Village of Lombard Legistar System

The petitioner, Gabriel Enwiya, presented the request. He stated that the proposed teen

club would be a very secure environment with police providing security. People assume

that teen clubs will be negative, but this club would not attract a rough crowd and they

will control things. He stated that his background shows that he will be able to run a

successful club.

Andrew Werth, attorney for the petitioner, stated that he would be available to answer

any questions.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Dr. David Slinkman, 1158 Michelle Lane, asked if the Village will monitor what type of

music is played. He stated that he is concerned with the north end of the property

because the existing fence has been knocked down repeatedly. He is concerned about

kids causing problems in the wooded area where they would not be visible. He added

that a kid in Carol Stream recently drowned in a detention pond and that 10 years ago a

body was dumped in the park. He stated that the park was not being taken care of.

Pat Koepp, 1142 Michelle Lane, stated that she is also concerned about the fence. She

urged the Plan Commission to deny the petition and stated that even good kids can

sometimes make inappropriate decisions.

Joanne Straz, 1140 Michelle Lane, stated that she has called the police numerous times

over the past 22 years about activities that go on at the park. She is concerned about

the opportunity for bad things to go on. She stated that the Village should not invite

trouble and this would be a huge detriment to the Old Grove community.

Celeste Gasper, 1138 Michelle Lane, stated that she did not receive a notice of public

hearing but she also lives across from the park and is always calling the police.

Julie King, 1125 Michelle Lane, stated that there are better choices to fill this space and

the proximity to a residential area is a huge concern.

The petitioner then responded to the public comments. He stated that you would be

able to drive by to see what type of music is playing. He stated that the kids at the Zero

Gravity teen club in Naperville are orderly. He would be providing kids a place to dance

and meet each other, and that is not a bad thing. He offered to repair the fence along

the northern property line. Kids would not be allowed to hang around outside the club

and there will be police inside and outside the building.

Chairperson Ryan asked if the petitioner had any response to the comments regarding

the park or the lake.

Mr. Werth stated that it sounds like there is an issue with the park, but that is outside of

the property that is being considered in this case. The petitioner would be providing

something recreational for teens that would be a secured, positive thing. He stated that

there is another teen club that is even closer to residential uses and you don't hear

about problems at any of the other teen clubs in DuPage County.

The petitioner stated that he has a track record of running a successful business.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, first

responded to comments that had been made earlier in the evening. She stated that the

Village cannot regulate what types of music are played. Also, all properties within 250

feet of the subject property were sent a notice of public hearing and there is no teen club

within the Village that is in closer proximity to residences than the subject property.

Ms. Backensto then presented the staff report. Although the submitted business plan

includes an outdoor patio, this area has subsequently been removed and converted into

additional on-site parking.

The Fire Department and Bureau of Inspectional Services listed 15 changes and

considerations that will need to be made prior to changing the use of this building to a

club, which is a public assembly use. The Public Works Department noted that a site

plan must be submitted and a building permit issued for any parking lot renovations.

The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be developed with Community

Commercial uses. With the approval of the requested conditional use, the property

would be in compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.

The subject property is bordered on two sides by properties within the R2 Single-Family

Residence District, and there are homes within 300 feet of the building where the teen

club would be located. Staff has serious concerns about the negative impact the

proposed use could have on the adjacent residences. Since the teen club would be

operating primarily in the late evening hours, the additional noise and traffic generated

by this type of use could be substantial and much greater than that generated by the

current and previous retail uses.

There are no transitional landscaping improvements currently on the subject property,

which can be considered legal non-conforming. However, the petitioner's proposed

improvements would increase the impact on adjacent residents because it will be adding

parking spaces along the western and northern property lines. If the proposed

improvements were constructed, they would remove the minimal buffer zone that

currently exists between the subject property and the surrounding residences.

By definition, a conditional use is a land use that may or not be appropriate within a

given zoning district depending on the impact the use would have on neighboring land.

In 2002, staff identified a location where the granting of a conditional use for a teen club

would be appropriate at Northgate Shopping Center. That property abuts two major

arterial roads as well as I-355 and there are commercial and industrial uses north of the

shopping center. In that case, staff stated that the proposed location within an

established shopping center and the lack of surrounding residential uses suggested that

an indoor amusement establishment might be an appropriate use on that property.

In this case, the subject property's proximity to residences makes it an inappropriate

location for the proposed teen club and, as such, this petition has not met the Standards

for Conditional Uses. The proposed conditional use and associated site improvements

could have a substantial impact on the adjacent residences. Furthermore, the teen club

as proposed (with seating for 1,700 people plus a 10,000 sq. ft. dance floor) would

monopolize the entirety of the parking areas for the shopping center. This would leave

no parking available for any of the other businesses on the property, thereby

substantially reducing the desirability of those locations for both the existing owners and

any potential future owners. The teen club as proposed could also impede the potential

redevelopment or reuse of the existing shopping center by eliminating the available

on-site parking for other businesses. The lack of transitional landscape yard

improvements would become much more evident with the intensified use of the areas

along the perimeter of the property.

Although the petitioner's business plan states that they will provide parking for over 800

vehicles, there has been no indication as to where these parking spaces will be located.

According to the submitted plans, there are currently 218 parking spaces on-site. The

proposed improvements would add an additional 113 spaces once the required parking

lot landscaping has been accounted for, for a total of 331 on-site parking spaces. Of

these, 178 spaces are already required for the retail center in the rear of the property,

leaving 153 parking spaces available for the teen club.

A separate conditional use request could be considered to allow the teen club to have

off-site parking on the property to the east. Village Code allows for off-site parking in

cases where surplus parking available is on neighboring properties. The adjacent

property has 270 parking spaces and, of those spaces, 258 spaces are required to

serve Wendy's, Midas, Popeye's, Glass Court, and Sterling Auto Body. Without a

parking variation, a conditional use for off-site parking at this location would only add an

additional 12 parking spaces for the teen club. Therefore, there is little surplus parking

available on the adjacent property to make up the difference in the overall parking

demand.

At the amusement establishment parking standard of one space per every three

persons, the 153 remaining parking spaces will allow for a maximum of 458 guests. This

means that, in order to satisfy both parking and life safety requirements, the building will

need to be substantially reduced below its current 21,292 sq. ft. The staff report

contains examples of several possible allocations of floor space. Depending on the

specific floor plan and/or seating arrangements, the usable space of the building could

be reduced to as little as 1,374 sq. ft. or as much as 6,870 sq. ft. An internal floor plan

would need to be submitted that is designed for an occupancy load not to exceed the

allowable square footage. The remainder of the building would need to be converted

into a separate tenant space that, due to the lack of parking, could not be occupied by

any type of establishment without the need for a parking variation. If a conditional use is

granted, the available parking supply for the teen club would result in a building

occupancy that is substantially less than that proposed in the petitioner's business plan.

Ms. Backensto then summarized the content of the traffic study performed by KLOA,

which was based upon the submitted business plan with seating for 1,700 guests and a

10,000 sq. ft. dance floor. Under the proposed scenario, an additional 647 parking

spaces would have to be provided. KLOA conducted a survey at the Zero Gravity

nightclub in Woodridge and, based upon their observations there, the subject property

would need approximately 230 parking spaces on an average day. The site would have

a deficiency of 72 parking spaces. The study concluded that there is inadequate

parking to support this type of land use and the proposed parking north of the strip

center would be inefficient. Also, there could be additional impacts in the event that any

of the existing shopping center tenants change to uses that would be in operation at the

same time as the teen club.

Although staff does not believe that this petition has met the Standards for Conditional

Uses, certain conditions should be considered in the event that the Plan Commission or

Board of Trustees vote in favor of this petition. These conditions are intended to ensure

that the proposed teen club would meet code in all aspects and minimize its negative

impacts on the surrounding businesses and residences. These conditions are noted in

the staff report and are similar to those added to the approval of the teen club at

Northgate Shopping Center.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, added that the parking and traffic study had been

conducted by the Village's independent traffic consultant, Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara,

Aboona, Inc. The principal authors of the report were Donald O'Hara and Javier Millan.

Chairperson Ryan then asked if there was anyone in the audience who had any

questions regarding the staff report. Hearing none, he opened the meeting for

discussion among the Plan Commission members.

Commissioner Sweetser asked who was responsible for the maintenance of the fence.

Mr. Heniff stated that the fence was the responsibility of the property owner.

Commissioner Burke asked who owned the wooded area. Mr. Heniff stated that Old

Grove Park was owned by the Lombard Park District and that staff could contact them

regarding the comments given by the public.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the petitioner's numbers do not appear to work. If

the parking is inadequate and the business plan is based upon that number of people,

the business plan isn't going to work. The neighborhood has some legitimate concerns.

Although it is easy to anticipate the worst in cases like these, in this case the Village

needs further assurances that this proposal can work. She noted that in previous cases

where residences were being impacted the Plan Commission has asked for acoustical

engineering studies to be conducted.

Commissioner Burke stated that the business plan calls for a nightly attendance of 1,500

to 2,000 people. With that kind of attendance, the impact on the adjacent residences

appears to be too great.

Commissioner Flint stated that he concurs that the subject property is not an appropriate

location for this particular use. He noted that the case at Northgate Shopping Center

had a very different set of circumstances.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the parking is a problem as well as the lack of a

buffer. The previously approved teen club was nowhere near residences. He noted that

the business plan was very interesting.

Commissioner Zorn agreed that this is not the right place for a teen club. It would not

work well with the existing mix of businesses in the shopping center and it is too close to

the neighboring residences.

Chairperson Ryan stated that there were too many unanswered questions and the Plan

Commission did not have enough information to consider a recommendation for

approval.

Mike Trombetta, 52 Orchard Terrace, Lombard, the proposed tenant for the Scoops

building presented the petition.

He introduced himself and mentioned that he had a business in Downtown Lombard for

five years which has been lost by fire and he will not rebuild at that location. He has

since entered into a lease for the Scoops building. DuPage County Health Department

has told him to install a refrigerator/freezer unit for the business and that the only way

the business would work would be to install outside and enter from the inside.

He then discussed the proposed building elevations. The architectural drawings depict

the building addition with a new mansard roof, which should give the run down building a

new look.

Randy Pruyn, 407 Edson, Lombard, is the architect for the project. He mentioned the

Health Department request for a refrigeration unit and mentioned the Scoops site is

small and he needs to fit all the operational units on site. The Health Department

requires that they have walk in refrigerator to support their business operations. He

mentioned the dimensions of the unit (6'x12'). They positioned it as they did as it is on

the backside of St. Charles Road. The west elevation is primarily where all the

customer service will be and he explained the reasons for putting the unit it where it is

located on the south side, where it is least visible from traffic.

The existing building is located eight feet off of the property line. With the addition, the

building will be slightly more than two feet off of the property line. There is still plenty of

grass space. When they came in for approval they discussed upgrading the building

and making improvements. The adjacent hobby store is run down and they did what

they can to improve the site. They will add screening to the rear portion of the roof to

hide the mechanicals and make the building more aesthetically pleasant. The have not

finalized the color selection yet but everything will tie into it eventually.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one to

speak for or against the petition. Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that a traffic

accident substantially damaged the Scoop's ice cream building in 2001. To provide for

the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the building, the Village Board approved a

conditional use to re-establish the legal non-conforming status of the ice cream building

and allow the property owner to re-establish the business as it was prior to the auto

accident. Amendments to the conditions of approval were adopted by the Village earlier

this summer which require specific times for a lease agreement and for issuance of a

Certificate of Occupancy and/or Zoning Certificate for the property.

