Building & Zoning Committee

“Where People Count” Community Development 1000 Civic Center Drive, Niles, Illinois 60714 Mayor Telephone (847) 588-8040 ● Fax (847) 588-8050 ● TDD (847) 588-8059 Robert M. Callero Trustees November 18, 2010 Chris Hanusiak James T. Hynes Joe LoVerde Building and Zoning Committee Meeting 8:30 a.m. Louella B. Preston Andrew Przybylo In Attendance: Alan Weel Robert M. Callero – Mayor Village Manager Steve Vinezeano – Assistant Village Manager George R. Van Geem Joe Annunzio – Village Attorney George Van Geem – Village Manager Village Clerk Andrew Przybylo – Village Trustee Marlene J. Victorine Tom Kanelos – Planning & Zoning Committee ______________ James Hynes – Village Trustee Community Chris Hanusiak – Village Trustee Development Chuck Ostman – Community Development Director Director Bonnie Jacobson – Planning Coordinator Charles Ostman Mary Ann Starzynski – Recording Also in attendance: Jim from the Nadig Newspaper Absent: Rich Wlodarski – Community Development Assistant Director Meeting called to order at 8:30 a.m. by Andrew Przybylo. Approval of Minutes: Andrew Przybylo asked if the minutes for the September 21, 2010 meeting were okay. Chris Hanusiak moved to approve the minutes, seconded by James Hynes, all approved. Jeremiah Yeksavich, Senior Planner, AICP, Rolf Campbell & Associates made a presentation of the draft sign code as follows: PURPOSE:  Protect the health, safety, and general welfare  Protect the constitutional right to free speech while not creating a nuisance to neighboring properties and upon the Village as a whole  Support the desired visual character of the Village  Prevent traffic hazards www.vniles.com DESIGN GUIDELINES:  Provide general standards to support the purpose statement, include o Legibility o Relationship of signs to their surroundings o Relationship of signs to the building and site locations o The quality and craftsmanship of signs MEASUREMENT OF SIGN COPY AREA Andrew Przybylo asked Jeremiah if monument signs were height from ground or roadway. Jeremiah responded that the ordinance states measured from curb level. PROHIBITED SIGNS:  For the most part maintained existing provisions  Refined definition of vehicular signs o Vehicular signs shall not be parked on a right-of-way, public property or private property so as to be visible form a public right-of-way where the apparent purpose is to advertise a product or direct people to a business or activity located on the same or nearby property.  Prohibited video signs(i.e. television) except in conjunction with gasoline pumps 2 EXEMPT SIGNS 1  Made refinements and additions  Political signs o 3 signs with a total area of 20 square feet o Not to be displayed longer than 15 days after the election on non-residential property. o New State law “prohibits” time limits for display on residential property.  Holiday Decorations o 45 days before and 90 days after holiday Andrew Przybylo asked how this time limit was decided. Jeremiah responded that if the Village wanted to be more restrictive they could. Chuck Ostman responded that weather can be hindering so a longer time frame was necessary. EXEMPT SIGNS 2  Window Signs – Temporary o 2 per window for not more than 30 days o 50% of any business window; 75% of supermarket window  Added Public Notice Board Kiosks  Home Occupation Sign (Nameplate) o 48 square inches in R-1 and R-2  Non-Commercial signs in residential areas (Baby born, Honor Roll student, etc) o Look to Committee for direction James Hynes states that we wouldn’t want to limit free speech as in the First Amendment. No restriction on size but felt 30 days to display was to long of a period. Jeremiah responded that usually the length of time is the problem. Andrew Przybylo agreed. James Hynes suggested 2 weeks. Andrew Przybylo agreed that would be a more appropriate time limit. Tom Kanelos stated that something like an Honor Roll student should be allowed up a long as desired. SIGNS REQUIRING A PERMIT  Signage in Business and Manufacturing districts o Total Signage =  Qualifying for ground sign= = 3 times the wall frontage of a building  Not qualifying for ground sign = 2.5 times the wall frontage of a building o 1 frontage = 500 square feet maximum o 2 frontages = 800 square feet maximum o 3 or more frontages = 1,000 square feet maximum o Sites require a Comprehensive Signage Plan 3 WALL SIGNS  Can be on any wall or Right –of – Way frontage  No specific limit on number  Every sign after 1st must be no more than 50% of the area of the 1st  Cannot extend above roof line  No stacking of signage from different businesses GROUND SIGNS  Number of signs o 0 – 99 feet of Right-of-Way frontage: no sign o 100 – 599 feet of Right-of-Way frontage: 1 sign o 600 feet of Right-of-Way frontage: 2 signs  Area – as part of overall total signage  Height o 10 Tenants of less: 20 feet o 10 Tenants or more; 120K square feet: 22 feet o 500K square feet: 32 feet o In a manufacturing district: 40 feet Andrew Przybylo asked if this was for billboard and Jeremiah and Chuck Ostman responded that billboard was prohibited. It was also decided that in a manufacturing district the height should be 20 feet. OTHER SIGNS  Window Signs – Permanent o Area as part of overall total signage o Neon sign not more than 15% of window area  Electronic Message Board Sign o Allowed as a permitted sign if it meets certain conditions, otherwise it requires a special use permit o Maximum 25% of ground sign without a special use permit Chuck Ostman stated that there are 11 conditions that have to be met for electronic message board signs. Mayor Callero asked about neon borders in windows and Chuck Ostman responded these are prohibited in windows. SPECIAL USE SIGNS  Any sign not covered in the ordinance  Painted wall signs  Drive through signs o Exempt, if  It is not greater than six(6) square feet in area;  It is internal to the lot; or  The lot upon which the sign located does not abut a lot zoned in a residential district Chuck Ostman stated that the Village is unique in that we don’t have drive-thru as “special use”. 4 TEMPORARY SIGNS  Banners  Bunting  Flags  Inflatable’s  Remnants  Searchlights ADMINISTRATION  Existing signs that received permit are legal non-conforming. o Must be removed in:  Neon window borders – within 5 years  All other signs – by 2025  As is currently, any sign that required a permit that does not have one is ‘unlawful’ and can be taken down.  Implementation will be incremental and occur as signs are updated. DISCUSSION: George Van Geem stated that resident have had concerns with towing signs on businesses. Some feel that the signs which state if parked here will be towed are too large. Joe Annunzio stated that he has heard just the opposite that the signs are perhaps to small and not able to read. George Van Geem what is happening with Oak Mill Mall and current signage. Jeremiah responded that the Village when dealing with a large center should have the firm come in to discuss ‘Special Use’. Chuck Ostman responded that good discussions with Oak Mill Mall are ongoing. The owner is taking it upon himself at his own cost to conform to code. Chuck Ostman stated that the information is not in the Zoning Code. If all was included in Zoning Code then it would be covered. Need to research, probably a good idea to incorporate into Zoning. Andrew Przybylo responded that he was confused, so the sign ordinance is not incorporated in zoning ordinance? Asked if it wouldn’t make sense to combine. Jeremiah responded that if it is in the zoning ordinance then ALL would have to be notified. George Van Geem asked if the Niles Library sign was conforming. Chuck responded no the area of electronics can’t exceed 25% of total sign. George Van Geem asked if the sign constitutes 2 signs due to the 30 degrees. Stated that he didn’t find it objectionable and doesn’t want to over regulate. Bonnie Jacobson responded it is okay by itself but if you put that kind of signage along Milwaukee Avenue it would be overpowering. Andrew Przybylo responded that he didn’t see a problem as the sign area would be based on frontage, how big could it be? It would lend itself to restrictions. George Van Geem asked if it would be possible to take perhaps 25 pictures of non conforming signs so we could visually understand. Chuck Ostman responded yes. 5 George Van Geem commented that nothing in this ordinance adheres to the inside of a mall. Chuck Ostman responded correct as the sign as to be seen from the right-of-way to be included. George Van Geem said that the Chamber wants to know if they see the draft before finalized. Chuck Ostman responded that it would be a good idea to finish up some of the small details and for the plan commission to present one more public meeting. James Hynes responded we need to approve, and then present to plan commission for approval. George Van Geem responded yes don’t need to sent to Board first. There was a motion to accept as is with changes made and to give to the Plan Review for public hearing. Mayor Callero asked if staff has reviewed all highlighted areas on the handout of information. Chuck Ostman responded yes. All agreed ready to go directly to the plan commission. Chuck Ostman stated that Jeremiah and Rolf Campbell was the right decision for performing all the work on the sign ordinance and thanked them for their service. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE: Bonnie Jacobson stated that the business workshop which was held was really good. The Community workshop which was held was poorly attended. The next workshop is supposed to cover envisioning and participation is necessary to be successful. Steve Vinezeano responded that when he was working on the Storm Water issues it was politically motivated and grabbed interest. Steve recommended a flyer by Houseal Lavigne be mailed. Mayor Callero asked for specifics as to the time of each of the workshops. Bonnie responded that the business workshop was a 7 a.m. breakfast and the residential workshop was a 7 p.m. coffee and cookies. Steve Vinezeano stated that focus groups are important, they don’t come to us, and we have to go to them. Bonnie Jacobson responded that those are going well the only problem was with Condo Associations. Chuck Ostman responded he has a good relationship with them and will contact them personally. James Hynes again stated that a flyer, something to grab resident’s attention was needed. Andrew Przybylo questioned why the Village would have to design as Houseal Laving was hired to market the comprehensive plan. Andrew Przybylo stated that this is not only about pride and aesthetics but property values. Steve Vinezeano also noted that the 2 page survey was going into the Newsletter which was ready for finalization today. Steve Vinezeano also made a comment that residents were questioning why ALL board members were not present at the residential workshop. Chuck Ostman responded Houseal Laving felt it was better not for them to be present as it made residents more comfortable speaking their views. Another meeting was scheduled for Thursday, December 16, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. Motion to adjourn by Andrew Przybylo, James Hynes moved and George Van Geem seconded. All agreed. Meeting adjourned at 9:40 a.m. 6