Village of Lombard Legistar System

A. PC 05-06: 210, 214, 215, 224 and 228 S. Lincoln Street & 205 W. Maple Street 2

Ordinances/Waiver of First Requested and Motion)

Requests that the Village take the following actions on the property within the R2 Single

Family Residence District:

1. Amend the Comprehensive Plan to designate the lots at 210, 214, 224 and 228 S.

Lincoln Street and 205 W. Maple Street as Public and Institutional Use.

2. Approve an amendment to Ordinance 1816 granting approval of a conditional use for

a noncommercial recreational building/community center.

3. Approve an amendment to Ordinances 4363 and 4363A granting approval of a

conditional use for a religious institution and for a private elementary school.

4. Approve a conditional use for a planned development for all of the subject properties

with the following deviations and variations from the Zoning Ordinance, as follows:

a. A variation from Section 155.508 (C)(6)(a) and a deviation from Section 155.406

(F)(1) to allow for a front yard setback of eighteen feet (18') where thirty feet (30') is

required;

b. A deviation from Section 155.406 (F)(2) to allow for a corner side yard setback of

one foot (1') where twenty feet (20') is required;

c. A deviation from Section 155.406 (G) to allow for a building height of up to

thirty-five feet (35') from grade where thirty feet (30') maximum height is allowed by right;

Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda. He indicated that this public hearing

was a result of the May 19, 2005 Board of Trustees meeting whereby the Trustees

remanded the petition back to the Plan Commission to address specific issues. He read

the public hearing request in its entirety and asked staff to state the procedures.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the meeting will follow a special format due to

the remand by the Board of Trustees who asked for specific direction as it relates to

three issues:

1. The building elevations and massing represented in the petitioner's and the objector's

presentations;

2. The exterior building materials and exterior wall treatments for the proposed school;

and

3. The proposed location of the school relative to the Zoning Ordinance bulk

requirements.

Mr. Heniff then outlined the format of the meeting:

1. Staff will outline the reason for the Special Meeting and will note the actions to be

considered as part of the meeting. Staff will provide a very brief history of the petition

and will summarize the zoning actions and development regulations associated with the

petition. Once completed, an opportunity to cross-examine staff by anyone in the public

will be provided. The cross-examination will be limited to the items as set forth by the

Village Board.

2. Upon completion of staff cross-examination, an objector (John DeSalvo) will be

offered the opportunity to present his presentation depicting the building height and

massing. Once completed, an opportunity to cross-examine the objector by anyone in

the public will be provided. The cross-examination will be limited to the items as set

forth by the Village Board and shall relate specifically to his presentation.

3. Upon completion of the objector's cross-examination, the petitioner (St. John's) will

be given an opportunity to review their petition to the Village as it specifically relates to

the Village Board remand. Once completed, an opportunity to cross-examine the

petitioner by anyone in the public will be provided. The cross-examination will be limited

to the items as set forth by the Village Board and shall relate specifically to the

petitioner's presentation.

4. After completion of the cross-examination, the public participation period will be

closed. The Plan Commissioner's shall then be given an opportunity to discuss the

petition. Questions may be asked to staff, the objector or the petitioner.

5. The Plan Commissioners shall then vote to deny, approve or approve the petition

subject to conditions. The Commissioners do have the ability to add any conditions they

deem appropriate (regardless of whether they relate to bulk and mass issues) should

they recommend approval.

6. The recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board for consideration at their

June 2, 2005 meeting.

Chairperson Ryan asked Mr. Heniff if he was the only presenter on behalf of the Village.

Mr. Heniff answered yes. He was then sworn in.

Mr. Heniff began his PowerPoint presentation, which included an explanation of the

case history, the petitioner's requested actions with accompanying diagrams, and the

actions that were to be taken. In conclusion, he indicated that any issues beyond the

scope of what is outlined tonight must be shared with the Board of Trustees and is not

part of the discussion this evening.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone who wanted to cross-examine staff and

his presentation as it pertains to those three items to stand and be sworn in.

John Avila, 225 W. Maple, Lombard, had questions relative to the diagram with the red

lines and blue shading and asked if there could be a structure located there. Mr. Heniff

answered that yes there could be a building anywhere within the buildable area depicted

in blue. He then pointed to the areas that necessitated relief.

Carl Prindiville, 219 W. Ash, Lombard, asked for the names of the institutions that were

cited as examples of previously approved projects. Mr. Heniff indicated that he

mentioned Christ the King, First Church of Lombard and Sacred Heart.

May Anstee, 219 W. Maple, Lombard, asked if there were any variance requests

declined by staff. Mr. Heniff indicated that staff works with petitioners to minimize relief

before they submit a petition. When the petition came to public hearing, staff

recommended approval subject to conditions.

Ms. Anstee clarified that staff approved every variation. Mr. Heniff stated that staff only

makes a recommendation. This petition was recommended for approval subject to

conditions and cited staff's desire of masonry as an example.

Ms. Anstee asked about green space and referenced the same diagram. She first

clarified that the light blue is where they could have built but staff recommended that

they move the building to the east? She then asked what percentage of green space

they would have had if they left the building in the light blue. Mr. Heniff answered it was

in the 33-34 percent range.

Ms. Anstee asked if the driveway to the north is considered green space. Mr. Heniff

indicated that would be counted as part of lot area coverage so it would not be included

in the calculation of green space.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone else that wanted to cross-examine staff.

Hearing none he indicated that John DeSalvo's presentation would be next.

John DeSalvo, 115 S. Charlotte, Lombard stated he is also representing his mother who

lives at 220 W. Ash, Lombard, which is the property immediately to the west and

adjacent to the project. He explained that he had a couple of images and had gotten the

information from the neighborhood to make the massing study that he did. In a

PowerPoint format, he showed the characteristics of the neighborhood traveling west on

Maple Street as well as traveling west on Ash Street toward St. John's. He also showed

various three-dimensional views of how the proposed building would appear with a 35'

and 28' building height, as well as the footprint of St. John's with a 28' building height.

Mr. DeSalvo indicated that this presentation was prepared after the last public hearing

as a result of the petitioner's comments. He knew that his initial presentation would be

presented to the Board of Trustees at their meeting and he did not want any

misinterpretation regarding the building height. He indicated that having a 28' box in the

middle of the block was not characteristic of a residential neighborhood and that setting

something back has nothing to do with height. He mentioned that the petitioner used

peak heights not roof heights when comparing height differences. In his opinion

setbacks and a 7' height difference does not matter with respect to the neighborhood.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone who wanted to cross-examine Mr.

DeSalvo to stand and be sworn in.

Jim Urish, 216 W. Maple, Lombard, referred the slide showing the footprint with the 28'

building height. He asked if he was aware that part of the building would be 32'while his

presentation represents the whole building at 28'. Mr. DeSalvo answered he was aware

that the gymnasium would be 32' in height but since he wasn't sure where the exact

location of the gym was with respect to the building, he did not want to make any

misrepresentations, so he did the whole building at 28'.

Mr. Avila asked if he had any input or assistance with his diagrams from the project

architect or St. John's or if it was something he constructed himself based on the

information provided at the meetings? Mr. DeSalvo stated it was his own drawing based

on material he had. The elevations, massing, and the footprint did not change.

Mr. Avila commented that since he did this on his own and in order to be completely

accurate, would it be necessary to have more resources than what you have had at your

disposal? Mr. DeSalvo indicated that based on the information that was made public,

yes, he tried to make it as accurately as possible and lower than proposed. The setback

and height are most important but he was somewhat expecting that a three dimensional

model would have been done. He was not in a position to make a three-dimensional

model of the whole site himself.

Patrick Brosnan, of Legat Architects, 2015 Spring Rd., Oak Brook, was next to

cross-examine Mr. DeSalvo.

1. Referring to the tour of the neighborhood he commented that it was lopsided as he

only shot the residences. He asked what he meant when he said "neighborhood" and

asked for his definition of the same. Mr. DeSalvo answered that the neighborhood is

bordered by Lincoln, Ash and Maple. The houses in the area on Maple and to the north

are even nicer and grander, east of Lincoln is St. John's which is the largest structure.

His definition of neighborhood is the people who live within the area and the fabric of the

buildings and the houses.

2. Mr. Brosnan asked if there are any other institutions or large brick buildings in the

neighborhood. Mr. DeSalvo answered that there are other buildings, such as the First

Church on Main and Maple but that was not comparable. Sacred Heart is there which is

an established church but it is contained on one corner near the railroad tracks. Once

you cross the tracks it is a different type of neighborhood, which has been built up with

condos. The St. John's neighborhood has Lilacia Park as a separation.

3. Mr. Brosnan asked if he attended any of the neighborhood meetings and if he

requested a model? Mr. DeSalvo answered that he did not attend those meetings but

was given information from his mother. He did not request a model.

Chairperson Ryan then asked if there was anyone else who wanted to cross-examine

Mr. DeSalvo. Hearing none, he indicated that St. John's presentation dated May 23,

2005 would be next.

Joe Jaruseski, 1107 Michelle Lane, Lombard, gave the presentation overview. Their

plans have been modified to make them more compatible. All elevations have been

modified and they have updated massing renderings. The entire building is to be

masonry and they brought material samples. He concluded by stating that Patrick

Brosnan would continue.

Patrick Brosnan, Architect for St. John's, then continued and reviewed the various

neighbor's 32 and 28' building height views and perspectives, the Ash Street view, the

various street elevations, site plan setbacks, height perception, and neighborhood

compatibility components.

Chairperson Ryan requested that if anyone wanted to cross-examine the petitioner to

stand up and be sworn in.

Sharon Herlache, 123 S. Elizabeth, Lombard, asked if the amount of landscaping shown

at the 2.6 feet area located between the sidewalk and the building was the amount of

landscaping going in and if the sizes of the trees represented were the actual sizes

being installed or was that at maturity.

Mr. Brosnan indicated the 1' foot setback allows 30" of plantings under the windows but

the rest is much larger.

Scott Czierkes, Legat Architects, 2015 Spring Rd., Oak Brook, stated he was working

with the landscape architect and the plantings shown would be after one year of actual

planting of that species. They did not want to show it when it goes in nor 20 years down

the road.

Ms. Herlache asked the name of the landscape architect. Mr. Czierkes answered

Couture Landscaping.

Linda Bohl, 213 W Ash, referred to Slide 10 and questioned the right to build. That red

line shows where the setbacks are. What percentage of that would be included for 75

percent green space and what size building would you truly have if following all

variations. Mr. Brosnan stated that the red line shows the setbacks and the area within

the red line is the buildable area.

Ms. Bohl asked if they had the ability to build something of that size. Mr. Brosnan stated

that in a planned development they might.

Ms. Bohl asked for the definition of buildable area and if anything could be built? Mr.

Heniff stated the requirements for lot area coverage in an R2 district. The petitioner is

proposing a planned development so there are criteria. So when you look at the red

outline if that were to cover a greater portion than green space that would required. It

would be greater than code would allow but no setback variations would be needed.

Jim Urish, 216 W. Maple, Lombard, stated that the gym is small in comparison to the

total. He asked if they had the volume and how wide and deep the gym would be. Mr.

Brosnan stated that the gymnasium would be 7,100 square feet and the remaining

school area would be 43,000 square feet. Mr. Czierkes answered the proportions is 70

x 100 ft.

Mr. Urish referred to slide 8 and asked if that was the Meek residence behind the trees

covered up. Mr. Brosnan answered that it was. Mr. Urish asked if that was the house

that was left out of the previous presentation. Mr. Brosnan referred to the next slide and

indicated that the Meek house was shown and the trees are in front of the house. Mr.

Urish asked if they had any slides showing the view from further east. Mr. Brosnan

answered that they do not have them tonight.

May Anstee, 219 W. Maple, Lombard, asked when they modified their plans in response

to the neighbor's issues, did the length or width of the building change? Mr. Brosnan

answered no, just the height and materials have changed. Ms. Anstee asked if they

considered lowering the level of the building. Mr. Brosnan answered that they did.

Ms. Anstee asked why that was not accepted or possibly sinking part of the building.

Mr. Brosnan stated that there are ways to sink a building but the idea was to build a fully

accessible building. He indicated how it would be difficult for someone to access the

gym if sunken and described how they would have to access ramps and retrace steps to

get to the gym.

Ms. Anstee asked how the height difference was achieved? Mr. Brosnan answered that

working with a design committee to decrease the allowable area. They could change

the type of steel to be used to accommodate the request.

Ms. Anstee asked what the different was in elevation height. Mr. Brosnan answered 31'

versus 32'.

Ms. Anstee mentioned there was a slope to the property. Mr. Brosnan answered that

earth will be removed and the school won't be built on a hill. When they talk about

height they refer to it after the grading is finished. He stated they wanted to keep less

than 2'.

Ms. Anstee stated that they mentioned perspectives from a bird's eye point of view and

asked if they ever considered the neighbor's point of view. Mr. Brosnan stated

absolutely and showed the height diagram.

Ms. Anstee asked about the width of the building. Mr. Brosnan stated they showed this

at the last meeting.

Ms. Anstee asked about the landscaping plans on the west side of the school. Mr.

Brosnan stated that the landscaping plan has been submitted to the Plan

Commissioners.

Ms. Anstee asked them to identify which trees they were planting as every drawing that

they have shown includes trees that already exist on the lot line. Mr. Brosnan indicated

on the diagram what landscaping they were adding.

Ms. Anstee inquired as to whether they added windows on the northwest side. Mr.

Brosnan stated since that part of the building would house the mechanical room,

windows are not appropriate in those areas.

Ms. Anstee asked about the masonry. Mr. Brosnan stated that there are a variety of

masonry products today. The dark areas on the elevation are brick and the lighter areas

are precast masonry.

Ms. Anstee asked if they considered the impact on the neighborhood or if he knew the

history of the neighborhood. Mr. Brosnan answered that they did.

Karen Ness, 219 W. Ash, Lombard inquired about St. John's right to build a school on

this property. She asked what law or document exists that gives St. John's or anyone

else the right to build on a single-family property and asked if he was an attorney. Mr.

Brosnan answered that he was not an attorney but an architect. He indicated that staff

pointed out that in the R1 or R2 District schools can be built, so staff is telling us that it is

appropriate.

John Avila 225 W. Maple, Lombard, thanked the Plan Commissioners and architects for

being patient. He asked how they have changed their plans since the last Plan

Commission meeting on April 18 whereby the petition was denied. Mr. Brosnan

indicated that the building design has not changed except for the materials. He stated

that the scale is very important. The Commissioners made the suggestion of using

more brick and other masonry components to avoid looking at concrete panels. By

utilizing texture and rhythm you can change the perceived feel of the building height.

The majority of the variances were suggested by staff.

Mr. Avila then summarized that the dimensions have remained the same as has the

location but the masonry has been improved. Mr. Brosnan stated that the building is

now all masonry.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone else who wanted to cross-examine the

petitioners. Hearing none, he indicated that the meeting was open to questions and

comments by the Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser indicated that the changes that have been made are in

response to some of the issues raised by the public and the Commissioners. Her

question was to the architect. She referenced the west elevation and asked him to

identify what foliage, if any, that does not currently exist and what would be part of the

new landscaping. Mr. Czierkes answered that their intent was to show all of the trees,

the ones west of the darker trees are currently existing. They wanted to show how the

building would fit into the neighborhood. There will be additional relief such as smaller

plantings and there will be lower plantings under the windows as shown on the

landscape plan. He then mentioned four shade trees that align the south property line

and the 6' cedar fence.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the two smaller trees are existing. Mr. Czierkes stated

that all are there now. All occur around the west property line.

Commissioner Olbrysh commented that feelings are running high on both sides and the

Commissioners appreciate the professionalism and demeanor exhibited by all. He

stated that he did not have a problem with the proposed exterior materials as the

petitioner has made a vast improvement since the initial workshop and in response to

the Plan Commissioners' and neighbor's comments. He understands the setbacks and

the issue is a big building, massing and elevations. He indicated he has spent many

afternoons going around the building and what he sees is the Village Public Library,

Calvary Episcopal Church, as well as Sacred Heart and their new parish center.

Commissioner Olbrysh agreed that this building would be located in a residential area

but a religious residential area and a compromise needs to be reached. After taking

another look at what St. John's wants to do and the area surrounding it, he finds the

proposed plan acceptable.

Commissioner Burke stated that he had several questions for the architect. The

objectors asked the question of what percentage of the footprint is 32' tall versus 28'.

Your response was 7,000 square feet, which seem deceiving because it is 7,000 off a

footprint, the footprint is not 43,000 square feet. How many square feet is the gym

compared to rest of building? Mr. Brosnan calculated that the gymnasium would be

about 30.8 percent of the overall ground floor area.

Mr. Brosnan indicated that was correct and went to the slide with the R2 building height

requirements and explained the building heights. Discussion then continued as to

where the proposed building roof would be 22 feet, 28 feet and 32 feet.

Commissioner Burke answered he was looking for the change from precast to masonry

but it is concrete block. Commissioner Burke asked if precast is more expensive than

concrete block, requires less maintenance, and is easier to erect. Mr. Brosnan

answered no.

Commissioner Burke asked why the senior center lot is being used in the calculations.

Mr. Heniff answered that they have the same property ownership and do not have to

have separate lots. This lots consists of several lots of record and proceeded to show

them on the diagram.

Commissioner Burke asked about the right to build with a conditional use in an R2

district and not having to adhere to those setbacks and restrictions. He then noted the

Citgo station on Madison and Main and the restrictions placed on them. Mr. Heniff

answered that conditional uses are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The Village has

looked at how the impact will be on adjacent properties. If they stayed in the buildable

area of the lot, but for the open space requirements, there would be no variations

needed for the property. If meeting all building setback requirements, the Village does

not have the authority to look at design elements. Village Counsel suggested that as

relief to the requested yards is part of the petition, this would enable us to look at the

aesthetic attributes in order to make recommendations about the building design.

Commissioner Burke also commented on the professionalism of all and apologized to

the petitioner stating that he was not inferring that they were trying to be deceptive about

the footprint.

Mr. Heniff referenced Exhibit A.4.00, which shows the building heights north of the gym

in the St. John's submittal packet. He stated there is a small segment shown that drops

down to 22' but the lion's share is 28'.

Chairperson Ryan asked if that was the lower part of the structure? Mr. Heniff indicated

yes it would require several steps up.

Chairperson Ryan asked for confirmation from the petitioner that what is represented in

the darker color on all four sides of the building will be brick. Mr. Brosnan answered

yes.

Commissioner Flint commended St. John's for their efforts in breaking up the building

mass. He asked if there was any way they would reduce the gym height to 30' even

though he understands about being accessible. He stated that the building is positioned

that least impacts residents. He stated that using the masonry has helped reduce the

impact. Mr. Brosnan stated that if the Commissioners felt that 30' was more

appropriate, they would agree to lower the gym height.

Commissioner Burke indicated that while he appreciates the masonry, he still believes

that the building is too big for the site, the mass is too great and the variances requested

for setbacks, landscaping and building height are too numerous for an R2 district. He

believes it is a wonderful project and would be a great asset to the community but not at

the expense of the neighbors as it will have a big impact on the lives and the value of

their homes.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that this is a challenging petition and explained that the

Commissioners need to look at the entire community. As much as we would like to put

ourselves in individual situations, we cannot because we are bound to say what is best

for the community. She agreed with the description that Commissioner Olbrysh

expressed relative to the Maple/Ash corridor. How one experiences a building is the

ultimate measure and while a bird's eye view is important for some, rarely is anyone

going to see the building from that sustained point of view. She agreed that although

masonry helps to minimize the building mass, landscaping also accomplishes the same

and suggested that the petitioner provide more trees that, when mature, would grow to

the height of the west elevation so that the building would be further buffered.

Chairperson Ryan restated to the Commissioners that they could make a motion of

approval based on the conditions set forth previously, add conditions, recommend

denial, or not even use the prior recommendation.

1. The petitioner shall develop the site essentially in accordance with site plan prepared

by Legat Architects, Inc., dated February, 2005 and as amended by the petitioners

submittal dated April, 2005 and made a part of this request, except where amended by

the conditions of approval.

2. That upon the opening of the new school, the existing school building shall be used

exclusively for capital plant, storage purposes, offices and/or meeting space. Should

the petitioner or any subsequent property owners seek to operate uses such as, but not

limited to, day care facilities, pre-school activities or elementary school activities within

the old school building, a conditional use amendment will be required.

3. That the requisite open space shall be provided in accordance with the submitted site

plan and that the open space within the overall planned development shall not be lower

than 30% of the overall planned development area.

4. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed

improvements. Said permit shall also include the following elements:

a. That the petitioner shall submit a photometric lighting plan for the property

consistent with Village Code.

b. That the proposed trash enclosure shall be constructed of the same materials as

the principal building and shall be designed consistent with Village Code.

c. That rooftop mechanical units shall be screened from adjacent residential

properties.

d. That the petitioner shall satisfactorily address the comments included within the

IDRC report.

e. That a Plat of Consolidation shall be submitted to the Village for review and

approval consolidating the parcels on the west side of Lincoln owned by the petitioner

into a single lot of record.

5. That the petitioner shall designate the following areas accordingly:

a. The proposed driveway located west of the recreation/senior center building shall

be designated as a no parking lane.

b. The delivery/emergency access area shall be used for loading activities only and

visitor parking shall not be allowed at this location.

c. The driveway shall be constructed of a grasscrete or comparable material, as

determined by the Director of Community Development.

d. A collapsible bollard shall be placed at the driveway entrance with the final design

and placement of the bollard subject to the Director of Community Development.

6. That the site shall be constructed and operated in conformance with the Lombard

Village Code.

7. That the following changes be made to the building elevations:

a. The east elevation of the school building shall be modified to include a

brick/masonry component, with the design subject to the review and approval of the

Director of Community Development.

b. The west elevation shall include additional window treatments on the second level

of the gymnasium building elevation, with the design subject to the review and approval

of the Director of Community Development.

8. That trash collection shall not occur on the school property prior to 8:00 a.m.

9. That the petitioner shall provide additional landscape plant materials along the west

property line, consisting of a mix of higher growing evergreen and shade trees that at

maturity will provide additional screening of the school building.

10. That the building shall not exceed 30 feet in building height.

11. That all exterior elevations of the building shall be constructed of brick and masonry.