Village of Lombard Legistar System

Dave Gorman, Lombard Assistant Director of Public Works presented the petition. The

petition is for a municipal salt dome and storage facility. The facility is included within

the capital improvements plan approved by the Board of Trustees. The petition includes

a request for a height variation for a salt dome of up to 65 feet in height. The proposed

dome will be conical in shape, which provides for great efficiencies for salt storage. The

conditional use would be for more than one principal building on the lot. The proposed

operations building will be 60' x 60' in size and will provide for indoor storage of

equipment.

He then displayed an aerial photo showing the surrounding area. He showed the

subject property as being vacant and bounded by railroad tracks on north side, wetlands

on east and industrial properties on other sides.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor

of the petition.

Speaking against this petition were Ken Buckman and Mike Driscoll, owner

representatives of Tri-Tech Skyline, located at 1136 N. Garfield Street. Mr. Buckman

passed out an information packet to the Commissioners about his business. He stated

that they oppose the requested relief.

He then described the history of his business. In 1999, they decided to start a company

and determined to go to Lombard. Their business serves the convention and trade

show business and Lombard was the correct place to locate. They leased a 10,000

square foot facility at 1120 N. Garfield Street. They opened up with five employees and

$3,000,000 in revenue.

They moved into their existing building in 2005 and he showed a picture of it. He knew

about the salt dome project at the time he acquired their site. In the meantime, the

market shifted on them and they switched to a service business. The existing building is

now too small to store equipment for all trade shows. They have up to 40 employees

now and $12,000,000 in revenue this year. There is no other place in Lombard to

expand and they would have to take a devastating loss, as the only available land is the

subject property. They talked to staff about options to stay in Lombard.

They are asking to have the petition put on hold, stating that they would purchase the

land at fair market value and they will talk with Village officials to find other options for

the salt dome to relocate to. This would provide a favorable outcome for the Village and

their company to stay and grow in Lombard. Mr. Driscoll stated that the Village has

been getting the land ready for the salt dome and they are willing to make that right with

the Village. Mr. Buckman referenced their folders that showed pictures of the area and

he believes that the salt dome is a detriment to that area and that there has to be

another solution. He stated that the owner of 1130 N. Garfield Street (Olympic Signs)

and Rothbart Realty also opposed the petition.

Chairperson Ryan stated that real estate transactions are not under the Plan

Commission's purview and they cannot deal with that aspect of your concerns. Mr.

Buckman stated he understood this, but wanted to go on record and state their case.

Commissioner Nelson asked if is there was any other way to expand. Mr. Buckman

said they could lease additional space or sell their property and relocate, but it is

important that everything is under one roof. Commissioner Nelson asked if they could

purchase land elsewhere. Mr. Buckman said that they over-invested in their existing

building. They invested heavily in the exterior and interior of their building to create an

attractive appearance.

William Heniff then gave the staff report. He noted that this petition pertains to a

conditional use for two buildings and a height variation for the salt dome. The use itself

is a permitted use and could be built by right, but the building height would have to be

lowered and the two buildings would have to be connected. The Village acquired the

property in 1989 and identified the site for Public Works purposes. The Village plans to

move forward with the salt dome with funding in place and is requesting approvals

associated with the plan as set forth in the capital improvement program.

He stated that the project will primarily consist of the following elements:

· The salt dome will serve as the primary storage center for the Village's bulk salt

storage supply.

· The operations building will provide for indoor storage of selected Public Works

equipment. Office activities and all public activities and functions will remain at the

Village Hall campus.

· Several storage bins for storage of asphalt, dirt, stone and other materials will be

provided on site.

· Two calcium chloride tanks (used as an additional deicing treatment added to

traditional salt applications) and a one-hundred square foot materials shed are proposed

along the west side of the property.

· While it is possible that the site could be used for other governmental purposes at

some point in the future (such as the burn tower labeled on the plans), only the Public

Works activities are identified as part of this petition.

He noted that the Zoning Ordinance provides a blanket exemption for essential Village

governmental services. However, the Village has traditionally developed Village-owned

properties in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance or sought relief accordingly. Staff

has used the public hearing process as a means to solicit public input regarding Village

proposals so that the final plan addresses neighbor's concerns. The Zoning Ordinance

also lists “public utility and service uses” as permitted uses within the I Limited Industrial

District.

The site plan shows the placement of the salt dome to be placed on the northwest

corner of the property. The operations building will be located toward the center of the

lot. While either of the structures could be considered as ancillary buildings, their

placement and functions suggest that both serve a principal use and activity on the

property. Their location on the site was based upon a review of the operations activities

by the Public Works staff. The separate structures provide two distinct functions - the

salt dome for bulk storage purposes and the operations building is intended for storage

of selected vehicles and seasonal equipment. However, the two structures are

integrated in their purpose and function on the site. Staff believes the plan for the site

would meet the standards for conditional uses.

The petition includes a height variation to allow for the salt dome of up to sixty-five feet

(65') for a salt dome, where a maximum of forty-five feet (45') is permitted. While the

submitted plans show the dome to be 60.5 feet in height, staff added a few extra feet to

the overall request to account for potential dome modifications and/or changes to the

overall grade on the property. With the additional storage facility, the Village may also

be able to ensure that sufficient salt supplies for the entire year are readily available at a

competitive price. During storm events, the dome may provide additional flexibility to

Village crews salting streets on the north side of town. This may also indirectly reduce

the overall traffic demand around the Village Hall complex during storm events as well.

Overall, staff supports the height request based upon the reasons included within the

response to standards.

He noted the property is entirely surrounded by light industrial uses. Staff finds that the

proposed use will be compatible with other types of uses found within the North Avenue

Business Park area and within the I District. The site plan attempts to address the land

use compatibility issues by providing for a solid fence no less than six feet (6') in height

consistent with the requirements the Village has required as part of other outdoor

industrial activities. The plan includes solid fencing around the perimeter of the storage

area. Moreover, each of the bulk storage materials on site will be placed in bins, which

will provide an additional screening element.

The plan shows a designated parking area for Village vehicles. As this site will not be

open to the public, no additional parking spaces are anticipated for non-Village vehicles.

All vehicles and/or equipment will be parked on an asphalt or concrete surface.

The site will be improved with a hard surface for the active Public Works areas. To

address stormwater detention needs, the plan shows a detention area to be located at

the southern end of the property. The project will include requisite parkway tree

plantings and supplement plantings and ground cover within the front yard. The Village

will provide shade trees along the perimeter of the property line as well as around the

perimeter of the detention area. The specific shade tree species and the final location of

the trees will be identified as part of the building permit process.

He stated that staff recommends approval of this petition.

He then read two letters into the record. The first letter was from the DuPage County

Forest Preserve District (DCFPD) stating their concerns about the development,

particularly salt run-off. He also read the letter from Gary Rothbart of Rothbart Realty,

stating their objections, as the facility would be incompatible with and would create a

negative image of the industrial park. Mr. Heniff responded by noting that the Village

has a primary responsibility to provide essential services like snow plowing activities and

locating such a structure in an industrial district is much more compatible than locating it

within a residential area like the Village Hall complex.

Mr. Gorman mentioned the salt runoff would dissolve in rainwater. The runoff will be

diverted into the detention basin. They have permit certification from the DuPage

County Department of Environmental Concerns and they have approved the project

layout. Less salt will find its way into the waterways with this dome. Currently, most of

the salt pile is covered by a tarp but as salt is soluble one cannot remove it from water.

So having all salt completely covered is better for the Village and the environment.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Burke stated that the comparison is not the same. The question is not

how we are storing salt now. There are no wetlands next to the Village Hall. At the new

facility, the runoff will happen from rain and the snow storage area and it will go into the

wetland. He then asked about the proposed snow storage area. Mr. Gorman stated at

areas such as St. Charles Road and Main Street, crews create a windrow to the center

of the street and then crews will pick it up after the storm and truck snow to this location.

Commissioner Burke noted the transported snow would have salt in it. Mr. Gorman

stated that the proposed stormwater detention basin is large and snow melts slowly.

The detention area would have native plantings as part of the County's Best

Management Practices requirements. The water that runs off the site would ultimately

go to Salt Creek. They will still put those plantings in.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the DCFPD letter indicates that they urge all

necessary protections be taken so no chemicals enter the wetland - is this consistent

with what was approved by the County? Mr. Gorman noted that DCFPD and DuPage

County are two separate governmental entities. DuPage County required that the

Village put the detention facility and the plantings in.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that this site is the best place to locate the facility, as it

would cause the least amount of problems. He is concerned about the chemical issue

with the ecosystem. The issues presented by Skyline are issues we cannot address.

Chairperson Ryan confirmed that the plan has to be approved by DuPage County. Mr.

Heniff said that the County has jurisdiction and they approved the plan. Chairperson

Ryan suggested that a condition be added that the plan meets all federal, state and local

requirements.

Matthew Klein, 72 Burlington Avenue, LaGrange, attorney for the petitioner, CD

One-Price Cleaners, presented the petition. He stated that his client is proposing to

locate a dry-cleaning establishment within Lombard. He noted that in 2002, his client

was before the Plan Commission seeking approval of text amendments pertaining to

dry-cleaning establishments (PC 02-19). He noted that they are seeking a further

modification of the 2002 approved amendments as it pertains to the permitted number of

dry-cleaning machines allowed on a site. He noted that his client intends to meet the

provisions of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance but they are seeking an amendment to

allow for more than one dry-cleaning machine on the premises, which is the maximum

number allowed by the Ordinance.

He noted that his client is seeking to install three to four machines, but the proposed

machines would be smaller than those that are currently permitted by right. The intent is

to allow for smaller units that use significantly less solvents than those machines that

were even considered a few years ago.

He then described the proposed machines. In addition to using less solvent, the

machines do not use perchloroethylene (commonly referred to as perc) in their

processing. The proposed solvent, BR2000, is a hydrocarbon solvent with fewer

associated environmental problems. He concluded his presentation by stating that the

staff report concisely summarizes what they are proposing.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public participation. No one spoke in

favor or in opposition of the petition. He then requested staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, referenced the IDRC report being submitted to the public

record in its entirety. He stated the petitioner proposes to open a new dry-cleaning

establishment with an on-site plant. Village Code allows for dry-cleaning establishments

with on-site processing within the B1 and hence all other Business Districts, but subject

to provisions. The petitioner is now seeking alternative language pertaining to the

permitted number of dry-cleaning processing units. The intent of their request is to allow

for more than one unit on a site in order to allow for smaller, more environmentally

friendly units, to be located within their proposed establishment.

Noting the IDRC comments, the Fire Department received a copy of the petitioner's

literature pertaining to Synthetic Hydrocarbon Fluid for dry-cleaning units and is

reviewing the material. This fluid type is generally considered to be more

environmentally friendly than perchloroethylene, but can create an additional fire/safety

concern. They will review the petitioner's data sheets and will determine the additional

measures that will be needed as part of a building permit review.

The 2002 amendments allows for on-site processing in the business districts, subject to

provisions. The petitioner stated that the intent of their request is not to provide for

additional units as a means to increase the overall amount of processing that can be

done of a site. Rather, it is to provide for an alternate type of dry-cleaning unit that is

significantly smaller in size and allows for greater flexibility in their operations. The

smaller units would be more environmentally efficient than one large unit. Also, the

number of units in operation could be modified to fit their dry-cleaning operating needs

at a given time.

Environmental regulations and technological innovations within the dry-cleaning industry

are also rapidly occurring. Many new establishments are moving away from traditional

perchloroethylene units. In their place, synthetic hydrocarbon fluid units are being

introduced into the market, which are more environmentally friendly. The smaller units

use proportionately less cleaning fluid as well.

He then discussed the text amendment that will strike the number of units permitted on a

site and replaces it with the maximum operating capacity of all units on the site, capping

the basket capacity at 200 pounds. Staff supports the amendment.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners.

The Commissioners had no comments on the petition.

residence was damaged or destroyed. The existing residence was constructed in the

1920s on the lot. He stated that as of right now, there is no intent to redevelop the

property. His client only seeks approval of the relief so that he can purchase the

property and be a resident of the Village. Mr. Breen then reviewed and concurred with

staff's findings and noted how the petitioner meets the standards for variations as noted

in the staff report. He stated that additional land abutting the lot cannot be acquired by

the petitioner as it would create the need for zoning relief on the adjacent lots. Based on

these facts, he requested the Plan Commission's favorable recommendation to the

Board of Trustees.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone who wished to speak either for or against

the petition.

Paul Wisner, 445 E. Washington, asked if the house and property are going to be kept

as is. Mr. Breen stated that the property owner has no intent to redevelop the property

but without the variation he would not have the legal right to rebuild. He also noted that

the property owner is not developer, just a homeowner.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. Mr. Heniff then presented the staff

report which was submitted to the public record in its entirety. He stated that the main

reason for the variation is to provide relief if in the event of a catastrophe whereas the

property were to be destroyed more than 50 percent, they could legally rebuild. Staff

recommends approval subject to the one condition.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission

members. Commissioner Burke stated that while it is the petitioner's intent to have this

variance approved so he can rebuild, we are enabling the petitioner to redevelop the

property. Mr. Heniff stated that if approved, they can demolish their house and build a

new one if they so desired. The zoning relief would grant the petitioner the same

property rights provided to most other residential property owners. He noted that a new

structure would still have to meet the setback requirements, even with the reduced lot

width. Commissioner Burke stated that he is concerned about it being redeveloped

because those structures on a 44 foot wide lot does not fit within the neighborhood. Mr.

Heniff mentioned that without the relief, if the property were to be damaged or

destroyed, it would have to be left as a vacant lot. Mr. Breen mentioned that there are

other lots in the area that are substandard.

Bruce Bernardo, 2242 S. Elizabeth, stated that he was the president of the 331-unit

Arboretum Park Condo Association. At least four of their buildings are immediately

behind or adjacent to the subject site. He stated that he had a few questions. He

displayed pictures of the current fencing and trailers behind 260 Eisenhower Lane. He

was concerned that the new tenant would not maintain the site. He then showed

pictures of a fence that was being installed that morning. He stated that the property is

poorly handled and unsightly to the neighborhood and that can diminish their property

values. They do not object to the project but questioned why the fence was erected

before the public hearing was held and asked how the site could be allowed to

deteriorate.

Valerie Rissky, 289 Arboretum Drive, stated that her property backs up to the properties

along Eisenhower Lane. She stated that there is noise coming from the industrial park

at all hours of the night and it affects her and other residents.

Marianne O'Keefe, 77 Arboretum Drive, stated that she is concerned about the hours of

operation and that she is also awakened early in the morning by noise from the

industrial park. Her building is very close to the property line and there is a lot of noise.

She asked if the subject property will be well-lit at all hours. She stated that their

second-floor bedrooms overlook the storage area and it affects the quality of their lives.

She would like further studies to be done or assurances that there will be no negative

impact.

Victoria Palko, 173 W. Arboretum Drive, stated that her property backs right up to this.

The previous tenant also stored pipe and turned the area into a mess. The fencing

doesn't screen anything because the residences are set much higher than the industrial

properties. The noise is incredible, with semi-trucks that arrive in the middle of the night

and run their engines. It is out of hand and decreases property values. She can't use

her patio because it has a clear view of the industrial park. She stated that when she

bought her property, she was assured by Village staff that all work would be performed

indoors. The tenants then worked inside but opened their doors and began work at 6:00

a.m. They would start at 7:00 a.m. on Saturdays. The property is a bridge between

commercial and residential.

Kenny Gault, 113 S. Westmore-Meyers, stated that his business at 324 Eisenhower

Lane is one of those that faces the residences and he is just down the street from the

subject properties. He asked which came first: the industrial park or the condominiums.

When you build townhomes next to an industrial park, what can you expect? He stated

that starting work at 6:00 a.m. or 7:00 a.m. is wrong and that businesses should accept

time limits. They feel bad when they have to work late and create noise when their

trucks back up, but it is a federal law to have those “beeps.” He stated that the property

maintenance in the area is deplorable. He felt that both the businesses and the

residents can survive, but hours of operation and maintenance are important.

Mr. Magliano stated that Indelco Plastics had, as part of their lease, negotiated for the

fence to be repaired and certain improvements made. Indelco is just a distributor, not a

manufacturer, and their business hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Beau Sielken, Vice President of Indelco Plastics, stated that they basically work 8:00

a.m. to 5:00 p.m. They may work inside up until 9:00 p.m. during their semi-annual

inventory. Their truck dock is at the front of the building, not the rear, so there should be

little truck noise affecting the residents. They have kept their property at 930 N. DuPage

in good condition and have not received any citations.

