Village of Lombard Legistar System

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the plat will

subdivide the portion of the subject property which is currently Village owned but will be

sold as part of a future redevelopment project from the portion intended to remain as

part of the Hammerschmidt commuter lot. This division is considered a major plat of

subdivision as it is greater than one acre in size. Therefore, it must be reviewed and

approved by the Plan Commission and Board of Trustees.

Referencing the inter-departmental review comments, Private Engineering Services

(PES) notes that the Village Board granted a stormwater detention variation for the

commuter lot. Any future development on the proposed Lot 1 would require stormwater

detention improvements as required by Village Code, unless a variation is granted by

the Village Board.

He then noted that the Village Board approved a conditional use for a planned

development with a deviation to allow an accessory use to be located within twenty (20)

feet of the right-of-way of a public street, a deviation to reduce the required number of

accessible parking spaces from five to zero and a variation to reduce the required

amount of parking lot landscaping. The Ordinance also granted approval of conditional

uses for a parking lot, an accessory building, and for a Farmers (French) Market. A new

113-stall parking lot was constructed on the subject property during the Summer of

2004.

Subsequent to this approval, the Village also acquired title to the property at 11 and 19

E. St. Charles Road, which was improved with two one-story office buildings. The

existing structures have since been razed. The Village is seeking a developer to

redevelop the vacant land west of the parking lot as well as the 11-19 East St. Charles

Road properties.

The proposed Lot 1 will be made available for resale associated with an approved

redevelopment project. Lot 2 will remain as a Village-owned municipal commuter lot.

The proposed lots meet the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and Zoning

Ordinance provisions.

To facilitate efficient traffic circulation and flow for the eventual development on Lot 1,

the plat includes cross-access and parking provisions. This easement will ultimately

provide for fewer access curb cuts onto St. Charles Road and will allow the Lot 1

development to tie into the Lot 2 parking lot. Additionally, the easement will also provide

for cross-park arrangements for five parking stalls located on the west side of the

existing parking lot within the designated easement area. The parking agreement with

Metra designates that 108 commuter parking spaces on the subject property - the

reduction of five stalls from the overall existing supply of 113 parking stalls will be in

keeping with the agreement.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission. There were no comments by the members.

St. John's Workshop

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that staff is seeking comments from the Plan

Commission with respect to a new St. John's Elementary School. He displayed

elevations and site plans and presented the workshop.

The proposed school would be located on the west side of Lincoln Avenue, south of

Maple Street and north of Ash Street and will be the subject of a public hearing in the

near future. The petitioner has requested the Plan Commission's comments as part of a

workshop session so that their comments can be incorporated into their submittal. In

consideration of the workshop, Legat Architects prepared a report for the

Commissioners, including the primary elements they propose to include as part of their

application for a public hearing as well as project/site history and existing and proposed

site plans.

Staff has suggested that a planned development should be created for all properties

under St. John's ownership. Staff believes this approach, which was used for First

Church of Lombard, Sacred Heart and Christ the King developments, is an appropriate

way to address the unique attributes of multiple-use church/school facilities. Within the

planned development parameters, the Plan Commission can relax the bulk standards of

the Zoning Ordinance in favor of development of a better site and building design. The

petition will also consider an amendment to previous conditional uses for the existing

religious institution and parochial school.

He then noted that staff has met with their development team and has previously

identified several areas of consideration.

1. Impact on Adjacent Properties/Neighborhood

The subject properties are located within an established neighborhood. While the

church and school has been located on their property for decades, the development of

the new school on the other side of Lincoln constitutes a substantial change. To

minimize impacts on adjacent residential properties, staff suggested that the proposed

school be shifted away from the west side of the school property and toward Lincoln

Avenue. Staff notes that locating the building up to the Lincoln Avenue right-of-way line

will make the building much more prominent along Ash and Maple. In consideration of

the setback relief, staff suggests that additional detail should be given to the east

elevation of the school and that greater architectural treatments consisting of a masonry

exterior to break up the building mass should be incorporated into the final elevations.

2. Traffic

Lincoln Avenue is currently improved with diagonal parking primarily used for school and

church purposes. During school days, the right-of-way functions primarily to serve St.

John's activities. With the expansion, both sides of the right-of-way would be owned

and developed for St. John's uses. As the right-of-way is encumbered with existing

Village public utilities and since there is a substantial distance between Elizabeth Street

and Main Streets (the adjacent parallel rights-of-way), the Village would not want to

vacate the right-of-way. However, as part of the development proposal staff will seek

the input of the Village's traffic consultant, KLOA, regarding access, loading, trip

generation and circulation. Ultimately, staff will want to ensure that the proposal will not

negatively impact affect the neighborhood.

3. Stormwater Detention

The new school will be considered a new development and stormwater detention will

need to be provided on the property. They are proposing to construct a vault system

underneath the playground area and west of the proposed school. The concept plan

conceptually meets the Village's Stormwater Ordinance requirements.

4. Use of Existing School Building

Should the school be developed, St. John's will move all of their schooling operations

into their new building. The existing building will be used for ancillary activities (i.e.,

meeting space, offices, etc.). Staff recommends that the future uses of the existing

school be specifically defined so that the full impacts of the new school can be

measured on the overall campus as well as the neighborhood. Additionally, staff wants

to ensure that additional activities in the existing school building are consistent with the

overall intent of the planned development and that additional traffic impacts are

addressed.

Opening the discussion among the Commissioners, Commissioner Olbrysh stated that

the building was attractive but large. He wondered why the existing school building will

be used for office and meeting space if it is in fact functionally obsolete and asked if

anything will be done to make it useable. Joe Jaroski, representative for the church,

stated that the existing building contains the physical plant that heats the church, so it

cannot be demolished. They have no plans to renovate the building because it would be

cost prohibitive, but they will mothball it as much as possible.

Commissioner Sweetser asked what the space will be used for. Mr. Jaroski answered

that it would be mostly storage, with some portions used for offices.

Commissioner Burke stated that he had no problem with the zero setback along Lincoln

Avenue and that he feels the building is attractive. He indicated that since the Lincoln

Avenue right-of-way sees very little non-school traffic, it may be worth exploring the

possibility of vacating the right-of-way with an easement for the existing utilities. This

allows the building to be pushed further east, away from the neighboring homes. He

also said it would be helpful to know the comments that came out of the neighbors'

meeting.

Commissioner Flint noted that altering the site plan in that way would cause them to lose

parking. Commissioner Burke noted that parking could be placed on the west side.

Mr. Heniff stated that the Public Works Department would prefer to maintain ownership

of the right-of-way.

Commissioner Burke mentioned a change to more of a campus-type layout. He

observed that the drive off Maple appears to be a delivery access drive that is only a few

feet off the garage on the neighboring property. Mr. Jaroski stated that the drive would

not be used for parking or long-term standing.

Commissioner Burke recalled that in the recently approved Walgreens development

deliveries were a major concern due to the proximity to the neighbor. Mr. Jaroski stated

that he will bring that up at their next forum. He added that they had already had two

meetings to educate the neighbors - one in November with conceptual plans, and one in

February with elevations that received mixed reviews. There were no strenuous

objections, though.

Commissioner Burke asked if the neighbors had been notified of this workshop. Mr.

Jaroski stated that they had not been told about the workshop, but they were informed

about the upcoming March Plan Commission meeting.

Commissioner Burke stated that reconfiguring the site could help the situation with the

neighbors and improve emergency access, in addition to achieving a campus feel.

Commissioner Flint asked if the project would be constructed in phases and if there

were any plans for future additions or expansions. Mr. Jaroski stated that there would

only be one phase. The current plans have three flex rooms to accommodate growth,

but they do not have any expansion plans because they think they're at the right size

currently.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she was not sure about the parking being moved

closer to the neighbors with a right-of-way vacation. With the exception of the access

drive, there is no problem with the plans. The drive should be shielded with a fence

and/or landscaping. She asked if the access drive could instead come off of Lincoln.

Chairperson Ryan asked if deliveries would occur through the entry plaza. Mr. Jaroski

stated that most deliveries would be hot lunches, which would come in near the kitchen

area.

Scott Czerkies of Legat Architects, architect for St. John's, stated that grade changes

limit direct vehicle access off Lincoln. Deliveries would not be frequent, with one per day

for hot lunches and one per week for trash pick-up.

Chairperson Ryan had concerns regarding the fire truck turning radius.

Commissioner Burke stated that he did not recall there being much of a grade issue on

the property that would preclude the access drive coming off of Lincoln.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that masonry was always more attractive and added

that it should maintain the two-color scheme.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the building is very attractive and will go well in the

neighborhood.

Commissioner Burke stated that precast is much more cost effective and the section of

masonry at the entrance will look nice without having masonry on the entire east side.

Commission Flint suggested that banding could be added at the base of the building.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she would like the church to work with Community

Development to enhance the building.

Mr. Czerkies estimated that it would cost an additional $700,000 to do the building

entirely in masonry. Although only covering a portion of the building would cost less, if

would still be over and beyond their current budget.

Chairperson Ryan stated that they could minimize negative feelings from the neighbors

without incurring prohibitive costs. He assumed the darker color on the elevations was

masonry, which was pleasing to the eye. He suggested that they alter their color

scheme as on the east side of the building, since the single color made the school

appear like an office building.

Commissioner Burke stated that the wall is a concern, as well as the lighting of the

delivery area and the trash enclosure being located too close to the neighbors. Mr.

Czerkies noted that a neighboring property owner had planted the trees at the edge of

the property. The delivery area will be landscaped to screen it, possibly with evergreens

or shrubbery.

Chairperson Ryan noted that the plan only showed bushes along the property line where

they usually talk about fencing. He stated that there should be some type of fence to

both screen the area from the neighbors as well as provide screening and protection for

children in the playground area. Commissioner Sweetser agreed that there should be

fencing due to the safety issue.

Highlands of Lombard/Amcore Bank Workshop

William Heniff, Senior Planner, displayed elevations, site plans and presented the

workshop. He stated that the subject property is the southern portion of the vacant lot

along Highland Avenue, immediately north of the Pier One Center. This proposal

includes a drive-through bank and a roughly 16,000 square foot strip retail building.

The 5,505 sq. ft. bank on the eastern portion of the site will have 38 dedicated parking

stalls, as well as five drive-up lanes that accommodate up to 22 vehicles. Drive-in and

drive-through establishments are conditional uses within the B3 Community Shopping

District. Amcore is requesting a freestanding sign to be installed at the existing curb cut

on Highland Avenue. The retail building will have 61 parking stalls, permitting a

maximum floor area of 15,250 square feet. It will be nearly identical to the dark brown

Pier One portion of the existing retail center to the south.

The petitioner has been working with staff to develop a proposal that will be compatible

with the overall Highlands of Lombard Planned Development. The coloring of the bank

building has been modified to better match existing buildings, and a drive aisle has been

added south of the bank to create acceptable site circulation. A number of items still

should be considered prior to a public hearing:

1. Parking/Circulation

To ensure the same ease of circulation achieved throughout the rest of the Highlands of

Lombard, there should be a cross-access point with the Pier One Center. This issue

would result in a modified plan and cross-access approvals would be required by the

petitioner as well as the owner of the Pier One site.

The site plan shows six parking stalls along the access drive. While staff does not

prefer such an arrangement, the location of the lift station significantly constrains the

site. Designating those six stalls for employee parking could reduce conflicts.

The site plan shows a right-in, right-out pork chop at the entrance drive. This would

require the existing curb cuts to be modified. Since there is a raised median that

prevents traffic from turning left either into or out of the drive, the pork chop be replaced

by a one-way sign in the median on Highland Avenue.

2. Engineering

The drive aisle on the southern side of the bank building will require the existing

detention pond infrastructure (i.e., the well head and pump equipment) to be relocated.

The encroachment of the drive aisle onto Lot 5 will require the approval of the Lot 5

owner as part of the petition. Staff suggests that prior to consideration of the plans by

the Plan Commission that the revised engineering for Lot 5, as well as the area in which

the proposed buildings are to be constructed, be submitted to the Village for

consideration.

3. Landscaping/Aesthetics

Mr. Heniff noted other site plan modifications including a missing parking lot island

immediately east of the retail building, trash enclosures should be integrated with their

respective buildings and thoroughly screened, a landscape plan will also need to be

submitted showing compatibility with the overall planned development, and the planned

development requirements establish and encourage the use of up-lighting, paver bricks

for sidewalks and uniform parking lot lighting.

4. Signage

Freestanding signage is subject to site plan review by the Plan Commission. Past

approvals were granted for the City View sign, the Great Indoors sign, and the Great

Indoors "Indoor Parking" signs. Per the Highlands of Lombard development agreement,

freestanding signs must be compatible with the existing City View and the Great Indoors

signs, especially with regard to the stone sign supports.

5. Building Elevations

Mr. Heniff noted that for any site plan approval application, the petitioner must provide a

statement of compatibility explaining how the proposed building fits into the overall

design objectives of the planned development. Staff does have a concern with the

proposed elevations of the bank building as well as many of the key design components

which are dissimilar to the buildings and structures within the development. Of particular

note, the planned development is characterized by the following design features such as

varying brick massing consisting of differing masonry colors, decreased prominence of

roof elements in favor of parapet walls; and textured watercourse block/brick at the

building base.

The proposed retail center will be nearly as long as the entire Pier One Center building.

As such, the façade should reflect the vertical bands of contrasting colors that are found

on every other building within the development. Special consideration must be given to

the design of the rear of the retail center, which will be facing The Great Indoors along

the development's central access drive. Staff notes that the Plan Commissioners

identified this issue as a critical item in their consideration of the Pier One building.

6. Conditional Use for the Drive-Through Facility

He noted that staff's initial concern with the proposed five drive-through lanes is that it

compromises the overall parking and access layout around the site. The plan results in

an awkward configuration of drive lanes and parking stalls west of the site. A possible

remedy would be to decrease the number of lanes to four, and shift the drive aisle and

landscape island to the east and shift the parking stalls currently shown on the west side

of the drive aisle accordingly.

As with all developments within the Highlands of Lombard planned development, a peak

hour trip generation analysis will need to be performed and the trip generation will be

drawn down from the available trip back. The traffic analysis will also need to address

access and flow around the site.

Opening the discussion among the Commissioners, Commissioner Burke stated that the

traffic flow is odd and a little bit confusing. He stated that the drive on the side of the

bank would be better off as green space, since it would only convenience 13 vehicles.

Chairperson Ryan noted that the drive created a conflict with the first drive-through lane,

which could be dangerous.

Chairperson Ryan stated that there should be access to the Pier One center.

Commissioner Olbrysh noted that the Highlands of Lombard development is very unique

in that there must be compatibility with all of the existing buildings. They would not want

a blank wall on the west or south side of the retail building and would need a four-sided

building.

Commissioner Flint observed that the roof element on the bank is much more prominent

than the roofs of the existing buildings. It should create some degree of verticality and

pick up the motifs and accents found throughout the Highlands of Lombard. A

representative from Amcore Bank stated that the cupola allows natural light into the

bank and does not contain any mechanicals. The building is heated with residential

furnaces.

Commissioner Sweetser asked how we could get more verticality. Mr. Heniff suggested

that there could be parapets in lieu of the EIFS. Commissioner Sweetser stated that we

should respect the building that was presented because they do not want to create

something that looks odd. The representative from Amcore stated that the bank has

many horizontal lines with the banding and fascia. They could create verticality, but it

would be difficult with the roof because it is so prominent. He also noted that they would

work with staff to address their concerns.

Chairperson Ryan stated that they wished to keep some elements of similarity within the

Highlands of Lombard. With the plans presented, it is difficult to visualize the

development as a whole.

Commissioner Sweetser reiterated that the traffic configuration is really odd. Larry Debb

of GVA Williams, property owner and co-representative, stated that the southern drive is

not necessary because cars can turn around in the drive aisle of the front lot. He stated

that Inland, which owns the Pier One center, was concerned with cut-through traffic. He

believes that the actual flow works pretty well. He added that the retail building will have

spandrel glass in the back and the same brick on all four sides of the building.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the traffic volume will be important.

17th & Main Subdivision Workshop

William Heniff, Senior Planner, reintroduced a proposal for a new single family

development to be located at 17th and Main Streets. He noted that at the November 21,

2004 Plan Commission Workshop Session, staff presented the proposal. In

consideration of the Commissioner's comments at that meeting, the developer has

modified the plan. He is now requesting input of the Commissioners as to whether the

modified plan more closely reflects their wishes.

He then summarized the proposal. The petitioner intends to acquire four unincorporated

properties and portions of two other residential properties currently improved with four

single family residences, annex the properties into the Village and redevelop the site

with 25 single family homes. This has not changed since November, 2004.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area to be developed as Estate Residential.

The developer's proposed lot size would meet the R2 minimum lot requirements. The

subject property is bounded by single-family residences to the north, west and south.

The properties to the south are likely subject to future redevelopment activity. As such,

staff suggested to the developer that the subdivision should be designed to allow the

collector street to be extended further south to 20th Street in the future. As the subject

properties straddle a ridge line, stormwater detention would be provided in two outlots.

One facility will be located along 17th Street. The second facility would be integrated

into the existing Etz Chaim Synagogue facility east of the site.

He then referenced the comments of the Commissioners at the last meeting, as follows:

1. The Commissioners noted that they wanted the lots to be more in keeping with the

intent of the Estate Residential Plan designation of 10,000 square foot lots. However,

they suggested that an average lot size of 9,000 square feet could be supported. The

modified plans reduced the lot sizes of the six westerly cul-de-sac lots and increase the

lot size of Lots 19 through 25. He noted that if the Commissioners want larger lot sizes

on Lots 2, 8 and 11 the interior lot lines for the cul-de-sac lots could be reduced,

however, this may require a lot width variation. Staff points out that the westerly

perimeter lots will abut residential lots of substantial size and width. By locating larger

lots on the perimeter of the development, greater compatibility with the lots along Main

Street is achieved.

2. The Commissioners expressed concerns about the the lot's size of in the original

plan, as they were 8,330 square feet in size. The revised plan adds ten additional feet

to the depth of the lots, increasing the lot sizes to 9,030 square feet. This theoretically

would push the dwellings further to the west and away from the Etz Chaim parking lot.

3. The Commissioners wondered if the proposed north/south street could align with

Norbury. The revised plan, while still requiring relief for the street jog (it is now proposed

to be 140 feet off center, where a minimum of 200 feet is required) provides greater

separation. Moreover, the street jog will prevent additional traffic generated by the

development from utilizing Norbury. He also noted that the street shift can still provide

for the future development of properties south of the proposed subdivision. If Norbury

was extended straight south from its current terminus, the reconfigured subdivision

would lose two buildable lots. Also the street would be aligned in a manner that would

result in residences in proposed phase two to have rear yards immediately abutting the

adjacent office properties. The petitioner's plan could provide for cul-de-sac lots off the

main roadway.

Opening the discussion among the Commissioners, Chairperson Ryan stated that this

submittal is better than the previous one, especially in regard to the eastern lots. He

mentioned that outlining the wetlands on the site plan gave a better overall view of the

proposed subdivision. He stated that he still had concerns with lots 2, 8 and 11. He

would like to see the property lines adjusted, but he realizes that it would not add that

much extra square footage. He mentioned that lot two was still less than 9,000 square

feet, but the increase in size was an improvement from the previous submittal.

Commissioner Burke agreed that lots 2, 8, 11, and 18 needed more square footage. He

stated that the Norbury Avenue alignment was still a legitimate concern. He noted that

moving the access street ten feet (10') would not be a significant change. He would like

staff to meet with Engineering and the Police Department to see if this layout made

sense.

Mr. Heniff noted that if the access street is off center with Norbury Avenue, it would

force traffic to Main Street and Highland Avenue. He mentioned that aligning the streets

could create more through traffic, but he could review this issue with Engineering staff.

Commissioner Sweetser also noted that this submittal was an improvement from the

previous one. She stated that if zoning relief would be required to allow some of the lots

to be bigger, that it would worthwhile. She mentioned that lots 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, and 11

should split the difference in the lot width in order to even them out.

Mr. Heniff noted that lots 1, 9, 10 and 18 are corner lots, and the twenty-foot (20') corner

side yard setback must be taken into consideration when determining the size of these

lots. Otherwise, there could potentially be a number of corner side yard variations going

to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Referring to the exhibit showing the proposed subdivision to the south, Chairperson

Ryan inquired about their average lot size. Mr. Heniff stated that the lots are 9,000

square feet or more - the actual lot sizes would be determined once there is a developer

for the project. Chairperson Ryan asked what the frontage was for the four long lots

along 20th Street. Mr. Heniff stated that they were sixty-six feet (66') wide.

Commissioner Olbrysh mentioned that the proposed subdivision would still have to be

tweaked a little, but overall, it was an improvement.

Fences in Corner Side Yards

Angela Clark, Planner II, gave a presentation on corner side yard fences. Ms. Clark

discussed the current fence regulations. She explained the differences between reverse

corner side yards and abutting corner side yards. Ms. Clark noted the number of

nonconforming fences in the Village and the number of fence variation requests in

previous years. She noted pictures of previous fence violations and the subsequent

alterations. She ended the presentation with discussion questions. Ms. Clark noted that

the Zoning Board recommended that the regulations for corner side yard fences less

than four feet in height remain the same and that fences greater than four feet in height

be permitted provided that they consisted of open construction and ornate materials.

Chairperson Ryan asked what was the height of the fence pictured on Ahrens. Ms.

Clark replied that the fence was six feet tall. Chairperson Ryan asked if the bushes

were legal. Ms. Clark stated that the bushes might not be legal. Chairperson Ryan

asked about the restrictions for hedges on corner lots. William Heniff, Senior Planner,

stated that hedgerows should be two feet in height since the area in question is a line of

sight area. He stated that this could be identified within the petition. Chairperson Ryan

noted that there are several corner lots within the Village with bushes on corner lots that

create dangerous situations.

Commissioner Burke asked to see the discussion questions again. Chairperson Ryan

read the questions.

Mr. Heniff stated that the Commissioners could decide whether fences should be

evaluated on a case by case basis or look at the reverse corner side yard scenario. He

stated that reverse corner side yards present a unique situation since they have visual

impacts in terms of what the neighboring residents see out of their front window. He

stated that the abutting corner side yard might not be as critical.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that her suggestion would be similar to the ZBA

recommendation. She stated that she would prefer that the regulations remain

unchanged, however if a fence has to be six feet in height on a corner lot it should

consist of open construction. She asked if the ZBA distinguished between types of

corner lots.

Ms. Clark stated that the ZBA did not distinguish between the type of corner side yards.

She stated that the ZBA recommendation was that if any fence on a corner lot were over

four feet it should be open and consist of wrought iron or comparable materials.

Chairperson Ryan stated that he would like to see the regulations remain at four feet.

He stated that if the fence were taller than four feet it must be open.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that should be for both situations.

Ms. Clark asked for clarification that the entire fence consist of open construction as

opposed to a portion of the fence being open. Chairperson Ryan stated the entire fence

should be open.

Commissioner Burke asked if that was what the ZBA suggested.

Chairperson Ryan asked what the ZBA said about four feet.

Ms. Clark stated that the ZBA stated the entire fence should be at least 75% open and

that referred to the spacing of the fence.

Chairperson Ryan reiterated that if the fence were six feet the entire fence should be

open and chain link should be excluded.

Commissioner Sweetser stated this should be for both abutting and reverse corner side

yards. Chairperson Ryan agreed.

Commissioner Burke referenced the third discussion question and said the answer

should be no.

Mr. Heniff clarified that if the Plan Commission is conceptually supportive of a text

amendment it would allow fences up to six feet in both reverse and abutting corner side

yards provided that they were open and ornate with no further distinctions.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about the reference of "up to six feet." Mr. Heniff replied

that would include a fence that were five and a half feet or other variations less than six

feet in height. He stated that if a property owner wanted to provide a screening function

they would be capped at four feet.

Chairperson Ryan stated that if an owner had a dog they could do a wood fence.

Commissioner Sweetser stated unless it was a large dog. Mr. Heniff stated they could

then go to six feet.

Chairperson Ryan stated that people would have an option.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the amendment were prompted due to three variation

requests.

Chairperson Ryan asked if the 125 fences referenced in Ms. Clark's presentation were

all residential fences. He stated that he thought they were residential until she

referenced an industrial fence.

Ms. Clark stated that all of the fences noted were residential fences.