Loading...
2010-11-30 - Appearance Review Team - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑Appearance Review Team Document Type: ❑Agenda 0 Minutes Meeting Date: 11/30/2010 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting ART (Appearance Review Team) Meeting NOVEMBER 30, 2010 185 MILWAUKEE AVENUE GROUND SIGN —COMBINATION WOOIL/RIVERWALK PLACE APARTMENTS PRESENT Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Manager Carol Berman, Deputy Building Commissioner/Administration Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner/Operations Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Joe Wallace, Plan Examiner Tim Beechick, Hamilton Partners Hanyoo Kim, Wooil Restaurant PROPOSAL Hamilton Partners and Wooil Restaurant propose a combination ground sign located at the southeast corner of Milwaukee Avenue and Riverwalk Drive to promote the restaurant on the property and to provide direction to the Riverwalk Place Apartments located on the Riverwalk Property. Mr. Beechick stated that it made sense to have a permanent sign located at the corner to provide direction to the apartments. The previous owner of the restaurant site allowed him to put a temporary off-premises sign at the corner. They are trying to find a way that makes sense to identify the apartments. They rely heavily on the sign located on Milwaukee Avenue to direct traffic into the apartments. He sat down with Mr. Kim, owner of Wooil Restaurant, and came up with the proposed sign. Mr. Kim advised that he would like to keep the existing pole sign on the property in addition to the proposed ground sign. If not, he would need to look at the proposed sign from a different approach. Mr. Sheehan stated that to have both ground signs on the property would require a variation. The pole sign itself requires a variation due to its location. It is currently closer to the property line than the code allows. He added that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) tries to limit ground signs to a reasonable height. Mr. Sheehan added that the canopy signs that were added will also require a permit. Mr. Kim advised that he will apply for the permit for the canopy sign. Ms. Neukirch stated that she believes it would be more effective to remove the pole sign and utilize the ground sign at the corner and the canopy signs. She added that the ZBA most likely will have concerns with two (2) ground signs on the property so close together. Ms. Neukirch asked Mr. Beechick that if the balance of the Riverwalk property is developed in the next couple of years, would he anticipate that the proposed ground sign copy would need to be changed. Mr. Beechick responded that he has not thought that far ahead. Right now he needs identification for the apartments. Mr. Sheehan asked if the proposed ground sign footprint would be larger than the existing temporary sign. Mr. Beechick stated that he is not positive but he believes that the proposed sign would be smaller. Mr. Sheehan stated that his discussions with Mr. Beecheck and Mr. Kim were an attempt to have them look at creating a ground sign that would meet both of their needs and at the same time eliminate the existing ground sign. His suggestion was to possibly increase the size of the proposed ground sign and remove the pole sign. His preference would be to remove the pole sign replacing it with the new ground sign and possibly adding a wall sign or canopy signs that were in uniform in appearance to create an aesthetically pleasing sign package. Ms. Berman asked if there was any consideration to make the restaurant sign larger and the Riverwalk Place directional sign smaller. Mr. Beechick stated they could make the sign wider to accommodate a larger restaurant panel. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Kim the reasons he prefers the existing pole sign to a new monument style ground sign. Mr. Kim replied that the pole sign is taller and he believes he would get more visibility. Ms. Neukirch asked about adding wall signs on the north, west and south elevations of the building. Mr. Kim stated that there is no room for wall signs on the building. Mr. Sheehan suggested using the larger part of the canopy for a sign. He also advised that a wall sign on the south elevation of the building would require a variation for not facing a public right-of-way. Ms. Neukirch asked Mr. Kim what the name of the restaurant means. Mr. Kim stated that it means Friends Day. Mr. Beechick stated that they could look at increasing the size of the restaurant sign. That could result in the sign becoming wider. He also stated that the pole sign seems to be critical to Mr. Kim. Mr. Sheehan asked if the sign box could move up and down on the pole. Mr. Kim believes that it can. Mr. Beechick stated that they could use the pole sign as an alternative and create a smaller directional sign for the apartments. Ms. Neukirch agrees that an alternative utilizing the pole sign should be provided and believes they could have a good argument for the pole sign. Mr. Beechick stated that they would work on creating a more attractive sign panel for the pole sign. Mr. Sheehan asked about rotating the sign box on the pole. Mr. Kim stated that the pole sign is too close to the building to rotate it around. It is only a few inches from the building. He would want the sign box perpendicular to the road and not parallel to the road. Ms. Neukirch asked Mr. Kim how soon they anticipate being ready to open. Mr. Kim responded that they will be ready to open very soon. They are hoping to possibly have the final inspection scheduled next week and would like to open before the end of the year. Mr. Kim asked if he removes the pole sign and proposes just one (1) ground sign larger and wider would a variation still be required. Mr. Sheehan responded that it would depend on the size and location. Mr. Beechick advised that they have some options to discuss with the sign contractor. Mr. Kim added that to create a new sign in lieu of refacing the existing pole sign would increase the cost of a sign from $4,000-$5,000 to approximately$10,000. Mr. Beechick was advised that the deadline to submit for the January 18, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting is December 21, 2010. RECOMMENDATION The ART has determined that the appearance of the current sign package utilizing both the existing ground sign and the new monument sign is not in harmony with the Village of Buffalo Grove Appearance Plan; the multiple signs do not enhance the building design, are not well integrated into the site design and do not create an uncluttered aesthetically pleasing site.. The ART has requested that several alternatives be reviewed by the petitioner and these alternatives be submitted for review. Suggested alternatives could include alternatives utilizing the existing pole sign; use of a larger canopy sign, or wall signs; and increasing the size of the restaurant panel on the ground sign. Alternatives should include the use of the pole sign without the additional ground sign and possibly the new ground sign without the existing pole sign. It was stressed that the petitioner should be willing to accept any of the alternatives that are brought forward, as the ZBA may very well choose one of them and approve it.