Village of Lombard Legistar System

Dan Coffey, 1300 S. Finley Road, Suite 103, Lombard, presented the petition. He

explained that he purchased a business condo unit in the Prairie Path Villas for his

business. He indicated that about 6 months ago he inquired about signage with the

Village and initially thought the panel sign was acceptable. It was not until Mr. Pyter from

Olympic Sign submitted details to the Village that the provisions regulating the site came

to light. Mr. Coffey explained that David George, the developer of the building, indicated

to him that the Planned Development allowed for more signage and awnings. He was

not aware of the channel lettering requirement until staff made reference to the planned

development ordinance and the Main Street Place requirements. He indicated that these

are tough economic times and that the channel letter sign is much more expensive -

$16,500 versus $3,700. Mr. Coffey said that financing is limited and cannot afford the

more expensive sign. He also stated that Mr. George, owner and president of the

association, preferred the appearance of the panel sign and having individual letters

attached to the wall would create maintenance problems.

He continued that there were concerns about his responses to standards being an

obstruction or distraction and don't believe they will do that. He said it is important to

have a lit sign because he works late and his patients are accustomed to him staying

open until 9 p.m. Without the proper signage, it would make it difficult to find his

business. He mentioned the parking being in the back of the building and that his clients

may miss the turn onto Ash. He respects Community Development's passion and

desires to improve Lombard. He indicated that he plans to be here for many years. He

said he is in a bad situation now with financing and so he needs the Commissioners'

help. If the petition is denied it will delay his ability to get the proper signage to get

downtown going. He added that he cares about Lombard, serving on the Board of

Directors for Chamber of Commerce, Rotary and Lombard Town Centre. He said that

he would not let a sign go up that doesn't represent Lombard nor will David George. He

believes that the panel type sign would look visually better , satisfy the Commissioners

and allow him to support his family and employees with the additional savings.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment.

Tom Knapp spoke in support of the request and provided additional documents. He

indicated that he is the architect for Mr. Coffey's office space and is also the Vice

President of the Lombard Town Centre. He also stated that he is representing himself

and the Lombard Town Centre. He said that although he was only the architect to assist

Mr. Coffey with his build-out, he got involved once he learned about the signage issues.

He indicated that he contacted staff inquiring about the signage provisions and was told

the sign was acceptable. He said that the petitioner proceeded with a sign contractor to

put a formal proposal together and submit it to the Village. The sign was rejected and he

set up a meeting with Village staff to discuss the matter. He stated that staff did not

provide him with anything in writing explaining the requirements. He said the sign meets

the zoning requirements and that the Planned Development was unclear. He suggested

a better process for business owners with regards to signage approval.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Stuart Moynihan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Staff drafted the IDRC

report to submit to the public record in its entirety. The petitioner, Dr. Daniel Coffey of

D.C. Spinal Wellness and Sport Rehabilitation, is proposing to install a box style wall

sign on the eastern façade of the Prairie Path Villas building. Ordinance 5802 (PC

05-43), approved the Prairie Path Villas Planned Development. As part of the approvals,

all wall signage associated with the development was to be in accordance with the

approved elevation plan as shown on exhibit "A". In addition, as a condition of approval,

signage associated with the development was to consist of channel letters. Since the

proposed new sign would not be of a design or in a location approved as part of

Ordinance 5802, a planned development amendment is required.

Mr. Moynihan stated that the petitioner is proposing to install a box style wall sign at

Prairie Path Villas located at 310-312 S. Main St. The wall sign is proposed to be

installed on the eastern elevation of the building and will face Main Street. The

petitioner is the owner of the far northern commercial condominium unit on the Main

Street side of the building. The proposed sign would be installed above the awning just

south of the Main Street entrance to this unit. As the sign is proposed to be placed in a

location not depicted on the approved building elevations, an amendment to the planned

development for signage location would be necessary. In addition, the planned

development required that all exterior wall signs on the building be of a channel letter

design. As the proposed sign consists of a single interiorly illuminated aluminum

cabinet, the petitioner is requesting that the conditional use for a planned development

be amended to allow a box style wall sign.

The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Community Commercial uses. The

existing use is therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

The subject property is bordered by other commercial uses, a recreational pathway, and

multi-family housing. The proposed signage is not expected to negatively impact the

surrounding land uses. The request is generally compatible with the surrounding land

uses.

Compatibility with the Sign Ordinance

In PC 05-43, Prairie Path Villas was granted the following deviations related to signage:

g) A deviation from Sections 153.211(F) and 153.508(B)(19)(a) of the Sign Ordinance

to allow for awning and canopy signs to be displayed in conjunction with wall signs;

h) A deviation from Section 153.508(B)(19)(c) to allow for more than one wall sign per

street frontage; and

The deviation for the number of signs was supported by staff to allow a sufficient

number of signs to identify the individual commercial tenants in the building. The use of

mixed signage was supported by staff to promote the aesthetic effect of breaking up the

building's street elevations. The intention was to contribute to the impression of a series

of separate buildings, effectively reducing the single, larger building to a more

pedestrian scale.

The petitioner's proposed wall sign would be installed on the eastern elevation of Prairie

Path Villas. The proposed signage measures four feet (4') by twelve feet (12') for a total

of forty-eight (48) square feet. The Sign Ordinance requires that the total sign area of all

wall signs on a property in the B5A District shall not exceed one times the lineal front

footage of the property and that no one wall sign shall exceed fifty (50) square feet.

Therefore, no variation for signage area is necessary as the proposed wall sign does

meet the pertinent regulations.

Staff also notes that the petitioner has indicated on his submitted permit plans that his

tenant space has sixty feet (60') of frontage along Main Street. The proposed signage

area would only make use of forty-eight feet (48') of frontage along Main Street.

Ordinance 5802 which established the Prairie Path Villas Planned Development requires

that wall signage be of a channel letter design. The following conditions are applicable

to this petition:

3. As part of the building permit submittal, the petitioner shall satisfactorily address the

comments included as part of the Inter-Departmental Review Report.

9. The proposed wall and awning signs on the building shall be designed and located

on the building consistent with the submitted plans.

Regarding Condition 3, staff made several comments concerning signage in the

Inter-Departmental Review Report of PC 05-43. Among those comments were the

following:

" "Based upon the submitted elevations, two deviations are required - a deviation from

Sections 153.211(F) and 153.508(B)(19)(a) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for awning

and canopy signs to be displayed in conjunction with wall signs, and a deviation from

Section 153.508(B)(19)(c) to allow for more than one wall sign per street frontage."

" "The petitioner's request for a mixed sign package is intended to break up the scale

of the building along Main Street to give it the appearance of multiple structures at a

pedestrian level. The awning signage is meant to "frame" the center façade of the Main

Street elevation, while the other wall sign elements identify the respective business

establishments."

" "Staff would be supportive of this request provided that the wall signage follows the

same guidelines the Village has approved for many recent developments, including the

Main Street Place planned development (SPA 05-05), kitty-corner to the site. These

provisions include the requirement that all wall signage to be installed on the building

shall be of a uniform design and shall be placed on the building in accordance with the

wall sign package as depicted on the submitted building elevations."

As noted above in the IDRC and as a condition of approval, signage in the Prairie Path

Villas Development was to be of a uniform design and placed according to submitted

building elevations, same as the guidelines established for Main Street Place at 229 S.

Main Street (SPA 05-05). That development was approved with the following condition:

1. All wall signage to be installed on the subject property shall be of a channel letter

design and shall be placed on the building in accordance with the wall sign package as

depicted on the submitted building elevations.

The approval of Prairie Path Villas was conditioned that it meet the same signage

design standards required at Main Street Place, specifically channel letter design, and

that the signage be located as depicted on the approved plans. These conditions were

recommended by staff and approved by the Village Board as a means to improving the

overall quality and uniformity of signage design and to ensure consistency in location.

As the approved plans were interpreted during the public hearing to be consistent with

the requirement for channel letter signs, there was no condition written as part of

Ordinance 5802 which specifically stated that channel letter signs would be required at

Prairie Path Villas.

It is the opinion of staff that these amendments could potentially reduce the quality of

signage on the building and the quality of the development as a whole. A future tenant

could replace this box style wall sign with one of an inferior quality. If other signs on the

building are to be channel letter in design, a box style sign would also degrade the

uniformity of the signage package which was preferred in PC 05-43. Staff also notes

that the approval of these amendments may set a precedent for other tenants in the

Prairie Path Villas building and other nearby buildings, such as Main Street Place,

should they desire to install box style wall signs.

The Planned Development was designed to ensure unified and compatible design of

buildings and signage, as authorized in Section 155.502 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance.

Staff finds that the proposed amendment to the Planned Development will reduce the

quality of signage on the building and the quality of the development as a whole.

Therefore staff recommends denial of the request.

If the Plan Commission does determine that proposed amendments are desirable, the

Commissioners may want to consider similar amendments for the entire planned

development, allowing for any future signage to only meet the requirements of the Sign

Ordinance. This would avoid the possible situation in which public hearings are

necessary on a sign by sign basis, should similar signs be requested. The following

condition could be added to any motion for approval:

1. But for the two deviations granted by Ordinance 5802, wall signs installed on the

exterior elevations of the Prairie Path Villas Planned Development shall be subject only

to the requirements of the Sign Ordinance.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Nelson asked if the sign would be lit. The petitioner indicated it would be

lit and that he needed it that way to help direct his customers.

Commissioner Sweetser indicated that since it was not specially stated that channel

lettering was required that there might be a good reason for making some adjustments

however she was not sure what they would be. She wanted to know if other

Commissioners had any thoughts.

Commissioner Cooper suggested that the petitioner consider other types of signage that

would be less expensive but still have channel letters such as steel.

Commissioner Burke suggested that the letter be back lit rather than individually lit to

save costs. Commissioner Flint agreed and said there could be an alterative cost

effective way to light the sign.

Commissioner Burke stated that he would like this to move forward and that he

understands the dilemma and confusion, however based on the information they have,

the signage is unacceptable and does not go well with the other signage on the building.

He indicated that he is sympathetic to the petitioner regarding costs however he felt that

the channel letter goes well with the building and other signage and that he was not in

favor of the request.

Commissioner Sweetser suggested they grant a time period for this sign to be up and

ready to go and be replaced in 2 years. She then stated that the planned development

required channel letters and that the box sign appears to be like a billboard on the

building. She stated that they should be consistent with the standards of the planned

development since this is the first sign. She suggested to staff to review its process of

giving information.

Paul Friedrichs, Executive Director of the Lombard Park District, 227 W. Parkside,

presented their petition. He also introduced John Dzarnowski, of FGM Architecture. He

stated that Mr. Dzarnowski was the lead architect that designed the park and sign.

John Dzarnowski, FGM Architecture, 1121 W. 22nd Street, Oak Brook, IL , summarized

their request highlighting the proposed new sign at the Paradise Bay Water Park. He

described the sign, gave its dimensions, and noted the distance the sign would be

located from St. Charles Road. He said that the proposed sign would be approximately

80½ square feet in size.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment.

There were no comments or questions from the public.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Stuart Moynihan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Staff drafted the IDRC

report to submit to the public record in its entirety. On September 18, 2006, the Plan

Commission approved PC 06-24, granting a conditional use for an upgrade and

modernization of the existing Paradise Bay Water Park facility located within Lombard

Common. That approval was associated with the general features of the proposed park;

however, specific plans detailing signage were not considered as part of the petition.

The history of zoning relief on the property includes:

* PC 89-03: The property was granted a variation to increase the allowable surface

area of a freestanding sign from thirty (30) to forty (40) square feet to increase visibility

on Grace Street and St. Charles Road. This sign was located at the corner of Grace

and St. Charles and has since been removed.

* PC 06-24: The property was granted a conditional use for a recreational facility (water

park) to allow the upgrade/reconstruction of the existing aquatic facilities.

* PC 08-22: The property was granted a variation to increase the maximum allowable

height of a structure from thirty feet (30') to forty-eight feet (48') to allow the construction

of a waterslide tower.

In February 2009, the Lombard Park District submitted a permit application for a wall

sign to be attached to the front security gate on the new aquatic facility building. The

submitted plans, which have been included as part of this petition, indicate that the

proposed wall sign will have an area of approximately eighty and one half (80.5) square

feet.

The proposed sign will face northward toward St. Charles Road. Attached to the

security gate at the water park entrance, the wall sign would be approximately one

hundred and ninety-three feet (193') from the northern property line. At this distance, a

wall sign that is fifty (50) square feet would likely be illegible from St. Charles Road.

However, unlike the commercial districts, in the CR District the Sign Ordinance does not

permit increased wall sign area due to greater distance from property lines.

In the case that this water park was a commercial operation and located within a

commercial zoning district, the wall sign area could be increased beyond the requested

80.5 square feet. In the B-1 and B-2 zoning districts, the petitioner would have rights to

one hundred (100) square feet based on the property's lineal frontage on St. Charles

Road. In the B-3 and B-4 zoning districts, the petitioner would have rights to two

hundred (200) square feet based on the property's lineal frontage and the sign's

distance from the property line.

Dan Gardner, 114 E. Van Buren, Naperville, introduced the petitioners. He distributed a

PowerPoint presentation which gives more background to the project.

Deanna Tyrpak 2010 Birchwood Ave, Des Plaines, IL, gave background on the

proposed school. She said Soaring Eagle Academy is a school for students with autism.

It will serve children between the ages of 5-21 years old. She stated that their

methodology is unique and cannot be found in many other places in the Midwest. She

indicated that the staff report explains the project and reason for approving the

conditional use. The site was chosen because of the amenities it offered. She said they

draw from a larger region, so the site is good for them and that it is near controlled

intersections and well buffered from surrounding uses. She stated that the proposed

facility meets their needs for students, staff and parents. Ms. Tyrpak stated that the

school is a 512, 501(c)(3), founded by her and 2 speech pathologists. She indicated

that there is a growing need for this type of facility and that there are different

approaches to treating children with autism. Developing relationships is their

philosophy. She described the disorder, the misconceptions people hold about it, and

how their school hopes to defy these misconceptions. The approach they will use, DIR,

brings hope to families.

She said they will provide a social and academic environment, and explained how they

will provide their curriculum. The model allows for safety, and that students will not be

left alone. She said they will be certified by the state and there are many stringent

guidelines they will need to follow. Their program will be different in that their approach

you will see joyful children engaging in meaningful learning. They are excited to bring

this to the Midwest and want to be a resource in the community. They will serve up to

60 students with 72 staff members. The property is ideal for safety. She said arrival

hours for staff are 8 AM and children will be dropped off in 15 min increments starting at

8:30AM. Families will be driving their children and there will be no buses. She said that

it is critical to their operations that the children are in the building safely. She said there

will be no lunch, no café, the kitchen and day area is only for educational purposes.

Children will depart in 15 minute increments starting at 2:30 PM with staff leaving

thereafter.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment.

There were no comments or questions from the public.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Christopher Stilling, Assistant Director, presented the staff report. Staff drafted the

IDRC report to submit to the public record in its entirety. The petitioner proposes to

operate a private educational facility at 355 Eisenhower Lane South. The proposed

school would be known as Soaring Eagle Academy, a private school that is intended to

meet the educational needs of grade, middle and high school students with autism and

related disorders as an alternative to a traditional public or private school. The school is

intended to educate up to sixty (60) students.

The petitioner has submitted a narrative further describing their proposed use. They are

a non-public special education school seeking approval from the Illinois State Board of

Education. The proposed school is intended to provide a specialized educational model

for students with autism or other related disabilities ranging in ages from 5-21 years old.

The petitioner has indicated that there are currently no other private or public schools

utilizing their educational model in the Midwest. According to their narrative, their

educational model consists of some of the following:

* Focuses on the whole child and seeks to develop a foundation that builds flexible

skills for higher-level thinking and learning and interaction with the world around them.

* Encourages children to engage in dynamic, meaningful learning through development

of social interactions and relationships.

* Believes emotional development of the child and ability to relate and interact with

others is the critical foundation for future learning.

They indicated that students diagnosed with autism and related disorders spend most of

their school day on tasks related to functional/daily living skills rather than a balance of

academics appropriate to their development level, social communication skills and

functional skills.

Operations & Building Improvements

Based upon discussions with the petitioner, the facility will accommodate students aged

between 5-21 years. Once they reach their projected capacity of 60 students, up to 72

employees including teachers, therapists, and aides will be onsite.

The petitioner plans to make significant changes to the existing floor plan of the building,

which is 20,000 square feet in area. The proposed improvements include:

* 7 classrooms

* 2 sensory motor gyms

* Several floor time and therapy rooms

* Kitchen and daily living area

* Vocational work studio

* Library resource area

* Administrative and staff offices

They have indicated that some of the improvements would occur in phases as

enrollment increases. Initially, they expect to accommodate 28 students and grow

approximately 16 students per year until they reach 60 students.

Staff had provided Fire Department/Bureau of Inspectional Services comments to the

petitioner with respect to fire sprinklers, ADA and Illinois Accessibility requirements. The

petitioner indicated that they will meet all requirements.

The petitioner's proposed plans indicate improvements to the south side exterior of the

building including widening the existing entrance and adding another entrance to the

east. In addition, they would provide an outdoor play area on the existing green space

located east and west of the existing entrance. The proposed play area to the east

would be fully fenced with a 6' high chain link fence to ensure proper security for the

children. The play area would include playground equipment with slides and climbing

areas.

The petitioner has indicated that they would request a sign on the north elevation of the

building facing Eisenhower Lane. As details of the proposed sign were not submitted,

they would be obligated to meet the underlying provisions of the Sign Ordinance.

Loading/Unloading

Students attending the school would be transported via their parents or taxi cab only. No

buses would be used. The school staff would arrive at the facility by 8:00 AM. Students

would arrive in 15 minute intervals starting at 8:30 AM and ending at 9:30 AM. Students

would be leaving the school and picked up in 15 minute intervals starting at 2:30 PM and

ending at 3:30 PM. All drop off and pick up would occur on the south side of the building.

Staff encourages the staggered drop off and pick up so as to eliminate any back up onto

Eisenhower Lane. The petitioner's site plan does indicate a drop off and pick up area on

the south side of the building. That area can accommodate up to 8 cars for

stacking/queuing. Based on the representation by the petitioner and the layout of the

site, the transporting function of the site should function well.

Site Considerations

Staff provides a series of photographs of the proposed site for reference purposes (see

attached exhibits at the end of the report). The property is surrounded by light industrial

uses on all sides. The southern portion of the subject property is located on a municipal

boundary line shared with the Village of Downers Grove. That portion of Downers Grove

abutting the subject property contains properties with light industrial uses as well. Thick

vegetation is provided on the southern portion of the subject property whereas the

adjacent property to the south is no longer visible from the subject property.

Parking

The Zoning Ordinance requires one (1) space per employee plus eight (8) spaces for

visitors for K-8th grades. High schools require one (1) space per employee plus eight

spaces for eight (8) students. In review of these parking options and the nature of the

operations, staff believes the K-8th grade option to be more appropriate in this instance.

This is consistent with a similar request for a private school at 1110 N. Main (PC 04-02).

Based upon the school's proposed demand, they will require 80 total spaces for the

school. In review of the plans, this demand can be accommodated by the existing

spaces. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance and the Illinois Accessibility Code, a

minimum of 4 handicap accessible spaces shall be provided. The site currently provides

2 handicap spaces. The petitioner's site plan does show them adding 2 additional

handicap spaces. The total parking provided would be 84 parking spaces. As previously

noted, the Code requires a minimum of 80 spaces be provided.

The property is surrounded by light industrial uses on all sides. Other tenants occupying

those surrounding uses include a variety of "light" industrial and office type uses. From

a land use perspective, staff finds that the proposed private school use is compatible

with the surrounding land uses. The fact that the school draws from a broader

geographic area and given the layout of the existing site being able to accommodate the

transportation and parking needs of the school, the proposed use at this location can be

supported.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends Planned Business Park at this location. The

York Brook Business Park is specifically described in the Comprehensive Plan as being

one of the newer, established business park locations within the Village. The York Brook

Business Park is also completely developed and generally well maintained. Although

described in the Comprehensive Plan, there are no specific recommendations for the

types of uses that should occur within the York Brook Business Park. Given this

circumstance, the very nature of a business park can be generally summarized as

providing light industrial, business and office land uses.

In 2004, the Village approved text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for private

schools as conditional uses in the I - Limited Industrial District (PC 04-01) along with a

companion request for a private school located at 1110 N. Main Street (PC 04-02). As

noted in PC 04-01, private schools often have greater traffic generations and draw upon

a larger than local area. Therefore, from a transportation standpoint, staff believes

locating a school outside of a single-family residential area may be more appropriate.

The petitioner's specific site can be supported for the school as the building promotes

good circulation, provides adequate parking and is not bordered by more heavily

industrial uses. Therefore, staff believes the use is consistent with the Comprehensive

Plan and recommends approval subject to the attached conditions.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the educational facility is a positive addition to the

community and there is a great need for this type of school. The building sits alone and

is isolated from others. He stated that is has a nice parking lot, and some green space

to the north.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she agrees that this is a very wonderful addition to

the community and glad to see it. She asked the petitioner if their curriculum has to

have ISBE certification or approval. Ms. Tyrpak indicated that the Illinois State Board of

Education does have to approve them. The ISBE also comes on regular visits and can

access the paperwork in their files. Commissioner Sweetser then asked if the green

space and playground equipment previously mentioned would be age appropriate for all

the children. Ms. Tyrpak answered that all students have the opportunity to go outside

and the area will be fenced in. All the children, including the older ones, will have

access to the same playground equipment. She also indicated that part of the green

space would be used for gardening.

Commissioner Burke asked if the petitioner is leasing the building. Mark Montana, 225

W Washington, Chicago, said yes.

Commissioner Burke expressed a concern that the petitioner could sublease or the

landlord could lease to a use that is not compatible with the school as they are not

occupying the entire building. Mr. Montana said they are leasing the entire building from

the beginning of the lease, so no other tenant could go in there. He said Phase II is to

further understand how they are growing and how the build out can be. They have a

plan for Phase II.

Commissioner Burke suggested that the Plan Commission add a condition limiting the

use of the building to an academic institution and that the entire building is subject to the

conditional use and only used for that purpose. George Wagner, Village Counsel,

suggested some language to consider for an added condition #5

Add condition:

5. During the operation of the school, the entire building is subject to the conditional

use and shall only be used for activities associated with the school as outlined in their

application.

Denice Bronis of White Way Sign Company, 451 Kingston Court, Mount Prospect,

presented the petition. She stated that the reason for their request is that they are trying

to work with the Village in looking at the Sign Ordinance in relation to zoning. Their

request is for their client, Cricket Communications, a tenant looking to open a business.

They want to install a 38 ½ square foot wall sign. The sign would have the company's

logo but due to the size of the "K" in the logo, they need more square footage than what

is allowed by code. She is concerned that if they complied with the 25 square foot size

allowed, it would be too small and they want nice visibility for people passing by. She

then introduced Regan Anderson of Cricket Communications.

Reagan Anderson, District Director, 2850 Golf Road, Rolling Meadows, explained that

Cricket is a telecommunications provider and the 7th largest carrier. Cricket serves the

underserved providing a service for individuals with an income of $60,000 or less. They

started the business 10 years ago with the concept of being an unlimited provider at one

flat rate. They have since expanded and their targeted demographic is primarily the

Hispanic and African American populations. He explained how they found the store in

Lombard and the trouble with their logo. The "K" in Cricket is basically 2:1 compared to

the other letters. He explained how this request is not unique and how they always have

to appeal to various communities and ask for permission for one letter to be bigger than

the others. They have gone back to brand explaining their difficulties and asked for the

"K" to be revised but are unsuccessful. We like the city of Lombard but need the

additional square footage for the signage. The store is currently doing about 1/3 of what

is expected without signage. They anticipate a lot of growth in their business and

Lombard is a good market for them.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if Cricket is a registered trademark. Mr. Anderson

answered that it is. Everything has the big "K"

Chairperson Ryan then asked if there was anyone to speak in favor or against the

petition. Hearing none, he requested the staff report.

Stuart Moynihan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Staff drafted the IDRC

report to submit to the public record in its entirety. The petitioner, White Way Sign

Company is proposing to install a wall sign at 415 E. Roosevelt Road, a tenant space in

a multi-tenant building at High Point Shopping Center. White Way Sign is acting on

behalf of their client, Cricket Communications, the current occupant of the tenant space.

The proposed sign on the building's front façade is approximately thirty-eight and one

half (38.5) square feet where a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet is permitted by

the Sign Ordinance. Therefore, a site plan approval with a deviation for sign size is

required.

Ordinance 3064, adopted June 2, 1988 (PC 88-13) amended Ordinance 2867 granted

approval for additional signage in the High Point Shopping Center. This approval

provided additional signage for select tenants which were granted one additional wall

sign to be limited to twenty-five (25) square feet of surface area. The subject tenant

space was included as one of the select tenants

In the B4A Roosevelt Road Corridor District, when a tenant's wall sign is less than

one-hundred twenty feet (120') from the nearest property line, the maximum size of a

wall sign for a multi-tenant unit is one times the lineal front footage of the tenant space.

However, the tenant is entitled to a minimum of twenty-five (25) square feet. As the

proposed wall sign will be approximately seventy feet (70') from the front property line

along Roosevelt Road and the tenant space is approximately nineteen feet (19') in

width, the tenant would be entitled to twenty-five (25) square feet of signage area.

The petitioner's proposed wall sign is approximately thirty-eight and one half (38.5)

square feet. The petitioner's narrative states that the request for additional square

footage is for the tall "K" in the word Cricket. The petitioner's response to Standards

indicates that a twenty five (25) square foot sign would not be effective or easily

readable from Roosevelt Road.

In 2006, staff initiated PC 06-26, which proposed text amendments to the Sign

Ordinance to clarify that the area of a wall sign should be calculated as the smallest

rectangular shape that could completely enclose the sign. These amendments were

proposed and adopted to prevent applicants from using another geometric shape, such

as a polygon, as the basis for additional signage area.

In order to be granted a deviation the petitioner must show that they have affirmed each

of the "Standards for Variations." The following standards have not been affirmed:

1. Staff finds that there are no conditions related to the property that prevent

compliance with the signage size regulations. The tenant spaces is among the tenant

spaces in the planned development closest to Roosevelt Road. Other tenants located in

this building have successfully operated with wall signs of twenty-five (25) square feet or

less.

2. Staff finds that there are no conditions unique to the subject property. There are

many tenant spaces within the planned development and nearby on Roosevelt Road

that have the similar configurations and are subject to the same signage regulations.

4. Staff finds that the sign could be constructed per the ordinance requirements either

by reducing the overall size of the sign or reducing the height of the "K". The hardship

has been created by the tenant as a result of the preference for a particular letter in this

sign's design.

