Village of Lombard Legistar System

Prior to the start of the presentation, Commissioner Flint stated that his architectural

firm, Arcon Associates, has been hired by the Lombard Park District for the project.

Since he is a principal owner of the firm, he would recuse himself from considering or

voting on the petition.

Richard Petricek, Arcon Associates , 420 N. Eisenhower North, Lombard, architect for

the project presented the petition. He said the proposal is to build a new maintenance

facility building on the west side of Sunset Knoll Park. The building would be oriented

toward Route 53. The 36.7 acre site is currently improved with ball fields and a

recreation center. The maintenance area would encompass four acres of the park and

would include the maintenance building, parking lot and an associated detention facility.

The building would also have a storage area for the school district. The total net area of

the building is 36,900 square feet with a mezzanine level included as part of the

calculations. The access to site would be off of Route 53 - no access would be provided

to Wilson Avenue. They have placed the building 100 feet back to minimize its visual

impact and will allow them to provide an additional area for trees.

The facility will meet and exceed landscaping requirements by providing transitional

landscape yards on south and west portion of parcel. The residential areas to the south

would be buffered by the 100' setback and a berm placed along the south side of

building with additional landscaping is proposed. The District contemplates establishing

a grove of fifty trees north of the proposed maintenance building. The closest field

recreational activities located about 150 to 200 feet to the north and east of the

proposed building is a soccer field and a sled hill.

Mr. Petricek then discussed the proposed site operations by the Park District. Roughly

20-26 employees would report to the site, some of which are part-time employees. The

facility will house Park District equipment and all storage would be kept inside of building

when not being used by staff. The operation hours of use are Monday to Friday from

7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The facility will generally be closed after 3:30 p.m. and would not

be used on weekends, outside of an occasional field ground crew. He referred to site

plan with parking located on west side of parcel and with perimeter drive for

maintenance people to enter facility. He then referred to the floor plan and showed the

areas for storage, wood shop, maintenance, mechanical shop, and small offices. He

noted that the offices are not proposed to be an administrative area for the District. He

showed the proposed District 44 area for vehicle storage and equipment for school and

paper products. He then showed the various elevations and explained the colors with

siding and materials to be used.

Concluding the presentation, he felt that the facility will sit nicely on site since the

building will not be visible from Finley Avenue and that the landscaping yards will a

buffer and he believes this is the proper location on site for facility.

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

speak in favor of this petition.

Speaking against the petition was Elizabeth Wagner, 515 W. Harrison. She stated that

she is concerned that this will be a further step in developing the park and would like to

see the park remain as open space.

Chuck McKinney, 1001 Shady Lane, had questions about his driveway being marked up

with orange paint.

Mr. Petricek responded by stating the driveway paint may be attributable to surveying

crews locating site utilities in area.

Mike Fugiel, Lombard Park District Director, addressed the concern about developing

the park by stating that they have no current plans to further develop the site. They

bought the school building about three years ago and outside of renovations, but nothing

additional is proposed at this time.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, then presented the staff report. The Park District is

proposing to relocate their maintenance facility that is currently located at 143 West St.

Charles Road to Sunset Knoll Park. This relocation will include the establishment of a

new building for maintenance and storage activities of the Park District. An associated

parking lot is also proposed to be constructed adjacent to the maintenance building.

The Park District is asking for conditional use approval for the park district building as

well as a conditional use for a planned development. Also associated with this petition,

but not a part of this public hearing, is a proposed amendment to the Village's Building

Code to allow for metal 2C buildings to be permissible in the C/R District, subject to

conditions.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property be used as open space. As the

principal use of the property will remain as parks and open space, the proposed

conditional uses are consistent with the Plan. Maintenance facilities and functions are a

necessary component to the ongoing care of any property and are considered ancillary

to the principal use of the property.

Staff notes that the Zoning Ordinance lists parks as permitted uses within the C/R

District. While park district buildings could be considered complementary to the

principal use of the site, staff's interpretation is that the term "municipal facilities" more

closely approximates the use and type of structure that is being proposed by the Park

District. Municipal facilities are designated as conditional uses in the Ordinance.

