Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

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.

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.

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.