Loading...
08/29/2011DES PLAINES PLAN COMMISSION 4i AUGUST 29, 2011 MINUTES DES PLAINES ILLINOIS The Des Plaines Plan Commission held its regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, August 29, 2011, at 7:00 P.M., in Room 102, City Council Chambers, of the Des Plaines Civic Center. PLAN COMMISSION PRESENT: Bar Lane Niemotka Perez ABSENT: Also present was Senior Planner, Scott Mangum, Department of Community and Economic Development. Chairman Niemotka called the meeting to order at 7:05 P. M. A motion was made by Commissioner Lane, seconded by Commissioner Bar, to approve the minutes of the January 31, 2011, hearing. AYES: Bar Lane Niemotka Perez NAYS: None MOTION CARRIED A motion was made by Commissioner Lane, seconded by Commissioner Bar, to approve the minutes of the June 13, 2011, hearing. AYES: Bar, Lane, Niemotka, Perez NAYS: None MOTION CARRIED NEW BUSINESS Case Number 11 -036 -TA - Citywide Request: Text Amendment to the City of Des Plaines 1998 Zoning Ordinance, as amended, Amending Table 7.4.1, Manufacturing Districts Use Matrix, and Section 13.3, Definitions, regarding Shooting Range and Firearm Sales uses. 11-036 -TA — Citywide August 29, 2011 Page 2 Petitioner: Barry and Claudia Levin, Maxon Shooters Supplies 1226 Rand Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Petitioner(s) Barry and Claudia Levin were sworn in and stated that they have been in DP for the last 20 years and found that they needed extra space to offer additional training to the public and would like to open a new Maxon's. He handed out a diagram of the property to the commissioners showing the location and the available parking. Commissioner Lane asked if they would continue to run their other location. Mr. Levin stated they would close the old Maxon's, if approved to open the new one. Mrs. Levin stated they were in the TIF area and wanted to find a new location. Chairman Niemotka called for the Staff Report to be read by Mr. Mangum. Issue: Text Amendment to the City of Des Plaines 1998 Zoning Ordinance, as amended, amending Table 7.4.1, Manufacturing Districts Use Matrix, and Section 13.3, Definitions, regarding Shooting Range and Firearm Sales uses. Analysis: Text Amendment Report Petitioner: Barry and Claudia Levin, Maxon Shooters Supplies, 1226 Rand Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Address: Citywide Case Number: 11-036-A Background Information The applicant is requesting the text amendment in order to relocate an existing Des Plaines Shooting Range and Firearms Sales business into a property in an M-2 Zoning District. The proposed amendment would affect all properties in the M-2 Zoning District citywide and is not specific to a particular property. The amendment (see attachment 2) would create a definition for an "Indoor Shooting Range" (Section 13.1) and amend the Manufacturing Districts Use Matrix (Table 7.4.1) by adding "Indoor Shooting Range" as a Conditional Use. The proposed definition would allow for the accessory sale of firearms. Firearm sales are currently only allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the C-3, C-4, and C-5 Zoning Districts. The Des Plaines City Code further regulates Firearms Dealers. If the amendment is approved by City Council as proposed any business wishing to operate an Indoor Shooting Range would apply for a Conditional Use Permit that would be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals and City Council on a case-by-case basis. 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 the proposed uses. The Economic Development section of the Plan does have objectives to retain and attract businesses, including industrial uses, and the Employment Land Use section seeks to revitalize the industrial base. 11-036 -TA — Citywide August 29, 2011 Page 3 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 states that the purpose of the M-2 General Manufacturing District is to provide a location for general manufacturing uses and related uses in conformance with the comprehensive plan. C. Whether the amendments are appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to the property: Comment: The proposed amenchnent to allow Indoor Shooting Ranges should not have a direct affect on public facilities or services. D. Whether the proposed amendments will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction: Comment: The proposed amendment would allow additional land uses for properties within the M-2, General Manufacturing Zoning District. This may improve the value of these properties and should not have an adverse effect on properties as a whole, particularly with the ability to place conditions on operations through the Conditional Use Permit process. E. Whether the proposed amendments reflects responsible standards for development and growth: 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, the Community and Economic Development Department recommends approval of the requested text amendment regarding Indoor Shooting Ranges. The M-2, General Manufacturing District is the appropriate location for more intense uses. Additionally, many industrial buildings, with high ceiling heights and open floor plans, may be well suited to an Indoor Shooting Range. Plan Commission Procedure: Under Section 3.7-4 of the Zoning Ordinance (Amendments) the Plan Commission may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has the final authority on Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Bar asked if there were any other ranges in the City. Mr. Mangum stated there were not. Mr. Levin explained that there were no other public ranges. Commissioner Perez asked the type of sound panels they would use. Mr. Levin stated they used a sound proof material that is used for the police shooting ranges. A motion was made by Commissioner Bar, seconded by Commissioner Perez, to recommend approval of the Text Amendment to the City of Des Plaines 1998 Zoning Ordinance, as amended, Amending Table 7.4.1, Manufacturing Districts Use Matrix, and Section 13.3, Definitions, regarding Shooting Range and Firearm Sales uses. AYES: Bar, Lane, Niemotka, Perez NAYS: None MOTION CARRIED 11-039 -TA — Citywide August 29, 2011 Page 4 Case #: 11 -039 -TA Citywide Request: Text Amendment to the City of Des Plaines 1998 Zoning Ordinance, as amended, amending Section 11.6.B regarding Electronic Message Board signage regulations, and amending Section 11.7 regarding Sign Variations. Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, Department of Community and Economic Development Chairman Niemotka called for the Staff Report to be read by Mr. Mangum. Issue: Text Amendment to the City of Des Plaines 1998 Zoning Ordinance, as amended, amending Section 11.6.B regarding Electronic Message Board signage regulations, and amending Section 11.7 regarding Sign Variations. Analysis: Text Amendment Report Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, Department of Community and Economic Development Address: Citywide Case Number: 11-039-A Background Information In 2010 the Community Development Committee and the City Council considered options for changes to the Zoning Ordinance that would affect the size of Electronic Message Board (EMB) signs in response to inquiries from the owner of Royal Touch Car Wash, located at 2711 Mannheim Road. Several options, including creation of an overlay district, were discussed; however, the Zoning Ordinance was not amended. In June 2011 the Community Development Committee resumed discussion of Electronic Message Board signs and expressed support for revising the existing limitations on EMB signage (no greater than 20 square feet and no more than 30% of overall sign area) to allow for larger EMB signs while voicing concerns over the potential impacts to residences. Staff has proposed several changes to the regulations that would allow for larger EMB signs by right, allow for the ability to request a larger variation, and also adding regulations to lessen the impact of EMB signs. Proposed Amendment The proposed amendment would increase the maximum size of an EMB sign that could be permitted by right by from 20 square feet to 32 square feet. Additionally, the existing limitation on all sign variances would be increased from not greater than 10% of any dimension to not greater than 50% of any dimension. Language (attachment 1) is also proposed to limit the brightness of signs by requiring automatic dimming and setting a minimum distance of 250' from residences in R-1, R-2, or R-3 Districts. Existing EMB Signs and Regulations in Neighboring Communities Attachment 3 is a Map which indicates the location of existing EMB sign permits within the City. Most of the existing signs are located on commercial corridors and dispersed throughout the community. Attachment 4 shows photos with examples of eight existing EMB signs, including dimensions and percentage of sign where available. The size of EMB signs range from 6 square feet to 923 square feet at the Rivers Casino. 11-036 -TA — Citywide August 29, 2011 Page 5 The Northwest Municipal Conference conducted EMB surveys of member communities the past two years. Results of local communities have been compiled and attached. Of the 13 local communities, 4 do not allowed EMB signs at all, 6 require a Conditional/Special Use Permit, and 3 allow EMB signs by right in at least some instances. Des Plaines' approach is more nuanced with EMB signs allowed as a permitted use in the C-3, C-4, M-1, M-2, M-3, I-1, and R-1 (when on school property) Districts, while requiring a Conditional Use Permit in the C-1, C-2, and C-5 Zoning Districts. Consequently, Des Plaines has more than twice as many EMB signs as the community with the second highest number of EMB signs (Mount Prospect, 13). 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, 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 32 square feet. Existing EMB signs range from 6 to 923 square feet while the median size EMB sign is approximately 26 square feet. The Amendment would also limit the location of EMB signage near more sensitive residential neighborhoods where the signage may conflict with the existing character in addition to controlling the brightness of signs. 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 should not have a direct affect on public facilities or services. D. Whether the proposed amendments will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction: Comment: The increased signage may help businesses by increasing the visibility of EMB signage and increasing the area that is available for messages. The 250 foot minimum distance from residences in residential districts and limitations on brightness should limit the potential adverse impacts. E. Whether the proposed amendments reflects responsible standards for development and growth: 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. The increase in EMB sign area has the ability to alter the aesthetics of the community and should be weighed as a policy consideration. Recommendations: Based on the above analysis and direction of the Community Development Committee of the City Council, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested text amendment regarding Electronic Message Board signage regulations. 11-036 -TA — Citywide August 29, 2011 Page 6 Commissioner Bar stated that some municipalities have restricted the distance between the signs. Chairman Niemotka asked Mr. Mangum about this. Mr. Mangum replied there is no such restriction proposed. However restrictions are proposed regarding the distance from residential areas as well as auto dimming lights at night, etc. Chairman Niemotka called for questions or comments by members of the audience, either in favor of or in objection to the proposal. John Imreibe, of 2711 Manheim Road, stated he was an advocate for getting a sign for his business and trying to do this in a professional and safe manner, but wanted the cap raised above 20 square feet because motorists only have about 30 seconds to read the message and the20 square foot sign area is too small. He stated that a 32 square foot sign would be a good size and would allow for the increase in duration that messages are displayed. Commissioner Bar asked about the computation of a 32 square foot sign. Mr. Mangum stated that 32 square feet would be a sign of 4x8 sign that could be two-sided. Commissioner Perez asked how long it would be on. Mr. Imreibe stated that he would use it all the time, for instance advertising for a special when the business is closed and could use it for community service messages. Commissioner Perez agreed with the community service message but asked if other businesses could rent space on the sign after the business is closed. Mr. Mangum stated the messages had to be regarding the business on site. Commissioner Lane asked about construction companies advertising the parcels they are selling. Mr. Mangum explained how that would work. Chairman Niemotka has the same concerns Commissioner Lane had about the number of that could be in a row. Mr. Mangum stated that there could be separation requirements between signs, but that might raise fairness issues between businesses. Commissioner Bar asked how to pick -and -choose which business got the sign and which did not. Chairman Niemotka inquired whether speed limit could be used to determine the size of signs. Mr. Mangum stated that some of the commercial areas do have higher speed limits, but regulating based on the speed limit may be a problem as some roadways are outside the city's jurisdiction and those speed limits would be dictated by IDOT, or the county. Mr. Imreibe stated that if you have multiple business and the less messages flashing would be better for the business and would be a safer mechanism. Commissioner Bar stated that the distance between signs might also dictate the duration of the message. Mr. Imreibe stated that they needed bigger signs, which would be easier to read. A 10% increase is only two feet for a twenty -foot sign. He thinks that if the size requirement was bumped up to 32 square feet and reduce the speed of the sign, it would work better. Commissioner Perez asked how tall his sign was. Mr. Imreibe stated that his sign was twenty feet high and the electronic portin would be 9 or 10 feet high, also the height of the sound wall behind the railroad tracks would lessen the impact on residences. Mr. Mangum stated that the distance requirement to residences and the brightness regulations for signs would lessen the impact on the residential area. Commissioner Lane stated there was a survey done indicating that the number of words a person could take in on a moving sign is six. Mr. Imreibe stated that he has seen cities that limited the number of messages that could be flashed on the sign per day, but has not searched how many words could be processed. Chairman Niemotka asked if Commissioner Bar could put into words a recommendation to the City or go with the EDC' s recommendation. Commissioner Lane agreed that we needed larger signs but cold send the issue back to committee due to the number of signs in a row and the number of times the signs flash messages and limit the number of messages. 11-036 -TA — Citywide August 29, 2011 Page 7 A motion was made by Commissioner Lane, seconded by Commissioner Perez, to recommend approval of the Text Amendment to the City of Des Plaines 1998 Zoning Ordinance, as amended, amending Section 11.6.B regarding Electronic Message Board signage regulations, and amending Section 11.7 regarding Sign Variations — regarding the size, with further review of the number of signs with respect to the distance from each other, the number of messages and duration of messages. AYES: Bar, Lane, Niemotka, Perez NAYS: None MOTION CARRIED John Hecker, of 984 Walter, of the Park District, handed out a sketch and stated that sending it back to the committee is a problem for the park district. They had been out to bid on their project at 20 square feet, per the current requirement, and received permission to order the larger size sign depending on the vote taken. He would like the size (larger size) be approved. They already have the foundation in place and the electronics in place, and have already taken down the old sign. Commissioner Bar asked if that sign was across the residential area, which is within the 250' from the residents. If they would have the restriction of 250' from residents, not many signs would be able to be put up. Mr. Mangum stated that a discussion was had with regards to the location of park properties and EMB signage during the development of the Unified Development Ordinance, which did not include institutional districts (they are exempt from the distancing requirement) and that the Park District is located within the institutional district. Mr. Mangum informed the commissioners of upcoming plan commissioner training and asked if anyone was interested to let him know. A unanimous motion was made to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 P. M. Sincerely, Robert Niemotka, Chairman Des Plaines Plan Commission cc: City Officials Alderm en Plan Commission Petitioner(s)