McHenry Times

City of Crystal Lake Planning and Zoning Commission met Aug. 21.

Here is the minutes provided by the commission:

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hayden at 7:30 p.m. On roll call, members Esposito, Goss, Greenman, Jouron, Philpot, Skluzacek, and Hayden were present.

Elizabeth Maxwell, City Planner, and Katie Cowlin, Assistant City Planner, were present from Staff.

Mr. Hayden asked Boy Scout Nathan to lead those in attendance in the Pledge of Allegiance. He asked those in attendance to rise to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Nathan led those in attendance in the Pledge.

Mr. Hayden stated that this meeting was being televised now, as well as, recorded for future playback on the City’s cable station. He added to please use the sign in sheets in the rear of the Chambers and he will call the names from the list for anyone who wishes to speak.

APPROVE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 7, 2019 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

Mr. Jouron moved to approve the minutes from the August 7, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as presented. Mr. Philpot seconded the motion. On roll call, all members voted aye. Motion passed.

2019-112 1776 PARKING LOT – 295 Washington St – PUBLIC HEARING

The petitioner was continued from the August 7, 2019 PZC meeting.

Special Use Permit Amendment to allow for a sign that is eight feet in height and a variation from Article 4-1000 to allow the sign to have a one-foot setback.

Mr. Hayden stated that the sign had been posted. He said the surrounding property owners were notified and the Certificate of Publication was in the file. Mr. Hayden waived the reading of the legal notice without objection.

Penny Hughes with Hughes Signs, and Rhienna McClain Trevino, owner of 1776 Restaurant, were present to represent the petition. Ms. Hughes said they are requesting a sign to be 8 feet tall and a variation from the setback requirement from the road. She said 1776 has a brand that includes a circle, which causes a problem with the sign height requirement. They came up with several designs, but they did not reflect the brand. Ms. Hughes said the sign for the additional parking lot needs to be seen. They are also asking for the sign to be 1-foot from the property line. If they installed the sign per the City’s ordinance, it would be 22 feet from roadway because of the wide parkway.

Ms. McClain Trevino said this has been a super long process. She appreciates what has been done by staff. Last year the snow from their parking lot was piled on this lot because there was no room for it at the restaurant. She wants to be sure people can park in the lot and be able to see to get in and out. They are very proud of 1776 and this parking lot is extremely important to the business.

Mr. Hayden asked staff to review the Special Use Permit and the previous approvals. Ms. Cowlin said they are requesting an amendment to the Special Use Permit for the private parking lot, which had a condition that the sign is allowed to be 5 feet tall. The petitioner is requesting an 8-foot tall sign, which is allowed for Commercial uses. Commercial signs not located on major arterials such as Route 14, are allowed to be 8 feet in height. Mr. Hayden asked if this is more of a directional sign. Ms. Cowlin said that would be a sign used to identify the lot, not to the lot. She said they are allowed a sign. The setback for the sign is required to be 10 feet from the property line and they want the sign to be as close as 1-foot. She added the Findings of Fact are listed on pages 2, 3, and 4 of the staff report.

There was no one in the public who wished to comment on this request. The public portion was closed at this time.

Mr. Goss asked if the sign will be illuminated. Ms. Hughes said it will be externally illuminated. Ms. McClain Trevino said it is a safety concern. The lighting will be solar and the lumen are measured differently. It makes sense for them to go in that direction. Mr. Goss said he is concerned with the sign and lighting being so close to the sidewalk. Ms. McClain Trevino said the sign is similar to the one on Route 14 and Washington. Mr. Hayden asked if illumination is allowed there with adjacent residential property. Ms. Cowlin said the sign may be illuminated with a time restriction. She said it is similar to what is allowed with residential entrance signs.

Mr. Goss said he is concerned with an illuminated sign. Mr. Hughes said it is a safety issue and they do not want people trying to “get away” with anything.

Mr. Skluzacek said he supports the request.

Mr. Jouron asked if there will be landscaping under the sign. Ms. McClain Trevino said it is required. Mr. Jouron said he supports the request.

Mr. Greenman thanked the petitioner for what they have done for the community over the years. He asked what the hardship is for the variation. Ms. Hughes said if CarX has cars parked in front of their building, you would not be able to see the sign. To meet the requirements of the ordinance, the sign would be 22 feet from the road. They want people to see the sign and direct traffic to the lot. Ms. McClain Trevino said if the sign was the maximum allowable height, the snow plow would take it out. They need the parking lot for their customers. The house that was on the lot flooded every year and they have taken care of that. It is also in the Watershed and they will be using beet juice instead of salt. Mr. Greenman said they have not described a hardship. A hardship is something like the topography of the lot, the orientation of the lot, etc. Ms. McClain Trevino said this parking lot is costing her three times more than it should. Mr. Greenman said he is not challenging what the petitioner has done for the community, but financial hardships for the request cannot be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is defined in the Ordinances. Ms. Hughes said the City required the owner to move the snow from their existing parking lot to this lot. If all of the snow is to be put on this lot, a low sign will be hidden.

Mr. Goss said the hardship was patrons were parking on the street. Ms. Esposito said another hardship is the sightlines from Route 14.

Mr. Philpot said the setback in the UDO is 10 feet for signs. Ms. Cowlin said when the standard was set, the setback was to allow for landscaping as well as a potential for property taking if needed. Mr. Philpot is concerned with having a sign 1 foot from the property line. Ms. Cowlin said the sign is not up next to the street so it won’t be hit and the sign is not near the corner so it’s not in the sight triangle. Mr. Philpot has concerns with the hardship for the variations. He is not sure that moving the snow to another lot is a hardship.

Mr. Esposito said he is ok with the request. If the sign was setback per our ordinance, it would not be seen and it needs to be seen from Route 14.

Mr. Hayden asked about the orientation of house that was removed. Ms. Cowlin said it faced Washington Street. Mr. Hayden said at his home, his house is setback, then there is a sidewalk and parkway before there is the curb and street. This lot doesn’t have that. The lot line is extremely close to the roadway. His only concern is the lighting. He is certain there is a design standard that states if it is next to residential, no lighting would be allowed. He is concerned that it should have been published. Ms. Cowlin said under the lighting section of the UDO it describes lighting in residential area and calls out signs as being allowed, but limits the lumens. Mr. Hayden said if lighting is standard, it would need to be off 1 hour after the business closes. Ms. Hughes said they can control the time the lighting goes on and off even with it being solar. They want to have some lighting in that area.

Mr. Goss said this request meets the Findings of Fact.

Mr. Hayden said this is a fine establishment and they are happy to have them in Crystal Lake.

Mr. Goss moved to approve the Special Use Permit Amendment to allow a sign that is eight feet in height and a variation from Article 4-1000 to allow the sign to have a one-foot setback for 1776 parking lot at 295 Washington Street with the following conditions:

1. Approved plans, reflecting staff and advisory board recommendations, as approved by the City Council:

A. Application (McClain Trevino, dated 06/30/19, received 07/03/19) 

B. Sign Plan (Hughes Signs, received 07/03/2019)

2. The sign may be located as close as one foot from the property line.

3. The sign may be up to eight feet in height.

4. All conditions of approval from Ordinance 7514 (File #2018-143) are still valid unless amended by this approval.

Mr. Jouron seconded the motion. On roll call, members Esposito, Goss, Jouron, Skluzacek, and Hayden voted aye. Members Greenman and Philpot voted no. Motion passed.

2019-125 COMMONS SC – 6226 Northwest Hwy Units 900 & 902 – PUBLIC HEARING

Final PUD Amendment to allow changes to the common sign plan to allow corner tenants to have two wall signs for a total of up to 75 square feet in tenant wall signage.

Mr. Hayden stated that the sign had been posted. He said the surrounding property owners were notified and the Certificate of Publication was in the file. Mr. Hayden waived the reading of the legal notice without objection.

