Village of Lombard Legistar System

John Moroni, President, of Westgate Lincoln Mercury, of Lombard 500 E. Roosevelt

Road presented the petition. He stated that the plans are to renovate the front exterior

showroom area and add approximately 4,500 square feet of space to the Service

Department and additional quick lane garage area for small repairs and vehicle

maintenance. On the west side of the existing building, they propose to add office

space. He noted the exterior would be modified with the exiting shingles being removed

and a new black stainless appearance would be placed across the front of the building.

The building rear will be dark grey, consistent with the manufacturer's gallery design.

Ron Lubin, DePalma Architectural Group presented the elevations. He referenced the

new corporate design of Lincoln/Mercury dealerships. He showed the diagram showing

the additional office space and the new service area. A new waiting area for customers

is also proposed along with the four bay quick lanes.

He showed the elevational drawings and referenced the submitted material to be used in

the construction project. He showed another diagram of freestanding building and

explained what materials would be used. He concluded by noting that they are not

expanding the use beyond its current lot boundaries.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

There was no one to speak in favor of the petition.

Speaking against the petition was Michael Pylypczak, 1172 South Edgewood Avenue.

He stated that he has lived there for 17 years. When he first moved in, the dealership

was not adjacent to his property. He gave the history of the project noting the two

annexations, one of which was adjacent to his property. He complained that the

adjacent retaining wall encroaches onto his property. He raised concerns regarding the

asphalt added to the dealership site and extreme flooding to his lot and the adjoining lot.

He noted the shrubs and landscaping was to be maintained and has not been

maintained in the past. He invited the Commissioners to go on to his property. He

asked that the petitioner correct the deficiencies prior to going ahead and constructing

additional buildings and improving the lot.

Mr. Moroni rebutted by noting that he recently bought the dealership and he was not

aware of his concerns and this is the first he has heard of them. He said the

landscaping contractor has been hired and he will take care of the hedge trimming. He

said he has no knowledge of the other items that were mentioned, but he will address

the issues.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, reiterated the requested actions and summarized the

project. The conditional uses for automobile uses and for two principal buildings are

also intended to bring the site into compliance with the current Ordinance provisions. As

the site meets the minimum lot width and area requirements for a planned development,

planned development approval is also included as part of this petition. Also associated

with this expansion, the petitioner intends to replace the existing fascia with a new fascia

consistent with Ford's new corporate image for the Lincoln and Mercury models.

He then summarized the Inter-Departmental Review Comments. He stated that the

proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

He noted the parking lot and vehicle sales area will be slightly modified through

restriping on the east side of the building expansion area in order to ensure that

sufficient parking and staging space is available for customers seeking quick service

activities. The location of the existing security fencing will be modified to accommodate

this additional activity.

Mr. Heniff then reviewed the zoning history of the site. The portion of the subject

property along Roosevelt Road was originally developed under DuPage County

jurisdiction as an automobile sales use (Lombard Lincoln Mercury) in 1970. The Village

as part of an annexation, annexation agreement and rezoning petition in 1985

(Ordinances 2763, 2764 and 2765) approved a further expansion of this use. The

annexation agreement was established for a ten-year period and essentially recognized

the existing functions, design and operations of the existing business as permissible

during the life of the agreement. As the agreement has since expired, any structures or

uses on the property would be considered legal non-conforming.

When the property was annexed in 1985, automobile repair was a permitted use in the

B4 District. In 1990, a Zoning Ordinance text amendment was adopted that changed

the classification of automobile repair in the B4 District from a permitted use to a

conditional use. At that time, the automobile sales service and repair activities became

a legal nonconforming use. Westgate Lincoln Mercury relocated their franchise to the

site in 2000 and has recently acquired title to the property. They now seek a conditional

use to allow for the business expansion and to come into compliance with the Zoning

Ordinance. Given that the use has existed at this location for many years and is

surrounded by other commercial uses, staff feels that the requested conditional use is

appropriate at this location.

