Monday, March 16, 2009
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall
Plan Commission
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Andrea Cooper and Richard Nelson |
Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Meeting Minutes
Plan Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 16, 2009
Call to Order
Vice Chairperson Flint called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner |
Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Martin Burke and Commissioner Andrea Cooper |
Present:
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan and Commissioner Richard Nelson
Absent:
Also present: William Heniff, AICP, Director of Community Development; Christopher |
Stilling, Assistant Director of Community Development; Jennifer Henaghan, AICP, |
Senior Planner; and George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan Commission. |
Vice Chairperson Flint called the order of the agenda.
PC 09-05: 300-312 S. Main Street |
Requests that the Village take the following action on the property located within the |
B5APD Central Business District Planned Development: |
Pursuant to Section 155.504(A) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance (major changes to |
a planned development), amend the conditional use for the Prairie Path Villas Planned |
Development, as established by Ordinance 5802, to allow for modifications to the |
approved signage plan. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be continued to the April 20, 2009 Plan Commission meeting upon |
request of the petitioner. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Cooper
5 -
Absent:
Ryan and Nelson
2 -
William Heniff read the Rules of Procedures as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws.
Public Hearings
PC 09-02: 1420 S. Meyers Road and 919 E. 14th Street |
Requests that the Village take following actions on the subject property: |
Pursuant to Ordinance 6154 (relative to the annexation agreement for Fellowship |
Reformed Church), the petitioner requests that the Village take the following |
actions on the subject property: |
a. Pursuant to Section 155.405(C), approve a conditional use for public and private |
utility and municipal service uses; |
b. Grant a variation from Section 155.405(D) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the |
minimum lot area from 15,000 square feet to 7,828.71 square feet; |
c. Grant a variation from Section 155.405(E) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the |
minimum lot width from 100 feet to 80 feet; |
d. Grant a variation from Section 155.405(F)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce |
the minimum rear yard building setback from 50 feet to 2.5 feet; |
e. Grant a variation from Section 155.405(H) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the |
minimum required open space from 67 percent to 52 percent; and |
2. For Lot 1 and Lot 2, approve a major plat of resubdivision. |
Jennifer Henaghan, Senior Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the |
petitioner. PC 07-28 granted a conditional use for the existing religious institution located |
on the subject property, which was annexed to the Village of Lombard on October 20, |
2008. The annexation agreement requires the Village to subdivide the Vacant Property, |
so as to separate the Booster Station Easement Property into a separate tax lot of |
record. This petition fulfills the Village's obligation to subdivide the plat and grants the |
relief necessary for the new lot to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. |
The existing uses and proposed relief are consistent with the recommendations of the |
Comprehensive Plan. Newly annexed properties are given R0 Single Family Residence |
zoning by default. Lot 1, which includes the church building and pastor's residence, |
meets all requirements of the R0 Single Family Residence District. |
With respect to Lot 2, which includes the booster station, the requested zoning actions |
are intended to mirror the rights previously granted to the property by DuPage County |
and address their legal nonconforming status. The proposed Lot 2 is 80 feet wide and |
7,828.71 square feet. To be consistent with the Village's Zoning Ordinance, the booster |
station on Lot 2 requires a conditional use for public and private utility and municipal |
service uses as well as variations to the rear yard building setback and minimum |
required open space. The southwest corner of the building is approximately 7.5 feet |
from the rear lot line and the stoop is approximately 3.5 feet from the rear lot line. The |
R0 District requires a minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet. Open space on the lot is 52 |
percent where a minimum of 67 percent is required. Staff notes that the existing access |
drive for Fellowship Church accounts for just over 12 percent of the total lot area. If not |
for the access drive, the booster station lot would have 64 percent open space. |
Approval of the conditional use and variations is consistent with the Village's approval of |
PC 07-28 and the associated annexation agreement, which allowed for the construction |
of the booster station. This relief is essentially a clean-up issue created by the required |
subdivision, not by the use, and it serves to allow the provision of an essential Village |
service. The Subdivision and Development Ordinance requires new subdivisions to |
meet the requirements of the underlying zoning district. As we have required for other |
projects, if a subdivision plat is submitted to the Village for consideration, any existing |
structures on the property must meet the setback and bulk requirements based upon the |
new lot configurations. |
The nature of the site is unique and not generally applicable to other properties in the R0 |
District. As detailed in the attached Response to Standards for Conditional Uses and |
Response to Standards for Variations, the requested relief is consistent with both the |
Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding properties and it will not cause any negative |
impact on the neighborhood nor set an undesirable precedent. |
The existing religious institution is compatible with the surrounding land uses. With |
respect to the proposed booster station, 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. This subdivision will allow the Village to purchase fee simple title to the |
booster station easement property. |
Ms. Henaghan concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of the petition. |
Vice Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in |
favor or in opposition to the petition. |
Vice Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for comment among the |
Commissioner Cooper asked if a landscape plan would be submitted. William Heniff, |
Director of Community Development, explained that, as part of the permit process, |
DuPage County had required the Village to place $8,000 in an escrow account to be |
used for landscaping purposes. This landscaping would be primarily in the form of |
evergreen plant materials on the west side of the building. |
Commissioner Cooper asked if the west side was where the setback relief was |
requested. Ms. Henaghan stated that the setback relief is on the south side. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, |
that this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Cooper
5 -
Absent:
Ryan and Nelson
2 -
PC 09-04: 528 E. Madison Street (Lombard Mennonite Church) |
Requests that the Village take the following actions on the subject property: |
A. Approval of a conditional use for an existing religious institution on property located |
in the R2 Single Family Residence District; |
B. Approval of a conditional use for a Planned Development; |
C. Major Plat of Subdivision approval to establish the subject property as a lot of record. |
(DISTRICT #5) |
Peter Graber, 537 N Craig Place, Lombard, IL 60148, presented the petition. Mr. |
Graber stated that the church was seeking the expansion to allow for 3 things; Sunday |
school classroom space, larger fellowship area and expanded worship area. He further |
indicated that the church has been considering the expansion for the last 4 years. Mr. |
Graber further stated that the church held a neighborhood meeting on March 5th with |
the adjacent neighbors. He said that area residents expressed concern with 3 items; |
exterior lighting, use of the facility & activities and landscaping. |
Nevin Hedlund, 7985 Lake Street, River Forest, IL was introduced as the petitioner's |
architect. Mr. Hedlund referenced a scale model they had prepared which highlights the |
proposed addition. He stated that much of the addition would not be seen from Madison |
Street. Mr. Hedlund said that the proposed addition would have setbacks consistent with |
the existing building and that the proposed addition is proposed to meet the existing |
needs of the facility. He stated that the church has a stable population with 183 |
members which matches the required parking. The fellowship space is needed to |
accommodate tables and chairs so that the members can be in the same room. The |
addition would be attached to the lower level. It would include 3 classrooms, coat area, |
kitchen area and storage area. This would match the existing church's needs. Mr. |
Hedlund referenced the elevations showing a colored rendering. He stated that the |
elevations would match the existing materials. With reference to engineering issues, Mr. |
Hedlund indicated that their plan was a work in progress and that they feel they can |
address all the issues, per staff's request. He said the entire building would be |
sprinklered. The church has been at their location since 1954 and wishes to stay in |
Lombard. |
Vice Chairperson Flint opened the meeting for public comment. |
Michelle Vossen, 561 S Fairfield, Lombard, IL 60148 stated that she lives directly north |
of the church and represents many of the neighbors to the north. She said they were |
concerned about the flooding and referenced several photos she brought highlighting |
the flooding issues. She also stated that she wanted to make sure that the neighbors |
had the ability to provide input for any future expansions. She said she likes having them |
as neighbors and hopes to continue the good relationship. |
John Lata, 555 S Fairfield, Lombard, Il 60148 stated he lives to the north and he said |
they experience a lot of flooding as a result of the existing parking lot. He said he does |
not object to the expansion and just wanted to make sure that the proper drainage is |
being provided. |
Mr. Hedlund responded to the neighbor's comments stating that the church plans to add |
a detention facility to the north which will control the water. He referenced the petitioner's |
engineering plan which shows a detention facility directly north of the proposed addition. |
He stated that the detention would not only satisfy the proposed addition, but it would |
potentially alleviate some of the existing issues from the parking lot. He indicated that |
staff provided some comments about the engineering plans. He said they are |
experienced in handling the water issues like this site and thinks this will be a benefit. |
Michelle Vossen, 561 S Fairfield, Lombard, IL 60148 asked where the detention pond |
was in relation to the parking lot and that the majority of the water flow is from the |
parking lot and that the proposed detention location would not alleviate their concerns. |
Mr. Hedlund responded by saying they want to address the issues and they believe, |
with staff's help, they will do so and that is their goal. |
Commissioner Burke asked if the petitioner has to meet the requirement of the DuPage |
Stormwater Ordinances. Staff replied, yes. |
Commissioner Cooper asked how the petitioner could address the neighbors concerns |
about collecting some of the water from the parking lot. |
Mr. Hedlund discussed their preliminary engineering and grading stating that they do |
plan to provide some slope from the parking to the detention pond to capture some of |
the water. He said they are not capturing it all, but they could revise it to capture more. |
Vice Chairperson Flint then requested the staff report. |
Christopher Stilling, Assistant Director, presented the staff report. Staff drafted the |
IDRC report to submit to the public record in its entirety. The petitioner is proposing to |
construct a 5,500 square foot building addition to the northwest portion of the existing |
church on the subject property. The addition will serve as an area of congregation |
(fellowship hall) and will not create any additional seating for the principal use of the |
facility, which is the church. As the use is currently operating under legal |
non-conforming status and expansion of the legal non-conforming structure is being |
proposed, the petitioner is seeking a conditional use for a religious institution to allow the |
property to operate in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. |
Under the guidance of staff, the petitioner is also seeking conditional use approval to |
establish the subject property as a planned development. The planned development |
process will provide both the Village and the Church with the ability to review future |
development plans through a site plan approval process and general parameters can be |
established to effectuate future development on the property. |
As the property is cumulatively over one (1) acre and is currently an assortment of |
assessment plats, the petitioner is seeking major plat of subdivision to establish the |
subject property as a lot of record. |
Mr. Stilling stated that staff provided the Commissioners with comments from the Public |
Works and Building and Fire Departments for inclusion into the IDRC. |
The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site for Public and Institutional Uses. As the |
existing religious institution is the principal use of the property, the use of the property |
adheres to the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. The petitioner's site |
modifications are consistent with the existing institutional nature of the property. |
The subject property is zoned R2 Single Family Residence District, which generally |
allows single-family development. The subject property is predominantly surrounded by |
single family residences; however, a learning center (Creative Montessori Learning |
Center) is located directly north of the subject property and a public park is located to |
the south across Madison Street. Religious institutions have historically been |
considered to be compatible with single family residential uses. Therefore, staff finds |
the use of the property to be compatible. |
The proposed building addition will meet all of the bulk requirements of the underlying |
R2 - Single Family Residential District; as such, staff is supportive of the proposed |
addition as depicted on the site plan. The pastoral residence on the southeast portion of |
the subject property is currently located 2.87 feet from the eastern property line where |
six feet is required. This existing residence would remain legal non-conforming. Any |
future expansion of this residence would either have to meet the current zoning |
requirements or seek a variation for the side yard setback. |
Establishing a planned development for the Lombard Mennonite campus is consistent |
with other religious institution uses within the Village. The Village previously established |
planned developments for St. Pius in 2007, St. John's in 2005 and Christ the King in |
2004. Multiple principal buildings are only allowed in the R2 Single Family Residential |
District properties through approval of a planned development (Section 155.208(B) of |
the Zoning Ordinance). As currently configured, the church, parking lot and pastoral |
residence are all located on different assessment plats. As such, consolidating the three |
(3) separate parcels into one lot of record and establishing a planned development |
would allow Lombard Mennonite to function as a unified campus from a zoning |
perspective. |
The Zoning Ordinance requires religious institutions to provide one parking space per |
three seats in the worship area. The petitioner has indicated to staff that the church has |
183 seats, which would require the site to provide 61 parking spaces. According to the |
site plan, 61 spaces are provided on site, including the required (3) accessible spaces. |
The proposed building addition is intended to serve as an ancillary space only. The |
worship area itself will remain unaffected by the addition. As the parking requirements |
are based upon seating in the worship area, no additional parking is required on the |
premises as part of this addition. |
As previously noted, the only improvements proposed for the property specifically relate |
to the proposed building addition located on the northwest side of the existing structure. |
At its closest point, the building addition would be setback approximately 33.98' from the |
western property line. This is consistent with the setbacks of the existing building. As |
required by Code, the petitioner is also proposing a detention facility to accommodate |
the addition, as the current property does not have stormwater detention. |
The petitioner has submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed addition. |
The exterior of the proposed addition will be of masonry construction with a cast stone |
base, which is consistent with the existing building. The use of clerestory windows will |
be prominent on the north and west elevations to allow for a greater amount of natural |
lighting. |
During a site visit, it was discovered that the dumpster located on eastern portion of the |
subject property (next to the garage) was not properly screened per Section 155.710 of |
the Lombard Zoning Ordinance. According to the Section 155.710 of the Zoning |
Ordinance, the dumpster shall be screened with a solid six (6) foot fence on all four |
sides. As the subject dumpster does not have screening on any side, a condition of |
approval shall require the dumpster to meet all screening provisions set forth in the |
Zoning Ordinance. |
The petitioner has submitted responses to the standards. It is important to note that the |
standards regarding Planned Deviations are not applicable to this petition and that staff |
supports their responses provided that response to standard #7 be changed to indicate |
the legal non-conforming setbacks. Furthermore staff is recommending approval of PC |
09-04, subject to the conditions outlined. |
In reference to the conditions of approval, Mr. Stilling stated that staff would like to add a |
condition 4 to read, The existing single family residence located at the southeast corner |
of the site shall be permitted with respect to the east side yard setback as a legal |
non-conforming structure. |
Vice Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for comments among the |
Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that she wants to make sure the items raised by the |
residents are addressed. She asked if there was anything extra planned with regards to |
lighting. |
Mr. Stilling indicated that if they plan to add anything else, they would have to meet the |
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked about building lighting. |
Mr. Hedlund indicated that some lighting over doors would be provided, however it |
would be shielded to prevent going over onto adjacent properties. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked if the old building and new building would be sprinklered. |
Mr. Stilling indicated that they both would be sprinklered. |
Commissioner Cooper raised the issues about fire access as it relates to the proposed |
detention area. She asked if what is shown is sufficient and if not, would the Plan |
Commission see revised plans prior to proceeding. |
Mr. Heniff responded by stating that the petitioner would be required to revise their plans |
as part of their final engineering review. |
Commissioner Cooper made a motion to continue the item to the April 20, 2009 Plan |
Commission meeting in order to see the revised plans. As there was no second, the |
motion failed. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, that |
this matter be Recommended for approval to the Corporate Authorities subject to |
the amended condition(s). The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Nay:
Cooper
1 -
Absent:
Ryan and Nelson
2 -
1. The petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the Site Plan, prepared by |
Nevin Hedlund Architects, Inc., dated February 5, 2009. |
2. That the petitioner shall satisfactorily address the comments included within the |
IDRC report. |
3. All dumpsters located on the subject property shall be properly enclosed per Section |
155.710 of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance. |
4. The existing single family residence located at the southeast corner of the site shall |
be permitted with respect to the east side yard setback as a legal non-conforming |
structure. |
Business Meeting
The business meeting convened at 8:20 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Sweetser and seconded by Burke the minutes of the March 16, 2009 |
meeting were unanimously approved by the members present with the following |
Commissioner Sweetser referred to page 4, the paragraph above the motion, and noted |
that the word "welcome" was missing so the sentence should read: |
"Commissioner Sweetser stated that this is a welcome change and addition to the |
community." |
Public Participation
There was no public participation.
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Chairperson's Report
The Vice Chairperson deferred to the Director of Community Development.
Planner's Report
The Director of Community Development had nothing to report.
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
There were no subdivision reports.
Site Plan Approvals
SPA 09-01: 70 Yorktown Shopping Center (Harry Caray's) |
The petitioner is requesting site plan approval for an approved wall sign, per the |
submitted plans. (DISTRICT #3) |
Christopher Stilling, Assistant Director of Community Development, presented the staff |
report. |
He stated that the subject property is currently improved with the Lombard Yorktown |
Westin Hotel/Convention Center. In 2003, a conceptual sign package was submitted as |
part of the petitioner's original submittal for the Lombard Yorktown Westin |
Hotel/Convention Center attached to the report as Exhibit C. At that point in time, |
specific tenants were not determined for the facility. Therefore, the petitioner's sign plan |
was only intended to establish the sign locations on the hotel exterior building elevations |
and within the overall planned development. The petitioner is now proposing to |
construct a new wall sign on the southern face of the existing hotel building attached to |
the report as Exhibit A. As such, the approved plans depicted two wall signs totaling 300 |
square feet in sign surface area for the south wall of the hotel building at the same |
location as the new proposed signage. Condition 7 of the Ordinance also states that the |
final signage is subject to site plan approval by the Village (the Lombard Plan |
Commission). |
In 2007, the petitioner came back before the Plan Commission for site plan approval of a |
Comprehensive Signage Packet. The 2007 wall signage site plan approval did not show |
the proposed new wall sign on the south elevation. As such, this approval was additive |
in nature and did not preclude or prevent the eventual placement of the proposed |
signage on the south wall. Therefore, the relief provided for within Ordinance 5397 still |
remains in full force and effect. |
The proposed wall sign is subject to the provisions of the Lombard Sign Ordinance and |
the subsequent planned development approvals for the property. The 2003 zoning |
petition included signage relief for the number and size of the wall signs, as set forth |
within ordinance. The approvals were based upon the submitted site plans, including |
the attached copy of the proposed building and signage elevations. The approved plans |
depict two wall signs totaling 300 square feet in sign surface area for the south wall of |
the hotel building at the same location as the new proposed signage. The proposed wall |
sign would be 221 square foot area and located on the southern building elevation. The |
sign would have red channel lettering reading "Harry Caray's". |
As part of the 2003 approval, along with the 2007 Site Plan Approval, the petitioner was |
granted signage relief as part of their Comprehensive Signage Packet. The proposed |
sign on the south wall is consistent with that approved signage packet. In fact, the |
proposed sign is 79 square feet smaller than the approved signage area. As such, staff |
is recommending approval subject to the one condition noted in the staff report. |
Vice Chairperson Flint asked if there was anyone in the audience who had any comment |
on the petition. Hearing none he opened the meeting up to the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser referred to two different drawings. On the first she indicated |
that the new sign appears to be halfway up the building and then on the other drawing, |
which was included in the Commissioners' packets, the sign is on the lower part. She |
asked if one depicted the sign already in place and the other depicted where the |
proposed sign is to be added. Mr. Stilling answered yes. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, that |
this matter be approved with one condition. The motion carried by the following |
vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Cooper
5 -
Absent:
Ryan and Nelson
2 -
1. The proposed sign size and location shall be consistent with the plans prepared by |
Landmark Sign Group, dated November 19, 2008. |
Workshops
There were no workshops.
Adjournment
On a motion by Sweetser and seconded by Olbrysh the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. |
______________________________________ |
Stephen Flint, Vice Chairperson |
______________________________________ |
William Heniff, ACIP, Secretary |