Village of Lombard Legistar System

Kenneth Johnson, 191 West Irving Park Boulevard, Wood Dale, IL 60191, attorney for

Chicago Marthoma Church, presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner. He

presented a brief overview of the project and restated the request.

Joe Thomas, 240 Potter Road, Des Plaines, IL, congregation secretary, introduced the

church members and provided a history of the church. He noted that their existing

church in Des Plaines has grown to over 385 families. To address their growth issue,

they are proposing a new church and noted that the proposed site in Lombard suits their

needs.

Jonathan Stuck, Crossroads Design, 222 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 205, Lake Forest, IL

60045, architect for the project, gave a site overview. He noted the IDOT property

takings that will reduce the overall size of the property. He noted that the Village's traffic

consultant recommended a right-in, right-out configuration for their Main Street access

and they find this acceptable. He noted that the church would accommodate up to 444

seats. In order to ensure that sufficient parking is provided on the site per Village code,

they are requesting a variation from the 50% open space requirement. However, they

are sensitive to the existing vegetation on the site and to address neighboring concerns,

they do propose to maintain as much existing vegetation as possible. He also noted the

stormwater issues raised by property owners to the south and noted that their flooding

problems can be partly attributed to the uncontrolled sheet draining that occurs on the

site right now. The proposed vault system will catch runoff and slowly release it into the

storm sewer. He feels that this design will address some of the existing stormwater

problems in the area.

He noted that the church would be a buffer use between the more intense uses across

North Avenue and the gas station across Main Street and would act as a good

transitional use. The church building will be located in the northeast corner of the site

with the altar oriented to east. He noted the height variation for the apex of the steeple

and he believes that it won't have adverse affect on the neighborhood. He described

the materials of the building and roof and felt the design will positively reflect on the

neighborhood.

Steve Welter, Martin Design Partnership, 1721 Astor Avenue, Oakbrook Terrace, IL

60181, landscape architect for the site, showed via a color rendering what they are

proposing. He noted the existing vegetation on south and west property lines that they

want to keep. He noted that they are supplementing the existing vegetation with new

trees around the cul-de-sac. There will also be shade tress around the front and

perimeter of the parking lot. They are also providing landscaping around the perimeter

and a landscape screen buffer on the east side. Along the south side, a 6-foot fence is

being proposed back of the parking lot with the landscaping outside of the fenced area.

He concluded by noting that the landscaping will complement the architecture by

providing trees of a minimum height of six feet and three inch caliper.

Mr. Johnson concluded by noting the standards for conditional uses and variations and

how the project will meet these provisions.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public participation.

There was no one to speak in favor of the petition.

Louis Goebel, 848 Swain, Elmhurst, owner of the property immediately to south 700 S.

Main, asked about the location of the parking lot to his property. He stated that it

appears to be 10 feet from the curb line to his property line and there will be a 6-foot

fence.

Ralph Borgatell, 663 Ridge, called to the attention of the Plan Commission that the plans

do not show the right-in, right-out configuration. He noted that the traffic study was

taken on Sunday and noted that the church says they are involved in charitable

activities. As there are churches that have services and meetings on weekdays, his

concern is the location of the access driveway from Main Street being 87 feet from the

intersection of LeMoyne and Main. He felt that this is a traffic hazard. He said that he

agrees with the Sunday traffic study but should the church members if they have

weekday meetings, it may present a problem at Main and North. His concern is from the

community and for the people coming to the church. He feels the plan fits well with the

Comprehensive Plan, but is concerned with the variation for open space. He

acknowledged that other churches do not meet the open space requirements but those

have been in existence for a long time; here we are staring new. He hopes that the

Commission will consider these items and he feels there could be a better plan.

Eric Monsanga, 29 W. North Avenue is wondering why the cul-de-sac is facing right into

his driveway.

Doug Christensen, 301 W. Goebel, stated that he is not speaking for or against but just

has a few questions. He noted that the roof would be aluminum seemed roof, and

asked what is the finish and sealing on the roof. He asked if the petitioner's plans have

been ascertained for the expansion of North Avenue whether this has been confirmed

by the State. He asked about the possibility of cut-though traffic through the site. He

referenced the Private Engineering Services comments that noted that Village codes

allows for up to one foot of flooding within the parking lot. He asked if that is being

considered as an alternative to the proposed vault system. He concluded by

referencing the existing storm sewer system on Main Street. If the consultant study

shows an adverse affect, what their plans would be to address it.

Mr. Stack responded by noting that the curb is 10 ½ feet off of the south property line

and a fence will be incorporated with eight feet of space between the fence and property

line. Between this area, extensive vegetation will be provided. Regarding 29 W. North

Avenue, the property line is controlled by IDOT and the petitioner has no control over it.

The proposed property line may shorten the neighbor's driveway length. He noted that

the roof would be a gray color. Regarding stormwater issues, he noted that one foot is

allowable by code, but in their instance they may have minimal ponding on their surface

as most of the stormwater will be accommodated underground. He noted that this will

be worked out as part of final engineering and they will work with the Village. As far as

the sewer discharge onto Main, he noted that this needs to be looked into further and

they will work with civil staff. Regarding the right-in, right-out, the petitioner's plans were

prepared prior to the completion of the staff and traffic consultant's report. He noted that

they are in agreement with the requirement, so there is no issue with that. Regarding

the weekday service issue, currently the services at the existing church are only on

Sunday and no others are in the middle of week.

Chairman Ryan then requested the staff report. William Heniff, Senior Planner

reiterated the requested relief. He noted that the petitioner plans to construct a 7,641

square foot church building on the property. The building will be a one story structure

that will also include a sub-level that will be used for Sunday school, meeting and/or

administrative space. The petitioner does not propose to include day care, pre-school

or elementary school activities as part of their plan. Additionally, the site plan does not

include any living quarters. He also referenced the comments included as part of the

IDRC report.

He noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends Single Family Residential use for

this location. Comprehensive plans typically do identify specific locations for churches.

These institutional uses are generally considered to be supporting uses to the

surrounding single-family residential uses. Therefore, this use can be considered a

compatible use with the comprehensive plan.

He then discussed compatibility issues and stated that the higher elevation of the

property, the existing vegetation on the rear of the property and its location at a

prominent corner within the Village all tend to orient the property away from the abutting

residential properties and towards the arterial roadways. Staff believes that the

institutional use proposed for the site would act as an appropriate buffer use been the

residential and non-residential uses surrounding the property.

Mr. Heniff then discussed the traffic analysis and noted that IDOT is currently in

negotiations to acquire a portion of the property for public right of way purposes. The

first area is a 2,422 square foot trapezoid shaped area at the northwest corner of the

property. This acquisition will be to accommodate a cul-de-sac bulb for a proposed

frontage road intended to serve adjacent single-family residential lots abutting North

Avenue. The second acquisition is a five-foot strip of 1,500 square feet along the east

property line that will provide additional right of way space to accommodate for the

realignment of Main Street. Final acquisition and construction on these adjacent rights

of way are scheduled to commence in 2002. Among the additional improvements

proposed for North Avenue include a noise barrier wall that will be constructed between

the frontage road and North Avenue. North Avenue will also have 6 through lanes with

left and right turn lanes at Main Street. Main Street will be improved with a double left

turn lane, a through lane and a right turn lane.

He noted the Village's traffic consultant reviewed the proposed development to

determine the traffic impact on the site. The church activity is proposed to consist of

Sunday school services from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. with church services ending at

approximately 11:00 a.m. Outside of religious holidays, and occasional evening

meetings, weekday activities are not anticipated. The traffic consultant reviewed the

proposed traffic impact of the proposed use on the existing traffic flow on Main Street on

Sunday morning. The consultant found that the existing traffic network can

accommodate the additional traffic on Main Street and that the overall level of service

will remain acceptable. The consultant recommends that the Main Street driveway

should be designed as a right-in, right-out facility. Additionally, should the cut through

traffic be significant, the petitioner can install a gate at the north entryway to the site.

He noted that the proposed parking lot on the premises was intended to serve the

maximum amount of generation for the site. Unlike many religious institutions in the

Village, the location of the petitioner's site does not provide for convenient on-street

parking in close proximity to the church. As such, the petitioner has designed the site

to meet the needs of the congregation based upon the highest demand periods for the

site. The petitioner has designed the building to accommodate up to 444 seats,

although they anticipate that the church will likely only be 2/3rds full during a typical

Sunday. The proposed lot meets all design requirements for parking lots (i.e., stall

width, handicapped spaces, aisle width).

Mr. Heniff then discussed landscape issues. To ensure compatibility with adjacent

properties, the petitioner has moved the parking lot 25 feet east of the west rear lot line.

This area will be reengineered to include a landscape berm and additional plantings.

The petitioner is also intending to preserve as much of the existing vegetation at the

southeast corner of the site, as it acts as a well-established landscape screen. He

noted that staff has received correspondence from an adjacent property owner

requesting that the existing plant materials be maintained as much as possible. To

address this issue, staff recommends as a condition that the petitioner shall submit a

revised landscape plan with the building permit application that will specifically denote

the existing vegetation that will be preserved as part of the development. He noted on

the south side of the property, the vegetative improvements would be installed to benefit

the abutting property owners the greatest. As North Avenue will be under construction

for the next few years, staff recommends as a condition that in lieu of installing parkway

trees within the rights of way, the petitioner shall provide the Village with requisite fee to

cover the costs of sidewalk and parkway improvements.

He noted the petitioner has submitted concept elevational drawings for the proposed

building. The design of the building is a classical church design, featuring masonry

walls on the perimeter of the building. The pitched roof will include dormers for

additional light into the worship area. The east elevation (facing west) includes a

prominent cross design and patterned glass windows. The roof is accentuated by a

steeple reaching a height of 60 feet. Staff feels that the design of the church is

compatible with the adjacent residential properties as well as the other non-residential

uses.

Mr. Heniff then discussed the variation issues. Staff is supportive of the height variation.

First, it is generally not feasible to construct a church steeple on a building with receiving

a variation. Second, as the variation is intended for an architectural element, as

opposed to a variation to allow for more occupied space in the building, staff feels that

the variation creates an overall better design for the building. Third, a review of existing

religious institutions throughout the Village finds that church steeples do not create a

negative impact on adjacent properties and the petitioner's steeple is not anticipated to

create a negative impact either.

Regarding the open space variation, staff undertook an analysis of other religious

institutions in the Village for compliance with this provision. Additionally, staff also

looked at zoning relief granted in the recent past for other religious institutions in the

Village. Many existing religious institutions are within the 60 percent range of lot

coverage. Since the IDOT taking has reduced the amount of open space available for

the site and since the Village has granted relief from this requirement for several other

infill church sites in the Village, staff can support this provision as well. Staff also feels

that providing sufficient parking on the site would provide greater neighborhood benefit

than providing additional open space on the site. As noted on the site plan, stormwater

will be accommodated by a vault system to be constructed below the proposed parking

lot. Therefore, even though a reduction in open space is sought, the detention

requirements for the site will be met.

The petitioner will be installing two freestanding institutional signs to denote the church

name and activities. The petitioner intends on meeting the provisions enumerated within

the Sign Ordinance.

He then noted a few outstanding issues and stated that the vault system will create a

flow release rate at pre-development levels and adjacent property owners should see

benefits by reduced flooding. He also noted that the water would be channeled away

from their property. The petitioner is required to size the vault system to accommodate

all stormwater and the Ordinance does provide for some storage capacity within the

parking lot itself. He noted that staff received letters from adjacent property owners.

The first was from John Stancy and he read the letter into the record. He also received

a second correspondence from an owner on north side of Main Street stating they didn't

object to petition as proposed. Mr. Heniff addressed the issues in Mr. Stancy's letter

and mentioned that staff does have the pictures on file should anyone want to look.

Chairman Ryan opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission

members.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that it is a welcome use for the area. She asked about

the comments regarding the surcharging system on Main Street. Mr. Heniff noted that

there is some surcharging and the petitioner is aware of this existing condition. Should

the petition be approved, they will have to ensure that the release rate does not add to

the problem, but the existing surcharging may still exist. Commissioner Sweetser then

asked about a gate at North Avenue to minimize cut through traffic - she suggested that

a condition be added to also require installation of gate subject to the Village as well.

Commissioner Olbrysh shares the comments that it is a welcome addition to the Village.

He asked where the mechanicals outside the church would be located. Mr. Stuck

referred to a diagram and showed where the compressor pads would be located. He

showed that they would not be seen from Main or North Avenue as they will wrap a

planting screen and regrade the site to hide the mechanicals.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked about the photometric lighting plan and asked what they

anticipate as far as light coverage is concerned. In response, Mr. Stuck noted that there

would be four central lights. They will look at light issues around perimeter of the site,

as they don't want to cast light on property owners. Commissioner Olbrysh noted that

as they will use the site primarily on Sunday, does this affect the lighting issues? Mr.

Heniff noted that even though the site may not be used much during evening hours, they

are still required to meeting lighting standards.

Commissioner Burke referenced Mr. Stancy's letter and asked if the drainage will be

rerouted from their back yards to Main Street. Mr. Heniff said yes. Commissioner Burke

asked where snow would be piled. Mr. Stuck noted that the snow will be piled on

perimeter of site and they realize that they will lose some parking, but the fence will

screen the piles. Commissioner Burke then asked for the reason for fence and asked

what about damage to fence being so close to curb. Mr. Heniff noted that the petitioner

has provided a parking stall, so there won't be much of an overhang. The fence will also

visually discourage people from getting too close.

Commissioner Flint concurs that this is an excellent development. Regarding the

cul-de-sac, what kind of gate is proposed to discourage cut-through traffic? Mr. Heniff

suggested a metal swing gate.

1. The petitioner shall develop the site essentially in accordance with site plan prepared

by Crossroads Design, Inc., dated December 10, 2001 and made a part of this request.

2. That the conditional use shall be for the construction and operation of a religious

institution on the subject property. Should the petitioner or any subsequent property

owners seek to operate uses such as, but not limited to, day care facility, pre-school

activities, elementary school activities, a conditional use amendment will be required.

3. That the overall lot coverage not exceed 32.9% of the overall lot area.

4. That the petitioner apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed

improvements. Said permit shall also include the following elements:

a. That the petitioner shall also submit a revised landscape plan with the building permit

application that will specifically denote the existing vegetation that will be preserved as

part of the development. Shall any of the designated trees die during the site

development process, the petitioner shall replace it with new trees of equal caliper and

subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development.

b. That the petitioner shall also submit a photometic lighting plan for the property

consistent with Village Code.

c. That associated with the submittal of a building permit for the site, the petitioner shall

also provide the Village with requisite fees to cover the costs of sidewalk and parkway

improvements.

d. That the access driveway onto Main Street shall be designed and constructed as a

right-in, right-out facility.

5. That the site shall be constructed and operated in conformance with the Lombard

Village Codes.

6. That should cut-through traffic through the site be identified as a concern by the

Village, the petitioner shall install a gate at the north entrance, subject to the discretion

of the Director of Community Development.

John Coleman, 1230 Windsor Drive, Arlington Heights, presented the request on behalf

of Alter Group. He indicated that the subject property is a 30,000 square foot industrial

building and has a tenant who is seeking a variance for parking off site. The tenant

wishes to construct a fence around a portion of the parking lot to provide for staging

equipment and consequently, 5 spaces will be lost which would have otherwise been

used for employee parking. To make up for this loss, a request is made to provide for

those spaces at a neighboring property, 704 W. Oak Creek, owned by the same

company. This supplemental parking will be in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.

There was no present to speak for or against this petition.

Lisa Warren, Planner II, presented the staff report. She stated the request and

reiterated the reason for the petitioner needing to make the request. Private

Engineering Services, Public Works Engineering and Fire and Building had no

comments. The Planning comments included compatibility with the Comprehensive

Plan, the surrounding land uses, and the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Warren indicated that

using the property at 704 Oak Creek to provide the off site parking is compatible with the

Zoning Ordinance since the property is located within 300 feet of the subject property, is

controlled by the same owner and has an excess amount of parking spaces. Approval

for this type of request is usually done through a conditional use but since the subject

property is a planned development it can be accomplished through the site plan

approval process. She concluded by stating that staff supports this request as the

parking is not deemed necessary for the site, the close proximity to the off site parking

still provides flexibility if needed and the property at 704 W. Oak Creek site will still have

a surplus of parking available.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated he supports the petition as it makes good business sense

and since the alternative parking is close to the site.

Commissioner Burke asked if the drawing was to scale as it seemed that 11 spaces

would be lost not five. Ms. Warren answered that the entire area is not being

considered as storage so they did not deduct some of the areas where trucks would be

going in and out on a daily basis. A deduction was also made for the area the fence

would occupy.

Commissioner Sweetser indicated she had no objection to the petition but inquired if

now would be an opportunity to bring their parking into conformity since they are

currently legal non-conforming. Ms. Petsche, legal counsel for the Village, indicated

that could only be done if they were changing or extending the use but not for a minor

change.

DuPage County Public Hearing 4804-02 - Kelly

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report to the Plan Commission. He

stated that the petitioner is requesting approval to allow for a variation in the interior side

yard from 6.6 feet to 5 feet for a new single family residence on a vacant lot located on

Lawler Avenue within Glenbard Acres Subdivision, an R-4 Single Family Residential

District. The petitioner is proposing to construct a new single-family residence on the

subject property that will encroach into the required interior side yard. The subject

property is 19,800 square feet in size (66' wide by 300.57' deep). The property is

bordered by single family residences on the north, south and east and a vacant lot on

the west. The Village's Comprehensive Plan included the subject property and identifies

the site for Estate Residential use.

Mr. Heniff noted that staff considered the request relative to Village Codes as the

subject property is within the ultimate municipal boundaries of the Village. As a practical

matter, reductions in side yard setbacks can give an appearance of overcrowding within

a subdivision. Staff finds that as a vacant undeveloped property, a great deal of

flexibility exists for the property owner to develop the property with a residence

consistent with established codes. Therefore, the variation is created by the petitioner

and is not unique to the property. Moreover, the variation may also establish a

precedent for yard setback relief for other properties in the area.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission

members. The commissioners concurred with staff's recommendation.

A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SWEETSER AND SECONDED BY

COMMISSIONER OLBRYSH TO RECOMMEND TO THE CORPORATE

AUTHORITIES ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF OBJECTION TO DUPAGE

COUNTY CASE ZBA 4804-02.

THE ROLL CALL VOTE WAS 5-0 AS FOLLOWS:

Ayes: Flint, Burke, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Zorn

Nayes: None

Margaret Gibbs, Planner I, presented the petition. She stated the amended plat

proposes to divide Lots 2 and 6 for the proposed CompUSA and the other lot will be left

for a future use. The division will also include a strip of land from the Sears Great

Indoors to be subdivided off and consolidated with the CompUSA parcel. She stated

that this is being done so that CompUSA can fulfill the minimum parking stall and aisle

width requirements. She explained the forty (40) foot utilities and drainage easement

along the east property line is being relocated according to the Private Engineering

Services Division's request in SPA 01-09. Since the subject property is greater than an

acre in size, it is considered a major plat of subdivision and must be reviewed and

approved by the Plan Commission and Board of Trustees.

She noted that there are no comments from Private Engineering Services Division,

Public Works, or the Bureau of Inspectional Services.

Ms. Gibbs stated that the subdivision meets all of the requirements of the Zoning

Ordinance and Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the provisions included as

part of the overall Highlands of Lombard Planned Development. She explained the

overall planned development previously addressed the setback requirements and

standards for infrastructure improvements. The proposed subdivision will not affect the

approved site plan. Included within the subdivision request are the stated emergency

access and public utility and drainage easement requirements.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission. There were no comments by the members.

B5 Expansion

Jennifer Backensto, Planner I/C.E. Technician, presented the workshop. She indicated

that this is in response to the Board of Trustees who requested staff to research the

extension of the B5 as well as in response to the comments raised by the Plan

Commissioners at the last workshop. Ms. Backensto referred to the 7 properties that

are currently nonconforming due to their use, the 21 properties that under the existing

zoning do not conform to the required setbacks, and the 14 properties that would be

affected should the B5 zoning be applied. She explained the impact a property would

incur if it were to become non-conforming due to the change in the current zoning by

stating that it could continue to exist unless the building was damaged or destroyed by

more than 50 percent of its fair market value. In this scenario, a property owner may

have a non-conforming use reinstated by petitioning the Plan Commission for a text

amendment to add the non-conforming use to the underlying zoning district or the Plan

Commission may grant a conditional use to allow a non-conforming use to continue on

the property.

Ms. Backensto then stated the impact on surrounding areas and gave the current zoning

of these properties. She indicated that all of these surrounding districts allow a

maximum height of 45 feet which is consistent with the allowable maximum height in the

B5.

She addressed the B3 properties along Main Street between Hickory and Willow and

stated staff's observations that the physical layout of the properties is consistent with

that recommended under the B3 zoning district and that the B3 serves as a buffer.

There are three properties that are religious institutions and since they are conditional

uses they would remain the same.

In conclusion, staff recommends that the 30 commercial and institutional properties

along Main Street between Maple and Hickory be rezoned to B5 in accordance with the

Comprehensive Plan but still wishes to secure input from the Plan Commissioners.

The Commissioners comments and concerns were as follows:

· Concern was not with the religious institutions but with the area to the far south,

specifically south of Hickory.

· Preference was to rezone the properties up to Hickory to the B5 and leave the existing

zoning of B3 from Hickory going south to the residential uses as it would make a good

transition.

Mr. Heniff stated that staff will proceed in this recommended fashion by following up with

the various property owners who will be subject to a map amendment and conducting a

neighborhood meeting to review these proposed issues.

Rooftop Mechanicals

Jennifer Backensto, Planner I/C.E. Technician, presented the workshop. She indicated

that this workshop is a follow up to the December meeting whereby the Commissioners

requested that staff conduct additional research as to what other communities have

adopted. She referred to the report which listed the various communities as well as the

type of regulations they have and summarized that a majority have some type of

requirement which appears in their Zoning Ordinance. She stated that the Plan

Commissioners also suggested researching whether other municipalities include

required screening from above. Staff found for that to happen, a roof would need to be

constructed which would create unnecessary bulk, expense and could present safety

issues and therefore does not believe that this requirement would benefit the Village of

Lombard.

In conclusion, staff provided draft language for a text amendment but would like the Plan

Commissioner's input. Mr. Heniff added that if we make the screening a code issue,

would the Commissioner like to see an appeal mechanism or approval process to look

at full architecturals whereby they would offset the mechanicals.

The Commissioners comments and concerns were as follows:

· The draft language is acceptable as written and has a good approach. It is

comprehensive and provides guidelines.

· Would like to see consideration to have the color of mechanicals blend in with the

colors of the roof to offset the screening from above.

· The Plan Commissioners would be the appeals process.

Mr. Heniff stated that this text amendment will be presented at the February Plan

Commission meeting.

Zoning Hearing Officer

Lisa Warren, Planner II, presented the workshop. She indicated that the Village Board

requested staff to research the possibility of the Village employing a hearing officer to

conduct required public hearings for certain types of variations to the Zoning Ordinance.

She summarized the main points of the code which provides guidelines for such a

position such as what the officer has the authority to do, the types of hearings he can

conduct, the hearing process, the appeals process, the qualifications for hire, and the

compensation arrangement.

Ms. Warren stated that staff's analysis included researching and contacting

municipalities in DuPage County, the DuPage Mayor's and Managers Conference and

the Illinois Municipal League. Staff could not find any community in the state that utilized

this system.

In conclusion, Ms. Warren stated that although using the system might cut down the

burden of cases heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the negative factors outweigh

the benefits as:

· This method decreases the amount and variety of input in the process of requesting

relief.

· One person alone makes the decision on each case brought forth are more open to

charges of bias.

· Negative decisions by the hearing officer can only be overturned by 2/3 vote of the

trustees.

The comments and concerns as expressed by the Plan Commissioners were as follows:

· Questioned what prompted this request.

· Agreed with staff's assessment.

· Shouldn't set up a "supreme being" as a zoning officer.