Village of Lombard Legistar System

PC 07-23: 1025 E. Madison

A. Approval of a conditional use for an existing religious institution and elementary

school on property located in the R2 Single Family Residence District;

B. Approval of a conditional use for a Planned Development with the following

variations:

1. Allow a variation from Section 155.406 (H) of the Village Code to allow a reduction

in the required open space and approval of a variation from Section 155.508 (C)( 7) to

allow for a reduction in the minimum open space requirements required for a planned

development. Section 155.508 (C)(7) requires that open space in a planned

development must be at least 25% more than is required in the underlying district;

2. Allow a variation from Section 155.602 (C) to deviate from the design and

dimension standards for parking lots;

3. Allow a variation from Section 155.706 (B)(1) & (2) to reduce the minimum interior

parking lot landscaping requirement;

4. Allow a variation from Section 155.706 (C)(1) & (2)(a) to reduce the perimeter

parking lot landscaping;

C. Approval of a development agreement for the subject property.

(DISTRICT #6)

construction of a priest residence. Phase II is the construction of the parish center.

Phase III was to remove the rectory and administrative offices. Phase IV is to create a

memorial garden. Mr. Matyasik mentioned that this is the same process that the Plan

Commission approved for Christ the King Church.

Mr. Matyasik referred to the aerial photographs of their existing property. He described

the various buildings on the property. He then showed where the memorial garden

would go. Mr. Matyasik next displayed the site plan. On May 21, St. Pius X received

permission from the Joliet Diocese to build a priests residence. Mr. Matyasik gave the

location of where it was going to be built and then showed it on the diagram. He stated

that it will blend in with the neighborhood and will not have any impact on any

surrounding properties. He referred to statement number two of the standards for

conditional use. He added that the new buildings will have no impact on parking and

there will not be a significant increase in the number of people in the school or who

attend church services.

Mr. Matyasik then discussed the water detention issues. He stated that there are

concerns with the southwest portion of the property, so they hired a civil engineer. He

added that it was their recommendation to install a detention basin by the Community

Presbyterian Church. He mentioned that the four-inch pipe will be replaced by an

underground detention area. He then gave the specific dimensions and referred to the

site plan as where the pipe would be located. He added that it will have a catch basin.

Mr. Matyasik then explained that the stormwater runoff issue would be resolved to

satisfy the Village's requirements. Mr. Matyasik stated that a shallow detention area will

be dug in the northwest corner of the property for Phase II. He stated that the size will

be determined when the size of the parish center has been determined.

Mr. Matyasik showed a picture of the existing pastor's residence. He explained that

currently there is no privacy for the priests. He then showed where the priest's rooms in

the current building are. He explained the proposed new pastor's residence and then

showed the north elevation. He added that there will be no signs other than the

address. He then mentioned the building materials and two car garage. Mr. Matyasik

added that there will be two suites on the main level, a common great room, a laundry

room, kitchen and dining room.

Mr. Matyasik mentioned that the parish has received sufficient contributions to build and

resolve the stormwater requirements. He then showed other elevations of the house and

the layout of the first floor.

Mr. Matyasik then presented the parish center elevations. He added that the parish

center is the second phase of development which is to start in 3-5 years. He explained

that the timeframe depends on the ability to raise funds. He added that they are

currently half-way to their goal. Mr. Matyasik stated that one hundred percent of the

money must be pledged and seventy-five percent must be collected before they are

given permission from the Joliet Diocese. He then explained the setup of the parish

center rooms. He then stated that the parish center is being built to better serve the

parishioners and provide more adequate meeting space. Mr. Matyasik added that he

does not foresee any additional development on the property.

Mr. Matyasik stated that the people of St. Pius have studied this plan for over four years.

He added that they shared the plans with the neighbors and hired professionals. He

stated that he felt that this plan would improve the current situation.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

There was no one to speak in favor or against the petition. Chairperson Ryan then

requested the staff report.

Michael Toth, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Toth stated that the

petitioner has developed a master plan for the subject property that will allow St. Pius X

Church to implement a three-phase plan for site improvements. He explained that the

first phase will include zoning action (under this petition) to be granted in order to

provide for a new priest's residence. He added that the second phase of site

improvements will include the construction of a parish center that will provide office

space for the Church. As the parish center is considered a future endeavor, Mr. Toth

stated that the petitioner will need to return for separate site plan approval. As the new

residence will provide housing for the priests and the parish center will provide office

space, Mr. Toth stated that the current rectory will be obsolete and demolished as the

final phase of the project.

As they propose future expansions of the parish center and construct a new priest

residence, Mr. Toth stated that staff suggested that a planned development should be

established for the site. He added that the initial parameters established by the Planned

Development would consist of the existing site as an “as-is” situation, which means that

any existing zoning issues that may exist would be covered under this blanket approval.

Mr. Toth stated that the subject property has been used as a religious institution since

1955. He added that the site contains the church building, the school building and the

rectory. As there are no records as to any zoning actions for the subject property and

since the use was established prior to current Zoning Ordinance regulations, Mr. Toth

stated that the existing use is considered legal nonconforming. He explained that the

proposed site improvements constitute a substantial change to the property and zoning

actions are required before the petitioner can proceed with their improvements.

Mr. Toth stated that establishing a planned development for the St. Pius X campus is

consistent with other church/school uses in the Village. He then mentioned that the

Village previously established planned developments for Sacred Heart in 2001, Christ

the King in 2004 and St. John's in 2005.

Mr. Toth stated that multiple principal buildings are only allowed on R2 zoned properties

through approval of a planned development. He added that the petitioner will be

proposing improvements, which will occur in at least two Phases.

Mr. Toth stated that Phase I will include the construction of a new priest's residence. He

added that this phase of development will consist of a single family residence to be

located on the northeast portion of the subject property. As shown on the submitted

floor plan, Mr. Toth explained that the priest's residence will be designed in a manner to

provide housing for up to three priests. He then stated that to maximize privacy and

provide compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, the residence will not contain

any on-site signage, nor will any informational signage from the St. Pius X Church be

provided. Mr. Toth added that the design and placement of the residence is also

intended to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Lastly, Mr. Toth

explained that the area of development will allow the residence to be subdivided out of

the planned development, should the petitioner want to sell the residence at a later date.

Mr. Toth stated that Phase II will include a parish center addition, as depicted in the

submitted plan packet. While the Church does not have a definitive timetable for when

such improvements would occur, Mr. Toth explained that they are providing the building

footprints of the proposed expansion for reference purposes. He added that this

information is offered so that should they decide to proceed with a building expansion,

they will have assurances that the addition as shown in the petitioner's packet would be

acceptable. Moreover, by creating a long-range master plan, Mr. Toth stated that the

Village can be assured that the public improvements will be efficiently and properly

designed.

Mr. Toth then stated that the proposed building additions and site improvements will

meet the bulk requirements of the underlying R2 District and staff is supportive of the

proposed addition as depicted on the site plan. He explained that if the bulk

requirements are not met for Phase II, the pertinent deviations will be examined as part

of the site plan approval process. He added that staff also suggests that the final

approval of Phase II should be considered as part of a separate site plan approval

application.

Mr. Toth then explained that the site currently has 216 parking spaces (9 handicap) on

site and is used for both school and church use. He stated that the proposed building

addition is for ancillary space uses. He added that the chapel worship area itself will

remain unaffected by the addition. As the parking requirements are based upon seating

in the worship area, Mr. Toth mentioned that no additional parking is required on the

premises as part of this addition.

Staff notes that the requested relief is intended to memorialize the existing design of the

lot. As the current church and school are not proposed to be expanded as part of this

petition, Mr. Toth mentioned that the overall required parking for the site does not

change. As the subject property is being considered for approval as a planned

development, Mr. Toth explained that the existing parking situation would become

memorialized under this approval, so long as the number of spaces is not reduced or

that the church or school are increased.

Mr. Toth stated that, currently, the subject property consists of 8.19 acres of land. He

added that 4.25 acres of the subject property are considered impervious surface, as

they contain a number of structures, walkways, and parking amenities. With a total of

3.94 acres of land left as pervious surface, Mr. Toth stated that the subject property

contains only forty-eight percent (48%) open space for the absorption of surface water.

As the phased site improvements begin, Mr. Toth mentioned that the amount of open

space will fluctuate as certain structures are demolished and erected, according to the

master plan. He added that the final building footprints for each structure have not been

finalized. Therefore, when each phase of the plan is implemented and the structures

are either demolished or erected, the total amount of open space shall be calculated

accordingly. Staff notes that many other similar properties have been granted open

space relief.

Concluding, Mr. Toth stated that staff recommended approval of the petition with the

conditions noted in the staff report.

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

Commissioner Sweetser commented that the petition was straightforward and a lot of

planning had gone into it. She added that it is compatible with the neighborhood.

that the petition was continued from the July Plan Commission because there were

some general concerns and comments. He referenced the letter dated June 29, 2007

that addressed some of the concerns raised at the previous meeting. He stated that

they were comfortable that the proposed site plan would not create any safety issues or

hamper the business.

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

or against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the addendum staff report. He noted the Plan

Commission continued the public hearing for PC 07-08 in order to allow the petitioner to

provide additional information regarding the proposed drive-through establishment.

Specifically, the Plan Commission requested additional information as follows:

1. Review what conditions that can be added that permits the drive-through, but

addresses potential staff concerns regarding future changes in use.

2. Review what conditions or provisions that can be added that permits the

drive-through but address potential staff concerns regarding hours of operation issues

and conflicts.

3. Review the conditional use for outdoor storage provisions previously granted on the

property.

Mr. Heniff referred to the petitioner's submitted letter that denotes their response to the

Plan Commission comments. He noted that the petitioners are willing to tie the

conditional use to the proposed use. He mentioned that the petitioners were also willing

to not operate the drive-through between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.

Mr. Heniff noted that the petitioner wanted the drive-through open during the daytime

hours but offered that they would close at night. He stated that attaching conditions of

approval to a petition should be related to the findings of fact associated with the case,

and as the testimony did not demonstrate negative impacts of the use during overnight

hours (commonly associated with properties abutting residential districts), this condition

would serve little or no benefit.

Mr. Heniff stated that if the Plan Commission makes a finding that the conditional use

can be supported but only for an establishment with an A.M. peak hour generator, the

Plan Commission would need to make a finding of fact based upon that standard. He

noted that a recommendation should state that the drive-through is limited to a

restaurant use with an A.M. peak hour generator, with a requirement that the operator

provide requisite traffic studies demonstrating compliance with that standard. This

approach would tie the approval to the use rather than the operator itself.

Mr. Heniff noted that three areas were approved for the existing conditional use for

outdoor sales and display- the fuel islands, the sidewalk in front of the convenience

store and on the external periphery of the property along the adjacent right-of-way. He

stated that the outdoor storage element that could affect circulation is the storage

element on the perimeter of the site. He mentioned that while the petitioner did not

include this within their request, the Plan Commission could require that the outdoor

sales element be limited to the fuel islands and the sidewalk only.

Mr. Heniff noted that the petition includes the wall sign relief as well. He stated that staff

was supportive of the wall sign relief, but not the drive through window element. He

mentioned that if the Plan Commission seeks to recommend approval of the petition in

its entirety, staff offers alternative language for consideration as well.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for comments from the Plan Commission.

Commissioner Burke stated that it makes sense to tie the conditional use to a morning

able to set the north face parallel to the spine road. To address staff concerns, the

garbage area on the north side and cross access will be provided.

He then showed the main entry, secondary, and service entry; all of which have glass

doors. He showed where the drive-through starts and the traffic pattern associated with

it. He mentioned that the site slopes and the building is higher on one portion of the site.

He displayed a detailed view, which showed the parking lot area. He also displayed the

outdoor dining area.

Mr. Papoutsis displayed the different building elevations, more specifically the south,

east and north elevations. He noted the limestone band and fieldstone fireplace with

porch along the east elevation, which includes sunscreen and planters. He mentioned

the wall sign that staff had issues with, which he indicated that they can delete or make

smaller. Pertaining to the west elevation, he stated that they need to have service

entrance signage, to avoid customers trying to enter through that door. He showed

drawings of the monument sign to be located on the southeast corner of the property.

He stated that both parties have agreed to the sign's design and location, but there are

easement issues and they might have to move the sign or abrogate a portion of the

easement.

Mr. Papoutsis stated that The Patio concept is a relaxed indoor/outdoor establishment to

go with friends and dine. He stated the landscape and building will be interrelated.

He then displayed a 360 degree view around the building and explained everything from

the outdoor fireplace to the slate floors inside. He then displayed a view of the dining

area, trellis, and furniture.

Mr. Papoutsis concluded that in the daytime, the sky and plants are within the space and

during the nighttime the space is glowing, which means you can see the interior of the

building from the exterior. He then displayed the interior of the Orland Park and

Bolingbrook facilities.

Mike Trippiedi, 902 Sundew Court, Aurora, presented the landscape plans. Mr.

Trippiedi stated that the land works in concert with the building. He added that they

want curb appeal and displayed the garden spaces and outdoor dining area with a lot of

color and texture. He mentioned that they will be using special pavers, ornamental

grasses, and flowering crab apples at the entry.

Pertaining to the proposed facility, he stated that they comply with code as they will

provide an evergreen and shrub hedge along Highland and the south entrance to the

property. He added that the parking lot will be decorated with canopy trees to provide

shade. The monument sign located along Highland Avenue and the plantings in the

corners of the property will add a lot of color and texture. He stated that they focused on

the footprint of the building and they will create neat spaces.

Mr. Trippiedi referred to the entryway where he explained they will have plants of all

sizes and shapes, which will also be present on the building. He added that the other

space is the terrace area to the outdoor patio, which receives morning sun but will be

canopied by flowering vines on a trellis. He stated that the patio space is intimate and

will have ornamental grasses with long flowering perennials and fragrant flowering

shrubs.

He then showed two of the building elevations and explained that the south elevation

shows the wood screen panels at top covered with flowering vines attached to the

column. He mentioned that the plants will be softening the building and celebrating it

with color. He then showed the top elevation along the east side. The entrance

displays growing vines and a series of flowering shrubs, occasion trees, and ornamental

grasses.

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

present to speak in favor of or against the petition.

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

entirety. The petitioner is proposing a 9,500 square foot fast-food restaurant to be

located within the Highlands of Lombard Planned Development. The site occupies the

eastern portion of the vacant parcel immediately north of an existing retail strip center

(Highlands II). The proposed building will be one story in height and of masonry

construction. The proposed project will utilize all existing drive aisles and access roads.

As the fast-food restaurant will cater to automobile customers, the petitioner is also

requesting a conditional use for the proposed drive-through lanes.

The petitioner also wishes to address the future signage needs as part of the site plan

review, with the aforementioned portions of the Sign Ordinance being deviated. As the

fast-food restaurant will have frontage on both Highland Avenue and the Highlands of

Lombard spine road, the petitioner wishes to place wall signs on multiple building

elevations, consistent with the previously granted approval for the existing companion

buildings.

The petitioner is requesting site plan approval for the proposed freestanding sign that

will advertise the restaurant as well as the retail building approved as part of SPA

07-09ph. Lastly, the petitioner is requesting approval of a two-lot plat of resubdivision,

placing the retail center and the restaurant on separate lots of record.

The planned development allows for the construction and operation of restaurant

establishments on the property. Restaurants and outdoor dining elements are listed as

permitted uses. Drive-through establishments are listed as conditional uses in the

planned development approval and in the underlying Zoning Ordinance regulations.

The petitioner's concept is to provide a window for drive-through sales and/or pick up of

previously placed orders. Staff notes that the stacking area does meet the criteria in the

Zoning Ordinance. The stacking design is intended to maximize the parking and

circulation field on the north side of the building and to minimize pedestrian/vehicle

conflicts at the main entrance. Detailed comments regarding the proposed site

circulation plan are noted within KLOA's comments, which staff believes can be

incorporated into the final plans without the need for parking relief.

The petitioner submitted a Statement of Compatibility for the project that describes their

proposal and the architectural comments associated with the development. In the

approval process, the Village can consider compatibility of building architecture,

materials and design throughout the Highlands of Lombard development. The Patio

Restaurant's design is intended to blend the common elements established within the

planned development within a modern building architectural design. The Patio

Restaurant meets the 70% brick/masonry provisions. Staff offered concerns regarding

the brick colors as shown on the plan submittal and asked the petitioner to select a color

palette that ties more closely with the other building colors established within the

development. The petitioner has submitted revised brick samples for consideration

accordingly. Regarding the stone elements within the restaurant building, the petitioner

notes that the intent is to provide limestone/fieldstone materials to the fireplace element,

consistent with the common planned development themes.

The petitioner is proposing to utilize the same or closely compatible and complementary

light fixtures that was approved as part of the overall planned development. The

landscape plan utilizes a variety of planting materials found on the perimeter of the site

as explained by the petitioner. The petitioner's proposal has all trash enclosures

screened by masonry walls on three sides and a solid metal door is integrated into the

building itself.

To ensure that full vehicular access is provided around the site, the petitioner will utilize

the access drive off of Highland Avenue (a.k.a., the Spine Road) as well as the newly

developed internal access roads within the Highlands of Lombard. The development will

connect to the proposed Highlands III retail center to the west and the shared access

drive of the Great Indoors via a cross access point at the western portion of the parking

lot.

He then discussed signage issues. For the proposed restaurant, the petitioner is

requesting site plan approval for a signage deviation to allow for the restaurant to erect

multiple wall signs on the specified building elevations. The signage deviation would

allow for each building elevation to display a wall sign to give the impression of a

'storefront' appearance. Staff supports the relief given the location of the building as it

relates to the overall planned development and the unique layout of the site. Staff

recommends as a condition that the signage shall be of a channel sign design, to be

consistent with other developments within the Highlands of Lombard.

The petitioner's revised sign plan submittal also depicted signage for the service

entrance and for the drive-through element. Staff believes that the additional signage

appears to be excessive in size. Staff recommends that if such way-finding signage is

needed, it can be achieved through directional signage, rather than larger wall signs.

The petitioner is also seeking approval of a freestanding sign along Highland Avenue

that would be similar in design and appearance to the signs for The Great Indoors and

Amcore Bank. The sign is intended to provide signage for both the restaurant and the

Highlands III development. It will be larger than the other signs, but within Code. The

planned development approval granted relief to allow for freestanding signs to not be

considered off-premise signs, but does require each sign to be approved as part of a

site plan approval application to the Plan Commission. While the submitted sign sketch

gives the appearance that the sign base will be masonry, the intent is that the base

would be compatible with the other signage and would be of a limestone/fieldstone

design similar to the other freestanding signs in the planned development. Additionally,

the final location and placement of the sign shall not conflict with any easement areas.

The new building is proposed to be located within the east portion of the existing Lot 1 in

the Highlands of Lombard - Phase 2. As the parcel is greater than one acre in size, this

approval requires Board approval. The petitioner has prepared a preliminary plat of

resubdivision for the subject property for consideration as part of the Patio Restaurant

approval petition.

Overall, staff recommends approval of the petition, subject to conditions.

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

Commissioner Sweetser was pleased that they followed staff's direction.

Commissioner Burke referred to the six conditions of approval in the report. He asked if

the pedestrian walkway and the sign base needed to be conditions. Mr. Heniff replied

that the sign base is covered under condition three and the pedestrian access is shown

on the landscape plan which is covered under condition one.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated he was very impressed that the petitioner came up with a

four sided building, due to the nature of the development. He mentioned that The Patio

service area won't be readily seen and that it is very pleasing to the eye.

Commissioner Flint stated that it is a great development and a great asset to Lombard.

PC 07-27: 601-651 E. Butterfield Road

Request that the Village take the following actions on the subject property located within

the OPD Office Planned Development District:

1. Pursuant to Section 155.504(A) (major changes in a planned development) and

Section 155.511 (Site Plan Approvals for planned developments) of the Lombard Zoning

Ordinance, amend the conditional use for Lombard/Yorktown Office Center Planned

Development, as established by Ordinance 2273, to allow for the construction of a

sit-down restaurant on the subject property;

2. Grant the following conditional uses from the Zoning Ordinance:

a. A conditional use, per Section 155.411 (C) (14), for a sit-down restaurant

establishment;

b. A conditional use, per Section 155.411 (C) (10), for outdoor dining associated with

a restaurant establishment;

c. A conditional use, per Section 155.411 (C) (9), for off-site parking.

3. Grant a variation from Section 155.706 (C) and 155.709 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance

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

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

4. Grant a deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(12)(b) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for

more than one wall sign per street frontage. (DISTRICT #3)

Bridget O'Keefe, Michael Best & Friedrich, 180 N. Stetson, Chicago, and attorney for the

property owner, presented the petition. She began with a brief overview of the site. She

stated that the formal address for the property is 601-651 E. Butterfield Road and the

property was annexed in 1979 and subsequently rezoned to OPD Office Planned

Development. She noted that the current uses within the planned development include

TGI Friday's restaurant and two office buildings. She also mentioned that parking for

the planned development is provided on site and within the Nicor right-of-way located at

the rear of the subject property. She noted that there are two petitions filed for the

subject property. She stated that the property owner is seeking a conditional use to

amend the existing planned development to improve the site and allow for expansion,

off-site parking, and stormwater detention. She stated that the second petition filed by

the tenant, requests a conditional uses for a restaurant and outdoor dining and a

variation to allow more than one wall sign per street frontage.

Brad Prischman, V3 Companies of Illinois, 7325 Janes Avenue, Woodridge, site civil

engineer for the project, presented the landscape plan. He stated the existing trees

along the eastern property line will remain and five foot (5') landscape buffers will be

provided along the northern and eastern property lines. He noted that the petitioner is

seeking a variation to exclude the five foot (5') landscape buffers along the western and

southern property lines to allow for shared parking and cross access. He mentioned

that four different types of trees were incorporated into the landscape plan to add

variety. He noted that the area between White Chocolate Grill restaurant and the

remaining two office buildings would be temporarily seeded. Mr. Prischman stated that

the existing TGI Friday's restaurant is under-parked. He mentioned code requires 125

parking spaces but the White Chocolate Grill restaurant will be providing 166 spaces.

This will result in additional parking and will help alleviate the parking deficit at the TGI

Friday's. In discussing the infrastructure on the site, he stated that the watermain will be

removed and replaced with a new watermain loop. He noted that the existing sanitary

line will continue to function and serve the property. He mentioned that underground

storm water detention would be provided and 30' easements over the detention vault

would be granted to the Village. He stated that there is currently no detention provided

on site. He noted that only a 2 year storm water detention is required, but detention will

be provided for a 10 year storm event.

Henry Klover, architect for the project, discussed the building design and passed around

a materials board. He noted that this will be the third White Chocolate Grill. He gave an

overview of the interior, noting some of the design features such as backlit glass bottle

wall, wood paneling, and raised seating. He stated that White Chocolate is intended to

be an upscale and high-end restaurant. He mentioned that the exteriors on the three

White Chocolate Grills have all been different. He showed the various elevations and

the materials used, noting elements such as the sandstone panels around the patio

area, the linear gas burning fireplace, the tall entryway, the planters surrounding the

entryway, and the copper chimney. He referenced the floor plans and explained how

the exterior elements correlate with the interior layout. Mr. Klover mentioned staff's

comments regarding additional masonry on the elevations. He stated that they are

willing to incorporate some additional masonry, but they don't want to lose the effect

they are trying to achieve with the stucco behind the accent panels. He explained that

the accent panels will play off of light and shadow as they will create shadows during the

day and will be uplit at night. He noted that using brick behind the accent panels will not

have the same effect because brick has its own texture and relief.

Bridget O'Keefe reviewed the standards for variations. She stated that the White

Chocolate Grill restaurant will enhance the area and will not be detrimental to the

surrounding properties. She mentioned that the site is attractively designed and

landscaped. She noted that restaurants are a needed amenity for office uses, and the

outdoor dining area will not have any adverse affect because there aren't any residential

uses in the vicinity. She stated that all stormwater detention will comply with code. She

noted that with multiple points of access, traffic will be minimized. She mentioned that a

sign variation is warranted due to the site location in proximity to Butterfield Road. She

noted that the site is set further back from the road and the vehicles on Butterfield Road

travel at greater speeds. She stated that one sign would be difficult to see and

additional signs which can be seen from other angles would enhance the visibility of the

restaurant.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked about the significance of the name. Mr. Klover explained

that the restaurant owner previously started a restaurant chain in Canada and sold if off

to start another restaurant concept. Mr. Klover said that restaurant owners wanted a

name that struck a cord, and since they have signature desserts all made with white

chocolate, they felt that it would be an interesting name that would get people's

attention.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he does not have a problem with the signage relief.

He noted that it is a destination point and it is not the easiest place to get to. He stated

that any signage relief that they can grant would help.

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

speak in favor or against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Michelle Velazquez, Planner I, presented the staff report which is submitted to the public

record. She noted that the subject property includes three parcels which were annexed

into the Village of Lombard in 1979 and subsequently rezoned to the O Office District

with a conditional use for a planned development. She stated that the development

originally included a freestanding sit-down restaurant (TGI Friday's) on the northwestern

parcel, off-site parking on the southern parcel and five (5) one-story office buildings on

the largest parcel. She noted that the property owner demolished three of the office

buildings in 2006 with the intention of redeveloping the northern portion of the subject

property.

Mrs. Velazquez explained the zoning actions associated with the petition and noted that

the existing TGI Friday's restaurant and two remaining offices buildings will remain in the

planned development for the interim. She mentioned that the property owner has

indicated that they intend to demolish the remaining office buildings and redevelop the

southern portion of the property at some time in the future. She noted that any future

redevelopment on the southern portion of the property will be subject to a separate

petition.

Mrs. Velazquez noted that compatibility with the proposed use is consistent with the

recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the proposed sit-down

restaurant use is compatible and complementary to the surrounding land uses. She

mentioned that there is an existing restaurant located immediately west of the proposed

White Chocolate restaurant, and to the north of the subject property there are several

restaurant uses within the Yorktown Shopping Center. She stated that staff supports

the conditional use for the restaurant as such uses are considered complementary to

the numerous office uses within the corridor. She stated that the proposed outdoor

dining area is approximately 688 square feet in area and is located on the west side of

the building. She noted that staff supports the conditional use for the outdoor dining

area as the abutting land uses are non-residential in nature and would not be negatively

affected by the outdoor dining.

Mrs. Velazquez discussed the conditional use for off-site parking. She stated that the

original planned development approval included one acre of the NiCor property adjacent

to Interstate 88. She noted that the property owner is in a long term lease with NiCor to

use this property exclusively for parking purposes. She mentioned that the property

owner is not proposing any changes to the off-site parking area. She stated that the

petitioner is also proposing to establish a separate assessment division for the proposed

restaurant pad site resulting in some of the associated parking for the restaurant to be

on an adjacent tract of land within the existing planned development. She noted that the

original planned development ordinance did not specify any relief for the off-site parking,

and therefore, the property owner is requesting the conditional use at this time to meet

the office parking and restaurant requirements.

Mrs. Velazquez reviewed the landscape plan. She noted that the proposed landscape

improvements include interior parking lot landscaping islands for the parking area

associated with White Chocolate restaurant. She stated that five-foot (5') perimeter

parking lot landscaping will be provided along the north and east property line, but the

petitioners are seeking a variation from the required five foot (5') perimeter parking lot

landscaping along the west and south sides of the White Chocolate parking lot to allow

for shared cross-access and parking with the TGI Friday's restaurant and two remaining

office buildings. She mentioned that staff supports this relief as it would provide for a

more unified development and would enhance traffic circulation within the planned

development. She stated that the property owner is also proposing to seed the area of

the subject property between the White Chocolate parking lot and the east office

building until the southern portion of the property is redeveloped.

Mrs. Velazquez noted that the only parking lot improvements being proposed are on the

vacant portion of the subject property in conjunction with the proposed White Chocolate

restaurant. She stated that the new parking spaces will be intergraded into the existing

parking areas for TGI Fridays and the office buildings. She mentioned that the parking

standard for the proposed restaurant is 17 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor

area. She stated that there will be a surplus parking, as 166 parking spaces will be

provided when only 125 spaces are required. She noted that staff reviewed the entire

planned development in terms of compliance with the current parking standards. She

stated that the existing TGI Fridays does not meet the current applicable parking

requirement, but because the two remaining office buildings and the proposed White

Chocolate restaurant will have surplus parking, the planned development exceeds the

parking requirements.

Mrs. Velazquez stated that the petitioners are not proposing any changes to the existing

access drives in the planned development at this time. She noted that there are two

access drives on to a frontage road which connects to Butterfield Road via Fairfield

Avenue - approximately 420 feet west of the TGI Friday's property. She mentioned that

the access drive on the western side of the subject property provides access to TGI

Friday's parking lot, and the second access drive to the Frontage Road was intended to

service the office buildings. She noted that the Frontage Road terminates approximately

260' east of the western property line for the planned development, but there is an

additional access drive on the far west side of the property that provides access directly

onto Butterfield. She stated that staff is currently in preliminary discussions with the

Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) regarding the future intentions of the

Frontage Road to determine if the Frontage Road is necessary at this location. She

mentioned that staff has suggested that the Frontage Road be removed and a new

entrance be established into the planned development from the west - through the office

uses. Moreover, to enhance traffic circulation in the area, staff also recommends as a

condition of approval that upon a request by the Village, the petitioner shall provide for a

cross access easement between the subject properties and abutting properties.

Mrs. Velazquez noted that White Chocolate Grill is proposing three reverse channel

letter wall signs including sixty (60) square foot wall signs on the north and west

elevations and a thirty-eight (38) square foot wall sign on the east elevation. She stated

that the Sign Ordinance only allows one wall sign per street frontage in the O Office

District. She mentioned that the petitioner is keeping the wall signage in compliance

with the maximum 100 square feet of area for individual wall signs. She stated that staff

has typically supported deviations for additional wall signs within a unified development

with shared cross-access and parking. Additionally, the Village approved wall signage

relief for the adjacent TGI Friday's sit-down restaurant, given the unique location and

access constraints into the planned development

Mrs. Velazquez gave an overview of the building elevations and materials. She stated

that staff finds the elevations to be acceptable overall, but suggests that additional

masonry be incorporated into the final design for the restaurant. She noted that the

Plan Commission has frequently asked for additional masonry in lieu of stucco, dryvit,

EIFS and other comparable materials. She mentioned that staff finds that the accent

bands that are shown with the stucco on the building elevations help break up the

building mass, and therefore, staff suggests adding masonry and incorporating similar

accent banding. She stated that the brick colors shown on the submitted building

elevations may be used for this purpose.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for comments from the Plan Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that the restaurant will be a great addition to Lombard.

She asked how condition 4 should be addressed in light of the architect's comments

about maintaining some stucco to enhance the design.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, mentioned that the petitioner said they would be willing to

work with staff. He stated that condition 4 can be worded as to give staff directive to

work with the petitioner to reach a compromise. Mr. Klover mentioned that the

restaurant owner would allow them to incorporate some more brick as long as some of

the accent panel elements are not lost. He noted that the restaurant owner isn't a big

fan of brick and they don't want to add brick just for the sake of adding more brick. He

referenced areas on the elevation where more masonry could be added without

affecting the overall design concept.

Commissioner Nelson asked where the other two restaurants are. Mr. Klover stated

that the two other restaurants are in Naperville and Scottsdale, Arizona.

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

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

i. Layout and Paving Plan, prepared by V3 Companies and dated June 22, 2007.

ii. Parking Lot Landscaping Plan, prepared by V3 Companies and dated July 16,

2007;

iii. Foundation Landscaping Plan, prepared by H.C. Klover Architect

iv. Building Elevations, prepared by H.C. Klover Architect and dated July 13, 2007.

2. The petitioner's building improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent

with Village Code and shall also address the comments included within the IDRC report.

3. Upon a request by the Village, the petitioner shall provide for a cross access

easement between the subject properties and abutting properties.

4. Prior to consideration by the Village Board, the petitioner shall submit modified

building elevations that substitute masonry for the buff colored stucco.

PC 07-03: 19W471 Roosevelt Road and 351 E. Roosevelt Road (Lombard

Crossing)

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

A. Approve an annexation agreement.

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

Lombard.

C. Approve a map amendment rezoning the entire property to the B4 Corridor

Commercial District.

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

companion conditional uses, deviations and variations, as follows:

1. For Lot 1 (Parcel A) of the proposed resubdivision, approve:

a. A conditional use pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance

for a drive-through facility;

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

for more than one wall sign per street frontage;

c. A deviation from Section 155.414 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot area from 40,000 square feet to 36,549 square feet;

d. A deviation from Section 155.414 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot width from 150 feet to 137.54 feet.

2. For Lot 2 (Parcel B) of the proposed resubdivision, approve a deviation from

Section 155.414 (F) of the Zoning Ordinance reducing the required east interior side

yard from ten feet (10') to two feet (2').

3. For Lot 3 (Parcel C) of the proposed resubdivision, approve:

a. A conditional use pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance

for a drive-through facility;

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

for more than one wall sign per street frontage;

c. A deviation from Section 155.414 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot area from 40,000 square feet to 30,799 square feet;

d. A deviation from Section 155.414 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot width from 150 feet to 121.03 feet.

4. For Lot 4 (Parcel D) of the proposed resubdivision, approve:

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

Ordinance to allow for a lot without public street frontage;

b. A planned development use exception for a storage center in the B4 District;

and

c. A variation from Section 155.508 (B)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to

the Standards for Planned Developments with Use Exceptions to allow a use exception

to exceed 40% of the total floor area for the overall planned development.

5. For Lot 5 (Parcel E) of the proposed resubdivision, approve:

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

Ordinance to allow a lot without public street frontage;

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

Ordinance requiring an outlot to have at least thirty feet (30') of frontage along a public

street;

c. A deviation from Section 155.414 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot area from 40,000 square feet to 20,203 square feet for a detention outlot;

and

d. A deviation from Section 155.414 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot width from 150 feet to 138.17 feet for a detention outlot.

6. For each of the proposed lots, grant a variation from Sections 155.706 (C) and

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

landscaping from five feet (5') to zero feet (0') to provide for shared cross-access and

parking.

7. Approve the following Sign Ordinance deviations:

a. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(6)(e) to allow for more than one

freestanding sign on a property;

b. A deviation from Section 153.235 (A) to allow for more than one shopping

center sign; and

c. A deviation from Section 153.235 (E) to allow for shopping center signs to be

located closer than 250 feet from each other.

d. A deviation from Section 153.234 (F) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow

for free-standing signs to be located closer than seventy-five feet (75') from the center

line of the adjacent right-of-way; and

8. Approve a preliminary major plat of resubdivision. (UNINCORPORATED &

DISTRICT #6)

Graham Palmer, a representative with Centrum Properties, presented the petition.

Using a power point presentation, he introduced Centrum Properties and explained their

focus and mission. He noted some comparable projects which included the Glen Ellyn

Crossings which is anchored by Chase Bank.

Mr. Palmer provided some history on the project. He stated that in March 2005 they

became the contract purchaser of the Lombard Lanes property, and when they met with

staff, they were told to pursue the towing facility in the redevelopment project. He noted

that there are several significant issues associated with the O'Hare towing property. He

mentioned that the towing company was in a long-term lease and Centrum Properties

had to buy out their lease. He stated that there is also a billboard on the property with a

long-term lease, which they will let run out and then remove. He also noted the existing

access easement for Highland Hills Sanitary District and York Township Highway

Department.

Mr. Palmer stated that the total site including the towing facility is approximately 4.6

acres. He referred to the proposed site plan noting the three buildings included as part

of phase one: a 15,000 square foot retail building, a freestanding National City bank,

and a Del Taco fast food restaurant with a drive-through. He mentioned that the second

phase would include a four-story, 95,000 square foot storage center facility in the rear of

the site. He stated that the storage center use was suggested by staff, and that it

shouldn't be an issue with the rest of the plan.

Dave Bender with Carroll Associates Architects discussed the building elevations and

materials. He stated that the design of the retail building is compatible with the adjacent

building on site. He pointed out that the red brick and EIFS cornice were incorporated

into all of the building elevations. He referenced the materials board which was passed

around to the Plan Commissioners. He noted that the retail building also included tan

brick and fabric awnings help to break up the massing of the façade. He stated that the

red brick, EIFS and stone were also incorporated into the design of the monument and

pylon signs. He mentioned that decorative sconce lighting was used throughout the site

as well.

Mr. Palmer referenced the elevations for the bank and the fast food restaurant, noting

that they incorporated similar masonry and design features.

Mr. Bender stated that the site plan meets code in terms of landscape plantings. He

pointed out that the site plan includes a plaza feature at the west end of the retail

building to allow for an outdoor element with possible outdoor seating. He referenced

the birds-eye view rendering of the project, noting the location of the detention and the

future storage facility. He pointed out that the western drive aisle is wider than required

in order to accommodate the township trucks. He mentioned that there is cross access

with the property to the east which provides greater access to Roosevelt Road.

Mr. Palmer concluded with some of the highlights of the project. He noted it is a unified

and cohesive development. He stated that the project improves what was considered to

be two blighted or visually unattractive properties and creates a high-quality

development.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Commissioner Nelson asked if the bank facility is that important to the project. Mr.

Palmer stated that the bank is the financial driver for the development.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about the roadway access for the township along the

west property line. Mr. Palmer noted that Centrum Properties had acquired the property

with an existing easement for the Sanitary District. William Heniff, Senior Planner,

explained that Highland Hills Sanitary District and York Township Highway Department

have easements whereby they can have direct access onto Roosevelt Road. He noted

that the York Township Highway Department is located to the south of the subject

property.

Commissioner Sweetser asked whether the petitioner was in agreement with the

additional condition that staff recommended in the supplemental memo. Mrs. Velazquez

stated that they have discussed the condition with the petitioner. Mr. Palmer stated that

he believes that they will be able to accomplish what staff is looking for.

Commissioner Olbrysh referred to the second rendering in the petitioner's presentation.

He stated that the petitioners had a challenge with the site because the slope of the

property creates a 15' drop from the front to the rear. He noted that the storage center

building will not look like a four-story building. He mentioned that the storage facility is a

nice use for the property. He also mentioned that the cross access with High Point

Center helps the project a lot.

Mr. Palmer pointed out that they originally requested four wall signs for the fast food

restaurant and staff recommended that the south wall sign be removed. He stated that

they are willing to do that. He also noted that they originally requested four freestanding

signs and staff is recommending only two signs be approved. He explained that they

would be willing to reduce it to three freestanding signs. He noted that it was important

for the storage facility to have their own sign because they are located in the back of the

property and are somewhat hidden.

No one spoke in favor or against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Michelle Velazquez, Planner I, presented the staff report and companion power point

presentation. She referenced an aerial photo of the subject property noting the former

uses included Lombard Lanes bowling alley and O'Hare towing. She noted that all of

the structures associated with the previous uses have been demolished. She showed

the proposed site plan superimposed on an aerial photo in order to explain the

surrounding context and how the development will fit in with the adjacent properties.

Mrs. Velazquez outlined the requests associated with the petition which included

approval of an annexation agreement, annexation of the property not currently within the

Village, rezoning of the annexed property to the B4 Corridor Commercial District, and a

conditional use for a planned development with companion deviations and variations.

Mrs. Velazquez then reviewed the companion deviations and variations. She noted that

the petitioners are seeking a variation for the whole development, to reduce the

perimeter parking lot landscaping from five feet (5') to zero feet (0') to allow for shared

parking and cross-access. She stated that granting the variation will allow for a more

cohesive and unified development. She stated that the petitioners are seeking

conditional uses for two drive-through facilities - one associated with the bank and the

other associated with the fast food restaurant. The proposed drive-through facility will

not negatively impact traffic circulation within the development. She mentioned that a

variation is needed for the retail building located on Lot 2 (Parcel B) to reduce the

interior side yard from ten feet (10') to two feet (2').

Mrs. Velazquez noted that the petitioners are requesting a use exception for a 95,000

square foot storage center to be located on Lot 4 (Parcel D). She stated the Zoning

Ordinance stipulates that use exceptions cannot represent more than 40% of the site

area or more than 40% of the total floor area. She mentioned that the proposed storage

center does not exceed 40% of the site area, but because it will be a four-story building,

it will exceed 40% of the total floor area within the planned development. She stated

that the petitioner is requesting a companion variation from the Standards for Planned

Developments with Use Exceptions, which is also needed for the proposed storage

center. She noted that the petitioners would like to establish the right for the use

exception, but have not submitted any building elevations the storage center. She

stated that staff recommends as a condition of approval that site plan approval be

required for Lot 4 (Parcel D) to allow the Plan Commission to review building elevations

and materials. She noted that staff can conceptually support the storage center use

given that the subject property is adjacent to two other storage uses including the

U-Store-It storage center and the York Township Highway Department facility. She

mentioned that there is a substantial change in grade with the elevation at the northern

property line being as much as fifteen feet (15') higher than the elevation at the southern

property line, and the multi-story storage center building will not have as great of an

impact when viewed from Roosevelt Road as a result of the grade change.

Mrs. Velazquez stated that the petitioners are requesting variations for the banking

facility and the fast food restaurant to allow four wall signs on each of the exterior walls.

She noted that the Zoning Ordinance limits businesses to one wall sign per street

frontage, and the overall sign size for each of the proposed wall signs meets code

requirements for area. She stated that staff does not object to the relief, but

recommends that both the wall sign on the south elevation of the bank and the wall sign

on the south elevation of the restaurant be removed. She mentioned that staff does not

see a value to these wall signs, as it would not be visible to motorists on Roosevelt

Road.

Mrs. Velazquez noted that there are a number of deviations required for the proposed

freestanding signs. She stated that the Sign Ordinance prohibits freestanding signs in

conjunction with Shopping Center Identification signs. She mentioned that only one

Shopping Center Identification Sign would be permitted on the subject property by a

matter of right as the planned development does not meet the size and frontage

requirements for any additional Shopping Center Identification signs. She noted that the

Sign Ordinance also requires a distance of at least 250 feet between Shopping Center

Identification Signs. The proposed plan only shows a distance of 216 feet. She stated

that staff finds four freestanding signs for the subject property to be excessive. She

noted that planned developments are intended for a unified and compatible design of

buildings, structures and site improvements, and excessive freestanding signage can

give the appearance of a piecemeal development rather than an intergraded shopping

center. She stated that staff can conceptually support the necessary relief to allow the

two shopping center signs located at each of the access drives, and any signage for the

bank and storage center should be incorporated into the shopping center signs. She

also noted that there is an existing billboard located on the subject property, and the

companion annexation agreement will provide for the removal of the billboard by the

petitioner in 2014, when the existing lease period expires.

Mrs. Velazquez stated that the petitioner has been working with staff and the Village's

traffic consultant to address concerns related to stacking and access drives. She noted

that the subject property previously had a full access drive on the Lombard Lanes

property and a full access drive on the O'Hare towing property. She pointed out that

there are existing cross-access easements with High Point Shopping Center located

west of the subject property which will allow vehicles to exit onto Roosevelt Road at the

Fairfield Avenue traffic light. She mentioned that there is an existing easement on the

O'Hare Towing property that granted York Township Highway Department rights to use

a fifteen-foot drive aisle and the full access onto Roosevelt Road, and that the petitioner

has worked with both York Township Highway Department to address the easement.

She stated that IDOT has reviewed the proposed site plan and finds the full access

curb-cut and right-in/right-out curb-cut to be acceptable. However, IDOT will require the

petitioner to extend the existing right turn only lane for the right-in/right-out curb cut to

the west in the High Point Shopping Center.

Mrs. Velazquez reviewed the landscaping and building elevations. She stated that the

petitioner has submitted a landscape plan that is intended to provide perimeter and

internal parking lot landscaping similar to that specified in the Zoning Ordinance. She

noted that the subject property is not adjacent to any residential zoning districts, and

therefore, transitional landscaping is not required. She mentioned that the petitioner has

submitted elevation drawings for the proposed banking facility, retail building, and fast

food restaurant. She stated that the proposed buildings incorporate similar masonry

colors and materials. She explained that the banking facility and the retail building use a

red brick and the fast-food restaurant incorporates a red stone, similar in color. She

noted that the three buildings also include an EIFS cornice element which helps tie them

together, and all three buildings incorporate fabric awnings and wall sconces as

decorative elements. She stated that staff finds the elevations to be acceptable overall,

but suggests that additional masonry be incorporated into the final design for the

fast-food restaurant.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, noted that there is currently a development moratorium

placed on the Roosevelt Road Corridor. He stated that the petitioner filed this petition

prior to the adoption of the ordinance establishing the moratorium. He mentioned that

the petitioners have spent a lot of time working with both staff and IDOT to address

access issues.

Commissioner Sweetser asked for clarification on condition 5c asking which signs the

condition is referring to. William Heniff explained that the condition would limit the

petitioners to the two shopping center signs. Commissioner Sweetser asked where the

signs would be located. Mrs. Velazquez stated that the signs would be located at the

two access points as shown on the site plan. Commissioner Sweetser noted that the

storage facility would have to be included on one of the shopping center signs.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for comments from the Plan Commissioners.

Chairperson Ryan asked about the height of the four-story storage center building. Mr.

Heniff noted that in the B4 District the maximum height permitted is 40 feet, but 45 feet

can be permitted as a conditional use. Chairperson Ryan asked if the conditional use

for the building height is included as part of the current petition. Mr. Heniff explained

that it is not part of the petition.

Commissioner Burke asked where the 40 foot building height is measured from. Mrs.

Velazquez noted that the Zoning Ordinance provides some flexibility in the reference

level used to measure building height. It can be measured from curb level, or its

equivalent, or the average grade in front of the building. She mentioned that it has

typically been at staff's discretion. Mr. Heniff stated that if the Plan Commission doesn't

want a fifty seven foot (57') building height (as a result of the change in grade) that it

should be denoted.

Mr. Heniff noted that the petitioners would like to secure the legal right to the use

exception at this time, but if they can't meet the bulk requirements, they will have to

come back for the relief.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he didn't have a problem with the storage use and

that the elevations for the development are also very attractive.

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

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

a. Site plans prepared by Carroll Associates Architects, dated August 9, 2007

b. Landscape plan, prepared by Carroll Associated Architects, dated August 10,

2007,

c. Building elevations for proposed retail center, prepared by Carroll Associates

Architects, dated July 16, 2007,

d. Building elevations for proposed bank, prepared by Carroll Associates Architects,

dated July 16, 2007

e. Building elevations for the fast-food restaurant , prepared by Hestrup and

Associates, dated July 17, 2007.

2. That the petitioner shall enter into an annexation agreement with the Village for the

subject property.

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

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

IDRC report.

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

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

the enclosure is located.

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

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

operated as follows:

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

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

conjunction with the wall signage.

c. The planned development shall be limited to no more than two freestanding

shopping center signs, with the signs being in accordance with the shopping center

signage plan prepared by Carroll Associates Architects dated August 3, 2007. The final

placement of the signs shall be located in a manner that does not conflict with clear line

of sight or utility easements.

d. That wall signage for the bank building and the fast-food restaurant building shall

only be located on the north, east and west elevations.

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

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

155.221 of the Zoning Ordinance.

g. Prior to consideration by the Village Board, the petitioner shall submit modified

building elevations for the fast-food restaurant on Lot 3 (Parcel C) that substitute

masonry for the EFIS.

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

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

parking between each lot within the proposed development.

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

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

approval of the Village.

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

access to the proposed detention outlot (Lot 5), with the final location to be denoted on

the final plat of subdivision for the subject property.

Michelle Velazquez, Planner I, presented the petition on behalf of the petitioners. She

stated that the petitioner is requesting approval of an annexation agreement with the

Village of Lombard which will allow the petitioner to receive utility services from the

Village and will outline the terms of annexation once the site becomes contiguous to the

Village corporate limits. She noted that as part of the annexation agreement, the

petitioner will grant an easement to the Village to construct a booster pump station on

the northern parcel with frontage on 14th Street. She mentioned that as the property is

currently unincorporated, the Village has received approvals through DuPage County to

construct the booster pump station (Z5348-07). She stated that the annexation

agreement does not include any zoning actions to be taken by the Village relative to the

booster pump station as it is an exempt essential service pursuant to Section 155.217 of

the Lombard Zoning Ordinance.

Mrs. Velazquez stated that the Comprehensive Plan recommends Public and

Institutional uses at this location, and a religious institution is consistent with the

recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. She also noted that single family

residences are located to the north and east of the subject property, and immediately

south of the subject property is Knollcrest Funeral Home. She mentioned that there are

also several institutional uses in the vicinity which include York Center School, York

Township government offices, and Knoll Crest Park. She stated that the existing

religious institution is compatible with the surrounding land uses. With respect to the

proposed booster station, she stated that the annexation agreement stipulates that the

Village install landscape plant materials around the perimeter of the booster station

easement for screening purposes. Moreover, the facility will not be regularly staffed or

emanate noise.

Mrs. Velazquez noted that the existing religious institution is considered a legal

non-conforming conditional use under DuPage County. As part of the annexation

agreement, the subject property will be granted a conditional use for a religious

institution and zoned R1 Estate Residential upon annexation. She stated that there are

two structures located on the subject property which include the church building and

pastor's residence. She mentioned that both structures meet the minimum setback

requirements for the R1 Estate Residential District. She stated that the Fellowship

Reformed Church is not proposing any improvements to the subject property at this

time, and any future improvements would be required to meet the full provisions of the

applicable code.

Mrs. Velazquez noted that the subject property includes three tracts of land. She stated

that the existing church and residence are located on Lot 1 of Meyers Road Subdivision,

and just north of the existing residence is a vacant parcel, approximately ten feet (10') in

width. She explained that this parcel, described as the south ten feet (10') of Lot 1 in

Havenga's Plat of Survey was previously part of the residential property at the

southwest corner of 14th Street and Meyers Road. She mentioned that the northern

parcel is currently improved with an asphalt driveway which provides access to the

church parking lot from 14th Street. She also noted that as part of the annexation

agreement, Fellowship Reformed Church will be granting an eighty foot (80') by eighty

foot (80') easement on the northern parcel to construct a booster pump station. She

stated that at which time the subject property is annexed into the Village, the Fellowship

Reformed Church will execute a release and termination of the booster station

easement and the Village shall purchase fee simple title to the booster station easement

property. She mentioned that the booster station easement will be subdivided from the

remaining portion of the subject property.

Mrs. Velazquez stated that the petitioner is not proposing any signage at this time. She

noted that any future signage must meet the full provisions of the Sign Ordinance.

Mrs. Velazquez stated that staff recommends approval subject to the one condition

outlined within the staff report and the second condition included in the Plan

Commission memo.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, noted that the approach for this annexation agreement is

similar to that taken with the CVS pharmacy (PC 01-07). He stated that the zoning

actions associated with the agreement are under consideration before the annexation

agreement is executed. He noted that it provides value for public comment before the

annexation agreement is executed. He mentioned that on September 6, the Board will

only consider the annexation agreement. The property will be annexed and the

conditional use will be effective once contiguity is established.

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

speak in favor or against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for comments from the Plan Commission. The

Commissioners had no comments.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He indicated that this is a

follow up to SPA 07-09ph, as it pertains only to the approval of the north elevation. SPA

07-09ph was only approved subject to the conditions based upon Plan Commission

comments that were requested under this petition.

The Plan Commission suggested giving the north elevation a storefront appearance to

soften the 'back of the house' along the north elevation. The new plans include the

following modifications, which are based upon Plan Commission comments:

1. To give the north elevation a more 'storefront' appearance, additional awnings are

being provided. These awnings should not impact traffic access or flow.

2. To better conceal the dumpsters, the building has been altered to allow the

dumpsters to be set into the building, permitting them to face westward. Not only will the

reposition of the dumpsters provide proper screening, it will also allow for better

accessibility for refuse pick up vehicles.

3. To minimize the visual impact of the dumpsters, a masonry wall constructed with

matching brick is to be provided as an enclosure for effective screening.

4. As ComEd requires ample space to service the transformer, landscape screening is

provided to the transformer (opposed to a brick wall that would have to be placed in the

drive aisle). The bulk of the parkway landscaping mentioned below is specifically being

placed adjacent to the location of the transformer for optimal screening.

5. To provide additional screening to the north elevation, supplemental landscaping is

being provided along the spine road parkway, which includes additional evergreens and

deciduous trees.

The petitioner did submit revised elevations and landscaping which addressed a

majority of the concerns raised by the Plan Commission and look to the Plan

Commission for concurrence.

There was no one present to speak in favor or against the petition.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he did not attend the July meeting but noted that

even though changes were made, it still looks like the back of a building. He stated that

when he thinks of a storefront appearance, he is not thinking of that.

Mr. Heniff referenced how they handled the 'back of house' with Butterfield Road. He

added that they utilized additional wrapping with the east end. The recesses aren't as

prominent, but I would agree that there is a challenge with this site.

Commissioner Burke stated that the plans look a lot better, but it still looks like the back

of a building. He exclaimed that he had asked for additional landscaping around the

transformer. Mr. Heniff replied that ComEd needs ten feet of circulation. Mr. Heniff

added that staff looked at the location and concluded that it would be a heavily shaded

area, which may not be suitable for plant growth.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that there would be extra dense trees and evergreens

between the service drive and the main road, so that it would screen this view

considerably. Mr. Heniff stated that the landscape plan shows that element.