Village of Lombard Legistar System

After due notice and as required by law, the Plan Commission conducted a public

hearing for this petition on May 19, 2003. Presenting the petition was Paul Conarty,

attorney for Bell Fuels, Inc., 419 S. Second St. Geneva, IL 60134. Mr. Conarty opened

his presentation by noting that the subject property is improved with a service station

and convenience store. DuPage County originally approved the site in 1985. A

remodeling to the convenience store was approved in 1990. The petitioner's request is

to annex the property into the Village, rezone the property to the B3 Community

Shopping District, grant conditional uses for the station and for outdoor sales and grant

variations for the existing structures on the property. He noted that there is no

remodeling or expansion of the site at this time.

He then referred the plat of survey that depicts all features on site. Nothing changed

since the survey was done in 1990. School Street functions as their front yard. Two

additional curb cuts exist on Roosevelt Road.

He then noted that the facility has a license issued to sell alcoholic beverages. The

companion annexation agreement will provide that they can sell beer and wine, but no

hard liquor. A condition of this approval would be that they would be required to

segregate the alcohol sales from the rest of the store and he referred to another

diagram showing the location and mentioned the interior reconfiguration that would need

to be done.

Mr. Conarty then noted the status of the property. Currently, Bell Fuels leases the

property to Clark Oil. Clark has filed for bankruptcy and has now announced it is

liquidating all of its station holdings, which means that this station will come back to Bell

Fuels. As this occurs, existing landscaping will be brought up to the quality standards it

had when it was leased to them. Resolution of the transfer with Clark will take a few

more weeks. As of now, Bell Fuels cannot do anything until we get the station back and

after that will take over the station and run it themselves or find a new operator.

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

present to speak against this petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner noted that the subject property is located at the southwest

corner of School Street and Roosevelt Road and is another one of many proposed

annexations along the Roosevelt Road corridor. This property will be contiguous to the

Village via the Kitchen & Bath Showroom gallery to the east and Pep Boys to the west of

the subject property. Other than internal remodeling of the convenience store, no site

improvements are being proposed with this petition.

Accompanying this petition is an annexation agreement that will be considered by the

Village Board at their June 5, 2003 Board of Trustees meeting. The agreement will also

address other provisions associated with the annexation of the property (e.g., beer/wine

sales, etc.) that are not under the purview of the Plan Commission.

He noted the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property be used as

community commercial uses at this location. The plan also recommends that annexation

and redevelopment of older and obsolete structures and sites in this area should be

encouraged. He also stated that as the property is located within the Roosevelt Road

corridor, which includes a wide variety of uses, including a large number of auto-oriented

uses, the gas station and convenience store uses are compatible with the surrounding

commercial land uses. It is bordered to the west and east and north by other existing

commercial uses, to the south by an undeveloped lot zoned R3 Single Family

Residential District and residences within the York Center Co-op. Compatibility to the

south is achieved by the existing fencing and landscaping along the southern property

line.

Mr. Heniff then discussed the requested zoning actions. The petitioner is requesting

annexation, rezoning, conditional use approval for automobile service uses (the gas

station) and outdoor sales and a number of variations related to the current development

existing on the property.

The petitioner is requesting the Village grant approval for the conditional uses and

variations so that the property can be operated as a legal conforming use. The request

for rezoning is made so that the property has similar development regulations as other

properties along the Roosevelt Road corridor.

In consideration of the variations and conditional use requests, staff notes that the

Lombard Zoning Ordinance lists all automotive related activities as conditional uses.

The site is improved with 12 gasoline pumps serving 21 fueling spaces. Additionally a

kerosene pump island exists on the east side of the property. The intent of this

conditional use is to recognize the existing use on the premises as a legal conforming

use.

Upon a review of the site by staff, the site currently does not have any outdoor sales and

display of merchandise on the property, other than a propane tank storage case. Staff

finds that outside display of automobile, mulch and convenience goods is typically done

at many service stations. In review of the site, staff believes that the outside sales

component can be supported provided that it is contained to areas underneath the

canopy area and meets the typical provisions enumerated in the staff recommendations.

Mr. Heniff then went through the variation requests that are associated with the existing

improvements on the property. In consideration of all the variation and conditional use

requests staff recognizes that if this was a new development within the Village, staff

would be concerned about the nature and extent of the requested relief. However, the

request is to take the station "as-is" and to recognize the improvements already on the

site.

From the Village's perspective, as gas stations are conditional uses, should the property

be substantially remodeled or redeveloped, the new plans would be subject to Village

review and consideration at that time. The primary intent in including the variation

requests as part of the annexation petition is to give the property owner the same legal

standing he currently has under DuPage County regulations.