Since the latest approval was granted, the lessee of the Scoop's buildings has

developed building plans for a fast-food establishment. However, upon review of the

plans by the DuPage County Health Department, they are requiring that the lessee

provide a new 6'x12' cooler. The cooler would be attached to the existing building and

would constitute a building addition. As the building is located completely within two

front setback yards, additional zoning actions are needed from the Village. Moreover,

as a building expansion, the petitioner will also need to request conditional use approval

to allow for the building expansion of one of the two principal buildings on the lot. Lastly,

staff also referenced Ordinance 5691 in the public hearing request if the associated

completion dates need to be amended to accommodate this addition.

Referencing the IDRC comments, he noted that stormwater detention shall be required

for the proposed building addition. However, the Director of Community Development

may grant, at his discretion, an administrative variance to accept a fee in lieu of on-site

detention.

He then discussed comments from the Planning Services Division. As the building is

entirely located within setback yards, any expansion to the building would necessitate

zoning relief, as it would increase the degree of non-conformity. The addition would

encroach six feet further into the St. Charles Place front yard setback, placing the

building approximately two feet from the second front property line.

From a design aesthetic standpoint, the placement of the cooler on the south side of the

building would decrease its visual prominence along St. Charles Road. It would also

preserve the parking lot improvements constructed in 2000 immediately to the east of

the Scoop's building - hence no parking spaces would be lost by the cooler expansion.

To minimize the impacts of the addition, the petitioner is proposing façade improvements

that include a new seam metal roof, rooftop mechanical screening and an integrated

paint scheme to tie the cooler addition with the existing building.

Mr. Heniff then noted that Section 155.208 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance allows for two

principal buildings to be located on a lot of record as a conditional use. As no previous

relief has been granted, the two principal buildings would constitute an expansion to a

non-conformity and zoning relief would be required.

He then noted that Ordinances 5324 and 5691 allow for the re-establishment of the legal

nonconforming status of the Scoop's building. Ordinance 5691 set forth specific

timelines for improvements to be completed. This request was added to the petition to

ensure that if the Village Board needed to further amend the time provisions associated

Ordinance 5691, proper notice was provided. If these timelines are not met, the

conditional use granted through Ordinance 5324 and 5691 would be null and void and

the full provisions of Section 155.305 of the Zoning Ordinance would be in effect. This

would also require the property owner to be responsible for razing the structure.

He noted that the Village Board approved two Ordinances setting forth provisions to

allow for the Scoop's building to be restored. It must be therefore assumed that it is the

desire of the Board to see the existing Scoop's building to be restored and made into a

viable business. To implement the desire of the Board, the relief included as part of this

petition would also be necessary. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the

subject property be developed for commercial purposes. The ice cream/restaurant

sales activity on the premises would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

While the proposed addition will be visible from the Moran Water Park, its overall size

will not create a substantial visual impact on the park. The building addition will only be

seen from higher elevations within the new Oakview Estates Condominiums north of the

subject property. However, to ensure compatibility, staff recommends that the Lombard

Hobbies building also located on the subject property be improved with façade

improvements compatible with the proposed improvements for the Scoops building.

Staff suggests that the property owner provide a concept plan for Village Board

consideration prior to the final reading of Ordinances. He also noted that all

encroachments within the St. Charles Road right-of-way should be removed.

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

members. Commissioner Sweetser stated that it is good to see Scoops coming back

and she inquired about the proposed building signage. Mr. Heniff noted that signage will

meet Village Code.

Commissioner Burke inquired about the requirements for the cooler. Is the size based

upon square footage or is it based upon depth? Mr. Pruyn stated that it was a Health

Department requirement that it has to be six feet deep due to the door and the storage

capacity and if it is less than six feet, there would not be sufficient room for access.

With regard to the Ordinance extension, Mr. Heniff noted that this provision was added

to the public hearing notice so that if there are delays through the public hearing process

in the final consideration of the petition, it would not require a new public hearing to

amend the previous approval.

Chairperson Ryan then inquired about condition #7 and asked how secure does staff

feel that Lombard Hobbies will comply with this condition? Mr. Trombetta stated that he

talked to the property owner today and he seemed to understand the condition the

Village will place on the approval.

1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the site plan and building

elevation packet prepared by Randy Pruyn, ALA, dated September 1, 2005 and made a

part of this petition, except as varied by the conditions of approval.

2. The petitioner/property owner shall provide foundation landscaping around the

building addition consistent with Section 155.708 of the Zoning Ordinance, consisting of

shubbery, evergreens and/or hedges places along the foundation wall areas in addition

to approved ground cover, with the final design subject to the Director of Community

Development.

3. All private encroachments within the public right-of-way shall be removed.

4. The outdoor dining area shall be fenced, with the design of the fence subject to the

approval of the Director of Community Development and pursuant to the fence

regulations included within the Zoning Ordinance.

5. All other provisions associated with Ordinances 5324 and 5691 not amended by this

Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

6. In the event that the provisions of Ordinances 5324 and 5691 are not met, the

actions associated with this petition shall also immediately expire. Moreover, in the

event that the Scoop's building is razed or is again damaged by more than fifty percent

of the value of the building, the relief associated with this petition shall also be null and

void.

7. That prior to final consideration of any Ordinances approving the requested actions

on the subject property, the property owner shall provide the Village with a building

elevation plan to improve the exterior of the Lombard Hobbies building so that it is

compatible with the proposed Scoop's building. The Lombard Hobbies building

improvements shall be completed within twelve (12) months from the date of approval of

the aforementioned Ordinance.

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

text amendments were to address several outstanding use classification issues within

the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Heniff then referenced the amendments in the staff report,

as follows:

Outdoor Seating for Restaurants within the Office District

Currently, restaurants are listed as conditional uses within the O Office District.

However, outdoor dining components are not listed as permitted or conditional uses -

approval of ancillary outdoor dining areas could only be approved through a text

amendment or through a use exception within a planned development. The proposed

text amendment will classify outdoor service areas as a conditional use. The merits of

whether an outdoor dining area should be granted would be reviewed in the same

manner as all other conditional uses - it may or may not be appropriate based upon site

specific considerations.

Gasoline Sales Establishments

Gasoline sales establishments are listed as conditional uses within the B2 through the

B5A Districts. However ancillary business establishments located on the same property

(such as retail convenience stores, restaurants and the like) would be reviewed relative

to the underlying district classifications for that particular use. For example, if a

convenience store is listed as a permitted use within a district, it can be expanded or

enlarged without the need to go through the public hearing process.

Staff has noted several instances in the Village whereby modifications to a secondary or

ancillary business activity on a property were undertaken without the need for a public

hearing. While this may pose problems in many cases, staff notes that this may not

always be the case. He specifically referenced the properties at 610 South Main Street

and 1 East St. Charles Road in which the secondary use was modified or expanded

without the need to seek approval through the conditional use process. Business

expansions of secondary uses could create additional or differing impacts on the

operation of the gasoline sales establishment or even on adjacent properties. Therefore

staff is proposing an amendment that would reclassify any expansion of a principal,

secondary or ancillary use on the same lot as a gasoline sales establishment.

Trade Schools

The proposed amendments also list trade schools as conditional uses within the O

Office District. Staff has had requests for business-to-business companies to open

training centers in the Office District. These business are affiliated with other office

related activities. Staff notes that these activities often function similarly to other office

establishments. As such staff believes that classifying these uses as a conditional use

within the Office District makes sense.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one in

the audience to speak in favor of or against the petition.

Commissioner Sweeter requested that the term "trade schools" be expanded to include

educational facilities. She believed the term trade schools may not completely reflect

the proposed educational use that is referenced in the IDRC report narrative. George

Wagner, Village Counsel, noted that the term trade school should remain in the

amendment, but the term could be modified to include training facilities or educational

centers.

PC 05-35: Text Amendments to the Lombard Zoning Ordinance

The Village of Lombard is proposing amendments to the following sections of the

Lombard Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to off-street parking requirements:

Section 155.602 (A)(5) - providing for a reduction in minimum stall width for commuter

parking lots.

Section 155.602 (A)(5) - providing for a reduction in minimum stall length for parking

spaces immediately adjacent to parking lot landscape islands.

Section 155.602 (A)(8) - clarifying computation section for off-street parking.

Section 155.602 (C), Table 6-2 - establishing and amending parking space aisle and

module dimensions for parallel parking spaces and for one-way drive aisles with

perpendicular or parallel spaces.

Section 155.602 (C), Table 6-2 - amending parking requirements for multiple family

dwellings.

Section 155.602(A)(4) - amending height requirements for light poles within parking lots.

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

text amendments were to clean-up selected sections of Section 155.602 (i.e., the

parking regulations) and provide amendments to the Code as warranted, as follows:

Parking Lot Stall Width

In the B Business Districts, the minimum stall width is required to be nine feet (9') wide.

In the residential, office and industrial districts, the stall width can be reduced to eight

feet, three inches (8'3"). This reduction is offered within the code as the number of trip

movements in and out of these stalls are typically less than commonly found in the B

Districts. The proposed amendment will add commuter parking lots to the sites in which

reduced stall widths are permitted. Staff finds that these lots function more like the

office district spaces (commuters park in the morning, stay away during the day and

return and exit in the evening). This reduction can also provide additional parking

flexibility for the Village should additional commuter parking stalls be desired in the

downtown in the future.

Parking Stall Length

Parking stalls for perpendicular parking spaces must be eighteen feet (18') in length.

Landscape islands must be at least five feet (5') in width around the parking lot

perimeter adjacent to a property line. However, the island size is not defined when such

islands are located within the interior of the parking lot. In order to provide a greater

amount of green space within the parking lot and/or to provide more parking on a lot,

staff has allowed for a two foot (2') overhang for parking spaces that abut interior

parking lot islands. The proposed amendment attempts to more clearly codify this

provision into the parking standards.

Off-Street Parking Computations

Section 155.602 (A)(8) is being modified to clarify the computation section for off-street

parking. No substantive changes are being proposed with this amendment.

Parking Space Dimensions

Staff proposed amendments to Section 155.602 (C), Table 6-2. The modifications will

add the 24-foot parallel parking space dimension noted in Section 155.602 (A)(5) into

the table and will add drive aisle widths for establishing and amending parking space

aisle and module dimensions for parallel parking spaces and for one-way drive aisles

with perpendicular or parallel spaces.

Parking Requirements for Multiple Family Dwellings

Section 155.602 (C), Table 6-2 sets forth the parking lot requirements for various land

uses. Staff is proposing an amendment to the parking requirements for multiple family

dwellings for cases in which parking spaces are specifically assigned and designated.

This amendment is intended to provide a location for visitor parking.

Historically, many multiple family dwelling projects use a parking float - residents and

guests both use the field of available parking to accommodate their parking demand and

needs. For most complexes, this configuration works quite well. However, for selected

projects where specific spaces are assigned, the ability to provide a float of available

spaces is lost. Consequently visitors are forced to park off-site, on-street or in an

assigned space. The proposed amendment would place a requirement to provide for

unassigned parking in cases where assigned parking spaces are implemented. This

provision is not intended to necessarily increase the requisite parking spaces above

code requirements, but instead is intended to ensure that after all assigned spaces are

given away that there is still a supply available for visitors.

Staff is proposing the following formula for unassigned parking spaces:

For multiple family dwellings that are utilizing assigned parking spaces for dwelling

residents, unassigned parking spaces must be provided based upon the following

formula: 0.2 spaces must be provided for each unit of the first twenty (20) units plus

0.05 spaces for each unit above the first twenty units.

Based upon an empirical review of the figures relative to operations for multiple family

developments, staff believes that this computation would give site an ample supply of a

parking float to meet the demand for such projects.

Parking Lot Light Pole Height Requirements

Light pole height restrictions are established to ensure that excessive light spill is

minimized and that light poles do not create a "beacon" effect. The Zoning Ordinance

currently caps the maximum height for a parking lot light pole at forty feet (40'). In

discussions with lighting contractors working on improvements at Yorktown Mall, they

note that many standard light poles for regional malls are 39 feet in length. As they like

to put the poles onto three-foot high concrete pedestals to minimize vehicle damage to

the poles, this would result in the pole height being 42 feet.

Staff is proposing an amendment to relax the pole height requirements to allow for light

poles within parking lots for Shared Pedestrian Access Shopping Centers (i.e., shopping

malls) to be up to forty-five feet (45') in height. This amendment allows for a better

overall light coverage over large spans of customer parking lot area but is still in keeping

with the intent of the regulations. Moreover, by limiting it to regional malls, other

commercial uses in close proximity to residential areas (i.e., strip shopping centers,

automotive dealers, commuter parking lots), the impacts on adjacent properties will be

minimal. This amendment does not change the foot-candle light standards for parking

lots.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one in

the audience to speak in favor of or against the petition. There were no comments from

the Plan Commissioners as well.

St. Charles/Elizabeth (The Pointe at Lombard)

William Heniff, Senior Planner, referred to the memo that was included in their packets

which outlines a new concept and development He indicated that a representative for

the developer was here in the audience for any comments.

Mr. Heniff indicated that this was a proposal for a redevelopment project to be located at

the northeast corner of St. Charles Road and Elizabeth Street. The property is currently

improved with the Lord's gas station and to the east is an existing multiple family

residential building. The developer is proposing to develop the property with a new

mixed-use senior residential/commercial project. The proposal would be developed in

two phases. The housing component would consist of senior independent living housing

units with a sit-down restaurant on first floor.

The proposed developer has submitted a comprehensive development packet which

explains their development proposal, the concept development plans and the zoning

actions required.

This concept is unique in that it is new to the Village and the area as well as includes a

housing component not currently available in the Village. It would also provide an

additional pedestrian oriented streetscape appearance to the grade level.

He explained the actions that would need to be undertaken in order for this proposal to

happen:

1. Zoning - The corner is zoned B5, the residential property is zoned R6. If the property

were to be consolidated they would want to zone the entire property as a B5 designation

to ensure neighborhood compatibility. He wondered if the Commissioners had any

concerns.

2. Make it a planned development in order to look at specific site attributes.

3. Height - They may be seeking a height variation for the corner of the building due to

a design element. When traveling eastbound this intersection would be a gateway piece

into the downtown area. Staff would want to do a shadow study to ensure that the

height would not impact adjacent property owners.

4. First Floor Parking - Based on their preliminary plan they would be short two parking

spaces. This use may create something distinct and the parking standards might not

encompass this concept.

5. Architectural Design - would like to get the Commissioners thoughts about the design

of the site and the elevations.

6. Site Plan - Staff believes special care must be made to ensure that the proposed

development does not negatively affect the single-family residential character of

Elizabeth Street and that adequate screening needs to be incorporated into the

development.

Concluding, Mr. Heniff noted that those were some of the initial questions staff had. He

requested the petitioner make a presentation relative to the nature of the housing

component and the market.

Dave Sanders from Mid-America Real Estate located in St. Louis began his

presentation. He indicated that their approach is a bit out of the ordinary. They decided

to change their premise and go into senior planning. They have designed 140

campuses in 30 states and it appears that most of these senior sites they developed

were away from most of the land uses and activities desired by seniors. Expectations

and demands of senior residents are growing and in order to satisfy them, they were

being asked to build larger common rooms with maybe a branch bank and other

amenities to help occupy their time. Expectations for the future would only seem to be

getting greater as they look at designing pedestrian friendly locations where they would

not have to rely on using their cars. They call this UrbanSenior philosophy, which is a

belief in developing smaller scale living with more manageable environments that are

homelike and personal rather than institutional. There would be no senior dining room

component but instead would have a public restaurant that would also be supported by

the community. The seniors would pay $6.00 for their meal no matter what. He noted

the specific spaces in the common areas and indicated that this UrbanSenior concept

would also include the senior building being in a good location, on a good street.

They have been talking with the Village for quite a while and have this site under

contract. They develop small scale buildings and do not need to have a large number of

units to support their activities. They have opened similar facilities in Geneva, Naperville

and are currently working on a project in LaGrange. They realize there will be

questions and technical things to resolve. Hopefully they will come prepared to bring

good answers.

Mr. Heniff suggested that the Commissioners begin discussion with the site plan and he

explained the site. He asked for the input of the Plan Commissioners of what they

wanted to see incorporated into the site plan.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that it looked good for starters. She had no idea if the

space would allow for an outdoor element. Mr. Heniff indicated that they would like to

incorporate that concept. Commissioner Sweetser questioned the stairway in the

parking lot and if that were eliminated could they work with the parking area to absorb

those 2 spaces.

Commissioner Flint was concerned about minimizing the impact on adjacent residents.

He noted that the elevation showed four stories and asked what was permitted. Mr.

Heniff stated that is the cap and the higher portion of the building is considered an

architectural element as there is no living space. Commission Flint indicated that he did

not have a problem with the height component. He suggested that since he did not

know what the elevations or colors were, it would be nice to have a base, middle, and

top similar to Chicago architecture for emphasis. He thought the top could be made to

look expanded by the use of a different color brick.

Chairperson Ryan questioned the distance between the St. Charles Road entrance from

Elizabeth Street. He was concerned that it might cause a problem with lights and

turning. Mr. Heniff answered about 150-200 feet. Mr. Sanders thought it was about 185

feet. He also mentioned that they are intending to work with Mr. Protine, the owner of

the existing apartment building located on the subject property, in order to present this

as a comprehensive plan.

Commissioner Sweetser was concerned about the drive proposed to access St. Charles

Road and asked if you are traveling westbound on St. Charles, will parking be allowed

on the street. She thought one lane exists to the east of the site and then the closer to

the corner you get it opens up to two lanes.

Commissioner Burke thought that the design is good and looks forward to additional

details on the elevations. He thought the concept made a lot of sense. He asked what

types of restaurants had been proposed for the first floor at the Geneva, Naperville and

LaGrange facilities. Mr. Sanders answered that in Geneva they have the Fox Fire. In

Naperville they are trying for a Giordiano's.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he liked the overall concept of this UrbanSenior living.

He felt that it would help the downtown having the restaurant available to not only the

seniors but also open to the patrons of the downtown. This proposal goes a long way

and the development as such might entice other retailers to come to the downtown.

Commissioner Burke referred to the requirement of 46 parking spaces for this

development and asked if that is a typical standard applied to a residential development.

Mr. Heniff explained the parking standards for a residential development in the B5

district and how it does not allow for any reduction to a residential component. That

goes back to the uniqueness of the senior living community. Many will still be driving

and there will be a need for parking spaces but there is also a need to create a more

urban walking environment. If we can tweak the plan to squeeze out the spaces they

will. Commissioner Burke thought that it would be less.

Chairperson Ryan referred to the indoor restaurant. He asked if non residents would be

patronizing it, would the parking requirement be sufficient or would the off street parking

handle this. Mr. Heniff answered that it would be a combination of the two.

Commissioner Burke stated that since the residents would only be paying $6.00, it is

likely they would be eating there therefore the need would not be as great for additional

parking as there would not be as many people coming in. Chairperson Ryan indicated

that history shows that even though the 90-95 percent is from the residents, you still

need to have the parking.

Commissioner Sweetser commented that the drop off and loading area is more toward

the front of the building and thought that was a result of a good planning process. She

asked if that area was canopied. Mr. Sanders answered that it was. Commissioner

Sweetser asked if that area would accommodate taxis and shuttle vans and those types

of vehicles. She also suggested using some of the same brick tones as those used in