Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/2005 P&Z minutes 35-05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-35-05 Hearing Date: August 25, 2005 PETITIONERS: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: August 10, 2005 REQUEST: Text Amendment to the Sign Code - Electronic Message Centers 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 : Tom Reindl, 600 Business Center Drive, MP (Northwest Electric) 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 9:24 PM Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-35-05 a review of text amendments to the Village’s Sign Code for Electronic Message Centers. He said that this case would be Village Board Final. Mr. Rogers inquired whether the Commission wanted to vote on the proposed text amendment at this meeting or if they preferred to just discuss the proposed changes. The P&Z decided to discuss the changes and have Staff modify the proposed text amendments based on this evening’s discussion. The changes would be brought back to the Commission at the September 22, 2005 meeting and would be voted on at that time. Joseph Donnelly said the Commission had been requiring a 15 second display time for electronic message board signs, and asked why the text amendment called for a five (5) second display. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, explained that research indicated that a 15 second display was not appropriate for all uses as the entire message may not be able to be read due to the lengthy display time. She said that since the electronic message centers required Special Use approval, the Commission could require a longer display time if they determined five (5) seconds was too short for a specific location. Mr. Donnelly inquired about a two (2) minute display interval for CVS signs and said he preferred a 15 second display time. Mr. Rogers said the Commission should review the requests on a case by case basis, and that he wanted a 15 second display. He said a shorter display time could be approved if it was deemed appropriate. He described the Northwest Electric sign and noted how its multiple colors make it difficult to look at and drive. He said that the Frankie’s sign was too distracting. Mr. Rogers stated that the text amendments should require a more static message and have less scrolling text. He said it is distracting when the text appears from various directions and that he prefers uniformity when displaying text because it minimizes distractions. Planning & Zoning Commission meeting August 25, 2005 PZ-35-05 Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Page 2 Mr. Donnelly said that it is difficult to read scrolling messages at higher traffic speed and that only static messages are legible. Leo Floros said that he disagreed and that it was not the government’s responsibility to regulate signs so closely. He noted that too much regulation limits businesses ability to advertise their products. He said that the business suffers when the sign is not legible and that most businesses use signs as a means of improving their business. Mr. Rogers said that regulations are necessary because the signs can distract drivers. Mr. Floros said that most drivers will focus more on the road and their driving than the sign. The Commission discussed to what extent signs can and should be regulated. Keith Youngquist said that 15 seconds is too long to display a message because the entire message cannot be read at one time. Ronald Roberts said that one line of text should have different regulations than a multi-line message. He said he prefers the Sign Code adopt a more conservative approach to sign regulations. Mr. Youngquist stated that electronic message centers are becoming more prevalent. The Commission discussed whether a 600’ separation between electronic message centers was sufficient. Tom Reindl, 600 Business Center Drive, was sworn-in. He said that his sign has an electronic message center and it has been in use for almost three (3) years. He said it has been a beneficial tool in promoting products and attracting customers. He summarized how electronic message centers are used differently by chain stores than by independent stores. He described how the timing interval helps ‘punctuate’ messages and said that you may loose information when the interval is too long. He said it has been his experience that people respond differently to the timing of the signs and that he prefers a three (3) second interval. He noted that a 15 second display would not be appropriate for their use.There was discussion on landscaping and how trees can block signs. Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development, raised the issue of how the 600’ separation can limit competition and create advantages for businesses with the electronic message centers. She asked whether the Commission wanted the text amendment to include provisions that addressed lot width. There was further discussion on spacing between signs and the length of time the text should be displayed. The Commission made the following modifications to the proposed text amendment as outlined in the Staff Report: Sec. 7.330.A.1: Continue to require a 600’ separation between electronic message centers; the Commission will review Variation requests for signs located closer than 600’ from another electronic message center; Sec. 7.330.A.2: Eliminate the requirement to display time and temperature; Sec. 7.330.A.3: No changes from text listed in Staff Report; Sec. 7.330.A.4: No changes from text listed in Staff Report; Sec. 7.330.A.5: Per the 3-2 vote, the Commission is requiring a 15 second display time with the stipulation that a shorter display time may be approved on a case-by-case basis. Also, the electronic message center text has to be a uniform color, the text cannot scroll, and the text has to appear on the message center in a uniform manner, i.e. cannot explode onto screen from various locations. Sec. 7.330.A.6: No changes from text listed in Staff Report; Sec. 7.330.A.7: Create regulations that require gasoline price signs to be static, that the signs have intensity and color regulations. lanning & Zoning Commission meeting August 25, 2005 PZ-35-05 Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Page 3 Joseph Donnelly made a motion to continue the case until the September 22, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting when the Commission will review the modifications to the Staff Report; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Youngquist, and Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. After discussing circular driveways, Joseph Donnelley 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. __________________________________ Judith M. Connolly, AICP Senior Planner C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\PZ-35-05 text amendment - elec mess bd1.doc