In closing, he noted that as a condition of approval that the petitioner submits an

administrative plat of consolidation to the Village that combines the site into one lot of

record. This plat can be approved administratively.

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

Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser asked for a clarification regarding condition #4d, which noted

that clear line of sight areas must be maintained but the petitioner's request and the staff

presentation mentioned support for a variation from the clear line of sight provisions. Mr.

Heniff noted that the variation request is to address existing encroachments into the

clear line of sight area, particularly as it relates to School Street. The Fire Department

concern pertains to the stacking products within any new display or stacking of products

within any of the clear line of sight areas on the property.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the Village would uphold the clear line of sight

provisions as recommended in condition 4d. or if there are factors in which the clear line

of sight will not be maintained. Mr. Heniff noted that the intent of condition 4. relates to

the outdoor materials sales and section d) relates to where product can be stored. If the

petitioner wants to display new products, they must maintain the clear line of sight

provisions.

1. That the ADA parking space located on the west side of the property be restriped to

meet the Illinois Accessibility Code.

2. The petitioner shall submit a Plat of Consolidation to the Village for review and

approval that consolidates the subject property into one lot of record.

3. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject

property and shall be required to apply for and receive all other requisite business

licenses for the property.

4. That the outdoor display and sales of merchandise shall meet the following

provisions:

a) Merchandise may not be stacked higher than four (4) feet.

b) At least four feet of walkway should be maintained at all times around the

convenience store building.

c) Sales and display areas must not impact vehicular traffic. This includes automobiles,

tanker trucks and Fire Department apparatus.

d) Clear line of sight areas must be maintained.

e) Outdoor sales and display of merchandise must remain ancillary to the principal land

use of the establishment.

f) Outdoor sales and display of merchandise may only occur underneath the canopy

areas.

5. That the property shall be operated consistent with the established Codes of the

Village.

Mr. Shahid Yusef, 810 E. Roosevelt Rd., Lombard, IL presented the petition. Mr. Yusef

stated he is a partner in the business and thanked the Village for letting them open the

KFC in March. He restated the request for a conditional use. Mr. Yusef stated the

outside seating would not interfere with traffic and will be surrounded with landscaping.

Mr. Yusef stated that they have cross easement with the previous owner.

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 outdoor seating

area would be approximately 320 square feet in an area currently planned for

landscaping. The subject property received conditional uses for a planned development

for the drive-through establishment/services in 2002 (PC 02-24). As the outdoor seating

component was not included as part of the original petition, the petitioner is now

requesting approval of the outdoor seating at this time. Ms. Clark noted that the

proposed service area addition would require four (4) additional parking spaces. Staff

suggests that the petitioner try to obtain a parking agreement with the shopping

development to provide the additional spaces. Ms. Clark stated that the proposed use

was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding land uses, therefore staff

was supportive of the request.

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

Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if obtaining a signed parking agreement was acceptable

to the petitioner.

Mr. Yusef stated that they would try to obtain the agreement.

Steven Knapp, Superintendent of Berean Bible Students Church, presented the petition.

Mr. Knapp stated that the garage would be used for storing landscaping and

maintenance materials. Mr. Knapp stated that the church has occupied the space a little

over two years and has served as a polling place for the Village. Mr. Knapp stated that

they will keep the property clean and the garage would be placed at the southeastern

corner of the lot.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

No one spoke for or against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. She summarized the comments

from the Inter-Departmental Review Committee. Staff finds that the proposed garage

addition will be compatible with the existing conditional use. Staff finds that the proposed

addition will not be detrimental to the surrounding uses. The proposed garage is

intended to be designed, constructed and operated similar to other detached garages

commonly found in the adjacent neighborhood. Staff also believes that the accessory

structure will allow the church to keep supplies and or vehicles indoors and out of the

view of neighbors.

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

Commissioner Olbrysh asked about the proposed construction materials for the new

garage.

Mr. Knapp listed the specifications included in the petition and noted that the garage

exterior of the garage would be vinyl sided. He also stated that the church had wood

siding.

Tina Barsich, of ExxonMobil, presented the petition. She noted that they are requesting

a conditional use for outside storage and display of goods on their property at 435 West

Roosevelt Road. She referenced the submitted drawings that depict the materials they

would like to sell outdoors. She noted that there are three existing propane cages at the

exterior of their convenience store building. Year round displays would also include an

existing ice chest on the property. During winter months, they propose to sell loose

firewood bundles and windshield solvent. In warmer months, they will have a display

with loose gallons of water and soda six-packs. Mulch pallets will be located at the

northwest corner of lot. They previously had seven pallets but reduced it to four pallets

no higher than four feet in height to accommodate the view of the existing parking lot.

She also referenced their "master blaster" display, which is a corrugated box used as

signage to advertise beverage promotions.

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

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

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the subject property is located at the

southeast corner of Roosevelt and Finley Roads. The station was constructed in 1990

and is now a legal non-conforming use. The petitioner is requesting conditional use

approval to allow for outdoor display of retail merchandise on the subject property.

He then referenced the Fire Department comments that noted that they would monitor

the display areas and the materials that are being displayed as to distance from gasoline

pumps and drive aisles. Also, the heights of the displays will have to be monitored so as

not to obstruct any line-of-sight requirements. Additionally, the propane cage will need to

meet all Fire Department regulations.

He then noted that the property is within the Roosevelt Road corridor, which includes a

wide variety of non-residential uses. As the site is bounded by other commercial

activities, impacts on adjacent properties would be minimal. Therefore, the conditional

use is appropriate for this location, and no conflicts with adjacent properties are

anticipated.

The petitioner's request for conditional use approval for outdoor sales and display of

merchandise is based upon the use and function of many gas stations. Outdoor sales

and storage of ancillary automotive items and general convenience items is generally

considered compatible with generic retail activities. The petitioner intends to utilize

space along the front and sides of the convenience store building as well as two

locations in front of the fuel islands. The petitioner has also identified an area at the

northwest corner of their parking lot/fuel island area that would be used seasonal

products (i.e., mulch).

Staff finds that the conditional use for outdoor sales can generally be supported, subject

to the conditions in the staff report. However, staff does not recommend approval of the

fuel island display area marked "1" on the site plan, which is to be used for a 45"

high-corrugated box that would advertise beverage prices. This display does not

contain any actual merchandise and functions solely as a promotional item. As such,

staff feels that this cannot be considered outdoor sales and display of merchandise and

should instead be regulated as a type of sign.

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

Commissioner Burke asked how the recommendation not to support the "master blaster"

item, as depicted as number 1 on the site plan, is addressed. Mr. Heniff noted that

condition number 6 recommends approval of everything but the "master blaster" display.

He also noted that the petitioner is aware of staff's recommendation.

Kenneth Behles, Principal of Behles and Behles, presented the petition. He stated that

the subject property is improved with a legal-nonconforming automotive sales facility

that the owner would like to expand. There are currently five buildings on the lot and the

remodeling would result in three buildings on the lot. Mr. Behles stated that the

proposed addition would be located on the eastern section of the lot facing Roosevelt

Road. The addition will replace the pre-owned sales vehicle center. All vehicle doors

and the front facing of the existing structure will be replaced. Mr. Behles stated that the

proposed addition would be approximately 3,520 square feet and slightly higher than the

existing building. The proposed signage on the building would read "Vehicle Care" and

"Pre-Owned." The existing principal structure will be refaced with painted masonry and

limestone panels. Mr. Behles showed samples of the proposed materials. Mr. Behles

also stated that the proposed addition would be fully sprinklered and an underground

storage vault would be provided for detention.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Fran Malloy, 1309 S. Elizabeth St., stated that she had questions regarding the petition.

Ms. Malloy asked if there would be any construction at the opposite end of the existing

building. Ms. Malloy also inquired whether the rear of the building would extend any

further to the rear of the lot. Ms. Malloy stated that she was concerned with the lighting

of the building. She also asked if there were going to be any additional public address

announcements.

Chairperson Ryan asked that the petitioner address the questions raised as part of the

public comment period.

Mr. Behles stated that the addition would be to the east end of the existing building. No

additional construction will occur on the southern end of the lot. Mr. Behles also stated

that there would not be any changes to the existing lighting or additional public address

systems.

Bill Hartigan of Heritage Cadillac, 902 St. Stevens, Oak Brook, IL, stated that

adjustments have been made to the speakers with automatic and individual volume

controls. He stated that they have moved toward paging within the dealership to reduce

public announcement paging that has disturbed neighbors.

Chairperson Ryan asked about foot traffic to the rear of the property.

Mr. Hartigan stated that there is car storage in the rear and there will be no more traffic

than there is presently.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner I, stated that the site is currently operated as a legal

non-conforming motor vehicle sale, service, and repair facility. The petitioner would like

to expand the facility to include a one story building addition that would also include

more than one wall sign on a street frontage. Expansion to the use requires conditional

use approval for the existing and proposed improvements. As the site meets the

minimum lot width and area requirements for a planned development, planned

development approval is also included as part of this petition.

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

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

of Community Commercial. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land

uses. As the requested conditional use is being requested to bring the existing and

proposed structures into compliance with current Village Codes and since the design

and layout of the structures meet the bulk requirements of the underlying district, this

conditional use can be supported by staff.

Included with the petition is a request for conditional use approval for a planned

development. While the proposed expansion does not necessitate the creation of a

planned development, staff feels that as the subject property meets the minimum lot

width and area requirements and since the intent of planned developments is to address

the unique attributes surrounding the existing and proposed land uses, staff

recommends the establishment of a planned development for this site. Moreover, the

planned development process will provide greater flexibility to consider unique parking

and signage elements associated with vehicle sales.

Ms. Clark also noted that included as part of the planned development request is

approval of a signage deviation to allow for more than one wall sign per street frontage.

The petitioner intends to place two wall signs on the north elevation of the building

("Vehicle Care" and "Pre Owned"). The signs comply with all other aspects of the sign

ordinance (approximately 63 square feet each) and are reasonably located, therefore

staff supports the signage deviation. Staff recommends approval of PC 03-15, subject

to the conditions listed in the staff report.

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

Commissioner Sweetser inquired about a possible awning shown in the elevations. Mr.

Behles clarified that it is a sunshade.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that it appears that the elevations show that there is an

entrance from the west. Mr. Behles stated that there would be an entrance on the

western corner of the addition and customer parking would be oriented to the main

showroom building.

Commissioner Sweetser asked for clarification as to how many buildings would be

demolished. Mr. Behles stated that two buildings would be demolished.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if the building being torn down would be used as parking

for used vehicles or for customers. Mr. Behles stated that the space would be turned

into a vehicle storage area. Existing parking will remain as it is currently.

Commissioner Burke asked if the petitioner could look at the perimeter lighting levels

and asked about the lighting to the south of the existing building.

Mr. Behles stated that the wall packs on the building face would be removed.

Mr. Hartigan stated that they have reduced lighting for energy costs, but theft increased

as a result. Lighting has been left on all night at the suggestion of the Police

Department. Mr. Hartigan stated he intends to have a lighting engineer evaluate the site

once the remodeling is done.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the permit for additional lighting would require

a new photometric plan.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the photometric plan could be made a condition of

approval.

Mr. Heniff stated that it could be included as a condition.

Senior Planner, William Heniff, stated there is a representative of Potbelly's in the

audience should the Commissioners have any questions and then proceeded to present

the staff report. He indicated that the petitioner is requesting signage deviations. The

proposed signage is to increase readability from Highland Avenue and the spine road

and to place text on the awning valance indicating the name of the establishment and

type of fare served. He reminded the Commissioner that last year when they were

considering this shopping center, a conditional use was approved for a drive-through

window which the petitioner will not be installing. This petition only pertains to the

signage.

Mr. Heniff stated that there were no inter-departmental comments from Private

Engineering Service or Building and Fire. Planning comments include compatibility with

the Highlands of Lombard Development Agreement. He mentioned that when this

agreement was approved in 2000, there were provisions in the agreement that would

allow the Commissioners to review and approve signage deviations as part of the site

plan approval process.

The petitioner's wall signage request includes two proposed walls signs and he gave the

dimensions and location of each sign. He stated that the petitioner has proposed

channel letter signage and he gave the signage area regulations for shopping centers in

the B3 District. The petitioner has only one street frontage and their signage proposal is

to attract exposure. He mentioned that if the detention pond located east of the site was

part of the petitioner's property and not designated as a separate outlot parcel, this

petition would meet code. If approved, the wall signage would be doubled and he

showed examples of what the signage would look like if it met code versus if the petition

were approved. He stated that the layout of the sign would not be incompatible as it

would be directed to other commercial uses and, therefore, staff would be supportive of

this signage request.

The petitioner is also requesting to add signage to the valance of the awing. This text is

intended to state the business name and type of establishment. The Sign Ordinance

limits awing and wall signs for the same business establishment. Staff feels that the

additional signage on the valance would be appropriate since it will not be more than 10

inches in height and will be an accent element to the awning but not appropriate on the

awning as it would appear to be excessive.

The property is surrounded by other commercial uses therefore staff feels the request is

compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. In conclusion, staff recommends approval

subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

Chairperson Ryan opened up the discussion to the Plan Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser felt that the signage looked fine.

Commissioner Burke stated that although he understands the reasoning behind the

request and it makes sense, he felt that the additional signage as presented might be

extremely large from the Highland Avenue ramp due to its close proximity to the

establishment.