Village of Lombard Legistar System

Jeremy Heaberlin of VanBruggen Signs (13401 Southwest Hwy, Orland Park, IL 60462)

presented the petition. Mr. Heaberlin stated that the variance is for an additional wall

sign to be used by 5/3 Bank at the Roosevelt Road Ultra Foods location, as 5/3 Bank

will be occupying interior commercial space. Mr. Heaberlin then added that the sign will

be of channel letter construction.

Michael S. Toth, Associate Planner, presented the staff report in its entirety for the

public record. Mr. Toth stated that Fifth Third Bank will be occupying commercial space

within Ultra Foods Store located within the High Point Shopping Center. He added that

the petitioner is requesting a signage deviation to allow for an additional fifty-four (54)

square foot wall sign to be located along the north building elevation. Mr. Toth stated

that Ultra Foods already displays two wall signs on the northern elevation, which were

approved as part of SPA 07-07ph. Mr. Toth added that the petition would provide for a

third sign on the building elevation.

Michael Toth stated that the proposed sign will only be visible to individuals along

Roosevelt Road and within the center itself. He then added that it will not be visible from

residences south, west or east of the subject property.

Mr. Toth explained that Section 153.505(19)(b)(1)(a) of the Sign Ordinance states that

each tenant within the B3 zoning district (properties with multiple tenants) are entitled to

twenty-five (25) square feet of wall sign surface area. He added that Fifth Third Bank

technically does not have its own lineal frontage and would not be recognized as a

tenant; as such the business would not be entitled to any wall sign rights. As opposed

to granting relief for wall signage for a tenant without frontage (example - Lucky Strike),

Mr. Toth added that approving a third wall sign for Ultra Foods would allow Fifth Third

Bank to erect the wall sign, but would also grant Ultra Foods to the right to the sign area,

should Fifth Third Bank vacate the premises.

As the site is a planned development, Mr. Toth stated that the signage associated with

the Fifth Third Bank/Ultra Foods site needs to be reviewed in the context of the entire

shopping center. He then added that the petitioner's sign deviation request to allow for

an additional wall sign on the north elevation (the other north wall sign is permitted by

right) meets the wall sign requirements at fifty-four (54) square feet (216" x 36") in

overall size. Mr. Toth stated that most importantly, the overall size of the tenant space

and of the existing exterior of the building façade ensures that the third sign will not

create an appearance of excessive signage. He added that staff has reviewed the

petitioner's response to standards for granting signage deviations and believes the

petition does meet the standards.

Plan Commission Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone from the audience to

speak for or against the petition. No one spoke for or against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting to the Plan Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if the rights to the sign are to be granted to 5/3 Bank or

Ultra Foods. Senior Planner William Heniff responded that the sign approval would

relate to the building, which in this case would be Ultra Foods.

Commissioner Sweetser expressed her concerns for the sign being tied Ultra Foods and

asked that a condition of approval be to give rights to 5/3 Bank only. If 5/3 Bank was to

leave and a new tenant were to arrive and desire a sign, they would need separate

approval.

Village Attorney Wagner added that the Plan Commission should include within the

findings that the proposed signage is intended to enhance the planned development.

John Mulherin, 211 S. Wheaton Av., Wheaton, Counsel for the petitioner, presented the

petition. He introduced the petition and their development team, stating that they are

seeking approval of zoning actions to provide for twelve additional residential units within

a proposed senior independent living facility. This would occupy the Phase II building

that was originally contemplated for 40 condominium units in the 2004 approval.

Linda Yang, 1163 E. Ogden Av., Suite 301, Naperville, Executive Director of Xilin

Associates, described their mission. She noted that they were founded in 1989 as a not

for profit organization to provide various social services to the Asian community. She

then described the various programs. In 1999 they began providing general senior

services. She then noted that this work showed them that there is a need for affordable

housing in DuPage County. This proposal is intended to help them meet this need.

John Cronin, 303 Elm Park Av., Elmhurst, architect for the petitioner, designed their

proposed modifications to the interior of the Phase II building. He noted that the exterior

of the building, the building materials, the building footprint and the site plan is

essentially the same as what was approved in 2004. The building will have a mix of one

and two bedroom units, with size ranges between 800 to 1,200 square feet in size.

Mr. Mulherin noted that the change to elderly housing will provide additional parking

availability, as only 1 space per 4 units is required for elderly housing, per the Zoning

Ordinance. The approved parking spaces will also remain the same. The display

boards were entered into the public record.

Audra Hamernik of Hamernik & Associates, described their financing plan. They are

proposing to make an application to the Illinois Housing Development Authority (IDHA)

for project approval. They propose to finance the project primarily through tax credits

and other incentives. The building will be privately owned and operated. They will be

required to have the reserves to construct and maintain the building. They will be

monitored by lenders to ensure that the project meets housing quality standards.

Mr. Mulherin then went through the standards for planned development and for the

density relief. He noted that it is the public interest as they are maintaining the type of

use in the development. While he is not an appraiser, he noted some benefits to the

development as it meets a housing need and it removes units from the overall supply of

condominiums in the area, which would improve the position of the adjacent neighbors.

He noted that the real estate market significantly changed since the planned

development was originally approved. He also stated the benefit of providing for a link

to the proposed pedestrian bridge as a planned development amenity.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. Speaking in favor of

the petition were:

Bill Gebel, 440 N. Stewart Av., Lombard, stated that seniors on fixed incomes need an

affordable place to live. Seniors can be a great asset and the project will help the

community.

Barbara Ciechna, 8400 S. Lakeside Drive, Downers Grove, noted that she lives in the

Brookeridge Airport Community. An affordable housing project was constructed near

their residences at 83rd Street and Lemont Road. While they first were concerned

about the project, she noted that it has been an asset and it has not impacted their

property values.

Marguerite Regan, 1150 E. Jackson, Lombard, stated that it is important to keep seniors

in the community.

Richard Earl, 528 S. Westmore-Meyers, Lombard, stated that the Village has a lot of

seniors who need assistance. It would be unfortunate if they had to move out of town.

Kevin Fitzpatrick, 348 S. Lewis, Lombard, stated that he attended a neighborhood

meeting regarding the project. He understands the concerns that adjacent residents

may have with their condominium investment, but their fears are unfounded. He noted

the need for affordable senior housing in the County. Many seniors' property taxes are

higher than what they previously paid in their mortgages. He said seniors are good

neighbors.

Connie Earl, 528 S. Westmore-Meyers Road, Lombard, reiterated the need for senior

housing and that seniors are quiet neighbors.

Speaking against the petition were:

Mike Dale, 325 S. Princeton, Itasca, raised concerns about parking for the project. The

additional units may create an additional demand for the few spaces they have.

Larry Dilworth, 500 E. St. Charles Road, Unit 507, Lombard, stated that the project was

originally intended to be a luxury condominium project. He then expressed concerns

about the developer's representations and the parking allocations made by the

developer. He raised concerns about the proposed development and history of public

housing. He raised concerns about cars going past their building.

Christine Blanchard, 500 E. St. Charles Road, Lombard, raised concerns about traffic,

as the east driveway is designed for right-in, right-out traffic movements. She raised

conflicts with the existing detached garages. She suggested that the planned

development be amended to have the driveway stop at the end of the property, the

proposed building should be modified to not look like the constructed building and that

the name of the project should change. She also recommended that consideration of

the petition be deferred.

Joseph Manzara, 500 E. St. Charles Road, Lombard, stated that he understands the

necessity for senior housing, but they want a community of owners. He reiterated

parking concerns and a differing façade. He also raised concerns about a fitness center

that was promised in the Phase II building.

Kye Sand, 500 E. St. Charles Road, Unit 305, Lombard, stated that the plan is a big

change to their development. The analogies offered by the supporter of the project are

not comparable as it is not on the same piece of land.

Chris Durkes, 500 E. St. Charles Road, Lombard, questioned the contribution the

petitioner is making relative to the proposed pedestrian bridge link.

Corey Rice, 500 E. St. Charles Road, Unit 302, Lombard, asked about the placement of

the windows in the Phase II building.

Sandra Dilworth, 500 E. St. Charles Road, Unit 307, Lombard, reiterated the parking

concern, noting the need for additional parking to serve their building.

Mr. Dilworth raised concerns regarding pedestrians crossing St. Charles Road and

asked where seniors are going to shop.

Mr. Mulherin responded by stating that the pedestrian link was a Village requirement and

request. He does not know what the representation that were made by the developer.

Regarding parking spaces, the project meets code under both scenarios. Their plan

does not change from the previously approved plan.

Regarding the housing itself, it is not government housing. It will be under private

ownership with public funding. Regarding the project design, the Village suggested that

it should be the same as what was originally approved. It is not a retirement home, but

rather independent senior residences. The project name will not be on the building.

Regarding the windows, the goal is to keep the look that was previously approved.

Modifications may be needed to address interior building changes.

Commissioner Burke asked if Building 1 met the parking requirements. William Heniff

said it did. The overall planned development required 120 spaces for the 80 units.

Commissioner Burke noted that some of the residents in Phase 1 may have to park in

the lot west of the Phase 2 building. Mr. Mulherin stated that they can regulate where

residents park.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, which was submitted to the

public record. The petitioner proposes to amend the 2004 planned development

approval for the subject property to provide for an additional twelve units in the proposed

second condominium building.

The Phase I building (500 E. St. Charles Road) was completed in early 2006 and 31 of

the 40 condominium units have been sold to date. Since completion of the first building,

Neri Development (through its Oakview Estates LLC) has represented that the market

for additional condominium units has not materialized. As such, they have been looking

at other development options for the site. Xilin Associates, a non-for profit entity, is

seeking development possibilities for senior independent living residences in Lombard.

They were made aware of the Oakview Estates site and are proposing to take over and

construct the Phase II portion of the project for senior independent living apartments.

The zoning petition consists of an amendment of three items included within the 2004

approval. The first is a major change to a planned development to provide for a senior

independent living facility. The other actions consist of further relief from density

provisions approved in 2004.

Referencing the Inter-departmental Review Comments, he stated that all required public

improvements have been constructed as part of the development proposal. The Fire

Department will provide additional comments as part of the building permit submittal.

He then discussed the planning issues. Staff determined that Xilin's proposal would

constitute a major change to a planned development, as it changes the intent and

development density of the project. From the exterior, the development proposal would

not result in modifications to the 2004 approved site plan. However, the interior of the

proposed Phase II building would change, as the units would be reduced in size to

accommodate the senior housing concept. They are proposing to provide up to 52

senior units within the existing approved building footprint. However, the final number of

units may be adjusted downward as the interior architectural plans are finalized. The

staff report noted that the final placement of the windows in the Phase II building could

be adjusted to accommodate the modifications to the interior of the building.

With approval of the zoning relief in 2004, the amended proposal would meet all setback

requirements for the project. The Phase II building would be in the same location as the

Phase II condominium building was proposed to be located.

The petitioner's plan is to establish senior independent apartment units operated by a

management entity. While a building maintenance staff will be available, no assisted

living or congregate living activities would be part of this proposal. As a result, staff

would consider this request as apartment units. The Zoning Ordinance does not

distinguish between varying types of multiple-family residential uses - condominiums

and apartments are functionally considered as the same type of land use.

He then discussed parking issues raised at the hearing. The 2004 approved plans

would provide for 120 parking spaces for the development. The project was constructed

as it was approved in the 2004 approval. The proposed change to senior housing would

allow the petitioner to decrease the required parking to 1 space per 4 units, as provided

for elderly housing, for a total of thirteen spaces. The petitioner still intends to provide

first level parking in the building to supplement the parking provided at grade west of the

proposed building. However, a few spaces within the building are likely to be removed

to provide for a larger meeting room area for tenants. Therefore, the proposal will meet

parking requirements, even with the increase in the number of overall units.

To address the pedestrian access issues, the 2004 approval required the granting of a

cross-access link from the subject property to the Great Western Trail. Recognizing the

nature of the proposed housing in this petition, staff recommends as a condition of

approval that the pedestrian access link be constructed as part of this approval.

He then discussed the density issue. The proposed development has only 1,202 sq. ft.

of lot area for each dwelling unit. As part of the 2004 approval, relief was granted from

the provisions above. The 2004 petition noted that the majority of R4-zoned properties

within the Village abut single-family residential properties, which requires additional

space to accommodate transitional yard and transitional building setback requirements.

