Plan Commission
Village of Lombard
Meeting Minutes
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Rocco Melarkey |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
7:30 PM
Village Hall
Monday, July 22, 2002
Call to Order and Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Ryan called the public hearing portion of the meting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Sondra Zorn and |
Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Committee Member Commissioner Daniel Broderick
Absent:
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, Senior Planner; and Janet |
Petsche, legal counsel to the Plan Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda. |
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws. |
Public Hearings
020485
Chairperson Ryan stated he received a letter from staff indicating that the petitioner was |
requesting a continuance to the August 19, 2002 Plan Commission meeting due to |
significant changes made to the site plan relative to the petition. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, |
that this matter be continued. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5186 525-7 |
020487
William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that as this is a text amendment request from a |
petitioner, as opposed to being one proposed by the Village, the petitioner will present |
the petition. However, staff will supplement the presentation and will discuss the |
proposed text amendment as it relates to established Village Code. |
Matthew Klein, 322 West Burlington Avenue, attorney for the petitioner, Cleaner's |
Deport, presented the petition. He introduced Bill Paul, 625 Plainfield Road, Suite 424, |
Willowbrook, IL for Cleaner's Depot and Steve Languilli, President of Columbia Dry |
Cleaning, 231 Edison Av., West Babylon, NY, the company that provides dry cleaning |
equipment and can provide expert testimony relative to the federal and state regulations |
as well as the equipment itself. |
Mr. Klein stated that his client has negotiated a lease at 415 East Roosevelt Road, |
within the High Point Shopping Center, and on a site that was previously occupied by a |
dry cleaner that had a plant on premises. The storefront is now vacant. While drop-off |
facilities are listed as permitted uses, on-site processing requires a code amendment. |
The propose of the amendment is to allow state of art dry-cleaning equipment to be |
operated in the stores. |
Mr. Paul noted that his firm represents Cleaner's Depot and their role is to do market |
studies and analysis and negotiate purchase contracts, which they have done for this |
site. Cleaner's Depot is a new concept in dry-cleaning in that they take large volumes |
and establish one set price for dry-cleaning. He described the proposed equipment and |
dry-cleaning system. |
Mr. Languilli described the dry cleaning system. Their equipment is certified to exceed |
EPA regulations. He described the closed loop system and described the waste |
removal processes. |
Mr. Klein noted the equipment is the newest equipment for dry cleaning. Solvents come |
in packaged drums connected to the dry cleaning machine and the solvents are |
returned to drums. This process ensures that the chemicals never have opportunity to |
escape into environment or working area. |
Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. No one spoke for or against the |
petition. |
Mr. Heniff then supplemented the petitioner's testimony with the staff report. He stated |
that processing of garments is only permitted in the I Limited Industrial District. He |
noted that although the request is for a cleaners establishment at 415 East Roosevelt |
Road, text amendments are be applicable to all properties in the same zoning district. |
Currently the Zoning Ordinance permits dry-cleaning drop off stations within the B1, and |
hence all other Business Districts, provided that processing of the garments is done |
elsewhere. As Section 155.103(C)(8) restricts variations from definitions and uses |
between zoning districts, the petitioner is seeking to change the text of the Ordinance to |
allow for on-site processing of dry cleaning items. The Code has been written in this |
matter since the 1970s. |
He stated that technological advances in the dry-cleaning industry have improved the |
operations and functions of dry cleaning establishments. Furthermore, as with gas |
stations, the regulation of these facilities are monitored and controlled by the Illinois |
Environmental Protection Agency. Each establishment is required to meet transporting |
and operational regulations to account for all chemicals associated with the business |
operations. |
Mr. Heniff noted that the petitioner argues that retail cleaners with on-site processing |
reduces the overall amount of vehicular traffic to a site, since truck transporting of |
garments to off-site locations is not needed. Moreover, as the drop-off facilities are |
already permitted within all business districts, the incorporation of on-site processing |
should not significantly change the traffic impacts of the business use. |
Mr. Heniff then discussed the history of the 415 E. Roosevelt Road Site. The tenant |
space on the subject property was occupied by "One-Hour Cleaners", a dry cleaning |
establishment from 1990 to 2000. The Certificate of Occupancy noted that |
perchlorethylene was used on the site, which means that an on-site dry cleaning was |
being performed on the site. The petitioner is looking to occupy the premises where the |
previous use was located and in a similar fashion as the previous use. Staff believes |
that although a Certificate of Occupancy was issued, the function of the business was |
inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance as it is currently written. Moreover, as the |
storefront has been vacant for two years, any non-conforming provisions would no |
longer be applicable. |
Mr. Heniff then discussed the applicability to the Village as a whole should the |
amendment be adopted. There are eleven establishments currently operating in the |
Village, of which seven have on-site plants. Staff also surveyed a number of other |
municipalities in the County to see how they regulate on-site dry cleaning activities |
within their business districts. The majority of communities do allow for on-site |
processing in at least one of their business/commercial districts. Several municipalities |
allow the activity subject to further references or conditions. These caveats tend to |
either cross reference with other code regulations or restrict the overall size or functions |
of the establishment. |
Should the amendment be considered, staff feels that placing additional restrictions on |
the operations of the dry-cleaning activity would be beneficial to the Village. Moreover, |
by placing this activity as a permitted use but adding defined limitations, the Ordinance |
will also provide additional guidance to the property owner or tenant as they establish |
their business. |
Staff believes that there is little difference in the functional aspects between dry-cleaning |
facilities with or without on-premises plants. Both frequently locate in neighborhood |
convenience centers and are intended to serve the local consumer/shopping needs of |
the public. Therefore, this amendment is consistent with the intent of the underlying |
zoning district and the Comprehensive Plan commercial designations. |
Staff put together draft language for a text amendment. He then mentioned follow-up |
discussions with Village Counsel and referred to a memo he wrote. He submitted |
modified language to the proposed amendment that clarifies the regulations. Staff |
recommends approval of the text amendment as modified. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser referenced the proposed conditions and asked why the Fire |
Department review and approval condition is necessary as the IEPA already would do a |
review. Mr. Heniff |
Noted that there are a number of different chemicals associated with the dry cleaning |
process and he wanted the Fire Department to have latitude and be a check and |
balance in addition to the IEPA regulations. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked about the proposed signage. Mr. Paul noted that the unit |
is at the westerly most portion of the building. They will have signage similar in nature to |
Panda Express. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked about the anticipated volume of the business and asked |
if the petitioner was looking to do a drive-through facility as well. Mr. Paul stated that |
they would like to do that but they have not looked at it in this particular case. He stated |
that sometimes the site does not lend itself to it. |
After due consideration of the petition and the testimony presented, the Plan |
Commission found that the proposed amendment complies with the standards of the |
Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Plan Commission, by a roll call vote of 5 to 0, |
recommended to the Corporate Authorities, approval of the petition associated with PC |
02-19, as amended as follows: |
Sec. 155.412 B1 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING DISTRICT |
REQUIREMENTS: |
(14) Dry cleaning establishments for the cleaning and pressing of dry goods, as follows: |
a) Receiving stations, processing to be done elsewhere. |
b) Dry cleaning establishments, including processing, provided that all of the following |
requirements are met: |
1) That the dry cleaning use shall be a service retail use and shall not consist of the |
processing of garments from other dry cleaning establishments. |
2) That no more than one (1) dry cleaning machine is permitted. |
3) That the dry cleaning process shall only use solvents approved by the Fire |
Department. |
4) That all activities associated with the dry cleaning establishment shall be operated per |
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency regulations. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5179 Text |
020484
Laura Sawicki, Equiva Services/Shell Oil, 904 South Roselle Road #342, Schaumburg, |
IL presented the petition. She noted that Shell opened their station at the corner of |
Routes 53 and 64 in April, 2002. She noted their request for conditional use approval |
for outdoor sales of retail merchandise on the subject property. Ms. Sawicki described |
the proposed outdoor sales layout, noting that there are five pump islands on site and |
would like to alternate the proposed windshield washer rack and oil rack at each pump. |
Shell is looking to make these products readily available for customer convenience. She |
then noted the location of the soda racks at the end of the island and the propane |
storage rack near the building that would be locked. In front of the store, two locked |
cases for washer fluid or soda are proposed. Lastly, in the southeast corner of the lot, a |
pallet area for mulch or firewood is proposed. |
Jeb Bennett, Equiva Services/Shell Oil, sales consultant for the site reiterated the plan |
and offered to answer any questions. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one to speak in |
favor or against the petition. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, then presented the staff report. He noted the request |
and the development history of the site. He noted that the proposed conditional use is |
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the site is surrounded by a wide |
variety of non-residential uses and noted that Menard's also received conditional use |
approval for outdoor sales. |
He noted that the staff recommends approval of the petition, subject to conditions and |
read them into the record. He did call out one condition relative to a light pole and utility |
line conflict on the property. While this pertains to the original development, staff |
thought it was appropriate to tie this issue to the proposed conditional use, as the |
relocation of the light poles in the parking lot could impact the location of the outdoor |
sales items. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan |
Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if the racks would be anchored, especially the propane |
rack. |
Mr. Bennett responded by stating that the propane rack is a heavy steel rack that is |
against the side of building. He noted that when you have 16 to 20 full or empty tanks in |
the rack, it is quite heavy. Chairperson Ryan asked if the other racks will be bolted to |
ground. Mr. Bennett responded that they have not seen a need for that either in the |
past, but they will bolt them if needed. |
Commissioner Sweetser inquired about the outdoor display and the Village's ability to |
monitor the outdoor sales as proposed. In response, Mr. Heniff noted that the |
conditional use would be tied to the proposed plan. Any significant modification or |
expansion of the outdoor sales would require an amendment to the approved conditional |
use. |
Commissioner Burke inquired about the portable skids proposed at the southeast corner |
of the site and noted that the plans do not define the size. Mr. Bennett noted that mulch |
or firewood would be stored on the pallets. He noted that up to eleven pallets could be |
placed there, but they would make sure that it will not impede traffic. |
Commissioner Burke stated that he was concerned about safety and aesthetics of |
storage in front of building. Mr. Bennett stated that they could reduce the height and |
they will not line the whole front of the store; they will find other places to put it. Upon |
further discussion, the Commissioners suggested an amendment to the conditions to |
make the review of the storage subject to the Director of Community Development. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5188 600 W |
1. That the outdoor sales and display of merchandise shall be in accordance with the |
plans submitted as part of this request and shall adhere to the following provisions, and |
shall be subject to the review of the Director of Community Development: |
a. At least four feet of walkway should be maintained in front of the convenience store |
building at all times. |
b. Sales and display areas must not impact vehicular traffic. This includes automobiles, |
tanker trucks and Fire Department apparatus. |
c. Clear line of sight areas must be maintained. |
d. Outdoor sales and display of merchandise must remain ancillary to the principal land |
use of the establishment. |
2. That the propane tanks be designed and located per Lombard Fire Department |
regulations. |
3. That the petitioner shall relocate the parking lot lighting conflict with the existing |
watermain on the premises. |
020486
Enactment No: 404 East North Avenu |
Business Meeting
Approval of Minutes
Public Participation
DuPage County Hearings
Chairperson's Report
Planner's Report
Unfinished Business
New Business
Subdivision Reports
Workshops
Adjournment