Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/24/2000 ZBA minutes31sr-2000 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-31SR-2000 Hearing Date: August 24, 2000 PETITIONER: Collins Signs, Agent for CVS Pharmacy Aimee Tullos 7730 Ravensridge St. Louis, MO 63119 PUBLICATION DATE: August 9, 2000 JOURNAL/TOPICS REQUEST: Variation to increase the number of permitted wall signs on the north wall of the building from one to three MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Hal Ettinger Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem R/chard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None 3TAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Cormolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Aimee Tullos Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. A~er a motion by R/chard Rogers, seconded by Elizabeth Luxem, minutes of the July 27, 2000 meeting were approved, new member, Hal Ettinger, abstained from voting. At 8:30, afrer hearing two other cases, Ms. Juracek opened Case ZBA-3 ISR-2000, a request for a Variation to increase the number of permitted wall signs on the north wall of the building from one to three. Ms. Juracek announced this was the first time a Sign Review ease would be presented to the Zoning Board, but two members of the ZBA had also been serving on the Sign Review Board until its dissolution. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that public notice had been given and introduced the staff memorandum for the item, a Variation to increase the number of permitted wall signs on the north wall of the building from one to three. Ms. Connolly informed the Zoning Board that the case would be Zoning Board final. Ms. Connolly summarized the case. She stated that the subject property had received a Conditional Use permit and approval of setbaek variations to construct a 10,880 square foot pharmacy with a drive-through drugstore facility. She said the property owner is in the process of demolishing the former Heilig-Meier building, and the redeveloped site will contain 20,880 square feet of commercial space, including the 10,880 sq. f~. CVS Pharmacy. Ms. Connolly said the approved building will front onto three major thoroughfares, Elmhurst Road/Rt. 83, Rand Road/Rt. 12, and Kensington Road. The sign program for the CVS Pharmacy includes wall signs on the three frontages and two monument signs. Ms. Cormolly said the petitioner is seeking relief from code requirements to allow the installation of three wall signs on the Kensington Road frontage to advertise that the CVS Pharmacy has a food mart and a drive- brough: Ms. Connolly reported that the Sign Ordinance permits one wall sign per street frontage with a maximum size of 150 square feet for a wall sign. She said the code states that the Director of Community Development may authorize additional signs for distinct uses within the establishment, provided there is a separate entrance from the exterior of the Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-3 iSR-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 building. She explained that the petitioner's request for two separate wall signs, "Foodmart", 13.5 square feet, and "drive-thru/pharmacy", 25.25 square feet, do not meet the criteria to allow such additional signage listed in the Sign Code. In addition, the combined size of the three proposed wall signs for the Kensington Road frontage exceed the 150 square foot maximum size permitted by code. Ms. Coanolly pointed out that the petitioner can fit the text of the three signs within the main signable area and meet code requirements. She said the three signs could be placed together te create one-115.5 square foot sign and the petitioner could also reformat the signs so "CVS" would be the top line of sig~age, "Pharmacy/Foodmart" would be the second line, under the "CVS", and the "24 Hours" square could be adjacent to the two lines. Ms. Counolly said the petitioner stated that the "CVS/Pharmacy" is a registered trademark logo and cannot be altered. The additional signs identify uses that are located in the CVS store and accessed through the main entrance. Ms. Conaolly said the uses described by the additional requested text do not have separate entrances, so a variation is required for the signs. Ms. Connolly reported that, historically, the Village has not approved variations for multiple wall signs at a single business unless 'over separate entrances. She stated that the proposed sign variation does not meet the standards for a variation because the store is visible from three major streets, the petitioner will have wall signs on all three frontages, and the sign could be reformatted to meet code requirements. In addition, the "Feodmart" sign is not a distinct use that is accessible by a separate entrance as required by the Sign Ordinance. Finally, the main signable area could accommodate the proposed signage with min/mal modifications and still use the trademark logo. MS. Connolly explained that since the request does not meet the standards for a variation, Staff recommends denial of sign variations to permit an increase in the number of permitted wail signs for Case No. ZBA-31SR-2000 at 1 E. Rand Road. Ms. Juracek asked if, as at the Walgreen's property, signs over an entrance were allowed in addition to a wall sign. Ms. Connolly said they were and that the variation had been allowed in that ease because the covered entry gives the appearance of an actual entry. Richard Rogers confirmed that, in the Walgreen's case, the Sign Review Board had required that the archway be moved forward to create an entry "appearance" in order to approve a sign over that area. The Jewel/Osco, Dominick's, and Big "K" have additional signs over the entry only. Mr. Blue said that the Dominick's at Rand and Central Roads was another good example, having the Bank One sign over the door leading directly to the bank. Ms. Luxem said the comer this pharmacy is on is one of the busiest and the extra signs would be a distraction. Merrill Cotten asked if a sign over the drive-through/pharmacy canopy would be allowed, and Ms. Connolly responded affirmatively. Hal Ettinger asked how the store would advertise their food mart without the variation. Ms. Connolly said Exhibits A & C show the acceptable sign arrangement, with the words "Food Mart" and "24-hours" under the CVS logo. Staff had also suggested they could reduce the size of the lettering and put "Food Mart" next to CVS. Michael Blue, Deputy Director of Community Development, said that wall signs are measured as percentage of the signable area, the wall they are on. That area can be filled with "CVS/Pharmacy" or use smaller letters with "Food Mini/Drive-through" on a second line. The square footage ultimately controls the lettering. Mr. Youngquist said the picture of Border's, with their awnings, was a good example of that. Arlene Juracek pointed out that awnings and window signs were covered under a separate section of the Zoning Code. Richard Rogers said the sign shows CVS and three tenant signs, and asked for confirmation on how many tenant signs were allowed. Ms. Connolly and Ms. Jumcek said up to six tenant signs were allowed in the Sign Code. Aimee Tullos, 7730 Ravensridge Rd., St. Louis, MO 63119, was sworn in as a representative of CVS and said that they are willing to compromise, but CVS cannot break-up their registered trademark. She said this Mount Prospect store was their first store in the Chicago area and the residents are unaware of services they provide. They need to get their point across to the public. She said the front elevation was designed to have three separate signs, to be aesthetically pleasing, and to afford separate signage advertising to consumer. Ms. Tullos said signs on the canopy read: '*Enter Drive-Through Pharmacy"; "Drive-Through Pharmacy"; and "Exit Drive-Through Pharmacy". CVS would be willing to get rid of the "Drive-Through Pharmacy" part of the sign so as not to be so repetitive. Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-31SR-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Arlene Juraeek said the entire front frieze of the building seems to be one large sign, which is extremely excessive, especially on the Kensington frontage. She noted that "Drive-Through Pharmacy is included on the two monuments, and even though CVS is willing to remove the "Drive-Through Pharmacy" on the canopy (where it is more appropriate), the "Drive-Through Pharmacy" wall sign is redundant. Ms. Sumcek said it would probably be most appropriate to remove the "Drive-Through Pharmacy" sign from the building. Ah'nee Tulles responded that the signs on the canopy would not be visible to approaching motorists. When reminded that "Drive-Through Pharmacy" is on the two monument signs for the passing motorists to see, Ms. Tullos noted the monument signs had limited visibility and suggested they could remove the "Drive-Through" on the Elmhurst Road monument sign and reduce the size of the sign from 70 s.f. to 22 s.f. Ms. Luxem asked if they could put "Food Mart" on the monument sign, to be in compliance. Ms. Jnsacek asked Ms. Luxem if she was suggesting one monument say "Drive-Through" and one say "Food Mart". Ms. Luxem said "Food Mart" could be included on both monument signs, instead of "Drive-Through". Leo Floros pointed out that one of their exhibits shows "CVS/Pharmacy" on two lines and asked if that violated their trademark role of CVS/Pharmacy being on one line. Ms. Tullos said she had no answer for that. Ms. Jumcek suggested CVS put the information on one wall sign, the monument signs and the driveway markers so that no variation would be required. Aimee Tullos said the description of Walgreens signs having a covered walkway which make it appear to be an entry could be compared to what they are asking for, it is the same type of situation. Elizabeth Luxem disagreed and said there is too much square footage and too much redundancy on the requested wall signs. Ms. Jumcek said the Zoning Board was reluctant to approve the request as there have been opporttmities to change the wording on the monument 'igns and eliminate the need for the two signs being requested Ms. Juracek said her concern regarding this petition is that CVS wants to put up signs which they say have no visibility. Their justification in the variation request package states the signs are "not illuminated and not very visible from the street". So they are asking for more signage with the reason being nobody can see them. The monument signs would offer greater information to a car driving by than a wall sign which is parallel to the street. Removing the monument signs (as offered by the applicant) is a sub-optimal solution and we are finding this request is redundant and contrary to the aesthetic aspects of our Sign Code and our Village standards. Other Zoning Board members agreed with Ms. Suraeek. She asked the petitioner if there was any compromise to her signage request. Ms. Tullos responded that if the variations were not requested, they would need to work out another plan. Leo Floros made a motion for approval of the request for a Variation to increase the number of permitted wall signs on the north wall of the building from one to three. Elizabeth Luxem seconded the motion. At 9:00, Chairperson Jumcek closed the Public Heating and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board. Ms. Luxem clarified that a '2qo" vote denies approval of the request. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros NAYS: Cotten, Ettinger, Luxem, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek Request was denied 6- I. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-31SR-2000 ' Arlene Juraeek, Chairperson Page 4 At 9:25 p.m., Elizabeth Luxem made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned: Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner