Village of Lombard Legistar System

Chairman Pro Tem Tross commented on his pleasure of the swearing in of the Police

Lieutenants and Sergeant.

Police Chief Ray Byrne gave some background on Pat Rollins. He said he had joined

the Lombard Police Department in 1990 as a patrol officer and investigator and became

Sergeant in 1995. Chief Byrne stated that Lieutenant Rollins will continue to serve in the

roll of Deputy Chief as he has for past the two years.

Acting Village Clerk Johnson then conducted the swearing in of Lieutenant Pat Rollins.

Deputy Chief Rollins then introduced his family and friends in attendance.

Chief Byrne then explained that Sergeant John Lavery joined the Lombard Police

Department in 1987 as a patrol officer and became Sergeant in 1994. He stated that

Lieutenant Lavery will be joining the patrol ranks as Patrol Lieutenant.

Acting Clerk Johnson then proceeded to administer the oath of office to Lieutenant

Lavery.

Lieutenant Lavery then introduced his family and friends in attendance.

Trustee Soderstrom reminded the Board that the Transportation and Safety Committee

recommended not to make any changes. He then deferred to Trustee DeStephano.

Trustee DeStephano commented that there were a couple of residents who wished to

speak.

Trustee DeStephano explained that some of the businesses in the area are the Dutch

Liquors, the barber shop, and the book store. She mentioned that because of the

landscaping in the parking lot, delivery trucks are having a difficult time backing up to the

businesses to make deliveries. She deferred to the business owners that wished to

speak.

Nigg Markus, 22 W St. Charles Road, owner of the barber shop, said that he has

spoken on several occasions, and that he and other businesses in the area do not

approve of the fifteen minute parking.

Bill Switalla, owner of the Dutch Liquors, said that he needed to clarify the fact that he

never asked for specific parking restrictions. He said it is difficult when trucks try to

make deliveries, as cars sometimes park in the delivery area. He said the curbed area

directly across from the dock area makes it impossible for trucks to get in. He asked for

the Board's cooperation or suggestions.

Trustee DeStephano said that she has discussed this with the owner and she agreed

that the landscaped island makes the loading dock difficult and only 50% effective. She

asked Mr. Switalla if delivery trucks could negotiate with only two spaces, and Mr.

Switalla replied that two would be possible. Trustee DeStephano said she would like to

see two fifteen minute spots or the island taken out which would be a prohibitive cost.

Trustee DeStephano made a motion to authorize two fifteen minute parking spaces

rather than the request for four spaces that was brought before the Transportation and

Safety Committee.

Trustee Koenig said that the owner is not being unreasonable and that some type of

solution needs to be considered. She said she would support two fifteen minute spaces

because it proposes some type of relief.

Trustee Soderstrom shared the concerns of the Transportation and Safety Committee

and said that the original intention of the lot was to provide for businesses in the

downtown area for general use and not just for the businesses on the North side of St.

Charles Road. He said while there was no intent to favor one business, it facilitates

certain types of businesses rather than others. He said while the island may be a

problem, the previous owner dealt with it and there were always cars there. He said a

precedent would be set for other businesses to come to the Board for relief. He said that

enforcement is another concern regarding two hour parking along St. Charles Road

which has not been enforced, and he has spoken to Deputy Police Chief Dane Cuny in

regard to this. Trustee Soderstrom stated that the business owners themselves have

caused this problem.

Trustee Sebby concurred with Trustee Soderstrom and said that the purpose of lot was

for general parking for the entire downtown area.

Trustee DeStephano said that before the Village bought this property, it was owned by

business owners, and it did not impact village patrons. She said that the landscaping

was done to new Village standards which did impact deliveries. She stated that

precedents have been made before, not by her or Trustee Soderstrom, in regard to

parking on Park Avenue. In regard to enforcement, she agreed with Trustee Soderstrom

and said that enforcement should be better. She said she is sympathetic to this request

as we caused a problem by installing an island.

Trustee Florey agreed with Trustee DeStephano and wants to make the downtown

successful for the tenants. He felt this was a reasonable request if it would

accommodate deliveries. He said we need to work with the businesses so the

customers have easy access and not the employees.

Trustee Soderstrom thanked Trustee Destephano for mentioning that she and himself

were not involved in the issue of restrictive parking on Park Avenue. He also said that

the issue would be coming back to the Transportation and Safety Committee for review

as it is a preferential situation of which he does not approve.

Trustee Tross mentioned that he was on the Board at the time of the parking issue on

Park Avenue. He talked about the parking on St. Charles Road which was to be used for

patrons and is being used by business owners and employees. He said he would uphold

the decision of the Transportation and Safety Committee and not accommodate one

business in a $300,000 parking lot at the taxpayers expense.

Mr. Hulseberg stated that the petitioner, Norwood-Lombard, LLC wished to remove their

request regarding parking, as they have re-configured the plan, which gives them a

combined total of sixty eight parking spots. He explained that the new configuration sets

the number of stalls at two above code. He provided a power point presentation which

showed the additional parking spots. He said that at the next meeting of the Board,

Community Development would bring back a first amendment to the agreement, which

will incorporate the new site plan into the agreement.

Trustee DeStephano said that she had met with the developer and Community

Development, and she is pleased as it is the right thing to do, as there will be

landscaping. She made the motion to approve the revised site plan.

Trustee Soderstrom said that he is pleased with the solution and happy that the Trustee,

petitioner and staff worked this hard to find a solution. He thanked staff for their hard

work.

Trustee Florey asked if the landscaping still meets code requirements.

Mr. Hulseberg responded that there is no landscaping code in this instance in the

downtown, but the petitioner will bring the plan for review and approval.

Trustee Sebby asked if there was any loss of right of way on Lincoln.

Mr. Hulseberg responded that there is no loss of right of way, and that parking is on their

own property and will back up on to Lincoln.

Trustee Sebby asked if it would be beyond the property boundary.

Mr. Hulseberg said it would not go beyond the property boundary.

Trustee Tross asked if the B9 curb would be removed to allow this

Mr. Hulseberg said yes.

Trustee Florey asked if the original plans included a sidewalk along Lincoln.

Mr. Hulseberg said yes, the sidewalk will come down the side of Lincoln and access

Michael McGuire Drive.

Trustee Florey asked if there will be a continuous sidewalk from St. Charles to McGuire

Drive.

Mr. Hulseberg said there would be and showed the sidewalk location.

Trustee Sebby inquired about the width of the pavers.

Mr. Hulseberg said that it is a little over twelve feet, but only simple drawings were

available, and engineering plans would be forthcoming. The building would be shifted

east for maximum sidewalk area. He believed all code requirements could be met. He

said there would be a sixteen foot stall with a two foot overhang.

Trustee Sebby said this was a positive move for the downtown area, and he

congratulated staff.

Trustee Tross asked if the overhang on the public sidewalk is illegal.

Chief Byrne said it was, on a public sidewalk.

Mr. Hulseberg went over the aspects of a Special Service Area in a power point

presentation. He said this would promote revitalization of the area and a Special

Service Area technique would be used to finance this.

Trustee Tross commented that it sounds like a TIF.

Trustee Florey said that in a sense, the property owners are adding a tax to their taxes.

He talked of a not for profit Main Street organization being formed, with a commitment of

$100,000 for at least two years. This organization's board of directors would be elected

by the business and property owners in the affected areas. He felt this program should

be put into the hands of the business owners rather than the Village. He said a group of

business owners recommended a four year proposal with the Village paying $75,000 the

first year, $60,000 the second year with the Village's portion reducing accordingly to the

end of four years. He stated that it has been said that service businesses do not need

foot traffic, but that retail businesses do. Trustee Florey said that property values will

increase, which will benefit all businesses. He stated he would like to hear comments

and/or concerns to see if there is enough support for a public hearing.

Trustee Sebby said there is a lot of merit to the concept itself, but he was troubled by the

fact that over half of this area is in District Four and public notices had not been sent to

the businesses east of Main. He commented that he was also troubled by the fact that

he had been given minimal amounts of information and has not had any input. He

mentioned that some business owners in his district were appalled. He stated that the

Chamber of Commerce cannot give a yes or no for support because they hear so many

mixed comments. He said there would need to be some support for this. He said that

taxing businesses without allowing them the opportunity to come forward is wrong and

he asked why some properties were excluded. He also asked how a business like Brust

Funeral Home could benefit from foot traffic. He said it is necessary to move forward on

downtown development, but support is needed from the businesses before they are

taxed.

Trustee Soderstrom said that the concept of the Main Street program has merit and he

had attended early meetings, but that the downtown area is not an island unto itself, and

is still a part of Lombard. He said the development of the downtown area is very

important, but this may be a duplication of efforts. He commented that the responsibility

falls on Community Development to push development in the downtown area as much

as south of Roosevelt. He was concerned that another layer of bureaucracy was being

added. He said we need to lean on the Chamber of Commerce in this direction. He

stated that he has serious concerns that the different types of businesses and locations

would not receive the same benefits. He asked what the benefit would be to the many

service businesses along this area. He then asked why the Village should participate at

75% and not split 50/50 with the businesses. He said there are roughly eighty one

businesses within this proposed Special Service Area, and only seven have come

forward. He stated that one of the demises of the DLU was the lack of interest and too

few doing too much. He asked if we really need to fund it with a Special Service District

and tax the business owners. He spoke of one of the meetings where Elmhurst,

Winfield, and Westmont made presentations. He said that only Elmhurst used a Special

Service District, and he was hesitant about assessing taxes on property owners that

may not be interested. He spoke of an unofficial telephone survey done by Cindy Davies

that showed only 20-25% that had a remote interest in this and most were opposed. He

said that the lack of participation indicates the we might not want to do this and should

look at a different way of approaching this.

Trustee DeStephano mentioned that there is not enough being done in the downtown

area. She commented that when people get off of the train, what they see is much better

than before such as improved pavers. She stated that the old Village Hall was the

anchor in downtown. She said that she has studied the downtown area since 1993 and

there is a general interest in improving the downtown area. She said that it is important

to have a mix. She said there was enough consensus due to the number of service

businesses. She stated that she liked the idea of a Special Service Area and she would

like to see more business owners and not just property owners with more participation.

She also wanted to the Village of Lombard to continue activities regarding projects of

special events such as the Arts and Crafts Fair and Cruise Nights. She suggested that

the Village fund 100% the first year and put a program together that shows

improvements and show the public we can do something in partnership with various

businesses. She suggested hiring a recruiter to bring reluctant people in by putting up

some extra money.

Trustee Tross clarified that this is not a Village function. The question before them was

should the Village of Lombard levy a tax and give that tax revenue to a non profit

organization that the Village of Lombard does not control.

Trustee Florey said that both Trustee Tross and Trustee DeStephano were correct.

There would be a Board of Directors composed of the businesses.

Trustee Tross asked if looking for retail or service markets would be something the

Board of Directors of the non profit organization would do.

Trustee Florey said yes. He then asked Mr. Hulseberg if there was any Village input on

the initial budget.

Mr. Hulseberg stated that the organization would annually submit to the Village a budget

with a dollar amount they would be looking for.

Trustee Koenig said that she supports this. She stated it was a culmination of months

and months of effort on the part of the Economic and Community Development

Committee. She said there was some momentum being built as there has been more

interest in recent meetings. She mentioned that she had heard at one meeting that it

was not unusual to receive luke warm response to the idea, from those that became an

integral part of the program. She said this is not imposing a tax without a remedy.

Those affected could file an objection petition as there would be public hearings and

waiting periods for objections.

Trustee Tross said that he objects to the map proposal and he said that it seems ironic

that 33 N. Main Street, that has one of the largest voter turnout, is excluded, but the

Park Avenue Apartments that probably has the lowest voter registration is included. He

stated that this would tax residential people that get absolutely no benefit. He mentioned

that he had spoken to the President of the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber has

not taken an official position because they could not support it so they remain mute. He

said that he is not prepared to suggest that we need another layer of funding going to

another organization. He then said that if he is called upon by citizens to assist in a back

door referendum, he will help. He commented that it is not his district, but he does

represent the Village of Lombard.

Trustee Florey said that some good points have been raised and it seems the tough

question is the boundaries. He said that condominiums are going for $300,000 and the

benefit to the condo owners is that property values will increase. He said there will be

more foot traffic for businesses. He mentioned that night meetings have been publicized

and the only new borders are east of Main. He stated that the Main Street businesses

have been actively involved and it is critical for Trustee Sebby to talk to the Main Street

businesses as he has the east of Main business owners in his district. Trustee Florey

said that he has discussed this with President Mueller and he supports it. He suggested

if there is consensus of the Board, a date for a public hearing be set, a date that would

give Trustee Sebby a chance to talk to the business owners in his district. Trustee

Florey said this is a small step without a commitment and he realizes that Trustee Sebby

had just learned of the borders of the proposed district which includes District Four.

Trustee Florey proposed a public hearing in August.

Village Attorney Tom Bayer stated that the Village has to establish what the boundaries

are. In order to have a public hearing in August, boundaries would have to be set by the

July meeting, at which time an Ordinance could be adopted for the Public Hearing. He

said a legal description and a map of the area has to be published and each tax payer of

record has to be notified of the Public Hearing. He stated if the Public Hearing were in

August, that would allow for the sixty day period required for objections. It could come

before the Board on the second meeting in October or the first meeting in November to

enact an Ordinance establishing a Special Service Area.

Trustee Tross said that this is not a summer agenda item and shouldn't be rushed. He

did not want the issue hindered by summer vacations and slide through.

Trustee Florey said that July was too soon. He mentioned setting the hearing for

September and setting boundaries in August which would allow for the opportunity to

talk with businesses and give the committee a chance to weigh in on this.

Trustee Tross suggested working backwards from the possible time of passage to give

the business community and Trustee Sebby as much time as possible.

Mr. Bayer said that in order to levy for 2003 Levy, the Ordinances would have to be on

file with the County Clerks Office, both establishing the district and providing for the levy

for the 2003 Levy year before the end of December.

Trustee Tross talked about including a sixty day window for objections and work

backward from December.

Mr. Bayer stated that if the first meeting in December is the meeting at which the Board

were to formally adopt the Special Service Area, you would go back to the first meeting

in October or the last meeting in September for the Public Hearing, which means

boundaries would have to be established and a call for the Public Hearing would have to

be done in August.

Trustee Sebby questioned whether the boundaries had been extended at the last

meeting, as he had not heard until the weekend, which meant that businesses from

District Four had not been given notice and that disturbed him. He said that with public

hearing in September, this allows him ninety days from now to get input.

Trustee Florey said he would clarify the areas to be included.

Trustee Sebby wished him not to include the extension of District Four in the Special

Service Area.

Trustee Tross stated that he would not support this and would support a petition drive

against it.

Trustee DeStephano stated that she is an advocate for the Downtown area and is

concerned about the size of taxes to business owners. She said she would like to see a

membership with nominal membership fees rather than being taxed. She stated that

maybe a fee based structure rather than taxing would get better support and

participation. She agreed that a lot of money has been spent on the downtown area, but

a lot of that has been on infrastructure. She stated that possibly a fee based structure

rather than a high tax based on a percentage of the property valuation would get the

public participation and business support.

Trustee Soderstrom agreed that a good intention would be to reduce the property's

share. He said that all areas between Grove to Maple and Grace to Elizabeth should be

incorporated. He said that he did attend the last meeting, but this extension of the

service area was new to him as of when he received his packet and he finds the

extension to be questionable at best. He questioned if the SSA should be extended all

the way to Grace.

Trustee Tross said the highest concentration of businesses are south to Washington

and they all need the same help that is needed here.

Trustee DeStephano was concerned that this would open the door for other gas stations

to sell liquor.

Mr. Bayer said that Village Code provides for a specific number of licenses in a

particular category. He added that Village Code would have to be amended to create an

additional license and that the State can only force the Village to issue a license if one is

available.

Trustee Soderstrom stated that this is an existing business with liquor sales, and it is

more of a grandfathered item. He did not believe that this would be precedent setting.

Trustee Koenig said that simply because it is an existing condition, that it is not an

endorsement if approved.

Trustee Florey asked if the business were to be sold or expanded, would that have to

come before the Board.

Mr. Hulseberg said that if they were looking to expand or change the footprint of the

building, it would have to come before the Board.

Trustee Tross said that as the liquor license goes with the annexation agreement, he

would not support it.

Trustee Koenig asked if the business changes owners, would the Village have to

reissue a liquor license.

Mr. Bayer said that any subsequent owners would have to meet the requirements of the

State statute and the Village codes.

It was moved by Trustee Soderstrom, seconded by Trustee Florey, to waive first

reading and pass on second reading an Ordinance relative to PC 03-17, 18W675

Roosevelt Road, annexing the property into the Village of Lombard; and

an Ordinance approving a map amendment to rezone the property from the R1

Single-Family Residence District to the B3 Community Shopping District;

an Ordinance granting conditional uses and variations to the Lombard Zoning

Ordinance and variations to the Lombard Sign Ordinance as follows:

a) A conditional use for gasoline sales;

b) A conditional use for outdoor sales of merchandise;

c) A variation from Section 155.415 (F) (1) to reduce the front yard setback for

an existing gas station canopy and pump island from 30 feet to 3 feet;

d) A variation from Section 155.415 (F) (2) to reduce the corner side yard

setback for an existing gas station canopy and pump island from 30 feet to 3 feet;

e) A variation from Section 155.709 (B) to reduce the perimeter lot landscape

requirements along the southern interior side yard from 5 feet to 0 feet for an

existing vehicle circulation area;

f) A variation from Section 155.205 (A) (2) (c) (2) and (3) to allow for a 8.5 foot

high fence where 4' high maximum is permitted;

g) A variation from Section 155.207 (A) and (C) to allow an existing freestanding

sign, kerosene island and canopy and an existing fence to be located within the

clear line of sight area; and

h) A variation from Section 153.505 (B) to allow for more than one (1) wall sign

per street front exposure, with a waiver of first reading. The motion carried by the

following vote:

Steve Knapp 224 School Street, Wood Dale, commented on the fact that the closed

border policy regarding dumpsters limits competitive pricing. He said other haulers are

less costly than Waste Management. He urged the Board to open the borders to allow

for more competitive fees for dumpsters.

Trustee Tross explained the no compete clause, and he suggested that Mr. Knapp ask

Waste Management for a competitive price.

Trustee DeStephano stated that the contract is two years old, and she did not like the

idea that competitive data was not reviewed. She said that she believes competitive

analysis should be done. She said she would like to see a one year contract and have

the time to see some flexibility and have staff and the Environmental Concerns

Committee review it. She said this was not derogatory to Waste Management in any

way.

Trustee Sebby said it appeared to him that Waste Management had lowered it's cost.

Assistant Director of Public Works, John Burg said that the contract called for no

increase in the first year, and not to exceed 3% the second year. He commented that

Waste Management was keeping the bundled brush cost at $70,000 per year.

Trustee Sebby said that extending the contract for only one year would not allow a lot of

additional time. He said he would be in favor of accepting what the Environmental

Concerns Committee approved.

Mr. Burg stated that during contract negotiations a few years ago, the Committee did a

county-wide survey regarding comparison and prices.

Trustee Tross mentioned that the Chair of the Committee, Trustee DeStephano, has

requested the Committee seek an RFP.

Trustee DeStephano said that was done and she felt a study in today's market should

be done as it is in Public Work projects.

Trustee Tross said that he didn't see how freezing the prices and an increase of 3% in

the second year is more than 5% for two years.

Trustee Koenig said in her first term she was very vocal about these issues. She said

she was in agreement in concept with Trustee DeStephano, and feels it is better to look

at contracts and what there is to offer. She stated she believed this is an offer good

enough that it may be a disservice not to accept this, but in the future it should be

investigated.

Trustee DeStephano did not think it should be accepted for five years.

Trustee Koenig stated that the service is very good, she would be concerned if there

were service issues.

Trustee Soderstrom spoke to Mr. Burg verifying that the Committee previously reviewed

the cost of Waste Management versus other companies as well as reviewing county

wide comparison of other municipalities, two and a half years ago.

Trustee Florey mentioned the possibility of a three year contract.

Mr. Bayer said that the original contract provided for a two year extension option at the

end of the initial three year contract. If the Village were to exercise the option, there

would be no more than a 5% increase. He said that Waste Management could be asked

if they would offer and one year or a three year extension.

Trustee Florey said he was leaning toward a three year contract as he would like to see

what opportunities a three year contract would offer.

Trustee Tross said the Board should act on the recommendations of Committee and

then ask staff if they would like to look at another option.

Trustee Florey suggested sending it back to the Committee to examine a three year

option as you have better bargaining power with a longer term,

Trustee Tross believed it is in our best interest to act on the two year extension and the

Committee's recommendation.

Trustee Sebby said he did not think it was not smart to send this back to the Committee,

but to give direction to staff to see if a three year option with Waste Management is

feasible.

Trustee Soderstrom felt incumbent to act on the amendment to approve it with the

direction of staff to review a three year option.

Trustee DeStephano wished to clarify to the public that this did not go out to bid four

years ago for the last contract, and with a two year extension that brings it to six years

that we will not be doing competitive analysis.

Trustee Tross talked about the predecessors of Waste Management and said that he

has found Waste Management to be a responsible provider. He stated that this is a

good contract and they have done things in this Village that are not called for in the

contract. He said that they have been responsive to the needs of the community and it

isn't always the low bidder that gives the best service.