Appearance Review Commission (ARC)

APPROVED COPY Appearance Review Commission Meeting Minutes November 14, 2016 A meeting of the Appearance Review Commission was held on Monday, November 14, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. at the Village Hall Conference Room, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Vice-Chairperson Elizabeth Low called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present were Beth Chaitman Lisa Dunn, Chairperson (arrived 7:46) Sherry Flores (arrived 7:46) Jason Golub Elizabeth Low, Vice-Chairperson Daniel Moons Also Present: Jean Spagnoli, Village Planner Jeri Cotton, Secretary Public Comment: There were no public comments on non-agenda items. Document Approval Ms. Low moved to approve the minutes from the October 24, 2016 Appearance Review Commission meeting. Ms. Flores seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote. Business: 1. Aligned Modern Health, 800 Waukegan Road, Awning with Sign Andrew Ingley, co-founder of Aligned Modern Health was present. He explained they will co-occupy the Fleet Feet location and would use the western most door as their primary entrance and exit. Mr. Ingley explained there would be a demising wall to separate the tenant spaces. He indicated the proposed awning sign would be located above their entrance door. The awning will be black with a Pantone 382C and 368C green logo. The 68”w x 16”h logo would be centered horizontally and vertically on the Appearance Review Commission November 14, 2106 Page 2 of 6 awning. Mr. Golub questioned the color of the words Modern Health on their logo. Mr. Ingley explained they use a 30% screen for the gray. Mr. Moons asked about the awning material. Mr. Ingley explained they will be using a Sunbrella awning that will match the Fleet Feet awning’s profile and fabric, not color. Vice-Chairman Low questioned using five colors on the awning. Ms. Chaitman noted the Commission is usually in favor of limiting the color palate, as noted in the Appearance Code. Vice Ch. Low would prefer the Modern Health in white, as it would be more readable. The commissioners agreed. Mr. Moons moved to approve the Aligned Modern Health awning as presented with the modification that the Modern Health letters will be white instead of gray, contingent upon the Board of Trustees approval of the use. Mr. Golub seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Chaitman, Golub, Low, Moons (4) NAYS: None (0) 2. El Tradicional Restaurant, 649 Lake Cook Road, Pylon Sign Panels Carlos Martinez and Areli Rodriguez with El Tradicional Restaurant and Ken Pywell with Signarama were present. Mr. Pywell explained they want to have their name on the blank panel of the existing Home Depot monument sign; the one near the entrance to the development. The sign panel will be translucent and will replace the vacant spot on both sides of the monument sign. Mr. Pywell noted the proposed colors were not very readable, so they added a white outline around the letters. The petitioner came up with an alternative that is more readable. The new proposal would have white letters on a green background. The word “El” would be red, with a white outline. There would also be a multi-color emblem of Mexico. Vice-Chairman Low questioned whether the proposed sign panel is the same font as the wall sign. She indicated the Commission tries to have consistency within signs. She questioned why there is a different font between the signs. Vice Ch. Low expressed concern about the readability of the sign. Ms. Flores believes the serif letters are very difficult to read. She also questioned the lack of contrast between the red in “El” and the green background. Ch. Dunn questioned whether the petitioners have considered using a white sign with black letters. She believes the website letters are much easier to read. Ch. Dunn believes this is a very important sign, because it would draw people into the center to find the restaurant. Mr. Moons suggested the petitioner submit the website logo with a white background and dark brown letters as the pylon sign for fast track consideration. Ms. Low would also suggest removing the Mexico emblem to make the letters larger. Ms. Chaitman noted the fast track submittal should be fully dimensioned. Appearance Review Commission November 14, 2106 Page 3 of 6 3. 711 Deerfield Road, New Building, Site Improvements and Sign Criteria – Preliminary Review Travis Keller, Senior Designer, Mei Shao, Associate Vice President and Demetrios Stavrianos, Senior Associate Vice President with CallisonRTKL, Bill Ferguson, Associate with Daniel Weinbach & Partners Landscape Architects and Chuck Malk and Chris Siavelis with CRM Property Management representing Deerfield Square were present. Mr. Siavelis explained that Biaggi’s has terminated their lease and closed the restaurant. This creates an opportunity to redevelop the outlot to an exciting multi- tenant building. There was a pre-filing conference in July with the Plan Commission. Mr. Siavelis explained they propose having four tenants and would use premium materials on all four sides of the newly constructed building. The proposed building would be 10,000 square feet. Mr. Siavelis explained they propose some signage variations including allowing the sign height to be a maximum of up to four (4) feet above the roof deck but below the top of the parapet, allowing a sign to be a maximum of 36 inches away from the wall for any glass façade, with the floating signs to be mounted to a horizontal steel brow or horizontal steel canopy and allowing signs on top of the glass appendages with a maximum of 24 inches in height - one line. Mr. Malk explained they have had seven major restaurants in Deerfield Square in 17 years that have failed. Mr. Siavelis added the high-end, sit down restaurants have all failed. They propose a multi-use building including fast casual restaurants and retail. Mr. Malk explained they want to open up the corner and the building to making the area more active. Activity helps bring people into the center. Mr. Malk explained this would help brighten up the property and bring in a new spin. Ms. Low asked about the other vacancies in the center. Mr. Siavelis explained they have a lot of interest in the new space because of the location. Mr. Siavelis showed a material board including brick, stone, glazing, metal panels and paint colors. Ms. Low questioned what would happen if a tenant required a different color. Mr. Siavelis explained they would come back before the Commission. Mr. Malk added that the color scheme is similar to the existing center, but may add additional colors. Mr. Stavrianos explained they are trying to make the building feel more appropriate to the surrounding scale and would like to create a streetscape. Mr. Siavelis added they created a general color scheme but want to be flexible so they are competitive in the marketplace. Mr. Golub questioned the warehouse feel of the buildings. Mr. Stavrianos explained they propose four storefronts; one that is more modern, one that is traditional and two that have transparent endcaps. Mr. Malk explained they want more glass at the corner. Appearance Review Commission November 14, 2106 Page 4 of 6 They also feel the architectural design brings both traditional and modern characteristics. Mr. Golub would not want the open glass to disappear. Ch. Dunn would prefer the blue storefront to be more traditional. Mr. Malk noted they have three restaurants that want glass and endcaps. One potential tenant would want the blue and yellow storefront as it is their colors. Ch. Dunn suggested changing the blue metal. The other commissioners were ok with the blue metal, but expressed concern that some residents may not prefer the blue. Ms. Chaitman questioned the number of parking spaces. Mr. Siavelis explained there would be a net parking change of zero. The commissioners discussed the proposed signage variations. Ch. Dunn asked about the request to allow a maximum height variance of up to four feet above the roof deck. Mr. Siavelis explained they may need the height for stacked lettering, height of windows screening of the RTUs and centering the signs. Ch. Dunn questioned why this building should get a blanket approval when others don’t. Mr. Siavelis explained they have lost some tenants because of the length of time for approvals in the Village. They are trying to bring tenants into the Village and streamline the process. Ch. Dunn explained the Commission wants businesses to come into the Village and be successful while following the Deerfield Appearance Code. The commissioners suggested reducing the parapet height by 1 foot, so a variance would not be required. Mr. Malk explained they want the building to look in proportion. The building and parapet heights do not make a difference. The building will not be higher than what is in the rest of the center. Ms. Low believes the proportions look good as presented, and noted the Appearance Review Commission has the ability to grant up to three feet over the roof deck. She would like to stay within proportions and within the Code. Ms. Flores, Ch. Dunn and Ms. Chaitman agree that four feet above the roof deck should not be granted. Mr. Moons would be ok with the proposed variation; Ms. Low and Mr. Golub may be ok with the variation. Mr. Malk explained they would lose the interested tenant if they cannot provide these variations upfront. Ms. Spagnoli explained the height variation would allow a maximum of 4’, but if the Commission felt it was too high, they would not have to approve the tenant sign. This step, approving a the blanket height variation for the building, would help the petitioner avoid the Plan Commission Public Hearing and Board of Trustees. Mr. Moons explained the Commission has a code they need to uphold. If it is only one foot, he would be ok allowing the variation. Ms. Low believes losing a tenant would be a hardship. Mr. Malk explained the proposed tenant has a prototype that is 24’ above grade and the size of the letters. Ch. Dunn explained the Commission’s charge is to look at the appearance. She would like to see how the proposed 1’ difference would appear. The commissioners discussed the proposed glass façade variance requesting a maximum of 36” away from the glass wall and mounted to a horizontal steel brow or Appearance Review Commission November 14, 2106 Page 5 of 6 horizontal steel canopy. Mr. Siavelis explained this type of sign looks very nice. The conduit would be hidden. Ms. Low noted the letters would only stick out slightly from the adjacent façade. Ms. Spagnoli noted awnings are typically 2’ in depth. Ch. Dunn noted this variation would only be on the north and south façades. It would not be on the glass appendages. Ch. Dunn noted this would be a one-line sign, not a stacked sign. Mr. Siavelis would be ok stipulating 24” maximum on one line. The 36” would be the distance from the wall immediately behind the sign. The commissioners were ok with this proposed variance provided the sign face is no more than 6” beyond the adjacent facades. Ch. Dunn indicated she would be ok because of the unique design. The commissioners discussed the proposed glass appendage with roof signage. Ms. Low questioned whether the sign could be put on the wall. Mr. Moons is not in favor of this variation. Mr. Stavrianos explained the freestanding letters are very fresh. Ms. Low understands the sign looks edgy but expressed concern that it does not fit in with Deerfield. She also expressed concern about pigeons. Mr. Siavelis said that he can easily add spikes to stop pigeons from roosting. Mr. Golub is not in favor of this variation as it does not fit in with Deerfield. Mr. Moons would not want to set a precedent to allow signs on top of buildings within the Village. Mr. Malk explained this is a design concept to provide a fresh, fun look. Mr. Stavrianos questioned how a Deerfield building appears. Mr. Malk suggested the more restrictions imposed on the landlord, the more difficult it is to get tenants. Mr. Golub questioned the hardship. He would prefer to review the tenant sign once there is a tenant. Ms. Spagnoli explained that would be a minimum of three-months for the tenant to go through the process. Mr. Malk explained this is what the market is dictating. Ms. Chaitman understands what the landlord is trying to do with the architecture, but questioned how the Commission can approve this without it being a hardship. Ms. Flores believes this will look outdated in a few years. Deerfield is more traditional and this does not look like it fits with the rest of the center. Ch. Dunn is not in favor of allowing signs on the roof. The commission was unanimously against allowing roof top signage. The commissioners discussed the proposed criteria for tenant signage and suggested allowing the variation on glass facades with a maximum of 24” high, non-stacked letters. Ms. Low noted the maximum number of colors is not specified. Ms. Spagnoli questioned whether the letters would be white on a back panel, so it matches the rest of the center. Mr. Malk is ok having white letters on backer panels but would not be in favor of restricting the letter color in the criteria. Ch. Dunn questioned whether logos would be allowed. She would not want logos on the brow. Mr. Moons believes there are some criterion listed that need to be adjusted. Mr. Malk suggested allowing the backer panel on the east end to be a building element only on one façade. Ms. Spagnoli indicated the building sign criteria needs to be uniform, either all sign back panels are Appearance Review Commission November 14, 2106 Page 6 of 6 building elements or they are part of the sign. If the back panels are considered signage, this allows more flexibility for a tenant to change the color. The commissioners discussed the proposed landscaping. Ms. Low questioned how the proposed landscaping relates to the new Appearance Code. Ms. Spagnoli explained the new parking configuration would not require additional trees. Mr. Siavelis noted the trash enclosure is located off Deerfield Road. Mr. Golub believes the location is too close to Deerfield Road. Ch. Dunn suggested the proposed location may not be the most sightly, with customers in the west glass appendage having a direct view of the trash area. Mr. Siavelis noted the proposed location would utilize the loading dock. Ch. Dunn suggested there are several trees being removed from the north side of the property. Mr. Ferguson explained they propose removing seven dead trees and replacing them with five trees. The current trees are very close together. He believes five is the correct number of trees to maintain the tree health. Ch. Dunn questioned whether more landscaping could be added to the south side, in front of the storefronts. Mr. Malk explained the glass enclosures should be free and clear. Mr. Siavelis added landscaping that does not survive is worse than hardscape. The Commission suggested adding planters to the hardscape. Mr. Ferguson noted the proposed landscaping plan has more landscaping that what is currently there. The commissioners discussed the proposed tables and umbrellas in the corner plaza. The petitioner proposes nine tables with yellow umbrellas. The commissioners were ok with the tables, umbrellas and landscaping. Ch. Dunn would prefer more landscaping on the south elevation. Ms. Low suggested exploring Red Switch Grass as a possible substitute for the Karl Foerster ornamental grasses in the landscape plan, as many existing Karl Foersters in the center and the area are looking scrawny. Ms. Flores likes landscape plan and would also like to see some planters added on the south façade. Items from the Commission Ms. Flores noted there are feather flags at Mattress Firm. Ms. Dunn reported the Brunswick building was painted. Ms. Spagnoli indicated a violation notice has been sent. Items from Staff Ms. Spagnoli reported the next Appearance Review Commission would be on December 12, 2016, due to the holidays. Adjournment There being no further business or discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:58 pm. Respectfully submitted, Jeri Cotton Secretary