He noted that the Village's traffic consultant reviewed the petitioner's proposal. Based

upon their analysis, the small increase in additional trips projected to be generated by

the expansion (160 additional weekday trips; 13 weekday p.m. peak hour in-trips) can

be accommodated and is not anticipated to negatively impact the adjacent street

network.

He then noted that Westgate uses a paved area within the Fairfield right of way for

vehicle unloading. This practice has been done within this area prior to the annexation

of the subject property and the right of way into the Village. The 1985 annexation

agreement further noted that during the life of the agreement the Village would permit

parallel parking along Fairfield. As the annexation agreement has since expired, staff

recommends that this item be further addressed through a license agreement.

He noted that the Zoning Ordinance allows the construction and operation of more than

one principal building on a commercial property through the conditional use process.

Currently the site is improved with two buildings - a main building that has the new car

showroom, offices and repair facilities. The second building is for the used cars sales

office. As the requested

conditional use is intended to bring the existing structures into compliance with current

Village Codes and since the design and layout of the structures meet the bulk

requirements of the underlying district, this conditional use can be supported by staff.

He then discussed the request for conditional use approval for a planned development.

While the proposed expansion does not necessitate the creation of a planned

development, staff feels that as the subject property meets the minimum lot width and

area requirements and since the intent of planned developments is to address unique

attributes surrounding existing and proposed land uses, staff recommends the creation

of a planned development for this site.

He then referenced a signage deviation to allow for more than one wall sign per street

frontage. As depicted in the concept elevations, the petitioner intends to provide five

total signs on the building, of which there will be separate signs stating "Westgate",

"Lincoln" and "Mercury". The other two signs are informational in nature and are

intended to direct service customers to the appropriate location. An additional "used

cars" sign is proposed for the used car office. Staff finds that the signs are appropriate

sized and are reasonably located on the building.

He concluded that staff supports the petition subject to the conditions noted in the

report.

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

Commission.

Commissioner Olbrysh inquired about the flooding issue raised by the neighbor and

asked what the detention requirement would be for the project. Mr. Heniff noted that

additional stormwater accommodation would only have to be provided for that area

which is being disturbed by the development expansion. The specifics will be

addressed through the building permit process. As a further clarification of the

comments by Private Engineering Services, he stated that detention is not needed if

they are restriping or repaving the lot. However, if they reconstruct the lot, full detention

improvements would be required.

Chairperson Ryan stated that landscaping was not referenced in the staff report. Mr.

Heniff noted that there are parkway trees along Roosevelt Road and perimeter

landscaping on the other sides. Along the retaining wall on the north side, there is a

continuous hedge per the approved annexation agreement. As the petitioner's plans are

more of an internal improvement, the proposal does not require additional landscaping.

However, staff will verify that the site meets code.

Commissioner Flint asked if any special lighting concerns needed to be addressed. Mr.

Heniff stated that the petitioner does not propose to add any additional lighting to the

north side of the property. Staff will have the petitioner verify that it meets code.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the proposal is a welcome addition but the issues of

landscaping, flooding and encroachment need to be addressed.

1. That the petitioner shall develop the site essentially in accordance with the site plan

made a part of this request.

2. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed

improvements. Said permit shall include and shall satisfactorily address those issues

identified as part of the inter-department review comments noted within the staff report.

3. That any new fencing on the property shall meet the provisions of the Lombard

Zoning Ordinance.

4. That the owner coordinate with the Department of Community Development and the

neighbors to ensure the following:

a. Landscaping is per site plan and Village Code;

b. Landscaping is maintained;

c. Ensure that there is no encroachment on the abutting residential properties;

d. Flooding issues are addressed to the satisfaction of the Village and the neighboring

property owner; and

e. Ensure that parking lot lighting meets code.

Mr. Afzal Lokhandwala, 171 Glen Hill Drive, Glendale Heights, President of AFCO

Services Inc. presented the petition. He stated that he proposed to develop and

remodel the existing structure at 810 E. Roosevelt Road to convert it to an A&W/KFC

fast food restaurant. He presented color pictures and elevations for the commissioners.

He stated that the intent was to make a modern, efficient and aesthetically pleasing

development. He stated they intend to add landscaping to improve the appearance of

the property. He presented the landscape plan and continued that the front of the

property would have more landscaping than required by code. He added that he hoped

their efforts would upgrade the entire center.

Mr. Ken Taft, 1527 Monarch Circle, Naperville spoke in favor of the petition. He stated

he is a KFC corporate representative and submitted to the Plan Commission a booklet

containing pictures of elevations and interior designs of the A&W/KFC design concepts.

He stated that the petitioner would have two different franchises and would pay royalties

to two different companies.

Ms. Gloria Fay, 1240 S. Alpine Road, Rockford, stated she is representing the owner of

center, Auxxi and Associates. She brought pictures to show that the center currently

had poor visibility for the businesses as the buildings are set back far from the road and

existing parkway trees already blocked visibility. She noted that the landscaping on the

plan is more than is required by code. She stated that she did not feel it was reasonable

to be asked to do more than was required by code. She stated they were looking for

reasonableness and that visibility was the issue.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment.

Steven Wilt, franchisee of the Wendy's Restaurant at 820 E. Roosevelt Road, stated

that he saw that the A&W/KFC Restaurant wanted to have two signs. He continued that

his restaurant next door had only one sign and a reader board sign that they shared with

Midas Muffler. He wanted to know how he could get more signage.

Chairperson Ryan then requested the staff report.

Lisa Warren, Planner II, stated that the petitioners request Village approval so that they

may subdivide a 7.225 acre parcel to create a 40,000 square foot parcel with an existing

4,600 square foot structure that will be converted to a A&W/KFC Restaurant with a drive

through facility. She noted that the petition includes making the entire site a planned

development.

Ms. Warren summarized the comments of Private Engineering Services, Public Works

and Fire and Building.

Ms. Warren noted the comments from Planning. She commented that the 810 E.

Roosevelt parcel would meet code except for the variances for rear perimeter parking

landscaping and the wall sign variation. Staff is supportive of the plans for the site. She

continued that the existing shopping mall contains more than one building on a single lot

of record and has been functioning as a unified development. She added that by

making the entire parcel a planned development, additional improvements will be

required for redevelopment and it will be easier to encourage future redevelopment of

this entire parcel. The owner of the development will be required to make significant

landscaping improvements along Roosevelt Road to enhance the front of the

development. The proposed landscape improvements are more than is required by

code. The owner of the development will also resurface the parking lot of the entire

remaining development. Staff is also recommending that further interior parking lot

landscape improvements be made a condition of any further redevelopment of this

parcel. For example, if the Frank's Nursery and Crafts parcel were to redevelop or

requests are made to expand any of the buildings interior parking lot landscaping would

be required. Such staging of improvements would mean the current proposed

redevelopment could still take place but would ensure future improvements with further

redevelopment. Staff also supports the conditional use for a drive through

establishment at this site. Due to the signalization of the access road, this is a good

location for such a use.

Ms. Warren stated the landscape plan for the front of the property was intended to

soften the look of the development. The staging of landscaping improvements was

intended to respond to comments from the Plan Commissioners from the workshop

while still responding to the needs of the petitioner. The comments from the developer

regarding visibility have not been previously raised to staff.

Ms. Warren continued by discussing the traffic impacts of the project. She stated that

as part of the submittal, the Village's traffic consultant reviewed the site for its impact on

the Village street network. She stated that the findings were that an increase in trip

generation is expected with the redevelopment of the property. However, since the site

currently has access to Roosevelt Road via a traffic signal the additional trips are not

expected to significantly effect the traffic flow on Roosevelt Road.

Ms. Warren then discussed the issue of signage. She stated that the request for two

signs was because of the two franchises in the same building. She continued that the

amount of square footage meets code. Staff, she continued, is supportive of all the

requests with the five associated conditions.

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

Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser stated she saw the landscape proposal for the front of the

property and asked for additional comments from the other Commissioners.

Chairperson Ryan referred to the workshop last month and stated that they had been

looking to have landscaping through the entire property. He stated that he felt it was still

an issue if they wanted to have the entire development brought up to code right now.

Commissioner Flint stated that full landscape island treatments would create traffic lanes

and safety areas and felt that this was something important.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that whenever a property has been around a long time we

try to bring it up to code, all we have here are buildings and asphalt. He stated he

wondered if stormwater had been taken into consideration as no detention ponds were

shown on the property.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the proposal was to remodel an existing

structure, so there were no stormwater requirements. Ms. Warren stated that PES had

no comments on this plan because impervious surface was being decreased not

increased so this was seen as a positive regarding stormwater.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if anyone was aware of flooding problems? Mr. Heniff

stated that he was unaware of any flooding problems.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about the resurfacing of the parking lot, condition 3 and

that this would effect the impervious surface.

Ms. Warren stated that staff felt it would be acceptable to have the site develop as

proposed and when future redevelopment occurs, additional requirements be made for

the property. Staff felt that it is a good option to get this redevelopment project and that

the front landscaping would aid in encouraging further redevelopment of the property.

Commissioner Sweetser commented that if the developer thought that the proposed

landscaping was unreasonable maybe he should bring the entire site up to code.

Chairperson Ryan then stated he would address the issue that had been brought up by

the Wendy's Restaurant regarding signage. He stated that if they wanted to apply for

more signage they would have to go through a Plan Commission or Zoning Board of

1. All improvements shall substantially comply with the site plan prepared by Design +,

Inc. Louisville, Kentucky, dated April 29, 2002.

2. Landscaping improvements shall substantially comply with the landscape plan

submitted by Couture Landscape Construction, Lombard, IL., dated May 3, 2002.

3. The parking lot for the entire development shall be resurfaced as per Village codes

and specifications prior to an occupancy permit being issued for 810 E. Roosevelt Road.

4. Further redevelopment of the Planned Development or reconstruction of the parking

lot will be contingent on providing additional interior parking lot landscaping.

5. As indicated in the Zoning Ordinance, this conditional use shall be null and void

unless it is substantially underway within one year from the date of granting thereof, and

completed within 18 months thereof, unless extended by further action of the Village

Board prior to the expiration of the ordinance approving the conditional use.

Scott Richmond, attorney representing Mercedes Builders and Development, Inc., 474

Summit, Elgin, Illinois, presented the petition for residential subdivision at the corner of

Meadow Avenue and Rt. 53 which includes two (2) lots. One parcel will be annexed and

the other is already part of the Village of Lombard. Mercedes Builders is requesting

approval of a residential subdivision which will include 18 single-family lots and a

retention lot to the south of the property and variations to fence height requirements.

The first variation is to allow for an eight-foot (8') fence along route 53 and a six-foot (6')

fence on lot 10 on the northeastern most part of property along Meadow where code

permits four feet (4'). He stated that the fence will be set back forty feet (40') and will not

affect the clear line of sight area. He stated that the rezoning and 18 lot subdivision is

compatible with surrounding single family residential developments and is consistent

with the Comprehensive Plan. He referred to engineering issues in the staff report and

stated that the development fits in well with the neighborhood.

Mr. Nachreiner, 609 Meadow Avenue, Lombard, spoke on behalf of his mother who has

resided on property over 45 years. He stated that he is specifically interested in how the

neighbors will react to the development. He stated that the family also hopes that this

transition from a new resident from her old one will be a smooth one and they have been

satisfied with the fact that she has been well protected.

No one spoke against the petition.

Steve Youngson, 239 Cimarron, resides on west side of property. He referred to staff

report about preservation of landscaping and was wondering about the west side which

abuts their residences. He stated that the developer of his subdivision took great pains

to maintain the mature landscaping and he would like to see this on the other side.

Attorney Scott Richmond replied that the developer's plan is to preserve as much of the

natural trees and bushes as possible. It is their intent to do so because they are mature

and add value to the properties.

Margaret Gibbs, Planner I, presented the petition. She stated that Mercedes Builders &

Development, Inc. is proposing a new development on the southwest side of Meadow

Avenue and Rt. 53 which would consist of 18 single-family lots and a detention out lot.

Currently, one parcel of the proposed Meadow Cove subdivision is in the Village and is

zoned R2 Single-Family Residence District. She explained that the second parcel is

located in unincorporated Du Page County but is surrounded on all sides by the Village

and the developer seeks to annex and rezone the parcel from R1 to R2 Single-Family

Residence District to be consistent with the abutting parcels. She added that a

companion annexation/development agreement will also be included with the petition

and will be reviewed by the Village Board of Trustees.

Ms. Gibbs stated that the proposed plan calls for a cul-de-sac layout with nine (9)

single-family homes on each side of the street with detention provided on the south end

of the development. The proposed development will meet all lot width and size

requirements for properties in the R2 Single-Family Residential District and a path will

connect the site to the Great Western Trail through the detention area.

She explained that IDOT plans for Rt. 53 include substantially lowering of the roadway

so that it will be at the same grade as the proposed development. The developer has

allocated more land to the lots abutting Rt. 53 but also requests a variation to the

Lombard Zoning Ordinance to allow for an eight (8') foot solid fence along Rt. 53 for

buffering purposes. The developer also plans to request a variation to allow for a six (6')

solid fence in the corner side yard on Lot 10 of the development with the intention of

providing the 30' x 30' clear line of sight area.

Ms. Gibbs stated that the petitioner has been informed of the Engineering comments

contained in the report and is making final adjustments to the engineering plan which will

address these issues. She also stated that the development is compatible with the

Comprehensive Plan and surrounding land uses. With regards to landscaping, the Plan

Commissioners expressed a desire to ensure preservation of existing vegetation on the

site near Route 53. The petitioner intends to preserve as much high quality mature

landscaping along Route 53 and the Great Western Trail as possible but this will depend

on site engineering requirements.

Ms. Gibbs stated that the proposed subdivision will meet all Zoning Ordinance

requirements with the exception of the requested variation to the fence height. Although

the petitioner has allocated more land to the lots abutting Rt. 53, he requests a variation

to the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to allow for an eight (8') foot solid fence along Rt. 53,

where a six foot (6') fence is permitted. She stated that staff supports this request for

several reasons. First, the proposed Rt. 53 improvements show that the ramp over the

Great Western Trail will be lowered to grade level and may be widened from four (4)

lanes to five (5) lanes at this location. Ms. Gibbs explained that this could have a

negative impact on the proposed residential uses if they are not sufficiently buffered

from the noise, lights, and traffic on the roadway. Second, the Zoning Ordinance allows

lots in a residential district that abut property in a business, office, or industrial district, to

construct eight foot (8') tall fences along the property line adjoining such business,

office, or industrial district. Staff feels that Rt. 53 is just as intense of a use as a

business, office, or industrial use and so an eight-foot (8') fence is justified.

She added that the developer also plans to request a variation to allow for a six (6') solid

fence in the corner side yard on Lot 10 of the development with the intention of providing

the 30' x 30' clear line of sight area. Staff supports this request since the Rt. 53/Meadow

Avenue intersection is very busy, the six-foot (6') fence will not be extended into the

thirty-foot (30') front yard setback, and the clear line of sight area is maintained.

Ms. Gibbs stated that the proposed development is classified as a major development;

and as such, is required to provide public, fully-improved streets, sidewalks, street lights

and parkway trees within the adjoining rights-of-way. She explained that the Ordinance

allows for the installation of these improvements or payment of fees in lieu of installation.

Since the Rt. 53 right of way will be reconstructed, staff will require that the fees for

parkway and sidewalk improvements be collected in lieu of construction.

Lastly, Ms. Gibbs stated that the draft copy of the proposed Annexation and

Development Agreement for the proposed development is being finalized. The

Annexation and Development Agreement must be finalized prior to approval of the Final

Plat of Subdivision by the Board of Trustees.

Chairperson Ryan then asked the Commissioners if they had any comments.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the request makes sense and is a better use of the

whole parcel. She asked if the developer has any idea of what the homes will look like.

Scott Richmond stated that they will be semi-custom homes, starting at about $400,000,

two (2) stories, three (3) car garage, English style basements. The homes close to the

Great Western Trail will likely cost about $500,000.

Darryl Martin of Landmark Sign Group, 7424 Industrial Avenue, Chesterton, Indiana,

presented the petition. He referred to the sketches for the proposed signs for the Taylor

Brewing property at 707 Butterfield Road and explained that Option A would have to be

manually changed whereas Option B was an electronic message programmed by

computer. The CCB sign was originally proposed by Taylor Brewery in January, 1999

but they did not proceed with the changeable copy sign. He explained the advantages

and features of having an electronic message sign compared to a CCB sign. Mr. Martin

stated that they are not trying to set a precedent but trying to generate more business

for the Village of Lombard.

There was no one to speak in favor of the petition.

Patrick Libby, 700-720 E. Butterfield Road, spoke against the petition. He indicated that

he represents the property management company across the street. He stated that

most businesses in this corridor have a monument type of sign. He expressed concern

that should a scrolling sign be allowed, it will ruin the character of the area and have a

negative effect.

Mr. Martin rebutted to the scrolling sign issue. He indicated that the electronic message

center has numerous capabilities instead of scrolling- a message can either pop up, just

sit there, or be delayed.

Chairperson Ryan requested the staff report.

Margaret Gibbs, Planner I, presented the staff report. She stated the request, gave the

dimensions of the proposed signage and the sign requirements for the proposed sign

location. Public Works, Private Engineering and Fire and Building had no comments.

Planning comments include that the use complies with the recommendation of the

Comprehensive Plan, that there are no automatic changeable copy signs along the

Butterfield Road corridor, and that the proposed signage is not compatible with the

character of the surrounding land uses. She gave the zoning history of the Homestead

Village Office Planned Development and stated that Taylor Brewery requested a

variation to the Sign Ordinance to increase the number and size of permitted wall signs

and the plans showed a monument sign with landscaping. Mr. Gibbs referred to figure

C in the staff report and explained that the monument sign originally proposed was not

constructed and now the petitioner is requesting an automatic changeable copy sign.

She explained that the proposed type of sign is limited to certain zoning districts which

have a minimum of 500 lineal front footage.

Ms. Gibbs then referred to Figure D in the staff report which depicted the original

landscape plan. She indicated that should the request be approved, the landscaping as

shown will be required as part of the sign approval.

Ms. Gibbs reviewed the standards for granting a variation and stated that they are not

unique to the property. Staff feels that the request is not a justified hardship but a

financial concern; the proposed sign would not fit into the character of the neighborhood;

there are no site restrictions which would warrant a changeable copy sign, and approval

could set a precedence. Consequently, staff recommends denial.

Concluding, Ms. Gibbs did make note of a correction in the motion found in the staff

report, page 8, under Findings and Recommendations. The motion should read "Based

on the submitted petition, accompanying site plan and the testimony presented, the

proposed parking variations signage deviations does not comply……".

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

Commission.

Commissioner Flint concurred with staff and felt that this could set a precedence in the

area.

Sandy Wineinger, Grubb & Ellis, 747 E. 22nd Street, Lombard, who is representing the

owners, LaSalle Bank & Trust, and lessee of the property, presented the petition. She

began by stating that the staff report indicates that Romanek Properties own the

adjacent lot, which is incorrect. She explained that the lot used to be operated by

MidCon, but one parcel was sold to Romanek Properties and the other parcel is owned

by the Trust. She indicated that their monument sign currently exits on Lot 2, owned by

Romanek Properties, and they want to relocate the sign to Lot 1. She mentioned that a

representative from the sign company was present.

Brian Newton of Parvin-Clauss, 165 Tubeway Drive, Carol Stream, stated that he has

been supplied with elevations and site plans and distributed a digital picture to the

Commissioners showing where they want to relocate the sign. He stated that they want

to move a freestanding cube sign, which has already been removed, is in storage, and

waiting to be installed, on the 747 property. He indicated that the sign would be the only

identification and name recognition for that property and he recited the names of the

tenants and the number of years they have existed in the building. Mr. Newton stated

they wanted to get the sign approved and that there would be 818 lineal feet separating

the two signs.

There was no one present to speak in favor or against this petition.

Chairperson Ryan requested the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner I/C.E. Technician, presented the staff report. She stated

the request and mentioned there were two parcels involved in the petition, the first

parcel is located on the east side and the other parcel is located on the west side. She

explained where the signs would be located and the square footage of each. She stated

that the Sign Ordinance only allows one sign per street frontage. Consequently, this

request requires site plan approval.

Ms. Backensto gave the inter-departmental review comments. Private Engineering

Services and Public Works had no comments. Fire and Building stated that should

either of the signs be illuminated, an electrical permit must be obtained.

Planning comments state that even though the Ordinance permits one freestanding sign

per street frontage, staff does not feel that the additional sign on Parcel 1 will have a

significant negative visual impact due to the parcel having over 800 feet of frontage.

Staff does however, request that the north face of the cube sign be left blank due to the

sign's location across from a number of single family homes.

In conclusion, Ms. Backensto stated that staff recommends approval subject to the

conditions outlined in the staff report.

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

Commission.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the petitioners agree to the condition of leaving the

north face of the sign blank. The petitioner stated yes.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated he concurred with staff.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition. He stated that the Planning

Services Division of the Community Development Department is proposing a change to

the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to the maximum allowable size of detached garages

in single family residential districts. The current code allows for a single accessory

structure (including detached garages) to be up to ten percent of the overall lot size.

The proposed text amendment addresses previous direction from the Plan Commission

as part of a workshop session on May 20, 2002 and referenced the exhibits in the staff

report.

He noted that accessory structures such as detached garages could significantly

enhance the overall appearance and provide a great amount of flexibility in the

enjoyment of property. However, excessive sizes can have negative impacts on the

overall character of the neighborhood. In completing a review of 22 other DuPage

County communities, staff found that Lombard was the least restrictive in terms of

overall size. Staff believes that the current code for detached structures would allow for

structures that could be out of context with the surrounding properties, particularly in

neighborhoods with varying lot sizes. In review of several text amendment options, staff

recommends that an overall cap should be placed on the size of a single detached

garage.

He stated that the Fire Chief expressed a concern that large garages promote unusual

storage and/or business uses. This creates a significant fire issue due to the large fire

load, significant structure size and the volatility of the fire load. Additionally, detached

garages are most often located in the rear yard, which makes firefighting difficult and

time consuming.

He noted that the proposed text amendment would cap the overall size of a detached

garage at 1,000 square feet regardless of the overall property size. The standard is

recommended as it is ten percent of the minimum lot area size in the R1 District. As a

functional rationale, a 1,000 square foot structure could accommodate the storage of

four standard vehicles. As current code limits the overall number of vehicles that can be

stored in a required yard to five, staff feels this limitation is also consistent with other

established codes.

Chairperson Ryan then asked the Commissioners if they had any comments.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked, as a point of information, if a four-car garage is about

1,000 square feet then is a two-car garage approximately 500 square feet? Mr. Heniff

said yes. Commissioner Sweetser stated the proposed amendment captures the

essence of their discussions at the workshop.

Margaret Gibbs, Planner I, presented the petition. She stated that in October 2001 and

May 2002 the Plan Commission held workshops regarding a possible text amendment

to allow for roofed over porches to encroach into the thirty foot (30') required front yard

setback. She stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires all principal structures shall

have a minimum setback from the front property line a distance of thirty feet (30'). This

provision is to ensure a greater separation between structures and the right-of-way so

as to provide a more open streetscape within residential areas. She explained that the

code allows for decks and terraces that are not roofed-over within the required front yard

setback in residential districts.

She stated that the proposed text amendment would be identified as a permitted

obstruction within the required front yard in residential districts as listed in Table 2.1 in

Section 155.210 and reads as follows:

Roofed over porches which are unenclosed, constructed on footing or piers, and

projecting not more than seven (7') feet from the front wall of the principal structure,

provided that a minimum twenty-five (25') foot front yard setback is maintained.

She also noted the proposed definition of a roofed-over, unenclosed porch, which reads:

"is an attached structure with a roof that projects from the wall of a single family

residence which has over its entirety at least seventy-five percent (75%) of its area in

open construction which affords a direct view without screens, windows, or other

material through the porch."

Ms. Gibbs explained that based on this requirement a residence built at the 30-foot

building line would be allowed to construct a covered front porch extending five (5') feet

into the front yard (or 25 feet from the front property line). A residence built 35 feet from

the front property line would be allowed to have a front porch that encroaches only two

feet into the 30-foot required front yard since the allowable encroachment is based on

the front wall of the principal structure. The caps at 25' and 7' are to ensure that the

porches do not create a visual disruption to the existing house setbacks in the

neighborhood.

She stated that the proposed text amendment only allows for front porches that are

constructed on footings or piers since a full foundation could allow for its eventual

enclosure. The text amendment requires porches which encroach into the front yard

setback be at least 75% open and without windows or screens.

Chairperson Ryan then asked the Commissioners if they had any comments.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he believes this text amendment incorporates the

comments from the Plan Commission and likes the definition.

Commission Sweetser asked if the porch in slide #1 of the PowerPoint presentation is

75% open.

Ms. Gibbs replied that the porch in the slide probably exceeds the 75% open

requirement.

Chairperson Ryan stated that the seven-foot (7') length requirement is so the porch

cannot be enclosed.

Ms. Gibbs confirmed Chairperson Ryan's statement and explained that 7 ½' is the

minimum building requirement for a room.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner I/C.E. Technician, presented the staff report. She stated

that the petitioner is requesting site plan approval for a sign. She gave the dimensions

of the existing sign and the proposed sign. Ms. Backensto stated that Private

Engineering Services, Public Works and Fire and Building had no comments.

Planning's comments state that the subject property is compatible with the

Comprehensive Plan, surrounding land uses, and with the Sign Ordinance. She gave

the zoning history, the original site plan approval process and the reasoning behind

changing this petition on the agenda from a public hearing to site plan approval. She

indicated that since P.F. Chang's is technically not entitled to a sign on Butterfield Road

even though the restaurant is designed to be seen from there, the petitioner has

requested extra signage on the south wall to provide additional text visibility. Ms.

Backensto stated that the south façade is 400' from the Butterfield Road right-of-way

and this would allow traffic to see the signage and be able to turn into the location.

Ms. Backensto stated that staff supports this variation as the petitioner has unique

circumstances and the proposed signage is facing toward other commercial businesses

and would not be directly visible from any neighboring residential properties.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if the illumination plan states if the sign will be backlit.

Eric Smith, from Neon Prism Electric Sign Company, on behalf of Chandler Signs and

P.F. Chang's stated that the sign is actually identical to what they now but larger.