Village of Lombard Legistar System

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 §153.207 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

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,

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

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.

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.