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, September 20, 2004
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting of the Plan Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Martin Burke |
and Commissioner Rocco Melarkey |
Present:
Commissioner Sondra Zorn
Absent:
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; |
Angela Clark, AICP, Planner I; Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I; and George Wagner, |
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
040432
B. PC 04-30: 1807 South Highland Avenue (Ordinance on Second Reading) |
Requests an amendment to the conditions of approval associated with Section 3 of |
Ordinance 5070 allowing the basement level to be used for medical office purposes. |
John Mulherin, attorney for the petitioner, presented the petition. Mr. Mulherin |
mentioned that last month the Board of Trustees approved an off-site parking lot that |
would provide 93 parking spaces for DuPage Medical Group (DMG) employees. Mr. |
Mulherin stated that following public hearings in 2001, ordinances were drafted |
approving the construction of the DMG project as an Office Planned Development. |
Ordinance 5070, Section 3, Subsection 7 provides a condition that the basement can |
not be used for purposes other than storage/mechanical space. Mr. Mulherin stated that |
DMG was requesting an amendment to the ordinance by adding "until adequate parking |
is available to the building to meet the Village parking standards for buildings in the "O" |
Office District". |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or |
against the petition. |
Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She referenced the |
condition in Ordinance 5070 and noted that the condition was put into place because at |
the time, the petitioner did not meet parking requirements to occupy the entire building. |
She referenced the recent approval for an off-site parking lot to service DMG |
employees. |
Ms. Kulikowski discussed the parking requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. She noted |
that the parking requirements for the O Office District are four spaces for each 1,000 |
square feet of occupied space after deducting storage and mechanicals as per code. |
She stated that the DMG facility has two floors and a basement level, each of which are |
approximately 22,575 square feet. Ms. Kulikowski mentioned that the main parking lot |
adjacent to the facility provides 180 parking spaces. She stated that this was enough |
parking spaces to allow them to occupy just the first and second floor and thus, the |
condition of approval was instated. Ms. Kulikowski mentioned the recent approval of the |
off-site parking lot employee parking. She noted that the additional 93 spaces would |
allow DMG to meet the parking requirements for occupying an additional 23,250 square |
feet of office space. She stated that between the main parking lot and the off-site |
parking lot, the petitioner would meet the parking requirements to occupy the entire |
building. |
Ms. Kulikowski noted that the original intent of the condition of approval was to assure |
that parking requirements were met. The requested language "until adequate parking is |
available to the building to meet the Village Parking standards for buildings in the "O" |
Office District would preserve the intent of the condition of approval and also allow DMG |
to occupy the basement after the off-site parking lot is completed. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission |
members. |
Commissioner Burke asked whether the off-site parking lot was exclusively for |
employee use. He wanted to know how the Village would be able to distinguish the |
proportion of the parking being used by patients versus employees. He also raised a |
concern that while the project may meet the parking requirements established in Village |
Code, there could be a deficiency as many of the spaces for the remote lot are use |
restricted. |
Mr. Mulherin responded that because of the nature of medical office facilities, most likely |
the parking lot will not be full at any one time. He noted that doctors typically work |
different hours at the facility and there is not necessarily a peak time. |
Commissioner Sweetser also was concerned about the proportion of parking being used |
by patients versus employees. She stated that the collective number of spaces had no |
value, and that the numbers needed to be broken down by who used the spaces and to |
Commissioner Olbrysh stated that allowing DMG to occupy more space would result in |
more offices and more patients. He was concerned whether the parking would be |
adequate. He noted that they may technically meet code, but they might not actually |
meet parking demands. |
Mr. Mulherin stated that the basement would be used primarily for diagnostic services. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that she was not arguing against the petition, she just |
commenting on the procedure for reviewing the petition. |
Commissioner Burke also stated that he was not arguing against the petition, he just |
wanted to know the ratio of employees and patient parking. |
Mr. Mulherin noted that the parking lot currently is never full. |
Mr. Mulherin mentioned that DMG entered into a lease agreement for parking across the |
street (the Etz Chain property) with the intention of eventually occupying the basement |
level not because there was a parking problem. He stated that there was no strict |
means of enforcing the off-site lot for employee use only and that patients would never |
park there unless the main lot was full. Mr. Mulherin mentioned that DMG does not want |
to hurt business and would do everything possible to accommodate patient parking. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if four spaces per 1000 square feet was adequate |
