Village of Lombard Legistar System

Fasil for 1625 S. Main. requesting a property he wants to annex into lombard and

change zoning to r2. subdivide 2 lots one house facing main street. The utulities are

curtrtently served by HighlandHills and they will still servebut will get lombard water.

they have easement east of west corner of property, 17 ft. and inquiring for 10' to create

2 lots. they are okayw ith it. have letters confirming to submit to village.

Christian Heinz, on his behalf of surveying company and consultaing engineering

company should you have any questions.

No one to speak in favor or aginst.

Bill gave staff report. petitoner take three actions, annexation, annexation agreement by

bot, and map amendment from r1 to r2. request will consist of exisitng house being

razed and subdvision to be done administratively. lots orientated toward 17th street.

included in staff report are comments from engineering, pw that talk about the

development should this occur. Planning with cp. and is in lombards planning area.

corporate boundaries on all sides but north. cp recommends estate residential - 10,00o

sq. ft. lots. these lots will be comparable to intent of this designation and mirrors the

uses in Falcom Meadows. Pet. will be responsible for st4reet improvements and as

noted on plat of resubdivision. pet. will abrogate an easement on the east side of the

property. sanitary sewer constructed in rear of theese properties. hh will prepare this

document.

Staff recomnmends approval subject to 3 conditions.

Commiossioners:

Ro - no problem with request but want to cinform - staff report - exisitng residentials to

the east. if this approved and once these homes put up, one might think this is part of

the falcon meadows sub. BH - visually. RO in same price rnage. BH yes

RS- conditiona 2 - does those include the parkway, sidewalk, and those kinds of things.

BH - those are in our S&D ordinance. yes i would consider that all lpart because its a

code issue.

Tom Yaeger, 104 S. Main, Park Ridge. will cover the architctural elements and planning

components. and introduced the other two that will be possibly speaking. The project

is the 1st church well over 100 years of age. he pointed to an area to be removed and

the 1957 addition (church office area) composed of three buildings on site. In addition

there is a residence at 18 and 24 ash and adjacent to it is 28 ash. the only other

residential abutter is off of Maple. the improvement is removal of old addition at the far

north end of existing church building. the problem is that is has detoriated, doesn't tie in

and has horrible accessibility. It is about1700 square feet and will be replaced with multi

use of about 4,800 sq. ft. per floor. He mentioned the lift. the character in terms of

archictural rfeatures, and you cannot match it up. from a material viewpoint intend to

use the same type of materials. some features to be cmpabitle is to recognize the

gothic features, windows, . He showed the new addition, the north face, and repeated

some elements of existing builidng and he described it. this mirrored on the east and

west side. Important to note that this addition is less in height than the adjacent

residential. One variation requests that relates to this trns. sideyard but doesn't meet

the 20'. The other major ocmponents are the off street parking. the plat at 18 w. ash

will be razed and combined to eliminate the need for landscape island to get as much off

street parking because they are still well under parking req. The outreach programs in

18 w ash will be moved at 24 w. ash. the parking and drive area will require fire

dimensation. one access will be one way in, there is an area for a dumpster and the

garage will be reclocated from 18 to another location adjacent to the playground. A

fence would be betwen 24 and 28 ash and the petitioner is ahppy to meet the

requirements of having this fence to prodive privacy. they are landscaping the buffer

strip along Ash and ormanmental landscape along another section he pointed to. He

showed the west and east elevation of the multi use space.

Mark Myer, chaired building task force for several years. he asked the minister to

address the aspect of the ocnditional use and introducted rob Hatfield. Senior Minister

of 1st Church. Hatfield mentioned the coop and nursery school and they want to

continue. by doing this project we tear up their playground. the other cu has to do with

the relocated of the coop. He described what First Things First does which is a baby

needs mninistry distributed to people in need in community. They have a building suited

for this need is this is approved. they asked neighbors for their agreement which is

outlined in staff report. want to use new building for variety of new ministries.

Mark mentioned they have addressed neighbors concerns by way of landscaping and

fencing and believe these issues of welfare, safety and environemental to maintain

proeprty values and are here to address any qeustions.

No one present to speak in favor or against.

Backensto gave background information. He described the various building and what

they provide. she stated the petitioner's request. The IDRC comments stated included

Engineering's two conditions. PW's had no comments but once final engineering

submitted. Fire & BIS - had seven conditions. Planning - CP reocmmends institional

uses which conforms. Has submitted a plat of consolidation which can be done

administratively. She mentioned the surrounding land uses and stated that the

establishment is over 100 years and predates zoning regulations. cu - mentioned the

various conditoonal uses there is no change to these activities.She mnetioned ordinance

2889. since petiitoner will not amend conditional use, 24 w. ash overnight stays will be

prohibited. Staff has no objection to these request. Shoudl any other uses be added

then an amended cu will be required. approval of a pd will allow more flexibility.

Rezoning - to B5a. Trantional building , landscaping islands will not be rquired

tomaximize parking spaces. She mentioned the requirments for parking spaces or 142

parking spaces, decifict of 97 spaces. Staff belives that the room for parking outweights

the need for landscapeislands. building height - variation for church steeple. zoning

ordiannce requires two stories or 30 feet. staff has no objection to this request.

Building elevations - concept drawing submitted. design intended to reflect some the

arch. element of the chapel and staff feels that the deisn is compatbile. Historical

significance \hhas not been endangered. Staff recoomends relative to conditons.

RO- do like materials and deisgn and how it blends. The chapel still stands as historic

building on campus. pleased aboutthe IHPA the addiiton will not impact historical status.

What is costs of project? rick about 28 million. RO - Fire & Buyilding comments -

existing structure you mean the church. Yes they do. With repsect to the historicla

chapel is it now fire alarmed. smoke and heat detectors. petitioner - yes. RO - worried

about rash of fires in religious institutions.

Ryan - complement architural elements and appreciate their input fromthe previous

workshops as well as to ingress.

MB - staff report that the IHPA willnot affect status. if this is now a PD that will not have

an impact either. BH - the netire cmpus will be one lot of record and willnot affect status.

RS - approving the PD deviations, point e. is not mentioned when the others are. is that

automatic but since the others are referened why is that not. JB not prosoping any

changes . She referred to 6 and wnated to proect and have motion be reflective of all

the actions. JB all deviations and vartiation included in motion because you approve the

conditional use.

SF - architect this is a good presenation. They are familiar with church and the high

quality programs involved.

RS - thnk ou for takingour comments into consideration.

Fida Shawallani. presented the petition 5N158 Oxtail Lane, Bartlett, requesting for

aspecial use for adrive thru restaurant at 844 e. roosevelt. this site is approxaminly 1

acre in size. it was orignally used by burger kind with drive thru and currently used as

myodo. they also use drive thru when applied for liquor license they had to close. His

petition is to have drive thru approved for cu.

No one to speak in favor or against.

Heniff - gave request. convert myodoa back to fast food rest with dirve thru. will be into

popeyes restaurant. the site plan is proposing site improvements to bring the

propertyinto modern standards for the popeyes franchise. he noted the IDRC

comments. Planning - compliance with zo - the dirve thru listed as cu. since 12 months

passed a new cu needs to be approved. staff requires that the circulation be brought up

to code. the landscape plan - staff requests that a full landscapeplan address parkway

trees and perimeter lot landscaping. He addressed the bent flag pole which needs to be

removed. Signage - petition will install a new freestanding sign with manual reader

message board. one wall sign light by gooseneck llights. no releift for signate as part of

this petition. The parking for this site excceeds requirements. mentioned the far west

stall which needs to be removed and replaced with landscaping . Staff recommends

approved with ocnditions.

Commissioenrs:

RS - have none - conditiona 2 landscpe islands should be plural, I see two ont he plan.

BH - conditon two needs to be changed to add "s". Ryan asked if when they aprpoved

steak and lobster did they approve????? BH - it came in to code and no releif

requested.

RO - no problem - but questions with staff. Fire & Building - fire suppression system is a

sprinkler system or is it more than that. BH - it's the same.

Heniff - village staff inditiated relative to deck hiehgt attached to new residential. this

items workshoped twice . foru public record staff has attached workshops and . permit

open terrace and decks as a permitted objstruciton...... he reqd . Staff noted the

standards for text amendments and offers an analysis whey this should be considered.

1.. General applicability - beneift any single family residential lot which topographical

changes prevent the construction of a rear deck. this issue is more prevelent int he

village as topo changes are incurred due to stormwater detetention facilities. only for

single family residential uses. nature of commercial decks would besubject to a

separate conditional use. 2. consistency of amnedment with t he ojbectives of this

ordinance and the intent of the zdistrict regulations. staff feels that impacts orf attached

decks would not create an aesthitic . still would have to meet 50 open space

requirement only looking at required height above grade. 3. degree to which the

proposed amendment would create nonconformity. is less restrictive than the current

reg. 4. more permissive - amendment would make the overall codes less restrictive

with respect to the permissiable h iehgt of the deck in close proximity to the residence in

the rear yard. 5. consistency with CP - variety of house design should besup-ported.

may lead to more unique housing styles. 6. Village policy on previous ruling - he gave

those. Staff proposed a text amendment incorporating the table in 155.212 and how it

will belayed out. The fifth section on page 5 . they are adding a dding footnote A & B.

of which you must pick one. Must be open, 1ft. requirement above the foundation line.

minimun of 25' year yard setback must be maintained.

Commisisoners:

RS - anything different would come as a variation. BH \ yes. RS - she referecned some

establishment in Glen Ellyn that had multiple levels (3) and wanted to know if it was

precluded?