Loading...
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,~_