Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/2005 P&Z minutes 31-05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-31-05 Hearing Date: August 25, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1821 W. Golf Road PETITIONER: Dave Tometz, Whiteway Signs (Agent for Property Owner) 1317 N. Clybourn Ave, Chicago, IL 60610 PROPERTY OWNER: Mansions of Mount Shire, DiMucci Partners 837 Management Inc. PO Box 95838 Hoffman Estates, IL 60195 PUBLICATION DATE: August 10,2005 PIN #: 08-15-202-021-0000 REQUEST: Special Use and Variation – electronic message board sign MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: ChairArlene Juracek Marlys Haaland STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES : Dave Tometz, Whiteway Signs Acting Chair Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0 with Leo Floros and Keith Youngquist abstaining from the vote. At 7:57 p.m. Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-31-05 a request for Special Use and Variation for an Electronic Message Board sign at 1821 W. Golf Road. He said that this case would be Planning & Zoning Commission Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. She said that the Subject Property, The Mansions of Mount Shire, is located on the south side of Golf Road, between Grove and Oakwood Drives, and consists of a 512-unit multi-family development. Although the development includes multiple buildings and is an apartment complex, it is zoned RA Single Family. The Subject Property is bordered by the CR Conservation Recreation district and R1 Single Family Districts to the north, B3 Community Shopping to the east, RA Single Family to the south, and R4 Multi-Family Residence to the west. She said the Petitioner is seeking approval to replace the existing freestanding sign on Golf Road. The existing sign includes the name of the complex, and it is used to advertise vacancies, on-site amenities, and the leasing agent’s hours of operation. During the Staff review, it was determined that the size of the proposed sign face exceeds the Sign Code limitations. The Sign Code limits the size of the sign face for residential developments Richard Rogers, Acting Chair PZ-31-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2005 Page 2 located on an arterial street to 35 square feet; she said that the 12’ height complies with Sign Code regulations. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking Special Use approval for the electronic message board component of the sign as well as a Variation to permit a 68.7 sq. ft. sign face. Ms. Connolly said that the amount of permanent information on the new sign face will be minimal in comparison to the existing sign. The Petitioner proposes to use the electronic message board for changing information such as vacancies and special rent promotions. The Sign Installer proposes to reuse the existing supports, but the size of the sign face will be reduced. Currently, the sign measures approximately 12’ from grade and the sign face measures approximately 84 square feet. The new sign will be internally illuminated and have a brick base. Ms. Connolly stated that the plans submitted do not indicate whether the area around the sign will be landscaped, as required by the Sign Code. Ms. Connolly explained that in order to approve the Petitioner’s request, the P&Z has to find that the proposed freestanding sign meets the criteria for a Variation because the sign face exceeds the maximum size permitted. She summarized the standards for a Variation and said that the existing 84 sq. ft. sign face exceeds current Sign Code regulations. The Sign Installer estimates the age of the existing sign to be more than 20 years old, which predates current Sign Code regulations. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a 68.7 sq. ft. sign face because the 35 sq. ft. sign face permitted by the Sign Code would not be in scale with the development and the text would be difficult to read. Also, the size of the proposed sign face would be smaller than the existing sign face. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner’s request would not adversely impact the neighborhood or the adjacent properties. However, the Petitioner’s submittal did not include landscaping for the area around the base of the sign. She said that landscaping this area, even using larger container planter boxes, would somewhat improve the aesthetics of the parking lot. In addition, the Sign Code requires the base of freestanding signs to be landscaped. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Petitioner submit a landscape plan, as required by the Sign Code, before a Sign Permit may be issued. Ms. Connolly said that in order to approve the electronic message board, the P&Z has to find that it meets the standards for a Special Use, which are listed in the Sign Code. She summarized the standards and said that the Subject Property has expansive frontage on to Golf Road and that the size of the sign is consistent with other signs for commercial properties in the area. The proposed electronic message board would include one line of 12” text used to display current information about the apartment complex. The sign would be located more than 700’ from the recently approved electronic message board sign at CVS. The Village’s Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposal and found that the electronic message board would not adversely impact traffic, even with the addition of the CVS sign. In addition, Staff found that the design of the proposed sign would not create a negative impact on adjacent properties. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed sign meets the standards for a Variation and Special Use because the site has expansive frontage onto a major arterial road; the size of the proposed sign would be smaller than the current sign; and the proposed sign will have less text than the current sign, which minimizes the amount of ‘visual clutter’. She said that Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: “To approve a Variation to allow a 68.7 sq. ft. sign face as shown on the Petitioner’s exhibit and to approve a Special Use permit to allow an electronic message board that has one line of 12” text subject to the following conditions: prior to obtaining a Sign Permit, the Petitioner shall submit a landscape plan that shows the base of the sign will be landscaped (at a minimum installing planter/container boxes) as required by the Sign Code; the text shall not change more frequently than every 15 seconds (which is consistent with the CVS sign); and the proposed sign shall comply with the standards listed in Sec. 7.330.A of the Sign Code.” Ms. Connolly said that the Planning & Zoning Commission’s decision is final for this case. Mr. Rogers asked if a permit was issued for the existing oversized sign. Ms. Connolly said the Village does not have a record of issuing a sign permit for the existing sign. She said that it is possible that since the parcel is zoned R-A, which Richard Rogers, Acting Chair PZ-31-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2005 Page 3 is a nonconforming zoning classification, that the property may have been annexed into the Village already developed with the existing sign. Mr. Donnelly expressed concern about the placement of multiple smaller yellow signs near the existing sign and wanted to know if Staff should include another condition prohibiting this type of signage. Ms. Connolly said that would not be necessary because it was a violation of the Sign Code to use this type of signage and that she already notified the Property Owner, who agreed to remove the signs immediately. Mr. Youngquist inquired if there were any other apartments or rental complexes that had electronic message boards in the Village. Ms. Connolly replied no. Mr. Rogers wanted to clarify that there were two issues at hand: 1) the size of the signage and 2) the electronic message board center. Ms. Connolly confirmed that was correct. Dave Tometz, of Whiteway Signs, 1317 N. Clybourn Ave., Chicago, IL, was sworn in Mr. Tometz explained that the existing 84 square foot double sided sign would be removed. The new sign would measure approximately 68 square feet and reuse the existing supports and foundation of the old sign. He said that the masonry base would now include landscaping as noted in the Staff Report. He presented a revised exhibit of the proposed sign that showed a brick planter to be installed and that it would match the existing building. Mr. Tometz said that the message center would be a low impact LED illumination featuring one line of text and would change every 15 seconds. The message center would feature rental information and the time and temperature. The sign itself would be constructed of half inch plastic, internally illuminated and covered by vinyl to give a shadow effect to the text and logo of the Mansion Apartments. Mr. Donnelly asked if the Petitioner was planning to use red or amber illumination for the sign. Mr. Tometz replied that the sign would use amber lighting. Mr. Donnelly further asked if the white background for the sign was going to be lit internally or externally. Mr. Tometz replied that the lighting was going to be internally illuminated with a high output illumination. Mr. Donnelly then asked if one line was enough room for the sign, because he usually sees signs with three lines. Mr. Tometz replied that this was intended to be a low impact sign and one line was sufficient. Mr. Youngquist asked if the height of the message center was sufficient to adequately display the message, as three feet from grade could be easily obstructed. Mr. Tometz replied that this was a typo on the drawing that he just showed to the Commission and that the sign is actually 12 feet overall; he said that the message board would be mounted 4 feet from grade. Mr. Rogers asked if the Petitioner was aware that 12 feet is the maximum height for the sign and that the landscaping was required for the sign. Mr. Tometz said he was aware of the requirements. Ms. Rogers asked if there were any questions from the audience. There were none and the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Rogers confirmed with Ms. Connolly that one vote for both requests was appropriate. Ronald Roberts asked Ms. Connolly if there were any restrictions for the brightness for self illuminating signs. Ms. Connolly said the Village Code had nuisance regulations that could be applied if the Director of Community Development determined that the sign was too bright and needed to be illuminated at a level that would minimize the nuisance. Mr. Donnelly said that the proposed sign was an improvement compared to the existing sign and that the single line of text would not create a traffic hazard. Mr. Roberts agreed that this sign is an aesthetic improvement over the existing sign. Mr. Youngquist said that the electronic message board sign should help better advertise apartments for rent and their amenities. Mr. Rogers stated that he hopes this would decrease the use of banners for advertisement. Mr. Roberts stated he could support the request for only one line of text, but he would have been inclined to vote against the sign if it had the multiple lines of text. ichard Rogers, Acting Chair PZ-31-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2005 Page 4 Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve a Variation to allow a 68.7 sq. ft. signface as shown on the Petitioner’s exhibit and to approve a Special Use permit to allow an electronic message board that has one line of 12” text subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to obtaining a Sign Permit, the Petitioner shall submit a landscape plan that shows the base of the sign will be landscaped (at a minimum installing planter/container boxes) as required by the Sign Code; 2. The text shall not change more frequently than every 15 seconds; and 3. The proposed sign shall comply with the standards listed in Sec. 7.330.A of the Sign Code for the property at 1821 W. Golf Road, Case No. PZ-31-05. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Youngquist, and Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing three more cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 10:40 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. __________________________________ Jason R. Zawila, Long Range Planner /kd C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\PZ-31-05 1821 W Golf Road - SU - elec sign1.doc