Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 19871UMTES SIGN RVIEW'AND .APP8dI5 .BOARD April 22, 1987 Board.Members.Present: Board Member Absent: Staff. Present: Planning Director Carter reviewed the objectives of the new .Sign Ordinance and some of the reasoning for the new comprehensive regulations. Director of Building and Zoning Carlson discussed with tho Committee. the election of an acting chairman to preside until the Mayor appoints the fifth member and a permanent Board Chairman. It was the consensus of the Committee that the chairmanship rotate monthly on the following schedule until the naming of a permanent chairman by the Mayor: May 1987 Blake June 2987 O'Meara July 1987 Weiss August 1987 Strusmel It was also the consensus of the Committee that the third.(3rd) Thursday evening of each month at 7:30 p.m. be the regular nesting night of the Board With the first meeting scheduled for May 21, 1937 at 7:30 p.m. It was also the consensus of the. Committee that agenda packets With all information regarding the ve—riation bearings to be conducted along With an agenda and minutes of the previous meeting would be distributed on the Monday afternoon previous to the Thursday evening meeting. The Committee requested that copies of a May 14, 198S memo from Carter to the Planning and Development Co=ittee be distributed to the Board in the next packet. There being no further business, the Committee adjourned at 6:20 a.m. Reed Carlson, Director Building and Zo ing y bate Bass* Members Present: MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD May 21, 1987 7:30 p.m, H. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, A. Minasian,'C. Stremmel, and J. Weiss. The chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Upon motion by Blake and seconded by Weiss, the minutes of the Sign Review and appeals Board meeting of April 22, 1987 were approved four to zero Minastan absent). A latter from Mirrilees Outdoor, Inc, regarding the band on off site ad- vertising in the new Sign Ordinance was discussed. Staff explained that this letter had been referred to the City's Legal. Department and the at- torney for the City Sign Consultant, Teska and Associates for comments. When those comments are received they will be forwarded to the Sign Review and Appeals Board. SRAB Variation 87-1 509 Main Street The chairman summarized the request of Belgian Chocalateer Piron for a variance for installation of a 4'6" fixed awning due to the Sign Ordinance limiting the projection of fixed awnings to 24". Mr, Piron stated his problems with a southern exposure creating unacceptable temperature In- creases in his store. O'Meara questioned whether the store was air con- ditioned and Mr. Piron stated that it was not. Piron was also questioned as to what other alternatives to a large fixed awning have been con- sidered. Mr. Piron stated that he has looked into using solar shades, but did not want the views of his windows obstructed in anyway. He also ex- pressed concern for the safety of his employees due to a recent hold up. O'Meara questioned whether a roll up awning had been considered. Mr. Piron replied that due to the high maintenance cost for frequent changes of canvas, this alternative was not considered viable. Weiss noted the lack of air conditioning and the fact that if air conditioning was present acceptablo temperatures could be maintained in the store. Piron pointed out that a 24" fixed awning would only allow him only 34 days of sun pro- tection whereas a 54" fixed awning would create 208 days of sun protec- tion. Blake stated that viable alternatives in either a roll up awning or a 24" fixed awning with air conditioning are available to achieve the de- sired result. Weiss noted that there are no other large fired awnings on the block except at the restaurant to the West and this awning is old and due for removal in the near future. He further explained that the 24" limit on projecting awnings is an effort to create some type of uniformity In their use. O'Meara summarized the testimony and options available and requested a motion. Motion by Slake to deny the request, was seconded by Weiss; 4 I's, 0 nays and 1 abstention (Minasian). SUB Minutes May 21, 1987 Page 2 SRAB 87-2 192S Green Bar Road O'Meara summarized the owner's request for erection of a 54" sphere sign 15 ft. high to be erected on two existing wooden poles. Variations are required due to the fact that the proposed sign is located less than 15 ft. from the right of way and is located within 20 ft. from the access to a public right of way. The applicant summarize their request stating that a hardship would exist with decreased business if the proposed sign was not allowed. Weiss questioned what other alternatives were considered and would the applicant consider moving this sign 20 ft. back from the pro- perty line where it would be legal. The owner stated that moving the sign to a now location would entail an expense of 31,500 which he felt was not justified. Strem:sel asked if the present wood poles could be removed if a variation was granted to erect the sign on a new pole. The owner dis- agreed stating that the two present wood poles were in a more substantial Installation. Weiss stated that the sign could be moved back to a legal distance and sufficient visibility could still be maintained. O'Meara summarized tho testimony and requested a motion. Motion by Weiss to deny the request, was seconded by Blake. Committee voted 5 to 0 to deny the request. SRAB 87-3 2620 Green Bay Road O'Meara summarized the request of the owner for erection of a 19 ft. high free standing sign to replace an existing sign. The request entails var- iations for sign height in excess of 15 2/2 ft., more than one free standing sign an a piece of property, and erection of a free standing sign within 20 ft. of access to a public right of Way. The applicants stated their agreement to moving the pole 9 1/2 ft. back from the property line and reducing the height of the sign to 15 1/2 ft. The owner also agreed to take down all three existing free standing signs if permission for the new sign was granted. The Committee discussed the staff report regarding the large amount of signs presently an the property (44 plus/minus). Stremmel stated his wish to see a completed sign plan for the property entailing removal of many of the existing signs. Blake suggested that a variance not be granted without certain removal conditions. Minesian sug- gested agreement by the owner to remove the mobile tire racks and all paper window signs with the only signs remaining being the two new Berry Tire Company signs and the changeable letter board. O'Meara summarized the testimony and requested a motion. Motion by Blake, seconded by Stremael to grant the variation for the new subject free standing sign in a reduced height of 15 1/2 ft. set back 9 1/2 ft. from the property line to the pole with the following conditionst 1. Three existing pole signs and all attachments be removed. 2. Remove all paper window signs. 3. Mobile tire racks to be stored inside the building. 4. The frame of the changeable letter sign on the front elevation of the building to be painted or recovered in some manner to reduce the look of bare metal. SRAM Minutes May .2I; 1987 - Page '3` The Committee voted 5 to 0 to grant the variation with the -above noted conditions. The Committee discussed the election of a vice-chairman to act in the absence of Chairman O'Meara. it was the consensus of the Committee that the previously approved rotating schedule for the position of vice- chairman should star in place. Staff will furnish to the Committee a listing of the vice-chairman on the monthly rotating basis. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Heed Carlson, Directo Building and Zoning brie MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD June 18, 1987 7:30 p.m. Board Members 'Present: N.-O'Meara (Chair), H.:Bla". C. Stremwl', and J. Weiss . Board Member Absent: A. Minasian The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Upon motion by Weiss and second by Stremoel, the minutes of the Sign Relvew and Appeals Board meeting of April 22, 1987 were approved, four Aye, 0 May. A copy of a digest of the U.S. Supreme Court decision refusing to review a decision of a lower court in a Sign Ordinance Case in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina, was discussed. The Evanston Ordinance, much like the City of Raleigh's Ordinance prohibits off -site advertising. The Committee also noted that the Evanston and Raleigh Ordinances both fail to differentiate between commercial and non-commercial off -site advertising and this non -differentiation was not reversed or commented on. SW 87-5 3333 Simpson Street (northeast corner Simpson Street and Crawford Avenue) Mr. Cliff Schaeffor representing the operators of the Convenient Food Store in the shopping center at the above location reviewed the applicant's request for a 4 ft. x 10 ft. free-standing sign, 16 ft. high to be located at the southeast corner of the subject property. Schaeffer stated the food start suffers from unpaired visibility of traffic traveling westbound on Simpson Street. He further explained that compliance with the code for this size of a sign would put the sign in the parking lot, losing at least one parking space. Members O'Meara and Stremmel questioned the location of the proposed sign and possible impairment of vision of the traffic control signal. Blake noted the availability of a small portion of wall at the south line of the subject store being available for additional signage. Strermnel questioned whether the south wall of the building running parallel with Simpson Street would be available for additional signage. Owner's representative stated that the south wall of the building was not adjacent to the Convenient Food Mart and that the owner of the center would in all probability not allow a tenant to place a sign on that wall. O'Meara questioned the installation of a sign of this size requested causing the other tenants in the center to also want to be represented by additional signage. The owner's representative replied that all other tenants were aware at the time of signing leases that Convenient Foods would be applying for a pole sign to be erected at the corner and voiced no objection at that time nor a desire for additional signage for their individual stores. Blake stated that a directory type monument sign with the names of all four (4) tenants could possibly be located so as to be visible for eastbound Simpson Street traffic. The owner's representative replied that he did not think this was satisfactory. Stremmel noted sign clutter of Window signs evidently in excess of the allowed 25% causing the center to look less Sign Review and Appeals Board June 18, 1987 Page 2 than attractive. Upon a motion by Weiss to deny, second by Blake, the Committee voted 4 Aye, 0 May to deny the request for variation due to alternate means of additional signage being available. SRAB 87-4 1901 GreenBay Road Attorney Sanford Stein explained the reasoning for the variation which is required to re -face an existing 15 1/2 ft. high free standing (pole) sign presently non -conforming at 1901 GreenBay Road. Attorney Stein questioned the authority of the City to validly change the status of the sign from legal non -conforming to unlawful non -conforming as a result of the change of the name of the tenant which will be operating the business at the above location. The City's staff representative indicated that the City Ordinance states that if a sign is altered in anyway except for normal maintenance or repair, that sign must meet all aspects of the Ordinance. O'Meara questioned the negative effect on the heavy high speed traffic on GreenBay Road created by the three (3) large free standing signs presently on the property. Stein replied that in his opinion three (3) signs of equal height and equal size are less distracting than signs of varying height and/or size. George Lambros, operator of the subject retail store, explained the services offered by his company as presently not being offered in Evanston and very dependent on signage. A great majority of the work in installing auto steros, car alarms, or mobile phones in automobiles is done by appointment. thus a great many cars are not parked on the property waiting to be serviced. Mr. Fred Wertymer, owner of the subject property stated that the visibility of signs by traffic on GreenBay Road is imperative to the survival of businesses in the subject building. Weiss noted that both the west and south wall of the building are available for appropriately sized wall signs and those signs would give adequate visibility for both northbound and southbound GreenBay Road traffic. Stein suggested deferral by the Committee of a decision until the July Board meeting. O'Meara disagreed stating that he felt sufficient evidence to judge the case bad already been presented and that nothing would prevent filing of another sign plan which would meet the Ordinance and allow adequate signage to advertise the business. Upon motion by Blake, seconded by Stremmel to deny the application for variation, the Committee voted 4 Aye, and 0 May to approve Ehe motion denying the application. City staff representative indicated that the next meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board would be on Thursday, July 16, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. There is presently one application pending for a variation. 6, Director, Building and Zoning Xr 7 Date r11161V Date of Approval of Minutes w 1 MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD July 16, 1987 7:30 p.m. Board Members Present: N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, C.! Stremm*l and J. Weiss. Board Member Absent: A. Minasian The chairman called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Upon motion by Weiss and second by Stremmel, the minutes of the Sign Review and Appeals Board meeting of June 18, 1987 were approved as submitted, 4 Ayes and 0 May. SRAB 87-6 2500 Ridge Avenue (COS Buildin&L Jame Murray, attorney for the COS Building applicants and Sandy Gillum, man- ager of the COS Building reviewed their application for a variation to allow erection of a free-standing sign with more than seven (7) items of information and to be located within 20 ft. of an access to a street right of way. Murray noted that the building owners faced increased competition and possible eco- nomic hardship due to the recent construction of new office buildings in the Evanston area and particularly the large medical office building to be erected on the site of the old Central Motors facility. lie reviewed the traffic cir- culation plan for the building noting that the double driveway off of Ridge Avenue with a parkway in the middle often is confusing to persons entering the COS parking lot for the first time. This confusion has lead in many instances to persons entering the parking lot through the exit driveway and exiting the parking lot through the entrance driveway, creating dangerous situations. Gillum noted that the building normally contains approximately 180 employees and i visited by 400,000 to 425,000 patients per year. In addition, a com- mercial laboratory on the premises has approximately 400 visits per week, a commerical optician on the premises has approximately 40 visits per day. Gillum further noted that entry into the driveway is especially difficult for southbound Ridge Avenue traffic due to the extremely small building identifi- cation sign and traffic directional signs that are presently installed. It is planned that along with the requested sign, two traffic directional signs measuring approximately 2 ft. r 1 1/2 ft. would be installed. These traffic directional signs are exempt from the Sign Ordinance. Subsequent to viewing many photos of the site with a sample sign temporarily displayed, Attorney Murray offered a revised location for the subject COS sign which would move said sign 10 ft. west of the eastern COS property line. Murray explained that this 10 ft. set back with the provision that the top of the sign would be 4 ft. above the Ridge Avenue sidewalk would allow for better viewing of oncoming traffic by cars exiting the COS parking lot. Members Stremmel and Weiss en- dorsed the revised plan showing a 10 ft. set back and a 4 ft. elevation from Ridge Avenue sidewalk. Member Blake suggested two (2) signs be authorized by the Board with one (1) being located near the southeast corner of the COS pro- perty and the other near the northeast corner of the property. Gillum ex- plained that especially at the northeast corner of the COS property, land- scaping that is on an adjacent lot would prevent a clear view of the Sign Review and Appeals Board July 16, 1987 Page 2 sign. Xember Stresmel moved to approve thee-rovised variation request allowinj the sign to be sot back 10 ft. from the east property line and not more thw"4 it. above the Hidaa Avenue sidewalk on the condition that the three 61 existing ins at the Ridxo Avenue driveway mould be removed and also t hafi tom, existing Pharmacy" sign on the exterior of the COS building be removed. In addition. eight 48) Items of' information as fol'tows arewt9 gq allowed 48the_,_ CQS Building - Linton Optician - Mac?are Pharmacy -Nora Laboratories free Board voted a Ares. 0 Nay to grant the revised variation as consistentIf with the intent of the Sign Ordinance, the }graphic effectiveness demonstrated In the application. a lack of harm to public welfare and the unique hardship inherent in this particular property. SRO 87-7 Evanston Galler#a Camro onsivs Sign Plan 1700 Sherman Avenue Mr. William Weed representing Centrum Properties Incorporated, developers of 1700 Sherman Avenue, reviewed the material submitted. Two optional sign plans were presented to the Board. Option A consisted of horizontal lettering above the awnings, a 9 ft. wide x 10 inches high signage on the face of the awning, 9 ft. wide x 6 inches high, signage-near the top of the show window, 9 ft. wide z 10 inches high and signage at the bottom of the show window, 8 ft. 6 Inches wide x S inches high. Option 8 ahV'i"d 31gnag9 identical to Option A above the awning, on the face of the awnirj .end at the bottom of the show win- dow. The only difference in Option B was sign lettering an the show window in a vertical fashion. 11r. Weed submitted samples showing two different shades of dark groan awing material and stated that all awning lettering would be in Identical type white letters. The Board stated their consensus that Option A In part was preferable to the vertical lettering shown in Option B. In further discussion of Option A, it was the recommendation of the Board that the applicant return to the August 20, 1987 Sign Review and Appeals Board meeting with a revised plan showing the following revisions in Option A: The back lighted sign above the awnings suggested to be retained. The sign on the face of the awning recommended to be deleted. The window sign located pear the top of the window recommended to be deleted. She sign located near the bottom of the show window recommended to be retained. It was further recommended that the small show windows adjacent to entryway doors be used for a tenant board type of sign noting the businesses to be accessed through those doors. This would preclude any advertisement signs on the entry doors. It was also recommended that the signs noted on the transoms above entry doors be deleted and in their place the words "Evanston Calleria" be placed on the center transoms. Mr. Wood agreed to submit a revised plan at the next regular meeting of the Board on August 20, 1987. m 0 r Sign Review and Appeals Board July 16, 1987 Page 3 4 11 MINUTES SIGH'REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD August 20, 1937 7:30 P.M. Board Members Present: N. O'Meara (Chair),- s..'.Yeiss Nand N, Blake Board ?lember Absent: C. Stremmel and A. Minasian. The chairman called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Upon motion by Weiss and second by Blake, the minutes of Sign Review and Appeals Board meeting of July 16, 1987, were approved as submitted, 3 Ayes and 0 May. SUB 87-7 Business Center Sixn Plan, 1700 Sherman Avenue William Weed, representing Centrism Properties, presented a revised plan and design for the Evanston Galleria Signs. In response to a question from Staff Member Carlson, Mr. Weed responded that lettering on all awnings is to be an identical Ivory/white color. Weiss questioned the projection dimension of certain awnings added to the plan, specifically on the annex building as projecting more than the allowed 2 Meet. Weed agreed that the plan would be changed to note a conforming 2 foot projection on those awnings of the annex. Blake suggested that the height of letters and the maximum allowed width of lettering on the awnings be noted on the plan. Mr. need agreed to correct the plan as requested. Weiss suggested a different treatment of the entry ways as opposed to the awnings on the windows. He suggested no awnings on the two entry ways with a possible future amendment for a canopy or other type of entry protection. Mr. Weed agreed to eliminate the awnings on the doorways. Blake suggested that the words 'Evanston Galleria" be the only lettering to appear on the transom glass of the entry doors. Weiss moved and second by Blake to approve the sign plan for the Evanston Galleria with the following changes to be made to the plans: I. All fixed awnings to have a 2 foot projection limit. 2. Transom glass of entries to contain lettering, `Evanston Galleria" only. 3. Specify maximum allowable height and maximum allowable width of awning signs and permanent window signs. Committee voted 3 aye, 0 nay to approve the motion. SRAB 87-8 2400 !lain Street (Builder's Square) Mr. Adam Bonislawski, of Liberty Sign Company, reviewed the request of Builder's Square to allow 989 square feet of signage for the Builder's Square building. He noted that the amount of signage requested is the standard sign plan for all Builder's Square locations and is requested in order to maintain uniformity among those locations. He stated that a denial of the proposed Sign Review and Appeals Board August 20, 1987 Page 2 SRAB 87-8 2400 Main Street (Builder's Square) Continued signage may result in economic hardship and that the size of the proposed signage is needed for proper identification due to the setback of the building from the street and the fact that the front of the building does not face the street. Blake stated that the present signage is sufficient to Identify the building. not only from the shopping center parking lot, but also from Plain Street. He stated further that the additional signs outside of the sign over the main entrance is a marketing tool rather than Identification. The owner's representative suggested allowance of 2 additional signs. along with the main entrance sign, be allowed. His suggestion was not approved by Committee, Blake moved to deny the application based upon no proof of hardship or economic loss. Chairman O'Neara endorsed the motion stating that the present 6 foot high sign over the main entrance is more .than sufficient for the basic identification of the store and that any additional signage would be excessive. He also noted that Builder's Square identification could be added to the free-standing sign at the front of the shopping center along !Pain Street. Weiss concurred in the denial and seconded the motion. The Committee voted 3 aye, 0 nay to approve the motion. Slate suggested to the owner's representative that possible signage on the Plain Street frontage of the garden section should be considered. SRAB 87-9 635 Chicago Avenue (Southpoint Plaza) David Heller, representing Southpoint Properties, reviewed the request of Southpoint for a free-standing sign to be erected in the landscaped area adjacent to Chicago Avenue. He noted that this has been a development model often cited by the City as being both attractive and functional. He further described the center as a neighborhood center that has no identification as a shopping center, only having signage for each individual tenant. He stated further that this has proven to be a marketing hardship for the many tenants. He presented numerous letters from tenants of the center in support of the request for the center identification sign. lie further stated that the requested sign was in scale to the size of the development. Blake endorsed the request for identification of the center and suggested that enter and exit signs be posted at the driveway entries. Mr. Heller presented a revised plan to the Comittee, which included a sign for Perry Drug Company along with the Southpoint Plaza identification sign. The Committee declined to consider this revised request. Weiss questioned the visiblity of the sign over parked cars for traffic driving north on Chicago Avenue. He suggested allowing the requested sign to increase to a height of 5 foot 3 inches, in order to improve visibility. Blake moved to approve the request for the original proposal of a "Southpoint Plaza" sign only with the discretion by the owner to increase the sign height to 5 foot 3 inches. Weiss seconded the motion, the Committee voted 3 aye, 0 nay to approve the request. There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m, Director, wilding and Zoning 9/a._/X_ 7 Date h/97 Date of Approval. of Minutes MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING SICK RMEii AND APPEALS BOARD September a, 1987 7:30 P.X. Board Members Present: N. O'Meara (Chair). H. , Blzika,:, 'C';Strerssel Board Members Absent: A. Minasian, J. Weiss The chairman called the meting to order at 7:45 p.m. Upon notion by Blake and seconded by Strawal, the minutes of the Sign Review and Appeals board meeting of August 20, 1987 were approved as subaaitted, 3 Ayes and 0 gay. SRAB 87.10 Business Center Sign Plan. Evanston Plaza, Dodge and Dempster SSM!ts Mr. liars Kahan represented Banbury Development Corporation, developers of the Evanston Plaza Center. &&viewed the request for variations to the approved business center sign plan. This variation request entails the erection of a second sign for Payless Sboe Source to be located on the north wall of the center parallel and adjacent to Dempster Street. The variation is required due to the fact that the approved sign plan for the center allows only one sign per tenant and that sign to be located on the front wall of the building. Hr. Kahan noted that the sign plan :or the center was adopted prior to the new ordinance and has been adhered to without any request for variations. Hr. Eaban felt that with the lease for Payless Shoe Company being contingent upon permission being granted for a second sign, that a reasonable return could not be passible from the property without the second sign. He further noted that the proposed variation would not be detrimental to the public welfare in that the sign would face industrial and comEmercial property across Dempster Street as opposed to facing a residential area. Blake suggested that the corner location in the building and it being Immediately adjacent to Dempster Street, gave sufficient Identification to this particular store and a second sign was not necessary. He stated further that this mszy wall be a self-created hardship due to the fact that all other business establishments in the center have conformed to the sign plan. O'Meara noted the window orientation available for signage on Dempster Street and that the allowable front wall sign, along with the window exposure would be more than sufficient identification for Payless. He questioned whether a hardship truly exists. Blake noted that, from a marketing standpoint, a second sign is not justified. He noted further that the installation of traffic signal at Dempster Street and the main entrance to the center, which is adjacent to the Payless store, would stop 40% to SWL of the traffic directly in front of the Payless store , thus providing more that sufficient identification. Upon a motion by Blake and seconded by Stremmel, the Comlttee voted 3 Ayes 0 May to deny the request for variation with the reasoning that there are no exceptional conditions which pose any practical difficulty or particular hardship in such a way as to prevent the display of a sign as intended by the Sign Ordinance. No variation was granted due to the Board findings that the petitioner did not meet all the standards for variation. Sign Review and Appeals 'Board September 8, 1987 Page 2 The Committee agreed that the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board an September 17, 1987 will be cancelled due to the fact - that no Applications for variations bay* been received. In addition, the Committee agreed that the regularly scheduled mating of October 15, 1987 will be cancelled. If applications are received in this interim period that need to be board in October, Staff will set a special meeting date with the consent of the Thor* being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.,m. it Director, building and Zoning Date F. n/ r F; 2. A;Ppv*" t* 67H) SPECIAL MEETING SIGN REVIEW AND APPRALS BOARD October 29, 1987 7:30 p.m. Board Members Present: N. O'Meara (Chair). H. Blake'; J. Wei 3or Board Members Absent: C. Stremmel, A. Minasiaa r. The chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Upon motion by Blake and seconded by Stremmel the minutes of, the Sign Review and Appeals Board of September 8, 1987 were approved as submitted. 3 ayes and 0 nays. SRAB - 87-11 Unified Business Center SiRn Plan, Southwest corner Dadgf Avenue and Main Street. Mr. Jack Sitkoff of M-K Sign Company, acting on behalf of the developer, reviewed the plane submitted for signage of the remodeled existing building, as well as the building addition to be built along the !lain Street frontage, Said sign plan involves signage for a nine (9) store commercial complex made up of an existing building and a new addition to be added. Mr. Sitkoff noted that all signs are individual type letters of a consistent height and color with all wiring to be located on the interior of the store. Weiss suggested using 12 inch letters in place of 18 inch letters, due to the proximity of the front of the building to the front lot line. Sitkoff replied that the height of the lettering dictates the use of 18 inch letters and that anything smaller would not be effective. Weiss also suggested moving the monument sign from the corner of Dodge and Hain to the island between the two driveways at the southeast corner of the property. Mr. Sitkoff agreed to changing the location of the monument sign. The Committee complimented Mr. Sitkoff on a tasteful. restrained sign plan for the property. A motion by O'Meara to approve the plan with consistent 18 inch high letters of one color and the monument sign moved to the center of the driveway island seconded by Weiss and approved 3 eyes 0 nays. SRAB 87-12 Request for Variation from Maximum Permitted Square Footage of Allowed SixnaRe for Citicorp Savings. 801 Davis Street. Citicorp, represented by John Smars, accompanied by Mr. George Kane of Acme Wiley Sign Corporation, explained the request for variation. They noted that this request for an illuminated sign band along the east and southern facades of the subject building was part of a nationwide corporate identification program for Citicorp. The sign band is to consist of an acrylic material with a graduated, from top to bottom, blue color back lighted by florescent strip lighting. The sign band would be three foot high (3'), due to the fact that this material is only manufactured in three foot (3') and four (4') widths. O'Meara and Weiss both felt that the request constitutes excessive signage. Hane replied that cutting the acrylic material from a thirty -sir SPECIAL REETING SIGH REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD October 29, 1987 Page 2 SRAB 87-I2 (Continued) 360) inch width to a thirty (30") inch width would have a detrimental effect on the color gradation. Weiss suggested that the band be limited to a six b") thickness, if approved and moved inward, so as to set under the Hansard. An existing sign on the west side of the building, at the second floor level, was discussed. The Committee requested that if the sign band was approved, the west facade sign would be removed in order to reduce the total square footage of signage. Have further explained that the effect of the sign band would not be overly bright or offensive, and in fact, offered to install the lighting with the rheostat which could be adjusted to keep the light level acceptable. Blake noted that this is a new concept in signage with a new material and is in fact an integral part of the facade renovation. Was noted that the manner in which the sign band is Integrated into the facade appears to make the band an architectural eleswnt. Notion by Blake to approve the requested sign band along with removal of the west facade sign. Blake noted the hardship which may be Incurred by Citicorp in their effort to upgrade the property and improve its function and appearance in an effort to standardize the identification of Citicorp facilities. He further felt that there was no harm to public welfare and that graphic effectiveness had been demonstrated by the petitioner and efforts were made to keep the variation request to a minimum. He further felt that the request was consistent with the intent of the sign ordinance and that Citicorp is not increasing the size of their comswrcial signage, but aro in fact, adding a design element integrated into the architecture. Notion seconded by Weiss. 3 ayes - 0 nay. 1988 NeetinK Schedule A schedule of meetings for calendar year 1988 was presented to the Committee and accepted without change. Sign Plan for !tetra Rail Stations at !lain Street, Davis Street and Central Street Stations. A brochure describing the types of signage to be installed at the above noted stations was reviewed by the Committee. While the City has no official power over the signage at the stations, as Notre is a governmental organization and does not require permits, recommendations by the Committee are merely advisory. The Committee noted the !tetra name on at least two of the signs and voiced objection that this was in fact advertizing for ?Tetra. In addition, the dark blue color was felt to be inferior to a dark bronze color which would blend in better with the earth tones of the station improvements and the surrounding area. Staff was directed to contact !tetra with the above noted reservations. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Director40uildglng and ning Department Z4(At-) zf Approved RC: jm MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD Tuesday, November 24, 1987 7:30 p.m. Board Members Present: C. Stremm©l, 3.Weiss, H. Blake, f Board'Members Absent: N. O'Meara and A. Ninasian The chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Upon motion by Blake and second by Stremmel, the minutes of the Sign Review and Appeals Board meeting of October 29, 1987 were approved as submitted, 3 Ayes, 0 Nay. SRAB 87-13 Comprehensive Business Center Sign Plan for 327-337 Howard Street Mr. Stove Dorizos summarized his request noting that the facade renovation is being carried out under the auspices of a program administered by the City Planning Department. He explained further that the lettering on all six (6) stores will be of a uniform height and of an off-white color with a dark bronzed background. Weiss suggested that all signs on the subject property be limited to a 9" height name line with a lower 4" product line. Upon a motion by Blake to approve the plan as submitted subject to the aforementioned 9" name line and 4" product line of off-white letters on a dark bronzed background was approved. 3 Ayes 0 Nay. SRAB 87-14 Variations for Three (3) Existing Legal Non -Conforming Sicns - 2951 Central Street - For American National Bank. Mr. George Woock representing the bank summarized their request noting that the bank has already changed hands and there is a need for changing the signs to identify the new owner, American National Bank, as opposed to the past owner, North Evanston Bank. Woock further explained that the exterior of the bank will be undergoing remodeling that will include removing the tower on Central Street that contains two (2) wall signs. It is planned that a new wall sign at present not designed will take the place of the tower signs. Staff member Carlson noted that the free standing sign at the southwest corner of the property is in fact beyond the property line and on City property by an undetermined measurement. Members Blake and 5trerrsnel voiced their objection to the free standing sign remaining at the parking lot corner due to its massive size and non-conformance in many aspects. Weiss suggested taking one 1) or two (2) parking spaces at the southwest corner of the parking lot to create a landscape island in which a more conforming free standing sign could be erected. Blake suggested that the Committee grant no variations for any of the three (3) signs, but instead allow for a temporary refacing of the three 3) signs for the temporary construction period, suggested to be one (1) year. Woock agreed that a temporary refacing for one (1) year period could be a less costly solution to the problem and would allow time for a complete sign design program for the remodeled bank building. Upon motion by Blake to allow refacing of the three (3) existing signs for a one (1) year period from this date to allow for an exterior remodeling project to be completed was approved by the Committee. 3 Ayes and 0 Nay.