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, February 18, 2002
Call to Order and Roll Call of Members
Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner |
Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Sondra Zorn and Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan and Committee Member Commissioner Daniel |
Broderick |
Absent:
Staff present included William Heniff, Senior Planner; Lisa Warren, Planner II; Margaret |
Gibbs, Planner I; Jennifer Backensto and Janet Petsche; legal counsel to the Plan |
Commission. |
Vice Chairperson Flint called the order of the agenda.
Public Hearings
020060
Bill stated that the two petitions would be heard together. the first was to create B5A |
and the second was the properties to be included. Introducted JB to do pp presentation. |
Staff will go thru process. JB gave a brief pp presentation. |
No one in favor of petition. |
Owne Glennon, 14210 Woodward Dr., Orland Park, attorney for several buyers on 310- |
Main street who will be closing in the next week. Few questions not objections. |
Concerns is realize CP goals. in the CP it states the destruction of property and |
restructuring for different purpose. He wanted t make sure that hisi property would be |
safe. Also, if there is destruction requiring reubilding will the cu be maintained. The |
signatge of property - two building with one of them over 30'feet back, can the sign be at |
front of property? The CU - if his client were to turn around and sell would the cu be |
grandfathered for the new buyer? |
Mike Wisbatter, no comment. |
Steve Hoffman, 63 , 205 s. Main street, representing the Dairy Queen. Been there |
almost 50 years. Concerned about the 9' wide of parking spaces. In checking the |
proeprties they run 7'8 to 9', is this a change or a continuination of existing width? |
Al Cheeway, 25 E. Maple. created hybrid zone to presesnt for exisitng properties and |
for some new expansion. Spoke against the possibility of 4 story buildings. brought up |
single family homes int he adjacent area and is worried about the setbacks which is |
building tall buildings right next to single family. Referredto new or rehabbed buildings |
one block from the proposed area and feels they are taking away from the established |
residential areas. Doesn't want to be overshadowed by tall buildings. Wants the |
downtown to thrive but not 4 stories. |
Arlene Meek, 438 S. Third, owners of 16 E. Ash, directly east of Blake Lamb. |
approached last year by village fora 4 story building next to their home. spoke against 4 |
stories not appropriate. Wants to see redevelopment and growth but feels 4 storeis are |
extreme. Where will the parking be with businessess on 1st floors. Parking needs to |
be addressed for visitors of condos.and patrons of businessees. |
Flint introduced Joan DeStephano who was on telephone at 8:05. She asked questions |
such as what is traffic impact on hgiher denisty. |
Kathy McCabe, 20 E. Ash, referred to workshop about the condos. she spoke about |
being overshadowed by the taller buildings. concerned about traffic, children in |
neighborhood, type of people and how they vote. don't want to see four stories. |
Jeoparideze neighborhoods. |
Bil Heniff responded. overall goasl of plan. the intent was to cretea match between the |
zo and the cp. this serves as guiding force on how the village views . |
destruction of proeprty as cu. cu require a public hearing before they are established. |
the auto services currently int he b2 are currently cu. there will be no difference with this |
district. if property destroyed while existing now, the rebuilding would require |
conformance. this text amendemnts brings these properties into compliance and would |
allow for rebuildings these structures. |
Signage - if buildings set back more than 30' they can put a sign in front of property in |
close proximatitey to street. pole sign up to 15' in hight. if buildings put up toward the |
sidewalk or row line, the signage wouldl have to be reduced. |
CU - if you have an established cu on a proeprty and you sold nad there was no break |
on the activity on site for 365 days, that cu would be valid. the status of cu do not |
change |
parking space width - parking stalls that do not meet that 9' width that is the current |
code. if there is something smaller it could be established as a legal nonconofrming, but |
if redone it would have to be to code. |
hiehgt of buildings - 4 stories - staff went back to the cp which recommended 2 stories. |
staff included 4 stories thru a cu process. shoudl someone want to construct something |
like 4 stories they would have to have a public hearing. would have to lookd at site |
design, impact on adjacent properties. 2 stories is permitted by right, same hight as |
now. the only change is that 4 stories would be a cu. |
planned development - work with developers to miminze impact. |
setbacks - the main difference between the existing and proposed is by giving greater |
flexibility to the front yard it would push buildings further to street and farther away from |
resdiential properties. |
taking away from established residential areas - |
parking issues - the proposed parking standards are the same throughout the village. |
petitioner is required to meet these on site. otherwise public hearing for relief. the |
physical limitations will be the force on how the site will be developed. what is being |
proposed is no different. |
traffic concers - staff focused on is a design flexi9ability issues. the intent is to devise |
more of a streetscape, peedestrian feel. the intensity would not be any different than |
what it is now. staff talked with village's traffic engineer about the concept. their |
experience is that when businesses close to street, it has a calming effect and visual |
appearance of slowing down. Traffic generation: 1. staff feels taht the area be b5a |
greater site deisgn flixibility but no increase in traffic generation. now if people find that |
the area is more desireable for shpping, restrurants, etc. then there might be an impact |
and this would promote the villageannd be good. |
types of residents that might want to reside - staff realize condos atrtract more of an |
empty nester and if you had a m ultiple story a public hearing would kick in. |
RS - the idea of a 4 story cu - that hiehgt was excessive. during that process the |
community and the residents are partners with the understanding that the |
commisisoners wouldn't want them in their backyards. Having the latitutde on each |
case to decide the 4 story cu gives us the possible transition use. Also, the streetscape, |
the buildings comin up to sidwalk, landscaping is a big questions. what are villag's plans |
for street planters, etc. Bill answered that if building close that doesn't mean no |
landscaping. will have interior landscaping. the village has a 1st impression programs to |
supplemnent at various locations throught the village. RS - the bufffering of 10' |
landscaping would apply - asked staff for numbers JB - 25 do. RS - a couple where we |
could grant the cu. |
RO - agree with RS respect to building height issues. staff expalined what the cp states |
is 2 stories and that a cu has to come before the commission. however, 4 stories is |
onerus in most conditions. he referrenced the previous case they said no. he wouldn't |
want to live next door to a 4 story. the commisisoners workshopped this item and staff |
made approriate changes and what is presented is admirable and can work within. |
RS - to reiterate a point like offstreet parking and detention, these factors limit the |
denisty of whaterver structure will go up. underground parkign is an issue as well as |
street parking. |
BH we are not changing antying as to parking or detention. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Ryan
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5091 & 509 |
020061
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Ryan
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinances 5093-5095 |
8:30 a break for 5 minutes.
020055
Roll call taken again. All present as before. |
Flint stated that thenext two petitions would run concurrently. |
The petitioner Gary robhtbard, northbrook, contract purchaser on lot 1 on proposed |
resub. introduced the eingineer of subdivison and buidling and architect to address |
design of building of lot 1. introducted Dave shindell, the engineer of project. |
Dave shindill, mackie consultants, rosement. land surveyors for subdivision. 19+ acre |
site north of North between Garfield on west and grace on east. He referred to his |
diagram and showed the boundaries. he indicated progress dead ends where the |
project begins. unique constraints to this project is wetland. more than 1/2 of site |
currently is commprimised of easement of wetland and fllodplain. also access, public |
unitility and topography constraints. wan to develop usable area and rest is 3 lot sub |
with maintainign the wetland floodplain (lot 2) will be rezoned to CR and remaining |
parcels (lot 1 and lot 3) will be available to future development. they are only looking at |
lot 1 right now for rezoning to industrial which is compitable with uses to the west. Next |
he showed a colored diagram showing the plateau. working with fire deparatmaent , |
showed where water and santirary wil be, showed where detention would be. another |
feature they are working with easements to lot 2. he introduced nick batistich, architect. |
NB, architect, 475 s frontage road, burr ridge. Described the outside of building by |
showed the color elevations. he descrtibed the building. one story, south elevation |
facing north ave. showed the panel features to set off building and will have |
landscaping. on the other side is the loading docks. easta nd west side no doors. |
he then descirbed the floor plan and the different units for warehouse and office space. |
Gary in summary - apparant thought thru project. uses consistent. lot 2 is compitable |
with the wetlands. lot 3 just rezoned with no development at this time. concept good |
usage for the proeprty. |
Nick Samaraon - no comment |
Kathleen Dietz - no comment |
Louis Goebel - no comment |
Richard Stancoto - no comment |
Sandra Jeske - 2N139 Grace Lombard. concerned about the traffic intersection at rush |
hour and concerned abou thtre extra congestion with the addition of this building with no |
other access point. Asked abou tht kind of warehouse, is it a storage, or |
manufacturing? Also, who are the owners of the proeprty? |
Flint - cautioned that should if you pass now you wont be able to speak later. |
Daniel LHadle, 2N LaLonde, one of the elders of the neighborhood. Seen alot of |
developement and this one bothers him. He read into the record a letter regarding the |
request of Nicholas Batitisch for variations and approval of a development agreement. |
The land serves as an ecosystem and he stated what the US departament agency |
defines as an ecosystem. the epa protects ecosystems to reduce polutants entering the |
environment. he mentioned what could be at risk. the residential area of different wells |
drilled at different depths could put them at risk. they are asking an environemental |
study done to get an impact on the water table and the results made a matter of public |
record. theis property alos servces as a detention for manor north subdivision. concern |
is futher development will cause flooding. request that the petitioner do a study on |
flooding and results made pbulic. Also concerned over the impact on animals, Fish and |
Wildlife services to determine the impact of development in speciies and the results |
made public record and avilable to all lresidents. Want prohibit any development from |
taking place until this is done. Why was Addison Township not consulted in this matter. |
Somebody a few years back started a development then and want to know if an impact |
study was done. since they started filling in back there I won't even drink my water. He |
stated the flooding issues since they put the sewer line in. Any plans for developer to |
put up bonds to give time for their devleopment to have an impact on the residents and |
environment. Wants to know why the township wasn't notified. Wants to know when |
the development schedule will begin. Concerned with fill elevation and the contour of |
the land. Feels both federal and state epa should be involved in this. |
Sandra Jeske again - read the variation for lots to have access on street. she watched |
the bot meeting where dah quoted one entrance. here it shows individual driveways. |
alot of traffic. can't even get the village to mow the easement. She addressed the |
church petition and the drainage. she ementioned how the drainage will go across north |
avenue and wants to know how much water one piece of property can hold. |
The petitioner Gary Rothbart rebutted. |
1. he stated there are 3 different lots and he named each and what they consist of. Lot |
1 - the type of users could be a manufacturer, office use, storage, allowable uses within |
the industrial . Traffic - north ave and main has fallen under 1st illinois program that |
intersection will be revamped. was actrive in getting the light on lombard road. aware of |
these matters as this would have a negative impact on their business. Staking of |
property - in order to the engineering they have done, to lay out site for thev arious gov. |
agencies for them to review - thios is part of the process for gettiing the proerpty ready - |
this is leg work they are not ready to start constrcution. Lot 1 - is a lot where kids come |
on ride and feel their proposal is better, lit and better use than the way it is being used |
now. |
2. Dave Shindell - reubtted - traffic issue - the village has req. the deve. for a traffic |
study. they did not want their opinion. the village will have their tarffic consultant study |
done. |
stated it could be a number of uses in an I zoning. |
cul de sac v. driveways - Grace street and Lot 3? the proposal is not o rezone that lot. |
simply planning to subdivide. hae a few concepts the owners are consdiering. can't |
speak to that issue just yet. There will be a single driveway access from Lot 1 to |
Progress road and working with staff whether there will be a cul de sac. |
the project plans no fill to the exisintg plateau. in fact the stockpile on the plateau is |
planned to be taken off. the intent of lot 2 is that is intended to be zoned as CR and will |
be dedicated t the village for public use and maintenance to preserve as such. |
environmental impact done -- don't know and don't believe one has been done for water |
content or flow. the water flow will be on lot 1. |
stormsewer tiles - we are staying away from and above and will be preserved. on site |
the stormwater detention will be done. will meet with kane dupage soil dsitrict as far as |
water quality run off thru on site detention ponds to improve the wwater quality before it |
runs off. |
Elevation of plateua - its approx. 10 feet above garfield street to west. can work with |
you and staff to give you those elevations. |
He deferred to staff regarding bonds, LOC for those answers. Deferred to NB as to |
owners. its a land trust and NB is the beneficiary. |
Staff report - Heniff gave that. gave a synopsis of petitions 04-05. the fundamental |
issue is summarized by the cp plan. this mimics the cp approved in 1997. He went |
thru issues with 04. this creates a subdivison to establish 3 lots of record and esatlish |
rframework for 05. Planning - property unique because of wetlands - he described lot 1, |
lot 3 is for a separte lot of record. the intent is to divide proeprty according to cp. Lot 1 |
oriented to other industrial proeprties, lot 2 consistent with wetlands and lot 3 remainder |
parcel. three variations associated with this petition. lot 3 will be greater than 1 acre of |
size and full improvement will be required. this was workshoped in november for |
appropriate land use for this site. gave the conditions: to lot 3 and access to lot 2 |
easement. staff recommends cross access across lot 1 to lot 2. With respec to intent of |
lot 3 shoud this be developed as B4 uses or would the PC feel it should be residential. |
Right now the petiitoner is looking for direction, and did provide a packet for a single |
family concept but the PC thought the single family could exist if it included the |
annexation and incorpation of the storage yard to north. Staff is supportive to 04 with |
two conditons. |
05 can only be approved subject to approval of 04. Lot 1 map amendment - to offer |
development . LOt 2 to rezoned to CR. the map amendments for both lots mirror the |
cp. comptiable with zo, staff only looked at relationship with lot 1. two deviations |
included with pd. staff is supprotive of the pd. transtional yard variations to maximize |
the lot line of lot 2 as it provides for a hgiher level of protection. compitable with |
surrounding land uses. the building orientated towards the way it is minimizes noise. |
traffic impact - he reviewed trip generation for the site. one concern was the access |
issue on Progress. IDOT will be doing the full reconstruction of that intersection and will |
address alot of current existing problems. this improvemnets will start later this year and |
will help improve. staff is investigating the options avaiable as to vacation or culdesac |
bulbs and will be finalized with development agareement to site. Noted peedestrian |
access and will be looked at at whole progress road extension imrpovements. parking |
is adequately accommodated. landscaping has been submitted and will meet code. he |
described the outside building and t he materials and height. the tenants and assignees |
are unknown at this time, tenant signage can be approved at a later date. staff |
recommends approval subject to conditions. he read into the record, a concern with |
respect with the two conditions. (I have no idea what you said!)staff is working with |
petitioner and staff addressed the concerns as he read. |
Wetlands and drainage - 3 small detention areas to ensure that the flow off lot 1 is in a |
controlled manner. the pet. and astaff worked closely with dupage county to make sure |
environemntal concerns adequately accressed. tryhing to come up with a devleopment |
that is environmentally friendly. |
notification and consulation - followedd state statutes to notification. impact with dupage |
county forest presere and asked if they were interested in acquiring that proeprty and |
they said no. |
bond issues - will collect to make sure all done as proposed and will not have any |
negative impacts. |
reitnerate no development on lot3 at this time. should this change, the people that were |
notified would be notified of the development. |
RS - relative to truck dock is that at grade or below? engineer - they are planned to |
have two aspects. the larger truck docks will just back up and some will have at grade |
doors and some slope up but not the depressed docks. |
Also, the parking spaces where is handicapped parking for? engineer - the plan is to |
spread out along the southern access point where the offices are. they are adjacent ot |
front of building. |
crpss access mentioned where would that be. Bill stated that it needs to be addressed |
and that be provided and be recorded on plat. because of environmental issues, want to |
look at least intrusive location to serve as landing point and then create a cross access |
to that property. |
page 7, easement be granted over the rea - is that referring only to 1 and 2? Billyes. |
