Approved 5/04/15
VILLAGE OF WILMETTE
1200 Wilmette Avenue
WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091-0040
MEETING MINUTES
APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 6, 2015
7:30 P.M.
ROOM 106, COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
3000 GLENVIEW ROAD
Members Present:
Tim Sheridan, Chairman
William Bradford
Dan Collyer
Daniel Elkins
Mason Miller
Craig Phillips
Members Absent:
Carrie Woleben-Meade
Guests:
Jordan Aron, 721 Green Bay Road
Steven Ruby, 721 Green Bay Road
Carla Connett, 1183 Wilmette Avenue
Hochul Shin, 344 Ridge Road
Wayne Brunzell, 1420 Sheridan Road
Bill Sturgis, 1420 Sheridan Road
Staff Present:
Lucas Sivertsen, Planner III
I.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Sheridan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
II.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES; APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING
OF MARCH 2, 2015.
1
Approved 5/04/15
Mr. Bradford moved the Commission approve the March 2, 2015 meeting minutes as
amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Elkins. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and
Commissions Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Phillips. Voting no: none. The motion
carried.
III. CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Elkins removed Case 2015-AR-14, 116 Skokie Boulevard, Indiana Tech, from the
consent agenda.
Mr. Phillips moved to approve Case 2015-AR-12, 1183 Wilmette Avenue, Hotcakes. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Bradford. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissions
Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Phillips. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
IV. CASES
2015-AR-14
Indiana Tech
116 Skokie Boulevard
Wall Sign
Mr. Sivertsen called Case 2015-AR-14, 116 Skokie Boulevard, Indiana Tech, requesting an
Appearance Review Certificate to install a new channel letter wall sign. He said the
applicant was not in attendance because the case was on the consent agenda.
Mr. Elkins said the only issue he had with the sign is that it was mounted on a raceway.
All of the other signs in the shopping center are flush mounted to the wall.
Mr. Sheridan said the raceway would be painted to match the wall. It would have a
different texture from the wall so it wouldn’t look exactly the same, but it would be the
same color.
Mr. Elkins said all the letters would stand off the raceway approximately 5 inches. It
would be a noticeable change from the rest of the signs in the shopping center.
Mr. Phillips said he didn’t have an issue with the raceway, since there’s no prohibition to
using raceways in Wilmette.
Mr. Elkins said it was just a matter of consistency within the shopping center.
Mr. Bradford said this case reinforces the fact that there should be a local sign ordinance
for this shopping center. In the absence of a local sign ordinance, he didn’t have a problem
with the signage as proposed.
Mr. Miller said he thought the sign as proposed would be noticeably different from the
other signs in the shopping center. He didn’t think he could vote in favor of the sign as
proposed.
2
Approved 5/04/15
Mr. Collyer said he didn’t feel strongly either way.
Mr. Sheridan said the applicant should have the opportunity to come in and plead their case
before the Commission votes on a revised request.
Mr. Elkins moved to continued Case 2015-AR-14, 116 Skokie Boulevard, Indiana Tech, to
the May 4, 2015 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bradford. Voting yes:
Chairman Sheridan, and Commissions Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Phillips. Voting
no: none. The motion carried.
2014-AR-21
Firefly
111 Green Bay Road
Appearance Review Commission
Mr. Sivertsen called Case 2014-AR-21, 111 Green Bay Road, Firefly Kitchen, requesting
an Appearance Review Certificate to install rooftop mechanical screening.
Ms. Donley Klug said they had come up with a really great way to provide screening.
They spoke to their neighbors behind them about their screening. She said a curb would be
built on top of the roof and then metal posts would be mounted on the curb. Horizontal
wooden slats would then be attached to the metal posts. She presented a sample of the
stained wood.
Mr. Miller asked if the back of the building was going to be painted.
Ms. Klug said only the front of the building would be painted. The rest of the building
would be natural brick.
Mr. Bradford suggested they add a diagonal support to the back of the screen to help
stabilize the screen. He thought the proposed screening was a very attractive solution.
Mr. Phillips moved to approve an Appearance Review Certificate for Case 2014-AR-21,
111 Green Bay Road to install rooftop mechanical screening. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Bradford. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissions Bradford, Collyer,
Elkins, Miller, Phillips. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
2015-AR-04
Imperial Motors
721 Green Bay Road
Appearance Review Certificate
Mr. Sivertsen called Case 2015-AR-04, 721 Green Bay Road, Imperial Motors, requesting
a sign variation to install a new wall sign and install a new ground sign, and a preliminary
review of an Appearance Review Certificate to remodel the building façade and replace an
existing ground sign for Starbucks Coffee.
3
Approved 5/04/15
Mr. Jordan Aron stated he met with Village President Bob Bielinski as well as Chairman
Sheridan to discuss possible design alternatives that would meet both Village and Jaguar
Corporate approval. He said his architect, Bob Flubacker, had come up with a few
conceptual designs that he wanted to present to the Commission for initial feedback. He
said Mr. Tom Ruby with Jaguar Corporate was in attendance to hear the Village’s
comments firsthand.
Mr. Sheridan provided background on the meeting with the applicant and their architect
and Mr. Sivertsen explained the Village Board procedure and how the case came back to
the Commission.
Mr. Aron stated the existing pole mounted ground sign at the south end of the property was
proposed to be replaced with a new ground sign that would match the sign on the northeast
corner of the property. Also, since the existing ground sign on the northeast corner would
be removed, Starbucks will need a new ground sign. The plans for the new Starbucks
ground sign were enclosed in the packet. The only difference would be the words “drivethru” and the chevron are not proposed.
Mr. Sheridan said the other wall signs could be discussed as part of the façade review.
Mr. Flubacker said a lot of the other designs they came up with had pitched roofs and
gabled elements which will be a very difficult sell to Jaguar Corporate. The two solutions
that are being presented have the best chance at making it through corporate approval.
Based on Mr. Ruby’s quick review of the plans, Jaguar would prefer to see Alternative A.
Mr. Bradford asked if the existing stone circular element would be squared off.
Mr. Flubacker said that area would remain circular. It would be similar to the glass boxes,
but it would be curved.
Mr. Sivertsen asked about the building façade where Starbucks is currently located. He
said the plans presented at the previous meeting showed the façade would not be changing.
In the current plans Alternative A and B, it appeared the Starbucks façade would be
remodeled as well.
Mr. Flubacker said it is being shown as stucco, however, they would prefer to keep the
existing façade.
Mr. Bradford said the inside corner of the building where Imperial Motors and Starbucks
meet would be an appropriate location for a transition from the stucco to the existing brick.
Mr. Phillips asked the applicant if they were still proposing stucco.
4
Approved 5/04/15
Mr. Ruby said Jaguar had two approved materials. Aluminum Composite Material (ACM)
is the preferred material and stucco could be used as an alternative. He is the liaison
between Jaguar Corporate and the dealerships. He has a pretty good idea of what Jaguar
would approve, but he is not the final say. It’s not to say they wouldn’t approve other
materials, but they are looking for a flat, smooth surface.
Mr. Phillips asked if they were introducing this to new buildings or existing buildings.
Mr. Ruby said they are doing both, but for this effort in Wilmette they are taking existing
dealerships and refreshing them to current standards.
Mr. Phillips said the Commission is considering this much more than a refresh. The
change is very different from what’s there now.
Mr. Ruby said he understands that viewpoint. It is something they are familiar with across
the country. Many municipalities have their own codes and regulations. Typically they are
able to work through those differences. The reason he is at the meeting is to try and help
bridge the gap. As an auto manufacturer, it is very important for the dealerships to reflect
the image of the brand.
Mr. Sheridan said from a broader view, the Village of Wilmette has spent a lot of time on
our brand. There is a largely traditional style of architecture in Wilmette. There is
opportunity to add more modern types of architecture, but it needs to be done in a
compatible way. He is disappointed that none of the design alternatives have pitched roofs.
The petitioner needs to show how their vision matches the Village’s vision.
Mr. Phillips said he has a problem using stucco on this building.
Mr. Sheridan said the stucco and the beige color are two items that make this design
difficult to approve.
Mr. Bradford asked if they could achieve the same appearance with a very light colored
uniform brick.
Mr. Ruby asked what the Commission felt about limestone.
Mr. Bradford and Mr. Sheridan said limestone would work for them.
Mr. Ruby said he didn’t know that stucco was problem. It’s very helpful for him to hear
what the issues are with the design.
Mr. Bradford said Jaguar is a quality brand and the use of limestone on the buildings says
it’s a quality building, which in his mind communicates their brand.
5
Approved 5/04/15
Mr. Ruby said he is not a decision maker, but a decision influencer. He will take this
information back to Jaguar Corporate and see what they say. He said Jaguar has four main
elements to their design 1) large glass storefronts, 2) image icon tower that can be easily
distinguishable of the brand, 3) simple, but elegant building lines that communicate the
image of the brand, 4) materials such as glass and aluminum that reflect advanced
technology. These are the main tenets of their brand. As long as the design is within those
elements he thinks if may be something that will work.
Mr. Rudy said there was a case in Indiana where the community objected to ACM and
stucco, but were ok with prefabricated concrete. Jaguar said as long as the color matches
their scheme they were ok with that material.
Mr. Sheridan said he is fine with using traditional materials in a modern way. The
Commission can provide direction as to what would be acceptable, but they can’t design
the building for the applicant.
Mr. Flubacker asked for the Commission’s opinion on the use of ACM wall panels.
Mr. Bradford said he didn’t think it was appropriate in this location.
Mr. Elkins said he agrees with Mr. Bradford. He doesn’t have a problem with the use of
ACM in general, but he does have a problem with it in the Village Center. He said
limestone is a more appropriate material.
Mr. Sheridan said if ACM was used in accent panels he would be ok with its use, but not
for the entire building.
Mr. Flubacker said he was thinking it would be appropriate to use limestone at the portico.
With the amount of wall and the complexity of cladding those walls, stucco becomes a very
easy solution. It will become very difficult to place limestone on top of existing brick.
ACM would also be an easy solution.
Mr. Ruby said Jaguar’s opinion is for the portico to be a different material or color to
provide a different appearance from the rest of the building. If the portico was limestone
and the rest of the building was another material that might work.
Mr. Sheridan said he didn’t know if that would work for the Commission.
Mr. Bradford said his issue with ACM is the sheen you get with that material. He would
prefer a matte finish on the building.
Mr. Miller said he could see the use of limestone in this project, however, if the entire
building were limestone it might be too much.
Mr. Flubacker said that is excellent input from the Commission and it is enough for him to
start working on alternative designs.
6
Approved 5/04/15
Mr. Bradford said whatever material is chosen, the design should take into account the
need for a durable material near grade that won’t become a maintenance issue due to salt
spray.
Mr. Flubacker said maybe they could design the building so that the parts closer to the road
are limestone and the parts further away be another material.
The Commission said Alternative A was the preferred option.
Mr. Sivertsen said the Village would encourage the applicant to keep as much brick as
possible on the Starbucks façade.
Mr. Sheridan asked if the applicant wanted the Commission to vote on the sign variation
requests at this time.
Mr. Aron said they can vote on that once they come back with a completed design for the
building.
Mr. Elkins moved to continue Case 2015-AR-04 to the May 4, 2015 meeting. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bradford. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissions
Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Phillips. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
2015-AR-11
Haute Nails
344 Ridge Road
Sign Variation
Mr. Sivertsen called Case 2015-AR-11, 344 Ridge Road, Haute Nails, for a 48% wall sign
coverage variation to install a new wall sign.
Mr. Hochul Shin said he is with Neon Art sign company representing the business owner.
They wish to install an internally illuminated channel letter sign. He said the permitted
sign of a wall sign on that storefront is only six square feet. The sign they wish to install is
bigger than the permitted size. He said the storefront is 18 feet in length, but the sign band
is only 11 feet. If the sign complied with the regulations the letters would only be 6 inches
in height.
Mr. Shin said next door in the shopping center the letter D in Domino’s is 14 inches in
height. He said they were trying to match the 14 inches in their letter height.
Mr. Sheridan said the 14 inches in the Domino’s sign was for the tall letters. The lower
case letters are 11 inches in height. Also, Domino’s had a much wider area to work with
and only needed a 13% coverage variation. The current request from Haute Nails was for
almost a 50% coverage variation. He understands the petitioner’s hardship caused by the
relatively smaller sign band width.
7
Approved 5/04/15
Mr. Sheridan said he did some calculations of his own to see what variation would be
necessary for different sizes of signs. If the largest letter is 15 inches in height, the total
sign width would be just over 7 feet. The sign would have a 41% wall sign coverage and,
therefore, need an 11% coverage variation.
Mr. Sheridan said he understood that 15 inch letters might be too small so he did another
calculation where the largest letter height was 18 inches. That resulted in an overall square
footage of 13 square feet, with 59% wall sign coverage for a 29% coverage variation. Mr.
Sheridan asked the commissioners what they thought about the different sizes.
Mr. Bradford said he thought the shopping center should have a consistent letter height
across the entire shopping center.
Mr. Sheridan said Mr. Sivertsen gave him the dimensions of the Domino’s sign. The sign
was 1.9 feet tall by 9 feet in length. The lower case letters in Domino’s are 11 inches in
height.
Mr. Bradford said he realized not every sign would have the same proportion of lower case
letter height to upper case letter height, but if the signs had a consistent lower case letter
height and then scaled the upper case letter accordingly if would help to create a consistent
look to the shopping center.
Mr. Sheridan said if you scaled the lower case letters in Haute Nails to 11 inches, the upper
case H would be 18 inches tall.
Mr. Bradford moved to recommend granting a sign coverage variation for a wall sign at
344 Ridge Road with the provisions that 1) the lower case letters in the body of the text be
no greater than 11 inches tall, 2) the upper case letter be no greater than 18 inches tall, 3)
the sign be centered in the sign band, and 4) the percentage of the variation be determined
by the preceding dimensions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Elkins. Voting yes:
Chairman Sheridan, and Commissions Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Phillips. Voting
no: none. The motion carried.
Mr. Bradford moved to authorize Chairman Sheridan to prepare the report and
recommendation from the Appearance Review Commission for case 2015-AR-11. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Phillips. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissions
Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Phillips. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
2015-AR-13
1420 Condominium Association
1420 Sheridan Road
Appearance Review Certificate
Mr. Sivertsen called Case 2015-AR-13, 1420 Sheridan Road, requesting an Appearance Review
Certificate for restoration of an existing garden including paving, lighting, and landscaping.
8
Approved 5/04/15
Mr. Bill Sturgis said the project includes a repair to the existing walkway over a pond and
some re-grading to make the walkway more accessible. The garden sits on top of a below
grade garage. They are going to remove the pond and install soil and landscaping in its
place. They are also removing the metal halide lights and replacing them with more energy
efficient LED lights. At some point in the future all of the garden will need to be removed
in order to replace the membrane protecting the garage.
Mr. Brunzell said they were essentially removing the pond and making a flower box out of
it.
Mr. Bradford asked what happens to the wall on either side of the stairs when the stairs are
removed and replaced with a ramp.
Mr. Brunzell said there is a joint there and they will need to patch the wall once the stairs
are removed.
Mr. Bradford asked if they will need to re-grade the lawn if they are creating a ramp.
Mr. Brunzell said they will need to re-grade a portion of the lawn.
Mr. Elkins asked for the color of the light fixtures.
Mr. Sturgis said both fixtures will have a bronze finish.
Mr. Elkins moved to approve and Appearance Review Certificate for Case 2015-AR-13,
1420 Sheridan Road, based on the plans presented with the clarification that the light
fixtures will have a bronze finish. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bradford. Voting yes:
Chairman Sheridan, and Commissions Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Phillips. Voting
no: none. The motion carried.
V.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:08 p.m., Mr. Elkins moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Bradford. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissions Bradford, Collyer, Elkins,
Miller, Phillips. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
9