Village of Lombard Legistar System

P. PC 06-17: 455 East Butterfield Road (Request to Continue to September 21,

2006)

Requests that the Village approve the following actions for the subject property located

within the O Office District:

1. Grant the following conditional uses from the Zoning Ordinance:

a. A conditional use, per Section 155.411 (C) (14), for a restaurant establishment;

b. A conditional use, per Section 155.411 (C) (10), for outdoor dining associated with

a restaurant establishment;

c. A conditional use, per Section 155.411 (C) (9), for off-site parking.

2. Grant the following variations from the Zoning Ordinance to address existing

non-conformities:

a. A variation from Section 155.411 (F) to reduce the required open space below the

thirty-five percent (35%) requirement;

b. A variation from Section 155.602 (A)(3)(d) to allow for parking spaces within the

required front yard;

c. Along the south property line, variations from Sections 155.706 (C) and 155.709

(B) to eliminate the perimeter parking lot landscaping and to reduce the perimeter lot

landscaping requirements from five feet (5') to zero feet (0').

3. Grant the following variations from the Sign Ordinance:

a. A variation from Section 153.503(B)(12)(a) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for a

wall sign of up to 146 square feet where a maximum of 100 square feet is permitted;

b. A variation from Section 153.503(B)(12)(b) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for a

second wall sign per street front exposure, where a maximum of one sign is permitted.

4. Approval of a one-lot major plat of subdivision.

Greg Van Landingham, of In-site Real Estate, 1603 W. 16th Street, Oak Brook,

presented the petition. He described the petition and the project location, noting several

other restaurants located along the corridor. He indicated that they are also requesting

to have an outdoor dining area, approximately 1,500 s.f. which is to be located on the

north side of the building. Staff has stated their support for these requests due to the

success of other establishments. As a result of staff support, additional off site parking

to the rear of the property for the outdoor dining component is being secured through a

lease agreement with NiCor. This parking area had been previously used by other

property owners as additional parking and has since been repaved and re-striped.

Continuing, he referenced the variation to reduce open space below 35% of the lot area.

The previous use was also below the amount of open space and the proposed

restaurant will have more open space than the previous use. He then referred to a

display board and showed where the previous use contained parking spaces and where

the three parking spaces encroach into 30 foot front yard setback. He stated that they

proposed to utilize the existing parking lot with the existing encroachment leaving the

parking area as is. Lastly, they were also requesting a variation to reduce the perimeter

parking lot landscape requirement from 5' to 0'. This is due to using that area for

additional parking and that there would be a drive aisle on both sides.

The petitioner then passed out colored elevations of the proposed signs. Truman Gee,

Interplan, 933 Lee Road, Orlando Florida, who also has a local office within Lombard,

presented the signage requests. He spoke of the unusual situation they were being

faced with - that being the road the building faces is not the entry to the restaurant.

Therefore they are requesting signage on two facades instead of one which is allowed

by Village code. Referring to a display board he showed the location of the signs and

explained the reasoning for having them there. Mr. Gee then indicated that the area of

the sign according to staff is 125 square feet in size, however, they have not confirmed

their sign is that large. The total square footage of the sign would depend on your

calculations. Staff led them to believe that 2 or 3 rectangular signs totaling 100 square

feet or under could be acceptable.

Mr. Gee continued and displayed the materials board and indicated what they had

already proposed. He stated that for this project they have modified their plans from the

standard ale house restaurant, which usually uses stucco, to incorporate staff's

suggestions that they increase the amount of masonry. He mentioned that they did

notice a few other stucco buildings in town. On the two main facades they are using

seventy percent masonry and thirty percent stucco. They have a stucco block building

which is not EIFS. This current design has evolved with the cooperation of staff and

they were able to add additional towers. He then referred to their submitted plans, 4

sets of 2 sheets. The materials are specified in the colored renderings. The plans

proposed painted siding with a little stained wood and he explained where it would be

located. The remainder of the façade would be masonry. He mentioned that their client

was cooperative in working with staff and the ultimate design was a long way from their

typical building. He stated that this building could be used for future stores in the area

and would fit in well with the other existing restaurants due to the tall parapets, rooftop

mechanicals screened behind parapet walls resulting in no visibility from any angle, walk

in coolers and freezers are encased behind the concrete wall, and the dumpsters will be

enclosed. Concluding, Mr. Gee stated they believed this project is compatible with the

surrounding area.

