Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

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.

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.