Village of Lombard Legistar System

this recommendation.

As of October 2007, newly annexed properties are given R0 Single Family Residence

zoning by default. Prior to the creation of the R0 District, properties were automatically

assigned to the R1 Single Family Residence District. The petitioner is requesting R1

zoning, which is the zoning classification that was applied to the Lund's Resubdivision

annexations to the north that occurred in 2003. Staff has no objection to the proposed

map amendment as it is consistent with existing zoning classifications for single-family

properties on the block. The subject property exceeds the R1 minimum width and area

requirements and the existing single-family home meets all setback requirements.

The subject property is bordered by residential properties on all four sides and is

currently utilized as a single family residence; therefore there is no change in the

property's compatibility with existing land uses.

No subdivision is currently proposed. However, the property is sufficiently large to allow

a future two-lot resubdivision with one single-family lot fronting on Meyers Road and one

single-family lot fronting on School Street. Such a subdivision would not require zoning

relief under the R1 District, but would require the removal of the existing accessory

structure. The petitioner is preparing a companion annexation agreement for the subject

property. This agreement will be considered by the Village Board in conjunction with the

final consideration of Ordinances. Contiguity will be established via the properties on

the west side of School Street, which are expected to have been annexed by the time

this petition is heard by the Village Board.

Ms. Henaghan concluded by stating that, for the aforementioned reasons, staff finds that

the petition meets the standards for map amendments and staff recommends approval.

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

or in opposition to the petition.

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

There was no discussion prior to the motion.

Tim Welter, 1158 S. Luther, asked if the entire neighborhood will be incorporated and

provided with water and sewer.

Harold Wood, 1162 S. Luther, said that he has no trouble with flooding and stated that

the lot is not large enough to accommodate a septic field.

Mr. Michael stated that although septic systems are required in the County, as an

incorporated property his home will not have a septic tank and will instead be connected

to the Village's sanitary sewer system.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Jennifer Henaghan, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The petitioner wishes to

construct a single-family residence on the property, which is currently unincorporated.

To accomplish this, the petitioner is requesting annexation into the Village of Lombard

and a map amendment from the R0 District to the R1 District. The Private Engineering

Services Division and the Utilities Division of the Department of Public Works had a

number of comments regarding the construction of the proposed sanitary sewer which

will be addressed through the building permit process.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends Low Density Residential land uses at this

location. The proposed single family use and lot size is consistent with this

recommendation. As of October 2007, newly annexed properties are given R0 Single

Family Residence zoning by default. Prior to the creation of the R0 District, properties

were automatically assigned to the R1 Single Family Residence District. The petitioner

is requesting R1 zoning, which is the zoning classification that was applied to the

annexations along Meyers Road that occurred in 2002. Staff has no objection to the

proposed map amendment as it is consistent with existing zoning classifications in the

neighborhood.

The minimum required lot width for R1 properties is 75 feet and the minimum lot area is

10,000 square feet. The subject property is only 65 feet wide and 9,100 square feet.

However, Section 155.209 of the Zoning Ordinance allows construction of a

single-family dwelling on an existing lot of record provided that the lot has at least 80

percent of the width and area required in the applicable zoning district. The subject

property provides 86.7 percent of the required width and 91 percent of the required

area, thereby allowing for the construction of a residence with no zoning variations. The

proposed residence will meet all setback and open space requirements of the R1

District.

The subject property is bordered by residential properties to the north and west and

commercial uses to the south and east. The subject property is currently utilized as a

single family residence; therefore there is no change in the property's compatibility with

existing land uses.

The petitioner wishes to obtain Village utilities. A sanitary sewer will be installed as part

of the construction of the proposed single-family home. The subject property is currently

unable to connect to Village water because it is more than 250 feet from the nearest

Village watermain. However, as part of the annexation agreement the property will be

required to connect to the Village's public watermain system at such time that a public

watermain is constructed within the Luther Avenue right-of-way. Also, a sidewalk will be

required as part of the single-family home permit. The petitioner is preparing a

companion annexation agreement for the subject property. This agreement will be

considered by the Village Board in conjunction with the final consideration of

Ordinances.

Ms. Henaghan concluded by stating that, for the aforementioned reasons, staff finds that

the petition meets the standards for map amendments and staff recommends approval.

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

Stuart Moynihan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Staff has prepared a

report and is submitting it to the public record in its entirety. The Community

Development Department is proposing to amend the General Provisions of the Lombard

Sign Ordinance as it pertains to wall signs in I Industrial Districts. The amendments

would increase the permitted number of said signs and establish the permitted square

footage of said signs. The proposed amendments mirror the relief granted to the

industrial strip center at 200-212 W. North Avenue as part of ZBA 08-02.

The intent of the proposed amendments is to allow a reasonable amount of wall signage

that will allow tenants in multi-tenant industrial properties to identify their individual

businesses. The current provisions permit only one wall sign per street frontage to be

displayed on a parcel of property within the I District regardless of the number of

tenants.

The current provisions for wall signs on I District parcels with a single tenant would

remain effectively unchanged by this proposal. The Village proposes to allow interior

tenants in multi-tenant buildings to display one (1) wall sign and exterior tenants to

display up to two (2) wall signs, with no more than one (1) sign per wall. Industrial

businesses are typically destination-type establishments which do not require

substantial signage intended to advertise to the public. For multi-tenant buildings,

however, locating a particular business without identifying signage is potentially difficult.

The proposed text amendments would also establish regulations for the permitted size

of wall signs for industrial properties with multiple tenants. Staff is recommending that

tenants be permitted to display wall signs with a square footage equal to the lineal front

footage of their tenant space. Each tenant shall be entitled to a minimum of twenty-five

(25) square feet but not more than one hundred (100) square feet. However, tenants in

the I District shall not be permitted to have additional square footage based on a greater

distance from the property line as is permitted in the B4 District.

Further commentary regarding this issue is provided for in the Standards for Text

Amendments as prepared by staff. Staff is recommending approval of PC 08-29.

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

Commissioner Sweetser asked whether it should be explicitly stated that I District

properties will not be granted the same right to additional square footage based on

greater distance from property lines, as is provided for in the B4 District.

William Heniff stated that the condition need not be made because the new code is not

simply an application of the B4 provisions. The I District amendments do not include the

special setback provision that is uniquely listed in the B4 district regulations.

John Streetz of Doyle Signs, Inc., 232 W. Interstate Road, Addison, Illinois, presented

the petition. Mr. Streetz stated that he was in attendance with Maureen DeLong of

Inland Continental Property Management. Mr. Streetz stated that the petitioner is

seeking approval for a one hundred and fifty (150) square foot real estate sign to be

placed on the west elevation of the building. Mr. Streetz stated that the proposed sign is

a one-sided fabricated aluminum sign with internal illumination. The purpose of the

request is to provide identification for the vacant building. Visibility of the building is

currently very limited.

Mr. Streetz stated that the lack of access and visibility to the property combined with the

Village Code causes a hardship for the display of a real estate sign. A thirty-two (32)

square foot sign would not effectively meet the sign's intent. Mr. Streetz stated that a

possible second use for the sign would be to allow the future tenant to replace the face

of the sign for their own needs.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Commissioner Cooper asked how the petitioner came up with a sign four and one half

times the usual permitted.

Mr. Streetz stated that the size of the sign was determined by fitting the necessary copy

and letters large enough to be readable from the roadway. He stated that the location of

the sign on the upper corner of the building was to avoid visual blockage by trees near

the roadway. The size of the sign itself was determined by using twenty-two (22) inch

high letters which can be seen from about one thousand (1000) feet away.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Stuart Moynihan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Staff has prepared a

report and is submitting it to the public record in its entirety. The petitioner, the Doyle

Signs, Inc., requests site plan approval with a deviation from Section 153.229(B)(3) to

increase the maximum surface area for a real estate sign from thirty-two (32) square

feet to one hundred and fifty (150) square feet in a B3PD Community Shopping District

Planned Development.

The subject property is the former site of Comp USA. As the building is currently

vacant, the owner desires to advertise the building's availability through the use of a real

estate sign. The petitioner would normally have the right to one real estate sign

thirty-two (32) square feet in size. However, due to the relatively high speed limit on

Butterfield Road and the building's setback from the roadway, the petitioner indicates

that a sign thirty-two (32) square feet in size would not effectively communicate the

intended message.

The sign is to be installed at the southernmost top corner of the western elevation of the

building. Per the Sign Ordinance requirement for real estate signs, the sign is to be

removed within seven (7) days of the closing, sale, or rental of the property. It should be

stated that the proposed relief would not grant rights for reuse of the real estate sign

cabinet as a wall sign. As the Highlands of Lombard Planned Development requires the

use of channel letter design, reuse of the signage cabinet in this manner would require

additional relief.

The proposed signage is intended to provide a reasonable amount of visibility for the

vacant property. Staff feels that the proposed signage is consistent with the

Comprehensive Plan's recommendation to encourage high quality development in this

area.

In addition to advertising the availability of the building, the proposed signage is intended

to route vehicular traffic to Highland Avenue, the singular access point to the

development from Butterfield Road. Increased traffic resulting both from this advertising

and the eventual occupancy of the property has the potential to benefit other businesses

within the Highlands of Lombard development.

On October 27, 2003, the Plan Commission approved SPA 03-09 for a similar deviation

for two temporary leasing/rental signs at City View Apartments. These signs were also

located within the Highlands of Lombard development and were one-hundred and fifty

(150) square feet in size. Like 2840 S. Highland Avenue, City View Apartments is not

directly accessible from public rights-of-way and must be entered from private drives.

The signs were intended to advertise available apartments to nearby Highland Avenue

and Butterfield Road.

Staff is supportive of this deviation. The temporary nature of the proposed sign ensures

that it will be removed from the premises following occupancy of the space. As the

proposed sign will not be facing residential properties and will be oriented toward

nonresidential traffic, impacts of the signage will be minimal.

In further review of the proposed signage, staff finds that smaller signage would not

effectively meet the sign's intent, which is to inform individuals of the availability of

commercial space.

Staff is recommending approval of SPA 08-07ph subject to the four conditions in the

staff report.

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

Commissioner Burke asked if the City View Apartment signs were illuminated.

William Heniff stated that they were not.

Commissioner Burke asked if there are any other real estate signs that are illuminated in

the Village.

Mr. Heniff stated to that to his knowledge there were none.

Commissioner Burke asked if the Sign Ordinance prohibited this illumination.

Mr. Heniff stated that there is no such prohibition for real estate signs.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the cabinet can be retained by the tenant for later use

as the petitioner had suggested.

Mr. Moynihan stated that the petitioner or tenant would have to seek additional relief to

use the cabinet as a wall sign.

Mr. Heniff stated that conditions two and four address the removal of the real estate sign

after seven days. He stated that dating back to the original approval of the Planned

Development all signage has been channel letter signage. He stated that staff does not

have an issue with the illumination of the real estate sign but that staff would not be

supportive of box signage as the permanent sign for a business. If a tenant did intend to

use the sign in this manner, they would have to come back to the Plan Commission.

Mr. Heniff stated that this petition is a site plan approval. So, the Plan Commission

would be approving this petition.

Commissioner Burke stated that he is struggling with the idea of an illuminated sign this

large. He stated concern that there were not other signs of this type in town and that the

sign might be illuminated twenty-four hours a day.

Mr. Streetz stated that it is important to have illumination for the sign as it will be getting

darker earlier at this time. There is not ambient light at the rear of the building. He

stated that the goal is to quickly fill the vacancy and remove the sign at that point.

Commissioner Burke stated that he is still concerned about the illumination and size of

the sign. He stated that the chances of someone driving by at night and noticing a

vacant commercial space are pretty minimal.

Commissioner Flint stated that during winter months people will be driving around at five

o'clock and it will be dark then.

Commissioner Cooper asked if the sign could be on a timer.

Mr. Streetz stated that the sign could be put on a timer.

Commissioner Burke asked how this might be enforced.

Mr. Heniff stated that staff would monitor this as they do with other overnight issues.

Chairperson Ryan asked if 10 p.m. would be acceptable for a condition.

Commissioner Burke stated that he thought 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. would be acceptable.

Maureen DeLong of Inland Continental Property Management, 2901 Butterfield Road,

Oak Brook, Illinois, stated that she has been advertising and showing the property for

eighteen months. She stated that she would like to have the sign illuminated until 8 p.m.

if possible.

Commissioner Burke asked if the sign would be illuminated during the day.

Ms. DeLong stated that it does not need to be illuminated during the day.

1. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed signage.

The proposed signs size and location shall be consistent with the plans prepared by

Doyle Signs, Inc., dated August 12, 2008, and made a part of this request.

2. As required by the Sign Ordinance, the real estate sign shall be removed within

seven (7) days of the closing, sale, or rental of the property. Should the property owner

desire to install a new real estate sign, the petitioner shall be required to receive a new

site plan approval.

3. That the proposed temporary signage shall remain in a good state of repair while it is

affixed to the building. Should the Director of Community Development determine that

the signage has experienced significant fading, presents a weathered appearance, or is

in disrepair, the owner shall be required to remove or replace the temporary signage.

4. Upon removal of the real estate sign, the building façade shall be restored to its

original appearance leaving no visible damage.