He then noted the proposed operational functions noted in the staff report and by the

petitioner. The proposed building is not being designed to serve the administrative

functions of the district. Office space would be minimal and would only consist of a

small area intended to serve the maintenance and field crew operations staged out of

the building. The Park District does not plan to include any outside storage of vehicles

or equipment as part of their development plans.

The location of the building and site improvements at the southwest corner of the site

was intended to minimize visual impact of the building to adjacent established

properties. The site is also at a low point on the property and should not be visible from

Finley Road. All stormwater detention improvements required for the facility and parking

lot will be provided in a new detention pond to be located at the southwest corner of the

site.

The Park District does not envision this building to generate traffic from the public.

Access to the site will be exclusively from Route 53, which has been designed to more

readily accommodate truck traffic, as opposed to Finley Avenue. The proposed site

plan will also prevent cut-through movement through the site, as there are no driveways

or internal streets envisioned as part of the plan. Wilson Avenue immediately south of

the subject property is no longer dedicated as a public right-of-way. An IDOT permit is

required prior to construction of any access improvement to the site - final engineering

of the driveway or any improvement to Route 53 itself would have to be satisfactorily

addressed.

The Park District has requested in their petition that a formal landscape plan be

considered as part of the building permit application and be subject to the Director of

Community Development. Staff feels as it is desirable to retain the open space/park

appearance to the subject property, landscape treatments are a critical site

enhancement. Staff can be supportive of the request, provided that the Park District

provide transitional landscape yards per the conditions noted in the staff report.

Mr. Heniff then noted that the Zoning Ordinance encourages the use of planned

developments that provide for a more efficient use of public grounds, buildings and other

facilities. The proposed plan would consolidate many diverse functions and activities of

the Park District at a central location in a unified development plan. Staff is supportive

of the planned development request as it establishes a framework for review and

consideration of any other subsequent activities or structures that could be developed in

the future. The creation of the planned development will also allow for additional

community input through the public hearing process for future improvements to the site.

He concluded by stating that as the principal use of the site will still be a community park

facility, its primary use remains unchanged. Open space is compatible to any zoning

district. Its use as a park facility complements the adjoining property uses. By

addressing the landscaping and buffering issues proposed in the petition, staff feels that

the impacts on neighboring properties would be decreased.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan

Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser referenced the Workshop Session at the July 22, 2002 Plan

Commission meeting and noted that the Commissioners expressed their reservations

about a metal building. She was concerned that the petitioner ignored the

Commissioner's concerns. She stated that she was concerned about the BOBA

amendment as it would apply to a very narrow situation. She stated that berms would

screen the site from Finley and the neighbors to the south, but thousands of people

drive-by on Route 53 and their first impression of Lombard would be of the proposed

building. She made references to previous discussions regarding the St. Charles Road

corridor and past concerns raised regarding metal buildings.

Commissioner Burke questioned the berming on the south side and had questions about

the large number of trees on north property line as they are not shown on their plan. Mr.

Petricek referenced the exhibit boards which show the small grove. The final land plan

will have their placement delineated on the south and west side of facility. As to seeing

the facility as an entrance to the Village, the building is positioned so that you won't see

an entire wall elevation at one time. Its a structure that has to meet its function as a

maintenance facility. Commissioner Burke responded by noting the berm on the

southside is nice for adjacent residents, but off of

Route 53 there is a retention pond which will make building more visible. Mr. Petricek

responded by noting that the pond will have aerator and will be appropriately

landscaped due to its transitional position on the site.

Commissioner Olbrysh shared the concerns of the other Commissioners. He is

concerned about what residents think about the building. He noted that there have been

no other residents to complain. He personally wouldn't want to live close to it, but no

one came to object.

Chairperson Ryan asked the petitioner if they are keeping the sledding hill. There is an

awful lot of vehicle traffic on along Route 53, so he would like to see something of

greater magnitude along the pond and buffer more parking area to give a better

appearance. The petitioner responded that the landscaping issues would be taken care

of.

Commissioner Sweetser asked how many trees will be destroyed. She also asked

about any fencing for the site and if kids' activities would occur around the building. She

also asked about any planned signage. She also inquired as to why the Village is

considering a building code amendment to allow metal buildings at this location. If the

code amendment does not pass, what alternate material would be used.

