Village of Lombard Legistar System

Eric Nolin, 260 Coe Road, Clarendon Hills, representative of the Northern Baptist

Theological Seminary (NBTS); Bill Sitton, 265 N. Carter Street, Palatine; and Adam

Maier, 233 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, both of Rada Architects, Inc., introduced

themselves and presented the petition.

Mr. Nolin began the presentation by indicating that NBTS was requesting a modification

of the planned development in order to build a new administration building on campus.

He explained that the existing administration building as well as one part of one of the

residence halls would be demolished. He referred to a display board showing the

existing plan and indicated the buildings to be razed. The new building will be located in

the same position as one of the wings of a residence hall and will occupy the corner of

the two existing buildings. Mr. Nolin explained that the purpose of having the new

building is to update the facilities with a current look and to better connect the campus.

He then referred to the displayed elevations and explained that similar materials were to

be used for the new building that will match the existing buildings. This included precast

for the trim piece.

Mr. Nolin stated that additional changes to the planned development included on their

submitted plans include roadway and parking modifications and potential future

educational and housing buildings on campus. As each of these additional buildings are

designed, NBTS will come back to the Plan Commission for site plan approval.

Currently, they are just requesting that they be allowed as part of the planned

development in the future.

Bill Sitton concluded the presentation by indicated that the existing parking will be

reduced on Maxant Drive and replaced with new parking as shown on the plans.

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

speak for or against this petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He summarized the key

points in the staff report and restated their request. He referred to the

Inter-Departmental Review comments within the staff report and specifically noted utility

rerouting of existing utility lines, which will be coordinated and approved by staff along

with the recommended public utility easements.

From a planning standpoint there were four items addressed as part of the requested

amendment:

1. The new administration building which will be a 16,000 square foot, more modern

two-story building with three elevations.

2. A future chapel building and the potential for another administration building. Staff

has placed a condition that any future plans come back to the Plan Commission for site

plan approval so specifics can be addressed.

3. Additional student housing to the north of Maxant Drive. The size and number will be

a function of demand and currently have not been identified.

4. Minor changes to parking areas and companion landscaping and tweaks to Maxant

Drive.

Mr. Heniff noted that in 1997 the master plan proposed a basketball court - they are now

proposing a small garage instead.

Mr. Heniff stated that the Comprehensive Plan recommends public and institutional uses

for the property and being that the amendment only modifies the layout and design of

the buildings and structures on the property, the proposed amendment is compatible.

The proposed administration building follows the concept of the surrounding land uses,

which includes offices and retail commercial, and therefore is compatible with the

surrounding land uses.

Mr. Heniff outlined the planned development history and the initial campus plan, which

addressed their existing campus buildings and included the establishment of the Lindner

Center.

He then addressed the compatibility with the approved planned development noting

specific comments about the site plan as they related to traffic circulation and parking.

He mentioned that Maxant Drive is proposed to bend to the east and have a drop off

lane. The current parking is located off of Maxant Drive which will be removed and a

new segregated parking area will be added on the west side. A separate drive aisle

running east of Maxant Drive will be added to provide access to 13 new parking spaces.

Staff supports this configuration as it removes any parking and traffic conflicts from

Maxant Drive.

Noting that the petitioner brought a materials board, he asked them to display the same.

He described the brick elevations and glass element tones and stated they are

compatible with the brick color. He mentioned the interesting architectural features that

they have tied in. The petitioner has also completed a master landscaping plan which

includes clustered tree plantings along Maxant Drive as well as within parking lot

landscape islands.

Lastly, Mr. Heniff indicated that staff recommends approval subject to the four conditions

noted in the staff report.

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

questions. Hearing none he opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan

Commission members.

Commissioner Olbrysh referred to last month's workshop and commented that there

were two things he really liked that the petitioner had incorporated into their plans. The

first was the use of similar building materials to make the project flow and the second

was the reconfiguration of the parking, which eliminated the need to back up into the

main drive, which was always dangerous.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she thought the plan was interesting and ties well

together and questioned how many levels there were. Mr. Nolin indicated that there

were three levels, one entryway and two levels.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that there are two sidewalk connections from the

administration building to the Lindner Center. However, one of the walkways is not

clearly defined and questioned if the north sidewalk could be fully established and

demarcated. Mr. Nolin indicated that the main pathway will be marked in front of the

building and the other is a secondary pathway. He stated that their intent is that it will be

carried through on both.

Commissioner Burke referenced the exhibits presented at the meeting and noted that

they differed from the elevations noted in the plans. Mr. Nolin then displayed the

elevations and noted the differences in greater detail to the Commissioners.

Chairperson Ryan referred to a previous workshop session that discussed the proposal.

He indicated that the petitioner has addressed the Commissions' questions and

comments and have done a nice job incorporating those into their plans.

Commissioner Melarkey asked if the second level would be set further inside the first

level. Mr. Nolin indicated that the second level floor plan is smaller and is set further

back. Commissioner Melarkey then asked if there was open access. Mr. Nolin

indicated that there is a student lounge which exits onto a terrace with a roof.

PC 05-06: 210, 214, 215, 224 and 228 S. Lincoln Street & 205 W. Maple

Street (Continued from March 21, 2005)

Requests that the Village take the following actions on the property within the R2 Single

Family Residence District:

1. Amend the Comprehensive Plan to designate the lots at 210, 214, 224 and 228 S.

Lincoln Street and 205 W. Maple Street as Public and Institutional Use.

2. Approve an amendment to Ordinance 1816 granting approval of a conditional use for

a noncommercial recreational building/community center.

3. Approve an amendment to Ordinances 4363 and 4363A granting approval of a

conditional use for a religious institution and for a private elementary school.

4. Approve a conditional use for a planned development for all of the subject properties,

with the following deviations and variations from the Zoning Ordinance, as follows:

a. A variation from Section 155.508 (C)(6)(a) and a deviation from Section 155.406

(F)(1) to allow for a front yard setback of eighteen feet (18') where thirty feet (30') is

required;

b. A deviation from Section 155.406 (F)(2) to allow for a corner side yard setback of

one foot (1') where twenty feet (20') is required;

c. A deviation from Section 155.406 (G) to allow for a building height of up to

thirty-five feet (35') from grade, where thirty feet (30') maximum height is allowed by

right;

d. A variation from Section 155.406 (H) and Section 155.508 (C) (7), reducing the

minimum required open space below the minimum 75 percent requirement;

e. A variation from Sections 155.708 and 155.709 reducing the requisite foundation

and perimeter lot landscaping along the corner side yard; and

f. A variation from Section 155.602 (C), Table 6.3 reducing the number of requisite

parking spaces.

Chuck Wingard, 572 Brewster Avenue, Lombard, began the presentation by introducing

the other presenters for the St. John's petition. Those were Scott Czerkies, 254

Weather Hill Drive, Willowbrook; and Joe Jaruseski, 1107 Michelle Lane, Lombard

Chuck Wingard proceeded to present their petition in a PowerPoint format.

He gave the history of the school, their mission, and the types of services they provide.

He mentioned the reasons for building the new school which included: student safety,

accessibility, comfort (no air conditioning), the old inefficient heating system, student life

(student restroom only on 1st floor and educational time lost), educational materials,

special needs (no room for small group learning or activities), and resource

management (lighting and heating are inefficient and are more expensive to run).

Mr. Wingard indicating the congregation's commitment to the project by acquiring

property, improving traffic flow, and improving the parking lot and property on Ash Street

which will contain a stormwater retention area. They have a dedicated Building

Committee who have exercised fiscal management. He mentioned the two good

neighbor meetings they held to inform neighbors of their plans.

He showed the design of the first floor plan and described the layout specifically

mentioning the gymnasium and kitchen facility. The second floor plan was shown and

he described the layout.

Mr. Wingard then introduced Scott Czerkies, Architect with Legat Architects, indicating

he would explain the technical aspects of the project. Mr. Czerkies indicated he would

focus on the exterior site plan and proceeded with the presentation. He explained the

campus site plan and stated that Maple Street was to the north, Ash Street to the south

with Lincoln Avenue connecting the two. The proposed new school is to be located on

the west side of Lincoln. One of their main objectives was to maintain the residential

feel along Maple Street. They wanted to keep the white house at the corner of Maple

and Lincoln so they pushed the building south. It was also their intent to keep the trees

on the north and west sides of the site as the west side trees were to act as a buffer.

The entry plaza is across the street from the main entrance of the church.

Mr. Czerkies then explained the design for the new school. The elementary school site

consists of a receiving area and back entry. The main focus of the design is to locate

the gym towards the central location of the site to bring it off of the edge lot lines.

He mentioned the Plan Commission workshop that was conducted on March 21 and the

comments that the Commissioners had made. As a result of those comments, they now

have a screened area as well as a fence line that will run on the north, west, and south

lot lines towards Ash Street. The fence they are proposing is a 6' high cedar fence.

Another item noted from the workshop was to screen the play area and he indicated on

his diagram where the landscaping will go as a result of the workshop comments. They

will still provide some small landscaping and vegetation and are looking to finalize a plan

with a professional landscaper.

Another workshop comment they addressed was the best location for the site access

drive. One possibility was to bring it in off of Lincoln. However, the concern was the

existing house and the mature trees which would cause one or both of those elements

to would be lost. The other option was to use the existing drive as an access drive and

then they would demolish the garage. Mr. Czerkies stated the access drive would be

used for lunch drop off (5 times a week) and garbage collection 2 times a week. This

would total only 7 movements per week.

He then referred to the elevations which introduce the same masonry element in the

darker portions. The petitioner came back with a set budget and does not see the

inclusion of masonry as a result. The elements of this have not changed since the

workshop except the west elevation.

The west and south elevations reflect the workshop comments which include the

incorporation of another color. They are introducing the darker brown color to match the

south elevation and the other elements on the east façade.

Mr. Czerkies mentioned the good neighbor meetings they have had and the resulting

information provided to the Village as well as to the neighbors. There have been certain

requests made by the neighbors and they provided conceptual drawings of the different

views which show the cedar fence and large mature trees.

In conclusion, he showed the building perspective from Maple Street running back. He

mentioned the entry stairwell and the trees. Mr. Czerkies then turned the presentation

over to Joe Jaruseski.

Joe Jaruseski, 1107 Michelle Lane, Lombard, recapped the presentation by mentioning

the history of St. John's and his family's involvement, the project's rigorous planning, the

mission and ministry, the rounded extracurricular activities and rigorous academic

preparation.

Chairperson Ryan then indicated that the public participation period was next. He asked

if there was anyone in the audience who was in support of the petition and wanted to

speak. He noted the list of names but was unaware of who wanted to speak in favor.

There were five people who spoke in favor of the petition. They were:

Lynn Graham, 2S077 Beaumont, Lombard, was the first to speak. He explained how he

came to live in Lombard, how he wanted a Lutheran School and how he chose St.

John's to enroll all six of his children. The reason for his selection of St. John's was that

the school met their current educational needs as well as the ability to grow within the

community. He is in support of the new school which would allow for the music and

science rooms to grow. Having a new facility would attract new students and the

amenities offered would be a plus. He is in support of the proposal.

Dave Freese, 569 Brewster Avenue, Lombard, stated he was a lifelong member of St.

John's and went to school there. It is a great school and mentioned that most projects in

Lombard need some types of variations. He mentioned the upgrading of his personal

business that took place not too long ago and asked that the Plan Commission extend

the same courtesy by looking at the whole picture of what they want to add to the

community.

Phil Hyssong, 219 E. Prairie, Lombard, indicated he is a community member of St.

John's. He is in favor of the proposed plans and asked for their approval. He came to

realize that St. John's has been affecting lives for a long time and their longevity is

noteworthy especially in today's society. They serve thousands of meals to needy

community members and the students enrolled in the school continue to serve the

community. He requested that the Plan Commission support St. John's mission and

allow them to continue serving the community for the next 100 years.

Danielle Budig, 35 S. Chase, Lombard, stated that when she chose a school she

considered the type of individuals that came out of St. John's, the school itself, and their

educational needs. The teachers and staff have provided those needs as well as

emotional support. They are currently outgrowing the school and the proposed new

school will give them the opportunity to continue to provide education to their

congregation.

Tom Geyer, 238 S. Elizabeth Street, Lombard, indicated he lives one block due west,

serves as the treasurer, and is in favor of the new building. He mentioned the day

school as an outreach and his family's success as a result. He talked about his move to

Lombard and how they became actively involved and have since served in volunteer

positions working at the school. He stated that the Maple Street corridor is a showcase

corridor and exhibits the character of Lombard of which St. John's has been a part. He

felt that the proposed improvements would be beneficial to Lombard as a whole and

would improve the image at no expense to Lombard taxpayers. He asked for the

Commissioners support.

Speaking against the petition were:

John DeSalvo, 113 S. Charlotte, Lombard, indicated he is here on behalf of himself as

well as his mother who lives at 220 W. Ash who could not be here tonight. Her property

is located directly west of the site. Mr. DeSalvo stated that they have nothing against

the betterment of parochial schools. Others tonight have brought up the character of the

Maple Street corridor but he questioned why no one was considering the Ash Street

corridor. He felt that they were becoming a back door to the St. John's development

and have become angry that they are not being considered. He mentioned the removal

of houses for a parking lot that became a gym and then a preschool. He is curious

about the site plan and felt that something was amiss as every rule is trying to be

ignored. He thinks it is professionally wrong. He stated that one of the most historic

blocks in the community has been asked to become a commercial area. His mother's

house would be 35' away from this building. He asked what will happen to the existing

building, feels there has been a lack of planning, and that doing things smaller might

help.

John Walz deferred.

Peggy Avila, 225 W. Maple, Lombard, mentioned that she is a former member of St.

John's, attended grades 1-8 and was married there. She has five memories of the place

and has nothing against them building a new school. The location, type, and impact on

the neighborhood bothers her and she proceeded to read her letter already supplied to

the Plan Commission into the record.

Linda Bohl, 213 W. Ash, Lombard, stated that they have lived there for 30 years. She

has children that went to St. John's and confirmed that it is important that the

neighborhood has rights too. This is a residential area and they are asking the Plan

Commission to retain their rights. She asked that the school stay on the east side and

don't move to the west side. They have attended every neighborhood meeting and feels

that St. John's is trying to take a 10-pound school and put it on a 5-pound lot. She felt

that if this was a developer requesting this relief, they would not be allowed to do this.

The development would reduce the property values and that they should reduce the

building height to stay within ordinance. She agrees with St. John's as to what will

happen with the existing area. They are not allowed to use their own parking because

that area is used for recess. They will double the area and not have parking. She

checked St. John's website which mentions making the existing building into a for-profit

daycare. She asks that the 200 block of Maple and Ash remain residential. She

suggested they use the existing structure and renovate it and support the remaining

areas over there. The website shows that they have had a flat population growth and

therefore it is not urgent to expand their size.

Lois Colby, 211 W. Maple, Lombard, lives on the north border of the proposed plans and

mentioned the letter she submitted to the Plan Commission. She is not against

renovation or expansion but mentioned the points:

1. Access drive to school -this borders her driveway and there is no intermediate grass

there. If that becomes their access drive, she will have two points on her property

where her children play and the access drive will be extremely close to her property.

She mentioned that senior citizens currently park there and will not be able to anymore

which will add to congestion. Her request is that the access drive be placed on Lincoln

and not on Maple while realizing that trees will have to be cut down.

2. Dumpster is located too close to her property and that of her neighbors. She does

not want to have to smell the garbage or hear the garbage truck back up in the wee

hours of the night. She requested that the dumpster be relocated.

3. Elevations - she agreed with what has been said already. They need to dig deeper

rather than ask to go higher.

4. Landscaping - All the landscaping they have on their plans is existing landscaping.

They have added nothing.

5. The current building is a nice school and fits with the character of the neighborhood.

She requested that the new building fit into the neighborhood.

Robert Meek, 115 E. Ash, Lombard, stated he owns the property at 210 W. Ash He

was concerned about the parking and the need for a variation after being told at

neighborhood meetings they would not need any. He also had concerns about flooding

and stated that every time a building has been demolished he gets excess water run off.

He referred to the underground water retention and swales mentioned in the staff report.

He asked what would happen should this retention system malfunction. Another

concern was having a one-foot setback on Ash Street as his house is 10 feet away from

the lot line. He referred to the fence and mentioned it would have been best to build it to

the east. He stated that the property owner to the east was never approached to see if

he would want to sell and, if he had, that would have given them the proper green space

requirements and water run off without having to ask for a variation. He thinks that St.

John's needs to consider the neighbors' points as their property will be adversely

affected.

Ken Bohl deferred.

Lynda Nelson, 207 W. Ash, Lombard, indicated she lives just south of the building. She

is for schools whether they are public or private. She commented that should the District

87 referendum fail, they will experience a severe impact on kids coming into the school

and they should consider that impact. Secondly, they have invested in their home and

are not going anywhere and they would like to see the community stay the same. You

will not see any school set up right against residential properties and asked why they

could not build on the east side of Lincoln. She understands the good things about a

private school but they must consider the community and neighbors thoughts. She

mentioned some of the bad experiences she has had with St. John's regarding her

children playing on their premises and being asked to leave. She reaffirmed everything

said before her and asked them to think about where they are putting their building.

Tammy Urish, 216 W. Maple, Lombard, asked what percentage of and increase in their

budget would they experience in order to use higher quality building materials and

architectural features.

Jim Nelson, 207 W. Ash, Lombard, had questions. He stated that in a previous public

hearing they mentioned a campus plan. Will St. John's present a campus plan to the

Village? He raised concerns regarding this green space within the development.

Chairperson Ryan asked the petitioner if they would like to rebut and noted the

questions/comments that needed to be addressed.

What will happen to the old building?

Joe Jaruseski indicated that plans are still being developed but their plan is to use the

gym and kitchen space for senior center activities while the second and third floor space

would be used for storage.

What about the 30 foot height deviation?

Scott Czerkies responded by indicating the height relief was primarily for the gym which

was located to the center portion of the site. The relief would provide adequate space

for volleyball, etc. They are not seeking to go below grade due to accessibility to the

space whereby they would need stairs and ramps to the gym. Being below grade also

would make the gymnasium susceptible to potential mold and moisture problems.

The footprint being too large for the area

Joe Jaruseski indicated that during the past 20 years they took a long time planning and

plans have changed. When they looked at building the school on the same side of the

street, renovation costs were 2.8 million. They did not believe that stewardship would

result in a smaller space. They also preferred to build a school on the existing site but

when they tried to tie in the school to the church the cost was prohibitive. in parking.

Parking reduction

Scott Czerkies indicated that they are not reducing the existing parking now. If St. John's

were to take over Lincoln, and they are not asking for this, the current situation and

parking requirements per Village Ordinance would only require 29 spaces. They looked

at how to go about locating those spaces and they came up with a weekday and

weekend plan. The current facility use is for the church itself. As the school will not be

used on the weekends there will be no overlap. This will lessen the impact on parking.

Location of Service Drive/Parking Next to Service Drive and Why Not Locate it on

Lincoln?

Mr. Czerkies stated that the reasoning in having the drive off Maple was so not to have

to take down the trees as well as the white house. The location of the drive off of Maple

Street would be for using it for 7 deliveries.

Commissioner Sweetser asked what the ability was for the parking next to the house.

Mr. Czerkies answered that the existing driveway is used by the senior center and will

be now designed as an emergency lane. Other options to be within the closest location

to the school would be along Lincoln or along Maple with diagonal lanes.

Color scheme being a total contrast to church as well as the neighborhood and will not

match.

Mr. Czerkies stated that they are showing a darker color with a lighter contrasting color.

The exact colors have not been selected yet. They will have the contrasting color as

proposed with the new elevations.

Garbage/dumpsters located right next to property line of neighbor

Mr. Czerkies referred to the slide in the PowerPoint presentation "elementary schools

site layout" and stated that the main reason is the proximity of the multi purpose room as

well as the cafeteria and the kitchen and the ease of dispensing of the garbage in the

prime location. They tried to push it off of the north property line as much as possible

and located it accordingly.

Chairperson Ryan asked about the dumpster enclosure materials. Mr. Czerkies stated

that the enclosure regulations are called out in Village Ordinance - non-combustible and

6' high around the perimeter. There will be perimeter fencing to act as a secondary level

of screening. They thought it would be beneficial to the neighbors.

Landscaping - Just the existing landscaping and nothing added

Mr. Czerkies stated that finalized plans are not completed yet and they are trying to

show schematics along the west elevation as well as the perimeter of the playground

area. They are also looking at low bushes and working with a landscape designer to

soften the building.

Fencing around the property line

They are proposing a 6' high cedar fence along the portion of the north and west and a

portion of south as a screening mechanism in addition to doubling the protection of the

children. The fence will be a board on board.

Day care center

Joe Jaruseski indicated that the plans today are finalized as to what the school space

will be used for. He would estimate they would retain the current structure, or something

on a smaller scale if they were to replace it and the intent would be to provide an

outreach of their ministries. They are tentatively considering a day care use.

Chairperson Ryan asked to show where the children's playground would be located.

Mr. Jaruseski referred to the campus site plan and indicated where it would be. He

stated that by moving the school on the west side the kids did not have to cross the

street. There will be an impervious surface and then some green space right outside

the classrooms.

Do they have a campus plan similar to the previous public hearing on Northern Baptist

Theological Seminary?

Mr. Jaruseski stated that the overall campus plan is what you see.

Flooding to the residents on the Ash side close to 10' of the property line

Mr. Czerkies stated they are proposing an underground water detention system. The

system will be outlet into the Village's storm sewer system on Lincoln Avenue and their

engineer's design will meet 100-year stormwater runoff requirements. The swale

system has been designed to handle the required storm water should the underground

system malfunction. The swale will be further developed and is one of the comments of

staff's review.

Why not put the building on the east side why is going to the west side?

Mr. Jaruseski stated that they have spent many years planning the new school structure

and it is more financially feasible on an open land.

Referencing Slide #8 showing the campus site plan- The neighbor, Robert Meek,

inquired about the flooding with the swales, the gym wasn't cost effective because of

problems with the wood floor and the flood control system is not effective or they would

not have to worry about putting it in the ground. Mr. Czerkies stated that any time you

put something under the ground, it is a concern with water in the soil. Not so much as to

flooding, but more of a damproofing. They are not concerned about the underground

vault system failing.

Cost of concrete versus masonry

Mr. Czerkies stated they are working with the construction manager and getting cost

estimates. Their budget is the main consideration when doing the school. Someone

mentioned why it cannot be smaller and it is a matter of the parameters they were given.

The church has developed the plan while saving money every year. It costs more and

working with the site and the parameters given, this is what the building has been

developed into. The precast is a budgetary issue. Current numbers to provide a

complete masonry building was close to $600,000 to provide just masonry along the red

portions along the west and south elevations was upward of $150,000.

Chairperson Ryan then asked if there were any other questions or comments.

Mr. Jaruseski then thanked the audience who spoke in favor of the petition as well as for

those who spoke against it. As with any church, the effort to make its ministry expand is

a matter of budget and this plan is the best mix of ministry and what they can afford

today.

Chairperson Ryan then asked if the Commissioner had any questions.

Commissioner Sweetser clarified that there was no previous hearing before the Plan

Commission and that all references were related to the workshop session. This is the

first public hearing. She also indicated she was disappointed that the petitioner did not

mention tonight, but did at the workshop, that one of the compelling reasons not to

demolish the existing building is the fact that the heating unit was located there and

wondered now how compelling the reason really was. Mr. Jaruseski stated that it is

paramount that the existing building be retained due to the heating unit being there until

such time they can replace that structure.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated he was struggling with a number of things. While trying to

look at the whole picture, which was hard to do when the landscaping plans have not

finished, final plans for school not finished, there is no overall campus plan, and no

further development of the swale system. He indicated he was not in a position to do

anything with this petition. He did state he supports a christian education and does not

have a problem with St. John's. They have done a phenomenal job but what bothers

him is the size of the building as it takes up a large portion of the block. You are dealing

with a historic area of Lombard and need to balance the rights of the residents with the

rights of the petitioner. It seems that the balance is lopsided and they need to respect

the rights of the neighborhood. He mentioned this was a result of the large audience

attendance and stated that opinions differ and he was not in a position to judge that. He

does not feel the petitioner knows the final plans and would like to have all the facts

before him before he votes.

Commissioner Burke referred to the opening statements of the petitioner whereby they

state that the two main reasons they want to replace the existing school and suggested

the plans do not wash out - they want to maintain but they are adding and they don't

have the budget. Mr. Jaruseski stated that the existing structure contains the heating

element for the church but it is their intention not to maintain the infrastructure when the

current school is built. It is not in their plans for the 2nd and 3rd floors as they are used

today. The overall cost of the school will be less then maintaining the school on a

person- by-person basis.

Commissioner Burke stated that they would still have to maintain them if they are used

for offices and storage space and there is no savings on operating two systems than

one system.

Chairperson Ryan stated that the Commissioners were told at the workshop that the

building was to be used for storage and meeting rooms as well as to keep for the heat

for the church. The petitioner's opening presentation stated that it would be used for

senior citizens and meetings and they are hearing something different why the building

is staying up. Mr. Jaruseski indicated that it is true but the other issue is they are not

sure they can tolerate the disruption of the school and ministry with what would be

involved if the existing school stays.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that they understood that but wanted to have that laid

out in writing and in their presentation.

Commissioner Burke stated he is not prepared to vote on the petition.

Chairperson Ryan indicated that the Commissioners have not been provided with all the

information but will go ahead with the staff report and more discussion.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, indicated that for the record he received a phone call

from an individual asking about the proposed plans at the northwest corner of Ash and

Lincoln for a gathering area west of the school. What is envisioned? Mr. Czerkies

indicated that currently this was designed for a gathering space should students arrive

before the school bell. This would eliminate the need to congregate in the building

before the teachers arrive so they designed an area on the exterior of the building. That

space is being deleted from the project. There are only two gathering spaces and he

showed the locations on the PowerPoint slide.

Mr. Heniff then presented the staff report. He indicated that the petitioner was proposing

to build a new elementary school on the west side of Lincoln Avenue between Ash

Street and Maple Avenue. The proposed school will replace the existing school building

on the east side of Lincoln Avenue, immediately south of the existing church. Within the

staff report are the general inter-departmental comments from engineering and fire are

being offered for reference. These comments will be addressed as part of the building

submittal.

Planning comments include compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan. He explained

what the Comprehensive Plan is and the designation for the surrounding areas. Staff

included an amendment to address the petition - if the Village Board finds the petition is

acceptable, the Plan would be amended.

Mr. Heniff noted the actions taken on the property in the past as they related to the

zoning history dating back to 1962. This petition is an expansion of those actions and

requires a public hearing.

The first amendment is for the community center. They are going to modify the site plan

to provide for a drive aisle and removal of a garage. The drive aisle will be placed in

same location as the garage and will extend the entire length. Parking will be prohibited

and is included as a condition in the findings and recommendations.

The petitioner is also requesting an amendment to two ordinances granting approval of

a conditional use for a religious institution and for a private elementary school. Mr.

Heniff read the definition of a planned development and stated that staff looked at the

appropriateness of the school at the location and went point by point through the report.

The conditional use for the planned development is an attractive way to address

campus settings or a theme of common ownership and supports them. Staff's

recommendation is that all the same properties be reviewed as a unified development.

Mr. Heniff also mentioned a number of zoning relief actions associated with the planned

development.

Front yard setbacks

Ash Street is considered the front yard and Lincoln Avenue is the corner side yard. The

intention was to shift the building to the south to provide greater building separation

which and pushed it into the front yard setback.

Corner side yard

Village Code requires a 20' corner side yard setback. The petitioner is proposing 1'.

Staff thought that it should be pushed as far east as possible therefore, the shifting of

the building can be supported.

Building height of 30'

Village code allows maximum building height of 30' and up to 45' via a conditional use.

Their building shows 33' as roof height and since there is a little bit of a slope and the

elevation is set as 33'. Final engineering does not create additional need for relief. The

petitioner noted the need for the relief as it relates to the gym.

Open space requirements

There is a distinction between open space and stormwater requirements. This is

considered new development and therefore has to meet local and DuPage codes. Open

space is green space. They intend to capture to stormwater and this new development

will take care of that. Staff researched other institutions within the Village for compliance

with this provision. The research shows that a number of schools do not meet the open

space requirement as the Village has either granted relief or the use is legal

nonconforming. While the open space is reduced there are additional landscaping

comments.

Foundation landscaping requirements

As the building is proposed to be located one foot off of the corner side yard, there will

be little or no room for perimeter landscape treatments or foundation plantings. This is

the result of the trade off of pushing the new school further to the east which offsets the

plantings that would be required.

Number of parking spaces required

Parking relief has been previously granted. The existing parking lot serves both the

church and the school. The church is the highest intensity use and will remain

unimpacted. Primary parking demand will be generated from the school on the

weekdays and from the church on the weekends. The Village's traffic consultant looked

at this issue as well as for excessive parking conflicts. The Lincoln Avenue parking

spots are public spaces and cannot be used in their count. Staff conditioned the

approval of this variation based on the use of the old school building.

Compatibility with the Surrounding Land Uses

The south side is the pick up/drop off area. The Village's traffic consultant, KLOA,

looked at the petitioner's plan which has been submitted and their comments were

submitted to the petitioner. Lincoln, Maple and Ash are Village rights-of-way and the

Village has the ability to amend parking provisions to work in an efficient matter.

He noted that concept building elevations were precast. After the workshop session,

staff suggested that additional masonry be added to the east elevation. Staff believes

that the building elevations will be substantial and the masonry component from a

neighborhood standpoint merits further discussion.

Vacation of Lincoln Avenue

Staff reviewed the issue of vacating Lincoln Avenue and does not support it for three

reasons:

1. The Village has existing water and sewer utility lines within the right-of-way;

2. There is a substantial width between Main and Elizabeth Streets. If a vacation was

approved the block face would be 1420 feet, which exceeds the maximum block length

standard established within Section 154.505 (B)(2) of the Subdivision and Development

Ordinance.

3. The right-of-way provides an excellent direct pedestrian link from residential

neighborhoods south of Ash to the Plum Library on Maple Street.

Subdivision and Development Ordinance

Since the properties west of Lincoln are several lots with buildings and parking lots to be

constructed over existing lot lines, a plat of consolidation will be required to make it a

single lot of record.

Staff offered a number of conditions associated with approval of the petition but should

the Commissioners have additional concerns, the petition could either be continued or

addressed through extra conditions.

In conclusion, staff recommends approval with seven conditions. Mr. Heniff noted two

notations in the findings and recommendations section. Those were add "that the

proposed planned development request would be within the public interest" and strike

"conditional use and variations".

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

members.

Commissioner Sweetser referred to page 7, specifically Appendix A, indicating that she

does not have it. She thought it would be advantageous to make a list of the things they

need before they make a case for continuance.

Commissioner Burke stated he is a supporter of parochial education, his children

attended Sacred Heart, and he lives in the neighborhood. This is not a discussion about

religious education but a discussion of whether anyone would want to be in a position of

being a neighbor and having this building in your back yard next to your single most

important investment. This is the physical impact of the neighborhood. This is a

residential neighborhood and the impact this school is having on this neighborhood and

the determinant being spoken about tonight. If this was a building that was going up and

did not require the variances and setbacks, it would be a no brainer but because of the

variances being asked, he cannot support the large building, building height, and being

that close to the property line. Commissioner Burke indicated that when they met in the

workshop, the Commissioners questioned how the neighborhood meeting went and

were led to believe there were only minor issues. It was only when he asked the

neighbors what the issues were, is where it all came out and every question posed the

response is it costs too much. We understand cost concerns are the biggest reason but

that burden cannot be put on adjacent residences. If they want to develop they have to

bear those costs and he doesn't think it has been.

Commissioner Olbrysh supported Commissioner Burke's comments but was concerned

about the cost of the project. He knows that in order for a project to get underway, the

Joliet Diocese requires the church to have 75 percent of the money in the bank but is

unsure if it is the same with a Lutheran church. Mr. Jaruseski stated that their model

today is that they have 30 percent or 6.8 million in cash on hand.

Commissioner Sweetser commented that this is a situation where a compromise has to

occur. She stated she is not totally opposed to the project but needed to decide what

percentage of open space is provided and what relief has been granted in other cases.

As to the height, she is not disturbed about that and it is reasonable as the building is

pulled to the east. As far as the driveway, she is not sure about the seven trips a week

and twilight hours but the proximity to the house next door is a concern. Her preference

is the keeping the driveway where it is over tearing down the trees. Water/drainage are

major concerns and they have been assured that the system will work but want

assurances that the swales will also work. As far as fitting in with the neighborhood, it is

unclear what factors would have to be modified in order to have it fit in the

neighborhood.

Commissioner Zorn indicated she was not present for last month's workshop session

and reading through the material was perplexing. She stated she would feel more

comfortable having more detailed information.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about getting Appendix A, an analysis of open space,

information relative to drainage swales, neighborhood compatibility, building factors they

could incorporate into the site plan to make the new building more compatible and

getting the final landscaping plan versus having the conceptual ones. Commissioner

Sweetser also stated that any changes need to be reflected on revised drawings such

as eliminating the gathering area.

Commissioner Burke referred to page 13. He indicated that this was a depiction of a

fence and how it would affect the neighbors. It would be interesting to show the

perspective from someone's second floor in the same direction. Mr. Czerkies mentioned

that the view is about 5'6" eye level off the ground. Those depictions were a good will

effort on the part of the church.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated he would like to see a campus plan or a final plan for the

existing school. Mr. Heniff responded that staff did make a recommendation that should

the existing building undergo changes they would have to come back to the Plan

Commission for further consideration.

Commissioner Sweetser inquired about the dumpster indicating that sometimes

buildings have indentations at ground level and that could accommodate the dumpster

to get it out of sight and be more contained.

Mr. Jaruseski asked about parameters for the campus plan. Mr. Heniff indicated that it

should be an overall plan or a vision document of what you foresee and what your

long-range goals are. Mr. Jaruseski ask the number of years. Mr. Heniff responded at

least 10. Mr. Jaruseski asked if it should include the entire campus with the premise

that the new school would be built. Mr. Heniff answered yes.

Chairperson Ryan clarified to the audience that staff would not be sending another

notice in the mail as to the next meeting on April 18.

T. PC 05-07: 1103-1177 South Main Street and 150 East Roosevelt Road

(Ordinance on Second Reading)

Requests that the Village take the following actions within the Lombard Pines Planned

Development, located within the B3 Community Shopping District:

Pursuant to Ordinance 5538, the petitioner requests site plan approval of new shopping

center identification (SCI) signs for the Lombard Pines Planned Development, located

within the B3PD Community Shopping District, Planned Development. For the Main

Street pylon sign, this petition also requests amendments to Ordinances 2555, 4088 and

5538 and deviations from Section 153.234 (D) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance, as

follows:

a. Allow for a SCI sign to be up to thirty-three feet (33') in height, whereby

twenty-seven feet (27') is the maximum sign height allowed, and

b. Allow for an increase in overall copy area for a SCI sign of up to two-hundred

forty-five (245) square feet, where a maximum one-hundred fifty (150) square feet is

allowed by Ordinance 2555.

(DISTRICT #6)

David Sackar, 1140 W. Cornelia, Chicago, on behalf of Lombard Pines Shopping

Center, presented the petition. Mr. Sackar indicated that as a condition of approval

associated with the Culver's Restaurant they agreed to submit new shopping

identification sign plans within six months. He stated that they have solicited design

options and are now prepared to award contracts. Mr. Sackar stated that on Roosevelt

Road they have proposed to replace the existing sign with a new tenant identification

sign, which will conform to the Village's sign regulations. On Main Street they are

seeking an allowance of six feet to include the same type of identification sign that is on

the Roosevelt Road pylon.

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

speak for or against this petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. A condition of approval of

Ordinance 5538 was a requirement to submit new shopping center signs for Plan

Commission site plan approval within six months. The petitioner is now submitting the

plans. The first submitted plan is the Roosevelt Road sign plan. The petitioner

proposes to remove the existing pylon sign and install the new sign at the exact same

location. He noted that the outline of the existing sign is depicted by the dashed lines on

the plan, but the existing sign also has extensions for the manual copy board, the

shopping center name and the pine tree embellishment. The new sign has a defined

shopping center name area, main anchor signs, automatic changeable copy sign and

secondary tenant signs. He mentioned the previous 1995 approval and the proposed

sign is within the parameters granted to the property.

Referencing the Main Street sign, Mr. Heniff indicated that previous approvals capped

the sign height at 27 feet and the sign area at 150 square feet. Staff requested that the

petitioner provide two alternative proposals for consideration - one with a cap identical to

the Roosevelt Road sign and one with no cap. He began with the third plan and

indicated that it meets code requirements. Referring to the second plan he referenced

the additional height and area. Staff thought that the Main Street sign with the Lombard

Pines name on top provides compatibility.

The new sign is proposed to have a 10-foot clearance, which could be reduced to bring

down the overall height of the sign. Mr. Heniff indicated that staff visited the site and

believes the height of the sign could be lowered by three feet as the existing sign has a

clearance of seven feet which still allows the sign to be visible over any vehicles that

might be parked in front of it. Lastly, staff recommends approval of the petition with the

conditions outlined in the staff report.

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

members.

Commissioner Burke asked for clarification of staff regarding the recommendation that

they approve the 30-foot sign. What would be the height of the base of the sign to

grade. Mr. Heniff answered 7 feet.

Commissioner Burke asked if staff could provide some insight as to the other

changeable copy signs that the Commissioners recommended denial on like CVS

Pharmacy. Mr. Heniff answered that this one is 40 square feet and in 1995 the Board of

Trustees approved 96 square feet. They are preapproved not to exceed 96 square feet

in total area. This ACC is bigger than Culver's but this is in line with what was

approved.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he liked the look of the sign. It's classy and liked the

identification caps on each one. He also concurred with staff that they shall not exceed

30 feet in height and be limited to a 7-foot clearance instead of a 10-foot clearance.

Mr. Heniff then gave the history of the property stating it was annexed into the Village in

1958 along with most of the existing North Avenue Industrial Park. Lombard Road, the

adjacent public right-of-way, was previously platted and dedicated prior to its

annexation. The roadway provided a direct link between Lombard and Addison via a

viaduct underneath the railroad tracks. The roadway surface was unimproved. Prior to

1992, the substandard viaduct was closed. To address fly-dumping and deleterious

activities along Lombard Road, the Village Board adopted an ordinance which provided

for the erection of a barrier, which was placed at the south end of the Commonwealth

Edison right-of-way. This barricade was only meant to deter access onto the

right-of-way until such time that the Grant Property developed. In the late 1990s, Illinois

Central removed the viaduct trestle and replaced it with an earthen berm.

Prior to 2000, the west half of the right-of-way was within the Village of Addison; the east

half was in the Village of Lombard. To facilitate development activity on the Grant

Property and to ensure that the right-of-way was under sole Village control, the Villages

entered into an inter-governmental agreement that ultimately provided for the

de-annexation of the Addison portion of the Lombard Road right-of-way and annexation

of the same right-of-way into Lombard

Staff has met with numerous developers regarding development options for the site. As

this property is the largest single tract of non-residential land left in the Village, staff has

considered the property to be critical to the Village's future economic development

activities outlined the various development concepts acceptable to staff.

Staff has been working closely with a prospective developer to effectuate the

development of the Grant Property and our efforts have focused upon making the

project economically viable while ensuring that the development enhances the adjacent

industrial park and the Village overall. The purpose of the workshop is to discuss the

unique development challenges associated with the site, inform the members of the

activities being undertaken by staff and then solicit the comments of the Commissioners

about the development options for the site.

Mr. Heniff then referred to an aerial photograph and indicated the location of the Grant

Property, the surrounding land uses and business, as well as the boundaries between

Addison and Lombard.

The current developer has uncovered that Lombard Road has now started to naturally

revert to a wetland. Regardless whether this developer or the Village decides to use this

property, there will be a wetland issue that needs to be addressed.

The developer has submitted three development scenarios to the Village for comments

and review which were attached as exhibits to the staff memorandum. All scenarios

have the following common elements/issues which include, right of way improvements,

outside storage, wetland outlot parcel, stormwater detention, use of property, building

aesthetics and parking/circulation.

Mr. Heniff briefly described each of the three concept plans:

Exhibit 1 includes a single 200,000 square foot warehouse building. The plan includes a

truck dock for 48 trailers as well as 82 spaces for outdoor truck trailer spaces.

Cumulatively, this plan provides for at least 130 truck trailer spaces on the site. A

warehouse/distribution facility may be acceptable but a cartage facility would not be

desired by staff.

Exhibit 2 includes two buildings. This plan would require an additional conditional use

approval as it would provide for more than one principal building on a lot of record. If the

lot was subdivided as conceptually shown on the plan, it would require further relief as

the northern lot would not have any frontage on a public street. Moreover, building

setback and landscape relief would also be required for perimeter yards.

The Village previously approved non-residential developments with shared private

driveways or access roads. Over time, the Village's experience is that these driveways

fall into disrepair and were not properly maintained. Moreover, from a property

maintenance perspective, it is difficult to proceed with enforcement action as these

driveways are frequently within a common ownership or ownership is separate from the

tenants occupying the premises. As such, the Village has spent substantial capital

funds taking over private driveways, re-establishing public rights-of-way and undertaking

capital improvements to bring these drives up to an acceptable standard. This was the

case in the recently improved St. Regis Drive/Northlake Drive project. Should this

option be pursued, the companion development agreement will need to address the

issues of shared access, circulation and maintenance.

Exhibit 3 includes three buildings. In addition to the comments above, staff believes that

this plan needs substantial modifications to the access, circulation and parking plan.

Staff finds that the lack of connectivity between various lots and the awkward design of

the parking/loading areas for Building 3 is not desirable. Also, Building 2 has an unusual

access door configuration that may not meet turning template requirements. Each

building will need emergency access from at least three sides of the building. Staff has

shared its comments on this plan with the developer and they are going to refine their

plan to address staff's comments.

Mr. Heniff stated that staff is looking at creating a development agreement to create a

planned development for the site to address these issues with possible deviations from

the setback along the west (in order not to create nonconformities from a reversion),

landscaping plantings, lighting, and signage. Staff will work through the details but want

the Commissioners thoughts to ensure that staff is heading in the right direction.

In conclusion, Mr. Heniff mentioned working with Jonathon Malm, who was in the

audience and DuPage County to make it a viable project with the three concept

proposals.

General comments and concerns of the Commissioners were as follows:

1. The ability to rent three smaller buildings as in Plan #3 versus one large building in

Plan #1 should they become vacant

2. Types of construction for the proposed buildings.

3. Additional parking may be required and traffic my be increased as the number of

buildings increase.

4. Questioned the use/need for overflow parking on the ComEd right-of-way since the

parking would be tied into the principal use.

5. The opportunity for building Plans 2 or 3 from an economic development perspective.

6. On Plan #3 is there enough room for a fire truck to maneuver?

Commissioner Sweetser asked for clarification on what types of responses staff was

looking for. Mr. Heniff answered that staff recommends creating a development

agreement, vacating Lombard Road, and the Grant Property extended to be "Alabama

shaped" and the right of way incorporated into the subject property, create a planned

development, improve Lombard Road with a cul-de-sac.

The Commissioners then unanimously agreed with a planned development concept.

Mr. Heniff then asked the Commissioners if they would feel comfortable approving the

three site plans with flexibility having assurances from the Village that we get what we

want.

General comments and concerns of the Commissioners were as follows:

1. Reservations about having big box type of building and putting all your eggs into one

basket

2. The availability of tenants for these type of buildings will be available

3. If a private road is involved, will it accommodate and withstand larger truck traffic.

4. Want to eliminate as much truck traffic as possible.

Mr. Heniff mentioned that staff could create a unique list and call out the permitted,