Village of Lombard Legistar System

Steve Jacks of Site Enhancement Services, 3699 Lathrop Street, South Bend, IN,

presented the petition. He referenced the plans submitted as part of the petition and

noted their request. He stated that they propose to remove the manual reader board

currently existing on the free-standing sign and replace it with a new electronic message

sign. The proposed sign would be 3.65' in height with would provide for greater

readability for motorists. He stated that it would allow CVS to effectively communicate

promotional items. The larger sign may also limit traffic conflicts.

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

favor of or against the petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the IDRC staff report. He noted the approval

of a conditional use for a planned development for the construction of a CVS Pharmacy

(PC 04-20). As part of the original development proposal, CVS requested approval for a

freestanding sign that included an automatic changeable copy (ACC) component (i.e.,

electronic message board). The overall height and surface area of the freestanding sign

met the code requirements. However, the proposed electronic message board was

approximately three and a half feet (3.5') in height and the Sign Ordinance limits

automatic changeable copy boards to two feet (2') in height or less with no more than

eighteen inches (18”) in display area.

The Village Board approved the variation requests to allow for an electronic message

board less than twelve feet above grade and to allow a display area greater than

eighteen inches (18”) provided that the overall height of the changeable copy board is

no more than two (2') feet. CVS opted to install a manual copy message board on the

freestanding sign, which met code and did not require any variances. CVS is now

reapplying for relief from the Sign Ordinance to allow a freestanding sign with a larger

electronic message board than what was approved by the Village Board in 2004.

Essentially, the petitioner is requesting that the Plan Commission and Village Board

reconsider its denial of the increase in sign height for the ACC component.

In considering the previous request for an ACC board, staff did not object to the variation

for the height above grade, but did have concerns regarding the overall size of the sign.

Staff noted that where properties are permitted to have automatic changeable copy

signage, the Village has established regulations pertaining to their overall size. Staff

was not supportive of the deviation to allow for a cabinet with a height greater than two

feet because staff believed the cabinet height of over two feet could be considered

excessive and could create a negative appearance on the corridor. The intent of the

18-inch height limit is intended to ensure that the ACC display screen does not become

the principal element of the sign. The petitioner represented that they may be able to

meet the two-foot provision, but the display area may be slightly greater than eighteen

inches (18') in height. Staff was able to support the deviation from the eighteen inch

(18”) display area assuming the overall height of the board meets code. The Village

Board granted variations for the height above grade and the height of the display area,

to not exceed 24 inches.

Mr. Heniff then discussed the rationale for considering this petition as a Plan

Commission public hearing petition versus a site plan approval petition. He noted that

the Village Board found in its original deliberation of the petition that a larger ACC sign

was not compatible with the overall planned development approval. As the petitioner is

requesting a reconsideration of this item, staff believes that this constitutes a major

change to the planned development approval. As such, major changes to a planned

development require Village Board approval.

The petitioner is proposing to replace the existing manual copy message board with an

electronic message board and add a masonry base. The current proposal is essentially

the same as the 2004 proposal with the same dimensions overall. The current proposal

would have a masonry base enclosing the pylon supports.

Staff finds that there have been no changes relevant to the subject property that would

now warrant greater signage relief than what was approved in 2004. He then noted

various cases whereby the Village denied such requests for relief or granted the relief

based upon unique circumstances associated with the petition. However, in

consideration of the petitioner's request, staff finds nothing unique with the property that

would warrant the additional relief.

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

Commission.

Commissioner Olbrysh noted the history of requests for electronic sign relief and noted

that such signs can be considered an “attractive nuisance” in that while they may

provide a benefit to the property owner, they could create an undesirable precedent for

the Village. Therefore, he is not supportive of the relief. Chairperson Ryan concurred

with Commissioner Olbrysh's comments

It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Zorn, that

this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for denial. The motion

carried by the following vote:

Flint, Olbrysh, Zorn and Burke

Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 7:45 p.m.

The minutes of the April 17, 2006 meeting were approved by unanimous consent of the

members present with the following amendments:

SPA 06-03: 2340 Fountain Square Drive (Hyatt Place) (Continued from May 15,

2006)

Requests site plan approval with deviations from the Village's Sign Ordinance, to include

the following:

1. Pursuant to Section 5.F.3 of the B3 Development Agreement for the Fountain Square

of Lombard property, allow a deviation from Section 153.602 of the Village's Sign

Ordinance (definition of "Frontage") for the purpose of treating the drive to the south of

the property as the property's "Frontage."

2. A request for a deviation from Section 153.505(B) (19) of the Village's Sign

Ordinance to allow for a wall sign of 291.6 square feet on the building's southeast wall.

3. A request for a deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(19) of the Village's Sign

Ordinance to allow for a second wall sign of 158.3 square feet of sign surface area on

the building's southwest wall

East St. Charles Road B5A Map Amendments

William Heniff, Senior Planner, noted that Village staff is seeking the thoughts of the

Plan Commission with respect to the possible extension of the B5A Downtown

Perimeter District along East St. Charles Road between the downtown and Grace

Street. He also noted the Downtown Lombard Community Vision report prepared by

staff and distributed to the Plan Commissioners at the meeting.

He described the location of the proposed map amendment, noting the properties in

question are currently designated in the B2 District. The Plan specifically identifies the

subject properties as being within the downtown perimeter area. The Plan also

describes the desired land design concepts within the corridor, including zero front and

corner side yard setbacks.

In 2003, the Village established the East St. Charles Road TIF 1 - West District, which

encompasses the commercial properties. With the redevelopment of the

Hammerschmidt properties on the south side of St. Charles Road as a commuter

parking lot and a mixed use development underway and recent interest in the corridor

by prospective developers, now may be the time to consider a map amendment for the

corridor. He also noted the redevelopment of the 151 N. Charlotte property as well as

the workshop session last fall regarding the Allied Drywall Property.

Staff has been discussing the commercial properties with prospective developers. Staff

has been referencing the B5A District regulations for the corridor. The B5A District

regulations allow for structures to be located closer to St. Charles Road and away from

the adjacent residences. Staff is seeking concurrence that this representation is

accurate.

He then discussed a number of properties that may be subject to development or

redevelopment in the future, including the blocks between Craig and Martha, Martha and

Garfield Street and the Lombard Post Office area. Staff has also been seeking

redevelopment of entire block faces.

Before staff's meeting with the Lombard Town Centre or the affected property owners,

staff wanted to receive concurrence from the Commissioners relative to the proposed

amendment.

Chairperson Ryan stated that staff is headed in the right direction. The map amendment

would be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. There is a tie-in to the downtown

area. Over time it will lead to future improvements in the corridor.

Commissioner Olbrysh noted that the corridor will take on a different look in the future.

There are real opportunities to expand retail activities in the area. This amendment will

supplement improvements already made by Village.