Ms. Palko asked if the trucks would come in back to pick up pipe. Mr. Sielken stated

that would not occur early in the morning because any early deliveries would be made

from the front dock door because they would have been pre-loaded the day prior to the

pickup. He reiterated that they basically work 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except for two annual inventories that are done indoors. During inventory they

may work until 9:00 p.m. No loading would be done after 5:00 p.m.

Ms. Palko asked when deliveries would be made. Mr. Sielken stated that any deliveries

would come in between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., but they only get a semi load once

every three months on average.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. Jennifer Backensto, Planner II,

stated that the petitioner intends to use the rear portion of the property for the outdoor

storage of PVC pipe. There was no record of a previously-granted conditional use, so

this petition is being brought forward to ensure that the property is in compliance with

the Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. Backensto stated that the Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be developed

with light industrial land uses. The property complies with the recommendations of the

Comprehensive Plan. The property is surrounded on three sides by light industrial uses.

Although there are residences to the immediate north of the property, the proposed use

will not be substantially different from what those residents have been accustomed to

seeing within the industrial park. Staff finds that a contractor's equipment and materials

storage yard is compatible with the surrounding land uses.

One of the adjacent residents contacted staff to express a concern regarding noise on

the property. Although this concern was not specifically directed toward the proposed

conditional use, the petitioner should nonetheless be made aware of Section 93.02 of

the Lombard Code of Ordinances. This section states that, within 300 feet of a

residential building, it is unlawful to conduct any noise-producing exterior property

maintenance work or other operations between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.,

other than those conducted within a fully enclosed building or structure.

Ms. Backensto stated that Section 155.418(L)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance requires

storage yards to be screened by a solid fence no less than six feet (6') in height and no

more than eight feet (8') in height. There is an existing eight foot (8') chain link fence

with slats surrounding the storage yard. The fence is in poor condition and does not

qualify as a solid fence as Section 155.802 of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance which

specifically states that chain link fences with slats do not constitute a solid fence. If a

conditional use is granted, staff recommends that a new solid fence be required as a

condition of approval. The petitioner is aware of the Limited Industrial District

requirement that no stored materials may be visible above the fence, and they intend to

fully comply with this restriction.

Ms. Backensto stated that the new fence being installed on the subject property was not

a solid fence, and the petitioner would be required to obtain a permit for and install a

solid fence prior to using the outdoor storage area.

Staff finds that the proposed use meets the Standards for Conditional Uses. A properly

screened contractor equipment and materials storage yard is compatible with the

surrounding properties and the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, the installation of a

solid fence will improve the overall appearance of the property and bring the storage

area into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. Backensto added that the Fire Department had submitted two comments that

morning requesting that the fence be at least 10 feet from the property line and that all

combustible outdoor storage must be within the fenced-in area. She recommended that

those two requirements be added as conditions of approval.

Chairperson Ryan asked if anyone had any questions of the staff report. Mr. Bernardo

asked who can address compliance issues. William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that

Code Enforcement could look into those issues.

Chairperson Ryan then stated that the meeting was open to the Commissioners for

comments and questions.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if the Village has imposed limitations on hours of

operation for any of the other recent Eisenhower Lane petitioner. Mr. Heniff stated that

they had not.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the petitioner was aware of the Village's lighting

restrictions. Ms. Backensto stated that she did not know if the petitioner was currently

aware of them, but she could provide the petitioner with that section of the Zoning

Ordinance.

Chairperson Ryan requested that a Code Enforcement officer go out to the industrial

park to issue code violations to clean the area up, since there were so many complaints

from residents.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that people should be encouraged to report noise

complaints when they happen because noise issues are difficult for Code Enforcement

to spot check.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the noise that is generating the complaints is coming

from the entire industrial park, not just this one tenant space. He stated that it is

unfortunate that there have been complaints and there should be a balance between

everyone's needs.

Commissioner Sweetser restated that the Plan Commission wished the petitioner to be

aware of the Village's regulations regarding lighting, noise, and fencing, and also that

the Plan Commission requests that Code Enforcement visit the subject property and

surrounding area.

Commissioner Burke clarified that the Plan Commission was not adding a condition that

would restrict the petitioner's hours of operation.

