Village of Lombard Legistar System

Skip Spanjer of North Shore Signs, 1925 Libertyville, IL presented the petition. Mr.

Spanjer stated that his client wishes to increase the height of his freestanding sign from

twenty-five (25) feet to thirty (30) feet by adding to the existing steel posts. Mr. Spanjer

then mentioned that the existing freestanding sign was erected prior to the barrier wall

on North Avenue being built in 2003. He added that the sign is difficult to see while

traveling west to east along North Avenue and increasing the height would allow a better

viewing distance. Mr. Spanjer then stated that increasing the height would make it

easier for potential customers to see the sign, then be able to slow down and make a

safe turn into the gas station. He added that staff took two excellent pictures of the

existing conditions. Mr. Spanjer finished by again stating that an additional five (5) feet

in height would help people see the sign while traveling eastbound along North Avenue.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Mohammed Hockla, owner of the Philips 66 gas station, at 5 E. North Avenue, Lombard,

IL spoke on his concerns of condition number three listed in the staff report, which

pertains to the burying of the overhead line. Mr. Hockla stated that the condition to bury

the overhead line is already listed as a condition of approval for his 25 E. North Avenue

development. He added that condition number three listed in the staff report would only

delay his sign permit. Mr. Hockla stated that it would take a lot of time to coordinate the

burying of the line.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

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

record. Mr. Heniff stated that the petitioner wishes to increase the height of his

freestanding sign from twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) feet. He added that in 2003 a barrier

wall was built to the west of the subject property along North Avenue, which creates a

visual barrier. Mr. Heniff stated that staff can conceptually support the variation as the

hardship was created by the barrier wall and by no actions of the property owner. He

added that increasing the visibility of the sign would allow people traveling eastbound

along North Avenue to see the sign and slow down in time to make a safe turn into the

gas station.

Mr. Heniff then stated that the proposed sign would only create minimal visual or light

impacts on the surrounding properties as the sign is approximately 370 feet from the

home at 680 N. Charlotte Street. He noted that staff superimposed the sign in

Photoshop to illustrate how the neighboring properties would view it.

Mr. Heniff made note to condition three of the staff report, which pertains to the burying

of the overhead line. He stated that burying the line would reduce the visual impact of

the property, which was required of the 25 E. North Avenue development.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for comments from the Plan Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser asked how the timeline for condition number three of the staff

report would work.

Mr. Heniff stated that securing the permit for burying the overhead line would have to be

concurrent with the freestanding sign permit or the development of 25 E. North Ave.,

whichever is first.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that weather conditions could delay the burial of the

overhead line.

Mr. Heniff added that they could not obtain the sign permit without addressing the burial

of the overhead line because staff would have no mechanism to ensure that the line

actually gets buried.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she was unsure of the implementation process for

the burying of the line.

Mr. Heniff responded to Commissioner Sweetser's comment by stating that the burial of

the cable would have to be done either in conjunction with the sign permit or the 25 E.

North development.

Chairperson Ryan stated that getting the electric company out to the site could take

time. He then asked how this would affect the sign permit.

Mr. Heniff stated that the petitioner would have to apply for permit for burial permit

concurrently with the sign permit. He added that there might be scheduling issues. He

then added that the petitioner could get the burial permit before the sign permit is

approved. The objective is that staff does not want the petitioner to erect the sign

without the burial of the overhead line.

Chairperson Ryan then asked if the burial does not have to come before to the sign

permit is issued.

Mr. Heniff stated that the permits could be issued at the same time or burial could be

done before the sign permit. He then added that there could be no sign permit without

the burial permit.

Commissioner Burke added that just because the petitioner gets a permit, it does not

mean he has to perform the work. He stated that the petitioner could erect the sign then

sit on the burial permit.

Mr. Heniff stated that the Plan Commission could amend condition number three to state

that the burial must occur before sign permit is issued.

Chairperson Ryan stated that he was against amending condition number three to state

that the burial has to be completed first. He added that the petitioner would be dealing

with the electric company, which is already two years behind.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that just because they get a permit doesn't mean that

there is a completion date.

Mr. Heniff replied that the permit would have to be completed in a timely manner or it

would expire.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the Commission should determine leverage with a

reasonable completion date.

Mr. Heniff added that the Plan Commission would want to make sure there is a nexus to

the burial of the line, but take into consideration that this is winter. He stated that an

example would be to complete the burial within 6 months.

Commissioner Burke stated that the burial should occur at least within six months, but

that provision could be arbitrary and provides no leverage.

Mr. Heniff stated that the Plan Commission should make sure that the conditions are

satisfied.

Commissioner Burke then asked how important is it to staff to have cable lines buried.

Mr. Heniff stated that it is very important to get it done because if 25 E. North never gets

developed then the line would not get buried.

Commissioner Burke suggested that the conditions should be approved, as written.

Chairperson Ryan stated that if the wall went up after the sign was built then we are

penalizing him with this condition. He added that the timeframe for this sign along with

the other location would be enough leverage to get the line buried.

