Appearance Review Commission (ARC)

APPROVED COPY Appearance Review Commission Meeting Minutes March 23, 2015 A meeting of the Appearance Review Commission was held on Monday, March 23, 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 Sherry Flores Jim Hollis Elizabeth Low Also Present: Jean Spagnoli, Village Planner Jeri Cotton, Secretary Public Comment: There was no Public Comment. Document Approval Ms. Chaitman moved to approve the minutes from the March 9, 2015 Appearance Review Commission meeting. Mr. Ehlke seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Ehlke, Hollis (4) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAIN: Dunn, Low, Flores (3) Business: 1. Portillo’s Hot Dogs, 300 Waukegan Road - new construction, preliminary review continued Patti Mahoney, property manager with RREEF Management, Sherill Abruscato, Chief Operating Officer from Portillo Restaurant Group, Rich Pozzi from Portillo Restaurant Group, Walter Sydor, Architect with Portillo Restaurant Group, Bradford McAfee, Appearance Review Commission March 23, 2015 Page 2 of 8 president of VIP Services Group (handling the landscaping), Jeffrey Atkins with Mercury Studios, Inc. and Rob Whitehead with Olympic Signs were present. Mr. Sydor discussed the proposed site plan changes since the last meeting. He explained the trash corral was rotated 180° so it faces the access road to the south. On the west end of the parking row in front of the store, they added an island with landscaping. Mr. Sydor noted having a landscape island on the east end of the row would interfere with trucks. He explained they did get a small net gain in permeable surface. Mr. Sydor noted they gained four parking stalls. They are required to provide parking for 121 vehicles, including outdoor seating. The petitioners have provided 166 spaces. Ch. Coen believes the rotated trash enclosure is good for the site. He would prefer to see additional landscaping along Waukegan Road. The commissioners would prefer to see additional landscaping to soften the site. Ms. Chaitman is in favor of adding buffers as well. Mr. Ehlke questioned whether having 36 parking spaces along Waukegan without landscaping was prevalent elsewhere in the center. Ms. Mahoney explained they have very few landscape areas within the parking area. Mr. Atkins explained the sun shades have been changed to the green color, which is similar to the sign background color. The LED band has been changed so it is no longer an exposed light source. It will be painted to match the background material, but will provide a reflective glow with indirect lighting. The proposed signage has been modified so the words Portillo’s Hot Dogs are in script over the front door and in the signage on the east elevation. Since the Pokey sculpture was eliminated, they propose adding a bricked in window panel detail to the entry on the north elevation. They now propose brick and block construction rather than painted precast. Everywhere where the soft yellow is shown will be an EIFS surface. The 7’ darker brown lower panel will also be thin brick. The basic form of the building will be the same as previously presented. Ch. Coen noted the thin brick would be a veneer adhered to the side of the building. Ms. Dunn confirmed if the Sherwin Williams color Torchlight would be the lighter yellow color. The darker yellow/orange color would be in the inset panel accents. Ms. Low asked how the LED would look on the blade wall. Mr. Whitehead explained the LED would face the brick panel and yellow EIFS. The rear of the LED would be painted to match the background surface. Mr. Ehlke noted the LED would go on with the exterior building lights. Mr. Whitehead noted the exterior building lights are on timers and photocells, and would turn off one hour after close. Ch. Coen noted the LED illumination is proposed on the blade wall and along the entire perimeter. Ms. Chaitman is not thrilled with the proposed red LED lights. She understands they are not as bright as the exposed lights, but they are still bright. Ms. Chaitman does not think the LED lights are necessary. She believes the perimeter illumination around the entire building would set a precedent in the Village. Ms. Chaitman understands the petitioner wants to highlight the blade sign, but does not believe it is the look for Deerfield. Mr. Hollis asked about five bands of red on the blade sign elevation. Mr. Atkins explained there are two rows about 6” apart. Mr. Hollis believes the LED is very bright. Mr. Whitehead Appearance Review Commission March 23, 2015 Page 3 of 8 explained this has been very successful in other buildings, as it brings out the detail in the building. Mr. Sydor noted the LED strip would be 20’ in the air. Mr. Hollis indicated LED illumination can be dimmed. Mr. Whitehead explained that because the brick is porous and does not reflect the light well, there would be dark spots if the LED were dimmed. Mr. Atkins explained the LED is facing inward, so it is just adding visual interest to the building. Mr. Hollis believes the LED is overpowering on the blade wall. He believes it will also be overpowering to the light colored stucco as well. Ms. Dunn is not in favor of the LED. It does not serve the purpose of lighting up the building; rather, it is drawing attention to the building. It is very bright. Ms. Dunn believes the blade wall will be illuminated red. Ms. Abruscato explained that Deerfield has their own image, so does Portillo’s. The proposal is a much scaled down version of their building. Ms. Flores agreed. She believes the LED takes away from the signage. Ms. Low appreciates that the LED was turned inward to try to tone it down; however, she does not believe lighting the building or the blade wall is appropriate. Ms. Low does not believe the LED reflects the character of the Village. Mr. Ehlke complimented the petitioner on the changes made to the materials and colors. He believes the building looks very warm. Mr. Ehlke believes changing the sunscreen element to dark green will help tie in the signage with the building. Mr. Ehlke believes the detailing of the sunshade could invite birds and nesting. Mr. Ehlke questioned the purpose of the LED on the blade wall, as it is near the center of the west wall. He does not believe it will be visible from the north, south or east. The only time the LED on the blade wall will be seen is from the mall itself. He questioned whether the LED is necessary on the blade wall. Mr. Ehlke believes turning the LED was a good idea; however, because the red color is the same as the signage, he believes it would be signage. If the LED color were a non-descript white color, he could support the indirect LED illumination in certain areas. Ch. Coen believes the red LED would make the entire building a sign. In addition, the Commission has not supported lighting the perimeter of a building in the past. Mr. Hollis noted the Commission discussed the possibility of deepening the entrance element of the building. Mr. Atkins explained that deepening the entrance created some issues with sloping. In addition, this is a footprint that will be in various store locations. Ch. Coen believes deepening the entrance element would be an enhancement. Mr. Hollis indicated the side profile will be very visible from Waukegan Road. Mr. Ehlke added it would add some permanence to the element. Ms. Flores and Ms. Dunn agreed. Ms. Chaitman and Ms. Low are ok either way. The commissioners discussed the proposed materials. Ch. Coen noted the thin brick can de-laminate. Mr. Pozzi noted they have had good success with the thin brick material. Mr. Atkins explained the brick is on cement board. Mr. Sydor noted the panels are bolted onto the building. The commissioners were okay with the colors and materials. Mr. Ehlke discussed exterior seating on the north side. He suggested removing the fence sections next to the curb. Mr. Atkins agreed. Mr. Ehlke would recommend Appearance Review Commission March 23, 2015 Page 4 of 8 adding some depth to the waffle roof. Ch. Coen asked if additional bike racks were added. Mr. Sydor explained they will revisit additional bike racks in a few months, after seeing if they are used. Ch. Coen asked if the concrete would have a pattern. Mr. Sydor explained the patio would be a terra cotta tile color. It will have a brushed finish. Ch. Coen ensured the handicapped parking areas have a 0 inch curb. Ch. Coen questioned why some of the bollards are centered and some are off centered. Mr. Atkins explained the bollards will be placed at 6’ on center. The bollards will be the same black color as the fence and the doors. The commissioners discussed the trash enclosure. Ch. Coen thanked the petitioner for rotating the trash enclosure. Mr. Sydor explained the base will be a split-face block painted to match the base brick color. The upper portion will be painted to match the building EIFS color. Mr. Sydor noted the 4” horizontal banding will be painted. Ch. Coen suggested having the bottom band as thin brick rather than the split-face block painted to match the brick. Mr. Atkins explained it can be difficult to get the same color brick several years later. Ch. Coen ensured the bollards would be symmetrical. He noted the bollard outside the driveway on the southwest and southeast corners are outside the curb line. He suggested pulling the bollards in to better protect the structure. The commissioners discussed the proposed landscape plan. Mr. McAfee explained they added ornamental trees to help soften the trash enclosure. They also softened the curb lines. Mr. McAfee noted they also added plantings near the light pole. Ch. Coen suggested marking the existing trees as well as the proposed. Ch. Coen believes there should be three additional landscape islands as well. Mr. Hollis, Ms. Dunn, Ms. Flores, and Ms. Chaitman believes there should be two additional landscape islands along both sides of the north entrance to their parking. Ms. Low and Mr. Ehlke would prefer to also see the additional landscaping along Waukegan Road as well. Ms. Low suggested utilizing larger groupings rather than smaller groupings. If the burning bush were combined, it would eliminate some of the narrow lines for maintenance. She would also eliminate some of the narrow mow lines along Waukegan. Ms. Low would bring down the number of species to four in the planting bed. She likes the use of the ornamental grasses, because they provide 4-season interest. Ms. Flores appreciates the addition of the extra tree. Mr. Hollis questioned the use of the silk lilac trees, as they have an unpleasant odor. He noted they are proposed to be located near the trash enclosure, so he would not object. The commissioners discussed the proposed photometrics. Ch. Coen noted the photometrics shown are for the parking lot pole fixtures. Mr. Atkins explained the gooseneck lighting will also add illumination. Mr. Ehlke noted the light poles in this area are white, but he thinks most of the center has bronze light poles. Mr. Atkins explained the new light poles would match the existing white light poles. Ch. Coen asked about the condition of the existing poles. Mr. Pozzi explained the existing poles are in good condition. Mr. Atkins added that if the existing poles are anodized, they should be in Appearance Review Commission March 23, 2015 Page 5 of 8 good shape. If they are painted, they would need to be repainted. Ch. Coen asked about the age of the existing poles. Ms. Mahoney will get the information to Ms. Spagnoli. Ch. Coen asked the commissioners whether the white poles go with the building. The commissioners would prefer to have bronze light poles, as it would go better with the building. Ch. Coen asked how many light poles are existing and located in the same location. Mr. Sydor indicated there are about seven light poles that will remain in the same location. Ch. Coen questioned how much work would be done in the parking lot. Mr. Pozzi explained the parking lot will be new. Ch. Coen questioned why the petitioner would not replace the poles. He also would prefer bronze poles, so they better match the building. The illumination would match the metal halide in the rest of the center. The commissioners discussed the proposed signage. Ch. Coen noted there are a host of things that will require a variance. Ch. Coen noted the Portillo’s Hot Dogs sign is proposed at 106 square feet; 42 square feet is allowed in the sign provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ehlke noted the petitioner is looking for 2-1/2 times what is allowed. He questioned the hardship. Ms. Abruscato explained this is the entrance over the front door. She believes it looks good on the elevation. Mr. Whitehead added that this is a mild sign package for Portillo’s. They are trying to get a sign that will look correct on this size building. The proposed colors tone down the sign. Ms. Mahoney questioned whether they could get 8% coverage, as it is their front façade. Mr. Ehlke noted the proposed sign for the east elevation is much larger than this sign. The commissioners would not be in favor of a 106 square foot sign. Mr. Ehlke could be compelled to consider going beyond a 42 square foot sign. Ms. Chaitman noted the point of the signage is to announce the name of the building. She believes the name will be visible without going to this extreme. Ms. Low may be willing to consider a sign larger than what is allowed, but would want to see what is proposed. She believes the signs should be in scale with the other signs and the building. Ms. Flores believes the sign should be reduced to better fit within the allowed sign area. Ms. Dunn does not believe that having larger signs in other locations is a valid reason to have an enlarged sign. She would not be in favor of a sign larger than what is allowed by the code. Mr. Hollis could be in favor of a larger sign, but would not support a sign this large. Ch. Coen would want to see the proposed sign, but would not support a sign this large. The commissioners discussed the proposed height of the sign. Ch. Coen noted the proposed sign height is about 24’ and above the roof deck which is 16’ high. Based on the building design, he would be in favor of increasing the height. Mr. Hollis would need to see a drawing of the proposed sign with the reduced square footage, but would conditionally be in favor of having a sign above the roof deck. Ms. Dunn would not be in favor of increasing the height location. She would prefer a smaller sign. Ms. Low, Mr. Ehlke and Ms. Chaitman would consider a variation, depending on the scale. Mr. Hollis and Mr. Ehlke would like to see more depth in the waffle roof. The commissioners discussed the proposed Beef, Burgers and Salad wall sign. Ch. Coen noted the petitioner’s official trademarked name is Beef, Burgers, Beer. They are Appearance Review Commission March 23, 2015 Page 6 of 8 not looking for a liquor license and would prefer to have salad in lieu of beer. Mr. Ehlke noted the registered trademark paperwork was issued in October 1986 and was valid for 20 years without renewal. He does not believe that is proof enough, as it is not current. The commissioners would support going from beer to salad, if they provide the proper documentation. Ch. Coen and Mr. Hollis would not be in favor of changing the verbiage from beer to salad, as it would not be their official name anymore. Mr. Hollis added it would be like a menu board. The commissioners discussed the configuration of the proposed sign face surface. Ch. Coen noted Fresh Thyme had to change their backer panel. He believes a backer panel needs to be less than 3”. Ms. Spagnoli explained the Fresh Thyme backer panel depth is 1-1/8”. The entire sign depth cannot exceed 12” including the backer panel, and must be on the same plane. Ch. Coen noted that the green backer panel is non- illuminated, so it should be able to be very thin. Mr. Whitehead noted the panel will not be used as a raceway or a box sign. Mr. Ehlke believes the beef, burgers, salads appears to be a box sign, because it has push thru letters. Mr. Whitehead noted the letters are very small and cannot be individually illuminated. The green background would not illuminate. Ms. Chaitman would not be in favor of a backer panel larger than the precedent of 1-1/8” deep. The other commissioners agreed. Ms. Dunn does not understand why the backer panel has to be 3” deep, especially when it is non- illuminated. The commissioners believe the letters need to be attached to the background panel. The commissioners discussed the Deerbrook Mall sign criteria colors. Ch. Coen noted the proposed sign has four colors, but the sign criteria allow a combination of a maximum of two colors. The colors must be the approved mall colors on the sign. Mr. Ehlke asked if the black outline could be made dark green, to remove one of the sign colors. Ms. Abruscato explained some of the letters will be located on the green, so they use black returns to offset the letters from the green. Mr. Hollis suggested making the returns white instead. Mr. Whitehead explained this is what they have used in the past. Ms. Flores noted the black would add some dimension. Mr. Atkins explained the proposed sign with the black edge helps define the letter no matter what color is behind it. Ms. Low asked if the returns would not be considered a color as they are not part of the sign face. Ms. Spagnoli explained sometimes the Commission has approved two face colors with a dark colored letter return. Ch. Coen is okay with the four colors, but would not want any additional colors. If the returns were not black, he would not be in favor of it. The commissioners agreed. Ch. Coen questioned whether the commissioners would be in favor of deviating from the approved colors. The commissioners are okay with the deviation. Ch. Coen requested the ® be removed from the sign. The commissioners discussed the east elevation, which faces Waukegan Road. Ch. Coen noted a 173 square foot sign would be allowed; however, they are requesting a 232.18 square foot sign. The commissioners would be in favor of supporting a sign that is slightly larger than the allowed square footage. Mr. Ehlke would be in favor of a sign Appearance Review Commission March 23, 2015 Page 7 of 8 that is 216 square feet, which is 10% of the wall area. The commissioners would like to see the sign layout before approving a larger sign. Ms. Chaitman noted that if the Beef, Burgers, Salad sign was removed, the Portillo’s Hot Dogs sign could be larger. The commissioners discussed the proposed height. The height, to the top of the roof deck, is 16’8”. The proposed sign is 19’ high. The commissioners would be in favor of approving the height at 19’. The commissioners felt the same about the Beef, Burgers, Salads and configuration of sign face surfaces, box signs and colors as on the west elevation. The commissioners discussed the proposed ghost signs. Ch. Coen is not in favor of ghost signs and does not feel the business will suffer without them. Mr. Hollis indicated he was not able to make out what the ghost signs were. Mr. Atkins explained they would go to the Historic Society to get Deerfield-related graphics. Mr. Hollis noted the sign code does not allow painted signs and would not be in favor of allowing them. Ms. Dunn agreed. Ms. Flores would prefer the ghost signs on the inside rather than the outside. Ms. Low, Ms. Chaitman and Mr. Ehlke would prefer ghost signs in a more urban setting or on the inside so patrons could appreciate the historical value. The commissioners discussed the proposed directional signs. Directional signs are allowed when they are non-illuminated and no larger than 2 square feet. The petitioner is requesting internally illuminated directional signs. The commissioners, except Mr. Hollis and Ch. Coen, believe the directional signs should be illuminated. Ch. Coen asked about the posts and sign cabinets. Mr. Whitehead explained they always go with red directional signs. The red is the Portillo’s standard red color. Mr. Atkins noted there would be no light coming through the black. The arrows and letters would be illuminated. Mr. Whitehead noted that the yellow color offsets the red from the black, so it is visible during the day. Ms. Chaitman noted the yellow is another color that is added to the signs. She would prefer to see white instead of yellow. Ms. Low and Ms. Dunn could support the yellow. Mr. Hollis does not understand why the Code restricts the number of colors on the building sign but not the directional signs. He would not be in favor of the yellow. Ch. Coen, Mr. Ehlke and Ms. Flores would rather have the directional signs stay within sign colors and would be in favor of red, black and white signs. Items from the Commission: Ms. Dunn noted the MG Nails moved the flashing light to the rear of the building. Ms. Spagnoli sent out two violation notices and will ask Mr. Case to visit them. Mr. Ehlke believes CD One Price Cleaners signage is too bright. He believes there needs to be a limit to sign brightness. Ms. Flores believes C2 Education has too many posters in their windows. Mr. Hollis noted the new Mike Rizzo sign shows remnants from the old sign. Appearance Review Commission March 23, 2015 Page 8 of 8 Items from Staff Ms. Spagnoli noted the Plan Commission meeting for March 26, 2015 was cancelled. Deerfield Park Plaza requested a traffic study for both centers, because of the potential cut-thru traffic. Adjournment: There being no further business or discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:06 pm. Respectfully submitted, Jeri Cotton Secretary