John Zemenak, attorney for the petitioner, presented the petition. He mentioned that the

petitioner would be selling pre-owned higher-end foreign cars and sports cars. He noted

that there would be no service or repair of motor vehicles at the facility. He stated that

the existing building is structurally sound and they are only proposing minor aesthetic

improvements to the building. He mentioned that there would be eight (8) to ten (10)

vehicles in the inside display area and the price for those vehicles would start at

$40,000. He also mentioned that there would be thirty (30) to (40) vehicles in the

outside display area. He noted that there would be seventeen (17) visitor parking

spaces provided including one (1) accessible space as required by code.

Mr. Zemenak stated that the existing building is non-conforming with regard to the front

and corner side yard setbacks. He noted that the overhead door is located in the rear of

the building and is not visible from North Avenue. He mentioned that the only access to

the property is from the side street, La Londe Avenue, which helps facilitate traffic and

safety. He stated that the Fire Department would be able to access the building on

three (3) sides in the event of a fire.

Mr. Zemenak noted that there is a six-foot (6') fence along the northern and eastern

property lines that provides screening for the residential properties to the north. He

stated that there are seven (7) existing light poles in the parking lot. He mentioned that

they are performing a photometric study and will provide appropriate shielding if

necessary to meet the parking lot lighting requirements. He stated that the hours of

operation will be 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday and 9:00 to 6:00 PM on

Saturdays. He noted that the parking lot lights would be on a timer and would turn-off at

approximately 10:00 PM. He also noted that there would also be a motion detector that

would briefly turn the lights on in the event someone trespasses onto the property after

hours.

Mr. Zemanek stated that the property is within the B4 Corridor Commercial District and

the proposed use is consistent with the zoning designation and the Comprehensive

Plan. He noted that the petitioners agree to all of the conditions of approval. He stated

that they are aware that a plat of consolidation will be required for the property.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Don Stob, a resident at 2N055 La Londe Avenue provided comments regarding the

petition. He stated that he had some questions about the lighting, but Mr. Zemenak

already answered them. He noted that La Londe Avenue is an old narrow street that

dead ends at the industrial area to the north. He stated that when the property was

previously used as a billiard hall, the customers would turn right when leaving the

property and drive through the residential neighborhood. He noted that he doesn't want

that to happen again with this business.

Mr. Zemenak responded that the parking lot lighting will meet all Village requirements.

He also noted that the sales staff can direct customers not to use the residential streets

when test driving the vehicles. He mentioned that with the type of cars they will be

selling, most customers will want to test drive the car at higher speeds and will likely use

North Avenue. He also stated that the petitioners would agree to a condition that a no

right turn sign be placed at the ingress/egress to the property.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, presented the staff report which is submitted to the public

record. She stated that the petitioner wishes to open a “pre-owned” car dealership at

the subject property. She noted that the petitioner will be utilizing the existing building,

and will not be constructing any building additions. She mentioned that the building is

approximately 5,015 square feet, most of which will be used as showroom space. She

noted that no vehicle service or repairs will be performed in the building or on the

property. She stated that the existing parking lot will be used for customer parking and

as an outdoor display area. She noted that there will be no access onto North Avenue

from the subject property, and the existing access drive on to La Londe Avenue will

provide ingress and egress to and from the property.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends Community

Commercial at this location, and the proposed use complies with the recommendation of

the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the proposed use is compatible with the

surrounding land uses. She noted that the properties to the east, south, and west are

zoned B4 Corridor Commercial Shopping District. She mentioned that the residential

properties north of the site are screened by a six-foot (6') board on board fence.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the property to the east of the subject property has been used

as a motor vehicle sales establishment for a number of years. She noted that at one

time a single motor vehicle sales establishment operated on both the subject property

and the adjacent property to the east. She mentioned that when both properties were

originally developed, motor vehicle sales was a permitted use in the B4 District, but in

1990, a Zoning Ordinance text amendment was adopted that changed the classification

of motor vehicle sales, service, and repair in the B4 District from a permitted use to a

conditional use. She stated that in 1992, the subject property changed uses to a

billiards hall and the adjacent property to the west remained as a motor vehicle sales

establishment. She noted that the adjacent property to east is a legal non-conforming

conditional use as the use as a motor vehicle sales establishment has not ceased on

the property for more than a year, and because of the previous change in use, the

subject property no longer retains any legal non-conforming rights associated with the

previous motor vehicle sales establishment. She mentioned that the property to the

west received conditional use approvals for a motor vehicle sales establishment in 1999,

2000, and 2002 (PC 99-06, PC 00-46, and PC 02-27), but a car dealership never

opened for business. She stated that none of the conditional use approvals was acted

upon within twelve months, and the conditional use became null and void. She noted

that the property to the west is currently used as a furniture store.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the subject property is legal non-conforming with respect to lot

size, lot width, front yard setback and corner side yard setback. She mentioned that the

petition does not include any relief from the underlying bulk requirements. She also

noted that the existing non-conforming building and pavement functionally prevents the

petitioner from bringing the property into full compliance with the current landscaping

requirements. She stated that reducing the paved area for perimeter and interior

parking lot landscaping would significantly hinder the use of the property. She also

mentioned that the configuration of the site does not allow for a transitional landscape

yard, but there is an existing six-foot (6') board on board fence along the northern and

eastern property lines. Ms. Kulikowski stated that there are currently, seven (7) light

poles exist on the site, and that a photometric study is currently being performed on the

property.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the Village requires seventeen (17) visitor parking spaces

with one (1) handicapped accessible parking space, which is provided on the plans.

She mentioned that a twenty-four foot (24') drive aisle must be maintained for the

parking space located on the east side of the building. She mentioned that all loading

and unloading of vehicles will be done on the subject property. She noted that neither

the subject property nor the adjacent property to the east has access onto North

Avenue. The two properties comprise an entire block face. She stated that the access

drive for the subject property is located off of La Londe Avenue, and the access drive for

the adjacent property is located off of Fairfield Avenue. She mentioned that North

Avenue is designated as a Strategic Regional Arterial, and as such access drives for

properties on North Avenue is limited.

Ms. Kulikowski mentioned that the subject property consists of two and one-half (2.5) of

these lots, and that the petitioner will be required to submit a Plat of Consolidation to

make the subject property a single lot of record. She also noted that the petitioner is not

proposing any signage at this time. Any future signage must meet the full provisions of

the Sign Ordinance.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for comments from the Plan Commission.

Commissioner Flint stated that the petitioner's business would be a great asset to

Lombard. He also mentioned that he felt that a condition requiring a no right turn sign

would be appropriate.

Mr. Heniff referred to a diagram and noted the location of The Highlands of Lombard

which is located at Butterfield Road and Highland Avenue. For reference purposes this

development began with the disinternment of graves at the Allerton Ridge Cemetery and

include such uses as City View Apartments, The Great Indoors, Potbelly Sandwich

Works, Amcore Bank and Comp USA (now closed). The entrance into the Highlands of

Lombard is located north of Butterfield Road, adjacent to Yorktown Mall and immediately

west of Claim Jumpers Restaurant.

Mr. Heniff then introduced the first concept plan for the east side of the property. The

Patio Restaurant is proposing a 9,000 square foot building with a drive through window.

The restaurant is classified as a fast food establishment and the owner has several

other restaurants located in Darien, Orland Park, Bridgeview and Bolingbrook. The

intent is to develop an upscale restaurant modeled off of their Orland Park facility but the

architecture would be modified to blend with the theme of the Highlands of Lombard.

Since the building will be located in a prominent location and visible from all sides, the

building elevations will need to be carefully reviewed. Staff has met with the petitioner to

provide direction in this regard. A drive thru window is being proposed along the west

side of the building which will require conditional use approval. The petitioner expects

most of the orders at the drive thru window will be pick up orders instead of orders

actually being placed and most of their business will be people actually coming into the

restaurant. The planned development is zoned B3 and this is a permitted use but

subject to site plan approval. Mr. Heniff then showed some prototypes of their other

stores indicating the modern looking building. The petitioner has expressed to staff that

they will spend the dollars to make the building compatible with the planned

development by incorporating the masonry element. Referring to other pictures, he

mentioned the inside of the restaurant which shows an atrium and courtyard. Lastly, Mr.

Heniff stated that this proposed element would be subject to a future Plan Commission

petition for approval of a conditional use for a drive thru as well as site plan approval.

Continuing, Mr. Heniff introduced the plan for the western half of the lot. The petitioner

is proposing an 18,000 square foot retail building. The building architecturals show the

same architectural design and wrap around as the other retail strip centers within the

planned development. This building will be a unique shape unlike the standard

rectangle. The driving force of this plan is the restaurant. They are proposing cross

access within the Highlands of Lombard planned development.

Concluding, Mr. Heniff mentioned that the petitioner was in the audience if any questions

needed to be answered.

Commissioner Burke asked if you need to go past the retail center when exiting the

restaurant. Mr. Heniff indicated that you could exit to the spine road or use the full

access point at the southwest corner and then go to the secondary access to Amcore

Bank.

Commissioner Burke then questioned the safety of the parallel parking at the exit point.

Mr. Heniff stated that staff is still working those details out to see if that parking is

needed or if there is a way to reconfigure it.

Commissioner Olbrysh referred to the retail component of the plan. He commented that

he liked all the elevations with the exception of the north side. He indicated the north

elevation is prominent in that it will be most visible when coming off the spine road. He

suggested that it needed more design. Mr. Heniff indicated that staff can nail down the

specific treatments. Commissioner Olbrysh then stated that the restaurant will be a nice

addition to the area.

Commissioner Burke questioned why they couldn't push the building to the south and

put the parking on the north side so that it would be in front of the main entrance. You

could then consolidate the rest of the parking and have better ingress and egress.

Commissioner Sweetser thought that the developer was trying to maximize the

curvature of the road.

Chairperson Ryan asked if the parking requirements were being satisfied. Mr. Heniff

answered that they will have to meet the parking requirement of 72 spaces. Staff will

not be supportive of parking relief.

Commissioner Sweetser commented that she had concerns about having the entrance

so far away from the parking and how you will have to travel past another building to get

to the restaurant. She indicated that the while it might be acceptable in the beginning, it

will wear on people after a while and seemed like an odd arrangement when they have a

prime corner.

Commissioner Sweetser confirmed that there was no access to the site from Highland

Avenue. Mr. Heniff stated she was correct.

Commissioner Flint concurred with Commissioner Olbrysh relative to the north

elevation. He thought that it needed to be broken up. As the Patio is trying to tie in the

masonry component this is a great opportunity to do something nice with that.

Chairperson Ryan requested that if changes are made to the north elevation they could

see examples comparing what we did at that time so we can ask for similar or exactly

the same changes.

Commissioner Burke referred to the right in right out access point located at the

southeast corner of the restaurant lot. He thought the curb cut was awfully close to the

intersection and when coming off of Highland at a great rate of speed he was concerned

about safety issues. Mr. Heniff mentioned that staff will have KLOA make sure the

turning radii is sufficient. Mr. Heniff stated that it is an entrance only and not an exit.

Chairperson Ryan stated that this development will be a nice addition. He commented

that he has eaten at some of the Patio's other establishments and he looks forward to

them coming to Lombard.

2. Main & Goebel Resubdivision (Sid Harvey Property)

Mr. Heniff indicated that staff has learned from a prospective developer that they are in

the process of acquiring the property at 641 N. Main Street located at the northeast

corner of Main Street and Goebel. This property is currently a legal non-confirming

industrial use known as Sid Harvey. The Comprehensive Plan recommends this

property be developed for single-family residences. As there is the possibility that this

business may be relocated in near future, staff would like to seek comments from the

Commissioners on a possible redevelopment proposal for the site. Mr. Heniff mentioned

that this property was previously workshopped in February, 2001 whereby the

prospective developer was proposing a 26-unit neotraditional townhouse development.

The Plan Commissioners expressed conceptual support of that plan.

The current concept plan consists of the following elements:

· A 10-lot cul de sac

· stormwater detention would be provided in an outlot along Main Street

· staff's intent is that the developer meet all codes

Mr. Heniff indicated that this plan is somewhat compatible with the Providence Glen

Subdivision and consistent with the intent of the ordinance.

Staff is asking the Plan Commissioners if they would like to see single family residential

for this site and if they have any concerns about this current plan.

Chairperson Ryan indicated that he liked this concept better than the one previously

seen at the last workshop.

Commissioner Sweetser agreed as did the rest of the Commissioners.

Commissioner Flint asked about the cul de sac and if it was too narrow to allow access