Mark Henderson of Seton Engineering, 19 S. Bothwell Street, Palatine, explained the

proposed site plan and stormwater detention. He mentioned that this site was

previously used by Bally's. It was 80 percent impervious and will be 82 percent

impervious. The site is being reconstructed, the back half will remain which has been

sealcoated and restriped. The front is repaved and the new building will be in place. He

stated that they will follow DuPage County ordinance and the stormwater detention will

be held on the surface of the parking lot.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments among the Commissioners.

No one spoke in favor or against the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He summarized the petition

and the requested actions.

The subject property at 455 East Butterfield Road was previously improved with a

fitness center, which was razed earlier this year. The petitioner is seeking a number of

zoning actions to facilitate the construction of a 7,230 square foot sit-down restaurant

with a 1,500 square foot outdoor dining area on a property located within the O Office

District. The proposal attempts to reuse many of the previous parking lot improvements

already constructed on site and replace the former Bally's building with a new restaurant

based upon the submitted plans.

The subject property abuts a NiCor tract of land immediately to the south. This area is

currently improved with an asphalt surface. The petitioner is seeking approval of a

conditional use for off-site parking in order to meet the parking needs of the outdoor

dining component of the restaurant.

The subject property is also improved with a parking lot with three legal non-conformities

related to landscaping requirements. The petition includes companion relief to allow

these nonconformities to remain on the property. The petition does increase the degree

of nonconformity.

The petitioner is also seeking relief from the Sign Ordinance to allow for larger wall signs

and for two wall signs on the property, when only one is permitted by right.

Lastly, the petitioner will be seeking approval of a one-lot plat of subdivision, making the

subject property a lot of record.

Sit-down restaurants require conditional use approval in the Office District. Such uses

are considered complementary to the numerous office uses within the corridor.

However to ensure compatibility, staff offers a number of site plan improvements as part

of the proposal to address access and circulation issues.

The petitioner's proposal includes a 1,500 square foot outdoor dining area located on

the north side of the building. As the abutting land uses to the outdoor area are

non-residential in nature, these uses would not be negatively affected by the outdoor

dining.

The abutting NiCor property is improved with an asphalt parking lot that has been used

by the subject property owner for parking purposes. The petitioner will be entering into a

lease with NiCor to allow for the NiCor property to be used to meet their parking needs

for the outdoor dining component. The petitioner has prepared a joint parking plan

showing how the spaces will be configured under the lease arrangement.

Given that the NiCor parking area is for the use and benefit of the petitioner only to meet

their outdoor dining parking needs and that the use of the principal building would be

unaffected by the lease arrangement, staff is supportive of the conditional use. If NiCor

and/or the property owner were to terminate the lease agreement, the subject property

could easily achieve code compliance by removing the outdoor dining area.

As a companion to the conditional uses noted above, three parking related landscape

variations are included within this petition. The petitioner has provided a parking lot plan

includes the construction of ten new landscape parking islands on the property. With

these improvements, the parking lot will meet the five percent minimum landscape

requirement required by code. He then discussed the three non-conforming parking lot

landscape issues, noting that the relief can be supported in light of the existing

conditions on the property.

The petitioner intends to provide the requisite landscaping plantings to meet the

provisions established in the Lombard Zoning Ordinance.

The petitioner is proposing to install two identical signs on the proposed building. The

signs on the north and west sides of the building will state “Miller's Ale House

Restaurant” and are proposed to be approximately 125 square feet in size. The Zoning

Ordinance limits the number of wall signs to one per street frontage in the Office District

and caps the overall square footage to a maximum of 100 square feet. Given the

building's distance from Butterfield Road and the relatively high speeds at which traffic

moves along that road, staff does not object to the proposed number or increased size

of the wall signs.

The petitioner is also seeking approval of a one-lot subdivision encompassing the

subject property. This subdivision will make the property a lot of record, as required by

the Zoning Ordinance. The lot will meet the width and area requirement of the Zoning

Ordinance.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property be designated for office uses.

The proposed use, while not specifically office in nature, complements and is compatible

with the surrounding office and restaurant uses. The properties to the east and west of

the subject property are also zoned in the Office District. As noted earlier, the proposed

use is compatible with the adjacent land uses, subject to the access provisions noted

earlier.

He then concluded his presentation by noting how the petition meets the standards for

variations and conditional uses. He also clarified that no site plan approval authority is

needed as this is not within a planned development. He also noted that the petitioner

may come back to the Plan commission for additional signage approval, based on their

latest sign concept. He wanted to know the Commissioners initial comments on this

idea.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments from the Plan Commission

members.

Commissioner Sweetser thought that the petitioner might be thinking that staff is asking

more of them compared to other petitioners as it relates to the amount of masonry being

requested in their building. Mr. Heniff indicated that Lombard is a unique market for

restaurants. Restaurants are a destination location and there is a lot of competition as

well as opportunity. That being said, an attractive building is an asset and in the context

of their competition, they should be looking at these types of additional materials. There

are some restaurants that do not include masonry but these met Village Code or were

previously developed. If you look at the corridor in which this proposed restaurant will

be located it does present the opportunity to have a strong masonry element which staff

has requested of them.

Commissioner Sweetser confirmed that the petitioner's signage request was based on

the colored elevations and that they are requesting signs on two sides of the building

plus the logos. Mr. Heniff indicated that at this point, staff advertised for the channel

letter sign on the south and the north elevations, per the exhibit included in the plan

packet.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the petitioner took staff's suggestion by eliminating the

word “restaurant”. Mr. Heniff stated that they did make that modification which resulted

in the reduction of the overall size of the sign.

Mr. Heniff indicated that if the Commissioners had any comments whether the corporate

logo is appropriate that would be fine but the petitioner would have to come back to a

later meeting in order for staff to readvertise for the logos.

Commission Olbrysh commented on the corporate logo. He referred to the brochure

they distributed and mentioned that their location in Orlando, Florida does not have the

logo and wondered if this was something new. Ray Holden, 612 N. Orange Avenue,

Jupiter, Florida, indicated that to jazz up the proposed building and in order for them to

relay that they are a family restaurant and not just an ale house this logo would be

necessary as their name could be misleading. The logo is something new and they

have another rendition which is a porthole. They are also open to that concept.

Commissioner Flint thought it was nice but stated they can vote on the submitted

petition. Chairperson Ryan asked the Commissioners if they had any reservations

relative to the petitioner returning for the logo. Commissioners Burke and Flint indicated

they had no objection. Commissioner Olbrysh indicated that it makes the building look

busy but others have a corporate logo. Commissioner Sweetser suggested that they

wait and see what their other options are.

1. The petitioner shall develop the site in substantial conformance with the submitted

plans prepared listed below and made part of this request, except where modified by the

conditions of approval:

a. Proposed demolition plan and site engineering plan with details, prepared by

prepared by Seton Engineering, dated April 30, 2006.

b. Photometric Plan, prepared by Security Lighting, dated June 12, 2006.

c. Proposed Landscape Plan, prepared by Lehman & Lehman, dates June 28, 2006.

d. Proposed Additional Parking Exhibit (including NiCor property parking area),

prepared by Seton Engineering, dated June 30, 2006.

e. Proposed Exterior Building Elevations, prepared by Interplan, Inc., no date.

2. The petitioner shall revise the Additional Parking Exhibit to include a removable

barrier along the north side of the proposed drive aisle and a temporary bulb

demarcated at the end of the lot.

3. The owners or subsequent owners of the Subject Properties shall not object to

granting cross access easement rights on, and, or across the Subject Properties, upon a

request by the Village.

4. Should the parking lot and/or drive aisle to the east of the parking lot be extended,

the petitioner shall re-stripe the parking lot accordingly to accommodate the connection.

5. In the event that the 455 E. Butterfield property is unable to maintain a lease for

parking rights on the Nicor property, the conditional use for outdoor dining shall

immediately become null and void.

Before the public hearing commenced, Donald Ryan, Plan Commission Chairperson,

stated that he is a member of the Sacred Heart Building Committee, and as such, he will

abstain from making any comments or voting on the petition.

Father Thomas Milota, Scared Heart Church pastor, 114 S. Elizabeth Street, Lombard,

presented the petition. He stated that Sacred Heart has been working on renovating

their parking lot, part of which is leased is on land leased from the Union Pacific railroad.

They are looking to expand their lease area to include a small area northwest of their

existing parking lot.

Sacred Heart has renewed their lease and are looking to add this property in order to

bring it into closer compliance and to alleviate the parking congestion along the streets

during certain events and masses. The proposed lot will “square off” the existing lot and

will provide for more parking spaces on their property.

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

against the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that the Sacred

Heart Planned Development was established in 2001 (PC 01-01) to address all site

improvements associated with their parish activities. Sacred Heart has entered into a

parking lease agreement with Union Pacific railroad. The agreement will allow Sacred

Heart to construct a parking lot addition of 1,703 square feet for the use and benefit of

their parishioners. The public hearing for the proposed amendment will add the leased

area within the planned development boundaries and will address any other related

landscape variation issues.

He noted that the petitioner is making improvements to the existing parking lot, which

will bring it into closer compliance with Village Code requirements. The petitioner's

parking lot addition would provide for seven additional parking spaces and a drive aisle.

If approved, the parking lot will have 140 parking spaces, with the spaces meeting the

dimension requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

He stated that the Comprehensive Plan recommends Public and Institutional uses for

this site. The current use as a religious and educational institution conforms to this

recommendation.

To address compatibility issues, the parking lot addition will be located to the north of

the church property on railroad right-of-way - visibility of this area from adjacent

properties will be minimal. As such, the addition is compatible with the adjacent

properties.

The Sacred Heart planned development approval in 2001 included all of the land owned

by the Joliet Diocese and is used as part of the church/school operations. The

proposed parking lot addition would constitute a major change to a planned

development as the expansion is beyond the boundaries of the original planned

development. The intent of the expansion is to provide for additional parking for the

church and school. The lot addition is intended to provide for better traffic flow on the

site and to provide for additional parking stalls. From staff's perspective, the additional

spaces are quite desirable as they bring the site into closer compliance with Zoning

Ordinance. Moreover, any additional spaces, particularly located away from the

residential properties, would benefit the neighborhood as well as the petitioner.

Therefore staff supports the request.

He then noted that the petitioner seeks approval of three landscape variations to provide

for the expanded parking lot area. This relief is necessary to allow the petitioner to

cross property lines with their parking lot improvements without needing to provide

additional landscaping. Regarding the open space requirement, the petition increases

the overall size of the planned development without increasing the percentage of open

space from 16% to 15.6% percent. As the intent of the parking lot addition is to provide

Ahmet Pandya, owner of the proposed business presented the petition. He described

his petition and how the tenant space within the building will be utilized. The front half of

the space will be used for office space and showroom activities, while the rear will be

used for cutting purposes. They will use a filtration system to ensure that residue from

their operation will not go into public sewers. He noted that no additional parking will be

needed as part of their operations.

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

against the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The petitioner is proposing to

open his stone fabrication business, consisting of cutting and polishing granite and stone

products. Such uses are identified as conditional uses within the I Limited Industrial

District.

The petitioner's use would occupy approximately 7,200 square feet within a one-story,

72,036 square foot multiple-tenant building. The fabrication area of the facility will

include a cutting machine and polishing equipment. The polishing activities would

include a closed tank system to recycle any water used within the cutting process.

