Village of Arlington Heights Design Commission met May 26.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
Chair Fitzgerald called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Members Present: John Fitzgerald, Chair
Kirsten Kingsley
Jonathan Kubow
Ted Eckhardt
Scott Seyer
Members Absent: None
Also Present: James Cazares for the Chez Hotel
Asher Cousin, Bowen & Associates for Amazon
Robert Green, Bowen & Associates for Amazon
Steve Hautzinger, Staff Liaison
REVIEW OF MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 12, 2020
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER KUBOW, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ECKHARDT, TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 12, 2020. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM 1. SIGN VARIATION REVIEW DC#20-004 – Chez Hotel – 519 W. Algonquin Rd.
James Cazares, representing the Chez Hotel, was present on behalf of the project.
Mr. Hautzinger presented Staff comments. The petitioner is seeking a variation to allow a 16’-6” tall ground sign with an electronic message display, where 10’-0” is the maximum height; and a variation to allow a 12’ setback, where 15’ is the minimum setback required in the M-2 Zoning District. The petitioner received approval in 2018 to build a new 62 room hotel addition to the existing European Crystal Banquet facility. The new hotel is currently under construction, and at this time, the petitioner is proposing to replace their existing ground sign with a new updated ground sign, which will include an electronic message display to welcome groups to the hotel as well as to promote special events such as during the holidays.
The existing ground sign is 16’-6” tall and 70 sf in size. The petitioner is proposing to keep and reuse the existing brick base, existing concrete foundation, and existing electrical supply for the new sign. The existing sign is setback 12 feet from the front property line, and it is located on a landscape island between parking spaces. The new sign is designed to enhance the image of the business, and it will include the new hotel name “Chez Hotel” in a halo-lit push-through acrylic lettering. The sign structure will be made of clear anodized aluminum to match the window frames on the hotel. The sign design features a back-lit stencil cut out of a tree pattern which relates to the hotel branding. The back edge of the sign includes an illuminated color changing accent band which will change color based on certain holidays and/or hotel events. There is no other signage proposed for the property.
In regards to the electronic sign, in 2017, Chapter 30 Sign Code was amended to allow electronic message signs along certain major arterial commercial corridors. The subject property is in a location where electronic message signs may be permitted. However, Design Commission review and Village Board approval is required for the conditional approval of the electronic message sign. Additionally, code limits the overall height of a ground sign with an electronic message display to 10’ maximum. Due to the location of the proposed sign, the petitioner is requesting a variation to allow a taller sign to maintain visibility between parked vehicles. Furthermore, the petitioner is seeking a setback variation since the 12 foot setback of the existing sign base does not comply with the 15 foot minimum setback required in the M-2 Zoning District. The proposed sign does comply with all other code requirements.
Per Chapter 30, Section 30-705.h, the operation of the electronic message sign is required to abide by the following restrictions, to which the petitioner has provided written agreement:
1. The electronic display shall be static displays only with no scrolling, fading, flashing, animation, video, or sound. 2. Messages must be displayed for a minimum of 10 seconds.
3. Auto-dimming photocell technology is required to automatically adjust the display brightness to .3 footcandles maximum above ambient lighting conditions.
4. Off-premises advertising is not allowed.
5. Only permitted to be illuminated the same hours that the business is open.
The petitioner has submitted a letter addressing the conditional review criteria for the electronic message sign, as well as the sign variation criteria, which in summary states that the new sign will be in the same location and be the same height as the existing sign which has been in place for over twenty years, and the additional height is needed for visibility over the adjacent parked cars. The petitioner intends to use the electronic message sign as an identifier to welcome groups to the hotel as well as to promote special events such as during the holidays.
Staff has worked closely with the petitioner on the development of the sign design to fit with the image of the new hotel as well as to function in the existing location. Staff feels that the use of an electronic sign in conjunction with a hotel and banquet facility is valid to communicate various events to the public. The overall sign is very nicely designed, the electronic message display is high quality, and it is incorporated into the sign design in a tasteful manner that is appropriate in this location.
In regards to the proposed variations, Staff does not object to the proposed minor setback variation since the existing sign foundation and brick base are being reused. Additionally, hotels are typically located in Business Zoning Districts where ground signs are only required to be set back three feet. However, in regards to the height variation, this is the first electronic message ground sign requested based on the new regulations created in 2017, and Staff feels that the proposed electronic message sign is too tall. A height variation for this electronic message sign would set a bad precedent for future electronic message sign requests, which code limits to ten feet in height; therefore, Staff recommends denial of the design as submitted.
However, Staff would recommend approval of a modified version of the sign if the overall height was reduced to ten feet to comply with code. If the reduced height creates visibility concerns, then Staff would support a setback variation to allow a three foot setback, which is typical for a hotel sign in Business Districts. Additionally, Staff recommends that the color changing vertical accent band on the sign be restricted to no more than one color change per day.
James Cazares said that he has been working with Steve on the design of the sign for close to a year, with about 5 or 6 revisions being made. The general design of the sign came from something that Steve proposed, which they loved and made some modifications to that include the incorporation of a tree branch pattern in the center area of the sign. This reflects the tree theme of the hotel, which includes a hand sculpted brass tree in the lobby of the hotel, tree branches incorporated into the walls sconces, and roots of the tree coming out from the ceiling of the rooftop. They feel the design of the new ground sign sets the tone for guests, and he thanked Steve for his valuable design ideas.
Mr. Cazares said the electronic message center of the new sign will be beneficial in letting guests know what this hotel has to offer, since this is not a typical hotel. The EMC being proposed will be a 3.0 pixel ratio that will portray a very graphic visual image, similar to a 4K image. He pointed out that this hotel is the only rooftop outside of Downtown Chicago, the only 4 star hotel in Arlington Heights, with a beautiful ballroom, a full-service spa, and a coffee shop in partnership with Vanille Bakery in Lincoln Park. The proposed sign height is the same height as the existing sign, and the same location, which have both worked well for them with the adjacent 5 lane road that is 45 mph. The EMC was placed underneath the ‘Chez Hotel’ portion of the new sign and above the height of a parked SUV from blocking the sign. Mr. Cazares understood the concerns about the height of the EMC, which he pointed out was very close to what the new ordinance allows, and he felt the design of this EMC sign is stunning, elegant, and very exclusive, while incorporating a 3.0 pixel electronic display that will visually display messages to the public. Additionally, there would be no moving graphics on the EMC; it would be for informational purposes only, showing the amenities of the hotel. Mr. Cazares said that overall, he is very happy with the sign as proposed, and he again thanked Steve for helping with the design process of the sign.
Chair Fitzgerald asked if there were any requests from the public to comment on the project, and there were none.
The commissioners summarized their comments. Commissioner Eckhardt said the scale of the sign as designed is very pleasing, the way the sign has been segmented is appropriately scaled, he liked the location of the electronic message center, he appreciated the dedication to art by incorporating the tree theme into the sign, and he loved the idea of the changing color scheme on the sign, and agreed with Staff’s suggestion that the color not change more than once a day. Commissioner Eckhardt said that while he is sympathetic to this being the first electronic message sign proposed since the new ordinance was adopted, he did not want the petitioner to be penalized for bad timing. He felt that a ground sign smaller than the existing one would have a negative impact on the hotel and its new appearance. He preferred the new sign be located where the existing sign is, and not be moved forward as suggested. He liked the design of the new sign as submitted.
Commissioner Kingsley said the sign was nicely designed and she appreciated the detail that went into it; however, she had some hesitation to approve the variation for the height of the EMC. Since the moving portion of the sign is just under 10’, she suggested reducing the height of the sign a few feet, so the EMC portion of the sign would be in compliance, with fewer variations needed. In general, she liked the design of the sign.
Commissioner Kubow said in general this is a beautiful sign. He asked Staff about the existing precedent for the setback of ground signs along South Algonquin Road, and Mr. Hautzinger replied that this is a unique situation because this hotel is in a manufacturing zoning district where 15-feet is the minimum setback, and the other hotels located southeast on Algonquin Road are not in a manufacturing district; he would expect those signs to be closer to a 3-foot setback. Commissioner Kubow felt the new sign needed to be in the same location as the existing sign, and it needed to be the same size. He was in full support of the height and design of the new sign, but felt that the lit pillar would take away from the overall classy look of the sign. He was hesitant to include that detail and he strongly suggested moving away from it and considering the introduction of something more static and unlit; focus on just the logo and the information panel below.
In response, Mr. Cazares presented sign images from his inspiration board for the new sign, and explained that the LED lights are actually around the perimeter of the sign, giving it a light backlit, which he felt did not catch your attention. He said that the pillar color could be toned down and the percentages of the light intensity could be brought down as well; they want the primary color of the accent band to be a muted brushed blue because blue is the color theme inside the hotel. They want some type of light color in the sign because they feel it would be a little plain without it, without losing the elegance and sophistication of the sign. Commissioner Kubow replied that the inspiration sign image looks more subdued at night, which is good, but he would still recommend the petitioner take a look at this detail and consider just a solid material instead. He felt the overall sign as designed had enough pop and elegance to it, without adding the vertical bar.
Commissioner Seyer acknowledged how busy this stretch of Algonquin Road is and that having some visibility here would really help; he wants the hotel to be successful. He felt the scale and location of the sign as proposed was appropriate, and while he understood Staff’s concerns about this being the first electronic message board sign, he agreed with the previous comment that this petitioner should not be penalized for that. He was in support of the sign as proposed.
Chair Fitzgerald also liked the sign as proposed and said it was beautifully designed. He asked for clarification on the height requirements for an electronic message board sign, and Mr. Hautzinger said that the entire sign must be less than 10’, not just the electronic portion of the sign. Chair Fitzgerald asked if the image on the EMC would be moving and Mr. Hautzinger said that code did not allow the message to move; it would be a static image only, and could only change every 10 seconds. Chair Fitzgerald said he was okay with keeping the sign where it is currently located, and he agreed with the condition of changing the column color only once a day, although he felt that changing the color once an hour could also be interesting. He felt the sign was beautiful, but cautioned that the color of the accent band and the color on the electronic display should be coordinated so that they do not clash, if they are not going to change. Chair Fitzgerald also appreciated the previous comment about not penalizing this petitioner because this is the first electronic message board sign since the ordinance was created. He felt the variation process should encourage petitioners to come in with really great signs, and this is a really great sign that is located in the corridor where electronic signs are allowed. He was in favor of the sign as submitted.
Chair Fitzgerald again asked if there were any requests from the public to comment on the project, and there were none.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER ECKHARDT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SEYER, TO RECOMMEND TO THE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING SIGN VARIATION REQUEST FOR CHEZ HOTEL LOCATED AT 519 W. ALGONQUIN ROAD:
1. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FOR AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGN.
2. A VARIATION FROM CHAPTER 30, SECTION 30-705a, TO ALLOW A 16’-6” TALL GROUND SIGN WITH AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY, WHERE 10’-0” IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED HEIGHT.
3. A VARIATION FROM CHAPTER 30, SECTION 30-301b, TO ALLOW A GROUND SIGN WITH A 12-FOOT SETBACK, WHERE 15-FEET IS THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIRED IN THE M-2 ZONING DISTRICT.
THIS RECOMMENDATION IS SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANS RECEIVED 1/22/20, REVISED SIGN DRAWING RECEIVED 2/21/20, COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES, THE ISSUANCE OF ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, AND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A REQUIREMENT THAT THE COLOR CHANGING VERTICAL ACCENT BAND BE RESTRICTED TO NO MORE THAN THREE COLOR CHANGES PER DAY, WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PETITIONER VARY THE COLOR AT LEAST ONCE PER DAY.
2. THIS REVIEW DEALS WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE AN APPROVAL OF, OR TO HAVE ANY OTHER IMPACT ON, NOR REPRESENT ANY TACIT APPROVAL OR SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LAND USE OR ANY OTHER ZONING AND/OR LAND USE ISSUES OR DECISIONS THAT STEM FROM ZONING, BUILDING, SIGNAGE OR ANY OTHER REVIEWS. IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL TECHNICAL REVIEW, PERMIT DRAWINGS WILL BE REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN COMMISSION AND ANY OTHER COMMISSION OR BOARD APPROVAL CONDITIONS. IT IS THE PETITIONER’S RESPONSIBILTY TO INCORPORATE ALL REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS INTO THE PERMIT DRAWINGS, AND TO ENSURE THAT BUILDING PERMIT PLANS AND SIGN PERMIT PLANS COMPLY WITH ALL ZONING CODE, BUILDING CODE AND SIGN CODE REQUIREMENTS.
KUBOW, AYE; SEYER, AYE; KINGLSEY, AYE; ECKHARDT, AYE; FITZGERALD, AYE. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Hautzinger reminded the petitioner that this recommendation for approval requires final Village Board review and approval.
ITEM 2. SIGN VARIATION REVIEW DC#20-033 – Amazon – 1455 W. Shure Dr.
Asher Cousin, representing Amazon, and Rob Green, representing Bowen & Associates, were present on behalf of the project.
Mr. Hautzinger presented Staff comments. Amazon is renovating an existing building and site in the M-1 Zoning District. The new facility will function as a package delivery distribution center to include an “Amazon Hub” customer service, package pick up and drop off for the general public. Vehicular traffic on the site includes customers, office employees, delivery vans, and tractor-trailer trucks. There are three driveways into the site from Cellular Drive, and multiple building entrances. In order to guide the various types of vehicles to the appropriate driveway and building entrance, the petitioner is requesting larger directional ground signs and additional wall signs, with the following variations:
Wall Signs:
1. A variation from Chapter 30, section 30-402.a, to allow a 78.65 sf wall sign on the west wall of the building facing the parking area, where it is not allowed.
2. A variation from Chapter 30, section 30-402.a, to allow a 35.26 sf wall sign on the west wall of the building facing the parking area, where it is not allowed.
3. A variation from Chapter 30, section 30-402.a, to allow a 11.95 sf wall sign on the south wall of the building facing the parking area, where it is not allowed.
Directional Ground Signs:
4. A variation from Chapter 30, section 30-302.b, to allow three 30 sf, 6 foot tall directional ground signs facing Cellular Drive, where 6 sf and 3 feet tall is the maximum allowed.
5. A variation from Chapter 30, section 30-302.b, to allow two 9 sf, 6 foot tall directional ground signs internal to the parking area, where 6 sf and 3 feet tall is the maximum allowed.
Per Chapter 30 Sign Code, one wall sign is allowed per street frontage. A code-compliant 138.5 sf “amazon delivery” illuminated wall sign is proposed to be located on the west wall of the building towards Cellular Drive. An “amazon hub” illuminated wall sign is proposed to be located at the southwest corner of the building to help guide customers to the customer entry. A third illuminated wall sign will be located below the “amazon hub” sign reading “customer service, package pick-up & return” to indicate the services located at the “amazon hub”. A fourth and final small “associate entry” illuminated wall sign will be located on the south wall of the building to indicate the employee entrance.
Per Chapter 30 Sign Code, one directional ground sign is allowed at each driveway, but they are limited to 3 feet in height and 6 sf in size. The petitioner is proposing to install one directional ground sign at each of the three driveways along Cellular Drive, but they are seeking variations to allow the signs to be larger and taller for improved visibility. Additionally, the petitioner is requesting variations for two additional directional signs internal to the parking area for additional guidance to vehicles.
An existing, code-compliant monument sign facing Cellular Drive will also be refaced and reused as the primary ground sign for the site.
The petitioner has submitted a letter addressing the hardship criteria, stating that the proposed signage is necessary to guide and organize the different types of vehicular traffic coming to this site, and that the proposed signage is based on Amazon’s Worldwide design standards.
Staff does not object to the proposed variations, and agrees that the requested signage is necessary and justified for wayfinding due to the unique operations and site design of this facility. The signs will help alleviate traffic hazards, and they are an appropriate scale based on the size of the building and site. Staff recommends the Design Commission recommend approval to the Village Board for all variations as submitted, with a comment to change the support posts for the 9 sf internal directional signs from painted channel posts to a nicer finished post, similar to the larger directional signs.
Mr. Cousin commented that the steel posts in the current signage for Nokia located along Cellular Drive currently have painted steel posts. He also thanked Steve for preparing a great presentation of the project.
Chair Fitzgerald asked Staff is there was anyone from the public who wanted to comment on the project and there was none.
The commissioners summarized their comments.
Commissioner Kingsley felt that the sign package was well done, and she agreed with all of Staff’s comments. She said it was really important that the signage here is done well so that everyone can get to where they need to go, especially because this is a new location. She had no issues with any of the signage being shown tonight. She also agreed with Staff’s suggestion to change the support posts on the internal directional signs to a nicer finish, which would make the signs appear more permanent, and she was not opposed to them being similar to the larger directional signs, as long as that did not require more variations. Mr. Hautzinger said the variations would not change because the directional signs are considered to be permanent signs either way. Commissioner Kingsley said that changing the support posts to be nicer would help tie all the signs together.
Commissioner Kubow approved of the sign variations as proposed. He commented that the current sign code is not built for these types of distribution centers and he understood all the variations that are needed here.
Commissioner Seyer agreed and said that the signs being proposed are required and necessary for this site. He also agreed with Staff’s recommendation for nicer posts because otherwise the directional signs look like temporary yard signs, which is what the current Nokia signs look like to him.
Commissioner Eckhardt said that the presentation of the proposed signage is appropriate for the site, and he agreed with Staff’s suggestion to upgrade the support posts for the directional signs, which he felt appeared beneath the quality of the project and business. He would leave this change up to Staff to review, but felt that it should be of a square stock and an appropriate color to match the sign, and the sign should have a front and a back. Otherwise, he was in support of the project.
Chair Fitzgerald agreed with the comments already made and felt that the signs being proposed are needed for this size project.
Chair Fitzgerald again asked if there was anyone from the public that wanted to comment on the project and there was none.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER ECKHARDT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KINGSLEY, TO RECOMMEND TO THE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING SIGN VARIATION REQUEST FOR AMAZON LOCATED AT 1455 W. SHURE DRIVE:
WALL SIGNS:
1. A VARIATION FROM CHAPTER 30, SECTION 30-402a, TO ALLOW A 78.65 SF WALL SIGN ON THE WEST WALL OF THE BUILDING FACING THE PARKING AREA, WHERE IT IS NOT ALLOWED.
2. A VARIATION FROM CHAPTER 30, SECTION 30-402a, TO ALLOW A 35.26 SF WALL SIGN ON THE WEST WALL OF THE BUILDING FACING THE PARKING AREA, WHERE IT IS NOT ALLOWED.
3. A VARIATION FROM CHAPTER 30, SECTION 30-402a, TO ALLOW A 11.95 SF WALL SIGN O THE SOUTH WALL OF THE BUILDING FACING THE PARKING AREA, WHERE IT IS NOT ALLOWED. DIRECTIONAL GROUND SIGNS:
4. A VARIATION FROM CHAPTER 30, SECTION 30-302b, TO ALLOW THREE 30 SF, 6 FOOT TALL DIRECTIONAL GROUND SIGNS FACING CELLULAR DRIVE, WHERE 6 SF AND 3 FEET TALL IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED.
5. A VARIATION FROM CHAPTER 30, SECTION 30-302b, TO ALLOW TWO 9 SF, 6 FOOT TALL DIRECTIONAL GROUND SIGNS INTERNAL TO THE PARKING AREA, WHERE 6 SF AND 3 FEET TALL IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED.
THIS RECOMMENDATION IS SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANS DATED 5/1/20 AND RECEIVED 5/8/20, FEDERAL, STATE, AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES, THE ISSUANCE OF ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, AND THE FOLLOWING:
1. A REQUIREMENT THAT THE SUPPORT POSTS FOR THE9SF INTERNAL DIRECTIONAL SIGNS BE UPGRADED, AND THAT THOSE SIGNS BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A BACK PANEL AS WELL.
2. THIS REVIEW DEALS WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE AN APPROVAL OF, OR TO HAVE ANY OTHER IMPACT ON, NOR REPRESENT ANY TACIT APPROVAL OR SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LAND USE OR ANY OTHER ZONING AND/OR LAND USE ISSUES OR DECISIONS THAT STEM FROM ZONING, BUILDING, SIGNAGE OR ANY OTHER REVIEWS. IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL TECHNICAL REVIEW, PERMIT DRAWINGS WILL BE REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN COMMISSION AND ANY OTHER COMMISSION OR BOARD APPROVAL CONDITIONS. IT IS THE PETITIONER’S RESPONSIBILITY TO INCORPORATE ALL REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS INTO THE PERMIT DRAWINGS, AND TO ENSURE THAT BUILDING PERMIT PLANS AND SIGN PERMIT PLANS COMPLY WITH ALL ZONING CODE, BUILDING CODE AND SIGN CODE REQUIREMENTS.
KUBOW, AYE; SEYER, AYE; KINGSLEY, AYE; ECKHARDT, AYE; FITZGERALD, AYE. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM 3. GENERAL MEETING
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER ECKHARDT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KUBOW, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:25 PM. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
https://www.vah.com/your_government/agendas___minutes_
Alerts Sign-up