1981-02-26 - Appearance Commission - Minutes•
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
•
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, IL.
YHURS.t FEB. 26,_ 1981 •
•
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chairman Don Hardt at the Village
Hall on Thursday, Feb. 26, 1981.
II. ROLL CALL •
Commissioners Present: D. Knaak, L. Kirby, P. Carr, D. Hardt, L. Paolillo (7:55 P.M.)
Commissioner L. Gibbs was absent. QUORUM PRESENT.
Bldg. Dept. Rep. — James D. Griffin. Village Attorney — Wm. Raysa (PublicHearing)
Prospective Commissioner Present: Carmelo M. Cea, an Architect. 1146 Dayton, 634-•0026.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Feb. 12, 1981 minutes were deferred because the Commissioners present at the
meeting are absent.
Ch. Hardt reported that he had attended the ZBA meeting last Thurs. Feb. 19, 1981.
There was a discussion of the Amortization Schedule of the Palo Alto Sign Code and
the feasibility of including such a section in the B. G. Sign Code when it is re—
vised. It was decided that at .this time, with the economic situation as it is, it
would not be advantageous or to the best interest to the Village to pursue it.
The possibility of being stricter on Legal N"on—Conforming signs brought in for
changes was discussed and it was agreed that if these signs could be brought into
Conformance, that would be advantageous to the Village.
It was agreed that minor changes should be
made immediately. The AC Members were asked to go through the Sign Code before the
next meeting and make notes of any errors or minor corrections. so that problems with
intent be clarified.
Ch. Hardt also noted that the necessity of proven hardship for Sign Code Variations
was discussed with the ZBA and hardship is required. They are at some disadvan—
tage in that the ZBA does not have any input from the AC before the variation hearing.
Thought will be given to the process and modifications made to correct this problem.
IV. BUSINESS
A. First Midwest Development Corp. — Chatham Manor Homes
Diane Walker and Michael Schwartz
1. Face Change on Temporary Sign
Before the presentation, Ch. Hardt mentioned that in accordance with the
motion made 2/12/81 when the sign approved was erected, at that time the
other 4 signs on the property were to be taken down. He noted that. the
new sign was up but there are still several signs along the street. Why?
Ms. Walker said that their sign company had been instructed to remove the
four signs in question and that it was her understanding that this would be
done — probably the next day. 2/27/81.
' Mr. Griffin said that some of the signs are not on the Chatham Property.
Ms. Walker than presented the new sign which will have a Logo and a different
phone number. The Logo is being finalized and a copy will be given to Mr.
Griffin. This sign will be up from approximately 3/19/81 to 7/17/81 when a
new face will be presented.
Ch. Hardt opened the meeting for discussion of the sign.
The price being quoted on the sign was objectionable. They are not allowed
on any other signs.
The color red and the words Sales Office Open were discussed. It was felt
that the proportion was not as usual. The name of the project should be
the central theme, with other information kept to a minimum. Advertising
signs are allowed, one per project and it was noted that all signage must
be approved.
With regard to the stipulation that "no other ground sign be erect for the
advertising, sale, lease or development of this parcel" -- Ms. Walker said
she mentioned 'entry way walls or corridor' at the last meeting and asked
that the tape be checked. She said it would be an interior sign and she
will present it to the AC.
After further discussion, Ms. Walker agreed to remove the price and change
the color of "Sales Office Open" to Brown. The colors of the project ad—
vertising will be Blue and Browns with Black copy.
Com. Knaak made the following motion:
I make a motion to table the Chatham sign until the Logo
is decided upon. Also strongly urging that consideration
be given to the discussion here tonight regarding the price
and the 'Sales Office Open" copy.
Com. Kirby seconded the motion.
Discussion: Com. Carr said sh did not think the sign was offensive as it is.
Com. Paolillo said he objected to the price and would be satisfied if the
copy "Sales Office Open" was changed to Brown.
Ms. Walker said she would very much like to have the sign approved tonight,
so that the sign company could begin working as soon as possible.
Ch. Hardt called for a vote. Roll Call Vote: Paolillo — Aye
Kirby — Aye
Knaak . — No
Kirby — No
Carr. — No
Motion to Table did not carry.
Ch. Hardt asked for a motion with certain stipulations. He informed Ms. Walker
that should the motion be denied, an appeal could be made to the Village Board.
Com. Carr made the following motion:
I move we accept the sign for Chatham Manor Homes,
subject to review of the Logo, with the following
stipulations:
1) Sales Office Open be BROWN.
2) Removal of "From $59,000"
3) Any future changes will not be
made by means of a 'tack—on'
4) The sign will be erected about
March 19, 1981 and be removed
or changed with approved copy
by July 25, 1981
Com. Knaak seconded the motion. ,
Com. Kirby cautioned that approval would open the Village to other developers
to erect signs with such top lines as "Models Open" — Phone Nos. etc.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Feb. 26, 1981 — Page Two
•
•
Roll Call Vote was taken: Aye - Paolillo
Knaak
Carr•
Nay - Kirby
Hardt
Motion passed 3 to 2. Ch. Hardt noted the reason for his vote was the
size of sign and the•relation of the size of the
words "Sales Office Open" to the total size of
the copy.
Ch. Hardt said the sign was approved with the Logo yet to be approved and
that as a temporary sign it will be unlit. Colors also to be submitted.
2. Architectural Review of Units A/B and C/D.
The following comments were made with regard to structure and materials:
a) Muttons on windows are not removable, stipulated that
muttons would be used on all windows.
b) Columns - where the wood columns meet the concrete, metal post
anchor base would be used.
c) Shutters - 1" x 6" - Opera Pine, manufactured on site, treated
with an oil based stain once before installation and two coats
• after. Both sides painted. Want Tudor appearance with wood.
d) Contoured wood vents:-Pre-finished, enameled Brown. Eliminates
all need for pots on the roof. All roofs will be Brown asphalt
shingles.
e) Back banister - Treated pine, sealed with oil base stain.
f) Spaces between garages - Three element reliefs -staccato board.
g) Gutters and Downspouts - Stipulation that sufficient downspouts '
will be used. Will keep as much water off the asphalt as possible.
h) Patio doors - Aluminum frame. Wood trim.
i) Window frames - Wood trim will be used.
j) Light fixtures - At rear doors.
k) A-B Elevation has optional balcony doors.
1) Kickboard at upper level doors - backed with a Bandboard kickboard.
m) B-Vents - encased with aluminum. Interior flues-for optional fire-
n) Decorative gable vent - non-functional, vinyl material. Places.
o) No exposed flues.
All stipulations for approval will apply to all three elevations where
applicable.
Color Packages: • •
There will be two (2) color packages for each elevation. All roofs will be
Charcoal Brown.
#l - A- Siding will be a Buff Tone (Fort Collins Cream) with Dark Brown
doors and Brick
#1 - B - Similar siding color - Grey/Beige. Brick with Oxford Brown doors.
Webster brick company.
Purchasers will not have a choice of colors. .A street scene will
be selected by First Midwest Dev. Corp. APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Feb. 26, 1981 - Page Three
Six color packages were presented, but only 4 will be used on the manor
•
homes. On the multi-family buildings will.have additional color packages
because there are more of them. Only three brick selections will be used.
Elevation # 2 - Colonial
A. Vinyl siding, Fort Collins and Prairie with Light Brown Trim.
Color of front door will be a field decision after unit is built.
B. Off White with Prairie Sandlewood Brick. Choice open for front door.
All mortar will be grey or beige.
Elevation # 3 Stone Entry - Light color. Will choose the best color and will
only be used on three (3) buildings at most. -
All specifications of Brick and Colors will be given to James D. Griffin when the
decisions have been made. Should the brick selected become unavailable, a similar
kind can be substituted.
Lighting Fixtures
Pictures of some fixtures was presented, but the exact selection has not
been made. These will be presented at a later time.
•
Com. Kirby made the following motion:
• I move we accept the elevations as presented
by Chatham Manor Homes this -evening, with the
following stipulations:
• 1 - Windows throughout on:._ all
elevations will be muttoned;
2 - Gutters and Downspouts will
be placed on all elevations,
both levels (1st and 2nd floors)
•
where applicable on the roof,
with the approval of the Bldg.
Dept.
3 — Escutcheons (Metal anchor bases)
will be used at any place where wood
meets stoops.
4 — All stipulations noted in the discus-
sion are part of this motion.
Com. Knaak seconded the motion.
Note: The exterior lighting is not included in the motion,
but will be brought backJfor approval at a later date.
Roll Call Vote: Aye - Paolillo,
Knaak,
Kirby,
Carr,
Hardt
Nay - None
Motion Carried 5 to 0.
•
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Feb. 26, 1981 - Page Four
B. Lexington Development Co. — Right of Way Landscaping
Richard Piggott, Developer Representative
Mr. Biggot presented plans for the location of street trees at the Buffalo Grove
Commerce Center, located on Lake/Cook Road. He said this step is toward com—
pletion of the S.I.A. Trees will be put in according to Village Practice.
That is: trees will be spaced approximately 50 ft. apart and 4 different
species of trees will be used. Choice of species will be based on the avail—
ability of the trees at the time of installation. According to the agreement
with the Village Engineering Staff, parkway trees will be put in simultaneously
with the development of each individual lot. At the point when they ask to be
put into the maintenance period...any lots, not developed at that time, will be
planted with the parkway trees. _
As each lot is developed, individual landscape plans will be submitted for
approval. Lots are subject to individual development so each drawing will show
placement of the parkway trees.
Ch. Hardt noted that he had two questions:
1 — When the streets are dedicated to the Village and trees are
put in, who is responsible for the trees if they are damaged
during future development?
Mr.Piggott said that whoever develops the lots will take on
that responsibility.
Ch. Hardt was concerned about lots developed several year hence
when the trees have grown considerably, from 2i caliper to 5"
caliper, for instance — can Mr. X be required to replace any trees
removed with one of equal size.
Mr. Raysa said it would be difficult to require this, but developers
usually assume responsibility for trees from one year from the date
of acceptance by the Village they install the trees and provide the
Village with a cash deposit or letter of credit to be used to sur—
face the road at a later date.
2 — When will the streets be dedicated to the Village?
According to the agreement, this year all the improvements will be
made, such as sewers, underground work, gutters and curbs minus
the sidewalks and streets for Unit # 1. They must wait through
one winter before they can come in for acceptance. They will come
in next spring or summer, finish all corrective work and ask for •
acceptance by the Village. They will put in the trees whether or
not the lots are developed.
Er. Raysa suggested a stipulation be made by developer to bind any
subsequent owner to be responsible for replacement of like quality
trees if any are damaged during construction,etc.
Mr. Piggott agreed that this•would be acceptable to him.
Regarding placement of the trees, the Village requirements will be followed, but
if for some reason, a tree location must be changed, the developer agrees to put
the same number of trees will be used. This was acceptable to Mr. Piggott..
The species selection was discussed and it was suggested that the Appearance
Commission select four species tonight; and that when lots are developed, plans
must be brought in for approval with the further stipulation that the developer
must come in before the streets are dedicated, with plans .showing what trees
will be placed where.
APPERANCE COMMISSION
Feb. 26,1981 — Page Five
•
The developer agreed with this plan and the Commissioners felt that four
trees could be selected at this time, but the right will be reserved to
change at a later date if prices or availablity affects the choices.
Com, Knaak asked about the need for screening for residents on the West
• lot line.
Mr.Piggott said that the planned development'will be some 5 ft. to 7 ft.
lower than the residents. The Ordinance requires that a 30 foot space be
maintained for drainage and a total of 507 to the buildings. a six-foot
stockade fence is required with additional Austrian Pine trees as needed.
It was noted that possible screening will be needed for any roof-top units•
which will be seen by the residents. Also appropriate screening will be
needed along the East side also, if:.if that portion is developed.
Com. Knaak made the following motion:
I move we approve the street tree plans
for Lexington Development Corp. Phase
No. 1 - to plant Norway Maple, Honeylocust,
Green Ash and one other variety to be selected
from Littleleaf Linden, Hackberry, Red Maple,
and American Linden.
Trees to be planted in clusters of three or
more; percentages to be as equal as possible
throughout Phase# 1 area.
That if in the construction process, a tree
has to be removed for construction reasons,
that it be replaced with a tree of similar
species ,a. before; and similar size.
Phase No. 2 will be reviewed at a later time.
The current owner binds himself and all sub-
sequent owners to these conditions.
Trees are to be 2" Staked or 2i" Unstaked as
per Ordinance, or larger.
Com. Paolillo seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was taken:
Aye - Carr,
Kirby,
•
Paolillo,
Knaak
Nay - Hardt
Motion carried 4 to 1.
C. PUBLIC HEARING - Monotony Code Amendment
Chairman Hardt read the Public Hearing Notice and explained the purpose of
the hearing was to review the proposed ordinance which would add the usual
Monotony specifications to the Appearance Plan of Buffalo Grove.
The text of the proposed amendment was read oy Chairman Hardt.
Two gentlemen from Hoffman Homes were present and Jack Schem (?)
asked what the definition of Dis-similar Elevations was.
Ch. Hardt explained that the term refers to changes in architectural
treatment: raised ranch, split level, ranch, Colonial = Models;
Di s-similar Elevations refers to changes in the exterior appearance of
a model: partial brick, full brick or no brick; tudor style, etc.
These are considered as different elevations. The Appearance Commission
determines which models are to be considered dis-similar. .APPEARANCE COMMISSION
,no, „_ ...
Changes in roof elevations, significant changes in elevations qualify
an elevation dis-similar. The interior of the house can be the same.
Colors and materials are not a determination of an elevation. There must
be a difference in structure and roof line, etc.
fiscussiori of the section refering to "white houses'in a row" resulted in
the general opinion that trims 'usually vary the appearance of a house enough.
Mr. Bob Russo - Hoffman Homes asked that Sec. #1 be clarified.
Ch. Hardt answered that the Code Amendment is based upon precedents that
have been set in the past. The AC would stipulate that a builder would
agree to follow the Monotony Code. Usually this was sufficient, but
occasionally problems resulted and therefore the Monotony Code is being
added to the Ordinance. The minimum number of models needed to meet the
Code is• three.
Mr. Russo commended Buffalo Grove on having an Appearance Commission and
said that the Village is better because of it. He added, considering the
economy today, that the Comtission be aware of the added cost and extra
time involved in numerous meetings with the Village Planners, etc.
Mr. Raysa reviewed the history of Esthetic Zoning and noted the need to
include Public Health, Safety and Welfare in the wording of the amendment.
He also asked that terms be clarified, because intent is often used in
court when problems arise. He recommended a new draft be submitted.
The following terms were defined:
Sec. I - The Appearance Plan is currently Exhibit A, 73-54.
Developers are instructed that they must comply
with all Village Ordinances - the Appearance Plan
is part of this stipulation, but it does not need
to be codified and made a part of the Statutes.
Adjacent Buildings - Lots with common frontage. On corner
lots, frontage of elevation and frontage
of building across the street,is consid-
ered.
Base Color - Us»A»y the siding color. If the front elevation
is brick then it would be the color of the brick.
Not specifically the color of trim, shutters, doors,
gutters, windows, etc.
Elevation - a treatment of a model, particular architectural
format - Style: ranch, two-story or raised 'ranch,
etc. ..
Elevation then is a different treatment of the
same style: Tudor, different siding, different
brick, different roof, etc. The front elevation
with a porch for instance; but not a change of
height.
B - See #9 - Siting. refers to the horizontal plane.
A - Sec #9 - Identical Front - intent requires two models,
with the same front elevation can only be built
on every third lot with two dis-similar models
in between. Wording needs clarification.
(Elevations are variations of the same model.)
Sub-Sec. B - Standards must be established. Problem with the
language. Needs clarification.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Feb. 26, 1981 - Page Seve
•
•
Different Front Elevations — There must be an architectural change• on
• front of the building, like the roof line — .
not color or materials
Mr. Cea suggested: Elevation changes are denoted by the •
architectural element of the building
•
• and not color or materials.
B — every second lot? — Different elevations can be built on every second
Strike r "as determined by the Appearance Commission."• lot.
Mr. Raysa will revise the wording of the amendment and return it to the
Appearance Commission. A second Public Hearing will not be necessary.
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Various Village signs were brought to the attention of Mr. Griffin and
he will look into each situation.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Com. Knaak made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 P.M.
Com. Paolillo seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned by unanimous
approval.
Respectfully submitted,
v `�L2aL� •
Shirley Ba , Secretary
\./ Appearance cmmission
•
•
•
sb APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Feb. 26, 1981 — Page Eight.