HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1990DRAFT NOT APPROVED
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
Thursday, January 18, 1990
Members Present: N, O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, and L. Krasnow
Members Absent: C. Sharp and J. Weiss
Staff Present: J. Wolinski
Minutes
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and asked for approval of the
minutes of the meeting of December 21, 1989. The minutes were approved with
typographical changes noted by the Board with Mr. Blake pointing out that he
wanted to make certain that the Lube Pros question was followed up by City
Staff. Mr. Wolinski responded that this issue would be followed upon and
resolved.
SRAB 89-12 1603-29 Orrincton Avenue
Mr. O'Meara stated that the first case on the agenda was for an amendment to
the Business Center Sign Plan at 1603-29 Orrington Avenue. Mr. Wolinski
pointed out that the existing neon sign was not part of the Unified Business
Center Sign Plan approved by the Board and that the owner would have to
receive an approved amendment from the Board to the Unified Center Sign Plan
to keep the existing neon sign.
Dr. Antionette Saunders, who is the proprietor of the Stress Education Center
and the owner of the neon sign in question, was present to present her case.
She began by stating that it would be necessary to give the history of this
issue in order to present her case. Mr. O'Meara noted that that would be
acceptable because he was very interested to see how this neon sign was put up
without a permit. Dr. Saunders related that her business had been in the
Evanston Bank Building for more than ten (10) years and that she wanted to
gain some visibility for her business from the street. She had been in
contact with the Realty Management Firm, Draper and Kramer, in order to put up
a sign facing Orrington Avenue. She stated that she refused to sign a lease
with Draper and Kramer until she was afforded the opportunity to put up a
sign. At this time Draper and Kramer informed her of a sign company named
Federal Sign who did the original design work for the neon sign. This sign
was then approved by Draper and Kramer. Dr. Saunders further related that she
found another sign company to actually make the sign, but was not aware that a
permit was needed and so when the sign was put up, no permit was obtained from
the City.
Mr. Blake pointed out that both Federal Sign Company and the sign company that
eventually made the neon sign should have known that a permit would be
required and should have related such to Dr. Saunders.
Mr. O'Meara proceeded to relate the history of the Unified Business Sign Plan
for 1603--29 Orrington Avenue and he stated specifically that the plan
prohibited any type of noon signs. Mr. Blake pointed out that there was also
a question of the Walgreen sign and what was to be done about it, so that the
Business Center Sign Plan was not totally closed out at this point.
Sign Review and Appeals Board
January 18, 1990
Page 2
Mr. Wolinski related that Curt Hilers, the representative of Draper and
Kramer, had submitted a letter to the City and this was currently under review
by the City's Corporation Counsel. No. Krasnow pointed out that any approved
Business Center Sign Plan for this site would be more appropriate without the
neon sign.
Dr. Saunders pointed out that in her mind that this was the primary issue as.
to whether she could have a sign on her establishment separate from the
approved Unified Business Center Sign Plan. Ms. Krasnow responded that in her
opinion it was appropriate for all signage to be part of the plan. Mr.
O'Meara went on to relate the history of the Sign Ordinance and official
duties of the Sign Review Board. Dr. Saunders stated that she would not have
signed the lease for the property if she had known that she would not be
permitted to have a sign on the front of her tenant's space. Mr. Blake
pointed out that the approved plan could be amended, but whether the amendment
could include neon was a different question. Ms. Krasnow pointed out that she
had difficulty accepting the neon sign, but that another alternative could be
worked out to place another sign in place of the neon sign.
The consensus of the Board was to advise Dr. Saunders to come back with a new
sign design that would be more appropriate and fitting with the plan that was
approved. Discussion then centered on what type of sign would be permitted by
the Board and under the plan. Dr. Saunders stated that she would like to
return to the Board with an alternate design for their approval. She then
asked if she could keep in place the existing neon sign until a new sign was
designed and approved. Mr. Wolinski stated that a stay of up to 60 days could
be permitted.
It was agreed that Dr. Saunders would return to the Board with another sign
design, and that the City would permit the existing neon sign to remain for 60
days.
SRAB 90--1 519 Church Street
Consideration of a request for variation to permit the installation of two (2)
temporary signs at the corner of Church Street and Chicago Avenue and Chicago
Avenue and Clark Street: Mr. Michael Berry and Mr. Bill Griffith presented a
request from RESCORP Development, Inc. to permit the erection of two (2)
temporary signs on the construction canopy at Church Street and Chicago Avenue =
and one (10 at Chicago Avenue and Clark Street. The variation requested was _�
(1) for items of information, 13 items were requested where only 7 were
allowed by the Ordinance and (2) temporary signs cannot exceed 32 sq. ft. for -
each exposed face, 64 sq. ft. in total. The proposed sign contained 120 sq.
ft. each with a total of 240 sq. ft. Mr. Griffith pointed out that the
construction canopy on the north and of the site would be torn down around the
end of March while the canopy on the south end of the site would be up until _
probably the end of May. Mr. Berry pointed out that these two (2) temporary
signs would be a key aspect of the marketing of the rental apartments. He
further pointed out while each sign was 120 sq. ft., the canopy is -_
approximately 7,000 to 8.000 sq. ft. and that the signs are tastefully done �_
and would enhance the site.
M
Sign Review and Appeals Board
January 18, 1990
Page 3
The consensus of the Board was that the proposed signs were extremely large.
Mr. Berry responded that the proposed signs would be less than 37. of the
existing facade area along Chicago Avenue. The existing sign at the site was
4'x10' with the proposed signs being 10'xl2'.
The 13 items of information was then discussed. Hs. Krasnow stated that the
number of items of information made the sign look rather busy. fir. Blake
suggested removing the word "coming" from the phrase "coming Spring 1990."
Mr. Blake pointed out that the seven (7) items of information that is
currently in the Ordinance was based on research done throughout the country
that no more than seven (7) items could be retained by an individual passing
the sign.
The Board's consensus was to eliminate the words "for rental information
call." Ms. Krasnow reiterated that she felt the sign dimensions of 101xl2'
was still too large for the area and the use. Mr. Blake pointed out the
drawing submitted could not be in scale with the lettering as it would appear
on the sign. He further stated that this was a maximum of 30 mile an hour
speed limit area and that a highway sign mentality was not needed here. Mr.
Griffith then pointed out that the proposed sign was already made. Mr.
Griffith reiterated that this sign would also be proposed to be placed once
the construction canopy is down on poles within the boundary of the site
development.
Mr. Wolinski pointed out that the procedure was for RESCORP to appear before
the Board this evening for approval only for the temporary signs on the canopy
and that once the canopy was removed, that RESCORP would have to appear before
the Board again in order to seek approval for the signs to be constructed on
poles and kept throughout the marketing period. Ms. Krasnow pointed out that
she could support the variations requested with the understanding that as far
as the size of the signs, that if there was to be a public outcry against the
signs it would be reopened for review. Furthermore, her support of the
proposed signs was in no way to be understood to be approval for these signs
to be mounted permanently once the canopies had been removed.
Mr. Blake made a motion to accept the variation as requested with elimination
of the words from the signs "for rental information call" and that these signs
would be permitted up only as long as the canopies were in existence. Once
the canopies were removed, RESCORP would have to appear before the Board
again. A new proposal with a variation request would then be presented to the
Board. Mr. O'Meara further pointed out that once the canopy for the North
Tower was removed, which would be prior to the removal of the south canopy,
that this issue would have to be revisited as far as what type of signage
would be permitted. The motion was approved unanimously.
SRAB 90-2 2050 Green Bav Road
Consider a request for a variation to permit the installation of three (3)
signs for Public Storage: Mr. Roy Ledbetter presented the case for Grate
Signs, Inc. He acknowledged that the signs were already made and that he had
received a permit for the signs; however, a variation was needed because of
Sign Review and Appeals Board
January 18, 1990
Page 4
the height restrictions of 15 1/2 ft. Mr. Ledbetter stated that it was
necessary to put the signs at 16'9". Kr. Blake questioned whether the square
footage of the signs was in conformity with the ordinance. Kr. Wolinski
stated that it was and the only issue was the height of the signs.
Kr. Blake pointed out that the Site Plan Review Committee had recommended to
deny the variation and to keep the signage within the regulations of the
ordinance. Mr. Ledbetter pointed out that he had no problem with that except
that he was also told not to cover the decorative stonowork on the building
and in order to do that he would have to raise the signs.
Kr. Wolinski pointed out that Site Plan's comments wore to erect a smaller
sign. Kr. Blake pointed out that the term "rental spaces" should not have
been allowed on the signs because that should have been considered as
advertising.
Ks. Krasnow moved to accept the variation, it was seconded and unanimously
approved. Kr. Blake pointed out that he did not approve of the red signs with
the black lettering, but that since the only variation requested was for
height, he agreed to grant the variation.
Next Heetin&
The next scheduled meeting for the Sign Review and Appeals Board is February
15, 1990.
00
es Wolinski
Director, Building & Zoning Department
2
Date
DRAFT NOT APPROVED
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
Thursday, February 15, 1990
Members Present: N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, L. Krasnow and J.
We i ri s
Members Absent: C. Sharp
Staff Present: J. Wolinski
Minutes
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:34 p.m. and asked for approval of the
minutes of the meeting of January 18, 1990. Motion was made and seconded with
unanimous approval of the minutes. The only comment was by the Chairman who
stated he appreciated the completeness and precision of the drafting of the
minutes.
Legal Opinion Concerning SignagO At 1603-29 Orrington Avenue
The Chairman asked if all members had a chance to review the legal opinion with
all stating that they had. The Chairman then pointed out that the legal opinion
concurred with the action of the Board concerning the signage issue at tho
aforementioned address. Mr. Wolinski pointed out that he would like to discuss
the legal opinion with the Board and its ramifications and inquired as to
whether the Board wished to discuss it prior to the hearing of the cases for the
evening or when the cases had been completed. The Board's feeling was to
discuss the opinion before the cases were heard. Mr. Wolinski reviewed the
comments from the Corporation Counsel which basically stated that the Walgreen's
sign on the south facade of the building was a legal and non -conforming sign and
that the unified business center sign plan was approved by the Board on the
condition that the Walgreen's sign conform to the width of the approved business
center sign plan. This left the Realty Management Firm, Draper and Kramer, with
two (2) options - #1, to either have the Walgreen's sign removed or #2, to have
the Walgreen's sign rebuilt to conform to the width and compatibility of the
approved business center sign plan. Since the Walgreen's sign is legally
non -conforming, the City has no right to require its removal. If Walgreen
refuses to make any sign changes, then the condition fails, and the business
center sign must be removed. Ms. Krasnow asked if Mr. Walinski had been
contacted by Walgreen's and he responded that to this point he had net heard
anything from Walgreen's, but that they were probably waiting for the City to
act. Now that the Corporation Counsel had rendered a legal opinion, that the
City would now take action. Ir. Wolinski further stated that a letter would be
sent to Draper and Kramer informing them of the City's stance on this issue.
Consider an Application to Amend the Unified Business Center Sign Plan for
1603-29 Orrington Avenue. (A Resubmittal to Replace an Existing Pleon Sign
Previously Denied by the Board.)
Mr. Paul Rand representing the Capable Kid Organization was present to present
his case for the amendment to the previously approved unified business center
sign plan. Mr. Rand began by stating that while originally he was only going to
present a concept drawing to the Board that evening, he would like to take it
one (1) step further and had submitted to the Board that night a drawing of the
proposed sign for approval. The window sign plan presented was questioned by
a
Sign Review and Appeals Board
February 15, 1990
Page 2
the Board on two (2) major items; lit, items of information and 112, advertising.
Mr. Rand stated that as to the items of information that technically there were
only four (4) items of information listed and that additional wordage wan under
2" which was not counted as items of information under the ordinance. Mr.
Wolinski concurred with that analyuls. Mr. Blake pointed that while that may be
the case, that he felt that it wan still advertising. While Mr. Blake realized
that the name of the business "Capable Kid" may not point out exactly what type
of business it is, he felt that the additional wordage was still unnecessary
advertising. Ms. Krasnow concurred with Mr. Blake's analysis stating that many
businesses would enjoy having window signs explaining the type of business that
goes on there, but that this would be unfeasible at best. Mr. O'Meara stated
that it was the Board's responsibility to allow a business to identify itself by
signage, that it was beyond the ordinance to allow advertising of what type of
business goes on. Mr. Blake pointed out that while he could understand this
type of signage in the business sense, that he could not support it in the fact
that a unified business center sign plan had already been approved for this
site, further stating the signage just does not fit in with the plan that had
been approved.
Mr. Rand tried to point out to the Board that his business faced Orrington
Avenue while the others in the plan did not and he needed some type of street
signage to identify his business. Mr. O'Meara stated that he understood Mr.
Rand's concern for signage on Orrington Avenue. He further stated that in a
previous meeting, the Board did state they would consider signage for this
business which is around the corner from the other businesses He felt that the
proposed window sign, however, went beyond the spirit of the variation that the
Board would consider. Mr. Rand stated that an advantage of the storefront
location was to be able to put a sign facing the street to attract business.
Mr. Weiss stated that the proposed sign did not fit in with the already approved
business center sign plan and that he could not support this sign. He felt that
It was necessary to re -look at the whole business center sign plan and come up
with a sign for the Capable Kid Organization that would fit in with the already
approved plan.
Mr. Wolinski pointed out a letter that was in the packet addressed from Draper
and Kramer to Mr. Rand which stated that any signage that was approved by the
City and the Board would be approved by Draper and Kramer.
Ms. Krasnow proposed that all of the parties involved, Draper and Kramer,
Walgreen's, and the Capable Kid Organization, get together to formulate a
unified business center sign plan which all can be happy with and which can meet
the requirements that the Board had stated this evening. She further stated
that she would request that the neon sign be permitted to remain until the whole E
business center sign plan issue can be resolved. Mr. Weiss pointed out that
doing that would remove any leverage the City would have to eliminate the neon
sign. Ms. Krasnow rephrased her proposal to allow the neon sign to remain up
for a maximum of sixty (60) days.
Discussion then centered concerning whether Draper and Kramer would be agreeable
COM-
to a possible change in their already existing sign, with Mr. Rand stating he ==
m
Sign Review and Appeals Board
February 1S, 1990
Page 3
was very doubtful that Draper and Kramer would be willing to do so. Although
Mr. Rand felt that it would not bo productive, he would attempt to go back to
Draper and Kramer to try to rectify this whole issue of a unified plan. Ms.
Krasnow asked Mr. Wolinski if he could put what had been discussed in a letter
to Draper and Kramer from the City. Mr. Wolinski stated that he would do so.
Mr. Rand asked if he could have name type of temporary signage up while this
issue was still being discussed. The Board approved a motion to allow Mr. Rand
to display a temporary window sign with the words "The Capable Kid" until the
whole sign plan issue could be resolved.
SPR 90-3 1215-19 Howard Street Consideration, of a Request for Variation to
Permit the Installation of Two (2) Wall Signs for the American Family .insurance
Azenev at 1215-19 Howard Street.
Mr. Nicholas Daglas was present to present the case for the two (2) wall signs
at his insurance agency. Mr. Daglas was asking for a variation from the items
of information permitted, fie stated that he did not realize that the sign that
was already made was in violation of the Sign Ordinance. He further stated that
the American Family Insurance sign is a franchise sign and it is the only type
of sign that is permitted by American Family Insurance. He pointed out further
that he was not aware that an illuminated sign with a white background was in
violation of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. O'Meara pointed out an example of the Gash
Station sign on Central Street whereby a grey background was required by the
Board even though that was supposedly a franchise sign which had to have a white
background. The point being that when the franchise realize that the City has a
certain regulation, they are willing to conform if they want a specific
location. Mr. Daglas offered that if he was permitted to put up the proposed
sign that he would not illuminate it.
The question of the west wall sign was then brought up. Mr. Weiss pointed out
that this sign as well was beyond the items of information allowed. Mr. Daglas
pointed out again that this was a franchise type sign and that he was required
by American Family Insurance to display the items of information as proposed.
Discussion then centered around what franchises require and what the City would
require as far as signage. Mr. Weiss then made the following motion;
1. On the south wall sign, allow the proposed American Family Insurance
sign to be put up, but it is not to be illuminated.
2. The four (4) decal window signs be eliminated from the window.
3. The west wall sign be permitted with the logo and the words American
Family Insurance, but that the following words would not be allowed on
the signage "Auto, Home, Business, Health and Life."
Ms. Krasnow then questioned whether the cleaner's sign which was proposed for
the west facade was going to be of the same size as the sign we were
discussing tonight. Mr. Daglas pointed out that the Howard Cleaners sign was
going to be 4 ft. x 8 ft. exactly the same size as his proposed sign. Ms.
Krasnow then stated she would like a further amendment to Mr. Weiss's proposal
stating that approval for the west wall sign would be conditional on the fact
V
Sign Review and Appeals Board
February 15, 1990
Page 4
that the Howard Cleaners sign, if and when installed, would be the same size
as the American Family Insurance sign approved tonight. The motion was
seconded and unanimously approved.
SRAB 90-4 1719 Chicago Avenue'
A request for a variation to permit the installation of two (2) free standing
signs at the corner of Church Street, Chicago Avenue and Clark Street for
RESCORP Development, Inc. Mr. Michael Berry was present to present the case
for RESCORP. Kr. Berry stated that the signs which are currently attached to
the construction canopies will become permanent signs through the marketing
period. Once the construction canopies have been removed, the signs will be
mounted on poles. The question concerning the location of the signs was
brought up by the Board. The consensus of the Board was to allow the signs to
be placed no closer than 12 ft. to the property line.
The next point of discussion was the items of information. The consensus of
the Board was to eliminate the word "Spring" from the sign which would put it
within the allowable limits of the Sign Ordinance per items of information.
Mr. Weiss then made a motion to approve the variation with the following
conditions:
1. The signs be set back no closer than 12 ft. to the property line.
2. Under the items of information, the word "Spring" be eliminated from
the proposed sign.
The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
Next Meetink
The next scheduled meeting for the Sign Review and Appeals Board is March 15,
1990.
a4es Wolinski
Director, Building & Zoning Department
C//00
/ j Date
U
DRAFT NOT APPROVED
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
Thursday, March 15, 1990
Members Present: N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, L. Krasnow and J.
Weiss
Members Absent: C. Sharp
Staff Present: J. Wolinski
Minutes
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and asked for approval of the
minutes of the meeting of February 15, 1990. Motion was made and seconded
with unanimous approval of the minutes.
SRAS 88-11 Continuance of a Request for Variation to Permit the Installation
of Two (2) Free Standing Siens for the Child Care Center at 1840 Asbury
Avenue. Evanston Illinois
The Chairman clarified that this was a continuance of a case that had
previously been heard in August 1988 and that approval had been rendered at
that time to place the sign in a residential district. Further questions that
need to be answered, however, were information on the revised size of the sign
and details for fastening the sign to the fence.
Julia Friedman, president of the Board of Directors for the Child Care Center
of Evanston, was present to present the case. Ms. Friedman stated that the
sign that was now being proposed was slightly larger than the original concept
with different information on it as well. The sign also would no longer be
mounted to the fence, but would rather be mounted on posts.
Mr. Wolinski clarified that the proposal was now for two (2) distinct signs,
one (1) a sign of information and the other a small address identification
sign. Mr. Wolinski further pointed out that the original proposal was for a
3' x 2' sign and the new proposal, is a 4' x 4' sign.
Mr. Weiss pointed out that what concerned him was the items of information was
beyond the number permitted by the Sign Ordinance. He further pointed out
that the words "Established 1944" was not needed. Mr. Blake pointed out that
perhaps the picture of the building that was on the sign could be removed -due
to the close relationship of the location of the sign and the building
itself. He further stated that the word "Avenue" could be taken off of the
identification sign.
Mr. O'Meara asked why the address identification sign was needed at all on the
sign? Ms. Friedman responded that because the building is a house, many
people are not aware that it is indeed a Child Care Center.
Mr. Weiss stated that the new proposal was showing a sign that was a great
deal larger than the sign originally proposed. Ms. Friedman responded that
she was not the origins'_ applicant on this and so was lacking some information
as to why the original sign had been proposed. She could state that the new
sign proposal was one that the Child Care Center was now in agreement on.
k
Sign Review and Appeals Board
March 15, 1990
Page 2
Mr. O'Meara, for clarification purposes, reiterated the variances that were
needed for the sign. They were:
1. Sign shall not be permitted on the property in a residential zoning
district; this was a residential district.
2. There shall be no more than one (1) free standing sign for each
frontage of a premises. Two signs were proposed.
3. A free standing sign within 3 ft. of any perimeter lot line of a
premises may not exceed 3 ft. in height. The proposed distance from
the lot line is 2 ft. and the proposed sign height is b ft.
4. Each sign shall contain no more than seven (7) items of information.
The proposed sign contains eight (8) items of information.
He further stated that variations are based on hardship and that the Committee
does attempt to be consistent in their decisions. Mr. O'Meara asked why the
words "Established 1944" were important? Ms. Friedman stated that the Child
Care Center was very proud of the fact that they were one of the first centers
of this type to be established in the nation. Mr. Weiss and Mr. Blake both
agreed that since the Child Care Center was located on the edge of the
residential district, and the sign would be facing the commercial district,
that the sign would pose less of a problem than if it was located in another
part of the residential district.
Mr. Weiss made a motion to approve the variations for the sign, but with the
elimination of the words "Established 1944" off the main sign and "Avenue" off
of the street identification sign. Mr. Blake seconded the motion and it was
approved unanimously.
SRAB 90-5 Request for Variation to Permit the Installation of a Logo on the
Legally Non -Conforming Wall Sign for the Holidav Inn-1501 Sherman Avenue_
Evanston, Illinois
Mr. .Tames Mertz, Poblocki & Sons (Sign Company) and Mr. Robert 'warden, P & S
Management, owner of the Holiday Inn presented the case. Mr. Mertz pointed
out that P & S Management is negotiating their lease for the Holiday Inn and
one (1) of the requirements is to update their signage. In the case at point,
the updating for the Evanston Holiday Inn sign includes a starburst logo to be
placed on the sign. The variation requested was to reface a wall sign that is
currently more than 15 1/2 ft. allowed by the Ordinance.
Mr. Blake asked the question, where is the hardship in this case to request
and receive a variance? Mr. Warden pointed out that the Holiday Inn, Inc. has
mandated that the signage for the Holiday Inn carry both the starburst logo
and also that the "Y" in the word Holiday be changed from a straight "Y" to a
looping "Y". He felt that it was critical that this sign change come about to
stay within what was required by the Holiday Inn and for the holiday Inn
identification. Mr. Mertz further pointed out that this sign change is taking
place throughout the country at all of the various Holiday Inns. Mr. Warden
pointed out that the starburst logo is becoming synonymous with the word
Holiday Inn.
N
Sign Review and Appeals Board
March 15, 1990
Page 3
Mr. Blake pointed out that the current Holiday Inn olgn attached to the
penthouse is the only sign of its kind in Evanston and that there was much
disagreement when that sign was originally put up And much argument against
that sign. Ms. Krasnow and Mr. Blake both agreed that they failed to see the
hardship involved. Mr. Blake pointed out that he naw no way of approving this
variation that there was no hardship, the Holiday Inn would not lose any
business because of it, and it was purely from a corporate standpoint that the
request was being made.
Mr. Warden asked if the starburst could not be granted this evening; could the
Committee address simply the looped "Y" for variation. The consensus of the
Committee was to not address only the "Y". Mr. Warden pointed out that he
felt the alteration to the "Y" would be more of a maintenance item than a
refacing. The Committee did not agree with Mr. Warden's contention.
In light of the discussion, Ms. Krasnow made a motion to deny the variation
for the addition of the starburst and alteration of the "Y". The motion was
seconded and unanimously approved. The variation was denied.
Next Meeting,
The next scheduled meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is Thursday,
April 26, 1990 at 7:30 p.m.
4/04/
es Wolinski
Director, Building & Zoning Department
Op
Dat100Ve
DRAFT NOT APPROVED
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
Thursday, March 29, 1990
Members Present: N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, L. Krasnow and J. Weiss
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: J. Wolinski
Minutes
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. with the announcement that this
was a special meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board.
Consider a Request for a Variation to Permit the Refacing of an Existink
Panoflex Wall Sign and the Addition of a New Illuminated Wall for Citibank at
801 Davis Street, Evanston. Illinois
Mr. Steve Buelter of the Acme Wiley Sign Corporation and Mr. Chris Battley and
Ms. JoAnn Swider of Citibank were present to present the case. The Chair
began by stating that Citibank was requesting a variation to permit the
refacing of the existing panoflex sign with the words "Citicorp" being
replaced by "Citibank." In addition they were requesting to remove the
panoflex 24 hour banking sign and replace it with "Citibank" and install a new
illuminated sign stating 24 hour banking under the panoflex strip, above the
entrance. He further pointed out the existing panoflex signage was permitted
by a variation from the Board on October 29, 1987. The variation was needed
for the total sign area which was 670 sq. ft., while under the ordinance the
maximum square footage for any occupant was limited to 500 sq. ft. The
refacing of the panoflex band need the following variations:
No wall sign shall extend above the maximum sign height of 15 112 ft.. the
panoflex sign extends 18 ft. and the proposed new sign "24 Hour Banking"
is 24 sq. ft. which when added to the existing signage totals 694 sq. ft.
The maximum footage per occupant is limited to 500 sq. ft.
Mr. Buelter stated that the readings of the Citicorp wordage and logo would be
removed off of the panoflex in addition with removing the "24 Hour Banking"
reading and would be replaced by three (3) readings of "Citibank" with the "24
Hour Banking" sign removed off of the panoflex and above the doorway. The "24
Hour Banking" sign would be illuminated and would be recessed above the door
and beneath the canopy.
Ms. Krasnow pointed out that she felt the "24 Hour Banking" sign was
advertising and that this was not permitted under the ordinance. Mr. Blake
pointed out that this same issue had been discussed at the previous
application by Citicorp at that time and that the decision then was to allow
the "24 Hour Banking" sign because it designated the entrance to where the
automatic teller machine was as opposed to advertising. Ms. Krasnow reported
that she still felt that this sign was advertising.
Mr. Buelter from Acme Wiley Sign stated that in his opinion, that the moving
of the "24 Hour Banking" sign from the panoflex panels to directly above the
doorway where the automatic teller machine was pointed out more the location
ti
Sign Review and Appeals Board
March 29, 2990
Page 2
than advertisement. Basically, it was just highlighting the location of the
automatic teller machine for the customers.
Ms. Krasnow pointed out that she felt that perhaps some other type of wordage
would better suit the intent here and still raft the signage was more implicit
advertising than location of the service.
Mr. Blake stated that when this matter was first brought to the Board back in
1987, the Board had to wrestle with the idea as to whether this was a single
building or whether this should be a unified business center sign plan with
the decision that it was a single building. fie further stated that the
signage that was approved did enhance both the building and the intersection
of the downtown where it is located.
However, Mr. O'Meara further stated that he was troubled with the 24 Hour
Banking sign that in his mind it still pointed out advertising. Mr. Blake
stated that he did not feel, that the 24 Hour Banking sign was a problem and In
fact this plan was an enhancement over the one that had previously been
approved. What type of advertising this may pose was not offensive in the
sense of some others that had been proposed to this Board before. He further
stated that he could support these variations including the 24 Hour Banking
sign to be permitted.
Ms. Krasnow asked the applicants it there was any other type of wordage that
they used at other locations. Ms. Swider stated that they have used the term
City Card Banking Center at their drive -ups, but that this was indicating a
definite automobile drive -up as opposed to what was the issue here. The
applicants felt that this would not be a fair representation of the service
that was offered.
Mr. Weiss stated that he had a problem with the hanging 24 Hour sign and the
fact that there are several other major tenants in that building and that the
Citibank sign would be over a doorway that provided access to these other
tenants. He further stated that leaving the 24 Hour Banking sign on the
panoflex sign where it currently is,is a better option and something he could
support.
Ms. Swider stated that leaving the 24 Hour Banking sign on the panoflex was
not an option because the Citibank Corporation had decreed that no other
wordage could appear on the panoflex signs except for the name Citibank, all
other wordage had to be removed from it.
Mr. Weiss asked the applicants if the tenants had any problems with this sign
package. Ms. Swider stated that the tenants had no direct conflict or problem
with the sign package that was proposed.
Discussion continued further on whether the 24 Hour Banking sign was indeed a
sign of advertisement or a sign of direction.
Mr. Blake made a motion to accept the plan as proposed including the 24 Hour
t
Sign Review and Appeals Board
March 29, 1990
Page 3
Banking sign above the entrance door. Mr. Weiss seconded the motion. The
vote was 3 ayes with Ms. Krasnow casting a nay vote. The variation for the
Citibank's sign plan was approved.
The next scheduled meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is April 26,
1990.
42t 96�e
fi
es Wolinski
Director, Building & Zoning Department
,I,; /1! o
4 Date
DRAFT NOT APPROVED
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
Thursday, April 26, 1990
Members Present: H. Blake, L. Krasnow and J. Weiss
Members Absent: N. O'Meara
Staff Present: J. Wolinski
Minutes
Mr. Weiss identified himself as the acting Chairman and opened the meeting at
7:35 p.m. Mr. Weiss asked for the approval of the minutes of the meeting of
March IS, 1990. Motion was made and seconded with unanimous approval of the
minutes.
Communication from Lube Pro
Mr. Weiss stated that the Board had received a corrmunication from Lube Pro
stating that their legal name Was Lube Pro 10 Minute Oil Change. Mr. Blake
contradicted the Lube Pro claim, stating that the term Lube Pro was indeed
their trade name with 10 Minute Oil Change being part of a marketing name. He
felt that 10 Minute Oil Change was still advertising and not part of the trade
mark name and therefore he could not accept this. Mr. Wolinski pointed out
that the would have the Corporation Counsel examine this issue and report back
to the Committee.
SRAB 90-7 Considering a Request for a Variation to Permit the Refacing of a
Former Legal Non -Conforming Sign for "Chicago Style Carry Out" at 1633
Orrington Avenue, Evanston, Illinois.
Mr. Weiss pointed out that the variation needed for the sign was that the
existing sign loses its non -conforming status if the sign is altered in any
way except for normal maintenance. The total permitted sign service area of a
wall sign shall not exceed 15% of the eligible facade area. the proposed sign
Is 110.4 sq. ft., allowed is 88.8 sq. ft. Jim Psomas and Maria Psomas, owners
of Chicago Style Carry Out as well as Burton Grossman, their attorney, were
present to present their case. Mr. Grossman pointed out that the sign had
been in existence since 1982 and that the Psomas had done all they could with
designing a new face for the sign to meet the ordinance, but could do nothing with the size of the sign. He pointed out that to replace the sign frame
would be extremely expensive and would put a great hardship on a new
business. Mr. Grossman further stated that he felt that the sign should be
grand£athered in, as far as the sign was constructed before the 1987
Ordinance, and, therefore, the size of the sign should be permitted to
remain.
Ms. Krasnow questioned the immediate history of this signage. Mr. Wolinski _
pointed out that the Psomas had opened their business early in I990, and had
an illegal sign put up, one that did not have a permit, and was in violation
of both size and items of information of the Sign Ordinance. The sign was
requested to be taken down by the City and the sign was removed. This
application was for a new refacing of the existing sign frame. =_
Sign Review and Appeals Board
April 26, 1990
Page 2
Mr. Grossman pointed out that the proposed sign would meet all of the items of
the ordinance except for the sign area. He further stated that to construct a
new sign frame would be extremely expensive.
Ms. Psomas pointed out that all they would like the Board for permission to do
is to permit repainting the nign panel and leave the existing frame. Mr.
Blake asked what the colors of the current panel were? Ms Psomas pointed out
that the sign had not yet been made and if they Would conform to whatever
colors the Board would approve.
Mr. Weiss questioned whether the items of information would still be on the
number permitted by the ordinance. Mr. Wolinski pointed out that several
items of information on the sign were leas than two (2) inches and therefore
was not counted as items of information. Therefore, the only words that
counted were "Chicago Style Carry Outs" which the total number of four (4) was
less than the seven (7) maximum permitted by the ordinance.
Ms. Krasnow stated that she could see the hardship as far as having to
purchase a completely new sign, especially with a new small business such an
this. She further stated that she could see giving the variance for the size
that was asked for. However, she was concerned about the lettering on the
sign, and asked Mr. Wolinski if you could put any type of lettering on a sign
as long as it was under two (2) inches. Mr. Wolinski's response was that if
the lettering was under two (2) inches, the Sign Ordinance did not address
that, stating only that items of information which was limited to seven (7)
had to be over two (2) inches tall.
Mr. Weiss stated that he still had a problem with the overall size of the sign
considering that the store's facade was a focal point of this block. Mr.
Blake and Mr. Weiss then discussed the possibility of making the entire sign
an opaque background to match the facade of the existing brick which would
lead to an opaque brawn background. Mr. Weiss proposed that the variation for
the size of the sign be granted, but that the panel itself be an opaque tan
color with light bulbs centered only behind the letters an?, the letters to be
red in color.
This motion was made by Ms. Krasnow, seconded by Mr. Blake, and approved
unanimously.
The next meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is scheduled for May 17,
1990.
eWolinski
Fire4cs
tor, Building & Zoning Department
r/ lyre
Date
DRAFT NOT APPROVED
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
Tuesday May 22, 1990
Members Present: H. Blake, L. Krasnow, N. O'Meara (Chair) and J.
Weiss
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: J. Wolinski
Minutes
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and asked for approval of the
minutes of the April 26, 1990 meeting. Notion was made and seconded with
unanimous approval of the minutes.
Unified Business Center Sign Plan for 1603-29 Orrington Avenue
Mr. Curt Eilers of the Management Firm of Draper and Kramer was present to
discuss the Unified Business Center Sign Plan for the above mentioned
address. Mr. Eilers began by stating that Walgreen's was agreeable to
removing the 11 ft. Walgreen's sign on the south facade of the building and
having a new sign placed in the tenant identification board. Mr. Wolinski
pointed out that if indeed this item proceeds in this manner that this
violation would then be corrected. The Board was in complete agreement with
this move. Mr. Eilers further pointed out that Walgreen's wished to replace
their illuminated sign on the west facade of the building with a new red
illuminated sign with white lettering. The Board was also in agreement with
this move.
The next issue Mr. Eilers wished to discuss was the signage for the Capable
Kid Organization. The Capable Kid Organization wished to put a exterior _
window sign with their corporate logo and the words "Capable Kid" stenciled on
the outside of the window. Discussion centered around the color of the
wordage and of the logo. The consensus of the Committee was to require the -_
wordage to be stenciled in white with the logo to be in either white or
green. The Chairman then made the following motion that the Walgreen's sign
on the west facade with a red panaflex panel be approved, and that a
Walgreen's sign be permitted on the tenant identification board. This motion
was seconded and approved unanimously.
The Chairman then made a second notion to approve the Capable Kid exterior
stenciling with white colored wordage and either a white or green logo. This
motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
SRAB 90-9 Consider a Request for Variation to Permit the Refacing of a
Former Legal Non -conforming Free Standing Sign for Sims Subaru at 715 Chicago
Avenue.
Mr. Stephen Sims of Sims Subaru and Kr. Jerry Shaw of Shurelight Sign were
present to present the case. The Chairman noted the following variations were
needed:
1. On a premises having the principal building, no free standing sign shall
be permitted on the frontage unless every facade is setback at least 30=
4
Sign Review and Appeals Board
May 22, 1990
Page 2
ft. The building in question is setforth on the front property line.
2. The height of any free standing sign 3 ft. or more from any lot line may
not exceed the distance between the sign and the lot line. The free
standing sign in question is located 5 ft. from the property line, whereas
the free standing sign is greater than 5 ft. in height.
3. No free standing sign shall exceed the maximum sign height of 15.5 ft.
The existing sign is greater than 15.5 ft.
The Chairman further pointed out that a non -conforming sign that is being
refaced loses its non -conforming status.
The Chairman asked staff if because of the amount of signage in the vicinity
of Chicago Avenue and Sims Subaru Dealership, if there was a possibility of
creating some type of a sign district for this area as with the Unified
Business Center Sign Plan? Mr. Wolinski responded that this would require
both a public hearing and approval by the Planning and Development Committee
of the City Council.
Mr. Shaw began by stating that the existing free standing sign was critical to
Mr. Sims' business because of its ability to attract motorists from going both
north and south on Chicago Avenue and that the sign was above the tree line
which permitted additional visual effect. To have to conform to the ordinance
and to put a free standing sign back off of the property line would severely
limit the visibility of the car dealership's street frontage.
The Chairman pointed out that the north facade of the building seemed to be a
good place to put a Stephen Sims Subaru sign. Mr. Sims retorted that while he
would catch the attention of motorists coming from the north, that he would
have no such affect on motorists going in the other direction.
Mr. Weiss asked if the neighboring Nisan Dealership's free standing sign was
permitted? Mr. Wolinski said he would have to check the files to see if a
permit had been given out for that signage.
Mr. Blake pointed out that he would be willing to allow the free standing sign
if the billboard sign on the west side of Chicago Avenue was removed.
Mr. Sims pointed out that to put a free standing sign up that would meet the
code would eliminate a minimum of two (2) spaces in his lot which he stated
was critical to his business.
Mr. Weiss stated that his main objection to the sign was"the height. He
further stated that he felt the sign could be lowered about 8 ft.
Mr. Sims stated that because of the size of the sign, to lower it would
perhaps make the whole area look claustrophobic.
J
Sign Review and &,poals Board
May 22, 1990
Page 3
Discussion continued on lowering of the sign.to various heights, the impact
and also with the associated cost.
Discussion then moved to the possibility of approving the variation if the
billboard on the west side of Chicago Avenue was removed. Hr. Sims stated
that if his billboard sign was removed, the Nisan sign would be the only sign
on the west side, and he felt that this would take away his used car
business. The Board felt that while they would attempt to get the Nisan
billboard sign removed as well, that as far as this evening's decisions, they
could only deal with Sims' request.
Hr. Blake made a motion to accept the applicant's variation to allow the free
standing sign to remain on the condition that the billboard sign on the west
side of Chicago Avenue was removed. Ihis motion was seconded and approved
unanimously. Hr. Sims stated that he would have to check with his business
associates to see if this sign removal was agreeable.
SRAB 90-5 Consider a Unified Business Center Sign Plan for Emerson Place -
1115-31 Emerson Street.
Hr. Clifford Shafer and Hr. Randy Holmes were present to present the case.
Hr. Wolinski pointed out that this Unified Business Center Sign Plan Was
reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee at a meeting on May 9, 1990. Their
recommendation was to approve the plan with the exception of the wall sign
centered over the west elevation windows of the second floor commercial office
located at 1123 Emerson Street. The height of this wall sign is above the
15.6 ft. permitted by the Sign Ordinance and the height is not a variation
permitted under Unified Business Center.
The Chairman pointed out that he felt that there was perhaps a bit too much
signage on the proposed plan.
Discussion immediately centered on the recommendation of the Site Plan Review
Committee which was the disapproval of the sign on the second floor.
Hr. Holmes pointed out that the intention of the signage on the second floor
was to visually attract commuters on the Northwestern Train to the business on
the second floor, which was leased out for a company in the business of
designing software for marketing purposes.
Hr. Blake pointed out that these tenants were there to be an office lessee as
opposed to retail and that signage for this type of business exterior signage
was not really necessary.
Hr. Weiss further pointed out and showed examples of several major companies
in Evanston, one an architectural firm and one an engineering firm, that have
had a great deal of success and yet have no exterior signage.
Hr. Blake asked why the lettering on the south and west facades would not be
recessed as was the rest of the proposed signage? Hr. Shafer answered that
Sign Review and Appeals Board
May 22, 1990
Page 4
there would be no raceway, the letters would be mounted into the mortar,
feeling that they did not want to distract from the brick and masonry work of
the existing building.
Discussion then centered around the colors of the lettering, and the tenants
that had taken leases out, and spaces that were still vacant.
Kr. Holmes pointed out that the lettering In the complex would be white in
color With a dark green raceway.
The question of logos also was brought up with Hr. Holmes stating that if
Indeed a franchisee wished to display a logo, they would like to display a
logo of the medallion type such as Domino's Pizza has at the center on Golf
and Crawford.
Kr. Weiss pointed out that he had no problem with the plan except for the
signage for the second story. He felt that this signage was inappropriate for
an office environment and was not needed.
The question of sign height was also brought up by the Board, "18" letters"
being applied for. Hr. Holmes responded that they felt that it was imperative
for the success of the center to be able to provide signage that was a maximum
of 18' in height. But there was also the feeling that many of the storefronts
would not utilize this maximum height, perhaps only for the upper case
letters, and the feeling was that several of the storefronts would have
signage probably no bigger than 12". The question of neon signs was also
brought up and Kr. Holmes responded that in the leases for the tenants, that
no type of signage would be permitted without the approval of the developers.
The Board felt very strongly about the neon sign issue with the result being
that any type of neon signage would be presented to the City for approval and
If necessary to come back for the Board's approval. Motion was made and
seconded to approve the Unified Business Center Sign Plan with the exception
of the sign for the upstairs second floor commercial office at 1123 Emerson
Street. The motion was unanimously approved.
The next scheduled meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is scheduled
for June 21, 1990.
.r�+�
es Wolinski
Director, Building & Zoning Department
Date
DRAFT NOT APPROVED
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
Thursday, June 21, 1990
Members Present: H. Blake, L. Krasnow, N. O'Meara (Chair) and J. Weiss
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: J. Wolinski
Minutes
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and asked for approval of the
minutes of the May 22, 1990 meeting. Motion was made and seconded with
unanimous approval of the minutes.
S.R.A.B. 90-10 Consider a Request to Permit Two (2) Wall Signs for the
Dominick's Store at 2748 Green Bay Road, Evanston, Illinois.
Mr. William Havel of Dominick's was present to present the case. The Chairman
noted the following variations were needed:
1. The proposed ,inns exceeded the 200 sq. ft. maximum sign
area allowed under Section 4-12-9(3). The proposed
signs were as 406 sq. ft. each.
2. The proposed wall signs extend above the maximum sign
height of 15.5 ft. per Section 4-12-9(4). The proposal
was for a height of 28 ft.
Mr. Havel began the presentation by stating that the two (2) wall signs would
be for the new Dominick's Store currently under construction at 2748 Green Bay
Road. He started out by saying the Green Bay Road sign would have a sign area
for the lettering of 150 sq. ft., while the sign area for the logo, which is a
wave design :could be 116 sq. ft., totaling 266 sq. ft. He further stated that
the Isabella Street sign would have a sign area of lettering of 150 sq, ft.
and a sign area for the logo wave of 116 sq. ft, totaling 266 sq. ft.
Mr. Wolinski pointed out that for the purposes of determining whether or not a
sign is conformance with total sign area, the entire sign is boxed and the
square footage is based on that computation. 'ir. Wolinski further stated that
the computation of the boxed sign for both the Green Bay and Isabella Street
wall signs was in affect over 400 sq. ft. for each.
The consensus of the Board was that while they all agreed that they were
dealing with two (2) extremely large facades, that the over 400 sq. ft. of
signage for each of the two fronts was too large. Discussion then centered on
the appropriate reduction of the signage.
The Board agreed that the height of the variation request was appropriate
considering the large facade.
Sign Review and Appeals Board '
June 21, 1990
Page 2
The consensus of the Board was to reduce the sign lettering size to 416",
which in essence would reduce the entire sign package to approximately 220 sq.
ft. for each of the facades.
Mr. Havel stated that he felt that Dominick's would have no problem with this
reduction, and, in fact, it would probably be an enchancement over the
proposal that was made.
Mr. Weiss made in the form of a motion to (1) to accept the variation for the
height of the two (2) Dominick's signs to 27'6" above grade, and (2) to
approve a reduced wall sign for both the Green Bay Road and Isabella Street
facades with the letters not to exceed 4'6" in height, and with the
corresponding logo to be reduced from 18 ft. long to 14 ft. long.
This motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
S.R.A.B. 90-11 Connider a Variation Request to Permit the Installation of
Four (4) Canopy Identification Signs for First Illinois Bank, 800 Davis
Street, Evanston, Illinois.
Mr. George Woock of Whiteway Sign and Maintenance Company was present to
present the case. The Chairman noted the following variation was needed:
the proposed signs exceeds the 15% of the area of the
vertical section of the canopy allowed per Section 4-12-9F2
of the Sign Ordinance; 1..9 sq. ft. is allowed, 3.2 sq. ft. is
proposed.
Mr. Woock pointed out that the four (4) canopy sides in question were
stainless steel, and that there was currently no signage on the canopies.
Mr. Woock further pointed out that brown light boxes would be placed on the
stainless steel canopies.
Mr. Blake pointed out that from a purely design standpoint, he found the
proposal unattractive with a brown box being placed against a stainless steel
canopy.
Mr. Weiss concurred with Mr. Blake's analysis of the color design. Mr. Weiss
suggested that the color of the canopy would be improved if as anodized bronze
wrap was placed around the canopy with the box installed on that background.
Mr. Woock pointed out that the Bank would most likely be receptive to that
suggestion.
Mr. Weiss put it in a form of a motion to accept the variation as requested
with the addition of anodized bronze handling wrapping the canopy areas.
Sign Review and Appeals Board
June 21, 1990
Page 3
The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
The next meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is scheduled
for July 19, 1990.
es Wolinski
Director, Building Zoning Department
Date
t DRAFT NOT APPROVED
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
Thursday, July 19, 1990
H. Blake, L. Krasnow, N. O'Meara (Chair) and J.
Weiss
None
J. Wolinski
Minutes
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and asked for approval of the
minutes of the June 21, 1990 meeting. Motion was made and seconded with
unanimous approval of the minutes.
Sixn Violation Notices
The Chair thanked Staff for providing a list of all of the outstanding sign
violations and pending action that had been undertaken and was currently being
undertaken by the City. In response to a question from the Chair, Mr.
Wolinski responded that Corporate Counsel would be representing the City in
all court matters concerning sign violations. Mr. Wolinski also pointed out
that one of the violations that would be appearing in court on August 29th,
was a prior applicant for variation to the Sign Review and Appeals Board for
American Family Insurance at 1215 Howard Street.
S.R.A.B. 90-12 Consider a Variation Request to Permit the Installation of
One (1) Wall Sign for Belmont Steel Corporation, 2424 Oakton Street, Evanston,
Illinois
The Chairman stated that the proposed signage for Belmont Steel did not
conform with the following regulations of the Sign Ordinance.
The proposed sign height is 21 112 ft. and the Sign Ordinance states that no
wall sign shall extend above the maximum sign height of 15 1/2 ft. per Section
4-12-9(4).
Mr. Joseph Pringle, president of -Belmont Steel and Mr. Robert Goldstein,
attorney, were present to make their variation request.
Mr. Goldstein began the presentation by giving a short history of Belmont
Steel and their recent move to Evanston. Belmont was currently occupying the
site which previously had belonged to the National Steel Company, 2424 Oakton
Street. Mr. Pringle and Mr. Goldstein each commented why the Belmont Company
had decided to relocate to Evanston. Mr. Goldstein proceeded to talk about
the sign in question. Basically it was a sign stating "Belmont Steel
Corporation" with the Belmont logo. He further stated that the front of the
building is fairly close to the street and that the lower the sign is the less
visibility the sign has to street traffic. This signage would be the only
identification for Belmont Steel.
Mr. Weiss asked whether the proposed signage had been looked at in keeping
within the 15 1/2 ft requirement. Mr. Pringle responded that they had looked
at it in that fashion, but that the signage looked squatted. Mr. Pringle
Sign Review and Appeals Board
July 19, 1990
Page 2
further pointed out that it was critical for the truck drivers bringing the
steel into the site to be able to see the sign and that the truck drivers
sitting higher than normal passenger vehicles may have a difficult tima
sighting the signage if it was to be only 15 2/2 ft.
The Chairman pointed out that he raid not have a problem with this variation
due to the fact that the building behind the signage was quite a bit taller
than the portion of the building the sign would be placed upon.
Mr. Blake questioned the make up of the sign and further stated that he had no
problem with the variation request.
Ms. Krasnow was also in agreement.
Mr. Blake made a motion to accept the variation request to permit the sign
height of the Belmont Steel sign to be placed at a height of 21 1/2 ft. The
motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
S.R.A.B. 90-13 Variation Request to Permit the Installation of a wall Sirn
and to Replace a Tenant Panel on a Free Standing Sign for JoAnn Fabrics at the
Hain Street Commons, Main Street and McCormick Blvd.
The Chairman pointed out that the proposed signs does not conform with the
following regulations of the Sign Ordinance:
1. The wall sign - the proposed height is 17.6 ft. and the
Sign Ordinance states that no sign wall shall extend
above the maximum sign height of 15 1/2 ft. Section
4-12-9(4)
2. The free standing sign - the existing free standing sign
is 23 ft. high and the sign is legally non -conforming
with respect to height. The allowed height is 15 1/2
ft. The sign loses its non -conforming status when the
sign useage is changed, Section 4-12-12(C2).
Ms. Cher Madison from North American Signs, Inc. was present to present the
case. Hs. Madison stated that the proposed sign height of 17 1/2 ft. for the
wall sign would be consistent with all of the other signage in the complex,
stating that a sign put in at the maximum allowed height would look awkward,
being almost 2 ft. less than the height of the other signage. As to the free
standing sign, Ms. Madison pointed out that the sign is one that is legally
non -conforming in relation to the present Sign Ordinance and that to not allow
JoAnn Fabrics to replace the tenant panel with their own signage would not
allow them any street signage or visibility from Hain Street. She further
pointed out that the signage for the wall sign would basically state "JoAnn
Fabrics Crafts" while the panel sign would state "JoAnn Fabrics" only.
Mr. Blake pointed out that if the crafts was indeed advertising then this
would fall into a category of signage which was not permitted by the Board in
the past. Ms. Madison stated that the legal name of the company was JoAnn
S
Sign Review and Appeals Board
July 19, 1990
Page 3
Fabrics Crafts. All the Board members reiterated that they would need some
type of proof that the word "Crafts" was indeed part .of the corporate name.
Discussion then centered around the proper placing of the word "Crafts," both
on the wall sign and the froo standing sign.
Hs. Krasnow made a motion to grant the variance for the wall sign for the
words "JoAnn Fabrics" and for that free standing sign for the words "JoAnn
Fabrics." Further stating that if the word "Crafts" could be proved to the
City to be part of the corporate name, then the word "Crafts" could be added
to both signs with "JoAnn" on one line and "Fabrics Crafts" on the next line.
However, in any instance, both the wall sign and the free standing sign
wordage would have to match exactly. This motion was seconded and unanimously
approved by the Board.
Communication
Kr. Wolinski pointed out that a letter had been received from Mr. Stephen Sims
of Sims Subaru asking the Board to re-examine the decision that they had made
at a previous meeting concerning his variation request for a free standing
sign and the condition attached.
The Board was unanimous in their response that the condition previously agreed
to concerning the removal of the billboard sign to allow a free standing sign
to be refaced would still be required.
Hr. wolinski stated that he would check with the City's Legal Department for
assurance that the condition imposed was not beyond either the Board's power
or the power of the Sign Ordinance.
The next meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is scheduled for
Thursday, August 16, 1990.
es uolinski
Director, Building & Zoning Department
OrDate
DRAFT NOT APPROVED
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
Thursday, September 13, 1990
Members Present: H. Blake, L. Krasnow, J. Melton, N. O'Meara
(Chair) and J. Weiss
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: J. Wolinski
Minutes
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and asked for approval of the
minutes of the July 19. 1990 meeting. Motion was made and seconded with
unanimous approval of the minutes.
Sign Violation Notices
The Chairman thanked Staff again for providing a list of all of the
outstanding sign violation and pending action that had been undertaken and was
currently being undertaken by the City.
S.R.A.B. 90-14 A Variation Request to Permit the Installation of One Wall
Sign on the North Facade of the New Dominick's Store for Henniman's Bakeries
at 2748 Green Bay Road, Evanston, Illinois.
Mr. Terry Doyle of Doyle Signs was present to make the presentation for
Henniman's Bakeries.
The Chairman began the discussion by asking. Mr. Doyle if Henniman'a Bakeries
was a separate entity from the Dominick's Corporation. Mr. Doyle responded
that the Henniman's Bakeries is indeed a separate entity from Dominick's
Corporation. Mr. Doyle began by stating that Doyle Sign Company had made the
majority of the Henniman's signs since 1960. He further stated that the
variation requested was to permit the Henniman's sign to be installed at an
elevation approximately 25 ft. above grade which would be in line with the
Dominick's sign which had been previously approved by the Board. The sign in
question would be placed on the north facade of the Dominick's Store on
Isabella Street.
Mr. Wolinski pointed out that a Henniman's sign for the south elevation had
been previously permitted and approved because no variation had been needed
for it. _
Mr. Blake questioned staff as to whether this sign for Henniman's fell in line
with the Sign Ordinance requirements on overall area limitations for signage. _
Mr. Wolinski responded that the sign was within the limits set by the
ordinance.
Mr. Blake then moved to accept the Henniman's sign as proposed for variation,
seconded by Ms. Krasnow. The Board voted 5 - 0 to approve the variation.
S.R.A.B. 90-15 A Request to Amend a Previously Approved Business Center Sign .�
PLan for Little Caesar's Pizza, 815 Emerson Street, Evanston, Illinois.
Mr. Rybowicz and Mr. Sacco of Little Caesar's were present to present the case
along with Mr. and Mrs. Ipjain, the owners of the center. _=
Sign Review and Appeals Board
September 13, 1990
Page 2
The Chairman .began by stating that there seems to be two (2) issues to him.
No. 1, whether the words "Pizza Pizza" were part of the corporate name and #2,
the size of the sign. The Chairman stated that the previously approved
Unified Business Center Sign Plan for this address Indicated that the store
would have one sign 18 Inches in height, 12 ft. in length, and individually
illuminated letters. The proposed sign is 21 inches in height and
approximately 24 ft. in length.
Mr. Rybowicz responded that the title "Pizza Pizza" is Little Caesar's, and
that if you travel around the country that the word "Pizza Pizza" is
incorporated into Little Caesar's name. Mr. Sacco stated that the words
"Pizza Pizza" is a registered trade mark owned by Little Caesar's. A
discussion then centered on whether the words "Pizza Pizza" were part of
advertising for Little Caesar's or whether the words "Pizza Pizza" were
actually part of the corporate name. Mr. Rybowicz argued that it was a
registered trade mark of Little Caesar's Enterprise and was actually part of
the corporate name. Mr. Blake pointed out that in tho enclosed materials
forwarded by Little Caesar's that the words "Pizza Pizza" were a trade mark,
but yet "Little Caesar's Pizza Pizza" was not incorporated together.
The discussion then moved to the height of the sign and the length of the
sign. The Chairman pointed out that the size of the sign had been restricted
by the previously approved plan to 18 inches in height and 12 ft. in length.
Mr. Rybowicz responded that the standard Little Caesar's sign was 21 inches in
height and that to require an 18 inches in height sign would require a custom
made sign.
Mr. Blake pointed out that it was universal throughout the City that signage
for a business plan would be no more than 18 inches in height.
Mrs. Ipjain, co-owner of the center, claimed that approval was given for a 21
inch sign for the White Hen Pantry and that any future signage for the center
would also be 21 inches.
Mr. Wolinski responded that a letter was sent by the former Building Director,
to the Ipjain stating that the signage would be 18 inches in height.
Mrs. Ipjain stated that she felt that there had been an error made and that 21
Inches is what was actually approved.
Mr. Sacco stated that the hardship involved is that the 21 inch sign is
already made and is in Chicago. Mrs. Ipjain stated that the White Hen sign
was already up when the Board reviewed the business center plan and this Has
approved by the City.
Ms. Krasnow then made the motion for the following compromise, that the sign
"Little Caesar's Pizza Pizza" in letters 21 inches In height be permitted for
a period of six (6) months. During that time, City Corporation Counsel would
examine the question of whether the words "Pizza Pizza" are indeed a part of
the corporate name or whether it is advertising. If Corporation Counsel
1
Sign Review and Appeals Board
September 13, 1990
Page 3
agrees that the words "Pizza Pizza" is part of the corporate name, then the
sign permit would be changed from temporary to full permit. However, if
Corporation Counsel deems that the words "Pizza Pizza" is not part of the
corporate name, then the temporary permit would and in six (6) months and the
signage would have to be removed, replaced with a sign titled "Little
Caesar's" in 18 inch high letters.
This move was seconded and approved by a vote of 3 - 2 (Blake and Helton
voting nay).
The next meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is scheduled for October
18, 1990, at 7:30 p.m.
dames Wolinski
Director, Building & Zoning Department
/o //z /a
Date
DRAFT NOT APPROVED
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
MINUTES
SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
Thursday, December 20, 1990
N. O'Heara (Chair), H. Blake, J. Helton, and J. Weiss
L. Krasnow
J. Wolinski
Minutes
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and asked for approval of the
minutes of the October 18, 1990 meeting. The motion was made and seconded
with unanimous approval of the minutes.
Communications
The Chairman thanked Staff for the list and status of the current sign
violations and was happy to see that enforcement of -the Sign Ordinance was
being pursued. The Chair stated that he wished to attend to the Little
Caesar's signage memo after the cases for the evening had been heard and
decided upon.
S.R.A.B. 90-18 Consider Request for Variation to Permit the Ilanginp, of Two
(2) Banners for Sara Lee Corporation 017 Church Street, Evanston. Tllinois.
Mr. Wolinski stated that the attorney for the Sara Lee Corporation had called
him that morning, stating that Sara Lee wished to be removed from the agenda
for the evening. Evidently, they had decided to redesign their signage and
would be resubmitting a revised drawing for their signage proposal.
Mr. Wolinski further stated that the Sara Lee Corporation was informed that
this signage issue needed to be decided at the next meeting of the S.R.A.B. in
January. Because the signage was already being displayed, it either needed a
variation or its removal. Any further delay in appearing befove the Sign
Board would result in this case being turned over to the City's Legal
Department.
S.R.A.B. 90-21 Consider a Variation Request to Permit the Retention of a
Canopy with Signage for 713 Hain Street. Evanston, Illinois.
Mr. Dean Tissit of D & T Investments was present to present the case. The
Chairman pointed out that the two (2) variations needed were:
1. The signage on the canopy side parallel to the building
facade cannot exceed 15% of the area. Allowed is 2 1/4
sq. ft. of signage and existing is 5 ft.
2. The signage in any surface of the canopy other than the
surface running parallel with the building face shall
be limited to letters not exceeding 4" in height. The
existing letters are 12" in height.
Sign Review and Appeals Board
December 20, 1990
Page 2
Hr. Wolinski pointed out that the canopy with the signage was already up and
had been permitted. He stated, however, that evidently there had been some
confusion between the interpretation of the canopy section of the ordinance on
staff's part and confusion on the part of the sign contractor as to what was
required.
Hr. Weiss pointed out that he felt that the ordinance was clear and that the
signage on the two (2) side panels of the canopy should not have been
permitted and also questioned whether the front panel signage should have been
permitted either.
Kr. Wolinski stated that there had been an error on staff's part in
Interpreting the ordinance on the side panels of the canopy and that those
should not have been permitted.
Kr. Blake stated that he felt it was still the duty of the sign contractor to
know the ordinance and to put together a sign package that did meet the
requirements of the ordinance.
Kr. Tissit stated that he was not happy with the way the whole situation
turned out and that he did want to comply with the City's Sign Ordinance, but
that the canopy was -already up and that the sign contractor was refusing to
redo the signage on the canopy.
Kr. Weiss pointed out that the panels with the signage could be removed and
replaced with the proper size signage.
The Chair suggested a time frame when the signage would be brought into
conformity with the Sign Ordinance. He suggested the date of January 1, 1992.
Discussion ensued as to the best course of action to take concerning canopy
signage.
Mr. Tissit stated that he had deferred to the sign company to put up a sign
that would meet the City's requirements.
Kr. Wolinski stated that the sign permit could be revoked with the
understanding that a new permit taken out and the proper signage meeting the
code replacing the existing.
Hr. Blake made a motion that the City should revoke the sign permit in total-
and have a new permit applied for within the regulations of the Sign
Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Hs. Kelton and was approved 3 - 7
(Weiss voting nay). The signage is to be removed within six (6) months.
S.R.A.B. 90-17 Consider a Revised Unified Business Center Sign Plan for 2102
Green Bav Road. Evanston. Illinois.
On hand to make the presentation was Hr. Roger Parris, developer of the site;
Hr. Eric Erickson, architect; Kr. Bruce Heitzinger, division real estate
manager for Walgreen's; and Kr. Hal Hochel, project architect for Walgreen's. _
19
5
Sign Review and Appeals Board
December 20, 1990
Page 3
Mr. O'Meara pointed out that although the plan was revised from its original
submission, there were still several aspects of it that did not meet the
City's Sign Ordinance. These were:
Freestanding Sign - Walgreen's
1. The principal building setback must be at least 30 feet from the
street right-of-way, proposed setback is 0.
2. The freestanding sign shall not exceed 15 1/2 ft., proposed sign
is 21.3 ft.
Freestanding Sign - Green Bay Center
1. The principal building setback must be at least 30 feet from the
street right-of-way, proposed setback is 0.
2. The height of the freestanding sign shall not exceed the distance
from the site and lot line. The Jocation proposed is 3 ft. from
the property line, sign height is 3'7".
Walgreen's's Building East Elevation
The Walgreen's sign is proposed to be 22 ft. in height and the wall
sign extends above the maximum sign height of 15 1/2 ft. The north
elevation and south elevation are the same as the east elevation for
the Walgreen's building and needs a variation.
Building tit
The east elevation proposed Wall sign height is 16.4 ft. No wa71 -
sign shall extend above the maximum sign height of 15 1/2 ft.
The north elevation proposed wall sign is the same as the east
elevation variance needed.
Mr. Weiss began by stating at the last meeting, he had suggested the
freestanding Green Bay Center sign be placed on the side of the building. He
felt that since the sign was only going to be 3 ft. above the ground, that
with snow cover and similar circumstances the signage would be ultimately
useless. He stated, however, that with the new design, this signage would not _
be possible on the building, he did not have a problem with this somewhat
modest sign being placed in the location proposed.
The freestanding sign on the southeast corner was shown on the drawings to be
over 21 ft. high. Hr. Erickson pointed out that this signage was now being
downscaled to 18 ft. in height. Mr. Weiss pointed out that he did not have a
problem with the height of this sign; however, he did have a major problem
with the marquee sign directly below the Walgreen's sign on the freestanding _
sign.
Mr. Heitzinger pointed out that it was a reader board sign.
Mr. Weiss pointed out that reader board signs had never been approved by the
Board and he saw no reason to approve this one.
Sign Review and Appeals Board
December 20, 1990
Page 4
±tr. O'Meara stated that he did not feel that the word "pharmacy" was necessary
as part of the signage. He further pointed out that he did not feel that the
words "food mart and pharmacy" which was displayed on the building facade were
also not needed.
Mr. Blake questioned what the color scheme of the Walgreen's freestanding sign
would be.
Mr. Heitzinger replied that the Walgreen's sign would have a red background
with white letters and that the reader board sign would have a white
background with black letters. Ms. Kelton felt that the wordage "pharmacy and
food mart" was advertising and not necessarily for signage.
Mr. Heitzinger pointed out that he felt Walgreen's and Pharmacy were
synonymous and, therefore, that the word "pharmacy" was needed in the signAgn.
Mr. Heitzinger went on to say that when the Senior, Management Committee of the
Walgreen's Corporation examined the site at Simpson and Green Bay, they gavo
approval for the citing of a store at this location with the idea that a pylon
sign with a reader board would be available.
-Mr. O'Meara responded that the board has taken a dim view of reader board
signs when applied for at all of its hearings because this is advertisement,
and not identification signage.
Further discussion centered on the availability of the reader board and
signage "pharmacy and food mart."
Mr. Parris, owner of the development, stated that the Walgreen's Corporation
had given their approval to this project with the hope that a pylon sign with
reader board would be available. He stated he could not see how this type of
signage would cause a hardship for Evanston.
Mr. Blake responded that he was sure that the management people of Walgreen's
had done surveys, etc., on the importance of reader board signs for drive by
traffic and how importance it was for the.business establishment to have them
for drive by traffic. He stated, however, that Evanston is not a drive by
City. He further stated that the Sign Committee in its work was attempting to
keep the character of Evanston and that a reader board sign does not fit in --
with this character. Mr. Blake said he did not have a problem with the words
"pharmacy and food mart" over the doorway of the building and that he could
E
agree to that.
Discussion then centered on the signage on the Walgreen's building with Mr.
Weiss pointing out that he felt that signage was much too big for the scale of
the building and it needed to be reduced in size, referring to "Walgreen's"
and "Pharmacy and Food Mart."
After lengthy discussion, the Chairman asked for a motion on the entire sign
package. Mr. Weiss moved that the plan as submitted be accepted with the
following exceptions:
.
M
Sign Review and Appeals Hoard
December 20, 1990
Page 5
That the freestanding sign on the southeast corner extend no higher
than 18 ft. and that it not include the words "pharmacy" nor the
reader board.
Further that the wall signs on the Walgreen's building on the east
elevation and on the north elevation at the Walgreen's lettering be
reduced to 4 ft. in size and with the words "pharmacy and food mart"
to be reduced to 12" in size.
Mr. Blake seconded the motion. The Hoard voted 3 - 1 to accept the Unified
Business Flan with the exceptions mentioned (Kelton voting nay).
S.R.A.B. 90-19 Consider a Request for a Variation to Permit a F'reestandina
Sign for the proposed Citgo Gas and food Hart at 1925 Green Bav Road._
Evanston, Illinois.
The proposed signage does not conform with the following regulations of the
Sign Ordinance:
1. The proposed height of the sign is 20 ft. and no freestanding
sign shall exceed the maximum height of 15 1/2 ft.
2. The proposed setback is 4 ft. and the height of the freestanding
sign 3 ft. or more from any lot line may not exceed the distance
between the sign and the lot line.
E
Ks. Sydney Grevas, owner and developer of this site was present to present the
case. Ks. Grevas stated that the signage would be no more than 15 ft. in
height.
Kr. Wolinski stated that the proposed signage submittal was showing the height
to be at 20 ft.
Ks. Grevas stated that this had been changed at the last minute and that the
signage would be no more than 15 ft. high which would conform with the
ordinance. Therefore, the only variation she was seeking was the setback
requirement. She stated that if she was required to put the sign 15 ft. back
from the property line, that it would be a definite hardship on the business. —
It would be difficult to see the sign from Green Say Road.
A discussion centered on the location of the sign in correlation to the
proposed canopy. A motion was made and seconded to allow the sign post to be
placed inside of the sidewalk, no less than 2 ft. nor more than 4 ft. from the
Inside of the sidewalk.
The motion was approved unanimously for this variation.
Other Business
The Chairman asked the other members if they wished to discuss the memo
received from the City's Legal Department discussing the Little CaesAr's
signage.
i
Sign Review and Appeals Board
December 20, 1990
Page 6
Because Lucille Krasnow, who was an integral part of the discussion for 'Little
Caesar's signage, but was absent this evening,, the consensus of the Board was
to delay discussion of Little Caesar's signage and memo until the next Board
meeting.
Adjournment
There being no other business, the Board adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Next Meeting
The next scheduled meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is scheduled
for January 17, 1991.
J�ares Wolinski
!'Director, Building & Zoning Department
% " Date