Village of Lombard Legistar System

PC 06-28: 300 West 22nd Street (Covington/Cove Landing Planned Development)

Requests the following actions be taken on the subject property located within an R4

Limited General Residence District Planned Development:

1. Pursuant to Section 155.504(A) (major changes in a planned development) and

Section 155.511 (Site Plan Approvals for planned developments) of the Lombard Zoning

Ordinance, amend the conditional use for the Covington/Cove Landing Planned

Development, as established by Ordinance 1174 and as amended by Ordinances 1321,

1390, 2977 and 3183 to allow for the construction of a condominium building in the

subject property per the submitted plans; and

2. Grant a variation from Section 155.602 (A)(3)(d) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for

off-street parking spaces to be located in a required front yard. (DISTRICT #3)

Joe Ash, attorney, 77 W. Washington Street, Chicago, representing Kenar LLC, the

contract purchaser and developer of the project, presented the petition. He stated that

the property consists of 3.34 acres of vacant land at the northwest corner of 22nd Street

and Elizabeth Street. The property is part of a planned development developed with

apartments and condominiums.

The petitioner wishes to develop the subject property with a condominium building of

five stories in height totaling sixty units and consistent with the planned development.

The sixty units on the remaining acreage will be well below of what which was previously

approved by the Village. The planned development allows for height of up to fifteen

stories and this plan is also well below that. He mentioned the variation requested.

Staff has clearly outlined the request in the staff report and the petitioner concurs with

the conditions of approval.

He called on Bob Schmude, Director of Land Development of Kenar LLC, 1904 Wright

Blvd., Schaumburg, IL to describe the petition in detail. He noted that Kenar is a

privately owned Chicagoland builder, with 25 years experience. He also described

where they have completed other developments.

Mr. Schmude stated that they are seeking approval of the site plan amendment to the

planned development. He referred to the colored rendering of the site plan and

landscaping in the common space. He displayed a front color rendering showing the

building materials and colors proposed for the site.

He then described the floor plans. One assigned parking space will be provided within

the enclosed garage and he mentioned the front spaces for guests. Each unit has a

balcony and storage space. A condominium association will be established and a

management company will be employed.

He described the site in detail. Half of the total size of the site (the northern portion) is

the wetland portion. He has worked with Village and County staff to present and

preserve the wetland and buffer area. The County will have regulations and they support

the way Kenar is addressing the wetland issues. They will take a 50-foot wide buffer

around the wetland and leave it as native vegetation.

The southern portion of the site will include the building. The parking lot will be south of

the building, and he noted the points of access. There will be a ramp into the parking

garage. The 22nd street access is right-in, right-out due to a raised curb median. Both

access points will have stop signs. The last access is the northern access which will

provide emergency access only for a fire truck. Stormwater will be provided in an

underground storage system.

KLOA, the Village's traffic consultant, analyzed the site and concluded it is a low traffic

generator with minimal impact on surrounding properties. The development is required

to provide 96 parking spaces. They will provide 116 spaces - 60 within the first floor

parking garage, and 55 in the front lot. In closing they feel this is a responsible

development as the plan preserves the wetland.

He then introduced Matt Haylock, of Haylock Design, Architect, 1800 National Drive,

Gurnee, IL, project architect, who described the building materials. Mr. Haylock noted he

has done three buildings similar to this in the community and named Park West,

Parkview Point and Lincoln Place - all mixed use developments. They wanted to create

something that fit in but also that was more unique. This building will have high-quality

materials, using manufactured stone along with real limestone, the base will be

rusticated masonry, and the stone treatment will be smooth. They will use three color

varieties of brick across the building. The main portion of the building will be light brick.

Different heights and styles of parapets which vary in height will provide variety. The

first floor is the indoor parking garage. As you move up you see balconies and four

floors of condominiums. They will use the same treatment all the way around the

building.

Mr. Schmude explained the variance for the front parking lot. The landscape plan is

located on south side of the building. There is a required thirty foot landscape setback.

The variance is for the southern edge of the parking lot which encroaches six feet into

the yard. The property is angled and they are dedicating to the Village that part of their

property that is within the 22nd Street right-of-way. They are exceeding the parking

requirement and to preserve the wetland buffer they seek to put the parking lot on the

22nd Street side of the building. At the closest point, the encroachment is about 6-1/2

feet. They want to provide extra parking so as to not impact other properties or the

wetland.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then opened the meeting for public comment.

Linda Needinghouse, 254 W. 20th Street, lives in Elizabeth Crossing. Her concern is

with the amount of traffic the development may generate. She predicts they will use

20th Street and traffic is a major concern.

Maryann O'Keefe, 77 W. Arboretum, lives in the condominium development south of the

subject property. She noted that their retention pond that has gone in has taken care of

the flooding. She noted the impacts on future flood zones in a flood sensitive zone area.

She commended the developer for the wetland preservation, but if they develop, how is

the stormwater runoff going to be handled?

Michael Salins, 2005 S. Finley, President of the Cove Landing Association, is concerned

about the additional traffic. Vehicles will go northbound on Elizabeth Street and cut

through their parking area to Finley Road. They have to maintain the asphalt and the

extra cars are not welcome. They are already thinking about speed bumps. Another

concern is making a left turn over 22nd Street and this could be a major problem.

Dan Toucher, 1343 Fairfield Court, Naperville, noted that this land has been vacant and

there are four buildings which border the wetlands. He likes the view, it is serene, and

the proposal will take away from the residents who live there. They drove by the

property noting that it is not a big piece of land and questioned the buffer area around

the site. It will make people come through their land to get northbound on Finley and

avoid 22nd Street.

Paula Tumpack, 2175 S. Finley Road, Covington Apartments property manager, stated

that she is not thrilled about having to look at the proposed building. She is concerned

about traffic. The views they currently have are desirable and they get higher premiums

for them. This development will affect her budget.

Joe Ash rebutted, noting that the major issue raised is one of traffic. The Village hired a

consultant and they prepared a report which says this development will create minimum

impact. The owner has a right to develop the property, the planned development would

allow a 15-story building, and they are proposing a 5-story building. They feel they are

trying to come up with a plan that will have minimal affect on adjacent properties. The

staff report included a thorough analysis and considered the traffic report's findings.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser asked what happens with the stormwater. Mr. Ash noted

that they are providing underground detention under the parking lot. He mentioned the

Lombard Code which states that after the property is developed, there can be no greater

run off than before the development.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then requested the staff report. William Heniff, Senior

Planner, referenced the staff report which is submitted to the public record. The

property is within the defined boundaries of the Covington/Cove Landing planned

development. The original planned development approval and the amendments

established general density and development parameters, but it did not address the

future development of the subject property. As such, the petitioner's plan should be

reviewed and approved as an amendment to the original approval, as was done for the

Covington Apartments portion of the planned development in the late 1980s.

The petitioner is also seeking relief to allow for parking spaces to be located into a

requisite yard. This relief is largely the result of a requested right-of-way dedication by

the Village as well as the desire to minimize parking lot impacts on the wetland area.

Lastly, as a companion to this petition, a map amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is

proposed. This amendment is intended to designate the property for medium density

residential purposes (as noted in the planned development approval) from public and

institutional uses.

He noted that the petitioner is meeting the unit count, unit mix, setbacks and building

height provisions set forth in the planned development ordinance. The 1966-1968

amendments did not show a building at the proposed location. Staff has been working

with the County and petitioner to address any negative impacts of development. The

project is oriented toward 22nd Street, away from the rest of the planned development.

The building elevations are compatible with recent projects developed along the 22nd

Street corridor. Parking will exceed the zoning requirements. The relief is created by the

Village's request to have the petition dedicate 22nd Street right-of-way to the Village as

a condition of approval. This request would change the front yard dimensions.

Staff has reviewed the standards and they have been met. Staff recommends approval

subject to five conditions. KLOA reviewed the traffic generated by the project and they

note the impacts of development to be minimal.

He then noted three correspondences received after the staff report was transmitted to

the Plan Commission. These concerns included issues about construction traffic on

20th Street, tree preservation, and traffic generation.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser opened the meeting for any comments on the staff report.

Michael Salins questioned the access on Elizabeth Street. Mr. Schmude noted that

Elizabeth and 22nd Street is a full access intersection. Access from the building ramp is

full access, the parking lot would be controlled by a stop sign. He also responded to the

letter about traffic on 20th Street. He said they would not want construction traffic on

20th Street either. They will work with staff during the building permit process and will

provide signage prohibiting construction traffic from going that way.

Paula Tumpack asked about the 15-story provision. Mr. Heniff noted that that provision

went back to the 1968 planned development approval.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser opened the meeting for Plan Commissioner comments.

Commissioner Burke noted that they workshopped this item and the petitioner has

responded to all the issues raised in that discussion. He would like to see a condition

added to preclude construction traffic along 20th Street or into Cove Landing. As far as

general traffic concerns, the Cove Landing driveways are on private property so they

can restrict access, provided that emergency access is maintained.

Commissioner Olbrysh agreed with Commissioner Burke's concerns about traffic

considerations. They have to weigh the concerns of both the residents and business.

He noted that the development provides for up to 1,200 units by right - the petitioner

could construct 608 additional units on the property. However, they are only

constructing sixty units. They also complied with height limitations and is impressed

with the remaining amount of open space, which will help address the flooding situation.

1. The petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the preliminary Plat/Site Plan,

prepared by Southwest Engineering Consultants, Inc., dated August 2, 2006; the

Preliminary Engineering Plan, prepared by Southwest Engineering Consultants, Inc.,

dated August 2, 2006; the Exterior Building Elevations, prepared by Kenar Homes,

dated September 27, 2006; and the Preliminary Landscape plan, prepared by Jen

Landscape Design, dated September 26, 2006; except as amended by other conditions

of approval.

2. The petitioner shall submit to the Village for approval the following plats:

a. A plat of dedication for the proposed rights-of-way dedication as well as the

proposed public sidewalk easement.

b. A plat of easement dedication for any public utilities and stormwater facilities, per

Village Code.

c. A plat of subdivision making the subject property a lot of record.

3. The petitioner shall apply for and receive approval from the Village and DuPage

County for any site improvements prior to commencing construction on the subject

property.

4. Modify the final plans to ensure compliance with the west side yard setback

provisions are satisfactorily met.

5. The petitioner shall also satisfactorily address the comments set forth within the

IDRC report as part of the building permit application.

6. All construction traffic associated with the project shall be limited to Elizabeth Street,

south of the north line of the petitioner's property, and 22nd Street.

Phil Steffan, of Lakeside Management, LLC, representing the owner, presented the

petition and noted the requested relief. His intent is to keep the original structures on

the property in conformance with the neighborhood. The existing homes are nice, are

structurally sound, and to redevelop the homes would not make sense. To allow the

existing houses to remain, they would need relief in the backyard of Lot 1 of the

proposed resubdivision. Staff initially suggested that they could create a line that went

straight back into the property. However, that design would create a four foot variance

on the 35 foot setback requirement. The other proposal provides a slight angle to the

north on the proposed interior side yard lot line, but it creates a smaller back lot. All

three properties comply with the 7,500 square foot minimum lot requirement. In the

event they are not approved it jeopardizes the current house on the proposed Lot 1.

They are looking to get past that and keep the two homes.

Richard Fox, 638 N. Martha Street, noted that he lives a block and one-half away from

the subject property. He referenced a previously granted setback variation at 502 N.

Main as well as Lot 17 in Yorkshire Woods Subdivision. Their original plan would be to

have a 1-1/2 degree jog in the property line angle, so it would not be perpendicular to

the other lot lines.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then opened the meeting for public comment.

