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, April 19, 2004
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting of the Plan Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Martin Burke |
and Commissioner Rocco Melarkey |
Present:
Commissioner Sondra Zorn
Absent:
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner, |
Angela Clark, 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
040114
P. PC 04-11: 340 E. Roosevelt Road (Ordinance on Second Reading) |
Requests that the Village approve a conditional use for an outdoor seating area for the |
subject property located within the B4 Corridor Commercial Zoning District. (DISTRICT |
#6) |
Kamel Tbakhi, property owner of 340 E. Roosevelt Road, stated the request. He stated |
that he would like to affix the existing patio tables to the ground. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or against |
the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. She stated that the petitioner applied |
for a building permit last fall to secure umbrellas and tables to the outdoor patio area. |
She noted that Building Inspectional Services would require that the umbrella structures |
be constructed of fire resistant materials. Ms. Clark stated that the existing structure |
was constructed in 1975 as a fast food restaurant with a concrete area and perimeter |
railing where the current outdoor dining area exists. The site has been occupied by a |
variety of uses including a computer software sales store and a realtor's office. In 2000, |
the site was re-established as a fast food restaurant (Pita House). |
Ms. Clark stated that the Zoning Ordinance lists outdoor seating as a conditional use |
and the proposed expansion requires conditional use approval at this time. She noted |
several site improvements that staff recommended be brought into compliance. She |
stated that the site has the requisite parking required, however the parking lot must be |
restriped to reflect an additional handicap parking space with the appropriate signage |
denoting two spaces. She stated that the northern portion of the parking lot must be |
patched or resurfaced and a solid wood trash enclosure of six to eight feet must be |
constructed for the dumpster. Ms. Clark also noted that there is trash at the rear end of |
property that must be removed. She stated that the proposed use is compatible with |
surrounding land uses and staff recommends approval with the conditions noted in the |
staff report. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the commissioners. |
Commissioner Flint asked if the petitioner understood the conditions of approval. |
The petitioner replied that he did. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that the conditions should reflect the required additional |
handicap parking space. |
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, Burke and Melarkey
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5495 |
1. The petitioner shall construct a trash enclosure for the restaurant dumpster(s) and |
grease containers on the subject property. The enclosure shall be designed consistent |
with the Zoning Ordinance provisions with the exterior enclosure walls being between |
six (6) and eight (8) feet in height and constructed of wood or a solid screening material. |
2. The northern section of the parking lot must be patched or resurfaced, pursuant to |
Village Code. |
3. That the petitioner shall supply the requisite number of accessible parking spaces |
on the subject property by adding an additional accessible parking space, with said |
space meeting the Illinois Accessibility Code provisions. |
4. The petitioner shall obtain building permits for the construction of the outdoor |
seating area, parking lot repair and restriping, and trash enclosure. |
5. That the discarded signage, sign structure and all other additional trash and debris |
shall be removed from the subject property. |
040115
*C. PC 04-13: 208 to 230 S. Westmore-Meyers Road (Three Ordinances on |
Second Reading) |
The petitioner requests approval of the following actions: |
1. For the property located at 208 S. Westmore-Meyers Road: |
a. Approve a map amendment rezoning the property from the B2 General |
Neighborhood Shopping District to the R2 Single-Family Residential District; |
b. Approve a 2-lot Minor Plat of Resubdivision with a variation to reduce the |
minimum lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for each lot. |
2. For the property located at 220 S. Westmore-Meyers Road, approve a map |
amendment rezoning the property from the B2 General Neighborhood Shopping District |
to the R2 Single-Family Residential District. |
As a companion to this request, the Village also requests approval of the following |
actions: |
3. For the properties at 214, 226 and 228 S. Westmore-Meyers Road, approve a map |
amendment rezoning the property from the B2 General Neighborhood Shopping District |
to the R2 Single-Family Residential District. |
4. For the property at 230 S. Westmore-Meyers Road: |
a. Approve an amendment to the Village of Lombard |
Comprehensive Plan, designating the property for low density residential use |
b. Approve a map amendment rezoning the property from the B2 General |
Neighborhood Shopping District to the R2 Single-Family Residential District. (DISTRICT |
#5) |
Christine L. Stade, 1141 Stoddard, Wheaton, Illinois presented the petition. She and her |
husband lived at 532 S. Lombard Avenue. They currently own the properties at 208 |
and 220 S. Westmore-Meyers Road. They are requesting the rezoning of these |
properties from the B2 to the R2 District. She then read the letter she sent to the Plan |
Commission describing the history of the project (a copy of this correspondence is |
attached to the IDRC staff report). She stated that it would certainly be in Lombard's |
favor not to have a vacant lot remain. |
James H. Stade, 1141 Stoddard, Wheaton, read a letter included with the petition |
relative to the subdivision of the land (a copy of this correspondence is attached to the |
IDRC staff report). He stated that subdivision of the 208 S. Westmore-Meyers property |
is being requested so that two single family homes could be constructed on the site. He |
noted that many of the lots in the area are fifty feet in width and that the single-family |
residences would be designed to meet setback requirements. |
After conclusion of the petitioner's presentation, William Heniff, Senior Planner for |
Community Development, presented the companion petition for the other properties that |
were included within the public hearing request. |
He noted that the subject properties are located along the west side of the 200 block of |
Westmore-Meyers Road. The properties have historically been used for residential |
purposes, but have been zoned with B business designations since at least the 1960s. |
In consideration of the petitioner's request, staff initiated companion map amendments |
for other properties on this block, which should be considered as part of the rezoning |
request. A detailed discussion of all the properties is included within the report. |
Referencing the IDRC report, he noted that the subject properties are located in an area |
served by a combined sanitary/storm sewer system. Should any of these properties be |
developed with non-single family residential structures, the respective property owner |
will need to apply for a variation to connect to the combined system. Additionally, they |
would need to provide on-site stormwater detention improvements to address |
stormwater runoff. Should the properties be rezoned to the R2 District and single-family |
residences are constructed on the two proposed lots at 208 S. Westmore-Meyers Road, |
stormwater detention improvements would not be required. |
He then referenced an existing and proposed zoning map and an aerial photo. While |
the subject properties have been historically developed as residences, they have had |
commercial zoning since at least the 1960s. The Comprehensive Plan recommends |
that except for the 230 property, the subject properties used as Low Density Residential |
uses. |
The rezoning request to R2 Single Family residential would be compatible with the |
residential properties on Maple Avenue and to the west on Ahrens Court. Immediately |
east of the subject properties are properties zoned in the Village's R3 and R4 General |
Residence Districts. The rezoning request would designate these properties to a zoning |
district more compatible with the adjacent residential properties, than the current B2 |
zoning district designation. |
He then discussed the specifics of each lot. The 208 property was previously improved |
with a single-family residence. In 1999 the home was razed and the property has sat |
vacant since that time. The property is 100 feet wide by 320.24 feet deep (32,024 sq. |
ft.) in size. The petitioner has sought interested parties to develop the site for business |
purposes. However, when the underlying B2 bulk and transitional requirements are |
applied to the property and when site development constraints are applied to the lot |
(e.g., stormwater detention improvements, Fire Department access/circulation and |
parking requirements), the development options for the site become limited. |
As far as the lot width request is concerned, the petitioner is requesting relief to allow |
the property to be evenly subdivided into two fifty-foot wide lots. Each of these lots |
would retain their existing depth of 320.24 feet, thereby making each lot about 16,012 |
square feet in size, or more than twice required by the R2 provisions. |
In consideration of the lot width relief, staff reviewed the lot width dimensions of other |
neighboring residential lots and finds that the abutting properties along Ahrens Court |
and three of the lots along Maple Avenue are 50 feet in width. Additionally staff notes |
that the abutting lots at 214 and 230 S. Westmore-Meyers Road are 50 feet in width (the |
lots were created via a deed division). Therefore, the 50-foot lot width in this area is not |
without precedent. |
Should the relief be granted, staff will require the petitioner to prepare a final plat of |
resubdivision for Village signature and recording that subdivides the lot into two lots of |
record, with each lot meeting the provisions of the Subdivision and Development |
Ordinance. |
The 214 S. Westmore-Meyers Road property is sandwiched between the two properties |
owned by the petitioner. It is 50 feet wide by 320 feet deep and is improved with a |
one-story, four-unit apartment building. The apartment building is already legal |
non-conforming as apartments are not permitted uses when located on the first floor in |
the B2 District. Should the map amendment be approved, the apartment can remain as |
a legal non-conforming use. However if the building was damaged or destroyed, the R2 |
District provisions would apply. He also noted that the apartment building is about two |
feet off of the north property line at its closest point. No companion relief is being |
considered at this time - the location of the structure on the property will remain legal |
non-conforming. |
Should the building be razed, the Zoning Ordinance allows for a new single family |
residence to be erected on the lot as it is at least 80 percent of the proposed R2 District |
lot width requirements. He referenced a letter submitted to the Plan Commission from |
the property owner's attorney stating that supports the petition. He noted that staff did |
send a letter to the property owner that the lot could be improved with a single-family |
residence if the apartment building is razed. |
Regarding 220 S. Westmore-Meyers Road, should the map amendment request be |
approved, the use of the property would become legal conforming use. The property |
would meet all bulk requirements of the R2 District. |
The 226 S. Westmore-Meyers Road property is 65 feet wide and 229 feet deep (14,919 |
sq. ft.). This property is currently used as a single-family residence. Should the map |
amendment request be approved, the use of the property would become a legal |
conforming use. Staff notes that the property would meet the bulk requirements of the |
R2 District. |
The 228 S. Westmore-Meyers Road property is a flag lot. At the right-of-way, the parcel |
is ten feet wide. This portion of the property is improved with a driveway that serves as |
public access to the single-family residence to the rear of the property. At the rear of the |
property, the tract is 75 feet in width. This single-family residence is not visible from |
Westmore-Meyers Road. |
Reserve lots are not permitted in the Zoning and Subdivision and Development |
Ordinances. However, given the nature of the property, rezoning the property to the R2 |
District would create less of an impact on neighboring properties than if the property |
retained its B2 designation. In that instance, the property owner could assert their rights |
to construct a commercial establishment with access only on a ten foot strip of land, |
which would be quite undesirable. |
The 230 S. Westmore-Meyers Road property is improved with a single-family residence |
which is being converted into an engineering office. As the conversion met the B2 |
requirements, staff approved the permit. However, in light of the other pending actions |
for this block, staff is recommending that a similar map amendment should also occur on |
this property as well. |
The Comprehensive Plan identified this parcel for Commercial and Office use. When |
one reviews the entire block face, the 230 property has more in common from a design |
standpoint than the insurance office (i.e., residential structures, no parking in front of |
structures, access driveways to side of structures, etc.). Should a map amendment be |
approved for this site, the owner would have the ability to continue using the property as |
a legal non-conforming office use. He could also sell the property as a permitted |
single-family residence. |
In closing, Mr. Heniff noted that the proposed companion map amendments are being |
presented in consideration of the petitioner's request for a map amendment. Staff |
believes that the entire block face should have a unified zoning classification, and the |
requests being brought forward here are intended to create grater consistency between |
the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment. |
Deborah Zaleky, 925 E. Maple, stated that she lives adjacent to the 208 S. |
Westmore-Meyers property and approves of the R2 zoning request. |
George Green, owner of 226 S. Westmore-Meyers noted that he was in favor of the |
petition. He indicated that he has a piano studio he runs in his building and was worried |
that it might be considered undesirable or that it would not be allowed. In response to |
the question, Mr. Heniff stated there are two ways this could activity could be reviewed - |
either as a legal non-conforming use or as a home occupation. |
There was no one who spoke against the petition. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Olbrysh stated that changing the designation to R2 makes sense. The |
Village needs to look at surrounding properties - there are a lot of fifty foot wide lots in |
the area, so it is doable with the right architect. It is also nice to see some construction |
activity on the 208 S. Westmore-Meyers property as well. He is in favor of the R2 |
change. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval with one |
condition. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Melarkey
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Enactment No: Ord. 5499-5501 |
1. That the petitioner shall submit to the Village for Village Board review and approval, |
a final plat of resubdivision for the 208 S. Westmore-Meyers Road property dividing the |
property into two parcels of fifty-feet in width. Said plat of resubdivision shall meet all |
provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances. |
040116
R. PC 04-14: 86-88 Eisenhower Lane North (Ordinance on Second Reading) |
Requests an amendment to Ordinance 3439 granting conditional use approval for a |
food products manufacturing, processing and packaging establishment, within the I |
Limited Industrial District. (DISTRICT #3) |
Hein Lam, president of Van-Lang Food Products, presented the petition. She noted that |
they have been operating their business out of the 88 and 86 Eisenhower Lane North |
tenant space. She said that they seek an amendment to the conditional use so that the |
space can continue to be used as a food processing plant. She said the IDRC staff |
report describes the property and their petition very well, so she is here to answer any |
questions they might have. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or against |
the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the subject property is located within the |
Yorkbrook Industrial Park, which contains a mix of warehousing, office, light |
manufacturing and light industrial uses. The property, addressed as 50-88 Eisenhower |
Lane North, is improved with a multiple tenant industrial building that was constructed in |
1978. In 1991, the petitioner applied for and received approval of a conditional use (PC |
Case 91-12, Ordinance 3439) for a food processing facility for the 2,400 square foot |
space at 88 Eisenhower Lane North. |
In 1999, the petitioner applied for and received a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) to |
occupy an adjacent 2,400 square foot tenant space at 86 Eisenhower Lane North as |
well. In further review of the 1999 (CO), staff has made the interpretation that occupying |
the space at the 86 Eisenhower Lane North with the food processing use constitutes an |
expansion of a conditional use. Therefore, this CO should have been approved only as |
part of an amended conditional use application. Staff recommended to the petitioner |
that this issue should be addressed as soon as possible so that both the petitioner and |
property owner will then have assurances that the business operation is in compliance |
with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner is now seeking an |
amendment to the previous conditional use approval so that the space located at 86 |
Eisenhower Lane North can continue to be utilized as a food processing business |
already established on the premises. No exterior physical improvements or interior |
modification to their business is proposed as part of this petition. |
The petitioner has integrated the 86 Eisenhower Lane North space into their overall |
operations that previously only occurred within the 88 Eisenhower Lane North space. |
The additional space allows for more office area and cooler space for their business. |
The number of employees and function of the business remains unchanged. Overall, |
the proposed food processing use encompasses approximately 7.5 percent of the |
overall building. |
Mr. Heniff noted that the proposed industrial use is compatible with the |
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan that recommends business park uses. It |
is also compatible with the surrounding industrial uses. The operations of the use have |
not been modified since 1999, when they occupied the space. Therefore, adjacent |
industrial properties should not be impacted by the conditional use amendment. |
North of the tenant space is the existing Arboretum Park townhouse development. But |
for occasional deliveries to and from the site, the use is completely operated within the |
existing building space. From a historical perspective, we do not have any code |
enforcement records or violations associated with the business establishment. |
He stated that the petition can be supported based on the final considerations: |
The Plan Commission and the Village Board found that the food processing activity land |
use on the property met the standards for conditional uses in 1991; |
The use has operated in compliance with Village Code since its inception; |
The expansion, while increasing the overall size of the business activity, has not |
modified the use to a point that it is no longer incompatible with surrounding land uses or |
contrary to the Comprehensive Plan; and |
The expansion of the use is consistent with the standards for conditional uses. |
He noted that the existing salt mound on the property was removed. Therefore, this |
item does not need to be added as a condition of approval. An additional item for |
consideration pertains to the existing dumpster on the premises. Right now, their |
dumpster is sitting in the middle of the parking lot, which hinders the ability of vehicles to |
access the designated parking spaces. Staff recommends that a trash enclosure area |
be constructed for the petitioner's dumpster, with said enclosure being designed per |
Village Code. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners. |
There were no comments. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Flint, 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, Burke and Melarkey
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5496 |
1. That this conditional use shall be for the tenant spaces at 86 and 88 Eisenhower |
Lane North exclusively. Any expansions of the food processing use beyond the 4,800 |
square feet area currently occupied by the tenant shall require an amended conditional |
use application to the Village. |
2. That a trash enclosure shall be erected on the property for the dumpster associated |
with the petitioner's establishment. Said trash enclosure shall be designed and |
constructed consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, with the final |
location of the trash enclosure are subject to the Director of Community Development. |
3. That the food processing use be operated consistent with the Village Codes. |
040119
SPA 04-06: 601 E. Butterfield Road (Lombard Office Center Planned Development) |
Requests Site Plan Approval with a deviation from Section 153.503 (B) (8) of the |
Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow for four wall signs where one wall sign per street front |
exposure is permitted, within the O Office District, Planned Development. |
Bill Boyle, 17258 Rob, Elwood, Project Manager for Friday's, presented the petition. He |
stated that they were requesting an amendment to their existing signage as they were |
remodeling in order to display their new image. |
There was no one present to speak in favor or against this petition. |
Chairperson Ryan requested the staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, mentioned that he had elevations that were not included |
in the packet as well as colored ones. He stated the request for site plan approval for a |
deviation to the Sign Ordinance to allow for four wall signs where one wall sign per |
street front exposure is permitted within the O Office District, Planned Development. |
Currently the planned development consists of five office buildings and Friday's which |
was approved in 1979. The Village Board approved an amendment ot the planned |
development to allow for the enclosure of an outdoor dining area associated with their |
restaurant in 1997. |
The petitioner now is requesting to modify the facde of the existing building in addition to |
adding four new wall signs where only one is allowed. Since the property is located |
within the planned development, the signage deviations can be considered and |
approved by the Plan Commission through the site plan approval process. |
Mr. Heniff continued by indicating that the total proposed signage for the restaurant |
would decrease from 139 square feet to 106 square feet. They are proposing to modify |
the building elevations and the front facade and he referred to the table on page 3 of the |
staff report. The Sign Ordinance limits signs to one sign per street elevation and no |
record could be found approving the painted wall sign on the north elevation. |
The proposed facade modification for this location is intended to modernize the look of |
the restaurant and bring greater attention and identity to the restaurant as access to the |
site can only be achieved by a frontage road from Butterfield Road. |
The existing restaurant has one free-standing sign in front of their property which meets |
the O District regulations. Staff believes that comparing signage to other restaurants in |
the corridor, the proposed additonal wall signage would complement the overall |
appearance of the building. |
The Comprehensive Plan advises the site be developed for office uses. Sit down |
restaurants are considered to be complementary to office uses especially when |
considered as part of a larger office planned development. Therefore, the proposed |
restaurant use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. |
In conclusion, Mr. Heniff indicated that staff supported the petition subject to the |
conditons outlined in the staff report. |
Chairperson Ryan opened up the discussion to the Plan Commissioners. |
The Plan Commissioners had no comments. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that this |
matter be approved with conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Melarkey
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
1. That the site be developed in conformance with the signage plans prepared by |
Gilfillian & Callahan Architects, Inc., dated March 24, 2004 and made a part of the |
request. |
2. That a total of four wall signs shall be permitted on the principal building, with the |
wall sign size and placement to be consistent with the petitioner's plans, as follows: |
a. One "T.G.I. Friday's" sign on the north elevation near the roof line of 48 square |
feet, |
b. One "T.G.I. Friday's" sign on the north tower elevation of 26.28 square feet, |
c. One "T.G.I. Friday's" sign on the east tower elevation of 26.28 square feet, and |
d. One "In Here, It's Always Friday" sign of 5.54 square feet in size above the main |
entrance. |
Any future signage changes shall be subject to a future site plan approval from |
the Village. |
3. That the property shall be developed consistent with Village Code. |
040118
SPA 04-05: 130 S. Main Street (Elmhurst Memorial Healthcare/Lombard Bible |
Church Planned Development) |
Requests Site Plan Approval with variations for developer's signs on the subject |
property, located within the B5 Central Business District: |
1. Approve a variation from Section 153.215 (A) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to |
increase the permitted sign area for a developer's sign from 12 square feet to 64 square |
feet; |
d 2. Approve a variation from Section 153.215 (C) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to |
allow a developer's sign to be located less than 10 feet from the right-of-way. |
Diane McGhinnis, 13 Birchtree Court, Elmhurst, representing Elmhurst Memorial |
Healthcare presented the petition. She stated that they are requesting a sign variation |
for a 64 square foot developer sign. The purpose of this sign is to provide greater |
recognition for their site located at 130 Main Street due to the size and the nature of the |
redevelopment process. She mentioned that the sign would be located less than the |
required 10 feet from the right of way due to the parking lot construction. This is being |
done so as not to create confusion and the sign will not be located in the clear line of |
sight. |
There was no one to speak in favor or against this petition. |
Chairperson Ryan requested the staff report. |
Mr. Heniff clarified that the staff report makes reference to a request for two signs but |
only one sign is being requested. The location of the requested sign can be found on |
the site map located on page 4 of the staff report. The requested sign will be located on |
Main Street. The signage along Maple Street is not being requested. |
Mr. Heniff then stated the petitioner's request for approval of a 64 square foot |
developer's sign for the Elmhurst Memorial Healthcare project at 130 S. Main Street. |
The sign will be located near the southeast corner of the property along Main Street. |
None of the interdepartmental entities had any comments except Planning which |
indicates that the site is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, surrounding land |
uses, and with the Zoning Ordinance. The main points of this petition relate to the Sign |
Ordinance. With the request for a variation for a 64 square foot developer's sign and |
given the high public visibility of this project, staff feels it is appropriate to have a larger |
developer's sign to communicate the size and nature of the redevelopment process. |
The proposed sign should have minimal impact on the surrounding area as it will be |
orientated toward nonresidential traffic. The sign will only be on the property for a |
limited period of time and will be removed upon the issuance of a Certificate of |
Occupancy. |
Mr. Heniff noted that when this request came in staff looked at other previously |
approved developer's signs in the community. He mentioned the approval of the |
Fountain Square development signs and felt that if this proposed relief were granted, it |
would be in line with previously requested relief. He mentioned that the look of the sign |
could be found on page 3 of the report. The location of the sign could be found on page |
4. The sign would be relocated once the parking lot construction was completed. Most |
importantly since the property is located in a B5 district which allows buildings to be |
constructed in the clear line of sight, the sign will have less impact than a building. As |
such staff recommends approval of this request subject to the conditions listed in the |
staff report with condition #2 being modified to reflect one sign. |
Chairperson Ryan opened up the meeting for discussion and questions by the |
Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if there was an estimate as to the time frame the sign |
would remain. Mr. Heniff answered approximately the spring of 2005. |
Commissioner Sweetser inquired about keeping the appearance of the sign decent for |
that time frame. Mr. Heniff stated that staff has a good working relationship with |
Elmhurst Memorial Healthcare and they would make the necessary changes if needed. |
Commissioner Olbrysh thought that it was great that Elmhurst Memorial Healthcare |
decided to locate in downtown Lombard but he had a concern with the analogy of the |
requested sign with Fountain Square. He thought it was a poor comparison because |
Fountain Square was one massive empty lot versus having a large sign in a congested |
area. He felt that a better comparison to the Elmhurst Memorial site would be the |
DuPage Medical Group building on Highland Avenue. He noted that DuPage Medical |
Group was satisfied with a small developer sign and never came forward to request a |
larger sign. Commissioner Olbrysh stated he had issues with an ornately large sign in |
the downtown area. |
Commissioner Flint stated that they want the larger sign in order to display information |
and make it more readable. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, that |
this matter be approved with amended conditions. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Sweetser, Burke and Melarkey
4 -
Nay:
Olbrysh
1 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
1. The site shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans prepared by |
VitalSigns USA and dated March 24, 2004. |
2. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed sign to |
be located along Main Street. |
3. No signs shall be placed within the clear line of sight area. |
4. All developer's signs shall be removed upon the issuance of a Certificate of |
Occupancy |
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 8:35 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the March 15, 2004 meeting were approved by unanimous consent of |
the Plan Commission as amended: |
George Wagner referred to page 14, the first line. He indicated that the following words |
"and was a better place for it." should be deleted. |
Also, on page 14, second paragraph, last line should read: |
"Mr. Wagner stated that you could state that this is generally a residential area, the |
Village requirements state that these types of structures be installed in industrial areas, |
and that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is the only suitable |
location for the monopole." |
Public Participation
Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Plan |
Commission regarding anything not on the agenda. No one was present to speak. |
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Chairperson's Report
Chairperson Ryan deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
Mr. Heniff mentioned the development sheet outlining the latest projects.
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
040120
SUB 04-01: 303 W. Roosevelt Road |
Motion requesting approval of a one-lot plat of resubdivision. |
Prior to the start of the presentation, Commissioner Olbrysh recused himself from the |
petition based upon a business relationship he has with the petitioner. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The petitioner is requesting |
approval of a plat of resubdivision for a tract of land located at 303 W. Roosevelt Road, |
entitled "Heritage Cadillac Subdivision". The plat proposes to make the tract of land a |
lot of record, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. This plat is being requested because |
it was a condition of approval for the petitioner's requested sign variations (PC 03-40). |
This division is considered a major plat of subdivision as it is greater than one acre in |
size. Therefore, it must be reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission and Board |
of Trustees. |
This subdivision meets all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision |
and Development Ordinance. The lot exceeds the 150-foot minimum lot width and |
minimum 40,000 square foot area requirements of the underlying B4 Corridor |
Commercial Zoning District requirements. As the plat shows, the proposed lot will |
include five-foot and ten-foot public utility and drainage easements to the side and rear |
property lines respectively. Additionally, the plat includes requisite easement for |
drainage and utilities as required by Private Engineering Services. |
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 Flint, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Sweetser, Burke and Melarkey
4 -
Abstain:
Olbrysh
1 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Site Plan Approvals
040117
SPA 04-04: 70 Yorktown Shopping Center (Yorktown Peripheral Planned |
Development) |
Pursuant to Ordinance 5397, the petitioner requests site plan approval of a substantial |
change to the proposed building elevations associated with the approved |
hotel/convention hall on the subject property. |
William Heniff presented the staff report and indicated that the petitioner was requesting |
site plan approval of a substantial change to the initial ordinance, which was previously |
approved, for the proposed building elevations associated with the hotel/convention hall |
on the subject property. He mentioned that Peter Dumon and Dave Stelter were in the |
audience to answer any questions. |
Continuing, Mr. Heniff indicated that the hotel convention hall was approved in 2003. |
One of the conditions of approval the Board of Trustees added at that time was a |
provision stating that should there be any changes to the elevations, the petitioner would |
have to go through the site plan approval process. The petitioner is now requesting a |
color change to the elevations-not any site or structural changes. Since the initial |
approval date, the petitioner has been finalizing plans and referred to the revised |
elevations. He stated that the hotel remains as proposed and the building materials are |
the same. The primary change is that the building color is being changed from a |
rust/brown color to a lighter gray, reflecting the natural color of the pre-cast materials. |
The color change is intended to soften the overall appearance of the building, provide |
for greater compatibility with the proposed signage and awning plans and to enhance |
the proposed up-lighting and faรงade embellishments. Staff notes that the color change |
will also create less of a long-term maintenance issue, as the lighter color will better |
withstand possible sun-bleaching and it will blend in closer with many of the structures |
near the property. |
Mr. Heniff noted the items displayed which included the materials pallette. He showed |
the comparison of the approved materials versus what is being proposed for the exterior |
of the building. |
Chairperson Ryan opened up the discussion for questions and comments by the Plan |
Commissioners. |
Commissioner Burke stated he thought it was a big improvement and asked if that was |
blue glass. Mr. Stelter indicated that it was not. They will be putting a tint on the glass - |
the rendering shows a reflection of the sky and is not showing the actual glass color. |
Commissioner Burke asked what color the glass would be. Mr. Stelter answered light |
gray tints. |
Commissioner Flint asked if the building would still include up-lighting of the building |
exteriors. Mr. Stelter answered that it would be up-lit. |
Commissioner Flint indicated that he liked it. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, that |
this matter be approved with the condition. The motion carried by the following |
vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Melarkey
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
1. That the proposed building elevations for the hotel/convention hall shall reflect the |
plans prepared by VOA Architects dated March 15, 2004 and submitted as part of SPA |
04-04. |
Workshops
Residential Building Setbacks |
William Heniff presented the workshop. He stated that the issue pertains to front yard |
setback requirements for single family residences. The question being raised is whether |
the Village should consider modifying its front yard setback requirement to account for |
setbacks of homes already existing on a particular block. The Board of Trustees asked |
staff to look at this issue and solicit input from the Plan Commission. Mr. Heniff then |
presented the workshop in PowerPoint format. |
Mr. Heniff outlined the Village of Lombard's existing regulations: |
All principal structures must be set back at least 30 feet from the front property line |
(with the exclusion of the B5 and B5a zoning districts) regardless of the setbacks of the |
surrounding homes, |
25 foot setbacks are permitted for roofed-over front porches |
Setbacks of adjacent properties are not considered. |
The Village's requirements were then contrasted with other communities - those of Glen |
Ellyn and Wheaton and he proceeded to explain each. He referred to an example in |
which the character of the existing neighborhood could be changed by applying an |
absolute setback versus a relative setback. |
Mr. Heniff then explained the perceived benefits: |
Relative setbacks tie the permitted setback of a house to the setbacks of adjacent |
houses ensures that the placement of the new construction is compatible with the |
existing neighborhood. |
Ensures that the placement of the new construction is compatible with the existing |
neighborhood. |
Prevents a new home from being built entirely within the perceived front yard of the |
neighboring properties. |
He then explained the potential issues involved: |
New construction can create non-conformities on adjacent properties. |
It can impact a property owner's ability to add on or alter their home which should be |
a matter of right. |
Requires access to Plat of Survey for abutting properties. |
Concluding, Mr. Heniff stated that staff is looking for support and/or comments from the |
Plan Commission about the possibility of amending Village code to create a relative front |
yard setback provision for residential developments. Some issues he would like |
addressed would be the front yard setbacks provisions, vacant properties and how you |
would set the standard, corner properties which already have 20 foot setbacks, and |
legal issues of how we want to consider zoning relief. Either through a variation or a |
conditional use similar to the manner in which the Zoning Ordinance treats building |
height. If done through a variation it might be difficult to make a hardship argument and |
they may need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. |
Chairperson Ryan commented on the Glen Ellyn and Wheaton models indicating that |
teardowns could establish what Lombard would look like and that would include making |
existing permitted conforming properties non-conforming. Mr. Heniff stated that was |
correct and indicated some examples of where this has happened in Lombard at the |
properties located east of Madison Meadows where existing homes had a 40' setback |
and the other new home had a 30' setback. |
Chairperson Ryan stated while there has to be some conformity to the neighborhood, he |
felt big brother is getting involved again and does not like us setting limits. |
Commissioner Burke stated he was struggling more with various depths of the lots. |
Using his lot as an example, he indicated that his lot is 130 feet deep and his neighbor's |
is 200 feet deep and they line up with each other. He indicated that you need to make |
the front of your house line up. Wheaton and Glen Ellyn for the most part have larger lot |
sizes than Lombard does. Mr. Heniff stated that he is not familiar with either Village's lot |
sizes. Commissioner Burke indicated that those types of depths might be more doable |
there than here. |
Commissioner Sweetser agreed with the comments about size of lots, teardowns and |
deep lots. She felt that a relative instead of an absolute setback would be more |
practical because even though 200 foot setbacks is extreme, there should be flexibility. |
She is worried about teardowns and subsequent rebuilding and how that could affect the |
setbacks. As far as seeking a conditional use she thought that in the past they had tried |
to reduce the numbers and this would only add more to the process. Commissioner |
Sweetser then asked how this issue came about. Mr. Heniff indicated that based on a |
couple of cases where they noted they were different than established. He stated there |
are ways to do it but you have to be careful once you make one lot relative to another. |
Commissioner Melarkey indicated that while serving on the Zoning Board of Appeals |
there were many cases they reviewed relative to this topic. He felt that Lombard lots |
and blocks were different than other communities and was a different shaped town. By |
changing the setbacks, the lot might not be suitable for the home to be put on it and |
could push the developers to other communities. He questioned the rear yard setback |
and how other issues come into play like open space. |
Chairperson Ryan stated that Lombard has quite a few lot variation sizes due to the |
1910 and 1920 additions to the Village that have since been grandfathered. Tying in to |
what Commissioner Sweetser said, that would require additional work for either the |
Zoning Board of Appeals or the Plan Commission. |
Commissioner Melarkey mentioned how the topography of the land would drive them to |
get variations from the Zoning Board of Appeals. |
Commissioner Sweetser suggested that in any process where a home would come in |
there could be some kind of advisement or guidelines in order to call this to the attention |
of the developer or owner. Mr. Heniff indicated that the City of Naperville developed |
guidelines for development in the community where they consider the context of the |
neighborhood. Commissioner Sweetser stated that she would prefer that. |
Commissioner Olbrysh stated that this is not an easy solution. Lombard has 30-40 |
teardowns per year. He is concerned about maintaining the character of the |
neighborhood and that would include the setbacks. He likes the idea of a relative |
setback but there are a lot of things to look at. |
Mr. Heniff then summarized the Commissioners' comments stating that there is a bit of |
concern about jumping into a relative yard setback. They would like to keep the context |
of existing homes but there is concern that this is not the best tool as it can create |
additional problems. The front yard can be considered as far as guidelines instead of an |
absolute setback. |
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m. on April 19, 2004.
______________________________ |
_______________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |