Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

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.

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.

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;

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.

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

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.

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.

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.