Village of Lombard Legistar System

PC 04-31: 1501 S. Main Street (Christ the King)

Requests that the Village take the following actions on the property:

1. Approve amendments to Ordinance 3055, which granted a conditional use for a

religious institution and school on the subject property;

2. Approve a conditional use for a planned development, with the deviations as follows:

a. Landscaping Deviations:

i. A deviation from Section 155.705 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance requiring

parkway trees along the 15th Street right-of-way;

ii. A deviation from Section 155.706 (C)(2)(a)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance

requiring perimeter parking lot trees along the north side of the parking lot;

iii. A deviation from Section 155.706 (B)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance requiring

parking lot islands to be dispersed throughout the parking lot.

b. Signage Deviations:

i. A deviation from Sections 153.213 and 153.219 (A) and (B) of the Sign

Ordinance allowing for a manual changeable copy institutional sign of 50.5 square feet

in size and 8 feet in height, where 32 square feet in size and 6 feet in height is

permitted; and

ii. A deviation from Section 153.219 (D) of the Sign Ordinance allowing for two

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

none, he requested that the petitioner begin their presentation.

Joy Pinta of the Law Office of Mary Riordan, Ltd., 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 950,

Chicago and representing Christ the King Parish began the presentation by introducing

the members of the development team. She gave the location of the parish and

indicated that the site was approximately 8.8 acres. The site functions as a campus,

which includes the parish, rectory, offices, school and gymnasium. Ms. Pinta referred to

their Plan Commission submittal packet, which could be followed as she was giving her

presentation.

The petitioner is looking to upgrade their campus and their plan is that it will be done in

two phases. This is a result of them being a non-for-profit organization and having to

rely solely on parishioners or donations.

Phase I improvements would include:

construction of a parish addition, which will be a meeting place used for

special events

regrading and redesigned parking areas

new stormwater detention basin

sanitary and water services

change the entryway

construct a sidewalk

site lighting

signage and landscaping

They are seeking amendments to the planned development conditional use and

variances for relief from the standards, which would allow them to begin Phase I.

Ms. Pinta then introduced Phase II, which would be dependent upon funding and would

include:

construction of school addition

installing remainder of the approved signs

upgrading and expanding landscape areas

She mentioned that the property has been a religious institution since its annexation. At

that time, the Board put a condition upon the annexation that was that the property

owner would not object to future assessments. The site has been built consistent with

old zoning ordinances and the proposed expansion constitutes a substantial change that

requires an ordinance amendment.

Ms. Pinta then addressed the standards for a conditional use for a planned development

indicating that they believe they meet those standards. The parish is requesting this

relief for Phase I and Phase II improvements. The proposed development plan complies

with the Village's standards for a planned development, which will be implemented in

two phases and will grant the Village site plan approval process. The dominant use is

consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Village; the parish site modifications are

consistent with the existing institution and nature of the property and consistent with the

purposes of the Zoning Code; and the expansion will not create safety issues, additional

traffic congestion, or a burden on parks, schools or other public facilities proposed to

serve the development.

Next, Ms. Pinta addressed the standards for a planned development with exceptions.

They are requesting relief from the signage, parking, and landscaping standards.

Supporting those standards, she indicated that the relief will not be detrimental to the

public interest, would not adversely impact the value or use of any other property, the

exceptions are solely for promoting better development, the overall floor area shall not

exceed by more than 40% the maximum floor area permitted, they will maintain 56%

open space, and the only dwelling unit on the property is the rectory. No other

residential units will be constructed.

Michael Stenzel of Plunkett Raysich Architects, 11000 West Park Place, Milwaukee,

Wisconsin, presented the Phase I development site plan improvements and referred to

Exhibit F, Sheet C2. He displayed a site plan and mentioned that the property currently

has 3 different buildings: the school, church and rectory. They are currently proposing a

parish addition with a future phase to include a school expansion. This school

expansion would be brought back at a later date for discussion and approval. He

continued and mentioned the new proposed drive onto 16th Street. This drive would

line up and be directly across from Charlotte Court. They are also proposing to

eliminate one of the two access drives on Main Street and move the remaining one 20'

to the north in order to provide better access for parking to the lower portion of the site

which will be regraded. There will be four access points on 15th Street, which is a one

way toward Main.

Mr. Stenzel then referred Exhibit B in the Commissioners' packets and the submitted

materials board. This shows the perspective of the new parish center addition. They

believe they have provided a compatible theme using similar colors and materials to

blend with the architecture and the materials used in the church.

He then referenced display boards depicting the 15th Street view of the architecture and

the floor plans. He explained the lower level layout, which includes Fellowship Hall and

a lower level entry to serve the parishioners. The upper level would house meeting

rooms, which currently exist in the rectory, as well as offices which would not be open

on Sunday but during the week. The worship center would be for daily mass instead of

using the main church and there was also some additional space to service as

conference rooms and a reception area, which could be used for a bride's room as well

as for other church uses.

Wendy Schulenberg of Daniel Weinbach & Partners, 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1850,

Chicago, talked about the existing landscape conditions. She mentioned the mature

trees on site would be preserved where possible. She referred to her diagram and

explained the existing landscaping. Ms. Schulenberg then referred to a display board

and indicated where the mature trees are found. The new building addition and new

roadway would require the removal of some of those trees. Their goal is to replace the

crabapples with street trees. Along 16th Street there are currently street trees. They

will be relocating two trees in the parkway. The school, located on the east end of the

property, has a large stand of woods, which will be protected. To the north are some

trees which would be coming down for the drainage system. All other vegetation would

stay the same as well as the foundation plantings. She referred to Exhibit C, Sheet L

2.0, which shows the new landscape plan. The new main entrance would be framed

with trees and perennials. The parking areas will be landscaped per the ordinance. She

mentioned the requested landscape variation, which requires parking lot islands to be

dispersed throughout the parking lot. She stated that the children have activities in that

area and if they were required to comply with code, those activities would be impacted.

The 15th Street variation is a request to delay installation until the street is fully

improved. On the southeast corner of the site, existing trees would remain and the rest

of the area is to be improved as a detention basin. Ms. Schulenberg mentioned framing

the church building entrance and walkways as well as the types of materials and colors

to be used.

Ms. Schulenberg then addressed the signage issue. She indicated that the sign on Main

Street would remain and a new sign is being requested for the new entrance on 16th

Street together with a directional sign on 16th Street. The new sign would be a small

ground sign erected under the first phase on 16th Street. As the development

proceeds, they would like to make the signage more consistent for the whole site to

include the Main Street sign as well as the signs along 15th Street for the church and

school that would include graphics and identification for the property.

Mr. Stenzel mentioned that the lighting around the parking area would meet Village

Ordinances and indicated this on the display board. He mentioned they were proposing

uplighting for the parish center in the evening hours and they plan on replacing the

downlighting on the perimeter of the church.

Matt Bartell of Patrick Engineering 4970 Varsity Drive, Lisle, referred to Exhibit F, Sheet

C1, which shows the existing stormwater conditions. He explained the existing draining

plan and that the discharge goes to the northeast corner of the site. He mentioned that

there are several isolated floodplains on site and mentioned where they were located.

The site contains 2 wetlands and he showed where they were located on the display

board. He mentioned the 50' wetland buffer and riparian area along the ditch and that

they are regulated by DuPage County. He then referred to Sheet C4, which is the

proposed plan during the Phase 1 development. There would be no direct impact to the

wetlands but temporary impact to the small pond, wetland B would be indirectly

impacted, and the wetland buffer minimally impacted. The ditch line will be avoided.

Joy Pinta then addressed the use deviations and variances they were requesting as was

outlined in the petitioner's submittal.

1. Landscaping, Section 155.705 (C) Parkway Trees: This request is more of a delay

in implementing. As 15th Street is improved, the parish will comply with the request.

They are asking for a 2-year period in order to raise funds in advance.

2. Parking Lot Perimeter Trees, Section 155.706(C)(2)(A)(1) - According to the

ordinance, trees need to be planted every 50'. They are requesting this variation until

15th Street improvements are underway.

3. Parking Lot Islands, Section 155.706 (B)(2): This item relates to the east end of the

parking lot, which is used for the school's playground. They are requesting that they not

have to plant trees per code but will allot 8% greenspace as required by code.

4. Signage, Section 153.213, Main Changeable Sign: She referenced Exhibit D which

shows the new brown sign - They redesigned the sign to bring to 40 square feet and she

has new pictures with new dimensions which she distributed. When comparing the two

signs it is the same sign but scaled down.

5. Section 153.218, Information Signs: The parish is requesting this variation as they

have a need for directional signs to provide information to traffic as to the entryway on

Charlotte Court and to provide for orderly traffic regulation. She indicated where those

signs would be placed.

6. Section 153.219, Number of Signs: They are requesting to put two informational

signs on 15th Street.

7. Parking - Section 155.602(C): They will not need a variation to the parking

requirements. The parish center will not affect the need for additional parking. At the end

of Phase I they will have 191 parking spaces and 7 handicapped. Upon construction of

the school expansion in Phase II, the parking spaces will grow to 216.

In conclusion, Ms. Pinta recommended that the Commissioners approve these

requested actions.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there was anyone present who wanted to speak in favor or

against this petition or if there was anyone in the audience who wanted to ask questions.

Hearing none, he requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the staff report is submitted to the public

record and he will pick up on the items that the petitioner did not address. Mr. Heniff

began by mentioning the history of the property and its annexation. He stated they

established a planned development so when future additions and modifications were

introduced, they could review. He referenced the IDRC comments and stated that those

are more development oriented. The petitioner has to address DuPage County this

week and will have direction at that time.

Planning's comments include that the property is bounded by single family residences.

Religious institutions are compatible with the surrounding existing residential uses. The

property was originally developed under DuPage County regulations - any

improvements constructed on the site prior to annexation would have legal

nonconforming status. In the 1988 approval of annexation, the Village Board attached a

condition associated to 15th Street improvements stating that as a condition of

annexation and zoning relief, the property owner (i.e., the Church) would agree to a

future special assessment. The petitioner and staff are developing an agreement, which

will outline the various improvements needed along 15th Street, and the timeline

required to complete those improvements.

With respect to the zoning actions, the proposed expansion will require an amendment

to Ordinance 3055, which granted the original conditional use for the church and school.

Staff supports this amendment. Regarding landscaping, staff is supportive of their

request. The proposed plantings would not be required until 15th Street is fully

improved. The landscape island relief addresses the multiple use of the parking lot as

both a parking area as well as a play area. Staff supports the relief.

Referencing the signage deviations, he mentioned the freestanding sign at Main Street

and 16th Street that was originally proposed to be 50 square feet in size. The

petitioner's submitted plan showing the sign to be 40 square feet is more in keeping with

other institutional signs in the area (i.e., Westlake Middle School and Four Seasons

Park). They are requesting approval for two freestanding signs along 15th Street that

will identify the district church and school uses on the site. Staff also supports this

request as it is informational in nature and guides visitors to the appropriate buildings.

Regarding the variations from the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, these

provisions will be addressed as part of the companion development agreement for the

property.

The Village's traffic consultant, KLOA, reviewed the plans for the site. Their report notes

that the project improvements will improve traffic flow. There is a new access drive to

16th Street that will eliminate U-turns on Main Street and will guide parishioners to an

existing traffic light at 16th and Main. This routing pattern is preferred over the existing

conditions, whereby parishioners exit at 15th Street, frequently requiring a Community

Service Officer to clear traffic from the intersection after well attended masses.

Currently, there are 188 parking spaces existing on the site. The addition does not

require the need to provide additional parking on the site, but as each phase is

developed additional parking will be provided. The petitioner has submitted building

elevations, which are consistent with the existing building materials on the church. A

detention basin is proposed south of the parking lot, which is intended to minimize or

remove the flooding problems existing on the site. Staff recommends approval subject

to conditions. He also noted that condition #1 needs to be modified to reference the

preparer of the site plan as well as the modified sign plan submitted at the meeting.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there were any questions of staff. Hearing none, he opened

the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission members.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the petitioner's presentation was very

comprehensive and confirmed hat there would be four access points on 15th Street.

Commissioner Flint stated that the petition was well presented and very clear. He asked

if staff had a timeframe as to when 15th Street would be improved.

Mr. Heniff indicated that the properties to the north are not incorporated and this item is

not in the Village's Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Heniff stated that maybe when the

properties to the north are annexed.

Commissioner Sweetser indicated that since there are no terms of when those

improvements might occur would there be any reason to prioritize this item to have it

completed. She also asked about the 2-year notification requirement suggested by the

petitioner prior to the establishment of any future Special Assessments. Mr. Heniff

indicated that was doable, as the 15th Street project would first be placed within the

Village's Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Right now, while the street is a Village

street, it is not scheduled within the CIP.

1. The site shall be developed substantially in accordance with the site plans prepared

by prepared by Patrick Engineering, Inc. dated September 17, 2004, Building

Elevations, prepared by Plunkett Raysich Architects dated September 17, 2004. The

Landscape Plan, prepared by Daniel Weinbach & Partners, LTD., dated July 14, 2004,

the Signage package included as part of the petition prepared by Patrick Engineering,

Inc. dated September 17, 2004, and as revised and updated by Patrick Engineering, Inc.

and submitted October 18, 2004, and the Engineering Plan, prepared by Patrick

Engineering, Inc. dated September 17, 2004.

2. All comments in the Inter-Departmental Review Committee Report shall be

satisfactorily addressed as part of a building permit application.

3. That the petitioner shall enter into a development agreement with the Village for the

subject property. Said agreement shall address the future obligations of the Church

relative to the public improvements along 15th Street.

4. That the Phase II development shall be submitted to the Lombard Plan Commission

for site plan approval prior to construction.

5. Other than the signage relief approved as part of this petition, all other signage shall

meet the area and height requirements as noted within the Village Sign Ordinance.

Representing the petitioner was James R. Griffin, attorney for Bradford Real Estate. He

described the location of the subject property and gave a brief overview of the approved

planned development. He explained the requested exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance

and noted that this petition was brought forward to satisfy the adjacent property owner

and the Village of Lombard. He noted that these exceptions are not necessarily for the

benefit of the petitioner's development, but they are willing to comply with the request for

additional buffering.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one was present to

speak for or against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, stated

that the original planned development approval was approved subject to the installation

of a solid masonry wall along the western property line. Although the wall that was

approved as part of the original planned development met all Code requirements, the

modification requested by the abutting property owner requires two variations. The

Zoning Ordinance requires that fences and walls within a front yard be no more than

four feet high. Code also requires fences and walls within the clear line of sight area to

be of open construction or no more than two feet tall.

Staff is supportive of this request for two main reasons. First, the wall will not have a

great visual impact on the area. The building will be set back 20 feet from the front

property line, so the wall would be in line with the building and not will appear as an

additional encroachment.

Representing the petitioner was Roger Lisy of Break Thru Enterprises, Inc. He stated

that he is one of the owners of the company, which is currently located in Elmhurst and

is a prospective buyer of the subject property. He stated that they are requesting

permission to erect a 10-foot high chain link fence where stored equipment would be

visible over the top of the fence. They are also a requesting a conditional use for

outdoor storage of motor vehicles.

Mr. Lisy stated that the 29,800-square foot building will be used for offices, tool storage,

and a shop for repairing equipment, compressors, and tools. As part of their

renovations, they will reconstruct the truck dock area. The outdoor storage area will

reduce the number of parking spaces from the existing 71 spaces. Although Code

requires 42 spaces, they will only need a maximum of 26 spaces for their employees.

The outdoor storage area was designed to meet the Fire Marshal's request that there be

vehicle access through the area.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

George Bogdanovic, 1500 Centre Circle, Downers Grove, stated that he is the

managing partner for two buildings immediately south of the subject property. He asked

how many pieces of equipment would be on the site, what the company's growth plans

were, and if the fenced-in area would be large enough to accommodate that growth. He

stated that he would like to know the weight of the equipment, as well as descriptions of

the equipment and the height of the equipment on top of the trailers. He asked if the

parking lot had been tested for its ability to withstand the weight and movement of the

equipment. He stated that he was concerned about dust being generated on the

property as there is a printing company in his building where dust and vibration would be

an issue.

John Coleman, 1980 Springer Drive, stated that he is the senior vice president of Alter

Asset Management, which is the landlord for Siebert Engineering at 261 Eisenhower

Lane South. He stated that they are concerned with the height of the fence and its

setback from the street. He stated that a 10-foot fence would be inconsistent with other

fences in the industrial park, and that other fences are set further back from the front

property line. He noted that the petitioner's proposed fence would be closer to the street

than the building. He asked if more than three vehicles would be stored there and

where additional pieces of equipment would be parked. He stated that his tenant has 30

employees and they believe there will be a safety risk due to line of sight obstruction

from equipment visible above the fence. He stated that he would like the Plan

Commission to add a condition of approval requiring the fence to be set back at least

125 feet from the front property line.

James Klouda, 1516 Centre Circle, stated that he has a business south of the subject

property. He is concerned that the weight of the equipment and trailers coming in to the

docks will break up the asphalt parking lot. He is concerned with dust. He asked if the

equipment would be hosed down and if that would clog and contaminate the sewer

system. He believes that if the parking lot fails, pieces of it will fall down onto his

property.

Jared Margelis, 315 Eisenhower Lane South, stated that he is the owner of the property.

He stated that he understands the concerns of the neighboring property owners, but he

believes the requested improvements will enhance the area. Break Thru will construct a

dock and make interior improvements, adding to the value of the property by expanding

the loading area. He noted that the subject property is surrounded by industrial parks

and is not near a residential area. He does not believe that this relief will set a

precedent because similar conditions already exist elsewhere in the park. He stated

that he does not see how the storage area would create a line of sight issue, and he

asked the Plan Commission to recommend approval of the petition.

Mr. Coleman stated that they were not concerned with the height of the fence, but they

were concerned about the setback.

Hugh Williams, 2046 W. Willow, Chicago, stated that he represents the ownership of the

property. He stated that they have sold over 12 million square feet of industrial facilities,

and a good percentage of those buildings that have acceptable outdoor storage areas

have higher values than those that do not. He stated that the proposed improvements

would increase the value of the subject property and, therefore, the entire industrial

park.

The petitioner then gave the Plan Commission members photos of the propane tanks,

bobcats, and bobcat trailers that would be stored outdoors. He stated that currently they

have three pieces of equipment, but they might get one more. He stated that this

equipment would be mainly left at job sites until those projects are completed, at which

time it will be moved to new job sites. He noted that they do not have much heavy

equipment, as approximately 85% of their work is selective interior demolition that is

performed with hand tools and bobcats. He estimated that one of the pieces of

equipment is about 40,000 lbs., but that equipment is not stored on the trailers and they

do not move the heavy equipment themselves. The large equipment would be stored on

the south end of the storage area, but never outside the fence. The east side of the

storage area will remain open for maneuverability. He stated that they have not tested

the parking lot, but it will be repaired as necessary. He stated that the large equipment

would be washed outside, and the bobcats would be stored and washed indoors. There

would be minimal vibration from the large equipment, as it would only move a maximum

of 10 feet. They currently own four trailers. He stated that there are only two pieces of

equipment that are taller than the fence, but they will only be there for about two months

out of the year. He stated that the storage area can't be pushed back because it would

then interfere with the loading docks.

Mr. Coleman asked why a fence would be necessary if the equipment was usually at a

job site. He stated that the repair activities would be a primary use that would require a

special use approval.

The petitioner stated that in addition to the large equipment, the fenced-in area will be

used for trailers, propane, and small equipment.

Mr. Klouda asked where the dirt would be going.

The petitioner stated that the existing docks allow trailers to back in. He does not see a

problem because there was previously a printing company in that building that received

semi-trailers loaded with paper. He does not believe dirt will be an issue because the

wash basins will be located inside the mechanics area, and the large equipment would

only be washed three or four times per year.

Commissioner Flint asked if there was any latitude in moving the fenced-in area. The

petitioner stated that was possible, but he would need to do a new layout to see if it is

workable.

Commissioner Burke asked where the triple basins would be located. The petitioner

stated that they would be at the loading docks and inside the building.

Commissioner Sweetser asked what percentage of the business would be repair

activities. The petitioner stated that they repair cracks in their equipment, change tires,

do oil changes, and repair small equipment like Sawzalls. William Heniff, Senior

Planner, stated that repairing their own equipment would be an ancillary use.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, stated

that, given that the proposed outdoor storage of motor vehicles shall be limited to trailers

and that these trailers will be stored within an enclosed area, staff does not feel that this

conditional use will negatively impact adjacent properties or create a nuisance.

However, to prevent the possibility of a future property owner using the property for

general storage of motor vehicles (e.g., a vehicle salvage yard), approval of this

conditional use should be limited to trailers within the fenced-in area.

Although the petitioner could have requested a variation to erect a higher fence, that

fence would need to be at least 12'-8" tall in order to screen all of the construction

equipment. Staff feels that any fencing higher than 10 feet begins to create the

undesirable effect of an additional building on the property. Therefore, staff believes

that it is preferable for the stored equipment to be occasionally visible above the fence.

Break Thru estimates that they will require a maximum of 26 parking spaces; however,

the Zoning Ordinance requires 42 spaces. The fencing-in of a portion of the parking lot

will reduce the number of spaces outside the fence to 37. Staff recognizes that the

parking spaces within the fenced area are not being physically removed from the

property, and will therefore be available for any future property owners. Provided that a

minimum of five parking spaces within the fenced-in area are designated for business

vehicle/trailer parking only, no parking variation is necessary. This interpretation would

be consistent with a prior case in Oak Creek.

With regard to the proposed repair shop within the building, staff is comfortable with the

interpretation that this is an ancillary use that supplements the petitioner's primary

business. However, to ensure that no automobile service/repair business occupies the

property without receiving prior conditional use approval, staff suggests that a condition

be added that restricts repair and service to those vehicles and pieces of equipment

owned or leased by the petitioner.

Ms. Backensto also noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires all outdoor storage areas

to be screened by a solid fence, and that 10-foot fences were permitted by right in the I

District.

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

members.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about the solid fencing. Ms. Backensto stated that the

Zoning Ordinance considers solid fencing to be any fence that is not at least 75% open,

so a chain link fence with slats would be considered solid. Mr. Heniff said that the

Village would review the other fences in the industrial park. He added that another

company in the park that appeared before the Plan Commission the previous month was

required to install a solid fence.

Commissioner Sweetser noted that slatting is not very durable. She stated that she

would like the fence to be at least in line with the front of the building. She added that

the outdoor washing does not seem to be a nuisance, and the parking lot surface is

really a business issue.

Chairperson Ryan noted that no vehicles could be parked in front of the fence and

Condition 3 in the staff report covers future storage.

Commissioner Burke agreed that the fence should be set back along the building line.

He noted that power washing could bring back mud, grease, and oil contaminants from

construction sites and bring them into our storm sewers. He asked what sort of

regulations the Village has with regard to this issue. Ms. Backensto stated that the

Zoning Ordinance has a section on performance standards for the I District that limits

noise, vibrations, and particulate matter emanating from the site. She stated that any

runoff problems would be addressed by the Private Engineering Services Division. Mr.

Heniff noted that the Zoning Ordinance permits repair and washing of vehicles, and that

any issues with runoff would result in an enforcement action.

Chairperson Ryan stated that an additional condition could be required for engineering

review.

1. The petitioner's building and site improvements shall be designed and constructed

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

IDRC report.

2. The conditional use for outdoor storage of motor vehicles shall permit outdoor

storage of trailers exclusively. Outdoor storage of passenger vehicles, trucks,

truck-trailers, and semi-trailers shall not be permitted.

3. No more than two trailers may be stored outdoors.

4. All outdoor storage must be within the fenced-in area designated on the submitted

site plan.

5. The fenced-in outdoor storage area may be no closer to the front property line than

the front wall of the principal building.

6. A minimum of five (5) parking spaces within the fenced-in outdoor storage area shall

be designated for business vehicle/trailer parking only.

7. No vehicle repair or service activities may occur on the premises, with the exception

of work performed on those vehicles and pieces of equipment owned or leased by the

petitioner.

8. Runoff generated by the washing of vehicles and equipment, both indoors and

outdoors, shall be subject to the review of the Private Engineering Services Division of

the Department of Community Development.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there were any comments from the audience regarding this

petition. Hearing none Chairperson Ryan requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, began by indicated they would present this petition in

PowerPoint format. He indicated the petition was being brought forward due to the way

the existing ordinance treats signs by distinguishing them primarily by content. Staff has

also received permits for temporary signs and has had trouble classifying them

according to the existing definitions and regulations found in the ordinance. He

indicated that staff had a number of text amendments and that tonight would be the first

involving temporary construction signs. This would be a proposed amendment to the

Sign Ordinance. He commented that with only four Commissioners in attendance and

no sense of urgency, this petition could be continued if need be but should they feel no

need to review it any further, they could address it at this meeting. Mr. Heniff stated that

the proposed amendment is an effort to have the ordinance make sense, be more

consistent and user friendly.

Mr. Heniff then began the PowerPoint presentation which included topics such as:

Types of Signs to be Addressed

Benefits of Development Signs

Used as a tool for informing public about development activity

Makes people more familiar, promotes business to town and creates more

interest in the community

Sign Ordinance Issues

Difficult to distinguish between signs

Minimize regulations of content

Promote economic development

Clarity and consistency

Examples of Signs under the Current Sign Ordinance showing various content, size,

regulations, setbacks, and whether a permit is required

Proposed Text Amendment

Objectives

Classify signs into development and real estate signs and eliminate the rest of

the types of signs mentioned above

Have subsections for single-family and non single-family uses

Clarify that single family residential real estate signs are the only ones that do

not require a permit

Consistency as to what signs are permitted in zoning districts

Definitions

Create broader definition for development signs

Mr. Heniff then referenced the underlining and strikethroughs in the staff report which

reflect the proposed amendments. He noted that setback requirements will be

frequently struck as part of this text amendment. He indicated that by pushing a sign to

the front of the property doesn't necessarily create a negative impact.

Chairperson Ryan then opened up the hearing to the Commissioners.

Chairperson Ryan used Elmhurst Memorial Hospital as an example. He commented

that this development includes a sizeable piece of property but are only are permitted to

have a 32 square foot sign. He was concerned that a single family residence could

have a 6 square foot sign but a development like Elmhurst Memorial Hospital would be

limited. The allowable size of the sign was not based on the size of the development.

Also, the Plan Commission seems to review variances for a few extra feet so when you

are considering thousands of square feet, it does not seem right to limit the square

footage for everything.

Mr. Heniff indicated that staff could look at how wall signage is determined and apply the

same methodology as is already found in the Sign Ordinance by possibly tying the

allowable footage into the frontage of the property. Another possiblity is having an

allowable number that anyone is entitled to as well as a square footage limit. This would

allow more flexibility.

Commissioner Sweetser questioned if it would be a cap. Mr. Heniff stated that it would

be like a wall sign whereby everyone would be allowed certain square footage and a

"not to exceed" number.

Commissioner Sweetser then indicated she had some editorial comments - not content,

just clarification.

Mr. Heniff asked Mr. Wagner if he would like to comment. Mr. Wagner stated that there

is a concern with the first amendment when dealing with signs. Ordinances should be

content neutral which is hard to define. The preference would be to avoid content

issues and to regulate temporary signs or permanent signs no matter what they said.

Definitions have a potential for a claimant. Residential signs are given more scrutiny

than commercial signs. It appears that this text amendment is a good step toward

making the ordinance more defendable of claims being made. Once there are different

regulations, make sure there is some government interest.

The Commissioners unanimously consented to continue the petition to the November

15, 2004 Plan Commission meeting in order for staff to investigate a sliding scale for

signs.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The petitioners (School

District 44 and the Village of Lombard) are requesting approval of a two-lot plat of

resubdivision for the subject property.

School District 44 completed an elementary school building expansion, with work

starting in 1999. To facilitate this improvement, they also made improvements to the

existing detention facility south and east of the school building. As part of the Village's

storm water management master plan, the Village worked with the District to maximize

the available storage within the site and providing for additional detention for the

Village's storm sewer system in the area.

On October 16, 2003, the Village Board adopted Resolution 48-04, which conveyed title

via a quit claim deed to the detention area on the subject property from the School

District to the Village. However, as the transfer of property creates irregular lot

boundaries, the DuPage County Recorder's Office requires a resubdivision or

assessment plat in order to record the related documents. This plat is being created to

mirror the real estate transfer of property approved by District 44 and the Village. This

division is considered a major plat of subdivision as it is greater than one acre in size.

Therefore, it must be reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission and Board of

Trustees. The plat meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision

and Development Ordinance.

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

Commission. There were no comments by the members