Village of Lombard Legistar System

Patrick Zuroske, project developer for DPS Companies, presented the petition. He

thanked staff and the commissioners for this forum. Mr. Zursoke stated that the request

is for an amendment to the conditional use for the addition of a third fuel dispenser. He

clarified that the station currently has two dispensers with one fueling position on either

side for a total of four fueling positions. He stated that the request for the additional

dispenser would increase the number of fueling positions to six.

Mr. Zuroske stated that the petitioner redeveloped the site in 2003. He referenced

before and after photos of the site. He noted that the petitioner wanted to create a new

upscale image while maintaining a neighborhood model. He referred to the staff report

that discussed the previously requested relief. Mr. Zuroske stated that they have had

extensive discussions with staff and the community regarding the facility and property.

He stated that the petitioner decided to move forwarded to upgrade the site within the

permitted parameters. He stated that the petitioner worked to incorporate the

improvements, previously suggested by the Plan Commission, into the overall

development. Mr. Zuroske stated that the Village of Lombard Chamber of Commerce

identified the site as runner up for the most improved property in 2003. He stated that

they worked within the parameters of the code and voluntarily complied with twelve of

the fourteen recommendations of PC 03-07.

The petitioner installed asphalt curbing at their own expense to mitigate previous

drainage issues. The landscaping improvements were not undertaken due to financial

constraints. He also noted that the rooftop air intake unit created an unusual noise to

neighbors and they worked diligently to repair the problem quickly. He also noted that

other equipment was moved from the south side of the property to another side to

minimize the noise. They pledged to be good neighbors and they stressed that this will

continue.

Mr. Zuroske stated that there were concerns in their previous submittal regarding

lighting and signage. He stated that all lighting has been completed within the lighting

requirements and this request does not include any additional lighting or signage. He

mentioned the problems with signage for the automobile service tenant. He stated that

all signage not in compliance with the ordinance had been removed to date. He stated

that they would work with the tenant to come up with an appropriate signage plan.

Mr. Zuroske stated that the 1995 conditional use approval was issued for the installation

of the canopy. He stated that the 2003 redevelopment included the removal of the

canopy and it was repositioned further north and west to mitigate any lighting issues as

well as create better vehicular traffic movement. He stated that the petitioner had made

a significant investment and the facility operation should include another dispenser. He

noted the letter submitted by Parent Petroleum regarding the need for an additional

pump to ensure their continued investment. He stated that an increase in dispensing

volume was needed to cover costs and remain competitive.

Mr. Zuroske noted that the staff report assessed the potential for traffic generation. It

was the judgement of the Village's traffic consultant that 363 pass by trips would be

created. At this level, staff and the petitioner believe that the third dispenser will not

create additional trips to or from the site. He stated that they believe that the facility has

not created additional traffic, but rather captures the traffic passing by.

He referred to another display and explained that the engineer utilized the traffic

software, Autoturn, to illustrate movement with the third dispenser. He stated that traffic

could move safely around the site. He stated that data suggests that convenience is

the single most important factor for a consumer to purchase gasoline. He stated that

this does not create a scenario that would affect the convenience of the consumer.

He concluded by requesting a positive recommendation to the Village Board.

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

audience spoke in favor of the petition. Joe Grimes, 25 E. Madison Street, spoke

against the petition. He stated that living around the corner from the facility, he had

rarely seen all four fueling positions in use. He stated that he has never seen a person

waiting at pumps. Therefore, he wanted to know what warrants the additional pump.

He stated that Citgo performs studies on size of tanks, time of delivery, traffic and

pumping ratios. He stated that the information should be provided and the actual

numbers analyzed.

Mr. Grimes asked where the additional demand was going to come from. He stated that

gas stations are usually not destination trips. He stated that there are no new large

developments coming and the facility would only reshuffle customers from other facilities

along Main or St. Charles. Mr. Grimes stated that a neighborhood location should not

have excessive pumps. He stated that the petitioner originally came in asking for more

pumps, but decided that four pumps were fine and the site turned out phenomenal. He

stated that the petitioner might come back asking for items in the previous petition until it

had been given piecemeal back to where he started. He requested that the

commissioners vote no.

Patrick Zuroske rebutted. Mr. Zuroske stated that they appreciate the passion of the

neighbor. He stated that they have an open door policy and have not received any

complaints from the neighbors. He pointed out that if they were to perform an extensive

marketing study there probably would not have been a station in Lombard. He stated

that he believes Mr. Patel, the managing partner, believes in the Village of Lombard and

has invested personal dollars to expand the business and make it successful. He stated

that they feel Lombard is a business friendly community. He stated that they have an

ownership group who is committed and want to continue to invest those dollars into the

future. Mr. Zuroske stated that he could not promise that there would not be any other

changes proposed for the site in the future, however they are solely looking at the

dispenser issue at this time. He stated that they want this location to maintain a

neighborhood image and there are differences between the dynamics and traffic

patterns generated at a North Avenue location.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark stated that the site was

previously granted conditional use approval for the gasoline service station, outdoor

displays, and the automobile service station. She stated that the petitioner now

proposes to install one additional island and dispenser at the subject location. She

noted that no additional alterations were proposed for the site. Ms. Clark stated that the

petitioner had addressed several of the concerns previously noted by the Plan

Commission. She stated that staff believes the proposed use is compatible with the

Comprehensive Plan and surrounding land uses. Ms. Clark stated that in order to

ensure that compatibility was maintained, staff recommended that the unloading of fuel

trucks not be allowed between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Ms. Clark noted that no additional signage was requested with the petition, however

Code Enforcement staff had issued a number of notices for illegal signage relating to the

automobile service tenant located on the subject property. She stated that staff

recommended that the petitioner work with the tenant to secure appropriate signage at

this time. Ms. Clark stated that staff had spoken with the traffic consultant regarding the

additional pump. She stated that an additional 363 passby trips would be made near the

gas station. She stated that staff believed that the numbers were adequate. Ms. Clark

noted that staff recommended that the petitioner submit a landscaping plan. She stated

that staff believed additional landscaping opportunities were available within the public

right-of-way given the tight layout of the site. She also noted that while a fence was

already present on the site, it was included as a condition to ensure that a mechanism

was in place for its replacement in the event that it was removed or damaged.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission

members.

Chairperson Ryan clarified that the staff report indicated the unloading of delivery trucks

should not be permitted between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Commissioner Olbrysh complimented the petitioner on the improvements. He referred

to the before and after pictures. He asked if Citgo had any uncovered dispensers within

a five-mile radius of the subject location. Mr. Zuroske stated that they do not. He stated

that if the four pumps beneath the canopy were in use on a rainy day, people would

probably proceed to another station. Commissioner Olbrysh asked Mr. Zuroske to point

to where the additional dispenser should be. He asked if the spacing would be an equal

distance of about twenty-two feet. Mr. Zuroske replied yes.

Mr. Zuroske commented on the fuel delivery. He stated that they have voluntarily

complied with the recommended hours. He stated that there might be occasions when

they may need delivery outside of those times to keep pumps open. He stated that they

have done a good job staying within those time frames, but once or twice a year they

might need a drop after 7:00 p.m. Mr. Zuroske stated that the unloading of a fuel truck

is a fairly quiet operation and asked if they may have some exceptions from time to time.

Chairperson Ryan stated that if the condition is placed on the approval it must be met.

He stated that some of the restrictions are there to ensure that the property continues to

be a good neighbor.

Mr. Zuroske asked if it were possible to base the times on hours of operation. Robert

Verchota, attorney for the petitioner, stated that there had been no complaints regarding

refueling in the past. He stated that he didn't quite understand the reason for the

restrictions. He asked Mr. Patel to address the process for refueling and stated that

many times it is not in his control when they show up. He stated that the unloading of

fuel trucks is safer when there are not customers. He asked the Plan Commission to

consider not making it an absolute restriction.

Mr. Patel explained the fuel delivery process. He stated that there is typically a twelve to

eighteen hour window for delivery. He stated that if the supply falls below a certain level

the tanks automatically shut off. He stated that they are requesting that normal

deliveries be between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. with the possibility that an emergency load

will have to come in outside of those hours. He stated that they typically like to be there

when the fuel is delivered so they can do manual readings.

Commissioner Flint referenced the layout. He noted the turning radius and stated that

the third pump is an equal distance from the other two. He stated that he was

concerned about the turning radius when a car is improperly parked near the third

dispenser. He stated that people would be blocked in. Mr. Zuroske stated that

consumer's parking positions are often inconsistent. He stated that it is possible the

vehicle could move up further and fuel. He stated that they would have people fueling

from the other position as well. Mr. Zuroske stated that the model takes into account the

largest passenger vehicle with the exception of a truck and it could potentially be tight.

He stated that they are somewhat restricted given the site. He stated that in the design

they look at probability and possibilities of that happening. They are confident that they

will maintain a good drive aisle in that location.

Commissioner Burke asked staff what was the background regarding the fueling time

provisions. William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the provision was picked up from

the last petition in response to concerns from the neighbors. The concern was that it

would create a noise as trucks traveled to and from the site. He stated that the

condition was one of the Plan Commission's original conditions, but the petition was

withdrawn before it went to the Board. Mr. Heniff stated that if the Plan Commission

would like to modify the condition it was within their purview.

Mr. Zuroske stated that it was unlikely deliveries would come past 10:00 p.m. He stated

that they have yet to see deliveries past that time or even between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00

p.m. He asked that the Commissioners use the language of normal business hours for

flexibility.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the provision was added as a result of public

testimony. She stated that if there were occasions where it had already been exceeded

and there were no complaints within the last year and one half as a result of those

occurrences, then she did not object to accommodating that.

Commissioner Burke stated that it was an issue of balancing noise from the neighbors.

He stated that the 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. causes more of a problem during rush hour

with Main Street traffic and having a fuel truck move around the street. He asked if that

was an issue. Mr. Heniff stated that if that were the case, the provision could be struck

in its entirety or use the business hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Chairperson Ryan stated that it should be held to hours or eliminate the condition

completely. He stated that every shipment outside of those hours could be justified as a

special circumstance.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked what were the operating hours. Mr. Patel stated from

6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Sundays.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the reason for not expanding the canopy was for

financial considerations. Mr. Heniff stated that the expansion of the canopy caused

concerns for the neighbor regarding lighting and the close proximity to the house.

Commissioner Melarkey stated that he was still concerned regarding traffic flow on the

site. He asked if the petitioner planned to put some type of protector to avoid damage to

the pump. He stated that the other two pumps have circular concrete items around it

while the third does not. Mr. Zuroske stated that they would put two small concrete

bollards on the ends to protect the dispenser. Commissioner Melarkey asked for the

dimensions. Mr. Zuroske stated that when you park at that location, there is a little bit

more room than what is shown. He passed around a photograph of what it would look

like.

Mr. Zuroske asked to address the canopy issues. He stated that they are serious about

being neighborhood friendly. He stated that they get a lot of business from people who

live adjacent to the site and they are serious about having people in the area shopping

there.

1. The property shall be developed in substantial compliance with the site plans and

building elevations prepared by Petroleum Equipment General Contractors, dated

October 11, 2004.

2. The petitioner shall meet all codes and ordinances of the Village of Lombard.

3. That the petitioner shall submit a landscape plan which increases the amount of

perimeter parking lot landscaping and right of way landscaping on the subject property,

with said plan being subject to the approval of the Department of Community

Development.

4. That the petitioner shall keep and maintain a solid fence of at least six (6) feet in

height along the southern and western property lines in conformance with Village Code.

5. That fuel truck unloading shall not occur on the subject property between 10:00 p.m.

and 7:00 a.m.

6. That the petitioner will secure a permanent wall sign consisting of appropriate

materials and construction as defined by Village Code for the automotive repair

business.

Q. PC 04-33: Text Amendments to the Sign Ordinance (Ordinance on Second

Reading)

The Village of Lombard requests text amendments to the following sections of the Sign

Ordinance for clarification and consistency purposes as it relates to various types of

Temporary Signs:

1. Section 153.206 Signs not subject to a permit

2. Section 153.214 Construction Signs

3. Section 153.215 Developer's Sign

4. Section 153.228 Real Estate Signs

5. Section 153.235 Temporary Signs

6. Section 153.501 Conservation/Recreation District Requirements

7. Section 153.502 Residential District Requirements

8. Section 153.503 Office District Requirements

9. Section 153.504 B1 & B2 Neighborhood Shopping District Requirements

10. Section 153.505 B3 & B4 Community Shopping District Requirements

11. Section 153.506 B5 Central Business District Requirements

12. Section 153.507 I Industrial District Requirements

13. Section 153.602 Definitions

2. Eliminate Construction Signs and Developer's Signs. These signs would be

regulated by the new "Developer Sign" provisions.

3. Modify the term "Real Estate Sign" to encompass all signs classified as Temporary

Pre-Development/Real Estate Signs, Temporary Lease/Rental Signs and Real Estate

Signs.

4. Remove setback requirements for developer and real estate signs.

5. Allow greater flexibility for development signs on new construction, multiple family

and non-residential properties. The amendments create a supply of square footage

available for development signs, with minimum and maximum square footages. These

provisions will provide flexibility to the developer to create signs that address their needs

and are readable from the public right-of-way.

6. Amend the Code for clarity and to remove incorrect references and citations.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that at last month's meeting the Plan Commission requested that

staff explore a formula for allowable square footage of development signs that would

allow larger signs at larger development sites. She noted that staff reviewed five

different formulas and tested each formula against several different development sites

within the Village of Lombard. Ms. Kulikowski referenced the information contained in

Table 1 of Appendix A. She noted that all formulas were based off of street frontage

because development signs will typically be placed at the property line abutting a public

street. She mentioned that street frontage will ultimately determine the level of exposure

necessary for a development sign.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff had decided to incorporate a hybrid of formula 4 and

formula 5. Formula 4 is based on the number of street frontages and gave a supply of

square footage to be allocated as deemed necessary. Formula 5 is based on the

allowable square footage for a permanent freestanding sign in the underlying zoning

district. Ms. Kulikowski referenced the language for the formula used in the proposed

text amendments:

Area: The total allowed signage shall not exceed the maximum square footage

allowed for a Freestanding Sign, by right in the underlying zoning district multiplied by

the number of street frontages abutting the subject property. Every property is entitled

to a minimum of thirty-two (32) square feet in area and the total area of all signs on the

property shall not exceed one-hundred twenty-five (125) feet. Signage may be allocated

in any proportion deemed necessary and is not limited to one (1) street sign per street

frontage.

Ms. Kulikowski illustrated how the formula would be applied by using two current

development projects as examples. She first discussed the Walgreens project, located

on a corner lot in the B5A zoning district. She stated that the site would be given a

supply of sixty (60) square feet because the maximum allowed size for a permanent

freestanding sign in the B5A district is thirty (30) square feet and there are two street

frontages. She noted that developer could place a sixty (60) square foot sign at the

corner of the property or place two thirty (30) square foot signs along each property

frontage. Another option would be to place a sixty (60) square foot sign along St.

Charles Road where there is more traffic and place a forty (40) square foot sign along

Elizabeth.

Ms. Kulikowski then referred to the Our Lady of Lebanon Church as an example, which

is located in the B4 zoning district. She stated that the site would be given a supply of

fifty (50) square feet because the maximum allowed size for permanent freestanding

signs in the B4 district is fifty (50) square feet and there is only one street frontage. She

noted that the developer could place one fifty (50) square foot sign or many smaller

signs along the street frontage of the property.

Ms. Kulikowski concluded that the proposed formula would provide flexibility to allow the

most appropriate signs for particular projects and locations and would help encourage

development signs as an economic development tool.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, added some additional comments. He stated that staff

sees a lot of value in development signs. He noted that the Community Development

Department receives a lot of calls about construction projects and development signs

would give the public general information as to what is happening with the property. He

also mentioned that staff did not want to go to the extent of mandating such signage, but

felt it could be negotiated as a condition of approval in future plan commission cases.

Mr. Heniff made reference to a memo handed out at the beginning of the meeting with

additional changes that were not included in the second staff report for this meeting. He

noted that after talking to counsel earlier, staff created a definition for the term

"establishment". This would clarify that businesses as well as religious and other

institutions were allowed temporary signs.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there were anyone who wanted to speak either against or in

favor of the petition. No one spoke in favor or against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then open the meeting to discussion by the Plan Commission

members.

Mr. Burke simply stated that he felt that the proposed text amendments provided a

reasonable solution.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The petitioner is requesting

approval of a one-lot plat of resubdivision entitled "7-Eleven Resubdivision" for a tract of

land located at 1 W. St. Charles Road. The Village has been working with 7-Eleven to

make improvements to the detention area immediately at the corner of St. Charles Road

and Main Street. Although construction is underway on the project, the land has not yet

been officially dedicated to the Village. This division meets Code, but it is considered a

major plat of subdivision as it involves the extension of the public right-of-way.

Therefore, it must be reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission and Board of

Trustees.

7-Eleven, Inc. has agreed to give the eastern detention area portion of this property to

the Village. Rather than creating a separate lot of record that would be deeded to the

Village, 7-Eleven is dedicating the improvement area a public right-of-way.

Also on the plat is an easement for the public improvements located immediately north

of the 7-Eleven store. The new lot will meet the provisions of the Subdivision and

Development Ordinance.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commisison. There were no comments by the members.

17th & Main Subdivision

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the workshop. Back in 2003 staff presented a

concept subdivision for this property which is roughly bounded by Main Street on the

west, 17th Street on the north, 20th Street on the south and Highland Avenue on the

east. He presented two diagrams. He referenced the properties and stated that the

subdivision was to include the 4 lots immediately to the west of Etz Chaim and east of

Main Street. The original plan did not materialize as the Commissioners had issues with

density, size of lots and the requested relief. A new plan is now being submitted back to

the Commissioners for their consideration since the proposed development is more

compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.

He referenced the single family unincorporated homes indicating they were on well on

septic and how staff would like to see a residential connector street. From an overall

development standpoint, the developer would need through streets and not cul de sacs.

Mr. Heniff mentioned the ridge line that cuts the property and how it sets up unique

drainage issues. Internally, sanitary sewer connections would be through the Glenbard

Wastewater Facility.

The concept proposal is for a 25 lot subdivision which would create a through street with

two cul de sac bulbs. One detention lot would be on 17th with a deepening of the

synagogue detention to make it a shared facility. One of the things that is different than

the last proposal, is that they are looking to acquire the back portions of lots on 20th

Street to create more lots.

There are environmental constraint factors as to the development of this property. He

showed the wetland areas and indicated how future development has to take those into

consideration. The proposed street extension would continue down and jog to 20th

Street. Phase II would put an additional home on the east side.

Some of the attractive things of this development is the lots are well sized and

consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The largest lot is 16,738 square feet with an

average lot being well over 10,000 square feet. This meets the full subdivision street

ordinance and the interior lots are buildable without zoning relief.

Staff is looking for direction from the Plan Commission relative to the following issues:

1. Lots 1 through 4 would be defined as through lots. The Subdivision and

Development Ordinance discourages such design, however, the developer is proposing

a landscape berm and easement area to be installed to the rear of the properties to give

it a nice appearance. The developer will also be using a theme and will incorporate an

entryway feature at the corner.

2. Lot 19 would require a variation from the Subdivision & Development Ordinance not

requiring the developer to install a temporary cul de sac bulb for future extension. Staff

could support this variation as only one lot would be affected, there are two cul de sacs

bulbs next to each other (one immediately west of the dead end where fire equipment

and vehicles would be able to turn around), and the detention facility could be fully

constructed based upon the concept plans. Staff also suggested a hammerhead.

Mr. Heniff concluded by stating that the developer does not have architectural design

elements for the houses but they wanted to get the input of the Plan Commission

relative to the idea of the subdivision before taking it to the next level. The petitioner will

likely come before the Plan Commission with a formal petition early next year if this

subdivision is recommended.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there was a reason that the street would not tie into Norbury.

Mr. Heniff showed the location of the detention facility and mentioned that you would be

incorporating the street on the back side of it. Staff thought that this movement is

unlikely and may only occur if wanting to go to Christ the King or kids walking through,

but traffic having to travel any distance would use 17th Street.

Commissioner Sweetser thought the subdivision had very good points about it but was

concerned that lots 19-25 would set the framework for any development to the south.

Being that they were the smaller sized lots and would not qualify as R1 she was

concerned that a mismatch would occur with new development to the south. Mr. Heniff

answered that they could take it as an R2 planned development but the idea in the

Comprehensive Plan is to have an average of 10,000 square feet. He thought it

important that two different developers should have unifying themes.

Commissioner Melarkey was concerned about the huge difference in setbacks.

Commissioner Burke mentioned that the Lot 19 variation does not bother him. He

thought the biggest problem is that Lot 2 is the second smallest lot on the plan and the

comment that the average lot is 10,000 is deceiving. He felt that the lot size was

skewered by two lots. If 15 out of the 25 lots were smaller than 10,000 square feet, they

are light on square footage. He believed that the overall site plan should have Norbury

lined up otherwise it creates a problem as the street is only 175 feet away from the 2

"T's".

Commissioner Sweetser indicated that if you want to extend Norbury, there has to be a

reason other than kids walking to school.

Commissioner Burke indicated that if you move it to the east edge, you might lose 1 or 2

lots but it gives the advantage of the lots being bigger.

Commissioner Melarkey stated that if you go straight, the homes would have to be on

the west side of the street which means they would back up into the wetland.

Commissioner Sweester indicated that if you have varying size of lots, you will have

great price differentials.

Mr. Heniff indicated that the developer tried to address that everyones lot meets the

underlying width and then play with the lines and shift accordingly. There may be ways

to adjust that.

Mr. Heniff indicated he was more concerned about meeting the median lot size and not

an average lot size.

Chairperson Ryan asked about Lot 6. The size is over 15,000 square feet and since it

back up to a large lot, asked if that could be buildable. Mr. Heniff indicated that they

both have 35' rear yard setbacks.

Mr. Heniff summarized that the Commissioners asked that the developer explore the

possibility of having Norbury extended as well as having the median lots not the average

size lots toward 10,000 square feet.

Chairperson Ryan also asked staff to find out exactly where the wetlands and buffers

are located because the Plan Commission should not be making approvals not knowing

what that could affect.

Commissioner Flint stated that by eliminating one lot, all the lots would be 9,700 square

feet.

Mr. Heniff indicated he would share their comments with the potential purchasers.