HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/26/2004 P&Z minutes 33-04
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-33-04
Hearing Date: August 26, 2004
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
1660 Feehanville Drive
PETITIONER:
MetLife Insurance
PUBLICATION DATE:
August 11, 2004
PIN#:
03-35-200-060
REQUEST:
Variation for the location of a wall sign
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Arlene Juracek, Merrill Cotten, Joseph Donnelly, Leo Floros, Richard
Rogers, Matthew Sledz, and Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner, and Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy
Director of Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joe Donnelly made a motion to approve the
minutes of the June 24, seconded by Rich Rogers. The minutes were approved 6-0 with Matt Sledz abstaining from
voting. Joe Donnelly made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 15, 2004 meeting with minor corrections,
seconded by Keith Youngquist. The minutes were approved 5-0 with Matt Sledz and Chairperson Juracek abstaining
from voting. After hearing two other cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-33-04, a request for a Variation in
location of a wall sign. She noted that the request would be Planning & Zoning Commission final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. With the presentation of the first slide, she pointed out that the
Subject Property is located in the Kensington Business Center, and contains a four-story building with related
improvements. The property is zoned 11 Limited Industrial and is bordered by the 11 district to the north, west, and
south, and residential across Wolf Road to the east in Des Plaines. The Petitioner is seeking relief from the Village's
Sign Code regulations. The Petitioner would like to install the proposed wall sign on the west elevation ofthe 4-story
building. The Village's Sign Code limits the height of wall signs to 2-stories or 30-feet from grade, whichever is less.
Therefore, the Petitioner's request requires a Variation because the wall sign would be installed 58-feet from grade.
The Petitioner would like to install a 100 square foot wall sign. The Sign Code allows signs to cover 50% of the
signable area up to 150 square feet. The size of the proposed sign complies with the Sign Code regulations, however
the proposed location would exceed the 30-foot limitation. Required findings for sign variations are listed in the Sign
Code, which relate to: the sign allowed under the code will not reasonably identify the business; the hardship is
created by unique circumstances and not serve as 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; 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. The Subject Property has
significant frontage on Wolf Road; however, the building is setback almost 400-feet from the road. In the past, the
P&Z has granted Variations to allow oversized wall signs when a building had an expansive front elevation and the
building was setback significantly from the road. In comparison, the Petitioner's request is to install a wall sign that
complies with the Sign Code's size limitations, but to install it higher than 30-feet from grade to provide better
visibility and create a more aesthetically pleasing front elevation.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-33-04
Page 2
The 30-foot height limitation listed in the Sign Code would not reasonably identify the business because the building
is setback almost 400-feet from Wolf Road. In addition, the location of the proposed wall sign will not adversely
impact the adjacent properties.
Based these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the proposed Variation to
allow the Petitioner to install a 100 square foot wall sign on the 4th story of the building, approximately 58-feet from
grade, at 1660 Feehanville Drive, PZ-33-04. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case.
The Planning & Zoning Commission asked Ms. Connolly general questions regarding the project and then asked the
Petitioner to present the request.
Tim Kimdunne, Metlife, was sworn in and described the sign as a blue translucent material illuminated from within.
Mr. Kimdunne said they would have no problem adhering to Village sign lighting hour restrictions.
Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience had questions and, as there were none, she closed the hearing.
Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the proposal with two restrictions: that the wording be limited to one word,
Metlife, and that the sign be turned off at 11 :00 p.m. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
A YES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 7-0.
At 10:33 p.m., after hearing two more cases, Joe Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Rich Rogers. The
motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner
Michael Jacobs, AICP
Deputy Director of Community Development
C\Docul11ents and SeningslkdewislLocal Settings\Tel11porary Intemet FilesIOLK2IPZ-33-04 1660 Feehanville Metlife I.doc