Village of Lombard Legistar System

PC 04-05: 801 East Wilson Avenue; 1000, 1112, 1118, 1124, 1125, 1128, 1129,

1133, 1135, 1136, 1140 and 1146 South Ahrens Avenue; 703, 750 and 754 East

Morris Avenue

The Village of Lombard requests approval of a map amendment rezoning the subject

properties from the R2 Single-Family Residential District to R1 Single-Family Residential

District.

In addition, the Village also requests approval of companion variations to the Zoning

Ordinance, as follows:

1. For the properties at 801 East Wilson Avenue, 1118 South Ahrens Avenue, and 1129

South Ahrens Avenue, grant a variation from Section 155.405(F)(3) to reduce the

required interior side yard from seven and one-half feet (7.5') to six feet (6') for an

existing single-family residence.

2. For the property at 1133 South Ahrens Avenue, grant a variation from Section

155.405(F)(3) to reduce the required interior side yard from seven and one-half feet

(7.5') to six feet, four inches (6'4") for an existing single-family residence.

William Heniff, Senior Planner for the Department of Community Development,

presented the petition. He described the properties as being located along Ahrens

Avenue, south of Wilson Avenue. In 2003, the Village considered petitions for rezoning

of properties at 1105 S. Ahrens, 1115 S. Ahrens Avenue and 1105 S. School Street

from the R1 to the R2 District. Finding that the proposed rezoning would be inconsistent

with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the Plan Commission recommended

denial and the Village Board denied the rezoning request.

As part of these hearings, staff noted that the neighborhood should have a consistent

zoning classification. With the Village Board denying the rezoning request, staff is now

proceeding with a map amendment request to rezone sixteen single-family parcels from

the R2 to the R1 District. So that this action does not create any additional

non-conformities, staff has also prepared a companion variation request for those

principal structures that would become legal non-conforming as a result of this action.

He noted that there are no development proposals associated with this request.

He stated that most of the R2 properties were voluntarily annexed throughout the late

1960s and 1970s and were given the R2 Single-Family Residence District designation.

However, this designation is inconsistent with the R1 zoning of most of the properties

between Wilson and Norton as well as the properties that were involuntarily annexed in

2003.

He then explained the primary differences between the R1 and R2 Districts pertaining to

the minimum lot area, lot width and setback requirements as noted in the staff report.

Each property could be constructed or reconstructed upon without having to apply for a

variation to the lot width or area requirements. However, any new lots created would

need to meet the 75 foot/10,000 square foot provisions. He said that the map

amendment meets the provisions for rezonings as noted in the staff report.

For those single-family residential structures that were legally erected under the

Village's R2 regulations but would become legal non-conforming as a result of the

proposed Village actions, staff has included companion requests for variations to the

interior side yards. The companion variation requests only pertain to those regulations

that would create non-conformities as a direct result of the proposed map amendment

request. Any other legal non-conformities that may exist on the subject properties would

remain as such. Moreover, the variation request is only intended to relate to the existing

principal structures - any additions to the existing structures would need to meet the R1

provisions, unless varied by the Village Board.

He noted that the Comprehensive Plan designated the neighborhood for estate

residential uses, with a net density of four or fewer dwelling units per acre. Staff notes

that past zoning actions that zoned properties into the R2 District were frequently done

concurrent with an annexation request. The rezoning request is intended to replicate

the established R1 zoning on the neighboring properties and staff believes the R1

zoning is most consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Andrew Malone, 801 East Wilson Avenue, inquired about the legal non-conforming

status of his property should this action be approved. He also inquired about how the

setbacks were determined for his existing residence. Lastly, he asked about what would

happen if his house was destroyed by fire. Mr. Heniff noted that this lot is a builable lot if

the rezoning is approved, per the provisions of Section 155.209 of the Zoning

Ordinance. The setbacks in the request were determined through a review of past

building permits and aerial photographs. If these actions are approved, the house could

be rebuilt based on the six-foot setback, provided that the footprint is the same as it is

now.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser supports the petition and noted that its intent reflects the

concerns raised by the Plan Commission.

Commissioner Burke asked for clarification regarding the property at 754 E. Morris,

which has a residence located four feet from the property line. Mr. Heniff noted that a

companion variation was not requested for this property as the existing setback is less

than that which is permitted in either the R1 or the R2 District. The non-conformity is not

being created by this particular rezoning action.

B. PC 04-10: 400-540 E. St. Charles Road (Neri Development) (4 Ordinances on

Second Reading) (Waiver of First Requested for TIF Agreement) (Resolution)

Requests that the Village take the following actions on the subject property:

1. Approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan reclassifying the subject

property from Community Commercial to High Density Residential.

2. Approve a map amendment from the B4 Corridor Commercial District to the R4

Limited General Residence District;

3. Approve a conditional use for a planned development with the following deviations:

a. A deviation from Section 155.408 (D) (4) to reduce the minimum required lot area

for an 80-unit multiple-family dwelling from 224,000 sq. ft. to 96,205 sq. ft.;

b. A deviation from Section 155.408 (G) to increase the maximum allowable building

height from 4 stories (50 feet) to 5 stories (51 feet);

c. A deviation from Section 155.408 (F) (4) (a) and Section 155.508 (C) (6) to reduce

the minimum required front yard setback from 30 feet to 2.67 feet for the western

building and 4.67 feet for the eastern building;

d. A deviation from Section 155.408 (F) (4) (d) and Section 155.508 (C) (6) to

reduce the minimum required rear yard setback from 30 feet to 29 feet for the western

building;

e. A deviation from Section 155.408 (D) and Section 155.508 (C) (7) to reduce the

minimum required open space from 40% to 30%;

f. A deviation from Section 155.210 (B) (2) (b) and Section 155.508 (C) (6) to reduce

the minimum required rear yard setback for a detached garage from 3 feet to 1 foot;

4. Approve variations from the planned development standards as follows:

a. A variation from Section 155.508 (C) (4) allowing for an increase in the maximum

number of dwelling units from 48 to 80 units;

b. A variation from Section 155.508 (C) (6) to vary the front and rear yard on the

perimeter of the development as depicted on the submitted site plans and as referenced

within the petitioner's request for a conditional use for a planned development;

c. A variation from Section 155.508 (C) (7) to vary the area of open space provided

in a planned development as depicted on the submitted site plans and as referenced

within the petitioner's request for a conditional use for a planned development;

5. Approve variations from the landscape standards as follows:

a. A variation from Section 155.706 (C) (1) of the Zoning Ordinance reducing the

required perimeter parking lot landscaping area;

b. A variation from Section 155.709 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance reducing the

required perimeter lot landscaping area;

6. Approve a conditional use for an accessory garage; and

7. The petitioner also requests Site Plan Approval authority to the Lombard Plan

Commission.

8. Ordinance granting approval of Tax Increment Financing Agreement. (Waiver of First

Requested)

9. Resolution authorizing signature of President and Clerk on a Development

Agreement.

The petition was presented in PowerPoint format by Guido Neri of Highland Partners,

LLC,7760 W. Devon, Chicago. (A copy of the presentation is attached as Exhibit A)

Mr. Neri summarized and explained the request. He noted that the shape of the

property was challenging and necessitated a number of setback variations. However,

the property has a great location for residences, close to the train station, park, and

Great Western Trail. He went over the proposed site plans, landscape plans, interior

building plans, and exterior building elevations in detail.

The entrance to the building is on the north side to provide additional privacy to

residents and to allow the larger units to face the park. Visitor parking is provided in lots

on the east and west sides of the property, and a 12-car detached garage will have

resident parking as well as serve as a buffer between the buildings and the railroad

tracks. There will be a monument sign at each driveway entrance. Also, with the

exception of the utility pole at the northwest corner of the site, all utility lines will be

buried.

The first floor of each building will accommodate 37 indoor parking spaces, private

storage lockers, and a party/meeting room for residents. Each building will have five

1-bed/1-bath units, four 2-bed/1-bath units, twenty-five 2-bed/2-bath units, and six 2

bed-plus-den/2-bath units.

The top floors of each building will be stepped back to soften their appearance. The

building will be constructed of pre-cast concrete planks with load-bearing masonry that

will protect the building from vibrations from traffic and the railroad tracks. There will

also be soundproofing and triple-pane glass on the north side of the building. There will

be a satellite on the roof so no individual satellite dishes will be placed on the balconies.

Also, spandrel glass has been added to the first floor to give it the appearance of

additional residences.

Mr. Neri concluded by noting this development will generate less traffic than a

commercial development, and it will allow the park to be completely surrounded by

residential uses.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Art Frerichs, 248 West Road, stated that this is the best proposed use for the land that

he has seen. He generally dislikes the loss of commercial properties, but under the

circumstances this is the best use for the land.

No one else spoke for or against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated

that the proposed development consists of two five-story, 40-unit condominium units

located on St. Charles Road between Lombard Common and the Union Pacific Railroad.

The project will have indoor parking on the first floor with four floors of condominiums

above. There will also be a detached 12-car garage and outdoor surface parking.

This petition requests rezoning to the R4 Limited General Residence District, which will

require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. This project will be a planned development

with deviations for setbacks, lot area, open space, and height, in addition to variations

from the planned development and landscape standards. The petitioner also requests

Site Plan Approval authority be granted to the Lombard Plan Commission.

The Fire Department/Bureau of Inspectional Services notes that construction must

follow the new 2000 International Codes, along with any changes to the Village's Title

XV Ordinances. This requirement will apply only if the petitioner submits a building

permit application subsequent to the Village's adoption of the 2000 International Codes.

The Long-Range Plan Map of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this site for Community

Commercial uses. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property

was light industrial, recognizing the existing heavy commercial and light industrial land

uses. In 1998-99, the Ad Hoc St. Charles Road Committee found that "The unused

portion of the Great Western Trail (the old railroad berms on either side of St. Charles

Road, between Grace and St. Charles Place) provides a visual break in the St. Charles

corridor, a gateway of sorts." The Plan Commission and Board of Trustees later

determined that, due to the proximity to residential uses, light industrial was not the best

long-term use for the property (PC 99-28).

In keeping with the vision of this property as a gateway into the downtown, staff believes

that a change in the Plan designation from community commercial to medium-density

residential may be warranted. The Comprehensive Plan states that new medium- and

high-density housing should be located in selected "nodal" locations or in areas that

serve as a transitional use between low-density residential and nonresidential uses.

The proposed medium-density residential designation would be consistent with this goal

as a buffer between the single-family homes surrounding Lombard Common and the

Union Pacific Railroad.

In addition, the Comprehensive Plan states that site development design should

encourage a system of bicycle and pedestrian access. The proposed development will

have the ability to provide an additional access point to the Great Western Trail once the

proposed bridge and trail improvements have been constructed.

The proposed development is wholly bounded by railroads and publicly owned

properties: St. Charles Road, Grace Street, the Union Pacific Railroad, and the Great

Western Trail. For this reason, there will be no transitional use considerations. The

proposed residential land use would be quieter than the existing land uses, with primary

activities occurring within the buildings themselves and with few commercial service

vehicles operating on the site. This is an important factor given the close proximity of

low-intensity uses such as single-family homes and Lombard Common. As such, staff

believes this development would be compatible with the surrounding land uses.

Staff is supportive of the request for rezoning to the R4 designation in the context of this

specific proposal. Due to the unique shape and shallow depth of this property, it would

be difficult to redevelop this property with high-quality commercial uses.

While the proposed R4 zoning will require a number of variations, it is overall the most

appropriate residential designation for this site. In the event this particular planned

development is not constructed, an R4 designation would prevent the site from being

over-developed under the less restrictive R5 or R6 District requirements. While the R5

District could be considered, that district allows buildings to be constructed up to 65 feet

in height, and it also permits a multiple-family dwelling unit density that is 36% greater

than that permitted in the R4 District. The R6 District allows 100-foot tall buildings and a

density greater than twice what is permitted in the R4 District. Projects such as Collen

Court Condominiums and Park Avenue Condominiums are typical examples of R5 and

R6 properties, which would be on a larger scale than would be suitable for this location.

Included with the petition is a request for conditional use approval for a planned

development. Since the intent of a planned development is to address the unique

attributes surrounding the existing and proposed land uses, staff recommends the

establishment of a planned development for this site. Moreover, the planned

development process provides the Village with the ability to consider specific design

elements to ensure compatibility with the adjacent land uses.

The R4 District requires multiple-family dwellings to have 2,800 sq. ft. of lot area for

each dwelling unit. The proposed development has only 1,202 sq. ft. of lot area for each

dwelling unit. (Note that these lot area requirements refer to the surface area of the lot,

not the square footage of the units themselves, which will average 1,425 sq. ft.) 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 may be warranted.

In the R4 District, buildings of 50 feet or 4 stories can be approved through the

conditional use process. Although the proposed buildings will only exceed the height

limit by one foot, the advantages to a greater building height are significant in this case.

The increased building height will permit future residents to have unobstructed views

from their homes, whereas a reduction in height would force second-floor residents to

be impacted by traffic on St. Charles Road and the Union Pacific Railroad. Given the

considerable distance between the proposed development and any neighboring

buildings, the increased building height would have a minimal impact on surrounding

properties.

Also, the petitioner has modified the original elevations to lessen the visual impact the

buildings will have on the surrounding area by incorporating decorative elements to

de-emphasize the building's apparent bulk.

This property is uniquely shaped, with a depth ranging from 60 feet at its western end

and tapering to 0 feet at its eastern end, with a maximum depth of approximately 145

feet at its widest point. With 30-foot front yard and 30-foot rear yard setbacks applied to

this property, there is very little developable area remaining. As such, setback

variations would be necessary to construct nearly any type of development and staff is

therefore supportive of these requests.

The proposed plans as drawn have approximately 30 percent open space. Although the

petitioner is requesting a reduction in open space from 40 percent to 25 percent, the 25

percent figure is only a minimum amount that is intended to accommodate any minor

changes in the site plan that may be deemed necessary. Given the project's location

adjacent to the Great Western Trail and directly across from a 49-acre park, the need

for visual open space in this development is lessened. Furthermore, there will be a

generous amount of landscaping on the property that will effectively lessen the impact of

the proposed buildings and parking areas.

The petitioner is requesting relief from the Zoning Ordinance's perimeter lot and parking

lot landscaping requirements. As noted in previous sections, this lot has a unique shape

that significantly impacts its developable area. The requested relief is for landscaping

along certain areas near the bottom of the steep grade change that leads up to the

railroad tracks, an area that would only be visible within the development itself. Given

that the majority of the development will be heavily landscaped, including a total of 48

shade trees, staff feels that there is sufficient landscaping on the property to create an

aesthetically pleasing development and the proposed landscape plan meets the intent of

the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff is supportive of the variations for perimeter lot

and parking lot landscaping.

As conditions of approval, staff suggests that the petitioner provide easements on the

corners of the property for public amenities. On the westernmost corner of the

development at the intersection of Grace and St. Charles, staff requests an easement

for the construction of a pocket park. Similar pocket parks are located at the southeast

corner of the intersection and on Grace Street north of the railroad tracks.

Also, staff suggests that an easement be granted over the eastern corner of the property

to allow future access to the Great Western Trail. Once the trail bridge is constructed

over the Union Pacific tracks, an access point to the trail will be beneficial to future

residents of the development as well as the general public. As an alternative, the

petitioner may possibly do a swap land with DuPage County to exchange this corner

area for a strip of land behind the existing site.

The Zoning Ordinance requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit for one-bedroom and

two-bedroom units, which would amount to 120 parking spaces for the proposed

buildings. All required spaces shall be provided as part of the petitioner's proposal.

This project is envisioned to be constructed in two phases. To ensure adequate access

for residents, construction traffic, and emergency vehicles throughout all phases of

construction, staff recommends that a temporary access drive be constructed between

the two buildings. This drive should be removed upon completion of Phase II of the

project.

In response to concerns over the possible impact this development will have on traffic

along St. Charles Road, Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, Aboona, Inc. has conducted a traffic

study for the proposed development. Their report states that the amount of traffic

generated by the development will be very low and there will be fewer conflict points.

They do not anticipate any difficulties with vehicles turning right from the westernmost

driveway, even during peak hours.

With the creation of a planned development, the petitioner requests future site plan

approval by the Plan Commission to address outstanding site design issues that may

arise as part of the final design of the development.

Mr. Heniff concluded by stating that approval of this project will be contingent on

approval of a companion development agreement, the conditions and terms of which will

be discussed by the Board of Trustees prior to any approval of this petition and the relief

requested herein. Staff recommended approval of the petition, subject to the conditions

of approval noted in the staff report.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission

members.

Commissioner Flint stated that this is a very high-quality development and he is glad to

see it come into the community. It should be very attractive next to the park. He asked

about the proposed phasing of the project. Mr. Heniff stated that the eastern building

will most likely be constructed first.

Commissioner Burke approved of the development and asked about the plans for

detention. Mr. Neri stated that the civil engineering drawings place a retention vault at

the eastern portion of the site, under the parking lot and driveway. All required detention

will be provided in this underground vault system.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that this should be a great addition to Lombard. She

noted that although the number of cars produced by this development would be less

than that produced by a commercial development, they will be grouped together

differently. She noted that it would be difficult for fast-moving traffic traveling westbound

on St. Charles Road to anticipate vehicles that might be turning out of the development.

Mr. Heniff stated that this issue could be brought to the Traffic & Safety Committee to

investigate appropriate signage and/or pavement markings.

Commissioner Melarkey noted that traffic turning left out of the development onto

eastbound St. Charles Road would be a concern and should be examined.

Chairperson Ryan stated that although he had previously been concerned with the

building's height, the architectural treatments on the first floor lessened its impact and it

made sense to elevate the residential portion of the building above the traffic level.

Commissioner Zorn stated that she was also no longer very concerned with the

building's height as they have developed a beautiful design that should be a great

improvement to the area.

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

by Neri Architects, dated February 11, 2004 and last revised March 1, 2004.

2. During the construction phase, the petitioner will construct a temporary access drive

between the proposed buildings to ensure unobstructed access around the site. The

design of the driveway shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of

Community Development and the Fire Chief.

3. All comments in the Inter-Departmental Review Committee Report shall be

satisfactorily addressed as part of a building permit application.

4. Accessible parking spaces shall be provided in compliance with the provisions of the

Illinois Accessibility Code.

5. The petitioner shall provide a photometric plan to the Village showing compliance

with Village Code.

6. The petitioner shall either:

a. grant a cross-access agreement over the eastern corner of the property for

pedestrian/bike access and construction; or

b. exchange the eastern corner of the property for DuPage County-owned property

to the rear of the side.

7. The petitioner shall provide a public access and landscape easement over the

western corner of the property (west of the proposed parking area). The developer shall

install a pocket park of like design as found at the northwest corner of St. Charles Road

and Grace.

8. The petitioner shall modify the landscape plan to include the following, subject to the

approval by the Director of Community Development:

a. continuous shrubbery along the eastern boundary of the public access and

landscape easement; and

b. low-growth plantings in the public access and landscape easement along St.

Charles Road and Grace Street.

9. Any existing and proposed public overhead utility lines located on the subject

property and within the St. Charles Road right-of-way adjacent to the subject property

shall be buried.

Prior to the start of the presentation, Commissioner Flint stated that his architectural

firm, Arcon Associates, was the architectural firm for the Park District fleet maintenance

building recently completed on the site. Since he is a principal owner of the firm, he

would recuse himself from considering or voting on the petition. Commissioner

Melarkey also recused himself saying that his employment in the telecommunication

industry precludes him from considering the petition.

Andy Anderson, 1202 S. Main St., South Bend, Indiana, representing T-Mobile,

presented the petition. Their proposal is to construct a 100-foot high monopole in

Sunset Knoll Park. He discussed the history of their petition. He noted that in 1996, the

federal Telecommunication Act established the framework for auctioning off of licensing

throughout the United States. T-Mobile was known as Voice Stream Wireless and they

purchased a license that covers DuPage, Cook and Lake Counties in Illinois. The

restrictions on license providers were to provide service on a planned basis on five-year

increments. As that grew, the requirements grew to keep their license.

T-Mobile began to build in this area and they currently have two antenna sites in

Lombard, one located one mile north of the site and one 1.5 miles south of the site.

Those sites were intended to provide coverage for the Village and the I-355 corridor.

Those sites did provide adequate service at that time. However, in the area between

the two sites they were beginning to have coverage breaks and the proposed monopole

antenna at this site designed to solve this problem. Their engineering staff designs the

systems and picks a certain location. The chosen site has to meet certain criteria - one

of which is a willing tenant and building site. They have identified a site in the Sunset

Knoll Park next to the maintenance building.

He then referred to the site plan drawings. The maintenance building and the access off

of Route 53 would be used as it exists now. The rear of the maintenance area contains

a row of bins for mulch to be used by the Park District. To the north of the access road

is a detention pond. The monopole location is a 25x30 parcel of land immediately north

of the last mulch bin on the site. They will provide the same type of fence to screen the

mulch bins and would landscape the perimeter of the fenced area to enhance the site.

He referred to the site plan and indicated that the monopole would be approximately 500

feet north of the south property line and residents that surround the park are a distance

of at least 800 feet from the location of the site.

He then referenced the existing and proposed RF coverage maps. He indicated the

green area depicted on the exhibits is the acceptable area of cell phone coverage. He

then identified the proposed coverage area, which improves the coverage along the

I-355 corridor. He provided referenced an aerial of the entire park. He referenced the

entrance approach, maintenance building, and the site at end of the mulch bins. The

tower would be 100 feet tall and it would be shielded by the sled hill. He mentioned the

tower would appear to be no taller than the existing light stands and the tower will not be

lighted. He mentioned the older mature 40-foot trees to stand above and shield the

visual from the surrounding area. He referenced the area along Route 53, where

additional trees will be planted, which will reduce the visual impact of the tower.

Mr. Anderson noted that wireless is a vital part of our lives today. As time has gone by,

the stated reason for wireless is convenience and the ability to communicate and

expedite their family lives and business instead of safety where it was first. The

monopole is adjacent to a park and recreational activity area - emergency calls and

enhanced service would be advantageous. The site location is crucial to operate in

higher frequency, 1900-megahertz band. Higher frequencies require more precise

locations. Their operating frequency will not affect televisions and automatic door

openers.

Mr. Anderson said they believe the subject property is a good site and they tried hard to

find a site that would have minimal impact. The monopole will not be lighted; it does not

make any noises or strange smells and is compatible with their neighbors. They are

community minded people and they will generate revenue for the Park District.

Chairperson Ryan then opened up the meeting for public comment. No one to speak in

favor.

Speaking against the petition were:

Don Swanson, 1040 Shady Lane, raised concerns about the electro-magnetic field

effect. Does it pose as a terrorist target? He noted that there is a day care center close

by. The proposal is turning the property into commercial property and it should be used

as a park. He referenced the industrial park across Route 53 and asked if it could be

located there. He referenced access problems from Route 53.

Jill Quass, 554 W. Edgewood, stated that she had huge concerns and did not want the

maintenance shed there. She bought where she bought because the school was there,

which is now gone. The maintenance building is located where there were trees. She

raised concerns about the employees constructing the maintenance building. Now she

has to deal with the Park District people. The park should be filled with children, not

metal structures.

Deborah Mraz, 1011 Shady Lane, said that the residents sound hostile because they

feel they never got their fair share. She mentioned the older trees coming down. She

mentioned the public hearing notice and stated that she doesn't know what the

monopole will look like. She mentioned the sled hill and the white pines. The plan

represents something else being taken away. She said she does not feel this is needed

in our area. She would like for it to go across the street in the Wood Lake Corporate

area and away from the children.

Dave Mallas, 1012 Shady Lane, said he has lived there for 18 years. What attracted

him to his house is the adjacent park. He gets the feeling that this is Lombard's least

favorite park. The building will not hide and the trees and he does not want to look at it.

He now looks at back of maintenance building. The park will resemble an industrial park

and he agrees to build the monopole across the street.

Charles McKinney, 1001 Shady Lane, said he lives right next to park and behind the

maintenance building in the park. He feels this will be another eyesore. He asked how

long the project would take to complete. He asked if they have IDOT permits for

access. He asked how much money would this bring in for the Park District. He would

like to see some of that come back to the homeowners. He also asked what else is

projected to be put in the park.

Art Frerichs, 248 West Road, Lombard, learned of this petition as a third party - he did

not really come to address this issue. He has a cell tower on his property - his tower

includes a fence so kids cannot get at it. He has never had a problem with the cell

tower. There are not any radio frequencies that cause ill effects on anyone - a single

pole is not that obtrusive. The revenue would help the Park District for a minimal

amount of inconvenience. When contractors put up monopoles, the poles come in

sections and it took about three weeks and they had a pre-made building that they

brought right to the site. He is not trying to sell it but it is not all that bad. Village

ordinance requires the monopoles to be 500 feet apart so that some people would not

have a cell farm. His is 100 feet and you wouldn't really know it is there.

Mr. Swanson, a resident who spoke earlier, noted that the Flowerfield residents would

not receive any revenue for the monopole, whereas Mr. Frerichs does.

Joe Zeimet, 1025 Shady Lane, mentioned that he believes the new maintenance

building is unattractive and it destroyed his park view. He opposes the petition.

Terra Mortenson, 1036 Shady Lane, stated that she is against the proposal and would

like to know why T-Mobile needs a site every mile. T Mobile is her cell provider, she

never gets call dropped in Lombard. She disagrees with the petitioner's maps.

Mr. Anderson then responded to the questions raised by the audience. Regarding

access, they will use the existing driveway provided for the park and he does not know

the history of the permit. Once the tower is built, they may need to service and inspect it

once or twice a month. The tower will be a monopole similar to light stands at the

ballpark. The monopoles will not include any guide wires.

They will not be using a shelter for the associated equipment - they will be using three

cabinets. Their construction time will be approximately two to three weeks from start to

finish. He assured the residents that if they act out of line, the contractors will be

reprimanded and not be able to build any other sites for them.

With respect to coverage area, this is not based on speculation. All equipment is

extensively monitored when they drop a call or are unable to complete a call. They

know for a fact from the current towers that they do have dropped calls in this area due

to lack of coverage.

He then discussed the Telecommunications Act provisions, which places restrictions on

zoning actions. He said the Act includes the following provisions:

Treat all providers equally

Municipalities cannot refuse to deny us the use-you have to tell use why within

documentation in writing, and

The emissions issue cannot be a factor to deny.

The emissions from a monopole are less than your home microwave oven. TV station

towers transmits 1 million watts, the local police rated 200 watts, and they will operate at

40 watts. They monitor their equipment and frequency and power output at all times

and they have to comply with the FCC to keep their license.

He then discussed the business park across Route 53. The park slopes to a high point

and tapers down and they are at a plateau point.

Sanjay Jaisingani, project engineer, noted that he answers to all the people that call in

on a daily system with complaints. He has to call them and respond to why they are

dropping calls. Most of the call drops are from people in their homes. That is why they

need sites closer and closer to each other. Their additional coverage also addresses

upgraded systems like pictures and teleconferencing.

The limit that is set for EMF they are determined by the FCC and they have to file

notices with the FCC and if they were in violation of anything they would lose their

license. The frequencies in which they operate is a high frequency, so the signal takes

a beating and begins to deteriorate and makes the signal weak.

Responding to the locational issue, this site was selected based on the ground

elevation. The software they use comes up with the grid patterns and chose the one

that will meet their coverage requirements. His seemed to be the best fit in the grid

most optimum with elevations. In conclusion, they picked this site for those reasons and

because of the aesthetic reasons. They picked this area as it would have the least

impact on the park.

David Malice, 1012 Shady Lane, asked about the tower will help serve the travelers on

I-355. If you located it across Route 53, it would put you closer to I-355. Also, if the

ground slopes down have they considered making it higher? He would be all for that.

Mr. Jaisingani talked about going to a lower elevation, but it would restrict area

coverage. He cannot answer to the question of making it taller - they worked with the

parameter of keeping the tower to a 100-foot height maximum. He stated that they have

to be in a grid, there is a tower to the east and west and they have to stay in the grid.

The tower will be a single pole and will be fenced by a fence. No heavy machinery, no

little house surrounded by bushes or short trees or both. You will see a tall thin tower

not to look industrial.

Mr. Anderson said that their request is for an amendment to the conditional use for the

development of the park and they intended on keeping the height of their tower to a

minimum. Mr. Anderson noted that the tower would be constructed to handle another

wireless providers.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, noted that the Lombard Zoning Ordinance places a cap

on the maximum height of monopoles at 100 feet.

Chairperson Ryan then asked for the staff report.

The subject property is owned by the Lombard Park District and operated as Sunset

Knoll Park. The site includes a recreational building, ball fields and park space and is

one of the largest land holdings of the District. The Park District constructed a

maintenance facility on the subject property (addressed as 995 S. Columbine Avenue) in

2003.

The petitioner is seeking approval of an amendment to the planned development and

conditional use approval to allow for a 100-foot high wireless facility monopole on the

property. The petitioner selected the subject property based upon their operational

needs and in consideration of the existing built environment.

He then noted that there were no comments from the other IDRC members.

From Planning's perspective, Ordinance 5190 granted approval of a planned

development in order to provide for the construction of a fleet maintenance building for

the park district, which was completed in late 2003. The proposed monopole was not

considered as part of the initial public hearing. As such, staff deems this to be a major

change to the existing planned development, which requires approval of an amendment

to a planned development.

Section 155.206(A)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance states that personal wireless service

facilities which do not comply with the requirements, may be authorized only in

accordance with procedures for conditional uses. Monopoles are limited to the I Limited

Industrial District - hence a use exception is requested.

The petitioner identified a hole in their coverage for wireless services as shown on their

submitted RF coverage plan. The petitioner sought sites that could provide for a

wireless facility. In review of the area, there were no existing monopoles or tall

structures that could provide sufficient coverage to the affected area. As such, they are

proposing to install a new monopole.

In review of available sites, they represented that they looked for areas separated from

residences. The park district site was selected as a desirable location because of the

distance from residences, the lack of structures at grade and the existing and proposed

screening for the site.

Mr. Heniff noted that monopoles have differing setback requirements above that which is

required by other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. He noted the proposed monopole

would be located 253 feet from the nearest property line. The closest residence is

approximately 500 feet from the proposed monopole location.

East of the proposed monopole are several 65 foot high light poles for the fall fields.

The light poles are also fifteen feet higher in grade than the elevation where the

monopole is proposed. Therefore, the top of the proposed monopole will only be twenty

feet higher in overall elevation than the existing light standards. Per code requirements,

the area is proposed to be secured by a solid six-foot fence, identical to the one erected

along the east end of the maintenance facility area. The petitioner is proposing to

surround the leased area with evergreen plantings per code.

The principal use of the site will still be a community park facility. The monopole is

being located in an area that would not normally be used for active or even passive

recreational uses. The maintenance building will largely screen the base of the tower

from the southwest while the elevational change on the property and mature vegetation

will soften the view form other directions. Additionally, to meet the provisions of Section

155.206, the monopole will not be lit and it will be of a neutral color (gray metallic) to

decrease its prominence on the property.

The Long-Range Plan Map of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property

be used as open space. The principal use of the property will still remain as parks and

open space, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The monopole, in terns

of overall square footage, will remain ancillary to both the existing park facilities as well

as the maintenance activities. In closing, staff recommends approval subject to the

conditions noted in the staff report.

George Wagner, Village Counsel, stated that it is important to note that the petitioner's

statements pertaining to radio frequency. If there is a motion for denial, the motion

needs to be supported by substantial evidence and the reasons for the denial must be

stated.

Commissioner Sweetser said the testimony from petitioner is quite complete and

grounded of the technical nature of the siting. We need to recognize their expertise in

the site selection process. The Plan Commission reviews the issues and plans that are

brought before them. Responding to the resident's testimony, a park is covered with

metal - the picture included in the packet shows the site with the fence on the east and

since there are concrete structures surrounding the property, there is no possibility of

anyone playing in that area and it is already screened by a fence and landscaping.

Chairperson Ryan said he is very cognizant of revenue issues to help the Park District,

but he also believes that this tower could be located across the street in the commercial

park. He does not believe that the Park District should be in the business of renting out

space. He would like to see additional revenue for the park but thinks it is not the best

use of the land and the monopole belongs in an industrial or commercial area. He

cannot vote for it.

Commissioner Sweetser asked in terms of the requirements for denial - do we have

those in place? Mr. Wagner stated that you have to state the reasons for denial such as

safety, pedestrian, traffic issues that they do not believe that the petitioner made a case

for it there.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the Village has information from the petitioner as to

where this site lies in the ¼ mile in order to fulfill the grid. Mr. Heniff noted that they

have only have the submitted colored map.

Chairperson Ryan asked if the Commissioners if they could use the argument that the

land use is not the best use? Mr. Wagner stated that you could state that this is

generally a residential area, the Village requirements state that these types of structures

be installed in industrial areas, and that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that

this is the only suitable location for the monopole.

Ed Grate, of Grate Signs, stated the request. He stated that building is set back

approximately one hundred and eighteen feet (118') feet from the road. He stated the

sign requirements allow one times the lineal frontage for signs and if the building were

located eighteen inches further from the road two times the lineal frontage would be

allowed. Mr. Grate also noted the petition included a request for multiple signs for one

tenant. Mr. Grate stated that he and the property owner have met with the staff. Mr.

Grate stated that the petitioner has agreed to not seek the right to additional signage

and is willing to adhere to the one and a half times the lineal frontage for signage as

recommended by staff. Mr. Grate stated that there are three other tenants that would

like additional sign area. He stated that they would like each tenant to be treated

equally. They feel that staff and the petitioner have reached a compromise that the

village could live with.

Gus Danos, the property owner, stated that he would like to increase the sign area

because the building is large and has a huge presence. Mr. Danos stated that they are

trying to be fair to everyone and allow signage that is proportional to the image of the

building.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or against

the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that the subject

property was improved with a shopping center in 2003. While the center was originally

intended to be occupied by Central DuPage Hospital outpatient medical office, the

hospital decided not to open a facility on the property. Therefore, the developer has

decided to partition the building for retail uses. Associated with this partitioning, the

various tenants have been modifying the building to suit their specific needs.

Mr. Heniff noted that the existing building on the subject property is ranges from one

hundred and ten feet (110') to one hundred and twenty-two feet (122') from the front

property line, due to some recesses within the building. He stated that several requests

for larger signage was received from different tenants. Staff felt the entire property

should be looked comprehensively to determine if relief for the overall development was

needed. He gave a clarification of the sign ordinance and stated that for buildings

located less than one hundred and twenty feet (120') from the property line the signage

is restricted to one times lineal frontage. Buildings located more than one hundred and

twenty feet (120') are allowed two times the lineal frontage as the building is further from

the property line.

Mr. Heniff stated that the property meets the minimum lot width and area required for

planned developments, so conditional use for a planned development is being

requested at this time. He noted that the planned development would give the Plan

Commission greater flexibility to consider future site changes including signage. Mr.

Heniff noted the table in the staff report that displays current signage and allowable

signage at one and a half and two times the lineal frontage. Mr. Heniff stated that the

building is unique due to its distance from the property line and the speed of traffic on

Roosevelt Road. He stated that staff considered the allowance of signage at one and

half times the lineal frontage as a reasonable accommodation by splitting the difference

between the two visual requests. He noted that the Sprint Store suggested one and a

half times the frontage as an alternative and the Wash and Glo Laundromat wanted two

times the lineal frontage. He stated that two times the lineal frontage may be excessive

and one and a half would be a reasonable accommodation for both.

Mr. Heniff stated that the occupant at 450 E. Roosevelt Road wanted two additional wall

signs where one is permitted. Mr. Heniff stated that the existing sign is one hundred and

thirty-three (133) square feet in area. He stated that additional signage would be

excessive in comparison and more than double the lineal frontage if the signs were

granted. Mr. Heniff stated that staff recommends allowing one and a half times the lineal

frontage for each tenant with no sign exceeding one hundred and fifty (150) square feet.

Referencing the pictures of some of the signage are included in the staff report, he

stated that staff recommends denial for the multiple signage request.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the commissioners.

Commissioner Burke asked for clarification of the one and one half times the lineal

frontage suggestion.

Mr. Heniff stated that regardless of the square footage, each tenant would be allowed

one and a half times the lineal frontage, but no greater than one hundred and fifty (150)

square feet. He stated that the one hundred and fifty (150) square foot limitation really

only applies to Insurance Plus.

Chairperson Ryan stated that if a tenant's frontage is one hundred (100) feet they would

entitled to one and a half times the lineal frontage of the space, but capped at one

hundred and fifty (150) square feet. Everyone would be treated the same. Everyone

would be entitled to one and a half times their frontage, but no additional signs.

Commissioner Burke asked if the petitioner understood the maximum signage allowed.

The petitioner replied that he did.

Commissioner Melarkey asked if the frontage is less than twenty- feet, what would be

allowed.

Mr. Heniff stated that everyone is allowed twenty-five (25) square feet at a minimum.

However if the one and one-half time lineal front footage provides for more signage,

then additional sign square footage would be allowed.

Chairperson Ryan clarified Commissioner Melarkey's question and asked if a precedent

was being set in granting larger signage at the subject property as opposed to other

places in the Village. Chairperson Ryan stated that each property would be considered

individually and in this instance it is the building's distance from the street that would

allow them the larger signage.

Commissioner Melarkey stated that he was also concerned about changing of tenants in

this building and the resizing of spaces. Mr. Heniff also noted that the one and one half

times recommendation would apply to all tenants with more than eighteen and a half

(18.5) lineal feet of store frontage could benefit from the proposed change.

Chairperson Ryan stated that the whole building would be subject to the rule.

Gary Taylor, attorney for the owner and developer, presented the petition. He stated

that the site is the location of the vacant Blake Lamb funeral home. Mr. Taylor stated

the previous Plan Commission request and approvals from 2003 and referenced the

approved site plan. He stated the present request for a major change to the planned

development and showed the new site plan. Mr. Taylor pointed out the one story,

eleven space garage structure on the north side of the property. He stated that the

garage is surrounded by B5A property with the exception of the residence to the east.

He then showed the revised main building elevation and stated that balconies would be

added to the residential units. Mr. Taylor noted that as a result of the parking garage,

one required parking space would be lost. He stated that the changes will be an

enhancement to the site. He also noted that it is unlikely that business and commercial

clients will overlap residential property usage.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment.

Kathy McCabe, 20 E. Ash, noted a previous petition a couple of years ago in which the

Plan Commission recommended denial because the building was too high. She

thanked the Plan Commission for that. Ms. McCabe asked about the height of the

proposed building.

Chairperson Ryan stated that the building was approved a year ago and noted that this

meeting was to review the proposed changes to the previously approved plan.

Mr. Taylor stated that the building would be forty-one feet (41') to the top of the parapet.

He stated that the garage is one story.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the building would be taller than Blake Lamb,

but comparable in height to the building to the north.

Chairperson Ryan requested the staff report.

Mr. Heniff presented the staff report. He noted that the petitioner was granted a

conditional use in 2003 for a three-story multi tenant office and residential building and

now appears before the Plan Commission with a few modifications. He stated that the

petitioner could still use the alternate plan if the petition is denied. He stated that the

proposed one story garage requires approval as an amendment to a conditional use.

He also noted that balconies are proposed for the residential units. He stated that the

proposed garage would result in the loss of one parking space. Referencing the

Inter-Departmental Review Report, he stated that previous notations from the other

disciplines still apply. He noted that the proposed construction must meet current

building codes and there is a possibility that the building codes may be amended. He

stated that if the petitioner applied for permits prior to the change the current codes

could be observed. He encouraged the petitioner to work closely with the building

department.

Mr. Heniff stated that one balcony is proposed for each residential unit - this is typical of

other residential units in Lombard and adds an attractive aesthetic component to the

building. Staff supports the addition to the site plan with the condition that curb stops be

added for two of the parking spaces upon approval. He stated that the garage would be

on north property line, containing 11 stalls, and would be approximately fourteen feet

(14') in height. The garage would be constructed of a brick veneer and shingled roof.

He stated that the proposed additions must meet all other requirements as dictated by

the building code. He noted concerns regarding the residential property adjacent to the

east property line. Staff believes that placement of the garage to the north would be

more harmonious for the eastern property owner. He stated that staff believes the

garage will provide an additional amenity and the impact of a loss of a parking space will

be minimal as the combined overlap of residential and commercial uses will be

infrequent. Mr. Heniff said that there are perpendicular parking stalls on Ash Street in

front of the building.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Burke asked if the cross access easement could still be accommodated.

Mr. Heniff replied that the easement is still provided for east of the garages.

Commissioner Burke asked how the balcony storage would be enforced.

Mr. Heniff stated that the property owners of other buildings such as 105 and 123 W. St.

Charles were asked to include provisions within their covenants and bylaws to prevent

outdoor storage. City View Apartments were asked to do so as well. Mr. Heniff stated

that staff wants this noted in the approval so that action can be taken in the event that

problems occur.

John Mulherin, attorney representing DuPage Medical Group, 211 S. Wheaton Avenue,

Wheaton, presented the petition. Mr. Mulherin indicated that they were requesting to

amend the site plan for Lot 5 on Technology Drive. The previously approved planned

development calls for a hotel to be located there and they are proposing to put in an

ambulatory center. Mr. Mulherin introduced Steve Saunders, architect for the project,

and Ed Carne, Chief Operations Officer of DuPage Medical Group, and indicated they

were available to answer any questions. Mr. Mulherin proceeded to distribute a new site

plan to the Commissioners. He indicated the reason for the new plan was to eliminate

any confusion with the legal description and the plat as it related to Lot 6. Since Lot 6 is

owned by NiCor and they are proposing a berm in that area, they wanted to ensure that

NiCor was aware of their petition and proposal.

Referring to a color rendering, Mr. Mulherin stated that the site is simple - the proposed

building is a single story, 21 feet tall, and the materials used would be identical to their

other building located on Highland Avenue and Eastgate. The height, setbacks, lot

coverage, and open area all comply with the Zoning Ordinance. In consideration of

possible expansion, the building has been set to the far western portion of the site so

should the need arise they could expand to the east or upward and therefore would

eliminate meeting future expansion problems.

They do not intend to use the 14 parking spaces currently utilized by the Homestead

Village Hotel and are proposing to use the drive as a service drive and they will add

another drive. Drop off for patients will be in the front of the building. There will be

space in the back and to the east which will be used for medical/administrative staff. He

indicated on the site plan the green portion on the east side of the proposed building

which would accommodate future expansion. On the west side of the building they

would be providing screening for elements such as a generator which would help reduce

excessive noise. Mr. Mulherin referred to the hotel next door and indicated that they are

making an accommodation to the property to the north so all the parking lots in this area

are interconnected which will assist with the street traffic.

The next color rendering displayed was an elevation study. The first elevation faced

I-88. He indicated that David Hulseberg, Director of Community Development, wanted

this elevation as high as possible, but there are restricted by the Certificate of Need

permit they got. They will be raising the central portion of the building to allow the sign

to be visible and to screen rooftop equipment. He recited the building materials and

color palette which were chosen to make it look friendly and not institutional.

There was no one to speak in favor or against the petition.

William Heniff asked for the materials board and began the staff report indicated that the

property is located at the southeast corner of Butterfield Road and Technology Drive.

The subject property is about 4.22 acres, is irregularly shaped, extending easterly along

the north side of Technology Drive east of the existing Homestead Village hotel. On the

northeast side of the subject property, NiCor owns a 1.38 acre easement for an existing

regional gas pipeline. The petitioner intends on using this area for parking and

landscaping purposes only.

The original annexation agreement was approved in 1998 and the planned development

proposed a ten-story Sheraton Hotel on the property. As this hotel was never

constructed, the petitioner is requesting approval for an alternate use, a medical office

facility, on the subject property.

Mr. Heniff referred to the IDRC comments specifically the Fire Department/Bureau of

Inspectional Services comments. They noted that construction must follow the new

2000 International Codes, along with any changes to the Village's Title XV Ordinances.

This requirement will apply only if the petitioner submits a building permit application

subsequent to the Village's adoption of the 2000 International Codes.

Summarizing the history of the site, Mr. Heniff indicated that approval of the Homestead

Village Planned Development was to include two hotels and a restaurant. The Sheraton

Hotel was never developed and the proposed hotel site has remained vacant. A 2001

petition for a sit-down restaurant was withdrawn by the petitioner prior to Village Board

consideration. The 1998 approved annexation agreement provides for approval of

alternate site plans, subject to review and approval by the Plan Commission. As the

petitioner's plan consists of a permitted use that is intended to meet all provisions of the

Zoning Ordinance, the new plan can be considered through the site plan approval

process.

Mr. Heniff indicated that the petitioner filed for and received a Certificate of Need

through the Department of Public Heath to operate such a facility on the property. The

construction of the facility will be done in phases and if they chose to construct any

additions, the plan will be subject to further review.

For purposes of zoning review, the planned activity is considered an outpatient medical

activity. Outpatient medical facilities are listed as permitted uses within the O Office

District. The proposed site plan is intended to meet all of the underlying zoning

requirements for the O Office District and no additional relief is requested as part of the

petition.

The petitioner has submitted concept elevations and a materials board for the site. The

materials are similar to those which were approved in 2002 as part of the DuPage

Medical Group building at the southeast corner of Highland and Eastgate Avenues. The

south elevation will consist of a glass/metal facing with face brick and stone banding.

The west and north elevations would not be readily seen from public rights-of-way. The

east elevation would be visible, but as this elevation would be modified by a Phase II

development, its aesthetics can be softened by additional landscaping, as noted later in

the report. Rooftop mechanicals will be screened from adjacent properties via an

extended metal screen wall similar in design to the metal panel system proposed for the

south elevation.

Portions of fourteen parking stalls are currently utilized by the Homestead Village hotel.

The petitioner is proposing to construct 90 new parking spaces on the subject property

for the medical facility. This quantity would exceed the Village's requirements for

medical office facilities. Full access drive aisles are provided around the facility and will

connect to the hotel property to the west. A separately designed entrance/discharge

aisle is proposed on the south side of the facility to accommodate drop-offs and

pick-ups.

The petitioner has submitted a landscaping plan. The plan includes parkway and

parking lot landscaping per code. On the east end of the property, a prairie seed mix is

proposed. Staff finds the concept plan generally acceptable. However, staff

recommends the inclusion of additional foundation plant materials along the north and

west sides of the building. Even though the east side of the building is envisioned to be

improved with Phase II of the development at a later date, staff also recommends

additional plant materials along the east foundation wall. These plantings could be

relocated should Phase II be approved and is constructed. With regard to the prairie

plantings, the petitioner will need to ensure that the growth of plant materials in this area

will not conflict with the Village's property maintenance codes. NiCor has an access

provision they need to be aware of due to the proposed landscape berm within the

NiCor easement area. The berming does affect the property and staff will need

confirmation from NiCor that the berming is acceptable before the Village approves the

engineering plans.

Relative to compatibility with the Sign Ordinance, the petitioner is proposing to install a

free standing sign at the east driveway entrance, which is shown to be outside of the

clear line of sight area. The signage would be subject to the underlying O Office District

requirements. With respect to the wall signage, a single "DuPage Medical Group" sign

of 66 square feet in size is proposed on the south elevation. The sign size and location

meets code. While the overall planned development did provide for free-standing sign

space along Butterfield Road at the Technology Drive entrance, the petitioner is not

proposing any signage at that location as part of this approval

The Long-Range Plan Map of the Comprehensive Plan recommends office uses. The

proposed facility is compatible with the surrounding hotel and restaurant uses.

Mr. Heniff mentioned the surrounding land uses and that the proposed facility would be

compatible. In conclusion, Mr. Heniff stated that staff recommended approval subject to

the conditions listed in the staff report.

Chairperson Ryan opened up the discussion to the Plan Commissioners.

Commissioner Flint indicated that the petition was clear cut and he had no comments.