Village of Lombard Legistar System

Scott Pritchett of Schneider Architects 1411 Peterson Ave, Park Ridge, IL, architect for

the project, presented the petition. He noted that this project came before the Plan

Commission one year ago as part of PC 02-15 and the petitioner is now coming back

with a modified plan for the Village's consideration. He focused upon the principal

changes to the project shown on the presentation exhibits which include the site being

reoriented toward Finley Avenue, the convenience store being smaller and the car wash

being moved farther south on the property. He noted the traffic circulation patterns are

similar to the previously approved plan.

He noted the modifications to the building elevations which are intended to blend Citgo's

corporate branding with the plans previously approved by the Village. The building will

remain a full masonry building with additional brick facing on the front of the store, as

depicted on the submitted plans.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public participation. There was no one

present to speak in favor of or against the petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner then presented the staff report. He stated that the Village

Board concurred with the recommendation of the Plan Commission and approved PC

02-15 (Ordinance 5134) on May 16, 2002. Since that time, the petitioner has acquired

the subject property and is finalizing the plans to raze the existing auto repair/service

facility. However, the petitioner proposes a modified site plan that includes reorienting

the convenience store and gas station canopy towards Finley Avenue and developing a

detention pond on the north side of the site, in lieu of a detention vault. Modifications to

the façade are also proposed. He noted that the original petition also included variations

to reduce the transitional building setback and landscape yards. As the petitioner's new

site plan does not require this relief, it was not added to the petitioner's amended

request.

He referenced the IDRC comments and noted that in addition to comments previously

supplied to the petitioner, the car wash queue lane will need to be modified to allow for

fire truck turning movements. Additionally, the driveway apron must be narrowed to 35

feet at the property line with the curb radii not to exceed 15 feet.

He then referenced the plan changes and noted the following:

· The overall size of the building is proposed to be reduced from 3,160 square feet to

approximately 2,600 square feet.

· The revised plan shows 11 parking stalls, which meets code.

· The petitioner proposes a modified façade similar to the one originally considered by

the Plan Commission, but is modified to reflect new Citgo corporate branding elements.

· As the basic traffic demand elements of the development remain unchanged, no net

change to the traffic generation is anticipated.

· The modified plan moves the fueling island to the west side of the property and

reorients the pumps into a north-south configuration.

· The revised plan moves the vacuum and air hose area from the car wash exit area to

two designated stalls west of the drive-through entrance area on the south side of the

building.

· The petitioner submitted a landscape plan which includes greater perimeter

landscaping.

· The petitioner needs to submit a revised lighting plan showing that the site is still in

compliance with code.

He noted that the modified wall sign elevations are acceptable to staff as the signs are

appropriately sized and well-integrated into the building elevations. Additionally, gas

station canopies provide rather unique signage issues, and staff has supported the

provision of additional signage for gas stations in the past. All wall signs on the building

total 78 total square feet, which is still total less than the maximum 100 square feet in

sign area permitted by Code.

1. That the petitioner shall be required to apply for and receive Village building permits

for the demolition of any existing structures on the premises and for the construction of

any improvements on the subject property. The petitioner shall also apply for and

receive all requisite State of Illinois and DuPage County Health Department permits as

well.

2. That the site be developed in substantial compliance with the proposed Site Plan,

Building Floor Plans (updated February 6, 2003), Building Elevations, Car Wash

Elevation, Landscape Plan and Canopy Elevations (updated and submitted February 28,

2003), and shall include revisions as recommended in the IDRC comments.

Furthermore, the petitioner shall submit a revised photometric plan addressing the

comments included as part of the staff report.

3. That construction and site improvements shall be substantially underway within one

(1) year from the date of Village Board approval of PC 03-02 and shall be completed

eighteen (18) months thereof.

4. That a solid fence of at least six feet in height shall installed and maintained in good

repair at all times along the north property line.

5. That the petitioner shall record a cross-access easement to provide for vehicular

access to the property east of the subject property. Should the abutting property owner

agree to grant a cross-access easement on his/her parcel to connect to the subject

property, the petitioner and/or future subject property owner shall be obligated to install

a cross-access driveway at their own expense. Said cross-access driveway shall be

constructed per Village of Lombard specifications.

6. That the project shall meet all codes of the Village.

Bill Idasek, 247 S. Edson, presented the petition. He said that he has lived on the

property for six years and stated the requested zoning relief. The lot was originally 50

feet wide until the railroad took part of the lot in 1946. He compared his lot to a similar

situation on Craig Place that he feels matches up well with his property, and his has

even more open space. He finished by stating that by using creativity and common

sense, a nice home could be constructed on the property that would be an asset to the

neighborhood.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Jennifer Primas, 252 S. Brewster, stated that she lives directly behind the subject

property. She stated that she had spoke with homeowners in the area and nearly all of

them opposed the petition. She then noted the comparison to the lot on

Craig Place and read excerpts from the Zoning Ordinance on minimum lot width

requirements for single-family residences. She stated that if the railroad had not taken a

portion of the property, there would be no need for a variation. Ms. Primas stated that

the petitioner pays taxes on the portion of the lot formerly owned by the railroad and

suggested that the petitioner sue someone in order to determine his property lines. She

referred again to a house at 321 S. Craig Place, stating that it is the largest home in that

area and it is not in character with the neighborhood and lacks sufficient open space.

She stated that the owner of the home at 321 S. Craig Place drives on the Illinois Prairie

Path and stated that the petitioner might landscape a portion of the Prairie Path. Ms.

Primas stated that she does not believe the petition meets the Standards for Variations.

John Singer, 221 S. Edson, stated that he had submitted a letter and confirmed that the

Plan Commissioners had each received a copy of it. He added that he believes the

house will not sell at the expected price because of its proximity to the Prairie Path, so it

will reduce property values in the neighborhood.

The petitioner then responded to the public comments. He stated that the comparable

house on Craig Place sold for $425,000, so his house should not reduce property values

in the area. He stated that if the County did not have ownership of the southern 10 feet

of his lot, he could build without the need for a variation. DuPage County confirmed that

it owns the land and does not wish to sell it. The 10 feet is still there and will remain as

open space, it just happens to be owned by the County and not by him. Mr. Idasek

stated that this variation should be approved because similar variations had been

approved in the past. He added that he would never build anything that wouldn't fit in

with the neighborhood and he feels the house that will be built will benefit the

neighborhood.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, stated that the petitioner wishes to build a single-family

residence on the existing Lot 19, a 40-foot wide lot that borders the Illinois Prairie Path.

The request is for a Minor Plat of Resubdivision because although both lots were

originally platted as 50 foot wide legal lots in 1872, the southern portion of the lot was

conveyed for railroad right-of-way purposes in 1946. That portion is now part of the

Illinois Prairie Path and the remaining portion of Lot 19 does not constitute a legal lot of

record. While the warranty deed conveying the property to the railroad was recorded,

an associated resubdivision was not prepared or recorded. The Minor Plat of

Resubdivision along with the requested zoning relief will make Lot 19 a buildable lot of

record.

In addition to the variation in lot width, a variation is also required for minimum lot size

from 7,500 square feet to 7,012.5 square feet. All setback and open space

requirements will be maintained.

Ms. Backensto then summarized the comments from the Inter-Departmental Review

Committee. This petition complies with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan

of Low Density Residential. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land

uses. The property is bordered on the south by the Illinois Prairie Path and is

surrounded on all sides by single family residential homes. Although the property is

narrow for the R2 zoning district, the location of the Illinois Prairie Path south of the site

provides open space in the neighborhood and ensures that another structure will not be

built on the south side of this site. Within Lombard, there are a number of other

properties next to the Illinois Prairie Path with similar dimensional characteristics to the

petitioner's proposed lot.

The southern tract of land belongs to DuPage County. The petitioner and staff have met

with DuPage County Department of Transportation staff to determine if DuPage County

would be willing to convey the tract to the abutting property owner. The DuPage County

Department of Transportation has stated that they do not wish to transfer ownership of

the tract as they wish to reserve it for public open space.