standard for parking in the future. |
Chairperson Ryan remarked that maybe the employee only condition would have to be |
eliminated and patients would have to be shuttled to the facility from the off-site parking |
lot. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked staff whether the Fire Department had commented on |
the off-site parking lot having only one access point. William Heniff, Senior Planner, |
replied that the Fire Department had reviewed the design and did not have any |
concerns. |
Commissioner Olbrysh stated that adequate parking was available, and he was not sure |
there was much more they could do. |
Mr. Heniff stated that they could continue the petition or make a recommendation to the |
Board pending a study to quantify the parking demand. |
Commissioner Sweetser made a motion to accept the findings of the Inter-Departmental |
Review Committee as the findings of the Plan Commission and recommend approval of |
the petition pending a parking study, which was seconded by Commissioner Burke. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that |
this matter be Recommended for approval to the Corporate Authorities subject to |
the amended condition(s). The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Melarkey
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
1. That Condition 7 of Section 3 of Ordinance 5070 adopted January 17, 2002 be |
amended to read in its entirety as follows: |
7. The petitioner shall not use the basement/cellar space for any other purpose |
than storage and building mechanical activities until adequate parking is available to the |
building (in this unique situation, which recognizes the lack of availability of |
non-employee off-site parking) to meet the Village parking standards for buildings in the |
"O" Office District. |
040431
PC 04-29: 621-649 E. Roosevelt Road |
Requests that the Village take the following actions on the property: |
1. Approve an Annexation Agreement; |
2. Annex the property into the Village of Lombard; |
3. Approve a map amendment to rezone the property from the R1 Single-Family |
Residence District to the B3 Community Shopping District; and |
4. Approve a conditional use for a motor vehicle rental establishment. |
Loran Eatman, Vice President of Dan Development, presented the petition. Mr. Eatman |
began by giving a brief description of the property. He stated that the property was |
developed as a small retail strip center on Roosevelt Road. He noted that one of the |
four tenants, Hertz car rental establishment, was a legal use under DuPage County |
Zoning, but was a conditional use in Lombard's B3 District. He also mentioned that |
similar approvals were given to an Enterprise car rental establishment that is also |
located on Roosevelt Road. Mr. Eatman stated that Dan Development was willing to |
comply with all conditions of approval. He mentioned that Dan Development intended to |
add parking spaces upon zoning approvals. He noted that Village setback requirement |
is less than the setback requirements under DuPage County, thereby allowing them to |
expand their parking lot. |
Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated that the |
subject property is developed as a commercial strip center with four tenants on the |
property: Verlo Mattress, Hertz, For Eyes, and Hair Design. There is a designated |
wetland area on the southern portion of the property. She stated that the subject |
property is contiguous to the Village from the north and west and is within an area that |
will ultimately be annexed into the Village per Lombard's boundary agreements. She |
stated that a companion annexation agreement will be considered by the Board of |
Trustees, which includes a provision for the future removal of the existing billboard. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that the subject meets all parking and bulk requirements for the |
B3 Community Shopping District. She stated that no improvements or modifications are |
proposed to the retail building itself. She mentioned that upon annexation, the petitioner |
proposes to expand the existing parking lot on the north side of the building to provide |
for an additional row of parking for patrons. Ms. Kulikowski stated that the proposed |
location would meet the setback requirements of the B3 District. |
In reference to the conditional use, Ms. Kulikowski noted that the motor vehicle rental |
establishment opened operation on the subject property in the summer of 2004 and was |
considered a permitted use under DuPage County Zoning Ordinance. She stated that |
the petitioner is requesting a conditional use approval for a motor vehicle establishment |
so that they can continue their use as a legally permitted land use upon annexation. |
She noted that the rental establishment has a lease agreement with the property owner |
that provides for two drop-off spaces in front of the store and ten vehicle spaces located |
behind the buildings. Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff would have concerns if a greater |
number of cars would be rented at this location; however, the limited number of vehicles |
will ensure that the retail activities of the strip center remain the primary land use. She |
noted that the parking with the strip center should not be negatively impacted. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that the conditional use is compatible with the surrounding |
properties, which consist of various retail commercial activities. In 1999, the Village |
approved a conditional use for motor vehicle rental for a nearby B3-zoned property at |
849 E. Roosevelt Road. She also noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that |
the property be used for community commercial uses. |
She then noted a change to the IDRC report, which modified condition 4 e for clarity |
purposes. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments by the Plan Commissioners. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked about Class D vehicles, referring to the amended |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, explained that Class D referred to license provisions. He |
stated that the intent of the condition is to specify vehicles, not license classifications. |
Staff proposes an amendment to conditions of approval so that it is clearer as to what |
types of vehicles are permitted. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be Recommended for approval to the Corporate Authorities |
subject to the amended condition(s). The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Melarkey
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinances 5561-5564 |
1. That the petitioner shall enter into an annexation agreement with the Village for the |
subject property. |
2. That the proposed parking lot improvements shall be constructed in accordance with |
the submitted site plan prepared by Dan Development, Lombard, Illinois dated May 3, |
2004. |
3. Accessible parking spaces shall be provided in compliance with the provisions of the |
Illinois Accessibility Code. |
4. With respect to the conditional use for the motor vehicle rental establishment, the |
use shall be operated subject to the following conditions: |
a. That on-site storage of all rental vehicles shall be parked in the parking lot to the |
rear (south) of the building. |
b. That up to two spaces may be provided in the north parking lot for customer |
drop-off and pick-up purposes. |
c. No more than twelve rental vehicles may be parked on the site at one time. |
d. Parking spaces shall be specifically marked and signed to ensure use by rental |
vehicles only. |
e. That the motor vehicle rental establishment use shall only be for passenger |
vehicles, vans weighing 8,000 pounds or less and sport utility vehicles. |
040430
B. PC 04-28: 615 and 617 W. Pleasant (5 Ordinances on First Reading) |
(Continued from October 21, 2004) |
Requests that the Village take the following actions for the subject property: |
1. An amendment to the comprehensive plan; |
2. Approval of an annexation agreement. (2/3 of Corporate Authorities Vote Required) |
3. Annexation to the Village of Lombard; |
4. Rezoning from the R1 Single-Family Residential District to the R4 Limited General |
Residential District; |
5. Approve a five lot major plat of subdivision; |
6. Approve a conditional use for a planned development with the following variations: |
d a. For Lots 1 and 4, a variation from Section 155.408 (F)(3)(b) of the Lombard |
Zoning Ordinance to reduce the corner side yard setback from twenty (20) feet to fifteen |
(15) feet. (UNINCORPORATED) |
Christopher Coleman, of Dearborn-Buckingham Group Inc., presented the petition. Mr. |
Coleman stated that the Dearborn-Buckingham Group Inc. specializes in infill |
development in the suburbs. He described the location of the subject property and |
noted that the development was previously workshopped before the Plan Commission. |
He stated that the plans submitted for the workshop called for thirty-three units and the |
current plan has twenty-two units. Mr. Coleman stated that this is approximately less |
than fifty percent of what is allowed by code. |
Mr. Coleman noted that the architectural design would be complimentary to that of the |
Columbine Glen development. He stated that staff has made suggestions regarding |
specific elements. He stated that some elements would differ from Columbine Glen |
considering the Columbine Glen development is eight to nine years old. Mr. Coleman |
stated that the units would consist of brick and low maintenance vinyl siding. He stated |
that the first floor master bedroom included in the workshopped floor plans could not be |
incorporated due to design changes. Mr. Coleman stated that he agreed with all |
referenced conditions in the staff report and that he believed the use is consistent with |
the Comprehensive Plan and should increase the value of neighboring properties. He |
stated that they were not requesting many variations. Mr. Coleman explained that in the |
event that he did not acquire the land owned by the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority |
(ISTHA), one unit would be removed on the eastern side of the property as it |
encroaches into that area. He stated that he believes that the property would be a good |
addition to the Village and no exceptional burdens would be placed on schools or parks. |
Mr. Coleman stated that the cul-de-sac could be extended at some future date if the |
property to the south were to redevelop. He stated that if that were to happen an |
additional building could be included within the Buckingham Orchard subdivision. Mr. |
Coleman then introduced Michael Mondus of Spaceco, Inc. |
Michael Mondus, of Spaceco Inc. discussed the drainage of the property. He stated that |
the property drained from north to south, hence the detention pond was proposed for the |
southeast corner of the property. He stated that a stub was provided by the Columbine |
Glen development and they planned to connect to the storm sewer through the |
Columbine Glen development. Mr. Mondus stated that their previous plan showed the |
sanitary sewer line traveling through side yards to provide gravity. He stated that the |
current plan would require the reconnection of 26 sewer services and the reconstruction |
of the parkway. Mr. Mondus stated that this was more economically feasible than using |
a lift station in light of staff's indication that utilities within side yards were frowned upon. |
Mr. Mondus also noted the public improvements that would be included in the project. |
