Village of Lombard Legistar System

Sue Aikman, 130 S. Charlotte, Lombard presented the petition. Ms. Aikman stated she

is the owner of the dog training facility currently located at 710 Hill Avenue. She was

here last year and applied for and received a text amendment to allow animal facilities

as well as a conditional use for approval to conduct her business. As the business is

growing, she now needs to find a larger location. The proposed request is for a

conditional use to move into the Western Avenue space and run her business as it

exists today. The current location doesn't have the amount of space for the animals that

the proposed location does. Also, she would like to request a designated space

outdoors for a canine area. This space would be fenced in and have a limited impact on

adjacent properties. The dogs' waste will be managed more easily and rather than be

walked through the neighborhood, the dogs would have an area to get their exercise

and fresh air.

Ms. Aikman then gave the background of the company indicating that along with the

training and daycare of the animals, they provide seminars and workshops to educate

dog owners. They advocate dog owners being able to keep their dogs in their current

homes, so by educating the owners they better understand their animals.

Their business also provides benefits to the animal as well as the dog owner. The

overall benefit to the animals is that they learn to socialize, have fun, and play. Younger

animals develop motor skills, learn obedience and self-control. Overall, the animals

learn how to be a good dogs. The benefit to the owner is that their animals are not

locked up all day, which eliminates the guilt of having to walk and play with their animals

when they get home from work.

Ms. Aikman stated her credentials and indicated that she currently has 3 employees.

Retail will be another component of their business - they will carry products for training

classes and various customer needs. With the extra space, she anticipates being able

to provide additional products and is very excited to have nicer displays as well as

increase retail sales. With the anticipation of a larger tenant space, she anticipates

hiring an additional two to three employees as she will need the extra help.

Lastly, Ms. Aikman talked about how the industry has grown steadily and anticipated

revenues. Animal services have experienced a 6% increase from 2007-2008 despite

the economy and decrease in discretionary spending. The National Pet Owners Survey

demonstrates the fact that pets are considered part of the family and not only will people

sacrifice for their dogs, they are demanding higher-quality products and services in

order to treat them like family members. She requested that the Commissioners give

her an opportunity to let her business grow and approve the conditional use.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one present

to speak in favor or against the petition

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Michael Toth, Planner I, presented the staff report. Staff drafted the IDRC report to

submit to the public record in its entirety. The Bellyrub Klub is currently utilizing a 2,100

square foot tenant space in a commercial/industrial strip center on Hill Avenue in

Lombard. Until last year, the Animal Day Care use was not listed as a permitted or

conditional use in the I - Limited Industrial District. However, the Bellyrub Klub filed for

(and received) text amendment approval (PC 08-33) to allow the aforementioned use to

be listed as a conditional use in the I - Limited Industrial District. Subsequently, the

petitioner also received conditional use approval (PC 08-34) to conduct business at their

current location.

As their business continues to grow, the Bellyrub Klub is seeking amiable means to

accommodate their business. As such, they are petitioning for conditional use approval

to inhabit a larger tenant space on the subject property and continue use of their canine

training business. Once used as an automobile service/detailing facility, the subject

tenant space is 8,512 square feet of warehouse space. From an operational standpoint,

the current location does not have an outdoor area for the animals, whereas, the new

tenant space has an area on the eastern portion of the building that would be fenced-in

to allow the animals to have outside exposure.

The principal function of the subject business is the daytime training and supervision of

canines. The typical operation involves customers dropping off dogs in the morning and

picking them up in the evening. In addition, they do offer joint classes in the evening with

the canine and respective owner. The Bellyrub Klub also offers a retail component for

the sale of associated products.

Staff recommends that a 2,100 square foot cap be placed on the proposed outside

canine area. 2,100 square feet would be just under 25% of the floor area of the subject

tenant space and would therefore classify the outdoor area as an ancillary function of

the business. Also, placing a cap on the size of the outdoor component would limit the

number of canines that would be outside at any given time and thus reduce any

excessive noise disturbances.

The addition of the outdoor area will limit the impact that the canines will have on the

adjacent properties. At the current location, the canines need to be walked outside of the

business to manage their waste. As the canines outside exposure will be limited to the

designated area, the waste can be more easily managed.

The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be developed with light industrial land

uses. As there will be waste removal and minimal noise disturbances associated with

the presence of the canines, the proposed use could be considered light industrial by

nature.

The subject property abuts the Union Pacific Railroad and is also surrounded by light

industrial uses on the other three sides. There are single family residences located

directly north of the Union Pacific Railroad; however, those residences are not only

screened by the railroad itself, but also an eight (8) foot solid wood fence located on the

northern portion of the subject property. As such, staff finds the proposed use to be

compatible with the surrounding land uses

1. That the petitioner shall satisfactorily address the comments included within the

IDRC report.

2. The site shall be developed in accordance with Exhibit A, which precludes that the

outdoor canine area shall not exceed 25% of the total floor area of the indoor tenant

space.

3. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a Certificate of Occupancy/Zoning

Certificate for the proposed use.

4. All dumpsters located on the subject property shall be screened pursuant to Section

155.710 of the Zoning Ordinance.

5. All parking spaces associated with the subject business shall be properly restriped to

provide a total of thirteen (13) parking spaces and one (1) handicap accessible space.

6. Caging or boarding of animals shall not be allowed in the outdoor area. The outdoor

area shall be reserved as an area where canines can roam freely.

7. The north property line shall be maintained with an eight (8) foot solid fence. The

fence shall be maintained in good state of repair at all times.

PC 09-08: 331 W. Madison Street (CPSA)

Requests the Village take the following actions on the subject property:

1. Approval of a map amendment to rezone the subject property from CR Conservation

Recreation District to R2 Single-Family Residence District.

2. Approval of a conditional use to allow for a School, Private, Full-time: Elementary,

Middle and High in the R2 Single-Family Residence District, and;

3. Approval of a conditional use for a planned development with the following

deviations:

a. To allow a variation from Section 155.407 (H) and Section 155.508 (C) (7),

reducing the minimum required open space to 46.85% where a minimum of 62.5% is

required; and

b. To allow a variation from Section 155.407 (G) to allow for a building height of up

to thirty-five feet (35') from grade, where thirty feet (30') maximum height is allowed by

right. (DISTRICT #6)

the petition. He thanked the public for coming regardless of whether they were in

support or against his client stating that it is nice to see they are taking an active role in

government.

