1983-06-09 - Appearance Commission - Minutes APPEARANCE COMMISSION
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILL.
THURS., JUNE 9, 1983
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Donald L. Hardt called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M. at
the Village Hall on Thursday, June 9, 1983
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: B. Gibbs, C. Cea, C. Zusel, K. Krippes, E. Larsen
and Ch. Don Hardt. All Commissioners Present.
Building Department Liaison: Mr. Dominic J. Saviano, Jr.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Postponed until after the business meeting.
Chairman Hardt reviewed the Village Board action concerning the Appeals of
Janies and Bevis Hallmark at the Strathmore Square Shopping Center. The AC's
recommendations to deny the signs because of color was upheld by the Trustees.
Mr. Morelli was present to re-submit the signs this night and Ch. Hardt placed
them on the Agenda as Old Business.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Janies at Strathmore Square - Wall Sign
Mr. Frank Morelli requested that the sign be approved and submitted a
sample of the new color - Plain Vanilla.
Chairman Hardt recalled that the original sign for Janies was submitted
in Yellow with a customized letter style. The petitioner felt that both
variations from the Sign Package were important, but the Commissioners
agreed to compromise by allowing the unique letter style but denied the
sign on the basis of the color Yellow. The Village Board did uphold the
Appearance Commission at the subsequent Appeal, and also denied the sign.
Com. Cea made the following motion:
I move we approve the sign for Janies
as submitted:
Color to be Plain Vanilla
Letter Style as submitted.
Com. Krippes seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Gibbs
Zusel
Krippes
Larsen
Cea
Hardt
Motion Passed 6 to 0. Nay - None
B. Bev's Hallmark at Strathmore Square - Wall Sign
Mr. Frank Morelli presented the sign and requested that the color
Plain Vanilla be approved with the Hallmark logo letter style.
Ch. Hardt stated that the Village Board had also upheld the Appearance
Commission's denial of Color. The logo letter style is provided for
in the Sign Package, but the color Red is not.
Com. Cea made the following motion:
I move we approve the Bev's Hallmark
sign as submitted:
Color to be Plain Vanilla.
Letter Style as submitted.
Com. Zusel seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Larsen
Zusel
Gibbs
Krippes
Cea
Hardt
Motion Passed 6 to 0. Nay - None
Mr. Morelli commented that he does not make all the decisions for
the Strathmore Square, and he thinks the signs look real nice. He
said the White looks real good.
The revised Sign Package for Strathmore Square contains the state-
ment: "Variations will be granted." Mr. Morelli agreed to changing
the word "will" to "may" and signed a copy of the Dec. 8, 1983 Sign
Criteria, so indicating his approval.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Trammell Crow - Ground Sign.
Drawings were never submitted and no representatives were present.
B. Andrews Parcel - Ground Sign
Rt. #83 and Buffalo Grove Road
Mr. Chris Karafotias presented the proposed sign which will be a
6' x 6' ground sign indicating 60 Acres and the Telephone Number.
The property is one of the oldest in Buffalo Grove and the owners are
hoping to sell it for development. It is located next to Long View
Nursery and the Hoffman Homes. The sign will be white with Blue
Lettering and a Blue Border. It will be a single face sign located
about 30 feet off the road.
The Commission asked if the petitioners would not prefer to indicate
"For Sale" on the sign, but Mr. Karafotias said the owner did not
think this was necessary. He feels that if anyone is interested in
the property, they will call for information.
Ch. Hardt noted that the sign is covered under Sec. 14.32.020 of the
Sign Code and a permit will be issued for a period of 6 months with
renewals granted by the Building Department as long as the sign is
kept in good shape. The sign should be removed within 3-7 days after
sale of the property. APPEARANCE COMMISSION
June 9, 1983 - Page Two.
Com. Gibbs made the following motion:
I move we approve the sign as submitted
for the Andrews parcel: "60 ACRES" etc.
Color to be Dark Blue on White
with a Dark Blue Border.
Sign to be 36 square feet, 12 high and
located approximately 30 ft. back from
the road on the property.
Time period to be 6 months with automatic
renewal provided the sign is in good
condition.
Com. Cea seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Krippes
Zusel
Larsen
Cea
Gibbs
Hardt
Motion Passed 6 to 0. Nay - None
C. Buffalo Grove General Car Care
Plans not submitted and no representatives present.
D. Podiatry Center - Wall Sign
1213 W. Dundee Road - Plaze Verde
Mr. Ron Guthrie of North Shore Signs Inc. presented the sign and
described the proposed location on the South wall of the building
located on Arlington Heights Road and Dundee Road. The Podiatry
Center is located on the Southeast corner of the building. It has
been there for about 7 years. There two large trees located in front
of the Arlington Heights side and the Center requested the sign to
be located on the front which faces Auntie Pastos restaurant. There is
a sign over the door indicating that it is an office building and the
proposed sign will be located to the East of that sign.
The All State sign was recalled that is located along the Arlington
Heights side. The AC had denied the sign and the Village Board granted
it when it was appealed. Mr. Mary Hymen has approved the Podiatry
Center sign, but there was never any signage specified in the Sign
Package regarding the professional portion of this building. The side
that faces West has commercial businesses and there are signs on that
fascia.
The Podiatry Center is located on the corner of the building, with
windows on Arlington Heights Road and also the east 30 feet of the build-
ing. The sign would be located over these windows facing South.
Ch. Hardt noted that there are many professional offices within the
building and there is a directory inside the lobby of the building.
Dr. Wells operates the Podiatry Center. Mr. Guthrie indicated that this
is the only business in that building that would be requesting a sign.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
June 9, 1983 - Page Three
Ch. Hardt stated that because the Podiatry Center is not the only
business located in that area of the building, and if such a sign is
permitted, it would be possible for many other professional businesses
to request signage on other buildings, etc. . . for instance at the new
office building being built by Trammell Crow. Each office could request
separate signs. He was against setting a precedent.
Com. Larsen asked if Podiatry Center was on the business license?
Mr. Saviano said that professional businesses do not need business
licenses; and added that if Podiatry Center is not the official name
of the business, he would not issue a permit for the sign.
Com. Larsen felt the sign should be allowed because it is a business,
such signs are allowed by the Sign Package and by the Sign Code. He
did not see any problem whatsoever. He did not think that any other
building should be considered in the discussion.
Com. Zusel said that if Podiatry Center is the business' legal registered
name, then the sign should be approved unless there is some other reason
to be considered.
Ch. Hardt reasoned that because the business does not have a separate
entrance, but is located in a professional office building and should
all of the other offices there request signs, should all of them be
granted wall signs for identification? He did not think the Code says
this. It provides for Office Buildings to be identified.
Com. Cea felt that the building is located in business district and it
complies as a mixed use office building. The sign should conform to the
requirements of the zoning district in which the building is located.
Mr. Saviano suggested that Mr. Mary Hymen should come in and stipulate
that he would not allow any other signage on that wall.
Com. Gibbs made the following motion after more similiar discussion:
I move we approve the Podiatry Center sign
as presented:
Color to be Ivory with bronze retainer
and trim caps, internally lit.
Size to be 18" capital letters and
12' lower case.
Sign to be centered as indicated on
the drawing.
Disconnect to be painted out to match
the background of the building.
Stipulation that the permit should be
issued only after checking to confirm
that Podiatry Center is the name of
the business establishment, as per sign package.
Com. Cea seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Cea Nay - Krippes
Larsen Hardt
Gibbs Zusel
Motion Denied - Vote tied 3 to 3.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
June 9, 1983 - Page Four
Ch. Hardt advised Mr. Guthrie that the business has two options:
1. Submit a different sign.
2. Appeal to the Village Board. To appeal, a letter must
be sent to Mr. William Balling, Village Manager requesting
to be placed on a Village Board Agend.
Com. Larsen asked what the basis for denial was for the appeal? Why was the
sign denied: it did not meet size requirements? color requirements? the name
and nature requirements? A reason must be given.
Ch. Hardt stated his reasons for denial were three-fold:
1. It has no front entrance
2. It is not a retail establishment
3. Does not think that duplication of identification for
an office center and each interior professional office
in a structure, such as an office building, should have
individual signs on the building indicating tenants.
Com. Krippes agreed with Ch. Hardt and added that she felt it was part of the
office building, not a store.
Com. Zusel also agreed with Ch. Hardt, and was also concerned with name and
nature requirements. She added that if the building was loaded with the
names of people inside the building,it wouldn't look good. She felt that
people would be misled. Some people could believe that the building was
a Podiatry Center.
Ch. Hardt repeated the possible options with regard to the sign: To come
back with a different sign (which would probably not make any difference)
or to appeal to the Village Board. Mr. Saviano will give the requirements
for such an appeal. Hardship will be taken into account.
Com. Larsen commented that the reason there is no entrance on the Arlington
Heights side of the building is that the PUD did not allow one there. He
added that nowhere in the Code is there a provision that there must be a
doorway under signs.
Ch. Hardt concluded the discussion with the statement that there is a
difference in the interpretation of the Code.
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Ch. Hardt noted the letter from Mr. Balling dated May 17, 1983 with regard
to Temporary Promotional Banners sent to Mr. George Zimmerman. Mr. Balling
asked that the Chamber of Commerce formally request any temporary banners
from the Appearance Commission and indicate the purpose and frequency of
such promotional penants.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 26, 1983 - Com. Larsen requested a transcript of the comments he made
about about application of Sec. 14.20.060 with regard to
Bev's Hallmark sign. He had wanted them included in the
minutes because he specifically felt they were important.
A transcript will be made and attached to the 5/26/83 minutes.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1983 - Page Five
Sec. 14.20.060 refers to the authority that the sign code administrator
has to issue permits for signs that meet the criteria of uniform sign
packages. Mr. Saviano does this when signs meet the criteria, but when
signs do not meet this criteria, the Appearance Commission is asked to
\./ review them.
Com. Zusel asked that the word "will" in the 1st paragraph on Page Four
should be changed to "does" in the third to the last sentence:
when Mr. Morelli does not come in with his tenants.
Com. Krippes made a motion to approve the May 26, 1983 minutes as
corrected. Coma Hardt seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: Aye - Krippes
Hardt
Nay - None
Pass - Larsen
Abstain - Zusel, Gibbs and Cea
May 12, 1983 - Motion to approve as submitted made by Com. Gibbs and
seconded by Com. Larsen.
Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel, Gibbs, Krippes and Larsen
Nay - None
Abstain - Cea and Hardt
April 28, 1983 - Motion to approve as submitted made by Com. Gibbs and
`,..� seconded by Com. Cea.
Roll Call Vote: Aye - Cea, Gibbs, Larsen and Hardt
Nay - None
Abstain - Krippes and Zusel
Minutes of May 26, 1983; May 12, 1983 and April 28, 1983 were approved
and will be placed on file.
1. Ch. Hardt said he will talk with President Clayton about selecting two
people to serve on the Appearance Commission. Com. Zusel has indicated
that she will be moving to Long Grove in July. Two Commissioners will
be needed to make up a full seven member commission. Also Com. Cea and
—Com. Zusel have not turned in the ethics statements.
2. Mr. Saviano asked for comments about the Irving's sign at The Grove.
Mr. Stein has agreed to change the Blue as indicated to Red.
Com. Gibbs said he felt the two signs should match, that the copy be on
one line and be within the 70% allowed. Eliminate the hot dog on the
fork on the letter V. The hearts are OK.
Com. Krippes said she would like to see identical signs; no hot dog in
the V; no hearts; there should be a new letter from Ken Tucker & Assoc.
Com. Zusel said the two different layouts are OK and she prefered the
Irving's on an angle (and would really prefer to see both signs with the
Irving's on an angel)
Com. Larsen said he felt the landlord should change the stipulation
for identical signs. He would agree with the variety of layouts of
the signs if it meets the sign criteria.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
June 9, 1983 - Page Six
Com. Larsen continued;
Suggested that the white fascia could be continued around the side of the
building. He likes the Irving's on an angle better.
Ch. Hardt said he does not like the hot dog or the hearts, but would allow
the hearts. Must meet the 70% maximum requirement of the sign criteria
and if necessary to put Irvings's on an angle, and/or make the letters in
Red Hot Lovers smaller that would be OK. He suggested a raceway for the
Lake/Cook sign.
3. Ch. Hardt repeated the need to revise the Sign Code. He talked about the
Board meeting when the Janies and Bev's signs were denied. He said he had
suggested three alternatives, based on previous AC discussions:
1. Possiblilty of changing the sign package to
allow for multi-colored signage.
2. As a compromise - to have some of the signs
on the West side changed, so there is some
uniformity of multi-colors throughout the
center.
3. There may be a problem if some of the people
who requested colored signs and agreed to put
up white signs.
Regarding the Quinlan and Tyson sign, the Board asked Ch. Hardt why the
Red Q and T were allowed. He responded that he had voted against it and
quoting from the April 28, 1983 meeting, Mr. Morelli definitely insisted
that he wanted all white signs. He desired all signs to be the same, but
IF the Appearance Commission approved variations, he would agree.
Mr. Saviano commented that he almost approved the Podiatry Center sign,
because it met all the criteria of the sign package. He questioned its
location on the wall. He feels the doctor has a right to a sign. He
predicted that Mr. Hymen will appeal the denial.
Ch. Hardt felt that precedent is very important.
Com. Larsen said he did not believe that precedent is ever considered when
he votes. He decides on the basis of what can be allowed at the time.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Com. Gibbs made a motion to adjourn. Com. Zusel seconded the motion.
Ch. Hardt adjourned the meeting at 9:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley Bates Secretary
Appearance Commission
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
June 9, 1983 - Page Seven
TO: Appearance Commission
SUBJECT: Addition to minutes of May 25, 1983 with reference to
Bev's Hallmark Wall Sign - following motion made by
Com. Larsen.
Ch. Hardt asked if Com. Larsen wanted all that was said to be a
part of the motion.
Com. Larsen answered that he wanted the motion stated as he made it
so that Mr. Morelli would be aware that the Appearance Commission has
been handling his problems in the past. He should be aware that, with
such a loose yet stringent Sign Criteria, the AC motions must be very
specific and Mr. Morelli's approval must be a part of them.
Ch. Hardt's comments were on Page Four, May 26, 1983 minutes top
paragraph. In the next to the last sentence a change was requested
and should read: "It appears that the Village and the AC are bad guys
when Mr. Morelli does not come in with his tenants."
Following is a transcript of conversation after Page Four:-
Com. Larsen commented that technically, if White was selected by
Bev's Hallmark, approval could be given by the Village without the
Appearance Commission; if the sign criteria is met, which it does.
Being a nationally recognized tradename, and they wanted White like
Mr. Morelli says, then in all probability, get a permit from the
administrator.
Ch. Hardt said that statement was debatable and can be taken for what
it is worth. The decision is up to the Village Board. "Please don't
rely on that statement as being fact, because it may not be. OK."
Com. Larsen said: It's in the Code, but it's not fact. I would point
out that Section 14.20.060 of the Sign Ordinance specifies that the
administrator may issue permits without any further review by the AC.
Ordinance 78-70; 4.6, 1978. That's fact. That's not my opinion.
Ch. Hardt said that depends on whether if it is actually a trademark,
that exact replica has to be Hallmark; whether it is or not, I don't
know.
Com. Larsen said, "That is their trademark. I don't think they would
let them put it up, if it wasn't."
If approved, this page will be inserted in the May 26, 1983 minutes
as Page 4-a.
sb