Commissioner Burke stated that the petitioner should go ahead and put the sign up then

deal with ComEd and attach a fine as an incentive to bury the line.

Mr. Heniff stated that if work is not done then the variation could be revoked which

would require the sign to be taken down if the line is not buried.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the petitioner should not be penalized if the permit

expires because of ComEd.

Chairperson Ryan stated that the Plan Commission should come up with compromise.

Counselor Wagner stated that another alternative would be that the line must be buried

within six months to a year.

Commissioner Nelson asked if the Commissioners would even be talking about the

burial issue without the signage request.

Mr. Heniff replied that they are two different issues but the burial of the line is a condition

of the petition.

3. The property owner/petitioner shall bury any electrical service lines required to serve

the subject property. Compliance shall consist of the removal of the existing overhead

electric line crossing Main Street, which serves the subject property and replacing the

overhead line with a buried line to be located underneath Main Street and/or North

Avenue, with buried service lines to the buildings and structures on the subject property.

The utility line burial shall be completed within one year from the date of Ordinance

approval. If the one year completion date cannot be met as a result of actions beyond

the petitioner's control, this time period may be extended by the Director of Community

Development. The petitioner shall apply for the utility burial permit concurrent with the

sign permit.

Glenn Remus, Director of Real Estate for Buffalo Wild Wings, 5500 Wayzata Blvd.,

Minneapolis, MN, presented the petition. Mr. Remus stated their request for a variance

to the planned development to modify the masonry building and allow for their signage

and trade dress as they are proposing. He gave the history of Buffalo Wild Wings and

how they have 22 locations in the Chicagoland area. He stated that their proposal

would incorporate their corporate trade dress. They have signed 5-year lease with the

V-Land Corporation subject to their petition. Concluding, he stated they will employ

between 80-120 individuals, generate an annual payroll of $650,000 and generate $2-3

million in eligible sales tax capture.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone to speak in favor or against this petition.

Hearing none, the staff report was requested.

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

public record in its entirety. He reiterated the request for an amendment to the planned

development to provide for an alternate building elevation and design for the north and

west elevations. The request is to substitute the approved brick facade with yellow EIFS

which is to be placed above the storefront. Staff is considering this a major change to

the planned development and is being brought forth for consideration.

Mr. Heniff summarized the history of the site beginning with the 2002 annexation of the

Sharko's site and the 2004 proposal that also included the 13th street duplex units and

the Riley's Pub site. In 2006 a planned development amendment was approved by the

Village Board which included conditions that stated that the site be developed in

accordance with the site and development plan packet submitted at that time.

The proposed building elevations are not consistent with what was approved by the

Village Board. Staff made the interpretation that the change constitutes a major change

to the planned development. In the last IDRC report in 2006 and in conversations by the

Plan Commission, it was noted that the building elevations included EIFS along the

north and west elevations. The approval of the petition stated they should submit

revised final building elevations prior to final consideration. That request was to reduce

the amount of EIFS and add masonry which was agreed upon by the petitioner and

made part of the final plans. The submitted request is not consistent with the 2006

approvals.

The intent of Planned Developments per the Zoning Ordinance standards state that

planned developments are intended to provide a "unified and compatible design of

buildings, structures and site improvements". Staff believes that the petitioner's

proposed plan is a departure from the planned development standards as it is not in

keeping with the unified building design for the in-line center.

Mr. Heniff noted that staff does recognize corporate's desire to maximize their visual

impact by establishing prominent building features and color palettes. However, when

substantial zoning relief is provided on a property, the intent of granting relief is to help

ensure that a better overall design is achieved through the planned development

approval. In this case, the 2006 approval achieved its effect by providing for consistent

building design. He noted that the petitioner could meet the overall signage provisions

by installing their desired sign package on the approved building elevations. He also

noted other Buffalo Wild Wings planned developments have been successfully

established blending the overall planned development into their building elevations. Mr.

Heniff referred to the Commissioners' packets which showed some examples of signage

packages for other Buffalo Wild Wings' locations. One was a planned development in

Warrenville where the building design and signage package is compatible. He also

referred to the Plainfield facility. He noted that the petitioner has indicated that these

facilities do not reflect their current prototype and the proposed signage plan is more

consistent. However, staff believes that planned development approvals or other zoning

relief should be based upon the existing site conditions and the goal of creating a

cohesive development rather than meeting a corporate design palette.

Mr. Heniff noted that the proposed modification would not be consistent for the following

reasons:

1. It introduces an alternate color and building design.

2. It is inconsistent with the east building elevation and

3. Approval of the amendment could provide a precedent for future building elevation

amendments that are not consistent with the initial intent.

This could lead to incremental changes that could further move the building design from

where it was intended. The approved planned development packet also included

building elevations so any amendments would require new building elevation plans as

well as be incorporated into the second amendment.

