Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/26/2015 P&Z Minutes 05-15 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-05-15 Hearing Date: March 26, 2015 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1050 Mt. Prospect Plaza PETITIONER : Ross Dress for Less Inc., c/o James Babowice Trobe, Babowice & Associates, LLC PUBLICATION DATE: March 11, 2015 PIN NUMBER: 03-35-301-058-0000 REQUESTS: Variation-Window Sign Area MEMBERS PRESENT: Sharon Otteman William Beattie Keith Youngquist Jeanne Keuter Joseph Donnelly, Chair MEMBERS ABSENT: Agostino Filippone Thomas Fitzgerald Norbert Mizwicki STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Senior Planner Janet Saewert, Neighborhood Planner INTERESTED PARTIES : Ross Dress for Less Inc., c/o James Babowice Trobe, Babowice & Associates, LLC Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Beattie made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2015 meeting; Commissioner Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0 with one Commissioner abstaining. After hearing two (2) additional cases Chairman Donnelly introduced Case PZ-05-15, 1050 Mt. Prospect Plaza and stated it was Planning and Zoning Commission final. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ-05-15 is seeking a variation to allow window signs to cover 100% of the window surface area for Ross Dress for Less, which occupies the tenant space known as 1050 Mt. Prospect Plaza. Ms. Andrade explained the window signs currently occupy 100% of the window surface area of four aluminum storefront systems that are part of the Ross Dress for Less storefront, which is against Village Sign regulations that allow no more than 40% coverage of the window surface area. Ms. Andrade stated permits to install window signs are not required; however all signs must comply with the sign regulations. The Petitioner would like to keep the existing signs and is seeking variation approval. Planning and Zoning Commission-March 26, 2015 PZ-05-15 Joseph Donnelly-Chair 2 Ms. Andrade summarized the standards for sign variations as the following: The sign allowed under code regulations will not reasonably identify the business; The hardship is created by unique circumstances and will not serve as a convenience to the petitioner, and is not created by the person presently having an interest in the sign or property; The variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood; and The variation will not impair visibility to the adjacent property, increase the danger of traffic problems or endanger the public safety, or alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and be in harmony with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. Ms. Andrade stated per the Petitioner, the window signs are part of national design package for Ross Dress for Less and states the window surface area is extensive and was pre-existing at the time the Ross Dress for Less occupied the Subject Property. The window signs occupy 57.2% of the overall window surface area of the storefront. The window signs are meant to protect inventory and screen storage areas from public view in an aesthetically pleasing way that provides an alternative to a solid wall or black covering. Ms. Andrade stated Staff understood the window signs occupy only 57.2% of the overall window surface area that makes up the storefront, but the sign regulations are based on each individual window surface area. The physical characteristics of this property are not unique and do not justify the need for window signs to cover 100% of the window surface area. The desire to be consistent with the national design package for Ross Dress for Less, to screen the storage areas, and the presence of an expansive window surface area do not constitute hardships. Other commercial storefronts in the Village also consist of numerous windows and are national retailers. Therefore, the variation request is based on convenience. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff found that the standards for a sign variation have not been met. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff’s deny findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the following motion: "To approve: A Variation to allow window signs to cover 100% of the window surface area, as shown in the elevation plan prepared by Bill Moore & Associates dated 06/12/12 for 1050 Mt. Prospect Plaza.” The Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision is final for this case. Commissioner Youngquist asked when the signs were installed. Ms. Andrade responded since window signs do not require permits, staff did not have the date the window signs were installed. Village is currently contacting businesses in violation in order to bring them up to sign code compliance. Chairman Donnelly swore in Jim Babowice, attorney for Ross Dress for Less, 404 W. Water, Waukegan Illinois. Mr. Babowice showed a photograph that was photo-shopped depicting what the store front would look like with blacked out windows instead of the current pictures. Planning and Zoning Commission-March 26, 2015 PZ-05-15 Joseph Donnelly-Chair 3 Chairman Donnelly swore in the district manager, Christopher Bice 415 Howard St. Evanston, Illinois. Mr. Bice explained that Ross Dress for Less has been there for two (2) years and moved into the space that was formally a Michaels Arts and Crafts. He further explained that the window coverings aren’t used for marketing purposes but to mainly help make the building aesthetically pleasing. The coverings help shield storage space and fixtures. Mr. Babowice stated that the “window covering” isn’t used for marketing and indicated the Ross Dress for Less logo is very small in comparison to the size of the covering. He stated the logo can be removed depending on the decision of the board. Mr. Babowice stated they believe the “window covering” is much more appealing than the alternative black-out window covering scenario. Mr. Babowice continued to explain that the purpose of the “window covering” doesn’t match the definition of the sign listed in the Village Code. Commissioner Beattie stated that he believes the “window coverings” are signs and asked the Petitioner if they have come up with any other alternatives other than the black out windows. Mr. Babowice stated that another alternative would be to drop down the images and have the top portion of the windows blacked-out; by doing so, this will decrease the coverage to approximately sixty-three percent (63%). Chairman Donnelly stated the graphics used in the wall coverings represent products sold in the store, which by definition is a sign. Mr. Bice stated that the graphics aren’t of specific items sold in the store but are representative of the types of items that are sold. Commissioner Youngquist verified that one hundred 100% of the window area has fixtures behind it. Commissioner Otteman asked when the signs were installed. Mr. Bice stated they have been in the windows since they opened two (2) years ago. Mr. Babowice stated that the alternative option to drop the images down and just have a blacked out band along the top would bring the store into compliance. Commissioner Beattie commented that he feels the sign variations have been very prominent in the past few years and that the board has been very careful to keep the decisions consistent and as close to the sign code as possible. He also commented that the graphics on the windows is not something the Village wants to allow or set precedence to. Mr. Babowice stated that he understood the concern and thinks the alternative discussed earlier will be a good compromise because it will bring the store into compliance and under forty percent (40%) coverage if the board accepts it. Chairman Donnelly gave the Petitioner the option to continue the case in order for them to come up with another alternative. He further stated if the board were to vote on the current motion and it was denied Planning and Zoning Commission-March 26, 2015 PZ-05-15 Joseph Donnelly-Chair 4 then the Petitioner would have to wait a year before they can come back to the board. Commissioner Youngquist asked if the Petitioner could advertise at the forty percent (40%) coverage. It was confirmed by Staff that the Petitioner could keep the graphics they currently have and just reduce it to cover only forty percent (40%) of the window area. There was general discussion between the board members regarding the images being signs or not. Commissioner Beattie stated they should be considered signs even if the Ross logo is removed because it shows what kind of merchandise is sold in the store. He stated if this is allowed the commission will begin to get similar request from other tenants in the Village. Mr. Babowice stated that he is willing to continue the case in order to speak with his client and try to come up with a new alternative. He stated that the current graphics cost the Petitioner ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to install. Commissioner Otteman asked if the blacked-out portion of the window can be a different color instead black. She further suggested that the Petitioner could change the blacked-out bar along the top to match the blue bar along the bottom to make the window look more uniform. Ms. Andrade stated that the code doesn’t specify a color that needs to be used; however, colors are included in the definition of a sign. Mr. Bice stated that the images don’t change with the season and they depict more of a lifestyle than the items sold in the store. Mr. Babowice stated that the Petitioner would have to purchase another graphics package in order to achieve the forty percent (40%) alternative. He also gave evidence as to how the request qualifies for the standards for a sign variation. Mr. Babowice further explained that the inside layout of the building is the only reason they are running into this issue. They are trying to repurpose an existing building and make it usable for their current needs. He also stated that the Ross logo can be eliminated from the graphic. Chairman Donnelly swore in Laurence Freedman who is the attorney representing the owner of the shopping center, 77 W. Washington Street, Chicago Illinois. Mr. Freedman stated they are strongly supportive of their tenant’s request. He further explained the owner is aware of the sign ordinance and urges the commission to work with the Petitioner to come up with something that is tasteful yet close enough to the ordinance. Mr. Freedman stated that the owner of the shopping center is against blacking-out the windows because it will look like there are vacant store fronts. Mr. Babowice asked the board to specify what would be satisfactory if the alternative option he presented is also not accepted. Commissioner Beattie stated that he understands the difficult position the Petitioner is in and stated if the windows were covered with something that is completely unrelated to the products they sell it would be Planning and Zoning Commission-March 26, 2015 PZ-05-15 Joseph Donnelly-Chair 5 easier to give them the relief they need from the sign code. Commissioner Youngquist asked why the sign package was allowed to be installed back in 2012. Ms. Saewert stated that window signs don’t need a permit. Commissioner Younquist stated that the designer of the sign should have read the code and modified in order for it to comply. He suggested the Petitioner seek them out and have it fixed for a reduced fee. Mr. Babowice stated they would like to have the case continued to next month in order to come up with some different scenarios. There was general discussion regarding the fact that a variance would still need to be granted in order to have the individual window portions covered with graphics/black stripe. Commissioner Otteman made a motion seconded by Commissioner Beattie to continue case PZ-05-15 to April 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission. UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Otteman, Beattie, Younquist, Keuter, Donnelly NAYS: None The vote to continue the case was approved 5-0. After hearing one additional case the Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Keuter and the meeting was adjourned. _______________________________ Jenna Moder, Administrative Assistant Community Development Planning and Zoning Commission-March 26, 2015 PZ-05-15 Joseph Donnelly-Chair