Monday, June 20, 2005
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall
Plan Commission
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Rocco Melarkey |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Meeting Minutes
Plan Commission
Meeting Minutes
June 20, 2005
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh and Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Commissioner Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Sondra Zorn and Commissioner |
Rocco Melarkey |
Absent:
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; |
Jennifer Backensto, AICP, Planner I; Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner; and |
George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda.
Public Hearings
050326
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. |
Chairperson Ryan indicated that there was a request to continue this petition to the next |
Plan Commission meeting. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be continued to the July 18, 2005 meeting. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Olbrysh and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Sweetser, Zorn and Melarkey
3 -
050330
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 |
the subject property for non-potable water purposes. |
Chairperson Ryan indicated that there was a request to continue this petition to the next |
Plan Commission meeting. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that this |
matter be continued to the July 18, 2005 meeting. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Olbrysh and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Sweetser, Zorn and Melarkey
3 -
Mr. Heniff read the rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws.
050331
B. PC 05-19: 19W549 Roosevelt Road (3 Ordinances/Waiver of First Requested) |
Requests the Village of Lombard take the following actions on the subject property: |
1. Ordinance approving an Annexation Agreement (2/3 of Corporate Authorities Vote |
Required); |
2. Ordinance annexing to the Village of Lombard; |
3. Ordinance approving a map amendment rezoning the property from the R1 to the B3 |
Community Shopping District. |
Staff is requesting waiver of first reading. |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval with one |
condition. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Olbrysh and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Sweetser, Zorn and Melarkey
3 -
1. That the petitioner shall enter into an annexation agreement with the Village for the |
subject property. |
050327
A. PC 05-02: 19W175 Roosevelt Road (3 Ordinances/Waiver of First Requested) |
Requests the Village take the following actions on the property: |
1. Ordinance approving an Annexation Agreement (2/3 of Corporate Authorities Vote |
Required); |
2. Ordinance annexing the property into the Village of Lombard; and |
3. Ordinance approving a map amendment to rezone the property from the R1 |
Single-Family Residence District to the B3 Community Shopping District. |
Staff is requesting waiver of first reading. |
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. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that this |
matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Olbrysh and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Sweetser, Zorn and Melarkey
3 -
Enactment No: Ords 5679-5681 |
050333
C. PC 05-22: 1703 S. Main Street (3 Ordinances/Waiver of First Requested) |
Requests the Village take the following actions on the property: |
1. Ordinance approving an Annexation Agreement (2/3 of Corporate Authorities Vote |
Required); |
2. Ordinance annexing the property into the Village of Lombard; and |
3. Ordinance approving a map amendment to rezone the property from the R1 |
Single-Family Residence District to the R2 Single-Family Residence District. |
Staff is requesting waiver of first reading. |
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 |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, that |
this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Olbrysh and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Sweetser, Zorn and Melarkey
3 -
050329
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Olbrysh and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Sweetser, Zorn and Melarkey
3 -
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. |
050328
L. PC 05-16: 506 East St. Charles Place (Waiver of First Requested) |
Ordinance amending conditions associated with Ordinance Number 5324 granting |
approval of a conditional use to allow for the re-establishment of the legal |
nonconforming status of an existing building in the B4 Corridor Commercial Shopping |
District. Staff is requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #5) |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, that |
this matter be Recommended for approval to the Corporate Authorities subject to |
the amended condition(s). The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Olbrysh and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Sweetser, Zorn and Melarkey
3 -
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. |
050332
PC 05-21: Text Amendments to the Lombard Zoning Ordinance - Certificates of |
Occupancy (Ordinance on Second Reading) |
Ordinance approving text amendments to Sections 155.103 and 155.802 (and any |
related cross-references) to the Lombard Zoning Ordinance as it relates to Certificates |
of Occupancy, Occupancy Permits and Zoning Certificates. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, noted that staff has been working with Counsel relative |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that this |
matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Olbrysh and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Sweetser, Zorn and Melarkey
3 -
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Heniff noted that at the bottom of page 10 and continuing to the top of page 11, the |
beginning of his presentation was missing. It should read: |
"William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He noted the location of |
the two properties." |
The Plan Commission then unanimously approved the minutes of the May 16, 2005 |
meeting with this correction. |
Chairperson Ryan indicated that before them were also the minutes of the May 23, 2005 |
Special Plan Commission meeting. The Plan Commission approved the May 23, 2005 |
minutes by unanimous consent. |
Public Participation
There was no public participation.
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Chairperson's Report
The Chairperson deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
The Senior Planner had nothing to report.
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
There were no subdivision reports.
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Workshops
There were no workshops.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. |
___________________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
___________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |