties. Mr. Toth then mentioned that these accessory structures are |
typically located at or slightly above grade, excessive bulk is usually not an issue. He |
noted that this amendment is intended to more closely reflect the practical application of |
this code and tie the maximum allowable area to accessory buildings only and not |
accessory structures. |
Mr. Toth stated that the majority of above-grade decks are attached to the principal |
structure, thus (by definition) making it part of the principal residence (requiring a 35-foot |
rear yard setback). He noted that if decks were to be considered as accessory |
structures, a four (4) foot separation between the deck and principal structure would be |
required. For clarity purposes, Mr. Toth stated that the proposed text amendment would |
remove the four foot provision within the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Toth then added that |
the setback provisions would still need to be followed as required in the Lombard |
Building Code. |
Mr. Toth stated that this amendment alleviates any confusion as to whether a deck |
would be considered part of the principal residence or as an accessory structure by |
removing the provision in its entirety. He added that staff notes past cases in which the |
Building Code would allow the structures to be located closer than four feet, if they were |
protected by fire walls. He then mentioned that even if this provision was met, the |
petitioner would still need to apply for zoning relief. Mr. Toth noted that staff believes |
that as this provision is already outlined in the Building Code and is a life-safety issue, |
their regulation should take greater precedent over the provisions currently within the |
Zoning Ordinance, which attempt to address design/aesthetic issues. Mr. Toth stated |
that for clarity purposes, staff would prefer to have a zero-foot setback (between |
structures) to eliminate any ambiguity between the zoning and building code. |
Vice Chairperson Flint opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor |
or against this petition. He then opened the meeting for comments from the Plan |
Commission members. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that the petition is very straight-forward and made a |
motion to recommend approval. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, |
that this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Sweetser, Burke and Nelson
4 -
Absent:
Ryan, Olbrysh and Zorn
3 -
Business Meeting
Vice Chairperson Flint convened the business meeting at 9:17 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the June 18, 2007 meeting were unanimously approved by the members |
present. |
Public Participation
There was no public participation.
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Chairperson's Report
Vice-Chairperson Flint 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
There were no subdivision reports.
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Workshops
There were no workshops.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. |
______________________________ |
Stephen Flint, Vice-Chairperson |
______________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Secretary |