Mr. Petricek stated that there will be no required signage for building itself as its not a

building that the public will be coming to.

Mr. Heniff noted that the code amendment would permit 2C construction, which relates

to the fire wall rating for the building. Structural members would not have as high of a

fire protection rating as under the 2A requirement currently required for structures

outside of the I Limited Industrial District. If the amendment does not pass, they would

have to meet the 2A rating, which would likely mean that the exterior would be masonry,

pre-cast concrete or concrete block.

John Lipinski, General Manager of Lombard Toyota presented the petition. He also

introduced Ronald Postma, President of the company. He noted that Lombard Toyota

has acquired the property east of their showroom facility and proposes to expand

customer parking lot and display area for their new car sales. He noted that Toyota

continues to grow and that they want to continue in operate Lombard.

Mr. Lipinski said that competition has increased and their competition has also been

expanding in the area. He said that there were no plans for additional Toyota stores in

the area and that he has been encouraged to improve their existing facility to meet

product demand.

He continued by noting that the expansion is intended to provide additional storage

space. They are looking to create inventory storage for new cars in a defined area

which will be more attractive. They would like to maintain the existing curb line on the

rear of the site to allow them to have a better traffic flow - especially transport to unload

vehicles. They will have lighting consistent with code and what currently exists on their

site. They also propose to have display pads to bring more attention to the dealership.

They are requesting variations to Sign Ordinance. One issue obscuring their site from

the view of eastbound traffic is an existing tree line on the adjacent apartment property.

They are requesting additional signs to inform potential customers early on. They want

to move the brand sign moved towards the inventory area and they propose to put a

certified used vehicle sign where the existing Toyota sign currently is. Lastly, the

landscape plan would be conforming to Village Ordinances.

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

speak for or against this petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, reiterated the requested actions and summarized the

project. The proposal consists of a roughly 90,000 square foot addition to the parking lot

on the east side of the existing site that will include approximately 219 inventory storage

spots and 13 customer parking spots, plus 8 vehicle display pads along Roosevelt

Road. The business is not expanding either of its buildings at this time. The conditional

use for automobile uses is intended to bring the site into compliance with the current

Ordinance provisions. He then summarized the Inter-Departmental Review Comments.

He stated that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Heniff then noted the Zoning History of the site. The original auto dealership

(Quality Toyota) was approved as part of a planned development amendment in 1986

(Ordinance 2854). An adjacent residence next to the original dealership site and within

the current subject property was annexed into the Village in 1988 (Ordinance 3098).

This petition also rezoned the entire dealership site to the B4 Corridor Commercial

District. In 2001, the dealership acquired the former El Torito restaurant property and

proposed to consolidate all parcels under their ownership into a single lot of record,

which can be done administratively.

When the property was originally developed, motor vehicle repair was a permitted use in

the B4 District. In 1990, a Zoning Ordinance text amendment was adopted that

changed the classification of motor vehicle sales, service, and repair in the B4 District

from a permitted use to a conditional use. At that time, these activities became a legal

nonconforming use. Lombard Toyota now seeks a conditional use to allow for the

business expansion and to come into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Heniff then noted that the new east sales lot will be for new car sales. The design of

this lot is intended to maximize flexibility in display and will allow the dealer to show

vehicles in varying positions. Included on the plans are show spaces along the north

property line. These areas are intended to display "special" vehicles. As these vehicle

circles are located behind the required five-foot perimeter landscape area and are on an

improved hard surface, they meet code. As a further site improvement, the petitioner is

proposing a designated customer parking area east of the existing sales building. This

lot will improve the overall traffic flow on the property. Directional signs, which meet

code, are also proposed on the site.

Lombard Toyota has recognized that the unloading of vehicles on the premises has not

been effectively done in the past. To address this issue, and the concerns raised by the

Fire Department, the petitioner proposed to create a new traffic flow on the premises.

Truck carriers will enter at the west entrance and travel counter-clockwise behind the

building, then north through the widened access lane on the east side of the property.

Staff finds that this circulation pattern would be a significant improvement from the

current condition.

Included with the petition is a request for conditional use approval for a planned

development. A portion of the subject property was previously included as part of the

Village Tree R5 Planned Development. However, to provide a zoning classification to

the site more indicative of the actual use of the property, the planned development

element was removed. As the subject property meets the minimum lot width and area

requirements and since the intent of planned developments is to address the unique

attributes surrounding existing and proposed land uses, staff recommends the

establishment of a planned development for this site. Moreover, the planned

development process will provide greater flexibility to consider unique parking and

signage elements associated with vehicle sales.

He noted that the petitioner requests signage deviations to allow for more than one wall

sign per street frontage and more than one freestanding sign on any one parcel of

property. The petitioner proposes two additional wall signs. A Toyota corporate sign and

symbol is proposed for the main building and would be located on the east wall

perpendicular to Roosevelt Road. The second sign will be a box sign on the used car

building. This signage is meant to be an additional identifier as to the activity occurs in

the building. Staff finds that the wall signs are appropriately sized (as they meet the

underlying Sign Ordinance size provisions) and are reasonably located on the building.

Mr. Heniff referenced the development proposal booklet submitted to the file. The

petitioner intends to provide three freestanding signs along Roosevelt Road. The

Village has typically supported more than one freestanding 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 similar

establishments. As the site is 873 feet in length, staff feels that the second

free-standing sign will not create an appearance of excessive within the corridor.

However, staff feels that a third sign (the proposed monument sign at the west end of

the property) would be excessive. Staff feels that the additional monument sign would

not provide any benefit to westbound traffic since they are already past the entrances.

Eastbound traffic should still be able to see the larger Toyota signs should they be

relocated per the petitioner's plans. Moreover, as the petitioner is also proposing

additional wall signage and the second free-standing sign, staff feels that the granting of

that signage relief, in addition to the existing signage, will more than provide more than

adequate signage for the site.

He noted that the petitioner is also requesting a variation to the 30-foot transitional yard

setback to allow for a new car parking area. This request is required as the petitioner

intends to reconstruct and expand the proposed parking lot area as depicted on the

plans. The petitioner intends to keep the parking lot at essentially the same location as

it can currently be found. They also note that this will also allow them to provide

improved truck circulation around the building.

Staff is supportive of this request, as it does not increase the amount of nonconformity

on the site. Moreover, as the abutting International Village apartment complex is

currently improved with detached garages paralleling the parking lot and a solid wooden

fence is provided on the property, staff feels that the variation can be supported.

Staff notes that the variation, while not completely to code, still provides a significant

buffer from the adjacent properties to the north. Existing vehicle storage and staging

occurs only ten feet from the property line. The petitioner's proposal provides additional

green space while ensuring that the overall site itself has the requisite building

separation, parking and circulation space to adequately meet the anticipated demand of

the use.

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

report.

Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that the expansion is a welcome addition and she finds

everything acceptable. She asked for a clarification regarding the signage location. Mr.

Heniff noted that the existing Toyota sign would be shifted east, the new used car sign

would be located where the existing sign is and the proposed monument sign is located

at the west end of the property. To provide additional comment, Mr. Lipinski noted that

the monument sign on west side of property would be visible but the trees would be still

there. Commissioner Sweetser asked if the center sign would be visible or not from that

point on Roosevelt Road which is shown on the petitioner's sign exhibit package. Mr.

Lipinski said they propose to move the monument sign further west and replace with a

lower sign, so its hard to answer if you can see or not. He also noted that the signs

must be approved by the Toyota corporate office.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked about the existing curb cuts. Mr. Heniff said that they will

stay as-is on Roosevelt Road, but the cross-access to Dania will be removed as it is no

longer needed to provide access to the restaurant property.

Representing the petition was Larry Debb of GVA Williams, 1011 East Touhy, Des

Plaines, IL. He noted the request for three approvals and stated the main issues and

previous input by the Plan Commission at their July 22, 2002 workshop. Regarding the

south side of the building which is the most visible side from Butterfield Road, he stated

they added spandrel glass windows and awnings. To screen the delivery area, they

added a brick wall and landscaping which breaks up the asphalt area. For the drive

through proposed on the east side, they separated the traffic - there is room for car or

truck to get around and this will enable five extra cars to queue without conflict with

delivery trucks. He then noted the proposed tenant mix. They envision a Starbuck's or

a Caribou Coffee establishment to be located as the end unit. Right now they propose

to have Pier One in the middle section of building. They are in discussions with other

establishments to fill the center.

He concluded by noting that they are building the project to code and are not asking for

any height or setback relief. However, they are asking for additional wall signage due to

unusual position of the building on the site.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one to speak in

favor.

Speaking against the petition was Scott Richards, 1525 Ogden Avenue, Downers

Grove. He noted that he used to live in the Highland Greens Subdivision and was very

involved in this site review process when it first started. He said that when this project

came up, they were assured it would be compatible with Fountain Square. He said that

a drive-through window is not compatible with the overall development. He referenced

the Comp USA building and noted that the building has fallen architecturally short of

expectations and he expressed disappointment in this project as well.

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

that the petitioner is proposing a 21,000 gross square foot retail commercial strip center

to be located within the Highlands of Lombard Planned Development immediately east

of the CompUSA store. The one-story masonry building is proposed to be approximately

18 feet in height to the roofline and 22 feet high to the top of the parapet wall. The

building faces north with the main access road into the Highlands of Lombard to the

northwest of the proposed building site. Surface parking for 78 vehicles will be provided

to the north of the proposed building. At this time, Pier One is the tentative anchor

tenant that will occupy the center of the building. Four other tenant spaces are

proposed to flank the anchor store.

The petitioner is requesting site plan approval for the building and conditional use

approval for a drive-through window proposed for the east side of the building, per the

provisions of the annexation agreement. Additionally, the petitioner is requesting

approval of a resubdivision breaking off the Pier One site from the remainder of the

undeveloped property.

He then referenced the Engineering and Building comments in the staff report and noted

that these issues will need to be addressed prior to issuance of any building permits.

He then referenced the previous approvals within the Highlands of Lombard planned

development and stated that the uses that plan to locate within this center must be

among those uses noted within the annexation agreement. The Comprehensive Plan

identifies the site for Community Commercial Use. The Plan advises that the property

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

uses are therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the

proposed development will be consistent with the Highlands of Lombard development

agreement and compatible with the Great Indoors, Highlands Apartments and

CompUSA developments.

As discussed at the July 22, 2002 Plan Commission Workshop session, a number of

concerns were raised by the Commission in their preliminary review of the Highlands of

Lombard/Pier One Center concept plans. To address these concerns, the petitioner has

provided revised elevations that include spandrel glass windows on the south elevation,

with the inclusion of awnings where appropriate. This will be consistent with the

CompUSA and Great Indoors' elevations facing Butterfield Road. As depicted on the full

color elevations, the petitioner is prosing to utilize two brick colors similar in style to the

Great Indoors site. An additional center banding is proposed to tie the building together.

The elevations also depict varying awning styles and colors to further differentiate the

various tenant spaces. Final colors of the awnings will be a function of the ultimate

tenant that will occupy the respective spaces.

The petitioner has also met the elevational provisions noted in the planned development

approval. As all elevations are comprised of masonry materials, the building meets the

70 percent masonry requirement. The petitioner also provided a Statement of

Compatibility describing of the common themes associated with the overall development

and how these themes are compatible with the specific development proposal. The

petitioner has also submitted a site plan and site line analysis showing all rooftop

mechanicals being effectively screened from three defined vantage points.

The petitioner's proposal consolidates all loading areas far away from any active

shopping areas on the south side of the building tucked behind a masonry wall, as was

done for the Great Indoors. The architect proposes a center loading area would serve

all deliveries to the tenant spaces. Staff reviewed the loading dock configuration and

finds that it does meet the loading provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. As the types of

trucks servicing these buildings are short-term delivery trucks, they are not anticipated

to be parked in the loading area for extended periods of time. To screen the loading

dock area from the entrance ramp to Butterfield Road, a second wall is proposed with

additional landscaping. Recognizing a potential conflict raised by BIS, staff will work

with the petitioner to address this issue.

The petitioner has stated that they proposed to incorporate lighting on selected areas of

the building façade and landscaping, decorative brick pavers at the main building entry,

common parking lot and private roadway poles and fixtures and extensive landscaping

between the rear access drive and the south property line, per the suggestion of the

Plan Commission. He also noted that any retaining walls would have to be constructed

similar to that which has been established for the overall development. He then

referenced the traffic analysis report that found that about 157 p.m. peak hour trips

would be generated by the development.

Mr. Heniff then discussed the drive-through window. The Development Agreement does

specifically addresses drive-through establishments as conditional uses and treats them

in a similar manner as the underlying Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner's concept is to

provide a window for the possible establishment of a coffee-type restaurant. To minimize

vehicle conflicts, the petitioner proposes to put a small defining median between the

area to be used by the customers and the vehicles attempting to get around the building.

The petitioner intends that all orders will be placed and received at the single window;

therefore no menu/speaker board is proposed for the site. The window has also been

shifted to the north to provide a longer queuing space. While the Commissioner's asked

that other locations be considered, the petitioner that all other prepared locations

created greater vehicle conflicts or would detract from the overall site layout.

The petitioner's is proposing wall signage above each storefront consistent with Village

Code. As the front of the store is oriented away from the abutting street, the petitioner is

requesting site plan approval for a signage deviation to allow for signage that mirrors the

front of the building to the rear of the building for all of the tenants. Staff feels that this

relief can be supported given the unique orientation of the building. Moreover, the use

of the signage on the rear, particularly with the additional awnings and spandrel

windows, gives the impression of a four-sided building. The petitioner will still be

required to meet the size requirements for the underlying B3 District. Staff also

recommends as a condition that the signage shall only be of a channel sign design.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission

1. That the site improvements be constructed in substantial compliance with the

petitioner's document submittal with the Department of Community Development

included as part of the petitioner's submittal.

2. That the petitioner submit a photometric plan to the Village for review and approval.

The photometric plan shall include any parking or driveway lighting on the subject

property. The plan shall also depict a combination of up lighting and down lighting on

the building and landscaping.

3. That the petitioner shall address the issues in the Inter-departmental Report section of

the staff report and the development shall meet all development and building codes of

the Village of Lombard.

4. All tenant signage on the proposed building must be of a channel sign design.

5. That the design and color of any retaining walls of the property shall be consistent

with the overall approved design for retaining walls within the Highlands of Lombard

Planned Development.

6. That any associated fencing required as part of this development adjacent to the

retaining walls shall also be consistent with the existing fencing already installed within

the Highlands of Lombard.

7. That the development shall be constructed consistent with the standards required by

the Highlands of Lombard Planned Development and the provisions of the Lombard

Zoning and Sign Ordinances.

Robert Pugliese of Lord, Bissell & Brook, 115 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago, attorney for

applicant presented the petition on behalf of Uncle Julio's. He introduced Robert

Latham and Jerry Green both of Uncle Julio's who were present to answer any

questions. Mr. Pugliese began by stating that the Fountain Square has become a

model development as representatives from other communities have toured Fountain

Square. He remarked that he is proud to have played a part in this development and

credits the public and private sectors as well as the Plan Commission for its success by

placing an emphasis on quality design. He stated that the developer has also

contributed to a successful development by being very selective of the businesses

brought forth before them. He stated that Uncle Julio's will be an outstanding addition to

an outstanding development.

Mr. Pugliese then referred to the updated version of the concept plan showing Uncle

Julio's on the site as building B. He mentioned that Uncle Julio's and AmeriSuites are

the only two sites in the Fountain Square development that do not have frontage on

Fountain Square Drive or any public or private road. The proposed Uncle Julio's site

does not have a high builidng and stated that the site corridor as it presently exists was

no accident but a result of extensive planning which included pushing the other buildings

back as they currently exist.

The landscape presentation board was shown and he commented that Uncle Julio's

takes advantage of having the landscaping in front of the restaurant in order to avoid

parking which would obscure the front of the restaurant and its design quality. In order

to remain neighbor friendly, the building was situated further east which then presents

unique signage needs.

Mr. Pugliese then described the parking arrangements stating that the petitioner would

be providing 177 spaces within the site which is in excess of what is required by code.

He mentioned the concerns the Commissioners brought forth at last month's workshop

which included making the parking more convenient for customers by either having the

parking closer or an entry point to the building closer to the parking area. He stated the

petitioner has now incorporated the Commissioners' comments into their plans by

providing a gate at the north end of the building. The petitioner felt comfortable with the

layout of the front door but they did reexamine that issue also. Because they are

providing more spaces than other restaurants the spaces provided will have to be

farther away. These spaces will be occupied only when the others have been entirely

used up. The employees will park the farthest away which leaves closer spaces for

diners. They are not in a shared parking arrangement and if they find that one situation

more convenient for their patrons, they can valet park the farthest spaces.

The building design was then described including minor changes which carry through

the quality design of the development by using stone as well as paver design walkway

areas. He mentioned the new design improvements that were not included in the book

but are being offered for the Commissioners approval:

1. The two different color roofs on the south and east elevations now match in a

weathered grey color.

2. The contrasting blue arches with red tone back wall originally proposed has been

eliminated. The arches will now match the back wall and will blend in.

3. On the north elevation:

a. the sign proposed to occupy that wall has been shrunk

b. have incorporated the use of bricked-in windows and doors

c. they have eliminated the faux arches

d. The artists didn't pick up the directional arrow which is intended to remain

Signage on the east elevation has not changed; the south elevational sign has been

reduced to 46 square feet, the fine Mexican Food sign has been removed and the

projection sign remains for a total sign surface area of 244 square feet. He then gave

the approved sign location and dimensions of the other restaurants in the development

and compared those to the ones that Uncle Julio's was proposing.

In conclusion Mr. Pugliese stated that on behalf of the petitioner, Uncle Julio's will be an

outstanding addition, a very successful restaurant and will continue to attract customers

to a high-quality restaurant.

There was no one to speak in favor of or against this petition.

William Heniff gave the staff report. He stated the petitioner's request to construct a

9,500 square foot sit-down restaurant building in the Fountain Square development with

signage deviations. He stated that there were minor comments from Fire and Building

and Private Engineering. Planning comments includes compatibility with the

Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding land uses especially the layout of the building

as it relates to the seminary residential uses to the west.

Compatibility with the Fountain Square B3 Development Agreement.

Design standards and signage - Mr. Heniff noted that the proposed design elements,

colors and styles listed in the staff report meet compatibility with this agreement. The

staff report notes the replacement of faux painted archway and brick windows and that

design is consistent. The signage is incorporated into the overall wall elevations and will

be weathered to minimize its visual impact. Other signage will include softer neon to

accent the building design and reflect the nature of the restaurant.

Banking - they have noted the trip bank and showed the balance for the site.

Parking/Circulation - The proposed parking exceeds code requirements. Valet parking

might be in place at some time in the future which would require a permit from the

Village.

Banking of Detention Volume - He noted that there remains some capacity in banking of

detention volume.

Compatibility with Sign Ordinance - There are five signage deviations being requested.

Only one of the signage deviations requested pertains to additional signage - the other

pertains to establishing the orientation of the site. Staff supports this request because of

the unique location of the building and the challenges associated with it.

In conclusion, staff recommends approval of these conditions and the incorporation of

the four items mentioned by the petitioner.

1. roof color change to grey.

2. change using more of the melon colored design element on elevations

3. north elevation

4. bullfighter on the north elevation as a painted graphic

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan

Commissioners but stated that a short break would be needed to change tapes.

Commissioner Sweetser expressed her satisfaction that the petitioner incorporated

changes in their plans in response to the comments made at the workshop. She stated

that the painted sign was acceptable. She questioned whether the walkway was actual

flagstone or just a pattern. Mr. Pugliese stated that it is just a stamped concrete pad

that looks like flagstone.

Commissioner Oblrysh stated he was very pleased with the changes made. He

indicated that the petitioner has addressed all their concerns and he has no additional

comments. He liked the roof color being consistent and the paintings on the wall.

Chairperson Ryan concurred and stated he was happy to see these changes.