HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/26/2003 P&Z minutes 17-03MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-17-03
PETITIONER:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
Hearing Date: June 26, 2003
Mil-De Corp
7800 N. Milwaukee Ave.
Niles, IL 60714
820 E. Rand Rd.
PIN #:
03-35-300-011
PUBLICATION DATE:
REQUEST:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
June 11, 2003
Variations and Special Use
Richard Rogers, Acting Chairperson
Merrill Cotten
Leo Floros
Matthew Sledz
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
Joseph Donnelly
Keith Youngquist
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development
Mario Valentini, Warren Johnson Architect
A1 Buck, Warren Johnson Architect
Mark Hawkinson, Allied Domecq
Chairperson Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Matt Sledz made a motion to approve the minutes
of the May 22 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The May meeting minutes were approved 4-0. At 8:56, Mr.
Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-17-03, a request for Variations and a Special Use to install a freestanding sign with an
electronic message board and multiple oversized menu boards. Mr. Rogers said the P&Z decision would be final for
this case.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case and said that the subject property is located on the north side of
Rand Road, between Business Center Drive and Mount Prospect Road. She said that the site previously received
Conditional Use approval for a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru, which is currently under construction. The
ssubject property is zoned B3 Community Shopping and is bordered by commercial zoning districts to the north, east,
and south, and by the R2 Attached Single-Family Residence District across the street. She reported that the subject
property has direct frontage onto Rand Road and the building will be located less than 65-feet from the Rand Road
right-of-way.
Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner has requested several types of relief from the Village's Sign Regulations. She
said that the table in the staff report summarizes the petitioner's proposed signage package, the applicable code
limitations and the associated relief requested. However, the 147.84 s.f. listed for the size of the wall sign was
incorrect and that the petitioner has since revised the drawings and reduced the size of the wall sign to 75 square feet as
shown on the recently submitted sketch. She clarified that the 'new' proposal still required relief from Sign Code
regulations.
Planning & Zoning Commission PZ- 17-03
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2
Ms. Connolly said that a freestanding sign was previously approved as part of the Conditional Use request for the fast
food drive-thru restaurant. She said that the petitioner would like to modify the previously approved sign by adding an
electronic message board, which requires Special Use approval. The Sign Code requires a minimum 600-foot
separation between electronic message board signs. Currently, the Brunswick Zone already has an electronic message
board and the petitioner's exhibits indicate that the distance between the two electronic message boards would be less
than 110-feet. Therefore, in addition to seeking Special Use approval for the electronic message board, the petitioner
needs a Variation to allow two electronic message board signs closer than 600-feet.
Ms. Connolly said that in order to approve the proposed sign, the P&Z must find that it meets the Special Use
standards listed in the Sign Code. She summarized the standards and said that staff reviewed the petitioner's request
and found that the distance between the two signs was significantly less than the distance required by the Sign Code.
As a result, a second electronic message board sign could have an adverse impact on the public safety and welfare.
She clarified that in the past, the P&Z approved a variation for an electronic message board that was less than 600-feet
from an existing electronic message board. However, those electronic message board signs were more than 400-feet
apart and the petitioner's building was located more than 300-feet from the road.
She said that in this case, the building will be located approximately 65-feet from Rand Road and the window signage
will be visible to traffic traveling on Rand Road. In addition, the petitioner has the option of increasing the size of the
sign face from the proposed 48 square feet to the maximum 75 square feet permitted by the Sign Code. She reported
that staff has concerns regarding the aesthetics of two electronic message boards located so close together, and their
potential impact on vehicles traveling on Rand Road.
Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner's request for oversized wall signs include revised exhibits that indicate that both
of the proposed wall signs would measure approximately 75 square feet each. She said that the maximum allowable
size for the west elevation permitted by the Sign Code is 53.18 square feet and 45 sq. ft for the south elevation. Also,
the petitioner's plans call for a 48 square foot menu board while the maximum size permitted by the Sign Code is 16
square feet. She said that the petitioner justified the requests by stating the restaurant offers three separate brands in a
single store and requires the additional square footage to promote each store's products.
Ms. Connolly said that the Sign Code provides specific standards that must be met in order for the P&Z to grant a
Variation. The standards relate to the impact of the sign on adjacent properties and the visibility of the sign permitted
by the Sign Code. She noted that the proposed menu board is the same square footage as the proposed freestanding
sign. Ms. Connolly said that while the three stores may have a significant number of products to advertise, an
oversized menu board that is the same size as a freestanding sign is not in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood or the intent of the Sign Code. She said that staff found that the proposed menu board is too large and
the 16 square foot menu board permitted by the Sign Code is an appropriate size to adequately promote each store's
products.
Ms. Counolly said that the petitioner's signage proposal calls for a 'Next Time Promo Panel' and 'Pre-sell Panels'.
According to the petitioner, the intent of a 'Pre-sell Panel' is to expedite the drive-thru ordering process. She said that
the panel/promotional signs are similar to a menu board, which the Sign Code limits to one. The petitioner is seeking
relief from Sign Code regulations to allow multiple signs, however, the items and/or information contained in these
panels will be found on the menu board. Therefore, the signs do not correct a visibility deficiency or help to identify
the businesses. She said that the panels are more of a convenience and have the potential to create a cluttered look to
the development. The signs could adversely impact the character of the area and are not in keeping with the intent of
the Sign Code.
Ms. Connolly reported that in order to approve relief from Sign Code regulations, the P&Z must find that the requests
meet the standards listed in the Sign Code. She summarized the standards and noted in order for the P&Z to approve
the two oversized wall signs they have to find that the 53 square foot and 45 square foot wall signs permitted by code
could not identify the business. She said that the area where the wall signs will be installed is referred to as a
Planning & Zoning Commission PZ- 17-03
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3
'monolith', which is a columnar section of the building. The monolith will be constructed from an eggplant or purple
brick or tile material and could be interpreted as a sign regardless of the text placed on the monolith. Ms. Connolly
said that the oversized wall signs may not adversely impact visibility for adjacent properties or endanger the public
safety, but the building will be located approximately 65-feet from the Rand Road lot line and that the purple monolith
with the appropriate size text would reasonably identify the businesses.
Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner's requests for 1) oversized wall signs, 2) an oversized menu board, 3) multiple
promotional signs, and 4) an electronic message board closer than 600' from another electronic message board, fail to
meet the standards for Variations and a Special Use as listed in the Sign Code. She said that the size of the signs
permitted by the Sign Code could reasonably identify the businesses and the distance between the two electronic
message boards has the potential to create adverse impacts. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the
Planning & Zoning Commission deny the petitioner's signage proposal (Variations and Special Use) for the business at
820 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ- 17-03. She said that the P&Z's decision is final for this case.
Mr. Rogers asked for a better description of the monolith and asked if it was attached to the building. Ms. Connolly
provided that information and said it was attached to the building.
Matt Sledz asked how much distance would be between the two ground signs and Ms. Connolly replied 105'. Mr.
Sledz asked why the new sign couldn't be placed where the existing monument sign is. Ms. Connolly said that the
petitioner wanted to relocate the sign to improve visibility. Mr. Sledz confirmed that location was petitioner's choice
and not at direction from staff.
Mark Hawkinson, 430 Harper Ct., Bartlett, IL, Mario Valentini, 11 N. Ridge, Mount Prospect and Albert Buck, 22 59th
St., Westmont, IL, of Warren Johnson Architects, were sworn in. Mr. Valentini said this project was originally
planned by Taco Bell and that the architects are using Taco Bell's site layout for building location and some signage
location in an effort to expedite the approval process. Mr. Valentini said that the best location for their sign contains
an existing Brunswick sign with an electronic message board, which is on their property with no legal easement. He
clarified that their sign would be best situated at the Brunswick sign location and that the Brunswick sign impacts their
sign because their sign must be 100' ft. from it. Mr. Valentini said that if they were able to locate their sign where the
Brunswick sign is, they would not need an electric message board. He said that the location of the existing monument
sign is not good and that they would like to locate the sign as close to the entrance as possible due to the speed of
traffic on Rand Road, which requires better visibility.
Mr. Valentini said the building signs and monolith, although a different color and material, are essentially the same
face as the building and based on a corporate standard. He said that utilizing the sign space for three businesses
necessitates larger square foot signs. He said Togo's is not as ubiquitous as Dunkin Donuts and Baskin-Robbins and
that visibility of that signage is necessary so people become familiar with the Togo's business, too. Mr. Valentini said
the description of the menu board is accurate and pointed out that, with three businesses, many items must be included
on the board in a visible, informative manner. He said that this style of menu board is used nationwide and that
multiple promotion signs are needed to avoid stacking of cars and keeping traffic flowing. Catering and cakes are
examples of items that would not be on the menu board but would be included on the informational promotion signs.
Mark Hawkinson came forward and also asked the Commission to consider that these signs were being requested to
accommodate three businesses, not just one. He pointed out that Mancari car dealer has signs reading "Chrysler" and
"Jeep", to advertise both car brands that they sell. He said that they want signs to feature the three brands that they
offer. Mr. Hawkinson said that many of their customers are impulse buyers and need to see all three businesses
displayed. He said that their building is not parallel to the street and that the signs are necessary to attract the attention
of traffic going both ways. He pointed out they have not "plastered" their signs all over the building, and that they
want to contain them in one area. He said they reduced the size of their monument sign in order to pick-up more sign
size on the building.
Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-17-03
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4
Leo Floros asked if the Menard's property would have access to their property. Mr. Valentini said yes, that their
property would connect to the proposed ring road.
Mr. Rogers asked if the monolith is an entrance to the interior of the building. Mr. Valentini said it is. He said they
reduced the allowable sign area by including windows into the monolith. He said there would be tables and chairs in
that area. Mr. Rogers said the menu board was much too large and that the electronic message center was too close to
the existing sign. He noted that the numerous multi-promotional signs create a "cimus" atmosphere. He also clarified
that the Mancari car dealer was located in Des Plaines, not Mount Prospect.
Matt Sledz asked if the electronic message board text would be scrolling, stationary, or changed daily. Mr. Valentini
said it could be limited to non-scrolling and non-flashing, if necessary. Mr. Sledz pointed out that the hardship was
self-imposed since the petitioner had chosen to operate three discrete businesses on one compact property. He also
stated that customers might be inundated with too many messages, which could cause stacking problems. He said he
could support the oversized wall signs on the monolith, but not the pre-sell or post-sell signs. He added that if the
electronic message board sign was approved, that he would want restrictions on the messages displayed.
Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 10:00.
Mr. Sledz asked if thought had been given to sharing the Brunswick sign. Mr. Valentini said discussions with
Brunswick were not fruitful. Mr. Sledz asked if Brunswick was aware their sign was not legal. Mr. Valentini said
Brunswick said they had verbal agreements and "handshakes" that permitted their sign to be located in its current
location.
Leo Floros made a motion to approve the requested Variation for an electronic message board as submitted for Case
No. PZ-17-03, 820 E. Rand Road. Matt Sledz seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: None
NAYS: Cotten, Floros, Rogers, and Sledz
Motion denied 4-0. P&Z decision final.
Matt Sledz made a motion to approve the requested Variation for two 75 square foot wall signs on the monolith as
shown for Case No. PZ-17-03,820 E. Rand Road. Leo Floros seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Floros, Rogers, and Sledz,
NAYS: None
Motion approved 4-0. P&Z decision final.
Matt Sledz made a motion to approve the requested Variation for the menu board signs as submitted for Case No. PZ-
17-03, 820 E. Rand Rd. Leo Cotten seconded the motion.
Commissioners discussed size of the menu boards. Mr. Hawkinson clarified that the proposed menu boards were the
standard size used in all the neighboring suburbs. Mr. Valentini said that there were 36 Togo's in the area and that
their menu board had been limited just twice. Commissioners looked at photos of existing signs. Mr. Floros asked if
lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-17-03
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 5
the attached "wings" on the menu boards were included in the total square feet of the menu board. Mr. Hawkinson
said those were included in the 48 sq.ft. Mr. Sledz said he could not support 48 sq.ft, for a menu board. There was
discussion regarding the maximum size the Commissioners would approve for the menu board. Mr. Valentini asked
for the vote on the preview boards first.
Matt Sledz made a motion to approve the requested Variation for the five promotional board signs as submitted for
Case No. PZ-17-03,820 E. Rand Road. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion.
Discussion ensued about the promotional signs. Ms. Connolly clarified that the Sign Code does not include provisions
for promotional signs. Mr. Rogers said that he was a member of the former Sign Review Board and did not recall that
board ever granting permission for promotional signs. Mr. Jacobs said the Commission could continue these issues to
another meeting. Mr. Sledz suggested leaving that decision to the petitioner. Mr. Hawkinson said if they could have
one pre-sell board they would be satisfied. Mr. Rogers suggested the one "B" pre-sell board and a smaller menu
board. Mr. Hawkinson said a 32 square foot menu board would be acceptable.
Matt Sledz made a motion to approve one menu board "B" in the location shown on sheet A-I, and reduce the size of
the menu board in detail 2 by one panel width which is 37-1/8", to allow 2 panels ~ 37-1/8" with the two 15" wings.
Merrill Cotten seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Floros, Rogers, and Sledz,
NAYS: None
Motion approved 4-0. P&Z decision final.
Richard Rogers summarized that petitioner had been granted 2/3 of the menu board, promotional board sign B, and
two 75 square foot wall signs to be located on the monoliths.
At 11:40 p.m, Matt Sledz made motion to adjourn, seconded by Leo Floros. The motion was approved by a voice vote
and the meeting was adjourned.
Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary
2~¢tfy Connolly,~AICP, Senior Plann,~_