Monday, April 21, 2008
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall
Plan Commission
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, and Richard Nelson |
Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Meeting Minutes
Plan Commission
Meeting Minutes
April 21, 2008
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner |
Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Martin Burke and Commissioner Richard Nelson |
Present:
Commissioner Stephen Flint
Absent:
Also present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; Michael Toth, Planner I; Stuart |
Moynihan, Associate Planner; and George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan |
Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda.
Public Hearings
PC 08-09: 1050 & 1051 N. Garfield Street |
Requests that the Village approve the following actions for the subject properties located |
within the I Limited Industrial District: |
1. For the property located at 1051 N. Garfield Ave., grant a conditional use, pursuant to |
Section 155.420(C)(35) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow outside storage of motor |
vehicles. |
2. For the property located at 1050 N. Garfield Ave., grant a conditional use, pursuant to |
Section 155.420(C)(22) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow off-site parking. |
Chairperson Ryan stated that the petitioner for this case has requested that the public |
hearing be continued to May 19 as they have secured legal counsel and would like time |
to meet with them. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be continued to the May 19, 2008 Plan Commission meeting. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Nelson
4 -
Absent:
Flint
1 -
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws.
PC 08-08: 1 & 3 Yorktown Shopping Center (Cole Taylor Bank) |
Requests the following variations from the Lombard Sign Ordinance for an Off-Premise |
Sign for property located within the B3PD Community Shopping District, Planned |
Development: |
1. A variation from Section 153.226(A) to allow for an Off-Premise Sign to be located on |
a non-state or federal right-of-way; |
2. A variation from Section 153.226(B) to allow for an Off-Premise Sign to be located on |
a property with an existing structure, building and use; |
3. A variation from Section 153.226(F) to allow for an Off-Premise Sign within the |
requisite front yard; and |
4. The petitioner requests Site Plan Approval with a deviation from Section 153.505(B) |
(19) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow a total of three wall signs where no wall |
signs are permitted. (DISTRICT #3) |
Kimberly Yarbough, 1418 Elmhurst Rd., of Icon Identity Solutions stated that they are |
the sign contractor for Cole Taylor Bank. They are requesting one off-premise sign and |
three wall signs. She stated that the Sign Ordinance does not grant them any signage |
rights, which limits the bank. The wall signs would be 20 square feet each and the |
freestanding sign would be five feet in height. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor |
of or against the petition. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the IDRC report and submitted it to the public |
record in its entirety. The property at 1 Yorktown Shopping Center is currently improved |
with a Cole Taylor Bank. This bank will be demolished and replaced with a new Cole |
Taylor Bank at 3 Yorktown Center on the site most recently occupied by Pizza Hut. |
Although no public hearings were necessary for the demolition and construction of the |
new bank, the 3 Yorktown Center property does not have any frontage along a public |
right-of-way. It is therefore not entitled to any wall signage as of right. The petitioner is |
proposing a total of three wall signs, as well as a freestanding sign along Highland |
Avenue on the 1 Yorktown Shopping Center property. Off-premise signs cannot be |
approved through the site plan approval process, therefore, a public hearing is required. |
Mr. Heniff noted the comments from Private Engineering Services and Public Works |
Utilities, stating that the proposed off-premise sign shall be installed at least 15 feet |
away from this private sewer line. The petitioner is proposing a total of three 20-square |
foot wall signs: one facing Highland Avenue and two facing internally within Yorktown. |
No wall signs are proposed on the north elevation, facing the Yorktown Apartments |
complex. Historically, staff has supported signage deviations for businesses along the |
ring road as a strict interpretation of code could severely restrict or prohibit business |
entities from placing reasonable signage on their buildings. |
If the access drive to the subject property were a publicly dedicated street, one wall sign |
would be permitted. Additionally, as customers will be viewing and accessing the site |
from multiple directions, including the parking lot aisles south and east of the site, the |
need to have signage on multiple elevations is desirable. As these drives often function |
as public streets, staff believes the signage petition could be supported. Moreover, as |
access into the site is provided at the ring road itself and not from Highland Avenue, the |
need for additional signage is warranted. |
Mr. Heniff stated that off-premises signage is defined in the Sign Ordinance as "a sign |
structure advertising an establishment, merchandise, service or entertainment, which is |
not sold, produced manufactured or furnished at the property on which said sign is |
located; e.g., 'billboards' or 'outdoor advertising.'" The 1966 Yorktown Center planned |
development approval granted rights for shopping center signs at each entrance. |
However, the agreement did not address off-premises sign provisions. As such, the |
requested sign would fall under the underlying B3 sign provisions. |
Off-premise signs are most typically traditional billboards, referring to large signs that |
operate as business advertising opportunities that are not generally desirable on local |
roads. In this case, however, the off-premise sign is advertising a local business that is |
within 100 feet of the proposed sign and lacks its own street frontage. Staff therefore |
feels that the proposed sign would not be in opposition to the intent of Section |
153.226(A). As the new Cole Taylor Bank property does not abut any public rights of |
way, the ability to provide entry signage is more limited. The proposed sign is proposed |
to be located on a property that is currently developed with a Cole Taylor Bank. Since |
the area of the lot where the sign is proposed is on a narrow "L" portion of the property, |
it is unlikely that it will be developed with a building in the future. Consequently, since |
the official lot divisions will not be evident to the public, the proposed off-premise sign |
will appear to be directly associated with the new Cole Taylor Bank building. The |
proposed sign is essentially a five-foot high freestanding sign that happens to be located |
on an adjacent property. Freestanding signs are permitted within front yards, and the |
proposed off-premise sign will not obstruct any clear-line-of sight areas. |
Mr. Heniff concluded by stating that staff believes the sign would enhance the overall |
planned development and, subject to the four conditions noted in the staff report, the |
standards for variations have been met. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comment from Plan Commission |
members. |
Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the petition relates to the signage and he did not have |
a problem with that, but had a few general questions. He asked what would happen on |
Lot 1 after the existing bank is demolished. Mr. Heniff stated that the property would |
potentially be redeveloped, but he could not speak to that issue directly as no plans |
have yet been submitted. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if Cole Taylor Bank would maintain ownership of 1 |
Yorktown. Mr. Heniff stated that Yorktown Center currently owns the property and the |
bank is a tenant. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if additional freestanding signage would be requested |
upon the redevelopment of the old bank site. Mr. Heniff stated that the new tenant could |
have a combined sign with Cole Taylor Bank or have its own signage. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval |
subject to conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Nelson
4 -
Absent:
Flint
1 -
1. The proposed signage shall be consistent with the submitted sign package prepared |
by Icon Identity Solutions, dated February 21, 2008 and last revised March 11, 2008 and |
made a part of this petition. |
2. The proposed off-premise sign shall be installed at least 15 feet away from the |
private sewer line that runs along the western side of Lot 1. |
3. The proposed off-premise sign shall be exclusively for advertising the Cole Taylor |
Bank or any subsequent business to be located at 3 Yorktown Shopping Center. |
4. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit from the Village prior to |
erecting the proposed signage. |
PC 08-12: 299 W. Roosevelt Road (Roundheads Pizza) |
Requests an amendment to Ordinance 4595 which granted approval for a variation to |
allow an additional freestanding sign on one lot of record. (DISTRICT #2) |
Guy Dragisic of Olympic Signs, 1130 N. Garfield, Lombard, presented the petition on |
behalf of Roundheads Pizza Pub located at 275 W. Roosevelt Rd. Mr. Dragisic stated |
that his client is proposing to install a double-faced sign in front of the building, which is |
owned by his client (Roundheads Pizza Pub). Mr. Dragisic then stated that the sign, |
which is being proposed to have an automatic changeable copy component, will be |
installed onto existing steel where the old Pizzeria Uno sign was once located. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor |
or in opposition to the petition. |
Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. |
Michael Toth, Planner I, presented the staff report. Roundheads Pizza Pub is proposing |
to reinstall a freestanding sign directly adjacent to their facility located along Roosevelt |
Road within the Sportmart Shopping Center. The Roundheads Pizza Pub and |
Sportmart Shopping Center building are both located on the same lot of record. If |
Roundheads Pizza Pub was its own lot of record, the sign would meet the provisions in |
the Lombard Sign Ordinance. However, Roundheads Pizza Pub is not entitled to its |
own freestanding sign, as it is not on its own lot of record and there is an existing |
multi-tenant sign for the Shopping Center on the property; therefore, approval is |
necessary. |
As part of PC 98-44, the original tenant of the subject building, Pizzeria Uno, had |
received approval in December, 1998 from the Plan Commission to erect a second |
freestanding sign on the subject property. Ordinance 4595 granted this approval; |
however, one of the conditions of approval was that the variation applies only to Pizzeria |
Uno and no other subsequent tenants. As the Pizzeria Uno freestanding sign has been |
removed, Ordinance 4595 precludes that any rights for a second freestanding sign to be |
located on the subject property are now null and void. As part of this petition, Ordinance |
4595 will be amended to afford rights to the subsequent tenants of the subject tenant |
building to erect a freestanding sign. Additionally, the petitioner is also seeking approval |
of an automatic changeable copy (A.C.C.) component to the sign, which was not |
depicted on the plans approved in 1998. |
As staff was supportive of the original rights afforded to the Pizzeria Uno freestanding |
sign and because the proposed sign will advertise the exact same commercial use |
(pizza restaurant), staff can support the proposed second freestanding sign on the basis |
of precedence. The original Pizzeria Uno freestanding sign did not; however, contain an |
automatic changeable copy component. The proposed automatic changeable |
component does fully comply with the requirements for automatic changeable copy |
signs as stated in the Sign Ordinance. No variation is needed for the automatic |
changeable copy component of the sign, but because the proposed freestanding sign |
has no rights to be legally established without amending the pertinent ordinance, staff |
has the opportunity view the context of the sign as it relates to the overall development |
as well as the entire corridor. |
Roundheads Pizza Pub is proposing to install a pylon sign twenty-two feet (22') in height |
and ninety-five (95) square feet in area. The sign will also include a LED message |
center feature (automatic changeable copy) as a component of the sign. As the subject |
property fronts a state right-of-way (Roosevelt Road) the maximum allowable height of |
the sign would be twenty-five (25) feet with (125) square feet of maximum surface area. |
The proposed sign will be located in the same location as the Pizzeria Uno sign as it will |
utilize the existing poles that once supported that sign. |
The automatic changeable copy component can be done as of right. There are no other |
preexisting automatic changeable copy signs located on the subject property and the |
submitted plans indicate that the automatic changeable copy element fulfills all the |
requirements set forth in the Sign Ordinance as it pertains to automatic changeable copy |
signs. |
Staff recommended approval of PC 08-12, subject to the eight (8) conditions. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comment among the Commissioners. |
There were no questions or comments from the Plan Commissioners. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Nelson
4 -
Absent:
Flint
1 -
1. The signage approval shall be based upon the freestanding signage plan submitted |
by Olympic Signs, dated March 20, 2008. |
2. The changeable message board shall be equipped with automatic dimming devices, |
sun screens and no external spotlight illumination. |
3. The changeable message board will not be permitted to change more frequently |
than two-second intervals and shall be limited to changeable messages and not chasing |
messages. |
4. The subject property and the Sportmart Shopping Center shall be limited to one (1) |
automatic changeable copy sign. |
5. The automatic changeable copy shall be of monochrome design only. |
6. The automatic changeable copy sign shall be used for the advertising of the |
on-premises business only. |
7. Per Ordinance 4595, the property owner shall provide documentation of the location |
of the private watermain easement. Such easement documentation shall be provided |
prior to or during the sign permit process. |
8. All comments in the Inter-Departmental Review Committee Report shall be |
satisfactorily addressed. |
Chairperson Ryan indicated that since the petitioner for PC 08-07 was not yet present, they |
would continue with the rest of the public hearings. |
SPA 08-05ph: 2210-2220 Fountain Square Drive (Fountain Square Planned |
Development) |
Requests approval of a renewal and an amendment to the previous site plan approvals |
for temporary construction and real estate signage on the subject property located within |
the Fountain Square B3 Planned Development.(DISTRICT #3) |
Steven Klopack, 5024 W. Dakin Street, Chicago presented the petition. He indicated |
that he was from Diamond Outdoor Advertising and representing Sunrise Development. |
Their request is to remove the existing sign on the property advertising Residential |
Homes of America and The Residences of Fountain Square and replace it with a sign |
advertising Sunrise Senior Living for elderly care. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor |
or in opposition to the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the IDRC report and submitted it to the public |
record in its entirety. The petitioner is requesting site plan approval for an amendment |
to the previously approved temporary signage within the Fountain Square planned |
development on the subject property. The petition consists of a time extension to the |
previously granted temporary development signage approval. The petition also seeks |
approval of an amendment to the existing development sign on the subject property to |
advertise the Sunrise Senior Living development currently under construction on the |
subject property. |
Staff notes that the first amendment to the request is to allow for a further time extension |
for the placement of the existing signs located on the subject property (Lot 2) within the |
development. Original approval of this signage was granted on January 19, 1999 with a |
condition that the temporary signage be removed within two years (2001). In 2001, site |
plan approval was granted (SPA 01-05ph) to allow for a time extension to Sign C as |
depicted on the graphic below (the sign that is subject to this petition) as well as a real |
estate sign (Sign D). Sign D has since been removed. |
Since the 2001 approval, Sign C was amended to provide for advertising of the |
Residential Homes of America (RHA) portion of the Fountain Square condominium |
development (buildings 3 and 4). With the expiration of the lease of the current |
temporary sign coming in May, 2008, the petitioner is seeking new approvals to allow for |
the temporary sign to remain on the premises, but to advertise the Sunrise development |
under construction on the subject property itself. |
Staff finds that the proposed temporary signage meets the 1997/1998 Fountain Square |
planned development provisions in the following respects: |
1. As the planned development has previously provided for such temporary sign |
approvals and that the signage is not being altered in form, the petitioner's latest request |
would not be substantially different than past actions. As the petition met the standards |
for relief in its previous approvals, this approval would be no different. |
2. The petitioner's current request would utilize the existing frame structure and |
supports as the existing temporary sign located on the subject property. The petitioner |
may make minor repairs to the sign to enhance its appearance. |
Concluding, Mr. Heniff noted that staff had received a number of phone calls from |
residents wanting to know the specifics of this public hearing. The petitioner has |
provided the standards for amending the existing temporary signage within the planned |
development and the request is consistent with those standards. Staff is supportive of |
this request subject to the three conditions noted in the staff report as it enhances the |
planned development for Fountain Square. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comment among the Commissioners. |
There were no questions or comments from the Plan Commissioners. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, |
that this matter be approved with conditions. The motion carried by the following |
vote: |
Aye:
Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Nelson
4 -
Absent:
Flint
1 -
1. The petitioner shall install and/or maintain the temporary signage in accordance with |
the submitted plans prepared by Sunrise Development, Inc., dated January 16, 2008 |
and made a part of this request. |
2. The approved temporary signage shall be removed within two years of the date of |
Site Plan Approval. |
3. If in the event that the signage needs to be removed by the Village or its |
subcontractors in order to access any utilities in the vicinity of the sign, the Village shall |
not be responsible for any costs associated with re-installing the sign, nor will the Village |
be responsible for the re-installation of the sign itself. |
PC 08-11: Text Amendments to the Lombard Sign Ordinance |
The Village of Lombard is proposing Sign Ordinance text amendments to Section |
153.241 (B) to modify the permitted size of valet parking signs and to Section 153.241 |
(F) to modify the permitted number of valet parking signs. |
Stuart Moynihan, Associate Planner, presented the petition. He stated that the |
Community Development Department is proposing to amend the General Provisions of |
the Lombard Sign Ordinance as it pertains to Valet Parking Signs. The amendments |
would increase the permitted number of said signs and increase the permitted square |
footage of said signs. |
The intent of the proposed amendments is to allow a reasonable amount of signage that |
will increase functionality of valet parking services operating within the Village. Staff |
came to review the valet parking sign provisions with the submittal of the Westin Hotel's |
application for valet parking. The current provisions permit only one Valet Parking Sign |
per place of business and a sign surface area not to exceed five (5) square feet. Staff |
believes that both of these provisions are insufficient for the proper and efficient |
operation of a valet parking service. Mr. Moynihan stated that the Planning Department |
thought it best to create a text amendment that would be applicable to the entire Village |
rather than to simply grant relief to the Westin. |
The practical application of valet parking signage of five (5) square feet in size caused |
staff to revisit the applicable signage provisions. In some circumstances, a valet parking |
sign of five (5) square feet in size neither allows for a sufficient visual presence to alert |
patrons nor a sufficient surface area to include all necessary information. Mr. Moynihan |
stated that the signs proposed by the Westin were of an appropriate size and nature. |
It is the opinion of staff that Valet Parking Signs serve a function similar in nature to |
Motor Vehicle Promotional Signs in that both are meant to direct and inform patrons |
once they have entered a site. Motor Vehicle Promotional Signs are permitted to have a |
surface area of sixteen (16) square feet. Therefore, the Village proposes that sixteen |
(16) square feet be permitted for Valet Parking Signs as well. |
The Village also proposes to increase the number of permitted Valet Parking Signs. |
Most of the newly permitted signage would be intended to serve an informational |
function and would most often be located at the valet parking loading area. The Village |
proposes to allow two (2) signs of this nature per place of business. Information on |
these signs would include an indication of where to stop the vehicle, the name of the |
business, the valet parking rate, and information on the valet parking operator. |
The need for additional signage is exacerbated by the sight and driving distances |
associated with larger sites. For many sites, additional signage is necessary simply to |
direct the driver to the valet parking loading area. Therefore, the Village proposes to |
allow one (1) additional Valet Parking Sign for each driveway (access and egress |
points) to a site. The Westin has indicated such signage on their submitted site plan. |
These signs shall be located at the driveway entrance to serve a directional function. |
Mr. Moynihan read the proposed text amendments. Mr. Moynihan suggested that at |
Village Counsel's request the word "permitted" be used rather than the word "allowed" in |
paragraph F. |
Mr. Moynihan stated that staff has addressed the Standards for Text Amendments |
within the staff report and believes them to be met. Therefore, staff is recommending |
approval of the request as proposed. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one in |
the audience to speak in favor of or against the petition. He then opened the meeting |
for discussion among the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that she had some curiosity as to the wording in |
paragraph F. It states that two valet parking signs "shall be allowed" and that one |
additional valet parking sign "may be allowed" at driveway entrances. Why is there a |
difference in wording? William Heniff stated that every business valet operator is |
required to submit a valet parking plan. Staff is proposing "may be permitted" to allow |
staff a level of discretion regarding this signage relative to clear line of sight and |
operational issues. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if the wording on page 3 of the staff report in paragraph |
F, using the word permitted would take precedence. Mr. Heniff answered yes. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Nelson
4 -
Absent:
Flint
1 -
PC 08-07: 2800 S. Highland Ave (The Patio Restaurant) |
Requesting amendments to Ordinance 6085, which granted zoning and site plan |
approval of a fast-food restaurant with a conditional use for a drive-through |
establishment/service and wall signage deviations for property within the Highlands of |
Lombard B3 Planned Development; in the following respects: |
1. Grant site plan approval of amendments to the conditions of approval to provide for |
alternate building elevations; and |
2. Grant Site Plan approval of a further deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(19)(a)(2) of |
the Sign Ordinance to allow for an additional wall sign on the south elevation of the |
single-tenant building. |
Chairperson Ryan stated that the petitioner still was not present. He asked if the |
Commissioners wanted to make a motion to continue the public hearing to the next Plan |
Commission meeting. George Wagner, legal counsel, indicated that the petitioner can |
request a continuance and it may be appropriate to take "no action" instead of contining |
the petition. Mr. Heniff suggested that a continuance in lieu of "no action" be taken |
otherwise, it would require the public hearing to be readvertised. Mr. Wagner cautioned |
that this could set a precedence. Mr. Heniff responded that historically the Plan |
Commission has continued the public hearing to the next meeting in this type of |
instance. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, that |
this matter be continued to the May 19, 2008 Plan Commission meeting. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Nelson
4 -
Absent:
Flint
1 -
Business Meeting
The business meeting convened at 8:13 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the March 24, 2008 meeting were unanimously approved by the |
members present with the following two minor corrections noted by William Heniff: |
1. Page 3, paragraph 2, line 5, remove the word "built" so that the sentence reads: |
"He then stated that the shopping center has been established for some time with a |
parking lot and....." |
2. Page 10, paragraph 2, line 2, remove the word "for" so the sentence reads: |
"The Planned Development was established as part of PC 03-33 and staff finds that |
the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan." |
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 noted an upcoming Planning Commissioner Workshop on May 3 and May |
10. He indicated that if any of the Commissioners are interested in attending to contact |
staff and staff will make the registration arrangements. |
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
There were no workshops.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. |
________________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |