LICENSE, PERMITS & FRANCHISE COMMITTEE
APRIL 8, 2008
A meeting of the License, Permits & Franchise Committee of the City of Palos
Heights was held on April 8, 2008 at City Hall, 7607 W. College Drive, Palos Heights, Il.
Present were Aldermen McGrogan, Fulkerson, Basso, Kramarski and Building
Commissioner Jim Dougherty. The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Chairman
McGrogan.
Approval of Minutes Ald. Fulkerson moved to approve the minutes of the March 11,
2008, seconded by Ald. Kramarski and the motion carried.
Permit Summary Report There was a variety of activity from $30 to over $7,000.
High-Tech Permanent Sign This sign was deferred from the March 11 th
meeting. A moratorium on LED signs in still in effect and we can’t vote on it. Of any of the signs this committee has seen, this particular sign is probably the most remote from and not affecting any type of residential area. If we want to lift the moratorium temporarily just to approve this sign, it’s doesn’t appear to be out of place. They are a significant business within the community. The area where the sign would be placed is surrounded by businesses. Ald. McGrogan looks for support from the aldermen to allow this sign as long as it meets the parameters of the ordinance and they sign the waiver that it does not have flashing bright lights or any other restrictions. Ald.
Fulkerson so moved.
Ald. Kramarski questioned whether the sign would be in close proximity to the nursing home. From the location drawings, Ald. McGrogan determined it was it to be a long distance from Manor Care. The manager requested the sign in February which was prior to the moratorium being put in place and they already had bids. High-Tech is on a busy street and no residents would be impacted by the sign. Ald. Fulkerson stated the stipulation would be that the sign would have no red, yellow or flashing.
A copy of the Letter of Agreement which LED sign owners signed was reviewed.
It basically says that once the city develops an LED sign ordinance, they would abide by it. It also says no flashing red or yellow lights are permitted and that LED signs are to be turned off 10 p.m.
Ald. Basso stated that area is an entrance to Palos Park which also doesn’t allow the illusion-of-motion signs. We aren’t sophisticated enough with the technology to monitor them. A good example would be the United Insurance sign which didn’t have red but it had blue which was even more intense. We can’t cover everything they can and cannot do. Also, Power Mart at 127 th
& Ridgeland has a large pillar sign on the corner with three lines for the gas prices and two rolling lines on the bottom. He thought we approved a 15-ft rolling sign on the north side of the building which would be the only sign they were to have. Mr. Dougherty stated when their sign package was originally submitted by the sign company, he brought it before this committee and it was approved.
1

Subsequently, they came to committee with an LED on the north side of the building.
Ald. McGrogan stated Palos Park does have LED signs at Walgreen’s at 131 st
&
LaGrange Road and at the gas station next to it. Ald. Basso stated Palos Park redid their ordinance and it included a “sunset” clause. Ald. McGrogan stated in this particular instance High-Tech applied prior to the moratorium. They are good neighbors and went through considerable expense and he doesn’t anticipate any complaints from residents.
Ald. Kramarski has a concern about safety along Southwest Highway. It’s congested at certain times during the day because of the train station and the congestion is the reason for installing the traffic light. We need to see some traffic studies regarding accidents that may have been caused because of these signs. Ald. Fulkerson drives that area every day from the train station and between 5:15 and 7 p.m. there won’t be a problem with collisions there because of the sign because traffic is bumper to bumper.
Ald. McGrogan stated there have not been, even in Palos Heights, any accidents caused by anyone near any of these LED signs. Orland Park has many signs which are basically the same. Ald. Kramarski stated according to the data from the building commissioner,
Orland Park doesn’t allow this type of sign. Ald. McGrogan stated the banks have them and there is no evidence of any accidents. Mr. Dougherty doesn’t know of anybody that’s doing a study, except maybe the federal government. Ald. Kramarski believes
IDOT was looking at some of these signs. We have a moratorium and until our sign ordinance is resolved, she would not vote for this sign.
On the above motion to approve the High-Tech sign, the vote was 2 affirmative
(Aldermen Fulkerson & McGrogan) and 2 negative (Aldermen Kramarski and Basso).
(Council agenda)
Great Clips A temporary banner is being requested to be placed behind the grassy area east of the Indian Trails Shopping Center for Great Clips at 6505 W. 127 th
St. The vinyl banner is 3’ X 8’ and would be up from April 23 rd
to May 1 st
to advertise a promotion. Ald. Kramarski moved to approve, seconded by Ald. Fulkerson and the motion carried. (Council agenda)
Business License Report Total collected for 2008 as of April 4 th was $73,927.50.
The amount invoiced was $73,972.50.
Vehicle Stickers As of April 8, 2008, the total collected for 2007 was
$204,602.50. Total collected for 2008 to date is $1,375.
New Business Palos Marathon has requested permission to post some signs throughout the city advertising parking, etc. The largest sign would be 4’ X 8’ sign at Founders Bank to advertise the marathon. Ald.
Fulkerson moved to approve, seconded by Ald. Kramarski and the motion carried.
(Council agenda)
2

Old Business There’s a video vending machine that still has no sticker. It was explained that Ron is still going through the list. Sue gave him a lot to look at.
Ald. McGrogan asked the building commissioner to review the sign ordinance and consider changes relative to the display of “pennants” and “flags”. Some businesses along Harlem put seasonal merchandise outside the store or flags over the door thinking is was okay. There has been discussion between the store owners and the code enforcement officer as to whether that’s acceptable or not. The question is whether we wish to regulate these outdoor sales or give code enforcement some latitude on these oneday sales. Is there any way to ease up?
Ald. Kramarski stated Mona & Co. displays a rack of clothing and she hasn’t heard anyone complain, as long as it doesn’t obstruct the sidewalk. Ald. McGrogan isn’t a fan of the pennants displayed at gas stations. Windsocks were being displayed outside the stores and the owners were asked to take them down. Mr. Dougherty stated Ron is operating on the assumption that those sidewalk sales are permitted through Pat. So when there are tables outside their stores and windsocks and whatever, Ron shuts them down because they need a permit to have a sidewalk sale. Ald. Kramarski agrees and can’t imagine tables out that would prohibit people from walking on the sidewalk. Mr.
Dougherty stated Ron takes a hard look at things. He does a great job. Ald. McGrogan isn’t saying he does or doesn’t do a good job, but store owners are saying it’s getting hard to advertise and they are looking for help because business isn’t that good. Ald.
Fulkerson stated Ron’s problem is that if he overlooks these things, he is criticized by others, so rather than being lenient he goes by the “letter of the law” and that causes problems with the merchants. Those who criticize him are the ones causing the problem.
Ron is not the problem. Ald. Kramarski has never heard anyone criticize him. Ald.
McGrogan suggested allowing Ron to use his common sense where he can make a judgment call as long as it’s not a direct violation of the ordinance. Ald. Fulkerson stated that’s the problem because putting that table out is a direction violation of the ordinance, but what if the merchants do it for just a day! Ald. Kramarski stated a day is one thing, but people would object if it happened on a weekly or monthly basis. She doesn’t think any body would object to a one-time basis. Mr. Dougherty stated Ron received phone calls about the tables and windsocks and asked the owners to move them inside on two separate occasions. Ald. McGrogan is just trying to find a way for some latitude if it’s within reason and won’t result in complaints. Mr. Dougherty thinks the key issue is not to block more than 3 feet of sidewalk, as long as people can pass by without stepping off into the parking lot. If that happens, Ron makes them pull it in.
Ald. Fulkerson moved to make a recommendation at the council meeting to draft an amendment to the ordinance. (Note: Section 110.23 of the ordinance deals with regulating outdoor sales.) If it’s a matter of policy, it was suggested to give Ron the authority to grant sidewalk sales as long as they don’t obstruct the sidewalk by more than
3 feet from the edge of the building.
Ald. Basso suggested it might be better to turn a blind eye rather than creating another ordinance. Aldermen Fulkerson agreed and withdrew his above motion. Ron
3

tried to turn a blind eye and then he gets called on it. If that’s okay, Ald. McGrogan suggested Ron should be told he is being given some latitude and to use common sense.
As long as people don’t abuse it and it’s within reason, he has the support of the council.
If it gets out of control and he wants the city to be more forceful, he has the authority.
Mr. Dougherty will speak with him. Ald. Kramarski has never heard a complaint about
Mona having a rack outside. Ald. McGrogan stated warning notices could be issued. It’s a common sense issue.
LED Ordinance Ald. Basso asked whether the committee wishes to give direction to staff regarding preparing an LED Sign Ordinance based on information submitted. This committee was waiting for a synopsis of what all the ordinances say so they don’t have to go through the entire packet. Mr. Dougherty would like some direction. The committee was furnished with copies of a matrix of sign ordinances. Ald. Basso went through it. There are things we may wish to exclude in our ordinance and one of them is billboards which Worth allows. Other than our size restriction, it may be best to simply state “no billboards”. Ald. Fulkerson stated a billboard wouldn’t be allowed here under our current ordinance because of the size restrictions. Maximum size allowed in Worth is 225 sq ft and not over 24 feet high which would be a billboard.
Any new owner of property with an LED sign should acknowledge to the city that a waiver agreement was signed. Mr. Dougherty stated it could be done through the process of the commercial occupancy permits that were required. This issue of LED signs can be very complex. Would it be appropriate to take it to council to see if they are even in favor of LED signs before staff goes through the work of formulating the ordinance. Ald. Fulkerson suggested including the LED question on the agenda of the proposed committee-of-the-whole meeting for the overlay district. Ald. McGrogan suggested when property with a LED sign is sold, the new owner should reapply under the new guidelines. Ald. Fulkerson doesn’t know whether that can be done retroactively for a sign that’s already approved. Maybe the waivers should be recorded as part of the title when someone buys the business. An ordinance could be adopted for people who didn’t sign this Letter of Agreement saying they must comply for the next number of years, but it would be subject to constitutional challenges because that’s technically a deprivation of a right. They had the right to put that sign up and now we are taking it away. The new owners have the right to put it up, but if they agree to change it, then we have an agreement. But for the people who have never signed an agreement, it may or may not be enforceable against them. He doesn’t know whether it has been challenged or not, but it is constitutionally suspect. When you grant someone a right, it’s prohibitive to take it away. Mr. Dougherty stated we can include wording in the ordinance that the city has the right to tell them a message on the sign is inappropriate or too bright and that the city has the right to change the wording or dilute the sign, but before he puts an ordinance together, he wants to make sure everybody is in agreement.
Adjourn: Ald. Fulkerson moved, seconded by Ald. Kramarski to adjourn at 7:48 p.m. and the motion carried.
Beverly A. Larson, Secy.
4

5