Plan Commission

Village of Lombard Village Hall 255 East Wilson Ave. Lombard, IL 60148 villageoflombard.org Minutes Monday, May 20, 2024 7:00 PM Village Hall - Board Room Plan Commission Leigh Giuliano, Chairperson Commissioners: Ruth Sweetser, Bill Johnston, Tony Invergo, Alissa Verson and Robert Spreenberg Staff Liaison: Anna Papke Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 Call to Order Chairperson Giuliano called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m Pledge of Allegiance Chairperson Giuliano led the Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call of Members Present 6 - Ruth Sweetser, Leigh Giuliano, Bill Johnston, Tony Invergo, Robert Spreenberg, and Alissa Verson Also present: William Heniff, AICP, Director Community Development, Anna Papke, AICP, Planning & Zoning Manager Community Development, and Anne Skrodzki, Legal Counsel to the Plan Commission. Chairperson Giuliano called the order of the agenda. Ms. Papke read the Rules and Procedures as written by the Plan Commission. Public Hearings 240168 PC 24-06: 855 E. Roosevelt Road - Revised development proposal for previously approved restaurant/banquet facility. The petitioner, SAFA PROPERTY LLC, requests that the Village take the following actions on the subject property located within the B4A Roosevelt Road Corridor District, to provide for the construction of a new principal building: 1. Amend the approvals previously requested through Plan Commission petition PC 22-05, and granted by Ordinance No. 8077, as follows: a. Preservation of the existing conditional use under Ordinance No. 8077, under Sections 155.103(F) and 155.417(G)(2)(a) (vii) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a second-floor restaurant and banquet, including entertainment and dancing when conducted as part of the restaurant and banquet operations and secondary to the principal use subject to the conditions numbered 2, 3, 7, 10, and 11 (dining and banquet limit of 156) set forth in Section 14 of said ordinance. Village of Lombard Page 1 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 b. A new conditional use under Sections 155.103(F) and 155.417(G)(2)(b)(iv) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a drive-through facility. c. Elimination of the following conditional uses approved in Ordinance No. 8077 (Secs. 2-3) under Sections 155.103(F), 155.417(G)(2)(c)(vii), and 155.417(G)(l0)(b) of the Zoning Ordinance: (a) a building containing a restaurant as a principal use that will exceed 40 feet in height; and (b) outdoor display and sales on a seasonal or periodic basis in a row of parking or on the rooftop. d. Preservation of the existing variations under Ordinance No. 8077, under Sections 155.102(B)(3) and 155.103(C)(2)(b), from Sections 155.417(G)(l2), 155.417(G)(l4) and 155.602(A)(10)(d) of the Zoning Ordinance which require parking lot lighting to be directed away from the lot lines and to fall below certain maximum intensities in order to avoid these requirements for lighting adjacent to the access easement serving the subject property and the easterly adjacent property subject to the conditions numbered 2, 3, 7, 10 set forth in Section 14 of said ordinance. e. Preservation of the existing variations under Ordinance No. 8077, under Sections 155.102(B)(3) and 155.103(C)(2)(b), from Section 155.707(B)(4)(d) which requires transition yard areas not planted with trees or shrubs to be maintained as lawn in order to permit the south lot line to be maintained with all trees and understory plant material to remain in the wetland, flood way and floodplain reflected in the plans (affects south transition yard except east +/-45 feet) subject to the conditions numbered 2, 3, 7, and 10 set forth in Section 14 of said ordinance. f. Preservation of the existing variations under Ordinance No. 8077, under Sections 155.102(B)(3) and 155.103(C)(2)(b), from Section 155.708 which requires a ten-foot foundation landscaping area on all sides of a building in order to allow development without foundation landscaping according to the Landscape Plan subject to the conditions numbered 2, 3, 7, and 10 set forth in Section 14 of said ordinance. g. Preservation of the existing variations under Ordinance No. 8077, under Sections 155.102(B)(3) and 155.103(C)(2)(b), from Article XI which imposes several detailed landscaping Village of Lombard Page 2 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 requirements in Sections 155.701 through 155.710 in order to accomplish innovative landscaping shown in the four-sheet landscape plan on file with the Village for the benefit of natural areas on the site and to the south as well as residential neighbors to the south subject to the conditions numbered 2, 3, 7, and 10 set forth in Section 14 of said ordinance. h. A new variation from under Sections 155.102(B)(3) and 155.103(C)(2)(b), from Section 155.603 to allow off-street loading to occur in the bypass lane on the east side of the drive-through lane. i. Elimination of the following variations approved in Ordinance No. 8077 (Secs. 4, 5, 7, 8) under Sections 155.102(B)(3) and 155.103(C)(2)(b) of the Zoning Ordinance: (a) parking variations from Section 155.417(G)(12) and 155.602(C) (Table 6.3); (b) loading variations from Sections l55.4l7(G) (l2) and l55.603(A); (c) landscape island variations for rickshaws from Sections 155.417(G)(l2) and 155.706(B)(2) (c); (d) landscape and rickshaw lighting variations from Section 155.417(G)(l4). j. Approval of a revised site plan and landscaping plan under Section 155.103(I) and Section 155.702 of the Zoning Ordinance subject to the conditions numbered 2, 3, 7, 10 set forth in Section 14 of Ordinance No. 8077. 2. Approval of a preliminary and final plat of subdivision for Creekview/Pep Boys Resubdivision No. 1 which is intended merely to release the access restriction on the driveway at the west end of the reciprocal access easement. (DISTRICT #6) Sworn in to present the petition was Anna Papke, Planning and Zoning Manager; William Heniff, Community Development Director; Brendan May with KLOA; Mark Daniel, attorney representing the petitioner; Jeff Miller, civil engineer for the petitioner; and Hemal Purohit, architect for the petitioner. Chairperson Giuliano read the Plan Commission procedures and asked if anyone other than the petitioner intended to cross examine and, hearing none, she proceeded with the petition. Mr. Daniel presented the petition. He said the applicant was before the Plan Commission in 2022 requesting approval of a three-story banquet facility. Recently, the petitioner had determined the project was not financially feasible as a standalone banquet facility. Therefore, the petitioner has revised the project to a multi-tenant Village of Lombard Page 3 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 commercial building. Mr. Daniel said the revised project requires two new pieces of zoning relief. The revised building footprint is larger than the previous building footprint. The building is shifted to the west, and a drive-through service lane is proposed for the east side of the building. The drive-through requires approval of a conditional use. The petitioner is also seeking a variance to allow the loading area to be in the proposed location on the east side of the building. This placement will keep the loading area away from adjacent residences to the south. Mr. Daniel said there will be a full access curb cut from Roosevelt Road. There is an easement to provide cross access from the subject property to the adjacent Pep Boys property to the east. Mr. Daniel pointed out the existing wetlands on the west and south side of the site and noted that those areas are under DuPage County special management area jurisdiction. Mr. Daniel described some of the drainage concerns over the last few years related to Sugar Creek, which runs through the adjacent York Center neighborhood to the south and onto the subject property. He mentioned that there had been some issues related to bat habitat around the creek. Mr. Daniel showed elevations of the previously approved building and the revised building. He said the new building is essentially a reduction in intensity. He described the types of tenant spaces proposed for the revised building, including restaurants, retail, and a restaurant/banquet facility on the second floor. He noted there is no basement in the revised building, whereas the previously approved building had a basement. He noted the revised building is oriented toward Roosevelt Road. The previously approved building was oriented to the west. Mr. Daniel showed the landscape plan for the approved and revised proposals. He said the previously approved line of trees along the southwest side of the parking lot will remain. The revised plan includes some additional landscaping along Roosevelt Road that was not part of the previous plan. Mr. Daniel said previously approved variances for rickshaws in the landscape islands and uplighting are no longer required. The revised plan does not include any outdoor events, which had been part of the 2022 proposal. Mr. Daniel compared the south elevation of the previously approved building and the revised building. The previously approved building had many windows and lights on the south façade, compared to the revised building which has no windows, a few service doors, and limited lighting. The revised façade includes some banding to accent the rear façade. Village of Lombard Page 4 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 Mr. Daniel said the drive-through lane allows for eight vehicle stacking spaces. He said the waste enclosures and loading zone are well north of the south property line. He said the loading zone requires a variance to allow it within five feet of the side property line. He said the drive-through should not create any noise to adjacent neighbors given the distance to the south property line and the landscaping. Headlights of cars in the drive-through will point east or north, not south toward the neighborhood. Mr. Daniel described the stormwater plan for the property. He said the discharge point is as far away from neighbors as possible, on the north side of the property. There will be an underground stormwater system. There will be no change to the flow of the creek on the property. He said the stormwater plans for the subject property will not change the flow of the creek upstream in the York Center neighborhood to the south. Mr. Daniel discussed the site lighting. He said it is substantially less than what was proposed in 2022. He said the lighting would not cause spillover onto adjacent residential properties, as required by Village Code. Mr. Daniel said the revised plan does not require a parking variance. The previously approved plan had required a variance. There will also not be any valet service offered under the revised plan. He said the petitioner and Pep Boys had a neighborly agreement where they would not tow vehicles if patrons of one property occasionally parked on the other property. Mr. Daniel discussed that the second-floor restaurant would transition to a banquet facility for evening hours. Parking calculations were based on the banquet facility, which has a higher parking requirement than a restaurant of similar size. Mr. Daniel showed a zoning map of the area and said that drive-through restaurants are common in the Roosevelt Road corridor. He said the drive-through would likely not be for a major corporate entity like Starbucks as the subject property does not meet their selection criteria. He showed a graphic stating the distance between the proposed building and neighboring residences and said the closest residence is more than 300 feet away from the proposed building. Mr. Daniel said that in 2022 there had been a request from neighbors for fencing on the retaining wall along the west and south sides of the building. Mr. Daniel said that had not been feasible in 2022 and was still not feasible. Village of Lombard Page 5 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 Mr. Daniel closed by summarizing how the petition meets the standards for conditional uses for the drive-through and for variances for the loading area. He noted that the upstairs tenant space would be for a restaurant/banquet facility. The parking provided will meet the higher parking standard for banquet halls as opposed to restaurants. Jeff Miller, civil engineer for the petitioner, addressed the Plan Commission. Mr. Miller said the plans had not changed with respect to the wetlands or floodway. The 2022 plan was approved by the county, and the county permit would need to be updated to reflect the new site plan. He said the petitioner would also update the IDOT permit. Mr. Miller said the revised site plan had shifted the parking lot a bit to the south, which allowed for additional landscaping on the north side of the property. Mr. Miller said the light on the south end of the property would have a special reflector to cut off light shining toward the south. Mr. Daniel said the proposed subdivision plat complies with Lombard’s ordinances. The subdivision was not adjusting lot lines. It was intended to remove an access restriction that had been platted on a previous plat of subdivision. Chairperson Giuliano asked if any person would like to cross examine or speak in favor or against this petition, or for public comment. Adam Johnson cross examined the petitioner. He said the new plan should be looked at objectively and not only in comparison to the old plan. He asked if Mr. Daniel had said that there would be 100 cars per hour coming through the drive-through at peak operations. Mr. Daniel said 100 cars per hour would mean cars were going through the drive-through in less than a minute. Mr. Johnson referenced page four of the KLOA traffic report and asked about a number in the table. Mr. Daniel said that number referred to the number of cars turning into the entire site, not just the drive-through. Mr. Johnson asked how many of those cars would be in the drive-through. Mr. Daniel said he would not speculate. He noted there are eight stacking spaces in the drive-through. Mr. Johnson said he was not concerned about stacking spaces. He said there was potential for lots of traffic in the parking lot, and he was concerned about light from cars spilling onto adjacent properties. He did not think the retaining wall would prevent light spillover. Mr. Daniel said that many cars have headlights that are lower than the guardrail, large trucks may have lights higher than the guardrail. Village of Lombard Page 6 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 Mr. Johnson asked if a fence could entirely block light going onto adjacent properties. Mr. Daniel said no. Mr. Johnson asked if it would help. Mr. Daniel said a fence cannot be installed. Mr. Johnson asked if a stronger wall was built, could a fence be added to the retaining wall. Mr. Daniel said there was a lot to deal with as far as wind loads and maintenance. Also a safety issue of having a solid fence adjacent to a detention pond. Mr. Johnson asked if it was possible to build a stronger wall and have a fence that could block the lights. Mr. Daniel said you would have to change the location of the wall and have signage on the fence stating there is a stormwater pond behind it and cars should not drive into it. Mr. Johnson asked if the fence would improve the amount of light cast into nearby houses. Mr. Daniel said no. Mr. Johnson asked if reducing light would not improve quality of life for the residents. Mr. Daniel said he did not see how lights would travel 300 feet through landscaping to reach houses in York Center. Mr. Johnson asked if car lights reach 300 feet. Mr. Daniel said some do but they do not shine through landacping. Mr. Johnson asked if bald cypress trees lose needles in the winter. Mr. Daniel said yes, but there is a dense landscape buffer behind the bald cypress trees. There are overlapping layers of trees. Mr. Johnson asked if he lived there. Mr. Daniel said Mr. Johnson did not live in Co-Op Park [immediately south of the subject property], but two lots east of the park, south of Pep Boys. Mr. Johnson said this was correct. Mr. Johnson asked if he [Mr. Johnson] was there to help his friends and community members. Mr. Daniel said he did not know why Mr. Johnson was there. Mr. Johnson asked if he [Mr. Johnson] takes walks in the neighborhood. Mr. Daniel asked if Mr. Johnson was saying he [Mr. Johnson] would be walking in Co-Op Park and was concerned about light in the winter in Co-Op Park. Mr. Johnson asked if the new plans call for glass walls on the second floor. Mr. Daniel said there were no windows on the second floor in the rear. The first half of the side walls and the front wall had glass walls on the second story. Mr. Johnson asked if there would be insulation in the glass walls. Mr. Daniel said yes. Mr. Johnson asked if it would be sound insulated and Village of Lombard Page 7 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 would the sound be louder or quieter than the previous plan. Mr. Daniel said the architect was probably the one to answer that question. Mr. Daniel said the revised plan should reduce the amount of noise compared to the 2022 plan. Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Daniel could imagine noise hitting the glass and traveling into the York Center community. Mr. Daniel said no. He said distance and trees would prevent noise from reaching the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson asked if there would be any noise heard in the neighborhood. Mr. Daniel said you should not be able to hear any noise from the development in the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Daniel had said there was a neighborly agreement between the petitioner and Pep Boys regarding parking. Mr. Daniel said he had. Mr. Johnson asked if there were liability or insurance issues related to Pep Boys allowing parking on their property and would Pep Boys change the hours their parking lot lights are on. Mr. Daniel said there is no formal agreement, and nothing related to insurance. Mr. Johnson asked who would be responsible for security in the parking lot. Mr. Daniel said the shared drive aisle is the joint responsibility of the petitioner and Pep Boys. Each property owner is responsible for what happens elsewhere on their properties. Mr. Johnson said Pep Boys has a fence that has fallen over multiple times. Car headlights from the Pep Boys parking lot currently shine onto his property. Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Daniel could see the increased use of the Pep Boys parking lot resulting from the neighborly arrangement to let patrons of the petitioner’s development park on the Pep Boys lot. Mr. Daniel said he did not think people patronizing the petitioner’s development would park on the portion of the Pep Boys property where their headlights would spill over onto Mr. Johnson’s property. Mr. Johnson asked about the evening hours of current coffee shops on Roosevelt Road. Mr. Daniel said they could go until 12:00 or 1:00 a.m., and banquet facilities may go later. Mr. Johnson asked how Mr. Daniel would describe the atmosphere in the parking lots of these businesses. Mr. Daniel said he is usually not hanging out in coffee places that late. He said people have a responsibility to control what happens outside their businesses. Village of Lombard Page 8 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 Mr. Johnson said there are gatherings of multiple people in multiple cars. He asked if the petitioner’s development would lead to these gatherings. Mr. Daniel asked if Mr. Johnson was suggesting there would be car shows in the parking lot. Mr. Johnson said he was asking about people drinking coffee or tea in the parking lot. Mr. Daniel said the parking lot was not designed to be used that way. He said there was no area in the parking lot where people could gather without being observed by employees on the site. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Daniel to describe the proposed uses in the building. Mr. Daniel said there is a restaurant with 1,000 square foot dining area and drive-through; a restaurant with 500 square foot dining area; a boutique; a fourth space may be an office or a dessert place. He said all are permitted uses with the exception of the drive-through which is a conditional use. Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Daniel knew the hours of operation. Mr. Daniel said he would not speculate on hours of operation but they could run from 6:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. in some places. Mr. Johnson asked about the hours of operation for the banquet facility. Mr. Daniel said the second-floor restaurant would transition to banquet hall activities in the afternoon/evening and could go until 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. in some cases. Tim Murray cross examined the petitioner. He said Mr. Daniel had stated that parking requirements were in part based on number of employees, and there would be seven to eight employees at the banquet facility. Mr. Daniel said that would be the maximum employee level. Mr. Murray asked if staff had verified that this was a realistic staff level for banquet facilities. Mr. Daniel said there were several facilities in the Village that staff could use as a point of comparison. Mr. Daniel described how the banquet facility might function with respect to staffing. Mr. Murray said based on his background in restaurants, seven to eight employees did not seem logical. Mr. Daniel said there were 82 parking spaces provided, but Code requires 79. So there are some extra spaces available if the operator ended up having a few additional employees. Mr. Murray asked for clarification that Mr. Daniel was stating that if the banquet hall needed some additional employees it would not negatively impact parking on the site. Mr. Daniel said parking is to some degree a landlord management issue. The Zoning Ordinance tries to predict parking demand. Mr. Daniel said that the peak hours of the banquet hall would occur after the peak hours of the other Village of Lombard Page 9 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 restaurants. Mr. Murray said that was Mr. Daniel’s assumption because the petitioner did not have signed leases. Mr. Daniel said the petitioner had letters of intent. Melissa Barnett cross examined the petitioner. She asked how the situation with the bats had been resolved. Mr. Daniel said it was resolved by the petitioner stopping work. The petitioner is not able to remove certain things and is obligated to notify DuPage County if they find evidence of bats. Diane Bellows cross examined the petitioner. She asked what would be done to resolve the odors emitted into the York Center community from the kitchens in the businesses in the proposed development. The architect, Mr. Purohit, said that the kitchens would meet all hood, exhaust, and ventilation requirements for commercial kitchens. He said these codes were in effect everywhere and the proposed development would comply with the codes. He said in his professional experience the neighborhood would not typically smell odors, though there may be some days that some odors traveled if the wind was blowing in a particular direction. Ms. Bellows asked how much noise the exhaust fans would emit. Mr. Purohit said the exhaust fans were similar to exhaust fans used in all commercial applications. He did not expect noise would travel beyond the property line. Ms. Bellows asked if Mr. Purohit had a decibel level for the exhaust fans. Mr. Purohit said that information would be available when the detailed drawings were done for permitting. The exhaust fans will comply with noise ordinances. John Severance cross examined the petitioner. He said there had been flooding issues on his property and he asked who would be liable if there were additional flooding on his property. Mr. Daniel said he could not say who would be liable. If the petitioner’s development caused the flooding then the petitioner would be responsible. If the park district failed to maintain the pond in the York Center park then the park district would be responsible. A neighbor or someone upstream could do something to aggravate the problem. Mr. Daniel said the petitioner will comply with the DuPage County stormwater ordinance, which was one of the strictest ordinances in the state. Mr. Severance asked who he should contact if he has a flooding issue. Mr. Daniel said he would recommend Mr. Severance contact the York Center park district about solving the issue with the pond in Village of Lombard Page 10 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 the park. Mr. Severance said there was a lot of lighting from the Roosevelt Road corridor that disturbed him on his property. He asked what could be done to create a barrier with a fence or evergreens to the property. He said the headlights of every car that entered the parking