Plan Commission
Village of Lombard
Meeting Minutes
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Rocco Melarkey |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
7:30 PM
Village Hall
Monday, July 18, 2005
Call to Order
William Heniff, Senior Planner, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Commissioner Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner |
Sondra Zorn and Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint and Commissioner |
Rocco Melarkey |
Absent:
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; |
Angela Clark, AICP, Planner II; Jennifer Backensto, AICP, Planner I; Michelle |
Kulikowski, Associate Planner; and George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan |
Commission. |
Mr. Heniff stated that a quorum was established even though the Chairperson and Vice |
Chairperson were absent. He asked for a motion from the Commissioners to appoint a |
Chairperson for the meeting. |
On a motion by Commissioner Olbrysh and seconded by Commissioner Burke, |
Commissioner Sweetser was appointed Acting Chairperson. The motion passed |
unanimously. |
Acting Chairperson Sweetser called the order of the agenda. |
Mr. Heniff read the rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws. |
Public Hearings
050326
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 |
existing free-standing signs on the subject property, where one (1) sign is permitted. |
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. |
Mr. Heniff stated that the Commission could approve the rezoning and annexation |
subject to the conditions they wanted. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, 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:
Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Ryan, Flint and Melarkey
3 -
1. That the petitioner shall enter into an annexation agreement with the Village setting |
forth the terms and conditions of the annexation of the subject property. |
050330
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke that this matter be recommended to the |
Corporate Authorities for approval with one condition. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Ryan, Flint and Melarkey
3 -
050355
A. PC 05-20: 509 and 515 W. Wilson (Request to Continue to September 15, 2005) |
Requests the following actions be taken on the subject property: |
1. Approval of an Annexation Agreement; (2/3 of Corporate Authorities Vote Required) |
2. Annexation to the Village of Lombard; |
3. Approval of a minor plat of subdivision with the following variations: |
a. For Lots 1 and 2, a variation from Section 155.405 (E) to reduce the required |
minimum lot width from seventy-five feet (75') to seventy feet (70'). |
b. For Lot 3, a variation from Section 155.405 (E) to reduce the required minimum |
lot width from seventy-five feet (75') to seventy-one feet (71'). (UNINCORPORATED) |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Ryan, Flint and Melarkey
3 -
1. That the proposed resubdivision shall be in conformance with the Plat of |
Resubdivision, Prepared by Gentile and Associates, Inc., and made as part of this |
request, except as amended as part of the final right-of-way dedication alignment. |
2. That the resubdivision shall not be considered approved until such time that the |
Village approves the dedication of the proposed Wilson Avenue right-of-way alignment |
and annexation request prior to consideration of the resubdivision request. |
3. That the variation request shall be contingent upon the Village and the developer |
entering into an Annexation Agreement, with the Agreement being an Exhibit to the |
Ordinance approving the variation request. |
050356
F. PC 05-23: 455 E. 22nd Street (Waiver of First Requested) |
Requests an amendment to the conditions of approval associated with Ordinance |
Number 4682 which granted a conditional use for a Planned Development located in the |
B3 Community Shopping District. The petitioner is requesting a waiver of first reading. |
(DISTRICT #3) |
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. |
Commissioner Olbrysh also expressed reservations regarding the condition. |
Acting Chairperson Sweetser inquired as to the Village's ability to restrict access or |
modify the intersection at a later date if conditions warrant such a measure. Specifically, |
if the petition is approved without the condition, does that limit the Village's ability to |
reconsider this issue at a later date? Mr. Heniff stated that the Village still has rights to |
modify the intersection at a later date if traffic safety and operating conditions warrant |
such a measure. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, 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:
Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Ryan, Flint and Melarkey
3 -
1. That condition F of Section 5 of Ordinance 4682 shall be removed in its entirety. All |
other provisions associated with Ordinance 4682 shall remain in full force and effect. |
2. That the proposed wall signage shall be developed and installed in compliance with |
the Sign Plan, prepared by Persona Sign Makers, dated March 30, 2005 and made a |
part of this request. The wall signage must be of a channel letter design and shall meet |
the wall signage requirements established within the Sign Ordinance within the B3 |
District. |
3. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for all new signage |
proposed for the subject property |
050357
PC 05-24: 18W520 Roosevelt Road |
Requests that the Village take the following actions on the subject 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 B4 Corridor Commercial District; |
4. Approve a conditional use for an existing automobile service establishment; and |
5. Approve a variation to allow for an existing 9.85-foot corner side yard setback. |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that this |
matter be continued to the August 15, 2005 meeting. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
3 -
Nay:
Olbrysh
1 -
Absent:
Ryan, Flint and Melarkey
3 -
050358
PC 05-25: 18W470 Roosevelt Road |
Requests that the Village take the following actions on the property: |
1. Approve an Annexation Agreement; |
2. Immediately upon the establishment of contiguity to the Village corporate limits, |
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 B4 Corridor Commercial District; |
4. Approve a conditional use for an existing automobile service establishment; and |
5. Approve a one-lot major plat of subdivision with a variation for a lot width of 143.9 |
feet. |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that this |
matter be continued to the August 15, 2005 meeting. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
3 -
Nay:
Olbrysh
1 -
Absent:
Ryan, Flint and Melarkey
3 -
050359
G. PC 05-28: 980 Lombard Road (Ordinance on First Reading) |
Requests approval of a conditional use for an automotive repair establishment in the |
Limited I Industrial District. (DISTRICT #1) |
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: |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, 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:
Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Ryan, Flint and Melarkey
3 -
1. That this conditional use shall be limited to the installation of accessories for van and |
truck equipment. 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 Section 155.103 (F)(13) of the Zoning Ordinance. |
2. All service and repair activities shall be done within the enclosed building. |
3. That the petitioner shall satisfactorily addresses all of the comments within the IDRC |
report. |
4. The petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the Site Plan dated June 24, |
2005 and submitted as part of this request. |
Business Meeting
Acting Chairperson Sweetser convened the business meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the July 18, 2005 meeting were approved by unanimous consent of the |
Plan Commission. |
Public Participation
There was no public participation.
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Chairperson's Report
Acting Chairperson Sweetser deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
The Senior Planner had nothing to report.
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
There were no subdivision reports.
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Workshops
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. |
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. |
________________________________ |
Ruth Sweetser, Acting Chairperson |
________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |