Village of Lombard Legistar System

Melanie Soos of Soos & Associates, representative for McDonald's, presented the

petition. Ms. Soos stated that there were three issues outstanding from the January 23,

2006 Plan Commission meeting: the amount of masonry on the building, access onto

Roosevelt Road, and the freestanding sign. McDonald's has agreed to provide

additional masonry on the south, east, and west building elevations, which Ms. Soos

pointed out on the elevation display board. The KLOA traffic study concluded that no

turning restrictions needed to be placed on the Roosevelt Road driveway, and they

would like the Plan Commission to go along with that conclusion. Ms. Soos then

referenced the legal nonconforming freestanding sign. McDonald's would like this sign

to remain as-is and asked that the seven (7)-year amortization period be removed.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor of or

in opposition to the petition.

Ms. Backensto then presented the addendum report. She referenced the petitioner's

detailed Response to Standards for Conditional Uses and Response to Standards for

Variation that had been passed out to the Plan Commissioners immediately prior to the

meeting. The Lombard Police Department gathered traffic crash reports for the past five

years for incidents involving vehicles that were turning left either into or out of the

McDonald's Roosevelt Road driveway. The police reports show eight to nine accidents

over the past five years, which does not meet the Illinois Department of Transportation's

definition of a high-accident location.

The Village's traffic consultant, KLOA, conducted a traffic study to determine what sort

of impact a right-in/right-out driveway could have on the adjacent residential

neighborhood. The highest number of left-turn movements onto Roosevelt Road was

10, observed during the weekday midday peak hour. This would suggest that, if a

right-in/right-out driveway were installed, the largest traffic increase that would be seen

in the adjacent neighborhood would be up to 10 vehicles during a one-hour period.

Given that there are already 65 vehicles turning into the neighborhood during the

midday peak hour, the possible addition of up to 10 more vehicles would not be very

noticeable. It was the conclusion of KLOA that the existing full access is acceptable.

They recommend that peak hour no-left-turn restrictions be imposed if there are future

problems with the Roosevelt Road driveway.

In consideration of the petitioner's desire to maintain the existing freestanding sign, staff

has agreed to remove the proposed condition that would have required this sign to be

brought into compliance as part of this petition. Zoning relief cannot be granted at this

meeting to bring the sign into compliance with the Sign Ordinance because it was not

part of the public hearing request and was not advertised. However, the petitioner has

represented that they intend to seek zoning relief for the freestanding sign at a future

Plan Commission meeting.

Ms. Backensto added that the petitioner has agreed to modify the building elevations to

incorporate additional masonry elements on the south, east, and west elevations.

Condition No. 4 has been modified accordingly so that the petitioner would be required

to submit revised building elevations prior to consideration for approval by the Village

Board. This condition has been modified to remove any possible ambiguity regarding

exactly what is being approved for the elevations.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion for the Plan Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the site access referred to in the staff report was the

same as that shown on the original site plans. Ms. Backensto confirmed that the site

plan called for full access to remain on Roosevelt Road and for the southernmost

driveway on Stewart to be closed.

Chairperson Ryan asked if Commissioner Sweetser had the opportunity to see the

January Plan Commission discussion. Commissioner Sweetser stated that she had

viewed the meeting on videotape.

1. The petitioner shall develop the site and building in accordance with the following

plans submitted as part of this request, except as modified by the Village Board:

a. Site and landscaping plans prepared by Marchris Engineering, dated April 20,

2005;

b. Wall signage drawings prepared by Everbrite, Inc., and last revised September

22, 2004 (E) and October 3, 2005 (H);

c. Menu board signage drawings prepared by Florida Plastics International, Inc., and

dated April 12, 2001; and

d. Materials board and elevations prepared by Corporate Design and Development

Group, dated December 15, 2005.

Furthermore, any changes to the proposed building materials and/or colors proposed for

the restaurant from the approved materials board shall be considered a major change

and shall require the review and approval of the Village prior to installation.

2. 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.

3. The trash enclosure screening as required by Section 155.710 of the Zoning

Ordinance shall be constructed of a masonry material consistent with that used on the

principal building.

Ed Reitan of Benedetto Reitan Architects, 1325 Wiley Road, Schaumburg, architect for

the project presented the petition. The project being brought forward is for the Popeye's

Chicken site at 844 East Roosevelt Road. They are proposing to construct a multiple

tenant retail center on the property. The westerly portion would remain Popeye's and

the remainder would be open to various tenants. The one-story masonry building will be

24 feet high. He described the materials of the building and provided a sample for the

Commissioners. He explained the proposed building materials and mentioned the

proposed block areas would not be exactly the same as a clay brick, but it will have a

brick appearance. Gray accent brick will go above the windows. EIFS multi-leveled

cornice will be provided at the top of the building. Working with Popeye's, they would

like to see more of their color incorporated into the final building design.

Regarding the drive-through, the site plan provides for eight car stacking spaces.

Forty-five parking spaces and two masonry trash enclosures with swing gates will be

provided on the site.

The proposed signage in the island will be moved back as far as possible within the

landscape island. However, they will not be able to meet the requisite 75 foot setback

requirement. He noted that the landscape plan and the photometric plan will be

modified to reflect staff's comments and will be based upon the final site plan approval.

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

or in opposition of the petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The property owner/petitioner

has submitted plans for a one-story 10,400 square foot commercial center to be located

at 844 East Roosevelt Road. The subject property is currently improved with a

Popeye's fast-food restaurant with a drive-through window. Should the center be

approved and developed, Popeye's will occupy the west end of the strip center.

However, as the design and layout of the property will substantially change, the

petitioner requests an amendment to the previously approved conditional use for a drive

through facility.

As a companion to this petition, the petitioner is proposing to erect a shopping center

sign for their proposed tenants. The proposed sign will meet the size and area

provisions included within the Sign Ordinance, but will require relief from the setback

requirements from the center-line of Roosevelt Road.

He then referenced the IDRC comments in the petition, specifically referencing that

Private Engineering Services raised the recommendation that additional cross-access

rights be provided in the event that the vacant lot east of the site is developed. This

should be added as a condition of approval.

Regarding zoning issues, commercial retail uses are identified as permitted uses in the

B3 Community Shopping District. The building layout could include up to six different

tenant spaces, but the petitioner notes that their intent is to provide spaces that could be

easily modified to accommodate future tenants.

Fast-food restaurants are listed a permitted uses in the B3 District. However,

drive-through establishments are listed as conditional uses. While a previous

conditional use was granted for the property for the existing Popeye's establishment in

2002 as part of PC 02-34 (Ordinance 5242), the petitioner's new site plan substantially

modifies the design and layout of the buildings, structures and parking facilities on the

subject property.

Popeye's restaurant will re-establish their business on the property and will occupy the

west end of the building. Vehicles using the drive-through will queue from the northeast

corner of the building and will travel westbound to the window. The pickup window is

located on the west side of the building. Traffic will then proceed to the cross-access

drive on the south side of the building to ultimately access Roosevelt Road. Staff

believes that the petitioner's plan will adequately address internal drive-through

circulation around the site.

The petitioner will be replacing the existing freestanding Popeye's sign currently located

at the driveway entrance to the building with a new pylon sign that will identify all tenants

within the shopping center. The Sign Ordinance requires freestanding signage to be

located at least 75 feet off of the centerline of a state right-of-way (i.e., Roosevelt Road).

The plat shows that an existing cross-access easement is recorded on the subject

property and is located between seventy feet (70') and ninety-five feet (95') off of the

center line of Roosevelt Road. If the petitioner intended to meet code, the free-standing

sign would have to be located within the row of parking abutting the building itself. As a

practical matter, such placement would not be appropriate as it would have limited

visibility and would also block the wall signage. Moreover, it could interfere with the

parking area proposed for the site.

Staff is supportive of relief to allow a new freestanding sign to be located immediately

west of the existing Popeye's sign. This placement, which will result in the loss of one

parking space, is intended to be located outside of any easement or clear line of sight

areas.

He stated that the petitioner will revise his landscape and lighting plans to reflect the

conditions depicted on the site plan.

The petitioner has submitted elevational drawings for the proposed building. The

exterior façade will include masonry on all elevations. The south elevation will have a

brick exterior while the other elevations will incorporate a modified split-face block

design that incorporates a brick appearance. The petitioner's plan will also include

additional awnings, recessed building elevations and brick material to break up the

building mass. The west and east elevations also include window treatments to break

up the side building mass and to give additional visibility to the corner tenants. Staff

finds the elevations to be acceptable.

In order for the Village to issue a final permit on the property, the petitioner shall submit

a plat of abrogation to remove the existing easements located on the subject property

that will be impacted by the proposed building. Moreover, the petitioner shall also

submit a plat of easement for any new easements to be located on the subject property.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments from the Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser believes that they have complied with what the Community

Development Department has asked for and the plan appears to be an attractive

addition to the community.

1. The petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the site plan prepared by

Bendetto Reitan Architects, LLC, dated February 8, 2006; the preliminary building

elevations, prepared by Bendetto Reitan Architects, LLC, dated January 23, 2006; the

sign plan prepared by Bendetto Reitan Architects, LLC, dated February 14, 2006; and

the preliminary engineering, lighting and landscape plans, prepared by Loeppert

Associates, Inc., dated January 23, 2006 and submitted as part of this request; except

where modified to meet IDRC comments and Village Code requirements.

2. The final design and location of all public improvements located within the public

right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved by the Village and/or the Illinois

Department of Transportation.

3. The owner or subsequent owners of the Subject Property shall not object to adding

the owner of the vacant parcel at 850 E. Roosevelt (PIN 06-16-309-019) to the parties

with cross-access easement rights on and/or across the Subject Property, upon a

request by the Village.

Bristol/Moran Development -North Avenue & Route 53

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the workshop. He indicated that the potential

developers have had a number of meetings with staff and have come up with a

redevelopment plan for this particular site. With this plan comes a number of

challenging redevelopment issues that need to be introduced. Staff is looking for

direction as to how the Commissioners view the property at hand as well as for policy

direction on the particular site which could involve amending the Comprehensive Plan.

He then proceeded to introduce the workshop in a PowerPoint format, a copy of which is

attached.

In conclusion, Mr. Heniff asked the Commissioners for their input as to the desirability

for multiple-family residential uses, if they are willing to amend the Comprehensive Plan,

the potential of having a North Avenue corridor study, and how this redevelopment might

impact adjacent land uses. He noted that two representatives from Bristol Moran were

in the audience to answer any questions relative to the history of their plan and where

they are at this point. Lastly, he indicated that while they do have some of the properties

under contact, and before they proceed any further, they would like the Commissioners'

input so they can take that information into consideration.

Mr. Heniff then opened the workshop up to the Commissioners for their comments.

Commissioner Burke stated that while he believes the site is an eyesore and needs

redevelopment, this was not the type of redevelopment he envisioned. His concerns

included traffic, access, having residential development on a site surrounded by

commercial uses, as well as creating a tax burden for the Village by having high density

residential. This plan is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and would have an

effect on adjacent property owners especially if any of the existing industrial businesses

wanted to expand. It doesn't make sense to have 330 residential units on this site and

he cannot image that the traffic study would be viable with a left hand turn onto North

Avenue. He is against this type of redevelopment.

Chairperson Ryan agreed with Commissioner Burke. He questioned the feasibility of

accessing and leaving the site. Mr. Heniff indicated that this is one of the challenges of

the site no matter what is developed. Chairperson Ryan stated that this issue would be

a challenge for a commercial development and couldn't begin to image how it would be

possible for 330 residents.

Chairperson Ryan also commented on the prominence of the corner. Being an

entryway into the Village of Lombard, he questioned if this is what we want people to

see as they drive east on North Avenue.

Commissioner Sweetser agreed. She felt that when they amended the Comprehensive

Plan, they did a good job grouping things which makes this development more out of

place. She felt that this type of redevelopment would visually and socially be an island,

segregating whoever lives there from the rest of the Village. Commissioner Sweetser

questioned the market study as it relates to price and who would want to live there as it

seems very out of place. She felt this was not the ideal location for this concept.

Chairperson Ryan commented on the architectural elements. While it is a big mass,

they did try to break it up with the grade change, but it is still huge.

Commissioner Sweetser added that isolation would result due to the roadways being

difficult to cross. Most people like to take advantage of shopping centers, schools, and

a library. This development is located too far away from these things and would not

have a sense of community.

Commissioner Zorn felt there was too much industrial surrounding the site and could not

envision bringing residential into the mix.

Commissioner Flint agreed indicating that he would not want to be the one looking east.

Commissioner Sweetser stated she is not oblivious to the fact that apartments are in

great demand and in short supply, but if anybody decides to go forward with the

concept, she suggested that a people profile be done.

Chairperson Ryan felt that while the site is desirable due to its access to I-355 there is a

hodgepodge of uses. He felt that this type of redevelopment would cause a problem for

future development and does not agree with changing the Comprehensive Plan. He

wondered if we might be trying to put something on this site too quickly without really

thinking about the future.

Commissioner Sweetser also voiced her concerns about the density of the project.

They are asking for 46 dwelling units per acre which is twice the allowable 22 dwelling

units per acre.

Chairperson Ryan commented on how this project is being compared to City View

Apartments. He indicated that City View apartments is set back and not off a major

road. This is right on North Avenue and will cause nothing but problems.

Commissioner Burke asked staff if they needed to answer any of the other questions

due to what has been already stated. Mr. Heniff indicated not if they don't want to

change the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Heniff then asked the representatives from Bristol

Moran if they would like to comment.

Bill Patrin of Bristol Moran Development, LLC stated that there is certainly a lot to take in

relative to the Commissioners' comments. He gave the history of how hard they worked

on this plan to come this far stating they have contracted with four different property

owners over 6-9 months. They have worked with staff to create a plan they thought

made sense to them even though he can understand the Commissioners' reaction to the

concepts. At the proper time, he stated they could give more solid answers. They

looked at this site as an upscale multi-family property developer. They thought it was

somewhat removed from the town but thought that with the desirable location to major

arterial roadways, this was a feasible plan and one which could serve as a catalyst for

future development.

They felt that there is a strong market for what they have proposed. He cited their

experience and how their management company manages over 7,000 units. The rent

and atmosphere would be comparable to City View - $1,500 to $1,600 per month. The

sense of community would come from the various amenities being offered such as a

swimming pool, leasing management clubhouse facility, aerobic workout room and a

cyber cafe. The units would be upscale having kitchens, walk-in closets, and high

ceilings.

Mr. Patrin indicated they would still like to pursue this development and asked to get

together with staff or write a more detailed response to the Commissioners' concerns.

They talk about IDOT access - they have hired a traffic consultant to make sure they will

have full access off of Route 53 and have a letter for their willingness to move forward.

They have to work out access arrangements with neighbors on North Avenue. Their

curb cut would be tastefully designed and would provide access to the south. They

would like a left hand turn lane off of North Avenue but realistically they know they won't

get it. They are happy with the right in right out. They look at this as an opportunity for

future development. They could do a renters profile and the introverted building might

not be such a bad thing.

Chairperson Ryan asked if any of the developments they have done are in a mixed use

zone on a major thoroughfare. Mr. Patrin responded that Northern Crossing in

Waukegan is part of Amherst Business Park and proceeded to mention the various

uses.

Commissioner Burke stated that while he appreciates their comments, he still looks at

Sales Tax Presentation

David Hulseberg, Director of Community Development, presented a PowerPoint

presentation regarding the sales tax referendum issue that will be placed on the March

21, 2006 ballot. He noted that the presentation is being made to all Village committees

so that the member will be informed of the issue should they receive questions

regarding the referendum.

He then showed the presentation to the members, which included an audio/visual

section and a narrative of the slides. The presentation described the proposed sales tax

referendum, noting that the tax would be a one percent increase in the sales tax for

goods purchased in Lombard. The tax would not apply to service activities or for higher

priced titled goods such as automobiles. The presentation focused upon the rationale

for the tax, stating that the funds would be used to pay for capital infrastructure

improvements in the Village. The tax would also allow the Village to utilize the general

funds, rather than capital funds, to address unfilled staff positions and to fund personnel

costs for Village employees. The presentation noted how the tax increase compared to

other communities with regional shopping centers, noting that many of these

communities currently have higher rates even if the referendum passes. He then

discussed that estimates show that over fifty percent of the revenue would be paid from

people not residing in the Village.

Lastly, he noted that the Village Board passed a resolution freezing the water rate for a

ten-year period should be referendum pass. He then showed examples and described

that the reduction and freezing of the water rates will offset any increase in the sales tax

rate.

Commissioner Burke asked for a clarification regarding one of the statements within the

report.