Loading...
04/24/2012CITY OF /w' DES PLAINES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS %- is as April 24, 2012 MINUTES `DES PLAINES !,, ILLINOIS The lies Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals Commission held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, April 24, 2012, at 7:30 P. M., in Room 102, City Council Chambers, of the Des Plaines Civic Center. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PRESENT: Catalano, Hotherr, Porada, Saletnik, Schell, Seegers, Szabo ABSENT: None Also present was Senior Planner, Scott Mangum, Department of Community and Economic Development. Chairman Seegers called the meeting to order at7:32 P.M. Chairman Seegers directed that the following case would be heard: Case 12-012-V: The petitioner is requesting variations to Sections 11.6.B and 11.5-1 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to allow a 81 square foot pole sign with a 35 square foot Electronic Message Board (44%, where a maximum 32 square feet or 30% (24.3 square feet) of an 81 square foot sign, whichever is less, may consist of an Electronic Message Board and a pole sign with a l' setback where a minimum of 5' is required. A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr seconded by Board Member Catalano to approve the minutes of the February 28, 2012, hearings as submitted. AYES: Catalano, Hothea, Porada, Saletnik, Schell, Seegers, Szabo NAYES: None MOTION CARRIED 170 S. Des Plaines River Road PINs:09-17-200-102-0000 Case 12-015-V The petitioner is requesting variations to Sections 11.6.B and 11.5-1 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to allow a 81 square foot pole sign with a 35 square foot Electronic Message Board (44%), where a maximum 32 square feet or 30% (24.3 square feet) of an 81 square foot sign, whichever is less, may consist of an Electronic Message Board and a pole sign with a l' setback where a minimum of 5' is required. Petitioner: Chris Pesche, 170 S. Des Plaines River Road, Des Plaines IL 60016 Owner: Chris Pesche, 170 S. Des Plaines River Road, Des Plaines IL 60016 The following individual was sworn in: Chris Pesche (Petitioner), 170 S. Des Plaines River Road Case # 12-015-V —170 Des Plaines River Road April 24, 2012 Page 2 Mr. Pesche requested to modernize the front of Pesche's Flowers by installing a new sign that is part fixed lettering and part LED. Mr. Pesche said the current sign in place is outdated and he finds it difficult to change. He wants an electronic sign and is looking for 50% letterboard and 50% LED. He said this sign will allow him to put up photos of the greenhouses, the flower shop, and other attractive items Pesche's Flowers has to offer. Pesche's flowers is 6 acres and he said people only see the front of the store and this way he would be able to showcase more of it. Existing poles and posts from the current sign would be used. Mr. Pesche also requested to go from a 5' setback to a 1' set back for the sign. When the sign was originally installed it had a 5' set back, but since then, IDOT came and took four 4' of Pesche's Flowers property. Mr. Pesche said the current sign poles that are being used would be used for the new sign. He does not wish to alter the location of the sign. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether the proposed sign would be the same height off the ground as the existing sign, 10'. Petitioner said that it would be. Chainnan Seegers asked if the proposed electronic portion of the sign could be all text or all graphics. Petitioner said it could be both. Chainnan asked if the upper 5' would be a fixed portion for identification. Petitioner said yes. He went onto say that the image of the proposed sign that he provided is just a mock-up of what it would look like and is not an actual representation. Board Member Porada asked if the top 5' height x 9' width of the proposed sign would be an electronically generated image. Petitioner said it would be a fixed sign with a fluorescent backlighting. Board Member Porada asked if the top of the proposed sign could be changeable. Petitioner said that it would be fixed and would not be changeable. Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum if the maximum percentage allowed on an 81 square foot pole sign is the lesser of 32 square feet or 30%. Mr. Mangum said that he was correct. Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum if the proposed percentage by Mr. Pesche is 44%. Mr. Mangum said that he was correct again. Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum if they had the same 81 square foot sign, would the LED have to be 2.5' x 9' to conform to the recently enacted text amendment that calls for the lesser of 32 square feet or 30%. Mr. Mangum said yes, but it is measured by the active electronic portion of it and usually there's a border around it. Board Member Catalano asked Mr. Mangum for clarification on whether or not this property would be allowed a total of 550 square feet for all signs, any one of them maxing out at 200 square feet. Mr. Mangum said that that was correct based on total frontage and acreage of the site. Board Member Catalano then asked if even at 200 square feet would the maximum total electronic message area of the sign would still only be 32 square feet. Mr. Mangum said that was correct, anywhere from 108 total square feet up to 200 total square feet would allow a 32 square foot EMB that would fall within the parameters of the code. Board Member Szabo said the sign is such an improvement over what is currently in place. He said the sign proposed is pretty tasteful and would improve the surrounding area. Board Member Hofherr asked the petitioner, after looking at the newly enacted amendment, if he considered using a 32 square foot sign rather than a 35. The petitioner said that he considered a 75/25 percentage but altered if to 56/44 so he could make the proportions work properly. Case # 12-015-V —170 Des Plaines River Road April 24, 2012 Page 3 Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum for clarification on the text amendment that went from 20 to 32, or a 60% increase. He wanted to point out that with the size of the proposed sign being 81 square feet, the petitioner could not have the 32 regardless, he would have to live with 24.3. Mr. Mangum said that Board Member Porada was correct. Petitioner said that he would have to increase the overall size of the sign to reach 32 square feet under the 30% limitation. Board Member Szabo said if the sign was located somewhere else in the city it wouldn't work, but given where the sign is/will be, it fits well. Board Member Szabo then asked the petitioner if the sign would be in the exact same spot and if anyone had every hit the sign. The petitioner said no, but if it were moved West it would be in the way of traffic which is why he is requesting the sign to be where the existing sign is at Mr. Mangum summarized the following staff report for the record: Issue: The petitioner is requesting variations to Sections 11.6.13 and 11.5-1 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to allow a 81 square foot pole sign with a 35 square foot Electronic Message Board (44%), where a maximum 32 square feet or 30% (24.3 square feet) of an 81 square foot sign, whichever is less, may consist of an Electronic Message Board and a pole sign with a 1' setback where a minimum of 5' is required. Analysis: Address: 170 S. Des Plaines River Road Existing Zoning: C-3, General Commercial Zoning District Petitioner: Chris Pesche, 170 S. Des Plaines River Road, Des Plaines IL 60016 Owner(s): Chris Pesche, 170 S. Des Plaines River Road, Des Plaines IL 60016 In reviewing this variation request, staff has considered the following information: The petitioner/owner is proposing to remove the cabinet of the existing manual changeable copy pole sign and construct an 81 square foot pole sign with a 35 square foot Electronic Message Board component (EMB) at 170 S. Des Plaines River Road in the C-3 General Commercial Zoning District. The 19' -high, 81 square foot (9' by 9') sign would be supported by two existing poles. Pesche's primary lot is located on an irregularly shaped parcel with a total area of approximately 164,273 square feet (3.77 acres) on the west side of Des Plaines River Road. Additional contiguous and non-contiguous Pesche's owned properties to the south and west bring the total land area to 5.73 acres. In 2011 the City Council approved a Text Amendment (Z-27-11) to the Zoning Ordinance that increased the maximum allowable size of Electronic Message Board (EMB) signs from 20 to 32 square feet, but maintained the proportionality limitation that an EMB cannot exceed 30% of the total area of a sign. Section 11.613 of the Zoning Ordinance allows a property with over 5 acres in land area and with greater than 300 feet of street frontage a maximum of three pole signs with a maximum area of 200 square feet for each sign, not to exceed 550 square feet for all signs. Based on the maximum EMB percentage allowed (30%), a 108 square foot pole sign would be allowed the maximum EMB component size of 32 square feet where the proposed 91 square foot sign is only allowed a 24.3 square foot EMB component. The proposed sign location exceeds the 250 -foot minimum distance from the nearest residential property line at 1574 Woodlawn Avenue. EMB signs are also limited to displaying stationary images for a period of not less than 10 Case # 12-015-V —170 Des Plaines River Road April 24, 2012 Page 4 seconds and are required to be equipped with automatic dimming technology. The applicant states breadth of products as a reason for the request for increased size. Additionally, the applicant states that a sign with a larger portion comprised of an EMB would be an aesthetic improvement. The EMB size request is a major variance, as the size requested is more than 10% greater than allowed by code for an electronic message board component of a pole sign. The second variation requested is to locate the sign approximately 1 -foot from the property line, where a minimum of 5 -feet is required. According to the Plat of Survey, the location of the existing sign was located 5 -feet from the property line. The sign became nonconforming when approximately 4 -feet of property was taken by the Illinois Department of Transportation moving the property line to within 1 -foot of the existing sign. The applicant wishes to use the existing sign posts for the new sign cabinet. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variation for size and percentage of the Electronic Message Board component based on review of the information presented by the applicant and the standards and conditions imposed by Section 3.6-8 (Findings of Fact for Variations) as outlined by the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance. There does not appear to be a unique physical condition or hardship with regards to the size or percentage of EMB signage. Staff suggests that if the Board believes that the proportionality of the sign is appropriate one remedy would be to recommend that the City Council direct staff to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to increase the percentage of a sign that is allowed to be electronic for all properties within the city. Staff recommends approval of the setback variation as the IDOT taking was not self created and based on the layout of the property there are limited areas to locate a new sign that wouldn't impact on-site parking or traffic circulation. Zoning Board of Appeals Procedure: The Zoning Board of Appeals has final authority for the sign setback variation request Under Section 3.6-7 of the Zoning Ordinance (Major Variations) the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to recommend that the City Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the variance for an EMB component that is greater than 30% of the total sign area. The City Council has the final authority on the project. Chairman Seegers asked if there were any questions from the Board. Board Member Schell asked Mr. Mangum if the setback was final with the Zoning Board. Mr. Mangum said that the setback was finalized with the Zoning Board and when the time comes there should be two motions: one for the setback and one for the sign percentage. Board Member Porada said the setback is a no-brainer because the only reason this became an issue is because the petitioner wanted to change his sign, he would be conforming because the previous sign predated the taking by Illinois. He went on to preface his following comments by assuring that he meant no disrespect to either the petitioner or City Council. He said staff so rarely recommends denial of something that when they do he takes it as a cue that it is excessive or egregious. Board Member Porada noted staff recommends a denial. He pointed out that the City Council went from 20 to 32 and any citizen can get the 32 square foot or 30% as a matter of right He said the petitioner was correct, that going to 32 had opened up the flood gates. The last issue he wanted to address was hardship. He said under the zoning code a petitioner has to prove hardship, and that's not a life or death situation. That said, the only hardship he saw here is servicing the sign and that isn't enough. He went on to say that if they allow the applicant to have a bigger sign, it could open the door to envy and others in the area would want an even bigger sign, it was a proliferation issue in his mind. Case # 12-015-V —170 Des Plaines River Road April 24, 2012 Page 5 Board member Saletnik said the petitioner could have gone with a larger sign that would have been more "billboardish" that would have been hideous. The petitioner also could have requested 50% and it would have been considered, but the petitioner only asked for 44%. With those aspects in mind, he said having a smaller sign with more of a percentage is better than a bigger sign that's in line with the proper percentage. He went on to say that the setback is a no-brainer. Board Member Szabo said the Board should take issues like this on a case-by-case basis, and in this case the sign is such an improvement over what is currently in place. He went on to say that the Board was given way by City Council to go up to 50% and the petitioner is only asking for 44% and he would hate to see the proportionality change. He said not only is the setback a no-brainer, but the sign is also. Mr. Mangum clarified that an applicant may ask for a maximum of 50% of what the code allows rather than 50% total. In this case, it would be 45% and the petitioner is asking for 44%, which he is allowed to do. Board Member Hofherr agreed that the set back is a no-brainer. He also agreed with Board Member Szabo that the proposed sign is an improvement over what is currently in place. He asked Mr. Mangum if he were to adjust the size of the sign to conform to current code, would the petitioner have to come before the Board again or be able to go right through without any problems. Mr. Mangum said if the sign met the code requirements of a maximum of 32 square feet or 30%, whichever is less, it would be approved as a matter of right. Chairman Seegers said the ordinance, as constructed, may be a problem but they haven't tested it because it was looked at from a simple basis. That is, what they knew at the time. Problems like this had not come up yet. He said it's never black and white. He said the location is pretty well fixed. However, the size of the sign is still within the ordinance but the technology is what people may be afraid of. There is potential for abuse and everything should be considered if the Board is to progress. Chairman Seegers asked if anyone in the audience was in favor of the proposal. He then asked if anyone in the audience objected to the proposal. No one in the audience commented. Board Member Szabo said the Board would take the issues in two parts. A motion was made by Board Member Szabo seconded by Board Member Hofherr to grant a pole sign with a 1' setback where a minimum of 5' is required under 11.5-1 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. AYES: Catalano, Holbert, Porada, Saletnik, Schell, Seegers, Szabo NAYES:None MOTION CARRIED A motion was made by Board Member Szabo seconded by Board Member Board Member Catalano to recommend approval of an 81 square foot pole sign with a 35 square foot Electronic Message Board (44%), where a maximum 32 square feet or 30% (24.3 square feet) of an 81 square foot sign, whichever is less, may Case # 12-015-V —170 Des Plaines River Road April 24, 2012 Page 6 consist of an Electronic Message Board under Sections 11.6.13 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. AYES: Catalano, Saletnik, Seegers, Szabo NAYES: Holbert, Porada, Schell MOTION CARRIED Board Member Hofherr said the City Council should look at its current code and if there are adjustments that the Board should be considering in the future, they should probably be added to the current code the way it's written. He said the Board wasn't provided a copy of the current code so it may already be there but he isn't sure.Mr. Mangum said it's the lesser of 32 square feet or 30%. He also said the sign code allows for a variation for up to an additional 50% to be requested. Chairman Seegers said they were allowed to request something larger than what they asked for. He went on to say that there are ways to control things that this is somewhat of a unique situation because they normally don't deal with property on a parcel of land this large. There are other governing things besides the size of the sign. Chairman asked if anyone had the opportunity to do the training for the Open Meetings Act and said it would be good for everyone to know. He said everyone has until December to complete it. Times have changed and the Board is in the process of changing and they will change more because of the Act. Board Member Hofherr made a comment that his term is set to expire at the end of April and wanted to let everyone know that he was approved to continue on by the Mayor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by unanimous voice vote. Sincerely, A.W. Seegers, Chairman Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals cc: City Officials Aldermen Zoning Board of Appeals