Village of Lombard Legistar System

155.707 (A) (3) to allow for a reduction of the required transitional landscape yard from

10 feet to 5 feet;

c. A variation from Section 155.416 (M) and Section 155.602 to allow for a reduction

of the required number of off-street parking spaces for a theater from thirty-seven (37)

to zero (0);

d. A variation from Section 155.508 (C) (6) (a) to allow for a reduction of the required

front yard for a planned development abutting the R2 Single-Family Residence District

from thirty (30) feet to four (4) feet;

e. A variation from Section 155.508 (C) (6) (b) and Section 155.707 (B) (3) to allow

for the elimination of the required transitional landscape yard improvements;

f. A variation from Section 155.709 (B) to eliminate the requirement to provide one

(1) shade tree for every seventy-five (75) lineal feet of required perimeter lot

landscaping; and

2. Approve a conditional use for outdoor dining; and

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

Commission.

(DISTRICT #4)

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition. He introduced the petition and

submitted the Inter-departmental Review Report to the file in its entirety.

He then discussed the proposed moratorium. The intent of the moratorium is to review

all land development regulations currently in place affecting development activity along

the Roosevelt Road Corridor within the Village. Through this process, development

regulations would be amended to reflect the goals of the Village's Comprehensive Plan

and other plans and policies of the Village. During the moratorium period, staff would

review the following issues:

A. Whether a new zoning district classification should be created for the Roosevelt

Road Corridor or whether an overlay district should be established;

B. The permitted and conditional uses that are/should be allowed within the Roosevelt

Road Corridor; and

C. The bulk regulations, signage and landscaping criteria that are/should be applicable

within the Roosevelt Road Corridor.

He noted that the proposed moratorium would apply to all properties located within the

Roosevelt Road Corridor that are either zoned for or utilized as commercial uses. The

moratorium would temporarily put a hold on the following activities within the Corridor:

1. Any construction of a new principal building;

2. Any construction of an addition, to an existing principal or accessory building, of

more than 500 square feet in size;

3. Any new freestanding signs; however, temporary signs and panel face changes

would be exempt from the moratorium; and

4. Any change in the type of commercial use for an existing commercial space of 5,000

or more square feet of gross floor area.

Projects approved by the Village prior to the establishment of the moratorium would be

exempt from the moratorium provisions, provided that construction begins on the project

within one (1) year of the date of approval.

He then discussed the genesis of the moratorium concept. He noted that in the past

staff has worked on a number of development issues along the Butterfield Road corridor

to enhance its viability. Notable examples included the Fountain Square and Highlands

of Lombard planned developments as well as the Yorktown Mall/Shops on Butterfield

improvements. With these approvals in place, the Village Board in its strategic planning

sessions has asked staff to turn its attention to the Roosevelt Road corridor.

Specifically, the Board directed staff to begin a comprehensive review of the corridor to

determine what actions should be undertaken to address development concerns and

economic impacts of redevelopment within the corridor.

He noted that Roosevelt Road is a primary commercial corridor and a Strategic Regional

Arterial roadway within the Village. It is essential that the zoning and development

regulations established for properties within the corridor reflect the goals set forth within

the Comprehensive Plan and reflect the desires of the community. Also of great

importance is the goal to ensure that the economic vitality of the corridor is maintained

and enhanced.

He noted that a number of properties within the corridor are currently in transition. These

properties currently have or may have significant vacancies in the near future. Other

sites are slated for development or redevelopment activity. At the same time, property

owners and developers are asking staff to provide comment on prospective

development plans or provide direction regarding their proposals. While staff could

direct inquirers back to the relevant Village Codes, staff believes it is more important to

undertake a greater overall analysis of the corridor to determine if the Village Codes

would actually produce the desired output.

He then referenced several submitted exhibits depicting the existing conditions along the

corridor. These included the existing land use, the Comprehensive Plan, the existing

zoning districts and an aerial of the corridor. He noted that the corridor is currently

designated for community commercial uses within the Comprehensive Plan. The

existing zoning along the corridor is a patchwork of B3 and B4 properties, many of which

are also controlled by planned development approvals.

He then stated that the intent of the moratorium is to review all land development

regulations currently in place that would affect development activity within the corridor.

Through this process, development and zoning regulations would be amended that

reflect the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans and policies of the

Village. The intent of the analysis is also intended to look at the corridor

comprehensively rather than reviewing the properties on an individual basis.

He noted past reviews undertaken by the Village including the establishment of the B5A

zoning district. He noted that the corridor review can be considered a first step as part

of an update to the Village's Comprehensive Plan. He also referenced past efforts along

the East St. Charles Road corridor in the late 1990s.

He noted that many of the Roosevelt Road properties abut residential properties and

what the appropriate treatment for the transitional yards would be. Future analysis will

include design aspects, signage, landscaping, and curb cuts.

He identified the issues and items that may be reviewed during the moratorium period,

as referenced within the staff report. The final analysis may not necessarily include

recommendations to amend all of the areas to be reviewed. There are a number of

tools that will be reviewed including establishing a new zoning district, creating a corridor

overlay district, development design guidelines, and/or establishing more form-based

zoning regulations.

Questions were previously raised to staff about the need for a moratorium. He stated

that staff would not want to see the Village being placed in the position of reviewing

projects slated to start in 2007 with one set of regulations and others that will start in

2008 with another set of regulations. As such the proposed moratorium would serve as

a temporary “time-out” while all aspects of the corridor are reviewed.

The moratorium is intended to extend for a nine-month period. Within this timeframe,

the first six-month period would consist of a comprehensive review of the study

elements and, if necessary, an additional three-month period is also suggested in order

to allow any affected codes that would be amended, to be properly considered through a

separate public hearing and/or committee review processes.

In addition he noted that in anticipation of the moratorium, staff also sent out notices to

all property owners and known business tenants. Staff also held an informational

meeting on December 6, 2006 to review the moratorium concept with the affected

property owners and/or business tenants. General concerns about the moratorium and

its applicability to specific properties were discussed. Staff noted that if a project is

deemed necessary and desirable by the Village Board, an exemption from the

moratorium could be approved for a specific project.

He referenced the appendices within the staff report that depicted the moratorium area,

the topics to be reviewed and a draft Ordinance for discussion and review.

He closed his presentation by noting some of the comments previously raised to staff

including exemption provisions and change of use provisions.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

John Moroni, owner of the Westgate Lincoln Mercury property, 500 E. Roosevelt Road,

inquired further about the exemption provision. He also asked if the moratorium would

allow for a new automotive establishment to be located on his property. Mr. Heniff noted

that the intent of the ordinance is to provide an opportunity to allow for a like use to

occupy the premises, but not a change of use.

Mr. Moroni stated that it may not be a smart move to have a property vacant for a

nine-month period and asked if there is a possibility for an exemption. Mr. Heniff stated

that the staff report and recommendation notes that if the Board finds that a project is of

a substantial design and is consistent with the objectives of the corridor review, the

Board could grant special exception.

Mark Blum, 400 Skokie Boulevard, Northbrook, represents Roosevelt Associates, owner

of a shopping center within the corridor. He noted his existing tenants include Sports

Authority, Fruitful Yield, Marshall's and X-Sport Fitness. He noted that the original

Sportmart was located within the center. He raised concerns regarding the change in

use provisions, noting that they do not want to be negatively impacted by the proposed

moratorium as it pertains to their ability to re-lease vacant tenant spaces. Mr. Heniff

noted that the intent of the ordinance is to provide for similar retail uses to be able to

occupy tenant spaces. He noted the example that if a sporting goods store would leave

the center that a similar retail use, such as a clothing store, would be permissible.

However, if it were to change to a differing land use such as an office use, it would not

be a permitted exception to the moratorium.

Peter Friedman, attorney for Roosevelt Associates, sought a clarification regarding the

change of use provisions. He noted that the draft ordinance is vague relative to this

issue. He also stated that the draft ordinance does not specifically state the exemption

provisions.

George Wagner, Village Counsel, noted that projects previously approved, would fall

under the exemption provision.

John Hirsh III, 53 N. Main Street, Glen Ellyn, discussed his concerns regarding the

exceptions to the moratorium ordinance. He asked about the process that would be

involved to get a hearing for an exemption from the moratorium, specifically as it relates

to the Westgate property. Mr. Heniff stated that the site is already regulated by a

planned development. Any changes to a planned development would be required to go

to the Plan Commission and Village Board for consideration. This is typically a 90-day

process. However, he noted that before considering an exception to the moratorium,

staff would want to know what was being proposed for a site.

Mr. Hirsh noted that a prospective developer inquired about his property and met with

staff, but staff did not want to review his concept plans for the site. Mr. Heniff noted that

staff discussed the proposed moratorium with the prospective developer. However, in

light of the proposed moratorium, it would be presumptuous for staff to provide

comments and recommendations on the plans, as such recommendations may or may

not reflect the ultimate goals of the corridor study. That is why staff wanted to start this

review process.

Mr. Hirsh asked if it is possible to get exemption from the Board. Mr. Heniff stated that

the first step in this process is to get Board approval of the moratorium concept. The

second step would be to create an ad-hoc group, followed by the commencement of a

review of the relevant issues and establishing recommendations. Staff does want the

process to be participatory with the property owners and tenants along Roosevelt Road.

Mr. Hirsh noted that there is limited interest in the domestic car market for retail stores

and the import dealer radii limits ability of his site to be used for an import dealership.

The nine-month period would create a hardship.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comment among the Plan Commission

members.

Commissioner Sweetser noted there is merit in looking at the corridor comprehensively.

She inquired about other efforts that may have been done in the past and asked if the

quick timeframe will be workable. Mr. Heniff noted that the nine-month review period is

an aggressive timeline to be fair to property owners. He also noted that this process

could be a model for future corridor reviews.

She then asked if the exemption provisions were spelled out properly within the draft

ordinance. Mr. Heniff said that staff will review that issue with Counsel.

Mr. Wagner noted that the Plan Commission could provide specific concerns within the

recommendation of approval.

Commissioner Burke inquired about clarifying what previously approved projects would

be subject to the exemption provision. Mr. Heniff noted that projects that were

previously approved by the Board prior to the establishment of the moratorium would be

exempt. As an example, he noted an approved project at the corner of Highland

Avenue and Roosevelt Road. Since the Board approved the zoning actions, the

petitioner could start construction on the project, provided that the construction activity

starts within one year from the date of the final approval, which is April, 2008. Other

properties which did not require Board approval could start provided that a permit was

issued prior to the start of the moratorium.

Commissioner Burke stated that it is not clear as to what projects would or would not be

subject to the exception provision in the moratorium and he asked that the Ordinance

clarify this issue.

Commissioner Burke then referenced an unincorporated property west of the existing

Village limits. And asked how those properties should be handled. Mr. Heniff noted that

the annexation agreement would provide even greater authority than a moratorium.

Commissioner Burke then asked about the boundary agreement between Lombard and

Glen Ellyn --would the moratorium affect the agreement? Mr. Heniff said the moratorium

would not affect the boundary agreement.

Commissioner Sweetser asked what affect the moratorium might have on annexing

properties in general. Mr. Heniff noted that an annexation agreement would provide

greater control then even the proposed moratorium. The future ad-hoc group charged

to review the development issues would not review unincorporated properties as they

are not part of the moratorium.

Commissioner Nelson inquired about a proposed overlay district. Mr. Heniff, noted that

overlay districts create additional regulations about those provided for within an

underling zoning district. He noted that the Village previously established such a district

along the North Avenue corridor in the early 1990s.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated he would not want to see a lot of exceptions to the

proposed moratorium. He referenced the statement regarding the exceptions within the

standards for text amendments and wanted clarity on this issue.

Chairperson Ryan sought a clarification regarding who received notice of the proposed

moratorium. Mr. Heniff noted that the Village sent notices of the public hearing to all

property owners. We sent notices of the informational meeting held on December 6,

2006 to all property owners and all known businesses within the corridor.

Commissioner Flint asked if the moratorium could extend beyond the proposed

nine-month period. Mr. Heniff stated that it is not staff's intent to go beyond a nine-month

period. He noted that if it was to extend beyond the nine-month period, a new petition

would need to be filed. Mr. Wagner noted support within the court for a 6-9 month

period.

Commissioner Sweeter stated that the exemption provision for past approvals needs to

be clarified. Commissioner Burke requested consistency within the ordinance for clarity

to protect people with permits already approved.

Mr. Wagner stated that the Plan Commission can note within their recommendation the

three elements that the Commissioners would like to see reviewed within the report,

including clarity on past approvals, exemption provisions and change of use provisions.