Once the stone has been cut, it will be stored indoors until it is sent to other

manufacturers and/or distributors. Excluding vehicle parking, all business operations

are intended to be conducted indoors. No retail sales activities will be performed

on-site.

The plat of survey indicates that the subject property has nine total parking spaces of

which four are located in the front of the building. A front loading dock will be used to

drop off bulk stone for processing and the rear doors will be used for transporting cut

stone off of the premises. The parking spaces in the rear of the building are not

assigned. As such, the use and the property meet the Village parking requirements.

Staff believes the proposed industrial use is compatible with the recommendations of the

Comprehensive Plan, which recommends Planned Business Park activities. The

proposed use is compatible with the surrounding business and light industrial uses.

Adjacent industrial properties should not be impacted by the requested conditional use.

Staff believes that the petition can be supported based on the following considerations:

1. The Plan Commission and the Village Board have previously found that stone cutting

operations within the York Brook Business Park can be compatible with the uses within

the park as well as adjacent land uses, as evidenced by the Pyramid Stone conditional

use approval (PC 04-32).

2. All business activities will be conducted indoors; and

3. The use is consistent with other types of business activities found in the York Brook

Park.

Staff recommends that a trash enclosure area be constructed for the petitioner's

dumpster, with said enclosure being designed per Village Code (solid fence of 6 to 8

feet in height). He concluded by describing how the development meets the standards

for conditional uses.

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

members. The Commissioners did not have any comments on the petition.

*B. PC 06-05: Text Amendments (C/R Signage) (Waiver of First Requested)

The Village of Lombard is proposing amendments to the Lombard Sign Ordinance

within the Conservation/Recreation District, as follows:

A. Within Section 153.501 (B) of the Sign Ordinance:

1. Add Informational Signs and establishing regulations thereto;

2. Add Institutional Signs and establishing regulations thereto;

3. Add Temporary Signs and establishing regulations thereto;

4. Establish regulations for Sponsor Signage and banners;

5. Amending Section 153.501 (B)(2) pertaining to the size, height, location and

number of permitted free-standing signs; and

6. Amending Section 153.501 (B)(3) pertaining to the number and area of permitted

wall signs.

B. Amend Section 153.602 - Definitions to include provisions for "sponsor signage"

and/or any required companion text amendments associated with the amendments set

forth above.

C. Amend Section 153.206 - Signs Not Subject to a Permit. Staff is requesting a

waiver of first reading.

Chairperson Ryan indicated to the audience that this is a workshop and there will not be

a time allotted to the public to give comments or ask questions. The purpose of the

meeting is to have the Plan Commissioners to give direction to staff. A public hearing

will be heard in the near future and during that time interested parties can come to

speak as there will be a public participation portion of the meeting.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, indicated that the purpose of this workshop was to

provide information to the Commissioners about a public hearing that would occur in the

next couple of months in regard to the DuPage Theater. The main goal of this

presentation is to inform the Commissioners of what has been done to date, the zoning

actions that will be considered, as well as to give them some preliminary design

concepts relative to this proposal. There are issues that still need to be addressed, but

familiarity is the main goal and the comments raised tonight will be incorporated by staff.

The Plan Commission's role is to look at the land issues such as traffic, development

guidelines and stormwater provisions and not financing issues or those related to the tax

increment district (TIF) extension.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, presented a presentation in PowerPoint format

(attached) which included the project proposal, various floor plan details, relief from

Village Code, and traffic flow. Following Ms. Backensto's presentation was Daniel

Coffey, Architect for RSC & Associates. He gave a three dimensional PowerPoint

presentation which included the following:

Rendering of the corner showing the old building in the foreground

View of the building to the north and retail base that will be finished in similar materials

View of the street level showing the setback on the condominiums with the terraces

above.

View from the neighborhood to the east as well as the street level. He indicated that

thelocation of the new theater and mentioned that the marquee will be replaced. and he

rotated the slide to show the street level as well. Also shown was a loop access to the

parking on the back side.

View traveling south to north on Main.

View traveling west to east on Parkside and then south on Main

Overall view

Chairperson Ryan asked if the green space behind the building was to scale. Mr. Coffey

indicated that it was.

Commissioner Burke asked Ms. Backensto if the average size of these condominium

units compares with other developments. Ms. Backensto stated the average size was

approximately 1,150 square feet and that this is fairly comparable, but she did not have

exact numbers. Commissioner Burke then asked about the density and how big the

project was. Ms. Backensto answered about two acres. Commissioner Burke

expressed concern about the amount of units and would like to have a comparison.

Commissioner Burke asked if the facade would be replaced or restored. Mr. Coffey

answered that the old building façade will be restored, but the existing marquee will be

replaced.

Commissioner Burke asked if the west and north elevations will be restored using the

same materials. Mr. Coffey answered yes.

Commissioner Flint agreed that in lieu of the landscaping setback, additional

landscaping materials need to be planted - whether it is on the adjacent owner's

property or the petitioner's property.

Commissioner Flint confirmed that there was no parking variation for the new

residences or retail spaces - other than for the 38 spaces for the theater and that would

be leased. He questioned how the parking spaces would be regulated. Mr. Coffey

indicated that they still needed to figure that out.

Commissioner Flint stated that he was impressed with the development but there were a

lot of units. Mr. Coffey indicated on a slide that a certain wing will be more loft like and

they are looking at two kinds of residential product. The lofts will offer more variety and

velocity of the sales and it has taller ceilings. Commissioner Flint stated that with the

corner being lower, it gives you some relief.

Chairperson Ryan requested that when they come back for the public hearing that they

have the actual scope of the building set into the real neighborhood, similar to what St.

John's presented, and incorporate the surrounding buildings as well. Mr. Coffey stated

they used generic houses and were pretty close considering some of these homes could

become bigger in the future.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if there was that much space between the residents and

the development. Mr. Coffey indicated that was the real aerial. Mr. Coffey indicated

they got all this from the area and put the trees in the same spot. Chairperson Ryan

asked if all the heights were the same. Mr. Coffey indicated no.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked where the parking garage was. Mr. Coffey pointed to the

area on the slide. He then confirmed that the location was on the grade level going one

level up and one down. Mr. Coffey showed another slide showing the different levels.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if this parking was to be used by residents and

commercial. Mr. Coffey indicated these spaces do not include the 38 for the theater.

Commissioner Olbrysh also commented about the general need for parking in the

downtown area, noting that a parking garage would be desirable.

Commissioner Sweetser commented on the restored portion of the project. She thought

it looked independent but it should be tied together. Especially as the years go by, it

may start to look disjointed. She suggested a more traditional look, carrying lines

through, both components of the project. Currently it adds variety but 20-30 years down

the line it could look dated especially as the property would be a showpiece. Mr. Coffey

stated that it was a traditional look.

Commissioner Burke asked if the traffic study been ordered. Ms. Backensto indicated

that it had not. Commissioner Burke asked Mr. Heniff how we will justify whether or not

the ordinance calls for 38 parking spaces for a theater since we have not approved a

theater in 70-80 years. From a practical standpoint he could not believe that 38 spaces

would be sufficient for the project. This also does not take into account the parking

demands for other uses in the area and within the development.

Mr. Heniff answered that KLOA, the Village's traffic consultant, will conduct a traffic

study. Mr. Heniff then explained that Village Code currently requires 1 space per 4

seats and in the B5 District one only has to provide 50 percent of what is required by

code, or 1 space per 8 seats. Once their plan is refined, we will look at the practical

matter like the weekends, weekdays, and lease agreements.

The Commissioners then discussed other parking issues including how parking would

be allocated within the proposed mixed-use building, how and where parking would be

provided for the theater, parking demand for each of the proposed use functions,

parking impacts on adjacent residential streets and how parking regulations would be

enforced.