Village of Lombard Legistar System

President Mueller called Trustee O'Brien and Community Relations Committee Member

Pam Bedard to the front to present the Medal of Character Excellence to the Glenbard

East Student Council. President Lydia Spaho, Treasurer Jill Prophet and Class

President Pecky Arndt were called up to the front of the Board Room. It was noted that

there are 48 members of Student Council, but not all could be present. For the past six

years, the Student Council has donated proceeds from homecoming and dodge ball

games to the First Church First Things First Program for baby needs. The Student

Council is under the direction of Jim Carter and Phil Zema.

President Lydia Spaho spoke stating they had raised over $2,000 for a family whose

mother had cancer.

President Mueller stated he has worked with the Student Council over the years during

Student Government Day at the Village. He talked about their diligence at getting up at

5:00 a.m. to be at school by 7:00a.m. for various meetings.

President Spaho indicated she has 5-6 classes, plus is on the yearbook staff and has

other extracurricular activities.

President Mueller introduced Glenbard East teachers Jim Carter and Phil Zema. He

noted that it was Jim Carter's birthday and Mr. Carter had left a birthday party at his

home to attend the Board meeting.

Trustee Tross commented on the Lombard Juniors fund-raising event for the TLC

Camp. He stated the Lombard Juniors wanted to express gratitude to the Village, the

Park District, and the residents. He stated the Board was well represented.

Trustee Gron presented tokens to the Board members who could not attend the event

including Bill Mueller, Steve Sebby and Ken Florey.

President Mueller indicated he was sorry that he had been unable to attend the

fundraising event. He stated that the TLC Camp had been sponsored for 20+ years.

They bring in 100 children affected with cancer and their siblings and host a week-long

event. He stated people come from all over the Chicagoland area. He stated the TLC

Camp is a tremendous project in Lombard. He stated if you attend the TLC camp and

meet these children, your heart melts. He thanked the Lombard Junior Woman's Club

for all that they do. He said the kids have such a great time, they do not want to go

home. He stated the camp is normally held the middle of June.

President Mueller stated the Village was featured on the 190 North Show recently. He

noted Janet Davies was in the Village for two days with her crew taping for the program.

He stated the latest edition of West Suburban Living magazine focused on Lombard with

a ten-page article about the Village.

Trustee Gron stated the Committee had met and discussed the refuse collection. He

reported that the collection of recyclables at the Recycling Extravaganza was up from

527 tons in 2005 to 469 tons in 2006 and the non-recyclables were up from 1154 tons in

2005 to 1233 tons in 2006. Recycling collection had increased 34%. The gym shoe

collection will begin on April 23 and a collection box will be placed in the front lobby. He

stated that the Clean Air Program was discussed at the last DuPage Mayors Meeting.

He attended the DuPage Water Commission meeting on Saturday and was impressed

with the amount of work and effort the members had done. He felt that the DWC will

have problems with collar counties wanting to share Lake Michigan Water. The next

meeting of the Environmental Concerns Committee will be March 27 at 7:30 p.m.

President Mueller stated he was the Vice-Chairperson of the DuPage Water

Commission. He stated there was an adequate supply of water, but that everyone

needs to look at conservation for the summer. He stated we all need to protect the

resources that we have.

of PC 06-27 for the DuPage Theatre Property at 101-125 S. Main Street.

He stated that included in the Board's packet was the Plan Commission summary of the

testimony presented at the November 20, 2006 and February 19, 2007 Plan

Commission meetings with a recommendation of approval of the petition in part as well

as two staff reports and the petitioner's submitted plans.

The petitioner is seeking approval of a number of zoning actions in order to facilitate the

proposed mixed-use residential, commercial and theatre development.

The first request is to approve a conditional use for a planned development. The Zoning

Ordinance encourages planned developments where appropriate and requires planned

developments within the underlying B5 District for new developments when the proposal

does not meet all of the underlying zoning provisions.

Within their planned development request, they are seeking approval of a number of

actions, based upon the submitted plans. I will explain each one of these requests and

offer the companion discussion of each of these items by the Plan Commission.

