1981-06-11 - Appearance Commission - Minutes APPEARANCE COMMISSION
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS
THURS., JUNE 11, 1981
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Don Hardt called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. at the Village Hall.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Knaak, Gibbs, Cea, Hardt.
Commissioners Absent: Kirby, Paolillo, Carr.
Also Present: James D. Griffin, Asst. Bldg. and Zoning Adm.
Ch. Hardt welcomed and introduced Mr. Carmello Cea, an architect and new commissioner.
III. AFPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 28, 1981 - Com. Knaak. moved the minutes of May 28, 1981 be approved as sub-
mitted. Motion seconded by Ch. Hardt. Voice Vote was Aye: Knaak and Hardt
Nay: None
Abstain: Gibbs and Cea
Minutes were approved and will be placed on file.
IV. BUSINESS
A. Plaza Verde - 1291 Dundee Road
Wall Sign - PRINTING Office Supplies
\-/ North Shore Sign Co. - Ron Guthrie
Mr. Guthrie presented the proposed sign. The name of the company is
Plaza Verde Printing and Office Supplies . Because of limited facia space,
the sign would read PRINTING in Illuminated Caps _- - Office Supples in
non-illuminated 7" letters. Color Orange. Caps would be 18"- Helvetica
Ch. Hardt objected to the sign as submitted because it does not identify the
business name. It could be considered advertising Printing and Office Sup-
plies. The Sign Code specifies signs are to identify businesses only.
Mr. Guthrie said that because the store faces East, it cannot be seen from
Dundee Road and people in the center would identify it as a Printing Co.
Other similar signs were mentioned (Karibu Tropics, Pets and Gifts; Vanco,
Wall Coverings; Cambridge Cleaners; Buffalo Grove Cleaners, etc.) as ex-
amples of businesses that have complied with the Sign Code. There is a
very strong precedent that requires the full name to be used on signs.
Ch. Hardt suggested smaller letters could be used and felt that the Commission
would be agreeable to varying the sign package to allow 22 inches as a total
height instead of the 18 inches specified. He said the AC could vote and if
the sign is denied then an appeal can be made to the Village Board. Or the
sign could be tabled until the next meeting and a different sign designed.
Com. Knaak made a motion to Table and Com. Gibbs seconded the motion.
Voice Vote was taken and the motion passed by unanimous approval.
B. Plaza Verde - 1275 Dundee Road
The Furniture Factory - Wall Sign
North Shore Sign Co. - Ron Guthrie
•
`./ Mr. Guthrie presented the proposed sign - The Furniture Factory with the
Capitals T - F and F in non-conforming letter style. The lower case
letters conform. The color to be Yellow. The letter style was presented
to match the other three stores. The management of Plaza Verde has OK'd
the sign, but Mr. Guthrie did not have written consent.
After discussion, the Commission agreed that the sign is in violation of
the Sign Package for Plaza Verde and would not favor a variation.
Com. Cea made the following motion:
I move we approve the wall sign for The Furniture
Factory. All letters are to conform to the Plaza
Verde Sign Package: To be Upper Case (T-F-F) and
lower case Helvetica letters. #2037 - Yellow.
Letter size to be 18 inch Upper Case and 13 inch lower.
Com. Gibbs seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye- Gibbs
Cea
Hardt
Nay - Knaak
Motion Passed 3 to 0.
C. COMMONS - New Models
`./ Architecture, Materials. Colors and Lighting
Linden & Linden, Architects
Mr. Dennis Kulak and Mr. Richard Spadoni presented the drawings for four (4)
new models, each with 3 elevations. They plan to build a Split Level,
a 2-Bedroom and a 3-Bedroom Ranch and a Two Story. The floor plans have not
been completed but will meet the PUD requirements. The proposed •range will
be from 900 sq. feet to 1.200 sq. feet. Four color packages will be offered.
The Commons Sub-division has about 8 to 10 houses existing and the proposed
new houses will be built on the remaining 25 lots in Phase #1.
A drawing was made showing the general area and it was noted that the exist -
ing:houses are much larger, from about 1,900 to 2.100 square feet. Even
through an actual plat plan was not submitted, Ch. Hardt suggested that the
model elevations could be reviewed with the thought in mind that the Monotny
Code must be met. that the archicture and materials must blend with the exist-
homes, and add to the character that has been established.
Mr. Hardt also stated that even through a builder chooses to build larger
houses than required, it is not the duty of the Commission to question the
advisability of building small houses in the same area.
Unity Development Corp. bought the remaining Commons lots and plans to develop
it in several units.
The Commission questioned the housing mix for the remaining units and whether
the developer planned for all single family detached; or portions to be multi-
family or single family attached. The architects did not know the developer's
plans.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
June 11, 1981 - Page Two
lne situation with Northwood (1,200 sq. Ft. ranch) was recalled and it was
explained to the homeowners present. Since the size of the houses is set
forth in the PUD agreements, the AC can only review and make recommendations
on the architecture, materials and colors. The Village Board has been advised
of the Appearance Commissions feelings: "Home buyers should be made aware of
the minimum sized houses that could be built in the sub-division."
The following Commons Homeowners were present:
Mr. Andee Katznelson - 406 Gardenia Ln.
M/M Joseph Marchewka - 408 Gardenia Ln.
M/M Stewart Parr - 411 Gardenia Ln.
M/M Joseph Fehenfeld - 506 Windover Circle
M/M Steve Stackman - 501 Winover Circle
Mr. Norm Shalett - 509 Harris Drive
Ch. Hardt expressed empathy with these people, but added that the Commission
must act within the laws of Buffalo Grove. The Commission will review the
plans and make a recommendation to the Village Board. He informed the devel-
opers and the residents that either party can appeal to the Village Board.
The Village Board will hold a hearing and all opinions will be considered.
The Homeowners expressed some concerns:
#1. They were told that the 1st phase of the Commons would consist of 20 homes
and that the price range was a controlling factor.
Ch. Hardt stated that the AC does not consider prices. It does take into
consideration structural differences, which affect cost.
#2. The Homeowners oppose the house size and asked about meeting the Motony
Ch. Hardt that since the sizes will be so different. the develop-
ment will not be monotonous; but the Code will be met with regard to which
model/elevation can be built next to which house. All lots are at least
60 feet wide. Unity owns all the remaining lots."
Mr. Kulak explained that they were asked to draw up the plans to meet certain
specifications. They are not familiar with the Commons. They knew it exist-
ed, but did not know what size the houses are. Unity plans to build models.
Ch. Hardt explAined to the homeowners that it is necessary for any developer
who purchases a previously approved sub-division, -to meet the pre-established
requirements for the PUD or annexation agreement.
The Color Packages were presented. They are basically named: Yellow, Green,
Tan and a Stacatto Board (not shown). Colors being siding colors.
Door colors are optional: standard or the color of the shutters.
Mortar is to be standard: grey. Brick is optional: colors shown.
Shutters are vinyl.
Downspouts and gutters: aluminum, colors baked on
Window: Casement with removable muttons on the front.
Panel under front windows: Wood
Garage Doors: Flush or paneled (option).
The proposed materials were compared with the existing homes, but it was a
difficult matter because information was not available. The 9 houses now
built are a11, Tudor style. Although several models were presented, the home-
owners were told that only the Tudor style was available. All houses now
built have two-car garages. The proposed models have one-car garages. All
existing houses are 2=Story.
Fireplaces: Not determined at this time. If they are included. they would
be pre-fabs with interior flues. Fireplaces are shown as optional an 2-story.
The existing houses had optional fireplaces. Pre-fabs with interior flues.
Stoops will be concrete at front and rear.
Corner Boards shown were mixed wood and aluminum. It was decided this mould
not look good and the architects agreed to change the corner boards to put
wood.on all corners. Yellow/ White. Green/Cream. Tan/Dark Brown.
Soffits and facia: Aluminum.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION �n, 3
n nnn .. eery
Mr. Griffin presented the minutes from Jan. 11, 1979 when the Commons pro-
ject was originally approved. Mr. Hardt read the description of the houses
and construction material.
•
Unity models will be built with basements optional.
Elevations with blank sides were discussed. The AC policy to recommend
landscaping was explained. The option to break up blank elevations with
a window, fireplace or other architectural treatment was also explained.
Or the developer can stipulate that certain elevations would not be put on
corner lots.
The elevations of each model were reviewed and it was the general feeling of
the Commission that there was not enough differentiation between them to meet
the requirements of the Monotony Code, except to say each model has essentially
Only one elevation. The only change is in materials.
Wood posts will be Wolmanized wood or have a post cap.
Roof Vents: Aluminum encased B-vents. The developer agreed to paint any
exposed vents to match the roof. Most will be on the rear.
Windows that are on a corner will all have muttons and shutters to match the
front elevations.
Cut stone sills on rear elevation door of all houses.
Two car garages could be optional if they would fit on the lot. Most lots
would not accomodatte a two-car garage and still meet the side yard requirement.
Builder will specify which houses can be placed on which lots in Unit 1 only.
The homeowners had no objections to having two houses next to each other with
blank elevations facing each other. This has been done to create the bike
path.
Before the motion was made. The Homeowners again expressed their concerns
about future market values; the different sizes of the proposed homes;
and their belief that no attempt was made by the architects to blend the
new homes with the existing homes. It was determined that the architects
did not visit the site before submitting their designs to Unity. _
Ch. Hardt stated that problems exist with the formerideveloper and his
reliability to keep his agreements with both the Village and the buyers.
However. the Commission would at this time consider if the plans submitted
are an acceptable blend and would each vote accordingly.
Mr. Kulak stated that they are offering a Tudor style - small Yes; but he
felt it would blend. He noted that since the existing models were All Tudor
elevations. it would be difficult to design compatible models. It was the
architects job to design houses with given specifications, within a given
budget. He did not review the previous plans. Tn re-design would be difficult.
One other comment was made by Com. Knaak. He would prefer the White color
package in place of the Yellow. This was left undecided.
Ch. Hardt also commented that if the AC approves the plans before it tonight,
the Village Board would be advised that the models should not be approved be-
fore the signage matter is resolved, the sign removed from the island, and
the bike path and parkways inproved. He feels that a better plan could be
designed. He explained the appeal procedure once again and the AC decision
to only consider each Model as having 1 Elevation.
Com. Knaak asked if muttons for all windows oould be considered? The total
number of additional windows in all our models would be about 22 and the
additional cost would be less than '+ for the whole model area. He
estimated the cost per house would be about $250.00.
The archi tects said they did not have the authority to say "Yes."
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
June 11, 1981 - page Four
Commons — New Models
Commissioner Gibbs made the following motion:
I move that we accept themat1erials presented by Linden & Linden.
Architects & Associates for the development of 23 lots. All materials
to be as indicated to the Appearance Commission, as follows:
Color Package No. 1
Shingles - Autumn Brown by Certaintee (?)
Siding — Stacatto by Masonite
Shutters — Brown Vinyl
Brick — Regata Red by Owensboro (Ky.)
Color Package No. 2
Shingles — Black by Certaintee (?)
Siding — All Side Aluminum — White
Shutters — Black
Brick — Heritage by Owensboro
Color Package No. 3
Shingles — Autumn Brown — Certaintee (?)
Siding — Driftwood
Shutters — Dark Brown
Trim Cream
Brick — Eldorado
Color Package No. 4
Shingles — Timber by Certaintee (?)
Siding — Doeskin
Shutter — Brown
Brick — Eldorado
Note: The Four (4) Color Packages are not interchangable. These materials
apply to all the models and elevations submitted. The models are consid-
ered to be:
1 — Two Bedroom Ranch Elevation 1 — Split Level Elevation
1 — Three Bedroom Ranch Elevation 1 — Two Story Elevation
For the purpose of the Monotony Code, each model will be considered to
have only one elevation.
On the Two Bedroom Ranch — The corner boards will be Wood —_Painted out to
match the trim.
All garage doors to be flush panels.
All downspouts will match the trim. Aluminum.
Encased B — Vents (No vi,;able caps)
Base caps on all wood posts that meet concrete.
Roof vents on front of side elevations will be painted out to match roof.
Facia and Soffits — Aluminum
Downspouts — Aluminum
`./ All Windows — Casement or double hung, as specified on drawings.
Shutters — Vinyl
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
June 11, 1981 — Page Five
Windows on Front Elevation will include Muttons.
Windows on Front Elevations will have a Wood Panel
Arches as depicted on the Front Elevations will be Wood painted to match
trim color.
Cut stone sill on rear doors.
Side treatment to be the same as the front on corner lots with respect
to window shutters and muttons.
Two Bedroom Ranch never to be placed on a corner lot.
Three Bedroom Ranch.if placed on a corner lot will have a window added
to the left of the center an the right side elevation.
Optional fireplaces are to be enclosed with the siding material.
This motion has considered a Two-Bedroom Ranch, a Three-Bedroom Ranch,
a Split-Level and a Two-Story Elevation for Unit No. 1 only for the 23
lots presented.
Three-Bedroom Split - Right Side Elevation on Corner Lots will have two
windows on the lower level and two windows on the upper level.
Panel below front windows on Two-Story and Split Level Elevations will be
wood painted out to match the trim.
Motion was seconded by Com. Knaak.
Com. Gibbs made the following comment: "Although I initiated the motion, I feel it
is only fair to do so in response to the request made by the architects who presented
the drawings to us for review. I am very much concerned by the overall effect this
type of ahme being built in the areas adjacent to the present existing homes, and
would hope that the Commission take into consideration this statement when voting."
It was clarified that the Tudor elevation (Color Package No. 1 would have dark brown
siding on the back and sides. (The Tudor is front only on the Commons.)
It was also stipulated that the developer will meet the existing Buffalo Grove Monotony
Code.
Roll Call Vote was as follows:
Com. Knaak -"OPPOSED, for the reason that he does not
feel these houses will blend in esthetically
with the 9 existing homes. Also, these homes
were designed without the knowledge of what
is existing and it may be possible for these
homes to be re-designed in such a way that
they will fit in better with what already exists."
Com. Cea - !OPPOSED, because he felt the architecture and
drawings presented do not reflect what Linden &
Linden is capable of producing. If they would
consider the feelings and imput at this meeting.
they can come uu with a better solution to the
problem."
Com. Gibbs - NO, his reasons have been summarized by the
two previous commissioners.
Ch. Hardt - NO, his comments are also similar to the two
stated above. He realizes it would be difficult
Lid for the architects to design a compatible home
with what exists. He believes it to be possible
to treat the roof lines, or architectural treat-
ment in a way to blend with the existing houses.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
June 11, 1981 - Page Six
V
Mr. Hardt added that he would like the Village
Board to consider the potential problem that
could exist if they were to over-rule the AC
recommendation and allow substantially different
and substantially smaller houses. if the market
changes. It could put the developer into a
position afterr he has built a substantial lumber
of small houses and the market changes to larger
houses, where he could not market small homes.
Future resale values and other factors could put
the people who have bought larger houses into a
lesser position economically.
Ch. Hardt realizes the problem the people here
tonight have. yet he feels they would prefer to
have the lots built upon rather than have weeds.
He would like to see a compromise worked out so
the land can be marketed and sold. But. what is
built should be compatible so that the esthetic
character is not affected; and should minimize the
economic impact created by constructing smaller
houses.
Com. Gibbs added the statement that the architects should convey
to the owners of the property. that it would be a
step in the right direction to take proper care of
the park. area at-the entrance as designed under the
PUD, This would enhance the possibility of getting
the kinds of buildings we are looking for and would
show good intent to the people who own at the Com-
mons and would show you are interested in making
the community they live in better.
Ch. Hardt commented for the Village Board. Concerning Signage -
should the recommendation be overtuned. the AC
specifically recommends that no approvals be granted
until all the problems that are associated with the
site are considered and hopefully taken care of.
The motion is DENIED. Ch. Hardt explained the Appeal procedure and said
that either party may appeal. The developer can
plead his hardship to the Village Board and they
may overturn the AC decision. In that case , it
might be to the homeowner's advantage to attend the
Board meeting. Mr. Griffin will notify the Homeowners
of the date.
ghtinn - Commons New Models
The light fixtures for the front and rear entrances will blend with the color
of each model. The treatment is not the same and the buyers will have the option
of up-grading the lighting fixtures.
Com. Gibbs made a motion to approve the lighting for the four models as depicted
and presented for the Commons new models as follows: Design Gallery fixtures:
Tudor - #8536-01 Green - #8700-12
�./ White - #8721-32 Tan - #8536-12
Com. Knaak seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Gibbs. Trask and Hardt
Motion Passed - 3 to 1. Nay - Cea APPEARANCE COMMISSION
June 11, 1981 -Page Seven
Note: The lighting motion relates only to the models and should changes by
made, it must be re—submitted for approval.
Com. Knaak informed the developers that all signage must be approved by the
Appearance Commission beforeit is erected. Landscaping also must be approved.
Mr. Kulak said that Unity has already agreed to honor all Mr. Shassians previous
agreements with the Village.
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Irving's For Red Hot Lovers will go to the ZBA on Tuesday. June 16. 1981.
Mr. Hardt may be out of town and asked that someone attend and express the
AC's feelings.
2. Several signage problems were reviewed. Mr. Griffin was commended for the
fine job he is doing to bring Buffalo Grove signage into conformance with
the Code.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Com. Knaak made a motion to adjourn at 10:45 P.M. Com. Gibbs seconded the motion.
All Commissioners were in unanimous agreement. The meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley Bates, a retary
sb
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
June 11 , 1981 - Page Eight