Plan Commission
Village of Lombard
Meeting Minutes
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Rocco Melarkey |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
7:30 PM
Village Hall
Monday, December 19, 2005
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. |
He announced for the seated audience that this meeting is not the Special Board of |
Trustees meeting which is currently being held across the hall. For the viewing |
audience expecting to see the Special Board meeting televised, it will be taped delayed |
and broadcasted immediately after this program. |
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Sondra Zorn and |
Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Commissioner Rocco Melarkey
Absent:
Also in attendance: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; and George Wagner, legal |
counsel to the Plan Commission. |
050696
D. PC 05-44: 710 N. Main Street (Waiver of First Requested) |
Associated with a previous approval of a conditional use for a religious institution |
(Ordinance 5075), the petitioner requests approval of a variation from Section 155.212, |
Table 2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a central air-conditioning system to be |
located within a corner side yard in the R2 Single Family Residence District. Staff is |
requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #1) |
Chairperson Ryan indicated that the petitioner has requested that this petition be |
continued to the next Plan Commission meeting. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be continued to the January 23, 2006 Plan Commission meeting. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Melarkey
1 -
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda. He mentioned that the petitioner for PC |
05-39 gave staff a letter granting permission to conduct the petition on his behalf. |
Mr. Heniff read the rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws.
A member of the audience asked why the church petition (PC 05-44) was being |
continued. Mr. Heniff stated that the plans the church submitted were incorrectly drawn |
and the petitioner therefore requested that it be continued to the next Plan Commission |
meeting. |
Public Hearings
050653
G. PC 05-39: 19W555 Roosevelt Road (2 Ordinances on Second Reading) |
Requests that the Village take the following actions on the property: |
1. Ordinance annexing the property; and |
2. Ordinance approving a map amendment rezoning the property from the R1 Single |
Family Residence District to the B3 Community Shopping District. |
(UNINCORPORATED) |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition and the staff report. He noted that |
the petitioner submitted a letter to the file that authorized Village staff to present the |
petition on their behalf. |
Mr. Heniff stated that the subject property is improved with a sit-down restaurant and |
banquet facility. Upon a request by the Village, the petitioner is seeking annexation. |
The companion rezoning to the B3 District is requested so that the underlying zoning |
reflects the commercial nature of the Roosevelt Road corridor. No improvements to the |
property are proposed as part of the annexation/rezoning petition. |
Mr. Heniff noted that restaurants and banquet hall facilities are listed as permitted uses |
within the B3 District. The subject property meets all of the setback requirements. |
Recognizing that the use was deficient in parking for large-scale banquet activities, |
DuPage County granted parking island landscape relief in the 1990s to provide for |
additional parking. The lack of parking lot landscaping and the deficiency in parking |
spaces on-site would be classified as legal non-conforming. However, staff notes that |
as the use is a mix of two restaurant activities (i.e., 50% of their use is restaurant and |
50% is banquet hall), the actual code requirement may overstate the actual parking |
demand for the site. |
The Long-Range Plan Map of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property |
be used for community commercial uses, consistent with the proposed rezoning to the |
B3 Community Commercial District. The B3 zoning designation would ensure that any |
change in use would be compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the |
Comprehensive Plan. The restaurant/banquet hall land use is consistent with other retail |
and restaurant uses along Roosevelt Road. An existing cross-access easement |
between the subject property and the Walgreen's property to the west provides for |
efficient traffic flow between properties. Staff finds that the existing restaurant use does |
not create negative impacts on surrounding land uses. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no |
comments in favor or in opposition to the proposal. Chairperson Ryan opened the |
public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan Commission. |
Commissioner Olbrysh confirmed that this petition is just for a map amendment to |
rezone the property into a commercial district upon annexation, so he has no problem |
with the request. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Melarkey
1 -
050654
H. PC 05-42: 218 and 226 West. St. Charles Road (3 Ordinances on Second |
Reading) (Request to Continue to March 2, 2006) |
Requests that the following actions be taken on the subject property: |
A. For the property at 218 West St. Charles Road: |
1. Approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map to designate the property |
for Community Commercial uses within the Central Business District area; and |
2. Approve a map amendment rezoning the property from the R6 Central Residence |
District to the B5 Central Business District. |
B. For the properties at 218 and 226 West St. Charles Road (i.e., the Subject Property): |
1. Approve a conditional use for a planned development with the following variations |
and deviations: |
a. A deviation from Section 155.416 (G) to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a |
maximum building height of fifty-two feet (to provide for an architectural tower element), |
where a maximum of forty-five feet (45') is permitted; |
b. A deviation from Section 155.416 (J) and variations from Sections 155.508 (C)(6) |
(a) and (b) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a reduction in the thirty foot (30') |
planned development perimeter and twenty foot (20') transitional building setbacks to six |
feet (6') along the rear (east) property line; |
c. A deviation from Section 155.416 (K) and a variation from Section 155.508 (C)(6) |
(b) and 155.707 (A)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a reduction in the transitional |
landscape setback from ten feet (10') to one foot (1'); |
d. A variation from Section 155.508(C)(6)(a) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to |
allow for a 1-foot front and corner side yard setback on the perimeter of a planned |
development where a 30-foot front and/or corner side yard is required in the abutting R2 |
Single Family Residence and R6 General Residence Districts respectively; |
e. A variation from Section 155.602, Table 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a |
reduction of the requisite parking spaces from 46 to 42 spaces during Phase I of the |
development; (as the revised plan meets code this request has been withdrawn). |
f. A deviation from Section 153.506(B)(18)(c) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow |
for an increase in the total number of permitted wall signs, where one wall sign per |
street front exposure is permitted. |
g. A variation from Sections 155.707 (B)(3)(a) through (d) of the Zoning Ordinance |
pertaining to transitional landscape and fence requirements; |
h. A variation from Section 155.602 (A)(10)(d)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for |
a reduction in the minimum and average foot-candle intensity requirements for parking |
lots; and |
i. A use exception to allow less than fifty percent (50%) of the area of the ground floor |
to be devoted to uses permitted in the B5 Central Business District |
2. Approve a conditional use from Section 155.416(C)(13) to allow for an outdoor |
service (dining) area. |
3. Grant Site Plan Approval authority to the Lombard Plan Commission. |
C. Approve a development agreement for the subject property. (To be considered with |
the second reading of the ordinances). (DISTRICT #1) |
Prior to the start of the testimony period, Commissioner Zorn noted that as she was not |
at the last Plan Commission meeting, she would abstain from voting on the petition. |
Presenting the petition was Dave Sanders of HPD Cambridge, 41 S. Old Orchard, |
Webster Grove, Missouri. Mr. Sanders stated that the day after the November Plan |
Commission meeting, they met with staff to identify where and how they could address |
the points that were raised. They concentrated on the topic of parking and made some |
decisions to try and bring the Phase I portion into compliance with code by removing |
ground floor retail space. They talked about the landscape buffers around the property. |
Staff met with some of the adjacent property owners to discuss options and alternatives. |
The presentation is the feedback of preferences and thoughts from the property owners. |
They have not had the opportunity to speak directly to them but they would like to look |
with them on site as to how the property lines work out. |
They showed another PowerPoint presentation. They showed a revised site plan |
depicting where modifications were made. They are pulling the parking area back to the |
required 10' buffer distance along 26 N. Lincoln. They are proposing a fence line and |
landscaping treatment. Just below that, there is a tree on the property line. A |
suggestion was made to run fence around the tree and create some sort of agreement |
on how to maintain the tree and if they use a system of brick pier and wood fencing |
between, there is no reason the tree should not survive. But if it doesn't they will take it |
down. |
Along Mr. Dwyer's property line, the fence is moved back toward their parking area to |
create a landscape area. There is discussion about the wall being some form of |
masonry with Mr. Dwyer having a vote on aesthetics so it is compatible with the deck he |
is planning to build. There are concerns about the tree roots but if something happens |
to the trees they will be responsible for taking it down. |
He identified on the plan the relocation of the proposed dumpster. They will build an |
enclosure to minimize the smell and to make the area more attractive. |
He then showed a revised plan showing the removal of some of their common area to |
pick up 2-3 more parking spaces, so that the project will meet code requirements. Some |
of the retail will also taken out to add another 5-7 parking spaces. When they get to |
Phase II they will be in excess and will be able to meet all parking requirements for all |
uses. |
He then summarized the changes - |
1. Site lighting - underneath the building, the lighting can be handled as recessed |
lighting up in the soffit so that the light source will not be visible and light the parking |
surface only. All lighting will be low level or pointed down. |
2. Parking lot location at Phase II - to address stormwater issues, they are capturing |
and removing stormwater from the adjacent property. Their engineer assures them they |
will contain and remove all of their own water as well as the condo water into their |
system. |
3. Parking ratios - they plan to meet code. |
4. Parking lot site lighting will be recessed or applied to fences/walls. The masonry |
posts might accommodate lighting to shine down. All fencing will be a minimum of 6 feet |
in height and designed to eliminate headlights shining onto adjacent properties. |
5. Location of paving and parking - they will provide for the required landscaping buffer |
between the project and the adjacent parcel at the north edge. |
6. Dumpster - showed illustration of a previous enclosure, but they are proposing brick |
masonry with solid doors and roof to fully enclose. |
7. Parking - he described where the two changes are taking place to add spaces. |
8. Landscape buffer at adjacent properties - he wants them to work well from the |
neighbors view as well as their view. The illustration of examples of brick piers with |
solid wood fencing between them with landscaping. |
He then reviewed the landscape buffer diagrams. They moved the wall back over |
toward their parking lot creating a landscape area on his side. They are accommodating |
the tree on his property and an additional tree is being planted. The middle diagram |
shows an area on site up and down a large lot line between the condominium building |
and their property. The final plan shows how the fencing might work its way around the |
tree. |
Proposed elevations - they have not changed anything other than the dumpster. In that |
elevation the dumpster was on left end and now moved to the other side resulting in a |
taller wall and fully enclosed dumpster. |
Concluding, he thanked the residents and staff for their feedback and hoped these |
revisions are an improvement from the last meeting. He showed some additional |
photographs of a wall with a door or gate. For maintenance of the landscaping on |
opposite side of the wall, they will need to get to the area, hence the wall and door. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one to speak |
in favor of the petition. Commenting against the petition were: |
David Dwyer, 19 N. Elizabeth, Lombard. He presented a PowerPoint presentation. He |
stated that some of the things he included have been addressed. In the last meeting it |
was unclear where the building sat - this slide gives a good view. He showed an aerial |
view of his house. |
He then voiced his concerns. He supports the redevelopment of the downtown but it |
should stay in the confines of the Zoning Ordinance. He mentioned the contradiction as |
to what he was told and what was provided in their booklet. The dumpster, the volume |
of waste produced, how big the enclosure should be and the frequency of how much the |
trash will be picked up. The booklet described active senior residents. He feels the |
parking is inadequate. Visitor parking is limited. Employee parking has not been |
addressed. There has been no mention of handicap parking. |
Regarding parking space calculations, he showed an aerial depiction of how the parking |
will look on his street due to the lack of parking. Cruise Nights is one event in the |
summer which can be tolerated but this would be different. He referenced the transition |
requirements between the R2 and B5 Districts. He asked why the full transitional yard |
could not be provided for his property. |
In summary, he said the project is an attractive replacement of the service station but |
the development is too large for the lot in question, not a good use of land, and not good |
for the residents. He is worried about the tree and doesn't want to lose any of his trees |
and a 10' setback would significantly reduce the impact on the trees. |
Tyler Williams, 30 N. Lincoln, stressed his thanks to the Plan Commission, staff and |
developer to address some of the parking issues and explanation from the engineer |
regarding water detention plans. He still has some concerns about parking on Lincoln |
and Elizabeth. He questioned the need to change the ordinance - what about employee |
parking? He asked if the mailing regarding the development sent to neighbors is a |
common practice for them to do if the review has not been completed. |
Mr. Sanders responded. He stated that the rebutter's site plan appeared as though the |
building was going right through the lot line, but the building is set back from the lot line. |
The dumpster question hopefully has been addressed. They are sympathetic to this |
issue. Their experience is that the residents are not big trash generators but the |
restaurant will be. The retail will not be huge generators of trash. The plan is to do a |
high quality enclosure away from the house with the masonry wall and enclose it with |
the solid metal doors. |
Regarding parking for relatives as well as parking for the businesses, keep in mind that |
users of the businesses already live there and they may eat once or twice at the |
restaurant and therefore will not generate additional need for parking. Referencing |
active seniors, the proposal is to provide the development in areas where they will not |
need to drive to the bank, beauty salons, restaurants, shops and train. They will be |
offering a transportation vehicle for grocery shopping or to the theater. Lastly, unlike |
condominium buildings, their residents will not be parking down the street and walking to |
their apartment, as they won't live there, so they have a large amount of control for their |
residency. They are parking the lot with what code requires in both phases and over in |
Phase II. |
Regarding the tree in the back, there is no reason that anything has to happen to the |
tree. There is 8 feet of green space, for that 2 feet of encroachment, there is an |
expensive brick wall for noise and landscaping. Regarding drainage, there are two |
options to put in a detention system or the other is to run a pipe from the condominiums |
to the street. In both cases they will be an adequate distance away. The plan will |
provide for requisite handicapped parking. |
Regarding the mailers - it is common for them. They are dealing with an age group that |
makes decisions slowly. They make it clear that is preliminary. |
Regarding employee parking - they are not here to determine Village code within senior |
housing- their ratios include that. They are not like the type of housing like assisted |
living. They would have more visitors if people were confined to housing such as |
doctors or health professions. They can operate with a small staff. |
Mr. Dwyer thanked him for answering the questions. He then asked for a clarification as |
to the proposed wall locations. Mr. Sanders said the parking lot is eight feet off of the |
property line. The fence is five feet seven inches away. Regarding the one-foot |
transitional yard space behind your garage, this second piece of property is only 52 feet |
wide. It is not even good for parking. By adding Phase II they bring parking up to |
exceed code. The best they can do is to be sensitive to the neighbors and that big tree |
and to be flexible with you as far as landscaping. Mr. Dwyer asked why the parking lot |
could not be shifted to the east. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the addendum report. He noted that many |
issues have been addressed by neighboring residents or the petitioner. Staff originally |
suggested as a number of conditions of approval associated with transitional |
landscaping and screening provisions within the conditions of approval. The Plan |
Commissioners expressed concerns that the actual nature of the screening and |
landscaping were not satisfactorily addressed by the petitioner by their submitted plans |
and testimony. He referred to Attachment A which shows detailed plans - staff is |
recommending that these details be incorporated into the overall development plan. |
The petitioner's refined plans propose a wall to be located approximately 5'7” south of |
the north property line abutting 19 N. Elizabeth Avenue. The wall would tie back into the |
building along the west elevation of the building. To promote compatibility with the |
adjacent property owner of 19 N. Elizabeth Street, the petitioner is willing to let the |
adjacent property owner determine the final design of external cladding (i.e., the external |
application of one material over another to provide a weather-proof layer or a decorative |
element) to be placed on the wall. If the adjacent property owner does not select the |
cladding appearance, the Director of Community Development shall make the selection |
based upon a review of the proposed exterior building elements. |
He noted that the transitional landscape requirements provide a fair amount of discretion |
as to the final design of placement of plant materials. However, with the proposed |
development encroaching into the requisite transitional yards, the petitioner is proposing |
to address the encroachment by placing shade trees every 25 feet along the in the |
following manner: |
1. Along the north property line abutting 19 N. Elizabeth Street, the petitioner will |
provide one shade tree every 25 feet evenly spaced along the entire length of the |
landscape yard. |
2. A continuous evergreen or dense deciduous shrub hedge (or an approved |
equivalent) shall be extended the entire length of the landscape yard shall be planted at |
least 2-1/2 feet north of the requisite wall. The shrub hedge shall be installed at a height |
of 3 feet and shall be planted on the outside of the fence. The spacing of shrubs shall |
be 5 feet on center, or as approved by the Director of Community Development. |
3. If in the event that the plant materials cannot be completely planted on the subject |
property, a cash allowance (prorated based on differential between amount of side yard |
buffer required by code and provided for in the planned development) would be paid to |
adjacent property owners for landscape use. |
Using this approach, the final design of the development would give the appearance of |
meeting the transitional planting requirements (either on-site or on the adjacent |
property). |
Along the west property line in Phase II (also the rear of the Elizabeth Street lots), the |
petitioner is proposing to provide a brick pier/cedar fence. As this property line is |
located behind existing detached garages, the benefit of providing transitional |
landscaping is minimal. Therefore, staff would support relief from the transitional |
planting requirements at this location. |
Along the north property line, the petitioner's revised plan reduces the parking lot area |
so that the full transitional landscape yard area shall be provided. The petitioner will |
provide transitional landscaping in this expanded area. |
The Zoning Ordinance encourages the preservation of existing vegetation within |
planned developments. The petitioner intends to take steps to help ensure that existing |
mature trees on adjacent properties but in close proximity to the property line are not |
adversely impacted by the proposed development. As such, in addition to keeping the |
planter wall removed from the property line, the petitioner is proposing the following |
provisions: |
1. A condition should be added to the planned development stating that if any trees on |
the property line directly to the north should die within three years, the Pointe at |
Lombard property owner shall be responsible for removing and grinding any remaining |
stumps. |
2. A landscape easement should be created on the adjacent property for the large tree |
on the west property line of the Phase Two property. The proposed fencing noted |
above should go around the tree, with the ground to be maintained by the Pointe at |
Lombard property owner. If the impacted tree dies, The Pointe at Lombard should be |
responsible for removing and grinding any remaining stumps. |
The petitioner has revised the location and design of the proposed trash enclosure area |
for the school. The new location of the enclosure will be farther from adjacent |
residences (relocated toward the south entrance) and will be made of similar materials |
as the main building. |
Concerns were raised about the operations of the parking proposed for the site. The |
petitioner initially requested parking relief for Phase I. To address the concerns raised |
at the meeting, the petitioner reduced the overall size of the retail portion of the building |
so that the project would meet the minimum parking requirements in the Zoning |
Ordinance. However, the petitioner wanted to ensure that the parking conditions for the |
project would not adversely affect their ability to park the residential component of the |
project. To this end, the petitioner is proposing to park the site at a level of 0.5 spaces |
per unit. Using this higher formula and in consideration of the reduced parking demand |
through the loss of the first level space, the project will meet both the petitioner's parking |
needs as well as the Village's parking requirements. |
As a related issue, staff has included as part of this petition a companion deviation to |
allow for a reduction in the requisite fifty percent of the requisite area of the ground floor |
to be devoted to uses permitted in the B5 Central Business District. This relief will allow |
the parking area to be further expanded to accommodate additional parking. |
Concerns were raised at the public hearing regarding parking lot lighting issues. To |
address this issue, staff has added a lighting variation to this petition. Staff also |
recommends that as a condition of approval that any light fixtures within the parking |
garage area shall be recessed and shall not be directly visible from adjacent properties. |
Within the Phase II parking lot area, bollard lighting shall be provided in the open |
parking lot areas. |
He then noted a correction to the condition 5 in the staff report. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion for the Plan Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser said that while the various options seemed to have been |
discussed, it is unclear to her what the possibilities are for the northern property lines. |
The petitioner is flexible even to the extent of the parking bumpers, so she is not sure |
what is allowable from staff's point of view. The placement of the driveway on Phase II - |
can that be centered? She also noted the parking requirements - .25 spaces per unit. |
How does this compare to Lexington or Beacon Hill. She said that they have no idea of |
what the actual employee parking shall be. |
Mr. Heniff said that along the north property line, a solid hedge row would meet code. |
The property owner might want alternate plantings, but the intent is to provide additional |
flexibility for the adjacent property owner. They are raising the bar and requiring an |
expensive and solid wall. It will be based on the final landscape plan. He said that there |
is no need for bumpers as a solid barrier curb would suffice. Regarding the Phase II |
parking lot, the plat of survey shows that this area is in back of the garage. Since it is |
not a highly visible or usable area, you are limited to how much you can shift. He then |
gave the definitions of the parking codes for different senior housing uses. The parking |
does meet code provisions. |
Commissioner Olbrysh appreciated the petitioner's attempt to be a good neighbor and |
address the concerns of all with the revisions they made. While they are willing to be |
flexible as far as the neighbor's concerns, he is still concerned about the parking as |
there will be 75 units, a restaurant which will feed the residents and retail spaces. Even |
if parking meets/exceeds code by having 69 spaces, the residents are active seniors. |
While the possibility exists that not every one of the residents will have a car they will |
have family visiting. He also mentioned the shared parking. He then exampled the |
Fountain Square development, which provided enough parking that met code and still |
wasn't sufficient. He still thinks parking will be a problem on Elizabeth and St. Charles |
but the code does not allow us much. |
Chairperson Ryan suggested that the downtown parking codes might need to be |
reviewed. If the development is exceeding parking, we cannot stop it but we should be |
concerned about the future of parking. Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the most |
successful downtowns construct shared parking garages. |
Commissioner Flint said that is the result of being a vibrant downtown. You want to |
have the vibrancy that creates the problem so that down the line the parking won't be an |
issue. |
Commissioner Burke said that while they have addressed parking, elsewhere in the |
downtown there are areas where parking was not required. It would be unfair to make |
this development provide additional parking when no one else did. The 69 spaces for |
that amount of units and employees is sufficient. |
Commissioner Sweetser would like an assurance that the phasing will not cause a |
parking issue and asked if they needed to condition Phase I? Mr. Heniff said it can |
stand on its own as well as Phase II. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be Recommended for approval to the Corporate Authorities subject to |
the amended condition(s). The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Abstain:
Zorn
1 -
Absent:
Melarkey
1 -
1. The petitioner shall enter into a development agreement with the Village setting forth |
the terms and conditions for development on the subject property. |
2. The petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the Phases I and II |
preliminary engineering plans prepared by Jacob & Hefner & Associates, Inc., dated |
October 20, and 26, 2005 respectively and made a part of this petition and in |
accordance with the revised submittals included as an exhibit to the approval ordinance; |
except as varied by the conditions of approval. |
3. The proposed buildings and structures shall be constructed in accordance with the |
submitted Phases I and II plans, prepared by MidAmerica HPD Lombard LLC, dated |
October, 2005 and November 10, 2005 and made a part of this petition and in |
accordance with the revised submittals included as an exhibit to the approval ordinance; |
except as varied by the conditions of approval. |
4. As part of the building permit submittal, the petitioner shall satisfactorily address the |
comments included as part of the Inter-Departmental Review Report. |
5. The increase in height shall only be for the proposed tower element located on the |
southwest corner of the building as depicted on the submitted plans. Any height |
increase above the forty-five feet above grade shall only be for architectural elements |
and shall not be used as living space. |
6. The proposed east building elevation shall be amended to include additional window |
elements in a manner consistent with the other elevations. If full windows cannot be |
installed due to internal layout conflicts, the petition can substitute spandrel glass |
windows. The final design shall be subject to review and approval of the Director of |
Community Development based upon the Plan Commission recommendation. |
Moreover, in the event that Phase I and II are not constructed simultaneously that the |
petitioner shall provide a finished east exterior wall for Phase I, with the design of the |
exterior wall being subject to the Director of Community Development. |
7. The petitioner shall provide the additional landscaping and screening improvements, |
as depicted on the petitioner's submitted plans, and as follows: |
a. Along the north property line abutting the residential property at 19 N. Elizabeth |
Street, as part of Phase I of the development: |
i. The petitioner shall provide a solid wall per the submitted plans. The adjacent |
property owner shall determine the final design of external cladding to be placed on the |
wall. If the adjacent property owner does not select the cladding appearance, the |
Director of Community Development shall make the selection based upon a review of |
the proposed exterior building elements. The wall shall also be designed to minimize its |
impact on existing mature vegetation located in close proximity to the property line. |
ii. Along the north property line abutting 19 N. Elizabeth Street, the petitioner will |
provide one shade tree every 25 feet evenly spaced along the entire length of the |
landscape yard. |
iii. A continuous evergreen or dense deciduous shrub hedge (or an approved |
equivalent) shall be extended the entire length of the landscape yard shall be planted at |
least 2-1/2 feet north of the requisite wall. The shrub hedge shall be installed at a height |
of 3 feet and shall be planted on the outside of the fence. The spacing of shrubs shall |
be 5 feet on center, or as approved by the Director of Community Development. |
iv. If in the event that the plant materials cannot be completely planted on the |
subject property, a cash allowance (prorated based on differential between amount of |
side yard buffer required by code and provided for in the planned development) would |
be paid to adjacent property owners for landscape use. |
v. In the event any trees on the property line directly to the north should die within |
three years, the Pointe at Lombard property owner shall be responsible for removing |
and grinding any remaining stumps. |
b. Along the west property line (abutting the rear yards of the R2 Properties along |
Elizabeth Street), as part of Phase II of the development: |
i. The petitioner shall also pay for and install a brick pier/cedar fence per the |
submitted plans. |
ii. A landscape easement shall be created on the adjacent property for the large |
tree on the west property line of the Phase Two property. The proposed fencing noted |
above should go around the tree per the submitted plans, with the ground to be |
maintained by the Pointe at Lombard property owner. If the impacted tree dies, The |
Pointe at Lombard shall be responsible for removing and grinding any remaining |
stumps. |
c. Along the north property line abutting 26 N. Lincoln Avenue, as part of Phase II of |
the development, the petitioner shall provide full transitional landscaping. |
d. Along the east property line, as part of Phase II of the development: |
i. The petitioner shall pay for and install landscape plantings on the subject property |
and/or the adjacent Lincoln Terrace Condominium property to meet the transitional |
landscape planting requirements of the B5 District. If the adjacent property owner does |
not consent to this provision, this petitioner shall not be obligated to install additional |
plantings on the adjacent property. |
ii. The petitioner shall also pay for and install fencing along the eastern property |
line, no greater than eight (8) feet and no less than six (6) feet in height. Design of the |
fencing is subject to the approvals of the Director of Community Development with input |
from the Lincoln Terrace Condominium Association. The fencing shall meet all Village |
setback and clear line of sight requirements. |
e. Any retaining walls for the proposed parking lot within Phase II of the development |
shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the approved building elevations, |
as determined by the Director of Community Development. |
8. Any light fixtures within the parking garage area shall be recessed and shall not be |
directly visible from adjacent properties. Within the Phase II parking lot area, bollard |
lighting shall be provided in the open parking lot areas. |
9. The petitioner shall incorporate the recommendations of the Village's traffic |
consultant and Village staff into the final development plans for the site. |
10. The right-of-way improvements shall de designed and installed to address the |
comments raised by engineering staff. The petitioner shall provide a public access |
easement on the subject property for any areas in which the constructed sidewalk is |
less than four feet in width. |
11. The petitioner shall submit a Plat of Consolidation to the Village for review and |
approval. Said plat shall consolidate the subject properties into a single lot of record |
and shall be required concurrent with the building permit submittal for Phase II. |
12. The proposed wall signs shall be of a uniform design, shall not include 'box signs”, |
and the wall signs shall be located on the building consistent with the submitted plans. |
The east elevation shall not include any building identification signage. |
13. The petitioner shall redirect the released stormwater from the existing Lincoln |
Terrace detention facility into either the proposed detention vaults to be constructed on |
the subject property or into a separate storm drain to be located on the subject property |
that will connect to the storm drain within the Elizabeth Street right-of-way. The final |
design of this improvement shall be subject to review and approval by the Village. The |
petitioner shall also grant any necessary easements to provide for this conveyance. |
14. The outdoor dining area shall be designed and operated in a manner that provides |
for at least four feet of width for pedestrians at all times. |
15. The property shall be developed consistent with Village Code, except as varied by |
this petition. |
050695
L. PC 05-43: 300-312 South Main Street (Ordinance on Second Reading) |
Requests that the following actions be taken on the subject property: |
1. Approve a conditional use for a planned development with the following companion |
conditional use, variations and deviations: |
a. A conditional use from Section 155.417(G) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a |
building of three (3) stories in height and an exception to allow for the building height to |
be forty-six and one-half feet (46.5') where a maximum of forty-five feet (45') is |
permitted. |
b. A deviation from Section 155.417(J) and a variation from Section 155.508 (C)(6)(a) |
of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a reduction in the transitional building setback from |
twenty feet (20') to zero feet (0') along the west property line; |
c. A deviation from Section 155.417(K) and a variation from Sections 155.508(C)(6) |
(b) and 155.707(A)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a reduction in the transitional |
landscape setback from ten feet (10') to zero feet (0') along the west property line; |
d. A variation from Section 155.508(C)(6)(a) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to |
allow for a 1-foot corner side yard setback on the perimeter of a planned development |
where a 30-foot front and/or corner side yard is required in the abutting R5 General |
Residence District; |
e. A variation from Sections 155.707(B)(3)(a) through (d) of the Zoning Ordinance |
eliminating the transitional landscape and fence requirements along the west property |
line; |
f. A variation from Sections 155.205(A)(2)(e) and 155.207(A) and (C) to allow for |
building and fence/wall encroachments into the requisite clear line of sight area; |
g. A deviation from Sections 153.211(F) and 153.508(B)(19)(a) of the Sign Ordinance |
to allow for awning and canopy signs to be displayed in conjunction with wall signs; |
h. A deviation from Section 153.508(B)(19)(c) to allow for more than one wall sign per |
street frontage. |
2. Approve a conditional use per Section 155.417(C)(13) and (I) to allow for an outdoor |
service (dining) area. |
3. Grant Site Plan Approval authority to the Lombard Plan Commission. |
4. Approve a development agreement for the subject property. (This item is being |
withdrawn). (DISTRICT #1) |
Sander Kaplan of SKJN Architekten Corp., architect for the project presented the |
petition. He referenced the development team members, including David George, |
developer and Tom Sanderson, the Civil Engineer. He described the location of the |
project and their proposal to construct a tudor-style mixed use building. The project will |
have seven retail units and 36 condominium units. Referencing the building elevations, |
the plan incorporates key design elements. The building design is intended to break up |
its perceived length and is separated with parapet walls, different types of chimneys, |
and three different types of brick. To break up the façade, some of the storefronts will |
be recessed. An arched passageway that leads to a parking area in the rear will be lit |
for security and there will a potential dining area. The site will be landscaped on the |
back side of the walkway, so when you look through the passageway you see greenery. |
The residential entrance at the corner of Main and Ash is at a 45 degree angle. The |
project has underground and secured parking for residents, consisting of 60 spaces and |
has access via an exterior ramp. He showed a site plan of the garage and first floor and |
the ramp on the diagram. |
He then showed the materials board and described the building materials. They are |
trying to create an urban interesting feel. They set the building back about five feet |
along Main and one foot to the Ash Street side. Stormwater detention will be provided in |
a vault under the at-grade parking lot. The at-grade parking lot is accessed from Ash |
and they removed the curb cuts along Main. They are proposing an optional sidewalk |
access to the Prairie Path and the trash enclosure will be masonry and located along the |
back side using the same materials as the building. The type of brick will be changed on |
back side of the building since it is not as visible as the front elevation. |
They requested relief in height from 45 to 46'5" due to the height of the Tudor-style roof. |
Regarding the west side yard, they are asking for a setback variation. The property to |
the west is zoned R5 - this is a transitional setback because they are different uses. |
They have a B5A zoning. They are proposing a zero foot setback so they can provide |
residential exposure along the Prairie Path. The neighboring property has a driveway |
and parking along the east side of their lot. The setback relief along Ash is in keeping |
with the B5A requirement and creating an urban feel. The northwest wing of the building |
is 100' from the adjacent lot line. The clear line of sight variation at Main and Ash will |
still provide accessibility to the right-of-way. The access driveway will operate in a |
one-way in and out, clockwise flow to relieve that site issue. The relief for the signage is |
for wall signs on canopy signage in a mixed format and for business identification |
purposes. The signage along the Prairie Path is for user identification and for |
northbound vehicular traffic. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no |
comments in favor of or against the proposal. Chairperson Ryan then requested the |
staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, reiterated the requested actions, summarized the project |
and submitted the IDRC report to the public record in its entirety. He also passed out |
the petitioner's response to standards for the requested zoning actions. |
He noted that Comprehensive Plan recommends that the Subject Property be |
developed as part of the Central Business District - Mixed Use Area. Staff finds that the |
petitioner's plan meets the intent of the plan for the downtown and downtown perimeter |
area in almost all aspects, including providing for a site layout and architecture that is |
compatible with a pedestrian scale environment. |
He noted that this property is located within the B5A Downtown Perimeter Zoning |
District. This District was created in 2002 to reflect the objectives of the Comprehensive |
Plan and is intended to foster development activity that is consistent with the |
Comprehensive Plan objectives. The B5A district is similar in nature with the downtown |
B5 District in most respects, including zero foot setback requirements for most requisite |
yards. The current properties are being used for automotive uses. These automotive |
uses (car wash and auto repair) have never received conditional use approval from the |
Village and are therefore legal nonconforming. With the approval of this petition, the |
proposed development will be in compliance with Village Code. |
He then discussed each of the zoning actions requested as part of the development |
petition. The proposed mixed-use residential/commercial concept is in keeping with the |
Zoning Ordinance provisions. By establishing a planned development, the Village can |
review individual components of the development to ensure compatibility with the intent |
of the downtown perimeter area and surrounding neighborhood. By creating a planned |
development, the petitioner is provided greater design flexibility while providing the |
Village with a mechanism to review and approve the design elements associated with |
the petition. |
The petitioner is requesting relief to allow for a building of three (3) stories in height and |
an exception to allow for the building height to be forty-six and one-half feet (46.5') |
where a maximum of forty-five feet (45') is permitted. The additional height relief is |
requested in order to provide for the proposed roof design as shown on the petitioner's |
submittals. The petitioner's elevations show that the roof pitch is a key element to the |
overall building design. While the plans could be modified with a flat roof to meet the |
height limitations, the petitioner desires to incorporate the high pitched, Tudor-style roof |
design. In consideration of other established buildings and structures in close proximity |
to the subject property which are three-stories in height, the request for a three-story |
development can be conceptually supported. |
The submitted plan requires relief to allow for a reduction in the transitional building |
setback from twenty feet (20') to zero feet (0') along the west property line that |
separates the subject property from the multiple family residential property at 21 West |
Ash Street. The B5A regulations have a zero foot side yard setback requirement. |
However, as the west property line abuts an R5 residentially-zoned property, a |
twenty-foot building setback is required. The relief is requested so that the petitioner will |
be able to carry the building the entire length of the southern property line, along the |
Prairie Path. Moreover, the building layout will provide for the below-grade parking |
structure. The existing one story brick building on the subject property is located 16.3 |
feet off of the west property line. The adjacent apartment building is located fifteen feet |
(15') west of the property line. The petitioner has provided elevational renderings of the |
west wall of the proposed building. To soften the impact of the development staff |
requested that the petitioner carry the architectural design features proposed for the |
building on the west wall as well. |
He noted that the petitioner is seeking a relief to reduce the transitional landscape |
setback from ten feet (10') to zero feet (0') along the west property line and eliminate the |
transitional landscape and fence requirements along the west property line. As with the |
transitional building setback, the encroachment into the requisite yard is intended to |
ensure that adequate parking and circulation is provided within the development. The |
existing transitional landscape yard is non-existent on the subject property. Along the |
west property line, the existing car wash queue extends to the west property line. On |
the Yorkbrook Automotive (312 S. Main) site, the rear of the property has been used for |