the environmental piece - the dept. of env. concerns do they work with adjacent |
townshiips as there might be some impact and how that works. Heniff. the dept. of eC |
looks at thewhole wetland area as far as impact. if they determine there is an impact |
they would be responsible to notify the township. the township has tuhority over the |
streets, drainage issues. |
water discharge into wetland area - there is a mechanism where the run off would flow |
over a bed to catch setiment. 2. the possiblity of water from thesouth side of north ave |
from redevelopment. 3. the area marked c is that seeded adn will that be allowed to |
grow. is there a way to prevent chemicals from entering wetland. |
Engineer - 1. water quality features of strmwater. the on site detention ponds have flat |
shallow bottoms and be vegatated so before it leaves the ponds silt and sediment could |
be removed. another feature are theother measures to ensure errision measures such |
as seeding, silt fence during construciton, filter baskets to try to improve water run off |
quality. |
3. correct, the bottom will be allowed to grow the sides can be mowed and maintained. |
BH - regarding the run off from the church - RS - concerned about flow and quality of |
water. BH - the water is looked at by dupage county.with additional plant materials will |
slow flow and is better for the quality. |
RO - environemtal issues - there is a concern about the sensitie nature I would assume |
that thegroups that have looked at it, it will look at the quality of water and impact of |
wildlife. will this be done before approval given ont he proeprty. BH - staff will flollow up |
to make sure the well water is adequately addressed. there is not a separate study to |
wildlife. RO - these are very important issues. that will be standrd operating procedure |
before this matter will be approved. BH will turn back to county health deparatment and |
have them amke statment to make sure not an impact. |
MB - to Mr. Shindler. are the improvemnts on lot 1 impacting the floodplain. engineer |
no but in regard to wetland buffer will be grading and plating to resesablish bufer |
otherwise no work propsoed in wetland area. MB - will a env. study study be done to |
???? engineer - are held to ??? he talked about their stormwater submittal which has |
been amde to the county and village. talked about riparian. |
RS - elevations of building - all precast concrtete? NB - yes all panels 12 width and |
24'high. RS - what about color is that pretty accurate. NB - yes beigem tauper with a |
darker band. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Ryan
1 -
Enactment No: 240 East Progress Ro |
020059
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Ryan
1 -
Enactment No: 240 East Progress Ro |
020053
Staff report: JB gave request. gave description of location and surrounding land uses. |
the fence is located around north ave and in front yard of outlot. no fence ehight |
variation since it is 6' was ever given so they are requesting a variation. gave theintra |
departmental comments. |
Planning - since this is outlot no site issues with a 6'fence. she mentioned north avenue |
elevations and its impact on a 4' fence which would be ineffective screening. this |
screening is beenficial to have a barrier and staff believes this hiehgt will not have an |
impact on surrounding properties. |
No one present ot speak for or against. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, |
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, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Ryan
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5083 641-6 |
No comments from commissioners.
020054
Sandrq Sassano, Joliet Rd., Indian park, is petitioning additional signage. their facility is |
a training facility and corporate training center. there is another business with a similir |
name which gets mixed up. want greater visibility . |
Greg Taski, works for enterprise, stated no signage right now. facility unique because |
main entrace is on north side of building which is not on street side of north avenue. |
found out that the current sign which is 4' high is not effective and therefore petitioning a |
wall sign on south wall for oncoming traffic and the signage on north side is more for |
recognition. |
No one present to speak for or against. |
Gibbs presented staff report. she gave request for 3 wall signs for identification and |
direct vistors to facilities. she gave description of the nature of the business of the |
facility and their need for the additional signage. She gave where the propsoed signs |
would be placed and their intent. She mentioned theother business and the similar |
name. Gave intra deparemtntal comments. |
gave history, and gave description of signs and they are illuminated. She referred to the |
regulations in the industrial district and she gave the dimenstions of each and their |
location. she mentioned the freestanding sign that mentions only the address. pet. will |
remove the sign and have the3 requested signs on the proeprty. staff supports the |
petiition and she gave the reasons with one condition. |
RO - petioner wants to illuminate the frestanding sign which contains only the business |
adress and asked if it would be on the building. the pet. stated yes. |
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, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Ryan
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5076 1050 |
020063
No one present to speak in favor or aginst. |
Bill Heniff gave staff report. he stated the request for a number of issues as a clean up |
to make sure zo is consistent. he mentioned the scriverners errors mentioned the miss |
in theB2 even though if was taken out of B3 before. Also public utility and service uses |
should be included. |
Redundancies - repair service and rental - it creates problems if you list in some places |
and dont in others. the excpetion is auto repair. mentioned what is being deleted. staff |
feel to remove these redfuncices to make the zo clearer. |
Antinuqated - take out items no longer in existence. |
Ambiguities - computer sales and repair- this usenot carried thru oridnance. |
reclassification be used in the b1 district. staff notes that electronic sales is listed in B1 |
and this should be listed. |
banquet hall parking - since they function differently and should be added as a distinct |
category. he gave the proposed standard and studies other communities how they do it. |
staff feels tying to functional aspect and use this as a proxy. |
restaurant definitions - ordinance does not differ between the fast food and sit down. |
uhe used pizza restaurant which could fall in either. need to differentiate. trying to |
quantify what is fast food v. sit down. |
He refered page 12 definitions - concern is use of word preponderance. if majority is |
more appropriate. have characateristics for both. by having a criteria for both can |
determine what they would be most like to give rationale. stafaf recommends approval |
RS - page 2 - in order to make the ordinance more user firendly request preponderence |
become to majority. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Ryan
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5085 Amen |
020062
No one present for or agsinst. |
JB gave staff eport. village has no ordinance for rooftop mechanicals. this was |
worksho9pped to separate times by the pc. the landguage staff proposed is idential to |
the january workshop except for section b. 1. "not be subject ot the max. building height |
req. and 4. painted so that it is the same color. and 3. materials used be compitable. |
155.411 all mechanical "established" 155.221 first sentence, shoudl be (can't hear you) |
MB - B4. confused why we added. think its more important to match the facade. JB the |
intention was that if you were looking at it fron the top it would match the roof. To |
besure that the roof was consistent. SF when you look from greound level would rather |
see. MB was reading it wrong. why would you want to make someone paint the |
equipment. |
RS - agree with Commisisoner burke. thought there were objections to screening about |
the top something about blocking ventilation. Thnik this item shoul dbe revisisted. why |
should you paint factory equipment another color would be asking for trouble. |
BH - should we strike #4. |
Commisisoners voted to strike #4 |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Ryan
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5084 Amen |
Business Meeting
Vice Chairperson Flint convened the business meeting at 10:35 p.m. and requested a 5 |
minute recess. |
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the January 14, 2002 Plan Commission meeting were approved by |
unanimous consent of the Plan Commission. |
Public Participation
Vice Chairperson Flint 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
The Vice Chairperson deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
William Heniff referred to the updated development project list which was included in |
their packets. He mentioned that staff was still researching possible concepts for a valet |
parking text amendment. He reminded the Commissioners that at the last Plan |
Commission meeting, it was mentioned that the April meeting date would have to be |
rescheduled due to a conflict in the planners' schedules. He referred to his |
memorandum which gave various alternative dates, stated that April 22 is staff's |
recommendation as the rescheduled date, and asked the Commissioners their |
preference. The Commissioners concurred that the April Plan Commission meeting be |
rescheduled to April 22. |
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
There were no subdivision reports.
Workshops
Lisa Warren, Planner II, presented the workshop and mentioned that she had color |
reproductions she would like to circulate to the Commissioners which were furnished by |
Bensidoun Groupe. Ms. Warren began by stating that the Village is looking into the |
concept of having a French Market in downtown Lombard in the parking lot at 105 W. St. |
Charles Road. This parking lot is associated with the old Zitt property and the new |
Texan BBQ restaurant. The market is slated to operate Saturday mornings from May to |
October and the hours of operation would be 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. The Farmers Market |
currently operating will be folded into the French Market. She described what a French |
Market is and what is sold. Groupe Bensidoun has been operating in and around Paris |
for over 40 years and now have decided to enter the American market. |
Ms. Warren indicated that there are two communities that currently have a French |
Market-the City of Wheaton and the Village of Villa Park. The City of Wheaton has had |
a French Market since the spring of 1997. Their market is located in a downtown |
parking lot which offers high visibiility and Lombard is desirous of doing the same. The |
Village of Villa Park operates theirs on Sunday mornings from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. from May |
to October in the downtown next to the Prairie Path. |
Ms. Warren explained the benefits of having such an event would included contributing |
to downtown revitalization, being a tourist attraction, adding a continential flair, fostering |
a sense of place, attracting a variety of vendors, and generating traffic. |
The concept of having a French Market is easily adopted, continued Ms. Warren, as |
Groupe Bensidoun does most of the work associated with the market. Ms. Warren |
contacted both the City of Wheaton and the Village of Villa Park requesting they share |
their experiences to date. Their comments were as follows: |
. City of Wheaton took a while to get established |
. the Bensidoun Groupe takes care of all the equipment, setup and marketing. |
. Village of Villa Park posted two informational signs |
In conclusion, Ms. Warren requested that the Commissioners provide staff with |
additional input indicating if they would be in support of such a concept. If so, a |
conditional use would be presented at the next Plan Commission meeting as there will |
be time constraints in order to start the Market in May of this year. |
She showed a rough schematic of the parking lot property which would be used for the |
market. She indicated that the stalls would be set up on the outside with two rows in the |
center. |
Some of the comments/concerns from the Plan Commissioners were as follows: |
. Favored the concept but felt the area chosen to have the market would not be large |
enough. Asked if there were other location options available. |
. If the uses surrounding the market would be open when the market would be in |
operation causing a conflict with parking. |
. That the current vendors in the Farmer's Market be asked to participate in the French |
Market. |
. Contract specifics (length of time the Village would be required to sign for and the |
amount.) |
. That the Lombard market will be competing with Wheaton as the days and hours of |
operation would be the same. |
. The underlying benefit to the Village. |
It was the concensus of the Commissioners that they favored the French Market |
concept but requested additional information. |
BP Amoco - Roosevelt Road |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the workshop. He indicated that BP Amoco is |
looking to redevelop several properties on the south side of Roosevelt Road and west of |
Highland Avenue as a new BP Amoco gas station, car wash and cafe. He referred to |
the color renderings showing their concept plan . The existing properties consist of a |
gas station, beauty salon and Sharko's. Required actions by the petitioner will include |
annexation of Sharko's site; approval of an annexation/development agreement; |
consolidation of all lots into one; rezoning of two properties into the B3; approval of a |
conditional use for a planned development, gasoline sales and automotive service, and |
two principal buildings on a lot; approval of an interior side yard setback and signage |
deviations. |
The benefits to this development would include redevelopment of the site with a modern |
facility; removal of an existing billboard; removal of existing non-conforming structures; |
and a reduction in the number of curb cuts. Mr. Heniff indicated that there will be unique |
challenges the site will present due to the location of multi-family residences |
immediately south of the site. These residences are located in the B3 which are legal |
nonconforming. |
Staff is seeking input from the Plan Commission on this issue regarding a formal |
submittal specifically as to site layout and design, traffic flow, etc. Mr. Heniff mentioned |
that to make the site work for traffic circulation purposes, the petitioner will need a |
variation for an interior side yard and will look at issues relative to utility easements. |
Some of the concerns/comments by the Commissioners were as follows: |
. If that area is served well enough by cell towers to ensure wireless communications. |
(Bill not sure about this comment) |
. Was pleased with the placement of the curb cuts specifically their distance from the |
intersection. |
. Liked the concept as it would clean up the corner and modernize it. |
. The types of signage deviations which might be anticipated. |
. Potential for possible stacking to the ingress/egress Roosevelt Road |
. What type of car wash system would be used and the cycle time for each wash. |
. Like to see something in front of the store to caution pedestrians of the cut through |
traffic. |
. Have the traffic engineer look at the Highland entrance and determine if a right/in |
right/out is appropriate. |
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. on February 18, 2002.