Village of Glenview Appearance Commission

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Village of Glenview Appearance Commission"

Roger Fletcher
5 years ago
Views:

Village of Glenview Appearance Commission STAFF REPORT February 6, 2013 TO: Chairman and Appearance Commissioners FROM: Planning & Economic Development Department CASE MANAGER: Michelle House,

determination on the proposal. APPLICANT: Del Vasey State Farm 2111 Chestnut Avenue, Suite 115 Glenview, IL 60025 Tel: (847) 724-0800 ext. 211 OWNER: Chris Thomas C.

1 Village of Glenview Appearance Commission STAFF REPORT February 6, 2013 TO: Chairman and Appearance Commissioners FROM: Planning & Economic Development Department CASE MANAGER: Michelle House, Planner CASE #: A LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: 2111 Chestnut Avenue State Farm & Chestnut Flex Space Ground Sign SUBJECT: Certificate of Appropriateness ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests a final determination on the proposal. APPLICANT: Del Vasey State Farm 2111 Chestnut Avenue, Suite 115 Glenview, IL Tel: (847) ext. 211 OWNER: Chris Thomas C. Thomas Company 2111 Chestnut Avenue, Suite 175 Glenview, IL Tel: (847) CONTACT: Jessica Heath-Bolden White Way Sign Company 451 Kingston Court Mount Prospect, IL Tel: (847) PROPOSAL: The applicant, State Farm, represented by White Way Sign Company, requests approval of alterations to the existing multi-tenant ground sign at 2111 Chestnut Avenue. The proposal includes a new sign panel for State Farm Insurance and modifications to the existing ground sign structure to allow for one (1) additional tenant sign panel. Report Disclaimer: Village staff makes no representations regarding support, endorsement, or the likelihood of approval or disapproval by any Glenview regulatory commission or the Village Board of Trustees.

2 Site Assessment AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH: PICTOMETRIC PHOTOGRAPHY: East Elevation 2

3 North Elevation SITE PHOTOGRAPHY: Existing multi-tenant sign 3

4 Project Summary BACKGROUND: The existing ground sign was approved by the Appearance Commission in Exhibits from this previous approval are included in the packet. A zoning variation was required to allow the sign to be installed 5.0 feet from the property line, similar to other signs in the area, rather than a minimum required setback of 50.0 feet as required at the time. Since the approval of a variation for this sign in 2006, the ordinance has since been amended to allow signage in industrial districts at lesser setback. Today, the required setback is ten (10) feet. The current sign is 9 10 ¼ tall which is existing nonconforming in our current code. Today, signs in the industrial district are allowed to be a maximum six (6) feet tall. The applicant is only requesting minor panel modifications which do not trigger any additional approvals or compliance with the current industrial district sign requirements. At this time, the applicant is requesting a new sign panel for State Farm and other modifications to the sign. State Farm has changed their branding and the proposed sign panel changes are reflective of the new branding strategy. The applicant asserts that this office s operations are more retail oriented than other offices that are typical within industrial districts. The applicant has stayed consistent using red for the main tenant, State Farm, and burgundy for the remaining tenants. Currently, the third space down on the sign runs the entire width of the sign. The applicant is proposing to divide that sign panel into two (2) panels using the same painted aluminum as the other panels below it. In splitting this panel, the applicant proposes to relocate the two (2) existing panels from the bottom row of the current sign to the new row on the proposed sign, leaving the two (2) bottom sign panels on the sign blank and available for use by new tenants in the future. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Text State Farm Vasey Agency Location Current location of State Farm panel Design Opaque panel with logo and name illuminated Letter Height State Farm 4 ¼, Vasey Agency 2 ¼, Logo 14 ¼ by 10 Letter Color(s) Red PMS #485 Trim Cap Color Burgundy PMS #188C Return Color Burgundy PMS #188C Background Color Ivory Illumination Type & Color Existing Raceway Depth N/A COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ZONING: Ground Sign(s) Proposed Sign Area Compliance (120 sf per Ordinance) Proposed Sign Height Compliance (15 ft tall per Ordinance) Compliance with Design Guidelines 4 Monument Sign sq. ft. Yes 9.85 ft. Yes Yes

5 Appearance Commission Review APPEARANCE PLAN COMMENTS: Staff comments after evaluating the proposal for compliance with the Appearance Plan: Sign Criteria from Appearance Plan: Compatibility with building architecture Compatibility with signs on adjoining buildings Harmony with surrounding landscape Good scale in relationship to surroundings Use of harmonious colors Staff comments: o Staff has coordinated with the applicant on the included submittal which substantially complies with the Appearance Code criteria. o The petitioner shall furnish material and color samples of the proposed sign panel for presentation to the Appearance Commission. POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS: The proposal includes minimal changes to an existing multi-tenant ground sign which is not expected to have any adverse impacts to surrounding neighbors. 5

6 Technical Review PROJECT TIMELINE & OUTREACH: A. 01/24/13 Application Submitted B. 02/06/13 Appearance Commission Meeting C. TBD Permit Issuance D. TBD Inspection 2013 A B C D Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec REQUIRED APPROVAL(s): The following chart details the necessary required approvals. An associated appendix includes specific descriptions of each regulatory approval, the review criteria, and standards for approval. Each commissioner has a copy of this appendix and copies for the public are located on the table near the entry doors to the Village Board Room. The appendix can also be viewed on the Planning Division website at the following URL: Required Regulatory Review A. Annexation B. Annexation with Annexation Agreement C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment D. Official Map Amendment E. Rezoning F. Planned Development G. Conditional Use H. Final Site Plan Review I. Second Curb Cut J. Subdivision (Preliminary, Final, and Waivers) K. Variation(s) (Zoning Board of Appeals) L. Certificate of Appropriateness (Appearance Commission) M. Final Engineering Approval & Outside Agency Permits N. Building Permits O. Building & Engineering Inspections P. Recorded Documents (Development Agreements, Easements, Covenants, etc.) Q. Business License R. Certificate of Occupancy Attachments & Exhibits 1. Sample Motion 2. Excerpt from Minutes of 12/13/2006 Appearance Commission Meeting 3. Appearance Commission Exhibit from 12/13/06 meeting 4. Petitioner s Application & Exhibits 6

7 Sample Motion I move in the matter of A , State Farm, the Appearance Commission grants a Certificate of Appropriateness, based upon the findings the petitioner, through testimony and application materials, has demonstrated compliance with Section Appearance Plan and in accordance with the documents prepared by White Way Sign including a site plan dated 01/11/13 and proposed sign changes dated 01/23/13. 7

8 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006 APPEARANCE COMMISSION MEETING: 2111 Chestnut Avenue Chestnut Ridge Flex Space - New Ground Sign Michael Downing representing Chestnut Ridge and Dan Pontarelli, Developer, were present to petition for the new ground sign. Mr. Downing stated that a variation for signage was received from the Zoning Board of Appeals to install proposed signage similar to other signage along Chestnut Ave. He further stated that Vasey State Farm Insurance is the primary tenant and that all but two (2) condo spaces have been sold. When sold, the new owners would replace the two bottom panels, which now read Chestnut Ridge Flex Space. A new handout was distributed which gave the letter dimensions of the individual panels. Proposed signage is: 5 feet wide x 8 feet high with a 1 10 ¼ sign cap that included a diamond accent Internally illuminated sign panels Maroon /burgundy color letters Cabinet color to match burgundy on building Top diamond and address are cream color to match the building State Farm letters will be in PMS 485, their corporate color Chairman Hedrick spoke about the project being a well-received project by the AC. He briefly mentioned the signage guidelines for the development. Also, the AC often hears requests for small office complexes such as this that request multi-tenant signage. (For example, office building at Lake and Pfingsten.) Chairman Hedrick spoke about the practice of allowing a limited number of tenants on signage. Commissioner Caponi spoke about his discussion with the State Farm agent regarding signage alternatives, that the business was more retail business as opposed to industrial business, and the need for proper balance of signage for the agency. Chairman Hedrick pointed out that the location of several tenants in the Chestnut Ridge Flex space were not visible or identified from the street. Also, the area is in transition and that there are several monument signs for single business identification. He commented that theses signs would fit together along the corridor. Mr. Downing mentioned that the proposed sign location is in line with other signs that received variation from the ZBA. The AC had the minutes from the ZBA for reference that granted the variation for site location. Commissioner McJilton confirmed that the condominium association would be responsible for the signage, landscaping, maintenance, and snowplowing. Mr. Downing added that the association would consist of tenant owners on the board and would make the decisions for the building, etc. (Mr. Pontarelli was purchasing a unit and would be on the board.) Chairman Hedrick confirmed that tenants would have no other signage. Mr. Pontarelli pointed out that the front façade would have a cut stone sign for the street address. Also, at the point of entries, there would be interior tenant signage for business location within the building. 8

9 In response to Commissioner Olson s inquiry, petitioner stated that there was no consideration to having the building name (Chestnut Ridge Flex Space) for signage. Chairman Hedrick summarized the key points of the case in regard to the Commissions existing guidelines: Project is a major aesthetic improvement and development of the property Unique tenant identification needs at this site Commissioner McJilton stated that he typically is not a fan of multi-tenant signs, but in this situation, the signage as proposed made sense due to individual owners not having exterior signage.) Commissioner Owens was in agreement, but added that it would be important to have the signage be consistent with the same color and style for signage. He also thought it was a good idea to have the building name in the blank, open panels until the remaining units were sold. Mr. Pontarelli responded that the required letter color and style for signage would be in the condominium association declarations. Commissioner Dean stated that she was open to multi-tenant signage in this case. Because of the beautiful and sharp building, she questioned why the petitioner did not opt to have brick in the signage to go along with the building. Mr. Pontarelli briefly considered brick instead of the burgundy sign frame and/or sign base. Commissioner Igleski was also in favor of the sign as proposed. He pointed out however, that if the sign were all brick, it would be larger than proposed. Also, he felt that an all brick sign was not necessary and that a brick base with stone sill would be enough. Petitioner clarified that brick would be for the sign base only with a limestone sill, and above that would be a burgundy, aluminum frame with burgundy sign cap and cream color diamond. Commissioner Igleski was concerned about the white color of the in-fill panels. He was concerned that it would not be a too bright white or that an off white would appear yellow or aged. Petitioner would work with the sign manufacturer on the choice of white. He also commented that the association would control the sign and could change the panels should they become discolored. Commissioner Igleski confirmed that only plain text would be allowed on the sign and that no logos or business graphics would be allowed. Commissioner Caponi clarified that the petitioner and AC agreed on the suggested brick base with limestone sill and aluminum frame and illumination portion would sit on it. Ms. Ziegler stated that the engineering department wanted to verify that the new sign would be installed outside of the right-of-way and 3-5 feet away from the storm sewer. Petitioner would submit a revised drawing to staff. 9

10 Commissioner Dean asked about the overall height with the change to a brick base. Also, Commissioner Olson pointed out that the proposed sign is approximately 10 feet tall and close to the sidewalk. Petitioner stated that the landscape plan submitted showed the old sidewalk and that the village recently laid a new public walk. The proposed sign would be located approximately 10 feet to the north of the new sidewalk. Ms. Ziegler showed the new sidewalk on the engineering plan. AC was pleased with the location of the signage in relation to the new sidewalk. Petitioner would submit a revised landscape plan to staff, which would include the new sidewalk. He added that the yews were removed from the front of the sign and that only annuals would be planted near the sign. Commissioner Olson would review the revised landscape plan to determine that plantings around the sign would have balance. Petitioner would also submit to staff a revised sign drawing that would show the change to the brick base with limestone sill. Commissioner Owens made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project as presented with the two (2) provisos that the petitioner would submit a revised landscape plan and that the base of the sign would be changed to a brick base with limestone sill and the height to remain basically the same with approximately 14 inches of brick base, a 4 inch stone sill with a 2 inch metal sign base. Commissioner McJilton seconded the motion. Upon voice vote, motion carried. 10

11 INSERT ORIGINAL APPROVED EXHIBIT DATED 12/06/

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 2015 Municipal Building Commission Room 151 Martin, Birmingham, Michigan

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 2015 Municipal Building Commission Room 151 Martin, Birmingham, Michigan Minutes of the regular meeting of the Historic District Commission ( HDC ) held