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, May 20, 2002
Call to Order and Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Ryan called the public hearing portion of the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser and Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Committee Member Commissioner Daniel Broderick and Commissioner Sondra |
Zorn |
Absent:
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, Senior Planner; Lisa Warren, |
Planner II; Margaret Gibbs, Planner I; and Janet Petsche, legal counsel to the Plan |
Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda.
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws.
Public Hearings
020321
Jim Drake stated that he is the property owner and business owner of Zelly's located at |
920 E. Roosevelt Road. Mr. Drake said that he was requested by the Village to |
voluntarily annex the property at Roosevelt and Meyers and he has agreed to this. |
There was no one present to speak for or against this petition. |
Margaret Gibbs, Planner I, presented the staff report. She stated that the subject |
property is located at the northwest corner of Roosevelt and Westmore/Meyers and is |
one of several proposed annexations along the Westmore/Meyers and Roosevelt Road |
corridor. This property will be contiguous to the Village via the Shell Oil gas station to |
the east which was recently annexed on May 2, 2002. The property is currently |
developed as a fast food restaurant with a drive-through and an outdoor seating area. |
No site improvements are being proposed with this petition. The proposed annexation |
will be subject to an annexation agreement which will be considered by the Village |
Board. |
Ms. Gibbs stated that there are no comments from Engineering or Public Works. |
Building and Fire has no objections to the request but does have comments regarding |
Zelly's fire protection system which the property owner has been made aware of. She |
stated that the proposed uses comply with the recommendation of the Comprehensive |
Plan and the uses are compatible with the surrounding land uses. |
She stated that the petitioner is requesting annexation, rezoning, and conditional use |
approval for outdoor seating and a drive-through establishment/service. Staff believes |
that the requests for rezoning and conditional uses are appropriate for the site. The site |
is adequately screened from the adjacent residential property with a six (6') solid wood |
fence and has good access onto Roosevelt Road and School Street. Drive-through |
establishments are typical uses in conjunction with fast food restaurants along |
Roosevelt Road. Although the drive-through does not have the most optimal design, |
sufficient queuing has been provided. The petitioner has indicated that he has future |
plans to switch the order and pick-up windows and reverse the traffic flow to improve |
circulation on the site. |
Staff also supports the conditional use for outdoor seating since it is primarily a seasonal |
daytime function and it is contained within an enclosed and well-defined area. |
Furthermore, the outdoor seating area is screened from the Shell gas station with dense |
landscaping and is not viewable from the adjacent residential property. |
Ms. Gibbs stated that ยง153.207 of the Lombard Sign Ordinance specifically prohibits |
signs painted directly on walls. There are three (3) signs painted directly existing on the |
west elevation of the building and are illuminated with gooseneck lighting. The signs are |
part of the 1950's motif and character of the building. She stated that the petitioner feels |
very strongly about being able to keep and maintain the existing wall signs and since the |
Village of Lombard initiated the annexation staff feels that this request is reasonable. |
Approval of this variation will be subject to the condition that the variation is only good |
until the property changes ownership or business use changes. Lastly, the petitioner |
does not propose to include any additional land for the proposed use and does not |
intend to divide the subject property. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked where the handicapped accessible parking is going to |
be located. Ms. Gibbs stated that the parking spaces located closest to the entrance of |
the building will be designated for handicapped accessible parking. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked staff to identify exactly where the spaces are going to be |
located. William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the spaces will be located on the |
west side of the parking lot near the word 'spaces' written on the plat of survey. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval |
subject to conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinances 5155-5158 |
1. That two handicapped accessible parking spaces are provided and properly |
designated on the site. |
2. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a new Certificate of Occupancy for the |
subject property. |
3. The variation to allow for signs to be painted directly on the walls of the building shall |
be valid until such time that the property ownership changes or the business use |
changes. |
020323
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that this |
matter be continued. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the April 22, 2002 Plan Commission meeting were approved by |
unanimous consent of the Plan Commission. |
Public Participation
Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Plan |
Commission regarding anything not on the agenda. No one was present to speak. |
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County Hearings.
Chairperson's Report
Chairperson Ryan deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
Unfinished Business
New Business
Subdivision Reports
Workshops
Blake Lamb
Heniff referred to summary of the latest proposal relative to 229 main st. bring forward |
for additional input from pc. includes comments from prevous workshops and included |
in B5a now. he gave b rbrief descrtitipon of the propsal including site improvements. |
Unlike the previous proposal this one decreases visaul bulk by provided offset along |
main street. patio area as depicted on elevations. parking will be provided by garage |
and surface parking on site. they are a couple of spaces short and staff will determine |
and work with petitioenr. improtant thing that parking maintained on site. Parking on |
ash row will be addressed . there is perpe3ndicualr parking on main and ash and want |
to look at that. |
The edeveloper looked to address those issues. staff is looking for direction in four |
areas regarding these propsoal. |
1. height - 4th story mention in previous workshops, he modified and is this now |
acceptable. staff thinks doing a shadow study would be good to have in response to |
owners concerns which would give insight and the impact. |
2. clear line of site - design similar to dowtown desi9gna dn will request a clear line of |
site. in b5a no clear line of site and this design is similar to that design. |
3. 1st floor parking - less than code will allow and rsidential units take up bulk of that. |
4. architectural design of thesite. |
RO - went back on comments made previously and opinon not changed from last year. |
nothing against 4 story builidng but not in this area and would be totally out of place and |
would be highest except for the steeple. the arch design I like but it would stick out from |
the surroujding buildings. He fells less than code for 1st floor is because of the |
addiitonal floor. even with the offse tnad shrubbery don't want. |
RS - ditto. causing their own hardship. from ash street side there is no setback. |
Ryan - from 24' to 22' isn't much of a reduction and I hold to the point that we told a few |
of our community people they \couldn't have unless comp plan says and shouldn't have |
a 4 story building. |
SF - B5adoes allow but it does have to be a cu. it is a tall building from ash street and |
understand the setback and match what is adjacent but on ash street a large size |
building. we have to look at the downtown and this would be a catalyist and if we let this |
go and its a domino effect. BH - if you remove the 4th floor everyting falls into place. |
would you consider a 3 story. RS - it hink so so its not only height but also density. RO |
- 3 story might be a possibility but to the north there is a 3 story and could be a big bulk |
for that block. have to keep an open mind. also would like to see more retail. we have |
a lot of residential in d/t but where do they go to shop. anyting we can do to increase |
retail space |
MB - relrfective of boards. obstacles with site plan., parking variation and variance with |
retail and heights. too many obstalces. BH - Zorn had a problem with denisty and bulk |
on site. |
RS - the idea of no clear line of site - not able to follow logic. BH - if corner similar like |
the grove where up to the corner, the b5 doesn't have clcear line of site, would you like |
something like the co3erner of St. Charles and Main. RS - just becasue its a large |
building now were looking at exempting it, |
A&W/KFC
Warren - in anticipation of a June pc filing, staff would ike to get input on a proposed |
Aw/kfc restraruant with drive through at 800 e. roosevelt. She gave the background and |
described what exist at the location. she refereed to the display which is a depiction of |
the entire site. the west most building has severl tenats and the front building houses |
Franks. She gave the petitioners intentions of this site. This is a new concept kfc |
combining with another restaurant and this would be the only aw/kfc in dupage county. |
Need the follo9wing approvals. she mentioned the three. The petitioners, owner of |
shoping center, and contract purchaser will submit a joint proposal and she mentioned |
their wants. will meet code but will request a variation for signage. A traffic analysis will |
be submitted for the site. any issues the pc would like to raise by the petitioner. the |
potential owner is in the audience to answer any uestions. |
SF - this would be a great addition to lombard and to improe that shopping center. LW - |
the only changes comtemplated for the old portion would be to put 12.5 feet of the fron |
of the deve. off of roosevelt road and a continuinance on the drawing. it would be more |
than required by code and will agree to resurface the parking lot and restripe. would not |
require to totally bring up to code. SF - need direction to come into shopping center. |
RS - confused and an opportunity to replace changes and why this isnt the same way. |
LW = what is reqpresented that economically feasible for the owner is not enough to |
make that many addiitonal chnges to property. becuase the development looks dated |
and not up to standard, the proposal that we are putting forth as far as a generous |
landscaping and repaving of the property as well as the corner. he could rent it out and |
leve it the way it is. stafff feels that improving that part or the front would be a chance to |
enhance. Ryan - if we hold it it he will have to improve it. LW - hold it to that it is an |
option. Ryan this is the only way tto bring the property to code. LW if other busineses |
come in we may have an opportunity to enhance. if pc feel that this is not enough then |
we can go back. RS - some thought should be given but every developer claims |
hardship not sure that we should |
What wuld that inlcude SF - a main throught farie to Franks nursery. landscape island |
and trees , define minor access way. should want to improve for aestichs and safety. |
RO - agree with everything said. don't have to bring up to code need land direction and |
break up asphalt. like the landscaping along roosevelt but need to do something in |
interior. LW is that the major desire? Yes. |
RS - how do the color swatches play out? asked about the color scheme? Lisa passed |
around photos. The developer approached and explained how the colors would be |
int4regrated. After the explanation she felt the color schmee would be too much. |
Staff will offer a full color for consideration, can go out to site. LW if we are going to talk |
to other developer about additional changes it will depend on what he wis willing within |
the timeframe and may not come to PC with his reaction. SF - would support but need |
tolokk at interior landscape. MB - entering into restaurant and into take out line, those |
islands have cuts so west of here4 will remain open. LW explained the 24 foot drive |
aisle with a cross access agreement for people circiling around to make it difficulat for |
someone to cut in. |
BH staff also wants to address the sign south of Olson rug and comtemplating 2nd sign |
which would be inconsistent with the code and would like your thoughts. LW they would |
want another pylon sign and staff would not be supportie and they are requesting a |
variation for 2 signs per street expsoure. RO - is it similar to the one in the picture? |
Ryan asked what code is for that . lw explaiend that the shopping center sign is existed |
so no identification sign is allowed. LW have not received any signage package. RS - if |
the existing sign which is intended for entire is there any obligation to remove that sign |
o\to use for the entire center. LW is part of the gareement for the sale of the center. RS |
would not support separate sign. RO - Agree - don't see the purpose of the addiitonal |
sign since the building itself has appropriate identity. LW - asked the petitioner if he |
had any other questions. pet - they require a separate sign they will have an issue for |
not having separate signs. Ryan - we cannot bend without them bending. RS as visible |
as those building signs are I don't think I would even consider a pylon sign. |
Meadow Cove
gibbs presented the workshop. referred to previous workshop for the s/w side of |
meadow and 53 which consisted of single and multi family units. based on pc |
cocmments as well as several meetings with staff he is propsing new plan and she |
described. the ozning would be propsoed to be R2 single family. the devel willmeet all |
lot width and size req. not as on the drawings staff informed developer oof the setbacks |
in the front yard and back yard and he will meet. the subdivision will be compitable with |
cp and it would be compitable with surrounding land uses. idot will lower 53 which will |
impact the visibility of the lots on 53 so he will prooose an 8 solid wood fence along 53 |
and a solid 6' on side of lot 10 and will still meet clos triangle. Staff is leaning to the |
more supportive of fence height because the visiability on 53 and high traffic as well as |
the lots having the same unified type of fence you will eleiminate people from putting up |
their own fences varying in heights and design. |
RS - it looks like it meets everying. the fence issue might be mitigated with landscaping |
as well. MG don't know intention is as far as additional landscaping but he would oike to |
keep as much landsacping intact. RO - how close would the 8' fence be to route 53. |
MG not off hand. BH - benefit of 8' fence is the future owners will have some assurance |
will have screening. RO - IDot must have some requirements how close a fence can be. |
BH will verify with them. RS - reiternate the need for additional landscaping for the |
reasons previously mentio9ned . Ryan - is there any kid of bern that could be put there. |
BH because of grade going straight up and ditch wouldn't be effective. Ryan |
improvement to what seen earlier. |
Text Amendments
Break at 8:30, reconvene at 8:35 p.m. |
4 items like input from pC. were orignlly adressed but vob actions. Staff did a power |
point presentation on the text amendments. The first amendments is roof over porches. |
This is the second workshop; on front porches and would input on changing zo to |
encroach into the 30 ' setback. Gibbs gave the current regulations, the case history, |
other municipalities to see what their codes were,. She gave the advantages to |
changing the code (see page 3), shwoed a picture of ahome on grace that was granted |
relief, open front porch showing what can be done by code giviong some visual as to |
what can be done. The disadvantages (page #3). She showed examples of the |
disadvantages with a home with a front porch enclosed and open giving the potential of |
what can happen. She showed the setback difference between the two homes. Ryan - |
the house is set back more than just the additional porch. MG - this house is proabbly |
set back 35 and shows a larger difference between the two setbacks. She gave the |
proposed text amendmentsimilar to the slide that was shown. Some issues to consider |
are determining what sizewould be acceptable as well as piers vs. foundation. Full |
foundation can be converted into an addition. Would like input if this is a desirable text |
amendment or not interested in pursuing futher. |
RS - a good idea in terms of text amendment in terms of "open". putti8ng screens, |
shuttering and what would qualify "opne". RO agree with staff in favor of open porch |
and must define what is meant. We have seen via illustrations. The proosal is fine just |
clarify open. Ryan - refered to house on grace as open compared to slide after |
advantages. Rs - if need for coden enforcement it needs to be very clear. Ryan asked |
Mr. Sebby to come up. Steve Sebby, 534 N. Grace and also trustee for district 4. want |
to make comments and in favor to bring the opprotunity where we have quirte a few 50's |
and 60's home in his district. the first slide about 2 blocks from his home and is very |
nice and adds to character. Need to revitablize the neighborhood and come out front |
and see this as a real plus not only in his district but everyone. concur with staff and am |
concerned about enclosing but need to define "opne" and specify shutters or screens of |
any type. Another issue is a cap of 7' but a house of 35' feet back but you may get the |
stepping down the street and don't see as a detriment. like the idea of going out to the |
25'. |
Bill Heniff second text amendment is fences in corner side yards. important to bring |
forthe the reaosns for fence regulations. Currently vol has several regulations and he |
stated those. Next is sampling of other municipalites and how they regulate, no |
community allows an open or solid fence of 6' high in a corner side yard. Alternatives |
available to this issue. Showed graphics of issues - corner side yards abutting. the next |
side shows the 6' fence or corner side yard abutting. Slides show how the regulations |
play against each other. Corner side yards abutting front yards in reverse corner side |
yards. the fence as proposed would negatively impact the house next door. Staff feels |
those areas should be left at 4'. He have staff's recommendation. in pc discussion staff |
would like thoughts on should fences of 6' in height be allowed by right in corner side |
yards and should th code distinguise between corner side losta dn reverse corner lots |
as it pertains o fence height. |
Referred to slide #6 - some questions as to why it is 4'. regulations were compable to |
cyclone fences. Ryan had no problem with a 6' in that scenario even running it to the |
front of the house. SF I agree, RS look at it from 2 prospectives - some like privacy from |
the sidewalk the other moving thru the community and having everything chopped up as |
visual barriers. I don't object to that. MB - if you look at spreadsheet given solid ence |
goes from 4 to 5 most municipatlies put restrictions on. the other municipalites think its |
important not to put at the back of the sidewalk. brought up the point of maintenance of |
the 1 foot from the sidewalk to the fence. don't see what's wrong with the current |
regulations. BH - slide #10 reverse yards - in thisd case lots of reasons not to do this |
because you are deading into someone's yard. Ryan concerned with aesthics. |
RS - not anxious to allow more impact. RO alot of subdivison ban fences and contridicts |
the feeling we want from the open front porches. we need to leave as it. RS - |
questioned the case that came up were they extending circumstances |
Consenseus to leave as is for both scenarious. |
Fences in Clear Line of Sight - staff directed in clear line of site. gave current |
regulations Slide #4 shows meeting the clear line of site. the clear line of site meant to |
allow vehicles and individuals visiiablity from sidewalka nd street. Slide #6 does not |
meet code Slide #7 shows how the fence is a clear obstruction to safety. Other |
municipalites regulations. Several alternatives available. One scenario that has come |
up is when there is a sidewalk set back more than 1 foot from property line. The term |
functional clear line of site is where the visiability should be. Staff's recommendation. |
Code process will receive input from pc, traffic & safety committe, and report to board. |
Looking to PC as outlined in last slide. |
Ryan - stockler on this one. more concerned about safety issues is not only fences but |
bushes. RO - another issue will impact clear line of site, boats, trailsers and |
winnebagos and impact your bakcing out clear line of site. asked about the code which |
could impede clear line of site. RS - the second one the functional line of site makes |
sense and is a good concept. MB - #1 remain the fence we shouldn't change them. |
Consensus of PC to remain the same for #1. Seond one - Ryan my initial feeling is to |
keep from sidewalk. if we change fence and went through what is the legal protection |
and someone has an accident is the VOL liable. JP - an act loca gove. tort immunity act |
and under that act adopting an ordinance are immuned from liability - you can be named |
in a suit but the immunities that are offered would be covered. MB - how many of these |
cases have you heard this situation, BH not that common but an aware of 1 under |
review and another one pending. not frequent occurrence because sidewalks already |
established and are 1 foot off property line. MB - don't see reason to be less restrictive |
on the fencing could result in an inconsistency on the street depending on the sidewalk. |
RS - looking for functionality clear line of sight. |
Detached garages - Last workshop was an item the vob asked stafaf to take a look at. |
had 2 cases in the past year but cases approved by vob. Why do we have regulations |
for detached garages, why regulations exist, current regulations, detached garage size |
example - 1,000 sq. ft., oversized garage which represents that element, did garage size |
for other municipalities and reported their findings. 22 more restrictive and 0 less |
restrictive. code amendment options, staff recommendation, aerial example the purpose |
of this is to show various property lines and shows the accessory structure larger than |
the principal on another lot abutting them, other options available. Staff asks questions |
in last slide. |
SF - keep it at 10%. Ryan keept at 10 and put a cap on the larger. RO agree seen |
some detached garages in Lombard that are big enough and need some caps on this. |
the cap being 1,000. |
Adjournment
9:45 p.m.