Plan Commission
Village of Lombard
Meeting Minutes
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Rocco Melarkey |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
7:30 PM
Village Hall
Monday, May 17, 2004
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting of the Plan Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Sondra Zorn and |
Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Commissioner Rocco Melarkey
Absent:
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner, |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, and George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan |
Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda. |
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws. |
Public Hearings
040179
D. PC 04-18: 1101 E. High Ridge Road (Continued from June 3) |
Requests that the following actions be taken on the subject property: |
1. Approval of an Annexation Agreement; |
2. Annexation to the Village of Lombard; |
3. Approval of a three-lot minor plat of subdivision with the following variations: |
a.) A variation from Title 15, Chapter 155, Section 405 (E) of the Village of Lombard |
Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum lot width from 75 feet to 65 feet in the R1 |
Single-Family Residence District; |
b.) A variation from Title 15, Chapter 154, Section 506 (D) of the Village of |
Lombard Subdivision and Development Ordinance to allow for a lot without public street |
frontage. (UNINCORPORATED) |
The petition was presented by Waheed Saeed, Oak Brook, Illinois. Mr. Saeed stated |
that the properties have not historically been maintained well as single-family homes, as |
he originally wanted to develop the lots as townhouses or condominiums. He now |
believes that the lots would be best utilized as single-family homes. Each of the present |
lots will be divided into three lots- two lots for homes on High Ridge Road and a lot in the |
rear half of the property that will be donated to the DuPage County Forest Preserve. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. |
Alfred Rakebrand, 1016 E. High Ridge Road, stated that a three-lot subdivision would |
be more compatible with the existing homes in the area as most of them are on 100-foot |
wide lots. Recently-developed homes have been on 75-foot wide lots. He did not want |
narrower lot widths to reduce his property value. |
Bob Walker, 1108 E. High Ridge Road, stated that he is happy the petitioner wishes to |
redevelop the property. He would prefer 75-foot wide lots because anything less would |
look like Chicago or Elmhurst. He would hate to see property values decline because of |
greater density. |
Patrick Hughes, 1111 E. High Ridge Road, states that he likes the open space and does |
not want to see the land donated to the Forest Preserve. He is totally against narrower |
lots. |
Nancy Walker, 1108 E. High Ridge Road, noted that in order to build an addition onto |
her home, she needed to get a variation to reduce the interior side yard setback by 6 |
inches. She does not want houses to appear stacked on top of one another. |
No one else spoke for or against the petition. |
Mr. Saeed addressed the public's comments, stating that the market is changing. He |
noted that a few years ago, there were no townhomes in the area, but now there are |
several (referring to the Lancaster Square townhome development). The proposed |
subdivision would still be in keeping with other properties in the area. In Hinsdale, |
people are building $1.5 million homes on lots that are 51 feet wide. The homes on his |
lots will be beautiful homes and will add to the neighborhood. |
Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, stated that the subject property currently consists of one |
lot that is improved with a single-family residence. As a companion to the annexation, |
the petitioner proposes to resubdivide the subject property into three lots of record. The |
petitioner requests approval of a Minor Plat of Resubdivision to include a variation to |
reduce the minimum lot width from 75 feet to 65 feet and a variation to allow for a lot |
without public street frontage. |
Although not a part of this petition, staff is currently developing a companion annexation |
agreement that will be heard before the Board of Trustees. |
There were no comments from Public Works or the Fire Department/Bureau of |
Inspectional Services. Private Engineering noted that a payment of $6,181.50 shall be |
remitted to the Village of Lombard's sewer and water fund when a permit is issued for |
each of the two single-family structures. This is the proportional cost incurred by the |
Village under Special Assessment 216. |
The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the subject property be developed as Estate |
Residential, which is defined as no more than four dwelling units per acre. The |
petitioner's proposal will establish two buildable lots of nearly ½ acre each, and one |
0.9-acre lot that will be dedicated as open space. The R1 zoning classification is |
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that identifies the subject property for Estate |
Residential development. Therefore, the resubdivision is consistent with the provisions |
of the Comprehensive Plan. |
The property is bordered on the west by the Westmore Apartments. Single-family |
residences border the other three sides of the property. The incorporated properties to |
the north are zoned R1. The proposed subdivision would be compatible with the |
existing neighboring residential properties. Upon annexation, the subject property will |
automatically be placed within the R1 Single-Family Residence District. No changes to |
the zoning designation are requested. |
The proposed three-lot subdivision requires a variation for a Minor Plat of Resubdivision |
as part of this request. Section 155.405 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a |
minimum lot width of seventy-five feet (75') in the R1 Single-Family Residence District. |
The petitioner's existing lot is 130 feet in width, which would make them 20 feet short of |
the width required for subdivision. Rather than requesting a map amendment to rezone |
the property to R2, the petitioner is requesting a variation to the lot width. |
Staff feels that keeping the property zoned R1 is more desirable than a rezoning to R2 |
as the interior side yards are wider (7.5 feet versus 6 feet). This will give the properties |
a greater amount of open space between the yards. Staff also notes that, at 19,500 |
square feet, the smallest lot will be 160 percent larger than the underlying lot size |
requirements. |
Lot 3 of the proposed subdivision will either be donated to a public open space agency |
or dedicated as open space. No structures or filling will be permitted on the property. |
The Board has previously allowed a lot of record without public access in the Terrace |
Lakes Subdivision (PC 03-26 & 03-27), where virtually the entire parcel was located |
within a wetlands area. Nearly the entirety of the proposed Lot 3 is within a Class A |
flood zone, making construction prohibitive. Staff feels that, given the environmental |
characteristics of this lot, it would be preferable to preserve the lot in its natural state |
rather than allow construction. As these lots will never be built upon, staff recommends |
that the variation for a lot without public street frontage be approved. Ms. Backensto |
concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of the petition, and introduced the |
Village's larger plans for open space in the area. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the open space plans can be used for |
reference purposes to give some context to this petition. He presented an aerial photo |
of the area and noted that the past development trend has been single-family homes |
being built along existing streets. He then presented a map of the existing land uses. |
Mr. Heniff stated that staff has approached the DuPage County Forest Preserve relative |
to this area, where the High Ridge Forest Preserve was developed through land |
acquisitions throughout the 1990s. The land falls off from High Ridge Road and Edward |
Street, making the property immediately along the public right-of-way most conducive to |
development. Although the petitioner's properties could theoretically be divided into a |
cul-de-sac with eight lots under the R1 District width and area requirements, this would |
not be sound land planning as it would not address the floodplain issue. The proposed |
three-lot subdivisions give protection to the floodplain. The Village of Lombard has been |
working with the Lombard Park District to possibly add amenities to the area that would |
give local and community benefits, in addition to meeting the recommendations of the |
Comprehensive Plan. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission |
members. |
Commissioner Sweetser inquired as to the depth of the lots. Ms. Backensto stated that |
the proposed lots are all 300 feet deep. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked if there were other lots along High Ridge Road that had |
widths of less than 75 feet. Mr. Heniff stated that there were not. |
Commissioner Burke stated that it would make more sense to have three 86-foot wide |
lots and he was not in favor of the lot width variation. The variation request for a lot |
without public street frontage is understandable. He then inquired as to how eight lots |
could fit on the property. Mr. Heniff stated that the floodplain issue would need to be |
engineered around. |
Commissioner Sweetser noted that there are few R1 lots in the Village. She stated that |
she would prefer a three-lot subdivision, as the proposed 65-foot wide lots would not be |
very different from lots in the R2 District. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked if a three-lot subdivision could be done on this property. |
Mr. Heniff stated that it could theoretically be done. |
Commissioner Zorn stated that she also preferred a three-lot subdivision that would |
allow more land for each property and additional space around the homes. |
Commissioner Flint stated that this case would be much different if it were in the R2 |
District, but it would be hard to go down to a 65-foot lot width in R1. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that |
this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for denial. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Melarkey
1 -
040180
E. PC 04-19: 1105 E. High Ridge Road (Continued from June 3) |
Requests that the following actions be taken on the subject property: |
1. Approval of an Annexation Agreement; |
2. Annexation to the Village of Lombard; |
3. Approval of a three-lot minor plat of subdivision with the following variations: |
a.) A variation from Title 15, Chapter 155, Section 405 (E) of the Village of Lombard |
Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum lot width from 75 feet to 65 feet in the R1 |
Single-Family Residence District; |
b.) A variation from Title 15, Chapter 154, Section 506 (D) of the Village of |
Lombard Subdivision and Development Ordinance to allow for a lot without public street |
frontage. (UNINCORPORATED) |
The petition was presented by Waheed Saeed, Oak Brook, Illinois. Mr. Saeed stated |
that the properties have not historically been maintained well as single-family homes, as |
he originally wanted to develop the lots as townhouses or condominiums. He now |
believes that the lots would be best utilized as single-family homes. Each of the present |
lots will be divided into three lots- two lots for homes on High Ridge Road and a lot in the |
rear half of the property that will be donated to the DuPage County Forest Preserve. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. |
Alfred Rakebrand, 1016 E. High Ridge Road, stated that a three-lot subdivision would |
be more compatible with the existing homes in the area as most of them are on 100-foot |
wide lots. Recently-developed homes have been on 75-foot wide lots. He did not want |
narrower lot widths to reduce his property value. |
Bob Walker, 1108 E. High Ridge Road, stated that he is happy the petitioner wishes to |
redevelop the property. He would prefer 75-foot wide lots because anything less would |
look like Chicago or Elmhurst. He would hate to see property values decline because of |
greater density. |
Patrick Hughes, 1111 E. High Ridge Road, states that he likes the open space and does |
not want to see the land donated to the Forest Preserve. He is totally against narrower |
lots. |
Nancy Walker, 1108 E. High Ridge Road, noted that in order to build an addition onto |
her home, she needed to get a variation to reduce the interior side yard setback by 6 |
inches. She does not want houses to appear stacked on top of one another. |
No one else spoke for or against the petition. |
Mr. Saeed addressed the public's comments, stating that the market is changing. He |
noted that a few years ago, there were no townhomes in the area, but now there are |
several (referring to the Lancaster Square townhome development). The proposed |
subdivision would still be in keeping with other properties in the area. In Hinsdale, |
people are building $1.5 million homes on lots that are 51 feet wide. The homes on his |
lots will be beautiful homes and will add to the neighborhood. |
Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, stated |
that the subject property currently consists of one lot that is improved with a |
single-family residence. As a companion to the annexation, the petitioner proposes to |
resubdivide the subject property into three lots of record. The petitioner requests |
approval of a Minor Plat of Resubdivision to include a variation to reduce the minimum |
lot width from 75 feet to 65 feet and a variation to allow for a lot without public street |
frontage. |
Although not a part of this petition, staff is currently developing a companion annexation |
agreement that will be heard before the Board of Trustees. |
There were no comments from Public Works or the Fire Department/Bureau of |
Inspectional Services. Private Engineering noted that a payment of $6,181.50 shall be |
remitted to the Village of Lombard's sewer and water fund when a permit is issued for |
each of the two single-family structures. This is the proportional cost incurred by the |
Village under Special Assessment 216. |
The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the subject property be developed as Estate |
Residential, which is defined as no more than four dwelling units per acre. The |
petitioner's proposal will establish two buildable lots of nearly ½ acre each, and one |
0.9-acre lot that will be dedicated as open space. The R1 zoning classification is |
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that identifies the subject property for Estate |
Residential development. Therefore, the resubdivision is consistent with the provisions |
of the Comprehensive Plan. |
The property is bordered on the west by the Westmore Apartments. Single-family |
residences border the other three sides of the property. The incorporated properties to |
the north are zoned R1. The proposed subdivision would be compatible with the |
existing neighboring residential properties. Upon annexation, the subject property will |
automatically be placed within the R1 Single-Family Residence District. No changes to |
the zoning designation are requested. |
The proposed three-lot subdivision requires a variation for a Minor Plat of Resubdivision |
as part of this request. Section 155.405 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a |
minimum lot width of seventy-five feet (75') in the R1 Single-Family Residence District. |
The petitioner's existing lot is 130 feet in width, which would make them 20 feet short of |
the width required for subdivision. Rather than requesting a map amendment to rezone |
the property to R2, the petitioner is requesting a variation to the lot width. |
Staff feels that keeping the property zoned R1 is more desirable than a rezoning to R2 |
as the interior side yards are wider (7.5 feet versus 6 feet). This will give the properties |
a greater amount of open space between the yards. Staff also notes that, at 19,500 |
square feet, the smallest lot will be 160 percent larger than the underlying lot size |
requirements. |
Lot 3 of the proposed subdivision will either be donated to a public open space agency |
or dedicated as open space. No structures or filling will be permitted on the property. |
The Board has previously allowed a lot of record without public access in the Terrace |
Lakes Subdivision (PC 03-26 & 03-27), where virtually the entire parcel was located |
within a wetlands area. Nearly the entirety of the proposed Lot 3 is within a Class A |
flood zone, making construction prohibitive. Staff feels that, given the environmental |
characteristics of this lot, it would be preferable to preserve the lot in its natural state |
rather than allow construction. As these lots will never be built upon, staff recommends |
that the variation for a lot without public street frontage be approved. Ms. Backensto |
concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of the petition, and introduced the |
Village's larger plans for open space in the area. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the open space plans can be used for |
reference purposes to give some context to this petition. He presented an aerial photo |
of the area and noted that the past development trend has been single-family homes |
being built along existing streets. He then presented a map of the existing land uses. |
Mr. Heniff stated that staff has approached the DuPage County Forest Preserve relative |
to this area, where the High Ridge Forest Preserve was developed through land |
acquisitions throughout the 1990s. The land falls off from High Ridge Road and Edward |
Street, making the property immediately along the public right-of-way most conducive to |
development. Although the petitioner's properties could theoretically be divided into a |
cul-de-sac with eight lots under the R1 District width and area requirements, this would |
not be sound land planning as it would not address the floodplain issue. The proposed |
three-lot subdivisions give protection to the floodplain. The Village of Lombard has been |
working with the Lombard Park District to possibly add amenities to the area that would |
give local and community benefits, in addition to meeting the recommendations of the |
Comprehensive Plan. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission |
Commissioner Sweetser inquired as to the depth of the lots. Ms. Backensto stated that |
the proposed lots are all 300 feet deep. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked if there were other lots along High Ridge Road that had |
widths of less than 75 feet. Mr. Heniff stated that there were not. |
Commissioner Burke stated that it would make more sense to have three 86-foot wide |
lots and he was not in favor of the lot width variation. The variation request for a lot |
without public street frontage is understandable. He then inquired as to how eight lots |
could fit on the property. Mr. Heniff stated that the floodplain issue would need to be |
engineered around. |
Commissioner Sweetser noted that there are few R1 lots in the Village. She stated that |
she would prefer a three-lot subdivision, as the proposed 65-foot wide lots would not be |
very different from lots in the R2 District. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked if a three-lot subdivision could be done on this property. |
Mr. Heniff stated that it could theoretically be done. |
Commissioner Zorn stated that she also preferred a three-lot subdivision that would |
allow more land for each property and additional space around the homes. |
Commissioner Flint stated that this case would be much different if it were in the R2 |
District, but it would be hard to go down to a 65-foot lot width in R1. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that |
this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for denial. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Melarkey
1 -
040183
G. PC 04-16: 929 S. Main Street (Waiver of First Requested) |
Requests approval of a conditional use for a planned development with a use exception |
per Section 155.508 (B)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance (Standards for Planned |
Developments with Use Exceptions) to allow for massage establishment(s) (as defined |
and regulated by Chapter 12, Section 122 of the Code of Ordinances), located within the |
B1 Limited Neighborhood Commercial District. The petitioner is requesting a waiver of |
first reading. (DISTRICT #6) |
Vince Hill, 216 W. Campus Drive, Suite 201, Arlington Heights, IL, building manager for |
the property presented the petition. He discussed the history of the massage tenants |
that are located in the building. Pamela Myers, a masseuse in the building for the past |
thirteen years, was seeking a larger office space within the building for her practice. |
When Ms. Myers applied for the requisite Village licensing, they were informed that her |
license could only be approved if the zoning issues were addressed - either through a |
text amendment or through a planned development approval with a use exception. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or against |
the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that earlier this year as part of our routine |
business licensing process, staff noted that a new masseuse was applying for approval |
to occupy a tenant space within the 929 S. Main Street building. As massage |
establishments are not listed as permitted or conditional uses within the B1 District, staff |
informed the applicant accordingly. |
Upon further review, staff found out she was seeking to occupy a 200 square foot tenant |
space within Suite 103A1 of the building. Until this past year that space was used as a |
legal nonconforming massage establishment and noted the tenant space as Suite 103A. |
However, last year she relocated her massage practice into the office next door in Suite |
103A2, a 300 square foot space. The Suite 103A2 space was previously occupied by a |
permitted office use. |
As the massage establishment is a legal non-conforming use, it cannot be expanded or |
relocated. Therefore, the property owner/building manager is now seeking approval of |
actions that would allow both masseuses to operate their individual practices within the |
building. |
He then referenced and explained the non-conforming provisions in the Village Code. |
The legal non-conforming status is tied to the Suite103A1 tenant space. When the |
masseuse moved from the Suite 103A1 tenant space to the Suite 103A2 space that |
action constitutes a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. A new massage establishment |
could move into the Suite 103A1 space as a matter of right. However, in order for the |
previous massage establishment to continue its operation in Suite 103A2, zoning |
actions would be required. |
Staff noted two options with the property manager to address the massage |
establishment. The first option would be to create an amendment to the Zoning |
Ordinance to provide for such uses by right or as part of a conditional use application. |
Staff was hesitant to have the petitioner pursue this option as such an amendment |
would have much greater applicability throughout the Village than what is really |
attempting to be addressed within the office building on the subject property. |
Alternatively, staff suggested that the petitioner consider applying for a conditional use |
for a planned development with a use exception for the massage establishments. |
The subject property meets the minimum width and area requirement for a planned |
development. Staff believes that by creating planned development for the property, the |
proposed uses can be considered in the context for the standards for planned |
development. |
He noted that the massage establishments as a use exception can supported based |
upon the following considerations: |
1. The petitioner notes that the two massage establishment would occupy 500 square |
feet of 12,000 square feet of office space (4.2%) in the building. |
2. No external modifications will be needed to the exterior of the building that would |
negatively affect the subject property or the properties abutting the subject property. |
3. The business activity would be operated consistent with operations of other |
business in the building (e.g., medical and dental practices). |
4. One establishment has occupied space within the building for over thirteen years |
without any negative impacts on the development or neighboring properties. |
The principal use of the site will still be an office building. As the massage |
establishment will operate similar to other users in the building, negative impacts on |
surrounding uses are not anticipated. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the |
property be used as office use. The massage establishment use will still be an ancillary |
activity within the office building. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the petition |
subject to the conditions noted within the report. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked about the conditions of approval and wondered if the |
proposed conditions limiting the square footage and number of establishments are |
necessary and appropriate as written. Mr. Heniff noted that the reason the petitioner |
find themselves in a position that they have to apply to the Village for zoning actions is |
because they were unaware of the limitations of nonconforming uses. The proposed |
language specifically defines both the number and square footage of the establishments |
so that there is no confusion in the future. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Melarkey
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5502 |
040186
PC 04-15: 225 E. Roosevelt Road (Walgreens) |
Requests a variation from Section 153.210 (D) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to |
increase the maximum display screen height of an automatic changeable copy sign |
from 18 inches to 32.5 inches. |
The petition was presented by Natalie Grindel of Icon Identity Solutions, 1418 Elmhurst |
Road, Elk Grove Village, Illinois. Ms. Grindel amended the petitioner's request to ask for |
relief for a 32.5-inch high sign with 27.5-inch high copy. The proposed sign is the |
standard size recommended by Walgreens. They intend to replace the existing manual |
reader board with the smaller automatic changeable copy sign. The main portion of the |
Walgreens sign is larger, so the electronic message board portion would not be the |
principal part of the sign. Ms. Grindel concluded by stating they believe a precedent for |
granting relief was set in the Heritage Cadillac case. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or |
against the petition. |
Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, stated that the petitioner is requesting a variation for an |
automatic changeable copy sign in excess of the 18-inch height that is permitted by |
code. This petition is being heard before the Plan Commission rather than the Zoning |
Board of Appeals because a conditional use had previously been approved on the |
property (PC 98-31, conditional use for a drive-through facility). |
There were no comments from Public Works or Private Engineering Services, and Fire |
Department/Bureau of Inspectional Services did not find any life safety concerns. |
Ms. Backensto stated that the petitioner could meet code by installing an 18-inch high |
display screen that would not require any zoning relief. Under specific provisions in the |
CR, B3, B4, and B5 districts, automatic changeable copy signs are permitted as a |
component of a wall or freestanding signs. The intent of the 18-inch height limit is |
intended to ensure that the automatic changeable copy display screen does not become |
the principal element of the sign. |
Since 2000, the Village has had four requests for automatic changeable copy signs |
exceeding code. Staff recommended approval of only one of these petitions. Staff |
supported the variation request for Heritage Cadillac in PC 03-40 because of the unique |
characteristics and history of that property. The sign with the automatic changeable |
copy portion was to be significantly smaller than the existing, legally permitted |
freestanding sign (143 sq. ft. versus 341 sq. ft.). It was staff's opinion that the requested |
signage would be more aesthetically pleasing as well as less obtrusive. In this case, |
there are no unusual circumstances surrounding the Walgreens signage that would |
justify a variation. |
Furthermore, to be granted a variation the petitioner must show that they have affirmed |
each of the "Standards for Variation." Staff finds that the conditions are not unique to |
the subject property. The design and layout of the petitioner's property is typical of |
many of the B3 Community Shopping District parcels along Roosevelt Road and is |
typical of the corridor commercial uses commonly found along roadways like Roosevelt |
Road. The petitioner already meets code with the existing sign, and staff has not seen |
any evidence of a hardship. |
The petitioner's property is typical of many of the B3 parcels within the Village and along |
Roosevelt Road. Therefore, staff believes that there is nothing unique to this property to |
warrant the larger electronic display screen. Staff finds that the ordinance has not |
caused the hardship. The signage requirement has been applied consistently along the |
corridor, as indicated by past public hearings. |
Ms. Backensto concluded by stating that the petitioner has not met the Standards for |
Variations, nor has a hardship been presented. Staff therefore recommends that this |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission |
members. There were no comments from the members present. |
Commissioner Olbrysh made a motion to accept the findings of the Inter-Departmental |
Review Committee as the findings of the Plan Commission and recommend denial of |
the petition, which was seconded by Commissioner Flint. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for denial. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Melarkey
1 -
040187
A. PC 04-17: Text Amendment to the Lombard Zoning Ordinance (Three |
Ordinances on First Reading) (Tabled August 19) |
The Village of Lombard requests a text amendment to Section 155.210 of the Lombard |
Zoning Ordinance to modify the maximum permitted height, yard requirements and |
overall maximum size of accessory buildings and structures. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition. He indicated that staff has put |
together a number of text amendments for Plan Commission and Village Board |
consideration. Staff has brought forth these items to the Plan Commission in previous |
workshops for discussion. Mr. Heniff stated that he will present the petition by taking |
one amendment at a time, present the rationale, and then solicit comments from the |
Commissioners. |
Staff is looking at text amendments to modify the maximum allowable height, size, and |
yard requirements of detached garages in single family residential districts. The intent |
of the text amendment is to ensure that accessory structures, particularly detached |
garages, remain accessory to the principal residential use of properties. |
He noted comments from the various inter-departmental entities. Engineering did not |
have a problem with the current setbacks and that the proposed increase in the side and |
rear yard setbacks will allow more room for utilities. |
Public Works and Building and Fire had no comments but Building and Fire noted that |
the proposed interior side yard setback modifications are consistent with the code |
amendments recently approved by the Board in 2004. |
Mr. Heniff then presented the following amendments from a Planning standpoint: |
Height of Accessory Buildings and Structures |
Staff is proposing language to amend the Zoning Ordinance to change the current |
formulated height of 15' to the "vertical distance measured from the average grade to |
the highest point on the roof or parapet for any detached accessory building or structure |
shall not exceed 17 feet." |
The reason staff brought this forward is that staff has seen two-story accessory |
structures become more common and a gambrel or other pitches of roofs could enable |
the height of the accessory structure to go above the allowable 15' height. This height |
issue was raised by the Village Board as being inconsistent with the character of the |
neighborhood. The proposed amended language would be similar to DuPage County's |
code in that we set a "not to exceed" number. This element would relate to accessory |
structures and create a gap of 17'. The question then becomes why 17'? This |
proposed height would allow people an opportunity to utilize area above their garage for |
storage purposes but would not be creating the in-law apartment and/or office use. |
From a neighborhood standpoint, this would be compatible with the adjacent properties |
as that would keep the accessory structures smaller in scope as it relates to height. |
Staff feels this amendment could be supported and he referred to the standards for the |
text amendments found on page 3 of the staff report. In summation, staff finds that as |
more detached garages are becoming two story in design, this was a code issue that |
should be addressed. |
Mr. Heniff then requested comments from the Plan Commissioners relative to the height |
of accessory structures. |
Commissioner Flint concurred with the proposed height. He felt it was a reasonable |
height which would allow storage above the garage and this issue was previously |
discussed by the Commissioners. |
Chairperson Ryan referred to the illustration shown on page 2 of the staff report which |
shows 8' to the roof. He questioned the standard of the garage door opening and how |
they may be getting larger to accommodate larger vehicles. He was concerned that if |
developers starting making garage doors larger, the 17' limit could be insufficient. Mr. |
Heniff stated he felt this proposed height would still be sufficient as builders could make |
it work by modifying the pitch of the roof and also by having a "not to exceed" number |
which could provide flexibility. |
Commissioner Burke asked if the sketch was part of the proposed amendment. Mr. |
Heniff indicated that it would not be but was included for illustrative purposes. |
Commissioner Burke stated that 8' is not standard anymore and that having a 9' |
dimension will cause the space to shrink. Architecturally it could be grim but from a |
storage standpoint it could be worse. He recalled from previous discussions that some |
of the dimensions from surrounding communities were higher than 17'. Mr. Heniff stated |
that there were some higher but those heights hinged on other variables. Staff felt that |
17' was a good compromise to allow storage but not to create a room. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked for a recalculation to see how a typical garage would |
look with a 10' clearance with the same type of roof pitch. She then stated she would be |
willing to go with a "no higher than" number but is not sure if that would be satisfactory to |
staff. |
Chairperson Ryan stated his concern was that the proposed amendment would include |
the accommodation of bigger vehicle trends but also be limiting architectural |
components by only being able to have a flat roof. He then deferred to Commissioner |
Flint for his opinion. |
Commissioner Flint stated that he was comparing this proposed height amendment to |
his garage. He stated that they have a tight fit. He indicated they have a 12/12 slope, |
the cross bracing requires you to duck to get through, and they have a 7' garage door. |
He indicated that if you wanted an oversized vehicle you would have to have an |
additional foot for clearance. If that is the case, it would be tough to walk up there. |
Mr. Heniff then continued to the second proposed amendment which is Area |
Requirements for Accessory Buildings and Structures. He mentioned this was |
previously introduced and that a 1,000 foot accessory structure could be construed as |
being rather sizeable and taking up too much of the property. When this issue was |
previously brought forward in 2002 by staff, there was no cap on the size of the |
accessory structure. Concerns by the public and questions by the Village Board |
indicated that the 1,000 foot cap is still too high and that 750' was being proposed and if |
there is a desire to modify that. He referred to a sample text amendment to ground floor |
area which could be found in the staff report. He stated that 750' is 10 percent of the |
zoning lot or 750 square feet in ground floor area which would still allow for three cars. |
The 1,000 cap could be conducive to other activities that are not permitted by code such |
as home occupations or other storage issues. One of the concerns raised at the |
workshop was that the 1,000 square foot cap would allow for extra storage space |
especially if you had a smaller home. Staff believes this new area amendment would |
still allow for three vehicles within the 750' and should more space be required, an |
addition to the home might be a solution or to attach the garage to the home. |
He stated that staff did meet the standards for text amendments based on the 750' |
provision and requested comments/discussion by the Plan Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if staff considered what would happen if a lot width |
variation was granted in an R2 to be narrower than 60' and the possible impact that |
might have on the 750' limit or 10 percent of the buildable lot. Mr. Heniff stated that 10 |
percent of the lot or 750' would be sufficient for a lot width variation that was granted |
because there are other controlling factors such as open space, setbacks, and other |
bulk requirements that would affect the property more than the 750' provision. |
Commissioners Burke and Sweetser questioned the wording of the amendment and |
asked for clarification specifically the 10 percentage versus the 750' cap. Mr. Heniff |
recited what is existing code and what was being proposed. Chairperson Ryan |
indicated it might be best to eliminate the percentage factor and just have a 750' cap as |
the wording was confusing. Commissioner Sweetser concurred to leave it as just a |
number and not have the percentage. |
Commissioner Burke asked if this amendment was applicable to the other residential |
districts such as the R3. Mr. Heniff indicated this amendment was specific to the |
residential districts. If the Commissioners wanted it further refined and be applied to the |
multi-family residential, they might have their own uniqueness but if this should only |
apply to single family residence it could be written up that way. Commissioner Sweetser |
stated it was in the standards. |
Chairperson Ryan asked the other Commissioners if they concurred with just the 750 |
cap and no mention of a percentage. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that |
the amendment should be worded in that fashion. |
Commissioner Olbrysh pointed out that this amendment applies to detached garages. |
He asked if 750 square feet for an attached garage is standard. Mr. Heniff stated that |
attached garages have an unlimited square footage amount. Commissioner Olbrysh |
asked what the normal square footage of an attached garage would be. Mr. Heniff |
stated that it tends to be less and he could provide that information at a later date. |
Commissioner Olbrysh declined the information and indicated he wanted to know for |
comparison purposes. |
Commissioner Sweetser suggested modifying B1a. by taking out the first sentence and |
leaving the rest and B1b. to include detached garages and any single accessory building |
or structure and asked if that would reflect the amendment they wanted. Mr. Heniff |
stated that staff could prepare it in that fashion. |
Mr. Heniff indicated that the third item for consideration is the Setback Requirements for |
Accessory Buildings and Structures. He referred to the suggested amendment in the |
staff report and stated that staff struck and added a considerable amount of language. |
Staff proposes that detached accessory buildings or structures that require a foundation, |
footings or piers shall be set back a minimum of ten feet from the rear property line. All |
other accessory structures shall be set back a minimum of three feet from the rear |
property line. For the interior side yard requirements, staff is proposing that detached |
accessory buildings of structures that require a foundation, footings or piers shall be set |
back a minimum of five feet from the interior side property line. If an accessory building |
or structure does not require a foundation, footings, or piers and is located in the rear 25 |
percent of the lot, the building or structure shall be set back a minimum of three feet |
from an interior side property line. |
This amendment is being proposed to establish uniform development regulations as it |
relates to the legally permitted location of accessory structures. Currently accessory |
structures can be located up to three feet from the property line. Within the Subdivision |
and Development Ordinance new lots of record require five foot public utility and |
drainage easements along the interior side lot lines and ten foot easements along the |
rear lot line. Staff identified cases where adjacent properties have different standards |
for accessory structures. This amendment proposes to treat all parcels the same |
regardless of whether easements were recorded on the lot as well as to codify past staff |
interpretations pertaining to accessory structure location on lots with easements. He |
referred to the exhibit in the staff report and mentioned that when an administrative plat |
of subdivision is being done you are changing the setback regulations for those |
properties. The need for the easements are still there but are not recorded. Whether |
recorded or not, staff is proposing that all parcels should be treated equally. He then |
mentioned staff's interpretation of a temporary structure versus a poured foundation. |
Mr. Heniff then stated how this amendment would be compatible with the Building Code |
provisions of having a ten foot requisite setback as well as addressing concerns raised |
as part of previous cases in which it was suggested or required that additional open |
space be provided between properties. This amendment basically tries to pull the |
accessory structures away from the property lines. |
Mr. Heniff then asked for the Commissioners comments on this amendment. |
Chairperson Ryan questioned how much room would be left for a backyard or green |
space if using this theory and he was concerned about how close a shed would be |
located to the house for a temporary structure. Commissioner Sweetser clarified that |
temporary was 3 feet and permanent was 10 feet. |
Commissioner Burke agreed with this amendment and felt that it works. |
Commissioner Olbrysh agreed and did not have a problem with the amendment but |
asked to go back to the height amendment. He felt that the text amendment is making |
the accessory structures dimension more restrictive except for one instance which is |
with a flat roof. He asked from a building code standpoint if someone could come in |
proposing a flat roof. Mr. Heniff stated that it wasn't realistic but theoretically possible. |
Commissioner Sweetser referred to the maximum height number and asked if 18' or 19' |
feet would be out of the question. Mr. Heniff stated that staff could revisit that request |
and come back to the Plan Commission providing more examples. He also indicated he |
would get with the Building Department to look at roof pitches and roof heights to find if |
17' or 18' might be more appropriate. He will share his findings at the next meeting. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if they could make a motion to approve the petition and |
incorporate the suggested changes so that this petition would not have to come back |
before the Commissioners again. George Wagner suggested that, due to the number of |
issues that need to be addressed, they entertain a motion to continue the petition to the |
following Plan Commission meeting. |
Commissioner Olbrysh stated his concern with the accessory structure height is that the |
pitch would not be as high so he was not sure what the big deal was and agreed with |
the 17' foot height. |
Commissioner Sweetser commented that the pitch is a big deal as far as aesthetics. |
Commissioner Olbrysh suggested that examples from staff include a lower pitch so they |
can see what it would look like. |
Commissioner Flint wanted to review the height. He indicated that 9' to the eaves |
leaving an 8' opening, then there would be the beams, and then another foot for the floor |
and that puts you roughly about 7' from floor to the peak. You will have cross ties below |
2' below the ties so you will have 5 feet where you will still have to crouch down and |
couldn't stand up straight and walk around. If that is what you want people to have then |
the height needs to be raised up. It would be doable but not comfortable. Mr. Heniff |
stated that was staff's intention - to give people the capacity for storage but not making it |
so attractive to become a room. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be continued to the June 21, 2004 Plan Commission meeting. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Melarkey
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5552 |
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the April 19, 2004 Plan Commission meeting were approved by |
unanimous consent of the Plan Commission. |
Public Participation
Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Plan |
Commission regarding anything not on the agenda. No one was present to speak. |
Chairperson Ryan stated they would move the workshop item up to this point. There was a |
request for a short recess and Chairperson Ryan requested a recess until 9:15 p.m. |
Chairperson Ryan reconvened the business portion of the May 17, 2004 Plan Commission |
meeting at 9:15 p.m. |
Workshops
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the workshop. He indicated that included in |
the Commissioners' packets was a concept plan for a major redevelopment which might |
be on file for next month's Plan Commission meeting. The developer would like some |
direction on the concept for the properties bounded by Roosevelt Road on the north, |
Garfield on the west, 13th Street on the south, and Highland Avenue on the east. He |
then referenced the businesses that were located on the site prior to the acquisition of |
BP. Those businesses have been demolished and the site currently sits vacant. |
He mentioned that he had four exhibits boards for display with the first showing the |
location of the site along Roosevelt and Highland. He proceeded to name and locate |
the businesses on the site that had been demolished as well as other businesses that |
currently remain. He mentioned Riley's Pub and their annexation into the Village and |
the legal nonconforming duplex residences along 13th Street. The underlying zoning is |
B3 and staff envisions that the reason this zoning designation was established was to |
encourage a unified redevelopment of the site. He mentioned the potential developer, |
V-Land, who is looking to complete a major redevelopment which would include the |
entire block face except for the brick strip center along Highland Avenue. The developer |
is planning to do the redevelopment in three phases and staff is looking for a new |
planned development with a number of new components. |
He displayed the second exhibit board which was the Phase 1 site plan. He mentioned |
their plans to demolish the existing non conforming duplexes along 13th, construct a |
detention facility, construct a 7,820 square foot, one-story retail center at the corner of |
Roosevelt and Highland and construct a 3,529 square foot bank with a drive through. |
The drive through traffic would come from the south. There would be shared cross |
access provisions and shared parking arrangements between the two retail uses. The |
specific tenants have not been determined but staff thought it to be a mix of restaurant |
or retail uses. Staff mentioned to the potential developer that this is a high-profile |
intersection and wants to see an attractive, unified development. The detention would |
be sized to accommodate a long-term redevelopment of the entire block face. |
The next exhibit board displayed was the Phase 2 site plan. Phase 2 and 3 could be |
interchangeable depending on timing issues. He mentioned the four residential |
buildings that previously existed and wanted the Commissioners thoughts and |
comments if there would be support for a townhouse proposal to be located immediately |
south of the retail development. He mentioned the townhouses that do exist on the |
cul-de-sac on 13th Street so there is a precedent for them or a rowhouse concept. |
Staff realizes that the detention pond would be located behind them and there might be |
relief needed. The property slopes from Garfield to the east and the engineering still |
needs to be resolved but the idea is for two residential townhouse buildings. |
Displaying the next board, he referenced Phase 3. This phase would consist of |
acquiring and removing the Riley's Pub site and constructing a 8,728 square foot retail |
building put on the corner of Roosevelt and Garfield. There would be the ability for |
additional cross access which would eliminate the need for additional curb cuts on |
Roosevelt Road. The concept plan is only one curb cut, one at Highland, and maybe a |
cross access to the strip center which he pointed to, and then access to Garfield that |
would feed in and out of the site. |
Staff envisions creating a unified planned development so the Plan Commissioners |
could look at the respective units subject to site plan review since the development |
would be done in phases. |
In conclusion, Mr. Heniff asked for the Plan Commissioners comments relative to this |
proposed development. |
Commissioner Olbrysh indicated that he liked planned developments but had a concern |
about this site due to it being a high-profile intersection. He felt that it was not creative |
having a drive-through bank and another strip center as that is what is commonly found |
up and down Roosevelt Road. He thought this intersection should be a destination point |
and development should be thought of in terms outside of the box. He envisioned a |
development similar to Fountain Square instead of having another mini strip center and |
drive through bank. He felt if they have the opportunity to make this a real destination |
point they should instead of the usual strip center. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that it sounds as if the bank is a given and asked if that |
was true. Mr. Heniff indicated that they are an interested party and a driving force with |
the project. One of the ideas about the bank in this center, is that it is tucked away and |
not highly visible due to its location on the site. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if a larger building was proposed for the site which |
provided a destination point, could the bank fit in somewhere else to the west. Mr. |
Heniff stated that perhaps it could be located further west and possibly something else |
in the center. Commissioner Sweetser then questioned the flexibility of the project. Mr. |
Heniff indicated that the bank is ready to go and that western portion of the site will not |
become available until sometime in 2006. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked if this bank was the same one that was proposed to be |
located on North Avenue. Mr. Heniff indicated that it was not. |
Commissioner Burke indicated that with the climate in the current market, the bank is |
probably the driving force of this project. He explained that the developer will put it |
under contract or take certain pieces and assemble them and will flip one to a bank at a |
big number which allows them to do other developments on the balance on the site. |
Banks pay large dollars for desirable sites. He indicated he did not have too much of an |
objection since he hasn't seen the architecturals but staff cannot be too excited as this |
type of development will not generate sales tax or the kind of traffic wanted but it is an |
interesting concept and better than what is currently there now. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if the retail would be one story. Mr. Heniff answered |
yes. |
Chairperson Ryan asked about the townhouses. Mr Heniff indicated that the townhouse |
component was the biggest unknown of the project and the reason staff suggested a |
phased planned development. Staff envisions a rowhouse concept because the land is |
tight, full improvements along 13th Street would be done, Garfield Avenue would be |
cleaned up, and Village standards would be met. The building footprint indicates that it |
is highly probable that they will seek relief from the front yard to accommodate some of |
the detention. Staff would not be supportive of anything less than 20 feet because then |
the parking would be restricted. |
Commissioner Sweetser mentioned the term rowhouse. With the market supporting two |
cars is that what it would be. Mr. Heniff indicated that staff envisions two car driveways. |
Chairperson Ryan agreed with Commissioner Olbrysh and indicated he would like to |
have some name restaurants and something different than what is currently found along |
Roosevelt Road. He thought the one unavailable piece is not allowing the site to be |
creative. He was disappointed that the Village would be giving up a prime location just |
to fit something in. |
Commissioner Zorn also agreed by stating that having something unique with nice |
landscaping and appealing to the eye would be nice. Commissioner Sweetser agreed |
with the landscaping issue especially since the college across the street has made an |
effort to improve their landscaping making their location a destination spot. It would be |
nice to capitalize on that and a planned development is the only way to go. |
Commissioner Flint stated he wants the site to be a cohesive development. He felt that |
by thinking outside of the box a development similar to Fountain Square/Highlands of |
Lombard could be accomplished. He commented that the site is disjointed and will be a |
traffic maze. He asked if the Roosevelt Road ingress/egress would be a right in right |
out. Mr. Heniff stated that the developer is working on that. |
Chairperson Ryan asked about the Highland Avenue exit. Mr. Heniff indicated that the |
high median will serve as a right in right out. Chairperson Ryan then questioned how |
people would proceed west on Roosevelt Road or get in the site other than using the |
Garfield access point. Mr. Heniff answered that you would have to go back to Garfield |
and that will be a limiting factor no matter what happens on that property. Chairperson |
Ryan asked if they could have a stoplight at Garfield. Mr. Heniff explained that it would |
be too close to the other traffic signal and would be based on IDOT's standard for |
separation. Chairperson Ryan stated that may be a starting point - finding ways to get |
out of the site. He worried that if traffic has to go to 13th Street and then to Garfield, a |
lot of traffic would be put onto a residential street. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if the median on Highland could be a driveable median |
with a left turn lane. Mr. Heniff stated this site will be an access challenge but |
regardless of whatever gets built, there will be some constraints. |
Commissioner Flint shared his experiences of what he had to do after going to the gas |
station that used to be on that corner and the vehicular maneuvers he had to make to |
get to cross safely at the traffic signal. |
Mr. Heniff indicated that these comments would be shared with the developer. |
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Chairperson's Report
The Chairperson deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
The Senior Planner had nothing to report. Commissioner Sweetser asked for a current |
project listing. |
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
Public Hearing Procedures and By-Laws |
Mr. Heniff stated that staff requested counsel to look at documents associated with the |
Plan Commission in light of Klaeren v. Village of Lisle, which the Supreme Court held |
that landowners whose property abuts a parcel adjacent to a proposed development |
cannot be wholly denied the right to cross examine witnesses at a public hearing. It also |
talked about the public hearing process. In light of this case, George Wagner, Village |
counsel, has prepared some language for discussion and consideration. Mr. Heniff |
indicated that he would go through each item which has been considered for change |
and mentioned that this was also a great opportunity for staff to modify the provisions so |
that they reflect the processes and procedures that they have been following: |
Mr. Heniff stated staff is looking for comments at this point and will bring this item back |
for recommendation at the next Plan Commission meeting. If there are any questions |
relative to the text, George Wagner could answer those questions as he prepared it. |
Plan Commission Public Hearing Procedures |
The first document talks about the Plan Commission Public Hearing Procedures. This |
would be what the Executive Secretary would read at the beginning of the meeting. |
Everything would be read except Section C. which is a summary of other sections. This |
creates the following process which removes 30 minute time limit provisions. Provisions |
are added for cross examination after the petitioner has given any testimony. |
Suggestions are made for the time and allow for a rebuttal period. One important |
change is associated with the staff report where the public or a petitioner can cross |
examine staff as well. Cross examination would not apply in most of our cases and we |
would only be introducing the ability to do cross examination, not so as to state an |
opinion as to whether or not someone likes the petition but to be fact finding in nature. |
Commissioner Olbrysh referred to Section N., specifically, the last sentence, that |
references that further testimony or questions from the petitioner or the public "will only |
be allowed by the discretion of the Plan Commission". He indicated that in the past, the |
Chairperson would have that responsibility and if it is now at the discretion of the Plan |
Commission, would that be a consensus type of thing or would it be up to any |
Commissioner. He asked for more specifics to define what that meant as it was too |
much of an open term. |
Chairperson Ryan explained that is being done now. Once the hearing is open to the |
Commissioners for questions and comments and if they have a question of the |
petitioner, the petitioner is brought back for questioning and explanation. |
Commissioner Sweetser agreed with Commissioner Olbrysh in his interpretation of that |
sentence. She thought it was nice in that it allows the input of the Commission but we |
do not know how that will happen and the language used in the sentence if unclear. |
George Wagner suggested that the sentence be changed to read "at the discretion of |
any member of the Plan Commission". |
Commissioner Sweetser asked where the waiving of the time limits came from. She |
worried they would have nothing to fall back on if someone wanted to filibuster a |
petition. Mr. Wagner indicated that the Chairperson has the ability to control the |
meeting by deciding if the material is relevant or redundant. It needs to be more flexible |
where as in the Klaeren decision members could testify no more than two minutes. |
Chairperson Ryan mentioned that he thought he read in the provided material a |
comment about a preferred 30-minute time limit and asked if that would be stated. Mr. |
Wagner answered yes. Chairperson Ryan referred back to times where this was done, |
for example, when they had numerous speakers and he indicated there was a time limit |
and most people held their comments to accommodate all speakers. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that she felt they are bound to do this. Mr. Wagner |
stated that if you encourage the time limit, a majority of the people will comply. He |
indicated that this time limit is based on a concern for the legal art of cross examination. |
This would be especially true in cases where an attorney represents a group, whereby |
that attorney could effectively conduct cross examination. It is important to let the |
people know that during cross examination they cannot comment or have an opportunity |
to make statements, only to ask questions and obtain a response. Another important |
issue to reinforce is the fact that the public will have an opportunity to ask questions |
during public participation. |
Commissioner Burke clarified that the petitioner will present witnesses, and after each |
witness, especially for the larger developments, we could hear a battery of questions. |
Mr. Wagner answered yes. Chairperson Ryan indicated that it would be an opportunity |
to ask questions or clarify statements that have been said. Commissioner Burke asked |
if they would still be required to fill out the public participation forms and if the same form |
would be used for cross examination. Chairperson Ryan answered yes and then |
questioned the procedure of swearing people in especially if these people had no initial |
intention of testifying but then had a question after hearing another's testimony. Mr. |
Wagner indicated that only the person testifying would have to be sworn in. |
Chairperson Ryan asked if, during the proceeding, a person from the audience had a |
question after one of the petitioner's witnesses had testified, would that person from the |
audience need to be sworn in. Mr. Wagner indicated that they did not. |
Commissioner Sweetser indicated that the script reflects this fact and should remind |
people that if they are going to cross examine, that they are not sworn and their activity |
cannot include opinions. Commissioner Burke asked how logistically they would handle |
that. He suggested that the cross examination stand be located in a different place, |
such as to his right, instead of where the testimony is given. Mr. Heniff stated that |
something could be figured out. Chairperson Ryan indicated that from a legal |
standpoint Mr. Wagner was seeing this occur only on one or two occasions where the |
Commissioners are sensing that this would happen all the time. Mr. Wagner indicated |
that it would be most effective if an attorney does it as they know the art but it will be |
different if the public does it. That's why it is important to state that would be the time for |
cross examination and questions. |
Commissioner Sweetser indicated that over time this would be a good tool for people |
who come to the hearing and could lead to good things. Chairperson Ryan indicated his |
biggest fear would be the time component involved and how a petition could drag on. |
Mr. Heniff then summarized the Commissioners' comments. |
Section N. needs to include a "any member of" provision; |
cross examination doe snot include any testimony but questions of the petitioner or |
any witnesses; and |
there will be a separate table for the public to use if they cross examine. |
Public Hearing Procedures for the Chairperson |
Mr. Heniff indicated that the second document is more for the Chairperson to be aware |
of and use as a checklist depending on how far a person wants to take the process. Mr. |
Wagner stated he tried to draft the language from Chairperson Ryan's perspective and |
indicated it is lengthy. |
Chairperson Ryan referred to II. where it states "ask if attorney will represent objectors", |
and stated that he knows what is trying to be accomplished but some of it is stated from |
a legal aspect and that is not what he has seen in all the years he has been doing this. |
Mr. Wagner stated that the public might not be as interested in this as an attorney might |
be. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that the language in IV.1., located in the box, contradicts |
they just went through about not being sworn in. This statement indicates the opposite. |
Mr. Wagner indicated that it needs to be corrected. |
Chairperson Ryan indicated that there are not any major changes to this section except |
giving the public an opportunity in more than one spot to cross examine. If there are |
numerous witnesses, he would have to make sure that there is an opportunity for one |
person, five different times, for cross examination. Mr. Wagner stated this would also |
apply if the public testifies, it would give the petitioner an opportunity to cross examine. |
Chairperson Ryan asked if he needed to stop after each witness and ask if anyone |
wants to cross examine. Mr. Wagner stated yes but it is important to reinforce the fact |
that they will have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments later in the |
public participation section. All they can do right now is ask questions specific to this |
witness without any comments. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if cross examination questions should be limited to the |
subject matter that was being introduced only or if they are familiar with the subject, can |
they ask questions about a topic that has not been introduced. Mr. Wagner answered it |
must be specific to the subject matter being introduced. This would give the |
Chairperson control of the meeting by limiting the cross examination based on this |
criteria. |
Commissioner Burke clarified that the public would be able to cross examine after each |
witness, then ask questions or provide comments during public participation and then |
would have another opportunity to cross examine after the staff report. Mr. Wagner |
answered yes. He indicated the procedure made sense since staff does provide a lot of |
information and has the expertise for the interaction between the public and staff. |
Mr. Heniff then summarized the Commissioners' comments relative to the Chairperson |
section. Clarification was needed on IV.1. |
Policies and Procedures of the Plan Commission |
Mr. Heniff indicated this was the third document whereby he made changes based on |
past practice, clarified items, and then referred to page 2. He mentioned the site plan |
approvals, specifically those that have relief associated with them versus those that are |
only design review. He read the boxed paragraph and indicated this was added |
language for clarification purposes. |
He then referenced page 4,i., where a provision was added for site plan approval |
options and for clarification purposes. He stated that this has raised some questions as |
to what part of the meeting the site plan approvals are heard. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if the site plan approval public hearing case number |
could include another designation to differentiate it from a regular site plan approval. |
She suggested adding "ph" after the number. |
Mr. Heniff clarified that any petition that has the SPA designation automatically means |
that the Plan Commission is approving it. Additionally, if there was advertising |
associated with it, it is a public hearing. |
Mr. Heniff then referred to the public hearing submittal deadline change in the number of |
days from 21 to 35, in order for petitions to be submitted to the Executive Secretary as |
well as for legal notification. This would give staff the ability to do a thorough review of |
the petition before legal advertising. Also, this section allows the Executive Secretary to |
reduce the submittal deadline for petitions that do not require a public hearing. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if the Executive Secretary could be anybody that has |
that role. Is there any reason to indicate that the Executive Secretary is usually a |
member of staff. Mr. Wagner indicated that is outlined in the by-laws. |
Mr. Heniff indicated the Section C. was already discussed by Mr. Wagner and continued |
to Section VI., Continuance of Public Hearings. |
Commissioner Olbrysh referred to the previous section, page 6, number 10, and |
indicated this needed to be consistent with what was previously discussed. |
Mr. Heniff stated that Section VI. is now meant to be more petitioner friendly and |
referred to point B. He stated that should a special meeting be required, this language |
was being added to make the procedure flexible. Section VI.C. requiring the need for |
two public hearings for major petitions has been struck. The reason for this is if the Plan |
Commission feels there has been sufficient evidence and testimony presented at the |
time of the first public hearing and there is no need to have another meeting, this section |
would not mandate the second public hearing and the petition would not get held up due |
to this provision. The Plan Commission would still have the authority to continue any |
petition if they felt they did not have sufficient evidence to continue. |
Continuing, Mr. Heniff stated the rest in Section VI. are clean up items. Workshop topics |
have been further refined to state what you can do under this topic. Mr. Wagner |
referred to page 8 at the bottom and asked that "whenever this is" be changed to |
"whenever there is". |
Mr. Heniff referred to Section IX., Commissioner's Contact with the Public and the |
Media. The added language on page 11 codifies that the Plan Commission keeps |
exhibited material. Everything else has been added/deleted for clarification purposes. |
Mr. Heniff asked the Commissioners if they had any other questions relative to this |
section. Chairperson Ryan asked about Section XI., Notice of Public Hearings. He |
asked if the 250 feet is Lombard's standard or state statute. Mr. Heniff answered |
Lombard and Mr. Wagner answered that it was also a state law but the Village's code is |
more restrictive than state law whereby Lombard applies that statute to every public |
hearing. Mr. Heniff mentioned the use of public hearing signs and stated that staff's |
practice, excluding site plan approvals, is that the property involved gets a public |
hearing sign. That has been a good notification experience and he used the 610 S. |
Main Street (Citgo) petition as an example. He explained that Village code in this |
instance would not have required the posting of a public hearing sign but to inform the |
public, staff put one there. Past experience indicates that public hearing signs generate |
more response from the public than the notification letters do. |
Referring to the By-Laws of the Plan Commission, Mr. Heniff indicated that these are |
clean up issues and referred to the amendments. In Section X., Special Committees, |
the Village Board established a new policy in creating new committees. This added |
provision states that there was a particular item under the Board's purview, you could |
not create it independent of them. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that committees are created to be standing - if they are |
temporary they are task forces. she asked if that should be specifically cited in the |
by-laws that there are such committees and they are created on what they are asked to |
do. Mr. Heniff posed a question to Village counsel asking if three Commissioners were |
needed to contribute to a working session in order to go through code, would that |
constitute a special committee? Mr. Wagner stated that the by-laws indicate that the |
Chairperson could create such a committee. Once you create a committee that has |
three commissioners, you have open meeting concerns. |
Commissioner Sweetser indicated that a committee is a longer term, quasi-permanent |
group. By calling it something else would indicate a shorter term working group and |
implies something different. She stated she would argue for special functioning groups, |
among them committees, because committees have a special meaning. Mr. Heniff |
stated he would revisit Village Board policies and incorporate that. Chairperson Ryan |
clarified that by taking the first sentence and changing the word "committees" to either |
special work groups or whatever is necessary many help clarify. Commissioner |
Sweetser suggested using the words "entities" or "subgroups" as they are broader terms |
and a committee would be one kind of that. |
Concluding, Mr. Heniff stated he would research this further and refine the language as |
need be. He then asked if there was anything else that needed to be discussed. As |
there was no more discussion, he stated he would incorporate the comments, modify |
the document, and put it under unfinished business on next month's agenda for a |
recommendation. |
Subdivision Reports
There were no subdivision reports.
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:59 p.m. on May 17, 2004.
_______________________________ |
_______________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |