Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/26/2011 P&Z Minutes 12-11 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-12-11 Hearing Date: May 26, 2011 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1042 S. Elmhurst Road PETITIONER : Starlight Media, LLC PUBLICATION DATE: May 11, 2011 PIN NUMBER: 08-14-204-023-0000 REQUEST: Sign Appeal: Staff’s Denial of Signs MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Theo Foggy Ronald Roberts STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTIES : Patricia Sebben, Ian Shepherd, Bill Maddock Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The minutes of the April 28, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved 4-0 with Mr. Beattie abstaining. After hearing one case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-12-11, 1042 S. Elmhurst Road, at 8:19 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner was seeking an appeal from Staff’s denial of signs placed on shopping cart corrals at 1042 S. Elmhurst Road. Ms. Andrade said a total of four (4) signs were currently located on two (2) shopping cart corrals located within the Dominick’s parking lot and were installed without permits in June 2010. Community Development Department Staff advised the property owner on January 25, 2011, that the signs were not permitted and needed to be removed. In March, the Petitioner contacted the Village regarding the matter and Staff established a date of May 2, 2011 for the removal of the signs. The Petitioner has subsequently submitted an application appealing Staff’s determination that the signs are prohibited under Sec. 7.301 of the Village’s sign code. Ms. Andrade stated two (2) signs are currently placed on the front end of two shopping cart corrals. Each sign panel is double sided and measures approximately thirteen and one half (13.5) square feet in area per sign face. The height of the signs are eight (8) feet. Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property previously received relief from the Village’s Sign Code for multiple wall signs. The Dominick’s store currently has five (5) wall signs on its front façade. Four (4) of the signs relate to th the grocery store and the fifth (5) sign identifies the US Bank that is located inside the Dominick’s grocery store. The Petitioner did not propose to eliminate any of the wall signs. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner operated a maintenance program as part of a national contract with Safeway, Inc, which does business as Dominick’s grocery stores. The program ensures the quality control and Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-12-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 26, 2011 Page 1 of 5 improvement of the cart corrals and the overall appearance of the parking lot in return for the right to place patented display panels on cart corrals. The display panels advertise goods or services sold in the store. Ms. Andrade said the Village’s Sign Code is silent regarding signage on cart corrals; however, Section 7.301 of the Village Code states that “this chapter shall be considered a positive document, wherein signs not specifically permitted shall be prohibited.” Staff denied the requested signs as they were advertising goods and services within the adjacent retail store and did not fit under other types of signs permitted within the code. The Village has allowed public information signs to be placed on cart corrals which identify the purpose of the structure (i.e. “Return Carts Here”, “Thank You For Shopping With Us”) but not advertising signs. Ms. Andrade stated there were ample opportunities within the Village Sign Code to advertise for business activities. As previously mentioned, the existing Dominick’s location has several wall signs which provide visibility to the business. Additionally, the Dominick’s store has tenant panels on both monument signs within the shopping center and is permitted to install signs within the windows of its store front. The code also has provisions for temporary signs for special events or sales. The proposed cart corral signs may act as additional ground/monument signs to attract customers to this location which would not be available to other retail tenants. Ms. Andrade said based on Staff’s review of the Village Sign Code and the Petitioner’s request, Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the motion listed in the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Mr. Donnelly asked if the proposed signs would be permitted at Randhurst. Ms. Andrade stated that they would not be permitted. Chairman Rogers swore in Patricia Sebben, 5513 Middaugh Avenue, Downers Grove, Illinois. Ms. Sebben discussed the partnership between Dominick’s and its parent company Safeway, with Starlite Media. There was a six (6) minute break to address some technical difficulties with the Petitioner’s computer. The Planning and Zoning Commission did not take a recess. Mr. Youngquist asked if there were only two (2) cart corrals. Ms. Sebben stated there were two (2) corrals with signage on each side creating four (4) faces. Ms. Sebben’s Power Point presentation included voiceover narration. The Narrator provided background on Starlite Media and what they do with the signs and cart corrals. Only goods and services provided by Dominick’s are included on the signage. All signs are located on private property and away from major roads. The Narrator said the signs are encased and not illuminated. Starlite Media operates a maintenance program that includes graffiti removal, sticker removal, repairs, and routine cleaning on the cart corrals where their signs are located. The Narrator stated that Starlite’s cart corrals are in shopping centers across the United States. The presentation highlighted some local Dominick’s locations that have the proposed signs: Northbrook, Arlington Heights, Hoffman Estates, Des Plaines, and Schaumburg. The Narrator said no complaints or violations have been received from the surrounding communities. rd Chairman Rogers swore in Ian Shepherd, 919 3 Avenue, New York, NY. He asked Mr. Shepherd if he knew the signs needed a permit. Mr. Shepherd stated no. Mr. Shepherd said the Subject Case came to his attention in February 2011. He stated that he spoke with Community Development Deputy Director Brian Simmons and asked what he was in violation of. Mr. Shepherd said that he was referred to Article 3, Section 7.301 of the Village’s Sign Code. He stated that he read through the Village’s Sign Code and did not see any prohibitive language regarding the proposed signs. Mr. Shepherd showed a picture of the cart corrals and explained the dimensions. He stated the cart corral itself is eight (8) feet tall, not the sign. He said sign area is nine and a half (9.5) square feet. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-12-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 26, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Shepherd said that the proposed signs serve a use for the community by allowing advertisement space (on an available basis) for local public service announcements. Mr. Shepherd showed pictures of other retailers in the Village who may be in violation of the Village’s Sign Code. He discussed the window signs at Garden Fresh, 1145 Mount Prospect Plaza, and stated that they exceeded the forty (40) percent of the surface area as allowed by Village Code. There was also a picture of an A-frame sign in front of the entryway to the store. Mr. Shepherd also discussed a supplemental sign on a light pole at the Marathon gas station located at Rand and Central Roads. He provided pictures of signage on the cart corrals at Menard’s, 740 E. Rand Road. Mr. Shepherd stated the Village allows friendly signage that includes “return carts here” or “thank you for shopping with us.” He said the Menard’s sign had the friendly message, but included their advertising slogan on the cart corral sign as well. Mr. Shepherd compared and contrasted the old design of the cart corral/signage with the new design. He stated that Starlite contracts with a local sign company who conducts routine maintenance on the signs and corrals. Mr. Shepherd said the maintenance and repair of the corrals is at the expense of Starlite and not the store itself. Chairman Rogers swore in Bill Maddock, 955 Merbach, Carol Stream, Illinois. Mr. Maddock stated that he has been in the sign business for thirty (30) years. His company is contracted through Starlite to provide maintenance to the signs and cart corrals. Mr. Maddock said his company is out checking signs on a weekly and emergency basis; he believed the sign program was well maintained. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner what was the benefit to providing the maintenance free of charge. Mr. Shepherd stated that Starlite receives a very small profit from the companies that advertise on the signs. Mr. Youngquist asked if the Petitioner has ever been sued due to the signs being potential safety hazards. Mr. Shepherd said there has been no liability as a result of their signs. Mr. Youngquist was concerned that the signs on the cart corrals would be blocking a driver’s field of vision. Mr. Shepherd stated that Starlite has signs located throughout the country and has had no safety/liability issues because of their signs. Mr. Youngquist asked Staff if the Village held any jurisdiction over the signs posted at the Metra Station. He stated the train station signs and rotation would be similar to the Petitioner’s proposed signs. Ms. Andrade said she did not know how the train station signs were maintained and regulated. Mr. Donnelly asked Staff if there were any issues in regards to the Dominick’s cart corral sign with a Western Union logo or the A-frame sign at Garden Fresh as mentioned by the Petitioner. Ms. Andrade stated that the Dominick’s cart corral sign was installed without Staff’s knowledge. She said the A-frame sign that Garden Fresh had was not permitted. Ms. Andrade stated that the Village has property maintenance inspectors who enforce the Village Code. Mr. Beattie confirmed that the A-frame sign in front of Garden Fresh would have to be removed. Chairman Rogers asked if the “Save Big Money at Menard’s” slogan on the Menard’s cart corral was an advertisement. Mr. Donnelly said there were multiple signs on the cart corral that were in violation. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff was not aware of the signage on the Menard’s cart corrals. She said when the Village is notified that signs are not in compliance with Village Code, property maintenance inspectors are assigned to the property. Ms. Andrade confirmed that any sort of cart corral signage with advertising would not be allowed. Mr. Shepherd discussed his company’s relationship with the anchor stores and property owners that they service. He said there was nothing in the Village’s Ordinance that prohibited Starlite’s signs. Chairman Rogers stated that he understood the Petitioner’s good intentions, however, they were still advertising on signs that are not permitted within the Village. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-12-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 26, 2011 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Youngquist had concerns over the number of signs if the Petitioner’s proposal was approved. There was general discussion and agreement that the Village’s Sign Code needs some work. Mr. Donnelly asked if other nearby communities had a similar Sign Code to Mount Prospect. He questioned if there was anything in the Village’s Code that said no to the proposed signage. Chairman Rogers stated when the Sign Code was re-written in 1980, it eliminated “nuisance” signs. He said by doing this, it cleaned up the Village in regards to various signage. Chairman Rogers stated that other communities allow signs that are not permitted in the Village. He discussed the sign at the Marathon Gas Station previously mentioned by the Petitioner and stated the light pole in question was in Des Plaines while the station and convenience store is in Mount Prospect. Mr. Beattie asked if Staff knew when Dominick’s received additional zoning relief for their wall signs. Ms. Andrade stated she believed it was sometime in 2005. Mr. Beattie said that Randhurst was approved for signage and then would come back to the Commission for additional signage. He questioned whether this was being done with the Subject Property. Chairman Rogers was concerned that if the signs were allowed, then requests for more and more signage would go through the process. Mr. Shepherd stated that his company’s signs are patented and would not be all over the place. He said that Crystal Palace Banquets, that is located on the same parcel as the Subject Property parks a truck in the same place in the parking lot. The truck advertises the banquet hall that is on the premises since they do not have visibility off of the main road. Chairman Rogers stated that the truck was not allowed. Mr. Shepherd believed that the proposed signs were different. He discussed how cart corrals are damaged and need to be fixed. The stores rely on the Petitioner for the maintenance for cost savings. Chairman Rogers said he understood the service being offered by the Petitioner, but stated that if the signs were not there it would be the store’s responsibility to repair the cart corral. The signs are not allowed by Code because they are advertising products. Mr. Shepherd said he did not see where the proposed signs were in violation of Village Code. He was advised by Staff that the signs were in violation of an introductory paragraph that stated if something was not mentioned, it is prohibited. Mr. Shepherd stated that the Village Code is so specific on what is prohibited and what is allowed. He asked why it did not address the cart corral signage. He said corrals are a permitted structure and that they just added an extension consistent to what was around the Village. Chairman Rogers said that the proposed signage was something that slipped through the cracks. He stated that just because the proposed signage is not specifically mentioned should not mean that the Commission should automatically allow it. Mr. Youngquist said his concerns were with the revenue being generated by the corrals. He believed that corrals may be placed in parking lots further out just for the advertising purpose rather than the benefit to return a shopping cart. Mr. Youngquist discussed advertisements that are all over the place. He was okay with just the two (2) signs, but was worried about that these types of corrals would multiply all over the Village. Mr. Shepherd stated that their signs have to be closest to the entrance to the store. He said their signs would not be visible further out towards the roadways because the anchor stores do not allow for it. Mr. Shepherd discussed how Starlite Media connects with the community. He stated that they do not place their signs in front of every store. They only place their signage in front of grocery stores. Mr. Youngquist stated how advertisements are now starting to show up in areas where they did not previously exist five (5) years ago. He said the problem is that if the signs were approved, there would be similar companies wanting to come into the Village and do the same thing. Mr. Youngquist stated that he has seen other cart corrals with signage in the Chicagoland area. Chairman Rogers closed the public portion of the case at 9:23 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to approve an Appeal to allow: Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-12-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 26, 2011 Page 4 of 5 1. Four (4) double sided signs, measuring nine and one half (9.5) square feet on one cart corral as presented. 2. The corrals would be maintained on a weekly basis. 3. The advertisements would be limited to only products sold within the store. 4. The signs have to be at least 500 feet from the main road UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Youngquist, Rogers Motion was denied 5-0. The Planning and Zoning’s Commission was final for this case. After hearing one previous case, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to adjourn at 9:41 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ________________________________________ Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-12-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 26, 2011 Page 5 of 5