Village of Lombard Legistar System

William Heniff, Secretary to the Plan Commission and Acting Director of Community

Development, presented the petition. In 2007, staff brought forward a proposal and

zoning petition for developing the site for Public Works purposes (PC 07-12). The

proposal included plans to construct a salt dome with a height of 60.5 feet, requiring a

height variation. A conditional use for two principal buildings was also sought to provide

for a separate operations building that will provide indoor storage and staging functions

for on-site Public Works activities. On May 3, 2007, the Village Board adopted

Ordinance 6021 granting approval of the zoning actions based upon the submitted site

plan.

Since that approval was granted and a time extension to the Ordinance 6021 was

approved, the Public Works Department reviewed the approved plan and is proposing

modifications to improve the overall site functions and efficiencies. As such, Village staff

is bringing the modified plan forward for consideration.

The initial site plan was revised to relocate the salt dome from the northwest corner to

the northeast corner of the subject property. He showed the new site plans. Public

Works indicated the new location would be more suitable for site operations and

provides for better traffic flow. The relocated dome also addresses a concern raised by

an abutting property owner in the initial public hearing testimony. The storage bins are

relocated to the northern property line. Stormwater detention will still be provided, along

with a new wetland/stormwater filtering area.

The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be developed with light industrial land

uses. The Village selected the subject property for the salt dome, as the use of the

property would function similarly to other light industrial uses and activities. As noted in

the 2007 petition, the use will be compatible with the Plan.

The site plan shows the placement of the salt dome now to be placed on the

northeastern corner of the property. The operations building will remain toward the

center of the lot. While either of the structures could be considered as ancillary

buildings, their placement and functions suggest that both serve a principal use and

activity on the property. Their revised location on the site was based upon a review of

the operations activities by the Public Works staff. Staff believes the plan for the site

would meet the standards for conditional uses.

The 2007 petition and the current petition include a variation to allow for a building

height of up to sixty-five feet (65') for a salt dome, where a maximum of forty-five feet

(45') is permitted. The proposed salt dome plan will be conical in shape and is typical of

domes constructed in surrounding municipalities. Other than salt storage, no other

functions will be provided for within the building. The height variation request is a

function of the ultimate need to provide a sufficient salt storage facility to serve the

overall needs of the community. Overall, staff supports the height request based upon

the reasons included within the response to standards.

He noted that the property is bordered by light industrial uses to the south and west. As

noted in the 2007 petition, staff finds that the proposed use will be compatible with other

types of uses found within the North Avenue Business Park area and within the I

District. The plan includes solid fencing around the perimeter of the storage area.

Vehicles and/or equipment will be parked on an asphalt or concrete surface. Site

lighting fixtures will be attached to the salt dome building.

The stormwater detention facility will be located to the northeast corner of the site, which

will filter stormwater before it passes into the to-be established wetland area to be

located on the southeast corner of the site. The latest design is intended to provide for

additional stormwater quality benefit and to meet the previous condition of approval that

required adherence to federal, state and local stormwater requirements.

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

of the petition. He then opened the meeting for comments among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if the detention area would include groundcover or just be

an open trench. Mr. Heniff noted that the detention area will be open and the

stormwater will drain into a new wetland area, which will filter the stormwater.

Dave Heslinga of V3 Companies, 7325 Janes Ave., Woodridge indicated he would give

a brief overview of the proposed parking lot expansion and improvements proposed for

the Village Hall complex. He stated that some of the improvements will include:

pavement rehab, new curb and gutter, a new sidewalk from Wilson into the Village

complex, lighting and landscaping. Mr. Heslinga stated that his purpose tonight is to

present the proposed parking lot expansion plan, which will occur in the northeast

corner of the site. Referring to an aerial of the site, Mr. Heslinga explained that the

Village's main parking lot is shown within the white dashed lines. This lot currently has

103 parking stalls, but the expansion plan would increase the number of stalls to 193 for

an additional 90 spaces.

Mr. Heslinga then showed a layout plan of the subject parking lot. He stated that the lot

will be changed from the existing fan shape to a rectangular shaped lot by squaring off

the perimeter of the parking area. This will result in the lot being 10 feet from the

property line along Wilson and Stewart Avenues. Village Code requires a 30 foot

setback, hence the request for relief. Mr. Heslinga stated that landscaping will be

installed to screen views of the parking lot on the north and east sides within the 10 foot

setback area. The landscaping will consist of a mix of trees and shrubs. There will be

six (6) trees along the Stewart Ave. side and five (5) along the Wilson Ave. side. Also,

a mix of heavy blooming deciduous and evergreen shrubs will be incorporated to cover

the perimeter of the north and east sides of the lot. He then showed renderings of future

views from Stewart and Wilson Avenues looking toward the parking lot. Mr. Heslinga

mentioned that in addition to the landscaping, there will be lighting improvements. He

explained that the new light poles will be 25 feet in height and consist of decorative

sodium lights. Mr. Heslinga stated that shielding will be installed so the light will not spill

over into the perimeter of the parking lot. He added that there will be a total of four (4)

poles on the west and east side and one (1) on the north and south side. He then

showed the conceptual view of the parking lot.

Mr. Heslinga stated that the island landscaping on the southern perimeter of the parking

lot will have a bio swale, which cleans run off water coming off the parking lot and will

provide water quality improvement. He added that the lot will meet the water detention

requirements. He then explained that storm sewers will be installed and that there will

be sufficient capacity in the pond to provide for run off.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Ateeq Syed, 1011 S. Stewart Ave., asked why the Village needs to increase the parking

capacity and if this will result in creating more traffic in the area.

William Heniff, Acting Director of Community Development, answered that the whole

purpose of this petition is to provide for parking. He explained that we currently have

sufficient capacity for Village and employee parking, but should there be a community

event, we find vehicles have to park on the side streets. The intent is to make sure that

we have sufficient parking during special events. Mr. Heniff used the Community Blood

Drive as an example of a special event. He added that we don't anticipate any additional

traffic to the Village of Lombard campus.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Michael Toth, Planner I, presented the staff report. He stated that the Village of Lombard

is proposing improvements to Village facilities on the northeast section of the municipal

complex property. The improvements will include the expansion of the main parking lot,

resurfacing existing parking facilities throughout the entire project area, installing a

sidewalk from Wilson to Village Hall and the installation of garbage enclosures and a

storage shed.

A variation is needed to expand the main parking lot as off-street parking is not a

permitted encroachment in requisite front or corner side yard in the O - Office District.

The petitioner also plans to establish the subject property as a planned development,

which is listed as a conditional use in the O - Office District; therefore a public hearing is

necessary.

The subject property consists of four (4) separate parcels of land. The largest parcel is

zoned O - Office District, which is consistent with the existing land use

(public/semi-public use). The remaining three (3) parcels of land are zoned R2 - Single

Family Residence, which does not allow the existing land use as either a permitted or

conditional use. Under this petition, the subject property would be rezoned to reflect one

uniform zoning district. The entire subject property would be rezoned to the O - Office

District, which allows municipal buildings as a permitted use. Under the new zoning

designation, the entire subject property would reflect goals of the Zoning Ordinance.

Relief from the aforementioned section of the Zoning Ordinance would allow a reduction

in the front yard setback requirement to allow the existing off-street parking area to

expand towards the north and east property lines. The front setback would be reduced

from the required thirty (30) feet to a distance of ten (10) feet to allow the off-street

parking as Code states that off-street parking in the O - Office District cannot be located

in a required front or corner side yard.

With the exception of the variation to allow the off-street parking within the required front

yard setback, all other modifications being proposed to the subject parking lots are be

done per Code.

With the parking requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance applied to the subject

property, there currently is an insufficient amount of parking. Currently, there is a

twenty-two (22) total parking space deficiency.

The main parking lot currently provides 103 parking spaces. With the addition of the

proposed ninety (90) parking spaces in the main parking lot, the total amount of

provided parking would reach 193 total spaces. The proposed project would increase

the total of amount of parking to 280 parking spaces. As there are 204 spaces required

by the Zoning Ordinance, there would be seventy-six (76) additional parking spaces

provided. The additional parking spaces would help prevent spillover parking onto the

adjacent rights of way during Village special events.

To reduce the amount of glare onto neighboring residential properties, the parking

spaces located along the eastern portion of the main parking lot will be reserved for

Village of Lombard vehicles only. Parking the Village vehicles along the eastern portion

of the main parking will prevent other vehicles who might park there at later times during

the evening.

As the main parking lot would be expanding towards the property boundaries, which

borders residential property, landscaping will be used to provide proper screening for

those neighboring residential properties. As supplemental screening for those

neighboring residential properties, additional parkway trees will be installed along the

east side of Stewart Avenue between Wilson Avenue and Highridge Road.

To reduce glare onto neighboring properties and improve the overall aesthetics of the

subject property, main street-type lighting will be used throughout the parking facilities.

A decorative mast and arm-style will replace the old 'office building-style' lighting

currently being used. The new lighting fixtures will provide down-lighting to reduce glare

onto the surrounding areas, but will still provide a safe environment within the parking

lots. As municipal buildings are considered public/semi-public uses, the dominant use of

the property is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.

The use of the subject property as a municipal office and operations complex has been

well established. The use is considered supportive to the adjacent land uses as it

provides essential civic services to the community. As part of the proposed project, all

necessary steps have been taken to reduce the visual impact on adjacent land uses.

Concluding, Mr. Toth stated that staff recommended approval of the petition, subject to

conditions noted in the staff report.

Thomas Paar was present on behalf of Cole Taylor Bank at 3 Yorktown Center. John

Hague of Hague Architects was also present to represent Cole Taylor Bank and gave

the presentation. Mr. Hague stated that Cole Taylor Bank is seeking variances from the

Zoning Ordinance to waive transitional landscape yard and perimeter lot landscaping

yard requirements. He stated that the bank is located at 3 Yorktown Center in the

portion of the shopping center currently under construction, which is just north of where

bank sits today. Mr. Hague explained that per the Landscape Ordinance, his client

would have to provide 11 shade trees and 250 linear feet of shrubbery. Due to a 30-foot

easement on the north property line, which includes utilities such as ComEd, gas,

phone, water, sewer and cable, it prohibits them for providing the deep plantings. The

proposed revised landscape plan provides a five foot (5') buffer on the north property

line with various groundcover and grass, which is similar to what is on the east side of

the property.

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

or in opposition to the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Acting Director of Community Development, presented the staff report,

which was submitted to the public record in its entirety. A new Cole Taylor Bank is

currently under construction on the property at 3 Yorktown Center. A building permit

was issued that indicated full compliance with the landscape requirements. However,

upon beginning construction, the contractor encountered shallowly buried underground

utilities along the north property line, all of which are within a 30-foot easement. To

avoid disturbing these utilities, the petitioner is requesting a waiver of all transitional and

perimeter lot landscaping requirements.

The underground utility lines have been in place for an unknown amount of time. The

subject property and surrounding land has developed and redeveloped over the past 40

years, and there is a parking garage abutting the subject property that would impair the

view of any plantings as seen from the Yorktown II Apartments. The subject property

slopes down into the site from the north property line, with the grade fairly flat at the east

end moving toward Highland Avenue, gradually increasing to a two-foot grade change

from the property line to the top of curb along the drive-through lanes. The wall of the

abutting parking garage varies from approximately 4.5 to 5.5 feet higher than the top of

the curb, which would significantly affect the visibility of three- to six-foot high shrubs;

therefore, if you were in the parking garage and the petitioner met the transitional

shrubbery requirement, you would still be able to see right over the plant materials.

Staff supports the petition, but recommends one condition of approval. A minimum of

one-third of the transitional landscape area along the north property line shall be planted

with a combination of decorative groundcover and grasses, similar to that proposed

along the eastern edge of the Cole Taylor Bank building. A final landscape plan shall be

submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comment among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Flint stated that the request is pretty clear and made a motion for

approval.

Under the Board's direction, the residential redevelopment items were first introduced to

the Plan Commission during the February 18, 2008 Plan Commission workshop. More

specific items were then later brought back to the Plan Commission during the June 16,

2008 Plan Commission workshop, which included the proposed text amendments.

Under the direction of both the Village Board and Plan Commission, the Village of

Lombard is proposing text amendments to the pertinent sections of the Zoning

Ordinance as it relates to attached garages and residential front yard setbacks. The

proposed amendments will place a cap on the maximum allowable size of garage doors,

require a de facto square foot setback for attached garages and require average

setbacks for all detached single family homes.