As this project does not need to allow for such transitional elements, the lot area

deviation was warranted. Staff notes that the rationale for the density relief noted above

is still applicable to this petition as well. Given the nature of the proposed housing

component, the average unit size is intended to be less, although the overall density of

buildings and structures on the property remains unchanged. He also noted that the

relief pertains to the land area density of the project. This should not be confused with

the petitioner's proposed unit sizes. The constructed on-site access driveways provide

for the same traffic circulation pattern. Staff notes that if this petition is approved that

the petitioner should secure cross-access agreements with the adjacent property as

well.

He then noted that the 2004 petition also included an amendment to the Village's

Comprehensive Plan. The approved medium-density residential designation was

adopted as the property and designation provides a buffer between the single-family

homes surrounding Lombard Common and the Union Pacific Railroad. The increase in

the number of units would not conflict with the Plan's designation. The proposal meets

the Village's goal of providing a variety of housing options as well as opportunities for

affordable housing for seniors.

Staff reviewed the standards for conditional uses and for planned development

amendments and finds that the development does meet those provisions as well.

Based on the above, the Inter-Departmental Review Committee recommends that the

Plan Commission make the following motion recommending approval of this petition.

Questioning the staff report, Mr. Dilworth asked if the report was four years old. Mr.

Heniff stated no, it was written last week. The representations were a review of the

comments made as part of the 2004 approval. Mr. Dilworth then stated that a new

public hearing should be held if the plan is changed. Mr. Heniff stated that this is the

public hearing to address the change.

Ms. Blanchard asked if the current owners have the ability to submit changes. The

change from condominiums to apartments is significant. She said that they did not

receive notice of this request until recently and asked why staff did not share the

changes? Mr. Heniff stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not distinguish between

apartments and condominiums. The public hearing was established to bring the

submittal proposal for consideration.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments from the Commissioners.

Commissioner Flint asked for a clarification of the nature of the proposed housing. Mr.

Mulherin stated that unlike, CHA projects under governmental ownership, this project

will be privately owned. Xilin will need to generate income to sustain the project.

Residents will utilize housing vouchers.

Chairperson Ryan asked about the difference between assisted living and special needs

housing. Ms. Hamernik noted that they want to provide housing for those with special

needs, but it will still be independent living. Special needs housing is independent

housing for those who have some limitations or disabilities - a common element among

the senior population. No care will be provided as part of this project.

Commissioner Sweetser noted the parking and access comments raised by the

objectors - cross-parking agreement may help.

Commissioner Olbrysh noted that many of the raised concerns were associated with the

developer's representations. He agreed with Commissioner Sweetser's desire to

keeping the buildings compatible.

Chairperson Ryan raised concerns about the first residents that bought into one type of

development and may get another type of development. He agreed with the other

commissioners regarding the building appearance. He also asked about the public

notice requirements raised by a resident. Mr. Heniff noted that staff followed the public

hearing process procedures followed for all petitions.

Commissioner Nelson concurred with Chairperson Ryan's thoughts.

Commissioner Burke noted that traffic in the area is bad and the Commissioners knew

that when the project was approved in 2004. He then referenced the site plan and the

landscape plan which shows the parking in two different locations along the east

property line. Mr. Heniff stated that the landscape plan shows the parking spaces

approved in the 2004 approval. When the property owner found that additional land was

available on the north property line, they relocated the spaces closer to the main

entrance.

Commissioner Sweetser noted the need to maximize parking on the east side of the

development and suggested that additional spaces be provided.

1. The site shall be developed substantially in accordance with the site plans prepared

by Neri Architects, dated July 27, 2006.

2. The petitioner shall secure a cross-access agreement with the adjacent Oakview

Estates property for motor vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation.

3. As part of the development proposal, the petitioner shall construct a pedestrian

access link connecting the subject property to the proposed to be constructed Great

Western Trail Bridge and shall meet Illinois Accessibility Code provisions.

4. The petitioner shall enter into a companion development agreement with the Village

to address any Village financial contributions and/or obligations associated with the

project.

5. All other conditions or provisions associated with the original planned development

approval not amended by this petition shall remain in full force and effect.

6. The petitioner shall provide for and construct an additional parking area to be located

east of the Phase I building and the existing drive aisle.

provided for approval of a planned development amendment, which provided for retail

center and a bank with a drive-through. He noted that construction was progressing

slowly, but they have been moving forward on the project. He noted that they are

seeking approval of two zoning actions that were not envisioned as part of the original

approval. He stated that Buffalo Wild Wings is proposing to locate within the retail

center. They are requesting approval of two items to facilitate their restaurant. The first

request is to allow for an outdoor dining area, which is proposed to be located along the

west side of the building. The original approval provided for outdoor dining on the

northeast side of the building. He then described the submitted plans and how the use

would be compatible with the overall restaurant plan. He then referenced the building

addition, which is being requested to provide space for a proposed storage/cooler room.

From the exterior, the restaurant will appear to be identical to the existing building and

will incorporate similar building materials as the rest of the center.

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

or in opposition of the petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, which was submitted to the

public record. The petitioner proposes to further amend the approved plans associated

with the 2004 and 2006 planned development approvals for the subject property and

associated proposed tenant build out of a new Buffalo Wild Wings sit-down restaurant.

The first change would be to provide for an outdoor dining element proposed for the

west side of the restaurant, classified as a conditional use in the underlying zoning

district. The second element is to allow for a small building addition to provide for a

cooler for the restaurant, a minor change to a planned development. No other changes

are proposed within the planned development.

The subject properties are bound by the terms and conditions of the original agreement

as well as the annexation agreement/planned development amendments approved in

2004 and 2006. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property for Community

Commercial Uses. The Roosevelt Road Corridor plan, a supplement to the

Comprehensive Plan, provides additional recommendations regarding the request.

1. Restaurants are a preferred land use in the corridor;

2. outdoor sales and service areas should be tied to the principal use of the

property;

3. buildings should incorporate architectural design features on all building

elevations; and

4. ensuring that compatibility with adjacent residential properties is maintained.

The outdoor dining element is proposed on the west side of the building and will abut

other commercial uses. The outdoor area will be approximately 270 feet away from the

nearest residence and the previously approved landscape improvements will soften the

impact on adjacent residential properties. Therefore, the petition is consistent with the

Comprehensive Plan and the Corridor Plan.

At the time of the filing of the petition in September, 2007, the property is zoned B3PD

Community Shopping District, Planned Development. The Village Board adopted the

B4A map amendment regulations on October 4, 2007. This text amendment does not

affect the petition.

The 2006 approval for the site did provide for the right for a small outdoor dining area to

the north and east side of the building. No outdoor dining improvements were proposed

on the west side of the building.

As shown on the petitioner's plans, the petitioner is proposing to add a 723 square foot

outdoor dining area to be located immediately on the west side of the restaurant.

Entrance into this area would be made through the restaurant itself. Staff does not

object to this request as it allows for an alternate area for patrons to eat if desired. As

the property does not abut residences, impacts of the outdoor dining function are

minimal.

The approved project required 79 spaces, plus the outdoor dining requirement of 12

spaces means that 91 spaces are required for the project. Therefore, the previously

approved site plan provides for sufficient parking spaces for the proposed use.

The Zoning Ordinance sets forth provisions as to whether a change to a planned

development is a major or a minor change. Staff also has the ability to forward minor

changes to the Plan Commission/Village Board for consideration as well.

The petitioner is proposing a 300 square feet addition to the restaurant tenant space.

As the location of the building addition is less than ten feet from what was originally

approved by the Village Board, it would be considered a minor change to a planned

development. As this change is being sought in addition to the outdoor dining request,

staff is bringing both forward for Plan Commission consideration.

Staff does not object to the addition, as it will be fully integrated into the approved

building plans. The exterior elevations will be fully integrated into the shopping center

and the exterior materials will be identical to the rest of the center. The additional area

will be exclusively for storage uses, so additional parking will not be required as part of

the request. Lastly, the addition will not conflict with any easements or any of the other

governing agreements for the planned development or the Zoning Ordinance.

Staff reviewed the standards for conditional uses and for planned development

amendments and finds that the development does meet those provisions as well.

Based on the above, the Inter-Departmental Review Committee recommends that the

Plan Commission make the following motion recommending approval of this petition.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments from the Commissioners.

There were no comments from the Commissioners.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. Michelle Velazquez, Planner I, gave

a summary of the request. She stated that Faith United Methodist Church is proposing

a detached garage for storage purposes to be located at the northeast

corner of the existing parking lot. She noted that the proposed garage is approximately

26 feet by 24 feet and will be setback 10 feet from both the north and east property

lines. She affirmed that the Zoning Ordinance requires conditional use approval for the

construction of an accessory structure where the primary use of the property itself is a

conditional use.

Mrs. Velazquez stated that staff reviewed all zoning and building files for the subject

property, and found no documentation that a conditional use for a religious institution

was ever granted. She noted that the church is currently considered a legal

non-conforming religious institution. She mentioned that to address the issue, the

Church is also requesting approval to legally establish the conditional use for the

existing religious institution in addition to the conditional use for the detached garage

pursuant to Section 155.406(C)(13).

Mrs. Velazquez also noted that the petition is only for the property known as Lot 10 in

Faith Church Subdivision (PIN 06-18-107-005), and not for both Lots 10 and 11, as the

public hearing notice advertised. She mentioned that Lot 11 is the former parsonage

property which the Church sold earlier this year.

Mrs. Velazquez stated that religious institutions are classified as conditional uses within

the R2 Single-Family Residence District. She noted that expansions or alterations to an

existing conditional use requires an amendment to the previously granted conditional

use. She mentioned that the existing religious institution has operated on the property

for a number of years and is considered a legal non-conforming use. She affirmed that

the petitioner is requesting conditional uses for the existing religious institution and for

the proposed detached garage. She mentioned that Faith United Methodist Church

previously received a conditional use (PC 82-17) to construct a detached garage for

storage purposes on the parsonage property to the south of the Church. She noted that

earlier this year, the Church sold the parsonage property, and the Church no longer has

use of the garage on the former parsonage property for storage purposes. She

mentioned that the Church is proposing a new garage to be constructed on the Church

property to meet their storage needs.

Mrs. Velazquez stated that the existing religious institution is consistent with the

recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. She also noted that the existing religious

institution is compatible with the surrounding land uses as it is adjacent to single family

residences to the north, south and east and Sunset Knoll Park to the west. She noted

that the proposed detached garage will be placed at the northeast corner of the property

and will be adjacent to the rear yards of the surrounding single family residences. She

stated that the proposed garage will be located within the existing parking lot, but the

number of parking spaces will remain the same. She noted that the proposed garage

meets all applicable zoning regulations. She mentioned that the minimum required

setback for detached garages is 3 feet from the side and 3 feet from the rear property

line, and the proposed garage will be setback 10 feet from the interior side and rear

property line and will be outside of the utility easements located on the subject property.

She stated that the proposed garage is 12 feet in height whereas the maximum height

permitted is 15 feet. She noted that the garage will be approximately 624 square feet in

area and complies with the maximum size requirements for detached garages.

Mrs. Velazquez noted that staff has reviewed the petition relative to the standards for

conditional uses. She stated that staff finds that the petition complies with the

Standards for Conditional Uses.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for comments from the Plan Commission. The

Commissioners had no comments.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the workshop. He indicated that this

workshop is intended for a future development proposal. This project has been around

for several years and we now have a prospective developer. Before money is further

expended on engineering, the developer is looking to get comments on a concept plan

that he is bringing forward.

Referring to a diagram, Mr. Heniff pointed out the subject location and mentioned that

single family residential is being proposed. He mentioned previous workshops

conducted by the Plan Commissioners, one of which was Yorkshire Woods. This

diagram shows how the area looked in 2005 when the Yorkshire Woods workshop was

being considered. As the Commissioners remember, they considered the Yorkshire

Woods development not only on its own merits but also on how the properties to the

south of that development might be affected. He noted on the diagram the cul de sac

streets, Bracken Court and Vennard Court, and Norbury Street, the through street, and

how it might continue on and connect to 20th Street.

The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be single family residential and the

properties are currently incorporated. The developer will not begin the project for

another 1-2 years depending on market conditions. He has already purchased some of

the properties but before considerable money is expended he is seeking direction from

the Plan Commission.

Mr. Heniff then displaying a diagram showing the proposed 20-lot subdivision plan,

stating that the developer is proposing to extend Norbury down to 20th Street. There

will be a cul de sac street that would come off of Norbury, which will be renamed at a

later date, and the properties to the east are the rear yards of the office buildings on

Highland Avenue.

The challenges of this concept plan are the west side of the property marked "vegetative

land - Storm A" as well as "Area C". This is a largely wooded lot with containing

wetlands and the concern is how to integrate this development with the wetland issues

and if Norbury Street needs to have a more pronounced jog to the east. Staff is not fond

of Lots 20 and 9 as they would need relief and are sandwiched. Final engineering will

tell us more about what can be done.

Continuing, Mr. Heniff noted there are several options:

In order to deal with the stormwater management, the property owner owns some land

at the corner of 20th and Main which is largely undevelopable. This might provide for

some additional enhancements for this property. The developer is also looking to

acquire properties south of 20th Street. He has one property under contract and that is

the one to the far east and to the south. He is looking to create an additional stormwater

detention facility south of Lot 1. The 30' stormwater easement would direct some

stormwater to the south.

Should this proposal move forward, the developer would be looking for R2 single family

zoning which is consistent with surrounding land uses. The only R1 property is the Etz

Chaim property.

As far as lot densities, in Yorkshire Woods the average lot size is over 10,000 square

feet. This plan will be a little less but may have more open space dedication to address

the stormwater dedication. The gross density may be less or comparable to what we

have at Yorkshire Woods.

Concluding, Mr. Heniff indicated that the petitioner is requesting direction from the Plan

Commissioners as to this proposed concept plan.

Chairperson Ryan asked Mr. Heniff to point out where the Commissioners had

previously requested that the zoning be kept estate residential. Mr. Heniff pointed it out

for him.

Chairperson Ryan stated he was concerned about the density. Yorkshire Woods lots

are 10,000 square feet and these will be R2? Mr. Heniff answered that they will be R2

and the intent will be the same.

Commissioner Sweetser referred to Lot 1 south of 20th Street. She questioned if the

plan would be out of character with the existing lots and houses surrounding it. Mr.

Heniff answered that the area is a mix of single family homes and a few unincorporated

lots that we anticipate might be candidates for redevelopment.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that the square footage is somewhat more than the ones

to the north and if that would be consistent with the neighboring lots. Mr. Heniff

answered it would be a larger area.

Commissioner Burke commented that he felt a little uncomfortable with the layout

because it is not linear and somewhat hodgepodge. He can understand why they are

coming in from the north and how they will have to avoid the wetlands. He thought that

the change in elevation would break up the development to make it look staggered. Mr.

Heniff noted that the high point of the road would be 7.72 and go to 7.66 and there will

be a significant grade change here as well as a grade change on the cul de sac bulb.

Commissioner Burke stated that Lot 20 doesn't make sense but assumed that it might

be premature to address it. Mr. Heniff indicated that the wetland delineation will direct

how to handle that lot but staff is concerned that the front and rear setbacks would not

be met.

Commissioner Burke stated that he was surprised that they put the storm on the south

side of the road as it has to be more expensive and that the piping would have to be

considerably large.

Chairperson Ryan stated that the layout of Lots 11 and 10 look strange compared with

the rest of the development. Mr. Heniff stated staff will take a final look at those. He

noted that Lots 12, 13, and 14 are more than 9,000 square feet. Lots 11 and 10 have

approximately 11,800 square feet with a deeper backyards. He mentioned that there

will be a transitional rear yard situation with having offices to the east. That could be

where someone could do some creative vegetation.

Commissioner Burke asked if Lots 14 and 15 meet the transitional yard. Mr. Heniff

stated they would be met on the opposite property. One of the two buildings have their

stormwater detention to the rear of the property as well. Commissioner Burke noted that

wasn't the case. They almost all have parking. The Norbury lots have detention.

Chairperson Ryan was concerned that when Norbury crosses 20th Street due to

keeping the street straight, it will cut into the property south of 20th Street. Mr. Heniff

answered that Norbury was not intended to go south of 20th Street. South of 20th

Street there are a few single family homes. Chairperson Ryan indicated that he is only

proposing one unit. Mr. Heniff stated there is a potential for others but not yet.

Commissioner Olbrysh indicated that he was hoping for more estate size lots. He

commented that there was considerable variations in lot sizes and would prefer that the

lots be configured and have approximately the same square footage for consistency.

Commissioner Burke noted that the issue of consistency is caused by where the road is

being forced to go.

Mr. Heniff noted that final engineering will be submitted to the County and will dictate

where the road will go. Staff can then make the deviation for lot sizes to be more

consistent.