Appearance Review Commission (ARC)

APPROVED COPY Appearance Review Commission Meeting Minutes March 20, 2017 A meeting of the Appearance Review Commission was held on Monday, March 20, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Village Hall Conference Room, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Chairperson Lisa Dunn called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present were Beth Chaitman Lisa Dunn, Chairperson Sherry Flores Tony Fulmer Jason Golub Elizabeth Low 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 February 27, 2017 Appearance Review Commission meeting. Mr. Fulmer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote with a minor correction. Business: 1. Exxon, 700 Waukegan Road – Building and Site Lighting Ed Mistretta and Rick Mistretta with Exxon and Ron Schuetz with Ledco America were present. Mr. Rick Mistretta explained they want to ensure patrons feel the lighting in their station is safe. The current Village standard is much dimmer than the former standard. The adjacent Mobil gas station is much brighter than the current standard. Trying to find an LED bulb with the required wattage will not provide the same brightness as the competing stations. Mr. Schuetz took meter readings at various Appearance Review Commission March 20, 2017 Page 2 of 8 stations, and the foot candle measurements were between 45 and 55. The current average foot candle wattage should not exceed 30 for a gasoline fuel station pump area. Mr. Ed Mistretta explained they would also like additional lighting on the building. Mr. Rick Mistretta noted there are existing fluorescent tube fixtures around the bay doors and in the gable. They are not going to put lighting in gable. Mr. Rick Mistretta indicated they would have LED lighting for the interior but would remove the strip lighting on the exterior of the building. Ch. Dunn noted there would be one light on the west and south elevations and four on the front elevation. Mr. Rick Mistretta indicated they would also like the Village Auto Repair sign illuminated. Mr. Rick Mistretta explained people want to feel the station is clean and safe. They would like their site to be illuminated similarly to the other stations. They do not want the station to appear dark for safety reasons. He explained LED lights are more direct and do not illuminate the entire canopy. Mr. Ed Mistretta noted the brighter lights would not impact any residential. He indicated the only business open in the evening is Baskin Robbins. Ms. Chaitman questioned whether the lights would be replaced one for one. Ch. Dunn noted there are some LED lights that could be installed that would meet the code. Mr. Schuetz explained the other locations would have twice the foot candles. Mr. Rick Mistretta explained they do not need to be as bright as the Mobil station, but need to be bright enough. Mr. Ed Mistretta indicated the Mobil station has so much light, that it exceeds their property footprint. Most LED lights focus down. Ms. Low expressed concern about setting a precedent. It would be difficult to raise the bar. Mr. Rick Mistretta noted if they put metal halide lights back in, it would not meet the Appearance Code. The metal halide lamps have different colors and reduces the light after just a few years. Mr. Ed Mistretta suggested possibly revisiting the Appearance Code. Ch. Dunn noted the Village wants all the stations to be safe and clean, but need to determine when it is too bright. Ms. Chaitman noted the Commission just put together the new code and looked at it in comparison with the other Villages. She questioned what the Village could do about the other gas stations. Mr. Rick Mistretta questioned whether they could put in metal halide bulbs. Ms. Spagnoli explained any changes would need to be at the Village standard. Mr. Rick Mistretta noted they would need to try to appeal the decision. Ms. Low questioned whether they needed 16 light fixtures with bright lights in each can. She suggested trying to use fewer fixtures with brighter bulbs. Mr. Rick Mistretta stated he would look into it, but expressed concern about min/max ratios. Ms. Spagnoli questioned how the foot candles were measured by Mr. Schuetz. Ch. Dunn noted the Village looks at the average foot candles. Mr. Schuetz has not seen a gas station that meets the Village’s requirements on the North Shore. Ms. Low believes the Exxon station would appear brighter if the adjacent neighbor was not as bright. Mr. Schuetz noted the LED lights appear more consistent and crisp while metal halide bulbs show various colors. Mr. Rick Mistretta believes the other stations have the industry standard while the Village is requesting a different standard. Ch. Dunn questioned where the petitioner has a hardship, other than stating the other gas stations have brighter bulbs. Appearance Review Commission March 20, 2017 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Rick Mistretta explained they do not want to be 1/3 as bright as the other stations. Mr. Schuetz noted the other stations currently have an advantage. He cannot think of an example of other stations that meet the Village’s standard. Ch. Dunn noted when the Commission looked at the standard in the Appearance Code, they felt the new standards were appropriate. Mr. Rick Mistretta noted they are not asking to be as bright as the neighboring stations; they only want to be visible enough where customers feel safe. Ms. Low moved to approve the canopy fixtures for the Exxon located at 700 Waukegan Road for the 16 light fixtures located under the gas canopy as presented. The 16 fixtures would result in a 38.41 foot candle lighting across that area of the property. Mr. Moons seconded the motion. The motion did not pass by the following vote: AYES: None (0) NAYS: Chaitman, Dunn, Flores, Fulmer, Golub, Low, Moons (7) Ms. Low moved to approve the lighting for Exxon located at 700 Waukegan Road for six LED light fixtures mounted to the building as presented. The tube lighting would be removed. Mr. Fulmer seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Chaitman, Dunn, Flores, Fulmer, Golub, Low, Moons (7) NAYS: None (0) 2. Jimmy Thai, 475 Lake Cook Road – Wall Sign Jim Seriruk explained he was formerly with Thai Thai. Their lease expired and he no longer has a partner. Mr. Seriruk has another restaurant in the west suburbs. The old Thai Thai signs will be removed and the proposed sign would be more modern to match their branding. He is asking for approval of a sign that would be more visible from Lake Cook Road. Mr. Seriruk indicated a number of their customers go to the exit door rather than their front door. Mr. Moons noted the proposed sign location would be by the underpass walkway rather than the walls of the business. Mr. Seriruk believes the proposed sign location would be more visible. Ch. Dunn noted the Village does not usually approve signs over a walkway. Mr. Seriruk explained he believes the proposed sign location would be better than where the Thai Thai sign was located, so patrons can see it is a corner location. He asked the sign company to provide information with the sign located above the door rather than the walkway. The commissioners prefer the new option. The commissioners discussed the proposed font and color. Mr. Seriruk explained the font is part of his branding. The Thai Thai font was more Asian traditional while the proposed font is more modern. Mr. Seriruk explained the proposed color of the font is consistent with the paint color in the restaurant as well as the menus. Mr. Seriruk will work with the landlord to repair the façade where the previous signs were removed. Appearance Review Commission March 20, 2017 Page 4 of 8 The commissioners discussed the proposed pylon sign panels. Ch. Dunn explained the sign face would be changed to reflect the new name. The letters would be centered horizontally and vertically in the panel. Mr. Golub moved to approve the wall sign for Jimmy Thai located at 475 Lake Cook Road as presented with the sign centered over the arch adjacent to the front entryway. The colors are PMS 1595 orange for the word Jimmy and PMS 375 green for the word Thai. The letters will be flush mount channel letters with LED illumination and black returns and trim caps. The existing sign areas on the façade will be cleaned and repaired as required. Ms. Flores seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Chaitman, Dunn, Flores, Fulmer, Golub, Low, Moons (7) NAYS: None (0) Mr. Moons moved to approve the pylon sign panels for Jimmy Thai located at 475 Lake Cook Road as presented. Ms. Low seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Chaitman, Dunn, Flores, Fulmer, Golub, Low, Moons (7) NAYS: None (0) 3. Opal Enterprises Window and Siding Company, 370 Lake Cook Road – Wall Sign Ch. Dunn noted representatives from Opal Enterprises were unable to attend the meeting. They are not asking for variations. She asked if there were any comments about their proposal. Ms. Low questioned whether the sign is centered over their door. The sign would be centered within their lease space. Ms. Flores moved to approve the Opal Enterprises Window and Siding Company wall sign as submitted. The sign will have block lettering centered over the tenant space. Ms. Low seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Chaitman, Dunn, Flores, Fulmer, Golub, Low, Moons (7) NAYS: None (0) 4. Deerbrook Shopping Center, Signage Michelle Panovich, Executive Vice President and Patti Mahony, Vice President Construction Management with Mid-America Asset Management, Gil Magnelli with OKW Architects, Bill Ferguson with Daniel Weinbach & Partners Landscape Architects and Lisa Stoszak with Parvin-Clauss Sign Company were present. a. Sign Criteria for Center Appearance Review Commission March 20, 2017 Page 5 of 8 b. Waukegan Road Pylon Signs c. Lake Cook Road Ground Sign Mr. Magnelli explained they propose using the same material as Jewel, including the Sioux City Desert Blend masonry and Parklex Onix. The pylon sign box would be changed, but the brick bottom would remain. The top of the new sign would be the same height as the existing sign, but the divisions in the sign box would differ. The sign design picks up some of the modern edges of the buildings. Ms. Panovich explained the proposed pylon sign tenant panels will have a brushed aluminum suede satin finish. Ms. Mahony explained the panels will be much easier to match. The tenant panels will not allow logos. Ms. Flores expressed concern as the sign for the center (Deerbrook) looks too much like a tenant panel. Ms. Panovich explained they want the emphasis to be on the tenants. Ms. Mahony added the tenant signs are pushed thru so the letters would illuminate at night while the Deerbrook portion would not illuminate. Ms. Low ensured the tenants could have any color letters on the pylon sign. Ms. Mahony explained the tenants could use their trademark color on the pylon sign but logos would not be permitted. The letters on the pylon sign panels can only be one color and on one line. There would be a 4” margin on all four sides. Ms. Mahony indicated the pylon sign panels would be illuminated with white LED regardless of the letter color. Ms. Stoszak explained they use translucent vinyl on top of the acrylic to achieve the desired color. Ms. Spagnoli explained the current Ordinance allows tenants to have a pylon sign panel on the pylon sign nearest the tenant location. Ms. Panovich indicated that is opposite of their thinking. Some of the larger tenants will be on more than one pylon sign. Ms. Low moved to approve the pylon signs and the shopping center sign criteria: four pylon signs on Waukegan Road and the one sign on Lake Cook Road as presented from Parvin-Clauss sign company sheet 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 and the sign criteria and section F as presented on 3/20/2017, subject to Board approval. Mr. Moons second the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Chaitman, Dunn, Flores, Fulmer, Golub, Low, Moons (7) NAYS: None (0) 5. Stein Mart, 94 S. Waukegan Road – Building Improvements and Signage Scott Griffin, Store Planning Manager with Stein Mart, was present. Mr. Griffin explained they would be locating in the existing Office Max location. They propose moving the doors over one window bay so their entry is centered below their sign creating a more balanced appearance. They are also requesting approval to create two areas on the outer edges of the existing windows to allow for black film near the women’s fitting rooms and for store holds and returns. They propose removing some of Appearance Review Commission March 20, 2017 Page 6 of 8 the existing arches and piers to clean up the façade. They also propose adding a fresh coat of paint, which would match the current façade. Mr. Griffin explained they propose a 21’ long sign, which meets the Village standards. The sign would be backlit, while the sign criteria require a face lit sign for consistency within the center. Mr. Griffin would change the sign to be face lit. The proposed window film would be solid black rather than a graphic window film. Mr. Griffin indicated there would be a wall behind the window film. Ch. Dunn questioned the sign color. Ms. Mahony explained this is their trademark color. The commissioners discussed the proposed pylon sign panels. Ms. Chaitman reported the background panel would be Enchanted Forest Green with white graphics. Ms. Mahony noted the center is redoing the pylon sign and suggested waiting for that approval to discuss the proposed pylon sign panels. The petitioner deferred further discussion on the pylon sign panels. Mr. Golub noted there are areas in the center that are very dark. Mr. Griffin explained Stein Mart typically adds some lighting near their store entrances. Mr. Golub would be in favor of adding lights to illuminate the front walkway. Ms. Spagnoli pointed out that any exterior improvement, including lights, requires Appearance Review Commission approval. Mr. Moons moved to approve the building improvements and wall sign for Stein Mart located at 94 S. Waukegan Road. The sign will be face lit rather than back lit as presented. The window film will be the same color to match the MOD Pizza window film. Mr. Golub seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Chaitman, Dunn, Flores, Fulmer, Golub, Low, Moons (7) NAYS: None (0) 6. Deerbrook Shopping Center, Redevelopment of Mid-Section – Preliminary Review Mr. Magnelli explained they propose demolishing the mid-section including the theater and want to replace it with a three tenant retail building. The Office Max and the Ulta will be relocated to this new building. The face of the building will be moved further west to make room for additional parking and a drive aisle. Ch. Dunn questioned why the buildings do not align. Mr. Magnelli explained Hobby Lobby is existing. Ms. Panovich explained by moving the building back and removing the bump out, 50 spaces will be added and it will be more shopper-friendly. Mr. Magnelli explained they would be raising the current floor to remove the steps and railing. Ms. Mahoney noted the grade would be fixed as well. Mr. Magnelli noted they would be replacing some of the parking lot lighting with LED fixtures and adding some lighting in the drive aisle. The submittal shows metal halide Appearance Review Commission March 20, 2017 Page 7 of 8 bulbs, but they would be using LED. The wall packs and fixtures would be the same as what was approved for Jewel and the outlot buildings. Bill Ferguson, landscape architect with Daniel Weinbach Partners, explained they would be removing some of the parking lot trees that are not in good condition. They would be tripling the number of trees that they are removing. Mr. Ferguson explained the improvements have allowed for larger green spaces for planting beds with ornamental grasses. There will be a landscape median in the new drive aisle with ornamental grasses, perennials and shrubs. The proposed southwest corner will include green enhancements and trees. The proposed median is 9’ from back of curb to back of curb with 8’ of planting. There will be a sidewalk on both sides. There will be a landscape and seating area between Art Van Furniture and the new building. There will be landscape treatments in the parking lot islands. Mr. Fulmer did not have objections to the proposed plant list. Ms. Low questioned the use of the sod, especially in the long median strip. Mr. Ferguson explained they would use a Black Beauty sod, which would allow the snow to be stored for smaller snowfalls. Ms. Low expressed concern about the maintenance. Mr. Ferguson explained they would use push mowers. Ms. Low questioned whether the center would be better served using mulch. Mr. Ferguson noted if the grass fails, they would switch it out to bark mulch. Ch. Dunn noted the foot candles are greater that what is allowed by the Appearance Code. Mr. Magnelli explained the east parking area averages just over 2 and in the west parking area it is just over 3. He believes the proposed light candles help maintain uniformity and eliminates some of the dark spots. Ms. Mahoney noted Jewel has higher foot candles. She will have their engineer rerun the photometrics. Ms. Mahoney noted they are not changing all of the lights and are trying to maintain uniformity. For safety reasons, the commissioners were concerned about the pathways between the two buildings being well lit. Mr. Magnelli discussed the proposed building elevations. The front façade includes Sioux City Desert Blend brick masonry, parklex cladding and EIFS painted to match the rest of the center. The store front system is bronze anodized, which is also consistent with most of the center. There will be cast stone accents at the piers and around the masonry elements. The drive elevation has parklex and masonry along with a screened wall to hide the Ulta loading area. The trash enclosures will also be screened in the rear of the bulding. They will be steel framed and wood clad. Ms. Low noted the rear of the buildings are going to be visible. She asked if the rear of the buildings could be made similar to the front. Mr. Golub noted there may be a number of people in the rear of the building. Ms. Panovich explained the intent is to redevelop the rear parcel. She would not want to make a decision based on what is there today. Mr. Magnelli noted they also have some white, open air canopies to add dimension. Mr. Golub questioned the lack of wall sconces on the south side of Ulta. Ms. Mahony explained they need to discuss what to use. They will come back to the Commission Appearance Review Commission March 20, 2017 Page 8 of 8 with the lighting. The commissioners suggested they take another look at the rear of the building as they believe it is too plain. Adjournment: There being no further business or discussion, Mr. Moons moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Golub seconded the motion. The motion was adjourned at 9:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, Jeri Cotton Secretary