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 |
7:30 PM
Village Hall
Monday, May 19, 2003
Call to Order and Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner |
Martin Burke, Commissioner Stephen Flint and Commissioner Ruth Sweetser |
Present:
Commissioner Sondra Zorn
Absent:
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
030320
After due notice and as required by law, the Plan Commission conducted a public |
hearing for this petition on May 19, 2003. Presenting the petition was Paul Conarty, |
attorney for Bell Fuels, Inc., 419 S. Second St. Geneva, IL 60134. Mr. Conarty opened |
his presentation by noting that the subject property is improved with a service station |
and convenience store. DuPage County originally approved the site in 1985. A |
remodeling to the convenience store was approved in 1990. The petitioner's request is |
to annex the property into the Village, rezone the property to the B3 Community |
Shopping District, grant conditional uses for the station and for outdoor sales and grant |
variations for the existing structures on the property. He noted that there is no |
remodeling or expansion of the site at this time. |
He then referred the plat of survey that depicts all features on site. Nothing changed |
since the survey was done in 1990. School Street functions as their front yard. Two |
additional curb cuts exist on Roosevelt Road. |
He then noted that the facility has a license issued to sell alcoholic beverages. The |
companion annexation agreement will provide that they can sell beer and wine, but no |
hard liquor. A condition of this approval would be that they would be required to |
segregate the alcohol sales from the rest of the store and he referred to another |
diagram showing the location and mentioned the interior reconfiguration that would need |
to be done. |
Mr. Conarty then noted the status of the property. Currently, Bell Fuels leases the |
property to Clark Oil. Clark has filed for bankruptcy and has now announced it is |
liquidating all of its station holdings, which means that this station will come back to Bell |
Fuels. As this occurs, existing landscaping will be brought up to the quality standards it |
had when it was leased to them. Resolution of the transfer with Clark will take a few |
more weeks. As of now, Bell Fuels cannot do anything until we get the station back and |
after that will take over the station and run it themselves or find a new operator. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one |
present to speak against this petition. He then requested the staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner noted that the subject property is located at the southwest |
corner of School Street and Roosevelt Road and is another one of many proposed |
annexations along the Roosevelt Road corridor. This property will be contiguous to the |
Village via the Kitchen & Bath Showroom gallery to the east and Pep Boys to the west of |
the subject property. Other than internal remodeling of the convenience store, no site |
improvements are being proposed with this petition. |
Accompanying this petition is an annexation agreement that will be considered by the |
Village Board at their June 5, 2003 Board of Trustees meeting. The agreement will also |
address other provisions associated with the annexation of the property (e.g., beer/wine |
sales, etc.) that are not under the purview of the Plan Commission. |
He noted the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property be used as |
community commercial uses at this location. The plan also recommends that annexation |
and redevelopment of older and obsolete structures and sites in this area should be |
encouraged. He also stated that as the property is located within the Roosevelt Road |
corridor, which includes a wide variety of uses, including a large number of auto-oriented |
uses, the gas station and convenience store uses are compatible with the surrounding |
commercial land uses. It is bordered to the west and east and north by other existing |
commercial uses, to the south by an undeveloped lot zoned R3 Single Family |
Residential District and residences within the York Center Co-op. Compatibility to the |
south is achieved by the existing fencing and landscaping along the southern property |
line. |
Mr. Heniff then discussed the requested zoning actions. The petitioner is requesting |
annexation, rezoning, conditional use approval for automobile service uses (the gas |
station) and outdoor sales and a number of variations related to the current development |
existing on the property. |
The petitioner is requesting the Village grant approval for the conditional uses and |
variations so that the property can be operated as a legal conforming use. The request |
for rezoning is made so that the property has similar development regulations as other |
properties along the Roosevelt Road corridor. |
In consideration of the variations and conditional use requests, staff notes that the |
Lombard Zoning Ordinance lists all automotive related activities as conditional uses. |
The site is improved with 12 gasoline pumps serving 21 fueling spaces. Additionally a |
kerosene pump island exists on the east side of the property. The intent of this |
conditional use is to recognize the existing use on the premises as a legal conforming |
use. |
Upon a review of the site by staff, the site currently does not have any outdoor sales and |
display of merchandise on the property, other than a propane tank storage case. Staff |
finds that outside display of automobile, mulch and convenience goods is typically done |
at many service stations. In review of the site, staff believes that the outside sales |
component can be supported provided that it is contained to areas underneath the |
canopy area and meets the typical provisions enumerated in the staff recommendations. |
Mr. Heniff then went through the variation requests that are associated with the existing |
improvements on the property. In consideration of all the variation and conditional use |
requests staff recognizes that if this was a new development within the Village, staff |
would be concerned about the nature and extent of the requested relief. However, the |
request is to take the station "as-is" and to recognize the improvements already on the |
site. |
From the Village's perspective, as gas stations are conditional uses, should the property |
be substantially remodeled or redeveloped, the new plans would be subject to Village |
review and consideration at that time. The primary intent in including the variation |
requests as part of the annexation petition is to give the property owner the same legal |
standing he currently has under DuPage County regulations. |
In closing, he noted that as a condition of approval that the petitioner submits an |
administrative plat of consolidation to the Village that combines the site into one lot of |
record. This plat can be approved administratively. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked for a clarification regarding condition #4d, which noted |
that clear line of sight areas must be maintained but the petitioner's request and the staff |
presentation mentioned support for a variation from the clear line of sight provisions. Mr. |
Heniff noted that the variation request is to address existing encroachments into the |
clear line of sight area, particularly as it relates to School Street. The Fire Department |
concern pertains to the stacking products within any new display or stacking of products |
within any of the clear line of sight areas on the property. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if the Village would uphold the clear line of sight |
provisions as recommended in condition 4d. or if there are factors in which the clear line |
of sight will not be maintained. Mr. Heniff noted that the intent of condition 4. relates to |
the outdoor materials sales and section d) relates to where product can be stored. If the |
petitioner wants to display new products, they must maintain the clear line of sight |
provisions. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval |
subject to conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Olbrysh, Burke, Flint and Sweetser
4 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5304-5307 |
1. That the ADA parking space located on the west side of the property be restriped to |
meet the Illinois Accessibility Code. |
2. The petitioner shall submit a Plat of Consolidation to the Village for review and |
approval that consolidates the subject property into one lot of record. |
3. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject |
property and shall be required to apply for and receive all other requisite business |
licenses for the property. |
4. That the outdoor display and sales of merchandise shall meet the following |
provisions: |
a) Merchandise may not be stacked higher than four (4) feet. |
b) At least four feet of walkway should be maintained at all times around the |
convenience store building. |
c) Sales and display areas must not impact vehicular traffic. This includes automobiles, |
tanker trucks and Fire Department apparatus. |
d) Clear line of sight areas must be maintained. |
e) Outdoor sales and display of merchandise must remain ancillary to the principal land |
use of the establishment. |
f) Outdoor sales and display of merchandise may only occur underneath the canopy |
areas. |
5. That the property shall be operated consistent with the established Codes of the |
Village. |
030321
Mr. Shahid Yusef, 810 E. Roosevelt Rd., Lombard, IL presented the petition. Mr. Yusef |
stated he is a partner in the business and thanked the Village for letting them open the |
KFC in March. He restated the request for a conditional use. Mr. Yusef stated the |
outside seating would not interfere with traffic and will be surrounded with landscaping. |
Mr. Yusef stated that they have cross easement with the previous owner. |
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 outdoor seating |
area would be approximately 320 square feet in an area currently planned for |
landscaping. The subject property received conditional uses for a planned development |
for the drive-through establishment/services in 2002 (PC 02-24). As the outdoor seating |
component was not included as part of the original petition, the petitioner is now |
requesting approval of the outdoor seating at this time. Ms. Clark noted that the |
proposed service area addition would require four (4) additional parking spaces. Staff |
suggests that the petitioner try to obtain a parking agreement with the shopping |
development to provide the additional spaces. Ms. Clark stated that the proposed use |
was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding land uses, therefore staff |
was supportive of the request. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the public hearing for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if obtaining a signed parking agreement was acceptable |
to the petitioner. |
Mr. Yusef stated that they would try to obtain the agreement. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, 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:
Olbrysh, Burke, Flint and Sweetser
4 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5294 810 |
1. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the undated site plans |
submitted as part of this request. |
2. That the petitioner's improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent with |
Village Code and shall also address the comments included within the IDRC report. |
3. That the petitioner provides four (4) additional parking spaces or obtains a signed |
parking agreement with the shopping development to provide for the additional spaces. |
030322
Steven Knapp, Superintendent of Berean Bible Students Church, presented the petition. |
Mr. Knapp stated that the garage would be used for storing landscaping and |
maintenance materials. Mr. Knapp stated that the church has occupied the space a little |
over two years and has served as a polling place for the Village. Mr. Knapp stated that |
they will keep the property clean and the garage would be placed at the southeastern |
corner of the lot. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. |
No one spoke for or against the petition. |
Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. |
Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. She summarized the comments |
from the Inter-Departmental Review Committee. Staff finds that the proposed garage |
addition will be compatible with the existing conditional use. Staff finds that the proposed |
addition will not be detrimental to the surrounding uses. The proposed garage is |
intended to be designed, constructed and operated similar to other detached garages |
commonly found in the adjacent neighborhood. Staff also believes that the accessory |
structure will allow the church to keep supplies and or vehicles indoors and out of the |
view of neighbors. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked about the proposed construction materials for the new |
garage. |
Mr. Knapp listed the specifications included in the petition and noted that the garage |
exterior of the garage would be vinyl sided. He also stated that the church had wood |
siding. |
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:
Olbrysh, Burke, Flint and Sweetser
4 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5295 53 |
1) That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the specifications dated |
April 11, 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 improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent with |
Village Code and shall also address the comments included within the IDRC report. |
030324
Tina Barsich, of ExxonMobil, presented the petition. She noted that they are requesting |
a conditional use for outside storage and display of goods on their property at 435 West |
Roosevelt Road. She referenced the submitted drawings that depict the materials they |
would like to sell outdoors. She noted that there are three existing propane cages at the |
exterior of their convenience store building. Year round displays would also include an |
existing ice chest on the property. During winter months, they propose to sell loose |
firewood bundles and windshield solvent. In warmer months, they will have a display |
with loose gallons of water and soda six-packs. Mulch pallets will be located at the |
northwest corner of lot. They previously had seven pallets but reduced it to four pallets |
no higher than four feet in height to accommodate the view of the existing parking lot. |
She also referenced their "master blaster" display, which is a corrugated box used as |
signage to advertise beverage promotions. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor |
or in opposition of the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the subject property is located at the |
southeast corner of Roosevelt and Finley Roads. The station was constructed in 1990 |
and is now a legal non-conforming use. The petitioner is requesting conditional use |
approval to allow for outdoor display of retail merchandise on the subject property. |
He then referenced the Fire Department comments that noted that they would monitor |
the display areas and the materials that are being displayed as to distance from gasoline |
pumps and drive aisles. Also, the heights of the displays will have to be monitored so as |
not to obstruct any line-of-sight requirements. Additionally, the propane cage will need to |
meet all Fire Department regulations. |
He then noted that the property is within the Roosevelt Road corridor, which includes a |
wide variety of non-residential uses. As the site is bounded by other commercial |
activities, impacts on adjacent properties would be minimal. Therefore, the conditional |
use is appropriate for this location, and no conflicts with adjacent properties are |
anticipated. |
The petitioner's request for conditional use approval for outdoor sales and display of |
merchandise is based upon the use and function of many gas stations. Outdoor sales |
and storage of ancillary automotive items and general convenience items is generally |
considered compatible with generic retail activities. The petitioner intends to utilize |
space along the front and sides of the convenience store building as well as two |
locations in front of the fuel islands. The petitioner has also identified an area at the |
northwest corner of their parking lot/fuel island area that would be used seasonal |
products (i.e., mulch). |
Staff finds that the conditional use for outdoor sales can generally be supported, subject |
to the conditions in the staff report. However, staff does not recommend approval of the |
fuel island display area marked "1" on the site plan, which is to be used for a 45" |
high-corrugated box that would advertise beverage prices. This display does not |
contain any actual merchandise and functions solely as a promotional item. As such, |
staff feels that this cannot be considered outdoor sales and display of merchandise and |
should instead be regulated as a type of sign. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Burke asked how the recommendation not to support the "master blaster" |
item, as depicted as number 1 on the site plan, is addressed. Mr. Heniff noted that |
condition number 6 recommends approval of everything but the "master blaster" display. |
He also noted that the petitioner is aware of staff's recommendation. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, 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:
Olbrysh, Burke, Flint and Sweetser
4 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5313 435 |
1. Merchandise may not be stacked higher than four (4) feet. |
2. At least four feet of walkway should be maintained at all times. |
3. Sales and display areas must not impact vehicular traffic. This includes automobiles, |
tanker trucks and Fire Department apparatus. |
4. Clear line of sight areas must be maintained. |
5. Outdoor sales and display of merchandise must remain ancillary to the principal land |
use of the establishment. |
6. Outdoor sales and display of merchandise may only occur at the locations depicted |
as nos. 2 through 7 on the submitted site plan. |
030323
Kenneth Behles, Principal of Behles and Behles, presented the petition. He stated that |
the subject property is improved with a legal-nonconforming automotive sales facility |
that the owner would like to expand. There are currently five buildings on the lot and the |
remodeling would result in three buildings on the lot. Mr. Behles stated that the |
proposed addition would be located on the eastern section of the lot facing Roosevelt |
Road. The addition will replace the pre-owned sales vehicle center. All vehicle doors |
and the front facing of the existing structure will be replaced. Mr. Behles stated that the |
proposed addition would be approximately 3,520 square feet and slightly higher than the |
existing building. The proposed signage on the building would read "Vehicle Care" and |
"Pre-Owned." The existing principal structure will be refaced with painted masonry and |
limestone panels. Mr. Behles showed samples of the proposed materials. Mr. Behles |
also stated that the proposed addition would be fully sprinklered and an underground |
storage vault would be provided for detention. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. |
Fran Malloy, 1309 S. Elizabeth St., stated that she had questions regarding the petition. |
Ms. Malloy asked if there would be any construction at the opposite end of the existing |
building. Ms. Malloy also inquired whether the rear of the building would extend any |
further to the rear of the lot. Ms. Malloy stated that she was concerned with the lighting |
of the building. She also asked if there were going to be any additional public address |
announcements. |
Chairperson Ryan asked that the petitioner address the questions raised as part of the |
public comment period. |
Mr. Behles stated that the addition would be to the east end of the existing building. No |
additional construction will occur on the southern end of the lot. Mr. Behles also stated |
that there would not be any changes to the existing lighting or additional public address |
systems. |
Bill Hartigan of Heritage Cadillac, 902 St. Stevens, Oak Brook, IL, stated that |
adjustments have been made to the speakers with automatic and individual volume |
controls. He stated that they have moved toward paging within the dealership to reduce |
public announcement paging that has disturbed neighbors. |
Chairperson Ryan asked about foot traffic to the rear of the property. |
Mr. Hartigan stated that there is car storage in the rear and there will be no more traffic |
than there is presently. |
Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. |
Angela Clark, Planner I, stated that the site is currently operated as a legal |
non-conforming motor vehicle sale, service, and repair facility. The petitioner would like |
to expand the facility to include a one story building addition that would also include |
more than one wall sign on a street frontage. Expansion to the use requires conditional |
use approval for the existing and proposed improvements. As the site meets the |
minimum lot width and area requirements for a planned development, planned |
development approval is also included as part of this petition. |
Ms. Clark then summarized the comments from the Inter-Departmental Review |
Committee. This petition complies with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan |
of Community Commercial. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land |
uses. As the requested conditional use is being requested to bring the existing and |
proposed structures into compliance with current Village Codes and since the design |
and layout of the structures meet the bulk requirements of the underlying district, this |
conditional use can be supported by staff. |
Included with the petition is a request for conditional use approval for a planned |
development. While the proposed expansion does not necessitate the creation of a |
planned development, staff feels that 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 the 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. |
Ms. Clark also noted that included as part of the planned development request is |
approval of a signage deviation to allow for more than one wall sign per street frontage. |
The petitioner intends to place two wall signs on the north elevation of the building |
("Vehicle Care" and "Pre Owned"). The signs comply with all other aspects of the sign |
ordinance (approximately 63 square feet each) and are reasonably located, therefore |
staff supports the signage deviation. Staff recommends approval of PC 03-15, subject |
to the conditions listed in the staff report. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser inquired about a possible awning shown in the elevations. Mr. |
Behles clarified that it is a sunshade. |
Commissioner Sweetser noted that it appears that the elevations show that there is an |
entrance from the west. Mr. Behles stated that there would be an entrance on the |
western corner of the addition and customer parking would be oriented to the main |
showroom building. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked for clarification as to how many buildings would be |
demolished. Mr. Behles stated that two buildings would be demolished. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked if the building being torn down would be used as parking |
for used vehicles or for customers. Mr. Behles stated that the space would be turned |
into a vehicle storage area. Existing parking will remain as it is currently. |
Commissioner Burke asked if the petitioner could look at the perimeter lighting levels |
and asked about the lighting to the south of the existing building. |
Mr. Behles stated that the wall packs on the building face would be removed. |
Mr. Hartigan stated that they have reduced lighting for energy costs, but theft increased |
as a result. Lighting has been left on all night at the suggestion of the Police |
Department. Mr. Hartigan stated he intends to have a lighting engineer evaluate the site |
once the remodeling is done. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the permit for additional lighting would require |
a new photometric plan. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if the photometric plan could be made a condition of |
approval. |
Mr. Heniff stated that it could be included as a condition. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, 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:
Olbrysh, Burke, Flint and Sweetser
4 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5309 303 |
1. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the site plans dated April |
25, 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. If additional lighting is added to the premises the petitioner will submit a new |
photometric plan. |
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the April 21, 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.
Site Plan Approvals
030325
Senior Planner, William Heniff, stated there is a representative of Potbelly's in the |
audience should the Commissioners have any questions and then proceeded to present |
the staff report. He indicated that the petitioner is requesting signage deviations. The |
proposed signage is to increase readability from Highland Avenue and the spine road |
and to place text on the awning valance indicating the name of the establishment and |
type of fare served. He reminded the Commissioner that last year when they were |
considering this shopping center, a conditional use was approved for a drive-through |
window which the petitioner will not be installing. This petition only pertains to the |
signage. |
Mr. Heniff stated that there were no inter-departmental comments from Private |
Engineering Service or Building and Fire. Planning comments include compatibility with |
the Highlands of Lombard Development Agreement. He mentioned that when this |
agreement was approved in 2000, there were provisions in the agreement that would |
allow the Commissioners to review and approve signage deviations as part of the site |
plan approval process. |
The petitioner's wall signage request includes two proposed walls signs and he gave the |
dimensions and location of each sign. He stated that the petitioner has proposed |
channel letter signage and he gave the signage area regulations for shopping centers in |
the B3 District. The petitioner has only one street frontage and their signage proposal is |
to attract exposure. He mentioned that if the detention pond located east of the site was |
part of the petitioner's property and not designated as a separate outlot parcel, this |
petition would meet code. If approved, the wall signage would be doubled and he |
showed examples of what the signage would look like if it met code versus if the petition |
were approved. He stated that the layout of the sign would not be incompatible as it |
would be directed to other commercial uses and, therefore, staff would be supportive of |
this signage request. |
The petitioner is also requesting to add signage to the valance of the awing. This text is |
intended to state the business name and type of establishment. The Sign Ordinance |
limits awing and wall signs for the same business establishment. Staff feels that the |
additional signage on the valance would be appropriate since it will not be more than 10 |
inches in height and will be an accent element to the awning but not appropriate on the |
awning as it would appear to be excessive. |
The property is surrounded by other commercial uses therefore staff feels the request is |
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. In conclusion, staff recommends approval |
subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. |
Chairperson Ryan opened up the discussion to the Plan Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser felt that the signage looked fine. |
Commissioner Burke stated that although he understands the reasoning behind the |
request and it makes sense, he felt that the additional signage as presented might be |
extremely large from the Highland Avenue ramp due to its close proximity to the |
establishment. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that |
this matter be approved with conditions. The motion carried by the following |
vote: |
Aye:
Olbrysh, Burke, Flint and Sweetser
4 -
Absent:
Zorn
1 -
1. That the site improvements be constructed in substantial compliance with the |
petitioner's document submittal, prepared by National Awning and Sign, dated February |
14, 2003 and included as part of the petitioner's submittal. |
2. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive a sign permit for the approved signage |
Workshops
There were no workshops.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. on May 19, 2003.