1982-01-14 - Appearance Commission - Meeting APPEARANCE COMMISSION
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILL.
THURS., JAN. 14, 1982
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Don Hardt called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M. on Thursday,
Jan. 14, 1982 at the Village Hall.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: L. Gibbs, C. Cea, and D. Hardt. QUORUM
L. Paolillo arrived at 7:45 P.M.
Commissioners Absent: L. Kirby and D Knaak.
Bldg. Department Representative: Dominic J. Saviano, Jr. — Dep. Bldg. Com.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Dec. 10, 1981 — Motion to approve as submitted made by Com. Gibbs and was
seconded by Com. Cea. Roll Call Vote — Aye: Gibbs, Cea and Hardt. Nay — None
Dec. 10, 1982 Minutes were approved.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
Ch. Hardt announced that Items A and B would be reversed.
B. Wok Inn
Mrs. Helen Chin and Mr. Stanley Chin (Son) presented a revised sign.
The Eyes Have It sign will be removed and the sign face of the original
sign will be changed.
The Commission saw no problems with the revision and complimented the
owners of Wok Inn on the manner in which they have co—operated with the
Sign Code and the Appearance Commission.
Ch. Hardt asked that the fascia of The Eyes Have It sign be restored
after the sign is removed. All supports and brackets should come down and
the background be restored to the original color. The Chins agreed.
Com. Cea made the following motion:
I move that we accept the Wok Inn Restaurant sign
as presented, with the restoration of the fascia
as stipulated. That all supports, brackets and
electrical disconnects be removed and the fascia
be restored and painted to match the existing fascia.
Com. Gibbs seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Gibbs,
Cea,
Hardt.
Nay — None
Motion Passed 3 to 0.
A. Landmark Proposal — Mr. James Truesdell, Village Planner
Mr. Truesdell explained that the Village Board had asked for the proposal
so that certain buildings in Buffalo Grove can be designated as Landmarks.
He reviewed the criteria and procedures that will be followed.
The proposal does not prohibit modification of any building so designated.
The Appearance Commission will have the authority to approve any changes.
A published public hearing is not necessary, but property owners within
250 feet of a chosen site will be notified. To ensure upkeep of the build—
ings, Village Codes will be enforced.
The Commissioners had no problems with the proposal and did not believe that
Public hearings are necessary.
Com. Gibbs made a motion that the Appearance Commission recommend to the B. G.
Village Board adoptipn of the 0rdihaace Providing for the Preservation of
Historic Landmarks as presented.
Com. Cea seconded the motion, Roll Call Vote: Aye — Gibbs,
Cea,
Hardt
Nay — None
Abstain — Paolillo
Motion Passed 3 to 0. 1 Abstension.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Reservoir #7 — Mr. John F. Yost, Keifer Engineering, Inc.
Mr. Yost presented plans for the construction of two (2) in—ground concrete
reservoirs and a Pumphouse adjacent to Green Knolls Unit No. 3 and Villas
of Buffalo Creek. The Pumphouse construction will be Brick and Block.
Bricks have been tentatively selected, but depending upon availability may
be changed to a similar color and q»ality. The two that have been selected
are Glen—Gery: Genesee or Cimeron —Econo size: 3-5/8 by 7-5/8 inch.
The doors will be painted out to match the brick. Standard grey mortar.
All exterior accessories will be painted out to match the brick.
Louvers will be compatible with the brick and metal door frames.
Lighting will consist of 10 fixtures on the building which are visable,
and 2 under the alcove.
Light fixtures are Mc Philben: 15 Line — #15A-1641 DB and G models.
Fixtures are bronze. Bulbs are"-sodium vapor — 100 Watt.
Com. Paolillp made the fowingmota' n:
I move we approve the proposed plans for
the structure of the Pumphouse (Reservoir #7)
and the Lighting as presented.
Lighting is 15—Line — #15A-1641 DB and G models.
Brick — Genesee or Cimeron as presented, In the
event that these selections are unavailable, substitutions
may be made of very similar quality and appearance.
All doors and louvers are to be painted out an appropriate
tos*n color
Com. Cea seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Gibbs, Paolillo,
Cea and Hardt.
Nay — None
#1 — Motion — Architecture and Lighting — Passed 4 to 0.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Thurs., Jan. 14, 1982
Page Two
#2. Reservoir # 7 - Landscaping
Sheets 2 and 3 of Proposal - Mr.Yost described the proposed plantings,
bike path, detention areas, gate across the access road and explained
the plan to roof the 2 reservoirs with bituminous material so that they
can be used as recreational facilities.
Parking Area Lights were located. The plans show three additional
reservoirs to be constructed within the next ten years. These areas
will be left open and will be seeded.
The detention areas have been designed according to Village Engineering
specifications. Mr. Greg Boysen affirmed this statement and said that
no problems are expected.
The Green Knolls homes that abut the area at the South property line are
208 ft. from the Pumphouse. The rear yards abut the property.
The trees on the North side of La Salle Lane will be 2 inch caliper,
staked or 2-1/2 inch, unstaked. Mr. Yost agreed to this stipulation.
Com. Paolillo made the following motion:
I move we approve the Landscaping for the Pumphouse and
Reservoir Number 7.- as presented.
Com. Cea seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Gibbs, Cea,
Paolillo and
Hardt.
Motion No. 2 - Passed 4 to 0. Nay - None
#3. Signage
Mr. Yost described the three (3) signs - Sheet No. 10
Com. Paolillo objected to the use of the Village Logo on the side of
the building and to the lighting of the sign.
Mr. Boysen and Mr. Yost stated that all Village facilities have the same
signage. They said it is standard procedure in Villages.
Com. Paolillo also expressed disapproval of the use of the Logo on the
ground sign. He expressed the feeling that logos are not permitted for
other businesses and should not be allowed for any Village signs either.
Com. Gibbs agreed. Ch. Hardt asked that separate motions be made for
each sign.
#3 a- Com. Cea made a motion to approve the proposed ground sign on the East
elevation of the Pumphouse and Reservoir
No. 7 at the location shown on the drawing.
Ch. Hardt seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Cea and Hardt
Nay - Gibbs and Paolillo
Tie Vote - 2 to 2. Motion Defeated.
Com. Gibbs stated his Nay is based upon the use of the Logo.
Com. Paolillo said his Nay is because of the use of the Buffalo. He would
approve the Village shield on the sign.
Ch. Hardt stated that since the Commission has in recent years approved
signs for the Village facilities, he believes that the signs do conform
with the existing Sign Package for the Village. Uniformity is being
carried out.
Mr. Yost presented plans for the other Village buildings and explained
that these designs were based on those plans.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Jan. 14, 1982 - Page Three
Mr. Boysen asked for a vote on the sign without the Buffalo.
Com. Gibbs made a motion to approve the sign as presented with the
�./ deletion of the Buffalo from the B. G. Logo.
Com. Paolillo seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Paolillo,
Gibbs and
Hardt.
Nay — Cea
#3 b — Motion Passed — 3 to 1.
Ch. Hardt commented that he is much more in favor of the first proposal
because it adds uniformity to the complete sign package which has been
previously approved for signage in the Village. Instructions were given
that should the Village wish to appeal the first motion, it can do so.
#4 — Sign on the West Elevation. The 2 foot sign with the Village symbol.
Com. Cea made a motion to approve the 2 foot sign on the
West elevation as submitted.
Ch. Hardt seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Cea and Hardt
Nay — Paolillo and Gibbs
Com. Paolillo indicated that his vote is because he believes the sign is
unnecessary.
Motion #4 a — Tie Vote — Defeated.
Com. Gibbs made a motion to approve the 2 ft. sign on the West elevation
without the Buffalo.
Com. Hardt seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Gibbs
Nay — Paolillo
#4 — b. Cea and Hardt
Motion Defeated — 3 to 1',(Aye)
#5 — Com. Gibbs made the following motion:
I move we approve the Wall Sign on the
South Elevation as presented for Res. #7.
Com. Paolillo seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Paolillo,
Gibbs, Cea,
Hardt
Nay — None
Motion #5 — Passed 4 to 0.
Ch. Hardt reviewed the decisions: The Wall Sign on the South — Approved.
The Ground Sign — Approved without the Buffalo, The East Wall sign — Denied.
Should an appeal be desired, Ch. Hardt advised Mr. Boysen to check with the
Village Attorney, Wm. Raysa, for procedure.
#6 - Street Lighting — Reservoir No. 7
Mr. Yost indicated the location of four (4) standard Buffalo Grove street
lights in the parking area and on La Salle Lane.
Com. Cea made a motion to accept the Street Lighting as presented for the
Reservoir No. 7 Parking area and La Salle,
Com. Gibbs seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Paolillo, Gibbs,
Cea and Hardt.
u
Nay — None
Motion #6 Passed 4 to 0.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Jan. 14, 1982 — Page Four
C. Buffalo Grove Golf Course — Cancelled. Will be re—scheduled.
`./ D. Buffalo Grove Plaza — Recommendations
Michael Gitlitz and Riek Moses, Rep. of Ken Tucker and Assoc.
Mr. Moses described the project which will be located at Lake/Cook Rd.
and Rt. 83 an the North — West corner.
The construction of the main building will be brick, all the way around the
lower portion with pre—cast concrete panels across the top. Screening will be
placed to the rear to hide the service area. It will consist of a 7 ft. fence
with, various low and high plantings.
The roof top units should be out of line of sight and it was noted that most of
the equipment will be inside of the building. The building is not yet designed,
but consideration will be given to this facet of design.
Trash areas are located at each end of the building and will be enclosed. The
Food store will have a compactor. The "out buildings" are shown but not yet
determined what will occupy them or the construction.
The Steeple View Condominiums to the East have blank walls facing the proposed
Plaza and there is approximately 90 feet between the buildings.
The Landscaping was described by Mr. Marvin Wehler. The dry detention areas
will be seeded. The three (3) islands to the rear (Rt. 83) have no plantings
because they will be used for snow removal. The Commission had no objections.
The amount of signage that would be allowed for the parcel was noted by Ch.
Hardt. He stated that two ground signs would be allowed and asked if the two
out lots would want ground signs. Mr. Moses said that their location on the
\./ corners would allow for sufficient signage on the facia of the buildings.
The Jewel/Osco signage was discussed and it was noted that the Commission would
probably not approve food/drugs as proposed. But it was also noted that A/C
decisions may be appealed to the Village Board.
Signage for the shops would be individually mounted back lit letters on the
stucco background. The usual procedures relative to Sign Packages was given.
Lighting was described for the parking lot, security lights and it was noted
that if lights are erected on the islands they would be encased in concrete
bases. The Code will be met.
The service drive can be identified, but Jewel/Osco can not be used on signs.
The problem of shopping carts being left all over the parking area was dis—
cussed and it was agreed that this is a management problem.
Dominic Saviano asked the size of the outbuilding on the corner. It has been
changed from 2,500 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. feet. Parking for the two out buildings
is sufficient.
Out side trash containers will be attractive. Either concrete of brick.
The Commissioners had no further questions. These minutes will be sufficient
commentary for the Board discussion of the project. However, Ch. Hardt will
try to be on hand to summarize any other questions the Board may have.
The Appearance Commission is in agreement with the project.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Jan. 14, 1982 — Page Five
D. Bison Restaurant — Steve Braaeunig of .
Arrow Signs.
The owner was also present.
Ch. Hardt reviewed the history of the sign.. It is the former Mr. Admas
and the sign is a legal—non—conforming sign which belongs to Striker Lanes.
It is larger than the Code allows and there are several other ground signs
within 500 feet. He explained the requirements of the Code when such sign
faces are changed. The Commission favors bringing signs into conformance
but also considers signage being less—non=conforming being a good compromise.
The signs presented were for the two walls and the pylon. The name is now
Bison Family Restaurant.
A problem was obvious because the signs included an ice cream sundae which
would be considered a logo or advertising.
After a long discussion, it was agreed to delete the ice cream sundae.
It was unsure if the two signs on the building are one can or two. If they
are two separate signs: the smaller can will be taken down and the sign
will be approved as submitted. However, it the can is only divided with the
barb the sign can be spaced in the center.
Also, if the small section of the large sign is separate, the owner of the
sign (Striker Lanes) will be approached to see if it can be removed.
The lower section of the large sign — i.e. lounge is not included in this
review. It cannot be removed without approval of the owner.
The representatives agreed that the best action to take is to Table the sign
until the next meeting, contact the owners (Striker Lanes), review the con—
struction of the wall signs and return with more definite information.
Cop. Gibbs made a motion to Table the Bison sign until Jan. 28, 1982.
Com. Cea seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was Aye Unanimously.
Mr. Saviano will contact the Striker Lanes to determine if the small can
may be removed. He will explain the situation and try to get some co—
operation. If the owner does not agree and if Bison Restaurant does not
want to erect the pylon, a citation could be issued for an abandoned sign.
E. Chatham — Phase II — Landscaping.
Susan Bartells, Michael Ives & Associates, Inc. and Diane Walker, Chatham.
Ms. Walker asked for conceptual approval of Phase II Landscaping. The
buildings have not been designed as yet but they will be Multi madly homes.
She said the proposal is the minimum amount of landscaping that will be used.
Actual plans will be submitted after the architecture is completed.
Ms. Bartells described the plantings of the general individual buildings.
The Forester's Report was noted and Ms. Bartells defended the use of the Red
Oaks. She said that they are long lasting and they are trying to introduce
them to the area. There are mt a great number of them. Regarding the Red
Pines, they are mainly used on berms and will not be clay soil but will be
top soil taken from the site.
The Commission suggested holding on to the Forester's Report for comparison
when actual plans are submitted.
#1 — Com. Gibbs made a motion to approve the Conceptual Landscape Plan for the
Multi—Family Chatham Phase II as presented.
Com. Paolillo seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Paolillo, Gibbs,
Cea and Hardt.
Nay — None
Motion Passed — 4 to 0. APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Jan. 14, 1982 — Page Six
#2 — Street Trees — Phase 2 — Chatham Manor Multi—Family Homes
The only tree in question is the Red Oak, and Ms. Bartells repeated her
opinion that this is a good tree for this area. She noted that is is not
on the dis—approved list from the Forester.
Ch. Hardt noted that it is the Commission's desire that if when the actual
Landscape Plan is drawn up, if because of driveway location/hydrant etc.
the number of trees used is not as shown, then the trees should be planted
elsewhere on the property. This is agreeable.
Com. Gibbs made the following motion:
I move we adopt the Street Tree Plan for
Chatham — Phase II —Multi—Family Homes
as presented. When the final location
plat is formulated, if because of driveway
or fire hydrant location, the spacing is
such that there are leftover trees, said
trees are to be planted on the property.
Com. Paolillo seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Paolillo,
Gibbs, Cea,
Hardt.
Nay — None
#2 — Motion Passed 4 to 0.
#3 — Buildings 13 to 25, Detailed Plans for area landscaping around buildings.
Plantings are similar to Phase I. Each building will have similar treat—
ment but they are not identical. Additional trees•are between buildings.
The Commissioners only saw one problem; FM < buildings #13, #18, #19 and
#21 have very prominent bare corners. After some discussion, it was agreed
to delete one tree with an approximate cost of $300.00 and place 3 shrubs
(approx. $25.00) at each corner.
Com. Cea made the following motion:
I move we approve the Landscape Plan for
Chatham — Phase #II— Multi Family Homes,
Buildings 13 through 25 with the stipulation:
a. Eliminate one tree as shown on the
plan and that
b. Additional shrubs be planted on the
garage side of Buildings #13, 18, 19 and 21.
A minimum of three (3) shrubs each.
Com. Gibbs seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Paolillo,
Gibbs, Cea,
Hardt.
Nay — None
#3 — Motion Passed 4 to 0.
F. First Federal of Chicago — Mrs. Karen Smith of Acme Wiley Corp. and
Mr. Klinkenberg, Const. Manager
The sign requested is a temporary sign. It will be placed parallel to
u Dundee Road and must be 10 ft. back from the property line.
The Logo is Blue and the Lettering Black on White Background. The time
limit would be 6 months with renewal. Supports will be silver.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Jan. 14, 1982 — Page Seven
Com. Gibbs made the following motion:
I move we approve the temporary construction
sign for First Federal of Chicago as submitted.
Sign to be 4' x 81 — Single Face, aluminum.
Location is: Parallel to Dundee Rd. as shown
on the layout given tonight. 10 feet from".ne
property line. Supports to be 2 inch angle iron
and silver. Non — illuminated.
The sign to be allowed to be erected on a temporary
basis for six months or until erection of the
regular sign.
Com. Cea seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Gibbs
Hardt
Nay — None
Abstain — Paolillo
Motion Passed 2 Aye and 2 Abstain. Cea
Com. Paolillo and Com Cea noted that they did not want to vote down
a temporary sign when they were unsure about the allowance of the Logo.
Ch. Hardt asked that plans for the electrical units be approved.
Ch. Hardt made a statement concerning the plans for a permanent sign.
Since it does not meet the Sign Code, it will need variations for
height and distance between pylon signs. The Building Department
will advise them of proper procedure.
The Commission mentioned the possible problem of the time/temp.
and noted that there would be about three in a row. The representatives
said it could be deleted. Ch. Hardt cautioned them about the use of Logo.
G. H & R Block. Income Tax
Michael F. Listermann, District Manager of H & R Block and
William Murphy of Courtesy Neon.
Ch. Hardt explained the difficulty that the Village has had with the B. G.
Mall Sign in the past. Other signs have been erected without approval and
the management denies any responsibility.
Mr. Murphy acknowledged having erected the alga before submitting it for
a permit. In other`Villages, when eigualareLayailable at are already
up, permits are not required. Mr. Listermann said that Mr. Morelli never
told him he needed a permit. Mr. Morelli did say that the spaces could be
used and he did not specify how many. One reason they were attracted to
Buffalo Grove is that the sign was available.
Mr. Murphy noted that the Tax business is of limited duration and that the
sign would only be up until the end of April. He also requested two 3'x5'
lighted signs at the entrances of the Mall. Management hastgiven the okay.
When he called the Building Department for permits for theselsigns, he was
informed of the problem of the illegal sign.
After some discussion, the Commission did not like the use of two spaces on
the pylon, however since it would be of short duration, it could be approved
But the lighted doorway signs would not be compatible with the center.
Other stores have not been allowed to advertise on the pylon or use neon
`./ lighted signs in the doorways.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Jan. 14, 1982 — Page Eight
I/1 - Com. Gibbs made the following motion:
I move we accept the H & R Block, Income Tax
sign at the Buffalo Grove Mall, as submitted.
Time limit to be April 30, 1982.
Com. Hardt seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Gibbs
Nay - Paolillo
Cea and
Hardt
Ch. Hardt ruled the Motion was Denied; and he explained the appeal
procedure. The Village Board is scheduled to meet next Monday.
Mr. Listermann asked that the Appeal be scheduled, if possible.
The two lighted signs were discussed and because the Commission gave
indication that they would be denied; no motion was made.
Mr. Listermann stated that all the H & R Block location include Income
Tax in their name and he further stated that it is necessary to the
operation of their business to have this identification.
Use of the windows for paper signs was mentioned. This would be okay.
VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS
A Workshop is needed and if the Agenda is not too long Jan. 28th, it
would be advisable to have a Workshop following the meeting.
Air. Saviano announced that Toyota, wanted to fly American Flags and would
\,./ come in.
Other Village signs were mentioned for review.
VII. ATCURNMENT
Commissioner Paolillo made a motion to adjourn. Com. Gibbs seconded.
The meeting adjourned at 12:15 AM (Jan. 15, 1982)
Res ctfully submitted,
, igia -e-S2-
Shirley Bate Secretary
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
sb
Jan. 1.1.E 1982 - Page Nine
`./.