Village of Lombard Legistar System

Lisa Warren, Planner II presented the staff report. cu approval for a fm and gave the

hours of operation in the parking area at 105. held previously downtown and will be

combined. operated under an agreement made between village and operatar and

approved by the BOT. They do all marketing and staff.

the concept is appropriate to a central business districtl. PW and eng. no comments.

building had comments relative to electrical re4quirements and BOCA code. stafaf finds

that the cu will meet the standards of the zo. the market will meet all code requirements

and will have limited hours of operation. She gave the reasons for having a french

market and how it will effect the downtown.

she described how the market will lbe set up with the gaskets, sleeves, and cleaned up

as well as how the vendors are arranged. the zo allows for a farmers market as a cu.

other areas were considered but this the most viable option.

Parking will be provided by available in the downtown, 108 spaces, 21 n. park and on

street parking in the downtown. due to the limitations of the hours of market there

should not be a conflict with metra parking. this areas does not provide any parking for

parkview pointe even though owned by the same developer.

compatibility with downtown surrounding uses. staff recommends approval. LIsa

mentioned the agreements and how they ere going to be called licsnee agrementbs.

since we are not operating out of a parking lot we own, it will be renamed a ??????

She mentioned the site plan she provided and said she would available to answer any

questions.

No one in favor or against.

Commissioners:

RS - looking forward to seeing this. under #5no commercial sales after noon. will the

12-1 time be for take down? Lisa yes they will start to close down and be out by 1.

Would like to see both agreements to see what the differences and addiitons area.

MB - #3 - is it standard for licensor to pay a 5,000 start up fee. LW - this is a new

venture in dupage. the first two they didn't charge but with lombard they have started to

ask a fee to defray labor cocsts. #2 the last sentenace referring to not allaowing a

market ont he premises for 3 years.

RS what are other changes? JP many others - its something that the village board ahs

to review so they are preparing for them and provided for your information and not your

approval.

DR - the two other communities - Villa Park is that too close of proximatiely. LW they

are two different days. one on saturday and one on sunday.

RO - in favor of market but one comment. Still have reservations about location. might

be able to see top of tents by train. the overall concept is good and will help more

people to come downtown on a ssaturday morning. LW - it was the best avaialbe space

and downtown there are so many parking agreements seven days a week with ocndos.

RS - ZO - all vendors have been contacted and how many did that total. LW - called a

number of people from chamber but the bensolidun goup contacted them and managed

to get interest from 4 people. RS - in addition to those do you know how many others?

LW - referred to her site plat and hope to have outside stalls aout 20-25 vendors that

would be acceptable. RS - what about a ratio of parking to slots 20 vendor spaces. LW

- when talking to other communities, they said they have had ample parking and no

propblems with parking. RS - would it be useful to try to learn the amount of vendors,

the amount of parking., etc. RS - in terms of parking, the staff report, the market should

Carol Nofsinger, petitioner, 555 E. St. cxharles rd. requesting a cu approval for an

automobile repari with variations in the b4 district. background - has been operating

since may of 1985, the previous owner an auto repair use, when purchased auto repair

was permitedd. zo since redone to be a cu use. the cu is compatible with the zo and

meets all stanards for cu, comptabile with cp which rcommends lindustrial cuse and willl

bring site up to code with improvement to lot and site and image of st. charles corridor.

it confomrs to the ad hoc commiettee report. please keep in mind that the villag e has

been granted a landscape easement in accordance with the st. charles ad hoc report

and trees have been planted. have delivered 25 copies of plat of ocnsolidation which

was a conditions. she asked for approval.

No one to speak for or against.

Jenny gave staff report. she reiterated the requst and gave the history of the property

with the zo. the zo requires that the parking lot be paved but they say you cannot see3

so they request a variation. she gave idrc comments. cp recommnds LI and ad hoc

report had goals one of which was a unified image and sense of place to include

landscape improvemnets, tec. staff believes the petitioner is looking to do that. the

auot use is compitable with the surrounding businesses. the great western trials

provides a buffer. staff feels a cu is appropriate at that location. they are consturcting an

encluse for refuse and will have a board on board fence instead of a chain link. they will

also have an acce4ssory strucute for storage.

Landscaping - there will be adequate separation between structures. the zo requires

landscaping the proposed landscape island will provide that. She mentioned the

landscape easement granted to the village and will supplement this landscaping. Staffis

supportive and they did provide #1.

Commissioners:

RO - favor thjese site improvements. staff - handicapped accessible space where it is

located is cloest to service entrance is thtat acceptabole. JB - there is another door on

the back there.

RS - staff reportrt indicates the accessory strucutre for vehicles is that a rquirement or a

necessity or is that something nice they want to do? BH - they have a number of pieces

of equipment on gravel area. staff felt it would be better to have inside and intends to be

an ancillary use. RS - its still acceptable to have cars outside? BH - yes.

DR - what about trash enclose is that same board on board? JB - wanted to match the

existing building and will match.

Gibbs gave staff report. last december pc had a workshop to regulate valet parking.

she gave the background of the text amendment. this is not under the purvuew of the

pc. valet parking operations shall conply with section #? the parking requirmenets

cannot be met then requisite relieft must be granted by BOT or PC. cu will be in

business districts and will be a conditional use. Signs will be reviewed. the location of

any signs used in conjuncation with valet parking shall be on plans. the intention is to

direct motorists and contribute to safety.

Overview of text amnedments. signsmust be located in designated loading zone in

public right of way no more than 4 feet from curb. design assmbly must meet 30 x 36

and sign surface area not to exceed 5 sq. ft., and one sign limited to business andshall

specifiy the rate. thse signs allowed in office and zoning businesses district.

She gave the definition.

No one to speaka for or aginst. Commissioners: RS - should bthere be a fully executed

agreement in place since there is nothing for qualifications of the valet driver such as a

current valid drivers license4 must be included in agreement. MG - in code we do

require a valid drivers license. JP mentioned in code section. RS - what about "if they

under indictement" or have a record? JP - this ordinance doesn't regulate the operators

that the businesses cocntract with. the burden is on the businesses and they will

indenfimy the village against lawsuits so the village protected. RS - thinks there migyht

be more scrunity made to the agreement. JP - discucssed with tom bayer and

disscucces with staff that the regulation of the operaters woul dbe separate and leave

village out.

RO - on 153.239Dpage 3 of staff report "display valet parking signs name of valet

parking operater....." will the sign say "valet parking" or just the name of the opeator.

need to include "valet parking" and underneath it the operators' name.

RS -- only one parking sign would we want to say one is there but mabe leave a little

leeway. MG we considered that but these more specific we donsider that direcitonal

and informational and consider in another category.

James Samatas, 665 W. North AVeneu, attorney and one of the petitioners before you

to request a spa to increse the height of a sign and area of sign . this is approrprtate

because to facilitate their efforts to be more identifiable and marketable on north

avenue. this request in compliance with a previosuly approved sign requirements for

another hotel just down the block from us. staff pointed out and we are requesting

additional signage that theoriginal signage was predicated on an office instead of a b4

standard. petitioner is in full accord with staff's reocmmendation and request approval.

No one to sepak in favor or against.

Staff report by lisa warren. She gave the request. the probjextt has approval for 3 signs

and she gave the descritions of each. she gave the idrc comments which relates to

monument signs already there were erected on top of utility easements and will be

temporary and petitioner will not be provided should anyt work be done. not the sign

talked about tonight but for the other sign. She gave the zoning history, an exception to

the sign ordinance granted and another sign exception to allow 3 freestanding signs on

north ave. she gave the descriptions of each. the petitioner has relif for all rquested

signage except the size and hiehgtoof the proposed freestanding pole sign on north ave.

compatilibity with cp and sign ordinance - Comp plan recommends commercial and

office uses at this location. sign nordinace - she gave the allowable dimensions of the

requested signage and mentioned the B4 vs. O sign regulations which are more lenient.

She mentioned the comfort suites hotel which is a similar sign and allowed by code.

staff is supportive of this request

No one to speak in favor or against.

RS - makes sense SF - concur