Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

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 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

1400 S. Finley Road

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.

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.