HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/0005 P&Z minutes 05-05
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CORRECTED 3/25/05
CASE NO. PZ-05-05
Hearing Date: February 24, 2005
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
1000 Mount Prospect Plaza
PROPERTY OWNER:
Stoltz Management
PETITIONER:
Troy Funk, Authorized Agent for Kieffer Signs
for Staples Office Supplies Store
PUBLICATION DATE:
February 9,2005 Journal/Topics
PIN#:
03-35-301-036-0000
REQUEST:
Variation - Oversized Wall Signs
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Arlene Juracek
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Ronald Roberts
Richard Rogers
Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Merrill Cotten
Matt Sledz
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Steve Hergenrader
Troy Funk
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the
minutes of the January 27, 2005 meeting and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion; the motion was approved 6-0.
Under Old Business, Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue PZ-50-04 to the March 24, 2005 meeting.
Richard Rogers made such motion, seconded by Joe Donnelly, and it was approved 6-0. After consideration of
two other cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-05-05, 1000 Mount Prospect Plaza, Staples Office Supplies,
a request for a Variation for Oversized Wall Signs. She said that this case would be Planning & Zoning Board
Final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. The Subject Property, the former TJ Maxx, is located in
the Mount Prospect Plaza Shopping Center and is an end unit in a retail shopping center. It is zoned B3
Community Shopping and is bordered by the B3 district to the west, east, and south, and R5 Senior Citizen
Residence to the north.
The Petitioner has submitted exhibits that indicate two wall signs would be installed on the front and side
elevations of the building. A red metal band would be installed along the entire side elevation and portions of the
front elevation. Staff reviewed the proposal to determine whether the red metal bands being used as a background
material for the wall sign text should be considered as part of the sign. Staff could not cite previous sign
proposals that included a colored metal band. Per the Sign Code, a sign is defined as "any surface, object, device,
display, structure or fabric which is used to advertise, identify, display, direct or attract attention to an object,
person, institution, organization, business, product, service, event or location by any means; including but not
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-05-05
Page 2
limited to words, figures, designs, symbols, fixtures, colors, illumination, projected images, or forms shaped to
resemble any human, animal, product or object." If the Petitioner submitted a 'box sign' the entire box would be
calculated as a sign. However, in other sign permit reviews, Staff has not counted painted "bands" that were
made of the same material as the sign, i.e., Shell Gas Station.
The proposed Staples wall signs include white text placed over a red metal background. The Petitioner is seeking
relief for the size of the wall sign on the front elevation of the building and possibly the remainder of the sign
package subject to the P&Z's interpretation of the red metal bands and background. The Sign Code allows signs
to cover 50% of the signable area, up to 150 square feet. The Petitioner is seeking relief from Sign Code
regulations to install a 276.9 square foot wall sign, text only on the front elevation of the building. The table in
the Staff Report itemizes the components and square footages of the Petitioner's proposal. Basically, a 276.9 sq ft
wall sign on the front elevation or if it is determined that the red bands are signs, then: a 376 sq. ft. wall sign on
the front elevation; approval for the red bands; and a 168 sq ft wall sign on the side elevation plus the red bands.
In order to approve the proposed sign package, the P&Z must find the request meets the standards listed in the
Sign Code. The standards relate to: the sign allowed under code regulations will not reasonably identify the
business; the hardship is created by unique circumstances and not serve as convenience to the petitioner, and is
not created by the person presently having an interest in the sign or property; the variation will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood; the
variation will not impair visibility to the adjacent property, increase the danger of traffic problems or endanger the
public safety, or alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and be in harmony with the spirit and intent of
this chapter.
The front elevation, Rand Road, of the building measures slightly more than 129 linear ft. and the signable area
measures approximately 476 sq.ft., 34'x 4',. The Petitioner is seeking relief from code regulations that limit the
maximum size of a wall sign to 150 sq.ft. and would like to install a sign that measures almost 277 sq.ft. The
actual text measures 276.9 sq.ft. but the red metal background would cover 384 sq.ft., 32'xI2'.
The Sign Code allows for signs larger than the maximum listed in the Sign Code when the sign meets certain
criteria. The Petitioner would be eligible for the 15% bonus (172.5 sq. ft.) if the letters were mounted directly
onto the building. However, the Petitioner's proposal exceeds the maximum size including the bonus and
requires a Variation.
Essentially, the proposed wall sign without the solid red background would cover a significant amount of the
signable area, 58%. However, its size would not be uncharacteristic in comparison with the other signs at the
center unless the red background is included. The red background would cover 79% of the signable area.
Another section of the Sign Code lists regulations for signs in shopping centers. This section requires
architectural harmony and unity of signs within a unified business center. The proposed wall sign has a solid red,
metal background whereas the other signs in the shopping center are placed directly on the building elevation and
do not include a colored background. Staff has allowed flexibility for different colors and text fonts within the
Mount Prospect Plaza Shopping Center in the past. However, the proposed wall sign differs significantly from
the other signs in the center.
Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the proposed wall sign as
submitted by the Petitioner because it is not in keeping with the character of the other signs in the shopping plaza.
Staff would support the same size sign if it were modified to exclude the solid color background. In addition,
Staff recommends a different material for the red bands so they appear as an architectural element. The Planning
& Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case.
Ms. Connolly then asked the Board, "It has been determined that the red metal bands used as a background
material in conjunction with the wall text does constitute signage; however, when it's independent and doesn't
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-05-05
Page 3
have text or symbols it is not signage, correct?" Richard Rogers said, "That's how we interpreted the Code in the
past." Ms. Juracek said, "There are two rectangles that say Staples, those are signs, the other stripes are not signs
at all, right?" Ms. Connolly said, "Based on what I'm hearing, no."
Ms. Juracek asked what the standard is for the side elevation, as she didn't know what to compare it to. Ms.
Connolly said what Staples had submitted was 150 sq.ft. Ms. Juracek asked if they are allowed a Code limit of
150 sq.ft. sign on each elevation and Ms. Connolly said yes.
Troy Funk, 585 Bond Street, Lincolnshire, IL, National Account Manager for Kieffer Signs and Steve
Hergenrader, Project Manager for Staples at 11624 Jackson Road in Omaha, Nebraska, were sworn in. Mr. Funk
said Staples is entering the Chicago market March 7 when they will have 8 new stores open and the Mount
Prospect Store will be part of the second group to open the first week of May. He said the red background is
actually part of the building in addition to being part of the Staples identity. Mr. Hergenrader says he feels the
raised letters are necessary since they are set back so far from Rand Road. He also feels to tell them not to use the
red metal band is like telling Target not to use the "target" logo. He did show several pictures of exceptions they
had made in the past. He said they could shrink the size somewhat but it loses balance and is not as attractive. He
said they do not like to use paint because it is a maintenance problem.
Board members said they favored the sign without a white border around the red bands. They also discussed the
size and colors of signs to be used in various surrounding communities. They will not use any white Dryvit. Mr.
Hergenrader said this will be the largest market entry that Staples will have, and they have 1,500 stores.
Mr. Youngquist suggested they show the complete building elevation for better clarity in their future
presentations.
Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the request for a Variation - Oversized Wall Signs for the property at
1000 Mount Prospect Plaza, Staples, PZ-05-05 as follows: a red sign, pillar-to-pillar, filling the entire space with
red background, and individual white letters 5'high for Staples, and the rest of it in proportion. Joe Donnelly
seconded the motion.
Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development, Recording Secretary for the meeting asked for and
received this further clarification before the vote: Following items are all satisfactory to the Board: Use of red
metal material; Side wall signs-4 foot letters and no white border; Front wall sign-5 foot letters (red background
behind the sign actually being a wall panel not part of the sign); White cornice on very top of façade to have white
stripe between bottom of sign and red awning.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek
NAYS: Roberts
Motion was approved 5-1.
Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 11 :28 p.m., seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by
a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
C,lDocumcnts and Settings'kdcw;s\Loc,1 SCUmgs\Tcmp"nny Internet FHesIOLKlIPZ-05-05 1000 MP PI,", Staples W,II Sign1.doc