Mr. Coleman stated that the original connection proposed through the side yards was |
within a fifteen foot dedicated public utilities easement. He then introduced Karl |
Krogstad. Mr. Krogstad discussed the landscaping plan and identified the type and |
location of the plantings. He stated that hearty plants what would withstand the area |
conditions were chosen. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. |
Dixie Hahn, managing agent for the Columbine Glen Homeowners' Association, |
distributed written comments. She stated that the association was concerned that |
connection to their detention pond could increase flood heights. She stated that they |
were concerned about how maintenance of the pond would be handled. Ms. Hahn |
stated that they would like to review the engineer's calculations showing that one |
hundred percent of the storage for the proposed development would be completely |
contained on their site. Ms. Hahn also noted the association's desire to preserve the |
existing vegetation between the properties. |
Mr. Coleman responded that the maintenance of the detention areas could be |
incorporated into the documents of the homeowner's association. He stated that the |
chemicals used are probably similar. He stated that the financial numbers mentioned |
were those that came out of conversations with the Columbine Glen board. Mr. |
Coleman then requested that Michael Mondus address the technical questions. |
Mr. Mondus stated that he could not speak to the specifics of the Columbine Glen pond |
design. He stated that the system currently receives uncontrolled runoff from the |
subject property. He stated that would be minimized once the controls were |
implemented. |
Ms. Hahn stated that the site is presently undeveloped with no homes or streets. She |
stated that the water is presently being absorbed into the ground water. |
Mr. Mondus replied that the pond would act as a sponge to slow water that accumulates |
from the development. He stated that more water would come toward them, but it would |
be controlled. |
Ms. Hahn stated that the pond currently fills up and has overflown. She stated that the |
development would increase the time that it takes for the water to dissipate. |
Mr. Mondus stated that there is no municipal system that they can tie into. He stated |
that there is no benefit or ability to bypass the Columbine Glen system. |
Ms. Hahn stated that they would like the opportunity for their engineers to review any |
calculations. |
Mr. John Ripley, 340 Cimmarron, stated that he was concerned with the eastern border |
of the property. He stated that he would like the preservation of as much vegetation and |
foliage as possible. He stated that the foliage was removed in the Buckingham Meadow |
development and there was no visual barrier left from one house to the next. |
Mr. Coleman stated that the subject property was cleared about half way down the |
eastern border. He stated that they would like to preserve as much vegetation as |
possible, however there were improvements that have to go into the ground that may |
prevent that. He stated that Buckingham Meadow is much better than most developers |
leave a site. He stated that he would provide plant materials that provide year round |
screening. |
Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. |
Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark noted that the comments |
from the Inter-Departmental Review Committee were included within the report for |
reference. She stated that the proposed development consists of a five lot subdivision |
in which there will be three, six-unit buildings and one four unit building within a |
cul-de-sac design. The remaining lot will be utilized as a detention pond for the |
development. The cul-de-sac could be removed at a later date to extend the street in |
the event that the properties south of the subject property are redeveloped. With the |
exceptions of Lots 1 and 4, each building and unit will meet all setback requirements for |
residences located within the R4 Limited General Residential District. Lots 1 and 4 |
encroach into the corner side yard setback area. |
The subject property is located south of Pleasant Lane and land that is owned by the |
ISTHA. ISTHA acquired a tract of land south of Pleasant as part of the initial |
construction of the North-South Tollway. This strip of land was specifically acquired for |
drainage and access purposes. However, as the area is not actively used by the |
ISTHA, negotiations are currently taking place to transfer title of the land to the Village |
as part of the public right-of-way. The Village would vacate that area to the petitioner. If |
an agreement is reached, the buildings as shown on the site plan will meet all zoning |
requirements. |
In the event that an agreement is not reached regarding the surplus right-of-way, the |
petitioner will need a variation to reduce the corner side yard setback from twenty feet to |
fifteen for the end unit located on Lot 1. The northern end unit of Lot 4 would then need |
to be removed as it encroaches fully into the setback yard and beyond the fifteen-foot |
variation requested. Staff can support the variation request as the proposed |
development will be closely aligned with the corner side yard setbacks of the |
neighboring Columbine Glen development. |
Included with the petition is a request for conditional use approval for a planned |
development. As the proposed development meets the minimum lot width and area |
requirements for a planned development, staff recommends the establishment of a |
planned development for this site. Creation of the planned development will give the |
Village an opportunity to review any future modifications of the subject property, as |
discussed below. Moreover, the planned development will also provide a framework for |
any future expansions of the development. |
When the development was workshopped before the Plan Commission in November |
2003, the commissioners stated that the development would be suitable if it were |
consistent with the neighboring townhome development. Based on the preliminary |
rendering submitted as part of the petition, the development is similar to that of the |
Columbine Glen development. |
Staff has advised the petitioner regarding specific architectural embellishments that |
should be included to match the Columbine Glen development as follows: |
The roof shingles in the development should match those of the Columbine Glen |
development. |
The windows in the dormer areas should be circular consistent with those within |
Columbine Glen. |
The recessed wall between the garages can alleviate the appearance of a row of garage |
doors. |
Appropriate right-of-way and transitional yard landscaping is shown within the submitted |
landscape plan. However, the landscape plan submitted must be modified in |
conjunction with the final engineering plans. Additional trees will be required around the |
detention pond area to the equivalent of one per seventy-five feet as required in the |
Subdivision and Development Ordinance. |
The Comprehensive Plan recommends Estate Residential for the subject property. |
Estate Residential is defined as a residential area with a net density of four or fewer |
dwelling units per acres and primarily consists of single-family detached residences. |
The proposed development is approximately 6.32 units per acre that is slightly larger |
than the suggested number in the Comprehensive Plan. |
As part of the Plan Commission workshop session, staff noted that single family |
residential designation within the plan may not be appropriate for the subject property, |
as it is located between Interstate 355 and the Columbine Glen townhome development |
to the east. As the subject property borders an area similar in density to the proposed |
development, staff finds that the proposed development is suitable for the surrounding |
area. The Plan Commission expressed a conceptual support for a townhouse |
development plan that is compatible in both architecture and development density the |
Columbine Glen development. |
When reviewing the approved subdivision plan for Columbine Glen, staff notes that |
dedicated public right-of-way extensions were provided within the development to |
connect the townhouse development to unincorporated properties both east and west of |
the development. This strongly suggests that the intention was to have future |
developments integrated into the Columbine Glen development. As such, establishing |
development densities and design elements that are compatible with the existing |
townhouses would be appropriate. Therefore, staff supports the change to the |
Comprehensive Plan. |
The site borders an attached single family development to the east and detached single |
family uses on the north and south of the subject property. With inclusion of the |
architectural elements and landscape improvement changes recommended above, staff |
believes that the proposed use would be compatible with the existing residential land |
uses. |
The site currently consists of three lots. The petitioner plans to subdivide the lot into |
four lots and an outlot for detention. Each proposed lot meets the minimum lot width |
and area requirements. This development is both a major subdivision and a major |
development as expressed in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance. Therefore, |
the petitioner will be required to meet the provisions of Section 154.304 and 154.306. |
This includes, but is not limited to, sidewalks, landscaping, parkway trees and street |
lighting along the proposed new street as well as along the portion of Pleasant Lane |
abutting the site. The companion subdivision plat would be submitted to the Board of |
Trustees upon approval of final engineering for the subject property. Ms. Clark 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 Plan Commission |
members. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if it were possible for staff to address the concerns of the |
Columbine Glen residents regarding the landscaping. She stated that she understood |
that there are reasons why landscaping may not be able to be saved. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that high priority is placed on storm water |
management. He stated that staff has attempted to require engineering and detention |
designs that will not create off site impacts. Mr. Heniff stated that staff is willing to walk |
the property with the petitioner and the residents to identify what vegetation could be |
salvaged. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that she would like to see that happen even though |
there could be reasons that all vegetation could not be saved. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, 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, Burke and Melarkey
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
1. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the Geometric Plan, |
updated September 3, 2004, prepared by Spaceco Inc. |
2. That the petitioner shall satisfactorily addresses all of the comments within the IDRC |
report. |
3. That the petitioner shall submit a revised landscape plan in conjunction with the final |
engineering/geometric plans. Said plan shall meet the landscape planting requirements |
as required by the zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances. |
4. That the petitioner shall submit revised architectural drawings depicting the final |
proposed design palette of the structures, the design of which shall be subject to the |
approval of the Director of Community Development. |
5. That the petitioner shall enter into an annexation agreement with the Village. |
6. That in the event that the tract of land currently owned by ISTHA is not conveyed to |
the petitioner, the site plan shall be amended to remove the northern most townhouse |
unit on Building 3 as depicted on the submitted plan. |
040433
O. PC 04-32: 11 Eisenhower Lane South (Ordinance on Second Reading) |
Requests approval of a conditional use for a concrete and cast stone fabrication facility |
located in an I Limited Industrial District. (DISTRICT #3) |
Carlo Verissimo, the property owner, presented the petition. Mr. Verissimo stated that |
the request. He stated that his business is stone fabrication. He said that he read the |
staff report and he is willing to comply with the conditions recommended by staff. He |
said that he would answer any questions that the Commissioners may have. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or |
against the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark stated that the last known |
use for the subject property was Borg-Warner Automotive Advanced Technology Center |
that operated a research and development laboratory. The laboratory was a permitted |
use within the Industrial zoning district. The petitioner acquired the subject property in |
2003 to operate his stone fabrication business and showroom. Concrete and cast stone |
fabrication and molding facilities are identified as conditional uses within the I Limited |
Industrial District. Code enforcement staff received a complaint regarding excessive |
litter in the area and upon investigation discovered that the existing tenant did not have |
a Certificate of Occupancy. The petitioner applied for the certificate at which time staff |
notified the petitioner that conditional use approval was necessary to operate at the |
subject location. The petitioner requests approval of a conditional use at this time. |
Ms. Clark stated that the petitioner's use as a cast stone fabrication facility consists of a |
20,000 square foot facility of which 14,000 square feet is utilized for stone fabrication |
and 8,000 square feet serves as office and showroom space. The facility specializes in |
granite, marble, slate and limestone fabrication for various products. The petitioner |
states that the fabrication area of the facility contains three cutting machines, two |
polishing and edge machines, and an area for hand polishing. The site also contains an |
area for storage of finished products. |
The plat of survey submitted by the petitioner indicates that the subject property has 72 |
parking spaces whereas 21 spaces are required. However, the southern portion of the |
parking lot appears to be utilized for outdoor storage. Therefore staff believes there are |
actually 23 parking spaces based on the remaining spaces located on the northern and |
western portions of the property. Furthermore, per Village Code, four of the required 21 |
spaces must be handicap accessible. While the subject property has sufficient parking |
spaces, the parking lot must be restriped to reflect the necessary additional handicap |
accessible parking space as well as the required signage per the Illinois Accessibility |
Code. |
Per code, a transitional landscape yard 30 feet in width is required where the rear or |
interior side yard of an industrial lot abuts a residential district. A solid fence, between |
six and eight feet in height, is also required along the entire length of the landscape |
yard. The subject property has adequate transitional yard landscaping, however the |
existing fence is chain link. Staff recommends the installation of a solid fence between |
six and eight feet as designated by the Zoning Ordinance. Village Code also requires |
that all storage, except for motor vehicles, be completely within enclosed buildings or |
effectively screened by a solid wall or fence not less than six feet and no greater than |
eight feet in height. Therefore, staff recommends the installation of a solid fence around |
the outdoor storage area located on the subject property. Staff also recommends the |
construction of enclosures for the trash receptacles. |
Ms. Clark noted that there is a freestanding sign located in the front yard area of the |
property and there are no permits on file for the sign. As such, staff recommends that |
the petitioner obtain a building permit for the sign. She noted the sign requirements |
within the Limited Industrial Zoning District. Ms. Clark stated that the use is compatible |
with the Comprehensive Plan and neighboring land uses; therefore staff recommends |
approval of the petition. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission |
members. |
Commissioner Flint asked for a clarification regarding the parking requirements - were |
they based on a 20,000 square foot space? Ms. Clark stated that the parking was |
based on the 20,000 square foot number. She stated that in the petitioner's plat of |
survey depicted a 20,000 square foot building, but the response to the Standards for |
Conditional Uses indicated the office and fabrication area square footage. Mr. |
Verissimo clarified that the 8,000 square foot figure was provided in error and that the |
office space is 6,000 square feet in size. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if there is any way that staff can monitor businesses |
entering or leaving a site, considering the petitioner's occupancy was realized based on |
a litter complaint. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that it is difficult to catch these instances right |
away particularly given the nature of an industrial park where the changing of a business |
may not be as obvious. He stated that when new businesses are identified staff informs |
them of the necessary procedures for obtaining a certificate of occupancy. |
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:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Melarkey
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5566 |
1. That the petitioner shall provide four handicap accessible parking spaces designed |
per the Illinois Accessible Code. |
2. The petitioner shall construct a trash enclosure for the dumpster(s) on the subject |
property. The enclosure shall be designed consistent with the Zoning Ordinance |
provisions with the exterior enclosure walls being between six (6) and eight (8) feet in |
height and constructed of wood or a solid screening material. |
3. That the petitioner shall obtain a building permit for the freestanding sign located in |
front of the property. |
4. That the petitioner shall install a solid fence between six and eight feet in height |
along the rear property line and around any outdoor storage areas, the design of which |
shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. |
5. The petitioner shall obtain building permits for the construction of the fence, parking |
lot restriping, and trash enclosure |
040382
SPA 04-07ph: 2360 Fountain Square Drive (Items 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 continued from |
August 16, 2004) |
Requests amendments to the approved site plan as follows: |
1. Allow an additional outdoor dining area; |
2. Allow modifications to the approved building elevations; |
3. Pursuant to Section 5.F.3 of the B3 Development Agreement for the Fountain |
Square of Lombard property, allow a deviation from Section 153.602 of the Village's |
Sign Ordinance (definition of "Frontage") for the purpose of treating the east property |
line's orientation to Fountain Square Drive as the property's "Frontage." |
4. Allow a deviation from Section 153.207 (C) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow |
for a moving (rotating) sign; (Item withdrawn by petitioner) |
5. Allow a deviation from Section 153.208 (G) (2) (4) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to |
allow for exposed light bulbs on an illuminated sign; (Item withdrawn by petitioner) |
6. Allow a deviation from Section 153.277 (D) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow |
a sign to project above the top of the building; (Item withdrawn by petitioner) |
7. Allow a deviation from Section 153.277 (E) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow |
a sign to project more than four (4) feet from the supporting wall of the projecting sign; |
8. Allow a deviation from Section 153.239 (F) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow |
a projecting sign to be displayed in conjunction with wall signs; |
9. Allow a deviation from Section 153.505 (B) (16) (a) (1) of the Lombard Sign |
Ordinance to allow for individual wall signs greater than 100 feet in area and to allow the |
total sign surface area of all wall signs to exceed 117 square feet; and |
10. Allow a deviation from Section 153.505 (B) (16) (a) (2) of the Lombard Sign |
Ordinance to allow for multiple wall signs. |
Chairperson Ryan asked if there would be anyone in the audience that would be |
presenting evidence or cross examining the witness. Hearing none he requested that |
the petitioner present their petition. |
Robert Latham, Facility Manager with Uncle Julio's, 1125 Union Bower, Irving Texas, |
presented the petition. He reviewed the initial request that was originally submitted for |
Plan Commission at the August, 2004 meeting. He noted that the Commissioners |
approved the outdoor dining component, but continued the petition for the proposed |
projecting sign. The Commissioners also expressed a desire to see the petitioner |
modify the proposed sign. |
He then referenced their revised sign exhibit. The revised projecting sign removed the |
"Uncle Julio's" rotating head which extended above the roofline. It was placed flush on |
the east exterior wall. The light bulbs were removed from the arrow component of the |
sign and the overall sign projection size was reduced as well. |
Chairperson Ryan asked if the Commissioners had any questions of the petitioner. |
There were no questions asked of the petitioner. Chairperson Ryan then asked if there |
was anyone to speak in favor or against this petition. Being no one, he requested the |
staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, then referred to the staff report. He noted that the |
petitioner has submitted revised plans for the signage at the southeast corner of the |
building. The petitioner's revised signage plans remove the need for three of the five |
requested deviations that were initally listed in the public hearing request. Staff supports |
the revised signage plans as it is more in keeping with the intent of the Sign Ordinance |
and is compatible with the overall Fountain Square planned development. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for questions and comments from the |
Commissioners. There were no comments from the Commissioners. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that |
this matter be approved (items 7 & 8) with conditions. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Melarkey
5 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the August 16, 2004 Plan Commission meeting were approved by |
unanimous consent of the Plan Commission. |
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
William Heniff referred the Commissioners to the handout regarding EIFS Systems.
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
There were no subdivision reports.
Workshops
There were no workshops.
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
_______________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
_______________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |