Plan Commission
Village of Lombard
Meeting Minutes
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Rocco Melarkey |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
7:30 PM
Village Hall
Monday, September 19, 2005
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Sondra Zorn and |
Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Commissioner Rocco Melarkey
Absent:
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; |
Jennifer Backensto, AICP, Planner I; and George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan |
Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda. |
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws. |
Public Hearings
050516
PC 05-27: 800 E. Roosevelt Road |
Requests that the Village approve a conditional use for an indoor amusement |
establishment (teen club) within the former Frank's Nursery and Crafts building in the |
800-810 E. Roosevelt B3 Community Shopping District Planned Development. |
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. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that it should be clear that the Plan Commission is not |
opposed to teen clubs in general, but the particular circumstances worked against the |
petitioner in this case. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that this |
matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for denial. The motion carried |
by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Melarkey
1 -
050515
PC 05-36: 506 E. St. Charles Place (Scoop's) |
Requests that the Village take the following actions to allow for an addition to the |
existing Scoop's building located within the B4 Corridor Commercial Shopping District: |
1. Grant a variation from Section 155.415 (F)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a |
variation in the front yard setback from thirty feet (30') to two feet (2'); |
2. Grant a conditional use, pursuant to Section 155.208 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance, to |
allow for two principal buildings to be located on a lot of record; |
3. Grant an amendment to the conditions of approval associated with Ordinances 5324 |
and 5691 to allow for the re-establishment of the legal nonconforming status of an |
existing building on the subject property, if necessary. |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Melarkey
1 -
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. |
050513
PC 05-34: Text Amendments to the Lombard Zoning Ordinance |
The Village of Lombard is proposing amendments to the following sections of the |
Lombard Zoning Ordinance: |
Section 155.411 Office District |
Add outside service areas for other permitted or conditional uses within this District |
Section 155.413 through 155.417 B2 through B5A Districts |
Add provisions to classify any principal or ancillary use located on the same property as |
a gasoline sales establishment as a conditional use. |
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. |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, |
that this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval with an |
amendment to claify/refine the use of the term "trade schools". The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Melarkey
1 -
050514
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: |
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 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. |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that |
this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Melarkey
1 -
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Public Participation
There was no public participation
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Chairperson's Report
Chairperson Ryan mentioned that each Commission/Committee was asked to submit |
two names for a Village sponsored community vision meeting on November 5, 2005 and |
asked for two volunteers. Mr. Heniff explained that the meeting will be half of the day |
and discussion would encompass setting goals and strategies for the coming year(s). |
Commissioner Burke and Commissioner Zorn volunteered. Mr. Heniff indicated staff |
would provide more detailed information prior to the meeting. |
Planner's Report
The Senior Planner had nothing to report.
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
There were no subdivision reports.
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals. |
Workshops
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 |
the Walgreens project to be more coordinated since this would be considered a |
gateway into the downtown. |
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. |
_________________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
_________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |