Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/24/2011 P&Z Minutes 04-10 (Part 1 of 2) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-04-10 Hearing Date: March 24, 2011 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 790 E. Rand Rd PETITIONER : James (Jim) Cook PUBLICATION DATE: March 9, 2011 PIN NUMBER: 03-35-300-011-0000 REQUESTS: 1) Special Use: Off Premise Business Identification Sign 2) Variation: Install Sign within an Easement MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Leo Floros Theo Foggy Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBER ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES : Jim Cook Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Mr. Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 24, 2011 meeting; Mr. Foggy seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 3-0 with Mr. Roberts, Mr. Foggy, and Mr. Youngquist abstaining. After hearing two previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-04-10, 790 E. Rand Rd., at 8:28 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ-04-10 was seeking approval of a Special Use for an off-premise business identification sign and a Variation for the property at 820 E. Rand Rd (subject property). Ms. Andrade said the off-premise business identification sign would identify the Lube Pros business located at 790 E. Rand Road. The Variation request is to install the sign within an easement. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner originally applied for a Special Use and Variations back in 2010 for a new freestanding sign identifying the Lube Pros business at 790 E. Rand Road. The Petitioner proposed to remove the existing sign and install a new freestanding sign closer to the front property line. However, upon discovering that a twenty (20) foot wide utility easement runs along the front property line, the Petitioner did not move forward with the original request. Ms. Andrade said since then the Petitioner has revised his requests and was now seeking approval to install an off-premise freestanding sign at 820 E. Rand Road and currently occupied by Dunkin Donuts. The Village Sign Code requires Special Use approval for off premise business identification signs. The Subject Property currently has a twenty (20) foot wide easement along the front property line as well. As proposed, the sign would be located within the twenty (20) foot sewer and water easement. The Petitioner was seeking a Variation to allow the sign within the easement. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-04-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 1 of 7 Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner submitted an executed License Agreement allowing the off-premise freestanding sign on the Subject Property. If approved, the Petitioner would remove the existing freestanding sign located at 790 E. Rand Road and install the new sign on the Subject Property. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner’s site plan indicated the proposed freestanding sign would be located on the northwest corner of the site. The sign would be setback five (5) feet from the front property line and ten (10) feet from the north property line. Ms. Andrade stated even though the proposed sign would be located on the Subject Property, the sign would be situated in front of the Lube Pros building which is located on the adjacent lot. Ms. Andrade said the proposed sign would measure twelve (12) feet tall which is the maximum height permitted by the Village Sign Code. The overall area of the sign would be seventy (70) square feet, including an electronic reader board. The electronic reader board portion of the sign would measure twenty-five (25) square feet which is less than the maximum thirty-five (35) square feet permitted. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner submitted a landscape plan illustrating a landscaped area around the base of the sign. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide year round plantings along the base of the front and back of the sign. Ms. Andrade showed a table that compared the Petitioner’s proposal with the Village Sign requirements: Code Regulations Proposed Sign Height Max. 12’ 12’ Area Max. 75 sq.ft. 70 sq.ft. 10’ (north) Min 5’ (Presence of sewer and water Setbacks 5’ (west) easement creates a default 20’ setback) >300’ (South) Electronic Reader Board Max. 35 sq.ft. 25 sq.ft. Area Distance to Another ±160’ to Dunkin Donuts Min. 100’ Freestanding Sign sign Ms. Andrade said the proposed freestanding sign would comply with the sign code requirements with the exception of the required twenty (20) foot setback along the west property line, which was created by the presence of the sewer and water easement. The Petitioner proposed to setback the sign five (5) feet away from the west property line and was seeking approval of a Variation to install the sign within the easement. Ms. Andrade stated the required findings for Special Use requests are contained in Section 7.720 of the Village's Sign Code; the following list is a summary of these findings: The sign must direct attention to a business on a lot adjacent to the lot on which the sign is located; The sign must be located on a lot which is adjacent to a major arterial street; The number of freestanding signs permitted by this article shall not be increased by the placement of the off premises sign; Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-04-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 2 of 7 The lot on which the business to be benefited by the off premises sign must not have any frontage on an arterial street; An easement or license must be granted allowing the placement of the off premises sign; and The sign may contain changeable copy as provided for in subsection 7.325E of this article. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner's request met the Special Use standards. The sign would direct attention to a business on a lot adjacent to the Subject Property and the sign would be placed on a lot which is adjacent to a major arterial street. In addition, the number of freestanding signs permitted would not increase as the existing freestanding sign identifying Lube Pros would be removed. Even though the business to be benefited by the off premise sign has street frontage on Rand Road, visibility of the business is obstructed due to the existing building’s front yard setback. The building is setback approximately 105 feet from the front property line and is situated on an irregular lot. Furthermore, views of the building are blocked by existing trees located on the Menard’s property and by the Dunkin Donuts’ building. Staff found that the location of the existing Lube Pros’ building make it difficult for the Petitioner to direct the attention of the vehicular traffic that travels on Rand Road. Therefore, the requested relief is in keeping for the Sign Code's intent primarily because the proposed sign would facilitate "effective communication between the public and the environment through a sign which is appropriate for the type of street on which they are located". Ms. Andrade stated required findings for sign variations are contained in Section 7.725 of the Village of Mount Prospect Sign Code. The section contains specific findings that must be made in order to approve a variation: A summary of the findings are that The sign allowed under code regulations will not reasonably identify the business; The hardship is created by unique circumstances and not serve as a 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; and 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. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner proposed to install the freestanding sign within a twenty (20) foot sewer and water easement. Per the Petitioner’s application, a sign closer to the front property line is needed in order to regain lost clientele and improve visibility of the Lube Pros business. Ms. Andrade stated per Section 15.305 of the Village Code, “No building, structure, or other obstruction shall be constructed upon any easement.” Staff was not supportive of the Variation request to allow the proposed sign within the easement as easements were established specifically to protect the utility mains and services by prohibiting the construction over them or within the area needed to service them. The proposed sign represents such an obstruction that the easements were established to prevent. There was currently a ten (10) inch sanitary sewer and sixteen (16) inch water main located within the easement. Ms. Andrade said upon reviewing the Petitioner’s application, it was discovered that there were two freestanding signs currently within the twenty (20) foot sewer and water easement. The freestanding signs identifying Dunkin Donuts and Brunswick are situated within the easement on the Subject Property. Approval for these signs were granted without the knowledge of the easement and were permitted in error. These signs are considered non- conforming and would be required to comply with Code requirements when replaced. Ms. Andrade stated based on the analysis, Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the off-premise business identification sign. Staff also recommended denial of approving a freestanding sign to Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-04-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 3 of 7 be located within a twenty (20) foot sewer and water easement. Both recommendations are subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. The Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision is final for the case. There was discussion on whether or not the sewer and water easement extended from the Dunkin Donuts property to the Lube Pros property. Chairman Rogers asked since Staff was recommending that the sign not be placed in the easement, where would it need to go. Ms. Andrade said the sign would need to be set-back at a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the property line. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner could place the sign on his own property not within the easements. Ms. Andrade stated the area is very limited and it is close to where the existing freestanding sign is located. Mr. Foggy verified with Staff that no part of the sign could extend within the easement. There was discussion regarding signs that could potentially be located within an easement besides the Brunswick and Dunkin Donuts’ signs. Ms. Andrade said if there were any other signs along Rand Road located within easements would be considered non-conforming and would need to be eventually brought up to current Code. Chairman Rogers swore in Jim Cook, 916 McKinley Avenue, Mundelein, Illinois. Mr. Cook stated that he has been working on obtaining a new sign for approximately two years. Mr. Cook discussed how his car counts have gone down every year due to poor visibility since the Dunkin Donuts’ building was built closer to Rand Road and when Menards was constructed he had a full access intersection changed to right in/right out. He said landscaping that Menards was required to install had also led to poor visibility. Mr. Cook stated when he began researching on moving his sign closer to Rand Road; he was notified about the utility easement that runs through his property. The easement prevented the Petitioner from moving the sign closer. He said that it was Staff’s suggestion to talk with Dunkin Donuts about placing the sign on their property. Mr. Cook stated it took nearly a year to obtain an agreement with Dunkin Donuts to install a sign on their property. Mr. Cook discussed a variety of other signs that were located five (5) to six (6) feet from the sidewalk along Rand Road. He said based on the easements, he was notified that his proposed sign could not be closer than twenty-six (26) feet to the sidewalk. Mr. Cook stated that Dunkin Donuts and Brunswick has their signs located within the same easement that has been discussed. Chairman Rogers stated he did not know how the other signs along Rand Road were installed within an easement. He understood there was a hardship and appreciated the Petitioner acknowledging that if the sign was approved to be placed in the easement, the sign would be removed at the Petitioner’s expense. Mr. Youngquist asked if the subject property was originally an out lot for the Courtesy property (currently Menards). Mr. Cook said his property is a pie-shaped out lot with only ten (10) feet of frontage along Rand Road. Mr. Youngquist asked the Petitioner if he considered placing the proposed sign on the Menard’s property. Mr. Cook stated the sign would not work on the Menard’s property. There was further discussion on potential customers from Rand Road not being able to see the business and sign where they currently exist. Mr. Beattie asked if the Petitioner would be willing to accept a condition placed with the recommendation stating that he would be required to remove the sign from the easement if any utility company needed access. Mr. Cook stated that he was in agreement. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-04-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 4 of 7 Mr. Roberts asked Staff if there were any issues in regards to the current non-conforming signs located within the easement. Mr. Simmons stated there were no concerns from the Engineering Division in regards to problems with those signs. He confirmed that Staff recommended that the Petitioner meet with Dunkin Donuts to discuss placing the sign on their property. Mr. Simmons said at that time, Staff did not know an easement existed on the subject property. There was discussion on the location and depth of the water and sewer lines. The Petitioner provided the Commission with a map of the utility lines from the Engineering Division. Chairman Rogers said based on the map; the lines appeared to be on the edge of the road. Mr. Simmons stated that he had the same exhibit and it appeared that one line runs along the sidewalk in the right-of-way while the gas line runs along the eastern most edge of the easement at the twenty (20) foot setback line. The lines do not run within the middle of the easement. Mr. Beattie asked by placing the proposed sign within the middle of the easement if it would interfere with the lines that currently exist within the easement. Chairman Rogers stated that this may be a possibility, but it is not a known fact. He said the Petitioner would be taking on additional liability by digging within the easement. Mr. Roberts asked Staff if the Engineering Division looked at the proposal to see if it would interfere with the existing easement. He said that a condition to work with Engineering could be placed to make sure that they are comfortable with the location of the proposed sign and placement of the foundation. Mr. Youngquist stated that any foundation would be located close to the water main. There was discussion regarding the foundation of the proposed sign and the water main. Mr. Cook asked if Engineering could take a look at the subject property to see exactly how much free room is located within the easement. There was discussion that the subject property would have to be surveyed along with J.U.L.I.E. marking the utilities. Mr. Simmons said Staff did discuss the possible location of the proposed sign within the easement with Engineering. The reason Staff recommended denial of the sign to be located in the easement was based on concerns from Engineering. Mr. Simmons stated that all zoning cases are reviewed by multiple Village departments and any feedback is incorporated within the Staff report. Chairman Rogers asked if the request was voted down, could the Petitioner live with the sign being located behind the twenty (20) foot easement. Mr. Cook stated that recently found out that the existing sign is currently located within an easement. He said he would like to be located closer to the road. Mr. Beattie said since there were other signs located within the easement and have had no problems to date, he saw no reason why the Petitioner could not install the proposed sign within the easement. He stated there are several hardships that exist on the subject property. He asked if there was a way Engineering could track where all the lines are located so the proposed sign could be placed within the easement. Mr. Simmons stated Engineering could locate exactly where the utilities are within the easement. Chairman Rogers said J.U.L.I.E. would be able to do this service at no charge. Chairman Rogers said that the Petitioner may have to move the proposed sign’s location dependent on where the existing utilities are located. He stated the Petitioner would have to work with the various utility companies that are located within this easement to place the sign in a proper location. Mr. Cook said he would be happy to work with the utility companies. Mr. Youngquist said if the sign was to be placed within the easement; the Petitioner would have to go through the steps as discussed. He stated that if the proposed sign was to be located outside the easement, it would be very close to the existing sign. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-04-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 5 of 7 There was additional discussion regarding placing safeguards within the easement. Mr. Simmons stated if the proposed sign was approved to be located within the easement, the Petitioner would have to obtain signoffs from any utility companies that have rights to the easement. There was further discussion how to proceed with placing conditions for the Petitioner. Ms. Andrade reiterated that Staff’s recommendation of denial was based on feedback provided by the Engineering Division. Mr. Simmons stated potential conditions would include verifying with Engineering that it is physically possible to place a sign within the easement without damaging the existing utility lines and the potential for the sign’s foundation to be located within five (5) feet away from any utilities. Mr. Roberts suggested continuing the subject case so Engineering could review the request in greater detail rather than have the Planning and Zoning Commission create conditions. Mr. Cook was in agreement to continue the case. Mr. Youngquist confirmed with Staff that the current sign is non-conforming. Mr. Roberts suggested Staff explain to Engineering that the Planning and Zoning Commission was okay with the sign being located within the easement provided that it can be placed there safely in a way that does not threaten utilities. Mr. Simmons stated that Staff would relay the Commission’s comments to Engineering. Chairman Rogers said he would like to see a map or photograph of the area with the existing utility markings. He stated if the Petitioner comes back to the next meeting with proof that the proposed sign would not interfere with the utilities within the easement, then the Planning and Zoning Commission would vote on the subject case. Mr. Floros asked why the Petitioner’s proposed sign would need to be setback so far from the roadway when there are other existing signs located within the easement. Chairman Rogers said that the Village did not know the utility easement existed when the other signs were installed. Mr. Youngquist asked for clarification whether or not the twenty (20) foot easement existed on the Menard’s property. Mr. Simmons said that the easement does not exist on Menard’s property and does not extend south. Mr. Roberts asked if Staff could look into where the utilities run from the Dunkin Donuts’ property. Mr. Simmons stated that Staff would provide additional information at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Chairman Rogers asked if there was anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 9:10 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. Roberts made a motion to continue case number PZ-04-10 to the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for April 28, 2011. Mr. Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Floros, Foggy, Roberts, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None Motion to continue the subject case was approved 6-0. After hearing two cases, Mr. Floros made a motion, seconded by Mr. Foggy to adjourn at 10:37 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-04-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 6 of 7 ________________________________________ Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-04-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 7 of 7