Although the initial approvals were prior to the Roosevelt Road corridor study, there is a

preferred use in the corridor which states that restaurants are a preferred land use and

buildings should incorporate architectural design features on all building elevations.

Staff believes that the petitioner's request for a modified building material and color

palette is not compatible with the initial building design. While selected establishments

within the corridor have integrated their prototypes into their buildings, the petitioner's

request would not be consistent with the planned development in which it exists.

Concluding, Mr. Heniff stated that staff is recommending denial of this petition as it is not

consistent with the intent of the planned development as previously recommended by

the Plan Commission and approved by the Village Board.

Chairperson Ryan opened up the meeting for comments by the Commissioners.

Commissioner Flint indicated that he agreed with staff.

been sold.

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

of or in opposition to the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the Zoning Ordinance caps fence heights at

six feet for residential properties. The developer would like to erect an eight foot high

fence along the west property line, abutting the tollway property, to provide additional

screening for existing and prospective residents.

He stated that the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (ISTHA) has constructed

noise/visual barrier fencing along selected stretches of the tollway. ISTHA does not

have any plans to erect such walls or fencing at this location. The adjacent tollway

property is not surplus land and includes the roadway cross section itself. It is not

anticipated that the adjacent property would ever be redeveloped in the future. The

constructed townhomes and their ancillary decks are at a distinctly higher elevation than

the depressed tollway. The additional fence height does provide an additional at-grade

visual screening for the residences. If the abutting property was a commercial or

industrial use, the proposed fence would be permitted by right. Staff believes the

segregation factors already provided for in the Zoning Ordinance for other abutting

non-residential uses provides a rationale for supporting this request as well. Staff would

not object to the 8' high fence extending all the way to the north property line of the

planned development, in order to provide maximum screening of the tollway.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments among the Plan

Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser asked the petitioner whether this petition is being requested on

behalf of the residents within the Buckingham Orchard development. Additionally, she

asked if this request is being made to provide visual screening for residents looking out

their respective windows or to prevent others from looking into their residences from

adjacent properties. Mr. Klatt sated that the request was being made on behalf of the

existing and proposed residents and the intent is to help block the resident's view of the

tollway.

Commissioner Burke inquired about the proposed fence design. Mr. Klatt noted that the

eight-foot high cedar fence is intended to mirror the fencing that was approved along

Route 53 as part of the Buckingham Meadow development.

1. The proposed fence shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted plans as

shown on the Buckingham Orchard Landscape Plan Exhibit (with proposed fence

location), dated October 25, 2006, prepared by Pugslie & Lahaie Ltd.; consistent with

the petitioner's submitted photographs of the proposed 8' fence.

2. The petitioner's proposed fence shall be permitted along the west property line of the

approved planned development and abutting the adjacent tollway property, from the

Pleasant Lane public right-of-way to the southern extent of the approved planned

development. Any other fencing within the planned development shall meet the

provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

3. The petitioner shall apply for a building permit for the proposed fence prior to

installation. The permit should also satisfactorily address any companion engineering

issues as well.

Guy Dragisic, Olympic Sign Company, 1130 N. Garfield, Lombard, indicated he was

presenting the petition on behalf of Sweet Tomatoes. They are requesting a logo sign

on the east building elevation and a channel sign to be installed on the rear/west

elevation. He stated they have a unique situation in that they are located in an in-line

strip center that has no tenant signage or the ability to display graphics out by the street.

The fear is that a building will be constructed north and/or east of their facility and will

result in minimal visibility, so it is their desire to put the tomato logo on the front

elevation.

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

speak in favor or against the petition. Hearing none the staff report was requested.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, submitted the staff report to the public record in its

entirety. He stated that the retail center was approved in June 2005 which allowed for

each tenant to have 2 wall signs. The petitioner is requesting a total of 4 wall signs. He

noted the locations of the previously approved signs and stated that the locations of the

2 proposed signs - one on the west building elevation facing the Great Indoors and the

tomato logo on the east elevation. Sweet Tomatoes is the first Highlands of Lombard

tenant within a multi-tenant building to request additional signage. He mentioned that

staff could support their request for relief for the west elevation for the same reasons

that staff previously supported relief to allow interior tenants to display 2 wall signs.

Allowing a sign on each elevation further emphasizes the 4 sided nature of the building.

This sign would also function as a directional sign and would be seen primarily by

customers already within the Highlands of Lombard planned development. A wall sign

on each elevation would also be consistent with relief granted to other single tenant

buildings within the planned development.

Staff does not support the fourth sign on the east elevation as there are no unique

circumstances pertaining to this tenant space that distinguishes it from other tenant

spaces within the multi-tenant building. Allowing Sweet Tomatoes to display multiple

wall signs would set a precedent to every other tenant within all three retail centers

within the Highlands of Lombard.

Mr. Heniff stated that staff believes that the signage for the west elevation can be

supported but not for the east elevation and recommends approval in part of SPA 07-13

subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for comments from the Plan Commission. There

were no comments by the Commissioners.