Lake Bluff board tells new spa to revise oversized window graphics

Matt Brueggemann, owner of Flowstone Spa, asked the Village of Lake Bluff Architectural Board on March 4 to approve new large vinyl window graphics and related storefront rebranding at 57 East Scranton Avenue.

The board declined to approve the proposal as submitted, saying the proposed graphics exceed the central business district's standard 15% window-sign allowance and would set an undesirable precedent for the streetscape. Members encouraged Brueggemann to return with scaled alternatives that keep the business name legible while reducing the logo's footprint, or with other measures such as blade (sidewalk) signs to aid pedestrian wayfinding.

Brueggemann described his rebranding as “to bring forward a little bit more of my long term vision for the business,” and said the existing applied graphics were “aging a little bit” and had low visibility. He asked the board for an exception because his logo’s proportions fit the storefront and, he said, a larger but simpler graphic would help customers find the spa.

Board members acknowledged the logo's design quality while raising two recurring concerns: visual continuity across the complex’s black banner above storefronts, and the risk of setting a precedent that would allow much larger window graphics across the commercial district. One member said the banner “does kind of help sort of make continuity to the streetscape,” and another warned that allowing a large exemption would invite others to apply for similar departures. Members pressed Brueggemann on alternatives such as proportioning the logo, moving the compass graphic to a second window, or relocating text higher on the pane so parked cars do not obstruct it.

The board sign-code calculation method uses a rectangular bounding box around submitted artwork, not an area-based opacity test; members said that approach often causes logos with internal white space to count as larger than they appear. Several members asked to see a 15%-compliant option so the applicant and the board could compare that baseline with a range of intermediary sizes (board members suggested somewhere between 15% and about 25% as a possible compromise).

Members also discussed the black banner that wraps storefronts in the complex. Some said the banner aids visibility from the street and that removing it might reduce obstruction by parked cars; others noted the banner is part of the owners’ original storefront package and that removing it would change the development's coordinated look. The board said the applicant may remove the banner but must account for how signage will be seen from the street if the banner is gone.

Outcome: No formal approval was granted. The board directed the applicant to return with revised options: (a) a 15% window option for comparison, (b) one or more intermediate sizes that reduce the logo-to-text ratio, and (c) alternative wayfinding measures such as a sidewalk blade sign. The board said it is willing to consider an exemption larger than 15% in some circumstances but not at the size proposed at the March 4 meeting.

Brueggemann said he would work with his designer and return with revised materials.