Village of Lombard Legistar System

Chairperson Ryan mentioned that this text amendment is being heard jointly with PC

08-34, the following petition.

Sue Aikman, owner of The Bellyrub Klub, 21W140 Hill Avenue, Glen Ellyn, presented

the petition. She mentioned that she is requesting a text amendment to allow animal

daycare facilities and kennels in the I industrial district as well as for the granting of a

conditional use for an animal daycare facility. Her business, The Bellyrub Klub, is a

limited liability corporation which includes a retail component, offers dog training and

daycare. She stated her educational background and credentials. Of all the services

they offer, she indicated that training is one of the most important as behavioral issues

are usually the reason people give up or decide to keep their dogs. This service not

only trains the dog but it increases the health and well-being of the animal.

Also offered are a variety of classes including agility and the K9 good citizen. The good

citizen award class is supported and given by the American Kennel Association. It is

designed to promote good manners for dogs in conjunction with teaching the owners

responsibility. As a team they become certified - good dog/good owner. They also offer

hands-on seminars, which run approximately 2-3 hours, as well as workshops which

cover a variety of topics.

The daycare component is another important part of the business. Not only does it

provide the animals with a great environment but it benefits them in that they have an

opportunity to learn, socialize and play while developing their motor skills and

self-control. It also increases canine communication. Having these opportunities also

provide a benefit to the customer. When the animal is picked up from daycare, they

already have had lots of attention and are tired. So, when they arrive home, the

customer can begin their household duties instead of dealing with a bored animal that

has slept all day.

Ms. Aikman then explained that the retail component of their business deals with the

sale of a variety of basic items including training items, toys, ropes, leashes and collars.

Her staff is comprised of three employees and herself as well as volunteers who are

also interested in animals. The staff's responsibilities include the cleanliness of the

facility including the outside of the building, taking care of the animals and ensuring they

are well cared for, the safety and overall health and well-being of the animals, the drop

off and pick up of the animals and interaction with the customers either by answering

questions about the services provided, classes, or selling retail items. Her intention is to

have the business grow which will increase their list of responsibilities.

Indicating why she chose to get into the field, she presented a number of facts and

statistics which confirm that the pet industry is booming, how it is developing and the

direction it might take in the future:

* Owners spend $43.4 billion on pets

* In 2008 the majority of growth was due to high-end products and services for dogs

such as daycare, dog spas, luxury gifts for dogs, pet insurance and pet trusts

* Memorializing pets has become a growing industry

* 30% of owners already memorialize their animals

* 70-80% will take animals with them in a disaster situation

* 70% buy treats and toys of which $66 is spent on treats and $41 is spent on toys

* 26% own dog beds

* The average age most responsible for purchasing and taking care of animals are 46

year old females.

Concluding, Ms. Aikman indicated that pets have made their way into families in different

fashions. In order to fill a void empty nesters are filling their houses with animals as

their own children are growing and leaving. Baby boomers are choosing to have

animals in place of children. Money is generated from these types of clientele. The pet

industry has been insulated from the recession and there are no signs indicating that it

won't continue to grow.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. The following made

comments in favor of the petition:

Felicia Figlewicz, 21W115 22nd Street, Lombard, stated that she has lived at that

address for 15 years. She has 3 dogs and owns a wholesale meat company in

Chicago. It has been in business for 80 years and services 5-star restaurants. She

works 10-hour days, is recently divorced, and has no children. If it weren't for The

Bellyrub Klub she couldn't have dogs. She mentioned other daycare facilities she has

used, which have been located near or on her way to her place of business, and how

overcrowded and impersonal they are. There was a lot of controversy with the way care

was being given but she doesn't worry about that now. She has someone come and

retrieve her dogs and she picks them up after work. She spends a lot of money on her

dogs. They have participated in almost everything there including behavior and agility

classes, training, and plan on doing the good citizenship award class. She asked the

Commissioners to give the petitioner positive consideration.

Kathy Bright, 235 West Arboretum, Lombard, stated that she has lived at that address

since they were built and is a new dog owner, adopting from a shelter rescue. She has

taken her dog to a daycare in Downers Grove and it was wrong. She works and she is

her household so there is no one she can leave her dog with. She loves the Bellyrub

Klub because they are passionate in what they do. Her dog gets to socialize and gets

great care. They maintain a good proportion of staff to dogs. Their staff really cares

about the dogs, they provide a clean environment and their philosophy brings out the

best in him - she is a big fan of the place. They are very knowledgeable and are a great

resource when it comes to getting information about food and behavior. We are all

happy and they are an excellent business.

Ross Green, 26 Walnut Road, Glen Ellyn, stated that he lives one block from The

Bellyrub Klub. He is an empty nester, baby boomer and all the things previously

mentioned. They recently rescued a dog through The Bellyrub Klub. He and his wife

work endless hours and they take their dog there. The business provides a clean and

humane environment and the employees are great. It is nothing but a great experience.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report for PC 08-33.

Michael Toth, Planner I, presented the staff report. Mr. Toth stated that the petitioner is

currently operating a canine training facility in the I - Limited Industrial District. There are

currently no uses (permitted or conditional) that would allow such an activity in the I -

Limited Industrial District; as such, the petitioner is requesting text amendments to the

Zoning Ordinance to allow an "Animal Day Care Facility" as a conditional use in the I -

Limited Industrial District. The petitioner has also filed for a companion conditional use

approval for an Animal Day Care Facility to allow for such a use on the subject property.

Mr. Toth stated that as an adjunct to the aforementioned request, staff would also like to

petition for approval to also list "Kennels" as a conditional use in the I - Limited Industrial

District. Staff believes this use to be most appropriate within an industrial area.

The principal activity associated with the petitioner's business is the training of animals,

more specifically, canines. There are other canine training facilities located in Lombard;

however, canine training facilities currently have no land use designation.

Mr. Toth stated, by definition, the Animal Day Care Facility is a broad use that contains a

number of separate and distinct uses. Other uses that would fall under the

newly-created Animal Day Care Facility land use would be the grooming, exercise and

socialization of animals. Boarding, breeding, the care and sale of animals are uses that

are classified under the existing Kennel use, which is also being proposed to be added

as a conditional use within the I -Limited Industrial District. This amendment is being

offered by staff to ensure consistency within the Zoning Ordinance. As there are many

similarities between an Animal Day Care Facility and Kennel (notably the boarding of

animals), staff believes that it is important to specifically distinguish any differences

between both uses in order to clarify the intent of creating the Animal Day Care Facility

use.

Mr. Toth stated that in staff's opinion, the proposed uses are more appropriate for the I-

Limited Industrial District. According to the description of the I - Limited Industrial

District, the appreciable noise and waste of the proposed animal uses would inherently

classify those uses as being more appropriate for an industrial zoning district.

Mr. Toth stated that counsel made the recommendation to change the definition of

Animal Day Care Facility to read: any premises where three or more animals, over three

months of age, at any one time, are accepted for grooming, training, exercise or

socialization, provided that overnight boarding is not permitted.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for questions and comment among the

Commissioners. The Commissioners had no comments.

subject property as a canine training facility. The petitioner is requesting conditional use

approval to continue use of their canine training business (as currently operated), which

would be defined by the Zoning Ordinance as an "Animal Day Care Facility".

The subject tenant space is 2,100 square feet, which includes an open area for the

training and daycare of the animals, a staging area for the animals where they are

placed before they enter the training area, a "timeout" area where the animals are

placed when experiencing behavioral problems, an ancillary retail sales area and

second floor. The Bellyrub Klub has three employees - one full-time (petitioner) and two

part-time employees. The principal function of the subject business is the daytime

training and supervision of canines. The typical operation involves customers dropping

off dogs in the morning and picking them up in the evening. In addition, they do offer

joint classes in the evening with the canine and respective owner.

The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be developed with light industrial land

uses. As there will be waste removal and minimal noise disturbances associated with

the presence of the canines, the proposed uses could be considered light industrial by

nature.

The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of three (3) spaces for each use in the

Business and Industrial Districts. As there are five businesses located within the center,

a minimum of fifteen (15) parking spaces would be required for the entire subject

property.

Mr. Toth stated that as a condition of approval of PC 07-06 (Hill Avenue Auto Repair),

the subject property was to be modified to incorporate all of the parking lot

improvements depicted on the site plan that was prepared by the Village and based

upon the original 1976 site approval. The aforementioned site plan provided nine (9)

parking spaces on the subject property. As a condition of approval to PC 07-06, the

parking lot was to be striped in accordance with the approved site plan. Upon

inspection conducted on November 24, 2008, staff found that the parking portion of the

plan had not been fully addressed. Upon staff's inspection, there were found to be only

eight (8) striped spaces. As a condition of approval for the subject conditional use, this

petition shall be held to the same condition of approval relative to the parking plan that

provides nine (9) striped spaces on-site. As of December 4, 2008 staff is following up

with Code Enforcement to address the deficiencies that involve the auto repair operator.

During that same site inspection, staff noticed vehicles being parked on the gravel right

of way along Hill Avenue. Staff recommends as conditions of approval that all vehicles

on the subject property must A) be parked on asphalt or concrete surface in accordance

with Title 15, Chapter 150, Section 150.301(B) of the Lombard Code of Ordinances and

B) parked on the subject property only. If the property owner or tenants want to increase

the area for parking, then it must be paved. However, staff notes that any expansion of

the parking lot may require that storm water detention be provided.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for questions and comment among the

Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked the petitioner how long they have been operating their

business. Ms. Aikman replied that they have been operating at that location since 2007.

Commissioner Cooper asked the petitioner what the size of the dog run is. Ms. Aikman

replied that there is no dog run, but the animals do get walked in a particular area.

Commissioner Cooper asked the petitioner who cleans up after the dogs. Ms. Aikman

replied that the property owner cleans the building, but the dog areas get cleaned by the

staff at The Bellyrub Klub.

Commissioner Cooper asked staff if they are required fifteen (15) parking spaces. Mr.

Toth replied that per the approved 1976 site plan, they are only required nine (9) parking

spaces.

Commissioner Sweetser referred to the bottom of page 8, last sentence. She indicated

that the way the sentence reads does not convey what she was trying to say. What she

was saying is "should we not give credence to state agencies instead of trying to pursue

questioning on our own."

The sentence was amended to read:

"Commissioner Sweetser stated they should give credence to state agencies. "

Also on page 8, 3rd paragraph referring to her comments about 501(c)(3)s, she stated

that the language was a little garbled. The intent was to steer away from the use of the

word private to be synonymous with a business or a for-profit because there are a lot of

so called private 501(c)(3)s which are not-for-profit. It was an attempt to comment on

the language in staff's report and clarify that the testimony in some cases was based

erroneously on equating private and for profit.

Discussion then ensued as to how they could accurately revise her comments and it

was agreed that the minutes would be revised and appear at the next meeting.

1. 331 W. Madison Street (CPSA)

Mike Toth, Planner I, stated that staff is bringing forth three topics regarding CPSA's

school expansion plan. He gave a brief history of the property including how it was

purchased from School District 44 and is operating as a private school having grades

pre-school through 12. They obtained a Certificate of Occupancy in 1993 with a land

use designation of education facility and currently operate under legal nonconforming

status. In 2001 PC 01-16 was brought forward to correct these deficiencies but the

petitioner later withdrew. Staff has been working with the petitioner since that time

taking into consideration all departmental needs. This week KLOA, the Village's traffic

consultant, will conduct a traffic study on target intersections.

Referring to an aerial view, Mr. Toth mentioned that the site is approximately 4 acres in

size, improved with a private school, consists of 5 lots which would have to be

consolidated, zoned CR and provides 80 parking spaces on site. A site plan was

displayed and he noted that they are proposing to construct a 61,000 square foot

building on the southeast portion of the site. The building would consist of 16

classrooms, two of which would be pre school, 4 labs, a gymnasium, a multi-purpose

hall, and a library. They would also reconfigure the parking lots to provide 104 spaces.

Mr. Toth then showed on the site plan where the new parking spaces would be located

and where the existing spaces would be reconfigured.

Since 2001 staff has recommended to the petitioner:

1. To keep all structures (principal and accessory) towards the interior of the site to

minimize the distance from adjacent properties.

2. To reduce the height of the building to minimize the impact on adjacent properties

3. That they hold neighborhood meetings where adjacent property owners would have

the opportunity to comment on the plans. They have since held two neighborhood

meetings to gain feedback.

In order to clean up the zoning approvals, the petitioner would seek see a map

amendment to rezone the site from a CR district to an R2 single family district. A

planned development would have to be approved as they are proposing to have two

principal structures on one lot of record. They would request a conditional use for a

private, full time, elementary, middle and high school, a conditional use for a planned

development with a deviation to allow for a building height up to 35 feet and a variation

to reduce the minimum required open space below 62.5 percent.

The purpose of this workshop is to solicit feedback from the Plan Commissioners with

regard to open space. The proposed plans bring the amount of open space to 47%. In

the R2 single family district, the minimum open space requirement is 50%. However,

the planned development standards require 25% greater open space requirements,

which brings the open space requirement to 62.5%.

With regard to parking the required amount of spaces is 80. The proposed plans

provide for 104 spaces, resulting in a 24 space surplus. That surplus equates to 3,800

square feet of lot coverage. The additional parking provides conflicts with the open

space requirement. As a result, staff is seeking input from the Plan Commissioners

regarding this issue of open space versus parking. The standards for planned

developments with deviations addresses the deviations in regard to the public interest;

such as property values, adverse impacts, etc. Keeping this in mind, would it be in the

public interest to provide surplus parking in order to prevent spillover into the adjacent

neighborhood or is it in the public interest to provide adequate open space?

The next issue is the proposed building height. Mr. Toth displayed a building elevation

and stated that the building resides at 30'. The stairwell, which is taller than the rest of

the building, raises the building height to 35'. Height has been a controversial issue with

other private schools in the past. Lastly, Mr. Toth displayed a 3-D rendering of the

proposed expansion plan.

Chairperson Ryan opened the workshop to the Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked what the neighborhood feedback was. Mr. Toth stated

that the feedback included concerns about the parking lot along Madison and the

elimination of open space. He showed the areas he was referring to on the site plan.

William Heniff, Director of Community Development, mentioned that he attended one of

the neighborhood sessions. CPSA did an outreach to property owners within 250' of the

site inviting them to solicit their comments. Some of the issues staff heard was the loss

of open space in front of the school due to the additional parking and what it would look

like. They suggested that additional landscaping and berming could be an option.

Other concerns dealt with traffic and he mentioned KLOA was to conduct a traffic study.

The traffic study will combine existing conditions as well as a combined analysis

involving Madison Elementary School traffic volumes as well as with CPSA. CPSA

stated to staff they would be willing to adjust their start and end times should there be a

conflict. Additionally, other questions were stormwater and detention related. Mr. Heniff

indicated that detention would be provided on the western portion of the property and is

currently non-existent. Also, staff will look at lighting and general operating issues.

Commissioner Olbrysh indicated that he felt a 35' height was an issue, but the 5' needed

is only for the stairwell and not for the whole building. Mr. Heniff stated that CPSA's

intent was to try and meet code. The extra 5' building height was an option in order to

provide a staircase to get to the roof. He then compared the building height proposal of

St. John's petition.

Commissioner Olbrysh indicated that the existing building is quite old. He asked should

they get approval to erect a new structure would they do any remodeling or a facelift of

the existing structure to tie it in with the new one. Mr. Heniff stated that it is part of their

long range vision. They have budget constraints so their intent is to construct a new

building in the first phase and then address the existing building at a later date.

Commissioner Sweetser asked by having a separate building wouldn't they be subject to

ADA compliance for the first building. Mr. Heniff answered that it is not. One of the

reasons is that the new facility would meet all of their requirements which is why they

want to build a new building to meet all new requirements. Commissioner Sweetser

noted that by doing it in this fashion they can get back to the first building with the

exterior and ADA compliance when they have the ability to do so. Mr. Heniff noted that

they are looking at sprinklering the existing school.

Referring to the issue of green space Commissioner Sweetser asked how much of the

back parking lot will be covered by the new building. She then noted the west drive and

asked if there is was any possibility of having some of the parking which is located in the

front kept in the back. Mr. Heniff answered that the concept plan referred to exceeds

the requisite number of parking spaces. Staff is looking for discussion regarding the

potential that if some of those spaces in front could be removed, they would still be

within the parking requirements. The more spaces that are put in the back or on the

side might be impacting someone else being located closer to the property lines. Staff

notes that if this plan moves forward, it would require an open space variation. If they

were to remove a number of parking spaces from the front, they wouldn't need the open

space variation from the underlying zoning requirements, which might balance those

issues off. You could knock out the northern diagonal row of parking to create additional

green space. Commissioner Sweetser indicated that would be her preference.

Chairperson Ryan stated that schools generate a lot of extra curricular activities that

bring in a lot of parents. If there are not enough parking spaces they will end up parking

on Elizabeth and the overflow will go into the neighborhood. He felt that keeping the

extra spaces would be beneficial.

Commissioner Burke asked if there was a reason that the petitioner is showing all those

parking spaces. Mr. Heniff indicated they would like the flexibility for the extra spaces.

That is why we need to strike the balances and he referenced St. Thomas Marthoma.

Commissioner Sweetser indicated that there is always a trade off. If we are going to be

green, she would prefer to err on the side of open space. There is nothing wrong with

neighborhood parking and there are other schools that don't have parking

accommodations on site. She favored having the open space.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the only problem with this situation is that CPSA is

sitting within one block of another school. He questioned what would happen should

both schools have an event on the same evening. With respect to open space, this plan

offers more than a lot of other facilities. He is not concerned about this facility.

Mr. Heniff suggested that an option would be to have the petitioner land bank the

surplus spaces with the parking being pre-approved. This way they would have the

zoning rights to put parking there at some point in the future.

Referring to green space and the front row of parking Chairperson Ryan asked if there

was any possibility of moving the detention to the front and putting parking on the side

where the detention is. Mr. Heniff answered that the detention is located at the low spot

on the property and it would be a substantial engineering challenge to put parking there.

Staff will be getting more information as to how they arrived at putting the detention at

the southwest corner of the site.

Commissioner Burke stated he was struggling with the site plan. He asked if the

southwest corner of the site was just an open area. Mr. Heniff stated that it was

intended as an open area where there would be play areas, ball fields, etc.

Commissioner Burke confirmed that CPSA has had neighborhood meetings and

generated some comments but he was very concerned about the people who abut this

property on the south, east and west sides. He felt they would be complaining about the

parking being 10 feet away from their backyards. This issue is similar to St. John's with

the impact primarily on the neighbors that live adjacent to the site. Referring again to

the site plan, he noted that a double row of parking was proposed on the east side as

well as a paved drive aisle on the south side. He was concerned that adjacent property

owners would be anxious about that. He suggested putting those spaces in the

southwest quadrant of the site and not against the west property line but along the drive.

While it might have a negative impact on the site plan, it will not have a negative effect

on the neighbors. Also, he understands the reasoning for having a play area but it is

less important than having an impact on adjacent sites. As far as the parking in the

front, he would prefer they move that to the back as well.

Mr. Heniff noted that on the concept plan there is a drive aisle on the west side going

south that is exclusively for emergency access purposes only. In the event of an

emergency, Fire Department vehicles need access around the building in a safe and

efficient manner. This would also allow a hard surface area where students could be

directed to should there be a need for an evacuation. From a planning standpoint, this

drive allows traffic to be kept to the center of the site. It wouldn't be desirable to have

people driving along the south property line dropping off and picking up.

Commissioner Burke asked if the main drop off area is supposed to be along Madison.

Mr. Heniff answered that there are two drop off areas, the first being along Madison

Street in the diagonally angled parking spaces and then the second area is located in

between the two buildings. No parent should be driving to the southern end of the

building. Commissioner Burke then questioned why there are 20 parking spaces at the

southern end. Mr. Heniff noted that along the east side that area would be for teachers

and some students but not using the drive aisle. Commissioner Burke questioned the

age of the students. Mr. Heniff stated pre-school through high school ages.

Commissioner Cooper asked if the detention zone is part of the open space calculation.

Mr. Heniff answered yes. Commissioner Cooper suggested the parking being a

permeable paver with storage under the parking lot and then the detention zone could

be used for the students' activity/recreation. She then suggested moving the parking to

the detention area and flip-flopping it.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if an underground vault was proposed. Mr. Heniff

answered that it was not because of the cost but more importantly because the goal was

to meet open space requirements if you could have an open detention environment and

keep the open space. Commissioner Sweeter noted the eastern boundary and

wondered if the building could be moved to the east a bit if the parking were removed.

Chairperson Ryan stated it might not be desirable but you could move it in line with the

first building.

Referring to the site plan Commissioner Burke noted the ingress off of Madison Street

and how it leads to where it splits and goes in between the two buildings. He suggested

that if you flip the building so that if the parking lot were on the west side of the school

you wouldn't need any parking on the east side. You could also flip the building

elevations so that the building faces the interior of the site resulting in a campus look.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if you would need an emergency drive if you didn't have

parking on the east and south sides. Mr. Heniff answered that the Fire Department

would like access to all four sides of the building. Chairperson Ryan stated that they still

would if you flip the building. Commissioner Burke suggested moving both rows of cars

and all the parking to the west side so the neighbors aren't impacted at all with the

exception of emergency vehicles.

Commissioner Cooper asked how wide the emergency road needs to be. Mr. Heniff

stated 20'. Commissioner Sweetser asked if they have to observe the 5' setback as

well. Mr. Heniff answered yes. Commissioner Sweetser asked how much space there

is on the east from the lot line to the building, which now accommodates parking - 25'?

Also is it one or two-way traffic. Mr. Heniff noted that on the east property line, it is

two-way traffic and the building is 65' off property line. Commissioner Sweetser noted it

would make a difference of 40 feet if it is moved over.

Commissioner Cooper commented that being a Landscape Architect, there are more

creative ways to think about detaining water and the design of the detention area. She

suggested a rain garden, porous pavement, capturing water and reusing it for irrigation

or potentially wastewater in your building. She encouraged them to use sustainable

ideas to make the school inspiring. The detention area on the plan will be muddy and

hard to mow. The water will come in forcefully causing erosion on the sides and will be

an eyesore. She suggested they think about creatively integrating water on their site.

Commissioner Burke asked if it is currently engineered to be a dry basin. Mr. Heniff

answered yes. Commissioner Cooper also commented that she couldn't tell what the

slopes were off of the plan but asked if the basin would need to be fenced. Mr. Heniff

answered not the whole thing. Commissioner Cooper suggested that another creative

idea is green roofs to absorb the rainwater.

Commissioner Sweetser commented that if we are talking seriously about “being green”

we cannot use what we have done in the past as a benchmark. We have to be

prepared to rethink how to do things, what to accept, and could use some training and

guidance from staff. Especially with so many things out there.

Chairperson Ryan mentioned that the Commissioners have not addressed the building

height yet.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she did not have an objection to the height based

on the plan they have but if the neighbors objected, they would take that into

consideration.

Commissioner Burke indicated that he would not want to make any judgments until they

get a perspective.

Mr. Heniff asked the Commissioners for clarity relative to the parking. Is it their

preference to provide a location for additional parking on site or is it more important to

meet the open space requirements.

Commissioner Cooper answered that the staff's idea of phasing is interesting. Let's

bank some of it for the future and if it doesn't work than there is a back up plan.

Commissioner Sweetser suggested that if the engineering works out, to use the now

designated space to accommodate parking.

Commissioner Cooper mentioned at Elmhurst College's new dorm they are detaining all

their water under their parking lot and that's how they meet their stormwater codes. It is

an attractive and functioning area.

Commissioner Burke indicated that it is a very expensive option especially for a site this

large.

Chairperson Ryan mentioned that this site does not have many cross streets available

for parking so it's important to be creative and find a way to house the parking on the

property while keeping as much green space as possible.

Commissioner Cooper referenced the ball field on the southwest corner. If we move the

parking to the west side in back of the building, would there be a conflict of use as there

might be baseballs flying into cars.

Mr. Heniff noted that the petitioner is in audience. Staff will follow up with them and they

will file a narrative or refine their plans before final submittal.

2. 230 E. North Avenue

Chris Stilling, Assistant Director of Community Development, provided a background of

the site indicating that it was a vacant 6.5 acre site nearly encumbered by a floodplain

and the required buffer area leaving only a shallow strip of land along North Avenue.

The buildable depth of the property makes the majority of the site unbuildable. To the

east is a new shopping center and part of that center provides cross access for the

property. He referenced the two exhibits attached to staff's memo outlining possible

uses for the site indicating that they were concept plans drawn up by staff and based on

inquiries received for the site in terms of use. Exhibit A is a car wash concept and

Exhibit B is an auto dealer concept which includes a small building. Given there are

floodplain and wetland issues, setbacks might have to be reduced to accommodate a

building on site.

Staff is looking for direction from the Plan Commissioners as to which use they prefer

and whether they would support a conditional use as well as setback relief around the

front/side property lines to increase the buildable area of the lot. Both concepts are

requirements of the B4 zoning district.

Referencing the car wash exhibit and specifically near the 60 x 40 building, Chairperson

Ryan asked for clarification on where the buffer actually was. Mr. Heniff answered that

the DuPage County Stormwater Ordinance requires a 100' buffer in this location. This is

what staff envisioned but you can do a buffer averaging that a future developer could

take care of. You are not held to the highest standards but it is something to be made

aware of.

Commissioner Burke asked if the site plan is misnamed as the County does not require

a buffer with a floodplain - only with wetlands. Mr. Heniff answered that there are

wetlands in that area particularly along the perimeter. He exampled the Our Lady of

Lebanon and the CVS and retail strip center projects and what was addressed with

those. If you take that same buffer line they would apply in that same area. Some is

under water so you can call it both.

Commissioner Burke stated that a buffer is required for wetlands for the purposes of

having such things as hydraulics and plant material and soils have to be considered. He

thought there may have been confusion about the 100-year floodplain as the text talks

about the floodplain but the 100' buffer is associated with wetlands. He indicated they

would never be delineated as the same line. Mr. Heniff answered that with respect to

this issue, if the 100' buffer would be the buffer from the wetlands area - to the north you

have floodplain area, but you will have wetland and a wetland buffers needed to be

addressed on this site.

Commissioner Burke asked if there was a wetlands delineation done. Mr. Stilling

indicated that the wetland information that was provided reflects general data staff had

from properties surrounding this site so it's a “guesstimate” as to where the boundary

would lie.

Commissioner Burke then noted that it is not known what this buffer will look like and

whether it will impact the car wash or not. Mr. Heniff answered that the buffer was a

guesstimate and that final engineering will take care of that. What is known is that we

have a tract of land along North Avenue not deep but long and are looking for a land use

which also provides an economic value to the property.

Mr. Heniff stated that unlike other sites, the advantage of this site is that it has extensive

frontage. Staff thought a used car dealership could take advantage of such a site

wanting a lot of frontage as well as being a retail benefit to the community.

Chairperson Ryan questioned the car wash exhibit and asked if the 30 foot drive aisle

was an in and out. Mr. Heniff noted that there will be a point of ingress and egress but

would be subject to IDOT review. Staff has looked at cross access points and will work

together with them on that. Chairperson Ryan indicated that with the cross access

traffic pattern heading east to Grace this site would not be suitable for retail

establishments but an auto dealership would serve as a destination use.

Commissioner Burke asked if this was a prototype of a car wash. Mr. Heniff exampled

Turtle Wax on Roosevelt Road which also has a fair amount of length to it. The point

being made is that we need a linear type of use.

Commissioner Sweetser referenced the car dealership concept plan and asked if the

setback relief on the front would allow for some greenery or low shrubs between the

edge of the lot and the yellow line. Mr. Heniff answered that we would want to keep

some of that green space that was required on the CVS site and keep that concept.

The advantage of an auto dealership is that you can stack in unique configurations. The

idea is to incorporate interesting design concepts like pads to showcase cars.

Commissioner Burke asked if the yellow line was the whole lot. Mr. Stilling answered

that it was.

Commissioner Cooper asked if the developer asked the Plan Commission to look at this.

Mr. Heniff answered that the property owner has had this site for years and it poses

environmental challenges. He is trying to determine a value to the property and if the

uses are identified as conditional uses, how would the Village be receptive to that

concept.

Commissioner Burke thought either use would be reasonable and functional for the site.

He doubted that requiring some green area percentage would be feasible.

Mr. Heniff noted that stormwater detention requirements will have to be met due to the

wetlands.

Commissioner Sweetser commented that she could support a use whereby all

requirements are met but they will need to be creative. Referencing the detention, she

then asked if he was familiar with the Arboretum's parking lot as that might be something

to keep in mind. Mr. Heniff answered he was familiar with it and it could be looked at.

Mr. Heniff then summarized the Commissioners' comments:

· The idea of an auto dealership can be conceptually supported subject to the site

plan but the use doesn't cause a problem. The owner and developer must come up with

a reasonable plan.

· The same for the car wash concept plan but see if it is a viable concept and look at

the design.

· Be open and creative with other uses.

· If the plan needs some level of relief, balance that against one of the standards for

variations which can be topographical conditions or conditions unique to the property.

Chairperson Ryan questioned if this site would be the end of the buildable properties in

that area. Mr. Heniff answered that it would be until you get to the property at Main and

North, the northeast corner.