Village of Lombard Legistar System

PC 05-01: 21 W 680 Butterfield Road (Continued from June 20, 2005)

Requests 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 map amendment rezoning from the R1 Single-Family Residence

District to the C/R Conservation/Recreation Zoning District;

4. Approval of a Planned Development with the following exceptions, variations and

deviations:

a. To allow for a conditional use as referenced in Section 155.206(B)(2)(a)(1) of the

Zoning Ordinance and a use exception and variation from Section 155.508 (B)(3) of the

Zoning Ordinance (Standards for Planned Developments with Use Exceptions) to allow

for a personal wireless facility monopole; and

b. A deviation from Section 153.501(b)(2)(d) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for two

existing free-standing signs on the subject property, where one (1) sign is permitted.

PC 05-18: 2N700 Lombard Road (Continued from June 20, 2005)

Requests that the Village take the following actions on the property:

1. Approve an Annexation Agreement;

2. Annex the property into the Village of Lombard;

3. Approve a map amendment to rezone the property from the R1 Single-Family

Residence District to the I Limited Industrial District;

4. Approve a conditional use for a landscape contractors equipment and material

storage yard (a contractor's establishment providing existing tree service, wood waste

recycling and manufacturing of landscape mulch together with related storage and allied

business transactions); and

5. Associated with the Annexation Agreement, approve a variation from Section 51.02

et. seq. of the Lombard Village Code to allow for an existing private well to remain on

Char Miller, Director of Chicagoland Academy introduced herself as the representative

for the property owner and stated that she was available for questions.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no

comments in favor or in opposition to the proposal. Chairperson Ryan then requested

the staff report.

Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated that the

subject property is located approximately 130 feet east of Highland Avenue on the south

side of Roosevelt Road. She noted that a private full-time school for pre-school through

eighth grade currently exists on the property. She stated that upon a request by the

Village, the petitioner is seeking annexation into the Village. Ms. Kulikowski noted that

the companion rezoning to the B3 District is requested so that the underling zoning

reflects the commercial nature of the Roosevelt Road corridor. She stated that the

school will be recognized as a legal non-conforming use.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the subject property is contiguous to the Village of Lombard

from the north and is within an area that will ultimately be annexed into Lombard per

Lombard's boundary agreements. She noted that the Village boundary also extends

170' west of the subject property and 508' east of the subject property. She mentioned

that a companion annexation agreement has been created and will be considered by the

Board of Trustees as part of this request.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the subject property meets all of the bulk requirements for the

B3 Community Shopping District with the exception of the side yard setback relative to

the eastern property line. She noted that the existing building abuts the eastern property

line, and staff would recognize this setback as legal non-conforming.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property be used

for community commercial uses, which is consistent with the proposed rezoning to the

B3 Community Commercial District. She noted that private full-time schools are not

listed as either a permitted or conditional use within the B3 District, but staff would

recognize the school as a legal non-conforming use, as it was legally established

through DuPage County prior to the annexation of the property. She stated that the B3

zoning designation would ensure that any change in use would be compatible with

surrounding uses and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the private school will have little impact on the surrounding

properties as bus services are not provided for any of the students. She mentioned that

traffic to the property will primarily consist of teachers, staff and the students' parents.

She pointed out that the southern portion of the property where the playground area is

located is adjacent to the rear parking lot for the property to the east and adjacent to a

storage area for the self-storage facility to the south and east. She also noted that the

playground area is enclosed by a fence, and an additional fence also extends along the

property lines, enclosing the southern 2/3 of the property. She stated that staff finds that

the private school will not be exposed to or create any negative impacts in relation to the

surrounding land uses.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Philip Cohen introduced himself as the representative for the property owner and stated

that he was available for questions.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no

comments in favor or in opposition to the proposal. Chairperson Ryan then requested

the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, reiterated the requested actions and summarized the

project. She noted that the existing use complies with the recommendations of the

Comprehensive Plan. The property is located along the Roosevelt Road commercial

corridor and is surrounded on three sides by other commercial properties. The existing

uses are compatible with the surrounding land uses to the north, east, and west. The

wetland area located on the southern portion of the property creates a buffer between

the commercial uses on the property and the single-family residences to the south.

Therefore, staff finds that the existing uses are compatible with adjacent land uses.

Ms. Backensto then discussed the proposed map amendment to the B3 Community

Shopping District. Staff finds that this amendment can be supported as the abutting

properties to the north, east and west of the project are zoned B3. The zoning

designation would be compatible with the adjacent commercial properties and would be

consistent with past zoning actions and the trend of development for properties abutting

the subject property.

Ms. Backensto concluded by stating that the subject property meets all bulk

requirements for the B3 Community Shopping District with the exception of the western

interior side yard. The site does not contain enough parking spaces to accommodate

the 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area that is required for retail

establishments. However, since there are no improvements associated with this

petition, staff is comfortable leaving these deficiencies as legal nonconforming. They

could then be addressed in the event the property redevelops or switches to a more

parking-intensive use such as a restaurant.

Petitioner Pete Gerardi (981 Danforth, Batavia) stated that the subject property is an

approximately 0.65-acre parcel located at the southeast corner of 17th Street and Main

Street. He is proposing to annex the property and have it rezoned for a three-lot

subdivision. The lots will average 8,800 square feet and no variations will be necessary.

They will be extending sanitary sewer from the corner to the Yorkshire Woods

subdivision and water will be taken off the existing mains.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no

comments in favor or in opposition to the proposal. Chairperson Ryan then requested

the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, reiterated the requested actions and summarized the

project. She noted that the IDRC report had several engineering comments that must

be addressed through the building permit process. The Comprehensive Plan calls for

this area to be developed as Estate Residential (four units per acre). The petitioner's

site plan proposes three single-family residential units on 0.61 acres, which is equivalent

to 4.95 units per acre.

The proposed single-family subdivision is compatible with the existing single family

residences surrounding the site. The lots on 17th Street will be nearly identical to those

on the north side of the street and the average lot area of 8,800 square feet exceeds the

minimum R2 requirement. Staff finds that the proposed development is compatible with

adjacent land uses.

Ms. Backensto stated that upon annexation to the Village, properties are automatically

classified as R1 Single-Family Residential properties. The petitioner is requesting a

map amendment to zone the properties into the R2 District. Staff finds that this

amendment can be supported as the abutting residences to the north, east and west of

the project are or will be zoned R2. The zoning designation would be compatible with

the adjacent residential properties and would be consistent with past zoning actions and

the trend of development for properties abutting the subject property. The proposed lots

meet the R2 minimum requirements of 60 feet in width and 7,500 square feet in area,

and no variations are requested as part of the petition.

Ms. Backensto concluded by noting that the proposed three-lot subdivision meets the

requirements for an Administrative Plat of Resubdivision and, as such, can be approved

by staff.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

PC 05-17: 1301 N. Lombard Road (Ordinance on Second Reading)

Requesting the Village of Lombard take the following actions to allow for a

business/industrial development on the Subject Property:

1. Grant a conditional use for an I Limited Industrial District Planned Development with

such exceptions from Village Code as may be provided for in a Development Agreement

between the Village and the Owner and/or Developer, including variations, deviations

and/or exceptions from the following standards:

A. Title 154 - Lombard Subdivision and Development Ordinance:

1. Section 154.506(D): Requiring that all lots front on a public street.

2. Section 154.602(D)(3)(e)(f) and (g): Requiring that no building permits be issued

prior to the completion of the water distribution system, sanitary sewer system and

public right-of-way improvements.

B. Title 155 - Lombard Zoning Ordinance:

1. Section 155.103(C)(10): Providing that all variations shall become null and void

unless work thereon is substantially underway within 12 months of issuance.

2. Section 155.103(F)(11): Providing that authorization for a conditional use shall

be null and void if construction is not substantially underway within 18 months of grant of

approval for the development.

3. Section 155.205(A)(2)(e): Regulating fences or walls in the Clear Line of Sight

Area.

4. Section 155.212: Limiting Obstructions in Required Yards to occupy no more

than 30 percent of a Required Yard.

5. Section 155.418(B) and (C): Identifying and establishing permitted conditional

and prohibited uses within the planned development.

6. Section 155.418(E): Requiring that all uses have a minimum lot width of 80 feet.

7. Section 155.418(F): Providing for minimum 25 foot front yards, 25 foot corner

side yards, 15 foot interior side yards and 15 foot rear yards (or 1 foot yards along

railroad rights-of-way) for principal buildings and structures.

8. Section 155.418(H): Requiring that the minimum open space for each use be

not less than 10 percent of the lot.

9. Sections 155.418(K) and 155.707(A)(4): Requiring a 30-foot transitional

landscape yard abutting a CR District.

10.Sections 155.503 and 155.507: Specifying certain plan submittal requirements

for planned developments.

11. Section 155.508(C)(6)(b): Requiring planned developments with exceptions to

satisfy all transitional landscape yard requirements.

12. Section 155.602(A)(3), (4) and (7): Regulating off-site and collective parking.

13. Sections 155.706(B) and (C) and 155.709: Requiring that lot interiors,

perimeters and perimeter parking lots provide a minimum of five feet of landscaped

area.

C. Title 153 - Lombard Sign Ordinance

1. Section 153.507(B)(4)(d): Limiting to one (1) the number of freestanding signs

on any one parcel.

2. Section 153.507(B)(4)(b) and (c): Allowing for signage to exceed 6 feet in

height and 30 square feet in area.

3. Section 153.507(B)(9)(a) and (b): Allowing for increases in the maximum

allowable square footage for wall signs and more than one wall sign per street front

exposure.

2. Grant a conditional use to allow more than one principal building on the subject

property.

3. Execute a Development Agreement for the Subject Property, with the Village Board

taking the following actions as set forth in the Agreement (to be considered at the

August 18, 2005 meeting)

a. Approve two vacations of portions of the Lombard Road right-of-way.

b. Approve the removal or a traffic barricade on Lombard Road; and

c. Grant Site Plan Approval Authority to the Lombard Plan Commission.

Joe Ash, attorney for the petitioner, 77 W. Washington St., Chicago, stated that he

represents ICE Realty, the property developer of the petition as well as US Bank, on

behalf of the title holder. He stated that the property is eleven acres in size and is east

of Lombard Road, 500 feet north of Cortland Avenue. The property is located in the

Village and it is zoned industrial. The petitioner is requesting approval of a planned

development to allow for new industrial buildings.

Jonathan Malm of ICE Realty, 5600 N. River Road, Rosemont, developer, described the

subject property and showed an aerial of the site. The first exhibit showed the property

relative to I-355, Lombard Road and North Avenue relative to the subject property. The

site is one mile from the I-355 interchange and the surrounding properties are industrial.

To the north is property in the Village of Addison, and the Canadian National Railroad.

To the west is Lombard Road and property in Addison. To the south is the

Commonwealth Edison right-of-way transmission line. To the east is the Forest

Preserve, which is unincorporated. To the south is the Village of Lombard. He noted

that this is one of the last undeveloped industrial properties in Lombard.

He then described how he plans to develop the property. He said he has worked

closely with Village staff, adjacent property owners and the current property owner to

develop a planned development guided by a development agreement. He described the

limitations to the property which include the accessibility of the property and the

Commonwealth Edison right-of-way development provisions. The property and the

Lombard market bridges the O'Hare and DuPage markets, and he described the market

for this type of development. He showed three concept plans and described each.

They are trying to work with the Village for the opportunity to set the table to have a

mixed menu to attract the various types of market users.

The first exhibit proposes about 200,000 square feet of space and would house a

traditional distribution type of user. They are looking to develop a project that creates

jobs and a business park atmosphere.

The second exhibit, a two-building scenario creates 116,000 square foot and 100,000

square foot buildings. They are looking to attract lead tenants and the 100,000 square

foot building would be build to suit. The plan has its truck orientation to the south with

shared parking and circulation.

The third scenario consists of three buildings of 63,000, 65,000 to 104,000 square feet

in size utilizing shared drive aisles.

In all three scenarios, the northeast corner of the property is reserved in a wetland outlot

and they have been working with DuPage County to avoid that area.

Regarding the Commonwealth Edison parcel, it will be used for parking and storage

purposes which will be tied to the principal use of the Grant property. There will also be

a dry basin provided for stormwater purposes. He noted that the adjacent uses are

complimentary to his proposed use. He believes that this is a natural extension of the

business park but will be more attractive. There will be a significant landscape buffer for

the site.

He then described the proposed rebuilding of Lombard Road and the proposed plats of

vacation. He explained how the right-of-way will be improved to the south edge of the

Commonwealth Edison right-of-way with a cul-de-sac for fire access and snow plowing.

Jeff Jacob of Jacob & Hefner, Glen Ellyn, stated that he is the civil engineer retained by

the petitioner. He described how the property would be served by the sanitary sewer

and water and described the improvements to the right-of-way. He then described the

drainage pattern of the property noting the mass grading and stormwater detention

basin on the Commonwealth Edison right-of-way. Stormwater will run into the detention

basin and then discharge into the wetland per DuPage County requirements.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no

comments in favor or in opposition to the proposal. Chairperson Ryan then requested

the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, reiterated the requested actions, summarized the project,

and submitted the IDRC report to the public record in its entirety. He then referenced

the various deviations and exceptions noted within the IDRC report appendix and

discussed why the petition was requested, the actions to be approved, and staff's

comments relative to each item.

He then passed out an amendment to the report which amended and clarified the

proposed Use List clarifying that cartage facilities would not be allowed as a principal,

permitted, or conditional use within the planned development but it would be allowed as

an ancillary function to the planned development.

He noted that the petitioner will make improvements in the Lombard Road right-of-way

consisting of a full cul-de-sac bulb. He mentioned the future annexation of the Haney &

Sons property and how the two properties would be integrated. Staff recommends

approval of the petition subject to conditions included within the report and staff has

been working on a development agreement, which will be considered by the Village

Board concurrent with the zoning actions.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Commissioner Olbrysh thanked the petitioner and staff for an excellent report and

aerials. His understanding is the Commissioners are not here to approve a specific plan

but to address the conditions which were read off the staff report. He did not have any

problem with that provision. His observation is that the distance of North Avenue and

Fullerton is one mile. Basically the subject property and Commonwealth Edison

property is 0.2 miles. At some point in time if Lombard Road opens up, Lombard is

preserving their rights should that happen. Mr. Heniff confirmed this item.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked about Lombard Road and if it was open at one time. Mr.

Heniff said that it was open and then closed maybe in 1970s or 1980s and the trestle

was removed in the 1990s. It was barricaded by Lombard in 1992, and in 2000 Addison

vacated their portion of the right-of-way, which was annexed into Lombard.

1. That the petitioner shall enter into a development agreement with the Village to

address any future development of the subject property.

2. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive site plan approval for the development

of the subject property prior to starting construction of any new buildings, parking lot

improvements or development signage on the subject property.

3. That the petitioner shall amend the conceptual site plans to reflect the correct

right-of-way width for the proposed Lombard Road vacation area.

4. That the following conditions be added to the associated variations and deviations

included as part of the development proposal, with said conditions being added and

incorporated into the development agreement:

a. That a thirty foot (30') cross-access easement be provided for use and benefit of

the Village to access any outlots, stormwater facilities or wetland areas.

b. That all stormwater improvements associated with each phase of the development

of the subject property shall be constructed and be fully operational prior to starting

construction of any buildings.

c. That construction shall commence within twenty-four (24) months from the date of

approval of the final engineering and recording of the final subdivision plat for the site.

d. In the event that the Village annexes the DuPage County Forest Preserve District

Property abutting and immediately east of the subject property and approves a map

amendment to rezone the property to the Village's C/R Conservation District, the 25 foot

landscape yard setback requirement shall apply, in lieu of the requisite 30 foot

transitional yard.

e. That the five-foot perimeter landscape requirement shall be varied only at the south

property line of the subject property and at the north property line of the Commonwealth

Edison right-of-way, and the interior parking lot landscape islands shall not be required

on the Commonwealth Edison right-of-way property only.

As the petition was brought forward by the Village, William Heniff, Senior Planner

presented the petition.

He referenced the history of the subject property. A traffic accident substantially

damaged the Scoop's ice cream building in 2001. The building location is deemed legal

non-conforming as it was located within the required front yard of the subject property

and was one of two principal buildings existing on the property. Because the estimated

damage costs were greater than 50% of the value of the damaged building, any

improvements would need to meet the full provisions of the Zoning Ordinance if it was to

be repaired.

A petition was approved in 2003 by the Village Board that re-established the legal

non-conforming status of the ice cream building and allowed the property owner to

re-establish the business as it was prior to the auto accident, subject to conditions as

outlined in Ordinance 5324.

Since the initial approval, the owner started the building restoration. The property owner

also represented to the Village that the building was under lease by another party who

intended to re-establish a business on the premises. However, two years has passed

since the initial Ordinance was approved and four years has passed since the initial

damage occurred.

While Ordinance 5324 includes conditions of approval for granting the conditional use, it

did not establish specific timetables for which the building needed to be occupied. This

petition is intended to set forth additional conditions of approval requiring specific times

for a lease agreement and for issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or Zoning

Certificate for the property. Ultimately, these conditions would help ensure the intent of

Ordinance 5324 to establish a viable commercial development on the subject property is

achieved.

The proposed ordinance amendments would set specific timelines for

development/improvement activity to occur on the premises. These amendments would

consist of the following:

1. A lease signed within 60 days.

2. A building permit submitted within 120 days.

3. Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy/Zoning Certificate within 180 days.

In the event that any of these timelines are not met, the conditional use granted through

Ordinance 5324 shall be null and void and the full provisions of Section 155.305 of the

Zoning Ordinance would be in effect. This would also require the property owner to be

responsible for razing the structure. He noted that the property owner was aware of this

petition being brought forward and did not object to it. He also noted in the findings and

recommendations section of the IDRC report the word "following" should be struck from

the conditions of approval.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public participation. There was no one

present to speak in favor of or against the petition. He then opened the meeting for

discussion among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Burke asked if the time periods noted in the staff report were negotiated

or did staff suggest them. Mr. Heniff said that the proposed dates are intended to be

aggressive, but staff wanted to make sure that actions to get a business operating on

the premises must occur at regular intervals. If the Village Board wanted to tighten up

the timelines, they could do so, but staff has the three benchmark dates. He also

clarified that the 180 day requirement for a certificate of occupancy does not require

them operating a business on the premises, but rather requires the building to be in full

compliance with the building codes so that a business could immediately go into the

building.

Chairperson Ryan asked if the building could be razed if these conditions are not met.

Mr. Heniff stated that if the amendment is adopted and the dates not met, the conditional

use would become null and void. The Zoning Ordinance states the building would need

to be razed at the expense of the property owner.

1. That the conditions previously established in Ordinance 5324 shall be satisfactorily

addressed and shall remain in full force and effect.

2. That the property owner shall provide the Village with a copy of a lease agreement

between the property owner and a lessee for the Scoop's ice cream building. The

property owner shall also provide any supplemental documentation from the lessee

denoting the proposed use of the subject premises. Said documentation shall be

provided to the Village no later than sixty (60) days from the date of approval of this

Ordinance.

3. That a building permit for any requisite interior or exterior improvements shall be

applied for no later than one-hundred twenty (120) days from the date of approval of this

Ordinance.

4. That a Certificate of Occupancy/Zoning Certificate shall be applied for and shall be

approved by the Village within one-hundred eighty (180) days from the date of approval

of this Ordinance.

to the Village's Certificate of Occupancy (CO) process. Through this discussion,

Counsel suggested amendments to sections of the Zoning Ordinance, to ensure that

our codes accurately reflect our policies and meet the provisions set forth in the

International Building Code and any subsequent amendments. The proposed

amendments are administrative in nature and would be largely transparent to

developers and/or property owners.

Village policy has required all businesses operating in the Village to have a valid CO

prior to commencing business operations. As it is currently defined in the Zoning

Ordinance, the CO only references that the approved buildings or structures conform to

the provisions of the Ordinance. However in the event of ownership or use changes, an

argument could be made that the CO would not be needed as the previous ownership or

use already applied for and received a CO.

To remedy this issue, Counsel is recommending and staff is proposing text amendments

establishing both Certificates of Occupancy and Zoning Certificates. While the

amendments may seem semantic in nature, it closes a procedural gap in our processes.

Simply stated, the amendment would require Certificates of Occupancy for new

construction activity and Zoning Certificates for any use, name or owner/operator

changes. Administratively, the corresponding staff forms for a Certificate of Occupancy

would remain the same but with an additional check-off box denoting the type of

certificate that is being requested.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one to

speak in favor or against this petition. He then opened the meeting to the

Commissioners.