Village of Lombard Legistar System

P. PC 04-06: 115 East St. Charles Road (East St. Charles Road Commuter

Parking Lot) (Ordinance on Second Reading)

The Village of Lombard is requesting the following actions be taken for the subject

property located within the B5 Central Business District:

1. Approval of a conditional use for a parking lot;

2. Approval of a conditional use for an accessory building;

3. Approval of a conditional use for a Farmers (French) Market;

4. Pursuant to Section 155.502 (F)(1) and (3) of the Zoning Ordinance, approve a

conditional use for a planned development with the following deviations:

a. Approval of a deviation from Section 155.210 (C) (2) (c) to allow an accessory

use to be located within twenty (20) feet of the right-of-way of a public street; and

b. Approval of a deviation from Section 155.602 (B) to reduce the required number

of accessible parking spaces from five (5) to zero (0).

5. Approval of a variation from Section 155.706 to reduce the required amount of

parking lot landscaping. (DISTRICT #5)

Village staff members William Heniff, Senior Planner, and Matthew Fisette, Private

Development Engineer, presented the petition.

Mr. Heniff opened the discussion by referencing the Elmhurst Memorial Hospital (EMH)

project that was approved by the Village Board last year. He noted that a provision of

the companion development agreement was that the petitioner provides for the loss of

parking at the Maple Street lot as a condition of the Village approving their project and

sale of the lot to EMH. He mentioned that staff has prepared a preliminary plan for

consideration on the subject property, also known as the Hammerschmidt Property, to

accommodate those spaces.

Mr. Fisette then described the proposed project. He referenced the site plan exhibits

and noted that the plans show the construction of a 108-stall parking lot on the property.

Referencing the plan, he noted the unique shape of the lot that limits what can be done

with the property. He described the various components of the project, which includes

two entrance and three exit points,and an accessory building which will be used by the

Village for storage purposes associated with Cruise Nights and the French Market. He

noted the location of the proposed accessory structure which is situated at the east end

of the site in order to allow the western portion of the site west of the parking lot to be

developed in the future.

The parking lot would also be done in conjunction with improvements to be made along

Charlotte Street in 2004. He noted that detention is not proposed for the site - the

Village Board will have to grant a variation from this requirement and the required

detention volume would be subtracted from the available capacity of the St.

Charles/Crescent detention facility.

Mr. Heniff then discussed the zoning relief requested as part of the development

proposal. He noted that in 2000, the Village Board granted approval for a planned

development consisting of one large, five-story condominium building with commercial

uses on the first floor and four residential townhome buildings. All previously granted

relief has since expired on the property as the project was not started within one year of

the date of approval. Therefore, any new actions would require new reviews and

approvals accordingly.

The Village has also received a Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant to also

facilitate the project. With all agreements and funding in place, the Village is now

proceeding with the zoning steps required to facilitate the project as proposed.

He then described each of the items being requested within the zoning petition. Parking

lots, when considered to be the principal use of the property, are listed as a conditional

use within the B5 District. The proposed parking lot is proposed to have 108 spaces

and will be reserved for commuter parking purposes during weekday, daytime hours.

During nights and weekends, the lot can be used for general parking purposes. Access

to the site will be achieved by two ingress points that line up with Charlotte and Garfield

Streets. A third egress point will be located at the far eastern end of the property.

Commuters using the lot would access the train via a sidewalk along St. Charles Road

and then cross at the Main Street traffic signal.

Staff believes the site is appropriate for a commuter parking facility. Its proximity to the

downtown and the train station would make the spaces desirable for both commuters as

well as existing and future business uses and would be compatible with the adjacent

land uses. He noted that the proposed parking lot will be improved with parking lot

lighting, consisting of light poles similar in nature to those already found in the downtown

area as well as supplemental shoe-box poles to pride sufficient lighting to meet Code.

He then described the proposed accessory building. The Zoning Ordinance lists

accessory structures as conditional uses within the B5 District. Staff considers the

structure as an ancillary use as it is clearly subordinate to the principal use of the

property (a commuter parking lot).

He referenced the elevation created by staff and the companion materials board. The

elevations are intended to mimic early 20th Century railroad structures. Staff believes

the design would be appropriate and would present an attractive appearance to the

corridor.

He then noted that the Zoning Ordinance allows for a Farmer's Market as a conditional

use in the B5 District. In 2002, the Village granted approval for a Farmers (French)

Market at 105 West St. Charles Road (PC 02-10). At the time, it was envisioned that the

Hammerschmidt property would be subject to a future development plan. However, in

light of the Village proceeding with parking lot construction on the subject property at this

time, staff believes that moving the market to the subject property is a desirable option.

He noted that there are many benefits of this site over the existing site including better

visibility to pass-by traffic on St. Charles Road, better visibility from riders on the Metra

Union Pacific West Line, and greater parking options and greater flexibility in site

operations. He noted that as the site will not be shared with other land-uses, conflicts

with garbage disposal and set-up operations will be diminished.

He stated that the site is being considered as a planned development as required by

Code and is intended to address site-specific issues for the property. He referenced

code provisions that restrict the location to allow accessory uses and structures within

twenty (20) feet of the right-of-way of a public street. Given the uniqueness of the

property dimensions, staff notes that this provision would require the structure to be

located at the far western end of the property. However, in considering all issues

associated with the site design, staff believes it is most important to maximize the

parking spaces on the western end of the lot, as those spaces are closest to the train

station. Additionally, placing the structure at the western end could have negative

impacts on future development activity on the block. Staff believes that the proposed

location makes the most sense and minimizes any impacts on the principal use of the

property.

Regarding the handicapped parking requirement, staff points out that the parking lot is

intended for commuters using the Metra station. The Illinois Accessibility Code notes

that accessible spaces should be made available closest to the building in which the

spaces are intended for. In this case, the accessible stalls should be placed in close

proximity to the train station and not in a remote parking lot several blocks away from

the station. Staff notes that there are a number of accessible spaces located near the

train station now. If additional accessible spaces are needed, Village crews can add

handicapped markings to the spaces along Michael McGuire Drive as needed to meet

the demand. The Secretary of State's Office reviewed this issue and finds the parking

plan and rationale acceptable. However, when the French Market is open, staff notes

that the operator needs to provide temporary handicapped parking areas.

Regarding landscaping, parking stalls must have a setback of five feet (5') and

landscape islands are to be provided. The required setback is intended to provide

landscaping around the perimeter of the parking lot. Staff is suggesting that a variation

be granted based upon the unique lot dimensions and the intent of the proposed use.

Along the south property line, the proposed parking lot will be up to 2.5 feet to the lot

line. Staff notes that as the adjacent property is the railroad, there is little need to buffer

the railroad property from the parking lot.

With respect to the north side of the property, the parking lot design does allow for three

distinctive areas for additional landscaping (east of Charlotte, east of Garfield and east

of the accessory building). Staff believes that these areas can provide substantial

landscaping opportunities to enhance the overall corridor. Staff proposed that as part of

this project that parkway trees be placed within these islands, consistent with what has

been approved in the downtown area. For the two western islands, additional plant

materials, consisting of prairie grasses and plantings similar to that which was planted

along the Westmore-Meyers Road right-of-way could also be added to these areas as

well. Additionally, as the property is also intended to serve as flexible space for both

commuter parking as well as French Market activities, staff also believes that excluding

the parking lot islands is desirable as well. While the property would be owned by the

Village, the Village could enter into an agreement with a private organization to maintain

and/or enhance this entryway site.

He noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the Hammerschmidt property

should be redeveloped for a mix of commercial and residential uses. It also states that a

portion of the area might also be used for additional commuter rail parking in association

with the Metra train station. This development does follow the recommendations of the

Comprehensive Plan because it is proposed for commuter parking. The undeveloped

area on the west side of the property is being reserved for future development activity at

this time.

Regarding the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, the subject property consists of

two separate lots of record. Should this project proceed, staff will have a plat of

resubdivision prepared for the property combining the property into a single lot where

the parking lot is located. Should the western portion of the property redevelop, that

portion may be removed and consolidated with other adjacent lots. Staff will bring this

plat back to the Plan Commission and Board for approval once the property is under

Village control.

In closing, he noted the standards for conditional uses responses as noted in the IDRC

memo.

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

to speak for or against this petition. He then opened the meeting to the Plan

Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser referenced the proposed accessory building and suggested

that the proposed architecture should tie in more with the architecture currently found by

the Lombard Train station and the 7-11.

Commissioner Olbrysh inquired about the availability for parking spaces during evening

and weekend hours. Mr. Heniff noted that outside of commuter parking time, the

parking would be available for general parking purposes. Mr. Heniff noted that although

he did not have the specific parking numbers at hand, the intent of the parking lot was to

replace those spaces lost from the Maple Avenue lot.

Commissioner Olbrysh then referenced the history of the French Market in downtown

Lombard and noted that he always felt that this is a better site for the use. The 105 W.

St. Charles Road site is not visible and has not lent itself well for such an activity.

1. That the requested relief shall only be valid upon the Village of Lombard acquiring

the subject property.

2. That the property shall be developed in substantial compliance with the Site Plan

Submittal, prepared by the Village, dated December 29, 2003 and the concept building

elevations for the proposed accessory garage, prepared by the Village.

3. That the Farmer's/French Market shall be operated in accordance with a Market

Operator's Agreement approved by the Village of Lombard Board of Trustees. The

conditional use for the operation of a Farmer's/French Market shall be for on Saturdays

between May 1 and October 31. Moreover, the operator shall designate four (4) spaces

for temporary handicapped parking during the hours that the French Market is operating.

4. That associated with the proposed parking lot improvements, the Village shall

prepare a final landscape plan for the subject property, consisting of the following

elements:

a. That parkway trees shall be installed per code along the north property line,

with the final species and location to be determined by the Director of Community

Development.

b. That the open space areas north of the parking lot shall be improved with

prairie plantings and shrubbery.

c. That a final landscape/garden plan be developed and installed for the areas

east of the proposed accessory building on the subject property.

Home Day Care Regulations

William Heniff, Senior Planner, referred to the memorandum included in the

Commissioners' packets. He indicated that this item was received from the Village of

Homewood in an effort to modify home day care efforts for non-home rule communities

like the Village of Lombard. This action is being pursued in light of a Supreme Court

decision, Hawthorne v. Olympia Fields, that restricts non-home rule municipalities from

regulating day care homes. The implication of the State Supreme Court's opinion is that

the Child Care Act of 1969 did not reference that non-home rule municipalities had the

ability to provide local regulations in addition to those provided by the State. He

indicated he had a copy of the full opinion of the State Supreme Court decision should

anyone wish to review it.

Mr. Heniff continued that the Village of Homewood has taken a leadership role by

soliciting other non-home rule communities to look at modifying the Child Care Act of

1969. This would give the Village of Lombard the authority to enforce its own local

regulations as it relates to day care homes.

From a planning standpoint, this decision poses significant land use implications.

Outside of DCFS, there are no other regulations that the Village would be able to

enforce. The things the Village looks at ensures that business activity is done at the

proper location and takes into account traffic and neighborhood impacts, as well as

hours of operation. The Village looks at its standards and if removing those regulations

outside of a DCFS license, it doesn't look at whole picture.

In conclusion, Mr. Heniff indicated that staff is looking for direction from the Plan

Commissioners directing staff to prepare something for the Village Board which would

amend the Child Care Act of 1969 in order to require compliance with local building,

zoning and life safety codes for home day care facilities.

Commissioner Sweetser thought it made sense and that it was necessary in order to be

responsible as a community. She commented on the full text of the Supreme Court

opinion and understood why they made their decision but the way they did is not the

final status. She referred to the Action Requested section in staff's memorandum,

specifically, the language which states "staff recommends that the Plan Commissioners

recommend to the Village Board that it support amendments to the Child Care Act of

1969, and any other associated statutes…." Commissioner Sweetser stated that since

she does not what those associated statutes are, she cannot be supportive of

something she does not know about.

Mr. Heniff indicated that the language chosen for the action requested section was

meant to be open ended so if there was other legislation or companion sections of the

state statutes that need to be reviewed relative to non-home municipalities having the

ability to enforce local building, zoning and left safety codes for home day care

establishments, it could be done.

Commissioner Olbrysh referred to the Village of Homewood correspondence and

indicated that they are requesting the Village's support in a lobbying effort to amend the

Child Day Care Act 1969. If the Commissioners are looking to support that request,

then he would have no problem with it as it is something that is needed.

It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh and seconded by Commissioner Zorn to

recommend to the Village Board that it supports amendments to the Child Care Act of

1969 as put forth by the Village of Homewood.

Aye: 5 - Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Melarkey

Absent: 2 - Ryan and Burke

William Heniff, Senior Planner, indicated that he was presenting the petition on behalf of

Ethan Allen. Mr. Heniff indicated that this petition modifies the conditions of approval

previously granted by the Plan Commission associated with SPA 03-10. In addition to

the interdepartmental review group report that lists the modified conditions, he indicated

he had prepared a subsequent memorandum, which was distributed to the

Commissioners tonight, outlining a request for approval of a minor change to the front

building elevation.

Mr. Heniff stated that he would begin with the interdepartmental review report and

mentioned Ethan Allen's previous site plan approval by the Plan Commission in 2003

which was subject to conditions. One of the conditions of approval was that Ethan Allen

secure a cross access agreement with the property immediately west of their site. The

petitioner has not been able to secure that cross access and as a result are petitioning

for an amended site plan that relocates the southern access drive from the adjacent

property and provides direct access from the existing collector drive on the south side of

the property.

There were no comments from Engineering, Pubic Works, Fire and Building. Planning

noted the previous condition of approval relative to the cross access agreement. After

reviewing the amended site plan with the relocated driveway, staff finds that it does not

affect the approved location of the building foundation, building elevations, signage or

lighting. The landscape plan will only be modified at the relocated driveway location.

The petitioner's amended plan will result in the loss of 3 parking spaces but the total

number of spaces they will have will far exceed code requirements. While it was

preferred to see the driveway as originally proposed, staff feels that the amended

location is acceptable and staff recommends approval subject to the new conditions in

the interdepartmental report.

Mr. Heniff then referred to his memorandum noting the minor building elevational

change which has been highlighted. He explained that the petitioner intends to bump

out the glass area underneath the Ethan Allen sign and add 250 square feet to provide a

vestibule area. They are seeking concurrence that this change is acceptable which staff

believes it is.

In conclusion, staff recommends site plan approval of both items.

Vice Chairperson Flint opened up the discussion for the Plan Commissioners

comments.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she sees no reason not to approve what has been

requested as long as the parking has been met and the change of the drive does not

substantially affect the building or the traffic flow. She thought the vestibule was an

attractive addition.

Commissioner Olbrysh concurred and had no problem with the changes.

1. Garage Bulk Regulations

William Heniff, Senior Planner, mentioned that the Board of Trustees at their December,

2003 meeting had concerns related to oversized detached garages and requested that

staff present this matter to the Plan Commission. Mr. Heniff reminded the

Commissioners that this item was scheduled to be workshopped at the February Plan

Commission meeting, but was postponed due to time constraints.

Mr. Heniff outlined some concerns related to detached garages which included:

the perception of oversized garages,

the height formula and how it is not easily understood,

2-story garages

gambrel roofs or barn roofs

location of accessory structures relative to properly lines, and

excessive bulk

Mr. Heniff then presented the workshop in PowerPoint format, a copy of which is

attached as Exhibit A. Some additional comments made by Mr. Heniff relative to the

various slides were as follows:

Slide #2 - One of staff's concerns is that when you see a large two-story accessory

structure someone can use it as an ancillary office use or business establishment and

enforcement of codes gets difficult.

Slide #4 - One of the issues is that the formula of roof height is not readily understood.

Slide #6 - He read the definition of the height formula as found in the Zoning Ordinance.

Slide #8 - There is a wide variety of regulations relative to height. There were also some

unique provisions added as well.

Slide #9- If the Commissioners choose height to go from grade to highest point, nothing

could go beyond that height. Using a formulated height you can exceed the 15' height

requirement on a structure.

Slide #10 -Referring to the examples shown of the various two-story accessory

structures, each might have a different impact on one property to another.

Slide #11 - If creating a new lot of record the accessory structure has to be outside of

the easement. This results in different standards for different lots. It creates conflicts for

those people who do a lot of resubdivision as they would be held to a higher standard.

Mr. Heniff concluded his presentation by asking for the Plan Commission's input relative

to the issues of roofs, measuring heights, limiting garage height, size and setbacks. It

was decided that the Commissioners would address one topic at a time.

Require gable or hip roofs?

Commissioner Sweetser answered yes but the exception could be if the house roof is a

gambrel roof. On the whole she would like it be limited to gable or hip.

Commissioner Olbrysh concurred. He indicated he did not want the garage to look like

a house.

Vice Chairperson Flint agreed. He does not want to see garages that are overwhelming.

Commissioner Melarkey stated that the roof design should formulate to the existing

home. His concern is the height. He indicated that while being a member of the Zoning

Board of Appeals they had heard such cases. He felt that the formulation of the height

will drive the structure of the roof which will conform with the home.

Commissioner Sweetser responded that sometimes it does not necessarily work and

referenced one of the PowerPoint slides where the style of the garage did not fit. She

felt the Village should not mandate that but they could help by limiting the type of roof.

She felt the barm style creates a visual impact.

Mr. Heniff referred to the City of Elmhurst's regulations and thought that the wording

would encompass the Commissioner's comments. Vice Chairperson Flint concurred.

Measuring Height

Commissioner Olbrysh indicated that he prefers to go with grade to highest point. He

felt the current formula is very confusing and it should be made as simple as possible.

Commissioner Sweetser mentioned the possibility of measuring from grade to the

eaves.

Limiting Height

Commissioner Olbrysh confirmed that existing structures would be grandfathered in

unless they were destroyed or rebuilt. His preference would be to limit garage heights to

one story.

Commissioner Zorn indicated that a garage should have storage space.

All Commissioners concurred on garages being one story.

Mr. Heniff stated that it would be okay if someone wanted additional attic space for

storage and he could present draft language to serve the ancillary function but nothing

greater than one story.

Size

Commissioner Sweetser mentioned how the Commission previously spent a lot of time

coming up with the maximum 1,000 square foot figure and did not see any reason to

change it at this point. She referred to the 999 square foot garage and mentioned that

she does not want to make it a proportional issue as someone might have a small house

and need a larger garage especially if they have the lot size to do it.

Vice Chairperson Flint agreed that the 1,000 square foot cap works well.

Setbacks

Commissioner Sweetser indicated that they needed to aim for consistency. She asked

if the Commissioners would disadvantage the single zoned lots if they require the

standards from the Subdivision and Development Ordinance for all lots? Mr. Heniff

answered that it would not matter if you were on a lot of record or an assessment lot, the

standard would be the same. Staff was suggesting uniformity.

Commissioner Olbrysh agreed with uniformity. He was not sure what the side or rear

setbacks should be but it should be the same throughout the Village. Mr. Heniff

answered that it would be 5 feet for the side and 10 feet for the rear.

Commissioner Sweetser stated she is in agreement with consistency but is unsure what

the actual numbers should be.

Vice Chairperson Flint stated that there needs to be one set of standards.

Mr. Heniff indicated that staff will take the Commissioners' comments and follow up with

sample language at either another workshop session or for the public hearing.

2. Single-Family Residential Design Regulations

William Heniff, Senior Planner, indicated that this is an issue that has come up in

different ways. He mentioned the Strategic Planning session that took place back in

November, 2003 in which this topic was expressed as one looking into.

He indicated that this is a complex item. Staff does not want to be in any situation to

throw out suggestions but would prefer to have citizen, developer, and community input

to look at Village codes, regulations, and standards as it relates to single-family

residences. This will be a substantial undertaking and some of the possible topics that

could be discussed would be garage locations, impact of design regulations, and front

porches. This would include looking at all issues much more comprehensively.

Teardowns may be different and the impacts on the neighborhood might be different.

Staff suggests that a subcommittee could be created between the Economic &

Community Development Committee and the Plan Commission to look at future

regulations and how they might impact the community. Any changes to code or ultimate

reports created by such a committee would come back to the Plan Commission and the

Board of Trustees for review and discussion similar to how the Comprehensive Plan and

the St. Charles Road Ad Hoc Committee worked.

Mr. Heniff indicated that staff is looking for the Plan Commissioners input as to whether

they think this is a worthwhile endeavor and if these issues warrant creating an ad hoc

committee. If so, staff suggests that formation of the ad hoc committee comprise of

three members each of the Plan Commission and Economic & Community Development

Committee. One of the first things the committee would do is set a schedule as to

meeting dates.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if there was a timeline involved once the committee is

formed. Mr. Heniff answered that would be one of the first tasks to be done by the

committee. Staff estimates they want to make this a 2004 -2005 work product so maybe

a 6-9 month timeline might be realistic.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the timeline is directly related to the scope of work.

There must be a clear charge of what the committee will be about.

Commissioner Flint asked if staff would be including other community's regulations as

examples.

Mr. Heniff mentioned the 6 items found in his February 19 memorandum which are the

parameters he wanted to talk about. The direction to the committee would be open to

give general parameters and a timeline associated with each one of these in the

recommendation.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked what trustee was involved with the Economic &

Community Development Committee. Mr. Heniff answered Trustee Ken Florey.

Mr. Heniff then asked the Commissioners if they were supportive of creating an ad hoc

committee.

Commissioner Olbrysh answered yes and referenced the St. Charles Road Ad Hoc

Committee stating it was a major undertaking. He continued that this topic needs

special attention and will be extremely time consuming so whoever commits to it will

have to have the time.

Commissioner Sweetser confirmed that one of the functions of the proposed committee

would be reaching out to the Lombard residents. She asked if that would mean having

something similar to town halls. Mr. Heniff indicated that the committee would be more

of a leadership committee and do preference testing with citizens, developers and

outreach to be more effective.

Commissioner Sweetser thought it was a great idea