Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2017/02/01 MinutesPage 1 of 9 February 1st, 2017 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of February 1st, 2017 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, February 1st, 2017 at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Building Review Board members present: Chairman Ted Notz and Board members: Jim Diamond, Peter Dunne, Ross Friedman, Robert Reda, Mike Bleck and Fred Moyer Building Review Board members absent: None Staff present: Kate McManus, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Notz Chairman Notz reviewed the role of the Building Review Board and the meeting procedures followed by the Board. He asked the members of the Board and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Consideration of the minutes of the January 4th, 2017 meeting of the Building Review Board. The January 4th meeting minutes were approved with a revision as requested by Chairman Notz. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of new signage for an existing business located on the third floor of the building at 207 E. Westminster. Owner: Wintrust Asset Management Company (William C. Marlatt, Kathryn G. Marlatt and William K. Marlatt) Tenant: Morgan Stanley Representative: William Marlatt Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Marlatt introduced the petition and explained that he constructed the building at 207 W. Westminster 35 years ago. He noted that, in his opinion, it is an asset to the community. He explained that Morgan Stanley is currently the tenant of the entire 3rd floor space and, as a large tenant in the building, desires exterior Page 2 of 9 February 1st, 2017 signage to identify their location to visitors. He stated that initially, the tenant proposed pin mounted letters attached directly to the building. He stated that he explored various signage options that would minimize the amount of holes drilled into the building facade. He stated that he discovered an aluminum board faced with a limestone veneer that is lightweight and can be mounted to the building façade with only minor impact to the façade. He stated that the panel will be edged with bullnose trim. He noted that the signs are proposed on the north and south facades, over the entry doors. He added that the letters will fit between the frame of the doors. He explained that currently, there is some changeover in first floor tenants. He stated his expectation is that new first floor tenants will use the same type of signage as previous first floor tenants. He stated that the proposed Morgan Stanley signage design is clean and consistent with other signage in the Central Business District. Ms. McManus stated that this is an unusual request for signage for a third floor tenant. She noted that in most cases, upper floor tenants are identified by small wall plaques throughout the Central Business District. She noted that because Morgan Stanley occupies the entire third floor, more prominent signage is a reasonable request. She stated that the limestone panel to support the letters is a solution that minimizes damage to the exterior of the building. She noted that the proposed materials are of high quality. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the signage as proposed. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Marlatt explained that the limestone panel will be edged with a bullnose trim, all the way around. He stated that the bullnose will be custom cut and will be about 2 inches wide. He confirmed that the letters will project out from the panel face, but no further than the bullnose. He provided samples of the limestone panel and metal letters to the Board and explained that the color sample is one of 2 color options being considered. He stated that the intent is to match the building façade. He stated that both the building and sign panel are Indiana limestone. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mc McManus explained that Board approval is necessary because the proposed signage is for a 3rd floor tenant. She stated that the additional signage is over and above the square footage permitted for the first floor spaces, 25. She stated that the justification for the request is the fact that the 3rd floor is occupied by a single tenant. She stated that in this case, it is reasonable to approval additional signage for the building for the single 3rd floor tenant. Mr. Marlatt noted that there was an error on the drawings and that the signs are actually slightly smaller than what is depicted. Board member Reda stated support for the sign. Page 3 of 9 February 1st, 2017 In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Marlatt confirmed that the signs for the existing first floor businesses will be replaced when new tenants come in but he noted his expectation that the first floor signage will remain generally the same as that used by the existing and recent tenants. He stated that his intent is that the building signage has European feel. He stated that he is not sure exactly how the limestone bullnose will be attached to the panel but confirmed that the panel will be affixed to the building. He stated that the intent is that the panel will remain on the building and the letters switched out if the tenants change. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the Board recently reviewed and recommended approval of a request for signage for Life Working which is the tenant of the entire second floor in the building across the street. She confirmed that if a sign does not fully comply with the Code, then Board review is required to allow a variance from the Code. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Marlatt stated that real limestone is too heavy to attach to the façade and a panel thin enough to attach to the building, could easily break. He noted that the face material of the panel is real limestone veneer applied to aluminum. He explained that the letters will be pin mounted to the panel and the panel will be affixed to the building with 4 pins. Board member Dunne stated that could jeopardize the options for other signage on the building if a variance, in excess of the 25 feet in not recognized as part of this approval. Board members Diamond and Bleck stated their support for the petition. Ms. Czerniak offered that the Board could grant a variance for signage for a 3rd floor business leaving the allowable 25 feet for future 1st floor tenants. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board. Board member Moyer stated that he is in support of the sign and adding that the letter style is in keeping with a financial institution. Chairman Notz suggested that the language of the motion should make it clear that future signage on the building will need to return to the Board for evaluation. Mr. Marlatt explained that the building was designed with 5 storefront window bays, for 800 square foot tenant spaces. He stated that he prefers tenants that Page 4 of 9 February 1st, 2017 are small, local businesses. He agreed that future first floor tenants will need signage and stated that he is comfortable returning to the Board for review of future signage. Chairman Notz stated that the stone panel should match the building to the extent possible. Hearing no further comments from the Board, he invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the petition and to allow signage for a 3rd floor tenant based on the findings detailed in the staff report which document that the plans as presented, subject to the following conditions. a. The limestone sign panel shall match the stone on the building to the extent possible. b. Future signage proposed for the building should be reviewed by the Board in the context of the amount of signage already approved for the building. Board member Diamond seconded the motion and the Board voted 7 – 0 to approve the motion. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of new signage for a new business at 1044 N. Western Avenue. Owner: Gershman Properties, LLC Tenant: Le Blowout Bar Representative: Skip Spanjer, North Shore Sign Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Spanjer introduced the petition for new signage for Le Blowout Bar and presented the proposed the sign cabinet. He explained that the business name uses thin letters and due to the narrowness of each letter, backlit illumination is not possible. He stated that instead, push-thru lighting is proposed which illuminates the edges or sides of each letter. He noted that the proposed sign is the same height as the adjacent OrangeTheory Fitness sign and will be centered over the window mullion. He stated that the sign is lit by a 100 watt bulb and is less intense than the adjacent sign. He noted that the proposed location is based on the tree foliage and making the sign as visible as possible. He provided streetscape images and photos of neighboring businesses. He reviewed the proposed colors noting that pink is part of the business identity. He stated that the sign consists of a pink background, white letters and a gray line under the letters. Ms. McManus stated that the proposed sign meets the allowable square footage permitted by the Code and that the proposed lighting method appears to be appropriate. She stated that staff expressed some concerns to the petitioner Page 5 of 9 February 1st, 2017 regarding the proposed color palette in relation to the other signs on the building. She requested the Board’s input on the compatibility of the proposed background color. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the sign given the location away from the historic core of the Central Business District and based on the fact that it is generally consistent with the type of signs already located on the building. Board member Moyer stated that has an opinion on the proposed background color and stated an interest in hearing the thoughts of the other Board members’ on the proposed color. He noted that the color effectively conveys the nature of the business but noted that pink as a primary component of the sign, is outside the color palette customarily seen in the community. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Spanjer stated that the underline bar is a light gray and the letters are white. He stated that the cabinet is aluminum with a polyurethane finish. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Michelle Frankovich, owner of Le Blowout Bar, and a resident of Lake Forest, explained that she has spent considerable time and money conducting focus groups and marketing research to determine what characteristics should be conveyed in the signage. She stated that marketing is very important since the type of business she is opening is not currently available in Lake Forest. She stated that the proposed sign received the best feedback and most closely reflects the types of services that are provided by the business. In response to a questions from Board member Reda, Ms. Frankovich stated that the business provides hair blowouts. Board member Friedman stated support for the sign concept but that the sign suffers from proximity and incompatibility with existing signs on the building in particular, the OrangeTheory Fitness sign, which is orange. He expressed concern that the proposed pink color clashes with the existing color which could have a negative impact on the overall building. He suggested exploring other options. In response to Board member Friedman’s comments. Ms. Frankovich stated that the existing signs on the building are separated from her proposed sign. She explained that the overall color scheme for her business has already been established. She stated that pink is part of her brand’s identity. Board member Diamond thanked the petitioner for installing a mockup of the sign. He stated that he too is concern about the compatibility of the proposed background color of the new sign with the existing signs. Page 6 of 9 February 1st, 2017 In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Spanjer noted that the brick wall color has shades of pink which the proposed sign picks up on. He explained that the letters are too narrow to stand on their own, without a background panel. He added that LED lights cannot be placed behind each letter. He pointed out that the OrangeTheory Fitness letters are much wider and as a result can support lighting without a background panel. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Spanjer stated that the thin letters are part of the brand identity and that widening them would not be consistent with the established business name. Board member Friedman suggested looking at ways to enlarge the lettering and reduce the background area. Board member Diamond suggested that pink letters on a white background be considered as a possible way to minimize incompatibility with the existing signage on the building. Board member Bleck noted that businesses often adjust their signage to align more closely to a community’s aesthetic and design guidelines. He pointed out that the previously approved Morgan Stanley sign is different from the corporate logo for Morgan Stanley. He stated that he is struggling with the fact that the proposed sign conflicts with the existing signs on the building. Board member Reda suggested making the letter stroke wider and using pink lighting and white lettering. In response to Board member Reda’s suggestion, Mr. Spanjer stated that pink lighting would not show up. Board member Diamond stated that the sign as proposed is in stark contrast with the other signs. Board member Dunne agreed with the other Board members’ comments and stated that in his opinion, the pink background area is too large. He stated that while he respects interest in expressing the identity of the business, he explained that the Board must look out for the interests of nearby businesses. He stated that as proposed, sign is out of character with the community. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board. Ms. Frankovich stated that she is not open to considering a white background with pink letters. She stated that she believes that the sign complies with the City’s Page 7 of 9 February 1st, 2017 guidelines. She reiterated that she put significant time and effort into designing the sign and received support from staff with the exception of the use of the pink background color. Chairman Notz stated that the Board must look at the sign in the context of the building and surrounding signs. He stated that it is not uncommon for businesses to make minor modifications to their branding to achieve a sign that is consistent with the surrounding area. Board member Dunne stated his appreciation for the new business but noted that his concerns about the compatibility of the sign remain and asked that more understated colors be considered. Board member Diamond stated that he has no bias against any color, but noted that the concerns arise when the sign is considered in the context of the overall building and the existing signage. He stated that he appreciates the work done so far and asked that adjustments be made to the color palette. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Spanjer confirmed that staff identified the color palette as a potential area of concern earlier in the process. Board member Friedman stated that he would support the signage as proposed if it were set in the context of the existing signage on the building. Board member Bleck stated that some consistency across the face of the building is important. He added that the quality of service will make or break a business, not the signage. He added that signage should serve to identify the business, not necessarily serve as a primary marketing tool. Board member Reda pointed out that the pink background field is large and suggested that consideration be given to reducing it to lessen the appearance of incompatibility. In response to Board member Reda’s suggestion, Mr. Spanjer noted that the sign is under the allowable square footage and expressed concern that reducing the size of the sign would reduce its visibility. Ms. Frankovich stated that the goal is to bring in traffic from the street and a smaller sign would not achieve that goal. Board member Friedman stated that the sign is very shocking because of the extent of the pink background. He suggested that the interior of the space could express the pink theme. He suggested that consideration be given to modifying Page 8 of 9 February 1st, 2017 the sign to all white to be the predominant color. He suggested consideration of wider letters, more elegance and simplicity for the signage. Ms. Frankovich confirmed that the store’s interior is white and gray with only hints of pink. Board member Moyer stated that he is supportive of the comments made by the other Board members and expressed appreciation for the efforts made by the petitioner. Chairman Notz, stated that by reducing the area of the background, the size of the letters could be increased. He suggested consideration the addition of pink around the white letters to convey a cutout effect. In response to a question from the Board, Ms. Frankovich confirmed that she plans to open the business in 4-6 weeks. Board member Diamond suggested that a divider could be considered between the proposed sign and the Orange Theory sign to perhaps minimize the incompatibility of the colors. Some members of the Board expressed concern about a divider noting that could further clutter the building facade. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak stated that staff will meet with the petitioner as soon as possible to explore options in response to the Board’s comments. She suggested that if a solution is presented quickly, it could be circulated to the Board for input and approval. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on the findings detailed in the staff report which document that the plans as presented and as modified by the recommended conditions of approval, meet the design standards and requirements of the City Code as detailed in this staff report. He noted that the motion included the following conditions: a. The sign should be revised in response to the Board’s direction to minimize inconsistency with the existing signs on the building. The revised sign shall be reviewed by the Board and if found to address the concerns raised, shall be approved by staff, without further review by the Board. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and passed by a vote of 7 – 0. Page 9 of 9 February 1st, 2017 OTHER ITEMS 5. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non- agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 6. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner