Village of Lombard Legistar System

D. PC 05-08: 330 and 350 E. North Avenue (Tabled from May 5, 2005)(Two

Ordinances/Waiver of First Requested and a Resolution)

Requests that the Village take the following actions on the subject properties as follows:

For the property located at 330 East North Avenue and located within the B4

Corridor Commercial District:

1. Approve a major plat of subdivision. (No Village board action required at this time,

item to be considered on approval of final engineering at a later date).

2. Approve 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;

3. Approve a conditional use for a drive-through facility;

4. Approve a conditional use for an outdoor seating area; and

5. Resolution approving a development agreement for the subject property.

For the property located at 350 East North Avenue and located within the B4

Corridor Commercial District, Planned Development, approve the following

actions:

1. Amendments to Ordinance 5531 approving a planned development on the subject

Angela Smith of Site Enhancement Services presented the petition, representing the

petitioner, Gershman Brown, for the off-premise sign petition. Ms. Smith noted one

change on Exhibit E referenced in the staff report. She stated that the drawing depicts

green lettering and they plan to have the lettering to match the color of the awnings that

will be placed on the building. The sign would be located on Lot 2 of the CVS

development, which has shared access with the 330 E. North Avenue development. In

an effort to unify the center, the sign incorporates the top element and the colors of the

CVS architecture. The future occupant of Lot 2 would use the top portion of the sign

and the lower portion would provide visibility for 330 E. North Avenue tenants on Grace

Street. The panels would be designated for three tenants and would not exceed the

twenty-nine square feet shown. The sign is not a typical off-premise sign such as a

billboard.

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

against the petition. He then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner II, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark stated that the signage

was continued from the previous meeting since the petitioner was submitting revised

drawings. She stated that the petitioner worked with the property owner of Lot 2 to

design a sign that would accommodate both properties. She stated that the sign is

twenty feet in height and approximately seventy-eight square feet in area with the

included tenant panels. She stated that the freestanding sign is permitted by right and

only the tenant panels were considered off premise signage. Ms. Clark stated that the

intention was to provide a uniform look between the two developments. She stated that

staff believes that the proposed signage would provide the desired look and

recommended approval of the petition subject to the conditions written in the staff report.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission

members.

Commissioner Sweetser referenced the last line of the staff report. She asked what was

the size of the sign as originally proposed. Ms. Clark stated that she believed the sign

was approximately one hundred and fifty (150) square feet.

The petitioner, Larry Debb of GVA Williams, presented the request. He thanked the

Plan Commission for their comments in their previous workshop session. He noted that

the biggest change with their current plans is that the drive through has been relocated

from the west to the east, providing significantly better circulation and allowing for cross

access to the Pier One Center. Also, two parking spaces north of the lift station have

been reserved for Public Works vehicles, and the landscaping on the property has been

greatly increased.

Mr. Debb stated that the retail center will be virtually identical to Pier One, using the

same materials to tie the buildings together. At staff's suggestion, spandrel glass and

trees were added on the west side to soften the appearance of the building. They will

have wall signs on both the east and west sides of the building due to the amount of

traffic that will approach from the back of the building. The elevations for the Amcore

Bank have changed significantly and the color scheme has been altered to include more

earth tones.

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

present to speak for or against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. Jennifer Backensto, Planner I,

presented the staff report. The petitioner is proposing a bank and 16,000 square foot

retail strip center to be located within the Highlands of Lombard Planned Development.

Both buildings will be one story in height and of masonry construction. This project will

extend a private drive from the right-in, right-out curb cut on Highland to the existing

central drive aisle through the development. This new drive will serve as an additional

access point for the entire Highlands of Lombard. The petitioner is requesting a

conditional use for the proposed drive-through lanes, plus site plan approval with

signage deviations for the buildings. A parking deviation for the Pier One Center is also

required to accommodate cross access between it and the new development.

Engineering had a number of comments, mostly dealing with the lift station and the

relocation of the sanitary sewer line. The petitioner is aware of these concerns and they

will be incorporated into the final engineering plans.

Financial institutions are listed as permitted uses and any uses that plan to locate within

the retail center must be among those uses that are noted within the B3 permitted uses

list. The proposed uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Great

Indoors is to the west of the site, and Yorktown Center is located across the street to the

east. It is envisioned that additional retail, restaurants and/or offices will be located to

the north of the proposed development. The proposed uses are compatible with the

existing businesses and the Highlands of Lombard Development Agreement.

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

improving all access drives. The new development will connect to the Pier One Center

via a cross access point at the southeast corner of the parking lot. This cross access

was envisioned in 2002 at the time the Pier One Center was considered by the Plan

Commission.

Ms. Backensto stated that the cross access drive will necessitate the loss of four parking

spaces on the Pier One Center property. Because that property currently has only the

minimum number of parking stalls required by Code, any reduction in stalls will require a

parking deviation.

Staff is supportive of this deviation because the cross access will be a substantial

benefit for both properties and will allow for the open site circulation provided for

throughout the Highlands of Lombard. Also, the bank/retail development will provide at

least nine parking spaces above what is required in the Zoning Ordinance that will allow

for spillover parking from the Pier One Center while still providing more parking spaces

than are mandatory.

The elevations for Amcore Bank have been significantly modified. Staff finds that these

new elevations are more compatible with the CompUSA, Great Indoors, and Pier One

Center buildings, particularly due to the increased use of masonry elements and the less

prominent roof.

The retail building will be nearly identical to the Pier One Center, although it will be

smaller in size. The western elevation will have spandrel glass to soften its appearance.

This will be consistent with the Pier One Center, CompUSA, and Great Indoors

elevations facing Butterfield Road. As all elevations are comprised nearly entirely of

masonry materials, the buildings meet the requirements for building materials.

The petitioner's proposal has all trash enclosures screened by masonry walls on three

sides, similar to what has been done on adjacent properties. The enclosures for the

retail building should be integrated into the building itself. Staff suggests that these

enclosures be designed to accommodate oversized containers to prevent trash

collection issues such as those that have been experienced at Pier One Center.

Staff suggests that the petitioner incorporate decorative lighting effects similar to those

found on neighboring buildings. Decorative brick pavers should be used at the main

building entries, and the developer must utilize the same or similar light fixtures that

were approved as part of the overall planned development.

Although the overall landscaping plan is good, it might be improved by including more

variety in the plant materials. To break up the monotony, the petitioner could include

plants that are common to both the Pier One and Comp USA parking lots.

As part of the submittal, the Village requested a traffic generation analysis be conducted

by KLOA. KLOA performed two analyses on this project: one based upon the originally

submitted site plan that had the drive-through in the center of the subject property, and

one based upon the current site plan with the drive-through on the east side. Although

numerous concerns were raised with the access, internal circulation, and parking plan of

the original layout, the new plan allows for more efficient and safe circulation.

The new site plan has improved the overall internal circulation and parking patterns and

eliminated dead end parking bays. Vehicles exiting the drive-through lanes will not

present a problem with traffic along the access drive. Overall, the parking layout is

satisfactory. If the parking spaces to the north of the lift station are included in the final

plans, these spaces should be signed and striped for employee parking only to keep the

number of maneuvers in and out of those stalls to a minimum.

The proposed development will leave sufficient balances in the banks for vehicle trip

generation, detention volume, and gross floor area of retail development that were

established in the Development Agreement.

Ms. Backensto stated that the new drive-through configuration eliminates the traffic

conflicts that staff noted during the workshop session. Amcore Bank has represented to

staff that they would heavily landscape the area between the drive-through and Highland

Avenue, and they could install a landscaped berm to minimize the drive-through's visual

impact.

For the bank, the petitioner is requesting site plan approval for a signage deviation to

allow for a total of three wall signs. Staff feels that this relief can be supported given the

location of the building as it related to the overall planned development. The proposed

signage meets the size requirements for the underlying B3 District. They are also

proposing a freestanding sign at the Highland Avenue entrance that would be similar in

appearance to the sign for The Great Indoors.

For the retail building, the petitioner is proposing wall signage above each storefront on

the east and west elevations. The petitioner is requesting site plan approval for a

signage deviation to allow for signage that mirrors the front of the building to the rear of

the building for all of the tenants. Staff feels that this relief can be supported given the

unique layout of the site and the fact that many visitors to the site will be approaching

from the west side of the building. Moreover, the use of the signage on the rear,

particularly with the additional awnings and spandrel windows, gives a greater

impression of a four-sided building. The petitioner will still be required to meet the size

requirements for the underlying B3 District. Staff recommends as a condition that the

signage shall only be of a channel sign design, to be consistent with other developments

within the Highlands of Lombard.

The new buildings are proposed to be located within the south portion of the existing Lot

2 in the Highlands of Lombard Pier 1 Resubdivision. Should the development be

approved, the petitioner proposes to split the lot into three separate lots - one for the

bank, one for the retail center, and the remaining vacant parcel to the north. As the

parcel is greater than one acre in size, this approval will require Board approval.

In conclusion, Ms. Backensto stated that staff recommends approval of the petition,

subject to the eight conditions noted in the staff report.

Chairperson Ryan then asked if there was anyone in the audience who had any

questions regarding the staff report. Hearing none, he opened the meeting for

discussion among the Plan Commission members.

Commissioner Sweetser asked what the distances were from the new drive to the

neighboring roads and how wide the drive would be. The petitioner noted that the curb

cut is existing. Ms. Backensto stated that the entrance will be roughly 350 feet from the

spine road and 400 feet from Butterfield Road. The lane width will be the same as on

the spine road.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she was pleased with the petitioner's response to

the Plan Commission's concerns and comments. With appropriate directional signage,

it should be a great addition to the site.

Commissioner Olbrysh agreed with the petitioner's statement that additional landscaping

will dress up the west elevation of the retail center. He asked about the awnings

referred to in the staff report. Ms. Backensto stated that there were actually no awnings

proposed. The petitioner explained that they had considered adding awnings, but they

decided not to due to the trucks that will be coming through the loading area.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that it was a good idea to move the drive through and

added that the landscaped berm on Highland should be required. The petitioner stated

that they would be happy to work with staff to provide whatever landscaping is needed.

He added that they are pleased with how their landscaping has turned out at Comp USA

and Pier One.

Commissioner Flint stated that he also appreciates the petitioner's changes in light of

the Plan Commission workshop and that the new bank elevation is much more in tune

with the rest of the development.

Chairperson Ryan noted that although there was not a great deal of discussion at this

meeting, the proposal was discussed extensively at an earlier workshop session and

many changes to the original plan had been made. He thanked the petitioner for all his

work.

1. Site improvements shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the submitted

plans prepared by Larson & Darby Group, dated April 15, 2005, Daniel Weinbach &

Partners, Ltd., dated April 14, 2005, and Sign Productions, Inc., dated March 31, 2005

and last revised April 13, 2005.

2. The petitioner shall submit a photometric plan to the Village for review and approval.

The photometric plan shall include any parking or driveway lighting on the subject

property. The plan shall also depict a combination of up lighting and down lighting on

the building and landscaping.

3. The petitioner shall address the issues in the Inter-departmental Report section of the

staff report and the development shall meet all development and building codes of the

Village of Lombard.

4. The petitioner shall submit a Plat of Resubdivision for Plan Commission review and

approval prior to receiving any building permits.

5. Accessible parking identification must be in compliance with the Illinois Accessibility

Code (410 ILCS 25/1).

6. All wall signs on the proposed buildings must be of a channel letter design.

7. No freestanding may be located within any clear line of sight areas.

8. The petitioner shall submit a revised landscaping plan incorporating a landscaped

berm along Highland Avenue and a greater variety of plant materials, subject to the

approval of the Director of Community Development.

Dolores Jorgensen, owner of Lombard Crescent Shopping Plaza, spoke on behalf of the

petition. She stated that they were requesting a conditional use for a planned

development with a use exception to allow a photography studio. She then introduced

Lisa Kruss, owner of pet photos. Mrs. Kruss stated that her business is a photography

studio with a specialty in family Pet Photos. Mrs. Jorgensen noted that there is a pet

groomer located in the tenant space next to Pet Photos, and that the two businesses

would compliment each other very well. She also stated that they were unaware of the

zoning restrictions pertaining to photography studios, and did not intentionally disobey

the ordinance.

Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated that the

Lombard Crescent Shopping Center is located southeast of the intersection of St.

Charles Road and Crescent Boulevard. She noted that the shopping plaza is 12,000

square foot shopping with eight tenant spaces.

Ms. Kulikowski gave some background regarding the petition. She noted that Pet

Photos submitted an application for certificate of occupancy in December, 2004 for a

photography studio to operate on the subject property. She stated that upon review of

application, the Community Development Department notified the business owner as

well as the property owner that the subject property is zoned B2 General Neighborhood

Shopping District and photography studios are not listed as either a permitted or

conditional use. Staff noted two options with the property owner to address the

photography studio. The first option would be to create an amendment to the Zoning

Ordinance to allow photography studios in the B2 General Neighborhood Shopping

District. Ms. Kulikowski mentioned that staff was hesitant to have the petitioner pursue

this option as such an amendment would have much greater applicability throughout the

Village than what is really attempting to be addressed within the shopping plaza on the

subject property. She noted that staff suggested that the petitioner consider applying

for a conditional use for a planned development with a use exception for the

photography studios.

With regard to the petition, Ms. Kulikowski stated that the subject property meets the

minimum width and area requirement for a planned development, having 350 feet of

street frontage and is approximately 30,500 square feet in area. She also noted that the

photography establishment can be supported by staff because it will occupy

approximately 1,000 square feet of the 12,000 square foot shopping plaza (8.3%) and

no external modifications will be needed that would negatively affect the subject property

or the properties abutting the subject property.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends low to medium density

residential for the area around the intersection of Crescent and St. Charles Boulevard.

She stated that staff feels that the planned development can be considered compatible

with the Comprehensive Plan because it is a established commercial area and is zoned

for commercial activity. She noted that the conditional use for the planned development

is not an expansion of the commercial function, but instead is intended to provide for a

mix of uses and activities consistent with local commercial activities.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan

Commissioners. Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the proposed use would be a fine

addition to the shopping center.

at the direction of the Board of Trustees. She outlined the current fence height

regulations in a PowerPoint presentation. Ms. Clark stated that the current fence

regulations restrict fence height on corner lots to four feet. She stated that both the Plan

Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals favored an increase in fence height up to six

feet provided that fences were at least seventy-five percent open and were decorative in

nature consisting of wrought iron or a comparable material. She stated that the

proposed amendments would only apply to abutting corner yards and not reverse corner

yards. She then discussed the differences in the yard types.

Ms. Clark noted that two other items were included in the amendments. She stated that

language was included to allow three inches for decorative finials, posts or grade

changes. She stated that fence height is currently measured from grade to the highest

point on the fence. She stated that language was also included to allow three inches to

provide for drainage. Ms. Clark stated that the staff report included the proposed

changes.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that language was also included to preclude slats

from being considered solid fencing.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for questions from the Plan Commission

members. Commissioner Sweetser wanted clarification that cyclone fences would not

be considered decorative. Ms. Clark stated that chainlink fences were specifically

prohibited.

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

petition. Pat DiMateo, 916 E. Division, stated that her fence appeared before the Zoning

Board and was subsequently denied. She stated that she spoke to Ms. Clark regarding

the issue and didn't feel that a seventy-five percent open fence would solve the issue of

privacy. Mrs. DiMateo stated that there would not be any protection from dogs or for

people to enjoy their backyards. She stated that her neighborhood was undergoing

many changes. She noted that eighty parking spots were going to be installed on East

South Broadway. She stated that the parking spaces would resemble a commuter

parking lot outside of their backyard. She stated that she doesn't understand why

people cannot be allowed privacy.

Ms. Clark stated that the fence height issue had been workshopped before both the Plan

Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. She stated that the direction staff received

from both bodies was that they would like to see the open areas maintained. She stated

that corner lots differ from interior lots. She stated that the regulations were in place

when the home was purchased. Ms. Clark stated that the fence in question was

installed without a permit although they were advised that the maximum height was four

feet.

Mr. Heniff stated that the text amendments being proposed by staff do not make it more

restrictive. He stated that the proposed changes would give property owners more

flexibility than the current regulations. He stated that this amendment would allow for up

to six foot fences in some corner side yards, provided that they are ornamental open

fences. He stated that you could see through the fence, but it balances the interest of

the property owner versus the neighborhood.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission

members.

Commissioner Flint stated that Mrs. DiMateo's situation had gone to the Board two

times. He asked if her situation was unique. Mr. Heniff stated that if the amendments

were approved it would have no bearing on her petition. He stated that she has a solid

six foot fence in the corner side yard. He stated that the Board of Trustees did not find

a hardship associated with the property.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the Village does try to provide information so that

owners are aware of regulations, but sometimes that doesn't happen.

Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the petition. She started by showing

a PowerPoint presentation for the text amendments. She noted that the purpose of the

text amendments is to differentiate between portable and temporary signs, address

aesthetic concerns, banner sign limitations and create motor vehicle promotion signage

regulations. She gave the current definitions of a temporary sign and a portable sign,

noting that a portable sign can be picked up and moved easily. Staff is looking for a

better differentiation between temporary and portable signs.

She also noted that the proposed amendments are intended to address aesthetic

concerns. The proposed amendments would also restrict how temporary signs are

installed or affixed. This will ensure that no banners will be placed within the parkway

or attached to lampposts. The amendments also restrict the use of banners in lieu of

permanent signage.

She then discussed the desire to create separate signage proposed for motor vehicle

sales establishments, distinguishing this type of signage from vehicle signs.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, then noted a change to the staff report to change the

proposed section in which the time restrictions for temporary signs would be listed.

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

the audience to comment on the petition. He then opened the meeting for comments

among the commissioners. The Commissioners did not have any additional comments.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He noted the location of the

two properties. He stated that the property owner was in the audience if there were

specific questions. He stated that Lot 2 of the subdivision is being modified. Mr. Heniff

stated that Lot 2 is currently only sixty (60) feet deep. He stated that the property owner

wanted to eliminate the flag configuration and extend the rear property line of Lot 1. He

stated that Lot 2 is keeping the standard lot configuration and the subdivision would add

area to Lot 2. He stated that the two lots were 56,000 square feet and therefore needed

to appear before the Plan Commission and require Village Board approval. He stated

that staff does not have a problem with the proposed subdivision and finds that it is

consistent with the Subdivision and Development Ordinance.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission. There were no comments by the members.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition. The request is for site plan

approval for two sets of temporary developer signage with the Fountain Square Planned

Development. He indicated that a representative of Residential Homes of America was

in the audience to answer any questions.

Mr. Heniff summarized the history of the Fountain Square Planned Development which

was approved by the Village Board in 1998 and later that year provisions were put in

place for predevelopment signage. Through a site plan approval in 1999, temporary

development signage was granted which included a condition that the signage be

removed within two years. In 2001 approval was granted for a time extension to 2003,

which has now expired. The Shaw Company has now entered into an agreement with

Residential Homes of America and are ready to proceed with the development.

Consequently, they are looking for approval of two development signs. Sign B will be

located on Lot 4 which is the retention pond outlet at Meyers and Butterfield and Sign C

will be located on Lot 2 which is the vacant parcel at 22nd Street and Meyers Road. He

stated they are in the process of setting up a new trailer office to serve buildings three

and four and are picking up what the Plan Commission approved as part of the original

project.

In conclusion, Mr. Heniff indicated that staff feels the request is appropriate and a sunset

clause has been added as a condition of approval. The developer agrees that three

years is a sufficient time frame.

Chairperson Ryan suggested adding weathering provisions which would be subject to

the discretion of the Director of Community Development. Mr. Heniff stated that would

be added as a condition of approval.

Mr. Heniff mentioned the possibility of having a Special Plan Commission meeting on

Monday, May 23, at 7:30 p.m. should the Village Board at their May 19 meeting remand

PC 05-06 back to the Plan Commission. If this is done, the Village Board will give

specific direction to the Plan Commission in order to look at additional information that

was submitted after the public hearing regarding the building mass. Mr. Heniff indicated

that staff will know on Friday and advise the Commissioners accordingly.

Chairperson Ryan questioned the type of additional information Mr. Heniff was referring

to. Mr. Heniff indicated that one of the objectors who presented a massing study in

PowerPoint format showed the height of the building to be 35'. After the public hearing

he indicated he overstated the bulk and massing element and resubmitted his study

showing a different building height.

Chairperson Ryan asked if the meeting would focus on the points of bulk and mass only

or would it start from the beginning. Mr. Heniff indicated that the public hearing petition

is still valid and it would be remanded back to address specific questions.

Commissioner Burke asked if it was still a public hearing. Mr. Heniff answered yes.