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, August 15, 2005
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. |
He noted that the cable technicians were experiencing problems with Comcast which |
might cause the transmission of the meeting to go in and out. He stated that the |
meeting was being videotaped and that it would be rebroadcasted at different times |
during the week should there be an interruption in service. |
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser and Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Commissioner Sondra Zorn and Commissioner Rocco Melarkey
Absent:
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; |
Angela Clark, AICP, Planner II; Jennifer Backensto, AICP, Planner I; and George |
Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda. |
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws. |
Public Hearings
050357
B. PC 05-24: 18W520 Roosevelt Road (5 Ordinances on Second Reading) |
Requests that the Village take the following actions on the subject property: |
1. Approve an Annexation Agreement (2/3 of Corporate Authorities Vote Required); |
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 B4 Corridor Commercial District; |
4. Approve a conditional use for an existing automobile service establishment; and |
5. Approve a variation to allow for an existing 9.85-foot corner side yard setback. |
Kevin Carrara of the law firm Rathje and Woodward introduced himself as the |
representative for Halle-Von Voightlander, the property owner. He summarized the |
requested relief and stated that the subject property has a Discount Tire store and no |
new construction is being proposed. He noted that newly-annexed properties are |
automatically rezoned to the R1 District. In this case the Comprehensive Plan calls for |
commercial uses and residential uses would not be compatible with the existing |
development. |
Mr. Carrara stated that the automobile service use is very compatible with other uses in |
the area and there would not be any negative impact because the business is already in |
existence. The property already receives Village water and sewer service and the |
annexation would be part of the natural, orderly growth of the Village. He noted a |
variation is requested for the existing building setback. Mr. Carrara concluded by stating |
that he would like to make the petitioner's Response to Standards a part of the official |
record. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no |
comments in favor of or in opposition to the proposal. Chairperson Ryan then requested |
the staff report. |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, reiterated the requested actions and summarized the |
IDRC report. She noted that the subject property currently abuts the Village's eastern |
boundary at Church Avenue. To address the existing conditions on-site and bring the |
property into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, a map amendment, conditional |
use, and setback variation are being requested as companions to the annexation. |
The existing use complies with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and it |
can be considered compatible with surrounding land uses. |
The petitioner is requesting a map amendment to zone the properties into the B4 |
Corridor Commercial District. Staff finds that this amendment can be supported. 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. |
The petitioner is requesting a conditional use for an automobile service establishment. |
Given the high concentration of similar automobile service uses along Roosevelt Road, |
staff believes the existing land use is appropriate at this location. |
Ms. Backensto concluded by stating that the subject property meets or exceeds all bulk |
standards for the B4 Corridor Commercial District, with the exception of the corner side |
yard along Luther Avenue. To bring the property into compliance with the Zoning |
Ordinance, staff is supportive of a variation for the existing side yard setback. The |
petitioner has agreed to a condition limiting the setback variation to the current site plan. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. |
Commissioner Olbrysh noted that he had no objection to the petition given that the |
building has been in existence for a quarter of a century and the current business has |
also been existence for some time. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
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 and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Melarkey
2 -
1. That the owner shall enter into an Annexation Agreement for the property. |
2. The requested corner side yard setback variation along Luther Avenue shall be |
granted to allow the improvements shown on the Land Title Survey, prepared by North |
Shore Survey, Ltd. and dated January 29, 1995, and made a part of this petition. In the |
event of the total demolition of the existing improvements located on the property and |
the redevelopment of the property for the same or different use, such redevelopment, |
unless otherwise approved by the Village, shall meet the full provisions of the Lombard |
Zoning Ordinance. |
050358
C. PC 05-25: 18W470 Roosevelt Road (5 Ordinances on Second Reading) |
Requests that the Village take the following actions on the property: |
1. Approve an Annexation Agreement (2/3 of Corporate Authority Vote Required); |
2. Immediately upon the establishment of contiguity to the Village corporate limits, |
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 B4 Corridor Commercial District; |
4. Approve a conditional use for an existing automobile service establishment; and |
5. Approve a one-lot major plat of subdivision with a variation for a lot width of 143.9 |
feet. (UNINCORPORATED) |
Scott Creech of Smith Engineering in New Lenox introduced himself as the |
representative for National Tire and Battery and stated that he would be available for |
questions. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no |
comments in favor of or in opposition to the proposal. Chairperson Ryan then requested |
the staff report. |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, reiterated the requested actions and summarized the |
IDRC report. She noted that, with the approval of PC 05-24, the subject property will be |
contiguous to the Village. To address the existing conditions on-site and bring the |
property into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, a map amendment, conditional |
use, and setback variation are being requested as companions to the annexation. The |
existing use complies with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and it can |
be considered compatible with surrounding land uses. |
The petitioner is requesting a map amendment to zone the properties into the B4 |
Corridor Commercial District. Staff finds that this amendment can be supported. 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. The petitioner is also requesting a conditional use for an |
automobile service establishment. Given the high concentration of similar automobile |
service uses along Roosevelt Road, staff believes the existing land use is appropriate at |
this location. |
Ms. Backensto concluded by stating that the subject property meets or exceeds all bulk |
standards for the B4 Corridor Commercial District, with the exception of the lot width. |
The petitioner is requesting approval of a Plat of Resubdivision so that this property may |
become a Lot of Record, thereby allowing for the possibility for future redevelopment. |
Although this property would meet the minimum B3 District lot width of 100 feet, staff |
believes that in this case it would be more appropriate to continue the pattern of B4 |
zoning in this area begun with the annexation and rezoning of the CVS pharmacy at |
1005 E. Roosevelt Road. Since the property is significantly larger that the minimum |
required area for B4 properties and no setback variations are being requested, staff is |
supportive of the requested lot width variation. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. |
Commissioner Sweetser noted that this petition was similar to PC 05-24 in that both |
