Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/28/2010 P&Z minutes 14-10 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-14-10 Hearing Date: October 28, 2010 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 999 N. Elmhurst Road PETITIONER : CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC, c/o Casto Lifestyle Properties PUBLICATION DATE: October 13, 2010 PIN NUMBER: Multiple REQUEST: 1) Variation for Non-Full Cutoff Light Fixtures 2) Variation for an Eight Foot (8’) Fence 3) Amendment to the Special Use for Signs Associated with a Large Scale Development MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Theo Foggy Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTIES : Jim Conroy, Joe Doyle Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 23, 2010 meeting; Mr. Beattie seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 6-0; with Mr. Youngquist abstaining. After hearing two previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-14-10, 999 N. Elmhurst Road, at 8:33 p.m. Mr. Simmons stated that Randhurst came in with redevelopment plans for the Subject Property in 2008 and received approval. Since the approvals were granted and as construction has progressed on site, the Petitioner has re-evaluated some of the items that were originally requested with their approvals. The Petitioner was back before the Planning and Zoning Commission to seek additional zoning relief in two different areas under revised plans. Mr. Simmons said the Petitioner was requesting two Variations from the Code for non-full cutoff light fixtures and to install an eight foot (8’) fence along the eastern property line adjacent to the residential properties. The third request was to amend the special use that was granted for large scale development signs for their main monument signs that would identify the development Mr. Simmons showed a slide referencing the non-full cutoff light fixtures. There were two decorative fixtures that were being proposed to be installed. Village Code required any fixtures in non-residential areas to be full- cutoff and aimed downward. The Code does have an exception to architectural detail lighting that does not exceed 60 watts. He explained that the lights fixtures proposed would have upward aiming bulbs and lenses that would be visible driving down the street and illuminate on a 360 degree radius. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-14-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 9 Mr. Simmons showed a site plan indicating the placement of the two lighting fixtures on the Randhurst property. The first fixture “860” would be installed on the main entrance coming off of Elmhurst Road, to the traffic circle and also along the perimeter of the existing Sports Authority and Bed Bath & Beyond stores, and then to the back of the development. The second fixture as proposed would go down Main Street along the main portion of the shops and down in front of the movie theatre as well. Mr. Simmons said the light Code was changed approximately six years ago. Since then, there have been no zoning cases requesting to allow non-full cutoff light fixtures. The subject case is the first to request such a Variation. There has been no previous precedence for it. Based on the existing Code, Staff recommended denial of the Variation request for non-full light cutoff fixtures. Chairman Rogers suggested that the Commission discuss each zoning request separately. The Planning and Zoning Commission would be casting three separate votes on each item that was presented before them. Mr. Donnelly asked if there were alternate fixtures available that would meet Code. Mr. Simmons stated there were different fixtures that could possibly comply with Code. He stated that he did not research whether or not the same style that the Petitioner wanted had full cut-off. Chairman Rogers swore in Jim Conroy, Director of Development for Casto Lifestyle Properties, 55 E. Euclid, Mount Prospect, Illinois and Joe Doyle, Doyle Sign Company, 232 W. Interstate, Addison, Illinois. Mr. Conroy stated that Randhurst was a unique project and discussed how the economy has changed since the approval of the Randhurst redevelopment project back in 2008. He provided the Commission with copies of aerials of the project and a status of the current project. Most of the Main Street buildings are currently having the brick work being done and will be under roof soon. The movie theatre is set to open in April of 2011 and st PNC Bank was set to open on November 1. Pei Wei Asian Diner will soon be turned over for the interior work to begin. Mr. Conroy stated that the Main Street is surrounded by the outer buildings and parking lots. He said that the goal of the lighting was to bring a pedestrian feel to the Main Street portion of the project. Mr. Conroy stated that the lighting was shown in the original plans and renderings; he said Staff never addressed the lighting as a Variance with the original proposal. Mr. Conroy said that they were trying to enhance Main Street and highlight it in a couple of ways. He stated they were making bigger sidewalks, larger landscaped areas, brick pavers, stamped concrete, planters, and benches to make the area a special environment. Mr. Conroy said that