Village Hall |
255 East Wilson Ave. |
Lombard, IL 60148 |
villageoflombard.org |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Rocco Melarkey |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser and Commissioner Martin Burke |
Committee Member Commissioner Daniel Broderick and Commissioner Sondra |
Zorn |
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, Senior Planner and George |
Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda. He indicated that there was one |
public hearing but the second item was being pulled and would not be presented. |
Presenting the petition was Al Rose of A.A. Rose Construction Company, the contract |
purchaser of the property. |
Mr. Rose referenced the original planned development approval for the property and |
noted that while his proposal constitutes a major change to a planned development, the |
changes being proposed are not substantial. He proposes to move the building about |
50 feet further north than originally proposed as part of the initial planned development |
approval in 1981. He referenced the site plan and said that the modified plan is a better |
plan because the building and parking lot are further away from the residents and the |
proposed traffic circulation is better. He displayed the proposed site plan, building |
elevations and a brick sample for the site. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. Bob Heinrich owner of |
Lombard Roller Rink noted that he does not have a problem with the petitioner's request |
but raised concerns regarding his utility connections that were modified in 1994. |
Chairperson Ryan noted that staff will follow up with the property owner accordingly. |
Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. William Heniff, Senior Planner, noted |
that the contract purchaser of the property seeks to construct a new two-story office |
building on the last vacant lot within the Arboretum Park/Lombard Office Park Planned |
Development. The proposed office building is a permitted use in the underlying O Office |
zoning district. However, the controlling documents for the planned development |
(Ordinance 2481) show the approved plans to be different that those proposed by the |
contract purchaser and would constitute a major change to the planned development. |
Major changes to a planned development require the submittal of new or amended |
preliminary and final plan documents, pursuant to Section 155.504 (A). As such, the |
petitioner requests approval of the submitted site plan for the subject property. No |
actions are requested for any other properties within the planned development. He |
referenced copies of the original plan development approval and the proposed site plan |
in the staff report. |
He noted that the petitioner plans to construct a new building on the premises, but with a |
different layout than originally approved by the Village. Staff feels that the petitioner's |
plan is substantially better than the underlying planned development plan. The |
petitioner's plan moves the building approximately 108 feet further away from the rear |
residential property line; the petitioner's plan includes a surface detention pond which |
will result in the parking and any associated lighting being moved further away from the |
existing townhomes; and the detention facility will also provide the opportunity for |
additional landscape plantings near the townhouse development. |
He stated that the petitioner's submittal proposes a building that would be almost half of |
that originally approved for the site. As such, the proposed traffic generation will also be |
subsequently reduced as well. The access driveway will remain in its current design as |
a right-in, right-out drive. He also referenced existing and proposed cross-access |
easements for the site. |
With respect to design compatibility, staff recommends that the petitioner utilize a brick |
material compatible in both size and color with the other non-residential buildings within |
the planned development. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission |
members. Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the petitioner's proposal is a far better |
plan with moving the building closer to 22nd Street, and making the office building a |
two-story building rather than a 3 to 4 story which was originally approved as part of the |
planned development. He also felt it would fit in with the other buildings in the planned |
development. Commissioner Sweetser concurred. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval |
subject to conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Enactment No: Ordinance 5255 101 W |
1. The site shall be developed essentially in conformance with the site plan submittal |
package prepared by the petitioner dated November 4, 2002 made a part of the |
petitioner's request. |
2. That the petitioner shall provide the following easements for the proposed |
development: |
a. A reciprocal cross-access easement to the property west of the subject property; |
b. A 30'-wide ingress-egress easement for the Village of Lombard to access all |
stormwater detention areas; |
c. A 30'-wide utility easement for all proposed watermain and hydrants; and |
d. Secure a temporary construction access easement from the property owner to the |
west for any improvements to be made off of the subject property. |
3. The petitioner shall submit a photometric plan for review and approval that |
demonstrates compliance with Village Code. The light standards shall also be |
compatible with the light standards already installed on the adjacent office properties. |
4. That the exterior masonry of the proposed building shall be of a compatible color and |
size with the brick found on the non-residential buildings within the planned |
development. The final brick color shall be subject to the Director of Community |
Development. |
5. The petitioner shall meet the codes and ordinances of the Village of Lombard. |
Mr. Heniff commented that staff had received numerous public hearing applications for |
the March meeting and asked the Commissioners if they would prefer one longer |
meeting or have two shorter meetings. All the Commissioners concurred that they |
would prefer to have only one meeting. Steve Flint suggested that the meeting begin at |
7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30 p.m. and there was a consensus amont the Commissioners to |
begin the meeting at 7:00 p.m. |
1. Insignia Homes - 2nd Workshop |
Ryan gave staff a few minutes to set up for their PowerPoint presentiona and mentioned |
that another workshop would be presented for 1120 South Ridge after this workshop. |
Insignia Homes - 2nd Workshop - Heniff presented a Power Point presentation at 1400 |
s fairfeield avenue this is a continuation. A represetnative is here to hear comments |
based on their revised plan. Will give abrief overview of what discussed last month |
compared to what is being proposed at this time. |
He commenced with the presentation attached as Exhibit A. He mentioned farifield |
avenue and the pathways. he mentioned the cp andmentioned the zoning of rthe |
surrounding land uses. Some mentioned the previous concerns raised by the PC. |
basedon those comments, petitioner went backand tried to modify the plan. next is the |
modified plan, decareased the amount of buildings , reoriented the building a little bit, 34 |
to32 units. they providded sample elevations to give more a ranch style to end units, |
more resdiential, single family feel. denisty is consistent and is half of what could be |
built by right. a nice addition to the community. STaff wants to know if modified plan |
begins to address the issues raised at last months meeting. |
He had two exhibit boards which were the first vs. the second plan. RS mentioned that |
the buildings were reduced from 10 to 8. 44 to 42 units. RO denisty is stil lbetter but a |
pd would take into account the 22yr + condos. is that correct? BH staff recomneds that |
condo buildings be inculded in the pd since they will share an access drive and create a |
more unified development and will function as one. RO - still bothers him the arch. |
compitability. these buildings will not be compitable. but your typical pd because of |
completely different styles. BH - do you feel more of a beige or some colors more |
consistent and try to see some of the elements to begin to make it comparible. RO irhg |
tnow to starck. Also no mention if they are going to do anyting with the clubhouse and |
pool. BH - will be demolished. the water feature will be located there to provide |
stromwater. DR - asked who the pool and clubhouse belong to BH - they had |
opportunity to buy and decided no. so clubhouse serves no one. the condo assoc. |
would be interested in getting village water as well as a potential developer. DR - his |
concern is that this will be a nice addition but sitting next to something that must be |
revunated and need something to brighten up that facility too. not only revunate the |
area but the buildings. different facades to be a pd. SF - one thing that would help with |
materials is warmer type of materials, earth tones, to blend in. there are some things to |
do but I don't know if you can put stipulations on changing the windows. this |
development is a different scale and putting in that building would give separation so |
maybe we can look at them to tie them in. |
RS - since down to 8 buildings clustered together, the ideaof 2 sets of buildings doesn't |
bother her as much but don't want to put restrictions on the new buildings but look to |
vbeef up the other buildings. BH can share withthe members of the property owners |
assoc. and what their feelings are relative to this petiion. he have to have compitabilit, |
circuilatuion and design , should go back to initial intent to develop a unified plan. staff |
will contact hidden valley assoc for any plans to rejunivate or other elements that could |
be modified . |
MB - the two parcels are they owned by the petitioner. BH stated yes and referred to |
the diagram. MB - talking about a development whereby the condos who have to be |
annexed willb e brought in separately. BH would try to incorporate and do a number of |
agreements. MB - insignia can't answer any of thequestions regarding the existing |
condos and we can't give them any direction only if they want to be annexed. DR - if |
doing this as one this is our opportunity. RS - it is out of our hands and insignia hands |
so what can we expect as leverage. BH - go back to assoc and talk more, they want |
water and annexation. could look at site improvements that can be done maybe exterior |
in nature maybe gartages and if they say no then will have to look at their own merit and |
then look at two separate developments. |
RO - this is very difficult. we only have control over insignia. like the suggestion of SF. |
the condo property will not come out with all white maybe we can recommend thatthey |
get closer to thecolors that are on Hidden Valley like earth tones so not so different. |
DR - staff has direction fromthe townshouse portion. there is now just an architectural |
standards of tieing it all in. no density issues. |
MB - colors not architectural. last thing we want to do is mici he arch of 1980. |
RS - don't want to impose something on a new developer that may deter buyers due to |
colors. |
DR - brickwork on bottom to be a darker color to offset the cream color to break off and |
mabye do some things with the shutters. What about Ruth's pathway questions has |
been resolved and the denisty issue has been addressed, the parking, and tw buildings. |
SF - is that retention. BH that will be next step they can do calculations to figure |
detention or retention especailly to stay outside of the wetlands. |
Insignia guy spoke but coculdn't understand or hear a word he said. |
but it had to due with the detention I think.BH mentioned th eeastern walls are solid brick |
. |
Chairperson Ryan announced the second workshop will be 1120 North Ridge. Heniff |
mentioned this is extremely preliminary. had a short memo, location mpa and aerial |
where subject property located. North ave. industrial park, zonied I limited industrial. |
the proeprty surrounded on all sides by indstrial buildings. on south side the parking lot |
goes up to p[roperty line. have a lot oa lfarge bulk warehouse buildings. one story brick |
building, asphalt to rear with conrete pad, loading dok on south side,. Pointed out the |
north a 20' fot \fire lane easement, and another easement . petitioner is a contractor |
and looking to put an office shop and storage yard on property. this is a cu. in |
consideration of future applciation he is asking for comments. he refered to diagram |
and showed what he is proposing. has three semi trucks which will be stored and |
fenced off that area. may need to do short time bulk storage. Staff's comments |
storage plan developed for site? if he were to leave |
he noted brick buildings around perimiter of site is there a need for additional |
landscaping? |
ARe there other issues relative to this area? RS - if there are 3 trucks and no fire |
portection issue why would we want to make more impervious surface, don't hear the |
arguement so I wouldn't want. As far as screening there is no such thing as temporary |
so whatever they storatge it could be there for a while, prefer as much landscaping as |
possible. |
RO - agree with landscaping even though around other industrial building |
DR - will the semis be running all night. BH more than 1,000 feet away from any |
residential. MB - green is grass, so what they are asking for is that to be paved on north |
o have radius to trun trucks around to come out. either they pave the easement or |
another side. asked what they will store. BH maybe pipes or have that defined like |
mattjhies landscaping , also to keep it corralled to minimize storage and limit. MB - plan |
will have quantities, height, etc. BH yes all be enuminerated. DR questioned the light |
orange which will be the storage area? BH yes and will be hard surface. a mix of |
conrete and asphalt. SF concur with Sweetser about landscaping. SF will they need |
additional ighting. BH I don't know. He then referred to one of the diagrmas and |
summarized what the commissioners wanted. MB - to the south building there must be |
some screening to the back. BH described where the fencing would go and the number |
of gates. DR would prefer board on board but with semis that could be dow right way. |
depends on what you store back there. if chaing link there should be something to |
border but if board on board don't need that. DR -what is spacing betwen fence and |
stroage fence? BH estimates it to be a little more than 100'. BH turning radious |
movements, the advantage of fire truck access as well. MB where is detention. BH to |
be determined. no cetnral detnetion. as they refine plans. RS - where is employee |
parking? BH in existing asphalt area. RS business parking would be in back and then |
have to walk to the front. BH yes. |