Village of Lombard Legistar System

Mr. Carrara stated that the automobile service use is very compatible with other uses in

the area and there would not be any negative impact because the business is already in

existence. The property already receives Village water and sewer service and the

annexation would be part of the natural, orderly growth of the Village. He noted a

variation is requested for the existing building setback. Mr. Carrara concluded by stating

that he would like to make the petitioner's Response to Standards a part of the official

record.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no

comments in favor of or in opposition to the proposal. Chairperson Ryan then requested

the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, reiterated the requested actions and summarized the

IDRC report. She noted that the subject property currently abuts the Village's eastern

boundary at Church Avenue. To address the existing conditions on-site and bring the

property into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, a map amendment, conditional

use, and setback variation are being requested as companions to the annexation.

The existing use complies with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and it

can be considered compatible with surrounding land uses.

The petitioner is requesting a map amendment to zone the properties into the B4

Corridor Commercial District. Staff finds that this amendment can be supported. The

zoning designation would be compatible with the adjacent commercial properties and

would be consistent with past zoning actions and the trend of development for properties

abutting the subject property.

The petitioner is requesting a conditional use for an automobile service establishment.

Given the high concentration of similar automobile service uses along Roosevelt Road,

staff believes the existing land use is appropriate at this location.

Ms. Backensto concluded by stating that the subject property meets or exceeds all bulk

standards for the B4 Corridor Commercial District, with the exception of the corner side

yard along Luther Avenue. To bring the property into compliance with the Zoning

Ordinance, staff is supportive of a variation for the existing side yard setback. The

petitioner has agreed to a condition limiting the setback variation to the current site plan.

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

Commission.

Commissioner Olbrysh noted that he had no objection to the petition given that the

building has been in existence for a quarter of a century and the current business has

also been existence for some time.

Scott Creech of Smith Engineering in New Lenox introduced himself as the

representative for National Tire and Battery and stated that he would be available for

questions.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no

comments in favor of or in opposition to the proposal. Chairperson Ryan then requested

the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, reiterated the requested actions and summarized the

IDRC report. She noted that, with the approval of PC 05-24, the subject property will be

contiguous to the Village. To address the existing conditions on-site and bring the

property into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, a map amendment, conditional

use, and setback variation are being requested as companions to the annexation. The

existing use complies with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and it can

be considered compatible with surrounding land uses.

The petitioner is requesting a map amendment to zone the properties into the B4

Corridor Commercial District. Staff finds that this amendment can be supported. The

zoning designation would be compatible with the adjacent commercial properties and

would be consistent with past zoning actions and the trend of development for properties

abutting the subject property. The petitioner is also requesting a conditional use for an

automobile service establishment. Given the high concentration of similar automobile

service uses along Roosevelt Road, staff believes the existing land use is appropriate at

this location.

Ms. Backensto concluded by stating that the subject property meets or exceeds all bulk

standards for the B4 Corridor Commercial District, with the exception of the lot width.

The petitioner is requesting approval of a Plat of Resubdivision so that this property may

become a Lot of Record, thereby allowing for the possibility for future redevelopment.

Although this property would meet the minimum B3 District lot width of 100 feet, staff

believes that in this case it would be more appropriate to continue the pattern of B4

zoning in this area begun with the annexation and rezoning of the CVS pharmacy at

1005 E. Roosevelt Road. Since the property is significantly larger that the minimum

required area for B4 properties and no setback variations are being requested, staff is

supportive of the requested lot width variation.

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

Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that this petition was similar to PC 05-24 in that both

dealt with the annexation of longstanding businesses.

Development/Target) (Ordinance on Second Reading)

Requests the Village take the following actions on the subject property located within the

B3PD Community Shopping District, Planned Development:

1. Pursuant to Section 155.504(A) (major changes in a planned development) and

Section 155.511 (Site Plan Approvals for planned developments) of the Lombard Zoning

Ordinance, amend Sections 3 (A) and (I) of Ordinance 3962, which granted a

conditional use for the Yorktown Peripheral Planned Development to provide for a

building expansion on Lot 1 (Target), per the submitted plans.

2. Approve an amendment to Section 3 (G)(1) of Ordinance 3962 and a deviation from

Section 153.505(B)(6)(e) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for a second free-standing sign

to be located along 22nd Street.

3. Approve an amendment to Section 3 (G)(3) of Ordinance 3962 and a deviation from

Section 153.505(B)(19)(a) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for two additional wall signs for

the Lot 1 (Target) building. (DISTRICT #3)

Scott DeBell, Civil Engineer for Woolpert, Inc., the contractor for Target for this project,

presented the petition. He described the proposed 13,600 square foot building

expansion and remodeling of the existing Target store. The expansion is 50 feet to the

right side (east) of the existing parking lot area. The proposed site improvements

include bumping out the front sidewalk into a bow shape with landscape planters and

spherical bollards in the sidewalk area.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no

comments in favor of or in opposition to the proposal. Chairperson Ryan then requested

the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, noted that the subject property was originally included

within the Yorktown Planned Development, which was approved in 1965. The Yorktown

Peripheral Planned Development was carved out of the original Yorktown Planned

Development in 1995. This approval envisioned the development of the Target store

and other retail/restaurant/office uses on the subdivided lots. The approved planned

development also provides for the review of future development through the site plan

approval process.

In 2003, the Village approved a hotel/convention hall facility to be constructed on the

property immediately south of the subject property (PC 03-30). As part of that approval,

the Village approved driveway improvements along the east property line of the subject

property, commonly referred to as "Convention Way". The Village also approved the

creation of off-premises signage on the subject property, subject to site plan approval by

the Plan Commission.

The petitioner's proposal requests approval of a Lot 1 amendment to the planned

development to allow for an approximate 13,600 square foot building addition to their

existing 130,700 square foot retail building (a ten percent increase in building size). Two

sets of site plans have been prepared as part of this petition. One set depicts the

proposed addition based upon the existing conditions found on the property. The

second set of plans shows the proposed addition based upon the proposed Convention

Way site improvements being constructed on the property. The Convention Way

improvements would still be constructed as part of the overall hotel/convention hall

development. Target's plans provide for their expansion without Convention Way and

with Convention Way improvements.

The proposed addition will meet all of the bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.

The Zoning Ordinance would classify the proposed addition as a major change to a

planned development as it increases the development density and changes the

controlling documents. Therefore, even though all of the B3 provisions are met, the

changes must be considered as an amendment to the previously approved conditional

use for a planned development. Moreover, this addition must also be approved through

the site plan approval process.

The petitioner's submittal includes a conceptual sign package. As shown on the

submitted signage plans, the petitioner is proposing to install an additional free-standing

sign at the Convention Way/22nd Street intersection of a similar design as the existing

free-standing sign along 22nd Street. In discussing the proposed building expansion

with the petitioner's consultant, staff noted that staff could conceptually support

provisions to allow for a second free-standing sign at Convention Way. Staff supported

this signage in light of the proposed driveway improvements that were approved as part

of PC 03-30 - the hotel/convention hall project. With creation of this new access point

and the corresponding traffic signal improvements at 22nd Street, staff envisions that

this access point will become the primary access/egress point into Target.

The Village approved two off-premise signs to be located at the Convention Way/22nd

Street intersection, with the signage subject to a separate site plan approval application

to the Village. However, the Convention Way signage will be subject to a joint signage

design, which shall give the Westin Hotel Conference Center priority placement on the

sign. Further, the Lombard Public Facilities Corporation shall have the sole design

rights for such signage. Therefore, staff can support additional monument signage for

Target to be located at Convention Way, but in lieu of the petitioner's sign package

submittal, staff recommends that the additional monument signage be tied into the final

signage package for Convention Way and that the signage shall be subject to a site plan

approval application. Moreover, the additional signage should be conditioned to be tied

to the Convention Way improvements - if Convention Way is not constructed, the

signage cannot be installed.

The submitted wall signage plans depict two additional wall signs - a "Pharmacy" sign on

the south elevation and a proposed "Target" sign on the north elevation. The north wall

sign is intended to identify the store from Convention Way/22nd Street intersection. The

signage also breaks up the overall building mass on the east elevation. In consideration

of the signage request, Target is proposing to decrease the overall sign size on their

main sign by dropping the word "Greatland" from the wall sign.

As staff has been supportive of other signage deviations along Yorktown Mall access

drives (since they frequently function like public streets), staff can support this request.

Given the size of the overall store, the additional "Pharmacy" wall sign does not create

the appearance of excessive signage.

While the proposed Target sign on the north elevation is approximately 225 square feet

in size (15'x15'), it will be setback 320 feet from the 22nd Street property line, so it will

be compliance with wall sign code requirements. However, as staff's support of the

additional signage is predicated upon the existence of Convention Way, staff

recommends that the additional signage be tied to the Convention Way improvements

being constructed.

The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Regional Commercial Uses, defined as a

larger, more intensively developed mixed-use commercial area that serves as a key

activity center for the region. Staff finds that the proposed land use is consistent with the

intent of the Comprehensive Plan.

As the proposed addition is meeting all of the bulk requirements of the underlying B3PD

District and that the expansion is being completed away from adjacent condominium

residences west of the subject property, staff finds that the addition would be compatible

with the adjacent residential uses. With respect to the proposed hotel/convention hall

project to the south, the proposed addition will have minimal effect upon the approved

Convention Way improvements and/or the hotel development itself.

To ensure compatibility with the adjacent land uses, Mr. Heniff also outlined additional

issues for consideration. Regarding traffic generation, KLOA, the Village's consultant,

notes that when there is an existing use like the Target store and there is a small

proposed expansion, there is a very little trip generation increase, if any, because the

trips and the market area is already established. The petitioner is providing more

parking than what is required by code. While dead end lots are not most desirable, in

this case the lot configuration is preferable to opening the parking up and providing

access to the loading dock (truck/car vehicle conflicts) and/or additional access onto

Convention Way (an access is provided immediately south of the lot).

With respect to the parking lot itself, staff finds that access through the parking lot from

22nd Street to the Yorktown ring road is rather circuitous and does not lend itself for

good traffic flow. This issue may be significantly improved by the development of

Convention Way east of Target. However, should this improvement not occur, staff

recommends as a condition of approval that the parking lot should be redesigned to

better accommodate through-traffic movements.

Mr. Heniff noted that, the Village Board may want to revisit the traffic issues at the 22nd

Street/Fairfield Place intersection, particularly after the Convention Way improvements

are completed. While the Plan Commission did not support any conditions relative to

access provisions at 22nd Street and Fairfield associated with PC 05-23, staff believes

that if in the future the Village considers access modifications to the 22nd Street/Fairfield

Street intersection in the future, that the petitioner (Target) shall not object to the

request. Staff notes that once full access is provided to Target from the 22nd

Street/Convention Way signalized intersection, customers will find Convention Way as

an easier way to get to the store itself. He noted that the petitioner has not stated any

objections to this condition.

The petitioner has submitted a landscape plan that incorporates foundation plantings

and planter box landscape improvements associated with the building expansion. As

the existing parking lot and wetlands meet the Village's requirements for plantings in

these areas, no additional landscaping is required. In review of the plant materials, staff

finds the landscape plan to be acceptable.

The petitioner intends to make the addition look identical to the original building so that

the addition will not be apparent from the building exterior. The petition is also

proposing minor banding, consisting of a red stripe around the building perimeter to

break up the building mass. Staff finds the addition to be compatible with the existing

building and therefore is supportive of the elevations as proposed.

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

Commission.

Commissioner Flint inquired about the timing of the Convention Way improvements. Mr.

Heniff noted that it is tied to the hotel project, which could still be started this year.

However, so that the Target project is not delayed, two concept plans are proposed for

the site.

Commissioner Olbrysh sought clarifications as to the nature and extent of the building

improvements as they are represented on the petitioner's building elevations. Mr.

DeBell noted those elements that are existing and the items that are proposed to be

added to the building. Commissioner Olbrysh opined that the rear elevation along 22nd

Street is bland and the sign does break up some of the building mass.

Mr. Heniff then referred to staff's recommendation about future restrictions to 22nd

Street and Fairfield Avenue. After some discussion among the members, Commissioner

Burke stated that as Target does not object to the request, it can be included in the

conditions of approval.

George Wagner, Village Counsel, also noted the free-standing sign provisions noted

within the engineering comments within the IDRC report should state that the sign be

placed outside of the wetland area.

2005 and the exterior Building Elevations, prepared by RSP Architects, dated July 13,

2005 and made a part of this petition.

2. In the event that Convention Way construction has not commenced prior to the

issuance of the building permit for the Target building expansion, the petitioner shall

follow the final site plan without Convention Way improvements submitted as part of

their petition and attached as Exhibit A. In the event that Convention Way construction

commences prior to the issuance of the building permit for the Target building

expansion, the petitioner shall follow the final site plan depicting the Convention Way

improvements submitted as part of their petition and attached as Exhibit B.

3. The petitioner shall satisfactorily address the IDRC comments included within the

IDRC staff report. Moreover, in the event that the Village deems it to be in the best

interest of the Village to restrict or prohibit turning movements at the 22nd Street and

Fairfield Avenue intersection in the future, the property owner agrees not to object to

such a restriction.

4. That Ordinance 3962 shall be amended to reflect the approved revised site plans and

building elevations submitted as part of this petition.

5. Section 3 (G)(1) Of Ordinance 3962 is hereby amended to allow for an additional

Target sign to be located on the subject property at the 22nd Street/Convention Way

intersection. The proposed sign shall be of a joint signage design, which gives the

Westin Hotel Conference Center priority placement on the sign. Further, the Lombard

Public Facilities Corporation shall have the sole design rights for such signage. The

final design of the signage shall be subject to a separate site plan approval submittal to

the Plan Commission. The signage request shall also only be deemed to be approved if

the Convention Way improvements are approved and constructed on the subject

property.

6. Section 3 (G)(3) of Ordinance 3962 is hereby amended to provide for two additional

wall signs on the subject property. Said signs shall be in conformance with the

submitted sign package prepared by RSP Architects, dated July 13, 2005. The "Target"

wall sign proposed for the east elevation request shall also only be deemed to be

approved if the Convention Way improvements are approved and constructed on the

subject property.

7. In the event that Convention Way is not constructed and upon a request by the

Village, the petitioner shall work with the Village a facilitate the reconfiguration of the

existing parking to accommodate through traffic movements from 22nd Street to the

Yorktown ring road.

8. That the development shall be developed consistent with all Codes of the Village.

9. With respect to the free-standing sign request, an off-premise sign has already been

approved for the same location by the Village. As with the off-premise sign, any signage

proposed for the site must be located outside of any clear line of sight areas, outside of

any recorded public utility easements, or outside of the special management (wetlands)

area.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no

comments in favor of or in opposition to the proposal. Chairperson Ryan then requested

the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, reiterated the requested actions and summarized the

IDRC report. She noted that the Fire Department/Bureau of Inspectional Services had a

number of comments related to life safety issues, and these would need to be

addressed prior to the school occupying any space in the church.

The existing use complies with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and

the property is surrounded by single-family homes, as is typical of the majority of

religious institutions within the Village.

Ms. Backensto stated that several religious institutions within Lombard have become

planned developments as they have either made physical improvements or expanded

the scope of their services. By creating a planned development, Lombard Church of the

Nazarene will have greater flexibility to accommodate any growth or changes that may

occur in the future. Although preschools and kindergartens are not listed as permitted

or conditional uses within residential districts, at least eight religious institutions in

Lombard offer preschool and/or kindergarten. Also, private elementary, middle, and

high schools are conditional uses within all residential districts, so it is merely the age of

the students that triggers the need for a use exception. The Zoning Ordinance

considers early childhood education programs not associated with an elementary or

secondary school system to be day care centers rather than schools. The Montessori

school will occupy less than 10 percent of the existing floor area of the building and no

exterior improvements are proposed. Staff believes that the incorporation of a

Montessori school will not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood

and, therefore, recommends approval of this petition.

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

Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the school would have any outdoor activities. The

petitioner stated that they would have access to the open area behind the building and

the use of the gymnasium when it is raining. Commissioner Sweetser stated that any

outdoor play areas should be fenced.

Commissioner Burke stated that traffic had not been addressed. Although the current

use of the property does not occur during rush hour, the school would. Route 53 is only

one lane in each direction at that location and we should investigate what type of impact

this will have. Chairperson Ryan suggested that a condition be added making the traffic

situation subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if there was an estimate on the number of students. The

petitioner stated that the school has been in a church in Downers Grove for the past 14

years, but that church is now remodeling and the school needs someplace to go. Right

now they have a total of 20 children. He understands the traffic problem, as it is

sometimes difficult to get in and out of the property. The church has already given up

land to accommodate the expansion of Route 53 and would like to do its best in this

case.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there was sufficient room to accommodate the vehicles. The

petitioner stated that he did not think there would be any problem since 40 cars could

probably be stacked in the drive.

Commissioner Burke stated that the question is traffic on Route 53 where there is no

deceleration lane and no left turn lane.

Commissioner Flint stated that a typical classroom is 750-800 square feet. Accordingly,

there could be 60-70 kids in 1,700 square feet.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if this would be temporary until the Downers Grove

David Brown, representing Lombard Gospel Chapel, presented the petition. He stated

that the building was constructed in 1955. He stated that it was actually two buildings

including the sanctuary, a breezeway, and a basement. Mr. Brown stated that they are

rectifying the use of the sanctuary by making it more handicap accessible and improving

the general flow of the building. He stated that they believe they have a plan to address

these issues and keep the footprint of building and enhance the neighborhood. Mr.

Brown stated that the site would remain under parked. He noted the requested

variations. He stated that a new entryway would be constructed in the parking lot area.

He stated that the front porch would be removed and the new area would be

landscaped. He stated that the new entry area would have an elevator to make it

accessible. Mr. Brown stated that the addition would increase the flow of the building

and improve their sanctuary space. He mentioned when the building opened there was

no use of musical instruments. He stated that their worship space is different now and

includes those things. He stated that the one change in the footprint besides the entry is

the bump off north of the building for a small platform. He stated that they plan to put a

baptismal tank at the floor level.

Mark Ridolphi, of Church Building Architects in Wheaton, showed display boards that

were not included in the Plan Commission package. He noted that the display showed

Pleasant from two different directions. He mentioned the requested relief. He stated

that a conditional use had not been previously granted, therefore they were seeking one

at this time. He noted the spire. He stated that the height of the spire was not changing,

but would be relocated from its current location. Mr. Ridolphi referenced the current

front yard setback. He stated that it was 11.90 feet at the northwest corner. He stated

that the building is not parallel with the street or sidewalk. He stated that from the center

of the building they would add a section that increased the space in the sanctuary and

would reduce six feet in the center. He stated that in regards to open space they are not

taking away any impervious area. He stated that currently the only landscaping on the

site was on the Pleasant side. He stated that they are tearing down the entry on the

west side of the building and will landscape that area. Mr. Ridolphi stated that if they

were allowed to go with 8' parking stalls they would not reduce the parking.

He stated that the church is an "L" shaped building and noted the different uses in their

locations on the floor plan. He stated that currently the floors and basement do not line

up. He stated that they would like to make all floors accessible. He stated that they

looked at various options, which led them to the new entry in the center. He stated that

it would change the orientation of the sanctuary. He stated that the entry is currently on

the west side of the building. He stated that people would enter the sanctuary from the

south after the reorienting of the seating. He noted that the plan shows 202 seats with

the expansion. He stated that based on the code provisions, each person would be

allowed eighteen inches. He stated that this is not realistic. Mr. Ridolphi stated that

they are not increasing the sanctuary size. He stated that they also intended to remodel

the kitchen.

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

against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner II, presented the staff report. She stated the request and noted

that the church is currently nonconforming. She stated that the spire is an architectural

element and the zoning ordinance does not address it. She stated that the building itself

would meet the height requirements. Ms. Clark stated that a conditional use was never

granted in the past. She mentioned the need for additional parking spaces. She stated

that the site is currently deficient. She stated that some areas of the site plan are short

of the minimum stall and aisle width.

Ms. Clark noted that staff is not opposed to the conditional use approval as the church

was not changing or adding any services. She noted the maximum allowable height and

the height of the spire. She stated that the northern addition was approximately 150

square feet. She stated that the new setback for the addition would be six feet at the

closest point. She stated that staff was not supportive of the front yard variation as it

would bring additional bulk closer to the street. She stated that there was no hardship

associated with the variation and staff believed that the reconfiguration could be done

within the existing footprint of the building. She stated that the narthex area would not

require any additional parking and it would meet all setbacks. She stated that several

parking spaces would be lost for the narthex addition, however staff felt that making the

building more handicap accessible was an appropriate trade off.

Ms. Clark noted the request for open space relief from the requirements. She stated

that the parking area as well as the building is included within calculations. She stated

that the petitioner is adding some landscaped areas, but the northern addition would

slightly reduce that. Ms. Clark noted that religious institutions are required to provide

one parking space per three seats. She stated that 64 spaces are required for the site,

but there are 45 presently. She stated that the petitioner tried to compensate for the loss

of spaces by adding spaces at the end of aisles that were currently shorter in width than

required by code. She stated that staff does not object to the parking request, but staff

would like to see the eastern most parking space just south of the building relocated as

not to further reduce the aisle width.

Ms. Clark noted that the use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and

surrounding land uses. She stated that the use has been in existence for over fifty

years and staff could support the conditional use. She stated that staff recommended

approval of all requested relief with the exception of the addition to the northern

elevation, subject to the conditions in the staff report.

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

members.

Mr. Ridolphi noted the Pleasant Lane display boards. He stated that the addition does

not extend any further along Pleasant than neighboring garages or houses east of their

property. He stated that they were trying to enhance the building.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about the bump out on the northern elevation. She

asked if it would still fall short of the setbacks if it were cantilevered. William Heniff,

Senior Planner, stated that it would constitute an encroachment into the front yard.

Commissioner Sweeter referenced the comment in the staff report that discussed

reconfiguring the sanctuary within the existing footprint of the building. Ms. Clark stated

that the interior layout could be changed within the existing footprint, however they

would lose approximately ten seats. She stated that would also reduce the need for

additional parking spaces.

Chairperson Ryan stated that they currently have 192 seats and the new plan would

bring them up to 202 seats. Ms. Clark stated that if the layout were done within the

existing footprint they would be held to the current number of seats.

Commissioner Sweetser asked what was the rationale for not being able to work within

the existing footprint. Mr. Ridolphi stated that placing the baptismal tank in the front as a

feature at the center of the church would take up four and a half feet in width. He stated

that if the tank were moved it would take away ten seats. He stated it would remove the

ten seats in the center which are the most important seats.

Commissioner Ryan asked if the baptismal tank is currently in the center. Mr. Brown

replied yes and showed where it was on the diagram. He stated that from an

architectural standpoint it would look better than it does now.

Commissioner Burke agreed. He stated that there were no objections from the

neighborhood and it does not seem intrusive for a religious institution. He stated that

the Plan Commission has recommended approval of requests where the size was much

more significant than this one and would recommend approval the way it is.

Chairperson Ryan asked if the northern addition extended no further than the garage on

the next lot. Ms. Clark stated that they appear to be even. She stated that Pleasant is

the church's front yard whereas it is the corner side yard for the home east of the

church. She stated that the house might not comply with the corner side yard setback.

Chairperson Ryan stated that the front entrance is not located on Pleasant. Ms. Clark

stated that yards are assigned based on which way the structure is most conforming

regardless of the front entrance.

Commissioner Flint stated that he concurred with Commissioner Burke. He stated that

the addition will add to the front façade and does not significantly impact the front

elevation.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he concurred with respect to the bump out. He asked

staff about the open space requirements. Ms. Clark noted that fifty percent is required in

the zoning district and the church currently has approximately ten percent open space.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that this is much less than other religious institutions in

Lombard. Mr. Heniff replied yes.

George Wagner, Village Counsel, stated that a recommendation for approval including

the northern addition must exclude any findings for the front yard setback.

l. PC 05-32: 912-916 East Roosevelt Road (2 Ordinances on Second Reading)

Requests that the Village approve a map amendment rezoning the subject property from

the R1 Single-Family Residence District to the B3 Community Shopping District. In

addition, requests that the Village approve the following actions in order to allow for two

separate restaurant/food preparation establishments, as set forth below:

1. To allow for a proposed sit-down restaurant at 912 E. Roosevelt Road and an

existing fast-food restaurant at 916 E. Roosevelt Road, approve a variation from Section

155.602 (C), Table 6.3 Off-Site Parking Requirements reducing the requisite number of

parking spaces on the subject property from 43 spaces to 21 spaces; (this item was

withdrawn by the petitioner at the Plan Commission public hearing)

2. To allow for a proposed fast-food restaurant (without seating) at 912 E. Roosevelt

Road and an existing fast-food restaurant at 916 E. Roosevelt Road, approve a variation

from Section 155.602 (C), Table 6.3 Off-Site Parking Requirements reducing the

requisite number of parking spaces on the subject property from 36 spaces to 21

spaces; and/or

3. To allow for a catering service establishment to be located in the building at 912 E.

Roosevelt Road, grant a conditional use, pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(5) of the

Zoning Ordinance. (DISTRICT #6)

Kenneth Miller, 815 Kings Pointe Drive, Addison, owner of the subject property,

presented the petition. He opened his presentation by noting that he was withdrawing

his request for a parking variation for a 12-table sit-down restaurant. However, he would

like to continue with the other requests included as part of the petition.

Mr. Miller then discussed various provisions within the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that

restaurants and delicatessens are listed as permitted uses in the Ordinance. Prior to

annexation, the property was zoned B2 General Business by DuPage County. With the

proposed change of use for the 912 E. Roosevelt Road building, he understands that he

needs to apply for parking relief for a restaurant establishment and/or a conditional use

for a catering establishment.

He stated his proposed fast-food and catering establishments will not impact the parking

area. He referred to staff's proposed site plan included as part of the staff report and

stated that he has no objections to the plan. He understands that the parking spaces

that are adjacent to School Street may be removed when School Street is improved.

For now, it will remain as is. The proposed plan is acceptable - his only

recommendation would be that the curb line and parking island off of School Street be

reduced from 5 feet to 3 feet. The site will have two handicapped parking spaces - one

by each front entrance. He also referenced that the York Township Assessor's office

also assessed the property as a restaurant land use and discussed how the property

would be assessed.

Lastly, Mr. Miller expressed concerns regarding cross-access provisions for the property

to the west. He does not see any benefit for him and cited cases where trucks from the

adjacent use parked on his property.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. Speaking in opposition

of the petition was John Tuene, 1148 S. School Street. He said the property was

previously an army surplus store and is currently used by Steve's Gyros. His property

was also annexed into Lombard in 2003. His understanding is that the Village will be

providing public water and sanitary sewer service to the neighborhood next year.

He raised concerns regarding the existing parking along School Street. Along School, a

residential street, between 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., there are commercial vehicles parking on

School due to inadequate parking for Steve's Gyros. He is concerned about additional

traffic on residential streets and the parking of Waste Management garbage trucks and

other commercial traffic along School Street. He stated he continually picks up trash

from Zelly's and Steve's Gyros. He is concerned about vehicles attempting to make a

left turn onto Roosevelt. He said the existing buildings on the property do not meet

code. He stated the recent businesses on the property that have since closed. He

stressed the need to keep commercial traffic off of residential streets.

Mr. Miller made a specific point that customers would be coming to the site and picking

up their food and they are not parking for long periods - this would lessen the parking

impact. They have not had one recorded incident dealing with traffic on this property.

Parking along School Street might be impacted on lunch hour but there is a lower

parking demand for other parts of the day.

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

referenced the IDRC report and noted that as the petitioner is withdrawing his request

for a parking variation associated with a sit-down restaurant, he would not discuss that

request.

He described the property noting that is improved with two commercial buildings, one of

which is vacant, and the remainder of the property is covered by an asphalt surface.

The property was involuntarily annexed into 2003 and was automatically classified into

R1 District. That zoning designation would remain until such time that it makes sense to

reclassify the property and the existing uses could remain as legal nonconforming.

Therefore, the Steve's Gyros use constitutes a legal non-conforming use and the 912

East Roosevelt Road building would be acceptable for generic retail uses.

The property owner is looking for prospective tenants for the building at 912 E.

Roosevelt Road. As previous prospective tenants have made significant improvements

to the building to accommodate a restaurant and/or food preparation use, the property

owner is seeking approvals to allow the building to be occupied by one of three types of

restaurant uses as set forth in the public hearing request. As the parking requirements

differ for restaurant uses, as compared to other retail uses, staff views this as a change

of use which would necessitate a map amendment and parking relief, if warranted.

He noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property be used for

community commercial uses. The existing uses and proposed B3 zoning comply with

the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. The property is located within the

Roosevelt Road corridor and is surrounded on three sides by other commercial

properties and a single-family residence to the north, which has been used as a legal

non-conforming office use. Retail uses and some restaurant uses on the property can

be compatible with the surrounding land uses. However, there are site specific

improvements that should be addressed as part of this petition to ensure compatibility

with adjacent properties.

He stated that staff believes that the request for rezoning is appropriate for the site.

Referencing a table in the staff report, the property is deficient in meeting most other the

provisions of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance. He noted the petitioner is not proposing

any building expansions at this time - the only proposed work would be associated with

the tenant build out of the proposed food service use. As such, the Village can consider

all of the bulk regulation non-conformities to be legal non-conforming and hence do not

need to be considered for relief as part of this petition. Moreover, given the extent of the

non-conformities on the site, staff believes it is would be appropriate to keep the legal

non-conforming status of these structures rather than granting relief for the structures.

In the event the property is redeveloped, the new uses would meet the full bulk

regulation provisions of the Ordinance, or as varied by a future zoning petition.

The primary purpose of this petition is to address parking issues associated with the

proposed food establishment uses. With respect to the restaurant activities, the Steve's

Gyros business can be considered legal non-conforming as it existed prior to annexation

of the property into the Village. Regarding the 912 E. Roosevelt building, the building

was not being used as a restaurant use. At the time of the annexation, the 912 E.

Roosevelt Road building was considered a generic retail building. However, with the

change from a generic retail building, which requires parking at 4 spaces per 1000

square feet of gross floor area, to a restaurant use which has higher parking

requirements, the non-conforming provisions would no longer apply. As the property

does not have the physical space to accommodate parking per Village Code, relief will

be required.

Staff reviewed the property to determine the available supply of parking that can

functionally exist on the property. Staff also proposes a concept parking plan for the site

that should be followed if this petition is approved. Staff's concept plan attempts to

addresses number of site deficiencies as noted in the report.

Referencing parking along School Street, most of the parking for Steve's Gyros is

located on the east side of the building. This existing perpendicular parking area is

partially on the subject property and partially within the School Street right-of-way. This

configuration existed prior to the annexation of the property and the adjacent roadway

into the Village. In discussions with York Township Highway Department, the property

owner and the Township did not have any executed agreements relative to parking in

this area.

Staff is proposing modifications that remove much of the parking and would place it on

the private property. The proposed plan identifies parking spaces within the

right-of-way, which can remain until such time that the Village considers full right-of-way

improvements along School Street and requests that these spaces be removed. Staff

notes that if these spaces are removed, customers could parallel park at this location,

but these spaces cannot be counted toward meeting the Village parking requirement.

Additionally, staff based the public hearing petition on those spaces that are located

exclusively on the subject property - if the School Street spaces are removed, the

zoning actions are already in place to allow the restaurant uses to remain if approved.

Catering establishments do not have separate parking requirements - this use would be

required to meet the 4 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area requirement.

However, this land use is a conditional use in the B3 District. With respect to the

conditional use for the catering use, the petitioner would also like to have the flexibility to

utilize the 912 building for catering purposes. This could be done either as an ancillary

function of the permitted restaurant use or as a separate use. Staff is conceptually

supportive of this use as the parking demands for the catering use will not be as great

as other restaurant uses. However, staff recommends as a condition of approval that

any catering vehicles associated with the business activity be parked and stored

immediately behind the 912 E. Roosevelt Road building.

In the petitioner's request for a fast-food option, he would like the option to lease the

building for a fast-food establishment without seating. The proposed use would consist

of preparation of fast-food for customer pick-up or delivery. No in-store seating would

be provided. Staff notes that the Zoning Ordinance does not distinguish between

fast-food establishments with or without seating. However, if no customer seating is

provided the anticipated parking demand for the use would be more characteristic of

other generic retail uses. Staff is supportive of the fast-food use provided that there is

no on-site dining associated with the 912 E. Roosevelt Road building.

He also referenced staff's desire to require cross- access and dumpster screening

provisions. He also referenced a letter from the adjacent property owners regarding

parking issues.

Mr. Miller stated that cross access would be detrimental to his property and not would

not benefit Steve's or 912 East Roosevelt, but only Johnson's Fish and Shrimp. Fences

have been put up along the property line which were designed to prevent truck traffic

onto his property. The trucks have destroyed his fence, which had to be replaced, as

well as the pavement. The adjacent restaurant has also had food and beer delivery

trucks park on his lot. Cross access provisions would create a liability on his part and

he won't be able to get insurance.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that it sounds as if the petitioner has worked with staff to

make the most of the site. If the cross access agreement is more trouble, is that

something staff would still insist on? Mr. Heniff stated that staff has historically sought

cross-access provisions.

Chairperson Ryan stated that enforcement of a conditioned cross-access agreement for

automobiles and not trucks would create an enforcement problem.

Commissioner Burke stated that it seems that by the petitioner's testimony it would be

beneficial to the neighbor but not the petitioner. This is not mutually beneficial, as

nothing is in it for the petitioner.

Mr. Heniff stated that the cross-access is not an inherent condition that must occur

immediately. If you want staff to look at it, it could stay as a condition of approval and

leave to staff's discretion. If the provision is not added now, this provision may be

difficult to get in the future.

Commissioner Flint stated that if the properties are improved with the proper pavement

design to handle the truck traffic, it might take care of itself.

George Wagner, Village Counsel, stated that as written, the condition works because it

doesn't become operative until the Village makes the request. The petitioner is required

to comply with it and staff won't request until it makes sense. The Village is protected as

well as the petitioner.

1. That the subject property be modified to incorporate all of the parking and site

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

exhibit and made a part of the recommendation of approval.

2. That upon a written request of the Village the petitioner shall remove the

perpendicular parking spaces along the east side of the subject property and/or within

the School Street right-of-way as depicted on the exhibit made a part of the Ordinance

approving the petition.

3. Accessible parking spaces shall be provided in compliance with the provisions of the

Illinois Accessibility Code. One space shall be provided immediately in front of the 912

E. Roosevelt Road building while the second space shall be provided at the entrance to

the Steve's Gyros restaurant.

4. Upon a request by the Village, the petitioner shall provide a cross-access agreement

between the subject property and the property immediately to the west and that the

petitioner shall remove the fence barrier to the adjacent property.

5. Refuse disposal areas for both business establishments located on the subject

property shall be screened in accordance with Section 155.710 of the Lombard Zoning

Ordinance.

6. That any business vehicles associated with the existing business establishment at

912 E. Roosevelt Road shall be parked behind the building at all times.

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

Vincent Capioni representing American Sign Company in Bensenville presented the

petition. He indicated that they were looking for approval of three wall signs on Claim

Jumpers Restaurant and referenced their submission which detailed the elevations. Mr.

Capioni indicated that the referenced building used to be the old Montgomery Wards

building and according to Village Codes, this building is allowed one wall sign facing off

of Highland Avenue. He stated that Sign B, noted on the site plan, is allowed by the

Village. They are requesting approval of Sign A and Sign C. Sign A would face north

and Sign C would face south.

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

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

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated their request was for three wall signs on the Claim

Jumpers Restaurant. He explained that this is a sit-down restaurant currently under

construction on Lot 2 of the Yorktown Shopping Center. This building is located in the

Yorktown Center Planned Development which does not address signage issues. He

gave the approval history for the wall signs located on the Montgomery Wards building,

which has since been demolished. Consequently, the signage approvals are no longer

applicable. The petitioner is proposing three walls signs consisting of 73.6 square foot

signs on the south and west elevations and a 56.1 square foot sign on the north façade,

however the restaurant only fronts on one public street which is Highland Avenue. Code

allows one sign on the western elevation along Highland Avenue as a matter of right.

The requested deviation is to allow two additional signs on the property which would be

the north and south elevations. Since access roads are private and not considered

public rights of way those two signs would not be allowed. In the past, staff has

supported signage deviations for businesses along the ring road as these drives

function as public streets. Consequently, it makes sense to allow additional signage as

the signage is not excessive and is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Overall,

staff recommends approval of this petition based on the condition noted in the staff

report.

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

Commission. There were no comments by the members.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The petitioner is requesting

approval of a plat of resubdivision for a tract of land located within the Highlands of

Lombard Planned Development, entitled "Plat of Resubdivision of Highlands of Lombard

- Phase 2." Lots 1, 2, and 3 are currently vacant. Lot 4 is maintaining its current lot

lines, but it is included within this plat because an easement for access is required for

the proposed development. Since the property is greater than one acre in size, the plat

of subdivision must be reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission and Board of

Trustees.

The Public Works Engineering Division and Private Engineering Services Division have

reviewed the revised plans. Final engineering plans were submitted after the

subdivision plat was prepared, and these plans will require substantial revision. As

these revisions will cause the required easements to be different from those shown on

the plat, the subdivision plat will only be considered acceptable if it accounts for the

maximum possible extent of any utility easements. The excess easement area may

then be vacated after all site improvements have been constructed and accepted by the

Village.

The petitioner is requesting a Plat of Resubdivision to allow the two buildings approved

as part of PC 05-12, plus future development on the northern portion of the existing lot.

This subdivision meets all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision

and Development Ordinance. Although Lot 2 will not have frontage on a public

right-of-way, the lot frontage requirement was waived as part of the original planned

development approval. As the plat shows, the proposed lots will include additional

easements for utilities and access. A separate Plat of Abrogation is being prepared to

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He distributed and referenced

a revised plat of resubdivision that will subdivide Lot 1 of the TBA Resubdivision, entitled

"Capital Grille Resubdivision Plat". The plat proposes to further divide Lot 1 into two

parcels, with the dividing line being the existing ring road around the mall. The north lot

will contain the portion of the existing lot north of the ring road and will be redeveloped

as part of the Shoppes on Butterfield development. The south lot will contain the portion

of the existing lot south of the ring road and is being created in order to facilitate the

redevelopment of the proposed south lot as the Capital Grille Restaurant. Since the

subject property is greater than an acre in size, it is considered a major plat of

subdivision and must be reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission and Board of

Trustees.

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

Commission. There were no comments by the members.