Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/2005 P&Z minutes 25-05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-25-05 Hearing Date: July 28, 2005 PETITIONERS: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: July 13,2005 REQUEST: REVIEW OF SIGN TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE VILLAGE CODE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo F10ros Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Clare Sloan, Neighborhood Planner Jason Zawi1a, Long Range Planner Elizabeth Schuh, Planning Intern Christina Park, Planning Intern Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Jim Usz1er, Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce Tom Zander, Downtown Mount Prospect Merchants Association and Picket Fence Realty Rita Dauphinee, Norwood Development! Alpha Properties Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the June 23, 2005 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. At 9:22 p.m. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-26-05 a request for text amendments to the Village Sign Code. She said that this case would be Village Board Final. Christina Park, Planning Intern, reviewed the Staff Memo on behalf of the Village. Ms. Park said that this case is regarding proposed changes to the downtown sign regulations. This case evolved from a request by the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Merchants Association that the Village permit downtown businesses the use of sidewalk signs. Staff took a comprehensive look at downtown signage and determined that downtown businesses have less signage opportunity than businesses in other commercial districts. Staff then took this issue to the Committee of the Whole Meeting on June 14, 2005 where three items were put up for consideration: directional kiosks, sidewalk signs, and projecting signs. The Village Board was supportive of all three items and directed Staff to draft the necessary text amendments and bring it to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Park said that the first issue, the use of directional kiosks downtown, does not require any changes to the current Sign Code. She said that directional kiosks would be permitted as "notice boards" under the sign code. Directional kiosks would be used to identify downtown businesses and upcoming Village events and would be located at the train station and other downtown sites. The Village currently has a Downtown Signage Program that was adopted in 2003 by the Village Board. This document includes examples of "Village Kiosks" and PZ-25-05 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 28, 2005 Page 2 proposes locations for their placement. Staff also took a look at examples of directional kiosks in other nearby communities, including Glenview, which uses these types of sign at The Glen. The other changes that Staff is proposing both require text amendments. These changes include 1) permitting all businesses in the downtown the use of sidewalk signs, 2) expanding the geographic area denoted in the ordinace as the "Special Area of Control" to permit projecting signs in a greater area and 3) permitting the use ofprojecting signs in combination with smaller wall signs. Staff performed extensive research on the use of sidewalk signs in the communities surrounding the Village. Few communities allow sidewalk signs, although several permit them downtown. Most municipalities do not have any specific regulations regarding these types of signs and many look the other way when businesses use them. Staff also found that the Village Plans, including the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown TIP Plan, support the use of special signage as a way to create Village identity and promote downtown businesses. The text amendment that Staff is proposing has provisions that would regulate the use of sidewalk signs in a number of ways. First, only one (1) sign would be permitted per business and they would be limited in size to four (4) feet in height with a maximum of two (2) sign faces, six (6) square feet each. Sidewalk signs would be permitted in the B5 and B5C zoning districts and must be placed a maximum of one (1) foot from the building to ensure they are geared towards pedestrians. These signs would be permitted during business hours only and would be prohibited during times of snow, high winds, or when the signs would impede the movement of pedestrians. Permitting and Insurance was another issue. Staff is recommending that a permit only be required when the sign is placed on public property at which time a business would need to provide the Village with proof of all necessary insurance. The second text amendment would change Exhibit 1 of the Sign Code thereby expanding the "Special Area of Control." This change would expand the use of projecting signs to all areas zoned B5 and B5C. The amendment would also permit businesses the use of a combination of projecting signs and wall signs, provided that the wall sign does note exceed 25 percent, instead of 50 percent, of the signable area. The intention of this change is to increase visibility for downtown businesses. Staff also looked at examples of this combination of signs in surrounding communities such as G1enview. Ms. Park then briefly summarized the proposed changes and said that Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the text amendments as written as they meet the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. This case is Village Board final. Ronald Roberts asked whether Staff's recommendations would permit the projecting and sidewalk signs to be illuminated. Ms. Park responded that illumination of sidewalk signs would not be permitted, but illumination of projecting signs in already permitted. Mr. Roberts then asked if in G1enview, where examples during the presentation were shown, exceptions are made for The Glen that allow businesses to use these types of signs. Ms. Park stated that the Village of G1enview works with management at The Glen and may make certain exceptions for this development. Richard Rogers asked how the Village plans on policing signs in the downtown area. Ms. Park explained that the Community Development Department has an employee in charge of sign enforcement who polices the Village, especially the community's main corridors. He would be in charge of enforcing any new sign regulations. Arlene Juracek asked about the maximum width of the projecting signs at four (4) feet. She noted that it seemed large and asked about the size of the current projecting signs downtown. Ms. Park estimated that the local projecting sign examples shown are all four (4) feet in width. She also explained that in areas where the frontage may be narrower, the code states that the sign can only project to within 2 feet of the curb line. PZ-25-05 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 28, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Roberts again asked about illumination in regards to projecting signs. Ms. Divita clarified that what Staff is proposing is only that the area permitted to use projecting signs downtown be expanded and that projecting signs be permitted in combination with smaller wall signs. Staff is not recommending that changes to the projecting sign regulations be made. Joseph Donnelly voiced concerns that every business downtown would install a projecting sign if the amendment is approved and that in certain areas, such as along Northwest Highway, the street will look very busy. Ms. Divita responded that these types of signs do create a certain character in a downtown district and that combination of projecting and wall signs would decrease wall signage downtown. She also noted that projecting signs are most often placed higher on buildings, where they appear much smaller, and that they are especially helpful for pedestrians trying to identify businesses. Mr. Roberts said he was concerned that if all of the businesses use projecting signs it will alter the new streetscape downtown. Ms. Juracek noted that other municipalities have appearance standards for signs and expressed her feeling that the Commission would be more comfortable if the Village had similar standards in place. The Commission discussed various ways that projecting signs could be aesthetically regulated and ways the signs could be made more uniform. Mr. Rogers said that they also had to be conscious of the fact that some major roads run through the downtown and they have to keep automobile safety in mind. Mr. Roberts said that he had additional concerns regarding sidewalk signs and how they will affect the appearance of downtown. Ms. Divita once again noted that Staff was only proposing the expansion of the area permitted to use projecting signs and that they be permitted in combination with smaller wall signs. Ms. Park noted that some of the areas the Commission was concerned about are already permitted to use projecting signs, but are choosing not to. Tom Zander, with Picket Fence Realty, was sworn in. Mr. Zander spoke briefly about efforts being made by the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Merchants Association, and the Village to promote the downtown. He noted that the groups are working to try and create a more pedestrian friendly downtown and that the merchants support Staff's recommendations regarding changes to downtown signage. Jim Uz1er, Executive Director of the Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce, was sworn in. He said that he agreed with Mr. Zander's remarks and noted that the merchants are trying to make the downtown better for pedestrians. He also said that the merchants want to be able to use tasteful signs to help them survive in the midst of downtown redevelopment. Rita Dauphinee, a member of the Downtown Merchants Association, was sworn in. She said that she spoke with Michael Martin, the owner of Le Peep Restaurant, and that he told her that when he was told by the Village to remove his sidewalk sign he saw an immediate decrease in daily sales, though business has since improved. Ms. Juracek verified with Staff the details of their recommendation. Mr. Rogers said that his concerns are only with projecting sign, not sidewalk signs. He said he wants some kind of appearance board or uniformity among the signs. Ms. Juracek asked if provisions could be added to the projecting sign regulations regarding construction and maintenance. Ms. Park responded that these types of regulations already exist in the sign code that apply to all signs. Ms. Juracek asked if Staff felt they had the power to remove signs they deemed "gaudy" or "inappropriate." Ms. Divita said she would like to defer to the Village Attorney for that question. She said that she had considered the idea of making projecting signs a conditional use. She clarified with the commission if they wanted to see conditional use review on all projecting signs or in cases where projecting signs were being used in combination with wall signs. The Commission expressed consensus for the former: conditional use review for all projecting signs. PZ-25-05 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 28,2005 Page 4 The Commission discussed how to vote on the issues. Ms. Park clarified that only the text amendments regarding sidewalk signs and projecting signs need to be voted on. The directional kiosk issue was for informational purposes only. Ms. Juracek asked if there were any questions from the audience. There were none and the Public Hearing was closed. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve the amendments as written with the caveat that all projecting signs be made a conditional use. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. Chairman Juracek closed the hearing at 10:01 p.m. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Halland, Roberts, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. At 10:03 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Christina Park Planning Intern