Village of Lombard Legistar System

PC 06-17: 455 East Butterfield Road (Continued from June 19, 2006)

Requests that the Village approve the following actions for the subject property located

within the O Office District:

1. Grant the following conditional uses from the Zoning Ordinance:

a. A conditional use, per Section 155.411 (C) (14), for a restaurant establishment;

b. A conditional use, per Section 155.411 (C) (10), for outdoor dining associated with

a restaurant establishment;

c. A conditional use, per Section 155.411 (C) (9), for off-site parking.

2. Grant the following variations from the Zoning Ordinance to address existing

non-conformities:

a. A variation from Section 155.411 (F) to reduce the required open space below the

thirty-five percent (35%) requirement;

b. A variation from Section 155.602 (A)(3)(d) to allow for parking spaces within the

required front yard;

c. Along the south property line, variations from Sections 155.706 (C) and 155.709

(B) to eliminate the perimeter parking lot landscaping and to reduce the perimeter lot

landscaping requirements from five feet (5') to zero feet (0').

3. Grant the following variations from the Sign Ordinance:

a. A variation from Section 153.503(B)(12)(a) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for a

wall sign of up to 146 square feet where a maximum of 100 square feet is permitted;

b. A variation from Section 153.503(B)(12)(b) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for a

second wall sign per street front exposure, where a maximum of one sign is permitted.

4. Approval of a one-lot major plat of subdivision.

PC 06-18: 1000 North Rohlwing Road

Requests that the Village approve the following actions for the subject property located

within the B3 Community Shopping District:

1. An amendment to an annexation agreement (Ordinance 3336) approving an

alternate landscape plan (Exhibit D).

2. A conditional use for a planned development, with the following deviations to the

Lombard Sign Ordinance:

a. A deviation from Section 153.234 to allow for two shopping center identification

signs of 372 square feet in sign area and one sign of 299 square feet in sign area,

where a maximum of one-hundred fifty (150) square feet is permitted;

b. A deviation from Section 153.234 to allow for two free-standing signs of forty-five

feet (45') in overall height, where a maximum of thirty-five feet (35') is permitted;

c. A deviation from Section 153.210 (D) to allow for an increase of an electronic

message board from two feet (2') to five feet (5') in height with a display screen greater

than eighteen inches in height.

d. A deviation to allow for up to three additional wall signs of up to 275 square feet in

sign surface area for the benefit of tenants within the Northgate Shopping Center, in lieu

of the provisions set forth in Section 153.505 (B)(19)(b).

3. A use exception to allow for a storage center to be located within the proposed

planned development, with a variation from the use and area standards set forth in

Section 155.508 (B)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance.

Steve Rubin of Midwest Real Estate Equities, 2901 Butterfield Road, Oak Brook,

presented the petition. Midwest owns the subject property under the Northgate

Lombard LLC. He noted that they acquired the Northgate Shopping Center last July

knowing that it has been vacant and had drawbacks with its marketability. They hoped

to improve it in a number of areas and that is why they are before the Plan Commission.

It was 80 percent vacant when they acquired it - now it is 90 percent vacant and they

want to remedy that situation. The site has been 80 to 90 percent vacant for three

years.

He then gave the history of North Avenue, noting that retailers tend to go to other

locations. This location is a “tweener” location - in between two other major markets.

They like the site due to its location, but needs to attract a certain type of user. The

property suffered from poor management and maintenance. There was a lot of debris

on the property, overgrown landscaping, garbage overflowing dumpsters, the front of

center unkempt, and the building was not painted. In addition, it also has poor visibility.

If people can't see the center, the location does not help. The site impediments are the

shrubs and trees on the west and east sides. Some are on their property and some are

on Harlem Furniture's property. They want to remove vegetation on the west side and

reduce some trees and prune trees on east side. A drawback to the site it is that the

center layout is perpendicular to North Avenue. There is no visibility on I-355. There

also is limited access along North Avenue. There was a teen club in the center that was

not well run and it has since closed. In April, 2005, they hired a high quality leasing

agent, CB Richard Ellis, who made several deals but none materialized. This site will

attract local or regional tenants.

He then noted the positive things done to improve the site which including sealing and

striping the parking lot and Harlem Furniture doing a major renovation. Harlem Furniture

owns their own building but they have a cross access/parking agreement. They cleaned

up debris on the property, replaced landscaping, got parking lot lights working,

terminated the teen club lease, donated space to the Jaycees for their Halloween

Haunted House, and facilitated a regional disaster drill on their site. They are painting

the magenta stripe in front of the property. They are here to ask assistance to help

them attract tenants and would like to improve the visibility, modify the signage, add a

new large highly visible pylon sign on the tollway, and replace the two signs on North

Avenue and Rowhling Road.

They are also asking for a zoning amendment to allow a portion of the property for self

storage. As they have been approached by a storage company they did not want to be

involved in a zoning reclassification afterward but wanted to ensure that the site could

be developed in that fashion.

The petitioner has received staff's comments regarding their proposal and they have

prepared alternative plans as recent as this morning. It appears that staff is in

agreement with their landscape requests. Regarding the signage, they have made

concessions for colors, size and number of signs and agreed to change the name of

center from Northgate Plaza to the Landings of Lombard. They agree to the sidewalk

repairs along Route 53.

He then distributed a modified sign plan for the I-355 freestanding sign. The tollway sign

is 45' x 17'3” wide. The name has been changed and the font has been changed to

enhance its readability. The rendering shows beige columns but they will change the

color to match the brick. They will also change the cornice from white to grey.

They propose a similar sign but a smaller version on North Avenue. They came up with

mutual plan to have it 35 feet high and do away from automatic changeable copy sign in

lieu of more square footage. He mentioned that they agreed to do away with the ACC

sign on North Avenue for greater sign area.

He then discussed the landscape plan, referring to a display board. A four-acre

detention area exists to the southwest of their site. They wanted to remove the trees but

as it is a wetland area those plantings will remain. They propose to remove almost all

trees and shrubbery by the Harlem Furniture building. They will remain in compliance

with the Zoning Ordinance by planting or keeping one tree every 75 linear feet. On the

east side of the property, they propose to remove some trees but keep the vast majority

and prune them as needed. They will only prune the trees in the parking lot. They will

also remove some trees along North Avenue, some of which are already dead.

Regarding the signage, he mentioned Sydney/Rohlwing sign and showed where the

pylon sign would be located. The North Avenue sign would be at the entrance and the

Rowhling Road sign will be at the same location as the existing sign.

Bob Clark of Harlem Furniture, 1046 Rohlwing Road, stated on Harlem's behalf they are

pleased with their concepts for reducing landscaping and increasing visibility and they

support the petition. They did invest a great deal of money in the center the store looks

great and anything else to increase its visibility they wholeheartedly support.

Edward Welsh of Dommermuth, Brestal, Cobine and West, 123 Water Street,

Naperville, attorney for the petitioner, provided more detail regarding the petition. He

noted that the ACC sign requirements limit its height to two feet - they are asking three

feet. Staff agrees to this request based upon the prevailing speed of traffic along I-355.

Staff's addendum report concurs with most of their request.

The other item included in their request is for a use exception. They do not know

exactly how large the proposed storage center would be, but they do not think it would

be incompatible with the center.

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

to speak in favor or against the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff noted that two reports were created. The original report outlined the

petitioner's request and the addendum report incorporates additional findings and

recommendations based upon the petitioner's comments to the initial staff report.

He noted that the current property owners/petitioners are seeking approval of a number

of actions to enhance the ability to make the center attractive to businesses. These

actions include an amendment to the landscape plan as well as signage relief to provide

for additional freestanding signs and wall signs on the property. To achieve this goal,

the petitioner is also seeking approval of a conditional use for a planned development.

This will allow for additional flexibility in site design and development standards in

consideration of the unique site- specific constraints associated with the property.

Referencing the IDRC comments, Private Engineering Services Division notes that all of

the landscaping along the west and south sides of the building, with exception of the

northernmost 250 feet along I-355 and the easternmost 100 feet along North Avenue, is

in a special management area, which is regulated by DuPage County. Total avoidance

of that area is recommended.

He then discussed the history of the site. The subject property was annexed into the

Village in 1990 associated with the approval of the Northgate Shopping Center

development. A companion annexation agreement set forth the terms and conditions of

the annexation. The agreement also tied the annexation to a specific set of plans and

specifications for the subject property - including a site plan, signage plan and a

landscape plan. The property owner that developed the subject property followed these

specifications within their development.

Since the 1990 approval and construction of the site with a shopping center, the subject

property has been sold on two separate occasions. In the late 1990s, the Northgate

Theatres ceased operations. In 2003, an anchor tenant of the shopping center,

Menard's, closed their operations within the center. Since then, the Menard's space has

remained vacant. The theatre site received conditional use approvals for a teen club

and a religious institution, but as of June 2006, both of these uses have since left the

center. The property is currently occupied by the Harlem Furniture store (which was

recently renovated) as well as smaller tenants occupying space at the southern end of

the center.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the subject property be developed as a

Community Commercial use. The petitioner's request to undertake activities on the

property to enhance the use of the property as a retail center is consistent with the

Comprehensive Plan. Establishing the site within a planned development would also be

consistent with the Plan's objectives. However, staff finds that other aspects of the

request are not consistent with the Plan objectives.

The shopping center is a permitted use within the B3 District. No expansions to the

shopping center are proposed as part of this petition. However, within the planned

development, the petitioner is requesting approval of a landscape plan amendment,

signage deviations and a use exception as part of the planned development approval.

He noted that the subject property is bound by the provisions of an Annexation

Agreement. The petitioner proposes to substantially modify the landscape plan

approved by the agreement. While the agreement provides that such an amendment

could conceptually be reviewed and approved by staff, provided that the revised planting

met code. However, Counsel noted that to incorporate the amended plan into the

annexation agreement, an amendment should be undertaken.

The petitioner notes that the primary purpose of this request was to clear overgrowth or

excessive vegetation surrounding the subject property in order to provide greater

exposure of the shopping center. The amended landscape plan proposes to remove

selected plant materials from the property and adjacent public rights-of-way. The

revised plan consists of removing of almost all existing vegetation within the tollway

property itself and thinning and/or removal of plantings along the west property line and

on the ISTHA property located east of the northbound entrance ramp to I-355.

Staff would like to see at a minimum, the perimeter lot landscaping provisions met along

the west property line, per the Zoning Ordinance regulations. The petitioner proposes to

clear most of the mature trees north of the docks, and leave the requisite number of

trees needed to meet the minimum requirements expressed in the Zoning Ordinance

(i.e., 1 tree every 75 feet around the detention area/property line, with the ability to ability

to cluster the trees). This can be accomplished through the preservation of selected

existing trees and/or removing existing trees and planting new lower growing parkway

tree species. The final selection of trees to be removed will be determined by a final site

inspection of the trees and approval of the removal by staff.

Along Rohlwing Road and North Avenue, the petitioner would like to thin the plant

materials to provide better visibility of the shopping center itself. Since the center is at a

significantly lower elevation than Route 53 itself, the ability to see the center is more

difficult. It also appears that the plant materials installed as part of the initial approval

were never thinned or trimmed in recent years. As such, the site appears to be

overgrown in many areas. Staff has field inspected the landscape plan prepared by the

petitioner and made several comments regarding the materials to be removed. Staff

also attempted to provide at least one tree every 40 feet, consistent with code. The tree

removal also focuses upon those view corridors necessary to see the building and/or

associated signage. The petitioner has agreed to incorporate staff's comments into its

final plan. In consideration of the removal of plant materials, staff noted that a small

segment of the sidewalk within the Route 53 right-of-way is in disrepair. Staff

recommends that with the removal of these plantings that the sidewalk be repaired

accordingly.

He noted within the petition is a request for conditional use approval for a planned

development. As the subject property meets the minimum lot width and area

requirements and since the intent of planned developments is to address the unique

attributes surrounding the existing and proposed land uses, staff recommends the

establishment of a planned development for this site. Moreover, the planned

development process will provide greater flexibility to consider unique parking and

signage elements associated with the shopping center. Staff also notes that most other

comparable shopping centers in the Village are within planned developments.

The petitioner is proposing a modified sign package for the center with the following

signage characteristics. The freestanding sign along I-355 is proposed to be located at

the far northwest corner of the Harlem Furniture property in order to maximize visibility

to traffic along the tollway. Such signage has been commonly used for retail destination

centers such as regional outlet malls. The petitioner is proposing a total sign height of

45 feet in order to allow for signage visibility over the adjacent noise barrier walls and

overpass grade changes. The petitioner is also proposing the overall sign area to be

about 360 square feet in sign surface area. The large sign size is intended to include

primary tenants in the center at a size that would be readable to motorists traveling at

higher speeds. Lastly, the proposed sign includes an automatic changeable sign,

intended to provide changeable text at a size that is readable to motorists.

Staff notes that the Village Sign Ordinance does not have any special signage

regulations for signage along limited-access expressways. As such, any increase in

sign size and height must seek signage relief. The proposed sign is unique in the

Village as the subject property is the only B-district property in the Village that abuts a

tollway. From an economic development perspective, the proposed sign could also

serve as a catalyst to secure a regional destination retailer to the property. Moreover,

the larger sign provides the opportunity for the southbound motorist to see the sign prior

to the North Avenue intersection and make necessary traffic movements safely. As

such, staff is supportive of the sign along I-355, provided that the ACC sign is

monochromatic, advertises business establishments located on the subject property

only and is operated in compliance with Village Code.

The petitioner is also requesting an identical sign for the North Avenue frontage as is

proposed along I-355. However, from staff's perspective, such signage raises a number

of concerns, including sign size, consistency with signage on other like properties and

past Plan Commission actions. The petitioner's revised sign plan along Route 53 will be

in compliance with the Village Code.

The petitioner is seeking relief to allow for up to four wall signs to be placed along the

Harlem Furniture west wall. They are seeking approval to allow for such signage of up

to 275 square feet in area. The petitioner is requesting this relief to allow various future

tenants the opportunity to have more visible signage along the west building elevation.

From staff's perspective, the total square footage of all signage of 1,100 square feet

would be significant and could present a billboard appearance. As such, staff does not

support the wall sign relief.

The petitioner is seeking a use exception within the planned development to allow for a

storage center to be located on the subject property. If approved, it would allow for such

an establishment to be located within part of or all of the vacant tenant space. At this

point in time, the petitioner does not have a site plan or tenant space plan to

accommodate such a tenant. From staff's perspective, granting a use exception for the

subject property to allow for a storage center would not be appropriate, as it would be

inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the intent of planned development

designation other zoning approvals and the industrial nature of the storage center use.

He then discussed the addendum report. Staff met with the petitioner relative to the

recommendations staff is offering to the Plan Commission. Specifically, the petitioner

reiterated their need and desire to have additional square footage for free-standing

signage along North Avenue. As part of this discussion with staff, the petitioner is

proposing an alternative sign proposal for the North Avenue sign that would provide for

additional square footage but would address other concerns raised within the IDRC

report.

The petitioner's revised request would allow for greater square footage for the North

Avenue freestanding sign. However, as a trade off for this request, they are willing to

withdraw their proposed ACC sign request. Moreover, they are also willing to “trade”

their rights to install a two foot ACC sign component within their sign in consideration of

the additional sign area.

In consideration of this alternative proposal, staff believes that the petitioner's amended

request can be supported. Staff denoted in the initial report that 230 square feet would

be the maximum desired signage for freestanding signs. While the North Avenue sign

does not meet the description for an expressway, during periods of low street traffic,

vehicles can move by at a higher rate of speed, which could serve as the basis for

signage relief. However, given that the petitioner is willing to remove any ACC signage

rights along North Avenue (which as not been deemed desirable by the Village in the

past), the additional square footage can been seen as a reasonable accommodation.

Moreover, the petitioner is also willing to cap the overall square footage on the Route 53

sign to 120 square feet to ensure that the site does not have excessive freestanding

signage.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments from the Plan Commission

members.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that this property is significant as it serves as a gateway

into Lombard. When traveling north, you have to be looking for the shopping center to

find it and he agrees that the landscaping is overgrown. For marketing purposes, they

need better signage and better pruning. He thanked the petitioner for trying to resurrect

the center. Regarding the electronic message board, he is glad not to have it on North

Avenue. With respect to the I-355 sign, his concern is that the ACC sign be operated so

that flashing messages are not used. He agrees with staff in not having a storage

center as it is not consistent with a retail commercial use.

Regarding the electronic sign, Mr. Rubin stated that they do not want to create a safety

issue. The code requires certain types of message and they would work with that

requirement to make it static. The message might last one minute and then change to

another message.

Commissioners Burke and Flint concurred with Commissioner Olbrysh's comments.

It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that

this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to

conditions as it relates to the following actions only:

The motion carried by the following vote:

1. An amendment to an annexation agreement (Ordinance 3336) approving an

alternate landscape plan.

2. A conditional use for a planned development, with the following deviations to the

Lombard Sign Ordinance:

a. A deviation from Section 153.234 to allow one shopping center identification sign

of 360 square feet in sign area (to be located along I-355), where a maximum of

one-hundred fifty (150) square feet is permitted;

b. A deviation from Section 153.234 to allow for one free-standing sign of forty-five

feet (45') in overall height (to be located along I-355), where a maximum of thirty-five

feet (35') is permitted; and

c. A deviation from Section 153.210 (D) to allow for an increase of an electronic

message board from two feet (2') to three feet (3') in height with a display screen greater

than eighteen inches in height (for a sign to be located along I-355).

d. A deviation from Section 153.234 to allow one shopping center identification sign

of 230 square feet in sign area (to be located along North Avenue), where a maximum of

one-hundred fifty (150) square feet is permitted.

Furthermore, the Plan Commission recommends denial of all other zoning actions

requested as part of this petition.

The relief recommended for approval above shall be subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall follow the approved alternate landscape plan prepared by Rolf C.

Campbell & Associates, dated June 20, 2005; with annotations provided by the

petitioner denoting the materials to be removed or replaced. Any deviations from the

plan must be reviewed and approved by the Village Director of Community

Development.

2. The proposed sign along I-355 shall be developed in accordance with the submitted

sign plan prepared by Olympic Signs, dated June 9, 2006 and made a part of this

petition, except as amended by this Ordinance of approval.

3. The proposed automatic changeable copy sign element included within the

free-standing sign along I-355 shall be of a monochrome LED design, shall only

advertise business establishment located on the subject property and shall operate in

compliance with the Lombard Sign Ordinance.

4. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed

improvements. Said permit shall include and shall satisfactorily address those issues

identified as part of the Inter-departmental review comments noted within the staff

report.

5. Associated with the removal of the vegetation along Route 53, the petitioner shall

repair and/or replace those segments of the adjacent sidewalk in disrepair located

immediately south of the Sidney Avenue intersection within the Route 53 right-of-way.

6. The proposed shopping center identification sign along North Avenue shall not have

an automatic changeable sign (ACC) component.

7. The proposed shopping center sign proposed to be located along Route 53 shall not

exceed one-hundred twenty (120) square feet in sign surface area.

She noted that encroachments were permitted for practical and aesthetic purposes and

help promote compliance with the intent of the Building and Development Codes.

Ms. Kulikowski reviewed the current regulations for bay windows. She stated that bay

windows are listed as permitted encroachments in front corner side and rear yards

provided that they are one story high and project no more than three feet (3') into the

required yard. She noted that bay windows are not permitted encroachments in interior

side yards. She stated that the proposed text amendments would list bay windows as

permitted encroachments in interior side yards with provisions limiting overall size and

bulk. She mentioned that the bay window encroachments could not be supported by a

foundation, would be limited to ten feet (10') in width and a two foot (2') projection into

the yard, and could not encroach into any easement area. She also noted that a

definition for bay window would be added to the Rules and Definitions Section. Ms.

Kulikowski explained the rationale for the bay windows text amendment. She noted

other permitted encroachments in interior side yards such as chimneys, eaves and

gutters, and awnings and canopies. She stated that bay windows and chimneys do not

differ as far as overall bulk and intensity. She also mentioned that the text amendment

would allow flexibility to incorporate bay windows as an architectural feature on exterior

side walls. She noted other architectural elements such as eaves are permitted

encroachments and that bay windows could help break up monotony of side exterior

walls to avoid a “box like” appearance. Ms. Kulikowski referenced pictures showing

examples of bay windows on side exterior walls.

Ms. Kulikowski explained the text amendment pertaining to window wells. She stated

that the Zoning Ordinance currently does not address window wells, and therefore they

are not a permitted encroachment in any yard. She noted that window wells are

required to meet Building Code requirements for light and ventilation in basements and

for means of egress from the basement level. She mentioned that technically the

Zoning Ordinance would require exterior walls to be setback further in order for window

wells to comply with the minimum setback requirements. She stated that the proposed

amendment will provide consistency between the Building Code and the Zoning

Ordinance and codify staff policy not to include window wells in setback measurements.

Ms. Kulikowski outlined the limitations to only allow window wells to project three feet

(3') or less into the yard and not allow window wells to encroach into any easement

area.

Ms. Kulikowski reviewed the text amendment pertaining to open porches. She noted

that breezeways and open porches are listed as permitted encroachments in rear yards,

but the Zoning Ordinance is not clear as to what constitutes an open porch. She stated

that porches are inherently open as enclosed porches would be considered a sun room

or three season room. She mentioned that the roof cover is the defining characteristic

of a porch as porches without roofs would be considered a deck. She stated that the

limitations for deck encroachments could be circumvented by considering a structure to

be an open porch rather than a deck. She noted that the proposed text amendment

would clarify the terminology used for porches by eliminating open porches from Table

2.1 and just referencing roofed-over porches.