A deviation from Section 155.416 (G) to allow for an increase in the maximum building

height from 45 feet to 48 feet;

The existing building will remain at two stories for the existing retail commercial and

theatre entrance areas. The new portion of the building will be four stories in height,

which is the maximum number of stories permitted by right within the B5 District. As an

illustration of the petitioner's request, I offer the petitioner's east elevation for

consideration. The red dashed line shows the 45 foot building height limit and the blue

dashed line shows the proposed 48 foot building height. I note that the Zoning

Ordinance formulation of building height does not include parapet walls as they are

architectural embellishments. The proposed parapet peak elements would rise to

approximately 51 feet above grade.

The Plan Commission requested additional information regarding the necessity for the

relief. The petitioner noted that the height request was tied to their desire to provide 9'

high ceiling heights in the residential units as well as to ensure that the commercial store

fronts line up with the existing sidewalk and that the parking structure grades are

satisfied. Ultimately, the Plan Commission recommended approval of this request.

A variation from Section 155.416 (K), Section 155.508 (C) (6) (b) and Section 155.707

(A) (3) to allow for a reduction of the required transitional landscape yard from 10 feet to

5 feet;

The petitioner's request to reduce the transitional yard relates to the east property line

(east is to the top of the graphic). As the graphic illustrates, the Zoning Ordinance

requires a 10' transitional landscape yard. The petitioner is proposing a 5' yard along

the east property line, as shown in light green. The remainder area, which is shown in

dark green with black hatching, is proposed to be used for requisite access and

circulation around the building and will also have a water main located beneath it. This

relief was recommended for approval as it is essential to have proper two-way traffic

around the building and to provide sufficient space for Fire Department access and

set-up areas.

A variation from Section 155.416 (M) and Section 155.602 to allow for a reduction of the

required number of off-street parking spaces for a theater from thirty-seven (37) to zero

(0);

The petitioner is requesting parking relief to not have to provide theatre parking on the

subject property. As the table shows, the petitioner is providing sufficient parking to

meet the code parking requirements for the residential and commercial uses. Overall,

the petitioner is 36 spaces short of the required parking.

Staff did not support the parking variation, and public testimony also raised concerns

regarding this issue. Ultimately, the Plan Commission recommended denial of this

request.

While the request is recommended for denial and if the Board also denies this item, it is

important to note that does not automatically mean that the petition is denied. As the

Board will remember, a text amendment was approved last year (PC 06-09) to allow for

off-site parking for development within the B5 District, provided it is provided under a

long-term lease agreement approved by the Village Board - previously off-site parking

was a conditional use. This amendment was initially envisioned to address the parking

demand for uses and structures within the downtown area, whereby the building or use

takes up almost the entire lot.

In this case, denial of the parking variation would still obligate the petitioner to provide

requisite parking on an adjacent property, with the agreement subject to Village Board

approval. This item will be further discussed by David Hulseberg.

A variation from Section 155.508 (C) (6) (a) to allow for a reduction of the required front

yard for a planned development abutting the R2 Single-Family Residence District from

thirty (30) feet to four (4) feet;

The proposed plan established Parkside Avenue as the front yard. The Zoning

Ordinance allows for the petitioner to determine the front yard, and hence the other

defined yards. In this case, since the property abuts an R2 District, the planned

development requirement mandates that the more restrictive abutting yard requirements

apply to the perimeter of the development as well. In this instance, that would mean that

Parkside Avenue would have to have a 30' front yard setback and a 6' east interior side

yard (versus a 35' rear yard along the east property line if Main Street was considered

the front yard).

As part of the Plan Commission's discussion, they added a condition to their

recommendation that states that the building setback relief meets 80% of the underlying

zoning district requirements. However, upon further discussion with the Commissioners,

they offered additional clarification on their intent. David Hulseberg will offer additional

testimony on this issue.

A variation from Section 155.508 (C) (6) (b) and Section 155.707 (B) (3) to allow for the

elimination of the required transitional landscape yard improvements;

A variation from Section 155.709 (B) to eliminate the requirement to provide one (1)

shade tree for every seventy-five (75) lineal feet of required perimeter lot landscaping;

Both items e and f pertain to the requisite plant materials that are required around the

perimeter of a development. Item e would require a continuous shrub hedge as well as

shade trees every 25 feet. Item f would require parkway trees every 75' around the

perimeter of the lot.

As noted earlier, only 5' of green space would be provided along the east property line.

When one takes into consideration requisite lighting, salt and snow pile considerations,

not to mention the need to provide sufficient space for plants to grow, there is little

benefit to mandate this planting as it is generally unfeasible based upon the submitted

plan. However, as was approved as part of the Big Idea petition in 1999, the Board

supported a concept whereby the developer would provide a cash equivalent to each

affected abutting property owner for the purpose of providing additional landscape

screening. This concept can be supported as it allows each abutter to determine what

elements are most desirable to screen and then select plant materials to achieve the

desired affect.

Staff reviewed the 1999 cash equivalent for the plant materials and applied an inflation

factor. Using this formula, the recommendation is that a contribution of $50.80 per linear

foot (or approximately $3,050 per lot).

2. Approve a conditional use for outdoor dining; and

While definitive plans for the outdoor dining area would be subject to any future tenants

that ultimately occupy the building, a conditional use to allow for an outdoor dining area

is included as part of the petition. The proposed seating area straddles the property

line. If it was located completely within the public right of way, the business owner could

apply for a sidewalk decorations permit which would be permitted by right, subject to

provisions noted within code. In this instance, the proposed seating area may include a

portion of the private property. We note that the area is visually segregated from

adjacent single family residential properties

Staff finds that outdoor dining along Main Street will be a positive addition to the

downtown area consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective of creating a

pedestrian-friendly atmosphere.

3. The petitioner also requests Site Plan Approval authority to the Lombard Plan

Commission.

If in the event the petitioner does receive approval of their request, site plan approval

authority would allow the Plan Commission to review minor changes to the plan as well

as any wall signage relief through the site plan approval process.

Recommendations of Approval

The Plan Commission recommended approval of the petition subject to 10 conditions

noted by staff as well as 2 additional conditions.

The petitioner shall enter into a development agreement with the Village setting forth the

terms and conditions for development on the subject property.

As part of the building permit submittal, the petitioner shall satisfactorily address the

comments included as part of the Inter-Departmental Review Report.

The development shall be constructed in compliance with the plans submitted as part of

this petition. Any modification to the petitioner's plans shall be considered a major

change to the planned development.

In the event there are any conflicts between the building elevations and the interior

building layout, the exterior building elevation shall control. If required by interior

changes of layout, the aesthetic, compositional and material concepts illustrated in the

approved elevation drawings will be adhered to.

No box- or cabinet-style wall signage shall be permitted.

No parking relief shall be granted.

The parking garage lower level shall have a clear ceiling height of no less than nine feet,

with adequate electrical supply provided to serve each lower level parking space.

Through the discussion of the petition with staff, the petitioner introduced a concept that

would provide for vehicle stacking, as shown on this exhibit. The concept is that

residents could use the stacker for their additional vehicles. Staff believes this concept

does have significant merit and should be explored further. While the stackers cannot

be used to meet the Village's parking requirements, it offers great benefit as it could

soften the overall impact of residential parking and may even create a greater float for

guest, visitor and customer parking. As such, the recommendation is to ensure that the

proposed building design accommodates such stacker equipment by providing sufficient

clearance in the parking garage as well as requisite electrical connections to

accommodate stackers in the future.

Lighting on the residential portion of the building shall be shielded so that all illumination

is directed toward the building and away from adjacent properties. Lighting provided for

the drive aisle shall not project higher than eight feet above grade level. Parking

structure lighting shall be directed downward and shall not cast a glare onto adjacent

properties.

An 8-foot solid beige PVC or similar fence shall be installed along the eastern property

line, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development.

In lieu of transitional landscaping improvements, a cash payment of $50.80 per linear

foot shall be paid to the Village within 60 days of the petitioner's acquisition of the

property and prior to the issuance of any building permits. This cash payment shall be

allocated amongst the adjacent property owners to the east of the subject property,

based upon the length of the shared lot lines.

The Plan Commission also added two conditions:

Stormwater detention shall be approved by the Village Engineer and shall be subject to

rigorous scrutiny; and

Based on the testimony at the meeting, the Commissioners wanted to make an

assertive statement relative to the stormwater detention requirement to ensure that no

negative impacts would be created. David Hulseberg will discuss this issue in greater

detail.

The building setbacks shall be at least 80 percent of that required by the Zoning

Trustee Florey questioned the height of the building versus the height of the condos at

Main and Ash.

Planner Heniff stated the building was 48 feet and the ordinance allowed 45 feet and the

condo building was 54 feet with the gable roof at 46-1/2 feet.

Director Hulseberg gave an overview re the parking that had been identified at the

Elmhurst Hospital building and the Bible Church and the parking on Parkside. He spoke

regarding the storm water detention in the vault under the structure that would be rated

for a 100-year event and stated the staff was uncomfortable with that.. He spoke on the

storm water detention that would be located on the property east of the building. He

stated the shoppes would need to be demolished to follow the Plan Commission

recommendation. Visuals were presented. He stated the residents had some

opposition to the size of the structure. Director Hulseberg also indicated that the staff

memo was incorrect where it noted "with" and it should have been noted as "without".

Trustee Florey questioned the parcel to the east and if that needed to be referred to the

Plan Commission.

Director Hulseberg stated re notification to the Plan Commission was needed.

Trustee Florey questioned some flooding issues on Charlotte.

Director Hulseberg stated there would not be any sheeting to the neighbors with the

detention.

President Mueller stated he had met with Trustees Gron and Soderstrom, Director

Hulseberg and Developer Curto regarding the stormwater. He further stated that

discussed "softening" of the project.

Trustee Soderstrom stated that the stormwater had been discussed and the merits of

the vault were a major part of the discussion. He stated the parcel of land was under

contract.

Trustee Tross spoke regarding the parking and the 180-day lease of the property versus

a permanent lease. He commented on the Parkside parking and questioned the day

parking at the lot. He also questioned Metra and the parking.

Director of Finance Flood stated the parking along Parkside was partially Metra and

partially the Village.

Trustee Tross questioned if Metra can come back to the Village regarding the parking.

Manager Lichter indicated the lease would need to be checked.

President Mueller indicated it was the same agreement as on McGuire Drive.

Director Hulseberg indicated there are 98 spaces.

Trustee Tross questioned the parking for the 126 condo units.

Director Hulseberg stated the deck parking had been changed and the back 150 feet of

the lot on Charlotte for water retention would be used.

Trustee Florey felt that the revised plan should be referred to the Plan Commission and

that with the changes the plan should not be approved until the Plan Commission had

reviewed the revised plan.

Trustee Tross felt the new evidence needed to be presented for changes.

Developer Curto made a presentation of the proposed development. He indicated he

had invested about $400,000 in the project. He indicated they had a lease with

Elmhurst Hospital for parking. He stated the theater would be owned by a not-for-profit

organization. He spoke regarding the stormwater detention vault that was to be under

the retail area. He stated that he had an option to purchase a lot behind the property for

the stormwater detention. He stated once the Board approved the project, the letter of

intent to purchase would move forward. He indicated he was willing to relocate twelve

condo units from the back southeast section of the development to the front of the

building and this would allow 36 feet of relief and look nine feet shorter. He talked about

saving the theater and providing a cultural arts center for the community. The

developers showed aerial views and panoramic views of each angle of the project.

Trustee Soderstrom questioned if there was a letter of intent or a contract.

President Mueller indicated the seller had signed a letter of intent and they were just

waiting for direction from the Village Board.

Trustee Soderstrom questioned putting the units above the retail space.

Developer Coffey indicated they would need to reduce the facade and rebuild part of the

black box area.

Trustee Florey felt that moving the twelve units from the Charlotte side to the front was a

positive move. He stated the Plan Commission had already given a positive

recommendation and that reducing the height at the back of the building was also

positive. He felt the Plan Commission needed to review the project again and voting on

it at this time was not proper.

Developer Coffey indicated the floor plan would be about the same.

Trustee Gron requested that the item be referred back to the Plan Commission.

Trustee Tross questioned the stormwater and moving the vault.

Developer Curto stated the allowance for the storm water retention cost would need to

be out into the new parcel.

Trustee Tross questioned digging for the vault, but not for the parking and the cost

either way. He questioned the parking deck between the two buildings and the patio

effect.

Developer Curto stated the landscape was around the black box.

Trustee Tross indicated they were limited and the building was literally gutted.

Developer Curto indicated the steel pip columns are currently there.

Trustee Tross questioned if they were going to use steel columns to reconstruct.

Developer Coffey stated rework would be needed.

Trustee Tross questioned if the geometric walls would need to be pinned and if new

flooring and roof rafters were needed.

Developer Coffey stated they would examine the joists and replace those that needed to

be replaced.

Trustee Tross questioned if additional demolition would be needed.

Developer Coffey stated there are one or two options.

Trustee Tross questioned the 2,480 foot black box room.

Trustee O'Brien felt there was a new project every time the Board turned around and the

cost had escalated. He stated he was disappointed in how the project was going.

