Loading...
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