Absolute setbacks can also have negative implications in established neighborhoods.

Staff recognizes the need for absolute setbacks for side, rear, and corner yards;

however the front setback requirements for single-family homes should be more closely

examined, as they were part of the focus group discussions. Because the current

Zoning Ordinance utilizes absolute setbacks as opposed to relative setbacks, certain

factors are not taken into consideration, such as the positioning of the neighboring

homes or the mean (average) setback for all homes on the block. Referring to an

exhibit, Mr. Toth stated that the Village currently has no tools in place to limit how close

or far back a house can be located from the lot line. He added that some property once

had restrictive covenants that imposed a greater setback on them whereas new homes

could come in at 30 feet.

The proposed text amendments will require relative setbacks for all detached single

family residences, which is modeled after Wheaton's zoning ordinance. The intent of the

proposed relative setback text is to maintain the character of existing neighborhoods

and to establish status quo for any new developments. The proposed text utilizes certain

methods of application that addresses front setbacks in a relational manner, as follows:

1. The proposed text will be supplementary to the existing thirty (30) foot minimum

front yard requirement and shall be applied to all detached single family residences.

2. In no case shall the front yard setback of any new attached single family residence

be less than thirty (30) feet, while no greater than fifty (50) feet.

3. A minimum setback will be established for any new home constructed based upon

the mean of the existing homes on the adjacent lots.

4. To address corner lots, the proposed text states that in no case shall the front yard

setback be less than the setback of the building on the abutting developed lot. If the

subject lot abuts a reverse corner lot or any other lot used in a manner other than

attached single family residence (e.g. parks, schools, commercial businesses), the

default thirty (30) foot setback line shall be used to determine the mean.

5. If a lot abuts a developed lot on one side and a vacant lot on the other side, the front

yard setback would be determined by taking the mean of the setback of the building on

the abutting developed lot and the setback of the building on the lot immediately

adjacent to the vacant lot.

Another important provision being proposed as part of the relative setback initiative

would be the establishing of a 'build-to' line. Under the current Zoning Ordinance, a

minimum setback of thirty (30) feet exists; however, the only other provision that would

prevent an attached single family residence from building to an extreme depth (within

the lot) would be the rear setback provision. As an example, the R2 - Single Family

Residence District has a rear yard setback requirement of thirty-five (35) feet. If

someone wanted to construct a new attached single family residence deep into the lot,

the only limitation would be the thirty-five (35) foot rear yard setback requirement.

Establishing a maximum front yard setback will help maintain neighborhood homogeny

by over time creating consistent front yard setback parameters. During the February

18, 2008 Plan Commission workshop, staff presented a number of tools that could

possibly accomplish the desired goal of reducing the visual impact of attached garages.

Lot width, setback requirements, number of garage doors, and elevation frontage

requirements were some of the tools examined during the workshop. After exploring a

number of resources, such as other municipal ordinances, staff has drafted

amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed text addresses attached garages

with corresponding provisions pertaining to side/rear entry garages, and garages on

corner lots.

When drafting the proposed attached garage text amendments, staff utilized a number

of techniques to reduce the visually dominating feature that attached garages have

become. Instead of looking directly at the size of the lot, staff examined the size of the

garage door itself. Under the proposed amendment, a forty-two percent (42%) width

cap would be placed on the actual garage door, as it relates to the street-facing façade.

However, all properties would be allowed a sixteen (16) foot door width. The rationale

behind those numbers lies in the required size and space of a two-car garage, with

sixteen (16) feet being the minimum garage door width for a two-car garage.

The forty-two percent (42%) garage door cap is intended to ensure that the garage door

does not comprise more than one-half of the front elevation on a typical sixty (60) foot

wide lot. Assuming a 60-foot wide lot, with the residence building up to the interior

property lines (i.e., a 48 foot wide house), the 42% figure would allow for up to a twenty

(20) foot garage door (excluding supporting garage walls). As the lot size and/or house

size is reduced, the allowable size of a garage door is simultaneously reduced with the

front elevation. But in all cases, the house could still be include a sixteen foot wide (16')

garage door.

In addition to reviewing the percentage or width of a garage door, staff also considered

the overall square footage of attached garages located in the front of the residence.

Instead of establishing a required lineal setback for attached garages, the (500) foot

maximum allowable square footage acts as a de facto setback. The rationale behind the

(500) foot maximum lies again with the minimum size necessary for a two-car garage,

which is (480) square feet (24' X 20'). Under this provision, two-car side-entry garages

could still be constructed, but a three-car side-entry garage could not.

The same standards discussed above shall pertain to attached single family residences

on corner lots and side/rear entry garages. Side-entry garages can be aesthetically

beneficial if viewed in the same context as a standard front-entry garage. Even though

garage doors on a side-entry garage do not directly face the street, they can still present

a visual impact when viewed from a diagonal point of view from the street. As the same

standards for front-entry garages apply to side-entry garages, the maximum allowable

square footage of any garage extending beyond the remainder of the street-facing

façade shall be limited to (500) feet.

Referring to the standards for text amendments, Mr. Toth highlighted the following items:

1. The proposed amendments would be uniformly applied to all residential properties in

the Village that are developed with detached single family residences.

2. Without the proposed text amendments, staff has no means to regulate front yard

setbacks as it applies to the entire neighborhood or block.

3. The proposed amendment would create non-conforming situations for the

neighboring detached single family residences if they were developed in manner that

does not reflect the letter of the proposed text amendments.

4. The proposed amendment will not make the ordinance permissive in regards to

building applications; however, the amendments will allow the Village to have the

regulatory tools in place to better manage neighborhood uniformity and aesthetics.

5. A general goal of the Comprehensive plan is to Improve and maintain the attractive

appearance of all areas of the Village. As the proposed text amendments promote

enhanced aesthetics and improved neighborhood uniformity, the amendments would be

consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

6. The Village has a history of amending its Zoning Ordinance to address evolving

circumstances presented by petition or to clarify the intent of the Ordinance provisions.

The proposed amendments are consistent with established Village policy in this regard.

Concluding, Mr. Toth stated that staff recommended approval of the petition.

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

present to speak in favor or against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comment among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Nelson asked if staff knew how many residences would be in violation.

Mr. Toth replied that when he was conducting research of homes built over the past

three to four years, it was a split between properties that would be conforming or

become non-conforming.

Commissioner Nelson asked if existing homes are not subject to this ordinance. Mr.

Toth stated that a home would be considered legal non-conforming if it did not meet the

new code and could not be rebuilt to that specification if destroyed beyond 50 percent.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if under these proposed text amendments would three car

garages be prohibited. Mr. Toth replied that it relates to lot size. If a lot is less than

seventy feet wide, you could not do a three car garage attached to the house, according

to the formula.

Commissioner Burke asked if it would be permissible to have a three car garage if it's

attached and street facing. William Heniff, Senior Planner, responded that there are two

sets of rules - if it's street facing the 42% limitations would apply, subject to the overall

500 square foot limitation.

Commissioner Burke then confirmed that a three car garage in the back of the property

would be permissible. Mr. Heniff answered yes - that is what this text amendment is

attempting to accomplish.

Concluding, Mr. Heniff requested that should the Commissioners approve the petition,

that they amend the motion directing staff and Village counsel to review the final

language of the text amendment as well as to ensure compliance with other sections of

the Code with regard to clarity, consistency and grammar.

Prior to the presentation of the staff report, Commissioner Olbrysh recused himself and

explained that he is on the petitioner's construction committee.

Chairperson Ryan requested the staff report.

Michael Toth, Planner I, referenced the staff report. A plat of subdivision is being

brought forward at this time to facilitate the proposed construction associated with PC

07-23 and was a condition of approval of Ordinance 6084. Since the subject property is

greater than an acre in size, it is considered a major plat of subdivision and must be

reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission and Board of Trustees.

The proposed subdivision is intended to create a separate lot of record for the subject

property. As the plat shows, the site will now provide a new Stormwater Management

Easement adjacent to Madison Street. The required five (5) foot utility and drainage

easements will also be provided along the southern and eastern property lines. Staff