Planning and Economic Development Department

Transcription

1 Planning and Economic Development Department SUBJECT: Consideration of an Ordinance granting a commercial variation for 3800 Willow Road LA Fitness (request to waive administrative rules and adopt upon first reading) AGENDA ITEM: 11.b MEETING DATE: November 5, 2013 VILLAGE BOARD REPORT TO: Village President and Board of Trustees FROM: Mary Bak, Director of Planning and Economic Development, (847) THROUGH: Todd Hileman, Village Manager CASE # : Z LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: 3880 Willow Road LA Fitness ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests Village Board consideration of a Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation for approval of a Zoning Variation Ordinance to allow for the installation of three (3) wall signs each in excess of the maximum sign area allowed per ordinance. The applicant requests consideration of a waiver of administrative procedure to facilitate the execution of a lease agreement between the applicant and the property owner. APPLICANT: Gary Collins Tel: (224) Fitness International 10 N. Martingale Road Schaumburg, IL OWNER / CONTACT: PRII Willow/Sander JV, LLC Tel: (312) E. Monroe Street, Suite 3250 Chicago, IL

2 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION: Commissioner Whipple moved, seconded by Commissioner Mullarkey, that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend approval of Variations to the Village Board of Trustees, by a 4-0 vote, in the case of Z , 3880 Willow Road, for the applicant, PR II Willow Sanders Road JV, LLC, represented by Lawrence Debb,, from the provisions Sections (1), (2), and (3) of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow the following: 1. One (1) front wall sign with a sign area of square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet; 2. One (1) side wall sign with a sign area of square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet; and 3. One (1) rear wall sign with a sign area of square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet. 4. All signs shall be installed in substantial accordance with the plans and drawings as submitted and consistent with the testimony and discussion provided during consideration of the petition by the Zoning Board of Appeals and Appearance Commission. 5. The applicant shall be provided twelve (12) months from the date of this Ordinance for the issuance of a building permit for construction of the aforementioned improvements, or the variations shall be rescinded. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DISCUSSION: Staff summarized the applicant s proposal and the applicable ordinance requirements from which variations were requested, including front wall, side wall, and rear wall sign area regulations. Staff additionally summarized the Appearance Commission s consideration of the proposed signage and their recommendation for the signage to match the rough openings/widths of the various architectural elements below each sign. Lastly, staff summarized ordinance amendments adopted in 2010 which reduced the maximum permissible sign area for wall signs throughout the Village. The applicant cited several factors which they assert would justify the request for zoning relief, including the high traffic volumes and limited access to the site from Willow Road, the use by LA Fitness of all capital letters on one line, the use by LA Fitness within their corporate logo of a long vertical line separating LA and Fitness which adds significantly to the sign area as calculated per ordinance, and the nature of the land use in so much as customers would be expected to visit this location from across the region and therefore the sign should be made visible to cars approaching from the tollway exit ramps. The Zoning Board of Appeals noted that the proposed sign areas as reduced by the Appearance Commission were an appropriate scale for the building. They noted that the descending line in the logo did add significantly to the sign area calculation even though most of this added area would be comprised of negative space external to the sign content. Lastly, the Zoning Board 2

3 of Appeals suggested that a hardship was created when the property was developed and marketed for lease in accordance with the sign code of record prior to the 2010 text amendment, and that due diligence & lease negotiations between the applicant and property owner at that time would not have flagged sign area as a concern. A Northbrook resident spoke to request clarification as to whether the proposed signs would be visible from east of the I-294 Tri-State Tollway. The applicant confirmed that the proposed signs would not be visible from northeast of the tollway interchange after development of the parcels east of the subject property, including an approved apartment development, grocery store, and potential future office building. The applicant specifically requested an extended 12-month timeframe to allow for the installation of the proposed signs since the building construction was not yet underway and would not be expected to progress within the initial six-month term established as the default period per ordinance. The Zoning Board of Appeals agreed that the applicant may need additional time to complete the signage installation and recommended an initial expiration period of twelve (12) months. There were no additional questions from the Zoning Board and there were no additional questions or comments from the public. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Report 2. Applicant s Request for Waiver of Administrative Procedure 3. Draft Ordinance 4. Public Notice 5. Excerpt from Minutes of 08/21/2013 Appearance Commission Meeting 6. Excerpt from Minutes of 09/25/2013 Appearance Commission Meeting 7. Excerpt from Minutes of 10/07/2013 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8. Petitioner s Exhibits 3

4 Village of Glenview Zoning Board of Appeals STAFF REPORT October 7, 2013 TO: Chairman and Zoning Board of Appeals Commissioners FROM: Planning and Economic Development Department CASE MANAGER: Jeff Rogers, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Zoning Variation request from Chapter 98 of the Municipal Code ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests consideration of a petition requesting a recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees. APPLICANT: Gary Collins Fitness International 10 N. Martingale Road Schaumburg, IL Tel: (224) CONTACT: John Madeja Studio 222 Architects 222 S. Morgan Street, Suite 4B Chicago, IL Tel: (312) OWNER: PRII Willow/Sander JV, LLC 55 E. Monroe Street, Suite 3250 Chicago, IL Tel: (312) CASE #: Z LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: 3880 Willow Road LA Fitness PROPOSAL: The petitioner, PR II Willow Sanders Road JV, LLC, represented by Lawrence Debb, requests a Variation from the provisions of Sections (1), (2), and (3) of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow one (1) front wall sign with a sign area of up to square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet, one (1) side wall sign with a sign area of up to square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet, and one (1) rear wall sign with a sign area of up to square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet, each as allowed and required by said ordinance. SITE DIRECTIONS: From Village Hall, turn right onto Waukegan Road and proceed north to Willow Road. Turn left onto Willow Road and proceed west past I-294 to Sanders Road. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Willow Road and Sanders Road. Staff Report Disclaimer: Village staff makes no representations regarding support, endorsement, or the likelihood of approval or disapproval by any Glenview regulatory 4 commission or the Village Board of Trustees.

5 Site Assessment VILLAGE OF GLENVIEW ZONING: PIN (S): and Current Glenview B-2 General Business District, RT-8/PD Planned Development District, and PD Planned Development District North: East: South: West Glenview I-1 Limited Industrial District Cook County R-4 Residential District Glenview B-2 General Business District and Cook County C-7 Office Research District Glenview I-1 Limited Industrial District and Cook County Forest Preserve District AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY: 5

6 Project Summary BACKGROUND: The applicant requests consideration of zoning variations for three (3) proposed wall signs serving a new, free-standing health club & fitness center to be constructed at the northeast corner of Sanders Road and Willow Road. The proposed single-tenant building would be included as an anchor outlot within the retail area of the GlenStar development upon a development site formerly improved with an office building occupied by the Culligan International Company. The applicant requests approval of wall signage to be comprised of 293 square feet over the primary building entrance upon the east building elevation, and two (2) additional wall signs each comprised of 247 square feet, one (1) each facing Sanders Road and Willow Road on the west and south building elevations, respectively. The Appearance Commission previously reviewed the proposed wall signage at their regular meetings on August 21, 2013 and September 25, Original wall signage plans depicted larger signs, however the Appearance Commission objected to this design and suggested that no wall sign should extend beyond the width of the various architectural elements below the proposed signs upon each elevation. The applicant revised plans in response to the Appearance Commission s comments and upon review, the Appearance Commission offered unanimous support for the design and construction of the proposed signage as currently proposed. An excerpt from the official meeting minutes of these proceedings are attached to this report. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: The following sections outline current ordinance requirements as these would be applied to the existing and proposed conditions. Maximum Front Wall Sign Area in the B-2 General Business District: Per Section (1) of the Municipal Code and as applied to the subject property, the front wall shall include up to square feet of wall signage. The applicant requests approval of the largest of the three (3) proposed wall signs on the front (east) building elevation. At a total area of 293 square feet, the proposed front wall sign would exceed the maximum permissible area by 143 square feet. Maximum Side Wall Sign Area in the B-2 General Business District: Per Section (2) of the Municipal Code and as applied to the subject property, the side wall shall include up to square feet of wall signage. The applicant requests approval of identical signage on the south and west building elevations, each sign to be comprised of 247 square feet. The proposed side (south) wall sign would exceed the maximum permissible area by 97 square feet. Maximum Rear Wall Sign Area in the B-2 General Business District: Per Section (3) of the Municipal Code and as applied to the subject property, the rear wall shall include up to square feet of wall signage. The applicant requests approval of identical signage on the south and west building elevations, each sign to be comprised of 247 square feet. The proposed rear (west) wall sign would exceed the maximum permissible area by square feet. 6

7 Calculation of Sign Area: Per Section (9) of the Zoning code, "sign area" means the gross surface area or the entire area within a single continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits of such sign and in no case passing through or between any adjacent elements thereof. Other Bulk Regulations: Both the proposed wall and ground signage for LA Fitness would be in compliance with all other bulk requirements of the zoning ordinance. Other Requirements: If the Zoning Board of Appeals should require any changes to the proposed wall signage, additional review from the Appearance Commission will be required. Subsequent to a recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals, the proposed signage shall be subject to a final review by the Village Board of Trustees. Zoning Board of Appeals Review ZONING BOARD JURISDICTION & PURPOSE: The Zoning Board is vested with the authority to hear, and make a recommendation for approval or denial to the Village Board of Trustees for commercial variances subject to the standards set forth in Sections and of the Municipal Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall identify findings of fact based upon the standards prescribed whether the application of regulations of the zoning ordinance will create a practical difficulty or hardship for the owner, lessee, or occupant of land, buildings, or structures. KEY VARIATION STANDARD COMMENTS: Staff comments after evaluating the wide range of issues considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals, including but not limited to the following: Whether there exists a legal hardship of the property as distinguished from an inconvenience Whether the alleged hardship may be self-imposed Whether a.) the property; and/or b.) the application of the ordinance to the situation is unique Compatibility of the resulting conditions with other properties of the same zoning designation Demonstration of how other available options are not viable, regardless of economic impact Mitigation of impact(s) upon properties in the vicinity Staff Comments: The proposed signage is comprised entirely of capital letters, which contributes to the length and height of the sign. The applicant s business logo includes a divider between the LA and Fitness components of the sign. Since sign area is calculated by establishing a box around the outer perimeter of the sign face, and since the divider descends below the remainder of the text comprising each sign, the divider increases the area of the front sign by approximately 98 square feet and the areas of the side and rear signs each by approximately 82 square feet. If this area was eliminated from the area of the sign used in the calculation, the sign areas would be as follows: o Front Wall Sign: 195 square feet (+45 sq. ft. over max. permitted) 7

8 o o Side Wall Sign: 161 square feet (+11 sq. ft. over max. permitted) Rear Wall Sign: 161 square feet (+99 sq. ft. over max. permitted) The subject property would include an anchor grocery store. The proposed fitness center would occupy a second anchor outlot situated at a primary roadway intersection. The applicant should confirm whether there are intentions at this time to pursue variations for wall signage for the remaining minor outlots across the site or the principal grocery store façade. No signage is proposed along the north building elevation facing the adjacent private right-of-way (Capital Drive) and existing office developments to the north of the subject property. The applicant asserts that the fitness center will attract clientele from the adjacent tollway interchange and that among the other reasons listed in their application materials, this is a unique characteristic of the proposed operations which merits consideration. It is unclear whether any of the building façades will be visible from the adjacent tollway ramps. The proposed fitness center use would be provided signage upon multi-tenant signs at each of the primary entrances into the site from Willow Road and Sanders Road. The Village of Glenview has previously approved zoning variations for signage in several locations across the Village. The following table summarizes the variations that were granted and the setback of these signs to the adjacent rights-of-way. Sign Area Sign Setback Illumination Target sq. ft. 1,015.0 ft. Internal Astellas East Elevation South Elevation Glenbrook Hospital West Elevation East Elevation LA Fitness (proposed) East Elevation South Elevation West Elevation sq. ft sq. ft sq. ft sq. ft sq. ft sq. ft sq. ft ft ft ft ft. 1,066.2 ft ft ft. Internal Internal Internal & Halo Internal & Halo Internal Internal Internal The proposed signage may be visible from the proposed multi-family rental apartment development proposed by Lennar at the northeast of the GlenStar site, however any residents of this building are likely to be aware of the presence of the proposed signage prior to occupancy of the apartments. As a 24-hour fitness center and since there would be no non-business hours, the applicant would not be required to lower signage lighting levels over the evenings unless this is applied as a condition of approval intended to mitigate any specific negative impacts. 8

9 The applicant should confirm whether they anticipate signage to be installed by May 2014 or whether a specific expiration period should be specified within the proposed motion. POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS: The proposed sign installation would be subject to additional review through the building permit process for compliance with all other building, life safety, engineering, and related codes by the Village s Inspectional Services Division. Throughout the duration of construction, all construction activities would be required to comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code. As such, and since the proposed building would not be situated adjacent to any existing residential neighborhoods, no specific impacts upon adjacent properties are anticipated. 9

10 Technical Review PROJECT TIMELINE & OUTREACH: A. 08/21/13 First Appearance Commission Meeting B. 09/09/13 Application Submitted C. 09/19/13 Public notice published in the Glenview Announcements D. 09/19/13 Public notice sign posted upon the subject property E. 09/19/13 Public notices mailed to surrounding property owners F. 09/25/13 Second Appearance Commission Meeting G. 10/07/13 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting H. TBD Village Board of Trustees First Consideration I. TBD Village Board of Trustees Final Consideration J. TBD Expiration of Zoning Variation K. TBD Permit Issuance L. TBD Inspections J A B CDEF G H I Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec LEGAL NOTICE & PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: A notice of a Public Hearing to be held was published in the Glenview Announcements, a newspaper with a general circulation within the Village of Glenview, not more than thirty (30) days, nor less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date set for said hearing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 65, Section 5/ of the Illinois Compiled Statutes. 10

11 REQUIRED APPROVAL(s): The following chart details the necessary required approvals. An associated appendix includes specific descriptions of each regulatory approval, the review criteria, and standards for approval. Each commissioner has a copy of this appendix and copies for the public are located on the table near the entry doors to the Village Board Room. The appendix can also be viewed on the Planning Division website at the following URL: Required Regulatory Review A. Annexation B. Annexation with Annexation Agreement C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment D. Official Map Amendment E. Rezoning F. Planned Development G. Conditional Use H. Final Site Plan Review I. Second Curb Cut J. Subdivision (Preliminary, Final, and Waivers) K. Variation(s) L. Certificate of Appropriateness M. Final Engineering Approval & Outside Agency Permits N. Building Permit(s) O. Building & Engineering Inspections P. Recorded Documents (Development Agreements, Easements, Covenants, etc.) Q. Business License R. Certificate of Occupancy VARIATION STANDARDS: 1.) The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not vary the regulations of Chapter 98 of the Municipal Code unless it shall make a finding of fact based upon the evidence as presented to it in each specific case that the: a. Particular physical surroundings shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a practical difficulty or hardship upon or for the owner, lessee or occupant, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulation were carried out. b. Conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based are unique and would not be generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. c. Alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. d. Granting of the variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. 11

12 e. Proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. f. Variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 2.) If all of the standards set forth in subsection (1) of this section cannot be met, yet an identifiable overriding public benefit can be realized by the granting of the requested variation, the zoning board of appeals shall forward a written recommendation, including a specific finding of fact of overriding public benefit, to the board of trustees for final disposition. 3.) The Zoning Board of Appeals may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the premises benefited by a variation as may be necessary to comply with the standards set forth in this subsection (1) to reduce or minimize the injurious effect of such variation upon other property in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the general intent of Chapter 98 of the Municipal Code. 12

13 13

14 Z Commercial Variation for Wall Signage at 3880 Willow Road for LA Fitness 11/04/2013 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A COMMERCIAL ZONING VARIATION WHEREAS, the Village of Glenview (the Village ) is a home rule municipality in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970; WHEREAS, the Village has the authority to adopt ordinances and to promulgate rules and regulations that pertain to its government and affairs that protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens; WHEREAS, on September 19, 2013, a notice of public hearing before the Glenview Zoning Board of Appeals was duly published in the Glenview Announcements, a newspaper of general circulation within the Village, scheduling a public hearing for October 7, 2013 on an application seeking a variance for property classified B-2 General Business District by the Glenview Zoning Ordinance; WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforesaid notice, a public hearing was held on October 7, 2013 at the hour of 7:00 P.M. by the Zoning Board of Appeals in accordance with Chapter 98, Article II, Section 98-43(d)(2) of the Glenview Municipal Code (the Code ), and all persons who desired to be heard were heard, and an opportunity was given to all persons who desired to make objections thereto; WHEREAS, subsequent to the public hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended the granting of such variance, which recommendation was duly considered by the corporate authorities; and WHEREAS, the corporate authorities have determined that in order to further the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, it is appropriate and in the public interest to grant the applicant s request for a variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village as follows: Section 1: The facts and statements contained in the preamble to this Ordinance are found to be true and correct and are hereby adopted as part of this Ordinance. Section 2: The variation described in Section 3 below is hereby granted to the property commonly known as 3880 Willow Road (the Subject Property ) which is legally described as: 14

15 LOT 2 IN WILLOW-SANDERS DEVELOPMENT FIRST RESUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18 AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ON COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Section 3: To allow Variations from the provisions of Sections (1), (2), and (3) of the Code for the following: 6. One (1) front wall sign with a sign area of square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet; 7. One (1) side wall sign with a sign area of square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet; and 8. One (1) rear wall sign with a sign area of square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet. 9. All signs shall be installed in substantial accordance with the plans and drawings as submitted and consistent with the testimony and discussion provided during consideration of the petition by the Zoning Board of Appeals and Appearance Commission. Section 4: To allow a period of up to twelve (12) months from the date of this Ordinance for the issuance of a building permit for construction of the aforementioned improvements, or the variation shall be rescinded. Section 5: Appropriate notice shall be taken by the Office of the Director of Planning and Economic Development and any other affected departments of the Village of the variance herein authorized and suitable records of same shall be maintained by the Village to guarantee such variance to the property heretofore described. Section 6: Every section and provision of this Ordinance shall be separable, and the invalidity of any portion of this Ordinance shall not affect the validity of any other portion of this Ordinance. Section 7: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law. PASSED this day of, 20. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: APPROVED by me this day of,

16 ATTESTED and FILED in my office this day of, 20. James R. Patterson, Jr., President of the Village of Glenview, Cook County, Illinois Todd Hileman, Village Clerk Village of Glenview, Cook County, Illinois 16

17 PROPOSED VARIATION PUBLIC NOTICE Z Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider a petition requesting a Variation of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance. The meeting will be held on Monday, October 7, 2013 at 7:00 P.M., in the Village Hall, 1225 Waukegan Road, Glenview, IL in accordance with Chapter 65, Section 5/ of the Illinois Compiled Statutes. The property involved is commonly known as 3880 Willow Road and legally described as: LOT 2 IN WILLOW-SANDERS DEVELOPMENT FIRST RESUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18 AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ON COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. The petitioner, PR II Willow Sanders Road JV, LLC, represented by Lawrence Debb, requests a Variation from the provisions of Sections (1), (2), and (3) of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow one (1) front wall sign with a sign area of up to square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet, one (1) side wall sign with a sign area of up to square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet, and one (1) rear wall sign with a sign area of up to square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet, each as allowed and required by said ordinance. All persons interested should attend and will be given an opportunity to be heard. For additional information regarding this case, please contact Jeff Rogers, Senior Planner, at (847) Zoning Board of Appeals Ronald A. Greco, Chairman Attest: Jeff Rogers, AICP Senior Planner Publication Date: September 19,

18 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2013 APPEARANCE COMMISSION MEETING: A Willow Rd LA Fitness - Architecture, Signage, Landscaping and Lighting Present to petition for the LA Fitness proposal were: Gary Collins, Director of Development, Fitness International Tim Schmitt representing LA Fitness John Madaja with Studio 222 Architects Ms. House noted that LA Fitness was part of the Glen Star development and had received preliminary approval in March With the help of power point, she pointed out the location of the building and the east and west building elevations. Ms. House stated that the elevations were similar to preliminary approval with exception of the graphics that there under discussion. Graphics were included in the signage and had been reviewed at the PC and Board of Trustees. It was noted in the motion for preliminary approval that the graphics were to be removed because they were non-compliant with village code. Continuing, Ms. House stated that LA Fitness was proposing signage on three elevations: north, west, south, and graphics were proposed on all four (4) building elevations. Proposed building signs were: Three (3) 60 high internally illuminated channel letters mounted to façade. LA Fitness would also have tenant sign panels on the two multi-tenant ground signs. Included in the commissioners packet were details of sight lines, trash enclosures, landscape plan including planters for building front. Ms. House pointed out that there was also an option to include trees and grates rather than the proposed planters. Also, building fixture details were included and lighting would shine up and down only. Gooseneck fixtures were proposed for the graphic signage. Building fixtures would have down lighting only. The photometric plan was included for reference but Glen Star would return with the overall photometric plan at a later date. Proposed entrance door and door hardware were included in the packet as well as curtain wall elements for glass and glazing. At this time, Chairman McJilton asked petitioner why graphics were being proposed when they had not been included in the preliminary motion and applicant had been asked to remove the graphics from the proposal. In response, Mr. Collins stated that the graphics were an important element to brand identity. He added that the business was a fitness club which promoted health and well-being, and explained that they considered the graphics a theme image, a critical element for LA Fitness, and were not intended as signs. He also mentioned that the proposed building was a large, two story structure and that the graphics would help to break up the building mass. Samples with streetscape photos were submitted for review. 18

19 Ms. House stated that staff would like to note that the building was over 10,000 sq. ft. and that the Appearance Commission could approve letter height for this sized building over the recommended 18 inches. Proposed graphics would be included in the total square footage for signage. Mr. Collins stated that the letter scale and size were proportionate to the size of the building. Chairman McJilton referred to the submitted graphics and commented that it appeared to be more like advertising rather than iconic brand awareness. Petitioner pointed out that the graphics did not have any text or business name and that they were purely a graphic presentation. In response to Chairman McJilton, Ms. House confirmed that photos of the graphics had been submitted to the board of trustees and that the board requested that the graphics be removed. Regarding the architecture, Mr. Schmitt, architect, gave a brief overview of the proposed materials and their locations on the building. He mentioned that the main portion of the building was precast panels, painted with a heavy textured paint, texcoat surface. A base and top were created with the paint to break up the building mass. Darker brown tone would be on the bottom and lighter tone towards top of the building. Cornice element would be fiber glass, reinforced element, occurs at all of the arcades, and ties building elements together. There were two brick colors: Scarsdale and Time Square. Petitioner described the elevations and how the material had been used. Crown rotunda had a pre-finished aluminum panel or fabricated steel panel. Comments made were: Commissioner Hebson stated that he appreciated that fact that petitioner was attempting to break up the mass but felt that the graphics were definitely advertising and that he would not approve them as a permanent element. He pointed out that the advertising was against the village code and that the graphics were considered advertising. Mr. Collins stated that there was no intent to have any words on the graphics. Commissioner Shaw confirmed that the darker brick was proposed for the bottom of the arcades. Chairman McJilton stated that the building was appropriate but should LA Fitness ever vacate the building, there was concern of permitted graphics for another tenant. o Commissioner Reynolds compared proposal to a movie theater and that current movie display would not be allowed o Mr. Schmitt stated that LA Fitness typically did not use panels but were proposed for the building under discussion because it was a four sided, large building Commissioner Reynolds noted that adding glazing or spandrel panels would not work in location of proposed graphics. Mr. Collins asked if the graphics were not approved, would they be able to present an option with slight modification even though the design had received preliminary approval. Ms. House commented that the architecture of the building details without the graphics could be changed and the applicant could return with revised architecture details. Petitioner asked for guidance regarding building modification with no graphics. He felt that the arcade was appropriate without the graphics but that they were seeking guidance for the west elevation. 19

20 o Commissioner Reynolds commented that the applicant had done a nice job of scaling down a large box and that it appeared to be framing something. He added that he did want to see something in the area but was unsure of what was appropriate. o North elevation did not face right of way o Chairman McJilton suggested that the applicant submit options that the AC would be happy to review o Commissioner Reynolds suggested some type of landscaping, such as a trellis. Commissioner Shaw commented that it was a nice looking building with good color selections and that it had been scaled down appropriately and looked great. There were no other comments on architecture. Brief discussion ensued regarding landscaping and buildings in the Willow and Sanders area. Mr. Debb clarified that the Northfield Sanitary Pump Station was located in the area. Ms. House pointed out the trash enclosure that was located at the back of the building Commissioner Shaw asked if this area could be landscaped and Mr. Debb replied that he had worked closely with staff and with the Northfield Sanitary District and clarified that this area was where all the pumps came in and that Northfield Sanitary District would not allow any landscaping in the area. Mr. Debb owned the property but there was an easement located in the area. Commissioner Shaw confirmed with petitioner that on the eastern side of the south portion of the landscaping that the trees were intended to be at the property with sod in between and asked if taller shrubs could be installed rather than what was proposed at this time. o Mr. Debb responded that they would install whatever the Appearance Commission would like. Commissioner Shaw stated that the landscape plan was fine and that she liked the proposed planters with the lilacs and seasonal annuals. Commissioner Shaw confirmed with Mr. Debb that the association would most likely maintain the landscaping and add plants to the planters every year. Commissioner Shaw asked to have someone review the landscape plan to ensure all plantings and items were labeled and identified for final review. Mr. Debb stated that the trees at property line would be moved back slightly, everything would be labeled Mr. Debb pointed out the slight 18 inch high retaining wall in unilock brick. Material would be the same as other retaining walls in the development. There were no other questions or comments on landscaping. Regarding lighting, Chairman McJilton confirmed that Glen Star would be submitting the photometrics for the entire site. Regarding the light fixtures, Commissioner Shaw confirmed with applicant that the bar fixtures proposed for the graphics would be removed due to elimination of the graphics. The down lighting on the Kim Lighting would supplement the site lighting and would be building mounted. The four (4) fixtures would be located above the cornice line. Also proposed were fixtures 20

21 above the exit doors. Chairman McJilton reminded petitioner that all details for all lighting fixtures would be needed for final approval. There were no other comments or questions. Regarding signage, comments made were: o Commissioner Shaw confirmed with staff that proposed signage without the graphics remained over the allotted square footage. Ms. House calculated proposed signage to be 223 square feet on each of the three elevations resulting in 200 square feet over the maximum allowed sign size. Ms. House reviewed the code and pointed out that the proposed signage required a variation from the ZBA. Chairman McJilton confirmed with petitioner that they would seek the variance. Chairman McJilton, Commissioners Shaw and Hebson felt that the proposed size of the proposed signage was appropriate for the building size. Commissioner Reynolds felt that it was slightly large for being close to the road but that he would defer to the other commissioners. There were no other comments or questions on the proposed signage. Commissioner Shaw made a motion to continue the case of A , LA Fitness, 2375 Sanders Rd, to a future meeting to allow time for the applicant to prepare revise plans and include other necessary information and return at a future meeting for final approvals of landscaping, lighting, photometrics, and signage based on the comments and discussion this evening. The graphics as discussed would not be allowed. Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion. Upon voice vote, motion carried. 21

22 EXCERPT FROM DRAFT MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 APPEARANCE COMMISSION MEETING: A Willow Rd LA Fitness - Signage Larry Debb with GlenStar Development and Gary Collins with Fitness International were present to petition for the LA Fitness proposal. Mr. Rogers noted the location of the LA Fitness within the development and summarized that applicant was proposing signage on the east, south, and west building elevations. Approvals had been granted for building architecture, and lighting and landscaping were to be reviewed and approved. Signage was to be reviewed and discussed at tonight s meeting. Continuing, Mr. Rogers stated that sign size had been reduced on all three elevations as suggested by AC at last presentation. Largest sign would be on the east/front elevation and would match width of arcade. Width of south and west signage was shrunk to match arcade width on south and west elevations. Signs are proposed to match elements beneath the signs on all elevations and elevations were shown via power point. Proposed area was now 247 sq. feet on west and south elevations and east elevation was reduced 323 sq. feet to 292 sq. feet. Applicant was requesting consideration of a zoning variation to allow proposed sign heights. Reasons for variation were summarized and shown on page 8 of the staff report. AC recommendation would be reviewed by the ZBA and Village Board of Trustees. Mr. Debb commented that the location has 10 lane Willow Rd traffic and the 8 lane Sanders Rd traffic. He pointed out that the sign was reduced based on AC and board comments. He further mentioned that all letters were upper case letters on one line and that the vertical separation was one foot of signage but resulted in 80 sq. feet of signage based on interpretation of the code. Mr. Debb stated that visibility of proposed signage was critical for LA Fitness. Comments regarding proposed signage were: Commissioner Demsky stated that he liked how the sign reduction worked and felt that it fit better on the building. Commissioner Reynolds commented that the alignment was much better and in scale Commissioner Pappas confirmed with petitioner that the illumination would be LED Mr. Rogers mentioned that should the village find that the lighting was causing a nuisance, the petitioner would have to address the issue. Mr. Debb stated that if they found the proposed lighting would be too bright, they would take steps to adjust it. Mr. Rogers commented that the applicant was requesting additional consideration of the panel signs increased letter height, seven (7) inches over six (6) inch letter. LA Fitness was the second largest tenant and was asking for the larger letter height. A variation was not needed. Commissioner Shaw stated that her preference was for the six inch letter. Panels were acceptable as proposed. Chairman McJilton referenced the staff report and noted that the landscaping for signage had not yet been submitted. Mr. Debb replied that he thought it had been, and Mr. Rogers stated that the 22

23 issue was regarding easement and utilities and that the comment was to ensure that the plantings were not installed over the utilities. Mr. Debb stated that they would work with staff regarding sign landscaping. Commissioner Reynolds confirmed with petitioner that the blue was translucent and the same as the building blue. There were no other comments. Commissioner Reynolds moved in the matter of A , LA Fitness, 3880 Willow Rd, that the Appearance Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the findings the petitioner through testimony and application materials has demonstrated compliance with Section Appearance Plan and in accordance with the following exhibits A, B, C, and D as shown in the staff report. Commissioner Demsky seconded the motion. Upon voice vote, motion carried. 23

24 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF OCTOBER 7, 2013 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING Z Willow Road - The petitioner, PR II Willow Sanders Road JV, LLC, represented by Lawrence Debb, requests a Variation from the provisions of Sections (1), (2), and (3) of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow one (1) front wall sign with a sign area of up to square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet, one (1) side wall sign with a sign area of up to square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet, and one (1) rear wall sign with a sign area of up to square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet, each as allowed and required by said ordinance. Mr. Rogers stated that the applicant is requesting three wall sign variances for the proposed LA FITNESS building. Each sign is similar in appearance and design. The subject property at the northeast corner of Sanders Road and Willow Road is part of the GlenStar development that is west of the Tri-State toll way. The largest proposed sign is on the front entrance which faces east into a large parking lot that is also served by an internal roadway system. The other two signs are proposed for the west and south elevations, with no sign proposed on the north elevation that abuts a private right-of-way. The LA FITNESS corporate brand includes a long, vertical dividing line between the words LA and FITNESS. The Appearance Commission reviewed the east, west and south building elevations and said none of the proposed signs should exceed beyond the width of the architectural elements located below each sign. The Appearance Commission s comments are included in tonight s meeting material. Mr. Rogers reviewed statistical charts. One chart included the maximum requirements for the district and sign variances for the Astellas and Glenbrook Hospital projects compared to the proposed LA Fitness signs. Mr. Rogers pointed out that an error was made in a chart in the staff report (data is correct on the public notice) related to the calculation for total sign area of each proposed sign compared to ordinance requirements. Mr. Rogers addressed Chairman Greco s question about the maximum sign area of 200 SF in the sample motion indicated in the staff report. He explained that the ordinance design guidelines established by the Appearance Commission requires that no signage can exceed 5% of the building façade. The zoning ordinance is similar but draws the line at 8%. The Appearance Commission has the authority to waive design guidelines from the 5% requirement but not to exceed 8% without approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The proposed signs are well under these requirements. Another ordinance requirement is that no sign on a front elevation can exceed 125 SF. In 2010 a text amendment was approved for 125 SF of sign area, however the codification of the 2010 text amendment as it appears on the Village website was not adopted into the code. Although the ordinance indicates 125 SF, the Village must publish 200 SF until the error is corrected by the consultant who addresses the code information for the Village website. Chairman Greco swore under oath applicant Larry Debb, representing GlenStar Properties. Mr. Debb considered the Willow Road and Sanders Road intersection as unusual, with 45,000 cars traveling on Willow Road and 15,000 cars on Sanders Road. Mr. Debb said he believes that no other intersection in Glenview has that volume of cars. The proposed signs are the same as what is seen on all LA FITNESS buildings. LA FITNESS complied with the Appearance Commission s request to reduce the size of the signs as presented this evening. The LA FITNESS corporate brand uses all capital letters on one line with a vertical line separating LA and Fitness. Omitting the vertical line would reduce the sign area significantly. The proposed LA FITNESS will be a regional facility. It needs a large sign that is visible to cars on the exit ramp. Chairman Greco said a whole new shopping center is being built for which the Village has made many concessions in terms of signage. He suggested that approval of the proposed variances could set precedent for signage at future shopping centers in Glenview. He referred to the statistics for Glenbrook Hospital in the staff report indicating that setbacks on the south elevation are 950 feet compared to the proposed LA FITNESS which has a south setback of only 20 feet. In response to Chairman Greco, Mr. Debb was confident that the sizes for the proposed signs were necessary and reiterated that the sizes of the originally proposed signs were reduced to comply with the Appearance Commission s direction. He was concerned that LA FITNESS would not approve any 24

25 signs smaller than what has been proposed tonight, especially a reduction of the large sign on the east elevation. Commissioner Jang asked if the square footage of the large sign on the east elevation was calculated so it would be visible from the toll way. She assumed that LA FITNESS conducted market research to establish the minimum size for each sign. Mr. Debb wasn t involved in how the total sign areas were calculated. LA FITNESS submitted the standard building design and sign sizes for the proposed location. He clarified that the sign on the east elevation would be visible by motorists as they enter the off ramp but would not be seen from the interstate. Regarding Commissioner Jang s inquiry about the size of the Amoco sign on the corner, Mr. Rogers said he didn t have details but knew it was constructed prior to the code change. Commissioner Mullarkey asked for more information about the code change. Mr. Rogers reported that the Appearance Commission conducted a comprehensive overhaul of the appearance code that was first established in 1964, the same as the zoning code. This overhaul began in 2007 and included requirements for signage, landscaping and lighting. Through the vetting process, in 2010 the Appearance Commissioners at that time recommended a wall sign regulation to the Plan Commission indicating a 125 SF cap for the maximum sign area, and any requests exceeding that amount would be referred to the Zoning Board for review. Prior to that, the maximum sign allowance was 300 SF for front wall signs. Mr. Debb said the GlenStar project has been underway for several years and it was initiated under the old code requirements. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the applicant has been working with the Appearance Commission since late 2008 or early 2009, which is prior to the adoption of the current code. Most building discrepancies relate to building elevations. Signage for building elevations is reviewed for approval when a project is close to its scheduled review by the Appearance Commission. Mr. Rogers addressed general questions. There was discussion about the dead space created by the vertical line between the words LA and FITNESS. Comments in the staff report are intended to indicate issues with visibility from adjacent properties. The proposed LA FITNESS building will be completed before the adjacent residential development under construction is occupied, so those new residents will already be aware of the LA FITNESS signs. When the Astellas signage was reviewed, input from neighbors to the east was sought to address sight line concerns related to lighting. Mr. Debb said the illuminated signs on the LA FITNESS building would not be visible across the toll way because they would be blocked by the Astellas development and a four-story office building north of Astellas. The two one-story buildings in the shopping center reduce the sight line for motorists coming down Willow Road. Originally, the parking was in front but that changed per a request by the Village. Mr. Rogers said whether the wall signs related to the one-story buildings in the shopping center exceeded ordinance requirements would be determined when applications are submitted. One person from the audience came forward to address this petitioner. Chairman Greco swore under oath Glenview resident Elizabeth Carr, who resides in a residential area across the toll way. In response to Ms. Carr s concerns about lighting issues, Mr. Debb confirmed that all three signs would be illuminated, but the lighting would not be visible to the adjacent residential areas. Commissioner Perl thought the sizes of the proposed signs were appropriate for the building. 70 SF of dead space is added to the sign area on the east elevation due to the vertical line between LA and FITNESS. He noted that that building is on a busy thoroughfare. To avoid a traffic jam or possible accident, he wants the sign on the east elevation to be visible so the building can be easily found. He supported approval. In response to Chairman Greco, Mr. Rogers addressed the size difference between the original and proposed sign for the east elevation and what is required by ordinance. If the dead space was removed from the proposed sign area, about 70 SF would be deducted bringing the sign area down to 125 SF. Commissioner Mullarkey said the hardship was due to the project being initiated and marketed under certain rules that subsequently changed. 25

26 Chairman Greco was concerned about the large sign on the east elevation, but he somewhat agreed with Commissioner Perl that meeting the code requirements would result in signs that are small for the building. Commissioner Whipple agreed with Commissioner Mullarkey s comment that a hardship was created due to the project being initiated under a sign code requirement that has since changed. The sizes of the originally proposed signs were reduced in response to the Appearance Commission so the applicant has been working with the Village. He is comfortable with the constraints that are acceptable to the Appearance Commission. Commissioner Perl thought the LA FITNESS building was very nice but bland in terms of color. Since it will blend in with the other buildings it could be difficult for a customer to find it or possibly drive by it if the sign wasn t large enough to be visible. Mr. Debb agreed. The Appearance Commission required all buildings in the development to have earthy tones so they would look alike. Commissioner Jang appreciated Commissioner Mullarkey s comments about the change in code. The dead space in the LA FITNESS sign area is odd and hopefully not something that other businesses would have. She doesn t believe approving the requested variances would set precedent for future shopping center signage. For these reasons, she supported approval. Based upon findings evidenced through testimony, discussion, and the petitioner s application materials which demonstrate compliance with Chapter 98, Article II, Section 98-47(c) of the Municipal Code; Commissioner Whipple made a motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend approval of a Variation to the Village Board of Trustees in the case of Z , 3880 Willow Road, for the petitioner, PR II Willow Sanders Road JV, LLC, represented by Lawrence Debb, from the provisions of Sections (1), (2), and (3) of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow one (1) front wall sign with a sign area of square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet, one (1) side wall sign with a sign area of square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet, and one (1) rear wall sign with a sign area of square feet instead of a maximum sign area of square feet, each as allowed and required by said ordinance, provided that the wall signs be in substantial accordance with the plans and drawings as submitted, consistent with the testimony and discussion provided during consideration of the petition, including an initial expiration period of twelve (12) months, and in accordance with the plans approved by the Glenview Appearance Commission. Commissioner Mullarkey seconded the motion. On Roll Call: Ayes: Commissioners Perl, Whipple, Jang, Mullarkey Nays: None Absent: Commissioners Jester, Siegel Motion carried 26

27 27

28 28

29 29

30 30

31 31

32 32

33 33

34 34

35 35

36 36

37 37

38 38

39 39

40 40

41 41

42 42

43 43

44 44

45 45

46 46