Appearance Review Commission (ARC)

APPROVED COPY Appearance Review Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2016 A meeting of the Appearance Review Commission was held on Monday, January 25, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Village Hall Conference Room, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Ch. Dick Coen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Dick Coen, Chairman Beth Chaitman Lisa Dunn Sherry Flores Elizabeth Low (arrived 7:43 pm) Absent was: Jason Golub Also Present: Jean Spagnoli, Village Planner Jeri Cotton, Secretary Public Comment: There was no Public Comment. Document Approval Ms. Dunn moved to approve the minutes from the January 11, 2016 Appearance Review Commission meeting. Ms. Low seconded the motion. There were minor corrections from Ch. Coen. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Dunn, Flores, Low (5) NAYS: None (0) Business: 1. Sleep Number, 60 S. Waukegan Road – façade changes and opaque window Russ Dawson, District Manager of the Chicago region for Sleep Number, was present. He requested the moving of the existing doors to create a double door entrance on the north façade. Mr. Dawson indicated the existing doors would be replaced with the glass and moldings on other areas of the building. He noted they would also add an opaque film to the inside of the glass. Appearance Review Commission January 25, 2016 Page 2 of 9 Ch. Coen noted parts of the submittal show Sleep Comfort. Mr. Dawson explained the company name is Select Comfort, but they go by Sleep Number. Ms. Dunn questioned why Subway is using a dark color film but the petitioner is requesting a white color film. She would be in favor of a dark color film like Subway. The commissioners discussed the proposed building changes. Ms. Dunn confirmed there is still a door on the rear elevation. Mr. Dawson indicated the double doors create a more home-like feel. Ms. Flores believes the double doors work well with the signage. Ms. Chaitman agreed. The commissioners discussed the proposed film which would cover the view into a storage area. Ch. Coen noted the commissioners believe the black film will look better. He noted the dark film would blend in rather than just cover up the window. Ch. Coen indicated the film would need to be applied to the window interior. Ms. Dunn moved to grant the request of Sleep Number for the façade changes, removing two doors and adding a double door on the front to match the existing. The windows would also match the existing. The film will be applied on the inside of the glass, and will be brown/black in color. The doors must conform to all applicable codes. Ms. Flores seconded the motion. Ch. Coen indicated if the film is different than what has been applied at Subway, the Commission holds the right to review the film before building permits are issued. AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Dunn, Flores (4) NAYS None (0) Ms. Spagnoli noted the petitioner received the Window Signage Ordinance and will comply. 2. Wheelhouse Studio, 49 Waukegan Road – signage Stephanie Rubinstein, Donnie Stutland and Tracy Chudnow, co-owners of Wheelhouse Studio and Ken Prywell, owner of Signarama Deerfield, were present. The petitioners are seeking a business sign over their entrance as well as a two panels on the Waukegan Road pylon sign. Ms. Stutland indicated they would like to open in April. Mr. Prywell discussed the pylon sign. The existing pylon sign has a number of individual acrylic panels. The panel is approximately 12” x 43”. The pylon sign is illuminated and they propose adding black and teal text to the white panel. Mr. Prywell explained the wall sign would have LED illuminated channel letters and an illuminated light box with the logo. Ms. Spagnoli noted the submittal shows the word “Studio” as non-illuminated acrylic letters. Mr. Prywell explained they considered it, but all the letters will be channel, face-lit letters. Appearance Review Commission January 25, 2016 Page 3 of 9 Ch. Coen noted the submittal shows SportClips as a two-color sign panel on the pylon sign. The criteria for the Center allow only one color on the pylon sign panels. The SportClips panel shows a stacked sign. The SportClips panel was installed without Village approval and after coming to the Commission, the sign panel was changed to a one-color, one-line panel. Ch. Coen suggested the petitioners consider the readability of the sign. Ms. Stutland explained they would consider making the word “Wheelhouse” smaller. Ms. Flores expressed concern about making the word “Wheelhouse” smaller and the word “Studio” larger as the entire sign would not be readable. She questioned the color of the sign, as it is two colors. Ms. Flores does not believe the teal would be as readable. Ch. Coen noted the center’s sign criteria only allow one-color on the sign panel. Mr. Prywell explained the landlord stated he would allow a two-color sign panel if the Commission approved it. Ms. Stutland would make the name on the pylon sign all black. Ms. Dunn is not in favor of having a two-line sign. Ms. Stutland noted they are not allowed to have just “Wheelhouse” in the State, as there already is a business named “Wheelhouse.” Ms. Chaitman is okay with the stacked (two-line) sign. Ms. Chudnow explained they do not have the rights to the name “Wheelhouse”, as there is a “Wheelhouse LLC” in the City of Chicago. Ch. Coen does not believe having “Wheelhouse Studio” on one line would be readable. Ms. Flores moved to approve the pylon sign panel for Wheelhouse Studio as submitted, making the letters black instead of black and teal. Ms. Chaitman seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Flores (3) NAYS: Dunn (1) Mr. Prywell explained the wall sign consists of an illuminated gear logo box with the Wheelhouse logo in the center. The words “Wheelhouse Studio” would be illuminated with LED. The trim caps and returns would be dark bronze. The word “Wheel” would be teal and the words “House and Studio” would be white. The letters would all be individual letters. Ch. Coen expressed concern about the readability of the words “House” and Studio”, as they are white on a light colored background. Mr. Pylon explained the dark bronze trim caps and returns would outline the letters. Ch. Coen explained the logo and words “House” and Studio” are shown as grey on the petitioner’s business cards. He indicated the petitioner could use a perforated material, so the words would illuminate as white, but would be more readable during the day if a perforated grey vinyl is used. Ms. Flores agreed, as the lack of contrast would not be readable. The petitioners would be open to using grey and teal on the wall sign. Ms. Flores questioned the letter height. Ms. Stutland explained they need a letter height of at least 7” for the illumination. Mr. Prywell explained the sign would be centered vertically in the space, but would be centered between the two brick piers. Ch. Coen noted the gear would be 5” deep and would be a one-dimensioned sign. All three colors Appearance Review Commission January 25, 2016 Page 4 of 9 would be on one surface. Ms. Flores noted the trademark submittal shows the inside of the wheel as clear, so the background color would show through. The petitioners would agree to have the center of the gear logo appear as depicted in their sign submittal. Ms. Stutland added this application would have a white background rather than the façade background. Ms. Chaitman moved to approve the Wheelhouse Studio wall sign with the gear appearing as depicted on their business card. The words “House” and “Studio” would be perforated grey so it appeared white when illuminated. The gear logo will be one surface with the gray and teal colors on a white background. The returns and trim caps would be dark bronze. The sign dimensions will be as submitted. The channel letters will have a perforated face for the words “House” and “Studio” which will be grey and with the word “Wheel” in PMS 325 teal. Ms. Flores seconded the motion. Ms. Flores requested the PMS color for the grey color. Ms. Low noted the sign location would be as shown on the submittal. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Dunn, Flores, Low (5) NAYS: None (0) Ms. Spagnoli requested updated drawings. 3. Cadwell’s Corners shopping center, building alteration (continued) a. Landscape plan Rob Costello, principal with Torch Architecture was present. Mr. Costello noted that the Commission requested a landscaping plan, including additional planters along the sidewalk. Ch. Coen asked about keeping the existing tree. Mr. Costello explained their landscape architect does not believe the existing tree would make it through the renovation. Ch. Coen discussed the individual plantings and their locations. They recommended the proposed Japanese Tree Lilac be planted with a minimum caliper of 3”. Ms. Low recommended removing the Heuchera Obsidian and adding additional Allium Summer Beauties, Daylily Happy Returns and Nepeta in the area surrounding the Japanese Lilac. Ms. Dunn questioned the number of planters, with only three being shown. Mr. Costello explained they would want flexibility as there may be doors in the area. Ch. Coen suggested adding two additional planters. Mr. Costello noted the landlord is in litigation for blocking the walk aisle, so they will not add planters in the walk aisle. Ch. Coen believes there is enough space. Ms. Low moved to approve the landscape plan for Cadwell’s Corners shopping center as presented with the following changes: the planting bed on the east corner of the property will have the ten Heuchera plants eliminated and the other species quantities increased, there will be two additional freestanding planters added to the site plan. The perennial area on the northwest side of the property will have only one species. The Appearance Review Commission January 25, 2016 Page 5 of 9 Japanese Tree Lilac will be installed with a minimum of a 3” caliper. Ms. Dunn seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Dunn, Flores, Low (5) NAYS: None (0) The commissioners discussed the building updates. Mr. Costello explained the materials would match the existing materials. He indicated the only change is the antique bronze color for the fixture. Ch. Coen confirmed the fixture would have down- lighting only. Ms. Dunn moved to approve the request for building alterations at Cadwell’s Corner shopping center. The materials will match the existing colors and the submitted material board. The light fixture will be antique bronze. Ms. Flores seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Dunn, Flores, Low (5) NAYS: None (0) 4. 636 Deerfield Road – façade and off-site (municipal lot) improvements, preliminary review Martina Stoycheva, architect with Partners in Design Architects, Jonathan Berger with Berger Asset Management and Larry Freedman, attorney with Ash, Anon, Freedman and Logan, LLC were present. Mr. Berger explained they are the new owner of Deerfield Shopper’s Court and the 636 building. They own and develop real estate and plan to bring the property back to life. Mr. Berger noted the 636 building was built in 1961 and is in fair to poor condition. He plans on making a complete core and shell renovation which will include a dividable building. In order to divide the building, there needs to be multiple front door possibilities along the east façade. The sidewalk will need to be raised to match the floors. Mr. Berger explained they propose setting back the windows along the east façade to create depth as well as a spacious sidewalk for the patrons. Mr. Berger explained they tried to follow the existing Sign Ordinance for the Shopper’s Court identification sign, but the black behind the address numbers would be larger. Ch. Coen noted the east parking lot and sidewalk are owned by the Village. Mr. Freedman explained they will work with the Village Board on a licensing agreement. Ms. Dunn questioned whether the doors could swing onto Village property. Ms. Stoycheva explained the doors would swing 1’ onto Village property. Mr. Berger noted they may need additional windows, but do not know at this time. Ch. Coen asked if the building has a fire sprinkler. Mr. Berger explained it currently does not have a fire Appearance Review Commission January 25, 2016 Page 6 of 9 sprinkler, but will have one. Ch. Coen noted the petitioner may need to add corridors for exiting. Mr. Berger will look into it. Ms. Dunn would prefer to see the building oriented more toward Deerfield Road. She does not know how this building will complement the other buildings along Deerfield Road. Mr. Berger explained there would be two tenants on the front façade. He believes having a multi-sided building would be a nice addition to the downtown. Ms. Chaitman explained the design and brick color are different than the existing Shopper’s Court. Mr. Berger explained they would be stripping off the paint and returning the brick to the natural color. Ms. Flores would prefer to see at least one element tied into the neighboring shopping areas. Ch. Coen confirmed the brick would be tuck pointed and stained as required for a uniform look across the entire façade. Ms. Stoycheva showed the proposed metal panels located 10’ above the ground. Ch. Coen expressed concern about the signs being installed and removed, noting the material is not forgiving and questioned if the petitioner would replace the panel when tenants change. Ms. Dunn noted the material is inconsistent with anything in the downtown. Ms. Low noted the material has horizontal lines, and is similar to siding. She indicated there are other businesses in downtown that have siding. Ms. Flores believes the existing materials in the area have a warmer feel. Mr. Berger noted the south façade does not have brick. Ms. Chaitman believes this would make Deerfield have a more contemporary feel. Ch. Coen prefers the natural brick. Ms. Flores asked about the potential tenants. Mr. Berger would like unique tenants including a restaurant to occupy the building. Ms. Dunn asked if there is enough parking for a restaurant. Mr. Berger explained they are not changing the footprint of the building. Ms. Spagnoli noted restaurants are special uses in the Village and would require Village approval. Mr. Freedman noted they would appear before the Plan Commission for a Special Use if they get a restaurant tenant. Ms. Dunn and Ms. Flores are not in favor of the metal material. Ms. Chaitman is okay with the metal material if they get the signage issues worked out. Ms. Low prefers a brown color, but is okay with the material. Ms. Stoycheva noted the metal material is paneled, so they would only need to remove the affected panels. Ch. Coen pointed out that after time a new panel may not match existing panels. Ch. Coen expressed concern about the durability of the front/south façade material, and suggested a Renaissance type stone be used at the base. Ms. Low questioned the gooseneck fixtures. Ms. Stoycheva indicated the gooseneck fixtures would illuminate the metal awnings. Ms. Low expressed concern about the gooseneck fixtures taking up too much space, which would interfere with signage. Ch. Coen questioned if there is lighting with a smaller profile. He indicated the proposed signage should all be within the same plane. Mr. Berger believes the varying parapet height brings some interest to the building. Ms. Chaitman suggested using smaller fixtures, to allow for signage. Appearance Review Commission January 25, 2016 Page 7 of 9 Ch. Coen confirmed the framing would be charcoal gray. Ms. Low added the banding would also be charcoal gray. Ms. Dunn is in favor of the additional window on the southwest corner. a. Identification Signs The commissioners discussed the building fin. Ch. Coen suggested adding the numbers to the existing insets. Ms. Dunn questioned whether the building identification sign would interfere with the tenant building signs. Ms. Flores is not in favor of the stacked numbers. Ms. Stoycheva believes the stacked numbers work well with the shape of the fin. Mr. Berger noted if the black background panel was removed, it would fit into the sign provisions. Ms. Spagnoli noted one 10 square foot identification sign is permitted. The proposed sign has two 32 square foot signs. Ms. Chaitman and Ms. Low like the proposed sign, but believes it should meet the Village Code. Ms. Dunn likes the existing cut-out detail on the fin and questioned the need to cover the decorative feature to add the building numbers. Ch. Coen is okay with the proposed fin sign, but would also support the cut-outs without numbers. Ch. Coen questioned the sun screen. He noted the panels are partially open. Ms. Stoycheva indicated they could be closed if desired. Ms. Flores questioned whether the proposed material would promote nesting. Mr. Berger noted his maintenance staff would address insect and bird nesting. The commissioners want to see a sample of this material. The commissioners are okay with the proposed charcoal grey metal sconces with up and down lighting. The commissioners discussed the identification sign. Ms. Flores questioned why the numbers needed to be stacked. Mr. Berger believes the stacked numbers work better with the fin. The commissioners asked if the black panel could be removed. Ms. Stoycheva indicated the black panel covers the inset cut-outs. Ms. Chaitman suggested keeping the insets. Ms. Stoycheva explained they looked at various size numbers. The proposed numerals are 1’6” in height. Ms. Flores believes people will look for the store names rather than the building address. Ch. Coen noted the fire department will require a building address. Ms. Chaitman believes the Commission’s recommendation would be to reduce the area of the sign. Ms. Low and Ms. Chaitman are okay with 2-sided sign, one on either side of the building fin, but would like the height and square footage reduced. Ms. Dunn would prefer the signs to be smaller and within the Village’s provisions, but would be okay with two signs. Ms. Flores would prefer the inset squares be visible and would prefer the address to be much smaller. Ms. Flores would not be in favor of a stacked sign, but would be okay with two signs, both within the Village’s sign provisions. Ch. Coen would prefer the inset squares; the decorative building detail being retained. Appearance Review Commission January 25, 2016 Page 8 of 9 b. Sign criteria The commissioners discussed the proposed sign criteria. Ms. Dunn suggested using the same sign criteria as Shopper’s Court. Mr. Berger explained it would be the same, but the sign faces are not being restricted to white. Ms. Dunn would prefer having a uniform color and font. Mr. Berger noted Shopper’s Court allows any font. Ch. Coen read the proposed criteria for tenant signage. Ms. Dunn noted the signs are not all on brick, as submitted. Ch. Coen noted the signs will just be face lit. Ms. Chaitman believes white faces would be the best color on the metal material. Ch. Coen questioned the color of the natural brick. Ms. Stoychava explained the brick would be an orange-yellow color. The commissioners believe there could be different color faces for the different elevations. Ms. Spagnoli noted the Village typically does not have illuminated (face-lit) signs on the rear of a building that faces residential. She indicated the petitioner would be allowed a sign on each elevation that faces a public way. Ms. Flores would prefer all the signs to be the same font unless there is a logo font. She would prefer the sign faces to be the same color and would not want graphic logos. Ms. Chaitman would be okay with various logos and fonts, but would prefer a standard color. Ms. Low believes the signs should have two colors within the center, with logos allowed and any font. Ms. Dunn would prefer one color signs without logos, but would allow any font. Ch. Coen would prefer a limited palate of colors from which tenants can select. Logos would be permitted but no more than two colors would be permitted in a sign. The commissioners discussed possible internal sign illumination on the north side of the building. The commissioners would not want internally illuminated signage on the north side of the building. Mr. Berger asked if there were a front door on the north side of the building. Ms. Dunn noted the gooseneck lighting could illuminate the sign. Ch. Coen noted the sign criteria needs to be sensitive to the residents. Mr. Berger believes it would be difficult to make the building four sided without allowing illuminated signage on the north side of the building. The commissioners believe indirect lighting of sign on the north elevation would be appropriate – not a face-lit sign. 5. Election of Vice Chairperson Ch. Coen noted with the departure of Mr. Ehlke, the Commission needs a new vice chairperson. Ch. Coen moved to appoint Lisa Dunn as the vice chairperson of the Commission. Ms. Flores seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Dunn, Flores, Low (5) NAYS: None (0) Appearance Review Commission January 25, 2016 Page 9 of 9 Items from the Commission Ms. Low noted the Hobby Lobby pylon sign shows a different shade of white inside the letter. Items from Staff Ms. Spagnoli noted Queens Nails replaced their sign with the Appearance Review Commission approved sign. She reported this Thursday at 7:30 pm is the Public Hearing regarding the northwest quadrant. Ms. Spagnoli suggested the plan needs to work for the community. Adjournment There being no further business or discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:43 pm. Respectfully submitted, Jeri Cotton Secretary