Ms. Backensto stated that there are several lots in the area that are less than 60 feet in

width and less than 7,500 square feet in area. The properties immediately west of the

petitioner's lot are of identical size (with the exception of the railroad property) and are

currently developed with single-family residences. Staff believes that this case meets

the Standards for Variations and does not object.

Also, in 2001, the Board of Trustees granted variations for a 40-foot wide, 6,400 square

foot lot along the Illinois Prairie Path at 325 S. Craig Place for the purpose of building a

single-family home (PC 00-56). This property was also originally a 50-foot wide lot that

had its northernmost 10 feet condemned by the railroad. The variations requested in

this case are nearer to the Zoning Ordinance requirements than those granted in PC

00-56.

Ms. Backensto noted that the petitioner has submitted for review and approval a minor

plat of resubdivision that must be modified as indicated in the staff report. Staff

recommends approval of PC 03-03, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

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

Commissioner Flint stated that this case directly parallels the case at 321 S. Craig

Place. There will be open, green space adjacent to the property. He noted that a

variation would not be necessary had the railroad not taken the property and stated that

he concurs with staff's recommendation of approval.

Chairperson Ryan asked what the open space requirements are in the R2 District.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, explained the minimum 50% open space requirement

and what it includes. He added that if the proposed new residence does not meet the

open space requirement or any other Zoning Ordinance regulation, it would require a

variation.

Chairperson Ryan asked staff about encroachments into the Prairie Path. Mr. Heniff

stated that staff met with the DuPage County Trails Coordinator and that if any

encroachment occurs, DuPage County will follow up accordingly. He noted that

construction fencing could be erected along the property line to prevent construction

traffic from using the Prairie Path. Also, the petitioner can put up a 6-foot solid fence by

right. Fencing could be added as a condition of approval, but that might take away from

the open views along the path. Chairperson Ryan stated that orange construction

fencing would also be unsightly and undesirable.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if all code provisions would need to be met as part of a

building permit. Mr. Heniff confirmed that they would.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the Plan Commission could not have anticipated

what happened on Craig Place. She stated that she does not object to the petition per

se, but she does not believe the standard regarding financial gain is being met. Mr.

Heniff explained that the standard is intended to judge if a petition's sole purpose is

financial gain and noted that there is an inherent financial gain with any home

improvement.

George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan Commission, noted that the standards

requires that the purpose of the variation not be based primarily upon a desire to

increase financial gain.

Commissioner Burke noted that the proposed driveway will be less than 2 feet from the

Prairie Path and asked about the possibility of switching the driveway to the other side of

the house.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the existing homes are already close to the Prairie

Path on both sides, some abutting the property lines. The proposed plans would be

consistent with the existing conditions along the path, even if it is tight.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that if the driveway were relocated, safety would be

gained at the expense of open space along the Prairie Path.

Commissioner Burke stated that he wished to see which driveway location the

commissioners found less objectionable.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if the property lines were in dispute. Mr. Heniff reiterated

that the DuPage County State's Attorney's Office has confirmed that the strip of land in

question is a part of the Illinois Prairie Path and is DuPage County property.

Mr. Wagner noted that there was not a state requirement to plat such divisions of land at

the time the land was conveyed, but a Lombard building permit cannot be issued unless

the subject property is a lot of record.

Mr. Robert Szczypta, 1051 N. Garfield, Lombard, IL presented the petition. He restated

the request for a conditional use. Mr. Szczypta stated that he would like to expand his

current facility due to the high cost of truck maintenance and having mechanics on site

would eliminate the additional cost. He stated that an additional driveway is necessary

due to the size of the equipment that he operates. Mr. Szczypta stated that the

proposed addition would be confined to the existing lot and would not require additional

detention due to a surplus provided when the site was originally developed. He stated

that the proposed addition and driveway would be consistent with other developments in

the neighborhood.

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

or in opposition of the petition. Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. She noted that the site is currently a

legal non-conforming use and the building expansion would require approval of the

conditional use. Ms. Clark highlighted comments from the Inter-Departmental Review

Committee. Private Engineering Services noted that the driveway would require

additional detention, but due to the surplus of detention provided during the original site

development no additional detention would be necessary. Fire and Building required

that the addition have a full sprinkler system and requested documentation that the new

sprinkler system could be connected to the existing system. Building also noted that the

new addition would need a fire alarm system and must meet current building codes and

requirements. Ms. Clark stated that staff recommends approval with the conditions

mentioned in the staff report.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser inquired as to if the proposed building elevations had been

reviewed. Bill Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the elevation had not been submitted

yet, but the petitioner had stated the proposed addition would match the existing building

façade and elevation.

Commission Sweetser asked if there would be access from one building to the other.

The petitioner stated that there would not be internal access between the buildings.

Christos Yiannopoulos, 1208 S. Westmore/Meyers Road, presented the petition. He

stated that they wish to annex into Lombard and would like the entire property to be

zoned for commercial uses. The property will remain as-is. He added that the previous

owners had connected to Village utilities.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one

present to speak for or against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, stated that the subject property is located southwest of

the intersections of Roosevelt and Westmore/Meyers. The property is currently

developed as a kitchen and bath showroom with an accessory storage building and a

single-family residence. No site improvements are being proposed with this petition.

Ms. Backensto then summarized the comments from the Inter-Departmental Review

Committee. The existing kitchen and bath showroom use and proposed B3 zoning

comply with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with

the surrounding land uses.

The southern parcel contains two uses: ancillary uses associated with the kitchen and

bath showroom on the western half and a single-family residence and garage on the

eastern half. Under the B3 zoning district, the residence on Meyers Road would be

considered a legal nonconforming use. As the residence is surrounded by commercial

uses, staff feels this is the appropriate designation for this property. It is more fitting to

consider the residential use legal nonconforming than to rezone the entire parcel to R1

or R2 and consider the western half of the property legal nonconforming. If a future

development proposal is presented for the single-family residence, it can then be looked

at under the B3 regulations.

Staff believes that the request for rezoning is appropriate for the site. Staff is working

with the petitioner on an annexation agreement that will be heard before the Board of

Trustees. Part of this agreement will require that the existing billboard on the property

be removed upon expiration of its lease.

Ms. Backensto stated that the petitioner is not requesting any variations for the subject

property. The existing showroom building does not meet the required setbacks of the

B3 district. Staff feels that rather than granting zoning relief, these inconsistencies

should be considered legal nonconforming. These nonconformities could be addressed

at such time as the petitioner wishes to expand, remodel, or redevelop the site. The

petitioner also does not propose to include any additional land for the proposed use and

does not intend to divide the subject property. Staff recommended approval of the

proposed rezoning.

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

Commissioner Burke asked if the property to the west was incorporated. William Heniff,

Senior Planner, stated that it is not.

Commissioner Burke asked if the expiration date of the billboard lease should be

included as a condition of approval. Mr. Heniff stated that the conditions regarding the

billboard are specified in the draft annexation agreement. Commissioner Burke stated

that was sufficient.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if other properties along Roosevelt have commercial

uses that extend two lots deep into the block. Mr. Heniff stated that there are a few such

properties and added that the parcel immediately south of the petitioner's property is

developed as Kindercare, a commercial use.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the property would likely be subdivided. Mr. Heniff

Mr. Dave Freese, 569 Brewster, contract purchaser of 812 E. St. Charles Road

presented the petition. He gave a brief history and mentioned that he is an appraiser.

Mr. Freese stated that he was looking for a commercial property and his friend Daniel

Radosta was also looking for an area. He noticed that Lombard Floral was for sale. He

spoke with Mr. Radosta and they will buy and run independent businesses out of the

building. Mr. Freese stated that the building would not change much. He stated that his

appraisal office would be located in the front portion of the building, while West Side

would operate in the rear of the building.

Dan Radosta stated that his business operates from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. everyday.

The trucks associated with the business are typically offsite, but will be parked inside at

night.

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

or in opposition of the petition. Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. There were no comments from

Private Engineering Services or Public Works. Fire and BIS noted that a fire alarm

system would be required throughout the building, although sprinklers would not be

required. An additional handicap accessible bathroom would be necessary in West Side

Plumbing's portion of the building. Building permits would be necessary to complete the

listed improvements. Planning believed the division of the building would be acceptable.

Impacts on adjacent properties would be minimal. Ms. Clark stated that staff

recommends a striping plan as well as a solid 6' high fence and additional plantings on

the north property line to provide additional screening. Staff recommended approval

with the aforementioned conditions.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Chairperson Ryan asked whether or not the handicap bathroom would be covered

under condition number two (2). Bill Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the bathroom

would be covered as a building code requirement.

1. That the petitioner shall develop the site consistent with the site plans and interior

design plans submitted as part of this petition.

2. That the petitioner shall satisfactorily address the comments noted within the IRDC

report.

3. That the petitioner shall submit to the Village for review and approval a parking lot

striping plan that addresses plan for the parking lot that specifically demarcates ADA

parking spaces, customer/employee parking areas for each use and areas where

parking is not permitted.

4. That overnight storage of commercial vehicles on the property shall be exclusively

within the existing building.

5. Outside storage of contractor materials and equipment shall be prohibited.

6. That the petitioner shall submit to the Village for review and approval a landscape

plan that includes a solid fence (minimum of six (6) feet in height) between Lots 1 and 3

of Karban's Plat of Resubdivision and plantings consistent with Section 155.707 (B)(4)

of the Zoning Ordinance.

7. That the site shall be developed and operated consistent with Village Code.

8. That the petitioner record a cross-access easement to provide for vehicular access to

the property east and west of the subject property.

Presenting the petition on behalf of Samvest of Lombard, landlord of Heron Point, was

Jim Plodzien, 248 W. Wilson, Lombard. He explained that they were requesting

approval for a temporary real estate sign increase from 32 square feet to 120 square

feet. He continued explaining that this request is due to the fact that at the present time

the office building is only 25% occupied. He indicated that they had previously received

a permit for a 32 square foot sign which has not been effective because of the inability to

read it and, consequently, they are now requesting a larger sign. In conclusion, Mr.

Plodzien asked for the Commissioners help.

There was no one to speak for or against this petition.

Angela Clark, Planner I, indicated that she was submitting the staff report for the record.

She indicated that staff moves to approve the request subject to the two conditions

outlined in the staff report:

1. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed sign.

The said sign shall not exceed 120 square feet in total area.

2. That the temporary lease/rental sign will only be allowed for the maximum time limit

allowed for temporary real estate signs, which is six months. Should vacancy rates for

the building remain above 25 percent for the site and should the property owner desire

to keep the existing sign up or install a new temporary lease/real sign, the petitioner

shall be required to receive a new site plan approval.

Bill Heniff, Senior Planner, indicated that this petition is requesting site plan approval

and will not be a recommendation to the Corporate Authorities. He then mentioned that

the petitioner has provided a photograph depicting the overall size of the proposed sign

as well as its specific location on the building. Mr. Heniff indicated that this request is

considered a temporary lease sign and not a banner. As such, this request meets the

vacancy provision of the Sign Ordinance which allows a temporary lease sign if there

are excessive vacancies in a building and that the permit is limited to a term of 6

months.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if the size and placement of the sign is as depicted on the

picture and inquired about the colors. Mr. Plodzien answered yes and that it would be a

light-colored sign with dark letters.

Commissioner Olbrysh then asked what the dimensions of the sign would be. Mr.

Plodzien answered 6' x 20'. Commissioner Olbrysh then asked if there would be a

lighting plan. Mr. Plodzien answered that he did not know.

Commissioner Burke asked if it is proposed to be constructed of fabric or a rigid

material. Mr. Plodzien answered that it would be fabric. Commissioner Burke asked if

there was a replacement provision in the code should the banner become ripped or

dirty. Mr. Heniff stated that it could be added as a condition.

Commissioner Sweetser commented that the same type of provision was added when

the Fountain Square Development requested a temporary sign. She concurred that a

replacement provision should be added as a third condition.