HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. OLD BUSINESS 09/06/05
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
Mount Prospect
MEMORANDUM
~
DATE:
AUGUST 12, 2005
TO:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM:
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT:
PZ-25-05 - TEXT AMENDMENT (SIGN CODE)
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT - APPLICANT
The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-25-05, a request to
amend the Sign Code to allow sidewalk signs in the B5 and B5C zoning districts, and to permit the use of
projecting signs in the expanded "Special Area of Control" in combination with a wall sign, as described in detail
in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their July 28, 2005 meeting.
The two text amendments are applicable to the B5 and B5C zoning districts only. The amendment regarding
sidewalk signs would add sidewalk signs as another type of Special Sign and would allow one sidewalk sign per
business. The other amendment would amend Exhibit 1 which identifies the Special Area of Control to expand
the Special Area of Control. The proposed change would allow all businesses within the Special Area of Control
to have a projecting sign in combination with a smaller wall sign.
The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed their approval of the use of sidewalk signs in the downtown area,
but stated concerns regarding projecting signs. The Commission's major concerns regarding projecting signs
were related to the aesthetics of the signs and how the projecting sign might adversely impact the appearance of
the downtown district. They decided to approve the use of projecting signs downtown with the condition that the
signs obtain conditional use approval prior to applying for a sign permit.
The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve the text
amendment requests for changes to the downtown sign regulations for the B5 and B5C districts, Case No. PZ-25-
05, subject to the following conditions/modifications:
"That conditional use approval is required for all projecting signs (regardless of the zoning district)."
Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their
August 16, 2005 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter.
ICP
H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&z 2005\M:EJ Mcmos\PZ.25-0S MEJ MEMO (Iext amend - sign codc).doc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-25-05
Hearing Date: July 28, 2005
PETITIONERS:
Village of Mount Prospect
PUBLICATION DATE:
July 13,2005
REQUEST:
REVIEW OF SIGN TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE VILLAGE
CODE
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Arlene J uracek
Joseph Donnelly
Marlys Haaland
Ronald Roberts
Richard Rogers
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Leo Floros
Keith Youngquist
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Clare Sloan, Neighborhood Planner
Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner
Elizabeth Schuh, Planning Intern
Christina Park, Planning Intern
Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Jim Uszler, Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce
Tom Zander, Downtown Mount Prospect Merchants Association and
Picket Fence Realty
Rita Dauphinee, Norwood Development/Alpha Properties
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the
minutes of the June 23, 2005 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
At 9:22 p.m. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-26-05 a request for text amendments to the Village Sign Code.
She said that this case would be Village Board Final.
Christina Park, Planning Intern, reviewed the Staff Memo on behalf of the Village. Ms. Park said that this case is
regarding proposed changes to the downtown sign regulations. This case evolved from a request by the Chamber
of Commerce and the Downtown Merchants Association that the Village permit downtown businesses the use of
sidewalk signs. Staff took a comprehensive look at downtown signage and determined that downtown businesses
have less signage opportunity than businesses in other commercial districts. Staff then took this issue to the
Committee of the Whole Meeting on June 14, 2005 where three items were put up for consideration: directional
kiosks, sidewalk signs, and projecting signs. The Village Board was supportive of all three items and directed
Staff to draft the necessary text amendments and bring it to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Ms. Park said that the first issue, the use of directional kiosks downtown, does not require any changes to the
current Sign Code. She said that directional kiosks would be permitted as "notice boards" under the sign code.
Dire-ctional kiosks would be used to identify downtown businesses and upcoming Village events and would be
located at the train station and other downtown sites. The Village currently has a Downtown Signage Program
that was adopted in 2003 by the Village Board. This document includes examples of "Village Kiosks" and
PZ-25-05
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 28, 2005
Page 2
proposes locations for their placement. Staff also took a look at examples of directional kiosks in other nearby
communities, including Glenview, which uses these types of sign at The Glen.
The other changes that Staff is proposing both require text amendments. These changes include 1) permitting all
businesses in the downtown the use of sidewalk signs, 2) expanding the geographic area denoted in the ordinace
as the "Special Area of Control" to permit projecting signs in a greater area and 3) permitting the use of projecting
signs in combination with smaller wall signs.
Staff performed extensive research on the use of sidewalk signs in the communities surrounding the Village. Few
communities allow sidewalk signs, although several permit them downtown. Most municipalities do not have any
specific regulations regarding these types of signs and many look the other way when businesses use them. Staff
also found that the Village Plans, including the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown TIF Plan, support the use
of special signage asa way to create Village identity and promote downtown businesses.
The text amendment that Staff is proposing has provisions that would regulate the use of sidewalk signs in a
number of ways. First, only one (1) sign would be permitted per business and they would be limited in size to
four (4) feet in height with a maximum of two (2) sign faces, six (6) square feet each. Sidewalk signs would be
permitted in the B5 and B5C zoning districts and must be placed a maximum of one (1) foot from the building to
ensure they are geared towards pedestrians. These signs would be permitted during business hours only and
would be prohibited during times of snow, high winds, or when the signs would impede the movement of
pedestrians. Permitting and Insurance was another issue. Staff is recommending that a permit only be required
when the sign is placed on public property at which time a business would need to provide the Village with proof
of all necessary insurance.
The second text amendment would change Exhibit 1 of the Sign Code thereby expanding the "Special Area of
Control." This change would expand the use of projecting signs to all areas zoned B5 and B5C. The amendment
would also permit businesses the use of a combination of projecting signs and wall signs, provided that the wall
sign does note exceed 25 percent, instead of 50 percent, of the signable area. The intention of this change is to
increase visibility for downtown businesses. Staff also looked at examples of this combination of signs in
surrounding communities such as Glenview.
Ms. Park then briefly summarized the proposed changes and said that Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the text amendments as written as they meet the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance.
This case is Village Board final.
Ronald Roberts asked whether Staffs recommendations would permit the projecting and sidewalk signs to be
illuminated. Ms. Park responded that illumination of sidewalk signs would not be permitted, but illumination of
projecting signs in already permitted. Mr. Roberts then asked if in Glenview, where examples during the
presentation were shown, exceptions are made for The Glen that allow businesses to use these types of signs. Ms.
Park stated that the Village of Glenview works with management at The Glen and may make certain exceptions
for this development.
Richard Rogers asked how the Village plans on policing signs in the downtown area. Ms. Park explained that the
Community Development Department has an employee in charge of sign enforcement who polices the Village,
especially the community's main corridors. He would be in charge of enforcing any new sign regulations.
Arlene Juracek asked about the maximum width of the projecting signs at four (4) feet. She noted that it seemed
large and asked about the size of the current projecting signs downtown. Ms. Park estimated that the local
projecting sign examples shown are all four (4) feet in width. She also explained that in areas where the frontage
may be narrower, the code states that the sign can only project to within 2 feet of the curb line.
PZ-25-05
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 28, 2005
Page 3
Mr. Roberts again asked about illumination in regards to projecting signs. Ms. Divita clarified that what Staff is
proposing is only that the area permitted to use projecting signs downtown be expanded and that projecting signs
be permitted in combination with smaller wall signs. Staff is not recommending that changes to the projecting
sign regulations be made.
Joseph Donnelly voiced concerns that every business downtown would install a projecting sign if the amendment
is approved and that in certain areas, such as along Northwest Highway, the street will look very busy. Ms. Divita
responded that these types of signs do create a certain character in a downtown district and that combination of
projecting and wall signs would decrease wall signage downtown. She also noted that projecting signs are most
often placed higher on buildings, where they appear much smaller, and that they are especially helpful for
pedestrians trying to identify businesses.
Mr. Roberts said he was concerned that if all of the businesses use projecting signs it will alter the new streetscape
downtown. Ms. Juracek noted that other municipalities have appearance standards for signs and expressed her
feeling that the Commission would be more comfortable if the Village had similar standards in place. The
Commission discussed various ways that projecting signs could be aesthetically regulated and ways the signs
could be made more uniform. Mr. Rogers said that they also had to be conscious of the fact that some major
roads run through the downtown and they have to keep automobile safety in mind. Mr. Roberts said that he had
additional concerns regarding sidewalk signs and how they will affect the appearance of downtown.
Ms. Divita once again noted that Staff was only proposing the expansion of the area permitted to use projecting
signs and that they be permitted in combination with smaller wall signs. Ms. Park noted that some of the areas the
Commission was concerned about are already permitted to use projecting signs, but are choosing not to.
Tom Zander, with Picket Fence Realty, was sworn in. Mr. Zander spoke briefly about efforts being made by the
Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Merchants Association, and the Village to promote the downtown. He
noted that the groups are working to try and create a more pedestrian friendly downtown and that the merchants
support Staffs recommendations regarding changes to downtown signage.
Jim Uzler, Executive Director of the Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce, was sworn in. He said that he
agreed with Mr. Zander's remarks and noted that the merchants are trying to make the downtown better for
pedestrians. He also said that the merchants want to be able to use tasteful signs to help them survive in the midst
of downtown redevelopment.
Rita Dauphinee, a member of the Downtown Merchants Association, was sworn in. She said that she spoke with
Michael Martin, the owner of Le Peep Restaurant, and that he told her that when he was told by the Village to
remove his sidewalk sign he saw an immediate decrease in daily sales, though business has since improved.
Ms. Juracek verified with Staff the details of their recommendation. Mr. Rogers said that his concerns are only
with projecting sign, not sidewalk signs. He said he wants some kind of appearance board or uniformity among
the signs. Ms. Juracek asked if provisions could be added to the projecting sign regulations regarding
construction and maintenance. Ms. Park responded that these types of regulations already exist in the sign code
that apply to all signs. Ms. Juracek asked if Staff felt they had the power to remove signs they deemed "gaudy" or
"inappropriate." Ms. Divita said she would like to defer to the Village Attorney for that question. She said that
she had considered the idea of making projecting signs a conditional use. She clarified with the commission if
they wanted to see conditional use review on all projecting signs or in cases where projecting signs were being
used in combination with wall signs. The Commission expressed consensus for the former: conditional use
review for all projecting signs.
PZ-25-05
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 28, 2005
Page 4
The Commission discussed how to vote on the issues. Ms. Park clarified that only the text amendments regarding
sidewalk signs and projecting signs need to be voted on. The directional kiosk issue was for informational
purposes only.
Ms. Juracek asked if there were any questions from the audience. There were none and the Public Hearing was
closed.
Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve the amendments as written with the
caveat that all projecting signs be made a conditional use. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. Chairman
Juracek closed the hearing at 10:01 p.m.
UPQN ROLL CALL:
AYES: Donnelly, Halland, Roberts, Rogers, and Juracek
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 5-0.
At 10:03 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved
by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Christina Park
Planning Intern
MEMORANDUM
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
TO:
MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ARLENEJURACEK,CHA~ERSON
FROM:
CHRISTINA PARK
DATE:
JULY 21, 2005
HEARING DATE:
JULY 28, 2005
SUBJECT:
PZ-25-05: TEXT AMENDMENTS (DOWNTOWN SIGN REGULATIONS)
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
A public hearing has been scheduled for the July 28, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the
application by the Village of Mount Prospect (the "Petitioner") regarding proposed amendments to Chapter 7 of
the Village's Code, concerning sign regulations for the B5 and B5C zoning districts (Sections 7.205, 7.325, and
7.335). The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the July 13,2005 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper.
BACKGROUND
The Downtown Merchants Association and the Chamber of Commerce have requested that the Village allow
downtown businesses to use freestanding sidewalk signs. Recognizing that businesses in the B5 and B5C zoning
classifications (downtown) do not always have the same opportunity for signage as businesses in other zoning
classes, Staff felt it merited further research and therefore took a comprehensive look at downtown signage (see
attached Committee of the Whole Summary Memo). The issue was discussed at the Committee of the Whole on
June 14,2005 where the following three items were put up for consideration:
1. Use of pedestrian oriented sidewalk signs in the B5 and B5C zoning districts
2. Expanded use of projecting signs downtown
3. Kiosk signage at the train station
The Village Board was supportive of all three items and directed Staff to perform further research and prepare the
necessary text amendments before bringing it to the July P&Z (see attached meeting minutes). Staff is proposing
two text amendments that would change sign regulations for all businesses in the B5 and B5C zoning districts.
The amendments would permit downtown businesses to use sidewalk signs and projecting signs. Provisions
already exist in the code that would permit the Village to install informational/directional kiosks at the train
station and other downtown locations.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
As noted previously, the proposed text amendments would affect two different sections of the Village Code: Section
7.325 - Special Signs and Section 7.335 - Special Area of Control. The Village Sign Code already has provisions that
would permit the Village to install directional kiosks downtovm (see Section 7.205.1 below).
PZ-25-05
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 28, 2005
Page 2
7.205 EXEMPT SIGNS
J. Notice Boards: Notice boards for public or religions institutions or other uses as approved by the Director
and primarily intended for pedestrians.
Kiosks can be classified as notice boards as they would be installed by the Village and would benefit pedestrians
downtown. In addition, the Village already has a plan in place that illustrates example kiosks. The Downtown
Signage Program, which was adopted in 2003 by the Village Board, includes designs for the downtown
directional signs already in place as well as "Village Kiosks" that would identify downtown businesses and other
Village events (see Exhibit 3). The Plan also indicates three potential locations for the placement of these kiosks
(see Exhibit 4).
To allow downtown businesses the use of sidewalk signs, Staff recommends that Section 7.325 be amended to
create a new section as follows:
7.325 SPECIAL SIGNS
J. Sidewalk Signs
The Director of Community Development is authorized to issue permits for the use of public
property for sidewalk signs, subject to the following conditions:
1. Sidewalk Signs: Signs placed on sidewalks for the purpose of advertising businesses on
property adjoining the building.
2. Permits: A Sidewalk Sign Permit shall be required prior to placing a sidewalk sign on
public property. Sidewalk signs placed on private property do not require a permit.
Permits issued hereunder shall be valid from January 1st or the date of the permit issuance,
whichever is later, through December 31st of the same year (Refer to Appendix A for
permit fees). Applicant must provide proof of insurance as specified below prior to issuance
of a Sidewalk Sign Permit.
The Village may suspend or revoke a Sidewalk Sign Permit or request the removal of a
sidewalk sign placed on private property, to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Where a sidewalk sign violates any provision of the Mount Prospect Village Code, the
permittee shall immediately after notification correct such violation.
2. Number of Signs: Only one sidewalk sign shall be permitted per business establishment,
except that public service signs (i.e., signs indicating the curb location of valet parking) may
be permitted in addition to the one sign per business establishment.
3. Use of Signs: Sidewalk signs may only be displayed during business hours and must be
removed at the close of each business day. Sidewalk signs may not be displayed during
times of high winds, snow, or when sidewalks are congested and the placement of a sign
may impede the movement of people.
4. Location: Sidewalk signs will only be permitted in the B5 (Central Commercial) and B5C
(Core Central Commercial) zoning districts. The sign shall not unreasonably interfere with
pedestrian or vehicular traffic or with access to parked vehicles, and shall not reduce the
open portion of any sidewalk to less than five feet (5') in width. The sign shall be placed no
more than one foot (1') from the wall of the building, unless the Director of Community
Development approves another location due to other obstructions in the right of way. The
PZ-25-05
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 28,2005
Page 3
sign shall not be attached or affixed to the sidewalk, parkway, poles or any other public
facilities. Sight triangle regulations as defined in Section 7.801 must be met.
A plat of surveyor a site plan shall be submitted with permit applications, indicating the
location of the proposed sign.
5. Size: A sidewalk sign shall be a maximum offour (4) feet in height and the maximum sign
area shall not exceed six (6) square feet per sign face. A maximum of two (2) sign faces are
permitted.
6. Illumination & Attention-Getting Devices: Sidewalk signs shall not be illuminated. No
attention-getting devices, such as balloons, shall be attached to a sidewalk sign
7. Aesthetics & Maintenance: Sidewalks signs shall be high in quality and professionally
constructed of durable materials. Sidewalk Signs shall be properly maintained as provided
for in Section 7.405.
8. Insurance: Sidewalk signs placed on private property are placed at the risk of the owner.
The applicant for a Sidewalk Sign Permit, shall provide, at its sole cost and expense, and
shall maintain in effect during the entire period of the permit, insurance in the following
manner:
a. The following insurance coverage:
1. Worker's Compensation Insurance in at least the required statutory limits;
2. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance, including owner's protective
liability insurance and contractual liability insurance covering claims for
personal injury and property damage with limits of at least one million
($1,000,000.00) dollars per occurrence, and one million ($1,000,000.00) dollars
for any single injury; and
3. Prior to issuance of a Sidewalk Sign Permit, the applicant shall provide the
Village with copies of the certificates of insurance for the required insurance
naming the Village as an additional insured party.
4. The required insurance policies shall each provide that they shall not be
changed or cancelled during the life of the Sidewalk Sign Permit until 30 days
after written notice of such change has been delivered to the Village, attention:
Director of Community Development.
5. The permittee shall agree to hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the Village
from and against any and all injuries, deaths, losses, damages, claims, suits,
liabilities, judgments, costs and expenses, consequential or otherwise, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, which may in any way arise ont of or be connected
with the granting of a Sidewalk Sign Permit, or in any way result therefrom or
from any act or failure to act by the permittee, its agents or employees.
To allow all of the businesses in the B5 and B5C zoning districts the use of projecting signs, Staff recommends
that Exhibit 1- Special Area of Control of Section 7.335 be changed. Exhibit 1 depicts the current area allowed to
use projecting signs. The area is roughly bounded by Central Road, School Street, and Prospect Avenue. Exhibit
PZ-25-05
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 28, 2005
Page 4
2 shows the amended map, where the boundary has been expanded to include all downtown businesses in the B5
and B5C zoning districts. In addition, Staff is recommending that businesses within the "Special Area of Control"
be permitted the use of projecting signs in combination with smaller wall signs. Staff recommends that Section
7.335 - Special Area of Control be changed to the following:
7.335 SPECIAL AREA OF CONTROL
The Village Board may designate geographic areas within the Village as a "special area of control" for purposes
of these regulations. A special area of control is an area in which special standards are drafted in order to
incorporate a wider variety of sign design.
A. The Director shall prepare a map showing all designated areas of special control (see Exhibit 1).
B. Areas of special control shall permit the following:
1. Projecting Signs
a. Number: One (1) projecting sign shall be permitted per business establishment. A projecting sign
and a wall sign may be placed on the same wall provided that the projecting sign complies with
Section 7.305.C.2 through 7.305.C.5 and the area of the wall sign does not exceed twenty-five
percent (25%) of the signable wall area (asdefined in Section 7.801).
b. Location: Projecting signs permitted under these regulations may extend over the public right-of-
way four feet (4') or to within two feet (2') of the curb line, whichever is less (see subsection
7.305.C).
2. Canopies or Awnings
a. Location: Canopies or awnings permitted under these regulations may extend over the public
right-of-way the lesser of five feet (5') or to within two feet (2') ofthe curb line; provided no
supporting posts, columns, or braces extend beyond the property line.
ST ANDARDS FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS
Section 14.203.D.8.b lists standards for the P&Z to consider for text amendments to the Zoning Code. The
standards relate to:
· The general applicability ofthe amendment to the community, rather than an individual parcel;
· The degree to which the amendment would create non-conformity;
· The degree to which the amendment would make the Zoning Code more permissive;
· Consistency of the amendment with objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan; and
· Consistency of the amendment with Village policy as established by previous rulings.
The proposal to amend the Village's downtown signage regulations would be applicable to the downtown area
because there are physical site constraints that limit opportunities for signage. Many buildings in the B5 and B5C
zoning districts are built very close to the property line, which does not allow for a freestanding sign. In addition,
the buildings are positioned parallel to the street, which limits their visibility.
PZ-25-05
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 28, 2005
Page 5
The proposed text amendments would make the sign regulations more permissible in only the downtown area.
However, the proposed changes are a result of physical site limitations and the proposed regulations have been
drafted to ensure new signage would not detract from the character of the downtown area. The amendments are
also consistent with other Village Plans and would be consistent with the Village's previous signage
requirements. The Downtown Signage Program includes examples of kiosk signage and the Comprehensive Plan
and the Downtown TIP District Strategic Plan both support the use of special signage downtown.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed text amendments meet the standards contained in Section 14.203.D.8.b of the Zoning Ordinance.
Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to
the Village Board to approve the text amendments as outlined above for case PZ-25-05. The Village Board's
decision is final for this case.
I concur:
~~loon~~;ector of Community Development
H:\PLAN\Oowntown\Do\VIUOWIl Siguagc\PZ-25-05 MEMO (Icxt anlQldmcnl" dovmtowll signs).doc
PZ-25-05
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 28, 2005
Page 6
Exhibit 1
..
C.U.T_O'" <.,..: D
~ .... t- I- l-
.. i'I >fI '"
.u.~~ ...vc
~
..
"
J
J
i
..
'"
o
,
lot
.I
..
0(
s:
'i
.I
...
.I
o
()
I
oj
..
E.vE"- ...~......
EXHIBIT I.
SPECIAL P,.REA OF CONTROL
N1'
I . f I
. 100 ...,,0
..u.... "".~
O(~T",""'T 0" C4t0'MUW'T ~ g......ItLO~I..T
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
LIW(..OL.W "T'.
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
tr)
o
o
N
OO~
N
;>,
:g
01)
.S
.....
Q)
S
.~
en
.~
o
U
01)
!:::
'S
o
N
c:<!
V) 01)
cr !:::
V) ...... r-
N @ Q)
N~ ~
~~~
C"'l
+->
......
,D
:E
><:
~
en
'0
ro.!:
Q)=
.;...:-<ti
:s~~
:2.9~
XC:__
W:;:ll..
0.....
DC:
:::s
o
~
~
~
1)
l.() ~
N
d
N
o
~
o
o
'"
o
o
o
PZ-25-05
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 28, 2005
Page 8
Exhibit 3 - Village Kiosks (from the Downtown Signage Program)
2'~1!:>'
n~
t
t
,.".
,
~!o\A'"
~
..
;;~~
~~::F --;
:...A$o~
:;1:1:'1'
i
~~
;.
12.'( .~.
,;~::"A;..
--.\'!I.,;r~
'!>'f!::.....lul
J
.. .>W".....'...i.~',Jf;;i.'e "n_"r,,,,'^~"~-.,
"'."'." ',;' ,- ,'.c." N.,' '."B, ""'i:Ji','.",''','. ~',' ',"'"1\ """,tt
Y"",/< ' '-':, ";"I(';'c''-';''','f'''":"'.:.-" ',>'" .4" ~>",/.j,":'-',
,~'~. lj<'~;'5"",.,,,.t!'l"'}.':"';~}d1<"",i"",,,,,,,
~" . ,#,?,.",.~.;ll;;.....",,~',':W:'#'~ ~"""""""'r"'J:~, 1..
.. ,,:'i' <,:-", , ,"-'~~:>-l"'" ":,~-'I,,'.r~,",:)f':;,.,'
i "
- ,
."e\lw":' "lZ~p,.::.'!' ~>~...:u." pjZO~lZAM
'picJ.rh. ",...~.,,":i'::'A1"~~ ,,~..? ''';~.
Front of Kiosk
Vl\..\...MtJ!. ""o~ ... ?\t>~ 'A'
le?~'!'~~
~~I.<~":" fU"~~": ~\j,..;M~ !"~",,l:ZA"'_
Vi\...1..AG.,'a. \o::.IO~ .. ~\P~ '~'
&t;..flAfo/X. ~O".!-'.;.;';~~A~O.; 5o,Il~\.!", :~~.
.~.::.~~
Back of Kiosk
PZ-25-05
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 28, 2005
Page 9
Exhibit 4 - Village Kiosk Location Map (from the Downtown Signage Program)
W. CENTRAL RD.
'^
~
=
!1l
-,'
0
~ .
iii
w. BUSSE '"
~ '^
~
'"
N ~
iii
:!i
~
~
~1
t: ~i~
1c?:
~
111
~4U~ e
~$ AS
~ ~
~~ ~ ,BUSSE,,,.
E. CENTRAL RD.
~
~
~
'^
~
~
'"
~
(:1) t::>1\2~C.I0\2Y \::.\o-?\::.
'^
~
~
'^
=-
F
;
'^
~
~
!1l
!3
'^
~
~
'"
~
W. rlERGREEN ,,,.
o t::>\\2~C.I\O\JA\.. e>\..At::>\:S -?I~\J-?
~
h';
~
?\G.,~AG.,~ L.OC.Ar\O~ f'L.A~
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
Mount Prospect
MEMORANDUM
~
TO:
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
FROM:
WILLIAM J. COONEY
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
JUNE 10, 2005
SUBJECT:
DOWNTO\VN SIGN REGULATIONS
The Downtown Merchants Association and the Chamber of Commerce have requested that the
Village allow downtown businesses the use of freestanding sidewalk signs. Representatives
from both organizations plan to attend the June 14th COW meeting and would be available to
discuss with you the benefits of using sidewalk signs and their experiences with them.
Recognizing that businesses in the B5 and B5C zoning classifications (downtown) do not always
have the same opportunity for signage as businesses in other zoning classes, Staff felt the request
merited research and consideration by the Village Board. Outlined here are several items for the
Committee's consideration:
1. Use of pedestrian oriented sidewalk signs in the B5 and B5C zoning districts
2. Expanded use of projecting signs downtown
3. Kiosk signage at the Train Station
Justification for Consideration
Businesses located in the B5 and B5C districts have less opportunity for signage than is found
elsewhere in the Village. Unlike commercial properties in an auto-oriented shopping center
where buildings are set back from the road, downtown stores are close to the street and the
development scale caters to pedestrians. In downtown Mount Prospect, there is not always room
for a freestanding ground sign as the code requires placement of these to be at least 5 feet from
the property line. Wall signs are allowed downtown but such signage is not always visible from a
traveling car or by a pedestrian standing directly underneath the sign. Hanging perpendicular
signs, which could help remedy the situation, are allowed downtown, but only in a small area
(Village Code 7.335: SPECIAL AREA OF CONTROL, Exhibit I).
Both the Village's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan support
the use of special signage in the downtown district. Planning guidelines in both documents
recognize that signage can help:
. Provide a strong and positive Village image
. Improve the character and appearance of the commercial environment
. Emphasize the role of downtown as a vibrant social and visual focal point for the
community
. Create an attractive and comfortable downtown for pedestrians
. Enhance identity and way-finding clarity
Rather than focusing solely on the request for sidewalk signs, staff believes it would be prudent
to take a more comprehensive look and to ensure the most effective downtown signage is
available to our businesses. As noted above, this would include:
1) Expanding the area within which projecting signs may be used to include all B5 and
B5 C zoned properties. (Exhibit 7 of this memorandum)
2) Construction of an information kiosk at the train station to be used to identify
downtown businesses and upcoming events.
The issue of permitting sidewalk signs in the B5 and B5C Districts is more complex than it may
seem at first blush. First, few communities allow these signs so little knowledge exists in the
Chicago area as to liability and effectiveness. Second, the request from the business community
includes the caveat that sidewalk signs be permitted away from the building, which contradicts
the planning philosophy that sidewalk signs communicate best with pedestrians. Staff presents
to the Board the following research and considerations to be used in weighing the use of
sidewalk signs.
Planning Goals
In considering any change to the current Sign Code, the purpose of sign control as outlined in the
Sign Code (Exhibit 2) should be considered, as well as these planning goals:
. Ensure pedestrian safety - Signs should not be so large to obstruct view of the
sidewalk from a wheelchair, or allow a person to hide behind. Signs should be placed
within 12 inches of the building; this will help identify the door of the establishment and
limit risk of injury from someone entering a parked automobile at curbside.
. Meet Federal ADA Requirements - The Federal ADA requirements state that a
minimum of 36 inches clear is needed to accommodate 1 wheelchair passage and 60
inches for 2 wheelchairs to pass. Also, 60 inches is needed for 1 wheelchair to make a
180 degree turn. The maximum height for a service counter is 36 inches because 34
inches is approximately chest level for most wheelchair bound individuals. Dimensions
of an adult wheel chair are 26 x 48 inches.
. Create a pedestrian friendly atmosphere - Signs would assist business owners in
appealing to the pedestrian and inviting them in to the store. Sidewalk signs are not
effective in communicating to a person within a traveling automobile.
· Limit liability - The Village should be indemnified from all liability from signs on
public property; use of the signs on private property is at the risk of the property owner.
· Maintain integrity of the downtown architecture and streetscape - Signs should be
of a high quality, durable material, and must be professionally fabricated. Hand written
messages would only be allowed on a chalkboard, such as to advertise a daily special.
Only 1 sign would be allowed per door per building so as to avoid clutter.
· Maintain a healthy business climate - Additional signage, used effectively, will assist
business owners in growing their clientele.
Research
The attached table (Exhibit 3) summarizes research on the use of sidewalk signs. Staff
researched sidewalk sign regulations in the communities surrounding the Village, calling each
and reading their sign codes. Staff also contacted other communities in the Chicago area and
out-of-state known to allow such signs, and studied various Village Plans and Ordinances to
determine if the documents would support the use of sidewalk signs.
The research identified several key findings:
· Few municipalities in the area allow businesses to use sidewalk signs, although several
do allow them as temporary signs.
· Most communities do not have specific regulations for sidewalk signs in their
ordinances.
· Some communities in the metro area, such as Geneva, St. Charles, Naperville and
Aurora do successfully allow businesses to use sidewalk signs in their downtown.
· Slightly more than half of those ordinances allowing the signs require a permit.
Sign Criteria
Staff considered several components of sidewalk signs needing regulation to ensure pedestrian
safety and meet the Planning Goals outlined above. These are outlined in exhibit 6 and include:
1. Placement
Sidewalk signs would be allowed in the B5 and B5C Zoning Districts as these properties
have less opportunity for signage. Only 1 sign should be allowed per street side door to
eliminate clutter. The sight triangle and pedestrian clearance must be maintained. Signs
should be placed adjacent to the building (not be more than 12 inches from the building)
not curbside. At least 5 feet of unobstructed sidewalk must be maintained around each
SIgn.
Sidewalk signage can enhance a pedestrian oriented shopping district, but is ineffective
for use in communicating to a moving vehicle: research shows at a speed of 35 mph or
greater, letters on a sign would need to be 6 inches or higher to be legible (U.S.
Department of the Interior). For safety reasons, Staff recommends a maximum size of2'
x 3' sign. This would allow 3 lines of copy with a maximum of 8 characters on each.
2. Times of Use
Signs are only to be displayed during business hours, and would not be allowed at times
of high wind, snow events, or when they could be a hazard, as outlined in the sample
ordinance.
3. Permitting
Sign regulations will be applied to all sidewalk signs; however, permits will only be
required for those on public property.
4. Aesthetics
It is important that these signs be of high quality and be professionally constructed of
durable material. The Village will reserve the right to deny the use of a sign not meeting
these minimal design criteria or that is not properly maintained as provided for in Section
7.405.
If the Village Board supports the use of sidewalk signage, please direct staff to take this topic for
consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Please also provide direction to Staff
regarding 1) the expansion of projecting signs throughout the B5 and B5C Districts, and 2)
construction of an information kiosk at the Metra Station.
William J. Cooney
Exhibit 1
7.335: SPECIAL AREA OF CONTROL:
The Village Board may designate geographic areas within the Village as a "special area of control" for purposes of
these regulations. A special area of control is an area in which special standards are drafted in order to incorporate a
wider variety of sign design.
A. The Director shall prepare a map showing all designated areas of special control.
B. Areas of special control shall include the following:
Central Business District: In the Central Business District Special Area of Control (Exhibit I).
Signs permitted under these regulations may extend over the public right of way as follows:
Projecting Signs: Four feet (4') or to within two feet (2') of the curb line, whichever is less (see subsection
7.305C of this Article).
Canopies Or Awnings: The lesser of five feet (5') or to within two feet (2') of the curb line; provided no
supporting posts, columns, or braces extend beyond the property line.
0(
::I
..
"
o
.
'I
J
..
J
Q
II
i:
oJ
..
~
-<
-'
...
...
...
E,VE."- tls;:.w
.
o
Oi ,
N t .,-._,.~. i I
.~o ' 1~O 0 D~ :
O.IfeI..O""'IHT .L.J
\II
J
~
X
EXHIBIT I.
SPECIAL AREA OF CONTROL
""u..... ~.4
O(""'T"'''WT 011I c.oM'..u..u,.t
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
~11o.lC.O""NI $-"',
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
(Ord. 4519,1-19-1993)
Exhibit 2
From the Village Sign Code
7.101: PURPOSE:
The regulations of this Chapter are intended to coordinate the use, placement, physical dimensions, and
design of all signs within the Village. The purpose of these regulations is to promote the public health,
safety and welfare, and develop a satisfactory visual appearance with the Village by:
A. Promoting the objectives, principles and standards identified in the Comprehensive Plan for
commercial and industrial development; and
B. Protecting the public from damage or injury caused by signs which are poorly designed or
maintained and from distractions or hazards to pedestrians or motorists caused by the indiscriminate
placement or use of signs; and
C. Maintaining property values by eliminating signs that are incompatible with the surrounding land
uses; and
D. Encouraging a viable economic environment through uniform control of signs; and
E. Facilitating effective communication between the public and the environment through signs which
are appropriate for the type of street on which they are located; and
F. Encouraging quality sign design to promote a better visual environment; and
G. Enhancing the physical appearance of the Village through a program which ensures the removal of
inadequately maintained, illegal and nonconforming signs within a reasonable time period.
(Ord. 4519,1-19-1993)
Aurora
I/) I/)
.- Q)
0;
c: .-
== 5 IBarrington
~ E
Q) E
:; 0
o U ICrystal Lake
Sandwich Boards Permitted
Portable Signs
(sandwich signs)
Portable Signs
(menu or sandwich
board signs)
up to 4 ft up to 2 ft wide can only be displayed
during business hours
Prohibited
(see "other")
Prohibited
must not obstruct
pedestrian / wheelchair
access - must keep 5 ft of
clear sidewalk
are permitted as
"Temporary Promotional
Signs" - short-term only
Permit not
required
East Dundee Portable Signs Prohibited - - - - - - -
Geneva Sandwich Boards Permitted only in Comm. up to 5 ft max 2 sign not doser to street than Permit required
Districts faces - up to ROW line
10 sq ft per
panel
Portable Signs Prohibited - - - - . - -
lake Forest Temporary Signs Permitted - a-frames not written into must not obstruct sidewalk
their code
Naperville A-Framed Signs Permitted up to 5 ft up to 6 sq ft must be taken inside at cannot be placed in public Permit not
night (2 am - 6 am) right-of-way required
St. Charles Sidewalk Signs Yearly one (1) permitted per Permit required Worker's Comp and
Permitted req. business - must keep 5 ft Comprehensive
on public of clear sidewalk General Liability
property required
West Dundee Daily Temporary Permitted only in Comm. 18 in x 36 in - must be taken inside Permit not
Sign (sandwich Districts up to 9 sq ft. nightly required
boa rd) total - max 2
sign faces
Woodstock' Sidewalk Signs Permitted Pedestrian- 3 to 4 ft up to 6 sq ft can only be displayed must keep 5 fl of clear Annual Permit Liability Insurance
Oriented per sign face during business hours sidewalk - cannot be required required
Businesses displayed during high
only winds or snow
. Note: Woodstock Ordinance is currently in draft form
Gilbert, AZ A-Frame Signs Permitted for up to 3 ft up to 2 ft in can only be displayed one (1) permitted per Permit not
commercial width during business hours business or apartment required
and downtown complex
districts
Renton, WA A-frame Signs Permitted not permitted up to 3 ft up to 32 in can only be displayed special placement Permit required Insurance required
in Res. Dist. wide during business hours regulations for downtown
businesses
San Rafael, CA A-Frame Signs Permitted only in up to 3 ft up to 24 in can only be displayed must be placed adjacent to Permit required Insurance required
downtown wide during business hours building & cannot obstruct
pedestrian traffic
A plat of surveyor a site plan shall be submitted with permit applications,
indicating the location of the proposed sign.
5. Size: A sidewalk sign shall be a maximum of four feet (4') in height and the
maximum sign area shall not exceed six square feet (6 sq. ft.) per sign face. A
maximum of two (2) sign faces are pennitted.
6. Illumination: Sidewalk signs shall not be illuminated.
7. Insurance: Sidewalk signs placed on private property are placed at the risk of the
owner. The applicant for a Sidewalk Sign Permit, shall provide, at its sole cost
and expense, and shall maintain in effect during the entire period of the pennit,
insurance in the following manner:
a. The following insurance coverage:
1. Worker's Compensation Insurance in at least the required statutory
limits;
2. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance, including owner's
protective liability insurance and contractual liability insurance
covering claims for personal injury and property damage with limits of
at least one million ($1,000,000.00) dollars per occurrence, and one
million ($1,000,000.00) dollars for any single injury; and
3. Prior to issuance of a Sidewalk Sign Permit, the applicant shall provide
the Village with copies of the certificates of insurance for the required
insurance naming the Village as an additional insured party.
4. The required insurance policies shall each provide that they shall not
be changed or cancelled during the life of the Sidewalk Sign Permit
until 30 days after written notice of such change has been delivered to
the Village, attention: Director of Community Development.
5. The pernlittee shall agree to hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the
Village from and against any and all injuries, deaths, losses, damages,
claims, suits, liabilities, judgments, costs and expenses, consequential
or otherwise, including reasonable attorneys' fees, which may in any
way arise out of or be connected with the granting of a Sidewalk Sign
Permit, or in any way result therefrom or from any act or failure to act
by the permittee, its agents or employees.
Exhibit 5
SIDE'V ALK SIGN DISPLAY REGULATIONS
NUMBER PERMITTED:
One (1) per business.
PERMITTED LOCATION:
Sidewalk signs are only permitted in the B5
(Central Commercial) and B5C (Core Central
Commercial) zoning districts and shall be placed no
more than one foot (1 ') from the building.
PEDESTRIAN CLEARANCE:
A minimum of five feet (5') of unobstructed
sidewalk is required.
CLEAR VISION AREA:
Sight triangle regulations as outlined in the Sign
Code must be followed (see Section 7.801).
SIZE:
Sidewalk signs shall not exceed four (4) feet in
height and each sign face shall not be greater than
six square feet (6 sq. ft.). Only two (2) sign faces
are permitted.
DISPLAY TIMES:
Sidewalk signs shall not be displayed during non-
business hours. Signs shall also not be displayed
during times of high winds, snow, or when it will
impede pedestrian movement.
ILLUMINATION:
Sidewalk signs shall not be illuminated.
PERMIT:
A permit is required for all sidewalk signs placed on
public property. Permit applicants shall provide a
plat of surveyor site plan showing the location of
the sign. Sidewalk signs placed on private property
do not require a permit.
INSURANCE:
All applicants for sidewalk sign pemlits shall
provide proof of insurance at the time of
application. Comprehensive General Liability
Insurance with limits of at least one million
($1,000,000) dollars per occurrence and one million
($1,000,000) for any single injury is required and
worker's comprehensive in the statutory limits. The
applicant must also name the Village as an
additional insured party and indemnify the Village.
"
"
",,,:': .--- /
'I~__- .'
.,.if'- __- . i;/ ~
,........ ..~.... ~
----
--.-,
.-. !
rnmB tmmE . Offill
__ ffiM]~,./
_US i""
_: i
m ~
: e
.~ _ LI1~ . -
i ffiHlffi!E ... . . ~ ~ . n
.~ ffiffiHHB ,,",." B w!IBHIEIE -
c: ffiffiEPl "'~" ~/ l'"'~' arnm
~ .~ _.t>~
j'[ffiHffiB .,~ ~, l-'O =
~ mmmIll ,.} _I_i. ~
~ ITIIlJJIII]j · _'_'.~:
z ffilffiHBJ, ...,.. <J~
~ 1 - ~.~_.~-
.- a. .
J: 0
X ....
W c..
DRJ.\fT
MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JUNE 14, 2005
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m., in the Village Board Room of Village Hall,
50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Irvana Wilks. Present at the meeting were:
Trustees Paul Hoefert, John Korn, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron and Michael
Zade!. Absent from the meeting was Trustee Timothy Corcoran. Staff members present
included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl,
Finance Director David Erb, Community Development Director William Cooney and
Deputy Community Development Director Ellen Divita.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of Minutes from March 22, 2005. A Motion was made by Trustee Hoefert and
Seconded by Trustee Zade!. The Minutes were approved. Trustee Korn abstained.
Approval of Minutes of April 26, 2005. A Motion was made by Trustee Zadel and
Seconded by Trustee Skowron. Minutes were approved. Trustee Korn abstained.
Approval of Minutes of May 24, 2005. A Motion was made by Trustee Hoefert and
Seconded by Trustee Zade!. A request was made to add the name of Mark Miller as a
Safety Commission member which was omitted from the Safety Commission I ist of the
Minutes. Minutes were approved with modification. Trustee Lohrstorfer abstained.
III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
None.
Village Manager Janonis announced the passing of Village Clerk Velma Lowe and
provided information regarding the times, locations and dates of the services.
IV. TIF - SUB-AREA #1 REDEVELOPMENT OPTION DISCUSSION
Mayor Wilks stated the Village Board is prepared to move forward in some direction,
however, there will be no decision tonight regarding that direction and is intended only to
start the process of discussion.
1
Village Manager Janonis stated that the work of the Board will likely take the next six to
nine months to arrive at a final decision regarding this Area. The Village Board
commissioned DLK Architects to review Sub-Area #1 which is bounded by Northwest
Highway, Route 83 and Busse Avenue. He also stated that representatives from W. B.
Olson have been invited to participate in the discussion regarding cost options and
related up charges likely with each option presented this evening.
Community Development Director Bill Cooney provided an overview of the Area and
summarized the discussions in the Report of the Second Ad Hoc Committee. He stated
discussions regarding the extension and expansion of the TIF are currently under way.
He stated some of the attributes of the existing buildings include the oldest commercial
buildings in the community, currently viable businesses and affordable rents. He said
the challenges that await any redevelopment include minimal private investment, limited
functionality of existing structures including structural obsolescence, stagnant property
values and lack of parking.
Charlie Freidlander of DLK provided an overview of all the options that had been
drafted by DLK Architecture.
Option A, which contains the most preservation and the most likely significant cost
premiums, was presented.
Dave Olson of W. B. Olson stated the cost impacts would be significant related to
construction staging and the required steps to save the front of the buildings and support
them from behind.
Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated that Option A provides limited
retail value and tends to maximize residential units.
Option B includes a single, five story structure with underground parking with a
basement next to the buildings that are recommended for saving under this Option.
There is some retail included and this is the smallest overall change to the Area but
highly the highest cost per square foot.
Option C contains two main retail parcels with surface parking for retail. The
underground parking would not be part of the support for the retail operations. There
would be foundation retention expenses.
Option D would have the same retail issues as Option C, however, it includes more retail
in the small triangle and more underground parking.
Option E includes a large retail operation in the small triangle and Busse wou Id be the
surface parking area.
Option F is a combination plan but also limits the additional cost that would include cost
for upgrades of the buildings that would be retained. There would also be issues with
modifying the existing buildings versus building new and the additional costs associated
with such modifications would be higher than building new.
2
Dave Olson also stated that the facades could be duplicated with new materials to get
an old-time look versus trying to retain the existing materials and there would be some
difference that would be noticeable. The ability to reconstruct with previous materials
would most likely not yield positive results.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
There was concern voiced about the amount of surface parking for retail and the costs
associated with protecting existing buildings. It was also noted that some businesses
would be driven out due to likely higher rents and currently this area enjoys lower rents
associated with the quality of buildings and location.
Gavin Kleespies, Executive Director of the Mount Prospect Historical Society
spoke. He provided historical background on the area and noted that this is the initial
commercial area within Mount Prospect and feels it defines Mount Prospect character.
David Lindgren, Chair of the Economic Development Commission spoke. He
stated that the Commission is planning to meet this week to discuss development
options and would forward the Commission's recommendation to the Board after the
meeting.
Jean Reibel, Four North Pine Street, a local architect, feels that the combining of
Options A and B with all new along Northwest Highway could be an option to consider.
Tom Neitzke, owner of the business at 22 West Busse, spoke. He would prefer that
everything be left alone as is. He stated he has concerns that just because the buildings
have limited architectural value does not mean they have no value and stated that this
Area allows lower rents for small business to start out and survive.
Mike Reese, owner of the business at 50 West Busse, spoke. He owns His and
Hers Hobbies. He stated he picked downtown Mount Prospect for his business because
of the character of the buildings but did acknowledge they are getting rundown. He
stated himself and several other business people in the Area have been reluctant to
invest in the buildings because they are uncertain of the future of the properties. He
suggested utilizing TIF money to upgrade the buildings.
Jim Uszler, Executive Director of the Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce,
spoke. He stated it is necessary to get a certain amount of density to make the project
work and felt that preservation of historical buildings could be accomplished through
relocation.
George Busse, 111 South Maple Street, spoke. He stated he is the former Chair of
the Economic Development Commission. He stated the EDe felt the most significant
redevelopment Option was to avoid a canyon effect and maintain some historical
appearance where possible. He stated there is a need to move forward and change.
The Area cannot grow and prosper without change.
Tim Gear, Historical Society Board member and resident, spoke. He stated he is
questioning how an Area is measured as viable and how it is defined.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
3
It was noted that some of the Options have positives which could be combined into
elements of other plans to create hybrid plans. There was also a question regarding the
cost of bringing the buildings up to Code and the ongoing maintenance costs. The
Village Board determined to eliminate Option E from further consideration.
Village Manager Michael Janonis stated that discussion will continue regarding what
could work for the entire area.
v. UTILIZATION OF SIGNS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA
Community Development Director Bill Cooney provided a summary of the available
options regarding some changes in downtown signage.
Planning Intern Christine Park presented the information summarizing all the
downtown sign recommendations. The sign types that are recommended are the use of
pedestrian level oriented signs along the sidewalk, extended signs from the buildings in
the 85 and S5G areas and kiosk signs which would include area information about
businesses. She stated the downtown businesses have less opportunity for signage and
staff is recommending the use of projecting signs extending from the buildings so that
the business is more noticeable. The kiosk option is recommended for the train station
which would identify businesses in the area and general interest items. She stated that
most comparable towns do not allow A-frame signs but larger downtowns use A-frame
signs under special circumstances. She stated the recommended criteria would include
one A-frame sign per street side door adjacent to the building with a maximum 12" from
the building and a minimum of five feet of sidewalk unobstructed. These signs are
pedestrian oriented and would only be out during business hours and not during adverse
weather conditions. They would need to be considered high-quality and professionally
constructed and would require a Permit only if on public property.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
A concern was voiced regarding the safety of A-frame signs and the need to clearly
define the quality and design requirements that illustrate the necessary quality. It was
also recommended that a trial period be undertaken and then the progra m be re-
evaluated after the trial. It was also stated that some clarification may be necessary
regarding the number of signs allowed for businesses that happen to be on corner
property.
Ken Fritz, Mount Prospect resident, spoke. He stated he was involved in drafting the
original Sign Code and felt that these recommendations standardizing the appearance of
signs in the downtown was worthwhile.
Katie Dix, owner of Capannari's Ice Cream and the Chair of the Downtown
Merchants Association, spoke. She stated that utilizing the sign package that is
recommended would encourage a branding concept for the area.
Consensus of the Village Board was to consider the Ordinance as presented by
staff if subsequent and sufficient oversight is included for maintaining the
professional appearance.
4
VI. VILLAGE HALL ENTRANCE ENHANCEMENTS
Assistant Village Manager David Strahl provided an oveNiew of the proposals drafted
by DLK for Board consideration. These enhancements include installation of banners on
the east wall of the Village Hall including a banner above the main entrance doors of
Emerson Street and the Route 83 side. Another option would be the installation of a
glass panel above the main entrance door. These options also include the installation of
paneling and a camouflage paneling on the fire panel wall in the main stairwell.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
It was noted that the building functions extremely well and the overall block turned out
very well. A shortcoming that has been commented on from c.~)nstituents has focused
on the entrance and the main stairwell. It was suggested that the porch area be
considered a grand entrance which could incorporate the stairwell depending on Code
limitations.
Consensus of the Village Board was to postpone the decision regarding these
proposals presented this evening and to request a design for review and pricing
from DLK regarding main entrance enhancements including improvements of the
portico area.
Village Manager Mike Janonis requested a couple of Elected Officials participate in the
design discussions. Trustee Hoefert and Mayor Wilks volunteered to participate in those
discussions.
VII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
Village Manager Mike Janonis stated the Farmers' Market is running on Sundays now.
The Lions Club 4th of July Festival is scheduled to begin on June 29 and continue
through July 5.
He also stated there is no need for a Closed Session this evening.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further discussion, the Committee of the Whole meeting adjourned at
10:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, _ /;J
~~ ~t:U
DAVID STRAHL
Assistant Village Manager
DSlrcc
5
bh/kd
08/11/05
cmp
8/2/05
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 (SIGN CODE)
OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
WHEREAS, the Petitioner (the President of the Village of Mount Prospect) has filed an
application for certain text amendments to Chapter 7 (Sign Code) of the Village Code of
Mount Prospect to amend various regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks amendments to the following sections of the Village
Code:
Section 7.325
Section 7.330
Section 7.335
SPECIAL SIGNS
SPECIAL USE
SPECIAL AREA OF CONTROL
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the proposed amendments, being the subject
of PZ-25-05, before the Planning and Zoning Board Commission on July 28, 2005,
pursuant to due and prop~r legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect
,Journal & Topics on the 13t day of July, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and
recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount
Prospect and the President and Board of Trustees of the Village have considered the
requests being the subject of PZ-25-05.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth are incorporated as findings of fact by the
President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect.
SECTION TWO. Section 7.325, entitled "Special Signs" of Chapter 7, as amended, is
hereby further amended to create a new section as follows:
7.330 SPECIAL USE
F. Projecting Signs
l\
Ch. 7, Text Amendment - Sign Code
Page 2/6
7.325 SPECIAL SIGNS
J. Sidewalk Signs
The Director of Community Development is authorized to issue permits for
the use of public property for sidewalk signs, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Sidewalk Signs: Signs placed on sidewalks for the purpose of
advertising businesses on property adjoining the building.
2. Permits: A Sidewalk Sign Permit shall be required prior to placing a
sidewalk sign on public property. Sidewalk signs placed on private
property do not require a permit but shall be subject to these
regulations as stated. A permit shall be valid from January 1st or the
date of the permit issuance, whichever is later, through December
31st of the same year (Refer to Appendix A for permit fees).
Applicant must provide proof of insurance as specified below prior
to issuance of a Sidewalk Sign Permit.
The Village may suspend or revoke a Sidewalk Sign Permit or
request the removal of a sidewalk sign placed on private property, to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Where a sidewalk sign
violates any provision of the Mount Prospect Village Code, the
permittee shall upon notification immediately correct such violation.
3. Number of Signs: Only one sidewalk sign shall be permitted per
business establishment, except that public service signs (Le., signs
indicating the curb location of valet parking) may be permitted in
addition to the one sign per business establishment.
4. Use of Signs: Sidewalk signs may only be displayed during
business hours and must be removed at the close of each business
day. Sidewalk signs may not be displayed during times of high
winds, snow, or when sidewalks are congested and the placement of
a sign may impede pedestrian movement.
5. Location: Sidewalk signs shall be permitted only in the 85 (Central
Commercial) and 85C (Core Central Commercial) zoning districts.
Such signs shall not unreasonably interfere with pedestrian or
vehicular traffic or with access to parked vehicles, and shall not
reduce the open portion of any sidewalk to less than five feet (5') in
Ch. 7, Text Amendment - Sign Code
Page 3/6
width. The sign shall be placed no more than one foot (1 ') from the
wall of the building, unless the Director of Community Development
approves in writing another location due to other obstructions in the
right of way. The sign shall not be attached or affixed to the
sidewalk, parkway, poles or any other public facilities. Such signs
shall adhere to all sight triangle regulations as set forth in Section
7.801 must be met.
A plat of surveyor a site plan shall be submitted with permit
applications, indicating the location of the proposed sign.
6. Size: A sidewalk sign may not exceed four (4) feet in height and the
sign area shall not exceed six (6) square feet per sign face with a
maximum of two (2) faces per sign.
7. Illumination & Attention-Getting Devices: Sidewalk signs shall not
be illuminated. No attention-getting devices, such as balloons, may
be attached to a sidewalk sign
8. Aesthetics & Maintenance: Sidewalks signs shall be of high quality
and professionally constructed of durable materials. Sidewalk Signs
shall be properly maintained as provided in Section 7.405.
9. Insurance: The applicant for a Sidewalk Sign Permit, shall provide,
at its sole cost and expense, and shall maintain in effect during the
entire period of the permit, insurance in the following manner:
a. The following insurance coverage:
1. Worker's Compensation Insurance in at least the required
statutory limits;
2. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance, including
owner's protective liability insurance and contractual
liability insurance covering claims for personal injury and
property damage with limits of at least one million
($1,000,000.00) dollars per occurrence, and one million
($1,000,000.00) dollars for any single injury; and
3. Prior to issuance of a Sidewalk Sign Permit, the applicant
shall provide the Village with copies of the certificates of
insurance for the required insurance naming the Village as
an additional insured party.
Ch. 7, Text Amendment - Sign Code
Page 4/6
4. The required insurance policies shall each provide that
they shall not be changed or cancelled during the life of the
Sidewalk Sign Permit until 30 days after written notice of
such change has been delivered to the Village, Attention:
Director of Community Development.
5. The permittee shall agree to hold harmless, indemnify, and
defend the Village from and against any and all injuries,
deaths, losses, damages, claims, suits, liabilities,
judgments, costs and expenses, consequential or
otherwise, including reasonable attorneys' fees, which may
in any way arise out of or be connected with the granting of
a Sidewalk Sign Permit, or in any way result therefrom or
from any act or failure to act by the permittee, its agents or
employees.
b. Sidewalk signs placed private property are placed at the risk
of the owner.
SECTION THREE: Section 7.335, entitled "Special Area of Control" of Chapter 7, as
amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
7.335 SPECIAL AREA OF CONTROL
The Village Board may designate geographic areas within the Village as a
"special area of control" for purposes of these regulations. A special area of
control is an area in which special standards are drafted in order to incorporate a
wider variety of sign design.
A. The Director shall prepare a map showing all designated areas of
special control (see Exhibit 1).
B. Areas of special control shall permit the following:
1. Projecting Signs
a. Number: One (1) projecting sign shall be permitted per
business establishment. A projecting sign and a wall
sign may be placed on the same wall provided that the
projecting sign complies with Section 7.305.C.2 through
Ch. 7, Text Amendment - Sign Code
Page 5/6
7.305.C.5 and the size of the wall sign does not exceed
twenty-five percent (25%) of the signable wall area (as
defined in Section 7.801).
b. Location: Projecting signs permitted under these
regulations may extend over the public right-of-way four
feet (4') or to within two feet (2') of the curb line,
whichever is less (see subsection 7.305.C).
2. Canopies or Awnings
a. Location: Canopies or awnings permitted under these
regulations may extend over the public right-of-way the
lesser of five feet (5') or to within two feet (2') of the curb
line; provided no supporting posts, columns, or braces
extend beyond the property line.
SECTION FOUR' Exhibit 1 of Section 7.335, entitled "Special Area of Control" of Chapter
7, as amended is hereby further amended to appear as follows:
o 005
01 015 02 025 ~
I I . 'Miles VfI
Ch. 7, Text Amendment - Sign Code
Page 6/6
SECTION FIVE' The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect,
with a majority vote, do hereby grant approval of text amendments to Section 7.325,
Section 7.330 and Section 7.335. of the Village Code of Mount Prospect.
SECTION SIX: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified
copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County.
SECTION SEVEN: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this
day of
,2005.
Irvana K. Wilks
Vilfage President
ATTEST:
M. Lisa Angell
Village Clerk
H\CLKO\fiiesIWINIORDINANCIText Amend Ch 7 Sign Ordinanceaugusl16.2005doc