Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/2011 P&Z Minutes 08-11 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-08-11 Hearing Date: April 28, 2011 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1015 N. Elmhurst Road PETITIONER : Bright Light Sign Company PUBLICATION DATE: April 13, 2011 PIN NUMBERS: Multiple REQUESTS: Variations for Wall Signage 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 : Bill Holley 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. After hearing three previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-08-11, 1015 N. Elmhurst Road, at 8:13 p.m. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner for PZ-08-11 was seeking Variations for wall signage that exceeded the maximum area and height permitted for the Old Navy store currently under construction at Randhurst Village. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner proposed to install a projecting sign and an oval wall sign on the front façade of the new store. The projecting sign would be located on an architectural fin that would be perpendicular to the front façade and would measure twenty-three (23) square feet in area and thirty-two (32) feet in height. The wall sign would measure 125 square feet in area. Ms. Andrade discussed the Petitioner’s proposal with the Village Sign requirements: Code Regulations Proposed Sign Projecting Sign: Area Max. 16 sq. ft. 23 sq.ft. Height Max. 14 ft. 32 ft. Wall Sign: Area Max. 37.5 sq.ft. 125 sq.ft. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-08-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 1 of 4 Ms. Andrade said the Village’s Sign Code permitted projecting signs up to sixteen (16) square feet in area and up to fourteen (14) feet in height. The Petitioner’s projecting sign would exceed the maximum area and height permitted by sixteen (16) square feet and eighteen (18) feet respectively. Ms. Andrade stated per the Village Sign Code, a projecting sign and a wall sign may be placed on the same wall provided the size of the wall sign does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the maximum size permitted by code. In this case, the maximum size permitted for a wall sign is thirty-seven and one half (37.5) square feet. The proposed wall sign exceeded the maximum size permitted by eighty-seven and one half (87.5) square feet. Ms. Andrade said 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 hardship is created by unique circumstances and not serve as a convenience to the petitioner, • 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. Ms. Andrade stated per the Petitioner, the allowable square footage the Village Sign Code permits is a very small sign in comparison to the Old Navy storefront. The Petitioner was seeking the Variations to increase the maximum size permitted for signage that would be in proportion to the storefront. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner further noted that the proposed signage is aesthetically pleasing and conforms to the national Old Navy image. Ms. Andrade said the projecting sign would be located on the building’s architectural fin that would extend out from the store’s front façade. The architectural fin is a unique building design element that would be consistent with the overall design and character of the Randhurst Village shopping center. Staff has reviewed the Petitioner’s Variation requests and finds that the proposed signs will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements. Ms. Andrade stated Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the motions listed in the Staff Report. There was discussion regarding the distance between the bus stop and the projecting sign. It was determined that there was a distance of at least twenty-five (25) feet between the bus stop and projecting sign Mr. Floros asked Staff what is a projecting sign. Ms. Andrade stated that it is a sign that projects out from the building. It is perpendicular to the building façade. For the subject case, the vertical proposed sign on the architectural fin is the projecting sign. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioner, Bill Holley, 310 Telser Road, Lake Zurich, Illinois. Mr. Holley stated that he is the owner of the sign company. He discussed the projecting part of the sign. He said that this was not on the corner of the building, so there was at least forty (40) feet between the projecting sign and the bus stop. Mr. Holley discussed how Old Navy was reimaging the exterior and interior of their stores. Old Navy is changing the wall signs from individual channel letters to an oval box sign. Mr. Holley stated most of the signs that would be in Randhurst Village would have individual letters without a background. The square footage of the proposed sign due to the colorful background increases the overall square footage. Mr. Holley said the ID portion of the oval are three (3) feet tall. He stated that the sign is not that large; the background increases the size to 125 square feet. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-08-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Holley stated when Old Navy builds new stores; they try to incorporate the architectural fin. He said the fin is the projection portion of the sign. The letters on the projection sign are flush mounted individual LED channel letters. They are up high on the fin on each side and are designed so the store front can be seen when the wall sign cannot. Chairman Rogers asked if the fin was part of the building or part of the sign. Mr. Holley stated the fin was part of the building. The sign would be installed on the fin. Mr. Holley said the letters are above the normal allowable height per Village Code. The letters and fin are slightly above the roofline. Chairman Rogers discussed how some of the buildings in Randhurst Village are set back far from the roads that they have allowed larger signs due to the visibility. He said the only concern was the projecting sign since the Commission has not seen one like the proposed sign before. Mr. Donnelly asked if the fin design could take a portion off on the bottom and leave only the top for the sign. Mr. Holley said the fin is part of the national campaign and is consistent with other locations. He stated stores in Niles and Morton Grove have both types of signs and look identical at their subject location. Mr. Donnelly asked if Old Navy would be featured on the ground signs for Randhurst Village. Mr. Simmons said per discussions with the developer, Old Navy would be granted panels on some of the ground signs. They have not submitted for sign permit, the intent was that Old Navy would be on those signs. Mr. Donnelly stated that he questioned the ground sign due to the visibility comment. He discussed how the fin would only be seen within the property. Mr. Holley agreed that the projecting sign was only to identify Old Navy within the subject property. There was additional discussion regarding visibility and the design features of the proposed signs. Mr. Donnelly asked if the Commission voted down the fin, it would still be there with bricks. Mr. Holley stated he believed so. Mr. Simmons clarified that the fin has already been constructed at the subject property. It is an architectural façade element of the building. The Variation that was being requested for the projecting sign is only for the Old Navy letters. Mr. Simmons said the blue fin wall is permitted. Mr. Donnelly asked if the fin was permitted even if it existed outside of the tenant’s lease line. Mr. Simmons confirmed the fin was permitted. Mr. Donnelly asked Staff if the side was outside the tenant’s property line, would it be considered an off-premise sign. Mr. Simmons stated it would not be considered an off-premise sign. The tenant is leasing the square footage inside the space; the developer provides the shell/box for the facility. Mr. Simmons said the blue fin wall is part of Old Navy’s façade element. Mr. Foggy confirmed with the Petitioner that the wall sign and the projecting signs would be lit. 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 8:32 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. Donnelly asked Staff if there is a distance between signs that needs to be followed; he wanted to know if the wall sign and projecting signs were too close to one another. Ms. Andrade responded that the Village Code did not have a required distance for wall signs. Mr. Simmons stated the only separation distance in the Village Code was for freestanding signs. Mr. Floros made a motion, seconded by Mr. Youngquist to approve: 1.A Variation to increase the maximum size permitted for a projecting sign from sixteen (16) square feet to twenty-three (23) square feet; Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-08-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 3 of 4 2.A Variation to increase the maximum height permitted for a projecting sign from fourteen (14) feet to thirty-two (32) feet; and 3.A Variation to increase the maximum size permitted for a wall sign which is placed on a façade with a projecting sign from thirty -even and one half (37.5) square feet to one 125 square feet, as shown on the Petitioner’s exhibits for the property at 1015 N. Elmhurst Road. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Youngquist NAYS: Donnelly, Foggy, Rogers Motion was defeated 3-2. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision was final for this case. There was additional discussion after the vote. Chairman Rogers said his issue was with the projected sign. He confirmed with Staff that the wall sign would be permitted and met code without the projection sign. After hearing one additional case, 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-08-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 4 of 4