Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/2011 P&Z Minutes 04-10 (Part 2 or 2) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-04-10 Hearing Date: April 28, 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 Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Theo Foggy Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: William Beattie Ronald Roberts STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTY : Jim Cook Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The minutes of the March 24, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved 4-0 with Mr. Donnelly abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-04-10, 790 E. Rand Road, at 7:32 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ-04-10 was seeking approval of a Special Use and Variation for a freestanding sign at 820 E. Rand Rd. Ms. Andrade said the Special Use request was to allow an off-premise business identification sign that would identify the Lube Pros business located at 790 E. Rand Road. The Variation request was to install the sign within an existing easement. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner would like to install the freestanding sign five (5) feet from the Rand Road property line and within a twenty (20) foot wide sewer and water easement. The Petitioner was seeking a Variation to allow the sign within the easement. Ms. Andrade said since the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on March 24, 2011, the Petitioner obtained an updated Plat of Survey for the Subject Property. The updated survey illustrated that there was currently a gas line, sanitary sewer line, and a storm water line on the Subject Property. Ms. Andrade showed an image that illustrated the existing Village utility lines on the Subject Property. She stated the Subject Property currently had two freestanding signs. One identifies the Dunkin Donuts business and the second identifies Brunswick Zone. Both of these signs are currently within the twenty (20) foot sewer and water easement. Permits for these signs were issued in error due to inadequate information being submitted with their permit applications. These signs are considered non-conforming and would be required to be brought up to Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-04-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 1 of 4 compliance with Village Sign requirements when replaced. Ms. Andrade stated if information was submitted which illustrated the location of the easements, the permits would not have been issued. Ms. Andrade said installing signs within any type of easements can damage the utilities they are intended to protect. Over time, the additional weight created by the sign can cause the utilities to sag or become damaged. Staff is currently reviewing internal policies, permit, and code requirements in order to prevent any future sign and easement conflicts. Ms. Andrade stated the proposed sign would measure twelve (12) feet tall and measure 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 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. Min 5’ (Presence of sewer and water 10’ (north) Setbacks easement creates a default 20’ 5’ (west) 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 stated the table compared the Petitioner’s proposal with the Village Sign requirements. 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 is created by the presence of the sewer and water easement. Ms. Andrade said 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; 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 stated 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 Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-04-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 2 of 4 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. Ms. Andrade said the business would benefit from an off premise sign. The Subject Property has limited frontage on Rand Road and the 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. 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 the required findings for Sign Variations are contained in Section 7.725 of the Village Sign Code and include 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 following the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing held in March, the Petitioner had additional discussions with the Public Works Department. It was determined that there was not sufficient space to locate the sign between the water and sewer mains. However, locating a sign east of the sanitary sewer might be possible. Because of the unusual circumstances of the Subject Property, the Public Works Department would allow some encroachment into the easement, but does not know the exact distance at this time. The Petitioner shall continue to work with the Public Works Department to determine how far the sign can encroach into the Easement, while minimizing any impact to the Village sewer line. Ms. Andrade stated based on Staff’s analysis, the proposed sign met the standards for a Special Use and Variation. Staff recommended the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the motions listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Rogers asked whose responsibility it was to obtain the utility companies sign off on placing the sign within the easement. Ms. Andrade said it was the Petitioner’s responsibility and obligation. Chairman Rogers asked if Staff would be notifying the owners of the other existing non-conforming signs that they are located within the same utility easement. Mr. Simmons stated that Staff would be reviewing its policies internally regarding the other signs within the easement because there may be additional signs throughout the Village located within other easements. Staff would determine at a later date on whether or not to remove the non- conforming signs. Mr. Simmons confirmed that the owners of the three (3) signs within the subject easement would be notified. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioner, Jim Cook, 916 McKinley Avenue, Mundelein, Illinois. Mr. Cook is the owner of Lube Pros and he said his property is pie-shaped and only has ten (10) feet of frontage along Rand Road. He discussed the utility easement that runs along his property not allowing for a sign unless it was setback thirty (30) to forty (40) feet from the sidewalk. Based on Staff’s suggestion, Mr. Cook contacted Dunkin’ Donuts to see if he could place a sign on their property. Mr. Cook stated that it took over a year to obtain all the signatures for the agreement. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-04-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Mr. Cook said his business was buried over time between the Dunkin’ Donuts and Menards’ properties. He stated it is very difficult for customers to see his business. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if he was aware of the easement and approvals that would be needed from the various utility companies. Mr. Cook said yes. Chairman Rogers also confirmed with the Petitioner that he was agreeable with the six (6) conditions listed within the Staff report. 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 7:43 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Foggy to approve a Special Use permit to allow an off- premise business identification sign and a Variation to allow a freestanding sign to be located within a twenty (20) foot sewer and water easement for the property at 820 E. Rand Road, subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff memo dated April 21, 2011. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Foggy, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision was final for this case. After hearing four additional cases, Mr. Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 9:14 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-04-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 4 of 4