Loading...
2018-07-18 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Minutes07/18/2018 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD, BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2018 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chairman Frank Cesario Public Hearings/Items For Consideration 1. Consider a Variation to the Sign Code for 2 Replacement Signs at the Woodlands Development (Trustee Stein) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Lisa Staszak, Parvin Clauss Sign Company, 165 Tubeway Drive, Carol Stream, IL 60188 and Maria Besbeas, Association Board President, 29 Willow Parkway, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089, were present and sworn in. Ms. Staszak explained that the variance request is for two (2) ground signs to be located at Half Day Road and Willow Parkway. The existing signs are constructed of wood and are currently located within the ten (10) foot setback. There is a brick feature with a wrought iron fence located in the area that limits how far back they can set the signs. The original plan was to replace the existing signs with three modern signs. However, after becoming aware of the setback requirement, they found that they could not get the signs further than ten (10) feet from the property line. They are requesting a variation to place the three new signs in the same location as the existing signs. This entrance is considered the Woodlands main entrance. The Association is trying to freshen up the entrance and make the signs more visible. Com. Goldspiel stated that there is another Woodlands sign along Buffalo Grove Road and asked if that is for the same development. Ms. Staszak advised that it is the same development. Com. Goldspiel asked if there are three (3) signs, not just two (2). Ms. Staszak advised that they are modifying the two (2) signs at Half Day Road and Willow Parkway and adding a third sign. However, the third sign falls within the required setback at Brandywyn Lane and Buffalo Grove Road. Com. Goldspiel asked if the Petitioner is allowed three (3) signs the justification for three (3) signs. Ms. Staszak advised that there are multiple entrances to the development. Ms. Akash stated that when the Village received the variation request, only the two (2) signs were included. Com. Goldspiel responded that he is now aware of a third sign. Ms. Woods stated that the Village was not aware of the third sign being proposed. Ms. Staszak advised that the third sign met the setback requirement so she applied for a regular permit for it. Ms. Akash confirmed that the variation application only included the two (2) signs. Ms. Staszak stated that the sign at Buffalo Grove Road and Brandywyn Lane is a double-sided sign but because the sign met the setback requirement, their permit coordinator was just going to apply for the permit. Com. Goldspiel asked staff about the number of signs allowed for a development. Ch. Cesario advised that the number of gound signs is determined by the frontage of the development. Ms. Staszak stated that it is a large development and the signs are spread out. Com. Goldspiel asked the Petitioner to describe the proposed signs. Ms. Staszak explained that the signs will be a fiber-resin material on the face and the lettering will be cut out of the sign face and the sign will be internally illuminated with LED lighting. At night the light will be subtle and not overly bright, making it look like a halo. Com. Goldspiel asked if all three (3) signs would be the same. Ms. Staszak responded yes. 07/18/2018 Com. Khan asked about the existing signs. Ms. Staszak explained that currently there are six (6) signs that were originally installed when the development was built. She believes their application included what the current signs look like. They are old. The Associati on is just trying to freshen up the look. Com. Khan does not have an issue with the look of the signs. He is trying to get a handle on the number of signs existing and being proposed. He asked if three (3) of the six (6) signs are being replaced. Ms. Besbe as explained that they are trying to update the look of the community. They are removing all of the existing signs and only replacing three (3); two (2) at Half Day Road and Willow Parkway and one (1) at Buffalo Grove Road and Brandywyn Lane, which are the main entrance points to the complex along the golf course. Com. Khan confirmed with Ms. Besbeas that the proposed sign at Buffalo Grove Road and Brandywyn Lane is a new location for a sign and not a remove and replacement. Com. Khan confirmed with Ms. Besbeas that all of the six (6) existing signs are being removed; two (2) of the proposed new signs will be replacement signs located at Half Day Road and Willow Parkway and the third proposed new sign will be a new location at Buffalo Grove Road and Brandywy n Lane. Ms. Besbeas responded yes. Com. Khan confirmed with Ms. Besbeas that the proposed sign at Buffalo Grove Road and Brandywyn Lane does not require a variation. Ms. Besbeas responded yes. Com. Khan confirmed with Ms. Besbeas that the total number of signs is being reduced from six (6) signs to three (3) signs. Ms. Besbeas responded yes. Ch. Cesario stated that Sign Code, Section 14.16.060 defines the number of ground signs allowed based on frontage and if the frontage is adequate, that determines the number of ground signs permitted. This development has a lot of frontage. The frontage is then divided by 800 and that determines the number of ground signs allowed. Com. Goldspiel asked if there is an existing sign at Buffalo Grove Road and Brandywyn Lane. Ms. Staszak stated that there is not an existing sign at that location. That will be a new sign location. Com. Goldspiel confirmed with Ms. Besbeas that the other existing signs will be removed and will not be replaced. Com. Moodhe wants assurance that the other signs that are being removed and not being replaced will not be replaced at a later time. Ms. Besbeas explained that the proposed signs were reviewed by a panel of residents and are now finalized by the Association Board. Com. Moodhe stated that the proposed signs are the types of signs that many developments are trending towards. They are more efficient and permanent. He is not concerned about the design of the proposed signs. He asked staff what will happen if Link Crossing wants a sign at the southeast corner of Buffalo Grove Road and Brandywyn Lane. Ms. Woods explained that staff will look at that if and when Link Crossing officially submits for a sign. Com. Moodhe tried to confirm with staff that the proposed sign at this location would be a new sign, not a replacement, and that only a permit is required. Ms. Woods responded that this is the first time staff is hearing about a this sign. Ch. Cesario asked Village Attorney Raysa if the public notice included the proper code sections for this petition and if the PZC can move forward with a recommendation. Mr. Raysa advised the PZC can move forward. Ch. Cesario advised that page 7 of the packet shows the overall development. He has no doubt that the development could possibly have five (5) or six (6) gound signs permitted based upon the overall frontage of the development. Ms. Besbeas advised that the Association cannot afford that many signs. Ch. Cesario confirmed that the two (2) signs required the variance for the setback of the signs and the signs also need a variance for the height. He asked the Petitioner to describe the difference in size from the old signs and the proposed signs. Ms. Staszak 07/18/2018 explained that the current wood signs are two (2) foot high by five (5) foot wide. The current signs are anywhere from four (4) feet to five (5) feet high overall. The proposed signs are six (6) feet high overall with a solid base. Ch. Cesario confirmed with Ms. Staszak that the signs are going from five (5) foot high to six (6) foot high. Com. Khan confirmed that Ms. Besbeas represents the Association and not the management company. He asked how many members are on the Association Board. Ms. Besbeas responded there are five (5) Board members. Com. Khan asked if the three (3) proposed signs were discussed during a Board meeting of the Association and if that could be found in the minutes of the Board meeting. Ms. Besbeas responded yes. Ch. Cesario asked staff if there have been any inquiries with regards to the variance request. Ms. Akash advised that staff received several calls regarding the public hearing but the inquiries were only to find out what the hearing was for. None of the callers had any issues. Com. Weinstein asked if the square footage of the proposed signs provided included the base. Ms. Staszak responded that the base is not included. Com. Weinstein is fine with the appearance of the proposed signs and asked about the internal illumination. Ms. Staszak advised that the internal illumination will be LED lighting. Com. Weinstein asked about the picture on page 11 of the packet that shows an empty spot. He asked if that is where the new sign is going to be located. Ms. Besbeas advised that is the southeast corner of Half Day Road and Willow Parkway. Page 10 of the packet shows the southeast corner before the sign was removed. The old sign has already been removed. Com. Weinstein asked about the light. Ms. Staszak stated that the light will be removed. Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated July 18, 2018 as Exhibit 1. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. The public hearing was closed at 7:57 PM. Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Khan, to make a positive recommendation to the Village Board to approve the variation request for the two (2) ground signs subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed signs shall be constructed in accordance with the plans attached as part of this petition. 2. The landscaping plan shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Village Forester. Ch. Cesario believes that the proposed ground signs look nice. The two (2) signs off Half Day Road are atypical and the PZC usually does not see two (2) signs in such close proximity. However, he is comfortable since the signs are being replaced like for like. Overall it is a nicer look and he is comfortable with changing the height from five (5) feet to six (6) feet. He is supportive. 07/18/2018 Com. Moodhe does not have a problem with the height change. He also believes that the PZC may see more of these requests in the future as landscaping around the subdivision signs become more mature. RESULT: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] Next: 9/17/2018 7:30 PM MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner SECONDER: Zill Khan, Commissioner AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein, Au ABSENT: Scott Lesser 2. Consider a Variation for an Electronic Ground Sign at 10 W Dundee Road (Trustee Ottenheimer) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Mr. Carlos Corniffe, Territory Manager, Buchanan Energy, 2500 Brickvale Drive, Elk Grove Village, IL 60007, was present and sworn in. Mr. Corniffe explained they are requesting to install a new identification and price sign. The requested variations are to install a 91 square foot price sign that would encroach into the 15 foot required setback. They meet the setback requirement along Dundee Road. However, along Buffalo Grove Road the sign would be located 9 feet from the property line. Com. Moodhe asked how far back the old sign was located from Buffalo Grove Road. Mr. Corniffe does not have the exact measurements, but there was the addition of the right turn lane. The proposed sign’s location is further inside the property line than the old sign. Com. Moodhe confirmed with Mr. Corniffe that the old sign was hit by a vehicle. He would not want to see that same situation again. He asked if Mr. Corniffe feels that the proposed sign will be set far enough back to avoid being hit in the future. Mr. Corniffe believes so and added that the proposed sign meets the Village Engineer’s recommendation to be located outside the water main easement. Ch. Cesario referenced page 16 of the packet and noted that the proposed sign would be located approximately 3 feet west of the old sign location. Com. Goldspiel is troubled by the proposed sign. This is a very significant corner in the Village. While 3 out of 4 corners at the intersection are nicely developed, the fourth corner is not that inviting and the extra sign area would further detract from the appearance of the corner. There is a lot on the sign and he believes that it is too much. There is a lot of signage on Dundee Road and it is difficult to distinguish one sign from another. The proposed sign seems to have too much copy for a nice -looking corner. The proposed sign looks like something that would be located on a highway, and Dundee Road and Buffalo Grove Road are not highways. The proposed sign detracts from the appearance of the area and work needs to be done to improve the look of the area. There is land available to provide some landscaping around the base of the proposed sign. Com. Weinstein is concerned about the number of panels on the proposed sign. He asked Mr. Corniffe is there is currently any signage for the car wash on the property. Mr. Corniffe believes there was a sign on the car wash building, but that it was removed 07/18/2018 because they changed the type of wash from a touchless wash to one with brushes. He does not believe that there is currently a sign with the Wash n Run message. Com. Weinstein confirmed with Mr. Corniffe that the proposed sign will be located 3 feet to the west of the old sign location, farther away from Buffalo Grove Road. He believes that the setback reduction is due, in part, to the expansion of the road, which the property owner had nothing to do with. He also confirmed with Mr. Corniffe that the total sign area will be 91 square feet, which does not include the base of the sign. Ch. Cesario asked about the size of the old sign. Mr. Corniffe does not have that information with him. The old sign had the Mobil panel and manual changeable gas prices. It did not have the Wash n Run or the Bucky’s panels. Ch. Cesario asked if the proposed sign is the same dimensions as the Bucky’s sign located on Route 83, which is referenced in the packet on page 17 in the Staff memo. Com. Moodhe asked Mr. Corniffe about the acreage for the Bucky’s at 1251 McHenry Road and the Bucky’s at 10 W. Dundee Road. Mr. Corniffe knows that 1251 McHenry Road is larger but he does not have the acreage. Com. Moodhe asked if 1251 McHenry Road is almost twice the size as 10 W. Dundee Road. Mr. Corniffe responded that it most likely is as the McHenry Road property had another building on it, the old school house. Com. Moodhe asked if any consideration was given to going with a smaller ground sign. Mr. Corniffe explained that they have already reduced the size of the proposed ground sign, specifically the price numbers. Com. Cohn asked staff if staff is recommending approval of a 91 square foot sign in lieu of an 80 square foot sign due to the approved sign at 1251 McHenry Road. Ms. Woods responded that there are two rationales: one being that this is a reasonable request; and two that historically the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) has approved similar requests. Com. Cohn asked if staff took into consideration that this proposed sign is for a different roadway in a different area. Ms. Woods responded that staff always considers the typology of the roads and that staff feels comfortable with this request. Com. Cohn stated that the sign may be overwhelming for the area and may affect development of other properties in the area. Ms. Woods stated that staff would not support a sign that they feel could have adverse effects on future development of the area. Ch. Cesario asked staff is there was any consideration of the proposed sign possibly blocking the Taco Bell ground sign due to the height of the proposed sign. Ms. Akash explained that the proposed sign was submitted to the Village Engineer, who did not have any line-of-sight issues. Ch. Cesario believes that it would be helpful to have the dimensions of the previous ground sign. In his opinion, the colors of the proposed sign are pleasant. He believes that the price numbers are a little small. He would like to se e the price numbers a little larger. However, he believes the bottom half of the sign is visually pleasing. He is struggling a little with the size, but it is not a huge change from 80 square feet to 91 square feet in terms of sign area. Com. Khan asked if the sign on the property now was part of the sign that was knocked down or was it brought in to replace the sign that was knocked down. Mr. Corniffe stated that the sign there now is a portable, temporary sign that was brought in because the sign that was hit was about to fall down and it was removed based upon a request from Village staff. The base of the old sign is still there. Com. Khan seems to believe that the old sign was much smaller than the sign at 1251 McHenry Road. He wished he had the dimensions of the old sign as well. Mr. Corniffe responded that the price numbers are 07/18/2018 smaller on the proposed sign. He is not sure of the dimensions of the sign on McHenry Road. Com. Au asked if Buchanan Energy considered reducing the proposed sign to 80 square feet in area. Mr. Corniffe responded that he is asking for approval of what he has presented. They originally wanted larger price numbers and hence a bigger sign for visibility and traffic flow but they reduced the square footage of the sign based upon the suggestions made by staff. He would like to stick with the proposal made. Com. Au stated that the price numbers are not that big and occupy less than 50% of the height. Over 50% of the proposed sign is other signage. Obviously the Petitioner would want the “Mobil” panel to identify the brand, but the other panels occupy a big portion of the proposed sign. Does the Petitioner need a “Bucky’s” panel that is larger than the “Mobil” panel? Mr. Corniffe responded that the “Bucky's” name has recognition and has grown in this area since 2010. It goes a long way from a competitive standpoint. Com. Cohn read Municipal Code Chapter 14.40.010 and stated that staff believes that the request is reasonable. There is a conflict between what is reasonable and whether there is undue and unnecessary hardship. Does staff find that there is an undue and unnecessary hardship because of unique and unusual conditions? What facts is staff relying on to reach that conclusion? He asked Mr. Corniffe to answer these questions as well. Ms. Woods responded that these types of signs are changing across the nation. The request to accommodate the changing needs of the gas station is reasonable. Mr. Corniffe believes that the requested size is reasonable. It is typical of what he is seeing throughout the market. In locations where they sell diesel fuel, customers did not know they sold diesel until they added the diesel price sign. They would like larger price numbers but went with the recommendation of staff. He understands that the roadway is not a highway. However, it is a busy intersection. Com. Khan stated that there is not much competition in this area. Advertising of the car wash is not necessary. What’s the difference of having the panel that identifies “Mobil” and remove the “Bucky’s” panel? Mr. Corniffe explained that their customers want to know what services are offered at the different locations. What makes them competitive is their product and their pricing. He wants to link the 3 Bucky’s locations. Com. Khan asked if the old sign had both a “Mobil” and “Bucky’s” panel on the sign. Mr. Corniffe stated that the old sign only had a “Mobil” panel. Com. Weinstein stated that the main difference between this proposed sign and the sign on McHenry Road is the “Synergy” panel and the “Wash n Run” panel. The difference in area is only a one and a half foot difference in the overall height of the sign. He asked Mr. Corniffe if he would be interested in removing the “Synergy” and “Wash n Run” panels, which would reduce the overall height and may eliminate the need for the size variation. Mr. Corniffe explained that “Synergy” is a big marketing push for ExxonMobil and they are upgrading many locations to include the “Synergy” branding. The “Wash n Run” is to let customers know that they have a car wash. They would like to keep both. Ch. Cesario explained the options available to the Petitioner. Mr. Corniffe would like the PZC to vote on what is presented. Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated July 18, 2018 as Exhibit 1. 07/18/2018 There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. The public hearing was closed at 8:29 PM. Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Khan, to make a positive recommendation to the Village Board to approve the variation request subject to the following condition: 1. The proposed electronic fuel ground sign shall be constructed in accordance to the plans and documents submitted as part of this petition and shall not be located in the existing watermain easement. Com. Cohn stated that he generally does not have an issue with the size. He is trying to figure out if the proposal is sufficient to meet the variation criteria standard. The criteria provides that there has to be undue and unnecessary hardship and unique and unusual conditions. All he has heard, from both staff and the Petitioner, that the request is not unreasonable. He does not know if not being unreasonable meets the criteria. Ch. Cesario explained that there are two variations, the first is the setback. He believes it is clear that meeting the setback would be very difficult. With that, the circumstances are clear. We think it is reasonable to announce who it is, what it is, gas prices, etc. The question is how big of a sign is needed to communicate that. The Code also allows a variation to be granted when the sign is of particularly good taste and well landscaped. That is incredibly subjective. He is willing to take that stance and feels that the criteria has been met. The variation for the setback is very clear to him. The total size he is struggling with. He does not like the proposed height of 15 feet with the Taco Bell sign behind it and not knowing what was there previously. The elimination of the “Wash n Run” panel would bring the size down to almost 80 square feet. However, he likes the sign telling him that there is a car wash. Based on that line of thought, he is supportive of the proposal. It would have been helpful to know the height and size of the old sign. Com. Au asked if the motion could be contingent upon the proposed sign not blocking the Taco Bell sign. Mr. Raysa advised that a condition could be added that, in the Village’s discretion, the proposed sign does not unduly block the Taco Bell sign. Com. Weinstein amended the motion to include a condition that the proposed sign will not unduly interfere with the signage behind the Petitioner’s sign, subject to staff’s determination. Com. Khan seconded the amendment. Com. Goldspiel stated that this is a busy intersection. The proposed sign is very busy. He does not believe that the PZC has to grant variations on everything that is requested. It seems to him the proposed sign is out-sized for the location. It would fit much better along McHenry Road. He believes that the sign would be a problem for redevelopment of the area. The intersection is a gateway to the Village. No effort has been made to provide for landscaping around the sign base. He believes the proposed sign would be detrimental to the future development of the area. 07/18/2018 Com. Weinstein stated that this is one business, Mobil, and there are four things advertised on the sign in addition to the prices; Mobil, Synergy, Bucky’s and Wash n Run. What is the purpose of the sign? He will know that this is a gas station before he sees the sign. When he sees the Mobil sign, he will know it is a Mobil gas station and he will know there is a car wash well before he sees the one and a half foot high panel. He does not feel that the Wash n Run panel is adding anything to it becaus e he will see the car wash. He was trying to lead the Petitioner to downsize the sign so the Petitioner would not have to deal with the variation for size. He is not in favor of the numerous panels on the sign. Com. Moodhe believes that the sign could be reduced to the 80 square feet with some work. One means is the Bucky’s panel itself. The similarity between this proposed sign and the one on McHenry Road differs in that the Bucky’s on McHenry Road is huge. This location is barely big enough to hold the cash register and a couple of coolers. He believes the Bucky’s panel can be reduced to be proportional to the size of the store. That could bring the sign into compliance regarding size and still be able to keep all the panels on the sign. He asked the Petitioner if he understood what Com. Goldspiel was talking about as far as that particular corner is concerned. This intersection, Dundee Road and Buffalo Grove Road, is a little more compact. The proposed sign would be a much larger embodiment there. He would have felt better if the Petitioner was willing to consolidate a bit. Com. Cohn stated that he has not heard any hardship in the testimony presented. He is still struggling to see where the hardship is. There was no testimony that if there was a smaller sign that they would sell less gas and would not make a profit. The Village has a Code for a reason and someone determined that an 80 square foot sign is standard. He just does not see the hardship. Com. Moodhe asked the Petitioner if he would like to reconsider and work with staff and come back with a slightly different proposal. Ch. Cesario discussed with the PZC Sign Code, Section 14.40.010, subsection B. Com. Goldspiel stated that he would like to see the property particularly well landscaped. Ch. Cesario asked Mr. Corniffe what he would like to do. Mr. Corniffe stated that the hardship was the damage caused to the old sign by a consumer. He wished he had the information and dimensions of the old sign and the sign on McHenry Road. He is not sure if that would make a difference. He would like to move forward as presented. Com. Au recommended amending the motion to include a condition that the site is to be well landscaping in a manner acceptable to Village staff. Mr. Raysa recommended making the motion subject to Sign Code Section 14.40.010, subsection B. Com. Weinstein made a second amendment to the motion to include Sign Code, Section 14.40.010, subsection B. Com. Khan seconded the amendment. Com. Khan noted that there used to be a gas station at the northwest corner of Dundee Road and Arlington Heights Road. The gas station has been gone for at least 10 years. 07/18/2018 However, the landscaping is still there. He asked staff if the old sign was granted a variation. The PZC has been struggling to compare what the size of the old sign was compared to the proposed sign. Ms. Akash replied that she is not sure if the previous sign was granted a variation. Roll Call to accept the second amendment concerning the requirement for landscaping: AYE - Au, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Moodhe, Weinstein, Cesario NAY - None ABSTAIN - None Motion passed. Roll Call to accept the first amendment concerning the proposed sign not impeding any other signage: AYE - Au, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Moodhe, Weinstein, Cesario NAY - None ABSTAIN - None Motion passed. RESULT: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE [3 TO 4] Next: 8/20/2018 7:30 PM MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner SECONDER: Zill Khan, Commissioner AYES: Frank Cesario, Mitchell Weinstein, Amy Au NAYS: Adam Moodhe, Matthew Cohn, Stephen Goldspiel, Zill Khan ABSENT: Scott Lesser Regular Meeting Other Matters for Discussion None. Approval of Minutes 1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Rescheduled Regular Meeting - Jul 9, 2018 7:30 PM Moved by Com. Moodhe, seconded by Com. Khan, to approve the minutes of the July 9, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commissioner Special meeting as submitted. RESULT: ACCEPTED [6 TO 0] MOVER: Adam Moodhe, Commissioner SECONDER: Zill Khan, Commissioner AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein ABSTAIN: Amy Au ABSENT: Scott Lesser Chairman's Report 07/18/2018 None. Committee and Liaison Reports Com. Khan advised that he attended the July 16, 2018 Village Board meeting. Both recommendation items were approved; Small Wireless Facilities and the Fourth Amendment to the Plaza Verde East PUD. Com. Cohn will be attending the August 20, 2018 Village Board meeting. Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule Ms. Woods advised that the August 1, 2018 PZC regular meeting is tentatively cancelled. She also advised that the PZC training will be held on October 30, 2018 as a Special Meeting and asked the PZC to save the date. Public Comments and Questions None. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 PM Chris Stilling APPROVED BY ME THIS 18th DAY OF July , 2018