dealt with the annexation of longstanding businesses. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be Recommend for approval to the Corporate Authorities. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Melarkey
2 -
050453
D. PC 05-26: 60 Yorktown Shopping Center (Yorktown Peripheral Planned |
Development/Target) (Ordinance on Second Reading) |
Requests the Village take the following actions on the subject property located within the |
B3PD Community Shopping District, Planned Development: |
1. Pursuant to Section 155.504(A) (major changes in a planned development) and |
Section 155.511 (Site Plan Approvals for planned developments) of the Lombard Zoning |
Ordinance, amend Sections 3 (A) and (I) of Ordinance 3962, which granted a |
conditional use for the Yorktown Peripheral Planned Development to provide for a |
building expansion on Lot 1 (Target), per the submitted plans. |
2. Approve an amendment to Section 3 (G)(1) of Ordinance 3962 and a deviation from |
Section 153.505(B)(6)(e) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for a second free-standing sign |
to be located along 22nd Street. |
3. Approve an amendment to Section 3 (G)(3) of Ordinance 3962 and a deviation from |
Section 153.505(B)(19)(a) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for two additional wall signs for |
the Lot 1 (Target) building. (DISTRICT #3) |
Scott DeBell, Civil Engineer for Woolpert, Inc., the contractor for Target for this project, |
presented the petition. He described the proposed 13,600 square foot building |
expansion and remodeling of the existing Target store. The expansion is 50 feet to the |
right side (east) of the existing parking lot area. The proposed site improvements |
include bumping out the front sidewalk into a bow shape with landscape planters and |
spherical bollards in the sidewalk area. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no |
comments in favor of or in opposition to the proposal. Chairperson Ryan then requested |
the staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, noted that the subject property was originally included |
within the Yorktown Planned Development, which was approved in 1965. The Yorktown |
Peripheral Planned Development was carved out of the original Yorktown Planned |
Development in 1995. This approval envisioned the development of the Target store |
and other retail/restaurant/office uses on the subdivided lots. The approved planned |
development also provides for the review of future development through the site plan |
approval process. |
In 2003, the Village approved a hotel/convention hall facility to be constructed on the |
property immediately south of the subject property (PC 03-30). As part of that approval, |
the Village approved driveway improvements along the east property line of the subject |
property, commonly referred to as "Convention Way". The Village also approved the |
creation of off-premises signage on the subject property, subject to site plan approval by |
the Plan Commission. |
The petitioner's proposal requests approval of a Lot 1 amendment to the planned |
development to allow for an approximate 13,600 square foot building addition to their |
existing 130,700 square foot retail building (a ten percent increase in building size). Two |
sets of site plans have been prepared as part of this petition. One set depicts the |
proposed addition based upon the existing conditions found on the property. The |
second set of plans shows the proposed addition based upon the proposed Convention |
Way site improvements being constructed on the property. The Convention Way |
improvements would still be constructed as part of the overall hotel/convention hall |
development. Target's plans provide for their expansion without Convention Way and |
with Convention Way improvements. |
The proposed addition will meet all of the bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. |
The Zoning Ordinance would classify the proposed addition as a major change to a |
planned development as it increases the development density and changes the |
controlling documents. Therefore, even though all of the B3 provisions are met, the |
changes must be considered as an amendment to the previously approved conditional |
use for a planned development. Moreover, this addition must also be approved through |
the site plan approval process. |
The petitioner's submittal includes a conceptual sign package. As shown on the |
submitted signage plans, the petitioner is proposing to install an additional free-standing |
sign at the Convention Way/22nd Street intersection of a similar design as the existing |
free-standing sign along 22nd Street. In discussing the proposed building expansion |
with the petitioner's consultant, staff noted that staff could conceptually support |
provisions to allow for a second free-standing sign at Convention Way. Staff supported |
this signage in light of the proposed driveway improvements that were approved as part |
of PC 03-30 - the hotel/convention hall project. With creation of this new access point |
and the corresponding traffic signal improvements at 22nd Street, staff envisions that |
this access point will become the primary access/egress point into Target. |
The Village approved two off-premise signs to be located at the Convention Way/22nd |
Street intersection, with the signage subject to a separate site plan approval application |
to the Village. However, the Convention Way signage will be subject to a joint signage |
design, which shall give the Westin Hotel Conference Center priority placement on the |
sign. Further, the Lombard Public Facilities Corporation shall have the sole design |
rights for such signage. Therefore, staff can support additional monument signage for |
Target to be located at Convention Way, but in lieu of the petitioner's sign package |
submittal, staff recommends that the additional monument signage be tied into the final |
signage package for Convention Way and that the signage shall be subject to a site plan |
approval application. Moreover, the additional signage should be conditioned to be tied |
to the Convention Way improvements - if Convention Way is not constructed, the |
signage cannot be installed. |
The submitted wall signage plans depict two additional wall signs - a "Pharmacy" sign on |
the south elevation and a proposed "Target" sign on the north elevation. The north wall |
sign is intended to identify the store from Convention Way/22nd Street intersection. The |
signage also breaks up the overall building mass on the east elevation. In consideration |
of the signage request, Target is proposing to decrease the overall sign size on their |
main sign by dropping the word "Greatland" from the wall sign. |
As staff has been supportive of other signage deviations along Yorktown Mall access |
drives (since they frequently function like public streets), staff can support this request. |
Given the size of the overall store, the additional "Pharmacy" wall sign does not create |
the appearance of excessive signage. |
While the proposed Target sign on the north elevation is approximately 225 square feet |
in size (15'x15'), it will be setback 320 feet from the 22nd Street property line, so it will |
be compliance with wall sign code requirements. However, as staff's support of the |
additional signage is predicated upon the existence of Convention Way, staff |
recommends that the additional signage be tied to the Convention Way improvements |
being constructed. |
The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Regional Commercial Uses, defined as a |
larger, more intensively developed mixed-use commercial area that serves as a key |
activity center for the region. Staff finds that the proposed land use is consistent with the |
intent of the Comprehensive Plan. |
As the proposed addition is meeting all of the bulk requirements of the underlying B3PD |
District and that the expansion is being completed away from adjacent condominium |
residences west of the subject property, staff finds that the addition would be compatible |
with the adjacent residential uses. With respect to the proposed hotel/convention hall |
project to the south, the proposed addition will have minimal effect upon the approved |
Convention Way improvements and/or the hotel development itself. |
To ensure compatibility with the adjacent land uses, Mr. Heniff also outlined additional |
issues for consideration. Regarding traffic generation, KLOA, the Village's consultant, |
notes that when there is an existing use like the Target store and there is a small |
proposed expansion, there is a very little trip generation increase, if any, because the |
trips and the market area is already established. The petitioner is providing more |
parking than what is required by code. While dead end lots are not most desirable, in |
this case the lot configuration is preferable to opening the parking up and providing |
access to the loading dock (truck/car vehicle conflicts) and/or additional access onto |
Convention Way (an access is provided immediately south of the lot). |
With respect to the parking lot itself, staff finds that access through the parking lot from |
22nd Street to the Yorktown ring road is rather circuitous and does not lend itself for |
good traffic flow. This issue may be significantly improved by the development of |
Convention Way east of Target. However, should this improvement not occur, staff |
recommends as a condition of approval that the parking lot should be redesigned to |
better accommodate through-traffic movements. |
Mr. Heniff noted that, the Village Board may want to revisit the traffic issues at the 22nd |
Street/Fairfield Place intersection, particularly after the Convention Way improvements |
are completed. While the Plan Commission did not support any conditions relative to |
access provisions at 22nd Street and Fairfield associated with PC 05-23, staff believes |
that if in the future the Village considers access modifications to the 22nd Street/Fairfield |
Street intersection in the future, that the petitioner (Target) shall not object to the |
request. Staff notes that once full access is provided to Target from the 22nd |
Street/Convention Way signalized intersection, customers will find Convention Way as |
an easier way to get to the store itself. He noted that the petitioner has not stated any |
objections to this condition. |
The petitioner has submitted a landscape plan that incorporates foundation plantings |
and planter box landscape improvements associated with the building expansion. As |
the existing parking lot and wetlands meet the Village's requirements for plantings in |
these areas, no additional landscaping is required. In review of the plant materials, staff |
finds the landscape plan to be acceptable. |
The petitioner intends to make the addition look identical to the original building so that |
the addition will not be apparent from the building exterior. The petition is also |
proposing minor banding, consisting of a red stripe around the building perimeter to |
break up the building mass. Staff finds the addition to be compatible with the existing |
building and therefore is supportive of the elevations as proposed. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. |
Commissioner Flint inquired about the timing of the Convention Way improvements. Mr. |
Heniff noted that it is tied to the hotel project, which could still be started this year. |
However, so that the Target project is not delayed, two concept plans are proposed for |
the site. |
Commissioner Olbrysh sought clarifications as to the nature and extent of the building |
improvements as they are represented on the petitioner's building elevations. Mr. |
DeBell noted those elements that are existing and the items that are proposed to be |
added to the building. Commissioner Olbrysh opined that the rear elevation along 22nd |
Street is bland and the sign does break up some of the building mass. |
Mr. Heniff then referred to staff's recommendation about future restrictions to 22nd |
Street and Fairfield Avenue. After some discussion among the members, Commissioner |
Burke stated that as Target does not object to the request, it can be included in the |
conditions of approval. |
George Wagner, Village Counsel, also noted the free-standing sign provisions noted |
within the engineering comments within the IDRC report should state that the sign be |
placed outside of the wetland area. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, 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 and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Melarkey
2 -
1. The petitioner shall develop the facility essentially in accordance with the final site |
plans and landscape plans prepared by, prepared by Woolpert, Inc., dated June 29, |
2005 and the exterior Building Elevations, prepared by RSP Architects, dated July 13, |
2005 and made a part of this petition. |
2. In the event that Convention Way construction has not commenced prior to the |
issuance of the building permit for the Target building expansion, the petitioner shall |
follow the final site plan without Convention Way improvements submitted as part of |
their petition and attached as Exhibit A. In the event that Convention Way construction |
commences prior to the issuance of the building permit for the Target building |
expansion, the petitioner shall follow the final site plan depicting the Convention Way |
improvements submitted as part of their petition and attached as Exhibit B. |
3. The petitioner shall satisfactorily address the IDRC comments included within the |
IDRC staff report. Moreover, in the event that the Village deems it to be in the best |
interest of the Village to restrict or prohibit turning movements at the 22nd Street and |
Fairfield Avenue intersection in the future, the property owner agrees not to object to |
such a restriction. |
4. That Ordinance 3962 shall be amended to reflect the approved revised site plans and |
building elevations submitted as part of this petition. |
5. Section 3 (G)(1) Of Ordinance 3962 is hereby amended to allow for an additional |
Target sign to be located on the subject property at the 22nd Street/Convention Way |
intersection. The proposed sign shall be of a joint signage design, which gives the |
Westin Hotel Conference Center priority placement on the sign. Further, the Lombard |
Public Facilities Corporation shall have the sole design rights for such signage. The |
final design of the signage shall be subject to a separate site plan approval submittal to |
the Plan Commission. The signage request shall also only be deemed to be approved if |
the Convention Way improvements are approved and constructed on the subject |
property. |
6. Section 3 (G)(3) of Ordinance 3962 is hereby amended to provide for two additional |
wall signs on the subject property. Said signs shall be in conformance with the |
submitted sign package prepared by RSP Architects, dated July 13, 2005. The "Target" |
wall sign proposed for the east elevation request shall also only be deemed to be |
approved if the Convention Way improvements are approved and constructed on the |
subject property. |
7. In the event that Convention Way is not constructed and upon a request by the |
Village, the petitioner shall work with the Village a facilitate the reconfiguration of the |
existing parking to accommodate through traffic movements from 22nd Street to the |
Yorktown ring road. |
8. That the development shall be developed consistent with all Codes of the Village. |
9. With respect to the free-standing sign request, an off-premise sign has already been |
approved for the same location by the Village. As with the off-premise sign, any signage |
proposed for the site must be located outside of any clear line of sight areas, outside of |
any recorded public utility easements, or outside of the special management (wetlands) |
area. |
050454
H. PC 05-31: 536 N. Columbine Avenue (Waiver of First Requested) |
Requests that the Village approve a conditional use for a planned development within |
the R1 Single-Family Residence District. The petitioner is also requesting a use |
exception to allow a Montessori preschool and kindergarten on the subject property. The |
petitioner is requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #1) |
Jerry Bimber, 519 E. Maple, presented the petition. The Church of the Nazarene has |
been at its current location for four years. They are interested in a conditional use for a |
planned development so that they can accommodate a Montessori school. The school |
will occupy less than 10 percent of the building and the dominant land use will remain a |
religious institution. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There were no |
comments in favor of or in opposition to the proposal. Chairperson Ryan then requested |
the staff report. |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, reiterated the requested actions and summarized the |
IDRC report. She noted that the Fire Department/Bureau of Inspectional Services had a |
number of comments related to life safety issues, and these would need to be |
addressed prior to the school occupying any space in the church. |
The existing use complies with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and |
the property is surrounded by single-family homes, as is typical of the majority of |
religious institutions within the Village. |
Ms. Backensto stated that several religious institutions within Lombard have become |
planned developments as they have either made physical improvements or expanded |
the scope of their services. By creating a planned development, Lombard Church of the |
Nazarene will have greater flexibility to accommodate any growth or changes that may |
occur in the future. Although preschools and kindergartens are not listed as permitted |
or conditional uses within residential districts, at least eight religious institutions in |
Lombard offer preschool and/or kindergarten. Also, private elementary, middle, and |
high schools are conditional uses within all residential districts, so it is merely the age of |
the students that triggers the need for a use exception. The Zoning Ordinance |
considers early childhood education programs not associated with an elementary or |
secondary school system to be day care centers rather than schools. The Montessori |
school will occupy less than 10 percent of the existing floor area of the building and no |
exterior improvements are proposed. Staff believes that the incorporation of a |
Montessori school will not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood |
and, therefore, recommends approval of this petition. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if the school would have any outdoor activities. The |
petitioner stated that they would have access to the open area behind the building and |
the use of the gymnasium when it is raining. Commissioner Sweetser stated that any |
outdoor play areas should be fenced. |
Commissioner Burke stated that traffic had not been addressed. Although the current |
use of the property does not occur during rush hour, the school would. Route 53 is only |
one lane in each direction at that location and we should investigate what type of impact |
this will have. Chairperson Ryan suggested that a condition be added making the traffic |
situation subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if there was an estimate on the number of students. The |
petitioner stated that the school has been in a church in Downers Grove for the past 14 |
years, but that church is now remodeling and the school needs someplace to go. Right |
now they have a total of 20 children. He understands the traffic problem, as it is |
sometimes difficult to get in and out of the property. The church has already given up |
land to accommodate the expansion of Route 53 and would like to do its best in this |
case. |
Chairperson Ryan asked if there was sufficient room to accommodate the vehicles. The |
petitioner stated that he did not think there would be any problem since 40 cars could |
probably be stacked in the drive. |
Commissioner Burke stated that the question is traffic on Route 53 where there is no |
deceleration lane and no left turn lane. |
Commissioner Flint stated that a typical classroom is 750-800 square feet. Accordingly, |
there could be 60-70 kids in 1,700 square feet. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if this would be temporary until the Downers Grove |
renovations are completed. The petitioner stated that, if approved, the school would be |
in Lombard for at least one year, but after time he could not say if both the church and |
the school would want to continue their relationship. |
Chairperson Ryan asked what types of state regulation apply to Montessori schools. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that Montessori schools are not regulated by |
DCFS. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Burke, 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:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Melarkey
2 -
1. The Montessori school and any other day care functions may not occupy more than |
1,700 sq. ft. of the building. |
2. All comments in the Inter-Departmental Review Committee Report and any other life |
safety requirements shall be satisfactorily addressed. |
3. Perimeter fencing shall be installed around any outdoor play areas associated with |
the Montessori school. |
4. Any traffic conflicts along Columbine Avenue (IL Route 53) that may be created as a |
result of this petition shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community |
Development. |
050455
K. PC 05-30: 369 N. Stewart (Ordinance on Second Reading) |
Requests the following actions on the subject property: |
1. Approval of a conditional use for a religious institution; |
2. A variation from Section 155.406 (G) to allow for a church spire that will exceed the |
maximum building height; |
3. A variation from Section 155.406 (F) to reduce the minimum required front yard |
setback from thirty (30) feet to six (6) feet; |
4. A variation from Section 155.602 (C) to reduce the number of minimum required |
parking spaces; |
5. A variation from Section 155.406 (H) to exceed the minimum required 50% open |
space. |
6. A variation from Section 155.602 (A)(C) reducing the minimum parking space and |
aisle dimensions. (DISTRICT #4) |
David Brown, representing Lombard Gospel Chapel, presented the petition. He stated |
that the building was constructed in 1955. He stated that it was actually two buildings |
including the sanctuary, a breezeway, and a basement. Mr. Brown stated that they are |
rectifying the use of the sanctuary by making it more handicap accessible and improving |
the general flow of the building. He stated that they believe they have a plan to address |
these issues and keep the footprint of building and enhance the neighborhood. Mr. |
Brown stated that the site would remain under parked. He noted the requested |
variations. He stated that a new entryway would be constructed in the parking lot area. |
He stated that the front porch would be removed and the new area would be |
landscaped. He stated that the new entry area would have an elevator to make it |
accessible. Mr. Brown stated that the addition would increase the flow of the building |
and improve their sanctuary space. He mentioned when the building opened there was |
no use of musical instruments. He stated that their worship space is different now and |
includes those things. He stated that the one change in the footprint besides the entry is |
the bump off north of the building for a small platform. He stated that they plan to put a |
baptismal tank at the floor level. |
Mark Ridolphi, of Church Building Architects in Wheaton, showed display boards that |
were not included in the Plan Commission package. He noted that the display showed |
Pleasant from two different directions. He mentioned the requested relief. He stated |
that a conditional use had not been previously granted, therefore they were seeking one |
at this time. He noted the spire. He stated that the height of the spire was not changing, |
but would be relocated from its current location. Mr. Ridolphi referenced the current |
front yard setback. He stated that it was 11.90 feet at the northwest corner. He stated |
that the building is not parallel with the street or sidewalk. He stated that from the center |
of the building they would add a section that increased the space in the sanctuary and |
would reduce six feet in the center. He stated that in regards to open space they are not |
taking away any impervious area. He stated that currently the only landscaping on the |
site was on the Pleasant side. He stated that they are tearing down the entry on the |
west side of the building and will landscape that area. Mr. Ridolphi stated that if they |
were allowed to go with 8' parking stalls they would not reduce the parking. |
He stated that the church is an "L" shaped building and noted the different uses in their |
locations on the floor plan. He stated that currently the floors and basement do not line |
up. He stated that they would like to make all floors accessible. He stated that they |
looked at various options, which led them to the new entry in the center. He stated that |
it would change the orientation of the sanctuary. He stated that the entry is currently on |
the west side of the building. He stated that people would enter the sanctuary from the |
south after the reorienting of the seating. He noted that the plan shows 202 seats with |
the expansion. He stated that based on the code provisions, each person would be |
allowed eighteen inches. He stated that this is not realistic. Mr. Ridolphi stated that |
they are not increasing the sanctuary size. He stated that they also intended to remodel |
the kitchen. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or |
against the petition. |
Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. |
Angela Clark, Planner II, presented the staff report. She stated the request and noted |
that the church is currently nonconforming. She stated that the spire is an architectural |
element and the zoning ordinance does not address it. She stated that the building itself |
would meet the height requirements. Ms. Clark stated that a conditional use was never |
granted in the past. She mentioned the need for additional parking spaces. She stated |
that the site is currently deficient. She stated that some areas of the site plan are short |
of the minimum stall and aisle width. |
Ms. Clark noted that staff is not opposed to the conditional use approval as the church |
was not changing or adding any services. She noted the maximum allowable height and |
the height of the spire. She stated that the northern addition was approximately 150 |
square feet. She stated that the new setback for the addition would be six feet at the |
closest point. She stated that staff was not supportive of the front yard variation as it |
would bring additional bulk closer to the street. She stated that there was no hardship |
associated with the variation and staff believed that the reconfiguration could be done |
within the existing footprint of the building. She stated that the narthex area would not |
require any additional parking and it would meet all setbacks. She stated that several |
parking spaces would be lost for the narthex addition, however staff felt that making the |
building more handicap accessible was an appropriate trade off. |
Ms. Clark noted the request for open space relief from the requirements. She stated |
that the parking area as well as the building is included within calculations. She stated |
that the petitioner is adding some landscaped areas, but the northern addition would |
slightly reduce that. Ms. Clark noted that religious institutions are required to provide |
one parking space per three seats. She stated that 64 spaces are required for the site, |
but there are 45 presently. She stated that the petitioner tried to compensate for the loss |
of spaces by adding spaces at the end of aisles that were currently shorter in width than |
required by code. She stated that staff does not object to the parking request, but staff |
would like to see the eastern most parking space just south of the building relocated as |
not to further reduce the aisle width. |
Ms. Clark noted that the use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and |
surrounding land uses. She stated that the use has been in existence for over fifty |
years and staff could support the conditional use. She stated that staff recommended |
approval of all requested relief with the exception of the addition to the northern |
elevation, subject to the conditions in the staff report. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission |
members. |
Mr. Ridolphi noted the Pleasant Lane display boards. He stated that the addition does |
not extend any further along Pleasant than neighboring garages or houses east of their |
property. He stated that they were trying to enhance the building. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked about the bump out on the northern elevation. She |
asked if it would still fall short of the setbacks if it were cantilevered. William Heniff, |
Senior Planner, stated that it would constitute an encroachment into the front yard. |
Commissioner Sweeter referenced the comment in the staff report that discussed |
reconfiguring the sanctuary within the existing footprint of the building. Ms. Clark stated |
that the interior layout could be changed within the existing footprint, however they |
would lose approximately ten seats. She stated that would also reduce the need for |
additional parking spaces. |
Chairperson Ryan stated that they currently have 192 seats and the new plan would |
bring them up to 202 seats. Ms. Clark stated that if the layout were done within the |
existing footprint they would be held to the current number of seats. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked what was the rationale for not being able to work within |
the existing footprint. Mr. Ridolphi stated that placing the baptismal tank in the front as a |
feature at the center of the church would take up four and a half feet in width. He stated |
that if the tank were moved it would take away ten seats. He stated it would remove the |
ten seats in the center which are the most important seats. |
Commissioner Ryan asked if the baptismal tank is currently in the center. Mr. Brown |
replied yes and showed where it was on the diagram. He stated that from an |
architectural standpoint it would look better than it does now. |
Commissioner Burke agreed. He stated that there were no objections from the |
neighborhood and it does not seem intrusive for a religious institution. He stated that |
the Plan Commission has recommended approval of requests where the size was much |
more significant than this one and would recommend approval the way it is. |
Chairperson Ryan asked if the northern addition extended no further than the garage on |
the next lot. Ms. Clark stated that they appear to be even. She stated that Pleasant is |
the church's front yard whereas it is the corner side yard for the home east of the |
church. She stated that the house might not comply with the corner side yard setback. |
Chairperson Ryan stated that the front entrance is not located on Pleasant. Ms. Clark |
stated that yards are assigned based on which way the structure is most conforming |
regardless of the front entrance. |
Commissioner Flint stated that he concurred with Commissioner Burke. He stated that |
the addition will add to the front façade and does not significantly impact the front |
elevation. |
Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he concurred with respect to the bump out. He asked |
staff about the open space requirements. Ms. Clark noted that fifty percent is required in |
the zoning district and the church currently has approximately ten percent open space. |
Commissioner Olbrysh stated that this is much less than other religious institutions in |
Lombard. Mr. Heniff replied yes. |
George Wagner, Village Counsel, stated that a recommendation for approval including |
the northern addition must exclude any findings for the front yard setback. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that this |
matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions The motion included acceptance of all requested actions. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Melarkey
2 -
1. The petitioner shall develop the site essentially in accordance with site plan prepared |
by Church Building Architects, Inc., dated July 15, 2005 and made a part of this request, |
except where amended by the conditions of approval. |
2. That the petitioner shall satisfactorily address the comments included within the |
IDRC report. |
3. That the petitioner will resubmit a parking lot striping plan reflecting the noted |
changes within the IDRC report. The petitioner shall provide a minimum of 42 parking |
spaces on the subject property. |
050456
l. PC 05-32: 912-916 East Roosevelt Road (2 Ordinances on Second Reading) |
Requests that the Village approve a map amendment rezoning the subject property from |
the R1 Single-Family Residence District to the B3 Community Shopping District. In |
addition, requests that the Village approve the following actions in order to allow for two |
separate restaurant/food preparation establishments, as set forth below: |
1. To allow for a proposed sit-down restaurant at 912 E. Roosevelt Road and an |
existing fast-food restaurant at 916 E. Roosevelt Road, approve a variation from Section |
155.602 (C), Table 6.3 Off-Site Parking Requirements reducing the requisite number of |
parking spaces on the subject property from 43 spaces to 21 spaces; (this item was |
withdrawn by the petitioner at the Plan Commission public hearing) |
2. To allow for a proposed fast-food restaurant (without seating) at 912 E. Roosevelt |
Road and an existing fast-food restaurant at 916 E. Roosevelt Road, approve a variation |
from Section 155.602 (C), Table 6.3 Off-Site Parking Requirements reducing the |
requisite number of parking spaces on the subject property from 36 spaces to 21 |
spaces; and/or |
3. To allow for a catering service establishment to be located in the building at 912 E. |
Roosevelt Road, grant a conditional use, pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(5) of the |
Zoning Ordinance. (DISTRICT #6) |
Kenneth Miller, 815 Kings Pointe Drive, Addison, owner of the subject property, |
presented the petition. He opened his presentation by noting that he was withdrawing |
his request for a parking variation for a 12-table sit-down restaurant. However, he would |
like to continue with the other requests included as part of the petition. |
Mr. Miller then discussed various provisions within the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that |
restaurants and delicatessens are listed as permitted uses in the Ordinance. Prior to |
annexation, the property was zoned B2 General Business by DuPage County. With the |
proposed change of use for the 912 E. Roosevelt Road building, he understands that he |
needs to apply for parking relief for a restaurant establishment and/or a conditional use |
for a catering establishment. |
He stated his proposed fast-food and catering establishments will not impact the parking |
area. He referred to staff's proposed site plan included as part of the staff report and |
stated that he has no objections to the plan. He understands that the parking spaces |
that are adjacent to School Street may be removed when School Street is improved. |
For now, it will remain as is. The proposed plan is acceptable - his only |
recommendation would be that the curb line and parking island off of School Street be |
reduced from 5 feet to 3 feet. The site will have two handicapped parking spaces - one |
by each front entrance. He also referenced that the York Township Assessor's office |
also assessed the property as a restaurant land use and discussed how the property |
would be assessed. |
Lastly, Mr. Miller expressed concerns regarding cross-access provisions for the property |
to the west. He does not see any benefit for him and cited cases where trucks from the |
adjacent use parked on his property. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. Speaking in opposition |
of the petition was John Tuene, 1148 S. School Street. He said the property was |
previously an army surplus store and is currently used by Steve's Gyros. His property |
was also annexed into Lombard in 2003. His understanding is that the Village will be |
providing public water and sanitary sewer service to the neighborhood next year. |
He raised concerns regarding the existing parking along School Street. Along School, a |
residential street, between 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., there are commercial vehicles parking on |
School due to inadequate parking for Steve's Gyros. He is concerned about additional |
traffic on residential streets and the parking of Waste Management garbage trucks and |
other commercial traffic along School Street. He stated he continually picks up trash |
from Zelly's and Steve's Gyros. He is concerned about vehicles attempting to make a |
left turn onto Roosevelt. He said the existing buildings on the property do not meet |
code. He stated the recent businesses on the property that have since closed. He |
stressed the need to keep commercial traffic off of residential streets. |
Mr. Miller made a specific point that customers would be coming to the site and picking |
up their food and they are not parking for long periods - this would lessen the parking |
impact. They have not had one recorded incident dealing with traffic on this property. |
Parking along School Street might be impacted on lunch hour but there is a lower |
parking demand for other parts of the day. |
Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. William Heniff, Senior Planner, |
referenced the IDRC report and noted that as the petitioner is withdrawing his request |
for a parking variation associated with a sit-down restaurant, he would not discuss that |
request. |
He described the property noting that is improved with two commercial buildings, one of |
which is vacant, and the remainder of the property is covered by an asphalt surface. |
The property was involuntarily annexed into 2003 and was automatically classified into |
R1 District. That zoning designation would remain until such time that it makes sense to |
reclassify the property and the existing uses could remain as legal nonconforming. |
Therefore, the Steve's Gyros use constitutes a legal non-conforming use and the 912 |
East Roosevelt Road building would be acceptable for generic retail uses. |
The property owner is looking for prospective tenants for the building at 912 E. |
Roosevelt Road. As previous prospective tenants have made significant improvements |
to the building to accommodate a restaurant and/or food preparation use, the property |
owner is seeking approvals to allow the building to be occupied by one of three types of |
restaurant uses as set forth in the public hearing request. As the parking requirements |
differ for restaurant uses, as compared to other retail uses, staff views this as a change |
of use which would necessitate a map amendment and parking relief, if warranted. |
He noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property be used for |
community commercial uses. The existing uses and proposed B3 zoning comply with |
the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. The property is located within the |
Roosevelt Road corridor and is surrounded on three sides by other commercial |
properties and a single-family residence to the north, which has been used as a legal |
non-conforming office use. Retail uses and some restaurant uses on the property can |
be compatible with the surrounding land uses. However, there are site specific |
improvements that should be addressed as part of this petition to ensure compatibility |
with adjacent properties. |
He stated that staff believes that the request for rezoning is appropriate for the site. |
Referencing a table in the staff report, the property is deficient in meeting most other the |
provisions of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance. He noted the petitioner is not proposing |
any building expansions at this time - the only proposed work would be associated with |
the tenant build out of the proposed food service use. As such, the Village can consider |
all of the bulk regulation non-conformities to be legal non-conforming and hence do not |
need to be considered for relief as part of this petition. Moreover, given the extent of the |
non-conformities on the site, staff believes it is would be appropriate to keep the legal |
non-conforming status of these structures rather than granting relief for the structures. |
In the event the property is redeveloped, the new uses would meet the full bulk |
