Village of Arlington Heights Design Commission Met July 28.
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
Jonathan Kubow
Ted Eckhardt
Kirsten Kingsley
Scott Seyer
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Tom Budzik, Thomas Architects for 129 S. Highland Ave.
Tracey Diehl, Expedite the Diehl for Verizon Wireless
Steve Hautzinger, Staff Liaiso
Chair Fitzgerald read the following statement as requested by the Village: I find that the public health concerns related to the coronavirus pandemic render in-person attendance at the regular meeting location not practical or prudent.
REVIEW OF MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 23, 2020
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER KUBOW, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ECKHARDT, TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2020.
ECKHARDT, AYE; KUBOW, AYE; KINGSLEY, AYE; FITZGERALD, AYE.
ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM 1. SINGLE-FAMILY REVIEW
DC#20-046 – 129 S. Highland Ave.
Tom Budzik, representing Thomas Architects, was present on behalf of the project.
Mr. Hautzinger presented Staff comments. The petitioner is proposing to demolish an existing one-and-a-half story residence to build a new two-story residence with a detached two-car garage. This project does require approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variation in lot width and size due to the existing 50’ wide lot with 6,600 sf not meeting the minimum required 70 foot width and 8,750 sf. The project design does comply with all other zoning requirements.
The existing house proposed to be demolished is a historic brick bungalow that fits well with the historic character of this neighborhood. However, the proposed design is nicely done in a traditional style with features such as a raised first floor, covered front porch, and detached garage that will also fit well in this location.
Staff has the following concerns regarding the proposed design:
- Material/Color Monotony with Adjacent House. The petitioner for this project is the same architect as the adjacent newer house to the south, which received Design Commission approval in 2017. The current proposed design has the same color white siding, black windows, black shingle roofing, and black standing seam metal porch roof as the adjacent house. The Design Commission should evaluate if one or more of these material colors should be changed to avoid monotony with the adjacent house.
- Modern Porch Railing. The proposed design has an authentic historic appearance, except for the front porch railing which is a modern cable railing system with stainless steel posts. The cable railing is a subtle detail, but it seems inconsistent with this style house. Additionally, the intermediate stainless-steel railing posts have an irregular spacing from the primary porch columns, which are recommended to be centered for a more balanced appearance.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed design with a comment to evaluate if the siding color, window color, roof shingle color, and/or standing seam porch roof color should be changed to avoid monotony with the adjacent house to the south; and to evaluate the appearance of the proposed modern front porch cable railing system with the traditional style of the house. It is also recommended that the intermediate railing posts be centered between the porch columns for a more balanced appearance.
Chair Fitzgerald asked if the petitioner had any comments at this time.
Tom Budzik said that the owner of the proposed new home is also the owner of the home next door, and they are very decided on the white color being proposed for the new home, which they will be looking at every day. They want a traditional farmhouse style and they are okay with updating the railing to a more traditional style.
Chair Fitzgerald asked if there was any public comment on the project at this time and Mr. Hautzinger said there was none.
The commissioners presented their comments. Commissioner Eckhardt said he noticed the similarity between the 2 homes and he actually liked it because the homes would be good neighbors with each other. He was okay with the white and black color scheme, which he likes very much. In terms of the railing design, he was okay either way; he sees a lot of mix and match in the design and felt it should be the owner’s choice. Otherwise, he felt it was a great home and he had no issue with it.
Commissioner Kingsley said it was a really nice home, and she did not see a monotony code issue here because the style of the new home is so different, although the materials may be the same. She really liked the porch railing being proposed, which makes it look more authentic. She made a recommendation that the petitioner consider lining up the double frieze boards on the side elevations with the top of the windows, to eliminate the gap of siding above the windows. She had no further comments.
Commissioner Kubow did not have much to add; the more he looks at the home, the more he likes it. It is very minimal, elegant, and clean. In terms of monotony, he agreed with the other commissioners that there are enough differences between this home and the home to the south that he saw no issues. He agreed with Commissioner Kingsley’s suggestion to lower the frieze boards for a more consistent look, and he was okay with either railing design. Commissioner Kubow added that although he wished the proposed design was more modern, because he loved seeing more modern farmhouse designs that push the envelope, he felt the design was well done and he was in support of the new home.
Commissioner Seyer agreed with the comments made by the other commissioners. He said it was a very nice design and he liked the fact that all four elevations have a different look. He agreed with Commissioner Kingsley’s recommendation about the frieze boards, and he also agreed with the idea of a more modern railing on the front, although he was okay with a more traditional design if the owner preferred. He did feel that the railing post located to the right of the steps was unnecessary and looks odd where it is located. He had no further comments.
Chair Fitzgerald agreed with the comments already made and said the design looked great on all four sides of the home; it is a classic look. He liked the railing as proposed, although he suggested the handrail going up the stairs be level with the handrail going across the porch. He had no further comments.
Chair Fitzgerald asked again if there was any public comment on the project and Mr. Hautzinger said there was none.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER ECKHART, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KINGSLEY, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME TO BE LOCATED AT 129 S. HIGHLAND AVENUE. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS RECEIVED ON 7/09/20, DESIGN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES, THE ISSUANCE OF ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, AND THE FOLLOWING:
1. A RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER LOWERING THE FASCIA FRIEZE BOARD TO MEET THE WINDOW HEADS ADS ON THE SECOND FLOOR ELEVATION.
2. A RECOMMENDATION TO ALIGN THE TOP OF THE HANDRAILS ON EACH SIDE OF THE FRONT STEPS WITH THE HORIZONTAL HANDRAIL ACROSS THE FRONT PORCH.
3. 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.
ECKHARDT, AYE; KINGSLEY, AYE; KUBOW, AYE; SEYER; AYE; FITZGERALD, AYE.
ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM 2. SIGN VARIATION REVIEW DC#20-041 – Verizon Wireless – 375 E. Palatine Rd.
Tracey Diehl, representing Expedite the Diehl, was present on behalf of the project.
Mr. Hautzinger presented Staff comments. Verizon Wireless is located in a free-standing outlot building facing Palatine Road within the Town and Country Shopping Center. The building currently has three wall signs, with one sign located on each side of the building facing north, west, and south, as well as one ground sign facing Palatine Road. At this time, the petitioner is seeking a sign variation to allow a fourth wall sign to be located on the east wall of the building as follows:
1. A variation from Chapter 30, Section 30-402, Number, to allow four wall signs where only one sign is allowed.
2. A variation from Chapter 30, Section 30-403, Dimensions, to allow a total of 109.2 sf of wall signs where only 81 sf is allowed.
Per Chapter 30 Sign Code, one wall sign is allowed per street frontage. Therefore, per code, Verizon Wireless is only allowed one wall sign on the north wall facing Palatine Road at a maximum size of 81 sf. However, in 2009, sign variations were approved to allow three “Verizon Wireless” wall signs on the building for a total combined size of 152 sf. In 2018, Verizon rebranded and omitted “wireless” from their signs, resulting in a reduced total combined size of 81.9 sf. At this time, the petitioner is seeking a sign variation to allow a fourth “Verizon” wall sign to be located on the east wall of the building for a total combined size of 109.2 sf.
In addition to the wall signs, there is one existing Verizon ground sign facing Palatine Road that will remain. The ground sign was approved in 1981 per Ordinance 81-114. The existing ground sign complies with the requirements of the Ordinance, so a variation is not required.
Mr. Hautzinger presented the previous sign variation history for this location. In 1981, Wag’s restaurant was approved for 3 wall sign variations through Ordinance 81-114, with the square footages shown in the table in the Staff report. A free-standing ground was authorized by the Ordinance 81-114 with the following stipulations: 4’-4” high by 9’-2” wide, total area of 40 square feet, on a base of one and one-half feet high.
In 1992, Shoney’s restaurant replaced the Wag’s restaurant. Shoney’s wall signage followed the regulations of Ordinance 81-114, and was less than permitted by the ordinance. Shoney’s restaurant used the same ground sign, same square footage and altered only the name.
In 1994, Boston Market was issued permits for 3 larger wall signs. The Boston Market sign permits were issued in error, and no variations were granted for the additional square footage of the wall signs. The Boston Market signs were therefore illegal non-conforming and the Village does not allow perpetuation and continuance of illegal non-conforming signs. The wall signs were issued in violation of Ordinance 81-114 as they were larger than was previously approved. The Boston Market signs were non-compliant. Boston Market ground sign height was 5’-0” high by 8’-0” wide, total area of 40 square feet, on a base of one and one-half feet high, and therefore exceeded the Ordinance 81-114 requirements.
