Village of Lombard Legistar System

B. PC 05-01: 21 W 680 Butterfield Road (4 Ordinances on First Reading)

Requests the following actions be taken on the subject property:

1. Approval of an Annexation Agreement; (2/3 Corporate Authorities Vote Required)

2. Annexation to the Village of Lombard;

3. Approval of a map amendment rezoning from the R1 Single-Family Residence

District to the C/R Conservation/Recreation Zoning District;

4. Approval of a Planned Development with the following exceptions, variations and

deviations:

a. To allow for a conditional use as referenced in Section 155.206(B)(2)(a)(1) of the

Zoning Ordinance and a use exception and variation from Section 155.508 (B)(3) of the

Zoning Ordinance (Standards for Planned Developments with Use Exceptions) to allow

for a personal wireless facility monopole; and

b. A deviation from Section 153.501(b)(2)(d) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for two

Michael Fugiel, Lombard Park District Director, presented the petition. Mr. Fugiel stated

that the petition has nothing to do with a previous petition presented before DuPage

County several years prior for a variation to allow a one hundred (100) foot monopole

where only seventy-five (75) feet was allowed. He stated that the petition included

variations for two existing freestanding signs on Butterfield Road. He stated that the

Park District is looking to reduce its fees, as they recently experienced a $1600 increase

for their liquor license. He stated that annexation would provide the Park District a

substantial saving.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then opened the meeting for public comment.

Bob Rettger, 21 W 766 Clifford Road, referenced the petition for a cell tower from

previous years. He stated that he wanted clarification as to where the tower would be

located.

Michael Hixenbaugh, of Butterfield Park District, read a prepared statement and

submitted it to the record. He stated that the Butterfield Park District does not have an

objection to the voluntary annexation of the Western Acres Golf Course into the Village

of Lombard. In addition, through communication with the Lombard Park District and the

Lombard Community Development office we understand the following to be true about

the personal wireless facility monopole:

That the location of the pole will not be near the Western Acres maintenance garage

facility as previously proposed.

That the likely location would be near the club house or the golf course pump station,

though this has not been decided.

That the size of the pole will remain the same as the original permit which is 75 feet.

Terrance Olton, 2 S 163 Mayfield Lane, asked if how annexing the undeveloped portion

of the golf course would effect residents of Butterfield West.

John Lagioia, 2 S 610 Danbury Drive, asked if there were a cell tower or multiple towers

and if there were actually a plan. He asked about the effect on property values.

Prem Kanoth, 22 W 065 Ahlstrand Road, stated that a cell tower will directly effect

property values. He stated that studies have been done on cell towers. He stated that a

tower would destroy the entire property. Mr. Kanoth requested that the matter be

studies properly.

Lisa Saunderson, 2 S 585 Danbury Drive, a resident and Butterfield Park District

commissioner, asked if the zoning change would provide additional rights or take away

rights that the residents should be aware of. She asked if the petition allowed for one

tower or more than one attachment on the tower. She stated that the Park District did

not receive notification of the meeting. Ms. Saunderson asked if the proposed location

of the tower is located near the ninth hole and Peace Lutheran. She asked that the cell

tower be located a good distance away from the homes. She stated that the Butterfield

Park District had not been able to consider it fully as a board. She stated that cell

towers were no longer allowed to be located near fire stations, as firemen were

becoming ill. She stated that the FCC reports that all of the data is not in regarding

towers.

Rakesh Subramanian, 2 S 554 Danbury Drive, stated that he was the president of the

Green Briar Glen Homeowner's Association. He asked whether there was any

implication of their subdivision being annexed in the future. He asked what was the

implication on property values.

Charles Menard, 2 S 585 Danbury Drive, wanted specifications as to where the tower

would be located. He stated that he is an electrical engineer and works for a cell tower

infrastructure company. He stated that he is aware of radiation issues with cell towers.

He stated that he has concerns about illness as others had stated.

Bob Gans, 2 S 575 Danbury Drive, stated that property owners adjacent to the golf

course were not notified of the meeting. He stated that there was no mention of any

plans for a tower in the petition yet it was a part of the annexation agreement. He asked

why.

Mr. Fugiel responded that he had not been contacted in over seven years for the

placement of a cell tower. He stated that it was included in the request as they currently

have rights through DuPage County to install a tower. He stated that he is not aware of

multi-cell towers. He stated that one, seventy-five (75) foot tower is allowed and

anything else would require the same process but through the Village of Lombard. Mr.

Fugiel stated that the complexion of the golf course will not change and he did not

believe the complexion of the surrounding properties would either. He stated that the

maintenance garage was not included as part of the annexation request. He stated that

the Park District has no involvement in the staff notifications. He stated that in regards

to the forcible annexation of other properties, it was his understanding that according to

state statute those areas could not be forcibly annexed as they exceeded the acreage

requirement for forcible annexations.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser asked if there was some comment regarding a preferred

location for the towers. He stated that cell towers need to be located near a source of

electricity in order to operate. He stated that the area near the fifth hole and the

clubhouse have electricity and that's why they were chosen.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser asked if Mr. Fugiel would like to address the health

concerns. Mr. Fugiel stated that seven or eight years ago when the matter appeared

before the ZBA, members of the audience were instructed not to address those issues

as there was no validity to those concerns.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner II, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark stated that the subject

property is owned by the Lombard Park District and operated as Western Acres Golf

Course. The property includes the golf course and clubhouse. The maintenance

building located near Route 53 is not included in this request as it is outside of the

Lombard Intergovernmental Boundary Agreement area. The Park District seeks

annexation into the Village at this time. As all newly annexed properties are assigned

R1 Single Family Residential zoning by default, the Park District also requests a map

amendment from R1 to the CR Conservation Recreation Zoning District.

The Park District also requests approval of a planned development with a use exception

for a personal wireless facility and a deviation for two existing freestanding signs.

Presently the Lombard Park District is afforded the opportunity, by right, to place a

personal wireless facility on the subject property under DuPage County regulations.

While there are no immediate plans to erect a monopole on the subject property, the

Park District requests a use exception to allow for placement of such a structure in the

future.

Ms. Clark stated that the use of the subject property would not change, therefore the

use was compatible with the surrounding uses and zoning. She stated that the use is

identified as a permitted use within the proposed zoning classification and was

compatible with the designation identified by the Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Clark noted that the existing signs were approximately twenty square feet in area.

She stated that the petitioner obtained variations from DuPage County for the signs and

the Village did not object at the time. She stated that they were included within the

request to ensure that the signs could be replaced in the event that they were damaged

or destroyed.

Ms. Clark noted the request for a personal wireless facility. She stated that the petitioner

presently has the right to erect a monopole facility, therefore it was included within the

request for annexation. Ms. Clark stated that staff had discussed a potential location for

the pole should the need arise.

Ms. Clark noted the request for a planned development. She stated that it would give

the Village greater flexibility over any future developments or changes that would take

place on the site. She noted that the CR zoning designation is more restrictive than the

R1 zoning residential given to newly annexed properties by default. Ms. Clark stated

that staff recommended approval of the petition, subject to the conditions noted in the

staff report.

Lisa Saunderson asked if the staff report indicated that the preferred location for the cell

tower was near the fifth hole. Ms. Clark stated that it was a recommended location.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the DuPage County adopted the

Telecommunications Act of 1997 verbatim, requiring the tower to be a minimum of three

hundred (300) feet away from adjacent residences.

Ms. Saunderson asked if the recommendation would move forward with that location.

Mr. Heniff stated that the Plan Commission would make its recommendation now and

the Board of Trustees would review it on August 18, 2005. Ms. Saunderson asked if the

public was able to comment at the board meeting. Mr. Heniff stated that there was a

public comment period.

Mr. Gans stated that he did not believe the area in question was three hundred (300)

feet away from adjacent residences. He stated that he did not believe that the number

was accurate. He asked that the issue not be voted on until the number could be

verified.

Phyllis Walters, 2 S 407 Golfview Drive, stated that she does not believe that the pump

station was three hundred (300) feet from the residential areas.

Mr. Olton asked where the tower was proposed relative to the pond. Mr. Fugiel stated

that there are three ponds on the course. Mr. Olton said that he was referencing the

one near Glen Valley Drive. Mr. Fugiel stated that it would be south of par three and

east of the pond.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan

Commission members.

Commissioner Burke stated that the petitioner mentioned two potential locations for the

cell tower. He asked if the second location should be included in condition number two.

He stated that language should also be added that the construction of any tower must

meet the state statute guidelines.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he has no problem with the annexation and

requested signage variation. He stated that there are no plans for a monopole and there

have been no plans for a monopole for several years. He stated that it is premature to

even include the request in the petition. He stated that it might be several years before

a request for a monopole. He stated that details, information, and neighbors may

change within that time period. He recommended elimination of condition two.

Commissioner Zorn stated that she agreed with Commissioner Olbrysh. She stated that

it should not be included if there were no plans for one.

Commissioner Burke asked if the petitioner believed the Park District would move

forward with the annexation if conditions two and three were removed.

Mr. Fugiel stated that he believed they would. He stated that the tower was included

since they already have access to the provision.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked staff if there would be a problem removing conditions two

and three.

c. PC 05-18: 2N700 Lombard Road (4 Ordinances/Waiver of First)

Requests that the Village take the following actions on the property:

1. Approve an Annexation Agreement; (2/3 of Corporate Authorities Vote Required)

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 I Limited Industrial District;

4. Approve a conditional use for a landscape contractors equipment and material

storage yard (a contractor's establishment providing existing tree service, wood waste

recycling and manufacturing of landscape mulch together with related storage and allied

business transactions); and

5. Associated with the Annexation Agreement, approve a variation from Section 51.02

et. seq. of the Lombard Village Code to allow for an existing private well to remain on

the subject property for non-potable water purposes.

Staff is requesting a waiver of first reading. (UNINCORPORATED)

Paul Lanphier of Lanphier & Kowalkowski, Ltd., attorney for the petitioner, stated that he

represents the petitioner B. Haney & Sons, the owner of the property at 2N700 Lombard

Road.

He stated that Haney & Sons are certified arborists and have been in business since

1940. They acquired the subject property in 1996 and have been using the site for their

office and yard activities. He then described the property, noting the existing

office/operations building on the east side of the lot. The western portion of the lot is

used for mulch storage. They would like to keep their business operations on the

property and are seeking zoning approvals associated with their annexation that allows

their operations to continue as a legally permitted use.

He then noted that staff has been working with them on an annexation agreement that

spells out the full provisions of the annexation. He noted that an existing non-potable

well exists on the western end of the property. They are requesting approval from the

Village that would allow the well to remain on the premises for non-potable water

purposes. This well allows the property owner to keep the mulch pile wet and to keep

the amount of dust on the property to a minimum.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then opened the meeting for public comment. There were

no comments in favor or in opposition to the proposal. She then requested the staff

report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, reiterated the requested actions, summarized the project

and submitted the IDRC report to the public record in its entirety. He noted that the

property is currently unincorporated and is improved with a one-story industrial building

used by B. Haney & Sons, a contractor's establishment providing existing tree service,

wood waste recycling and manufacturing of landscape mulch. The property is within the

Village's ultimate municipal boundaries and is wholly surrounded by properties within the

Villages of Lombard and Addison.

In consideration of the pending development approvals for the Grant Property

immediately north of the subject property, the Village has been working with the

petitioner on an annexation petition. The petition set forth herein will grant various

approvals to allow the property owner to continue to operate his business establishment

as a legal conforming use on the subject property upon annexation.

He noted that the subject property meets all of the bulk requirements for the I Limited

Industrial District. Staff considers the existing business establishment to be similar to

contractors' offices, shops and yards which are listed as conditional uses within the I

Limited Industrial District. Staff notes that many of the business establishments north

and west of the subject property are also used as contractor's yards. Staff can support

the existing business establishment. Any future expansions of the existing premises

would need to be reviewed in the context of an amended conditional use petition.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property be used for light industrial

uses, which is consistent with the proposed rezoning to the I Limited Industrial District.

The Haney & Sons use has been well established on the premises. Adjacent uses are

also industrial in nature. Traffic to and from the property will primarily consist of dump

trucks and business vehicles transporting mulch products and landscape materials on

and off the site.

Mr. Heniff then discussed the private well request. While not under the purview of the

Plan Commission, staff notes a proposed variation request associated with the existing

wells on the property. Right now two wells exist on the property - one well is located in

the front yard and serves the existing building. A second well is used for irrigation

purposes and is located on the west side of the property and is used to minimize dust

from the mulch piles on the property.

Village Code requires all properties to be connected to public water systems and does

not allow for wells. In consideration of the annexation agreement, staff supports a

variation, which would allow for the non-potable well to continue to be utilized on the

property, subject to DuPage County regulations.

In closing, he noted that the petitioner has been working on an Annexation Agreement

with the property owner and a development agreement with the developer of the

neighboring Grant Property. To facilitate public improvements associated with both

properties, Lombard Road in front of the Haney Property will be reconstructed at

expense of the Grant Property developer. These improvements also include a

cul-de-sac bulb at the terminus of Lombard Road. The petitioner is willing to work with

the Grant property petitioner to facilitate the improvements as set forth in the annexation

agreement. Staff notes that even with the dedication of the additional land for

right-of-way purposes, the petitioner's site will still meet all setback requirements of the

Village.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by

the Plan Commission.

Chairperson Olbrysh inquired about the existing wells on the property. Mr. Heniff noted

that two wells exist on the property - one for the mulch piles and one for the business

operations. Associated within the development of the Grant Property, the well located in

front of the Haney property will be capped and the building will be provided municipal

water service.

Mr. Mohammed Majeed, owner of 509 W. Wilson Avenue, presented the petition. Mr.

Majeed read a prepared statement outlining the standards for variations. He stated that

the proposed lots measure seventy-five feet at the front property lines. Mr. Majeed

stated that the Village measures lot width thirty (30) feet beyond the building line

causing the lots to not meet the minimum required width. He stated that each lot would

meet both the 7,500 and 10,000 square foot area requirements. He stated that the lots

are greater than 14,000 square feet each. Mr. Majeed stated that the variation is not

based on financial gain. He stated that the subdivision had been prepared in good faith

and believed that variations would not be necessary. He stated that surrounding

properties would not be affected, as the lots would measure in excess of seventy-five

feet at the front property lines.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then opened the meeting for public comment. No one

spoke for or against the petition.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner II, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark stated that the petitioners'

properties are located in the Flowerfield Subdivision in unincorporated DuPage County.

The subject properties are located adjacent to Wilson Avenue. Wilson Avenue was

vacated as a public street in the late 1950s by York Township. With approval of the

vacation, the right-of-way was evenly divided between the abutting property owners.

While the Village Board has deferred the construction of this roadway within the Capital

Improvement Program (CIP), staff is working with the adjacent property owners to

encourage them to approve the dedication of land for future street purposes. However,

in order for this to occur, the Village will be required to annex portions of the vacated

right-of-way. These actions will ultimately be taken by the Village Board.

Through these discussions, the property owners at 509 and 515 W. Wilson have

inquired about redeveloping their existing residences and are proposing to resubdivide

their properties from two lots into three buildable lots of record concurrent with their

annexation request. As the proposed right-of-way rededication will result in the loss of

land area for the subject properties, the proposed lots will not meet the minimum lot

width for R1 zoned properties. The petitioners are requesting a reduction in the required

minimum lot width in conjunction with the request for annexation. Ms. Clark stated that

the lot frontage is measured sixty feet from the front property line. She stated that while

the lots would appear to meet the minimum lot frontage at the property line, the lots

actually measure seventy to seventy-one feet due to the dedication of the right-of-way.

Ms. Clark stated that as the land uses would not change, the proposed lots would be

compatible with surrounding uses and the underlying zoning. She stated that staff was

supportive of the petition.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan

Commission members. There was no discussion amongst the members.

Joseph Gutgsell of Location Finders International, 515 N. Lincoln Street, Hinsdale,

representative for the petitioner, Lombard 1 Hotel LLC and Marriott Towne Place Suites,

presented the petition.

Mr. Gutgsell reviewed their request for an amendment to the approved planned

development ordinance to allow for wall signs associated with the Towne Place Suites

hotel. He stated that since the hotel opened it has not done as well as anticipated.

Towne Place Suites, which is part of Marriott's holdings, is not a well known name.

They are proposing to modify their signage for the property to tie the Towne Place

Suites name with the Marriott corporate name and branding. But for the proposed wall

signage, the re-signing proposed throughout the site is intended to be done within the

signage requirements of the Village.

He then described the proposed wall signage as it is depicted on the submitted plans.

The wall signage will meet the area and number requirements in the Sign Ordinance.

Their request is intended to amend the planned development approval ordinance to

allow it to be put on the north building.

He then referenced the staff report and expressed a concern regarding condition #4

within the report, which raised the potential of limiting access to the property from 22nd

Street and Fairfield Avenue. A right-in, right-out configuration would severely affect the

ability for guests to access the hotel and he stated that it is not appropriate to tie the

signage request to their approval of the wall sign amendment. He also raised concerns

regarding emergency vehicle access to the site if the intersection is modified.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then opened the meeting for public comment. There were

no comments in favor or in opposition to the proposal. She then requested the staff

report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, reiterated the requested actions, summarized the project

and submitted the IDRC report to the public record in its entirety. He noted that the

subject property is presently improved with an extended stay hotel and is located along

22nd Street directly west of Target. This development was approved by the Village in

1999 as part of a new planned development. Ordinance 4682 included a condition of

approval that prohibited any wall sign on the site. The petitioner is requesting that the

Village reconsider this condition of approval as they would like to install wall signs on the

west and east elevation, per the submitted plans. As the condition was a condition of

the approved planned development, this signage must be approved through a planned

development amendment process.

The petitioner is proposing other signage changes on the subject property as part of

Marriott's re-branding of their hotels. With the exception of the proposed wall sign

changes, all of the signage included as part of this packet could be approved by staff as

part of a building permit application as it would meet the provisions of the underlying

zoning district and/or the planned development provisions. However, staff asked the

petitioner to supply this additional signage information as part of the Plan Commission

submittal so the Commissioners could review the wall sign request in conjunction with

their other signage elements on the subject property.

He noted that the proposed wall signage is intended to be integrated into the overall

building elevations as shown on the submitted plans, which will be in keeping with the

intended residential appearance of the project. There are also three hotels to the west of

the site on the north side of 22nd Street. Each of these hotels has wall signage.

Condominiums and apartments abut the site to the west and southwest, Target abuts

the site to the east, and Target's parking lot abuts the site to the southeast. As stated

above, the proposed use provides a transition between the residential and the

commercial uses, as the proposed use is somewhat commercial in character and

somewhat residential in character.

Any impact on the adjacent condominiums will be minimized by how the signage will be

situated on the building elevations. The proposed wall sign on the east side of the

building will not be visible from the condominiums. The wall sign on the west elevation

will be visible from Yorktown II Apartments and only indirectly visible from some of the

units in the adjacent Yorktown Condominiums. No wall signage is proposed for the

southern hotel building. Given the proposed design of the signage, staff does not

believe the wall signage will negatively impact adjacent properties.

The petitioner's request to strike the wall sign prohibition is requested as a modification

to the planned development ordinance exclusively. The amendment request would lift

the wall signage restriction and would allow the petitioner to install wall signs, consistent

with the B3 regulations. The petitioner's wall signage is proposed to be about ninety

(90) square feet in size. The underlying B3 signage provisions would allow for two wall

signs by right (one sign for frontage on Grace and one sign for frontage on 22nd Street)

with the maximum sign area not to be greater than one-hundred square feet in overall

size. Signage can be placed either perpendicular or parallel to the adjacent street.

In review of the proposed wall sign plans, the wall signage is proposed of a channel

letter design and will be tucked between the highest window row and below the existing

roof vent. The wall sign is intended to be an identifier of the exiting use on the property

and is intended to address sight line issues along 22nd Street. The petitioner notes that

existing grade changes and mature landscaping does not provide substantial visibility for

the free-standing signs. Staff does not object to this amendment, provided that the

signage restrictions are closely tied to the petitioner's exhibits.

Mr. Heniff stated that staff can support the wall sign provisions, particularly in

consideration of potential access reconfiguration issues along 22nd Street. Right now,

primary access from the east into the subject property is achieved from an access drive

on the adjacent Target driveway. As the Commissioners are aware, the Village has

approved a hotel/convention hall for the vacant lot south of Target. Moreover, Target

will be applying to the Plan Commission for an amendment to their 1995 approval to

allow for a building expansion. In conjunction with these expansions, Convention Way,

proposed east of Target will include a traffic signal at 22nd Street. Once these

improvements are made, the Village may look at modifications to the Fairfield/22nd

Street intersection to restrict some traffic movements. This issue is currently in the

review stages by KLOA, the Village's traffic consultant.

At some point in the future the Village Board may want to revisit the traffic issues at this

intersection. Staff is supportive of the signage amendment as the need to provide

greater identification to the building and hence provide motorists with a greater amount

of time to react accordingly. In further consideration of the signage request, staff

suggests that this approval be tied to a provision that limits the property owner's ability

to object to such restrictions. However, before any restrictions are approved or

implemented staff would share the proposed changes with the affected property owners

accordingly.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by

the Plan Commission.

Commissioner Burke questioned the condition of limiting the access to the hotel on 22nd

Street as it pertains to this petition. He stated that the condition within the staff report

was too vague and should not be tied to the conditions of approval for this petition.

Kevin Carrara, an attorney for Rathje & Woodward, presented the petition on behalf of

Halle-VanVoightlander. He stated the requested relief and noted that the property is not

feasible under R1 zoning. The current use is well established and it is compatible with

both Lombard's Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding land uses. He asked that the

phrasing of the last sentence in the second condition approval be modified.

There was no one present to speak for or against the petition.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, presented the staff report. She noted that the

Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property be used for Community

Commercial uses. The existing use complies with the recommendations of the

Comprehensive Plan. This property is within the Roosevelt Road commercial corridor

that includes a large number of auto-related uses. Although this property abuts

residential land, this occurrence is typical along Roosevelt Road and, as such, it can be

considered compatible with surrounding land uses.

Ms. Backensto stated that upon annexation to the Village, properties are automatically

classified as R1 Single-Family Residential properties. The petitioner is requesting a

map amendment to zone the properties into the B4 Corridor Commercial District. Staff

finds that this amendment can be supported. The zoning designation would be

compatible with the adjacent commercial properties and would be consistent with past

zoning actions and the trend of development for properties abutting the subject property.

The petitioner is also requesting a conditional use for an automobile service

establishment, which is currently operated by Discount Tire. Discount Tire offers tire

sales, service, and maintenance, and no repair activities are performed on site. Given

the high concentration of similar automobile service uses along Roosevelt Road, staff

believes the existing land use is appropriate at this location.

The subject property meets or exceeds all bulk standards for the B4 Corridor

Commercial District, with the exception of the corner side yard along Luther Avenue.

This building was constructed at its present location in 1979. To bring the property into

compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, staff is supportive of a variation for the existing

side yard setback. This will allow the property to be rebuilt in the event of a catastrophe.

However, staff would prefer that any future redevelopment of the site be constructed to

meet all setback requirements. Therefore, staff recommends that a condition should be

added that limits the setback variation to the current site plan.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser noted that the official reading read B3, not B4.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he had no problem with the any of the proposed relief

and agreed to the changed condition.

George Wagner, Village Counsel, stated that since the public hearing had been

advertised as B3 instead of B4 the public notice must be re-published.

Scott Kreich presented the petition on behalf of the property owner. He reiterated the

requested relief and stated that he was available for questions.

There was no one present to speak for or against the petition.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, presented the staff report. She noted that the

Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property be used for Community

Commercial uses. The existing use complies with the recommendations of the

Comprehensive Plan. This property is within the Roosevelt Road commercial corridor

that includes a large number of auto-related uses. Although this property abuts

residential land, this occurrence is typical along Roosevelt Road and, as such, it can be

considered compatible with surrounding land uses.

Ms. Backensto stated that upon annexation to the Village, properties are automatically

classified as R1 Single-Family Residential properties. The petitioner is requesting a

map amendment to zone the properties into the B4 Corridor Commercial District. Staff

finds that this amendment can be supported as the abutting property to the west will be

zoned B4. The zoning designation would be compatible with the adjacent commercial

properties and would be consistent with past zoning actions and the trend of

development for properties abutting the subject property.

The petitioner is requesting a conditional use for an automobile service establishment,

which is currently operated by NTB. No intensive repair activities are performed on site.

Given the high concentration of similar automobile service uses along Roosevelt Road,

staff believes the existing land use is appropriate at this location.

The subject property meets or exceeds all bulk standards for the B4 Corridor

Commercial District, with the exception of the lot width. The petitioner is requesting

approval of a Plat of Resubdivision so that this property may become a Lot of Record,

thereby allowing for the possibility for future redevelopment. Although this property

would meet the minimum B3 District lot width of 100 feet, staff believes that in this case

it would be more appropriate to continue the pattern of B4 zoning in this area. This trend

dates back to the annexation and rezoning of the CVS pharmacy at 1005 E. Roosevelt

Road. Since the property is significantly larger that the minimum required area for B4

properties and no setback variations are being requested, staff is supportive of the

requested lot width variation.

George Wagner, Village Counsel, stated that since the public hearing had been

advertised as B3 instead of B4 the public notice must be re-published.

John Stoetzel of Illinois Industrial Properties, the property owner, presented the petition.

He stated that Inlad Truck and Van equipment was requesting a conditional use for an

automobile repair establishment. He explained that the business installs accessories for

HVAC vans, ladder rack, and shelves. He stated that the business did not involve any

actual maintenance or repairs, and all installations would occur inside the enclosed

building. With regard to the Fire Departments comments in the IDRC report, he

mentioned that there would not be any tire storage, but they would be willing to upgrade

their sprinkler system if necessary. Mr. Stoezel also noted that there would be security

gates for the parking area designated for temporary vehicle storage.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser then opened the hearing for public comment. There was

no one in the audience speaking in favor of or in opposition to the petition. She then

requested the staff report.

Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated that the

property is located west of Lombard Road with an easement for ingress and egress on

Parcel 3 providing access to the site. She mentioned that a 44,000 square foot

industrial building exists on the subject property. She noted that the petitioner is

requesting a conditional use to operate Inlad Van and Truck Equipment, which installs

van and truck accessories.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that automobile repair establishments are listed as a conditional

use within the I Limited Industrial District. She noted that automobile repair

establishments are defined as:

AUTOMOBILE REPAIR

Is the repair of motor vehicles, including rebuilding, reconditioning, replacement, or

dismantling of major components such as body, frame, or fender repair or painting.

Automobile repair generally consists of work that is more intense and less routine than

automobile service and sometimes includes overnight storage of motor vehicles.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that because the proposed involves work with the body and frame

of vehicles and may require overnight storage, staff has determined that the proposed

business would be considered an automobile repair establishment. She stated that a

conditional use for outside storage of motor vehicles is not necessary because it is not

the primary use of the property.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the subject property is completely surrounded by industrial

uses and thus does not require screening for truck parking. She mentioned that the

proposed area designated for the vehicle parking/staging to the west of the building is

sufficiently screened. She stated that the building itself provides screening along the

east side of the parking area. She noted that the properties to the north and west are at

a higher elevation than the proposed vehicle parking/staging area. She also noted that

shrubs along the western property line and trees along the northern property line

provide additional screening.

Ms. Kulikowski pointed out that the petitioner is proposing to place gates at the two

access points into the parking area. She stated that the Public Works Department has

noted that there are two fire hydrants within the gated area, and the petitioner must

provide a means of access for the Fire Department and Public Works Department.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by

the Plan Commission members.

Commissioner Burke asked what the implications were for other automobile repair

establishments if another business were looking to occupy the premises.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that one of the conditions of approval limited the conditional use to

the installation of van and truck equipment and any other use other than the installation

of van and truck accessory equipment shall be deemed a modification of a conditional

use and would require new conditional use approval per the Zoning Ordinance.

Highland/Eastgate Resubdivision

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the workshop and indicated he had various

exhibits for the Commissioners' review. He referenced the first exhibit and indicated that

the property owner at the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Eastgate Road has

approached the Village asking for annexation and zoning input relative to the

consideration of a resubdivision to accommodate up to four single-family lots. The

property is currently unincorporated and contiguous to the Village from the west and

south. He indicated this on the exhibit and proceeded to name the surrounded land

uses. Mr. Heniff indicated that this property is unique in that it will set the tone for the

entire block face to the north relative to establishing an appropriate zoning designation.

The next exhibit Mr. Heniff displayed identified the Comprehensive Plan designations for

the area, and stated that many of the properties around the property owner's site are

designated as Estate Residential. This designation would require lots to be 10,000

square feet with a lot width of 75 feet. The Comprehensive Plan also references that

lots less than 10,000 square feet could be approved if done in the context of a larger

planned development. Being that this property is under one acre in size would make it

ineligible for a planned development and that there currently exits a single family

residence on the property.

Mr. Heniff then displayed the next exhibit and stated that if the Plan Commission and

Board of Trustees wanted to consider a three lot subdivision, the lots would be a little

over 14,000 square feet each, would meet lot size and width requirements and come

into the Village as is. The property to the east is shown on the exhibits as reference if a

three-lot configuration is approved.

The next exhibit showed the property subdivided into four lots. If this scenario was

preferred, each lot be a little over 10,000 square feet and would also meet the provisions

of the Comprehensive Plan but the lot width would be less than 75 square feet. The

major difference between the two plans is the lot width.

Mr. Heniff asked if the Commissioners would be more supportive of the R1 Estate

Residential designation and support a lot width variation or prefer an R2 designation

with a rezoning from an R1 to an R2. He noted that the properties east of Stewart have

gone to R2 and Yorkshire Woods is R2.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated he supports the R1 designation which includes the larger

lot size and the 75-foot lot width. He would be for option 1 as outlined in staff's

memorandum.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser concurred with Commissioner Olbrysh. She confirmed

that what the Plan Commission recommends has a bearing on the lots to the north and

asked Mr. Heniff to expound on that. Mr. Heniff indicated that this is the first lot on the

block face contemplating annexation into the Village. So if the Village preferred an R2

then we should look at R2 up to the southern boundary of 15th Place and not create

piecemeal zoning. If the direction is R2 we should take it all the way up and not change

zoning districts mid-lot or mid-block.

Acting Chairperson Sweetser confirmed that the blocks north of the subject property

look as if they meet the 10,000 square feet requirement. Mr. Heniff stated that they all

would meet the 10,000 square foot requirements. Commissioner Sweetser stated that it

might be a negative to come in as an R2 when they can come in as an R1 by right. Mr.

Heniff indicated that these homes are of a good quality and probably would not see an

8-lot subdivision but if you want to relax the standards it could lend to a larger

redevelopment of the properties to the north.

Commissioner Burke concurred and was supportive of the R1 designation with larger lot

sizes and widths.

Mr. Heniff clarified that the 14,000 square foot lots meeting the 75 square foot lot width

requirement were preferred rather than granting variances with the R1 district. The

Commissioners confirmed Mr. Heniff's statement.