Village of Lombard Legistar System

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition on behalf of the Village of

Lombard. He referenced the Inter-Departmental Review Committee (IDRC) Report,

which is being submitted to the public record in its entirety. He noted that the subject

property is bounded on all sides by property in the Village. Associated with the

annexation of the subject property, the Plan Commission is being asked to consider the

appropriateness of rezoning the subject property from the R1 Single-Family Residence

District to the R2 Single-Family Residence District.

Referencing the IDRC Report, there were no comments from Public Works Engineering,

Private Engineering, the Fire Department/Bureau of Inspectional Services or Public

Works Utilities.

Mr. Heniff then referenced the standards for Map Amendments. The subject property is

an existing single-family residence surrounded by other single-family homes and those

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition on behalf of the Village of

Lombard. He referenced the Inter-Departmental Review Committee (IDRC) Report,

which is being submitted to the public record in its entirety. He noted that the subject

property is bounded on all sides by property in the Village and the Village will be

pursuing an involuntary annexation of the property. Associated with this action, the Plan

Commission is being asked to consider the appropriateness of rezoning the subject

property from the R1 Single-Family Residence District to the R2 Single-Family

Residence District.

Referencing the IDRC Report, there were no comments from Public Works Engineering,

Private Engineering, the Fire Department/Bureau of Inspectional Services, or Public

Works Utilities.

Mr. Heniff then referenced the standards for Map Amendments. The subject property is

an existing single-family residence surrounded by other single-family homes and those

properties are all zoned R2. He also noted that the Comprehensive Plan calls for this

area to be developed as Estate Residential (four units per acre). The property presently

has a density of 3.3 units per acre. This property is not large enough or wide enough to

permit a subdivision unless it is combined with one or more neighboring properties.

Mr. Heniff concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of the petition.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Carmen Onken of Mark D. McCluggage, Architects, 125 S. Washington, Wichita, KS

67202 presented the petition on behalf of Capital Grille Restaurants. She indicated that

they are requesting signage deviations to allow for more than one street sign per

frontage and for awning signs to be displayed in conjunction with their wall signs. She

referenced revised building elevations that depict an increase in the size of the proposed

wall signs, which is intended to increase readability. However the size of the sign will be

within code.

She referenced the staff report and noted that the signage is intended to provide

signage visibility from each of the building elevations. She noted that as patrons visit

the site from the ring road, additional signage is needed.

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

in favor or against this petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the amended staff report. He noted that the

amended report incorporates the revised signage referenced by Ms. Onken in her

presentation.

The petitioner is requesting a Site Plan Approval to allow multiple wall signs when only

one wall sign per public street frontage is permitted. The wall signage will be for a

Capital Grille Restaurant, which is currently under construction. As the property

technically only has frontage along Butterfield Road, code only allows one wall sign to

be placed on the building. The petitioner is proposing a signage package with wall signs

to be placed on each of the proposed building elevations. Additionally, the petitioner is

seeking approval of a small signage element to be located on each of the proposed

awning signs, which would constitute mixed signage and would not be allowed without

signage relief.

He noted that there were no comments from other Inter-departmental Review

Committee.

He noted the planned development for the Yorktown Center does not address exterior

signage. Therefore, the exterior signage is regulated by the current Zoning and Sign

Ordinance. As a planned development, any relief from the Sign Ordinance could be

approved by the Plan Commission as part of a site plan approval application.

He referenced a table in the staff report that references code requirements and the

petitioner's request. He noted that staff has supported signage deviations for

businesses along the ring road. As customers will be accessing the site from multiple

directions, the need to have signage on each of the elevations is desirable. As access

into the site is provided at the ring road itself and not from Butterfield Road, the need for

additional signage is warranted. The petitioner is keeping the wall signage in

compliance with the maximum 100 square feet of area for individual wall signs. The

increase from 39 to 72 square feet on the latest sign plan is intended to ensure that the

sign is readable from Butterfield Road and the Yorktown south entrance drive.

The petitioner is also proposing a small business logo to be placed on each of the

proposed awnings. As the Sign Ordinance does not allow for mixed signage, signage

relief is required. Staff notes that the intent of the signage is fundamentally different.

