Village of Lombard Legistar System

surrounding sites. They added vertical planes of stone material around the building

which is the same stone used in the water retention area and surrounding buildings.

In addition to the change of elevations, they also requested signage relief on the south

elevation. There are two wall signs - one set half way back and one on the south

elevation. The outdoor dining area was also reworked. The footprint remains the same

but now includes a fireplace. He then showed a picture of the outdoor dining area with

landscaping.

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

present to speak in favor of or against the petition.

William Heniff presented the staff report, which was submitted to the public record in its

entirety. In August, 2007 the Plan Commission held a public hearing to consider zoning

actions pertaining to a proposed 9,500 square foot fast-food restaurant to be located

within the Highlands of Lombard Planned Development (PC 07-26). Included within this

petition was a request for approval of a two-lot plat of resubdivision; a conditional use for

a drive-through establishment/service; site plan approval for a fast-food restaurant

establishment and a deviation from the Sign Ordinance to allow more than one wall sign

on a single-tenant building and site plan approval for the proposed freestanding sign.

The petition was ultimate approved by the Village Board.

Since that approval date, the petitioner acquired the subject property and is intending on

proceeding with his restaurant plans. The petition primarily consists of modifications to

the exterior building elevations. The petition still intends to follow the approved site plan

and the restaurant building will not change in location or gross area. As a companion to

their request, they are also seeking consideration of a second wall sign on the south

building elevation.

He stated that the subject property is bordered on the south by an existing commercial

retail strip center and bank with drive-through. The Highlands III retail center now under

development is west of the site, and Yorktown Center is located across Highland

Avenue to the east. The proposed use is compatible with the existing businesses and

the Comprehensive Plan.

He then noted the 2007 conditions of approval associated with Ordinance 6085 and how

they relate to the planned development. The Patio Restaurant's initial design was

intended to blend the common elements established within the planned development

within a modern building architectural design. However, the latest submittal removes

many of the modern/contemporary design elements such as the peaked glass entrance

with more horizontal roof lines. The proposed elevations also incorporates a larger

percentage of fieldstone, changing the brick color, alter the roof pitch by lowering the

roof structure heights.

The planned development requires 70 percent of all exterior facades to be made up of

stone, brick, split face block or cedar, exclusive of glass. The revised Patio Restaurant

elevations meet this provision as well. The petitioner is seeking to "darken" the selected

brick type beyond that which was originally approved within the Ordinance. Regarding

the stone elements within the restaurant building, the petitioner notes that the intent is to

provide limestone/fieldstone materials to the fireplace element.

The petitioner's plans still provide an outdoor dining component with the restaurant. The

latest submitted plan set depicts how the dining area will be oriented and operated.

They are contemplating an outdoor fireplace as an accent element, for which staff would

consider a minor change. As the refined changes are not deemed to constitute an

expansion to the outdoor service/dining area, no further actions need to be taken

regarding this element.

He then discussed the signage request. The petitioner's revised building elevations

show two signs on the south wall. As the approval Ordinance only provided for one sign

per elevation, they also are seeking considering of the second sign on the south

elevation. In discussions with the petitioner, staff raised concerns regarding multiple

wall signs on a single building elevation. Staff noted the recent denial of multiple wall

signs for Sweet Tomatoes within the Highlands of Lombard planned development on the

east elevation for precedence.

The petitioner notes that the wall sign on the left (west) is intended to break up the

building mass, similarly to the wall signage that was approved in the 2007 application,

staff notes that refinements to the metal banding or masonry materials can also perform

the same function. The Amcore Bank building would largely block the sign on the south

elevation. As it would not be an identifying element for motorists, it does not serve a

valued purpose. Allowing the petitioner to display multiple wall signs on a single

elevation would set a precedent for granting the same relief to other tenants within the

Highlands of Lombard and there is no hardship or unique circumstance that warrants

consideration of the additional wall sign. Staff does not support the requested additional

wall signage deviation.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweeter stated that in terms of walking up to a building, it can be very

disconcerting if there is no signage to identify the building even if you are very sure.

She suggested something on the glass or door. Mr. Howard stated that it could be

done, but to put a sign in the glass would ruin the cleanness of the look. He then

showed the structure noting that it is set back on the same elevation but not on the

same facade.

Chairperson Ryan suggested that the sign could be centered. Mr. Howard noted the

distinct locations of the signage and stated that if the sign did not appear on the busier

side, customers may miss it.

A. That the conditions of approval of Ordinance 6085 shall be amended to read in its

entirety as follows:

1. The site improvements shall be constructed in compliance with the submitted

plans included within the plan submittal packet prepared by James Papaoutsis Design

Architect, updated August 10, 2007 (including the site plans and freestanding sign

proposal); the Preliminary Engineering Plans, prepared by Hoefferle-Butler Engineering,

Inc, dated July 12, 2007; the Landscape Development Plan, prepared by Trippiedi

Design Landscape Architect, dated July 13, 2007; the Plat of Resubdivision, prepared

by Spaceco Inc., dated July 2, 2007; and the Photometric Plan, prepared by Zolter

Electric, dated June 7, 2007 (sic.) and made a part of this petition, except as amended

by the conditions of approval. The concept building elevations (exclusive of the second

wall sign on the south elevation) shall be constructed in compliance with the submitted

plans included within the plan submittal packet prepared by Knauer, Incorporated.

2. The petitioner shall meet all development and building codes of the Village of

Lombard and shall follow the provisions set forth within the Highlands of Lombard

planned development approval.

3. The proposed freestanding sign shall be placed outside of any easement areas.

The freestanding sign exterior shall be of a limestone/fieldstone material, consistent with

the signage previously approved within the planned development. Moreover, the sign

cabinets shall be designed in a manner that minimizes exterior light glare.

4. The wall signage approval shall only be for the four exterior "The Patio" signs as

depicted on the exterior elevations as depicted on the C2 South Elevation plan,

prepared by Knauer, Incorporated. All wall signs on the proposed buildings must be of a

channel letter design.

Ryan Howard, 905 N. Ridge Ave., Suite 8, Lombard, of Chicago Soydairy presented the

petition. Mr. Howard stated that Chicago Soydairy operates from a multi-unit building on

Ridge Avenue. In 2005, the business obtained a lease. He and his partners were

searching for a clean building in which to manufacture non-dairy ice cream. In 2006,

Chicago Soydairy received an award from the State of Illinois for being the most

innovative small business in its category. When Chicago Soydairy began operating, Mr.

Howard stated that he was unaware that obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy was

necessary. Therefore, he is petitioning to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for Suite 8.

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

or in opposition to the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Stuart Moynihan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Staff has prepared a

report and is submitting it to the public record in its entirety. The subject property,

addressed as 901-905 North Ridge Avenue, consists of a single multiple tenant

industrial building. Since August 2005, the petitioner has been operating at the above

address as Chicago Soydairy, a non-dairy ice cream manufacturer.

As part of our review of the business establishment, it was discovered that Chicago

Soydairy had not been issued a Certificate of Occupancy (CO). The petitioner is

requesting conditional use approval to continue this operation. As Food Manufacturing

in the I Limited Industrial District is a conditional use, Village Board approval is required.

As part of the conditional use review process, staff has reviewed the current conditions

on the property as they relate to parking and landscaping requirements. The subject

property may be non-conforming with respect to parking. However, there are sixty (60)

parking spaces and crowding is not an issue on the property.

The subject property does not currently comply with the landscaping requirements of the

Zoning Ordinance. However, it should be noted that there is insufficient space on the

property to construct additional landscaping without the loss of parking spaces or

interfering with drive aisles.

Chicago Soydairy currently shares a dumpster with the tenants of Suite 9. The

petitioner states that the business has a commitment to sustainability. Therefore, they

transport most of their waste to the DuPage County recycling facilities and create only

one bag of trash per month.

Food manufacturing, packaging, and processing is listed as a conditional use in the I

Limited Industrial District due in part to the potential for a wide range of usage intensities

associated with this use. While large scale and/or noxious food manufacturing

operations would likely raise concerns about noise, odor, and waste products, staff does

not believe Chicago Soydairy to be an operation of that variety.

The approval of the requested conditional use would not have significant effects on the

subject property outside of the interior tenant space. With the exception of loading

operations done from a garage door, all business activities are conducted within the

tenant space.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends Light Industrial uses at this location. The

proposed use complies with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan.

Chicago Soydairy has been in operation since August 2005 without any known

complaints from adjacent businesses or other individuals. The subject business is

industrial in nature and is surrounded exclusively by other industrial uses. Chicago

Soydairy's operations, as described by the petitioner, are not intensive enough to be a

nuisance, safety concern, or health concern for the surrounding land uses.

Staff has reviewed the petition and finds that petition does meet the Standards for

Conditional Uses set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff is recommending approval

subject to the two conditions in the staff report.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comment among the Commissioners.

There were no comments or questions from the Commissioners.

Sean Khan, 139 Eisenhower Lane North, of Safe Couriers presented the petition. Mr.

Khan stated that his courier business have been in operation at the subject property for

about four (4) years. The subject property is currently being operated as eight thousand

(8000) square feet of warehousing and offices. Mr. Khan is proposing to build a small

room at the rear of the warehouse to house a tortilla-making machine. He also indicated

that the machine is modular and can be enlarged to increase capacity. This is a

possibility in the future.

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

or in opposition to the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Stuart Moynihan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Staff has prepared a

report and is submitting it to the public record in its entirety. The subject property,

addressed as 139 Eisenhower Lane North, consists of a single multiple tenant industrial

building.

Safe Couriers is currently operating an 8,000 square foot warehouse and office at 139

Eisenhower Lane North. They are proposing to build a separate room within the

warehouse that will be used for the manufacturing of a tortilla-like product called a

chapatti. As Food Manufacturing in the I Limited Industrial District is a conditional use,

Village Board approval is required. The petitioner plans to produce the chapattis

between the hours of three (3) a.m. and six a.m. (6). As the petitioning business plans

to do its own distribution, the chapattis will be loaded onto Safe Courier trucks at six (6)

a.m. The petitioner states that he may plan to expand production within the warehouse

at a future point in time.

Staff has reviewed the property with respect to parking requirements. The subject

property has ninety-five (95) spaces and crowding is not an issue. The Zoning

Ordinance requires one (1) parking space per one and a half (1.5) employees in the I

Limited Industrial District. As the petitioner does not plan to hire any new employees,

additional parking would not be required.

The subject property does not currently comply with the landscaping requirements of the

Zoning Ordinance. However, it should be noted that there is insufficient space on the

property to construct landscaping without the loss of parking spaces or interfering with

drive aisles. The dumpster has not been screened per the provisions of Section

155.710 of the Zoning Ordinance with a six (6) foot to eight (8) foot solid wood fence.

