Village of Lombard Legistar System

Bill Heniff, Senior Planner, indicated that petitions PC 03-26 and 03-27 were created as

separate petitions as the legal descriptions differ between the cases. However, as

many of the issues associated with the petitions were interrelated, they will be heard

simultaneously.

Representing the petition was Michael Rothbart, Rothbart Constriction, 1945 Techny

Road, Northbrook, contract purchaser of Lot 1 of the proposed resubdivision. He

referenced their 2002 petition for the development that was heard by the Plan

Commission and noted that as they withdraw their petition prior to final approval by the

Village, a new public hearing is required. He stated that they intend to resurrect their

2002 plans essentially as they were presented, but with an additional request for a

vacation of a portion of Progress Road from Garfield Avenue to their existing property

line.

He then discussed the development proposal. The first issue is the resubdivision of the

property into three parcels. Lot 1 will have a multi-tenant industrial building of 45,000

square feet in size and consisting of six tenant spaces. A rezoning to the I Limited

Industrial District is planned for this site. Lot 2 will be rezoned to the CR District, but no

development will be proposed for the site. Lot 3 is the parcel along Grace Street. Lot 3

is not planned for any development at this time. When it is eventually developed, we

agree that it would be subject to all development ordinances.

He then described the Lot 1 building. It will be constructed of precast concrete and 22

feet high and will include recesses to enhance elevation of building. He showed a

materials board and noted the colors to be used on the building and the overhead

factory doors. Each of the units has its own entry and there are 104 parking spaces.

Handicapped parking spaces will be located within easy access to each unit. In the

back, they will provide a depressed dock with sufficient maneuvering space. Each unit

will have gas and electric service. Three detention ponds will be provided on site. The

buildings will have abundant landscaping and referred to their other buildings in town. In

summation, he feels this project will blend in with the surrounding community.

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

of or against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. William Heniff, Senior Planner gave a

synopsis of two petitions. He noted that the petitioner's plan mimics the Village's

Comprehensive Plan approved in 1998. He noted that PC 03-26 creates a subdivison

to establish three lots of record and establishes a framework for PC 03-27. The lot

division is intended to divide the property according to the Comprehensive Plan - Lot 1

will be oriented toward other industrial properties, Lot 2 will be for the existing wetlands

and Lot 3 will be a remainder parcel. He noted the three variations associated with this

petition. He also noted that the plans being brought forward tonight are essentially the

same as those presented to the commissioners last year.

The proposed Lot 3 will be greater than one acre in size. The Subdivision and

Development Ordinance classifies any development on a lot of this size as a major

development and full improvements would be required. The proposed Lot 3 area was

discussed by the Plan Commission as part of a November, 2001 workshop and is

subject to further deliberation as to the appropriate land use for the site (i.e., commercial

use versus residential use). Staff feels that providing public utilities and improvements

within this right-of-way should be tied to the to the actual development proposal rather

than the creation of Lot 3 itself. He also referenced proposed condition that requires

future division to include full public improvements.

The petitioner's request also includes a variation requiring every lot, private or

otherwise, to have frontage on a public street. As noted earlier, the proposed Lot 2 will

be a land-locked parcel that is intended for open space purposes. Since development

prospects for the proposed Lot 2 are essentially nonexistent, access to this site will

primarily be for access and maintenance purposes. He noted that staff is supportive of

this request due to the unique physical and environmental constraints associated with

the property and recommends a cross-access easement be provided across Lot 1 to Lot

He also indicated the petitioner is considering the possibility of developing Lot 3 at a

later date. He noted this site would be the subject of future discussion with the

Commissioners and the Village Board.

Mr. Heniff then discussed PC 03-27. He noted that the rezoning request is intended to

mirror the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that as Lot 1 is the only lot being developed

as part of this petition. He referenced the planned development and its associated

deviations and noted that staff feels that this request is consistent with the classical

intent of planned developments.

He noted that the proposed building is compatible with surrounding land uses. He noted

that IDOT will be doing the full reconstruction of North & Main and the improvements will

address a lot of existing problems. He referenced the terminus of Progress Road and

noted the request for vacation of the right of way. He further described parking and

landscaping requirements, which are proposed to meet code. Staff recommends

approval subject to conditions.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission

members.

Commissioner Burke stated that the Commissioners all agreed last year that the plan

was a decent one. He asked about the vacation of Progress Road and whether that

could be an issue.

Mr. Heniff stated that staff is aware of it. No one else currently takes access from it right

now. As a practical mater the property to the south can still access the unvacated

portion of Progress Road since it extends beyond Garfield Avenue. Commissioner

Burke asked if cross-access is something we could make a condition. Mr. Heniff said

that they could if they desire. If there is a concern at the Board level that we could have

them prepare the plat as such.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked about the cross-access to Lot 2 and that it might be more

imaginary than real. He has no problem wit this plat of subdivision; it is a very unique lot

and a good way to do the project.

Commissioner Sweetser concurred that the request is the best use and best plan for the

site. Referencing the cross-access and vacation of Progress Road, she asked if that is

something we need to request by consensus to make sure that it happens. Mr. Heniff

stated that it sound as if the consensus is to put it on the plat.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about the floor plans and that some are mirrored. Mr.

Rothbart noted that units 1, 2 and 6 have been enlarged in back to give us a better ratio

of land to building. He also noted that the floor plans are a preliminary and they show

10 to 20 percent office space.

Mr. Heniff pertains to the zoning petitioner of the voluntary annexation of PC 03-. gave

the pc action but does not have the authority to vote on the annexation. he gave the

three different actions that could be. petiton on for the ozning request.

Pam Schau, duper of district 44, on bhelafob BO education. rqeuqest here to

annexation. clarification is called highland hills school wedo have a fiarfield school but

this is not the one being considered.

No one in favor of this petitioner.

Thomas Smogie, 431 E. 15th place. have 2 concerns. first is the exsiting parking lot

configuration. like to see the intent of it maintained. right now it eliminates cut thru

traffic and also if the subject property can have a restriction of eliminate a priavete road

or right of way. would like to see exisitng traffic maintained.

Steve Garrett, 440 13th Place, Lombard, surrounded on 2 sides by Lomabrad and th

enevironmental impact on on his yard. 10 acres of prime real estate that lombard has

comprehensively planned for intensive zoning. he showed 2 pcitures of his yard under

water. the property is it is on a flood zone., inquired about the flood mapsbeing changed

and exluced the proeprty as the school. the fllod zone has gotten better and not worse.

this annexation about growth for lobmard. wonders why they want to annex now. he

described his neighborhood and how the annexation woudl force annex them. He

doesn't want to be squeezed out. likes the neighborhood as is and wants to retire there.

He thanksed olbrysh for his no vote for PC 03-21. As far as the school, they are

seeking better water. I don't b3elieve that the school could succeed from the hh

santary. heard thru the grapevine that the school has talked to some developers. This

is bad for Lombard and don't see good for it. District 44 needs money and will pro\bably

seell to developer and will evenually lead to big taxes for the residents. He mentioned

the York Fire Protection District and how it is shriniking. He referreed tto the CP that this

is part of the plan and evenutally part of our neighborhood. In the proposal for the

condos that a letter is required from the township granting a watermian. he doubts they

will grant it. Against this and so is the neighbrodhood. their children don't attend that

school anymore.

Vince Maga, 1517 S. Stewart. thank the commisison for the notifications about the

annexation and addressing 15th place and grace. that is big concern about traffic. his

concern lie wit the annexing of 15th place as row. are there plans to annex 15th place

as row. Mentioned about the servicing of highlind road and concerned about servicing

the row. He isconfused about the statements pertaining to both sides of grace up to

lombard standards. he thought it was owned y yrok township. does that mean street

lights, sewers, etc. on both sides if this incorporation goes through. in the pamphlet

water hinges on the approval of insignia homes. what happends if the annexation of

03-21 doesnt go thru but if it doesn't go thru what will happen. why couldn't we do this

thru dupage and let dupage address these problems. if this is annexed, this is prime

real estate. insigniia owns condos next to this proeprty and mentioned a swamp. is there

plans in work to sell to insignia. district 44 has financial problems so are they going to

rezone to Cr and then insignia rezone to an R4 and then they get stuck with more high

density residenicy. The zoning of CR is proper.

Pam noted that integrity of the drive. if it were open you could go from one side to the

9other. there have been blocks put in there so you cannot go thru. the board

vehemently stands behind that the division continues to remain there. the tenants

regularly ask to change that and they answer no. Feel comfortable in that won't change.

Main interest int he annex is the water situation. builidng built in 1970's the a/c depends

heavily on the water in the system but the high iron content of hh water has resultedin

wear out of equipment. they could disconnet from hh and they will remain with sanitary.

their intent when the waterlines they would propose to recocnnect with hh. they talked

to a developer who called them who expressed an interest in the property. she

mentioned they were not in any position to dsicuss anything on the proeprty. The

zoning with DuPage county they could od. Manor hill lschool enrollment projections that

the building is large eough to accommodate additional growth in that part of the village.

don't see a need to reopen hh school the Board of Ecuation reviews their assets very

serviously and don't like to seel real estate. She can't speak on tjheir behalf but selling

the building proper is not at all in their thinking at this point in time. they have rented out

to educationfacilities and they get calls regularly for that space. don't see school proper

being sold.

Mr. Heniff, the propety isnot within the york center fire portioen district but glendbard fire

ptotection so no disconnection. with respect to flooding concerns you can contact

dupage county to see the maps but the petition is not requesting any changes to the

imperivious surfaces. annexing 15th place state statutes require that far sides of row so

the only poriton of 15th place at the interseciton would be annexed and the rest would

reamin in york township.

DR - both sides of grace street - they had imformation that grace street would be

improved. BH would be annexed to the far side but no improvemsnt but nothing

changing.

Schhol district filed an annexation petition and includes map amndment and cu. t6he

district connecto to village utilities. Planning - continuigy thru providence sub to south.

CP is withing the area to be considered and willbe by BOT. ZO- when annexa it

beocmes R1 wants to be CR and is consistent with other distruct uses.

CU - for private eductiaton facility. He mentioned the businesses located in the school.

the district is looking for assurances that they could lease space to other private edcuc.

institions.

Transportionat - mentioned the cut thru traffic.

S&D Ord - mentioned the insignia home project and then could be provided.

Sewer will be unaffected. mentioned the siutation if they didnt annex.

Mentioned approvl with conditions.

RS - they try to listen to remarks. again water and flooding is issue while those

comments came from someone but once property is annexed is there any way the

village could look at those issues. BH - 1989 zoning approval, the school had conditions

the n/e corner of property there is an existing detention facility to address s/w issues.

RS right now it it meeting the req. of DuPage county.

RO - flooding on theosuth side of the building there is an aeration pond and that would

handle a lot of water problems. BH that poind is to serve the providence sub. RO the

other issue is that is the BOT annexs the property they have the authority to change to

from R4 to CR. BH if it goes to CR that guarantess that there will be a future public

hearing because no pbulic hearing with out it.

Gary Taylor, representative for Cesario Builders, presented the petition. He stated that

his client was applying for a conditional use to eliminate an eyesore building and

construct a building that the Village can be proud of as well as enhance Main Street. Mr.

Taylor noted the request for a conditional use for a three-story building and approval of a

conditional use for a planned development. He also noted the two deviations to reduce

perimeter landscaping from five feet (5') to zero feet (0'). Mr. Taylor indicated that they

were able to accommodate approximately two to two and a half feet of landscaping

rather than none by shifting the building. The second deviation was to reduce the

transitional landscape yard fence from eight feet (8') from the property line to the

property line. Mr. Taylor then identified twelve (12) accompanying exhibits.

Mr. Taylor introduced Robert Homa, the project manager for the development, Benedict

Buzzman of Webster, McGrath, and Ahlberg Limited, and Matthew Ladd of Gary F.

Weber and Associates.

Robert Homa, architect for Cesario Builders, described the site plan and building design.

The site is located on the northeast corner of Main and Ash south of downtown

Lombard. Mr. Homa gave the dimensions of the proposed building. He mentioned the

facade elements including a cornice. The ground floor will provide commercial space

and the second and third floors will be residential. The building will have a full sprinkler

system. The first floor will house a dental practice and two or possibly three other

tenants. The basement area will be used for storage, office space, and a break room for

the dental facility. The remaining space will be utilized for mechanical storage. Mr.

Homa explained that five apartments are planned for both the second and third floor.

The buildings will have two stairwells and an elevator.

Mr. Homa stated that vehicular traffic would access the site from two driveways. One

driveway will be located on Ash Street and the other on Main Street. Mr. Homa

acknowledged that staff recommended traffic flow on the Main Street side be restricted

to right turns in and right turns out only. He stated that they were supportive of the

recommendation. Mr. Homa indicated that there would be forty-one (41) parking spaces

including two (2) handicapped spaces. Fifteen (15) of the spaces would be reserved for

the residents while the remaining twenty-six spaces (26) will be for commercial users.

Mr. Homa noted the staff recommendation to provide a cross access easement for

parking and vehicular circulation in the event that the adjacent site was redeveloped.

He stated that the site plan depicted the easement, but they would not be in favor of this.

The building to the north has two retail components on the first floor and residential units

on the second floor. Mr. Homa noted that the easement would cause the loss of one

parking space on the adjacent lot that currently appears under parked. Mr. Homa also

stated that that they wanted to ensure that their development met the parking

requirements and a cross access easement may allow neighboring tenants or visitors to

occupy requisite parking spaces.

Mr. Homa noted that the building will be setback further than required by the ordinance.

He stated that foundation landscaping would be provided. Mr. Homa mentioned the six

foot (6') fence in the transitional side yard. He stated that placement of the fence eight

feet (8') off the property line would allow two feet (2') for snow and would place

landscaping on the other side of fence. Staff suggested that the fence be placed on the

property line. Mr. Homa stated that they were comfortable with the recommendation.

Mr. Homa noted the building and ceiling heights. The ceiling spaces would be thirteen

feet (13') in floor to floor height. He mentioned the distance of the building from

neighboring uses and stated that there would not be any shadowing effects on the

residents to the north. Mr. Homa discussed the building aesthetics. He stated that the

building facade materials would consist of face brick with glass (solar gray). He noted

that the parking lot lighting would have glare reducing mechanisms and Cesario would

provide photometric plans with final submittal if necessary.

Mr. Homa stated that signage would be placed above awnings in cast stone areas. He

also noted that shifting the building back two feet (2') lessened the encroachment of two

columns into the line of sight area on Main and Ash.

Benedict Bussman, of Webster, McGrath, and Ahlberg Limited, discussed the property

survey. He noted existing building and topography. Mr. Bussman stated that the

development would meet the detention requirements by utilizing an oversized detention

vault system. Mr. Bussman indicated that there currently is not existing detention onsite.

Grading of the property will match the sidewalk grade.

Matthew Ladd, landscape architect for Gary R. Weber and Associate, discussed the

transitional landscaping yard. Mr. Ladd stated that there would be foundation plantings

and shrubbery on the south side of the parking islands. He identified the types of trees

and shrubs that were depicted in the site plans. Mr. Ladd stated that the foundation

plantings would meet the ordinance and will highlight the entry and building facade.

Gary Taylor summarized the presentation. He noted that they received staff

recommendations and will comply. Mr. Taylor noted that they were not in favor of the

cross access easement. Mr. Taylor also stated that they were not in favor of planting

trees along Main Street as they would block the signage of the first floor tenants.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

No one spoke in favor of the petition.

Arlene Meeks, 438 S. Third, the owner of the house located directly east of project

thanked the commissioners for voting against the four (4) story building previously

proposed. Mrs. Meeks stated that this project is an attractive proposal. The current

building is two (2) stories and this is three stories (3). Mrs. Meeks stated that her main

concern is the fencing. The Zoning Ordinance requires a ten foot (10') landscape buffer

area with a fence no closer than eight feet (8') and she would like to see that maintained.

Mrs. Meeks indicated that she would rather have no fence then a fence that close. Mrs.

Meeks also inquired about the elevation of the subject lot in comparison to her driveway.

She stated that there is currently a curb there and believed that the curb was keeping

the water away from her property. Mrs. Meeks stated that she would like an explanation

of where the water will go. She stated that she believed the subject property is eighteen

inches (18") higher than their driveway.

Al Shiewe, 25 E. Maple, stated that he was not sorry to see Blake Lamb go. Mr. Shiewe

stated that when he received the initial notification letter and saw their request he was

apprehensive. He mentioned the rezoning of the area to B5A and that this lot was of

much interest. Mr. Shiewe stated that he would like to see the buffer zone requirements

upheld. He said that he believed the cross access easement would cause additional

traffic down the unimproved alley. Mr. Shiewe also noted snow removal. He inquired

where snow be plowed to if the fence is required to be moved to property line. Mr.

Shiewe stated that the subject lot is higher than the lot to the east and he is concerned

about snowmelt and salt run off. He stated that he didn't believe that having

landscaping on both sides of the fence was a significant issue. He also stated that there

will be more traffic on Ash Street because of the no left turn onto Main Street. Mr.

Shiewe state that he didn't see where the parking lot lights will be placed. He also

inquired about the proposal to end the fence thirty feet (30') away from the property line.

Mr. Shiewe stated that overall he was pleasantly surprised with the plans but would like

the zoning ordinance upheld.

Mr. Taylor rebutted. He noted the drainage and height elevation of the lots. He stated

that the area is basically level and the water drains to the south, with the exception of a

small portion that might be drained toward the Meeks'. He stated that the section

draining toward the Meeks' would be eliminated with the proposed detention. He stated

that the topography of the two properties is the same. Mr. Taylor stated that he feels

they will be improving the situation. Mr. Taylor addressed the transitional landscape

yards and the fence along the east property line. He indicated that the two and a half

feet (2.5') of landscaping mentioned would only apply on Ash Street and will not abut a

residential area. He stated that they tried to move the building as far away as possible

from the residents. He noted that the setbacks are larger than required. Mr. Taylor

showed the site plan with the street lighting locations. He indicated that there were four

(4) fixtures, two (2) on the north side of the property and two (2) on east side. He stated

that they will be installed in compliance with Village ordinances. In reference to the

fence, Mr. Taylor stated that originally they proposed a berm area and were asked by

staff to put up a fence. The compromise was to put the fence along the property line to

protect neighbors and still provide landscaping. He believes it is an improvement to

what is existing. In conclusion, Mr. Taylor addressed the standards for conditional uses

and planned developments. He stated that he believed this development met those

standards.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner I, gave the staff report. Ms. Clark mentioned the existing

property and the previous workshops. She summarized the requests. Ms. Clark noted

the IDRC comments and referenced one change in the report. The Engineering

comments should read "the domestic and fire suppression water service shall be

brought in from the 6" watermain on Ash Street." Ms. Clark mentioned the surrounding

land uses and the proposed development would cause minimal shadowing. Ms. Clark

stated that staff suggested the elimination of the coach walk. She stated that the

ordinance does require one parkway tree every forty feet (40') which would require three

(3) trees for the project. She noted the fence in the transitional yard as a compromise to

the developer's wish to eliminate the fence entirely. Ms. Clark stated that the

development would meet parking requirements. She mentioned the cross access

agreement would not give parking rights to the neighboring property. Ms. Clark stated

that the proposed development would be compatible with the comprehensive plan and

surrounding land uses in addition to meeting the requirements for a planned

development. Staff recommends approval of PC 03-25, subject to the conditions listed in

the staff report.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Flint stated that the proposal appeared to be a good development and

the petitioner appears to have taken into consideration previous concerns regarding the

site. He inquired about the effect of the cross access easement on the neighboring

alley.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated the cross access easement is meant to ensure

better traffic flow of the area. The cross access easement was requested in the event

the property to the north was redeveloped.

Commissioner Flint asked how would the situation be rectified if there was an influx of

traffic on the unimproved alley. Mr. Heniff replied that the issue could be revisited at that

time.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he was very surprised with the development and

believed the proposal was by far the best and very attractive. He stated that he liked the

exterior design and that they have taken into account some of the concerns. He asked

if the underground storage of water would meet the detention requirements. Mr. Heniff

replied that they must meet the requirement.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he liked the idea of right turns only on Main Street.

He asked where the future clock would be located. Mr. Homa showed an exhibit and

pointed to where the clock would be located. He indicated that it would match the

building elements between the second and third floor windows. Mr. Heniff stated that

the clock could come back to the Commissioners for site plan approval.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked how close the lights on the north side of the building

would be to the neighboring property. Mr. Homa stated that the parking lot lights are

right on the property line but the building to the north does not have apartments on the

first floor. The light pole would be no closer than ten feet (10'). Commissioner Olbrysh

asked the height of the lights. Mr. Homa stated that he didn't know the height, but the

lights will comply with code. He stated that they would provide photometrics.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about the encroachment of the two columns into the line

of sight area and whether it should be addressed. Ms. Clark stated that was something

that needed to be addressed with the petitioner and asked if the columns could be

moved. Mr. Homa indicated that the entire building would need to be moved.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she didn't find it objectionable and suggested that it

be addressed as a condition of approval.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if a fence was planned along the north lot line. Mr.

Homa stated that the north face of the adjacent building is right at the lot line. He stated

that there is a rusted chain link fence that travels the distance of the lot line.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if there would be a solid fence there. Mr. Homa stated

that the building to the north has an enclosed dumpster and their intention is to put a

new fence there.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the cross access easement was acceptable,

however with the potential problems perhaps it should be gated. She stated that she

agreed with staff about the parkway trees. She also noted that the petitioner should

ensure that there would not be snow melt or water run off onto the adjacent residential

property. Mr. Heniff mentioned that the curbing around the perimeter as well as the

landscaping should minimize the runoff.

Chairperson Ryan asked about the fencing to the east. Commissioner Sweetser stated

that she didn't think moving it one or two feet will make a difference. Commissioner

Burke stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires that there is a transition. He stated that

he didn't think it would be appropriate to place a fence on the lot line and they should

meet the requirement or have it in the transitional yard. Commissioner Burke also

agreed that the cross access easement is not necessary care should be taken as to

preventing access through the alley once it is redeveloped.

The Commissioners discussed having a fence or berm on the east property line. They

concurred that they need to shield headlights from vehicles and to do so with bushes.

Commissioner Burke mentioned that if the parkway trees will block signage they should

be placed in such a way that they don't shield the signage and minimize impacts.

1. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the site plans prepared by

Cesario Builders dated July 14, 2003 and submitted as part of this request.

2. That the petitioner shall provide the requisite stormwater improvements for any

additional impervious areas on the property, consistent with the IDRC comments.

3. That the petitioner's building improvements shall be designed and constructed

consistent with Village Code and shall also address the comments included within the

IDRC report.

4. That the petitioner's occupancy of the retail/office space shall meet the parking

requirements established in the Zoning Ordinance.

5. That the petitioner shall provide the following improvements as part of the project:

a. The petitioner shall provide a cross access easement between the subject property

and the property to the north. The abutter shall absorb the cost of redesigning the

parking configuration to accommodate such easement.

b. The petitioner shall design the Main Street access drive to prohibit left turns out of the

driveway.

c. The petitioner shall eliminate the coach walk on Main Street and relocate the sidewalk

five feet closer toward the building to allow for a parkway and parkway trees. The

petitioner shall grant a pedestrian easement for the sidewalk or dedicate the sidewalk to

the Village.

6. That the proposed clock be presented to the Plan Commission for Site Plan Approval.

7. That the petitioner address the encroachment of the two (2) columns into the thirty

foot (30') line of sight area.

8. That a six foot (6') board on board fence be placed along the north property line.

9. In lieu of fencing, the petitioner shall provide dense landscaping along the east

property line so as to screen the neighboring property from headlights.

10. That the petitioner shall design and engineer the transitional landscape yard to

minimize any stormwater run-off onto the property to the east.

Loran Eatman, Vice President of Dan Development, Ltd., stated their request. He

explained that their property had recently been annexed and they wished to obtain B3

zoning that would be equivalent to the B-1 zoning they had in DuPage County. He

noted that B3 zoning is compatible with both the existing and surrounding land uses, as

well as the Comprehensive Plan. He added that Dan Development had been proactive

in seeking the rezoning associated with annexation in order to ensure compatibility.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one

present to speak for or against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, stated

that the subject property consists of a single lot located at the northwest corner of

Roosevelt Road and Ahrens Avenue. The existing development consists of a one-story

retail shopping center with 42 parking stalls on site.

Ms. Backensto stated that the Long-Range Plan Map of the Comprehensive Plan

recommends that the property be used for community commercial uses. The existing

uses and proposed B3 zoning comply with the recommendations of the Comprehensive

Plan. The property is located within the Roosevelt Road corridor and is surrounded on

three sides by other commercial properties and a single- family residence to the north.

The retail shopping center is compatible with the surrounding land uses.

Staff believes that the request for rezoning is appropriate for the site. Prior to being

annexed by the Village of Lombard, the property was in DuPage County's B-1 Local

Business District. Staff is working with the petitioner on an agreement that will involve

the removal of the existing billboard on the property (see Condition no. 4).

Ms. Backensto noted that the existing building is set back three feet from the adjacent

property and does not meet the required 30-foot rear yard or 40-foot transitional yard

setbacks of the B3 district, nor does it allow for the required perimeter and transitional

landscape yards. The parking lot lacks landscape islands and perimeter landscaping,

and it does not provide for any stormwater detention. Also, the 248-square foot

shopping center identification sign exceeds the 150-square foot maximum permitted by

code. Staff feels that rather than granting zoning relief, these inconsistencies should

remain legal nonconforming so that the provisions of Section 155.300 et. seq. shall

apply. These nonconformities could be addressed at such time as the petitioner wishes

to expand, remodel, or redevelop the site.

The refuse disposal area located immediately west of the building is currently visible

from Roosevelt Road. Staff recommends that this area be brought up to code through

screening by a solid wood (or equivalent material) fence between six and eight feet in

height. Also, should the vacant property to the west develop, it would be advantageous

for both properties to have cross-access to allow for better circulation patterns and fewer

turning movements onto Roosevelt Road.

Ms. Backensto stated that staff recommended approval of the petition, subject to the

conditions noted in the staff report.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Burke asked why condition no. 4 allowed the billboard to remain for 10

years instead of seven (7). William Heniff, Senior Planner, explained that the additional

time was being given in consideration of a guarantee that the Village of Lombard will not

be held liable for any costs or remaining value associated with the removal of the

billboard at the end of the 10-year period.

1. Accessible parking spaces shall be provided in compliance with the provisions of the

Illinois Accessibility Code.

2. Cross-access shall be provided to the property immediately to the west, provided that

the cross-access does not constitute the primary access to that property.

3. Refuse disposal areas shall be screened in accordance with Section 155.710 of the

Lombard Zoning Ordinance.

4. That the petitioner or any subsequent owners of the property shall remove the

existing legal non-conforming off-premises sign (billboard) within ten (10) years from the

date of approval of this Ordinance. In consideration of allowing the off-premises sign to

remain on the property beyond the amortization period expressed in the Zoning

Ordinance, the Village shall not be responsible for any costs relating to the removal of

the off-premises sign. This includes costs associated with the physical removal of the

sign as well as any outstanding value remaining with the sign.

St. Pius.

Commissioner Olbrysh parshioner and not in the planning process and will not

participate. Bill Heniff stated that they want to get direction ona proposed subdivisonf or

the property. he mentioned the numerous represenrtatives from St. Pius. First, he

referenced an aerial photo and showed different lcoations of streets, etc. they are

prosing a 3 lots on madison. would be considered a major development must have an

outlot with a 30' frontage. There will be 3 single family homes. they would look at it as a

cu, parking design provisions. Would like thoughstson potentital 3 lot subdivison,

ultimately 5 lots, s/w outlot and the remainder church property. the layout and

configuration of property is what you need to look at and other concerns about breaking

off the portion for single family residence.

DR I hae no problem with it at all. He asked about the s/w. BH there will be additional

imperivous surface there. RS - an extremem amount of flooding to the east over the

course of years while that open area might hold some water this might be a possible

solution to that area. SF is the detention for the property itself. BH it will take care of ST

Pius plus the 3 single family. SF it is not for the other adjacent proeprties. BH we could

take a look at that. BH mentioned that there are some other areas on other properties.

MB asked if there was any detention on the site right now. BH you could call it a

depression area. but its not a classic detention pond. MB if we talk about the 3 lot

subdivison and the s/w requiremetns BH let's look at it all at once. DR - will itbe dug

down BH probably but haven't had enginee4ring for that site. SF don't have a problem

with the 3 lot subdivision. DR as long as the engineering can be done in an outlot I don't

have a problem with the 3 breakouts. MB no problem with the subdivision. MB by

ordinance and putting in residential area are they now required to put detention on site

BH if they put amin cewnter then they ahve to.

Ahrens/School Zoning - JB recently annexed thse property. Always go to R1 before that

voluntary ones that were zoned to R2. She mentined in the difference in the zoning

classifications as far as lot area and lot width. There are 3 possible options for the area

and she read off the staff report. Should all or part of the area be rezoned to R2, they

may result in additional teardown/redevelopment activity int he subject area which could

be done administratveily. Staff recommends this area be reviewed asa whole. Would

like to know if all or part of area be rezoned.

RO no a big propoenent of high denisty. Like the look of the streets right now. lots are

larger and would like to see as R1. Nice to have something a little different and think

Ahrens and Schhol have a character that should e kept.

RS - concur with Ron. Don't know that we have that many places in the Village that

have an R1. SF concur withh the certain character which should be maintained. MB

same.