Loading...
2012-01-18 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 01/18/2012 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION January 18, 2012 Village Sign Code—Review of proposed update Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Smith Ms. Bocek Mr. Khan Mr. Cohn Ms. Johnson Commissioners absent: Mr. Stark Ms. Myer Mr. Weinstein Also present: Ms. Beverly Sussman, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Ms. Ghida Neukirch, Assistant Village Ms. Carol Berman, Deputy Building Commissioner, Administrative Services Mr. Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner, Operations Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Bocek, seconded by Commissioner Khan to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 16, 2011. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Moved by Commissioner Khan, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to approve the minutes of the public hearing and special meeting of November 30, 2011. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Bocek and Johnson abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS— None VILLAGE SIGN CODE— REVIEW OF PROPOSED UPDATE Ms. Neukirch stated they have been working for many months on the update of the Village's sign code. Over a year ago they compiled a team consisting of representatives from the Plan Commission and Zoning board to assist in this process. They now have a final draft they are recommending for consideration. She stated they would really like some feedback which is very important to any development. Ms. Neukirch stated they had issued a survey to business owners, property managers and other professionals as well as extensive outreach to the community looking for feedback from business owners, residents and just about anyone who wanted to provide feedback. She noted they did receive a lot of feedback even before from business owners and property managers. They also looked at legal opinions and most were in regard to name and nature and how we describe businesses. They are hoping to submit a final draft to the Zoning Board at the meeting st th on February 21 and then on to the Village Board on March 19 . Chairman Smith asked who specifically the feedback was from. Ms. Neukirch stated feedback came from business owners, sign code professionals, John Green, architect, provided very extensive reviews of sign code recommendations and property managers because they hear from their tenants as to what they are looking for. She stated they wanted to make sure that they captured new trends in the industry and wanted to be very pro business and at the same time to be very professional. Mr. Sheehan stated certain things in trends came back over and over again such as portable signage and we wanted to make sure by putting in certain specific limitations that high standards were maintained. Chairman Smith asked if they were able to incorporate a lot of the recommendations given by these people. Ms. Neukirch stated yes and they also did research on other municipal regulations and talked to them about how they drafted regulations and the result of those regulations. Ms. Neukirch spoke about the Seasonal Banner recommendations. She noted now they require a permit which is good for 90 days and are limited to just business zoned districts within the Village. They are recommending that seasonal banners be permitted on a one time permit providing they remain in good condition. They would be permissible in all zoning districts. They would have to be on private property. Commissioner Bocek asked what happens if they want to sell advertising on the banners. Ms. Neukirch stated that would not be permissible. Ms. Neukirch reviewed portable signs. They did hear from business owners and property managers that there is a need for this. They have very strict regulations on this and are confident they can property enforce them. She noted many of our surrounding communities have these regulations in their code and have not had any complaints. The signs would not exceed 4 by 6 feet with a maximum of 2 faces. They did add into the draft that if a business exceeds 300 feet of frontage they would be allowed to have 2 because they usually have two entrances. These are not really visible from the roadway so it is just once a customer is in the parking lot it is an opportunity for them to see what kind of special things they are advertising. Another recommendation is that they would have to be taken down once the business is closed for the evening. Mr. Sheehan acknowledged that now they are not taken down and they are trying for better looking signs. Ms. Neukirch next reviewed For Sale, Rent and Lease signs. She noted they are recommending that a 6 square foot sign located on private property would be exempt and not regulated. They are recommending an administrative permit process for signs that are 24 square feet. This would be a better fit since the Zoning Board meets only once a month which is challenging for business owners who have to apply a month in advance just to get on the agenda, go before the Zoning Board and the net Board meeting. They felt the option to put this in here would also, in effect, reduce the time to apply. Mr. Sheehan noted the way it works now they can get a permit for a temporary sign for 12 months. After the 12 month period they can get another 6 month extension and after that they have to go to the ZBA for a variance. After the initial two year period they would still need to obtain a variance of the Sign Code. He stated they are trying to allow some of the vacant parcels or some shopping centers to get a nicer small looking sign similar to the one CB Richard Ellis has at Dominicks that is near their entry signs. They are a little less obtrusive that way. Ms. Neukirch noted they have regulations both in terms of the time limit, 12 months and then renewable and location and heights of up to 10 feet and the number of signs would still be one per frontage and limited in size based on lineal feet of frontage. Mr. Sheehan noted they are limited to 10 feet from the property line. There are a couple of properties that are problematic in the fact that they go from curb to sidewalk at 10 feet so they can either put the sign either attached to ground sign or within the shadow box of the ground sign. Ms. Neukirch reviewed electronic message signs and noted it was completely reworked. Right now they are all required to be approved by variation. The draft includes standards to guide petitioners concerning the general characteristics such as colors and frequency of message change that will be allowed. Ms. Neukirch noted that drive through facilities generally have menu boards, so a general standard is proposed limiting boards to 60 square feet. Petitioners complying with the standard would not have to go through a variation process with the Zoning Board. Mr. Sheehan noted the theory is that instead of making petitioners go through an additional process, let's come up with a size that seems adequate and allow it as a right. If you need something different then you must really come up with some very unique circumstances. By allowing a certain size, the less they can ask for more. Ms. Neukirch noted these signs would be for 60 square feet and they also have regulations regarding the number of colors that would be permitted and that they are static so there is no flashing. Ms. Neukirch reviewed electronic messages in ground and wall signs. The regulations reflected in the draft are based on information they have already approved Ms. Neukirch stated they are seeing more and more of electronic message window signs which technically are not approved now. However, one line of text in a window display which cannot be seen from the right of way is a very positive opportunity for a business to communicate different things going on. Therefore they are recommending this be permitted based on only one line of text, uniform color and character size, no video animation. They also already have one regulation that signage cannot exceed 40 percent of the window coverage of any elevation. This is an important element they wanted in the code. Mr. Sheehan noted they have tried to create for ground and wall signs criteria that are already in the code and limits such things as scrolling, flashing, etc but still provides some benefit to the sign. The length of time a sign changes is something they want to include to establish consistency in reviewing requests going forward. Commissioner Khan asked about signs for high schools. Mr. Sheehan stated that schools are regulated by the State, and the Village does not have authority to regulate signs. Mr. Sussman asked who regulates the schools signs. Mr. Raysa noted the State has plenary supervision over school purposes. Mr. Sussman asked who tickets in school spots. Commissioner Johnson stated it is the Lincolnshire police at Stevenson. Commissioner Smith asked for clarification of the red color limitations and why they are there. Mr. Sheehan stated the amber lights are requested quite often but what we are trying for is uniform color. He noted they will look at the red color issue. Multiple colors will still require a variance. Commissioner Smith asked about the frequency of change. Mr. Sheehan stated they have looked at a lot of studies and there are all sorts of thoughts and they thought 20 seconds would be best to keep your eyes on the road. Commissioner Smith noted that if the sign does not change fast enough you could argue that people will be looking to see what the next text will be. Ms. Neukirch stated they just don't want it to be too much of a distraction. Chairman Smith asked what businesses themselves are saying and asking for. Mr. Sheehan noted that when they first come in they are looking for more rapid change but the Zoning Board works with petitioners on the colors and message change interval. Commissioner Smith stated he does not feel that time should even be in the code because if it does not change often enough they wait to see it. He does not believe it is that much of a distraction because there are plenty of other distractions besides signs. Carol Berman noted that the Village appearance review team reviews signs that require a variation before the Zoning Board conducts the public hearing. The Zoning Board has a recommendation from the appearance team to guide its review of the variation. Trustee Sussman asked about animation noting she did not see anything wrong with that. Commissioner Bocek noted that may depend on the application. Commissioner Smith noted it seems we are getting a new era but are not quite ready to let go of the old era. Commissioner Smith asked if every other town has limitations. Mr. Sheehan noted most towns have some kind of limitations but they all want to avoid strobing. Trustee Sussman asked about allowing flags and what kind and for how long. Commissioner Cohn inquired if there would be a grace period for compliance for temporary signs. Mr. Raysa indicated that the Village would allow a period of time for signs to be brought into compliance. Commissioner Bocek stated she has some issues with colored uplights which are popular now. If we allow a certain color for one development then another one may want another way out color. You may potentially want to consider the color of lighting as part of the architectural features. Ms. Neukirch stated if it is in the furtherance of a business enterprise it is interpreted as a sign and it would also be regulated. She asked if Commissioner Bocek's opinion is that lighting should be uniform. Commissioner Bocek noted that everyone else has white lights and colored lighting should perhaps be considered as an exception. Commissioner Bocek asked how it was for example that Starbucks on Route 83 and Lake Cook Road only had one sign. Mr. Sheehan noted that was due to the fact that they have only one frontage. Commissioner Bocek commented that wall signs should have a maximum size such as 150 square feet. Requests for signs larger than the standard would be reviewed as variations. Ms. Neukirch noted that with these recommendations they will be putting them together with other recommendations and staff suggestions and brought to the Zoning Board and all will then come back to the Plan Commission and then go on for final approval with the Board. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT— None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil said that the next meeting is scheduled for February 1, 2012. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS— None STAFF REPORT— None NEW BUSINESS— None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Khan, seconded by Commissioner Johnson and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ERIC SMITH, Chair