Village of Lombard Legistar System

B. PC 05-09: 7, 11, and 105 East 17th Street, 19W723 17th Street, 6 and 10 East

20th Street and 1710 South Highland Avenue (4 Ordinances on Second Reading;

Waiver of First for Annexation Agreement Ordinance and 2 Motions)

Requesting the Village of Lombard take the following actions to allow for a single family

detached residential development on the subject properties:

For the properties at 7, 11, and 105 East 17th Street, 19W723 17th Street, and the

north 70 feet of 6 and 10 East 20th Street:

1. Ordinance approving an Annexation Agreement (continued from May 5, 2005) (2/3 of

Corporate Authorities Vote Required)

2. Ordinance annexing to the Village of Lombard.

3. Motion approving a preliminary plat of subdivision.

For the properties at 7, 11, and 105 East 17th Street, 19W723 17th Street, the north

70 feet of 6 and 10 East 20th Street and the south 296 feet of 1710 South Highland

Avenue:

1. Ordinance rezoning the properties from the R1 to the R2 Single Family Residence

District.

Ray Kacirek, petitioner, explained that his petition is the third development to try to

develop the property. His project is a last chance effort. Their goal is to make the best

possible subdivision in Lombard. They are looking for special variances. They are

creating large lots and think they have accommodated this better than previous

developers. He introduced the other members of the development team.

Richard Dunn, project consultant, presented a Powerpoint Presentation. He noted their

requested actions. The annexation and agreement will be topics for the Board of

Trustees to consider. The zoning amendment is required as when property is annexed

it is to be designed as R1 -they are requesting R2. They are seeking a conditional use

for a planned development with two variations from the Subdivision and Development

Ordinance. He referenced the proposed cul-de-sac length, noting that their subdivision

will have a length of 1,000 feet. Regarding the street jog, he noted that this was a

discussion of earlier Plan Commission meetings. They agree with the recommendation

of KLOA and will comply with those findings to improve the line sight access on 17th

Street. They submitted a preliminary plat and, upon their acceptance and

recommendation, their engineering consultant will work with staff to go to the Board for

final plat approval.

He mentioned that they are requesting a subdivision of land owned by Etz Chaim. This

is requested for the purpose of allowing a portion of their property to have a shared

detention facility. Due to the loss of open space on paper, they are requesting an open

space variation. The stormwater area property transfer has value as it will continue to

serve the congregation without giving them the expense of maintaining it.

Referencing existing conditions, there are 4 large homes on the south of 17th Street.

The site is surrounded by single family residential. A wooded area exists to the south.

New houses to the north are zoned R2. The last of the homes are being built at this

time. They are attractive, but slightly smaller than the ones being proposed as part of

this project. He then mentioned the plans they submitted showing their larger lots with

larger lots on the west side of the development.

He mentioned four items noted in the IDRC report for Plan Commission consideration

that they thought would add value to their project:

1. Not requiring a hammerhead at the end of Norbury.

2. Not requiring parallel watermains along Norbury.

3. Keeping the proposed storm drains as proposed on the concept plans.

4. Consideration regarding the fencing prohibition along 17th Street.

Michael Mondus of Spaceco, stated that they prepared the preliminary plat and

engineering plans. The development is a 25-lot subdivision and the are proposing 66'

rights of way with 28 feet roadways. All streets will have curb and gutter and storm

sewers. All utilities and sanitary sewers will be connected at Main and 17th Street and

will extend east to their site and then south to service the homes. Water is available

from existing mains on 17th Street. All streets and lots will drain into the two on site

detention facilities - one at the northeast corner of site and the other southern one

between Etz Chaim and their subdivision.

Ben Kell, landscape architect, noted the fencing along 17th Street. A stone monument

is proposed at the entrance. Lots 15-22 will have a 6' board on board fence along the

rear of the properties. They will provide ornamental trees and larger shrubs. Street

trees will be provided per ordinance.

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

comments in favor or in opposition to the proposal. Chairperson Ryan then requested

the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, reiterated the requested actions and summarized the

project. Referencing the Comprehensive Plan, the petitioner's site plan proposes 25

single-family residential units on nine gross acres, which calculates to about 2.7 units

per acre. The petitioner's average lot size is approximately 10,224 square feet, which

computes to 4.26 net units per acre. In previous workshop sessions with the Plan

Commission, the Commissioners noted that while R2 could be conceptually supported

on the property, they wanted the lots to meet the intent of the Estate Residential Plan

designation of 4 units per acre, or 10,000 square foot lots, but lot sizes of 9,000 square

feet could be conceptually supported. In consideration of the these densities and

considering that inclusion of the two detention facilities totaling an additional 1.31 acres

of open space, staff believes that the proposed land use and density complies with the

recommended land use as stated in the Comprehensive Plan.

He noted that the proposed single-family subdivision is compatible with the existing

single family residences surrounding the site. For comparative purposes, the eight

single-family residences constructed north of 17th Street and abutting the project

average 8,710 square feet in size. The lots along the west side of Main Street abutting

the project average 16,684 square feet in size. These lots were platted prior to their

annexation into the Village. The perimeter lots to the properties along Main Street

average over 13,000 square feet in size are oriented away from the existing lots along

Main Street. To the south of the proposed development are five single-family properties.

The existing residences are situated along 20th Street and are subject to redevelopment

in the future as new single family residences with development densities comparable to

the densities proposed as part of this development proposal. Lastly, the property is

bounded by on the east by non-residential uses. The proposed subdivision plan locates

the detention facilities along the eastern side of the project to buffer the adjacent land

uses. Staff finds that the proposed development is compatible with adjacent land uses.

He then discussed the specific zoning actions. Upon annexation to the Village,

properties are automatically classified as R1 Single-Family Residential properties. The

petitioner is requesting a map amendment to zone the properties into the R2 District.

Staff finds that this amendment can be supported as the abutting residences to the north

and west of the project are also zoned R2. The proposed lots meet the R2 minimum lot

size width of 60 feet and 7,500 square feet in area - no additional relief is requested as

part of the petition.

In order to address the site-specific constraints, the petitioner is requesting conditional

use approval for a planned development for the subject property. Planned

developments have been approved for other major single-family developments in the

community in the recent past as these developments presented unique redevelopment

challenges. Staff believes the proposed development also poses similar challenges and

that a planned development is warranted. Moreover, a planned development also

provides staff with a mechanism to regulate/control development attributes of the project

to ensure that an enhanced development is constructed.

The proposed development is classified as a major development, and as such, full

public improvements will be required for all streets within the development as well as

17th Street where it currently does not exist per the Village's specifications.

The petitioner has requested two variations from the Ordinance regulations, as follows:

A variation from Section 154.503 (I) to allow for the maximum length of cul-de-sac

streets serving a maximum of 25 dwelling units to be greater than 660 feet.

As there is no proposed means of access other than by the main access roadway, the

street must be considered a dead end street or a cul-de-sac. The submitted plan shows

Street "A" to be 632.52 feet in length and Street "C" to be 215 feet in length. These

lengths exceed the maximum allowed by right.

The variation request is being created in part by a request from the Village to ensure

that the subdivision provides a means to eventually connect to the properties south of

the subject properties. As a cul-de-sac bulb is being proposed for within the

development, the Fire Department does not have any objection to the request.

Moreover, as the proposed variation is short-term in nature (upon completion of the

roadway extension south of the site) the relief will no longer be needed. In consideration

of the planned development standards relative to this request, staff supports the

variation request.

As noted earlier, the proposed development will likely be extended to the south at some

point in the future. Typically, we have required the installation of a temporary cul-de-sac

bulb where such extensions are to occur (as was done with Columbine Glen

Townhomes and is contemplated with the Buckingham Orchard development).

However, in review of this plan, staff supports the submitted plan for the following

reasons:

1. Only one lot would be affected (Lot 19);

2. A cul-de-sac will be provided and constructed immediately west of the dead end (fire

equipment and vehicles will be able to turn-around without having to do a three-point

turn); and

3. The detention facility could be fully constructed based upon the concept plans. The

developer will not have to modify the detention pond at a later date.

Specific comments regarding the terminus are included in the IDRC engineering

comments section.

A variation from Section 154.503 (J) (2) allowing for a street jog with a center-line offset

of less than two-hundred (200) feet.

The proposed subdivision would create a street jog of approximately 130 feet between

the existing Norbury Avenue and the new street. The jog was created in order to have a

row of residences on the east side of the development backing up to the synagogue

parking lot as well as the Outlot "B" detention basin. If Norbury was extended straight

south from its current terminus, the reconfigured subdivision would lose two buildable

lots. Also the street would be aligned in a manner that would result in proposed

residences in phase two to the south of the subject property to have rear yards

immediately abutting the adjacent office properties. The petitioner's plan could provide

for cul-de-sac lots off the main roadway. Moreover, as Norbury itself is only a one-block

street, the street jog will prevent additional traffic generated by the proposed

development - trips would be directed to Main Street or Highland Avenue.

The Plan Commission requested additional engineering review of this issue. KLOA

does not foresee a problem with the proposed street jog, provided that a stop sign be

installed at the Norbury Avenue and Street "A" legs of the intersection and that parking

should be prohibited for the portion of 17th Street between the two street segments.

Should this development be approved, staff will forward the traffic signage

recommendations to the Village's Traffic and Safety Committee for consideration.

The Subdivision and Development Ordinance states that through lots should be avoided

where possible. While this is not an absolute requirement of the Ordinance, through lots

have been minimized where possible. Lots 1 through 4 are considered through lots.

The petitioner is proposing to construct a berm with dense vegetation along 17th Street

to the rear (i.e., the north side) of these properties. Staff recommends as a condition of

approval that the developer shall record covenants on Lot 1 through 4 restricting the use

of the properties as follows:

1. That driveway access to 17th Street shall be prohibited;

2. That the proposed berm along the north side of the properties shall not be altered,

modified or removed without approval of the Village of Lombard;

3. That any landscape plantings proposed for the landscape berm shall not be relocated

or removed. In the event that any plant materials die, the property owner shall replace

the dead materials with new plant materials of a similar species; and

4. Any fencing erected on the site shall be located outside of the landscape easement

area.

Detention facilities will be provided per the Ordinance. As the subject properties

straddle a ridge line, stormwater detention would be provided in two outlots. One facility

will be located along 17th Street. The second facility would be integrated into the

existing Etz Chaim Synagogue facility east of the site. The two facilities will be

wet-bottom facilities with sloped perimeters. Small retaining walls of less than three feet

in height will also be added to the facilities to provide for additional stormwater storage

capacity. A subdivision entrance sign will be erected on Outlot A. Staff also notes that

the Ordinance will require additional perimeter landscape trees around the facility.

Staff will be creating an annexation and development agreement for review and

consideration by the Village Board. The agreement will incorporate the plans and

recommendations of the Plan Commission accordingly.

Referencing the Etz Chaim Property, he noted they received conditional use approval

(Ordinance 4358) for a religious institution on the subject property. The existing

synagogue was developed in compliance with the approvals in 1998. In 2000, an

amendment to an existing conditional use (Ordinance 4358) to allow for the expansion

of their parking lot at the synagogue was approved. This request provided for an

additional 112 off-street parking spaces. To address stormwater issues, a detention

facility was constructed south of the new lot.

The subdivision petitioner is seeking to incorporate the Etz Chaim detention facility into

their subdivision plans. To facilitate this request, Etz Chaim is proposing to sell the land

that is improved with the detention facility. It will then be redesigned to provide for a

shared stormwater facility for the subdivision as well as Etz Chaim. The facility would be

established as a separate lot within the subdivision. As a result, Etz Chaim would no

longer meet the fifty percent open space requirement in the underlying R1 District (the

property would only have 44 percent open space). As such, an amendment to the

previous conditional uses is requested with relief from the open space requirements.

Etz Chaim is not proposing any additional improvements for their property. However,

they do recommend as a condition of approval that the minimum open space provisions

provide them with a small amount of flexibility to allow for minor improvements to their

property (such as additional sidewalks or an expanded concrete play area), without

having to through the public hearing process in the future. He noted the open space

square footage for several other religious institutions in the Village for reference

purposes. From staff's standpoint, this request can be supported as the open space will

still be provided - the variation is largely a paper variation and no physical changes are

proposed for the site.

He referenced an error in the staff recommendations for approval.

He then offered comments regarding the petitioner's remarks:

1. Regarding the hammerhead turn around, staff did not want to create a situation

where traffic would utilize adjacent residential properties to maneuver.

2. Regarding the looped watermain, this is an IEPA requirement. The stormsewer

comment was provided in order to ensure that the line would not interfere with the

proposed watermains.

3. Regarding landscape island in cul-de-sacs - Fire and PW staff do not support their

inclusions into bulbs.

4. Regarding storm drain issues - the comments was offered so as to not create

confliects with the proposed berm and to ensure proper drainage.

Fencing - he gave the reasons for wanting the fencing limitations.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Mr. Dunn had questions of staff - he requested that if the Commissioners follow staff's

recommendations, he requests that removal of the hammerhead not be at their

expense. Staff concurred. He then mentioned the fence on Lot 1 to 4 - they believed

that the fencing on the north side would add ambiance and they were desirous of a

wrought iron fence. Mr. Heniff stated that staff does not have a problem to incorporate

their amended fence concept.

Commissioner Burke inquired about the hammerhead - where will it be installed? Mr.

Heniff indicated that the pavement width would be extended to provide for the

hammerhead within the proposed 66' right-of-way and would not impact Lots 18 & 19.

Commissioner Flint commended the petitioner for incorporating the items the

Commissioners previously discussed.

Commissioner Olbrysh concurred. He would prefer R1 over R2, but the average lot size

is well over 10,000 square feet. He is pleased how this has turned out.

Commissioner Zorn noted that she liked the revisions to the plans to create more

uniform lot sizes.

1. That the petitioner shall develop the facility essentially in accordance with the plans

prepared by Spaceco, Inc., dated March 8, 2005 and revised April 11, 2005; the

Preliminary Engineering Plan, prepared by Spaceco, Inc., dated March 16, 2005 and the

Preliminary Landscape Plan, prepared by Gary R. Weber Associates, Inc., dated March

16, 2005, except as amended by the conditions of approval.

2. That the petitioner shall satisfactorily address the IDRC comments included within

the IDRC staff report.

3. That all relief associated with this petition shall be contingent upon the Village Board

approving the annexation/development agreement for the proposed property.

4. That final engineering shall be approved prior to consideration of the Final Plat of

Subdivision by the Board of Trustees.

5. That the petitioner/developer shall place the following covenants on proposed

Lots 1 through 4.

a. That driveway access to 17th Street shall be prohibited;

b. That the proposed berm along the north side of the properties shall not be altered,

modified or removed without approval of the Village of Lombard;

c. That any landscape plantings proposed for the landscape berm shall not be

relocated or removed. In the event that any plant materials die, the property owner shall

replace the dead materials with new plant materials of a similar species; and

d. Any fencing erected within the landscape berm area shall be constructed of

wrought iron and shall not exceed four feet (4') in height.

6. That the development shall be developed consistent with all Codes of the Village.

The Plan Commission also recommends approval of an amendment to Ordinances 4358

and 4869, to incorporate the variation request included within the petitioner's request,

subject to the following condition:

PC 05-08: 330 and 350 E. North Avenue (Ordinance on First Reading)(Staff is

Requesting that this item be Remanded Back to the Plan Commission)

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

For the property located at 330 East North Avenue and located within the B4

Corridor Commercial District:

1. Approve a major plat of subdivision. (to be considered on approval of final

engineering).

2. Approve a variation from Sections 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;

3. Approve a conditional use for a drive-through facility;

4. Approve a conditional use for an outdoor seating area; and

5. Resolution approving a development agreement for the subject property. (to be

considered with the second reading of the ordinance)

Peter Bazos, attorney for the petitioner, presented the petition. Mr. Bazos introduced

other presenters and the order of presentation. Mr. Bazos described the property's

location and zoning. He noted that the site is immediately west of the recently approved

CVS site. Mr. Bazos stated the request. He noted that the site would include a 17,250

square foot multi-tenant commercial center. He stated that the petitioner agreed to

continue with cross access easements at the east and west property lines. He noted

that the façade was upgraded to be consistent with the commercial corridor. He

mentioned the uses would be consistent with the B4 commercial zoning and noted that

when the center was occupied there would be significant sales tax generated.

Mr. Bazos stated that the petition complies with the applicable standards. He asked that

their application and submittals be part of the record. He noted that they were in

concurrence with the majority of the staff report except for page four, comment number

one. He also noted exceptions to page four, comment number two and stated that the

site plan is the accurate representation. He also noted that the petitioner's engineer had

not seen the redline plans noted in comment number seven. He noted that the

comments from Planning regarding changes to the north elevation would be too

expensive to make the project work. He stated that he discussed tabling the

freestanding sign request for 350 E. North Avenue with staff. Mr. Bazos stated that staff

informed him street lighting would not be necessary in reference to the Subdivision and

Development Ordinance provisions. He stated that they agreed with the conditions of

approval with the exceptions of numbers two, six, and seven since the sign discussion

would be tabled.

Mark Rice, civil engineer, outlined the site plan items. He stated that the front of the

building would face North Avenue. He stated that the proposed single drive through

window would be located on the south side of the building. He stated that the dumpster

would be screened. He stated that the drive aisle would accommodate truck deliveries.

He noted that deliveries would be made with small, single unit trucks and not semis. He

referred to the circulation pattern. He pointed out the outdoor seating areas at the

northwest and southeast corners of the building. He stated that they were working with

IDOT to obtain a permit for the right-in, right-out access. He noted that there is an

existing access under construction as part of the CVS shared access. He stated that

they are proposing 71 parking spaces located south of the store with three handicap

spaces. He stated that the developer is fine with staff's recommendation of restricted

employee parking for the ten northern diagonal parking spaces located on the west side

of the building. He stated that the drive aisle behind the building will be one way and the

exhibits submitted to KLOA show the ability to make a left hand turn without conflict. Mr.

Rice noted that the Village requires seven spaces for stacking and they have provided

space for thirteen. He stated that they were agreeable to staff comments referencing

tapering to prevent motorists from entering the one way drive through. He stated that

the landscaping plans were submitted. He noted that the petitioner proposed a wood

fence for screening but was agreeable to staff's request for evergreens in lieu of the

fence. He stated that the street lighting was done as part of the IDOT reconstruction.

Lastly, Mr. Rice noted that they were working with DuPage County to construct the

same type of detention facility as the CVS site. He noted the 100 foot buffer.

Mark Nosky, the petitioner's architect, presented four display boards. He referenced the

floor plan. He stated that the floor plan shows the multi-tenant service doors facing the

back side of the drive. He stated that railings would be provided around the outdoor

seating areas. Mr. Nosky referenced the drive through window. He noted it would

consist of a bump out window and curbing to restrict one way movements. He noted

that a sprinkler room area is located at the rear of the building. He then noted the

alternative elevation designed to address staff concerns. He stated that the design

included fabric awnings, and two types of colored brick. He stated that additional

banding would be provided to break up the rear façade.

Mr. Nosky referenced the materials board. He stated that the base course brick was for

the building. He referenced a change to the color of the awnings shown in the elevation.

He noted the two types of brick colors. He stated that the downspouts would be located

between doors and sliding to the side on the rear elevation. He stated that they also

included fabric awnings to the rear to give provide shadows and tones.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. Ed Jacobson, a

resident of Martha Street, stated that the proposed development would be an

improvement to an area of town that has been devastated for some time. No one

spoke against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner II, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark noted the

Interdepartmental Review Committee provided comments. She highlighted the planning

issues. She stated that the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance recommend

community commercial uses and the proposed use is consistent with both. She noted

that the properties east and west of the subject property were zoned for commercial

uses. She stated that a church is proposed north of the subject property and residential

uses exist to the south. Ms. Clark stated that a detention pond would separate the

church and the strip center would be more than 250 feet from the church. She stated

that the petitioner attempted to make the proposed development appear as though it

was a contiguous development with the proposed CVS location to the east.

Ms. Clark noted the drive through facility. She mentioned the direction of traffic flow.

She noted the comments provided by KLOA, the Village's traffic consultant. She stated

that the comments approve of the general layout and design and suggested additional

signage. She stated that staff feels the spacing of the drive aisle near the driveway is

adequate. She also noted that staff concurred with the recommendation that the

northern most spaces on the west side of the building should be restricted to employee

parking to minimize the number of vehicles backing into the drive aisle.

Ms. Clark stated that staff favored the proposed outdoor seating areas, as they would

provide an additional amenity to patrons. She stated that staff would rather see heavy

berming rather than a solid fence on the north side of the structure. She stated that the

landscaping plans met the code requirements with the exception of those areas

intended to provide cross access.

Ms. Clark stated that staff has had conversations with the petitioner regarding breaking

up the expanse along the rear elevation. She stated that staff is willing to work with the

petitioner on revisions to the rear elevation. She noted that the petitioner had

incorporated previous comments into the new elevations.

Ms. Clark stated two freestanding signs were proposed. She clarified that the condition

of approval referencing signage was in regards to the billboard on the 330 E. North

Avenue and not for the proposed freestanding sign. She stated that the petitioner has

represented that the proposed wall signage will meet code. She stated that the

petitioner requested that action for the proposed freestanding sign for 350 E. North

Avenue be continued as they were revising drawings for the sign and discussing it with

the 350 E. North Avenue property owner. She noted that the awnings on the front

elevation would not contain any signage.

Ms. Clark stated that Private Engineering Services represented that street lighting would

not be necessary, but all other requirements of the Subdivsion and Development

Ordinance must be met for the subdivision. She stated that staff recommended

approval of the petition with the conditions noted in the staff report.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission

members.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the petitioner indicated that they were seeking a

modification of condition number two referencing the various IDRC comments. Ms. Clark

stated that the only issue she is aware of is the street lighting requirement. William

Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that condition number two picks up all of the public works

and other comments. Commissioner Sweetser asked if the references to the sidewalk

were included in this. Mr. Heniff stated that it was and these items could be worked out

with staff as part of the building permit application.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he could support the petitioner but had one concern

with the north elevation. He stated that even though the building would be more than

250 feet away in addition to landscaping the building would still be visible. He stated

that what the petitioner proposed with the additional banding and fabric awnings would

satisfy his concerns.

Commissioner Burke asked that if the banding and the awning were acceptable should

condition number six be stricken. Mr. Heniff stated that the condition could be modified

to give it a date certain subject to the Director of Community Development. He stated

that condition seven references the billboard.

1. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the site plan submittal

packet prepared by Arc Design Resources, Ives/Ryan Group and Stuart Novsky

Associates, dated March 30, 2005 and submitted as part of this request.

2. That the petitioner's building improvements shall be designed and constructed

consistent with Village Code and shall also address the comments included within the

IDRC report.

3. That as part of the public improvements, the petitioner shall provide full public

improvements as required by Sections 154.304 and 154.306 of the Lombard Subdivision

and Development Ordinance. The final design and location of all public improvements

shall be reviewed and approved by the Village and/or the Illinois Department of

Transportation.

4. The petitioner shall also provide two cross-access easement points for the property

to the west of the subject property. The final location of the cross-access easement

shall be subject to the Director of Community Development.

5. That the trash enclosure screening as required by Section 155.710 of the Zoning

Ordinance shall be constructed of a material consistent with the principal building.

6. That the petitioner shall modify the north building elevations. The parapet wall should

be extended along the north wall face as well to screen the rooftop mechanical

equipment. The final design of these elements for the north elevation shall be subject to

the Director of Community Development.

7. Associated with the development of the center, the developer shall remove the

existing off-premise sign existing on the 330 E. North Avenue property.

8. That the petitioner shall modify their plans to include the following traffic/parking

improvements:

a. That the northern ten parking spaces located on the west side of the property be

signed for employee use only.

b. The "Right turn only" signs be placed at the southern end of the drive-through

lane for northbound traffic.

c. That the curb at the southwest corner of the building be tapered outward from the

drive-through window to a maximum of twelve feet to prevent northbound traffic

movements into the drive-through area.

A. PC 05-06: 210, 214, 215, 224 and 228 S. Lincoln Street & 205 W. Maple Street

(Continued from May 5, 2005) (Village Counsel recommends that this petition be

remanded back to the Plan Commission)

Requests that the Village take the following actions on the property within the R2 Single

Family Residence District:

1. Amend the Comprehensive Plan to designate the lots at 210, 214, 224 and 228 S.

Lincoln Street and 205 W. Maple Street as Public and Institutional Use.

2. Approve an amendment to Ordinance 1816 granting approval of a conditional use for

a noncommercial recreational building/community center.

3. Approve an amendment to Ordinances 4363 and 4363A granting approval of a

conditional use for a religious institution and for a private elementary school.

4. Approve a conditional use for a planned development for all of the subject properties

with the following deviations and variations from the Zoning Ordinance, as follows:

a. A variation from Section 155.508 (C)(6)(a) and a deviation from Section 155.406

(F)(1) to allow for a front yard setback of eighteen feet (18') where thirty feet (30') is

required;

b. A deviation from Section 155.406 (F)(2) to allow for a corner side yard setback of

one foot (1') where twenty feet (20') is required;

c. A deviation from Section 155.406 (G) to allow for a building height of up to

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

d. A variation from Section 155.406 (H) and Section 155.508 (C) (7) reducing the

minimum required open space below the minimum 75 percent requirement;

e. A variation from Sections 155.708 and 155.709 reducing the requisite foundation

and perimeter lot landscaping along the corner side yard; and

Chairperson Ryan stated that this petition was continued from the March 21 meeting.

He will try to hold this petition to one hour as there are other petitions that follow. Should

that not be enough time, the petition could then be continued to the next Plan

Commission meeting. He requested that anyone wanting to speak to keep that in mind

while giving their presentation.

Joe Jaruseski, 1107 Michelle Lane, Lombard, indicated he was the Congregation

Chairman of St. John's and proceeded to present their responses to the previous Plan

Commission meeting in PowerPoint format. He concluded by introducing Patrick

Brosnan, Architect with Legat Architects.

Patrick Brosnan, 545 Hillside Avenue, Glen Ellyn, stated he was speaking on behalf of

St. John's and would present the neighborhood compatibility portion of the PowerPoint

presentation. This included showing architectural features of various homes in the

neighborhood and how St. John's has incorporated those features into the new school to

make it compatible. He also explained the redesigned elevations comparing them with

the previous ones.

Robert Meek who resides at 115 E. Ash and also owns property at 210 W. Ash

questioned Page 29 of their PowerPoint presentation which shows the site plan. He

stated that the revised south elevation plan has a much better appearance but

wondered why they do not show where their lot ends. He stated that there is only 13'

between his property at 210 W. Ash and the lot line.

Scott Czerkies, Architect with Legat Architects, 2015 Spring Road, Oak Brook,

presented St. John's 10-year master campus plan. His presentation included

addressing the site plan, drainage swales, trash enclosure, landscaping plan, gathering

area, and open space.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Gerald Moore, Tom Taylor, and Chuck Wingard deferred.

Reverend Dan Wegrzyn, 949 S. Lincoln, stated he is the pastor at St. John's. He is in

favor of the petition as the new school building is their desire to add to their ministry and

to the community by reaching out and extending beyond themselves.

Angie Hyssong, 219 E. Prairie, Lombard, stated she has been a resident of Lombard for

nine years and a kindergarten teacher for ten years. As representative of the teaching

staff, she would like to address the need to move forward with these plans. She

indicated that the building will provide new windows and get the children out of the

basement. Classrooms would now be on located on the 1st floor and would be easily

accessible. They will have a new elevator, wider hallways and a sprinkler system.

Bathrooms would be provided on each level and they would have air conditioning. She

asked that people in the audience who supported St. John's petition to stand. In

conclusion, she stated that the new school would provide for a better quality

environment and education and asked the Commissioners for their approval of this

petition.

Phil Hyssong deferred.

Bruno Daube, 707 S. Lombard, Lombard, told of how he is the proud recipient of several

awards awarded to him for service to the community and for humanity. He stated how

St. John's has had an impact on him and how it is a great outreach to this community

and others. He offered his services to resolve any concerns in the community.

Speaking against the petition were:

Linda Bohl, 213 W. Ash, Lombard. Ms. Bohl stated that she is in support of St. John's

needing a new school but they need to think about the surrounding neighbors. She

presented her own PowerPoint presentation and commented on such things as property

values, impact of homes in the neighborhood, and the closeness of the proposed new

school to the Meek, DeSalvo and Colby's family's properties. She stated that building a

new school raises property values but this building is a replacement school. She

indicated that one gentleman talked about arbitration and she would be open to that.

Not all avenues have been pursued. She noted that the school's projected enrollment

figures are flat and thereby does not necessitate a new building of this size. Ms. Bohl

indicated that even though the plan calls for the old school building to be used for

storage, occasional use, and bears the heating system to the support the church, it is St.

John's decision to use that design and they should bear the impact. She referenced

Montini and other schools that did tear downs and rebuilt and how well those projects

came out. She stated that the school would fit better on the east side of Lincoln as there

is one residential home and everything else is something else. Ms. Bohl stated that they

had circulated a petition against this proposal, which was submitted for the record. Ms.

Bohl thought that the land around their home has been secretly obtained over the years

and they were told that the land would be used for a parking lot, then a gym, and now a

new school. She requested that the Plan Commissioners protect the right of the

surrounding property owners and deny the petition. In conclusion she stated that they

have nothing against a new school but look for a responsible plan.

Mr. Jaruseski responded by asking how property can be acquired in secret.

Carl Prindiville, 219 W. Ash, Lombard, read a letter into the record from Mary Beth

Lynch who is an active real estate agent in Lombard representing both buyers and

sellers. Ms. Lynch's letter states that should St. John's proposed plan move forward it

would have a negative impact on the value of the surrounding residential properties.

After reading the letter, he asked the people who stood earlier showing support of the

school's plan to again stand but only if they live within one block of the new proposed

school. It was noted that only one person stood.

Karen Ness, 219 W. Ash, Lombard, stated that the proposed school will degrade

property values and overshadow homes that are less than 3,000 square feet. She

referenced the parking spaces along Lincoln that are posted for church use only. She

felt that St. John's wants to build on the other side of Lincoln because they cannot

tolerate the disruption and wondered what would be built on the east side. Lastly, she

stated that the property owners have a right to protect their neighborhood and property

values.

Sharon Herlache, 123 S. Elizabeth Street, Lombard, indicated she had questions. She

lives in the house on the corner of Elizabeth and did not attend the good neighbor

meetings. She mentioned that when they built their addition, they took the neighborhood

into consideration and chose materials that blended with their current home. The

questions she had were as follows:

1. Page 36 - Referring to the stand of trees St. John's were adamant about saving and

wanted to know what kind of trees they were.

2. What are the age of the trees and their life expectancy?

3. Page 26 - There used to be a home where the stand of trees currently exist. Leading

to this home was a 10-12' wide driveway and asked if they would consider moving the

drive between the two trees off Lincoln.

4. She asked if the petitioners had evidence to support the figures quoted at the last

meeting relative to the cost of using brick versus precast.

John DeSalvo who lives at 115 S. Charlotte, and also represents his mother's property

at 220 W. Ash, introduced his presentation. He stated he was still anxious after hearing

St. John's proposed revisions, which were a result of the last meeting, and felt that they

are using a band-aid approach. His presentation began by showing the characteristics

of the neighborhood beginning on Maple, going west to Ash to the proposed location of

St. John's school. He noted the building's proposed setback and how it would look

relative to the context of the neighborhood. He compared the footprint of the building to

the homes surrounding it and indicated that there is something wrong with their scale.

Lastly, he asked for the Commissioners' recommendation of denial.

Marilyn Socha, 203 W. Ash Street, Lombard, indicated she has lived there for 37 years

and had no problem until they changed the configuration of their parking lot and Lincoln

Street. She felt that the proposed building would blend better on the east side of Ash.

John Avila, 225 W. Maple, Lombard, indicated he can understand the need for a modern

school. If this building were built on the east side of Lincoln, they would not be here. He

thought Mr. DeSalvo's visualization was more appropriate and wondered what relief the

school would need if it was on the east side of Lincoln. Mr. Avila indicated that this is

not a minor variance but a tremendously big building. He felt that they need to buy more

property west of Lincoln in order to have the appropriate open space. The downtown

area is a showplace and the Village has moved in that direction with the addition of new

buildings. There needs to be compromise and the plan has to be more appealing to the

community and its neighbors.

Richard Anstee, 219 Maple, Lombard, stated that St. John's should re-evaluate the

location of the new school. He indicated he supports parochial education as well as the

development of their programs but their concerns have been consistent - the building is

too big, the location of the service drive is not acceptable as it eliminates two mature

trees, and the impact on the neighborhood is too immense. They have heard how the

church cannot afford other options and felt those were not compelling arguments. He

felt they should be required to meet Village code. He mentioned his personal

involvement working on a building committee, how they dealt with various issues and

concerns of the neighborhood, and ultimately received an award for excellence. He

thought the project could be viable but asked for the Commissioners' recommendation

of denial for this plan.

Tamara Urish, 216 W. Maple, Lombard, indicated she previously submitted a letter of

disapproval regarding this petition. She is a former planner for the City of Highland

Park, stated her reasons why the petition should not be approved, and stated that

asking for special consideration due to monetary reasons was not considered a

hardship - there are particular physical surroundings that make meeting code

impractical.

Robert Meek, 115 E. Ash, Lombard, deferred.

Jim Nelson, 207 W. Ash, Lombard, indicated he lived across the street from the building.

He stated this is not about the church but about the school, which is an outreach

function. He had questions of staff's comments relative to green space, other religious

institutions and schools and their percentage of lot space, the lot coverage, and of those

listed in Appendix A. He agreed with others in that they have invested heavily in their

properties and should be able to enjoy the neighborhood. Mr. Nelson mentioned the

recent school referendum and felt that this might cause new families to move and this

should be considered in their future plans. He thought that possibly using Mr. Daube's

services as an arbitrator might be beneficial.

Kenneth Bohl, 213 W. Ash, Lombard, clarified that the petition they submitted for the

record has 27 signatures. How they obtained them was by drawing a circle around the

neighborhood on paper and went to each resident within that circle. These signatures

against the petition represent 100 percent participation. He indicated the neighborhood

is in support of the modernization of the school but oppose the plan they have

presented.

Jim Colby, 211 Maple, Lombard, opposed the plan, specifically stating that the size,

height, and elevations will not benefit the neighborhood. He would like to see the

historic nature of the neighborhood maintained. The height of the building has a

significant negative impact on the neighborhood. He asked that the Plan

Commissioners deny the petition and have St. John's return with a more fitting proposal.

Chairperson Ryan stated that now would be a time for rebuttal.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that most of the items listed in Appendix A are

religious institutions. Sacred Heart did get zoning relief from open space requirements.

He wasn't sure if St. Pius' parking lot was legal nonconforming. Christ the King does

meet open space and their site was reviewed by the Plan Commission last year. Trinity

Lutheran was annexed into the Village in 2003 so it would be legal non-conforming. The

College Preparatory School meets open space requirements.

Joe Jaruseski rebutted to various questions:

1. Montini's addition/tear down and rebuilding - he didn't believe that they did a tear

down.

2. Can reduce the mass but at the expense of the senior center. He believed those

comments are contrary to their intentions.

3. Weren't aware of their plans - St. John's had good neighbor meetings and they felt

they had represented their plans at that time.

4. The types of trees and their ages - he did not know the answer to those questions,

they could be maples.

5. Having the service drive off of Lincoln - he believed they covered this issue at the last

meeting.

6. Submission of masonry versus precast costs - they chose precast because it is a

better quality.

7. Acquiring property west of Lincoln - St. John's have limited needs and have to draw a

circle around parameters.

8. Destruction of two large trees - Their intention is not to destroy large trees.

9. The landscape plan was part of their presentation.

10. Visualization - The building height is 32' feet for gym and the rest of the building is

28'.

11. Building a new high school - the closest high school is in Melrose Park.

12. Regarding the secrecy of purchasing properties - all real estate transactions are

recorded with DuPage County.

13. Cost of $125,000 versus $600,000 and the change of $200,000 - the original design

for the school, the cost was $600,000. Redesigned as proposed today will cost an

additional $200,000.

14. Page 36 moving the drive off Lincoln - traffic flow would be better off of Maple than

Lincoln.

15. 100 percent of neighbors signed the petition in comparison to good neighbor

meetings. The neighbors should be commended by pulling together.

16. Mr. DeSalvo's visualization in that their architects didn't bring in houses to compare.

Mr. Brosnan indicated that the visualization misrepresented the size and the buildings.

The gym is proposed to be 32' high. The drawings are not done in context of the

buildings.

Mr. Jaruseski then questioned the process from here.

Chairperson Ryan indicated that staff would present the staff report.

William Heniff referenced the addendum report that was submitted to the public record.

He then noted the changes from the initial submittal. The petitioner submitted modified

building elevational drawings. The exterior of the school remains a pre-cast structure.

However, the petitioner has modified the south and east elevations to incorporate

additional window treatments to break up the building mass and to tie it in with the

existing church and school buildings. Reveals were also added to the elevations and

the gymnasium building height was reduced by one foot. Staff still recommends that

additional masonry be added to the east building elevation.

With respect to the west elevation, the Commissioners requested additional information

regarding the views and perspectives of the school from neighboring properties to the

east. The petitioner's revised submittal includes additional color palette changes. Staff

recommends the inclusion of additional treatments at the top of the gymnasium wall

elevation.

The petitioner has prepared a ten-year campus plan for the site. Other than the school

improvements depicted on the submitted plans made a part of the public hearing

request, they are not requesting approval of any other improvements at this time. At the

public hearing, they did express a longer-range desire to establish a child-care activity

as part of their overall plan.

The petitioner submitted a detailed landscape plan for Plan Commission consideration.

The plan, which includes plant species and material locations, includes foundation

landscaping consisting of bushes, shrubs along the south and east elevations, and

shrub hedgerows along the west property line. The existing tree stand southeast of the

Senior Center is intended to remain and serves as an aesthetic enhancement to the

Maple Street/Lincoln Avenue visual corridor.

The petitioner revised the location and design of the proposed trash enclosure area.

The new location of the enclosure will be farther from adjacent residences and will be

made of similar materials as the school building. To ensure neighborhood compatibility,

staff recommends the approval be tied to the aforementioned provisions and that trash

pick-up shall not occur on the property prior to 8:00 a.m.

The petitioner provided additional details regarding proposed drainage swales on the

property to minimize stormwater run-off onto neighboring properties. Staff reviewed the

submitted plans relative to the concerns raised at the public hearing meeting. The storm

restrictor will be placed at the property line immediately south of the school. As such, in

the event that capacity for the vault system is exceeded, the additional stormwater

would be discharged south of the school and would empty into the Ash Street and

Lincoln Avenue storm drains. Based upon the design of the vault system, the area in

which the vault exists will be able to absorb the rain water falling at the vault location

(the additional stormwater would filter through the aggregate material placed around the

vault). Therefore, upon approval of final engineering for the site, staff believes that the

stormwater run-off will be satisfactorily addressed.

The petitioner's revised plans removed the concrete gathering area depicted on their

earlier plans. Moreover, they also propose to remove existing impervious surfaces from

the Senior Center driveway area. Staff analyzed other religious institutions/schools in

the Village for compliance with this provision. Staff also looked at zoning relief granted

in the recent past for other religious institutions in the Village. Many existing institutions

are within the 60 percent range of lot coverage. Since the Village has granted relief

from this requirement for several other infill sites in the Village, staff can support this

provision as well, but suggests that the approval be conditioned to the submitted plans

and that no less than thirty percent lot coverage.

The service driveway is intended to provide rear access to the school for selected

deliveries and for emergency access purposes. To further reduce the impact of the

driveway and to discourage its use, the petitioner is proposing to reconstruct the

driveway using a grasscrete surface. The drive will also be reduced to twelve feet in

width. Staff finds this amendment to be acceptable as it will decrease the likelihood that

the driveway will be used for any purpose other than its intended use as a service drive

for the school. The proposed drive will generate less traffic activity then currently used

by the Senior Center. To further address the concerns raised through the public hearing

process, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a bollard be placed at the

entrance to the driveway to limit non-essential traffic.

Mr. Jaruseski then asked if St. John's were to approve the remaining requirements listed

in the staff report would that would satisfy the outstanding issues. Mr. Heniff stated yes,

the other things are minor. Mr. Jaruseski stated that if that is the only major request for

this proposal then they accept.

Chairperson Ryan asked if the Commissioners had any questions.

Commissioner Burke stated that similar to last month's meeting he commended all

participants for their professional and calm demeanor in the presentations. Again he

stated that he is supportive of what St. John's does but they are located in a 100 percent

residential neighborhood. He has difficulties with the plan and the objectors presented a

mass diagram, which defines the height of the building overall which is not compatible

with the neighborhood. Some general comments are that the trees we are trying to save

could be popular trees, cottonwoods, mulberries, etc. but residents have been cutting

them down due to disease or from them falling down, so saving trees that have outlived

their lives is insignificant. Most importantly, the people that would be most affected want

it built on the east side of Lincoln and he does not see any other alternative.

Commissioner Olbyrsh stated he is sympathetic with the Congregation Chairman of St.

John's as he is also on a church building committee and is familiar with the hard work

you need to tackle all issues. He commended St. John's as their revised plans took into

consideration previous Commissioners' comments but he agrees that the school would

be located on the wrong side of the street. He has no problem with the school but his

concern is where it will go and how it will impact a historic section of Lombard.

Commissioner Sweetser stated the building is big. She was pleased that the

Commissioners' comments and concerns were addressed. Now the masonry has been

incorporated and comparing the mass of the second one was more to scale and that

was 28' high. Commissioner Sweetser stated that if there is no other petition before the

Plan Commission, she felt St. John's has done all they can do. She referenced Slide 15

in their PowerPoint presentation showing another parochial school mass next to a

single-family home. This picture says the situation already exists in the Maple Street

corridor. This petition could be approved if it is impossible to have it on the east side.

Commissioner Zorn stated she was torn. She felt bad for the people of St. John's

because she understands they need a school but the building looks too big for the

property.

Commissioner Flint indicated he was not present at the last Plan Commission meeting

but mentioned the previous workshops. This is a difficult decision but this is a big

building on a small amount of property and will be impacting the neighbors. He

encouraged St. John's to build on the east side and put the parking on the other side

even though there might be a disruption.

Commissioner Burke referenced the Sacred Heart slide in the petitioner's PowerPoint

presentation. He stated that he also has been in their position working on a building

committee. They affected one house and got phone calls on a weekly basis because of

the new lights, flooding, and water run off. The situation does exist but that it is not

reasonable to make the same mistake over again.

Commissioner Burke stated that based on the submitted petition and the testimony

presented, the proposed conditional use and variations do not comply with the

standards required by the Lombard Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision and

Development Ordinance and that the planned development would not be within the

public interest; and, therefore, I move that the Plan Commission not accept the findings

of the Inter-departmental Review Report as the findings of the Plan Commission and

therefore, I move that the Plan Commission make the following findings of fact as the

finding of the Lombard Plan Commission:

A. The Petition fails to meet the standards for conditional uses for the following

respects:

1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed private elementary

school as described in Petitioner's Application for Amendment to a Conditional Use and

for a Planned Development, would not be detrimental to, or endanger the public health,

safety, morals, comfort or general welfare by creating a negative impact on surrounding

residential properties, contrary to Section 155.103(F)(8)(a) of the Lombard Village Code;

2. Said proposed private elementary school would be injurious to the use and

enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity of the Subject Property by creating

a negative visual impact to be viewed from the surrounding residential properties,

contrary to Section 155.103(F)(8)(b) of the Lombard Village Code;

3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that said proposed private elementary

school would not substantially diminish and impair property values within the

neighborhood in which it is to be located, as required by Section 155.103(F)(8)(b) of the

Lombard Village Code;

4. That the applicant has failed to demonstrate that said proposed private elementary

school will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of

surrounding properties for single family residential use as permitted within the R2 District

regulations;

5. That the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that said private elementary

school ensures that adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress and egress

designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets;

6. That said proposed conditional use is contrary to the objectives of the

Comprehensive Plan as the plan does not protect adjacent residential areas from

encroachment by land uses which are incompatible or which may create adverse

impacts.

7. That applicant has failed to demonstrate that the conditional use shall in all other

respects conform to the applicable regulations of the R2 District, even if modified by the

Plan Commission; and

8. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the petition meets the Standards for

Planned Developments with Deviations, as set forth in Section 155.508 (A) of the

Lombard Village Code. Said standards have not been met for the following reasons:

a. The proposed use is not within the public interest and is not consistent with the

purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, as required by Section 155.508(A)(4) of the Lombard

Village Code;

b. The proposed planned development deviations would not be compatible with the

primary use of the planned development and that requested reductions to the bulk

requirements are not in the public interest, as required by Section 155.508(C)(1) of the

Lombard Village Code;

c. The proposed planned development deviations are not of benefit to adjacent

properties, contrary to Section 155.508(C)(3) of the Lombard Village Code; and

d. That the proposed elementary school does not dissipate any adverse impact of

adjoining buildings, as the petition seeks relief, contrary to Section 155.508(C)(6) of the

Lombard Village Code.

Therefore, I move that the Plan Commission recommend to the Corporate Authorities

Since the Village in this case acted as petitioner, Jennifer Backensto, Planner I,

presented the staff report. The Village is proposing text amendments that would allow

public recreational and social facilities as a conditional use within the downtown area in

the B5 and B5A Districts. (Such uses are already allowable as conditional uses within

the R6 Central Residence District.) This petition is being brought forward to allow for

new park facilities including the sprinkler park being proposed by the Lombard Park

District in PC 05-14. This text amendment would be applicable to all properties within

the B5 and B5A Districts.

The Lombard Park District is proposing to construct and operate a sprinkler park on the

eastern portion of the Fifth Third Bank property at 211 W. St. Charles Road. A detailed

discussion of their request is considered as part of PC 05-14. However, before the

Village can consider the merits of their petition, the Zoning Ordinance must be amended

to list public recreational and social facilities as a conditional use in the B5 Central

Business District. Although the Park District's petition does not directly impact any

properties within the B5A Downtown Perimeter District, staff believes that the rationale

for permitting public recreational and social facilities is the same in both of these districts

that encompass the overall Central Business District.

Currently, public recreational and social facilities are defined in the R1 District as golf

courses, noncommercial recreational clubs, parks and playgrounds, noncommercial

recreational buildings and community centers, noncommercial swimming pools, and

noncommercial tennis clubs and courts. For the sake of consistency, public recreational

and social facilities should be defined in the same way in all sections of the Zoning

Ordinance.

Ms. Backensto stated that the Standards for Text Amendments have been affirmed.

Should the amendment be approved, it would apply to all properties with B5 and B5A

zoning. Any property for which a public recreational or social facility as proposed would

have to meet the standards for conditional uses and would be subject to a future public

hearing process.

There are currently a large number of residents within the B5 and B5A Districts, and this

number can be expected to grow as redevelopment continues within the downtown.

Although Lilacia Park is a substantial amenity for the area, there is an absence of play

areas for children. The purpose of the ordinance is to provide opportunities for locating

neighborhood public recreational and social facilities. Currently, various types of

recreational and social facilities are allowed as conditional uses in all zoning

classifications except the B1, B2, B5, and B5A districts. Staff believes that allowing

review on a case-by-case basis whether a proposed recreational use is appropriate for a

particular site is consistent with the ordinance and is preferable to rezoning small,

individual sites to the CR Conservation Recreation District.

No nonconformities would be created by these amendments, and the proposed

amendment would make the Zoning Ordinance more permissive only to the extent that it

would allow public recreational and social facilities within the B5 and B5A Commercial

Districts through the conditional use public hearing process. Without the text

amendment, public recreational and social facilities could only be approved if the

property was rezoned into a district that would permit public recreational and social

facilities (such as the R6 District), which staff believes would not be practical or

desirable in most cases. Therefore, establishing the review through the conditional use

process is more desirable.

Staff believes that allowing the possibility for public recreational and social facilities, in

those locations where the Plan Commission and Board of Trustees have deemed them

appropriate, enforces the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore,

the Village has a history of amending its Zoning Ordinance to address newly evolving

circumstances presented by petition or otherwise. The proposed amendments are

consistent with established Village policy in this regard.

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

present to speak for or against the petition.

Commissioner Olbrysh moved to approve the petition. The motion was seconded by

Commissioner Sweetser.

Mike Fugiel, Executive Director of the Lombard Park District, presented the petition.

They are seeking a conditional use for the eastern 60 feet of the Fifth Third Bank

parking lot. This is a new type of facility that reflects a recent trend of sprinkler parks as

outside, stand-alone features. This site was selected because it is more than 5 or 6

blocks walking distance to the nearest playground-type facility.

Mr. Fugiel stated that the front of the site will be consistent with the downtown

streetscape features as well as the Great Western Trail and Illinois Prairie Path. The

entry gate will have ornate curved features with an automatic gate closure. The park is

expected to attract families with children from toddler age up to 7 or 8 years old. It will

be open from roughly 10 a.m. to 6 or 7 p.m. The water features will remain dormant

until someone activates the bollards. Water will flow for 5 to 10 minutes and will then

stop until it is reactivated.

Similar sprinkler parks are located in Elmhurst and in Oakbrook Terrace. Elmhurst has

had no problems with their park and teenagers are embarrassed to use such a little kids'

facility. The closure of the park precludes its use as a hangout.

Mr. Fugiel stated that the bathrooms would be a big amenity for downtown events such

as the craft fair and Cruise Nights. The UV protection shade and tables will be removed

at the end of the season. At 22 feet, the park is a comfortable distance off the street.

The visibility of this type of feature is desirable as it will enhance the business district by

breaking up the brick and masonry appearance of the downtown and providing a visual

interest along with its recreational amenities. The park will be used from May until

September.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Greg Henderson, 843 S. School Street, stated that Behrens Park in Elmhurst is not a

great comparison because the Elmhurst sprinkler park is part of a much larger park.

This will be on a busy street with no privacy. It is a great idea, but it might be best

located in an existing park. Moran Water Park is only one-half mile away and it is

unlikely that people will bypass Moran for the sprinkler park.

Mr. Henderson asked what will happen during the rest of the year when the park is not

open, and how much revenue will be generated. He suggested that we wait for a

stronger solution that will do more than bring people on nice days, and noted that other

businesses might find the land desirable.

Paula Dillon, 123 W. St. Charles Road, stated that she is in support of good, structured

downtown development. She sees struggling businesses and wonders if this park is the

best fit to revitalize the area. She expressed concerns about traffic and parking and

asked if there would be a stoplight or crosswalk installed. She asked what the potential

revenue numbers were and noted that there were 3 units in her building with young

children or grandchildren. She noted that Lincoln Place had its parking variation request

denied. She stated that she wants the right kind of development.

Jackie Wicklander, 212 W. St. Charles Road, complained of problems with teenagers on

skateboards. She stated that there would be an accident and asked if anyone would

want this in their front yard.

Olive Langlois, 212 W. St. Charles Road, stated that she thought this would be a nice

amenity with little kids playing, but she is concerned about the traffic. Traffic on St.

Charles Road has increased and little kids will have a tough time crossing the street

alone. She thinks it's a bad idea.

Laverne Stahl, 212 W. St. Charles Road, stated that she drives to Fifth Third Bank from

her condominium across the street. From 3:30 p.m. on, traffic on St. Charles is very

heavy. She stated that downtown is not the place for children.

Mr. Fugiel stated that there would be a maximum of 10 to 15 kids in the park at the

same time. There will only be one parking space lost due to the installation of an

ADA-accessible parking space. He believes a sprinkler park is preferable to a skate

park. The Park District is not currently looking to staff the park, but they could send

someone to supervise during peak times.

Chairperson Ryan asked if the park would be free. Mr. Fugiel confirmed that, unlike at

Moran Water Park, there would be no charge to use the sprinkler park.

Commissioner Sweester stated that she couldn't imagine this as a destination park. Mr.

Fugiel stated that it would be a neighborhood park, although someone from another part

of town might be inclined to drive there due to its visibility.

Chairperson Ryan asked what will happen at the park during the winter. Mr. Fugiel

answered that the canopies and tables will be pulled down and the sprinkler area

locked. There will still be benches and seating along St. Charles Road.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if he was aware of any injuries at this type of park. Mr.

Fugiel stated that he was not aware of any injuries either at other sprinkler parks or

involving children getting hit crossing St. Charles Road to visit Moran Water Park.

Commissioner Zorn stated that the park seemed to be directed more toward toddlers.

Mr. Fugiel stated that that was the intention, although you may see kids up to age 8 or

so.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, noted

that the subject property is surrounded by condominiums to the north and east, with the

Union Pacific Railroad to the south and a retail strip center to the west. The petitioner,

the Lombard Park District, intends to construct and operate a sprinkler park at the

southwest corner of St. Charles Road and Lincoln Avenue in downtown Lombard. The

land for this park will be donated by Fifth Third Bank, which owns and operates a

drive-through bank facility to the west of the park site. The park will include a 1,600

square foot sprinklered play area with both open and shaded seating, restrooms, and 18

dedicated parking spaces. A 6-foot high welded steel fence will surround the play area.

The park will be operable from May through September, from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Ms. Backensto stated that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that this property be

developed as part of the Central Business District - Mixed-Use Area. Staff believes that

the proposed sprinkler park adds to the mix of mutually reinforcing land uses within the

downtown, as per the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. The seat walls,

park benches, planters, and trash receptacles on the north end of the park will be

consistent with streetscape features throughout the rest of the downtown. The storage

building will be similar in style to the proposed garage at the Hammerschmidt Commuter

Parking Lot. There are no other recreational facilities within the downtown with the

exception of Lilacia Park, so the proposed sprinkler park would provide a play area for

young children in the neighborhood.

Staff finds that the petition meets the Standards for Conditional Uses. The park will be a

daytime operation during the summer months and it will be secured during closed hours.

It will be beneficial to surrounding properties by providing an amenity for downtown

residents and their children and grandchildren. The park should also serve to attract

additional visitors to the downtown that may financially benefit surrounding businesses.

Ms. Backensto stated that the vehicle entrance to the site would be the existing Fifth

Third Bank driveway entrance at the rear of the site. A cross access easement will

allow Fifth Third Bank customers and employees to continue to access the bank from

Lincoln Avenue. The proposed sprinkler park will not affect the business operations or

vehicle maneuvering on the bank property. No variations from the Zoning Ordinance

are being requested.

In conclusion, Ms. Backensto stated that staff recommends approval of the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then asked if there was anyone in the audience who had any

questions regarding the staff report. Hearing none, he opened the meeting for

discussion among the Plan Commission members.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she wished to applaud the Park District for creative

thinking, noting that something novel can be attractive without necessarily having a high

cost, especially when in an unexpected place.