Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1989Jr, To be aanroved February 16. 1989 MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD January 19, 1989 7:30 P.M. Members Present: N. O'Meara, Chair, H. Blake, L. Krasnow, J. Weiss Members Absent: C. Stremmel Staff Present: R. Carlson Upon a motion by Member Blake and second by Member Weiss, the minutes of the Sign Review and Appeals Board meeting of January 39, 1989 were approved as submitted. Upon a motion by Member Krasnow and second by Member Blake, a calendar of 1989 meetings of the Sign Review and Appeals Board was approved as submitted. r' Staff presented a listing showing the rotating vice-chairman schedule for 1989. There were no questions or comments regarding the proposed schedule. SRAB 89-1 1603 Orrington Avenue (NBD Bank Drive -Up Facili ty Rank representatives reviewed their request for installation of a directional sign at the southeast corner of the NBD Bank property fronting on Davis Street. The representatives noted that the present sign has been judged as too small and unacceptable due to the fact that it is not illuminated. Krasnow - the new sign seems to give more space to tha, NBD Bank sign than the small arrow gives to direction. She further noted that the 2 ft. wide x 4 ft. high recommendation of the Site Plan Review Committee seems appropriate in the interest of pedestrians and exiting motorists visibility. she questioned the need for the requested sign size of 8 ft. in height and 3 ft. in width a3 being excessive. Blake noted that the "NBD" portion of the sign could to reduced and still serve its identification purpose. doiss - visibility will improve at the southeast corner of the drive-in facili;y when the wooden barrier on the adjoining property is removed. O' oirn - rho identity of the bank is well known and he saw no need for a 3 ft. x 8 ft. :sign at this location. Weiss questioned an additional sign located along the access lane for the drive-in tellers which noted the hours of the operation of the bank. The bank representatives indicated that this sign is due for ramoval and will not be replaced. Upon a motion by O'Meara and a second by Weiss the Board approved a 2 ft. wide x 4 ft. high directional sign a' 'hp requeAnd location. :NAB 89-2 1941-61 Dem _star Street t< 1316_1B Dod e_A�_7 The developer of the Auto Fitness Center at the aforeroly ioned location reviewed his request for a Comprehensive Business Centn7 Sign Plan approval. Weiss questioned the developer as to his lack of effort in designing a sign plan that would conform or more nearly conform to thy rn6ulations contained in the Sign Ordinance. He noted further that this case conva ins more variations than have ever been granted to any case appearing befog- the Board. The developer noted the need for quick action by the Board wy to the fact that Sign Review and Appeals Board January 19, 1989 Page 2 February 1st is the expected opening date for at least a portion of the Auto Fitness Center. The various types of signs were discussed as follows: Wall Signs Weiss suggested that 15% of the facade for wall signs allowed by the Sign Ordinance as being excessive. It was suggested that 3% of the wall area would be sufficient for tenant identification. Krasnow stated that advertising of services would not be allowed with the wall signs not to contain advertising although logos would be permitted. The following conditions were approved by the Board for wall signs in the development: Wall sign area limited to 3% of facade area of each individual tenant, letters to be uniform 18" height, letter style or type may be varied, logos limited to 18" letter height., individual letters only, letter illumination optional, no raceways allowed, no exposed neon or box signs permitted, letter colors limited to blue and red. Free Standing Dodge Avenue Sign The Committee discussed the recommendations of the Site Plan Review Committee which recommended moving the proposed sign further back from Dodge Avenue and reducing, the size and height of the sign. The Board approved the free standing Dodge Avenue sign subject to the following conditions: Total height limited to 5 ft.. with sign area height limited to 2 ft. on a 3 ft. solid base to be constructed of compatible concrete block or stucco finish, sign width limited to 6 ft., sign location to be set back 5 ft. from the Dodge Avenue property line and 20 ft. south of the Dodge Avenue driveway, with sign fads having a dark blue background to match the building bond with off white letters, no logos or tenant identification is to appear on th4 :ign. Dempster Street Free Standing Sign i The Dempster Street free standing sign was approved with a total height allowed of 13 ft., consisting of a 3 ft. stucco or concre_e block base with 10 ft. height sign at the top of tho base, sign widtl", limited to 3 ft., tenant identification would be allowed with eight {3} panFls of a _ grey background with dark blue letters with logos, a top .rc~ion stati7i� "Auto Fitness Center" in a 2 ft. x 8 ft. sire would be all^wail. The s:fn shall be set back 7 ft. from the Dempster Strout property 1inp and 20 ft_. west of the Dempster Street driveway. Upon a motion by Har.brr Weiss an; second by Member Krasnow, the above three (3) types of suns were approved as a Comprehensive Business Center Sign Plan by 'L,- Board. I' was noted that while many facets of the plan are not highly desirable, a hardship does exist with this "I." shaped piece of property hiving proper identification on two streets. Sign Review and Appeals Board January 19, 1989 Page 3 SRAB 89-3 1700 Sherman Avenue The Board reviewed two (2) plans proposing to amend the Comprehensive Business Sign Plan for the Evanston Galleria at the above address. Amendment to the plan is required due to the fact that The House Store retail operation has leased 13,000 sq. ft. of the lower level which does not give them any street frontage for signage except in the entryway fronting on Sherman Avenue. Plan #1 consisting of a canvas valance type sign above the iron canopy on Sherman Avenue Was reviewed and rejected by the Board as unsuitable. Krasnow objected to The House Store identification being on the north, south and east elevations of the valance and deemed that as excessive. Weiss also noted his objections to the proposed valance plan. Plan 42 proposed by the Preservation Commission and Preservation Staff consisted of 12" high white neon letters located at the top of the canopy at the north and south elevations. The Board expressed their disapproval of this plan as not being in accord with the character of the building. The Evanston Galleria Property Manager cited the need for some type of identification either atop, on or below the iron canopy. Weiss suggested use of banner type signs constructed of a semi -rigid material to be mounted on the two (2) existing flag poles. The banners could contain vertical letters noting "The House Store." Member Blake suggested using the area under the canopy and above the entryway doors to construct a canvas cover that could contain back lit illuminated letters noting "The House Store." The consensus of the Committee was that it is their intent to approve a plan containing the banners and the canvas sign above the doorway upon submittal of detail drawings at their meeting of February 16, 1989. This proposal met with agreement from the Galleria Property Manager. There being no further business, the Committee adjourned at 11 p.m. Director of Building and Zoning Date DRAFT NOT APPROVED -MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD February 16, 1989 7:30 P.M. Members Present: N. O'Meara, (Chair), H. Blake and J. Weiss Members Absent: L.Kransow and C. Stremmel Staff Present: R. Ahlberg Upon a motion by Mr. Weiss, which was seconded by Mr. Blake, the minutes of the Sign Review and Appeals Board meeting of January 19, 1989 were unanimously approved as submitted. SRAB 89 -3 1700 Sherman Avenue Ms. Terri Smucker was present to discuss the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Business Center Sign Plan for the Galleria. Ms. Smucker stated that both the management and tenants were satisfied with the sign plan revisions proposed by the Board at the December 15, 1988, meeting. The revisions would permit the use of two (2) banner signs on the flag poles which flank the Sherman Avenue entrance to the establishment. In addition, an illuminated canvas sign would be permitted above the Sherman Avenue doorway under the iron canopy. The doorway sign and banners will both utilize the previously approved green color with white lettering. The doorway sign will utilize Helvetica vinyl lettering which will be backlit. The tenants have been granted authority to design the banners. Mr. Blake and Mr. O'Meara asked staff to provide an update on what activities had been undertaken to correct the inappropriate green color selected by "The Wild Asparagus." Mr. Blake questioned whether the proposed 6 inch maximum letter height for the doorway sign should not be increased, given the sign's overall 10 foot, 9 inch length. After further discussion, it was agreed that- the maximum letter height applicable in the original Comprehensive Business Center Sign Plan would apply to the doorway sign. Mr. O'Meara inquired as to whether any progress had been made in relocating the video tape display for the Babbages establishment. Ms. Smucker reported that the president of the firm would not permit alternate locations and that Centrum had no authority to impose such relocation. Mr. Weiss moved approval of the proposed revised Comprehensive Business Center Sign Plan with the maximum letter height for the doorway sign to be in accordance with the maximum letter heights contained in the original approved plan. Mr. Blake seconded the motion which carried unanimously. SRAB 89-4 818-24 Clark Street/1729-43 Benson Avenue (The Joinery) Mr. Martin Norkett of Nordon Enterprises Corporation was present to discuss the proposed Comprehensive Sign Plan for the Joinery. Mr. Norkett explained that a Center identification sign was approved for the two street sides of Sign Review and Appeals Board February 16, 1989 Page 2 the Center's tower panels. Although one tenant (Pepe's) desired a raceway sign, Mr. Norkett did not approve of such a sign. With regard to the Joinery Center Tower Sign, backlit channel letters were proposed. Mr. Blake objected to the proposed size of the letters for each tenant sign, given that the signs would be located right on the street. It was noted that the individual store sign panels are 24 inches in height and letter size is depicted at 12 inches in height on the submitted plan. After further discussion, it was agreed that the copy for the store signs would be restricted to a single line and would include only the store name. No advertising is permitted. Mr. Norkett agreed that the proposed recessed painted letters, as depicted on the proposed sign plan would be omitted. With regard to tenant sign illumination, it was agreed that signs would be "silhouette illuminated." Regarding the colors applicable to all signage on the site, Mr. Norkett agreed to eliminate the proposed blue color from the proposed permitted colors. All letter side returns are to match the approved colors selected for the letter face. Copy would be limited to the name of tenant with no advertising permitted. All signs shall be uppercase letters, all lower case letter or an upper case letter followed by all lower case letters. Regarding maximum tenant sign letter size, it was agreed that upper case letters will be limited to individual channel letters with a maximum of 12 inches in height. Lower case letters will be sized proportionately. The language referring to the height of descenders in item #3 of the "Specifications" sheet is to be omitted. No exposed raceways will be permitted. Letter style is to be approved by the landlord. Total sign width to be limited to 70% of the tenant's total frontage, but not exceeding 15% of the total frontage area. All lettering shall run horizontally. Mr. O'Meara stated that other than a permit review, the City would not be approving individual signs, but that signs are controlled by the criteria under discussion. Furthermore, the burden is also on the owner of the Center to approve signs in accordance with the approved criteria. It was agreed that paragraph 8 of the "Specifications" will be deleted because tenants always have the ability to request a variation. Regarding the Center tower sign proposed for the two street faces of the tower, Mr. Norkett stated that he preferred a more legible type than that proposed on the submitted plans. After discussion, it was agreed that maximum letter size would be i8 inches and is also somewhat limited by the size of the display panel. Two lines of copy are appropriate only for this sign. Color is to match the approved tenant sign colors. Mr. Weiss moved approval of the forgoing criteria for inclusion in a Comprehensive Sign Flan for the Joinery at 818-24 Clark Street/1729-43 Benson Avenue. Mr. Blake seconded the motion which carried unanimously. SRAB 89-5 2951 Central Street, First National Bank of Evanston Hssrs. Keith Braun and Rick Campbell of First National Bank of Evanston and Acme/Wiley Signs, respectively, were present to discuss the proposed variations to permit the installation of free standing sign with less than Sign Review and Appeals Board February 16, 1989 Page 3 the required front line setback and the installation of three directional signs with less than the lot line setback required. With the recent change in the ownership of the Bank, new signs are necessary. The present free standing sign is 18 feet tall. Although the proposed free standing sign does not exceed the 15 foot, 6 inch maximum height permitted, the proposed sign is located too close to the front lot line given its height. The Bank desires to install the sign an the present sign's foundation. The Bank feels the directional signs are necessary due to the location of the parking lot at the corner of Central St. and Central Park Ave. and the traffic pattern dictated by the drive-in bank facility. Mr. Blake -and Mr. O'Meara objected to the proposal to affix two identical wall signs to the front facade of the existing building. Mr. Campbell replied that the client had requested two signs due to potential visibility problems which may result from the "column" located on the front facade of the building. This column was formerly used for the display of two single -face signs. Mr. Blake explained that the locations of the two signs relative to the location of the main entrance door creates some confusion from a communication standpoint. Mr. Braun stated that the parkway trees partially obscure the facade wall signs from any great distance and that the viewpoint depicted on the elevation plans would only be visible from across the street. Mr. Blake pointed out that the size of the two front wall signs was much larger than necessary for visibility from across the street. He explained that the Cash Station signs should not have a white background. Mr. Weiss agreed and stated that Cash Station should consider revisions to their sign guidelines to allow their signs to have dark backgrounds and white lettering. Such a color scheme is far more legible than a white background with dark lettering. Mr. Blake explained the sign provision which excludes white background signs. It was suggested that a green background Cash Station sign with white letters would read better than green letters with a white background. Mr. Braun explained that the Bank was very reliant on retail banking clientele. Therefore, the free standing sign was very important in attracting customers. Mr. Weiss pointed out that while the Site Plan Review Committee concluded that the proposed directional signs were too tall and that the proposed signs were located a good distance from the property lines as opposed to the recent similar sign for the NBD Bank. Mr. Blake agreed that the proposed 5 foot, 6 inch height was appropriate, given the height of parked cars in the parking lot and the setback of the signs from the front lot line. He suggested the addition of a DOT "No Entrance" symbol to proposed sign #12 to reinforce the "do not enter" message. The white copy could be eliminated. It was agreed that all signs on page 2, 3 and 4 of the submitted plan could be approved with the exception of the Cash Station signs which are proposed a white background. It was suggested that the Cash Station signs utilize a green background and white and blue lettering and symbols. Board members expressed a willingness to discuss this matter with Cash Station if difficulties ensue. Sign Review and Appeals Board February 16, 1989 Page A Regarding the signs on page 1 of the submitted plans, Mr. Weiss stated that the two proposed front wall signs exceed the amount of permitted wall signs under the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Campbell reported that these signs without the subsequent addition of a logo had complied with the permissible sign area. In order to comply in the permissible wall signage requirements, the following options were discussed: 1. Eliminating one of the front wall signs and enlarging the remaining sign. 2. Reduce both wall signs in size. It was agreed that option #1 was preferable and Mr. Blake and Mr. Weiss recommended that the east sign remain because it was displayed on the larger portion of the building facade. Mr. O'Meara agreed that the two signs on the face of di -building are inappropriate. Mr. Blake suggested that walking level traffic might be best served by a main entrance transom sign in lieu of the west front wall sign. This would eliminate the need to increase the size of the east wall sign because the proposed letter size is visible for a great distance. Regarding the free standing sign, it was noted that the proposed height of the sign would necessitate a 15 foot, 6 inch setback and the sign must be located a minimum of 25 feet form all driveways. The applicant desires to erect the sign on the existing sign pad. After discussion, it was agreed that the proposed sign, if erected on the existing pad would be appropriate and that visibility from Central Street was enhanced by the existing stoplight despite the present location of parkway trees on Central Street. This location also approximates the setback applicable to the directional signs on the site. The maximum height of the sign is proposed to be 15 feet, 6 inches. Mr. Braun suggested that the elimination of the second front wall sign would be explored, but that if the second sign was deemed absolutely necessary by the Corporation, both signs would be reduced to comply with the 15% allowance in the present Ordinance. Mr. Weiss clarified that the Board desired only one wall sign with perhaps a main entrance transom sign. However, in the event the Corporation concluded that both wall signs were necessary, such proposal should be reviewed by the Board. Mr. Ahlberg added that the Sign Ordinance does permit the Board to affix conditions on the wall signs to the grant of a variation for other signs. Mr. O'Meara stated that in association with the grant of a variation for the free standing sign, the Board was imposing the condition that only one front wall sign would be approved (transom signs are appropriate within the 15% limitation applicable to all front wall signs). If there is a problem with the compliance with this decision, the Board expressed a willingness to again meet on the proposal. Mr. O'Meara summarized the Board's decisions as follows: 1. The directional signs were approved as to height, color and placement. However, the Cash Station sign should be white letters on a green background and the "Do Not Enter" sign (#12) should also contain the appropriate DOT symbol. 0 Sign Review and Appeals Board February 16, 1989 Page 5 2. The north elevation signs should be limited to one sign with an option to have a second identification sign over the main doorway entrance transom. 3. The proposed pylon sign should be installed directly over the existing sign foundation and should not exceed a height of 15 feet, 6 inches. Mr. Weiss seconded the above motion which carried unanimously. There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 9:15 P.H. Zoning Planner 3/00163C, Date To be approved June 15, 1989 MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD May 18, 2989 7:30 P.H. Members Present: N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, L. Krasnow, C. Sharp, and J. Weiss Members Absent: None Staff Present: R. Carlson Chairman O'Meara welcomed new Board member Curt Sharp, who was attending his initial meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board as the replacement for former member Carl Stremmel. Chairman O'Meara called for a motion to approve the minutes of the Sign Review and Appeals Board meeting of February 16, 1989. Member Weiss noted a change to be made in line 26, page 2 of the aforementioned minutes, the change being replacement of the word "frontage" with the word "facade." With that change, Member Blake moved and Member Krasnow seconded a motion to approve the cor- rected minutes. The minutes were unanimously approved as corrected. SPR 89-6 Northwestern university/City of Evanston Research Park Signs The Board reviewed the proposed plan with Mr. John Driscoll and Mr. Arnold Goodwin representing the Charles Shaw Company, developers of the Research Park. It was noted that the plan provides for building signs, directional signs, informational signs and kiosk signs at the main entrances to the Research Park. The proposed kiosk signs would replace the temporary signs presently placed at the main entrances to the Research Park. The developer's representatives explained the various materials to be used in the signs to the evident satisfaction of the Board. Weiss questioned the setback of the en- trance signs and it was stated that they would be installed 15 ft. back from the curb. Representatives stated that the BIRL Lab. sign would be setback 3 ft. from the property line. The directional signs are shown on public pro- perty and it was suggested by the Board that the directional signs be moved back to private property. The Board approved a height of 4 ft. for the parking, directional signs and with their being moved back to private property, may be approved for installation l ft. inside of the sidewalk. The represent- atives explained that the signage proposed for the viaduct has been removed from the plan and that it is planned to have signage a: the viaduct to be a free standing type of sign which would be subject to future Sign Review and Appeals Board approval. Upon a motion by Member Blare and a second by Member Sharp, the Board voted 5 ayes and 0 nays to approve the proposed sign plan without the viaduct signs and with the parking directional signs to be allowed to go to a height of 4 ft. and install 1 ft. inside the property line. SPR 89-7 Pepe's Restaurant - 1729 Benson Avenue Representatives of Pepe's Restaurant reviewed their request for an amendment to an approved Business Center Sign Plan for the Joinery Building at 2729-43 Benson Avenue. The request involves additional signage to be mounted above 1 Sign Review and Appeals Board May 18, 1989 Page 2 the main entrance doorway to Pepe's which would consists of a 30" high "Pepe's" sign atop a 2 ft. high "Mexican Restaurant" sign and a canopy across the full width of the entranceway. The representative explained the problem encountered in Pepe's signing a lease with the Joinery prior to or coinciden- tal with approval of a sign plan for the building which was not revealed to them. The representative noted further that Pepe's is a nationwide chain of some 65 restaurants and identification in their corporate colors and style is extremely important in attracting business. Krasnow noted that among 65 res- taurants in different cities, there must surely be variations in their signage plans. The approved sign plan would allow only 12" high letters above the Benson Avenue area. The Board noted the color and style of letter and the en- larged amount of signage requested as being totally out of character with the building. O'Meara cited the Galleria as restrained signage installed by nationwide chains in standard green and white colors. The Board suggested a revised plan as follows: The 30" high and 2 ft. high signs as requested would not be installed. In place of those signs, it was suggested that a canopy across the entire entryway be allowed with said canopy to project a maximum of 2 ft. from the building to be a ft. high with 12" high Pepe's lettering in the color of green, Cold or white. Lettering on the canopy shall align in height with the 22" high green, gold or white lettering of Pepe's Restaurant above the Benson Avenue window. On a motion by Member Blake and a second by Member Weiss, the Board voted 5 ayes and 0 nays to approve the aforementioned amendments to the previously ap- proved Business Center Sign Plan. SRAB 89-8 1450 Sherman Avenue The developer for the property reviewed the request for a Business Center Sign Plan at the aforementioned address for the Holiday Square Strip Shopping Cen- ter. The development is to consist of a six (6) unit commercial building with adjoining parking. Weiss questioned the use of raceways for mounting the in- dividual letters. Krasnow stated that raceways would hurt the integrity of the signs and the building. Discussion also took place regarding, the "Holiday Sguare" sign at the entrance to the parking lot. The developer was reminded that the gooseneck fixture lighting the aluminum "Holiday Square" letters should be turned back to shine onto the wall. The sign proposed for the north elevation was also discussed. This sign would require a variation to be ap- proved by the Board due to the fact that this sign is not located on a street frontage. A sign on the south elevation will be allowed due to the fact that it does face on a street frontage. Member Weiss proposed a motion approving a revised plan as follows: Raceways prohibited, no sign on the north elevation, awnings to be of canvass type material without back lighting, indi- vidual letter size of signs to be 15" maximum height, no two (2) line signs allowed, no logos allowed exceeding the 15" letter height, sign at the parking lot entrance approved and letter colors limited to any three (3) colors selected by the developer. Sign Review and Appeals Board May 18, 19B9 Page 3 Upon a second of the above motion by Member Sharp, the Board voted 5 ayes and 0 nays to approve the Comprehensive Business Center Sign Plan. SPR 89-9 844-46 Dodge Avenue The developer for the property and representatives of West Coast Video, Inc. were present to explain their proposal for an amendment to an approved Compre- hensive Business Center Sign Plan for the aforementioned property. West Coast Video has rented a double unit store at the above location and wishes to make use of their logo incorporated into the signage. The developer proposed that the height, style and color of the existing letters would be followed with the insert of the West Coast Video logo in white and yellow colors, not to exceed the height of the letters. The representatives explained further that they were willing to give up the standard West Coast Video letter colors if the logo request could be approved. Member Weiss moved to approve the amendment to the Comprehensive Business Center Sign Plan to allow installation of a logo provided that the color, height and style of the West Coast Video letters would be identical to the existing signs on the building. In addition, the West Coast Sign shall be installed at an elevation identical with the existing signs. Upon second by Member Krasnow, the Board voted 5 ayes and 0 nays to approve the requested amendment to the Comprehensive Business Center Sign Plan. Staff was requested to investigate the installation of an awning on the south wall of this development and additions made to the free standing sign on Dodge Avenue. SRAB 89-10 1930 Ridge Avenue Mr. Terry Upton, president of Point 1 motors was present to explain his re- quest for a variation to install five (5) awnings on the south elevation of the aforementioned property. A variation is required due to the fact that four (4) window awnings project 3 ft. beyond the building and an awning over the doorway projects 5 ft. from the building, while the Sign Ordinance re- stricts fixed awnings to a projection of 2 ft. Mr. Upton explained thaL in order for the awnings to be in scale to the building which is very wide and very tall that larger awnings with a greater projection showed a better bal- ance. He also stated that the projection of the awnings will give additional protection from the south sun during the summer months. The 5 ft. projection over the door will afford greater protection during inclement weather. He stated further he felt a hardship would exist if he could not install the awnings on this recently remodeled wall. The Board reminded Mr. Upton of pre- vious variations granted by the Board to Point l Motors and the apparent lack of performance and conformance to the codes by Mr. Upton. A sign at the north driveway was recently re -faced without a permit. In addition, the sign con- tains a translucent background with opaque letters which is just the opposite of what is required by the code. Mr. Upton was also reminded that he had been given a variation to move a Jeep/Eagle sign to the south end of his property in order to afford greater visibility of this sign for Emerson Street and Ridge Avenue traffic. Additionally, Mr. Upton was reminded that the Board had requested removal of the iron framework on the roof of the building that held a sign from a former owner of the property. Member Blakp made a motion to ap- prove the variation as requested subject to Sign Review and Appeals Board May 18, 1989 Page 4 the north driveway sign being re -faced in a legal manner with an opaque back- ground and translucent letters. Upon a second by Member Sharp, the Board voted 5 ayes and 0 nays to approved the variation with the aforementioned con- ditions. Director of Building and Zoning SIC2S1 7 y Date r M 110.0 .,.I I VW DRAFT NOT APPROVED MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD Thursday, September 25, 1989 Members Present: N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Slake, L. Krasnow, C. Sharp and J. Weiss Members Absent: None Staff Present: R. Ahlberg and J. Wolinski After introducing himself, Mr. Ahlberg introduced Mr. Wolinski. Both ex- pressed interest in staffing the Sign Review and Appeals Board, Mr. Sharp and Mr. Blake inquired as to the status of Point One Motors compli- ance with conditions imposed in connection with the grant of a previous varia- tion. Mr. Ahlberg stated he would investigate the matter and report to the Board. I. Minutes Upon a motion by Mr. Blake, seconded by Ms. Krasnow, the minutes of Hay 18, 1989, were approved unanimously. II. SRAB 89-11 1603-29 Orrington Avenue Mssrs. Paul Render of Federal Sign and Curt L. Eilers of Draper and Kramer were present to present their proposed variation and comprehensive business center sign plan for the above address. Mr. O'Meara asked that all testimony provided be truthful. Mr. Eilers explained that Draper and Kramer had negotiated a change to the long term lease applicable to the space formerly used by the Walgreen's Cafe- teria. This will allow the use of the space by various offices uses. A ten- ant in the front space (1615 Sherman Avenue, Suite Al) has already been se- cured (Dr. Antoinette Saunders). Rather than permit all individual tenants to have individual signs, a unified approach is desired. Mr. Render stated that his analysis of the building's sign needs led to the proposed directory sign with individual tenant panels. He noted that despite a notation to the contrary on the submitted plans, all copy of the sign would have while letters with a dark bronze background. He stated that the proposed single 10' x 10' sign is far superior to each individual tenant having a sign. No more than five (5) offices are available which coincides with the five (5) tenant sign panels available, more likely, only four (4) tenants will occupy the building. Mr. Eilers noted that some confusion existed amongst patrons of the Social Security Office as to where the office is located, individuals with the Social Security Administration were contacted and have no objection to the proposed sign. The existing Walgreen's sign on the south facade of the building has been moved to accommodate the proposed directory sign. Sign Review and Appeals Board September 25, 1989 Page 2 Mr. Weiss questioned why the proposed sign does not reflect the ll'-0" width of the relocated adjacent Walgreen's sign. Mr. Render replied that the sign was designed without considering the relocation of the Walgreen's south facade sign. He expressed a desire to work with Walgreen's on rehabilitating or re- placing the existing signs. Mr. Weiss suggested making the new directory sign the same ll'-0" width of Walgreen's sign. Mr. Render noted that the main lessee usually demands the largest sign and may be unwilling to consider a smaller sign. According to Mr. Eilers, Walgreen's was not interested in eliminating the existing south wall sign and replacing it with a tenant panel in the present sign. He noted that Walgreen's intended to modernized their existing store. Mr. Blake noted that the major tenants of a center in Evanston did not always have the right to display the largest sign. The present Walgreen's sign should satisfy Walgreen's as a major tenant because it represents an individ- ual sign not connected to the others. From a design standpoint, the signs should line up. The sign copy would be easier to read in an ll'-0" width rather than the 10'-0" width proposed. In considering the proposed unified sign plan, the Committee needs to consider whether other office buildings will desire similar directory signs. Such directory signs are not intended to be legible from vehicles. Kr. Eilers stressed the need to resolve the proposal quickly to avoid economic penalties contained in tenant leases. Mr. Render reiterated that the proposed directory sign was designed to leave Walgreen's with the largest sign and to replace the two (2) 5'x5' existing signs in the same location. fir. Eilers stated that Walgreen's would only permit moving their south wall sign up or down and not east or west. After additional discussion, Mr. Eilers indicated that the proposed sign had already been built and that the original intent had been to include Walgreen's in the directory sign, but that Walgreen's did not wish to be included. Mr. Render stated that a former Federal Sign employee had assured him that a verbal commitment had been given by Reed Carlson that the proposed directory sign complied with the Sign Regulations. In response to a request by Kr. Render to verify this verbal commitment, Mr. Ahlberg stated that the applicant had previously alleged such verbal approval, but no written record of such ap- proval had been found. Mr. Render stated that manufacture of the sign is ap- proved only after a verbal approval has been obtained. Mr. Eilers reminded the Board that the signage was intended to improve the property. Hs. Krasnow responded that while the Hoard appreciated this intent, the Board had to consider all aspects of the proposal. She questioned why the applicant had not petitioned earlier. Mr. Render stated that the need for the petition did not become apparent until the sign permit was sought. Mr. Ahlberg reported that the permit application was dated August 10, 1989. Mr. Sharp questioned if the storefront office (with the existing neon sign) occu- F I Sign Review and Appeals Board September 25, 1989 Page 3 pied by Dr. Saunders had a door on Orrington° Mr. Eilers replied that the en- trance to Dr. Saunder's office was on the south and that the neon window sign was put up by Dr. Saunders. Mr. Blake objected to the neon sign displayed in the window. Mr. Ahlberg noted that the Board does have the ability to impose the removal of the sign as a condition associated with action on the requested variation. Mr. Blake noted that this section would also permit the Board to require removal of the Walgreen's signs. Mr. Weiss suggested that due to the fact the proposed sign had already been made and could not be made the same width as the Walgreen's sign, maybe the Walgreen's sign on the south wall should be required to be a foot smaller. The Board may want to also consider the Walgreen's sign located on the west wall since the sign plan is supposed to be comprehensive. Ms. Krasnow sugges- ted that since the existing Walgreen's signage is not objectionable, the Board should only consider such signage when a change is proposed. Additional dis- cussion resulted in the consensus that the neon sign was not appropriate for inclusion in the unified business center sign plan under consideration. Mr. Ahlberg stated that, in his opinion, the Board was on firm ground in "condi- tioning" removal of the neon sign in conjunction with the requested relief be- cause all signs on the site, including window signs, are considered in the unified sign plan. Based on a question by Ms. Krasnow, Mr. Ahlberg indicated that the neon sign constituted a permanent window sign which requires permit approval and is regulated by the Sign Regulations. Ms. Krasnow suggested that the Board should not consider any action relative to the neon sign until additional information and discussion occurs, Mr. Weiss suggested that Dr. Saunders be given the choice of either the present window sign or a space on the proposed directory sign, but not both. Mr. Ahlberg suggested that the Board has the option of prohibiting all window signs for the project which allows a tenant desiring a window sign the right to request an amendment to the approved sign plan at a later date. Mr. O'Meara stated that he would prefer that the Board address the window signs now as part of the present proposal rather than considering it at a later date. Mr. Ahlberg reiterated that no sign permit had been obtained for the neon window sign and it was therefore in violation of the the Sign Regula- tions. Mr. O'Meara stated that even if Dr. Saunders attempted to obtain the required sign permit, such permit could not be issued unless the approved uni- fied business center sign plan authorizes window signs. Ms. Krasnow question- ed why Dr. Saunders would be prohibited from having a neon sign when other businesses would be permitted to have them. Mr. Blake and Kr. Weiss stated that many existing neon signs were nonconforming or erected without permits. Mr. Ahlberg noted that neon signs are not necessarily a violation of the Sign Regulations. They may, however, be specifically prohibited as part of a uni- fied business center sign plan. Ms. Krasnow stated that reason for prohib- iting the sign must be articulated given the existence of other such signs in Evanston including some permitted in conjunction with unified business center sign plans. Mr. O'Meara stated that each unified plan is considered on its own merits and context. Ms. Krasnow did not concur and stated that the fail- ure to obtain a permit is most relevant in this matter. The size of the neon I Sign Review and Appeals Board September 25, 1989 Page 4 sign needed to be determined to ascertain compliance with the permanent window sign regulations. Mr. Ahlberg replied that these regulations were not neces- sarily applicable in a unified business center sign plan. Mr. Blake agreed and noted that the Board is often more stringent in considering unified sign plans than the otherwise applicable requirements. Mr. Weiss suggested that regardless of the out come of the instant case, the Board ought to be looking for ways to amend the Code to prohibit neon signs. After additional discussion, it was agreed that the existing Walgreen's sign on the south elevation of the building must ,be reduced to a 10' width. The Orrington Avenue Walgreen's sign may be replaced with a similar newer sign (with the same color scheme) provided it is no larger than the present sign. No window signs are to be permitted as part of the approved plan. Mr. Sharp suggested that Walgreen's be offered a space in the proposed direc- tory sign as an incentive to remove the present south wall sign. In response to a question by Mr. Eilers, Ms. Krasnow explained that by having already built the proposed directory sign at a 10' width, the applicant is, in effect, forcing Walgreen's to replace their 11 foot wide sign on the south elevation with a 10' wide sign. Mr. Eilers indicated that a free tenant panel on the directory sign will be offered as an alternative. Ms. Krasnow cautioned Mr. Eilers that the Board was not in a position to de- fend the 10' width established by the proposed directory sign which has already been built. Mr. Render questioned whether the additional one foot reduction on the south wall Walgreen's sign should be added to the west wall Walgreen's sign. Ms. Krasnow responded that that had not yet been proposed and therefore cannot be considered. Mr. Blake concurred but noted that the Board had considered amendments to previously approved unified plans. He stated that the Board was tonight considering only the existing Walgreen's signs as part of the unified business center sign plan. Mr. Eilers added that their lease may give Walgreen's certain sign rights. Mr. Blake moved and Mr. Sharp seconded a motion to approve the proposed com- prehensive sign plan and variation provided the Walgreen's sign on the south elevation is reduced in width to 10' and any new entrance sign over the Orrington doors be no larger than the present sign. The top panel on the directory sign is to have a dark background and white lettering to match the balance of the sign. All signs on the premises are required to conform to the colors chosen for the proposed directory sign. No window signs will be per- mitted. Said motion was approved unanimously. Based on a question by Mr. Eilers, Kr. Ahlberg explained Chat any other newly created unified business center will be subject to a similar approval proce- dure. However, the owners of any existing unified business center which may predate the Sign Ordinance are recommended to consider a unified approach to signage. d Sign Review and Appeals Board September 25, 1989 Page 5 III. Other Business - A general discussion was held on the need to take an aggressive posture on sign regulation enforcement. Mr. Wolinski agreed that any aggressive pos- ture was warranted within personal constraints. - Mr. Weiss questioned the conformity of the signs at the Dempster Auto Fitness Center to the approved plan. He noted that the freestanding sign was approved with a light background and dark letters whereas the opposite had been approved. Mr. Blake stated that the Lube Pro signage contains more signage than was approved by the Board. - Mr. Weiss asked if the "Ask Kr. Foster Travel Agency" at 820 Davis Street had obtained a permit for the two (2) signs erected on the buildings north and east facades. Mr. Ahlberg indicated he would investigate the matter and report to the Board when the investigation is completed. - Mr. Wolinski noted that Point One Motors had been notified of existing vio- lations. Mr. Ahlberg added that the penants and flags were also a sign vio- lation and that several zoning violations existed on the site. Ms. Krasnow also inquired as to the status of any remaining roof signage support struc- ture. - Mr. Weiss proposed that an inventory of Board decisions be prepared and organized by address. Such an inventory of decisions would help the Board make more consistent decisions and avoid legal challenges. Ms. Krasnow sug- gested that the decisions of the Board need to be protected against com- plaints that they may be arbitrary. She suggested that additional dis- cussion occur on these points. Mr. Weiss stated that additional direction may be provided by revised application forms. - Mr. Weiss also suggested that the Board should consider recommending what- ever Sign Regulation changes appear necessary. Ms. Krasnow suggested that staff and others knowledgeable with the Ordinance provide the Board with re- commended changes. Mr. O'Meara suggested that a more effective noncon- forming use provision be considered. Mr. Ahlberg provided background in- formation on the policy direction selected by the Council when the Sign Ordinance was drafted. Ms. Krasnow objected to inequities inherent in the attrition approach to nonconforming signs contained in the present Ordinance. She questioned why some awnings are permitted to extend beyond the two foot limitation contained in the Ordinance. Mr. Ahlberg explained that the two foot limitation applies only to fixed awnings. Retractable awnings are permitted to extend farther than the two foot limitation. Additional comments were made on the need to maintain a minimum vertical clearance beneath the awning. - Mr. O'Meara stated that, in his opinion, the Board's decisions were not arbitrary. Instead they are sensitive to individual needs. Mr. Blake con- curred. Mr. Weiss and Ms. Krasnow stated that some decisions could be more consistent with others. Mr. Ahlberg suggested that the Board articulate reasons for decisions and that such reasons follow the standards setforth in the Sign Regulations. Such findings could be summarized in the minutes and assist in protecting against what may appear to be inconsistent decisions. Mr. Blake stated that all decisions rendered thus far have been based on good design reasons. Mr. Sharp noted that each proposal must be considered within a context and that decisions are "tailored" to the context. This may Sign Review and Appeals Board September 25, 1989 Page 6 appear arbitrary on the surface. Kr. Blake asked staff to compile a list of all Board decisions to date with a brief description of what had been sought. Mr. Ahlberg stated that in addition to such a list, the letters summarizing Board findings can be complied and distributed. Hr. Weiss of- fered to provide a chronology he had developed as a basis, but that multiple petitions on the same address were confusing. Hr. Ahlberg indicated that the requested chronology would be provided as time permits. Staff reports will also summarize previous actions by the Board. The Board must approach the standards with the context of the sign in mind. - Kr. Sharp suggested that the buyer of any property should be notified that existing signage may not conform with the present sign requirements. Kr. Wolinski stated that some notification of nonconforming status could be con- veyed in connection with the City's real estate transfer tax. - Hr. Weiss suggested that the issue of neon window signs needs to be ad- dressed. Hr. Ahlberg reported that the sign regulations address neon signs through the window sign and illuminated sign regulations. The illumination requirements may already address neon sign objections. Sign permits are re- quired for all window signs as defined by the Sign Ordinance. Additional discussion on neon signs led to the the conclusion that not all neon signage is objectionable. Mr. Blake objected to neon signs within the establishment that are visible outside. Hs. Krasnow noted that the sign regulations seem to apply in an inequitable way to Dr. Saunders because her signage is lo- cated in a unified business center. Hr. Blake, Hr. O'Meara and Hr. Ahlberg disagreed and explained the purposes behind the unified business center re- gulations. Ms. Krasnow and Hr. Weiss stated that neon signs may be inappro- priate for entire neighborhoods. - Kr. Weiss asked whether exposed raceways were prohibited by Ordinance. He stated he did not object to raceways per se. Kr. Ahlberg stated that the raceways may have been prohibited in connection with unified business centers, but were not prohibited by Ordinance. Hr. Blake agreed and stated that with brick buildings, raceways were particularly appropriate provided they matched the wall color. - Hr. Sharp asked that enforcement of the Sign Ordinance be stepped -up. IV. Adjournment Mr. Weiss moved and Hr. Blake seconded a motion to adjourn. Said motion was approved unanimously. Robert B. Ahlberg, ' Zoning Planner Itil3 �B� Date DRAFT NOT APPROVED DRAFT NOT APPROVED MINUTES Sign Review and Appeals Board November 16, 1989 Members Present: N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, L. Krasnow Members Absent: C. Sharp and J. Weiss Staff Present: J. Wolinski I. Minutes The Chairman opened the meeting promptly at,_7:30 p.m. and asked for an approval of the minutes of the September 21. 1989 meeting. The Chairman complimented Mr. Robert Ahlberg, staff member for both the content and clarity of the minutes and stated the minutes were very well done. He pointed out a few typographical errors in the minutes which he preceded to hand to Mr. Wolinski to have corrected. The minutes were seconded and approved unanimously. Mr. Wolinski announced that Mr. Robert Ahlberg would be leaving the City of Evanston employment at the end of the month of November and that Mr. Ahlberg wanted to thank the members of the Committee for their participation and continued support. Mr. Wolinski stated that he would continue on as the staff representative to the Sign Review and Appeals Board. SEAB 89-12 2929 Central Street and 2940-42 Central Street George Woock and Norman Greenberg of Whiteway Sign, and George Cyrus of Cyrus Realtors, applicant, were present to discuss the requested variations. Mr. Woock began by stating that they were no longer proposing refacing the freestanding sign at 2940-42 Central Street for the present. Mr. Woock then stated that as for tonight, they only wanted to discuss the two (2) wall signs at 2929 Central Street and the freestanding sign at 2929 Central Street. A revised drawing had been submitted to the Board which eliminated from discussion the free standing sign at 2940 Central and showed only the three (3) remaining signs. The time and temperature signage had been eliminated from the freestanding sign. Only a new face was put on the sign and would be at the same elevation as the current sign. Mr. Blake then asked Mr. Woock to speak to the signs colors. Mr. Woock responded that it was a white background, but it was opaque at night with a second surface of opaque to eliminate light shining through the sign. The logo would be a burgundy color and the lettering would be blue. The telephone number Was eliminated from the west wall sign which left the sign with one (1) item of information over what the Ordinance allows. The south wall sign was the same as presented at the previous meeting. The Chairman then asked for comments from the other Committee members. Both Ms. Krasnow and Mr. Blake complimented the revisions on the signage that had taken place. Mr. Blake commented that with the new logo that was now to be displayed on the Cyrus signs, that it would be a new source of recognition for Cyrus Realtors. Mr. Woock then asked the question that if a wall sign was placed on the building at 2940-42 Central Street, what the Board's feelings would be about a time and temperature sign on Sign Review and Appeals Board November 16, 1989 Page 2 that building along side of a wall sign. Mr. Cyrus also asked whether time and temperature signs were considered dubious by the Board. Mr. Blake responded that only if they proposed a traffic safety hazard are they not specifically permitted. He went on to say that in the older Zoning Ordinances all types of flashing signs were not permitted. Mr. Blake proceeded to state that it was not necessarily a problem in itself only if it posed a traffic hazard. Ms. Krasnow, however, stated that she wondered if it would be as clean a look with a time and temperature sign. She felt that the signage that was currently being put up was a classic look and that a time and temperature sign may distract from it. Mr. Woock responded by stating that Mr. Cyrus would be deciding whether he wished to approach the Board at a future date with a wall sign for 2940 Central Street and with a time and temperature sign as well. The Chairman then asked for a motion to decide on the variation for the three (3) signs that had been presented that evening. Mr. Blake moved to accept the changes as submitted. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously. Other Business The Chairman then brought up a letter about a proposed change in the Comprehensive Business Center Sign Plan for the Auto Fitness Center at 1941-61 Dempster Street. Although this item was not on the formal agenda, the Chairman asked the other members if they wish to consider it tonight. Ms. Krasnow and Mr. Blake both expressed dismay with the signs that have been installed at the Auto Fitness Center, some of which are totally opposite to what the Board had approved. Mr. Wolinski stated that it was at the Board's pleasure whether they wish to discuss this tonight or hold it off for a future meeting. He suggested that perhaps they may wish to reschedule this because Mr. Weiss and Mr. Sharp were not at the present meeting because of a conflict with the Cyrus items, but that they may wish to be involved with the discussion of the Auto Fitness Center. The Board agreed and decided to schedule the Auto Fitness requests for the next meeting. The next scheduled meeting for the Sign Review and Appeals Board is scheduled for December 21, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. as Wolinski Director, Building & Zoning Department /-2 /y/*,* " Date DRAFT NOT APPROVED MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD Thursday, December 21, 1989 Members Present: N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, and J. Weiss Members Absent: L. Krasnow, and C. Sharp Staff Present: J. Wolinski Minutes The Chairman opened the meeting promptly at 7:30 p.m. and asked for approval of the minutes of the November 16th meeting. The minutes were approved with one typographical error being pointed out by the Chairman. Meeting Schedule The next order of business was the approval of the meeting schedule for the calendar year 1990. The schedule was approved unanimously. SRAB 89-12 1603-29 Orrington Avenue Mr. Wolinski pointed out to the Committee that he has been in contact with Dr. Antoinette Saunders, the applicant for the amendment, and she related to him that she had just recently hired legal. counsel to represent her before the Sign Review and Appeals Board. Her attorney, Mr. Bernstein, had contacted Mr. Wolinski and due to the fact that he had just recently been asked to look at the case, if this case could indeed be continued to the January meeting. Mr. Wolinski stated that he had been in contact with the Chairman prior to the meeting and the Chairman felt that this would not be a difficult problem. Mr. Wolinski also pointed out that in connection with Dr. Saunders' case, Mr. Kirk Eilers, who was to appear with Dr. Saunders would also like to have his case moved to the January meeting. Mr. Wolinski pointed out that Mr. Eilers was basically asking for an interpretation of the Walgreen sign issue as to if there was going to be a citing of this sign would the citing be indeed for Mr. Eilers and the management company for which he works for or for Walgreen itself. Staff was expecting a letter from Mr. Eilers describing the issue in detail and this letter would then be forwarded to the City Corporation Counsel for legal opinion. Mr. Weiss pointed out that it was his opinion that it would be the building owner who would have the ultimate responsibility. The Committee agreed to hold these two (2) related cases over until the January meeting. Amendment to the Comprehensive Business Center Sign Plan for the auto Fitness Center at 1941-61 Dempster Street and 1316-26 Dodge Avenue. Mr. George Sachs of Realty and Mortgage Company was present to discuss the requested amendment to the Unified Business Center Sign Plan. Mr. O'Meara began by stating that when the Comprehensive Business Center Sign Plan was first discussed for the site, that there were specific conditions decided upon for that site. He further pointed out that what was originally intended had not been met and that the Dempster Street sign had been -^oved on several occasions. Mr. Sachs pointed out that at the time of the original application for the Business Center Sign Plan, his company had not been involved with this site and had only recently become so. Mr. O'Meara commented on the unusual configuration of the Auto Fitness Center and then asked Mr. Sachs just exactly Site Plan Review Committee December 21, 1989 Page 2 what he was asking the Board for? Mr. Sachs pointed out that he would like to have the Dempster Street with white letters with a blue background pointing out that the existing sign is very difficult to see. Mr. Sachs pointed out that many customers have complained to the tenants that they have difficulty finding the various businesses off of Dempster Street, not only the first time but many times, the second time as well. Mr. Sachs also pointed out business at the present time was not the best and that perhaps the change in signage would help boost business. Mr. Sachs also pointed out that they wanted to put directional arrows on the bottom panels of the sign. Mr. Blake asked just what type of blue background was being referred to? Mr. Sachs responded that that had not yet been discussed with the sign company, they had been waiting for the review to allow the change. Mr. Blake pointed out that there was suppose to have been a sign on Dodge Avenue, but there was not yet one on the site. Mr. Sachs responded that that sign was currently being made. Mr. Sachs further stated that that sign would have white letters with a blue background as well. Mr. O'Meara also pointed out that there was a flapping sign with multi --state transmissions inscribed on it and he asked whether this sign would continue to be there? Mr. Sachs responded that he did not want the sign to be there and once the Dodge Avenue sign was up that hopefully this sign would be removed. Mr. Blake pointed out that there was also signage that he felt was advertising next to the Lube Pros sign was also inscribed on the wall with 10 Minute Oil Change. Mr. Blake pointed out that this was indeed advertisement and that it was against the Unified Business Center Sign plan. Mr. Sachs responded that it was his understanding that 10 Minute Oil Change was indeed part of the Lube Pros full name, that the proper name of the company is Lube Pros 10 Minute Oil Change. Mr. Wolinski pointed out that if this was the case then it would fit in within the confines of the Ordinance. Discussion then centered around whether indeed the 10 Minute Oil Change was part of Lube Pros official name. Several members of the Committee had doubts whether indeed it was part of the actual name. Mr. Wolinski pointed out that if 10 Minute Oil Change was not part of the company's name then either that would have to come down or that there would have to be an application for an amendment to the Unified Business Center Sign Plan to allow for it to remain, which would have to be approved by the Committee. Mr. Blake made a motion to approve the variation as requested. This change in essence would be to white letters on a blue background. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously by the Board. Further discussion was centered around whether the blue background would be opaque or translucent. The consensus of the Cor,_s:ttee was to leave this open to the applicant. Mr. Blake also pointed out tc Mr. Sachs that the issue of the Lube Pros sign needed to be addressed and Mr. Sachs said he would report back with his findings to the City. Next Meeting, The next scheduled meeting for the Sign Review and Appeals Board is for January 18, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. ae Wolinski Director, Building & Zoning Department / r Date