Ms. Kulikowski discussed the final text amendment clarifying the limitations for

roofed-over porches as permitted encroachments. She noted that these encroachments

are limited to porches that project no more than seven feet (7') from the front wall of the

principal structure and maintain at least a twenty-five foot (25') front yard setback. She

stated that the proposed text amendment would refer to front wall(s) in order to clarify

that the front wall is not necessarily the wall closest to the front property line. There may

be more than one front wall if one portion of the building is closer to the front property

line. She noted that this particularly makes a difference in how the seven foot projection

is measured. Ms. Kulikowski referenced an illustration demonstrating a difference

between a seven foot (7') projection from the wall closest to the front property line and

from the front walls of a building.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone in the audience who was in favor or

against the petition. Hearing none, the meeting was opened to the Plan

Commissioners.

Commissioner Burke asked whether an eave could encroach an additional three feet (3')

on a bay window already encroaching into the setback.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that Footnote D in Table 2.1 limits the bay window

itself to a two foot (2') projection in the side yard. He noted that an eave on a bay

window would be limited to the net difference of the three foot (3') maximum project into

the yard and the projection of the bay window. A bay window projecting the maximum

two feet (2') into an interior side yard would only be permitted to have eaves projecting

one foot (1') from the bay window.

Commissioner Burke asked why bay window encroachments were limited to one story in

height. He noted that some of the pictures included in the presentation showed two

story bay windows.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that some of the pictures included properties that are not within the

Village of Lombard.

Mr. Heniff explained that Footnote C which includes the one story limitation is part of the

current regulations. He noted that the text amendment just modifies how it appears in

the Ordinance. He mentioned that the intent was to minimize the additional living space

created by the cantilever and that it is mainly a bulk issue. He noted that an argument

can be made to allow two story bay windows because there is no height limitation for

chimneys that encroach into an interior side yard. He stated that the Plan Commission

can choose to strike the one story provision if they feel it is appropriate.

Chairperson Ryan stated that the one story provision should be removed.

Mr. Heniff asked the Commissioners if they wanted staff to clarify the definition of eaves.

The Commissioners indicated that they did.

PC 06-05: Text Amendments (C/R Signage)

The Village of Lombard is proposing amendments to the Lombard Sign Ordinance

within the Conservation/Recreation District, as follows:

A. Within Section 153.501 (B) of the Sign Ordinance:

1. Add Informational Signs and establishing regulations thereto;

2. Add Institutional Signs and establishing regulations thereto;

3. Add Temporary Signs and establishing regulations thereto;

4. Establish regulations for Sponsor Signage and banners;

5. Amending Section 153.501 (B)(2) pertaining to the size, height, location and

number of permitted free-standing signs; and

6. Amending Section 153.501 (B)(3) pertaining to the number and area of permitted

wall signs.

B. Amend Section 153.602 - Definitions to include provisions for "sponsor signage"

and/or any required companion text amendments associated with the amendments set

forth above.

C. Amend Section 153.206 - Signs Not Subject to a Permit

of this petition so they can incorporate the Commissioners' comments as well as include

input from the other affected entities.

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

to speak in favor or against this petition.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments from the Plan Commission

members.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he did not have any problem with staff's

recommendations but wanted to comment on Automatic Changeable Copy (ACC) signs.

These types of signs are always a hot topic. He realizes that their use will be very

limited in this zoning district due to the expense, but we should be careful about it. He

stated that ACC signs for this district should be the exception to the rule and if they are

used, should meet the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Heniff stated that most of

the properties are under public ownership and they would be sensitive to the adjacent

neighborhood.

William Heniff presented the petition for the property at 2S680 Gray Avenue, located

within the Butterfield East Subdivision. DuPage County has received a filing for a public

hearing for a variation from the County's fence requirements to allow for a six-foot solid

fence in a front yard, where a maximum fence height of four feet and fifty percent open

is permitted; located on a lot within the County's R-4 Single Family Residence District

(DuPage County ZBA Case 5244-06). As the subject property is located within the

ultimate municipal boundaries of the Village of Lombard, the Village has received notice

of the public hearing from the County and has been asked to provide comments

regarding this petition.

Staff would like to solicit the input and a recommendation of the Plan Commission

regarding this petition. He also passed out photographs of the subject property.

He then described the requested relief. The subject property is located at the northwest

corner of Butterfield Road and Gray Avenue. The petitioner has constructed an

eight-foot solid fence along the south property line. However, the petitioner would like to

secure approvals from the County to extend the fence into the front yard as depicted on

the plans.

In review of the subject property, staff notes that a mature hedgerow exists along the

property line. Extending the fence to the east and into the requisite front yard would

have minimal impact for visibility as the yard is already encumbered by mature

vegetation. Moreover, as the Butterfield Road right-of-way is substantially wider than

most rights-of-way and that since motorists tend to stop at the stop sign on Gray Avenue

far beyond the subject property, the fence would not create a clear line of sight issue for

motorists.

He noted that the Plan Commission can offer no comment on the petition, direct staff to

prepare a recommendation to the Board of Trustees or the Commissioners can

recommend to staff to prepare a resolution of objection to the petition.

Chairperson Ryan noted that the bushes are far more of a hindrance than anything else.

He felt that they should send a letter stating that before we approve the fence they

should reduce the size of the bushes. Commissioner Burke noted that the bushes may

be in the public right of way and outside of the fence line. Mr. Heniff noted that IDOT

might not have a problem with trimming the bushes, but in context of clear line of sight,

the bulk of vegetation is more of a visual impediment.

Commissioner Olbrysh noted that the fence is not a problem this time, but the hedgerow

should be thinned out.

Commissioner Burke asked about the eight foot wood fence along Butterfield. Mr. Heniff

noted that the fence is eight feet high and is within DuPage County code.

Terry Doyle, 1041 S. Ahrens, Lombard, and representing Doyle Sign Company

presented the petition. He indicated that the Hyatt Corporation is upgrading their

AmeriSuites Hotel Chain to be re-branded with a new corporate name called Hyatt

Place. All the AmeriSuites signs will be removed and replaced with the new image. The

Lombard location will be the first of all the chains to reflect this new image. The design

and efficiency of the signs will be improved and they will be illuminated resulting in a

reduction in power consumption. Concluding, he stated that both signs are necessary

for the successful identification and operation of their facility.

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

to speak in favor or against this petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, reiterated the request and stated that the approval of the

existing wall signs were part of the original site plan approval for the AmeriSuites Hotel

known as SPA 98-01, on Lot 6 of Fountain Square. Afterward, Lot 6 was resubdivided

to create three lots which resulted in AmeriSuites no longer having street frontage on

Fountain Square Drive. Without any frontage, the Sign Ordinance would no longer allow

any signage for their property.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends regional commercial uses at this location and

the Hyatt Hotel complies with this recommendation. Development signs are subject to

the regulations for the underlying B3 Community Commercial District and the Fountain

Square planned development approval and any subsequent signage deviations are

considered through the site plan approval process.

Section 5.F.3. of the B3 Fountain Square Development Agreement states that any

frontage on private streets are considered to satisfy public street frontage criteria for the

purposes of basing signage rights and regulations according to the Sign Ordinance.

When the property was developed, the property line abutted Fountain Square Drive but

no longer does as a result of the Lot 6 resubdivision, consequently, the petitioner is

requesting a variation from the definition of frontage within the Sign Ordinance. Staff

supports the deviation as it is consistent with the definition of front yard as the side

facing the access street is designated as the front yard.

The petitioner is also requesting a deviation for a 294.5 square feet wall sign on the

building's southeast wall as well as a 162.6 square feet of sign surface area on the

building's southwest wall. Ms. Kulikowski gave the dimensions of the existing signs and

stated that staff supports these deviations as they are similar to the existing signage.

She explained that the difference in terms of size between the existing signs and the

requested signs is only 38.7 square feet larger on the southeast wall and 17.7 square

feet on the southwest wall. Staff also supports these deviations as the appearance of

the signs is consistent with the original site plan approval.

Concluding, Ms. Kulikowski indicated that staff recommends approval of this request

subject to the two conditions outlined in the staff report.

Fountain Square of Lombard - Lot 2 (Entourage)

William Heniff introduced a development proposal for the Entourage restaurant that will

be presented at next month's Plan Commission meeting. The development proposal will

include a sit-down restaurant and a drive-through bank. However, as a financial

institution has not executed an agreement with the owner/developer, the developer is

seeking to design the site and construct all site improvements as part of the Entourage

development.

Staff is starting to review the conceptual plans and requests input from the Plan

Commission. He also noted that Robert Pugliese, Counsel for the petitioner, is in the

audience to answer questions.

The proposed restaurant will be constructed on Lot 2 of Fountain Square, commonly

referred to as the swing parcel. The Fountain Square planned development set forth

specific permitted uses for the Lot 2 parcel. Sit-down restaurants and financial

institutions are listed as permitted uses on the site. Drive-through facilities are listed as

conditional uses.

The petitioner will be seeking site plan approval for the proposed restaurant. In order to

ensure that the site can be developed with a bank with a drive-through at a later date,

the petitioner would like to secure the approval of the conditional use as part of this

petition. Lastly, the petitioner will seek approval of a two-lot plat of resubdivision.

The petitioner has developed a concept site plan and building elevations as part of this

project. The site will be accessed exclusively from Fountain Square Drive - the planned

development approval precludes driveway access from the adjacent Fountain Square

Condominiums, Meyers Road and 22nd Street.

Mr. Heniff asked if the Commissioners were supportive of the phased approach to the

Lot 2 development. The petitioner notes that while they are only seeking approval of the

drive-through at this time, the Plan Commission will still have the opportunity to review

the bank proposal as part of a requisite future site plan approval application. Staff

believes that setting forth the development parameters for the site at this time and

ensuring that all public improvements are completed as part of the initial phase of the

development, a better overall plan can be derived. Staff also notes that the phased

approach was successfully used as part of the Champp's, Weber Grill and P.F. Changs

restaurants and Jared developments.

Chairperson Ryan stated that he had no problem with considering the drive-through

bank concept along with the restaurant proposal. Other Commissioners agreed with his

statement.

Mr. Heniff then asked if the Commissioners have any comments relative to the overall

site layout. Staff will want the petitioner to address access/circulation patterns for the

site, particularly as it relates to the valet queuing and parking arrangement. Moreover,

staff will also require that the access drive where the drive-through lanes would be

constructed will be required to be installed as part of the first phase of the development.

Staff has asked the Village's traffic consultant to look at this issue. He also noted that

access for emergency vehicles needs to be reviewed as well.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the Meyers Road and 22nd Street intersection is

prominent. He raised concerns about the visibility of the proposed parking lot as he

does not want the parking spaces to stick out toward the perimeter of the property and

negatively affect sight lines. Commissioner Flint suggested additional berming.

Commissioner Burke concurred and stated that the first thing one will see is the drive-

through and that would be a downgrade to the development. The plan will need a lot of

berming and landscaping. Chairperson Ryan is looking for some kind of berm or high

vegetation along 22nd Street.

Commissioner Flint inquired about reorienting the bank building. Mr. Pugliese noted that

the shape of the lot would limit the ability to make the project site work well.

Commissioner Flint noted that it would be nice to have the building facing 22nd and

Meyers rather than the parking lot, but it all has to mesh with the traffic flow and you

don't want stacking interrupting the main entrance.

Chairperson Ryan inquired about the footprint of the bank building. Mr. Heniff noted that

the plans depict the proposed area where the bank will be located. Mr. Pugliese noted

that based upon earlier concept plans, the bank will be located to the north side of the

bank site - this will allow for substantial open space and landscaping on the south side

of the building.

Chairperson Ryan inquired about the drive-through bays. Mr. Heniff noted that Village

code does not address a specific queuing number for banks - this is considered as part

of the conditional use application. He noted that there would likely be four drive-though

lanes, with one of those lanes for ATM use. There will be a pass-by lane.

Chairperson Ryan asked about the open space at the northeast corner of the site. Mr.

Pugliese noted that that area includes a telephone vault.

Commissioner Flint suggested that the restaurant drop off area incorporate a paver

block type of surfacing like other restaurants at Fountain Square.

Mr. Heniff noted that the west end of the property would be heavily landscaped for the

restaurant, relative to the condominiums to the west. This is consistent with the intent of

Lot 2 planned development requirements.

Mr. Heniff then sought comments from the Commissioners regarding the proposed

building elevations. He noted a few areas in which there is a fair amount of stucco and

asked if the Commissioners preferred additional stone elements, banding, or other

things.

Commissioner Burke asked about the grades on the property. He noted that the

amount of modifications will depend on the west landscape plan and the visibility of the

north elevation from 22nd Street.

Chairperson Ryan noted that the south elevation shows four pillars and suggested that if

an additional pillar is added to the north elevation it may help.

Commissioner Flint asked the Commissioners if they wanted stucco areas on the lower

part and/or incorporate more stone there. Rock Bottom has quite a bit of stone at its

base, which gives a richer look and can be incorporated on the lower level in those