Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Pud Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer requests PUD variances for Starbucks signage; staff says some signs already approved to avoid delay
Summary
GMX Real Estate Group asked the Sugar Grove Village Board to consider minor Planned Unit Development signage variances for a new Starbucks at Lot 8 Center. Staff said it administratively approved some signs to avoid delaying the business opening and recommended formal approval of the proposed sign package.
Todd Smith, with GMX Real Estate Group, asked the Sugar Grove Village Board to consider a minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment to allow variances to the site's signage plan for a new Starbucks at Lot 8 Center.
The request matters because some of the proposed signs do not meet the village's sign code and would ordinarily require formal approval; staff told the board it approved portions of the sign package administratively to avoid delaying the retailer's opening.
A staff member said the project team submitted a minor PUD amendment application addressing the Starbucks signage after the original PUD approval did not include a complete signage plan. "When they came in to apply for their signage, it was noted that some of them did not meet the code requirements," the staff member said. "In an attempt to not hold up Starbucks opening, staff did approve their signage as they applied for it." The staff member recommended the village board approve the proposed signage plan.
Smith asked the board to consider "a couple minor variances to the PUD, that were overlooked at that time. We just wanna make it right after you and, respectfully request to have consideration for those variances for the signage." Staff identified specific code variances: the site proposes three menu/money boards while code allows two; one money board is wider than code permits and another is taller due to an overhanging structure. Staff also said the proposed directional sign exceeds the village maximum height for directional signs (code allows a maximum of 3 feet; the proposed sign is about 8 inches taller).
Staff framed the options as either formalizing the variances through the PUD amendment or requiring the applicant to modify the signs to meet code. No formal board vote on the PUD amendment or variances was recorded in the provided transcript.
If the board chooses to act, the decision would determine whether the three money boards and the taller directional signage are allowed to remain as proposed or must be altered to meet the sign code.
