Loading...
2011-09-21 - Appearance Review Team - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑Appearance Review Team Document Type: ❑Agenda 0 Minutes Meeting Date: 09/21/2011 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting ART (Appearance Review Team) Meeting SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 1205-1211 W. DUNDEE ROAD, AENTA DEVELOPMENT (PLAZA VERDE EAST) SIGN CODE VARIATIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROPOSED UNIFORM SIGN PACKAGE AND GROUND SIGN VARIATIONS PRESENT Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Management Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner/Operations Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Joe Wallace, Plan Examiner Louis Windecker, ZBA Commissioner Mr. David Mangurten, KMA Architects Mr. Peter Pociejewski, KMA Architects PROPOSAL Request is being made by Aetna Development Corporation, 200 West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Ground Signs; and Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of allowing a second wall sign for each Outlot Building tenant at 1205-1211 W. Dundee Road in conjunction with the proposed Uniform Sign Package; and to allow two (2) additional ground signs on the property: one (1) ground sign to be located along Dundee Road within two hundred fifty (250) feet of an existing ground sign located on the same side of the street and the second ground sign to be located along Arlington Heights Road that would be located within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the ground sign along Dundee Road for 1205-1211 W. Dundee Road. This request is scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) on Tuesday, October 18, 2011. Mr. Sheehan explained that this is to review the proposed revised Sign Criteria for the center and the two (2) proposed ground signs for the outlot building known as 1205-1211 W. Dundee Road. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Mangurten if he was able to put together a proposed rendering depicting the signage for the outlot building. Mr. Mangurten stated those proposed renderings were submitted with the variation application. Mrs. Kamka retrieved the variation submittal and distributed the renderings. Mr . Pfeil confirmed with the Mr. Sheehan that this proposal is concerning Plaza Verde East. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Mangurten to specify on the proposed revised Sign Criteria Plaza Verde East. He explained that originally there was one (1) Sign Criteria for the entire shopping center because at one time it was all under one (1) ownership. That predates Mr. Hanus. The property was then sold under two (2) separate parcels and the Sign Criteria now covered both Plaza Verde East and Plaza Verde West individually. Mr. Mangurten stated that he would add the word East to the proposed Criteria. Mr. Sheehan stated that if the proposed revised Sign Criteria is approved, it will contain underlying variations to allow one additional wall signs for each of the tenants of the outlot building. This would allow the individual tenants to obtain a permit for a second wall sign without having to go before the ZBA every time. The revision to the existing Sign Criteria concerns the addition of Section 2.1 Outlot Tenants. That includes sub-sections a, b, c and d. Mr. Mangurten stated that they slightly revised sub-section c. concerning the permitted colors. Mrs. Kamka distributed the revised proposed Sign Criteria dated September 19, 2011 that was also submitted with the variation application. Mr. Pociejewski believes that sub-section c was the only change. The change concerns internally lit sign colors. They removed the color black. Sometimes there is black on a sign that is not illuminated but just there for an accent or a fabrication issue. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Sign Criteria needs to include all proposed sign colors whether they are illuminated or not. If the color black is removed, it would not be an allowed color. He asked for the Petitioner to clearly define the proposed colors. Mr. Pociejewski stated that the background of the Noodles and Company sign is a dark brown constructed of EFIS and aluminum channel letters. Since it is not illuminated, he was not sure how to address that. That is why he changed the proposed Criteria to internally illuminated sign colors allowed. Mr. Sheehan stated that section B.3. refers to the returns to the channels and not a sign background. The dark brown background of the Noodles sign would be considered part of the sign, not just a trim cap or a return. The entire brown background would be the dimension of the sign. Mr. Mangurten stated that they had figured it that way. Mr. Pociejewski stated that there is also a clear aluminum or silver channel that outlines the entire Noodles sign. He does not consider that as a color. He asked if that would be considered a color. It is more a fabrication component of the sign. Mr. Sheehan stated that if it was visible it would be considered as a part of the sign, The black outline on the Moe's sign is considered part of the sign. You can see it. If it is something that is behind the sign and could not be seen, and not be visible, that would not be a color that would be looked at. Mr. Pociejewski asked Mr. Sheehan if the silver metal trim around the Noodles and Company sign would need to be an approved color. Mr. Sheehan stated that he would have to see what it is. If it looked like a frame that was designed to be visible then it would need to be an approved color. If it was not designed to be visible and just the side of the sign, then he does not believe it would be pertinent. Mrs. Neukirch stated that in the color rendering provided, you can barely see the silver around the Noodles and Company sign. Mr. Pociejewski stated that the silver trim is only about an inch or two (2), sort of like a reveal that goes around the sign. Mr. Pociejewski stated again that is why he changed to proposed Criteria to internally illuminated colors. Mr. Sheehan stated at that point then people could put up any kind of sign that is not internally illuminated and use every color under the rainbow. That is what the Village is trying to steer against and away from. Com. Windecker asked who decided on the background color for the Noodles and Company sign. Mr. Mangurten stated that sign was chosen by Noodles and Company. Com. Windecker asked about the number of different sign packages that Noodles and Company have. Mr. Mangurten stated that Noodles and Company has several different sign packages. Com. Windecker stated if the Village is not in favor of the proposed dark brown color of the sign that Noodles and Company could come up with a more suitable color that would be approved in the Sign Criteria. Mr. Mangurten stated that the Noodles sign on the proposed rendering is Noodles first choice. Com. Windecker stated that he is familiar with Noodles and this is the first time he is seeing this particular color. This may be something that Noodles wants to standardize but at this time that proposed color would be a deviation to the Sign Criteria or the color could be added to the Sign Criteria. Mrs. Neukirch asked if the size of the background for the Noodles sign was reduced as previously discussed. Mr. Mangurten stated that the background was reduced in order to comply with the sign area requirements. Mrs. Neukirch stated that she does recall that sign being bigger. Mr. Mangurten confirmed that it previously was bigger than it is in the current proposal. Mrs. Neukirch asked if both proposed tenants, Moe's and Noodles, are nationally recognized. Mr. Mangurten stated that both tenants are national. Mr. Wallace asked if the Noodles sign is centered over the lease space area. Mr. Mangurten stated that the sign is within the seventy (70) percent sign area. Their demising wall is against the glass. Mr. Wallace stated that the demising wall was put somewhere in the glass area and then the outlot building signage was written. Mr. Sheehan suggested that for the outlot tenants, it could be written that the sign will be centered within the sign area. Mr. Pociejewski stated that some tenants may want their signage over their door or a little to the left or right. A sign is not always centered due to architectural features of a building. Mr. Sheehan stated that the proposed Criteria was also modified to allow a maximum of two (2) signs per tenant space. Mr. Mangurten stated that the wording was modified to reflect that each tenant would be allowed a sign on the north elevation (along Dundee Road) and then one additional sign on a separate elevation based upon their frontage. The tenant on the east, which has Arlington Heights Road frontage as well as the Dundee Road frontage, would have the opportunity to have its second sign either on Arlington Heights Road or facing the parking lot to the south. The tenant in the middle would be allowed to have a sign on the north and south elevation of the building. Noodles has a preference to have a sign on Dundee Road and their second sign on the west elevation of the building. Mr. Sheehan stated there was a similar request at the last ZBA meeting and after the meeting there was discussion concerning the rationale or reason for having the signs face the parking lot, specifically the south elevation. What is the necessity or need for the south elevation wall signs facing the parking lot? The Petitioner should be prepared to answer those questions at the ZBA. He also asked for the Petitioner to go over that with the ART. Other than trying to capture northbound traffic on Arlington Heights Road, he asked if there is another reason why the tenants want signage on the south elevation of the building. Mr. Mangurten stated that currently they do not have a third tenant for the easterly most space. Noodles perceives the west parking lot as their principal parking. They feel that once someone is in the shopping center that sign will announce their main entrance, although they do have an entry on the north elevation as well. Moe's also has two (2) entrances, one (1) on the north and one (1) on the south. Whether a person enters the shopping center from Arlington Heights Road or off of Dundee Road, once you are in the parking lot it is nice to have signage that announces where the entry is. People like to park close to the front door of a business. Mr. Sheehan asked it was correct that Noodles intention was to try to utilize the west elevation entrance as their main entrance. Mr. Mangurten stated that is correct even though there is an entrance to the north. The construction drawings indicate that there is a corral on the inside where customers will pick up menus and such. Mrs. Neukirch reviewed the tenants and the proposed elevations for their signage. Noodles would like the north elevation and the west elevation for signage. Moe's would like the north and south elevations and a third future tenant would have the option of the north, south or east elevation for signage. Mrs. Neukirch stated that based on the other recent project the Village has been looking at other communities and signage on different sides of the building. She asked the Petitioner if he felt the building would look incomplete if only two (2) out of the three (3) tenants have signage on the south elevation. Mr. Mangurten stated that he is not sure if it looks empty but he believes that the Ordinance allows something to be put on a door or window. That would be the tenant's option. He agrees that the signage is part of the architecture of the building and should be made as such. Com. Windecker stated that south elevation wall sign for Moe's makes sense. It is smaller and meant to direct customers to the door. If you are driving north on Arlington Heights Road, you will not really be able to see the signs because of the layout of the shopping center. If the tenant prefers to have a sign on the south elevation of building, a customer will not really see it until they are in the parking lot. The turn into the parking lot is at the far south end off Arlington Heights Road. It is not near the corner. Mr. Sheehan asked if consideration has been given to locate the proposed Arlington Heights Road ground sign closer to the parking lot entrance along Arlington Heights Road and have the three (3) tenant panels. Then possibly have the tenant's names over the doors. Mr. Mangurten stated that he mentioned that to the shopping center ownership and he believes that the answer he received is that would create issues with the other tenants in the shopping center wanting to have their store names on that ground sign as well. He suggested moving the sign as well; he thought it would be a good idea. Mr. Sheehan stated that it can be included in the proposed Sign Criteria that the ground sign would be for the 1205-1211 W Dundee Road outlot building only. That would stop any issues with the other shopping center tenants. Mr. Mangurten stated that another thing the he has found is sometimes having an address is not enough. The extra signage helps you zero in on your destination. Of course, once you have been there you know to go back. He believes, especially with a big shopping center like Plaza Verde, the second sign is very important. Mr. Sheehan believes that there will be discussion at the ZBA regarding the two (2) proposed ground signs for the one (1) building. These are two (2) pretty dominate ground signs, one (1) on Dundee Road and one (1) on Arlington Heights Road. That is a lot more than most buildings or businesses would have. Mr. Mangurten reviewed the three (3) requested variances. They are seeking a variance to allow a ground sign within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the existing Walgreens ground sign. The reason they would be so close to that ground sign is that they run out of property. They are also seeking a variance to allow the second ground sign along Arlington Heights Road. That ground sign would also be within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the outlot building ground sign along Dundee Road. The third variance would be to allow two (2) wall signs for the outlot building tenants. Mrs. Neukirch asked Mr. Mangurten if the request for the second ground sign is not supported, would they request to relocate the single ground sign to capture the traffic for both Dundee Road and Arlington Heights Road. Mr. Mangurten stated that they would consider that. The Melting Pot sign was perpendicular to Arlington Heights Road. Mrs. Neukirch stated that she was thinking more of something on an angle to try and capture a maximum amount of traffic. Mr. Sheehan added that there is a tree; he is not sure what kind of tree, but that may be limiting factor. Mr. Mangurten stated that they would definitely consider it. Mrs. Neukirch stated that she does not have any concerns with the two (2) wall signs per tenant. She believes that makes sense. She believes through the use of window signage, the tenant could properly communicate their location and what type of food service or service they provide. She does have a concern with the two (2) proposed ground signs. She asked if there is something included in the proposed Sign Criteria that if a sign is removed the facade would have to be restored. Mr. Sheehan does not believe that is included in the proposed Criteria unless it is contained in the original Criteria. Mrs. Neukirch suggested adding to the proposed Criteria that if a wall sign is removed the facade will be restored to its original condition. Mr. Pociejewski confirmed that the only change to the existing Criteria was Section 2.1. He asked where this requirement should be added. Mr. Sheehan stated that the requirement to restore the facade should be added under the Specifications section. Mr. Sheehan asked for the proposed changes to be highlighted in a way that the ZBA would be able to delineate what is being requested to be changed. Mr. Mangurten stated that there were a few very minor grammatical changes that made but the substance is Section 2.1. Mr. Sheehan stated that going back to the secondary wall signs, there was a lot of discussion with regards to the previous matter concerning the second wall signs. There is the primary wall sign on the north elevation along Dundee Road. The second sign is more of a directional sign. There is nothing in the proposed Criteria that dictates that the second sign is to be smaller. The Petitioner should include something in the Criteria to that affect if that is the intent. He is not sure how the Petitioner wants to delineated that, whether it is by percentage or size. Indicate that the second sign needs to be a smaller sign, more of a directional sign, versus the prominent sign along Dundee Road. He is not sure how that would be addressed with Noodles; maybe break it down by tenant space. If the sign would be on the south elevation it would need to be X, if the sign would be on the east or west elevation it could be the size of the sign on the north elevation. Mr. Mangurten stated that the Ordinance allows a tenant with two (2) frontages to have two (2) signs. There is no reduction for corner spaces. Mr. Sheehan stated that is correct. This suggestion was addressed with another building and the proposed Sign Criteria and accompanying variations were passed at the ZBA the previous night. The second sign, because it will be used more as a directional sign, does not need to be as large. It needs to be large enough for someone to see that the establishment is there. The ZBA does not want to double up the signage just to allow additional signage. The thought is the sign along the main thoroughfare, in this case Dundee or Arlington Heights Road, that is the advertisement sign. In most shopping centers that is the same sign as the sign over the tenant's door. In this case you may enter through the back end of the parking lot and now you are looking for the place. Here you just need a small sign to say here it is. You do not need the big sign to draw customers in off the thoroughfare. You are just giving them a direction or a place to head to. Mr. Mangurten asked if there is a percentage that the Village would like to see. Mr. Sheehan stated that he will leave that up to the Petitioner. However, the request that was just heard by the ZBA, the secondary, or directional sign, was seventy (70) or eighty (80) percent of the size of the main wall sign. The smaller the better as far as signs go. So long as it can get the message across. He suggested having several proposals prepared, the one (1) the Petitioner wants and the one (1) the Petitioner is willing to accept. He also suggested having several proposals prepared for the ground signs as well, maybe a single ground sign. Hit would be best to have some options available. Mr . Sheehan stated that it would be necessary to reconvene the ART to review the changes based upon the discussion today prior to the ZBA meeting. The ART will have to review the changes in order to make a recommendation to the ZBA. The ZBA would like to have all of the outstanding questions answered and the ART provide a sign package that they have given a positive recommendation to. There should be no open questions that still need to be answered. Mr. Mangurten reviewed the recommendations of the ART- 1. Change the name of the Criteria to Plaza Verde East; 2. Include any colors that are anticipated, whether illuminated or not; 3. Add language to restore the facade when a sign is removed; and 4. Consider the second wall sign to be smaller. 5. Consider having a single ground sign and review the possible location(s) of the ground sign(s). Mr. Pfeil asked if the eastern most tenant wanted a wall sign on the east elevation, does that mean that they would not have a wall sign on the south elevation of the building. Mr. Sheehan stated that is correct, each tenant would be allowed a maximum total of two (2) wall signs based upon the current proposed criteria language. Mrs. Neukirch wanted to clarify the percentage of reduction for the second wall sign. She asked if the second sign for the eastern tenant space should be reduced. Currently they would be allowed a second wall sign without a variance at one hundred (100) percent of the sign area. Mr. Sheehan stated that he understands that. He would have to refer to the ZBA. He does not believe that a sign of similar proportions as the main sign on Dundee would look out of place along Arlington Heights Road from an aesthetic standpoint. If there is only a single sign on the east elevation and it is placed in the middle of the building, he would not have an issue. But then the east tenant would not be allowed a sign on the south elevation. Mr. Pfeil does not know what tenant would not want a sign on the east elevation of the building. Mr. Mangurten stated that he feels the same. Mr. Pfeil suggested including a sign on the east elevation rendering as an optional allowed sign for the east tenant space. Mr. Wallace stated that then Moe's would be the only tenant with signage on the south elevation. Mrs. Neukirch believes that would look nicer. Mr. Sheehan believes that a wall sign on the east elevation and not the south elevation would look more uniform and if the sign was centered in the middle of the building as depicted in the rendering would not look as cluttered as other options. Because of the additional length of the frontage when looking at the depth of the spaces, Mr. Sheehan suggested being clear in the proposed Sign Criteria by adding language that the two (2) end unit wall signs for the east and west elevations of the building cannot exceed the allowable size of the sign on the north elevation of the building. Mr. Pfeil suggested labeling the Walgreens ground sign on the site plan. Mr. Wallace added to correct any discrepancies between the Exhibits such as the location of the existing ground signs on the property. Mr. Sheehan stated because the Exhibits will be referenced in any recommendation made by the ZBA those Exhibits will need to be accurate. Additional recommendations from the ART include- 1. Add language that the two (2) end unit wall signs on the east and west elevations cannot exceed the allowable height, width and length of the sign on the north elevation of the building; 2. Label the Walgreens ground sign on the site plan; and 3. Correct any discrepancies between the Exhibits and provide Exhibits that accurately depict what is being requested. There were no additional questions or comments. RECOMMENDATION The ART will withhold any recommendation pending the submittal of the requested information: Once the requested information has been received, further review will be conducted and a recommendation will be provided. Due to the number of outstanding issues and varied opinions, a second ART meeting is required to discuss this matter further prior to providing a recommendation to the ZBA. This matter cannot proceed to the ZBA until a recommendation has been rendered. Prepared by: Julie Kamka Building & Zoning Department