City of Warrenville Plan Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals met Nov. 18.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
A. CALL TO ORDER
Plan Commission Ch. Cosgrove called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Ch. Cosgrove explained the opportunity interested parties would have to provide remarks during the Citizens’ Comments item of the agenda.
Ch. Cosgrove explained the Citizens’ Comments portion of the virtual meeting protocol, including how public comment would be accepted via GoTo Meeting and call in, which would include:
1. Public comment from anyone at City Hall;
2. Public comment from anyone participating in the meeting via GoTo Meeting with camera; and
3. Public comment from anyone participating in the meeting via phone.
Ch. Cosgrove explained all meeting participants should stay muted until they are asked to provide their comment, and start their comment by announcing their name and address. Two public comments were received electronically prior to commencement of the meeting, which would be discussed later in the meeting.
B. ROLL CALL
PC Present: Tim Cosgrove, Robert Pepple, Jessica Tullier, Byron Miller, Mark Taylor, Elizabeth Chapman, Erin Schultz, John Lockett, Bob Vavra
Absent/Excused: None
ZBA Present: Tim Cosgrove, Robert Pepple, Byron Miller, Jessica Tullier, Elizabeth Chapman, John Lockett, Mark Taylor
Absent/Excused: None
Also Present: Community and Economic Development Director Ron Mentzer, Planner/GIS Technician Andrew Kieffer, Recording Secretary Marie Lupo
Ch. Cosgrove welcomed Bob Vavra to the Commission, and Mark Taylor to the ZBA.
C. PUBLIC HEARING (continued from October 21 and November 4, 2021)
1. 28W571 Batavia Road, Warrenville, IL 60555 / Ed Lowrie
Located east of Warren Avenue, south of the Illinois Prairie Path, west of Batavia Road, north of Manning Avenue
Project No. VAR2021-1003
Request for approval of variations from the Warrenville Sign Ordinance to provide relief from wall sign projection restrictions and setback requirements for existing nonconforming drive-thru sign. If approved, the existing corner wall sign would be retained, and an existing drive-thru sign along Stafford Place would be modified into a ground sign.
ZBA COM. PEPPLE MOVED, SECONDED BY COM. LOCKETT, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ZBA ROLL CALL VOTE:
Aye: Cosgrove, Pepple, Miller, Tullier, Chapman, Lockett, Taylor
Nay: None
Absent/Excused: None
MOTION ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ch. Cogrove provided an update that at the previous meeting, applicant/site owner Ed Lowrie’s request for Sign A was approved by City Council; Signs B and C are the subject of tonight’s hearing. Mr. Lowrie summarized for the Zoning Board of Appeals that since the last hearing he had a sign company create several redesigns of the existing sign, and an electric company evaluate its backlighting to reinvent its appearance. He is attempting to create a “downtown Warrenville” atmosphere with tenants such as the bike shop, wine shop, now defunct game shop (due to Covid), future art gallery, and hopefully a future cafe. He feels signage is crucial for successful businesses. The buildouts for his future tenants will be expensive. Mr. Lowrie respectfully requests retention of the existing projecting wall Sign B at the northeast corner of the building in the present format, or a different format. He solicited wine shop owner Monica Lefever’s feedback, and she replied with a design that would drive people to her business. He was surprised to read the public comment letter she submitted to the Board. Mr. Lowrie stated the existing sign is a valuable asset to the building and its structure, and key to keeping Warrenville’s businesses prosperous.
Ch. Cosgrove recalled that the Board’s comments at the last meeting generally consisted of reducing the size, structure, bulk, and aged appearance of the corner sign--not eliminating it altogether. He agreed that providing some type of illumination for the sign would from his perspective be reasonable; however, was not in favor of the exiting framework.
Other Board comments related to Sign B were as follows:
• Com. Chapman – First and foremost, the sign should have been removed years ago and is not in compliance with the Code. Secondarily, its appearance could be updated. The existing sign has outlived its useful life.
• Com. Lockett – The sign is bulky and outdated and should be replaced. In conjunction with the downtown’s new life, improvements/updates are necessary.
• Com. Miller – Although in favor of retaining the existing sign at the last meeting, he was not enthused by Mr. Lowrie’s current proposal and cannot recommend it. Although it was not proposed by the applicant, he favored Monica Lefever’s suggestion. He appreciated the staff comments and suggestions reflected in the revised staff report. He suggested Mr. Lowrie return with a sign design that addresses these recommendations and has the flexibility to effectively accommodate signage for potential new businesses.
• Com. Pepple – Although in favor of retaining the existing sign at the last meeting, he felt Mr. Lowrie’s latest proposal resembled that of strip mall signage. He was in agreement with staff’s recommended four conditions if the existing sign structure was retained: a consistent darker color similar to that of the building’s exterior trim, lettering, panels, and removal of the bottom 21 inches to reduce bulk and not shield bike shop signage from view. He felt the sign should be lit so that it could be seen from Butterfield Road.
• Com. Taylor – The sign is bulky and has outlived its life. He preferred a more contemporary look with focused lighting. He supported staff’s recommendations.
• Com. Tullier – She was disappointed over the lack of variety in proposed signage styles offered by the applicant. She supported staff’s recommendation. The existing sign should be eliminated. Replacement signage should not be generic “beer, wine, cocktails,” but rather contain specific tenant names. If the existing sign is retained, the bottom should be removed. She prefers a more modern style that is visible from Butterfield Road.
As to parking lot Sign C, the Board generally reiterated its opinion from the last meeting that the location was too close to the property line, served no purpose, and should be removed. Mr. Miller offered that it could serve a purpose to patrons looking for parking.
Mr. Lowrie replied he is working on securing an ice cream tenant that would require a drive thru lane, and would like to preserve the existing signage for that use. He could position parking signs elsewhere. Ch. Cosgrove replied that a drive thru requires a special use public hearing, which could include special drive thru signage accommodations. He added that Sign C is non conforming and should have been taken down years ago.
Upon Ch. Cosgrove’s request, Dir. Mentzer summarized the two options for taking action: (i) the Board could deny the request, recommending denial of variations as requested by the applicant for signs as presented by the applicant or (ii) the Board could continue the public hearing again to provide Mr. Lowrie an additional opportunity to provide a revised sign B proposal that would respond to the Board’s feedback at both the previous and current meetings, and returning with proposed additional designs at the continued public hearing.
Mr. Lowrie was receptive to Com. Pepple’s suggestion of taking the bottom off and rejuvenating the corner sign, but realizes he is limited in the scope of what can be done to make it acceptable to the Board. He struggled with the expensive cost of removing and replacing the sign, and was uncertain as to who would pay for it. He planned to check with tenants to ascertain if they would be interested in contributing to the cost of a new corner sign.
Ch. Cosgrove cautioned Mr. Lowrie that it would behoove him to request continuance of the hearing, in order to return with acceptably designed signs. A continuation would save Mr. Lowrie fees and time in the long run. The applicant would have one year to install signage if it is approved. If the hearing is closed with the ZBA recommending denial, and the City Council concurs, both signs would require removal. Removal does not prevent Mr. Lowrie from returning with an alternate proposal to reinstall another type of sign at these locations; however, it may require a new public hearing and special variances to the Sign Ordinance provisions.
Com. Pepple suggested continuation of the public hearing and recommended Mr. Lowrie consult with a new sign company, so that he could return with three options: (i) a better rendering of the existing sign in a different configuration, (ii) a new sign, or (ii) remove the sign and inform tenants that they can put up their own signs or pitch in for a corner sign. Ch. Cosgrove replied that conforming wall signage currently exists for individual tenant businesses; the corner projecting sign is a landlord improvement, structural in nature—so tenants may not be supportive in contributing to its cost. A multi-tenant sign is favorable because of its visibility from the corner.
COM. PEPPLE MOVED, SECONDED BY COM. MILLER, THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JANUARY 6, 2022.
ZBA ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYE: Cosgrove, Pepple, Miller, Tullier, Chapman, Lockett, Taylor
NAY: None
ABSENT/EXCUSED: None
MOTION ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.
D. CITIZENS’ COMMENTS
None.
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Regular Meeting of October 21, 2021
CH. COSGROVE MOVED, SECONDED BY COM. MILLER, TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 21, 2021, MINUTES WITH THE CORRECTION OF A MINOR SCRIVENER’S ERROR.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYE: Cosgrove, Pepple, Miller, Tullier, Taylor, Chapman, Schultz
NAY: None
EXCUSED: None
ABSTAIN: Lockett, Vavra
MOTION ADOPTED.
F. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
Ch. Cosgrove asked Commissioners to notify Marie Lupo if they no longer wish to receive paper copies of packets, as many of them are not regularly pickup up.
Ch. Cosgrove further welcomed Maple Hill resident Bob Vavra to the Commission. He previously served on the Plan Commissions of Woodridge and Glen Ellyn.
Com. Pepple commented on the valuable information derived from the American Planning Association’s recent Plan Commission Training seminar.
G. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Dir. Mentzer thanked Commissioners for their service and wished them a happy Thanksgiving.
H. PLANNER’S REPORT
None.
I. ADJOURN
CH. COSGROVE MOVED, SECONDED BY COM. PEPPLE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:47 P.M.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Aye: Cosgrove, Pepple, Miller, Tullier, Taylor, Chapman, Schultz, Lockett, Vavra
Nay: None
Absent/Excused: None
MOTION ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.
https://www.warrenville.il.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_11182021-1042
Alerts Sign-up