Loading...
2010-01-06 - Appearance Review Team - Minutes Board orCommission: ❑Appearance Review Team Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 01/06/2010 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting ART (Appearance Review Team) Meeting JANUARY 6, 2010 1701 JOHONSON DRIVE, THE GREEN AT CHEVY CHASE GROUND SIGN PRESENT Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Manager Carol Berman, Deputy Building Commissioner/Administration Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner/Operations Joseph Wallace, Plan Examiner Robert Pfeil, Village Planner PROPOSAL The existing ground sign located north of Johnson Drive is to be removed and new a ground sign is proposed to be installed on a small parcel located south of Johnson Drive. Due to a grade increase of one foot, two inches a variation of the Sign Code is required to install a ground sign that would exceed the maximum height limitation of five (5) feet in vertical distance as measured from the approved grade to the highest point of the sign. The ART requests that the applicant submit detailed dimensions of the elevation change. The Village Engineer stated that it was not clear how much of an elevation change is proposed. The proposed sign has a good use of color. There were no issues with the appearance of the sign as depicted. RECOMMENDATION The ART recommends approval of the sign subject to detailed dimensions of the elevation change being provided. Board orCommission: ❑Appearance Review Team Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 01/06/2010 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting ART (Appearance Review Team) Meeting JANUARY 6, 2010 55 W. DUNDEE ROAD, QUALITY CAR CENTER-CAR WASH GROUND SIGNS; DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AND BANNERS PRESENT Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Manager Carol Berman, Deputy Building Commissioner/Administration Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner/Operations Joseph Wallace, Plan Examiner Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mannette Kuhlman, Quality Car Center-Car Wash PROPOSAL Sign Code Variations are required to allow (2) ground signs to be located in the public right-of-way; to allow multiple ground signs on a single developed lot; to allow the two (2) ground signs to exceed the height permitted; to allow the two (2) ground signs to be located closer to the property line than the height of the signs; to allow the two (2) ground signs to be located within two hundred fifty (250) feet of existing ground signs located on the same parcel and same side of the street; to allow two (2) directional signs to be located in the public right-of-way; to allow two (2) directional signs that exceed the maximum permitted height of four(4) feet; and to allow the existing banners on the building to remain indefinitely. This review is solely for the appearance and the number of signs on the property. The ART requests that the applicant provide a detailed listing of all the signs located on the property and on each elevation of the building. Ms. Kuhlman stated that her son, Ryan Kuhlman, owns the business. He did not purchase the property, only the business. He is a veteran and is in the process of being discharged from the military. Ms. Kuhlman advised that the signs have been there for quite a while. With the current economic situation and if they had knowledge of the issue with the signs they may not have purchased the business. She drove up and down Dundee Road and saw that larger businesses have larger signs. Their business is setback from the road. They need a way to draw attention to the business. Mr. Sheehan stated that the permanent ground sign is visible from Dundee Road. Ms. Kuhlman replied that they are located between two (2) banks and need the signs to attract attention to the business's driveway. Ms. Neukirch stated that she understands that the building is setback from the roadway. The Sign Code allows one (1) wall sign and one (1) ground sign. There are more than eight (8) signs on the property. That is beyond what any other business has. If the Village allows the signs to remain, then other businesses will want more signs. She believes a good quality sign package and a successful business plan will do more to attract customers than the various signs currently on the property. Ms. Kuhlman stated that at the time they purchased the business, there was nothing showing the sign violations. This would put a greater burden on them and would be detrimental to the business. They have employees that they need to take care of. They want the business to be successful. They are trying to give a veteran a fighting chance. Down the road they could look at putting in a bigger, better sign but that is not financially feasible at this time. Ms. Neukirch suggested marketing the business under new ownership. The Sign Code allows grand opening banners for a period of time. The Village could also help them with marketing a grand opening. Ms. Kuhlman stated that people are holding back due to the economy. They need more breathing room. They already had to put in new electrical panels. Ms. Neukirch suggested changing the existing ground sign. Ms. Kuhlman asked for a grace period in order for them to get the business going. Mr. Sheehan stated that the two (2) light poles that the signs in question are located on are in the public right-of-way. That is a problem. Ms. Kuhlman asked how long those signs have been there. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Village is not aware how long the signs have been in place but the previous business owner and current property owner (Regina Melman)was notified about them in January 2008. The signs that are in question were installed at some time without a permit. Prior to the current submittal the Village was not aware that the light poles with the signs on them were located in the public right-of-way. The Village did not have a current Plat of Survey for the property until the current variation application. The survey shows that the light poles are on public right-of-way. The permanent ground sign was permitted properly. Ms. Kuhlman asked if they could move the poles onto the property to take them off the right-of-way. Mr. Sheehan stated that lots of things are possible. In this situation there are two (2) different types of signs mounted on the light poles; directional signs and ground signs. Directional signs are permitted by the Sign Code if they meet the code requirements regarding size and placement, but the existing signs exceed the maximum size and height allowed. Ms. Neukirch suggested that the directional signs be redesigned; possibly blue lettering on a white background and locating them on private property. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Sign Code allows directional signs but they cannot exceed four(4) feet in height and twelve (12) square feet in area. Ms. Kuhlman stated that she does not like the existing signs but does believe that they draw attention to the business. At this point, they are just trying to get the business going. They cannot afford new signs at this time as new signs would cost thousands of dollars. Ms. Neukirch suggested appearing at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with a plan or vision if they want to keep the colors as they exist on the signs. Ms. Kuhlman asked what is wrong with the colors on the existing signs. She said that being a car wash, they need to draw attention to potential customers. Mr. Pfeil commented that the Village is not mandating a specific color package, but the current signs are not well coordinated. He noted that the background colors vary from yellow to orange. He suggested development of a cohesive sign package with coordinated colors and other design elements. Mr. Sheehan stated that as part of the opening of a business, the owner would be allowed to request a permit for a grand opening event, which could allow banners and other temporary signs for a limited duration in order to draw attention to and advertise the business. Ms. Kuhlman stated that she agrees that the signs need to be removed from the public right-of-way. She would like a grace period to be able to put a game plan together. She asked if they could submit a revised letter for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Sheehan stated that ZBA packets generally would go out on Friday, January 8, 2010, but if she could have the revised letter prepared and submitted by Monday, January 11, 2010 he would be able to hold the packets to include the revised letter in the packet. Ms. Kuhlman should revise the letter as desired and send the revised letter to his attention by Monday, January 11, 2010. RECOMMENDATION The ART does not recommend approval of the signs and made the following suggestions: 1. Remove the signs that are on public property; 2. Replace the directional signs with conforming signs that have continuity with all other approved signs on the property; 3. Reduce the number of signs on the property.