Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lombard Crossings

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.