Village of Lombard Legistar System

Sue Benedetto of Elmhurst Memorial Healthcare presented the petition. She stated that

Elmhurst Memorial opened in May of 2005 and has experienced strong patient volumes.

The CT and MRI equipment has been in high demand, but the mobile vendor is only

able to provide one day per week for CT scans and one day per week for MRIs. This

has created a waitlist for these services, but the mobile vendor is unable to provide them

with additional time. Elmhurst will discontinue use of the mobile vehicle during and after

the construction of the addition.

Susan Limbrunner, architect with the Proteus Group, stated that they are proposing a

1,631-square foot addition that will house the new equipment. The masonry, slate

roofing, and windows will match the existing façade. They will be adding landscaping

and relocating the trash enclosure to provide for three additional parking spaces.

Vice Chairperson Flint asked if anyone had any questions of the petitioner. Hearing

none, he then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or against the

petition.

Vice Chairperson Flint then requested the staff report. Jennifer Backensto, Planner II,

stated that the Elmhurst Memorial Healthcare planned development was originally

approved in 2003 with a use exception to allow for the outdoor storage of an ancillary

mobile technology medical vehicle. The petitioner is proposing a 1,631 sq. ft. building

addition that would house permanent MRI and CT equipment, eliminating the need for

the mobile MRI vehicle. As the building addition constitutes a major change to the

approved planned development, a planned development amendment is required.

Staff believes that the addition as proposed will comply with the recommendations of the

Comprehensive Plan. The Elmhurst Memorial project was made a planned

development in order to provide the petitioner with greater design flexibility while also

providing the Village with a mechanism to review and approve the design elements

associated with the petition.

The proposed addition will maintain the character of the existing development and

provide a unified appearance by using materials similar to those used in the construction

of the original building. No variations, deviations, or exceptions are required for the

proposed addition. The three additional parking spaces will meet the Zoning Ordinance

parking requirements for the square footage of the addition.

Ms. Backensto stated that the original planned development approval included a use

exception to allow for the outdoor storage of an ancillary mobile technology medical

vehicle. This vehicle will be replaced by the proposed addition. Accordingly, there is no

longer a need for a use exception associated with the health center and the planned

development should be modified accordingly. Staff can support the planned

development amendment, provided that all issues noted within the staff report are

satisfactorily addressed.

Vice Chairperson Flint asked if anyone had any questions of the staff report. Hearing

none, he stated that the meeting was open to the Commissioners for comments and

questions.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the petitioner is aware of the comments from the

Bureau of Inspectional Services regarding exiting requirements. Ms. Backensto stated

that the petitioner has a copy of the staff report and those comments will be addressed

as part of their building permit application.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he assumed the addition would have the same

footprint as the mobile unit. William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that it would.

building height from 45 feet to 48 feet;

b. A variation from Section 155.416 (K), Section 155.508 (C) (6) (b) and Section

155.707 (A) (3) to allow for a reduction of the required transitional landscape yard from

10 feet to 5 feet;

c. A variation from Section 155.416 (M) and Section 155.602 to allow for a reduction

of the required number of off-street parking spaces for a theater from thirty-seven (37)

to zero (0);

d. A variation from Section 155.508 (C) (6) (a) to allow for a reduction of the required

front yard for a planned development abutting the R2 Single-Family Residence District

from thirty (30) feet to four (4) feet;

e. A variation from Section 155.508 (C) (6) (b) and Section 155.707 (B) (3) to allow

for the elimination of the required transitional landscape yard improvements;

f. A variation from Section 155.709 (B) to eliminate the requirement to provide one

(1) shade tree for every seventy-five (75) lineal feet of required perimeter lot

landscaping; and

2. Approve a conditional use for outdoor dining; and

3. The petitioner also requests Site Plan Approval authority to the Lombard Plan

Commission. (DISTRICT #4)

4. At Trustee Florey's request, staff is requesting approval of a provision of the

redevelopment agreement whereby the Village agrees to license 37 parking spaces in

the Parkside East Commuter Lot.

5. Requests that the Village Board approve a lease agreement for parking between

Elmhurst Memorial Healthcare/Lombard Bible Church and the Village of Lombard, to

provide parking associated with the DuPage Theatre Development

Richard Curto, CEO of RSC & Associates, 265 Brookside Road, Barrington, Illinois,

asked what format his presentation should follow. Vice Chairperson Flint stated that he

should cover anything that had not been discussed at the November meeting.

Dan Coffey, Daniel P. Coffey Architects, 233 S. Wacker, No. 5750, Chicago gave an

overview of the digital presentations. He showed a fly-over view of the project and

noted there were two kinds of brick on the residential portion. The new retail will be

brick and terra cotta to match the existing building. He then presented views of the

project from the perspective of a vehicle traveling eastbound on Parkside then

northbound on Main Street. He noted that at the previous meeting the Plan Commission

had requested them to improve the accuracy of the depiction of the shapes and heights

of the surrounding building. This was done to an accuracy of within one to two feet.

The Plan Commission had also asked what the neighboring single-family residents

would see. In his backyard view, he faded out the trees to show winter conditions. That

view shows what the transitional landscaping might look like as well as the fence

between the single-family properties and the roadway.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the structure shown on the far north end of the

backyard view was a house. Mr. Coffey stated that it was.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the perspective was supposed to be from the rear of

the houses. Mr. Coffey stated that it was and clarified the assumed line at the back of

the houses.

Mr. Coffey stated that small changes had been made to the previous elevation including

peaks, mullions, and the fence.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she would like to see the fence on the flyovers. Mr.

Coffey reviewed his first presentation and indicated where the fence was.

Commissioner Burke asked if the transitional landscaping and fence were new. Mr.

Coffey stated that they were.

Commissioner Burke asked if the mature trees shown in the yards were existing. Mr.

Coffey stated that they were and that he had used Google Earth software to place the

trees.

Commissioner Burke asked how far the trees are from the building. Mr. Coffey

estimated that they were about 75 feet away.

Mr. Coffey then passed around the materials board as well as a sample light fixture and

samples of the limestone sills.

Mr. Curto stated that Reis Kayser of RSC & Associates would discuss the stormwater

issue. Mr. Kayser, 721 Lenox Road, Glen Ellyn, stated that they had looked at several

alternative stormwater solutions for the project and the area in general. Initially they had

looked at paying a fee in lieu of providing detention, but the burden would have

remained on the viaduct. He gave a number of examples of other projects where

underground storage had been used including the Sherman Plaza project in Evanston,

St. Mary's School in Downers Grove, The Shops at Old Orchard in Skokie, 1727 S.

Michigan Avenue, Edward Hospital's parking structure in Naperville, and one in Lombard

at 645 E. Roosevelt that had been built 20 years ago. They had taken pictures of the

one in Lombard and there were two to three inches of silt on the bottom, but it was still

functioning well. He stated that this approach is not new and it will be designed

correctly. He is confident that it is a sound system. There are no problems with odor

affecting the occupied space above. It is a concrete basement built as a storm

structure. It will be well-ventilated, work entirely on gravity, and hold the entire 100-year

storm event. There will be outside access through a manhole and it will alleviate

existing storm water problems on the property.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if the detention would be underneath the new retail along

Main Street. Mr. Kayser stated that it would be. The floor will have positive drainage

and a controlled release into the storm sewer.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that there was the potential for a great volume of water

to be released at once. Mr. Kayser stated that in case of such a situation there is a

built-in gravity outflow at the north end of the property to a catch basin along the curb.

Commissioner Sweetser asked how the outflow would keep up with the inflow. Mr.

Kayser stated that if the vault is filled beyond capacity the water will flow into the street.

He added that the vault will hold the 100-year storm event.

Mr. Curto clarified that the property at 645 E. Roosevelt was not part of incorporated

Lombard when it was built.

Vice Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment.

Gary Anderson, 140 S. Charlotte Street, stated that he had previously spoken and

written against this project as it has not met the standards for variations. To do so, they

would need to demonstrate hardship, have a need other than for financial gain, and not

have a detrimental impact on the surrounding properties. He does not see any

indication of hardship here, especially with regard to the requested building height and

setback variations. Both of those requests are needed to increase the size of the

building, which is strictly for financial gain. He stated that this building would not

increase the property values of the surrounding homes and asked the Plan Commission

to not forward this petition with a recommendation of approval.

Vice Chairperson Flint asked if there was anyone else that had any questions or

comments on the petition. Hearing none, he then requested the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, indicated that the Plan Commission continued the public

hearing for PC 06-27 in order to allow the petitioner to provide additional information

regarding the development proposal and/or modify their plans accordingly. This report

is based upon a review of the supplemental information provided by the petitioner and

addresses the areas identified by the Plan Commission members, staff, and/or the

public where additional information was requested.

Ms. Backensto summarized the changes on the new building perspective and

elevations. No changes have been made to the storefronts along the north elevation,

brick colors, mullions or signage locations. Staff obtained permission from two adjacent

property owners to take pictures from their backyards. These pictures were used to

create composite images that give a rough idea of how the proposed development

would appear from the adjacent properties. The images of 136 S. Charlotte and 140 S.

Charlotte were included as part of the petitioner's submittal.

The materials board perspective still shows outdoor dining in front of the new Parkside

Avenue storefronts, but there is less than five feet between the building and the property

line. Any outdoor dining proposed on the public right-of-way would not be covered by

the conditional use and would be subject to an annual administrative permit with no

public hearing necessary. The shared balconies on the north, east, and south

elevations will be physically divided between the units, unless two adjoining units are

combined.

The petitioner has attempted to show a 45-foot high building by including a partial

through section on the building elevations, labeled “Unacceptable Alternate Mansard

Roof Option.” This alternative maintains a 9-foot high ceiling clearance within the

residential units, but the roof height remains unchanged at 48 feet. To date, none of the

submitted elevations have met the B5 District's 45-foot height requirement.

At the July 2006 workshop session regarding the DuPage Theatre development

proposal, the petitioner presented a three-dimensional video depiction of the proposed

development. The petitioner noted to staff the following issues relative to the new

presentation:

1. The proposed building heights were “eye-balled” without actual scaling of adjacent

structures. The petitioner believes that the rendering is accurate within one to two feet.

2. The locations of the trees that are shown on the presentation were derived by using

Google Earth aerial representations. They stated to staff that they believe that this

approach provides a fairly reasonable depiction of the existing vegetation surrounding

the subject site.

3. Staff notes that the depicted number of street parking spaces along East Parkside

may not match the existing or proposed parking layout proposed at this location.

At the November 20, 2006 Plan Commission meeting the Plan Commissioners

expressed a desire to see how stormwater detention would be addressed as part of the

development. In response, the petitioner has submitted a series of stormwater plans

that have been reviewed by the Private Engineering Services Division and Bureau of

Inspectional Services. The petitioner's initial plan proposed a vault detention system to

be provided below the proposed new retail portion of the building south of the theater.

In review of this plan, staff noted that the conceptual plan is not feasible due to the fact

that pumping stormwater is not acceptable and the detention system must drain by

gravity only. The petitioner then proposed a vault system to be located underneath the

proposed east drive aisle. Upon review of this proposal, staff noted that the proposed

vault would conflict with a water main also proposed to be located within the same area.

This plan did not meet the detention requirements of Lombard or DuPage County. The

petitioner's latest stormwater plan would provide for underground storage as part of the

building foundation beneath the new retail portion of the building along Main Street. The

Private Engineering Services Division and Bureau of Inspectional Services have both

reviewed the proposed concept plans and their comments are listed within the staff

report. The petitioner's responses to these concerns, as well as staff's comments on

these responses, are attached to the staff report as Appendix A. The proposed

conceptual stormwater detention system meets the necessary legal requirements, but

there are a number of construction issues that will need to be addressed as part of the

final engineering for the project

The petitioner has prepared a preliminary landscape plan for the rooftop garden areas

showing proposed plant materials. At the November 20 meeting, some members of the

Plan Commission expressed a preference for a homogenous transitional landscape

plan. Staff has received comments from only one adjacent property owner who would

be impacted by this requirement. That property owner stated that a cash payment

would be preferable to a homogeneous plan in that it would allow them to install

landscape improvements that are suited to their tastes and individual properties.

Staff also supports the concept of a cash payment that would be made to the Village

within sixty days of the petitioner closing on the property. The Village can then disperse

the funds to the adjacent residences accordingly. In this manner, transitional landscape

improvements could be installed and beginning to grow as early as spring 2007. In

1999, Big Idea Productions was required to make a $42 per linear foot payment to the

owners of the adjacent residential properties. Adjusting this number for inflation brings it

to $50.80 per linear foot, or $3,048 for most of the adjacent property owners ($50.80 x

60 feet).

Staff continues to recommend denial of the requested parking variation as an off-site

parking agreement should be reached by the petitioner. At their January 18, 2007

meeting, the Board of Trustees considered a lease agreement with the Elmhurst

Memorial Healthcare outpatient facility across the street from the subject property. Their

intent was to lease 40 spaces from the facility to meet the code requirements, but the

terms of the lease were deemed to be unacceptable by the Board of Trustees. The

petitioner has provided information on the proposed vehicle lifts/stackers. The lifts

would allow a resident to stack two cars within one traditional parking space, provided

there is a clear ceiling height of at least nine feet. The most recent site plans show that

up to 60 lower-level parking spaces could accommodate these lifts. Staff recommends

that a condition of approval be added to ensure the ability for these lifts to be installed

and operated.

The Plan Commission had inquired as to whether or not the downtown traffic counts

performed by KLOA in the summer of 2004 had occurred prior to the no-left-turn

restrictions on Route 53. Upon review, it appears that the no left turn signs were

installed during the winter of 2001-2002.

External lighting is shown on the west elevation storefronts. This lighting will not be

installed on the north elevation. For the residential portion of the building, a sample

lighting fixture has been provided.

Staff recommends that a condition of approval be added that would prohibit internally

illuminated box- or cabinet-style signage. As with numerous recent developments, staff

believes that any future wall signs should be in scale and harmony with the design

concept of the proposed project. Tenants should be encouraged to have their signage

represent the unique and special qualities of their store through creative designs.

With respect to the marquee sign, the petitioner will be proposing a new marquee sign

that generally replicates the existing theatre sign. However, they have expressed to

staff that the new sign may also include a vertical identification sign element as well.

Should the petition be approved, the petitioner will be able to submit the new marquee

sign plan at a later date for review and approval as part of a Site Plan Approval

application.

Attached to the staff report as Appendix B is a spreadsheet showing the status of

proposed, under construction, and recently built condominium and townhome projects

within the Village.

Ms. Backensto concluded by stating that staff recommended approval of the project,

subject to the ten conditions noted in the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, added that he had passed out two sample motions for

the Plan Commissioners for either approval or denial of the petition.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the proposed development has a lot of potential, but

she has numerous concerns that she has expressed in previous meetings. The

petitioner has been surprisingly resistant to the Plan Commission's suggestions.

Although she has tried to understand the petitioner's requests, she is not satisfied that

this petition has met the necessary requirements. Reducing a setback from 30 feet to

four feet is for financial gain, and the project cannot afford to not provide parking. She

was struck by the number of errors in the rendering, which doesn't represent attention to

detail. She stated that she expects more from a petitioner.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that this development would be a welcome addition to the

downtown, but he has two concerns: detention and parking. He stated that

underground detention costs more and he assumes that those costs would be borne by

the occupants of the building. He noted the comments from the Bureau of Inspectional

Services on p. 8 of the staff report and asked if the petitioner would have any problem

addressing them.

Mr. Kayser stated that the proposed detention system would be very low maintenance

as the water will be relatively clean. It will have positive drainage, making it almost

self-cleaning. The vault will be designed to meet all requirements. They have confirmed

that there is sufficient space and the system will physically work, but the technical

design will be done by their engineering consultants.

Mr. Olbrysh stated that the proposed building is taking up a lot of land, and their options

are limited due to the size of the building. He stated that they need convenient parking

and asked what the petitioner will do in the event that the project is approved and the

parking relief is denied.

Mr. Curto noted that this is a public-private partnership and the financing has been

worked out. They had brought forward a proposal for 40 parking spaces at Elmhurst

Hospital, but Elmhurst required a 120-day notice period in the event that they need the

parking for their facility. They would hope that if that occurred there would be other

options available. He understands that Elmhurst cannot grant a “forever” easement.

After the Village Board stated that the 120-day notice was unacceptable, Elmhurst

offered a 180-day notice. This option is still out there, and there is another option to

lease 37 of the adjacent commuter parking spaces. He noted that with downtown

theaters, there is typically not parking immediately adjacent to the building.

Commissioner Burke agreed that the project does have a lot of potential. The Plan

Commission had been very clear that they wanted to see a definitive plan for parking.

With regard to the underground storage, he does not feel qualified to say if it is a viable

solution. Although it seems problematic on the surface, the Village Engineer should

decide if it is appropriate. He is most troubled by the views from the adjacent properties

and the composite photos had a tremendous impact on him. As with the St. John's

project, the impact in the neighborhood is unbelievable. The photos show a corner unit

with floor-to-ceiling glass that looks into someone's backyard. The building is too close

to the residences and too obtrusive. At this point, there are still a lot of loose ends.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that both the parking and detention problems are due to

the size of the building. If the building were smaller, they could provide additional

parking and possibly have an easier stormwater solution. He is in favor of the

development and feels it is a good-looking building, but it is large. If approved, parking

will not be very convenient.

Vice Chairperson Flint stated that, as an architect, he understands the proposed

stormwater concept. The petitioner is proposing a very big, very tall building in the

backyards of the adjacent residents. It would be desirable to somehow scale the

building back, but the project still needs to work economically. He is torn because he

supports the theater and wants it to work, but he is disappointed that the issues have

not been addressed as the Plan Commission had requested.

1. The petitioner shall enter into a development agreement with the Village setting forth

the terms and conditions for development on the subject property.

2. As part of the building permit submittal, the petitioner shall satisfactorily address the

comments included as part of the Inter-Departmental Review Report.

3. The development shall be constructed in compliance with the plans submitted as part

of this petition. Any modification to the petitioner's plans shall be considered a major

change to the planned development.

4. In the event there are any conflicts between the building elevations and the interior

building layout, the exterior building elevation shall control. If required by interior

changes of layout, the aesthetic, compositional and material concepts illustrated in the

approved elevation drawings will be adhered to.

5. No box- or cabinet-style wall signage shall be permitted.

6. No parking relief shall be granted.

7. The parking garage lower level shall have a clear ceiling height of no less than nine

feet, with adequate electrical supply provided to serve each lower level parking space.

8. Lighting on the residential portion of the building shall be shielded so that all

illumination is directed toward the building and away from adjacent properties.

Lighting provided for the drive aisle shall not project higher than eight feet above grade

level. Parking structure lighting shall be directed downward and shall not cast a glare

onto adjacent properties.

9. An 8-foot solid beige PVC or similar fence shall be installed along the eastern

property line, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development.

10. In lieu of transitional landscaping improvements, a cash payment of $50.80 per

linear foot shall be paid to the Village within 60 days of the petitioner's acquisition of the

property and prior to the issuance of any building permits. This cash payment shall be

allocated amongst the adjacent property owners to the east of the subject property,

based upon the length of the shared lot lines.

11. Stormwater detention shall be approved by the Village Engineer and shall be

subject to rigorous scrutiny; and

12. The building setbacks shall be at least 80 percent of that required by the Zoning

Ordinance.

Furthermore, the Plan Commission recommends that site plan approval shall be granted

for the subject property

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that staff does not support a continuance. He

noted that they filed their petition back in November and were placed on the agenda for

the January Plan Commission. He mentioned that the petitioner had already received

one continuance. He stated that there are a number of code enforcement violations on

the property and there is pending court action relative to the subject property.

Janet Eldred mentioned that there are really three outstanding code issues. She stated

that the asphalt and fencing can't be addressed until the weather warms up. She noted

that they are working on removing the debris from the property.

Vice Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for

or against the petition.

Vice Chairperson Flint then requested the staff report.

Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, referenced the staff report which is submitted to the

public record. Ms. Kulikowski noted that the petitioner, JRC Electric, has occupied the

property at 948 N. Ridge Avenue for several years, and it came to the attention of the

Code Enforcement Division that JRC Electric never received a Certificate of Occupancy

to occupy the premises. She stated that they need conditional use approval for a

contractor equipment and materials storage yard in order to receive a Certificate of

Occupancy.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that there are several issues related to the Lombard Zoning

Ordinance as well as other sections of the Lombard Code of Ordinances that need to be

addressed. First, she mentioned that the Zoning Ordinance requires storage yards to

be screened by a solid fence no less than six feet (6') in height and no more than eight

feet (8') in height. She stated that the existing eight foot (8') chain link fence is in poor

condition and does not qualify as a solid fence. She noted that if a conditional use is

granted, staff recommends that a new solid fence be required as a condition of approval.

