Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

(DISTRICT #4)

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.

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:

Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke

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.

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.

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.

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.