Monday, January 23, 2006
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall
Plan Commission
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Rocco Melarkey |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Meeting Minutes
Plan Commission
Meeting Minutes
January 23, 2006
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Sondra Zorn and Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Commissioner Ruth Sweetser and Commissioner Rocco Melarkey
Absent:
Also in attendance: William Heniff, ACIP, Senior Planner; Jennifer Backensto, AICP, |
Planner II; and George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan Commission. |
Public Hearings
050696
D. PC 05-44: 710 N. Main Street (Waiver of First Requested) |
Associated with a previous approval of a conditional use for a religious institution |
(Ordinance 5075), the petitioner requests approval of a variation from Section 155.212, |
Table 2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a central air-conditioning system to be |
located within a corner side yard in the R2 Single Family Residence District. Staff is |
requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #1) |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Sweetser and Melarkey
2 -
1. The petitioner shall develop the site essentially in accordance with site plan prepared |
by Martin Design, Inc., dated January 4, 2005 and made a part of this request. |
2. That all conditions associated with Ordinance 5075 not amended by this petition shall |
remain in full force and effect. |
060014
I. PC 06-01: 7-37 E. St. Charles Road (Ordinance on Second Reading) (Tabled |
February 16, 2006) |
Requests approval of a conditional use for a planned development, with 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; all located within the B5 Central Business District. (DISTRICT #4) |
Robert O'Neill of New Urban Lombard LLC, petitioner, presented the petition. He |
opened his presentation by presenting a PowerPoint presentation describing his project. |
He noted that the property at 11-37 is currently owned by the Village. The adjacent |
property at 7 East St. Charles Road is under contract by the petitioner and they propose |
to incorporate the property into their overall development. |
He then described the project. Their building will consist of 36 residential condominiums |
and 10,000 square feet of commercial space. Parking will be provided both at-grade (42 |
spaces) and below grade (32 spaces). |
He then showed the proposed building elevations and described the building materials |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that this |
matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Sweetser and Melarkey
2 -
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. |
060015
F. PC 06-02: 1400-1412 South Fairfield Avenue and 1500-1520 South Fairfield |
Avenue (2 Ordinances/Waiver of First Requested) |
The Village of Lombard is initiating a petition to consider the following zoning actions for |
Hidden Valley Condominiums: |
1. Approve a map amendment to rezone the property from the R1 Single-Family |
Residence District to the R4 Limited General Residence District; |
2. Approve a conditional use for a planned development; and |
3. Approve a conditional use to allow for more than one principal structure on a lot of |
record. Staff is requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #6) |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that this |
matter be Recommended for approval to the Corporate Authorities subject to the |
amended condition(s). The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Sweetser and Melarkey
2 -
1. That the Village Board grant Site Plan Approval authority to the Plan Commission.
060016
G. PC 06-03: 524 East St. Charles Place (Waiver of First Requested) |
Requests that the Village take the following actions to allow for an addition to the |
existing Lombard Hobbies building located within the B4 Corridor Commercial Shopping |
District: |
1. Grant a variation from Section 155.415 (F) (2) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a |
variation in the corner side yard setback from thirty feet (30') to twenty-two feet (22'); |
2. Grant a variation from Section 155.415 (F) (4) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a |
variation in the rear yard setback from thirty feet (30') to zero feet (0'); and |
3. Grant a variation from Section 153.506 (B) (19) (a) (2) of the Sign Ordinance to allow |
a variation for three (3) wall signs. |
Staff is requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #6) |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Sweetser and Melarkey
2 -
1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the site plan and building |
elevation packet prepared by Randy Pruyn, ALA, dated December 14, 2005 and made a |
part of this petition. |
2. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed |
improvements on the property. |
3. The project shall be developed consistent with Village Code. |
060017
E. PC 06-04: 300 E. Roosevelt Road (Ordinance on Second Reading) |
Requests that the Village take the following actions within the B4 Corridor Commercial |
Shopping District: |
1. Grant a conditional use, pursuant to Section 155.415 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance, to |
allow for drive-through services; |
2. Grant a variation from Section 153.211(F) and Section 153.241 (F) of the Sign |
Ordinance to allow for wall signs to be displayed in conjunction with awning signs; |
3. Grant a variation from Section 153.506 (B) (19) (a) (2) of the Sign Ordinance to allow |
a variation for five (5) wall signs; and |
4. Approval of a Major Plat of Resubdivision. (DISTRICT #6) |
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 |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that this |
matter be continued to the February 20, 2006 Plan Commission meeting. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Sweetser and Melarkey
2 -
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the December 19, 2005 were approved by unanimous consent of the |
members present with the following corrections as noted by William Heniff, Senior |
Planner: |
Page 5, last paragraph, 3rd sentence, change the word "shoping" to "shopping". |
Page 6, first paragraph, 1st sentence, change the word "nothing" to "anything". |
Page 7, provision #2, 1st sentence, change the word "east" to "west". |
Public Participation
There was no public participation.
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Chairperson's Report
The Chairperson deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
Mr. Heniff referenced the 2006 Zoning Map which was included with the Commissioners' |
packets. He noted that this map shows a picture of the Village as of 2006. Staff will |
continue to provide an updated zoning map every January. |
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
There were no subdivision reports.
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Workshops
There were no workshops.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. |
________________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |