Village of Lombard Legistar System

A. PC 04-25: 201, 205 and 211 E. Roosevelt Road; 1200 S. Highland Avenue; and

112-116 & 120-124 E. 13th Street (Southwest Corner of Roosevelt & Highland)

(Ordinance on Second Reading) (Item #1 Continued from September 2,

2004/Waiver of First Requested)

Requests that the Village take the following actions on the subject properties:

1. Approve an amendment to an annexation agreement. (2/3 of Corporate Authorities

Vote Required) (Waiver of First Requested)

2. Approve a major plat of resubdivision.

3. For the entire subject property, approve a conditional use for a planned development.

4. For Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision, approve the following deviations:

a. A deviation from Section 155.706 (C) and 155.709 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance

reducing the required perimeter parking lot landscaping from five feet (5') to zero feet

(0') to provide for shared cross-access and parking.

b. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(17)(a)(2) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for

more than one wall sign on a street frontage.

5. Pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance, approve a conditional

use for a drive-through facility on Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision.

6. For Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision, approve the following deviations:

a. A deviation from Section 155.706 (C) and 155.709 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance

reducing the required perimeter parking lot landscaping from five feet (5') to zero feet

(0') to provide for shared cross-access and parking.

b. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(17)(b)(2) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for

more than one wall sign for interior tenants.

7. Pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(18) of the Zoning Ordinance, approve a conditional

use for an outdoor dining/service establishment on Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision.

8. For Lot 3 of the proposed subdivision, approve a deviation from Section 155.706 (C)

and 155.709 (B) reducing the required perimeter parking lot landscaping from five feet

(5') to zero feet (0') to provide for shared cross-access and parking; and

9. For the entire development, grant site plan approval authority to the Lombard Plan

Commission. (DISTRICT #6)

Staff is requesting a waiver of first reading on the first amendment to the annexation

agreement.

G. PC 04-22: Text Amendments to the Lombard Zoning Ordinance (Waiver of

First Requested)

The petitioner requests approval of a text amendment to Section 155.415 of the

Lombard Zoning Ordinance, allowing religious institutions to be listed as a conditional

use within the B4 Corridor Commercial District.

The Village also requests the approval of companion text amendments, as follows:

Section 155.412: Adding "religious institutions" as a conditional use in the B1 Limited

Neighborhood Shopping District;

Section 155.413: Adding "religious institutions" as a conditional use in the B2 General

Neighborhood Shopping District;

Section 155.414: Adding "religious institutions" as a conditional use in the B3

Community Shopping District;

Reclassifying "Clubs and lodges, nonprofit and fraternal" from a permitted use to a

conditional use in the B3 Community Shopping District;

Section 155.415: Adding "religious institutions" as a conditional use in the B4 Corridor

Commercial Shopping District (as also requested by the petitioner);

Reclassifying "Clubs and lodges, nonprofit and fraternal" from a permitted use to a

conditional use in the B4 Corridor Commercial Shopping District;

Section 155.416: Adding "religious institutions" as a conditional use in the B5 Central

Business District;

Reclassifying "Clubs and lodges, nonprofit and fraternal" from a permitted use to a

conditional use in the B5 Central Business District;

Section 155.417: Adding "religious institutions" as a conditional use in the B5A

Downtown Perimeter District;

Reclassifying "Clubs and lodges, nonprofit and fraternal" from a permitted use to a

conditional use in the B5A Downtown Perimeter District;

Section 155.418: Adding "religious institutions" as a conditional use in the I Limited

Industrial District;

Adding "Clubs and lodges, nonprofit and fraternal" to the list of conditional uses in

the I Limited Industrial District;

Section 155.802: Adding definition of "religious institution"

Sections 155.401 et. seq.: Redirecting definitional references of "religious institutions" to

Section 155.802.

The petitioner is requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #4)

Mr. Heniff explained that the petitioner will present the petition for PC 04-22 and PC

04-23 and staff will present the companion text amendments associated with the

petition. Vice-Chairperson Flint indicated that there will be a separate vote on each

petition.

John Pieper, attorney for the petitioner, the Maronite Catholic Bishop of the USA,

presented the petition. The subject property is Lot 3 of the Terrace Lake Subdivison.

Their petition is being brought forward to allow the for the church to establish a home in

Lombard.

He discussed the history of the church and mentioned their search for a new church

site. The Zoning Ordinance needs to be modified to allow them to have a church in the

B4 as a conditional use. They feel this site is suited to a church, and they are asking for

the text amendment to move forward. He mentioned the other types of assemblages,

which are allowed in as conditional uses in business districts and stated that religious

institutions should be considered in the same manner.

He then gave the specifics of the project. He gave the location of the site, the acreage,

and the surrounding land uses and mentioned the critical wetlands east of the site.

They are seeking a conditional use to allow for a 19,000 square foot facility with seating

for 300 persons. He referred to the building plans and noted the second floor, which will

have priest accommodations. Parking lot lighting will be consistent with lighting

standards. Street lights will be installed as part of the public improvements. He referred

to the aerial photograph depicting the area north of North Avenue and west of Grace

Street. He noted the critical wetlands which impacts one of their variation requests.

He submitted color elevations of the church. Referencing the site plan, the church is

located on the southern boundary as it is the deepest portion of the lot. The plan

proposes two access points off of Grace and parking north of church that will include

105 spaces. To the west of the parking lot is a buffer zone that is required by DuPage

County to be preserved for the critical wetlands. Stormwater detention will be provided

in the parking lot and the detention facility in the buffer zone area. He referenced the

landscape plan. They have retained landscape consultants to provide an inventory of

the types of trees and plantings that are consistent with the County Ordinance for the

buffer zone.

He then discussed the public watermain request. Village code would require them to

extend the watermain from its current terminus to the north property line. This main

would cause a problem for the Village and church. For the Village, health concerns exist

when you have a dead end main and the water will become that has to be purged

consistently. Fire hydrants will be installed east of the church. They are asking that the

watermain not be extended and will terminate at the service line to the church. He

mentioned the property to the north, which is currently unincorporated, and that they are

hoping to acquire that parcel. It is also the last parcel that would be annexed into the

Village along Grace Street. If it is necessary to extend the watermain, they will pay for

the extension thru the companion development agreement. This is a unique situation

which will justify their request.

The transitional yard request addresses a unique situation. The property to the west

has critical wetlands and a 50-foot buffer is required. The Zoning Ordinance requires a

transitional yard of 30-feet and requires specific vegetation. The required vegetation is

inconsistent with the County's requirements. He mentioned a management plan they

must have with the County that requires the periodic controlled burning of the plantings.

Regarding traffic generation, they will have two services on Sunday morning and

religious training classes held between the two services. That is their peak hour, which

is the same time Grace Street will be at their lowest peak hours. They feel they are

consistent with the neighborhood. He mentioned the bell tower and the bells are for

aesthetics purposes and they are not audible from outside the church.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public participation. Edward Knight,

265 Edgebrook Avenue, Wood Dale, stated that he is an alderman for the City of Wood

Dale and Chairman of the Zoning Board. He wanted to add support to the project. It is

a low impact use on residents of the area. Traffic can be accommodated and it is a

great location for the church. He talked about the watermain - if they made to bring it to

north end of property, it would create a problem with their pressure.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then requested staff report. William Heniff, presented the text

amendments associated with PC 04-22 first and then discussed the major issues

associated with 04-23.

Regarding PC 04-22, staff reviewed existing uses in the various business zoning

districts and compared to like uses such as meeting halls. He referred to the staff report

and the results are consistent with what the petitioner found. Counsel reviewed the

issue of religious institutional uses in business districts and felt the use is compatible

with the B business districts. Congregation and assembly hall uses should be

considered in the same manner and function. The text amendment makes all meeting

halls in the B and I districts as conditional uses. Case law finds that one district must

allow religious institutions by right - the O office districts meets that requirement. He

mentioned the standards for text amendments and lastly, he referred to the last page in

appendix and mentioned the additional definition of a religious institution.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if the proposed the definition of religious institutions is

broad enough to include convents. Mr. Heniff said that it does.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about the term "religious institutions". Mr. Heniff stated

that the term is frequently used in zoning ordinances. She also suggested an

amendment to the definition for ease of understanding.

Starting with the discussion of PC 04-23, Mr. Heniff summarized the petitioner's request.

He noted the Comprehensive Plan depicts the site for commercial uses. However,

many religious institutions have similar characteristics as commercial uses.

Regarding the surrounding land uses, this site is appropriate as residences exist to the

east and open space to the west. This use is a less intense use than many other

commercial uses and is compatible with the built environment.

Referencing the elevations submitted, they are not asking for any relief from bulk

requirements. Due to the critical wetland buffer, Lombard's planting requirements might

not be appropriate for this location.

He then mentioned the extension of the watermain to run it up to the church property.

The petitioner wants special consideration not to go to the north end of the property.

The property north of the subject property is zoned I-1 by DuPage County. The land

use for that property is not consistent with the Village's plan. The adjacent property

owner wants to keep with industrial use of the property and staff is not supportive of

annexation of that property as an industrial parcel.

The petitioner proposes to enter into a Development Agreement, stating that should the

property be annexed into the Village, a reverse recapture obligation would be created. A

long dead end is not desirable and he mentioned that flushing the hydrant that would be

needed and staff believes a variation could be supported.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for questions and comments by the

Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the site is an excellent location for the church and a

good use for the property. This is really not a neighborhood type of church but a

community church in a broader sense.

Responding to a question by Commissioner Olbrysh, Father Alfred, pastor of Our Lady

of Lebanon described the differences and similarities between the Roman Catholic and

the Maronite Catholic Church.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the recommendation needs to include conditions

pertaining to the public improvement requirements. Mr. Heniff said that the petitioner is

aware of the requirements and that the requirements are also listed within the

Subdivision and Development Ordinance.

Commissioner Burke stated that the watermain variation request is reasonable. He

asked about the Village collecting a bond rather than addressing the issue through the

development agreement. Mr. Heniff stated that a bond is a short-term obligation. The

agreement would be written to have the ability to state that if they acquire the I-1

property, the watermain will not be needed. The Village can also address the obligation

through the agreement in the water billing process. Mr. Peiper stated that water billings

constitute a lien against real estate, so the security of the real estate provides the Village

with protections.

Commissioner Burke referenced the landscaping variance. What guarantee do we have

that the County will make them put in the landscaping. Mr. Heniff said that the County

will push for the preservation of the wetland. Commissioner Burke stated that the

Director of Community Development has the final review of the landscape planting

materials, which will tie into DuPage County's final approval.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about the finance of recapture. Recapture could talk a

long time and an escrow bond is something typically required. George Wagner stated

that the development agreement will address the financing aspects. Commissioner

Sweetser stated that the agreement could ignore what the Commissioners have stated.

Mr. Heniff stated that he would share the comments with Village Counsel. Staff will note

for the record that the Commissioners want to ensure that adequate protections are

provided as part of this proposal.

Commissioner Burke referred to condition #2 and mentioned the proposed educational

rooms. There should be language added to the conditions so the petitioner does not

have to come back for an amended conditional use. Mr. Peiper stated that the new

definition of religious institution should allow for religious study activity. Mr. Heniff stated

that the condition was added to differentiate between religious study activity and general

educational activities. Mr. Peiper stated that his client knows that if their educational

activities are more extensive, they would have to come back.

Commissioner Burke referenced the southern elevation of the building, which lacks

vegetation. He suggested that a condition be added to include plantings along the south

property line.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked about time limitations to the approval. Mr. Heniff stated

that code requires that the project be substantially underway within one year of approval

of the Ordinance. The petitioner has represented to staff that they want to break ground

this fall and time is of the essence.

Vice-Chairperson Flint asked if there was any additional comments from the

commissioners or the public. There were none.

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

prepared by Nicholas Batistich Architects, hand-dated June 28, 2004 and made a part of

this request.

2. That the conditional use shall be for the construction and operation of a religious

institution on the subject property. Should the petitioner or any subsequent property

owners seek to operate uses such as, but not limited to, day care facility, pre-school

activities, elementary school activities, a conditional use amendment will be required.

3. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed

improvements. Said plans associated with the permit application shall also address the

comments noted in the Inter-departmental Group Report.

4. That the site shall be constructed and operated in conformance with the Lombard

Village Codes.

5. That the relief granted as part of this petition shall be subject to the petitioner

executing a development agreement with the Village.

6. That the petitioner shall submit to the Village a final landscape plan for the

transitional yard on the subject property. The plan shall reflect any additional plant

materials required as part of the DuPage County wetland approval process and shall

include any additional transitional landscape plantings as required by the Director of

Community Development.

7. That the petitioner's final landscape plan shall also provide additional landscape

plant materials along the south property line, with said planting subject to review and

approval by the Director of Community Development.

Waheed Saeed, 221 Forest Trail, Oak Brook, stated that he wishes to annex 1101 and

1105 E. High Ridge Road into the Village. His subdivision proposal is based upon the

Village's recommendations, and he believes that it is appropriate. The property will be

divided into five lots. Lots 1, 2, and 3 will exceed the zoning requirements at 75 feet

wide and 300 feet deep. They will each be greater than ½-acre. Lot 4 will require a

variation for a 35-foot width and it will not be buildable. Lot 5 is mostly within a

floodplain and it may be given to the County in the future.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment.

Nancy Walker, 1108 E. High Ridge Road, stated that she lives directly across the street

from the property. At the May 17 Plan Commission meeting, she and a group of other

residents suggested that the lot be split into two 87-foot wide lots and one 86-foot lot.

The proposed Lot 4 will create a gap in the flow of homes and could become a prairie. It

will not be maintained and it could become an eyesore. She does not believe that the

property owner to the east would be willing to sell his lot to the petitioner. She is

concerned that Lot 4 will be developed as an access road for Lot 5, which will destroy

the block frontage and negatively impact traffic, creating a public safety hazard.

The petitioner stated that even if he is unable to purchase the property to the east,

someone eventually will. Builders want bigger lots, and in this high-demand area it is

hard to find available land. Lot 4 won't remain undeveloped forever.

Commissioner Sweetser inquired as to the upkeep of Lot 4, stating that the neighbors

would like to see something in excess of what is required by Code. The petitioner

responded that the Village's Code Enforcement staff makes sure that all land is

maintained. They do not allow tall grass, and the Village's ordinances will be enforced.

He will be happy to maintain the lot as long as he owns it.

Bob Walker, 1108 E. High Ridge Road, stated that the property has been a mess for

some time. He stated that the petitioner's proposal is fine, but he would like assurances

that the 35-foot wide lot will be landscaped and will not be turned into a road. He does

not want kids back there. He is in favor of a proposal that would only create three

residential lots because a homeowner caring for the land will keep it better maintained.

The petitioner stated that Lombard's regulations are stricter than DuPage County's and

the lots will be maintained properly. A developer will eventually purchase Lot 4 and use

it to the best of his ability.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then requested the staff report. William Heniff, Senior Planner,

stated that this petition has been modified from a previously denied petition. Lots 1, 2,

and 3 will meet the R1 lot width requirement of 75 feet and they will be buildable. Lot 4

and 5 require a public hearing to approve variations for width and street access.

Mr. Heniff stated that if the subject property is not annexed into the Village, the proposed

Lot 5 could be built upon as a matter of right under DuPage County's regulations.

However, the Village does not allow this type of lot, as it does not provide for continuity

or emergency access to properties. Staff would prefer to have Lot 4 and Lot 5 under the

Village's jurisdiction to prevent the possibility of development on these lots. Also, Code

Enforcement would be better able to enforce property maintenance requirements.

Mr. Heniff stated that the 35-foot strip would be unbuildable, as would Lot 5. This gives

the assurance of no additional structures. If the property at 1111 E. High Ridge

annexes into the Village, they could look at incorporating Lot 4 into a different project.

Lot 5 is a floodplain area that may be dedicated to the forest preserve. Staff believes

that only three single-family residences should be built on this property, and

recommends approval subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. These

conditions have been reviewed and approved by Village counsel.

Ms. Walker asked if a road could be put on Lot 4 or anything other than grass. Mr.

Heniff stated that if the forest preserve or park district wanted to locate a recreational

facility or something of that nature, it would need to come back before the Plan

Commission for approval because that is not part of this request. Right now, Lot 4 and

Lot 5 are not buildable, and the 35-foot lot width is not wide enough to accommodate the

66 feet necessary for a public right of way.

Commissioner Olbrysh referred to a number of lots in the School/Ahrens area that are

wider than 75 feet. He asked why the 35-foot strip is not being incorporated into the

other three lots, since larger lots would be more valuable and would not require a width

variation. Mr. Heniff stated that he believes the petitioner wanted to create three lots

that meet Code. The petitioner stated that Lot 5 cannot be built upon because of the

floodplain. As far as the 35-foot lot is concerned, someone will buy it. The neighboring

property owner might purchase it to build two houses and make a lot of money. If the

neighbor does not buy the lot, some small local builder will and it will end up being

beneficial to the community as a whole.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if Lot 4 could be used as an access to a possible

pedestrian path on Lot 5, should the forest preserve take over Lot 5. Mr. Heniff stated

that staff has not looked at any development on Lot 4 and Lot 5, but the forest preserve

has eminent domain powers to create an access road, if necessary.

Commissioner Burke asked if it would be appropriate to add a condition that Lot 4 must

be landscaped at the time Lot 3 is landscaped, and it must be maintained consistently

with Lot 3.

Commissioner Sweetser suggested that Lot 4 be landscaped with Lot 3 and kept in a

manner that meets or exceeds Code.

Mohammed A. Saleem, 230 N. Cardinal Avenue, Addison, stated that he purchased Lot

3 and he does not want any development on Lot 4 to invade his privacy. He would like

assurances that it will not be built upon. Mr. Heniff stated that the Plat of Resubdivision

will show the lots as non-buildable, and Lot 4 will be landscaped when Lot 3 develops.

As they are not buildable, they will remain as open space.

The petitioner responded that staff has explained several times that Lot 4 is not

buildable. It will be a separate lot on paper, but because it will be maintained the same

as Lot 3, no one will notice that it is legally a separate lot.

There were no further questions from the Plan Commission.