Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1991.1 �k i DRAFT NOT APPROVED Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD Thursday, February 21, 1991 N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, and J. Weiss L. Krasnow and J. Melton J. Wolinski Minutes The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. and asked for approval of the minutes of the December 20, 1990 meeting. The motion was made and seconded with unanimous approval of the minutes. S.R.A.B. 91-1 To Consider a Request for Variation to Permit the Refacing of a Legal Nonconforming Sign for Point One Motors, 1930 Ridge Avenue. Evanston. Illinois. The Chairman pointed out that the variations needed for this proposal were that a sign loses its legal nonconforming status if one or more of the following occurs: 1. Sign Alteration 2. Message The existing sign height is 30 ft., and a freestanding sign shall not exceed the maximum sign height of 15 1/2 ft. The existing sign height of 30 ft. is with a one ft. setback. A freestanding sign within 3 ft. of any perimeter lot line may not exceed 3 ft. in height. Mr. Charles Sheehan of Ahern Sign was on hand to present the case. Mr. Sheehan pointed out that there was a change in the application since it had been submitted. The change In the application was that Chrysler Corporation who owns the signs in question were proposing to remove the existing Chrysler sign, the existing Jeep Eagle sign, and an abandoned pole and to replace those two (2) signs with one (1) freestanding sign asking for a height between 18 to 20 ft. with a 7 ft. setback from the property line. Mr. Weiss pointed out that the new single sign did propose a problem in rhAt it would be too clova to the driveway, approximately 6 ft. from the driveway. The Chairman questioned what would happen if the sign was brought down to 15 ft. to conform with the ordinance? Mr. Sheehan responded that bringing the sign down that low would cause the lower portion of the sign to possibly be a safety hazard. The Chairman asked staff what the regulations were on signage in relation to the driveway? Wolinski responded that the sign had to be a minimum of 20 ft. from any driveway. Sign Review and Appeals Board` February 21, 1991 Page 2 Mr. Weiss then questioned why couldn't the sign be located 20 ft. south of the driveway? Mr. Sheehan responded that this would require the sign to be placed in such a manner that a parking space in the lot would be eliminated. A discussion then centered on the placement of the sign that would most conform to the ordinance. The Board reiterated that the three (3) variances asked for on setback, height and location of the driveway needed to be reduced In some manner. Mr. Sheehan responded that he was asking some consideration from the Board with the thought that two (2) signs and a pole were being eliminated with one (1) new sign to replace them; thus, reducing the overall amount of signage on the site. Mr. Weiss also brought up that there was another problem in the fact that w)tien variations had been sought for this site in 1988, the sign at the northend of the property was to be refaced with an opaque background. The sign was refaced, but an opaque background was not used. Also the Board requirod rho super structure frame from the old Cadillac sign on the roof to be removed. This had also not been done. Mr. Sheehan responded that the signs he is asking for variations for belong to tho Chrysler Corporation and not to Point One Motors. He felt that this was a separate issue that should be addressed by the City in a separate manner. The signs he is asking for variations for was for the Chrysler Corporation, Mr. Weiss then ,tated that he could support some aspects of the variation requests for the single freestanding sign provided that the agreement made at the meeting in 1988 with Point One Motors be met. This included the refacing of the service sign on the northend of the property with an opaque background and the super structure on the roof being removed. The Chairman then asked Wolinski if this conditional approval could be made within the purview of the Board or was it necessary for Corporation Counsel to review it? wolinski responded that there are currently violations of the agreement of 1988 which the City takes a dim view of that have never been complied with. He agreed, however, that the conditions proposed tonight by Mr. Weiss should be reviewed by Corporation Counsel to ensure the legality of the linking of the variation requests with the condition proposed. If the linkage was approved by Corporation Counsel, then the variation requests would only be approved with the meeting of the previous Board's decision concerning the existing signage. If Corporation Counsel's opinion was that the linkage was beyond the power of the Board, then the variation could be granted And the City would take other means to ensure compliance with the previous agroomPnr. wolinski then recommended to the Board, if it is their wish to grant a variation on the proposed sign tonight, to state the limitations and proceed with the request for legal opinion. ti 1 Sign Review and Appeals Board February 21, 1991 Page 3 Mr. Weiss then put it in the form of a motion to accept the freestanding sign proposed to be placed in the following manner: 1. No closer than 20 ft. south of the driveway. 2. 15 ft. west of the property line. 3. Height of no more than 17 ft, fie also conditioned this variation approval on the following: 1. The two (2) existing signs namely, the Jeep Eagle and the Chrysler sign would be entirely removed and the single pole with no signage on it would also be removed in its entirety. 2. To bring all other violations on the site into conformance with the previous agreement of the Sign Board Meeting of November 17, 1988. Blake seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously (3-0). S.R.A.B. 91-3 Consider a Reference from the Planning and Development Committee for Technical Assistance Concerning the Existing Freestanding Sign at McDonald's, 1919-25 Dempster Street, Evanston, Illinois. Ms. Barbara Gosseler, Jeff Gylling and Cynthia Sauer were present to present the case for McDonald's. Ns. Gosseler, attorney for the McDonald's Corporation began by stating that the McDonald's Corporation had been seeking a special use from the City to place a playground in the front yard of the McDonald's on Dempster Street. The special use for the playlot was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals with the condition that the existing freestanding sign be brought into conformance with the Sign Ordinance. The Planning and Development Commirr.ea upon reviewing the case, decided to seek a recommendation from the Sign Review and Appeals Board for technical assistance concerning the sign. Ma. Gosseler also stated that the lower portion sign stating "drive -through" on the freestanding sign was going to be removed. Mr. O'Meara questioned if there was a time schedule for when this sign would be due for either major maintenance or replacement. The response was that it was difficult to say if this sign would need replacement in 10, 1S or even 20 years. Several Board members stated support for a sunset provision on nonconforming signage, which would help to eliminate this type of question from being considered. The Board as a whole felt that because of nonconformity of the freestanding sign was due to both its height and proximity of the property lines, little can be accomplished in attempting to bring the existing sign into conformity. The Board then discussed an equitable time table for when the existing freestanding sign would be removed and a new sign erected which would conform to the regulations of the Sign Ordinance. Sign Review and Appeals Board February 21, 1991 Page A The Board recommended by a vote of 3 - 0 to recommend to permit the existing freestanding sign to remain in its present status minus the drive -through signage until such time that major maintenance is needed on the sign which will exceed 50% of the replacement value of the sign. At such time, the existing freestanding sign will be removed and any new freestanding sign that will be erected will conform to the regulations of the Sign Ordinance. The Board further recommended that the Planning and Development Committee require a commitment from the McDonald's Corporation with respect to a time frame to -establishing when a major modification to said sign will be requirad S.R.A.B. 91-2 Consider a Request for an Amendment to the Approved Unified Business Center Sian Plan for the Signery, 1127 Emerson Street, Evanston, Illinois. Mr. Henry Funkenbush, owner of The Signery was on hand to present his r.RsP The Chairman pointed out that the applicant was requesting permanent window lettering on the south facade window of his store advertising various typos of signage that The Signery can provide. This type of signage was not approved by the Sign Review and Appeals Board when it approved the Unified Business Center Plan for this site on May 21, 1990, thus an amendment would have to bp approved. Mr. Funkenbush began by stating that he was requesting the amendment to hav4 the signage on the window because his business was promoting a new type of signage which passerbys would not be aware of unless they saw the advertising on the windows. Mr. Funkenbush pointed out that all of his signage was computer generated. He assured the Board that because he is in the sign business, whatever window signage that would be allowed would be tastefully done. He again reiterated that because his was a new type of business, that he needed this additional signage. Mr. Blake pointed out that the Board fully supports identification signage, but takes a dim view of advertising signage. He further stated that this type of advertising is not appropriate in a window and could not support it. Mr. Blake agreed with Mr. O'Meara stating that the Board has consistently denied requests for advertising on any type of signage. Mr. Blake also addressed the striping that was proposed, stating that the basic rotor of rhp center was to be green and that to allow multicolored striping would be in direct violation of the plan that had already been approved. Mr. Weiss stated that he agreed with the comments made by the other Board members concerning this window signage. He stated that he could not Support the amendment, but that If after a year's time, If Mr. Funkenbush could pravo a hardship that not having this signage was impeding his business, then the Board would consider it again. Mr. Weiss than moved to deny the amendment to the Unified Business Center Plan for this site. Seconded by Mr. Blake and approved unanimously to deny the amendment (3-0). Sign Review and Appeals Board February 21, 1991 Page 5 Adjournment There being no other business, the Board adjourned at 10 p.m. Noxt XeetinF, The next scheduled meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is schedulod for March 21, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. r -,James Wolinski Director, Building Building & Zoning Department --,0`x; �" -, (-%�,,./ Date ..e DRAFT NOT APPROVED Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD Thursday, March 21, 1991 N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, L. Krasnow and J. Melton J. Weiss J. Wolinski Minutes The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and asked for approval of thA minutes of the February 21, 1991 meeting. The motion was made and seconded with unanimous approval of the minutes. Now Business S.R.A.B. #91-4 Consider a request for variation to permit the refacing of a nonconforming sign for The Evanston Chicken Shack, 1925 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois. The Chairman pointed out that the variations needed for this proposal were that a sign loses its legal nonconforming status if one or more of the following occurs. sign alteration or message change. The proposed sign is 15 112 ft. high, the existing setback from the property line is 4 ft. The height of a freestanding sign may not exceed the distance between the sign and lot line. Kr. Richard Sanchez, owner of The Evanston Chicken Shack, was on hand to present the case. Mr. Sanchez began by stating there was an existing pole at the location right now and the sign had been previously removed, that he wished to put up a new sign on this existing pole. The Chairman asked why Mr. Sanchez felt that the pole sign was needed? Mr. Sanchez responded that for traffic coming towards the north on Ridge Avenue, that traffic would bypass his business without even knowing it was therA without a pole sign. Mr. O'Meara then asked if the majority of Mr. Sanchez's business was phonod in or was it drive -up. He responded by stating although he did receive A lot of phone-in orders, that there was a lot of drive -up business as well. Mr. O'Meara then questioned how big the sign itself was minus the pole. Mr. Sanchez responded. the sign was 4 ft. tall. Mr. O'Meara then questioned what would happened if the sign was placed 4 ft. in back of the property line being 4 ft. tall. Mr. Sanchez pointed out the major difficulty with positioning a freestanding sign other than the existing pole location was that to move it back further from the property line would put it in line with the driveway off of Garnett Place. Sign Review and Appeals Board March 21, 1991 Page 2 Blake questioned staff a:. to whether in calculating the setback, was the footage measured from the edge of the sign or from where the pole was measured. Wolinski responded that for setback, the edge of the sign to the property line was the measurement distanco. Krasnow stated that she saw the problem in the fact that if the sign is moved back further it is going to be in the driveway. O'Meara then asked the question if a monument sign had been considered? Both Krasnow and Melton agreed that a monument sign should be investigated and that It was a much better alternative to the pole mounted illuminated sign. Krasnow stated that she would be willing to move to approve variations for a monument sign, and that if the applicant was willing to go out and look at some of the monument signs In the City that had been approved in the past, and that if he wanted to put a similar one of those up in place of the freestanding sign, then he would not have to come back to the Board for approval. The Board, tonight would approve the parameters for certain variations for a monument sign and that if the applicant wished to put up the monument sign, then he would just have to make a permit application with the City for the monument sign. Mr. Sanchez stated that he would be willing to investigate the monument sign, but that he was concerned about possible vandalism and graffiti to a monument sign at this location. The discussion then centered around the parameters involved for the variance for the monument sign. Krasnow then made the following motion for an alternate variation which would permit the following: 1. A monument sign. 2. The sign placed approximately half way from the curb cut on Garnett Place and Ridge Avenue. 3. The sign itself to be no larger than 8 ft. tall and 4 ft. wide, and not to exceed 10 ft. in height. 4. The sign to be placed no closer than i ft. to the property line. The motion was seconded by Ms. Melton and unanimously approved 4 - 0. Other Business S.R.A.B. 90-15 Signage for Little Caesar's Restaurant Wolinski pointed out to the Board that the Sign Review Board had given permission for Little Caesar's to put up a "Little Caesar's Pizza Pizza" sign on a temporary basis for six (6) months pending the opinion of Corporation Counsel as to whether the words "Pizza Pizza" was part of the corporate name. He further pointed out that the Board had received the opinion of the Corporation Counsel which stated the words "Pizza Pizza" was not part of the corporate name, but the Board had decided to wait until Ms. Krasnow, who had wade the original motion, was back to make a decision on the case. 1 Sign Review and Appeals Board March 21, 1991 Page 3 The Board briefly discussed the testimony that was presented at the hearing and whether or not the variation should bo allowed permanently in light of Corporation Counsel's legal opinion on tho corporate name. Mr. Blake made a motion to accept the variation to allow the signage to atat" "Little Caesar's Pizza Pizza." The motion was seconded by Ms. Krasnow and wan approved unanimously 4 - 0. S.R.A.B. 91-1 Point One Motors wolinski presented to the Board the legal opinion that had been rendered by Corporation Counsel that stated, the variation on the freestanding sign which had been approved, but had been conditioned on the fact that the previous agreements made between the Board and Point One Motors would have to be carried out by Point One Motors before the sign could be permitted, was a valid condition and within the powers of the board. The Board unanimously reaffirmed their decision to require Point One Motors to carry out the previous agreement before the variation for the Chrysler freestanding sign could be permitted. Adiournment There being no other business, the Board adjourned at 9 p.m. Next Meeting The next scheduled meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is scheduled for April 18, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. ea Woiinski Director, Building & Zoning Department 'Date to MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD Thursday, April 18, 1991 Members Present: N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, L. Krasnow, J. Weiss Members Absent: J. Melton Staff Present: J. Wolfensperger Minutes The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and asked for the approval of the minutes of the March 21, 1991 meeting. H. Blake moved that the minutes be approved, L. Krasnow seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. r n rea Marshall "s located in the Main Street Common_ Shopping Center Main StrPPt. anH McCormick Boulevard, Evanston, 1111noi.s. Mike Johnson from Graphic House, Inc. was present to represent Marshall's. N. O'Meara briefly described the sign location. N. O'Meara asked the Committee if they had required JoAnn Fabrics, also located in this shopping center, to bring their tenant sign into compliance. N. O'Meara explained that the existing Marshall sign is located in the free-standing, directory sign, Which is non -conforming with regard to height. The background color is not opaque and therefore is also non -conforming. N. O'Meara then asked Mr. Johnson why Marshall's is proposing to change their sign. The applicant responded that Marshall's has changed their logo from a lower case ''M" to a capital L. Krasnow responded that JoAnn Fabrics had originally requested a sign which read JoAnn Fabrics and Crafts. She recalled that the Sign Board had voted to allow the sign variation minus "Craftz", since this is not part of their corporate name. L. Krasnow then asked the applicant who was paying for the Marshall's sign. Mr. Johnson replied that Marshall's is paying for their sign and that the shopping center owns the free-standing sign. Discussion ensued among Committee members whether Marshall's should change their background to an opaque white. Ms. Krasnow stated that she thought this would put Marshall's at a disadvantage since the other tenants do not have opaque backgrounds. r J. Weiss stated that the Marshall's sign would be less visible than the other tenants panels if they are required to have an opaque background. Mr. Blake made a motion to approve the variation as requested. Mr. Weiss seconded the motion. The sign variation was unanimously approved. S_R,.A.R qq1-6 Consjd r a regup3t fs2r variation to permit signage on two (2) nanonipg for Amonn n!1 QomnAnv, 443 Anbur-y Avenua. Evanston, Jiiinois Mr. O'Meara asked the applicant to give the Board an overview of the proponal. Mr. Steve Shore, from Mobil Media, stated that the canopies are a dark background with lettering incorporated into the construction. The applicant continued that the Amoco lettering is nineteen (19) inches high and six and one half (6.5) feet long. The approximate illuminated area is ten (10) square feet. Mr. Shore stated that this lettering size is standard for the canopy size. N. O'Meara said that he the thought there was an abundance of signage given the small size of the lot. N. O'Meara stated that signage was visible from every direction. Mr. Shore replied that the petroleum business is very competitive and the free-standing price sign is required by law. He continued by saying that Amoco's intent was to upgrade the property. Ms. Krasnow asked why the signage was erected without the benefit of a sign permit. The applicant said that signage is a part of the canopy and the construction company had received a building Permit for the canopies. Staff indicated that signage was not indicated on the building plans. L. Krasnow stated that the Sign Ordinance was adopted to set standards and asked what hardship was evident. She continued by saying that it was disturbing to see that signs had been erected without permits. L. Krasnow suggested that she would be willing to delay action on this request until a complete history could be put together. H. Blake said that the Sign Board has previously granted sign variations for lettering size when the business has a large setback from the street. He stated that this is not the case for Amoco. L. Krasnow said that the only hardship was that money had been spent on the signage but that this could have been avoided by doing a little research and going through the proper channels. The applicant asked how the sign area was calculated. J. Weiss responded that the sign area includes the red, white and blue stripes, in addition to the lettering. He continued by saying that the stripes are part of the design element, part of the logo. -2- Much discussion ensued,among the Board members regarding the calculation of sign area. N. O'Meara asked the Board if they had read the Site Plan Revicw Committee's recommendation. They responded in the affirmative, J. Weiss made a motion to approve the requested variation with the condition that the free-standing sign be removed and that In the alternative, if Amoco chooses not to remove the free-standing sign, the canopy signage shall be reduced to comply with the code. The motion was seconded by L. Krasnow. H. Blake stated that he thought Amoco would be unwilling to eliminate their free-standing sign and asked the Board to consider recommending denial of the variation request. J. Weiss stared that it may be cost effective for Amoco to remove one (1) free-standing sign, rather than reface four (4) sides of the canopies. Mr. Weiss than reiterated his motion. The Committee voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. S.R_A.B. 091-7 Consider a reaueg_t far variation to hermit rr a -in& of ,3 non -conforming freg2t nding sivn At: 1901 -1 5 Green 13av Road, Evanston, Tllinfja Fred Wertymer, owner of the subject property, introduced himself to the Board. Mr. Wertymer also introduced two (2) members of the audience as the owners of Meineke Muffler, and the owner of Milex. F. Wertymer explained that both businesses are located in his center. F. Wertymer explained to the Board that he is in a unique situation because of the shape of his property. He asked the Board to consider his request to utilize an existing pole located on the southern end of the property to display business signs for Sound Experience and Milex. He continued by saying that three (3) non -conforming poles were originally Located on the property. Meineke utilizes the northern most pole, and the middle pole has recently been removed. N. O'Meara stated that he saw no hardship for Sound Experience because they have street exposure on the west and south. Mr. Wertymer replied that the free-standing sign for Sound Experience was installed without his knowledge and a permit. He continued by saying that this sign has been cited by the City. Mr. Wertymer said that two (2) of the Sound Experience signs, located on the west elevation, are unacceptable. He stated that his intent is to improve the property by removing the handpainted signs as well as installing canopies over each entrance and changing the overhead doors to blend with the facade of the building. -3- H. Blake asked Mr. Wertymer if there is other signage for Milex. Wertymer responded that Milex has recently installed a wall sign on the west elevation and had received a permit for that sign. The sign reads "Milex Brakes, Tune-ups and Air Conditioning." H. Blake stated that the free-standing sign should only include Sound Experience and Milex. The words "Brakes, Tune-ups and Air Conditioning" should be removed. H. Blakey continued by saying that Milex has a recognized name. N. O'Meara suggested that all business be advertised on one (1) pole sign. Mr. Wertymer explained that Meineke had paid for their own sign. He said that a directory sign should be located in the center of the property where it would conflict with parking and oversized delivery vehciles. L. Krasnow stated that the subject sign is offensive and is a visual obstruction. She stated that not all business in Evanston need or have free-standing signs. L. Krasnow said that this sign has been the center of numerous discussions for years. Mr. Wertymer said that the automotive after market is very impulsive and that Milex needs the free-standing sign to attract drive -by business. Mr. Weiss stated that he believed Milex is at a disadvantage because they are located in the center of the building and don't have a southern and northern exposure. Mr. Weiss continued by saying that the building is located so close to the street that traffic can see signs erected on the building facade. Ms. Krasnow said that it is inappropriate to make exceptions for auto related businesses. Mr. Wertymer asked the Board if they would consider the option of allowing the usage of the southern most pole sign if Meineke agreed to remove their free-standing sign within a couple of years. Mr. Weiss asked the owner of Meineke if he would be willing to agree with this suggestion. The reply was no. Mr. Weiss than suggested the installation of a directory sign on the north and south facades for all three (3) businesses. Mr. Wertymer replied that he did not want to install signage on the brick facade and the steel area of the building is not large enough to do this. —4— Mr. Blake made a motion to grant the variation with the conditions that a dark background with light lettering be designed, the words "Brakes, Tune-ups and Air Conditioning" be removed, and the Sound Experience signs located on the crest facade be removed. The motion failed for a lack of a second. L. Krasnow made a motion to deny the variation request. The motion failed for lack of a second. J. Weiss made a motion to allow a free-standing sign on the existing southern pole for Milex only. 11. Blake seconded the motion. L. Krasnow stated that this was not a good solution because it did not bring the sign more in conformity with the code and would be confusing to traffic to see a sign for one business located in front of another business. N. O'Meara suggested that a directory sign would be a better solution. H. Blake reiterated his original motion. Mr. O'Meara seconded this motion. J. Weiss said that this area of town is one of the worst for signage. He said by granting the variation the Board was not helping to improve the situation. L. Krasnow said that she had not heard a hardship to warrant the sign. N. O'Meara stated that until there is a sunset provision, the Board needs to bring signs more in conformity with the code. He stated that a hardship was a standard used by the Board. He continued that maybe the variation should be granted until a sundown provision exists. Mr. Blake reiterated his original motion to approve the sign variation with the conditions that the sign be designed with a dark background with light lettering, the words, "Brakes, Tune-ups and Air Conditioning" be removed and the Bound Experience signs on the west facade be removed. Blake and O'Meara voted in favor of the motion. Krasnow and Weiss voted nay. Mr. O'Meara stated that the case will be continued to a future date when an odd number of Board members are in attendance. Ad,Journment There being no other business, the Board adjourned at 9:45 p.m. -5- Next Meeting The next meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is scheduled for May 16, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. Janice Wolfispe'rger Zoning Planner Da e -6- jJjAFT NOT APPRO= Members Presant: Members Absent: Staff Present: Minutes The Chairman opened minutes of the April approved and Krasnow pew Business MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD Thursday, May 16, 1991 N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, L. Krasnow, J. Melton and J. Weiss None J. wolinaki the meeting at 7:40 p.m. and asked for approval of the 18, 1991 meeting. Blake moved that the minutes be seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. S.R.A.B. 191-5 Consider a request for variation to permit installation of four (4) wall signs at the Dominick's Food Store, 525 Chicago Avenue, Evanaton, I1110ois. Ralph Cilia from H & K Signs and Victor Nicodemo from Dominick's were on hand to make the presentation. Mr. Cilia began by stating that the Dominick's Food Store Corporation is remodeling the store on Chicago Avenue and wished to change the signage on both the south and west elevations of the building. The signage on the south elevation would include a new Dominick's sign along with the Dominick's logo as well as a pharmacy sign. On the west elevation, a new Dominick's sign with logo is also proposed with a new pharmacy sign. Mr. Cilia stated that the size of the letters on the Dominick's sign would be 416". The variations needed are that the two (2) Dominick's signs are approximately 220 sq. ft. in area whereas the ordinance permits signage up to 200 sq. ft. Also both the Dominick's signs and the pharmacy signs exceed the 15 1/2 ft. height limitation of upgrade. O'Meara questioned as to how the size of the letters on the Dominick's signs compared to the Dcminick's signage that was granted a variance from the Board on Green Bay Road. Mr. Cilia responded that the Dominick's sign on Green Bay Road and the one proposed tonight were both of 4'6" in height. Slake questioned whether the base of the pharmacy signage could be at the same height as the base of the Dominick's signage. Mr. Cilia stated this would be possible on the south elevation, but saw a problem on the west elevation. Blake then made a motion to accept the variations as proposed by Dominick's with the exception that the pharmacy sign on the south elevation would have the same base line as the Dominick's signage. Helton seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously 4 - 0 to approve the motion. Sign Review and Appeals Board May 16, 1991 Page 2 �. r S.R.A.B. J91-7 ConsidQr a reavest fgr variatl.o to nerMJt.refacing o a non-conforming_,Uee-starLding eivn at 1goi-15 green Bav Road,-Ivanstoa, Illinois. O'Meara announced that this was a continuation of a case that had been heard at the previous Board meeting. Mr. Fred Wertymer, owner of the subject property, was on hand to present the case. O'Meara began by stating that at the previous meeting there had been spirited discussion concerning thin variation request and the result of the discussion was a tied vote of 1 to 2 between the Board. Blake pointed out that sign Board Member Heltnn had not been at the previous meeting and he asked her if she had any questions concerning the previous meeting or the minutes. Melton stated that she herself is a retailer and that she did not have a problem per say with the pole sign, but that the amount of aignage at the center itself was not acceptable. O'Meara stated that since the previous month's meeting, he had a change of opinion on the free-standing sign. He felt that after viewing the center from several different directions and in the evening that the site was so busy with aignage that the pole sign was unnecessary. O'Meara suggested that in lieu of the pole sign to have a directory sign on the south facade of the center. He felt this would give excellent exposure to the center for traffic coming from the south and that for traffic coming from the north that the openness of the center as they approached it would give it the necessary exposure. O'Meara further pointed out that while at the previous meeting he had reluctantly agreed to favor the pole sign, that he had now had grave misgivings about the continued existence of that pole sign. Melton questioned Mr. Wertymer as to what type of improvement he was proposing for the site. Mr. Wertymer began by stating that he had taken down a pole sign that was in front of the previous Precision Tune and is now the Milex Store. He further stated that the aignage on the western elevation of the sound Exposure storefront would be eliminated. He also stated that he wished to @often the building by placing canopies over the entranceways and some color change on the building garage doors. Mr. Wertymer went on to say that he had several points of disagreement with O'Meara concerning signage on the property. He stated that the Milex Company which is the middle store of the center needs all the aignage that it can obtain because of its location, that customers by pass this site without knowing the business is there because they can't see the business to identify it. Potential customers are not finding the businesses in the center because of the aignage problem. Melton stated that she felt the most important eLgnage on the site was the pole sign and that the rest of the aignage on the building was just a jumble of various sign types. Sign Review and Appeals Board may 16, 1991 Page 3 Mr. Weise pointed out that the Milex signage in currently in violation of the ordinance because of the translucent background and this needs to be corrected. Mr. Weiss further pointed out that he felt firmly committed to the stance that he had at the previous meeting. He was also disappointed that in the month's time since the previous meeting that Mr. Wertymer had done no improvements as he had mentioned to the site. All the Sound Experience signs were still up and those could have been taken down, the doors could have been painted and the canopies could have been put up. He felt that Mr. Wertymer had made no effort at all to try to bring the center into some kind of compliance. Mr. Wertymer countered by saying that he would be willing to sign a statement that he was willing to do the improvements that he had stated tonight. Mr. Weiss then questioned why it is taking Mr. Wertymer over a year to attempt to get the Sound Experience to bring their signage into conformance. Hr. Wertymer stated that he is having much difficulty with this tenant space, since this space was vacant over two (2) years and he wished to see a tenant with longevity before making them come into all compliance. Mr. Wertymer then apologized to the Board concerning the fact that he had not made any of the improvements in the previous months and that he would have made some effort if he had realized that the Board expected it. Mr. Weiss then stated that he felt there should be no free-standing signs on this site and that since the Heineke sign was a legal non -conforming sign, he had no control over that, but that the Sound Experience sign must be removed. He further stated that the south elevation of the building should be used as a directory sign for any tenants that feel they do not have sufficient signage exposure. He Krasnow questioned Mr. Wertymer as to whether there were any alternative to the pole sign which he could agree to. Hr. Wertymer responded that due to the size of the site which is basically building and parking area, there is very little green area and really no place to put anything like a monument sign. Mr. Wertymer then reiterated that any type of directory signage on the south end of the building would give no exposure or visibility for traffic traveling down Green Bay Road from the north. Discussion then centered on the aspect of drive -up business for the Milex and Heineke Muffler Shope and what degree of signage would be necessary for the center and from what directions for exposure. The owners of the Milex Shop and Heineke Muffler Shop also made statements concerning the problems they had with signage and exposure of the center. The Board reiterated their feelings that the south facade was the beet exposure for signage with a directory sign and that traffic coming from the north would have ample time to Bee the existing signage on both the Heineke and Milex Stores. Sign Review and Appeals Board May 16, 1991 Page 4 After continued lengthy discussion on these issues, Mr. Blake then moved to deny the variation requested on the free-standing sign. The motion was seconded by Weiss and the Board unanimously voted to deny the variation 5 - 0. S.R.A.B. 091-9 Consider a recuest for variation to vermit tide refacing 9f two (2) non -conforming free-standin eiane for Brown's cbcZcen and Pasta at 18Z2 Demgster Street and 2935 Central Street. Eyanston, Illinois, Mr. Wolineki stated that the sign company had failed to appear and that the owner of one of the establishments had been there briefly, but that he had to leave. Therefore, this case would have to be rescheduled. Other Uueingss None. A5liQl rWeent Thera being no other business, the Board adjourned at 10 p.m. Next Meeting The next meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is scheduled for June 20, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. WCt� A.1. JJ so Wo inski Director, Building & Zoning Department G/1 /s1 Date rDRAET.-NOT APPROVED MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD Thursday, June 20, 1991 Room 2404 Members Present: H. Blake, J. Melton, J. Weiss Members Absent: M. O'Meara, L. Krasnow Staff Present: J. Wolfensperger Chairman: H. Blake Minutes The Chairman opened the meeting it 7:41) p.m. and asked for approval of the minutes from the May 16, 1991 meeting. J. Weiss moved that the minutes be approvedj, and J. Melton seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. New Business S.R.A.B. 491-•9 f l� uest for a-,v:m r refac.nF of. two Lw1_.p2o1L-�t2tlforpmi7nj��yf��Na-staR�lri� si�n3 fir 4 � �� �N _ �31��LL•1+�•��'Is+_._+.:L4_�L' �.�Q�i f e?i• C �i�r� �Il+� G �,� Q=tral Stree-tom_ EvAn toll. TlilitlrdMr. (:mate from Grate- was present on behalf of Browns Chicken and Pasta. He staters that Brown's is In the process of F_hanging all of their sighs in rlie Chicago area to reflect their new name. He continued that till signs in Evanston would be refaced with the same colors and tvp? Z tyie a3 the Mr. .r l'i t� eta tre7 tli3 CI1"11...= -r the sign faces w,�uld not change. H. Blake asked r h? Board memb?rs if th?•v had ,any queer ionf . f W is3 than. the B,Dar•l r-'!vi- :J ?ach addr-'3zs Bake ._t.3 ?1 '!1st t!:�'V �, il:.a i1I•:.1;, �w Br-wI1 lli'=1:''i': n l'!1tl�i=rI•aat J We133 Ct--ad f!—m a m(1m'j wh" ,h 3ta-,.--j r.1.31, '_n' --w �,omme had I'mmen'ir'i ie!)I11 i* Ct-111.I'a1 t-reeT, .3nd a P P r v a I -,f t.11 C•-,411-z,tten F.:mPst,�`' =.I•. . J. Weiss said that he had fewer obJections to the Central. Street sign than the Dempster Street sign. He stated that this sign is of a modest size and that the location of the drives and parking spaces would make it difficult to relocate the sign. J. Weiss continued by saying that the sign could be brought into compliance with the sign height regulations of the ordinance. Mr. Weiss then asked Mr. Grate what it would take to lower the free-standing sign. Mr. Grate responded that the pylon could be rout down in height, out, kn the field, bringing the sign face down to eight (8) feet above grade. Mr. Blake asked if any internal traffic would conflict with the sign. E. grate responded that wheel stops could be painted yellow, an-1 placed along the perimeter of the sign, to prohibit t.raffio from coming into contact with the sign face. H. Blake asked if the corporate name of Brown's has been ch.anq-1 Mr. Blake explained that the sign ordinance prohibits advertising. He gave some examples of business who had a particular service or product that is associated with the business, but is not part of the corporite name Mr. Grate stated that all of Brown's Chicken's advertising 3n,l packaging had been changed to Brown's Chicken and Pasta J. Melton said that she had heard a radio .advertisement which referred to Brown's Chicken. a3 Brown's Chicken .and Pasta. H. Blake reiterated that the Board regoirns o_gn.age tQ he limit t to a business s corporate name J. Weiss stated that there is a hardship in relocating the subject sidn lest that rhn pe-t ner ;ll ' •Y-: *t _ bring it more into compliance with cadt- H. Blake asked if *here is a viz.a! siYe abatrucrian . -_ traff: exiting onto Central Street, Mr Grate r-spanded ,h.3t the sign iz se7baoK uproximat_ y 1' 2 _`-tee `_ -m h" pr. pe - :ins 3.1d_'iv ner- aPpr xim,3 r-- _zn mcr- _--µ- = rig - . -,.ray . H- Elake nniLn d that ohs size of _niz sign .3 aac•'pnahh- J Weiss made 3 motion t- apprown not rAquesTe,d v3riat i "nn _ -r sign setback with the oondini n nLan the sign be lowered ti- fifteen anj one hail Ai 1. j' _ , . _. and the c,,t-pornit namt hang.-: be verified prior to issuance of a sign permit J. Melton seconded the motion. t. The Board voted unanimously to approve the motion. 4n the second sign located on Dempster Street, J. Weiss stated that he had concerns. He continued by saying that there are three (3) national fast food franchises located on this stretch of Dempster Street. J. Weiss said that McDonalds has agreed that when it comes time to change or repair their existing free-standing sign, McDonalds would lower it to twenty (20) feet, and remove the drive-thru sign. He said that Kentucky Fried Chicken's sign, also has no setback. J. Weiss stated that he would like to bring all of these signs more into compliance with code to create some uniformity, He then asked Mr. Grate if it would be possible to lower the sign to twenty (201 feet, and remove the changeable copy board. Mr. Grate said that he would need to speak to the owner of tht business. J. Melton mentioned to Mr. Grate that the property owner is usually present at their meetings. Mr. Grate said that Brown's has three (3) other sign meetinw� this evening. J. Weiss made a motion to approve the variations with the condition that the sign be lowered to twenty (20) feet, the changeable copy board on the free-standing sign be removed, and the change in the corporate name be verified by staff prior t-; issuance of a sign permit. J. Melton seconded the motion. The Beard unanimously approved the motion as stated by Mr. W-IZs There being no farther business, the Beard motioned for adjournment at 800 p.m. Next Mee .ing Tho noxt meeting of the S Ign Review and ;+pj7nn i a Board 1 saheduled for July 18. 1991. at 7.30 p m ON? an Pne ` al fen3*porger/ ..:nine Planner a r. a DMET NOT APPROVED MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD Thursday, July 18, 1991 Members Present: N. O'Meara (Chairman), H. Blake, J. Melton, and J. Weiss Members Absent: L. Krasnow Staff Present: J. Wolinski Minutes The Chairman opened the meeting ac 7.44 p.m. and asked for approval of the minutes from the June 20, 199I meeting. J. Weiss moved that the minutes be approved and J. Melton seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. New Business 91J 2 Conslderation of a Request to Amend the Rnaroved Unified Business Centter- Stan„Plan for 1113-1119 Emerson Street. Dr. Stephen Fox, managing partner of the development was on hand to present the case. Dr. Fox began by stating that the amendment to the previously approved plan was for awnings to project over the storefronts at the center. The variation needed was that the awnings which had been installed projected 1 feet from the building whereby the City Sign Ordinance allowed a projection of no more than 24 inches. Wolinski went on to state that the awnings were installed without the benefit of City permit or City knowledge. O'Meara asked Dr. Fox how it came to be that these awnings were installed without the benefit of City permit when a previous plan had come before this Board without any awnings in the plan itself. Dr. Fox responded by stating chat the previous principle owner of the site, Mr. Randy Holmes, who the Board had dealt with on the business center sign plan before is no longer involved in the operation of the center. Dr. Fox stated he was not aware of what had or had not been approved. O'Meara went on to say while he had no problem with the awnings as they looked on the site, he did have a problem with the procedure as to the way the awnings were put up, both without permac and larger than what is permitted by the ordinance. or. Fox responded to O'Meara's question by stating that he had c&ken over ownership of the Emerson Place project in May of this year. This project has had many problems. There have been delay after delay in completion of the project. The project was a million dollars overbudget at the present time and chat only 62% of the tenant buildoucs to date have been leased. Dr. Fox further stated that he was led to believe by the previous owner that the awnings had been approved as part of the business plan Sign Review and Appeals Board July la, 1991 Page 1 Wolinski stated that the awnings had not been approved as part of the business plan and only the signage that had been discussed at that meeting had been considered by the Board, not any awnings. Dr. Fox then stated that he went to the sign contractor and gave him Instructions to install the awnings. He further stated that he was surprised that the sign contractor did not take the necessary steps to secure the City required permits. Weiss asked Wolinski if there was any action the City could take against the contractor for failing to secure the permics? Wolinaki responded that the ultimate responsibility for securing permits is with the owner of the property. Wolinski went further to state chat a contractor who repeatedly failed to secure permits would ultimately be denied any permit request in the future, and denied the ability co work in Evanston. Weiss went on to state that he thought the awnings were a welcome addition to the center, but that they were never a part of the discussion from the previously approved business center sign plan. O'Meara then asked Dr. Fox what would be required to cut the awnings back to 14 inches? Dr. Fox responded that in order co accomplish that the awnings would have to be removed and replaced. Dr. Fox went on further to state that because of the severe financial hardship of having to replace the awnings, he was requesting the variation to keep the awnings up as they currently were. Melton stated that because of the severe financial hardships that the center has gone through, that she would like to see the variation approved. O'Meara questioned what was the expected life of these awnings? Blake stated that these types of awnings would most likely last a very long time. Blake then responsed that he agreed with Melton to approve the variation. Weiss suggested to Wolinsk1 chat the City send a strong letter to the sign contractor stating that his failure to secure a permit on any future projects would forfeit his opportunity to work in Evanston again. Wolinski stated chat he would do so. Blake made a motion to accept the variation for the awnings as proposed, seconded by J. Weiss, and the Board unanimously approved the motion 4 - 0. S.R.A.B. f91-1 Consideration of a Request for Variation to Permit the -jocation and Refacina of an 5xistina Freestandina Sian at 5t. Francis Hosnital, 355 Ridae Avenue. George woock of Whiteway Sign Company was on hand to present the case. Board Member Weiss stated that he would be abstaining from voting on this case because he was involved in the design of the sign. Sign Review and Appeals Board July 19, 1991 Page 3 Woock began by stating the sign was an existing one which needed to be refaced and relocated because of the construction of the new medical office building. The sign in the current place was having the result of people driving passed the driveway before they realize this wax the entrance drive for the medical office building. O'Meara asked why was there redundancy In the signage, "Physician's Offices" was mentioned twice in the sign? He asked that the "Physician's Offices" be eliminated from the sign. This sentiment was also sounded by Blake. Woock said that he saw no problem with eliminating that wordage. Mr. Woock went on to say the hospital was in the process of replacing and updating other signage on the hospital campus. Blake then questioned whether the item of information problem would continue to appear on the other signs as well. The consenxus was that each of these signs In the future would have to be dealt with on a sign by sign basis. Blake then questioned the variation request for the height of the sign being greater then the distance between the sign and the property line. O'Meara responded that it appeared to him that this was a pre-existing condition which little could be done with. Blake then made a motion to accept the two (2) variations requested as to the height of the signage and to the item of .information with the exception of the words "Physician's Offices, be eliminated from the proposed signage. Melton seconded the motion and the Board unanimously approved the variation 3 - 0 (Weiss abstaining). 2_,,.R.A.B. ¢4I-10 Considsration of a gg_vuest for variation to Permit the rnstallepion of Two f2) Wall S.tans at Spex Car Wask,_1235 Dodos Avenue, The applicants failed to appear for the hearing and Mr. Wolinski stated they would be rescheduled for the August meeting. Proaosed Memo to the Planning and Development Committee from the Sian Review and AoDeals Board. O'Meara stated to the other Board members that he had prepared a draft of a memo to the Planning and Development Committee to air some of the problems that the Board was having to deal with the current Sign Ordinance, and other issues as well. The Board then reviewed O'Meara's memo, reached consensus, and asked Wolznski to put it in final draft to be sent to the Planning and Development Corattee. O'Meara stated he wished the Board members to meet with the Planning and Development Committee either at one of their regular or a special meeting in August or September. Legal OPInion on Elimination of Non -conforming Sianace The Board accepted the memo from Ellen Szymanski, Assistant Corporation Counsel on the elimination of non -conforming signage and the consensus of the Board was to incorporate this topic in their discussion with the Planning and Development Committee. sign Review and Appeals Board July 18, 1991 Page 4 Ad 1 g urnmen t There being no further business, the Board motioned for adjournment at 9s15 P.M. Next Meeting The next meeting of sign Review and Appeals Board is scheduled for Thursday, August 15, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. i � ar James Wolinski Director, Building & Zoning Department Date KITO ;r $. • ; # A 6 HINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD Thursday, August 15, 1991 MEMBERS PRESENTS N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, J. Helton, J. Weiss MEMBERS ABSENT: L. Krasnow STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Wolinski INS The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:40 P.M. and asked for approval of the minutes of July 18, 1991. Weiss moved and Melton seconded approval of the minutes. The minutes were approved unanimously. SRAB f91.-10 Suex Car Wash - 1235 Dodge Avenue For the second meeting in a row, the applicant failed to appear. The Chairman then stated he would entertain a motion to dismiss the case for rr want of prosecution. The motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved. The Chairman then asked Wolinski what the City's next step would be. Wolinski responded that the matter would be turned over to the City Legal Department to pursue compliance with the ordinance, being that their signs were already illegally displayed. gr000sed Memo to the Pa.anpi_pa and Development Committee The Board approved the final draft of the memo to the Planning and Development Committee. Wolinski stated that he would attempt to place the Board on the Committee's agenda in either September or October. Adjournment There being no further business, the Board motioned for adjournment at 8:10 P.H. Next Meetina The next meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is scheduled for Thursday, September 19, 1991 at 7:30 P.H. .lames H. Wolinski Director Building and Zoning Department Date _.� •F.1 . . 1 0111 Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: 14INUTES L. Krasnow, serving ask for approval of Weiss moved that the motion. The motion LIEW BUSINF�SS MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD Thursday, October 17, 1991 J. Melton, and J. Weiss, L. Krasnow N. O'Meara, H. Blake J. Wolinski as chairman, opened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. and minutes from the August 15, 1991 meeting. J. minutes be approved and J. Melton seconded the was unanimously approved (3-0). S.R.A.B. #91-1.4 Evanston Car Wash. 2416 Demnster Street. Evanston. Illinois Cons deration of a reQuest for a variance to oermit ,installation of a free standing sign. The chairman noted that the proposal did not conform with the following regulations of the sign ordinance, 1) that a free standing sign within three feet of any perimeter lot line may not exceed three feet in height. Proposed sign height was 10 feet and was to be put directly adjacent on the property line; 2) Each sign facade shall contain no more than seven items of information. Under the proposal one sign panel contained 14 items, a second sign panel contained 21 items, a third sign panel contained 25 items. Mr. Wayne Rapp, owner of Evanston Car Wash was on hand to present the case. Mr. Rapp began by stating that he desired to place a free standing sign, approximately 40 square feet of sign area with 5 panels on the sign, on the interior driveway leading into the car wash on the east lot line. Mr. Rapp stated that he needed the signage due to the fact that he offered several different packages of services at different prices and the signage was needed so that customers, as they drive up to the car wash, could see what service was available and then make their choice. He further stated that the employees working in the car wash do not speak English and therefore it is difficult to communicate to the customers what is available to them at what price. Krasnow questioned what happened to the previous signage denoting the service offered. Mr. Rapp stated that the previous owner had removed the sign and that currently there was no signage in this vicinity of the car wash. Krasnow then questioned why the signage couldn't be placed on the •Sign Review and Appeals Board October 17, 1991 Page 2 building itself. Mr. Rapp responded that because of the V-shaped drive, if the signage is placed on the building, customers would already be getting out of their cars before they would see the signage, and this would not be acceptable. He reiterated that the prime viewing access to the sign was driving down the driveway, making the U-turn into the car wash. It was at this point he wished to place the free standing sign. Mr. Rapp further stated that he felt the variation was justified because of the hardship involved with not realizing the greater revenue from the full service car wash amenities that would be offered on the post signage. He then stated that many customers have complained to him as to why he doesn't have signage out to identify the various packages offered. Mr. Rapp stated that he was asking for the same consideration that the McDonald's on Dempster Street had for a menu board sign. Board asked Wolinski about the signage at McDonald's. Wolinski's response was that under the sign ordinance a menu board for a drive-thru restaurant is an exempt sign, however, a menu board sign for a drive-thru car wash is not an exempt sign. J. Weiss questioned how the neighbors felt about the signage, since the sign would be adjacent to an alley abudding residential. Rapp responded that the signage would not be visible to neighbors either south or east of the car wash, it would only be visible to the patrons of the car wash. Mr. Rapp then offered that he would get written permission from the neighbors to present to the City to allow the signage. J. Weiss questioned the height of the sign which to its highest point would be approximately 9 feet. Weiss continued by saying that people in their automobiles are at about a 4 foot level, why did the sign need to be so high? It didn't seen that the customers would be able to observe the upper portion of the sign at 9 feet. Weiss continued by stating that there were two main points beyond what was allowed by the code: 1) the signage had no setback, 2} the items of information were beyond what was allowed. Weiss then suggested instead of having the sign along the alley on the east portion of the lot, why not have it on the southwest portion of the lot so that the long driveway could be used for viewing the sign. Mr. Rapp responded that on days when the car wash wasn't busy this would be a good location, however, on busy days he felt that the signage would not be visible because of cars in front of other cars. Discussion then centered on the items of information proposed and the color of the sign. Sign Review and Appeals Board October 17, 1991 Page 3 Melton then made the following motion to accept the proposal as submitted with the following exceptions: 1) The sign is not to exceed 40 square feet nor 6 feet in height and is to be mounted on the east fence which will be six feet in height; 2) The sign will have four panels approving the submitted copy with the following exceptions: a) eliminate "blue coral" and "Evanston car wash", b) eliminate "save $3.00, save $5.00, save $6.00," c) the signs will have a white background with two color letters, blue-green and fuchsia, d) the variation is conditioned upon approval of the neighbors directly to the south of the car wash. Weiss seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved, 3 to 0. =ER BUSINESS: SPECIAL NCB TO DISCUSS RFIVISION,5 TO THE SIGN ORDINW-CE, The Board briefly discussed their meeting with the Planning and Development Committee. It was a general concensus of the board that amendments and revisions to the sign ordinance were necessary immediately and a special meeting of the board to review the sign ordinance was scheduled for Tuesday, November 5, at 6:30 p.m. ,#DJOURN= There being no further business, the Board motioned for adjournment at 8:50 p.m. NEXT MEETING The next regularly scheduled meeting of Sign Review and Appeals Board is scheduled for Thursday, November 21, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. es Wolinski Director, Building & Zoning Department "Date i DRAFT NQT APPROVEQ Members Present: Staff Present: MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD Thursday, November 21, 1991 J. Melton, and J. Weiss, L. Krasnow, H. Blake, N. O'Meara, Chair J. Wolinski MINUTES J. Melton, serving as chairman, opened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. and ask for approval of minutes from the October 17, 1991 meeting. J. Weiss moved approval, seconded by Blake. The motion was unanimously approved (3-0) . COMMUNICATIONS J. Melton accepted two communications from staff dealing with sign complaints and enforcement. NEW BUSINESS_ SRAB #91-16: Evanston Auto Care Center, 2400 Dempster Street - consideration of a request to amend a oreviously approved unified business center sign plan to add additional s,ignacre to a freestanding sicrn. J. Melton noted that the amendment to the business sign plan was to receive Board approval for the installation of four tenant panel signs in a freestanding sign. She noted that the tenant panels had already been installed without Board or City approval. Mr. Dan Michael, owner of the Auto Care Center was on hand to present the case. Mr. Michael began by apologizing for the installation of the tenant panel without the Board and City approval, and said that there was a miscommunication between himself and the sign company about getting the needed approvals. He stated it was not his intent to violate any City Ordinances with the installation of the tenant panel signage. Mr. Michael stated that the tenant panel signage was critical to the success of the Auto Center with identification for the tenants. Weiss pointed out that the reason the menu board sign had been denied initially as part of the unified plan, was that the board felt that given the distance of the close proximity of the center to the street that there was good visibility from the street for all the businesses without the need for menu board signs. Mr. Michael stated that he felt that Mr. Weiss was correct with traffic going west bound. However, for sign Review and Appeals Board November 21, 1991 Page 2 traffic coming east bound, he felt the center definitely lacked visibility. Blake pointed out that this was an example of the either the sign company or the owner going beyond what was permitted by the Board initially, and putting in the type of signage that they wanted without the benefit of City permit and City and Board approval. He went on to say that the main problem that he saw was the brightness of the background of the menu board sign, and it needed to be opaque or translucent, but that the white brightness could not be allowed. Weiss stated that possibly economic times have changed since the Board originally gave approval two years ago on this center, but that he needed to be convinced that there was a definite hardship for the need for this sign. Mr. Michael responded that he had just lost a tenant, what else could he offer up as proof of hardship. Mr. Michael then asked if the sign could be approved if the background was made opaque or translucent. Weiss then stated the Board needed to decide whether or not they felt the directory sign was needed first, then to decide that question. (O'Meara and Krasnow are now present at the tweeting.) The consensus of the Board was that with the changing economic times, that they could allow the menu board, if the panels were properly opaque or translucent. Discussion then centered around the type of signage permitted for the menu board. Weiss then made the following motion: to accept the variation as proposed with the directory panels to be opaque or translucent, dark bronze in color with white translucent letters of the same size. This change to be accomplished within 60 days of tonight's meeting. The motion was seconded by Blake and was approved unanimously by the Board, 5-0. SRAB 091-17: St. Paul Federal Bank. 1325 Howard - Consideration of a request for Variation to permit the Sefaci,na of a leaal non -conforming freestandina sign. The chairman pointed out that the proposed signage does not conform with the following regulation of the Sign Ordinance: 1) The proposed sign contains nine items of information where as up to seven is permitted. 2) The sign height proposed is 2018 inches, the Ordinance does not allow a sign above 15 1/2 feet. 3) The sign loses legal non -conforming status if the sign is altered. Mr. Ralph Cilla, of M-K Signs was on hand to present the case. As was Mr. Jim Butler of St. Paul Federal. Mr. Butler pointed out that St. Paul Federal Bank had just recently acquired the property at 1325 Howard from Howard Savings and Loan. Mr. Butler pointed out that this Sign Review and Appeals Board November 21, 1991 ' Page 3 was probably the only location for their banks that was not on an intersection. Mr. villa pointed out that the reason the sign was raised to 20 1/2 feet was because with the addition of the cash station sign underneath the St. Paul sign, there was concern that pedestrians walking by could hit their head on the cash station sign. The sign is in the parking lot, it is open and this is a real possibility. Weiss asked if there was a possibility of moving the sign back further. from the property line. Mr. Butler stated that to move the sign back would require the sign to be placed in the middle of the parking lot. Blake suggested that as for the concern about the cash station sign and the danger of its height, that putting plantings or flower boxes, landscaping, etc. around the sign, would eliminate the desire of people to walk underneath the sign. All agreed that this seem to be a good solution to that problem. Weiss stated that he would be willing to allow the sign to stay in its current place, if it could be lowered in height. Weiss then made the following motion: 1) To allow the refacing of the existing freestanding sign as proposed providing an opaque background. 2) The Sign height to be limited to 15 1/2 feet and, 3) Landscaping provided around the perimeter of the sign. The motion was seconded by Blake and approved unanimously by the Board, 5-0. SRAB 491-1.8 5t. Paul Federal Bank. 1325 UpywArd Street. - Consideration ofreauest for. Variation to neMit the refacina of a 1gcral non-conformina rooftop sian. The chairman pointed out that the proposed sign does not conform to the following regulations of the sign ordinance: 1) A roof sign is not listed in the ordinance as a permitted sign type; 2) A sign loses it legal non -conforming status if the sign is altered. 3) No freestanding sign shall exceed 15 1/2 feet. Mr. Cilla of M-K Signs and Mr. Butler of St. Paul Federal were again on hand to present the case. Mr. Sutler began by saying that St. Paul would like to keep the time and temperature sign on the roof of the building. It has been there since 1960 and they felt it added to the ambiance of the building. Krasnow stated that she found it difficult to define this as a hardship. She restated some earlier cases where applicants have requested to keep rooftop signs being refaced and the Board had to deny them because of the failure to show the hardship. She felt this was another example of these. Mr. Cilla pointed out that r s Sign Review ,+ November 21, Page 4 and Appeals Board 1991 if this building was located on the corner, that the Situation would be different. But because it is basically off the corner, the time and temperature does provide a service to the community which would be a shame to loose. Weiss then stated he had a possible solution. Move the roof sign with the time and temperature off of the roof and move it to the east facade of the building. He recognized that it would still pose a problem as far as the height variation, but this is something that could be looked at by the Board. Blake stated that he may favor the idea but would need further time to examine it, and would need to see the change to the wall sign idea. Weiss then made a motion to table the variation request with the idea that St. Paul would come back at the next meeting with a re -designed proposal for the time and temperature to move from the roof to the east wall facade_ Blake seconded the tabling and the Board unanimously approved the motion to table, 5-0. SRAB 491-19: Northwestern University Evanston Research Park. - consideration of recruest to amend a nrev ;ously aonroved unified business center sian clan by addina four sians at various locations. Sign A would be an extended temporary freestanding sign at the northeast corner of Clark Street and East Railroad Avenue, Sign B would be an extended temporary freestanding sign at the southeast corner of Emerson street and Ridge Avenue, and Signs C would be two permanent freestanding signs on the northwest and southwest corners of Clark Street and Benson Avenue, respectively. Mr. Ron Keysiak of the Northwestern University Evanston Research Park and Ms. Christian Dean of the Charles H. Shaw Company were on hand to present the case. Ms. Dean began by stating that the two sided sign, Sign A, at the corner of Clark and East Railroad would be to attract attention from the train to the Research Park, and that Sign B, at the corner of Emerson and Ridge, would be to attract driveby traffic. The Shaw people felt it was important to advertise the Park to riders of the train on their way downtown, that the Research Park has taken off well and that Evanston would be a good place to locate tenants who fit in with the requirements of the Park. Discussion then turned to the amount of items of information on the proposed temporary signs with the thought that some of the wordage would be eliminated. The consensus of the Board was that at a minimum '"Midwest Headquarters for Innovation" should be eliminated from the signage. Krasnow questioned what affect the sign at the Corner of Emerson and Ridge would have on Alderman Paden's house as far as light shining etc. Ms. Dean stated that she felt it would have no effect as far as any type of illumination on the existing building. Weiss felt that there was too much signage of Sign A at the corner of Clark and East t Sign Review and Appeals Board November 21, 1991 Page 5 Railroad and that if the two signs were to remain that the items of information should be split in half between each sign. Ms. Dean and Mr. Keysiak felt that to split the information between the two signs would make it difficult to read from the elevated and information by prospectives tenants would thereby be lost. After further discussion, Krasnow made the following motion: To accept Sign A at the northeast corner of Clark and East Railroad with the condition of removing the wordage "Midwest Headquarters for Innovation." Motion was seconded by Melton and was approved, 3-2. Blake and Weiss voting nay. Krasnow then moved to approve Sign B again with the condition removing "Midwest Headquarters for Innovation." Melton seconded it and the motion was approved 4-1, Blake voting nay. Krasnow then moved to accept the two signs under Sign C as proposed. Melton seconded it and the motion was accepted, 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS The Board resumed their review of revisions to the Sign Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the board motioned for adjournment at 9:50 p.m. NEXT MEETING The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is scheduled for Thursday, December 19, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. mimes Wolinski, Director Building and Zoning Department rR• PBUT NOT APPROVED Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD Thursday, December 19, 1991 J. Melton, J. Weiss, H. Blake, N. O'Meara, Chair L. Krasnow J. Wolinski MINUTES The chair asked for approval of the minutes of November 21, 1991. J. Weiss moved approval, Melton seconded, and the minutes were approved unanimously, 4-0. COMMUNICATIONS The Chairman pointed out that in their packet, the Board had received the proposed schedule of meetings for the Sign Review and Appeals Board for 1992. J. Weiss asked staff for a list of the revolving Vice Chairmans. Wolinski stated that he would prepare that memo for the January packet. OLD BUSINESS SRAB 091-18: St. Paul Federal Bank, 1325 Howard Street - consideration of a request for variation to permit installation of a wall sign with time and temperature disvlay. The Chairman pointed out that the proposed sign does not conform to the regulations of the Sign Ordinance concerning height. The proposed height of the sign was approximately 25 feet and that according to the Ordinance no wall sign shall extend above the maximum sign height of 15 and 1/2 feet. Mr. Ralph Cilla of M-K Signs was on hand to present the case. Mr. Cilla began by stating that this was an amended proposal from the one that had been submitted to the Board at the ;November meeting, whereby St. Paul had requested the re -facing of a roof sign that exhibited a time and temperature display. Mr. Cilla stated that with the recommendation of the Board, St. Paul had re -thought the proposal and was now asking for variation to permit a wall sign exhibiting the time and temperature on the east facade of the St. Paul building. Weiss questioned Mr. Cilla about the design of the sign stating that it was his recommendation that this sign be put on the wall as opposed to the roof, but asked why the design of the sign had changed from a . Sign Review December 19, ` Page 2 and Appeals Board 1991 square shape sign to longitudinal strips, one bearing the time and temperature, the other bearing the St. Paul name and logo. Mr. Weiss said that it was his preference to have the sign in more of a square form, that had been the basis of his recommendation. Mr. Cilla answered Mr. Weiss by stating that it was his feeling since this was to be the only sign on a very large facade that it would receive: both better exposure with the new proposal and the lines of the sign would fit in better with the windows on the south facado. Discussion then centered on the design of the new sign in as to its appropriateness. The Chair pointed out that the variation request was for relief from the sign height of 15 and 1/2 feet and that he felt the Board was perhaps going beyond the boundaries of its power in trying to re -design the sign since this was not a unified business center plan. The consensus of the Board was to agree with the Chairman, that the only question was the sign height. Melton then moved to accept the proposal as submitted and accept the sign with the height variation of 25 feet. This motion was seconded by Blake. Weiss then stated that he would like the following condition amending the motion: 1) that the dimension from the roof to the top of the sign shall be identical as the roof to the top of the window on the south elevation. Melton amended her motion to include Weiss, condition and the motion was seconded by Blake. The Board approved the motion as amended, 3-1, with Weiss voting nay. SRAB #91-20: Evanston Place. 1715 Chicano Avenue - Consideration of request for variation to hermit the installation of a freestanding sion. The Chairman pointed out that the proposed sign does not conform to the following regulations of the Sign Ordinance_ 1) That no sign other than those exempt under Section 4-12-5 of the Ordinance shall be permitted on property of a residential zoning district. This proposal was not exempted under that section and was located in a R-7 Zoning District. 2) on premises having a principal building, no freestanding sign shall be permitted on a frontage unless every facade related to the frontage is set back at least 30 feet from right-of-way. The existing building is located 12 feet from the property line on Chicago Avenue. 3) No freestanding sign shall extend within 20 feet of any circulation lane which provides access to a public right-of-way. Proposed sign would be six feet from the loading dock drive for Evanston Place. sign Review and Appeals Board December 19, 1991 ' Page 3 Mr. Mike Barry of Rescorp Development was on hand to present the case. Mr. Barry began by stating that Rescorp believed that they needed the freestanding sign because the residential development had no signage exhibiting .its name or that there were vacancies available. Mr. Barry further stated that eight of the apartment currently leased would be vacant within the next several months and that there were no renters to lease these units. Mr. Barry presented evidence to the Board that when Rescorp had temporary signage up for the development, the vacancy rate was less than after the temporary signage was removed. The Board as a whole questioned whether the vacancies were due to a lack of signage or basically to the economic times and to the rental patterns in Evanston. Mr. Barry reiterated that he felt that the freestanding sign for the building was necessary to exhibit to the public what Evanston Place was and if there were vacancies available. He strongly stated that much of their rental business was due to people walking by the building, seeing the phone number and then calling in for information. Mr. Blake stated that he felt that this was probably true when the building was under construction and recently occupied, but as time went on this was less and less an important factor. Mr. Blake then asked Mr. Barry if they advertised Evanston Place in local newspapers, etc. Mr. Barry responded that they did run an ad in the Chicago Tribune and also in the Evanston Review. The Chair stated that he would have a difficult time approving a freestanding sign for a residential apartment building such as this, because many other apartment buildings in town would also request signage as well, which was not permitted by the Ordinance. Allowing this sign would increase the amount of signage in town, primarily in residential neighborhoods. The discussion turned to institutional name plates and the Board questioned Wolinski when these were permitted. Wolinski responded that under the Ordinance, an institutional name plate or plaque bearing a name could be applied directly or incorporated into the facade, but that it could not take the form of a freestanding sign. Wolinski went on further to state that residential name plates could not exceed 12 square feet and that they could only exhibit the name and or address of the building. Weiss stated that he strongly encouraged Rescorp to look into placing residential name plates into the two entrances into the building, but that he felt the freestanding sign was inappropriate. He went on further to say that he would be happy to receive another proposal for a residential name plate that would include the name, address, and phone number. Blake then moved to deny the variation request and was seconded by Weiss. The motion to deny was then approved by the Board, 4-0. Sign Review and Appeals Board December 19, 1991 Page 4 The Board reviewed and accepted with changes a proposed memo from the Sign Review and Appeals Board to the Planning and Development Committee concerning amendments to the Sign Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the board motioned for adjournment at 8:50 P.M. NEXT MEETING The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is scheduled for Thursday, January 16, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. aes Wolinski, Director Building and Zoning Department