Village of Lombard Legistar System

approval of a use exception to allow for a pharmaceutical establishment to be located

within the existing Heron Point office building. The proposed use would occupy the

existing tenant space within Suite 102. The business would consist of filling

prescriptions (i.e., counting pills from their bulk deliveries and placing it in individual

containers) for residents within institutional or congregate care centers for distribution.

The prescriptions would be delivered by a courier. There will be no retail component

associated with the proposed business. No manufacturing will be done on the premises.

As the proposed use is not listed within the permitted or conditional uses within the O

Office District, a use exception is requested.

The Heron Point Planned Development was approved in 1998. The proposed use will

consist of a reception area, a data area, a work area, offices and a courier area. The

proposed business would be located within Suite 102 and consists of a tenant space of

2,907 square feet in area.

Staff conducted a code review of the proposed use. Given that no existing land use

classification accurately denotes the exact nature of the business use, two options are

available to address the proposed use - either create a text amendment to allow for the

proposed use as a permitted use in the O Office District, or grant a use exception for the

existing planned development. Staff suggested that a use exception would be an

appropriate way to address the proposed business use as the use is highly unique and

could be better regulated through the overall planned development provisions.

Staff finds that the proposed use would be compatible with the adjacent offices as noted

within the IDRC Report. The use will function like an office use in most respects. Given

that the office use has already been determined to be compatible with the adjacent land

uses, so would the petitioner's use. The use would occupy three percent (3%) of the

overall square footage of the existing office building, meeting the use exception

percentage requirements.

In consideration of the overall Heron Point planned development and the surrounding

uses, he noted that the use would function similarly to other office uses in the building.

Staff believes the use will be compatible within the planned development and the

adjacent properties.

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

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he felt this petition was pretty straight forward.

Commissioner Sweeter asked about the hours of operation. The petitioner noted that

their business would be open until 6 p.m.

Commissioner Burke suggested that perhaps the petition should be conditioned to

prohibit a retail component. Mr. Heniff noted that the Zoning Ordinance allows retail

pharmacies within office buildings as an ancillary use within an office building, but the

petition could be conditioned if desired.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone to cross-examine the witnesses.

Edgar Rodriguez, 1041 E. St. Charles, presented the petition. He indicated that their

proposal consists of an office with a storage yard for their landscaping business. Mr.

Rodriguez stated that they have been working with staff to bring the property into

compliance with Code. He explained that the storage yard would be gated and out of

view. Mr. Rodriguez stated that they would only be there in the morning to pick up the

truck and in the evening to drop them off. He then added that there would be no

hazardous chemicals being stored on the site.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Christine Salinas, 1037 E. St, Charles, owns the neighboring business to the west of the

subject property. She stated that she is in favor of the conditional use being approved.

Bob Brunton (did not speak in favor or against the petition), 18 Kenilworth Ct., lives

behind the subject property and is concerned about the amount of possible noise that

may be created. He asked the petitioner if they plan on acquiring any larger diesel

vehicles.

Edgar Rodriguez replied by stating that they do have a number of dump trucks, but the

noise from the trucks should be contained to the site by the fencing and perimeter

landscaping. Mr. Rodriguez added that the landscaping will consist of trees and shrubs.

Mr. Rodriguez also addressed Mr. Brunton's concern by stating that the trucks will only

be operational on the site for a few minutes in the morning and evening. He then added

that they come and go in short intervals throughout the day.

Commissioner Sweetser asked that the petitioner address Mr. Brunton's question of

whether or not they plan on acquiring any larger vehicles.

Mr. Rodriguez replied that they had no plans to obtain any larger vehicles.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Michael Toth, Planner I, presented the staff report. The petitioner is proposing a

contractor construction office/yard to be located behind an existing commercial building

within the B4 zoning district. As contractor's construction offices, shops, and yard uses

are listed in the Zoning Ordinance as a conditional use within the B4 zoning district,

Village Board approval is required.

The proposed contractor's yard would occupy the southern portion of the subject

property and would be used for the storage of industrial landscaping equipment

including dump trucks, trailers, and a wood chipper. The office element is to be located

within the existing commercial building, which is one story in height and of block

construction. The proposed use will utilize all existing drive aisles to access the

southern portion of the property.

Certain site improvements are also being proposed as an adjunct to the contractor's

offices and yard. Relative to the contractor's yard, asphalt paving (along with the

required storm water detention) is being proposed within the southern portion of the

property. The addition of a wood gate, which would adjoin the existing eight (8) foot

wood fence, is to be added to help conceal the yard. As the parking lot and yard area

are located within required yards, a five (5) foot perimeter landscaping area shall be

installed and is reflected on the plan.

The Village Code Enforcement staff undertook a comprehensive review of the

commercial properties along East St. Charles Road in 2007 to ensure that the business

uses were operating in compliance with code requirements. Through this inspection

effort, staff found that a number of landscape contractor trucks were being parked on

the subject property in an unimproved area behind the strip center. Further investigation

of this activity found that the petitioner has purchased the subject property and was

using the rear of the property as a landscape contractor's yard. Landscape contractor's

offices, shops and yards are listed as conditional uses within the B4 Corridor

Commercial District.

Introducing a semi-industrial use into a neighborhood consisting of commercial and

residential properties may have negative repercussions on adjacent properties due to

possible visual blight and excessive noise and dirt. It is noted that the petitioner has

gone to certain lengths to visually conceal the contractor's yard (per submitted plans) by

erecting an eight (8) foot wood fence (with gate) and also plans to add aesthetically

enhancing landscape elements to the property in its entirety. However, the fencing only

serves as a basic screening element and does not address other impacts of such uses

or activities, including additional truck traffic and noise.

The subject property is bordered to the east by a commercial retail strip center and to

the west by a beauty shop. The existing tailor shop located on the subject property is

compatible with those surrounding uses as it is commercial by nature. The proposed

office that would utilize the southern portion of the existing building on the subject

property would also be compatible with those surrounding land uses because there are

already a number of office uses surrounding the subject property. The contractor's yard

element is a light industrial use and is therefore incompatible due to a lack of

commercial/retail components. Staff notes that the properties located to the south of

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, again, resulting in a commercial land use distinction.

The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Community Commercial Use. 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 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.

Concluding, Mr. Toth stated that staff recommended denial of the petition.

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

Commissioner Sweetser asked staff what the difference was between a light industrial

use and a semi industrial use.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the difference between the types of industrial

uses in this case is the way they are being used. Mr. Heniff stated that the proposal is

semi industrial because the main use is industrial with an ancillary office use. Had it

been the other way around, the use would be considered light industrial because the

office would be the main function with an ancillary contractor's yard.

Randy Willey presented the petition. He stated that they currently have a single-family

home on a lot that is over one-half acre. They are requesting annexation and a two-lot

subdivision with a lot width variation.

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

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

Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, presented the staff report. The subject property is

located along Finley Road within the Flowerfield subdivision in unincorporated DuPage

County. The petitioner wishes to subdivide the property into two single-family lots. To

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

map amendment from the R0 District to the R1 District, and a lot width variation from 75

feet to 60 feet.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends Estate Residential land uses at this location.

The proposed single family uses and lot sizes are consistent with this recommendation.

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

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

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

zoning, which is the zoning classification that was applied to the six Flowerfield

annexations that occurred in 2005. Staff has no objection to the proposed map

amendment as it is consistent with existing zoning classifications within the Flowerfield

subdivision.

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

10,000 square feet. At approximately 12,000 square feet each, the proposed lots will

meet the minimum lot area as required by the Zoning Ordinance. However, the

proposed lots are only 60 feet wide.

