Loading...
1980-10-09 - Appearance Commission - Minutes — APPEARANCE COMMISSION VILLAGE-OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILL. THURS., OCT. 9. 1980 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Don Hardt called the meeting to order at 7:42 P.M. on Thurso: Oct. 8. 1980 at the Village Hall. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: M. Holland, B. Gibbs. L. Kirby and D. Hardt. QUORUM Commissioners Absent: P. Carr. L. Paolillo (arrived at 8:10 P.M.) and D. Knaak. Building Department: Frank Hruby, Building Commissioner Jim Griffin. Asst. Building and Zoning Administrator 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of Sent. 25. 1980 were deferred because there was an insufficient number of Commissioners who were present at that meeting. 4. BUSINESS a) Pulte Corp. — Signs on Trailer Representatives were not present because of a Staff Meeting. b) Diamond Signs — Village Center Temporary Sign Ken Middleton presented a color chart for the sign that is to be repainted at the corner of Buffalo Grove Rd. and Checker. The top will be green with off—white lettering and the lower portion will be off—white background with green lettering. • At the bottom of the sign a logo appears which is allowed under Sections 11.1 and 11.2 on rape 50 of the Sign Code. The Commission discussed the time limrit •of six months. It was noted that in such a situation the whole building may not be leased for some time. It was decided that there would be a stipulation that the sign is to be removed within one year after the center is opened for business. There will be one automatic six month renewal if the sign is in good repair. After a year the sign shall be reviewed by the Appearance Commission. Com. Gibbs made the following motion: I make a motion to approve the sign as presented for the repainting of an existing sign located at Buffalo Grove Rd. and Checker. The colors to be white and green as per the sketch presented. Logo allowed under Sec. 11.2 of the Sign Code. • The permit to be allowed for six months or until sold or fully leased. with the option of an additional six months by the administrator. If in one year's time after the center is opened. if it is not fully leased the sign is to be brought back to the Commission. Com. Holland seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Kirby: _ Gibbs. Rolland Hardt Nay — None Motion Passed. — 4 .to 0. c) Buffalo Grove Datsun — Temporary Sign Bob Stavin presented the temporary sign they are proposing to erect on the leased lot next to the dealership where cars are kept. He has a problem because the Toyota dealer next to them is being mistaken for their office. People are not sure which driveway belongs to which dealer. The sign would be placed 75 ft. back from the sidewalk and high enough to be seen over the car tops. Ch. Hardt explained that because this sign is considered a nylon sign it would have to be reviewed by the ZBA for a variation before the Appearance Commission approves it._because it is closer than 500 feet to their sign. Com. Kirby also noted that Datsun already has more signage than is usually All owed by the Sign Code. Also the Win Code does not Permit Off—premise signs on leased property. Mr. Stavin restated his problem and explained how the drainage (ditch divides his property making it even more difficult for People to know which cars on . on which lot. The Toyota dealer has also put un a chain making it impossible for neonle to drive across. Com. Kirby suggested entrance signs which are allowed but Mr. Stavin does not want to use them. The temporary sign is really very important' to Datsun. Ch. Hardt explained the reasons for the need of a variance and suggested that hardship be shown to the ZBA. He mentioned that the Toyota dealer will be coming in for a sign soon and hopefully it will be as attractive as Datsunls.. Mr. Stavin presented two other needs. 1. Light on pylon sign to shine on flag. Mr. Stavin explained that after erecting the flag pole and taking the flag un and down a fetb times, they would prefer to have it lighted. They nrohoae to nut a wall snot ii'Fht an top of the Datsun sign. Since electricity is there already, it should work. Mr. Hruby said he thought the regulations have been changed and that no light is needed at night. Mr. Stavin was pleased to hear this and said he would Investigate the law. He would prefer not to have the expense, but he asked if aptroval could be a1ven so that he would not have to return another time. Com. Holland made the foil owine motion: I make a motion to allow Buffalo Grove Datsun to illuminate the American Flag, presently flying on a 30 ft. flagpole. Illumination to be erected at the top of the present nylon sign. Such illumination to be shielded so :.that light does not' show below. on to the pavement. Com. Kirby seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Gibbs, Holland. Paolillo. Kirby and Hardt. Motion Passed — 5 to 0. Nay — None APPEARANCE COMMISSION nit. Q 'news _ t 2. Lights on front narking area. Mr. Stavin explained that the cars in front of the building are difficult to Gee at night. When appraisers come to look at the cars, they cannot really tell much about them. He proposed 3 lights to be placed on the top of the facade to light un an area of 40 ft. by 70 ft. They would only be on during business hours from about 6:00 to 9:00 P.M. The lights would not shine out on to Dundee Road. The light Doles that they have are not sufficient. Com. Gibbs made the following moti on: I move we approve no more than 3 lights. shielded so that they do not extend over the area. approximately 401 x 701 — which is the paved narking surface at Buffalo Grove Datsun That these lights are shut off at the end of the business day about 9:00 P.M./-when' the business is closed. The lights are to be located on the front of the building- The light. fixtures are to be submitted to the Commission. Some discussion followed and instead of a formal vote. a straw pole was taken so that Mr. Stavin would know whether to go to the expense of getting estimates. He mentioned that the cars do not look the same inside as they do out side. Ch. Hardt took a straw poll — OK: Kirby. Paolillo, Holland, Gibbs. No: Hardt Mr. Stavin asked about the procedure for going to the ZBA for the temporary sign. He was informed that the next meeting would be the third Tuesday in Nov. and the cost would be $125.00 — He should see Mr. Griffin for getting on the Agenda. i`# Since Tony of Italy and Lieberman Realty were not present, some discussion was held concerning the temporary sign at Northwest Community Hospital. Com. Kirby asked if it were reviewed and approved by the Appearance Commission. Mr. Griffin explained that the ZBA had riven the sign a variation of the Sign Code Sec. 6.7 — Banners. penr.ants. etc. and curb signs are permitted for the opening of a business. It was granted for a period of 120 days. (Aug. 19. 1980) Ch. Hardt noted that this section should be thoroughly reviewed when the Sign Code is codified and that it should be clearly stated that ALL signs come to the AC. Section 6.7 actually refered to prohibited signs. He noted Sec. 12.1 (d). ** d) Tony of Italy — Tony Boccia — Revision of Landscaping. Mr. Boccia exol ai ned that he requested a review of the tree in front of his shop. It was blocking his sign but the Village trimmed the tree this week and no longer is offensive. If the tree is kept trimmed, Mr. Boccia is satisfied- but if it ever does block the sign Mr. Boccia would like to have it replaced with low shrubbery. Ch. Hardt explained that the Commission would prefer to keep the tree and said that if it should become a hardship, Mr. Boccia should come in and the AC can give approval for its removal. He suggested that Mr. Boccia get a letter from Mr. Conrardy giving him proper permission to have the tree removed and replaced with shrubbery. This would be for the protection of Mr. Boccia. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS Ch. Hardt presented his proposal for a Monotony Code for Detached Single Family Homes and conies of the correspondence pertaining to the situation that developed with the Anden Corp. in Northwood. The Commissioners expressed their feelings concerning how residents respond to changes of models_ sizes. etc. after purchasing lots. It wan noted that it in APPEARANCE COMMISSION Oct. 9. 1980 — Pao. ThrAa a problem because of the present economy. It was also noted that zoning can be changed so that it is not Possible to say that no changes will be made. Mr. Griffin said that some buildings are too small for some lots and some lots are too small for some buildings. It was noted that the Commission went with the builder because he was allowed to increase the number of models under the Annexation Agreement and did so. Mr. Raysa had also agreed that legally, a home with 11.000 square feet is allowed. Mr. Hrubv said that he and Jim Trusdell have Presented a Plan to Mr. Balling for revising the Zoning Ordinance. This should take a period of about two years. The present procedures for bringing in new developments was reviewed. The Plan Commission reviews site plans. marling area and building placement for commercial and single family homes. Future changes in the Zoning Ordinance will better control the square footage. Developments are brought in at the highest and best use for Property but these plans can be changed. The Village tries to follow the Master Plan. The Commission agreed that people should be informed of ooasibilitie of future use of surrounding Properties at the time of Purchase. r Ch. Hardt explained his reasons for bringing all this un is two-‘fold: , 1 — in dealing with minimums of sauare footage. it is good% in theory to require homes with 11.000 sq. feet or greater; but the idea is also good to have further deliniation and say in certain areas homes of 11.000 to 18.000 sq. ft. homes will be approved — .other areas , would have higher .so. footages. This could be seen as segregation; but if the buyers were well informed it would not be seen as such a problem. 2 — If a builder builds a certain percentage of certain sized homes and then the economy koes down: or sunnose smaller size homes are in style — wouldntt a Person rather have a house next to him than a vacant lot? Even if it were a lower cost home. Mr. Griffin said he didn't think that could be guaranteed because of the possi— bility of variations being granted. Mr. Hruby explained that in Buffalo Grove we have Zoning Districts R-1 to R-9. R — 1 is the most restrictive and we are now approving developments in the R-5 and R-6 Zones. Building for R-1 and R-2 are being sought but it is difficult. He has been with many organizations and economy is dictating the size of houses. The various Buffalo Grove builders were discussed and reasons given for the need of a °Truth in Building Lawn to be considered. Mr. Hruby was asked to express the feelings of the Appearance Commission to the Plan Commission. He agreed that Bliffalo Grove can be a leader in establishing a Zoning Ordinance that is compre— hensive and covers many situations. He believes that the check and balance system is good.-The Appearance Commission does approve all homes. It was noted that in .the case of Anden the Commission had no choice because of the PUD agreement. It could not turn down the model. Ch. Hardt thanked Mr. Hruby for his interest and his help in expressing the concerns of the Annearance Commission to the Plan Commission; and offered to attend the next Public hearing when the next PUD comes up. The Commission next discussed the Monotony Code. This Code is very important and should be made a past of the Ordinances. Several things should be included: APPEARANCE COMMISSION Oct. 9. 1980 — Page Four 1 - Verbage pertaining to health. safety and welfare. 2 L. Cul-de-sacs need to be drawn with limitations. 3 - That it pertains to all sub-divisions but there can be some what more lenient on cul-de-sacs and curvilinear streets. Mr. Hruby will help change the verbaae. sent the nronosal to Mr. Raysa who will add legal language; then it will go before a public hearing and finally be presented to the Village Board. Quite some time was spent in discussion of "T-Streets" and Cul-de-sac. T-Streets: When the houses face the intersecting street. it would not matter what model is built. A and B could not be the same model - but could be the same as across the street. 1111111 A (Some felt that A could not be on Lots 1 or 2 - and B could not be on Lots 3 or 4.) I'I\ B T=4 4 If the houses are built on a diagonal, then lines extended from the building lines would determine what model could be across from it. • 1 A could not be built on Lots 2 or 3. B could not be built on Lots 2 or 3. /< ♦ B Cul-de-Sacs: A Cul-de-sac with 6 lots could be built with 4 models. . A l3 APPEARANCE COMMISSION Oct. 9. 1980 = Page Five The Commission felt that the Code should be as restrictive as Possible, then changes can be made when appropriate. After much consideration of possible situations, the Commissioners agreed �./ that usually 4 models can be used successfully. The general definition would be: Where lines drawn Perpendicular to the front wall are extened; if it hits a lot line it is considered to be across the streed from•it. Builders can come in for variations of the Monotony Code. Com. Kirby stressed that definitions are the most important factor in a Code. To be considered a different elevation. there must be a structural chance. The Monotony Code can be made a Part of the Zoning Text Amendment. Another situation that could arise is with corners with houses facing one another. Such as: Each house should be a different elevation. t=j--) A �© r� C I D 1111 1 Ch. Hardt said that the Code must be good, but not too cumbersome. The Aonearance Commission will make the restrictions with reference to the Monotony Code. Other Village sienaee was-discussed: 1. Buffalo Grove Mall — May be sold again. 2. Suffield Place — Lights on Bien on Busch Road. 3. Outdoor Place letters do not conform to Sign Package. 6. AATOURNMENT • Com. Kirby made a motion to adiourn at 10 P.M. and Com. Holland seconded the motion. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned. Next meeting Oct. 23. 1980. Respectfully submitted- . Shirley Bates ecretary Appearance Co 'scion • sb APPEARANCE COMMISSION Oct. 9. 1980 - Page Six