Appearance Review Commission (ARC)

APPROVED COPY Appearance Review Commission Meeting Minutes March 9, 2015 A meeting of the Appearance Review Commission was held on Monday, March 9, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. at the Village Hall Conference Room, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Chairman Dick Coen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present were Dick Coen, Chairman Beth Chaitman Lisa Dunn Sean Ehlke Jim Hollis Absent were: Sherry Flores Elizabeth Low Also Present: Jean Spagnoli, Village Planner Public Comment: There was no Public Comment. Document Approval Mr. Ehlke moved to approve the minutes from the February 23, 2015 Appearance Review Commission meeting. Ms.Chaitman seconded the motion. There were minor corrections made by the commissioners. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Ehlke, Hollis (4) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAIN: Dunn (1) Business: 1. Marathon/Gulf, 700 Waukegan Road – Ground Sign, Face Change Ken Kearns, principal with PS Fuels, Rick Mistretta, principal with PS Fuels and Ed Mistretta, president and owner of Deerfield Marathon/Gulf were present. Mr. Rick Mistretta discussed the proposed changes to the ground sign with the Gulf ID and Village Auto Repair sign panels. Appearance Review Commission March 9, 2015 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Mistretta explained Gulf approved rotating the word “Gulf” on a 15° angle for the ground sign, to match the canopy sign. In making this change, there is additional space which they would like to add the words “Village Auto Repair”. Gulf approved the removal of the registered trademark symbol on the canopy and ID signs. The words self-service were removed from the pricing sign. The ID sign box is 5’x 5’ with a divider to hold both panels. Sign panels are embossed faces because they added additional strength and structure to the sign. Mr. Rick Mistretta explained the apparent issues are the current sign depth of 17”, which includes the existing cabinet depth of 10” and the proposed embossing of 3-1/2” on both sides. The Ordinance requires the maximum depth of 12”. Mr. Mistretta explained the pop retainers will allow the lights in the sign box to not be visible through the sign faces. The sign company suggested installing pop faces, similar to the Shell station. Pop faces add additional structure and distance so the hot spots do not burn through. They also recommended adding a diffuser on the back of the sign to prevent the bulbs from being seen. He believes this is the alternative that makes the most sense. If that is not acceptable, the only other choice would be to coat the rear of the flat panel sign faces with a substantial amount of diffuser. It would make the sign appear very dark and would not add the additional structure. Having the 3’x5’ Gulf sign would allow an additional 2’x5’ sign for the Village Auto Repair. Mr. Ehlke confirmed they are proposing a continuous pop retainer on all four sides and a flat face sign panel. Ch. Coen asked about the proposed sign. Mr. Mistretta explained the total sign would be 5’ x 10’ with a 2” deep white divider separating the two 5’x5’ pop retainers. He ensured the sign would stick out 2” on both sides and the Gulf and letters would not pop out. Mr. Mistretta explained they would make the molds for a flat panel sign. The ground sign would be a total of 14” deep. Ch. Coen is okay with adding the dimension to the sign as the sign would not have the three-dimensional appearance as previously requested. The commissioners were okay with the pop retainer concept. The commissioners discussed the proposed lower ID panel. Ch. Coen ensured the language and font would be the same as what is on the building. He asked about the letter height. Mr. Mistretta will get the dimensions to Ms. Spagnoli. Mr. Hollis believes there is a difference in the scale of the Village Auto Repair sign on the submitted drawing. Mr. Mistretta explained the Blair Company did not get the dimensions correct. He was unable to get the documents dimensioned properly. The dimensions in the detail are not correct. Mr. Mistretta asked what the maximum height would be. Ms. Spagnoli noted the maximum height for signs in the adjacent shopping center is 24”. Mr. Mistretta questioned whether he could get an LED sign on his site. Ms. Dunn believes the Commission only wanted LED signs as monument signs. Mr. Ed Mistretta asked if he would be able to use LED illumination on his price sign, as it would be more attractive and easier considering the challenges he has at his site. Ch. Coen noted the maximum height for a monument sign is 6’. The existing sign is 10’ to the bottom. Ch. Coen explained the decisions of the ARC are not necessarily final, the petitioner could appeal to the Mayor and Board of Trustees. Mr. Mistretta explained the top, cropped Appearance Review Commission March 9, 2015 Page 3 of 6 logo is 3’ x 5’. It would be plausible to have a 6’H x 5’W sign as an alternate plan. The sign would lose the Village Auto Repair, but would have many benefits. The sign would be 16’ to the top of the sign. Ch. Coen would not be in favor of having the LED up that high. Ms. Chaitman explained the Commission has worked on new guidelines and believe LED illumination should only be used on monument signs. The other commissioners agreed. Mr. Mistretta understands that if he put up the sign, it would set a precedent in the Village. The commissioners discussed the proportions of the proposed sign. Ms. Chaitman requested a dimensioned drawing of the proposed sign for possible fast track approval. Mr. Ehlke would be more comfortable with a 30” numeral height rather than a 3’ letter height for the price numeral. Ms. Dunn asked about the white in the building letters. Mr. Rick Mistretta explained the “e” in the Village Auto Repair would not change, as it is similar to the “l”s in the word “Village”, and too thin to add blue color. They cannot determine if the “a” and “g” will have a blue color in or if they will be routed out until they are in the field. Ch. Coen noted the two “l”s and the “e” are too thin to be routed or colored. He asked if the “a” and “g” could have the same treatment on the panel sign as on the wall sign. Ms. Dunn would prefer to have consistency between the two signs so the open areas in the “a” and “g” would be blue. Ms. Dunn requested the letter size dimensions. Ch. Coen added the dimensions should also include the amount of negative space on all sides. Mr. Hollis questioned the negative space on the Gulf sign. He questioned the use of the cloudy sky background. Mr. Kearns explained this is the company logo. He could ask them to change it but does not know how they would respond. Ch. Coen does not believe that would be a deal breaker; however, the cloud looks like a small patch of white. Ch. Coen believes it would look better in all blue as it currently looks like an error. Mr. Kearns will ask the oil company. Ms. Dunn moved to approve the request for the Gulf ground sign face change contingent on receiving dimensioned drawings. The sign will be in the existing 10” depth sign cabinet with a pop panel that will be 2” wide on both sides of the sign. The inside of the panel will be sprayed with a diffuser to keep the hot spots to a minimum. The sign will be 14” deep in total to avoid the hot spots. The ground sign will be 5’w x 10’h with two 5’x5’ boxes. The top of the sign will be a 3’ x 5’ and 2’ x 5’ panel and the bottom sign with the price will be 5’ x 5’. The letters of the 2’ x 5’ Village Auto Repair will match the building with the letters “l” and “e” being white and the open areas in the letters “a” and “e” will add blue. The Village Auto Repair sign will be centered horizontally and vertically within the sign panel. The negative space in the Village Auto Repair will be dimensioned. The petitioner will look into removing the cloud background from the Gulf signs. The height of the fuel price numerals will be no higher than 30”, but the dimensions will be provided for fast track consideration. Mr. Hollis seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Dunn, Ehlke, Hollis (5) NAYS: None (0) Appearance Review Commission March 9, 2015 Page 4 of 6 2. Appearance Code Update a. Review of completed section/revised  Building Designs (highlighted text only) The commissioners discussed the large structure section of the Appearance Code. Ch. Coen questioned whether the highlighted section meant the parapet height should change every 50 to 100 feet. Mr. Ehlke questioned the use of the word sequence. Ch. Coen suggested using the word ‘vary’ instead of sequence. Ms. Chaitman questioned whether the intent is the scale of the lot size. Mr. Hollis suggested using the phrase “should change in accordance with the historic lot size” rather than “in sequence with”. Mr. Ehlke suggested stating, “In the Village Center, the design of the façade should be in keeping with the historic lot size. Deerfield’s historic lot sizes range from approximately 50 feet wide to 100 feet wide. The parapet height, recesses and materials should vary with the historic lot size.” Ch. Coen noted 100 feet is a large spance without articulation. Ch. Coen suggested changing the second sentence to read, “Deerfield’s historic lot sizes were approximately 50 feet wide.” Mr. Ehlke noted the Commission initially discussed this when looking at photos from a large, proposed development. Ms. Spagnoli noted these are guidelines. Ms. Chaitman believes the third sentence should end, “should vary accordingly.” Ms. Spagnoli read the Commission’s combined suggestion, “In the Village Center, the design of the façade should be in keeping with the historic lot size. Deerfield’s historic lot sizes were approximately 50 feet wide. The parapet height, recesses and materials should vary accordingly.” The commissioners discussed the components section of the Appearance Code. Ch. Coen believes the highlighted section allows ghost signage. Ms. Spagnoli noted the Village has a provision that does not allow signs painted onto buildings. Ch. Coen believes this is very open ended. Ms. Dunn suggested starting the section, “Art objects, including fine art, murals and sculptures, are a component of building/site design and shall be reviewed for their scale, placement and appropriateness.” Ms. Dunn suggested having all art come before the Commission. Ms. Spagnoli suggested rewording the section as, “Art objects, such as murals and sculptures are a component of building/site design and shall be reviewed for their scale, placement and appropriateness.” Ch. Coen suggested adding a letter “b” to this section which would read, “Any art that is representative of a business would be considered signage and would be regulated.” Ms. Chaitman questioned where ghost signs would be addressed. Mr. Hollis questioned why the Commission is giving leeway to ghost signs as the Appearance Code already has a requirement that when a sign goes down the background must be replaced so there is no ghosting. Ms. Dunn agreed, questioning why the Commission is drawing attention to ghost signs. Ch. Coen questioned whether the ghost signs should not be allowed. Ms. Spagnoli noted the Zoning Ordinance states that no signs can be painted directly on a wall. Ms. Chaitman suggested stating facades that include non- functional and non-structural elements that are designed to attract attention are not appropriate. Mr. Ehlke suggested adding the word images. Ch. Coen would not want to include images, because that would be stating the Commission would review images and ultimately they are okay. Ms. Chaitman questioned what the Commission would Appearance Review Commission March 9, 2015 Page 5 of 6 consider appropriate. Ms. Spagnoli noted the Fine Arts Commission is promoting murals for businesses in the Village. Ms. Chaitman suggested adding sculptures after art objects. She would separate 3 dimensional art from art applied to a building. Mr. Ehlke noted that the Commission would review murals and sculptures, but the Commission could not disallow them. Ch. Coen suggested, “A façade that includes non-structural and non-functional elements designed to attract attention are not appropriate and may be considered signage. Some examples may include murals ghost signs and images.” b. Rough draft of sections for review:  Relationship of Building(s) to Site and Adjacent Areas The commissioners discussed the building and structure location section of the Appearance Code. Ms. Chaitman suggested adding the word “the” before the phrase minimum required by the zoning district. The commissioners discussed the secondary building access section of the Appearance Code. Ms. Dunn suggested using the word elements in lieu of the word items, so it reads, “Such elements as signage, paving and landscaping treatments are key items to such orientation.” Ch. Coen believes the next sentence should read, “These items/materials shall be consistent in design with the development as a whole.” Ms. Chaitman expressed concern with the first sentence. Ch. Coen explained some establishments have their main entrance on the rear of the building. Mr. Ehlke suggested using, “Buildings that provide access through a rear or secondary entrance are encouraged when the parking lot is located behind the building.” The commissioners discussed the compatibility section of the Appearance Code. Mr. Ehlke suggested changing the section title to building mass transition. Ch. Coen noted that having compatibility as the title of the subsection alerts that the building must be compatible. Mr. Ehlke suggested starting “a.” as building mass transition. Ms. Chaitman suggested breaking section “a” into smaller sentences. Taller buildings when placed adjacent to shorter structures may need a visual transition. Ms. Spagnoli will work on the wording of this section. The commissioners discussed the patios and grade level decks section of the Appearance Code. Mr. Ehlke would like to add verbiage about appropriate designed rail fence or barrier system. Ch. Coen noted this section is discussing safety and needs to include design considerations. Ms. Spagnoli will rework the wording of this section. The commissioners discussed the bike facilities section of the Appearance Code. Ms. Spagnoli noted this is a recent addition to the Zoning Ordinance to encourage bike facilities. Ch. Coen noted this is the Appearance Review Code. He believes the Commission should tie in the bicycle storage with being compatible with surrounding finishes. Ch. Coen explained the bike rack needs to be designed and selected to coordinate with other site furniture. Appearance Review Commission March 9, 2015 Page 6 of 6 The commissioners discussed the drive-thru section of the Appearance Code. Ch. Coen believes all components of the drive-thru, including reader boards, menu boards, speakers, canopies clearance bars and other items associated with the drive-thru should be tied in with the rest of the building design. The commissioners discussed the utility services section of the Appearance Code. Ms. Dunn suggested instead of stating shall be appropriately concealed, having it strongly encouraged. Mr. Hollis noted that sometimes, concealing satellite dishes are worse. The commissioners discussed the consideration section of the Appearance Code. Ms. Dunn suggested adding “adequate” prior to the word screening. The commissioners questioned the title of the section. Adjournment There being no further business or discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:52 pm. Respectfully submitted, Jeri Cotton Secretary The minutes were taken from a recording of the meeting.