lot would point at his property. Mr. Daniel said Mr. Severance’s property is southwest of the subject property. Mr. Daniel said Mr. Severance’s home is west of the west line of the proposed parking lot. Mr. Severance said he had observed cars in parking lots throughout the area playing music and generating noise. He asked what the petitioner proposed to do to limit noise in the parking lot. Mr. Daniel said the Village’s noise ordinance would be enforced if there were an issue with noise in the parking lot. Mr. Daniel said the noise should not be occurring. The petitioner could post “respect our neighbors” signs. He did not expect to have people playing radios in the drive-through because they are in the drive-through for a purpose and need to hear the service staff at the menu board. Mr. Severance asked Mr. Daniel to reconsider the light issue. He said his home is flooded with light coming from businesses that are nowhere near his home. Mr. Daniel said he had offered to sit down with Mr. Severance to see if there was a way to screen light by putting a buffer on his property. He said the petitioner cannot put screening within the wetland, so it may be more practical to put screening on Mr. Severance’s property. Mr. Severance said he was asking of the petitioner could reconsider the fence or some other screening that would screen the light for the whole neighborhood. Mr. Daniel said the petitioner cannot suspend a solid fence from the retaining wall. Adam Johnson cross examined the petitioner again. He asked the petitioner to show the diagram with distances to neighboring houses. He pointed out the house that is 326 feet from the proposed building. He asked if Mr. Daniel is aware that the distance that an average car light can travel is 350 feet. He asked about the difference between 350 feet and 326 feet. Mr. Daniel said there is a difference of 24 feet. He said the reality is there are trees and a change in grade on the rear of the subject property. Mr. Johnson asked if the reality is that the neighbors walk in the neighborhood every night and the neighbors know that the existing trees and proposed trees are not adequate to buffer the development. Mr. Daniel said he did not know if neighbors are walking every night. Mr. Daniel said he understood the neighborhood is concerned about Village of Lombard Page 11 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 the views from the park. The petitioner is planting bald cypress trees to buffer the development from the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson asked how many months bald cypress are without leaves. Mr. Daniel said probably October through April. Mr. Johnson asked if a stronger retaining wall could be built on the southern end of the parking lot. Mr. Daniel said the answer had been and continued to be no. He said the engineering would not allow a fence on the retaining wall. Chair Giuliano opened the meeting to public participation. Doris Dornberger addressed the Commission. She lives two lots west of the park. She was concerned about parking, noise, and wildlife. She was concerned about the impact of light on the wildlife. She was concerned that there would not be adequate parking. She was concerned about the impact of the operating hours on the wildlife. Ms. Dornberger said many coffee houses on Roosevelt Road are open late. She had visited a coffee house recently and said it was busy. She was concerned about noise. Ms. Dornberger said she appreciated the revised building is nine feet shorter than the previous proposal, but she is still concerned. Janette Villacis said she lives on the hill near the subject property, behind Sebastian’s. She expressed concerns about light. She was also concerned about people loitering in the parking lot of the Sebastian’s shopping center and deliveries occurring late at night. She said there was trespassing from the existing commercial shopping center [next door to the subject property] through her property. She was concerned about the drive-through and the amount of noise it would generate at night. She would recommend evergreens to buffer the proposed development. She was concerned about operating hours. She was concerned about animal habitat. She said lighting was an issue. Rick Sapyta said the height of a headlight on the smallest cars are two feet tall. He said the retaining wall will not screen headlights. He said there is no lighting in the York Center neighborhood. He was concerned lighting and headlights from the proposed development will negatively impact the neighborhood. Tim Murray addressed the Plan Commission. Mr. Murry directed his comment to staff. He said there had been a lot of public comment from the neighborhood stating concerns about the proposed development. He asked how staff considered neighborhood comments. Village of Lombard Page 12 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 Mr. Heniff said that when Village staff looks at zoning petitions, they look at a number of documents, including the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. He said both the Comp. Plan and the Zoning Ordinance identify the subject property for commercial uses. He said there are wetlands on the property that also impact the potential use of the property. He said all these regulations form the framework for potential development on the property and for staff review of proposed development. Ken Stein addressed the Plan Commission. He had lived in the York Center neighborhood for 30 years. He was concerned about environmental impacts. He was concerned about lighting and about the drive-through. John Severance said the amount of light in the neighborhood had increased over the years and it is intense. He said it did not make sense to put a development of this size on the subject property, he suggested a smaller development. Rick Sapyta said headlights are brighter than they have ever been. Nathan Gonzalez addressed the Commission. He was concerned about lights and trespassing by patrons of the shopping center next to the subject property into the York Center neighborhood. He said the existing trees do not screen the commercial properties. He was concerned that additional development would add to trespassing and light concerns. He said if alcohol were served at any of the businesses it could create additional problems. Mr. Stein said the countryside nature of the area is important and should be protected. Melissa Barnett addressed the Commission. She encouraged the Commissioners to visit the York Center neighborhood at night to see that there is very little light. She described area wildlife. Chairperson Giuliano asked if any person would like to cross examine or speak in favor or against this petition, or for public comment. Hearing none, she asked for the staff report. Mr. Heniff said that some of the public comments had mentioned issues related to existing development that may be code enforcement issues. Staff would follow up on these items after the meeting. He noted the code enforcement issues are separate from the proceedings at the Plan Commission. Ms. Papke presented the staff report, which was submitted to the Village of Lombard Page 13 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 public record in its entirety. The subject property is a 2.5-acre vacant property on Roosevelt Road. In 2022, the petitioner received zoning entitlements for construction of a three-story, 18,500 square foot banquet facility. The 2022 approvals are still in place on the property; the petitioner could, with the proper building permits, develop the property as proposed in 2022. Since 2022, however, the petitioner has revised the development plan to a two-story 14,800 square foot multi-tenant commercial building with a drive-through service lane on the east side of the building. With the current petition, the petitioner is requesting approval of the revised plan, including approval of a conditional use for the drive-through and a variance for the loading area which were not part of the 2022 petition. The previous approval included several variances and conditional uses that remain necessary for the revised site plan, and the petitioner is requesting that these entitlements remain in place for the revised development plan. Several previously granted entitlements are not required for the revised plan, and the petitioner is requesting those entitlements be repealed. The subject property includes substantial wetlands on the south and west side of the property which are subject to DuPage County special management area permitting. The petitioner has been working with DuPage County on permitting for this area. The revised plan does not change the extent or nature of the wetlands, required buffers, or landscaping at the south edge of the development. The drive-through is proposed for the east tenant space in the building. The pickup window is on the east elevation, with room for the Code-required eight stacking spaces on the east and south sides of the building. There would be room for additional vehicle queuing in the drive aisle on the west side of the building, limiting potential for spillover traffic on Roosevelt Road. The drive-through includes a bypass lane, per Village policy for drive-throughs. KLOA, the Village’s traffic consultant, reviewed the plan and recommends the drive-through and bypass lanes narrow to a single lane at the point they exit into the north drive aisle. KLOA also recommends several “stop” and “do not enter” signs to aid internal circulation. Drive-through establishments are common along the Roosevelt Road corridor. Staff supports the conditional use for the drive-through subject to the KLOA recommendations. Access to the property will occur by a full access curb cut from Roosevelt. There will also be a driveway connecting the subject property to the neighboring Pep Boys property within an existing cross access easement on the northeast corner of the property. The development will provide 82 parking spaces. The proposed tenant mix has a parking requirement of 79 spaces. KLOA has reviewed the projected parking demand for the development and finds that the development will provide adequate parking. KLOA noted that the Village of Lombard Page 14 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 different tenants in the building will experience peak customer draws at different times of the day, mitigating the potential for parking issues. Ms. Papke noted that the 2022 plan approved for the subject property required a variance for the number of parking spaces. The revised plan does not require a parking variance. Loading activities will occur in the bypass lane on the east side of the drive-through. The petitioner has requested a variance to allow loading to occur five feet from the side property line, where Code would require a 10-foot setback. The petitioner has proposed this location for loading in order to keep loading activities away from the wetlands on the south and west sides of the property and from the residential neighborhood located south of the property. Staff is supportive of the requested variance, and notes that the loading area on the revised plan is in the same general location as the loading area on the previously approved plan. The landscape plan has been modified to address changes in the parking lot to the west of the building. Two previously granted variances for parking lot lighting are no longer required by the revised plan. The south extent of the parking lot and the landscaping adjacent to the wetlands has not changed. Existing vegetation in the wetlands will be maintained per DuPage County special management area permitting requirements. As with the original petition, the revised plan includes additional screening trees between the wetland and the parking lot, subject to final approval by DuPage County. The lighting on the rear of the building will be reduced from what was previously approved. There is one light in the south area of the parking lot. The photometric plan shows the petitioner will meet lighting standards. The 2022 approvals for this project included conditional uses for building height and outdoor display and sales. Neither of these entitlements is required for the revised development plan. The petitioner is requesting these entitlements be repealed, along with the other unnecessary variances for parking, landscaping, and lighting of landscaping islands previously discussed. The petitioner also requests approval of a plat of subdivision. The subject property is part of a two-lot subdivision in conjunction with the Pep Boys property at 865 E. Roosevelt Road. The original plat of subdivision included an access restriction for the curb cut on Roosevelt Road. The petitioner is replatting the subdivision in order to remove this restriction. No development is planned for the Pep Boys property. Staff found the petition and the revised development plan met the standards for conditional uses and variances and recommended Village of Lombard Page 15 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 approval of the petition subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Ms. Papke noted that staff had received one written comment, which was included in the Plan Commissioners’ packets. Chairperson Giuliano asked if there were any questions or comments on the staff report Commissioner Spreenberg said that the parking analysis noted that peak operating hours for the various tenants are staggered. He asked what the parking requirement of the development would be if all tenant spaces were operating at peak capacity at the same time. Ms. Papke said the Zoning Ordinance sets parking standards based on the uses and square footage of the building. Based on the size of the building and the proposed tenant mix, the Zoning Ordinance requires 79 parking spaces, where the petitioner is proposing 82. Ms. Papke deferred to Brandon Mays with KLOA for more discussion on KLOA’s findings about the staggered peak operating hours and the impacts on parking. Mr. Heniff said that owners of retail commercial strip centers were responsible for having a tenant mix that works well on the property. The Village Code sets minimum parking requirements, but property owners also need to monitor the tenant mix and parking demands on a particular property. Mr. Heniff reiterated that the proposed plan meets parking requirements in Code and no zoning relief is needed for parking on the property. Chairperson Giuliano asked if there were any questions or comments on the staff report. Hearing none, she opened the meeting to comments from the commissioners. Commissioner Johnston asked about the distance between the parking lot and the floodway. Mr. Miller, the petitioner’s engineer, said the distance was approximately 30 feet. Commissioner Johnston asked for confirmation that hours of operation had not been established. Mr. Daniel concurred operating hours had not been established yet. Commissioner Johnston asked about the average time for a vehicle to be in the drive-through. Mr. Mays said it would differ depending on the type of user. He estimated 5-7 minutes or fewer. Village of Lombard Page 16 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 Commissioner Johnston asked about stacking on the east side of the building. Mr. Daniel said there are three car spaces for stacking on the east side. Mr. Miller clarified there are eight total stacking spaces: three on the east side and five on the south side of the building. Commissioner Johnston said there were neighborhood concerns about lighting. He asked if it would be possible to put evergreens between the parking lot and floodway line. He said evergreens could block light and solve neighborhood concerns. Mr. Miller said the petitioner had considered this, however DuPage County special management area regulations will not allow it. The whole area between the wall and the south and west property lines is a wetland mitigation area. Evergreens cannot be installed in the wetland buffer because they do not naturally occur in these areas. He said there was a small area adjacent to the southern leg of the parking lot that was not in the buffer, and the design includes several trees/shrubs in this area. Commissioner Johnston suggested the petitioner consider putting evergreens in landscape islands to provide year-round screening where possible. Mr. Miller said the petitioner has proposed bald cypress trees in the wetland buffer area because they have had good experience with those types of trees in the conditions present on the subject property. Commissioner Johnston said lighting was an issue brought up by the neighborhood. He said the petitioner had decreased the amount of lighting on the building as compared to the previous proposal. Commissioner Johnston asked if it would be possible for patrons to trespass from the parking lot to the York Center neighborhood. Mr. Miller said the retaining wall and wetland area would make trespassing difficult. Commissioner Spreenberg asked how much more space would be needed around the retaining wall to install a fence to block light. Mr. Daniel said you would need around one foot to install a fence. Mr. Miller said they had tried to find space for a fence given the wetland buffer but the site was very tight and there was not space. Commissioner Spreenberg noted there was five feet between the east side of the parking lot and the property line. Would it be possible to shift the development to the east in order to have space for a fence? Mr. Daniel said it would may be possible. He and Mr. Miller discussed the presence of an easement and other site planning considerations Village of Lombard Page 17 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 that might come into play if the development were shifted to the east. Mr. Miller said the petitioner has recently received approval from DuPage County and the position of the wetland buffer and parking lot had been a major component of that approval. Mr. Daniel and Mr. Miller explained that the County would not allow plating of trees in the wetlands on the south and west side of the property. Mr. Daniel said he had spoken to neighbors about the possibility of planting canopy trees on neighboring properties where there were no wetland planting restrictions, as a way of creating a canopy that would block light. He noted that existing trees in the wetland buffer, which cannot be removed, are smaller. He said elevation changes on some of the neighboring properties make it difficult to screen the views of the development from some properties. Mr. Daniel noted that the flooding issues related to the pond on the York Center park property had been ongoing. He also noted that the petitioner could not fix lighting issues related to existing developments. Commissioner Spreenberg asked if the bypass lane is a standard required by the Village Code. Ms. Papke said the bypass lane is a policy that the Village has had when reviewing drive-throughs. Mr. Heniff said the purpose was to allow cars in the drive-through the exit without waiting to get through the line if needed. He noted that sometimes the bypass lane served as a space for temporary loading, as proposed by the petitioner in this case. Commissioner Verson said she had fewer concerns about traffic and parking and noise than she had with the original plan that was approved in 2022. Commissioner Spreenberg said the Plan Commission had voted in favor of the 2022 plan and the revised plan improved a number of things. He said with the parking adjustment there seemed to be a possibility for the petitioner to do something to address the screening on the south side of the development. Commissioner Spreenberg asked staff if there were concerns about shifting the drive aisle to the east as he had suggested. Ms. Papke said this alteration would change the nature of the variance the petitioner was requesting for the loading area and would require a new variance from the perimeter lot landscaping requirement. Both of these changes would require re-advertisement of the petition. Mr. Heniff asked Mr. Daniel about the distance between the property line and the Pep Boys building on the adjacent property. Mr. Daniel said it was between nine and nine and a half feet between the Village of Lombard Page 18 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 property line and Pep Boys building. Commissioner Invergo made a motion to recommend approval of the petition subject to the nine conditions in the staff report. Commission Johnston seconded the motion, but stated he wanted to add a 10th condition of approval that required the petitioner to look into installing evergreen trees in the parking lot islands, as he and the petitioner had discussed earlier in the proceedings. Attorney Skrodzki said the Commission needed to vote on Commissioner Johnston’s request to amend Commissioner Invergo’s motion. Commissioner Johnston made a motion to amend Commissioner Invergo’s motion. Commissioner Invergo seconded the motion. The Plan Commission voted 6-0 to amend Commissioner Invergo’s motion. On a motion by Commissioner Invergo, and a second by Commissioner Johnston, the Plan Commission voted 5-1 to recommend that the Village Board approve the petition associated with PC 24-06 subject to the nine (9) conditions in the staff report plus one additional condition added by Commissioner Johnston’s amendment to Commissioner Invergo’s motion: 1. That the petitioner shall satisfactorily address all comments noted within the Inter-Departmental Review Committee Report; 2. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the plans submitted as part of this petition and referenced in the Inter-Departmental Review Committee Report, except as they may be changed to conform to Village Code; 3. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive building permits for the proposed improvements; 4. This approval shall be subject to the commencement time provisions as set forth within Section 155.103(F)(11); 5. Per the approval of PC 22-05, the petitioner shall include screening trees (bald cypress or a suitable alternative suggested by DuPage County) along the northeast portion of the wooded wetland or wetland buffer near the mid-elevation that divides the retention area from the wetland. Such trees shall meet DuPage County’s design approval for the wetland area. The petitioner is allowed to amend this condition should DuPage County require a change (in the number, type, or location of the trees); 6. That if DuPage County eliminates the bald cypress trees for Village of Lombard Page 19 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 screening, the petitioner shall place a 4’ (four foot) tall fence for screening in conformance with the plan prepared by the petitioner with PC 22-05; 7. That approval of this petition shall include repeal of the relief previously granted by Ordinance 8077 that is no longer required as a result of the revised development plan submitted with PC 24- 06, as follows: a. Conditional use for building height (Ordinance 8077, Section 2); b. Conditional use for outdoor display and sales (Ordinance 8077, Section 3); c. Parking variance (Ordinance 8077, Section 4); d. Loading zone variance (Ordinance 8077, Section 5); e. Landscape island variance (Ordinance 8077, Section 7); f. Lighting variance for uplighting (Ordinance 8077, Section 8); 8. That the conditions of approval of Ordinance 8077 shall be amended to reflect the repeal of the relief enumerated in Condition 7 above; 9. That all wall-mounted lighting on the south façade of the building shall be directed downward; and 10. The petitioner shall, if approved by staff, install evergreen trees in landscape islands along the south edge of the parking lot. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5- Ruth Sweetser, Leigh Giuliano, Bill Johnston, Tony Invergo, and Alissa Verson Nay: 1- Robert Spreenberg Business Meeting Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Johnston, seconded by Commissioner Invergo, that the minutes of the April 15, 2024, meeting be approved. The motion carried by the following vote Aye: 6- Ruth Sweetser, Leigh Giuliano, Bill Johnston, Tony Invergo, Robert Spreenberg, and Alissa Verson Public Participation Village of Lombard Page 20 Plan Commission Minutes May 20, 2024 Mr. Adam Johnson stated he was disappointed with the Plan Commission's recommendation on PC 24-06. DuPage County Hearings There was no Dupage County Hearings Chairperson's Report There was no Chairperson's Report. Planner's Report There was no Planner's Report. Unfinished Business There was no Unfinished Business. New Business There was no New Business Subdivision Reports There were no Subdivision Reports Site Plan Approvals There were no Site Plan Approvals Workshops There were no Workshops. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Johnston, seconded by Commissioner Invergo, to adjourn the meeting at 9:48 p.m. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. Village of Lombard Page 21