HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1995 - 1996�� a t►�4•�-Fyt�> .����i-��'�'ti �.j; �.A.. "'�.'I�'.:i�;`�f�}.' �' ,*' _�i. ..�y ..w :;7,�� .ct;�' b�j`t, •-;'_� �.Q-'.
h1I (=
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 1995
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSF.Nr:
STAFF PRESENT:
J. Stricker-Gay, A. Spaeth, B. Greenberg, R. Qually►
C. Abrams
None
C. Smith
Chairman Stricker--Gay declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:32 p.m. and requested a
motion for approval of the minutes from the meeting of November 10, 1994. Spaeth motioned
approval, which was seconded by Qually. The minutes were unanimously approved. (5-0)
3 residents of 1865 Sherman were present and one individual commented that the sign at 1745
Sherman never seemed to be a problem. The other 2 residents present made no comments.
Mr. Venzor, owner of Santa Fe Chicken stated his position that he was under the impression that
he could reface the existing sign panels. He was looking for something artistic and creative for
a logo for his restaurant.
Greenberg stated that tier problem with the signage is that there are too many items of
information. Mr. Venzor responded that he never saw them as individual characters, let alone
items of information. Greenberg questions why he should be penalized for having signage tint
exceeds the ordinance, when other stores are non -compliant? Greenberg mentions that on the
':i'�?'�'1 ,! j•1F�. .k '. It;'���•'•� :%;•i.� icy `�i�,j;�`F .s ••f. •" �y l: M�'•K4. `JiN�..+ �3rt!:.,n ,.�.;. ..�, .1.. r.
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
MEETING NUNUTES -1 /19/95
PAGE 2
application for variation, Mr. V=or mentions the desire to have other stores "in the City" with
the same. "logo". Greenberg wishes to clarify that if this stores' signage is approved, that does
not give the applicant permission to install this same sign elsewhere without the Board approving
it. Qually agrees that the application for variation has some ambiguous wording with regard to
additional store locations and their signage. Qually reiterates that if the Board approves the
signage, it would only be for this one store location. Mr. Venzor acknowledged his understanding
of this clarification.
Qually remarks illumination of the signage is an issue. Qually suggests that the illumination be
reduced by at least Mr. third. Spaeth agrees that the. illumination is too bright, but suggests that
the illumination be judged on the basis of the adjacent properties. Qually motions to accept the
signage graphically, but to require a reduction in the light level to either be reduced by one third
of the current illumination level, or to be no brighter that the adjacent illuminated signage.
Abrams seconds this motion and it is unanimously approved. (5-0)
C. Smith asked if the Board could be available for a special Board meeting on February 2, 1995.
The purpose of the meeting would be to hear a case for the opening of a new business in town.
"Cookin' with Jazz" opening in the Omni-Orrington Hotel in February. Stricker-Gay, Greenberg
and Spaeth agreed that they could snake the meeting. C. Smith stated that this would provide the
necessary quon=, and we could have that meeting. (Subsequent to the meeting, Chairman
Strickeer-Gay and C. Smith agrced to allow any other petitioners to be heard, such that the normal
February me -ling, scheduled for February 16, could be cancelled.)
Hearing no other business, Chairman Stricker-Gay motioned adjournment at 8:00 p.m.
The next meeting of the S.R.A.B. is scheduled for Thursday, February 29 1995.
Carolyn Smi y Assi5tatii Director
Community Development - Building Division
cc: J. Wolinski, R. Fahistrom
_i� Mr
G
M[WUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21 199S
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT: I Stricker-Gap, A. Spaeth, B. Greenberg
MEMBERS A RSENi': R. Qually,C. Abrams
STAFF PRESLN T: C. Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: Fredric Cnaolish - Doyle Signs; Nick Tywan - Onington Hotel;
Dakshes Laxpati - Quick Stop Food Nfort; flick Bruno -
Architect; Daniel Kelch - Lulu's Restaurant
Chairman Stricker-Gay declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and requested a
motion for approval of the minutes from the meeting of January 19, 1995. Greenberg motioned
approval, which was seconded by Spaeth. The minutes were unanimously approved. (3-0)
None,
PR i + UFIIN '4 ! 1 i rim 1:1 In, A"Llifilippr7a VI 11111TV-1427'11 1 1
Mr. Nick Tywan, manager of the Orrington Hotel presented the proposal to recover the existing
awnings and canopy to use the new logo of the restaurant "Cookin' With Jars". The graphics will
be painted on a heavy blue canvas (a sample was presented). Mr. Tywan stated that they felt this
would have a dignified appeal.
Mr. Tywan went on to say that the Hotel plans to do extensive remodeling (over S1,000,000) this
year. The reason for the lighting, is that there is a problem with lack of light out the east side of
the building. They would like to add lighting in an aesthetically pleasing manner.
Greenberg stand that he would like to see strict compliance with the sign ordinance in this case,
•i�
Sign Review and Appeals Board
MEETING 2i INTUTES - 2/2/95
Page 2
Certainly the commercial messages such as 'steaks and salads' and 'pizza and pasta' should not
be allowed. He suggested that the applicant look to the signage on the "Roxy" restaurant, on
Church Stmet for an example of signage that is attractive. The signage that the applicant is
proposing has a 'monkey -conk' appearance. This signage should be bacidit, not externally
illuminated as proposed. The Orrington Hotel has a prestigious facade and the signage should be
compatible with that dignified appearance.
Mr. Fredric Crumlish, of Doyle Signs, indicated that this is exactly why they decided to use a
heavy fabric instead of vinyl for the awning material. This is a more attractive expression.
Greenberg motioned that the signage should conform to the sign ordinance. This motion was not
seconded. Chairman Stricker-Gay commented that if the motion is a blanket statement such as
that made by Greenberg, then the existing canopy framing would need to be eliminated.
Greenberg said that would be true, however, he would absolutely vote to eliminate the commercial
messages. The music staff and notes might be allowed. With regard to the lighting, Stricker-Gay
asked if the applicant considered the possibility of cut out letters, such that conformance with the
ordinance would be possible with an internally illuminated awning. The applicant had not pursued
this possibility . Greenberg noted that the applicant could still utilize the allowable window area
for signage.
Greenberg also suggested that the applicant apply for permit for temporary signage for their
opening. Mr. Tywan indicated that they would like 2 banners. C. Smith stated that these could
be applied for, provided they met the ordinance requirement. in the Building Division.
Greenberg motions to keep the staff and notes only on the 3 recovered awnings, and leave the
canopy as submitted in the application, without the neon. The gooseneck lighting would also not
be allowed, but internally illuminated awnings would be allowed in keeping with the ordinance.
This was seconded by Spaeth: and unanimously approved. (3-0) It was stated that this approval
would only be valid until January 1, 2003, at which time all signage must come under compliance
with the Evanston Sign Ordinance.
Greenberg opens up the discussion by commenting that after driving by the property, he
sympathizes with the difficulty of the location. The store is set back from Howard Street, but
suggested that the replacement of the existing sign face would be a wasted effort, as the signage
could only be seen for a short distance from the east or west, as other buildings and signage
blocks it. Mr. Laxpati. the owner of the Quick Stop Food Mart states that the signage was hit by
a truck and that he would just like to be able to repair the sign. as he is trying to sell the business
and the building, and would like to have all repairs made.
�' - .;+ , � }' .+,r•: .:.ems-f• );h.: - ,.6�- ,
Q .A c:�,F�.-•?Y ire ,, ..
1
` Slgn Review and Appeals Board
MATING lYANUTE S - 2/2/9S
Page 3
At this time, Greenberg motioned to approve the signage as propowd. This was seconded by
Spaeth, and unanimously approved. (3-0) It was stated that this approval is valid only until
January 1, 2003, at which time all signage must come under compliance with the Evanston Sign
• Ordinance.
The owner of Lulu's Restaurant, Daniel Kelch, presented the proposal, stating that the building
facade was in need of repair, so they removed the signage that had be up previously. The awning
proposed is larger than they wished, due to the length of the facade. The graphics are Iarge to
be proportionate with the length of the awning.
Greenberg asks why he cannot comply with the required items of information? They proceed to
count the items. Therc is some debate about which is counted as an item of information.
Chairman Stricker-Gay suggests that the telephone numbers night not be considered as items of
information, as addresses are allowed, so why shouldn't telephone numbers be allowed as
addresses are, not being counted as an item of information? This still leaves the geometric shapes
spelling out L-U-L-U'S, as well as the "bowl" logo, also saying Lulu's. Spaeth comments that
it is confusing to have the name of the restaurant delineated using the two different "logos".
Greenberg questions why the need for the telephone numbers? Mr. Kelch responds that they do
slot of carry out business. Greenberg suggest, that the telephone number be put on the glass
(windows). Mr. Kelch asks if that would really make a difference (i.e. where they were located)?
Spaeth states that he is still uncomfortable with the items of information with regard to the 2
different logos. The strength of the graphic is in the strong geometric shapes on that black
awning. Greenberg then motions to approve the submittal as submitted, except without the
"bowl" logo. This was seconded by Spaeth, and unanimously approved. (3-0)
Hearing no other business, Chairman Stricker-Gay motioned adjournment at 8:40 p.m.
The ,.xt meetingLtheR.A.B. isscheduled for Thursday, February 16, 1995.
Carolyn S th, t Director
Community Development - Building Division
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THURSDAY, F'EBRUARY 16, 1"S
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. StAcker-Gay, A. Spaeth, B. Greenberg, R. Qually
MEMBERS ABSENT: C. Abrams
STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: Cedlla Vitale - IHOP; Dan Olson - Grate Signs, Steven Hirsch
- North Shore Mobile Werkg; Robert Jennings - Speedy Sign -A -
Rama
Chairman StrW=-Gay declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and requested a
motion for approval of the; minutes from the meeting of February 2, 1995. Spaeth motioned
approval, which was seconded by Greenberg. The minutes were unanimously approval. (4-0)
None:.
S.B.A
Ms. Cecilia Vitale, owner of the International House of Pancakes pr*sented proposal to reface an
existing free standing sign, and remove the bric-a-brac. Ms. Vitale stated that sbe had invested
considerable money in remodeling the restaurant recently, and would Iike to up date her signage
to reflect the changes inside.
Greenberg asked if His. Vitale is aware of the requirement that the signage must conform to the
ordinance by the year 2003. Ms. Vitale responded that although she was not aware of the
resluirenmu, she is not concerned, as her lease on the property expires them. Qually gurestioned
if this r.hnge to the signage is a corporate change of the IFIOP signage. Ms. Vitale answered yes,
although many locations have not yet made the change, and are not required to do so.
Greenberg motioned to approve the proposal as submitted, noting that in the year 2003, the
slWwW mint conform to the requirements of the ordinance. This was seconded by Spaeth,
and umanimously approved. (4-0)
��'�. r � .. � i� _-, � •. -� - � � �. s� .,�v�r� lr.z, j.r •.;.. .•r,i� _ .� 1�_..
Sip Review and Appeals Board
MEETING MINEJ'TIES - February 16, 1993
Pgge 2
y yr lr '. MT, mrm w lagrop-07,tay�
No one was present to present the proposal, but Chairman Stricker-Gay asked the Board if they
would consider voting on the proposal as it Is a simple case and to save titne for the applicant,
m they would t1= have to be postponed an additional month. The Board agreed.
Qually motioned to approve the awning as proposed. This was seconded by Spaeth, and
unanimously approved. (4-0) It was stated that this approval Is valid only until January 1,
2403, at which time all signage mast coarse under compliance with the Evanston Sign
Ordhiance.
Greg Olson of Grate Signs Inc. presented the proposal. Mr. Olson stated that the existing
building architecture doen't allow for conformance with the ordinance since the building facade
is a mer!s of arches. Greenberg gvrsdoned that since the building was there first, and had these
strong feaata.res, why didn't Grate Sigm, Inc. respond to the architecture? Also, why wouldn't
Grate Signs, Inc. =omnznd a free-standing sign? Mr. Olson responded that the site is
problematic for any frerstanding signage. There is just a narrow strip of pavement between the
building and Greedbay Read. Also, the ft=tion of the building being one of many drive-in bays,
eliminates the passibility of any free-standing sign locations that would meet the ordinance.
Gremiberg mentioned the possibility of I=dng a free-standing sign at the north end of the site,
along the adjw.= cmb:nkor+m Pvir. Olson responded that this would only serve as signage for
the north bound traffic, and thus not make serve for the investment. Also, they have proposed
sigmage for die south wall of the building that meets the ordinance. Greenberg then suggests
Iowering the signage so that it would span across the arches. Chairman Strickcr-Gay reminded
Greenberg duet this too is rc►t allowed by the ordinance, as it obstructs the sipfficant architectural
feaiurca of the building.
Qually states that he does not find the submittal offensive, as the site is very difficult. The
building facade complicates the issue of a strange site even further. Qually motions to approve
as submitted. There is no second. Chairman Stricker-Gay inquires about the possibility of
reducing the CellukuVm sign so that is fr. 'within the red arch, and leave the ,North Shore Mobile
Werks sign as submitted. Greenberg agrees with this proposal, and makes a motion to approve
based on the previously stated. Spaeth seconds and tine motion is approved by a vote of 3-1, with
Qually voting against. Mr. Ohon stated that they would not be interested in locating the
CellularOnc sign within the red arch, as that signage is proposed to be red, which would not
work on the red background. Also, they would be penalized (by being required to have a smaller
sign than they would normally be allowed) by the architecture. Would they allow the owner to
move the signage down if they would remove the arch? At this point, Mr. Steve Hirsch the
owner of North Shore Mobile Werks, states that he has already made a substantial financial
.�I i',`�,1, •.r?` F-:-�. ""�����:�� v J,is' :ij �.'�'.:loin .tn".� Yt..�- s c k,.
" +M
ajt�:,�-• �.''�;. - � -. -. .�.. .s,,.: Ott � � � - .. ., � ,
commitment, and mbslht not have done so had he &mown he would not be able to have the sipage
that he is proposing. He would like to be within the ordinance, but with this building elevation
and site, he feels the ordinance requirements are not achievable. Again, Q=Uy motions to
approve the proposal as submitted, and Greenberg seconds. The motion passes, 3-1 wlth
Spaeth voting against.
Airman Stricker-Gay announced that he will abstain from voting, as this business is a
neighboring buainm to his. Greenberg states that this is signage that should be representative of
the design professionals that this signage company is capable of. This storefront is quite small,
so it should be a jewel box, where every aspect receives the utmost care and thought. This
should not include trying to lit your signage into somebody else's sign box. Spaeth agrees, saying
that as a sign company, they should conform to the ordinance.
Mr. Robert Jennings, owner of Speedy Sign -A -Rama, said that he does not own the sign box and
he will consult with the landlord with regard to removing the box. Greenberg motions to bring
A the dgoagc, both the awning and wall siguage, into conformanee wM the sign ordinance.
This is smnded by Spaeth, and approved 3-0, with Stri '-Gay abstaining.
C. Smith informs the Board that, as discussed list summer, the proposed revision to the sign
ordinance regarding the repeal process for residential district signage is going the Planning and
Development Committee for approval next week.
The Board recornmende i as additional revision to the ordinance bc proposed to allow recovering
existing awnings {both retractable and fixed} that extend 'no more than 4'-0" beyond the face of
a building, provided that the recoveries is exactly the same graphic and is being done for
maintenance purposes only. C. Smith said that she will prepare some proposed language for the
Board to review,
3 Hearing no other business, Chairman Stricker-Gay motioned adjournment at 8:40 p.m.
NEXT BELLMbG_
The next meeting o SILA.B. is scheduled for Thursday. March 160 1995.
Carolyn Srnith�`; assistant r Community Development
cc: J. Woiinsld, R. Pa.hIstrom
>7y
�.�{; r's�rC.��e.'�.'c„i�. c:.t�N, �F..�{�G(^c'�'^'td :'l �tilf`v.r-.. ... tF; •;a
MINUTES -
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1995
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Stricker-Gay, C. Abrams, A. Spaeth, R. Qually
MEMB , RS ABSENT: B. Greenberg
STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: None
Chairman Stricker-Gay declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and requested a
motion for approval of the minutes from the meeting of Febmaary 16, 1995. Spaeth motioned
approval, which was seconded by Qually. The minutes were unanimously approved. (4-0)
As nobody was present for the petitioner by 7:45 pm., Clmirman Stricker-Gay asked the Board
members if they would consider voting on the issue. Spaeth commented that he had reservations
about approval, as the freestanding signage is ineffective for southbound traffic. As there were
concerns raised without representation by the petitioner, Chairman Strickcr-Gay announced that
this matter will be held over until such time as there can be attendance by the appealing party.
Chaimian Stricker-Gay commented that the wording of the proposed ammendment submitted was
possibly too restrictive. He suggested that the wording be revised to allow changes to the
existing awnings, provided that the changes in color or graphics meet the current regulations.
Qually motions to approve the following wording: "6. Recovering of existing awnings, whether
fixed or retractable, that extend no more t1fa:7 4'-0" beyond the face of a building, will be
permitted provided that the recovering is otherwise in conformance with the ordinance and is
bier done only for maintenance purposes." This aram6endent was seconded by Abram, and
`�'` -' c. •.••r. .�• ^Y'b.c;iY..n,Ji�'sea.�wirl�ilun+�#'i,.�t,135.�v7���;,:it�, _
•� 't3: ��I��l��?�i'.i � i ,i;l a![r.CN�•.J��3:iY�` r+����.'�...i_..�.r• I y _I, ..`t.. f.- ",
Sign Review and Appeals Hoard
Meeting Minutes - March 16,1995
Page 2
unaminously approved (4-0). C. Smith stated that she will give this proposal the the Planning
and Development Committee for their approval.
ADj
Hearing no other business, Chairman Stricker-Gay motioned adjournment at 7:50 p.m.
NEXT M�'.ETIlriG
The next meeting of the S.R.A.B, is scheduled for Thursday, April 20, 199S.
Carolyn Smith, Assistant &ector Community Development
cc: 1. Wolinski, R. Nahlstrom
1
i
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 1995
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Greenberg, A. Spaeth, R. Qually
MEMBERS ABSENT: C. Abrams, J. Stricker-Gay
STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: Ray LaMagna - Bean Counter Cafe, T. Doyle and William
Henry - Discovery Zone, Dave DeVleeschouwer - White Way
Sign, Greg McWilliams and Paul Boomsma - Koenig & Strey,
Al Loeffler - Burger King, Jim Denmark - Sure Light Sign,
Linda Kelley - Jimmy John's, Michael Weinstein - Speedy
Arama, Norton O'Meara and Jack Weiss, Past Board Members
U1Q yr .
Acting Chairman Qually declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. and requested
a motion for approval of the minutes from the meeting of March 16, 1995. Spaeth motioned
approval, which was seconded by Greenberg. The minutes were unanimously approved. (3-0)
Mr. Ray LaMagna was present to voice opinion on the proposed variation for S.R.A.B. #95-12
Jimmy John's. Acting Chairman Qually suggested deferring the comments until that time.
. Mr. Dave DeVleeschouwer of White Way Signs presents the proposal to reface an existing free-
standing sign. Mr. DeVleeschouwer explains that the new signage is identical to the temporary
signage currently in place, as identified in the photos he presents to the Board. Qually suggests
that this signage, if approved, would only be approved until the year 2003. when all signage must
come into conformance with the current ordinance. Mr. McWilliams of Koenig & Strey
responded that the real estate firm is interested in deferring all expense, as they have recently
purchased the business, and it would cost an additional $1500 to reduce the existing pole.
Greenberg motioned to approve the proposal as submitted, allowed until the year 2003. This
6.,. I. ., ,.._.ri J,i, n. wj.LL+.. si.^1f .-v Jk9ll1 Almon J;.i A.-d .. II .I.eJY,.Y:, ,
.ii� `` ��r wR+�_ ?�a�'4 '-9�r;,•�' .,+ � r �_• ST - rj� ��v �i 5.... i
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - 4/20/95
Page 2
motioned was seconded by Spaeth, and unanimously approved. (3-0)
C UM] O M .�1-1§ VXV54,11 11•�i1y
Mr. Doyle of Doyle Signs and Mr. Henry of Discovery Zone presented the proposal. They stated
that the channel lettering and the refacing of the two circular wall signs are in the exact locationw
of the existing "Leaps and Bounds" signage. Spaeth questioned if the height is the same. Mr.
Henry confirmed that the height is the same. The length of the signage is approximately 1'-9"
longer based on the amount of letters.
Greenberg motioned to approve the proposal as submitted. This was seconded by Spaeth, and
unanimously approved, (3-0)
Mr. Loeffler of Burger King and Mr. Denmark of Sure Light Sign go through the proposal. In
the process of presenting the proposal, several clarifications were made. The freestanding
directional signage is exempted, as it will not contain any logo, only the words (enter, exit) and
directional arrows. Also, the signage on the mansard portion of the "roof" was interpreted by the
Board to be wall signage. As such, this signage is allowed within the ordinance. The only
signage in question remained the free-standing corner sign.
The Board and applicants discussed the issue for some time. Greenberg questioned why not
comply? Is the applicant refacing an existing freestanding sign? The response was no, although
they had hoped to reuse the existing foundation. Greenberg comments that this seems to be a
nvnor reason as a consideration for a variation. The height of the corner freestanding sign is the
problem. The only location within the ordinance is next to the building for an allowable height
of 15'-6". The applicants were not willing to consider this location. The Board stated that they
would not be willing to vary from the ordinance. The applicants proposed to lower the sign, but
still keep the corner location. They proposed to use a 6' x 6' Burger King logo sign, at an overall
height of 10'-0" on a 6' long brick base, diagonally located off of the corner, such that it is only
12" perpendicular to the inside curb. Greenberg motioned to approve this proposal, which was
seconded by Spaeth, and unanimously approved. (3-0)
l i t r' 11 FI TUVJPJVXWTTM. Pirmil
The owner, Linda Kelley, and Michael Weinstein of Speedy Sign -A -Rama, presented the
proposal. Ms. Kelley stated that the storefront is narrow, and they need the wording, as that is
I
;� � = - ,_ i`� *,' �'-f,��.€,�',����+•s'�S+i'..'�. s'�s��� W*T'�k i �T'� i`+1+ ..=Cs-ji'd� T?'C+�,�;2""d+,'� i�+�t� ir�.� L�S r #u:��,R�r�. � � -
A yjn,ti11�,
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - 4/20/95
Page 3
their logo. She submitted a document indicating the registered trademark. Qually asked Ms.
Kelley how they answer the telephone. She responded "Jimmy John's".
Acting Chairman Qually requested the citizen comment at this point. Mr. Ray LaMagna of the
Bean Counter, commented that the other business owners had to comply with the ordinances, and
so should Jimmy John's. The ordinance was created to provide a fair condition for all.
Conformance should be uniform. The business is a catering business, so the primary
identification is not necessary. Ms. Kelley responded that they need identification for their
customers, Mr. LaMagna states that the wording is different on other printed messages and
presents a copy of their menu. At this point, Ms. Kelley presents several photos of other locations
indicating similar graphics to the proposal, and stating that they are trying to standardize all 12
of their company owned locations.
Spaeth comments that the "World's Greatest Sandwiches" is a logo phrase, or tag phrase. Qually
asks the owner if they would consider locating the phrase on the window or on the door at eye
level. The owner said that defeats the purpose. They are trying to make all of their graphics
similar. Spaeth questions why they can't locate the "Worlds Greatest Sandwiches" directly under
the Jimmy John's logo? Again, the Board reviews the photos of the other locations. Spaeth
continents that the other locations should not be a concern of this Board.
Greenberg reviews the submitted proposal and motions to limit the size of the "World's Greatest
Sandwiches" t ;ttering to 4" high, and reduce the logo by 20 q . Spaeth seconds the motion and
it is unanimously approved. (3-0)
7. Mr. Norton O'Meara and Mr. Jack Weiss, past Board members, introduced themselves to the
Board. They explained the reason for their appearance being the recent action by the Planning
and Development Committee to temporally suspend the annual sign fee and to refund the current
fees collected for this year. They requested that the Board appeal to the Planning and
Development Committee to retain the annual sign fee. The past Board members were adamant
that the Ordinance needed enforcement if the Board was going to contuiue to have meaning. The
current Board did not know of these proceedings. The acting chairman Qually asked Carolyn
Smith if in the future the S.R.A.B. would could receive copies of P & D meeting minutes when
there are any issues pertaining to the Sign Review and Appeals Board. Qually stated that he did
agree that adequate enforcement is essential if the Board is to exist at all.
Qually asked O'Mera and Weiss how they would recommend proceeding with this issue to the P
& D Committee. Weiss indicated that they should give notice that they would like to get the next
agenda, and submit a memo to die committee. It was decided that Mr. Weiss would draft the
Ing
rli :d..M�ki1/1G4ilLMli r�1;Y
�.� ,;r.. ;<. Jam'-•'L,.�y, ..{-.• >+ '4",
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1995
Page 4
memo, and work with Qually and the other Board members to finalize it. C. Smith stated that the
next P & D Committee meeting is May 8, 1995. C. Smith agreed to fax to Qually the fax
numbers of the Board members.
Hearing no other business, Acting Chairman Qually motioned adjournment at 9:20 p.m.
The next meeting of the S.R,A.B. is scheduled for Thursday, May 18, 1995.
Q-1
Carolyn Smith, Assistant Director Community Development
cc: J. Wolinski, R. Fahlstrom
�,��:*'.r+.j.'..i—n*e�r+*,+' .. 3, .. - - -;, - ,�� �%�. .(. t -i, t } r ��r *ice r�nerey„ �'x �'•� l ;c,�4
r :: Uf � W10 I:10
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THURSDAY, J[TrIE 15,1995
EVANSTON CCV1C CENTER, ROOM 2404
1l ERS PRESENT: B. Greenberg, A. Spaeth, C. Abrams, J. Sbricker-Gay
MEMBERS ABSENT: R. Q alliy
STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: Norton O'Meara and Jack Weiss, Past Board Members
Acting Chairman Qually declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and requested
a motion for approval of the minutes from the meeting of April 20,1995. Abrams motioned
approval, which was seconded by Spaeth. The minutes were unanimously approved. (4-0)
Jack Weiss, past Board member, commented that at the last meeting of the P&D Committee on
May 22, 1995, sew somewhat supportive of the Sign Review and Appeals Board (S.R.A.B.)
of reinstating the antntal sign fee, but suggested that the S.R.A.B. attend the meeting of 6126/95
prepared with a plan. Mr. Weiss commented that it was his impression from the discussion and
the meeting minutes that the complaint of the business community was primarily one of not having
had sufficient notification of the invoice. Some discussion ensued regarding the number and
nature of the complaints.
Norton O'Meara stated that basically, the S.R.A.B. should not engage in a discussion about how
many signs and how many complaints constitute a problem, as everyone will have a different
position on this matter. O'Meara recommended that the Board emphasize to the P&D Committee
that there has been this fee all along in the Ordinance and that it had been neglected to be
collected. Also, this fee had been intended to provide something quite important in the form of
enforcement, which would create a equal footing for all businesses.
It was suggested that the Board author a letter to the P&D Committee emphasizing their points
and get it into the packet of information for the meeting of June 26, 1995. C. Smith stated that
it should be into the City by Tuesday, June 20, 1995 to assure that it could be included with those
packets.
The Board discussed the contents and composed the memo at the meeting.
Y- - -
-- - �-#� � � „ . ,. wn-. f.-,,.F � �� ..,.--•K.�jan-m--nr�.�rr'T-ire,�,'y�rkrt.."1y'�"nprf3�ftT4Sfr°I�6S1'/°Si ,.-�r+,. .r a, .-,� i „ � �r i.�r� �„ •-°ae���"v.w,h x.: -. �. #-'k�'1�Si°ivn€�; .�
,a vS y -
%p Review and Appals Board
Meeting mutes - June AS, IM
Page 2
Hsubg no other business, Chain= Stricker-Gay motioned far adjournment at 8:45 p.m.
1 �- 1 (�.�.1 �� f 11 � � mar .a a ►� �. I � i
:!
L-----
Carolyn Smith, Assistant Director Community Development
cc: J. QVofti i, R. Fahlsimm
—/ r344�. � =„Y�Yl f�feR3 ii'fl/S •{ ... n 1 1 r� J. • i'F.
ra�.,r, �,Y...ri r..allw r I IJLtY �.�rti•Il,�rWur.r�nliArLLuA�a uW�'
.. '.:�"�a:;,��`i �;`... • h,•:,• . i : jar "�.. :s:ij-ft ��:I�ii
MMS
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
MONDAY, JUNE 269 1995
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2403
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Stricker-Gay, A. Spaeth, B. Greenberg, R. QuaUy
MEMBERS ABSENT: C. Abrams
STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: H. Raln, R. Yohanan of First Bank and Trust of Evanston
G. Woock of White 'Way Sign Company
Chairman Str r-Gay declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. and requested a
motion for approval of the minutes f om the meeting of June 15, 1995. Greenberg motioned
approval, which was seconded by Qually. The minutes were unanimously approved. (4-0)
No citizens were present.
Mr. George Woock of White Way Sign Company presented the proposal. There are two
variations requested, 1 for the high wall signage along the west elevation and the other for the
freestanding sign at the corner of Benson and Church.
Greenberg comments that the purpose.of the high sign location must be to attract people from the
El platforms, and yet they already have signage that is along that elevation and visible from the
platform that is allowed within the ordinance. Greenberg recommends to the other members of
the Board that they reject the proposal for the high signage and for floc freestanding signage as
well, commenting that they have too much signage.
-+dam—�-...:+►w .. ., .,,i, ,f. ._ r,".,,i.._„kldJ-,_.IiNIF1/il1 °k' -
9 i 1�'������Y7, ♦fir' i .... � _ .._ ..
'J
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Meetng Minutes - 6/26195
Page 2
Spaeth states that he is in agreement with Greenberg. 'Qually also agrees, stating that there Is just
too much signage in the proposal.
Mr. Fain questions if there is any other location for the wall signage that would be acceptable?
Groenberg's response is 15'-6". Mr. Kain states that this is impossible because of the trees along
that elevation. Greenberg says that the trees could be cut down. Mr. Kain responds that they do
not wish to cut down those mature trees. Mr. Yohanan reports that they had studied the proposal
extensively with White Way Sign Company, and they feel that this is the tidiest solution.
Chairman Stricker-Gay suggests that they discuss the corner signage. Strickcr-Gay suggests to
the other members of the Board that to the drive -by customer, they do not have any signage
visible on Church Stint. This could be perceived as a hardship. Greenberg states that he just
doesn't see it. The Board discusses the corner signage and the location concerns. One of the
comments made by the board indicates that the reason for the height restrictions relative to the lot
line location is based on the safety issue of blocked sight lines for the vehicular and pedestrian
traffic. Some discussion takes place with regard to the potential of locating the freestanding
sigi?agc further south along Benson. Mr. Yohanan comments that this would not be what they are
looking for. Also, there is low wall signage along Benson in the proposal.
Spaeth suggests doing a low wall sign at the corner, on the north and west face of the wall. The
response was that the lettering wotdd then be too small. They did mockup that passibility, but
it is just too small.
The discussion reverted back to the high wall signage. Mr. Woock described the wall signage as
backlit individual bronze letters and added that this is a very sophisticated, understated
appearance. The light level is very low.
Chairman Stricker-Gay asked the Board if there were any other comments. Spaeth comments that
he can't go for tbi high sign at all, but could live with a low corner wall sign. Qually states that
he can understand the request of the applicants, but he could not approve the signage because he
does not want to see others sprouting up all over town.
Greenberg motions to reject the proposed variations of the wall and freestanding signage. Spaeth
A seconds. The motion was passed by a vote of 3-1, with Stricker-Gay voting against.
COMMEMCAIXONS
The Board briefly discussed the P & D Committee Meeting just prior to this meeting. They
would agree to meet with the Chamber of Commerce to discuss the anmtal sign fee, but only at
== the next regular meeting. The SRAB Board is not unhappy with the fees as they now stand. So,
if the Chamber would like to make any changes, they would not take a special meeting to do so.
AN
�$'"--YI.t�Y�/ '.a �,_, � u a�1,VFt � ,. ,.41 ,il•. �. I.I�.... ..., �.,, .i ..,JL: YY.f'!�_i11.lY�rt11 14N - - - � _ _
1
Sip Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - 6126/95
Page 3
Hearing no other business, Chairman Stricker-Gay motioned adjournment at 8:40 p.m.
The next meeting of the S.R.A.B. is scheduled for Thursday, July 20, 1995.
Carolyn S t r
Community Development - Building Division
cc: J. Wolinski, R. Fahlstrom
.. 1. ■ ✓. . +Yry W'.M iu r .. a rlay. Yr .Y. • . W...Y.. n . ..
*0 -
r
A
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1995
EVANSTON CIMC CENTER, ROOM 2404
NtEMERS PRESENT: B. Greenberg, A. Spaeth, R. Qually, J. Shirker -Guy
MEMBERS ABSENT: C. Abrams
STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Yohanan and Howard Kaln of First Bank and Trust of
Evanston, George Woork of 1M. U to Way Sign, Adam Rod and
Jonathon Ferman of the Chamber of Commerce, Al Loeffler
representing Burger King, Giovanni Garelli of Tapas Barcelona
Chairman Stricker-Gay declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and requested a
motion for approval of the minutes from the meeting of June 26,1995. Greenberg motioned
approval, which was seconded by Qually. The minutes were unanimously approved. (4-0)
Mr. Robert Yohanan, of First Bards and Trust of Evanston, began his presentation by thanking
the members of the Board for agreeing to hear this case again (See SRAB #95-13). He explained
that after the last meeting, they went back and considered the Boards comments. The summary
memo that went out to the members of the Board with this months meeting addresses some of the
concerns.
Mr. Yohanan stated that he would like to emphasize that a bank is not a typical retail operation.
They are investing a great deal into the community. Mr. Yohanan and partners are investing over
$1,000,000.00 into the renovation of this building. The position of this bank is extremely
important in the marketplace. The signage is conservative. They have consulted with the
executive director of Evmark to ensure that the signage is commiserate with the new downtown
revitalization plan.
They have looked at the west elevation and, in response to the Boards comments have lowered
the signage approximately 4'. There are two reasons that this sign is important. The first is the
traffic going down Church Street. The second is for the commuters. It is important because the
commuters travel up the north shore, thus extending opportunity for business in the region.
$� - 4ICs�th4` pp9� w `fit
�ri5��iif�Yr
1. .16 A A. a
1
... . . . 41 ALLY .11.., JL JA. I. JY. „—imil . Awl ,l&.�. rY iw
Sign Review and ApPash Board
Mfg Pr lnutm - July 20, 1995
Page 2
As fiat as the corner sign, Mr. Yohamn contimiled, it is critical for us to have parking adjacent to
the site. Every space is a premium, both to us and the City. To use a parking space for this sign,
when the reasons to move it back do not seem to apply in this location, seems unnecessary, Both
he and W. Kaia have spent considerable time reviewing this location and have determined that
the location originally proposed is the best and is not jeopardizing safety in any way. Because of
the one way traffic on Church, we think there is no line of site that is blocked.
Qually questioned why parking is critical, when the City Garage is right next door. Mr. Kain
responded that they had checked with the City, and reserved spaces cannot be obtained. If any
customer would try to use the garage, without reserved parking, they would most likely need to
go up to the 4th floor before they could park, as during the week, most other spaces are taken up
with the commuter parking. Mr. Perman of the Evanston Chamber of Commerce, commented
that all of the other banks in the downtown area have parking lots adjacent to their banks. These
institutions are the direct competition for this new bank.
Qually questioned where the employees of the bank will park. Mr. Kain responded that they will
all park in the public ,garage.
Greenberg commented that he is not interested in changing his opinion in the least, as the
applicants did not change their proposal at all. Qually suggested looking at the proposal for the
3 2 issues separately.
Qually stated that he understood the rational for the wall signage, but he has a major problem with
it based on the fact that what happens next is a domino effect, similar to what Las Vegas looks
like, where one sign starts to out do the other. Now the freestanding sign, Qually continued, it
should simply be moved back.
Stricker-Gay said that one of the reasons that the Board is in existence is to rule on hardship.
Quaky responded that if the signage doesn't read from 2 blocks away, that is not a hardship
problem. Spaeth commented that he has visited the site and this is a difficult site.
Qually stated that the wall sign is an eye sore, and proposed the following compromise: the Board
should allow the freestanding sign, but not allow the wall sign to exceed the ordinance.
Mr. Yohanan responded that from their standpoint, the wall sign is the most important sign. It
doesn't need to set precedence. The ordinance allows us a wall sign. All we are requesting is
to allow us to raise it such that it is higher than the trees.
At this point, Qually motions to allow the free standing sign to be approved as submitted. This
motion is seconded by Spaeth and approved, 3-1 with Greenberg voting against. Qually motions
to deny the wall sign proposal, which is seconded by Greenberg. This motion is not approved,
-w
i.-'• - r �'b1' a 's_ - g�-� --1 �
� '.t'�+?, R'"'�t.1�ia •t =?. +�rtili~ry ��i��•��` _ \. 'F ,. -+.._� ."rr is. "�,Cr, , � Zvi ..9tr +�� - ,.fr,� -'�}1i h�.'`,
., "� .:;�i; 1'f �.4rjz�}t� i:�r }.:,sf�3��ti''.+�i"�f,', !F���~ , - t r • ' _'i.'-?
" Sigm Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - July 200 I995
Page 3
with a tie vote of 2-2, with Qually and Greenberg voting in favor of denial and Stricter -Gay aW
Spaeth voting against.
Mr. Yohanan comments that another reason the locate the sign at the height shown in this
proposal, is to make use of the existing electrical outlet. 'This indiraus tht!t in the past, a sign had -,: --
been in that location.
Qually responded that he doesn't see any hardship, as they now have their proposed corner
signage. Stricter -Gay paraphrased Qually from the previous meeting, commenting that the "wall
sign acts the same as billboard." Qually continues that there are no free billboards. The charm
that is Evanston would not be well served to allow this "billboard" type signage.
Stricter -Gay queries the Board to see if there is any acceptablc location for the wall sign? Spaeth
would consider a 113 smaller sign and lower mounting height, such that the top of the lettering
would align with the top of the building cornice. He added that the lower it is, the smaller it
would need to be.
Qually questioned how worthwhile of an investment that would be, as the signage would still be
costly (Mr. Kain estimated that the wall sign alone would cost some where around $15,000 to
install and operate for a year) and would not obtain the maximum benefit.
With the motion at a tie of 2-2, the Board could not approve the proposal for wall signage.
Mr. Kain and Mr. Yohanan thanked the committee for their time and their reconsideration.
Mr. Al Loeffler presents the history of the light hand, and how it came to be installed. It was
their presumption that this band was not a sign, thus they did not seek a sign permit. Mr. Loeffler
goes on to explain the concept, that of a red band at the top of the building, as being something
that Burger King is trying utilize consistently on all of their installations, to become a trademark
of sorts. Mr. Loeffler presents some prototype brochures to the Board.
Qually comments that during the day, it is only a red band and that is fine, but at night, it is acting
as sign. Greenberg disagrees. He states that this is an architectural feature and the brochures
over emphasize the light level. Burger King is trying to do the same thing that McDonald's does
with the golden arches. Qually responds that this is his point. At night it is definitely advertising.
Spaeth states that after driving by the site, it did not appear to be annoying, although it is
illuminated rather brightly. Qually states that he does not want to see Evanston look like other
strip mall areas and he doesn't view this request as a hardship.
{wally motioned to leave the band in place, but require the electricity to be disconnected. This
.�` . a- , r,.,,-.+��%a���,�.��C`1�"fr-+�'t��I��S"!.�'il� 1-F�'�i'€s'Ys"��.z'b.� S` -' ''F.:�,'-_ .'',..•,. M1..-y�-.;-%r.�r-•or+„'#!'1""
w ''y�,:fi' fi.:/•.\:i'.t at �s-I.'trl�''"�'�. kf�A,'�^ - .1 -
'�.ys•�'il,.tyk
Slga Review and Appel Board
Meedng minutes - July 209 1995
Page 4
motion was not seconded.
Qaally rhea modions to approve the proposal, but at a 50% lower light level. The rod portion and
other spillage light must be reduced by 50%. Greenberg seconded and the motion was
unanimously approved. (4-0)
Mr. Giovanni Garelli, one of the restaurant owners was onhand to present the proposal. He
proposed a change for consideration prior to the discussion, that being to revise the color of the
lettering of the word "Barcelona" to be yellow to match the word "Tapas". Spaeth expressed
concern for the support of the arch. C. Smith commented that the proposal indicated a brace to
extend back to the wall of the building. Also, the installation would be inspected.
Qually motioned that the modified proposal be approve, so long as the installation would be
structurally sound. Spaeth seconded it and the motion was unanimously approved. (4-0)
Hearing no other business, Chairman Stricker-Gay motioned for adjournment at 9:00 P.M.
The next meeting of the S.R.A.B. is scheduled for Thursday, September 21, 1995.
e--I�
Carolyn Smith, Assistant Director Community Development
cc: J. Wolinski, R. Fahlstrom
M
�'_ ,.- ,f�r "knit'+, i .. r'Fu -- � -%!' _._.. � �.- .-r�- - .- ��` - .. - �,.. .. .�..,... ,,� �.- nr.� ��pr�r•-�rT4^'��,h��v, n ...
•fi�,'` )=
4-rjr, �004
DRAFT NQj APP 03MU
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1995
E'VANSTON CMC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Greenberg, A. Spaeth, R. (wally, J. Stacker -Gay
MEMBERS AWjFNT: C. Abrams
STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: John T. Andras, Andrus Realty Group, Inc.
Helen Demir, Flashtric, Inc.
Jonathan Sherman, Follett College Bookstore
Chairman Stricker-Gay declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:33 p.m. and requested a
motion for approval of the minutes from the meeting of July 20,1995. Greenberg comments that
he would like to make amend the minutes. On page 3, the 2nd paragraph should be amended to
' reflect Greenberg's comment at that point (the location of the existing electrical outlet) being "this
is not a justifiable reason to Locate a sign in that location". Spaeth motions to approve the minutes
as amended, which is seconded by Greenberg. The minutes were unanimously approved. (4-0)
a.xA.n, IM-1-1: Annr... KC2111 Group, 113Sa 950 Harvard TpE=
Mr. John Andrus presents the proposal for freestanding temporary signage. Chairman Stricker-
Gay asks if the Board has any questions. With no questions, Greenberg motions to approve the
proposal as submitted. The motion is seconded by Qually and unanimously approved. (4-0)
S. .A.B. #95-18: SBX Bookstore, 1733 Sherman Ave
Chairman Stricker-Gay asks the applicants to explain their proposal. Ms. Demir reviews the
proposal, indicating that SBX is expanding into the space to the north, and they would like to
extend their awning to cover the new facade. The goal is to use the same material, and match the
graphic by adding more "paw prints", but no new wording. The previous awning was is not an
opaque fabric (it is vinyl) but it was approved by the City at the time.
Qually questions if the entire awning is illuminated? Mr. Sherman responds that yes, the
proposal is for an illuminated awning, and the existing awning is illuminated, The Board
discusses their concern,which is to change materials on the awning for only the new portion,
F
Sign Review anti Appe& bard
Meeting Minutes - August 179 199S
Page 2
which would comply with the ordinance, but it would not give a uniform appearance. To change
the entire awning would result in additional expense.
Qually discumcs the recommendation by the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee. The
Comn-ducc recommends that the portion of the awning which has the wording "SBX Student Book
]Exchange" be allowed to remain as currently illuminated, but that to either side, including the new
portion of the awning, the light level would be reduced by 50%. Greenberg motions to approved
the proposal with the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee's recommendation. The
motion is seconded by Qually, and it is unanimously approved. (4-0)
Hearing no other business, Chairman Stricker-Gay motioned for adjournment at 5:30 p.m.
The next meeting of the S.R.A.B. is scheduled for Thursday, September 219 1995.
C--L
Carolyn Smith, Assistant Director Community Development
cc: J. Wolinsld
R. Fahistrom
R-
mx
,- � p-,Frr � .r �.4,k'sii��'+ti•��w~Mlf'f1"-4r`a* �i�r
uA AliL -- AN-J Jimr.u.. „ — .. ..�... . -..—.1 . - , . ..
(1'/ ' i •ar�ix"h"ty"(�I3�k�f'�,���1 1i ,t-i-.t'.;=''.: .1� i
f
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 219 1995
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Greenberg, A. Spaeth, J. Stricker-Gay
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
C. Abrams. R. Qually
C. Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: George Roman and Jim Volpentesta- Spex Car Wash, Ted
Paoulos - Mobile Hi Fi, Tim Anderson - Focus Development
Inc., George Marinakis and Aurelio Jaurez - Salsa Borracha
Chairman Stricker-Gay declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and requested a
motion for approval of the minutes from the meeting of August 17,1995. Spaeth motions to
approve the mimrtes, which is seconded by Greenberg. The minutes Were nnanimpu8ly approved.
(3-0)
NEWBUSjNESS
E
S.R.A,B„#95a.9: Focus DevellIpmen1, 1300 Centro SUW
Mr. Tun Anderson presented the proposal. C. Smith commented that this signage has been
brought to this Board by staff, and there has not been any neighborhood comment. Chairman
3 Stricker-Gay asks if the Board has any questions. Spaeth comments that there should be a 12
month limit to this temporary signage. Greenberg agrees and motions to approve the proposal
with a 12 month time limit. The motion is seconded by Spaeth and unanimously approved. (3-0)
S R A B. #25-20: Salsa Borracha. 75Q teak^.AM
A resident was present to comment that he was concerned that the sole purpose of this hearing was
ro to require this restaurant to repaint with more subdued colors. He is in favor of the existing paint
scheme. He likes the bright colors, and wishes that more buildings were so brightly colored.
Mr. George Marinakis, representing the Salsa Borracha, explains the concept. These signs were
dome by'a Mexican artist. There was not a formal plan. The interior also has similar graphics.
t Greenberg comments that he is an admirer of Mexican art, and that this restaurant is just north
_ of "auto row". These facts don't negate the fact that no permit was obtained. This proposal just
lard
y,x �� xt vt .. .. �?. r't. �.. •i- � .t��i. ����ar-.af � .n�, .��7t � xs �.{, �': �h� :�' i'.'. �''' � .. �,vf:
'� i,� �S. ;^?'1 ,�• k �� .:fit•'.
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - September 21, 199S
Page 2
has too many violations. Mr. Marutakis comments that the former owner also had numerous signs
on the wails dating back to 1982. Mr. Marinakis indicated that the previous owner had to abate
a great deal of graffiti, and it is our opinion that the signage is more pleasing to the eye than the
graffiti. Graffiti artists aren't as interested in signage, but a blank wall is enticing. Also, across
the street, there are many signs that they are competing with. The new owner is looking for some
consideration.
Chairman Stricker-Gay proposes that they could eliminate the "Buffet...." signage and the high
south facing signage listing the carry -out services. Also, the north facing signage "Mexican
Cuisine" and the phone number should be eliminated.
Mr. Jaurez commented that this north facing signage is important. There are trees blocking any
other potential location for that sign.
Greenberg proposes that the south facing signage listing carry -out services be eliminated, and in
its place, another logo, only smaller. This would put off any graffiti temptation. But the east
facing signage stating "Buffet..." should be eliminated, along with the high north facing signage.
The fim standing sign that was refaced could be allowed to stay, as well as the small illuminated
north facing sign.
The Board agreed that they should come back next month to confirm the agreed upon changes.
This was agreed to by the applicant.
Mr. George Roman and Mr. Jim Volpentesta of Spex Car Wash presented the proposal. They
proposing to take down a large box sign along Dodge Ave. in order to put up these new individual
letter signs. The signs are different colors but the same size and type. They are all individual
letter type signs. The "Spex" sign will be red, the "Mobil Hi-Fi"sign will be blur and the "Hang
Time" sign will be green with an orange ball. The Budget awing will remain the same. They
have divided the space, and now have 4 businesses. They all need signage, that is why they have
come before the Board.
Greenberg comments that without scaled drawings, it is difficult to visualize your proposal. Also,
comments Chairman Stricker-Gay, there is something in your proposal regarding south facing
signage
Mr. Roman clarified that this is not in their proposal at this time. They wish to focus their efforts
along Dodge Ave. Chairman Stricker-Gay suggests that the Board define what would be allowed,
so that they do not need to reappear before the Board.
aJ
' � x .. r,.. ti � ''.I Mw .era ,4•iW h,: ie' wm,' w A luiw4 . i!'I• rt vie + lt3"I'"l: ' +.7, i+1 t'M'wyk"W"I•1-I rsi, Nr t NP'ITIi'
C� �., k Ih SLY . 1 i��'1'aW���►7�� I I i r [f�1- ... u .., i��l" - 'L'fL.���pjrl-�1�7�gnt
Ri �`Y: f�♦�Y j�J�
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Mee -dug Minutes - September 21, 1995
Page 3
Greenberg motions to approve the proposal for 1) only the West Elevation, 2) that no sign takes
up more space than 113 of the elevation, vertically, and 3) that Mobil Hi-Fi and Hang Time stay
as indicated dimensionally. The motion is seconded by Spaeth and unanimously approved. (3-0)
[KIN751011INKNO MIN
C. Smith discussed the current status of the Annual Sign Fees. Smith reported that at the last
meeting of the Committee of the Whole, September 18, 1995, the Committee requested that an
ordinance be drafted for City Council approval based on the Staff recommendation for the
modifications.
The memo from the Sign Review and Appeals Board, drafted by Qually, was received by the
Committee of the Whole on the same evening (9118195), thus making it difficult for the Committee
to respond. C. Smith stated that the memo will be again distributed to the Committee for the next
meeting which will take place on Monday, October 9, 1995. Any Board member who is
interested is welcome to attend.
C. Smith stated that she will route the copy of the drafted memo to all Board members, including
Jack Weiss, at his request, prior to the meeting.
ADJO
Hearing no other business, Chairman Stricker-Gay motioned for adjournment at 8:40 p.m.
NF'hJr-r'i-kJ G
The next meeting of the S.R.A.B. is scheduled for Thursday, October 19, 1995, at 7:30 pm.
1ViTN TES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS HOARD
TfiURSDAY, OCTOBI R 19, 1995
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTEII, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Stricker-Gay, A. Spaeth, B. Greenberg
NiENIBERS ABSENT: C. Abrams, R. Qually
STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith, R. Fahlstrom
OTHERS PRESENT: Aurelio Juurez - Salsa Borracha, Ben Kadlsh, Pat Cuunningltam,
John Cunningham - Evanston Athletic Club, Toni Sinclair -
Noyes Cultural Arts Center
Chairman Stricker-Gay declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and requested a
Lotion for approval of the minutes from the meeting of September 21. 1995. Spaeth motioned
q approval, which was seconded by Greenberg. The minutes were unanimously approved. (3-0)
OLD BUSINESS
S.R A. . #95-20: Salsa Borrachn,_750 Chi= Aye
Mr. Juarez presents a revision to the south facing sign. The revision presented is not the logo. +-
as was previously stated as the Board's recommendation. Mr Juarez explains that the artist is no
longer in town. Greenberg comments that there is no shortage of artists around, and any good
artist could proportionately reproduce the logo in the adjacent wall space. He suggests to the
other Board members that they stick to the original agreement which was to reproduce the,logo.
Mr. Juarez asks the Board's permission to keep the existing signage, until such time as he can
contract with an artist in order to keep the graffiti off of an otherwise blank wall. Spaeth
Tl suggested that would be possible, but only with a time limit. Spaeth suggested 90 days.
Greenberg suggested that this is too long. Greenberg motions the graphic logo or a white wall
should be in place within 60 days from now. Also, from the previous meeting, the north signage
and "Buffet....." signage on the east elevation must be totally eliminated. This motion was
seconded by Spaeth and was unanimously approved. (3-0) C. Smith informed the applicant that
all the remaining signage must be permitted.
<y_Mi lmjrlr6u 1{I�4-i��u4lic+ltl., I r I '
.•. p
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEAIS BOARD
NIEETLNG NMN1n7ES - 10/19/95
PAGE Z
NEW BUSINESS
Greenberg comments that after looking at,the proposal in the packet, he thinks that it needs to be
redone. Mr. Ben Kadish, partner of the Evanston Athletic Club, responds that he would like the
opportunity to at least present the proposal. The other Board members agree the proposal should
be presented by the applicant prior to a decision bring reached. Mr. Kadish presents enlarged
{Mans indicating the floor area that the building contains. If one were to take that area and spread
it out into fist floor retail space in the downtown area, it would result in the equivalent of 15
businesses. The building has 50,000 SF, and including the tower, is 8 stories high. The Evanston
Athletic Club (EAQ has land the entire building. Only 4 other buildings in Evanston have this
much area. The Evanston Hospital sports medicine/physical therapy clinic is moving from the
current first floor location to 3rd floor space, and need to display where they are. There are two
other potential tenants, one on the 1st floor, and one on the '2nd floor.
The Evanston Athletic Club, when completed will have a swimming pool, 3acuni, basketball
court, child care facility, clunbing wall, etc.. All of this is not visible from the street. The
architectural elements of the facade are such that they do not allow any opportunity for signage.
The project investment is approximately $4.5 million. They are requesting consideration of their
proposal in view of these facts.
Greenberg comments that the purpose of the Sign Ordinance is to create a certain ambiance. If
signage is allowed to be installed that does not conform to the ordinance, more signage that does
not conform will proliferate. Spaeth comments that the Evanston Bank and Trust also had a
similar request. They also wanted signage higher than the 15'-6" limit. They felt that they
needed high identification signage. The Board denied them on the same basis, which is concern
for proliferation of such signage.
M. r. Kadish responded that based on the existing building elevation, the 15'-6" is not possible to
achieve. Isn't the purpose of this Board to make such variations when a particular building cannot
accommodate the requirements of the Ordinance? Chairman Stricker-Gay responds that the
Board's task is to judge what is reasonable. The suggestion of the Board tonight is that other
designs could be presented, such as a smaller sign mounted as close as possible to the Ordinance
requirements for height and area.
Some discussion took place with regard to the proposed awnings. The Board did indicate that the
awnings could be accepted as a part of the Unified Business Center Plan, provided that they met
the Ordinance for graphic area. C. Smith pointed out that as illuminated awnings, the white
background must be made opaque. such that the graphic is the only portion that is lighted. Mr.
Kadish indicated that this could be accomplished, and that they plan to comply with this
A
�s 1
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
METING MIN UTES-10119195
PAGE 3
requirement.
hriti F
i5. S i �y..:T.
Further discussion ensued, and the consensus of the Board was that the applicant needed to come
back with a proposal that made a further attempt to comply with the Ordinance where possible.
Mr. 1Kadish indicated that the EAC will o,pen within a couple of weeks, and would like to know
if any decision could be reached prior to the next meeting. The Board agreed that they could
meet either the next Thursday night, 10/26/95 or the following Thursday, 11/2/95. The Board
suggested that the 2 members that are not present tonight be contacted to see if they could be in
attendance for either of these 2 dates. C. Smith agreed that she would contact the others to see
what date(s) they could make, and then contact the Boazd and applicant. This was agreeable to
the applicant.
S.R.A.B. #95-23e Unified Business Cater Jjan. 2M Grw EQintlaa
The applicant was not present, but the Board decided to vote on the proposal, since there were
no questions by the Board. Greenberg motioned approval of the freestanding sign, which was
seconded by Spaeth, and unanimously approved. (3-0).
Hearing no other business, Chairman Stricker-Gay motioned adjournment at 8:30 p.m.
NEXT MEETING
The next scheduled meeting of the S.R.A.B. is for Thursday, November 16, 1995.
3 Carolyn Smith, Assistant Director
Community Development - Building Division
cc: J. Wolinski
32
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 169 1995
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Stricker-Gay, A. Spaeth, C. Abrams
MEMBERS ABSENT: B. Greenberg, R. Qually
STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: Mary Koberstein, Lord, Bissell and Brook, representing the St.
Louis Bread Company
Chain= Stricker-Cray declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and requested a
motion for approval of the minutes from the meeting of October 19, 1995. Abrams motioned
approval, which was seconded by Spaeth. The minutes were unanimously approved. (3-0)
Ms. Koberstein presented the modification on behalf of the St. Louis Bread Company. She stated
that the St. Louis Bread Company opened in Evanston in September and had planned to put up
banners on the existing flag poles. They were surprised to learn that they could not, since the
"Linen Store" on the lower level had banners on Sherman Ave.. The St. Louis Bread Company
would like to obtain the modification for all the businesses to have an opportunity to use the
existing 6 flagpoles. Ms. Koberstein continued that their position is not that they will be adding
any additional signage. Since the request is for Manners, it should not be considered that this is
the same thing as signage. Banners hang, and blow and furl, and consequently, the face is not
often visible. The proposal is for the St. Louis Bread Company logo. If the Sign Board chooses
to approve this modification to the Business Center Plan, they could control what is allowed to
be put on the banners. The allowable colors for example could also be regulawd. The proposal
is for a green fabric to match the existing awning material and color. St. Louis Bread Co. felt
that this would be the most harmonious approach. The St. Louis Bread Co. is proposing a 25;6
coverage of the banner, and the use of only a graphic element.
H dlh.l "i.y no r, m k A01095MANSLA pAil'i ciY1'y.,r_�visllm� � Alk
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
MEETING MINUTES-11/16/95
PAGE 2
As the current ordinance would allow, the buildutg ownership could decide to install 6 American
flags tomorrow. Thus, the idea of flags as an element of this building could not be objectionable.
In summary, we are trying to build on what is already there, and we are not adding anything new.
The proposal calls for banners that are approximately 4 1/2' x 11 1/2'in size. The St. Louis
Dread Co. would agree with whatever the Board would recommend.
Chairman Stricker-Gay asked what the proposed distribution of the banners would be. Would the
banners all have the St. Louis Bread Co. logo, or would just 2 be installed with that logo? Ms.
Koberstein responded that this would entirely be under the control of the Board.
Abrams commented that the banners would just be too much. Too commercial. Chairman
Stricker-Gay questioned how he felt about the seeing the empty flagpoles? He responded that he
really hasn't noticed them. Spaeth commented that Jewel/Osco installed some temporary banners
and they fluttered and made noise. These could be a nuisance. Also, height is still a problem.
Abrams continued that when there is no other opportunity for signage, such as the Linens store,
it makes some sense. With this proposal, the businesses would be starting to invade the
streetscape. Spaeth remarked that the height issue is still a problem. There were 2 other nearby
businesses that recently had been turned down on a basis of height.
Ms. Koberstein responded that she can understand the Boards concem for anything projecting into
a public way. But banners are somewhat different. This is not a marquee. There are already 2
such banners. This building will always have the lower level tenant, and keeping the uniformity
on existing flagpoles has validity. As for the height issue, we are not referring to a free standing
or wail sign. Basically, it is a graphic element only.
Chairman Stricker-Gay comments that he thinks that the banners would be an attractive addition.
It is boiling down to a matter of taste. Spaeth comments that he has a problem with the logo
issue. He states that he could see something not viewed as advertising, such as "Evanston
Galleria" . Chairman Stricker-Gay questioned how The St. Louis Bread Co. might feel about
providing banners that said "Evanston Galleria"? Ms. Koberstein responded that they do not view
this proposal as signage, so she will inquire.
Spaeth motioned that the banners could be permitted on all six existing flagpoles. if the graphic
was the logo for the "Evanston Galleria", subject to the approval of the Preservation Commission.
Abrams seconds this motion and the motion is approved unanimously (3-0)
ar�'.cti'-..'='i�'a=- '�'1'.� ."-?4 .i t`1y�'-'�' ,�(:.:',.•,: 1.�,_.:.i,•.'y.,i.;�,•, 1:.�: (!.,..�.i:'.. .
iC.'r'r ts•eiil
.a .
SIGN REVIEW 1NU�'I'F� � BOARD
MEETING
PAGE 3
AnMMOMM 5tricker-Gay motioned ad}ourament at 8:30 P.M.
Hearing no other business, Chairman
meeting of the S.R.A•B• is for Thursday, December• 21+ 1�$'
The next
Carolyn SmitV Assistant Director
Community Development - Building Division
cc; J. Wolinski
i IT41 ri 41 W W i
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 1996
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
J. Stricker-Gay, A. Spaeth, B. Greenberg, C. Abrams,
R. Qua11y
None
C. Smith
Ben Kadish and Pat Cunningham - Evanston Athletic Club
Chairman Strickcr-Gay declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and requested a
motion for approval of the minutes from the meeting of November 16, 1995. Abrams motioned
approval, which was seconded by Spaeth. Greenberg abstained, as he did not attend that meeting.
The minutes were approved, by a vote of 4-0, with Greenberg abstaining.
No citizens were present for comment.
Chairman Stricker-Gay opened the discussion by clarifying that everyone shall have the
opportunity the express their opinion or present their position. This is true for both Board
members and applicants. That being said, the Chair turned the discussion over to the applicant.
Mr. Kadish presented the revised scheme to the Board. He stated that in response to the last
meeting, they eliminated the north facing wall sign entirely and substantially reduced the size of
the west facing wall sign. The wall sign is the same material as the awnings, and is not going to
be backlit. It will be illuminated only by the exterior light fixtures, that have already been
Ali
�y
3i
IZA
-ZA
==1
�x:.i;r"=,�...w,,.• ;•�nrr+PC*7h�r"1A�tR*',�' t � .,.
.., :.+�+�. � , , •.r ._ .,r •n.r „M="A4��,.��.i��i�a �y�, !� ��Fh'M.k!�rr?��1„g�S�vFwiy,r,�Ae���
Sign Review and Appeals Hoard
Meeting Minutes - January 18, 1996
Page 2
installed. Qually commented that the exterior lights of the building illuminate the entire building,
making the entire building act like one big sign, like Wrigley Field. Greenberg stated that the
exterior lighting scheme is accentuating the architectural features, not creating a sign at all.
At this point the Chairman suggested breaking the discussion of the proposal into 2 elements, first
the awnings, then the wall sign. This was agreed to by all parties. Mr. Kadish explained that the
awnings would be as shown on the drawing submitted. All 6 awnings would be the same, white
material depicting the business logos as indicated. The awnings are to be illuminated. The light
will only shine through the image, not the remainder of the awning. He is aware of the City's
requirement that tlic awning itself not be illuminated.
The Chairman queried the Board to see if any member had any comment on the awnings portion
of the proposal. Abrams and Spaeth stated that they did not see any problems with the awnings
as submitted. Greenberg stated that he does have a problem with the images on the awnings
which appear to be larger than the 15 % allowed in the ordinance. They should be required to
conform to the ordinance. The awnings should not be allowed to become their signage.
The Chairman suggested that if the wall signage approval became a problem, based on an issue
of height, maybe the awnings could serve that function. Greenberg comments that their are other
opportunities for them to have signage within the height restriction of 15.5'. They could utilize
the brick frieze, gust above the awnings. Mr. Kadish responded that the logo will not fit into an
area of the dimension. That space is too narrow.
Qually stated that he would like to comment on the entire proposal. The wall signage proposed
is absolutely unacceptable. It is repetitious. It is a building directory on the side of the building.
In any other multi -story building, you go into the lobby and look at the directory to find the
particular business. That's just how it works. That is what people expect. If the graphic area
of the awnings are over the ordinance requirements, I don't have a problem with that, but the wall
signage is unacceptable.
Abrams questioned what the tenants in the building are requesting. Mr. Kadish responded that
Evanston Hospital Physical Therapy Clinic used to have a 1st Floor location. They have many
customers that come in specifically to that space. Also, Evanston Hospital's Cardiac Rehab is
going to be located on the 3rd Floor and is expecting some identity. Qually asked Mr. Kadish to
y explain the proposed tenants and their locations in the building. Mr. Kadish proceeded to explain
the layout of the 6 business. Qually commented that with 6 business and 6 awnings, they should
allow 1 awning per business. Mr. Cunningham said that would be impossible, as Merle's Ribs,
the 1st Floor tenant on the north side, has a lease which allows them to use 3 of the 6 awnings.
This was a lease that was in place when they bought the building.
Qually motioned to deny the proposed wall sign, but allow wall signage. to be plated within the
;_,. —. . - _. __ i - n �. ,w�� �� .J m .� .. .. nn --�--h�'rlr m.,. .. mi .�.•nr ii� � it � n, �
ON.., wi,
Sign Review and Appe4ls Board
Meeting Minutes - January 18, 1996
Page 3
brick frieze above the awnings, and to allow the awnings to be installed as proposed. Abrams
seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 3-2, with Spaeth, Abrams and Qually in
favor, and Greenberg and Stricker-Gay voting against the motion,
Mr. Kadish questioned if they could suggest a counter proposal. This resulted in a lengthy
conversation regarding many Evanston businesses and their signage, such as Fresh Fields and Best
Buy. Mr. Cunningham questioned how those businesses obtained permission to exceed the
ordinance. Abrams responded that it becomes a judgement call that the Board has to make.
Qually commented that there are many highrise buildings in Evanston that do not have their
buildings directories on the side of their buildings. Greenberg responded that Cunningham is
correct in his argument and that he had voted against many of those decisions. Mostly for this
very argument - that as soon as one business exceeds the ordinance, they will all want to. That
is just what is happening. The other businesses have been allowed their variations for various
reasons. Greenberg expressed this has been unfortunate.
The Chairman stated that he personally did not find anything offensive about the sign's location,
but the design was a problem for him. He did not think that the white sign, of that design, was
3 complementary to the dark building. He inquired if any Board member would consider the
possibility of a wall sign of a different design, but in the same proximity. Three of the five
members did indicate that they would consider another possibility. The general consensus of the
entire Board was that the design should be considerably simpler and look less like a billboard.
M The comment of the Board at that point was that the Evanston Athletic Club owners should consult
with professional graphic/sign designers who understand their needs, the design aspects of their
location, and the Evanston Ordinance. The applicants then thanked the members of the Board for
their consideration and their suggestions.
COMMUNICATION
C. Smith asked the Board for their comments on the copy of the Banner Policy memo distributed
y for their input to the Economic Development Committee (EDC). The consensus of the Board was
that the "Suggested Banner Criteria" outlined in the memo of 9/26195 is fine. Although. in terms
of the design considerations, the size of the banners should be larger, rather than smaller. Some
of the banners that have been installed lose their effectiveness when they are too small and
_A3 infrequent. This is one case where the Board felt that the more (size and frequency) the better.
The Board suggested obtaining a copy the policy from the North Michigan Avenue Association
in Chicago, as they felt that those banners did an excellent job of creating the type of "event" that
banners are supposed to achieve. it was also mentioned that the banners should have a community
based benefit message, as mentioned in the meeting minutes from the EDC meeting of 11/15/95.
_ C. Smith stated that these comments will be transmitted to the Committee.
. .,. i -nl.. nrrt"-�'nr+rR..Y�'+IAr' 4 •i _ _ fr"'—
�• � � _ _ - _ ,Y. Y .t li.'. .Yuji .1.1•; ai .•; :M ` l5
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - January 18, 1996
Page 4
Nearing no other business, Chairman Stricker-Gay motioned adjournment at 8:55 p.m.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the S.R.A.B. is for Thursday, February 15, 19%.
Carolyn Smith, Assistant Director
Community Development - Building Division
cc: J. Wolinski
etltc
Ic
MIN1X'ES
SIGN REVIEW AND AP A/ S BOARD
THURSDAY, ,f ARiF-*, 1996
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBER:; PRESENT: J. Stricker-Gay, A. Spaeth, C. Abrams
MEMBERS ABSENT: R. Qually, B. Greenberg
STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: Bill Petroff, Ancient Mariner Awning Co. and Tim Prell of Papa
John's Pizza
Chairman Stricker-Gay declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:44 p.m. and requested a
motion for approval of the minutes from the meeting of January 18, 1996. Abrams motioned
approval, which was seconded by Spaeth. The minutes were approved, by a vote of 3-0.
No citizens were present for comment.
Mr. Bill Petroff presented the proposal for an illuminated awning. He explained that the panels
are manufactured by 3M and then stretched over a frame. The 36 SF is the standard size for this
logo.
At this time, for clarification, C. Smith reviewed what has previously been allowed for this
Unified Business Center. The original plan, approved in 1988, was for individual channel letters.
The current Board commented that things have changed in signage since 1988, and that these
awnings seem to be the popular solution. Probably because this is a less costly alternative.
Mr. Petroff stated that the request is for the same awning on 2 sides. These awnings project only
a minimum amount. One along Clark Street and the other facing Benson Ave.. Chairman
y.., •.:�1 t. Y- -- �.s+ � `�. .k; �yf}art,] �'. •r1�f.
.1�r. ►��. •���` �r ^ ik,ti; -i; ti�}��i,i l��,� ,+T'.L f� r its • �i - � � r • � % -
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - February 15, 1996
Page 2
Stricker-Gay commented that as he sees these "awnings", they are essentially wall signs made out
of awning material.
Spaeth commented that the size of the graphic bothers him. The location of this signage will be
very prominent. The background material is white and it may be too bright. Abrams questioned
what could be done to ensure that the signage would not be too bright? Chairman Stricker-Gay
commented that we had this problem of brightness with the red strip around the top of Burger
King at Dempster. The solution there was to reduce from 2 lamps to a single lamp. Mr. Petroff
suggested that they reduce the lumen output from the 15,000 lumens per lamp proposed to 7,500
lumens per Iamp.
Abrams questioned the logo phase included in the proposal. Mr. Petroff suggested that this could
be removed. Abrams motions approval of the proposal with the reduced lumen output and
the elimination of the logo phrase "delivering the perfect pizza". This motion is seconded by
Spaeth and unanimously approved, (3-0)
C. Smith distributed a memo from Jack Weiss, a past Board member. The memo calls attention
to the City Ordinance regulating signs on the public right-of-way. He then indicated his concern
for the proposed "Congratulations NU Wildcats" signs which are to be mounted at the entry points
to the City. The Board briefly discussed this memo, although none of the Board members that
were present had any comments about the signs in question.
►. 1a1;tli-VAI ►[%VI 101ZY�
Hearing no other business, Chairman Stricker-Gay motioned adjournment at 8:15 p.m.
NEXT MEEM&
The next meeting of the S.R.A.B. is for Thursday, March 21, 19%.
A6A�
3
Carolyn Smi ,Assistant Director
= Community Development - Building Division
cc: J. Wolinski
B. Fahlstrom
W iw, 4.n ,, w dAA 6,. . W � . . . d•,, W iI,. d.. I, - 'A WN 1, dVd vhi ... Wi JILI@ 4.
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1996
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Qually, B. Greenberg, A. Spaeth, C. Abrams
MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Stxicker-Guy
STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith
iWA Y ljW'.'K IYI199
OTHERS PRESENT: Dave DeVleeschouwer - White Way Sign Co.(Koenig & Strey),
Henon Carson (Lupita's Tacos), David Goetz (Oak Street
Market/Whole Foods), David Blair, Vincent Pangle, Brad
Winick (Border's Inc.), Chuck Zenn - Olympic Sign (Einstein)
MINUTES
Acting Chairman Abrams declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Abrams
requested a motion for approval of the minutes from the meeting of February 15, 1996. Spaeth
motioned approval, which was seconded by Abrams and approved.
No citizens were present for comment at the beginning of the meeting. Glen Hedman, a resident
living near the new business "Lupita's Tacos", commented regarding the proposed signage after
the vote had taken place regarding that sign. The Board listened and responded to his concerns.
(See SRAB # 96-03)
Mr. Dave DeVleeschouwer presented the proposal for refacing an existing sign. Qually
questioned why Koenig & Strey wants their name below their logo, which also has their name on
it? Mr. DeVleeschouwer stated that he didn't know that answer. Abrams stated that he preferred
the new sign face, with the smaller version of the logo. Qually reminded the applicant that the
white background must have a lower illumination level than the graphic portions of the sign. Mr.
DeVleeschouwer stated that he was aware of that requirement, and that would be done. Abrams
motioned approval until January 1, 2003, when all lion -conforming signage must come into
conformance. Greenberg seconded and the motion was approved, 4-0.
- • - - Y - 3-. '-" - �is's e4l "'..�.F' •rA �€ s y4 :
i,66.11A9A �iir :l��lYII���I�w�!YKd16Yyl ilki ,. 'y 1+ 0ilk.tk M.. .r.&* , 4,i'w .., ,xi.,Y I. Ll.W�Y.W, ..
�T'
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - March 21, 1936
Page 2
S.R A B 6-0 ., s niia's TAws,1122 HMarABIWA
The tenant of the property, Mr. Henon Carson, presented the proposal to reface an existing sign.
Greenberg began by discussing the wall sign. C. Smith interjected, commenting that the wall sign
is not the subject of the appeal. Only the freestanding sign is being appealed. The wall sign was
approved by staff, as it conformed with the ordinance. Greenberg claimed that it did not conform
to the area allowed in the ordinance, as the gable portions of the roof should be excluded area,
This is the area that must have been counted. C. Smith commented that she would look into thlo,
but that the freestanding sign is what is being appealed. Greenberg then commented that the
freestanding sign issue is the same issue as the previous applicant, who was given approval,
Greenberg motioned approval until January 1, 2003, when all non -conforming signage must
come Into conformance. Qually seconded and the motion was approved, 4-0. A neighbor in
the audience, Glen Hedman, then spoke regarding the large sim of the existing freestanding sign.
He stated that although he was glad that Lupita's had moved into that location, he is unhappy
about the reuse of the large sign. Mr. Carson commented that the sign will be on a timer, and
- turned off when Lupita's is closed. Mr. Hedman stated before Lupita's leased the site, a pawn
shop was to have gone in that location. At that time, many of the neighbors turned out in protest
of the pawn shop, and one of their issues was the freestanding sign being too large. The Boards
3 response was that the signage is only allowed thru 12/31/2.002, at which time the signage must
come into compliance. Mr. Hedman said that this seems reasonable.
&R.A.B. #9fi:N: Oahmeet Mar1mil Whole Foods, 1615 Q ve.
Mr. Goetz, owner of the business, was present to discuss the proposal. The Board commented
that the issue is once again the same as the previous two appeals. Spaeth motioned approval
until January 1, 2W3, when all non -conforming signage must come into conformance.
Quaky seconded and the motion was approved, 4-0.
Greenberg began the discussion regarding the sign that is existing (previously approved) on the
Off ington Ave. side of the building. He stated that this is a "Miesian design", and the placement
of the signage. blocks an architectural feature of the building. The architectural feature is the
window spandrel panel. In a Mies van der Rohe design, glass and steel are the design elements.
C. Smith commented that this was approved by her, and as a licensed architect, she would
disagree that this signage blocks a significant feature. C. Smith continued that the brick on either
side of the elevation forms a mass, and in between that mass is inf]led with glass and panels.
In between the mass of brick would be an acceptable location for signage. Greenberg commented
that the signage extends above the glass and from the inside, the back of the lettering is visible.
This should not have been allowed. He stated that he would like to have his protest recorded in
the minutes, and that in the future, stall should baring such decisions to tine Board for approval.
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - March 21, 1996
Page 3
Quaky then asked that the discussion be moved to the signage that was the subject of the appeal.
David Blair, the architect for the tenant work, stated that this is a building with 2 principal
facades. As Orrington Ave. is a one way street going north, Border's needs some visual identity
on the south side of their building. There are several other businesses along the street there, but
this is the first commercial property. The commercial nature of that side of Orrington is
unknown. Greenberg comments that if you kook to the north from the intersection of Davis and
Orrington, you must be past the corner before you would even see their building, because of the
location of the bank building to the south. At that point, you will be able to spot the previously
approved sign on Orrington Ave.
Mr. Pangle comments that the bank building is currently adding steps to the plaza to allow access
at that point. The plaza is at a higher elevation that the surrounding sidewalk, necessitating the
higher signage. Qually questioned how the steps could interfere with a sign. The response from
the applicants was that with the adjacent public plaza being utilized as an outdoor seating area,
it is possible that the tables with umbrellas could interfere with signage at the ordinance height.
The Board disagreed, claiming that there would still be ample opportunity for compliance with
the ordinance. Mr. Blair added that the architectural composition of the south elevation lends
itself to the higher location, as the lower brick area is narrow. Greenberg mentioned that this is
a a good point, but that is assuming that the signage must be as large as is currently shown. If you
z modify the signage to be proportionate with the space that it would be occupying, it could be done
in an architecturally pleasing manner. Qually added that if you bring the signage down to the
ordinance required height, it must be reduced to fit in the brick area, or else bring up the topic
that was previously raised regarding blocking an architectural feature.
Qually stated that lie is familiar with and understands the needs of the retailer. The proposal for
a sign at that location strikes him as being a billboard, leading to the possibility of what he terms
the "Las Vegas Syndrome"(each sign being larger than the adjacent). This approach is
inappropriate for Evanston, particularly in the downtown area. Spaeth commented that he had
' driven by the site just before the meeting, and Border's already the most commanding signage on
- that street. Greenberg reiterated that their argument is not valid for a height variation, as one
must be past the corner anyway. Greenberg motioned to deny the signage based on inadequate
evidence of a hardship. The motion was seconded by Spaeth, and passed on a vote of 3-1.
y
Mr. Chuck Zenn, was available to answer questions regarding the appeal, representing Einstein
Bros. Bagels. Greenberg opened the discussion by questioning if the graphic indicated for the
awning is a logo. Mr. Zenn responded that although it has been installed on other locations in
a
ALMA, � A��,.
'F4" i.1%r!7
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - March 21, 1996
Page 4
the area, it is not a logo for the company. On that basis, the Board decided that this graphic
should be viewed as artwork, and not signage. Greenberg motioned that the graphic should be
allowed as submitted, as it is artwork. Qually seconded, and the motioned was approved, 4-0.
Hearing no other business, Acting Chairman Abrams motioned adjournment at 8:35 p.m.
The next meeting of gal S.R.A.B. is for Thursday, April 18, 1995.
-C
Carolyn mlth, Assistant Director
Community Development - Building Division
cc: J. Wolinski
B. Fahlstrom
In
ARWYM
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THMDAY, APRIL 189 1996
EVAN9TO1q CMC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Stricker-Gay, B. Greenberg, A. Spaeth, C. Abrams
MEMBERS ABSENT: R. Qually
STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas Wilson and Michael Rogers, McDonald's Corporation
David Friedman, Stir Fire Grill
Chairman Stricker-Gay declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.. Spaeth
motioned for approval of the minutes from the meeting of March 21, 1996. The motion was
seconded by Abrams and unanimously approved.
SIT 7KEN COMAWM
No citizens were present for comment.
S.R B # k:-0 - McDonWd's, 1219-25.Demp&t Street
Mr. Thomas Wilson, representing McDonald's Corporation, began the presentation for variation
by introducing the architect for the Playplace project, Mike Rogers, as well as the operations and
store manager for the Dempster store. Mr. Wilson began by outlining all requested variations,
as indicated on the application. Mr. Wilson pointed out the overall site signage amount indicated
has changed from the original application based on the revision of the side wall arches signage,
which reduced the overall number somewhat. Mr. Wilson emphases that with the existing free
standing signage, the proposal will not change the streetscape. That signage is being relocated
as it currently exists.
Greenberg questioned why the proposal for the free standing sign relocates the signage to the east
of the site, where the driveway visibility could be a problem, and another variation is required.
Mr. Rogers responded that the west part of the site was looked at, but there is an existing tree that
is on the neighbors property that could potentially block the visibility of the signage. Mr.
LA
q-
W Yol• . ..1 Y. .i
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - April 18, 1996
Page 2
Greenberg responded that in the proposed location, the Kentucky Fried Chicken freestanding sign
would prohibit visibility of the McDonald's sign.
Also, Mr. Greenberg continued, with regard to the location of the "Playplace" signage, you have
basically designed the problem into the building by placing the band of stucco material at a height
which exceeds our ordinance. Abrams declared that he agrees with Greenberg. Mr. Rogers
responded that all of the "Playplace" elevations have the band of stucco material at that height.
It was not done with any intent to exceed Evanston's ordinance. Chairman Stricker-Gay comments
that there are other McDonald's locations that have much smaller signage, such as the
McDonald's at Willow Road and PCmgsten Road. 'thus, all McDonald's signage is not handled
the same way. There is obviously some room for variation.
Mr. Wilson responds to the issues that Greenberg raised. He stated that the stretch of Dempster
is visually cluttered, but the free-standing sign rises up above die clutter. And that as far as
designing the problem into the addition, the design of the Playplace is done from the interior out.
The Playplace additions are 19 feet high to accommodate the play equipment inside. The Zoning
Board of Appeals that approved the location of the addition did not see the signage on the
addition.
Greenberg motioned to move the existing freestanding sign to the west, and deny the rest of the
variations requested. Spaeth seconded, but the motion did not pass, as the vote was 2-2.
Spaeth commented that he has a problem with the proposed height. Some discussion ensued
regarding the placement of the wall signage. Abrams motioned that the "Playplace" wall
signage be lowered to the middle band of stucco material, and that the proposed side wall
mounted arches be relocated to either side of the "Playplace" sign on the middle band of
stucco. In addition, the existing freestanding sign be allowed to be relocated as is to the
southwest corner of the site. The total lot area for these new signs and the other existing
signs will be allowed. This approval Is until January 1, 20-03, when all non -conforming
signage must come into conformance. This motion was seconded by Greenberg and
unanimously passed, 4-0.
Mr. David Friedman, owner of the Stir Fire Grill, was present to answer any questions with
regard to the variation. The only variation requested is from the "Existing Unified Center Plan".
Greenberg questions, as the rest of the Unified Plan has fallen apart, and this proposal meets the
sign ordinance, does anyone have any objections to approving the proposal? As no objections
were raised, Greenberg motioned approval, which was seconded by Abrams and approved,
4-0.
"""' S,!r �..� �, w cry`Yr7"FM+'ETC.''���1�'fr't*'r�•'R"t+crt"'4XlRf7�'• .+r• ,v T1fipnr-nr.*"�^'•'�erq+'�•tCrI.H••i...'.. ,� ..,, ,+r.., ••, DrT��„� . �t'a,*-r.
+Y r ON
y f ry e.ri
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - April 18, 1996
Page 3
As several of the businesses in this building have recently applied for a variation from the existing
Unified Business Center plan, which was approved almost 10 years ago, the Board requested that
staff provide the history of what has been approved for this site. The purpose of this synopsig
would be to invzstigate the possibility of removing the requirement that this property have a
Unified Business Center Plan. C. Smith stated that she will provide the Board with that
information.
Hearing no other business, Acting Chairman Abrams motioned adjournment at 8:35 p.m.
The next meetin of the S.R.A,B. is for Thursday, May 160 1996.
Carolyn Smith, Assistant 61rector
Community Development - Building Division
cc: J. Wolinski
B. Fahlstrom
d, .,W11 WOW W. n .+u W UI. uu W, .w w .G INI�YNIM itl. 001"W i6 . III&".1WuY
Draft Not Approved
• MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD
THURSDAY JUNE 27,1996
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Stricker Gay, B. Greenberg, A.Spaeth
MEMBERS ABSENT: R.Qually
STAFF PRESENT: R. Fahlstrom
OTHERS PRESENT: J. Robertson and Bob Clauss. (Park Evanston)
Branson Edwards and Jencl Sulzberger(Hollywood Videos)
Chris Maylone (Kaehler luggage)
Acting Chairman J. Stricker-Gay declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. noting
that there were no citizens present for citizen comment.
NF.W BUSI 163.9 CHICAGQ AVEM E,
Mr. Robinson of Trcacy Marketing and Mr. Clauss of The Buck Company presented their
proposal for temporary signs for the construction canopies along Chicago Avenue and Church
Street. The plan as presented, includes one 8' x 24' construction sign (3) 8"x 4" smaller leasing
signs and five logo signs at approximately sq. Feet each. Mr. Robertson stated that the signs
were carefully designed to be aesthetically pleasing.
Greenberg noted that this proposal was similar to signs used by other developers in that there are
way too many items of information, and that these items are too small to be seen by passing
' motorists or by most pedestrians. Greenberg proposes that all the items of information be
allowed, but that the signs be reduced in size to meet the maximums established by the Sign
ordinance. Greenberg notes that the Harry Wecse sign used at the corner is an effective sign
which conforms to the sign ordinance.
B. Clauss notes that these signs will utilize quality materials. Greenberg states that the Sign
Ordinance does not regulate materials for a construction sign. Greenberg says the main issue is
regarding these signs is 'size'. Greenberg motions to allow the proposed signs to keep all items
of information but they must be reduced in size to meet the maximum sizes stipulated in the Sign
Ordinance. A. Spaeth seconds the motion and a vote is taken. The motion fails 2 to l with
Stricker Gay voting against it.
iLLk.�.y✓,.. ... a� as
S.R.A.B. Meeting blinu.ts
June 271996
Page 2
Stricker-Gay notes that there is room for flexibility regarding these signs. Greenberg disagrees,
states that these signs will be up for a year and that the signs will be a traffic distraction. J.
Robertson states that his client could not accept such small construction signs. Greenberg notes
that if the signs were reduced in size that he wouldn't object to there being more of them .
Greenberg says the small logo signs are not the issue it is the size of the leasing and construction
signs that makes them obnoxious. Greenberg suggests that the large construction sign be split
into 2 signs. J, Robertson says that the only deletion or change his client would accept would be
to omit the architectural rendering. A discussion follows on the pros and cons of splitting the
sign.
Stricker-Gay notes that the Sign Ordinance only stipulates a maximum size for construction signs
for `unpermitted signs' if the signs were conventional wall signs, given the frontage of the
canopies that these signs could be much larger. B. Fahlstrom notes that the maximum allowable
sign size for a'Permitted" wall sign is 200 square, beet. A general discussion follows regarding
the total amount of sign area being proposed for this project and staff s number of 296 Sq. ft.
total area for the project is checked and confirmed. Greenberg states that if The Board could
look at the proposed signs not as construction signs, but as wall signs, that he could accept the
proposed signage as there seems to be latitude in the Ordinance for this interpretation. Greenberg
motions for acceptance of the sign proposal as presented. The motion passes 3 to 0.
B.Edwards from Hollywood Videos presents their proposal for "dryvit" sign band/canopy with
illuminated channel letter signs proposed for he north, south and west facades of this new band.
B. Edwards and B. Fahlstrom explain the history of this proposal and the issues surrounding the
existing concrete ledge which overhangs the city sidewalk at the western facade of the building.
The proposed canopy/fascia will cover this ledge. B. Edwards explains that Hollywood Video
will seek a licensure agreement with the City for this new fascia if the Sign board proposal for
the `dryvit' fascia and related signs.
y Greenberg states that in his judgement, the fascia is clearly a canopy and he would accept the
canopy, and proposed western and southern signs. He would not accept the northern sign.
Greenberg cautions that Chicago Avenue is a signage mess and that the proposed northern sign
isn't needed. B. Edwards explains Hollywood Video's need for signage that can compete with
`Blockbuster Video to the north.
Greenberg notes that he views the Board's allowing Blockbuster to receive a variance was a
"mistake" and he doesn't want to repeat this mistake again. Spaeth stated that his problem was
not with the proposed northern sign, but rather with the southern sign which would be clearly
seen from the branch library and neighboring apartment buildings.
. xi
L. diJ.ti,dnfy,. -P ..dA, ,i.. uwl!ELI -A-t4l.9ilbE-osFri:rr -
S.R.A.B. Meeting minutes
June 27
Page 3
B. Edwards says that he is flexible and would like to propose a `deal'. B. Edwards would
reduce the proposed southern sign (to which he is entitled by Code) to a freestanding 4' -0' High
x 10'-0' long sign this would constitute a reduction in sign are of 50% as well as lowering the
sign height to only 4' - 0" above ground. In return, the Sign Board would grant him the proposed
northern wall sign. A general discussion ensues concerning this proposal. Stricker-Gay and
Spaeth feel the proposal is worth accepting. Greenberg disagrees. Greenberg states that he will
retract his acceptance of the proposed fascia as a'canopy' if Hollywood Video continues to
demand the northern sign. Greenberg states that he wants to the record to show his opposition to
the continued degradation of Chicago Avenue with excess signage. Stricker-Gay and Spaeth
note that Hollywood Video's is entitled to the southern sign without compromising as they have
offered to do, and that The Board was reaching an impasse with the applicant.
I. Sulzberger (from Sarrfatty Architects) pointed out that Hollywood videos is going to provide
many new site amenities including planting, potted plants, a metal railing separating the sidewalk
from the parking area as well as new screening for the existing unsightly rooftop HVAC units
These improvements are going to upgrade the appearance of the building from a car dealership
into a more appealing general retail appearance . A brief discussion takes place concerning the
single source of access to the parking lot from Chicago avenue. Greenberg states that if
Hollywood Videos is truly going to provide all of these visual improvements, and given that
Chicago Avenue is the sole source of site automobile access he will go along with a motion to
approve the modified sign proposal with the 4'-0" high monument sign at the southern side and a
wail sign for the northern facade. A. Spaeth moves to accept the modified compromise solution
allowing the low monument sign at the southern side of the site and permitting the proposed wall
sign for the north facade. The motion is seconded and passes 3 to 0.
Chris Maylone of Mike Signs' makes his presentation for a non illuminated wall sign of
individual letters for the newly renovated storefront of Kaehler Luggage at 1415 Sherman.
Mr. Maylone states that the design of the letters is truly in keeping with the character of the
I
uilding's facade.
Greenberg states that he likes the graphic quality of the sign but that he would prefer to see the
design as lettering on the buildings canvas awnings. C. Maylone notes that canvas awnings with
the lettering would appear to be somewhat less permanent and that although budget constraints
will not allow the letters to be full 3 dimensional gold leaf on wood letters, every effort will be
made to make the plastic letters selected for the project look this way.
wa ,.
..�.0
,.., ibJ....
'. •,.t:.,,., , . « � � • i� t r' • ,.7. y jT �. tic( {�� ! ati , �;; 1 �s
✓ �iL' .L -.��'M. 1`i sM�. �I 4 es:-.�. a � ��r r ti�`.'Es .'" i,4
1•
S.RA.B.Meeting Minutes
June 27,1996
Page A
Spaeth notes that this particular building site is remote from major thoroughfares so the
likelihood of public criticism is reduced. Striker -Gay states that the design of this sign
would appear to be exactly what the framers of the Sign Ordinance would want with the
exception of the sign's mounting height. Greenberg and Spaeth agree that the sign design is very
appropriate for this building. Spaeth motion for acceptance of this variation proposal and the
motion passes 3 to 0.
There being no other business, the meeting adjourns at 9.00 P.M.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the S.R.A.B. is scheduled for Thursday, July 18,1996.
obert Fahlstrom. - Coordinating Inspector
I Wolinski, C. Smith
V v':
DRAFT - NOT APPROVED
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD
THURSDAY JULY 18,1996
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Stricker Gay, B. Greenberg, A. Spaeth, R. Qually
STAFF PRESENT; R. Fahlstrom
OTHERS PRESENT: Judy Berg - Private Citizen
Jack Freeman - Northwestern University
George Woock - White Way Sign Company
Acting Chairman Stricker Gay declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at 7:35P.M..
The Chairman asked for a vote of approval for the meeting minutes of June 27, 1996. The
minutes were approved unanimously. Chairman Stricker Gay then asked if there was any citizen
comment. Judy Berg replied that she was present only to observe the meeting not to make any
comments.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. George Woock of White Way Signs then began his presentation to the Board. Using a
presentation board with color photographs, Mr. Woock explained that the intention of the
proposal was to re -face the existing northeast scoreboard and to shift its location by one support
pylon towards the east. Mr. Woock explained that this was required so that the scoreboard could
be clearly seen away from the new I story building that Northwestern university was going to
build in the end zone. Mr. Woock further explained that this scorcboard is only visible from one
small location on Central Street and that shifting the scoreboard location would make the
scoreboard even less visible.
A.Spneth asked if it was McGaw flail that was being expanded. R. Fahistrom explained the
Scope of proposed renovation work for Dyche Stadium and that the building in the end zone
would be a l story locker room facility. B. Greenberg asked if there were any Zoning problems
i with this proposal. R. Falilstrom stated that The Zoning Division did not see a problem with
relocating the scoreboard by one support to the cast but, a Special Use Variance would most
likely be required from The Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed Wildcat sign box which
would be placed on top of the scoreboard.
'v : 7'y�f;t�'7YhtlF,7
S.R.A.B. Meeting
July 18,1996
Page 2
A general discussion followed concerning the proposed Wildcat Logo. G. Woock noted that the
scoreboard itself would not change size, and that the Wildcat Logo Box Sign was the only
proposed addition. G,Woock also added that the Logo Box Sign would only be illuminated and
visible from the stadium side and that the scoreboard and logo would have blank backs.
R. Qually asked about the movable copy portion of the scoreboard. G. Woock explained the Tri
Vision portions of the scoreboard. At this time B. Greenberg made a motion to accept the
proposal as shown. R. Fahlstrom asked G. Woock to explain the proposed box sign below the
southwest scoreboard. G. Woock explained the proposed box sign below the southwest
scoreboard and a brief general discussion followed in which G. Woock explained that this
proposal for the scoreboard would be smaller than the first proposal shown on the submittal.
B. Greenberg again motioned for acceptance of the proposal with the provision that Sign Board
Approval of the proposed Wildcat sign box is =biect to the opproval of all anoiicable Zoning
Boards. R. Qually seconds, and the motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Stricker Gay discussed the proposal by Staff that a fax would be sent by City Staff to
each member of the S.R.A.B. Board prior to the monthly meeting to determine if that member
would be attending the meeting. The board members would sign the fax and re -fax it back to the
city to indicate whether or not they could attend the meeting. B. Greenberg noted that if city
Staff did not receive a fax in return, it would alert them that there might be a potential attendance
problem which, B. Greenberg noted, would eliminate the rounds of `phone tag'. Chairman
Stricker Gay motioned for approval and the motion passed unanimously.
There being no other business before the Board Chairman Stricker Gay motioned for
adjournment at 8:00 P.M.
The next meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is scheduled for:
August l S1. 9 ,
r� t
t
Robert Fahlstrom - Coordinating Inspector
Building division
1101 - - �fi•', x 5•,`�1n "'M'''1i ^•:{far105diaA##" ;t"-4-J!* AA-,k--A144
1, �
�.J-w�:..."..b�..�l Y� °.� .rwwyi�i ��.YL�M.
_ _ .4 �. W. .., ..rly wy•ri •Y JwY Y ,WI .Y
• � ��4 Ya .mow
.Y J.I, sYY.� _ u�.,.,�.
MINUTES
SIGN REVEEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 1996
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER,, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Stricker-Gay, B. Greenberg, A. Spaeth, R. Qually
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: Chuck Alden - Grate Signs,Inc. for 1st Chicago, Bill Benson -
Kinko's, Jim Meyers - Meyers + Co., Andy Koglln - Koglin
Wilson Architects for Crown Books, Tom Judd - La Madelelne,
Ann Hunzinger - Evanston Awning
Chairman Stricker-Gay declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.. Greenberg
motioned for approval of the minutes from the meeting of July 18, 1996. The motion was
seconded by Qually and unanimously approved, 4-0.
No citizens were present for comment.
M-All i ZOIT Fl U 1 y 1 T'jI
Mr. Alden presented the proposal to reface the existing freestanding monument sign. Qually
confirmed with Mr. Alden that the size of the sign box will not change. Greenberg motioned
approval as submitted, which was seconded by Qually, and unanimously approved, 4-0.
Dill Benson and Jim Meyers were present to answer any questions regarding their proposal. They
a
1 1_6 aA iLa n. W. .c.. I-L 11. H. .,A--I.,W.r
Sign Review and Appeals Board
August 15, 1995
Page Z
stated that their current freestanding sign is basically invisible. Greenberg commented that the
current sign is red, and as you can see by the photos that were submitted, It is visible. Qually
asked why Kinko's is moving from their location in downtown Evanston. Mr, Benson responded
that this space is larger. Qually commented that the type of signage that is being proposed is
exactly why the ordinance is in effect. This is northwest Evanston, not Las Vegas, continued
Qually. Mr. Benson inquired about the adjacent pole sign that is on the Koenig and Strey
property. Greenberg responded that this was a variation to reface their existing sign box. Mr.
Meyers commented that the current height, is not above the top of a car. He believes that the
freestanding sign needs to be raised at least above the tops of cars. Spaeth commented that
because of the traffic lights (at Lincoln Street and Central Street), frequently he has been stopped
by traffic directly in front of the center and sign. Greenberg comments that it is almost visible
above any car, and stated that this is evident in the submitted photos.
Greenberg stated that nothing said by the applicants thus far has convinced him of a hardship.
Greenberg suggested that the Board follow the recommendation of the Site Plan and Appearance
Review Committee, and deny the proposed pole sign, but allow the revisions necessary to modify
the existing monument sign with the new tenant. With that comment, Greenberg motioned
dental, but woWd recommend approval of the refacing of the existing monument sign to allow
signage for the new tenant. This motion was seconded by Qually and unanimously
approved, 4-0.
Andy Koglin, or Koglin Wilson Architects, presented the proposal. Qually commented that both
the wall sign and the logo are very tastefully done and motioned to approve both as submitted.
This motion was seconded by Greenberg, and unanimously approved, 4-0.
Ann Hunzinger of Evanston Awning and Tom Judd of La Madeleine, presented the proposal.
Spaeth questioned the extension of the awning to Y-O". The response was to protect cafe
customers. Greenberg stated that this extension would be further than the other storefront
awnings on Sherman and Orrington. Ms. Hunzinger explained that the graphic logo size is the
same on all of the awnings. Greenberg commented that the graphics are attractive. Greenberg
motioned to approve all of the graphics, but not the extension of the awnings. This was
seconded by Qually, and unanimously approved, 4-0.
ADIOIJRN
lillti.. i., .. •�:.�.• i.a •. I r/..w H.u.91 _ n.A.,, a•.:a.,wi.JiR I'h].Li�lmnerl.. ���'Ai'slsil�L►, l�7rx14i�i .idttllitfllliVNw� +7L/i4ti��i�l t`
A
Sign Review and Appeals Board
August IS, 1996
Page 3
�.�[��.1�4�1'.j•4ti'��1 •' V� to{�},pJn'd!',�5.4�1-({' � .1� i1•: ILti'.iil?�i�" 4Z:^4t5-.I -si 1'iri
77.
Hearing no other business, Chairman Stricker-Gay motioned adjournment at 8:20 p.m.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the S,R.A.B. is for Thursday, September 19, 1996
n �
Carolyn Smith, Assistant Director
Community Development - Building Division
cc: J. Wolinski
D. Fahlstrom
2:.7'•t:';s:}t
t.Il=.. . .... Y/` 41 ...JA
.. � �-R` fop--�'� ! �4 k -j �ii y, al�E�t- � a . • � •. . . ..
•Y-+ `fit f. �,if�� Lr114`
MINUTES
1 ES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1996
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Greenberg, A. Spaeth, R. Qually
MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Stricker-Gay
STAFF PRESENT: _ C. Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Stone - Flat Top Grill, Joe Cheney - North Shore Sign,
Matt Doherty - St. Nicholas Church, Paul Boomsma - 817
Forest, Scott Kruger - Koenig/Strey (SBR), Richard Carter -
2212 Greenbay Road, Stuart Sabath - Evanston Subaru, Tim
Anderson - Focus Development
Acting Chairman Greenberg declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.. Qually
motioned for approval of the minutes from the meeting of August 15, 1996. The motion was
seconded by Spaeth and unanimously approved, 3-0.
No citizens were present for continent.
Architect Robert Stone presented the proposal to add red "flames" to the top of the Flat Top's
existing sign. They originally tried to fit the "flames" portion of the sign inside the sign panel on
the building, but then the words would be too small. Greenberg commented that all the other
signage fits within the sign panels, and the argument that Mr. Stone presents is not an overriding
reason to change. Qually adds that this would upstage the other businesses. Also, Qually
continues, you have your "logo" eight times across the windows. Qually questions if this is a
• t .r ..rr.
��•a�rt',RY"rw '�zz • .�.rir, 'f�..�,nf.� wRzl Y`�r5: ..53� � Jr;•Wi:.s �F�, ttt may. � ti f'"•t7 i� i` ' ..�
i !r`+C,..l.. !. �j. '='•.. frw..r� s.:.![vf :,i::. l ;..r_,�h.. �i`,��1.4..A x:z,a.3.1_u:.".:�3,. '.a -. �7 ,.ir44H :. i,. s_'�. ..
r' � .if`. /fq. h i''?jf �"it f :`,;i r"
ti. 3 .. a'a_,.:_� ..-.� z�.. _,z:�,::r':3Y i.l
•'`fir F'{st,_..;�$k ;•e"�,.'.1
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - September 19, 19%
Page 2
franchise. Mr. Stone responds no, The Flat Top has another store in Chicago, and they are
looking for recognition. Spaeth continents, in this location, the height restriction is critical and
also mentions that the choice of color (blue) of the word "grill" is not legible. Greenberg
motioned to deny the proposal, which was seconded by Qually, and unarrlmously approved,
3-0.
Matt Doherty, a graphic designer representing St. Nicholas presented the proposal to -have 12'
high temporary banners in front of St. Nicholas Church for a period of up . to . two years,
throughout their capital campaign. The banners are proposed to be erected on an existing flag
pole. Greenberg questioned the 12' height. Mr. Doherty responded that this is the height that
he felt would look proportionate given the size and height of the church. Greenberg commented
that the banners are too big. After a couple months, people will no longer notice, and these will
be up for 2 years. Qually comments that he has no problem with thr proposal. Qually motioned
approval of the proposal. This motion was seconded by Spaeth and unanimously approved,
3-0.
Tim Anderson presented the proposal for a temporary freestanding real estate sign. Greenberg
commented that we should allow the signage in order to help this project get underway. The other
Board members commented that we have allowed similar temporary signage in the past.
Greenberg motioned approval of the proposal, which was seconded by Qually and
unanimously approved, 3-0.
Paul Boomsma and Scott Kruger presented the proposal for a temporary free-standing sign for the
condominium conversion of a 25 unit courtyard building. As the original proposal called for a
double face sign, they are now proposing a single face sign, in light of the fact that the street is
a one-way street. Greenberg questioned if the size could be reduced. Scott Kruger responded that
they are proposing to use a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood. This is the minimum size to get all of the
information necessary on the sign. Spaeth commented that there seems to be too many items of
information on the sign. Greenberg stated that the Sign Ordinance does not sufficiently address
real estate signs and the information being proposed is important. Mr. Boomsma commented that
68% of buyers surveyed buy based on signage. Qually stated that he doesn't have a problem with
the size or the information. Qually motioned to approve the single sip proposal, with the sire
r'
a,,9•
r'n 1• a., 4••�_9l
Sign Review and Appe& Board
Meeting Minutes - September 19, 19%
Page 3
and information indicated. This motion was seconded by Spaeth, and unanimously
approved, 3-0.
Richard Carter, owner of the Car 'Nash, presented his proposal for wall signage on the north side
of the property. Mr. Carter explained his treed for the signage is economic hardship, as he does
not have viability of his operation due to the configuration of Greenbay Road, with the railroad
embankment across the street. The submittal does not represent the exact signage (typeface,
color, etc.), and the board discusses this. Greenberg motions to approve the concept, and. have
-
the City review the exact sipage color, etc. Spaeth seconded, and the motion was
unanimously approved.
Stuart Sabath of Evanston Subaru presented the proposal for the changes to the existing wall signs.
Mr. Sabath stated that the reason for the change is that there has been a change in ownership of
the dealership. Qually asked if Sims (previous owner) is out of business. Mr. Sabath responded
yes. Evanston Subaru is proposing the same materials and colors be used in the name change.
Greenberg motioned approval. This was seconded by Qually, and unanimously approved,
3-0.
Paul Boomsma and Scott Kruger presented the proposal for a temporary free-standing sign for the
condominium conversion of a 25 unit courtyard building. The Board discussed the same items
as the previous (S.R.A.B. #96-23) proposal. Spaeth motions approval. This was seconded by
Greenberg, and unanimously approved, 3-0. C. Smith cautioned that the applicant cannot erect
any signage until all notification requirements have been satisfied.
Hearing no other business, Acting Chairman Greenberg motioned adjournment at 8:20 p.m.
.__j -- -- ' .'#` h - � .. nn . - - �—ni— t r��gnrin7-n'".-lAF� , .. n o, y� �• w� I f�� in �i7.rl� -
d
• L'dI W. YI •+4.
1
.1 W. +1, ih N. JU a J n
Sign Review and A►ppeais Board
Meeting Minutes - September 19, 1996
Page 4
m
The next meeting of the S.R.A.B, is scheduled for Thursday. October 17, 1996. (The October
meeting was suh tly cancelled. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November
14r,�9�•) A
Carolyn Smith, Assistant Director
Community Development - Building Division
cc: 1. Wolinski
B. Fahlstrom
g
��t:a- �
if -1
r: �:;irt�i�i..iu`s+F:-,4 .-»-..,-,�..,�.�„s-.r...•,t,.F'"w?��,, n'. ,_.'._Ji-
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THURSUAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1996
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Stricker-Gay, C. Thomas, M. Larson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
A. Spaeth, R. Qually
C. Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Pilz - Consolidated Sign (Osco Drug), Chris Maylone -
Mike Signs, Tom Rosxak - Focus development, Dan Constance -
Central Reese Service, Gordon Magill - Moffet Realty, Richard
Alf - Architect for 1512-22 Sherman
Chairman declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting minutes of
September 19, 1996 were unanimously approved, 3-0.
No citizens were present for comment,
Chairman Stricker-Gay began by questioning if the proposed sign has already been installed. The
response from Chris Maylone, of Mike's Signs, was yes, this sign has already been installed.
Mr. Maylone stated that he has received some favorable comments. Larson added that he noticed
another real estate sign on the property. Mr. Maylone confirmed that there was a smaller (2, x
Y) sign that is a typical, exempt real estate sales sign. Larson motioned to approve the
proposal only until August 1, 1997. This motion was seconded by Thomas, and unanimously
approved, 3-0.
,S.R.A.B. #96-28:Jewel lOsco, 3333 Central Street,
3
Mr. Dave Pilz presented the proposed illuminated wall sign. The size, type face and color is the
n
•! �'� it • ; T "� • ,G '-r� ' ��:�f �J?i•�y j� y £: # iqfP
�.
�j:: yi •�'� z �`, S is *�fi_ ..
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - November 14, 1996
Page 2
same as the existing "Jewel/Oscu" signage, The proposed sign will also be individual channel
letters, with a bronze return, to match the existing. The reason for the variation is based on the
existing canopy that prevents the signage from being mounted within the ordinance height.
Thomas commented that this does appear to be a hardship, and motions approval of the
proposal. Larson seconded and the motion was unanimously approved, 3-0.
Mr. Tom Rozsak presented the temporary sign and stated that it is already in place based on an
error in communication with his sign company. When they (Focus Development) received their
approval at the last meeting for the residential real estate, the sign company erected both signs.
Chairman Stricker-Gay stated that although he had no problem with the need for a temporary sign,
he would like to see the time duration limited to a maximum of 12 months. Thomas motioned
to approve the temporary sign until November 1, 1997. This motion was seconded by
Larson, and unanimously approved, 3-0.
Mr. Dan Constance presented his proposal. Chairman Stricker-Gay commented that based on the
configuration of the site, there is no location for a free standing sign within the ordinance.
Thomas commented that the existing location does not appear to be a traffic problem. Stricker-
Gay states that the height is not excessive. Larson questions if the words "Mobil Oil" are going
to appear anywhere else on the sign or site. Mr. Constance responded no. Larson motioned
approval until January 1, 2003. This motion was seconded by Thomas, and unanimously
approved, 3-0.
Mr. Maylone, of Mike's Signs presented a sample of the sign material, which is a painted wood.
Chairman Stricker-Gay comments that it seems a tasteful solution. Kaehler has a definite
disadvantage as there is no sidewalk across the street, thus limiting the opportunity for any
visibility. As the proposed sign would face the Emmuel Lutheran Church parking lot, Thomas
asks if the church has seen the proposal. Mr. Maylone responds that they have seen it. Chairman
Stricker-Gay remarks that since the notice has been posted, and nobody has come to comment,
we can assume that no one has any issue with the sign. Thomas motioned approval. This was
seconded by Larson, and unanimously approved, 3-0.
Y
I JAY Ylo IY..I. i. . ui Ai - JYi. Ji IA IL .Y i Wi .ln A,,
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - November 14, 1996
Page 3
Mr. Gordon Magill and Mr. Richard Alf present the proposal for terra cotta colored canvas sign
bands, with white I V silk screened uppercase letters. The sign above Peggy Robinson Jewelry
is the only proposed illuminated (exterior illumination) sign. Chairman Stricker-Gay comments
that the single illuminated sign does not allow for a "unified" look. Thomas commented that he
doesn't think that any illumination is necessary. The display windows provide a nice amount of
illumination, and focus the attention on the display, not the signage. Mr. Gordon responded that
he didn't know how Peggy (Robinson) would respond. Illumination is a tradition with her. I
think she feels that it is very important. The other storefronts are not open late, and if they were
made to conform, would have light on their signs, but not be open. Stricker-Gay mentions that
if this were not a Unified Plan, it would not come before this board, as it meets all aspects of the
Ordinance, although there is a matter of consistency. Larson mentions that the background and
the lettering will give the unified appearance. Larson motions approval of the plan as
submitted. This was seconded by Thomas, and unanlmously approved, 3-0.
Hearing, no other business, Chairman Stricker-Gay motioned adjournment at 8:33 p.m.
The next meeting of the S.R.A.B. is for Thursday, December 12, 1996.
Carolyn Smith, Assistant Director
Community Development - Building Division
cc: J. Wolinski
B. Fahlstrom
•Y ++�ui a yiu Jlli + u ..y i ,. ••�0 NO , F1't
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
THMDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1996
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Stricker-Gay, C. Thomas, M. Larson, A. Spaeth
MEMBERS ABSENT: R. Qually
STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: Ann M. Cunniff - Palliative Care Center (North Shore Hospice)
James Meyers - Evanston North Plaza
HIMUES
Chairman declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting minutes of
November 14, 1996 were unanimously approved, 4-0.
cTrMEN COMMENT
No citizens were present for comment.
NEW RUSMffM
&R.A. 126-33: 1Hlospieg of the North Show,, 2821 Central Street
Ms. Ann Cunniff, Director of Communications for the Palliative Care Center, explained the need
for the proposed signage. She gave a brief history of how the Center came to be located in the
building. The Center has been very sensitive to the appearance of the building and their
landscaping. They would not propose something that was garish. The Center is a non for profit
health care facility, which is unique in the health care industry. it is important, she continued,
that the Community understand that they offer Home Care. The Center does not advertise and
they must compete with hard core ad programs of large institutions, such as Advocate Health
Care, to promote our home care program. Larson questioned if they will also change the signage
on the front of the building. Ms. Cunniff responded no. The wording on that sign "...of the
North Shore" has enormous equity for them, and they plan to retain it. Their intent is to indicate
that they offer both, Hospice and Home Care programs. Spaeth comments that the signage looks
attractive. Thomas motioned to approve the proposal as submitted. This motion was
seconded by Larson, and unanimously approved, 4-0.
�.f.u;1'�„= �•�.:. ���� ��• � � �h 7"���F � -C � 7-�i �. � x`.i`-��'� _ 1 a.�_t r� �_ _ "� ;S �_r''f �S -,,.� �, "Y'�-. �- r �R� f � r` _ srS
Yw.W Yli 4w. .Yi JL ■.� JY. .wi n+ . IY a i�..1.0.
Sign Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - December 12, 1996
Page 2
k-AXI"I
f I%J 1 1 I. liti (. 1 L f1
Mr. Meyers presented the proposal to relocate an existing illuminated wall sign. Mr. Meyers
explained that the last time he presented a proposal before the Sign Review and Appeals Board
on behalf of Kinko's, the Board rejected the proposal. The previous proposal was extreme, but
at the time, Mr. Meyers was in negotiations with Kinko's, and they felt strongly about the
opportunity to bring traffic in from Greenbay Road.
Since the original Unified Business Center plan was approved, traffic on Greenbay Road has
increased its speed considerably. It has been difficult for a small retail center to survive. Thomas
commented that he is surprised that they have managed at all. Mr. Meyers stated that recently,
the haven't done vcry well. Chairman Stricker-Gay questioned if Mr. Meyers has had any
discussion with the property to the south, Phoenix Design. Mr. Meyers said that this is the
second time within four months that a notice regarding the sign appeal has been posted on the sitc.
and the owner of that property has not made any contact with Mr. Meyers, nor has he come to
the meetings. Mr. Meyers suggested at this time that he would be willing to lower the sign, such
that it would be in conformance with the height requirement of 15.5'.
The Board questioned if the sign would overhang the property line. Mr. Meyers responded that
the wall is quite. close to the property line, and that he would agree to recess it, if reed b.. There
was some conccrn regarding confusion with the existing freestanding "Phoenix Design" sign. The
Board discussed the possibility of people being confused about which parking lot would belong
to Kinko's. Mr. Meyers responded that the background color of the relocated sign will match the
previously approved signage (blue background) that belongs with the center, this would minimize
any confusion. After some discussion regarding this issue, Spaeth motions approval of the
proposal, providing the height will not exceed 15'41, the signage will be Hersh (recessed In
the wall), and the color/lettering will be as submitted, matching the previously approved
monument sign face. Larson seconded and the motion was unanimously approved, 3-0.
Hearing no other business, Chairman Stricker-Gay motioned adjournment at 8:00 p.m.
SIgu Review and Appeals Board
Meeting Minutes - December 12, 19%
Page
The next meeting of the S.R.A.B. is for Thursday, January 9, 1997. ('This, meeting was
subsequently cancelled. IMe next Mewny h fgr Thursday. Mmaa 13, 1997.)
a
caarolgn Smith, want Director
Community Development - Building Division
cc: J. Wolinski
B. Fahlstrom
pis+