Village of Lombard Legistar System

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 :

2. 2. 2. 2.

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.

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.

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

Pleasant Lane Lots

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 façades

and/or the street design.