The proposed logo (3 or 4 square feet in size) is intended to provide an accent element

to the awning. Additionally, the smaller size of the awning signage is not intended to be

an identifier of the business for people not already on the property and creates a

pedestrian scale feel to the establishment.

Mr. Heniff said the proposed restaurant use is consistent with this recommendation, as it

draws its customers from a regional market. The signage is intended to be an additional

identifier of the business and does not constitute excessive signage. It is also

compatible with adjacent uses. Restaurant uses are located within Yorktown Mall to the

east, within the Highlands of Lombard Planned Development and Buca Di Beppo

Restaurants located to the west of the subject property. Other business establishments

in the Yorktown planned development have more than one wall sign even through they

may only front on one publicly dedicated street. Therefore, the signage relief is

consistent with other established land uses in the area.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that it appeared that there was good reason for the

additional signage and that she did not have a problem with the accent pieces.

Commissioner Flint concurred and stated that this request is consistent with other

previous public hearings.

Joseph Vajda of Aria Group Architects, Inc., 830 North Blvd., Oak Park, presented the

petition on behalf of Rock Bottom Brewery. He indicated that they are requesting a

signage deviation to allow for more than one street sign per frontage. He referenced the

building elevations that depict the proposed signage and the site plan where the building

will be located. He noted that they modified the sign size and location to address staff

comments. He then discussed the signage proposed for the silo. He referenced that

the staff suggested that the text "Lombard" be added to the silo - they are amenable to

that decision.

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

in favor or against this petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the amended staff report. The petitioner is

requesting a Site Plan Approval to allow multiple wall signs when only one wall sign per

public street frontage is permitted. The wall signage will be for the Rock Bottom

Brewery Restaurant, which is currently under construction. As the property technically

only has frontage along Highland Avenue Road, code only allows one wall sign to be

placed on the building. The petitioner is proposing a signage package with wall signs to

be placed on each of the proposed building elevations and on the proposed silo.

He noted that there were no comments from other Inter-departmental Review

Committee.

He stated that the planned development for the Yorktown Center does not address

exterior signage. Therefore, the exterior signage is regulated by the current Zoning and

Sign Ordinance. As a planned development, signage relief could be approved by the

Plan Commission as part of a site plan approval application.

He noted that staff has supported signage deviations for businesses along the ring road.

As customers will be accessing the site from multiple directions, the need to have

signage on each of the elevations is desirable. As access into the site is provided at the

ring road itself and not from Highland Avenue, the need for additional signage is

warranted. He then referenced the silo signage, stating that the proposed signage

softens the appearance of the silo. Moreover, with the addition of "Lombard" text, the

silo will serve as an identifier for the community at a primary entry point.

Mr. Heniff said the proposed restaurant use is consistent with this recommendation, as it

draws its customers from a regional market. The signage is intended to be an additional

identifier of the business and does not constitute excessive signage. It is also

compatible with adjacent uses. Restaurant uses are located within Yorktown Mall, and

the Highlands of Lombard. Other business establishments in the Yorktown planned

development have more than one wall sign even through they may only front on one

publicly dedicated street. Therefore, the signage relief is consistent with other

established land uses in the area.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Commissioner Burke indicated that this request is similar to the previous request and is

compatible.

Commissioner Sweetser supported the "Lombard" text on the silo and suggested that

the final design of the text could be worked out with staff.

Tony Cesario of Cesario Builders, 17W715 Butterfield Road, Suite D, Oakbrook

Terrace, presented the petition. Referencing the submitted building elevations, he

described the proposed changes to the approved building elevations for the Main Street

Place building at 229 S. Main Street. He noted that the Main Street Place building

identification sign is proposed to be moved up one level, to the second floor. This

change will make the building sign more prominent. It will also provide for an additional

storefront sign on the Main/Ash corner elevation.

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

in favor or against this petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The petitioner is proposing a

modified signage package, which will move the engraved "Main Street Place" building

identification sign to the second floor and would provide for an additional signage

location on the first floor for prospective tenants. As the additional signage would

exceed the overall number of signs allowed for properties in the B5A District (five sign

areas are proposed for three tenants), a signage deviation is requested.

He noted that there were no comments from other member of the Inter-departmental

Review Committee.

He stated that the Main Street Place Planned Development was approved as part of two

separate public hearing submittals (PC 03-25 for the original building approval and PC

04-12 for detached accessory structures and modified building elevations). In both of

these petitions, the petitioner represented that the wall signage would meet code

requirements. The approved building elevations depicted the building identification sign

"Main Street Place" to be placed in wrapped text on the first floor building elevation.

However, since the project has started, the petitioner is proposing an amendment that

would move the "Main Street Place" text to the second level, as depicted on the latest

submitted plans. The petitioner is requesting this change in order to increase the sign's

prominence.

The petitioner is proposing to replace the building elevation sign on the first level with a

space for a tenant sign. This would provide spaces for up to five wall signs, plus the

building identification sign, for the three spaces. As a planned development, any

signage relief could be approved by the Plan Commission as part of a site plan approval

application.

With respect to the relocation of the Main Street Place identification signage, staff finds

that the new placement of the sign can be supported as its relocation further

emphasizes its purpose as a building identification sign versus an advertising sign.

Moreover, as the signage will be engraved into the building with gooseneck lighting, it

will be distinguished from other signage used to advertise business entities located

within the building.

With respect to the first level wall signs, staff can support the concept of signage over

the southwest ground level entrance as it provides orientation for pedestrian access into

the building. The 19 square foot size and placement of the signage on the curve of the

building will minimize the signage as one views the signage straight on from Main or Ash

Streets. However, keeping the rights for additional signage as was initially approved in

their 2004 submitted building elevations provides a sense of balance to the building.

Moreover, it reserves and memorializes the precise style and location of the wall signs.

Staff can support the requested deviation provided that all signage for the proposed

building, but for the building identification sign, be of a channel letter design.

The proposed signage modifications would only be visible from the Main/Ash

intersection and adjacent commercial properties. Its impacts on the neighboring

residential properties would be negligible.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser indicated that she liked the changes as it enhances the project.

He described the property location being bounded by the Great Western Trail on the

north, Windsor Avenue and single family residences to the south, the Lombard Post

Office to the east and single-family residences to the west. In review of the tax

assessment maps, it appears that a center portion of the subject property is owned by

DuPage County - staff is undertaking a title search and confirmation from DuPage

County as to the ownership rights and any legal covenants and/or agreements are

associated with this tract.

The property is currently zoned R2 Single Family Residence District. The Village's

Comprehensive Plan has designated the properties for low-density residential use,

based on a recommendation of the St. Charles Road Ad-Hoc Group.

He then described the history of the property. DuPage County acquired the right-of-way

in the mid-1980s and constructed the Great Western Trail, which was completed in

1991. The western 364 feet of the Allied property was operated as a lumberyard until

November 1981. In 1982, Hines had rented the property to Allied Drywall, Bauer

Equipment Company, and E-Z Self Stor.

A 1995 consent decree determined the permitted uses of the property. The consent

decree stipulates restrictions on the subject property as well as ten (10) other lots on

Windsor Avenue. The western portion of the lumberyard was subdivided into nine

single-family home sites with 20-foot front yard setbacks. The developer installed

parkway trees and curbs, but was not required to provide stormwater detention, street

lighting or other subdivision improvements. The consent decree allowed Lot 11 to the

east of the residential lots to be used in conjunction with and as an extension of Allied

Drywall, with the buildings not exceeding twenty-four (24) feet in height. Currently there

is one principal building and one open storage building on the site.

Referencing developing trends, two residential subdivisions have been constructed in

the neighboring area. The six homes in Prairie Avenue Subdivision were built north of

the railroad tracks in 1983, and Windsor Avenue was constructed in 1985 as a result of

the consent decree.

In November 2003, the Village created the St. Charles Road Tax Increment Financing

(TIF) District 1 - West to assist in the redevelopment and revitalization of the St. Charles

Road corridor between Garfield and Grace Streets. The District also included the

subject property, the Great Western Trail right-of-way and the 151 North Charlotte

property. The Village acquired the former lumberyard office building at 151 N. Charlotte.

This property was purchased to facilitate bringing this property into compliance with the

Zoning Ordinance by replacing the existing nonconforming use with a new single-family

home. The office building was demolished in late 2003 and a new single-family

residence has been constructed on the property.

Mr. Heniff asked if in the event that the current property owner or another entity seeks to

redevelop the property, Village staff is looking for direction from the Commissioners as

to relates to the following issues:

Staff believes that any redevelopment of the project should be done in conformance

with the underling R2 zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation.

Staff could conceptually support establishing a planned development over the entire

property, consistent with other recently approved subdivisions.

As the consent decree established a twenty-foot front yard setback for the affected

properties on the north side of Windsor, staff could support this setback relief for to the

subject property.

Staff recommends that any future lot meet the 60-foot minimum lot width and 7,500

foot minimum lot area requirements.

Provided that the overall development is truly an enhancement to the Village, staff

would request a new cul-de-sac bulb, if necessary, should be provided at the eastern

terminus of Winsdor and full street improvements in front of the subject property.

Stormwater detention, consistent with Village code requirements, should be provided

for the redevelopment project. The detention facility would likely be placed at the far

eastern end of the property.

Chairperson Ryan opened the discussion to the Plan Commissioners.

Mr. Heniff asked if the Commissioners were agreeable to the single family residential

designation. The Commissioners unanimously concurred that they were. Mr. Heniff

then asked if an R2 zoning designation was appropriate. The Commissioners

unanimously concurred to an R2 zoning.

Mr. Heniff asked about establishing a planned development concept with setback relief

for front yards. Chairperson Ryan stated that the project should be as aesthetically

looking and compatible with the rest of the neighborhood as possible. All the

Commissioners concurred.

Mr. Heniff asked if they felt that full Village standards for right of way improvements

should be sought. The Commissioners unanimously concurred.

Mr. Heniff then addressed lot design and asked the Commissioners if there was

anything else they wanted staff to look at or review.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if staff had any other redevelopment scenarios. Mr.

Heniff indicated that by trying to maximize neighborhood compatibility, this is the

preferred option.

Chairperson Ryan stated that since the other houses on Windsor did not have

stormwater detention previously approved, he suggested that the stormwater detention

for this redevelopment be moved from the far eastern end of the site to the middle to

serve both ends of Windsor. Mr. Heniff indicated that it was best to tie in the detention

at the eastern end of the development due to the slope of the land .

Commissioner Sweetser stated that if there were no residential lots east of Craig Place,

that would create another hypothetical scenario. Mr. Heniff indicated that as a trade off

the developer might take those seven lots and open space and then the cul de sac bulb

would not be needed.

Commissioner Burke asked what would happen with the inaccessible lots depicted in

pink. Mr. Heniff indicated that Stewart Avenue is a paper street and not improved but

platted as such. The 300 East St. Charles Road lot is the animal hospital. There could

be a need for additional buffering between the commercial and residential uses. He

mentioned the watermain and sanitary main running through the right of way east of Lot

46.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if that paper street would go through to St. Charles

Road. Mr. Heniff answered yes and that there currently exists a parking lot there. He

mentioned that the area has commercial zoning and there they might look at commercial

redevelopment.

Commissioner Sweetser prefers that the entire area be developed to the east end of

Windsor as residential uses and not commercial uses.

Commissioner Burke stated that he understands that those lots are on the back burner

but considering they have a commercial zoning those lots should be addressed due to

the residential zoning on Windsor and the impact it could have. Mr. Heniff then

confirmed that the Commissioners want to ensure that Windsor be a residential street.

The Commissioners concurred.

Chairperson Ryan asked if the Comprehensive Plan designated those lots as

residential. Mr. Heniff answered yes and he would follow up by looking at both

redevelopment issues, as one impacts the other.

2. 300-312 S. Main Street Property

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the workshop. He stated that staff has

received a concept plan for discussion purposes for the property at 300-312 S. Main

Street (i.e., the southwest corner of Main and Ash Streets). Given the prominence of the

project, staff is seeking direction from the Commissioners as the property

owner/developer as to their concept plans.

He stated that the property is currently improved with the vacant Main Street car wash

building (300 S. Main) and Yorkbrook automotive buildings (312 S. Main). Ancillary

businesses and storage activities have existed in the past on the 312 S. Main Street

property. Earlier this year the properties were sold and the current property owner is

looking to consolidate the properties to create a unified development.

He stated that the property is bounded by a Tae Kwon Do business to the north, the

Main Street Place development to the northeast, a mixed use retail/condominium

building to the east, the Illinois Prairie Path to the south and apartment buildings to the

west.

He said the property owner/developer is proposing to construct a mixed-use retail

commercial and condominium development on the property. The proposal includes a

lower level parking area, a first floor retail and parking space and a second and third

story residential units. The developer is proposing seven retail spaces on the first floor

totaling 11,650 square feet. The second and third stories would be occupied by 36

dwelling units. The building design orients the business activities toward Main Street

and would place the parking to the west (or rear) of the property. Stormwater detention

would be provided in a vault detention system proposed to be located under the

proposed at-grade parking area. Access to the basement parking area would be

achieved through a ramp off of Ash Street.

The proposal attempts to incorporate many design elements incorporated in the

tudor-style mixed use building at 301 S. Main Street. The first level is intended to

provide a pedestrian oriented streetscape, consistent with the Main Place development

and throughout the downtown area. To break up the building mass, the exterior façade

will vary in design, but carry through a unifying theme. A unique aspect of the building

design is the inclusion of a center-vaulted passage between the parking area and the

front of the buildings. This passage can also serve as a courtyard and could

conceptually be used for exterior dining purposes. Balconies along Main and Ash would

be recessed from the sidewalk while the remaining balconies would be projecting.

He said staff would like to solicit the input of the Plan Commission regarding the concept

proposal as it relates to the following:

Given its location in the B5A District and that relief will be required, a planned

development petition would be required.

Height - the petitioner is seeking relief to allow for a greater height via a conditional

use, similar to the Main Street Place development across the street.

Architectural Design - any thoughts regarding the overall design of the building

elevations? Staff believes that the south and west elevations should also carry a strong

architectural appearance as they will be quite visible from the adjacent Prairie Path and

residences.

Staff suggests that the traffic patterns should be reversed on the final site plan.

Moreover, additional analysis will need to be conducted to ensure that the proposed

ramp and access drives have proper width to ensure good traffic flow.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the vaulted passageway was for pedestrians only. Mr.

Heniff answered that it was. Commissioner Sweetser agreed that the building

elevations should be similar on all four sides due to its proximity to the Prairie Path and

asked if any Prairie Path design elements were considered. Mr. Heniff answered that

they noted some of the elements such as the water fountain and benches and hoped to

tie some into the project. The County would be hesitant of clearing any plant material

but staff would like to incorporate some of those elements into the plan.

Commissioner Sweetser was concerned about conflicting traffic patterns with the ramp

from the underground parking in relationship to the surface parking egress onto Ash.

Mr. Heniff stated that there could be some type of concrete structure to separate the two

elements and they would work with the developer.

Commissioner Sweetser suggested that the above ground parking structure design

could be more than just plain concrete. Mr. Heniff suggested something similar to

stamped concrete.

Chairperson Ryan asked about the Main Street walkway and where it leads. Mr. Heniff

answered to the surface parking and through to the businesses. Chairperson Ryan

asked if there was a walkway that led from the Prairie Path into the building. Mr. Heniff

answered there will not be a connection from the path to the building from that way.

Commissioner Zorn asked if there was enough parking for visitors in the underground

parking area. Mr. Heniff answered that the proposed plan has two extra parking spaces

over code. He realized that with the businesses on the first level together with the

possibility of six additional spaces on Ash, that visitor parking will be an important issue

but right now they meet code.

Commissioner Flint asked about deliveries and trash. Mr. Heniff indicated on the plan

the area where the dumpsters would be located and mentioned that they still need to

look at how they will place them. As far as deliveries, Mr. Heniff indicated that outside of

vans he does not see that as being too much of an issue.

Chairperson Ryan commented that he likes the potential look of the proposal.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if a traffic study would be done. Mr. Heniff answered

that it would need to be done for the parking element, circulation and impact. He noted

that this proposed concept removes all the curb cuts and Ash could be used as a

queue. Chairperson Ryan stated that the traffic study would have to include 229 Main

as well.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if there was a possibility of making Ash two lanes, a

queue for left turns and one for right turns. Mr. Heniff indicated he would look at spacing

issues.

Commissioner Burke indicated that having a right turn lane with that large of a parkway

makes a lot of sense.

Mr. Heniff indicated that staff would forward these comments to the developer.