Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

on PC 02-06 and 02=07.

Public participation

No one in favor of petition.

Against:

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?

David Emerson passed.

Vince passed.

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?

Harold Hoffman passed.

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.

Commissioners:

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.

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

Carl Jeske - 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.

Commissioenrs:

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.

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.

Commissioners:

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.

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

Commisisoners:

RS - page 2 - in order to make the ordinance more user firendly request preponderence

become to majority.

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)

staff supportive.

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

French Market

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:

. a favorable experience

. 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.