Tom Ewer's Interoffice Memo to the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals 

Interoffice Memo 

TO: Village of Lisle Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals

FROM: Thomas F. Ewers, Community Development Director

DATE: October 1,1998

RE: 2665 Maple Avenue - Meijer Request for Annexation, B-2 Zoning, Special Use, Planned Unit Development, and Subdivision

This matter was presented to you at a joint public hearing of the Village Board, Plan Commission, and Zoning Board of Appeals on July 9,1998. Discussions on this matter were tabled to the October 8, 1998 Plan Commission meeting and October 21,1998 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting at the request of the petitioner. Since the public hearing additional information has been submitted which is attached as follows:

1. July 10, 1998 Walter E. Deuchler Associates, Inc., Village of Lisle Consultant, Final Subdivision Plat Review Letter.

2. September 30, 1998 Walter E. Deuchler Associates, Inc., Village Consultant, Engineering Plan Review Letter.

3. September 30, 1998 Rolf C. Campbell & Associates Inc., Village of Lisle Planning and Landscape Consultant, Letter of Review.

4. October 1, 1998 Gewalt-Hamilton, Village of Lisle Traffic Consultant, Review Letter.

5. October 1,1998 Camiros Ltd. Financial Impact Statement.

6. Meijer Brochure mailed to registered voters in the Village of Lisle.

7. September 25, 1998 Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, Aboona, Inc., petitioner's Traffic Engineer, Site Traffic Analysis.

8. Copies of all letters in support and opposition received since the January 9,1998 pubic hearing and before the July 31,1998 deadline for submittals set by the Village of Lisle Mayor.

At this time it is the recommendation of the Village of Lisle Community Development Director that the Village of Lisle Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals recommend that the Village of Lisle Board of Trustees approve the petitioner's request with certain conditions. Therefore, I would ask that you take the following actions:

1. Plan Commission at your October 8,1998 regular meeting adopt a motion recommending that the Village of Lisle Board of Trustees approve the petitioner's request for Annexation, B-2 Zoning for Lots 1 through 6, R-4 Zoning for Lots 6 through 8, Final PUD approval for all lots with the exception of Lot 6 which should be recommended for conceptual PUD approval only, and Subdivision. This recommendation should be based on

the Findings of Fact attached to this memo and on the conditions included in this memo.

2. Zoning Board of Appeals at your October 21,1998 regular meeting adopt a motion recommending that the Village of Lisle Board of Trustees approve a Special Use for a gas station on Lot 2, drive through lanes on Lots 1 and one only of Lots 3, 4, or 5, and outdoor seating for Lots 1, 3, 4, and 5. This recommendation should be based on the Findings of Fact attached to this memo and the conditions included in this memo.

This positive recommendation of the Community Development Director includes

the following conditions:

1. That B-2 Zoning be granted only for Lots 1 through 6 and that R-4 Zoning be granted for Lots 6 through 8.

2. That final PUD approval be granted for all lots except for Lot 6 which should receive only conceptual PUD approval at this time. A separate public hearing process will need to be conducted in the future before any preliminary or final Planned Unit Development may be adopted for Lot 6. Such development will need to conform with the R-4 Zoning standards which prohibit more than 12 dwelling units per acre for two bedroom units and contain specific height and setback requirements. The final PUD will also permit a departure from standards in Section 4-4 of the Village code to permit additional signage on the property pursuant to the petitioner's proposed sign package and will permit a departure from Section 5-9-3-A-1

Development Director's recommendation does not include a recommendation to grant a variation in setback from the south property line. The R-4 setback standards will apply to any development on Lot 6. The Community Development Director's recommendation also does not include a departure from standards in lighting. The petitioners will be expected to provide site lighting with 25' high poles and no more than 400 watt metal halide fixtures that additional comply with Village code requirements to not exceed 3 foot-candles at property lines adjacent to residential districts and to not cause objectionable glare to surrounding properties.

3. That special use permit approval be granted only for the gas station on Lot 2, for a drive through on Lot 1, and only one drive through on one of Lots 3, 4, or 5 and to allow outdoor seating areas for Lots 1, 3, 4, and 5 with the condition that any such outdoor seating areas comply with all requirements of the Village code.

4. That, prior to any final action by the Village of Lisle Board of Trustees, final Plats of Annexation, Planned Unit Development, Conceptual Plan for Lot 6, and Subdivision be submitted to, and approved by, Village of Lisle staff and consultants. Additionally the Plat of Subdivision must be revised as shown on the attached July 10,1998 Walter E. Deuchler Associates, Inc. letter and must be revised to show that all parts of Lot 2 are more than 150' away from any adjacent residential district.

5. That, prior to any final action by the Village of Lisle Board of Trustees, final Site Engineering Plans be submitted to, and approved by, the Village of Lisle staff and consultants. Further those plans must comply with all requirements shown on the September 20, 1998 Walter E. Deuchler Associates, Inc. report and must comply with all Village of Lisle and DuPage County codes. Additionally the petitioner will be required to enter into a Stormwater Management Agreement concerning the stormwater and wetlands operations and maintenance of the entire property. A part of this Stormwater Management Agreement will include the requirement of an emergency generator to activate any stormwater pumps and additionally require that the emergency generator from the Meijer

Superstore building be able to be used as a back-up generator for stormwater pumping. The Site Plan will also need to include the requirements that there be no fence around the dry detention pond and that the private University Drive be rebuilt in accordance with Village of Lisle codes and standards. Further the petitioners will need to obtain the necessary Village of Lisle and DuPage County code variation in order to move water from one watershed to another.

6. That, prior to final action by the Village of Lisle Board of Trustees, final Landscape Plans be submitted to, and approved by, Village of Lisle staff and consultants. These plans will need to be revised to comply with the September 30, 1998 Rolf C. Campbell & Associates, Inc. report and will further need to be revised to include proper screening for any outdoor uses (i.e. pallet storage, dumpsters, garden center, etc.). Final Landscape Plans will need to be submitted for final PUD approval for Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 prior to any development on those lots. Also we will be requiring that a landscape screen be constructed along the south side of Lot 6 as part of the Meijer Superstore construction in a landscape buffer zone that will be part of any future R-4 multiple family residential development.

7. That, prior to final action by the Village of Lisle Board of Trustees, preliminary Architectural Floor Plans and Elevations be submitted to, and approved by, the Village of Lisle staff for Lots 1 and Lots 2. Future development of Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 will need to be completed in compliance with Village codes. Further, the petitioner will be required to enter into a Signage Control Agreement with the Village of Lisle in accordance with their proposed sign package. Lastly the petitioner will need to comply with Village code that does not permit any exposed concrete block product on buildings.

8. That, prior to final action by the Village of Lisle Board of Trustees, all traffic issues be addressed on the petitioner's plans including compliance with the October 1, 1998 Gewalt/Hamilton Letter of Review. Further the petitioner will need to enter into a Traffic Control Agreement with the Village of Lisle that will limit truck traffic to the east side of the property and the private University Drive that will set times for truck deliveries and snow plowing, that will not permit truck trailer storage in any areas other than the approved loading docks, and that will otherwise regulate all traffic control devices on the site. It will be an additional requirement that the driveway on the south side of the Meijer Superstore be limited to emergency vehicle and fire lane use only and that it be chained off at either end with signs indicating that it is a fire lane.

9. That, as a condition of Final PUD Approval, all proper Village of Lisle impacts of $1.50 per square foot for commercial development and $300.00 per dwelling unit of residential development be paid. Further that, prior to any final PUD approval for Lot 6, all proper school, park, and library impact fees be paid as required by Village code.

10. That all building and site development comply with Village of Lisle codes and standards.

11. That, prior to any site development or building permits being issued, a Letter of Credit equal to 110% of the cost of all site improvements be submitted to, and approved by, the Village of Lisle staff and attorney.

As per the additional materials submitted by the petitioner and the above recommendation you will note that the petitioner's request has been revised to indicate R-4 zoning for the south half of the property. Any development on Lot 6 will require separate Planned Unit Development approval and will need to comply with the R-4 standards for density, height, and setback. This would limit development on Lot 6 to no more than 12 dwelling units per acre. For comparison purposes the adjacent High Point Townhome development has 14 dwelling units per acre and the adjacent Green Trails Apartments development has 22 dwelling units per acre.

The petitioner has submitted a Financial Impact Statement that does show substantial positive benefits to the Village of Lisle and other taxing districts. These benefits would not accrue with residential development of the entire site and additional services would need to be provided by all taxing districts if the site were developed with only residential uses. All projected tax revenues benefit the districts that will be asked to provide services to the subject property.

Prior discussions with other prospective developers of this site centered around a mixed use development of the site that would include commercial and residential uses to the highest and best benefit to the Village of Lisle. It is my belief that the proposed plan complies with that consideration. Part of the site adjacent to a County highway will be developed commercially and will provide property tax and sales tax revenue benefits to the Village of Lisle and other taxing districts. The south portion of the site will be limited to residential development and open spaces for a dry pond and wetland area. Maximum buffers will be provided to single family residential properties to the south. The closest house to the south is 400' from Lot 6 and 1200' from Lot 1. Mixed residential and commercial use is not uncommon in the Village of Lisle or other areas. Commercial use adjacent to major arterial roadways is common. The proposed uses, especially with. The project revision to include residential uses on Lot 6, is appropriate for the area in accordance with Village of Lisle planning practices and policies.

There has been much opposition raised to this proposed project and several concerns need to be addressed. Copies of all letters favoring or opposing the petitioner's request have been made available to the Village Board, Plan Commission, and Zoning Board of Appeals members. I have reviewed those letters and the testimony offered at the public hearing and would like to address several issues as follows:

1. The petitioner's request is inappropriate for a residential area and creates bad precedent. Maple Avenue is a four lane County highway.

Benedictine Parkway and Abbeywood Drive are collector streets. Immediately surrounding land uses include a mix of commercial and multiple family residential uses. Development of this single site will not change the overall character of Maple Avenue which does include large tracts of land developed with residential and institutional uses. Anywhere you look in Lisle commercial and residential development exist side by side. Village of Lisle codes do create proper buffers between districts and do address other traffic and environmental concerns. Additional concern was raised concerning the possible failure of a Meijer Superstore. The petitioners have indicated that they have never had a failed store and it is my belief that the building could be adaptively reused as a shopping center even if it were not used as a Meijer Superstore. Retail sales space with adequate parking is always marketable and is needed in the Village of Lisle.

2. Traffic. I do concur that traffic concerns are the major issue with this development. The petitioners have submitted a Traffic Study that recommends several on-site and off-site traffic improvements. The Village of Lisle Traffic Consultant has additionally suggested required improvements. Maple Avenue is a County highway. Benedictine Parkway and Abbeywood Drive are collector streets. All these streets were designed to handle more traffic than they currently handle. The proposed development will not create a solid stream of bumper to bumper traffic or impassable traffic conditions. The surrounding roadway system is adequate to handle the traffic distribution from this site. Little or no traffic will go through the areas north of Maple Avenue which addresses many of the child safety and school concerns that were raised by objectors. Additionally Village code does require sidewalks on the frontage of all newly developed properties so there will be off-street pedestrian access capabilities if the proposed development is constructed. The staff recommendation also includes requirements concerning a traffic control agreement that will regulate all traffic on the site and will especially regulate the access and location of truck trailers. The traffic control that any truck trailers on the site be located only in the approved loading docks. The Village staff recommendation also includes that the driveway on the south side of the store be constructed and regulated only as a fire lane.

3. Security and Crime. Most of the customers for the proposed store will come from a 3 mile radius. The Village of Lisle does not have significant problems with crime, gangs, drugs, or congregations of homeless people. There is absolutely no reason to believe that these problems would be increased by the development of the proposed project. Most crimes associated with retail developments in the Village of Lisle are crimes of theft and vandalism committed against the retail developments. There is no question that any development in the Village of Lisle increases the need for police services. The estimated tax revenues to be generated by this project help to pay for those increased services.

4. Flooding. The petitioner's plan will make adequate provision for all stormwater control and wetland mitigation and maintenance. The plan will more than comply with Village of Lisle and DuPage County codes. The plan will serve to correct a flooding problem in the Steeple Run area north of Maple Avenue. The plan includes stormwater storage on-site approximately 2.5 times greater than any required by code and sufficient to handle two consecutive 100 year storms and the storm levels calculated based on the 1996 severe storm event. The stormwater storage and control devices included as part of the proposed plan are something that could not be accomplished by a lesser project. The staff recommendation includes requirements that there be a generator for the stormwater pumps and that there be a second generator in the superstore that can be tied into serve those pumps if the first generator fails. Even if both generators were to fail the water would be stored on-site and would not overflow in any storm condition. All water released from the site will be done in incremental amounts after storm events and will provide no negative impact on downstream properties. Further all stormwater will be filtered through wetlands to be constructed by the developer which will serve to improve the water quality. There is no doubt in my mind that this developer has the resources to provide proper stormwater storage and release and to provide stormwater control measures that will alleviate prior problems to surrounding properties.

5. Other businesses in town will fail. We have had much commercial development over the years in the Village of Lisle. Further there has been much development in surrounding areas of regional shopping centers. There always exist, in a competitive market, the ability for retailers to be successful.

6. Increased noise, fighting, and pollution. The staff recommendation includes several conditions concerning truck traffic to and from the site. The petitioner has testified that all trash compacting activities will be conducted inside their building. The staff recommendation includes a requirement that all site lighting comply with Village code and that the height of the lighting fixtures be less than the height of the proposed Meijer Superstore which will mean that those lights will not be visible from properties to the south. All lighting south of the store will also need to comply with Village code. Village of Lisle code also has requirements concerning maintenance of property in terms of proper storage and disposal of garbage which will apply to the petitioner's property as it does to all properties in the Village of Lisle. All sanitary waste from the building will be adequately handled in underground sewers. All stormwater discharged from the property will be filtered through a wetland using engineering best management practices for water quality.

7. The development should be located on Ogden Avenue. There are no sites on Ogden Avenue large enough to accommodate this development.

8, The entire site should be developed with residential uses. The petitioners have revised their proposal to include residential and open space uses for the south half of the site. Complete residential development of this site would not generate the same property and sales tax revenues that will be generated by the petitioner's proposal. Additionally complete residential development of this site would result in greater costs of services needing to be provided by all the taxing districts. Lastly the traffic from a residential development would be less than that of the proposed commercial development but would still constitute increased traffic to surrounding roadways.

9. Surrounding property values will be negatively impacted. There has been millions of square feet of commercial development in the Village of Lisle in recent years. For residential property, other than normal fluctuations in the overall market, there has been no devaluation in the Village of Lisle as a result of commercial development. Residential and commercial development exist side by side in many places in Lisle and surrounding areas with no negative impact on residential property values. I am sure that the Lisle Township Tax Assessor could indicate that there has been no downward assessment of residential properties in the Village of Lisle as a result of commercial development.

10. Ambiance and quality of life. There is no question that development of this property with a mixed commercial and residential use will be far different than the currently vacant and farmed state of the property. However, major portions of the property will be retained for open space and wetland use. Impacts such as traffic, flooding, pollution, lighting, and crime will be addressed to the extent possible as discussed elsewhere in this memo. The Village of Lisle is no longer a small rural community. Explosive growth in the last three decades has been adequately controlled and managed through proper planning efforts of the Village of Lisle. Development of this property can be accommodated with current Village of Lisle infrastructure. Village staff did look at surrounding areas that have similar sized commercial developments. These areas all have adjacent residential development, some of it new or being newly constructed. The overall mixed use development of the Village of Lisle through comprehensive planning and proper zoning code enforcement has provided many benefits to the residents of the Village of Lisle. The Village of Lisle is a thriving and improving suburban community with an increasing tax base and sound fiscal management that protects and provides benefits to al( residents in the Village.

11. Tax increment financing. At this point the petitioner's request for tax increment financing has been denied. This does not mean that the petitioner is precluded from again requesting tax increment financing. While tax increment financing would result in reduced tax revenues to the Village of Lisle and other taxing districts for some specified time period all taxing districts would eventually realize the full tax benefits included in the petitioner's fiscal impact study. I understand that the petitioner is negotiating with the property owner on the price of the property and that perhaps tax increment financing will not be necessary to make the project work and residential zoning will be possible for Lot 6. These are substantial changes from the petitioner's original request.

Decisions concerning the future development of this property are hard to make and are opposed by many people. The Plan Commission, Zoning Board, and Village of Lisle Board of Trustees will need to make their decisions based on the best interests of the Village of Lisle. It is my belief that most of the perceived negative impacts of the proposed development can be mitigated based on compliance with Village codes and the Community Development Director's other recommendations. It is also my belief that we have a developer who has the resources to accomplish reasonable development of this property at this time. The Village of Lisle Board of Trustees have many times stressed the need to attract additional retail sale tax producing users to the Village of Lisle. That has been a direction to the Community Development Director and Economic Development Director. This project offers the opportunity to attract a major retail sales tax producing user to the Village of Lisle while addressing concerns regarding residential zoning and perceived negative impacts. There are no other sites available in town that are large enough for this development. No one can say what other developments might be proposed for this property in the future should this project be denied but I believe everyone would agree that the property will be developed in the future. The questions are: If not here, where? If not now, when?

As always if anyone on the Plan Commission or Zoning Board desires to adopt a recommendation different than that proposed by the Community Development Director they will need to provide written Findings of Fact in support of their recommendation or will need to provide specific direction to the Community Development Director concerning preparation of such Findings of Fact. Any recommendations not properly supported by Findings of Fact are open to legal challenge in the future.

By copy of this memo to the petitioners I remind them that they must be present before the Plan Commission on October 8, 1998 and the Zoning Board of Appeals on October 21, 1998 to answer any questions you may have and to accept your recommendations. The Plan Commission meeting will be held at the Lisle Junior High School. The meeting notices that will be sent out with your packets specify the new location of that meeting. I will be present at that meeting.

TFE:kk108.8