regulation provisions of the Ordinance, or as varied by a future zoning petition. |
The primary purpose of this petition is to address parking issues associated with the |
proposed food establishment uses. With respect to the restaurant activities, the Steve's |
Gyros business can be considered legal non-conforming as it existed prior to annexation |
of the property into the Village. Regarding the 912 E. Roosevelt building, the building |
was not being used as a restaurant use. At the time of the annexation, the 912 E. |
Roosevelt Road building was considered a generic retail building. However, with the |
change from a generic retail building, which requires parking at 4 spaces per 1000 |
square feet of gross floor area, to a restaurant use which has higher parking |
requirements, the non-conforming provisions would no longer apply. As the property |
does not have the physical space to accommodate parking per Village Code, relief will |
be required. |
Staff reviewed the property to determine the available supply of parking that can |
functionally exist on the property. Staff also proposes a concept parking plan for the site |
that should be followed if this petition is approved. Staff's concept plan attempts to |
addresses number of site deficiencies as noted in the report. |
Referencing parking along School Street, most of the parking for Steve's Gyros is |
located on the east side of the building. This existing perpendicular parking area is |
partially on the subject property and partially within the School Street right-of-way. This |
configuration existed prior to the annexation of the property and the adjacent roadway |
into the Village. In discussions with York Township Highway Department, the property |
owner and the Township did not have any executed agreements relative to parking in |
this area. |
Staff is proposing modifications that remove much of the parking and would place it on |
the private property. The proposed plan identifies parking spaces within the |
right-of-way, which can remain until such time that the Village considers full right-of-way |
improvements along School Street and requests that these spaces be removed. Staff |
notes that if these spaces are removed, customers could parallel park at this location, |
but these spaces cannot be counted toward meeting the Village parking requirement. |
Additionally, staff based the public hearing petition on those spaces that are located |
exclusively on the subject property - if the School Street spaces are removed, the |
zoning actions are already in place to allow the restaurant uses to remain if approved. |
Catering establishments do not have separate parking requirements - this use would be |
required to meet the 4 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area requirement. |
However, this land use is a conditional use in the B3 District. With respect to the |
conditional use for the catering use, the petitioner would also like to have the flexibility to |
utilize the 912 building for catering purposes. This could be done either as an ancillary |
function of the permitted restaurant use or as a separate use. Staff is conceptually |
supportive of this use as the parking demands for the catering use will not be as great |
as other restaurant uses. However, staff recommends as a condition of approval that |
any catering vehicles associated with the business activity be parked and stored |
immediately behind the 912 E. Roosevelt Road building. |
In the petitioner's request for a fast-food option, he would like the option to lease the |
building for a fast-food establishment without seating. The proposed use would consist |
of preparation of fast-food for customer pick-up or delivery. No in-store seating would |
be provided. Staff notes that the Zoning Ordinance does not distinguish between |
fast-food establishments with or without seating. However, if no customer seating is |
provided the anticipated parking demand for the use would be more characteristic of |
other generic retail uses. Staff is supportive of the fast-food use provided that there is |
no on-site dining associated with the 912 E. Roosevelt Road building. |
He also referenced staff's desire to require cross- access and dumpster screening |
provisions. He also referenced a letter from the adjacent property owners regarding |
parking issues. |
Mr. Miller stated that cross access would be detrimental to his property and not would |
not benefit Steve's or 912 East Roosevelt, but only Johnson's Fish and Shrimp. Fences |
have been put up along the property line which were designed to prevent truck traffic |
onto his property. The trucks have destroyed his fence, which had to be replaced, as |
well as the pavement. The adjacent restaurant has also had food and beer delivery |
trucks park on his lot. Cross access provisions would create a liability on his part and |
he won't be able to get insurance. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that it sounds as if the petitioner has worked with staff to |
make the most of the site. If the cross access agreement is more trouble, is that |
something staff would still insist on? Mr. Heniff stated that staff has historically sought |
cross-access provisions. |
Chairperson Ryan stated that enforcement of a conditioned cross-access agreement for |
automobiles and not trucks would create an enforcement problem. |
Commissioner Burke stated that it seems that by the petitioner's testimony it would be |
beneficial to the neighbor but not the petitioner. This is not mutually beneficial, as |
nothing is in it for the petitioner. |
Mr. Heniff stated that the cross-access is not an inherent condition that must occur |
immediately. If you want staff to look at it, it could stay as a condition of approval and |
leave to staff's discretion. If the provision is not added now, this provision may be |
difficult to get in the future. |
Commissioner Flint stated that if the properties are improved with the proper pavement |
design to handle the truck traffic, it might take care of itself. |
George Wagner, Village Counsel, stated that as written, the condition works because it |
doesn't become operative until the Village makes the request. The petitioner is required |
to comply with it and staff won't request until it makes sense. The Village is protected as |
well as the petitioner. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, 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:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Melarkey
2 -
1. That the subject property be modified to incorporate all of the parking and site |
improvements as depicted on the site plan prepared by the Village, attached as an |
exhibit and made a part of the recommendation of approval. |
2. That upon a written request of the Village the petitioner shall remove the |
perpendicular parking spaces along the east side of the subject property and/or within |
the School Street right-of-way as depicted on the exhibit made a part of the Ordinance |
approving the petition. |
3. Accessible parking spaces shall be provided in compliance with the provisions of the |
Illinois Accessibility Code. One space shall be provided immediately in front of the 912 |
E. Roosevelt Road building while the second space shall be provided at the entrance to |
the Steve's Gyros restaurant. |
4. Upon a request by the Village, the petitioner shall provide a cross-access agreement |
between the subject property and the property immediately to the west and that the |
petitioner shall remove the fence barrier to the adjacent property. |
5. Refuse disposal areas for both business establishments located on the subject |
property shall be screened in accordance with Section 155.710 of the Lombard Zoning |
Ordinance. |
6. That any business vehicles associated with the existing business establishment at |
912 E. Roosevelt Road shall be parked behind the building at all times. |
7. That the petitioner shall satisfactorily address the comments included within the |
8. That the provisions included within the Ordinance of approval shall be satisfactorily |
addressed and all provisions of Village Code associated with the proposed |
restaurant/food preparation uses shall be met prior to issuance of a Certificate of |
Occupancy for any restaurant/food preparation use on the subject property. |
The Commissioners also directed staff to consider the comments raised by the property |
owner if the Village chooses to enact the cross-access requirement included within the |
conditions of approval. |
050457
SPA 05-02ph: 92 Yorktown Center (Claim Jumpers Restaurant) |
Requests a Site Plan Approval (SPA) with a deviation from Section 153.505(B)(16)(a)(2) |
(a) to allow three wall signs when only one wall sign is permitted for the subject property |
on Lot 2 of the Yorktown Center, located within the B3 Community Shopping District. |
Vincent Capioni representing American Sign Company in Bensenville presented the |
petition. He indicated that they were looking for approval of three wall signs on Claim |
Jumpers Restaurant and referenced their submission which detailed the elevations. Mr. |
Capioni indicated that the referenced building used to be the old Montgomery Wards |
building and according to Village Codes, this building is allowed one wall sign facing off |
of Highland Avenue. He stated that Sign B, noted on the site plan, is allowed by the |
Village. They are requesting approval of Sign A and Sign C. Sign A would face north |
and Sign C would face south. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one to |
speak in favor or against the petition. Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated their request was for three wall signs on the Claim |
Jumpers Restaurant. He explained that this is a sit-down restaurant currently under |
construction on Lot 2 of the Yorktown Shopping Center. This building is located in the |
Yorktown Center Planned Development which does not address signage issues. He |
gave the approval history for the wall signs located on the Montgomery Wards building, |
which has since been demolished. Consequently, the signage approvals are no longer |
applicable. The petitioner is proposing three walls signs consisting of 73.6 square foot |
signs on the south and west elevations and a 56.1 square foot sign on the north façade, |
however the restaurant only fronts on one public street which is Highland Avenue. Code |
allows one sign on the western elevation along Highland Avenue as a matter of right. |
The requested deviation is to allow two additional signs on the property which would be |
the north and south elevations. Since access roads are private and not considered |
public rights of way those two signs would not be allowed. In the past, staff has |
supported signage deviations for businesses along the ring road as these drives |
function as public streets. Consequently, it makes sense to allow additional signage as |
the signage is not excessive and is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Overall, |
staff recommends approval of this petition based on the condition noted in the staff |
report. |
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 Sweetser, |
that this matter be approved with one condition The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Melarkey
2 -
That the approval of the three wall signs shall be based upon the submitted Sign Plan |
Packet, prepared by Signtech Electrical Advertising, Inc., submitted July 12, 2005 and |
consisting of three channel-lettered signs not exceeding 73.6 square feet in size. |
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the July 18, 2005 meeting were approved by unanimous consent of the |
Plan Commission with one correction. On page 13 the date referenced in the motion |
should read August 15, 2005. |
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
050458
J. SUB 05-03: 2810 & 2820 S. Highland Avenue |
Motion requesting approval of a four-lot plat of resubdivision. (DISTRICT #3) |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The petitioner is requesting |
approval of a plat of resubdivision for a tract of land located within the Highlands of |
Lombard Planned Development, entitled "Plat of Resubdivision of Highlands of Lombard |
- Phase 2." Lots 1, 2, and 3 are currently vacant. Lot 4 is maintaining its current lot |
lines, but it is included within this plat because an easement for access is required for |
the proposed development. Since the property is greater than one acre in size, the plat |
of subdivision must be reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission and Board of |
Trustees. |
The Public Works Engineering Division and Private Engineering Services Division have |
reviewed the revised plans. Final engineering plans were submitted after the |
subdivision plat was prepared, and these plans will require substantial revision. As |
these revisions will cause the required easements to be different from those shown on |
the plat, the subdivision plat will only be considered acceptable if it accounts for the |
maximum possible extent of any utility easements. The excess easement area may |
then be vacated after all site improvements have been constructed and accepted by the |
Village. |
The petitioner is requesting a Plat of Resubdivision to allow the two buildings approved |
as part of PC 05-12, plus future development on the northern portion of the existing lot. |
This subdivision meets all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision |
and Development Ordinance. Although Lot 2 will not have frontage on a public |
right-of-way, the lot frontage requirement was waived as part of the original planned |
development approval. As the plat shows, the proposed lots will include additional |
easements for utilities and access. A separate Plat of Abrogation is being prepared to |
accommodate the relocation of the sanitary sewer that runs underneath the proposed |
strip center foundation. |
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 Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Melarkey
2 -
The Plan Commission recommended that the Plat of Resubdivision be revised to include |
all necessary utility easements prior to its being considered by the Village Board. |
050459
K. SUB 05-04: 203 Yorktown Shopping Center |
Motion requesting approval of a final plat of resubdivision of Lot 4 in the Yorktown |
Subdivision. (DISTRICT #3) |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He distributed and referenced |
a revised plat of resubdivision that will subdivide the portion of Lot 4 of the Yorktown |
Subdivision, entitled "Rock Bottom Brewery Resubdivision Plat". The plat proposes to |
divide Lot 4 into two parcels, with the dividing line being the existing ring road around the |
mall. This division is being requested in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the |
proposed west lot as the Rock Bottom Brewery Restaurant. 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. |
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 Flint, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Melarkey
2 -
050460
L. SUB 05-05: 100 Yorktown Shopping Center |
Motion requesting approval of a final plat of resubdivision of Lot 1 in the TBA |
Resubdivision. (DISTRICT #3) |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He distributed and referenced |
a revised plat of resubdivision that will subdivide Lot 1 of the TBA Resubdivision, entitled |
"Capital Grille Resubdivision Plat". The plat proposes to further divide Lot 1 into two |
parcels, with the dividing line being the existing ring road around the mall. The north lot |
will contain the portion of the existing lot north of the ring road and will be redeveloped |
as part of the Shoppes on Butterfield development. The south lot will contain the portion |
of the existing lot south of the ring road and is being created in order to facilitate the |
redevelopment of the proposed south lot as the Capital Grille Restaurant. 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. |
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 Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Melarkey
2 -
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Workshops
There were no workshops.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m. |
__________________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
__________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |