Village of Arlington Heights Design Commission met May 23.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
Chair Kubow called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Members Present: Jonathan Kubow, Chair
John Fitzgerald
Kirsten Kingsley
Ted Eckhardt
Scott Seyer
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Walter E. Smithe, Owner of Walter E. Smithe Furniture
Rob Whitehead, Olympik Signs for Walter E. Smithe Furniture
Steve Hautzinger, Planning Staff
REVIEW OF MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 9, 2023
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KINGSLEY, TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2023. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM 1. SIGN VARIATION REVIEW
DC#22-097 – Walter E. Smithe Furniture – 1775 W. Rand Rd.
Walter E. Smithe, representing Walter E. Smithe Furniture, and Rob Whitehead, representing Olympik Signs, were present on behalf of the project.
Mr. Hautzinger presented Staff comments. The petitioner is seeking a sign variation request to allow 4 wall signs where a maximum 3 wall signs are allowed. The existing building was constructed in two phases. The original west half of the building was approved in 1999 as a single-tenant Walter E. Smithe furniture store. Then, in 2002 the east half of the building was approved to accommodate a separate tenant, Drexel Heritage. At this time, Drexel Heritage has left the building, and Walter E. Smithe has expanded to occupy the entire building. Per code, wall sign requirements vary for single-tenant versus multi-tenant buildings. Multi-tenant buildings are allowed an additional wall sign on an additional wall that faces a privately-owned shared parking lot. The existing building currently has 6 code compliant wall signs: 3 signs for Walter E. Smithe, and 3 signs for Drexel Heritage. Walter E. Smithe is currently proposing 4 wall signs, where a maximum of 3 wall signs are allowed (one per street frontage). Since Walter E. Smithe now occupies the entire building, an additional wall sign facing the private parking area is no longer allowed.
It should be noted that in 2000, Walter E. Smithe requested this same variation to allow four wall signs (one on each side of the building) where a maximum of three wall signs are allowed. The Design Commission denied the request.
In addition to wall signage, this property also has two large ground signs. One ground sign is located at the street intersection of Rand Road and Wilke Road, and the other ground sign is facing Route 53. A variation was approved in 2002 to allow the ground sign facing Route 53 to be 100 sf in size, where 80 sf is the maximum allowed. Images and views of the existing wall signs were presented for reference and clarification.
The petitioner has submitted a letter addressing the sign variation criteria stating that the hardship is not self-created and it is due to the building’s unique architectural features since the building was originally a multi-tenant space, which has now been updated to a single tenant occupancy. They are requesting signs #1, 2, & 3 to most prominently signify that Walter E. Smithe occupies the full building and no longer includes the former tenant Drexel Heritage. They are also requesting sign #4 on the west elevation since they consider the west elevation to be the primary business identification for southbound traffic on Rand Road. They want Walter E. Smithe to be visible on all four elevations.
Mr. Hautzinger said that as was the case when this same request was made in 2002, Staff feels that three wall signs and two ground signs is adequate signage to identify the business, and there is no justification for a fourth wall sign which could be considered a competitive advantage over other businesses that have complied with code.
Additionally, with regards to the placement of the three code-compliant wall signs, Staff questions the logic behind the requested signs. The wall signs on the east end of the building are less visible than the signs on the west end of the building, and there is already a large ground sign located directly adjacent to the proposed east wall sign. The petitioner has indicated that sign #6 is the main entrance to the store, and it seems odd to remove the sign above the main entrance. Staff recommends denial of the variation for four wall signs, but instead recommends keeping signs 4, 5, & 6 as the three code-compliant wall signs, instead of signs 1, 2, 3, & 4.
Mr. Whitehead said they are in the process of updating signage for Walter E. Smithe Furniture to reflect the new logo as a result of the departure of the Drexel Heritage brand. The existing wall signs that read ‘Smithe’ will be changed to read ‘Walter E. Smithe”, and the total amount of signage will be reduced from 450 sf to 289 sf. The existing signs were installed 20 years ago and are in need of updating, and the building will look cleaner with painting also being done. They are in agreement with moving the new “Walter E. Smithe” wall sign (Sign #1) at the east side of the south elevation over to the main entrance at the west end of the south elevation (Sign #6), as well as moving Sign #3 on the east end of the north elevation over to the location of Sign #5 on the west end of the north elevation.
Mr. Smithe said the building is in need of some updating and the existing signage needs to be replaced because of the departure of the Drexel Heritage brand. They are proposing less signs and less total square footage, and the variation request seems reasonable to them based on the hardship of this odd building and the odd location it presents. They agree with the suggestion to keep signage where Signs 5 & 6 are located, and he asked that a fourth wall sign be allowed on the east elevation, recognizing that Staff does not support this and that the Village Board will make the final determination. Mr. Smithe felt their request was in the best interest of this far corner location in Arlington Heights, which many of their customers think is actually Palatine.
Chair Kubow asked if there was any public comment on the project and there was no response from the audience.
The commissioners summarized their comments. Commissioner Seyer was concerned about the illumination of a new wall sign on the east elevation, because of the residential area across the street. Mr. Whitehead said that all existing signage is illuminated; however, it is not face lit, but rather a reverse halo lit letter, so that only the outline of the letters splash lighting off the building wall. Commissioner Seyer agreed with Staff’s suggestion to keep signage on the west side of the north and south elevations (Signs 5 & 6), and eliminate Sign 1 and Sign 3 on the east side of the north and south elevations. He also saw the need for wall signage on the east side of the building (Sign 2), although he had concerns about the lighting impact of that new sign. Mr. Whitehead pointed out that the new wall sign (Sign 2) on the east elevation is smaller than the wall sign that currently exists there, and should have less brightness. Commissioner Seyer concluded that the new wall sign on the east elevation will be similarly lit and be a minor change to the wall sign that is already there.
Commissioner Kingsley agreed that moving the signs to locations 5 & 6 makes sense, especially since those are the celebrated areas of the building. She referred to the photo of the east elevation that shows the existing ground sign and the existing landscaping. She asked if the existing ground signs are being updated, and Mr. Smithe replied that they have been exploring that, but it is not part of this current project. Commissioner Kingsley said that since the wall sign on the east elevation will not be very visible because of the trees, she could go either way with a wall sign there, and felt the existing ground sign will be more visible than a wall sign in that location.
Commissioner Eckhardt supported the request for a variation to allow four wall signs, one on each side of the building, since the building is very big with a lot of lineal footage around it, with customers coming from many surrounding communities. A wall sign on the east elevation is very important, and he agreed with Staff that the western portion of the building is more prominent and the signable areas there are more designed and appropriate for signage (signs 5 & 6). He agreed with Commissioner Kingsley about the existing ground signs, which are important and should be updated as well. This is a tough location in the Village and he supports the variation request.
Commissioner Fitzgerald was in support of the sign variation request to allow four wall signs, including a wall sign on the east elevation, because of the size of the building, the location with the angle of the street, the existing ramp from Route 53 and the stoplight. He also liked the idea of moving the wall signs at the east side of the north and south elevation over to the west side of those elevations as an option.
Chair Kubow agreed with the comments made. This is a unique location and a uniquely designed building, and some of the existing signage is hard to see because of the foliage. He was in full support of the variation.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER ECKHARDT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SEYER, TO RECOMMEND TO THE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING SIGN VARIATIONS FOR WALTER E. SMITHE FURNITURE AT 1775 W. RAND ROAD:
1. A VARIATION FROM CHAPTER 30, SECTION 30-402.A NUMBER, TO ALLOW FOUR WALL SIGNS, WHERE ONLY THREE WALL SIGNS ARE ALLOWED.
2. A VARIATION FROM CHAPTER 30, SECTION 30-403.A DIMENSIONS, TO ALLOW A 37.9 SF WALL SIGN ON THE SOUTH WALL OF THE BUILDING, WHERE 0 SF IS ALLOWED.
THIS RECOMMENDATION IS SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANS RECEIVED 3/6/23, FEDERAL, STATE, AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES, AND THE ISSUANCE OF ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, AND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT SIGN 5 & SIGN 6 ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS REMAIN AND BE UPDATED, AND SIGN 1 & SIGN 3 ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS BE ELIMINATED.
2. THAT THE ILLUMINATION OF THE WALL SIGN ON THE EAST ELEVATION (WILKE ROAD) BE SIMILAR TO OR LESS THAN THE ILLUMINATION OF THE EXISTING WALL SIGN LOCATED THERE, TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE RESIDENTIAL ACROSS THE STREET. THE PETITIONER STATES THE ILLUMINATION WILL BE HALO LIT ON THE LETTERS, WHICH IS LESS THAN FACE LIT ILLUMINATION.
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, 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 ARCHITECT/HOMEOWNER/BUILDER’S RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE DESIGN COMMISSION APPROVAL AND ENSURE THAT BUILDING PERMIT PLANS COMPLY WITH ALL ZONING CODE, BUILDING PERMIT AND SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS.
Commissioner Seyer said it would be helpful for the petitioner to provide a photo of the existing Wilke Road signage at night, to illustrate to the Village Board that there is not much difference in brightness of the existing wall sign and the new wall sign. This should alleviate a lot of concerns, as well as the locations of the 3 wall signs that will capture the main portion of the building.
SEYER, AYE; ECKHARDT, AYE; KINGSLEY, AYE; FITZGERALD, AYE; KUBOW, AYE. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM 2. OTHER BUSINESS
Public Comment
There was none.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER ECKAHRDT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SEYER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
https://arlingtonheights.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/Meetingsresponsive.aspx
Alerts Sign-up