Monday, August 21, 2006
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall
Plan Commission
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Richard Nelson |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Meeting Minutes
Plan Commission
Meeting Minutes
August 21, 2006
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner Ruth |
Sweetser and Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Commissioner Ronald Olbrysh and Commissioner Sondra Zorn
Absent:
Also present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; and George Wagner, legal counsel |
to the Plan Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda and indicated that the petitioner for PC 06-20 |
has requested that their petition be continued to the September 18, 2006 Plan Commission |
meeting. |
060374
PC 06-20: 2210-2220 Fountain Square Drive (the southwest corner of Meyers |
Road and 22nd Street) |
Requests that the Village approve the following actions on the property located in the |
B3PD Community Shopping District Planned Development: |
1. A conditional use, pursuant to the Fountain Square of Lombard B3 planned |
development approval, for a drive-through banking facility; |
2. Site plan approval for a proposed site-down restaurant (Entourage); and |
3. Approval of a final plat of subdivision. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be continued to the September 18, 2006 meeting. The motion carried |
by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Olbrysh and Zorn
2 -
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws.
Public Hearings
060444
PC 06-23: 1041 E. Maple Avenue |
Requests approval of a Minor Plat of Resubdivision in the R2 Single-Family Residence |
District, along with one of the following zoning actions: |
a. A variation from Section 154.506 (G) of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance |
requiring lot lines to be generally perpendicular to the adjacent street; or in the |
alternative, |
b. A variation from Section 155.406 (F)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a |
four-foot (4') interior side yard setback, where a minimum six-foot interior side yard |
setback is required. (DISTRICT #5) |
Faith McGowan, 16 Heather Lane, Oak Brook, presented the petition. She petitioned for |
a variance for a side setback line at 1041 E. Maple Avenue. She originally bought the |
property looking to tear down the fifty year old house. She designed a house for the |
corner lot, but the market in real estate changed. She rethought tearing down the ranch |
and rehabbing it instead. The existing garage breezeway and greenhouse are not |
attached to the foundation. The variation request is to rehabilitate the house and take |
off the garage, breezeway and greenhouse and leave the foundation wall where it is |
now. It would not make economic sense to tear down part of the foundation wall. She |
would like to add a detached garage, sunroom and have an additional lot. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for 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 improved with an existing house with an attached |
garage. The property meets current setback requirements. The property owner is |
proposing to subdivide the existing lot into two lots, one being a corner lot with frontage |
on Second Avenue and Maple Street and the other being an interior lot with frontage on |
Maple Street only. |
As a vacant lot, the proposed lot could be subdivided into two lots of record without |
requiring any zoning relief. However, the petitioner is seeking approval of companion |
zoning relief to allow part of the existing residence to remain on the site. The petitioner |
proposes to raze the existing attached garage and construct a new detached garage |
south of the residence. Once this action is completed, the western portion of the lot |
could be developed into a new lot of record and constructed with a new residence |
provided that one of the two variations are granted. |
The first request would create irregularly shaped parcels, but would keep the existing |
residence at least six feet from the interior property line. If the Village Board does not |
find this concept desirable, the petitioner would be amenable to zoning relief from the |
side yard setback requirements to allow for the interior side yard to be four feet rather |
than the required six feet. |
He then referenced staff's response to the standards for variations. He noted that no |
hardship exists that warrants granting of the relief and that granting such relief would |
create an undesirable precedent. As such, staff recommends denial of the petition in its |
entirety. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission |
members. Commissioner Flint concurred with the staff report, noting that the request |
could create an undesirable precedent. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for denial. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Olbrysh and Zorn
2 -
060446
SPA 06-04ph: 1145 S. Main Street (located within the Lombard Pines Shopping |
Center) |
Requests site plan approval of a deviation from Sections 153.241 and 153.505(B)(19) to |
allow for a second wall sign to be permitted on a building, where only one sign is |
permitted, located within the B3PD Community Shopping District, Planned |
Development. (DISTRICT #6) |
Scott Hezner, 104 Augusta Drive, Vernon Hills architectural consultant and representing |
MB Financial Bank introduced the petition. He indicated that they are here to request |
deviations from the Sign Ordinance and he cited the specific sections of code in order to |
permit a second sign on the building when only one is allowed by code. |
Mr. Hezner continued his presentation in PowerPoint format noting that it is the |
redevelopment of the Brown's Chicken site in Lombard Pines Shopping Center. The |
area of the site is 0.41 acres. It has a drive up component and is about the same size of |
the building they are proposing. The one story building is located on the eastern portion |
of this parcel and parking is provided to the west. He showed how it looks now and then |
showed a site plan. It is a bank project with a drive-up component, which is a permitted |
use. There will be three drive up lanes and the building would be 2,600 square feet. He |
referenced the building elevations, two of which are curtain wall, and two masonry. One |
of the masonry elevations has the drive up component. This is a new type of building |
they are bringing into the Chicago market and trying to work in a manner of design |
which will be recognizable. He described the clear glass and passed out samples of the |
materials he spoke about. The glazing is a high performance type, meant to be |
transparent, insulated, has a slight grey tint and providing for very little reflectivity. The |
other elevations are masonry and the east elevation faces Hobby Lobby and Jewel. He |
showed a slide with no landscaping and then one with a three-dimensional view with |
landscaping. Mr. Hezner referred to the landscape plans submitted as part of their |
petition of the eastern elevation and commented that this accurately reflects what this |
building will have. |
The next slide showed the sign that needs the relief - the second sign on the building. |
The reason for this request is due to the orientation of the building within the Lombard |
Pines Shopping Center. He described and showed how vehicles would be coming from |
a northerly access point and entering via the traffic light off of Main and then continuing |
back behind the building. He showed where the second sign would be and that it would |
not be a large sign, just used as an identifier. Concluding, Mr. Hezner showed a |
three-dimensional animation presenting all elevations of the building. |
Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone that had questions or comments on this |
petition. There was no one present to speak in favor or against the petition. Chairperson |
Ryan then requested the staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He stated the request is to |
allow a second wall sign on the building's eastern elevation where only one sign is |
permitted by code. The petitioner would be razing the existing Brown's Chicken building |
located in the Lombard Pines Shopping Center and constructing a new MB Financial |
Bank. The rights to construct this use with a drive-through facility were granted back in |
1995 per a planned development amendment. Mr. Heniff summarized the |
inter-departmental comments in the staff report. He stated that other uses within the |
shopping center have made similar requests so it would be consistent with the |
surrounding land uses. Staff is supportive of the request as the additional wall sign |
would not be visible from Main Street or adjacent properties outside of the development, |
the size of the sign would only be 28 square feet, as well as the bank's orientation within |
the center. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting up to the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that the petition made sense. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that |
this matter be approved with the condition that the petitioner shall develop the |
site in conformance with the submitted plans, prepared by the Hezner |
Corporation, dated July 18, 2006 and made as part of this request. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Olbrysh and Zorn
2 -
060447
SPA 06-05ph: 70 Yorktown Shopping Center (the Lombard Westin |
Hotel/Conference Center) |
Requests Site Plan Approval for the following deviations from the Lombard Sign |
Ordinance for the property located within the B3PD Community Commercial District, |
Planned Development: |
1. A deviation from Section 153.236(D)(2) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow for a |
temporary sign permit to exceed one hundred twenty (120) days in any calendar year, |
and |
2. A deviation from Section 153.215(B)(1) to increase the total allowable area of |
signage for all development signs from thirty-two (32) square feet to three hundred fifty |
(350) square feet for each of the two proposed signs. |
Sara Marach, 377 Butterfield Road, Suite 690, Director of Sales and Marketing for |
Westin in Yorktown Center, presented the request. They are requesting a sign |
ordinance deviation and read the section of the ordinance, whereby they want to |
increase the allowable square footage to 350 square feet, and want to be able to |
increase the length of time the sign can be displayed. Ms. Marach gave the projected |
opening date of the hotel/convention center and explained the reasoning for wanting |
these proposed requests. |
Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone who had questions or comments relative |
to this petition. There was no one to speak in favor or against this petition. He then |
requested the staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He mentioned the time limit |
associated with displaying a banner and that staff has been supportive of these types of |
requests for large scale projects. As with previously approved requests of this kind, staff |
has tied a condition of approval which is that the sign has a fixed duration time and that |
it remain in good repair. |
The request for the size of this particular sign is unique to this property but in |
comparison to the overall size of the development, it is not out of context. The |
temporary banner is meant to "move up" the building as it increases in height, will |
identify it and attract attention to it, and will be securely fastened. He referred to the |
sketches that were included in their packets and commented that the Westin sign shown |
is actually larger in scale than what they are requesting for the temporary banner. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting to the Commissioners. Commissioner Burke |
thought the banner looked fine. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that this |
matter be approved with conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Olbrysh and Zorn
2 -
1. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the wall signage. Said |
sign shall meet all Village Code provisions, except as varied by this approval. |
2. In the event that the temporary banner sign(s) present 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. |
3. This relief shall be effective from the date of approval of the petition by the Plan |
Commission until January 2, 2008 |
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 8:05 p.m. and mentioned that the |
order of the agenda has been slightly changed. |
Chairperson's Report
Chairperson Ryan deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
William Heniff, Senior Planner, explained that this month's agenda has a different |
appearance as it now shows the legislative history as well as the trustee district |
information. These minor modifications are a result of having the Village's software, |
Legistar, track petitions more accurately from the Commission/ Committee level through |
to the Board level. In the future, the minutes could also have some minor changes. |
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Heniff stated staff found a few minor grammatical errors but nothing substantive. |
The minutes of the July 17, 2006 meeting were then unanimously approved by the |
members present. |
Public Participation
There was no public participation.
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
060445
SUB 06-01: 525 West St. Charles Road (Lincoln Maple Partners Resubdivision) |
Requests approval of a two-lot plat of resubdivision. (DISTRICT #1) |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition and referenced the companion |
staff report. Earlier this year, the petitioner received approval for a three lot subdivision |
encompassing the subject property as well as the adjacent residential property at 42 S. |
Glenview Avenue. After the Plan Commission and Board approved the plat, but before |
the plat was signed-off and recorded, the property owner at 42 S. Glenview Avenue |
decided not to proceed with the resubdivision of his lot. As such, the petitioner has |
decided to seek approval of an amended subdivision that divides his lot into two lots of |
record. Since the subject property is greater than one acre in size it is considered a |
major plat of subdivision, and as the revised plat is substantively different than what was |
approved by the Board, it must be reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission and |
Board of Trustees. |
But for the stormwater detention provision that will be addressed by the Village Board as |
part of a separate variation request, this subdivision meets all of the lot requirements of |
the Subdivision and Development Ordinance. Both lots will also meet the R2 zoning |
district lot width and area requirements for the existing structures within the |
resubdivision areas as well as for any future buildings. The subdivision will also include |
requisite public utility and drainage easements. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. There were no comments by the members. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Olbrysh and Zorn
2 -
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Workshops
William Heniff, Senior Planner, introduced a project which will appear before the Plan |
Commission as a public hearing in the near future. He mentioned that the developers |
were in the audience to answer any questions they might have. The project consists of |
a multi-phase retail commercial redevelopment project involving the Lombard Lanes site |
and the O'Hare Towing site which is located just west of the bowling property. |
He referred to staff's memo which outlines the options and issues. This redevelopment |
is subject to annexation of the O'Hare Towing property and a development agreement. |
Mr. Heniff had a number of display boards and while referring to one, indicated the |
location of the development, the orientation of the property, the cross access, as well as |
the surrounding businesses. The petitioner intends to develop these parcels in two |
phases due to the fact that the O'Hare property has a lease through 2010. This type of |
phased development has a short and long term plan and exampled the similarities |
between the already approved V-Land development located at the corner of Roosevelt |
and Highland Avenue and this site. Staff has encouraged the development of both |
properties as a unified development as this sets the tone along Roosevelt Road on the |
south side of the street. Both of the plans have options, Option A and Option B. To the |
east they proposed a 4,000 square foot bank facility, National City Bank, which will |
require a conditional use for a drive through. Next to the bank is a 16,000 square foot |
retail building. Staff will look for unifying themes such as architectural components. You |
will note that while Options A and B have slightly different parking configurations both |
will provide enough parking per code. As Roosevelt Road is a state roadway, any |
access drives need to be approved by IDOT. The developer is confident that they will |
be granted one full access point. Also there currently exists cross access rights to High |
point Shopping Center. These should be incorporated into the design of the project. |
The second phase of the project would include the redevelopment of the O'Hare Towing |
property. It is currently unincorporated and would be annexed. The site would be razed |
and Option A would have a stand alone restaurant; Option B would be retail. The |
developer has asked for some flexibility on this option as they would like to see what |
market demands will be in 2010. |
There are also a number of smaller issues that need to be addressed. One is the |
existing billboard located on the O'Hare site which runs to 2014, when it will ultimately |
be removed. The back half of these properties can be sold off or included within an |
adjacent property or for stormwater detention. |
Mr. Heniff referred to another display board and showed pictures of the existing |
conditions as well as pictures of some of the projects the developer has worked on. |
These pictures show the building's architecture and design and they will come up with a |
unique design for this site. |
Concluding, Mr. Heniff stated staff was looking for direction from the Commissioners |
related to the following issues: |
Do they have any concerns or issues pertaining to the phase nature of the |
development? |
The consensus was that the Commissioners did not have a problem with the phased |
nature of the project. |
Mr. Heniff then added that he failed to mention in his presentation that staff would be |
developing a unique list of uses that would be acceptable and prohibited. We should |
maximize those uses because Roosevelt Road is the Village's business retail corridor. |
He then asked if the Plan Commissioners had any general comments relative to this |
redevelopment proposal. |
Chairperson Ryan referred to Phase 2 and asked why parking space to the south of the |
site was lost. He was concerned this might hinder development. Mr. Heniff answered |
that in order to meet the restaurant parking demands in this scenario they needed to |
incorporate additional parking. But under the retail scenario, the additional parking |
spaces are not needed. |
Commissioner Sweetser referred to the southernmost part of the site and asked if |
detention would be required. Mr. Heniff answered that because Lombard Lanes is |
asphalted, they can take partial credit for the redevelopment of a previously impervious |
site. The plans would be subject to final engineering. |
Commissioner Burke commented that his first reaction was why we are getting rid of |
Lombard Lanes and replacing with it with a 16,000 square foot retail building when he |
felt that the existing building was bigger, somewhere in the range of 25,000 square feet. |
He felt that the site would not look proportional. He also then questioned the idea of |
replacing Lombard Lanes with yet another retail development which includes a bank. |
He asked what interest the Village had in another bank which would not contribute to |
sales tax. He also proceeded to example various sites recently approved that included |
a banking facility. Mr. Heniff stated that from an economic standpoint it could be in the |
Village's best interest. National City Bank would like to make a presence in the Village |
and usually these facilities act as a catalyst in making a project work. Without additional |
financial assistance from the Village the trade off of getting rid of a towing establishment |
and replacing it with a bank might make more sense. We end up with a banking |
institution, with 28,000 of commercial space. |
Commissioner Burke asked if the Village would require the developer to own the towing |
company property prior to the redevelopment of the other property in the phased |
concept. Mr. Heniff indicated that concurrent with the development they would have to |
own the property and proceeded to give the scenario. Provisions will be put in place in |
the development agreement addressing such issues so the developer cannot back out |
of Phase 2. |
Commissioner Burke commented that he was not crazy about having another banking |
facility. Mr. Heniff noted that right now O'Hare Towing does not generate anything for |
the Village. |
Commissioner Flint opined that he would rather see a restaurant like Option A than |
retail. as that would be a nice mix. Mr. Heniff mentioned that there is the potential for a |
drive through at the east end which would allow for a food/beverage element. The |
developer is looking for a sit down versus a fast food establishment. |
Chairperson Ryan asked if there would be some type of buffer between the drive |
throughs. Mr. Heniff answered that staff would address that especially as it pertains to |
traffic flow. |
Commissioner Burke inquired about driveway access into the site. Mr. Heniff answered |
that it would be midway to Lombard Lanes, almost to Alpine Lodge. He then pointed it |
out on the display board. |
Commissioner Burke referred to Phase 2 access point and asked if it was a right/in |
right/out and if the developer would be required to have both accesses approved prior to |
the development of Phase 1. Mr. Heniff answered that O'Hare currently has full access. |
This is something staff would review with IDOT. We would get rid of 2-3 full access |
drives and end up with 1 full and 1 right/in right/out with the rest through HighPoint |
Center. |
Chairperson Ryan asked if there was any talk of the southern portion. Mr. Heniff stated |
not at this time. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked when the market might become saturated with these |
retail uses. Scott Novack of Centrum properties answered that they are marketing the |
property now and that businesses have expressed their interest in being in this location. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if there was any flexibility of the site in what could be |
done should one of the components fall apart. Mr. Heniff mentioned staff would be more |
concerned about Phase 2 and gave possible scenarios. If this is the approved plan and |
they deviated from it, they would have to come back to the Plan Commission for |
approval. Staff's focus is to nail down the concept plan to see it as a workable/desirable |
plan and if this does not come to fruition, we will look at market conditions at that time. |
Commissioner Sweetser commented that there were no landscape islands shown and |
asked if there would be green space along Roosevelt Road. Mr. Heniff answered that |
they are required to have 5 feet along the perimeter of the property and they will have |
internal islands. This will be worked out with the layout of the building. |
Mr. Novack mentioned that they signed a contract relative to the western property |
acquisition 5 months ago so they are the contract purchaser. They have every |
commitment to close on the property when the lease expires in 2010. |
Commissioner Burke was concerned that we might be trading off one use for another. If |
they walk, we are not getting what we want. Mr. Heniff stated that this will be addressed |
in the annexation agreement or in the redevelopment agreement. |
Chairperson Ryan asked if that held true for the billboard. Mr. Heniff stated that it will |
come down in 2014 at no cost to the Village. |
Chairperson Ryan asked who owned the billboard between 2010 and 2014. Mr. Novack |
said that Centrum would own it. The Village has asked us to acquire both properties |
and because of that request, they paid twice as much for it. In order to make this a |
viable project, they need the bank as it is the driving force behind the project. |
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. |
_________________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
_________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |