Village of Lombard Legistar System

A. PC 06-10: 615 and 617 W. Pleasant Lane and 614, 618, 620, 622, 624 and 626

West Meadow Avenue (Ordinance on Second Reading) (Request to Continue to

May 4, 2006)

A. For the existing Buckingham Orchard planned development located at 615 and 617

W. Pleasant Lane:

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

Vote Required)

2. Pursuant to Section 155.504 (A) of the Zoning Ordinance, approve a major change

to an approved conditional use for a planned development.

B. For the properties at 614, 618, 620, 622, 624 and 626 West Meadow Avenue:

1. Amend the Lombard Comprehensive Plan;

2. Approve an annexation agreement.

C. Annex the properties at 614, 618, 620, 624 and 626 West Meadow Avenue into the

Village of Lombard.

D. For the townhome portion of the proposed development as depicted on the

preliminary plat of subdivision, approve the following actions:

1. Rezone the northern portion of the properties at 614, 618, 620, 624 and 626 West

Meadow Avenue from the R1 Single-Family Residential District to the R4 Limited

General Residential District;

2. Rezone the north 417 feet of the property at 622 West Meadow Avenue from the

R2 Single-Family Residential District to the R4 Limited General Residential District.

3. Approve a conditional use for multiple structures on a lot and for a planned

development for the proposed R4 properties a deviation from Section 155.408(F)(3)(d)

to reduce the rear yard setback for the townhouse units abutting the proposed

stormwater detention outlot and the south property line from thirty feet (30') to fifteen

feet (15').

4. Grant site plan approval authority to the Lombard Plan Commission.

E. For the single family portion of the proposed development, approve the following

actions:

1. For the proposed Lots 1 through 5 depicted on the preliminary plat of subdivision,

rezone the southern portion of the properties at 618, 620, 624 and 626 West Meadow

Avenue from the R1 Single-Family Residential District to the R2 Single-Family

Residential District;

2. A variation from Section 154.503(D)(1) of the Subdivision and Development

Ordinance reducing the minimum required right-of-way width of a residential cul-de-sac

turnaround diameter from one-hundred twenty four feet (124') to ninety-six feet (96') at

the western terminus of Meadow Avenue;

Richard Dunn, planning consultant for the petitioner, Lyonhart Group, presented the

petition. He presented his presentation in PowerPoint format to address the important

issues relative to the petition. He described the property location and the surrounding

roads and developments. He noted that the petition consisted of an amendment to the

previously approved Buckingham Orchard development as well as the Lyonhart Manor

development, which he was representing.

He then noted the requested actions. Most of the Lyonhart Manor development property

is currently outside the village boundaries. Upon annexation, they request that the

property be rezoned to R4 to allow for the townhome planned development and an R2

rezoning for the single family homes. The 25 townhouses will be in conformance with

the Village ordinance except the rear yard variation from 30 feet to 15 feet for selected

units along the stormwater outlot. The single family homes would be conforming except

a rear yard setback on Lots 1 and 2, which requires a 35 foot rear yard setback and they

are requesting a 25 foot setback in order to account for the roadway dedication in front

of those lots. In the application materials, they answered the standards for variations.

Regarding the cul-de-sac variation at the west end of Meadow Avenue, the existing

right-of-way is 66 feet wide and they are proposing the right-of-way to be 96 feet in lieu

of the required 124 feet. The paved area of the cul-de-sac would meet code.

Referencing an aerial photo he gave details about the site acreage and noted how the

proposed stormwater detention area would be combined with the Lyonhart Manor site.

He noted that the plan has been modified several times to address staff concerns.

He then introduced the building elevations, referring to the diagrams. He also noted that

they would like the Plan Commission's thoughts on Alternate B, which is the same

building elevation as was approved for the Buckingham Orchard development. This

plan closely complements the development to the north, but they request that the Plan

Commission grant approval for either design. Alternative A has more distinction and has

turrets at the two ends of the buildings. These towers would be round and constructed

in stone and he referenced a material board. It will add quality to the buildings, but they

would like flexibility if the turrets cannot be constructed as proposed. The rear elevations

would complement in the general area.

He concluded by noting that they have reviewed staff's comments on the petition and

they support their recommendation of approval subject to the conditions in their report.

Vice Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public participation.

Patricia Guzman, 602 Glenwood, President of the Columbine Glen Homeowner's

Association, stated that she was very pleased to hear that the proposed townhouses are

to complement Columbine Glen, as they are interested in property values. She is also

relieved that the development will not affect their pond. She is concerned about the

current location of Buckingham Court running into a cul-de-sac which will put a large

traffic burden through their development. It will increase traffic and requests that the

Board consider having Buckingham Court extend to Meadow Avenue. This would

relieve the traffic and not have it go through Columbine Glen. She mentioned the past

Comprehensive Plan changes, but believes the changes could still provide Buckingham

Court to be put through to Meadow. A traffic light at Meadow could also funnel traffic

through their neighborhood. It could also improve Fire, Police and Public Works access

to the site. The Association asks the Commissioners to look at big picture with this

development and others which will occur in the area.

Dixie Hahn of All the Difference, the property manager for the Columbine Glen

development, asked that the Commissioners remember the 64 existing townhome

owners in Columbine Glen who could be impacted by the development. She mentioned

the Enclave development on the west side of I-355 and noted that these new

developments look like the making for future headaches. If Buckingham Court is

modified to go straight through to Meadow, it will be a meaningful change for this

development and for Columbine Glen. They see traffic already backed up and now

adding 400 or more cars could create additional issues. She had meetings with staff

and developer and it is one of the things they would like to see amended. She also

suggested townhomes in lieu of the single family homes along Meadow.

Javier Millan, 312 Cimarron Rd., stated that he lives adjacent to the proposed detention

pond. He asked about the length of time it will take for the water to be released and

asked if it will be a breeding ground for mosquitoes. He asked about seepage of water

through the ground. He also asked about landscape plantings proposed along the

perimeter of the pond.

Mr. Dunn rebutted and noted that the roadway design makes good planning sense as it

shortens the existing cul-de-sac bulb and follows the intent of the Comprehensive Plan

by tying the two townhouse developments together via a stub street previously approved

as part of the Columbine Glen development. He noted that their proposal makes

planning sense and common sense. The lots along Meadow Avenue are intended to

stay single-family residential.

Michael Mondus of Spaceco, the engineer for the project, noted the detention basin

stormwater release rate has been designed to combine the Buckingham Orchard and

the Lyonhart Manor developments. The detention provides 3.88 acre feet of storage.

The release rate is set by Village Code. He did not know the exact time water would be

in the detention pond, but for a 100-year event, it could be 3-4 days. Regarding water

seepage, six soil borings were done on the Lyonhart Manor property and none of them

encountered groundwater, but they did find a thin layer of clay. If they did encounter

water, they would seal it off with a barrier and that is a common practice.

Ben Kell, landscape architect for the project, discussed landscaping issues. The

landscape plan shows landscape shrubs around the eastern end of the pond. They

want to be sensitive to the types of plant materials placed at this location as it could

compromise the proposed retaining wall. Regarding concerns for mosquitoes, there

could be some water in the pond for a short time, but the final plan will provide for

wildlife habitat which will control the mosquito population.

Ms. Hahn questioned the fact that they are improving the traffic flow. She asked if a

traffic study was done and if so, has it been analyzed.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, noted that he would discuss this issue in his

presentation.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then asked for the staff report.

Mr. Heniff noted that staff received a letter on March 17 about open space and land use

concerns and passed the letter out to the Plan Commissioners. He noted that staff is

looking to keep Meadow Avenue single-family in nature, as it was originally developed.

Staff believes the proposed 48,000 square feet of open space does create the

appearance of a lower density development.

He then introduced a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the petition. The

presentation followed the comments included within the staff report, provided a history of

the project and the property. He then went through each of the public hearing request

items and discussed the rationale for each request.

Mr. Heniff then discussed the public improvements associated with the project. He

showed a graphic depicting the existing water, storm and sanitary sewer lines in the

area and noted that these exhibits were also shown as part of the Buckingham Orchard

development. He specifically noted that the stormwater from the development would

by-pass the Columbine Glen pond and would be directed to exiting storm sewers on

Meadow.

With respect to traffic concerns, he reviewed the Institute of Traffic Engineers trip

generation model to determine the overall generation for the project. He noted the

difference in trip generation between townhomes and single-family residences and

stated that if the project was developed with 18 single-family residences in lieu of 25

townhomes, the average daily trips would be higher. All traffic from the development

would access Route 53 from Pleasant Lane or Meadow Avenue. The traffic analysis

project a 50/50 split between the two roadways based upon existing conditions.

However, if a light was put at Meadow Avenue, this could shift the directional split of the

traffic movements.

Ms. Hahn stated that there is a precedent set for townhomes and that they should

continue that trend along Meadow. Mr. Heniff responded by noting that the intent of the

previous workshops was to keep Meadow Avenue west of Cimarron as single-family

residential. Ms. Hahn requested an alternative plan based on traffic study and the

precedent that the undeveloped areas, with the Route 53 expansion.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for discussion among the

Commissioners.

Commissioner Burke asked about the pending lane configuration for Route 53. Mr.

Heniff stated that no timeline for Route 53 improvements has been made - all staff has is

the preliminary plan. He noted that the plan calls for the bridge over the Great Western

Trail to be lowered and left turn lanes would be provided at Meadow. The traffic

warrants needed to necessitate a light currently do not exist at the Meadow

Avenue/Route 53 intersection.

Commissioner Burke noted that the east-west road was envisioned as part of the

Columbine Glen development. Mr. Heniff referenced the site plan and noted the public

right-of-way extension that is currently landscaped. The 1993 approval assumed the

Columbine Glen development would be tied into any future development and that is

what we are tying to follow.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that the Subdivision Ordinance places limitations on the

street length extent without adjacent street connections. She noted that this issue came

up in the Plan Commission's consideration of the Brewster Avenue development. Mr.

Heniff confirmed that our code does have such a limitation, but did not know off-hand if

the proposed street reconfiguration would meet this code or not.

Ms. Hahn clarified that they do not have a problem with the proposed east-west street

connecting to their neighborhood. Their concern is that the existing street layout would

funnel all traffic from their development on to Cimarron Road.

Commissioner Burke then discussed the building elevations. Does staff have a

preference? Mr. Heniff noted that Alternate B is the approved Buckingham Orchard

building elevation, so staff does not have a problem of adding this elevation in with the

approval. Regarding Alternate A, the petitioner will meet the standards set forth in the

Buckingham Orchard approvals but propose to add additional masonry and stone to the

building elevation to draw greater attention to the residence itself.

Commissioner Olbrysh expressed some of the concerns about traffic flow as noted in

the public comments. Looking at future development and the need for more than one

north/south street, it would alleviate traffic going down Cimarron. His major concern is

having more than one north/south access in this facility for the sake of the increased

population.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that the Plan Commission previously supported the

Comprehensive Plan amendment based on the relationship of the properties to I-355

and Columbine Glen. She was pleased that R2 lots were being proposed along

Meadow.

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

by Spaceco Inc., dated March 8, 2006 and the landscape plan prepared by Gary R.

Weber, dated March 9, 2006 and made part of this request.

2. The petitioners shall enter into an annexation agreement and/or an annexation

agreement amendment with the Village for the proposed development.

3. The petitioner shall submit a final engineering and final landscape plan for review and

approval for the proposed site improvements for the project. Said plan shall meet all

provisions of Village Code, except as varied by this petition. The landscape plan shall

meet the landscape planting requirements as required by the Zoning and Subdivision

and Development Ordinances.

4. The petitioner shall also provide the Village with a final plat of subdivision. The final

plat shall also depict any utility and/or drainage easements necessary to construct the

subdivision per Village policies and code.

5. The petitioner shall submit revised architectural drawings depicting the final proposed

design palette of the structures (either one or both concepts as presented by the

petitioner at the March 20, 2006 Plan Commission meeting), the design of which shall be

subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development.

Furthermore, the Plan Commission recommends to the Corporate Authorities that site

plan approval be granted to the Plan Commission for the planned development.

A motion to deny was made by Commissioner Olbrysh, but lacking a second, it was

defeated. Vice-Chairperson Flint noted that this petition would go to the Board with no

recommendation from the Plan Commission.

John Michael Quinn presented the petition. He stated that he has been a resident of

Lombard for eight years. Five years ago, he opened a salon in the Cove Plaza

Shopping Center. In October, 2000 he applied for a conditional use for a massage

establishment for his business. He noted that the Plan Commission and Village Board

found that the use would not be detrimental to the public and would not be injurious to

the neighboring properties. He read his responses to the standards.

He then noted the 2000 approval that was granted with a condition to update the parking

lot with the addition of parkway islands, island trees and handicapped parking spaces.

At that time, the property owner would not complete the improvements and they decided

to open their business without the massage activity. However, since the original

approval, the property was sold and the property owner has completed all of the

improvements as set forth in the 2000 approval ordinance. As such, they are now

asking for approvals to allow for the massage establishment to be permitted on the

property. He noted his company suffered a financial loss without the massage therapy

and the new conditional use approval will allow him to continue his business operations

on the site.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in

favor or in opposition of the petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the existing

salon is located in the Cove Plaza shopping center within the B3 Community Shopping

District. He mentioned that the petitioner is proposing to incorporate massage therapy

into the services provided at the salon. He noted that while barber shops and beauty

salons are permitted uses within the B3 District, physical culture and massage

establishments are listed as conditional uses.

Mr. Heniff stated that conditional use approval for a massage establishment was granted

in 2000. One of the conditions of approval was that prior to opening the establishment,

the petitioner had to submit a revised parking lot plan that included an increase in the

number of accessible spaces and a landscape plan for the parkway and the parking lot.

He stated that the petitioner was unable to complete the improvements and he chose to

open the salon without massage services. He mentioned that the Cove Plaza shopping

center is now under new ownership, and the new owner completed the parking lot

improvements that were outlined as part of the 2000 conditional use approval. He noted

that the Zoning Ordinance states that a conditional use expires if it is not established

within twelve months from the date of approval. He noted that as more than five years

have passed since the original approval, another conditional use approval is needed.

Mr. Heniff noted that prior to commencing the proposed massage establishment, the

applicant is required to submit an application and receive approval for a Village

Massage Establishment License. He stated that this license is required for each

massage therapist which may be employed by the petitioner, and each massage

therapist applying for a position is required to apply for a massage license and must be

approved by the Village prior to conducting business.

Mr. Heniff stated that the use will be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan as the

physical culture and massage establishment incorporated with the hair care facility is

intended to serve local shopping needs, and hence it is compatible with the adjacent

land uses.

George Wagner, Village Counsel, stated that the conditions of approval should be

amended to reflect the licensing requirements established by the State of Illinois as well.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for comments from the Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he remembers the original petition and that the only

reason for not getting the conditional use, was due to the parking lot. Also, massage

therapy does not bother him as it is a popular service, that it is offered at the National

University of Health Sciences and they have to meet Village Code and be licensed by

the State of Illinois.

Vice-Chairperson Flint referenced the adjacent Citgo property and inquired about the

cross-access provisions associated with that site. Mr. Heniff noted that when the

Darwish Partnership received approval for their Citgo gas station in 2002, there was a

condition that established cross-access provisions. The Citgo property owner would like

to see the cross-access provided, but the current property owner was not desirous of

granting it. Staff is supportive of the cross-access provisions but believes that enacting

this provision should be tied to a more intense activity on the Cove Plaza property, such

as an expansion of a restaurant or the building itself. However, if the Plan Commission

believes there is a nexus between the cross-access and the petitioner's request, they

could add that as a condition of approval. Staff believes that as the property owner

completed substantial site improvements in order to allow the conditional use to be

established in the shopping center, the new request should be tied to the past conditions

of approval.

Commissioner Sweetser made a motion to approve the petition, subject to the

conditions noted in the staff report, including amending conditions 2 and 3 to reference

the State of Illinois license provisions, as well as an additional condition to provide for

Maury Schell of Automotivation, Inc., petitioner, presented the petition. He stated that

he was seeking a conditional use for his automobile repair and maintenance business

that he has operated in Lombard for the past 12 years. They are moving to a new

tenant space to allow for more working room, better visibility, ease of moving vehicles,

and easier product delivery. The new tenant space was originally occupied by a truck

repair business. The parking will be unchanged and they will meet all federal, state,

local, EPA, and OSHA requirements.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment. James Sherry,

300 Eisenhower Lane North, stated that he has run a business adjacent to the subject

property for the past 12 years. His concern is the appearance of the site, with the

potential for broken down cars parking everywhere. He stated there was a boat in the

rear of the property, cargo containers in the parking lot, and the fence dividing their

properties continues to fall down. Mr. Sherry stated that he has no objection to the

requested conditional use, but he would like the Board to make certain the property is

kept in proper condition.

The petitioner responded that there were no abandoned vehicles on the property and

that any vehicles were kept in a fenced-in parking area. He noted that some vehicles

are on-site longer than others due to needing parts or the financial situation of the

customer. There are three cargo containers on the property. The fence was damaged

during construction on the adjacent property. The petitioner stated that the cargo

containers and fence are not under his control, but they could be brought up to the

property owner.

Commissioner Sweetser asked who the fenced in area is leased by. The petitioner

stated that, as a tenant, he was not qualified to answer that question.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the petitioner has the right to keep cars in the

fenced-in area. The petitioner stated that he does park vehicles there but has never

been cited for abandoned vehicles. There had been two occasions where vehicles had

been abandoned and the petitioner had the vehicles ticketed and towed. All other

vehicles are there for repair and are parked in an orderly fashion to ensure continual

access in and out of the lot. Their delivery vehicles require a 53-foot turning radius, so

the site must be kept clear. The petitioner stated that he does his best to maintain the

property.

Commissioner Burke asked about the boat and cargo containers. The petitioner

responded that the boat belongs to a customer who brought the boat in for a repair

estimate and then decided to junk it. He is attempting to locate the title.

Commissioner Burke asked how long the boat had been on the property. The petitioner

stated that the boat had been there for six months. He added that none of the three

cargo containers belonged to his business.

Mr. Sherry stated that the property owner should be required to bring the fence up to a

reasonable appearance if he wants to lease these units.

The petitioner stated that he does not know if there are any codes that regulate the

aesthetics of fences. He stated that the fence was up, but some of the supports may

need to be addressed.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if this was a code enforcement issue and, if so, she

recommended that the fence be looked into. William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that it

would be a code enforcement issue if the fence were in disrepair. He added that there

is a nexus between vehicle storage and screening, so this issue could be added as a

condition of approval.

There being no further questions, Vice-Chairperson Flint then requested the staff report.

Mr. Heniff presented the staff report. AutoMotivation is an automobile repair

establishment that has been operating at 270 Eisenhower Lane North, Unit 10, for

several years. The company now wishes to relocate to a larger tenant space within the

same building, Units 1-3. Both Units 1-3 and Unit 10 have previously been granted

conditional use approvals for various types of motor vehicle repair. The space in Units

1-3 has not been used for vehicle repair activities for a time period of greater than one

year, therefore, a new conditional use is required.

The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be developed as a Planned Business

Park. With the approval of the requested conditional use, the property would be

substantially in compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.

The subject property is surrounded by other properties within the Eisenhower Lane

industrial park, which is occupied by various types of light industrial land uses. All repair

activities will be conducted indoors and there are no exterior changes planned for the

building. Given that the petitioner's business has operated on the same property for a

number of years, the relocation to a different tenant space should not create any

additional impact on the surrounding properties.

Automobile repair establishments are listed as conditional uses within the I Limited

Industrial District. With the approval of this petition, the proposed use will be in

compliance with Village Code. Five conditional uses have been granted for tenant

spaces within the building on the subject property. In 1979, a conditional use for motor

vehicle repair was granted in Units 1-3. However, since more than one year has

elapsed since the tenant space has been used for motor vehicle repair, a new

conditional use must be granted. Motor vehicle activities have taken place on the

subject property for the past 27 years. This, combined with the fact that a similar

1. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a new Zoning Certificate/Certificate of

Occupancy for the existing and proposed spaces to be used for the business

establishment.

2. This conditional use shall be limited to the service and repair of automobiles or any

motor vehicle requiring a standard or a Class B plate as determined by the Office of the

Secretary of State of the State of Illinois. Any other repair motor vehicle repair activities

shall be deemed a modification of a conditional use and would require new conditional

use approval per Section 155.103 (F)(13) of the Zoning Ordinance.

3. All service and repair activities shall be done within an enclosed building.

4. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the property owner shall comply

with a code review of the property, particularly with regard to the fence, cargo

containers, and boat storage.

F. PC 06-11: 300 E. Roosevelt Road (Waiver of First Requested)

Requests that the Village grant the following variations from the Lombard Sign

Ordinance for an existing legal non-conforming, freestanding sign, located on property

within the B4 Corridor Commercial Shopping District:

1. A variation from Section 153.505 (B)(6)(b)(2) to allow for an existing one-hundred

ninety two (192) square foot freestanding sign, where a maximum of one-hundred

twenty-five (125) square feet is permitted.

2. A variation from Section 153.505(B)(6)(c)(2) to allow for a freestanding sign to be

located closer than seventy-five feet from the center line of the Roosevelt Road state

right-of-way.

3. A variation from Section 153.208(H) to allow for an existing freestanding sign within

the clear line of sight area. The petitioner is requesting a waiver of first reading.

(DISTRICT #6)

staff noted that the sign did not meet the current provisions of the Lombard Sign

Ordinance. Staff originally sought to have the sign come into compliance with the Sign

Ordinance with the redevelopment of the site. However, the petitioner was only

amenable to this provision if they could incorporate an automatic changeable sign

cabinet within the overall freestanding sign, which would require additional relief. As

staff did not support this option, the petitioner requested that the existing sign be allowed

to remain on the premises and not be subject to future amortization provisions. As the

signage relief was not included as part of the initial petition, an additional public hearing

must be held to address this request.

He noted that there were no comments from the other IDRC members.

He then described the nonconforming sign elements. The existing free-standing sign

was erected in 1972 and was approved as part of building permit 20552. As the Sign

Ordinance has been amended to reduce the overall size of such signage, the sign

currently has legal non-conforming status. As a non-conforming sign, the sign cannot

be expanded or extended without zoning relief. It also cannot be replaced with a new

sign unless the new sign meets all code provisions.

The Village has adopted amortization provisions for such signage. Upon receipt of a

notice from the Village stating that the signage is legal nonconforming and subject to the

amortization provisions, the property/business owner shall have seven years from the

date of the ordinance to bring the sign into compliance with code, or seek relief to allow

the signage to remain on the premises. Rather than letting the seven year period start

for the existing sign, the petitioner is seeking approval at this time to allow for the

existing sign to remain on the premises.

The existing sign calculates to one-hundred ninety two (192) square feet in sign area, as

determined by the Sign Ordinance. The petitioner notes that the majority of the sign

area consists of the “arch” elements and includes a fair amount of open space within the

arches, which decreases the overall visual prominence of the sign.

The Sign Ordinance requires freestanding signage to be located at least 75 feet off of

the centerline of a state right-of-way (i.e., Roosevelt Road). The petitioner's existing plat

of survey shows that the sign is located 53.5 feet from the right-of-way center line. The

survey shows that if the sign was located per code, it would be placed within the exit

drive aisle. As a practical matter, such placement would not be appropriate as it would

have limited visibility and would interfere with the parking and access drive areas.

Lastly, the existing sign is located within the clear line of sight area. Staff notes that the

existing sign is a pole sign and the bulk of the sign area is above the perceived line of

sight. As such, it may not create as great of a visual impediment as monument signage.

Staff notes that many existing signs are not in compliance with all provisions of Village

Code. It is not substantially out of character with other signage erected along Roosevelt

Road. Staff can support the relief to allow for the existing sign to remain, but relief

should be tied to the existing sign and should not run with the property in perpetuity.

He noted that the Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be developed with

Community Commercial uses. While the Plan encourages bringing such signage into

compliance with Code, particularly along commercial corridors like Roosevelt Road, staff

believes that allowing the existing sign to remain on the premises without amortization

provisions would not negatively impact the overall development patterns and desired

goals of the Plan. However, to ensure that all business uses eventually come into

compliance with code, staff recommends that the relief be tied to the existing sign only.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no

public comments. He then opened the meeting for discussion among the

Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he agrees with staff's recommendation relative to the

requested relief and tying the approval to the existing free-standing sign only.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition. He noted that this is just an

introduction by staff to get the Commissioners' input. This input will then be shared with

Lombard Town Centre to get their comments. Lombard Town Centre's comments will

then be incorporated and brought back to the next Plan Commission meeting.

This is a staff-initiated petition relative to amending the Zoning Ordinance associated

with off-street and off-site parking requirements within the B5 Central Business District.

This would apply to changes in land use in the downtown for properties that are legal

non conforming and the manner in which parking can be provided for existing and

proposed uses within existing buildings.

Mr. Heniff gave the history and background as to parking requirements in the downtown

and how the requirements have come to be noting how holes and gaps in the Code

need to be addressed. This amendment would address the following issues:

Changes in land use categories

The Village has been aggressively attempting to attract new restaurants to the

downtown area, as demonstrated by the Restaurant Forgivable Loan Program.

Restaurant uses, which frequently have differing peak parking periods as the commuter

parking lots, are often considered essential land uses within economically viable

downtown areas. However, should an existing downtown space be converted from a

retail use (requiring 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in the B5 District)

to a sit-down restaurant (requiring 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area),

the operator would be required to provide additional on-site parking before a Zoning

Certificate is issued by the Village. Moreover, the start-up costs for such a facility would

be raised significantly if such parking were required to be provided on the respective

property

Physical Limitations on Properties to Meet Code

Many properties in the downtown area were platted as part of the original Town of

Lombard in the 1870s. Through various assessment division over time, current lots of

record and assessment lots seldom are the same. The downtown area has also

developed on uniquely sized and shaped parcels that are atypical of those found

elsewhere in the Village. In many cases, the downtown lots often mirror the building

footprint of the associated structure. In many cases, there is little or no room for parking

spaces to be placed on these properties. Recognizing this issue, the Village has

constructed communal parking spaces such as the North Park Parking Lot. However as

the code is written, it discourages joint parking arrangements by mandating on-site

parking arrangements.

Conditional Use Process for Off-site Parking

Many businesses in the downtown are only able to provide parking for customers and

employees through a mix of on-street parking, commuter parking lots or parking on

adjacent properties. However, this is essentially varying types of off-site parking, which

would require a conditional use approval based on the current code. Existing uses are

considered legal non-conforming as it pertains to the parking requirements, but new

uses which have greater parking requirements would require either a variation from the

parking requirements or a conditional use approval for off-site parking before any such

use could open.

The proposed text amendments recognize the Village having two functions - one as a

zoning authority and the other as a land owner. The amendments are as follows:

Under Subsection 3, Location, the B5 properties are no longer subject to a conditional

approval for off-site parking but rather it is a permitted use and is subject to off site

parking conditions. This provides an opportunity for restaurants to open on existing

storefronts. This is where we can identify spaces through the Village commuter lots or

with a pending lot whereby an agreement could be sufficient for the parking demand.

Under Subsection 4, Control of Off-Site Parking facilities add:

“For owners and/or operators of uses located within the B5 District which intend to

satisfy the parking requirements by utilizing parking spaces owned by the Village of

Lombard, the owner and/or operator shall enter into a parking agreement with the

Village Board. However, this provision shall not be interpretated to automatically grant

parking rights to a particular use for spaces owned by the Village.”

Mr. Heniff indicated that this statement reflects the Village as landowner. This would not

force the petitioner to come to the Plan Commission for a public hearing. If there is a

development that comes forward and it is not appropriate to enter into a parking

agreement, that is not an opportunity to waive the zoning requirement.

George Wagner, Legal Counsel to the Plan Commission, mentioned at the end of the

second sentence add “but rather should be subject to the Village Board approval on a

case-by-case basis.

Mr. Heniff then distributed a handout showing the available parking in the downtown. He

stated that this was created with the idea of having the downtown as one planned

development. Staff looked at all the square footage of the retail development and felt

there is sufficient parking in the downtown. The reality was that it is not true and we

have to provide for that. By amending the Code based on past development patterns,

there can be other options without going through the public hearing process. He then

requested input from the Plan Commissioners.

Vice-Chairperson Flint asked if there was anyone in the audience who was in favor or

against the petition. Hearing none, the meeting was opened to the Plan

Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that current code does not meet downtown parking needs

so he is in favor of off-premise parking; otherwise, it will be difficult to attract new

businesses.

Commissioner Sweetser agreed. She indicated the need to think long term and

mentioned how other Villages have parking garages but that also leads to the thinking

that it should go into the plan. She also noted that Subsection 4, second paragraph

correct the word “interpretated” to “interpreted”.

Commissioner Sweetser referenced the parking map and asked if all the spaces

depicted are currently in use, especially the 61 spaces along Michael McGuire Drive.

She has never seen any vehicles parked there and wondered even if there was enough

space for 61 vehicles. Mr. Heniff indicated he would check the numbers.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that these could be potential spaces but doubts they are

currently spaces. She commented that the DuPage Theater site parking spaces will

eventually be eliminated, but asked if they were included in the count. Mr. Heniff

answered yes. Commissioner Sweetser indicated that they should not be counted but

Ann Malec, 145 Northwest Highway, Park Ridge, and representing Neri Development,

presented the petition. Ms. Malec stated that Neri Development is the developer

constructing the Oakview Estates planned development. One building is completed and

has been designed to its best potential. The property is situated on a busy corner, St.

Charles Road and Grace Street, and needs larger signage to capture the interest of

future tenants. She mentioned that they currently have a banner which is permitted for

120 days and that they would like to keep it up longer. They also have a 48 square foot

development sign which is one sided and faces the intersection but is too small for the

location. They feel a larger sign would better serve their purpose due to the scale of the

development as well as communicate more efficiently with the public by being visible for

365 days. She referred to the Lombard Sign Ordinance and indicated that staff

mentioned they were only allowed 48 square feet. They are proposing to have a larger

sign 102 square feet, "v"- shaped, two sided and would be located in the same location

as the existing sign. By allowing them their request, this proposed signage would be

more visible from all directions thereby making the condominiums more successful and

the neighborhood more desirable.

Vice-Chairperson Flint asked if there was anyone present who wanted to speak in favor

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

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He stated their request which

is for two signage deviations - an increase in the number of allowable days for

temporary signage, and the other for an increase in the allowable area of signage for

development signs.

He gave the location, background and history of the development as well as the

applicable criteria from the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Heniff stated the developer is finished

with the construction of the first building and is ready for certificates of occupancy. He

noted that this is a critical time period for the developer by making the transition from a

construction site to a residential site. Given that it will take a bit of time to sell the

condominiums, staff feels that the requested relief is appropriate and proceeded to give

examples of other developments that were granted similar signage deviations. Since

staff has supported other such signage deviations in the past as well as due to the

configuration of St. Charles and Grace Street, staff is supporting this request with the

conditions noted in the staff report. He concluded by indicated that this request is a site

plan approval which gives the Plan Commission authority to approve the petition.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting to the Plan Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser referred to condition #1 in the staff report and mentioned that

1. This relief shall provide for a time extension for a one-year period to allow the banner

sign previously approved by the Village as part of building permit #06-78, with the permit

being renewable by staff.

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

free-standing sign. Said sign 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 Section

153.235(C)(2) of 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. The site plan approval shall only apply to the Phase I building at 500 East St. Charles

Road