Trustee Tross questioned various aspects of the DuPage Theater building including new

construction, the existing building, pillars, no floor joists, no flooring, and the inside being

gutted.

Developer Daniel Coffey stated they would keep the lobby in place with the steel pipe

columns that are currently in the building holding up the wood floor and also hold up the

roof. He stated this was lightweight construction and only two stories high. The four

stories would be concrete and fireproof.

Trustee Tross questioned the construction mode and the use of steel columns, the

reconstruction of the flooring on the second floor and questioned if that had to be

reconstructed.

Developer Coffey stated they would be reworking that area.

Trustee Tross questioned if at some point during reconstruction would they need to pin

the masonry walls and put in new floors and new roof rafters.

Developer Coffey stated the second floor joists are there.

President Mueller indicated this questioning should be handled by the Plan Commission

and at the plan review level.

Trustee Tross questioned if additional surgical removal would be necessary to facilitate

the reconstruction.

Developer Coffey stated they would need to review the plans as revised moving the

twelve units from the southeast to the front of the building and doing that may require

the removal of one wall. He stated he was not certain.

Trustee Tross questioned the 2,480 feet stating that it was one-third larger.

President Mueller stated the total area was 11,000 square feet.

Trustee O'Brien stated the new projects are being delayed and questioned what we are

paying for this project.

Trustee Sebby questioned changing the proposal and stated the developer should

submit the proposal at a later date.

President Mueller stated he had received a letter from Mr. Wheeler of the Illinois Historic

Preservation Agency supporting the theater proposal. He stated that letters had been

received from Pate Phillip, Virginia Lipping and John Egan in support of the theater. He

also stated he had a stack of e-mails that had been sent. He requested residents who

wished to speak during Public Participation to keep their comments to three minutes.

Barbara Alvarado, 1008 S. Lewis, spoke in favor of the DuPage Theater and the RSC

plan with conditions. She felt the Village Board had taken everyone on a roller coaster

ride of time, money and countless hours spent pouring over the plans. She mentioned

the $400,000 that Developer Curto had put into the project. She commented on how the

Friends of the Theatre had agreed in good faith to the surgical removal of part of the

theater to keep the momentum going on the project and to make the plans more

palatable to the Village Board. She felt the Board had gone back on its word to the

Friends of the Theater.

Gary Anderson, 140 S. Charlotte, questioned if this was the appropriate development for

that corner. He was in favor of a cultural center, but questioned the condominiums. He

did ask that any development that was to go in at that location be done so according to

Code.

Raymond Bartels, 813 E. Maple, felt the project had gone on too long with too many

changes.

Joan Bry, 136 S. Charlotte, stated she had moved to that home two years ago and was

renovating the house. She spoke about the six thirty-foot trees in her yard and the

three-story building behind the trees. She stated the houses have large yards. She

questioned the large trees in the rendering of the project.

President Mueller stated there would be no removal of any trees.

Bob Difino, 166 S. Charlotte, stated the residents know that something large is going to

be built on that location. He stated he is a four-year resident and he has never seen a

town so torn apart. He felt there had been a lot of wasted time and money. He stated

the building was half-demolished. He spoke about stacking cars, the Parkside parking,

and the parking at the Elmhurst Memorial Hospital lot.

Deb Dynako, 125 S. Craig, talked about bringing arts to the community and that she was

pursing this plan with the same vigor. She talked about historic value of the building and

how this would make the community a better place. She felt it was beyond logic to

destroy the historic building and that the Friends of the Theater had painfully agreed in

good faith to the demolition of the 1928 auditorium theater. She talked about the vision

of downtown Lombard and how the DuPage Theater project would be the cornerstone

for downtown. She stated it would be the bridge between the past and the future and

would be inspirational to the community. She talked about the Strategic Plan and the

Plan Commission's approval of the project. She talked about a $40 million project for

downtown Lombard using an historically-significant building.

John Egan, 342 S. Elizabeth, stated he has been a resident of Lombard for 58 years.

He stated this project has been discussed and negotiated for many years and that the

project is alive. He stated when you are dealing with the second most important corner

in the Village, that people should not be concerned about the time it takes. He felt the

residents needed to be heard. He stated the Plan Commission members agreed with

what was the most significant project to come before the Plan Commission and

downtown Lombard. He talked about young people being concerned about time and

wanting to move ahead, but felt time was not an issue. He stated he moved to a similar

area at 58 Orchard Terrace years ago with the lights of the baseball field, police cars

going and coming all night from the old Village Hall. He stated Main Street was a

narrow street, Finley Road was gravel south of Roosevelt Road, Main Street did not go

south of Westlake School and the markers said there were 9,000 people in Lombard.

He said we should listen to one another and asked residents to be polite of another

person's opinion. He spoke of his appointment to the DuPage Theater Committee

years ago and how it spoke in his appointment letter of a challenging and interesting

appointment. He felt the Village should not walk away from a project that could improve

downtown Lombard and that is what this project is all about. He spoke about the historic

value of the theater and how it did not matter how many variances should be granted or

not granted. He asked the Trustees consider the benefits to downtown Lombard.

Village President Mueller noted that a letter had been received from Dan Cronin

supporting the theater.

Kevin Fitzpatrick, 348 S. Lewis, thanked John Egan for all of his work. He questioned if

the minds of the trustees were open or if they had made up their minds to give up the

theater. He reminded the Board about the referendum that had been passed. He talked

about the revitalization of downtown Lombard and saving an historic treasure to be

used as a cultural center with upscale retail in Lombard. He talked about Lombard

being a Main Street Community and how the Lombard Town Centre would benefit from

the project. He talked about the economic engine of the community and the

redevelopment of this area. He spoke former Trustee Joan DeStephano and her love of

the theater and how it would be the soul of the community.

Mary Ann Eastman, 110 S. Charlotte, stated that the residents realize a development

will go there, but did not concur with the height of the building. She spoke about an

article in the Daily Herald that noted only 60% of the condos were filled. She also spoke

about flooding on Main Street at the viaduct, small children in the area and parking on

Charlotte.

President Mueller referred to himself as a Cheerleader for the Village. He stated the

article in the Herald stated that 60% of the condos were sold even before they were

completed and that Lombard was the leading community in condo sales out of all the

communities listed. He stated this was not a negative article, but a positive article for

Lombard. Lombard had the highest sale of condominiums of any town.

Elizabeth Gelman, Lombard Town Centre, 102 W. St. Charles Road, restated the

opinion of the Town Centre and the importance of this project to downtown Lombard,

keeping the integrity of the area, the Main Street Community designation and saving the

theater.

Brad Janisch, 109 S. Charlotte, felt the site should be razed and the Village then seek

other developers. He stated the corner is the cornerstone of the future for Lombard. He

applauded the developer.

Pete Kramer, 272 E. Taylor, stated the preservation of the DuPage Theater is the

longest citizen effort known. He stated more residents had spoken about the project

than on any other issue. He has been supporting the theater preservation for twenty

years and opposition is a small fraction of the people. He commented about Doug

Christensen supporting the theater restoration since 1978. He joined in the theater

support in 1987. He noted the theater is on the National Register of Historic Places and

that the committee had unanimously voted on the submission of the theater to the

National Register. He spoke regarding the renewed campaign to save the theater in

1998 and the countless hours and dollars that had been given, and the massive human

efforts that had been made because it is the right thing to do. He stated many towns

had successfully saved their theaters. He stated the Village was so close and this was

one more hoop to jump through. He commented on the developer being one of the

finest developers and he was willing to invest over $30 million in downtown Lombard.

He talked about the prestigious architect devoting so much time and effort in the project,

not to mention the money invested. He stated you can drive down North Avenue or

Roosevelt Road and you will not see anything beautiful or unique, but that this theater

project would be beautiful and unique. He inquired about any historic buildings in

Lombard other than the Maple Street Chapel and Lilacia Park, He stated the theater

can never be duplicated. He asked the Board to make a serious commitment to

Lombard Pride and asked them not to let greed and selfishness destroy this unique

treasure.

Robert Kud, 584 S. Finley, life-long resident, indicated this was a tough issue. He stated

he had many great memories of the theater. He talked about the $9 million in TIF

money. He thanked RSC for attempting to meet all the codes and the parking concerns.

He felt the parking was a big concern and felt when there was a big event, parking

would spill out onto Charlotte.

Rosalie Loeding, 2600 S. Finley #3701, indicated she had lived at Beacon Hill for two

years and that she is very much interested in politics and the cultural part of the

downtown. She stated she loved the theater and after all these years wondered why the

issue was being revisited. She spoke about the theater being built by a famous architect

whose father now lives at Beacon Hill. She spoke about the downtown vision and that

the vision was included in this project. She stated she wondered what the hurry was to

do something drastic before the new Board was in place. She stated the new Board

may want to proceed with the plans on the theater and felt it was presumptuous for the

current Board to destroy the theater at this time. She felt the variances were not

insurmountable and questioned if there had not been many variances for the convention

center. She commented on the fact that the stormwater issues had been addressed

and questioned if the current Board destroys the theater, was the land going to become

a park. She questioned if new construction would be as appropriate to the area and felt

the theater had historic significance. She commented about Lombard having something

different, interesting and an anchor for the downtown. She felt there was a lot of support

for the project and questioned pulling the rug out from under the project. She felt the

developer was addressing all the issues that had been brought up. She felt delays in

re-addressing all the issues that had already been addressed and resolved would be

more costly and time-consuming. She stated she did not feel some of the trustees had

been honest with her.

President Mueller stated that it was nice to hear from a resident of Beacon Hill.

Dawn Lovetere, 120 and 124 S. Charlotte, spoke regarding the drainage issue, the

traffic, the building being too close and too large. She stated she was not against the

theater, but felt it was too large.

Dana Moreau, 116 N. Charlotte, stated she had received 300 responses to the theater

survey she had sent out. she stated she had not seen any other viable plans on the

table for the property and did not feel starting over was wise. She talked about history

repeating itself.

Brad Stein, 167 S. Finley, thanked the Board. He said he had two daughters that are

aspiring actresses. He commented about cultural awareness in the community. He

applauded various projects like the downtown lighting and the train station, but felt that

Lombard needed continued growth felt the Village should support the arts. He talked

about the blood, sweat and tears that have gone into the project and the excellent

opportunity. He felt compromises could be made. He spoke about having to go to other

communities for various functions to see his daughters perform and how nice it would be

to have a cultural arts center in downtown Lombard. He felt this was a great opportunity

for kids and adults. He felt the theater was an important architectural icon and the

Village should move forward on the project. He felt the theater would provide long

lasting memories for everyone.

Penny Arnold, 527 Washington, stated she was at home watching the meeting on

television, but felt compelled to come in and speak. She stated the developer has

addressed the height issue and continued to address other issues that have arisen.

She stated she supports the redevelopment of the theater property. She stated that the

auditorium which is a significant portion of the theater is sill there and that everyone has

worked long and hard to see this project through. She stated compromises have been

made. She felt this was history and she did not feel the current Village Board should

squander all the work that it taken to get to this point. She asked the Village Board to

see this project through to completion. She asked the Village Board to refer this back to

the Plan Commission if they could not vote to move forward.

Laura Fitzpatrick, 348 S. Lewis, distributed stacks of cards that had been completed at

least year's Taste of Lombard regarding the theater. She talked about the amount of

time that had been spent to get this project to its current status.

President Mueller thanked everyone. He noted that Trustee Florey had mentioned

referring this back to the Plan Commission and asked if there was a motion.

Trustee Gron felt the revised plan should be referred back to the Plan Commission.

Trustee Soderstrom indicated he has been involved in this project for three years and

that the petitioner has a right to resubmit.

Trustee Florey stressed the importance of the RSC plan and talked about sending it

back to the Plan Commission. He stated the Village Board made a major commitment

when part of the theater was torn down. He talked about the latest proposal, saving the

shops and the facade and constructing a new theater. He talked about the money that

had been spent. He felt that to proceed with demolition of the building was

unconscionable. He indicated it would take another 1-1/2 years to get another

developer and to be in the same position they were in. He stated the Village had been

sitting on the site for over a decade. He also said that the Village had $1 million in TIF

money waiting. He questioned how the Board was going to replace those funds. He

asked the Village Board members to carefully consider this request and not to breech

the trust you have made.

Trustee Gron stated that there are often changes to proposals in development as

concepts change, projects change. Changes are made to satisfy issues as they arise in

any development with regard to density, height, retail business, setbacks, etc. He

stated this plan has been tweaked for two years. The Village has established a Town

Centre and has a Main Street Program in place. He felt proceeding with the theater

proposal was a positive move and he was not in favor killing the RSC plan. He felt there

was too much at stake.

c. A variation from Section 155.416 (M) and Section 155.602 to allow for a reduction

of the required number of off-street parking spaces for a theater from thirty-seven (37)

to zero (0);

d. A variation from Section 155.508 (C) (6) (a) to allow for a reduction of the required

front yard for a planned development abutting the R2 Single-Family Residence District

from thirty (30) feet to four (4) feet;

e. A variation from Section 155.508 (C) (6) (b) and Section 155.707 (B) (3) to allow

for the elimination of the required transitional landscape yard improvements;

f. A variation from Section 155.709 (B) to eliminate the requirement to provide one

(1) shade tree for every seventy-five (75) lineal feet of required perimeter lot

landscaping; and

2. Approve a conditional use for outdoor dining; and

3. The petitioner also requests Site Plan Approval authority to the Lombard Plan

Commission. (DISTRICT #4)

Attorney Bayer stated if a motion to approve the RSC plan is made, that item 12 setback

from Parkside should be removed.

President Mueller indicated if the Village Board is going to consider the storm water

detention as proposed, the proposal would need to be sent back to the Plan

Commission.

Director Hulseberg stated item 12 should be deleted if sent back to the Plan

Commission.

Attorney Bayer stated if there is a motion to approve, it should be absolute concurrence

with the Plan Commission. He stated that the setback of 80% off of Parkside was

misstated by the Plan Commission and that was inaccurate. The motion should be

exclusive of #12.

President Mueller questioned referring the item back to the Plan Commission.

Trustee Florey questioned Developer Coffey regarding water detention.

Developer Coffey clarified.

Trustee Tross stated the Village had accepted the theater as a gift.

Trustee Florey re-stated that the Plan Commission had sent the Village Board a

recommendation.

Trustee Gron indicated that he could not support the denial of all action on this item.

Trustee Florey stated the Plan Commission had sent the Village Board a

recommendation and felt the Village Board was creating problems by not sending this

proposal back to the Plan Commission for further consideration.

Trustee Gron indicated nothing good will come from this vote and stated he could not

support the denial of the proposal and not sending it back to the Plan Commission.

President Mueller stated that the developer has come back with all positive changes to

the project in an effort to address all issues that have arisen. He stated the developer

has worked hard with staff to address the issues and the changes are an improvement

to the project. He stated Trustees Soderstrom and Gron had met with RSC on

Saturday and he had met with the developer the last night. He said it will take 120-180

days to receive a positive Request for Proposal which would take the Village Board to

January or February of 2008 by the time they reviewed the RFP's. He stated there was

a request to put a parking garage at that location and that will not happen. He stated

the developer and staff had made great strides by addressing the issues that had been

raised. He suggested taking the current proposal and fine-tuning it and that would have

a project underway this year. A new project would be at least one or two years away.

He felt it made sense for the community. He agreed that the proposal could go back to

the Plan Commission for fine-tuning.

Trustee Tross questioned interested parties.

Trustee Sebby did not approve of selective demolition.

Trustee Gron inquired if the Railroad Museum would pick up the cost.

Trustee Tross stated he would accommodate the historic preservation and would

change his motion.

Trustee Sebby questioned the timeframe and wanted Henneghen to move forward as

soon as possible.

Attorney Bayer stated it takes more than ten days.

Trustee Florey requested a change order for the preservation of the facade.

Trustee Tross stated to give them as much time as needed as the contractor does not

want to be an outside storage. He commented we should move forward and pull the

community together.

Trustee Florey requested the Board to declare the facade pieces as surplus.

Attorney Bayer stated declaring the facade as surplus must be done by ordinance. He

stated that it can not be added to the meeting as it was not published and needs to be

voted on by the Board. The ordinance can go in effect as soon as it is voted on.

Trustee Tross withdrew motion.

Trustee Soderstrom questioned allowing another entity to be allowed to take any of the

surplus property.

Trustee Florey stated the ability for someone to come in and take pieces will have

logistics.

Trustee Soderstrom stated he did not want this to drag on.

President Mueller inquired about notifying the Railroad Museum.

Attorney Bayer stated the Railroad Museum can be contacted.

Fire Chief Seagraves stated that no demolition can occur until after ten days after the

Illinois EPA has received the letter.

Trustee Sebby questioned the status of the structure and expressed safety concerns.

He stated the structure has the barrier fence around it, but feels it is a potential safety

issue.

Chief Seagraves stated there was no issue regarding the building and no condition that

has arisen that would necessitate any immediate action. He stated the most

deteriorated parts of the building had been demolished and the area is barricaded and

the gates locked.

Trustee O'Brien questioned saving anything else.