Mr. Draus indicated that the subject of the petition tonight is the College Preparatory

School of American (CPSA) located at 331 W. Madison Avenue. He indicated that the

building has been used primarily by the school district since 1930. He provided the

history of the site and how CPSA came to be at this location in 1994. He noted that the

current zoning of the parcel is CR, which is what the parcel has been zoned the entire

time, and how it is operating as a legal nonconforming use. CPSA has 5 legal lots

comprising of approximately 4 acres containing a school building, parking lot, a

playground and 450 students.

Mr. Draus mentioned how CPSA's curriculum and environment has attributed to the

success of its students. He stated that a high percentage of students graduate from

CPSA and go on to college. He also mentioned students' achievements and

accomplishments such as being National Merit Scholars and being selected to the all

American Academic Team, as well as how the students become professional members

of the community.

The alumni of CPSA represent various professions and they are now sending their

children here. CPSA has strict academic standards with people dedicated to these

goals. There is no crime, vandalism, or drugs and there very few discipline issues.

There has been an increase in demand for enrollment as a result of families who have

moved to Lombard so that their children can attend the school. They have conducted

various fundraising events in order for the proposed improvements to come to fruition.

Representatives of CPSA have been working with Village staff over a period of time in

order to bring this plan before you today.

Mr. Draus then introduced Jamshid Jahedi, Architect-Engineer, from Dome Structural

Engineers who would discuss the proposed plan in further detail.

Jamshid Jahedi, Architect and Engineer for the project, 105 Ogden Avenue, Clarendon

Hills, thanked everyone. He indicated that he would present a PowerPoint presentation

outlining the project.

Two years ago their office was asked to create a necessary drawing and design for a

new building on campus. The owners' goals were to create a facility that:

* Offers higher standard of K-12 education in a more delightful environment

* Remains neighbor friendly while responding to steady growth of the students body

* Continues adding credential to the school and the Village of Lombard

* Increases the land value of the school and neighboring properties

Mr. Jahedi showed an aerial view of the school as well as a zoning map which indicated

the school's current zoning - CR. He stated that the property is really more consistent

with the surrounding zoning of R2.

Next was an aerial of the existing conditions. He explained the orientation of the slide in

that Madison Street was to the right. The existing building is very old (90 years) and

32,000 square feet. The site has 80 parking spaces and is served by two access drives

-one entrance and one exit. The majority of the students are dropped off in the parking

area and he indicated the entrance as well as the exit.

The next slide showed the new addition. He explained that it is the same photo, but

they superimposed the new building with the existing building. The new building is going

to be built where the existing parking is with part of the building extending to the south,

which is currently a grass area. The exit and entrance will stay the same. The two

buildings will be connected by an underground corridor to facilitate travel between the

two buildings. He then showed the next slide which was the proposed site plan. The site

plan illustrated the two buildings, new parking areas, detention area and baseball field.

The traffic flow slide showed both the existing and proposed traffic patterns, which were

indicated with arrows. He showed the traffic flow on the existing site as well as the

proposed site and indicated it is pretty much the same. The parking has been moved to

a different location and there is a new driveway, which will be strictly used by the Fire

Department and is not part of the public drive. This drive was required by the Fire

Department.

The existing parking is shaded with color and he indicated the location of the 80 parking

spaces. The new parking has the same amount of area, but has been moved from the

south of the building to the north of the building. They extended the parking to the east

and south. Approximately 19 parking spaces will be added. This is a more efficient

design of the site. Mr. Jahedi explained that by having these additional parking spaces

on site, it would eliminate the need for parking on the street.

He showed a cross section of the property looking from Madison. They will have

landscaping similar to a berm about 2 feet high, which will be complemented with

another 2-3 feet of shrubbery. This will total approximately 5-6 feet in height, which is

acceptable as a screening device by the Village.

The parking space comparison slide superimposed the existing and proposed parking

spaces in order to get a visual indication of how much parking they are adding. He

acknowledged they were not adding a significant amount of parking.

The Occupancy & Parking Calculations slide - Mr. Jahedi stated that Village Code

requires 80 parking spaces on site. He noted that the number of total parking spaces

required for the existing building is 43 and they have 80. With the new facility consisting

of two buildings, 32,000 square feet for the existing building and 61,000 square feet for

the proposed building, the required number of parking spaces per Village Code is 80. If

the Village looks strictly at Code, we are adding 60,000 square feet, but are still within

Code by providing only the existing 80 parking spaces. If we use common sense, we

see that right now the parking never gets full, but it does get close to maximum capacity.

The neighbors would feel better and have more experience in determining whether

additional parking spaces should be added to the site or not. CPSA proposes to keep

the 19 additional parking spaces in order to negate the spillage of parked cars in the

neighborhood. They think that having the additional parking helps the community at

large in solving some of the parking problems although they respectfully leave this

decision to the discretion of the Plan Commission members.

He described the proposed site plan indicating they have an outdoor sports facility

shown as a baseball field, which could also be used by the neighbors. The detention

pond located in the northwest part of the site will control stormwater on site.

Mr. Jahedi showed the drainage slide and stated that the site will retain the entire run off

provided by a 100-year storm. The detention pond is located on the lowest part of

property. The 100-year storm is the maximum amount of coverage the jurisdiction

asked the engineer to design for. The intensity is very high. There are two detention

ponds shown, the lower part will handle the 50-year storm event and if higher there is a

second detention pond which is part of the sports field. We are improving the drainage

of the site much more than currently exists. The neighbors will not see water run off

from this property. The light blue line around the site is a swale, which is designed to

bring water off the site to the street and into the sewers.

Emphasizing the variances they are asking for he showed the proposed site plan. They

are asking for a rezoning from the CR zoning designation to the R2 residential district, a

conditional use for a planned development, a variation to the open space and a building

height variation to allow 35 feet where 30 feet is allowed.

Simple Rezoning versus PUD - This slide shows a hypothetical analysis of the

percentage of open space required when applying for a simple rezoning to the R2

versus applying for a conditional use for a Planned Development. A simple rezoning to

the R2 where they connect the two buildings would require they need to meet 50% open

space. Their plan provides 47% open space, leaving them 3% short. If we go the other

route and apply for a Planned Unit Development with 2 separate buildings, the open

space requirement is higher at 62.5%. Their plan proposes 47%, leaving them much

shorter. The height restriction of 30' is the same for both routes. The Village prefers

they apply for the planned unit development and CPSA prefers the simple rezoning. He

asked the Commissioners to think about these two differences, but respectfully leaves

this decision to their discretion.

Open Space - Area Calculations - This slide shows the percentage of open space

provided by the CPSA's original design versus the percentage of open space needed

after factoring in the additional requirements the Village has asked for. By providing

impervious roadways and pavement such as the additional driveway the Fire

Department requires, as well as the cul-de-sac, this increases the impervious area and

result in a larger open space requirement percentage. They are willing to spend

additional money and provide green pavement components for the parking lot or the Fire

Department access driveway. He mentioned how he is well trained, has appropriate

certification and is a very strong advocate of the green building movement. He was

disappointed to learn that the Village does not give credit for adding pervious areas.

They are still willing to put the pervious pavement in their parking lot in effort to reduce

the percentage and increase the open space on site to more than 50%. He asked the

Commissioners to look at this concept since they are ready to do it and bring the 50%

higher to maybe 62%.

The Height Comparison. Mr. Jahedi stated they are within the 30' height limit for the

entire building with the exception of one staircase, which goes up to the roof. The roof

consists of fans which blow fresh air into the gym and cafeteria. They will be 3-5' in

height and are not included in the building height calculation. They will need a staircase

to get up to the roof and this staircase is the result of the extra 5'. They prefer to not

incorporate a hatch into the roof, as suggested by Village staff, as the staircase makes

easier access. The amount of area that they are taking above 30' is 300 square feet or

1.4% of the footprint. He asked the Plan Commissioners to consider this and compare it

for themselves.

The next couple of slides shown were elevations from the northeast, east and south. He

commented that they will be 50-70 feet away from the nearest residential property line

and the other two sides will see green.

The basement plan includes an area for the gym, which includes a full basketball court

with bleachers and a cafeteria with a kitchen as well other things. The gym and

cafeteria are two volumetric designs. They have a large height and in an effort to

disguise them they were designed in the basement. As a result the neighbors won't see

the gym and the building will be visually pleasing.

The first floor plan consists of the upper part of the gym, which is basically open to the

basement, a preschool, administrative offices and classrooms. He noted the staircase

that goes down to the basement as well as the tunnel that would take students from one

building to the other.

The second floor plan consists of amenities for the school including: various labs, a

library with an atrium, classrooms and a multi-purpose room.

Concluding, Mr. Jahedi noted the attributes of project.

Attorney Draus noted the storyboards located behind them. Since the Commissioners

could not see the storyboards, Mr. Jahedi referred back to his PowerPoint presentation

and showed where the height variation would be located on the building. He explained

how they calculated the height or average grade of the building. He noted the highest

part of the building indicating that this is the stairs, which lead to the roof, are to be used

for facilitating the repair and maintenance of the roof. He noted that the stairway was

strategically placed in the middle of the building, placed at the furthest distance away

from the neighbors.

Attorney Draus mentioned the fact that CPSA held neighborhood meetings and they

have been meeting with the Village for two years trying to incorporate concerns voiced

by both parties. Concluding, Mr. Draus indicated that the board members from CPSA

were in the audience and were available to answer any questions on behalf of the

owner.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment.

To speak in favor of the petition were:

Fazal Ahmed, 20 W. 17th Street, Lombard, stated that he is a resident of Lombard and

has children in the school. The school not only provides an excellent education, but also

contributes to a person's physical and mental health. He felt they should not be

crammed into a building. He stated the need for a new building, as the existing building

is aged. Having the new building is not only advantageous for them, but also for the

Village as it will increase property value. He wants to stay in town due to its diversity but

they need a better cleaner environment, which will result in making a name for the town.

Mohammed Azharuddin, 1069 S. Westmore Avenue, Lombard, stated he lives in the

Westmore Avenue Apartment Complex, having moved from Texas because of the

school's teachings and credentials. He has two children in the school and their

standards are two years above the public school. He requested that they not deny the

opportunity for the children to have more labs and a better learning experience.

Sabet Siddiqui, 531 W. Harding Road, Lombard, noted his profession and mentioned

that he was building a house, which is one of the moderate to bigger homes in Yorkshire

Woods. He indicated how he used to commute long distances in order to have his

children attend the school. He asked the Commissioners to approve the proposal. The

school maintains extremely high scores and they need your help to have a decent

facility.

Dr. M. Javeed Ansari, 114 Oakton Drive, Lombard, stated that his family consisting of

four children moved from Massachusetts for the purpose of attending this school. He

mentioned there was a two-year waiting list to get in. The children's education and

reputation of the school is nationwide. He has never seen such a school in this area

and noted the product the school puts out. He humbly requests the Plan

Commissioners to arrive at a favorable decision to help the community and make its

citizens proud.

Fatima Nazeer, 43 W. Ann Street, Lombard, indicated she is an alumni of CPSA as is

her husband. She stated she attended Benedictine University and he went to

Northwestern. They are proud to have been a member of the CPSA community, as the

school has had many accomplishments, as well as a citizen of Lombard. She referred

to the Character Counts pillars on the wall and indicated that you will find those qualities

mentioned at CPSA. She asked the Commissioners to consider everything said.

Mukarram Sheikh, 1328 S. Rebecca Road, Lombard, noted his profession and stated

that four years ago he did not know the Village of Lombard. When his family lived in

Tennessee they searched for one of the best school in the country where they could

maintain their faith as well as obtain the best academic education. They do not have

many facilities from which to choose unlike other religions. The program at CPSA made

them move here even though the building was something to be desired. They love

CPSA, Lombard, the Park District, and the shopping. They are buying property here.

He believes that an education is a holistic process and they want to add community

service projects, but don't have the available space. They need to go to the next level.

He believed that not only will the new proposal benefit them, but will also benefit the

neighbors. The school attracts the best in the community and is a win/win situation. He

mentioned Daniel Tani and how proud it makes you feel no matter where you came from

that he is a product of Lombard who attended Glenbard East. We must be ready so that

when the next leader comes, we will all feel proud. He asked the Commissioners to

approve the building in order to attract the best talent to Lombard.

Anjum Mirza, 1306 S. Finley Road, Lombard stated he lives in International Village. He

has two children in the school. Prior to them moving, his wife had to travel close to 100

miles a day to bring them to school. He humbly requests that they approve the request

and give them a chance.

Muddassir Saeed, 2090 S. Valley Road, Lombard, gave his background and educational

history. He stated he attended Peter Hoy School, Lombard Jr. High and Glenbard East

High School. He loves the community of Lombard as it has a lot to offer and has three

children in the school. DuPage County is an affordable place to live and has a good

standard and asks that they support the school.

Rashid Zaffer, 1790 Porter Court, stated she lived adjacent to the school and her

husband and other family members attended CPSA. It is a great school located in a

great community and asks for approval of the request as it will be great for the whole

neighborhood.

M.A. Majeed, 509 W. Wilson Avenue, Lombard, stated that Naperville was recently

named the number one city in which to live. He did reside there, but decided to move

here instead. He sends his children to CPSA. He emphasized that in the proposed plan

there are two issues - the height and the open space. The code requires that they need

80 parking spots and the architect is suggesting 99. We have a choice, as does the

Plan Commission and the neighbors, to either contain the parking on the premises or

have it spillover onto the streets. There is another school two blocks south and there is

no street parking allowed on Madison. There are other schools in the community such

as Sacred Heart where street parking is allowed. It comes down to an issue of parking

spilling over on the street or having open space. In his opinion, it is better to have the

parking contained on the property so the neighborhood won't be affected.

Mohammed Kothawala, 213 W. Harding Road, Lombard, stated he lives two blocks

behind the school. They built a house and are happy to be in the neighborhood. He has

two children in the school. He sees parents come from different directions to drop off

their children and as a result, he does not see much of a traffic problem.

To speak against the petition were:

Ed Pszanka, 615 S. Edson, Lombard, stated he lives adjacent to the school property.

He has lived in Lombard for 40 years. He mentioned the new housing that has recently

been constructed in the neighborhood. He's tired of constantly looking at a garbage

dump and a blank wall. He complained of issues dealing with water run off onto his

property, people raising the topography of their land, houses being built too close to

property lines and too high. There is a Building Code in place and it should be

followed. He stated he was not notified of any of the meetings. He was worried about

the retention pond attracting geese, mosquitoes and bugs as well as being unsightly.

He is an organic gardener and he does not want that water overflowing onto his

property.

Chairperson Ryan mentioned that he was notified of this meeting, but there is no

requirement that he be notified of meetings between the petitioners and Village staff.

Mr. Jahedi responded to Mr. Pszanka's comments about the retention pond. He

indicated it will be a dry grassy area with no water. It is engineered to retain water

during a storm and within a 24-hour period the water will drain back to the Village

system. In this way, we are not overloading the Village system at one time.

Mr. Pszanka indicated that when CPSA bought the building in 1994, there was a ditch by

the baseball field that took water and brought it along the property line down to Madison.

The ditch is now filled up.

Attorney Draus indicated that the retention area has a drain in it so it is not designed for

the water to remain. It collects excess water from neighboring properties. It is a Village

requirement.

Candice Rizzo, 308 Harding, Lombard, stated she has been a resident for 25 years and

they have recently added onto their home. They have abided by all the Village zoning

and guidelines. They are very proud of their home and consider it their major

investment. She is also here to speak on behalf of her husband and their neighbors.

She has a petition opposing the proposal. Their concerns are:

* increased traffic on Madison as well as the route that might be taken around the

neighborhood to get to the school

* the height of the building - her house backs up to it so they would be directly affected

* privacy and the use of her property - her backyard is open and the school will have

activity year round.

* property values haven't increased or decreased, but if they sell their house, the new

owner won't want the view of the proposed parking lot with traffic being routed behind

the school.

* garbage that would be generated.

* they should maintain the residential look and appearance of the neighborhood.

* the proposal is too large of a building squeezed onto a small piece of property and not

becoming to the neighborhood.

She went to houses within a four block radius of the school and is submitting the petition

on their behalf relative to those concerns. She asked the Commissioners to consider

these issues.

Joe Glazier, Jr., 304 W. Harding, Lombard, asked if they would be able to build future

residences on the site without a public hearing if the rezoning to R2 was approved. The

northwest corner of his property would be affected by noise and traffic with more being

put on the southeast corner of the site. The placement of rooftop mechanicals would be

closer to his home and would generate more noise. The placement of the atrium will

overlook the surrounding homes and would have a direct site line to his patio eliminating

his privacy. They are asking to double the number of students and reduce the open

space. There is too much proposed for the space available.

Attorney Draus responded to the rezoning request. He stated that there are no plans to

put residential dormitories on the property. That would require another public hearing.

Christopher Stilling, Assistant Director, stated that if the rezoning and the planned

development were approved, they would not be allowed to build residences. He

explained how a planned development is tied to a specific plan and if they deviated from

that plan, they would have to come back to the Plan Commission for an amendment to

the planned development, which would entail another public hearing.

Mr. Glazier then asked for an explanation about the zoning regulations between an R2

and the CR. Mr. Stilling stated that the CR zoning is intended to provide for the location

of such things as public parks, forest preserves, and other open-space uses and is more

in line with a publicly-owned facility. The zoning of R2 is in line with private schools and

residential areas and is typical of what has been done in the past. Attorney Draus

stated that the conditional use request would provide for having a private school.

Fran Pszanka, 615 S. Edson, Lombard, indicated she lives right behind where the

retention pond is planned to go and asked if it will come right up to their property line.

Also, she asked if there is anything that states that it has to stay away from them. She

noted that if the sewer system is not good enough to take the water away, why have the

pond? She mentioned previous meetings whereby it was mentioned that something

would be done to remove the water. Also, she was concerned about the safety issue

with having a pond on the playfield as she heard it was 5' deep. Mr. Stilling responded

to the placement of the detention pond and noted that the petitioner's plan indicates

there is a 5' setback. Currently, the property has no controlled detention on site so the

water travels with the slope of the property. Water detention is governed by DuPage

County as well as the Village.

Mr. Jahedi responded that the detention pond is like a ball so that when there is too

much water it is kept in the ball until such time that it drains slowly into the system. This

system serves the site better than what it does now. The depth of the pond is 5' and the

slope is 3:1, which is the maximum DuPage County allows a slope to be. The slope is

walkable and the children can run up and down it. It makes it a good area for play and

is not a safety issue.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Michael Toth, Planner I, introduced two items into the public record: the KLOA traffic

report, which is the final version not the draft version as it states, and Response to

Standards to Deviations. He noted that only three standards were addressed because

they were not met by the petitioner.

Mr. Toth then continued stating that staff has drafted this IDRC report to submit to the

public record in its entirety. The College Preparatory School of America (CPSA) has

been experiencing an increased demand for classroom space. As such, the school is

proposing to construct a second building on the subject property. As proposed, the new

building would be approximately 61,000 square feet and located south of the existing

building, which would remain. The new building would include a cafeteria, gymnasium, a

multi-purpose hall as well as classroom and general office area. To accommodate the

increased student population, additional parking would be provided. As a result, the

required amount of open space is not being provided. Therefore, the petitioner is

seeking a variation to reduce the required amount of open space. In addition, the

proposed second building would exceed the maximum allowed building height of thirty

(30) feet to thirty-five (35) feet to accommodate a projecting stairway.

