Village of Lombard Legistar System

John Mulherin, attorney for the petitioner, presented the petition. Mr. Mulherin

mentioned that last month the Board of Trustees approved an off-site parking lot that

would provide 93 parking spaces for DuPage Medical Group (DMG) employees. Mr.

Mulherin stated that following public hearings in 2001, ordinances were drafted

approving the construction of the DMG project as an Office Planned Development.

Ordinance 5070, Section 3, Subsection 7 provides a condition that the basement can

not be used for purposes other than storage/mechanical space. Mr. Mulherin stated that

DMG was requesting an amendment to the ordinance by adding "until adequate parking

is available to the building to meet the Village parking standards for buildings in the "O"

Office District".

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or

against the petition.

Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She referenced the

condition in Ordinance 5070 and noted that the condition was put into place because at

the time, the petitioner did not meet parking requirements to occupy the entire building.

She referenced the recent approval for an off-site parking lot to service DMG

employees.

Ms. Kulikowski discussed the parking requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. She noted

that the parking requirements for the O Office District are four spaces for each 1,000

square feet of occupied space after deducting storage and mechanicals as per code.

She stated that the DMG facility has two floors and a basement level, each of which are

approximately 22,575 square feet. Ms. Kulikowski mentioned that the main parking lot

adjacent to the facility provides 180 parking spaces. She stated that this was enough

parking spaces to allow them to occupy just the first and second floor and thus, the

condition of approval was instated. Ms. Kulikowski mentioned the recent approval of the

off-site parking lot employee parking. She noted that the additional 93 spaces would

allow DMG to meet the parking requirements for occupying an additional 23,250 square

feet of office space. She stated that between the main parking lot and the off-site

parking lot, the petitioner would meet the parking requirements to occupy the entire

building.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the original intent of the condition of approval was to assure

that parking requirements were met. The requested language "until adequate parking is

available to the building to meet the Village Parking standards for buildings in the "O"

Office District would preserve the intent of the condition of approval and also allow DMG

to occupy the basement after the off-site parking lot is completed.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission

members.

Commissioner Burke asked whether the off-site parking lot was exclusively for

employee use. He wanted to know how the Village would be able to distinguish the

proportion of the parking being used by patients versus employees. He also raised a

concern that while the project may meet the parking requirements established in Village

Code, there could be a deficiency as many of the spaces for the remote lot are use

restricted.

Mr. Mulherin responded that because of the nature of medical office facilities, most likely

the parking lot will not be full at any one time. He noted that doctors typically work

different hours at the facility and there is not necessarily a peak time.

Commissioner Sweetser also was concerned about the proportion of parking being used

by patients versus employees. She stated that the collective number of spaces had no

value, and that the numbers needed to be broken down by who used the spaces and to

what extent.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that allowing DMG to occupy more space would result in

more offices and more patients. He was concerned whether the parking would be

adequate. He noted that they may technically meet code, but they might not actually

meet parking demands.

Mr. Mulherin stated that the basement would be used primarily for diagnostic services.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she was not arguing against the petition, she just

commenting on the procedure for reviewing the petition.

Commissioner Burke also stated that he was not arguing against the petition, he just

wanted to know the ratio of employees and patient parking.

Mr. Mulherin noted that the parking lot currently is never full.

Mr. Mulherin mentioned that DMG entered into a lease agreement for parking across the

street (the Etz Chain property) with the intention of eventually occupying the basement

level not because there was a parking problem. He stated that there was no strict

means of enforcing the off-site lot for employee use only and that patients would never

park there unless the main lot was full. Mr. Mulherin mentioned that DMG does not want

to hurt business and would do everything possible to accommodate patient parking.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if four spaces per 1000 square feet was adequate

standard for parking in the future.

Chairperson Ryan remarked that maybe the employee only condition would have to be

eliminated and patients would have to be shuttled to the facility from the off-site parking

lot.

Commissioner Sweetser asked staff whether the Fire Department had commented on

the off-site parking lot having only one access point. William Heniff, Senior Planner,

replied that the Fire Department had reviewed the design and did not have any

concerns.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that adequate parking was available, and he was not sure

there was much more they could do.

Mr. Heniff stated that they could continue the petition or make a recommendation to the

Board pending a study to quantify the parking demand.

Commissioner Sweetser made a motion to accept the findings of the Inter-Departmental

Review Committee as the findings of the Plan Commission and recommend approval of

the petition pending a parking study, which was seconded by Commissioner Burke.

Loran Eatman, Vice President of Dan Development, presented the petition. Mr. Eatman

began by giving a brief description of the property. He stated that the property was

developed as a small retail strip center on Roosevelt Road. He noted that one of the

four tenants, Hertz car rental establishment, was a legal use under DuPage County

Zoning, but was a conditional use in Lombard's B3 District. He also mentioned that

similar approvals were given to an Enterprise car rental establishment that is also

located on Roosevelt Road. Mr. Eatman stated that Dan Development was willing to

comply with all conditions of approval. He mentioned that Dan Development intended to

add parking spaces upon zoning approvals. He noted that Village setback requirement

is less than the setback requirements under DuPage County, thereby allowing them to

expand their parking lot.

Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated that the

subject property is developed as a commercial strip center with four tenants on the

property: Verlo Mattress, Hertz, For Eyes, and Hair Design. There is a designated

wetland area on the southern portion of the property. She stated that the subject

property is contiguous to the Village from the north and west and is within an area that

will ultimately be annexed into the Village per Lombard's boundary agreements. She

stated that a companion annexation agreement will be considered by the Board of

Trustees, which includes a provision for the future removal of the existing billboard.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the subject meets all parking and bulk requirements for the

B3 Community Shopping District. She stated that no improvements or modifications are

proposed to the retail building itself. She mentioned that upon annexation, the petitioner

proposes to expand the existing parking lot on the north side of the building to provide

for an additional row of parking for patrons. Ms. Kulikowski stated that the proposed

location would meet the setback requirements of the B3 District.

In reference to the conditional use, Ms. Kulikowski noted that the motor vehicle rental

establishment opened operation on the subject property in the summer of 2004 and was

considered a permitted use under DuPage County Zoning Ordinance. She stated that

the petitioner is requesting a conditional use approval for a motor vehicle establishment

so that they can continue their use as a legally permitted land use upon annexation.

She noted that the rental establishment has a lease agreement with the property owner

that provides for two drop-off spaces in front of the store and ten vehicle spaces located

behind the buildings. Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff would have concerns if a greater

number of cars would be rented at this location; however, the limited number of vehicles

will ensure that the retail activities of the strip center remain the primary land use. She

noted that the parking with the strip center should not be negatively impacted.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the conditional use is compatible with the surrounding

properties, which consist of various retail commercial activities. In 1999, the Village

approved a conditional use for motor vehicle rental for a nearby B3-zoned property at

849 E. Roosevelt Road. She also noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that

the property be used for community commercial uses.

She then noted a change to the IDRC report, which modified condition 4 e for clarity

purposes.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments by the Plan Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked about Class D vehicles, referring to the amended

1. That the petitioner shall enter into an annexation agreement with the Village for the

subject property.

2. That the proposed parking lot improvements shall be constructed in accordance with

the submitted site plan prepared by Dan Development, Lombard, Illinois dated May 3,

2004.

3. Accessible parking spaces shall be provided in compliance with the provisions of the

Illinois Accessibility Code.

4. With respect to the conditional use for the motor vehicle rental establishment, the

use shall be operated subject to the following conditions:

a. That on-site storage of all rental vehicles shall be parked in the parking lot to the

rear (south) of the building.

b. That up to two spaces may be provided in the north parking lot for customer

drop-off and pick-up purposes.

c. No more than twelve rental vehicles may be parked on the site at one time.

d. Parking spaces shall be specifically marked and signed to ensure use by rental

vehicles only.

e. That the motor vehicle rental establishment use shall only be for passenger

vehicles, vans weighing 8,000 pounds or less and sport utility vehicles.

Christopher Coleman, of Dearborn-Buckingham Group Inc., presented the petition. Mr.

Coleman stated that the Dearborn-Buckingham Group Inc. specializes in infill

development in the suburbs. He described the location of the subject property and

noted that the development was previously workshopped before the Plan Commission.

He stated that the plans submitted for the workshop called for thirty-three units and the

current plan has twenty-two units. Mr. Coleman stated that this is approximately less

than fifty percent of what is allowed by code.

Mr. Coleman noted that the architectural design would be complimentary to that of the

Columbine Glen development. He stated that staff has made suggestions regarding

specific elements. He stated that some elements would differ from Columbine Glen

considering the Columbine Glen development is eight to nine years old. Mr. Coleman

stated that the units would consist of brick and low maintenance vinyl siding. He stated

that the first floor master bedroom included in the workshopped floor plans could not be

incorporated due to design changes. Mr. Coleman stated that he agreed with all

referenced conditions in the staff report and that he believed the use is consistent with

the Comprehensive Plan and should increase the value of neighboring properties. He

stated that they were not requesting many variations. Mr. Coleman explained that in the

event that he did not acquire the land owned by the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority

(ISTHA), one unit would be removed on the eastern side of the property as it

encroaches into that area. He stated that he believes that the property would be a good

addition to the Village and no exceptional burdens would be placed on schools or parks.

Mr. Coleman stated that the cul-de-sac could be extended at some future date if the

property to the south were to redevelop. He stated that if that were to happen an

additional building could be included within the Buckingham Orchard subdivision. Mr.

Coleman then introduced Michael Mondus of Spaceco, Inc.

Michael Mondus, of Spaceco Inc. discussed the drainage of the property. He stated that

the property drained from north to south, hence the detention pond was proposed for the

southeast corner of the property. He stated that a stub was provided by the Columbine

Glen development and they planned to connect to the storm sewer through the

Columbine Glen development. Mr. Mondus stated that their previous plan showed the

sanitary sewer line traveling through side yards to provide gravity. He stated that the

current plan would require the reconnection of 26 sewer services and the reconstruction

of the parkway. Mr. Mondus stated that this was more economically feasible than using

a lift station in light of staff's indication that utilities within side yards were frowned upon.

Mr. Mondus also noted the public improvements that would be included in the project.

Mr. Coleman stated that the original connection proposed through the side yards was

within a fifteen foot dedicated public utilities easement. He then introduced Karl

Krogstad. Mr. Krogstad discussed the landscaping plan and identified the type and

location of the plantings. He stated that hearty plants what would withstand the area

conditions were chosen.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Dixie Hahn, managing agent for the Columbine Glen Homeowners' Association,

distributed written comments. She stated that the association was concerned that

connection to their detention pond could increase flood heights. She stated that they

were concerned about how maintenance of the pond would be handled. Ms. Hahn

stated that they would like to review the engineer's calculations showing that one

hundred percent of the storage for the proposed development would be completely

contained on their site. Ms. Hahn also noted the association's desire to preserve the

existing vegetation between the properties.

Mr. Coleman responded that the maintenance of the detention areas could be

incorporated into the documents of the homeowner's association. He stated that the

chemicals used are probably similar. He stated that the financial numbers mentioned

were those that came out of conversations with the Columbine Glen board. Mr.

Coleman then requested that Michael Mondus address the technical questions.

Mr. Mondus stated that he could not speak to the specifics of the Columbine Glen pond

design. He stated that the system currently receives uncontrolled runoff from the

subject property. He stated that would be minimized once the controls were

implemented.

Ms. Hahn stated that the site is presently undeveloped with no homes or streets. She

stated that the water is presently being absorbed into the ground water.

Mr. Mondus replied that the pond would act as a sponge to slow water that accumulates

from the development. He stated that more water would come toward them, but it would

be controlled.

Ms. Hahn stated that the pond currently fills up and has overflown. She stated that the

development would increase the time that it takes for the water to dissipate.

Mr. Mondus stated that there is no municipal system that they can tie into. He stated

that there is no benefit or ability to bypass the Columbine Glen system.

Ms. Hahn stated that they would like the opportunity for their engineers to review any

calculations.

Mr. John Ripley, 340 Cimmarron, stated that he was concerned with the eastern border

of the property. He stated that he would like the preservation of as much vegetation and

foliage as possible. He stated that the foliage was removed in the Buckingham Meadow

development and there was no visual barrier left from one house to the next.

Mr. Coleman stated that the subject property was cleared about half way down the

eastern border. He stated that they would like to preserve as much vegetation as

possible, however there were improvements that have to go into the ground that may

prevent that. He stated that Buckingham Meadow is much better than most developers

leave a site. He stated that he would provide plant materials that provide year round

screening.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark noted that the comments

from the Inter-Departmental Review Committee were included within the report for

reference. She stated that the proposed development consists of a five lot subdivision

in which there will be three, six-unit buildings and one four unit building within a

cul-de-sac design. The remaining lot will be utilized as a detention pond for the

development. The cul-de-sac could be removed at a later date to extend the street in

the event that the properties south of the subject property are redeveloped. With the

exceptions of Lots 1 and 4, each building and unit will meet all setback requirements for

residences located within the R4 Limited General Residential District. Lots 1 and 4

encroach into the corner side yard setback area.

The subject property is located south of Pleasant Lane and land that is owned by the

ISTHA. ISTHA acquired a tract of land south of Pleasant as part of the initial

construction of the North-South Tollway. This strip of land was specifically acquired for

drainage and access purposes. However, as the area is not actively used by the

ISTHA, negotiations are currently taking place to transfer title of the land to the Village

as part of the public right-of-way. The Village would vacate that area to the petitioner. If

an agreement is reached, the buildings as shown on the site plan will meet all zoning

requirements.

In the event that an agreement is not reached regarding the surplus right-of-way, the

petitioner will need a variation to reduce the corner side yard setback from twenty feet to

fifteen for the end unit located on Lot 1. The northern end unit of Lot 4 would then need

to be removed as it encroaches fully into the setback yard and beyond the fifteen-foot

variation requested. Staff can support the variation request as the proposed

development will be closely aligned with the corner side yard setbacks of the

neighboring Columbine Glen development.

Included with the petition is a request for conditional use approval for a planned

development. As the proposed development meets the minimum lot width and area

requirements for a planned development, staff recommends the establishment of a

planned development for this site. Creation of the planned development will give the

Village an opportunity to review any future modifications of the subject property, as

discussed below. Moreover, the planned development will also provide a framework for

any future expansions of the development.

When the development was workshopped before the Plan Commission in November

2003, the commissioners stated that the development would be suitable if it were

consistent with the neighboring townhome development. Based on the preliminary

rendering submitted as part of the petition, the development is similar to that of the

Columbine Glen development.

Staff has advised the petitioner regarding specific architectural embellishments that

should be included to match the Columbine Glen development as follows:

The roof shingles in the development should match those of the Columbine Glen

development.

The windows in the dormer areas should be circular consistent with those within

Columbine Glen.

The recessed wall between the garages can alleviate the appearance of a row of garage

doors.

Appropriate right-of-way and transitional yard landscaping is shown within the submitted

landscape plan. However, the landscape plan submitted must be modified in

conjunction with the final engineering plans. Additional trees will be required around the

detention pond area to the equivalent of one per seventy-five feet as required in the

Subdivision and Development Ordinance.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends Estate Residential for the subject property.

Estate Residential is defined as a residential area with a net density of four or fewer

dwelling units per acres and primarily consists of single-family detached residences.

The proposed development is approximately 6.32 units per acre that is slightly larger

than the suggested number in the Comprehensive Plan.

As part of the Plan Commission workshop session, staff noted that single family

residential designation within the plan may not be appropriate for the subject property,

as it is located between Interstate 355 and the Columbine Glen townhome development

to the east. As the subject property borders an area similar in density to the proposed

development, staff finds that the proposed development is suitable for the surrounding

area. The Plan Commission expressed a conceptual support for a townhouse

development plan that is compatible in both architecture and development density the

Columbine Glen development.

When reviewing the approved subdivision plan for Columbine Glen, staff notes that

dedicated public right-of-way extensions were provided within the development to

connect the townhouse development to unincorporated properties both east and west of

the development. This strongly suggests that the intention was to have future

developments integrated into the Columbine Glen development. As such, establishing

development densities and design elements that are compatible with the existing

townhouses would be appropriate. Therefore, staff supports the change to the

Comprehensive Plan.

The site borders an attached single family development to the east and detached single

family uses on the north and south of the subject property. With inclusion of the

architectural elements and landscape improvement changes recommended above, staff

believes that the proposed use would be compatible with the existing residential land

uses.

The site currently consists of three lots. The petitioner plans to subdivide the lot into

four lots and an outlot for detention. Each proposed lot meets the minimum lot width

and area requirements. This development is both a major subdivision and a major

development as expressed in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance. Therefore,

the petitioner will be required to meet the provisions of Section 154.304 and 154.306.

This includes, but is not limited to, sidewalks, landscaping, parkway trees and street

lighting along the proposed new street as well as along the portion of Pleasant Lane

abutting the site. The companion subdivision plat would be submitted to the Board of

Trustees upon approval of final engineering for the subject property. Ms. Clark stated

that staff recommended approval of the petition subject to the conditions noted in the

staff report.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission

members.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if it were possible for staff to address the concerns of the

Columbine Glen residents regarding the landscaping. She stated that she understood

that there are reasons why landscaping may not be able to be saved.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that high priority is placed on storm water

management. He stated that staff has attempted to require engineering and detention

designs that will not create off site impacts. Mr. Heniff stated that staff is willing to walk

the property with the petitioner and the residents to identify what vegetation could be

salvaged.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she would like to see that happen even though

there could be reasons that all vegetation could not be saved.

1. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the Geometric Plan,

updated September 3, 2004, prepared by Spaceco Inc.

2. That the petitioner shall satisfactorily addresses all of the comments within the IDRC

report.

3. That the petitioner shall submit a revised landscape plan in conjunction with the final

engineering/geometric plans. Said plan shall meet the landscape planting requirements

as required by the zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances.

4. That the petitioner shall submit revised architectural drawings depicting the final

proposed design palette of the structures, the design of which shall be subject to the

approval of the Director of Community Development.

5. That the petitioner shall enter into an annexation agreement with the Village.

6. That in the event that the tract of land currently owned by ISTHA is not conveyed to

the petitioner, the site plan shall be amended to remove the northern most townhouse

unit on Building 3 as depicted on the submitted plan.

O. PC 04-32: 11 Eisenhower Lane South (Ordinance on Second Reading)

Requests approval of a conditional use for a concrete and cast stone fabrication facility

located in an I Limited Industrial District. (DISTRICT #3)

Carlo Verissimo, the property owner, presented the petition. Mr. Verissimo stated that

the request. He stated that his business is stone fabrication. He said that he read the

staff report and he is willing to comply with the conditions recommended by staff. He

said that he would answer any questions that the Commissioners may have.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or

against the petition. He then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark stated that the last known

use for the subject property was Borg-Warner Automotive Advanced Technology Center

that operated a research and development laboratory. The laboratory was a permitted

use within the Industrial zoning district. The petitioner acquired the subject property in

2003 to operate his stone fabrication business and showroom. Concrete and cast stone

fabrication and molding facilities are identified as conditional uses within the I Limited

Industrial District. Code enforcement staff received a complaint regarding excessive

litter in the area and upon investigation discovered that the existing tenant did not have

a Certificate of Occupancy. The petitioner applied for the certificate at which time staff

notified the petitioner that conditional use approval was necessary to operate at the

subject location. The petitioner requests approval of a conditional use at this time.

Ms. Clark stated that the petitioner's use as a cast stone fabrication facility consists of a

20,000 square foot facility of which 14,000 square feet is utilized for stone fabrication

and 8,000 square feet serves as office and showroom space. The facility specializes in

granite, marble, slate and limestone fabrication for various products. The petitioner

states that the fabrication area of the facility contains three cutting machines, two

polishing and edge machines, and an area for hand polishing. The site also contains an

area for storage of finished products.

The plat of survey submitted by the petitioner indicates that the subject property has 72

parking spaces whereas 21 spaces are required. However, the southern portion of the

parking lot appears to be utilized for outdoor storage. Therefore staff believes there are

actually 23 parking spaces based on the remaining spaces located on the northern and

western portions of the property. Furthermore, per Village Code, four of the required 21

spaces must be handicap accessible. While the subject property has sufficient parking

spaces, the parking lot must be restriped to reflect the necessary additional handicap

accessible parking space as well as the required signage per the Illinois Accessibility

Code.

Per code, a transitional landscape yard 30 feet in width is required where the rear or

interior side yard of an industrial lot abuts a residential district. A solid fence, between

six and eight feet in height, is also required along the entire length of the landscape

yard. The subject property has adequate transitional yard landscaping, however the

existing fence is chain link. Staff recommends the installation of a solid fence between

six and eight feet as designated by the Zoning Ordinance. Village Code also requires

that all storage, except for motor vehicles, be completely within enclosed buildings or

effectively screened by a solid wall or fence not less than six feet and no greater than

eight feet in height. Therefore, staff recommends the installation of a solid fence around

the outdoor storage area located on the subject property. Staff also recommends the

construction of enclosures for the trash receptacles.

Ms. Clark noted that there is a freestanding sign located in the front yard area of the

property and there are no permits on file for the sign. As such, staff recommends that

the petitioner obtain a building permit for the sign. She noted the sign requirements

within the Limited Industrial Zoning District. Ms. Clark stated that the use is compatible

with the Comprehensive Plan and neighboring land uses; therefore staff recommends

approval of the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan Commission

members.

Commissioner Flint asked for a clarification regarding the parking requirements - were

they based on a 20,000 square foot space? Ms. Clark stated that the parking was

based on the 20,000 square foot number. She stated that in the petitioner's plat of

survey depicted a 20,000 square foot building, but the response to the Standards for

Conditional Uses indicated the office and fabrication area square footage. Mr.

Verissimo clarified that the 8,000 square foot figure was provided in error and that the

office space is 6,000 square feet in size.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if there is any way that staff can monitor businesses

entering or leaving a site, considering the petitioner's occupancy was realized based on

a litter complaint.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that it is difficult to catch these instances right

away particularly given the nature of an industrial park where the changing of a business

may not be as obvious. He stated that when new businesses are identified staff informs

them of the necessary procedures for obtaining a certificate of occupancy.

1. That the petitioner shall provide four handicap accessible parking spaces designed

per the Illinois Accessible Code.

2. The petitioner shall construct a trash enclosure for the dumpster(s) on the subject

property. The enclosure shall be designed consistent with the Zoning Ordinance

provisions with the exterior enclosure walls being between six (6) and eight (8) feet in

height and constructed of wood or a solid screening material.

3. That the petitioner shall obtain a building permit for the freestanding sign located in

front of the property.

4. That the petitioner shall install a solid fence between six and eight feet in height

along the rear property line and around any outdoor storage areas, the design of which

shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development.

5. The petitioner shall obtain building permits for the construction of the fence, parking

lot restriping, and trash enclosure

SPA 04-07ph: 2360 Fountain Square Drive (Items 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 continued from

August 16, 2004)

Requests amendments to the approved site plan as follows:

1. Allow an additional outdoor dining area;

2. Allow modifications to the approved building elevations;

3. 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 east property

line's orientation to Fountain Square Drive as the property's "Frontage."

4. Allow a deviation from Section 153.207 (C) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow

for a moving (rotating) sign; (Item withdrawn by petitioner)

5. Allow a deviation from Section 153.208 (G) (2) (4) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to

allow for exposed light bulbs on an illuminated sign; (Item withdrawn by petitioner)

6. Allow a deviation from Section 153.277 (D) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow

a sign to project above the top of the building; (Item withdrawn by petitioner)

7. Allow a deviation from Section 153.277 (E) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow

a sign to project more than four (4) feet from the supporting wall of the projecting sign;

8. Allow a deviation from Section 153.239 (F) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow

a projecting sign to be displayed in conjunction with wall signs;

9. Allow a deviation from Section 153.505 (B) (16) (a) (1) of the Lombard Sign

Ordinance to allow for individual wall signs greater than 100 feet in area and to allow the

total sign surface area of all wall signs to exceed 117 square feet; and

10. Allow a deviation from Section 153.505 (B) (16) (a) (2) of the Lombard Sign

Ordinance to allow for multiple wall signs.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there would be anyone in the audience that would be

presenting evidence or cross examining the witness. Hearing none he requested that

the petitioner present their petition.

Robert Latham, Facility Manager with Uncle Julio's, 1125 Union Bower, Irving Texas,

presented the petition. He reviewed the initial request that was originally submitted for

Plan Commission at the August, 2004 meeting. He noted that the Commissioners

approved the outdoor dining component, but continued the petition for the proposed

projecting sign. The Commissioners also expressed a desire to see the petitioner

modify the proposed sign.

He then referenced their revised sign exhibit. The revised projecting sign removed the

"Uncle Julio's" rotating head which extended above the roofline. It was placed flush on

the east exterior wall. The light bulbs were removed from the arrow component of the

sign and the overall sign projection size was reduced as well.

Chairperson Ryan asked if the Commissioners had any questions of the petitioner.

There were no questions asked of the petitioner. Chairperson Ryan then asked if there

was anyone to speak in favor or against this petition. Being no one, he requested the

staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, then referred to the staff report. He noted that the

petitioner has submitted revised plans for the signage at the southeast corner of the

building. The petitioner's revised signage plans remove the need for three of the five

requested deviations that were initally listed in the public hearing request. Staff supports

the revised signage plans as it is more in keeping with the intent of the Sign Ordinance

and is compatible with the overall Fountain Square planned development.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for questions and comments from the

Commissioners. There were no comments from the Commissioners.