She also mentioned that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow stored materials to be

visible above the solid fence, and a variation would be needed if any equipment can not

be completely screened.

Ms. Kulikowski discussed issues relating to the parking lot. She stated that code

requires all vehicles, trailers, equipment, and cargo containers must be parked on an

asphalt or concrete surface. She mentioned that there is a small paved area to the rear

of the building, but the majority of the vehicles and equipment are not stored on a paved

surface. She noted that staff would require that the paved area be expanded to

accommodate all stored vehicles, equipment, and materials. She also noted that storm

water detention would likely be required if the impervious area of the property is

increased.

Ms. Kulikowski mentioned that there are currently no parking spaces provided outside of

the fenced area. She noted that code would require five parking spaces on the subject

property. She stated that in the past staff has not deducted parking spaces used for

business vehicles within an outdoor storage area from the overall on-site parking count.

She mentioned that staff would require that at least five parking spaces be

striped/delineated and designated for business vehicle/trailer parking only to help to

assure that parking spaces within the fenced area are not being physically removed

from the property, and will therefore be available for any future property owners.

Ms. Kulikowski mentioned that there are several passenger vehicles and a boat that are

currently being stored on the property that are not associated with the business. She

stated that off-site parking and outside storage of motor vehicles are listed as separate

and distinct conditional uses, which staff would not be supportive of.

Ms. Kulikowski discussed the Standards for Conditional Uses. She referenced the

seventh Standard:

That the conditional use shall, in other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of

the district which it is located, except as such regulations may, in each instance, be

modified pursuant to the recommendations of the Plan Commission.

She noted that staff cannot support a petition that does not meet all of the applicable

standards. She stated that the petitioner was made aware in February 2006 that a

Certificate of Occupancy was needed and that staff has made the petitioner aware of

the improvements that need to be made to bring the contractor equipment and materials

storage yard into compliance with code. She mentioned that staff requested that the

petitioner bring the property into initial compliance with the nuisance provisions set forth

within Village Code prior to consideration by the Plan Commission. She noted that the

petitioner has had ample time to address these issues, and has made no indication as to

how they plan to address these issues. She also noted that there are still inoperable

vehicles and a recreational vehicle (a boat) stored on the property that is not associated

with the business use.

Vice Chairperson Flint opened the meeting for comments from the Plan Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser asked for clarification on the statement in the staff report that

“the petitioner represented to staff that they are not willing to make all of the site

improvements that the Plan Commission usually places upon such yards as conditions

of approval. “

Ms. Kulikowski clarified that the petitioner represented that they were not able to make

the improvements.

David Hulseberg, Assistant Village Manager/Director of Community Development,

stated that he was at home watching the petition on television and that there was an

issue that caught his attention. He stated that condition #12 that Commissioner

Sweetser placed on the recommendation of approval provided for a minimum setback of

80 percent of the underlying yard requirement. As written, this condition would only

apply along all of Parkside Avenue. He sought a clarification as to where this condition

would be in effect. William Heniff stated that the intent of the relief in the request is to

hold the existing building line along Parkside at four feet (4'), so if the condition applied

to the Parkside elevation, it would require the building to be placed twenty-four feet (24')

off of the north property line.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that her intent was to address the east property line.

Mr. Hulseberg stated that if the intent was to move the building off of the east property

line, the condition of approval would not apply and have no effect. Mr. Heniff stated that

the condition would preclude any new construction activity from up to twenty-four feet

(24') from Parkside Avenue.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that the submitted plans denote a twenty-three foot, six

inch (23'6”) drive aisle plus five feet (5') for transitional landscaping along the east

property line, but the plans did not denote the dimension for the bump out (bay windows

and/or balconies). Mr. Hulseberg reiterated that the motion that was made is confusing

and recommended that it be amended because it applies along Parkside Avenue and

not along the east property line.

Commissioner Burke asked if this item was open for discussion. The issue is that the

pictures depict the building from the backyards and the motion gave the impression that

it was to make the building move further west off the property line.

Mr. Hulseberg stated that the motion as written did not do what the Commissioners

Adam Costello, owner of Hill Avenue Auto Repair, presented the petition. He thanked

the Plan Commission for their time and consideration. He mentioned that the staff

report explains the facts of the case, and he would be happy to answer any questions

that the Plan Commissioners may have.

Vice Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for

or against the petition.

Vice Chairperson Flint then requested the staff report

Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, referenced the staff report which is submitted to the

public record. She stated that the subject property is developed with a 9,500 square

foot office/warehouse building with six units. She noted that the petitioner is proposing

an auto repair establishment at 704 Hill Avenue (also known as 21W140 Hill Avenue

Unit C). She mentioned that the tenant space is approximately thirty feet (30') by fifty

feet (50') and includes a small office area and one service bay. She stated that the

petitioner will be the only employee and business will generally be conducted by

appointment. She noted that other tenants in the building include a construction

company, an electrical contractor, a business specializing in irrigation system design

and a business specializing in filtration systems.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the property complies with the recommendations of the

Comprehensive Plan and the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land

uses. She noted that a variation was granted in 1975 to reduce the side yard setback to

the west property line to zero feet (0'). She mentioned that the building is setback

approximately twenty feet (20') from the front property line, but is considered legal

non-conforming as the front yard setback at the time the building was constructed met

code.

Ms. Kulikowski discussed parking issues related to the subject property. She stated that

the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of three (3) spaces for each use in the

Business and Industrial Districts, and therefore a minimum of fifteen (15) parking spaces

would be required for the entire subject property. She noted that the parking spaces

are not currently striped or delineated within the parking lot, but the petitioner has

submitted a site plan that depicts where cars typically park. She stated that the Zoning

Ordinance would require the number of parking spaces be brought into compliance if a

more intense use is proposed. She mentioned that staff reviewed the current and

previous tenants of the property, and made the interpretation that the use of the property

will not increase in intensity as a result of the proposed automobile repair establishment.

She noted that there have been two other automobile repair establishments and a

towing company that have operated on the premises. She stated that the property as a

whole is considered legal non-conforming with respect to parking requirements.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the parking requirement for the proposed automobile repair

establishment is two spaces per service bay plus one space per employee and because

the proposed business will only have one service bay and one employee, three (3)

parking spaces would be required. She mentioned that up to three cars can be parked

within the tenant space. She stated that in order to ensure that the proposed automotive

service use, combined with the other uses on the premises, does not create a parking

problem on the site, staff is recommending as a condition of approval that there shall be

no overnight outdoor parking or storage of vehicles associated with the proposed

automotive use.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the parking lot must be striped or delineated in accordance

with the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that the site plan that was approved with the

original building permit provided nine (9) parking spaces on the property. She

mentioned that staff recommends that as a condition of approval, the parking lot be

striped in accordance with the approved site plan from 1976, included in the Appendix of

this report. She also noted that if parking lot improvements are made, an accessible

parking space may be required per the Illinois Accessibility Code. She stated that

staff's proposed site layout will also provide for a better parking design as it will eliminate

vehicles parking in a random manner and on the public right-of-way. Moreover, the

proposed plan will create a defined driveway access point to the site, further defining the

private parking and circulation areas.

Ms. Kulikowski also noted that the Lombard Code of Ordinances require all vehicles and

equipment to be parked on an asphalt or concrete surface. She referred to the vehicles

and equipment being stored in a gravel area to the east of the building. She stated that

staff recommends as a condition of approval that all vehicles on the subject property

must be parked on asphalt or concrete surface in accordance with Title 15, Chapter 150,

Section 150.301(B) of the Lombard Code of Ordinances. If the property owner or

tenants want to use this area for parking, then it must be paved. She also noted that

any expansion of the parking lot would require that storm water detention be provided.

She stated that staff also recommends as a condition of approval that a fence be placed

along the eastern edge of the parking lot to prevent the storage or parking of vehicles or

equipment beyond the paved parking area.

Vice Chairperson Flint opened the meeting for comments from the Plan Commission.

There were no comments from the Plan Commissioners.

1. That the petitioner shall satisfactorily address the comments included within the

IDRC report.

2. That the subject property be modified to incorporate all of the parking lot

improvements as depicted on the site plan prepared by the Village, attached as an

exhibit and made a part of the recommendation of approval.

3. The petitioner shall store any vehicles kept overnight within the enclosed building.

The outside storage of motor vehicles shall be prohibited.

4. That all vehicles on the subject property must be parked on asphalt or concrete

surface in accordance with Title 15, Chapter 150, Section 150.301(B) of the Lombard

Code of Ordinances.

5. That the property owner shall apply for and receive a building permit to install a fence

no greater than four feet (4') in height along the eastern edge of the paved parking area.

In the event that the property owner expands the parking lot to provide additional

parking, said fence may be relocated at the discretion of the Director of Community

Development.

Ordinance for property located within the B3PD Community Shopping District, Planned

Development:

1. A deviation from Section 153.211 (F) & Section 153.242(F) to allow for awning and

canopy signs to be displayed in conjunction with a wall sign.

2. A deviation from Section 153.218 (B) & Section 153.218(C) to allow for informational

signs to be greater than six (6) square feet in area and greater than four (4) feet in

height.

3. A deviation from Section 153.242(E) to allow for wall signs to be located on any of

the building elevations.

4. A deviation from Section 153.243 to allow more than one window sign per window

and to allow the amount of surface area for each window sign to exceed twenty (20)

percent.

5. A deviation from Section 153.505(19)(a)(2) to allow more than one wall sign per

street exposure.

6. A deviation from 153.242(B) to allow wall signs to project above the surface of the

building.

(DISTRICT #3)

Joe Antunovich, President of Antunovich & Associates, 224 W. Huron, Chicago, IL

60610. Mr. Antunovich presented the last approval session for the Shops on Butterfield

at Yorktown Center and will present the signage program submitted to the village for

approval. He has a few slides to go through, all of which will show the intent of his

project.

The first slide showed Yorktown Mall and the lifestyle center at southwest corner of the

site.

The second slide showed the site plan of Yorktown Mall.

The third slide showed the view of how the new shops will look when the project is

completed. This development is a lifestyle center of one story in height. Montgomery

Ward was razed and the intent of the design is to provide a Main Street feel to the

center where each of the stores will differ and look independent.

The fourth slide showed the location of the new shops.

The fifth slide illustrated the kind of signage and activity they want to create with

awnings and banners.

The sixth slide depicted the submitted package as types of signs they wish to have.

They wish to have discreet, sophisticated signs showing the different retailers.

The seventh slide showed the kind of signage, the different wall signs, the logo signs for

the individual retailers made up of smaller blade signs, and the signage on front of

awnings.

The eighth slide showed the sign criteria. This package would be adopted and the Mall

ownership would administer it and grant approval to a tenant. The tenant would them

come to the Village to get a permit to install a sign. They will also get a letter of approval

from Yorktown.

The ninth slide showed the different sign elevations to the south (the Marshall's Home

Center and Forever 21) and showed the kind of materials.

The tenth slide showed various elevations that give signage allowance they will provide

for each store.

The eleventh slide showed the Lucky Strikes signage. This store has no exposure

through the new entryway of the interface of the new shops. They will occupy 25,000

square feet on the lower level of the old Wards store, so they want to announce their

presence. The sign extends slightly above the roofline. They also note that this is a

unique tenant.

They request approval as the final part of approvals for the new Shops on Butterfield.

There was no one to speak in favor or against the petition.

Michael Toth gave staff report. He read the description. He mentioned the uniqueness

of the Lucky Strike sign and continued to read off page 3.

He summarized each of the six deviations with staff explanation.

1. A deviation from Section 153.211 (F) & Section 153.242(F) to allow for awning and

canopy signs to be displayed in conjunction with a wall sign. Toth explained that: any

awning or valance signs would be intended to serve pedestrians already in the center,

and the mixed signs would not create an excessive signage appearance from adjacent

properties. Moreover, by allowing for awning or valance signs within the center, it will

give the center an appearance of a downtown pedestrian environment.

2. A deviation from Section 153.218 (B) & Section 153.218(C) to allow for informational

signs to be greater than six (6) square feet in area and greater than four (4) feet in

height. Toth went on to explain that this deviation would be to allow for greater mobility

and accurate tenant information (though signage), and that informational signs are

utilized throughout shopping centers around the world to guide patrons to their

destination. He also stated that staff can support this request as the sign is

informational in nature and is intended to complement or supplement other types of

way-finding signage found in pedestrian-oriented shopping centers.

3. A deviation from Section 153.242(E) to allow for wall signs to be located on any of

the building elevations. Toth stated that this deviation would allow those businesses to

erect a wall sign on any elevation, which would allow each business to place their sign

on the most practical elevation.

4. A deviation from Section 153.243 to allow more than one window sign per window

and to allow the amount of surface area for each window sign to exceed twenty (20)

percent. Toth supported this deviation by stating that in this case, the pedestrian

shopping center is more compact in area and has a higher carrying capacity of patrons,

most of whom are window shopping. He also stated that any safety hazards posed by

the obstructed window vision would be diminished.

5. A deviation from Section 153.505(19)(a)(2) to allow more than one wall sign per

street exposure. Toth noted that as the distance from adjacent public rights- of-way is

significant, most of the signage to be erected is intended to serve pedestrians already

on the premises. The deviation would provide greater flexibility from this signage

provision also will allow the petitioner to tailor their signage by allowing a number of

smaller signs rather than a single larger sign.

6. A deviation from Section 153.242(B) to allow wall signs to project above the surface

of the building. Toth stated that this deviation only applies to the Lucky Strike signage

and that the intent of allowing wall signs to project above the building surface only

applies to this particular sign. He went on to explain that establishing relief for every

wall sign to have the opportunity to extend above the building surface could potentially

create an eyesore. Also, should any other tenant space inquire about erecting a wall

sign above the building surface, they will be subject to the conditions of the approval.

Staff recommends approval subject to the six conditions.

Commissioners: No comments.

1. The signage approval shall be based upon the Comprehensive Signage Packet

(includes location of proposed wall, projecting, marquee, and valance signs, prepared by

Antunovich Associates, dated January 16, 2007).

2. Deviation from Section 153.242(B) shall be granted only to the “Lucky Strike”

establishment as shown in the plans submitted by Antunovich & Associates.

3. In lieu of the provisions set forth in Section 153.211(F), Section 153.242(F), &

Section 153.505(19)(a)(2), each tenant space shall be allowed to install mixed signage

and more than one wall sign, as long as the cumulative total does not exceed two (2)

times the linear frontage of the tenant space.

4. Informational signs shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height and thirty-two (32) square

feet in signage area.

5. Window signs shall not exceed fifty (50) percent coverage for each window space.

6. Any future sign permits involving the subject property shall apply for and receive a

building permit. Those permits will be reviewed in connection with the aforementioned

conditions.

Robert Pugliese, 115 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago, attorney for Sunrise Senior Living,

presented the petition and introduced his team which were present in the audience. Mr.

Pugliese stated that the subject parcel is the last undeveloped parcel at Fountain

Square which is located at the corner of 22nd Street and Meyers Road. This is the last

piece of the puzzle in a development that has set the bar high in terms of quality. The

proposed plans meet that standard and this development is a first-class senior living

facility. He is gratified to see a favorable staff report indicating how they are in

compliance with code and noted that the technical comments would be addressed in the

building permit phase. He turned the presentation over to Tim Hedges to present the

background of Sunrise Senior Living.

Tim Hedges of Sunrise Senior Living, 220 W. Huron Street, Suite 500 East, Chicago,

explained their senior housing program as well as their company. He stated there are

two different types of seniors, those who need assisted living and those who are

independent. Their campus arrangements reflect those needs by incorporating two

buildings - a 62-unit independent facility together with an 80-unit assisted living facility.

Mr. Hedges then described the types of services and activities each would provide. He

indicated that the company operates approximately 400 senior communities throughout

the world. They build, design, own and operate each one and a lot goes into it. The

subject parcel is in an ideal location whereby there is opportunity for rest or shopping,

and family will be in the immediate area. Mr. Hedges then introduced John Green,

architect of the project.

John Green, Architect with Groundwork, 351 W. Dundee in Buffalo Grove, referred to

the display boards. He indicated that the site is 191,000 square feet and approximately

4.4 acres. The site shows two buildings which are interconnected with a common

kitchen core. There will be a small restaurant on the first floor in the independent living

building and a small restaurant dining area for the assisted living. The site will provide

53 surface parking spaces and 51 parking spaces in the lower level parking garage. He

noted they exceed the parking requirement of 74 spaces. The building is oriented in

such a way so that Meyers Road and Fountain Square Drive create a landscape. The

interior of the building does not create an institutional feeling as the master bedrooms

are more like suites, there is a small area in which to have a refrigerator, and it includes

a small window to create a feeling of residency as well as to draw them to the public

area. They are creating interior environments so the building is designed to look

residential. Walking around the site there are areas for resting and sitting. Mr. Green

stated they liked the location because it has activity around it for the residents to enjoy

but at the same time the buildings and environment are welcoming enough for others to

come inside and enjoy some of their amenities. He indicated that the whole site works

and flows together.

Mr. Green then stated the development was located in the B3 planned development

which allows a maximum building height of 50' which they comply with. Referring to the

landscape display board he indicated that there is fire department access and they

created a landscape island along 22nd and Meyers Road which serves as a screen or

buffer.

Referring to another display board, Mr. Green stated that the exterior elevations of the

building show the buildings are separate but connected. Drop off and pick up lanes in

this environment are very important so they were designed to be large and sheltered.

The building design incorporates the necessary materials outlined in the design

standards of the development agreement which include masonry with different colors

and textures to provide movement. Of the 400 senior communities they have built every

building has been adapted to the community their plans are no exception.

Concluding, Mr. Green referred to another display board and indicated that the architect

made some minor adjustments that staff is aware of. These included the footprint being

adjusted, the green spaces are pulled out, and the dining space has been moved back.

The same holds true with the exterior elevations. The one significant adjustment is at

the corner of the independent living building where they eliminated a section of wrap

around balconies.

Vice Chairperson Flint then requested the staff report.

Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, presented the staff report. She indicated that this is a

site plan approval for a senior housing facility which consists of two 4-story buildings,

one with 62 units and one with 80 units. There is no zoning relief associated with this

petition. The development is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding

land uses. The B3 agreements for Fountain Square lists residential uses for Lot 2. In

reviewing the development for site plan approval, the petitioner has given a brief

synopsis as to the materials proposed which are consistent with Lot 1. These include

using red brick color and hip roof elements. In response to the workshop comments

from the Plan Commissioners who indicated they would like to see the building stand out

on its own, the petitioner has addressed those comments and have added materials and

design elements to distinguish them from the condos on Lot 1. These include

incorporating porticos with a green metal roof at the entrances as well as additional

masonry components and architectural elements to help break up the façade. The

development meets the vehicle trip generation bank and does not exceed the allowable

amount. Parking exceeds code and they have incorporated 12 additional spaces should

there be a need in the future. The site is accessed from Fountain Square Drive whereby

the main entrance is directly across from Champps Restaurant. There is a secondary

entrance to the west which is shown as a right in right out. The petitioner meets the

detention requirement for the planned development. The petitioner's landscaping plan

incorporates the Plan Commissioners' comments from the previous Entourage

workshop by maximizing open space along 22nd Street and softening the impact of the

parking lot. The signage plan proposes 2 monument signs both approximately 22

square feet in area. One will be located at the primary entrance and other will be

located at the northeast corner of the property near 22nd Street and Meyers Road. The

proposed signs meet the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. Concluding, Ms. Kulikowski

stated that staff recommended approval of this petition subject to the two conditions

listed in the staff report.

Vice Chairperson Flint opened the meeting up to the Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser indicated that she really liked the design and incorporation of

their suggestions. She noted that although their parking exceeded code, she still had

concerns about tenant, employee and visitor parking specifically as to who would park

where and how it would be controlled. Mr. Green answered that they are extremely

comfortable with the number of spaces they have provided because with 17 facilities in

this area, they consistently get new data with little deviation. He stated that individuals

living in the assisted living facility are generally picked up and taken out. He then stated

they used KLOA because of their conservative nature. Mr. Green also explained that

the parking inside is for individuals in the independent living facility and the back portion

and surface area would be used for employee parking. There is access in back of the

building via a keypad.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about the drop off area and whether the two minimum

width lanes would inhibit traffic circulation if someone was being dropped off. Mr. Green

responded that they were designed to be 16 feet wide for full accessibility.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that this was by far the best proposal they have seen.

The Commissioners' concerns at the workshop that the building be distinguished from

the condos has been achieved. He likes the change and thought the landscaping plan

was impressive, especially how they managed to shield the buildings on Meyers Road

and around Fountain Square Drive.

Vice Chairperson Flint indicated that the improvements improved the look of the building

and he agreed with Commissioner Olbrysh's comments regarding the landscaping. He

thought this was a great development for Lombard.