Monday, May 15, 2006
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall
Plan Commission
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser and Sondra Zorn, |
Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Meeting Minutes
Plan Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2006
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 Sondra Zorn and Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Commissioner Ruth Sweetser
Absent:
Also in attendance: William Heniff, AICP, Senior 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
060239
D. PC 06-16: 350 E. North Avenue |
Requests that the Village take the following actions for the subject property located |
within the B4PD Corridor Commercial Planned Development District: |
1. A deviation from Section 153.210 (B)(D) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for an |
increase in the height of an electronic message board from two feet (2') to 3.65 feet with |
a display screen greater than eighteen (18") inches in height. |
2. A deviation from Section 153.210 (F) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for an electronic |
message board that is less than twelve (12') feet above grade. (DISTRICT #4) |
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: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Sweetser
1 -
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the April 17, 2006 meeting were approved by unanimous consent of the |
members present with the following amendments: |
Commissioner Olbrysh referred to Page 3, 1st paragraph under petition PC 06-14, |
change the first sentence by adding the words "appearance of" so it reads "To avoid any |
appearance of impropriety......." |
George Wagner, legal counsel, suggested the following corrections: |
Page 8, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, change the word "it" to "is" and add the word "not" |
so it reads: Excluding the end-cap proposed sit-down restaurant, a cap of five spaces is |
not suggested." |
Page 12, 4th paragraph, last sentence, revise for clarification purposes as it relates to |
development sign regulations. |
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
060240
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 |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, seconded by Commissioner Burke, that this |
matter be continued to the June 19, 2006 meeting. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Zorn and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Sweetser
1 -
Workshops
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. |
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. |
__________________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
__________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Secretary |