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 20, 2001
Public Hearings
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Committee Member Commissioner Daniel |
Broderick, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser and Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner Ronald Olbrysh and Commissioner |
Sondra Zorn |
Absent:
Call to Order and Roll Call of Members
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; |
Margaret Gibbs, Planner I/C.E. Technician and Janet Petsche, legal counsel to the Plan |
Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda and stated that the petitioner for PC |
01-16 asked for a continuance. |
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws.
Chairperson Ryan convened the public hearing for the following petition:
010600
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Burke, |
that the petition associated with PC 01-16 be continued to the September 17, 2001 |
Plan Commission meeting.. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Sweetser and Burke
3 -
Absent:
Flint, Olbrysh and Zorn
3 -
Chairperson Ryan convened the public hearing for the following petition:
010601
Young Kim of Interplan Practice 1S280 Summit Avenue, Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois, |
architect for the project, presented the petition on behalf of Dr. Bennett. Ms. Kim noted |
that the proposed dental clinic will occupy the north half of the second floor of the |
existing building on the premises. She noted that no exterior improvements are |
proposed for the site and that the proposed use is office oriented and compatible with |
the other businesses currently within the office complex. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public participation. There was no one |
present to speak in favor of or against the petition. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. He restated the petitioner's request |
and noted that except for the Building Inspectional Services comment that all applicable |
building code requirements be met, the Inter-Departmental Review Committee did not |
have any concerns regarding the petition. |
Mr. Heniff noted that the subject property is along the 22nd Street corridor, which has a |
preponderance of office and medical related uses. Patrons accessing the clinic would |
use the existing building entrances and will use the existing parking lot on the facility. |
The Zoning Ordinance's parking requirements for medical/ dental offices are the same |
as those for office uses and will therefore meet the Village's parking requirements. The |
inclusion of a dental facility within this existing office environment is not anticipated to |
significantly change the operations of the existing building. Hence, the impacts on the |
neighboring properties are negligible. |
Staff recommends approval of the petition subject to addressing three existing |
non-conformities noted in the staff report and included as conditions. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the hearing for discussion by the Plan Commission. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if the petitioner was going to install any signage |
associated with the proposed use and if they were aware of the signage requirements. |
Mr. Heniff stated that he spoke with the petitioner's architect and that the petitioner may |
install signage in the future. For now, the petitioner is not requesting any signage relief |
so they will be required to meet existing regulations. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Broderick, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval |
subject to conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Sweetser and Burke
3 -
Absent:
Flint, Olbrysh and Zorn
3 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5010 2 Eas |
1. That prior to submittal for a Certificate of Occupancy, the petitioner shall provide for |
the following improvements to the subject property: |
a. That all handicapped parking spaces shall be properly designated as part of the |
Lombard Specifications Manual; |
b. That the dumpster shall be properly screened with a solid fence per the Lombard |
Zoning Ordinance; and |
c. That the petitioner provide the Village with a $1,200 cash contribution to provide for |
the inclusion of four additional parkway trees within the Main Street right-of-way. |
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Sweetser referred to her comment on page 3, fifth paragraph. She |
stated that her comment be changed to reflect the following: |
"Commissioner Sweetser stated that there is a third alternative, which is to develop the |
property as is and not grant any zoning relief variations." |
Public Participation
There was no public participation.
Subdivision Reports
010605
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition. The petitioner requests approval |
of an eight-lot preliminary major plat of subdivision located at the southwest corner of |
West Road and Pleasant Lane. The subject property is zoned R2 Single Family |
Residence District and is currently vacant. |
He stated that the preliminary plat proposes to divide the site into seven buildable lots |
and an outlot for stormwater detention purposes. The subdivision, as proposed, meets |
all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision and Development |
Ordinance. |
He noted that the Inter-Departmental Review Committee noted a number of engineering |
related elements that will need to be addressed as part of final engineering review and |
approval. To ensure that these elements are met, staff recommends as a condition that |
prior to submittal of a final plat for Board consideration all engineering elements must be |
reviewed and approved by the Village. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. Chairperson Ryan asked for clarification that condition number two noted |
in the staff report encompasses all the items noted by the Inter-Departmental Review |
Committee. Mr. Heniff confirmed that it does. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked about the status of a preliminary plat approval by the |
Plan Commission and if the preliminary plat approval would this be null and void unless |
action taken within so many months. Mr. Heniff explained the preliminary plat process |
allows a developer to receive preliminary approval of the lot division as proposed. This |
process allows the developer to proceed with the final engineering phase of the |
development. If the final engineering does not let him develop the lots as proposed, he |
cannot submit for final plat approval. He could also develop an alternate preliminary plat |
and return to the Plan Commission. Village Code requires submittal and approval of a |
final plat within one year of preliminary plat approval. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Sweetser and Burke
3 -
Absent:
Flint, Olbrysh and Zorn
3 -
Enactment No: Resolutions 95-02 & |
DuPage County Hearings
It was moved by Commissioner Broderick, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report to the Plan Commission. |
The subject property is currently occupied by a retail store (Johnson's Seafood) |
and a monopole tower. To rectify an encroachment into the side yard for an |
existing shed, the petitioner is seeking to remedy this situation by applying for a |
variation through DuPage County. Additionally, the petitioner is also proposing |
to expand his business by constructing a principal building addition which will |
include a walk-in refrigerator. |
Mr. Heniff noted that the relief requested by the petitioner through DuPage |
County is greater than what would be required by the Village of Lombard if the |
property was within the Village corporate limits. The reduction in the principal |
building setback can be supported as the petitioner is attempting to follow the |
existing west wall of the building as it currently exists. As the property already |
has a privacy fence located on the west property line at this location, the visual |
impacts for both encroachments would be negligible. |
He also noted that since the petitioner is seeking relief for the subject property, |
staff believes that this is the appropriate time to address site deficiencies, |
including parking encroachments into the Roosevelt Road right-of-way, |
access/egress issues from the property to the east and appropriate dumpster |
screening. He noted that staff does not object to the request provided that the six |
conditions enumerated in the staff report are included as conditions by the |
County. He concluded by noting that as the property will likely be annexed in the |
near future, staff sees this as an opportunity to address nonconformities and |
bring the site into compliance. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan |
Commission members. Chairperson Ryan asked how the County has viewed |
recommendations and conditions suggested by the Village. Mr. Heniff said that |
he knew first hand that the concerns raised by municipalities are seriously |
considered by the County. He noted that he had a meeting with the County |
zoning staff and that the types of concerns raised by Village staff as conditions |
could be incorporated into the final ordinance. |
A motion was made by Commissioner Sweetser and seconded by Commissioner |
Broderick to recommend to the Corporate Authorities to direct staff to notify |
DuPage County that the Village does not object to the requested relief associated |
with petition 4759-01, provided that the relief is granted subject to the conditions |
noted below: |
1. That the exterior construction of the building addition be comprised of |
materials consistent with the existing structure. |
2. That the petitioner shall finish the exterior on the east side existing accessory |
structure. |
3. That the petitioner shall address the parking lot encroachment currently |
existing within the Roosevelt Road right of-way by removing any parking area |
within the right-of-way and providing at least five feet of landscape separation |
between the front property line and any parking areas. |
4. That the petitioner shall provide screening around the trash enclosure |
consisting of a six-foot solid fence on all four sides of dumpster pad. |
5. That the petitioner shall either provide parking lot perimeter landscaping along |
the east side of the subject property or secure a cross-access agreement with the |
property owner immediately east of the subject property. |
6. That the County Health Department review the proposed structure and type of |
materials proposed to be stored within the accessory structure prior to final |
adoption of the amendment by the County Board.. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Sweetser and Burke
3 -
Absent:
Flint, Olbrysh and Zorn
3 -
Chairperson's Report
The Chairperson deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
William Heniff, Senior Planner, did not have any additional items to report.
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business
Site Plan Approvals
010602
It was moved by Commissioner Broderick, seconded by Commissioner Burke, |
that this matter be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Sweetser and Burke
3 -
Absent:
Flint, Olbrysh and Zorn
3 -
010603
010604
Workshops
William Heniff informed the Commissioners that staff has received a concept plan for a |
proposed eight-unit townhouse development for a 0.87 acre vacant parcel of land |
located at 1400 South Finley Road. The potential developer has met with staff |
regarding this site and is seeking to develop this site essentially as proposed on the |
initial concept plans. He noted that before the proposed developer moves forward on |
making formal plans and an application to the Village, the developer is soliciting the |
input of the Plan Commission regarding the development proposal. |
Mr. Heniff described the subject property as two (2) lots-of-record totalling 0.87 acres |
(124 feet wide by approximately 310 feet deep). The property is directly south of |
International Village, on the west side of Finley Road. It is presently zoned R2 |
Single-Family, and is adjacent to R2 to the south and the west (Pinebrook Subdivision). |
International Village, to the north, is zoned R5 PD General Residence District - Planned |
Development. |
He noted that the site was previously improved with a single-family residence. When |
Pinebrook Subdivision was platted and development, the subject property was |
specifically excluded from the development. The residence has been cleared from the |
site and currently the site remains vacant. The site is higher in elevation than the |
adjacent properties and has a significant amount of mature vegetation on the site. |
He then provided a zoning history of the site and noted previous proposals for multiple |
family and attached single family proposals on the site. He noted that a similar |
townhome proposal was denied by the Village Board in 1984. He also referred to a |
1998 Workshop regarding the property and provided the Commissioners with a copy of |
the minutes of that meeting. He concluded by asking if conditions have changed on the |
property to warrant a reconsideration of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning |
classification. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked for a clarification as to whether this was one or two lots |
of record. Mr. Heniff stated that it is two assessment lots, but for purposes of |
development review, staff reviewed the petition as if the development would be created |
on one lot of record. |
Chairperson Ryan stated that in 1998 the Commissioners thought 24 units was |
excessive. He also feels that 8 townhouses on a 124 foot wide lot is too much in that |
area. It's not a big piece of property and there is single family residential next to it. He |
referred to Private Engineering Services and Public Works comments and does not |
know how the site could be developed. He noted the ingress and egress of |
International Village and the Condominiums on the east side of the street and that this |
proposal would create even more traffic problems. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated the density is too great and the site is not a large |
enough tract to be considered a buffer. There are too many abutting single family |
homes and to insert this development onto the site would be uncharacteristic with the |
area. Commissioners Broderick and Burke agreed. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that staff is always looking for ways to make our |
meetings more effective and noted five areas that staff will be looking at to improve the |
public hearing process. He said if the Commissioners have any comments on modifying |
the staff report, he can take comments. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that the reports have been adequate but can always |
been improved. She recommended that the standards for variations be included in the |
executive summary. She also asked if staff can provide draft reports for the |
Commissioner's review prior to implementing changes. |
Heron Point Signage Modification |
Margaret Gibbs, Planner I/Civil Engineering Technician, noted that in January, 2001 a |
petitioner for the Heron Point development applied for Site Plan Approval to allow for two |
entrance monument signs and one freestanding sign at the Route 53 entrance. She |
noted that the petition was approved with conditions. The petitioner has recently |
resubmitted plans to remove the northern entrance sign and increase the footage of the |
sign to the south. |
She said the question to the Plan Commission is whether this signage change |
constitutes a deviation from the approved signage and if so it will need to go through the |
Site Plan Approval process again. |
Chairperson Ryan asked what they want to increase the signage area to. Ms. Gibbs |
stated the sign would be increased from 36 feet to 76 feet. Chairperson Ryan stated |
that that is a significant change. He said that we agreed to approve the Route 53 |
signage so the sign would be visible. He said that it does constitute a significant change |
and he would not be supportive of this change. It was the consensus of the Committee |
that they would have to come back for site plan approval unless they go back to their |
original plan. |
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. on August 20, 2001.