Loading...
01/31/2011DES PLAINES PLAN COMMISSION JANUARY 31, 2011 MINUTES The Des Plaines Plan Commission held its regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, January 31, 2011, at 7:00 P.M., in Room 102, City Council Chambers, of the Des Plaines Civic Center. PLAN COMMISSION PRESENT: Bar, Kowalski, Perez ABSENT: Lane, Niomotka Also present was Senior Planner, Scott Mangum. Chairman Kowalski called the meeting to order at 7:03 P. M. A motion was made by Cornell Bar, seconded by Alex Perez, to approve the minutes of the September 27, 2010, hearing. AYES: Bar, Kowalski, Perez NAYES: None MOTION CARRIED Case #11 -001 -TA — Citywide January 31, 2011 Page 2 NEW BUSINESS Case Number: 11 -001 -TA — Citywide Request: Text Amendment to the City of Des Plaines 1998 Zoning Ordinance, as amended, creating Section 11.5-7.G and amending Section 11.6.B regarding Electronic Message Board signage regulations for certain Tollway adjacent multi -tenant office properties. Petitioner: Siete 7, LLC, 999 E. Touhy Avenue, Suite 510, Des Plaines IL, 60018 Owner: Dante Monteverde and Alicia Lopez-Monteverde, 999 E. Touhy Avenue, Des Plaines IL 60018 Patrick Devereaux, of 999 E. Touhy, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Devereaux stated he was requesting an electronic message board at 999 E. Touhy in the parking lot on the south side of the building. It would be a maximum of 45' tall, dual sided, 500 s.f. at each side, for the purpose of promoting their buildings that are in the office park and to promote the businesses that reside in the office park. This would be a tenant amenity to make it more advantageous for their current tenants and potential future tenants to come to Des Plaines. Mr. Perez inquired about the size of the sign. Mr. Devereaux explained that it would be a maximum of 500 s.f. per side, which would be approximately the same size as the digital portion alone of the Allstate Arena sign. Mr. Devereaux further stated that the City had already approved a 514 s.f. sign for the casino. Mr. Perez inquired about the positioning of the sign. Mr. Devereaux clarified that each side would be angled facing the highway (outbound and inbound), with a great portion of the sign being shielded by the 999 E. Touhy building. He explained that they were not aiming for any of the residential traffic along Touhy as their primary market was towards the people traveling on the highway. Mr. Perez asked if the sign would be on 24 hours/day. Mr. Devereaux stated it would. Mr. Perez commented that residents in Rosemont had complained that their signs were too bright. Mr. Devereaux stated that the sign would be similar to the double -sided signs in Rosemont. Furthermore, most of the signs on 90 were also dual sided, such as McDonalds and Cabellas because of the dual traffic patterns. Public service announcements (i.e.: amber alerts) would also be displayed on the signs. They have agreed to give 3'/2 % to the time to the City of Des Plaines towards public service messages. Additionally, in accordance with the amendment to the ordinance, it would not be only at night, the bulk of the messages for the City of Des Plaines would be dispersed throughout the day and during peak traffic hours (i.e.: 6:00 am to 11:00 am and 2:00 pm to 9:00 pm). Mr. Bar stated that there would be multiple advertisements on the message board. Mr. Devereaux concurred. Mr. Bar then asked how long they would stay on the message board. Mr. Devereaux responded that there are rules and regulations from the highway commission on how often they can change. They would follow the rules and the letter of the law in regards to the transmission of the signs. Mr. Bar commented that he found them to be distracting in trying to read them. Mr. Devereaux responded that the theory behind it was that it depended on the speed of the traffic and the distance away from the sign as the traffic moves past the sign. Mr. Bar made the point that it was less distracting if the sign was on for a longer period of time. Chairman Kowalski asked Mr. Devereaux if he represented only 999 Touhy. Mr. Devereaux responded that he represented 999 E. Touhy, 1011 E. Touhy as well as 1111 E. Touhy, Des Plaines, Illinois. Chairman Kowalski asked if that was under the same ownership — a single ownership. Mr. Devereaux responded that they were under "similar" ownership. The same two people own all the buildings but that different LLCs represented each building. Case #11 -001 -TA — Citywide January 31, 2011 Page 3 Chairman Kowalski stated that he asked if it was the "same" ownership — not "similar." Mr. Devereaux stated that the text amendment addressed the necessary verbiage regarding ownership. He further responded that ADM II, LLC owns 1011 and that ADM III, LLC owns 1111, but the same ownership and the same percentages own both of those. Chairman Kowaslki stated that he had real problems with that. Chairman Kowaslki asked why an office building needed an electronic message board. Mr. Devereaux responded that they intended on opening up new businesses in the building as well, and some of the new businesses are a meeting and conference center in the building. And those meetings and conferences would constantly be changing and the best way to get the message out would be to use the electronic message board so more people would be aware of that and be able to relate to it. Chairman Kowalski stated that the problem he had with it was exactly the point the applicant made. The purpose of outdoor advertising is to grab the attention of the motoring public and, from a professional traffic engineer's point of view, it is the worst thing you can do on a high-speed facility such as the interstate. Yet the applicant was proposing the construction of a sign, which by its nature changes the message on a regular basis, taking more of the motorists' attention from driving to read the sign. He asked the applicant what the advantage was to the motoring public. Mr. Devereaux responded that they would be getting information on what was going on in the local community. Chairman Kowalski stated that there were plenty of other ways of advertising such as the newspaper. He stated that the ordinance as proposed, states that "the changeable copy may not be animated; however, graphics of stationary objects with no movement animation shall be allowed." Chairman Kowalski asked the applicant what "graphics of stationary objects" meant. Mr. Devereaux responded that an example would be a picture of an upcoming event with the dates of the event, then the sign would transition to the next message such as Des Plaines Park District Winter Festival on a certain date. These would be examples of a stationary sign for one and a stationary sign for another. Chairman Kowalski stated he understood that it was a stationary image; without any animation. Mr. Devereaux pointed out that it would be similar to the Allstate Arena sign that shows, for instance, a sign for the circus, then one for DePaul Basketball game, then another sign, so forth and so on. This is a transitioning sign going from one event or message to another without any animation on the message itself. Chairman Kowalski asked for an explanation of the language contained in Section 11.6-B which would be added to the City Ordinance. "The changeable commercial copy may be substituted at any time without any approval of the City with a non-commercial message. The purpose of this section is to prevent any inadvertent favoring of commercial speech over non-commercial speech or favoring of any particular non-commercial speech over any other non-commercial speech, this section prevails over any more specific provision to the contrary." Chairman Kowalski stated he did not know what that meant and was concerned that the City may be looking at the sign as some ramification on freedom of speech, and concerned with the language. Mr. Devereaux responded that the City Attorney, outside counsel for the City attorney, and applicant's attorney put in that language. He explained that the language would allow for freedom of speech and that it would not let any one particular thing take precedence over another. Mr. Mangum explained that it was an attachment to the Staff Report as Proposed Additions to Des Plaines Zoning Code — last paragraph of the first page. Mr. Devereaux stated that part of it was developed to guarantee that the City message would not be commercial and that most of the other messages would be commercial. "The changeable commercial copy may be substituted at any time" means that they could change it during the day with a non-commercial message such as an amber alert or a city meeting message. To have a commercial message on the sign, it has to be by one of their commercial tenants in the building. Mr. Devereaux stated that it was an amenity they were offering to all their tenants — not to have one tenant take over the sign, unless, of course one tenant would come along and rent out all three of their buildings. Case #11 -001 -TA — Citywide January 31, 2011 Page 4 Chairman Kowalski summarized what the applicant basically wanted was an outdoor electronic advertising sign. Mr. Devereaux concurred. Chairman Kowalski stated that he did not think it ought to be hidden in the fact that they were proposing a special change in the City Ordinance to allow outdoor advertising on that property where the current City Ordinance prohibits electronic advertising. Mr. Mangum explained what was currently allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Further, he explained that the City Attorney as well as outside counsel reviewed the proposed amendment, and who then recommended the language. Concerns were brought up at the City Council meeting regarding the signage being required to be on the premises and that was where the language was noted in the fourth paragraph in the addition to Section 11.6-B about the tenant being required. Chairman Kowalski stated that he understood the applicant's purpose — by making that outdoor advertising sign to tenants, it would enhance their ability to rent out that property. Mr. Devereaux stated that was correct. He also had several businesses of his own that he would like to advertise as well. To rent out the building is one goal, the other is to have his own businesses able to advertise as he is a tenant there as well. The third reason was for public service messages. Chairman Kowalski predicted that in six months Des Plaines would be subject to a lawsuit by the other outdoor advertising companies that wanted similar changeable message panels an all their signs, because this case would set the precedence and the remainder of the ordinance would be challenged in court and would be changed. Mr. Devereaux stated that was why the verbiage was added to the Ordinance stating they had to be a tenant of the building, etc. Mr. Bar asked whether the three properties were under one tax bill. Mr. Devereaux stated that there were three tax bills. Chairman Kowalski also clarified that it would encumber the existing owner to sell all fifteen acres. If only a portion of the 15 acres was sold, the sign would have to come down. Chairman Kowalski stated that providing that type of a sign would not do anything to improve or beautify the City of Des Plaines. It was a major entrance to Des Plaines and he did not see how outdoor advertising would enhance the beauty. Further, if one were to go to the intersection of Touhy Avenue and River road, to ask the residents how they feel about living in the shadow of that sign. Mr. Bar stated that any tenant could advertise on the sign. He asked for the specifics of a tenant using the sign. Mr. Devereaux stated the tenant (and tenant's business) had to have a minimum of a three-year lease and must occupy at least 500 sq. ft. of office space (per business). Chairman Kowalski called for the Staff Report to be read by Mr. Mangum. Scott Mangum read in the Staff Report. Issue: Text Amendment to the City of Des Plaines 1998 Zoning Ordinance, as amended, creating Section 11.5-7.G and amending Section 11.6.B regarding Electronic Message Board signage regulations for certain Tollway adjacent multi -tenant office properties. Case #11 -001 -TA — Citywide January 31, 2011 Page 5 Analysis: Text Amendment Report Owners: Dante Monteverde and Alicia Lopez-Monteverde, 999 E. Touhy Avenue, Des Plaines IL 60018 Petitioner: Siete 7, LLC, 999 E. Touhy Avenue, Suite 510, Des Plaines IL, 60018 Address: Citywide Case Number: 11-001-A Background Information In 2009 the applicant originally requested a 35' -tall, 300 square foot electronic message board sign at 999 E. Touhy Avenue. The applicant was instructed that the Zoning Ordinance limited a sign variation of no greater than ten percent of what is allowed. The request was subsequently withdrawn as it exceeded the maximum electronic message board sign size of 20 square feet by greater than ten percent, in addition to exceeding the maximum percentage of a sign that could be electronic (30%). The property owner also inquired about applying for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation Plan as allowed for office parks in Section 11.8 of the Zoning Ordinance, but was informed by the Zoning Administrator that three existing office buildings would not be interpreted to represent an "office park." Recent History A representative of the developer contacted individual City Council members and staff to show them a power point presentation concerning the electronic message board, (hereinafter "EMB"), plus the developer's plans for increasing the occupied tenant space in the buildings and the redevelopment and/or expansion of some or all of the building sites. In other recent activity, and pursuant to consultations with the Mayor and City Manager, the developer was asked to appear before the Economic Development Commission on November 10th, 2010 to make a similar presentation as was made to individual Council members and staff. Subsequently the developer presented plans and received support for the concept of a text amendment to allow the proposed sign from the Committee of the Whole at the December 6, 2010 City Council meeting. Proposed Text Amendment compared with Current Ordinance The applicant, working with the City Attorney's Office and outside counsel, has proposed language to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance (see attachment). The language proposed would create an exception in the sign regulations for a "Qualified EMB Property" that meets certain criteria: (i) is a tract of land under single or common ownership of not less than 15 acres zoned C- 2 or C-3 (ii) is improved with multi -story, multi -tenanted office buildings that have more that 400,000 sq. ft. of rentable space • (iii) has a frontage of at least 200 linear feet on I-90 or I-294 Case #11 -001 -TA — Citywide January 31, 2011 Page 6 This criterion is limiting and would likely only apply to a couple of additional Tollway adjacent properties within the City. The proposed amendment would further allow such qualified properties to construct one Electronic Message Board (EMB) that shall not exceed 500 square feet per side of total sign area and shall not be more than 45 feet in height. Both of these criteria would exceed the existing limitations on EMB signage (no greater than 20 square feet and no more than 30% of overall sign area) as well as exceed the allowable height (35' maximum) and size (200 square feet) for a pole sign. Additionally, the amendment would allow an EMB sign on a Qualified EMB Property by -right, where a Conditional Use Permit is currently required in the C-2 Zoning District. Concerns were raised at the December 6, 2010 City Council meeting about off -premises advertising. The proposed language would limit copy to be specific to the businesses or organizations residing on the Qualified EMB Property. For this purpose, a "tenant" is a person(s) or entity with a lease for a term of at least three years, actually occupies space and has a fully -functioning office of at least 500 square feet. The text amendment would also allow Amber Alerts and City information to be displayed no less than 3.5% of the total time the Electronic Message Board is operating in any 24 hour period. To properly evaluate the text amendment request, the standards below, which are contained in Section 3.7-5 of the Zoning Ordinance, must be employed. Following is a discussion of those standards: A. Whether the proposed amendments are consistent with the goals, objectives and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan: Comment: The City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the City Council in 2007, does not specifically address signage or EMB signage. The Economic Development section of the Plan does have objectives to retain and attract businesses, including office development, while the Urban Design section has the goal to enhance the appearance of key community entry points and traffic routes. B. Whether the proposed amendments are compatible with the current conditions and the overall character of existing developments in the immediate area: Comment: The Zoning Ordinance currently limits EMB signage to no larger than 20 square feet. The proposed amendment would allow for EMB signage up to 500 square feet. While there are currently no EMB signs of the scale proposed within the City and EMBs are not permitted in connection with billboards, in 2010 the City Council approved a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation Plan to allow larger EMB signage, the largest of which would be approximately 514 square feet, on the site of a future Casino development with frontage on I-294. C. Whether the amendments are appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to the property: Comment: The proposed amendment to allow larger EMB signage for certain Tollway adjacent properties should not have a direct affect on public facilities or services. Compliance with the Illinois Department of Transportation regulations would be required. D. Whether the proposed amendments will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction: Comment: The applicant believes that the increased signage will help office buildings to attract and retain tenants, thereby increasing the property value of such properties. E. Whether the proposed amendments reflects responsible standards for development and growth: Case #11 -001 -TA — Citywide January 31, 2011 Page 7 Comment: This zoning text amendment does not appear to conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the official policy guide to future land use, development, and conservation with the community. Therefore, the proposed text amendment would not appear to be in conflict with responsible standards for development and growth. Recommendation: Based on the above analysis and direction of the City Council, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested text amendment regarding Electronic Message Board signage regulations for certain Tollway adjacent multi -tenant office properties. Mr. Perez inquired as to the last time the office park was fully leased. Mr. Devereaux stated that was not known as the current ownership recently purchased the buildings in March 2008, June, 2009, and September 2009. Mr. Bar asked whether the advertising would be free to tenants. Mr. Devereaux stated that it would not, as the sign would be expensive to purchase and install. Mr. Bar had a concern in that even though the property is an office park, it is an office park made up of three individual properties. The City does not have time to police whether one, two, or all three parcels were to be sold off and that the sign would then need to be removed. The Ordinance reads that the property is supposed to be 15 acres, not three parcels of 5 acres each. Chairman Kowalski asked what the frontage of the property was along Interstate 90. Mr. Devereaux stated it was more than 200 feet. Chairman Kowalski further stated that the proposed change to the Ordinance read "it has a combined frontage of at least 200 linear feet." Mr. Devereaux stated that there were more than 200 feet just for the property located at 999 E. Touhy. Chairman Kowalski asked Mr. Bar if that was correct. Mr. Bar stated that the applicant met the "200 feet" contingency, just not the 15 -acre contingency. Chairman Kowalski called for questions or comments by members of the audience, either in favor of or in objection to the proposal. No persons came forward from the audience. Chairman Kowalski asked Mr. Mangum what his understanding was regarding the language "... tract of land under single or common ownership..." Mr. Mangum responded that the intent of the language was that there was one owner for the land. Mr. Devereaux stated that he told both sets of attorneys that it was the same owner or "common owner" of the property, just under two LLCs with same percentage of ownership for each of the two buildings. Chairman Kowalski confirmed that the applicant, based on the City's requirements, would give 50 minutes of advertising to public messages. Chairman Kowalski also pointed out that electronic message boards would not be permitted in connection with billboards. Chairman Kowalski was also concerned that the City staff has used that terminology and if the general public and perhaps the city council read that, they may get a different impression. Where it says "... compliance with the Illinois Department of Transportation regulations would be required... " could convey the impression that IDOT endorses some regulation in terms of the location of billboards, when, in fact, they regulate and control. But, in the years from 1965 to 2000, that those regulations were constantly changing and implemented as a result of court challenges by the billboard industry. It was never the intent that the Highway Department or IDOT to be in the business of authorizing outdoor advertising signs nor in the outdoor advertising regulation business. Further, the Federal Highway Administration indicated that if you wanted to use Federal highway funds in the State of Illinois, you had to be in the business of issuing these permits. Those regulations have changed over the years. He did not Case #11 -001 -TA — Citywide January 31, 2011 Page 8 want the public to be under the impression that IDOT, through its regulations is supporting or condoning the advertising. Mr. Kowalski further stated that advertising diverts motorist attention, and that he was not in favor of the Allstate sign for that reason. A motion was made by Mr. Bar, seconded by Mr. Perez, to recommend approval of the Text Amendment to the City of Des Plaines 1998 Zoning Ordinance, as amended, creating Section 11.5-7.G and amending Section 11.6.B regarding Electronic Message Board signage regulations for certain Tollway adjacent multi -tenant office properties with the exception that the fifteen (15) acres must be under single ownership — NOT common ownership. AYES: Bar. Perez NAYES: Kowalski MOTION CARRIED A motion was made by Mr. Bar, and seconded by Mr. Perez, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 pm. Sincerely, Carl Kowalski, Chairman Des Plaines Plan Commission cc: City Officials Alderm en Plan Commission Petitioner(s)