The square footages and number of signs for each of the previous tenants were provided in the Staff Report. None of the previous tenants were allowed signs on all four sides of the building.
The petitioner has submitted a letter addressing the sign variation criteria, stating that the proposed signage is necessary to help customers find the business within the shopping center since there are multiple points of entry from adjacent roads. Additionally, the petitioner feels the sign is necessary to remain competitive with the adjacent AT&T store that has multiple wall signs. The adjacent AT&T store signage was updated in 2017. Variations were approved in 2011 to allow additional wall signs due to the unique layout and orientation of the building.
In 2009, when Verizon requested a variation for three wall signs, Staff was in support of a variation for only 2 wall signs for Verizon because that is consistent with other outlot buildings in the Village, such as at Olive Garden and Chili’s which each have two wall signs and a ground sign. However, the Design Commission and the Village Board felt that this was a unique location with difficult visibility, so all three signs were approved.
At this time, Staff maintains the position that signage on all four sides of the building would be excessive and would contribute to an unfair advantage. Allowing wall signs on all sides of a building would set a bad precedent for other businesses throughout the Village. In the history of this building, none of the previous tenants had signage on all four sides of the building. Code allows one wall sign per street frontage. Each variation request should stand on its own merits and should not refer to prior precedents. However, the adjacent AT&T store has two street frontages, with signage on three sides, where Verizon only has a single street frontage and is requesting signage on four sides of the building, which is excessive. Additionally, the previous AT&T variation approvals were a different situation, largely due to the unique shaped property. It should be noted that AT&T has illegal window signs, covering 100% of the window where only 40% coverage is allowed. The illegal AT&T window signage has been referred to the Building Department for code enforcement.
Staff has suggested to the petitioner to consider other code compliant signage options such as awnings with signage on the east and west elevations. This would enhance the building architecture and give the petitioner additional signage that they are seeking without variations. Additionally, it is encouraged that Verizon enhance the entry feature of the building to create a more prominent appearance and enhance their brand identity, in lieu of adding more signage.
Staff is recommending denial of the following sign variations for Verizon at 375 E. Palatine Road:
1. A variation from Chapter 30, Section 30-402, Number, to allow four wall signs where only one sign is allowed.
2. A variation from Chapter 30, Section 30-403, Dimensions, to allow a total of 109.2 sf of wall signs where only 81 sf is allowed.
Ms. Diehl said that she is representing Verizon Wireless. The issue is that when entering the property from east Rand Road into the parking lot, the sign on the south wall (Sign#3) of the Verizon building is not visible, there are some trees that block it. Verizon feels that signage is really necessary on this elevation because there are 2 handicap parking spaces on this elevation, as well as other parking, and something is needed to identify this destination for motorists coming from east Rand Road when entering in through the shopping center. She added that they have reduced their signage substantially to what was previously approved, and adding this fourth wall sign would still be under the square footage of any previous variances. She welcomed any questions at this time.
Chair Fitzgerald asked if there was any public comment on the project and Mr. Hautzinger said there were none at this time.
The commissioners gave their comments. Commissioner Kingsley understood Staff’s hesitation to support a fourth sign because of setting a precedent for other properties, but she also understood the hardship that the petitioner has, and the fact that Verizon’s new logo is smaller and more condensed than previous signage. She had no issues with the current sign variation request and preferred not to see awnings as suggested by Staff because there are no other awnings on the building. She was in support of what is being proposed.
Commissioner Kubow agreed with Commissioner Kingsley. Although he felt the hardship was not strong enough at first to warrant the variation request, given the reduced size of the sign being proposed and that it is simplistic and not obnoxious in any way, he was in support of the fourth sign being proposed; however, he wanted to hear comments from the other commissioners.
Commissioner Seyer acknowledged the unique location and the circulation and traffic at this site. He could see the point of having a fourth sign and he was in support of the variation request as proposed. He also felt that awnings would be more distracting than just the simplicity of the fourth wall sign. He understood the precedent that would be set with a fourth wall sign, but in this specific case, he felt it was warranted because the fourth sign would help define the building’s use in a nice way. He was in support of the variation.
Commissioner Eckhardt agreed with the comments made by the other commissioners and was in support of the variation request.
Chair Fitzgerald agreed as well; these buildings are unique in their location and they need help for people coming in through all the various entrances to the parking lot.
Chair Fitzgerald again asked if there was any public comment on the project and Mr. Hautzinger said there were none.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER KUBOW, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SEYER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FOLLOWING SIGN VARIATION REQUEST FOR VERIZON WIRELESS LOCATED AT 375 E. PALATINE ROAD:
1. A VARIATION FROM CHAPTER 30, SECTION 30-402, NUMBER, TO ALLOW FOUR WALL SIGNS WHERE ONLY ONE WALL SIGN IS ALLOWED.
2. A VARIATION FROM CHAPTER 30, SECTION 30-403, DIMENSIONS, TO ALLOW A TOTAL OF 109.2 SF OF WALL SIGNS WHERE ONLY 81 SF IS ALLOWED.
THIS RECOMMENDATION IS SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANS DATED 6/2/20, COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES, THE ISSUANCE OF ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, AND THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1. 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.
Mr. Hautzinger clarified for the petitioner that the Design Commission is recommending approval to the Village Board, and that the Village Board has final approval for sign variations. Ms. Diehl understood and wanted to go on record to state that the reason why Verizon did not respond to Staff’s suggestion to consider code compliant awnings with signage instead of the fourth wall sign, is because they felt an awning would require a consistent amount of maintenance that is not necessarily readily available, and an awning would be black in nature and need constant cleaning. An awning would not remain as attractive on that elevation as a wall sign would.
ECKHARDT, AYE; KINGSLEY, AYE; KUBOW, AYE; SEYER, AYE; FITZGERALD, AYE.
ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM 3. OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Hautzinger explained that the proposed budget for year 2021 is $500, which is the same amount as the current year 2020. The commissioners had no comments.
Chair Fitzgerald asked if there was any public comment on the project and Mr. Hautzinger said there was none.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER ECKHARDT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KUBOW, TO APPROVE THE DESIGN COMMISSION BUDGET FOR YEAR 2021, AS PROPOSED.
ECKHARDT, AYE; KINGSLEY, AYE; KUBOW, AYE; SEYER, AYE; FITZGERALD, AYE.
ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM 3. OTHER BUSINESS Alan F. Bombick Award – Preliminary Discussion
Mr. Hautzinger explained that nominations for this award are chosen from completed construction projects, not from design drawings, which can take a few years from when a project is approved by the Design Commission. After reviewing the Design Commission project database and visiting sites, Staff compiled a list of possible nominations for 2020, both single-family and commercial, and presented them for discussion tonight. He also encouraged nominations from the commissioners as well.
After reviewing Staff’s nominations, the commissioners questioned whether there were enough single-family projects being considered this year. Mr. Hautzinger added that many promising projects are still under construction at this time, and the format for the presentation of this year’s award is in question because of no in-person Village Board meetings at this time. He suggested an option to defer the award to cast a wider net with nominations and an appropriate presentation ceremony next year.
Commissioner Kingsley felt that more single-family nominations were needed and she asked Staff to provide the commissioners with a list of homes that were approved by the Design Commission in the year that construction might now be complete. She was not opposed to deferring the award until next year due to the inability to meet in-person, and she suggested giving out two awards in each category next year. Commissioner Kubow agreed that a wider pool of nominations was necessary and a list of approved projects from Staff would be a huge help. He was also not opposed to waiting until next year to present the award. Mr. Hautzinger reiterated that many projects are still under construction and he did not have access to construction timelines; however, he was happy to compile a list of approved Design Commission projects that the commissioners can review.
The commissioners reviewed Staff’s nominations for commercial projects. Commissioner Kingsley wanted to see additional nominations here as well. Commissioner Kubow liked 2 of the 3 nominations presented tonight and wanted to visit those locations. Commissioner Eckhardt said he wanted to continue to honor Alan Bombick and he was not comfortable skipping a year for this award. He felt the nominations presented by Staff were adequate to consider for the award this year, with any additional nominations from the commissioners. The commissioners agreed to continue this discussion at the next meeting, with any additional nominations from them to be included.
ITEM 4. GENERAL MEETING
There was no discussion.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER ECKHARDT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KINGSLEY, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:30 PM.
ECKHARDT, AYE; KINGSLEY, AYE; KUBOW, AYE; SEYER, AYE; FITZGERALD, AYE.
ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
https://www.vah.com/your_government/agendas___minutes_
Alerts Sign-up