Following a legal opinion that an electronic billboard is not allowed per village code in a residential area, Elmhurst's Development, Planning and Zoning Committee on Monday recommended denying 's request to install an electronic sign on its property at 345 S. Kenilworth Ave.
The church is requesting a 7-by-3-foot electronic reader-board sign at the northeast corner of St. Charles Road and Kenilworth.
Redeemer's request was unanimously approved by the Zoning and Planning Commission May 24. But after and many questions from church neighbors, the DPZ Committee sought the opinion of Elmhurst City Attorney Don Storino.
On Monday, Scott Day, the attorney for Redeemer, asked that the committee make its decision based on the application as submitted.
“Apply whatever conditions you deem lawful, reasonable and proper,” he said.
After some debate on whether the sign would be permitted if it did not automatically scroll through different electronic messages, the committee decided that they could not recommend approval of the application at all based on Storino's opinion.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Than Warner referenced discussion about zoning rules for signs in other towns. He said Hinsdale has created spot zoning districts of "institutional buildings" for organizations such as churches.
Committee Chairman and 6th Ward Alderman Steve Morley said a review of Elmhurst's sign codes is on the committee's to-do list.
The committee's recommendation to deny the sign request now goes to the full City Council for a vote.
In the meantime, I hope the neighbors and Redeemer can sit down and find a way to agree. Neither side is to blame here because there is a long record on North York that both can fault.
Mark D - leave the legal sign and TIF issues to the serious people who know what they are doing and save your incoherent ramblings for block parties on Harbor Terrace, assuming you get invited.
For those who don't know the background, Crescent Court was a project where the city zoning official conveniently read the code to claim zoning compliance when none existed. This reading followed at least two other large projects where such convenient reading and utter ignorance... or a design on his part... allowed zoning violations not so obvious to general Elmhurst until they happened to approach residential areas. Now you have the background for my remarks that people should talk. If you have to rely on a code defense that includes twelve years of mistakes in the First Amendment context of signs and at least a few aldermen who have had private discussions about message boards with staff since about a year ago, the only clear conclusion is that staff bumbled or acted as directed and chose not to fix an issue that was indeed on the radar.
Mark D - the courts ruled with us, and against you, MANY TIMES. Your interpretation of the code was wrong. You lost, over and over and over. The only bumbling was on your part. How much money did you, and your poor sucker, I mean client, lose? The $10K you got was what, a tenth of the money you put in time and court fees? The new TIF? A no brainer. The 3 current TIFs are all out performing expectations. The 4th one will to, or do you like hotels/waterparks that cater to hookers and drug deals, empty lots, pawn shops and fast food joints? Time will be the judge. I like TIF 4's chances.
On the TIF, I think your comparison to prior districts is telling of your lack of understanding. The numbers behind the new TIF are substantially different than those that came before it. But you would not know this since you seem to rely on a fraction of the figures, back end performance only, and not the risk going in, the burdens on the remaining owners of the EAV in town and the returns that may or may not occur without an extension. Is a TIF needed in that area? Sure it is. Is the TIF as outlined needed? I don't see it, but maybe you can educate us on why the outlined TIF can be compared in other respects to the prior ones.
Now, let's talk hard dollars. Do you know how much the city spent in defending against your frivolous lawsuits? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? All for what? NOTHING. Courts (several) agreed with the city. Crescent Court was built. It's a great development that will be a cash cow for the city (and surrounding businesses) for YEARS. Brought in many fine residents. You LOST. Your arguments LOST. How much of a burden did YOU put on that poor sucker who filed suit? How much of a burden did YOU put on the taxpayers of Elmhurst with your frivolous lawsuits? Those are hard dollars that YOU are responsible for. Who am I? I could be one of dozens of people with a serious dislike of you. I'd rather keep you guessing.
The joy in your chiming in lies in the fact that you raise an issue that riled owners at on the very same street and the City is in an even more difficult position now at the south end of the street. And, yes, I do have an issue with Than. When a City planner resorts to name calling and nearly hitting another planner as his response to substantive input and professional courtesy, I take issue. I also take issue with a lack of foresight on his part that has people scratching their heads and dealing with a problem he knew about. Municipal planners do not ordinarily rely on the good graces of an applicant who decides not to sue or the sway in political positions. Rather, they rely on ordinances that reflect existing conditions and the going-forward posture of the needs of the businesses, institutions and residents in town. The failure to do this has pitted neighbor against neighbor again, and this is occurring on an issue that virtually any other municipality has addressed with clarity. This failure leaves people feeling for the neighbors and Redeemer alike, regardless of how the vote goes on Monday.