Village of Glenview Zoning Board of Appeals

Transcription

1 Village of Glenview Zoning Board of Appeals STAFF REPORT May 15, 2017 TO: Chairman and Zoning Board of Appeals Commissioners FROM: Community Development Department CASE MANAGER: Michelle House, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Zoning Variation request from Chapter 98 of the Municipal Code ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests consideration of a petition requesting a recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees. CONTACT / APPLICANT / OWNER: Dr. Chadwick Prodromos Northfield Plaza Corp Milwaukee Avenue Glenview, IL Tel: (847) CASE #: Z LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: Milwaukee Avenue Howard Plaza Signage PROPOSAL: The applicant, Northfield Plaza Corp., represented by Dr. Chadwick Prodromos, requests a Variation from the provisions of Sections (a)(1), (13), (2), (4), and (5) of the Glenview Municipal Code to allow existing nonconforming signage to remain beyond a term of four years after annexation; to allow two (2) ground signs along a common street frontage (West Lake Avenue); to allow one (1) ground sign in a side yard (north) abutting a street at a height of feet instead of a maximum height of feet and a sign area of square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet, with no address numerals, no sign base, less than 2.00 square feet of landscaping per 1.00 square foot of signage, exposed neon light source, and dissimilar architectural elements; to allow two (2) ground signs along Milwuakee Avenue; to allow one (1) multi-tenant ground sign at a height of feet maximum instead of a maximum of feet with a sign area of square feet instead of a maximum of square feet, with non-opaque faces, less than 2.00 square feet of landscaping per 1.00 square foot of signage, and dissimilar architectural elements; and to allow one (1) billboard ground sign at a height in excess of feet with a sign area in excess of square feet, with no address numerals, no sign base, less than 2.00 square feet of landscaping per 1.00 square foot of signage, and dissimilar architectural elements each as allowed and required by ordinance. New content denoted by 05/15/17 SITE DIRECTIONS: From Village Hall, turn right onto East Lake Avenue and proceed west to Milwaukee Avenue. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of West Lake Avenue and Milwaukee Avenue in the Howard Plaza Shopping Center. Report Disclaimer: Village staff makes no representations regarding support, endorsement, or the likelihood of approval or disapproval by any Glenview regulatory commission or the Village Board of Trustees.

2 Site Assessment VILLAGE OF GLENVIEW ZONING: PIN(s): , Current Glenview B-2 General Business District North Glenview B-2 General Business District East Glenview B-2 General Business District South Glenview R-4 Single Family Residential District West Glenview B-2 General Business District AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY: 2

3 PICTOMETRIC PHOTOGRAPHY: South Elevation North Elevation 3

4 PICTOMETRIC PHOTOGRAPHY: East Elevation West Elevation 4

5 Project Summary BACKGROUND: 05/15/17 The property was annexed into the Village of Glenview in 1988 with a provision authorizing all existing signage to remain in its various nonconforming conditions. The annexation agreement expired January 18, 2008, at which time the existing signage lost its legal conforming status. Prior to the expiration of the annexation agreement, staff sent a letter in December 2007 to the property owner outlining the provisions of Section of the Code which provide the property owner a period of four (4) years from the date of expiration of the term of the agreement to eliminate existing nonconforming signage upon the subject property, or to make such signage conform to current Code requirements. Accordingly, the remediation efforts should have been completed on or before January 18, To date, the roof-mounted sign upon the multi-tenant office building at 1700 Milwaukee Avenue has not been removed but shall be removed as part of these approvals. The original changeable copy sign above the main entry doors was removed and replaced with a panel for the existing tenant, Hanmi Bank. The outstanding nonconforming signs include: A. Multi-tenant Howard Plaza ground sign along Milwaukee Avenue As proposed, this sign will be altered. Zoning variations are required to allow the proposed alterations which were approved by the Appearance Commission on 02/15/2017. B. Billboard sign along Milwaukee Avenue A zoning variation is requested to allow the existing sign to remain in use as currently exists. C. Prodromos Chiropractic ground sign adjacent to West Lake Avenue The applicant proposes the replacement of this sign with a compliant sign design approved by the Appearance Commission on 02/15/2017. D. Johnny s Kitchen & Tap ground sign adjacent to building at 1740 Milwaukee Avenue The applicant requests a zoning variation to allow this sign to remain. E. PJ s Moon Doggies wall sign with changeable copy panel The applicant proposes the replacement of this sign with a compliant sign design approved by the Appearance Commission on 04/12/2017. APPEARANCE COMMISSION REVIEW: The Appearance Commission reviewed the signage at their February 15, 2017, at which time they proposed the following: Howard Plaza multi-tenant ground sign (Milwaukee Avenue) o Repainting of the structure Dark Bronze o Elimination of the changeable copy sign o Field painting of the existing Howard Plaza panel to match the Dark Bronze of the structure o Inclusion of 6.0-inch address numerals o Addition of landscaping around the base of the sign including Stella d Oro Daylily, Little Business Daylily, Little Wine Cup Daylily, Nepeta, and Fountain Grass o The applicant is requesting a variation for a sign area of square feet and a sign height of 29.0 feet. Howard Plaza multi-tenant ground sign (West Lake Avenue) o Replacement of existing pylon sign with new multi-tenant ground sign that is 15.0 feet tall and 12.0 feet wide and includes six (6) tenant panels 5

6 o The applicant has not created tenant design guidelines for the panels for other tenants within the center. Once the owner has determined who the panels will be assigned to they will return to a future Appearance Commission meeting. Johnny s Kitchen and Tap pylon sign o No changes are proposed to the existing pylon sign o A Techno-Bloc Mini-Creta wall with cap approximately 30.0-inches tall will be built surrounding the sign pole. The enclosure will be planted with Miracle Coral Bells, Midnight Rose Coral Bells, All Gold Forest Grass, and Benzi-Laze Forest Grass APPEARANCE COMMISSION ACTION AND COMMENTS TO THE ZBA: The Appearance Commission approved all signs with the following changes and forwarded the following comments to the Zoning Board of Appeals: The multi-tenant ground signs were revised to be dark bronze in color Johnny s Kitchen and Tap should be allowed as long as Johnny s Kitchen and Tap is the tenant of the building. If a new tenant were to take over the building the sign would not be permitted to be re-faced and would need to be replaced with a compliant signage option. A time limit was requested for the Howard Plaza multi-tenant ground sign along Milwaukee Avenue if the IDOT project is further postponed. The Appearance Commission recommended a 5-year term at which time, if the IDOT project had not commenced, that the property owner would need to replace the sign with a compliant option. COMPLIANT ALTERATIONS: The property owner has presented revised sign designs which would bring the PJ s Moon Doggies wall sign and West Lake Avenue multi-tenant ground sign into compliance with size, height, and landscape required for the multi-tenant ground sign along Milwaukee Avenue. REQUESTED VARIATIONS: Based on the aforementioned Appearance Commission approvals the following variations are still requested: Howard Plaza multi-tenant ground sign on Milwaukee Avenue o To allow a square foot sign where a square foot ground sign would be permitted o To allow a 28.0-foot tall sign where a 15.0-foot tall sign would be permitted o To allow a multi-tenant ground sign with dissimilar architectural elements to the main buildings. o To permit a sign with less than 2.0 square feet of landscaping for every 1.0 square foot of signage area. o The Appearance Commission recommended a five (5) year time limit be included in any Ordinance approval in case the IDOT project is further delayed. Billboard on Milwaukee Avenue o To allow the existing nonconforming signage to remain beyond a term of four years after annexation o To allow a square foot sign where a square foot ground sign would be permitted o To allow a foot tall sign where a foot tall sign would be permitted o To allow a single-tenant ground sign with disssimilar architectural elements to the main buildings. o To permit a sign with less than 2.00 square feet of landscaping for every 1.00 square foot of signage area. o To allow a sign without a sign base. 6

7 Johnny s Kitchen and Tap pylon sign o To allow an existing nonconforming signage to remain beyond a term of four years after annexation o To allow one (1) ground sign at a height in excess of 11.0 feet with a sign area in excess of 80.0 square feet with no address numerals, exposed neon, and dissimilar architectural elements. o To allow less than 2.0 square feet of landscaping per every 1.0 square feet of landscaping. The applicant is proposing to construct a 30.0-inch Techno-Block Mini- Crete wall surrounding the sign base with annuals planted in the base. o To allow a sign without address numerals. o To allow a sign without a sign base. o To allow a sign with exposed neon. o To permit two (2) ground signs along the West Lake Avenue street frontage where only one (1) ground sign should be permitted. o The Appearance Commission requested that a condition be added to any variation ordinance to allow the current tenant to use this sign but require a compliant sign should the tenant change in the future. Howard Plaza multi-tenant ground sign on West Lake Avenue o To permit two (2) ground signs along the West Lake Avenue street frontage where only one (1) ground sign should be permitted. The applicant has made the following steps towards compliance of the signage on the property: PJ s Moon Doggies: o A new wall sign was approved by the Appearance Commission which is compliant with Code and includes a routed face with backer panel. o The changeable copy sign will be removed as part of the new signage proposal. Howard Plaza multi-tenant ground sign adjacent to Milwaukee Avenue: o Address numerals will be added to the sign. o Changeable copy panel will be removed. o Landscaping added to the base of the sign, however, not a full 2.0 square feet per every 1.0 square foot of signage. Howard Plaza multi-tenant sign adjacent to West Lake Avenue: o Existing sign will be removed and replaced with a sign compliant in size and height with additional panels for other tenants in the Howard Plaza shopping center. o Landscaping will be added to the base of the sign. Johnny s Kitchen & Tap: o Block base added around the sign with annuals to be planted seasonally ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: The following sections outline current ordinance requirements as these would be applied to the existing and proposed conditions. Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signage: Per Section of the Code, a property owner has four (4) years from the date of annexation, or in this case, expiration of the annexation agreement to bring signs into compliance or to eliminate non-compliant signage. Ground signage: Per Section (4) of the Code, ground signs are permitted a maximum area of square feet per sign side subject to a maximum quantity of one (1) sign per street frontage, 7

8 year-round landscaping with at least 2.0 square feet of landscaping per 1.0 square foot of signage area, a maximum height of 15.0-feet, a sign base of at least 1.0-foot in height, and building address numerals that are at least 6.0-inches in height. There are currently two ground signs along West Lake Avenue with both the proposed multi-tenant Howard Plaza ground sign and Johnny s Kitchen & Tap sign located along with street frontage. The existing two (2) ground signs on the property including the previously mentioned Johnny s Kitchen & Tap sign and multi-tenant Howard Plaza sign along Milwaukee Avenue are all greater than 15.0-feet in height, do not have a compliant amount of year-round landscaping at the sign base, do not have a sign base of at least 1.0-foot in height, and do not building address numerals at least 6.0-inches in height. Other Requirements: If the Zoning Board of Appeals should require any changes to the signage, additional review from the Appearance Commission will be required. ZONING DATA TABLE: INCREASE / DECREASE OVER / (UNDER) EXISTING TO PROPOSED PROPOSED PERMITTED * PERMITTED Units % Units % Lot Size (sq. ft.) 125, , (119,420) ( ) 6, Lot Size (acres) (2.74) ( ) 0.14 HOWARD PLAZA MULTI-TENANT GROUND SIGN (Milwaukee Avenue) Sign Area (sq. ft.) Sign Height (ft.) JOHNNY'S KITCHEN & TAP GROUND SIGN Sign Area (sq. ft.) Sign Feet (ft.) BILLBOARD SIGN (Milwaukee Avenue) Sign Area (sq. ft.) Sign Height (ft.)

9 Zoning Board of Appeals Review ZONING BOARD JURISDICTION & PURPOSE: The Zoning Board is vested with the authority to hear, and make a recommendation for approval or denial to the Village Board of Trustees for commercial variances subject to the standards set forth in Sections and of the Municipal Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall identify findings of fact based upon the standards prescribed whether the application of regulations of the zoning ordinance will create a practical difficulty or hardship for the owner, lessee, or occupant of land, buildings, or structures. KEY VARIATION STANDARD COMMENTS: Staff comments after evaluating the wide range of issues considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals, including but not limited to the following: Whether there exists a legal hardship of the property as distinguished from an inconvenience Whether the alleged hardship may be self-imposed Whether a.) the property; and/or b.) the application of the ordinance to the situation is unique Compatibility of the resulting conditions with other properties of the same zoning designation Demonstration of how other available options are not viable, regardless of economic impact Mitigation of impact(s) upon properties in the vicinity 05/15/17 Staff Comments: The proposed IDOT reconstruction of the Milwaukee Avenue and West Lake Avenue intersection is likely to affect the existing Howard Plaza ground sign and require replacement in a different location onsite. The current IDOT schedule has the proposed intersection changes occurring in Therefore, if a zoning variation were supported for the Howard Plaza ground sign, the sign would likely remain onsite only until such time as right-of-way was acquired by IDOT for the intersection improvements. The Appearance Commission recommended a 5-year sunset clause for the sign if the IDOT schedule is delayed again. If this approach is used, staff recommends the Zoning Board of Appeals request a stay of enforcement of the removal of this sign for a period of 5 years after the date of approval of the variation ordinance for the current requests. The existing changeable copy portion of the Howard Plaza multi-tenant ground sign will be removed thereby reducing the overall sign area to square feet. The overall height of the sign would not change under the current proposal. The existing ground sign for Johnny s Tap is situated near the building foundation with the pylon support visible only to eastbound traffic since there exists a masonry wingwall east of the existing sign. The applicant has proposed landscaping around the base of the multi-tenant signs along Milwaukee Avenue and West Lake Avenue. A variation is still needed for landscaping as it does not include 2.0 square feet of landscaping per 1.0 square foot of signage. Additional landscaping would reduce the number of parking stalls in the shopping center. 9

10 If the requested variations were to be approved, the existing signs would be permitted to remain until such time that a structural alteration may be proposed. At such time, additional variations would be required or the signs would be required to be removed or additional zoning variations must be sought. Changes to the sign content would be permitted by right subject to Appearance Commission review of colors, letter sizes, and other related design elements. The Appearance Commission did forward comments on the Johnny s Kitchen & Tap sign stating that the Appearance Commission did not want to let a reface of that sign occur. The Appearance Commission hoped that if a new tenant took over the tenant space that a new, compliant sign would be proposed and the existing nonconforming sign for this use would be removed. Per Code, the Village does not allow billboard style signs within the Village s corporate limits. The Zoning Board of Appeals should consider whether the billboard sign is appropriate in respect to compliance with the zoning variation standards. As a condition of any recommendation for approval, the structure for the existing roof top sign on the 1700 Milwaukee Avenue building should be removed. POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS: Each of the signs is an existing improvement upon the property and has existed for 30 years or more. As such, no new impacts upon adjacent properties are anticipated. 10

11 Technical Review PROJECT TIMELINE & OUTREACH: A. 08/18/16 Application Submitted B. 08/24/16 Appearance Commission Meeting C. 09/01/16 Public notice published in the Glenview Announcements D. 09/01/16 Public notices mailed to surrounding property owners E. 09/01/16 Public notice sign posted upon the subject property F. 09/19/16 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting G. 02/15/17 Appearance Commission Meeting H. 04/12/17 Appearance Commission Meeting I. 04/27/17 Public notice published in the Glenview Announcements J. 04/27/17 Public notices mailed to surrounding property owners K. 04/27/17 Public notice sign posted upon the subject property L. 05/15/17 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting M. TBD First Consideration by Board of Trustees (Zoning Board of Appeals Recommendation) N. TBD Second Consideration by Board of Trustees (Zoning Board of Appeals Recommendation) O. TBD Expiration of Zoning Variation 2016 A B CDE F Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 G H IJK L Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec LEGAL NOTICE & PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: A notice of a Public Hearing to be held was published in the Glenview Announcements, a newspaper with a general circulation within the Village of Glenview, not more than thirty (30) days, nor less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date set for said hearing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 65, Section 5/ of the Illinois Compiled Statutes. 11

12 REQUIRED APPROVAL(s): The following chart details the necessary required approvals: Required Regulatory Review A. Annexation B. Annexation with Annexation Agreement C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment D. Official Map Amendment E. Rezoning F. Planned Development G. Conditional Use H. Final Site Plan Review I. Second Curb Cut J. Subdivision (Preliminary, Final, and Waivers) K. Variation(s) L. Certificate of Appropriateness M. Final Engineering Approval & Outside Agency Permits N. Building Permit(s) O. Building & Engineering Inspections P. Recorded Documents (Development Agreements, Easements, Covenants, etc.) Q. Business License R. Certificate of Occupancy 12

13 VARIATION STANDARDS: 1.) The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not vary the regulations of Chapter 98 of the Municipal Code unless it shall make a finding of fact based upon the evidence as presented to it in each specific case that the: a. Particular physical surroundings shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a practical difficulty or hardship upon or for the owner, lessee or occupant, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulation were carried out. b. Conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based are unique and would not be generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. c. Alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. d. Granting of the variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. e. Proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. f. Variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 2.) If all of the standards set forth in subsection (1) of this section cannot be met, yet an identifiable overriding public benefit can be realized by the granting of the requested variation, the zoning board of appeals shall forward a written recommendation, including a specific finding of fact of overriding public benefit, to the board of trustees for final disposition. 3.) The Zoning Board of Appeals may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the premises benefited by a variation as may be necessary to comply with the standards set forth in this subsection (1) to reduce or minimize the injurious effect of such variation upon other property in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the general intent of Chapter 98 of the Municipal Code. Attachments & Exhibits 1. Sample Motion 2. Public Notice 3. Excerpt from Minutes of the September 14, 2016 Appearance Commission Meeting 4. Excerpt from Minutes of the September 19, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals 5. Excerpt from Minutes of the February 15, 2017 Appearance Commission Meeting 6. Excerpt from Minutes of the April 12, 2017 Appearance Commission Meeting Annexation Agreement Letter to Property Owner 9. Petitioner s Application & Exhibits 13

14 Sample Motion Based upon the findings evidenced through testimony, discussion, and the petitioner s application materials which demonstrate compliance with Chapter 98, Article II, Section 98-47(c) of the Code; I move the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend approval to the Village Board of Trsutees of variations from the provisions of Chapter 98, Article II, Sections (a)(1), (13), (2), (4), and (5) of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow the following: A. To allow existing nonconforming signage to remain beyond a term of four years annexation. B. A stay of enforcement regarding the removal of the Howard Plaza Multi-tenant ground sign along Milwaukee Avenue for a term of five (5) years from the date of Ordinance approval or until such time that the sign should be removed to accommodate road construction in the future Milwaukee Avenue right-of-way. C. Two (2) ground signs along a common street frontage (West Lake Avenue) instead of one (1) sign per street frontage. D. Two (2) ground signs along Milwaukee Avenue instead of one (1) sign per street frontage. E. The following variations for Johnny s Kitchen & Tap per the document prepared by Grate Signs entitled New Measurement Johnny s Kitchen & Tap dated 08/31/2016.: a. One (1) ground sign in a side yard (north) abutting a street at a height of feet instead of a maximum height of feet b. A sign area of square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet c. No address numerals d. No sign base e. Less than 2.00 square feet of landscaping per 1.00 square foot of signage f. Exposed neon light source g. Dissimilar architectural elements F. The following variations for the Howard Plaza Multi-tenant Ground Sign per the document created by Grate Signs entitled Add One (1) D/F Non-Illuminated Aluminum Panel to Bottom of Tenant Cabinet dated 10/12/2016: a. One (1) multi-tenant ground sign at a height of feet instead of a maximum height of feet b. Sign area of square feet instead of a maximum of square feet c. Non-opaque faces d. Less than 2.00 square feet of landscaping per 1.00 square foot of signage, e. Dissimilar architectural elements G. The following variations for one (1) billboard ground sign per the document entitled Billboard dated 04/25/2017: a. A height of feet instead of a maximum height of feet b. A sign area of square feet instead of a sign area of square feet c. No address numerals 14

15 d. No sign base e. Less than 2.00 square feet of landscaping per 1.00 square foot of signage f. Dissimilar architectural elements H. The proposed signage shall be in substantial accordance with the plans and drawings (either as submitted or as amended ) and consistent with the testimony and discussion provided during consideration of the petition. 15

16 PROPOSED VARIATION PUBLIC NOTICE Z Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider a petition requesting a Variation of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance. The meeting will be held on Monday, May 15, 2017 at 7:00 P.M., in the Village Hall, 2500 East Lake Avenue, Glenview, IL. The property involved is commonly known as Milwaukee Avenue and legally described as: THAT PART OF LOT 3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT PARTITION OF LOTS 6 AND 8 IN COUNTY CLERK S DIVISION IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 29 AND ALSO LOTS 7 AND 8 IN COUNTY CLERK S DIVISION OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LARCH AVENUE AND MAPLE STREET IN NORTHFIELD WOODS SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF SAID SUBDIVISION RECORDED ON MAY 7, 1954 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER IN BOOK 424 OF PLATS ON PAGE 2; THENCE EAST ON THE NORTH LINE OF LARCH AVENUE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, 74 FEET; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID MAPLE STREET, 80 FEET; THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF LARCH AVENUE, 74 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF MAPLE STREET; THENCE SOUTH ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID MAPLE STREET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THAT PART OF LOTS 2 AND 3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT PARTITION OF LOTS 6 AND 8 IN COUNTY CLERK S DIVISION IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 29 AND ALSO LOTS 7 AND 8 IN COUNTY CLERK S DIVISION OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, SAID POINT BEING FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHERLY SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE WEST ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE MOST NORTHERLY SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT, ALSO BEING THE NORTH LINE OF LARCH AVENUE, IN NORTHFIELD WOODS SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF SAID SUBDIVISION RECORDED ON MAY 7, 1954 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER IN BOOK 424 OF PLATS ON PAGE 2, TO A POINT 74.0 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LARCH AVENUE AND MAPLE STREET, IN SAID NORTHFIELD WOODS; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID MAPLE STREET, 80 FEET; THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF LARCH AVENUE, 74 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF MAPLE STREET; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID MAPLE STREET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LAKE AVENUE; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LAKE AVENUE TO THE CENTER LINE OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE TO 16

17 THE POINT OF BEGINNING (EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PART LYING NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTER LINE OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE AND A LINE 85.0 FEETSOUTH (MEASURED ALONG SAID CENTER LINE OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE) OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 3 AFORESAID; THENCEWESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH A LINE FEET WESTERLY (AS MEASURED ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LARCH AVENUE) OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTER LINE OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LAKE AVENUE HEREINABOVE MENTIONED, ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PART LYING EASTERLY OF A LINE 50.0 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY (MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES) OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CETNER LINE OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE AFORESAID AND EXCEPT THAT PART LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE 60 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTER LINE OF LAKE AVENUE AFORESAID); THAT PART OF PUBLIC STREET KNOWN AS LARCH AVENUE IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE, AS WIDENED AND LYING EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO A LINE DRAWN NORTHWELY, AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LARCH AVENUE, FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 IN NORTHFIELD WOODS, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT 3 IN SUPERIOR COURT PARTITION OF LOTS 6 AND 8 IN COUNTY CLERK S DIVISION IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 29 AND ALSO LOTS 7 AND 8 IN COUNTY CLERK S DIVISION OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF SAID NORTHFIELD WOODS RECORDED MAY 7, 1954 AS DOCUMENT ; AND; THAT PART OF LOT 3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT PARTITION OF LOTS 6 AND 8 IN COUNTY CLERK S DIVISION IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 29 AND ALSO LOTS 7 AND 8 IN COUNTY CLERK S DIVISION OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, SAID POINT BEING FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF THE MOST NORTHERLY SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3, (MEASURED ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT NORTHWESTERLY OF THE MOST NORTHERLY SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3, (MEASURED ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3); THENCE WEST ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE MOST NORTHERLY SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT, A DISTANCE OF FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, A DISTANCE OF 207 FEET; THENCE EAST ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE MOST NORTHERLY SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 3, A DISTANCE OF FEET TO THE 17

18 NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, A DISTANCE OF FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PART WHICH LIES SOUTHEASTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN PERPENDICULAR TO THE WESTERLY LINE THEREOF FROM A POINT IN SAID WEST LINE, SAID POINT BEING FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF (MEASURED ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE) (ALSO EXCEPTING FROM SAID TRACT THAT PART THEREOF FALLING NORTHEASTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 50 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3) ALL IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. The petitioner, Dr. Chadwick Prodromos, requests Variations from the provisions of Sections (a)(1), (13), (2), (4), (5), (5) of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow existing nonconforming signage to remain beyond a term of four years after annexation; to allow two (2) ground signs along a common street frontage (West Lake Avenue); to allow one (1) ground sign in a side yard (north) abutting a street at a height of feet instead of a maximum height of feet and a sign area of square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet, with no address numerals, no sign base, less than 2.00 square feet of landscaping per 1.0 square foot of signage, exposed neon light source, and dissimilar architectural elements; to allow two (2) ground signs along Milwaukee Avenue; to allow one (1) multi-tenant ground sign at a height of feet instead of a maximum of feet and with a sign area of square feet instead of a maximum of square feet, with non-opaque faces, less than 2.00 square feet of landscaping per 1.00 square foot of signage, and dissimilar architectural elements; and to allow one (1) billboard ground sign at a height in excess of feet with a sign area in excess of square feet, with no address numerals, no sign base, less than 2.00 square feet of landscaping per 1.00 square foot of signage, and dissimilar architectural elements each as allowed and required by said ordinance. All persons interested should attend and will be given an opportunity to be heard. For additional information regarding this case, please contact Michelle House, Planner, at (847) Zoning Board of Appeals Ronald A. Greco, Chairman Attest: Tony Repp Planner Publication Date: April 27,

19 PROPOSED VARIATION PUBLIC NOTICE Z Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider a petition requesting a Variation of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance. The meeting will be held on Monday, May 15, 2017 at 7:00 P.M., in the Village Hall, 2500 East Lake Avenue, Glenview, IL. The property involved is commonly known as Milwaukee Avenue and legally described as: THAT PART OF LOT 3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT PARTITION OF LOTS 6 AND 8 IN COUNTY CLERK S DIVISION IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 29 AND ALSO LOTS 7 AND 8 IN COUNTY CLERK S DIVISION OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LARCH AVENUE AND MAPLE STREET IN NORTHFIELD WOODS SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF SAID SUBDIVISION RECORDED ON MAY 7, 1954 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER IN BOOK 424 OF PLATS ON PAGE 2; THENCE EAST ON THE NORTH LINE OF LARCH AVENUE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, 74 FEET; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID MAPLE STREET, 80 FEET; THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF LARCH AVENUE, 74 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF MAPLE STREET; THENCE SOUTH ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID MAPLE STREET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THAT PART OF LOTS 2 AND 3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT PARTITION OF LOTS 6 AND 8 IN COUNTY CLERK S DIVISION IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 29 AND ALSO LOTS 7 AND 8 IN COUNTY CLERK S DIVISION OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, SAID POINT BEING FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHERLY SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE WEST ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE MOST NORTHERLY SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT, ALSO BEING THE NORTH LINE OF LARCH AVENUE, IN NORTHFIELD WOODS SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF SAID SUBDIVISION RECORDED ON MAY 7, 1954 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER IN BOOK 424 OF PLATS ON PAGE 2, TO A POINT 74.0 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LARCH AVENUE AND MAPLE STREET, IN SAID NORTHFIELD WOODS; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID MAPLE STREET, 80 FEET; THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF LARCH AVENUE, 74 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF MAPLE STREET; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID MAPLE STREET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LAKE AVENUE; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LAKE 19

20 AVENUE TO THE CENTER LINE OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PART LYING NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTER LINE OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE AND A LINE 85.0 FEETSOUTH (MEASURED ALONG SAID CENTER LINE OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE) OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 3 AFORESAID; THENCEWESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH A LINE FEET WESTERLY (AS MEASURED ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LARCH AVENUE) OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTER LINE OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LAKE AVENUE HEREINABOVE MENTIONED, ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PART LYING EASTERLY OF A LINE 50.0 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY (MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES) OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CETNER LINE OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE AFORESAID AND EXCEPT THAT PART LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE 60 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTER LINE OF LAKE AVENUE AFORESAID); THAT PART OF PUBLIC STREET KNOWN AS LARCH AVENUE IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE, AS WIDENED AND LYING EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO A LINE DRAWN NORTHWELY, AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LARCH AVENUE, FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 IN NORTHFIELD WOODS, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT 3 IN SUPERIOR COURT PARTITION OF LOTS 6 AND 8 IN COUNTY CLERK S DIVISION IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 29 AND ALSO LOTS 7 AND 8 IN COUNTY CLERK S DIVISION OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF SAID NORTHFIELD WOODS RECORDED MAY 7, 1954 AS DOCUMENT ; AND; THAT PART OF LOT 3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT PARTITION OF LOTS 6 AND 8 IN COUNTY CLERK S DIVISION IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 29 AND ALSO LOTS 7 AND 8 IN COUNTY CLERK S DIVISION OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, SAID POINT BEING FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF THE MOST NORTHERLY SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3, (MEASURED ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT NORTHWESTERLY OF THE MOST NORTHERLY SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3, (MEASURED ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3); THENCE WEST ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE MOST NORTHERLY SOUTH LINE 20

21 OF SAID LOT, A DISTANCE OF FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, A DISTANCE OF 207 FEET; THENCE EAST ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE MOST NORTHERLY SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 3, A DISTANCE OF FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, A DISTANCE OF FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PART WHICH LIES SOUTHEASTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN PERPENDICULAR TO THE WESTERLY LINE THEREOF FROM A POINT IN SAID WEST LINE, SAID POINT BEING FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF (MEASURED ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE) (ALSO EXCEPTING FROM SAID TRACT THAT PART THEREOF FALLING NORTHEASTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 50 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3) ALL IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. The petitioner, Dr. Chadwick Prodromos, requests Variations from the provisions of Sections (a)(1), (13), (2), (4), (5), (5) of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow existing nonconforming signage to remain beyond a term of four years after annexation; to allow two (2) ground signs along a common street frontage (West Lake Avenue); to allow one (1) ground sign in a side yard (north) abutting a street at a height of feet instead of a maximum height of feet and a sign area of square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet, with no address numerals, no sign base, less than 2.00 square feet of landscaping per 1.0 square foot of signage, exposed neon light source, and dissimilar architectural elements; to allow two (2) ground signs along Milwaukee Avenue; to allow one (1) multi-tenant ground sign at a height of feet instead of a maximum of feet and with a sign area of square feet instead of a maximum of square feet, with non-opaque faces, less than 2.00 square feet of landscaping per 1.00 square foot of signage, and dissimilar architectural elements; and to allow one (1) billboard ground sign at a height in excess of feet with a sign area in excess of square feet, with no address numerals, no sign base, less than 2.00 square feet of landscaping per 1.00 square foot of signage, and dissimilar architectural elements each as allowed and required by said ordinance. All persons interested should attend and will be given an opportunity to be heard. For additional information regarding this case, please contact Michelle House, Planner, at (847) Zoning Board of Appeals Ronald A. Greco, Chairman Attest: Tony Repp Planner Publication Date: April 27,

22 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 APPEARANCE COMMISSION MEETING: Ms. House summarized that the pylon signs currently installed at Howard Plaza were allowed to remain until 2008 as agreed upon with annexation agreement. In 2007, a letter was sent to the owners that that the tenants would be given four (4) years from the 2008 expiration date to comply with signage code, and to bring signage into conforming status. Four years from expiration date was To date, none of the signs have been updated to meet code. Photos of the Howard Plaza signs of concern were shown via overhead. Signs were: Howard Plaza multitenant monument sign, Johnny s Taproom, Illinois Sports Medicine Orthopedic Center, Moon Doggies. Ms. House stated that the new Hanmi Bank would eliminate the roof top sign and changeable copy. Potential IDOT expansion in the area may result in multi-tenant sign being removed. At this time, the center owner was requesting that the signs be allowed to remain as they currently are. The owner was going before the ZBA seeking a variance and positive recommendation of approval to forward to the village board. ZBA was seeking input from the AC. Chairman Demsky clarified with Ms. House that as of now, nothing has been done. It was mentioned that tenants received a huge favor having the signs allowed to stay as they exist from 2008 to 2012 and to now in There have been no fines, no enforcement or consequences to date. If variance was approved, signs would be considered compliant and would only need replacement if they fell in disrepair. If variance was not granted, a compliance plan would have to be crafted to bring all signs into compliance. Consensus was that all signs looked bad and should be replaced to meet current code and standards of the village. Commissioner Tracy also noted that there was no landscaping around the multi-tenant sign. Ms. House mentioned that if the multi-tenant sign or other signs were removed due to IDOT project, the center may be given some financial help with replacement costs. The AC felt that it was time to bring the signs into compliance. The signs are too large and not aesthetically pleasing plus the signs were much larger than existing code allowed. The removable type on tenant sign and Moon Doggies was not appropriate. 22

23 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING Z Milwaukee Avenue Hanmi Bank Request: Signage - Various This case was published in the September 1, 2016 Glenview Announcements. Mr. Repp said this case is related to signage on the former Edens Bank building. The property was annexed into Glenview in the 1990s with several nonconforming signs. Tonight the Zoning Board is only considering the building wall sign on the eastern façade. The proposed sign exceeds the maximum square footage and percentage of the total façade allowed to be occupied by signage per code. Variations for several ground signs will be considered at a future meeting once additional information has been submitted. Various exhibits were shown. The original Edens Bank sign was approximately 171 SF when a box is drawn around it from edge to edge. The proposed wall mounted Hanmi Bank sign is SF. It will be in the same location as the Edens Bank sign with a different configuration. The proposed sign exceeds the allowed square footage, (125 SF for a single sign) and also exceeds the maximum percentage allowed for space on a façade occupied by signage. He described how the total sign area is determined. The signage package was reviewed multiple times by the Appearance Commission and they supported the proposed sign. Minutes from those meetings and a copy of the annexation agreement are in the meeting packet. After the annexation ordinance expired, the nonconformities went away. With the removal of the Edens Bank sign, the petitioner is required to pursue a variation for a bigger sign. Applicant Robby Whitehead from Olympic Sign Company, Lombard, came forward. He has been to the Appearance Commission twice and the proposed sign was acceptable. Chairman Greco noted that when taking the dead space out, the actual proposed sign is SF. Ms. Celnik, 4539 E. Larch, has a home right behind the bank building. She asked if the sign had lights and if so would they be visible. The neighbors were confused because the mailer said the sign would be located on the southeast corner but it was not so. She gave the mailer to Mr. Repp. Commissioner Whipple suggested that the mailer should have indicated the southeast corner of the property. Mr. Repp added that another person had the same comment at the Appearance Commission meeting. The confusion was understandable. Mr. Whitehead stated that the LED illuminated letters on the sign would be seen from the road but the output of light would not be strong at all and the lights will be reduced in compliance with Village code requirements. The light will not come out of the actual letters but instead there would be a glow that trims the letters. He used an electric device to show how limited the light is from the sign. Mr. Repp said the Village requires all lighting to shut down to security levels by 11:00 pm. Banks typically shut down their lights earlier to save power. Ms. Celnik remarked that a real estate appraiser said the view from her house was an eyesore because of the bank signage. The neighbors weren t aware that the sign would be lit up and she was concerned that the light would be noticeable. Also, the existing fence is too low to shield the properties on the block. Mr. Repp explained that illuminated signs do not require a variation. The Zoning Board only hears issues outside of the code. Tonight s consideration is limited to the size of the sign. Chairman Greco pointed out that the Edens Bank sign takes up more wall space than the proposed sign. Commissioner Whipple said the fence is shielded in the spring by the existing greenery. Ms. Celnik agreed but said the fence has been in disrepair for more than 20 years. Garbage comes over the short fence which is also not safe since there are always broken boards. She was told by the Village that nothing could be done. Mr. Repp clarified that the Village enforces complaints, so he will see if anything can be done about the fence. Chairman Greco said residents of only one home would be impacted by the lights on the sign. No one came forward to speak for or against this petition. Chairman Greco felt the proposed sign was an improvement over the previous Edens Bank sign. He was confident in the Appearance Commission s expertise in determining what type of sign would fit 23

24 well on the large blank building wall. The standards of the ordinance have been met so he was in favor of approval. Based upon findings evidenced through testimony, discussion, and the petitioner s application materials which demonstrate compliance with Chapter 98, Article II, Section 98-47(c) of the Municipal Code; Commissioner Whipple moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval of a Variation to the Village Board of Trustees in the case of Z , 1700 Milwaukee Avenue, for the petitioner, Hanmi Bank, from the provisions of Sections (1)(a), of the Glenview Municipal Code to allow one (1) wall sign with a sign area of square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet and total sign area of 8.80% of the area of the building façade instead of a maximum area of up to 8.00% of the area of the building façade, both as allowed and required by said ordinance, provided that the wall sign be in substantial accordance with the plans and drawings as submitted, consistent with the testimony and discussion provided during consideration of the petition, and subject to the review and approval by the Glenview Appearance Commission. Commissioner Siegel seconded the motion. On Roll Call: Ayes: Nay: Absent: The motion carried Commissioners Perl, Siegel, Whipple, Junia None Commissioners Mullarkey and Jester. 24

25 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 15, 2017 APPEARANCE COMMISSION MEETING: A Milwaukee Avenue Howard Plaza - Signage Dan Olson with Grate Signs, Dr. Chadwick Prodromos, owner, and Mary Venezia with Johnny s Kitchen and Tap were present to petition for the Howard Plaza signage proposal. Ms. House presented a brief background of the annexation agreement which expired in January 18, 2008, and the status of the existing, non-conforming signs. She stated that applicant was proposing some changes that would make the signage more compliant. Based on the AC comments, the applicant would then return to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval of requested zoning variations. Proposed signs were: PJ s Moon Doggies Box sign and replacement face panel with routed face and backer panel Letter height for PJ s 13, Moon Doggies 21, and 11 menu items White letters with dark bronze returns on brick background with existing illumination Zoning variance and waiver needed for proposed size of sign Johnny s Kitchen & Tap - Existing single tenant pylon sign located on West Lake Ave Green letters and returns on white background and exposed neon No changes were proposed for this non-conforming sign Variance and waiver needed for size of sign Variance needed for lack of landscaping Howard Plaza along Milwaukee Ave Existing multi-tenant ground sign White lettering with MP Rich Brown returns on black background with existing illumination Variation needed for proposed size of sign Landscaping required Howard Plaza along West Lake Ave Replacing the existing Sportsmedicine sign Text in white lettering with MP Rich Brown returns on brown background 24 Howard Plaza 5 Illinois, Center 7 Sportsmedicine Orthopaedics Stem Cell 5 C. Prodromos MD and Associates White LED illumination Salt tolerant proposed plants Continuing, Ms. House showed the site plan, center under discussion, existing and proposed signs, and pointed out the sign locations via overhead. She read the pertinent discussion points of sign proposal as noted in the staff memo, such as: PJ Moon Doggies elimination of changeable copy, no address numerals, landscaping, or sign base of Prodromos center ground sign, and Johnny s exposed neon and lack of address numerals, landscaping, for example. Also shown were proposed landscape plans for both multi-tenant ground signs as well as Johnny s Tap. Ms. House mentioned that evergreen plant material was not proposed due to the amount of salt used in the parking lot. Plant material was chosen for their tolerance to salt. 25

26 Chairman Demsky confirmed with staff that there were no changes to the Johnny s Kitchen and Tap sign and that only landscaping was being proposed for this location. Chairman Demsky confirmed with applicants that there was nothing to add to the summary. He clarified with staff that should center signs be compliant at this time, the applicant would have to change all existing signs to be in compliance with the current village code and design guidelines. At this time, the applicant mentioned that IDOT may widen Milwaukee Avenue and the sign would have to be removed and relocated. Applicant added that he would prefer not to spend a lot of money because of the prospect of widening Milwaukee Ave. IDOT has pushed back the project several times due to budget. Comments made regarding the Milwaukee Ave sign were: Changeable copy was removed and sign structure was painted with color chosen to match the building. Commissioner Reynolds confirmed with applicant that the MP Rich Brown was a common color and chosen to match the brown metal on the building Tenant panel areas would remain as they currently are Reader board was removed Commissioner Ciolek confirmed with staff and applicant that IDOT would compensate property owner for a new sign to be located on owner property and out of IDOT area. Sign was currently on the property but IDOT widening would take part of the center property/parking lot area Comments made regarding the West Lake Ave sign were: Chairman Demsky confirmed location of proposed sign which would take place of existing Sportsmedicine sign Chairman Demsky confirmed with staff that proposed West Lake Ave sign was fully compliant Applicant stated that every tenant would have a tenant panel sign between both the Milwaukee Ave and West Lake Ave multi-tenant ground sign. Mr. Olson pointed out that the top section of the Lake Ave sign was initially going to be routed aluminum with acrylic tenant panels. However, it was discovered that the fonts were too small to route and the sign face was now proposed to be a vinyl in the rich brown. Mr. Olson added that the color was not a perfect match but very, very close. Chairman Demsky confirmed with applicant that the top panel would be a rich brown, acrylic face and weed out the graphics. Applicant submitted the Mathews Dark Bronze color sample. He suggested that both ground signs be painted with the Mathews Dark Bronze for consistency in color. Mathews Dark Bronze was an excellent match in vinyl. Chairman Demsky clarified that what was initially proposed as an aluminum box was now going to be an acrylic sign covered in vinyl. Chairman Demsky was concerned about the appearance of the vinyl application and the letter centers, for example, falling off. He stated that there were no ground signs with vinyl at the proposed size/scale. Discussion ensued on the West Lake Ave sign with vinyl application. Comments made were: 26

27 Mr. Olson stated that most signs are vinyl application and the proposed vinyl was an excellent match Commissioner Reynolds confirmed with applicant that entire top section would be a sheet of vinyl on polycarbonate Prominent color would be the background color. Commissioner Reynolds clarified with applicant that they could work with the aluminum but the color would be a better match. Applicant stated that the top section for Howard Plaza could not be routed and the graphics would have to be done in vinyl. They could possibly match the brown vinyl and paint it. Mr. Olson preference was the darker brown. Chairman Demsky stated that the concern was about the size of the sign face in vinyl Mr. Olson clarified that everything on the drawing would be painted and that the top section would be vinyl covered. Howard Plaza top panel was basically a large tenant panel. Commissioner Reynolds commented that his preference was dark bronze but the applicant and owner would have to determine color choice and how to match everything Commissioner Ciolek clarified that the copy of the tenant panels would be dark bronze graphics or color that was chosen for the background of the top panel. Applicant stated that all tenant panels would have white background with dark bronze/brown graphics in a medium font in upper case letters. Each tenant panel would be approved by the Appearance Commission prior to installation. Chairman Demsky clarified with applicant that there would be a brick cap. Sample of brick was not available. Consensus was to specify that the base and cap of the sign would match the building brick Commissioner Ciolek stated that the cap on the Milwaukee Ave sign would match as well Consensus was that the proposed sign was better than the existing. There were no other comments at this time. At this time, Chairman Demsky stated that should the proposed signs be approved at the sizes that were being proposed, they would remain at the proposed sizes until the sign would be replaced in its entirety. Mr. House clarified the signage agreement. She stated that the intent of the annexation agreement was to bring all signage into compliance. Dr. Prodromos commented on the 2008 letter that had been referenced. He stated that they did not respond to the letter because they never received it. It might have gone to the property manager at that time, but Dr. Prodromos stated that he never saw it. He was not aware of the issue under discussion until this past year. Regarding the PJ s Moon Doggies sign, comments made were: Box sign with removal copy was eliminated. Proposed font was same font used in top section of the original sign In response to Chairman Demsky, applicant stated that the Moon Doggies sign could be made smaller but he noted that Moon Doggies had three (3) storefronts. Chairman Demsky confirmed the dimensions of the proposed Moon Doggies. Proposed was 120 square feet and they were allowed 50.6 square feet under the 5% design guidelines and 81 square feet per ordinance. 27

28 Commissioner McWilliams felt that the proposed sign was too large. He would be willing to approve something larger if it was slightly over and closer to the ordinance square footage, but not as proposed. He felt it was way too big and mentioned that if it were a proposed sign for a new business, it would never be approved by the AC. Commissioner Reynolds felt that as proposed, it appeared like a want ad. Mr. Olson stated that the existing signs were 2x14 and proposed was proportionate with the three storefronts. The top arch and reader board were removed. There were 2 or 3 existing box signs on the property under discussion, and Chairman Demsky confirmed with staff that they were under the code requirement Dr. Prodromos confirmed with the AC that the three (3) menu items were allowed. Commissioner Reynolds pointed out that there was very little negative space between the top of the letters and next line of text. He felt that the proposed sign appeared to fill the box with text as much as possible with no design sense. Commissioner Reynolds commented that the old sign was charming but against code. He felt that the proposed sign was a step backward. He added that the proposed sign was double the size of what was allowed and in his opinion, was not providing any benefit. It was suggested that the sign be reduced in size, letter height at an 18 inch letter height, and placed centered over the three arches. Consensus was to revise the sign to be smaller with some creativity. Applicant would seek the guidance of a designer to have a good logo, smaller text, and use of some possible color. Chairman Demsky mentioned that the AC also looked for some measure of conformity. He also suggested that the applicant bring multiple options and the AC would review all submitted options for appropriateness. Regarding the Johnny s Kitchen and Tap sign, comments made were: Mary V, owner, stated that she loved the sign because it could be seen from all directions. She would prefer to keep the large sign but would be willing to change it if necessary Sign colors were used to match the building Existing sign was a non-compliant pylon sign Owner stated that they always tried to do what was best, such as install more landscaping along the front of the building than was required. Commissioner Reynolds sated that the existing sign was almost a part of the building and that it was part of anchoring the building. He pointed out that the restaurant did not have other signage. Chairman Demsky stated that if the pylon sign were part of the building, it would walk the fine line of rooftop signage. It was noted the dumpster enclosure was near the pylon sign. Commissioner Reynolds said that he would be in favor of the waiver for landscaping. Commissioner Ciolek commented that sign location may not have been considered when the building was initially constructed. Chairman Demsky spoke about the design guidelines, village guidelines, etc., and that the AC attempted to follow them as close as possible. He also mentioned that it was not in the AC purview to determine if the annexation agreement should be followed or not. He felt that it was not the AC responsibility to say that the sign could remain forever. 28

29 Chairman Demsky confirmed with Ms. House that any AC comments would be relayed to the ZBA for their reference and consideration when determining if a variance should be granted. The AC was to approve the appearance of the sign and the ZBA would approve the size and location of the sign. All AC comments would be forwarded to the ZBA. Discussion ensued. Comments made were: If the Johnny s sign was proposed as a new pylon or wall sign, it most likely would not have been approved by the AC Commissioner Reynolds felt that the Johnny s was an attractive sign and that it was better for the village to keep it as it currently was for Johnny s. Chairman Demsky pointed out that eventually, all the pylon signs in the center under discussion would be removed and the Johnny s sign would be the only remaining pylon sign Commissioner Jung confirmed that the sign as it exists was a neon sign. Commissioner Ciolek noted that if Johnny s was no longer the tenant, someone else could reface in the existing cabinet. Ms. House confirmed that if approved, the cabinet would always remain as it currently was. Commissioner Ciolek confirmed that the pylon sign was 35 years old. He commented on the character of the sign Commissioner McWilliams was in agreement with the Johnny s sign but was concerned about the future. He was not in favor of a face change only for a future tenant. Commissioner Jung was in agreement with Commissioner McWilliams Final comments made on signage were: Commissioner Ciolek stated that the Howard Plaza sign should be retained if IDOT was willing to help with cost of the replacement sign. Commissioner McWilliams felt that a time limit should be in place for the Howard Plaza sign should IDOT not move forward with the Milwaukee Ave widening project Commissioner Reynolds mentioned that if the AC did not approve the proposed sign, the applicant could return with a new sign to be installed in a new location that would be away from the IDOT project Commissioner Reynolds stated that updating the center signage was in the right direction and a time limit could be added to the Howard Plaza Milwaukee Ave sign. Commissioner Jung stated that he did not like the new color and felt it would be worse than before. He felt that visually, it was not a good color choice. He would prefer the dark bronze over the dark brown color. Regarding the landscaping, it was felt that the proposed landscaping was acceptable. It had winter interest, grasses and seasonal color. Johnny s had landscaping proposed for the corner. Chairman Demsky summarized that Howard Plaza would have dark bronze paint with a five year deadline. The Orthopedic sign would have the color change as discussed. Johnny s sign was acceptable as it currently exists. Mood Doggies sign would have to be continued to a future date to allow for sign revisions. Commissioner Ciolek moved in the matter of A , Howard Plaza, Milwaukee Ave., that the Appearance Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the 29

30 findings the petitioner through testimony and application materials, has demonstrated compliance with Section Appearance Plan and in accordance with the following: A1 and A2, not item A3, B1 and B2, and not Item C with the stipulation that the Lake Ave sign was to be dark bronze as discussed with vinyl applique over the top panel, that the Howard Plaza multitenant sign was approved in the color to match but only for the duration of five (5) years or until IDOT requires the sign to be relocated, and in association with the motion, the Johnny s Kitchen and Tap was to remain in place as it is with the condition that if the sign panel was to be changed, the cabinet would be removed, and additionally, the brick on the Lake Ave tenant sign was to match the brick on the Howard Plaza sign or the building brick. Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion. Upon voice vote, vote was: AYES: Commissioners McWilliams, Ciolek, and Reynolds No: Commissioner Jung Motion carried. 30

31 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 2017 APPEARANCE COMMISSION MEETING A Milwaukee Ave Howard Plaza - Signage Dan Olson with Grate Signs, Inc. was present to petition for the Howard Plaza sign proposal. Ms. House summarized that the proposal had been reviewed at the February 15, 2017 AC meeting. At that time, proposed signs had been approved with exception of PJ s Moon Doggies which was being reviewed at tonight s meeting. Revised sign was: Box sign with panel with routed face and backer panel installed on brick background Text to read PJ S Moon Doggies White letters with letter height ranging from 11 to 8 Colors were: MP Rally Red, 406 yellow for stripes, white and black Color samples submitted White trim cap and returns for PJ s Moon Doggies panel Black trim cap and returns for menu item panel Fluorescent illumination Ms. House read pertinent discussion points as listed in the staff memo. One item was for the sign to include some of the original character of the old sign based on comments from the AC at previous meeting. Applicant was also seeking a waiver for the sign area which was 14.9 square feet larger than recommended in sign design guidelines due to arch design of sign and added negative space. Site photo with existing and proposed sign exhibits were shown via overhead. In response to Chairman Demsky, applicant confirmed the sign would not encroach on the soldier course or bottom brick course. He added that the revised sign was based on AC comments. Comments made were: - Chairman Demsky commented on the condition of the brick behind the existing sign, and applicant stated that if it was found to be in need of repair, he would coordinate repair with the center owner. - Commissioner Ciolek stated that he liked the sign and confirmed that the returns would be white on the top cabinet and black on the bottom cabinet. - Commissioner McWilliams commented on the wall sign attempting to match the arch on the building. Petitioner stated that there was no intent to exactly match arch - Commissioner McWilliams felt that the sign appeared larger than the building arches and he felt that it distracted from the building architecture. Petitioner stated that the rendition was not to scale but a close representation. Discussion ensued on sign dimension, arch dimension, etc. Petitioner stated that the revised sign under discussion was not much larger the 16 feet shown on the rendering and that there was 16 feet from column to column. Chairman Demsky commented that the sign exhibit was probably photo shopped. He felt that the sign was acceptable as submitted, but petitioner would have to submit an accurate and detailed drawing to staff. Commissioner Ciolek stated that centering the proposed 16 foot sign over the center arch would be acceptable. Petitioner would confirm that the center line of sign would be centered between columns and that sign details were accurate. He would also submit 31

32 an accurate and detailed drawing to staff. If dimensions were not correct, AC would pursue additional communication with the petitioner. Consensus was that the sign was acceptable with accurate dimensions submitted to staff. There were no other comments at this time. Commissioner Ciolek moved in the matter of A , Howard Plaza, Milwaukee Ave., that the Appearance Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the findings the petitioner through testimony and application materials has demonstrated compliance with Section Appearance Plan and in accordance with the documents prepared by Grate Signs dated 02/23/2017: A, B, and C inclusive with the conditions that the brick surface be cleaned and repaired to match existing façade when existing cabinet sign was removed and that the applicant submit to staff a confirmation of the façade dimensions locating the 16 foot wide sign over the center arch and centered within the width of the center arch. Commissioner McWilliams seconded the motion. Upon voice vote, motion carried. 32

33

34

35

36

37