Monday, April 20, 2009
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall
Plan Commission
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Andrea Cooper and Richard Nelson |
Staff Liaison: Christopher Stilling |
Meeting Minutes
Board Room
Plan Commission
Meeting Minutes
April 20, 2009
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Martin Burke, |
Commissioner Richard Nelson and Commissioner Andrea Cooper |
Present:
Roll Call of Members
Also present: Christopher Stilling, Assistant Director of Community Development; Stuart |
Moynihan, Associate Planner; and George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan |
Commission. |
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda. |
Christopher Stilling read the Rules of Procedures as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws. |
Public Hearings
PC 09-05: 300-312 S. Main Street |
Requests that the Village take the following action on the property located within the |
B5APD Central Business District Planned Development: |
Pursuant to Section 155.504(A) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance (major changes to |
a planned development), amend the conditional use for the Prairie Path Villas Planned |
Development, as established by Ordinance 5802, to allow for modifications to the |
approved signage plan. |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Flint, that this |
matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for denial. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke, Nelson and Cooper
6 -
PC 09-06: 433 East St. Charles Road (Paradise Bay Water Park) |
The Lombard Park District requests a variation to Section 153.501(B)(10)(a) of the |
Lombard Sign Ordinance to increase the maximum allowable area of a single wall sign |
from fifty (50) square feet to eighty and one half (80.5) square feet in the CR |
Conservation/Recreation Zoning District. (DISTRICT #5) |
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. |
The Paradise Bay Water Park facility is expected to be functionally similar to a |
commercial water park. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that this facility would have |
similar signage needs to a commercial operation of the same nature. The petitioner is |
requesting a relatively minor increase in signage size when compared to what would be |
permitted on the nearby commercially zoned properties along St. Charles Road. Staff |
finds that the petitioner has met the Standards for Variations and, therefore, |
recommends approval of this petition. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments among the Commissioners. |
There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. |
It was moved by Commissioner Flint, 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, Burke, Nelson and Cooper
6 -
1. The wall sign shall be installed in compliance with elevations and plans for the |
proposed sign prepared by FGM Architects and dated February 24, 2009. |
2. The petitioner shall apply for a building permit for the proposed wall sign. |
PC 09-07: 355 Eisenhower Lane South (Soaring Eagle Academy) |
Requests that the Village grant a conditional use, pursuant to Section 155.420 (C) of the |
Zoning Ordinance to allow a "Private School" within the I - Limited Industrial District. |
(DISTRICT #3) |
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: |
* Several floor time and therapy rooms |
* Kitchen and daily living 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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, |
that this matter be Recommended for approval to the Corporate Authorities |
subject to the amended condition(s). The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke, Nelson and Cooper
6 -
1. The subject property shall be developed in substantial compliance with the site plan |
prepared by Warren Johnson Architects, dated March 11, 2009, last revised April 10, |
2009 and floor plan prepared by Warren Johnson Architects, dated March 10, 2009. Any |
expansion of the school activity shall require an amended conditional use. |
2. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed |
improvements necessary to operate the school as proposed. Said permit shall |
satisfactorily address all IDRC comments. |
3. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive a Certificate of Occupancy for the |
proposed facility. The petitioner shall supply the Village with documentation from Illinois |
State Board of Education and the State Fire Marshall stating that the facility is |
acceptable for occupancy. |
4. All dumpsters located on the subject property shall be properly enclosed per Section |
155.710 of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance. |
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. |
SPA 09-02ph: 415 E. Roosevelt (High Point Center Shopping Planned |
Development) |
Requests site plan approval of a deviation from Section 153.505(B)(19)(b)(1)(a) of the |
Lombard Sign Ordinance to increase the maximum allowable area of a wall sign from |
twenty-five (25) square feet to thirty-eight and one half (38.5) square feet in the B4APD |
Roosevelt Road Corridor District, Planned Development. (DISTRICT #6) |
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. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, that |
this matter be denied. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke, Nelson and Cooper
6 -
Business Meeting
The business meeting convened at 9:00 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Christopher Stilling indicated that legal counsel suggested adding supplemental |
language to the motion for PC 09-05 indicating that the petitioner requested the |
continuance. |
On a motion by Sweetser and seconded by Flint, the minutes of the March 16, 2009 |
meeting were unanimously approved with the aforementioned change. |
Public Participation
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. |
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Chairperson's Report
The Chairperson deferred to the Assistant Director of Community Development.
Planner's Report
Christopher Stilling reminded the Commissioners about the special Plan Commission |
meeting scheduled for May 4 at 7:30 p.m. and noted that there would be two items on |
that agenda. |
Also for the Commissioners knowledge, the Village of Lombard received notice from |
DuPage County regarding pending zoning ordinance changes regarding workforce |
housing. Due to the quick turnaround time involved, a Resolution of Objection was |
submitted to the Board of Trustees for their consideration which they approved. The |
issues involved in the proposed County ordinance change related to bulk and density. |
They would not be consistent with Village policies and could ultimately have an impact |
on those unincorporated properties within the Village of Lombard's ultimate jurisdiction. |
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 9:08 p.m. |
__________________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
__________________________________ |
Christopher Stilling, Secretary |