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, August 18, 2003
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser and Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Commissioner Sondra Zorn
Absent:
Call to Order and Roll Call of Members
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, Senior Planner,
Chairperson Ryan callled the order of the Agenda. |
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws. |
Public Hearings
Chairperson Ryan mentioned that the petition associated with PC 03-22, 1S232 and |
1S280 Fairfield Avenue, was withdrawn by the petitoner. |
030455
No vote required.
030491
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 |
2. |
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. |
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:
Ryan, Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5356 240 |
1. That the variation from Section 154.304 (D) (2) requiring full public improvements |
within the Grace Street right-of-way shall only relate to the submitted plat of subdivision |
entitled "Terrace Lakes Subdivision" dated January 30, 2002 and made part of this |
petition. Any subsequent or further divisions of Lot 3 shall be subject to the full |
provisions of the Lombard Subdivision and Development Ordinance. Moreover, shall |
Lot 3 be improved with any new buildings or structures, the Owner of Lot 3 shall be |
subject to the full provisions of the Lombard Zoning and Subdivision and Development |
Ordinances. |
2. That a cross-access easement be provided for the use and benefit of the owner of Lot |
2 across Lot 1. Said easement shall be included as part of the final plat for the |
subdivision. |
030492
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:
Ryan, Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5357-5359 |
1. That the site shall be developed in conformance with the development plans prepared |
by Mackie Consulants, L.L.C. and Rothbart Construction, dated January 14, 2002 as |
well as the Terrace Lake Building elevations and conceptual floor plans, prepared by N. |
Batistich, Architects, dated February 8, 2002 and submitted as part of this request. |
2. That the petitioner apply for and receive permit approval for all development activity |
proposed for the site. Said permit application shall address the Inter-Departmental |
Review Committee comments. |
030490
Ordinances relative to PC 03-28, 1S331 Grace Street, requesting that the Village take |
the following actions on the property: |
1. Ordinance approving an Annexation Agreement (2/3 of Corporate Authorities Vote |
Required); |
2. Ordinance annexing the property to the Village of Lombard; |
3. Ordinance approving a map amendment to rezone the property from the R1 |
Single-Family Residence District to the CR Conservation/Recreation District; and |
4. Ordinance approving a conditional use to allow for a private educational facility. |
(UNINCORPORATED) |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval |
subject to conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
030489
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval |
subject to conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Ryan, Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5355 229 |
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. |
030488
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, 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:
Ryan, Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5350 |
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. |
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the July 21 and July 28, 2003 Plan Commission meetings were |
approved by unanimous cosent of the Plan Commission with the following corrections: |
William Heniff noted that staff had two correction to the July 21, 2003 minutes |
On page 14, paragraph 5, the second to last sentence should be amended to changed |
the word "singed" to "signed" and should read as follows: |
The subject property is also signed with a public hearing notice. |
Also the last sentence of the same paragraph should have the words "public hearing" |
striken and should read as follows: |
"Mr. Heniff noted that all property owners 250' of a subject property are notified of a |
public hearing." |
Public Participation
Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Plan |
Commission regarding anything not on the agenda. No one was present to speak. |
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County Hearings.
Chairperson's Report
The Chairperson deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
Bill Heniff referred to the two upcoming September Plan Commission meetings |
scheduled for September 15 and September 22. He asked the Commissioners' |
preference as to the starting times for each. Mr. Heniff indicated that at the September |
15 meeting the petition for the Hotel/Conference Center would be brought forward and |
he wanted to allow ample time. |
The Commissioners concurred that the September 15 meeting would begin at 7:00 p.m. |
and the September 22 meeting would begin at 7:30 p.m. |
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
There were no subdivison reports.
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Chairperson Ryan requested a two-minute break prior to staff's presentation of the |
workshops. The meeting was reconvened at 10:22 p.m. |
Workshops
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. |
Ahrens/School Rezoning
Adjournment
10:45 pm.