Village of Lombard Legistar System

Karen Ness, 219 W. Ash, felt that St. Johns has had enough time to get the project

underway and the permits should expire

Tammy Urish, 216 W. Maple, spoke about the St. Johns project and was concerned

about the cost as well as the possibility that they would ask for financial relief.

Joe Barrier, a representative for the CVS at 350 E. North Avenue, explained that CVS

wished to remove the free standing pylon sign and replace it with an electronic message

board, which would not flash, scroll, blink or rotate. He said only full messages would be

displayed, with text only and no graphics. He said the sign would not have an adverse

effect on the community and it would not be a safety risk.

Trustee Tross asked if this was the same information that was given to the Plan

Commission.

Mr. Barrier responded that it was the same information.

The Lombard Fire Department was recognized for winning first place in the Weber Grill

Cook Off on May 19, 2006. Those members of the Department who competed were

Battalion Chief Mike Torrence, Lieutenant James Strue and Firefighter/Paramedics Mike

DiRienzo and Tony Sally.

Battalion Chief Mike Torrence explained that last year the Lombard group came in first

place in the Lombard cook off and second place in the Chicago cook off. He commented

that one of the firefighters on the Deerfield team had been a chef for seven years. He

indicated that appearance and texture, account for five points each and taste accounts

for ten points.

Lieutenant James Strue stated that their team had done much of the prep work

beforehand, therefore, they were able to relax a bit more and enjoy the competition.

Trustee Sebby said the Committee had not had a formal meeting since the last Board

meeting, but on Tuesday, May 23, 2006, there was a public gathering on Ahrens at

which time the Villages of Lombard and Villa Park were given a presentation by the

Lifesaver Program. There were approximately 50-75 residents in attendance. There was

also a joint meeting on May 27, 2006 that Trustee Sebby was unable to attend. Wes

Anderson reported that at that time, there were three recommendations, to train

teenagers as peer instructors, that the Police Department improve enforcement and Villa

Park and the Village of Lombard, along with the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC,)

construct a pedestrian underpass.

The next meeting would be June 5, 2006.

Q. PC 06-13: 201, 205 and 211 E. Roosevelt Road; 1200 South Highland Av.; and

112-116 & 120-124 E. 13th Street (Southwest Corner of Roosevelt & Highland)

(Two Ordinances on Second Reading)

Requests that the Village take the following actions on the subject property:

A. Approve a second amendment to an annexation agreement; (2/3 of Corporate

Authorities Vote Required)

B. Approve a second major plat of resubdivision.

C. Pursuant to Section 155.504(A) of the Zoning Ordinance, approve a major change to

the approved planned development with site plan approval (Ordinance 5560), to allow

for an alternate commercial development plan, consisting of the following elements:

1. For Lot 1 of the proposed resubdivision, approve the following:

a. A conditional use pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(18) of the Zoning Ordinance

for an outdoor dining/service establishment;

b. A deviation from Section 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;

c. A deviation from Section 153.234(F) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow for

a free-standing sign to be located closer than seventy-five feet (75') from the center line

of the adjacent right-of-way; and

d. A deviation from deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(17)(b)(2) of the Sign

Ordinance to allow for more than one wall sign for interior tenants.

2. For Lot 2 of the proposed resubdivision, approve the following:

a. A conditional use pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance for

a drive-through facility;

b. A variation from Sections 155.706 and 155.709 of the Zoning Ordinance to

reduce requisite parking lot and perimeter landscaping requirements;

c. A deviation from Section 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;

d. 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; and

e. A deviation from Section 153.211 (F) and 153.240 (F) of the Sign Ordinance to

allow for mixed wall, window and awning signs.

(DISTRICT #6)

Trustee Sebby stated that the cap was $7.666984 million and the original number was

$4.28 million. He said we should be looking at opportunities to reduce the costs and

there was an increase of nearly $1.8 million in less than ten days time during the

negotiations. He stated that the information presented at the special meeting of May 25,

2006 was the most current and accurate information the developer had available. He

said he had received yesterday, information regarding a similar project in Elgin with the

same developer, which is of great concern as there have been cost escalations in a

community that has gaming revenue as a source of funding which Lombard does not.

He said he had gotten documentation from the City of Elgin that he spoke about.

Trustee Tross suggested that staff check the references of past RSC and Coffey and

Associates projects.

Trustee Sebby read a letter he had received from a resident, Marisa Schoff, 114 E.

Maple. The letter stated that Ms. Schoff was concerned about the poor condition of

theatre and questioned who would pay for any overrun. She mentioned the financial

difficulties that Elgin faces in the project in which RSC is the developer. She hoped the

Board would stand firm in their to reject the proposal from RSC.

Trustee Soderstrom stated that one of the items on list of questions to the developer

should be what will happen to the "black box" theater after it is built. He said he shared

Trustee Sebby's concerns about cost overruns, which was his reason for the addition of

the Village's liability cap.

Trustee O'Brien indicated that he had not had any response to the vote at the last

Special Meeting of May 25, 2006. He stated that no one has given serious thought or

serious money to the project except the Village. He said he doesn't mind discussion, but

we need a fair evaluation from our staff.

Trustee Gron said he realizes after thirty years in the construction business, that many

projects do come in over budget and that some costs increase due to hidden problems.

He stated that answers were needed in order to make a rational decision and that if

something is done it needs to be right and proper. He was also concerned that other

developers may be scared off.

Trustee Florey indicated that this action demonstrates flexibility and shows the strengths

of this plan. He hoped that everyone would continue in this good faith effort to make a

plan that is better for Lombard.

President Pro Tem Tross stated that his offer of reconsideration is due to the fact that

Mr. Curto indicated that he would give to the Village the "black box", but the Village does

not want to be in the theatre, arts and culture business. He said that staff does a

wonderful job, but they can only do what they are directed to do by the Board.

Trustee Soderstrom asked what the time frame would be for these answers to come

before the Board, as he did not want to see this stretched into August or September.

Mr. Lichter hoped this would come before Board before the end of June, with a possible

Special Meeting on June 22, 2006.

For the benefit those watching, Trustee Sebby asked Mr. Lichter to read the list of items

for review, with the addition of the liability cap and checking references of the developer.

Mr. Lichter read the list and assured the Trustees would be contacted if there were any

questions.

Trustee Gron asked if RSC had been notified of the list.

Mr. Lichter responded that RSC had received a copy.

President Pro Tem Tross stated that the Board has not changed their mind, but in light

of the information presented on May 25, 2006, the proposal needs to be reconsidered.

Trustee Sebby asked if there had been any meeting with the developer since the

Special Meeting on May 25, 2006.

Mr. Lichter said there had been a meeting that morning.

Trustee Sebby asked about the developer's initial reaction.

Mr. Lichter said the developer wanted to digest the information and another meeting

would take place.

President Pro Tem Tross stated that staff would report on the answers to these items for

review.

Trustee O'Brien stated that the developer should answer the questions and he asked if

staff would give an evaluation or opinion.

President Pro Tem Tross indicated that staff is the conduit to the developer. He

mentioned the possibility of the Finance Director being asked about the financial aspect.

Mr. Lichter indicated that during negotiations, the Village looked at the concept of the

Village funding the construction of the Theatre at the cost of $5.8 million. The Village

was informed that the Village would have to borrow $7 million at an interest rate of 7%

due to the fact that there is not enough TIF increment to cover the principal amount of

the bond issue and interest.

Trustee Florey stated that the Board creates policies and he would like to see more than

just condos and shops downtown, he would also like to see something unique such as

an arts center. He did not want to put staff in the position of giving an opinion.

Trustee Soderstrom commented that this issue has gone from an Ad Hoc Committee,

Citizens' Committees, statutory committees and to the Board. He felt it was not

appropriate to send this issue back to the Finance Committee. He thought it would be

best to get the information, make a decision and move forward.

Trustee Sebby commented that he found it ironic that at the time that he requested this

item be put on the agenda, that reconsideration of the DuPage Theatre had been placed

on the agenda. He pointed out that exactly one year ago, this same Board voted to

direct staff to gather bids for demolition of the Theatre. He suggested that staff

determine the current cost of demolition, as current estimates could run from $160,000

to $340,000 and it would be beneficial for the Board to have that information. He

recommended that RFP's be solicited with the clear understanding that information be

held until the pending litigation is resolved.

Trustee Soderstrom mentioned that he had asked Mr. Bayer on May 25, 2006, what

would be the best direction to take to be relieved of the lawsuit that the Village is

currently facing. He understood from Mr. Bayer that the crux of matter of the lawsuit

from the Historical Society is to have the option for a six month review. He said the only

way to establish a date is to go out for a demolition bid, then the Historical Commission

has to say they want the six months or they don't. The best way to have the lawsuits go

away is to start the clock. If the Board reconsiders and finds out it is a good thing to do,

the DuPage can be rebuilt, if the find it is not a good idea, it can be torn down.

Trustee Sebby requested clarification from Mr. Bayer.

Mr. Bayer said the first step in the process would be to solicit bids because the

Ordinance indicates that the trigger for the six months would be making an application

for a demolition permit. Seeking proposals would keep that option open.

Trustee Gron pointed out that prices have changed in a year since bids for demolition

and asked if parameters would be set or would it be for total demolition.

Trustee Sebby suggested looking for the least expensive option with the potential of

some salvage.

President Pro Tem Tross indicated that when a company places a bid, they value the

salvage of the property.

Trustee Sebby said he was not referring to scrap copper or brick, but to save portions of

certain structures or certain items versus a complete teardown. He suggested staff pull

up the RFP from a year ago for review and re-bid it.

Trustee Florey was not supportive of this and suggested a bid for the cost of just taking

down auditorium itself consistent with the RSC plan.

Trustee O'Brien asked if there would be restoration or rebuilding of the Theatre.

Mr. Bayer said the proposal was for restoration of the facade only.

Mr. Lichter responded that the proposal included the restoration of the shoppes building

with lofts, restoration of the lobby, and the terra cotta facade, with demolition of the

auditorium and construction of a new auditorium.

Trustee O'Brien asked if the court would perceive this as a change.

Mr. Bayer indicated that the court proceedings will be based on the Theatre's landmark

status.

President Pro Tem Tross stated that the Historical Commission had withdrawn from

litigation, they were the principal plaintiffs at the appellate level and that is not what is

holding this up.

Trustee Sebby questioned RSC's response that it would not be cheaper for replication

(new) rather than restoration for the west and north facades. He disagreed with that and

asked that staff review this. He asked that the RFP be dealt with in an expeditious

fashion and could possibly be ready for the July meeting.

President Pro Tem Tross stated that question of the reconsideration of the Theatre and

demolition should come before the Committee of the Whole at the same time.