Frank Talbert, architect, and Matt Watson, Regional Director of Operations for Ortho Illinois, were present to represent the petition. Mr. Talbert said he is an architect and developer of medical establishments and he is currently working with Ortho Illinois. He said they desire to be closer to Route 14 and have leased a corner unit of an out-building in the Commons Shopping Center. They did install a wall sign and the PUD has stipulations that there is only one wall sign per tenant. This is large commercial center and has one story out buildings so not to block the buildings in the rear. Mr. Talbert showed photos of the building they are in, as well as, other buildings in the shopping center. The building on the east side of Teckler Boulevard has more signage. They chose the corner unit so they could be seen easier. Other buildings on the property have been granted the same request. He said in this case, staff recommended that this come forward with architectural changes to the building, which he does not believe are needed. Mr. Talbert said the architectural peak suggested is not needed for finding the entrances to the units. The peaks on the Jewel portion of the building help people find the entrances to the store.

Mr. Watson said they want their location to be easily seen from whatever direction their clients are traveling. They have signed a lease and it is hard for them to go back to the property owner to have them change the architecture of the building.

Mr. Hayden said neither gentlemen present represent the owner of the property. The request is to amend the PUD, which opens up the entire PUD for review. The changes to the common sign plan are for all of the tenants in the center – not just this unit. Ms. Cowlin said the Common Sign Plan is part of the PUD. She said the only request for a variation to the sign plan that has been reviewed and approved was for the auto parts store. The other signs were not given an amendment. She has been in contact with a representative of the property owner who was not able to attend tonight’s meeting, but did not want to hold up the request.

Mr. Greenman said the petitioner is in a difficult situation. It is a common sign plan that impacts all of the businesses in the center. He would like to have some conversations with the owner and does not want to put the representatives present to have to answer those questions. Mr. Watson said they are not sure why some

businesses that are in corner units have two signs without opening up the Common Sign Plan. Mr. Greenman said the PZC is only a recommending body, but he is uncomfortable with what is going on. It is important to have the owner or owner’s representative here to be able to ask questions.

Ms. Cowlin said the next meeting is September 4th. They can ask for a continuation or ask for a motion for the Commission to move forward to City Council.

Mr. Watson said there are several owners of the shopping center. Ms. Cowlin said only the one owner needs to be present. Mr. Hayden pointed out the request did not note Ortho Illinois. He asked the petitioner if they want to proceed. Mr. Talbert asked for a continuation to the September 4th PZC meeting.

Mr. Goss moved to continue the Final PUD Amendment for the Commons Shopping Center to the September 4, 2019 meeting. Mr. Greenman seconded the motion. On roll call, all members voted aye. Motion passed.

2019-127 HELZBERG DIAMONDS – 5750 Northwest Hwy Unit A – PUBLIC HEARING

Final Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow exterior changes to the building signage and facade.

Mr. Hayden stated that the sign had been posted. He said the surrounding property owners were notified and the Certificate of Publication was in the file. Mr. Hayden waived the reading of the legal notice without objection.

Henry Klover, Randall Swain, and Parke Wellman, with HC Klover Architects, were present to represent the petition. Mr. Klover said the property is located on Route 14 in front of TJ Maxx. They have a new branding and purpose to bring the design from the inside of the store to the outside. He showed photos of the existing building and elevations of the approved modifications. They will be occupying most of the building and want to include other features on the exterior of the building. Mr. Klover showed the interior design, which uses the pattern in the metal that looks like facets of diamonds. They do not want the outside to be a dull boring retail building. He said they are requesting three variations of which one is for lighting. The lighting on the corner elements and showed a rendering of the lighting on the cornice. This allows them to add a material that looks like stone, but is much lighter without having to increase the foundation of the building. Ms. Wellman said the material is impact resistant and will hold up better than what is there. Also, if necessary it can be replaced. Mr. Klover said they will use LED strips to light up the panel. They have reduced the size of the signs to 45 square feet each, which was previously approved. He added that the windows will be blacked out and a graphic design will be put on the windows so they are more decorative. This gives a frosted look to the windows. Mr. Klover said they will be remodeling stores in the area and this one is the first to be done. Ms. Wellman discussed the custom design for the door trim and the cornice, which is a clean, simple profile.

Ms. Maxwell said the PUD was recently amended and the petitioners are asking for a few variations for their corporate design.

There was no one in the public who wished to comment on this request. The public portion was closed at this time.

Mr. Goss said he likes the plan and asked if there will be a monument sign along Route 14. Ms. Wellman said yes. Mr. Goss said he has a problem with the third building sign. Ms. Wellman said if drivers look forward to the street, there are no signs to show where they are. Mr. Goss said there is a dumpster and dock in the rear of the building. Ms. Wellman said the tenants in this area are more compatible with this business than in their current location. Mr. Goss said if the third sign is in the mix, he will vote no on the request. He does not want three signs for a business.

Mr. Skluzacek agrees with Mr. Goss and cannot support a third sign.

Mr. Jouron asked about the lighting around the signs. Mr. Klover said it is halo. Ms. Wellman said this creates a very soft light that is more like a light wash. Mr. Jouron said he likes the sign and the architectural coins on the corner of the building. He agrees that the rear sign is not needed. They do not want others requesting a third sign. He also likes the improvements to the building.

Mr. Greenman said he is thrilled that they are moving within the community. He asked about the exterior design of the building. Mr. Klover said it will match the interior design too. Ms. Wellman said their goal was to freshen the brand and address younger clients, as well as, keeping their current clients. They want to be a “local” jeweler. They need to be able to communicate that they are modern. She added that they take their clients’ trust over the top and need to communicate that to their customers. Mr. Greenman asked if the design was trademarked or copyrighted. Ms. Wellman said no, but it is a possibility. Mr. Greenman likes what has been done. He understands the halo effect and supports staff’s comments regarding the lighting. The Planning and Zoning Commission looks at each petition uniquely. The lighting may work for this building, but the approval would open that door for others. Mr. Greenman said he is not able to fully support all of what is requested. He does appreciate the reduction in the signage and the Commission has been consistent with signage in the rear of buildings. It has taken the City decades to get to this point with signs. This will be a very visible location. He generally supports what is being done.

Mr. Philpot asked about the signs on three sides of the building. Ms. Maxwell said this building will be shared by two tenants and the amount of signage allowed for the building needs to be shared between the tenants. Mr. Philpot said a third sign is not a sticking point for him, but the LED lighting is.

Mr. Esposito asked how large the monument sign is. Ms. Wellman said it is 9 feet tall. Mr. Esposito said the monument sign will be the biggest bang for the buck. Three wall signs are a bit much. He said what they are doing with the rest of the building is great. He is concerned if the LED lighting is approved.

Mr. Hayden said he is ok with the main entrance being white and they have been consistent with the LED lighting on Route 14. They did allow Culvers the lighting because they are off of Route 14 and slightly downhill. Others who have made the request have been denied. He agrees with the staff report to remove the lighting around the cornice, windows, and doors. Ms. Wellman said there is an easy way to control the lighting and that is to restrict the lumens output. This lighting makes an incredible difference. They do need lighting during the holiday shopping season since that is their critical time of the year. She said during that time frame it is dark and illuminating is critical to business during that holiday sales period. Mr. Hayden said it is still lighting and the City has been very consistent for a very long time. He is not ready to abandon the UDO requirements. A PUD has a different functionality. Mr. Hayden said the City Council makes final decision. He is ok with some of the request, but not all that was presented.

Mr. Hayden said another concern for his is the signage. He asked about the size of the signs. Ms. Maxwell said the rear wall sign is 23 square feet. Ms. Wellman said the total square footage is 116 square feet. Ms. Maxwell reminded the Commissioners that the building will have two tenants. Mr. Hayden asked about the windows and how they will be blacked out. Mr. Klover said there is a coating on the inside of the windows. Mr. Greenman said it is decorative. Mr. Hayden said he would prefer the petitioner work with staff. Ms. Wellman said it looks like etched glass and it is part of the design of the building. Ms. Maxwell said there are no requirements that windows need to be see through, but if they are decorative, they will count towards the signage square footage. Mr. Hayden said he likes the design of the interior. Ms. Wellman said they did many focus groups to be sure they were getting out what they had hoped.

Mr. Klover asked for a recess for the petitioners to discuss the comments that were made by the Commissioners. Mr. Hayden called a 5 minute recess. The meeting resumed.

Mr. Klover appreciates the Commission’s time and understands the LED lighting is a concern. They will take that up with the City Council. He asked if the Commissioners are ok with the frosting on the windows. Mr. Swain said they want to be sure their clients know they are not closed. Mr. Goss said he does not have a problem with it. The Commissioners agreed. Mr. Klover questioned the total square footage of the wall

signage.

Mr. Hayden asked about the window coverage. Ms. Maxwell said it is not a concern if you cannot see through the windows. It is the graphics they are putting on the windows. These have been calculated the same as other businesses. Mr. Klover said they can provide staff with sample so they can see what it is like.

Mr. Hayden suggested they can work with staff. Mr. Philpot asked if the window treatments can be for Helzberg only. Mr. Greenman said that if there is a new tenant in that space they will most likely want a different design. The majority of members wants two wall signs.

Mr. Esposito asked how hard is it to keep the white from turning yellow in our wonderful weather. Ms. Wellman said the beauty of this is it is paint and the cornice is stone which can be power washed.

Mr. Goss said this meets the Findings of Fact as outlined in the staff report.

Mr. Greenman moved to approve the Final Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow exterior changes to the building signage and façade for Crystal Point Shopping Center – Helzberg Diamonds at 5750 Northwest Highway Unit A with the following conditions:

1. Approved plans, reflecting staff and advisory board recommendations, as approved by the City Council:

A. Application (HC Klover Architect, received 07/29/19)

B. Architecture Plans (HC Klover Architect, dated 07/26/19, received 07/29/19)

C. ElevationRenderings(HCKloverArchitect,dated07/25/19,received07/29/19)

2. The overall planned unit development approval and all subsequent amendments are still in effect unless modified by this ordinance.

3. All LED lighting, tape lighting and lighting surrounding windows, doors or outlining the cornice shall be removed. Also, no lighting under the awnings is permitted.

4. All window signage shall may meet the maximum 25% 100% coverage for the tenant space as approved by staff.

5. Work with staff to create a darker top cornice color, either retaining the Nomadic Desert or a new color which would complement both the remaining building’s cornice and Helzberg’s design.

6. Reduce the wall signage to 126 square feet, with the two main signs at 50 square feet each.

7. The petitioner must address all of the review comments and requirements of the Community Development, Fire Rescue, Police, and Public Works Departments.

Mr. Jouron seconded the motion. On roll call, all members voted aye. Motion passed.

REPORT FROM PLANNING

Ms. Maxwell discussed the items that were reviewed by the City Council and what will be on the agenda for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on the September 4, 2019 Regular Meeting.

COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION

Mr. Greenman asked what are the options for the City regarding cannabis. Ms. Maxwell said there are many options. Mr. Hayden asked that there be a representative from the Police Department at the meeting.

Mr. Greenman would like to have an educational session prior to the meeting so they are prepared for a meaningful discussion. It would be better to understand the entire scope of it. They need to feel confident in the decision they will make. Mr. Hayden said there is so much unknown and the Federal Government still does not approve of it. Mr. Greenman said he wants to be sure they are prepared. Mr. Goss still does not know what percentage of the taxes municipalities will get. Ms. Maxwell said it is not a large percentage, but there is some that comes back to the municipality. Mr. Goss said it would not cover what we will need to spend on Police. Mr. Hayden asked about the age restriction. Ms. Maxwell said 21 years old. Mr. Greenman said it would be helpful to know what other communities in the surrounding Counties have done.

Mr. Philpot suggested staff check into the businesses at The Commons with two signs. There were no other comments from the Commissioners.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

https://ecode360.com/documents/CR2206/public/506194991.pdf