As part of their request and at the suggestion of Village staff, CPSA is requesting a map

amendment to rezone the subject property from CR - Conservation Recreation District

to the R2 - Single-Family Residence District. In addition, the petitioner is seeking a

conditional use to establish the property as a planned development.

CPSA obtained a Certificate of Occupancy on February 10, 1993 as an Educational

Facility; however, they never obtained conditional use approval to lawfully establish the

full-time private school. Therefore, CPSA has been operating under legal

non-conforming status since their inception. As part of this petition, CPSA is requesting

conditional use approval to legally establish the existing full-time, private school.

use approval to legally establish the existing full-time, private school.

CPSA is located in an established residential neighborhood and is located in close

proximity to Madison Elementary School. The hours of operation are similar to the

public school hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The school year starts in August and ends

in June. The addition of the new building will allow 335 more students to attend the

school, which would bring the total student population to 785. The drop off/pick up

functions would occur between both buildings (central to the subject property) through

the use of a twenty-two (22) foot drive aisle. The Fire Department requires that all new

buildings provide access to three sides of the new structure(s). As such, CPSA would be

required to install a drive aisle around the perimeter of the proposed structure. This fire

lane will be blocked off at all times, only to be used by the Fire Department.

As proposed, the existing building would not require ADA or Life Safety Code

improvements to its interior as part of this petition. The petitioner's have indicated that

the existing building would remain "as is".

The proposed building would have a peak roof height of 35 feet above grade. The R2 -

Single Family Residential District permits structures up to 30 feet. The proposed

deviation is requested to accommodate an access stairway. The petitioner has stated

that the proposed building can be designed without the projecting stairway and still

properly function. As such, staff finds that the roof height deviation is a result of an

unnecessary desire and therefore, staff does not support the proposed roof height

deviation.

The underlying R2 - Single Family Residence District regulations require a minimum of

50% open space for each property. Section 155.508(C)(7) requires that open space in

a planned development must be at least 25% more than is required in the underlying

district if a deviation is associated with the petition. As such, the additional 25% of open

space would not be required if the proposed building were to meet the maximum height

requirement of thirty (30) feet; however, the 50% minimum open space requirement

would still need to be addressed. When combined with the coverage of the existing

property improvements, the proposed property improvements would bring the total

amount of open space on the subject property to 46.85%. This equates to roughly 5,793

square feet in open space deficiency based on the 50% requirement and 28,768 square

feet on the 62.5% requirement.

Ninety-nine (99) parking spaces are proposed on site. Pursuant to the Zoning

Ordinance, 80 spaces are required. The additional 19 spaces can be considered to be a

preferential request made by the petitioner, which represents roughly 3,078 square feet

of impervious surface that could be dedicated as open space. Also, during the

neighborhood meeting conducted by the petitioner, one of the issues brought up by

neighbors was the aesthetic view of the front of the property, more specifically the

addition of parking spaces in front of the building. As the northernmost row of parking

consists of 24 parking spaces, eliminating some of those parking spaces could allow for

additional open space and provide additional landscape buffering. Staff will only support

a minimum of 50% open space, which meets the underlying R2 zoning district

requirement.

The property is currently zoned CR Conservation Recreation District. The CR District, by

definition, is intended to provide for the location of public parks, forest preserves, wildlife

reservations and ecological sanctuaries and other open-space uses or resources to

serve the needs of the citizens of the Village of Lombard. Again, emphasis on public

usage.

Staff believes that the CPSA property is more consistent with the R2 Single-Family

Residence District requirements. The R2 District is intended to accommodate existing

single-family neighborhoods in the core of the Village. This zoning designation is

consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, similar requests have been

granted to other private educational institutions located in the Village such as St. Pius X,

St. John's, and Sacred Heart. Staff finds that the CPSA property meets the standards

for rezoning.

An educational institution is listed as a conditional use in the R2 Single-Family

Residence District. This request is to provide conforming use status for the school, as it

pertains to the Lombard Zoning Ordinance. The operations of the school are typical of

most educational institutions. Staff finds that CPSA meets the standards for a

conditional use to allow for an educational institution in the R2 District.

Establishing a planned development for the CPSA campus is consistent with other

private school uses in the Village. The Village previously established planned

developments for Christ the King in 2004, St. John's in 2005 and St. Pius X in 2007. As

a Planned Development, the site can be brought into closer compliance with current

Zoning Ordinance by allowing greater flexibility in site development. It is noted;

however, that the planned development is specifically required in this case as the

petitioner wishes to keep both principal structures on the property physically separate of

one another. Per Section 155.208(B) of the Zoning Ordinance, more than one (1)

principal structure on one (1) lot-of-record is not permitted in the R2 - Single Family

Residential District, except as part of a planned development. As the subject property is

to be used as a master planned campus for a use other than single-family residential,

the establishment of a planned development is deemed appropriate to allow the Plan

Commission to have the opportunity to approve any future modifications and/or

additions to the subject property.

Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance a total of 80 parking spaces are required. The

proposed plans indicate a total of 99 parking spaces, which exceeds the amount of

parking required by Code by 19 parking spaces. The petitioner has indicated that the

additional parking spaces are needed to accommodate any overflow parking situations

and prevent spillover parking onto the adjacent neighborhood streets. The petitioner has

indicated that high school students do not drive to school. Staff believes that the

minimum amount of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance is sufficient. In

order to ensure that the amount of parking is sufficient in the future, the number of high

school students allowed to attend the CPSA will be capped at 240 students, which is the

total number of high school students indicated on the plan.

Staff has relayed their concern to the petitioner that the increased number of parking

spaces is considered to be one of the factors leading to the deficiency in open space. As

such, staff presented a parking versus open space scenario to the Plan Commissioners

through a Plan Commission workshop on December 15, 2008. During the workshop, a

number of the Plan Commission members had indicated that they favored the extra

parking spaces in order to prevent the spillover parking onto adjacent residential

properties. However, other members stated that they favored the idea of reducing the

amount of proposed parking to meet the open space requirement for the underlying

zoning district.

The Village's traffic consultant KLOA reviewed the proposed development and

conducted traffic counts on the adjacent neighborhood intersections to determine the

impacts of the proposed development. They have completed a report which is also

transmitted with the staff report. See traffic study.

Based on KLOA's observations, the peak time period for drop-off was between 8:00 and

8:30 A.M. During this half hour, KLOA observed a few back-ups extending onto Madison

Street with approximately five to six vehicles temporarily waiting to turn left and access

the school driveway thus blocking westbound through traffic on Madison Street.

The peak time period for pickups occurred between 3:15 and 3:45 P.M. The queues at

times extended all the way back around the west end of the building. It should be noted

that for a few minutes, the backup spilled onto Madison Street and three to four vehicles

were temporarily waiting to get in thus blocking Madison Street. The school contracts a

Lombard Police Officer to assist in traffic control. The police officer arrived just before

3:15 P.M. to direct approaching vehicle pickups at the back doorway entrance and to

safely allow children and adults to use the walkway. Between 3:30 and 4:00 P.M. as

many as five vehicles were queuing outside onto Madison Street. It should be noted that

pickups were also occurring along the access drives on the west and east side of the

building.

CPSA's hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The drop off/pick up functions

would occur in an area between the new and existing buildings (central to the subject

property) through the use of a twenty-two (22) foot drive aisle. As the student population

will be increasing from 450 to 785 students (max), the proposed twenty-two (22) foot

drive aisle would be wide enough to accommodate a drop off/ pick up lane with

adequate space to allow cars to pass one another, which should increase traffic flow.

KLOA recommended in the traffic study that strong consideration should be given to

internal staggering of classroom starting and ending times, which would alleviate

drop-off and pick-up parking, queuing, vehicular/pedestrian conflicts, etc. As mentioned

below, CPSA does not plan to stagger school hours unless necessary; however, they

have made representation that they plan to stagger start/end times in conjunction with

the Madison School, which is east of the subject property on Madison Street.

Based upon the above observations and review of the petitioner's proposed site plan,

KLOA made several recommendations in their study. Staff would like to focus on four

major internal site considerations addressed in the traffic study.

1) Student Enrollment - Staff worked with the petitioner and KLOA to remediate some of

the internal site issues. As the student population affects the amount of vehicular traffic

to and from the subject property, CPSA has agreed to cap the number of students. The

current student population of CPSA is 450 students. With the addition of the new

classrooms, future enrollment is expected to reach 785 students. As such, there will be

335 additional students on the subject property during peak enrollment. CPSA has

agreed to place a cap on the number of students enrolled in the school at 785.

2) Staggering of School Hours - As previously mentioned, the peak time period for

drop-off was between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. and the peak time period for pickups occurred

between 3:15 and 3:45 p.m. To minimize existing and future potential congestion, KLOA

recommended in the traffic study that strong consideration should be given to internal

staggering of classroom starting and ending times, which would alleviate drop-off and

pick-up parking, queuing, vehicular/pedestrian conflicts, etc. CPSA responded by

stating, "If future enrollment dictates a need for CPSA to stagger their school start and

end times at the different levels of the school (grade, middle, and high school), then

CPSA will do so to alleviate traffic congestion". As such, the petitioner has not provided

a detailed plan outlining their proposed staggered start/end times.

3) Drive Aisle Width - On the original site plan submitted by the petitioner, the internal

drive aisles were proposed to be eighteen (18) feet wide. According to KLOA, the

proposed drop-off lane needs to be at a minimum twenty-two (22) feet wide. When used

for pickup in the afternoon, the additional four (4) foot width will provide a passing lane

when vehicles are parked waiting for the students. CPSA complied with this

recommendation and widened the proposed drive aisles to a width of twenty-two (22)

feet to provide the passing lane that would allow for an increase in traffic flow on the

subject property.

4) Cul-de-Sac Bulb - According to the originally submitted site plan, two-way traffic in the

proposed parking lot on the southeast portion of the property would have no way of

turning around. In the traffic study, KLOA recommended that a cul-de-sac bulb should

be designed to provide turnaround at the south end. CPSA complied with this

recommendation and added the cul-de-sac to the proposed plans as a means of

allowing an increase in traffic flow on the southeastern portion of the subject property.

As previously mentioned, the petitioner held two neighborhood meetings last year to

discuss the proposed plans with adjacent property owners. During the meeting,

neighbors had the opportunity to comment on the plans and address their concerns with

the proposed project. Some of the specific comments made by the neighboring

properties included; the impact of more students at CPSA and traffic on Madison Street,

the impact of more students on CPSA on parking on neighboring side streets (since

there is no parking allowed on Madison Street, the only public access to the site), the

aesthetic view of the front of the property (especially with the addition of parking spaces

in front of the building) and concerns regarding the impact of construction of the new

building (noise, safety, and parking issues) on the neighboring properties.

While staff finds the use to be compatible with adjacent properties and consistent with

the locations of other residentially-located private schools throughout the Village, the

plan, as proposed with deviations is not compatible with adjacent properties. The

petitioner has worked closely with staff in an attempt to address the provisions of the

Zoning Ordinance, but staff believes that the proposed project could still be completed

without obtaining the building height and open space variations.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends Public and Institutional uses for the subject

property. As the principal use of the property is an educational facility, the use of the

property adheres to the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan as an institutional

use. The petitioner's site modifications are also consistent with the existing institutional

nature of the property.

Staff finds that there are no conditions related to the property that prevent compliance

with the established regulations. The property does not have physical surroundings,

shape, or topographical features that differ substantially from other lots in the

neighborhood. It is solely the demands of the petitioner that have warranted the

requested relief.

The number of students enrolled in any school directly affects the amount of space

needed on the property for classrooms and other ancillary amenities. As the subject

school is a private school, the amount of revenue received by the school is dependant

upon the number of students enrolled in the school. Under this principle, revenue would

be higher with a higher student population

Staff finds that the difficulties have been created by the petitioner as a result of a

preference towards keeping the proposed building separate from the existing building, a

desire to exceed the amount of required parking, and an architectural preference that

does not allow the proposed building to meet the minimum building height requirement

Staff finds that these variations will alter the essential character of the neighborhood by

allowing excessive bulk and impervious surfaces on the subject property. Staff has

identified ways that the building height and open space could be achieved to meet code.

Standards Not Complied With

1) Any reduction in the requirements of this Ordinance is in the public interest.

The R2 - Single Family Residential District permits structures up to 30 feet. The

proposed building would have a peak roof height of 35 feet above grade. The proposed

deviation is requested to accommodate an access stairway. The petitioner has

represented in their response to standards that the deviation would allow access to the

rooftop for maintenance, repair and emergency purposes. However, the petitioner has

also stated that the proposed building can be designed without the projecting stairway

and still properly function. As such, staff finds that the roof height deviation is a result of

an unnecessary desire.

The underlying R2 - Single Family Residence District regulations require a minimum of

50% open space for each property. Section 155.508(C)(7) requires that open space in

a planned development must be at least 25% more than is required in the underlying

district if a deviation is associated with the petition. As such, the additional 25% of open

space would not be required if the proposed building were to meet the maximum height

requirement of thirty (30) feet; however, the 50% minimum open space requirement

would still need to be addressed. The petitioner has represented in their response to

standards that the reduction in open space would allow reduce the amount of on-site

parking. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance a total of 80 parking spaces are required.

The proposed plans indicate a total of 99 parking spaces, which exceeds the amount of

parking required by Code by 19 parking spaces. The petitioner has indicated that the

additional parking spaces are needed to accommodate any overflow parking situations

and prevent spillover parking onto the adjacent neighborhood streets. The petitioner has

indicated that high school students do not drive to school. Staff believes that the

minimum amount of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance is sufficient.

2) The proposed deviations would not adversely impact the value or use of any other

property.

Staff finds that these deviations will alter the essential character of the neighborhood by

allowing excessive bulk and impervious surfaces on the subject property. Staff has

identified ways that the building height and open space could be achieved to meet code.

3) That the area of open space provided in a planned development shall be at least

25% more than that required in the underlying zone district.

When combined with the coverage of the existing property improvements, the proposed

property improvements would bring the total amount of open space on the subject

property to 46.85%. This equates to roughly 5,793 square feet in open space deficiency

based on the 50% requirement and 28,768 square feet on the 62.5% requirement. The

petitioner stated in their response to standards that they would be unable to meet the

62.5% open space requirement. Although the proposed plans cannot meet the 62.5%

open space requirement, staff believes that the petitioner is able to meet the underlying

zoning district requirement of 50% open space.

Staff recommends denial of the variation for open space and building height and

approval of the planned development, conditional use and rezoning with conditions. He

noted that condition #1 should be changed to read:

1. The site shall be developed substantially in accordance with the CPSA elevation,

site, landscaping and floor plans package, prepared by Dome Structural Engineers,

dated December 1, 2008, except as they shall be changed to meet Village Codes and

the 50% open space and thirty (30) foot building height requirements and shall be

subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development.

Attorney Draus commented on the staff report stating that the petitioner has worked

closely with staff for over two years. Those two variations have been part of the plan

since that time and they only found out Thursday that the petition would be approved

without the variations. He exampled the St. John's building, which was a similar

situation in which there was a new building with a private school being proposed and

staff , the Plan Commission and the Board approved the height and open space

variation. Their open space was 30 percent and he asks for equitable treatment today.

He reiterated that the request for the height variation only applies to a small portion of

the building, 300 square feet, which will be contained to the middle of the property and

have minimal effect on surrounding properties. This is important because it is an

aesthetically better building which would allow stairwell access to the roof for repairs and

maintenance and is more practical than a hatch option.

He then commented on the open space variation. This issue came up several times -

the open space has been reduced as a result of a request by the Village to install a

cul-de-sac bulb, expanding the entryway to 22' and the requirements by the Fire

Department to have a full access around the building. All these requests have reduced

the open space percentage. In the cost/benefit analysis, CPSA feels that the more

parking spaces that are on the property the better it will be for traffic in the

neighborhood. They raised this issue the most and they are trying to minimize traffic on

the neighborhood. When there is a need for parking spaces they can be used. They

believe that the benefit outweighs the 3% percent open space variation.

Lastly, he commented on the issue that came up in the public comment portion about

additional traffic on the south side of the building. The area around the new building to

the south is only for Fire Department access. If you are a neighbor on the backside you

won't have to worry about cars there.

Concluding, Attorney Draus asked the Plan Commission to consider the plan with the

two variations as it would be a better contained site.

Mr. Stilling responded to Attorney Draus by stating that the goal of staff is achieve

conformance to Village Code. With regard to the requested expansion of the drive

aisles and the fire department access, these are things that are part of a functioning site

plan.

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

Commissioner Burke asked staff to confirm the 30% open space variation that Attorney

Draus mentioned in regard to other developments in town like St. John's. Mr. Stilling

stated he was not sure of the exact number, but there have been more recent petitions

that met the open space requirement. Staff tries to see opportunities and if close would

help them achieve it. Commissioner Burke stated that the petitioner makes a compelling

argument about the roadway surrounding the building as well as the cul-de-sac. The

Village's demands have caused them to require the open space request and has

exacerbated the project. Mr. Stilling stated that the Fire Department access roadway is

directly related to fire codes and this request is made no matter what. Mr. Toth stated

that the petitioner's requests warranted the variations. The petitioner's desire to

separate the buildings and add the height variation kicked in the 62.5% open space

requirement. It had a trickle effect.

Commissioner Burke commented that the request for the 35' height variation only

applies to a 300 square foot portion of building which is insignificant and in line with

things we have provided variances for in the past. He asked what the distance is from

the location of where the height variation would be on the building to the nearest

property line. Mr. Jahedi stated it was approximately 150 feet from the 35 height to the

nearest property line.

Commissioner Sweetser agreed with Commissioner Burke's comments relative to the

height variation being a relatively small part of the building and she does not find it

objectionable. She does however take exception to the open space. With regard to the

petitioner's comments about how the Village's requirements contributed to them not

meeting the open space requirement, she believed that you don't start a design until you

find out the Village's requirements rather than the other way around. Open space could

be met by removing a couple of parking spaces. She referred to KLOA's traffic report

about the queuing issues and how adding parking spaces won't help the situation. The

increased enrollment will also make it worse. During special events the school might

need to have extra parking on the streets but this happens often with most schools. She

favored the petitioner meeting the open space and was not concerned about the height

requirement.

Commissioner Cooper stated she was concerned about the Village's response about the

porous pavement. Mr. Stilling indicated that we have spoken with the Fire Marshall and

they discourage that kind of application. If a large tower truck was called to the scene

and had to extend its outriggers, there could be a pressure point issue and the

outriggers could sink into the pavers. Since the building is a multi-story facility they want

to err on the side of caution with the use of pervious pavers. He noted that pursuant to

the Zoning Ordinance those pavers, though perceived as open space, would not count

toward open space calculations.

Commissioner Burke asked what the cul-de-sac was needed for. Mr. Stilling indicated

that it would be used as a turn around. If all the parking spaces are occupied in that

area, there would be no way for a vehicle to turn around. This came to be the most

reasonable solution. Commissioner Burke asked if this was a Fire Department

requirement. Mr. Stilling answered no and that it doesn't meet the radius for that.

Commissioner Burke referenced the issue of queuing in the KLOA traffic report. He

stated that he is familiar with the routes taken to get to the school and if there is a

backup in front of the school it would be similar to any other parochial school in town.

As a neighbor you either wait your turn or you take a different route. He doesn't see this

as being too much of an issue.

Commissioner Sweetser confirmed that her previous comment was not tied to the

queuing even though it might have sounded like it did.

Chairperson Ryan asked if the parking in the front of the building would be used as a

drop off. Mr. Stilling stated it could be and suggested that closing off and designating a

couple of parking spaces only for drop off and pick up, similar to what Creative Day did,

might help. KLOA reviewed all these issues and made the recommendation of widening

the drive aisle and staggering school hours. If the petitioner does stagger the school

hours, queuing should be minimized.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the Village has incorporated LEED standards into

Village Code. Mr. Stilling stated that the Village does not have anything specific to that

and are not well versed in their building codes or giving bonuses. Commissioner

Sweetser commented that LEED standards should be incorporated into Village Code as

it is important.

Chairperson Ryan referenced the parking in front of the building and how the queuing

could go to the front and that could eliminate one issue. If there is no parking in the front,

it can be a hazard. As far as the height issue, if the petitioner eliminated the extra height

and went with a trap, the open space percentage could drop to 50%. Mr. Stilling stated

that if they meet the height and 50% open space, the variation would not be applicable.

Commissioner Sweetser asked for clarification on the use of pervious pavers and the

objection by the Fire Department. She questioned if their objection was based on

possible damage to the Fire Department vehicle or to the surface of the pavers. If it's

based on damage to the surface of the pavers, the petitioner would know that going in

so if it had to be replaced it could. Mr. Stilling responded that there were a number of

factors. Commissioner Sweetser asked if there were any projections about whether the

amount of pervious pavement would cause an inability to use the equipment or be a

hazard to the firefighters. Mr. Stilling stated they needed 18' for the outriggers. If the

parking spaces are all occupied and they have to use the access drive, they preferred to

err on the side of caution.

Commissioner Sweetser questioned that if the drive along the west and south side is not

used by anyone other than the Fire Department and that area was designated pervious

pavement is there any way the Fire Department would be in danger. Mr. Stilling stated

that the Fire Department was adamant to have it all pavement. Commissioner Sweetser

confirmed that staff didn't know the specific reason why. If it's just a matter of the

surface being damaged, then it might be worth it to gain the extra area.

Commissioner Cooper asked for clarification on the refuse location being in the

southeast corner of the building. Mr. Jahedi stated it was to be located in the southwest

corner of the building in the middle. Chairperson Ryan indicated it was right before the

baseball field. Commissioner Cooper stated her concern for choosing this location due

to its close proximity to adjacent properties. She also stated that this location would be

in the emergency zone so the Fire Department access driveway would be used on a

weekly or biweekly basis. Mr. Jahedi indicated that this road would be chain linked and

would have to be opened for trash pickup. Mr. Stilling indicated that this issue was

discussed with the Fire Department who indicated that refuse pickup would be okay, but

it could not be used for student drop off. Mr. Jahedi stated that the reason that this

location was chosen was because of its closeness to the kitchen exit, which would have

the most waste.

Commissioner Burke also pointed out that the Fire Department access drive would have

to be used for deliveries. Mr. Stilling stated that portion of it would be.

Commissioner Burke questioned condition number 4 and how the numbers shown did

not add up to the cap of 785 students. He asked if staff was adding in the daycare

facility. Mr. Toth stated that the numbers were taken off the submitted plan, which is on

the cover of the site plan. Mr. Jahedi stated that the cap is 785 students including the

preschool. Commissioner Burke questioned the cap and indicated that it could be any

number on the preschool. Mr. Toth stated that the condition could be changed to clarify.

Commissioner Cooper commented that there is a 5' setback along the site and she

questioned the choice of vegetation along the perimeter, which was to act as a buffer.

Being that the building is a large structure, it didn't seem that the choice of vegetation

would suffice. Mr. Stilling answered that one of our conditions indicates that it be in

conformance with the Zoning Ordinance especially along Madison, which has to be

screened.

Mr. Jahedi stated that the east and south property lines are higher than the property so

the slope is from the southeast to the northwest. In those two areas you have an

advantage with the topography. He offered to install a fence, if needed. Chairperson

Ryan commented that it would be up to the discretion of the Community Development

Director.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the screening as it relates to trees on the south and

west side would be one every 40 feet. Mr. Stilling explained the Zoning Ordinance

requirement as it relates to trees and indicated that the intent is that it be fully screened.

If the plant is transparent they will be diligent that the intent of the code is met.

Commissioner Sweetser commented on the issue of the fence. She stated she is not

insisting that a fence be the solution, but could be an option. Also, as far as the atrium

and the neighbor's privacy being compromised, there could be ways to make the lower

level windows opaque.

Commissioner Cooper asked if the perimeter of the detention pit would have to be

fenced. Mr. Jahedi answered that it is a shallow slope 3:1 and does not need a fence.

It's a workable slope, looks pleasant, and doesn't need a fence.

The Commissioners and legal counsel then discussed how the motion and the

conditions should be worded or amended if they wanted to approve the rezoning and

conditional use as well as the 35' height variation, but require the petitioner meet 50%

open space.

1. The site shall be developed substantially in accordance with the CPSA elevation,

site, landscaping and floor plans package, prepared by Dome Structural Engineers,

dated December 1, 2008, except as they shall be changed to meet Village Codes and

provide 50% open space and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director

of Community Development.

2. All comments in the Inter-Departmental Review Committee Report shall be

satisfactorily addressed as part of a building permit application.

3. The petitioner shall address all recommendations in the KLOA report, which includes

a detailed drop off/pick up schedule in a manner acceptable to the Director of

Community Development, based upon the proposed traffic flow conditions along

Madison Street and upon the subject property.

4. The number of grade school students shall be capped at 450 students and the

number of high school students shall be capped at 240 students. The total student

population, including the pre-school, shall not exceed 785 students.

5. A final plat of consolidation shall be submitted to the Village for approval, making the

site a lot of record.

6. The designated fire lane adjacent to the western and southern portion of the

proposed building shall be blocked off at all times and accessed only by the Village of

Lombard Fire Department and the refuse company for trash pickup.

7. The petitioner shall submit a photometric plan as part of building permit submittal

showing compliance with Village Code.