Village of Lombard Legistar System

into the existing park area surrounding the site. He noted that the water surface area for

the new water park is about the same as currently existing in the water park.

Bruce Cairns of Cordogan, Clark & Associates, discussed the new concession building

and the new bathhouse building and referenced the proposed building plans. He also

showed the proposed building elevations for each structure.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Carl Butler, 105 W. Edgewood Avenue, raised concerns regarding additional traffic

generation for the new facility. Mr. Fugiel noted that they sized the water park for 1,300

people, similar to the existing water park. However, that number would only be realized

on occasion.

Commissioner Sweetser inquired about the depth and flow of the lazy river. Mr. Fugiel

noted it would be approximately 3.5 feet in depth and it would flow counter-clockwise.

She asked about whether the new pool would be sized in yards or meters. Mr. Fugiel

stated that the Park District's swim team swims in yards rather than meters, they

designed the pool for yards.

Chairperson Ryan then asked about security issues, asking about the entrance area to

the pool and what security measures will be provided. Mr. Fugiel noted that a metal

accordion gate would be provided at the entrance.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The Park District is proposing

to upgrade and modernize the existing Moran Water Park facility located within Lombard

Common. As the existing facility is a legal non-conforming use, approval of a new

conditional use from the Village is required.

Referencing the IDRC comments, he noted that specific comments pertaining to the

plans are being addressed as part of the building permit submittal. The Private

Engineering Services Division has reviewed the petition and noted that requisite utility

easements shall be granted over the proposed fire hydrant leg as well as over the

existing water mains and sanitary sewers adjacent to the water park and throughout the

rest of Lombard Common Park.

He then described the zoning history of the project. The pool was initially constructed

within the park 49 years ago. The current water park slides were erected 19 years ago.

The Lombard Park District Board approved plans to renovate the water park to

modernize the recreational offerings to residents and guests and to address existing

deficiencies as noted by the petitioner. No improvements are proposed outside of the

water park area. The existing community building, parking lot, public driveways and all

other park improvements are intended to remain as-is.

Parks and open space are listed as permitted uses within the Conservation/Recreation

District. Recreational facilities, such as the water park, are listed as conditional uses

within the Conservation/Recreation District. The proposed improvements constitute an

increase in the degree of nonconformity and as such a new conditional use for the water

park is required.

The principal use of the site will still be a community park facility. The proposed

improvements orient the uses and activities away from the perimeter of the park and the

adjacent properties. The water park area will be effectively fenced and screened to

minimize its visibility from adjacent properties. Therefore, the modified water park

design should not create any additional impact on adjacent properties than currently

found at the property.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property be used as open space and

recreational uses. The principal use of the property will still remain as parks and open

space. Specifically, the Plan states as a primary community facility objective that

“existing community facilities should be maintained and upgraded as required”. The

Plan also notes that the Village should cooperate with other governmental agencies

seeking to contribute to and improve the quality of life for residents. By providing for

modern, attractive public facilities that meet the demographic needs of the community,

the proposed improvements are consistent with the Plan's objectives.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there were any comments on the staff report. Martin Jones,

127 S. Edgewood Avenue, inquired about the yard measurement for the pool as well.

He also asked whether the diving pool and the lap pool would be connected. Mr. Fugiel

restated that they designed the pool in yards to accommodate their swim team. He also

surveyed other districts and they all use yard measurements as well. He noted the

diving pool and the lap pool would be connected - to prevent safety issues, they will

string a buoy line segregating the two areas from each other. Cost issues precluded

them from creating a separate diving pool.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments from the Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that bulkheads could be added to the lap pool if needed

to address the yard/meter issue. She then asked if they will provide a drop-off lane for

the water park. Mr. Fugiel noted that earlier plans had such a lane but it was removed

for cost reasons. However, when they reviewed the existing operations of the park they

found that such a lane may not be necessary as drop-offs are at a minimum - most

people that use the water park walk to the site or they park their cars.

Julie Tidwell, 981 Charlela Lane, Unit 102, Elk Grove Village, petitioner, presented the

petition. She noted that she has been performing massage services within the existing

building. However, she now wishes to open her own practice within the existing

building. As the previous approval for the massage establishments within the existing

building at 929 South Main limited the number of establishments and the specific suites

in which such activities could occur, she is requesting approval to occupy a third suite

within the building for her practice. She notes that she is licensed by the State to

operate such an establishment.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor

or in opposition of the petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. In 2004, a Planned

Development was created for this property to allow use exceptions for two massage

establishments. One of the employees currently working in one of those establishments

now wishes to open an additional massage establishment in an adjacent suite. The

2004 Planned Development approval was specifically tailored to the tenant spaces in

use at that time, therefore, an amendment would be required to allow for a third

massage establishment, as an additional use exception, within the building.

From a zoning perspective, massage establishments are listed as conditional uses

within the B3 and B4 Districts. They are not listed as permitted or conditional uses

within the B1 District. In 2004, The Village Board approved Ordinance 5502, which

established a planned development on the subject property and provided for a use

exception to allow for two massage establishments within the office building. It also set

specific space limitations for such establishments and capped the number of

establishments at two.

The petitioner is seeking to establish her own practice within the existing building. She

has identified a 450 square foot space within Suite 104, which was previously used as a

counseling center, to open her own practice. Before she could undertake such activity,

the planned development approvals would need to be amended to account for the

additional space.

Staff notes that massage establishments can be supported based upon the following

considerations in review of the Zoning Ordinance provisions:

Use exceptions cannot exceed 40 percent of the use or area of a planned development.

The existing two massage establishments occupy 500 square feet of 12,000 square feet

of office space (4.2%) in the building. The additional establishment would raise the total

square footage for such a use to 950 square feet or 7.9% of the total office building

space.

No external modifications will be needed to the building exterior that would negatively

affect the subject property or the abutting properties.

The business activity would be operated consistent with operations of other business in

the building (e.g., medical and dental practices).

One establishment has occupied space within the building for over fifteen years and

another has occupied the premises for over two years without any negative impacts on

the development or neighboring properties.

He noted that as the massage establishment will operate similar to other users in the

building, negative impacts on surrounding uses are not anticipated.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments from the Commissioners.

There were no comments from the Commissioners.

proposing changes to the definitions section of the Sign Ordinance to clarify the method

of calculating the area of a sign. This amendment is not intended to increase or

decrease any signage rights afforded by the Ordinance, but rather to add clarity to

existing code. Historically, staff has used the rectangular shape as the continuous

geometric figure. However, if one were to argue that a polygon is a type of continuous

geometric figure, it would be for difficult for staff to dispute this interpretation. He then

referenced examples showing how the difference could manifest itself for a hypothetical

wall sign.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone in the audience who was in favor or

against the petition. Hearing none, the meeting was opened to the Plan

Commissioners. The Commissioners did not have any comments on the proposed

amendments.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition and referenced the companion

staff report. The petitioner is requesting approval of a plat of resubdivision for a tract of

land located at 333 Eisenhower Lane South & 325 Eisenhower Lane North. There is

currently an industrial office/warehouse building on the 325 property and the 333

property is currently vacant. The proposed subdivision request is being made so that

the owner of the 333 property can take title to the undeveloped rear portion of the 325

property and consolidate it into his own lot. He would then place his stormwater

detention facility to the rear of his proposed building. Since the property is greater than

one acre in size the plat of resubdivision must be reviewed and approved by the Plan

Commission and Board of Trustees.

Referencing the Inter-departmental Review Comments, the Private Engineering

Services Division will require easements to be dedicated to the Village for cross-access

so that the Village has the right to access the proposed stormwater detention facility. An

easement will also need to be dedicated and placed over the entire stormwater

detention area to provide the Village the right, but not the responsibility to access and/or

maintain the stormwater facility. Additional utility easements may be required as part of

the final building plan review for the 333 Eisenhower Lane South building.

He noted the intent of the subdivision is to provide requisite stormwater improvements

required as part of all new development. Simply stated, the 333 Eisenhower Lane South

lot proposed to consolidate the unused portion of the 325 Eisenhower Lane North

property into his own lot and utilize it for stormwater management purposes. Should the

subdivision be approved, the property owners will then close on the property and the

333 Eisenhower Lane South property owner will then proceed with developing their

proposed office/warehouse building.

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

Commission. There were no comments by the members.

The property is within the Cove Landing/Covington Planned Development. The planned

development was originally established in 1966 and includes the Cove Landing

Apartments high-rise complex as well as the Covington Apartments lower-rise

development constructed in 1989. The original planned development approval and the

following amendments to the planned development did not address the future

development of the subject property.

He then discussed the concept site plan and building elevations as part of this project.

As the property is oriented away from the other portions of the planned development,

the plan is intended to be oriented toward 22nd Street. Parking is provided to the south

of the proposed building, which will require landscape relief as the underlying zoning

does not permit parking within the front yard. Additional spaces will be provided in a

basement garage accessing off of Elizabeth Street. The proposed building location will

meet all setback requirements provided for in the Zoning Ordinance and planned

development approval.

The site will be accessed from Elizabeth Street, with a right-out entrance to 22nd Street.

Staff is reviewing this item and may recommend that the 22nd Street drive be designed

as a right-in, right-out facility. As Elizabeth Street is only 33-feet in width at this location,

staff has requested that the developer dedicate additional right-of-way width along

Elizabeth Street to the Village to accommodate a new sidewalk on the west side of the

street.

The developer and staff have met with DuPage County staff to address wetland buffer

encroachment issues. Village staff wanted to ensure that the development could

actually be developed as proposed.

Since the planned development does not have any design guidelines and the built

architecture between the existing Cove Landing and Covington developments vary

significantly, staff suggested that the design palette should incorporate many of the

architectural themes currently found in the multiple family development recently

constructed along 22nd Street, such as the Liberty Square and Fountain Square

condominiums. As such, the proposed building elevations are proposed to have a

strong masonry component.

He then sought the comments of the Commissioners.

Chairperson Ryan noted that the east elevation could use enhancements to tie it in with

the south elevation.

Commissioner Burke noted the two access drives and questioned their placement. Mr.

Heniff noted that as traffic volumes on Elizabeth are low, this should not be an issue.

Commissioner Sweetser inquired if turn lanes will be needed on Elizabeth. Mr. Heniff

said he would have KLOA, the Village's traffic consultant review that issue.

Commissioner Burke confirmed that full public improvements will be required as part of

the development.

Commissioner Sweetser inquired about the unit and bedroom mix. Bob Schmude of

Kenar Development, noted that their plans are preliminary, but the third and forth floors

are identical in design and the first and second floors are different, as these floors

include vestibule areas. They propose 14 one-bedroom units, 34 two bedroom units

and 12 three-bedroom units.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about storage options. Mr. Schmude noted that the

storage will be located in the basement area.

Commissioner Sweetser then asked about the building colors. Mr. Schmude stated that

they are still working on the final color palette, but they will use at least three shades of

masonry color to the building to break up the building mass.