Winnetka Design Review Board AGENDA. Thursday, December 19, :30 pm

Transcription

1 Winnetka Design Review Board AGENDA Thursday, December 19, :30 pm The Winnetka Design Review Board will hold a regular meeting on Thursday, December 19th in the Winnetka Village Hall, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois, at 7:30 p.m. 1. Adoption of previous meeting minutes; AGENDA 2. Consideration of Certificate of Appropriateness for proposed awning at Bedside Manor, 920 Green Bay Road. NOTE: Public comment is permitted on all agenda items, and may be provided in person at the meeting, or submitted in writing prior to the meeting. The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that all persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting, or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities, contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois, (Telephone (847) ; TDD (847) ). 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois Administration and Finance (847) Fire (847) Police (847) Public Works (847) Water and Electric (847)

2 Winnetka Design Review Board/Sign Board of Appeals September 19, 2013 Members Present: Members Absent: Village Staff: John Swierk, Chairman Brooke Kelly Michael Klaskin Peggy Stanley Kirk Albinson Bob Dearborn Paul Konstant Brian Norkus, Assistant Director of Community Development Call to Order: Chairman Swierk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Swierk asked if there were any comments or corrections to be made to the July 18, 2013 meeting minutes. No comments were made. He then asked for a motion. A motion was made and seconded to approve the July 18, 2013 meeting minutes. On a voice vote, the motion was unanimously passed. Consideration of Certificate of Appropriateness for Proposed Awning at Pagoda Red, 911 Green Bay Road Chairman Swierk noted that there is no one present in the audience. The presenter, Betsy Nathan began by stating that the request is to cover an unsightly air conditioning window unit which she described as very unattractive over a window. She stated that the awning would be in a recessed area. Mr. Norkus referred the Board to the area in red and that in an attempt to clarify Evanston Awning s drawing, he stated that he could not interpret how the applicant was proposing to do that. He then stated that he took the dimension on the recess and drew the awning without the wall behind the awning. Mr. Norkus referred to the large block below the awning. He also referred to the 3 foot 10 inch dimension on the upper flap of the awning and that there is 6 feet 1 inch to the front of the valance. Chairman Swierk asked if the recessed area is deeper than 6 feet. Mr. Norkus identified the portion that was recently approved for the tenant space to the north

3 Design Review Board/Sign Board of Appeals September 19, 2013 Page 2 mainly to show that they are doing a blade sign. He then stated that there are window graphics and that they are not doing an awning to the north. Chairman Swierk asked if it would be better to have it not stick out past the front. Mr. Klaskin agreed that it should be flush. Chairman Swierk stated that they should make sure that the awning did not go past the window. Ms. Nathan responded that she did not think it did. She informed the Board that the initial drawing was hideous and identified the proposed area. She stated that she informed the awning company that the awning should be tucked in. Chairman Swierk stated that he did not mind if the awning is angled out. Mr. Klaskin commented that it would look weird if it is angled out. Ms. Kelly asked if there is no awning on the front window. Ms. Nathan confirmed that there is not. Mr. Klaskin reiterated that it would look better if it is flush and that he is not sure if they would want to see a portion of it projecting out. He then stated that if there were other awnings, it would be consistent. Mr. Klaskin stated that there is no call to have an angle when it would be recessed back. He also stated that if they are attempting to shield the air conditioner, the best bet would be to go back to the square frame. Ms. Kelly referred to a photograph which showed other awnings sticking out. Ms. Nathan informed the Board that the awning would not obstruct the blade sign and identified the different elevation. Ms. Kelly commented that it would be nice to pull it out all the way flush. The presenter informed the Board that she called George Adamcyzk to see if he would be interested in going across and that they could share the awning with both of their names. She commented that clearly would be the most attractive option. She stated that he told her that was what he wanted to do, but that the previous tenant was not interested and that he pursued a different avenue. She also stated that he had already paid for his signs and that he did not want to throw those out. She stated that they then had to come up with another solution and described it as very awkward since there are three doors in connection with the way in which it could be done the cleanest. Chairman Swierk asked Ms. Nathan if she did not want to have a blade sign.

4 Design Review Board/Sign Board of Appeals September 19, 2013 Page 3 Ms. Nathan responded that they want to cover the old air conditioner. Ms. Kelly suggested an alternative where the front of the air conditioner would not be as noticeable. Ms. Nathan stated that they thought the proposal would have kept it over the door and kept it clean, which would indicate where the door was and serve to cover the air conditioner. Ms. Kelly asked what the neighboring tenant had as far as air conditioning. Ms. Nathan responded that she did not know and that he was under construction for a long time. Mr. Norkus indicated that there may be a window unit in the back. Ms. Kelly suggested that the awning go all the way across the windows. Ms. Nathan commented that they liked the windows. Ms. Stanley stated that the awning not projected out changed the character and that there would be a different character having a flat faced awning. Mr. Klaskin stated that the applicant is attempting to do two things here, the first of which is to cover the air conditioner. Ms. Kelly stated that if there is going to be an awning, it would have to extend all the way across if it is going to project out. The Board discussed the alternative of having a cover on the top and not on the side. Chairman Swierk referred to Ms. Kelly s suggestion of coming down to a certain area and having it flush in an area he identified and to return back. He commented that he would rather see that alternative than something which would stick out. Ms. Stanley asked the presenter for her comments on the Board s suggestion. Ms. Nathan responded that she is attempting to visualize it and that if it were to go flat across, then where would the name go. Chairman Swierk stated that the name could go on one side or the other. Ms. Nathan commented that alternative would be awkward. She also stated that part of it was indicating where the door was. Chairman Swierk stated that alternative would make the store look bigger.

5 Design Review Board/Sign Board of Appeals September 19, 2013 Page 4 Ms. Nathan stated that they agreed that it is difficult to find something which would work. She then referred to other awnings on the street which project out. She also referred to Skändal to the south. A Board member stated that those doors are not set back like those of the applicant. It was noted that Skändal has several awnings. Ms. Nathan stated that she wondered if they would lose light with the Board s alternative. Ms. Kelly identified one window which did not currently get that much light. Ms. Stanley asked if there is any way of camouflaging the air conditioner without [an awning]. Ms. Nathan responded that they could not come up with anything better than their proposal. Mr. Norkus referred the Board to page 1 of the application which indicated that the awning would project 2 feet 3 inches beyond the face of the building which is why he drew the red line on the drawing. Mr. Klaskin described the function of the air conditioning unit, its exhaust and return relative to the face of the building. Ms. Kelly confirmed that the applicant did need air conditioning. Mr. Klaskin stated that with regard to the way the windows are angled in, he is not worried about the loss of natural light and that it related more to the aesthetic element from the street. Ms. Nathan referred to the neighbor s sign and stated that with regard to there being consistency, they did not discuss that yet. She then asked the Board what is the process if they decided that is what they wanted to do. She asked the Board if they would approve the request if it were to go straight across and then down or if they wanted to cut a certain portion back so that it did not extend beyond the front of the building. Chairman Swierk asked if the Board would be okay with 3 feet going back. A Board member responded that it is going to be quirky and that it is awkward. Mr. Klaskin described it as a no win situation. Chairman Swierk stated that if they were to go straight across, it would not appear as though an awning was just stuck in there. Ms. Stanley commented that there is a beauty to the wrap and the continuation of the windows.

6 Design Review Board/Sign Board of Appeals September 19, 2013 Page 5 The Board discussed the white area of the ceiling portion and the fact that you would still be able to see it. Ms. Stanley stated that the applicant s proposal is a good solution to a bad situation and that it is going to be awkward regardless. She commented that there is something nice about this building. Ms. Stanley stated that it seemed as though they could still have the air conditioner open and have a vent. Chairman Swierk reiterated that the best solution would be to go all the way across, but that is not going to happen. Ms. Kelly stated that the best solution would be [to cover the applicant s space] and that it would make their space stand out. Ms. Nathan stated that they would make that revision to the application and confirmed that they would be going straight down. Chairman Swierk confirmed that it should go straight down, to the corner and back to the door. He also stated that it should be the same in terms of cost. Ms. Nathan commented that it would be awkward to have the name on one side. Ms. Kelly described it as an air conditioning cover. Chairman Swierk stated that the proposal would be revised and that it is no longer an awning, but that it would be changed from an awning to a sign with the logo on a sign with a square box. Mr. Norkus indicated that the lettering would probably exceed 6 inches. He informed the Board that the 6 inch height limited represented an attempt to say that lettering should be on the valance portion of an awning and that this would not be a traditional awning. Chairman Swierk asked the presenter if their letterhead contained a little box. Ms. Nathan confirmed that it did. Chairman Swierk asked if the Board could approve the request either way. Ms. Kelly then moved to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness to approve the modified proposal to modify the awning into a canvas façade that would extend out from the front door to the front façade of the building and then extend over to the south to the function of the two windows and to be flush with the façade and to hang completely flat with no projection. She also stated that the lettering could contain the applicant s logo or as indicated on the proposed drawing. The motion was seconded.

7 Design Review Board/Sign Board of Appeals September 19, 2013 Page 6 Ms. Stanley asked if there was any information with regard to the height or if the Board did not care about the height. Chairman Swierk stated that they would still use the 8 foot [height limitation]. Ms. Stanley clarified that she meant the height of the logo. Ms. Kelly confirmed that the letter height be 6 inches as proposed. Chairman Swierk stated that each of the letters would be 6 inches and that the logo would be scaled to a maximum of the 6 inch letters. A vote was taken and the motion was unanimously approved. AYES: NAYS: Kelly, Klaskin, Stanley, Swierk None Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Antionette Johnson

8 Date: December 12, 2013 To: From: RE: Design Review Board Brian Norkus, Assistant Director of Community Development New awnings at Bedside Manor, 920 Green Bay Road Attached plans depict two (2) proposed awnings for a new tenant, Bedside Manor, at the courtyard building at 920 Green Bay Rd. The applicant has proposed two awnings for their space, which occupies the north storefronts of the courtyard building. Below is a street view of the building. There are no other awnings existing on the building at this time. The proposed awnings are 8 feet high clearance, project 2 feet from the building face, and include an 8 inch valance with 6 inch lettering. The awnings are Sunbrella Marine Blue. These specifications comply with the sign code.

9

10

11