Loading...
2012-06-06 - Appearance Review Team - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑Appearance Review Team Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 06/06/2012 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting ART (Appearance Review Team) Meeting JUNE 6, 2012 1701 LEIDER LANE, SYSMEX AMERICA AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 2009-056 PRESENT Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner/Operations Carol Berman/ Deputy Building Commissioner/Administration Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Joseph Wallace, Plan Examiner Louis Windecker, ZBA Commissioner Tom Holland, Holland Design group Ed Drapatsky, Sysmex America PROPOSAL Request is being made by Sysmex America, 1701 Leider Lane, to amend Ordinance 2009-56 Section 4.b to read "The sign to be installed shall be in accordance with Zoning Board of Appeals Exhibit "E" Sheet Number P-4b with a revision dated of April 25, 2012. Mr. Holland explained that the building is located on the corner of Leider Lane and Aptakisic Road. There is already an existing tenant panel ground sign that was to be used for multiple tenants. They would like to utilize this existing ground sign to identify Sysmex America. The new sign will have a solid panel and the routed lettering will be illuminated. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Drapatsky if Sysmex occupies the entire building. Mr. Drapatsky advised that Sysmex does occupy the entire building. Mr. Sheehan asked what would happen if Sysmex no longer occupied the entire building. He suggested that there may need to be a stipulation included that if Sysmex occupied less than a certain percentage of the building that the sign would revert back to the originally approved tenant panel sign. Mr. Drapatsky stated that he does not foresee that happening. As a matter of fact, they may need more space. The currently have a five (5) year lease with the option of two (2) five (5) year extensions. Mrs. Berman asked if the proposed sign copy is Sysmex's corporate logo. Mr. Drapatsky advised that it is their corporate logo. Com. Windecker stated that he does not have any issues with the proposed sign but would want to have a provision included to require the sign to revert back to the tenant panels if necessary. He asked Mr. Drapatsky if Sysmex is currently located in Mundelein. Mr. Drapatsky advised that they currently occupy two (2) buildings in Mundelein and plan to retain some staff at the Mundelein location even after they move to this new facility. They also will be occupying the building across the street from 1701 Leider Lane, which is in Lincolnshire. Mr. Pfeil advised that he does not have any issues with the sign as proposed. The sign is attractive. Mr. Sheehan does not have any issues and asked if there is existing landscaping around the ground sign. Mr. Holland stated that there is existing landscaping around the ground sign. There were no additional questions or comments from the ART members. RECOMMENDATION The ART has determined that the appearance of the ground sign as proposed meets the criteria set forth in the Village of Buffalo Grove Appearance Plan and is in harmony with the buildings and is compatible with the surrounding area. This request is scheduled to appear before the ZBA on Tuesday, June 19, 2012. Prepared by: Julie Kamka Building & Zoning Department Board or Commission: ❑Appearance Review Team Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 06/06/2012 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting ART (Appearance Review Team) Meeting JUNE 6, 2012 1665 BUFFALO GROVE ROAD, STARBUCKS COFFEE MENU BOARD GROUND SIGN, WALL SIGNS AND WINDOW SIGNS PRESENT Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner/Operations Carol Berman/ Deputy Building Commissioner/Administration Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Joseph Wallace, Plan Examiner Louis Windecker, ZBA Commissioner Stan Weisbrod, SJW Architects & Associates Fabiana Belous, Starbuck's Coffee Design Manager PROPOSAL Request is being made by Starbucks Coffee, 1665 Buffalo Grove Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.16.030, pertaining to Business Districts; Section 14.16.060, pertaining to Ground Signs; Section 14.16.070, pertaining to Wall Signs; Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Electronic Message Signs; and Section 14.24.010.R, pertaining to Window Signs, for the purpose of replacing the menu board ground sign, which is an additional ground sign on the property and would exceed fifty (50) square feet in area; to install three (3) graphic board wall signs on the north elevation of the building; and for the purpose of replacing the window graphics on the north elevation that exceed the forty (40) percent window coverage limitation. Ms. Belous explained that when they designed the remodeling of this location, they looked at redesigning the drive through to give the customers something colorful to look at while waiting in the drive through lane. The graphic panels are photographs of coffee beans during different phases of the coffee growing process. She believes that the issue was a miscommunication between construction managers. The previous construction manager left the job and a new construction manager took over. The new construction manager used a different sign vendor from their normal sign vendor and there was confusion over who was to obtain the permits. They never intended to install the signs without obtaining the permits. Mr. Sheehan explained that it has taken a long time to get to this point. The signs were installed prior to obtaining the required variances and permits. He has had numerous conversations, sent several letters, and made numerous telephone calls regarding these signs. It took the issuing of a citation in order to get the necessary paperwork submitted for the permit applications and variances. Ms. Belous advised that she was aware that the citation was issued. Com. Windecker asked Ms. Belous if any other Starbuck's locations have the wood framed signs. Ms. Belous stated that there are no other locations with this type of signage. She is trying to be unique with each new Starbuck's location. This location was the most expensive and most elaborate installation to date. She was not aware that the signs were already installed. Mrs. Berman asked Mrs. Kamka if the sign permits have been applied for. Mrs. Kamka advised that the permits have been applied for. Mr. Wallace advised that he had spoken to several different people on several different occasions and each time advised that separate sign permits were required. Mr. Sheehan asked about the piers for the menu board ground sign. He asked if piers were installed or if they used the piers from the previous menu board ground sign. Mr. Weisbrod stated that the menu board was replaced and new piers were installed. The details of the new piers were included on the construction documents of the remodeling. Mr. Sheehan advised that he does not have any issues with the appearance of the signs but that he does have an issue with how they were installed without the proper permits being issued. Mr. Sheehan requested that the photographs submitted with the variation application labeled "Existing graphic at Drive-Thru Window", "Existing Drive-Thru Exterior" and "Existing Drive-Thru Menu Board" be corrected to reflect that the photographs are of the previously existing building elevations and signs. He also requested that new photographs be submitted for the ZBA depicting the new "existing" signage that has already been installed. Com. Windecker asked if the menu board ground sign is the same size as the previous menu board. Ms. Belous stated that the menu board is the same size; they just added the wood-framed backing. Mr. Sheehan advised that he will provide a copy of the previously approved menu board sign to the ZBA in their packets. Mrs. Berman asked which sign contractor is listed on the permit applications. Ms. Belous believes that Gable Signs is the sign contractor listed on the permit applications, but they did not do the installations. Com. Windecker asked Ms. Belous if the graphic panels will display only the photographs or if they will contain advertising. Mr. Belous stated that the graphic panels will only display the photographs as they exist. There will be no advertising on the graphic panels. The photographs tell the story of the coffee bean growing process. Mr. Pfeil asked if the photographs on the graphic boards will change. Ms. Belous responded that she does not foresee the photographs changing anytime soon. Mr. Sheehan advised that if Starbuck's wants to change the photographs a new variance will be required. Mr. Sheehan advised that he does not have any issues with the signs aesthetically. Com. Windecker, Mr. Pfeil and Mrs. Berman also do not have any issues with the appearance of the signs. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Weisbrod to provide photographs of the existing elevations showing the new signs installed and to re-label the photographs "Existing graphic at Drive-Thru Window", "Existing Drive-Thru Exterior" and "Existing Drive-Thru Menu Board" as previously existing. Com. Windecker asked Ms. Belous if the graphic board signs are illuminated. Ms. Belous advised that the graphic board signs are not illuminated; only the menu board ground sign is internally illuminated. Mr. Sheehan asked for the sign contractor and electrical contractor that completed the work to be provided. Mrs. Berman advised that the contractors will be required to be registered with the Village. There were no additional questions or comments from the ART members. RECOMMENDATION The ART has determined that the appearance of the menu board ground sign; graphic board wall signs and window graphics as proposed meets the criteria set forth in the Village of Buffalo Grove Appearance Plan and is in harmony with the buildings and is compatible with the surrounding area. This request is scheduled to appear before the ZBA on Tuesday, June 19, 2012. Prepared by: Julie Kamka Building & Zoning Department