Village of Lombard Legistar System

PC 07-38: 19W070 16th Street (Montini Catholic High School)

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

1. Annex the property to the Village of Lombard immediately following contiguity

between the Village corporate limits and the subject property; and upon approval of the

annexation of the subject property:

a. Grant a conditional use for a planned development for the existing campus

which would establish a master campus plan;

b. Grant a conditional use for an educational institution (senior high school) and its

related educational, social, athletic, theatrical and other attendant uses;

c. Grant approval of a conditional use for the accessory uses and buildings located

on the subject property; and

d. Grant a deviation from Section 155.210(A)(3) to provide for future light poles for

the existing ball fields.

2. Grant site plan approval authority to the Lombard Plan Commission.

(UNINCORPORATED)

Chairperson Ryan mentioned that this public hearing pertains to zoning actions

requested by the petitioner. The Plan Commission does not have the authority to

consider any annexation actions will be discussed at the December 6 Village Board

meeting. He asked that all comments be restricted to only the zoning actions being

requested.

Jim Segredo, President of Montini Catholic High School, 19W070 16th Street, Lombard,

presented the petition. He indicated that their petition relates to their long- term campus

plan which has been worked on over the last several years. This long-term campus

plan will occur in a 10-12 year time period which will be broken into three phases.

Phase I is the most ambitious. It will include demolishing the building on campus off the

back parking lot known as Dominica Hall. Mr. Segredo then gave the history of

Dominica Hall. He mentioned that it currently houses the art and guidance center but

was not built as an education use. They will demolish this existing building and build a

new building which will serve their academic needs and provide security. He then

described the uses that would occur in the new building. Phase II would include

renovating the HVAC system in the school building and Phase III would occur sometime

in 2016 which would include renovating the front of DeLaSalle Hall, building a new

student alumni center, building a new physical fitness center off of the gym as well as

making improvements to the athletic fields. He believed that the project will not

negatively impact the neighborhood and no building will occur on 16th Street. The

building will be one story and will match the design of the current school campus. The

intent of the building is not to increase student enrollment but to include 6 science labs

as the existing building was built in 1966. Mr. Segredo provided the current enrollment

numbers and mentioned that if this phase is successful their enrollment will be

somewhere around 680-700 students. He mentioned that they are a private school who

want to remain competitive and have the ability to give their students the very best. He

believed that as the enrollment numbers would not significantly change, there would be

no impact on traffic. He also stated they would maintain the architectural integrity of the

campus.

Addressing stormwater issues, they will provide additional stormwater retention on

campus on the northwest corner. Topographical surveys of the area show that Montini

is lower in elevation than neighboring properties and stormwater flows down their west

drive and along 16th Street and the detention will help will the flow before it gets to the

detention pond.

Michael Devin, attorney at Deutsch, Levy & Engel and representing Montini High School

discussed the zoning actions and provided the Commissioners with an additional

response to standards. Mr. Segredo was specific in the plans for Montini. He believed

that the conditional use for a planned development for the campus is the proper and

appropriate way to address the situation. Their intent is not to change the use but

maintain it as it has been since 1966 and to modernize the school and make it vibrant

and competitive. The planned development of the campus will not impact the

neighborhood properties in any negative fashion but will present a viable enhancement

to the community. Montini has been the predominant use in the area. The uses

surrounding it largely came into place with Montini already operating in that capacity.

He asked the Plan Commission to approve the petition.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment. Speaking regarding the

petition were:

Andy Bonomo, 1700 S. School Avenue, Lombard, indicated that he needed clarification

regarding the public notice which mentioned a pre-annexation agreement. He referred

to the public notice which mentioned the request to annex the property to the Village

immediately following contiguity between the Village corporate limits and the subject

property. He asked if they would have a chance to ask questions at the Board of

Trustees meeting on December 6.

George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan Commission, answered that there will be a

public hearing at the December 6 Village Board meeting. The actions being requested

tonight will be incorporated into the public hearing with the pre-annexation agreement. If

these actions are approved tonight, you will be able to ask questions at the December 6

meeting. Mr. Bonomo indicated that the residents in the area had other concerns. The

first is regarding the flooding issues and the approval from the County for the wetlands

and the water runoff. He then asked about the deviation to provide for future light poles

for the existing ball fields.

Chairperson Ryan stated that the petitioner will respond to that shortly.

Bill Neurauter, 1604 S. Meyers Road, Lombard, expressed concern about overflow

parking that spills into their neighborhood and how people park on both sides of the

street. He indicated that these existing issues happen when there are athletic events

especially during football and basketball season. This situation makes it difficult for

emergency vehicles to get through because they park on both sides of street. In

response, York Township erected temporary no parking signs on one side of the street

but this is an issue that should be addressed for the future. The next concern was

lights. He asked whether the lights will affect the adjacent communities especially to the

north of the football field as there are houses in close proximity to the school property.

He was also concerned about the noise being carried through the neighborhood as well

the amount of green space. He was concerned about the green space because before

the building addition was built, the County came to the neighbors adjacent to the

property and asked if there was a flooding problem. At that time, the neighbors

indicated to the County there was not. Since the addition was put on, some of the

people in the area have now been getting water. Lastly, he mentioned a document he

had seen about Lombard not wanting to annex their neighborhood. He indicated he

would have that addressed at the December 6 meeting.

Scott Shier, 19W115 17th Place, Lombard. Mr. Shier questioned the difference in

square footage between the existing structure and the proposed new structure. He also

wanted to know the specific number of parking spaces that they would be granted if the

variance is allowed. He also was concerned about the current parking situation and

stated the difficulties he had getting out of his driveway. Mr. Sheir then asked how much

of a variance they are obtaining for green space and drainage in addition to the

detention they are being required to put in.

Mr. Segredo then rebutted, noting the following:

· Flooding issues were just recently brought to light relative to the new addition which

was built in 2001. He indicated that the past summer and fall has seen an unusually,

tremendous amount of rainfall. Montini is below the elevation line and the residents are

all higher than us.

· Regarding parking, they intend to follow all the ordinances of DuPage County and

Lombard for parking and green space. He indicated that their drives in the parking lot

are currently two-way. They will be giving up some spaces due to the detention they put

in on the northwest corner of the facility - they will do one way lanes and have parallel

parking to pick up additional parking.

· Regarding lighting, they will follow all ordinances are far as diffusing them. He

stated that at the north property line, there is mature landscaping and a lot of brush and

feel the lighting won't have any effect on these neighbors. The south field is set back

from 16th Street so that will not effect them either.

· Relative to the on-street parking issues, Mr. Segredo indicated that they are aware

of them and they are willing to work the problems. He mentioned that York Township

called them and suggested that no parking signs be erected on the east end of the

street and they had no problem with that.

Chairperson Ryan asked about the difference in square footage of the existing building

versus the new building. Mr. Segredo answered they were adding 14,000 square feet.

The building is in the middle of a large area of land and to the south is a courtyard.

There is a lot of green space to the south. The area has enough green space to cover

that area.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that it would be interesting to know what the required

parking spaces would be. William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the parking

requirements would be tied to the student population. Currently they are following

DuPage County regulations. If annexed into the Village the standard would be 1 parking

space per employee plus 1 parking space per 8 students. Montini has indicated they

are not expecting an increase in students. When their petition comes forward, they will

need to provide their student population to ensure that they are in compliance with the

ordinance.

William Heniff presented the staff report. The petitioner is seeking approval of an

annexation agreement with the Village of Lombard. As the agreement includes

provisions to provide zoning approvals as part of this petition, the Plan Commission is

being requested to make a recommendation through the public hearing process for the

subject property, as noted in the public hearing notice above. The requested zoning

actions would only be effective upon approval of the annexation agreement by the

Village Board and annexation of the property into the Village Corporate limits, once the

property is contiguous to the Corporate limits.

Regarding the IDRC comments, he noted that the Village and DuPage County have

each adopted the DuPage County Stormwater and Floodplain Ordinance. If the

proposed site improvements are constructed after annexation occurs, the petitioner will

be required to provide stormwater detention improvements, per Village Code and

permitting requirements. If the campus improvements occur prior to annexation, the

petitioner shall meet the DuPage County provisions.

Regarding zoning issues, DuPage County currently regulates the subject property.

DuPage County has previously approved a campus plan along with amendments for the

existing campus and its site improvements. Upon annexation, the property would be

automatically zoned into the Village's new R0 District. The zoning actions included

within the petition are intended to address site-specific relief. He then states staff's

response to each of the petitioner's requests.

As with other larger-scale private educational institutions in the Village, establishing a

planned development is an appropriate way to address the long range planning issues

for such facilities. Additionally, the establishment of a planned development provides for

a systematic way to review all development on the respective campus. From the

petitioner's perspective, it provides assurances that they can undertake large-scale

capital improvements and funding programs with assurances that they have approvals

in place to proceed with such improvements.

He stated that the school use is well established and they have received past zoning

approvals by DuPage County to operate the high school in its current state. Other than

minor nonconformities (i.e., parking lot landscape islands), the site meets DuPage

County regulations. The intent of this petition is to essentially grant the same zoning

approvals that they currently enjoy.

As part of the long-range plan for the site, the petitioner notes that they plan on

remodeling/reconstructing Dominic Hall, located on the northwest corner of the existing

high school building, chapel modifications and a student fitness center. The addition

would meet all setback requirements and would not encroach into the existing parking

lot. A definitive timetable has been not set for this improvement - it would only come

under building permit review of the Village if the addition occurs after the property is

annexed into the Village.

The petitioner has submitted concept building floor plan drawings of the remodeling

project. Staff suggests that the exterior building elevations be of compatible building

materials as the existing elevations (i.e., combination of masonry and pre-cast) so that

the addition is in harmony with the existing building and subject to Plan Commission

review and approval.

The petitioner has requested the right to erect light poles at some point in the future for

the existing ball fields on the site. The lighting would be used for high school sporting

events in a manner that other public and private schools use such lights. There are no

definitive plans or timetables to erect the light poles.

The Zoning Ordinance regulates height of poles for parking lots, but is silent on other

types of light poles. As such, staff would consider the light poles accessory structures.

This interpretation is similar to the opinion offered to the Lombard Park District in its

consideration of lighting at Sunset Knoll Park in 1993. In review of this request, staff

notes that the primary concern directly related to lighting would be light glare concerns.

Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the petitioner still be required to meet

the required foot candle level at the adjacent residential property lines (i.e., 0.5 foot

candles).

Lastly, granting site plan approval authority was included as part of the request in order

to allow the Plan Commission to review and approve signage deviations or consider

other site specific elements (such as the exterior building elevations) that do not require

zoning relief or planned development/annexation agreement amendments.

Mr. Heniff noted that the property is designated within the Comprehensive Plan for

public and institutional uses, reflecting the use of the property at the time the Plan was

adopted. The petitioner's request is intended to reflect the institutional use of the

property and provide for their future needs on their property. Therefore the existing use

is compatible with the Plan.

Regarding neighborhood compatibility, the north, south and west sides of the property

are designated for low density residential uses. East of the subject property is public

owned land owned by the York Center Park District and York Township and used for

open space and institutional purposes. The historic presence of the school relative to

the adjacent residences provides some level of compatibility. From a physical

standpoint, the relationship of the school to the adjacent properties would be unaffected

by the approval of the annexation and zoning actions itself, as the improvements could

be constructed under County regulations.

Staff recommends approval of the petition, subject to conditions.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition and submitted the staff report to

the public record. He stated that as a companion to the requested actions associated

within PC 07-40, a text amendment is requested to establish regulations for attendant

collection centers. The amendments are intended to allow for such facilities as

conditional uses in the B3, B4, B4A and I Districts. This amendment establishes

definitions for such centers, which would distinguish it from recycling centers or other

outdoor sales and service activities.

The Zoning Ordinance currently does not have any regulations pertaining to such

collection centers, per se. The closest existing regulations for the business district is the

"outdoor display, sales and storage of items, the sale of which is permitted in the

district", which is listed as a conditional use. Within the I District, recycling collection

centers is listed as a conditional use.

In consideration of this amendment, staff is proposing a new term associated with

collection centers, to distinguish it from traditional recycling centers. The amendment

will establish "Collection Center, Attendant" to define the clothing drop-off activity

typically done by non-profit entities. As it could be argued that attendant collection

centers are a type of recycling, the recycling collection center definition is being modified

to strengthen the difference between the two uses.

He then discussed the proposed language. The definition provides for collection centers

that are manned (either in the form of volunteers or staff). This would preclude drop

boxes that are arbitrarily dropped off on properties. Attendant facilities are desired over

remote drop boxes as the staffing helps minimize impacts of fly-dumping and help

ensure that its operation will be compatible with adjacent land uses. He also noted the

term "manned" was meant to reflect an on-site person managing the premises, but

would also find the term "staffed" acceptable. He stated that attendant collection

centers are proposed to be listed as conditional uses within the B3, B4, B4A and I

Districts. These districts provide the greatest compatibility with the proposed use.

He then noted the "collection center, recycling" amendment is intended to help further

distinguish it from attendant collection centers. The current definition also includes a

number of regulations associated with the operation. As it not good practice to include

regulations within definitions, this struck language is being inserted into the listing

section of recycling collections in the I District. It is also intended to address issues

raised in a recent appellate court decision. The definitional amendment to "collection

center, recycling" section is being added to place the regulatory provisions with the use

listing, rather than the definitions section. It also is intended to clarify the provisions

associated with the use operation.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no

comments relative to the petition. He then opened the hearing for discussion by the

Plan Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about the staffing provisions associated within the

proposed definition and noted that the regulations do not define the level of staffing

required for the facility. Mr. Heniff noted that each operation may be a little different, but

the actual staffing level can be considered as part of the conditional use application.

Tom Foley, petitioner for Amvets International, stated that their operations are intended

to have regular on-premises staffing. Chairperson Ryan noted that the Commission is

only considering discussion on the text amendments at this time and will consider the

Amvets petition (PC 07-40) after the hearing on the text amendments has concluded.

Tom Foley of Amvets International, presented the petition. He stated that their facility

has been located at the K-Mart site for years. He noted that they have two attendants

staffing the facility during the week and three on weekends. Their facility is open seven

days a week, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He stated that they collect donated household

goods and clothing on the premises. Once collected, they send the goods to processing

centers, where they sort the goods for resale, and the money derived from the resale

goes toward Amvets' programs.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no

comments relative to the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition and submitted the staff report to

the public record. He stated that as a companion to the text amendments associated

within PC 07-39, the petitioner seeks approval of a conditional use for an attendant

collection facility. No modifications are proposed to the facility as part of this petition.

A charitable clothing drop-off facility has been located on the subject property for years.

The facility is considered a legal non-conforming use. As part of PC 07-30, which

granted approval of a planned development and other conditional use and variations

pertaining to the K-Mart store, staff suggested that the operations related to the Amvets

facility also be addressed as a part of the petition. With approval of the petitioner's

petition, the attendant collection center operator is now seeking approval of the zoning

actions accordingly.

Typically this facility consists of on-site parking of one or two trucks and several clothing

containers. The facility is staffed during the day. The goods collected at the site are

stored within the respective containers or vehicles. These goods are then transported to

other facilities for final sorting and eventual resale and the proceeds of the sale are

distributed back to the non-profit operator.

He noted that PC 07-30 was conditioned to provide for selected parking lot, fencing and

landscape improvements. These improvements would also benefit the collection facility

as well as they will improve traffic flow and help screen the use from adjacent properties.

As the center itself is bounded on all sides by parking lots or other commercial uses

itself, its operations should not negatively the adjacent land uses. In fact, this use can

be considered an ancillary draw to the K-Mart center itself.

From a traffic standpoint, the facility is located within a larger and somewhat

underutilized parking lot. The use does not impact the parking and circulations for the

shopping center, as the facility is located away from the store itself in an area that would

otherwise be unused. Per the petitioner, the facility fills about 6-7 trailers per week.

Given the track record of property maintenance on the site, staff notes that the use does

not negatively impact adjacent properties.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends Community Commercial uses at this location.

The Roosevelt Road Corridor Plan denoted that outdoor uses should be tied to the

principal uses on the property. However, in this unique case, the drop-off facility has

been linked to the center for decades. As such, while it is not part of the principal retail

use of the center, it can be considered a complementary use for the center. As such,

the proposed use complies with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the hearing for discussion by the Plan Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that the conditions of approval should denote the

requirement that a regular staffing presence is required for the facility.

School, presented the petition. He stated that St. John's has a youth minister intern that

will be working with the church through mid-2008. They were seeking a residence for

her and are proposing to provide housing for her in the Senior Center building at 205 W.

Maple Street. He noted that the previous approvals did not provide for the residence.

When informed by the Village that their request would require an amendment to the

previous ordinances of approval, they applied accordingly. He noted that he concurs

with the staff report, but requested that consideration be made by the Plan Commission

to allow the residential dwelling unit to use the first floor kitchen. He noted that he is not

as familiar with the Senior Center operations.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Karen Ness, 219 W. Ash Street, noted that she is uncomfortable with the proposed

conditions of approval and felt that they should be strengthened to ensure that the

residence is operated in conjunction with the church itself. She also noted that St.

John's has been placing cones for the public parking spaces along Lincoln and has also

placed visitor parking signs for these spaces as well.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition and submitted the staff report to

the public record. The petitioner is proposing to establish a residence quarters within an

existing facility as part of the St. John's Planned Development. The proposed residence

will utilize the second floor of the existing Senior Center located on the northwest portion

of the property on the west side of Lincoln Avenue between Ash Street and Maple

Avenue. The Senior Center is also subject to approval as it was originally approved with

a limited timeframe.

He then discussed the amendments to the previously approved ordinances. Ordinance

1816 approved in 1974 granted a conditional use for a noncommercial recreational

building/ community center (Senior Center). The Senior Center has been operating

within the building since the original approval date. As part of the review of this petition,

staff noted that the approval ordinance granted approval for the Senior Center for a four

year time period, but staff has not found a companion ordinance that allowed the use to

continue for the past 29 years to date. Pertaining to the original Senior Center approval,

staff notes that limiting a conditional use to a limited timeframe is undesirable as it can

create future non-conforming situations. Under this petition, the proposed residence

along with the existing Senior Center would gain approval without time restrictions.

Ordinance 5665 approved in 2005 granted approval of a conditional use for a planned

development and for a religious institution and for a private elementary school. The

planned development requires all uses and activities to be reviewed under the umbrella

of the conditional use approval. Therefore, Ordinance 5665 would need to be amended

to include the proposed residence quarters.

The petitioner is requesting approvals to allow for the second floor of the Senior Center

to be used as a single residence. The petitioner noted that the second floor has been

largely utilized as storage space since the establishment of the Senior Center. They

started minor refurbishing to the second floor to provide for a residence that would

specifically be used as an adjunct to the religious services on the property. No

expansions to the existing building are proposed. He noted that residences included

within the religious institution complex are not uncommon. This can include individual

residences, such as the priest residences at St. Pius X and Christ the King churches or

residences within the overall church building itself, such as Our Lady of Lebanon

Church. Therefore, staff does not object to the residential use, but the residence should

be restricted in use.

He stated that the surrounding area is comprised mainly of single-family residences and

institutional uses. As the proposed use of the second story for the residence is

inherently residential and the Senior Center for public/institutional use, it would therefore

be compatible with the surrounding land uses. The aforementioned conditions would

help ensure that the impacts of the residence would be minimal and would be operated

in a manner similar to all other single-family residences surrounding the property. The

Comprehensive Plan designates the site for institutional purposes. The residence is

intended to be an ancillary function and activity of the principal use (the church and

school). By tying the residence use to the institutional use, it can therefore be

considered compatible with the institutional land use designation.

Regarding this issue of parking on Lincoln, such regulations are reviewed by the

Transportation and Safety Committee. Staff does not have an objection to allowing the

residence to use the first floor kitchen.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the hearing for discussion by the Plan Commission.

Commissioner Burke noted the Fire Department comments and asked if the petitioner is

aware of these provisions. Mr. Smith stated that they are aware of the comments and

he has been working with the Fire Department accordingly.

Commissioner Burke asked about access/egress issues. Mr. Heniff noted that the

existing building has two means of egress - the west entrance to the upstairs areas and

a back door on the south side of the second floor.

The Commissioners then discussed whether the conditions of approval should be

amended. Mr. Smith noted that they only want to use the residence for their existing

intern right now and her position ends next summer. There could always be the

possibility of a visiting vicar staying at the residence. The Commissioners stated that

they do not want to have to require the petitioner to have to keep coming back for

approvals if or when someone wants to reside on the premises.

1. Ordinance 1816 shall be amended to provide for the Senior Center to be located

within the basement and first floor levels of the building at 205 W. Maple Street and shall

operate without a termination date provided that all other conditions of approval are

satisfactorily met. The residence within the 205 W. Maple Street building shall be limited

to the second floor of the building and the first floor kitchen.

2. The proposed residence shall meet the following requirements:

a. The residence shall be exclusively for residential purposes of staff or religious

employees associated with the St. John's Church and School and shall not be used for

general residence purposes.

b. The residence shall consist of a single-family residence and shall not be

subdivided to accommodate more than a single dwelling unit in the building.

3. The petitioner shall meet all provisions of the Lombard Building and Life Safety

Codes before occupancy of the residence can take place. The petitioner shall schedule

a final inspection of the premises with the Village prior to occupancy and occupancy

shall not occur until the property passes inspection.

Ordinance to allow outdoor dining.

c. A conditional use, pursuant to Section 155.417(G)(2)(b)(5) of the Zoning

Ordinance to allow a drive-through establishment.

d. A deviation from Section 153.505(19)(a)(2)(a) of the Sign Ordinance to allow four

(4) wall signs where only one sign is permitted

3. For the retail store at 255 W. Roosevelt (Hobby Lobby):

a. A deviation from Section 153.505(19)(b)(2)(a) to allow five (5) wall signs where

only one is permitted.

4. For the existing freestanding shopping center identification sign:

a. A deviation from Section 153.235(C) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for up to

five-hundred-one (501) square feet of sign area where a maximum one-hundred-fifty

(150) square feet is permitted.

b. A deviation from Section 153.235(C) of the Sign Ordinance to allow a sign height

of forty (40) feet where a maximum of thirty-five (35) feet is permitted.

5. Grant Site Plan Approval authority to the Plan Commission. (DISTRICT #2)

Mark Blum, Next Realty, 400 Skokie, Blvd., Northbrook, Illinois, presented the petition.

Mr. Blum indicated that they purchased the Sportmart Shopping Center 17 years ago.

He showed the configuration of the existing site plan of the shopping center and named

the business currently located within. He stated that in the last 18 months, several

tenants have not renewed their leases. He mentioned the businesses and their reasons

for leaving. As a result, this year they were able to get a catalyst to revitalize the

shopping center. As a result of their leasing efforts they attracted Hobby Lobby who

was looking for more square footage than what they currently had, Fruitfield Yield was

doing well but wanted to expand, and Harbor Freight Tools indicated their willingness to

occupy 15,000 square feet. There was now an opportunity to provide Starbucks with a

new building as the covenants that were associated with 2 of the exiting tenants left the

center.

Mr. Blum then displayed the Starbucks elevation and mentioned the signage and what

the building would look like. He then showed elevations of the existing building. Mr.

Blum then displayed the current elevations of the shopping center and the proposed

elevation, which would bring it up to date. He mentioned the new façade, new vestibule

and parapet walls for Hobby Lobby. Mr. Blum then showed a picture of the existing

pylon sign and stated that they are proposing to make the sign look as if it were brand

new. He stated that the sign will have masonry on the lower level with a metal covering

that will tie in with the steel supports on the canopies. The sign shown is 40' high, but

they have agreed to lower it to 35', which will not require a variation. They are

requesting another box sign for the tenant that will occupy the space next to Harbor

Freight Tools. In conclusion, Mr. Blum mentioned that should there be any questions,

he or other representatives in the audience would be available to answer them.

Peter Friedman of Holland & Knight, 131 S. Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois, stated he was

the applicant's land use counsel. He mentioned that they submitted standards for their

requested relief. Mr. Friedman stated that the public hearing notice looks like a lot of

relief, but what is currently on the ground is not changing as much as it seems. The

cause for all the relief would be three ordinances, which were previously granted. He

then added that staff proposed to consolidate all of the zoning relief into one new

ordinance. He then referred to the three conditional uses being requested (the planned

development, the outdoor dining, and the drive- through) and then indicated that they do

not represent any changes to the property. The sign deviation is relative to the

Starbucks, but the total number of signs will be the same. The only physical change

would be the Hobby Lobby wall plates on the building. The height deviation for the

shopping center is no longer necessary as they will meet code. The square footage by

code definition is 450 square feet, but the face plat is only 265 square feet. The square

foot increase is because they are aesthetically enhancing the sign. In conclusion, Mr.

Friedman indicated that the standards have been provided and are very straight

forward.

Guy Dratgsic of Olympic Sign, 1130 N. Garfield, Lombard, referred to the wall signage

for Hobby Lobby. He indicated that the Hobby Lobby letters would be the only portion of

the sign that will be illuminated. The rest of the signage will not be illuminated.

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

against the petition. There was no one to speak in favor or against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He submitted the staff report

to the public record in its entirety and summarized the petition. He also noted the IDRC

engineering comments included within the report.

He then discussed the planning and zoning comments. The subject property is

proposed to undergo a number of site improvements over the next year. In addition to a

new exterior building facade, which can be constructed as a matter of right, the

petitioner is seeking approval of a number of actions to enhance the site. The center will

have new tenants including Hobby Lobby, Harbor Freight, Roundhead's Pizza and an

undetermined tenant. While these new uses are permitted as a matter of right, a

number of other companion improvements are proposed for the center, including a new

Starbuck's stand-alone facility, which will replace the existing drive-through facility.

The Zoning Ordinance encourages and/or requires the establishment of planned

developments for large-scale developments. Staff notes that the shopping center has

received approval of numerous conditional uses and variations in the past. Staff

believes establishing a planned development creates a systematic method for

addressing the relationship of all buildings and structures on the property.

He then noted each of the requests as it pertains to each building. A full discussion of

these items is noted below.

Starbuck's Facility

Ordinance 3710, approved in 1993, granted approval for the construction of two

additional buildings on one zoning lot (where one building existed). Amending Ordinance

3710 would approve the new location of the Starbucks facility. The proposed

Starbuck's restaurant will be replacing an existing drive-through only restaurant which

will be moved to a new location on the same property west of the existing store. Hence,

the number of principal structures (3) within the proposed planned development will not

change. To avoid any rights being given to the old Starbucks, which is to be razed, staff

recommends the number of principal structures on the subject property be limited to

three. Staff recommends approval of this request as the number of structures will not be

changing.The petitioner proposes to add a single lane drive through facility as part of

their petition. Vehicles would enter from the north and proceed in a counter-clockwise

fashion around the building. The order menu is located on the southwest side of the

building and the pick-up window is located on the south side of the building. The

petitioner is also proposing an escape lane that would exit out to the south, per staff's

suggestion.

Ordinance 3710 granted approval of the existing drive-through facility. As the current

Starbucks facility is being razed to accommodate the new location with the Sportmart

Shopping Center, the conditional use to establish a drive through would apply to the new

Starbucks location. The plan shows eight stacking spaces, which meets code

requirements. Staff notes that the proposed design of the drive-through is more

desirable than its current configuration as excessive queuing will be within the center

itself, as opposed to spilling out into the main access driveway and Roosevelt Road.

The petitioner is proposing to add a 1,175 square foot outdoor dining area to be located

immediately north of the building that will be accessible from the north and west

entrances. Staff does not object to this request as it allows for an alternate area for

patrons to drink/eat if desired. As the property is not located near any residences,

impacts of the outdoor dining function are minimal. However, to ensure that the dining

function does not extend into the sidewalk and/or parking lot, staff recommends that the

perimeter of the dining area be fenced, with the design of the fence subject to the

approval of the Director of Community Development. Staff would find a four foot high

decorative iron fence with an exit gate as an acceptable type of fence. This would need

to be added as a condition of approval.

The petitioner is proposing two wall signs on the north, one wall sign on the south

elevation, and one wall sign on the west elevation of the building. The underlying Sign

Ordinance requirements allow only one wall sign allowed per Code, but Ordinance 4192

granted relief to allow "Caffino drive thru express" the right to four wall signs (one per

building façade). Staff also notes that many other tenants within the shopping center

have been granted relief for additional wall signs. Given the store's position as an island

within the shopping center parking lot, staff believes the request can be supported. As

such, this request is intended only to reflect the modified wall signage package.

255 W. Roosevelt (Hobby Lobby)Wall Sign

As Hobby Lobby will be moving from the Lombard Pines Shopping Center to the

Sportmart Plaza, they wish to keep with their original wall sign configuration of five wall

signs. Per Code, Hobby Lobby would have the right to only one wall sign as an interior

tenant within a multi-tenant building. The main 250 square foot wall sign has already

been permitted as of right; however, the addition of four wall signs, which range in size

from 20.5 square feet to 44.5 square feet each, would require approval under this

petition. Staff notes that relief was previously granted to Sportmart for signage above

the roofline and for extra window signage. When reviewed in this context and given the

overall width of the proposed tenant space, the additional wall sign can be conceptually

supported, provided that it is installed on, and not above, the exterior wall of the building,

as proposed by the petitioner.

Shopping Center Signs

As the subject property is being proposed as a planned development, the signage

associated with the Starbuck's and Hobby Lobby sites need to be reviewed in the

context of the entire shopping center. When shopping center signs are provided for

within a development, the Sign Ordinance prohibits the use of separate freestanding

signs. The petitioner is requesting approval of a deviation to allow for a total of two

free-standing signs in conjunction with the shopping center sign. Ordinance 3711 in

1993 granted approval for three freestanding signs to be erected in the Sportmart

Shopping Center. Amending Ordinance 3711 would allow three freestanding signs;

however the new sign locations would need to be approved as they relate to the overall

planned development. Staff notes that Starbucks has a freestanding sign that will be

moving to a new location on the property adjacent to the proposed building. The pylon

sign once utilized by Pizzeria Uno will be used by a new establishment - Roundhead's

Pizza, but this sign will remain at its existing location. As these freestanding signs have

been in use with the existing shopping center sign for years, staff finds the use of the

additional freestanding signs would not alter the character of the shopping center.

The petitioner is proposing to increase the size of the existing shopping center

identification sign to 450 square feet, which would provide for one additional tenant

cabinet to be placed below the existing cabinets on the sign. Staff noted that the

proposed square footage far exceeds code, which only allows 150 square feet. Staff

notes that this sign will be larger than most other signs along Roosevelt Road.

However, in consideration of this request, staff notes that the sign is already in excess of

the 150 square feet and the new panels would only be added to the bottom portion of

the sign, thus containing any new signage area to the existing cabinet. The petitioner will

also be aesthetically enhancing the sign by placing covers over the existing poles and

adding stone to the base. The sign base is intended to match the proposed Starbuck's

and the modified in-line center building elevations. Hence, given this trade-off for better

site design and circulation, additional square footage could be conceptually supported.

The existing shopping center sign is currently forty feet in height, thereby making the

sign a legal non-conforming structure. With the proposed modifications to the proposed

signs, this would be considered an expansion of a legal non-conforming structure and

would require relief accordingly. However, in working with staff, the petitioner has

proposed to reduce the overall sign height by five feet, which will bring it into compliance

with Code. As such, this relief is no longer necessary.

Site Plan Approval Authority to the Plan Commission

Granting site plan approval authority was included as part of the request in order to

allow the Plan Commission to review and approve signage deviations or consider other

site specific elements that do not require zoning relief or planned development

amendments. This authority is granted to all other planned developments within the

Roosevelt Road corridor by right or through approvals by the Village Board.

Mr. Heniff then discussed a number of related site considerations. As part the overall

review of the site, staff completed an overall review of the parking requirements for the

site. Staff also notes that Ordinance 3712 already provided for a 5.5% reduction in the

required number spaces for the center, which was granted to provide relief for a

sit-down restaurant (Pizzeria Uno). The petitioner is proposing 527 spaces on-site,

which is the number required by code. The approved 1993 plan also provided for

parking spaces on the west side and on the south side of the building as part of this

overall equation - staff will require that these spaces be striped, consistent with Village

code. The Fire Department has reviewed the spaces and does not object to the overall

design, provided that final turning templates provide for Fire Department truck turning

movements.

He then discussed building design elements. Unlike the existing prefabricated building

on the premises, the proposed Starbuck's building is proposed to be a completely

masonry structure and will be constructed on-site. The proposed structure is similar to

many of their other free-standing buildings that have been constructed in the Chicago

area, as shown on the submitted photographs of the comparable stores. Staff is

conceptually supportive of the proposed building elevations - the color will blend in well

with the proposed exterior façade enhancements for the in-line center. However, staff

suggests that an additional brick color or treatment be added to the south elevation to

break up the building mass.

Mr. Heniff stated that the Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial uses at this

location. The Comprehensive Plan suggests several policies that should be used to

guide improvement to commercial developments. One of those policies is ensuring the

highest quality of design, including signage and graphics. If the comments and

conditions noted in this report are incorporated into the petitioner's final plans, this

development will meet the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.

Even though the petition was initially filed prior to the Roosevelt Road development

moratorium and the Roosevelt Road Corridor Report, their plan does also incorporate

some of the recommendations of the Roosevelt Road Corridor Plan as well, including:

1. Including full façade treatments on all four-sides of the building elevations;

2. Improving overall on-site traffic flow by relocating the Starbuck's drive-through

queuing;

3. Additional parking lot green space (foundation and parking lot islands) around the

disturbed areas;

4. Enhanced building facades (for the in-line center);

5. Freestanding signage compatible with the center's building elevations.

The center already enjoys cross-access easements for properties to the east (Omni

Plaza). The petitioner is also seeking approval from IDOT for a traffic signal at the

northwest corner of the subject property. In consideration of the request as well as in

consideration of conditions of approval for other Roosevelt Road properties, staff

recommends that the property owner provide the rights for a cross-access easement for

the property immediately west of the subject property. Staff does recognize that there is

a significant grade change between the properties, but the rights for such an access

should be provided at this time and the engineering issues can be addressed as part of

a future access plan for the site.

He stated that staff recommends approval of the petition subject to the conditions within

the report as well as an additional condition denoting the fencing of the outdoor seating

area.

In response to the report, Mr. Friedman stated that they only recently learned of the

conditions set forth in the staff report and that they will have to review those elements

further with staff. They noted the stormwater drainage and the watermain relocation as

1. The petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the site, sign and

development plans prepared by Arcline Associates, dated November 14, 2007 and

made a part of the petition.

2. The south elevation of the proposed Starbuck's building shall be amended to include

a second brick color, with the final design subject to the Director of Community

Development.

3. The freestanding shopping center sign shall be modified to not exceed thirty-five feet

(35') in height. Furthermore, the overall square footage of the existing shopping center

sign shall not exceed 450 square feet in size.

4. The petitioner shall commence demolition of the existing Starbuck's building and

construct the associated parking lot improvement at its current location no later than

thirty days after the proposed Starbuck's building is opened. This time period may be

extended by the Village if weather conditions preclude the improvements from being

completed within this timeframe.

5. Upon a request by the Village, the petitioner/property owner shall provide a vehicular

cross-access easement for the property at 303 W. Roosevelt Road. The final location of

the cross-access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Village.

6. As part of the approval, the petitioner shall also address the comments included

within the IDRC Report, including:

a. Stormwater detention shall be provided consistent with Village Code for all the

aggregate disturbed area.

b. The drainage issue at the existing eastern entry off of Roosevelt Road shall be

corrected as part of the planned development.

c. The existing public water main located under the building shall be re-routed.

d. All site work shall be in accordance with Village of Lombard Code, Specifications

and Details.

e. Freestanding signs are not permitted within utility easements and shall not be

located closer than 15' from any publicly dedicated water main or sewer.