Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1988It MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD Thursday, January 21, 1988 7:30 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: N. O'Meara, Chair, H. Blake, C. Stremmel, J. Weiss BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: A. Hinasian The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Upon motion by Member Weiss and second by Blake, the minutes of the Sign Review and Appeals Board meeting of November 24, 1987, were approved as submitted. 4 Ayes - 0 Nay. SRAB 81-1, 747 Custer Avenue Mr. Conrad Swenson owner of the Antique Mall at 747 Custer Ave. was sworn in as the only witness in this case. Mr. Swenson presented his request for retention of non -conforming chimney signs at the above noted location. He stated that his object was to attract business from the adjoining railroad traffic and his establishment has, in fact, attracted many people through that mode of transportation. He explained further that the signs were put up in late 1986 without City permits, O'Meara noted that no particular hardship was shown in the application and that he had inspected the site and noted much exterior wall space fronting on two streets that that could receive signage well within the Ordinance. He stated further that the existing chimney signs seem less impressive and possibly less productive that the legal wall signs that could be installed. Mr. Swenson replied that he does not wish to install wall signs and cover the old patterned brick work. Stremmel stated that if this type of chimney sign is approved there are numerous other establishments along the Northwestern Railroad and the LTA tracks that would like such identification. Blake noted that the owner has raised the maintenance level of the property considerably and should be complimented. He also stated that adequate space is available for legal signage on two street frontages of the building and that signage alone wi:l not bring customers, rather what may be nvpdtr' s more h-t i .,n—d advertising, in newspapers, magazines or home delivered brochures. Mr. ::wenson noted that much of his business comes to the mall from the CTA or the railroad, and he wishes to further encourage that business. Weiss noted that, in his opinion, the chimney sign was very limited in its attraction to the general pubic and that a great deal of frontage is available on two stroe•ts for legal sign,. Blake suggested the use of neon and at least one of the windows on ea(•h street frontage as being reasonable and cost attractiv- :tn'. ling lasting. Carlson noted that the Site Plan Review Committee had un:nimokisly recomm-Andod that this application for variation be denied. Motion by Blake to deny tho application for variation to allow retention of the subject chimney signs, due to the applicant having sufficient frontage on two street for wall signs and that the standards for variation had not been met was seconded by Weiss. The motion to deny was approved. 4 Ayes - 0 Nay. Sign Review and Appeals Board January 21, 1988 Page 2 SRAB 88-2. 2107 Crawford Ave. (Northeast corner Simpson Street and Crawford Avenue) Mr. Steve Hrbek, representing Convenient Food Harts of Illinois, Inc. was sworn in as the only witness in this case. Mr. Hrbek reviewed his request for a variation from the height, setback and distance from driveway regulations for a free standing sign at the southwest corner of the subject property. He explained that the Convenient Food Hart located at the north end of the shopping strip is difficult to see, especially for westbound Golf Road traffic. Additionally, he stated that the median strip present on Crawford Avenue has caused difficulties in traffic patterns for southbound Crawford Avenue traffic to enter the parking lot of the center. O'Meara noted that there is additional wall space running parallel with Golf Road that could receive signage within the requirements of the Sign Ordinance and not require any variations. Stremmel noted that the developer of the property made decisions as to the location the Convenient store at the north end of the center which is causing a good part of the alleged hardship. He further noted that the store operator has constantly violated the twenty-five per cent temporary window sign requirement of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Hrbek stated that the operator has been warned many times of this violation, but the franchising company has little authority over the operator in such an area. Weiss also noted that the operator is flagrantly violating the temporary window sign provisions and should be cited. Motion by Stremmel to deny the request for a free standing sign at the requested location, due to the standards for granting of a variation not being met was was seconded by Weiss. The motion to deny the request was approved. A Ayes - 0 Nay. SRAB 88-3. 2400 Main Street. Mr. Ira Frank and Hs. Wilene Dennison were sworn in as witnesses in this case. Mr. Frank reviewed the reasoning for the application for variations for a larger free standing sign and an additional large wall sign, noting the reasoning that the center in percentage terms is presently 33.2% vacant in that portion of the center available for small retailers. He noted further that the Dress Barn clothing store and the Payless Shoe Store have recently not renewed their leases and have vacated. In ddditi.,n. two other retailers, totaling approximately 8,400 square feet, have expressed concern over the change in the profile of the customer entering the center since the KMart Store was converted into a Builders' Square. He felt that installation of the requested signage would ensure the viability of the retailers currently located in the center, as well as entice additional retailers to locate in the Main Street Commons. He stated that while Builder= Square is attracting a higher customer count than KHart, it is attracting a -nanced clientolp compared to KMart. Additionally, he stated that the �,�-'ship seems to exist wherein traffic coming to the center is mainly attract: by the Builders' Square store and does not venture south of Builders' Z;.are while in the center. Weiss noted that the recently opened Dodge/DH^rster shopping center may be one of the reasons for vacancies at the Main Street Commons in addition to certain management problems. O'Meara stag1 that the proposed Sign Review and Appeals Board January 21, 1988 Page 3 wall sign in the location suggested would not be seen except for those cars that are already in the parking lot. Frank explained that this type of wall sign will remind customers who do not venture beyond the Builders' Square store that other stores are at the south end of the center and that those south tenants are expressing severe problems. O'Meara noted that this seems to be an ideal case for a coordinated comprehensive sign plan in conjunction with new landscaping that would enhance the appearance of the grounds and attract additional customers. Certain lack of maintenance problems were noted and suggestions were made by the Committee to Mr. Frank regarding promotional activities and a comprehensive coordinated plan for the Main Street frontage, as well as coordination with signage and new lighting that would improve the attractiveness of the center. It was also suggested to Mr. Frank that revised traffic patterns for traffic entering the center could channel additional traffic to the south end of the center. possibly through the use of landscaped islands, etc. Mr. Frank requested a continuance of this item to the February 18, 1988 meeting of the Board. Upon a motion by Weiss to approve the continuance and a second by Blake the Committee approved the motion to continue. 4 Ayes - 0 Nay. Review of Draft of Rules and Procedures for Sign Review and Appeals Board The Committee reviewed a November 6, 1987 draft of said rules. Upon a motion by Weiss to approve the Rules of Procedure and a second by Blake, the Committee voted to approve the motion. 4 Ayes - 0 Nay. Staff Report Regarding Sign Violation Citations The Committee reviewed a staff report showing six citation letters sent out during the previous month and conformance being obtained in four cases cited in previous months. This type of report will be transmitted to the Sign Review and Appeals Board on a monthly schedule. There being no further business the Board adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Reed Carlson Director, Building and Zoning Department Approved , 110,,. : .i MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD February 18, 1988 7:30 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: N. O'Meara, Chair; H. Blake, C. Stremmel, J. Weiss BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Upon motion by Member Stremmel and second by Blake, the minutes of the Sign Review and Appeals Board meeting of January 21, 1988, were approved as sub- mitted. 4 ayes - 0 nay. SRAB 88-4, 827 Church Street (Northeast corner. Church and Benson) Witnesses Weed, Snitzel, and Baran were sworn as witnesses for the applicant. Weed reviewed the application which requests a variation to allow logos on the fixed awnings of the west building and B, erection of a 2'2" x 22' wall sign on the west wall of the west building for Le Peep Restaurant. Weed stated that logos to his memory were discussed for placement on the fixed awnings of the west Galleria building when the comprehensive business center sign plan was approved. Carlson noted that research of the minutes indicated that, in fact, logos were not discussed and the comprehensive sign plan only granted permission for lettering on the fixed awnings. Weiss stated that in his opin- ion a letter type logo could be approved for the awnings and noted further that any symbol type logo would seem aggressive to the character of the building. Stremmel noted that allowing a variation to allow symbol type logos on the fixed awnings could lead to six (6) or eight (8) other ground floor tenants requesting the same variations. Weed noted that each tenant outside of Le Peep has had a copy of the comprehensive sign plan attached to and made part of their lease; thus, they could not ask for any additional variations. Blake noted that allowing a symbol type logo on the awnings in addition to the name of the restaurant and the wording, breakfast and lunch is in his opinion merchandising of the location. Weed stated that the Le Peep logo is part of the national identification strategy of Le Peep Restaurant. Slaven noted that the Architect's sign plan which was adopted as a comprehensive plan was very restrictive to obtaining national tenants who must follow master sign plans. He stated further that the Le Peep franchisee must comply with the national sign requirements. O'Meara noted the previous agreement of the Galleria de- velopers to a sign plan and that symbol type logos in addition to lettering on the awning seems excessive. He questioned what hardship would be present with only the previously agreed upon lettering being adherd to. Weiss stated that signs and letter type logos on other buildings and awnings have in con- trolled cases given character to the downtown. He noted further the eight square feet allowed on each awning for letters and stated that letter type logos may be acceptable without the merchandising words of breakfast and lunch. He suggested further that the breakfast and lunch lettering could be transferred to the window. Weiss moved that the comprehensive sign plan for f Sign Review and Appeals Board February 18, 1988 Page 2 the Galleria be amended to allow a combination of lettering and or a letter type logo in an eight (8) sq. ft. area of each awning. Said lettering and logo to be translucent white. Motion was seconded by Stremmel, the Board voted to approve the motion 4 ayes 0 nay. Weed explained the request for the wall sign as being a part of the national advertising strategy of Le Peep Restaurant. O'Meara noted that no wall signs were approved in the comprehensive plan which was previously accepted by the developer. In his opinion that plan considered the integrity of the building and that erection of one or more wall signs would violate that integrity. He stated further that he fails to see any hardship that would be put upon the restaurant without the requested wall sign. Weed noted that Benson Street is lightly traveled Street facing a railroad embankment and a parking area with the street area needing additional light. He explained further that the sign was positioned to attract the east bound Church Street traffic. He stated further that without a prominent wall sign advertising a restaurant at that location that the service offered would be relatively unknown. Weiss stated his feeling that the six (6) awnings with adequate space for the name and logo sufficient to advertise the business. He stated further that allowing the re- quested wall sign would certainly set a precedent for the tenants. Weed noted the developer has kept the integrity of the older east building being kept free of wall signs and that Le Peep is the only tenant whose sign plan vio- lates the comprehensive plan. He noted further that a large amount of busi- ness could be lost without the requested wall sign. Upon motion by Weiss to deny the Le Peep sign request and a second by Stremmel the Board voted to ap- prove the motion 4 ayes and 0 nay. SRAB 88-5. 1144 Asbury Avenue Witness Friedman was sworn in representing the owner/developer of the proper- ty. Bernice Friedman representing Koenig and Strey Realty reviewed the re- quest for two construction signs to be placed upon this residential property to aid the marketing effort of a five (5) unit development planned for the property. She stated that without the variation and erection of two (2) 4' X 8' signs that marketing of the property would be impossible. She stated fur- ther that properties would be developed with high priced luxury homes that would be a credit to the area and in all probability would all be sold within a few weeks. Carlson noted that the ordinance prohibits such construction signs prior to City approval of a planned unit development or issuance of build- ing permits. Blake noted that upon approval of the project signs could be legally erected: Thus, no hardship or meeting of the variations standards is apparent. Upon a motion by Blake to deny the requested variation and a second by Stremmel, the Board voted to approve the motion to deny 4 ayes, 0 nay. Sign Review and Appeals Board February 18, 1988 Page 3 SRAB 88-6. 701-709 Howard Street Witness Modaber of the City Planning Department representing the property owner was sworn. Modaber reviewed the request for a approval of a comprehen- sive business center sign plan for this property which is being improved under the City of Evanston facade improvement program. Weiss noted that lettering on the vertical face of the awning should be limited to six inches maximum. Modaber stated that the square foot area allowed for window signs could be oc- cupied by either lettering or logos. All lettering on the windows and on the signs shall be white. Upon a motion by Weiss and a second by Blare, the Board voted 4 ayes, 0 nay to approve the business center sign plan with a noted six inch awning lettering size. SRAB 8807, Rotary International, 1516 Sherman Avenue Witnesses Hennessey and Haley were sworn in representing Rotary International. Hennessey reviewed the Rotary proposal concerning a 15' wide by 22' 6" revolving Rotary emblem sign atop the penthouse of the 1516 property or in the alternative a 20' high by 73' long stationary sign both on the north and south elevations of the building at the roof. She stated that identification is an important concept for Rotary, that many additional members are visiting their new building, the building is being shown in numerous publications and needs a permanent symbol of identity. She further stated that identity as the Rotary Building will aid their rental program and add character to the building. Blake stated that the signage proposed will not in his opinion add distinction to what is currently a fine building. He felt that the proposal is not a design solution, but is a sign contractor's solution to a problem and that other methods of more suitable identification are available. He stated further that he saw no hardship or other variation standard being met. Blake moved to deny the request for both the rotating sign and the stationary sign. Weiss stated his agreement with Blake noting that in his opinion the design does not show pride for their building. Stremmel stated that even as a Rotarian he disagrees with the proposal put forward by Rotary. Blake stated that he felt the Rotary proposal is not in the best interest of the City or Rotary, nor seems to meet all the variation standards. Haley noted the need for Rotary to identify their building for publicity as well as practical considerations of the membership. O'Meara stated that he felt the strength of the Rotary organization is in its members and in its good works and would not be enhanced by signs of the type requested. Motion was seconded by Stremmel, the Board voted 4 ayes, 0 nay to approve the motion to deny the application for var- iation. SRAB 88-8. Rotary International., 1616 Sherman Avenue Hennessey reviewed the Rotary application to allow recovering of two nonconform- ing free standing signs on the Rotary Plaza building property. She explained that Rotary has recently purchased the building and desires to recover the signs identifying the Rotary Plaza building with said signs now identifying the building as American Plaza. Weiss felt that the request was reasonable and that Sign Review and Appeals Board February 18, 1988 Page 4 a definite hardship would exist if the signs were not recovered. He noted further that it would be to the advantage of Rotary if the restaurant sign attached to one of the subject free standing signs were either removed or color coordinated with the balance of the sign. O'Meara stated that Rotary should have top billing on their signs and not be placed at a lower level on the sign. Blake stated that the three (3) entrance and arrow signs are superflous and merely serve to clutter up the drive ways and should be removed. Attorney Staley stated that Rotary will try to remove the Restaurant sign although it may be tied up in the lease with the restaurant. Blake stated that he could approve the application subject to the restaurant sign being the same background as Rotary portion sign and having the three (3) directional signs removed. Weiss moved to approve the application subject to the removal of the three (3) small signs, the restaurant sign to be removed or color coordinated into the Rotary sign and that the recovered signs would have an opaque back ground with translucent letters. The motion to grant was seconded by Blake, the Board voted 4 ayes, 0 nay to approve the motion. Consider Special Meeting for Review of Research Park Sign Plan Carlson informed the Board that the Research Park sign plan is in it's preliminary stage is ready for review. He suggested either a special meeting or having the review take place at the regular March 17th meeting. O'Meara noted that the March 17th date as being St. Patrick's Day suggested moving the regular March meeting to March loth. It was the consensus of the Committee to approve the March 10th date. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. L Reed Carlson Date Approved & APee a JE D 3�,0lk% To Be Approved 4121188 y MINUTES ' SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD March 10, 1988 7:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: N.O'Meara, Chair, ff. Blake, C. Stremmel, ,7. Weiss BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: R. Carlson The Chalruan called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Upon motion by Member Weiss and seconded by Member Stremmel, the minutes of the Sign Review and Appeals Board meeting of February 18, 1988, were approved as submitted. 4 ayes - 0 nay. 5RAB 88-9, Review of Research Center Siqn Plan. Witness Arne Goodman (Goodman, Knabb Company, sign plan consultant) and John Driscoll (Shaw Company, Research Park developers) were sworn in. Goodman reviewed the preliminary Resarch Park sign plan which consists of a series of street light banners, site signs at major intersections, banners on the railway building on Site No. 7 and a construction barricade/sign for the new building to be erected at the southwest corner of Maple and Emerson. Goodman reviewed the light pole banners to be erected along Maple Avenge. A test banner has presently been erected. Weiss noted that the lettering on the banners is extremely small and difficult to read, plus the lettering and background contrast is not sufficient. Goodman stated that the actual height of all the banners when installed will be lowered from the present test banner height 18 feet to 11 feet. He noted further t1lot the purpose of the signage is to identify the Park by establishing a triangular logo which will be present in all aspects of the Research Park signage. It was the consensus of the committee that with the suggested increase in con- trast and a lowering of the banners plus a possible increase from 53 inch height to 6 foot height would be acceptable. Goodman then _re-iewed the three major intersection site signs that would be erected at Railroad and Emerson, Maple and Emerson and Church and Maple. Blake questioned the location of the Church and Maple sign as being extremely close to the sidewalks and should possibly be moved back from the property lines and surrounded with a semi -circular landscaped area. Carlson noted that such freestanding signs rust be located at least 1 foot back fry... the propertu line for each foot of height. The proposed signs being shcwr .ss :3 foot in height would thus require a 10 foot setback unless were requested and granted. It was the consensus of the ~hoc the major intersection signs should all have a landscaped area s_rrounding the signs. Driscoll stated that the banners and the major :^terse_tion signs are intended to be of a temporary nature for a two _ sae dear period. Driscoll reviewed the schedule for improvement of .:,a'or inter- sections, stating that the Maple/Emerson intersection is ;ue _or improve- ment in the Summer of 1988, with the Church/.Maple intersect'cn and viaduct Sign Review and Appeals Board March 10, 1988 Page 2 being scheduled for completion sometime in 1989. with the completion of the Church Street viaduct, a secondary entrance sign would be placed on the east side of the new viaduct. Driscoll reviewed the barricade to be erected along the Maple and Emerson Street frontages of Site No. 4, where a 40,000 square foot building should have construction commencing on or about April 1, 1988.. It was the concensus of the Committee to approve use of a 24 foot by 4 foot high portion of the barricade for Research Park marketing. Goodman then reviewed the series of banners to be placed on the East Railroad building (Site 7 of the Research Park). Blake suggested rather than the proposed design that has been submitted, that the use of a series of banners, each with only one word of the message, would be more appropriate. These banners are intended to at- tract attention from the adjacent railroad, and Blake noted that the speed of the trains would make reading of the proposed lettering on the banners very difficult to comprehend. Goodman stated they would consider redesign of the banners to take Wake's suggestion into con- sideration. Driscoll reviewed the plan for signs identifying each site available for development in the Research Park. O'Meara noted that such a proliferation of signage is perhaps not required due to the fact that the developer maintains a sales office immediately adjacent to the Research Park, and maintains a scale model of the entire develop- ment in that office. Driscoll stated that identification of each site is at present only a thought for the future, and is not to be taken as a definite part of the plan. O'Meara suggested further that the de- veloper and designer should take the suggestions of the Board under advisement and return with final plans, along with any needed variation applications as soon as possible. Discussion of Planninq and Development committee Appeal Process. Carlson noted that effective March 9, 1988, the provision in the Si-n Ordinance for the appeal of decisions of the sign Review and Appeals Board to the Planning and Development Committee was phased our upon. the one year anniversary of the Ordinance. O'Meara stated, U s preference for leaving the appeal process deleted. He felt that the appeal process carries the variation request from the ordinance related environment of the Sign Review and Appeals Board to the political area Df the Planning and Development Cormittee. He stated further that he fel� -'e review by the Sign Review and Appeals Board, with a final render- ed, to be related to several areas of the Zoning Code where --he zor_�nc Board of Appeals is the final authority. Stremmel quest;:r.e: ✓yet pr there should still remai,: a two step process wherebc be entitled to an appeal beyond the Sian Review and Appeals tio3r:. =t was the concensus or the c;oi=ittee to have .:he Chair address 3 :eccer to the Chair and members of the ?larnirc and Development C- ttee, requesting that the appeal process not be reinstated. The 'jai rnan also stated that he would address a letter to Mayor Barr conta:.n,n t,�e names Sign Review and Appeals Board MarLh 20, 1988 Page 3 suggested by the Sign Board members of a person to fill the vacancy of Mr. Minasian. it was also the concensus of the Committee that the Chairman include in his letter a request for an ordinance amendment containing an amortization limit of seven to ten years for all current legal non -conforming signs. Blake and Weiss noted that under the present pro- visions of the Sign ordinance, numerous legal non --conforming signs could theoretically stay forever unless it was necessary to remodel or in some- way change the sign, thus requiring a permit. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board will be April 21, 1988. Date Approved i 1 I i i 1 II 1 I I 11 1 11 1 I'll l i i I ^Im 1- 1' 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 '' ' 1 1 m I I R I1 I �� ■ i - I hl To Be Approved 5/26/88 MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD April 19, 1988 7:30 P.H. Members Present: N. O'Meara, Chair, H. Blake, J. Weiss, L. Krasnow Members Absent: C. Stremmel Staff Present: R. Carlson Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Chairman O'Meara welcomed the new member of the Sign Review and Appeals Board Ms. Lucile Rusnak Krasnow. Upon motion by member Weiss by member Blake and seconded by member Weiss, the minutes of the Sign Review and Appeals Board meeting of March 10, 1983 were approved as submitted. 4 Ayes - 0 Nay. SRAB-88-10 1901 Mc Daniel Avenue, at Golf Road Staff reported that the applicant, National Bank of Detroit, has requested that this application be held over to the May 26, 1988 meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board. SRAB-88-11 838 Dodge Avenue Applicant Robert Simmons, owner of the P g S Laundry at the aforementioned address summarized his application to amend an approved business center sign plan to allow raising of an existing free standing sign on the Dodge Avenue frontage at the entrance of the parking lot from its present height of 3 feet to a height of 8 foot 6 inches. Mr. Simmons explained the hardship involved with the laundromat only having frontage on the parking lot at the rear of the building and being difficult to identify from the street. The distance from the street frontage back to his business is Rpproximatply 125 feet and customers have difficulty finding the store. He felt that the present height of the sign would fail to attract customers. Slake stated his endorsement of the request with the condition that the sign be installed in a landscaped area at the parking lot entrance. Weiss noted that at least one and possibly two parking spaces should be used for additional landscaped area. Simmons stated that owner of the property has agreed that the siEn can be moved back into what is now parking area. A motion by Blake to approve :he request for an amendment to the approved sign plan to allow raising cf the �,xiaring free standing sign to a height of 8 foot 6 inches provided a revises plan is submitted to and approved by staff, was seconded by member Weiss. The motion was approved. 4 ayes - 0 nay. II III IrlI T 1 111 Sign Review and Appeals Board April 19, 1988 Page 2 Prism Gallery Request for Marquee Sign at 620 Davis Street Staff reported that the application for a marquee type sign at the above location was a questionable classification for this type of sign as a true marquee sign. Applicants Michael Lauren and Kim Taubensee, owners of the Prism Gallery summarized their request. The applicants stressed their need to have better identification, especially lighted identification in order that night time customers may find their location. Member Blake noted the extremely tight entrance sight configuration with a narrow sidewalk and only a doorway fronting at street level. He also noted that the business has evolved from opening as a gallery to a gallery/theatre, he suggested that an alternative, such as a lighted awning, with small menu board type sign boxes on each side of the door could serve the purpose. O'Meara noted that other alternatives may be available in place of the requested marquee type sign and endorse the idea of menu type display boxes and the use of an awning. Weiss and Krasnow stated their feeling that the lighted awning and menu box type of signs could serve the purpose. Blake questioned the need for any proposed sign to be a two-faced sign when the business is located on a one-way street. Applicants stated that a two-faced sign would also allow identification of the property for pedestrians in Fountain Square. Blake suggested the possibility of a wall type sign above the door and wrapping around the corner of the west facade of the building. This type of sign could also contain enough changable letter space to advertize coming attractions of the Prism. The applicant was advised to seek assistance from a professional design consultant and return to the Board with a revised type of sign request. Discussion Regarding Limit on Number of Allowed Wall Signs Board discussed a memo from staff requesting a limit on the number of allowed wall signs on any single facade and submitted a photograph showing one business that has had as many as eleven (11) signs on one facade. Staff was requested to further study the problem and return to the Board with suggested amending language. Discussion of Removal of All Non -conforming Signs Staff reported on the action of the Planning and Development Committee subsequent to consideration of a Board memo regarding removal of all non -conforming signs within a definite time period (three to five years?). The Planning and Development Committee requested the Board to further develop in writing such a recommendation for discussion with the ?:inning and Development Committee at a future meeting. Staff requested approval of the Board of a revised May meeting date, moving the meeting from May 19, 1988 to May 26, 1988 due to conflict with the staff vacation schedule. The Board approved the revised meetinv date of May 26, 1988. Sign Review and Appeals Board April 19, 1988 Page 3 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Reed Carlson Director, Building and Zoning Department Approved To be approved August 18. 1988 MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD July 21, 1988 7:30 P.M. Members Present: N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, C. Stremmel, J. Weiss Members Absent: L. Krasnow Sign Review and Appeals Board - June 15, 1988 Upon a motion by member Weiss and second by member Stremmel, the Committee voted 3 Ayes - 0 Nay to approve the minutes as submitted. Member Blake was absent at this time. SRAB 88-15 222 Hartrey Avenue Member Blake entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Gordon Graham, representing Shure Bros. the applicant in this case, explained the request for a variation to allow a wall sign to be erected 25' above grade which exceeds the maximum allowable height of 15 1/2 ft. Mr. Graham noted that the sign was intended to replace a roof sign that had been removed some time ago during a remodeling project and was not reinstalled. He explained further that Shure Bros. Company had experimented with hanging a blank panel on the wall at various heights in order to determine the height that would allow viewing from the Skokie Swift tracks which is the only area the sign faces directly. Member Stremmel noted his objection to the variation due to the fact that he felt a unique hardship did not exist, that a reasonable return could be obtained from the property without the variation and that the proposed sign was not consistent with intent of the ordinance. Member Blake noted his reasoning that a valid hardship seemed to be present in that the effectiveness of the sign would be greatly diminished if the sign was placed at the 15 1/2 ft. level. Blake also noted that he felt the request was in accord with the intent of the sign ordinance. Chairman O'Meara noted the innocuous location of the sign not having any effect on neighboring property. He further felt that a hardship would exist if the strict regulations of the ordinance were followed and that granting the variation would not harm the public welfare and would be consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Weiss noted his agreement that a hardship appearsto exist and that Shure Bros. had gone to reasonable lengths to determine the effective location of a sign. He further stated his thinking that public welfare would not be harmed and that granting of the variation would be consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Weiss reminded the applicant of the lighting to be installed on the sign as required to project no more than 12" beyond the wall and that the lighting should shine directly back onto the sign. Weiss also noted his opinion that mounting the sign a•:cording to the regulations of the ordinance would be a hardship to Shure Broc. in that the area intended to have exposure to the sign would not have full exposure. He also felt that there would be no detrimental effect on the public welfare and that the variation was in accord with the intent of the ordinance. Upon a motion by member Blake to approve the variation request for a 25 1/2 ft. sign mounting height and a second by Member Weiss, the Committee voted 3 Ayes, 1 Nay (Stremmel) to approve the motion. Sign Review and Appeals Board June 16, 1988 Page 2 SRAB 88-16 1500 Gross point Road Mr. Fred Golden, owner of Schultz and Oehdner Cleaners at the above location, reviewed his request for variations from the maximum allowable height and setback requirements from lot lines for a 6' x 6' double faced free standing sign 12' high at the above location. Mr. Golden noted his recent purchase of the property, the complete remodeling of the interior and exterior and the need to replace the existing sign with a new sign at a different location. He cited his need for the sign due to the fact that this particular store draws customers from Skokie, Wilmette and Evanston and the cost of newspaper advertising in all three (3) towns as excessive. Member Weiss noted his concerns over the changeable message panel portion of the proposed sign and stated that windows would be available for changeable signs. Weiss further noted that the changeable letter portion of the proposed sign is causing the need for a height variation. O'Meara noted that temporary window signs could be placed for 30 day periods to announce special prices, etc. and encouraged the removal of the movable letter portion of the proposed sign. Member Stremmel noted his objection to requested variations stating that in his opinion such a sign would have a detrimental effect on this extremely busy intersection. Member Blake noted that a great amount of money has been spent by the applicant on interior and exterior renovation and remodeling and that the proposed sign suffered in comparison to the balance of the property. Chairman O'Meara suggested that the applicant obtain professional design assistance and return to the Committee at a future date for a continued hearing. The applicant stated that his agreement to redesign and relocation of the proposed sign and will try to return to the Sign Review and Appeals Board at the meeting of August 18, 1988. It was the consensus of the Committee to continue this item to the August 18, 1988 meeting or at a future meeting whenever the applicant has revised materials available. Executive Session Regardinx personnel Batter The Board entered into executive session at 9 p.m. to discuss personnel matters with staff. The regular open meeting commenced again at 9:20 p.m. Member Weiss Memo Regarding Subaru Appeal of Variation Denial It was the consensus of the Committee that the Board would appear at the Planning and Development Committee meeting of July 25, 1988 to reinforce once again the denial of variations sought by Subaru. September Meetinz Date Chance It was the consensus of the Committee to move the September 15th regular meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board to September 22, 1988, due to the expected vacation/absence of staff. The next regular meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board will be on August 18, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. Director of Building and Zoning 71rt '�ate4 r To Be Avvroved 6/15/88 Corrected Coov MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD May 26, 1988 7:30 P.M. Members Present: H. O'Meara, Chair, H. Blake, J. Weiss, L. Krasnow, C. Stremmel Members Absent: None Staff Present: R. Carlson The chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Member Weiss moved approval of the minutes of the Sign Review and Appeals Board meeting of April 19, 1988 with a correction that the March 10, 1988 minutes were moved by Weiss and seconded by Blake for approval. Member Stremmel seconded the motion amending and approving the minutes of April 19, 1988. 5 Ayes - 0 Nay. SRAB 88-10 - 1901 Mc Daniel Avenue at Golf Road. Linda Moore of National Bank of Detroit and Mr. George Woock of White Way Sign Company reviewed their request for a variation to allow refacing of an existing legal, non -conforming, free standing sign at Mc Daniel and Golf Road for National Bank of Detroit. Moore explained that the only reason for the variation is a change in ownership of the bank. While this sign is legal non -conforming, it is important to the business of the bank, in that it is the only sign visible from the corner of He Daniel and Golf and it also indicates whether or not the drive-in facilities are open. She felt this provided a public service and convenience for bank customers. Included in the resigning work will be new driveway entry and exit signs that will be changed to a size and location to conform to the code. In addition, a four sided sign at the corner of Mc Cormick and Golf will also be recovered and moved back to a legal location. The signs will have an opaque background with translucent letters. Blake suggested that the entry and exit signs be designed as pylon type signs to match other existing signs on the property. Moore agreed to consider this suggestion. A motion by Weiss to approve the request for resigning of the one legal, non -conforming sign on Mc Cormick at Golf be approved. Motion was seconded by member Blake. 5 Ayes - 0 May. SRAB 88-12 - 1603 OrrinRton Avenue. Moore and Woock, representing the National Bank of Detroit explained again the reasoning for recovering of this legal, non -conforming sign was due to the recent sale of State National Bank to the National Bank of Detroit. The sign will not change in size or location. With this sign being the only bank sign that can be seen by westbound Davis Street traffic, a hardship would exist if the sign could not be recovered and replaced in its existing location. This sign, again, will have an opaque background with translucent letters. Motion by member Weiss was seconded by member Stremmel to approve the recovering of the sign, as requested. 5 Ayes - 0 Nay. Sign Review and Appeals Board May 26, 1988 Page 2 SRAB 88-13 - 2400 Dempster Street at Fowler Avenue, Comprehensive Business Center Sign Plan. The Horizon Group, developers of the Car Care Center at 2400 Dempster Street were represented by Mr. Daniel Michael and Mr. Marvin Goldzweig. They explained that a minimum of four tenants will be housed in the new building with the main tenant being Midas Muffler, along with Pit Pro Oil Change. He explained further that the tenants would suffer a fi-ardship, in that eastbound traffic on Dempster Street would not see signage for the individual tenants until they were directly in front of the building. Blake noted that the Dempster Street traffic, both eastbound and westbound. will be slowed or stopped by the traffic light at Fowler Avenue and this would create exposure for the building signs. Blake noted further that the Pit Pro sign, with the nine minute mention was not essential to identification of the business. The developer agreed to remove the nine minute section of the Pit Pro sign. Weiss suggested that the free standing sign noted in the application as listing all four or five tenants was not necessary as all tenants would be noted by sufficiently large wall signs. He suggested that the free standing sign be of a monument type noting only the wording Car Care Center. O'Meara noted that certain wall signs identify certain functions undertaken by the business and were, in fact, advertising and the businesses should only be noted by their name. Krasnow noted that most businesses in Evanston identify their establishments only by name, not by the products or services sold by the business. Weiss noted a lack of uniformity with different sizes of signs and a lack of detail as to size, color, type of letters, etc. It was the consensus of the committee to request the developer to prepare a revised plan with definite sign sizes and'all necessary details and revise the free standing sign to note only the name of the Center and not the tenant names. The committee agreed to consider a revised application for approval of the business center sign plan at their meeting on June 16. 1988. if material is submitted two weeks previous to the meeting. There being no further business, the committee adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board will be June 16, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. /. aeel�� Director of Building and Zoning 4 / 2 6 a ri Date i To be avvroved Julv 21. 1988 MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD June 16, 1988 7:30 P.M. Members Present: J. Weiss, Acting Chair; H. Blake., L. Krasnow, C. Stremmel Members Absent: N. O'Meara Staff Absent: R. Carlson The chairman called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Member Krasnow moved approval of the minutes of the Sign Review and Appeals Board meeting of May 26, 1988 with three corrections: 1. Under SRAB 88-10 - "Motion by Weiss to approve the request for re- signing of the one legal, non -conforming sign on McCormick at Golf be approved." 2. Under SRAB 88-13 - "The date in the last paragraph should be June 16, 1988." , a. The last paragraph - "The next regular meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board will be June 16, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. Member Blake seconded the motion amending and approving the minutes of May 26, 1988. 4 Ayes - 0 Nay. SRAB 881-14 1015 Chicago Avenue Steven Sims, Les Sims and Gerald Murphy represented Sims Subaru Oldsmobile at the above address. Steven Sims stated the dealership was purchased in November 1986 with the used dealer signs. The Sign Company was informed that it was necessary to secure a permit from the City in order to put up new signs. He also stated that signs are necessary for the "Used Car Section" as there is an obstruction of a building in front and it is hard to see the used car lot. People are constantly asking is there a used car lot as they are not aware that it exists. Weiss asked if they were aware of the City Code that the sign should be 20 ft. away from the street/driveway. Krasnow questioned the drawing and measurement of distance from the driveway. Leo Sims stated the sign would be 10 ft. from the driveway. Steven Sims asked "what is the problem with the sign being 18 ft. or 10 ft.?" Blake stated that the Sign Ordinance had to be revised and a consultant was hired to study the sign sit- uation for two (2) years and brought his findings before several committees before the ordinance was voted on by the City Council. One of the reasons for this revision was to allow Evanston to hold its identity as a small com- munity. Blake stated he felt that there was no new evidence for hardship in this case. Les Sims stated the automotive business was being driven out of Sign Review and Appeals Board June 16, 1988 Page 2 Evanston as there is no parking for the customers, the police write tickets for customers that are parked illegal, cannot get proper signs, have to fight losses with customers, etc. Weiss stated that the documents furnished ex- plained problems of the automotive dealers. Krasnow stated she lives near the dealership and she was aware of the location of the used car lot. She further indicated the problem is with the building and not people being unaware of the location. Blake stated that a pole sign is not necessary to make people aware of the location. Krasnow stated that one (1) parking space would be lost be- cause of the setback. Les Sims stated that three (3) spaces would be lost. Krasnow asked "what will happen if the signs were smaller"." Steven Sims stated that if the sign was 3 ft. or less and placed in the bushes, it would hardly clear the top. Weiss stated that most of the buildings are built to the pro- perty line and there is no room for setback and there is limited space to do what you want to do. Krasnow stated that it has to be proven that it is a financial hardship to the dealer and it has to be decided between financial problem and giving up spaces. Stremmel motion to deny and Krasnow seconded the motion. A Ayes - 0 Nay SRAB 88-13 2400 Dempster Street Mr. Dan Michael and Mr. Marvin Goldzweig representing the 2400 Dempster Street project reviewed their requests for approval for a comprehensive business cen- ter sign plan. Blake made a motion, seconded by Stremmel to approve the re- vised comprehensive business center sign plan with the following conditions. 1. The free standing sign is limited to a height of 7 ft. and width of 9 ft. and to contain 10" high letters stating "fvanston Auto Care Center." The sign is to have an opaque bronze background with white lettering. The sign will be setback 7 ft. from both the north and east property lines. 2. All building wall signs are limited to 18" in height with Midas Muffler sign to be in Midas' colors, the Pit Pros sign to be red and blue and the signs in between those two in red only. It was agreed that the Pit Pros sign could also contain the "9 Minute - Lube" lettering. It was also decided that logos are not to exceed 18" in height and could accompany each of the wall signs. The motion for approval of the business center sign plan with the aforemen- tioned conditions was approved h Ayes - 0 Hay. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. The next regularly scheduled of the Sign Review and Appeals Board is July 21, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. Director of building and Zoning Date Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: To be approved September 22. 1988 MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD August 18, 1988 7:30 P.K. N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, C. Stremmel, J. Weiss L. Krasnow R. Carlson SiRn Review and Appeals Board Minutes of Julv 21. 1988 Upon motion by member Blake and second by member Weiss, the Committee voted 4 ayes - 0 nay to approve the minutes as submitted. SRAB 88-17 1840 Asbury Avenue (Southwest Corner Asbury and Emerson) Child Care Association Administrator Blair Grumman reviewed the request of the association to erect a 3 ft. wide by 2 ft. h fence at the aforementioned corner. Grumman moved approximately 6 to 8 ft. back from the Asbury frontages with a portion of the fence at that location in order to post the sign. removal of the fence and high bushes for tha would increase visibility for both pedestria busy intersection. She noted further that t no identification sign to enable clients to complaints are being received regarding the that this small sign would not alter the cha it is an apparent hardship in that the assoc cation sign. Grumman noted that the sign wo only the name of the center on the sign. B1 approximately 1 ft. high and 5 to 6 ft. long to read. Weiss questioned staff regarding d fence which were absent from the association noted his lack of objection to this small in residential area. He also noted his lack of sign in a residential area due to the eviden fering from lack of the sign. He also noted to keep the sign to a small inoffensive size tent of the ordinance. Weiss moved and Stre the variation for said sign in a residential ditional pictures of the area, information o details for fastening the sign to the fence. nay to approve the motion while continuing t igh painted wooden sign on the noted that the fence will be re - corner on both the Emerson and reinstalled on a 45 degree angle Grumman noted further that the t section of land at the corner ns and automobiles at this very he Child Care Center presently has reach the building. Increasing lack of a sign. Stremmel noted racter of the neighborhood and that cation does not have an identifi- uld be plain block letters with ake suggested that a one line sign would be more visible and easier etails of fastening the sign to the is written submission. O'Meara offensive sign being placed in a objection to the variation for a t hardship the association is suf- that the association is attempting and appears to be meeting the in- mmel seconded a motion to approve area subject to submittal of ad- n the revised size of the sign and The Committee voted 4 ayes and 0 he case to the meeting of September 22, 1988, for review of the additional material requested. SRAB 88-18 The applican approval of development carried over 2522 GreenBav Road t (Marcus Construction Company) a comprehensive business center at 2522 Green Bay Road (old Berr to the meeting of September 22, was no sign p y Tire 1988. t present for Ian for a six site). This discussion of unit commercial item will be Sign Review and Appeals Board August 18. 1988 Page 2 SRAB 88-14 1015 Chicago Avenue Representatives of Sims Subaru, Mr. Les Sims and Mr. Gerald Murphy were present to review their request for a variation from the setback requirements (to allow 0 setback) for a 12 ft. high free standing sign for Sims Subaru at 1015 Chicago Avenue. This item had been referred back to the Sign Review and Appeals Board from the Planning and Development Committee for a rehearing. O'Meara noted the revised location and height revision for this rehearing. It is now proposed that the sign will be lowered from the previous 18 ft.high request to a present requested height of 12 ft. and the sign will be located 21 ft. 6 " north of the driveway entrance to the Sims property. O'Meara noted further that a landscape area at the north line of the lot may be a preferred area for locating the sign when compared to the proposed location. Blake noted that placing the sign at the suggested north lot line landscaped area would identify the Sims property with the subject sign at the north end and wall signs on the building at the south end. Murphy noted that moving the sign to the north line would prove in- effective for south bound traffic. Blake stated that purchase of an auto is not an impluse item dictated by viewing a sign, but is a planned purchase with customers knowing their destination ahead of time. Sims stated that he has questioned numerous customers regarding their knowledge of the Subaru Used Car Lot and has found out that the majority do not realize that the Sims Lot is In fact connected with the Subaru Dealership. Murphy stated that he felt the pre- sent sign ordinance does not allow sufficiently for auto oriented businesses a- long Chicago Avenue. Weiss stated that he favors the planting area at the north end of the property as a preferred location and he could approve the old 18 ft. height for the sign at the north end of the property. Weiss questioned Murphy regarding a previous letter from Subaru in which a 10 ft.height was men- tioned. Murphy replied that the 12 ft. height is preferable and that they still prefer the location that is 21'6" from the driveway over the north lot line location. Mr. Mark Rivett, a resident of the 500 block of Greenleaf ob- jected to any additional signs on the property as being an invasion of the pri- vacy of the neighboring residences across the alley from Sims Subaru. He noted a proliferation of signs along Chicago Avenue that disturb the Hinman Avenue residents and objected to any additional signs. O'Meara noted that this sign along Chicago Avenue should not prove to be any additional disturbance to the privacy of the Hinman Avenue homes. Upon a motion by Weiss to approve the 12 ft.high free standing sign to be located 21'6" from the driveway entrance and a second by Stremmel, the Committee 4 to 0 to approve the motion. O'Meara re- quested Sims to consider removal of the "Used Cars" sign that is located at the elevated automobile on the Sims lot. Mr. Sims did not express any agreement to remove the sign. The meeting adjourned at 9:15. The next meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board will be on September 22, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. Director of Building and Zoning Date To be approved October 20. 1988 MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD September 22, 1988 7:30 P.M. Members Present: N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, L. Krasnow. J. Weiss Members Absent: C. Stremmel Staff Present: R. Carlson Sign Review and Appeals Board Minutes of August 18, 1988 Chairman O'Meara requested a change in the minutes to correct the misspelling of Blair Grumman's name in the SRAB 88-17 case. Minutes will be corrected and distributed to Board members. Upon motion by Weiss and seconded by Krasnow, the minutes were approved. 4 ayes - 0 nay. SRAB 88-18 2516-22 Green Bay Road (Old Berry Tire site) Mr. James Meyer, developer of the aforementioned site reviewed his request for approval of a comprehensive business center sign plan for the six (6) unit commercial development. Mr. Paul Jones, Sign Consultant, stated that the proposed plan took into account the fact that any free standing sign located at the front property line would require a variation. Thus, the plan was submitted with individual wall signs above each of the six (6) units and a wall sign on the front elevation of the building containing a listing of all six (6) units along with the name of the center in a "V" shaped double faced sign. The "V" shaped double faced sign was designed in an effort to present a plan that required no variations. He noted further that the size of the signs for each individual unit are based on a percentage of the total floor space that each unit occupies. Blake endorsed the maximum 16" letter size noted on the plan and reminded the developer that only the name of each individual business shall appear on the signs. Krasnow stated her preference for a uniform color selection for each of the six (6) stores. Meyer stated he felt Identification of each individual unit would be enhanced if the colors were varied. Blake noted that the identification sign on the front elevation would be difficult to read due to the speed of the traffic on Green Bay Road and the relatively small size of each of the six (6) sections of the double faced sign. He further suggested consideration of a single faced sign on the front elevation with a free standing sign of a relatively small size at the front lot line at the north corner of the property. He felt that the free standing sign containing only the name of the center would market the center in a better manner than individual store signs of a small size mounted on the front wall. Weiss also noted that the large number of names and letters on the double faced sign would be hard to read from the traffic lanes and suggested a flat single faced wall sign on the front wall along with a monument type sign in the landscaped area at the north property line. Blake suggested that material from the building facade be incorporated into the monument type sign and Meyer agreed to redesign the front elevation wall sign and a monument type sign approximately 4' wide by 4' high with a maximum sign height of 7'. It -�A Sign Review and Appeals Board September 22, 1988 Page 2 was further suggested that this sign be mounted at the northeast corner of the property set back behind the proposed shrubbery line. Kr. Meyer agreed to redesign the front elevation wall sign and to design a free standing monument type sign as per the Committee's request and return to a future meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board for a final approval of this project. He also agreed that standardized individual lighted letters would only be allowed as wall signs. Carlson announced to the Committee a discussion to be held by the Planning and Development Committee on September 26, 1988, regarding the question of signs on public right-of-way at various entrances to the City. The Sign Review and Appeals Board has been invited to participate in the discussion if they so desire. A staff memo regarding this item will be delivered to the Sign Review and Appeals Board members. There being no further business, the Committee adjourned at 9 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board will be October 20, 1988. LZ P�-- Director of Build9ngand Zoning To be approved November 17. 1988 MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD October 20, 1988 7:30 P.M. Members Present: N. O'Meara (Chair), H. Blake, L. Krasnow, C. Stremmel, J. Weiss Members Absent: None Staff Present: R. Carlson SRAB 88-19 Comprehensive Business Sign Plan - The Main - Southeast Corner of Main Street and Chicago Avenue Representatives of Sherwin Management Company, owners of the building, re- viewed a proposed plan of facade improvement for the above noted property. A part of which includes erection of new fixed awnings for 10 stores plus The Main entrance fronting on both Chicago Avenue and Main Street. The rep noted that Sherwin acquired the property approximately 1 1/2 years ago and wishes to change the image of the building with certain facade improvements and the new fixed awnings. The awnings will be of forest green with cream lettering as well as cream lettering on the store windows and certain second floor office windows. The rep further noted that agreement had been reached with all ten- ants in the building except White Hen Pantry that existing signage would be removed and replaced by awning signage. The Committee explained to the rep that approval of the plan must mean completion of the plan in its entirety as approved. Weiss questioned the 10" letter height shown on the awnings and suggested that 8" would be more appropriate and still be very legible to auto- mobile and pedestrian traffic. The rep explained that only generic names of the establishment would be permitted on the awnings with a 20% limit on area of window signs on both the first and second floors. Window signs were noted as being 3" window letters on the second floor and 4" letters on the first floor windows. The Committee stressed that second floor identification signs would contain no advertising but could contain titles such as Attorney -at -Law or Certified Public Accountant. It was agreed that no telephone numbers would appear on either the first or second floor window signs. The Committee agreed that the logo for "The ?lain" on the main entrance sign may exceed the 15% area coverage allowed by the ordinance for awning signs. Upon a motion by O'Meara, seconded by Krasnow, the Committee approved the following conditions to be in- herent in this sign plan approval. Window sign area not to exceed 20% of the glass area, 4" let- tering allowed on first floor window signs; 3" letter size for second floor window signs which may contain titles, but no ad- vertising; awning signs to be limited to 15% of awning area; no logos permitted on awnings except for the awning above The Main entrance which may exceed 15% of the awning area. The motion was approved 5 ayes and 0 nays. The representatives of Sherwin Management were again reminded that this approval is for the entire project of all stores shown on the plan and that if permits are issued for the awnings tc be erected, it is expected that the total project will be completed. The re- presentatives of Sherwin Management expressed their understanding of this point. Ii,II� I'I i Il fl'1��1i� I� �qi i� Ins hPI�II �pll' III il�i it IIIII'^ II h S' i' ti lioloit rill III I Sign Review and Appeals Board October 20, 1988 Page 2 SRAB 88-20 Comprehensive Business Center Sign Plan - 821 Emerson Street (Per- fecto Cleaners) The applicants reviewed their proposal for retention of certain signs for this project and noted that certain signs recommended for removal in the Site Plan Committee recommendation would be a hardship. They further stated the need for signage to not only express identification of the business, but also for signage to state certain activities conducted in their business. A recommen- dation from the Site Review Committee dated October 12, 1988, was reviewed. The following items were either agreed to by the Committee and the applicants or disagreed on as noted. SOUTH ELEVATION A. Two (2) signs on post reading "Open 7 a.m." agreed to be removed by the applicant. B. Two (2) neon window signs reading "Open 5 Hours Service" and "Shirt Service" to remain if they do not exceed the 20% allowed window sign. C. Three (3) window signs reading "Specialize in Down Jackets, Fast Service Dry Cleaning" and "Same Day Shirt Laundry" which are paper signs may remain if changed on monthly basis specified in the or- dinance. D. Two (2) Signs "Perfecto Cleaners" at the top of the south eleva- tion and "Fast Service No Extra Charge" at the bottom of the south elevation were recommended to be removed in the report of the Site Plan Review Committee and removal was approved by the Sign Review and Appeals Board. It was agreed by the Board that the "Perfecto Cleaners" sign at the top of the south elevation could be moved to the lower edge of the south elevation and the recovered with sign - age having a dark opaque background and translucent letters. E. New Retail Area - This was approved by the Committee to have an 18" high by 17' length White Hen Pantry individual letter sign a- long with a 3'2" x 4' boxed White Hen emblem. The unleased res- taurant space sign was granted in a size 18" high x 12' length in- dividual letters. Both the White Hen sign and the unleased res- taurant sign were granted in the manner requested by the applicant WEST ELEVATION One existing sign at roof top level agreed by the Board to remain. EAST ELEVATION One existing sign "Perfecto Cleaners Open 7 a.m. Fast Service No Extra Charge" to be removed and replaced with 18" high individual letters reading "Perfecto Cleaners" matching the individual letters at the new retail area. Sign Review and Appeals Board . October 20, 1988 Page 3 The applicants expressed concern and disagreement with the provision for re- moval of the two signs on the south elevations or moving the upper sign to the lower location with recovering of the sign in a manner to meet the codes. The applicants did agree to moving the upper sign to the lower level, but did not agree to the refacing. The applicants questioned why this project was placed in the category of needing a comprehensive business center sign plan approval. The Chair ex- plained that any project with four or more entities is required to have a com- prehensive sign plan approval before sign permits may be issued. Staff noted that a somewhat similar project at the southwest corner of Dodge and Main con- tained existing stores and part of the project and new stores in an adjoining part of the project and was made subject to a comprehensive sign plan approv- al. The applicants stated that they had changed their plan and deleted one rental retail area and thus should not be required to have a comprehensive sign plan. Staff noted that there are still three retail entities plus an en- tity on the second floor which then requires a comprehensive sign plan approv- al. Applicants stated that they have received nothing but non -cooperation from the City every since the project was started. The Board requested that Staff provide a history of the appearances before the Site Review Committee for the next Board meeting. The Chair suggested deferment of this item to the November meeting for a presentation by the applicants of a revised plan which will be in accord with the points noted above. Committee voted 5 to 0 to con- tinue this item to the next regular meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board will be November 17, 1988. Director of Wilding an Zoning ley�sl_ rr Date To be approved December 15, 1988 MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD November 17, 1988 7:30 P.M. Members Present: L. Krasnow, (Acting Chair) H. Blake, C. Stremmel, J. Weiss Members Absent: O'Meara and Stremmel Staff Present: R. Carlson Upon motion by Member Weiss and second by Member Blake, the minutes of the Sign Review and Appeals Board meeting of October 20, 1988 were approved as submitted. A staff memo outlining the 1989 meeting schedule of the Sign Review and Appeals Board was approved. SRAB 88-20 Perfecto Cleaners 821 Emerson Street Carlson reviewed a staff memo dated October 28, 1988, which outlined the result of an October 26, 1988 meeting between staff and representatives of Perfecto Cleaners. In that memo, it was noted that Perfecto had requested two (2) changes in their original proposed sign plan. The two (2) changes were: 1. That Perfecto be allowed a period of five (5) years to conform to the approved business center sign plan. 2. That the two (2) signs reading "Perfecto Cleaners" on the south and east elevations of the building be enlarged to read "Perfecto Cleaners and Shirt Laundry" with an 18" high clock along side the south elevation sign. Weiss questioned the need for adding the wording "and Shirt Laundry" to the east and south elevation signs. This would in effect almost double the size of the signs. Perfecto representatives replied that the shirt laundry is an integral part of their business conducted on the premises and they wish to advertise It in that manner. Blake questioned the clack size and location with the Perfecto representatives replying that the clock would be the same height as the letters and mounted along the side of the letters on the south elevation. Krasnow inquired as to the need for a five (5) year conformance period and the Perfecto representatives replied that due to the large amount of dollars invol❑ed in changing signs, the five (5) year provision seemed fair. Krasnow noted that a five (5) year conformance period could set a precedent for future cafes. Weiss stated his objection to the five (5) year conformance period as being entirely too long. Blake noted a previous case where one (1) year conformance period had been granted as the only similar case approved by the Board. Perfecto noted that they still have five (5) years remaining on at least two (2) maintenance contracts for signs and those contracts cannot be cancelled. Motion was made by Weiss to approve the following sign plan: Sign Review and Appeals Board November 17, 1988 Page 2 SOUTH ELEVATION A. Two (2) post signs will not be reinstalled. B. Two (2) neon window signs agreed to remain. C. Three (3) paper signs may remain with posting limited to 30 days. D. The lower sign shall be removed within a 60 day period of this approval leaving the upper sign for a period of three (3) years from the date of this approval. Prior to expiration of the three (3) year period, a new sign of 18" high individual illuminated letters reading "Perfecto Cleaners and Shirt Laundry" shall be installed. An 18" round clock may be installed adjacent to the aforementioned lettering. At the time the new Perfecto Cleaners and Shirt Laundry sign is installed, the upper sign shall be removed. WEST ELEVATION The one (1) west elevation sign at the roof top level may remain indefinitely. EAST ELEVATION The existing sign on the east elevation shall be removed within a one year period from the date of this approval and replaced with one (1) 18" height Individual illuminated letter sign reading "Perfecto Cleaners and Shirt Laundry." NEW RETAIL AREA The two (2) stores in the new retail area are to contain one (1) sign reading "White Hen Pantry" of 18" height x 17 ft. length of individual illuminated letters and one (1) 3'2" x 4' boxed illuminated ~White Hen emblem. The second new retail store shall have one (1) 18" height x 12' length individual illuminated letter sign. It is understood that all individual letter signs shall be of identical 18" height uniform color and letter style. Motion was seconded by Blake, the Committee voted 3 ayes and 0 nay to approve the motion. SRAB 88-21 Point One Motors 1930 Ridge Avenue Applicants reviewed their requests to grant variations to allow three (3) free-standing signs on a single frontage with two (2) of the signs being less than 20 ft. from a driveway. The applicants revised their requests noting that they wish to raise the Chrysler/Plymouth sign (#1 on photo sheet submitted) to a 20 ft. height and to recover a free-standing sign 02 on photo sheet submitted)located at the front property line at the north end of their property. The original requests also involved installation of a new Jeep/Eagle sign in a legal location 16 ft. back from the property line and 15 Sign Review and Appeals Board November 17, 1988 Page 3 1/2 ft. height. The applicant stated the need to make the Jeep/Eagle sign more visible by moving the sign closer to or at the property line. Krasnow questioned the wisdom of three (3) free-standing signs at the property line. Weiss suggested moving the Jeep/Eagle sign farther south so that the three (3) free-standing signs would be more or less equally spaced. Blake made a motion to approve variations to allow the Chrysler/Plymouth sign (sign #1) to be raised in its present location to a height of 20 ft., also to allow recovering of the sign near the north property line (sign #2) with an opaque background and translucent letters. Also to allow the applicant to install the new Jeep/Eagle sign at a 20 ft. height providing the sign is 20 ft. back from the property line or in the altornative installing the Jeep/Eagle sign (sign #3) at a 16 ft. height 16 ft. back from the property line. If those alternatives are not found acceptable to the applicant, the Jeep/Eagle sign will require a rehearing. Also part of the motion was that all horizontal members of the steel framework on the roof at the south end of the main building will be removed. Motion was seconded by Weiss and the Committee voted 3 ayes and 0 nay to approve the motion. The applicant also explained plans to remove the Volkswagon sign on the front of the building and the VW emblem on the south end of the building as he has sold his Volkswagon franchise effective immediately. The applicant also explained he wishes to install a blue sign band on the front and south walls of the building with the band containing Chrysler Motors lettering. The Committee requested drawings showing where the sign band would be installed with this matter continued to the December 15th meeting. Also at the December 15th meeting, sign #3 the Jeep/Eagle sign will have a rehearing if a more southerly location has been determined for that sign. There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 9:35 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board will be held December 15, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. Krasnow announced that she would be unable to attend the January 19, 1989 meeting of the Board. Zw(z�' Director of Building and Zoning Date Attachment (1) 1r�'.xy��lV1 1 ..%.?.t==1. � ,tea. � �,_ • .K�: -''T� 47 rr'" • _ i _. All SERVICE ALL MAKES -.♦jNAI-?i - ' .�s__ ems:- _ _mot 11�. --, �� '�Ih f� • r i► Lam' ' k . `. � = b - : �� �� - -- _ i_i �,kT�L. W *i'R .f4� !w� III ♦ 4 ry _ To be avoroved January 19. 1988 MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD December 15, 1988 7:30 P.M. Members Present: N. O'Meara, Chair, H. Blake, L. Krasnow, J. Weiss Members Absent: C. Stremmel Staff Present: R. Carlson Upon motion by Krasnow and second by Weiss, the minutes of the Sign Review and Appeals Board meeting of November 17, 1988 were approved as submitted. SRAB 88-18 2522 Green Bay Road Developer James Meyers reviewed a revised business center sign plan that was sub- mitted in accord with the direction of the Board at a previous meeting. Meyers noted that no changes had been made to the individual tenant wall signs. The directory sign to be mounted on the east wall of the building facing Green Bay Road has been redesigned as a single face directory sign built into the wall in accord with direction of the Sign Board from the previous meeting. Meyers also noted that the free standing monument type sign at the northeast corner of the property has been redesigned in a manner in accord with previous direction of the Board. Carlson noted that the directory sign called for a white background with dark colored letters which is not in harmony with the free standing sign which called for a dark green background with white letters. Weiss stated that the background of the directory sign should be in a dark color matching the free standing sign. Blake stated that the developer should be given the freedom to have different colored letters on the directory sign in order to accommodate wishes of the tenant. Meyers stated his concern that the present rental trend indicates that the proposed six (6) unit building may in fact end up with only three (3) tenants and asked direction from the Board as to combining the wall signs noted on the plan and combining two (2) spaces in the directory sign for each tenant. Weiss and Blake stated their lack of objection to combining the wall signs provided that the square footage area and height limit of the letters not be changed. They also felt that the directory sign could have double size panels to it to accommodate three (3) tenant names instead of the six (6) pro- posed in the plan. Blake suggested that the wall signs be approved without the use of channel type letters. The following motions were made regarding approval of the three (3) different types of signs involved in this sign plan approval. The free standing monument type sign is approved as submitted with the stipula- tion that the sign contain a dark green background with white or crean colored lettering. Upon a motion by Blake and second by Krasnow, the Board voted d ayes, 0 nays to approve the free standing monument type sign as submitted. The direc- tory sign to be mounted on the east wall of the building is approved as submitted with the following stipulation. The background shall match the background of the free standing monument type sign. Varied letter style, color and height will be allowed. The directory sign may be divided into six (6) or less sections in ac- cord with the tenant occupancy. Upon a motion by Weiss and a second by Blake, the Board voted 4 ayes, 0 nays to approve the directory sign. Sign Review and Appeals Board December 15, 1988 Page 2 The six (6) wall signs for the various tenants were approved in a size and height as noted on the plans with the following stipulations. Letter style and color will not be restricted. Letter height will be limited to 16". No channel letters will be allowed. No neon signs will be allowed. If the ten- ant occupancy shows an individual tenant with two or more units, the sign area may be combined into a single sign provided the square footage and other stip- ulations are met. Upon a motion by Weiss and second by Krasnow, the Board voted 4 ayes, 0 nays to approve the individual tenant wall signs. SRAB 88-22 623-627 1/2 Howard Street Tim Clarke and Nicolette Modaber of the City Planning Department were present to review the requests for approval of a comprehensive business center sign plan for the aforementioned property. The subject building will have new storefronts installed and the requests for signage involves only permanent window type signage. Clarke explained that the signage would also include in addition to the name of the store, the store telephone numbers. Weiss ques- tioned the use of the telephone numbers as being a form of advertisement. Krasnow stated her objections to telephone numbers being on all the store win- dows. Blake agreed that the telephone number is in fact advertising. Upon a motion by Weiss and a second by Krasnow, the Board voted 4 ayes, 0 nays to ap- prove the business center sign plan as requested with the stipulation that no telephone numbers shall be included in the signage. SRAB 88-24 817 University Place Kr. Patrick Kennella, the sign contractor representing the property owners, reviewed the request for the variation to allow a wall sign to be erected at a height of 17'9" whereas the sign ordinance allows a maximum height of 15 ft. Mennella noted that the sign proposed to be mounted on the dormer wall on the west elevation would be identical in style to a smaller sign that will be mounted on the south wall of the building. Carlson stated that the sign on the south wall was legal in all aspects and required no variation. Hennella noted that the sign would consists of individual channel letters with a sur- rounding neon tube. He stated further that a hardship existed due to the limited visibility for eastbound traffic created by the railroad overpass. He stated further that the wall of the dormer is the only appropriate place on the west elevation for a sign. Cars parking along the wall would make a wall sign at a lower level impractical. Upon a motion by Weiss and second by Blake, the Board 4 ayes, 0 nays to approve the 17'9" mounting height for the dormer wall sign in recognition of the visibility hardship. SRAB 88-23 1900 Dempster Street (Kids R Us) There were no representatives of Kids R Us in attendance at the meeting. The Board reviewed the request of Kids R Us for erection of two (2) 24" height x 15' wide signs reading "Kids R Us" on the east and north walls of the existing building. Weiss stated that the signs could serve to soften the large brick walls of the building. He also felt that both signs should be centered above the windows. Blake suggested reducing the letter height from 24" to 18". Blake noted that the large blank walls presently lack any identification. Krasnow stated that the proposed 2 ft, height was excessive. The Board dis- cussed the possibility of other stores in the center requesting additional signage. It was noted that the stores in the center excluding Kids R Us were all a part of a previously approved sign plan and Kids R Us is an addition to SignReview and Appeals Board December 15, 1988 Page 3 that plan and does not necessarily have to follow the same identification pat- tern. Upon a motion by Weiss and second by Blake, the Board voted 4 ayes, 0 nays to approve the two (2) additional signs with the following stipulations. Letter height limited to 18". No individual letters mounted on channels are to be allowed. Letters shall be individual illuminated letters applied to the wall. The two (2) signs are to be centered above the two (2) existing window openings. windows shall be used only for display of merchandise or photographs with no signs allowed ZexeLL�� Director of Building and Zoning 1;.116&r Date