Staff has concerns about the precedent that would be established if the proposed

request was to be granted. Multiple other tenants within the planned development, have

been able to meet the established signage size regulations. Should this request be

granted, it would strengthen the case of similar requests for other such tenant spaces.

Staff also notes that if this request were granted, future occupants of the subject tenant

space would maintain the rights to a larger wall sign. Future signs could potentially have

greater bulk than the one proposed as future tenants could make use of surface area

that the Cricket sign would leave vacant.

Staff is recommending denial of this petition.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Nelson asked if they had considered scaling it down. Mr. Anderson

answered that they asked corporate and they won't allow it because of trademark

issues. He added that in all the locations they have put up signage, they have had this

problem and they had to sacrifice premium locations. He noted that the other 6 letters

were in compliance. He also noted that this is their trademark not just a preference for a

larger sign. They have had this design logo for almost 10 years. He understands the

Commissioners' dilemma but he wants to do business in Lombard.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he remembers the Commissioners considering some

building on Main Street that had a clock tower issue which was higher than what was

allowed by code. This was approved because it was a small portion of the height of the

building. We have made some exceptions in the past when it comes to specific

considerations.

Mr. Stilling indicated that a couple of years ago the Sign Ordinance was amended

whereby the allowable dimensions of a sign were measured by drawing a box around it.

If the petitioner were to leave the tenant space in a couple of years the variation, if

granted, would run with the land allowing the next tenant to have the same rights to the

size of the approved sign.

Commissioner Cooper asked what it might look like if the logo was scaled down to

maybe 30 or 35 square feet. Ms. Bronis stated they didn't try to scale it down. Mr.

Anderson mentioned that the letters "C" and "R" would not be readable 30 feet from the

street. He added that the trademark has been a hard burden to bear.

Chairperson Ryan stated that standards must be set and they must adhere to them. If

every corporation created their logo larger than the standards and we approved them

because of the trademark issue, we would have to approve all logo trademarks which

would eventually bypass the Sign Ordinance. At this point, the standard says 25 square

feet and that's the way we have to look at it.

Commissioner Burke agreed with his statement and made a motion to deny SPA

09-02ph . Commissioner Cooper seconded the motion.

After due consideration of the petition and the testimony presented, the Plan

Commission found that the requested deviation does not comply with the Standards

required by the Lombard Zoning and Sign Ordinances; and, therefore, moved that the

Plan Commission find that the findings included as part of the Inter-departmental Review

Report be the findings of the Plan Commission and recommend denial of SPA 09-02ph.

Tom Knapp of T.R. Knapp Architects, 320 N. Main, and Lombard Town Centre. He

referred to the issue that came up earlier in PC 09-05 regarding Prairie Path Villas

signage. He indicated he is familiar with the issues of signage in Lombard and the

standards that have been put forward in the Sign Ordinance. What was unclear in this

case was exactly what was required. He spoke to Community Development staff and

asked what the requirements were and did not get them. The packet has the drawing

and is still not clear on there of what is being required. Staff mentions the channel

letters and the location, but what is shown is all the signage on awnings - it's not

possible to do signage on the awnings.

He is here now to specifically figure out that what is expected - are you trying to get that

particular type of signage or is it spot zoning? It is unclear what staff is looking for and

when trying to work with potential clients we want them to become more comfortable in

moving to the downtown and not make it more confusing. If the requirements are

unclear to him as an architect, everyone must be confused and this needs to be

clarified. Mr. Coffey doesn't want an open space on the building and has been waiting 8

months and it's not clear to him.

Mr. Stilling responded that in this particular case the request was in response to the

original planned development ordinance and specific to that location. There are certain

areas governed by the Zoning Ordinance but in this case the original petition seeking

the planned development included deviations to the Sign Ordinance which the Village

Board approved. This approval included an exhibit to that ordinance as to how the

signage should be developed on the property which indicated channel lettering.

Mr. Stilling stated he would be happy to sit down with him to discuss the situation

further.