Village of Lombard Legistar System

John Novak, 215 E. Hickory Street, Lombard, IL, petitioner, presented the petition. He

noted this petition pertains to a rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of

Westmore-Meyers Road and Woodrow Avenue. The property is currently zoned R2 and

is improved with a single-family residence that does not meet current building setbacks

along Westmore-Meyers Road. He is proposing to redevelop the site with an attached

single-family residence. He noted that the property abuts lots with R3 and R4 zoning.

He then described the site plan and building elevations. The intent of the building

design is to be compatible with the attached single family homes on Westmore-Meyers

and the detached residences on Woodrow. He proposes to downplay the impact of the

garages by placing one garage on Westmore-Meyers and the other on the Woodrow

elevation. The building will appear to have two front elevations. The elevations will be

consistent and sensitive to the surrounding uses, as referenced on the submitted

building elevations. The larger elevation is the streetscape off of Westmore-Meyers. It

has a two-car garage, but it really will be a three-car tandem garage to eliminate

vehicles on the outside driveway. He showed where the partition between the two

residences's. The south elevation has a 16-foot wide garage and front door off of

Woodrow. The south unit will be the smaller of the two units. His idea is an example as

other properties could be developed to de-emphasize the garage. The project follows

the trend of higher densities along Westmore-Meyers. He stated the map amendment

request is consistent with development along Westmore-Meyers and the

Comprehensive Plan. He is locating the structure thirty feet off of the properties to the

east to provide for the required transitional yard.

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

or against the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report which was submitted to the

public record. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of

Westmore-Meyers Road and Woodrow Avenue, and is currently improved with a single

family residence. The existing residence is currently legal non-conforming with respect

to the corner side and rear yards. The petitioner proposes to redevelop the site with a

new duplex building based upon the submitted plans. To facilitate this development, the

petitioner is seeking a map amendment to rezone the property from the R2 District to the

R3 District, consistent with the zoning on the properties immediately north of the subject

property. No additional zoning relief is sought as part of this petition.

The Comprehensive Plan map shows this area within the low density residential

designation, which calls for development densities of up to six dwelling units and

generally consists of single family residences. The petitioner's property is 13,440

square feet in area, which computes to 6,720 square feet per unit or approximately 6.48

units per acre. While this is slightly higher than the plan designation, staff notes that the

abutting duplexes to the north of the subject property have higher development densities

than that which is proposed by the petitioner. As such, staff believes that the

development can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan when

considered in the context to the surrounding development activity.

He then discussed a previous zoning petition (PC 99-03) pertaining to the petitioner's

property as well as others abutting the site. That case included a rezoning for a larger

number of properties and for rezoning of several properties along Woodrow. That

petition was opposed by a number of residents along Woodrow, citing excessive

development densities. This proposal differs from the 1999 petition as it only consists of

rezoning of the subject property, which has frontage along Westmore-Meyers Road.

Moreover, this petition will meet all setbacks and the plan will include a transitional

landscape yard to buffer the duplex from the adjacent residences on Woodrow.

He then referred to the standards for map amendments and noted that the rezoning

would be compatible with adjacent properties. The properties immediately north of and

abutting the subject property are developed as duplex units as well. South of the

property is R4 property developed as a church and an apartment building. To

incorporate the proposed development with the single family detached units along

Woodrow, the petitioner designed the principal building with two front elevations, giving

the building the appearance of a single family detached residence.

The rezoning would make the property similar in zoning designation as many other

properties with front yards abutting Westmore-Meyers Road. As the lot is the only lot

zoned R2 fronting Westmore-Meyers south of Maple and north of Woodrow, the

rezoning would be consistent with other adjacent lots fronting Westmore-Meyers. The

development can also be considered compatible with the adjacent R2 properties through

the inclusion of a thirty-foot transitional yard at the east end of the property.

In consideration of the standards, staff believes this is an appropriate zoning designation

for this property as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation and with

the R3 and R4 zoning designations along the east side of Westmore-Meyers Road.

Moreover, as this proposal is located within an established neighborhood and the

petitioner's ability to acquire additional land is not possible, the development proposal

can be supported.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment among the Plan

Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he likes the design of the duplex and that it would fit

nice into the neighborhood. The request meets the standards for rezonings and he does

not have a problem with the petition.

Commissioner Sweetser agreed with his comments. This design serves a number of

purposes and it is something that we should see more of in the future. Given the

existing zoning designations along Westmore-Meyers, the map amendment makes

sense.

To avoid any appearance of impropriety Commissioner Olbrysh recused himself from

the petition as he stated his wife is employed by the petitioner. He left the dias.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, presented the petition on behalf of the university.

Ms. Backensto stated that when the National University of Health Sciences received

planned development approval in 1996 (as the National College of Chiropractic Planned

Development), one of the conditions of approval stated that the university would install a

pedway along or near Ann Street. This pedway would link Stewart Avenue to the

vacated Hammerschmidt right-of-way within the university. In lieu of this pedway, the

Village believes there would be a greater public benefit for a sidewalk to be installed

along the western side of the Stewart Avenue right of way. However, because the

pedway was a condition of approval, this change required a planned development

amendment.

Now that the university owns the property abutting both sides of the right of way, they

are requesting that Hammerschmidt as well as the western half of Ann Street be

vacated (shown in green on the map). Per the original conditions of approval the Ann

Street vacation would trigger the installation of a pedway along or near Ann Street.

However, the Village would prefer a sidewalk along Stewart Avenue instead of a pedway

on the university campus. This sidewalk would be installed from Central Avenue to the

south side of the Ann Street right of way. Staff recommends that this petition be

approved to provide for the university's installation of the proposed sidewalk along

Stewart Avenue in lieu of a pedway on private property.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. Richard Wilkinson,

124 E. Central Avenue, asked if Hammerschmidt will be extended through to Central

Avenue and stated that Central already has a great deal of traffic. Ms. Backensto stated

that there were no improvements associated with this petition. William Heniff, Senior

Planner, stated that any major change to the previous approvals would need to reappear

before the Plan Commission.

There being no further questions, Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting to the

Plan Commissioners.

Commissioner Flint stated that he had no issues with the proposal and offered to make

a motion.

L. PC 06-13: 201, 205 and 211 E. Roosevelt Road; 1200 South Highland Av.; and

112-116 & 120-124 E. 13th Street (Southwest Corner of Roosevelt & Highland)

(Continued from May 4, 2006) (2 Ordinances on First Reading) (Moved from VIII-L)

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

A. Approve a second amendment to an annexation agreement; (2/3 of Corporate

Authorities Vote Required)

B. Approve a second major plat of resubdivision.

C. Pursuant to Section 155.504(A) of the Zoning Ordinance, approve a major change to

the approved planned development with site plan approval (Ordinance 5560), to allow

for an alternate commercial development plan, consisting of the following elements:

1. For Lot 1 of the proposed resubdivision, approve the following:

a. A conditional use pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(18) of the Zoning Ordinance

for an outdoor dining/service establishment;

b. A deviation from Section 155.706 (C) and 155.709 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance

reducing the required perimeter parking lot landscaping from five feet (5') to zero feet

(0') to provide for shared cross-access and parking;

c. A deviation from Section 153.234(F) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow for

a free-standing sign to be located closer than seventy-five feet (75') from the center line

of the adjacent right-of-way; and

d. A deviation from deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(17)(b)(2) of the Sign

Ordinance to allow for more than one wall sign for interior tenants.

2. For Lot 2 of the proposed resubdivision, approve the following:

a. A conditional use pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance for

a drive-through facility;

b. A variation from Sections 155.706 and 155.709 of the Zoning Ordinance to

reduce requisite parking lot and perimeter landscaping requirements;

c. A deviation from Section 155.706 (C) and 155.709 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance

reducing the required perimeter parking lot landscaping from five feet (5') to zero feet

(0') to provide for shared cross-access and parking;

d. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(17)(a)(2) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for

more than one wall sign on a street frontage; and

e. A deviation from Section 153.211 (F) and 153.240 (F) of the Sign Ordinance to

allow for mixed wall, window and awning signs.

(DISTRICT #6)

Scott Nicholson of V-Land, the property owner, developer and petitioner of the project,

presented the petition. He mentioned that V-land came before the Plan Commission in

2004 for a planned development amendment for their property at the southwest corner

of Roosevelt Road and Highland Avenue. They did receive approval and moved ahead

on the project. They had significant challenges in the development of their site including

environmental challenges, three contamination incidents and site development

obstacles that slowed the project. They received a no further remediation (NFR) letter

for two of the contamination incidents and one is still pending with the EPA. As time

passed, the development started to fall apart and the anchor tenant decided to pull out

of new development activity in Chicagoland and that changed the dynamic of the site.

They are still trying to develop the site but are requesting a site plan change. The

original plan was a phased development and consisted of a redevelopment of the

eastern portion of the property first, with the 2006, Riley's Pub redeveloped at a later

date.

He mentioned the uses that were to be included in the new plan. They are now

requesting similar relief to the former ordinance outdoor dining. They propose a 5,500

square foot restaurant on the western portion of site. They intend to live up to the spirit

of the planned development and honor the prior commitments to vegetation and

buffering on the south portion of the site along 13th and Garfield. They have agreed to

improve Garfield and 13th Street and complete improvements with detention in the back

of the site.

The new site plan differs in that they are doing it in one phase. They have purchased

and closed on the entire property, completed significant infrastructure improvements,

relocated utilities underground and have contracted with Commonwealth Edison and

SBC to finish their work. They paid to have them take the utility poles down within the

next 45 days. The new site plan includes a Chase Bank on the corner and the larger

multi-tenant parcel, which takes the place of the former two proposed buildings.

He showed the proposed elevations of the multi-tenant building with raised parapets,

two kinds of brick, water course block and compatible awnings. He noted the material

samples and the two buildings would be similar in design. Since their submittal, they

have had further discussions with staff and their recommendations and they are

amenable to their suggestions. The bank building will be altered to look like the

multi-tenant building. They will have a watercourse block base with double brick, lighter

brick along the bottom, and where the entrance will be on the corner of the bank would

be changed to a raised parapet element. They will also change the brick striping on the

bank structure to fit the multi-tenant building.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked where the air conditioning units will be located. Mr.

Nicholson stated that they will be roof units and the parapet wall will serve to screen the

units. He also noted that there were concerns by residents along 13th Street to keep an

attractive appearance to the building so they will have a berm and buffer area.

Wayne Marsh of Arcline, architect for the proposed multi-tenant building stated that he

would be available to answer any questions.

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

or against the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report which was submitted to the

public record. The petitioner proposes to amend the site plan associated with the 2004

planned development approval (PC 04-25, Ordinance 5560) for the subject properties.

The financial institution that was originally going to occupy an area within the

development decided not to proceed with their plans. The developer now has a new

bank interested in the site so they are going to move forward with a new development

proposal.

The amended plan relocates the proposed bank to the corner of Highland Avenue and

Roosevelt Road and shifts the proposed shopping center to the west, to ultimately be

combined with the redeveloped Riley's Pub site. The overall size of the commercial

center is expanded to provide for 19,629 square feet of retail space in a single building.

The southern end of the property along 13th Street will still consist of a stormwater

detention outlot and associated parking for the development. This current proposal will

be developed in a single phase.

After referencing the Inter-department Review Comments, he noted the history of the

property. The subject properties were originally developed under the zoning jurisdiction

of DuPage County. Lot 2 containing the salon site was annexed and rezoned to B3 in

2000. Reilly's Pub was also annexed into the Village in 2000, with a rezoning to the B3

district. However, no additional relief was granted for the existing restaurant/bar use.

The Amoco station site at 1200 S. Highland was annexed in 2001.

In 2002, Ordinance 5122 (PC 02-17) approved the annexation of the Sharko's Site, and

a companion annexation agreement was entered into by the previous property owner,

BP, and the Village. In 2004, the current property owner brought forward a new

development proposal for the site that also included the residential duplex units located

along 13th Street as well as the Riley's Pub site (PC 04-25). This proposal approved a

strip center, a bank with a drive-through and a future commercial building on the Riley's

Pub site. The Village approved the petition and the companion annexation/development

agreement. The subject properties are bound by the terms and conditions of the original

agreement. The amended agreement would substitute the 2004 plan submittal with the

new development plans.

He noted that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property for Community

Commercial Uses. As noted in 2004, a primary goal denoted in the Plan for commercial

and retail Development is to identify and encourage the improvement or redevelopment

of select commercial areas that are or are becoming functionally obsolete. The

petitioner's original plan removed residential structures along 13th Street that were

developed prior to their annexation in the Village and redeveloped the site consistent

with the objectives of the Plan.

He stated that the subject property is bordered on the east and west by other existing

retail commercial uses. Roosevelt Road has traditionally included a substantial number

of automotive related uses including drive-through services. Therefore, the proposed

redevelopment is consistent with the other uses along Roosevelt Road.

South of the subject property, an abutting parcel along Highland Avenue is improved

with a strip commercial center serving local shopping needs. Behind this center and

south of the site is 13th Street, a Village street as well as unincorporated single family

residences. The petitioner's revised plan attempts to minimize the impact of the

development on the adjacent residential uses along 13th Street and follows the 2004

plan approval in the following respects:

1. Access will not be provided into the site off of 13th Street;

2. Internal access driveways minimize the need to use 13th Street by providing direct

driveway access from Garfield Street to Highland Avenue;

3. All buildings will be oriented away from 13th Street;

4. A stormwater detention facility will be constructed at the south side of the property;

and

5. An earthen berm and landscaping will help screen the site.

The planned development amendment does not require any map amendments, but will

require a new review of the other associated zoning action includes as part of the 2004

approval. As the new development reconfigures the location of the proposed buildings,

a planned development amendment is required. Moreover, the 2004 approval also

required the developer to receive site plan approval from the Village for the

redevelopment of the Riley's Pub site.

He then described the relief included as part of this petition. The petitioner would like to

have the flexibility to provide a small outdoor dining area adjacent to the proposed retail

building. However, the location of the building and the companion dining area is being

shifted to the west. Staff does not object to this request as it allows for an alternate area

for patrons to eat if desired. As the proposed dining area is removed from any

residences, impacts of the outdoor dining function are minimal.

Regarding the parking lot landscape setback, arbitrary property lines can be ignored in

favor of a more unified and cohesive development. In this case, the proposed access

aisles are placed where it makes most sense within the overall project, rather than

based upon property lines. This deviation can be supported as it provides for better

traffic flow and circulation.

In the 2004 approval, free-standing signage locations were not determined. The

petitioner's new plans identified a new free-standing sign to be located near the

Roosevelt Road/Garfield Street intersection and a new sign at the intersection of

Roosevelt Road/Highland Avenue intersection. These signs will meet the size and area

requirements set forth in the Sign Ordinance. It will also be designed to incorporate

architectural elements of the proposed building. However, its final placement will be

closer than 75 feet from the center-line of the Roosevelt Road state right-of-way. As

noted in other recent sign requests, moving the sign further away from the center-line

will impact the ability to provide for proper traffic flow around the subject property.

The 2004 approval also provided for the retail center up to two wall signs on the north

elevation of the building. The Sign Ordinance allows for two wall signs for end units and

one sign for interior tenants. Staff can support this relief provided that all wall signs on

the building shall be of a channel letter design.

The new banking facility proposes a drive-through facility on the west side of the

building. Traffic would enter from the north side of the drive-through and exit to the

south to a one-way drive going eastbound toward Highland Avenue. The petitioner's

plans show that there is sufficient stacking to accommodate the drive-through on the

property. Staff does not object to this request.

He then described the landscape variation request. After the 2004 development

proposal was approved, the petitioner was required by a covenant from the previous

property owner to provide a protective barrier over the Amoco/BP site. The BP site was

previously listed by the State as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site - this

requirement would help minimize any future impacts of development on adjacent

properties.

To address this issue, the petitioner proposed to provide the foundation landscaping in a

vault system. Along the Roosevelt Road, Highland Avenue and the southern lot line, the

petitioner is proposing a stamped concrete system. Given the constraints, staff can

support this proposal, provided that any requisite trees and/or plantings are provided

within a vault system.

As with the previous bank approved as part of the 2004 approval, the new bank is

proposing additional wall signage. This additional signage provides visibility to

customers on adjacent streets as well as within the development and along the

drive-through aisle. In discussions with the petitioner, staff noted that it could only

support a wall sign on the east and north elevations. Regarding the west elevation, staff

would only support ancillary signage that would primarily be intended for customers

already on the subject property. However as signage on the south elevation would not

be visible from the adjacent right-of-way or would be visible from the adjacent residential

properties, staff would not support relief for wall signage on the south elevation.

Mr. Heniff then discussed the building elevations. The exterior elevations for the

proposed commercial center are similar to that which was approved as part of the 2004

petition. Staff recommends that the petitioner amend the elevations to incorporate two

brick masonry elements replacing the proposed EIFS in a manner similar to the 2004

approval. The petitioner has agreed to make this modification as shown on the building

elevations presented at the Plan Commission meeting. Moreover, staff requests the

petitioner revise the building elevations for the bank building to tie the retail center and

the bank together architecturally. He referenced the building elevations shown at the

meeting, and suggested several changes that should be made to the elevations prior to

consideration by the Village Board. These changes would make the building more

compatible with the adjacent retail center.

To ensure that the overall retail center is not ultimately comprised of a number of small

non-retail uses, a proposed cap on the overall number of tenant spaces within the

center is suggested. Excluding the end-cap proposed sit-down restaurant, a cap of five

spaces is suggested. The petitioner has been informed of this request and has stated

that they do not object to the request.

He noted that a bench exists at the northeast corner of the subject property which is

occasionally used by Pace bus riders. To ensure a better appearance to the

intersection and to the subject property, staff recommends that an easement be granted

for a future bus shelter. An easement is needed as the pavement, curb and carriage

walk sidewalk along Roosevelt Road do not provide adequate spacing for a shelter

within the right-of-way. As the adjacent property is proposed to be improved with

stamped concrete, placement of the shelter on the adjacent property should not present

a problem.

Regarding the proposed resubdivision, the petitioner previously submitted a

resubdivision plat creating five lots of record. The petitioner is now going to propose a

three lot subdivision - Lot 1 as the retail parcel, Lot 2 as the bank and Lot 3 as the outlot.

Staff notes that as this development is over one acre in size, the plat will need to be

approved by the Village Board. Staff will bring the final plat to the Board for approval

upon approval of final engineering for the development.

Staff recommends approval of the petition, subject to the conditions in the staff report

plus an additional condition (#11) that would require the petitioner to submit amended

building elevations for the bank.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan

Commissioners. Commissioner Sweetser asked for a clarification regarding the right-in,

right-out locations on the plan. Mr. Heniff noted that the driveway access to Highland

Avenue will be a right-in right out facility as Highland Avenue has a high center curb.

Along Roosevelt Road, one access will be prided which will have a pork chop to prevent

left turns. Garfield Avenue will have full access.

Commissioner Burke asked about the restaurant outdoor dining location. Mr. Heniff

noted that the proposed outdoor element would be for a tenant at the east end of the

retail center. The sit-down restaurant at the west end of the center will not have outdoor

dining.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she likes what they are proposing with the building

elevations. She then noted the proposed bus shelter. She inquired if the shelter could

be designed to be comparable to the newly erected ornamental shelters installed in

Chicago.

1. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the site and development

plan packet prepared by Woolpert LLC, dated April 5, 2006, except as modified as part

of the final engineering review and approval for the proposed development.

2. The petitioner shall enter into a second amendment to the annexation agreement for

the subject property.

3. The petitioner's building improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent

with Village Code and shall also address the comments included within the IDRC report.

4. That any trash enclosure screening required by Section 155.710 of the Zoning

Ordinance shall be constructed of material consistent with the principal building in which

the enclosure is located.

5. To minimize parking conflicts on the property and to minimize impacts on adjacent

properties, the developer/owner of the property shall allow for cross-access and cross

parking between each lot within the proposed development.

6. The developer shall provide requisite fees to cover the cost of providing parkway

trees around the perimeter of the site, consistent with Section 155.705 (C) of the Village

Code. Where proposed trees are within an area proposed for an environmental barrier,

a vault shall be provided for the trees. Where insufficient right-of-way width precludes

placement of parkway trees within the right-of-way itself, the petitioner shall install the

plantings on the adjacent private property.

7. Should construction on the project not commence within ninety days from the date of

approval of the annexation/development agreement amendment, the petitioner shall

provide 4” of graded topsoil over the property and shall seed the property.

8. The west end-cap tenant space within the shopping center shall be developed as a

single sit-down restaurant of at least 5,491 square feet in size. The remainder of the

center shall not be subdivided or partitioned to have more than five separate tenant

spaces or business establishments.

9. Upon a request by the Village, the developer shall provide for an easement for a

future bus shelter to be located adjacent Roosevelt Road, with the final location to be

determined by the Village.

10. To ensure that the proposed signage, awnings and building elevations present a

favorable appearance to neighboring properties and are consistent with the planned

development objectives, the property shall be developed and operated as follows:

a. That channel lettering shall only be used for the wall signs.

b. That the perimeter of the proposed dining area for the retail building shall be

fenced, with the design of the fence subject to the approval of the Director of Community

Development.

c. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened pursuant to Section

155.221 of the Zoning Ordinance.

d. The petitioner shall submit final building elevations to the Village for review and

approval prior to final consideration of the petition by the Village Board.

e. The north, west and east elevations of the proposed shopping center shall be

constructed and maintained to not have any additional exterior doors other than those

necessary for customer/employee access or as required by the Lombard Fire

Department.

11. That prior to consideration of this petition by the Village Board, the petitioner shall

submit revised building elevations for the proposed bank to be located on the subject

property. The revised elevation shall incorporate the proposed building elevation

changes as referenced by the Plan Commissioners and staff.

William Heniff re-introduced the petition and presented the addendum IDRC report

relative to the petition. He noted that staff presented the proposed text amendments to

the Lombard Town Centre organization on March 28, 2006. Lombard Town Centre did

not have any comments on the proposed amendments and expressed support for the

amendments as proposed by staff. As such, staff proposed amendments to the

Ordinance, which includes the amendments and comments offered at the March 20,

2006 Plan Commission meeting.

He also noted that the staff verified the location of 62 parking spaces located on the

south side of Michael McGwire Drive. As of 3 p.m. on April 17, there were 17 unused

spaces. He also noted that the proposed text amendment would be reviewed by the

Economic and Community Development Committee before it is presented to the Village

Board.

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

the audience to speak in favor of or against the petition.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the previous plan depicted parallel spaces along

Michael McGwire Drive. Mr. Heniff noted that the map depicted the 61 spaces was

meant to depict on the south side.

Commissioner Zorn said that as she was not present at last meeting, she would abstain

from voting on the petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition. He noted that the Department of

Community Development is in the process of conducting a review of selected sections

of the Village Code pertaining to various code enforcement regulations. Most of these

regulations are located within the Nuisance Section of the Village Code (Section 94 of

the Village's Code of Ordinances). However, one commonly referenced and utilized

regulation pertains to the repair and maintenance of motor vehicles, which is currently

located within the Zoning Ordinance (Section 155 of the Village Code). This petition is

intended to relocate the regulation from the Zoning Ordinance and into the Nuisance

Section of the Code of Ordinances.

As a Zoning Ordinance regulation, this amendment must be addressed through the

public hearing process. The proposed amendments are not intended to modify the

intent of the regulations. This amendment would not affect any existing businesses or

residential properties nor does it create any legal non-conforming (grandfathered)

situations - its intent is to relocate the vehicle maintenance provisions from the Zoning

Ordinance to the Nuisance Section of the Village Code and to remove an inconsistency

within the Zoning Ordinance.

This amendment would relocate this provision to the nuisance section (Section

94.05(K)) of the Village Code. As it is currently written, this regulation is more closely

associated with what a vehicle operator is doing to a vehicle on a property as opposed

to the property's designated land use. Moreover, it really does not relate to the intent of

the design and maintenance sub-section within the Zoning Ordinance. Lastly, as this

provision is most commonly applied when code enforcement staff sees vehicles under

repair in residential driveways, the Village enforces this regulation as a nuisance

provision rather than a land use restriction.

One change to the code pertains to the I District regulations. The off-street parking

provisions for the I District state that outdoor repair activities are permissible. However,

automobile and/or motor vehicle repair activities are listed as conditional uses in the I

District. This amendment will strike the repair text in the Zoning Ordinance to remove

any ambiguity with the use listing. The amendment will still allow for the washing of

vehicles provided that they are tied to the principal use of the property.

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

in opposition to the petition. He then opened the meeting for comments among the Plan

Commission members.

Commissioner Sweester mentioned that many fundraisers consist of washing vehicles -

how would this amendment affect this activity? Mr. Heniff noted that this activity can be

permitted though a special event permit. Commissioner Sweetser asked if the permit

would be at a cost. Mr. Heniff noted that the fees for non-profit organizations are

waived. But it is important to tie washing vehicles with the use on the property in order

to not allow for private car washing activities to occur on a given property - that activity is

a conditional use in many business districts.

on Butterfield which is currently under construction.

Mr. Heniff then presented the staff report. He distributed to the Plan Commissioners the

petitioner's Responses to Standards and indicated that they are requesting site plan

approval with a deviation to increase signage area. The signage is to be located at the

south end of the shopping center and will face Butterfield Road. The proposed sign

dimensions are 10 x 30 feet and 14' in height. The sign would be temporary, be located

at the south entrance, and be affixed to the ground per the submitted plans. The sign

could not be located in a clear line of sight area. As the maximum allowable size for a

sign fronting a state right of way is 125 square feet, the petitioner is requesting a

variation from the Sign Ordinance provisions. Mr. Heniff indicated that the actual

property owner of the land where the sign will be located is Von Maur and that they

authorized the petition to proceed.

Concluding, Mr. Heniff indicated that staff supports this request with conditions as the

sign is temporary in nature, it will face Butterfield Road where all surrounding land uses

are either commercial or office in nature, and other developments have been granted

similar relief.

Referring to the conditions of approval, he noted that should the sign have a weathered

appearance, it would have to be repaired or replaced. Mr. Heniff also noted that should

Von Maur, after a period of time, not continue to approve the sign's proposed location,

staff is supportive of the petitioner's request to allow for the sign to be placed at a point

further west within the Yorktown Mall planned development. This second location

provides flexibility so the petitioner will not have to come back through the public hearing

process a second time.

As there was no one present to speak in favor or against the petition, Chairperson Ryan

asked for the comments from the Plan Commissioners.

Commissioner Burke referred to the submitted plans and indicated that the sign

mentions leasing information. He asked if that was appropriate and if the Village was

creating an undesirable precedent. Mr. Heniff indicated that the regulations for

development signs allow for flexibility, stating what is going in and their contact

information and this information can be considered part of the overall signage element.

1. That the approval of the development signs shall be based upon the submitted Sign

Plan Packet, prepared by Doyle Signs, submitted March 22, 2006.

2. The proposed sign shall be permitted to be located on the Von Maur property at the

northwest corner of Butterfield Road and the south entrance drive to the mall or at a

location west of the cemetery, east of the Buca di Beppo restaurant and south of the

internal ring road within the Yorktown Mall planned development. The final placement of

the sign at the alternative location shall be subject to the review and approval of the

Director of Community Development.

3. The development sign shall not be located within the clear line of sight area.

4. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the development sign.

Said sign shall meet all Village Code provisions, except as varied by this approval.

5. In the event that the temporary banner sign(s) or development sign presents a

weathered appearance, as determined by the Director of Community Development, the

petitioner or future property owners shall remove or replace said signage from the

subject property.

6. The development sign shall be removed upon completion of the Shops on Butterfield