Loading...
2010-02-03 - Appearance Review Team - Minutes Board orCommission: ❑Appearance Review Team Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 02/03/2010 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting ART (Appearance Review Team) Meeting FEBRUARY 3, 2010 702 BUFFALO GROVE ROAD, DAIRY QUEEN WALL SIGN PRESENT Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Manager Carol Berman, Deputy Building Commissioner/Administration Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner/Operations Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Nidhi Vaid, Associate Planner Denver Schmitt, OVM Intern Louis Windecker, ZBA Commissioner Michael Scherer, Dairy Queen PROPOSAL To install a new wall sign for Dairy Queen, 702 Buffalo Grove Road. The proposed wall sign requires a deviation to The Plaza Shopping Center Sign Criteria to allow the sign to not be centered over the lease space; and to allow the sign to exceed the maximum height allowed of twenty four(24) inches and located twelve (12) inches below the top of the sign band. Mr. Scherer explained that the current wall sign is outdated. They are looking to update their image. They are starting Phase I of plan. He contacted the landlord, Mr. Youshaei, to obtain the sign criteria for the center and was advised that wall signs are limited to seventy (70) percent of the lease space and twenty four(24) inches in the height. He believes the twenty four(24) inch height limitation is small compared to other signs in the center. Also Dairy Queen has co-branded with Orange Julius. They are planning to remodel the interior of the store this coming winter. Once he has the signed franchise agreement, he will move forward with the reimaging. The proposed wall sign will be off center to make room for a future Orange Julius wall sign. If the Orange Julius agreement does not go through, he will add the Dairy Queen lettering next to the logo wall sign. Ms. Neukirch asked if people will be able to identify the store with only the logo sign. Mr. Scherer stated that the Dairy Queen logo is a familiar logo. Mr. Sheehan stated that when the Orange Julius agreement is approved the applicant would need to submit for a variation to the Sign Code to add the Orange Julius wall sign. There were no issues with the appearance of the proposed Dairy Queen wall sign. Com. Windecker advised that he does not have any issues with the logo but that a previous Dairy Queen sign request at another location in Buffalo Grove was required to reduce the height of the sign to twenty four(24) inches by the Zoning Board of Appeals. RECOMMENDATION The ART recommends approval of the proposed wall sign. Board orCommission: ❑Appearance Review Team Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 02/03/2010 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting ART (Appearance Review Team) Meeting FEBRUARY 3, 2010 1101-1165 WEILAND ROAD, CREEKSIDE COMMONS GROUND SIGN PRESENT Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Manager Carol Berman, Deputy Building Commissioner/Administration Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner/Operations Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Nidhi Vaid, Associate Planner Denver Schmitt, OVM Intern Andy Stein, ZBA Commissioner Louis Windecker, ZBA Commissioner Sean Weppler, Attorney at Law Art Solis, North Shore Sign Company PROPOSAL To install a new ground sign for the Creekside Commons Shopping Center. The proposed ground sign requires variations to the Buffalo Grove Sign Code to allow a ground sign that would exceed the maximum allowed area of one hundred twenty (120) square feet by one hundred fourteen (114) square feet; to allow a ground sign that would exceed the maximum permitted height of twenty(20) feet by three (3) feet four(4) inches and would be located ten (10) feet ten (10) inches from the property line. Mr. Solis explained that the current ground sign for the shopping center does not identify all of the tenants. Their goal is to provide more visibility for the tenants. They propose to change the location of the sign. The current sign is located in the parking lot. They propose to locate the new sign in the grassy area outside of the parking lot. Mr. Solis took photographs of all the tenants currently in the shopping center and worked with the property owner to develop a ground sign that would incorporate as many tenants as possible. The proposed ground sign would be a fabricated metal cabinet with dark green satin finish; interior fluorescent illumination; raise aluminum tenant panels with tan satin finish and routed out white backed up Plexiglas copy. Mr. Solis explained that 7-11 and ReMax has clause built into their leases that allow them more signage on the ground sign as they are the largest tenants in the shopping center. Ms. Neukirch stated that she appreciates that the tenants want additional signage although she believes that a multi-tenant ground sign of this magnitude is not necessary due to the businesses proximity to the roadway. Mr. Weppler stated that if people cannot see a business listed on the sign they will question if the business is still there. Mr. Sheehan stated that there are five (5) blank panels shown on the proposed sign rendering. He asked if there are five (5) vacancies in the center. Mr. Solis is not sure about the number of current vacancies. He did indicate that some of the current tenants utilize more than one tenant space. If those tenants were to leave, that could create the need for more tenants to be listed. Mr. Sheehan asked if they tried to incorporate brick into the proposed sign to tie the sign to the existing building. Mr. Solis responded that the property owner wanted all aluminum construction. Mr. Sheehan inquired about the type of landscaping around the proposed sign. Mr. Solis stated that there will be landscaping around the base of the sign. Mr. Sheehan stated that landscaping is required and recommended that a landscaping plan be submitted at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Ms. Neukirch asked if the sign is not approved, would the existing ground sign be replaced anyway. Mr. Weppler stated that the existing sign would be replaced. The existing ground sign is not very appealing. Their goal is to make the proposed sign more appealing aesthetically and to identify all of the tenants in the center. Mr. Sheehan asked if they considered smaller panels. Mr. Pfeil asked if the copy area is over what is permitted. Mr. Sheehan stated that the copy area is over by one hundred fourteen (114) square feet. Com. Stein stated that the size of the proposed panels appear to be sixteen (16) inches in height by five (5) feet in width. He would like to see the height of the sign reduced to within the Ordinance. Com. Windecker stated that because they are requesting to move the sign closer to the street, the Zoning Board of Appeals would generally require a smaller sign. Mr. Sheehan stated that based on the indicated location, the maximum height would be approximately ten (10) feet. Ms. Neukirch asked about the color of the copy on the tenant panels. Mr. Solis stated that the actual color would be a burgundy or dark red. They will allow the tenant to use their choice of font style, but the color would be consistent with the exception of the three major tenants—7-11, Re/Max and Creekside Dental. Ms. Berman stated that Joseph Wallace, Plan Examiner, could not attend the meeting but commented that he believes the copy colors should all be consistent. Specifically that the Creekside Dental copy should match the color of the other tenant panels. Ms. Neukirch stated that the overall opinion of the ART is that the sign is too large as proposed with too many tenant panels. The applicant should discuss one alternative or possibly more with the property owner and prepare a resubmittal to be presented at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Pfeil is skeptical of the visibility of the proposed ground sign and the effects that it would have on passing motorists. The proposed sign is not oriented to be easily visible to motorists traveling south on Weiland or west on Deerfield Parkway. Mr. Solis stated that the proposed sign would be visible to motorists traveling north and south on Weiland Road. It would also be visible to motorists traveling eastbound on Deerfield Parkway. He is not sure of the visibility to motorists traveling westbound on Deerfield Parkway. Mr. Weppler added that consideration of the location of the traffic light poles was taken when determining the proposed location. Mr. Pfeil is still skeptical of the visibility of the sign and the effects it will have. Com. Windecker stated that the currently existing sign was raised and limited to three (3) major tenants for a reason—visibility issues. Mr. Pfeil added that the currently existing sign is difficult to see due to the landscaping in the area. Com. Windecker advised that the proposed sign has a slight chance of being approved with the number of tenants panels proposed. Mr. Solis stated that if they reduce the height of the sign the tenants panels would need to be reduced or a number of panels eliminated. He asked what height would be approved. Mr. Sheehan stated that historically the Zoning Board if Appeals would look for a height closer to the ten (10) to fifteen (15) foot range. They typically do not approved variations for signs at a height of twenty (20) feet. Mr. Sheehan understands that the shopping center has some visibility issues. He has heard from some of the tenants that their wall signs are difficult to see due to the vegetation in front of the center. Mr. Solis asked if they should incorporate brick onto a revised proposal. Both Mr. Sheehan and Mr. Pfeil agree that they should try to incorporate brick to match the building, possibly into the base. RECOMMENDATION The ART does not recommend approval of the proposed ground sign. The following recommendations were made: 1. Reduce the height of the sign to between ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet; 2. Reduce the number of tenant panels on the sign; 3. Incorporate brick into the sign to match the building; 4. Look at other possible locations for the sign to increase visibility; 5. Make the tenant panels one major color(not including logos). Board orCommission: ❑Appearance Review Team Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 02/03/2010 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting ART (Appearance Review Team) Meeting FEBRUARY 3, 2010 1020 LAKE COOK ROAD, BANNER PLUMBING CHANGEABLE COPY WALL SIGN PRESENT Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Manager Carol Berman, Deputy Building Commissioner/Administration Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner/Operations Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Nidhi Vaid, Associate Planner Denver Schmitt, OVM Intern Louis Windecker, ZBA Commissioner Michelle Henderson, Banner Plumbing PROPOSAL To install a changeable copy wall sign on the south elevation of the building. The proposed wall sign requires variations to the Buffalo Grove Sign Code to allow more than one (1)wall sign on the south elevation of the building; and to allow a changeable copy wall sign on the south elevation of the building. Ms. Henderson explained that Banner Plumbing opened in this location a couple of years ago. They have invested a lot of money into advertising the business. The feel that most people do not know what they do at this location. The building looks like a big warehouse and not a showroom even though the existing wall sign on the south elevation of the building clearly states that it is a showroom. The proposed wall sign would show images of the showroom, the hours of operation and advise that they are open to the public. They will not sell advertising space on the sign. They just want to inform the public of what they offe r. Ms. Neukirch asked, that with the building set so far back from the roadway would the sign have an effect on the traffic on Lake Cook Road. Ms. Henderson responded that it depends on the time of day. At 4:00 p.m. no one is moving on Lake Cook Road. The sign contractor, Andy Korn, told them that the proposed sign model allows the sign to be seen from the side, not like other electronic message board signs. The sign will not strobe and will be illuminated at night. The proposed sign would allow them to spread the word about the business. Ms. Neukirch stated that the electronic message board signs are becoming more popular. Com. Windecker asked if the sign would display pictures. Ms. Henderson responded that they plan to display pictures of the showroom. Com. Windecker asked if the images would change every six(6) seconds. Ms. Henderson replied that the image would change every six(6) seconds (the proposal indicated that the image would change every 3 to 6 seconds). Com. Windecker asked if the sign would be on twenty four(24) hours a day. Ms. Henderson responded yes. Com. Windecker advised that the Zoning Board of Appeals generally does not allow signs to remain illuminated all night. If the sign is approved, a time limit may be imposed on the hours of illumination. Ms. Henderson stated that they are open to discussion. They want to attract more customers. They want the sign to be attractive. Mr. Sheehan inquired about the hours of operation. Ms. Henderson stated the will call counter hours are Monday through Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and open late on Thursdays. The showroom hours are Tuesday—Wednesday— Friday 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Mr. Sheehan stated that the submittal does not specify the daytime level of illumination. The nighttime illumination level is stated at 500 to 600 nits. The proposed three (3)to six(6) second interval screen changes seem very rapid. Ms. Neukirch advised the applicant to look at the electronic message boards located at the Westin hotel in Wheeling and City Park in Lincolnshire. The Westin sign changes approximately every five (5) seconds. She is not sure how often the City Park sign changes. Mr. Pfeil advised that a quicker display change may be more warranted when they are multiple businesses involved. Com. Windecker stated that the Westin sign is located at a traffic light and that these types of signs located at traffic lights do not distract drivers as much. Mr. Sheehan requested the applicant to find out both the day time and night time illumination levels (nits) of the Westin and City Park signs. Ms. Henderson is not sure if their sign contractor can get that information but she will ask. Mr. Sheehan advised that the applicant should be prepared to explain to the Zoning Board of Appeals why the petitioner feels they need pictures in addition to text on the proposed sign and that it would be helpful if they could bring in photographs of exactly the type of images they are planning to display. Ms. Henderson added that they would also like to post their hours of operation on the signs. RECOMMENDATION The ART recommends approval for the proposed changeable copy sign subject to the following: 1. Provide additional information on the requested nit levels for daytime illumination. Both daytime and nighttime illumination need to be carefully studied and limited so as not to be a distraction for drivers; 2. Lengthen the time between screen changes; 3. Provide the need for pictures to be displayed in addition to text; 4. Limit the hours of illumination.