Food manufacturing, packaging, and processing is listed as a conditional use in the I

Limited Industrial District due in part to the potential for a wide range of usage intensities

associated with this use. The petitioner has stated that conditional use "will not have

any impact on the business park." The petitioner has expressed that waste, noise,

increased traffic, and other such issues associated with the conditional use will not

adversely affect surrounding properties.

The approval of the requested conditional use would not have significant effects on the

subject property outside of the interior tenant space. All business activities will be

conducted indoors with the exception of loading and unloading.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends Planned Business Park uses at this location.

The proposed use complies with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan.

Safe Couriers will operate a Food Manufacturing, Packaging, and Processing business

which is industrial in nature. The subject property is surrounded exclusively by other

industrial uses. The petitioner has stated that the new business will not have traffic

impacts, create hazardous waste products, or be detrimental to the surrounding

environment.

Staff has reviewed the petition and finds that petition does meet the Standards for

Conditional Uses set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff is recommending approval

subject to the conditions in the staff report.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comment among the Commissioners.

There were no comments or questions from the Commissioners.

Bruce Church, 951 N. Ridge Ave., Lombard, of Balanced Environments presented the

petition. Mr. Church described the first petition for a conditional use. In 1983, Mr.

Church's father, Denny Church, bought and developed the subject property as a

landscape contractor's storage yard. Later, it was leased to another landscaping

company and was continually used as a landscape contractor's storage yard. In 2008,

Bruce Church reassumed the lease at the subject property and continued operation as a

landscape contractor's storage yard. Therefore, the use is legal non-conforming. Mr.

Church described the second petition for a conditional use. He stated that there was an

existing diesel fuel tank on subject property. The tank was recently removed by the

previous tenant.

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

or in opposition to the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Stuart Moynihan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Staff has prepared a

report and is submitting it to the public record in its entirety. The subject property,

addressed as 951 North Ridge Avenue, is currently being used as a Landscape

Contractor's Storage Yard. An asphalt and concrete repair business, Hard Surface

Solutions, is also located on the property.

The property has been in use as contactor's yard beginning in or before 1983 and is,

therefore, considered a legal non-conforming use. Approval of the petitioner's first

request would address this legal non-conformity. As a Contractor's Storage Yard in the I

Limited Industrial District is a conditional use, Village Board approval is required.

The petitioner also requests approval to allow the construction of two above ground

diesel fuel tanks on the property. Within the past two years, an above ground fuel tank

of a similar nature was removed from the property. As accessory structures on the

same property as a conditional use in the I Limited Industrial District are considered

conditional uses themselves, Village Board approval is required.

With regard to the Fire Department, the Fire Marshal will be conducting a full review of

the permit.

As part of the conditional use review process, staff has reviewed the current conditions

on the property as they relate to parking and landscaping requirements.

The property currently has forty-nine (49) spaces, meeting the total number required.

However, the property only has one Accessible Parking Space where two are required.

Balanced Environments currently stores its dumpsters within the contractor's yard area

itself. However, this does not meet the dumpster screening provisions of Section

155.710 of the Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner would need to install a solid wood

fence at a height of not less than six (6) feet and not more than eight (8) feet to meet this

requirement.

Within the contractor's storage yard, there is a large unpaved area that is currently

covered with gravel. Staff believes it desirable to have this area paved as vehicles will

be parked there overnight.

The approval of the requested conditional use would not have significant effects on

surrounding properties as the current business already operates as a legal

non-conforming use. The proposed diesel fuel tanks have been reviewed by both the

Village of Lombard's Fire Department and the Office of the State Fire Marshal. The

tanks are not anticipated to be a danger or nuisance to surrounding properties.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends Light Industrial uses at this location. The

proposed use complies with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan.

The subject business is industrial in nature and is surrounded exclusively by other

industrial uses. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses.

Staff has reviewed the petition and finds that petition does meet the Standards for

Conditional Uses set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff is recommending approval

subject to the five (5) conditions in the staff report.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comment among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked what the capacity of the tanks would be.

Bruce Church answered that the tanks would be two thousand five hundred (2500)

gallons each.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked why the tanks were being placed above ground.

Bruce Church stated that this way the tanks could be easily visually inspected. Also, the

tanks would be electronically monitored for fuel being taken out.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked why the concrete structure around the tanks was

necessary and if there should be a top as well.

Bruce Church stated that normally a top is not needed for these kinds of tanks. Also,

the concrete is an extra safety precaution as the tanks are double-walled.

1. The subject property shall be developed and operated in conformance with the site

plan prepared by Bruce Church, dated April 15, 2008.

2. The tanks shall meet the following provisions:

a. The tanks shall be double walled.

b. A Spill Prevention Control and Containment plan shall be provided to the Fire

Marshall for review.

c. The tanks shall be placed within a containment pad designed to retain twice the

volume of the tanks.

d. The petitioner shall obtain permit for above ground storage from the Office of the

State Fire Marshal.

e. The petitioner will need permits from the Village to install the tank(s) and any

electrical work, etc.

f. The fuel tanks shall be exclusively used in conjunction with the business

establishment located on the subject property and shall not be used for general fueling

purposes.

3. All dumpsters or other outside waste containers associated with the business use

shall be effectively screened per the provisions of Section 155.710 of the Zoning

Ordinance. The petitioner shall apply for a permit for the fence and screening

improvements.

Pat Bisciano of 4N015 Firestone Creek Rd., St. Charles, presented the petition on

behalf of Gap Development. She stated she is part of the sales staff and for advertising

purposes they need signage deviations. The current sign is larger and not allowed by

code. They have a couple more signs that are allowed by code. The units in the

building are available for sale and the signs will be temporary and only used until the

units are sold.

William Heniff presented the staff report which was submitted to the public record in its

entirety. The subject property is the Prairie Path Villas which is a mixed use of

condominiums and retail space located at the southwest corner of Main Street and Ash

Street. The petitioner is requesting site plan approval with three deviations from the

Sign Ordinance for temporary signs to be located on the subject property. The

temporary signs will be used to promote condominium and retail space sales. The

petitioner is requesting an extension beyond the one hundred twenty (120) day limitation

for displaying two (2) temporary signs/banners (one currently exists on the building).

The petitioner is also requesting to increase the allotment of development signage from

sixty-four (64) square feet to ninety-six (96) square feet for two development signs

already placed on the building. Three (3) window signs are proposed to occupy more

than twenty (20) percent of the total window surface area, which also requires relief.

He noted that there were no comments from the other interdepartmental entities. As far

as Planning comments he noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends community

commercial uses at this location. As the ground-floor level consists of commercial

business, it is compatible. When the Prairie Path Villas Planned Development was

originally established (PC 05-43), approval was granted for a mixed sign package. The

signage approval granted relief to allow for awning and canopy signs to be displayed in

conjunction with wall signs, and also deviations to allow for more than one wall sign per

street frontage. The permanent signage 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. The

proposed temporary signage is consistent with the objectives of the original Prairie Path

Villas Planned Development approvals; however, any subsequent signage deviations

are only considered through the site plan approval process.

The petitioner has applied for and received a permit for one banner sign, which is

currently located on the condominium building. Section 153.237(D)(2) of the Sign

Ordinance states that the total of all permits issued for displaying temporary

signs/banners cannot exceed one hundred twenty (120) days in any calendar year. The

petitioner is requesting a deviation to allow two (2) banners on the subject property to be

displayed longer than the one hundred twenty (120) day limitation. The petitioner will be

using the banners to promote the condominium sales for the Prairie Path Villas project

for a one (1) year time period. Once all of the units are sold, the petitioner would have

no need for displaying banners beyond the one hundred twenty day limitation per

calendar year provided for in the Sign Ordinance.

The petitioner is also requesting a deviation from the Sign Ordinance to increase the

allotment of development signage for the subject property to ninety-six (96) square feet

And noted the allowable maximum size for a development sign as per Section

153.215(B).

The B5A District provides for a maximum wall sign of twenty (20) square feet; therefore,

the aforementioned provision of the Sign Ordinance limits the maximum size of a

Development Sign to thirty-two (32) square feet for uses other than Single Family

Residences. The subject property has two street frontages (one along Main Street and

one along Ash Street) so the same provision would afford the subject property the rights

to a total of sixty-four (64) square feet of development signage (32 square feet x 2 street

frontages). Regardless of the proposed signage deviation that would allow ninety-six

(96) square feet, the development signs would then still not exceed the one hundred

twenty-five (125) square foot total area allowed for any one property.

The proposed signage package includes three (3) temporary banner signs to be

displayed in three (3) separate windows - one to be displayed on Main Street and the

remaining two to be displayed along Ash Street. Under the definition within the Sign

Ordinance, these signs will be defined as window signs. There is no time constraint on

window signs; however, window signs are not permitted to exceed twenty (20) percent

of the surface area of each window. According to the submitted photographs, staff

estimates that the window signs will cover thirty (30) percent to seventy-five (75) percent

of the window surface area. In any case, the window signs undoubtedly exceed the

twenty (20) percent maximum area of the window surface area; therefore, relief is

needed.

Staff is supportive of the requested deviations. The proposed signage is only needed

during the initial sale of the condominium units and will not remain on the premises. The

temporary nature of the proposed signage ensures that it will not remain on the

premises for an extended period of time. As the proposed sign will not be directly facing

other residential properties, impacts of the signage will be minimal. Both staff and the

Plan Commission have supported time extensions for development related signage for

new residential construction projects for residential areas within planned developments

and he cited Oakview Estates, Fountain Square & City View Apartments as examples.

As has been required with other requests for temporary signage relief, staff

recommends that as a condition of approval that the petitioner ensure that the proposed

signage be kept in good condition. The signage should be repaired or replaced if it

presents a weathered appearance.

Concluding, Mr. Heniff stated that staff recommends approval of this request with

conditions.

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

Commissioner Sweetser asked staff to give the rationale behind supporting the

proposed deviation of up to 75 percent of window coverage. Mr. Heniff answered that

when staff was reviewing all signage on the property, it was above the 20 percent

requirement. The rationale was based more on the signage that currently exists in their

window. It is an extreme exception but staff considered the temporary nature of the

signage. We also looked at how it was being utilized and with the existing conditions of

the building, it could be supported to ensure readability for the window signs.

1. This relief shall provide a one (1) year time extension to allow the banner sign

previously approved by the Village as part of building permit #08-0088.

2. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the submitted signage

plan. Said signage plan shall meet all Village Code provisions, except as varied by this

approval.

3. The variation shall only be valid during the initial sales of the condominium units on

the subject property. Once a certificate of occupancy has been issued for every

condominium unit, all permits for banners and temporary signs shall comply with the

Lombard Sign Ordinance.

4. In the event that the temporary banner sign(s) or development sign presents a

weathered appearance, as determined by the Director of Community Development the

petitioner or future property owners shall remove or replace said signage from the

subject property.

5. All signage approved as part of this petition shall be located on the subject property

and shall not be displayed on adjacent properties or public rights of way.

PC 08-13: 19W471 Roosevelt Road and 351 E. Roosevelt Road (Lombard

Crossing)

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

A. Approve an annexation agreement.

B. Annex the portion of the subject property not currently within the Village of

Lombard.

C. Approve a map amendment rezoning the entire property to the B4A Roosevelt

Road Corridor District.

D. Approve a conditional use for a planned development, with the following

companion conditional uses, deviations and variations, as follows:

1. For Lot 1 (Parcel A):

a. Conditional uses pursuant to Sections 155.417(G)(2)(b)(2) and

155.417(G)(2)(b)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance for a

bank/financial institution with a drive-through facility;

b. A deviation from Section 153.505(B)(19)(a)(2) of the Sign

Ordinance to allow for more than one wall sign per street

frontage;

c. A deviation from Section 155.417(G)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance to

reduce the minimum lot area from 40,000 square feet to 36,400

square feet;

d. A deviation from Section 155.417(G)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance to

reduce the minimum lot width from 150 feet to 137 feet.

2. For Lot 2 (Parcel B):

a. A conditional use pursuant to Section 155.417(G)(2)(c)(7) of the

Zoning Ordinance for a shopping center, consisting of more

than one principal business on a zoning lot;

b. A deviation from Section 155.417(G)(5)(c) of the Zoning Ordinance

reducing the required east interior side yard from ten feet (10')

to one foot (1').

3. For Lot 3 (Parcel C):

a. A conditional use pursuant to Section 155.417(G)(2)(a)(5) of

the Zoning Ordinance for a restaurant outside service/dining

area;

b. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(19)(a)(2) of the Sign

Ordinance to allow for more than one wall sign per street

frontage;

c. A deviation from Section 155.417(G)(5)(c) of the Zoning

Ordinance reducing the required east interior side yard from ten

feet (10') to five feet (5').

4. For Lot 4 (Parcel D):

a. A deviation from Section 154.506 (D) of the Subdivision and

Development Ordinance to allow for a lot without public street

frontage;

b. A planned development use exception for a storage center in the

B4A District with a variation from Section 155.508 (B)(3) of the

Zoning Ordinance to allow a use exception to exceed 40% of the

total floor area for the overall planned development.

c. A conditional use pursuant to Section 155.417(G)(2)(c)(6) of the

Zoning Ordinance for a four story building, between 40 and 45 feet

in height;

5. For Lot 5 (detention outlot Parcel E):

a. A deviation from Section 154.506 (D) of the Subdivision and

Development Ordinance to allow a lot without public street frontage;

b. A deviation from Section 154.507 (D) of the Subdivision and

Development Ordinance requiring an outlot to have at least thirty

feet (30') of frontage along a public street;

c. A deviation from Section 155.417 (G)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance to

reduce the minimum lot area from 40,000 square feet to 19,000

square feet for a detention outlot; and

d. A deviation from Section 155.417 (G)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance to

reduce the minimum lot width from 150 feet to 131 feet.

6. For each lot, grant a variation from Sections 155.706 (C) and 155.709

(B) of the Zoning Ordinance reducing the required perimeter parking lot

and perimeter lot landscaping from five feet (5') to zero feet (0') to

provide for shared cross-access and parking.

7. Grant a variation from Sections 155.417 (G)(7) and (9) of the Zoning

Drew Friestedt, Centrum Properties, 225 W. Hubbard Street, Chicago, presented the

petition for the Lombard Crossings development in a PowerPoint format. He began by

stating that he represents Centrum Properties and he gave the company's background

and described the types of projects they do as well as the locations of each.

Referring to an aerial view of the proposed site location (which was highlighted in blue)

Mr. Friestedt stated that these properties were former known as the Lombard Lanes and

the O'Hare Towing properties and the site is approximately 4.6 acres in size. He then

showed site photos before the buildings were razed.

He presented the history of the project mentioning that at the August 2007 Plan

Commission meeting a proposal was approved and forwarded to the Village Board for

final approval. Knowing that they did not have the support of the Village Board, they

pulled the petition. Some of the issues that the Village Board had with their proposal

were:

a. did not want a fast food restaurant with a drive through

b. compatibility with the Roosevelt Road Corridor Study

c. the number and type of uses outlined in the annexation agreement

d. the timing of the development outlined in the annexation agreement

They have since gone back and addressed those issues. He showed the site plan

previously approved by the Plan Commission and described the drive-through bank with

a fast food tenant, Del Taco. At the back of property was a 95,000 square foot storage

facility.

They now have two new site plans, Option A and Option B. The difference between the

two is in the location of the sit-down restaurant which affects the drive aisle and parking

configurations. He then referred to Option A and described the site. The bank is still in

the same location. There will be 12,500 square feet of retail with the retail building in the

center. They have changed the fast food restaurant to a 5,700 square foot freestanding

sit-down restaurant which was one of the issues the Board had. They spent six months

negotiating with the team and came back with a plan for marketing purposes and one

that was leasable. They still have the four-story storage use at the back of the property

noting that they talked to a number of users for this space but could not attract anyone

else to take the space. He then referred to other similar storage users in the area. Mr.

Friestedt stated that if they do not have this use, they feel the site could not be

marketable. Centrum also agreed to center the building and to limit the retail use to five

tenants which is similar to what V-land has. Their original proposal asked for seven

tenants.

The next issue was one that concerned Trustee Soderstrom - the timing of the

development. The worry was having a bank anchored in the center of the site with a

storage use in the back with nothing in the front. To address this concern, they added

additional timing and building permit restrictions in the Annexation Agreement. With

those three concessions they addressed the issues raised by the Board of Trustees.

He referred to Site Plan - Option B. Because they do not know if the restaurant will be

freestanding or attached, they are asking for approval of both plans. Option B includes

a reconfiguration of the parking areas by sliding the restaurant building down and

integrating it with the retail space. The sit-down restaurant would be 6,000 square feet

and would still have the outdoor dining component. The square footage of the retail

component would stay the same.

He then showed the street view and bird's eye view renderings of the site. The building

materials used are very similar but they incorporated some of staff's comments

regarding color. They buildings are predominately brick with an EIFS corner and he

proceeded to describe the remainder of the materials. He stated that all the building

materials will be consistent.

The retail building elevations were shown next. The petitioner passed around the

materials board to the Plan Commissioners and described that they are proposing to

break up the retail building both vertically and horizontally and will change the brick

color from the field color. They will have a cast stone base and a lintel consistent with

the front and side of the building. The back will be mostly brick with a continuation of the

precast lintel.

The bank elevations would be similar to the retail building. The color of the brick will

match. Staff requested that at the base of the bank to replace the soldier coarse brick to

stone.

Referring to the sign design slide he stated that this has not changed. It still matches in

terms of color and scale and he described the same. The square footage of the signs

are less than what is allowed by code-one is 70 square feet and the other is 115 square

feet.

Mr. Friestedt then addressed how the site complies with the Roosevelt Road Corridor

Study and addresses the concerns raised by Trustee Soderstrom. The site has a

common and unified development theme, contains harmonious architectural elements,

common materials and design color palette, and a shared parking field and shared

access points with adjacent shopping center. It also has four-sided building elevations,

provides green/open space, is pedestrian friendly, and contains decorative lighting.

He then turned the rest of the presentation over to Scott Novack.

Scott Novack, Centrum Properties, 225 W. Hubbard Street, Chicago, continued with the

slide presentation. He stated that everything they are requesting is consistent with what

they previously requested in August, 2007. This includes approval of an annexation

agreement, annexing the 19W471 site, a map amendment rezoning the site to B4A

which is consistent with the Roosevelt Road Corridor District, approval of a conditional

use for a planned development with conditional uses, deviations and variations. They

will have to subdivide the property into five lots which results in a need for certain

deviations and variations such as side yards setbacks and lot deviations. These items

are self imposed so the requested relief meets the standards. A slide depicting the five

lots of record were shown and he described them.

Lot 1 or Parcel A is the bank parcel. They are requesting a conditional use for a bank

as well as for a drive-through facility; deviation of the Sign Ordinance for more than one

wall sign per street frontage. He indicated that they originally requested four signs but

took the Plan Commissioners comments into consideration and now are only requesting

three, one for the north, west and east elevations. They are also asking for a deviation

to reduce the minimum lot area from 40,000 square feet to 36,400 square feet and a

deviation to reduce the minimum lot width from 150 to 137 feet.

Lot 2 or Parcel B is the retail parcel. They are requesting a conditional use for a

shopping center consisting of more than one principal business and a deviation. This

was a result of the B4A zoning. They are also requesting a deviation to reduce the

required east interior side yard from ten feet to one foot.

Lot 3 or Parcel C is the freestanding sit-down restaurant. They are requesting a

conditional use for an outdoor dining area, a deviation from the Sign Ordinance to allow

for more than 1 wall sign per street frontage and a deviation reducing the required east

interior side yard from 10 feet to 5 feet.

Lot 4 or Parcel D is the back parcel storage area. They are requesting a deviation from

the Subdivision and Development Ordinance to allow for a lot without street frontage, a

planned development use exception for a storage center in the B4A district with a

variation to allow a use exception to exceed 40% of the total floor area of the overall

planned development and a conditional use for a 4-story building between 40 and 45

feet in height.

Lot 5 of Parcel E is the detention area. They are requesting a deviation from the

Subdivision and Development Ordinance to allow a lot without public street frontage, a

deviation to reduce the minimum lot area from 40,000 square feet to 19,000 square feet

and a deviation to reduce the minimum lot width from 150 to 131 feet.

Mr. Novack then cited the additional 6 requests from the Zoning and Sign Ordinances.

Concluding, Mr. Novack stated that they have a number of consultants available and

would be happy to answer any questions they might have.

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

present to speak in favor of or against the petition.

William Heniff presented the staff report, which was submitted to the public record in its

entirety. Rather than repeating the petitioner's representations, he referenced many of

the zoning actions for the project and selected comments included within the staff report.

He noted that upon annexation, the whole property would need to be zoned into a

district that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Roosevelt Road Plan.

Staff believes the property should be rezoned to the B4A District, consistent with the

Roosevelt Road Plan recommendations. He also described many of the design

elements encouraged or required within the B4 regulations or the Roosevelt Road

Corridor report. Establishing a planned development for the entire development is an

appropriate way to address the unique site constraints and phasing of the proposed

development.

The B4A District lists financial institutions as conditional uses - this differs from the

previous petition when banks were permitted by right. This change allows the Village to

review the facility relative to the overall development plan. The Roosevelt Road Report

noted that banks could provide value to a community if it is part of an overall planned

development. While not attached to the retail building, the proposed plan integrates the

use into the overall development through its common building design elements, shared

access and integrated design.

When the petitioner was seeking initial approval of the development, the property was

zoned B3 and the property met the B3 requirements. However, this relief was created

as part of the overall B4A district designation. The issue of lot width and area was

discussed as part of the Roosevelt Road Ad-Hoc Committee review. The Committee

noted that a number of lots do not meet the lot provisions included within the B4A

designation. Staff noted that for lots that do not meet the requirements, they could be

designed in a manner that would allow the lots to functionally operate as if it was a

larger lot.

Regarding the retail center itself, this use was previously a permitted use, but is now a

conditional use within the B4A District. This designation allows the Village to look at the

overall design of the facility relative to the overall B4A provisions and determine if the

proposed design and layout meets the objectives of the Plan. The petitioner is

proposing two options - a separate in-line center of 12,500 square feet and a unified

center that includes the retail center component anchored by a sit-down restaurant. To

address concerns regarding the tenants and uses in the center, the petitioner is

amenable to a cap on the total number of tenant spaces at five, excluding the restaurant

end-cap use. This was applied to the nearby V-Land Center and is intended to provide

for larger store spaces, which may attract more destination related uses and retail

businesses.

This interior yard relief is intended to allow the building to be located closer to the east

property line of the abutting bank use. Staff finds this relief to be desirable as it allows

for the other side of the center to be better utilized for outdoor dining and additional

parking.

At this point in time, the final sit-down restaurant tenant is unknown, but the petitioner is

preparing a final list for consideration within the annexation agreement itself. The

proposed outdoor seating area location will be a function of the final design plan for the

restaurant itself, but it will be located either on the east side of the building (in Plan A) or

the west side (in Plan B). As noted in the Roosevelt Road Report, outdoor dining

elements associated with restaurant establishments can be considered a desired

amenity, provided that they do not create negative impacts on adjacent properties.

The wall sign relief is intended to provide for additional flexibility for the restaurant use,

which would likely desire wall signs on the exterior walls visible from Roosevelt Road.

Consistent with other restaurant uses and the proposed bank, staff does not object to

the request. However such signage would be reviewed as part of the overall restaurant

building elevations in the site plan approval process.

Lot 4 requires a deviation from the Subdivision and Development Ordinance to allow a

lot without street frontage. Access to Lot 4 will be provided by means of cross access

with Lots 1 through 3 of the proposed resubdivision. Lot 5 would be a detention outlot

for the stormwater drainage of the project. Given the overall lot configuration, the grade

issues and the built-in cross access provisions, and similar relief approved in a couple of

other cases, staff does not object to this request.

The petitioner requests the right for a 95,000 square foot storage center to be located on

Lot 4 (Parcel D). Storage centers are not listed as permitted or conditional use in the

underlying B4A District. The petitioner indicated that they have not finalized a tenant for

Lot 4 and have not submitted any building elevations or materials for the proposed

building. The petitioner would like to establish the right for the use exception. Staff

recommends as a condition of approval that site plan approval be required for Lot 4 to

allow the Plan Commission to review building elevations and materials. In addition,

should the petitioners choose not to move forward with the use exception for Lot 4, they

can seek site plan approval for other uses permitted within the underlying B4A District.

Staff can conceptually support the storage center use given that the subject property is

adjacent to two other storage uses including the U-Store-It storage center and the York

Township Highway Department facility. Furthermore, there is a substantial change in

grade with the elevation at the northern property line being as much as fifteen feet (15')

higher than the elevation at the southern property line. The multi-story storage center

building will not have as great of an impact when viewed from Roosevelt Road as a

result of the grade change. Furthermore, the proposed storage center will provide

additional screening of the York Township Highway Department facility to the south of

the subject property.

A review of the plans estimated that the proposed Parcel B in Plan A would have about

eight percent green space. However, given that the site is part of an overall planned

development and the lot lines are intended to be more arbitrary, staff notes that this

relief could be supported provided that the overall planned development meets the open

space requirements of 12.5% of the area. Staff estimates that the open space will be

about 15% of the planned development. This approach and requisite relief was also

successfully implemented within the Highlands of Lombard planned development.

The petitioner's 2007 proposal requested approval of four freestanding signs proposed

within the planned development. The new petition decreased the number from four to

two. Staff can conceptually support the necessary relief to allow the two shopping

center signs located at each of the access drives. Any signage for the bank and storage

center will be incorporated into the shopping center signs.

He then reviewed the access and site design issues that were present in the 2007

petition and noted that they have not changed since last year. Staff recommends

approval of the petition subject to a number of conditions.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he liked both site plans and the elevations looked

good but thought that the south elevation should be spruced up. He liked their

explanations as to the Village Board's concerns. He had assumed that the Village

Board did not have any objections to the public storage facility. Mr. Friestedt stated that

at the Village Board hearing the Board expressed concerns about having a storage use.