Dean Wilkins, 1049 S. Edson, owner of the property at 231 East North Avenue inquired

about whether they trying to get an additional lot to build a future home. Mr. Steffan said

yes. Mr. Wilkins asked if the houses would encroach into any easements. Mr. Steffan

said no.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report which was submitted to the

public record. The subject properties are located at the northwest corner of LeMoyne

Avenue and Craig Place and are improved with existing residences. Each property

meets current setback requirements. The property owner is proposing to subdivide the

rear of the existing two lots to create a third lot, which would front Craig Place.

The proposed lots could be subdivided into three lots of record without requiring any

zoning relief. However, the petitioner is seeking approval of companion zoning relief.

The first request would create an irregularly shaped parcel, but would allow the existing

residence at 230 E. LeMoyne to meet the 35-foot rear yard setback provisions. If the

Village Board does not find this concept desirable, the petitioner would be amenable to

zoning relief from the side yard setback requirements to allow for the rear side setback

yard for the property at 230 E. LeMoyne to be 31 feet rather than the requested 35 feet.

The first option would grant a variation from the Subdivision and Development

Ordinance requiring lot lines to be generally perpendicular to the adjacent street with the

side lot lines being approximately at right angles or radial to street lines. The purpose of

this regulation is to ensure that side lot lines are not “gerrymandered” or created in a

manner that is inconsistent with traditional lot subdivisions. Moreover, it also ensures

that other sections of the Village Code are not circumvented.

In this request, the petitioner's lot division would be placed sixty feet south of and

parallel with the north property line for the first sixty feet of the proposed lot. However,

in order for the new lot to be created without the need for a variation for the rear yard

setback for the existing house at 230 E. LeMoyne, is to bend the interior lot line

northward. This angle adjustment would establish the rear yard approximately 51.32

feet wide at the rear lot line. This bend would still ensure that the new lot meets the

7,500 square foot area minimum requirement.

Referencing the standards for variation within the Subdivision and Development

Ordinance, staff's concern with supporting divisions of this nature is that it could create

an undesirable precedent for future divisions of land in the Village. Staff notes that the

intent of the code is to provide for lots that are consistent with the Ordinance objectives

and would not be contrary to the manner in which other lots in the neighborhood have

been divided. In this instance, the angled lot is being created to avoid setback relief.

As an alternative to the division request above, the petitioner included the alternate

zoning request as well - that is, grant a variation from the rear yard setbacks from the lot

to be created. This would create an interior lot line 31 feet from the rear yard of the 230

E. LeMoyne property. He then referenced staff's response to the standards for

variations. He noted that no hardship exists that warrants granting of the relief and that

granting such relief would create an undesirable precedent. As such, staff recommends

denial of the petition in its entirety.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan

Commission members.

Commissioner Burke stated that it sounded like one of the petitioners had evidence with

precedence setting variations that have been granted by us or the Board and

questioned whether they should consider those items. Mr. Heniff noted that he was not

immediately familiar with the referenced cases, so he could not offer a comparable

response. If the Plan Commission feels that this information is critical in making a

decision, the Commissioners could continue the petition so staff can look at that item

and offer a response.

Commissioner Nelson stated that he went and looked at the house. There is a lot of

room in the front and the house is built for 2 lots. He then went throughout the

neighborhood and could not find the any others that are configured in the manner the

petitioner was proposing. He asked how big the front yard is. Mr. Steffan stated that the

existing home at 236 E. LeMoyne is set back 41.24 feet, from the sidewalk to the house.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked the petitioner if he had an alternative proposal if the

request for the relief is not granted. Mr. Steffan stated that they would have to research

that. They are seeking relief in order to keep both existing homes as they are.

Commissioner Burke stated that when you review the plat you will note that all of the

properties in the block are similar in size and are similarly configured. This plat does not

follow the precedent and the desire for the variance does not meet the standards for

variations.

The petitioner Christopher Coleman of Dearborn Buckingham Group, presented the

petition and noted the requested relief. As part of their final engineering approval and

design of the Buckingham Orchard development, they designed and established grading

contours to provide for adequate drainage. The established grades slope away from the

proposed townhouses and then rise toward the property line. This results in a grading

change where decks off of the back of the units are higher due to the grade change than

provided by the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed decks are to be 10 feet by 10 feet in

area. The proposed bottom of deck would not exceed 5 1/2 feet above grade.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then opened the meeting for public comment. No one

spoke in favor of or in opposition to the petition. She then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the petitioner is requesting zoning relief to

provide for attached decks to be greater than three feet above grade within a rear yard.

The petitioner has submitted a cross-section sketch drawing showing the grades and

the requested relief.

The petitioner completed the initial site grading and is constructing the townhome units

as provided in their previous approvals. The approvals required the petitioner to provide

for adequate on-site drainage swales to the rear of the respective lots, in order to ensure

that the adjacent Columbine Glen Subdivision did not receive additional overland

flooding. The result of this requirement is that several of the proposed rear yard decks

would exceed the maximum deck height. Moreover, several of the units will have

English basements, with windows placed toward the rear of each unit. Before the units

are constructed or completed, the developer/petitioner is seeking relief for each unit to

provide for decks up to 5.5 feet above grade, should the topographical conditions

necessitate the need for such relief. Staff recommends approval with conditions.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then opened the meeting for comments among the Plan

Commissioners.

Commissioner Burke confirmed that a railing would be provided around the decks. Mr.

Heniff noted that the Building Code would regulate and mandate the deck railings.

Commissioner Burke then asked about the location of any stairs off of the decks. Mr.

Coleman noted that the stairs would come off of the side of the deck and run parallel

with exterior wall of the townhomes and would not extend further into the yard.

Commissioner Burke recommended that the stair design be incorporated as a condition

of approval.

Commissioner Nelson confirmed that the relief is solely because of the proposed

swales. He noted the windows on the English basements. Mr. Coleman noted that the

swales necessitate the relief.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition, indicating that the intent of the

text amendments were intended to allow furniture upholstering, repair, and

reconditioning as conditional uses in the B2 General Neighborhood Shopping District

and B3 Community Shopping District as well as clarify and distinguish the different land

uses associated with furniture establishments.

Staff received a companion petition requesting a conditional use for furniture

upholstering, repair and reconditioning located in the B2 District. The petitioner has

since withdrawn their petition. However, staff supports the proposed text amendments

and therefore staff is proceeding with the petition for the proposed amendments. The

text amendment, if approved, would be applicable to all properties in the B2, B3, B4, and

I Districts.

He described the existing provisions and denoted how the code would be amended.

The current land use categories do not clearly distinguish the differing furniture activities.

Staff finds that furniture reconditioning and furniture refinishing to be essentially the

same land use activity except that currently furniture reconditioning is only permitted in

the B4 District and furniture refinishing is only permitted in the I District. Staff proposes

to combine furniture upholstering, repair and reconditioning into one use category and

list it as a permitted use in the B4 and I Districts. This land use category will encompass

activities that are more of a service function. Staff also proposes to add furniture

upholstering, repair and reconditioning as a conditional use in the B2 and B3 Districts.

This expands the districts which allow furniture upholstering, repair, and reconditioning,

but by listing them as a conditional use in the B2 and B3 Districts, such uses will have to

be reviewed on a case by case basis through the public hearing process.

The Zoning Ordinance addresses furniture sales as well as furniture upholstering,

repair, and reconditioning, but does not address furniture manufacturing. Staff finds that

this function should be classified separately as it refers to the initial assembly and

manufacturing of furniture rather than a repair or alteration. Furthermore, furniture

manufacturing generally requires more machinery and larger storage for materials and

finished products. Staff is proposing a separate use category for furniture

manufacturing and to list it as a permitted use in the I Limited Industrial District.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then opened the meeting for public comment. There was

no one in the audience to speak in favor of or against the petition. She then opened the

meeting for comments among the Plan Commission members.

Commissioner Burke noted that upholstering and refinishing activities can have differing

impacts. Mr. Heniff noted that staff recognizes that reconditioning can include varnishes

and chemicals which may present ventilation issues. However, as such activities would

be listed as conditional uses in the B2 and B3 Districts, we can look at this issue more

closely on a case by case basis. However, from a land use standpoint, they do not

significantly differ.