Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board refers Tri‑State International Master Sign Plan to Architectural Review Board after debate over large tollway digital display
Summary
Trustees agreed to refer a major amendment to the Tri‑State International PUD, including a proposed 50‑foot multi‑tenant tollway sign with a 15'×24' digital panel, to the Architectural Review Board after staff and trustees voiced concerns about size, code exceptions and precedent.
At the June 8, 2026 Committee of the Whole meeting, Lincolnshire trustees reviewed a pre‑application to amend the Tri‑State International Planned Unit Development by repealing the Area of Special Sign Control and adopting a Master Sign Plan to standardize signage across the Tri‑State International Office Center.
Planning & Development Manager Zozulya told the Board staff supports modernizing signage but raised three concerns: the proposed digital message board for the multi‑tenant tollway monument (not currently allowed for office properties under the Sign Code), potential sign congestion along I‑94 between the Homewood Suites hotel sign and the new monument sign, and the proposal’s inclusion of directory signs not provided for in Village Code. "The Sign Code currently does not allow for digital message boards for office properties, and none of Lincolnshire’s office properties in town have a digital board currently," Zozulya said.
Attorney Braeden Lord, representing IHP Tri State Asset LLC, and Tri‑State representatives presented visibility analyses, proposed locations, and mockups. Mr. Lord said ownership seeks a 50‑foot monument at the tollway to ensure legibility given grade and high driving speeds. "The main challenge with the sign is the grade differential and the visibility at high speeds from the tollway," Lord said.
Trustees asked for more visual context. Mayor Brandt suggested an on‑site mockup (balloon or field demonstration) and side‑by‑side illustrations of existing versus proposed signs so the Board and public can visualize scale. The record includes comparable sign dimensions: CityPark’s digital sign (34'×17'), the Marriott ground sign (20.5'×13'), and the petitioner’s proposed digital display (15'×24'). Trustee Raizin said she liked the design and logo but worried about precedent if the Board permits a large digital portion on an office monument: "If the Board allows this, everyone else may want one. The digital portion of the sign is larger than any other single element," she said. Mayor Brandt expressed a preference for a maximum height in the 40–45 foot range rather than the 50 feet proposed.
Village Attorney Simon noted a digital sign in this location would require a PUD exception because the Sign Code currently allows digital signs by right mainly for menu boards and government signs. The Board did not take a final vote on dimensions or the digital component at the meeting; instead, after discussion, trustees reached consensus to refer the proposal to the Architectural Review Board for detailed design review and to allow the ARB to examine materials, colors, landscaping, and how the digital element would operate.
