HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/22/2012 P&Z Minutes 01-12MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ -01 -12
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PETITIONER:
PUBLICATION DATE:
PIN NUMBER:
REQUESTS:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF MEMBER PRESENT:
INTERESTED PARTY:
Hearing Date: March 22, 2012
1780 Wall Street
Alter Group
March 7, 2012
08 -23 -203- 041 -0000
Sign Variations: Increase the sign area from 150 square feet to
189.13 square feet for three (3) Nvall signs
Richard Rogers, Chair
William Beattie
Joseph Donnelly
Keith Youngquist
Leo Floros
Jacqueline Hinaber, Alternate
None
Consuelo Andrade, Senior Planner
Doug Merritt
Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr.
Youngquist to approve the minutes of the January 26, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes
Nvere approved 5 -0 Nvith Mr. Beattie abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 01 -12, 1780 Wall Street at
7:33 P.M.
Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner for PZ -01 -12 Nvas seeking Variations to increase the sign area from 150 to 189.18
square feet for three (3) Nvall signs at the building located at 1780 Wall Street.
Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner proposed to install a total of three (3) Nvall signs on the building. A Nvall sign
identifying the tenant "CVS Caremark" Nvould be installed on the south, east, and north building elevations. As
proposed, each Nvall sign Nvould measure eight (8) feet and ten (10) inches tall by twentN- -one (2 1) feet and five (5)
inches Nvide. The sign area Nvould be 189.13 square feet, which exceeded the maximum 150 square foot Nvall area
allowed by the Village Sign Code.
Ms. Andrade said required findings for sign variations are contained in Section 7.725 of the Village of Mount
Prospect Sign Code. The section contains specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. A
summary of the findings include:
• The hardship is created by unique circumstances and not serve as a convenience to the Petitioner,
• The Variation Nvill not be materialIv detrimental to the public Nvelfare or injurious to other property or
improvements in the neighborhood; and
• The Variation Nvill not impair visibility to the adjacent property, increase the danger of traffic problems or
endanger the public safety.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -0 1 -12
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 22, 2012 Page 1 of 3
Ms. Andrade stated per the Petitioner that the proposed signs Nvould provide adequate identification and
complement the existing building due to the overall scale of the facility. The proposed signs have been designed
to match Nvall signs used at multiple CVS Caremark facilities. Ms. Andrade said Staff appreciated the Petitioner's
desire to install larger signs due to the building's scale and to be consistent Nvith other signs used at multiple CVS
facilities, but the Variation requests did not meet the standards for a Variation. CVS Caremark could be
reasonably identified Nvith three (3) 150 square foot Nvall signs. There are no unique circumstances at the Subject
Property that Nvould not be applicable to other Nvarehouse /office buildings.
Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the motion listed in the Staff Report.
Chairman Rogers swore in Doug Merritt, 115 S. Main Street, Mishawaka, Indiana. Mr. Merritt stated that he
represented CVS Caremark Corporation and CVS Pharmacy Corporation. He said the request and reasons for a
Variation Nvere listed in the February 8, 2012 letter that Nvas addressed to the Village. Mr. Merritt discussed how
he researched Village Code to determine what sign options Nvere available for the Subject Property. He said
internal discussions Nvith CVS led to the request for individual channeled letters rather than a box sign because
CVS believed the channeled letters offered more of an aesthetic value for the facade.
Mr. Merritt showed the Commission where the proposed signs Nvould be on each of the elevations and discussed
the site plan. Mr. Merritt stated that if the dead space next to CVS Nvas not considered part of the sign, then the
total square footage for the letters in CVS and Caremark Nvould total 125 square feet. Mr. Merritt believed the
signs Nvere appropriate in size due to the overall size of the building. He stated that there Nvas no relief being
requested for a ground sign. Mr. Merritt said a ground size is not at a height needed for logistical and traffic
purposes to the site since the Subject Property is located several hundred feet from Algonquin and Elmhurst
Roads. Mr. Merritt asked the Commission to consider his Variation request due to the overall scale of the
proposed facility, the actual placement of signs, and the height above grade.
Mr. Merritt stated that he could discuss technical questions regarding the proposed signs. He said the proposed
signs Nvould be L.E.D. illuminated.
There Nvas discussion on how the Petitioner chose the size of the proposed signs. Mr. Beattie asked how much of
the sign Nvould shrink if it Nvas reduced by ten (10) percent. Mr. Merritt said that he did look at using a ten (10)
foot by fifteen (15) foot box sign that Nvould comply Nvith Village Code. He stated by reducing the sign by ten
(10) percent Nvould only take a few inches off of the channeled letters.
Mr. Merritt discussed CVS Caremark's signage in two (2) other local communities and how their signs Nvere
created to fit in Nvith existing buildings.
Mr. DonnelIv asked if the L.E.D.s Nvould light the building behind the letters. Mr. Merritt said they Nvould not at
all. He stated that the channeled letters are self - contained and enclosed. Thev Nvould oniv channel light through
the translucent vase. Mr. Donnelly questioned if the bar to the right of the logo Nvould be lit. Mr. Merritt stated it
Nvould because it is part of the trademark.
Mr. Floros asked if the signs Nvould be visible from Route 83 (Elmhurst Road). Mr. Merritt stated that if a person
Nvas specificallY looking for the building Nvith the signage, then it Nvould be visible from Route 83. Ms. Hinaber
believed that the signs Nvould be visible from either Elmhurst Road or Algonquin Road. Chairman Rogers stated
that he believed the sign at 150 square feet Nvould read just as Nvell as the proposed sign at 189 square feet.
Mr. Youngquist asked if there Nvas a ground sign on the development. Mr. Merritt said there Nvas an internal
ground sign, but nothing on Algonquin or Elmhurst Roads. The ground sign Nvould be located on Wall Street; the
final location has vet to be determined by the Petitioner.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -01 -12
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 22, 2012 Page 2 of 3
Mr. Merritt discussed how the proposed signs Nvould not affect the surrounding area. He believed the signage is
appropriate based on the setback from Elmhurst Road.
There Nvas discussion on the facility s use and staffing. It is a logistics and Nvarehousing distribution point that is
not open to the public.
There Nvas a brief discussion regarding setting a precedence if the Variation Nvas granted.
Mr. Beattie asked how CVS Caremark Nvould negatively be impacted if the proposed signs Nvere reduced to 150
square feet. Mr. Merritt reiterated that his options for the signs Nvere channeled letters or box signs. He discussed
how the proposed sign Nvould be over Nvhat Code allows whether or not the sign is stacked because of the number
of characters.
Mr. DonnelIv believed the Petitioner Nvas being penalized for all the white space that Nvas being calculated as part
of the sign. He believed the Petitioner Nvas below the 150 square feet if the Code did not include the white space.
There Nvas additional discussion regarding the size of the sign.
Mr. Youngquist asked if the proposed Nvall sign Nvas needed along the north elevation. Mr. Merritt stated that the
sign along the north elevation Nvas needed due to CVS Caremark's corporate philosophy. The Petitioner likes to
have two (2) identical signs over the entry. The Petitioner does this Nvith their retail stores as Nvell. There Nvas
additional discussion regarding the north elevation sign.
Chairman Rogers asked if there Nvas anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the
public portion of the case at 7:59 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board.
Mr. DonnelIv made a motion, seconded by Mr. Floros to approve Variations to increase the sign area from 150
square feet to 189.13 square feet for a Nvall sign on the north, east, and south building elevations, as shoN -,n on the
exhibits as submitted by the Petitioner, for the property located at 1780 Wall Street.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: DonnelIv, Floros, Youngquist, Rogers
NAYS: Beattie, Hinaber
The motion Nvas approved 4 -2. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision Nvas final for this case.
After hearing one (1) additional case, Chairman Rogers asked Staff if there Nvas a permit obtained for the new
signs placed at the shopping center located 1706 -1742 E. Kensington Road (where Photo's is located). Ms.
Andrade stated that permits Nvere obtained and that the signs Nvere considered changeable copy reader boards.
Chairman Rogers said the two (2) signs on -site Nvere electronic message boards, not changeable copy. Ms.
Andrade stated Village Code does not require a special use or apply a minimum distance for signs consisting of a
display period of thirty (30) seconds or longer. Chairman Rogers believed it Nvas getting too cluttered Nvith these
types of signs. He said the reason for the distance and minimum number of electronic signs Nvas to eliminate the
clutter. Chairman Rogers stated that this should be discussed Nvith the Commission or revieNved by Staff. Ms.
Andrade said Staff Nvould look at the Code to address the Chairman's concerns.
Mr. DonnelIv made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to adjourn at 8:21 p.m. The motion Nvas approved by a
voice vote and the meeting Nvas adjourned.
Rvan Kast, Community Development
Administrative Assistant
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -0 1 -12
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 22, 2012 Page 3 of 3