Monday, March 24, 2008
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall
Plan Commission
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, and Richard Nelson |
Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Meeting Minutes
Plan Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 24, 2008
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser and Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Commissioner Richard Nelson
Absent:
Also present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; Michael Toth, Planner I; Stuart |
Moynihan, Associate Planner; and George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan |
Commission. |
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
PC 08-04: 825 E. Roosevelt Road (Request Continuance to April 17, 2008) |
Requests conditional use approval to allow for motor vehicle sales (rental) in the B4A |
Roosevelt Road Corridor District. (DISTRICT #6) |
Silvestre Cardona, 825 E. Roosevelt Rd, Lombard, of U-Haul/Pak Mail presented the |
petition. Mr. Cardona began by giving a brief introduction of the U-Haul business. He |
stated that U-Haul provides clean, safe, and well-maintained moving equipment that will |
help their customers move from Point A to Point B. He then stated that Pak Mail and |
U-Haul have been united as a way to better move goods with a more affordable price. |
Lastly, Mr. Cardona stated that this unification will allow more locations with fewer miles |
driven and better prices. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor |
or in opposition to the petition. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked the petitioner how many daily or weekly rentals U-Haul |
anticipates. |
Silvestre Cardona replied that they anticipate around three rentals weekly. |
Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. |
Michael Toth, Planner I, presented the staff report. The petitioner is proposing a staging |
area for the rental of motor vehicles to be located behind an existing commercial |
building within the B4A zoning district. As the sales and/or rental of motor vehicles are |
listed in the Zoning Ordinance as a conditional use within the B4A zoning district, Village |
Board approval is required. |
Since there were no prior Village approvals that could legally tie the desired business |
use to any legal rights afforded to the property, the petitioner is seeking conditional use |
approval to allow for the aforementioned use on the subject property. |
The subject property previously received approval of a conditional use to allow for the |
rental of vehicles (Enterprise Rent-a-car; PC 99-18). However, as that use has not |
occupied the premises for over a one-year period of time and given that the petitioner's |
use differs in nature to the previous use, a new conditional use is required. |
Two (2) parking lots exist on the site - one in front of the building and one behind the |
building. The parking lot in front of the building, which contains forty-eight (48) parking |
spaces, provides adequate customer parking for the center (the required number of |
spaces for the entire center is sixty (60)). The lot behind the building is actually larger |
than the lot in front of the building and has spaces for seventy-four (74) cars, plus ample |
room by the building for loading and unloading. With a total of (122) parking spaces |
provided on-site and only sixty (60) required, there is a surplus of sixty-two (62) parking |
spaces. |
The proposed area for the rental of motor vehicles would occupy the southern portion of |
the subject property and would be used as a staging area for the trucks and trailers as |
they are rented on an as-needed basis. |
The current plan designates six (6) parking spaces for the staging of the U-Haul |
vehicles. The spaces will abut one another in the center portion of the parking lot to |
create possible through spaces to accommodate any larger vehicles. The types of |
vehicles that U-Haul plans to stage on the subject property will all use gasoline engines |
and vary in size. Cargo vans, pick up trucks, and smaller moving vans represent the |
types of vehicles that will be staged. |
Regardless of the type of vehicle, U-Haul should be limited to the six (6) parking spaces. |
The Village will require that these spaces be striped and/or painted to reserve them |
specifically for U-Haul. Designating these spots will allow Village staff to easily monitor |
the U-Haul equipment so the area does not become a de facto storage yard. |
The Comprehensive Plan recommends Community Commercial uses at this location. |
The proposed use complies with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. |
As was also mentioned above, the area in which the rental vehicles will be parked |
should be well screened from adjacent residents. The parking lot is not visible from |
Roosevelt Road due to the lot's location behind the building. The only side which is of |
primary concern is the rear (south) side, which abuts single-family residences. There is |
an eight-foot (8') wood fence in place along the southern property line, which was |
required as part of PC 99-18. The eight-foot (8') wood fence is actually a six (6) foot |
solid wood fence with a two (2) foot lattice on top, which is in a state of disrepair. One |
neighboring property to the south has also erected a wooden fence, which due to |
grading issues actually stands taller than the subject eight (8) foot fence. As part of this |
petition, the Village will require an eight (8) foot solid wood fence to be erected and |
maintained along the entire southern property line of the subject property. The existing |
six (6) foot fence can be utilized; however, solid panels will need to be added. |
Located on the northern portion of the neighboring residential property, a row of large |
mature evergreen trees (some greater than twenty (20) feet in height) provides |
additional screening. The installed eight foot fence, mature trees and existing grade |
changes should provide substantial screening of the vehicles proposed to be stored on |
the property. |
The dumpster which is located on the southwest corner of the site is not enclosed and |
has generated complaints from adjacent properties owners due to the foul odors that it |
produces. In order to bring the site into closer compliance with Code standards as part |
of conditional use approval, staff is recommending that this dumpster be relocated at |
least forty (40) feet north of the south property line. |
Michael Toth then noted that the conditions of approval were created as a result of |
discussions with the property owner to the south of the subject property, Mr. Ray |
Schuda. Mr. Toth then made a correction to condition 1(a) of the Staff Report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, then discussed the Standards for Conditional Uses as |
they pertain to the subject property. He stated that staff believes that additional fencing |
will help meet the first standard as it provides proper screening. Mr. Heniff added that |
the number of spaces was capped to prevent a de facto storage area. He then stated |
that the shopping center has been established for some time with a parking lot and the |
retail function is compatible with the shopping center. He then added that the proposed |
use would not conflict with adjacent uses. Mr. Heniff stated that adequate access is |
provided to the rear of the site and only 6 vehicles spaces are being added, which will |
not increase traffic flow. He then stated that traffic would be insignificant and less of an |
impact than the past rental car use. Lastly, Mr. Heniff stated that the conditions of |
approval would apply to the entire site and staff would ensure that they are adhered to. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comment among the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if the Standards for Conditional Uses were met as they |
relate to the issues discussed with the property owner to the south of the subject |
property. |
Mr. Heniff responded that the conditions of approval were created to address all of the |
issues raised by the property owner to the south. |
Commissioner Olbrysh then asked if Mr. Schuda (abutting property owner) was |
satisfied with the conditions of approval. |
Mr. Heniff responded that he was satisfied with the conditions of approval. |
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:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Nelson
1 -
The subject property shall be operated under the following provisions: |
1. The use shall be limited to the storage of no more than six (6) (i.e. - trailers, vans and |
trucks) on the premises at a given time. |
a. The vehicles shall be parked in the designated parking spaces as depicted on the |
submitted site plan prepared by the petition and made a part of the public hearing |
request. The designated parking spaces shall be clearly identified by means of striping |
and signage. |
b. The largest vehicle that can be parked on the subject property for rental purposes |
shall be a 26-foot long truck. |
c. Excluding items used for moving purposes or the operation of the vehicles or |
trailers, storage of any items within the trucks and trailers on the premises shall be |
prohibited. |
d. Maintenance or repair of any rental vehicles shall not take place on the subject |
property. |
2. An eight-foot (8') tall wood fence shall be installed and maintained along the full |
length of the south property line. The petitioner shall secure a building permit from the |
Village for the fence improvements. |
3. The existing dumpster located on the southwest portion of the subject property shall |
be removed or relocated so that it is a least forty feet (40') north of the south property |
line. All dumpsters located on the subject property shall be screened pursuant to |
Section 155.710 of the Zoning Ordinance. |
PC 08-05: 404 East North Avenue |
Requests conditional use approval for motor vehicle sales in the B4 Corridor |
Commercial District. (DISTRICT #4) |
the petition. Mr. Brechin began by stating that his client is seeking conditional use |
approval for motor vehicle sales for the property located at the northeast corner of North |
Ave. and Grace Ave. He then stated that they intend on selling high-end European |
vehicles. Mr. Brechin added that there will be no new construction, only an interior build |
out. He then stated that he has reviewed the staff report with his client and the client |
accepts the conditions of approval. Mr. Brechin stated that the building and property will |
be brought up to Code with respect to landscaping and sidewalks. Lastly, Mr. Brechin |
added that his client accepts the condition of approval to consolidate the five lots into |
one lot of record and with the property owner's cooperation. |
Erol Dimmitt, 1330 W. Monroe, Chicago, IL 60607 of European Auto Exchange then |
spoke on behalf of his company. Mr. Dimmitt stated European Auto Exchange plans to |
sell mid-priced automobiles within the $15,000 - $25,000 range. He stated that they will |
be updating the interior of the building to give the building a casual European |
atmosphere. Mr. Dimmitt then stated that they plan to have 50 - 70 cars for sale on the |
property at any given time, with fewer cars in the winter time. He stated that they hope |
to sell between 400 - 600 automobiles annually. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor |
or in opposition to the petition. Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. |
Michael Toth, Planner I, presented the staff report. A conditional use for motor vehicle |
sales was approved in March, 1999, and in November, 2000. However, since the |
approval was not acted upon within twelve months, the conditional use became null and |
void. A new petitioner did come forward in 2002 and sought to improve the subject |
property as per the original plan approved by the Village in 2000. That petitioner later |
withdrew their plans. |
The site currently consists of five (5) separate lots with a vacated alley to the north. The |
principal structure is located on one lot, and the remaining lots are paved. The petitioner |
intends to use the paved portion for visitor parking and car storage and sales. The |
building is approximately 10,550 square feet. All automobile servicing will take place off |
site. The remainder of the square footage will be used as office space. |
Interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping is required. The submitted site plan |
shows landscaped islands with shade trees as per conditions required for the previous |
conditional use. The petitioner also plans to erect a four (4) foot wrought iron fence |
along the southern and eastern property lines. |
The Zoning Ordinance requires parkway trees in public rights-of-way adjacent to the |
property spaced every forty-feet. As there is 646 feet of property frontage, the required |
amount of parkway trees for the subject property would be sixteen (16). There are no |
parkway trees currently located on the adjacent right-of-way so the Village will accept |
the cash equivalent. |
The Village requires a total of twenty-two (22) visitor parking spaces with two (2) |
handicapped accessible parking spaces, which is met on the plans. |
The Comprehensive Plan recommends Community Commercial at this location. As the |
proposed use is commercial retail, the proposed use complies with the recommendation |
of the Comprehensive Plan. |
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land uses. Properties to the east, |
south, and west are zoned B4 Corridor Commercial Shopping District. Residential |
properties exist north of the site, and are screened by an eight-foot (8') board on board |
fence and will include plantings of Autumn Blaze Maple and Oak trees. The North |
Avenue corridor is a high volume corridor with commercial and industrial sites on the |
north half of the street and residential sites on the south half of the street with |
intermittent areas of commercially zoned property. |
As required by PC 07-16 for the property at 434 E. North Avenue adjacent to the subject |
property, the petitioner should be required to install a "no left turn" sign on the LaLonde |
Avenue driveway, in order to prevent vehicles from test driving vehicles within the |
adjacent residential neighborhood. |
Lastly, to ensure that the property is utilized for retail motor vehicles sales and is not |
utilized for general storage or salvage operations, staff is suggesting as a condition of |
approval that the petitioner shall be obligated to limit the number of unregistered |
vehicles on the lot to a maximum of seventy (70) cars. Each car shall be permitted on |
the lot for a period of no more than six (6) months. These conditions of approval were |
previously approved for the subject property as part of Ordinance 4907. |
The petitioner will be required to submit a Plat of Consolidation to make the subject |
property a single lot of record. Sidewalks are to be installed along all surrounding public |
rights-of-way for the length of the property. Currently, only one sidewalk exists along |
North Avenue. Grace Street and LaLonde Avenue currently have no improved |
sidewalks. The Village will accept payment for the installation of the additional |
sidewalks along Grace Street and LaLonde Avenue. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comment among the Commissioners. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that this |
matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Nelson
1 -
1. The subject property shall be developed in substantial compliance with the site and |
landscape plans prepared by KB Partnership, dated February 19, 2008 and submitted |
as part of this petition. |
2. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for all improvements to be |
constructed on the subject property. Said permit(s) shall satisfactorily address all |
building, fire and stormwater comments set forth within the IDRC Report. |
3. The petitioner shall submit for final approval a Plat of Consolidation to consolidate the |
five (5) lots and the vacated alley into one lot. |
4. The petitioner shall submit a final photometric plan showing that the existing or any |
proposed lighting complies with the Zoning Ordinance. |
5. A solid fence of no less than six feet (6') and no greater than eight feet (8') in height |
shall be maintained along the northern property line. |
6. The petitioner shall erect a no left turn sign at the access drive for vehicles exiting the |
property to LaLonde Avenue. |
7. The petitioner shall limit the number of unregistered vehicles on the lot to a maximum |
of seventy (70) cars. Each car shall be permitted on the lot for a period of no more than |
six (6) months. A log of the unregistered vehicles with dates of arrival to the lot must be |
kept on site at all times, with access to the log by an employee of the Community |
Development Department of the Village of Lombard permitted at any time during |
business hours. |
8. Any violation of the provisions set forth within the approved conditional use may |
result in a revocation of the Conditional Use for the property. |
PC 08-06: 455 East Butterfield Road |
Requests that the Village approve a further variation from Section 153.503(B)(12)(b) of |
the Sign Ordinance to allow for a third wall sign per street front exposure, where a |
maximum of two wall signs are permitted pursuant to Ordinance 5917, for the subject |
property located within the O Office District. (DISTRICT #3) |
Lombard, IL 60148 presented the petition. Mr. Lobinsky began by stating that Miller's |
Ale House is planning to come to Lombard and currently has forty (40) units in Florida. |
He stated the average unit does more than $4 million a year in sales and that they were |
very excited to come to Lombard. He stated that the purpose of the petition was to |
expand the signage on the south side of the building facing Interstate 88. He expressed |
concern that those driving on I-88 could not tell what the new building is. Therefore, |
they would like to put up an additional sign measuring approximately fifty (50) square |
feet. Lastly, Mr. Lobinsky stated the proposed sign would help Miller's Ale House |
connect with the community. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor |
or in opposition to the petition. Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The subject property is |
currently under development as a sit down restaurant establishment. Ordinance 5917 |
granted approval of the companion zoning relief required by this development. The |
ordinance provided relief for two wall signs on the building (on the north and west |
elevations), where only one wall sign is allowed by the underlying O Office District |
provisions. The petitioner now is seeking approval for a third wall sign on the south |
elevation of 66 square feet in area, which would face Interstate 88. Mr. Heniff stated |
that the petitioner's plan showed the sign as fifty (50) square feet but the total signage |
area would be 66 square feet per the measurement provisions in the Village of Lombard |
Sign Ordinance. Still, the sign meets Village code provisions. |
At the time of considering the 2006 petition, staff noted to the petitioner that the south |
elevation would have direct visibility to Interstate 88 and inquired if they were |
considering signage along the south elevation. The issue of additional signage was also |
discussed at the subsequent Plan Commission meeting. The petitioner noted that if |
they would want to make subsequent revisions to the proposed sign plan, they would file |
for approvals at a later date. The petitioner's submitted plans attempt to replicate the |
previously approved wall sign design approved for the other elevations, consisting of red |
block and script channel letters. |
Staff also notes that the subject property abuts a NiCor tract of land to the south. If this |
area was under ownership of the petitioner and NiCor only had utility easement rights to |
this area, the wall sign would be permitted by right. But as this is not the case for this |
property, the petitioner technically does not have frontage along Interstate 88. But in |
consideration of the topography and adjacent uses for the area, there is no visual |
difference between the two scenarios and as such the relief can be supported. |
The properties to the east and west of the subject property are also zoned in the Office |
District. As noted in the 2006 petition, the proposed use is compatible with the adjacent |
land uses. The abutting property to the west is the Carlisle banquet facility. That facility |
already has a wall sign along its south elevation. Therefore, granting relief for the |
petitioner's sign would not be inconsistent with the neighboring properties. Therefore, |
staff recommends approval of the petition, subject to the conditions of approval noted in |
the staff report. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comment among the Commissioners. |
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:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Nelson
1 -
1. Condition 1 (e) of Ordinance 5917 shall be amended to provide for the rights for a |
wall sign to be placed on the south elevation of the existing building on the subject |
property. Said sign shall be designed in accordance with the submitted plans prepared |
by Interplan LLC, dated February 20, 2008 a part of the petition. The wall sign shall be |
compatible with the wall signs on the north and west elevations. |
2. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a sign permit for the proposed wall sign |
prior to installation of the new sign. All signage on the subject property shall be installed |
in compliance with the Sign Ordinance provisions. |
3. All other conditions approved by Ordinance 5917 not amended by this petition shall |
remain in full force and effect. |
SPA 08-03ph: 2360 Fountain Square Drive |
Requests amendments to the approved site plan granted by SPA 02-06 and SPA 04-07 |
as follows: |
1. Allow for modifications to the approved wall signage and ancillary wall lighting plan; |
and |
2. Grant approval of further amendments to the overall square footage of all permitted |
wall signs on the subject property. |
Guy Dragisic of Olympic Sign, representing Uncle Julio's Hacienda at 2360 Fountain |
Square Drive, presented the petition. Mr. Dragisic described the new proposed signage |
on the east elevation as open face channel letters in which the neon tubes are exposed. |
He indicated that Harry Caray's and P.F. Chang's signage had been used as similar |
examples in the staff report. On the south elevation, the petitioner intends to replace an |
existing channel letter sign with the open face channel letters and an illuminated box. |
He indicated that the new signage will give Uncle Julio's much more visibility. On the |
east elevation, the petitioner intends to extend existing up lights under an existing |
painted wall sign. Mr. Dragisic indicated that the scalloped neon design at the roofline |
would be replaced with a straight neon border. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor |
or in opposition to the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
Stuart Moynihan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Uncle Julio's Hacienda |
is proposing the replacement of two existing wall signs. An existing wall sign on the east |
elevation will increase in size from 72.5 square feet to 75.1 square feet and will be |
converted from letters painted directly on the facade to open-face neon channel letters. |
An existing wall sign on the south elevation will increase in size from 41.3 square feet to |
80.24 square feet and will be converted from solid channel letters to open-face neon |
channel letters with an acrylic and vinyl cabinet below. Each of the proposed signs will |
feature neon within the channel letters which will remain exposed as no face will be |
placed over the neon. The overall number of signs on the property will remain |
unchanged. |
An existing painted wall sign reading "FINE MEXICAN FOOD" will remain unchanged at |
261 square feet (43.5' x 6'). The petitioner intends to extend existing up-lights below this |
sign to illuminate the Uncle Julio's face logo. A final proposed change is the removal of |
all "scalloped" design neon along the roofline and replacement with a line of exposed |
blue neon. |
The existing sit-down restaurant use is listed as a permitted use by the B3PD |
Development Agreement and is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The |
requested signage is intended to enhance the developed use of the property. |
The subject property is surrounded by the Fountain Square B3 Community Shopping |
District Planned Development on three sides. Nearby properties include Dick's Sporting |
Goods, the Hyatt Place hotel, Ethan Allen, Jared, Baja Fresh, and Starbucks. Other |
nearby sit-down restaurants, include P.F. Chang's, Weber Grill and Chammp's |
Americana which have all received some level of site plan approval for their respective |
signage packages. Staff believes the proposed use and corresponding signage request |
is compatible with the surrounding B3 uses and signage elements. |
West of the subject property is the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary. The |
proposed signage changes should not be visible from the adjacent seminary property. |
The approved B3 Community Shopping District Planned Development is subject to a |
Site Plan Approval process. In the approval process, the Village can consider |
compatibility of building architecture, materials and design throughout Fountain Square. |
The signage changes will be channel letters of a similar nature to other signs found at |
Dick's Sporting Goods, Hyatt Place, Ethan Allen, Jared, Baja Fresh, Starbucks, and P.F. |
Chang's. |
All proposed channel letters will be open-faced exposing red and blue neon. At the |
Fountain Square development, the signage at P.F. Chang's exhibits similar open-face |
channel letters with exposed neon. Harry Caray's signage provides a nearby example |
similar to the proposed signage. |
The petitioner's latest plan is intended to provide greater legibility by modifying the sign |
design. The Ordinance permits wall signs to have an area of not more than one times |
the lineal front footage of the property. Furthermore, the total sign surface area of any |
single wall sign is limited to a maximum of 100 square feet. Given the distance of this |
property from Fountain Square Drive, it is reasonable to allow more square footage than |
is permitted by code. The proposed changes would further increase the square footage |
of signage on the subject property requiring the approval of further deviation from the |
Village of Lombard Sign Ordinance Section 153.505 (B) (19) (a) (1) (a). The subject |
property currently has more signage both in number of signs and square footage than |
the adjacent properties within Fountain Square. However, the Plan Commission |
previously recognized within SPA 02-06 and SPA 04-07 that the restaurant is not |
located on Fountain Square Drive and its overall visibility to Butterfield Road is not as |
great as other restaurants within the planned development. Staff also notes that the |
Plan Commission has previously approved wall signage relief for both Weber Grill and |
P.F. Chang's. |
Staff recommended approval of the petition and the finding that the petition meets the |
standards for planned developments subject to the three conditions in the staff report. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comment among the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser indicated that she did not object to the staff's recommendation. |
However, she said that she believes Uncle Julio's is now at the limit of the signage that |
should be approved. She indicated that she understood the need to increase visibility |
due to the location of the restaurant but would not go beyond what was being |
recommended. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be approved with conditions. The motion carried by the following |
vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Nelson
1 -
1. The signage and lighting plan modifications shall be developed in conformance with |
the plans prepared by Image Works and dated December 31, 2007, and made a part of |
the request. This petition grants approval of modifications to the neon banding and |
gooseneck lighting as well as further deviations to the sign copy area as depicted on the |
submitted plans. |
2. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for any improvements to |
the building as set forth within this petition. |
3. All other conditions of approval not amended by this petition shall remain in full force |
and effect for the subject property. |
SPA 08-04ph: 111 S. Park Avenue (Elmhurst Memorial Healthcare/Lombard Bible |
Church Planned Development) |
Requests Site Plan Approval with a deviation from Section 153.219 (A) of the Lombard |
Sign Ordinance to increase the permitted sign area for an institutional wall sign from 32 |
square feet to 78.5 square feet, located within the B5 Central Business District. |
(DISTRICT #1) |
Donald Jones, 22W230 McCarron Road, Glen Ellyn, stated he is a member and is on |
the Governing Board of the Lombard Bible Church as well as the Financial Chairperson, |
and was here to present the petition. Their request is to replace the sign on the building |
which has existed some 40-50 years. When they did the staining of the brick due to the |
addition of the health care facility they took down the sign and now want to replace it. |
The increase in the signage area is the result of wanting to add the church logo on the |
sign. He referred to the staff report and indicated that their request has been well |
presented and asked for the Plan Commissioners' support. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor |
or in opposition to the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and submitted it to the record |
in its entirety. The petitioner is requesting signage relief to replace the 40-year old sign |
on the south elevation of the building with a new, internally illuminated channel letter |
sign. The proposed sign is 78.5 square feet where a maximum of 32 square feet is |
allowed; therefore, a deviation is requested. |
The Planned Development was established as part of PC 03-33 and staff finds that the |
proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The petitioner is proposing a |
single wall sign on the south elevation of the building. Although the size of the channel |
letters (just under 38 square feet) will not be significantly different from the existing sign, |
the church wishes to add a graphic element above the text. The graphic element on its |
own is only nine square feet, but its placement increases the total area of the sign to |
78.5 square feet where a maximum of 32 square feet is allowable by code. Mr. Heniff |
then explained how staff computes the area of the sign by making a rectangular around |
the sign copy area. Staff notes that a fair amount of the sign area would not include sign |
copy. |
Staff can support this request due to the unique placement of the signage. The sign |
abuts the parking lots for Lombard Bible Church and Elmhurst Memorial Lombard Health |
Center, providing a 500-foot buffer between the sign and the Lombard Historical Society. |
Although the sign will continue to be visible from the single-family residence at 15 W. |
Maple Street, the distance between the two structures is so great that the increase in |
sign area should not have a noticeable impact on the residence. |
The sign is of a channel letter design rather than a box-type sign, so the actual |
illuminated surface area is minimized. The white channel letters are also compatible |
with the white channel letter signage used by Elmhurst Memorial Lombard Health |
Center, providing a consistent appearance throughout the planned development. |
Staff believes that the new signage would be an enhancement and is compatible to the |
planned development and ties the church and health care facility. The petitioner has |
provided the standards for variations and the request is consistent with those standards |
as it unifies the two distinct but integrated uses. Lastly, staff supports this request with |
one condition noted in the staff report. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comment among the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Flint stated that he felt this petition was pretty straight forward. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that this |
matter be approved with one condition. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Nelson
1 -
1. The petitioner shall construct the proposed wall sign in conformance with the |
submitted plans, prepared by Sign Palace Inc. and dated February 19, 2008, and made |
as part of this request. |
Business Meeting
The business meeting convened at 8:21 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the February 18, 2008 meeting were unanimously approved by the |
members present with the following corrections noted by William Heniff: |
1. Page 2, 2nd paragraph, second to last sentence, strike the words "they have" so the |
sentence reads: |
"He stated that he believes the buffer and landscape elements would eliminate any..." |
2. Page 2, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence, strike the word "as" so the sentence reads: |
"He stated that the report was finalized the day...." |
3. Page 9, the motion is missing a sentence. It should read: |
"It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser that |
this matter be recommended to the Corproate Authorities for approval subject to |
conditions. The motion carried by the following vote:" |
Public Participation
There was no public participation.
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Chairperson's Report
The Chairperson deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
The Senior Planner had nothing to 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
There were no site plan approvals.
Workshops
There were no workshops.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m. |
_____________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
_____________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |