Plan Commission
Village of Lombard
Meeting Minutes
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Rocco Melarkey |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
7:30 PM
Village Hall
Monday, November 17, 2003
Call to Order and Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser and Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Commissioner Sondra Zorn
Absent:
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, Senior Planner, and George |
Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan indicated that a letter was received from the petitioner relative to PC 03-41, |
725 W. Roosevelt Road, to continue their petition to the December 15, 2003 meeting. |
030714
M. PC 03-41: 725 W. Roosevelt Road (Ordinance on Second Reading) |
Ordinance requesting that the Village take the following actions on the subject property |
located within the B4 PD Corridor Commercial District, Planned Development: |
1. Approve an amendment to Ordinance 5186 which granted a conditional use for a |
planned development and a conditional use for a further expansion of an existing |
vehicle sales, service and repair facility; and |
2. Approve an amendment to Ordinance 5186 to allow for a signage deviation for two |
additional wall signs. (The petitioner's amended architecturals require relief for only one |
additional wall sign). (DISTRICT #2) |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be continued. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5424 |
Public Hearings
030715
PC 03-42: 110, 126, 130 W. Maple Street (Helen Plum Library) |
Requests that the Village of Lombard take the following actions in order to |
accommodate a public library: |
Amend the Comprehensive Plan to designate the lots at 126 W. Maple Street and |
130 W. Maple Street as Public and Institutional Use; |
Approve a map amendment rezoning the lots at 126 W. Maple Street and 130 W. |
Maple Street from the R2 Single Family Residence District to the CR |
Conservation Recreation District; |
Grant a conditional use for a cultural facility/institution (library); and |
For the entire subject property, grant a conditional use for a planned development |
within the CR Conservation Recreation District with the following |
deviations and variations : |
a. A deviation from Section 155.404 (D), reducing the minimum |
required lot area from 2 acres (87,120 square feet) to 1.23 acres |
(53,417 square feet); |
b. A deviation from Section 155.404 (E), reducing the minimum required |
lot width; |
c. A variation from Section 155.404 (F) (1) and Section 155.508 (C) (6), |
reducing the minimum required front yard setback from 50 feet to |
15.98 feet; |
d. A variation from Section 155.404 (F) (3) and Section 155.508 (C) (6), |
reducing the minimum required interior side yard setback from 50 |
feet to 5 feet; |
e. A variation from Section 155.404 (F) (4) and Section 155.508 (C) (6), |
reducing the minimum required rear yard setback from 50 feet to 21 |
feet; |
f. A variation from Section 155.404 (H) and Section 155.508 (C) (7), |
reducing the minimum required open space from 93.75 percent to |
27 percent; |
g. A variation from Section 155.705, reducing the required number of |
parkway trees from 8 trees to 5 trees; |
h. A variation from Section 155.706 (B), reducing the required interior |
parking lot landscaping; |
i. A variation from Section 155.706 (C), reducing the required perimeter |
parking lot landscaping; and |
j. A variation from Section 155.602 (C), Table 6.3 reducing the |
number of requisite parking spaces. |
5. The petitioner also requests Site Plan Approval authority to the Lombard |
Plan Commission. |
Linda Dickey, 126 W. Greenfield, president of the Helen M. Plum Library Board, gave an |
overview of the request. She stated the the library is in need of more space because |
the building is not ADA-compliant and the shelving is grossly inadequate. Also, they |
need a quiet room for the adult department that is separate from the children's |
department. They also would like more computers and to address the problems with |
the building's HVAC equipment and low ceilings. The library commissioned a study that |
reported they need 79,000 square feet. They considered building on the DuPage |
Theater site or the parking lot at Maple and Park, or possible doing a land swap with the |
Lombard Park District. They decided it was important to remain in the downtown area |
for both the Village and the library. The library has a special agreement with the Park |
District which want Lilacia Park to remain the focus of the area. The library is |
negotiating parking with the Park District, Health Futures, Mark Bales and others in the |
area. Ms. Dickey then thanked the Village for its assistance in this process. |
Michael Mackie, acrchitect for the project stated that the conceptual design is based on |
the library's basse need standards of 79,000 square feet. They have purchased the two |
lots to the west and will also use the access drive for Lilacia Park. The lower level will |
be for adult services with circulation and reading rooms on the first level. The second |
floor will house the children's department. He then went over the various elevations and |
rederings, pointing out the green roof and the impacts ot sunlight. Mr. Mackie finished |
by addressing the three parking locations on the west side of the buildings and the lots |
accross Maple and Park. |
Ms. Dickey concluded by stating that they are pulling the building closer to Maple in |
order to minimize its impacts on Lilacia Park and to allow for an equipment staging area. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. |
Wayne Kankovsky, 1344 S. Main Street, Vice-President of the Library Board, discussed |
the importance of this project. The trustees are working to ensure that this project |
provides a better quality of life and is dedicated to community service. |
Kerry Simone of Glen Ellyn, reporesenting Mark Bales of 134 E. Maple Street Stated |
that Mr. Bales is in support of the library and doesn't disagree with its needs. However, |
the proposed two-story library would be within 16 feet of his one-story home. He is |
concerned about a lack of sunlight and the impact on property values because he will |
have a parking lot right next to him.. He would like the setback request denied. |
Beth Reiner, 206 W. Maple Street, stated that she was not very familiar withh the |
project, but Ms. Simone had shared the plans with her and she was shocked by its size. |
She had hoped to see a model of the building because it is hard to get a feel for its scale |
from the color rendering. The building could be more sensitive to the historical |
residential neighborhood it is in. There are issues with traffic, safety and aesthetics. |
She is concerned about looking out her window and seeing this. She wondered why |
they couldn't build the library taller instead of wider. She asked to see the library needs |
study, stating that there is enough space in the current library and this expansion may |
not be necessary if they use the upstairs and the auditorium. |
Kevin Adler, also of 206 W. Maple Street, stated that he is against such a big building. |
He stated that the improvements could be made without taking away the residential |
character of the neighborhood. He appreciates the need for a newer, larger library, but |
they should consider other ideas. |
Ms. Dickey responded that 38,000 square feet of the building will be below ground. She |
explained the parking on the first level and the wall that surrounds it. She stated that |
they are going underground to reduce the overall impact of the project, and that two |
story buildings are not uncommon. |
Mr. Kankovsky stated that as all patrons are currently forced to cross a street to access |
the library, pedestrian safety will be improved with this new design. He explained that |
the upstairs and the auditorium are already frequently used. With regard to aesthetics, |
the trustees are continuing to address the final appearance of the building and they will |
do everything to ensure that it is the best design for the community. |
Robert Harris, 105 E. Grove, Director of the library, reiterated the need for more space. |
He stated that books are currently packed tightly on the shelves and that there are |
books stored on the top of cabinets. Shelves in the children's department are out of |
many children's reach, there is inadequate seating, and there is no area for quiet |
reading or study. They also need more space for internet access as they currently have |
only five internet work stations. |
Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated |
the staff's repoert will focus on land use issues. The library is seeking approval for their |
project prior to seeking approval of a referendum. They are requesting an amendment |
to the comprehensive plan, a conditional use for a library, and a planned development |
with deviations and variations. Site Plan Approval will allow the Plan Commission to |
approve or deny the building plans, subsequent to a voter-approved referendum. |
Mr. Heniff addressed the IRDC comments noting that stormwater detention will need to |
be addressed. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that this site be used for |
Institutional and Low-Density Residential Uses. Staff believes that changing the plan to |
Public and Institutional Uses is compatible. |
The property is surrounded on three sides by public and institutional uses Plant |
materials on the western property would help to soften the visual impact of the library |
building. No signage is currently proposed. Any subsequent signage would be part of |
the Site Plan Approval Process. The petitioner is requesting rezoning of the R2 |
properties to CR to be consistant with the Library and Lilacia Park. Staff believes this |
designation is appropriate. |
Mr. Heniff explained the requested conditional use for a cultural facility/institution and a |
planned development. Staff supports the requested open space and on the property will |
be increased. Staff recommends that no trees by removed. Parking will be provided on |
the site and and in two adjacent parking lots. The ordinance requires 3 parking spaces |
per 1,000 square feet. of library space. However, there are also on-street spaces that |
can be used for short-term parking. The proposed parking layout on the first floor of the |
library must be revisited to ensure adequate vehicle maneuvering room. |
Site Plan Approval will address any outstanding issues. The submitted plans are not |
refined and will address any outstanding issues. The submitted plans are not refined |
and when the petition is approved, the final elevations would come back before the Plan |
Commission for Site Plan Approval. If a referendum is passed, the Village of Lombard |
will allow a new library to be constructed. Staff recommends approval of the petitione |
subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. |
Chairperson Ryan then asked the audience if they had any questions or comments on |
the staff report. |
Ms. Simone asked how there could be extra landscaping on the west side of the |
building. All the trees on that lot line will be remove, so the building should be 50 feet |
from the lot line, not 5. |
Mr. Adler said the map doesn't even have the correct addresses so the second hearing |
should not be waived. |
Bill Mueller, 520 S. Brewster, asked where the library will be located during construction |
and what the costs would be to taxpayers. |
Ms. Dickey responded that if the referendum |
1. That the exterior building elevations for the proposed library shall be submitted to |
the Lombard Plan Commission for site plan approval. |
2. The site shall be developed substantially in accordance with the site plans prepared |
by Burnidge Cassell Associates, dated October 10, 2003. |
3. All comments in the Inter-Departmental Review Committee Report shall be |
satisfactorily addressed as part of a building permit application. |
4. The parking lot shall be designed in accordance with Village Code. |
5. Accessible parking spaces shall be provided in compliance with the provisions of the |
Illinois Accessibility Code. |
6. Refuse disposal areas shall be screened in accordance with Section 155.710 of the |
Lombard Zoning Ordinance. |
7. That the petitioner shall provide a photometric plan to the Village showing |
compliance with Village Code. |
8. That the petitioner shall provide the Village with an updated landscape plan showing |
the following improvements: |
a. Three additional parkway trees located per Village Code; and |
b. Transitional landscape plant materials along the western property line consistent |
with those transitional landscape yard improvements required when business districts |
abut single-family residence districts, with the review of the types and location of the |
plant materials as determined by the Director of Community Development. |
9. That the library shall provide for signage for the designated parking spaces within |
the parking lot located at the northeast corner of Park Avenue and Main Street, with said |
signs denoting that the spaces are for library patrons. |
10. That the west interior side yard setback variation shall be reduced from fifty feet to |
fifteen feet. No buildings shall be placed closer than fifteen feet from the west interior |
side lot line. |
The Plan Commission also voted 4-0 to waive a second public hearing regarding this |
petition. |
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SWEETSER AND SECONDED BY |
COMMISSIONER FLINT TO WAIVE THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING READING BY |
THE PLAN COMMISSION FOR THE PETITION ASSOCIATED WITH PC 03-42. |
THE ROLL CALL VOTE WAS 4-0 AS FOLLOWS: |
Ayes: Burke, Flint, Olbrysh and Sweetser |
030716
G. PC 03-37: 417 E. Roosevelt Road (Waiver of First Requested) |
Ordinance requesting the Village approve a conditional use for motor vehicle rental on |
the subject property located within the High Point Center B3PD Community Shopping |
District Planned Development. (DISTRICT #6) |
1. Rental vehicle parking shall exist south of the proposed tenant space where |
indicated on the hand-sketched site plan submitted as part of this petition. |
2. No more than 10 rental vehicles may be parked on the site at one time. |
Parking spaces shall be specifically marked and signed to ensure use by rental vehicles |
only. |
3. The operator shall ensure the following: |
a. No sales, repair, or extensive cleaning may take place on the site. |
b. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. |
c. All vehicles shall be parked south of the auto rental office building in the |
designated parking area. |
030717
SPA 03-10: 2350 Fountain Square Drive - Fountain Square of Lombard/Ethan |
Allen |
Requests site plan approval for a 23,000 square foot furniture store. The |
petitioner requests approval of deviations from the Village's Sign Ordinance |
necessary to accommodate the signage shown on the submitted plans to include |
the following: |
(1) A request for a deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(17) of the Village's |
Sign Ordinance to allow for a second wall sign of 97.4 square feet of |
sign surface area on the building's south wall in addition to the permitted |
wall sign on the building's east wall. |
(2) A request for a deviation from Section 153.505(B) (17) of the Village's |
Sign Ordinance to allow for a wall sign of 107.35 square feet on the |
building's east wall - a deviation of 7.35 square feet. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be approved with conditions. The motion carried by the following |
vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
1. That the site shall be developed in conformance with the plans prepared by |
Bollinger Loch & Associates, Lannert Group, and Herschman Architects and submitted |
as part of the petition binder. |
2. The exterior of the trash enclosure shall be constructed of masonry material |
consistent with the principal building and eight feet in height. The access door to the |
enclosure area shall consist of a solid door, painted consistent with the exterior |
elevations. |
3. A cross-access easement shall be required between the subject property and the |
property immediately west of the site. Such agreement shall be recorded prior to the |
approval of a building permit for the Ethan Allen building. |
4. The property shall be developed consistent with all Codes of the Village. |
5. That the petitioner shall provide awnings on the west elevation consistent with the |
awnings proposed on the other three building elevations. |
6. That the petitioner shall provide additional landscaping along the west property line |
to screen the loading area |
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 9:36 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
William Heniff referred to the October 20, 2003 minutes and noted that he had a |
correction on to the motion on page 11, associated with PC 03-39. The motion should |
read |
"A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER OLBRYSH AND SECONDED BY |
COMMISSIONER BURKE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CORPORATE AUTHORITIES |
DENIAL OF THE PETITION ASSOCIATED WITH PC 03.39." |
George Wagner, legal counsel, referred to the October 27, 2003 minutes, page 10, third |
sentence. The time should be changed from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. |
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
William Heniff mentioned that at the last Economic and Community Development |
Committee they discussed the issue about teardowns. It was recommended that in the |
future the Economic and Community Development Committee will request a joint |
meeting with the Plan Commission to discuss this issue. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked what the purpose was. Mr. Heniff indicated that they |
wanted to find out each committees' feelings about this issue, for example, could it a |
design bulk neighborhood character issue. They want to solicit input and give staff |
direction as to what avenue to pursue. This will be a lengthy process. |
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
William Heniff referenced the draft 2004 Plan Commission calendar that was included in |
the Commissioners' packets. He noted that Village Hall is closed on Martin Luther |
King's birthday which falls on the regularly scheduled January Plan Commission |
meeting date. He asked if the following Monday, January 26, would be an appropriate |
alternative. The Plan Commissioners agreed that the January Plan Commission |
meeting be rescheduled to January 26. |
Subdivision Reports
There were no subdivision reports.
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Workshops
William Heniff displayed an aerial of the proposed location and the surrounding area. |
He stated that the Village has been approached by a potential developer, who is in the |
audience, regarding a potential townhouse subdivision to be located on the south side of |
Pleasant Lane between Interstate 355 and the existing Columbine Glen townhomes. |
Mr. Heniff, while referring to the aerial, pointed out Route 53, I-355, Pleasant Lane, |
Cimarron Road and Meadow Avenue as well as the existing townhome developments. |
The developer is looking for direction on the submitted concept proposal and the |
associated land use implications. The property he is looking to develop is wedged by |
townhouses on the east, I-355 on the west and single family residential properties to the |
north and south. Three of these parcels are unincorporated and the Comprehensive |
Plan shows these properties to be designated estate residential. He mentioned how the |
developer was looking to create a public street accessing off of Pleasant Lane with |
townhomes to be located on both sides of the street. For the first phase, the developer |
would install a cul de sac bulb at the southern terminus with the possibility of extending it |
to create a connection to adjacent properties and installing a new cul de sac street back |
toward Cimarron Road. |
The question for the Plan Commissioners to consider would be if the Village would |
consider townhouses at this location similar to the ones along Cimarron Road. The |
petitioner has indicated he would be interested in an amendment to the Comprehensive |
Plan to a townhome designation and is flexible about typology and what might be an |
appropriate design. Mr. Heniff mentioned that the plans they received were very |
preliminary. |
In conclusion Mr. Heniff asked the Commissioners if they would support a site plan |
similar to the Cimarron Road development. |
Chairperson Ryan asked for Commissioners comments. |
Commissioner Burke asked for clarification about the three lots which staff indicated and |
whether or not they were unbuildable. Commissioner Burke also asked about the |
current zoning. Mr. Heniff indicated that our Comprehensive Plan calls for an estate |
residential designation or an R1 designation. |
Chairperson Ryan asked about the single-family homes to the south. Mr. Heniff stated |
that one lot is zoned R2 in the Village. The other lots are unincorporated, but have |
single family residential zoning. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked about the property between 355 and 53 and what the |
Comprehensive Plan calls for. Mr. Heniff answered that the Comprehensive Plan |
recognizes for townhome use. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked about the property to the south within the R2 and if it |
includes any |
County properties that might be annexed. Mr. Heniff stated that should any of these |
properties be annexed they would come into the Village designated as R1 and could |
remain that way. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated she liked the idea of having estate residential |
somewhere but this location, due to having an R4 designation down the middle, does |
not seem to the ideal place for it as you would want something similar. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that if the proposal would back up to the current west lot |
line of what is currently built, what about the development of the road. Mr. Heniff |
suggested that the Village could require a temporary bulb it until such time that a |
connection could be made and then have the street put through. |
Commissioner Burke asked about the north side of Pleasant and whether that was all |
unincorporated. Mr. Heniff stated that it all is with the exception of one property and is |
planned for single family estate residential. He also stated that you could put in estate |
residential and use Pleasant as a buffer. |
Commissioner Olbrysh indicated that he would support this option if the townhomes |
would be similar to the existing ones. He felt that since this is an undeveloped area, this |
proposal is the best way to go with this property. |
In conclusion, it was the consensus of the Plan Commission that the proposed land use |
is compatible and that the developer work on details being mindful of similarities of the |
adjacent properties and to make it an upscale development. |
Commissioner Sweetser added that by upscale they mean either meeting or exceeding |
what is already existing and having some elements of interest other than just another flat |
street or a boxy building. She also indicated that they should look at varying the faรงades |
and/or the street design. |
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:01 p.m. on November 17, 2003.