In the petitioner's Response to Standards for Variations, they note that the proposed lots

will be substantially larger (16%-20%) than the recently annexed and subdivided lots at

Finley and Edgewood, which are 10,004 square feet and 10,370 square feet. The new

lots would also have a density of 3.63 units per acre, which meets the Comprehensive

Plan recommendation for a density of four or fewer lots per acre. Also, the lots directly

east of the subject property (on the east side of Finley Road) are 61 feet wide and 7,564

square feet. While those R2-zoned properties are not within Flowerfield, they do share

street frontage with the subject property and are consistent with the proposed 60-foot lot

widths.

In considering a requested variation, staff typically looks at what sort of precedent might

be established if a variation is granted. In this case, staff examined the lots within

Flowerfield to see what other properties have similar characteristics to the subject

property. Of the 117 parcels within Flowerfield, 110 are either unincorporated or have

R1 zoning. Of these, 16 (not including the subject property) are at least 20,000 square

feet and 120 feet wide. These properties could make a similar argument for a lot width

variation (not accounting for those properties where unusual shapes or orientation would

preclude their subdivision). While not entirely unique to the subject property, the

requested relief could not be applied to 86% of the properties within Flowerfield.

Therefore, the proposed lot width variation would not alter the essential character of the

neighborhood, even if it were applied to every possible property within the subdivision.

Each of the proposed lots will comply with all other aspects of the Zoning Ordinance,

and the existing single-family home on the proposed Lot 2 meets the setback

requirements of the R1 District. Given the subject property's proposed low density,

large lot sizes, and transitional location between Flowerfield and the denser R2

neighborhoods to the east, staff can support the requested 60-foot lot width variation.

The subject property is currently utilized as a single family residence, therefore there is

no change in the property's compatibility with existing land uses. Staff's only comment

on the proposed subdivision plat is that a standard five-foot wide public utilities and

drainage easement must be provided along the north and south property lines of both

proposed lots.

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

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

consideration of Ordinances. As part of this agreement, staff is recommending that the

existing coachwalk along Finley Road be relocated to a point one foot off the property

line. This is consistent with what was done in the annexation agreement for 501 W.

Edgewood and will, in time, result in a standard sidewalk south of Edgewood that will

connect with the sidewalk adjacent to the Nicor property in Glen Ellyn.

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

Commissioner Flint stated that this was a straight-forward petition.

John Coleman of Alter Asset Management presented the petition and stated the

requested resubdivision is intended to address a remnant parcel leftover from previous

subdivision activity.

No one in the audience had comments about the proposed plat.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, referenced the companion staff report. A plat of

subdivision is being brought forward at this time to facilitate the proposed construction

associated with SPA 08-01. Since the subject property is greater than an acre in size, it

is considered a major plat of subdivision and must be reviewed and approved by the

Plan Commission and Board of Trustees.

The proposed resubdivision is intended to create a separate lot of record for the subject

property. This subdivision meets all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and

Subdivision and Development Ordinance. The proposed lot will exceed the minimum lot

width and area requirements of the underlying zoning district. Staff recommends that

the plat be approved. Any additional easements that may be required as part of the

redevelopment activity can be addressed through a future plat of easement dedication.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission. There were no comments from the Commissioners.

It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh,

that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The

motion carried by the following vote:

Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke

SPA 08-01: 650 Springer Drive (Oak Creek)

Requests Site Plan Approval for the proposed development, located within the R5PD

General Residence District Planned Development. (DISTRICT #2)

Dennis McNicholas, attorney for the petitioner, introduced the petition. Steve Olson,

architect for the project, explained the site plan. The site is currently developed with a

parking lot. The client's preferred use is a 10-unit office/warehouse condominium

project. This design concept has been successful with a portion of the building used as

office and the remainder used as storage or warehouse space. They presented their

plans to staff and have made revisions to meet the Village's requirements.

Mr. McNicholas stated that the issue of access is a question of interpretation, and that

he believes the front access to the building is sufficient. Internal access issues will be

dealt with internally through the condominium association. Delivery trucks will not spend

more time there than necessary. The interior of the courtyard is not visible from

Springer Drive, so vehicles will not want to park there. The tenants will self-select, with

a typical owner being a consultant or manufacturer's representative. The space would

be 30 percent office and 70 percent storage, with the largest storage space only 1,500

square feet. Staff is concerned with loading conflicts, which the petitioner took into

consideration by providing two outside loading berths. A striped area could be added

where vehicles could wait to use the loading spaces. The petitioner believes that

internal policing will be sufficient and there will not be frequent deliveries. The building

will be attractive. The trash enclosure will face the neighboring property and not the

street.

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

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

Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, presented the staff report. The petitioner is seeking site

plan approval to construct an office/warehouse condominium development within the

Oak Creek Planned Development. Although the petitioner's original Plan Commission

submittal requested variations from the Village's off-street loading and landscaping

requirements, those variation requests have subsequently been withdrawn. The current

plans meet the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, but site plan approval is still

necessary.

The Private Engineering Services Division has reviewed two possible stormwater

detention solutions for the subject property, each of which is conceptually acceptable.

Should the petitioner elect to explore their second option, they should ensure that

Private Engineering Services is in attendance at any meetings they have with the

County. The Utilities Division of the Public Works Department notes that the existing

sanitary sewer main does not extend across the entire frontage of the property, which

may require the main to be extended to serve the development. Additional comments

will be provided once final engineering plans are submitted.

Ms. Backensto stated that the Comprehensive Plan recommends planned business park

uses at this location. The proposed office/warehouse condominiums comply with this

recommendation. The 1978 court decree permitted warehousing and manufacturing

uses, with the intent to provide an environment suitable for industrial activities that do

not create nuisances or hazards. The court decree states that the Plan Commission

shall retain site plan approval of all development phases. For the purpose of promoting

a well-designed, integrated site plan the Plan Commission may authorize exceptions to

certain bulk regulations to the extent those exceptions are within the limits established

by Village ordinances.

Section 155.511 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth regulations pertaining to the site

plan approval process. At staff's request, the petitioner has reworked the site plan to

provide all required landscaping as well as a pedestrian walkway around the perimeter

of the building. The December 28, 2007 landscape plan meets the requirements of the

Zoning Ordinance.

The required off-street loading berths are located near the southwest corner of the

property. Staff continues to have concerns regarding the "unofficial" interior loading

area. These concerns have been communicated to the petitioner and property owners

at numerous pre-submittal meetings and several times since their initial October 2007

submittal. The Standards for Planned Developments refer to the need to provide

convenient, safe access. The proposed courtyard design would allow a truck backed up

to one unit to block access to other units. Of particular concern are the three conflicting

loading doors in the northeast corner of the courtyard and the two conflicting doors in

the southeast corner. The image in the staff report demonstrates these conflicts. (Note:

Image assumes a small, 10 foot by 20 foot box truck at each loading door. Larger

vehicles, such as semi-trailer trucks would create more significant conflicts.) In addition

to blocking access to other units while parked, vehicles at a loading door could also

impede safe, orderly traffic turning movements and could effectively block other delivery

vehicles inside the courtyard.

Ms. Backensto stated that in addition to creating conflicts between tenant loading areas,

the design of the courtyard provides an opportunity for the courtyard to become a de

facto parking and outdoor storage area. In industrial districts, the Zoning Ordinance

prohibits outdoor storage unless the storage area is screened by a solid fence at least

six feet in height, and Oak Creek court decree specifically prohibits areas for dumping or

disposal. While the petitioner states that no parking will be allowed in the courtyard, the

provision of loading doors suggests that vehicles will be parked there for some length of

time.

The petitioner states that parking and loading conflicts will be a private matter under the

control of the owner's association and governed by covenants. However, the area is

designed for parking (even if it is designated as short-term parking) and the property will

be occupied by ten separate business owners. Staff cannot support a site design that

could create code enforcement issues for the Village; therefore, staff must recommend

that the Plan Commission deny the requested site plan approval.

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

Commissioner Flint stated that, as a condominium development, there is no way to

forecast the frequency of deliveries and types of delivery trucks. Obviously, a

semitrailer would create a greater hardship. He asked if there are other developments

with this type of design. Ms. Backensto stated that the building on the neighboring

property has a similar shape, but it is much larger and therefore does not have the same

conflicts between tenant spaces.

Commissioner Ryan stated that the Plan Commission has had condominium

associations seek permission to violate their bylaws, and they have been turned down.

If the owners have access and loading problems, they won't be calling Village staff.

Commissioner Sweetser questioned how the Standards for Planned Developments can

be used to look at private property, and the internal site access may not be something

the Plan Commission needs to look at.

Commissioner Burke stated that the Plan Commission has looked at parking and access

issues with other condominium developments, but here the issues are all internal. The

loading area would need to accommodate trucks, not passenger vehicles. The

standards likely refer to access to the site, not access within the site. There is a conflict

shown, with semis not being a viable option for most units.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the proposed striping area would be possible. Ms.

Backensto stated that it appeared that the site plan had enough room to accommodate

such an area.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that all issues could be handled by the condominium

association. He cannot envision the problem anticipated by staff, with multiple tenants

needing access to the rear area.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if there was room to unload a semitrailer. Ms.

Backensto stated that the two short berths could be converted to one long berth, which

would provide the necessary room.

Commissioner Burke asked if the petitioner would be willing to eliminate a loading door

in order to eliminate tenant conflicts. Mr. Olson stated that people will load there even if

there's only a service door. Mr. McNicholas stated that large equipment won't be used

because of the nature of the space, and the size of the door won't affect anything.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that a striped area would be an asset to the site that

would mitigate the courtyard issues, especially for semitrailers. She asked about the

elevations. David Dressler presented the building elevations. He explained that there

would be a storefront-type design along Springer Drive, with trash enclosures behind the

building. William Heniff, Senior Planner, added that the proposed elevations would not

be inconsistent with what's already within Oak Creek.

12 E. Willow

Michael Toth, Planner I introduced a concept proposal for the property at 12 E. Willow.

He stated that the subject property is zoned as B5A - Downtown Perimeter District. The

Lombard Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property be developed for

Community Commercial uses. The property is currently occupied by a legally

established office use in an area that is predominantly commercial in nature, with

automobile service and repair uses. The prospective lessee intends to utilize the

eastern portion of the existing building as a contractor's office/shop, known as Amici

Stone. They plan to use the tenant space primarily as a shop area for the sawing,

polishing, and storage of countertops and other stone needs. All stone processing

activities would be confined to the interior tenant space. The tenant space would also

include an office, showroom, and storage area.

He noted that the B5A Downtown Perimeter District is intended to be a transition

between the downtown and other commercial areas that accommodates all retail,

service, and specialty shops and necessary civic services characteristic of the traditional

central area in a pedestrian environment while also recognizing compatible automotive

land uses. Contactor's offices, shops and yards are not listed as conditional or

permitted uses within the B5A District. Should the Plan Commission and the Village

Board desire to approve the use, one of the following actions would need to be taken:

1. A text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for contactor's offices, shops

and yards within the B5A zoning district, either as a conditional use or a permitted use.

Should this approach be desired, the designation would be applicable to all B5A zoned

properties in the Village.

2. A map amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to rezone the subject property into

another district classification, such as the B3, B4 or I District. If this approach is taken,

the Comprehensive Plan should also be reviewed to determine if the overall East Willow

Street corridor should be removed from the Downtown Perimeter District.

Staff believes that the proposed use is not desirable as it does not reflect the goals set

forth by the Comprehensive Plan, which designates the property within the Village's

Central Business District. Staff notes that the establishment of the B5A District and the

Comprehensive Plan allowed for the redevelopment of other nonconforming uses and

structures. The most notable example is the redevelopment of the 300 block of South

Main, which was redeveloped as the Prairie Path Villas.