storage purposes. Staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the loss of |
any existing landscaping along the west property line. |
As the adjacent property is developed for multiple-family uses (similar to the subject |
property), the degree of screening between similar uses is not as great. Moreover, as |
the adjacent property is improved with a parking lot at the far east end of their property, |
there are no opportunities or need for additional plantings on the adjacent property. |
Therefore, staff recommends that in consideration of the relief additional solid fencing |
between six and eight feet in height should be provided along to the western property |
line, from the south property line to the thirty foot building setback line and adjacent to |
the entrance ramp and the outdoor parking area. |
The B5A District has a zero-foot building setback provision. The rationale for this |
regulation is to encourage pedestrian oriented development, as opposed to strip |
commercial development. The petitioner is intending to abide by the recommendation of |
the Comprehensive Plan and push the building up to the front of the property. For most |
B5A properties, this can be done as a matter of right. However, the planned |
development regulations state that setbacks along the perimeter of a planned |
development should be no less than those required in the abutting zoning district. As |
such, a variation from Section 155.508(C)(6)(a) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to |
allow for a 1-foot corner side yard setback on the perimeter of a planned development |
where a 30-foot front and/or corner side yard is required in the abutting R5 General |
Residence District is added to the petitioner's request. Staff notes that the petitioner's |
plan will place the building close (approximately one foot) to the Ash Street property line, |
but as this portion of the building will still be located about 107 feet from the west |
property line, its impact on the adjacent residential property is significantly reduced. |
Staff notes that from an appearance perspective, the two existing buildings abutting |
Main Street and East Ash Street are also in close proximity to the property line (229 and |
301 S. Main). When viewing the setback in the context of the overall Main Street |
corridor, the relief is reflective of the intent of the B5A District. |
Mr. Heniff stated that while the Downtown B5 District does not have a clear line of sight |
requirement, the B5A District does require compliance with the 30-foot clear line of sight |
provisions. The petitioner's plan includes proposed encroachments into the clear line of |
sight area for the entrance/exit driveways as well as the Main/Ash corner. Regarding |
the Main/Ash corner, staff notes that the petitioner's elevations do provide for a smaller |
clearance area (21'x 21'). However, in review of the location of the Ash Street |
cross-section, the roadway is located north of the center-line of the right-of-way. |
Therefore, the actual clearance area should provide adequate visibility for motorists and |
pedestrians. The petitioner's plan also encroaches into the areas for the proposed |
access driveways. The eastern access driveway is proposed as an entrance drive only. |
As such, an actual conflict point will not exist. Regarding the exit point on the west side |
of the property, the proposed barrier wall and/or guard rails could create a partial |
encroachment into the corner side yard. However, staff recommends that stop signs be |
erected at the property line for each traffic movement exiting the site. |
The petitioner has identified a number of locations in which wall signage may be |
installed on the property, as depicted on the plans. Based upon the submitted |
elevations, two deviations are required. The petitioner's request for a mixed sign |
package is intended to break up the scale of the building along Main Street to give it the |
appearance of multiple structures at a pedestrian level. The awning signage is meant to |
“frame” the center façade of the Main Street elevation, while the other wall sign elements |
identify the respective business establishments. Given that the building is over |
two-hundred feet (200') in length, the varying design of the proposed signage can be |
conceptually supported by staff. |
With respect to the multiple signage request, staff notes that the proposed sign plans |
also propose signage along the south elevation, to provide an identifier for Prairie Path |
users as well as traffic heading northbound on Main Street. Staff also notes that while it |
is not guaranteed that the relief may not actually be utilized, this request is intended to |
identify those locations where signage may be placed if it is desired by a future tenant. |
Staff would be supportive of this request provided that the wall signage follows the same |
guidelines the Village has approved for many recent developments, including the Main |
Street Place planned development. These provisions include the requirement that all |
wall signage to be installed on the building shall be of a uniform design and shall be |
placed on the building in accordance with the wall sign package as depicted on the |
submitted building elevations. |
While definitive plans for the outdoor dining area would be subject to any future tenants |
that ultimately occupies the building, a conditional use is requested to allow for an |
outdoor service (dining) area. As shown on the initial rendering submittals, several |
tables are proposed to be located along the east side of the building. Moreover, the |
vaulted passageway provides a unique location for an additional outdoor dining |
opportunity, should a restaurant establishment lease one of the adjacent tenant spaces. |
The outdoor dining element is consistent with other outdoor dining elements approved |
by the Village in the downtown area. Staff can support this request, provided that at |
least four feet of sidewalk area is available at all times and that the dining component |
does not inhibit pedestrian traffic flow. |
As part of a planned development submittal, the petition includes a request for site plan |
approval authority to be given to the Plan Commission. This would allow the Plan |
Commission to review signage or off-site parking deviation requests or to review and |
approve minor changes to the development plans should they arise. Staff supports this |
request, as it would allow the Commissioners to address minor changes in an expedient |
fashion. |
As part of this project, a companion development agreement will be created and will be |
considered by the Village Board concurrent with the recommendation from the Plan |
Commission relative to the public hearing petition. |
The property is located within the Central Business District and is bordered by |
commercial uses on the north and east. The proposed development orients the project |
toward Main Street and away from the adjacent multiple-family residential properties. In |
consideration of the planned development request, staff reviewed the site's design |
components. |
As part of the site plan approval process, the petitioner has prepared building elevations |
for the project as well as a companion materials board. The elevation will give the |
Village a sense of what the project will look like upon completion. The building is |
proposed to incorporate many Tudor-style or later Tudorbethan style building elements. |
Based upon the initial review of the building elevations, the Plan Commission expressed |
conceptual support of the elevations at the October 17, 2005 workshop session, as it |
ties in with the elevations at 301 South Main Street. The submitted plans have been |
refined to carry the defined elements to each side of the building. |
The plans have located the trash enclosure area to be located along the west side of the |
property. This location was selected as other sites on the property would not provide for |
easy trash collection, due to vehicle clearance or maneuvering issues. To ensure |
neighborhood compatibility and to minimize fly-dumping, all outdoor trash collection |
areas shall be screened on all four sides, with a masonry exterior compatible with the |
principal building and with a solid door. The dumpster areas shall also meet all Fire |
Department requirements. |
Concurrent with a site plan approval application, the developer submitted a companion |
landscape plan. The plan shall meet the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, except as |
varied as part of this petition. He then references staff's conditions of approval |
associated with the landscaping. Staff also recommends that the lighting fixtures utilized |
for all private roadway lighting and parking lot lighting shall be uniform and shall be |
reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Community Development |
prior to installation. |
He then discussed traffic issues. The Village's traffic consultant Kenig, Lindgren, |
O'Hara, Aboona, Inc. (KLOA) has performed an evaluation of the proposed project and |
offered a number of recommendations that were included within the staff report. Public |
Works also reviewed the proposed perpendicular parking spaces proposed within the |
Ash Street right-of-way and states that the angled spaces should not be installed within |
the public right-of-way. Moreover, the Ash Street right-of-way should maintain its |
twenty-eight foot (28') standard roadway profile. |
The petitioner's submitted plans propose to create a streetscape environment consistent |
with the downtown area. To this end, staff will require any public improvements (i.e., |
sidewalk areas, street lighting, parkway trees, etc.) to be consistent with the downtown |
Lombard specifications. To ensure that sufficient width exists to accommodate |
pedestrian movements as well as public improvements, staff will also require the |
petitioner to provide the Village with a public access easement on the subject property |
for any areas in which the constructed sidewalk is less than four feet in width. Also, staff |
will request that the bicycle racks be relocated onto private property. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments from the Plan Commission |
members. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that she liked how the developer addressed their |
comments from the workshop session. She asked staff that since the design shows the |
angle parking spaces along Ash Street, is the petitioner aware they are recommending |
not to have that. Mr. Heniff said yes. |
She then asked about the transitional yard relief. Should page 1 be modified to not have |
the fence? Mr. Heniff noted that item 1.e. in the request mirrors language in PC 05-42. |
However in this case, we are not requiring them to provide transitional landscaping at |
all. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Melarkey
1 -
1. The petitioner shall enter into a development agreement with the Village setting forth |
the terms and conditions for development on the subject property, unless the Village |
Board determines that such an agreement is not necessary. |
2. The petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the Preliminary Engineering |
Plat Packet, prepared by Sanda Consulting Group, LLC, dated October 26, 2005, the |
Landscape Plan, prepared by Sublime Design, dated November 14, 2005; the |
Development Plan Packet,, prepared by SKJN Architekten Corp., dated November 14, |
2005; and the submitted Materials Board, prepared by SKJN Architekten Corp., dated |
December 1, 2005 and made a part of this petition; except as varied by the conditions of |
approval. |
3. As part of the building permit submittal, the petitioner shall satisfactorily address the |
comments included as part of the Inter-Departmental Review Report. |
4. The petitioner shall install fencing along the western property line, no greater than |
eight (8) feet and no less than six (6) feet in height. Design of the fencing is subject to |
the approvals of the Director of Community Development. The fencing shall meet all |
Village setback and clear line of sight requirements. |
5. The petitioner shall locate any parking lot lighting at a height and location that |
minimizes neighborhood impact and shall meet the Village's photometric requirements. |
Moreover, the lighting within the parking garage area shall be recessed so as to not be |
visible or create a glare onto neighboring properties. Such additional lighting information |
shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Community |
Development prior to installation. |
6. The petitioner shall incorporate the recommendations of the Village's traffic |
consultant and Village staff into the final development plans for the site. |
7. The right-of-way improvements shall de designed and installed to address the |
comments raised by engineering staff. The petitioner shall provide a public access |
easement on the subject property for any areas in which the constructed sidewalk is |
less than four feet in width. |
8. The petitioner shall submit a Plat of Consolidation to the Village for review and |
approval. Said plat shall consolidate the subject properties into a single lot of record |
and shall be required concurrent with the building permit submittal. |
9. The proposed wall and awning signs on the building shall be designed and located |
on the building consistent with the submitted plans. |
10. The outdoor dining area shall be designed and operated in a manner that provide for |
at least four feet of width for pedestrians at all times. |
11. The property shall be developed consistent with Village Code. |
Furthermore, the Plan Commission recommends that site plan approval shall be granted |
for the subject property. |
050697
PC 05-45: 1103-1177 South Main Street and 150 East Roosevelt Road |
Requests an amendment to Ordinances 5538 and 5634 to allow for a modification to the |
approved Shopping Center Identification sign plan for the Lombard Pines Shopping |
Center located within the B3PD Community Shopping District Planned Development. |
Michael Sacker, 945 W. George Street, Chicago, of the Sackar Company and owner of |
the property, presented the petition. He stated that they are not seeking the change to |
their approved shopping center identification sign. The design will remain the same, the |
change is from the red element to a color LED light. Their reason, is that their tenants |
need corporate specific colors for brand awareness and effective promotion of the |
corporate presence. They have stated that a single color is deemed unacceptable. |
They do not want a collage of color schemes and he referred to the plan he passed out |
to the Plan Commissioners showing the originally approved sign and the proposed sign. |
He said staff raised concerns in the report about the color sign and how it could create |
code enforcement and driver safety. The reality is the color sign and its capabilities are |
the same. The color graphics would increase the sign's visibility on Roosevelt Road. |
He noted that there are at least three changeable copy signs in the area and mentioned |
Heritage Cadillac's color graphic sign. The purpose of the sign is to provide a positive |
image. They are making an investment of a quarter of a million dollars at the Village's |
request and they want the sign to be attractive and contemporary. |
Mike Mallon, 501 N. Garfield, Lombard, of Time-O-Matic, the sign vendor on the project |
gave the background of the discussions with staff. He noted that the color message |
center has come down in price. It was cost prohibitive in the past, but that is no longer |
the case. They want to invest in current technology because it will last for a long time. It |
is their goal to install current technology and their company sells 45% full color displays. |
He gave the background of their company. The folder he passed out addresses safety |
issues. The goal for Lombard Pines is to provide all tenants with screen presence. |
Ninety percent of the businesses are not visible from Roosevelt Road. Eastbound traffic |
might see Hobby Lobby. The orientation of the property is poor from the north end of |
the property, and this will provide those tenants to have a face on Roosevelt Road. The |
overall effect of this product is successful because it works. It is contemporary and will |
give the Center a longer, useful life. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or |
against the petition. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The actions associated with |
this petition go back to a number of the past actions approved by the Plan Commission |
and/or the Board of Trustees. He went over the background of the petition and the |
Ordinances approving and amending the planned development. Staff revised the |
petitioner's request and determined that the change in the sign is a major change and as |
such would need to be approved by the Village Board. |
He the referenced the history and relief previously granted for the sign. As the table in |
the staff report shows, most of these requests were denied by the Village Board. Of the |
approved requests, the Heritage Cadillac was and is the only sign that uses color |
graphics in the ACC sign. This approval was granted in consideration that the relief |
removed two existing free-standing signs that far exceeded current code requirements. |
However, staff has received concerns regarding the approved and erected sign at |
Heritage Cadillac as it relates to its impact on the overall corridor. |
Staff believes the use of the color ACC sign would expand the signage rights and |
approvals previously granted by the Village in 1995 and 2005 beyond their original |
intent. While the petitioner has noted that the signs are programmable and can be |
modified to suit a property owner's or community's concerns, staff also has concerns |
that such signs would create a regular code enforcement issue. |
Staff also notes that such signs are designed to provide striking and eye-catching |
graphics to the motorist. While such signs do draw a motorists eye to the sign, and |
perhaps a business activity on the premises, staff believes that such signs can come at |
the expense of driver safety and would generally operate outside of the two-second |
interval requirement for changing graphics. |
As noted in the approval of PC 05-07, the Comprehensive Plan recommends several |
policies that should be used to guide improvements to commercial developments. One |
of those policies is ensuring the highest quality of design, including signage and |
graphics. The proposed new signs are intended to be an overall site enhancement over |
the existing freestanding signs. Staff supported the initial layout of the sign design |
presented by the petitioner for the Roosevelt Road and the Main Street freestanding |
signs. The LED automatic changeable copy sign of 40 square feet in size was approved |
as part of the overall sign design and met the previous planned development approvals. |
However, staff has concerns as to whether the color sign would still be in keeping with |
the intent of ensuring high quality design throughout the corridor. Staff notes that the |
incorporation of the color graphics as a supplement to the large sign that was previously |
granted relief would increase the impact of the sign along the Roosevelt Road corridor. |
While it may be valuable to a particular property, its visual effect, particularly if applied to |
other properties as well, could have a negative impact on the corridor and, therefore, |
would not be consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. |
The site is surrounded by other retail commercial uses, both within the shopping center |
as well as along Main Street and Roosevelt Road. While the color sign may not be |
directly visible to adjacent residential properties, its visual impact along Roosevelt Road |
would still be prominent. If considered in the context of signage permitted for other |
business establishments along Roosevelt Road, this sign would not be in context or |
compatible with other permitted signage in the corridor. Moreover, it could present a |
precedent to the dozen properties which are similar to Lombard Pines to seek relief for |
such signage. |
While the ACC element is permitted to be included on the sign, Ordinances 5538 and |
5634 provided for Village review and consideration related to the final sign design. |
Implied with this approval is the provision that the sign would need to be compatible with |
the planned development provisions and the standards for relief from the Sign |
Ordinance. While the petitioner has prepared a response to these standards, staff does |
not concur with the responses as noted in the staff report. As such staff recommends |
denial of the petition. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission |
members. |
Chairperson Ryan noted that the shopping center owners transferred their signage |
rights to Culvers - can these rights be transferred again? Mr. Heniff stated that code |
would allow for an automatic changeable copy sign along the Roosevelt Road and Main |
Street frontages. The proposed sign change would only affect the Roosevelt Road sign. |
Commissioner Flint concurred with staff's assessment and recommendation. |
Chairperson Ryan stated he has a problem with the proposed Roosevelt Road sign |
location as it relates to a color sign. The traffic at the Roosevelt Road/Main Street |
intersection is horrendous. |
Commissioner Sweetser offered her thoughts relative to evolving technology and |
wondered what is distracting versus what really keeps a development current. She |
asked if the primary concern is the rate of change? |
Commissioner Olbrysh liked the design of the sign without the color ACC sign |
component. He does have a problem with the color ACC sign - they may be attractive |
but they are a distraction to the driver and that is why they have not approved many of |
them. |
Commissioner Zorn concurred and noted that this could be appropriate at another |
location, but not along Roosevelt Road. |
Commissioner Burke wondered if a color sign makes it any more distracting than a |
monochrome sign. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that she had no idea of what the petitioner is willing to |
accept that can eliminate the interval of change distraction and at the same time would |
give them the attractiveness and flexibility with their messages. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that this |
matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for denial. The motion carried |
by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Melarkey
1 -
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 10:34 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the November 21, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved by the |
members present. |
Public Participation
Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Plan |
Commission regarding anything not on the agenda. No one was present to speak. |
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Chairperson's Report
The Chairperson deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
William Heniff reminded the Commissioners that the next Plan Commission meeting |
would be held on January 23, 2006. |
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
050707
SUB 05-06: 400-500 E. St. Charles Road (Neri Development) |
Requests approval of a one-lot Major Plat of Resubdivision. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The plat proposes to make |
the tract of land a lot of record, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. This division is |
being requested in part because the original development approval (PC 04-10) required |
the dedication of public easement areas for landscaping improvements and future public |
access to the Great Western Trail. This division is considered a major plat of |
subdivision as it is greater than one acre in size. Therefore, it must be reviewed and |
approved by the Plan Commission and Board of Trustees. |
This resubdivision is intended to create a single lot of record for Oakview Estates. The |
property is made up of several tracts of land that were not previously subdivided. This |
subdivision meets all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision and |
Development Ordinance. The lot will also exceed the 60-foot minimum lot width and |
minimum area requirements of the underlying R4 Limited General Residence District |
Planned Development requirements. As the plat shows, the site will have an easement |
for public access, landscaping, and public improvements along the west end, with a |
public access and pedway easement on the east end. The utility easements shown on |
the plat reflect the watermain and storm sewer as proposed on the approved building |
permit plans. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. There were no comments by the members. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Melarkey
1 -
050708
SUB 05-07: 525 West St. Charles Road & 42 South Glenview Avenue (Lincoln |
Maple Partners Resubdivision) |
Requests approval of a three-lot plat of resubdivision. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition. The submitted plat proposes to |
divide two existing parcels into three parcels. The division will primarily divide the |
property at 525 W. St. Charles Road into two lots of record. To “square off” the subject |
properties, the subdivision will also break off a twenty foot strip of land currently a part |
of 42 S. Glenview Avenue lot and the strip will be added to the two new St. Charles |
Road lots. This resubdivision is proposed to create a buildable lot on the west side of |
the 525 West St. Charles Road property. The existing two residences will remain on the |
property as-is. |
Since the subject property is greater than an acre in size, it is considered a major plat of |
subdivision and must be reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission and Board of |
Trustees. |
As the plat is greater than one-acre in size, the Subdivision and Development Ordinance |
would require the creation of a stormwater detention outlot. However, in review of the |
proposed plat, the resubdivision will only create one additional buildable lot. This |
additional lot may only have about 5,000 square feet of impervious area for the new |
residence, so creating an additional detention outlot would not provide any real |
stormwater detention benefit. As a result, concurrent with the consideration of the |
associated plat by the Village Board, the Board will also consider a companion request |
for a stormwater detention outlot. |
Private Engineering Services and Public Works Engineering Divisions both support the |
companion request for a variation to waive the Village Code requirement for detention |
due to the fact that this would be a major subdivision. However, if a fourth house is |
proposed in the future, then detention shall be provided at that time for all development, |
existing and proposed, within the boundaries of the SUB 05-07 resubdivision. In |
addition, the petitioner should be advised that the latest Flood Insurance Rate Map |
dated 12/16/04 identifies 100-yr floodplain on the proposed Lot 2. |
Mr. Heniff noted that this subdivision meets all of the lot requirements of the Subdivision |
and Development Ordinance. Each lot will also meet the R2 zoning district lot width and |
area requirements for the existing structures within the resubdivision areas as well as for |
any future buildings. The subdivision will also include requisite public utility and |
drainage easements. |
Tom Cholowa, 31 N. Lincoln, of Lincoln Maple Partners, owner of the property, stated |
that the resubdivision will be an overall improvement to the property. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. There were no comments by the members. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that this |
matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Melarkey
1 -
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Workshops
There were no workshops.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m. |
________________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |