Village of Lombard Legistar System

PC 97-11: Requests text amendments to the B5 Central Business District of the

Lombard Zoning Ordinance.

There was no public comment regarding this petition. Mr. David Hulseberg, Community

Development Director, presented the staff report. Mr. Hulseberg reviewed the history of

the petition, explaining that the issue of residential uses on the second floor and above

in the B5 District had been reviewed by the Plan Commission before, but had been

referred to the Economic and Community Development Committee by the Village Board.

Mr. Hulseberg stated that staff and the Economic and Community Development

Committee agree with the language of the text amendment as described in the

Inter-Departmental Review Group Report, and that it is recommended that the Plan

Commission approve PC 97-11.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Mrs. Kramer stated that the Plan Commission had discussed the proposed text

amendment at length before, and that she was comfortable with the Text Amendment as

proposed. Mr. Olbrysh affirmed that the Commission supported the Amendment and

was comfortable with the language as proposed.

Chairperson Ryan convened the public hearing for the following petition:

PC 97-19: 555 West Foxworth Boulevard (Lexington Square Lifecare, Inc.); Requests

an amendment to the R5 General Residence District Planned Development to increase

the number of dwelling units.

The petitioner, Mr. James Samatas, explained why the amendment was being

requested. He stated that Lexington Square offered “life care” housing -- long-term

housing with nursing care available. Mr. Samatas offered that the life care housing

industry was changing, and that there was an ever-increasing demand for “assisted

living” -- a level of care beyond what is typically provided for independent living, but not

as substantial as that provided for dependent living (i.e. nursing homes).

Mr. Samatas explained that Lexington Square could offer assisted living to its residents

by converting their existing independent living units. Most of Lexington’s independent

living units were designed for double occupancy, so these units could be divided into

two assisted living units without increasing the total number of residents. Lexington

Square proposes to convert the units on the second floor, increasing the total number of

residential units in the building to 271. He stated that the proposed change would not

have any impact on surrounding properties or on parking demands.

There was no further public participation.

Mr. David Sundland, Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that staff

recommended approval of the amendment as described in the Inter-Departmental

Review Group Report.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Mrs. Kramer asked if, after a unit had been split, one of the resultant units would have a

kitchen while the other would not. Mr. Samatas confirmed that this would indeed be the

case. He explained that both new units would be assisted living units, but that different

residents would have different levels of independence. Thus, some residents would

want to have kitchens, while others would not.

Chairperson Sweetser requested that the following be a condition of approval:

1. The conversion of the residential units shall be substantially underway within one (1)

year from the date of Village Board approval and shall be completed within eighteen (18)

months thereof.

PC 97-20: 660 East Butterfield Road: The Northern Baptist Theological Seminary is

requesting conditional use approval for an Office Planned Development which contains

more than one principal building on a lot, a request for an exception for building height to

seven (7) stories for an existing building (four stories allowed), and a request for an

exception to allow a College with associated residential uses.

The petitioner, Mr. Ted Rodgers, Executive Vice President of Northern Baptist

Theological Seminary, gave a brief history of the Seminary. He stated that in 1992 the

Seminary Board decided to stay at their present location and began planning for

renovations and expansions. Mr. Rodgers then provided a color rendering of the master

plan for view by the Plan Commission members. He indicated the areas which will be

renovated, the areas where additions to existing buildings will be constructed, and the

location of any proposed buildings.

Mr. Rodgers indicated that they will be constructing a 13,000 square foot conference

center at the north end of the existing pond. He indicated that the contractors will begin

this fall, provided this request is approved. Mr. Rodgers continued by stating that they

are sensitive to the remaining open space on this property and have plans for additional

landscaping.

Mr. Rodgers stated that he has concerns regarding the condition for approval indicated

within the staff report regarding the secondary access requirement. He indicated that,

although he agrees with staff that a secondary access is needed, it is out of their control

to provide the secondary access. Their only frontage is on Butterfield Road. Mr.

Rodgers suggested that the language be revised to allow them to seek a secondary

access, rather than require the secondary access.

Mr. Craig Failor, Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that staff recommended

approval of the Planned Development as described in the Inter-Departmental Review

Group Report.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Mrs. Kramer complimented the applicant on his thoroughness relative to the submitted

information. She also indicated that the property has been kept up very well. Mrs.

Kramer then asked Mr. Hulseberg if it were possible to require the developers of the

Bethany property to provide the requested secondary access at the time the property is

redeveloped. Mr. Hulseberg deferred the question to Janet Petsche, Legal Counsel

Ms. Petsche indicated that a condition could be included in the approval for the

redevelopment of the Bethany site.

Mrs. Kramer indicated that the condition in the staff report should remain as written,

provided the other Commissioners concurred.

Mr. Olbrysh indicated that the petitioner has no control over the creation of a secondary

access point. Mr. Ryan suggested a compromise, which was to rewrite the condition as

suggested by Mr. Rodgers.

Mr. Hulseberg reiterated that the Plan Commission can impose a condition on the

developers of the Bethany property to provide the secondary access to Northern Baptist

Seminary.

Further discussion ensued regarding the requested secondary access.

The Plan Commission members concurred that the condition should be changed to add

the phrase, “make its best effort”.

PC 97 21: 215 South Lincoln Avenue: Requests approval of a Plat of Consolidation, a

variation of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to provide for the construction of a parking

lot three (3) feet from the south property line (five feet required for perimeter lot

landscaping), a variation to allow more than one (1) principal building on a lot, a variation

of the front yard setback requirement of thirty feet (30) to twenty (20) feet, a variation for

building height, and conditional use approval for a religious and educational institution.

The petitioner, Mr. Jack Jones, stated that St. John’s Church and School is proposing

improvements to the existing parking lot in order to bring the site into compliance with

storm water codes. He also stated that they are requesting a Plat of Consolidation for

the existing lots. Mr. Jones indicated that the remaining requests are to bring the

existing structures into compliance with current codes.

Mr. Craig Failor, Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that staff recommended

approval of the Planned Development as described in the Inter-Departmental Review

Group Report.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Mrs. Kramer stated that most of the requests are to bring the site into compliance with

current codes. She stated that the existing parking lot is run-down and needs

improvement. She stated that although there was no landscape plan or detention plan

submitted, the petitioner must provide the required landscaping and detention

improvements as required by ordinance.

Mrs. Kramer stated that she felt that the neighbors would rather have two (2) less feet of

landscaping along Ash Street than nineteen (19) less parking spaces in the parking lot.

Commissioner Kramer made a motion to approve the petition subject to the following

conditions:

1. The parking lot encroachment variation shall become null and void if not substantially

underway within one (1) year from the date of granting thereof, and completed within

eighteen (18) months.

2. The Plat of Consolidation shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

FOR THE VILLAGE OF LOMBARD, DU PAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS

(PC 97-22: Comprehensive Plan)

Chairperson Ryan convened the public hearing for the following petition:

PC 97-22: Comprehensive Plan Update; The Village of Lombard proposes an

amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing and indicated that a number of people had

expressed interest in speaking specifically on the Bethany property and that this public

hearing will be devoted to that property. Chairperson Ryan stated that a special meeting

of the Plan Commission would be convened on Monday, September 29, 1997 at 6:30

PM to discuss the remaining portion of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that if

anyone wanted to provide additional testimony on the Bethany property after the current

meeting, it would only be accepted in writing and must be submitted to staff by noon on

September 24, 1997 in order to be included in the September 29, 1997 packet.

Mr. David A. Hulseberg, AICP, Director of Community Development, presented the staff

report. He provided an overview of the process that went into preparing the

Comprehensive Plan and outlined the seven areas in which written requests were

received to reconsider the recommendation of the draft Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Hulseberg introduced Phil Hanegraaf of Trkla, Pettigrew, Allen and Payne, the

consultant who was hired by the Village . Mr. Hanegraaf elaborated on the planning

process and indicated that the plan is a reflection of the community and what the

community’s policies and desires are for land use, transportation and community

facilities for the Village as a whole. Mr. Hanegraaf highlighted the key points of the plan.

Chairperson Ryan asked for public comments. He indicated that fourteen people had

signed up to speak regarding the Bethany property. Chairperson Ryan stated that two

letters were received supporting the Comprehensive Plan and he read those into the

record. One letter was from Thomas F. Karaba, Attorney, Crowley, Barrett & Karaba,

Ltd,. Attorneys at Law, general counsel to the Bethany Theological Seminary. The letter

stated that Mr. Eugene F. Rupp, President of the seminary, was unable to attend the

meeting, but that the seminary was in full support of the recommendation of the

Comprehensive Plan. The other letter was from the Lombard Area Chamber of

Commerce. It indicated that they voted to endorse the current Comprehensive Plan and

encouraged the Plan Commission to move forward with the Bethany site as proposed in

the plan.

The following people spoke regarding the Bethany property:

(The transcript for these proceedings is on file in the Department of Community

Development.)

Hugh Murphy, 19W055 Normandy South, Oak Brook

· Supports the Plan as proposed

· The property should be returned to the tax rolls; if it is not, it will be another step that

will drive more senior citizens from their homes

· The development could generate large sums of tax dollars

· Not appropriate for this site to remain undeveloped

· Those who propose a senior/juvenile facility would have to ask for even more tax

dollars to support the project.

Dave Sweeney, Executive Director, DuPage Bethany Village Coalition

· Particularly comforted that the protection of hydraulic features such as streams, ponds,

floodplains and drainage way is a priority.

· Expressed concerns about wording of wetlands

· With an increase in the development of the surrounding area, the Bethany property

gets a lot of drainage.

· Recommended that the Comprehensive Plan state that the development does not

adversely affect the stormwater flow and the floodplain and that it require county, state,

and federal approval since wetlands exist

· Encouraged the Village to complete the stormwater study prior to approval of the

Comprehensive Plan

Tracy Kasson, Attorney, Rathje, Woodward, Dyer & Burt, representing Yorktown

Shopping Center

· Objects to retail classification on the Bethany site

· Existing Comprehensive Plan states that it is highly desirable for the property to remain

as an existing public, semi-public use with the associated aesthetic and environmental

benefits and that should the property redevelop, office/research is appropriate

· Yorktown has relied on the existing Comprehensive Plan since 1984

· Based on the existing Comprehensive Plan, Yorktown has invested over $25 million

· There have been no dramatic changes in this area to warrant a retail classification

· Retail use on this property not consistent with proposed goals and objectives of the

Comprehensive Plan

· No additional retail space is needed in this area

· There are already a number of retail vacancies in the Village

Helene Stuecklen

· The community residents and business people do not want more retail or restaurants

· More traffic will be generated

· More air, noise and light pollution

· Increase in crime

· More litter on all of the nearby properties

· Loss of oxygen producing greenery, wildlife, natural flood control

Barbara Richards, 20 N. Tower Road, Unincorporated DuPage County

· Stated that much of what she was planning to say was voiced by Ms. Stuecklen

· Should be left as open space

· We do not need more retail development

Milt Homel

· Retired elementary school principal and PADS volunteer

· There is a need in the County to establish an alternative school for troubled youth

· The site previously contained a PADS on Sunday evenings

· Supports DuPage Bethany Village Coalition Plan

· More retail not needed

Linda Weber, 806 E. 13th Street, Lombard

· Has lived in the community for 40 years

· Concerned about the future of the children in the County

· We don’t need more tax dollars, but we do need sense

· We don’t need more empty stores, more restaurants or more traffic

· We do need more green land, air and to help our kids

· The site would make a wonderful school

Martin Shallenberger, 663 N. Craig Place, Lombard

· Resident for 37 years

· The area should remain green

· Do not need more retail/commercial centers

· The Bethany Center will eventually deteriorate as Eastgate and others have

· There are many retail vacancies in Addison, Downers Grove and Villa Park

Joe Abel, HOE, Inc.

· Not in favor of commercial uses

· Supports office or a mixed-use including office, institutional and residential

· If the goals of the Comprehensive Plan were followed, commercial would not be

allowed on this site

· Office is compatible with surrounding land uses

· No need for more commercial development in this area