Village of Lombard Legistar System

Wesley Cover, of Kenneth Johnson Associates, 191 West Irving Park Boulevard, Wood

Dale, attorney for St. Thomas Marthoma Church, presented the petition on their behalf.

He presented a brief overview of the petition, noting that the petitioner previously

received conditional use approval for the church. This petition is to allow for an air

conditioning unit to be located within the corner side yard. Responding to the standards

for variations, he noted that its placement along North Avenue will minimize its visual

and noise impact on adjacent residential properties. He noted that the traffic noise

would be greater than the proposed unit. They submitted a landscape plan that will

provide a level of screening of the unit. He also stated that from a visual standpoint the

unit will not appear to be encroaching into the corner side yard, as the North Avenue

pavement is over sixty feet from the unit's proposed location.

He mentioned that the primary purpose of relocating the unit from the south side of the

building is to increase the unit's efficiency. Placing the unit on the south side of the

building would also require additional basement duct work which would negatively affect

their ability to use the area.

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

or in opposition to the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the subject property is currently under

development with a new religious institution, St. Thomas Marthoma Church. The

property owner/petitioner received conditional use approval for the religious institution,

with companion relief from open space requirements and for the church steeple as part

of PC 02-01 (Ordinance 5075). The petitioner is proceeding with construction of the

church per the approved plans. As part of the final building design, the petitioner

proposes to locate the air conditioning units on the north side of the building. However,

as the final location of the air conditioning unit is proposed to encroach within the

requisite corner side yard, the petitioner is seeking additional relief accordingly.

He noted that the Zoning Ordinance sets forth conditions for the placement of central air

conditioning unit compressors. The Ordinance allows for encroachments of up to two

feet into requisite interior side yards. However these units are not permitted

encroachments into front, corner side or rear yards. The intent of these regulations is to

minimize the visual and noise impacts of such units on adjacent properties.

In consideration of the proposed location of the unit, staff notes that the north property

line abuts the North Avenue right-of-way. While the outer edge of the unit will be

approximately twelve feet (12') off of the property line, it will be located sixty-one feet

(61') off of the North Avenue roadway. As such, while the placement of the unit

constitutes an encroachment into the setback requirements, its relationship to the

completed North Avenue pavement surface would not visually appear to be a visual

encroachment into the requisite yard. The placement of the church to the far northeast

corner of the property increases the building's prominence away from the residences

and toward the adjacent non-residential uses. The proposed air conditioning unit

location is also toward the north end of the property.

To ensure that its appearance does not detract from the overall appearance of the

property and from the Main Street/North Avenue intersection, the petitioner has

submitted a revised landscape plan showing that the unit will be screened by low growth

evergreen and deciduous plant materials. The proposed relocation of the air

conditioning unit will ensure that the unit will not be visible or audible from adjacent

residences.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends Single Family Residential uses for this location.

Institutional uses are generally considered to be supporting uses to the surrounding

single-family residential uses. The placement of the unit away from existing residences

would be consistent with the Plan objectives.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission

members.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that there is a valid reason to support this proposal. He

noted that the proposed location would not affect adjacent residences, it would be

partially screened and it would not appear to be an excessive encroachment into the

yard.

associated with the project. The building exterior will primarily consist of red brick

masonry with stone accents at the first level. He noted that the proposed clock tower

element on the west side of the building was a preference made by the Village Board

when they considered the development agreement for the property. As the proposed

clock tower is greater than forty-five feet in height, relief will be required. A planned

development is requested as the Zoning Ordinance requires planned developments for

projects within the B5 District that do not meet code.

He then discussed the other proposed property improvements, including the parking

plan and the landscape plan. He noted that the east parking lot would tie into the

existing Hammerschmidt Commuter lot.

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

or in opposition to the proposal. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The vacant property at 11-37

East St. Charles Road is currently owned by the Village. In 2005, the Village negotiated

a development agreement for the property with New Urban Communities Lombard, LLC

to provide for a new mixed-use multiple-family residential/commercial development. To

ensure that the future development on the property would be consistent with the vision

of downtown Lombard and the Village's Comprehensive Plan, the agreement set forth

specific development plan requirements and included concept building elevations.

As part of this agreement, the Board also directed the developer to provide a clock

tower element at the west end of the building as an additional architectural feature.

However, the proposed tower element would exceed the maximum height requirements

for buildings in the B5 District. As such, the proposed plan is being forwarded to the

Plan Commission to consider this element. However, as the Zoning Ordinance requires

that any new development within the B5 District that requires a variation to be

considered as part of a planned development, the petitioner has submitted for planned

development approval with a height deviation. Also, independent of the development

agreement with the Village, New Urban has also entered into a contract to acquire the 7

E. St. Charles Road property as well. This parcel, which is currently improved with an

accessory garage, will be integrated into the overall project development.

Concurrent with the review of this petition by the Village Board, the Village Board will

consider a first amendment to the previously approved development agreement, which

will include environmental remediation activities, developer obligations and TIF

provisions to facilitate the project redevelopment. He also referenced that the Village

will need to approve a variation to allow the proposed development to be tied into a

combined sanitary/storm sewer system. A petition must be filed to request this variation.

He then discussed the history of the property. In 2000, the Village Board granted

approval for a planned development consisting of one large, five-story condominium

building with commercial uses on the first floor and four residential townhome buildings.

All previously granted relief has since expired on the property as the project was not

started within one year of the date of approval. Therefore, any new actions would

require new reviews and approvals accordingly.

The petitioner's plan will consist of a more traditional design, with 10,000 square feet of

commercial space on the first (street) level. No definitive tenants have been identified

for this space at present. Each residential floor (floors 2, 3 and 4) will have twelve

residential units, with the units ranging from 860 to 1,250 square feet in size. Parking

will be provided at-grade (42 spaces) and in the basement of the building (32 spaces).

The Zoning Ordinance requires the creation of a planned development for any property

in the B5 District on which a principal building is proposed to be constructed that does

not meet the full provisions of the Zoning and Sign Ordinances. The petitioner is

requesting a deviation from Section 155.416 (G) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for an

increase in building height to fifty-six feet (56') for a clock tower, where a maximum

building height of forty-five feet (45') is permitted. The additional height relief is

requested in order to provide for the proposed clock tower element as shown on the

petitioner's submittals. The petitioner's elevations show that the clock tower is intended

as an architectural embellishment to the building and will break up the linear mass of the

building. While the plans could be modified with a flat roof to meet the height limitations,

both the petitioner and the Village Board expressed a desire to incorporate the tower

into the final building elevations.

Staff notes that the increase in height is only intended to provide an additional

architectural feature, as opposed to creating additional living space. Staff notes that

such relief has been previously supported by the Village Board in the downtown area. If

the height deviation is not desired, the building could be constructed as proposed, but

without the tower element. But for the height deviation, this development proposal is

intended to meet all of the underlying provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. To ensure

that this provision is met, staff offers the following additional comments regarding the

site plan that would need to be addressed as part of the building permit submittal.

The Comprehensive Plan examines the downtown area and this property, in particular.

The Hammerschmidt property is within the area identified as the recommended

boundaries of the Central Business District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that

within this area the Village should continue to encourage commercial, residential, civic

and other land uses to meet the needs of the community. This development follows the

recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan by providing for a mixed-use

residential/commercial development. Should this project proceed, the petitioner will be

required to provide the Village with a plat of resubdivision combining the properties into

a single lot, which can be approved administratively.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting to the Plan Commissioners.

Commissioner Flint noted that the clock tower element is a positive element to the

building and the site plan.

1. The property shall be developed in substantial compliance with the site plan and

building elevations, prepared by Sullivan Goulette Architects, updated January 23, 2006

as well as the landscape plan prepared by Gary R. Weber Associates, Inc., dated

December 27, 2005, except as modified by the conditions of approval.

2. The increase in building height shall only be for the proposed clock tower element

located on the northwest corner of the building as depicted on the submitted plans. Any

height increase above the forty-five feet above grade shall only be for any architectural

elements associated with the clock tower and shall not be used as living space.

3. The petitioner shall submit a Plat of Consolidation to the Village for review and

approval. Said plat shall consolidate the subject properties into a single lot of record

and shall be required concurrent with the building permit submittal.

4. The proposed wall signs shall be of a uniform design, shall not include 'box signs”,

and the wall signs shall be located on the building consistent with the submitted plans.

The east elevation shall not include any building identification signage.

5. The final plans for the proposed project shall meet the comments set forth within the

Inter-departmental Review Report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The subject property is

currently improved with two 33-unit condominium buildings and three parking garages.

The condominium development has existed on the subject property since the 1970s. In

2003, the Hidden Valley Condominium Association submitted a petition to the Village for

annexation and zoning. This request was made in conjunction with the request by

Insignia Homes' petition for annexation and zoning associated with the Fairfield Place

development. However, as all owners of record did not sign off on the annexation

petition, this petition was withdrawn.

In 2004, the Village annexed the property through a court-controlled annexation.

Properties annexed into the Village are automatically designated to be within the R1 until

such time that a rezoning petition is approved by the Village Board. In the interim, all

development on the subject property would be considered legal non-conforming

structures and uses.

Upon a request by Counsel for a condominium owner, the Village is now bringing the

zoning actions originally considered as part of the 2003 petition forward for Plan

Commission and Village Board consideration. These actions were supported by staff

and reflect the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the representations made by

the Village to the Association.

He noted that there were no comments regarding the petition from the

Inter-departmental Review Committee.

He then stated that the Comprehensive Plan map depicts the subject property as

Medium Density Residential, which correlates to a density of about 11 to 20 units per

acre. The existing condominiums were developed as 66 units on 4.60 gross acres of

land, which correlates to 14.35 units per acre. Therefore, the density is consistent with

the Comprehensive Plan.

He then discussed the zoning actions. When the property was annexed into the Village,

it was automatically zoned as R1 Single Family Residence District, Lombard's

least-intensive zoning district. The map amendment request to the R4 General

Residence District is intended to reflect the built environment. More importantly for the

condominium owners, the rezoning will allow them to sell their units as conforming

structures. Should the units become substantially damaged or destroyed, the rezoning

would allow them to rebuild without requiring a rezoning petition. Staff believes this is an

appropriate zoning designation for this property as the designation is consistent with the

Comprehensive Plan designation and is consistent with the R4 zoning designation of the

Fairfield Place development.

Included with the petition is a planned development request. As the subject property will

be invariably tied to the Fairfield Place development, staff feels it is important to treat the

properties in a similar fashion. Establishing a planned development for the subject

property will also allow both the Village and the association a way to address many of

the built development features (e.g., building orientation and driveway location).

Planned development approval can allow for site plan review of future development

activity as well. The existing condominium development consists of two principal

buildings and three detached garages. As with the other zoning requests, the

conditional use is included with the petition to recognize the existing condominium

development.

He noted that no improvements are proposed as part of this petition. Village water

services are now provided via a connection to the Village water system. Sanitary sewer

service will remain unaffected by the annexation and will continue to be provided by the

Highland Hills Sanitary District.

In closing, he also noted that if the Plan Commission deems it appropriate that their

motion of approval should include a recommendation that the Plan Commission be

given site plan approval authority.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Lidia Kawa, 1400 S. Fairfield, Unit No. 66-C stated that she had concerns about the

petition. Referencing the public notice, she noted that the notice mentioned “future

development”. She expressed concerns that the zoning actions would lead to the

Village using eminent domain to acquire and/or redevelop the property.

In response, William Heniff, stated that this petition is being brought forward solely to

give the existing property owners zoning so that if in the event that their respective units

were damaged or destroyed, they could be rebuilt. Without this action, the properties

could be negatively affected from a sales standpoint. The Village does not have any

plans to acquire the subject property. He also noted that staff has worked closely with

the residents to facilitate water connections that will enhance their property.

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

Commissioner Flint stated that the annexation provides benefits to the property owners

through additional Village Police service as well as Village water. Mr. Heniff stated that

since the annexation in 2004, the Village has provided these services - the zoning

actions are intended to fulfill the Village's commitment to the association.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, presented the staff report on behalf of the property

owner, Jeffrey Weinberg. She noted that property owner has submitted plans for the

exterior renovation of the Lombard Hobbies building at 524 E. St. Charles Place as part

of a previous condition of approval associated with the other building on the property.

Because the area to be improved is located within the corner side yard and rear yard,

zoning relief will be necessary. The petitioner is also requesting relief to allow a total of

three wall signs.

The Village Board desires to see the existing 506 E. St. Charles Place building restored

and made into a viable business. To implement the desire of the Board, the relief

included as part of this petition would also be necessary.

The building is almost entirely located within setback yards. The proposed expansion to

the existing building will necessitate zoning relief as it would increase the degree of

nonconformity. The proposed addition would encroach six feet further into the St.

Charles Road corner yard setback, placing the building approximately 22 feet from the

corner side property line. Also, the proposed improvements will maintain the existing

building line that is less than one foot from the Great Western Trail right-of-way. While

the proposed addition will be visible from the condominiums north of the subject

property, the overall encroachment will not be increased and the proposed

improvements will greatly add to the building's aesthetic appeal. Staff can support this

relief as the new covered arcade will not encroach any further than the existing roof

overhang.

She stated that petitioner is proposing three wall signs. Given that the overall square

footage is well below what the maximum permitted by the Sign Ordinance, staff can

support the requested variation in the number of wall signs.

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

comments. He then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh noted that there was no stated time limit for the proposed

improvements to occur. Ms. Backensto stated that, as it would be desirable for this

property to be improved regardless of what happens with the adjacent building, staff did

not feel that this relief needed to be tied to the conditions for 506 E. St. Charles Place.

Melanie Soos of Soos & Associates, representative for McDonald's, presented the

petition. She opened her presentation by stating that the existing drive-through predates

the current zoning requirement for a conditional use. They plan to replace the existing

signs with five new signs with an equal total square footage.

The petitioner then described the appearance of the building. The building is a new

prototype that will be a significant improvement. Masonry wainscoting will be installed

along the bottom of the building to protect it from vehicle impacts. The awnings will

have an embroidered decorative logo. Two colors will be used to provide variation. The

elevated corner tower element will frame the arch logos.

The petitioner concluded by stating that they would be making significant site

improvements and landscape improvements. They will install additional storm sewers in

addition to requesting a stormwater variation from the Board of Trustees.

Commissioner Burke asked the petitioner to explain where the individual colors shown

on the materials board would be used on the building. The petitioner then discussed the

materials board in detail.

Commissioner Olbrysh states that he liked the look of the awnings. He asked if there

would be any text displayed. The petitioner stated that there would be no text on the

awnings, but the awnings will include the McDonald's logo.

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

or in opposition to the proposal. He then requested the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, presented the staff report. The petitioner is proposing to

demolish the existing 3,839-sq. ft. McDonald's restaurant and construct a new, 4,740-sq.

ft. McDonald's restaurant. The new site layout will have a double drive-through with

each lane having its own menu board. All parking spaces will be angled, creating a

one-way counterclockwise circulation pattern. This property was never previously

subdivided into a Lot of Record. Therefore, a Major Plat of Subdivision will be required

prior to the issuance of any building permits. This plat cannot be approved

administratively because it is greater than one acre in size.

Ms. Backensto then presented the comments from the Inter-Departmental Review

Committee. The Public Works Utilities Division notes that the Village has a significant

grease problem in the sanitary sewer main that McDonalds connects to. An appropriate

and adequately sized grease trap for a fast food restaurant such as this must be

installed as part of the redevelopment. Public Works Engineering staff concurs with the

request of the Police Department to require that the southern entrance-exit driveway be

“right-out” only, not allowing a left turn across Roosevelt Road.

With the approval of the requested conditional use, the property would be in compliance

with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Although the northern property

line abuts Southland Park, the area immediately adjacent to the McDonald's property is

behind a detention pond and is not an active recreation area of the park. Staff believes

that this, along with the proposed landscape improvements along the northern property

line, provide a sufficient buffer between the restaurant and the park.

As the overall wall sign square footage will remain the same and is still well below the

maximum 200 sq. ft. permitted by the Sign Ordinance, staff can support the requested

variation in the number of wall signs. Each of the proposed awnings has two golden

arch logos located on the valance portion. Staff feels that the mixed wall-awning

signage is appropriate in this case because the logos are too small in and of themselves

to realistically identify the building from the street, making them more of a type of

decorative embellishments than they are actual advertising devices. Given that wall

sign relief is being requested, staff feels that all other signage on the property should be

in compliance with Village Code. Accordingly, staff recommends that a condition of

approval be added stating that the freestanding sign along Roosevelt Road must be

brought into compliance (i.e., no more than 125 sq. ft. or 25 ft. high).

The petitioner has submitted an interior plan demonstrating that the proposed 50 parking

spaces will meet code requirements and ADA requirements. The proposed site plan

shows a full-access driveway on Roosevelt Road. Because this driveway is only 115

feet from Stewart Avenue, cars stacking to turn left into McDonalds can easily block the

intersection and cause conflicts with cars stacking in the left-hand turn lane for Stewart.

The proposed removal of the southernmost driveway on Stewart will help reduce the

potential for vehicle conflicts at this intersection, and staff also recommends that the

Roosevelt Road driveway be configured as right-in, right-out only. “No left turn” signs

should be placed appropriately. The petitioner has agreed to staff's proposed condition

that the curb at the southwest corner of the building be tapered outward to improve

pedestrian visibility near the drive-through area. If the above recommendations are

incorporated into the site plan, staff believes that the petitioner's plan will adequately

address internal circulation for both drive-through and dine-in customers.

The petitioner has submitted a landscape plan that is intended to provide perimeter and

internal parking lot landscaping similar to that specified in the Zoning Ordinance. The

petitioner will be required to pay $300 for each requisite tree to be planted within the

parkway as part of the permit submittal. Staff recommends that the trash enclosure be

constructed of the same masonry materials that are used for the building.

Ms. Backensto concluded by stating that staff finds the elevations to be acceptable

overall, but suggests that additional masonry be incorporated into the final design. As

the most visible parts of the building, the south, west, and east elevations should have

masonry at least up to the level of the awnings, replacing the proposed EIFS. The brick

colors shown on the submitted materials board may be used for this purpose.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that, to avoid any possible confusion, Condition

No. 1 (d) should be modified to read, “Materials board and elevations prepared by

Corporate Design and Development Group, dated December 15, 2005, except as

modified by the Village Board.”

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting to the Plan Commissioners.

Commissioner Flint noted that left turns are currently allowed from the driveway and

there are no left turns allowed off of Stewart. If the driveway is changed to

right-in/right-out only, eastbound vehicles will need to backtrack to reach Roosevelt.

There is a conflict with the diverted traffic versus the safety issue. Ms. Backensto noted

that the condition of a right-in/right-out driveway was similar to many recent

redevelopments along Roosevelt, including White Castle and Walgreens. The petitioner

noted that the right-in/right-out would significantly impact their business model and

would force a confusing detour to Fairfield. Mr. Heniff noted that there had been no

analysis of cut-through traffic.

Commissioner Burke stated that the access would be somewhat of a hardship.

Left-hand turns are impossible 90 percent of the day because the driveway is typically

blocked, making it a tough maneuver.

Commissioner Zorn stated that when visiting the site she currently uses Fairfield to go

eastbound because McDonald's is a terrible place to attempt a left-hand turn.

Commissioner Flint stated that he does the same thing, but people from out of town

would not necessarily be aware of the light at Fairfield. He asked if it were possible that

a traffic light could be installed at Stewart. Mr. Heniff stated that there were no plans for

a light, but that would only be possible if the Highland Manor property across the street

was to redevelop.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated there are practical issues involved with making a left. He

wondered who would enforce the no-left-turn.

Chairperson Ryan observed that it is tough to get in or out of the driveway. Mr. Heniff

stated that the Illinois of Department of Transportation would review the driveway to see

if a porkchop is warranted. The petitioner stated that their engineer did not think IDOT

would make any changes to the existing access.

Commissioner Burke stated that a “no left turn” sign would be acceptable, and IDOT

would approve any porkchop. He asked if the petitioner was o.k. with the condition to

add additional masonry to the building. The petitioner stated that McDonald's could not

afford to add the requested additional masonry.

Commissioner Burke requested Police Department records on the number of left-hand

turn accidents at the subject property, as well as an analysis of neighborhood

cut-through traffic