Village of Lombard Legistar System

Kurt Schewermann of Archineering, Inc., architect for the project, presented the petition.

He introduced the project, which will consist of a building addition to their main building.

He then distributed material samples on the building for the renovation and addition.

The site will remain unchanged except footprint of building and additional greenspace

for parking lot islands on the west side of the main building. The curb cuts onto

Roosevelt Road will remain the same. The use has not changed and the vehicle sales

use is well established on the property. He also noted that they are petitioning for

additional wall signage on the northwest entry tower to provide customers with visual

access from the west.

John Lipinski, General Manager of Lombard Toyota, stated that the improvements are

needed to expand their growing business and to provide more showroom space and

service stall space. They have to keep the plan in accordance with Toyota's plan image

and this plan accomplishes that. The proposed signage provides symmetry to the

building.

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

against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. William Heniff, Senior Planner,

reiterated the requested actions and summarized the project. The petitioner is seeking

an amendment to the conditional use approval granted to the subject property to allow

for an expansion to an existing vehicle sales, service, and repair business. The

proposal consists of a 7,500 square foot building addition to the existing main building

and will include an indoor drop off area for vehicles requiring service and for additional

indoor vehicle showroom space. The addition will also require minor modifications to

the parking lot west of the principal building. The business is not expanding beyond its

current property lines. As the addition will be primarily on the north and west elevations

of the building, the petitioner also requests approval of a wall signage deviation

associated with their new building elevations. The proposed changes do not affect the

existing new car parking lot that is being constructed on the east side of the subject

property.

He noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the subject property should be

developed as a Community Commercial use. The Comprehensive Plan definition of a

Community Commercial area is that it is a commercial area which provides services

extending beyond daily living needs and includes comparison shopping goods which

can include motor vehicles. The proposed use is therefore compatible with the intent of

the Community Commercial designation.

He then discussed the zoning history of the site. Most notably, in 2001, the dealership

acquired the former El Torito property. In 2002, the property owner received approval

for, among other things, a new planned development, with signage deviations (PC

03-26, Ordinance 5186). With this approval, the property owner has since razed the

restaurant building and has consolidated all parcels under their ownership into a single

lot of record to facilitate the new vehicle storage area. The east parking lot is currently

under construction. As the petitioner's latest building addition was not included within

the initial planned development request, a planned development amendment is now

being requested.

The petitioner seeks approval of an amended conditional use for motor vehicle sales,

service and repair. The building addition will primarily serve two functions. The north

expansion will provide a greater area for showroom and office space. The petitioner will

be remodeling this area to accommodate a growing need for indoor sales space. The

west building addition is intended to provide an indoor drop-off and staging area for

vehicles receiving service and/or repairs. Staff finds that providing additional space

under the roof is acceptable. The indoor vehicle service area will also provide for better

vehicle circulation on the property. Moreover, by bringing this activity indoors, any noise

impacts from the staging activity will be minimized.

Mr. Heniff noted that the 2002 planned development approval also granted deviations to

allow for a second free-standing sign and for approval of existing and proposed wall

signs. With the proposed modifications to the north elevation, the petitioner now

proposes an additional wall sign deviation. The architect originally submitted plans that

contained additional signage. However, in review of the revised submittal, the petitioner

is now only requesting relief for one additional wall sign - the sign that will be placed on

the proposed northwest wall face of the expanded building. Staff finds that the Toyota

signs on the angled elevations are appropriately sized (as they meet the underlying Sign

Ordinance provisions) and are reasonably located on the building. Additionally, these

signs provide additional visibility to Roosevelt Road, without creating an additional

impact upon neighboring residential property owners.

The Village of Lombard has typically supported more than one freestanding or wall sign

for automobile sales uses that incorporate both new and used car sales as the used car

sales often function as a separate business. A deviation to allow for two freestanding

signs (one new car sign and one used car sign) is consistent with what has been

granted or exists at other vehicle sales establishments along Roosevelt Road (i.e.,

previous Lombard Toyota approvals, Westgate Lincoln Mercury and Heritage Cadillac).

As the total site is 873 feet in length, staff feels that the additional wall sign will not

create an appearance of excessive signage within the corridor.

Mr. Heniff also informed the Commissioners of activities that have been occurring

on-site. Since the 2002 approval, staff has been working with the petitioner to locate the

two approved free-standing signs on the property. One sign will be located in front of

the main building (but out of the clear line of sight area) and the second will be placed in

front of the new car area under construction.

The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) was required to review and approve

the parking lot plans for the site as the petitioner needed to receive approval for utility

line work. IDOT granted the approval provided that the existing driveway accesses

directly in front of the new car display area be removed. To address this concern, the

petitioner will be utilizing the existing cross-access easement to the Dania property. As

the new area would be accessed from an adjacent property, the petitioner may apply for

additional directional signage in the future.

He concluded that staff supports the petition subject to the conditions noted in the

report.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion by the Plan Commission.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he does not have a problem with the sign request as

the staff report indicated the similar deviations for others along Roosevelt Road and that

the property frontage along Roosevelt Road is 875 feet.

Commissioner Sweetser concurred. She asked about the north elevation and 45

degree angle proposed for the front walls - was it angled so both eastbound and

westbound traffic can see the wall signs. Mr. Heniff said yes.

1. The petitioner shall develop the site essentially in accordance with the site plan

packet prepared by Archineering, Inc., updated November 17, 2003 and made a part of

this request.

2. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed

improvements. Said permit shall include and shall satisfactorily address those issues

identified as part of the Inter-departmental review comments noted within the staff

report.

3. That a total of five wall signs shall be permitted on the principal building, with the

wall sign size and placement to be consistent with the petitioner's plans, as follows:

a. Three "Toyota" signs: one sign of 55 square feet and two signs of 85 square

feet in size,

b. One "Lombard" sign of 28 square feet in size, and

c. One "Service" sign of 24 square feet in size.

Any future signage changes shall be subject to a future site plan approval from the

Village.

4. That the property shall be developed consistent with Village Code.

A. PC 03-45: 350 E. North Avenue (Ordinance on First Reading) (Continued from

1/15/04)

Requests that the Village take the following actions on the subject property located

within the B4 Corridor Commercial District.

1. Approve a three-lot major plat of subdivision. (To be considered with the second

reading of the Ordinance.)

2. For the entire subject property, approve a conditional use for a planned

development.

3. For Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision, approve the following deviations and

variations:

a. A deviation from Section 153.505(B)(17)(a)(1) to allow for an increase in wall

sign surface area from one hundred (100) square feet to one hundred and thirty four

(134) square feet.

b. A deviation from Section 153.505(B)(17)(a)(2) to allow for more than one wall

sign on a street frontage.

c. A deviation from Section 153.210(D) to allow for an increase in the height of an

electronic message board from two feet (2') to 3.65 feet with a display screen greater

than eighteen inches in height.

d. A deviation from Section 153.210(F) to allow for an electronic message board

that is less than twelve feet above grade.

e. A deviation from Section 155.706(C) and 155.709(B) reducing the required

perimeter parking lot landscaping from five feet (5') to zero feet (0') to provide for shared

cross-access and parking.

4. Approve a conditional use for a drive-through facility on Lot 1 of the proposed

subdivision.

5. For Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision, approve a deviation from Section 155.706(C)

and 155.709(B) reducing the required perimeter parking lot landscaping from five feet

(5') to zero feet (0') to provide for shared cross-access and parking.

6. For Lot 3 of the proposed subdivision, approve a variation from Section 155.415(E),

allowing for a reduction in the minimum lot width from one hundred fifty (150) feet to

seventy-two (72) feet for a proposed stormwater detention outlot.

7. Approve a development agreement for the subject property. (To be considered with

the second reading of the Ordinance).

(DISTRICT #4)

Peter Bazos, attorney for the petitioner, presented the petition. Mr. Bazos introduced

the parties involved with the CVS proposal. Mr. Bazos stated that the subject property is

5.2 acres with B4 zoning and is currently utilized as a restaurant and banquet facility.

He stated that the applicant develops sites for CVS.

Mr. Bazos stated that CVS began in Rhode Island and operates in excess of 4,500

stores in the United States. He stated that the petitioner is requesting approval of a

three lot subdivision, approval of a conditional use for a drive through at the southern

most lot, and approval of a planned development for the entire site. Lot 1 will consist of

an all brick building, housing a pharmacy of 13,000 square feet. Mr. Bazos noted that

drug stores are permitted uses in the B4 zoning district although the drive through

required conditional use approval.

Mr. Bazos stated that a user had not been identified for Lot 2 at this time. However the

new user would appear before the Plan Commission for site plan review. The uses

would only be those permitted in the B4 zoning district. Lot 3 will serve as a detention

lot to service Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Bazos stated that Lot 3 would be jointly maintained by

the users of Lots 1 and 2. He also stated that the petitioner seeks to obtain a cross

access easement agreement with the user of the lot west of the subject site on North

Avenue assuming the owner of the west lot would provide the same. Mr. Bazos also

stated that they are willing to place their driveway adjacent to the property line on their

site for shared use of an access point with the adjacent property owner. He stated that

he believes that would be dependent on the adjacent property owner. Mr. Bazos then

asked Mark Rice to explain the site plan.

Mark Rice, of Arc Design Resources in Rockford, referred to the site plan diagram. He

noted the building and gave the square footage of Lot 1. He showed the location of the

store entrance and stated that they would incorporate a five-foot landscape buffer along

the south and east. Mr. Rice stated that 95 parking spaces would be located to the east

and south of the building with four handicap accessible spots in front of the store. Mr.

Rice stated that the access drive located on North Avenue would straddle the west

property line. The access off of Grace would be located approximately 300 feet north of

the intersection. Mr. Rice stated that the Grace Street access drive was proposed as

full access while the North Avenue access would be right in and right out only. Mr. Rice

mentioned the future access point to the south of the detention area. He noted that staff

raised comments about improving Grace Street with a turn lane. He also noted the

wetland area and stated that they worked with staff and were allowed to submit the

proposed plans according the existing 50 foot buffer requirement. Mr. Rice stated that

they understood the buffer will be increased to 100 feet and due to the timely submittal

they would be held to the 50 foot buffer.

Mr. Rice noted the interior circulation of the site. He stated that the drive through

windows located at the northwest corner of the building would be for prescription drug

pick up only. The drive through will accommodate the queuing of two to three vehicles.

Mr. Rice indicated that landscaping would be placed adjacent to the drive through

window. A screened trash dumpster will be provided to the west of the store. Mr. Rice

noted the landscaping plan and indicated that the plan meets code although parkway

trees were not shown.

Mark Nosky, the architect for CVS, presented a floor plan, material board, and

elevations. Mr. Nosky indicated that the mezzanine area would serve as storage. He

noted that the main entrance is under a covered canopy. He also noted the three EIFS

colors and red brick on the material board. Mr. Nosky stated that the trash compactor

area would include a brick enclosure with wood gates to conceal the dumpsters.

Steven Corcoran, of Metro Transportation, presented the traffic study findings. Mr.

Corcoran stated that Metro Transportation had prepared a traffic study that was sent to

staff. He stated that he received comments from the Village's traffic consultant prior to

the meeting. Mr. Corcoran stated that they evaluated existing traffic as well as what is

being proposed. He stated that they performed traffic counts at the intersection of North

Avenue and Grace Street during peak periods. Mr. Corcoran described the additional

turning lanes that would be provided upon completion of the North Avenue construction.

He stated that in evaluating the project they assumed Lot 2 would be an office building

as a potential use.

Mr. Corcoran stated that they looked at potential trip generation for CVS. They estimate

approximately 35 cars in the morning and approximately 135 - 155 cars on the evenings

and Saturdays. The estimate for the office/bank building was 50-120 cars depending on

the time of day. Mr. Corcoran stated that upon analysis of traffic conditions they

estimate the development will have a minimal impact on congestion. Mr. Corcoran also

indicated that no more than three cars are anticipated in the drive through at one time.

He stated that on the west side of the building there would be a service area in which

deliveries are received.

Mr. Corcoran stated that in light of the Village's concern regarding the full access point

on Grace Street they were willing to restrict the times in which left hand turns could be

made from the drive. He stated that he had not had an opportunity to review the

comments of the Village's traffic consultant regarding the site plan.

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

against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark stated that the site is the

current location of the Terrace Restaurant. The petitioner intends to acquire the site and

subdivide the property into three lots. The petitioner plans to develop Lot 1 as CVS

Pharmacy and has not identified a use for Lot 2 at this time. Lot 3 will serve as a

detention area for Lots 1 and 2. The petitioner also requests a variation to the minimum

lot width requirement for Lot 3, as it is only seventy-two feet in width, where one hundred

fifty feet is required. As the entire site meets the minimum lot width and area

requirements for a planned development, planned development approval is also

included as part of this petition.

The proposed CVS Pharmacy on Lot 1 of the subdivision includes a drive-through

facility, which requires approval of a conditional use. Included with the request are

deviations for the proposed freestanding and wall signs.

At this time, the petitioner is not requesting approval of a specific site plan pertaining to

the development of Lot 2. Should this petition be approved, any future development on

Lot 2 other than public utility, access and landscape improvements will be subject to a

future site plan approval application.

Ms. Clark noted the comments from the Inter-Departmental Review Committee. She

stated that the proposed use is compatible with the comprehensive plan and

surrounding land uses. Ms. Clark stated that in regards to traffic the petitioner's revised

site plan adequately addresses the internal drive-through circulation issues. However,

to provide additional screening for the residences to the east, staff recommends that

additional vegetation, consisting of evergreen and shrubs be placed on the proposed

landscape island immediately east of the pharmacy pick-up window.

Ms. Clark stated that the subject property meets the minimum lot width and area

requirements and therefore, staff recommends the establishment of a planned

development for this site. Creation of the planned development will also give the Village

an opportunity to review any future modifications of the subject property, particularly as

it relates to the future Lot 2 development. To this end, staff is recommending that the

Lot 2 development shall be subject to site plan approval as well.

The petitioner submitted a signage plan along with the site plan submittal. There are

two signage elements that would not meet the Village's regulations.

For the primary CVS wall signs, the proposed signage is consistent with the sign

package that was approved for the Roosevelt Road/Meyers Road facility. Staff finds

that the sizes of the signs are appropriately sized relative to the proposed elevations.

The proposed sign package also consolidates multiple signs, as shown on a previous

plan submittal. Lastly, the sign package also creates consistency in design between the

two wall signs. If reviewed cumulatively, the petitioner could install two signs of up to

300 square feet in area; their signage proposal totals 272 square feet (i.e., 2 signs of

136 square feet in size).

With respect to the drive-through signage, staff finds that this signage can be supported

as it is intended to serve as an informational and directional function for the site. These

signs are necessary as it facilitates efficient traffic flow. Therefore, staff finds that the

additional signs are acceptable and supports the deviation.

The petitioner also is requesting approval for a freestanding sign, which includes an

automatic changeable copy (ACC) area (i.e., electronic message sign). The proposed

sign is intended to identify the CVS store; the ACC sign is intended to provide

information regarding products or services available in the store.

In consideration of the ACC sign request, staff does not object to the deviation for the

height above grade, but does have concerns regarding the overall size of the sign. Staff

notes that ACC signs do present additional challenges and hence they are subject to

differing regulations. Where properties are permitted to have ACC signage, the Village

has established regulations pertaining to their overall size. Staff believes that the

petitioner's cabinet height of over two feet can be considered excessive and can create

a negative appearance on the overall corridor. As such, staff is not supportive of the

deviation to allow for a cabinet of higher than two feet. The petitioner has represented

that they may be able to meet the two-foot provision, but the sign area may be slightly

greater than 18 inches in height. Modern electronic message boards utilize a substantial

amount of the board's height as a display area. Staff can support the deviation from the

eighteen-inch display area assuming the overall height of the board meets code. If the

ACC sign is modified to meet this provision, the deviation for a board less than twelve

feet above grade becomes unnecessary as well.

The landscape plan indicates that perimeter landscaping will be provided around the

perimeter of the parking lot of Lots 1 and 2 with the exception of those areas to the north

and west where cross access easements will be provided. Those areas designated for

landscaping meet the code requirements of five feet in width. Staff believes the cross

access easements will allow sufficient traffic flow between lots in the event of future

development and is therefore supportive of the requested deviation.

Staff has several concerns relating to traffic flow to and from the subject property,

particularly along Grace Street. The proposed plans show two full access points onto

Grace Street. A left turn bay entering into the subject property is proposed at the north

entrance (on Lot 2) but not for Lot 1. The Lot 1 entrance is proposed to be full access,

but staff has concerns relative to the relationship between the North Avenue queuing

and the Lot 1 access drive. Staff believes that this may impede the flow of traffic along

Grace Street resulting in congestion at the intersection of North Avenue and Grace

Street. The petitioner's traffic report did not address this issue.

To determine if these concerns are warranted, the Village's traffic consultant

reviewed this issue in greater detail and provided the Plan Commissioners with

recommendations. These include a right-in, right-out design to the south Grace Street

access drive and that the proposed northern access drive improvements, consisting of a

left turn lane on Grace Street. Additionally, an improved access driveway from Grace

Street immediately across from the Adele Avenue right-of-way to Lot 1 of the proposed

development should be provided.

Ms. Clark stated that staff supports the requested variation to reduce the Lot width for

Lot 3 considering Lot 3 is intended to provide detention for Lots 1 and 2 and is not

intended to be a buildable lot of record.

This development is both a major subdivision and a major development as expressed in

the Subdivision and Development Ordinance. Therefore, the petitioner will be required

to meet the provisions of Section 154.304 and 154.306. This includes, but is not limited

to, sidewalks, landscaping, parkway trees and street lighting per Code. The petitioner is

providing cross access easements in the event that development occurs on neighboring

lots.

The petitioner will be preparing a companion development agreement for the subject

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

final consideration of Ordinances.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission

members.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that the staff report recommends a planned development

for the site. She asked if further specifications were needed in their recommendation

that states that a planned development is being recommended for approval. She asked

if condition number seven in the request assumes that the site was a planned

development. William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the planned development

request was for the entire site and approval as a planed development would require an

appearance for site plan approval before the Plan Commission when a plan for Lot 2

was submitted. He also said the planned development was addressed as number two in

the public hearing request.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that there is an assumption that Lot 3 would be jointly

maintained by both owners. Mr. Heniff stated that the development agreement would

state the terms and conditions for maintenance.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that there were conflicting references to the wetland

buffer distance and asked for clarification. Mr. Heniff stated that the proposed wetland

buffer proposed by DuPage County is 100 feet.

Commissioner Olbrysh inquired about the positioning of the CVS pharmacy building in

reference to the Terrace Restaurant. Mr. Rice stated that the CVS footprint would be

slightly larger than the Terrace.

Commissioner Olbrysh noted that LaSalle Bank would be workshopped and inquired if a

shared access drive should be considered during the workshop. Mr. Heniff stated that it

could be addressed through cross access easements.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if conditions were needed to address the Village's

requirement of sidewalks along North Avenue and Grace Streets. Mr. Heniff stated that

it was addressed in condition number eight in the staff report.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked for clarification of the location of the proposed southern

full access drive. Mr. Heniff stated that the drive would be located on Lot 1 and directly

adjacent to Lot 2.

Commissioner Sweetser noted the Village's traffic consultant made four

recommendations within the traffic report. She asked if further negotiation was

necessary to address the recommendations. Mr. Heniff stated that the first and second

recommendations were incorporated as conditions of approval. He stated that the

detention issue is addressed through Village Code and the last point is more of an issue

to look at if parking is shifted in the event that more space is needed to expand Grace in

the future.

Commissioner Sweetser asked for clarification as to the maximum number of cars the

drive through window could accommodate. The traffic evaluation stated five although

Mr. Corcoran stated three in his presentation. Mr. Corcoran stated that the three is the

expected demand while there is room for at least five at any given time. Commissioner

Sweetser stated that the report indicates that the minimum is five. She asked what is

the maximum. Mr. Corcoran stated that six cars or twice as much as the anticipated

demand could be accommodated.

Commissioner Burke inquired if the approval could include the recommendations of the

Village's traffic consultant as conditions. Mr. Heniff replied that they could be included.

Commissioner Flint inquired whether U-turn access would be permitted for eastbound

traffic on North Avenue. Mr. Heniff stated that he didn't believe that would be permitted.

Chairperson Ryan asked if regulation of left turns from the full access drive could be

negotiated with staff and if approved the design would be subject to the Director of

Community Development. Mr. Heniff stated that the Board of Trustees could consider

that suggestion. However staff is comfortable with the Village traffic consultant's

recommendations. Designating times for left hand turns would raise an enforcement

issue.

Commissioner Flint asked if Lot 2 would be developed at the same time as Lot 1. Mr.

Heniff stated that Lot 2 would not be developed at the same time. Commissioner Flint

asked if the access drive on Lot 2 would be constructed simultaneously with Lot 1

construction. Mr. Heniff stated that condition six in the staff report is intended to provide

that.

Chairperson Ryan noted that cars would have to travel through the construction of Lot 2.

Mr. Heniff stated that the construction area could be fenced at the time Lot 1 is

developed.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that the petitioner had submitted a change that included

the copy of the electronic message board at two and a half feet in height. She asked

what was the overall height of the sign. Mr. Heniff stated that the automatic changeable

copy sign was two and a half feet and the overall height of the sign was twenty-four feet,

which meets code.

Commissioner Sweetser asked what was the difference between the proposed

automatic changeable copy sign and others that have requested similar signs. Mr.

Heniff stated that a larger sign was granted for Heritage Cadillac because the overall

size of the original sign was cut in half. He stated that the Zoning Board and Plan

Commission have heard three other requests for larger message boards and all three

were recommended for denial. Mr. Heniff stated that staff interpreted that as a message

to look closely at the issue as not to permit excessive signage.

Chairperson Ryan asked if the CVS on Roosevelt Road has an automatic changeable

copy sign. Mr. Heniff replied that it does not.

1. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the site plans prepared

by Arc Design resources, Ives/Ryan Group and Stuart Novsky Associates, dated

December 5, 2003 and submitted as part of this request.

2. Any future development on the Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision, shall be subject to

a separate site plan approval application.

3. That the petitioner shall modify the landscape plan for the subject property, as

follows:

a. Additional landscape vegetation, consisting of evergreen and shrubs be placed on

the proposed landscape island immediately east of the pharmacy pick-up window. The

design and location of the plant materials shall be subject to the Director of Community

Development.

b. The parkway shall be improved with parkway trees and sodded, pursuant to Section

155.706 of the Zoning Ordinance.

c. All internal parking lot islands shall be sodded rather than seeded, where applicable,

pursuant to Section 155.706 of the Zoning Ordinance.

d. Detention landscaping shall be provided pursuant to Section 154.508 of the

Subdivision and Development Ordinance and Section 155.709 of the Zoning Ordinance.

4. That the petitioner's building improvements shall be designed and constructed

consistent with Village Code and shall also address the comments included within the

IDRC report.

5. The maximum height of the automatic changeable copy sign proposed on the

freestanding sign may not exceed 24 inches in height. The petitioner shall submit a

revised sign plan reflecting that the modified sign dimensions.

6. That associated with the Lot 1 development, the petitioner shall construct the

proposed northern access drive improvements on Lot 2, consisting of a left turn lane on

Grace Street and an improved access driveway from Grace Street immediately across

from the Adele Avenue right-of-way to Lot 1 of the proposed development. The design

shall be subject to final review by the Director of Community Development and the

Village Engineer.

7. That as part of the Lot 1 improvements, the petitioner shall construct the access

driveway on Lot 2 pursuant to the revised plan submittal.

8. That as part of the public improvements, the petitioner shall provide full public

improvements as required by Sections 154.304 and 154.306 of the Lombard Subdivision

and Development Ordinance. The final design and location of all public improvements

shall be reviewed an approved by the Village and/or the Illinois Department of

Transportation.

9. That any trash enclosure screening on Lots 1 or 2 as required by Section 155.710 of

the Zoning Ordinance shall be constructed of a material consistent with the principal

building.

10. That a total of five wall signs shall be permitted on the Lot 1 principal building, with

the wall sign size and placement to be consistent with the petitioner's plans, as follows:

Two "CVS Pharmacy" signs which can include the secondary tag line. Said signs shall

not exceed 136 square feet in size.

Three 'Drive-Thru/Pharmacy " signs, not to exceed 30 square feet in size. Any future

signage changes shall be subject to a future site plan approval from the Village.

c. Any future signage changes shall be subject to a future site plan

approval from the Village.

11. That the petitioner shall make the following changes to the site plan, as follows:

a. That the proposed south entrance drive onto Grace Street shall be designed as a

right-in, right-out facility.

b. That the proposed north access drive onto Grace Street shall be designed for all

SPA 03-11: 2331 Fountain Square Drive

Requests approval of modifications to the approved signage plan. These

modifications include the relocation of the existing kettle grill sign as well as

deviations from the Village's Sign Ordinance, to include the following:

1. A request for a deviation from Section 153.505(B)(16) of the Village's Sign

Ordinance to allow for a wall sign of 167.9 square feet on the building's east

wall.

2. A request for a deviation from Section 153.505(B)(16) of the Village's Sign

Ordinance to allow for a second wall sign of 42 square feet of sign surface area

on the building's south wall in addition to the permitted wall sign on the

building's east wall.

3. A request for a deviation from Section 153.505(B)(16) of the Village's Sign

Ordinance to allow for a third wall sign of 30 square feet of sign surface area on

the building's north wall in addition to the permitted wall sign on the building's

east wall.