Afterward, they went back and came up with the current plan by addressing other

issues. By going into the market and testing the plan they believe the Board will now

support it.

Commissioner Olbrysh indicated that he was on the Roosevelt Road Ad Hoc Committee

and would have had a problem if the storage use was located on Roosevelt Road but

since it was set back to the rear of the property you don't actually see the building. Mr.

Friestedt mentioned the cross section studies they did and how you can only see the top

10-12 feet of the building based on a person being 6 feet tall. Commissioner Olbrysh

stated that it will be very difficult to get anyone back there due to the drop in elevation.

He thought it was a perfect use for that location on the site.

Chairperson Ryan commented that he was initially against the idea of a storage facility

on the site and still was. He questioned the height of parcel B and how high the strip

mall was going to be. Also how much will you see from Parcel D. Mr. Friestedt

answered that the height of the parcel was 10-15 feet or a story and a half. The top of

the parapet of the retail component could be 20-22 feet from grade so due to it's height

as well as the drop in grade, you will only see the top of the storage facility. He stated

that they are aware that they will have to come back to the Plan Commission for site

plan approval and will adhere to those requirements. It's a challenging piece of the

project. Chairperson Ryan stated that when you come back for site plan approval for

the storage facility and site elevations, he asked if the looks of it could be diminished.

We are trying to build up Roosevelt Road and don't want to turn it into something not

wanted.

Chairperson Ryan then stated his preference for Site Plan Option B. The restaurant and

retail combined together make it a better looking facility and you can see the outdoor

dining from the street. He then questioned how the south elevation might look having

five tenants. Mr. Novack indicated they would update the elevation to show the number

of doors. Chairperson Ryan indicated that with their previous proposal there were a

larger number of doors for each tenant on that elevation which broke up the mass of the

building. With five tenants it will be all brick so there is a need to tie it in with the other

elevations. Mr. Novack indicated that using two colors would break up the building

similar to the V-land project.

Commissioner Nelson asked about the access into the site when traveling westbound

on Roosevelt Road. Mr. Heniff indicated that the center median lets you go either way.

Westbound will have a full access or through cross access. Commissioner Nelson

asked if there would be a turn lane. Mr. Heniff answered there would not be a dedicated

one now just a shared access. IDOT will decide the appropriate striping pattern.

Commissioner Sweetser asked is there is a right turn lane to access the site while

traveling eastbound on Roosevelt Road. Mr. Heniff answered that while proceeding

east, the full access will not have a right turn lane but the other will. Commissioner

Sweetser commented on how the trucks will be using the full access and how

1. The petitioner shall develop the site and building in accordance with the following

plans submitted as part of this request, except as modified by the conditions of approval:

a. Site Plan (with alternate Plan B Option), prepared by Hirsh Associates LLC dated

April 15, 2008 and April 28, 2008.

b. Landscape Plan (includes preservation plan and development plan), prepared by

Hirsch Associates LLC dated March 14, 2008.

c. Preliminary Plat of Subdivision prepared by B.H. Suhr & Company and dated April

11, 2008.

d. Building Elevations for proposed retail center, prepared by Hirsch Associates LLC

dated April 15, 2008.

e. Building Elevations for proposed bank, prepared by Hirsch Associates LLC dated

April 15, 2008.

f. Shopping Center Signage Plan prepared by Hirsch Associates LLC dated April 15,

2008.

g. Signage Plan for the proposed bank prepared by Icon Identity Solutions, dated

February 15, 2007.

h. Preliminary Engineering (site dimensional and paving plan and utility plan),

prepared by Manhard Consulting LTD, and April 11, 2008.

i. Proposed wall and freestanding lighting elements, prepared by Winscape and

Hess America, no date.

2. That the petitioner shall enter into an annexation agreement with the Village 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. The planned development shall be limited to no more than two freestanding

shopping center signs. The final placement of the signs shall be located in a manner

that does not conflict with clear line of sight or utility easements.

d. That the fabric awnings on each of the proposed buildings shall be compatible.

e. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened pursuant to Section 155.221

of the Zoning Ordinance.

f. The bank elevations shall replace the soldier course brick with the stone base

proposed for the retail center and incorporate the center stone veneer proposed for the

retail center.

g. The south building elevation of the retail center shall incorporate the similar

alternating colored brick pattern as depicted on the north elevation and the stone veneer

base, in order to break up the building mass.

h. The final building elevations for the retail center shall be limited to the minimum

number of door entrances required by Village Fire Marshal.

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. The proposed sidewalk link shall be placed on a ramped island, with pedestrian

crossing markings across the drive aisles.

8. The final development plan shall be modified to ensure that the parking stall space

overhangs are in compliance with Village Code.

9. The use exception for a storage center shall only be for Lot 4 (Parcel D) of the

planned development. The development of Lot 4 (Parcel D) shall be subject to site plan

approval of the Village.

10. The building elevations for the proposed sit-down restaurant shall also be subject to

site plan approval by the Village. The sit-down restaurant shall be permitted to have one

wall sign on the north, west and east elevations, with the final design subject to site plan

review.

11. Any outdoor dining areas shall be fenced around the perimeter of the dining area.

The final design of the fence shall be subject to Village review and approval.

12. The petitioner shall dedicate to the Village a cross-access easement to provide

access to the proposed detention outlot, with the final location to be denoted on the final

plat of subdivision for the subject property.