Village of Lombard Legistar System

President Mueller presented the proclamation to Trustee Fitzpatrick on behalf of the

DuPage Theater Visual and Performing Arts Coalition. Trustee Fitzpatrick introduced

Bob Fritz, retired Willowbrook Art Department Chair and accomplished glass artist.

Trustee Fitzpatrick reported that the Arts Coalition has hosted a mask-making workshop

in cooperation with the Park District at Sunset Knoll. Coincidentally, it was held on the

same day as the Environmental Concerns Extravaganza, but all of the masks were

made from recycled junk. She invited the public to view the masks, which are now on

display in windows of the downtown stores while having a cup of coffee downtown.

Starting this Sunday members' works will be on display on permanent exhibit at the

National University of Health Sciences. She invited the public to come meet the artists

this Sunday and possibly purchase original works. On October 9, the Arts Coalition will

have a booth at the farmer's market where the public can come to find out about

upcoming programs. Artwork will also be on display at the library.

President Mueller commented that yesterday's Senior Fair was a success, that flu and

pneumonia shots were made available, as well as information about services for seniors

in the community. He stated that in a ceremony yesterday, the two Seniors of the Year

were presented with $50 gift certificates to Weber Grill. Trustee Fitzpatrick introduced

the male and female Seniors of the Year, Bill Kaiser and Natalie Islip. Ms. Islip has

volunteered at the York Township Meals on Wheels for 26 years, and she is 94 ½ years

old. Mr. Kaiser has volunteered at the Food Pantry for 20 years, and they had to pull

him off the job to receive his award yesterday. The Village has received 3

complimentary letters about Mr. Kaiser. Mr. Kaiser reported that over the last several

years, the number of residents the Food Pantry is serving has doubled. He also stated

that the pantry is open Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. President Mueller said that

Food Pantry collection bins will be reinstalled at the Village Hall. He thanked Mr. Kaiser

and Ms. Islip for their service to the community. Mr. Kaiser thanked the people in the

communities of Lombard and Villa Park for their support and contributions to the Food

Pantry. He reported that the Milton Township Food Pantry is about to go under. They

have been serving 500 people a month, where our pantry is serving 1600 people a

month, which demonstrates the support from our communities. The pantry is sponsored

by the Clergy Association and is located at 155 South Main Street in the basement of

the United Methodist Church of Lombard.

Mueller presented the proclamation to Sue Beilinda and Nancy Spratz on behalf of the

Lombard Women's Club Juniors. He thanked the women and groups like theirs for all

the work they do in the community, especially the annual TLC Camp for children with

cancer. Ms. Bulinda reported that theirs is a group of 63 women made up of singles,

married with young children and teenagers, grandmas, all young at heart, and that their

focus is philanthropic activities. She listed some of their events; the Princess Program,

the TLC Camp and the camp for children with cancer and their siblings. They are

hosting a Halloween party for NEDSRA at the end of the month and reverse

trick-or-treating at Lexington. They will be bringing food to all the fire stations in honor of

Fire Safety Month. She invited all interested to attend the annual fashion show at Drury

Lane on November 10th.

President Mueller invited Chief Seagraves to speak about Fire Prevention Week. Chief

Seagraves reported that Fire Prevention Week will begin this Sunday. He stated that

one of the fires commemorated this week is the Great Chicago Fire and hopes that

everyone will practice fire prevention year round. Wednesday night October 10th at

7:00 will be the Fire Department Open House. At 7:30 Station One there will be a repel

drill, and the new ladder truck will be on display. There will be activities for all ages. He

reminded everyone that it will be time to turn back clocks and that when they do that,

they should also check the batteries in their smoke detectors.

Trustee Soderstrom stated that since he missed the last Board Meeting, he had a full

mailbox to go through tonight. He thanked President Mueller for the gift of the coffee

mug and read the quote printed on the mug: "Teamwork is the ability to work together

toward a common vision; the ability to direct individual pleasure toward organizational

objectives. It is the fuel that allows common people to attain uncommon result." Then

he reported receiving an envelope from Pete Kramer. Inside the envelope was Mr.

Kramer's pride newsletter ripped in half and in handwriting, it says, "Liar" and then

"pride-shame." To those in the audience and those viewing on television, he stated that

his comments are not directed to them; that everyone has a right to their own opinion on

issues that face this Village. He stated that he is not a liar, that he is not ashamed and

that he is not capable of such a classless act. In response to Mr. Kramer, he stated that

he did get his attention. He also stated that if he intended to make Trustee Soderstrom

feel bad or offended, he has failed miserably.

President Mueller reported that the women's and men's clothing store Forever 21 has

opened in Yorktown Shopping Center in the Shops of Butterfield. Forever 21 was

established in 1984 in Los Angeles, California. They have over 400 stores in the U.S.

and Canada. They offer inexpensive and trendy fashions for women and men. Most of

their clothing is manufactured in southern California under their private label.

The President announced that Tuesday, October 9th will be the grand opening of the

new Boudin San Francisco Sourdough Bread Restaurant in the Shops of Butterfield.

Boudin began baking bread in 1849 and has now expanded into full restaurants. Ours is

the first in the Chicago land area and will be serving lunch and dinner. Yesterday, Chef

Ferdinand himself brought the mother dough here from San Francisco.

Adobe Grill has also opened since our last Board Meeting. We welcome these new

PC 07-03: 19W471 Roosevelt Road and 351 E. Roosevelt Road (Lombard

Crossing) ((Continued from October 4, 2007) (Request to Continue to December 6,

2007)

Requests that the Village take the following actions on the subject property:

A. Approve an annexation agreement.

B. Annex the portion of the subject property not currently within the Village of Lombard.

C. Approve a map amendment rezoning the entire property to the B4 Corridor

Commercial District.

D. Approve a conditional use for a planned development, with the following companion

conditional uses, deviations and variations, as follows:

1. For Lot 1 (Parcel A) of the proposed resubdivision, approve:

a. A conditional use pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance

for a drive-through facility;

b. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(19)(a)(2) of the Sign Ordinance to allow

for more than one wall sign per street frontage;

c. A deviation from Section 155.414 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot area from 40,000 square feet to 36,549 square feet;

d. A deviation from Section 155.414 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot width from 150 feet to 137.54 feet.

2. For Lot 2 (Parcel B) of the proposed resubdivision, approve a deviation from

Section 155.414 (F) of the Zoning Ordinance reducing the required east interior side

yard from ten feet (10') to two feet (2').

3. For Lot 3 (Parcel C) of the proposed resubdivision, approve:

a. A conditional use pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance

for a drive-through facility;

b. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(19)(a)(2) of the Sign Ordinance to allow

for more than one wall sign per street frontage;

c. A deviation from Section 155.414 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot area from 40,000 square feet to 30,799 square feet;

d. A deviation from Section 155.414 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot width from 150 feet to 121.03 feet.

4. For Lot 4 (Parcel D) of the proposed resubdivision, approve:

a. A deviation from Section 154.506 (D) of the Subdivision and Development

Ordinance to allow for a lot without public street frontage;

b. A planned development use exception for a storage center in the B4 District;

and

c. A variation from Section 155.508 (B)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to

the Standards for Planned Developments with Use Exceptions to allow a use exception

to exceed 40% of the total floor area for the overall planned development.

5. For Lot 5 (Parcel E) of the proposed resubdivision, approve:

a. A deviation from Section 154.506 (D) of the Subdivision and Development

Ordinance to allow a lot without public street frontage;

b. A deviation from Section 154.507 (D) of the Subdivision and Development

Ordinance requiring an outlot to have at least thirty feet (30') of frontage along a public

street;

c. A deviation from Section 155.414 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot area from 40,000 square feet to 20,203 square feet for a detention outlot;

and

d. A deviation from Section 155.414 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the

minimum lot width from 150 feet to 138.17 feet for a detention outlot.

6. For each of the proposed lots, grant a variation from Sections 155.706 (C) and

155.709 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance reducing the required perimeter parking lot

landscaping from five feet (5') to zero feet (0') to provide for shared cross-access and

parking.

7. Approve the following Sign Ordinance deviations:

a. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(6)(e) to allow for more than one

freestanding sign on a property;

b. A deviation from Section 153.235 (A) to allow for more than one shopping

center sign; and

c. A deviation from Section 153.235 (E) to allow for shopping center signs to be

located closer than 250 feet from each other.

d. A deviation from Section 153.234 (F) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow

for free-standing signs to be located closer than seventy-five feet (75') from the center

line of the adjacent right-of-way; and

8. Approve a preliminary major plat of resubdivision. (UNINCORPORATED &

DISTRICT #6)

Appointments and Re-appointments - Various Boards, Commissions and

Committees

Re-appointment of Pamela Bedard, Sandra Hill and Geraldine Kuehl and appointment

Andy Draus, Zachary Wilson and Moon Khan to the Community Relations Committee;

re-appointment of Jay Tovian, Frank Sibr and Dennis McNicholas and appointment of

Martin Carroll, Garrison Neilson and Khanitha (Joy) Czarnowski to the Economic &

Community Development Committee; re-appointment of Clark Adams, Jennifer Jendras,

Ann Mason, Nancy Schukat, Winnie Lyons and Darlene Bartt to the Environmental

Concerns Committee; re-appointment of Edward Murphy, Bill Ware, David Wellehan,

James Hogan and Mary Cation and appointment of Brad Janisch to the Finance

Committee; re-appointment of Art Kuehl, John Kaforski, Ken Blakeslee, Art Frerichs,

Dan Mahal and David Arnold to the Public Works Committee; re-appointment of Nancy

Sherretz, Jean Nolan, Robert Difino, John Schwarz and appointment of Ken Snead and

Bob Corbino to the Transportation and Safety Committee.

Trustee Moreau brought up several items for Board discussion regarding possible

changes to Ordinance 3423 regarding voting on appointments to committees of the

Village. The possible changes to the ordinance would not take place immediately, but

would go into effect in 2009. The purpose of the discussion was to address some of the

challenges to appointments to committees by some of the Trustees in the past and to

realize the possibilities that might be out there regarding appointments to committees.

This discussion is brought up specifically for debate at this time, not for a motion. One

of the goals of this effort is to assure that the greatest number of residents be able to

participate in local government efforts and to insure that we infuse the ongoing supply of

ideas to the respective committees and to reduce the possibility of any one person

having too much influence on government decisions by sitting on too many committees.

And finally eliminating the problem of excessive no-shows that lead to quorum

challenges. Specific suggestions would be limiting committee participating to one

committee at a time, introducing term limits of three terms on one committee, where

after you can serve on another committee and then come back to the first committee.

This would make for more well-informed committee members. The final change

suggested is mandating respectable levels of attendance with an arbitrary suggestion of

a minimum attendance at 75 percent of meetings, insuring that no one be allowed to

miss three meetings in a row or they would be asked to step down from that committee.

President Mueller confirmed that if after discussion changes were to be made, they

would take effect in 2009. He suggested discussing items one by one. He asked if

there was any interest in establishing term limits of three, two-year terms.

Trustee Fitzpatrick supported the idea of term limits and stated that it would limit the

influence that any one person would have over Village business. She stated that it

appears that the Village is a closed club that changes very slowly. Term limits create an

automatic and natural climate for change. She acknowledged that there are exemplary

and experienced committee members that she hopes will serve on other committees at

the end of their term limit. She believes that the lack of term limits results in staleness

and an aging of the entire body, which makes committees less representational of the

community. She believes that some sort of attendance rule is necessary.

Trustee Gron agreed that attendance requirements should be implemented, taking into

account the possibility of illness. He stated that term limits would be detrimental to his

committee, for instance, because of the special expertise that committee members bring

to the table. He also mentioned that term limits would need to be staggered so that a

committee is not wiped out after three terms.

Trustee Tross stated that since elected officials do not have term limits, he does not

support term limits for volunteer committee members. He commented that over the

years it has been gratifying to see interested individuals step up to serve on committees

but that it is pathetic how few people actually do come forward. He stated that except

for two appointments tonight, all others are currently serving, and he is unaware of any

individuals who were turned away from being appointed. He said that each committee

chair should be grateful for the people who volunteer to serve on their committees and

that he does not support limiting terms.

Trustee Soderstrom supported keeping committees active and vibrant and stated that

that is already the case. Rather than how long someone has served on a committee, he

feels it's more important that they are effective. He agrees that since elected officials

are not subject to term limits, committee members should not have term limits. He also

stated that especially on the Finance Committee, there are members who expertise

lends itself to that particular committee. He does not believe that reappointing members

to a committee tips their power or influence in the Village.

Trustee Moreau commented that when you rotate people in and out of different

committees, their experience on one committee affects their future decisions on a later

committee. She agrees that since there is a democratic process of electing officials,

there should not be term limits for officials. No one votes on committee members, and

they have a lot of power. She sees no connection between no term limits for elected

officials and instituting term limits for committee members. She stated that there is a

resident in the audience that would like to be on a committee.

President Mueller stated that the same resident has not applied to be on a committee

but that he has spoken to her and has it under consideration.

Trustee Tross indicated that he would be in favor of increasing the size of committees to

accommodate any residents interested in being involved.

Trustee Moreau loved that idea. She said that it's more about objectives and goals that

the specifics of her suggestions at this time.

President Mueller clarified that we are not talking about putting more people on the

committee but adding people as advisors to the committee and pointed out that the

ordinance does not call for this.

Trustee Moreau suggested adding advisors to committees as another idea.

Trustee O'Brien stated that committee members are volunteers and that if they are

having attendance problems, committee chairs need to speak to them individually and

dismiss them if necessary. He indicated that he might be in favor of term limits.

President Mueller took a poll regarding implementing term limits with the result of three

in favor and three against. He asked who was in favor of removing a member from a

committee after three consecutive absences.

Trustee Soderstrom stated that he would entertain further discussion regarding

absenteeism of committee members but that first he heard 75 percent of meetings as a

minimum, then termination after three consecutive absences. He indicated that since

these ideas were just presented tonight, that he would like more time to think about

them.

Trustee Tross stated that he was against legislating term limits and attendance

requirements into an ordinance. He emphasized that we are volunteers and stated that

the attendance problem is one of communication, not legislation.

Trustee Fitzpatrick explained that the three absences in a row idea came out of the fact

that attending 75 % of the meetings could mean dismissal after missing two, and that

seemed harsh. She feels that missing three meetings in a row would indicate that you

are either unwilling or unable to attend. She reminded members that this is not a club; it

is important Village business. If someone misses three meetings in a row, they might

need to be replaced.

Trustee Soderstrom restated his desire to have more time to review the proposal.

President Mueller asked whether the proposal was to dismiss after missing three

meetings or after missing three consecutive meetings. Trustee Moreau said that her

proposal was to dismiss after missing three consecutive meetings.

Trustee Tross stated that as elected officials, Village Board members have to live within

the laws that are passed. He pointed out that at the beginning of the discussion, the

emphasis was to open our doors and invite participation, but that now we are putting

limits on that participation. He said that he thought the purpose of advisory committees

was to open dialogue and invite citizen input.

Trustee Gron stated that he has served on committees where the absenteeism led to

not having a quorum and not being able to take votes, and that hindered committee

business. He said that there is a concern here, but that whether we handle it this way or

another way does not need to be decided tonight.

Trustee Tross clarified his position by saying that he is not suggesting that if someone

doesn't show up for meetings they shouldn't be removed. He asked why we are

legislating it. If you legislate it, you pre-empt exceptions. He gave the example of the

Lilac Committee. There are a vast number of people on that committee, and historically

many do not show up for the first four or five meetings. He stated that this is not

something that should be legislated. If a chairman has people on his committee who are

not showing up for meetings, it is his obligation to suggest that they need to be replaced.

President Mueller said that historically, committee members have been replaced for lack

of attendance.

Trustee Moreau stated that we do not get the benefit of the members' input if they do not

attend.

Trustee Soderstrom stated that since this he has been on the board for six years and is

serving on his third committee, he has had the unpleasant job of dismissing committee

members for lack of attendance. He suggested that rather than set lines in the sand,

committee chairmen need to address the issue directly with members of their own

committee, not create legislation.

Trustee Fitzpatrick pointed out that the Lilac Committee is not a standing committee.

Trustee Moreau stated that she did not see a problem with defining expectations so that

committee members knew at the start the scope of their commitment. She understands

that even if new rules are created, committee chairmen will still need to deal with

situations as they arise.

Trustee O'Brien said that he sees no problem telling prospective committee members

meeting dates and times and expectations of attendance. He has been in the position to

ask a member to step down. He stated that members are volunteers. He expressed

frustration at not being able to vote due to lack of a quorum after having put so much

time and effort into these meetings.

Trustee Tross stated that it is incumbent upon committee chairmen to discuss this issue

with their members and explain the protocol and action.

President Mueller stated that the next item to consider would be limiting residents to

serve on only one committee at a time.

Trustee Soderstrom pointed out that we have two types of committees; citizen advisory

committees and statutory committees, and they serve different functions. If the intent is

to prevent a resident from serving on two citizen advisory committees, then he is

amicable to that. But if the intent is to limit someone from serving on one citizen

advisory committee and one statutory committee, he is against that, because their

expertise may be beneficial to both committees.

President Mueller indicated that this ordinance only applies to Trustee citizen advisory

committees.

Trustee Soderstrom stated that he would not want to see someone precluded from

sitting on a citizen advisory committee because they also serve on a statutory

committee.

Trustee Tross indicated that the only person he knows that serves on two committees

serves on Finance and Community Promotions Committees. He believes that the

Community Promotions Committee is an ad hoc committee, neither citizen advisory nor

statutory. He stated that this person is valuable to both committees because of his

financial expertise.

President Mueller confirmed that the only person serving on two committees serves on

the Finance Committee and the Board of Local Improvements, which is a statutory

committee, so that there is no one currently serving on two citizen advisory committees.

Trustee Moreau stated that this is not currently a huge problem, but it is about setting

expectations. She explained that she knows someone who came to President Mueller

saying that they wanted to serve on multiple committees. If it's in the ordinance, we

have met our objectives and can tell them no.

President Mueller stated that he has only had one person come to him wanting to serve

on two committees, and he told him that we don't do that. He said he didn't need an

ordinance to tell him that.

Trustee Soderstrom indicated that if we are talking about the Community Relations

Committee, Economic & Community Development Committee, Environmental Concerns

Committee, Finance Committee, Public Works Committee and Transportation and

Safety Committee, then he would be in favor of limiting participation to one committee.

He doesn't know if we need an ordinance but agrees with the philosophy.

President Mueller stated that it could just be added to the ordinance. He asked if there

was any interest in limiting participation on Trustee committees to one committee. By

show of hands, it was passed. The board will move forward with this item. The issue of

Mr. Heniff explained that the petitioner is requesting for zoning relief in order to construct

an attached garage at 1020 South Kenilworth Avenue. This was recommended for

approval by the zoning board of appeals. There were subsequent continuances. The

petitioner has provided a revised site plan that does slide the detached garage further to

the north on the property. The request based on the latest plan would still require relief

from this board to allow it to be constructed on the property as proposed. And as such,

the relief is still before the board for consideration. Staff would be happy to answer any

questions you have relative to this position.

Trustee Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Heniff to put the plan drawing on the screen. She stated

that this is the second time we are seeing a revision from the petitioner. My first instinct

was to agree with staff when they had come to the right conclusion on this variance for

denial. But the situation that created the need for the variance happened a long time

ago, and now it wants the petitioners, the staff and the board now. At the urging of

Trustee Gron after a similar circumstance he dealt with in his district, I have been more

willing to look at this situation and make an effort to work on a compromise. I commend

the petitioners for making significant changes to their variation. It's made it less intrusive,

and I commend staff for really working hard with these folks. I wish it would have come

little closer to compliance than it does, but as you see they have pushed the garage

back seven feet, then taken two feet off the back and made the garage be two feet

longer before. So it does indeed cross the front of the line of the house. Being set back,

how far back is the house from the sidewalk?

Mr. Heniff answered 80 feet.

Trustee Fitzpatrick said this is really far back. So now from the street, the appearance is

that it's a more unified construction. It doesn't look like it's in their front yard anymore, it

looks like its part of the general construction of house and garage. And it's much more

appealing. They still do have their green space on the sides for their play area for their

young children. Their family is expecting a pair of twins, and they have a preschooler.

So safety is of vital importance to be able to keep them safe. Playing in the front yard

right now is not possible. So I understand going back any farther crashing into the deck,

and they are not willing to start construction of a new deck just as yet. So that being

said, it's a rare exception, but I certainly would like to see this variance take place for

this family. Under most circumstances I would vote against any attempt to put a

detached garage in front of a residential structure. If any further improvements are

made to this property, I respectfully ask this petitioner or any other owners of this

property to continue moving in the direction of compliance. I move to accept the Zoning

Board of Appeals' recommendation on ZBA 07-11 and approve petitioner's request for

variance, as revised for presentation this evening.

Mr. Heniff explained that what is being brought for consideration today is text

amendments to create a new zoning district or R O zoning district. That was considered

by the Plan Commission at last month's meeting, and they recommended approval.

This item brought to you this evening does not zone any properties into the R O district,

rather what it's intending to do is to create a zoning district that is more restrictive than

the current R 1 single family residence district. All properties upon annexation to the

Village should be approved, would automatically be classified into the R O district; then

it would be up to the purview of the trustees to adopt an ordinance establishing a zoning

district for respective properties.

The proposed R O district would set parameters as far as additional square footage for

lots. Right now, the R 1 district has a 10,000 square foot lot size minimum. What is

being proposed here is a 15,000 square foot in the R 0 district. That is similar to what

DuPage County has within their R 3 district regulation. It also attempts to recognize the

semi rural nature of some of these lots that are unincorporated at present. It also would

establish a 67 percent open space requirement. While the concept of the R O district

was created in consideration with discussions with some of the members of the York

Center Community Coop, this could be applied to any of the unincorporated properties

that is outside the Village jurisdiction at this time if the board deems it appropriate.

Again, staff would be happy to answer any questions you may have relative to this

petition.

President Mueller called on Daniel Wayman to address the Board.

Daniel Wayman spoke and thanked Mr. President, for this opportunity to speak to you

on this issue. I am here to represent Tom Lambert, who is the current president of the

York Center Cooperative explaining that he is the past president. Tom couldn't make it

tonight, and he asked me to stand in. I would suggest to you that I have an initial

qualification that I grew up in Lombard up on Charlotte Street just north of Pleasant Lane

School. Those of you I hate to date myself, but I think the gray in the hair gives it

away. A number of years ago when I lived up there as a child, the area along Gray

Street, there was an open field. When I had the opportunity as the father of a couple

children to live near Lombard, I was very attracted to the York Center Community

Cooperative because of the open space that it provides and the opportunity for my

children to do things like catch frogs and see wildlife. That is partly afforded by the fact

that our lots are currently on average 32,000 square feet. In previous discussions with

staff, we had talked about the ordinance having a 20,000 square foot minimum

requirement. A lot of our members, the vast majority of our members, in fact, are

concerned about our neighborhood being redeveloped at some point in the future. We

would like to have things like an R O zoning as a protection against that. I would be

very interested in hearing why this proposal has a lower number. With that said, I guess

I can answer questions.

President Mueller asked that Mr. Wayman state his address.

Daniel Wayman, 619 Rochdale Circle.

Mr. Heniff said that in response to the determination as to whether 15,000 square feet

or 20,000 square feet would be the appropriate lot dimension, there are a few things that

staff looked at. First we did not want to create a situation whereby we would create

nonconforming properties or parcels as represented by a commission level of 15,000

square foot provision is what all the properties in the York Center Co op have under

DuPage County zoning regulations. Ultimately, that would mean whether it remained

unincorporated or was annexed to the Village that provision does not change. One of

the things that staff also did in the analysis is we also realized that one of the large

controlling mechanisms within the York Center Co op area is the lot width rather than

the lot area. Within the packet in the draft ordinance that you have, is a lot width

provision of 100 feet. Ultimately, that would be one of the more controlling or more

difficult regulations to create for a subdivision on the property. Those are some of the

rationales that we looked at as far as controlling the 15,000 square feet. Ultimately, as I

previously noted, the R O district does have a potential that the York Center Co op could

be used for other properties if it wanted to be applied to some of the other properties

farther down on Larents Road. The 15,000 square foot would be more consistent with

that standard. Ultimately, whether the ultimate number is 15,000 or 20,000 square feet,

the lot width provisions that we do have in the packet up to a depth of 100 feet would be

the most restrictive of the requirements. Lastly, we wanted to make sure we won't

create nonconformance by annexation by a larger lot sized beyond 15,000 square feet.

Trustee Soderstrom said that he thought Mr. Heniff has covered most of the major

points. His last comment regarding the lot size, I think, is prudent; that is, this is in line

with what DuPage County would be requiring or what their minimums would be. This

discussion and this R O evolution came to pass during the discussion with the York

Center Co op area, which I have been involved in many of those meetings, I agree with

Mr. Heniff it is applicable to other areas of our Village now and potential areas of our

Village. I think it's important that we be sensitive to the neighborhoods as they wish to

maintain their unique nature. Therefore, I do support this R O district and would make a

motion to pass this on first reading.

Trustee Tross said there is a Figure 2 on the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment

where you have identified nine locations. Does passage of this ordinance amend our

comprehensive plan to suggest that those nine locations are R O?

Mr. Heniff answered that it did not.

approval of the proposed text amendments that are under consideration this evening.

There were text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, the Sign Ordinance and

Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Ultimately the Comprehensive Plan Amendment

consists of two items; one, adopting the Roosevelt Road Ad Hoc Committee report, and

secondly, the Planning Commission did consider and discuss further direction per the

Village Board the desirability of the 25 percent cap on the service businesses within the

corridor. The Planning Commission ultimately stated that they did not want to codify that

into the Zoning Ordinance, but rather wanted to make it a goal and policy of the Village

and incorporate that into a Planning Commission approval of the Comprehensive Plan

as a goal and recommendation with the review of that the proposed percentage amount

in three years.

The ordinances are meant to codify those actions. I would be happy to answer any

questions you may have.

Trustee Soderstrom said that he commented at the first meeting in September, this

document is the result of a lot of work of the Ad Hoc Committee and staff. I think it sets

forth the right direction for the Roosevelt Road corridor. As you know, I did support the

specific limit on service retail because I believe that the direction of Roosevelt Road is

as a major retail corridor. However, the committee did not see it that way. The Plan

Commission has elected to make it an objective and a goal but not to set a specific

amount. I will accept those opinions of those two groups and would like to see this put

in effort so that we can begin on the road to reach some of the goals for Roosevelt Road

that we are all in favor of it. So, therefore, I would make a motion to approve the text

amendments to the Lombard Zoning and Sign Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, PC

07-31.

Presidenrt Mueller asked if there a request to waive first on this? We have two items

that refer to this corridor, Item D, and Item E. Item E we are requesting waiver first. If

we waive first on this item also, Item D, I have been in instructed by staff we would

eliminate Section 3. E-3 would be unnecessary, so we would just be approving 1 and 2.

If you want to do a waiver of first, just think about it. First of all, there is a motion. Is

there a second?

Trustee Tross said that he wouldl second the motion, but in reading staff write-up and

what's before us, I was under the impression that they still wanted the two weeks to dot

the "Is" and cross the "Ts". And that was the reason for -- Well D or E we need the

extension on the moratorium.

Mr., Bayer said that item D creates the text amendment to create the district. Item E

amends the zoning for certain identified properties to this new district. If it is not

approved tonight with the waiver of first, because the moratorium ends this evening, in

order to have the moratorium on redevelopment -- petitions stay in place until the

ordinances are in place -- you would need to extend the moratorium period.

Trustee said that he is not opposed to a waiver of first. This has been a long time

coming. We have had a full month to review this, from the last meeting prior to the Plan

Commission, to the Plan Commission and now. So I incorporate a waiver of first.

President Mueller said is has been moved and seconded to approve Item D with the

waiver of first. Discussion?

Trustee Tross said that first off he wanted to echo the chairman of the Roosevelt Road

Ad Hoc Committee, Trustee Soderstrom. I was alternate to that. I want to applaud our

staff, the property owners that were involved. Recently, I got out at the 700 block of

Main Street and was on Roosevelt Road, and I talked to a few business people. And

they were kept abreast of what was going on via their own conversations back and forth.

And I think this is an excellent step. Trustee Soderstrom and I disagree over the 25

percent service industry. And I can appreciate his position, and I am sure he

appreciates mine. But somebody brought up an idea. The Village of Lombard does

everything under traditional use categories where some other communities use a

technique called a special use permit. I am wondering, could that type of an issue

apply? And I don't know if I direct that to Community Development or to legal counsel.

And what I am referring to is a town like Aurora or Naperville, certain items apply

traditional use, like drive-ups square footage and the type of business, but then the type

of business that can locate there, some require special use permits, which

administratively are approved, rather than traditional use which gets approved statutorily

through petition, through filing and so on. Is that possible? Could we, in fact, in the

B4A-PD create and just take these conditional use or these service businesses and say

you must apply for a special use permit?

Mr. Bayer said that if it's going to be staff approved, there would have to be objective

criteria so that staff would not be making a subjective decision as to which ones can

come in and which ones would not come in. In other words, you would be saying this

type of use is permitted as a special use if these five criteria are met. And if they are

not, then staff would as a ministerial act issue the certification. If there was an issue as

to whether or not they were met and staff felt they weren't, the petitioner could then

appeal that staff decision to the Appeals Board.

Trustee Tross said that what I am asking is does saying special use permit for certain

types of service businesses answer the question that Trustee Soderstrom has brought

up that other people have brought up? We don't want to be inundated. If we create it,

does it answer the question; or is it just more bureaucracy?

Mr. Bayer said he didn't think it would answer the question.

Tresutee O'Brien asked what is the legal that we set? If we tell somebody they can't go

into Roosevelt Road because they --

Mr. Bayer explained that you set permitted uses within your various zoning districts, so

there are uses right now that would not be permitted in that district, just like there are

uses in your various business districts. Some are set up for larger retail; some are set

up to accommodate service industry uses. And so you do that when you establish this

ordinance, and this new ordinance does have what permitted uses are within the

corridor.

Trustee O'Brien said that we had a problem with stores in Lombard downtown. There

seems to be quite an argument going on. Various stores are coming in, and people said

there is too many of them. Does that differ from what you are talking about?

Attorney Bayer answed right, it is different because once a use is permitted; there is no

limit on the number of that use within the district, except what the market will bear.

Trustee Soderstrom said and Trustee O'Brien, if I can also add to your question, that

was one of the considerations that the committee spent much, much time on, permitted

versus conditional use, in order to make the Roosevelt Road corridor the best that they

felt it could be. Although I wasn't there, I am sure the Plan Commission approached it

from the same direction. So while there is quite a bit in this document -- and as Mr.

Bayer said, within this zoning district there are permitted and conditional uses.

Conditional uses mean they can't come in without our agreement. That process within

the Ad Hoc Committee was looked at extensively.

Trusee O'Brien said that if they do come in, then all of them are allowed to come in.

Trustee Soderstrom said that it's permitted, they come. If it's conditional, they don't.

PC 07-32: Map Amendments to the Lombard Zoning Ordinance and

Comprehensive Plan and an Amendment to the Roosevelt Road Corridor

Development Moratorium Ordinance

1. The Village of Lombard is proposing a map amendment to rezone Roosevelt Road

Corridor properties currently zoned B3 Community Shopping District, B3PD Community

Shopping District Planned Development, B4 Corridor Commercial District or B4PD

Corridor Commercial District Planned Development to the B4A Roosevelt Road

Commercial District or B4APD Roosevelt Road Commercial District Planned

Development.

2. Approve amendments to the Village Comprehensive Plan.

3. If deemed necessary, grant an amendment to Ordinance 5974, adopted January 4,

2007, which established a development moratorium along the Roosevelt Road Corridor.

The amendment would extend the time period of the previously approved development

moratorium to coincide with the final approval of the aforementioned map amendments

by the Village Board. (Waiver of First requested for this ordinance only).

Mr. Heniff explained that Sears wants to re-establish the auto service center that was

previously operated by K-Mart. Since that activity had not been occurring for over a

12-month period, a new conditional use is required. They also want to make some

minor but compatible modifications to the inside of the building. As part of this petition,

staff worked with the petitioner to try to bring the western portion of that property up to

code where it's practical. The plan shows additional landscaped islands. It also

addresses the existing legal nonconforming conditional use for outdoor sales and

display areas right in front of the building on the overlapping area, as well as the garden

area which is on the west side of the building. That is included in your petition. And

lastly there was a condition of approval that talked about the clothing recycling collection

facility that is located on the property. When this petition was originally filed, the

property owner expressed to the petitioner their lack of desire to having that as part of

this petition. However, staff did add a condition of approval saying that if the property

owner did not want it on the property, that it should be removed unless they make

application to the Village. Staff has had conversations with AMVETS, and AMVETS is

on file for a November 2007 Planning Commission and public hearing to consider the

zoning actions to allow for them to stay in operation on this property.

Trustee Tross requested that this item be pulled. He asked if the property owner has

agreed to AMVETS' petition before the Planning Commission. Mr. Heniff said that they

have agreed. Trustee Tross asked if the clothing collection was advertised with the

original petition. Mr. Heniff stated that it was not. Trustee Tross requested that

paragraph 3 regarding the clothing center be removed from this ordinance. He said that

this issue should be at the property owner's request, not the Village.

Trustee Tross stated further that we need to very clearly delineate what is considered

the outside sales area because Item Number 2 says "fencing the perimeter garden

area." One of the nice things about this is it continues as a garden area to the west of

the building. But it is his understanding, and K-Mart's assumption that having made this

application they will now also be able to use beyond the permitted yard sale sign that

area that runs west of the main entrance on the north side of the store, underneath the

canopy of the main store. Are they correct?

Mr. Heniff stated that if it is within the established garden area or underneath the

canopy, they can do that.

Trustee Tross indicated that somewhere he wants that delineated so that staff doesn't

call him annually asking to expand the 30-day sale. He stated that one item that was not

here that was just passed, one of the cornerstones was a more cohesive Roosevelt

Road, in the Ad Hoc Committee, to get cross access where you can. He called to the

Board's attention the cross access to the south at Point West. He believes we should

be seeking cross access to the east from Heritage Cadillac. He stated that the property

owner, Gellard, believes that should be executed as part of this agreement.

Trustee Tross moved that Section 3, the recommendation that involves the clothing

item, be removed. I believe there should be an addition to the cross access to the east

of the property, and I believe that there should be clearer delineation for outdoor sales

as described. He also moved that this ordinance be passed on first reading. Motion

was seconded by Trustee Soderstrom.

Tom Isley, an architectural planning manager with Sears Holdings, explained that the

landscape plan that they have does delineate the landscaped area with a dotted line.

Trustee Tross stated that he wasn't referring to the landscape of the parking lot. Our

ordinance requires that outside sales go through a conditional use process. That fenced

in garden area, we were codifying that. He explained that what your store manager and

what we have gone through year after year after year is the area underneath the canopy

of the building, which would be the front north, they come and they get a 30-day permit

for outdoor sales. That expires and they want to go further. Since they are before the

Planning Commission, this was the ideal time to have that outside sidewalk sale

codified. It does not appear to be codified in the diagrams. He suggested that since it

was advertised, it should be codified.

Mr. Isley stated that it was identified on the application, and it was identified on the

condition of use application.

He further stated that the canopy on the front of the store, also delineation of

merchandise on the front, it was delineated that way on the application that we filed. On

the easement agreement with the Cadillac dealer, if there is access in there now, as far

as cars going back and forth, the landlord doesn't control that, doing any modification.

Trustee Tross commented that whether it be the property to the south, which is the Point

West Condominiums, or the property to the east, he is requesting that the landlord grant

cross access, not that they build it or maintain it. Unlike the Mobile Gas Station where

they literally had to build ramps and cross access. All this does is say you will allow it at

a future date. Am I stating that correctly? That's all I am looking for. That's not Sears'

decision.

Mr. Isley indicated they would grant access.

Mr. Heniff stated that staff will follow up with the property owner trust informing them of

this request that's being brought forward. Staff also did go to the site. There is about a

one-foot offset between the Heritage property and the Sears Holdings property, so it

physically could be done.