Loading...
2011-09-02 - Appearance Review Team - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑Appearance Review Team Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 09/02/2011 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting ART (Appearance Review Team) Meeting SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 Berman Residence — 33 Canterbury Lane PRESENT Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Management Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner/Operations Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Joe Wallace, Plan Examiner Louis Windecker, ZBA Commissioner PROPOSAL Request is being made by Champion Patio Rooms, 549 W. Lake Street, Elmhurst, Illinois 60126 on behalf of Irwin and Adrianne Berman, 33 Canterbury Lane, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a sunroom addition that would encroach a distance of ten (10) feet into the required thirty (30) foot rear yard setback. There is not any plumbing or mechanical work proposed for the sunroom addition. There were no questions or comments. RECOMMENDATION ART recommends approval of the variance subject to the following: 1. Materials to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. Prepared by: Julie Kamka Building & Zoning Department Board or Commission: ❑Appearance Review Team Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 09/02/2011 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting ART (Appearance Review Team) Meeting SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 1691-1697 WEILAND ROAD, BG CAR WASH MANAGEMENT, LLC SIGN CODE VARIATIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROPOSED UNIFORM SIGN PACKAGE PRESENT Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Management Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner/Operations Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Louis Windecker, ZBA Commissioner Joseph Wallace, Plan Examiner Steven Trilling, Village Trustee John Imreibe, BG Car Wash Management, LLC David Wytmar, Groundwork, Inc. PROPOSAL Mr. Wytmar reviewed the revised proposal. When the building was constructed thirteen (13) years ago, Dunkin Donuts was the only tenant in the building. However, the building was designed as a multi-tenant building. Dunkin Donuts had no reason to install signage other than what they currently have on the front and the back of the building in terms of wall signs. There is an existing ground sign. Dunkin Donuts has since relocated to a smaller space in the building. There are currently three (3) other tenant spaces in the building. Incoming tenants will need signage for their tenant spaces. The building is unique in that it is the only building in the Village that fronts up to a roadway and does not have the parking between the street and the building. When driving by the building, the signage is necessary to see the building tenants from the street. Once people drive around the building, signage will be needed to find the tenant spaces. If the signage is not there, people may think that the business is no longer there. They have put together a Uniform Sign Package so that every tenant does not have to apply for a separate variance for a second wall sign. The Uniform Sign Package would limit the wall signs to the east and west elevations of the building only. That way tenants would not have to spend a great deal of time requesting a variance. Tenants would be advised that they would be allowed a wall sign on the east and west elevations of the building, no other wall signs allowed. Also, tenants would not be allowed to be on the ground signs, other than Dunkin Donuts. Dunkin Donuts does currently have wall signs on both the east and west elevations of the building. Those signs were approved outright as part of the construction of the building and the car wash building. The Petitioner has worked with staff to work through all the concerns of the ART and ZBA. They have agreed to reduce the size of the wall signs on the east elevation of the building that faces the parking lot in order to minimize the signage. They have also outlined the hardship of the Petitioner. Trustee Trilling asked if there are any proposed changes to the existing ground sign. Mr. Wytmar stated that they are not making any changes to the existing ground sign. Trustee Trilling confirmed with Mr. Wytmar that the tenants, other than Dunkin Donuts, will not be identified on the ground sign. Trustee Trilling also confirm that both the north and south ground signs have both the car wash and Dunkin Donuts panels on them. Both the north and south ground signs are basically the same. Mr. Wytmar advised that the ground signs were installed at the time the buildings were constructed. They were modified when Mr. Imreibe took ownership of the properties. Trustee Trilling asked if the ground signs are within two hundred fifty (250) feet of one another. Mr. Imreibe stated that the ground signs are well beyond two hundred fifty (250) feet of one another. Mr. Sheehan advised that a variance was granted a few years ago for the ground signs to allow changeable copy for the car wash pricing only. That way Mr. Imreibe would not have to request a separate variance every time he wanted to change the car wash price on the ground signs. Trustee Trilling asked if the car wash building and the commercial building are under the same ownership. Mr. Imreibe confirmed that he owns both properties. Mr. Wytmar stated that purpose of the Uniform Sign Package is not to allow tenants more signage, but to provide a duplicate sign on the other side of the building so people can find the tenant once they enter the parking lot. Putting signage on the ground sign would not achieve their goal. By having a Uniform Sign Package, tenants will be advised that they will not be allowed signage on the ground sign. Mr. Sheehan stated that based on previous discussions, the Petitioner is proposing signs on the east and west elevation of the building and no other elevation. It has been discussed to put signs on the awnings instead of a wall sign, but the Petitioner did not believe that would be cost effective as they would have to change the awning every time there was a new tenant. The Petitioner did not want to modify the ground sign and have to go through the variation process with the ground sign. They believe that their request to allow wall signs on west elevation is best for the tenants and for the Petitioner. They also feel that to allow wall signs on the east will help direct customers in. They have discussed why they felt windows signs would not be appropriate or as easily readable and useable for potential customers to find the locations of the units. Mrs. Neukirch stated that the Petitioner has done a nice job of addressing all the questions of from the ZBA in the commentary. She believes that the additional documentation is helpful because it is a good illustration of sample wall signs and how they would be positioned on the building. Mr. Wytmar stated that the Exhibit of the sample signs shows that if there are two (2) units a tenant can place the signs anywhere. It may not just be the two (2) end units, but the middle units as well. A sign will have to fit within the allowable sign area. The goal is to make it look as nice as they can. The Petitioner wants the building to look nice. The Village will provide oversight as well. Com. Windecker stated that on the commentary under comment number 9, it states that if a new tenant comes into space, the existing wall sign would be removed and new wall sign would need to conform to the Uniform Sign package. Com. Windecker stated that a new tenant would not have a right to the existing Dunkin Donut signs. Mr. Wytmar stated that is correct. Dunkin Donuts has the two (2) wall signs. Both signs are the same size on both the east and west elevations of the building. If a new tenant comes into that space, the entire wall sign on both elevations would come down and those signs cannot be reused. The tenant would have to put a new sign up that would have to conform to the Uniform Sign Package. Mr. Imreibe added that he believes that he can get Dunkin Donuts to comply with the new sign sizes. Mr. Sheehan stated that most of the new Dunkin Donuts signs are different and are not the box signs; they are more like a channel letter style. Mr. Wytmar stated that the Exhibit with the sample signs with the sign area boxes is a good example of signage in this day and age. Everyone has a certain style and look that they are going for. For example, if T-Mobile only occupied one (1) unit they would have a very narrow sign just because the sign area is limited in both directions. Mr. Sheehan asked if the sign area on the east elevation is limited to eighty (80) percent. Mr. Wytmar stated that it is roughly eighty (80) percent. He rounded up to the nearest inch to make it easier for the sign manufacturers. Trustee Trilling asked about the number of egresses for each tenant space. The egress is equally as important as the signage to know how to get in and where to get into the spaces. Some units have south elevations and north elevations where the sign will not be located over the doorway or entrance. It appears that one (1) tenant space does not have a secondary means of egress. He was looking at the elevations and without floor plans, he was counting the number of doors and it did not add up. Mr. Wytmar stated that was the case up until they came into this process. Each of the units in and of themselves are small enough to only require one (1) means of egress. When it became a multi-tenant building and there were concerns from the Fire Department and the Electrical Inspector they provided a corridor in the back that allows a secondary egress. The electrical service panels and the knox box are also located in this corridor area. Mr. Wytmar stated that Com. Windecker had a lot of concerns at the ZBA meeting. Com. Windecker stated that he still does not believe that the signs on the east elevation make much sense to the size. The reduction was minimal. There will still be eight (8) signs no matter how you look at it. The signs on the east elevation will be appealing only to the trains traveling past on the tracks. The other issue is that the Petitioner could put up a directory sign with tenant panels and the building addresses. He does not believe that the people of Buffalo Grove will not be able to locate four (4) simple places. There is a big Dunkin Donuts sign and three (3) small units. It is overkill on signage. There will be ten (10) signs up; two (2) wall signs, one on each side of the building for each tenant and the two (2) ground signs. That is why it was suggested at the last ZBA meeting to utilize the ground sign for the other tenants. Other ZBA Commissioners thought that if signs are on the west elevation, there is not much of need for signs on the east elevation except a directory to the door that has the address on it and a panel large enough to see but not three (3) feet high. The signs for the east elevation were only reduced by eight (8) inches. Trustee Trilling asked about the size of the current Dunkin Donuts sign. Mr. Wytmar stated that he believes it is right at the three (3) foot eight (8) inches high by six (6) foot nine (9) inches wide. That is the maximum size permitted without a variation. Trustee Trilling asked if it is the Petitioner's intent to upgrade the sign architecturally to look more representative of the sample signs Exhibit. Mr. Wytmar stated that Mr. Imreibe is encouraging the channel letters although more people are getting away from the box signs. The Uniform Sign Package does allow box signs. Mr. Sheehan asked if any thought was given to allowing Dunkin Donuts that box sign because it already exists and requiring new signs to be channel letters. Mr. Wytmar stated that these days signage is a lot more sophisticated and people are always coming up with something better. For example the new Dunkin Donuts signage has a coffee cup logo that is a box sign but it is cut to shape. Mr. Sheehan stated that would be looked at as a logo and not as a box sign. Mr. Wytmar added that the point he is trying to make is that businesses want to represent their stores appropriately and they want the sign to look nice. Twenty (20) years ago you could put big block letters up and that worked. These days everyone is creating nicer signs. No one knows what will happen in the next several years. There are certain limitations that a box sign provides and people will always be creative. This is not a building where you will get a nice long sign across the building. The signs will be small and compact. Part of what they are seeing is that these days everyone is in their cars and all they do is drive and no one wants to get out of their car. As people are driving by and they drive into the parking lot if there are cars parked in the front row people cannot see window signs. People come into a center and see a sign and know that is what they are looking for. He went to City Park looking for the Pot Belly's restaurant. He saw the sign on the outside and he was taking pictures of it. He went into the center and he did not see the sign so he thought that they had closed and moved away. It was not until he had walked around the center a bit that he found the Pot Belly's sign on the side kind of hidden. It hit them that this is how things work. If people see a sign for a nail salon as they have driven past it several times and want to try that nail salon and they go into the parking lot and they do not see it, they see a blank wall, they will think that the nail salon went out of business and will go to another nail salon. He does not believe that people will get out of their cars to look for a building directory. They are trying to complete against that lost business. There has not been an issue with regulating signs on the back of a building because tenants do not want a sign on the back of the building because no one will see it. This building is unique in that the back of the building faces the street and the tenants need people to recognize that they are still in business. Mr. Imreibe stated that if the Uniform Sign Package is not approved it will cause issues with tenants wanting a sign on the east elevation and another tenant wanting the sign on the west elevation. The nail salon has already expressed that she would like her sign on the east elevation of the building. She does not want a sign on the west elevation. He does not want to have some signs here and some signs there. There would be no uniformity. This Uniform Sign Package is essential and needs to be done. Every shopping retail center has signage above their storefront. It is vital to be able to see the sign from a distance. Com. Windecker stated that there should be either a Uniform Sign Package where everybody is represented on the west elevation and possibly the east elevation. There is an appearance of the building from the roadway that the Village does not want to disrupt. Mr. Wytmar stated that the way the Sign Code reads is that the tenants would be allowed signage that is one (1) size that can be placed either on the east elevation or the west elevation or they could put it on the north elevation or the south elevation. With the Uniform Sign Package the tenants would be required to provide a wall sign on the west elevation. If the tenant would want a sign on the east elevation it would have to be smaller and only if there is a sign on the west elevation. The tenant may opt not to have a sign. It may be business that does not generate walk in traffic and does not need signage. The proposed Uniform Sign Package is very clear how it works and he believes it makes sense. Mr. Imreibe added that if the Uniform Sign Package is not approved, the nail salon tenant could, technically, put a larger sign on the east elevation of the building with nothing on the west elevation. He believes that would not be aesthetically pleasing. Mrs. Neukirch stated that since the last meeting she has had an opportunity to look at other municipal regulations and look at this building. This is somewhat new territory to the Village because there is no other multi-tenant commercial building in the Village at this time similar to this building. She understands the concerns of Com. Windecker. She is amenable to the revised Uniform Sign Package that was submitted. The signage on the east elevation truly does not face any residential properties; it does not face anyone other than the people driving behind the building. She does not believe that anyone from the community would object. When she is driving around she does not count the number of signs. She believes that it makes sense to know where a business is located. She is inclined to support the revised request. She appreciates the work that was done to get to this point. She needed to understand why window signs would not work. It also makes sense regarding awning signs and having to change them every time there is a new tenant. Mr. Sheehan stated that in the photograph of the east elevation of the existing building there is a van. If there was a window sign there he would not be able to read the sign. He now understands the Petitioner's view of window signs not being effective, especially if there are numerous SUV's parking across the front of the lot. Mr. Imreibe stated that he is at the site quite often and if you go to the site between 7.00 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. Dunkin Donuts is very busy. They are technically the only tenant in the building and have been the only tenant in the building. It is surprising how many people walk to the other set of doors and pull on those doors trying to get into Dunkin Donuts. He has seen earlier drawings of the building and Dunkin Donuts originally proposed the wall sign to be centered on the building, but they chose to locate the sign closer to the door to direct people into the entrance. Trustee Trilling stated that this is a unique building because it is constructed of a split face block, which is not consistent with other types of materials that have been used in shopping centers. This is more of an industrial look. He believes that may be because of the car wash building located next to it. The Petitioner has tried to dress the building up with a glazed block as a ribbon or accent. It also created more difficulty in trying to create a uniform sign band because on most other commercial buildings the area above the storefront is a clean, neat space. Here there are three (3) colors to begin with. There is a lot going on, a lot more than what the Petitioner's want going on. But it is what the Petitioner has. Mr. Wytmar added that at the time that building was constructed, channel letters were really expensive. Everyone went with a square box sign. It was not an issue back then. This is an example of how signage keeps changing. Trustee Trilling stated that to him the box sign is ugly relative to newer or better signage that is available. He would deter tenants from using a box sign but there needs to be a consistent background behind the channel letters because some colors do not go well with yellow and black. He agrees that people need to know on Weiland Road that their destination is there as they are driving by. He agrees that as you drive around the corner into the parking lot, you need to know where you are going. Because if you do not know where you are going, it is not readily apparent that store is either in place or that they are physically operating. He would be apt to just turn around and keep driving down the street. You need the identification to know which door you enter to get in. The other part is how you get in. There are entrances on the north and south elevations of the building. With Dunkin Donuts, people have become accustomed to knowing that you have to go around the corner to enter the unit. He recalls the first time he went there he did not know where to enter the unit. He does not see an issue with the two (2) doors in the center of the building. There may be an issue with the southern most tenant space. Hopefully when people come around the corner they will see the entrance on the south before they enter the parking lot. He agrees that there needs to be visibility otherwise it will not benefit the tenant. Mr. Sheehan stated that once people are in the parking lot, the size of the sign does not need to be as large as on the west elevation. The proposed east elevation wall signs have been minimized. He is inclined to support the request. Mr. Wytmar stated to Trustee Trilling that they discussed requiring that the signs are located over the entry to the tenant unit, but if someone drives into the parking lot they may not see the sign on that elevation. Mr. Sheehan stated that if the sign was over the entry for Dunkin Donuts people would not see it unless they are at the car wash. Trustee Trilling stated that he believes that on the west elevation it is more important to have uniformity as a building, especially when people drive by everyday. On the east elevation he believes that it is less important to have uniformity and more important to have directional type signage. Mrs. Neukirch agrees and does not believe it would look good if the Village limits to one (1) sign and the tenant has to pick which side they want the sign on because it would look like a hodge podge. Mr. Wytmar stated that Sign A Rama used to be on Dundee Road next to the Kinko's. He has seen the sign a hundred times. He drove into the parking lot and the sign was not there, so he drove away. They were out of business. They want to be real clear that they are not looking for more signage opportunities for each tenant. For example the Jersey Mike's has a wall sign on one (1) elevation of the building and then on the backside of the building, there is a different style logo sign. They are not trying to allow all of the tenant's different styles of signage. They want to be very specific in that if there are stack letters on one (1) elevation, then they will have the stack letters on the other elevation as well. It is the same sign; just one (1) is smaller. They want consistency. Mr. Wytmar explained that every business in Buffalo Grove already has two (2) signs; the sign you see from the street and the sign you see from the parking lot. In most cases they are the same sign. If you drive by and you see a sign, you drive over and go into the parking lot, park, and get out of your car and you see the sign and say that is where you are going. Two (2) signs serving two (2) purposes but most of the time it is a single sign. Mr. Sheehan asked if under the Sign Criteria Wall Signage Requirements, Number 4, the Petitioner would be willing to add that on the west elevation the sign shall be centrally located over the space. Then on the east elevation the tenant would have the option to locate the sign where they want it. Trustee Trilling added that the Petitioner should come up with a centerline dimension of each sign. The west elevation Exhibit submitted is very clean and neat even though the signs are shown in the center of the tenant's space. In order to continue with the pattern that has been established, the current Dunkin Donuts sign would need to be moved. Currently on the west elevation, the Dunkin Donuts sign is off to the side. He asked if the Petitioner is willing to move that sign in order to continue with the pattern. Mr. Imreibe stated that he believes he can get Dunkin Donuts to move that sign or replace the sign. Mr. Wytmar stated that he understands what is being requested. However, if a tenant comes in and wants to take three (3) tenant spaces or two (2) spaces, would it be the center of the entire space. The idea is that generally the signs will be spaced out. The building will look nice and the signs will not be all clumped together. There are also trees located in front of the building facing Weiland Road. There is one (1) tree that would be right where one (1) of the wall signs would go. Do they put the sign behind the tree, do they cut the tree down or do they move the sign over a little bit. Trustee Trilling stated that there is the ground sign. He suggests that the Petitioner look at what is going on at the site and bring back something that makes sense. Mr. Wytmar asked for clarification on what he is supposed to bring back. Trustee Trilling stated that he cannot see anything else but addressing the many possible sign combinations that could occur at this building. Mr. Wytmar stated that there will always be what ifs. Trustee Trilling stated that the Petitioner could go with the proposed as the planning tool. The signs are for the purpose of identifying that the business is there. Once someone drives around to the east side the signs would be more directional and not as much of identification. He believes that the Petitioner can keep the pattern on the west elevation regardless of whether there is one (1) tenant taking three (3) spaces or one (1) tenant taking two (2) spaces. Because if a tenant is taking three (3) spaces, the sign could go there and would still be alright to go in there or there (pointing to an area on the Exhibit). Mr. Wytmar and Mr. Imreibe agree. Mr. Imreibe stated that he believes that nine (9) out of ten (10) times the tenant will want to center the sign anyway. Trustee Trilling responded that the problem with centering is that this building was not built like most retail centers where there is a demarcation between tenant spaces with columns or something visual from the outside that delineates the tenant spaces. There is nothing here that tells someone where a space starts or stops. Mr. Imreibe stated that if you look at some of the new retail developments they utilize different brick colors to distinguish the separate spaces that are available. Trustee Trilling stated that it could be something as simple as creating reveal or a shadow. It could be all kinds of things that delineate tenant spaces. Here you will never be able to tell from the west elevation where the tenant spaces begin and end. Mrs. Neukirch asked Trustee Trilling if he would feel comfortable that under Placement, if they reference the Exhibit, marked as Exhibit "A". Trustee Trilling stated that each case would need to be looked at. Mr. Wytmar stated that they will add the language that the signs shall generally be uniformly spaced and generally centered in orchestration with the west elevation. Mr. Pfeil asked if logos will be permitted. Mr. Wytmar stated they included logos that are regionally or nationally recognized. Com. Windecker asked what is meant by regionally recognized. Mr. Sheehan stated that Portillo's is a good example of regional. Mr. Wytmar added that Deerfields Bakery would be considered a regional logo. Go Roma right now is a regional logo. Mr. Sheehan stated that it would not be the first of many to come. Mr. Wytmar stated that Platinum Nails would not be allowed a logo because it is a one (1) location business. Com. Windecker asked about the hours of operation for Dunkin Donuts. Mr. Imreibe stated that Dunkin Donuts is open from 5.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. Com. Windecker advised that the Petitioner is requesting to allow the signs to be illuminated until 11.30 p.m. Mr. Wytmar stated that the signs would be illuminated no later than 11.30 p.m. Com. Windecker stated that normally a time limit on illumination is established. Mr. Imreibe stated that until the building was recently finalized with the electrical work there were two (2) timers; one (1) for parking lot lights and one (1) for the Dunkin Donuts signage. Dunkin Donuts was in control of the signs. He stated that he can require that the signs are on a timer within each tenant space. Mr. Imreibe asked about the concern with illuminated signs. Com. Windecker stated that 11.30 p.m. is not usually approved. Mr. Sheehan added that if the business is closed there is no need for the sign to be illuminated. If the business is open all night that is a different story. Com. Windecker stated that the other night, the Dunkin Donuts sign was on late and they were not open. Trustee Trilling stated that if one (1) sign is illuminated and the other three (3) are not, it should be uniform in some fashion. Mr. Imreibe asked if it was the ground sign or wall sign on late. Com. Windecker stated that it was the wall sign. Mr. Imreibe stated that he would address that issue with each tenant. Com. Windecker stated that it is OK if Dunkin Donuts wants to advertise but he does not believe that the sign has to be on at 11:30 p.m. He believes that turning the sign off at 10:00 p.m. would be sufficient if they close at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Imreibe agrees. Mr. Wytmar asked if it would be amenable to allow the signs to be illuminated to 10:30 p.m. on week days and 11:30 p.m. on the weekends. Trustee Trilling stated that he believes it would be the same no matter what because these spaces will not be used any later on the weekend than they would during the week. It would be different if there was a bar or restaurant use. Mr. Sheehan suggested tying the sign illumination to either 10:00 p.m. or the hours of operation of the tenant. Mr. Imreibe stated that he believes that the Dunkin Donuts sign is on a photo cell which is why it is on all night. He stated that he can put a timer in for each tenant's sign. Mr. Sheehan confirmed with Mr. Imreibe that the facade would be replaced to its original condition after a sign is removed in lieu of just patching. Trustee Trilling asked that this requirement to be added to the Uniform Sign Package. Mr. Sheehan stated that based on the conversations he will recommend approval of the proposed Uniform Sign Package and sign variation with the requested changes. There were no additional questions or comments from the ART. Mrs. Neukirch made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed Uniform Sign Package dated August 26, 2011 with the proposed language changes as discussed. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Wallace, Neukirch, Windecker, Pfeil, Sheehan, Trilling NAY— None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Recommendation to be forwarded to the ZBA for the September 20, 2011 meeting. Prepared by: Julie Kamka Building & Zoning Department