Plan Commission
Village of Lombard
Meeting Minutes
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Rocco Melarkey |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
7:30 PM
Village Hall
Monday, October 17, 2005
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner Ruth |
Sweetser, Commissioner Sondra Zorn and Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Commissioner Ronald Olbrysh and Commissioner Rocco Melarkey
Absent:
Also in attendance: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; and George Wagner, legal |
counsel to the Plan Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda. |
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws. |
Public Hearings
050556
C. PC 05-37: 1717 S. Main Street (3 Ordinances on Second Reading) |
Requests the Village take the following actions on the property: |
1. Ordinance Authorizing the Execution of an Annexation Agreement (2/3 of Corporate |
Authorities Vote Required); |
2. Ordinance Annexing the Property into the Village; and |
3. Ordinance Approving a Map Amendment Rezoning the Property from the R1 |
Single-Family Residential District to R2 Single-Family Residential District. |
(UNINCORPORATED) |
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 |
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 has a lot |
width of 120 feet, so the property could be resubdivided into two lots of record by right |
should this petition be approved. |
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. There were no comments by the Commissioners. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that this |
matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Olbrysh and Melarkey
2 -
050557
B. PC 05-38: 1801 S. Main Street (2 Ordinances on Second Reading) |
Associated with an involuntary annexation to the Village, the Village requests the |
following actions be taken on the property: |
1. Ordinance approving the annexation of subject property pursuant to the provisions of |
Chapter 65, Section 5/7-1-13 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes; and |
2. Ordinance approving rezoning of subject properties from the R1 Single-Family |
Residential District to R2 Single-Family Residential District. (UNINCORPORATED) |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that |
this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Olbrysh and Melarkey
2 -
050558
SPA 05-03ph: 87 Yorktown Center |
Requests Site Plan Approval for the following signage deviations from the Lombard Sign |
Ordinance for property located within the B3PD Community Shopping District, Planned |
Development: |
1. A deviation from Section 153.505(B)(19)(a)(2)(a) to allow for more than one wall sign |
per street frontage, and |
2. A deviation from Section 153.211 (F) to allow for awning and canopy signs to be |
displayed in conjunction with a wall sign. |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be approved with conditions The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Olbrysh and Melarkey
2 -
1. The signage approval shall be based upon the submitted Sign Plan Packet, prepared |
by Mark D. McCluggage, AIA, CCS, with a revised plan date of October 14, 2005 and |
made a part of this petition. Any increase in the number or square footage of the |
proposed wall or awning signs shall be subject to a separate site plan approval petition. |
2. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed signage. |
050559
SPA 05-04ph: 94 Yorktown Center |
Requests Site Plan Approval with a deviation from Section 153.505(B)(19)(a)(2)(a) of |
the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow for more than one wall sign per street frontage, |
located within the B3PD Community Shopping District, Planned Development. |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that this |
matter be approved with conditions The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Olbrysh and Melarkey
2 -
1. The signage approval shall be based upon the submitted Sign Plan Packet, prepared |
by Adcon Advertising Concepts Inc., dated August 30, 2005 and made a part of this |
petition. Any increase in the number of wall signs above the five proposed wall signs |
and the silo wall sign shall be subject to a separate site plan approval petition. |
2. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed signage. |
050560
SPA 05-05ph: 229 S. Main Street |
Requests Site Plan Approval with a deviation from Sections 153.508(B)(19)(c) of the |
Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow for more than one wall sign per street frontage, |
located within the B5APD Downtown Perimeter District, Planned Development. |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that |
this matter be approved with conditions The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Olbrysh and Melarkey
2 -
1. The signage approval shall be based upon the submitted Sign Plan Packet, prepared |
by Balsamo, Olson & Lewis, Ltd., dated February 19, 2004 and made a part of this |
petition. Any increase in the number of the proposed wall signs shall be subject to a |
separate site plan approval petition. |
2. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed signage. |
3. All wall signage to be installed on the subject property shall be of a channel letter |
design and shall be placed on the building in accordance with the wall sign package as |
depicted on the submitted building elevations. |
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the September 19, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved by the |
members present with the following correction: |
Under the section "Gasoline Sales Establishments", page 9, paragraph 1, 2nd |
sentence, change the word "underling" to "underlying". |
Public Participation
Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Plan |
Commission regarding anything not on the agenda. No one was present to speak. |
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Chairperson's Report
The Chairperson deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
William Heniff, Senior Planner, noted that the January 16, 2005 Plan Commission |
meeting will need to be moved in light of Martin Luther King's birthday holiday. The |
Commissioners agreed to move the Plan Commission meeting date to January 23, |
2006. |
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
There were no subdivision reports.
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Workshops
1. 222 E. Windsor - Allied Drywall Property |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the workshop to discuss development options |
associated with the property located at 222 East Windsor Avenue, commonly referred to |
as the Allied Drywall Property. The purpose of the workshop is to discuss the unique |
development challenges associated with the site and then solicit direction from the |
Commissioners about redevelopment options. These comments are requested to |
provide staff direction as to what can be represented to the current property owner or |
future parties interested in redeveloping the site. |
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. |
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. on October 17, 2005. |
________________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |