Village of Lombard Legistar System

A. PC 04-25: 201, 205 and 211 E. Roosevelt Road; 1200 S. Highland Avenue; and

112-116 & 120-124 E. 13th Street (Southwest Corner of Roosevelt & Highland)

(Ordinance on Second Reading) (Item #1 Continued from September 2,

2004/Waiver of First Requested)

Requests that the Village take the following actions on the subject properties:

1. Approve an amendment to an annexation agreement. (2/3 of Corporate Authorities

Vote Required) (Waiver of First Requested)

2. Approve a major plat of resubdivision.

3. For the entire subject property, approve a conditional use for a planned development.

4. For Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision, approve the following deviations:

a. A deviation from Section 155.706 (C) and 155.709 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance

reducing the required perimeter parking lot landscaping from five feet (5') to zero feet

(0') to provide for shared cross-access and parking.

b. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(17)(a)(2) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for

more than one wall sign on a street frontage.

5. Pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance, approve a conditional

use for a drive-through facility on Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision.

6. For Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision, approve the following deviations:

a. A deviation from Section 155.706 (C) and 155.709 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance

reducing the required perimeter parking lot landscaping from five feet (5') to zero feet

(0') to provide for shared cross-access and parking.

b. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(17)(b)(2) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for

more than one wall sign for interior tenants.

7. Pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(18) of the Zoning Ordinance, approve a conditional

use for an outdoor dining/service establishment on Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision.

8. For Lot 3 of the proposed subdivision, approve a deviation from Section 155.706 (C)

and 155.709 (B) reducing the required perimeter parking lot landscaping from five feet

(5') to zero feet (0') to provide for shared cross-access and parking; and

9. For the entire development, grant site plan approval authority to the Lombard Plan

Commission. (DISTRICT #6)

Staff is requesting a waiver of first reading on the first amendment to the annexation

agreement.

Wayne Marth of Archline Associates, 3025 Highland Parkway, Downers Grove, IL,

started the presentation of the petition. He began his presentation by displaying a color

rendering of the site. He mentioned that a bank is proposed on the central parcel and a

retail building at the east end of the property. The other parcels within the proposed

development are under contract but not ownership.

The proposed retail building on the corner of Highland Avenue and Roosevelt Road, is

proposed where the old Amoco station was located. They proposed to construct a

7,820 square foot retail building. Referencing the building elevations, he mentioned the

materials used on the building. They propose using cast stone for the building base. He

described the tower elements, the site lighting and accent lighting and the fabric

awnings. The trash enclosure on the southwest corner of the retail site will be

surrounded by masonry and gates and of material compatible with the building. They

propose an outdoor sitting area for possible restaurant tenants (Cold Stone Creamery,

Chipotle).

He then referenced the extensive landscaping plan to help soften the building from the

residents along 13th Street. He mentioned the curb cuts off of Roosevelt, which will now

be landscaped. They will provide a 4 foot high berm along 13th with landscape

screening.

Chad Herrell, architect for TCF Bank, showed a colored rendering and explained the

challenge of working with the bank and establishing a branding identity. They built a

similar branch in Glendale Heights and Chicago and are implementing a new program in

the metropolitan area. Key elements of the building include a tower to provide signage,

which will create an identity. Staff recommended changes to the proposed tower - he

feels a resolution could be made which will be compatible with staff. He mentioned the

materials being the same as the retail center. They support staff's recommendation to

remove the wall sign on the southern wall. The awnings are a different color but work

with their scheme and are compatible to the overall development. The south and west

elevations have a greater mass as this is where their secure functions are located. He

explained the site circulation and the bypass lane, which also serves as a fire lane

around the building. He mentioned the Fire Department comment about raising the

canopy to 16 feet and that was something they wanted to talk about with staff.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if the TCF tower would be illuminated. He said it would

be.

Mr. Marth then addressed the site lighting. It is considered low intensity - they are

keeping poles lower than 25 feet and the lighting level will be low. The lighting intensity

at the property lines will be zero. He felt the additional green space at the south would

be a benefit. All lighting on buildings include down lighting.

Chairperson Ryan asked about the sconces shown in the elevations. The petitioner

stated that they are not projecting light away from the building - they are accenting the

building and it enhances the building at night. Due to security problems, they try to have

that lighting.

The petitioner referenced the proposed single access driveway onto Roosevelt Road,

which will replace numerous driveways that currently exist on the property.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked for clarification as to the status of the properties on the

north side of 13th Street. The petitioner noted that they have the properties under

contract. If the project is approved, they will demolish the homes and place the berming

and the detention on the site.

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

present to speak in favor of or against the petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, then presented the staff report. He restated the

petitioner's request and gave the location of the property. He described the recent

history of the site. Lot 2 containing the salon site and Reilly's Pub were annexed into the

Village in 2000, with a rezoning to the B3 district. However, no additional relief was

granted for the existing restaurant/bar use. The Amoco station was annexed in 2001.

In 2002, PC 02-17 approved the annexation of the Sharko's Site, and a companion

annexation agreement was entered into by the previous property owner BP and the

Village. Other than the sale of the property and the removal of all structures on the

property, no further actions were taken. The terms and conditions of the original

agreement bind the former Sharko's site as well as the adjacent BP lots. The Village

Board has expressed their conceptual support for amending the annexation agreement

to provide for an alternative land use other than the approved gas station.

He noted that the subject property is bordered on the east and west by other existing

retail commercial uses. Roosevelt Road has traditionally included a substantial number

of automotive related uses. Therefore, the proposed redevelopment is consistent with

the other uses along Roosevelt Road.

South of the subject property, are unincorporated single family residences. To ensure

compatibility with the residential uses, the petitioner has reconfigured their plan to not

provide access onto 13th Street, create internal access driveways to minimize the need

to use 13th Street, orientation of buildings away from the residences and an earthen

berm and landscaping will help screen the site.

He then described the zoning issues for the site. Establishing a conditional use for the

entire development is an appropriate way to address the unique site constraints and

phasing of the proposed development. Moreover, the planned development process

allows the Village to look at all of the proposed structures comprehensively, versus

looking at each proposed structure separately. Through this process, staff believes that

a better overall design can be achieved.

As the project is being developed in phases, similar to the Highlands of Lombard and

Fountain Square of Lombard, the petitioner is requesting that the Plan Commission have

the ability to review and approve additions and/or modifications to the project. Of

special note, as the petitioner does not know the design elements of the proposed

Reilly's development parcel - they are willing to bring the building elevations and site

plan back to the Plan Commission for consideration.

By establishing a planned development, arbitrary property lines can be ignored in favor

of a more unified and cohesive development. In this case, the proposed access aisles

are placed where it makes most sense within the overall project, rather than based upon

property lines. This deviation can be supported as it provides for better traffic flow and

circulation. Moreover, it also helps minimize traffic on adjacent public streets.

The proposed banking facility proposes a drive-through facility on the south side of the

building. Staff notes that full access is provided around the bank as part of the Phase 1

improvements. Patrons would travel counter-clockwise around the bank. Leaving the

drive-through area, patrons can turn north to Roosevelt Road or proceed easterly to

Highland Avenue.

The petitioner would like to have the flexibility to provide a small outdoor dining area

adjacent to the proposed retail building. As the proposed dining area is removed from

any residences, impacts of the outdoor dining function are minimal. Staff recommends

that the perimeter of the dining area be fenced. Staff would find a four-foot high

decorative iron fence with an exit gate as an acceptable type of fence.

Referencing signage, the proposed bank elevations propose a wall sign located on each

of the four walls of the tower elements. The Zoning Ordinance limits businesses to one

wall sign per street frontage. The overall sign size does meet code requirements for

area. Staff does not object to the relief, but recommends that the sign on the south wall

be removed from the plans.

The petitioner's plans for the retail center to provide for up to two wall signs on the north

elevation of the building. The Sign Ordinance allows for two wall signs for end units and

one sign for interior tenants. Staff notes that if the center unit is subdivided, the two wall

signs could be approved as proposed without any relief. Staff can support this relief

provided that all wall signs on the building shall be of a channel letter design.

Regarding other development issues, the Village's traffic consultant KLOA reviewed the

site for its impact on the Village street network. The consultant's analysis found that the

site redevelopment would actually result in virtually no net change in traffic generation

over the amount that was originally generated prior to demolition activity.

Right now, seven separate curb cuts exist along Roosevelt Road. The petitioner's plans

propose to decrease this number to one full access driveway. IDOT has reviewed this

configuration and find that one full access curb cut is acceptable for Phase 1. However,

once Phase 2 is constructed, they will require that the Roosevelt Road access drive be

converted into a right-in, right-out facility. The petitioner has also designed the project to

provide for cross-access between the subject property and the Dan Development

property south of the site, subject to approval by both parties.

The petitioner has also submitted preliminary landscape plans, which will be subject to

refinements upon completion of final engineering. The plans attempt to minimize

impacts on neighboring parcels by providing an undulating earthen berm with full

vegetation to screen and soften the development from the residential uses south of 13th

Street.

Staff recommends as a condition of approval that additional plantings, meeting the

transitional landscape yard requirements be provided along the south property line and

that the landscaping be installed as part of the Phase 1 improvements. To address

concerns raised by neighbors, the property immediately south of Reilly's Pub be graded

and seeded until such time that the property is developed. Moreover, staff also

recommends a further condition that a post and rail fence be installed along the north

and west sides to prevent trespassing.

Regarding the retail building elevations, the petitioner has refined the elevations to

include windows on the east elevation, a modified parapet roofline. The TCF Bank

roofline on the tower was modified to include a seam-metal pitched roof. However, staff

recommends that the tower be modified to incorporate a similar peak as proposed on

the adjacent retail building and that the watercourse brick used for both buildings are

compatible.

The petitioner proposes to resubdivide the property to create five lots of record. Lots 1

though 3 along Roosevelt Road would be developed as commercial uses. Lot 5 would

ultimately be developed as a parking lot concurrent with the redevelopment of the

Reilly's Pub site. Lot 4 would be a detention outlot for the stormwater drainage of the

project. Staff notes that as this development is over one acre in size, the plat will need

to be approved by the Village Board. Staff will bring the final plat to the Board for

approval upon approval of final engineering.

This project is a major development as defined by the Subdivision and Development

Ordinance, which would require full public improvements where needed. This includes

street lighting, sidewalks, parkway trees, storm sewer, landscaping and roadway

improvements to include curb and gutter additions. Staff will be working with the

petitioner to establish appropriate timelines for these improvements, particularly in light

of the phased nature of the development. Final consideration of the timing of these

improvements and the manner in which these improvements would be provided will be

addressed in the companion amendment to the annexation agreement.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments from the Plan

Commissioners.

Commissioner Burke asked about the June 2006 timeframe associated with the Reilly's

Pub redevelopment. Mr. Heniff stated that the existing lease between Reilly's and the

property owner runs until that date. As such, they are proposing to do the project in

phases. However, in the meantime, they can demolish the residences, construct the

infrastructure and provide landscaping.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if there was a center turn lane for Roosevelt Road. Mr.

Heniff said that there are existing left turn lanes for Garfield and Highland Avenue - the

entrance into the site would be via a shared median area. Commissioner Sweetser

asked about access into the site from Highland Avenue noting that it is right-in, right-out

access only. She raised a concern that access to and from the site for northbound

Highland Avenue traffic may be a problem.

Commissioner Olbrysh commended the petitioner's response to the comments raised by

the Commissioners at an earlier workshop on the development proposal. He had

concerns about a strip center and the proposed elevations and they have done an

admirable job designing the project. He is now pleased with the project and they have

met his concerns about the type of buildings that are proposed.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if a tenant for the Phase 2 development does not

materialize, how would they proceed. The petitioner's attorney stated that the intent of

the developer is to clear the site and landscape the area. However, they want to have

on the record that the site is available for development.

Commissioner Burke referenced the TCF Sign on the south elevation. One of the

conditions of approval is that they eliminate it on the south side. The tower is all glass -

how to they propose to address the south tower element? Mr. Harrell stated that would

remain a blank glass window. Commissioner Burke stated that since it is 25 feet high,

spandrel glass should be used rather than having a tower light on the south elevation.

Mr. Harrell said that they would consider the request and talk with their client (TCF

Bank).

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the petitioner was in agreement with the conditions in

1. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the site plans prepared

by Woolpert LLC, updated August 5, 2004, the landscape plan, prepared by Arcline

Associates, updated July 2, 2004, the building elevations for proposed retail center,

prepared by Arcline Associates, updated July 28, 2004, the building elevations for

proposed bank, prepared by Griskelis Young Harnell, updated August 9, 2004,

submitted as part of this request and as amended by the conditions of approval for the

project.

2. That the petitioner shall enter into a first amendment to the annexation agreement for

the subject property.

3. That the petitioner's building improvements shall be designed and constructed

consistent with Village Code and shall also address the comments included within the

IDRC report.

4. That any trash enclosure screening required by Section 155.710 of the Zoning

Ordinance shall be constructed of material consistent with the principal building in which

the enclosure is located.

5. To ensure that the proposed signage, awnings and building elevations present a

favorable appearance to neighboring properties, the property shall be developed and

operated as follows:

a. That channel lettering shall only be used for the wall signs.

b. That consistent with the Sign Ordinance, the awnings shall not include text in

conjunction with the wall signage.

c. That the tower peak shall be modified in a manner so that the roof element is

consistent and/or compatible with the adjacent retail building, as determined by the

Director of Community Development.

d. That wall signage shall only be located on the north, east and west sides of the

proposed tower on the bank building.

e. That the watercourse brick at the foundation each of the proposed buildings shall

be compatible.

f. That the perimeter of the proposed dining area for the retail building shall be

fenced, with the design of the fence subject to the approval of the Director of

Community Development.

g. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened pursuant to Section

155.221 of the Zoning Ordinance.

6. To minimize parking conflicts on the property and to minimize impacts on adjacent

properties, the developer/owner of the property shall allow for cross-access and cross

parking between each lot within the proposed development.

7. That the landscape plan and/or the grading plan shall be revised as follows:

a. Additional landscape plantings, meeting the transitional landscape yard

requirements be provided along the south property line and that the landscaping be

installed as part of the Phase 1 improvements.

b. The property immediately south of Reilly's Pub shall be graded and seeded until

such time that the property is developed.

c. A post and rail fence be installed along the north and west side of the property to

prevent trespassing, with the final placement of the fencing subject to the Director of

Community Development.

d. Additional trees shall be placed around the perimeter of the proposed detention

pond, consistent with Section 154.508 of the subdivision and Development Ordinance.

e. Additional landscape plantings consisting of a shade tree and approved ground

cover shall be placed on the landscape island south of the proposed outdoor dining

area.

8. That the redevelopment of the Reilly's Pub site shall be subject to site plan approval

of the Village.

9. That opaque, spandrel glass shall be used for the window element on the south

tower of the proposed banking facility.

John Mulherin, attorney for the petitioner, presented the petition. Mr. Mulherin

mentioned that the DuPage Medical Group received approvals to construct a facility at

the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and Eastgate Road in 2002 and the facility

recently opened in June, 2004. He stated that initially the petitioner intended to acquire

all the properties bounded by Eastgate to the north, Highland to the east, Stewart to the

west and the extension of 18th to the south but were unable to do so.

Mr. Mulherin stated the parking lot will add 92 or 93 spaces, which will be used for

employee parking only and will allow DuPage Medical Group to occupy the basement

level of the facility.

Mr. Mulherin made reference to the fourth and added sixth conditions of approval as

noted within the inter-departmental review report. He questioned the fourth condition as

the petitioner had taken a different interpretation of the ADA accessibility code that

would only require one additional accessible space. He also stated that they have every

intention of complying with the sixth condition requiring that the parking lot be used

exclusively for employee parking. He also mentioned that the fence, required as part of

the fifth condition, would be difficult to place ten feet to the north because of the grade

and slope. The petitioner was considering locating the fence farther back so that the

fence would be taller and provide better screening.

Mr. Mulherin stated that sidewalks would extend along Stewart and Highland that will

bring pedestrians from the parking lot to the DuPage Medical Group facility. He noted

that the employee entrance was located at the southeast side of the building, and that

the actual amount of traversing will be substantially reduced. He noted that the parking

lot is not within 300 feet from their main entrance, but is within 300 feet from the door

used by employees.

Mr. Mulherin introduced Ed Carney, CEO of DuPage Medical Group. Mr. Carney

explained some reasons why the parking was needed. He stated that the facility has

grown more than anticipated and more physicians want to work out of the facility. He

noted that increased demands for services within the building have made it necessary to

utilize the basement, and in order to utilize this space, additional parking is needed to

meet zoning requirements. He also mentioned that with winter coming, better parking

accommodations are needed for employees. He noted that currently DuPage Medical

group has an agreement with the temple across the street to shuttle employees from

their parking lot.

Todd Jabaay of V3 Consultants, Woodridge, IL, referred to the site plan. He identified

the two parcels to the north, which includes a single residence on Highland and a vacant

residence on Stewart, which is scheduled for demolition. Mr. Jabaay described the

underground stormwater detention. He also noted the lighting fixtures that will eliminate

impact for the neighbors to the north.

Mr. Jabaay also mentioned the landscape features, which include a berm on the eastern

portion of the property, and two larger trees that will be placed along the northern

property to screen light and noise. He also noted that 43 percent of the site would be

green space.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if the stormwater would flow into the vault in front of the

DuPage Medical Group facility.

Mr. Jabaay stated that there would be a separate system with outflow directed to

Highland Avenue storm sewer and 100 year overflow directed to the Stewart Avenue

storm sewer.

Commissioner Sweetser asked where people would walk to access the entrance. She

wanted to know if they needed to walk down the parking lot and was concerned about

safety in the winter.

Mr. Jabaay stated that employees would have to walk down the parking lot. He

mentioned that as staff had requested, an additional sidewalk connecting the parking lot

to the Highland Avenue sidewalk would be constructed so that employees would not

have to walk through the right in right out drive.

Commissioner Burke asked how the employee only parking would be enforced and

whether the parking lot would be gated.

Mr. Jabaay stated that there would be a sign indicating employee parking only, but there

will not be a gate. He noted that DuPage Medical Group had building maintenance

personnel to monitor and take action if need be.

Mr. Mulherin introduced Sarah Winter of V3 Consultants who explained their

interpretation of the ADA accessibility code. Ms. Winters noted that staff had required

four additional accessible parking spaces when considering requirements for just the

remote parking lot. Ms. Winters stated that when taking the cumulative 270 parking

spaces in both the main lot and remote lot, only one additional accessible parking space

would be required.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the additional accessible spaces would be located in

the remote parking lot. Ms. Winters stated that the accessible spaces would be located

in the main parking lot because accessible spaces are required to have direct access to

the building entrance.

Peter Vorgulich, of URS in Chicago and the landscape architect for the parking lot and

for the Phase I building, spoke about the landscaping. He stated that the approach they

took in the landscaping was to meet ordinances as well as address perimeter

relationships. Mr. Vorgulich explained that they took the same approaches for the

parking lot as they did with the main facility. He noted that placing the fence ten feet

north of the curb as staff had recommended is not the best location because of the

grading. He suggested that the fence be placed fifteen to twenty feet north of the curb

where the grading was higher and would provide a more effective screening.

In closing, Mr. Mulherin stated that parking is really the only use that can be made of the

property. He stated that using this lot for parking would enhance the site and make for a

more functional parking situation for DuPage Medical Group employees without negative

traffic impacts.

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

against the petition.

Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She mentioned that

the petitioner has acquired the subject property to use as an auxiliary parking facility for

the DuPage Medical Group employees. She stated that the proposed parking lot will

add ninety-three parking spaces to the parking available on-site at the main facility. She

stated that access will be provided from Highland Avenue for right in and right out traffic,

and the parking lot will not be accessible from Stewart Ave.

Ms. Kulikowski presented the comments from the Inter-Departmental Review

Committee. Engineering commented that an additional sidewalk is needed connecting

the parking lot to the Highland Avenue sidewalk so that pedestrians do not have to walk

through the egress/ingress. Building and Fire commented that four additional accessible

parking spaces were needed in the main lot. Ms. Kulikowski noted that staff was willing

to consider the petitioner's interpretation of the ADA accessibility code.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the subject property is contiguous to the Village of Lombard

from the south and west and is located within an area that will ultimately be annexed into

Lombard per Lombard's boundary agreements. She mentioned that the Village

Comprehensive Plan recommends Estate Residential, but staff believes that an O Office

designation is more appropriate because of development trends in that area. Office

uses already exist to south, west and north of property.

Ms. Kulikowski mentioned that the parking lot at the main facility provided 180 spaces.

She also noted that outlined in the conditions of approval for the office planned

development (PC 01-23), DuPage Medical Group could not occupy the basement floor,

but could use the space exclusively for storage purposes until additional parking was

constructed. Ms. Kulikowski stated that the proposed parking lot would allow them to

occupy 23,200 square feet of space in their medical office facility. She also noted that

with the proposed site improvements, off-site parking would be suitable at the subject

property.

Ms. Kulikowski referenced the site plan. She noted that the parking lot would only be

accessible for right-in and right-out traffic from Highland Avenue because of a raised

median in the right of way. She also noted that there will not be access to the parking

lot from Stewart Avenue, and therefore there will not be a significant traffic impact on

Stewart Avenue. Ms. Kulikowski stated that the petitioner also would construct new

concrete sidewalks extending the entire length of the property along Highland Avenue

and Stewart Avenue. A concrete sidewalk is proposed on the eastern portion of the

property linking the parking lot to the proposed Stewart Avenue sidewalk. She stated

that staff will require as a condition of approval that another sidewalk be constructed to

link the proposed parking lot to the proposed sidewalk along Highland Avenue so that

pedestrians will not have to walk into the right in, right out access drive.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the site plan needed to be modified to increase the setback on

the eastern portion of the property from 25 feet to 30 feet. The petitioner stated earlier

that they will modify the site plan and will not lose any parking spaces because area in

one of the landscaping islands will be removed. Ms. Kulikowski mentioned that

landscaping along the eastern portion of the subject property would provide screening

for the residential properties to the east. Also, a six-foot fence will be constructed to

the north of the parking lot.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked about the single-family residential property that exists

between the existing DuPage Medical Group facility and the proposed parking lot. Mr.

Mulherin stated that the petitioner does not own the property on Highland but has made

efforts to acquire it without success. The petitioner was in litigation with the owners of

the property where the parking lot is now being proposed and they acquired it this year

as part of a settlement.

Commissioner Burke mentioned that the Fire Department usually is not happy with dead

end parking lots because they are not accessible to emergency vehicles.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated the Fire Department had not expressed any

concerns to that affect when reviewing the plans. He mentioned that the grading

change onto Stewart might make that difficult.

Commissioner Burke asked how they resolve the issue of emergency vehicles. Mr.

Heniff noted that there is an area at the far northeast corner of the parking lot that could

be used as a turnaround point for an ambulance but may be tight for larger vehicles.

Commissioner Burke asked if the island to the west of the turnaround point would be in

the way. Mr. Heniff stated that he would have the Fire Department take another look at

that island with turning templates.

Chairperson Ryan asked why a different number of accessible parking spaces are

required when you view the two parking lots as a whole. Mr. Heniff explained that the

Illinois Accessibility Code's table for the required number of accessible spaces works on

a sliding scale so that as the number of total parking spaces increases, the number of

additional accessible spaces decreases. He also mentioned that the state requires the

accessible spaces to be located closest to the entrance point.

Mr. Heniff noted the petitioner's statement earlier that they would most likely have to

relocate the fence because of the grading to the north of the parking lot. He suggested

that "ten feet" be stricken from condition five so that it reads "…a solid fence, six feet in

height, to be located north of the curb line of the proposed parking". Mr. Heniff stated

that staff recommends approval with conditions and an added sixth condition that "the

proposed parking lot be exclusively for the use and benefit of the employees of the

DuPage Medical Group facility located at 1807 S. Highland Avenue".

1. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the plans prepared by

Eckenhoff Saunders Architects dated July 13, 2004 and included as part of the petition.

Said plans shall be modified to incorporate the comments noted within the

Inter-Departmental Review Report.

2. That the petitioner shall modify site plan so that the eastern portion of the proposed

parking lot does not encroach on the 30-foot setback requirement.

3. That the petitioner shall include the following sidewalk improvements:

a. A concrete sidewalk shall be constructed to extend the full length of the property

along Highland Avenue and Stewart Avenue.

b. A sidewalk link must be established between the proposed parking lot and the

proposed Highland Avenue sidewalk, of which the final design will be subject to review

by the Director of Community Development.

4. The existing parking lot for the DuPage Medical Group Facility, located at 1807 S.

Highland Avenue, shall be modified to include additional accessible parking spaces as

required by the Illinois Accessibility Code.

5. That the petitioner shall address vehicle lighting by constructing a solid fence, six feet

in height, to be located north of the curb line of the proposed parking lot in a similar

nature to the final design subject to review by the Director of Community Development.

6. That the off-site parking lot be exclusively for the use and benefit of the employees of

the DuPage Medical Group located at 1807 South Highland Avenue.

E. PC 04-21: 1103-1177 S. Main Street and 150 E. Roosevelt Road (Waiver of

First Requested)

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

Development, located within the B3 Community Shopping District:

For the Entire Planned Development:

1. Approve amendments to Ordinances 2555 and 4088 approving and amending a

Conditional Use for a Planned Development as it pertains to freestanding signs and

perimeter lot landscaping requirements.

2. Per Section 155.208 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance, approve a conditional use to allow

for more than one principal structure on a lot of record.

For Parcels V and W:

1. Per Section 155.414 (C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance, approve a conditional use for a

drive-through establishment;

2. Per Section 155.414 (C)(18) of the Zoning Ordinance, approve a conditional use for

an outdoor service area (outdoor dining);

3. Approve the following deviations from the Sign Ordinance:

a. a deviation from Section 153.234 (G) of the Sign Ordinance providing for an

additional free-standing sign in conjunction with a shopping center sign;

b. an amendment to Ordinance 4088 allowing for an automatic changeable copy

sign to be located on the petitioner's proposed free-standing sign;

c. a deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(5)(b) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for a

free-standing sign of greater than 50 square feet in overall sign size;

d. a deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(17)(b)(2) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for

more than two wall signs are allowed for exterior tenants. The petitioner is requesting a

waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #6)

Dave Koch of DJ Properties, 3415 Landstrom Av., Rockford, IL presented the petition.

He noted that he currently operates three Culver's franchises and has obtained the

franchise rights for the Lombard store.

He then discussed the building plan and distributed a copy of the plans to the

Commissioners. The proposed Culver's is slightly different than the facilities in Carol

Stream or Addison. The proposed restaurant is a new design, which has a lower profile

and a smaller 21-foot high blue tower in the middle to give it the Culver's look. He

referred to the site plan and the staff report and agreed with most of the conditions. He

commented on the traffic pattern and staff's comments regarding the turning movements

into the site. They now concur with staff's recommendation that the right turn movement

into the site may be difficult and they proposed to modify their plan to remove the access

point into the facility. However, they still wanted the Commissioners to consider the

merits of allowing vehicles exiting the drive-through area to directly access into the

shopping center access drive north of the drive-through lane. He stated that they may

also modify their plans to provide for two additional post-order stacking spaces for the

restaurant. They also noted that the proposed poles around the drive-through area

could also create conflicts with vehicles.

They do support all the other conditions including fencing around the outdoor dining

area, the sign restrictions, and that the trash enclosure will match the building. He

added that an electronic message sign would be placed on the pylon sign but not on the

building itself.

Commissioner Sweetser asked for more information about the barrier curbing that was

mentioned by the petitioner and staff. The petitioner explained staff supports a solid

barrier along the south side of the shopping center entrance drive. They would prefer a

cut in the barrier after the drive-through window to allow customers to leave the area

without having to circle around the building. The Commissioners then discussed the

design of the drive-through area.

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

He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, referred to the staff report, which was submitted to the

public record. He focused upon the primary development issues for the site. He

discussed the compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding land uses,

which consists of retail establishments and drive-through uses.

He then stated that any approvals for this petition should be reviewed in the context of

the overall planned development. Within the planned development, the shopping center

owner has submitted a preliminary landscape plan for the perimeter of the center. Staff

had a landscape architect review the plan and provided the recommendations that are

included within the staff report. Staff has added a condition that would require the

plantings to be installed within twelve months from the date of approval of the draft

Ordinances.

With respect to the freestanding signage, staff believes the freestanding shopping

center signs should be reviewed as part of this petition. Staff is supportive of a plan that

would establish two new signs (one on Roosevelt and one on Main) that would be

consistent in design. Staff also notes that the shopping center owner will commit

installing the new sign within a two-year period. However, staff recommends as a

condition of approval that the proposed sign package be submitted to the Plan

Commission for site plan approval within six-months from the date of approval of an

Ordinance approving the planned development amendment.

He then discussed the requested action for the Culver's site. Referencing the

drive-through conditional use, staff asked KLOA, the Village's traffic consultant to review

this issue in greater detail. They concurred with staff's recommendation that the initial

plan creates conflicting vehicle movements. KLOA suggested a barrier between the

drive-through lanes and the entrance drive.

Staff is supportive of the conditional use for outdoor dining provided that the outdoor

dining area is appropriately fenced.

Referencing the sign deviations, he noted that the Sign Ordinance prohibits freestanding

signs if a shopping center sign exists. They are also proposing an automatic

changeable copy (ACC) sign as part of their proposed freestanding sign. Staff has a

general concern about excessive signage. To address this concern, the shopping

center owner is willing to trade off his rights to an ACC sign. This would allow Culver's

to erect an ACC sign and would restrict the shopping center from doing the same for the

Main Street sign.

With respect to the deviation from the sign area, staff notes that as access into the site

will be restricted; motorists will need to turn earlier, at Morris Avenue. Therefore an

increase in sign size can be supported.

Staff recommends approval of the petition, subject to conditions. He noted that the

conditions of approval reference the sections of the previously approved Ordinances

that need to be amended. He also added a few edits to the conditions, noting that

conditions 1 and 4 should reference Culver's and that the conditions of approval should

clarify the nature of the proposed amendments to the previous Ordinances.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about the ACC signs. Mr. Heniff stated that there is a

ACC sign on the proposed freestanding sign for Culver's and that no ACC element

would be on the Main Street sign. He said that the shopping center owner will need to

come back to Plan Commission for approval of compatible signage on Main Street.

Commissioner Burke asked if it is a problem that the packet submitted at the meeting

has the message board on the building. Mr. Heniff stated that the petitioner has not

added this element to their public hearing request and they do not plan on erecting an

ACC sign on the building. They only submitted these pictures to give the

Commissioners an understanding of the proposed building based upon a prototype that

they recently completed in Milwaukee.

That Section A of Ordinance 4088 adopted October 19, 1995 shall be amended to read

as follows:

1. That the petitioner shall submit a revised landscape plan to the Village for review and

approval and shall undertake the following landscape improvements per the proposed

plan:

a. Any evergreen pine trees that have been topped shall be removed;

b. That replacement deciduous trees shall be provided per Code along the perimeter

of the parking lot;

c. That where suggested by the Director of Community Development, the petitioner

shall provide xeriscape plantings, consisting of native and salt-tolerant grasses and

plantings in lieu of shrubs.

d. That installation of the new plantings shall occur within twelve months of the date

of approval of this Ordinance.

2. That Section A. 2.e. of Ordinance 4088 adopted October 19, 1995 shall be amended

to remove the reference to Long John Silver's.

3. That Section A 2. of Ordinance 4088 adopted October 19, 1995 shall be amended to

include the following:

f. That the property identified as Parcels V and W shall be permitted to be improved

with a new Culver's fast-food restaurant. That the petitioner shall develop the site

essentially in accordance with the submitted plans prepared by Roscoe Engineering and

Ollman Associates Architects and made part of this petition and attached as Exhibit A.

g. That as part of the approval for the outdoor dining activity, the petitioner shall

provide fencing around the perimeter of the dining area, with the design of the fence

subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development.

h. That the Culver's free-standing sign shall not exceed 117 square feet in overall

sign size, with the proposed Culver's oval sign not to exceed 98 square feet and the

automatic changeable copy sign shall not exceed 29 square feet in size, as depicted on

the submitted plans created by Jones Signs, dated July 28, 2004 and as amended by

the petitioner.

i. That any trash enclosure screening as required by Section 155.710 of the Zoning

Ordinance shall be constructed of a material consistent with the proposed restaurant

building.

4. That Section 11 of Ordinance 4088 adopted October 19, 1995 be replaced in its

entirety and shall read as follows:

11. That the conditional use for a drive-though establishment for Culver's shall be

subject to the following conditions:

a. That the proposed barrier island dividing the access drive from the drive-through

lane shall be modified to extend along the north side of the drive-though lane from the

east property line of Parcel V to Main Street.

b. The Main Street entrance drive into the planned development shall be redesigned

as a right-in, right-out facility.

5. That Section B of Ordinance 4088 adopted October 19, 1995 shall be amended to

read in its entirety as follows:

1. That within six months of the date of approval of this Ordinance, the shopping

center owner shall submit an application and plans to the Plan Commission for a new

shopping center sign along Roosevelt Road. Said sign can be reviewed and approved

by the Plan Commission as part of the site plan approval process.

2. In conjunction with the proposed shopping center sign, the center shall erect a

compatible sign replacing the existing pylon sign at Main Street and Edward Street with

a new sign compatible to the sign to be erected on Roosevelt Road. However, the Main

Street sign shall not exceed 27 feet in height or 150 square feet in sign surface area.

3. Said signs shall be erected within two years of the date of approval of this

Ordinance.

6. That Section 3. a. of Ordinance 2555 adopted September 23, 1982, shall be deleted

SPA 04-07ph: 2360 Fountain Square Drive (Items 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 continued from

August 16, 2004)

Requests amendments to the approved site plan as follows:

1. Allow an additional outdoor dining area;

2. Allow modifications to the approved building elevations;

3. Pursuant to Section 5.F.3 of the B3 Development Agreement for the Fountain

Square of Lombard property, allow a deviation from Section 153.602 of the Village's

Sign Ordinance (definition of "Frontage") for the purpose of treating the east property

line's orientation to Fountain Square Drive as the property's "Frontage."

4. Allow a deviation from Section 153.207 (C) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow

for a moving (rotating) sign; (Item withdrawn by petitioner)

5. Allow a deviation from Section 153.208 (G) (2) (4) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to

allow for exposed light bulbs on an illuminated sign; (Item withdrawn by petitioner)

6. Allow a deviation from Section 153.277 (D) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow

a sign to project above the top of the building; (Item withdrawn by petitioner)

7. Allow a deviation from Section 153.277 (E) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow

a sign to project more than four (4) feet from the supporting wall of the projecting sign;

8. Allow a deviation from Section 153.239 (F) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow

a projecting sign to be displayed in conjunction with wall signs;

9. Allow a deviation from Section 153.505 (B) (16) (a) (1) of the Lombard Sign

Ordinance to allow for individual wall signs greater than 100 feet in area and to allow the

total sign surface area of all wall signs to exceed 117 square feet; and

10. Allow a deviation from Section 153.505 (B) (16) (a) (2) of the Lombard Sign

Ordinance to allow for multiple wall signs.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone in the audience that would be presenting

evidence or cross examining the witness. Hearing none he requested that the petitioner

present their petition.

Robert Latham, Facility Manager with Uncle Julio's, 1125 Union Bower, Irving Texas,

presented the petition. He gave the history behind the restaurant since its opening in

Fountain Square in 2003. Since that time they have opened two additional restaurants in

other areas that are similar. Due to those experiences, they are now requesting

modifications to their existing building.

Mr. Latham displayed a site plan and described the existing site which included the

landscaping and outside courtyard. He pointed to various elements on the site plan and

described where and what they are proposing to accomplish:

1. The railing on the dining patio has been pushed out to follow the contour of the

sidewalk.

2. Enclose the outdoor patio and construct a stone fireplace in the interior. An exterior

fireplace, constructed of stucco and tile, will be added to the outdoor patio as well as a 6'

high stacked tile wall and a smaller screen wall in the open courtyard.

3. Change some of the building materials and repaint the building. The paint will consist

of richer, deeper colors than what currently exist.

4. Remove the metal roof and replace with a clay tile roof.

5. Provide custom design iron work.

6. The courtyard would be covered with heavy timber.

7. The sign package is changing due to the change in corporate branding.

He noted that staff does not support the proposed projecting sign. Consequently, they

are making revisions to that signage element which will be brought forward at the

September 20th meeting. They are proposing all the other signage on the building with

the exception of the projecting sign.

Chairperson Ryan asked if the Commissioners had any questions of the petitioner.

Commissioner Olbrysh questioned whether the establishment would remain open during

renovations and if staff had taken into consideration the safety of patrons. Mr. Latham

indicated that during the remodeling they will remain open but are aware that the safety

of their patrons are foremost. The restaurant will be closed during certain construction

periods like when they do the entrywall or open up a wall. Mr. Heniff exampled Friday's

Restaurant and how they did their remodeling while remaining open. He stated that it is

a coordination function and the Bureau of Inspectional Services has had to deal with

these types of issues.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the elevations are a concept plan as the railing is

shown as being straight but the drawing shows the contour. Mr. Latham answered that

the railing will be moved out to follow the contour of the sidewalk. Commissioner

Sweetser asked if the outdoor seating will come out to the railing. Mr. Latham answered

that it will not.

In conclusion, Mr. Latham indicated he had a color board and proceeded to name the

paint colors and explain where each would be used on the building.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or against

this petition. Hearing none, he requested the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, asked Mr. Latham to pass around the color board to the

Commissioners and then proceeded to present the staff report. She stated that staff

recommends approval of five of the 10 requested items which include an outdoor dining

area, changes to the approved elevations, and deviations for wall signage. The other

requested items of relief relating to the projecting sign which will be continued to the

September meeting as staff has concerns about the rotating element. The petitioner

has agreed to modify the sign and would appreciate any comments the Commissioners

might have to facilitate those changes. In order to allow the petitioner to begin

construction on the outdoor dining area and other improvements, staff recommends that

all items not associated with the projecting sign be considered at this meeting.

Ms. Backensto indicated that the outdoor dining area is surrounded on three sides by

the Fountain Square Planned Development. Galyan's is located to the south,

AmeriSuites is located to the north, and Jared, Baja Fresh and Starbucks are located

east. An outdoor patio will be located north of the existing patio on the east side of the

building. The new patio will be orientated away from the seminary property and

screened by AmeriSuites to the north so the layout of the structure is compatible to the

surrounding land uses and is appropriate.

The Fountain Square Development Agreement allows for design elements which have

been addressed. The major change has to do with the new paint colors which are

compatible as they are in keeping with the deeper, more intense colors found on other

buildings within the Fountain Square development.

Staff supports the three requested signage deviations. The first relates to treating the

east property line's orientation to Fountain Square Drive as the property's frontage.

Staff supports this request as the property is addressed and accessed off of Fountain

Square Drive. The second requested deviation is to allow for individual wall signs

greater than 100 feet in area and to allow the total sign surface area of all wall signs to

excced 117 square feet. Staff supports this deviation given the distance of the property

from Fountain Square Drive and due to other buildings in this development receiving

variations for larger wall signs. The last requested deviation is for multiple wall signs.

Staff can support this deviation as the wall signs are similar to the current amount of wall

signage and they would get exposure from the south access roadway and Buttterfield

Road. Staff notes that the painted signage on the north and west signs of the building

will be removed.

In conclusion, Ms. Backensto stated that staff recommends approval of the outdoor

dining area, builidng elevations, and deviations for wall signs subject to conditions noted

in the staff report and to continue all other requested relieft relating to the projected sign

to the September meeting.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for questions and comments from the

Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if staff wanted them to treat the projected sign deviations

as a workshop. Mr. Heniff clarified for the record that the existing projected sign

includes the arrow and "Hacienda" sign. The proposed projected signage crosses this

line and staff is looking for direction as to what might be appropriate at that location.

Chairperson Ryan indicated that he likes the restaurant and that the new color scheme

will help the looks, but the requested signage will detract from their building and the

image of Fountain Square.

Commisisoner Burke referred to the plan and indicated he did not like the lightbulbs

located on the rotating head and face but liked the rest of the sign.

Commissioner Olbrysh concurred that the lightbulbs do not fit in with what has been

achieved with Fountain Square.

Commissioner Sweeter concurred with Commissioners Burke and Olbrysh.

Mr. Heniff asked for suggestion as to what might be favorable.

Commissioner Sweetser indicated no exposed lightbulbs.

Commissioner Melarkey stated that it is not so much what they like or dislike but it is the

decorum of Fountain Square that should be considered.

Mr. Latham responded that there is some quirkiness to Mexican restaurants so they

tried to pull that off with the sign. He admits the sign does reflect a 1950's trend but they

do have restaurants that have flashing arrows with a head on it. He indicated they were

trying to incorporate their branding into the sign. By using the face this would be a way

to gain instant name recognition for their restaurant. He felt that there were more options

to this building so they will go back and revisit this issue and present their revisions at

the next meeting.

Mr. James Madden, 105 W. St. Charles, Lombard, presented the petition for the Texan

restaurant. They are requesting an amendment to the Ordinance that was approved

last year ago. The original ordinance allowed open outdoor seating from May 1 until

September 30 and on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights, and set hour restrictions.

They want to increase the dates in which they can have outdoor dining from April 1 to

October 31 and on Thursday nights. On Sunday and Thursday nights the dining will

close at 9:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturdays it would close at 11:00 p.m. They have

had a lot of requests for outdoor parties on these days, so they are seeking the

amendment.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there were any questions of the petitioner. Hearing none he

opened the meeting for public participation. There was no one to speak in favor or in

opposition to the petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, prepared the staff report. He referred to page 3 of the

staff report and referred to proposed day, date and time changes associated with the

request. The outdoor dining was granted by the Village Board in 2003, finding that it will

meet code and provides a positive effect for the downtown. He mentioned the outdoor

sidewalk decoration permits process and other outdoor dining establishments and

stated that the petitioner's request is not substantially different. Staff supports the

request and finds that the activity is compatible with the downtown and the intent of the

B5 district.

He mentioned that the 105 West St. Charles Road property has condominium uses, so

establishing regulations associated with the outdoor dining is appropriate. He

referenced a proposed condition that would require customers to leave the outdoor area

thirty minutes after closing hours. He also suggested a modification to the conditions of

approval that adds federal holidays to the days in which the outdoor dining must close at

9:00 p.m.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting to the Commissioners. Commissioner

Burke would like to add an additional condition to have the trailer in the parking lot

relocated to some place to store out of public view when not used on site. It takes up a

parking stall and it is not appropriate for the downtown area.

Commissioner Sweeter asked if the original ordinance conditions would still be in effect.

Mr. Heniff said yes.