Building & Zoning Committee

“Where People Count” Community Development 1000 Civic Center Drive, Niles, Illinois 60714 Mayor Telephone (847) 588-8040 ● Fax (847) 588-8050 ● TDD (847) 588-8059 Robert M. Callero Trustees July 14, 2010 Chris Hanusiak James T. Hynes Joe LoVerde Building and Zoning Committee Meeting 6:00 p.m. Louella B. Preston Andrew Przybylo In Attendance: Alan Weel Joe Annunzio – Village Attorney Village Manager George Van Geem – Village Manager George R. Van Geem Andrew Przybylo – Village Trustee Tom Kanelos – Planning & Zoning Committee Village Clerk James Hynes – Village Trustee Marlene J. Victorine Chris Hanusiak – Village Trustee ______________ Chuck Ostman – Community Development Director Community Rich Wlodarski – Community Development Assistant Director Development Bonnie Jacobson – Planning Coordinator Director Mary Ann Starzynski – Recording Charles Ostman Also in attendance: Joel Walsh – Chamber of Commerce James Morgan – General Manager, Pizza Hut Denise McCreery – Business Coordinator ? 2 un-named attendees Absent: Robert M. Callero – Mayor Steve Vinezeano – Assistant Village Manager Meeting called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Andrew Przybylo. Approval of Minutes: Andrew Przybylo asked if the previous minutes were okay. Tom Kanelos moved to approve the minutes, seconded by James Hynes, all approved. Rolf Campbell has presented some ideas to staff as far as changes to the sign code. There was significant discussion among the staff but really a lot of the changes need to be discussed by the Board and the community. Trustee James Hynes said we should invite other people to the meeting who may have a stake and a say and we welcome all in attendance tonight. Bonnie Jacobson started the meeting with a description of the current sign code using a Power Point presentation to illustrate. The Power Point presentation will have graphics to illustrate so the changes are more visible for discussion as an www.vniles.com example a 10 foot sign versus a 20 foot sign. Andrew Przybylo then asked if we hired Rolf Campbell to make changes in the sign code or to rewrite the sign code. Chuck Ostman responded that we retained Rolf Campbell to look at the current sign code, they met with staff to understand how we interpreted the current sign code and then they made recommendations on the changes to the sign code. Andrew Przybylo responded that he thought they were rewriting the whole section on sign codes. Chuck Ostman responded no we are amending sections of the sign code which were handed out in a previous packet. Now the highlights have been taken out of Rolf Campbell’s proposal that need discussion by this committee – two meetings ago the amended sign code was distributed. Bonnie Jacobson stated that there are a lot of issues to discuss and that this meeting the focus is on ground mounted, pole mounted signs and some of the issues regarding these types of signs. Would like to know where the committee and the community would like to be so that this information and other issues that will be presented at a later date back to Rolf Campbell so that they have some idea of how to draft the code. Really these are policy decisions that need to be made and discussed by the community as the hope was using the slide presentation we can generate some discussion and meaningful discussion so that all can understand and get ideas of what is best for Niles. Chuck Ostman responded that we don’t have to get technical with the terms just a general discussion as to the direction that we want to go with the regulations of the height or how we figure the sign code and then staff will go back to Rolf Campbell and have a meeting with them and then put together specific language. James Hynes then said the current sign code refers to 0 – 99’ frontage – no sign code permitted. Looking at the depiction of Milwaukee Avenue in the Power Point presentation on the right side you see 7 or 8 tracks and I would assume none of those are 99’. Bonnie responded no. James Hynes said but what if all of those are a strip mall with all these different businesses within them does the 99’ apply to each distinct business within the strip mall or a separate structure. Bonnie responded no to a piece of property, boundary lines. Chuck Ostman responded to a parcel rather than an individual business. James Hynes then said so a strip mall may be 2 or 3 parcels so is it each parcel then that determines the minimum footage or would it be 3 adjacent parcels all one strip. Chuck Ostman responded all under one strip mall. James Hynes then said so one strip mall may be more than one parcel and at 300’ you would get one sign. Bonnie responded correct. That is not being proposed to be changed. If you built between 100’ and 599’ there would be 1 sign and if a larger parcel with 600’ or more there could be 2 signs. Examples will be shown in the slides. A corner lot can apply all street frontages to minimum. Chuck Ostman said an example is that a gentleman at the last meeting from the electric company down on Waukegan Road and he had frontage on Waukegan Road of say 75’ and frontage on School Street of 50’ so if combined that makes the 100’ minimum to put up a pole/monument sign which he is going to do. That is what we mean when we say combine frontages to make up the 100’ minimum. Andrew Przybylo then responded combining contiguous frontage on a corner. Chuck Ostman responded correct. Andrew Przybylo stated the key word is contiguous. Bonnie Jacobson stated that these regulations are important because these are some of the changes that Rolf Campbell is proposing. Right now in the code there is a maximum amount of signage allowed and the ground sign is not included in that - it is calculated separately. Currently there is a bonus provision for landscape so if you put landscaping around your ground sign you get an additional square foot in area and 2 additional feet in height. Andrew Przybylo responded by asking so Rolf Campbell is recommending changing that? Bonnie Jacobson responded correct. Andrew then asked what about the must be centered on the property and Bonnie stated as much as possible and Andrew asked if he is proposing changing that to which Bonnie responded no. Chuck Ostman stated that as we go through this 2 you will see what our current code is and then you will see the recommended changes that Rolf Campbell is suggesting. Bonnie then discussed the current sign code – height. Maximum height of a sign for business is ½ the distance to the centerline of the road. An example would be Milwaukee Avenue is 100 feet wide with the centerline being 50 feet and ½ the distance is 25 feet plus however far back the building set from the property line. So you can get some pretty tall signs. Bonnie then stated that the current sign code for area is capped at maximum which is the sign height squared and divided by 4. She felt that this is an important note that the higher you go the more area you get. Some examples of signs in Niles were shown on the Power Point presentations which have been figured on this formula. Bonnie then stated that for discussion purposes it is always good to look and see what some of the surrounding communities regulate their signs at. Many of the communities are also changing their sign codes. In Skokie it is 18 feet or to the top of the lowest level of roof or façade of the building whichever is less so depending on how tall the building is you get a one story building it may be a foot or two less otherwise 18 feet. Des Plaines currently has 20 feet but they also have something where you can go higher for larger sites if it is set back but they are changing that to a standard 18 feet. Morton Grove went through and changed everything to 10 feet and now is rethinking that might be too short and they are considering some changes to be less restricted. Lincolnwood basically 10 feet, 8 foot monument signs with 2 foot bases. Glenview 11 foot single tenant building and 15 feet for multi tenant building and 6 feet for industrial. Mount Prospect is 12 feet but if you are within 100 feet of a residential district it is only 10 feet. Park Ridge is 6 to 8 feet depending on the district. Northbrook is 8 feet for ground signs, 20 feet for a pylon sign and greater height allowed by special permit in the C-5 district. Bonnie stated so you can see that most of the communities have a standard amount with exceptions only for maybe certain districts. Most of the signs are considerably lower. Bonnie stated that this is what Rolf Campbell is proposing: Monument signs 10 feet high and Pole signs 25 feet high as maximum. As you saw just one standard height requirement for all business and manufacturing districts including the ground sign in maximum signage calculation for the site and actually requiring landscaping. No bonus for landscaping but making it required but allowing a variation from the ZBA for landscaping if you do some kind of decorative base. Andrew then asked monument signs are a sign that goes from the ground to top. Bonnie responded with an example from the Power Point presentation. Andrew then said okay so a monument sign is where there is no pole perhaps between 2 and 4 stories and a pole sign is what. Bonnie again showed an example from the Power Point presentation. Andrew asked why they are proposing 25 feet for a pole sign isn’t that kind of high. Bonnie said she agrees and felt that there should be one for all or it will encourage people to do pole signs and not monument signs and monument signs in my mind look a lot nicer but that is something that needs to be discussed and decided on. James Hynes then responded for example any guess what the Sports Authority sign total is. Chuck Ostman responded that he is guessing about maybe 28 -30 feet. Andrew Przybylo responded maybe 25 -30 feet. Bonnie responded maybe even higher. She showed examples/comparisons of Niles signs and Morton Grove signs which are only 10 feet high. Jim Hynes asked what a pole sign is and Bonnie showed examples. Chuck Ostman responded that Sports Authority is considered a pole sign. Bonnie responded that it is considered a pole sign because it does not have a solid base. Jim Hynes then said so if it doesn’t have a solid base it is a pole sign. Chuck Ostman responded right. Bonnie responded that some people use it to for pylon sign but that should be clarified in the definition. Chuck Ostman stated that actually the Sports Authority sign if you look under the façade of the Sport Authority it is the old structure that is still standing there it is just that they put a nice exterior finish around the pole. Andrew Przybylo then said okay so pole is 3 where the sign actually does not go down to the ground and can be multiple poles. Chris Hanusiak then asked about a sign example that had a base plus a pole is that considered a monument or a pole sign. Rich Wlodarski responded a pole sign. Andrew Przybylo stated that he felt there should be a clear definition of pole versus monument. Chuck Ostman responded that there is and he didn’t have the packet with him right now. He stated that Rolf Campbell did define pole and monument signs in the packet. Andrew Przybylo then stated but they are recommending higher for a pole and lower for a monument. Chuck Ostman responded right. Jim Hynes stated that he felt for advertising purposes he felt you would want a ground sign if you are getting a lot of foot traffic or slow auto traffic going by but in a high speed area you would want a higher pole. Bonnie responded that in most of the communities that she used for examples are also built out suburban communities that are similar characteristics; the corridors have similar characteristics to Niles. Andrew Przybylo then responded are you now saying that there is another category and it is called ground signs? Bonnie responded no. Ground signs would include pole and monument signs. A ground sign is not attached to the wall or building. Andrew Przybylo then responded there is pole sign, monument signs and there is a ground sign? Bonnie stated that monument signs and pole signs are samples of ground signs. They are separated; they are on the ground they are not part of a wall or attached to a building. Andrew Przybylo said okay so ground signs are attached to the wall. Bonnie said no that is what a ground sign is not attached to a wall. Andrew Przybylo said okay but if you go to Colonial that sign is attached to the wall. I don’t mean to sound stupid but that Colonial looks like it is attached to a wall. Bonnie responded I should say attached to the building that is clearer, it is not attached to the building it is a separate sign. Andrew then responded that the examples they were looking at were all ground signs but that some were monument and some pole. Bonnie stated that this is important and if things needed to be clarified we would do that. These are samples and we went in Niles and some of the surrounding communities but these are all samples of ground signs that are 10 feet tall or less and you can get a feel for what they look like. Andrew Przybylo asked if any of the ordinances or what Rolf Campbell is suggesting have to do with set backs or traffic? Chuck Ostman responded no they do not make any type of recommendations in regards to the type of roads it is on or speed limit or anything like that. Andrew Przybylo responded well based on your knowledge. Bonnie said no and she thinks that if you look there has been a general movement to a standard height. Andrew Przybylo responded regardless of setback or traffic. Bonnie said correct. She thinks that when you get into more urbanized areas we don’t have the highway or toll way here. It is pretty much corridor traffic somewhat urbanized areas with speed of traffic anywhere from 30 – 40 miles an hour tops. We are not the 65 mile hour zone in Niles. She stated again to look at the pictures and to try to get an idea of what a 10 foot and under sign would be like. Chuck Ostman then stated if he could just back up a minute to the definition of what they proposed on both monument and pole signs just so we can get a clear understanding on that. Rolf Campbell’s recommendation on adding the definition of a monument sign means a ground sign where the base of the sign structure is on the ground typically constructed of brick, wood, stone, or metal. Monument signs have as a base that is at least 80% of the width of the top of the sign structure. So we are right on track if you have a solid base that is at least 80% of the width of the top that is a monument sign. The pole sign or pylon sign is a ground sign that is mounted on a pole or other support with or without a skirt. Chris Hanusiak stated so that would go back to what I was saying at A American that would be considered a monument sign because they put a skirt on it right? Chuck Ostman responded with or without a skirt. James Hynes then stated so basically Sports Authority is a pole sign and the other two examples are ground signs. Chuck Ostman responded correct. It was then asked aren’t ground signs and monument signs the same thing? Chuck Ostman responded no ground signs identify either a pole sign or a monument sign a ground sign covers free standing sign. Bonnie responded it is not attached to 4 the building. The definition of monument and pole signs was reread by Chuck Ostman. Andrew Przybylo responded so where I am getting confused is a ground sign is a sign that is not attached to a building. Bonnie responded basically yes. Andrew then said so there are two kinds of ground signs a monument and a pole. Bonnie responded correct. Joel Walsh from the Chamber of Commerce then asked did you take into account the fact that these two main Milwaukee and Golf at rush hour are 45-50 miles per hour and no offense you can’t find a business. I’m from the Chamber of Commerce and I am here on behalf of the Chamber and you can’t find a business if you don’t know the exact address. Even using a GPS and plugging in the address you would just be looking for where you think the number is. The examples you show none of them have the traffic retail, not a 4 lane highway. None of those towns have anything close to Milwaukee Avenue. Bonnie responded that maybe you want something different for Milwaukee Avenue. I will tell you that the vast majority of these signs are on Dempster Street and Waukegan Road and also Golf Road. They are for comparable purposes they are all 4 lane. James Hynes stated that your point is in terms of the size of the signs traffic volume should be a consideration for the size of the sign so that somebody driving by will be able to pick it up. Joel Walsh stated correct. He felt that in residential areas it had to be taken into consideration. He understands the aesthetic value for what the village is trying to do but that feels that it also has to be taken into account that we are in a downturn economically and what is going to happen when Toni’s Finer Foods moves in if all of sudden they didn’t sign their lease before this goes into effect it is going to be a deal killer for businesses. It is going to be more attractive for them to go someplace else where they have better signage codes ones that are more favorable to retail businesses in large populated areas or large high traffic areas. It has to be taken into account when writing the code. Andrew Przybylo asked is it the size of the sign, the height of the sign? Joel Walsh responded the size and the height both have to be taken into account. Andrew Przybylo stated that in theory he agrees with Joel but if you have a preponderance of large signs and many signs I mean signs that really create a pollution of signage you loose effectiveness regardless of how big they are. So I think and you made a statement that we are going toward some aesthetic no we never said anything about aesthetics. All we did is we are trying to get to a standard where anybody that is coming into this town knows what they are dealing with and doesn’t have to go into a conference room to figure out what kind of sign. I mean we are trying to get to a point we haven’t said anything about aesthetics and I am just suggesting to you and Bonnie, Chuck, there is such a thing as over signage. Which again leads you to not find your place because there is so much for instance when they said 1 ground sign for 100 feet if you take that to it’s most ridiculous element and everybody can put up a pole sign based upon the formula we have now you have a lot of signs there where people can’t differentiate because they are just one on top of the other. So aesthetics aside we are talking about signage that is effective as you say but you don’t have to have a GPS. Joel Walsh responded that based on the packet he was given by the Chamber it looks like they are going the study is making it look more aesthetic. Which I understand and that is a good thing it really is. But I look at it this way there are a lot of places where people are going to but the advantage of that is they had them up before. If they recently moved into this neighborhood with the signs they have up now how difficult is it going to be for somebody to find that place. You also have to take into account I own a small business and there could be guys like me I am on Touhy and Milwaukee I don’t have a sign because nobody comes to my business. And there is a certain percent of people like me that aren’t going to bother putting a sign out even though the monument sign is there I don’t do it. So I think you have to 5 look at there are certain retailers it is going to really affect and track those retailers into Niles. Is it going to are they going to be happy if they move into Village Crossing how is it going to affect them. Are you going to have to make exceptions for big box retailers? Andrew Przybylo responded the fact of the matter is there is always going to be exceptions and those are what you have a Zoning Board for to discuss those exceptions. We are trying to get to a standard and if it means aesthetics fine and if it means effectiveness fine but there has to be a balance between the two. Bonnie stated right that is the purpose of looking at these slides. There is no decision made, what we are looking for tonight is some discussion to find out what that balance is. Bonnie said she could say that the surrounding municipalities if there is concern most of the areas at least around here are lower and that is what the point was of showing the Power Point comparison of signs. If Niles wanted to do something that would be maybe smaller they wouldn’t be out of line because you don’t want to cause a situation where you end up hurting the community and having them go to a different town because you are too restrictive. Nobody wants to advocate that. Coming up with what is the right amount for Niles and that is hopefully what is discussed tonight. James Hynes stated that one purpose is to set the standards reasonable standards so that the Zoning Board doesn’t just get buried with constant you know I want an exception. You want to make it reasonable so that it is an exceptional thing to go before the Zoning Board to get a variance. James Morgan, General Manager of the Pizza Hut on Milwaukee Avenue. He has been a general manager of a Pizza Hut in Niles between Dempster and Milwaukee for the past 10 years. Wanted to know if the Power Point could go back to the TJ Max sign. He said he has to agree with the Chamber guy if you are driving 35-40 miles per hour down Dempster going west looking for Sally’s Beauty Supply where is it? You’re not going to be able; actually I can’t even read that from here, I don’t know if any of you can read the smaller ones. Now in your new code I believe that you are requesting that the business owners put landscaping I believe the sign is only going to be 10 feet tall from the requirements you are requesting and you are requiring ground cover that has to be 2 feet tall so now you have reduced it to 6 feet of space for the lettering of the sign I think? Is that correct? Bonnie responded that is an excellent point. James Morgan said so you reduce the like they did they had their 10 feet or whatever and they have their signs and their 2 feet underneath but it is hard to see those smaller businesses that have less space. Bonnie said same here she can barely read that. Chris Hanusiak said Chuck I have a question the permits that you currently get for signage how much are refused or you know have to be changed currently? Chuck Ostman responded that he would say 50% of them. Either the sign guy does a real good job of reading our sign code or he doesn’t do a good job and he just submits to see what he can get away with here. That is typically how it goes. Andrew Przybylo asked Bonnie are we going to get into the philosophy of signage at all I mean who is going to know that Sally’s Beauty Salon is there. But on the other hand if you knew you were going to Sally’s Beauty Salon – there is two ways of looking at this. Going wait a moment listen to me. There is two ways of looking at how you go to a destination. There is one because it is preordained when you start out in our journey that you are going to Sally’s. There is another way of looking at it that says okay you are on a journey but you see Sally’s you had no intention of going there and you may not go there but it is almost like a form of advertising that Sally’s is there. So there is two ways of looking at it. Do you go to a destination preordained based upon it’s the Sport’s Authority Plaza or do you go there because you know an address you are following an address. 6 James Morgan responded some of these situations like you have over here at Village Plaza they might have to lease that signage themselves for what space they are getting from the owner of the Plaza. I mean Sally’s the next person that leaves you know Sally’s might leave somebody else might come in that is the only spot available. They know that ahead of time. They built it based upon whatever happened that is between them and the Plaza owner. ??: Right but if they are limited to that if they have 12 feet versus 10 feet they can make the letters a little bit bigger. Feels sign should allow bigger letters. It needs to be visible to the consumer who is driving. If the sign is 10 feet tall you have 8 feet of visible perhaps bigger letters. Niles, I live in Chicago, and I shop and do all my stuff in Niles. If people can’t see those businesses, okay it is here somewhere on Milwaukee Avenue, I need help finding those businesses in Niles. Andrew Przybylo stated okay but if you are going there are you going predicated on a known address or are you going because you have been told it is in the Village Plaza. You see there is two ways of going to a destination either based on address or it is based on a name. ? Correct, as a consumer how you travel. Andrew Przybylo stated right but I mean you are going to try to – there is a part of the code that says you can not open a business without an address. Right? Bonnie said that might be, Chuck is that correct you have to have an address to have a business? Chuck Ostman responded yes. ? Asked how big are those numbers? Andrew Przybylo asked if Rolf Campbell is adjusting that? Chuck Ostman said excuse me you are talking about the sign the address has to be on the sign? Bonnie said no. Andrew Przybylo said we are talking about the numbers and where they have to be placed. Bonnie said that usually is done by emergency personnel. Andrew Przybylo stated my father built that office building just south of White Eagle. Before he could open the door you guys said you have to put an address on the building. When I put the monument sign up in front I put the address up there on the sign. I did that. I don’t know that you require that. Chuck Ostman stated it is not required. Bonnie stated you don’t have to put it on the sign I think you have to put it somewhere on the building where the Fire Department can find it, correct? Chuck Ostman responded correct. Bonnie stated that is typically the way it is done. Andrew Przybylo stated signs are advertising but there has to be a balance. Bonnie stated that is the discussion and I feel the balance you may find that the group is saying based on some of what they are saying 10 feet might be a little short. Chris Hanusiak stated that comes back to the definition of the front parcel. Say you originally had 1 parcel and now they took that and divided it into 3 and yet the sign was set up for 1 company out there now you have to put 3 peoples names on there right? Bonnie stated that maybe you want to do something a little different for shopping centers where you do have more tenants too. That might be another thing where the 10 feet might be fine for the single guy you know a Walgreens or a KFC or the Colonial but for something like a shopping center with lots of tenants. 7 Andrew Przybylo stated though that the shopping center by code definition is going to have more frontage. Bonnie stated right and that is the thing that Village Plaza also has they may have the ability to do more signs. She stated that the point of taking all these photos was these are signs that are 10 -20 feet high. This is Waukegan Road in Glenview, you can see some of these, this is Skokie, this is Niles, and this is Glenview. These are some shopping center signs that are taller than 10 feet but they are not a 30 foot sign either. Here are some other shopping center signs. They are monument signs. Andrew Przybylo stated I wonder how effective when you have a let’s say you put a Staples that designates the location the Staples Plaza and then you have of course all those other things. I wonder how effective those things really are because obviously you are getting smaller. You have all that script there that you have to go through and now you’re driving. I mean how does that become effective or stay effective? James Hynes asked the Staples sign, the monument sign, how tall would you estimate that to be? Bonnie said I am thinking…..James said about 20 or close to it. James Hynes then stated so under this proposal we wouldn’t allow that it would be almost ½ as high as that? Bonnie stated not half maybe two thirds. I think that is probably about what 15 feet high? Chuck said no probably close to 20 feet. Bonnie said that is the point of the pictures so that you can see you may not want 10 feet or maybe it is okay for a single tenant but not a shopping center. These are samples of like what I said closer to 20 feet. These are signs that are over that. ? Asked what is wrong with what you are doing now? Why did you hire a company to re-evaluate what is wrong with what you have. Andrew Przybylo stated a quick and easy answer and Chuck can elaborate on this…because we are just touching on ground signs right now but there are all kinds of things coming out in signage which are electronic and there is nothing in our sign ordinance to address that. And there is nothing in our sign ordinance except for the good will of Chuck or the Zoning Board to hear these cases and so that is why we are here. Trying to make sense of it. Chuck Ostman responded yes I will just add that the sign code dates back to 1962 so it is very much out dated. By driving around the surrounding communities and seeing what they are doing with signs and by having limitations whether it is 10 feet or 20 feet but they do have limitation. We reward businesses that the higher you go the bigger sign you can have up on top of the pole and I just think that needs to be reviewed by elected officials. Chuck Ostman stated so that ends the topic in regard to ground signs whether monument or pole signs. The recommendation if you want to go back by Rolf Campbell which I personally don’t agree with is Monument signs 10 feet high and Pole signs 25 feet high. That is their recommendations and that is something in regards to the height of the sign that is probably what we should start off first in regards to discussion. It may be even just continue it until the next meeting so you can drive around and get a sense of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. What you think is too high. James Hynes stated that in regards to the landscaping I think it is a good idea to have landscaping around any sign but is 2 foot high shrubs and ground cover it wouldn’t take anything away from a pole sign but as you said if you have a height limitation of 10 foot and there is a requirement of 2 foot of landscaping then your sign is automatically down to 8 feet. Bonnie said let’s take a look and it is kind of a good way into the next section here. We did some sign comparisons of landscaping around ground signs where obviously what we have here is two very nicely landscaped signs. I think there is probably 8 about 2 feet of landscaping here I don’t know here this looks like flowers maybe that is closer to a foot in terms of height versus 2 signs here that have absolutely no landscaping. So for comparison purposes you can really see the difference. But the next slide shows some landscaping that is probably about 2 feet in height and here is landscaping that is minimum. There is definitely landscaping and they look nice but. This slide shows landscaping around a decorative base and no landscaping or minimal landscaping around a decorative base and remember the way that Rolf Campbell presented the code is that you could go to the Zoning Board and get relief from the landscaping requirements if you did a decorative base. And again I am not going to put an evaluation of what you like or what or a recommendation one way or the other but I just wanted to give you some pictures of what that all means and where again the group may get a sense of what they would or wouldn’t like in terms of landscaping and also some samples of signs that show the solid base with no landscaping. Slides were shows with the differences. Andrew Przybylo stated we are down on 3 on the agenda we are down on the third landscaping. So we did height of ground signs, we did number of ground signs allowed and we are on landscaping now right? Bonnie stated yes we jumped ahead because ….the number of signs again it said 600’ you get a second sign. Here are examples of 2 centers that did have 600’ of and managed to have a second sign on their property. That is not something they are proposing changing at all. Wanted to put it on the agenda just in case anyone had an issue with it. Andrew Przybylo stated we have 2 more points to take up and that is electronic and maximum square footage of signage. Joel Walsh then asked what would happen to an office building that has a lot less then 600 sq ft. Andrew Przybylo stated 600 frontage feet. Joel Walsh asked what happens would it be one sign up or if he moved in now would he be able… Andrew Przybylo stated I am trying to get some direction here do you want to put some resolution on the first three before we go onto the last two or do you just want to keep going. Height of ground signs it is clear that Rolf Campbell is saying 25 ft for pole and 10 feet for monument and staff is saying what? Chuck Ostman responded there should be some I believe there should be some limit whether it is 18 feet or somewhere between 16 – 20 feet. I don’t think there should be a limitation on the monument signs. Andrew Przybylo stated so you are saying that monument signs can go as high as they want is that what you are saying. Chuck Ostman responded yes it should be considered just like a pole sign. Andrew Przybylo responded so they should be the same. Chuck Ostman responded yes. Bonnie said she agreed with that. Andrew Przybylo stated so no restriction. Bonnie responded it should be the same across the board. Andrew Przybylo responded there should be a height restriction across the board. Chuck Ostman stated right and not based on where the center of the road is. Tom Kanelos stated it makes sense because if you look at the definition of the pole sign it says with or without a skirt. Well if you put up a pole sign you put up a stone skirt around it and you have a 25 foot monument sign now. There really is no difference. Chuck Ostman stated right sign guys are just going to play with that. There is proposed language in here to prevent any kind of hazardous obstruction. Andrew Przybylo stated so we all know staff is suggesting the same height for monument or pole and it is something less than 25. Bonnie responded a standard. Andrew Przybylo said will you just make a mental note of that because we are going to later have to come to a decision. The only difference between a monument and a pole though realistically the pole is suppose to be open and airy and breezy. I mean that is the philosophy the aesthetic as opposed to a monument which is heavy, bulky and 9 singular. Besides that distinction it is essentially the same and if you put up a skirt like Tom has suggested it becomes a monument depending on the size of the skirt. So ground signs allowed are they recommending changes or are we suggesting we stay with the same. What is did you do comparisons with other villages and the number of signs. Bonnie responded no. Tom Kanelos said oh you mean how many signs allowed per square frontage foot? Bonnie stated no but I think the 100 foot is pretty standard for allowing one sign but I am obviously very familiar with the Morton Grove code they do allow I think it is like after so many feet you get a second and after so many you get a third or whatever. Andrew Przybylo stated so even if it is one defined shopping center. So a defined shopping center let’s say they can put up multiple signs. Chuck Ostman stated no you need 600 feet to have two. Andrew Przybylo stated but I just said if you had 1000. Bonnie responded if they have 1000 then they can have 2. Chuck Ostman responded but no more than 2, if you have 1000 sq ft of frontage and that is a lot. James Hynes said say someone has a strip mall a parcel a commercial parcel of some form or another and they have two entrances one on each end of the parking lot are they allowed any signage to enter or something like that. Bonnie responded yes that is directional. James asked over and above these signs? Chuck Ostman responded yes. Chuck stated typically directional signage that tells you to enter or stuff like that is not counted toward you signage. James Hynes stated so this is just signage call it advertising signage. Andrew Przybylo asked so is staff recommending the number of ground signs as it is today. Chuck Ostman responded yes we are not recommending any changes. Andrew asked how that compares to other governmental. Chuck responded it is typical to what you find in other towns. Andrew Przybylo responded so what we have today is what everybody follows. Chuck Ostman responded for the number of ground signs yes. The only difference and we have discussed it but I am going to make another point of it so you clearly understand it is that currently the ground signs are not counted towards the signage on the building. Rolf Campbell proposes that you count that ground sign against the signage on the building like other towns do. What that means is that if you want to give up some of your signage on the building which is very important go ahead and put up a pole sign that is going to count towards it. A lot of businesses are going to say hey you know what the signage on the building is more important to me than giving it up to a pole sign. So that their recommendation is that the signage on the pole and the signage on the building are calculated together in the total signage. Andrew Przybylo asked and what is your feeling? Chuck Ostman responded I sort of agree with that because my feeling is you don’t want to be going down Milwaukee Avenue and you don’t want a pole sign every 100 feet. Certain people are going to start. Bonnie stated that most of the national chains usually have sign packages of all sizes, types and shapes to meet various towns’ regulations. Chuck Ostman stated that basically the architect will look at the sign code for that particular town and live with it. Bonnie stated and go through the book of sample signs and say here is the one that matches. Andrew Przybylo stated so the number of signs we are thinking what are regulation is right now …Chuck Ostman stated is sufficient no need for change. Andrew Przybylo stated we are also talking about the volume of the sign or maximum square footage. Chuck Ostman stated maximum square footage. Andrew Przybylo stated that comes later that is another element here. Andrew Przybylo then stated okay landscaping. Joel Walsh asked how it affects the Walgreens at Oakton and Milwaukee for instance. How much would it diminish their signage do you have any idea? They also have a sign on their building. Andrew Przybylo stated that the devil is in the details. I don’t mean to, obviously if the formula is such that you compute the Walgreens on the building and you say okay now you can make that smaller or you could make your ground sign smaller. Bonnie responded right it would be their choice. Andrew Przybylo said that is in the formula we are not really into that yet but it seems reasonable if you have building signs. 10 Bonnie said wall signs. Andrew Przybylo said well building because remember Colonial, building signs if you have signs on the building it would seem that you want to compute that into your ground sign and whatever that formula is it is. But it just seems reasonable. James Hynes stated it is basically the square footage we are calculating not the height or whatever of the signage. Chuck Ostman said yes it is the square footage. Joel Walsh said so this is by parcel not by store so the shopping center would be treated differently then an individual building correct? So Walgreens if in a mall would effective signage differently than if it is just a stand alone Walgreens? Am I correct on that? Because Walgreens is in that strip mall and it is done by a piece of property parcel of land rather than by store. Correct? Andrew Przybylo responded boy you are complicated. Bonnie responded but I will tell you the strip mall owner is going to regulate. Joel Walsh responded that he got over 1000 emails and phone calls in the last since the Chamber put this out and. Andrew Przybylo responded I am not saying that you are wrong but man this is your question is complicated so say it again but a little more slowly. Joel Walsh asked how different is the sign code going to be by parcel of land not by store. Andrew Przybylo responded parcel of land not by store. But the parcel of land well sometimes a store can take up a huge parcel of land. Joel Walsh said right I am talking about let’s say Walgreens was not open on Milwaukee let’s say it is open in a mall where the bank is so that could affect how they do signage. Chuck Ostman responded of course if I can answer that they would have to be on the monument sign or pole sign that the mall would have. Joel Walsh then responded okay so then that would affect how much they can put on their wall or building. Chuck Ostman responded probably the normal size on the front and a little bit smaller on the side. Tom Kanelos said Chuck I don’t understand that. A pole sign or whatever let’s just use Oak Mill Mall. It is sitting out in front of Oak Mill Mall with a series of stores that are in there. Now there is Jewel in there, there is 7 or 8 different businesses how do you calculate if a new business moves in there and says I want to have wall sign how would that be calculated based upon the pole sign that is outside and the signage that is on the other building. Chuck Ostman responded that under the current ordinance they would figure it separately so we didn’t have to worry about it. Under what is proposed by Rolf Campbell is now that store sign that Oak Mill Mall has on its particular store and that smaller sign that is out on the monument sign would have to be considered in the total signage. James Hynes said so in other words if you have Jewel which is the largest tenant there, so you have the pole sign outside and x square footage of Jewel signage on their wall that is going to diminish to some extent what other new tenants can put on their portion of the mall there to advertise their business. Chuck Ostman responded on the building? No. It depends on the frontage if they have a bad tenant space what determines the size of the sign. Chuck Ostman said when you are looking at ground signs it the formula is based on the frontage. When you are looking at building signs that is based on the tenant space. James Hynes then said alright so what Rolf Campbell is proposing was that the frontage signs plus the building signs all count as one. Bonnie said well no in addition to what Chuck said about that they are all calculated separate but there is a maximum amount of signage and that also includes the permanent signage that you put into a window. There is a total there is an amount you are allowed for a pole there is an amount you are allowed for a wall sign and then there is a total maximum allowed for the business. Right now he is counting the wall sign in the maximum and he is counting the permanent window signs in the maximum but he is not counting the ground mount in that total. Tom Kanelos stated so what James is saying is if we change that and go with what Rolf Campbell is suggesting now that is going to limit the signage on the building which is calculated based on the tenant size but it is going to impact them. Bonnie stated it is going to impact them but I think it is going to be 11 up to each individual business of where they want their maximum signage. Are they going to want to sacrifice the wall sign for the ground mount or the ground mount for the wall? Andrew Przybylo said that brings you to an interesting concept because when they condo minimized Oak Mill Mall you know what I mean by that, the tenants bought the property and they changed their whole signage philosophy by putting up multiple large wall signs Jewel and Osco aside forget about Jewel and Osco but if you look at that whole façade which is the Oak Mill Mall they have a huge amount of square footage on building signs, wall building signs and very little on what would be ground signs. But that was their philosophy. Chuck Ostman responded right. Bonnie stated that was their choice. Andrew Przybylo stated the fact that there is a sign on the ground there are no tenants on there. Chuck Ostman responded right. Andrew Przybylo stated so the property is designated as Oak Mill Mall but every one of those tenants has defined their own space and visibility. I am not sure if that works because they really have a lot of signs on that building. Chuck Ostman responded they have a lot of signs and that is the formula. Andrew Przybylo responded but I would agree and I am just throwing this out because we have to keep moving but I would agree that all the signage on a property has to be computed, wall ground all that should be factored into 1 total allowed. Chuck Ostman stated right. So what I would like to do for the committee next time with that thought in mind is actually go out there and take some pictures and tell you realistically what it is going to do to that business when it structured that way. Andrew Przybylo said that is great an actual example. James Hynes said Oak Mill Mall or whatever says here is what it looks like now under the new ordinance if it were to move in today here is what it would look like here is where the changes would be. Bonnie stated maybe different scenarios because like I said I think there is going to be restrictions and guidelines for wall versus ground mount but there is going to be a lot of choice I think for the businesses to as to where they want their maximum square footage to be because they would have the option of maybe either making the ground sign smaller and the wall sign larger or vice versa or getting rid of the ground sign. I think that is going to be important especially for our business because each business is going to need a different emphasis and we want to be able to allow them that flexibility. Chuck said what he would like to do for the next meeting also is use Photo Shop and take a picture down Milwaukee Avenue with all the different heights and then Photo Shop that thing and if the limitation that the staff is coming back with is 17 feet take all those signs down to 17 feet and show it up on a screen and let you see what it looks like in comparison to the buildings and vehicles, landscape in the area so you get a real good. Maybe just pick a few different heights 17 feet, 15 feet and 20 feet and see where that stands with the committee. James Hynes stated that sometimes because of the geography on a particular street you would naturally think that a higher sign would be better more people would see it but sometimes that is not the case. The example of Jerry’s right next to the pool with lots of trees higher sign you don’t see it because of the trees until you are right up on top of it going north bound. South bound is no problem. Bonnie responded that is why sometimes an 8 foot sign is actually better because you get under the tree lines if you are in an area where you have trees that are blocking. James Hynes stated but that is the option of the developer and the owner. Denise McCreery, Business Coordinator Village of Niles, wanted to know if the existing businesses would be affected by a new sign code or are they grandfathered in. Andrew Przybylo responded that he didn’t feel that was discussed but it would seem to him that this board isn’t going to be unreasonable and expect or feels that it would be mostly grandfathered in. Thinks we are talking about the future. James Hynes agreed the only time you wouldn’t grandfather in an existing facility is when there is an actual or perceived safety problem with it as it exists now. Chuck Ostman stated that is going to be coming up in 12 the second meeting that we are going to have and basically there is going to be 2 choices. Of course they will be grandfathered in and one of the two choices is that is there a time limit on a time frame that they have to change that sign to make it conforming or do you just go ahead and let that sign live out it’s life and once they change the structure of the sign then they have to conform to the sign codes. So that is another topic that will come up next meeting. Chuck stated that other towns have picked 10 years and they amortized over 10 years, Morton Grove being one. Andrew Przybylo stated it is an answer in coming but I don’t think anyone is going to be unreasonable. Denise McCreery stated that is the main concern of the businesses that she has been talking with as the smaller businesses are concerned with the expense. Andrew Przybylo stated okay can we reasonably say we are all in favor of landscaping? Bonnie asked are you in favor of what he is proposing on the landscaping. James Hynes stated if we are going to end up going with all signs are the same height maximum height I don’t have a problem with this at all but if we are going to put a limitation on ground sign height we may want to take a look at the 2 foot height for shrubs. ? Someone asked about the maintenance of these landscaping. Because they said driving down Milwaukee Avenue and the medical office looks like a jungle growing outside. James Hynes said you mean weeds don’t count as landscaping. (Much laughter followed that). Andrew Przybylo stated that it seems to him it is not a question as to how high the landscaping is but how low the landscaping comes from below the signs bottom, the actual lettering. If the lettering starts at 6 feet you want the landscaping to essentially go up to 5 feet or 4 feet. It is not that you are going to say okay landscaping has to be 2 feet but rather that landscaping should come within…Bonnie responded within a foot or two below the sign lettering. Andrew Przybylo stated you showed some signs there were you have they were called monument signs and it was basically below the verbiage was nothing but a wall. It would seem to me in these instances you would say okay the landscaping should go 2 feet below the actual sign. Bonnie responded so you are saying even if they do a decorative base you want that because right now essentially these 2 sign examples if they went to the Zoning Board could ask for relief from the landscaping because they did decorative bases. Andrew Przybylo said he is going to suggest needs to be decided because if that decorative base turns you on that is fine but if you think that decorative base could be made better with landscaping then that is something we have to talk about. Bonnie responded right some have a really nice stone base but they also have landscaping. Andrew Przybylo said so maybe there is a formula to behold. Chuck Ostman responded we will take a look at that and see if we can come up with something. Andrew Przybylo responded maybe it is combination of both but I do think it does you no good to say landscaping should be 2 feet high. Feels there should be some formula that it should be rather lower. Andrew Przybylo stated next, electronic message centers. Bonnie stated currently these are special uses. Bonnie stated that Rolf Campbell is proposing keeping them special uses but adding some special restrictions such as can not occupy more than 25% of the sign, must be monochromatic, message change every 30 seconds, only text available on typewriter, illumination not to exceed .5 foot candels, not allowed within 100 feet of residential structure, sign turned off from 11 p.m. or close of business to 6 a.m. and design integrated with overall ground mounted sign. There was a Power Point presentation to show the examples. James Hynes asked not allowed within 100 feet of a residential structure if visible from the structure does that mean that if it is not visible from a residential structure then it is okay. Bonnie responded yes. Andrew Przybylo responded for the purposes of visualizing Lone Tree Inn had a monochromatic 13 message center that was visible from residential and believes it was within 100 feet. Chuck Ostman responded that it is probably more than 100 feet. Bonnie stated that it is from the house not the property line. Chuck Ostman stated if you look at the CVS across from the condo buildings that is more than 100 feet also. Andrew Przybylo stated this is why I am here these signs and I agree with some of this but if you are going to be restricting to monochromatic I think you are missing the boat. If you are looking at text only without characters, not cartoons, characters I think you are missing the boat. Andrew Przybylo stated everything that is here can be taken to the Zoning Board for relief. Bonnie responded right. Chuck Ostman responded if they show a hardship. Andrew Przybylo responded yes and what is the hardship. Chuck Ostman stated that would be tough. Andrew Przybylo stated that is standard and will be tough. Feels these signs are the future and doesn’t know how they will impact us and how the village wants to handle. Thinks that 25% of the sign is small for electronic messaging. Various message centers were previewed with a Power Point presentation including CVS, Niles Library, Lone Tree, Cardinal, Niles West High School, etc. James Hynes asked the 25% or whatever the percent would be is that of the allowable signage square footage or the actual. On some message centers there are blank areas which are not used. So is it on the allowable or actual. Bonnie responded she felt actual was meant. Andrew Przybylo stated that he was not following actual and allowable. Andrew Przybylo stated that the message center shall be part of the entire allowable signage as opposed to being calculated separately. Chuck Ostman responded correct. Andrew Przybylo stated so a ground sign, a wall sign and a message center would all be calculated as part of the total allowable signage. Bonnie responded even now these electronic message centers are included as part of the allowable ground sign calculations. Chuck Ostman responded that his interpretation of this is if you are putting up like a CVS sign with the electronic sign of 200 sq feet that electronic portion could not be more than 50 square feet that is the way I would interpret the code. James Hynes then stated if we go along with Rolf Campbell whatever the percentage might be that would mean it is a special use but that is something that would be approved by Community Development or would it have to go to the Zoning Board. Chuck Ostman responded still go to the Zoning Board of Appeals as a special use. James Hynes asked if there was some way we could do this that reduces the volume of these things. Chuck Ostman responded yes the intent of this is to get all these regulations in the ordinance so it doesn’t have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If we had regulations in print there would be no need to have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. James Hynes responded his thought is in terms of electronic signs these are fairly simple. Chuck Ostman responded that if the regulations wording is done correctly and included in the ordinance it should alleviate the need for the Zoning Board of Appeals and a special use category. Andrew Przybylo stated so message centers shall not be more than 25 % of total ground sign. Niles West for a very good reason says we need more space so they would have to go to the Zoning Board for relief. Chuck Ostman stated correct with one small caveat – public schools do not have to come in front of the Village Board since it is not in the zoning code, if it was in the zoning code they would have to come in front of the Village Board, since the sign code is not in the zoning code they don’t have to. Chuck did state that they always call to verify even if not necessary. Andrew Przybylo responded are you saying that the schools are exempt. Chuck Ostman responded yes all except for drainage and zoning, we do not go into any schools. Andrew Przybylo responded we don’t inspect them. Rich Wlodarski responded no. Chuck Ostman stated that they changed the law to where the administration of the school could allow you to come in if they so choose to but we can’t say we want to go in there and inspect or anything like that. Andrew Przybylo responded okay so you have 1958 and Our Lady of Angels fire, a bunch of kids died and who is responsible. Rich Wlodarski responded that is a private school. Andrew Przybylo responded okay well it could have happened in a public school. Chuck 14 Ostman responded that the state inspects it. Andrew Przybylo responded that is crazy, the state, the guys in Springfield. James Hynes stated that he doesn’t have a problem with the 25% approved by Community Development but anything larger than that goes to the Zoning Board. Chuck Ostman stated if it is a public service that is different, if it is serving the public and they want to get out more programs like the Library it doesn’t need approval. James Hynes stated the other thing about electronic signs is where is the video where are the characters. Andrew Przybylo stated that will have to be through relief is we adopt what Rolf Campbell is saying they are not only going to have to go through the Zoning Board Appeals for a larger percentage but they are also going to have to go to the Board for polychromatic. Bonnie stated but I think it is a special use, correct me if I am wrong, not a variance. So special use has a different set of standards. Andrew Przybylo stated so if characters or video, say a movie theatre and you want to actually show a trailer on your sign out front. James Hynes asked are there standards with the Zoning Board for something like that as a special use. Chuck Ostman responded if there is a hardship. Andrew Przybylo asked how you prove a hardship for Golf Mill Theatres if they want to put a video trailer on their signage. Chuck Ostman stated they can come up with any hardship they want it is up to the Zoning Board of Appeals whether to accept the hardship. James Hynes stated you want to be realistic so that if somebody wants to invest in something like that or tries to they have a reasonable chance of succeeding if it makes sense. Bonnie stated but I think if it is a special use, because you are saying it is a special use, then at that point it would go under the special use. Chuck Ostman stated we are going to have regulations in place if they want to do something different than what the regulations say then it is going to be a variance. Bonnie responded oh a variance I thought it was a special use. Chuck Ostman responded no – now it is a special use – then it would be a variance. Andrew Przybylo stated the way he interprets a variation is simple stuff is a variation you may want to think of this not as a variation but more like a special use because then you can apply standards that don’t have to say strictly hardship. Chuck Ostman stated his initial thought is that maybe every electronic sign to the special use then, I would have to check with Joe that would be my initial thought. We can’t take it as a special use and start granting variation to a standard. Andrew Przybylo stated variations have standards too but the bottom line is any variation is hardship and I don’t know that you can show hardship. Chuck Ostman stated the staff’s recommendation to anybody looking for a variation to that section of the code say your chances are slim to none because you have to prove hardship. Andrew Przybylo stated it is a tough standard. James Hynes responded like you’re saying if you are a public library a hardship maybe to get more advertising out education blah blah blah but if you are Cardinal Liquor Store or Golf Mill Theatres how are you going to show hardship there if you want to do a video or characters in your electronic signage. So you have to be able to figure out a way to be able to do that but still have reasonable standards that people can meet if they have a good reason without being overly restrictive. Chuck Ostman responded he will look into it. Again the Power Point presentation was show to illustrate the video of an electronic message center. This showed the speed at which a message changes. Andrew Przybylo stated this is about getting a message out to people that drive 30 mph and can see it. You have to take into consideration an intersection or even a stop. So let’s say you have a thoroughfare like the White Eagle and there is a message and you are putting it out there you need to put it out long enough so that people can see it while driving by. It is a tricky thing. To state that it shall be no shorter than 30 seconds, I don’t know. James Hynes responded 30 seconds being a kind of average for a stop light to go through. Bonnie responded it is a fair amount of time. Andrew Przybylo stated he felt this was going to be the trickiest part of the whole deal because there are colors, and monochromatic, there is timing, there is the ratio of the message to the entire signage. 15 Joel Walsh asked if the Village can regulate what is advertised. Bonnie responded no, we can not regulate the speech it what we regulate is how many seconds to show. Andrew Przybylo stated what you are regulating is the future and understands that people can cry safety issues with these things because they are distracting yet there is no proof that they are a safety issue. Bonnie responded recently a guy from the federal highway administration that has done a study for the federal highway administration that anything that is longer than 1.6 seconds is deemed a distraction. Andrew Przybylo responded he doesn’t think so. Bonnie responded the federal highway administration is looking at this because of the implications of billboard companies that do this large scale, it is an issue nationwide. Andrew Przybylo asked is there a model we want to follow on this. Chuck Ostman responded no. Bonnie responded that historically most towns don’t allow moving, scrolling, animation. Tom Kanelos stated that he doesn’t like limiting to characters on a typewriter he feels that logos catch you more than words sometimes. Andrew Przybylo responded that we need definitions because there is animation, there is video, there is monochromatic, there is lettering as opposed to animation, there is logo, we need to define all these terms. Chuck Ostman stated that for the next meeting he will assemble all the definitions for electronic signs into one and we will review all the definitions. He will research the other communities, he knows there are a lot of other communities going through this right now and they don’t know which way to go – he gets surveys all the time asking where we are. Will assemble all the definitions and take a close look at it and maybe come up with a recommendation and show some videos to highlight these. Bob a resident stated that in our recommendation it states turn signs off at 11 p.m. or the close of business. He said what they have done already is a wattage decrease at a certain hour so that it is not as bright at night and doesn’t affect the residents or people driving by as much. Doesn’t think turning it off all together is a good idea for the business. Andrew Przybylo responded he didn’t know why you would. If you are going to restrict in terms of the residential view and other things but if a company is investing in a static sign that can remain on 24/7 why would you restrict a message center in terms of the time. But in terms of illumination he stated that they are pretty sophisticated now, they will illuminate depending on how much ambient light is out there because you are burning electric you are burning power. Chuck Ostman stated right but at the same time we are getting a lot of signs coming in that do not have that software included. Andrew Przybylo stated well then I think you have to ..Chuck Ostman responded that is going to be part of the regulation. Andrew Przybylo stated there should be a restriction on NITS. Bonnie now covered maximum square footage of signage allowed. Right now it is determined by 3 times the frontage of the building limited to 500 square feet for a building with one frontage, 800 square feet for a building with 2 frontages and 1,000 square feet for a building with three frontages. The calculations include wall, window and awning signage, but NOT the ground mounted signage. The proposed code WILL include the ground mounted sign in the maximum allowable signage. Chuck Ostman responded that he felt he heard from the committee already that they are in favor of the ground sign included in the formula for any kind of signage for the tenant. Andrew Przybylo stated right but you have to look at your formula. Chuck Ostman stated that the formula would not change. To figure out the formula for tenants the building signage is based on the building frontage of that tenant so if you have a tenant that is 60 foot wide and you can go up to 180 square feet. The formula for that is building frontage times 3 equals the signage allowed. So what that means now is the building frontage will include the signage on the building, and any signs on the ground. James Hynes responded so signage is anywhere you want on the building, windows, top of the building whatever. Chuck Ostman stated right and what is going to be included now from what he hears from the committee is that it also includes the ground signage. Andrew Przybylo stated maybe want to change that to 3.5 times. If all is going to be 16 included perhaps change the formula. James Hynes responded if ABC Supply sign was 3 feet high and it went the whole width of the building that would cover 180 feet. So therefore there could not be a ground sign or any window sign. James Hynes stated I am just calculating if you have a ground sign that counts ABC Supply is one of 10 businesses in a strip mall, now they have a 60 foot frontage so they can have 180 square feet of signage. Let’s say on the pole sign out front they have one of the smaller strips/spaces say 2 ft by 8 ft so that is 16 feet, is that where you would calculate where their name is on that ground sign. And if they don’t want to put their name on that ground sign it is up to them. Chuck Ostman responded correct. Chuck Ostman stated he will again take photos of 4 or 5 store fronts with building signs and ground signs for the next meeting. He reminded everyone that is how the signage is calculated now who is going to be hurt by this are the folks that have a sign out on the ground signs. He will take some pictures of who will be hurt by this and what they will have to do if a new tenant moves in there, maybe have to reduce their building signs say instead of 4 ft high it would be 3.5 ft high. You would be surprised sometimes by just cutting off a ½ foot the difference. James Hynes said if we are going to change to include the ground signs in the formula maybe 3.5 times would be a little more equitable. Chuck Ostman responded businesses live with our sign code now to where a gas station is only allowed one pole sign and if you go into other communities they have numerous signs out there. The businesses just deal with whatever the sign code is. Chuck Ostman feels stay with 3 times, it is right on the market, it is just the people that are going to get hurt are the ones that have a sign out on their ground signs, and not everybody has a sign out on the ground sign, but let’s see what that would do, how much smaller will that building sign be to get a sign on the ground sign. James Hynes then stated so Jerry’s, every week they put a new paper sign in their window that says sale 12 cents per pound. Chuck Ostman responded that is going to become an issue. That is not part of the signage that is temporary signage. James Hynes said so we are discussing permanent signage. Joel Walsh asked if a building changes a tenant or if a building changes ownership or both will the signage change. Chuck Ostman responded generally the way we look at it is the box remains and you are only changing the face of it that is grandfathered in. Once you change the box then you would have to conform to the new sign code. Joel Walsh responded so generally grandfathered in a change of tenants will not take effect until the whole sign is changed. Chuck Ostman responded correct. Chuck Ostman said everything on the agenda has been reviewed this evening. The next meeting will include Temporary, Banner, Wall, Neon, Vehicle, Flag Signs. Andrew Przybylo asked what about all roof construction signs. Is that something that will be discussed in the code? Chuck Ostman responded that what the code reads, and we don’t have the manpower unfortunately, is that the signs can only be up 5 days after the project is finished but it does allow a square footage in the front yard. Stated that the homeowner and the contractor would have to be educated on that. Chuck Ostman stated that was all the information from the staff. Chris Hanusiak stated that a great job was done on the presentation and that it took a lot of time to photograph all the signs and make presentation. The next meeting was changed from August 4, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to August 11, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. Tom Kanelos motioned to adjourn, James Hynes seconded. All Approved, Andrew Przybylo adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. 17