Plan and Design Commission - Regular Meeting

Uh, good evening. Welcome. Thank you for coming out everybody. Uh this is I'm calling to order the regular meeting of the Highland Park Plan and Design Commission for Tuesday, February 3rd, 2026. It is 7:01 p.m. by my clock. Uh Director Fontaine, would you please call the role? Absolutely. Commissioner Inek here. Commissioner Bentner here. Commissioner Henry here. Commissioner Mantis here. Commissioner Moore here. Vice Chair Nanis

here. Chair Kersh. Um, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recognize City Council liaison alternate Annette Lower this evening, uh, as well as Corporation Council Marcus Martinez. And we do have, uh, a new student rep here this evening with us, um, Chloe Pilot. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Chloe. Good to see you again. Um, okay. Uh, first item on the agenda, as usual, is the approval of minutes from our regular meeting on January 20th. Uh, do I have a motion to approve seven minutes? So moved.

Second. U motion. Okay. Motion second. Uh, any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? I abstain.

And one abstension from Commissioner Henry. Moving on to our scheduled business agenda. First item on the agenda tonight is dees 20260085 for design review and sign package with variations at 172 to 178 Skoi Valley Road. Uh and we have staff presenting tonight. Yes.

Thank you, Carl. And this is is this a material sample for this one? Yes, I'll pass this around. I'll just pass this around. This is a material sample.

Thank you, chair. Good evening, commission. Um my name is Anthony Mstretta. I am a planner with the community development department. Here to present a design review for and and a new sign package for 172 to 178 Skoi Valley Road. Uh the existing property currently does not have a signed package. Uh they are entitled to and they are required to submit for one. Uh there are currently three tenants there. Um there are no plans for any of the tenants to currently leave and the existing signage that is there today is internally illuminated box signage. Uh this is an overview of the existing property and the uh proposal is uh a 2TX 10T 20 ft in total sign area externally illuminated wall sign. Um that will be on an existing brick facade which you will see in the contextual photos later. Um there are existing gooseeneck lights on that brick facade. So the uh applicant's intention is to continue to use those as a form of illumination for the signage. Um the there are then two 2x10 20 ft in total sign area internally illuminated wall signs, one for each remaining tenant. There technically are four tenant spaces there, but uh 174 and 176 Ski Valley Road are occupied by one tenant. And there will be window signage also as part of the sign package. They'll just be 6 ft 2x3 non-illuminatedformational window signage to be located on the doorway of each tenant. This is the rendering of the sign package. Uh you can see the brick facade on the far left on the bottom image there. Um and the top image as well. And then the bottom image does come with the

uh sample that you have in front of you. It is the James Hardy um siding that they are adding to this. It is worth noting that um the applicant also owns the property directly to the north 186 through 194 Skoi Valley Road which did come before the planning design commission in September of last year for a sign package. The the idea is that they will mirror the facade improvements that were done at that property in addition to the signage style um for the uh signs that are being put on the siding will be the same as well. So the proposed uh changes there is a sign package to allow six total signs, three wall signs and three window signs. All signs will include identification and information for the tenants. Um note that two wall signs are internally eliminated. Those will be the ones that are fixated on the facade and then the one that is fixated on the existing brick facade will be externally eliminated. Uh the total sign area for this is going to be 78 square ft for six total signs. The wall sign total will be 60 square ft and the uh window sign total will be 18 square ft. Just for reference, um the allotted limit in the B3 is either 15% of the total horizontal area of the facade or 125 square foot. So just to kind of compare that's where they're at compared to that, right? Can I go back to that slide? I want to make one note on that. So yeah, so that was for the wall signage total for window signs. I checked and the limit on that is 6 feet per tenant and so 6 * 3 is 18. So it also would meet that. Sorry. Go ahead. Sure. Uh as stated before, as part of this proposal, uh is going to be to do facade improvements with the sample that was given to you uh as the material. Um and as stated prior to this, they they do own the property directly to the north

and they will mirror the improvements that were made on that property for this property. Um the increase in total height of the principal structure will be 1T 3 in. Um so it will go from 12 ft to 13 ft uh 13.3 ft for the total height of the principal structure. This is uh an image of the existing structure. Um you can see the brick facade on the left and on the right is the signage there. It's the internally uh internally illuminated box signs and then these are renderings provided by the applicant of the new look. Um the signs will be on that on that uh siding that's being installed and uh these are from the same view just one is this and one's the rendering. So that is the image from there. Uh these are the standards for the sign code patch or sign packages. I won't go too into detail with these, but um these are the this is the code to reference and then the approval process and recommendation staff recommend that the PDC open this proposal up for discussion, deliberate on elements and application as appropriate and PDC does have authority over design review and the sign package and you can discuss. Are there any questions for staff and I have one comment on that? If the commission does adopt the certificate of approval, which was in the packet, it's in draft form. It's not a recommendation by staff, but if the commission does adopt that, there was one condition in there that the staff just notate the site plan that illumination shall comply with section 150.20007. signs can be internally illuminated in this zoning district, the B3, uh provided that only the lettering or logo or both on the sign is internally illuminated. Thanks. Questions for staff.

Um, can you just enumerate the variations that exist here? I didn't quite catch them. Can I respond? There

there aren't necessarily variations uh per se. It's a signed package is a request for just signages they want or desire. Uh and it's just up to the commission to determine if that's appropriate based on the standards. You could go to the standard slide. However, what staff tries to provide the commission is we try to provide comparison what would normally be allowed if this was just a tenant on tenant by tenant basis. And our review of that was that each window sign would be allowed to be up to six square feet and that's what they're proposing. And then total wall signage uh would be is it 125 square ft? Yes.

And right it maxes out at that and they were below that. I think they were approximately half that. And then terms of height they comply with height. Um this is a one-story building. They're just go up to the top of the proposed panel and they're not requesting any illumination variances. That's why staff wanted that notated on the site plan that the lighting though it may be internally illuminated has to be specific to that section of code. I I guess I was just more curious about the form of the motion whether if there's no variations we the we should keep leave that out of the motion.

It would be appropriate to just approve the sign package. approve the um design review since you have final uh decision-m authority over those. We're approving the certificate of we're adopting the certificate of approval.

Forgive me. Forgive me. Actually, I forgot one thing. I for I sorry there there would technically be one variance. And so window signage is allowed, but you can't have two identification signages. and and and the sign package here proposes identification signage on both. In reality, what the code would allow uh the uh window signage would be, you know, for hours of operation information of that information of that type. Forgive me. Sorry, I almost almost slipped my mind. Okay. Well, then takes care of that. Uh does the petitioner wish to speak?

Hi there, Mitch Gouls, JTZ Properties. Uh nice presentation. Uh just add a little bit of color here. We bought so we we office immediately north of this. We bought 210 Skooki Valley uh last year. We renovated that. We bought this building the building that we refer you in September from the same owner who are going through some big renovations. All the space are leased. So this is just kind of a second phase of it. We are relocating NS barbers from um 41 over here. My family who owns Artist Frame Service is moving from Crossroads into the the one vacant space and Enterprise Rent Car is relocating here. Um so we're we're excited. This is going to look a heck of a lot better than it looked. So we're uh demolition is already underway for the building behind us that was the former massage parlor. Um so this is one of the last steps, but uh we're very excited. So happy to answer any questions, but

any questions for the petitioner? No, generally for the petition, more just a general question. Given that there's four tenant spaces potentially, would it be prudent to approve this with a a fourth sign to come back in whenever if they have a fourth tenant? To be clear, there was four spaces. There'll only be three. Uh Highland Park Veterary Clinic, who's one of our tenants, they have two spaces, so there's no plans. No, it was originally it was four spaces. They they are an existing tenant along with unique builders. They're they're not leaving. They're staying. So, we're going to give the facade treatment on the whole building, but that building both buildings will be three tenants. Okay. So, yeah.

Just trying to keep you from coming back. No, thank you. Well, I'm happy to come back. It's not inconvenient, but uh there'll not be four anytime soon. So, uh any members of the public who would like to speak on this topic? Seeing none. Uh, is there I'd be looking for a motion in regard to this? So, I would move Oh, was there a question? No. I would move that we would adopt the certificate of approval. Did you say there was a condition, Carl? Yep. And that's in the COA. So, that doesn't have to be any type of amendment or anything. It's in the certificate of appropriateness is drafted.

Okay. So, I would um move that we adopt the certificate of approval as listed. Do I hear? Second move by Commissioner Moore, second by Commissioner Mantis. Any discussion on the motion? Uh, roll call vote. Yes. Commissioner Inchek, I. Commissioner Fatner, I. Commissioner Henry, I. Commissioner Mantis, I. Commissioner Moore, I. Vice Chair Nannis, I. Chair Kersh, I. The eyes have it. The motion carries and this item is approved. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you. Thank you for sprucing up that corridor.

Radio. Keep trying. Keep trying.

Okay. Moving on, our next item on the agenda is dees 2026 00086. Yeah, you're right. For design review and sign package with variations at 1849 Green Bay Road. Right back to you.

Hello again. Um I am here um again for the record uh Anthony Mstretta, planner with the community development department. um here uh to now present designer view and a sign package amendment for 1849 Green Bay Road. It's Renaissance Place. Um existing property uh the the applicant owns a property that is a tenant space in Renaissance Place uh with an address of 1849 Green Bay Road. Uh Renaissance Place does have a current sign package that was approved as part of their PUD from 1998. Uh the applicant has applied for a signed permit already and is currently on hold awaiting this uh decision from the plan and design commission. Um as part of their as part of their proposal uh they did trigger design review per chapter 176. Uh the applicant will be um app um occupying an additional tenant space. Um they are tearing down a wall and expanding the tenant space that was there into that one. And that is unit 112. And the tenant space currently has two existing awnings and has two pedestrian frontages. Um, so that's along the arcade there with the parking lot and then the alleyway that goes through. This is an overview. Um, the red square is roughly where the the tenant space is. It's kind of hard from the aerial uh to to pinpoint exactly where it's located, but the square is where they are.

Oh, sorry. Read.

Oh, yeah. just roughly there frontage. They have pedestrian frontage along the north there. Then the west facade here faces the parking lot in Green Bay. So the existing sign package from the 1998 PUB um allows uh because they have two pedestrian frontages, they are allowed two identification wall signs or or two identification signs um one for each of the pedestrian frontages. Um these were the standards set forth for that signage. Uh they have to be pin set letters must only show the company tenant name. Um non- internally illuminated signage only and the letters must be between 10 in and 20 in high. Um there's no there's no limit for the uh there's no set limit in there for the length, but they did mention about the height of the letters. uh the tenants may have awning signage in lie of wall signage but not both simultaneously. So they can you know the sign package does not allow for awning and wall signage only one form of identification signage. Um this is a little hard to read. Apologies for that. But uh this is the breakdown of what they are doing. There are two um there are two signage uh externally eliminated wall signs with the existing gooseeneck lights. There are two uh awning graphic signs. There are one there or there is one additional awning graphic sign on the north frontage and then uh one awning and graphic sign over on the western frontage as well. Um this is all laid out in the packet too. Apologies for the small text there. Uh in total um the the the wall sign total area is 63.2 2 ft for the two signs and then for the sign uh the awning sign total area is 178.4 ft. Now, this does include quite a bit of of empty black space.

Yeah. Put a put a check in that square footage for the awning sign cuz we're going to come back to that.

Sure. Um so yeah, that includes all the awning graphic signs as well as everything that we added before. Um for the wall sign, uh again this is just the total area allowed kind of more detailed. Um these are the codes that sort of apply to awning and wall signs. Um in particular, um for the awning signage, uh for comparison, the signs displayed on awnings shall not exceed 15% of the awning surface area. Excluding sides, signs may occupy 25% of an awning surface area. excluding side provided that 10% of the area is occupied by a design or graphic that is not otherwise classified as an identification sign. So, um yeah, anytime they have like a logo or something like that with no form of identification in it, that would be where that would apply. Again, we're going to come back to the awning uh sign total area, but the wall sign total area is going to be 63.2 square ft. These are the proposed awnings. As mentioned earlier, they have two existing awnings there. They are the recovery awnings with the little lip on them. And then they will be proposing to add two additional ones. A 14 ftx 3.6 ft awning. And then a 25 um a 25.3 ft awning with or by 3.6 awning with black fabric. These awnings will be built to match the ones that are currently there. This is a photo of the proposal and this is a this is you want

Yeah. So can I comment? Yeah.

Okay. So Okay. So the the the proposal for the sign. So this is the north facade of their tenant space facing the pedestrian area there. The city actually owns that little strip that pedestrian uh area there. And so uh this is the wall sign. We've already talked about that. And so this awning is there and then they propose two new awnings. And then they propose signage for all the awnings. I'm going to skip this and come back to that. Oh, wait. Where's the other one? That's okay. So staff, so we we we had a report and we presented uh calculations and we were thinking about it looking back at the code, looking back at the 1998 sign package. And so actually the way to think about this, what actually makes the most sense uh and and this part how we have these numbers here, this was not in the staff report. We just reviewed this yesterday and today. So the way to review this is actually these are all actually separate signs. So you have one sign here for this wall sign. And I mean the dimensions for that that was in the report. And then for the awnings, the way to look at it is these are all each separate sign. So you have essentially the logo that's in the uh canvas area and then you have the uh the text sign that's on the bottom on that drop down portion which I forget that's called the veillance.

Yep. And so you have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and then 8 9 10 and 11. And so this is the western facade that faces the parking lot in and Green Bay. And so the the main takeaway from this is so the wall signage numbers that we presented uh those were in the report. Each one is slightly more than 30 square ft. they comply with the sign package uh uh area limit. There actually is no area limit in the sign package. You just have to have letters that are between 10 to 20 in in height and they chose 15 in. So that complies. Uh the sign package limits though only one identification sign per pedestrian facade. And of course the applicant is proposing the new awnings and then the signs on all the awnings. Uh and in the staff report uh we had worked with the applicant and there were boxes around uh the entire awning and in thinking about it uh today and yesterday actually they should be considered separate reference

separate separate signs and so uh we would need the dimensions for that to to finalize what those calculations are and then well Anthony can probably take over but Anthony provided uh area uh photos to just contrast and compare with what's at Renaissance Place.

So, this is the existing awning that's facing the north uh pedestrian frontage. Um and then you can see that is the existing awning that's currently there facing Green Bay Road. Obviously, there's no signage on them yet because the tenant is is empty, but those are just a existing photo of the awnings um and the awnings that they will be planning to match. Um, in addition, I I there are some photo photographs from the local businesses surrounding. Um, this is Local Leaf Farm, which is right across that north pedestrian parking way. They also have a wall sign with awnings. Uh, there are no there's no signage on those awnings. They're also a different style of awning as well. Um, and then if you look over here, this is Denucci's. Uh, they went through city council. They were approved by city council for a special license. They had all sorts of approvals there, but they do not have signage on their awnings as well. So, this is sort of the first instance in Renaissance Place where an applicant is proposing to have signage on the awnings as well as the wall of wall signage. So, just to kind of show the area surrounding there. Um, again, this is kind of all the way around Denucci. The one on the left is the front that's right on Second Street. And then, um, sorry, the one on the right is the front edge facing Second Street. And then the photo on the left is the frontage that's on that pedestrian walkway. Um, these are the standards for sign packages. As stated before, I won't go too deep into these. Um, and then the approval process. Again, PDC does have authority over this. Uh, the PDC can discuss the proposal per the design review and sign package standards. Um we do have a recommendation that obviously as as uh senior planner Bhop mentioned before uh the we do recommend that the applicant amend attachment two of the packet which is the renderings um to show the dimensions of the individual

signage elements on the awnings. It should say on the awnings um as opposed to a box around all the signage.

Yes. And and so just a just a comment on that and of course this is u not a recommendation uh by staff the commission can approve or continue or or what have you. If if the commission should the commission consider any type of approval, we just from a staff perspective in terms of the dimensions, uh we would recommend that any type of approval be premised on the fact that there are 11 signs and then that the dimensions are uh essentially the red boxes here. Obviously, my red boxes are not drawn to scale, but it would it's meant to represent what would be the smallest box that encompasses those sign elements as they're numbered each and that is what the code requires in terms of the measurement for a sign. Okay? So, instead of taking it as a whole with multiple elements, we're saying take each of these signs themselves. This provides greater control. If you approve a large box, other content can be put in that box without permission because we don't regulate content. So, it's very important to get the box sizes right. So, if you like what you see here in terms of the dimensions and the you know the the proportionality, uh that gives you the the best control to do that and that's what is recommended.

Uh questions for staff commissioners. Uh, I have a question about what's considered identification signage. Is it only the store name or does it include the logo or the image that's in the middle of that awning as well? Well, it's hard to see, but the logo actually does say Twinkle, Twinkle, Little One on the awning. It does actually say that, but yes, generally store name or any form of identification if it's a universal logo logo. So it would basically be three identification signs for this frontage. Yes. Okay. Chair. Yes. Back to the standards, Carl.

I just have to find them here. One moment. Yeah. Um I'm troubled by a It talks about unified and consistent throughout the building or property. And what I'm seeing here, not that I'm necessarily object or or anything, but but it seems to be a whole hodgepodge of of different signage in this arena. So, how how much, you know, where where do we go with that, frankly, cuz it's it it it's consistent in its inconsistency, frankly. So, maybe that's the consistency. I don't know. But I mean, nice to know. I mean the letters are within the range the size. No, I understand that. But then the type of letters

you got the Hucci stuff and then you've got these others that have different kinds of warnings and different kinds of signage and everything else has signage.

You know, it just there there was a a marked lack of consistency. Uh and and how important should that be? I would argue that you need to be um flexible enough to allow different expression of one's business in these matters. So like the Pope burrito is using different colors, right, to to signify its its signage there. That has to do with the way they market themselves. So then we don't necessarily want a a blue letter as the second letter in every other sign in the store. You know, it's just not their logo, right? So uh those are things that you need to consider in that. So I would say that flexibility of content is paramount in that way. Some folks are are choosing to show uh or express their business in a different way and that that's fine. But really I'd focus on the you know the the the containers that you're talking about um and how many there are and not so much what's in them. Um and so that's that's what I would do. And then the types of lettering. Sure. In terms of the physical the types of lettering materials that were specified, I I forget what those were referred to as Carl, but you had indicated them earlier.

What was that, sir? The types of materials, the letters, if you will, that were set. That's right. Pins set. Thank you. Oh, that's right. That was that that that's the type of So, these are pinset letters. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So, I'll do that would be my guidance on that. That would be our guidance on that. I have a question on the the awning signs. Um, there are no current tenants that currently have awning signage right now. Currently, no, there are not. Not in Renaissance Place. Have there ever been? That I do not know. Historically, I don't. Historically, no. But there's no restriction in the PUB or anything for awning signs, was there?

Well, right. So, in the 1998 sign package, the there's no restriction that you can't have a sign on the awning. The restriction is is that you get one identification sign per frontage for pedestrian frontage. That's the restriction. So that kind of eliminated the awning sign if you want it on the building, right? And again, that's that's the sign package limitation for the property. Thank you. Is the local leaf part of um this building as well or is that a nearby Okay. But they have awnings. Yeah. Yes. just no signage on the awnings and and do we need to make those awnings match? I mean, I don't know how

picky we want to be here, but I do agree with Commissioner Henry that everybody's kind of got their own thing and as long as we approve it, it's okay, but it's not super consistent. It's clear. I mean, clearly there the 1998 package did I mean it didn't set very strict guidelines for us. May I make one comment as well, chair? Yes, please.

Sorry. And I and actually this wasn't in the uh presentation, but it was in the staff report that was posted. So, yeah, the 1998 sign package is kind of the base sign package, but it's been subsequently amended. Not the whole thing, but just space by space by space. So there are some. So So as we tell you what it is, if you're thinking to yourself, well, wait a second, maybe that's that or that's that. Well, right. There are amendments for different spaces. Yeah. And these amendments date back to the year 2000. I mean, but I mean they there's been Right. Right. For instance, Denucci's got that

small projecting sign if you recall, but does not have any signage on the awning. So I mean I guess it's incumbent on us to decide that's correct whether this works or doesn't work and based on those criteria I you know I still an open question. Yes, Commissioner Mantis.

Do do we know of the other tenant I'm just trying to drive through of the other tenant spaces that you know either have one or or more facades have this number of signs that are considered identification signs? Well, I I I did note uh anecdotally along the west side uh there were not all, but there were several tenants that had a identification sign either on their window or above their door, but then also had a sign on cuz that's like an arcade there along the west side, a canopy arcade. I don't know the the technical architectural term, but then they a few not not all of them, but several did have a second sign that was then on the the front part, so to speak, above with higher visibility. Wasn't all of them, but I noticed there were one or two that may or three that may have had that.

Any other questions for staff? Would the petitioner like to speak? Oh, sure. Oh, good idea. This is the Thank you.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Corey Glass. My wife Rachel and I own Twinkle, Twinkle, Little One. Thank you for taking the time to give us a few minutes to talk about our business and why we're trying to get an exception to what's going on. Um we've been in business for 18 years. Um we super served really the north side of Chicago and 7 years ago uh we opened up at 461 central um at a small space that was about 17 or 1800 square ft and about 3 years ago I left my job and we sort of evolved in u our offerings and what evolved was we started offering car seats and strollers and things of that nature uh primarily in the city because we didn't have the space in Highland Park and what we discovered was that there was such a need to educate uh first-time parents for the right type of products to help them install these types of products um to really give them the kind of experience that first time anxious parents get when they find out they're pregnant and we've done a fantastic job of that in our city store because we have more room and so that got us to where we're at today. Um we are we obviously um leased two spaces at Renaissance Place because we needed the room. We needed the room to have more offerings of of furniture and things of that nature to have a one-stop shop for customers who are first-time parents. We also needed more room for uh educating our customers about how to use car seats, how to use strollers, how to install car seats, and those kinds of things that allow them to push things around that we just can't do today. And so we fell in love with Renaissance Place. Um, but we also recognized that we needed to lease out two different spaces and build out one big giant uh space for the sake of both the experience for the customers but also for to be able to offers uh the kind of selection that we need. And what our challenge has been is that we've leased two spaces. There's two separate entrances. The signage has only a

certain amount. The name sign at the top. I'm not sure how to if I can do that here. I do you want me to move it to the next?

Yeah, great. Thank you. We have a we have a entrance here and an entrance over here. And then we have this blank space over here. And our concern was that we don't that it's confusing this blank and black over here with no logo, no sign, no nothing. How does it even indicate that it's our store? Right? And then this would be fine, but then we have this again blank space right here. How do we indicate that it's our store? So, what we asked for or what we're asking for is, you know, the signage up top, twinkle, twinkle, little one. Obviously, we have to put it in the middle of two different stores, but we figured that having at least some sort of signage of some kind on the left and right side in some way, shape, or form will indicate who we are. So, people who don't know who we are won't get confused or we'll still know this is this is our business, and they'll have an easy uh way of getting in, getting out. Now, I recognize I recognize um you know these variances and um you know that we're asking for more. Obviously, I'm just a business owner. I don't look at Twinkle, Twinkle, Little One verbiage like that's signage to me. This is not my area of expertise. So, I obviously am willing to certainly work with the with the chamber and make sure that it works be best for everybody. And you know from there what we decided because we were getting a little bit of feedback and and you know a little bit of grief in terms of all the signs and seems like a lot when you count 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 signs that does seem like a lot and so we at least wanted to offer another solution for us to be able to not have confused customers by just having one uh name sign and I'll show you the next uh v variation of this and then just one logo with one long awning all the way across um which I think looks a little bit more to what your point was, which is a little bit more hodge podge, which I don't disagree with, but I'm also at the same time trying to connect two stores together into one. And so if you can go to the next one. And so whether this is okay or not, but our other alternative

would be to have one long awning all the way across, one name sign and one logo just to make it look uniform between, you know, this entire length of, you know, both store entrances in addition to a name sign for the twinkle twinkle little one and the words that's coming across. Whether we can put I call it the lip I call it the lip of of the awning. whether we can put, you know, information on there or not. I'm not here to sit here and push and try to, you know, get you guys to do more than what's reasonable. I'm just trying to, as a business owner, make sure that our business is visible and that customers understand, you know, our entrances and who we are essentially. So that's the gist of it. Can I answer any questions for you guys?

Questions for petitioner? No, that was helpful. Thanks. Yeah, of course. So, which one are we questions? address. So, I can I can say to you myself, and I feel comfortable with this, my wife and I are very comfortable with the less noisy sign if which I think is probably more presentable to you guys. Um, you know, as a chamber, but we're also very open to what we originally did, but I think this, as you mentioned, 11 or 12 different signs. This sort of cuts it down. But this one, All right. So, this would be on the north facade along the passageway. You're correct. Um, but there would still be the other awning on the west facing side. Correct. Correct.

Correct. And I don't mind, again, this I'm most concerned about this side with the multiple entrances and having it all sort of come together in one. Um, I'm not as worried on the other side other than to make it look uniform on both sides. I just want to make it look the same on both sides so it all looks, you know, presentable. Um but yeah, so again, our challenge is not anything other than combining two stores into one, having a logo that's centered in the middle of two different stores and being able to indicate that this whole thing is ours. So you want an entrance on both furnishes, right?

Yeah. I mean, we want the flexibility depending on number of staff employees, maybe lock one door on certain days and have people go the other side, but want to have the flexibility of having both stores doors open, particularly in the summertime when it's nice and warm weather. Okay? But you don't need more than one on the north facade, would you really? I mean, what's that? We don't need more than one entrance on that facade. Why Why would you need more than two entrances for the for the I don't need more than two entrances, but that's what is that is what is how it is built. There is two entrances. This is just a render. I was just going to say there appears to be four entrances. Well, this is these are just a rendering in this one. So, you can go there's two.

Yeah, you can go back to the other rendering. Yeah, that's how it is. So, there's one right here and one right there. One right there. And then instead, we would do one long awning all across. Still was very large, but uh but having the logo in the middle, I think sort of makes it all sort of come together as one. Otherwise, it looks off, but that's my humble opinion. Yes, Commissioner Mantis. I guess can you flip back to the other rendering that you I'm struggling with I guess contextualizing this because it looks like there's maybe some depth to the facade on that side. So theoretically that awning would be protruding much further out from the building at some points than others. Is that

No, we're we're going to be going with the awnings that are already there. We're literally using the exact same structure for those awnings in the exact so you can actually pull from the original uh the ones that had a little bit of snow on it. We're reusing those awnings. So, it's going to look exactly like that all the way across. Got it. I'd be interested in seeing that from I guess a different angle just so I could contextualize it a little bit better. Sure. But that's it right there. I I'm talking about on the on the north side of the building. Yeah. Yeah. Right here. There's no door on that west side. Correct. Okay. No, good question here. Okay. Um, more questions for the petitioner.

Do we have any members of the public who wish to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none, can council ask a can leazison ask a question? uh not a petitioner but a staff. Um currently I know each facing can have a sign an identification sign. Do you consider an awning in addition to the sign itself to be a separate identifier? And I guess that's really separate sign. A separate sign.

Yeah. And what is the limit of signs permitted per face as an identifier currently

for the sign package? For the 1998 sign package, so we're not in article 20 of the zoning code. We're in the specific sign package. They're allowed one identification sign per pedestrian frontage. Now, it doesn't say whether it has to be a wall or a window or an awning, but they're allowed one. Uh though again I will state um you know if you look at other places on the site in fact I just pulled up my Google map there are two others that uh have two but again there are have been sub um there's been additional amendments for each for separate Senate spaces uh from then on. But to my point, um, it's one thing, you know, they have the identifier and then they have, for example, the logo on the long awning.

Um, but when you add the name again on the lip of the awning, the valance, um, then you're adding another identifier. And I think that may go to your point, Commissioner Henry, about um just an inongruity in the sense of so much um perhaps the word page might be one that would describe it to some extent, especially since no one else seems to have done this on the awnings. So it it's one thing, you know, I I fully understand about the identification and one identifier, but I think when you're up to is it 11 signs? That's right. Correct. A lot of signs.

I don't know where you are. How many does the revision have the the revised elevation? Uh the revised one would be So it would still be the 1 2 3. It would still be the four that are on the west. And then this is this is four. So it' be eight as opposed to 11. It' be a reduction of three and eight of those would be identifying signs. Uh yes, cuz Yes. Each one of these is a business identification. Yeah. I don't it's well and I I always say as well I personally if can we have the opportunity to the twinkle twinkle little one sorry I'm sorry this

I'm not I'm not against if you guys are having an issue with the name like in my again I'm just a business owner and I'm I'm trying to comply as best as I can in my own head the twinkle twinkle little name on the lip of the signage in my head I don't consider that I we can negotiate that out of there and I don't have I'm not going to sit here and push and try to go to another hearing to get that taken care of. Um my biggest concern in on this side here is getting it all to come together in the best way that's not going to offend anybody. We're a baby store, you know, we don't want to look too, you know, we don't we don't want to look too, you know, outrageous in any way, shape, or form. And we want it to be as classy as possible. That is our goal. But again, we're trying to combine two spaces into one. And I guess having one long awning, which seems to be to be a little bit more palatable to the staff here or to you guys. Um, and we're fine with that, too. And if it means that you're counting these here, the family-owned, and again, this is just me in competitiveness with with Kraton Barrel and other places like that. We the way that we differentiate ourselves is through service and and and experience that with those those type of um stores don't offer in the same way. So, for someone walking by that doesn't come to the store, my purpose is to make you feel warm and home that we're a family-owned business that's been around, you know, for 19 years, and we'll hold your hand all along the way. Obviously, it's more subconscious, but that's why I have that there. If that means that you don't want that there or that's not going to comply and you guys aren't going to approve it, then we can take down the that type of stuff. But at the end of the day, I'm looking for, you know, one long awning, one logo, one name. on the other side on the green base side if I'm not as worried about that. I just want it to look uniform. It you know just that it all looks similar to each other because if we have it like that one side and then

no logo but just it just looks off if they circle around the corner without having the same kind of matching look. That's the only reason why I want the logo on this side too. Well, Mr. Chair, I mean it it makes some sense to have a logo and a sign. I think we're really talking about the question of 11 or 12 signs versus six signs or something. Do you see what I'm saying? And I I think that the heart the hardship that we're having is that there's very few properties in Highland Park that two storefronts have been combined into one. And so there's no real set rules for this. So, I feel like we're, you know, we're taking a really big space, but we do still want to make sure that

it does look and feel cohesive between and in the area and in Renaissance Place. So, that is truly where we're having a harder time because we're on an uphill battle that hasn't really been done before, I guess. And and there's no one else at Renaissance Place that has taken two spaces and put them into one, right? Okay. So, I guess maybe we should just get a sense from the commission of what you think of the proposal overall, the variation of it. I'll go first. Um, so I

I do like the one long awning along the north side. Yeah. Um, that's my confusion or concern is that on that balance we're saying twinkle twinkle little one over the two doors that presumably aren't going to be operating. You're trying to they'll be operating. Those doors will be those are the only two entrances. The middle one. The middle one doesn't operate. Okay. Not going to be operating. It's 400. cuz then it's driving you to walk in underneath the name of the sign. Okay.

Um, so I kind of personally I like that better. Um, and I understand that and and and we actually talked about it and after we did a few other mock-ups once we got a little bit of push back. Yeah, we did do a few other mockups and you know, we came to this one and we both said to each other, I equally like this as much and I think it's equally as effective for making customers aware of who we are and where to go. Right. And I think it look I think it looks a lot cleaner. Yeah, I don't think you need three logos along along. You know what? We didn't really think about doing one long doing one long awning and then it sort of came from a few variations and we looked at that and said, "Okay, that actually looks pretty nice and sort of puts it all together into one."

Okay. And I don't think I have any comments on the left side one, so I think it's fine as it is. Yeah, I tend to agree. I I like this version much better. I think it's cleaner and I I understand also the reasoning behind wanting to have separate signage and want to drive more business there. And I think if you're going to put a business in there, we want it to be successful. No, thank you. And the more you know, don't want people to be confused and, you know, it's um Yeah, I'm I'm fine with this version. Definitely. The the other one I was a little bit skeptical on. I understand. there. That's the

shield. I generally try to try to be easy to work with. I think that there's I I'm struggling even with this version with the twinkle twinkle little ones on the on the bottom. I think there's four just on there when there should be one. And then same thing on the west side like there's three on that side. Um, if you count the large, the logo and the other one. I mean, I don't know. And just driving through driving through Renaissance Place like you mentioned, there's no other places. It looks like Zephfort Eye Care has two entrances, but only one sign up above. And so, I'm I just I feel like this is a lot. This is this is a big ask relative to the totality of the other businesses. Well, I think there's there's a lot of wording, even though I thought I was okay with the what there's a lot of wordiness there because you've got the familyowned, the year it was established, and the the you know, you've got the name there twice. Um I don't know that you need it twice.

And I think doesn't the logo say familyowned as well? No. No. Okay.

I agree um with Commissioner Mantis. I think that it looks really busy with anything on the um the lip. Uh but I especially on the north facade, I think the twinkle twinkle little one on over the entrances looks repetitive and it's not that big of a facade. Like surely people walking up to the building will be able to figure out where the entrance is without a sign over. Um so just from the like clutter perspective, I like taking that off. Um, but I also really appreciate what you said about being a small business that's trying to highlight that, you know, you're familyowned. Um, and I wonder maybe if that might be like a middle ground of having that instead of the the name of the store on the veance. So,

um, those are feedback is a gift and you know, I obviously I'm all ears in regards to those types of things and we be happy to address those kinds of things. I don't think we're going to fight you. our city council for their sovereignty. Yeah, I'll jump in. Am I a second? As like the former chair of the BAG, I I applaud and admire what you guys are doing here at Highland Park.

Thank you. Um, I I my my concerns are less on you guys and more on just president that it sets for other businesses in the future and what amount of signage and number of signage and I I have a lot of hesitation does not like allowing this in and then knowing other places are going to ask for additional signage or more and more and that's My general concern is just kind of letting the cat out of the bag proverbial speaking.

So I'm I'm I guess I'm the only one who likes the three lines on the north facade. I hate to cover up stone um because I think stone looks good. I think the problem on the north side is obviously there's too many logos. Um, and there's too much repetitiveness. If I were designing it, I suppose, which I'm not a designer, but I I would the middle one's fine. And then maybe you just have if you want the words,

you know, familyowned and established X, those would be good on the ends. I don't think people will be confused. Um, especially if it's just you're funneling them all in that center entrance where the logo is. Um, that's and then on the the Green Bay side, I get that that's where your traffic is. You probably want more uh more signage on the Green Bay side. I It is still a little busy, but that doesn't bother me as much. But they said they're not using that middle door on the north side. They're using the two side doors. That middle door doesn't exist. Yeah. Yeah. There's only two There's only two entrances

on that side. There's no entrance on the It's an optical illusion. Well, that's really too bad cuz these doors aren't used. No, they are. That's that door and the one on the right. So, these doors and these cracks. Yeah, those are both be used. Okay. Is the other one on the other side? Uh, Commissioner, I have a a question for corporation council around

um any guidance that we give to the applicant around the non business name content of the signs? Like can are we out of turn by saying it'd be nice to highlight that you're a family-owned business with the the veillance content? Can we give that type of feedback or should we only maybe talking about like the business name versus non-b business?

Sure. Um, so I want to echo something that uh director Fontaine had said earlier, the content of the sign is something that you cannot regulate. Certainly, you can provide feedback, but as uh Director Fontaine noted earlier as well, you want to be careful about the dimensions of the lettering because that's about the only thing that um that stays. And should the applicant wish to change that lettering a day after it's been established, he can do that. And so, um it's it's it's a it's a constitutional issue. It's a freedom of speech issue. Um and feedback is is good and certainly you are the uh design plan and design emphasis on design commission. Um but content strays away from design in that regard.

Thank you. Great question. So I would I would concentrate more really on the number of signage as opposed to um what it would say. Yeah. And the awning itself. Yeah.

I mean that's part of the design review, right? Just do you want an awning? There is an awning out there and now there's going to be more additional numbers to take on that new tenant space and make it all one. Makes sense as a theme to you haveing on some maybe but do you have to you know I mean that's that's that's the commission's behalf for corporation council then. So, if for example a rendering shows familyowned because that's what is is shown, but the sign package says no more than one identification sign. They could just switch it and have another identification sign or we're covered under the sign package that that won't be won't be there.

No, they can certainly switch it. So, we are working the content of signs can't be regulated. So they can change what the content says. Not the number of signs, not the location, not the dimensions, right? The what's in it. So if a new business game, they can use that same footprint, if you will, or blueprint on there. And that logo could be someone else's logo. So when we have a restriction on a identification sign, we can't technically have that restriction. Then it's just the name of the sign that it's the number of signs, not Yeah, it's the number of signs. it does technically fall away. Yes, I understand what you're trying to say, but yeah, you just want to understand.

Yeah. So, it's the number of signs and the size of the containers that you really should be focusing on in in this this decision. Yeah. I kind of like the revised rendering. I disagree with my colleague, Mr. Nanis, because I think the cat's out of the bag in in this Renaissance place already, frankly. Um and and actually I think this lends a certain amount of uniformity uh to that area of of uh Renaissance Place. Um Ray Tracy is rolling over in his grave right now, but who who knew? Um because that was his baby. Yes.

Um but I I I actually like the revised design. I think the only thing I would say on on the other side of it was I'd probably take out the the Twinkle Twinkle little one cuz I think it's redundant and just leave the family. So the reason why I did that by the way was because I was under the impression that we can't put other things on there but our name. So I just wanted that that was the only reason why like I really would love to be able to put car seat installation, stroller setup, all those kinds of things that are marketing type stuff that we're not doing. All the things that young parents have no idea about. Exactly. For sure. Exactly. Exactly.

I personally agree with you. I think that the front sign should just have the main top, the logo, and then in the middle just say familyowned established 2007. I don't domestic relations work. So, I'm agree in front of you guys. At the end of the day, we're look, we want to open the business up uh in the next 6 to 8 weeks. So what we need to do is obviously figure out yeah we just need to figure out what is best that's going to make it work all together as one cohesive place

you know and I'm willing to obviously obviously I'm willing to work with you guys just let us know what you agree upon based on what we have here. So chair. Yes. What what do we need to do?

So we our decision is we have a draft um again of the u certificate of approval if people want to act on that. Um if we want revisions and I think that because this was isn't in this version is not part of the current certificate. So they will have to come back in 2 weeks anyway if that's if this is what the commission wishes and I think that's true. Um that's the true sentiment here at the moment. I think we could do with it

with one less sign on the Green Bay side. Um that seems to be the consensus. Uh, so I I guess my feeling is to give you that direction and ask you to come back in two weeks if that's acceptable and doesn't ruin your timeline for opening cuz I think we all here want to see businesses succeed here, especially filling blank spaces in our downtown. Mr. Chair, um, yes, Director Fontaine,

thank you. Um, so what you're saying in terms of the Green Bay roadside, you're saying the Veilance would only have one sign centered. There'd be a logo and then a wall sign. Correct. I believe that's Is that the center? I just want just point of clarification. Yeah, seems to me that's the center. What was that? I was taking I was trying to take notes. one on the veance centered the logo and the wall of three. What's our next but that's why next date would be February 17th. That is correct. Tuesday like to make a motion chair that yes

that uh business application dees 2026-000086 be continued to the next regularly scheduled uh plan and design commission meeting which was February 17 that's right at 7 o'clock um in this location and notice is deemed since this is not a public hearing is actual we do not need notice. How do I have a second for that motion? Second.

All right. Uh moved by Commissioner Henry, seconded by Commissioner Ferman. Any discussion on that motion? Then all in favor? Any opposed? Thank you guys. Okay. between guys. Thank you very much. Thank you. I had somebody come up to me about leaving in other business this evening. We're looking for any administrative design review update. No, there are not chair.

And the next meeting February 17th, we have one item agenda. We just moved there. Anything else? Yes. Continued from uh the first meeting in January, the uh PUB and the subdivision for 147 central. Oh, yes. The property that's historically landmarked with a home on it. So, Mr. Chair, just one just update on that. So, the uh historic preservation commission will be providing a a recommendation on that matter that we will get to you, but they are um meeting on the 12th. That's right. the 12th as well. Correct. Yeah, that's right. Okay. And that they'll be taking that up again on the 12th.

And so we will not have the minutes for that meeting, but we will certainly have their recommendation. As you can expect, by the 17th, we wouldn't necessarily have minutes for that that meeting of the HBC. So, just know that. But we'll provide you the minutes from the January 8th meeting that they did uh talk about this. Excellent. Okay. Any case briefings? None, Mr. Sure. In that case, is there any business from the public which has not been addressed this evening? Seeing no public, thus no business, I would be looking for a motion to adjourn. So move. Seconded.

Okay. Moved by Commissioner Henry and seconded by Commissioner Moore. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Mhm. Okay. See you all in 2 weeks, guys. You guys.