He also stated that the proposed use is inconsistent with the intent of the B5A zoning

district, which specifically calls out retail, service, and specialty shops and necessary

civic services characteristic of the traditional central area in a pedestrian environment

while also recognizing compatible automotive land uses. Establishing the proposed use

may also set precedent for other light-industrial uses to potentially locate in the

downtown area.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, summarized the direction being sought by staff. He is

seeking direction as to whether the Commissioners would prefer either a text

amendment or a map amendment, along with a Comprehensive Plan amendment to

allow for business uses such as the one proposed by the prospective petitioner. He

noted that the Plan Commission could also make an affirmative statement that the

ordinance and plan should not be amended.

Commissioner Burke stated that he suggests that the Village leave the Ordinance and

Plan as is.

Commissioner Sweetser agreed, stating that the maps prepared by staff showed the

desirability of keeping the zoning as it currently exists.

Chairperson Ryan sought clarification between the existing use and the proposed use.

He noted that both have some component of workshops in the back of the

establishments. How do they differ? Mr. Heniff stated that the proposed establishment

introduces more of a manufacturing element to the property versus the current use. He

discussed the history of the Mahogany Forest business in the downtown as an analogy.

As a service and repair function it was a permitted use, but once they introduced

furniture manufacturing, staff notified the owner that the manufacturing use was not

permitted as a principal use of the property. In this case, manufacturing counters would

be the principal use. Currently, the principal use is an office for a construction

contractor.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated the proposal contradicts the Comprehensive Plan and

what we want to achieve.

201-211 E. Roosevelt Road/Buffalo Wild Wings

William Heniff, Senior Planner, discussed the latest signage proposal for the proposed

Buffalo Wild Wings site. He noted that at the December, 2007 Plan Commission

meeting, the petitioner brought forward a proposal to amend the building elevations that

proposed a yellow EIFS to be incorporated into the building design for the tenant space.

The petition was recommended for denial by staff and the Plan Commissioners also

unanimously recommended denial of the petition. Prior to Village Board consideration,

the petitioner withdrew their request.

The petitioner is seeking direction regarding a compromise sign package. He then

displayed the proposed plans. The proposal is to keep the building as a masonry

structure (as it is currently constructed on site) and then 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 elements. The

illuminated sign of 61 square feet in size meets code, but with the proposed exterior

elements would exceed the wall sign requirements.

The Sign Ordinance definition of a sign can include symbols and graphics 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. A colored banding may not

define the specific establishment, but if done in concert with an overall sign package, it

can be considered as part of the overall area of signage.

He stated that staff is conceptually supportive of the latest concept as it balances the

desire of the Village to maintain the integrity of the planned development while providing

the prospective tenant the opportunity incorporate their corporate trade dress.

Commissioner Sweetser sought clarification as to what was included within the 61

square foot area. Mr. Heniff noted it referred to the illuminated sign and does not

include the yellow or checkerboard backing elements. She also asked for code

clarifications. Mr. Heniff stated that code limits the business to 65 square feet (1 square

feet of signage per lineal frontage of the tenant space). The entire square footage is

138 square feet.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated his concerns regarding the yellow background. He also

researched the trademark for the use and noted that their trademark is the same as the

proposed illuminated sign. He noted that this strip center is unique and it would “stick

out”. Commissioners Burke and Flint concurred.

Mr. Heniff asked if the Commissioners would alternatively support relief that limits the

amount of text area on the wall within the overall sign request. Chairperson Ryan

responded that was not their concern, but rather the overall design of the sign and

graphic colors.

Commissioner Burke affirmed that the illuminated sign could be approved by right by

staff. He did not mind the checkerboard banding but raised concerns regarding the

yellow EIFS and its overall size.

Commissioner Sweetser concurred. She also asked about Village Code provisions for

trade dress. Mr. Heniff stated that this is largely a staff interpretation as to where trade

dress ends and signage begins.

Chairperson Ryan also noted that the yellow signage could also take way from the

ability to read the illuminated sign text.

Commissioner Sweeter noted that some trade dress is important for corporate

marketing, but she was not supportive of the submitted plan.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that we do not have a problem with the yellow within the

illuminated sign itself, just the exterior yellow EIFS area.