Monday, April 17, 2006
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall
Plan Commission
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser and Sondra Zorn, |
Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Meeting Minutes
Plan Commission
Meeting Minutes
April 17, 2006
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Sondra Zorn and |
Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Also in attendance: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; Jennifer Backensto, AICP, |
Planner II; and George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda. |
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission by-Laws. |
Public Hearings
060184
E. PC 06-15: 355 South Westmore-Meyers Road (Continued from May 4, 2006) |
(Ordinance on First Reading) |
Ordinance approving a map amendment rezoning the subject property from the R2 |
Single Family Residential District to the R3 Attached Single Family Residential District. |
(DISTRICT #5) |
John Novak, 215 E. Hickory Street, Lombard, IL, petitioner, presented the petition. He |
noted this petition pertains to a rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of |
Westmore-Meyers Road and Woodrow Avenue. The property is currently zoned R2 and |
is improved with a single-family residence that does not meet current building setbacks |
along Westmore-Meyers Road. He is proposing to redevelop the site with an attached |
single-family residence. He noted that the property abuts lots with R3 and R4 zoning. |
He then described the site plan and building elevations. The intent of the building |
design is to be compatible with the attached single family homes on Westmore-Meyers |
and the detached residences on Woodrow. He proposes to downplay the impact of the |
garages by placing one garage on Westmore-Meyers and the other on the Woodrow |
elevation. The building will appear to have two front elevations. The elevations will be |
consistent and sensitive to the surrounding uses, as referenced on the submitted |
building elevations. The larger elevation is the streetscape off of Westmore-Meyers. It |
has a two-car garage, but it really will be a three-car tandem garage to eliminate |
vehicles on the outside driveway. He showed where the partition between the two |
residences's. The south elevation has a 16-foot wide garage and front door off of |
Woodrow. The south unit will be the smaller of the two units. His idea is an example as |
other properties could be developed to de-emphasize the garage. The project follows |
the trend of higher densities along Westmore-Meyers. He stated the map amendment |
request is consistent with development along Westmore-Meyers and the |
Comprehensive Plan. He is locating the structure thirty feet off of the properties to the |
east to provide for the required transitional yard. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor |
or against the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report which was submitted to the |
public record. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of |
Westmore-Meyers Road and Woodrow Avenue, and is currently improved with a single |
family residence. The existing residence is currently legal non-conforming with respect |
to the corner side and rear yards. The petitioner proposes to redevelop the site with a |
new duplex building based upon the submitted plans. To facilitate this development, the |
petitioner is seeking a map amendment to rezone the property from the R2 District to the |
R3 District, consistent with the zoning on the properties immediately north of the subject |
property. No additional zoning relief is sought as part of this petition. |
The Comprehensive Plan map shows this area within the low density residential |
designation, which calls for development densities of up to six dwelling units and |
generally consists of single family residences. The petitioner's property is 13,440 |
square feet in area, which computes to 6,720 square feet per unit or approximately 6.48 |
units per acre. While this is slightly higher than the plan designation, staff notes that the |
abutting duplexes to the north of the subject property have higher development densities |
than that which is proposed by the petitioner. As such, staff believes that the |
development can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan when |
considered in the context to the surrounding development activity. |
He then discussed a previous zoning petition (PC 99-03) pertaining to the petitioner's |
property as well as others abutting the site. That case included a rezoning for a larger |
number of properties and for rezoning of several properties along Woodrow. That |
petition was opposed by a number of residents along Woodrow, citing excessive |
development densities. This proposal differs from the 1999 petition as it only consists of |
rezoning of the subject property, which has frontage along Westmore-Meyers Road. |
Moreover, this petition will meet all setbacks and the plan will include a transitional |
landscape yard to buffer the duplex from the adjacent residences on Woodrow. |
He then referred to the standards for map amendments and noted that the rezoning |
would be compatible with adjacent properties. The properties immediately north of and |
abutting the subject property are developed as duplex units as well. South of the |
property is R4 property developed as a church and an apartment building. To |
incorporate the proposed development with the single family detached units along |
Woodrow, the petitioner designed the principal building with two front elevations, giving |
the building the appearance of a single family detached residence. |
The rezoning would make the property similar in zoning designation as many other |
properties with front yards abutting Westmore-Meyers Road. As the lot is the only lot |
zoned R2 fronting Westmore-Meyers south of Maple and north of Woodrow, the |
rezoning would be consistent with other adjacent lots fronting Westmore-Meyers. The |
development can also be considered compatible with the adjacent R2 properties through |
the inclusion of a thirty-foot transitional yard at the east end of the property. |
In consideration of the standards, staff believes this is an appropriate zoning designation |
for this property as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation and with |
the R3 and R4 zoning designations along the east side of Westmore-Meyers Road. |
Moreover, as this proposal is located within an established neighborhood and the |
petitioner's ability to acquire additional land is not possible, the development proposal |
can be supported. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment among the Plan |
Commissioners. |
Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he likes the design of the duplex and that it would fit |
nice into the neighborhood. The request meets the standards for rezonings and he does |
not have a problem with the petition. |
Commissioner Sweetser agreed with his comments. This design serves a number of |
purposes and it is something that we should see more of in the future. Given the |
existing zoning designations along Westmore-Meyers, the map amendment makes |
sense. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval with |
one condition. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
1. The petitioner shall enter into a development agreement with the Village for the |
subject property. The agreement shall set forth the development parameters for the |
proposed development and shall tie the petitioner's proposed development plans to the |
approval of the map amendment. |
060185
T. PC 06-14: 200 E. Roosevelt Road (National University of Health Sciences) (2 |
Ordinances on Second Reading) |
Requests amendments to the conditions of approval associated with Ordinance 4132, |
which granted a Planned Development for the National University of Health Sciences |
campus. The petitioner also requests approval of a Plat of Subdivision. |
1. Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 4132, adopted March 7, 1996, granting a |
Conditional Use for a Planned Development in the O Office District. |
2. Ordinance vacating a portion of Hammerschmidt Avenue north of Roosevelt Road |
and a portion of Ann Street east of Hammerschmidt Avenue. (3/4 Vote of the Trustees |
Required 5 of 6) (DISTRICT #6) |
To avoid any appearance of impropriety Commissioner Olbrysh recused himself from |
the petition as he stated his wife is employed by the petitioner. He left the dias. |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, presented the petition on behalf of the university. |
Ms. Backensto stated that when the National University of Health Sciences received |
planned development approval in 1996 (as the National College of Chiropractic Planned |
Development), one of the conditions of approval stated that the university would install a |
pedway along or near Ann Street. This pedway would link Stewart Avenue to the |
vacated Hammerschmidt right-of-way within the university. In lieu of this pedway, the |
Village believes there would be a greater public benefit for a sidewalk to be installed |
along the western side of the Stewart Avenue right of way. However, because the |
pedway was a condition of approval, this change required a planned development |
amendment. |
Now that the university owns the property abutting both sides of the right of way, they |
are requesting that Hammerschmidt as well as the western half of Ann Street be |
vacated (shown in green on the map). Per the original conditions of approval the Ann |
Street vacation would trigger the installation of a pedway along or near Ann Street. |
However, the Village would prefer a sidewalk along Stewart Avenue instead of a pedway |
on the university campus. This sidewalk would be installed from Central Avenue to the |
south side of the Ann Street right of way. Staff recommends that this petition be |
approved to provide for the university's installation of the proposed sidewalk along |
Stewart Avenue in lieu of a pedway on private property. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. Richard Wilkinson, |
124 E. Central Avenue, asked if Hammerschmidt will be extended through to Central |
Avenue and stated that Central already has a great deal of traffic. Ms. Backensto stated |
that there were no improvements associated with this petition. William Heniff, Senior |
Planner, stated that any major change to the previous approvals would need to reappear |
before the Plan Commission. |
There being no further questions, Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting to the |
Plan Commissioners. |
Commissioner Flint stated that he had no issues with the proposal and offered to make |
a motion. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that this |
matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Abstain:
Olbrysh
1 -
Commissioner Olbrysh returned to the dias.
060186
L. PC 06-13: 201, 205 and 211 E. Roosevelt Road; 1200 South Highland Av.; and |
112-116 & 120-124 E. 13th Street (Southwest Corner of Roosevelt & Highland) |
(Continued from May 4, 2006) (2 Ordinances on First Reading) (Moved from VIII-L) |
Requests that the Village take the following actions on the subject property: |
A. Approve a second amendment to an annexation agreement; (2/3 of Corporate |
Authorities Vote Required) |
B. Approve a second major plat of resubdivision. |
C. Pursuant to Section 155.504(A) of the Zoning Ordinance, approve a major change to |
the approved planned development with site plan approval (Ordinance 5560), to allow |
for an alternate commercial development plan, consisting of the following elements: |
1. For Lot 1 of the proposed resubdivision, approve the following: |
a. A conditional use pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(18) of the Zoning Ordinance |
for an outdoor dining/service establishment; |
b. A deviation from Section 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; |
c. A deviation from Section 153.234(F) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow for |
a free-standing sign to be located closer than seventy-five feet (75') from the center line |
of the adjacent right-of-way; and |
d. A deviation from deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(17)(b)(2) of the Sign |
Ordinance to allow for more than one wall sign for interior tenants. |
2. For Lot 2 of the proposed resubdivision, approve the following: |
a. A conditional use pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance for |
a drive-through facility; |
b. A variation from Sections 155.706 and 155.709 of the Zoning Ordinance to |
reduce requisite parking lot and perimeter landscaping requirements; |
c. A deviation from Section 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; |
d. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(17)(a)(2) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for |
more than one wall sign on a street frontage; and |
e. A deviation from Section 153.211 (F) and 153.240 (F) of the Sign Ordinance to |
allow for mixed wall, window and awning signs. |
Scott Nicholson of V-Land, the property owner, developer and petitioner of the project, |
presented the petition. He mentioned that V-land came before the Plan Commission in |
2004 for a planned development amendment for their property at the southwest corner |
of Roosevelt Road and Highland Avenue. They did receive approval and moved ahead |
on the project. They had significant challenges in the development of their site including |
environmental challenges, three contamination incidents and site development |
obstacles that slowed the project. They received a no further remediation (NFR) letter |
for two of the contamination incidents and one is still pending with the EPA. As time |
passed, the development started to fall apart and the anchor tenant decided to pull out |
of new development activity in Chicagoland and that changed the dynamic of the site. |
They are still trying to develop the site but are requesting a site plan change. The |
original plan was a phased development and consisted of a redevelopment of the |
eastern portion of the property first, with the 2006, Riley's Pub redeveloped at a later |
date. |
He mentioned the uses that were to be included in the new plan. They are now |
requesting similar relief to the former ordinance outdoor dining. They propose a 5,500 |
square foot restaurant on the western portion of site. They intend to live up to the spirit |
of the planned development and honor the prior commitments to vegetation and |
buffering on the south portion of the site along 13th and Garfield. They have agreed to |
improve Garfield and 13th Street and complete improvements with detention in the back |
of the site. |
The new site plan differs in that they are doing it in one phase. They have purchased |
and closed on the entire property, completed significant infrastructure improvements, |
relocated utilities underground and have contracted with Commonwealth Edison and |
SBC to finish their work. They paid to have them take the utility poles down within the |
next 45 days. The new site plan includes a Chase Bank on the corner and the larger |
multi-tenant parcel, which takes the place of the former two proposed buildings. |
He showed the proposed elevations of the multi-tenant building with raised parapets, |
two kinds of brick, water course block and compatible awnings. He noted the material |
samples and the two buildings would be similar in design. Since their submittal, they |
have had further discussions with staff and their recommendations and they are |
amenable to their suggestions. The bank building will be altered to look like the |
multi-tenant building. They will have a watercourse block base with double brick, lighter |
brick along the bottom, and where the entrance will be on the corner of the bank would |
be changed to a raised parapet element. They will also change the brick striping on the |
bank structure to fit the multi-tenant building. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked where the air conditioning units will be located. Mr. |
Nicholson stated that they will be roof units and the parapet wall will serve to screen the |
units. He also noted that there were concerns by residents along 13th Street to keep an |
attractive appearance to the building so they will have a berm and buffer area. |
Wayne Marsh of Arcline, architect for the proposed multi-tenant building stated that he |
would be available to answer any questions. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor |
or against the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report which was submitted to the |
public record. The petitioner proposes to amend the site plan associated with the 2004 |
planned development approval (PC 04-25, Ordinance 5560) for the subject properties. |
The financial institution that was originally going to occupy an area within the |
development decided not to proceed with their plans. The developer now has a new |
bank interested in the site so they are going to move forward with a new development |
proposal. |
The amended plan relocates the proposed bank to the corner of Highland Avenue and |
Roosevelt Road and shifts the proposed shopping center to the west, to ultimately be |
combined with the redeveloped Riley's Pub site. The overall size of the commercial |
center is expanded to provide for 19,629 square feet of retail space in a single building. |
The southern end of the property along 13th Street will still consist of a stormwater |
detention outlot and associated parking for the development. This current proposal will |
be developed in a single phase. |
After referencing the Inter-department Review Comments, he noted the history of the |
property. The subject properties were originally developed under the zoning jurisdiction |
of DuPage County. Lot 2 containing the salon site was annexed and rezoned to B3 in |
2000. Reilly's Pub was also annexed into the Village in 2000, with a rezoning to the B3 |
district. However, no additional relief was granted for the existing restaurant/bar use. |
The Amoco station site at 1200 S. Highland was annexed in 2001. |
In 2002, Ordinance 5122 (PC 02-17) approved the annexation of the Sharko's Site, and |
a companion annexation agreement was entered into by the previous property owner, |
BP, and the Village. In 2004, the current property owner brought forward a new |
development proposal for the site that also included the residential duplex units located |
along 13th Street as well as the Riley's Pub site (PC 04-25). This proposal approved a |
strip center, a bank with a drive-through and a future commercial building on the Riley's |
Pub site. The Village approved the petition and the companion annexation/development |
agreement. The subject properties are bound by the terms and conditions of the original |
agreement. The amended agreement would substitute the 2004 plan submittal with the |
new development plans. |
He noted that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property for Community |
Commercial Uses. As noted in 2004, a primary goal denoted in the Plan for commercial |
and retail Development is to identify and encourage the improvement or redevelopment |
of select commercial areas that are or are becoming functionally obsolete. The |
petitioner's original plan removed residential structures along 13th Street that were |
developed prior to their annexation in the Village and redeveloped the site consistent |
with the objectives of the Plan. |
He stated that the subject property is bordered on the east and west by other existing |
retail commercial uses. Roosevelt Road has traditionally included a substantial number |
of automotive related uses including drive-through services. Therefore, the proposed |
redevelopment is consistent with the other uses along Roosevelt Road. |
South of the subject property, an abutting parcel along Highland Avenue is improved |
with a strip commercial center serving local shopping needs. Behind this center and |
south of the site is 13th Street, a Village street as well as unincorporated single family |
residences. The petitioner's revised plan attempts to minimize the impact of the |
development on the adjacent residential uses along 13th Street and follows the 2004 |
plan approval in the following respects: |
1. Access will not be provided into the site off of 13th Street; |
2. Internal access driveways minimize the need to use 13th Street by providing direct |
driveway access from Garfield Street to Highland Avenue; |
3. All buildings will be oriented away from 13th Street; |
4. A stormwater detention facility will be constructed at the south side of the property; |
and |
5. An earthen berm and landscaping will help screen the site. |
The planned development amendment does not require any map amendments, but will |
require a new review of the other associated zoning action includes as part of the 2004 |
approval. As the new development reconfigures the location of the proposed buildings, |
a planned development amendment is required. Moreover, the 2004 approval also |
required the developer to receive site plan approval from the Village for the |
redevelopment of the Riley's Pub site. |
He then described the relief included as part of this petition. The petitioner would like to |
have the flexibility to provide a small outdoor dining area adjacent to the proposed retail |
building. However, the location of the building and the companion dining area is being |
shifted to the west. Staff does not object to this request as it allows for an alternate area |
for patrons to eat if desired. As the proposed dining area is removed from any |
residences, impacts of the outdoor dining function are minimal. |
Regarding the parking lot landscape setback, arbitrary property lines can be ignored in |
favor of a more unified and cohesive development. In this case, the proposed access |
aisles are placed where it makes most sense within the overall project, rather than |
based upon property lines. This deviation can be supported as it provides for better |
traffic flow and circulation. |
In the 2004 approval, free-standing signage locations were not determined. The |
petitioner's new plans identified a new free-standing sign to be located near the |
Roosevelt Road/Garfield Street intersection and a new sign at the intersection of |
Roosevelt Road/Highland Avenue intersection. These signs will meet the size and area |
requirements set forth in the Sign Ordinance. It will also be designed to incorporate |
architectural elements of the proposed building. However, its final placement will be |
closer than 75 feet from the center-line of the Roosevelt Road state right-of-way. As |
noted in other recent sign requests, moving the sign further away from the center-line |
will impact the ability to provide for proper traffic flow around the subject property. |
The 2004 approval also provided for the retail center up to two wall signs on the north |
elevation of the building. The Sign Ordinance allows for two wall signs for end units and |
one sign for interior tenants. Staff can support this relief provided that all wall signs on |
the building shall be of a channel letter design. |
The new banking facility proposes a drive-through facility on the west side of the |
building. Traffic would enter from the north side of the drive-through and exit to the |
south to a one-way drive going eastbound toward Highland Avenue. The petitioner's |
plans show that there is sufficient stacking to accommodate the drive-through on the |
property. Staff does not object to this request. |
He then described the landscape variation request. After the 2004 development |
proposal was approved, the petitioner was required by a covenant from the previous |
property owner to provide a protective barrier over the Amoco/BP site. The BP site was |
previously listed by the State as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site - this |
requirement would help minimize any future impacts of development on adjacent |
properties. |
To address this issue, the petitioner proposed to provide the foundation landscaping in a |
vault system. Along the Roosevelt Road, Highland Avenue and the southern lot line, the |
petitioner is proposing a stamped concrete system. Given the constraints, staff can |
support this proposal, provided that any requisite trees and/or plantings are provided |
within a vault system. |
As with the previous bank approved as part of the 2004 approval, the new bank is |
proposing additional wall signage. This additional signage provides visibility to |
customers on adjacent streets as well as within the development and along the |
drive-through aisle. In discussions with the petitioner, staff noted that it could only |
support a wall sign on the east and north elevations. Regarding the west elevation, staff |
would only support ancillary signage that would primarily be intended for customers |
already on the subject property. However as signage on the south elevation would not |
be visible from the adjacent right-of-way or would be visible from the adjacent residential |
properties, staff would not support relief for wall signage on the south elevation. |
Mr. Heniff then discussed the building elevations. The exterior elevations for the |
proposed commercial center are similar to that which was approved as part of the 2004 |
petition. Staff recommends that the petitioner amend the elevations to incorporate two |
brick masonry elements replacing the proposed EIFS in a manner similar to the 2004 |
approval. The petitioner has agreed to make this modification as shown on the building |
elevations presented at the Plan Commission meeting. Moreover, staff requests the |
petitioner revise the building elevations for the bank building to tie the retail center and |
the bank together architecturally. He referenced the building elevations shown at the |
meeting, and suggested several changes that should be made to the elevations prior to |
consideration by the Village Board. These changes would make the building more |
compatible with the adjacent retail center. |
To ensure that the overall retail center is not ultimately comprised of a number of small |
non-retail uses, a proposed cap on the overall number of tenant spaces within the |
center is suggested. Excluding the end-cap proposed sit-down restaurant, a cap of five |
spaces is suggested. The petitioner has been informed of this request and has stated |
that they do not object to the request. |
He noted that a bench exists at the northeast corner of the subject property which is |
occasionally used by Pace bus riders. To ensure a better appearance to the |
intersection and to the subject property, staff recommends that an easement be granted |
for a future bus shelter. An easement is needed as the pavement, curb and carriage |
walk sidewalk along Roosevelt Road do not provide adequate spacing for a shelter |
within the right-of-way. As the adjacent property is proposed to be improved with |
stamped concrete, placement of the shelter on the adjacent property should not present |
a problem. |
Regarding the proposed resubdivision, the petitioner previously submitted a |
resubdivision plat creating five lots of record. The petitioner is now going to propose a |
three lot subdivision - Lot 1 as the retail parcel, Lot 2 as the bank and Lot 3 as the outlot. |
Staff notes that as this development is over one acre in size, the plat will need to be |
approved by the Village Board. Staff will bring the final plat to the Board for approval |
upon approval of final engineering for the development. |
Staff recommends approval of the petition, subject to the conditions in the staff report |
plus an additional condition (#11) that would require the petitioner to submit amended |
building elevations for the bank. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan |
Commissioners. Commissioner Sweetser asked for a clarification regarding the right-in, |
right-out locations on the plan. Mr. Heniff noted that the driveway access to Highland |
Avenue will be a right-in right out facility as Highland Avenue has a high center curb. |
Along Roosevelt Road, one access will be prided which will have a pork chop to prevent |
left turns. Garfield Avenue will have full access. |
Commissioner Burke asked about the restaurant outdoor dining location. Mr. Heniff |
noted that the proposed outdoor element would be for a tenant at the east end of the |
retail center. The sit-down restaurant at the west end of the center will not have outdoor |
dining. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that she likes what they are proposing with the building |
elevations. She then noted the proposed bus shelter. She inquired if the shelter could |
be designed to be comparable to the newly erected ornamental shelters installed in |
Chicago. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, 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, Zorn and Burke
5 -
1. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the site and development |
plan packet prepared by Woolpert LLC, dated April 5, 2006, except as modified as part |
of the final engineering review and approval for the proposed development. |
2. The petitioner shall enter into a second amendment to the annexation agreement for |
the subject property. |
3. The petitioner's building improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent |
with Village Code and shall also address the comments included within the IDRC report. |
4. That any trash enclosure screening required by Section 155.710 of the Zoning |
Ordinance shall be constructed of material consistent with the principal building in which |
the enclosure is located. |
5. To minimize parking conflicts on the property and to minimize impacts on adjacent |
properties, the developer/owner of the property shall allow for cross-access and cross |
parking between each lot within the proposed development. |
6. The developer shall provide requisite fees to cover the cost of providing parkway |
trees around the perimeter of the site, consistent with Section 155.705 (C) of the Village |
Code. Where proposed trees are within an area proposed for an environmental barrier, |
a vault shall be provided for the trees. Where insufficient right-of-way width precludes |
placement of parkway trees within the right-of-way itself, the petitioner shall install the |
plantings on the adjacent private property. |
7. Should construction on the project not commence within ninety days from the date of |
approval of the annexation/development agreement amendment, the petitioner shall |
provide 4” of graded topsoil over the property and shall seed the property. |
8. The west end-cap tenant space within the shopping center shall be developed as a |
single sit-down restaurant of at least 5,491 square feet in size. The remainder of the |
center shall not be subdivided or partitioned to have more than five separate tenant |
spaces or business establishments. |
9. Upon a request by the Village, the developer shall provide for an easement for a |
future bus shelter to be located adjacent Roosevelt Road, with the final location to be |
determined by the Village. |
10. To ensure that the proposed signage, awnings and building elevations present a |
favorable appearance to neighboring properties and are consistent with the planned |
development objectives, the property shall be developed and operated as follows: |
a. That channel lettering shall only be used for the wall signs. |
b. That the perimeter of the proposed dining area for the retail building shall be |
fenced, with the design of the fence subject to the approval of the Director of Community |
Development. |
c. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened pursuant to Section |
155.221 of the Zoning Ordinance. |
d. The petitioner shall submit final building elevations to the Village for review and |
approval prior to final consideration of the petition by the Village Board. |
e. The north, west and east elevations of the proposed shopping center shall be |
constructed and maintained to not have any additional exterior doors other than those |
necessary for customer/employee access or as required by the Lombard Fire |
Department. |
11. That prior to consideration of this petition by the Village Board, the petitioner shall |
submit revised building elevations for the proposed bank to be located on the subject |
property. The revised elevation shall incorporate the proposed building elevation |
changes as referenced by the Plan Commissioners and staff. |
060128
D. PC 06-09: Text Amendment to the Lombard Zoning Ordinance - B5 Parking |
Provisions (Ordinance on First Reading) |
The Village of Lombard is proposing amendments to Sections 155.602 (A)(2), (3) and |
(4) modifying the off-street and off-site parking requirements within the B5 Central |
Business District. |
William Heniff re-introduced the petition and presented the addendum IDRC report |
relative to the petition. He noted that staff presented the proposed text amendments to |
the Lombard Town Centre organization on March 28, 2006. Lombard Town Centre did |
not have any comments on the proposed amendments and expressed support for the |
amendments as proposed by staff. As such, staff proposed amendments to the |
Ordinance, which includes the amendments and comments offered at the March 20, |
2006 Plan Commission meeting. |
He also noted that the staff verified the location of 62 parking spaces located on the |
south side of Michael McGwire Drive. As of 3 p.m. on April 17, there were 17 unused |
spaces. He also noted that the proposed text amendment would be reviewed by the |
Economic and Community Development Committee before it is presented to the Village |
Board. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one in |
the audience to speak in favor of or against the petition. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that the previous plan depicted parallel spaces along |
Michael McGwire Drive. Mr. Heniff noted that the map depicted the 61 spaces was |
meant to depict on the south side. |
Commissioner Zorn said that as she was not present at last meeting, she would abstain |
from voting on the petition. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that this |
matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Abstain:
Zorn
1 -
060187
F. PC 06-12: Text Amendments to the Lombard Zoning Ordinance Repair/Service |
Activities (Ordinance on First Reading) |
The Village of Lombard is proposing amendments to Section 155.602 (A)(1)(i) of the |
Zoning Ordinance amending and/or moving the repair and service provisions set forth |
within this subsection from the Zoning Ordinance to Nuisance Section (Section 94.05) of |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition. He noted that the Department of |
Community Development is in the process of conducting a review of selected sections |
of the Village Code pertaining to various code enforcement regulations. Most of these |
regulations are located within the Nuisance Section of the Village Code (Section 94 of |
the Village's Code of Ordinances). However, one commonly referenced and utilized |
regulation pertains to the repair and maintenance of motor vehicles, which is currently |
located within the Zoning Ordinance (Section 155 of the Village Code). This petition is |
intended to relocate the regulation from the Zoning Ordinance and into the Nuisance |
Section of the Code of Ordinances. |
As a Zoning Ordinance regulation, this amendment must be addressed through the |
public hearing process. The proposed amendments are not intended to modify the |
intent of the regulations. This amendment would not affect any existing businesses or |
residential properties nor does it create any legal non-conforming (grandfathered) |
situations - its intent is to relocate the vehicle maintenance provisions from the Zoning |
Ordinance to the Nuisance Section of the Village Code and to remove an inconsistency |
within the Zoning Ordinance. |
This amendment would relocate this provision to the nuisance section (Section |
94.05(K)) of the Village Code. As it is currently written, this regulation is more closely |
associated with what a vehicle operator is doing to a vehicle on a property as opposed |
to the property's designated land use. Moreover, it really does not relate to the intent of |
the design and maintenance sub-section within the Zoning Ordinance. Lastly, as this |
provision is most commonly applied when code enforcement staff sees vehicles under |
repair in residential driveways, the Village enforces this regulation as a nuisance |
provision rather than a land use restriction. |
One change to the code pertains to the I District regulations. The off-street parking |
provisions for the I District state that outdoor repair activities are permissible. However, |
automobile and/or motor vehicle repair activities are listed as conditional uses in the I |
District. This amendment will strike the repair text in the Zoning Ordinance to remove |
any ambiguity with the use listing. The amendment will still allow for the washing of |
vehicles provided that they are tied to the principal use of the property. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor of or |
in opposition to the petition. He then opened the meeting for comments among the Plan |
Commission members. |
Commissioner Sweester mentioned that many fundraisers consist of washing vehicles - |
how would this amendment affect this activity? Mr. Heniff noted that this activity can be |
permitted though a special event permit. Commissioner Sweetser asked if the permit |
would be at a cost. Mr. Heniff noted that the fees for non-profit organizations are |
waived. But it is important to tie washing vehicles with the use on the property in order |
to not allow for private car washing activities to occur on a given property - that activity is |
a conditional use in many business districts. |
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: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
060188
SPA 06-02ph: 145 Yorktown Shopping Center (Shops on Butterfield) |
Requests Site Plan Approval with a deviation from Section 153.215(B)(1) of the |
Lombard Sign Ordinance to increase the total allowable area of signage for all |
development signs from one hundred twenty five square feet (125 s.f.) to three hundred |
square feet (300 s.f.) for property located within the B3PD Community Shopping District, |
Planned Development. |
Jim Romano, Manager of Yorktown Mall, 203 Yorktown Shopping Center, Lombard, |
presented the petition. He stated that they were requesting a deviation to the Sign |
Ordinance in order to have a temporary sign announcing the development of the Shops |
on Butterfield which is currently under construction. |
Mr. Heniff then presented the staff report. He distributed to the Plan Commissioners the |
petitioner's Responses to Standards and indicated that they are requesting site plan |
approval with a deviation to increase signage area. The signage is to be located at the |
south end of the shopping center and will face Butterfield Road. The proposed sign |
dimensions are 10 x 30 feet and 14' in height. The sign would be temporary, be located |
at the south entrance, and be affixed to the ground per the submitted plans. The sign |
could not be located in a clear line of sight area. As the maximum allowable size for a |
sign fronting a state right of way is 125 square feet, the petitioner is requesting a |
variation from the Sign Ordinance provisions. Mr. Heniff indicated that the actual |
property owner of the land where the sign will be located is Von Maur and that they |
authorized the petition to proceed. |
Concluding, Mr. Heniff indicated that staff supports this request with conditions as the |
sign is temporary in nature, it will face Butterfield Road where all surrounding land uses |
are either commercial or office in nature, and other developments have been granted |
similar relief. |
Referring to the conditions of approval, he noted that should the sign have a weathered |
appearance, it would have to be repaired or replaced. Mr. Heniff also noted that should |
Von Maur, after a period of time, not continue to approve the sign's proposed location, |
staff is supportive of the petitioner's request to allow for the sign to be placed at a point |
further west within the Yorktown Mall planned development. This second location |
provides flexibility so the petitioner will not have to come back through the public hearing |
process a second time. |
As there was no one present to speak in favor or against the petition, Chairperson Ryan |
asked for the comments from the Plan Commissioners. |
Commissioner Burke referred to the submitted plans and indicated that the sign |
mentions leasing information. He asked if that was appropriate and if the Village was |
creating an undesirable precedent. Mr. Heniff indicated that the regulations for |
development signs allow for flexibility, stating what is going in and their contact |
information and this information can be considered part of the overall signage element. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that |
this matter be approved with conditions. The motion carried by the following |
vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
1. That the approval of the development signs shall be based upon the submitted Sign |
Plan Packet, prepared by Doyle Signs, submitted March 22, 2006. |
2. The proposed sign shall be permitted to be located on the Von Maur property at the |
northwest corner of Butterfield Road and the south entrance drive to the mall or at a |
location west of the cemetery, east of the Buca di Beppo restaurant and south of the |
internal ring road within the Yorktown Mall planned development. The final placement of |
the sign at the alternative location shall be subject to the review and approval of the |
Director of Community Development. |
3. The development sign shall not be located within the clear line of sight area. |
4. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the development sign. |
Said sign shall meet all Village Code provisions, except as varied by this approval. |
5. In the event that the temporary banner sign(s) or development sign presents a |
weathered appearance, as determined by the Director of Community Development, the |
petitioner or future property owners shall remove or replace said signage from the |
subject property. |
6. The development sign shall be removed upon completion of the Shops on Butterfield |
project or by September 30, 2007, whichever comes first. |
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the March 20, 2006 meeting were approved by unanimous consent of |
the members present with the following amendments: |
Page 4, paragraph 5, last sentence add "53" after Route so the sentence reads: |
"The traffic warrants needed to necessitate a light currently do not exist at the Meadow |
Avenue/Route 53 intersection." |
Page 6, paragraph 2, last line, strike the words "properties to" and add the word "the" |
so the sentence reads: |
"He noted that the Plan Commission and Village Board found that the use would not |
be detrimental to the public and would not be injurious to the neighboring properties." |
Public Participation
There was no public participation.
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Chairperson's Report
The Chairperson deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
The Senior Planner 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
There were no site plan approvals.
Workshops
There were no workshops.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m. |
_________________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
_________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |