Village of Lombard Legistar System

David Diamond, 1812 Old Wood Road, Lockwood, stated that he is the president of

DPS, which is representing the Citgo franchisee and Ameristore. He restated their

request and presented the Plan Commissioners with a copy of the proposed business's

mission and objectives. He stated that they have been working closely

with the Building Department to ensure their plans will meet all applicable codes and

presented before and after renderings of the property and proposed elevations. He

noted the site improvements to be made, stating that they will demolish all of the existing

pavement and install new pavement along with landscaping, fuel dispensers, and a gas

station canopy.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Peter Zakos, 618 S. Main Street, stated that he had lived adjacent to the subject

property for 30 years. He is concerned that his insurance company will deem his house

potentially dangerous and raise his homeowner's insurance rates. He is also concerned

about drainage, noting that there are no catchbasins for water on the site.

Anne Ellis, 622 S. Main Street, stated that she has lived in her home for 2.5 years. She

is concerned about landscaping along the southern property line and that the residential

character of the neighborhood will be kept in mind. She is also worried about an

increase in traffic flow. She stated that the existing owner has been a terrific neighbor

and asked if the hours of operation would be competitive with the neighboring White

Hen.

Joeshayne Meloun, 591 S. Main Street, stated that he is concerned about traffic and

tanker trucks entering the site, noting a traffic accident that had occurred at that location.

He believes that residents would like to see the proposed landscaping. He is concerned

about the hours of operation because if the store is open 24 hours, he feels there will be

a different element of people hanging around.

Joe Grimes, 25 E. Madison, stated that most businesses in the area close at midnight

and neighborhood business is not 24 hours. He approved of the petitioner's decision to

not sell alcohol. He asked if the canopy lights and signage will be turned on all night,

stating that it could change the neighborhood and the canopy lights would project on the

neighbors to the south. He suggested that the store hours be pared back and the lights

turned off at night. He also stated that the proposed shade trees should have diameters

greater than 2.5 inches. He asked if there could be full turning movements onto Main

Street and if any Phase I environmental study had already been done on the property.

Ed Ware stated that he owns the White Hen across the street that has been there for 12

years. He stated that his store was designed to be unobtrusive. He objects to the

competition this petition would introduce and stated that there is not enough business to

support his store. He believes the freestanding sign will block his business.

Mr. Diamond then responded to the public comments, stating that they also want the

facility to meet the needs of the residents because they will utilize the business's

services. He noted that drainage should not be a problem because they will be required

to install curb and gutters on the north and west sides of the parking lot. He stated that

they could install landscaping along the southern property line, if desired, but that they

also need to get traffic and fuel deliveries on the site safely. The engineered traffic flow

must be balanced with the desire for landscaping. The store was proposed to be open

24 hours, with the late night hours being used for store cleaning and stocking. They

would be willing to match White Hen's operating hours, but it would only be fair to allow

all businesses to be open 24 hours. He stated that there will be no perimeter lighting to

disrupt the neighborhood and that the canopy fixtures will be flush-mounted. Some

degree of lighting is needed for safety reasons. He stated that the noise in the area is

mostly generated from traffic on Main Street and that the existing traffic flow will be

sufficient to support the business and should not increase. He confirmed that the

canopy is 3 feet tall with 14.5 feet between the bottom of the canopy and grade level.

He stated that the proposed outdoor displays will be for seasonal merchandise that sells

quickly and that it has not caused traffic problems at other sites.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, stated

that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property be used for neighborhood

commercial uses. The proposed uses comply with this recommendation.

South and west of the subject property are residential areas. However, the proposed

development of the subject property does not entail the expansion of commercial activity

in area, but rather a redevelopment of an existing commercial property. As this site has

operated as a gasoline sales/automobile repair establishment for a number of years,

staff does not feel the proposed changes will have a substantial additional impact of the

surrounding area.

Staff has no objection to the requested conditional uses for automobile service and

gasoline sales as these uses have existed at this location for many years. The

decreased number of service bays should lessen the automobile repair use's impact on

the surrounding area, and there is another existing automobile repair business at the

northeast corner of the intersection. Although the gasoline sales will be expanded from

2 pumps to 4 pumps, staff feels that the increase in intensity is offset by the decrease in

intensity in the automobile service use.

The petitioner's request for conditional use approval for outdoor sales and display of

merchandise is based upon the use and function of many gas stations. Outdoor sales

and storage of ancillary automotive items and general convenience items is generally

considered compatible with generic retail activities. The petitioner intends to utilize

space between the fuel islands and along the north side of the property. Staff finds

that the conditional use for outdoor sales can be supported. However, to ensure that

the outdoor sales and display of merchandise is appropriately sized and located, staff

suggests that conditions be added to ensure adequate circulation on the site.

Ms. Backensto stated that earlier that day, staff has received a traffic analysis from

Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, Aboona, Inc., a copy of which was provided to the Plan

Commissioners immediately prior to the public hearing.

The proposed plans will substantially increase the amount of landscaping on the

property with the addition of a 5-foot wide landscape area and island along the sidewalk

on the north edge of the property. This will complement the landscaping installed by the

Village last year on the east side of the property and decrease the amount of pavement

on the site.

The petitioner is requesting a total of 10 signs as part of this request: 1 freestanding sign

and 3 canopy signs for the gas station, 5 wall signs for the convenience store, and 1

wall sign on the north side of the building for the existing automobile service business.

The requested freestanding sign is located within the 30-foot clear line-of-sight area.

The petitioner is requesting a variation because, due to the gas station canopy, the sign

would be obstructed at any locations outside the clear line-of-sight area. Staff does not

feel that the proposed sign will create a line-of-sight conflict because, due to the

atypically large Madison Street right-of-way, there will be at least 42 feet between the

sign and the actual intersection. Also, there will be 7 feet between grade level and the

bottom of the sign.

The proposed canopy signage will be well above the fence that separates the subject

property from the single-family residence to the south. To make this petition more

compatible with surrounding land uses, staff recommends that a condition be added

restricting the canopy signage to non-illuminated letters.

On-site lighting will be provided by under-canopy light fixtures that are designed to

produce minimal glare. No additional parking lot lighting is proposed, and all lighting will

be required to meet the standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. Backensto stated that staff recommended approval of the petition, subject to the

conditions noted in the staff report. She added that staff would like to amend the first

condition to add a statement that the comments in the Inter-Departmental Review

Committee report must be addressed.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the curbing will adequately maintain the water runoff.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the flow will be directed to the public

right-of-way.

Commissioner Sweetser asked how this is monitored. Mr. Heniff noted that the

proposed plans will reduce the amount of impervious surface on the site and the

improvements should lessen existing problems.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about fencing and landscaping. Mr. Heniff stated that

there is a 6-foot, board-on-board fence along the southern property line. The proposed

landscaping will be in closer compliance with code than the existing conditions. He

added that staff does not wish to grant relief in perpetuity from the landscaping

requirements.

Chairperson Ryan asked if the proposed improvements will cause the property to lose

its legal nonconforming status. Mr. Heniff stated that the building is staying as-is.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the landscaping on the south side should be

increased. She then asked about turning radii. Mr. Heniff stated that the Fire

Department is not concerned about access with their equipment and that the petitioner's

fuel trucks can make the necessary movements. He added that the Police Department

had analyzed past traffic accidents at the intersection.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she agrees with the staff report with regard to

signage and she has no problem with the freestanding sign. She stated that the

"America's Choice" signs look busy and may not really be necessary. She stated that a

midnight closing time might be appropriate for this location and the petitioner's offer to

match White Hen's hours is very generous.

Commissioner Flint stated that he is also concerned with the operating hours.

Chairperson Ryan asked what the hours of delivery would be. The petitioner, Andy

Patel, stated that fuel delivery is preferably done at night.

Chairperson Ryan asked what hours that would be. Mr. Patel stated that it could be

anytime between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. and that product delivery would be similar to White

Hen's as they use the same distributor. Mr. Diamond stated that they would prefer to

have fuel transports arrive after hours because it is safer to have fuel delivery at night.

Chairperson Ryan stated that it may indeed be safer, but they are still located in a

residential area.

Commissioner Sweetser suggested that fuel transport could be restricted to between 7

p.m. and closing.

Chairperson Ryan felt that was still too late. Mr. Patel offered to have fuel delivery occur

prior to 10 p.m. Chairperson Ryan stated that was fine.

Chairperson Ryan asked staff if liquor would be sold at the convenience store. Mr.

Heniff stated that it was not proposed.

Commissioner Sweetser asked for clarification on the number of fuel pumps.

Chairperson Ryan asked about the proposed canopy signs. Mr. Heniff stated that staff

recommends that the canopy signs be non-illuminated. Mr. Diamond stated that they

can agree to that.

Bruce Adriani, Norwood Builders, restated their request. He explained the details of an

elevation of the proposed building, pointing out the upper-floor setback, octagonal

corner, crown detail, and modifications to the proposed windows. He stated that they

wish to change the location of the garage entrance to Lincoln Avenue due to the grade

change on Michael McGuire Drive.

Matt Haylock, Haylock Design, explained the proposed site plan. The design

encourages pedestrian circulation and provides a landscaped buffer between the condo

building to the east. They anticipate two to three retail tenants and plan to build six

one-bedroom units and 33 two-bedroom units.

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

present to speak for or against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, stated

that Private Engineering Services and Fire/Bureau of Inspectional Services had a

number of comments noted within the staff report.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property be used for mixed-use medium

density residential and commercial uses. The plan specifically refers to this site and

recommends that the Park District maintenance facilities be relocated and a new

commercial space be developed consistent with the properties to the east. Also, the

section of the plan dealing with the Central Business District Mixed-Use Area states that

"where new commercial development occurs, multiple-family residential development

above the first floor is…encouraged. Multiple family development should not be

permitted below the first floor in this area." The proposed development complies with

the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.

The petitioner intends to consolidate the three existing parcels into a single lot of record.

This new lot will meet all applicable Village codes. The proposed uses are compatible

with the surrounding properties, as they are also a combination of commercial and

residential uses.

The B5 Central Business District permits dwelling units above the first floor of a building,

provided that the building extends along the entire frontage of the zoning lot and that

50% of the area of the ground floor to be devoted to uses permitted in the district. The

Standards for Planned Developments allow for use exceptions that represent no more

than 40% of the site area. Since off-street parking is not listed as a permitted use within

the B5 District, the proposed development will require a use exception for 21% of the

site area to be used for 43 covered parking spaces on the first floor of the building.

This variation will maximize the amount of parking available on the site. If this variation

were not granted, the number of required parking spaces would increase based upon

the increased square footage of tenant space, creating a severe shortage in the amount

of available parking for both residents and customers. Staff is also supportive of this

request because the building will extend along the entire length of the street frontage

along St. Charles Road and the increased amount of first-floor parking will therefore

have no visual impact on the surrounding area.

The roof height of the proposed structure is 44 feet, 4 inches tall with a parapet wall

extending 3 feet higher. This is within the Zoning Ordinance maximum height of 45 feet.

As the property is zoned B5, there are no setback or open space requirements.

Currently, the developer intends to allot one indoor parking space per dwelling unit. The

remaining spaces will be used for customer and visitor parking, as well as a limited

number of additional resident parking spaces.

A number of on-street parking spaces may be available along St. Charles Road and/or

Lincoln Avenue. Tenants of the retail space may request that some or all of these

spaces be time-limited, such as 15-minute parking. There is one proposed light pole for

the parking lot that will be consistent with the street lighting found throughout the

downtown area. The petitioner has submitted a photometric plan that demonstrates

there will not be excessive glare.

A preliminary, conceptual landscape plan has been submitted as part of the petition,

which includes plantings around the perimeter of the building in addition to a landscaped

plaza on the southwest corner of the site and landscaping along the eastern property

line. As part of the permit plans, the Village will require the submittal of a final landscape

plan denoting the species types and locations.

The proposed elevations show space for tenant signage above the storefronts along St.

Charles Road. This is a conceptual plan, as at this time it is unknown what types of

signs will be requested by the future tenants (e.g., wall signs, canopy signs, projecting

signs). The Sign Ordinance permits one wall sign per street front exposure for each

business, with a minimum allowable 25 sq. ft. and a maximum of 50 sq. ft., with similar

regulations for other types of signs. Any proposed sign that does not meet these

regulations will need to appear before the Plan Commission to request Site Plan

Approval to ensure it is compatible with this development and the surrounding area.

Ms. Backensto stated that staff recommended approval of the petition, subject to the

conditions noted in the staff report. She added that staff would like to amend the first

condition to add a statement that the comments in the Inter-Departmental Review

Committee report must be addressed.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the proposal looks wonderful and it looks as though

it will be something to be proud of. She added that she was concerned with the parking

situation and how it would impact a cumulative parking problem in the downtown. She

asked if the landscaped area on the east side of the building will allow pedestrian

access. William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that as the adjacent property is a

residential condo building, they do not wish to create a nuisance.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about the door on the east of the building. Mr. Adriani

noted that a sidewalk would require stairs due to the grade change. He stated that the

doors are for a stairwell, the mechanical room, a trash door, and an entrance to the retail

area.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if there would be any pedestrian access from the first

floor except for the garage. Mr. Adriani stated that there would not be, aside from the

stairwell exits.

Chairperson Ryan asked if the covered parking will be open to the general public. Mr.

Adriani stated that it would not be for public use and will be designated for residents. He

added that there is potential parking along McGuire Drive available after 5:30 p.m.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the additional parking helps. She asked for some

clarification about the west elevation. Mr. Adriani then discussed the elevation display

boards.

Commissioner Sweetser asked where pedestrians would be able to enter the building.

Mr. Adriani stated that they could enter through the main vestibule or exit from the

garage.

Chairperson Ryan stated that the exit doors could pose a safety hazard.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that there did not appear to be sufficient places to

conveniently enter the building. Mr. Adriani stated that residents will typically enter from

their parking spaces, and that guests must always enter through the main vestibule. He

then asked if signage relief could be granted.

Chairperson Ryan stated that they would need to come back for site plan approval if

zoning relief were to be necessary in the future.

Mr. Tim Kubica, 432 E. Prairie, Lombard, IL presented the petition. He restated the

request for a conditional use. Mr. Kubica stated that he had experienced vandalism and

theft on the rear west portions of his property. He stated that the proposed expansion

would improve security and functionality of the building. Mr. Kubica stated that the

building addition would be constructed with cinder brick block. He also stated that he

would be installing new windows and a four-sided pitched roof.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor

or in opposition of the petition. Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. She noted that the petitioner recently

became aware that a conditional use was necessary for the contractor's shop. She also

stated that the petitioner was requesting a variation to reduce the required interior side

yard and rear yard setbacks to accommodate the building addition. She stated that the

petitioner would use the building addition to store commercial vehicles, equipment, and

machinery. Ms. Clark referenced the comments from Inter-Departmental Review

Committee. Private Engineering Services noted that the improvements would

necessitate stormwater detention and that the handicap parking stall needed to be

revised to meet Village specifications. Fire and Building required that a fire alarm

system be installed or updated and that the new addition needed to be built to today's

building codes with a minimum type 2A construction a fire alarm system. Building noted

that current state ADA codes needed to be met for the current facility and addition and

must meet current building codes and requirements. Building also noted that Fire

Department access to three sides of building must be maintained with the incorporation

of the new addition. Ms. Clark stated that staff recommends approval with the

conditions mentioned in the staff report.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, referenced that an additional condition needs to be

added pertaining to the granting of an easement or an easement dedication relative to

the existing public sidewalk on the property.

Commissioner Zorn asked how much space would be available from the petitioner's

property to the Great Western Trail. Mr. Heniff stated that there the distance is sixteen

feet (16') from the property line and another seventeen feet (17') to the path.

Commissioner Sweetser asked whether an easement or dedication would be better. Mr.

Heniff stated that an easement would be sufficient.

1. That the petitioner shall develop the site consistent with the site plan submitted as

part of the petition by Gentile & Associates and made part of the request.

2. That the petitioner shall satisfactorily address the comments noted within the IDRC

report.

3. Associated with the conditional use approval, the petitioner shall submit a landscape

and photometric plan showing that the property will be in compliance with Code.

4. That overnight storage of commercial vehicles on the property shall be exclusively

within the existing building.

5. Outside storage of contractor materials and equipment shall be prohibited.

6. That the site shall be developed and operated consistent with Village Code.

7. That the petitioner shall install a solid board on board fence eight feet in height along

the southern property line.

8. That the petitioner shall provide the Village with a pedestrian easement for the

existing public sidewalk on the northeast corner of the subject property.

As the petition was being brought forward by the Village, Angela Clark, Planner I,

presented the staff report. She stated that the subject properties are currently within

unincorporated DuPage County and that the requested action for the Plan Commission

was to consider the appropriateness of the rezoning of the subject properties from the

R1 to the R2 District should the Board approve the annexation. Ms. Clark highlighted

comments from the Inter-Departmental Review Committee. Private Engineering

Services noted that should the properties be annexed the property owners would have

the ability to connect to the Village's water system at in-Village rates. However, as they

are currently connected to a public water system, connection to the Village water would

not be a requirement. Highland Hills would still provide sanitary sewer service to the

properties. Public Works had no comments regarding the petition. Building and Fire

noted that the address of 1S421 Main Street would be changed to 1605 S. Main Street

and 1S431 Main Street would change to 1609 S. Main Street. Ms. Clark stated that the

rezoning would be compatible with the surrounding zoning and uses, therefore staff

recommends approval of rezonings.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one to speak

in favor or in opposition to the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the

Plan Commission. There was no discussion among the members

As the petition was brought forward by the Village, William Heniff, Senior Planner

presented the petition. He stated that a traffic accident substantially damaged the

Scoop's ice cream building in 2001. The building location is deemed legal

non-conforming as it was located within the required front yard of the subject property

and was one of two principal buildings existing on the property. Because the estimated

damage costs were greater than 50% of the value of the damaged building, any

improvements would need to meet the full provisions of the Zoning Ordinance if it was to

be repaired. This petition, if approved, would only re-establish the legal non-conforming

status of the ice cream building and would allow the property owner to re-establish the

business as it was prior to the auto accident.

The Scoop's building is one of two buildings on the subject property. The building is

about 600 square feet in size and is constructed of masonry block. The exterior walls

on the north, south and east sides of the building are still intact, although the BIS staff is

concerned about the structural integrity of the walls.

He then referenced the code provisions relative to the petition. If the petitioner and the

Village wish to reestablish the ice cream shop in its previous condition, two options are

available - either grant zoning relief for the property or grant approval of a conditional

use to reestablish the legal non-conforming status for the damaged building.

Staff believes that if the Village is interested in allowing the building to be reoccupied as

it was prior to the accident, reestablishing the non-conforming status would be preferred,

as the request would only relate to the building at it present location and would not run

with the land. He also stated that the status of the building should be addressed as

soon as possible as a boarded-up building creates a deleterious and blighted

appearance to the corridor. If the petition is approved, the property will be rehabilitated.

If it is denied, the property owner will know that the building will need to be razed.

He concluded by noting that staff recommends approval subject to the conditions noted

in the IDRC report.

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

present to speak in favor of or against the petition. He then opened the meeting for

discussion among the Commissioners.

The Commissioners inquired about the condition of the building itself. Mr. Heniff noted

that the petition being considered only would allow the property owner the right to

rebuild. If he should do so he will have to meet current building code provisions.

Commissioner Sweetser inquired about condition number four and the fence in the

right-of-way. Mr. Heniff noted that in light of the past traffic accident, any obstructions

should be removed from the right-of-way. He said that it does not matter where the iron

fence is relocated, just as long as it is off the public right of way.

Mr. James Madden, petitioner, presented the petition. He restated the request for a

conditional use for outdoor dining and a service area in the rear parking area of 10-12

South Park Avenue. He noted that the Texan Restaurant does not have adequate

space for an outdoor dining area, so he is looking to do it on the adjacent property. He

said he has been working with adjacent property owners to use their parking area for

dining and service area and to beautify the rear for the weekend for special uses during

the summer months.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor

of the petition.

Marie Pellettiere, resident at Parkview Pointe Condominiums, 123 West St. Charles

Road, noted that new condominium development shares a parking lot with the

restaurant and that their balconies face this area. She noted that the proposed dining

area has about 5 or 6 cars parked at the site every day and the parking will be right in

front of where he will have tables. The proposal will lose parking spaces where it is at a

premium. She also mentioned the dumpsters by the eating area and hope they wouldn't

go closer to their building.

Mr. Madden rebutted by reiterating that the dining area will not be within the parking lot

between the 105-123 building that already exists. He noted that the dining would only

be on weekends and not during periods when Park Avenue Cleaners will be operating.

One parking space for a resident that lives above Punky's would be temporarily

relocated into the 105 W. St. Charles lot and he has agreed for him to use that space.

The dumpsters are not proposed to be changed or moved as they are already screened

from the proposed dining area.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The petitioner requests

conditional use approval for outdoor dining associated with the Texan Restaurant and a

variation from the parking standards that requires parking for outdoor dining

establishments. The Texan Restaurant is requesting the aforementioned approval so

that he can provide outdoor dining for his establishment on selected weekend nights

during the summer. The proposed location of the outdoor dining area is to the rear of

the restaurant site on the abutting property at 10-12 S. Park Avenue.

The intent of the outdoor dining is to take advantage of special events currently

occurring in Lombard during the summer (i.e., French Market, Cruise Nights, etc.) by

providing additional dining opportunities. During the week, the area will be used as it

currently operates - as a parking and service area for the 10-12 South Park businesses.

The petitioner will set up an outdoor dining component on selected weekend days when

the businesses at 10-12 South Park Avenue are not receiving deliveries.

He referenced the IDRC comments and noted that the outstanding cleanout needs to be

addressed by the petitioner.

Staff feels that the outdoor dining component is similar to other outdoor dining activities

occurring in the downtown. The proposed location ensures the preservation of the

parking stalls west of the Texan for patrons while keeping the sidewalks clear for Cruise

Night pedestrians. Moreover, as the petitioner is also looking to have the ability to serve

wine and beer with their outdoor meals, it is desirable for both the petitioner and the

Village to ensure that the dining occurs in a more defined and controlled manner.

Mr. Heniff noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that parking for outside dining areas

shall be the same as required for indoor dining areas. Based upon the Zoning

Ordinance, 15 spaces would be required (2,438 sq. ft. of outdoor dining area times ½ of

12 spaces per 1000 square feet). In review of the petitioner's request, staff notes that

the downtown area has a substantial supply of excess parking during weekend periods.

This includes the commuter parking lots, (108 spaces) shopper parking available in the

21 N. Park municipal lot, (27 spaces) and on-street parking available in the downtown.

As the outdoor dining will only operate during limited hours in the summer months, it is

not anticipated that there will be any conflict with Metra parking. Moreover, as many of

the patrons may also partake in other activities such as Cruise Nights, the need for

separate parking for the Texan as well as other activities may be redundant. The

subject property is bounded by commercial/condominium uses on all sides. To ensure

compatibility with adjacent residential uses and in keeping with the time periods

established for with other downtown events, staff recommends that the hours of

operation be limited to 11:00 p.m.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser asked when their outdoor dining will start. Mr. Heniff stated

that the start time would be an internal issue between the Texan and Park Avenue

Cleaners and that they would coordinate when the area needs to be free of vehicles so

that the Texan could start their operations. She also raised a concern about dumpsters

being located immediately adjacent to eating area with no buffer. Mr. Heniff stated that

that could be added as an additional condition.

Mr. Madden stated that their dumpster is not on the 10-12 S. Park property.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that the dumpsters should not be visually seen or

located immediately adjacent to the eating area and that it should be added as a

condition of approval. Mr. Madden noted that right now there is a brick wall about 4-1/2

feet high but additional fencing on top of brick wall to the pavement area is proposed

between the dumpster and the adjacent walkway.

John Moroni, owner of Westgate Lincoln Mercury, 500 E. Roosevelt Road, stated that

they were requesting a sign variation for a new service sign. The existing sign was

being changed to coincide with the style of the garage they are completing and to create

less confusion by directing customers to the appropriate location.

There was no one present to speak for or against the petition.

Bill Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that Westgate

Lincoln Mercury was expanding and remodeling their facilities and in conjunction with

this remodeling were petitioning for the installation of a new freestanding pylon sign. He

mentioned that there are three legal non conforming freestanding signs existing on the

property. The petitioner is requesting that one of the signs be removed and replaced

with a new sign similar in style to the proposed building elevations. Mr. Heniff brought

samples of the materials to be used.

Mr. Heniff stated that Private Engineering, Public Works, and Fire and Building had no

interdepartmental comments. Planning comments included that the petitioner is

expanding their main building by 5,000 square feet to include an indoor drop off area,

four service bays, and office space. The fascia and signage will be consistent with

Ford's new corporate image for the vehicles they will be selling.

Mr. Heniff mentioned the history of the property including the annexation and rezoning

back in 1985. At that time of annexation, the property owners were allowed to keep the

existing signs for the life of the annexation agreement. The agreement has since

expired and the signs are now legal non conforming. The petitioner wants to erect a

new freestanding sign which will be 48 square feet in size and meet code. Staff feels

that the new sign is more compatible with the arch of the building, functions as a

directional sign and is in close proximity to the driveway. He mentioned that the sign

should not be placed in the clear line of sight area. In conclusion, he noted that staff

recommends approval subject to conditions in the staff report.

Mr. Moroni indicated that Westgate Lincoln Mercury is changing all of their products to

reflect Ford's corporate branding. The product sign will match the exterior building

elevations. He then asked if they would have to go through the process again to change

the other freestanding signs on the property. Mr. Heniff answered that they wouldn't

have to go through the Plan Commission again provided that the signs meet code. If the

deviation to allow for three freestanding signs on the property is approved, it is implied

that the signs must meet code.

The Commissioners inquired about the other signs wanting to know the dimensions,

material, if they are not meeting code. Mr. Heniff stated that if the Plan Commission

approves this petition, the petitioner has the right for three freestanding signs and must

meet the provisions of code in terms of height, square footage, etc.

Commissioner Sweetser confirmed that the placement of the signs where indicated by

the hash marks on the paper she was looking at. Mr. Heniff stated yes.