the original lifestyle center tenants were no longer expanding. He stated that they needed to make some minor modification to those who were expanding and to create a balance between retail and restaurants. Mr. Conroy stated the importance of the type of lighting being proposed. It would be brought down to a pedestrian level. He said the lighting would create the special type of area that the project needed. Mr. Conroy did address that there were other light fixtures available with full cut-off, but they did not create the sparkle effect that he was looking for. He was afraid that if this type of lighting was not approved, it would create a vanilla effect. Mr. Conroy understood Staff’s recommendation, but asked the Commission to look at the position of the lights and how they would accent Main Street and funnel traffic into the development. He said most of the shopping would be done in the evening hours and he wanted customers to feel comfortable with the lighting. Mr. Beattie asked why the lighting goes around Sports Authority and Bed, Bath, and Beyond, but not Carsons. Mr. Conroy said Bed, Bath, and Beyond wanted to feel included with the development and Main Street. He discussed some of the exterior work that was being completed. Mr. Conroy stated that Bed, Bath, and Beyond Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-14-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 9 and Carsons would benefit the most from Main Street. He discussed why the lighting was not included around Carsons. Carsons is one of the anchor stores, but does not have any stores feeding off of it around the perimeter. Mr. Youngquist asked what colors the fixtures were. Mr. Conroy said both fixtures were white. Chairman Rogers asked what color was the light. Mr. Conroy stated it was a metal halide (white) light. Mr. Donnelly asked how close the lights were to the residential properties to the east and west of the mall. Mr. Conroy said it was very important to bringing the lighting down to the theater. He was okay if the lighting was eliminated beyond the theater. The lighting beyond the theater was to create an entry point and walkway to development for the Boxwood residents. Mr. Conroy was okay with removing the lighting by the eastern portion of the development if it did create a disturbance to residents. Mr. Donnelly discussed not wanting to see the lights outside of the development. Mr. Conroy discussed that he was in the process of developing street lights that would run along Euclid, Elmhurst, and Kensington along the subject property. He understood Mr. Donnelly’s concern, but believed that the street lights would be brighter than the pedestrian lights being requested before the Commission. Mr. Simmons stated that per one of the development requirements, the Petitioner was required to install street lighting along the three frontages of Euclid, Elmhurst, and Kensington Roads. Chairman Rogers confirmed that the street lighting would be cut-off fixtures. Mr. Roberts asked how high the pedestrian lights would be. Mr. Conroy said they would be 12 feet. Chairman Rogers agreed that the streets lights would create that effect that the Petitioner was looking for down Main Street. He said the lights should be something special and not the standard light fixtures. He said as long as the lights were kept low, he did not see a problem for the proposed lighting. Chairman Rogers stated that in a normal situation he would say no to the lighting, but since Randhurst was on an interior lot that is far enough away from the streets that he could agree to the Petitioner’s request. Mr. Roberts liked the fact that there was an entry way to the development for the Boxwood residents. Chairman Rogers stated his one concern was setting a precedent, but was okay with approving the lighting because of the unique situation. There is only one Randhurst located within the Village. Mr. Floros supported the Petitioner’s request and said it would help the development at the Village. He had no concerns with it setting a precedent due to it being such a large scale project. Mr. Youngquist said he supported the request as well. He stated that the Petitioner has always said from their original request was to attract customers into the development and guide them down Main Street. Mr. Youngquist also agreed that the lights should extend to the gateway to the residents of Boxwood. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments regarding the lights; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 9:04 p.m. Mr. Foggy made a motion to approve a Variation to allow non-full cutoff light fixtures along the Main Street portion of the Randhurst Village PUD as shown on the plans prepared by WLS Lighting Systems. Mr. Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Foggy, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist NAYS: None The motion for non-full cutoff light fixtures was approved 7-0. This item is Village Board final. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-14-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 9 Mr. Simmons discussed the second request of a Variation to install an eight foot (8’) fence along the east property line. This item was originally requested with the original PUD approvals. The Petitioner was unsure with the original proposal if they wanted a 6 or an 8 foot fence, but they wanted to have the right to pursue an 8 foot fence if they felt the opportunity was needed. At the time of the original request, Staff recommended denial of the 8 foot fence, in which the Village Board denied the request. Since the project has moved forward, the Petitioner re-visited the height of the fence and was asking for reconsideration of the 8 foot fence. Staff has also re-evaluated the request looking at how the area has developed and looked at the intensity of the uses on that site that included a parking garage, loading areas, and traffic along the drive aisle on the east side of the property. Mr. Simmons stated that the 8 foot fence would provide adequate separation from the more intense commercial property. Staff believed that this area was more intense than any part of the Village due to the size of the development; which would warrant the 8 foot fence. Mr. Simmons stated that Code only permits 8 foot fences for industrial properties or properties that front a railroad right-of-way. Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for an 8 foot fence. Chairman Rogers asked if there would be any landscaping required with the fence. Mr. Simmons stated that the Petitioner would be proposing some landscaping in that area. There have been shrubs already installed. Mr. Simmons said there were some issues with the power lines above the fence line, so the Petitioner was limited with what could be installed. Mr. Donnelly asked if the proposed fence would run to Euclid. Ms. Andrade said there was a restaurant located behind Jewel and the proposed fence would only run to where the restaurant property begins. It would run to approximately the midpoint of the Jewel store. Mr. Donnelly asked if the restaurant had a 6 foot fence. Ms. Andrade said there was no fence between the restaurant and Jewel. Mr. Foggy asked if there were any elevations or plans of the fence. Ms. Andrade said the Village did not have drawings of the proposed fence; she believed the Petitioner was still evaluating various types of fences. Mr. Conroy stated that the proposed 8 foot fence would be similar to what is currently along the east property line. He said that Casto has a meeting set-up in November to coordinate the type of fence with the Boxwood Association. Mr. Conroy said the existing fence does not belong to Casto or Randhurst. It was originally built by the homeowners along Boxwood. Although the existing fence was not in disrepair, Mr. Conroy said the new fence would clean up the site and give the residents of Boxwood some additional privacy. He stated that Casto already has an approved landscape plan all along the east drive. Mr. Conroy would be in agreement to extending the fence on the Jewel side property so the restaurant would not have to look into the Jewel truck loading zone. Mr. Beattie asked if an 8 foot fence has been discussed with the residents in the Boxwood neighborhood. Mr. Conroy stated he has not talked to the residents, but the higher fence would create the buffer that was needed between residential and the more intense use of the Randhurst property. Mr. Beattie asked if the existing fence was 6 feet. Mr. Conroy stated that the height varied, but it was six feet at its highest point. Mr. Floros asked whose property the new fence would lie on. Mr. Conroy stated that if he received the eight foot Variation, the fence would have to be on Casto’s property. Mr. Floros asked how many Boxwood Associations were there. Mr. Simmons stated there were several. Mr. Conroy said he would like to meet with a few of the associations for the initial meeting who would then inform all of the residents and property owners on what Casto would like to do. Mr. Conroy stated he had until April 22, 2011 to get the fence up because that is when the theater opens. Chairman Rogers asked how many access points would there be from Boxwood to the Randhurst property. Mr. Conroy said he would like some controlled access points. One would be by Jewel and another would be by the Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-14-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 9 parking area for the new movie theater. Mr. Conroy did not want to create any additional access points down by Costco and Home Depot because of the vehicular traffic along the east drive. Mr. Foggy asked Staff who regulates the construction of the fence and the access points along the fence. Mr. Simmons stated that if the Variation was approved for the fence, the permit for the fence would be reviewed by the Village’s Building Division to ensure proper compliance with the approval. Regarding the safety access points, that would be reviewed with the Village’s Engineering Division and Police Department. These two departments would address the enforcement of speed along the east drive, where the access points would be located, and to ensure proper striping and markings for pedestrian crossings per Code. Mr. Foggy agreed with the controlled access points. There was general discussion regarding the size and ownership of the Randhurst property and tax parcels within the Randhurst parcel. Mr. Beattie questioned the need for an 8 foot fence as opposed to a 6 foot fence. Mr. Conroy said the 8 foot fence would create an appropriate buffer between Randhurst and the adjacent residential property. He stated that he does not need an 8 foot fence, but felt it was a much needed barrier and buffer for the residential development. Mr. Roberts said when the Commission was given the original elevations for the Randhurst project in 2008; the elevations looking from Boxwood were not all attractive. The residents were mainly seeing loading docks, parking deck, and the east drive. Mr. Roberts felt a stronger buffer was important. He pointed out that no one was in the audience from the Boxwood neighborhood to argue against the 8 foot fence. All property owners within 250 feet of the mall were sent notice of the public hearing. A legal notice did appear in the newspaper along with 3 public hearing signs placed on main entry points to the development. Chairman Rogers agreed that the 8 foot fence created a much needed buffer. Mr. Foggy made a motion for a Variation to increase the height of the perimeter fence along the east property line from six feet (6’) to eight feet (8’). Mr. Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Foggy, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist NAYS: None The motion for an eight foot (8’) fence was approved 7-0. This item is Village Board final. Mr. Simmons stated the Petitioner requested an amendment to the Special Use which was granted to the original Planned Unit Development for larger signs for a large scale development. The Village’s Sign Code provided provisions for developments along a major roadway and over five acres in size. Mr. Simmons showed a slide of where the four main signs would be located. One sign would be located at the Southeast corner of the site at Kensington Road, two signs would be located at both entry ways off of Elmhurst Road, and one sign between Steak and Shake and Buffalo Wild Wings off of Euclid. Mr. Simmons said the four signs were broken down into two categories. The primary entry sign was to be located by the main entrance at the traffic signal on Elmhurst Road and Main Street. This sign was to be approximately 270 square feet in area as was originally approved. It stood approximately 15 feet in height and had 3 tenants listed. The other three signs were to be secondary entry signs at the remaining locations. These were taller signs than what Code permitted; they were approximately 20 feet in height and had six tenants listed. Mr. Simmons stated that the Petitioner requested an amendment to the Special Use. He showed a picture of the proposed revised sign. Staff has had discussions with the Petitioner to revise the sign as the original signs were approved due to the consistency of the development. The Board did recommend approval of the original signs. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-14-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 9 Mr. Simmons said the Petitioner has had conversations with existing tenants and potential tenants who requested to change the original signage. Mr. Simmons showed a slide of the revised proposal. He then showed a table comparing all the signs that have been proposed: Type of Sign Height Width Area No. of Tenants Primary Entry Sign (1.1) 15 ft. 36 ft. base 375 sq. ft. 3 (South Elmhurst Rd (25 ft sign area) Entrance Only) Secondary Entry Sign 20 ft. 19 ft. 380 sq. ft. 6 (3.1) (North Elmhurst Rd, Euclid, and Kensington Entrances) Original Proposal 22.33 ft. 23.83 ft. 270 sq. ft. 8 (All four entrances (15 ft. sign highlighted above) area) Revised Proposal 24.75 ft. 27.67 ft. base 470 sq. ft. 8 (All four entrances (19 ft. sign highlighted above) area) Mr. Simmons explained to the Commission how the square footage was measured for signs; the square footage calculations do not include the base. Mr. Simmons said the revised signs were developed to be consistent with the rest of the development and to meet leasing requirements with tenants. Staff was more comfortable with the revised proposal, but would need additional time to review how the tenant panel portion of the sign was designed. Mr. Simmons stated that Staff requested that the Petitioner stay with a maximum of 6 tenants per sign. Mr. Simmons stated that Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the revised proposal elevation subject to Staff’s conditions. Chairman Rogers confirmed that the proposal in the Staff packet was the original proposal and that the Petitioner has resubmitted the revised proposal. Chairman Rogers said he originally objected to the 20 foot original sign that was approved 2 years ago, but had many issues with a 24 foot tall sign due to the Village updates on the Sign Code. He felt that 6 panels for the number of tenants was too high. Chairman Rogers was more comfortable with the original lower signs because of the height and the uniformity of the design. Mr. Beattie confirmed that the original design of the signs had a black background with uniform white lettering. Chairman Rogers did not see a need for all larger tenants to be on all of the proposed signs. Mr. Donnelly asked how many Variances have been granted to the Subject Property for signage. Chairman Rogers said that per Code, the largest sign could only be 12 feet. He discussed the larger sign at Mount Prospect Plaza. Mr. Donnelly felt that the Village had granted the tenants (Jewel, Costco, and Bed Bath and Beyond) a Variance for larger wall signs since they could not be seen from the road. Mr. Donnelly felt that there needed to be some sort of balance in regards to the Variances for signage. Mr. Simmons discussed the signage on the outlot building that houses Five Guys. By Code, the tenants in the outlot are allowed to have signage face the parking lot and street. Since this outlot was not next to a residential zone, they could have a sign on each façade. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-14-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 9 There was additional discussion on the variety of signage on the Randhurst property. Mr. Simmons said the outlot buildings were also allowed ground signs by Code for their individual site as long as they maintained the minimum 200 feet distance requirement. There was additional discussion regarding ground signs for outlots. Mr. Donnelly requested a sign package for the entire site to review all of the signage. Mr. Foggy discussed the size of the original signs. He felt the revised ground sign was too large to have at four different points along the property. Mr. Foggy said that the size of the sign and the number of tenants did not match up with the concept of the mall. He felt a lower profile sign was needed for the project. Mr. Roberts stated that the proposed sign looked like a larger strip mall sign. He agreed that the sign did not provide the image for the shopping center that it needed. Mr. Youngquist discussed how large of a sign was being proposed. Mr. Conroy said that commuters would not be able to read the original sign driving on the roads that bordered the mall. He stated that the original sign was submitted to fit the lifestyle center concept. Mr. Conroy discussed the tenants’ rights and their requests due to signage. Mr. Conroy stated the problem with the original sign was that the tenants are listed with 10 inch letters, they are all the same color and nothing stands out, and the fonts are not what the retailers enforce. Mr. Beattie said that tenants’ concerns should be respected, but he believed that the Petitioner would be losing that sparkle as previously discussed with the multi-tenant sign. Mr. Conroy stated how the proposed sign was different than any normal multi-tenant sign. He said there were different shades of brick, a planter at the base, and the panels would only illuminate the scripting of the tenants’ name; not the entire box. Mr. Conroy said Staff suggested that Randhurst Village be highlighted in the sign, rather than just a logo. He stated the revised proposal included some of the massing of the original sign and bigger to accommodate the additional panels. The Randhurst Village script on the top of the sign would have a light glow and translucent material behind it. Mr. Conroy said each proposed sign would not have the same tenants listed due to the tenants’ requirements and sign priorities. Mr. Youngquist questioned why the night renderings of the signs were different. Mr. Conroy stated that the rendering was off due to an issue with a floodlight. He passed out a new rendering to show how subdued the signs would look in the evening. Mr. Doyle stated that his company has been going back and forth with Staff on the renderings of the signs. He said the lighting on the Randhurst Village scripting would lessen the impact of the push through lighting. Mr. Doyle stated that the background of the sign would appear to be darker. Chairman Rogers discussed the fact that when the tenants moved into Randhurst, the Village’s Sign Code existed. He said the Planning and Zoning Commission has allowed larger wall signs because there would not be large monument signs out in front of the property. Mr. Conroy discussed the negotiations with the tenants regarding the signage. Mr. Conroy stated that since Casto Lifestyle Properties has been involved with the Subject Property, they have not requested any Variances for signage other than the original proposal from 2008. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-14-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 7 of 9 Mr. Foggy stated the multiple colors and logos on the sign did not agree with the scope of the signage for the Randhurst project. He asked if there was a sign design that the Commission and Petitioner could deal with. Mr. Foggy said the sign was too high and that to reduce the height would be to focus on 6 tenants per sign. Mr. Conroy stated that if the mall was limited to six panels per sign, it would be hard to attract new tenants who would not have their names on any of the proposed signage. Mr. Foggy discussed the need for common ground regarding signage on the Subject Property. There was additional discussion regarding the use of the tenants’ colors and logos on the signs. Chairman Rogers said the original concept of the signs were to bring traffic into the Randhurst Village development with a few key tenants listed on the signage, not a large multi-tenant sign. Mr. Conroy reiterated that the proposed signs would be different than other multi-tenant signs in the Village. Mr. Donnelly said 3 of the 4 signs were placed at traffic light controlled intersections. He stated that commuters would see and read the signs. There was additional discussion on whether or not consumers and residents knew what types of stores were included within the Subject Property currently and prior to re-development. Mr. Conroy felt the size of the sign was appropriate due to the number of anchor stores for the project. Mr. Roberts said he did not believe what was being proposed before the Commission would be agreed upon by the Petitioner and the Commission. He stated that regardless of what has been negotiated with the tenants, the rules and regulations of the Village must be abided by. Mr. Roberts suggested that the case be voted on or tabled until a future meeting to work on a compromise. Chairman Rogers let the Petitioner decide on whether or not to continue the Special Use request for signage or have the Commission vote to make a recommendation. Mr. Conroy stated based on timing, he requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission vote. Mr. Foggy asked if there was a negative recommendation, could the request be overturned. It was stated that the Village Board could overturn the item if it was not approved. Mr. Simmons stated that if the Petitioner received a denial from the Village Board, the Petitioner would have a year to resubmit, unless they significantly revise the plan due to comments from the Planning Division. Mr. Youngquist asked Mr. Doyle if they attempted to do anything else besides the straight panel signs. Mr. Doyle stated that a couple of different things were looked at. They looked at repositioning the logos across the sign in different areas on the stonework. Mr. Doyle said after discussions with Mr. Conroy and the Planning Department, it was determined to bring back elements of the original design. Mr. Donnelly asked if 8 tenants could be listed on the original sign. Mr. Doyle and Mr. Conroy said that it was difficult to read and see the 6 tenants in 10 inch letters. Mr. Beattie stated that other malls in the area do not have signs like the proposal for Randhurst Village. Mr. Beattie said he liked the original design of the sign because it was for Randhurst Village. Mr. Conroy discussed why The Glen in Glenview was having issues due to limited signage and visibility. Mr. Floros asked the Petitioner to address a previous comment regarding malls like Woodfield or Deer Park do not have signage like what was being proposed. Mr. Conroy said that Woodfield has drawing power from Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-14-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 8 of 9 multiple large anchor stores. Randhurst Village just has one anchor store with smaller boxed stores. It is no longer a regional mall. Mr. Conroy said Randhurst would be a hybrid center because it contained a variety of stores that would normally not be in a mall environment. He stated that Costco is at Randhurst due to the proximity of 300,000 people within a 3 mile radius. Mr. Conroy said Randhurst has a different drawing power than Woodfield. He discussed the differences that Randhurst would bring with a hotel on site and a new state of the art movie theater. Mr. Conroy said that Randhurst was not a power center or a lifestyle center; it is a mixed use center that has elements of both. He stated that signage should be appropriate for the type of tenants that the mall is attracting. Mr. Foggy recognized the fact that signage is needed, but he said the Commission was struggling with how much signage. He said the current proposal was giving the Commission a lot of signage. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner which proposal should be voted on. Mr. Conroy stated that the revised proposal was the sign submitted that should be voted on. Mr. Floros made a motion to Amend the Approved Special Use for Large Scale Development Signs for the four pylon signs as illustrated on the plans prepared by Doyle General Sign Contractors dated October 27, 2010. Mr. Beattie seconded the motion. There was additional discussion regarding whether or not logos would be included on the proposed sign. Mr. Simmons stated that the sign being proposed did have the logos. The Petitioner already has approval for the original design with the channel letters. Mr. Simmons said if the proposed sign went through the process and got denied, the Petitioner could revert back to the original designed sign. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Foggy, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist The motion to Amend the Approved Special Use for Large Scale Development signs was defeated 7-0. This item is Village Board final. There was a brief discussion regarding the cancellation of the alternate date for the November 11, 2010 Planning and Zoning Meeting. The next regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting was scheduled for the alternate date on December 9, 2010. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Foggy to adjourn at 10:41 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ________________________________________ Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-14-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 9 of 9