Monday, January 22, 2007
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall
Plan Commission
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Richard Nelson |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Meeting Minutes
Plan Commission
Meeting Minutes
January 22, 2007
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser and Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Commissioner Sondra Zorn and Commissioner Richard Nelson
Absent:
Also present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; Michael Toth, Associate Planner; |
and George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda. |
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws. |
Public Hearings
060652
PC 06-27: 101-125 S. Main Street |
Requests that the Village take the following actions on the subject property, located |
within the B5 Central Business District: |
1. Approve a conditional use for a planned development with the following variations |
and deviations from the Zoning Ordinance: |
a. A deviation from Section 155.416 (G) to allow for an increase in the maximum |
building height from 45 feet to 48 feet; |
b. A variation from Section 155.416 (K), Section 155.508 (C) (6) (b) and Section |
155.707 (A) (3) to allow for a reduction of the required transitional landscape yard from |
10 feet to 5 feet; |
c. A variation from Section 155.416 (M) and Section 155.602 to allow for a reduction |
of the required number of off-street parking spaces for a theater from thirty-seven (37) |
to zero (0); |
d. A variation from Section 155.508 (C) (6) (a) to allow for a reduction of the required |
front yard for a planned development abutting the R2 Single-Family Residence District |
from thirty (30) feet to four (4) feet; |
e. A variation from Section 155.508 (C) (6) (b) and Section 155.707 (B) (3) to allow |
for the elimination of the required transitional landscape yard improvements; |
f. A variation from Section 155.709 (B) to eliminate the requirement to provide one |
(1) shade tree for every seventy-five (75) lineal feet of required perimeter lot |
landscaping; and |
2. Approve a conditional use for outdoor dining; and |
3. The petitioner also requests Site Plan Approval authority to the Lombard Plan |
Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan indicated that the petitioner has requested a continuance of this |
petition to the February 19, 2007 meeting so they may work out the details associated |
with parking and stormwater. |
It was moved by Flint and seconded by Sweetser to continue the petition. Chairperson |
Ryan asked if they wanted to include the date. Commissioner Flint then amended his |
motion to include continuing the petition to the February 19, 2007 meeting. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, that |
this matter be continued to the February 19, 2007 meeting. The motion carried by |
the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Nelson
2 -
060742
Requests approval of a conditional use for a contractor equipment and storage yard in |
the I Limited Industrial District. (DISTRICT #1) |
Chairperson Ryan indicated that this petitioner has also requested a continuance to the |
February 19, 2007 meeting in order for them to work with staff on property maintenance |
issues. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, that |
this matter be continued to the February 19, 2007 meeting. The motion carried by |
the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Nelson
2 -
060743
SPA 07-02ph: 491 E. Roosevelt (High Point Center Shopping Planned |
Development) |
Requests site plan approval of a deviation from Section 153.505(B)(19)(a)(2) to allow for |
a second wall sign to be permitted on a building, where only one sign is permitted, |
located within the B3PD Community Shopping District, Planned Development. |
(DISTRICT #6) |
Larry Yurko of Landmark Signs, 7424 Industrial Ave, Chesterton, Indiana presented the |
petition. Mr. Yurko stated he was in attendance to seek approval to install an illuminated |
facial mounted letter sign to Ultra Foods, formerly Cub Foods, located at 491 E. |
Roosevelt Road. He described what the sign would say and how it would exceed the |
allowable number of wall signs for the subject property, which is why he is seeking a |
variance. He felt it important that Ultra Foods remain consistent with other Ultra Foods |
stores in regard to signage. He stated that there are a couple of buildings in front of the |
subject property that obstruct the view and granting this variation would increase |
exposure for this client. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one present |
to speak in favor or against this petition. |
Chairperson Ryan requested the staff report. |
Michael Toth, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and began by stating the |
request. The history of the two (2) wall signs on the subject property was information |
taken from past permit files, however, consideration was never given to the correct |
number of signs, which in this case would be only one sign. Toth cited the previously |
approved ordinances and stated that the approval provided for additional signage for |
select tenants within the High Point Shopping Center. Those select tenants were |
granted one additional wall sign, whereas each sign was limited to twenty-five (25) |
square feet of surface area. The subject property was not included as one of the select |
tenants; however, Ordinance 3064 establishes that relief has been granted in the past |
within the High Point Shopping Center. |
The request would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and the use is |
consistent with the surrounding land uses as it is located within a shopping center. It is |
immediately surrounded by multiple commercial uses and is also part of the Roosevelt |
Road corridor. The proposed sign will only be visible to individuals along Roosevelt |
Road and within the center itself and not to adjacent residents. The proposed wall sign |
will also be set back a great distance in the shopping center. |
Toth covered the petition's compliance in regard to the Sign Ordinance. The site is a |
planned development and the signage associated with the Ultra Foods site needs to be |
reviewed in the context of the entire shopping center. The petitioner's plan deviation |
request to allow for an additional wall sign on the north elevation (the other north wall |
sign is permitted by right) meets the wall sign requirements at 174 square feet (69'-8” x |
2'-6”) in overall size. Most importantly, the overall size of the tenant space and of the |
existing exterior of the building façade ensures that the second sign will not create an |
appearance of excessive signage. In conclusion, Toth stated that staff recommended |
approval with one condition. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, referred to a memorandum staff had prepared based on |
Counsel's review of the staff report. He indicated that the Commissioners could use the |
revised motion language in that memo. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. |
Commissioner Olbrysh indicated that he had no problems with this petition due to the |
setback. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that |
this matter be approved with one condition. The motion carried by the following |
vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Nelson
2 -
1. The petitioner shall develop the site in conformance with the submitted plans, |
prepared by the Hezner Corporation, dated July 18, 2006 and made as part of this |
request. |
060744
SPA 07-03ph: 665 West North Avenue (Heron Point Office Center) |
Requests site plan approval for a temporary real estate sign with a deviation from |
Section 153.229 to increase the maximum surface area from 32 square feet to 135 |
square feet located within an OPD Office Planned District. (DISTRICT #1) |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, indicated that staff had received a letter from the |
petitioner requesting that the petition be presented by staff on their behalf. |
Michael Toth, Associate Planner began the presentation by stating that the petitioner is |
requesting a deviation from the Sign Ordinance to allow for a 135 square foot temporary |
real estate sign on the Heron Point Office Building where 32 square feet is allowed. The |
petitioner proposes to install the banner on the west exterior wall of the existing office |
building. As the proposed banner size exceeds code, site plan approval for a real estate |
sign is requested. |
On March 17, 2003, the Village of Lombard approved SPA 03-01, which granted a |
deviation from Section 153.229 (then Section 153.235) to allow a temporary 120 square |
foot real estate sign at the subject location of 665 West North Avenue (Heron Point |
Office Center). The sign was approved under the stipulation that the duration of the |
permit be limited to a six (6) month period. |
Toth reviewed the history of the planned development approval together with the |
granted deviations from the Sign Ordinance for the entrance signs and the hotel wall |
signs on the site. SPA 03-01 granted relief for an oversized real estate banner to |
provide identification for the office space within the Heron Pointe office building. |
However, this relief was granted for a six-month period. |
The property is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and with regard to the Sign |
Ordinance, the petitioner is proposing a 135 square foot banner to advertise vacant |
office space in the Heron Point Office Building. The petitioner claims this amendment is |
necessary to gain maximum visibility of the banner along I-355. This proposed sign |
would be classified as a temporary real estate sign and he cited Section 153.29 which |
would allow such a sign but would be subject to provisions outlined in the staff report. |
The property meets the vacancy provisions of 153.229 (B)(5), so a temporary |
lease/rental sign can be installed at this location. However, as the size requirements |
noted in Section 153.229 (B)(3) are being exceeded, site plan approval of the signage |
deviation is requested. |
Staff is supportive of this deviation as the temporary nature of the proposed signage |
ensures that it will not remain on the premises. Also, since the proposed sign will not be |
directly facing residential properties and will be oriented toward nonresidential traffic on |
Interstate 355 and North Avenue, impacts of the signage will be minimal. |
Toth stated that staff has reviewed a planning study/report entitled “Street Graphics and |
the Law”, a 1988 study by the American Planning Association that looked at roadway |
speed limits and development surroundings. The study found that the driving speed and |
number of lanes of traffic determine the appropriate height and size of a graphic. A 135 |
square foot graphic would be appropriate along a four-lane road where traffic speed is at |
least 50 mph. Therefore, staff would be supportive of a temporary sign of this size. |
In conclusion, Toth stated that staff recommended approval of this petition subject to the |
conditions noted in the staff report. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one present |
to speak in favor or against this petition. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that she considers the request reasonable and concurs |
with staff's recommendation. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked what the maximum time limit is for real estate signs. |
William Heniff answered that there isn't a time limit per se, but the duration is tied to a |
vacancy rate. Since this is a banner, there should be a time limit such as 6 months and |
if there is still an excessive vacancy rate, the time could be extended. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked staff if the time limit would be their decision or if it would |
come back to the Plan Commission. William Heniff answered yes, that the time could be |
determined by staff and if they were to seek another permit in the future, they would |
need to come back for relief. |
Commissioner Sweetser referred to staff's supplemental memorandum and asked for |
clarification on the revised conditions. She stated that the memorandum lists one |
condition but there were two on the staff report. Toth answered that there would still be |
two conditions; condition number one on the staff report would remain and the revised |
condition found on the supplemental memorandum would replace condition number two |
on the staff report. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be approved with amended conditions. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Nelson
2 -
1. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed sign. |
The said sign shall not exceed 135 square feet in total area. |
2. The signage relief shall be valid for a time period of six (6) months, with the ability to |
renew the permit for an additional six (6) months should the vacancy rate for the site |
exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the leasable floor area. |
060745
SPA 07-04ph: 1000 N. Rohlwing Road |
Requests site plan approval for a temporary real estate sign with a deviation from |
Section 153.229 to increase the maximum surface area from 32 square feet to 240 |
square feet located within the B3PD Community Shopping District Planned |
Development. (DISTRICT #1) |
Steven Rubin of Midwest Real Estate Equities, 2901 Butterfield Road, Oak Brook, main |
partner in development for the Northgate Shopping Center presented the petition. Mr. |
Rubin asked for relief for a temporary banner sign to help market the space in the |
shopping center. He stated that there is a high vacancy rate at the shopping center. |
He then stated that this sign would be used as an interim until the permanent sign was |
erected. He added that the size of the sign is intended to allow visibility for vehicles on |
I-355 traveling at 60-70 mph. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one present |
to speak in favor or against this petition. |
Chairperson Ryan requested the staff report. |
Michael Toth, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The petitioner requests site |
plan approval for a temporary real estate sign with a deviation from Section 153.229 to |
increase the maximum surface area from 32 square feet to 240 square feet located |
within the B3PD Community Shopping District, Planned Development. |
The petitioner is requesting a deviation from the Sign Ordinance to allow for a 240 |
square foot temporary real estate sign at the Northgate Shopping Plaza where 32 |
square feet is allowed. The petitioner proposes to install the banner on the west exterior |
wall of the existing office building. Planned development approval was granted for the |
subject property in 2006 (PC 06-18). As the proposed banner size exceeds code, site |
plan approval for a real estate sign is requested. |
The petitioner is proposing a 240 square foot banner to advertise vacant retail space in |
the Northgate Shopping Plaza. The petitioner claims this amendment is necessary to |
gain maximum visibility of the banner along I-355. |
The proposed sign would be classified as a temporary real estate sign. Section 153.229 |
(B) of the Sign Ordinance allows such signs, subject to the provisions noted in the staff |
report. As the property meets the vacancy provisions of 153.229 (B)(5), a temporary |
lease/rental sign can be installed at this location. However, as the size requirements |
noted in Section 153.229 (B)(3) are being exceeded, site plan approval of the signage |
deviation is requested. |
Staff is supportive of this deviation. The temporary nature of the proposed signage |
ensures that it will not remain on the premises. As the proposed sign will not be in close |
proximity to residential properties and will be oriented toward nonresidential traffic on |
Interstate 355, impacts of the signage will be minimal. |
According to a planning study/report entitled “Street Graphics and the Law”, it found that |
the driving speed and number of lanes of traffic determine the appropriate height and |
size of a graphic. A 240 square foot graphic would be appropriate along a four-lane |
road where traffic speed is at least 50 mph and therefore, staff would be supportive of |
this request. |
Mr. Heniff noted the supplemental memorandum submitted by staff which includes an |
amendment per Village Counsel. Chairperson Ryan confirmed that first condition was |
okay and that the second condition was being amended. Mr. Heniff answered yes. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. The Commissioners had no comments. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that this |
matter be approved with amended conditions. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Nelson
2 -
1. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed sign. |
The said sign shall not exceed 240 square feet in total area. |
2. The sign relief shall be valid for a time period of six (6) months, with the ability to |
renew the permit for an additional six (6) months should the vacancy rate for the site |
exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the leasable floor area. |
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the December 18, 2006 meeting were unanimously approved by the |
members present with the following correction: |
Commissioner Sweetser indicated that a word was missing from somewhere in the text |
but was not critical to the meaning. She requested staff to review the minutes and make |
the appropriate correction. |
Public Participation
There was no public participation.
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Chairperson's Report
The Chairperson deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
William Heniff, Senior Planner, indicated that technological improvements have been |
made in the Board Room. These improvements are meant to make the meetings more |
user friendly and better for the viewing audience and incorporate such things as better |
cameras, a new projection board, and additional controls. Staff will attempt to use the |
new projection board tonight and in future meetings on a trial and error basis. Once we |
learn the full scope of each improvement, we will incorporate it into the presentations |
accordingly. |
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
070010
SUB 07-01: 98 Yorktown Shopping Center (Carson Pirie Scott) |
Requests approval of a final plat of resubdivision of a portion of Lot 3 in the Yorktown |
Subdivision. (DISTRICT #3) |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition and referenced the companion |
staff report. He presented an aerial photograph of the area to be subdivided and |
described the proposed boundaries of the lot. The intent of the subdivision is to create a |
new lot of record which will be developed at a future date. The proposed lot will be |
similar to those tracts that were subdivided as part of the Rock Bottom and Claim |
Jumpers' properties. Access to the site will still be made off of the Yorktown mall ring |
road. Should any relief be needed as part of the future development of the lot, it will be |
brought back to the Plan Commission accordingly. |
This subdivision meets all of the lot requirements of the Subdivision and Development |
Ordinance and the B3 zoning district lot width and area requirements. Any required |
future easements will be submitted for approval as part of a separate plat of easement |
dedication. Staff is recommending approval of the plat. |
No one in the audience had comments about the proposed plat. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. |
Commissioner Sweetser did not have an objection to the plat but raised a question |
regarding overall parking requirements for Yorktown Mall. She was wondering if the |
loss of additional parking spaces will create a problem, particularly during busy seasons. |
Mr. Heniff noted that there are currently about 8,300 parking spaces at the mall. The |
1965 planned development approval stated that in lieu of the Village parking |
requirements, at least 7,500 spaces must be provided within the planned development. |
As such, there is still an ample supply of parking available at the mall, even if this |
property redevelops. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that this |
matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Nelson
2 -
070011
SUB 07-02: 96 Yorktown Shopping Center (Fifth Third Bank) |
Requests approval of a final plat of resubdivision of a portion of Lot 3 in the Yorktown |
Subdivision. (DISTRICT #3) |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition and referenced the companion |
staff report. He presented an aerial photograph of the area to be subdivided and |
described the proposed boundaries of the lot. The proposed lot is immediately south of |
the resubdivision included as part of SUB 07-01 and an entrance drive. |
The intent of the subdivision is to create a new lot of record which will be developed with |
a new Fifth/Third Bank and drive-through facility. The 1965 planned development |
approval granted approval of the bank and drive-through as a matter of right. The bank |
may apply for wall signage deviations in the future to address signage issues along the |
ring road. |
The plat is required in order to make the proposed tract of land in which the bank will be |
constructed as a separate lot of record. The resubdivision meets all of the lot |
requirements of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the B3 zoning district |
lot width and area requirements. Any additional easements needed for the proposed |
bank facility will be addressed as part of a final plat of easement dedication. Staff is |
recommending approval of the plat. |
No one in the audience had comments about the proposed plat. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan asked about future development on the outlot parcels and any traffic |
impacts these future development may have on the ring road. Mr. Heniff stated that |
staff has been working closely with the ownership of the mall to address overall ring |
road improvements. As an example, he noted that in working with the Claim Jumper |
and Rock Bottom Brewery projects, additional landscaped parking lot islands were |
installed to help segregate the parking areas on the outlots from the traffic on the ring |
road. Staff will also be looking at ways to promote better pedestrian circulation. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Nelson
2 -
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Workshops
There were no workshops.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. |
_____________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
_____________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |