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, January 14, 2002
Call to Order and Roll Call of Members
Staff present included William Heniff, Senior Planner; Lisa Warren, Planner II; Margaret |
Gibbs, Planner I; and Jennifer Backensto, Planner I/CE Technician. |
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Sondra Zorn and |
Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Committee Member Commissioner Daniel Broderick
Absent:
Public Hearings
010929
Kenneth Johnson, 191 West Irving Park Boulevard, Wood Dale, IL 60191, attorney for |
Chicago Marthoma Church, presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner. He |
presented a brief overview of the project and restated the request. |
Joe Thomas, 240 Potter Road, Des Plaines, IL, congregation secretary, introduced the |
church members and provided a history of the church. He noted that their existing |
church in Des Plaines has grown to over 385 families. To address their growth issue, |
they are proposing a new church and noted that the proposed site in Lombard suits their |
needs. |
Jonathan Stuck, Crossroads Design, 222 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 205, Lake Forest, IL |
60045, architect for the project, gave a site overview. He noted the IDOT property |
takings that will reduce the overall size of the property. He noted that the Village's traffic |
consultant recommended a right-in, right-out configuration for their Main Street access |
and they find this acceptable. He noted that the church would accommodate up to 444 |
seats. In order to ensure that sufficient parking is provided on the site per Village code, |
they are requesting a variation from the 50% open space requirement. However, they |
are sensitive to the existing vegetation on the site and to address neighboring concerns, |
they do propose to maintain as much existing vegetation as possible. He also noted the |
stormwater issues raised by property owners to the south and noted that their flooding |
problems can be partly attributed to the uncontrolled sheet draining that occurs on the |
site right now. The proposed vault system will catch runoff and slowly release it into the |
storm sewer. He feels that this design will address some of the existing stormwater |
problems in the area. |
He noted that the church would be a buffer use between the more intense uses across |
North Avenue and the gas station across Main Street and would act as a good |
transitional use. The church building will be located in the northeast corner of the site |
with the altar oriented to east. He noted the height variation for the apex of the steeple |
and he believes that it won't have adverse affect on the neighborhood. He described |
the materials of the building and roof and felt the design will positively reflect on the |
neighborhood. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, 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 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5075 710 N |
Steve Welter, Martin Design Partnership, 1721 Astor Avenue, Oakbrook Terrace, IL |
60181, landscape architect for the site, showed via a color rendering what they are |
proposing. He noted the existing vegetation on south and west property lines that they |
want to keep. He noted that they are supplementing the existing vegetation with new |
trees around the cul-de-sac. There will also be shade tress around the front and |
perimeter of the parking lot. They are also providing landscaping around the perimeter |
and a landscape screen buffer on the east side. Along the south side, a 6-foot fence is |
being proposed back of the parking lot with the landscaping outside of the fenced area. |
He concluded by noting that the landscaping will complement the architecture by |
providing trees of a minimum height of six feet and three inch caliper. |
Mr. Johnson concluded by noting the standards for conditional uses and variations and |
how the project will meet these provisions. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public participation. |
There was no one to speak in favor of the petition. |
Louis Goebel, 848 Swain, Elmhurst, owner of the property immediately to south 700 S. |
Main, asked about the location of the parking lot to his property. He stated that it |
appears to be 10 feet from the curb line to his property line and there will be a 6-foot |
fence. |
Ralph Borgatell, 663 Ridge, called to the attention of the Plan Commission that the plans |
do not show the right-in, right-out configuration. He noted that the traffic study was |
taken on Sunday and noted that the church says they are involved in charitable |
activities. As there are churches that have services and meetings on weekdays, his |
concern is the location of the access driveway from Main Street being 87 feet from the |
intersection of LeMoyne and Main. He felt that this is a traffic hazard. He said that he |
agrees with the Sunday traffic study but should the church members if they have |
weekday meetings, it may present a problem at Main and North. His concern is from the |
community and for the people coming to the church. He feels the plan fits well with the |
Comprehensive Plan, but is concerned with the variation for open space. He |
acknowledged that other churches do not meet the open space requirements but those |
have been in existence for a long time; here we are staring new. He hopes that the |
Commission will consider these items and he feels there could be a better plan. |
Eric Monsanga, 29 W. North Avenue is wondering why the cul-de-sac is facing right into |
his driveway. |
Doug Christensen, 301 W. Goebel, stated that he is not speaking for or against but just |
has a few questions. He noted that the roof would be aluminum seemed roof, and |
asked what is the finish and sealing on the roof. He asked if the petitioner's plans have |
been ascertained for the expansion of North Avenue whether this has been confirmed |
by the State. He asked about the possibility of cut-though traffic through the site. He |
referenced the Private Engineering Services comments that noted that Village codes |
allows for up to one foot of flooding within the parking lot. He asked if that is being |
considered as an alternative to the proposed vault system. He concluded by |
referencing the existing storm sewer system on Main Street. If the consultant study |
shows an adverse affect, what their plans would be to address it. |
Mr. Stack responded by noting that the curb is 10 ½ feet off of the south property line |
and a fence will be incorporated with eight feet of space between the fence and property |
line. Between this area, extensive vegetation will be provided. Regarding 29 W. North |
Avenue, the property line is controlled by IDOT and the petitioner has no control over it. |
The proposed property line may shorten the neighbor's driveway length. He noted that |
the roof would be a gray color. Regarding stormwater issues, he noted that one foot is |
allowable by code, but in their instance they may have minimal ponding on their surface |
as most of the stormwater will be accommodated underground. He noted that this will |
be worked out as part of final engineering and they will work with the Village. As far as |
the sewer discharge onto Main, he noted that this needs to be looked into further and |
they will work with civil staff. Regarding the right-in, right-out, the petitioner's plans were |
prepared prior to the completion of the staff and traffic consultant's report. He noted that |
they are in agreement with the requirement, so there is no issue with that. Regarding |
the weekday service issue, currently the services at the existing church are only on |
Sunday and no others are in the middle of week. |
Chairman Ryan then requested the staff report. William Heniff, Senior Planner |
reiterated the requested relief. He noted that the petitioner plans to construct a 7,641 |
square foot church building on the property. The building will be a one story structure |
that will also include a sub-level that will be used for Sunday school, meeting and/or |
administrative space. The petitioner does not propose to include day care, pre-school |
or elementary school activities as part of their plan. Additionally, the site plan does not |
include any living quarters. He also referenced the comments included as part of the |
IDRC report. |
He noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends Single Family Residential use for |
this location. Comprehensive plans typically do identify specific locations for churches. |
These institutional uses are generally considered to be supporting uses to the |
surrounding single-family residential uses. Therefore, this use can be considered a |
compatible use with the comprehensive plan. |
He then discussed compatibility issues and stated that the higher elevation of the |
property, the existing vegetation on the rear of the property and its location at a |
prominent corner within the Village all tend to orient the property away from the abutting |
residential properties and towards the arterial roadways. Staff believes that the |
institutional use proposed for the site would act as an appropriate buffer use been the |
residential and non-residential uses surrounding the property. |
Mr. Heniff then discussed the traffic analysis and noted that IDOT is currently in |
negotiations to acquire a portion of the property for public right of way purposes. The |
first area is a 2,422 square foot trapezoid shaped area at the northwest corner of the |
property. This acquisition will be to accommodate a cul-de-sac bulb for a proposed |
frontage road intended to serve adjacent single-family residential lots abutting North |
Avenue. The second acquisition is a five-foot strip of 1,500 square feet along the east |
property line that will provide additional right of way space to accommodate for the |
realignment of Main Street. Final acquisition and construction on these adjacent rights |
of way are scheduled to commence in 2002. Among the additional improvements |
proposed for North Avenue include a noise barrier wall that will be constructed between |
the frontage road and North Avenue. North Avenue will also have 6 through lanes with |
left and right turn lanes at Main Street. Main Street will be improved with a double left |
turn lane, a through lane and a right turn lane. |
He noted the Village's traffic consultant reviewed the proposed development to |
determine the traffic impact on the site. The church activity is proposed to consist of |
Sunday school services from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. with church services ending at |
approximately 11:00 a.m. Outside of religious holidays, and occasional evening |
meetings, weekday activities are not anticipated. The traffic consultant reviewed the |
proposed traffic impact of the proposed use on the existing traffic flow on Main Street on |
Sunday morning. The consultant found that the existing traffic network can |
accommodate the additional traffic on Main Street and that the overall level of service |
will remain acceptable. The consultant recommends that the Main Street driveway |
should be designed as a right-in, right-out facility. Additionally, should the cut through |
traffic be significant, the petitioner can install a gate at the north entryway to the site. |
He noted that the proposed parking lot on the premises was intended to serve the |
maximum amount of generation for the site. Unlike many religious institutions in the |
Village, the location of the petitioner's site does not provide for convenient on-street |
parking in close proximity to the church. As such, the petitioner has designed the site |
to meet the needs of the congregation based upon the highest demand periods for the |
site. The petitioner has designed the building to accommodate up to 444 seats, |
although they anticipate that the church will likely only be 2/3rds full during a typical |
Sunday. The proposed lot meets all design requirements for parking lots (i.e., stall |
width, handicapped spaces, aisle width). |
Mr. Heniff then discussed landscape issues. To ensure compatibility with adjacent |
properties, the petitioner has moved the parking lot 25 feet east of the west rear lot line. |
This area will be reengineered to include a landscape berm and additional plantings. |
The petitioner is also intending to preserve as much of the existing vegetation at the |
southeast corner of the site, as it acts as a well-established landscape screen. He |
noted that staff has received correspondence from an adjacent property owner |
requesting that the existing plant materials be maintained as much as possible. To |
address this issue, staff recommends as a condition that the petitioner shall submit a |
revised landscape plan with the building permit application that will specifically denote |
the existing vegetation that will be preserved as part of the development. He noted on |
the south side of the property, the vegetative improvements would be installed to benefit |
the abutting property owners the greatest. As North Avenue will be under construction |
for the next few years, staff recommends as a condition that in lieu of installing parkway |
trees within the rights of way, the petitioner shall provide the Village with requisite fee to |
cover the costs of sidewalk and parkway improvements. |
He noted the petitioner has submitted concept elevational drawings for the proposed |
building. The design of the building is a classical church design, featuring masonry |
walls on the perimeter of the building. The pitched roof will include dormers for |
additional light into the worship area. The east elevation (facing west) includes a |
prominent cross design and patterned glass windows. The roof is accentuated by a |
steeple reaching a height of 60 feet. Staff feels that the design of the church is |
compatible with the adjacent residential properties as well as the other non-residential |
uses. |
Mr. Heniff then discussed the variation issues. Staff is supportive of the height variation. |
First, it is generally not feasible to construct a church steeple on a building with receiving |
a variation. Second, as the variation is intended for an architectural element, as |
opposed to a variation to allow for more occupied space in the building, staff feels that |
the variation creates an overall better design for the building. Third, a review of existing |
religious institutions throughout the Village finds that church steeples do not create a |
negative impact on adjacent properties and the petitioner's steeple is not anticipated to |
create a negative impact either. |
Regarding the open space variation, staff undertook an analysis of other religious |
institutions in the Village for compliance with this provision. Additionally, staff also |
looked at zoning relief granted in the recent past for other religious institutions in the |
Village. Many existing religious institutions are within the 60 percent range of lot |
coverage. Since the IDOT taking has reduced the amount of open space available for |
the site and since the Village has granted relief from this requirement for several other |
infill church sites in the Village, staff can support this provision as well. Staff also feels |
that providing sufficient parking on the site would provide greater neighborhood benefit |
than providing additional open space on the site. As noted on the site plan, stormwater |
will be accommodated by a vault system to be constructed below the proposed parking |
lot. Therefore, even though a reduction in open space is sought, the detention |
requirements for the site will be met. |
The petitioner will be installing two freestanding institutional signs to denote the church |
name and activities. The petitioner intends on meeting the provisions enumerated within |
the Sign Ordinance. |
He then noted a few outstanding issues and stated that the vault system will create a |
flow release rate at pre-development levels and adjacent property owners should see |
benefits by reduced flooding. He also noted that the water would be channeled away |
from their property. The petitioner is required to size the vault system to accommodate |
all stormwater and the Ordinance does provide for some storage capacity within the |
parking lot itself. He noted that staff received letters from adjacent property owners. |
The first was from John Stancy and he read the letter into the record. He also received |
a second correspondence from an owner on north side of Main Street stating they didn't |
object to petition as proposed. Mr. Heniff addressed the issues in Mr. Stancy's letter |
and mentioned that staff does have the pictures on file should anyone want to look. |
Chairman Ryan opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission |
members. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that it is a welcome use for the area. She asked about |
the comments regarding the surcharging system on Main Street. Mr. Heniff noted that |
there is some surcharging and the petitioner is aware of this existing condition. Should |
the petition be approved, they will have to ensure that the release rate does not add to |
the problem, but the existing surcharging may still exist. Commissioner Sweetser then |
asked about a gate at North Avenue to minimize cut through traffic - she suggested that |
a condition be added to also require installation of gate subject to the Village as well. |
Commissioner Olbrysh shares the comments that it is a welcome addition to the Village. |
He asked where the mechanicals outside the church would be located. Mr. Stuck |
referred to a diagram and showed where the compressor pads would be located. He |
showed that they would not be seen from Main or North Avenue as they will wrap a |
planting screen and regrade the site to hide the mechanicals. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked about the photometric lighting plan and asked what they |
anticipate as far as light coverage is concerned. In response, Mr. Stuck noted that there |
would be four central lights. They will look at light issues around perimeter of the site, |
as they don't want to cast light on property owners. Commissioner Olbrysh noted that |
as they will use the site primarily on Sunday, does this affect the lighting issues? Mr. |
Heniff noted that even though the site may not be used much during evening hours, they |
are still required to meeting lighting standards. |
Commissioner Burke referenced Mr. Stancy's letter and asked if the drainage will be |
rerouted from their back yards to Main Street. Mr. Heniff said yes. Commissioner Burke |
asked where snow would be piled. Mr. Stuck noted that the snow will be piled on |
perimeter of site and they realize that they will lose some parking, but the fence will |
screen the piles. Commissioner Burke then asked for the reason for fence and asked |
what about damage to fence being so close to curb. Mr. Heniff noted that the petitioner |
has provided a parking stall, so there won't be much of an overhang. The fence will also |
visually discourage people from getting too close. |
Commissioner Flint concurs that this is an excellent development. Regarding the |
cul-de-sac, what kind of gate is proposed to discourage cut-through traffic? Mr. Heniff |
suggested a metal swing gate. |
1. The petitioner shall develop the site essentially in accordance with site plan prepared |
by Crossroads Design, Inc., dated December 10, 2001 and made a part of this request. |
2. That the conditional use shall be for the construction and operation of a religious |
institution on the subject property. Should the petitioner or any subsequent property |
owners seek to operate uses such as, but not limited to, day care facility, pre-school |
activities, elementary school activities, a conditional use amendment will be required. |
3. That the overall lot coverage not exceed 32.9% of the overall lot area. |
4. That the petitioner apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed |
improvements. Said permit shall also include the following elements: |
a. That the petitioner shall also submit a revised landscape plan with the building permit |
application that will specifically denote the existing vegetation that will be preserved as |
part of the development. Shall any of the designated trees die during the site |
development process, the petitioner shall replace it with new trees of equal caliper and |
subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. |
b. That the petitioner shall also submit a photometic lighting plan for the property |
consistent with Village Code. |
c. That associated with the submittal of a building permit for the site, the petitioner shall |
also provide the Village with requisite fees to cover the costs of sidewalk and parkway |
improvements. |
d. That the access driveway onto Main Street shall be designed and constructed as a |
right-in, right-out facility. |
5. That the site shall be constructed and operated in conformance with the Lombard |
Village Codes. |
6. That should cut-through traffic through the site be identified as a concern by the |
Village, the petitioner shall install a gate at the north entrance, subject to the discretion |
of the Director of Community Development. |
010931
John Coleman, 1230 Windsor Drive, Arlington Heights, presented the request on behalf |
of Alter Group. He indicated that the subject property is a 30,000 square foot industrial |
building and has a tenant who is seeking a variance for parking off site. The tenant |
wishes to construct a fence around a portion of the parking lot to provide for staging |
equipment and consequently, 5 spaces will be lost which would have otherwise been |
used for employee parking. To make up for this loss, a request is made to provide for |
those spaces at a neighboring property, 704 W. Oak Creek, owned by the same |
company. This supplemental parking will be in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. |
There was no present to speak for or against this petition. |
Lisa Warren, Planner II, presented the staff report. She stated the request and |
reiterated the reason for the petitioner needing to make the request. Private |
Engineering Services, Public Works Engineering and Fire and Building had no |
comments. The Planning comments included compatibility with the Comprehensive |
Plan, the surrounding land uses, and the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Warren indicated that |
using the property at 704 Oak Creek to provide the off site parking is compatible with the |
Zoning Ordinance since the property is located within 300 feet of the subject property, is |
controlled by the same owner and has an excess amount of parking spaces. Approval |
for this type of request is usually done through a conditional use but since the subject |
property is a planned development it can be accomplished through the site plan |
approval process. She concluded by stating that staff supports this request as the |
parking is not deemed necessary for the site, the close proximity to the off site parking |
still provides flexibility if needed and the property at 704 W. Oak Creek site will still have |
a surplus of parking available. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. |
Commissioner Olbrysh stated he supports the petition as it makes good business sense |
and since the alternative parking is close to the site. |
Commissioner Burke asked if the drawing was to scale as it seemed that 11 spaces |
would be lost not five. Ms. Warren answered that the entire area is not being |
considered as storage so they did not deduct some of the areas where trucks would be |
going in and out on a daily basis. A deduction was also made for the area the fence |
would occupy. |
Commissioner Sweetser indicated she had no objection to the petition but inquired if |
now would be an opportunity to bring their parking into conformity since they are |
currently legal non-conforming. Ms. Petsche, legal counsel for the Village, indicated |
that could only be done if they were changing or extending the use but not for a minor |
change. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be approved with conditions. The motion carried by the following |
vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
1. That the proposed fence be installed as per the submitted site plan and as per all |
applicable codes. |
2. That the petitioner submit a lease agreement for the 5 parking spaces to be provided |
at 704 W. Oak Creek to run concurrent with the tenant lease for 901 W. Oak Creek. |
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the Business Meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the December 17, 2001 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. |
DuPage County Hearings
DuPage County Public Hearing 4804-02 - Kelly |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report to the Plan Commission. He |
stated that the petitioner is requesting approval to allow for a variation in the interior side |
yard from 6.6 feet to 5 feet for a new single family residence on a vacant lot located on |
Lawler Avenue within Glenbard Acres Subdivision, an R-4 Single Family Residential |
District. The petitioner is proposing to construct a new single-family residence on the |
subject property that will encroach into the required interior side yard. The subject |
property is 19,800 square feet in size (66' wide by 300.57' deep). The property is |
bordered by single family residences on the north, south and east and a vacant lot on |
the west. The Village's Comprehensive Plan included the subject property and identifies |
the site for Estate Residential use. |
Mr. Heniff noted that staff considered the request relative to Village Codes as the |
subject property is within the ultimate municipal boundaries of the Village. As a practical |
matter, reductions in side yard setbacks can give an appearance of overcrowding within |
a subdivision. Staff finds that as a vacant undeveloped property, a great deal of |
flexibility exists for the property owner to develop the property with a residence |
consistent with established codes. Therefore, the variation is created by the petitioner |
and is not unique to the property. Moreover, the variation may also establish a |
precedent for yard setback relief for other properties in the area. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission |
members. The commissioners concurred with staff's recommendation. |
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SWEETSER AND SECONDED BY |
COMMISSIONER OLBRYSH TO RECOMMEND TO THE CORPORATE |
AUTHORITIES ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF OBJECTION TO DUPAGE |
COUNTY CASE ZBA 4804-02. |
THE ROLL CALL VOTE WAS 5-0 AS FOLLOWS: |
Ayes: Flint, Burke, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Zorn |
Chairperson's Report
Chairperson Ryan deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated he had nothing to add but indicated that at the |
next Plan Commission meeting there will be a request by staff to change the April Plan |
Commission meeting date. The purpose of this request is to accommodate staff who |
will be attending a national conference on that date. |
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
010944
Margaret Gibbs, Planner I, presented the petition. She stated the amended plat |
proposes to divide Lots 2 and 6 for the proposed CompUSA and the other lot will be left |
for a future use. The division will also include a strip of land from the Sears Great |
Indoors to be subdivided off and consolidated with the CompUSA parcel. She stated |
that this is being done so that CompUSA can fulfill the minimum parking stall and aisle |
width requirements. She explained the forty (40) foot utilities and drainage easement |
along the east property line is being relocated according to the Private Engineering |
Services Division's request in SPA 01-09. Since the subject property is greater than an |
acre in size, it is considered a major plat of subdivision and must be reviewed and |
approved by the Plan Commission and Board of Trustees. |
She noted that there are no comments from Private Engineering Services Division, |
Public Works, or the Bureau of Inspectional Services. |
Ms. Gibbs stated that the subdivision meets all of the requirements of the Zoning |
Ordinance and Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the provisions included as |
part of the overall Highlands of Lombard Planned Development. She explained the |
overall planned development previously addressed the setback requirements and |
standards for infrastructure improvements. The proposed subdivision will not affect the |
approved site plan. Included within the subdivision request are the stated emergency |
access and public utility and drainage easement requirements. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. There were no comments by the members. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Enactment No: 2840 S. Highland Ave |
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Workshops
Jennifer Backensto, Planner I/C.E. Technician, presented the workshop. She indicated |
that this is in response to the Board of Trustees who requested staff to research the |
extension of the B5 as well as in response to the comments raised by the Plan |
Commissioners at the last workshop. Ms. Backensto referred to the 7 properties that |
are currently nonconforming due to their use, the 21 properties that under the existing |
zoning do not conform to the required setbacks, and the 14 properties that would be |
affected should the B5 zoning be applied. She explained the impact a property would |
incur if it were to become non-conforming due to the change in the current zoning by |
stating that it could continue to exist unless the building was damaged or destroyed by |
more than 50 percent of its fair market value. In this scenario, a property owner may |
have a non-conforming use reinstated by petitioning the Plan Commission for a text |
amendment to add the non-conforming use to the underlying zoning district or the Plan |
Commission may grant a conditional use to allow a non-conforming use to continue on |
the property. |
Ms. Backensto then stated the impact on surrounding areas and gave the current zoning |
of these properties. She indicated that all of these surrounding districts allow a |
maximum height of 45 feet which is consistent with the allowable maximum height in the |
B5. |
She addressed the B3 properties along Main Street between Hickory and Willow and |
stated staff's observations that the physical layout of the properties is consistent with |
that recommended under the B3 zoning district and that the B3 serves as a buffer. |
There are three properties that are religious institutions and since they are conditional |
uses they would remain the same. |
In conclusion, staff recommends that the 30 commercial and institutional properties |
along Main Street between Maple and Hickory be rezoned to B5 in accordance with the |
Comprehensive Plan but still wishes to secure input from the Plan Commissioners. |
The Commissioners comments and concerns were as follows: |
· Concern was not with the religious institutions but with the area to the far south, |
specifically south of Hickory. |
· Preference was to rezone the properties up to Hickory to the B5 and leave the existing |
zoning of B3 from Hickory going south to the residential uses as it would make a good |
transition. |
Mr. Heniff stated that staff will proceed in this recommended fashion by following up with |
the various property owners who will be subject to a map amendment and conducting a |
neighborhood meeting to review these proposed issues. |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner I/C.E. Technician, presented the workshop. She indicated |
that this workshop is a follow up to the December meeting whereby the Commissioners |
requested that staff conduct additional research as to what other communities have |
adopted. She referred to the report which listed the various communities as well as the |
type of regulations they have and summarized that a majority have some type of |
requirement which appears in their Zoning Ordinance. She stated that the Plan |
Commissioners also suggested researching whether other municipalities include |
required screening from above. Staff found for that to happen, a roof would need to be |
constructed which would create unnecessary bulk, expense and could present safety |
issues and therefore does not believe that this requirement would benefit the Village of |
Lombard. |
In conclusion, staff provided draft language for a text amendment but would like the Plan |
Commissioner's input. Mr. Heniff added that if we make the screening a code issue, |
would the Commissioner like to see an appeal mechanism or approval process to look |
at full architecturals whereby they would offset the mechanicals. |
The Commissioners comments and concerns were as follows: |
· The draft language is acceptable as written and has a good approach. It is |
comprehensive and provides guidelines. |
· Would like to see consideration to have the color of mechanicals blend in with the |
colors of the roof to offset the screening from above. |
· The Plan Commissioners would be the appeals process. |
Mr. Heniff stated that this text amendment will be presented at the February Plan |
Commission meeting. |
Lisa Warren, Planner II, presented the workshop. She indicated that the Village Board |
requested staff to research the possibility of the Village employing a hearing officer to |
conduct required public hearings for certain types of variations to the Zoning Ordinance. |
She summarized the main points of the code which provides guidelines for such a |
position such as what the officer has the authority to do, the types of hearings he can |
conduct, the hearing process, the appeals process, the qualifications for hire, and the |
compensation arrangement. |
Ms. Warren stated that staff's analysis included researching and contacting |
municipalities in DuPage County, the DuPage Mayor's and Managers Conference and |
the Illinois Municipal League. Staff could not find any community in the state that utilized |
this system. |
In conclusion, Ms. Warren stated that although using the system might cut down the |
burden of cases heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the negative factors outweigh |
the benefits as: |
· This method decreases the amount and variety of input in the process of requesting |
relief. |
· One person alone makes the decision on each case brought forth are more open to |
charges of bias. |
· Negative decisions by the hearing officer can only be overturned by 2/3 vote of the |
trustees. |
The comments and concerns as expressed by the Plan Commissioners were as follows: |
· Questioned what prompted this request. |
· Agreed with staff's assessment. |
· Shouldn't set up a "supreme being" as a zoning officer. |
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. on January 14, 2002.