Village of Lombard Legistar System

Vice-Chairperson Flint indicated that this petition was being remanded back to the Plan

Commission by the Village Board in order to provide the petitioner the opportunity to

provide additional information regarding the petition in a public hearing format.

Steve Johnson, 311 S. County Farm Road, Wheaton, IL, attorney for the petitioner,

stated that his client Jose Rodriquez was in attendance with his family and they are

asking for a conditional use permit. He stated that the Rodriguez's would like to operate

an office for their landscape business at 1041 E. St. Charles Road with a subsidiary use

and having two retail spaces that front St. Charles Road and the opportunity to legally

park three essential mid-size trucks and one small dump truck with four trailers behind

the building in an open area fenced in with an eight-foot tall wooden fencing. He stated

that their request is a reasonable one due to the current land uses along St. Charles

Road both in the Village and outside the Village, particularly the Villa Park property

across the street, which affords similar, less-obtrusive, uses than the conditional use

permit that this petitioner is seeking.

Mr. Johnson added that the trucks are well maintained and not visible to surrounding

properties. He stated that the buffering they have presented in their packet would

completely visually obscure these trucks from the adjacent property owners. He added

that the buffering would also offer protection from any potential for noise affecting

adjacent property owners. He stated that the use is limited in that there will be no

substantial increase in traffic onto or off of St. Charles Road because the petitioner will

be picking up the vehicles at 7:00 a.m. and returning them around 5:30 - 6:00 p.m.

where they will remain parked overnight.

Mr. Johnson added that some questioned the snow plowing use. He stated that the

snow plow equipment is not being maintained at that site, nor will they ask for it to be

maintained at that site. He stated that any snow plowing activities would consist of the

petitioner taking their equipment from another site.

He stated that staff recommended denial in their original report and subsequent reply.

He added that it fairly comes down to the Plan Commission and Board of Trustees for

what he believes is a reasonable use for the petitioner to be able to park the trucks there

overnight. He stated that it is absolutely integral to their continuous ownership of the

property to be able to park those vehicles there. He added that if they are not able to do

that, it would not make sense for them to continue owning the property.

Mr. Johnson stated that their headquarters is proposed to be located out of an office

which is in back of the retail space. If they cannot put their vehicles there, they might as

well relocate somewhere else. Referring to the petitioner's use in terms of traffic and

noise, he stated that the evidence presented both in their written materials and common

sense would suggest that the current uses along St. Charles Road is such that adding

traffic caused by his client's business are minor and will not be noticed. He then gave

some examples of the other businesses in the area, such as Burger King, which he feels

adds much more noise and traffic. Mr. Johnson then made reference to Triumph

Motorcycle in Villa Park, which is a retail establishment, but he mentioned that they do

allow trailers to be stored. He also made reference to the bus parking lot further to the

east in Villa Park that has over 75 buses that are parked there everyday and overnight

that exit onto St. Charles Road. He added that the bus depot would generate more

noise and traffic than the proposed use. He then made reference to Seamless Gutter to

the west - a similarly zoned B4 property that has around 11 large vehicles, behind an

eight foot privacy fence as the petitioner is proposing. He stated that he believes the

buffer and landscape elements would eliminate any foreseeable problem created by this

use. He ended by stating that they are asking for the Plan Commission's approval.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one

in favor or opposed to the petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the addendum staff report and submitted it

into the public record. He stated that the report was finalized the day of the meeting and

is in response to the petitioner's submittal that was provided to the Village the Friday

before the meeting. As the addendum report was not readily available prior to the

meeting, he read the report into the public record and reviewed the major elements in

the report.

He stated that the petitioner's latest response includes a detailed discussion of the

standards for conditional uses - the criteria set forth within the Zoning Ordinance to

determine if such a use is warranted. He noted that the definition included within the

Zoning Ordinance specifically notes that not all conditional uses are automatically

appropriate within the respective zoning district - such uses must be considered in the

context of their proposed location. It is this context that staff offers its comments to each

of the petitioner's responses to the standards.

The petitioner noted a number of the existing business establishments located within the

East St. Charles Road Corridor. While most of the businesses are within close proximity

to the subject property and therefore relevant to the petitioner's discussion, the petitioner

also mentions the Seamless Gutter property at 601-609 E. St. Charles Road. To ensure

that the public record accurately reflects the nature of this site, in context to the subject

property, staff notes the following:

1. Seamless Gutter is located almost 2,500 feet (0.47 miles) from the subject property.

2. The 601-609 E. St. Charles Road property was developed prior to annexation into

the corporate limits of the Village is the 1960s.

3. It was zoned M-1 (manufacturing District) until the 1980s. A comprehensive map

amendment reclassified the property into the current B4 District. Therefore, Seamless

Gutter is a legal nonconforming use and activity.

4. While currently zoned B4, it abuts industrially zoned property.

5. The St. Charles Road Corridor Ad-Hoc Report also notes that the properties within

the 600 block of East St. Charles Road were different in nature than the 1100 block.

If the intent was to identify all uses on the south side of St. Charles Road identified

within the ad-hoc report, the petitioner failed to identify other existing uses such as a

party goods store, a florist, a gas station, an electrician's office, an auto dealership, an

insurance office building, a legal nonconforming parking lot, a hobby store, a fast-food

restaurant and parks/open space. However, staff asserts the properties west of

Westmore-Meyers Road are fundamentally different than the properties east of

Westmore-Meyers Road (as identified within the Ad-Hoc Report) and should not be

readily considered in the discussion about use applicability in this instance.

The petitioner's introductory response discussed how the business would be operated to

minimize impacts, including providing new fencing and regulating operations on-site.

However, with respect to regulating when the petitioner's trucks and equipment can

enter and exit the property is a very difficult tool to regulate and would require significant

monitoring and enforcement.

Mr. Heniff then noted each of the standards and staff's response. The petitioner notes

that the majority of the building will be occupied by two storefront retail uses, one of

which is vacant. Staff has no issue with those tenant spaces. The matter at hand is the

proposed third business use and activity on the site. The Zoning Ordinance states that

each use on a given property must be operated in a matter consistent with Village Code,

not the majority of the property or square footage of a tenant space. Moreover, as the

storefront is a tailor shop, it cannot be argued that that use is the principal use and the

landscape contractor's office, shop and yard is the ancillary activity as the two are

unrelated in use.

The petitioner notes that the office space on the subject property is about 100 square

feet in size. As no Certificate of Occupancy/Zoning Certificate was applied for, staff

cannot independently confirm whether the office space size or whether it meets all

provisions Village code. However, when viewed in the context of what exactly is the

principal use of the property, staff asserts that the yard function consisting of storage of

vehicles and equipment is the predominant land use of the business, and not the 100

square foot office use.

Staff noted in the initial Inter-departmental Review Report that “the surrounding

properties along St. Charles Road are retail commercial in nature, which by design are

intended to service the local and community shopping needs of the community.” While

the petitioner refutes this item, staff uses the term “retail” to distinguish it from

“wholesale” businesses, which are typically found in office or industrial districts. As the

petitioner notes as well, the corridor is developed with a number of storefront

establishments providing a wide variety of goods and services. Staff notes that these

uses and activity are retail in nature as most of these businesses rely on customers

traveling to the respective properties or their office presence is the predominant use of

the site.

Referencing the Superior Chimney site, he noted that that business does have a few

vans for their business operations. They are parking in the front as they do not have

legal access to the rear of their property. Their business activity on the subject property

is distinguished from the petitioner's proposed use as their principal use is office in

nature. By working with Village staff, they have eliminated any outdoor storage

functions and activities, which also distinguishes their use from the petitioner's use.

The petitioner's primary response to this standard described the business use, with

representations on how they propose to minimize the impacts on the adjacent

properties. Most of this description states the extent of their business operations and is

generally consistent with the testimony provided at the initial public hearing. However,

their claim that their use does not create any significant noise is challenged by an

objector to the petition. From staff's perspective, we review the requested use in its

entirety (considering noise, visual impacts, use impacts, and compatibility with adjacent

uses and the Plan) and offer a recommendation as to whether the use is appropriate at

a given location. As noted in earlier testimony staff does not support the request and

believes this standard has not been met.

Mr. Heniff stated that staff recognizes the petitioner's existing fencing and proposed

improvements, however, staff restates that such fencing places an at-grade visual

barrier and does not address other impacts of such uses or activities, including

additional truck traffic and noise.

Mr. Heniff noted that the petitioner represented that he is not operating a contractor's

yard. However, staff notes that if the use is not a contractor's yard, then it is unclear as

to what the use actually is and whether it could be permitted at all within the B4 District.

Staff believes that the contractor's construction office, shop and yard use, while not

specifically defined within the Ordinance, is the closest use listed within the Zoning

Ordinance to describe the petitioner's use. Staff notes that the B4 and I District provide

for parking of motor vehicles as a principal use is a permitted use and as a conditional

use in the B5 District, but that use has been interpreted to reference larger vehicle

storage lots like Enterprise Rent-a-Car or for general parking purposes, such as

commuter parking, and not businesses that are using the spaces to as a storage/staging

area.

As noted previously by staff, the properties located to the south of the Great Western

Trail are strictly residential and any noise or general disturbances could directly affect

those properties. The adjacent property to the north, which is located in Villa Park, has

multiple motor vehicles located on the property; however, those vehicles are for retail

sale, resulting in a commercial land use distinction. Staff notes that some of the aerial

photographs depict properties within Villa Park and as such are not regulated by the

Village of Lombard. However, staff does not believe that denoting compatibility with

properties in an adjacent municipality automatically makes the argument that the Village

of Lombard should approve the petition based upon this standard.

Mr. Heniff stated that the petitioner references that they met this infrastructure standard

based upon the comments provided by the Engineering Division. However, it would not

be correct to state that all necessary infrastructural improvements have already been

provided. To the contrary, the rear of the property is currently unimproved and is either

grass or gravel in nature. Should the petition be approved, the petitioner would be

required to pave the rear of the property, per the submitted plans. This plan will also

require the petitioner to meet the stormwater drainage provisions of Village Code and of

the DuPage County Development and Stormwater Ordinance. Stormwater detention

may need to be provided on-site, either in the form of a vault detention or detention

facility. If the stormwater run-off is directed to the rear of the property, approvals by

DuPage County will be required. Regarding traffic access issues, he did not offer any

additional comments regarding this provision.

Mr. Heniff stated that the petitioner represented that the proposed use is in compliance

with the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan and the St. Charles Road Ad-hoc

Plan, but does not state how this is the case. He noted that neither document

specifically references that landscape contractor's yards are desirable land uses within

the East St. Charles Road Corridor. He also noted that the Comprehensive Plan

established a policy within the plan that “Commercial areas should not adversely impact

adjacent residential areas.”

In the initial IDRC Report, staff noted that the Comprehensive Plan defines Community

Commercial as a commercial area, which provides services extending beyond daily

living needs and includes comparison-shopping goods. This area was also reviewed as

part of the East St. Charles Road corridor plan in 1999. The Plans advise that the

property be developed to include retail, commercial and office uses. The proposed use

includes a contractor's yard with an ancillary (100 sq. ft.) office, lacking any retail use or

principal office component. The primary land use does not consist of a retail

component, and as such would be more consistent with a light industrial land use.

Therefore, the use would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as it clearly

defines the subject property to be designated for commercial uses. As such, given that

the petitioner has not offered testimony denoting compliance with the Plan and as staff

offers testimony to the contrary, staff believes the standard has not been met. He

believes that the proposed use could not be sufficiently conditioned to alleviate the

negative impact of the use on the Corridor and the adjacent properties.

Mr. Heniff then discussed the LaSalle Factors. These factors are commonly relied upon

by Illinois courts in reviewing municipal zoning decisions, when a zoning decision is

challenged to be so unreasonable that it would be considered unconstitutional. They

can also serve as a guide to the Village officials in considering the merit of evidence

presented at the hearing.

As noted within the staff report and in previous testimony, the subject property and the

St. Charles Road corridor is zoned B4 Corridor Commercial District. South of the

subject property is the Great Western Trail and single family detached and attached

residences, located within residentially zoned districts. There are no industrially zoned

properties within the Village along St. Charles Road east of Westmore-Meyers Road.

Staff further notes that there are no contractor yards (legally established or otherwise)

nor any business establishment in which the primary business activity is the parking and

storage of vehicles located along East St. Charles Road within the corporate limits of the

Village. Therefore, staff asserts that as the petitioner has not demonstrated that the use

is compatible with the zoning of nearby property, this factor has not been met.

He noted that the B4 zoning is appropriate for the corridor. The corridor is improved

with a mix of retail and service commercial uses. While St. Charles Road is not a

higher-volume roadway, few vacancies exist within the corridor east of

Westmore-Meyers Road. This observation is important as it demonstrates that the

existing zoning regulations have resulted in a corridor that has been economically viable

and the B4 zoning has not impacted the ability of businesses to grow and thrive in the

corridor. Therefore, staff asserts that as the petitioner has not provided any testimony

noting that without approval of the petition that the property values would be negatively

impacted and staff notes that other business properties within the corridor have been

able to successfully operate, this factor has not been met.

He stated that the B4 District provides for a wide variety of commercial uses. Staff

notes that a denial of the petition would still afford the property owner with a significant

and substantial ability to locate an alternative permitted land use on the subject property.

Staff further notes that the existing contractor's use should not be considered a loss of

use, as the petitioner never applied for or received a Certificate of Occupancy/Zoning

Certificate for the use of the subject property and was therefore never legally

established as a permitted use in the first place. However, as the testimony presented

by the public and staff notes, the impacts of such a use cannot be dismissed.

Therefore, staff asserts that the loss of the right to operate the intended use is offset by

the overall benefits to the public, beyond those limitations of the Zoning Ordinance; this

factor has not been met.

He stated that as the subject property is in close proximity to other residential uses,

impacts from the landscape contractor's use on the adjacent properties must be

recognized. As noted earlier, the B4 District provides for a wide variety of permitted

uses that can operate in harmony with the adjacent commercial and residential land

uses. The petitioner's request introduces a use activity that is not found within the

corridor and would create impacts upon the neighboring residential land uses, as

evidenced by the neighboring resident's testimony. Therefore, staff asserts that the

benefits received by denying the use would be of overall greater benefit to the public,

beyond those limitations of the Zoning Ordinance, this factor has not been met.

He noted that the petitioner has made representations that he purchased the property

so that he could store his vehicles and equipment on the subject property. However,

when one views his business activity compared to other businesses neighboring the

subject property, one does note that the use is operated differently. Staff notes that

although the rear portion of the subject property is not improved with buildings and

structures, it does not automatically mean that it is an appropriate location for such an

activity as proposed by the petitioner. This is evidenced within the staff report and

neighboring testimony. Therefore, staff asserts that as the petitioner has not

demonstrated that the proposed use is suitable for the site, this factor has not been met.

He stated that the property has been improved with a principal building and use for

decades. In this regard it is no different than any other property east of

Westmore-Meyers Road. This petition is to request an additional use to be allowed on

the property. Therefore, staff asserts that as no excessive vacancy has existed on the

subject property, this factor has not been met.

He noted that the petitioner's landscape contractor use does provide a valuable need to

the Lombard community. However, the petitioner's use is no different than other

landscape contractor's uses that have been legally established within the community. In

this case, the petitioner sought to operate his businesses without receiving appropriate

Village approvals. As there are other locations in which the petitioner could meet the

standards for conditional uses and/or legally operate the business, staff notes that this

factor has not been met.

He then stated that the Village is regularly reviewing all provisions of its exiting codes

and policy documents. The Village's Comprehensive Plan (1998) and the St. Charles

Road Ad-Hoc Report (1999) are two policy documents that reviewed the proposed uses

within the corridor. These documents reaffirmed the established zoning district

classification and desired uses within the corridor. Moreover, as evidenced by the

numerous text amendments considered by the Corporate Authorities of the past decade,

the Village regularly reviews its codes to determine the appropriate development

regulations within the community. Based on these actions, staff assets that the Village

has property planned and zoned its land and the factor has not been met and overall,

staff recommends denial of the petition.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for comment among the

Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that staff has done a thorough outline and

documentation of the rationale, more so from the last Plan Commission hearing, and

she cannot find anything to disagree with. She added that the solution may lay in the

testimony of the petitioner who indicated that the office use was the primary use and

parking for other kinds of vehicles is available in the vicinity. She mentioned that

perhaps that would be an available option to the petitioner. She then stated that by that

very testimony and the fact that the staff report is hard to refute, she was in agreement

with staff's recommendation.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he agreed with Commissioner Sweetser. He added

that staff did a good analysis. He stated that he has no problem with the petitioner's

business, but it is just not the right location. He referred to Tab 9 of the petitioner's

submitted information and stated that he was curious if the petitioner attempted to get

any signatures of the residents on Kenilworth, which is the street right behind the

petitioner's business. He noticed signatures from Grace and Edgewood, neither of

which is very near St. Charles. He stated that he was curious as to whether the

petitioner tried to get those residents' signatures and they refused to sign. He suspects

that one of the petitioner's strongest arguments would have been to get those neighbors'

signatures, not business neighbors.

Mr. Johnson stated that the petitioner had not attempted to get any signatures from the

residents on Kenilworth Court because the petitioner doesn't know any of the residents

who reside on Kenilworth. He then noted the significant distance between the back of

his client's parcel with the 8 foot fence, the Great Western Trail with trees on each side,

and the fence on back of those Kenilworth properties. He said that he is unsure of the

height of the fences behind those Kenilworth properties, but he believes them to be six

feet. He also stated that clearly the noise goes up. He then stated that unfortunately

they don't have signatures from people in that area, but they have one person who had

voiced a complaint and his client has obtained eleven people who are in support of their

request to the Village.

Commissioner Burke stated that when they first saw this petition it was a difficult

decision with a split-decision going to the Board, but when taking the use into

consideration in context with surrounding uses the Plan Commission wasn't looking at it

very clearly. He added that the staff report now carries more weight giving a much

clearer thought process. He finds staff to be accurate.

Salim Kapadia, property owner and petitioner, presented the petition. He stated that

they purchased the property over one year ago. They renovated the inside of the

building for their banquet hall/restaurant. They opened for business last summer and

they were thinking of providing outdoor seating as well. He stated that outdoor seating

existed on the site at one time, but it is not allowed now without zoning approvals. They

are still in the process of upgrading the property and it would be better if they had an

outdoor patio with a nice flower bed with accent lights. The patio area would be open in

the summertime for lunch or dinner seating. The property is in good shape and they

have spent over $500,000 on the inside of the building. They now want to complete

work on the outside.

Vice-Chairperson Flint opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one to

speak in favor or against the petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, which was submitted to the

public record. He stated the petitioner wishes to seek approval of a conditional use for

an outdoor dining area associated with the existing banquet hall/restaurant use located

on the subject property. The outdoor dining area is intended to provide an area in which

non-banquet hall customers could eat their respective meals in an outdoor setting. The

proposed outdoor dining area will be located adjacent to the restaurant dining area and

will not be used in conjunction with the banquet hall activity.

Outdoor dining and service areas are listed as conditional uses in the B4 District. The

subject property's principal land use is a banquet hall facility. The petitioner's business

operation is focused on larger sized events, primarily on weekends. During the week, a

portion of the facility is open for a sit-down restaurant business. In order to supplement

this use and activity, the petitioner's plan is to establish an outdoor seating area for

restaurant patrons, should they desire to sit outdoors.

The outdoor seating area is proposed to be 25' x 30' (750 square feet) in area. It is

proposed to have a four-foot high wrought iron fence around the perimeter of the dining

area. An access gate to the parking lot will also be provided to meet emergency egress

issues. Final design of the patio will be subject to Fire Department Review.

The dining area will be located where two parking spaces currently exist. The subject

property primarily consists of the building and the asphalt parking lot on the west, east

and south sides of the building. Based upon a building capacity of 180 persons and with

an average staff of about 8 persons, the existing parking requirement of 68 spaces is

satisfied.

The Ordinance requires parking for outdoor dining in a similar manner as indoor areas.

With the addition of 750 square feet for outdoor dining and using the restaurant standard

of 16 spaces per 1,000 square feet, the outdoor dining element requires an additional 12

spaces. The proposed site plan will provide for the demand and will also be designed in

closer compliance with code. The proposed dining area will only have minor decorative

lighting for the benefit of dining guests, which will be in compliance with photometric

lighting requirements.

He noted that the North Avenue corridor is a high volume corridor with commercial and

industrial sites on the north half of the street and residential sites on the south half of the

street with intermittent areas of commercially zoned property. The subject property is

located within a corridor of strip commercial uses. The petitioner's proposal will be

compatible with the residential properties to the north in the following respects:

1. The petitioner's outdoor seating plan will consist of several tables located

immediately adjacent and in front of the building. The building itself will screen the

dining area from residential properties.

2. The outdoor dining area is only anticipated to be open during evening dinner hours.

3. While the petitioner is proposing to add some lighting for the area, it is not meant to

be more than decorative or accent lighting.

4. The business establishment does not have and is not anticipating to apply for a

liquor license.

Given its location, staff believes that the outdoor dining area will not negatively impact

adjacent residential properties. Staff notes that the north and east side of the subject

property currently have exterior unscreened dumpsters. Staff suggests as a condition of

approval that the dumpsters be screened per the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

This condition will also help soften the impact of the business from adjacent residential

properties. The remaining cargo container on the premises shall also be removed.

While not a part of this specific request, he noted that a twenty-foot wide public alley

abuts the northern property line. This alley only serves the subject property and the

abutting property does not take access from it. The alley serves as a secondary access

drive to the site and provides for truck unloading and trash collection efforts. Historically

this alley has been functionally absorbed into the subject property even though the

Village has its maintenance responsibility.

Community Development and Public Works staffs have been speaking with the

petitioner regarding the alley. Staff will bring forward a petition to vacate the alley to the

property owner, with the terms of the vacation to be established as part of a separate

agreement in the future. Once this agreement has been finalized, it will be brought

forward to the Village Board for consideration.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for comments from the Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser questioned if the patio area is for the restaurant or for the

banquet hall as well. Mr. Kapadia stated that it would only be for the restaurant dining

customers and not the banquet hall.

Commissioner Burke noted that the building is pushed far to the north property line with

the alley separating it from residences. If outdoor dining occurs during the evening

hours, what consideration is being given for the noise? Mr. Heniff noted that the noise

issue will be not significant due to the patio's location being on the south side and

abutting the building. The building itself will be the buffer.

Dennis McNicholas, 425 S. Main St., Lombard, stated that he is the attorney for the

petitioner. He started his presentation by noting that he is aware of the concerns

previously raised by the Plan Commission. He mentioned his role on the Economic and

Community Development Committee and was on the committee to review the overall

Sign Ordinance. The result of that work is the billboard amortization process. Having

been on that side of the work, I can understand how reviewing signage can be

challenging.

He then discussed his petition. The Village has approved the architectural plans for the

Buffalo Wild Wings' restaurant use and permits could be pulled in a number of weeks.

Ironically this is the last issue that needs to be resolved in order to move forward. The

Roosevelt Road Corridor Study stated that sit-down restaurants are a desirable use for

the corridor. The proposed tenant has worked with staff over the last several months.

He showed the north and west elevations on the overhead. He noted that the

illuminated sign meets code provisions, but by adding the trade dress and backing gold

EIFS, the overall sign calculates to 138 square feet.

He stated that the EIFS can be easily removed should the tenant leave and the building

would not be scarred. He asked the Plan Commission to review the north elevation as a

whole. The whole structure is 19,000 square feet in area and their tenant space on the

west end is approximately 6,500 square feet. He showed their initial request and the

proposed request and how they now differ. Efforts were made to match the gold signage

color. The vinyl sign containing the corporate logo will not identically match as the

original colors will be modified and toned down to make them more compatible.

He stated that the original approved planned development had this space approved for a

restaurant and five other tenants. If Buffalo Wild Wings does not open in this location,

and if the petitioner can find another restaurant to occupy that space, the petitioner may

have to seek an amendment to the planned development to have this space broken up

into three different spaces with each having their own sign and he displayed this site

plan. He asked if they would be better off with two or three signs instead of the one sign

presented tonight. He mentioned the letter from Buffalo Wild Wings and how he hoped

that he had seen letter so that it could have been adjusted and softened. They have

made a good effort to soften the sign to make it acceptable. He showed the actual color

of the brick with the actual color of the EIFS along with the other brick. William Heniff,

Senior Planner asked for a sample to use as an exhibit to the record. George Wagner,

Village Counsel also asked that any correspondence referenced within the presentation

should also be submitted to the record.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in

favor of or against the petition.

Mr. Heniff read the staff report into the public record. In December, 2007, the petitioner

applied for an annexation agreement amendment and planned development approvals

to provide for an alternate building design for the north and west building elevations.

The request was intended to substitute the approved brick façade with a yellow colored

EIFS, to be placed above the storefront. The Plan Commission recommended denial of

the petition and the petitioner withdraw their request before final consideration by the

Village Board. In January, 2008, staff presented a workshop session seeking direction

from the Plan Commission on an amended sign package. The Plan Commission

expressed concerns regarding the overall package as presented. However, the

petitioner is seeking formal consideration of the latest sign package through the public

hearing process. The latest proposal seeks Site Plan Approval of a signage deviation to

allow for wall signage area of up to one hundred and thirty eight (138) square feet in

size, where a maximum of sixty-five (65) square feet is the maximum size allowed for

the proposed tenant space.

The petitioner's latest plan proposes a smaller signage package and alterations. The

latest proposal is to keep the building as a masonry structure and provide the Buffalo

Wild Wings corporate wall signage on the north and west elevations. Backing the

exterior wall is the trade dress, consisting of the yellow and black/white checkerboard.

The petitioner's restaurant tenant space is 65 feet in width. The maximum amount of

signage area allowed by the Sign Ordinance for multiple tenant retail spaces is one

square foot per each linear feet of the proposed retail space, with a cap of 100 square

feet in size. In this instance, the proposed use is capped at 65 square feet in sign

surface area. The petitioner proposes a 61 square-foot internally illuminated sign to be

placed on each elevation. The sign would consist of the Buffalo Wild Wings corporate

logo and companion text.

If the illuminated sign was the only sign proposed by the petitioner, it could be approved

without the need for any relief. However, in review of the Sign Ordinance, the definition

of a sign can include symbols, graphics and the like as part of the overall sign area.

While some banding elements can be considered "non-signage", staff looks at the

overall concept to make this determination. In consideration of this latest proposal, staff

made the interpretation that the gold background and the black and white "zingers" are

depicted in a manner that would be considered signage. Therefore, the overall area of

the sign consisting of the illuminated sign cabinet and the colored backing would be 138

square feet in sign surface area, thereby exceeding Ordinance requirements. As it

exceeds code, this would require review and approval by the Lombard Plan Commission

as it constitutes a wall signage deviation.

The January Plan Commission workshop session noted their concerns. Specifically,

they noted that the overall sign area is significantly greater than that which is allowed by

code, it includes elements not considered as part of their registered trademark and

expressed concerns regarding the color of the yellow EIFS included within the

illuminated sign itself. While staff noted that the exterior backing area did not contain

text, the Plan Commission stated that that element was not their initial concern, but

rather the overall area of the sign itself. In consideration of their concerns, the petitioner

represented to staff that they will attempt to match the yellow/gold EIFS to the color of

the illuminated sign itself. Buffalo Wild Wings would like formal consideration and

approval of their compromise signage package.

While it is always more favorable to have properties come into compliance with code

rather than seeking relief, staff notes that the proposed trade dress elements do not

always have the same visual effect as standard signage. A notable case in the Village

include the recently closed Hollywood Video within the High Point Shopping Center,

which consisted of several unique color schemes unique to their building prototype.

When viewed in this context, the proposed sign package is not as obtrusive and can be

conceptually supported.

The Roosevelt Road Corridor plan, a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan, noted that

restaurants are a preferred land use and buildings should incorporate architectural

design features on all building elevations. The petitioner's 2006 approved plan met this

provision by incorporating brick masonry banding and design elements. The Corridor

plan did not state specific recommendations regarding the specific design and size of

wall signs.

Buffalo Wild Wings, as the end cap unit, is seeking identifying elements that would make

it consistent with their corporate trade dress but would also keep some of the themes

established within the building and the planned development itself, such as the

predominant brick masonry. The latest submittal will provide for the majority of the

exterior elevation to be visible and in keeping with the elevation approved by the Village

Board. The approved building elevations provide for a consistent masonry design for

the entire building and would be more consistent with the 2006 building elevation

approvals.

He closed by stating that the plan is a good compromise and therefore recommends

approval subject to the conditions in staff report. He also offered an alternate

recommendation for denial if desired.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting to the Commissioners for comments.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that nobody disagrees that the latest plan is a vast

improvement from the December plan. He asked about the difference between trade

dress and trademarks. Buffalo Wild Wings has a registered trademark for the design of

the buffalo and the text. In downtown Elmhurst there is a Buffalo Wild Wings and that

restaurant does not have any trade dress, just their sign.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the correspondence from Glen Remus in the

Commissioner's packets notes the need for uniform signage for their company stores

and franchise stores. It seems that it is the more recent developments that they cannot

depart from.

Scott Nicholson, of V-land Corporation stated that Buffalo Wild Wings has a number of

stores across the country. Like Potbelly's, they have been around for a long time and

with an infusion of money and growth and they have changed the franchisee signage

rules. They have older stores like in downtown Elmhurst. As they have grown, they

want to ensure their advertising is recognizable to their customer. Their new focus is on

trade dress. He has encountered this issue in other communities as well. He hopes he

has found some middle ground.

Commissioner Olbrysh suspected they were going with this new look. Are there more

corporate stores than franchisee operations? Mr. Nicholson stated that they have 2/3

company stores and 1/3 franchisee stores.

Commissioner Burke stated that staff thinks this is reasonable but in his opinion it is a bit

frustrating when they are asking for a compromise when he thinks they are not

compromising. At the workshop they wanted it smaller and they came back without

changes. He mentioned their client's letter stating that they cannot have franchise doing

one thing and corporate do another. Also, if we do not approve this, they are leaving.

Mr. Nicholson stated that the letter does come across as heavy handed and they would

have chosen to tone it down a little bit. When they are in different areas and

municipalities, in general it comes down to economics, so a lot of their stores are

designed to be free standing. But in this case, this is something they are attempting to

integrate into a strip center.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the removal of the EIFS could be accomplished should

that be necessary. Mr. Heniff stated that staff directed the petitioner to go ahead with

the previously approved masonry plans and design the sign in a manner that would

allow for the EIFS backing to be easily removed if needed. Commissioner Sweetser

suggested that it might be appropriate to require a condition that the exterior area of the

face be restored to a total uniformed appearance. If the sign needed to be removed or

smaller, that it would not affect the façade for another use.

4) New houses are too large for the lot.

He then discussed front yard setbacks. One of the raised concerns was that new

houses are built too close to the front property line. He added that property owners can

build as close to the front property line provided that the 30 foot setback is maintained.

Some older have homes have setbacks greater than 30 feet due to property covenants.

The setback issue can affect neighborhood aesthetics because it creates a lack of

uniformity and reduction of view shed. He then presented a community comparison

chart for other community's R2 setback standards. He then discussed average setbacks

and gave reference to the Wheaton example.

Mr. Heniff added that staff discussed the front setback issue in 2004. He then gave an

example by stating that back in 2000 on the 200 block of south Edgewood there were

two single family homes constructed with 30 foot setbacks in a neighborhood consisting

of homes setback 40 feet from the front property line. He stated that the Village had no

tools to require those homes to go to the 40 foot setback. There were a number of

residents who called concerning those homes as to why they were not built to the 40

foot setback. He stated that this could be a potential tool to minimize the impact of

larger new single-family homes in the neighborhood.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if this review should wait until the market comes around.

She stated that average setbacks, range setbacks, and absolute setbacks exist, but

then asked staff if there are any other alternatives.

Mr. Heniff stated that we could look at creating build-to and setback requirements. He

stated that this would incorporate the built homes with the new ones. Referring to the

housing market comment, he stated that now might be a good time to investigate these

matters while the market is at a low, so new regulations would be in place once it picks

back up.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the frontage and setback could visually have

something to do with the bulk and height of the house. She stated that she is a little

ambivalent to setting a lot of requirements. She also stated that she would be open to

providing a tool, but at this time is not sure what that would be.

Mr. Heniff replied that these are some of the questions that staff will look at and start

formulating the issues and concerns.

Commissioner Olbrysh (referring to the mentioned Edgewood and Fairfield homes)

added that possibly an average setback might take into account the changing

neighborhood, which is the way to start thinking. He stated that right now teardowns are

resulting in larger homes, which will most likely go vertically. He added that the

Commission cannot get upset about the height because the examples that Mr. Heniff

gave for those single-family homes won't be around much longer anyway. He stated

that while looking at the different options, an average might be good for a changing

neighborhood, which might be a good way to start thinking as opposed to having just an

absolute setback.

Commissioner Burke asked staff what a view shed is. Mr. Toth responded that it is

essentially a clear line of sight or angle of view. Commissioner Burke suggested that an

angle of view might be a better term. Without doing an average, you do not take into

account varying characteristics of each neighborhood. He stated that an average is

probably the best solution even though the average can change, but it is also the least

of all evils when it comes to regulations as it takes into account the neighboring homes.

He asked staff if this conversation is only based on redevelopment and not on new

subdivisions.

Mr. Heniff responded that the study was initially focused on addressing redevelopment

issues, but it could be applied to all residential development. The advantage of relative

setbacks could be applied to new developments and gave Yorkshire Woods as an

example stating that everyone is developing to the 30 foot setback. He stated that

because everyone is developing at that standard you won't have a wide swing in

setbacks. Staff thinks there could be a general ability to apply across the board.

Commissioner Burke questioned what staff's concern would be if they wanted to be 50

feet off the property line if others developed at 30 feet.

Commissioner Sweetser wanted some consensus as to whether an average is better

than a range.

Commissioner Burke responded to Commissioner Sweetser by stating that he believes

an average setback is better.

Mr. Heniff replied that staff can do more analysis and take more pictures to show the

different impacts of establishing that code before bringing forward a text amendment.

Mr. Toth then moved on to another of the residential redevelopment issues - the garage

being the dominant feature in the front elevation of the house. He stated that larger

attached garages are more common to accommodate automobiles, recreational

vehicles, and landscaping equipment. He added that the garage takes up a significant

portion of the front elevation, which reduces the character of the house and can have a

significant impact on the view from the street. He then showed pictures of dominant

attached garages.

Mr. Heniff stated that most lots in the R2 district are 60 feet wide or more. He then

stated that Lombard is a built-out community. When we do see new plans with garages

with 4 doors, is that really giving a desired design? He mentioned DuPage County text

amendments related to attached single-family garages. He stated that we want to see if

there are tools available to minimize garage impact. He then asked the Plan

Commission if this is a concern that should merit further consideration.

Referring to side-loading attached garages, Vice-Chairperson Flint stated that some are

turned and mentioned the logistics of getting into them is more difficult and how it relates

to lot width. He stated that he personally would like to see something done as some

garages are very dominant and there are easy ways to minimize that to make them

more pleasing.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that because of lot width size, you are now seeing long

and narrow homes, which create a narrow look with a sideway garage. He added that

this situation creates an unusual turnabout. He mentioned that people place curtains

and windows in the garage which can help disguise it. He ended by stating that he

doesn't know what the answer is for attached garages.

Commissioner Burke stated that side loading garage are unrealistic and that regulating

the placement of the garage to where it is not in front of the front door might be a

solution. While viewing the pictures with the 60 square foot lots, he stated that the

homes that are on the "no" category on the left are on smaller lots and the other homes

we like are on larger lots. He stated that they are unrealistic expectations if they are

redeveloped, but some sort of combination between the two is more acceptable.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then stated that setting the garage back allows you to cue more

cars up front, whether or not that is a good or bad thing.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that disallowing a relative space, position, or number of

garages, you do not want vehicles in the driveways or turnarounds. She also stated that

she agrees that average lot size precludes a lot of side-loaded garages but that could be

encouraged. She stated that regulating all of this, when you do not know the exact

situation is really tough, but would agree with some design where the garage does not

protrude beyond the front door you might find a front door with a skinny hallway just to

get to the house. She then stated that who knows what sort of designs people will come

up with to follow any new regulations. She stated that she would like to see some

layouts with average lots sizes, without a lot of gerrymandering to meet those. She

added that the population is aging, so if you get a garage in back there is more upkeep,

especially considering the winters we've been having. She then mentioned that we are

supposed to be going green and there are novel things that can be required in home

design.

Mr. Heniff stated that the attached garage issue is very dynamic. He added that if

garages are moved back then driveways would be longer, which means more

impervious surface that gets into stormwater issues. He stated that staff will follow up

with samples of good design schemes that could be done to soften impact of

attached/detached garages.

Commissioner Sweetser asked whether the Village has a limit of 1,000 square feet for

detached garages. Mr. Heniff responded that does apply to detached garages and there

is no cap for regulating the square footage of garages, but the number of doors could be

capped.

Commissioner Sweetser the floor area ratio was not pursued but that may have some

bearing also.

Mr. Toth continued with the Residential Redevelopment concerns. He proceeded to

discuss the next issue - new houses being too tall relative to the existing houses in the

neighborhood.

Mr. Heniff stated that we want people to still redevelop, but to have the know-how to be

mindful of the built up community. He also noted that there has been a change in the

character of new single family homes.

Mr. Toth then discussed implementation strategies and then asked the Plan

Commission for any final considerations. Mr. Heniff stated this will be an ongoing

process, so feel free to contact staff if there are any issues.

Addressing overlay districts, Commissioner Sweetser stated that it would have to be

something special. She also stated that it doesn't seem that large teardowns have

windows that might break up the long length of the side of the house. She stated that we

might want to visit the option to break up long walls on houses by requiring windows or

other embellishments.

Commissioner Burke added that he liked the idea of the tool kit so developer's have the

information up front. He added that a tool kit would a useful tool that does not have to

be researched deeply.