Loading...
1982-03-18 - Appearance Commission - Minutes APPEARANCE COMMISSION VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE. IL. THURS.. MARCH 18, 1982 (Special Meeting) I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Donald L. Hardt called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. at the Village Hall, Thursday, March 18, 1982. This meeting was held because there was a lack of a Quorum for the regularly scheduled date, March 11, 1982. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Knaak, Gibbs and Hardt. New Commissioner: C. Zusel Commissioners Absent: Paolillo, Kirby and Cea. Bldg. Department Rep. — Mr. Dominic Saviano and Trustee Liaison — Mr. Marc Schwartz. Ch. Hardt announced that Mrs. Cynthia Zusel had been appointed to the Commission and welcomed her. Mrs. Kathleen Krippes,541--8835 was present to observe for the evening and could be appointed when there is an opening on the Commission. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Feb. 25, 1982 — Postponed because Commissioners present at the meeting are absent. IV. BUSINESS A. Jewel Osco — Full Review: Architecture, Landscaping, Lighting and Signage Ken Tucker & Assoc. represented by Mr. Gerald Eisenberg Architects: Jansen, Fore and Staub represented by Mr. Jens Jensen and Mr. Don Fore. Jewel Food Stores represented by Mr. Craig Knoche. 1. Architecture Mr. Fore made the presentation. He noted the site: The North/East Corner of Lake/Cook and Rt. 82 adjacent to the Steeple View Condos. The Jewel/Osco Building is 52,700 square feet. Bldg. A with: Small Stores attached on the South side total 10,000 square feet. Two Out Buildings: Building B (not designed) — 4,000 square feet. Building C (not designed) — 2,700 square feet. Building A (Jewel/Osco with Attached stores) will be constructed with: 1. Brick with grey mortar, Meribrick Co. — Fort Maulteer. 2. Pre—Cast Panels, joints will not be visable. The panels are 8 ft. wide and the outside edges caulked. 3. Soffit — Beige aluminum pre—fabricated panels (Reynolds) 4. Columns — Brick (Note: Brick will have no effervesce) 5. Flashing at top of agrigate panels — Aluminum 6. Glass — clear for all windows, and doors. 7. Framing will be bronze except for Jewel doorways. These will be aluminum (silver) because the bronze does not withstand the rougher treatment carts necessitate. 8. Concrete walk will be a minimum of 6 feet beyond canopy. 9. Push carts will be stored inside. 10. The Jewel will have a double entry with a 12 foot vestibule. There will be two sets of doors, intrance and exit at each end of the front entrance. 11. No salt storage outside. 12. Interior drains. Rear Elevation (East) 1. Face brick intirely. This elevation faces Steeple View. 2. Roof Top Units: a) One package unit at center of roof. Approx. 181x6tx5' high — lt. beige. b) A separate unit heats the front end of store. c) Refrigeration Equipment — Stainless steel units: 151x5tx4' high: 4 units. No screening has been planned because the units need air circulation. The height of the J/0 Bldg. is 26 feet and Mr. Fore thought they would be hard to see from Steeple View because the Steeple View windows are on an angle. Mr. Eisenberg stated that he did not believe the cost trade—off would be feasible because the view from so few apartments would be affected by units. The distance between the Jewel/Osco Bldg. and the Steeple View Apts. was discussed, but the only exact measurement available was that the Jewel/Osco Bldg. is 66 feet from the property line, Trustee Schwartz stated that the Village Board had been concerned with this aspect of the building. Mrs, Krippes said that the roof top units on the school near her home are visable. The school is two stories high., Ch. Hardt repeated the Commission's position on requirement of screening of roof top units. He suggested a partial screen along the parapet wall with three of the four sides shielded. Com. KnaAk felt strongly that the Steeple View tenants should be given the best view possible and noted that they would be subject to other inconveri— iences such as trucks, night deliveries, etc. Mr. Fore suggested screening the South end or wherever the units are seen after the building is constructed....The Commission rejected this proposal. Mr. Fore explained that the weight of such a screen had to be considered. Mr. Eisenberg agreed to have a site study done to determine what screening is necessary, and agreed to provide a visual screen from the apartments. Ch. Hardt said that the Appearance Commission recommendation to the Village Board will include an acceptable screen for the roof top units and he asked that they return with plans for the screen before the next Village Board meeting April 5, 1982. The Appearance Commission meets again Mar. 25, 1982 and Mr. Fore agreed to return with a design for screening and with the exact distance between the buildings. Proposal should include height, material to be used, color, etc. Also, if something unusual come into the tenants of the small stores that would require significant roof top units, specific screening of these units will be recommended also. d) Doors — Dark Brown e) Louvers for heating/air conditioning — Dark Brown f) Rails around building to prevent drives from bumping the building will be galvanized metal and will be kept in good repair. Mr. Saviano added that the Village has a Maintenance Code which is enforced. g) Bumper posts — Concrete painted Yellow. h) Gas Meter — Inside building and should not be on the plans. i Vent Caps for HeatingA/C — Sheet metal andpainted Dk. Brown j) Rear Doors — Wood with Dark Brown Aluminum coping. APPEARANCE COMMISSION Mar. 18, 1982 — Page Two k) Loading Platform — Concrete 1) Bottle Loading Storage area screened with a cyclone fence with slats. m) Electrical transformers will not be painted out as per Com Ed. North Elevation a) Trash compactor — masonary enclosure (same brick as building). b) Door Frames — Same bronze. Doors — Same "Jewel" Brown. South Elevation a) Adjacent building wall — solid face brick to match all other brick. The tenant building is not part of this presentation, but will match all materials. An identical building exists in Mc Henry. 1. Motion — Architecture Com. Gibbs made the following motion: I move we approve the Architectural Review for the Jewel/Osco Building including the Tenant Building — Building A; as sub- mitted with the following stipulations: 1) No outside drains. All drains are interior. 2) All window frames and door frames are to be anodized bronze with the exception of the front doors which will be silver aluminum. 3) All glass will be clear. 4) Brick will have grey mortar, Fort Maulteer. 5) Columns to be brick 6) Soffit under the entrance to the building on 'lest to be beige colored aluminum paneling by Reynolds. 7) Front of building to be vertical pre—cast Nod Form panels —80% Wyoming ',13 and 20/ Flamingo B which translates into 75% white and 25% Brown color. 8) Roof Top Units which are visable from L/C Road or the adjacent housing are to be screened. Determination of screening to be presented at the next AC meeting. 9) All doors on any elevation: are to be painted out Jewel Brown. Bottle cart doors are Bronze aluminum. 10) Louvers on the rear of heating and A/C units are to be painted out Jewel Brown. 11) Gas meter to be painted out Jewel Brown, if possible. 12) Galvanized railing to be accepted as indicated. 13) Posts around the.. ComEd electrical transformer are to be painted Yellow. This includes ALL bumper posts. 14) Brick and Pre—cast panels to be identical throughout the whole building, including Building A. 15) Hood on the compactor door to be painted out Brown. 16) Tenant building door frames to be bronze. 17) Vent caps in the rear to be Jewel Brown. 18) Steel roller doors on the South Elevation to be Brown. Final approval of this motion is contingent upon an acceptable screen for the roof top units and fencing around the trash area. Com. Knaak seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Zusel, Knaak, Gibbs,Hardt. Nay — None Motion Passed 4 to 0. \ / Note: Bricks can be substituted for a similar color, etc. but should such a change be made, a sample should be sent to the Commission. APPEARANCE COMMISSION March 19, 1982 — Page Three 2. Jewel/Osco — Landscaping Mr. Fore presented the Landscape Plan and stipulated that after reviewing the Forester1s Report, the changes recommended by Mr. Paige will be made. Each specie was named and the appropriate changes were made on the copy of Landscape Plan that was signed by Ch. Hardt and the Developer. Trees must be 2i inches to meet the requirement for unstaked trees. The planters will be set in the sidewalk with a low brick wall surrounding them. Concerning the safety line—of—sight going South on Rt. 83, Mr. Saviano said that Mr. Kuenkler had received copies of the plan and had made made no com— ments. Should any trees be deleted from that area, they are to be planted elsewhere on the site. Within the seeded area, trees will be surrounded with mulch. The type was not specified, but it was noted that bark tends to float away. When Building C is designed, a complete landscape plan should be submitted. The area around Building B needs something more to break up that corner. Low shrubs and 2 or 3 Spruce Trees will be added. On the East side (facing Steeple View), there will be a 4 to 5 foot berm and a 7 foot stockade cedar fence (good side facing Steeple View). The tenants will see the landscaping on the Fast side of the fence. Steel posts and metal brackets will be used because of wind direction. The Steeple View tenants will not see the pop bottle cyclone fence. The curb islands will be sodded. Ch. Hardt noted that Weeping Forcythia is not a good plant. He asked that it be limited. Should any changes be made, plans should be submitted for approval by the AC. Medians in the parking area will be sodded. It is to the developers advantage if these areas are maintained to keep they looking good. The North property line is not landscaped because there is a possibility that the center will be enlarged. Negotiations are now underway. 2. Motion — Landscaping Com. Knaak made the following motion: I move we approve the Jewel/0sco Landscaping Plan as submitted with the corrections noted on the plan dated March 17, 1982. Area B to have additional plantings as agreed and noted. Com. Zusel seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Gibbs, Zusel, Knaak and Hardt. Nay — None Motion Passed — 4 to 0. 3. Jewel/Osco — Lighting Mr. Fore indicated that the plans have been submitted to the Village Engineer the Photometrics showing lighting. Most of the lighting is directed downward and there is very little side glare. It is important that the lights do not create a nuisance off the property line. APPEARANCE COMMISSION March 19, 1982 — Page Four The following specifications were noted: a) Height of poles — 30 feet b) High Pressure Sodium — yellow glow. c) Two single fixture and all others are double. d) Poles are set in 30 inch concrete pads (round or 24 in. square) The AC preferred they not be painted yellow as indicated. e) There are no floodlights shining on the building. f) Lights on the building are similar to the fixtures shown. There are lights over each door for security and along the back. These lights should be submitted to the Commission for approval. 3. Motion — Parking Lot Lighting Com. Gibbs made the following motion: I move we approve the Parking Lot Standards and the Luminaires for Jewel/Osco as submitted: 1. Lights to be high pressure sodium. 2. Poles to be 30 feet in height. Cor—Ten Square Steel Poles. 3. Poles mounted on approximate 30 inch round concrete pads. 4. Poles are weather bronze. 5. Lights are either single or double fixtures; No. 110 — 24 A. 400 watt. 6. Location of lights shown on the drawing submitted. Lights on the building will be submitted at a later date. Waste recepticles will be submitted at a later date. Com. Knaak seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Zusel, Knaak, Gibbs and Hardt Nay — None Motion Passed 4 to 0. 4. Jewel/0sco — Signage Ch. Hardt reviewed potential problems that could arise pertaining to the signage. His purpose is to prevent possible future hardship. Normally, the Commission does an entire parcel at one time. 'Then Jewel submitted signage at an earlier date, they were informed of certain Sign Code re— quirements. The same signage is being presented at this time. If there is no possible compromise, the AC cannot review it without a ZBA variation. Ground signs have not been submitted. Should the Wall Signs be accepted, and ground signs are presented later, for the Center, Jewel and the Out Lots; there would be great problems. Mr. Fore indicated that they are ready to submit ground signs at this time. Ch. Hardt stated that it would be best to consider as much signage as pos— sible knowing the entire scope of the signage requirements. The section of the Sign Code that addresses Wall Signs is 14.20.090 A — Area of back— ground and measurement of individual letters indicates that letters as submitted 8 feet 7 inches are larger than allowed without a variation. Section 14.20.030 applies to the amount of signage allowed within a certain commercial development. One ground sign indicating the name and nature of the business. And ITCH — One wall sign, etc. The problem with the signage submitted for the Wall is that Jewel/Osco can be considered one sign. The two — Food/Drug signs would be unacceptable for two reasons. They would be considered advertising and would also make a total of three signs. APPEARANCE COMMISSION March 19, 1982 — Page Five Mr. Fore explained that the store is identified asJewel/Osco in the center of the wall and the Food/Drug signs used as directional signs over the two entrances. Also the sign indicating "Liquor" is also desired. Ch. Hardt stated that the Commission could only consider the Jewel/Osco sign and only if the size of the letters is reduced; OR the ZBA must grant them a variation. One petion can be made for all additional signage. Com. Knaak noted that not all Jewel stores have Food/Drug and therefore this sign could be changed. He would not approve the Liquor sign. Yr. Fore said they would go for the variation. Ground Signs Two pylon signs were presented. Each to have the Shopping Center Logo and the name of the Center — THE GROVE; as well as Jewel/Osco identification. This would also require a ZBA variation because the Sign Code only allows for one Center identification sign and one other pylon sign. Sec. 14.20.070 deals with ground signs. The Appearance Commission would not oppose the signs as submitted; BUT it was noted that neither Out Building will be granted a pylon sign. Any other ground signs would have to be 500 feet away. Sign Package for Tenants of the -Major Building — "A" Ch. Hardt listed the criteria for a complete Sign Package as attached. Com. Knaak noted that in the past Sign Packages have not been very effective because developers fail to give specific directions to the tenants. Under Canopy Signs The Code limits Under Canopy Signs to 9 inches. They can be illuminated, but this is not feasible because of problems with maintenance. Mr. Eisenberg said that a Sign Package for the whole center in accordance with the Sign Code. B. First Federal — Signage Cancelled because representatives could not be present this date. C. Arlington Toyota Mr. Mike Krasnek, Owner and a representative of Art g_ Son Sign, Inc. Mr. Krasnek presented his proposed wall signs. The front to read Arlington Toyota and Toyota on either side of the building. Ch. Hardt reviewed. comments that were made when Mr. Krasnek appeared previously. Originally, the pylon was granted with only Toyota because that was a require— ment of the Toyota company. The AC recommended that Arlington Toyota be put on the facia, but since the building was being rented, the landlord would not allow this to be done. Ch. Hardt asked for a clarification of the source of the dimensions on the draw— ing submitted. He measured the drawing With a 1/8 in scale, but the building does not appear to have a 6 foot fascia. Ch. Hardt went to the site and by counting bricks, arrived at a height of about 5i feet which would limit the size of the letters to about 22 feet instead of the 3 feet requested. The Art & Son representative said he measured the actual wall and it is six feet. He said the letters come in 3 ft. sizes and do not come in between 2z & 3 feet. Mr. Krasnek stated that he wanted 3 foot letters. He need adequate signage. Another problem was noted in the amount of square footage that can be used is exceeded by 4 four inches. APPEARANCE COP MISSION March 19, 1982 — Page Six Com. Knaak made a statement commending Arlington Toyota for complying in every way with the Appearance Commission's requirements and he felt that for 4 inches a solution can be reached short of sending it to the ZBA for a variation. The possibility of moving the letters closer together would be an easy solution. Nr. .,rasnek stated that he takes pride in his business and because of the economic conditions that exist he must be competitive with T)atsun. Nr. Saviano noted that had the sign plans been presented and no physical examina— tion of the building had been made, the Commission would have approved them as they have in many other instances. The Commission discussed the situation, and consensus of the majority of the Commissioners was that it would be inconsistent with precedence to reject the sign and require a variation for 4 inches. Com. Knaak made the following motion: I move we accept the Wall Sign. for Arlington Toyota for the North Wall of the building, with the following stipulations: 1) The letters Arlington Toyota are to be Red. 2) Individual letters non—illuminated plexi—glass. 3) A revised drawing shall be submitted to the Building Department specifying the dimensions of the wall and the sign. Com. Gibbs seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Zusel, Knaak, Gibbs Nay — Hardt Motion Passed 3 to 1. Toyota — Signs on the East and West walls. The Sign Code provides that a sign can be placed on each wall of a business that is on a corner, facing each right— of—way. After a considerable amount of discussion concerning the use of the word Toyota only on the East and West walls, Ch. Hardt noted that it has been establish— ed by the pylon sign (Toyota) and the Datsun sign on the fascia, enough precedence to delete the word Arlington from the East and West signs. The East side abuts the Datsun dealership and the West side faces Old Arlington Heights Road. Mr. Kraznek stated he especially needs the sign on the East wall because people shopping at Datsun do not always know that his business is so close. There is a great similarity in the two cars. Com. Gibbs made the following motion: I move we allow a sign reading Toyota to be placed on the West side of the building as shown in the drawing. Sign to be Red, plexi—glass letters to match the scale as indicated. Sign is to be non—illuminated. 3 foot letters. Com. Knack seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Gibbs, Knaak Zusel Nay — Hardt (does not think height factor is as Motion Passed 3 to 1. indicated on the plan) Note: Sign Code Section 14.20.030 C The sign on the East side of the building does not face a right—of—way. APPEARANCE COMMISSION Mauch 19, 1982 — Page Seven Com. Knaak made the following motion: I move we accept the Toyota Wall Sign as presented for the East side of the building. To be 3 feet, Red, Plexi— glass, individual, non—illuminated letters. Com. Zusel seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Zusel and Knaak Nay — Gibbs and Hardt. Motion defeated by a tie vote — 2 to 2. Ch. Hardt informed Mr. Kraznek that he can appeal the decision to the Village Board. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS Some problem signs were noted. Ch. Hardt welcomed Mrs. Zusel to the Commission. He said that there would be an orientation meeting soon. VI. ADJOURNMENT Com. Knaak made a motion to adjourn and Com. Gibbs seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Bate Secretary sb APPEARANCE COMMISSION March 19, 1982 - Page Eight