Village of Lombard Legistar System

J. PC 04-20: 350 E. North Avenue (Waiver of First Requested & Resolution)

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

within the B4 Corridor Commercial District:

1. Approve a three-lot major plat of subdivision.

2. For the entire subject property, approve a conditional use for a planned

development.

3. For Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision, approve the following deviations and

variations:

a. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(17)(a)(1) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for

an increase in wall sign surface area from one hundred (100) square feet to one

hundred and thirty-four (134) square feet.

b. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(17)(a)(2) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for

more than one wall sign on a street frontage.

c. A deviation from Section 153.210 (B)(D) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for an

increase in the height of an electronic message board from two feet (2') to 3.65 feet with

a display screen greater than eighteen inches in height.

d. A deviation from Section 153.210 (F) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for an

electronic message board that is less than twelve feet above grade.

e. A variation and a deviation from Sections 155.706 (C) and 155.709 (B) of the

Zoning Ordinance reducing the required perimeter parking lot landscaping from five feet

(5') to zero feet (0') to provide for shared cross-access and parking.

4. Approve a conditional use for a drive-through facility on Lot 1 of the proposed

subdivision.

5. For Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision, approve a variation and a deviation from

Section 155.706 (C) and 155.709 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance reducing the required

perimeter parking lot landscape from five feet (5') to zero feet (0') to provide for shared

cross-access and parking.

6. For Lot 3 of the proposed subdivision, approve a variation from Section 155.415

(E) of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, allowing for a reduction in the

minimum lot width from one hundred fifty (150) feet to seventy-two (72) feet for a

proposed stormwater detention outlot.

7. Resolution approving a development agreement for the subject property, with Site

Plan Approval authority being granted to the Lombard Plan Commission.

The petitioner is requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #4)

Andrew Kolb, attorney for the petitioner, presented the petition. Mr. Kolb introduced the

parties involved with the CVS proposal and restated the request. He described the

three lot subdivision and identified Lot 1 as the CVS site. Mr. Kolb stated that a user

had not been identified for Lot 2 at this time, however they expect the future use to

conform to commercial purposes. Mr. Kolb identified Lot 3 as a detention outlot. Mr.

Kolb described the two site plans that were submitted with the request. He stated that

they have a verbal commitment with the adjacent property owner to the west for a

shared cross access easement and one site plan depicts the easement.

Mark Rice, of Arc Design Resources in Rockford, referred to the site plan diagram. He

identified the drive through at the rear and the trash enclosure that incorporated

matching masonry of the building. Mr. Rice noted that the revised plans now show a

right-in, right-out drive at the south Grace Street entrance while the north Grace Street

entrance would remain full access. Mr. Rice stated that 95 parking spaces would be

located to the east and south of the building although only 65 spaces are required by

code. He noted that the drive through window will be utilized for prescriptions only and

most likely there would be no more than two to three vehicles stacked at any peak hour.

Mr. Rice stated that the landscaping plan was the same as the previous submittal with

shoebox fixtures and wall packs on the building. Mr. Rice noted that there is a wetland

and floodplain area on the northeast corner of the property and that the proposed plans

have no impact on the boundary.

Mr. Kolb then distributed the site signage proposal. Mr. Kolb introduced Mark Nosky of

Stuart/Nosky Architects. Mr. Nosky gave an overview of the CVS floor plan. He noted

the overheard door was at grade and that there will be a mezzanine area in the building.

Mr. Nosky stated that the building is a brick façade on all four sides. He mentioned the

building materials and the type roof. He also identified the arcade corner to allow

pedestrians to enter and exit under a canopy. He also noted that wall signage would be

on the canopy. Mr. Nosky displayed a materials board that consisted of the color of the

brick façade and various types of efface colors and mentioned where each

material/color would be located. Mr. Nosky stated that the trash compactor area would

include a brick enclosure with wood gates to conceal the dumpsters.

Steven Corcoran, of Metro Transportation, presented the traffic study findings. He

mentioned the original study was conducted for CVS and the bank facility. Since the Lot

2 use is unknown they made changes. He mentioned the site's location and noted that

North Avenue, a state route, will have three through lanes. He also noted left-hand turn

lanes on Grace and U-turn lanes due to the barrier median. Mr. Corcoran noted the

North Avenue construction and also mentioned that Grace Street is a part of that

construction. He noted that Grace Street would be three lanes approaching the

intersection. He stated that they counted existing traffic. Mr. Corcoran stated that they

moved the right-in, right-out facility on North Avenue so that it connects to the future

parcel (Lot 2). He mentioned that the south Grace Street entrance was changed to

reflect right-in, right-out access while the north Grace Street entrance would remain full

access. They will provide a separate left-hand turn lane for safety purposes at the north

Grace Street entrance. He stated that they would make a minor curb cut to help the turn

lane. Mr. Corcoran stated that they assumed CVS and a three-story building would

occupy the site. They estimate approximately 35 cars in the morning and approximately

135 - 155 cars on the evenings and weekends. Mr. Corcoran stated that upon analysis

of traffic conditions they estimate the development will have a minimal impact on

congestion.

Steve Jacks and Doug Merritt, the authorized agents on behalf of the developer,

discussed the signage package. Mr. Jacks stated that they reduced the overall sign

program and incorporated three service messages into one cabinet sign. Both signs will

be illuminated for the south and east elevations to provide adequate exposure. Mr.

Jacks also noted that the drive-thru facility would include informational and directional

non-illuminated signage. He also noted that they were seeking relief for the size of the

automatic changeable copy board. Mr. Jacks stated that originally proposed was 3-1/2

feet and they believed it was appropriate to reduce the height after receiving staff's

comments. Mr. Jacks stated that they believe a 2'6" sign would be appropriate based

on the number of lines of copy typical of a CVS pharmacy message board due to the

site and road conditions.

Mr. Kolb concluded the presentation by stating that the pharmacy is consistent with

zoning and serves a public purpose. He mentioned the various numbers of CVS

pharmacies nationwide and noted that the development would be a benefit to the village.

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

against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark stated that the site is the

current location of the Terrace Restaurant. The petitioner intends to acquire the site and

subdivide the property into three lots. The petitioner plans to develop Lot 1 as CVS

Pharmacy and has not identified a use for Lot 2 at this time. Lot 3 will serve as a

detention area for Lots 1 and 2. The petitioner also requests a variation to the minimum

lot width requirement for Lot 3, as it is only seventy-two feet in width, where one hundred

fifty feet is required. As the entire site meets the minimum lot width and area

requirements for a planned development, planned development approval is also

included as part of this petition.

The proposed CVS Pharmacy on Lot 1 of the subdivision includes a drive-through

facility, which requires approval of a conditional use. Included with the request are

deviations for the proposed freestanding and wall signs.

At this time, the petitioner is not requesting approval of a specific site plan pertaining to

the development of Lot 2. Should this petition be approved, any future development on

Lot 2 other than public utility, access and landscape improvements will be subject to a

future site plan approval application.

Ms. Clark noted the comments from the Inter-Departmental Review Committee. She

stated that the proposed use is compatible with the comprehensive plan and

surrounding land uses. Ms. Clark stated that in regards to traffic the petitioner's revised

site plan adequately addresses the internal drive-through circulation issues. However,

to provide additional screening for the residences to the east, staff recommends that

additional vegetation, consisting of evergreen and shrubs be placed on the proposed

landscape island immediately east of the pharmacy pick-up window.

Ms. Clark stated that the subject property meets the minimum lot width and area

requirements and therefore, staff recommends the establishment of a planned

development for this site. Creation of the planned development will also give the Village

an opportunity to review any future modifications of the subject property, particularly as

it relates to the future Lot 2 development. To this end, staff is recommending that the

Lot 2 development shall be subject to site plan approval as well.

The petitioner submitted a signage plan along with the site plan submittal. There are

two signage elements that would not meet the Village's regulations. Ms. Clark also

noted that there were two additional signs in the packet distributed by the petitioner

during the meeting that were not present in the Plan Commission submittal. She noted

that sign "A" in the package could meet code if the overall size of the sign were reduced

as to meet the requirements of a directional sign, however sign "B" would not meet the

code provisions.

For the primary CVS wall signs, the proposed signage is consistent with the sign

package that was approved for the Roosevelt Road/Meyers Road facility. Staff finds

that the sizes of the signs are appropriately sized relative to the proposed elevations.

The proposed sign package also consolidates multiple signs, as shown on a previous

plan submittal. Lastly, the sign package also creates consistency in design between the

two wall signs. If reviewed cumulatively, the petitioner could install two signs of up to

300 square feet in area; their signage proposal totals 272 square feet (i.e., 2 signs of

136 square feet in size).

With respect to the drive-through signage, staff finds that this signage can be supported

as it is intended to serve as an informational and directional function for the site. These

signs are necessary as it facilitates efficient traffic flow. Therefore, staff finds that the

additional signs are acceptable and supports the deviation.

The petitioner also is requesting approval for a freestanding sign, which includes an

automatic changeable copy (ACC) area (i.e., electronic message sign). The proposed

sign is intended to identify the CVS store; the ACC sign is intended to provide

information regarding products or services available in the store.

In consideration of the ACC sign request, staff does not object to the deviation for the

height above grade, but does have concerns regarding the overall size of the sign. Staff

notes that ACC signs do present additional challenges and hence they are subject to

differing regulations. Where properties are permitted to have ACC signage, the Village

has established regulations pertaining to their overall size. Staff believes that the

petitioner's cabinet height of over two feet can be considered excessive and can create

a negative appearance on the overall corridor. As such, staff is not supportive of the

deviation to allow for a cabinet of higher than two feet. The petitioner has represented

that they may be able to meet the two-foot provision, but the sign area may be slightly

greater than 18 inches in height. Modern electronic message boards utilize a substantial

amount of the board's height as a display area. Staff can support the deviation from the

eighteen-inch display area assuming the overall height of the board meets code. If the

ACC sign is modified to meet this provision, the deviation for a board less than twelve

feet above grade becomes unnecessary as well.

The landscape plan indicates that perimeter landscaping will be provided around the

perimeter of the parking lot of Lots 1 and 2 with the exception of those areas to the north

and west where cross access easements will be provided. Those areas designated for

landscaping meet the code requirements of five feet in width. Staff believes the cross

access easements will allow sufficient traffic flow between lots in the event of future

development and is therefore supportive of the requested deviation.

The new site plan has taken staff's previous comments into consideration and are

reflected accordingly. The loading dock area has been modified to prevent cut-through

traffic. Drive-through patrons will leave the pick-up window and proceed west to the

access drive, away from the loading area. The new plan also shows a right in, right out

facility at the south Grace Street entrance as recommended by staff and the Village's

traffic consultant. The north Grace Street entrance will provide full access. Staff

believes that this may impede the flow of traffic along Grace Street resulting in

congestion at the intersection of North Avenue and Grace Street. The petitioner's traffic

report did not address this issue.

Ms. Clark stated that staff supports the requested variation to reduce the Lot width for

Lot 3 considering Lot 3 is intended to provide detention for Lots 1 and 2 and is not

intended to be a buildable lot of record.

This development is both a major subdivision and a major development as expressed in

the Subdivision and Development Ordinance. Therefore, the petitioner will be required

to meet the provisions of Section 154.304 and 154.306. This includes, but is not limited

to, sidewalks, landscaping, parkway trees and street lighting per Code. The petitioner is

providing cross access easements in the event that development occurs on neighboring

lots.

The petitioner will be preparing a companion development agreement for the subject

property. This agreement will be considered by the Village Board in conjunction with the

final consideration of Ordinances.

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

members.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that since they have seen this for the third time, many of

the revisions addressed previous concerns. He asked for clarification as to whether the

full access drive on north Grace would be constructed prior to Lot 2 development.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that one plan indicated that the drive would be

constructed in the future while one indicated present construction.

Steve Corcoran stated that as part of the CVS development they will build a drive aisle

and full access point and when Lot 2 is developed it would tie in. Mr. Heniff mentioned

that condition six reflected this.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the report indicates that the petitioner's traffic report

did not address traffic congestion. She asked if staff still has concerns regarding this.

Mr. Heniff stated that with the new inclusion of the right-in, right-out facility the new plan

is acceptable.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that there was confusion about the automatic

changeable copy sign since staff indicated in the written report that they were not

supportive of a cabinet higher than two feet but the petitioner says that they may be able

to meet the overall height requirement. Mr. Heniff clarified by stating that condition five

in the staff report addresses this. He stated that staff feels that is acceptable if they

would like to expand the display area of the changeable copy sign, but the overall height

of the sign should remain two feet. Chairperson Ryan mentioned that condition five in

the staff report states that the height of the sign must be held to two feet.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that on the larger plans the west side shows a greater

ability to access the loading dock area and the signage package shows an island that

would not allow for backing up or turning around. She asked for clarification as to how

the trucks would maneuver.

Mark Rice stated that in looking at the signage package the plan appeared to be the

same. He noted that a landscape island was depicted to provide screening.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the larger plan labeled "C1" did not show an island.

Commissioner Flint clarified by stating that there were two pages labeled "C1" with one

showing the shared access and the other does not. Mr. Heniff stated that the plan

would be acceptable with the island structure there in the event that the petitioner was

not able to obtain shared access with the property to the west.

Commissioner Sweetser noted condition twelve within the staff report regarding a letter

from the property owner and mentioned that the billboard is not under the purview of the

Plan Commission. Mr. Heniff stated that the condition is noted in the event that the

property west of the subject location were to develop they could take advantage of the

future access. He stated that the condition is meant to ensure that there is cross access

to the property.

Commissioner Burke asked if the cross access was constructed prior to occupancy

would the neighboring property be responsible for recapture when that lot was

developed. Mr. Heniff stated that it is in the property to the west's best interest and

those provisions would have to be worked out accordingly. Commissioner Burke asked

if there is a document adopting cross access but no provisions for recapture how can

they come to an agreement. Mr. Heniff stated that they want to get the provisions in

place and work out any costs. He stated that the concern is whether the property owner

to the west can come back and not pay any costs for cross access. He would follow up

with their Counsel and Village Counsel to meet both concerns.

Chairperson Ryan clarified that a statement should be incorporated into the conditions.

Mr. Kolb stated that it is a concern and anything that can be placed in the report should

be noted. Mr. Kolb stated that it would be fine with them if the Plan Commission would

like to address the recapture. Mr. Wagner, Village Counsel, noted that recapture has

never been mentioned in other Plan Commission recommendations. Mr. Kolb stated

that he considers it part of contract negotiations for both parties.

Commissioner Sweetser stated for clarification that signs "A" and "B" as proposed are

not acceptable. She asked if the signs could include the name of the business. Mr.

Heniff stated that the sign "A" could be permitted if it were less than six square feet and

located at the entrance with the CVS name and an arrow. Mr. Heniff suggested that

since sign "B" was not part of the petition it would have to come back before the Plan

Commission. He stated that the two identification signs are allowed. He stated that

there were no conditions for A but for B the tenant sign should only relate to businesses

on Lot 2 and filed under a separate application.

Chairperson Ryan stated that the signs should not be addressed since they were not

advertised.

1. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the site plans prepared

by Arc Design resources, Ives/Ryan Group and Stuart Novsky Associates, dated May

18, 2004 and submitted as part of this request.

2. Any future development on the Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision shall be subject to

a separate site plan approval application.

3. That the petitioner shall modify the landscape plan for the subject property, as

follows:

a. Additional landscape vegetation, consisting of evergreen and shrubs be placed

on the proposed landscape island immediately east of the pharmacy pick-up window.

The design and location of the plant materials shall be subject to the Director of

Community Development.

b. The parkway shall be improved with parkway trees and sodded, pursuant to

Section 155.706 of the Zoning Ordinance.

c. All internal parking lot islands shall be sodded rather than seeded, where

applicable, pursuant to Section 155.706 of the Zoning Ordinance.

d. Detention landscaping shall be provided pursuant to Section 154.508 of the

Subdivision and Development Ordinance and Section 155.709 of the Zoning Ordinance.

4. That the petitioner's building improvements shall be designed and constructed

consistent with Village Code and shall also address the comments included within the

IDRC report.

5. The maximum height of the automatic changeable copy sign proposed on the

freestanding sign may not exceed 24 inches in height. The petitioner shall submit a

revised sign plan reflecting that the modified sign dimensions.

6. That associated with the Lot 1 development, the petitioner shall construct the

proposed northern access drive improvements on Lot 2, consisting of a left turn lane on

Grace Street and an improved access driveway from Grace Street immediately across

from the Adele Avenue right-of-way to Lot 1 of the proposed development. The design

shall be subject to final review by the Director of Community Development and the

Village Engineer.

7. That as part of the Lot 1 improvements, the petitioner shall construct the access

driveway on Lot 2 pursuant to the revised plan submittal.

8. That as part of the public improvements, the petitioner shall provide full public

improvements as required by Sections 154.304 and 154.306 of the Lombard Subdivision

and Development Ordinance. The final design and location of all public improvements

shall be reviewed an approved by the Village and/or the Illinois Department of

Transportation.

9. That any trash enclosure screening on Lots 1 or 2 as required by Section 155.710

of the Zoning Ordinance shall be constructed of a material consistent with the principal

building.

10. That a total of five wall signs shall be permitted on the Lot 1 principal building, with

the wall sign size and placement to be consistent with the petitioner's plans, as follows:

a. Two "CVS Pharmacy" signs which can include the secondary tag line. Said

signs shall not exceed 136 square feet in size.

b. Three 'Drive-Thru/Pharmacy " signs, not to exceed 30 square feet in size. Any

future signage changes shall be subject to a future site plan approval from the Village.

11. In the event that the property owner immediately west of the subject property shall

not provide the rights to construct a shared access drive on his property, the petitioner

shall develop the site consistent with the alternate site plan submittal, prepared by Arc

Design Resources, dated May 18, 2004.

B. PC 04-07: 309 & 315 W. St. Charles Road (Three Ordinances on second

reading; Resolution; One Ordinance with Waiver of First Reading)

The petitioner requests that the following actions be taken on the subject property:

1. Approve a map amendment from the B2 General Neighborhood Shopping District

to the B5A Downtown Perimeter District;

2. Approve a conditional use for drive-though services;

3. Approve a conditional use for a planned development with the following signage

deviations:

a. A deviation from Section 153.208 (H) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow

for a freestanding sign within the clear line of sight area;

b. A deviation from Section 153.239 (F) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow

for wall signs to be displayed in conjunction with window signs;

c. A deviation from Section 153.508 (B) (5) (b) (1) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance

to allow for a freestanding sign of 47 sq. ft. where a maximum of 30 square feet is

permitted;

d. A deviation from Section 153.508 (B) (5) (c) (1) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance

to allow for a freestanding sign of 8 feet 3 inches in height where a maximum of 6 feet is

permitted;

e. A deviation from Section 153.508 (B) (17) (b) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to

allow for two 100-square foot wall signs where a maximum of 50 square feet is

permitted;

f. A deviation from Section 153.508 (B) (17) (c) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to

allow for a total of eight (8) wall signs where one sign per street front exposure is

permitted;

4. Approve a variation from Section 155.417 (J) and Section 155.508 (C) (6) (b) of the

Lombard Zoning Ordinance to reduce the transitional building setback from 20 feet to 12

feet to allow for a drive-through canopy;

5. Approve a variation from Sections 155.417 (K), 155.508 (C) (6) (b), and 155.707 of

the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to reduce the transitional landscape yard from 10 feet to

0 feet;

6. Approve a variation from Section 155.508 (C) (6) (a) of the Lombard Zoning

Ordinance to allow for a 9-foot front yard setback on the perimeter of a planned

development where a 30-foot front yard is required in the abutting R4 Limited General

Residence District; and

7. The petitioner also requests Site Plan Approval authority to the Lombard Plan

Commission.

8. A Resolution authorizing signature of the Village President and Deputy Village Clerk

on a Development Agreement; and

9. An Ordinance vacating portions of Elizabeth Street right-of-way (Waiver of First

Reading Requested) (DISTRICT #1)

Eric Stach, attorney for Bradford Real Estate, stated that the proposed Walgreens is at

the southwest corner of St. Charles Road and Elizabeth Street. He summarized their

request and noted that the site is 1.15 acres and the store will be approximately 13,000

square feet. The surrounding properties are transitional in nature, with single-family

residences to the north and west, a shopping center to the east, and raiload tracks to

the south. The existing gas station and office building on the site will be demolished and

the site will be cleaned and environmentally remediated. He then introduced Wayne

Marth of Arcline Associates in Downers Grove.

Mr. Marth presented the landscape plan for the property and proceeded to highlight site

design, building elevation, and circulation issues. Typical Walgreens stores have a

double drive-through, no canopy, and a glass tower with a neon sign. However,

Walgreens did not feel that their standards urban design was appropriate for this site

and they attempted to make it sensitive to the adjacent residence. Design elements that

were added to soften the building include shingles, a hip roof, stone, arches, capitals,

and a continuous cornice.

Mr. Stach concluded their presentation by stating that this proposal would be compatible

with the Central Business District. Bradford Real Estate would be very pleased to move

ahead with this project and they are happy with the considerable materials upgrades

proposed for this downtown cornerstone property.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Ed Roberts, 321 W. St. Charles Road, stated that he is not against the concept of a

Walgreens on this site, but he does have a number of concerns. He would prefer the

drive-through be located along St. Charles Road so that it would not be along his

property line. He noted that the existing office building is very quiet and he would like

the rooftop mechanicals to be on the eastern side of the roof. He also wants all

landscaping to be protected. He noted that most of the lighting concerns seem to have

been addressed.

Mr. Stach responded that they would be happy to work with the neighbor on any

excavation and landscaping issues.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. William Heniff, Senior Planner,

explained that the Village's traffic consultant would present a summary of the traffic

study after the staff report is presented. Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, reviewed the

petitioner's request and described the proposed development.

Ms. Backensto addressed the IRDC comments, noting that all comments will need to be

addressed prior to the issuance of any building permits. The Comprehensive Plan

recommends that this site be developed as part of the Central Business District - Mixed

Use Area.

The property is bordered by commercial uses to the east, railroad tracks to the south,

and R4-zoned residential uses to the north and west. Staff finds that the proposed use

is compatible with surrounding land uses. The petitioner is requesting rezoning of the

property to B5A to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes this

designation is appropriate.

Ms. Backensto explained that eight wall signs and additional window signs are

requested. Staff recommends approval of the wall signs only, as the property is more

oriented toward automobile traffic than most downtown uses. Staff supports the request

to place the freestanding sign within the clear line of sight area, as the sign should not

negatively impact traffic sight lines because most of the functional clear line of sight area

at corner of the property was dedicated as public right-of-way in 1998.

Staff can also support the requested variation to increase the size of the monument size,

as there is and will continue to be a larger freestanding sign at the southeast corner of

Elizabeth and St. Charles. However, staff does not feel that there is any justification for

an increase in the permitted height of the monument sign. Furthermore, staff suggests

that the entire sign structure (including elements outside of the sign cabinet area) should

be limited to no more than 10 feet in width.

Ms. Backensto summarized the request for a conditional use for drive-through services,

noting that a number of other drive-through facilities are located within the downtown,

including Fifth Third Bank and West Suburban Bank. Precautions must be taken to

minimize any visual or auditory impact on the neighboring property. This may be

accomplished through construction of a masonry wall and careful placement of lights

along the western edge of the property.

By creating a planned development, this provides the petitioner with greater design

flexibility while providing the Village with a mechanism to review and approve the design

elements associated with the petition. Staff is supportive of the planned development

request, as well as the requests to reduce the transitional building setback, transitional

landscape yard, and front yard setback.

The proposed project will meet the required number of parking spaces for retail uses

(four spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area). This site plan assumes the vacation of

a surplus portion of the Elizabeth Street right-of-way, which is necessary to meet parking

and perimeter landscaping requirements. In the event the right-of-way vacation does

not proceed, this site plan will not be functional.

Ms. Backensto noted that staff has been working with the petitioner for several months

to develop building elevations that are both compatible with the surrounding

neighborhood and aesthetically pleasing. The proposed elevations combine the typical

design for Walgreens stores with more residential, "neighborhood"-style architectural

elements to soften its appearance. These elements include the extensive use of brick

instead of cast stone, as well as a covered walkway with a pitched roof.

Staff suggests that the smoothface cast stone shown on the upper portion of the building

be replaced with the same rockface cast stone that is used on the lower portion of the

building. This will avoid an appearance of concrete block that would detract from the

overall design and quality of the building. Also, staff would prefer a clock in place of the

keystone window over the building entrance, as was done for the Walgreens on

Roosevelt Road in Glen Ellyn.

Staff recommends approval of the petition, subject to the conditions noted in the staff

report. Ms. Backensto then introduced Tim Doron of Kenig, Lindgrem, O'Hara, and

Aboona to present the traffic study that was performed in conjunction with this petition.

Mr. Doron stated that they evaluated the petitioner's site plan, which will eventually play

a role in a larger study of traffic movements along St. Charles Road. Their analysis

included circulation, access, and the general amount of trips that would be generated by

the project. He noted that this is an unusual site and proceeded to explain the existing

road network. Traffic flows are significant but not overly heavy. The intersection

functions well and will continue to function well after the Walgreens is opened. Vehicles

entering the site will likely be primarily from eastbound pass-by traffic. Drive-throughs

are not heavy users, which was confirmed by observations of the Walgreens on St.

Charles Road in Villa Park. The proposed number of parking spaces should be more

than adequate, and he is satisfied that the site will function.

Elsa Roberts, 321 W. St. Charles Road, asked for more information on the drive-through

traffic and stated that a drive-through should not be part of a neighborhood

establishment. She stated that she is not opposed to the Walgreens, but she is

opposed to a drive-through.

Mr. Doron explained that over a 12-hour period, there were only 40 cars that used the

drive-through in Villa Park. The study was performed to capture peak hour traffic, and

the longest stacking occurred with a maximum of two cars at 5:30 p.m. and at noon.

Chairperson Ryan asked if those results held true with other pharmacies. Mr. Doron

said that was very consistent with other pharmacies.

Commissioner Burke asked for clarification on truck circulation. Mr. Doron conformed

that the truck will use the main entrance, not the drive-through.

Commissioner Flint asked how the drives along Elizabeth would function. Mr. Doron

stated that vehicles will come in at the north drive and exit at the south drive.

Commissioner Burke discussed the appropriateness of one-way versus two-way traffic

circulation on the site and asked if the two northeastern parking spaces would present a

conflict. Mr. Doron stated that the circulation could be two-way if it was signed properly,

and the parking spaces will work.

Commissioner Sweetser asked how trash pickup would occur on the site. Mr. Marth

stated that the truck will back in and it will be a front-load vehicle.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about the existing number of lanes on northbound

Elizabeth Street between the railroad tracks and St. Charles Road. Mr. Doron stated

that there is one lane that transitions into two lanes as it approaches the intersection.

Commissioner Burke asked if the driveway is lined up with that of the neighboring

property. Mr. Heniff stated that is was.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked about drive-through traffic coming off of St. Charles. Mr.

Doron stated that it will function properly for the site.

Commissioner Burke stated that he was surprised no drive-through entrance sign was

proposed along the street. Mr. Heniff stated that a six-square foot directional sign could

be erected as a matter of right.

Commissioner Burke noted that the site plan shows a six-foot wall, but the staff report

recommends a six- to eight-foot wall be constructed. Mr. Stach noted that the retention

wall could be the cause for the confusion, and Mr. Heniff noted that an eight-foot wall

was permitted by code. Commissioner Burke stated that the site plan should say that

the wall would be eight feet above the elevation of the neighboring property.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if there was flexibility regarding the materials for the wall.

Mr. Heniff noted that the condition in the staff report references the approval of the

adjacent property owner.

Commissioner Sweetser expressed concern over the wall's impact on the drive-through

entrance, noting that there is an existing drive-through in the downtown that does not

function well. Mr. Heniff stated that the wall will be pulled back from the street to comply

with code and final engineering has not yet been done for the site.

Commissioner Burke asked if the drive-though would use a loudspeaker. Mr. Stach

confirmed that there would not be a loudspeaker.

Commissioner Burke stated that there were visual and auditory concerns regarding the

rooftop mechanicals and they should be placed as far away from the residence as

possible. Mr. Marth explained that there will be a five-foot high parapet wall that is

higher than any of the rooftop equipment. None of the mechanicals will be closer than

10 feet to the parapet wall, and the refrigeration unit will be at least 15 feet from the

parapet wall. Chairperson Ryan noted that that would place the mechanicals at least 31

feet away from the neighboring property line.

Commissioner Burke asked about noise generation. Mr. Marth stated that the

equipment will not be noise-producing, and the parapet wall would block any minimal

sound.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that great pains were taken to camouflage the rooftop

equipment at Fountain Square. Commissioner Burke noted that even though the

residence must experience noise from St. Charles Road and the adjacent railroad

tracks, the mechanicals should be moved as far away as possible. Mr. Marth stated that

all but the refrigeration unit could be moved and there will be zero decibels at the

property line in addition to zero light pollution. He added that they will work with the

resident to improve the driveway apron.

Commissioner Sweetser spoke about the possibility of traffic signage to warn vehicles of

an upcoming drive-through entrance.

Commissioner Burke asked if everyone was comfortable with the location of the

monument sign.

Commissioner Melarkey asked if a right-in, right-out driveway was considered on

Elizabeth Street. Mr. Doron said the driveways were one-way due to their width and the

need for parking spaces.

1. The petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the plans prepared by

Arcline Associates, Ltd., last revised June 11, 2004 and submitted as part of this

request;

2. The petitioner's building improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent

with Village Code and all also address the comments included within the IDRC report;

3. The petitioner shall submit a Plat of Consolidation prior to receiving any building

permit;

4. The petitioner shall pay for and install a solid masonry wall along the western

property line of eight (8) feet in height. Design and material type of the wall is subject to

the approvals of the Director of Community Development and the property owners at

321 W. St. Charles Road. In the event the neighboring property owner is unwilling to

grant a construction easement, a board-on-board fence shall be constructed;

5. The lighting plan shall be modified as follows:

a.) All light fixtures on the west side of the building shall be mounted at a height no

greater than the wall along the western property line;

b.) All light fixtures on the drive-through canopy shall be recessed so as not to be

visible from adjacent properties;

6. The signage plan shall be modified as follows:

a.) The eight (8) red, channel letter signs noted on the exterior elevations shall be

approved;

b.) The requested variations for a 47-square foot freestanding sign within the clear

line of sight area shall be approved;

c.) No neon sign shall be visible on the exterior of the building;

d.) That the proposed free-standing sign and support shall not be greater than ten

feet (10') in width;

A free-standing directional sign be placed at the entrance into the drive through

along St. Charles Road, and elevated four feet in height with a total size of six square

feet; and

e.) All other signage relief shall be denied.

7. The building elevations shall be modified as follows:

a.) The windows at the northeast corners of the covered entry shall be replaced

with an analog clock or compatible architectural element, subject to the approval of the

Director of Community Development; and

b.) The smoothface cast stone noted on the elevations as "3b" shall be replaced

with the same rockface cast stone noted as "3a."

8. Approval of the submitted plans shall be subject to the Corporate Authorities of the

Village of Lombard vacating a portion of Elizabeth Street immediately adjacent to the

subject property that has been deemed surplus right-of-way.

9. That the rooftop mechanical equipment shall not be audible from the west property

line.

10. That the petitioner shall construct necessary improvements to Elizabeth Street

which provides for two northbound lanes north of the railroad tracks.

William Heniff, presented a supplemental staff report. He summarized the discussion of

the previous meeting and indicated that staff had addressed the concerns of the Plan

Commissioners at the last meeting by providing additional information for their

consideration.

In response to the comments that were specifically raised by the Commissioners at the

last Plan Commission meeting relative to garage height, he provided three examples of

different garage heights and rooflines. Mr. Heniff indicated that he reviewed building

permits issued in 2003 and selected three garages that reflect how the code

amendments would affect garage styles. These plans are being presented to show the

range of garage types found in the Village.

The first plan showed the traditional gable roof - a one-story garage design having

standard elevations and includes the issue with the ties. The second plan showed the

other extreme where the builder chose a gambrel roof, also known as a barn roof, to

maximize space on the second level. This plan shows the ties, truss and the substantial

amount of space on the second level. Staff is concerned that this space could allow for

an in-law apartment or a home occupation. If the overall garage height was capped at

17 feet, it would decrease the clearance height for the second level. The overall square

footage of the depicted garage is 936 square feet, which is at the high end of the code.

This accessory structure almost equals the residential structure.

The third example indicates a gable roof with a high peak. If the 17-foot maximum

height limit was applied, it would decrease the roof pitch. Staff does not believe it would

be inconsistent with the house design as it still allows the ability for architectural

embellishments to be added.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No was no one in the

audience speaking in favor or in opposition to the petition.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission

members.

Commissioner Burke questioned how one would bring the garage in example three into

compliance. Mr. Heniff answered that the roof pitch would need to be modified. This

change would still have a greater roof pitch than compared to a 12/4 roof pitch in the first

example.

Commissioner Burke stated that he thought the most attractive garage was the one

represented in example 3, which has a height of 20.5 feet. He stated that if you bring

the height down to 17 feet it would look like example one.

Commissioner Flint stated that if you drop the roofline, you could drop the ceiling line,

which is unusually high. Mr. Heniff stated that you could drop it another foot and a half.

Commissioner Flint indicated that would reduce the height.

Commissioner Flint indicated that at the last meeting, he shared his garage experience

and has measured it. His garage has a 16' 3" height and an 8'6" floor to ceiling height

on the first level. The pitch of the roof is 8/12. His garage design is very close to what

we are talking about restricting to 17 feet. It is doable for storage but does not provide

for office space.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if these figures were absolutes or could a resident apply

for a variation. Mr. Heniff stated they could apply for a variation. Commissioner

Sweetser agreed with Commissioner Burke in that the picture presented in example

three is very attractive and wants the process to remain as an option.

Commissioner Olbrysh indicated that he likes the 17-foot height restriction.

Commissioner Burke stated that he thought the height should be higher as he did not

want to see variances for an 18-foot high garage.

Mr. Heniff indicated that the staff report also provided additional information regarding

the setback requirements as well as having the overall percentage being eliminated. He

confirmed that they selected 750 square feet with an absolute formula.

Commissioner Melarkey asked how many garages were permitted over 750 square feet

in size. Mr. Heniff answered maybe 15 to 20. Commissioner Melarkey asked how

many of those were for properties over 7,500 square feet. Mr. Heniff said that staff did

not research this issue.

Commissioner Melarkey asked if 750 square feet would accommodate a three-car

garage. Mr. Heniff answered that it would.

Fountain Square Townhomes

William Heniff, Senior Planner, introduced the workshop by indicating that Dennis Stine

and Robert Pugliese were in the audience relative to a concept development proposal at

Fountain Square. He stated that the Fountain Square development has been under

construction for the past six years, and the property in question is the vacant lot

immediately west of the condominium buildings.

Mr. Heniff had a series of display boards and a full packet outlining what the petitioner

was proposing for the property. Continuing, he gave the background of the property

indicating that it was approved by an annexation agreement and the parcel in question

was to provide for the development of four condominium buildings. The first two

buildings have been constructed, the remaining two have not been constructed, and the

property remains vacant. The developer is now looking at a townhome proposal which

would replace 121 condominium units with a total of 68 residential units. He mentioned

the petitioner's letter which explains the reasons for the land use change. He then

explained the orientation of the proposed townhome buildings mentioning that they will

feed off of the internal access road with no additional access drives off of 22nd Street.

Showing a concept rendering of a rowhouse, Mr. Heniff explained that it is narrower and

more vertical than a regular townhome. Front and rear elevations of the proposed

townhomes were then introduced as well as three different floor plans. These concept

plans are being presented for consideration as to whether a townhome development

would be appropriate for this site.

Mr. Heniff referred to staff's memo which outlines issues and/or concerns by staff

relative to the concept plan review process which includes site design issues and

structure separation, among other things. Referring to one of the diagrams, he stated

that when you incorporate a townhome proposal, a substantial area needs to be

dedicated for parking access and site circulation and impervious surface gets covered.

This means that the 30' transitional yard would be replaced by access drive aisles which

is a deviation from the intent of the planned development.

Investment concerns were cited by the petitioner as a reason for the townhome concept.

Staff believes that the Village has allowed great flexibility for the swing parcel which is

located east of the proposed parcel which currently remains vacant awaiting future

development. This swing parcel could provide for redevelopment possibilities and could

be used to address these investment concerns cited by the developer.

The Homeowners Association has expressed aesthetic concerns about not having this

property developed. Staff suggests that as a solution the parcel could be graded,

sodding, and landscaped in the interim.

Staff cited possible negative children impacts noting the lack of green space that would

result within the development and whether that could sufficiently accommodate children

as well as whether the surrounding land uses would be children friendly. Mr. Heniff

stated that the developer's attorney noted in their letter that they do not anticipate

substantial numbers of families with children but would be marketing to empty nesters.

In conclusion, Mr. Heniff stated that staff is looking for direction from the Commissioners

relative to their thoughts about the proposed land use change, overall site layout,

whether they are supportive of the proposed use and layout, or had any concerns

regarding the building elevations. Mr. Heniff then turned the workshop over to the

attorney for the developer, Bob Pugliese.

Mr. Pugliese thanked the Commissioners for their time and proceeded to confirm that

the approved plan allows for two condominium buildings resulting in 121 units. They are

now proposing 68 townhome units in two buildings. This change is being proposed in

response to the market change particularly given the ability to deliver townhomes with

sizeable gross floor area and two-car garages. The townhomes will be high quality,

almost all the same size, and will be priced in the $400,000 range before upgrades.

They compiled demographic information which resulted in their decision to proceed with

the proposed townhome plan. When presenting this concept to the condominum

homeowners they expressed their support and interest in the townhome concept as

outlined in their letter to the developer. The developer has also acquired over 100

names of interested parties without marketing the project. In response to staff concern

over having children on site, Mr. Pugliese stated this concept will likely attract empty

nesters who are interested in first floor bedrooms. They anticipate few children as only

a handful of children currently live in the condominiums.

Staff raised issues and they have responded to them in writing. Overall none of those

issues are insurmountable so as to turn them away from a nice project. One of the

issues mentioned is open space. The development they are proposing results in

providing an excess of open space of what is required over the ordinance. Standards for

a planned development are bumped up 25 percent and the proposal has over that. The

condominium has an interior courtyard which is rarely used. This courtyard is

considered private open space and not actively enjoyed but passively enjoyed. The

townhome owners would be part of an association that would allow them to use that

courtyard and the loss of the second courtyard would not be significant. As there will be

a slight reduction in open space compared to the condominium plan, there is a trade off

due to fewer people, fewer cars and congestion.

Another issue is the amendment of the transitional yard. In order to accommodate the

townhome they would have to reduce the transitional yard but they should keep in mind:

1. The yard requirement is there for the residential owner to protect them from

commercial development. Anyone who decides to buy a townhome already knows of

the site development and has a choice to accept the layout.

2. The building setback from the south property line is 36 feet and exceeds the setback

requirement of the ordinance.

3. There are other developments like Marriott Townplace Suites that has reduced the

transitional yard from 30 to 5 feet. In this instance, the residents were already there and

had no choice to say no. There are situations where this has been done and they can

beef up the landscaping of the traditional yard.

The next issue raised by staff is the structure separation. The overall spacing of the

buildings is not tight. The structure separation of less than 30 feet would apply in three

places which are at the short facades of the buildings. These locations are all interior to

the site and not visible from 22nd Street. Lastly, they are willing to upgrade exterior

materials by constructing all masonry buildings and are prepared to address any fire

issues.

In conclusion, Mr. Pugliese stated that they have provided good answers to staff

questions, they believe the proposal better meets the marketplace, the property owner

has the support of the neighbor, and the proposal allows the property owner to do what

he wants with the property. He asked for the Commissioners general comments on the

plan. Lastly, he promised that the Shaw Company will ensure that the development will

be done in a first class manner and will be a quality product you can be proud of.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated he was very impressed with the overall Fountain Square

development and condos. He had one major concern about the proposal which was if

they were aiming to market to empty nesters the plans, which indicate three stories, do

not show any master bedrooms on the first floor only on the third floor and there are no

elevators. Mr. Pugliese indicated that one of the major differences for this proposal is

that potential buyers will be coming from a single family home. There will be a separate

entrance and private garage and those are desired features. The market is telling us

there is interest in these amenities.

Chairperson Ryan questioned the thought of not a lot of children especially when the

plans indicate two bedrooms with an option for either a den or a third bedroom. Mr.

Pugliese answered with the condos there was the desirability of three bedroom units

and the desire is still there. Chairperson Ryan stated the price might weed out a lot of

families.

Commissioner Flint had concerns about too much impervious surface and asked if

something could be done to offset that by creating more landscaped areas especially

the ends of the building facing 22nd Street.

Chairperson Ryan inquired about the fence that closes off the condo area and asked if

they are keeping that concept or doing away with it for the townhomes. Mr. Pugliese

answered that they are not changing the fence at all.

Commissioner Burke questioned the differences in the elevations that were in the

packet. Mr. Pugliese stated that they all have the same look. Doug Mossier elaborated

on the color rendering-indicating they are later versions. The goal is to bring in

architectural elements such as bay windows, and fireplaces and they are trying to do in

end units everywhere. They will predetermine those options before the buildings. Some

will be different because of fire wall ratings.

Commissioner Sweetser commented this is a vertical type of development which should

keep closer to the 30 feet separation, unless you come down to a 2 story. Without the

separation it would look like a long set of 2 buildings running together. If you don't hold

to the 30 feet, the end design is harder to keep. Mr. Pugliese stated that those areas

would be windowless.

Commissioner Burke confirmed that the firewall condition applies if the separation is

closer than 30 feet making it a solid wall. He specified the two locations where that

would occur and showed on it on the plans. It would affect four of the 68 units.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if there were any plans for a path for people to be active

on the site. Mr. Pugliese indicated that there is not much of a demand for that. These

people are like the people in the condos. There is a courtyard and a trail along and he

showed where that was on the diagram. There are options to use those as anything on

Lot 1 will be available for the townhome or condo development.

Commissioner Zorn indicated that when she first looked at the plans, her first impression

was that it was too crowded and she did not want anything to take away from the beauty

of the development. Chairperson Ryan had that same first impression but then realized

there are other communities that have a mixed use in a gated community setting.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the intent was to have the color and masonry blend in

with the condos. She suggested there may be a contrast. Doug Mossier indicated they

are still in the conceptual stage but the materials will have a complementary break and

are not meant to match it straight up. Commissioner Sweetser stated that what was

drawing them to it was a homier look.

Commissioner Burke stated that he thought the Commissioners did not have a problem

with the development itself but a matter of how it will look when you come back. The

development could be made to be incredibly beautiful or ordinary.

Chairperson Ryan stated that the Village has something to be proud of in Fountain

Square and do not want to lose that concept. We want to keep it upscale so that

everyone including the condo residents can be proud.

Public Hearing Procedures (Public Hearing Procedures, Procedures for Chairperson

and Policies, and Procedures of the Plan Commission and By-Laws) (Continued from

May 17, 2004)

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the matter. He indicated that he has

incorporated the comments from the Plan Commissioners at their last meeting relative to

their review and discussion of Plan Commission Public Hearing Procedures, Public

Hearing Procedures for the Chairperson, Policies and Procedures of the Plan

Commission, and By-Laws of the Plan Commission. He indicated that these changes

resulted from the Supreme Court hearing Klaeren v. Village of Lisle in order to make the

Village's public hearing process as smooth as possible.

Chairperson Ryan read Section II under the Public Hearing Procedures for the

Chairperson and read "The Commission's procedures allow anyone in the audience to

comment or ask questions of petitioner and staff in an informal manner during the public

participation period." He asked if that is something he has to read each time. George

Wagner answered yes. Chairperson Ryan then asked if the "public participation period"

refers to the part of the meeting which is the comment portion after the petitioner or staff

has presented information. George Wagner answered yes and that it must be done for

each of the public hearings.

Chairperson Ryan referred to Section VI and read "The petitioner new has time for

rebuttal and will answer….." He asked if he must ensure that the petitioner does in fact

answer each and every question asked. George Wagner stated that the purpose is to

introduce testimony and present evidence and they have the right of cross examination.

During public participation they have an opportunity to do what they generally do which

is to ask questions and following the questions the petitioner should answer those

questions. Chairperson Ryan stated that he had a problem with the words "will answer"

versus "should answer". Mr. Wagner stated that it is intended to be much like it is now

but it is important that the public does have the question(s) answered.

Chairperson Ryan referred to Section IX. and read "Petitioner and audience may ask

follow up questions regarding any new information….." and he asked if the audience

may ask any question about any new information. Mr. Wagner answered yes stating

that the purpose is to allow the public to have the dialogue with the Commissioners. Mr.

Wagner stated that some questions may redundent or unrelated but the Chairperson

has the ability to stop them. He added that the cross examination period is open to the

overall subject matter and it is usually a direct response to the information provided.

What is important, though, is when the public has other questions beyond the scope of

the subject matter the Chairperson could say no, but public participation could elicit

additional questions. Mr. Wagner thought that as the new proceedings progress they

will see how cumbersome it really is.

Commissioner Sweetser suggested having samples or a diagram available indicating

the kinds of questions or items that might be allowed and also that shows the difference

between asking something legitimate versus something extreme.

Chairperson Ryan asked if these changes in procedures would apply to the Board of

Trustee meetings as well. Mr. Wagner indicated that the Board of Trustees meeting

does not have the same purpose as this meeting. This meeting is more for fact finding.

Commissioner Burke asked if it was required that the Chairperson read the entire

agenda at the beginning of the meeting. George Wagner indicated that it was so that

the public knows what the petitioner's are requesting. Commissioner Burke then asked

if the staff report needed to be read in its entirety. Mr. Heniff answered that staff can do

this in one of several ways. They can incorporate it by reference and point out specific

items. If the Commissioners prefer that we can do it, but if you are part of the viewing

television audience wanting to know a certain issue, things get lost. Commissioner

Burke thought there was too much information and some could be eliminiated.