Plan Commission
Village of Lombard
Meeting Minutes
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Rocco Melarkey |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
7:00 PM
Village Hall
Monday, March 17, 2003
Call to Order and Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Sondra Zorn and |
Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda. |
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws. |
Public Hearings
030151
Scott Pritchett of Schneider Architects 1411 Peterson Ave, Park Ridge, IL, architect for |
the project, presented the petition. He noted that this project came before the Plan |
Commission one year ago as part of PC 02-15 and the petitioner is now coming back |
with a modified plan for the Village's consideration. He focused upon the principal |
changes to the project shown on the presentation exhibits which include the site being |
reoriented toward Finley Avenue, the convenience store being smaller and the car wash |
being moved farther south on the property. He noted the traffic circulation patterns are |
similar to the previously approved plan. |
He noted the modifications to the building elevations which are intended to blend Citgo's |
corporate branding with the plans previously approved by the Village. The building will |
remain a full masonry building with additional brick facing on the front of the store, as |
depicted on the submitted plans. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public participation. There was no one |
present to speak in favor of or against the petition. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner then presented the staff report. He stated that the Village |
Board concurred with the recommendation of the Plan Commission and approved PC |
02-15 (Ordinance 5134) on May 16, 2002. Since that time, the petitioner has acquired |
the subject property and is finalizing the plans to raze the existing auto repair/service |
facility. However, the petitioner proposes a modified site plan that includes reorienting |
the convenience store and gas station canopy towards Finley Avenue and developing a |
detention pond on the north side of the site, in lieu of a detention vault. Modifications to |
the façade are also proposed. He noted that the original petition also included variations |
to reduce the transitional building setback and landscape yards. As the petitioner's new |
site plan does not require this relief, it was not added to the petitioner's amended |
request. |
He referenced the IDRC comments and noted that in addition to comments previously |
supplied to the petitioner, the car wash queue lane will need to be modified to allow for |
fire truck turning movements. Additionally, the driveway apron must be narrowed to 35 |
feet at the property line with the curb radii not to exceed 15 feet. |
He then referenced the plan changes and noted the following: |
· The overall size of the building is proposed to be reduced from 3,160 square feet to |
approximately 2,600 square feet. |
· The revised plan shows 11 parking stalls, which meets code. |
· The petitioner proposes a modified façade similar to the one originally considered by |
the Plan Commission, but is modified to reflect new Citgo corporate branding elements. |
· As the basic traffic demand elements of the development remain unchanged, no net |
change to the traffic generation is anticipated. |
· The modified plan moves the fueling island to the west side of the property and |
reorients the pumps into a north-south configuration. |
· The revised plan moves the vacuum and air hose area from the car wash exit area to |
two designated stalls west of the drive-through entrance area on the south side of the |
building. |
· The petitioner submitted a landscape plan which includes greater perimeter |
landscaping. |
· The petitioner needs to submit a revised lighting plan showing that the site is still in |
compliance with code. |
He noted that the modified wall sign elevations are acceptable to staff as the signs are |
appropriately sized and well-integrated into the building elevations. Additionally, gas |
station canopies provide rather unique signage issues, and staff has supported the |
provision of additional signage for gas stations in the past. All wall signs on the building |
total 78 total square feet, which is still total less than the maximum 100 square feet in |
sign area permitted by Code. |
Staff feels that the proposed use is more consistent with the intent of neighborhood |
shopping than the existing use on the premises and that the modified plan will not be a |
detriment to the adjacent land uses. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments from the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Pritchett stated that he |
did not know the answer, but Mr. Heniff noted that the property owner previously |
represented that it would not be a 24/7 operation. |
Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he likes the reorientation and additional greenspace |
provided in the modified plan. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval |
subject to conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5266 444 |
1. That the petitioner shall be required to apply for and receive Village building permits |
for the demolition of any existing structures on the premises and for the construction of |
any improvements on the subject property. The petitioner shall also apply for and |
receive all requisite State of Illinois and DuPage County Health Department permits as |
well. |
2. That the site be developed in substantial compliance with the proposed Site Plan, |
Building Floor Plans (updated February 6, 2003), Building Elevations, Car Wash |
Elevation, Landscape Plan and Canopy Elevations (updated and submitted February 28, |
2003), and shall include revisions as recommended in the IDRC comments. |
Furthermore, the petitioner shall submit a revised photometric plan addressing the |
comments included as part of the staff report. |
3. That construction and site improvements shall be substantially underway within one |
(1) year from the date of Village Board approval of PC 03-02 and shall be completed |
eighteen (18) months thereof. |
4. That a solid fence of at least six feet in height shall installed and maintained in good |
repair at all times along the north property line. |
5. That the petitioner shall record a cross-access easement to provide for vehicular |
access to the property east of the subject property. Should the abutting property owner |
agree to grant a cross-access easement on his/her parcel to connect to the subject |
property, the petitioner and/or future subject property owner shall be obligated to install |
a cross-access driveway at their own expense. Said cross-access driveway shall be |
constructed per Village of Lombard specifications. |
6. That the project shall meet all codes of the Village. |
030152
Bill Idasek, 247 S. Edson, presented the petition. He said that he has lived on the |
property for six years and stated the requested zoning relief. The lot was originally 50 |
feet wide until the railroad took part of the lot in 1946. He compared his lot to a similar |
situation on Craig Place that he feels matches up well with his property, and his has |
even more open space. He finished by stating that by using creativity and common |
sense, a nice home could be constructed on the property that would be an asset to the |
neighborhood. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. |
Jennifer Primas, 252 S. Brewster, stated that she lives directly behind the subject |
property. She stated that she had spoke with homeowners in the area and nearly all of |
them opposed the petition. She then noted the comparison to the lot on |
Craig Place and read excerpts from the Zoning Ordinance on minimum lot width |
requirements for single-family residences. She stated that if the railroad had not taken a |
portion of the property, there would be no need for a variation. Ms. Primas stated that |
the petitioner pays taxes on the portion of the lot formerly owned by the railroad and |
suggested that the petitioner sue someone in order to determine his property lines. She |
referred again to a house at 321 S. Craig Place, stating that it is the largest home in that |
area and it is not in character with the neighborhood and lacks sufficient open space. |
She stated that the owner of the home at 321 S. Craig Place drives on the Illinois Prairie |
Path and stated that the petitioner might landscape a portion of the Prairie Path. Ms. |
Primas stated that she does not believe the petition meets the Standards for Variations. |
John Singer, 221 S. Edson, stated that he had submitted a letter and confirmed that the |
Plan Commissioners had each received a copy of it. He added that he believes the |
house will not sell at the expected price because of its proximity to the Prairie Path, so it |
will reduce property values in the neighborhood. |
The petitioner then responded to the public comments. He stated that the comparable |
house on Craig Place sold for $425,000, so his house should not reduce property values |
in the area. He stated that if the County did not have ownership of the southern 10 feet |
of his lot, he could build without the need for a variation. DuPage County confirmed that |
it owns the land and does not wish to sell it. The 10 feet is still there and will remain as |
open space, it just happens to be owned by the County and not by him. Mr. Idasek |
stated that this variation should be approved because similar variations had been |
approved in the past. He added that he would never build anything that wouldn't fit in |
with the neighborhood and he feels the house that will be built will benefit the |
neighborhood. |
Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, stated that the petitioner wishes to build a single-family |
residence on the existing Lot 19, a 40-foot wide lot that borders the Illinois Prairie Path. |
The request is for a Minor Plat of Resubdivision because although both lots were |
originally platted as 50 foot wide legal lots in 1872, the southern portion of the lot was |
conveyed for railroad right-of-way purposes in 1946. That portion is now part of the |
Illinois Prairie Path and the remaining portion of Lot 19 does not constitute a legal lot of |
record. While the warranty deed conveying the property to the railroad was recorded, |
an associated resubdivision was not prepared or recorded. The Minor Plat of |
Resubdivision along with the requested zoning relief will make Lot 19 a buildable lot of |
record. |
In addition to the variation in lot width, a variation is also required for minimum lot size |
from 7,500 square feet to 7,012.5 square feet. All setback and open space |
requirements will be maintained. |
Ms. Backensto then summarized the comments from the Inter-Departmental Review |
Committee. This petition complies with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan |
of Low Density Residential. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land |
uses. The property is bordered on the south by the Illinois Prairie Path and is |
surrounded on all sides by single family residential homes. Although the property is |
narrow for the R2 zoning district, the location of the Illinois Prairie Path south of the site |
provides open space in the neighborhood and ensures that another structure will not be |
built on the south side of this site. Within Lombard, there are a number of other |
properties next to the Illinois Prairie Path with similar dimensional characteristics to the |
petitioner's proposed lot. |
The southern tract of land belongs to DuPage County. The petitioner and staff have met |
with DuPage County Department of Transportation staff to determine if DuPage County |
would be willing to convey the tract to the abutting property owner. The DuPage County |
Department of Transportation has stated that they do not wish to transfer ownership of |
the tract as they wish to reserve it for public open space. |
Ms. Backensto stated that there are several lots in the area that are less than 60 feet in |
width and less than 7,500 square feet in area. The properties immediately west of the |
petitioner's lot are of identical size (with the exception of the railroad property) and are |
currently developed with single-family residences. Staff believes that this case meets |
the Standards for Variations and does not object. |
Also, in 2001, the Board of Trustees granted variations for a 40-foot wide, 6,400 square |
foot lot along the Illinois Prairie Path at 325 S. Craig Place for the purpose of building a |
single-family home (PC 00-56). This property was also originally a 50-foot wide lot that |
had its northernmost 10 feet condemned by the railroad. The variations requested in |
this case are nearer to the Zoning Ordinance requirements than those granted in PC |
00-56. |
Ms. Backensto noted that the petitioner has submitted for review and approval a minor |
plat of resubdivision that must be modified as indicated in the staff report. Staff |
recommends approval of PC 03-03, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Flint stated that this case directly parallels the case at 321 S. Craig |
Place. There will be open, green space adjacent to the property. He noted that a |
variation would not be necessary had the railroad not taken the property and stated that |
he concurs with staff's recommendation of approval. |
Chairperson Ryan asked what the open space requirements are in the R2 District. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, explained the minimum 50% open space requirement |
and what it includes. He added that if the proposed new residence does not meet the |
open space requirement or any other Zoning Ordinance regulation, it would require a |
variation. |
Chairperson Ryan asked staff about encroachments into the Prairie Path. Mr. Heniff |
stated that staff met with the DuPage County Trails Coordinator and that if any |
encroachment occurs, DuPage County will follow up accordingly. He noted that |
construction fencing could be erected along the property line to prevent construction |
traffic from using the Prairie Path. Also, the petitioner can put up a 6-foot solid fence by |
right. Fencing could be added as a condition of approval, but that might take away from |
the open views along the path. Chairperson Ryan stated that orange construction |
fencing would also be unsightly and undesirable. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if all code provisions would need to be met as part of a |
building permit. Mr. Heniff confirmed that they would. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that the Plan Commission could not have anticipated |
what happened on Craig Place. She stated that she does not object to the petition per |
se, but she does not believe the standard regarding financial gain is being met. Mr. |
Heniff explained that the standard is intended to judge if a petition's sole purpose is |
financial gain and noted that there is an inherent financial gain with any home |
George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan Commission, noted that the standards |
requires that the purpose of the variation not be based primarily upon a desire to |
increase financial gain. |
Commissioner Burke noted that the proposed driveway will be less than 2 feet from the |
Prairie Path and asked about the possibility of switching the driveway to the other side of |
the house. |
Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the existing homes are already close to the Prairie |
Path on both sides, some abutting the property lines. The proposed plans would be |
consistent with the existing conditions along the path, even if it is tight. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that if the driveway were relocated, safety would be |
gained at the expense of open space along the Prairie Path. |
Commissioner Burke stated that he wished to see which driveway location the |
commissioners found less objectionable. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked if the property lines were in dispute. Mr. Heniff reiterated |
that the DuPage County State's Attorney's Office has confirmed that the strip of land in |
question is a part of the Illinois Prairie Path and is DuPage County property. |
Mr. Wagner noted that there was not a state requirement to plat such divisions of land at |
the time the land was conveyed, but a Lombard building permit cannot be issued unless |
the subject property is a lot of record. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that this |
matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Nay:
Sweetser
1 -
Enactment No: 247 S. Edson Street |
1. That the development on Lot 1 of Idasek's Resubdivision be in substantial agreement |
with the proposed building elevations and Site Plan hand date-stamped February 11, |
2003, and submitted with the petition. |
2. That the Idasek Resubdivision Plat be amended as follows: |
a) The plat shall only depict the resubdivision proposed for Lot 19. |
b) The lot to be created shall be labeled as Lot 1. |
c) Proposed public utilities and drainage easements shall include the term "hereby |
granted." |
030153
Mr. Robert Szczypta, 1051 N. Garfield, Lombard, IL presented the petition. He restated |
the request for a conditional use. Mr. Szczypta stated that he would like to expand his |
current facility due to the high cost of truck maintenance and having mechanics on site |
would eliminate the additional cost. He stated that an additional driveway is necessary |
due to the size of the equipment that he operates. Mr. Szczypta stated that the |
proposed addition would be confined to the existing lot and would not require additional |
detention due to a surplus provided when the site was originally developed. He stated |
that the proposed addition and driveway would be consistent with other developments in |
the neighborhood. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor |
or in opposition of the petition. Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. |
Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. She noted that the site is currently a |
legal non-conforming use and the building expansion would require approval of the |
conditional use. Ms. Clark highlighted comments from the Inter-Departmental Review |
Committee. Private Engineering Services noted that the driveway would require |
additional detention, but due to the surplus of detention provided during the original site |
development no additional detention would be necessary. Fire and Building required |
that the addition have a full sprinkler system and requested documentation that the new |
sprinkler system could be connected to the existing system. Building also noted that the |
new addition would need a fire alarm system and must meet current building codes and |
requirements. Ms. Clark stated that staff recommends approval with the conditions |
mentioned in the staff report. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. |
Commissioner Sweetser inquired as to if the proposed building elevations had been |
reviewed. Bill Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the elevation had not been submitted |
yet, but the petitioner had stated the proposed addition would match the existing building |
façade and elevation. |
Commission Sweetser asked if there would be access from one building to the other. |
The petitioner stated that there would not be internal access between the buildings. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5271 1051 |
1. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the site plans dated |
January 28, 2003 and submitted as part of this request. |
2. That the petitioner shall provide the requisite stormwater improvements for any |
additional impervious areas on the property, consistent with the IDRC comments. |
3. 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. |
4. That the proposed garage doors facing Garfield Street shall not remain open during |
night-time hours (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). |
030154
Christos Yiannopoulos, 1208 S. Westmore/Meyers Road, presented the petition. He |
stated that they wish to annex into Lombard and would like the entire property to be |
zoned for commercial uses. The property will remain as-is. He added that the previous |
owners had connected to Village utilities. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one |
present to speak for or against the petition. |
Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, stated that the subject property is located southwest of |
the intersections of Roosevelt and Westmore/Meyers. The property is currently |
developed as a kitchen and bath showroom with an accessory storage building and a |
single-family residence. No site improvements are being proposed with this petition. |
Ms. Backensto then summarized the comments from the Inter-Departmental Review |
Committee. The existing kitchen and bath showroom use and proposed B3 zoning |
comply with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with |
the surrounding land uses. |
The southern parcel contains two uses: ancillary uses associated with the kitchen and |
bath showroom on the western half and a single-family residence and garage on the |
eastern half. Under the B3 zoning district, the residence on Meyers Road would be |
considered a legal nonconforming use. As the residence is surrounded by commercial |
uses, staff feels this is the appropriate designation for this property. It is more fitting to |
consider the residential use legal nonconforming than to rezone the entire parcel to R1 |
or R2 and consider the western half of the property legal nonconforming. If a future |
development proposal is presented for the single-family residence, it can then be looked |
at under the B3 regulations. |
Staff believes that the request for rezoning is appropriate for the site. Staff is working |
with the petitioner on an annexation agreement that will be heard before the Board of |
Trustees. Part of this agreement will require that the existing billboard on the property |
be removed upon expiration of its lease. |
Ms. Backensto stated that the petitioner is not requesting any variations for the subject |
property. The existing showroom building does not meet the required setbacks of the |
B3 district. Staff feels that rather than granting zoning relief, these inconsistencies |
should be considered legal nonconforming. These nonconformities could be addressed |
at such time as the petitioner wishes to expand, remodel, or redevelop the site. The |
petitioner also does not propose to include any additional land for the proposed use and |
does not intend to divide the subject property. Staff recommended approval of the |
proposed rezoning. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Burke asked if the property to the west was incorporated. William Heniff, |
Senior Planner, stated that it is not. |
Commissioner Burke asked if the expiration date of the billboard lease should be |
included as a condition of approval. Mr. Heniff stated that the conditions regarding the |
billboard are specified in the draft annexation agreement. Commissioner Burke stated |
that was sufficient. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if other properties along Roosevelt have commercial |
uses that extend two lots deep into the block. Mr. Heniff stated that there are a few such |
properties and added that the parcel immediately south of the petitioner's property is |
developed as Kindercare, a commercial use. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if the property would likely be subdivided. Mr. Heniff |
stated that, under the B3 zoning regulations, a consolidation would be more likely to |
occur than subdivision. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5280, 5281 |
030155
Mr. Dave Freese, 569 Brewster, contract purchaser of 812 E. St. Charles Road |
presented the petition. He gave a brief history and mentioned that he is an appraiser. |
Mr. Freese stated that he was looking for a commercial property and his friend Daniel |
Radosta was also looking for an area. He noticed that Lombard Floral was for sale. He |
spoke with Mr. Radosta and they will buy and run independent businesses out of the |
building. Mr. Freese stated that the building would not change much. He stated that his |
appraisal office would be located in the front portion of the building, while West Side |
would operate in the rear of the building. |
Dan Radosta stated that his business operates from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. everyday. |
The trucks associated with the business are typically offsite, but will be parked inside at |
night. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor |
or in opposition of the petition. Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. |
Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. There were no comments from |
Private Engineering Services or Public Works. Fire and BIS noted that a fire alarm |
system would be required throughout the building, although sprinklers would not be |
required. An additional handicap accessible bathroom would be necessary in West Side |
Plumbing's portion of the building. Building permits would be necessary to complete the |
listed improvements. Planning believed the division of the building would be acceptable. |
Impacts on adjacent properties would be minimal. Ms. Clark stated that staff |
recommends a striping plan as well as a solid 6' high fence and additional plantings on |
the north property line to provide additional screening. Staff recommended approval |
with the aforementioned conditions. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan asked whether or not the handicap bathroom would be covered |
under condition number two (2). Bill Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the bathroom |
would be covered as a building code requirement. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5272 812 |
1. That the petitioner shall develop the site consistent with the site plans and interior |
design plans submitted as part of this petition. |
2. That the petitioner shall satisfactorily address the comments noted within the IRDC |
report. |
3. That the petitioner shall submit to the Village for review and approval a parking lot |
striping plan that addresses plan for the parking lot that specifically demarcates ADA |
parking spaces, customer/employee parking areas for each use and areas where |
parking is not permitted. |
4. That overnight storage of commercial vehicles on the property shall be exclusively |
within the existing building. |
5. Outside storage of contractor materials and equipment shall be prohibited. |
6. That the petitioner shall submit to the Village for review and approval a landscape |
plan that includes a solid fence (minimum of six (6) feet in height) between Lots 1 and 3 |
of Karban's Plat of Resubdivision and plantings consistent with Section 155.707 (B)(4) |
of the Zoning Ordinance. |
7. That the site shall be developed and operated consistent with Village Code. |
8. That the petitioner record a cross-access easement to provide for vehicular access to |
the property east and west of the subject property. |
030156
Presenting the petition on behalf of Samvest of Lombard, landlord of Heron Point, was |
Jim Plodzien, 248 W. Wilson, Lombard. He explained that they were requesting |
approval for a temporary real estate sign increase from 32 square feet to 120 square |
feet. He continued explaining that this request is due to the fact that at the present time |
the office building is only 25% occupied. He indicated that they had previously received |
a permit for a 32 square foot sign which has not been effective because of the inability to |
read it and, consequently, they are now requesting a larger sign. In conclusion, Mr. |
Plodzien asked for the Commissioners help. |
There was no one to speak for or against this petition. |
Angela Clark, Planner I, indicated that she was submitting the staff report for the record. |
She indicated that staff moves to approve the request subject to the two conditions |
outlined in the staff report: |
1. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed sign. |
The said sign shall not exceed 120 square feet in total area. |
2. That the temporary lease/rental sign will only be allowed for the maximum time limit |
allowed for temporary real estate signs, which is six months. Should vacancy rates for |
the building remain above 25 percent for the site and should the property owner desire |
to keep the existing sign up or install a new temporary lease/real sign, the petitioner |
shall be required to receive a new site plan approval. |
Bill Heniff, Senior Planner, indicated that this petition is requesting site plan approval |
and will not be a recommendation to the Corporate Authorities. He then mentioned that |
the petitioner has provided a photograph depicting the overall size of the proposed sign |
as well as its specific location on the building. Mr. Heniff indicated that this request is |
considered a temporary lease sign and not a banner. As such, this request meets the |
vacancy provision of the Sign Ordinance which allows a temporary lease sign if there |
are excessive vacancies in a building and that the permit is limited to a term of 6 |
months. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked if the size and placement of the sign is as depicted on the |
picture and inquired about the colors. Mr. Plodzien answered yes and that it would be a |
light-colored sign with dark letters. |
Commissioner Olbrysh then asked what the dimensions of the sign would be. Mr. |
Plodzien answered 6' x 20'. Commissioner Olbrysh then asked if there would be a |
lighting plan. Mr. Plodzien answered that he did not know. |
Commissioner Burke asked if it is proposed to be constructed of fabric or a rigid |
material. Mr. Plodzien answered that it would be fabric. Commissioner Burke asked if |
there was a replacement provision in the code should the banner become ripped or |
dirty. Mr. Heniff stated that it could be added as a condition. |
Commissioner Sweetser commented that the same type of provision was added when |
the Fountain Square Development requested a temporary sign. She concurred that a |
replacement provision should be added as a third condition. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, |
that this matter be approved with conditions. The motion carried by the following |
vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Zorn and Burke
5 -
1. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed sign. The |
said sign shall not exceed 120 square feet in total area. |
2. The temporary lease/rental sign will only be allowed for the maximum time limit |
allowed for temporary real estate signs, which is six months. Should vacancy rates for |
the building remain above 25 percent for the site and should the property owner desire |
to keep the existing sign up or install a new temporary lease/real sign, the petitioner |
shall be required to receive a new site plan approval. |
3. Should the Director of Community Development determine that the sign presents a |
weathered appearance, the owner shall be required to replace the sign. |
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 8:25 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the February 17, 2003 Plan Commission meeting were approved by |
unanimous consent of the Plan Commission. |
Public Participation
Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Plan |
Commission regarding anything not on the agenda. No one was present to speak. |
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County Hearings.
Chairperson's Report
Chairperson Ryan deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
The Senior Planner had no report.
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
There were no subdivision reports.
Workshops
There were no workshops.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. on March 17, 2003.