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, Village Clerk Suzan |
L. Kramer, Commissioner Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser and |
Commissioner Sondra Zorn |
Chairperson Ryan called the public hearing portion of the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. |
A roll call vote indicated the following members present: Stephen Flint, Suzan Kramer, |
Ron Olbrysh, Donald Ryan, Ruth Sweetser, Sondra Zorn. Daniel Broderick was absent. |
The following staff members were present: David A. Hulseberg, AICP, Director of |
Community Development, Craig M. Failor, Planner, David C. Sundland, Planner, and |
Janet Petsche, legal counsel to the Plan Commission. |
Mr. Failor read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws. |
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda. |
Chairperson Ryan convened the public hearing for the following petition: |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Enactment No: Ordinance 4360 |
ORDINANCE NO. 4361 |
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2655, |
ADOPTED FEBRUARY 9, 1984, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE |
FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT |
(PC 97-19: Lexington Health Care Planned Development) |
(Also see Ordinance Nos. 1351, 2615, and 2655) |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Enactment No: Ordinance 4361 |
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT |
PURSUANT TO THE LOMBARD ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 15, CHAPTER 155 OF THE CODE |
OF LOMBARD, ILLINOIS |
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”. |
Commissioner Kramer made a motion to approve, subject to the following condition: |
1. At the time the Bethany Seminary property redevelops, and/or at the time the existing |
secondary access point is removed, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary shall make |
its best effort to provide a secondary access point. |
It was moved by Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that this matter be |
recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to conditions. |
The motion carried by the following vote: |
Enactment No: Ordinance 4362 |
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PURSUANT TO |
TITLE 15, CHAPTER 155, SECTION 406 OF THE |
LOMBARD ZONING ORDINANCE |
PC 97-21: 215 South Lincoln Street (St. Johns Lutheran Church and School) |
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. |
It was moved by Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that this matter be |
recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to conditions. |
The motion carried by the following vote: |
Enactment No: Ordinance 4363 and 4 |
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 |
Chairperson Ryan indicated that the Comprehensive Plan public hearing relative to the |
Bethany property was closed and that discussion on the remaining portions of the |
Comprehensive Plan would be considered at a special Plan Commission meeting to be |
convened on September 29. 1997. |
Enactment No: Ordinances 4403 and |
The minutes of the August 13, 1997 Plan Commission meeting were approved by |
unanimous consent. |
Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Plan |
Commission regarding anything not on the agenda. There was no one present. |
Mr. Hulseberg provided an update on the status of petitions recently heard by the Plan |
Commission. |
Theresa R. Koehler, AICP, Acting Executive Secretary Lombard Plan |
Commission |