Loading...
1983-01-27 - Appearance Commission - Minutes APPEARANCE COMMISSION `•/ VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILL. THURS. , JAN. 27, 1983.. I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M. on Thursday, Jan. 27, 1983 at the Village Hall . Chairman Don Hardt presiding. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Gibbs, Zusel , Krippes and Hardt. QUORUM Commissioners Absent: Cea and Larsen. Building Department Representative: Mr. Dominic J. Saviano, Jr. , Deputy Bldg. Commissioner Village Board Liaison: Mr. Charles Gerschefske, Trustee. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Com. Krippes made a motion to accept the minutes of January 13, 1983 as submitted. Com. Gibbs seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Krippes Gibbs Hardt Nay - None Minutes of Jan. 13, 1983 were approved. Abstain - Zusel IV. BUSINESS A. Quinlan and Tyson, Inc. Wall Sign at Strathmore Square Mr. Dominic M. Nitti of Federal Sign; and Mr. William R. Murphy of Q and T. presented the sign. Mr. Frank Morelli was also present. Mr. Murphy explained that the sign they wish to erect is the existing sign that was removed when the remodeling process was started. It was taken to Federal Sign Company for storage and Quinlan and Tyson would like to re- install the same sign. The length of the sign is 212 feet. Ch. Hardt discussed the Sign Package that was developed by the owner of the Square before the remodeling was started. The Sign Package stipulates that all signs are to be individual internally lighted white plexi- glas letters on the bronze background. A compromise was made with the owners and'. signs could be up to 70% of the store frontage instead of the 30% the Sign Code allows. Sign Packages are developed with the architectural treatment of the individual centers. Can signs are not approved by the AC in the Village. Can signs and individual letters are not compatible. The intent of the Sign Package was discussed, noting that variation in letter style did not mean that letters on a can would be allowed, and established Logos would be permitted, if identical plexi-glas is used. Mr. Murphy noted that Heinemann's Bakery at Dominic's has a can sign. Mr. Nitti stated that to fabricate a sign with cut out letters would cost about $6,000 to $8,000 and he added that the sign being presented is only about two years old. Ch. Hardt answered that the Heinemann's sign was part of the original signage that was approved when the Dominick's store was built and that the Sign Package only pertains to the newly remodeled section. When the Sign Package was developed, Mr. Morelli agreed to the individual letters for all stores. He knew what would be expected. Mr. Morelli said pre-existing signage was never specifically discussed. He said the Sign Package was agreed upon in order to get the project passed. He agreed that the S.Pkg. outlines the signage that they want for all new stores. Com. Krippes said she would suggest as a compromise, individual letters with the can Logo. Ch. Hardt recalled that much consideration was given to the development of the Sign Package. If a mix and match approach had been presented, the Commission would have restricted the signage to the requirements of the Sign Code which provides only 30% of the fascia to be used for each store. The location of the sign as presented was discussed. It is not centered over the storefront. From the appearance standpoint, the signs look better when centered between the pillars and this was generally agreeable. A Straw Poll was taken to determine the feelings of the Commissioners: Com. Krippes: No mix for center, but individual letters with a canned logo would be acceptable. Com. Gibbs: No mix - Individual Helvetica letters as per SP. Com. Zusel : No mix - Individual letters with canned logo. Ch. Hardt: No mix - Individual letters with canned logo. (No mix: meant to designate the Commission would not approve a mixture of large can signs and individual letters as major signage for businesses. ) Ch. Hardt gave Mr. Murphy two options, based on the Straw Poll : 1 . Withdraw the sign as presented and return at a later date with a different sign. 2. Have the sign voted on as presented, and if denied, an appeal can be made to the V.B. Ch. Hardt noted that the Appearance Commission concerns itself more with the architectural features of signage, not economical hardship. The Board would consider the circumstances. He added that he did understand the problem. Mr. Murphy stated the business has been located at the center since the beginning and that since they did not request remodeling, it would be a real hardship with the real estate business down as it is, to purchase a new sign. Com.Gibbs made the following motion: I move we approve the Quinlan and Tyson sign at Strathmore Square as submitted. Com. Krippes seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel Nay - Krippes Gibbs The motion was denied. Hardt Ch. Hardt said he voted as he did because he has strong feelings about not mixing individual letter signs with can signs. He added that he would not want to set the precedent in the Village with a brand new center. APPEARANCE COMMISSION Jan. 27, 1983 - Page Two If an appeal is to be made, Mr. Saviano will give further directions. Com. Zusel added that her reason for voting as she did is because even though she would prefer to see individually illuminated letters, she feels that since Quinlan and Tyson was there at the Center before it was remodeled, it would be penalty to require a new sign. She said it was like being at the right place at the wrong time. The next Village Board meeting will be February 7, 1983. B. Mobil Station - 1200 W. Dundee Road Sign - Express Lube Mr. Fred Sulhoff, Cross Town Electric Inc. presented the sign and described its location over one bay. He presented existing signs at other Mobil gas stations that have made one bay a quick lube bay. The sign will be mounted between the mullions over the door. Com. Gibbs recalled that when the present signage was granted, Mobil Oil agreed that no additional signage would be added at the particular location. Mr. Shulhoff said he had received a package work order from Mobil that in- cludes this location, but not at the station at Buffalo Grove Road and Dundee Road. The contract is 8 months old. Ch. Hardt stated that he opposes allowing this type of additional signage, because many other stations would be coming in asking for similiar signs. It is strictly advertising and is opposite of the intent of the Sign Code. Com. Krippes made the following motion: I move we approve the wall sign presented by the Mobil Station for Express Lube at 1200 West Dundee Road. Com. Gibbs seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - None Nay - Zusel Krippes Gibbs Motion Denied. An appeal may be made to the Board. Hardt C. Lexington In The Park Temporary Sales Trailer and Parking Lot, Mr. William A. Maybrook of Lexington Development Corp. made the presentation. He stated the Sales Trailer will be used from March until approximately June or July. It will be located so that the rear of the trailer will face the South on Arlington Heights Road. The front will face North. Color of the trailer will be Beige, with Coffee color Lettering and Green leaves. It will skirted. It is an aluminum trailer. Electrical and telephone service will be brought in from poles on standards and will conform to all Codes. The trailer was considered, but signage was deleted and discussed as a separ- ate item. Com. Gibbs made the following motion: I move we approve the Lexington Sales Trailer as submitted, deleting signage. Color to be u Beige. Plans in include the portico and fence. Fence to be white and installed as per the plans submitted. Trailer is to be skirted. Com. Krippes seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel - Gibbs Motion Passed 4 to 0. Krippes - Hardt Nay - None APPEARANCE COMMISSION - 1/27/83 - Page Three Parking Lot and Landscaping around Trailer Mr. Maybrook presented and described the Landscaping around the Trailer. The Parking Lot will be gravel . Com. Gibbs asked if parking bumpers are planned for the parking lot to prevent the grassy area from damage and rutting. He suggested concrete stops. Mr. Maybrook assured the Commission that should any problem occur, it would be rectified. He would not like to stipulate concrete stops because of cost. Cori. Krippes made the following motion: I move we approve the Landscaping for Lexington in the Park, with the temporary Parking Area, as presented with the stipu- lation that if cars pull into the raw ground, steps will be taken to rectify that problem. Com. Gibbs seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel Krippes Gibbs Hardt Motion Passed 4 to 0. Nay - None Lighting - Lexington in the Park, Sales Area Mr. Maybrook submitted a cut-sheet and described the fixtures that will be attached to the top of the trailer to light only the front of the area. They are for safety purposes and will be shut off when the office is closed. Com. Gibbs made the following motion: I move we approve 3-flood lights for the temporary trailer at Lexington In The Park: Keene Mfg. - die cast aluminum 3 lights to be located on the top front of the trailer; and should light only . the front area, not past the curb line. Com. Zusel seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel Krippes Gibbs Hardt Motion Passed 4 to 0. Nay - None SIGNAGE for Lexington in the Park Mr. Maybrook presented signage for the front and rear of the Sales Trailer. The name has been changed from Lexington Glen to Lexington in the Park. The sign will be painted on the Beige aluminum trailer. Also presented was the temporary construction sign to be located on Arling- ton Heights Road at Auburn. It is a double-faced, 10' x 10'x sign; 31 ft. from the ground. No lights. The sign will be routed and sand-blasted, so changes cannot be made by "tack-ons" . The sign was previously approved, and the name only was changed. Should any other changes be desired, $$ -? submit it to the Building Department for AC approval . APPEARANCE COMMISSION Jan. 27, 1983 - Page Four Com. Zusel made the following motion: I move we approve Lexington in the Park ground sign as submitted. To be located North of Auburn, on East side of Arlington Heights Road, as approved previously. Com. Krippes seconded the motion: Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel Krippes Gibbs Hardt Motion Passed 4 to 0. Nay - None SIGNAGE - Front of Sales Trailer Com. Gibbs made the following motion: I move we approve the signage for Lexington in the Park as submitted for the front of the Sales Trailer. Com. Krippes seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel Krippes Gibbs Hardt Motion Passed 4 to 0. Nay - None SIGNAGE - Rear of Sales Trailer Com. Gibbs commented that the sign as depicted appears to be a large billboard, not in keeping with the excellent total package thus far presented. Com. Zusel felt that "now open" is unnecessary. Mr. Maybrook agreed to delete this. The trailer is 70 feet long. The Commission felt this is rather large and Mr. Maybrook offered an alternate sign that is 100 square feet. The Commission felt it was a much better sign and again asked that "now open" be deleted. Com. Zusel made the following motion: I move we approve the alternate sign for Lexington in the Park Preview Center, with the deletion of "now open" -colors as presented. Com. Krippes seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel Krippes Hardt Nay - Gibbs Motion Passed 3 to 1 . Mr. Maybrook said they plan to move plantings from Sales Trailer area to the Model area when the trailer is closed. Ch. Hardt wished Lexington the best of luck with sales. APPEARANCE COMMISSION Jan. 27, 1983 - Page Five D. Talman Home - Automatic Teller Machine Brad Rodman, Asst. Vice-President - Talman Home Al Young, V.P. and Mgr. of Bldg. Const. - Talman Home Gerald T. Gary, Acme Wiley Corp. , V.P. of Marketing Mr. Young presented the plan and described the construction of a wall enclosure for the Money Network Machine at Talman Home on Dundee Road. The facility will be open 24 hours a day, and will service members from 26 banking institutions. The unit will not be seen from Dundee Road. The signs to be painted on the plexi-glas. The Commission objected to having two signs on the front elevation. Mr. Young agreed to delete the smaller, lower sign. There is space for a second machine to be installed at a later date if it is needed. The existing machine will not be moved, only enclosed. Lights will be under the canopy and will light only the enclosure. The small mn logo on the side of the enclosure was discussed. The Commis- sioners were divided on allowing the symbol . Trash recepticles are provided and Mr. Young said the area would be kept clean at all times. A desk has been provided in the space to the left of the machine. Com. Gibbs made a motion to approve the Money Network enclosure at the Talman Home facility on Dundee Road, with the deletion of smaller Money Network sign directly above the exist- machine and future additional machine, as submitted. All copy to be the same. Colors to be Red on White and Black on White. Side panels are to be pigmented smoke colored, with bronze backing. Motion includes the "mn's" on the side panels. Com. Krippes seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Krippes Gibbs Nay - Zusel Hardt Tie Vote 2 to 2. Motion Denied. Chairman Hardt informed the representatives of Talman Home ,that an appeal can be made to the Village Board, or the AC can vote on a motion deleting the logo on the side panels. Com. Krippes made the following motion: I move we accept the Money Network enclosure as previously indicated with the deletion of the two side logos - "mn" on the sides of the structure. Com. Zusel seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel Krippes Gibbs Hardt Nay - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0. APPEARANCE COMMISSION Jan. 27, 1983 - Page Six E. Standard Pacific - Full Review - Highland Point Sub-division Mr. L. A. Guggemos, President of Standard Pacific Mr. Mike Rafferty, Regional Architect Mr. Ed Bieszczad, Construction Manager Mr. Guggemos requested a review of the Models: Architecture and Materials; Lighting of Model Area; Landscaping of Model Area; and Signage. He described the location on Rt. 83 West of Weiland. The former models are located on Highland Gr. Dr. The New Models will be located on Lots 2, 3 and 4 with the parking area on Lot 1 . The Cul-de-sac with the island is completed. These lots were left for future models when Highland Point was originally approved. Some land belongs to and has been partly developed by the Hoffman Group (Highland Grove). It is not a joint venture. Most of the proposed houses will be built in Unit 5 and 6, none in Unit 4. There are no lots left to be built in Unit 4. Unit 5 is substantially completed with streets, etc. Approximately 6 houses of the proposed models could be built on cul-de-sacs in Unit 2. There will be no new houses built adjacent to existing houses, but some abut in the rear. Unit 4 is completely built up. Unit 6 has some Hoffman Homes that are across the street. Standard Pacific owned Unit 6 when the Hoffman Homes were built. The owners of 17 houses in the area were present to hear the review and express opinions. Following is a list of names of the interested people: Jeffrey Berger x Dennis Griesmeyer x = Highland William Brand x David Rubenstein Point x John Perkins x Kathy Rubenstein Homeowners x Pamela Fluckey x Tom Kloepfer x Leslie Fluckey x Joanne Kloepfer Sheldon Weiner x Arnold Becker Helene Weiner x Marie Ellen Pruski x Tony Lansangan Steven L. Janis Bruce Levin x James A. Hoffer Noel Frank x Carmen A. Renda x Paul Hermes Mr. David Rubenstein, 84 Somerset Lane asked what would prevent Standard Pacific from building still smaller models, sometime in the future. Ch. Hardt explained that the zoning laws of the Village of Buffalo Grove ; states the sizes of houses that may be built within any PUD or sub-division. As long as a developer meets those guidelines and all the building codes, and as long as the houses are approved by the Village Board, after having been recommended by the Plan Commission, the Appearance Commission, etc. he has the right to build those houses. As long as he meets all the re- quirements, there is nothing to prevent him, sometime in the future, coming forth with different models, bigger or smaller. He has the right to change. Mr. Rubenstein said that the owners who bought from Standard Pacific were told by the sales representative that 300 like homes were to be built. Mr. Guggemos responded that this is not relative to the presentation that is being made at this time. Not zoning, not house size, or house values. The appearance of the houses is what is to be considered as well as how to conform with the Village Monotony Code, landscaping requirement, etc. The homeowners were concerned with the size of the new houses and Com. Zusel asked for comparative figures, for the sake of information purposes. Mr. Guggamos complied as a courtesy. The former houses ranged from the basic sizes of 1 ,543 square feet to 2,332-square feet. With expansion options, the houses could range from 1 ,933 square feet to 2,332 square feet.: APPEARANCE COMMISSION Jan. 27, 1983 - Page Seven Mr. Guggemos added that the houses being presented at this time exceed the minimum size of the annexation agreement, and they range in finished size from 1 , 063 square feet to 1 ,740 and can be expanded to 1 ,694 square feet up to 2,076 square feet. The Cape Cod with the unfinished upper level is 1 ,063 square feet finished, but applying the unfinished zoning ordinance criteria, the house the size is considered to be 1 ,489 square feet. The houses ' appearance from the street do not vary More then two feet from the existing houses. There was a comment that the purchased model of the largest house has 2,468 square feet, so there was a slight difference from the stated 2,332 sq. ft. (Mr. Griesmeyer - 76 Somerset Lane) Bruce Levin - 707 Pinehurst Lane commented that from the previous discussion of signage this night, the Commission is not concerned with zoning, only appearance. Because of this, when the question of size arose, the answers apparently satisfied the Commission. Does compatibility matter? Ch. Hardt answered that the AC would not be reviewing anything that does not meet the Zoning Ordinance. The Sign Ordinance does not specifically relate to the Zoning Ordinance. The Sign Ordinance must meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The AC deals with aesthetics, architectural review and landscaping with reference to all developments within the Village of B.G. as a recommending body to the Village Board before their final approval . IF for any reason a developer did not meet Codes or Zoning, he would not be here. Size, number of bedrooms, garages, etc is dictated within the zoning and if these are met, he can erect homes in the Village. Prior to receiving per- mission, he must pass through several commissions for recommendation. If some architectural feature makes the houses totally uncompatible, the AC would address that fact. Mr. Tom Kloepfer - 92 Somerset Lane asked if the AC would be addressing the price range of the homes there now with the price of the models being pre- sented at this time? Ch. Hardt said "No. " Mr. Guggamos commented that some of the people in the audience have purchased Standard Pacific houses within the last 6 months, in which he sustained a loss of over $25,000. In addition, he purchased their loans down to 12% when the market rate was 14% to 17% so that they could afford to buy the houses. Ch. Hardt thanked him, noting this is not germaine to the business to be conducted, and asked that the model review begin. All other questions from the audience would be answered after the review. Some people left at this time. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW The models were reviewed individually, but all materials listed for the first house will be used in all houses, with modifications as specified. Each of the four Models is being presented with four elevations, each with a brick front optional exterior, making possibly eight elevations for the Monotony Code. Each model was reviewed separately and the different possible elevations are listed for each model with reference to the Monotony Code. APPEARANCE COMMISSION Jan. 27, 1983 - Page Eight 1 . Model #3320-A.Elevations A, B, C, and D - Split level with 2-story in rear. Materials - Aluminum siding with or without brick option. Corner Boards - Wood, painted the trim color optioChimney - Aluminum, pre-fabricated metal . (Existing homes have/nasonary chimneys that were put up by Standard Pacific, but some of the homeowners put up aluminum chimneys personally. ) Roof vents - All on the rear, B-Vents not encased. Prefer not to paint, because other developers have not been doing this. The AC asked that it be stipulated that they be painted out and it was agreed that it would be done. Exterior trim - all painted same color including garage doors. Exterior trim at doors Wood, #2 Pine, Kiln dried. Windows - Where muttons are shown, they are removable. Blank Corner Elevations - Will treat with landscaping feature, when on a corner. Kickboard - Under patio doors. Gutters and downspouts - All aluminum, trim color. Soffits and Fascias - Wood, all white. Color Packages for the Models will be presented at this time and a total selection of color packages will be submitted at a later date. Model 3320 B. Webb Louver - Wood, trim color. Model 3320 C. At side of front doors - Fluted pilasters, 1-1/8 inch thick mill-made wood. Colors, trim color or white if door is a color other than white. Only two colors in doorway. Model 3320 D. Louver - trim color - Wood. 4 x 4 's over doors, where they meet the concrete stoop: a wooden skirt is caulked in. It was noted that this model has a kitchen projection 13 feet back from the front of the house. This area is suitable for landscaping. This projection is the patio door entrance. MONOTONY CODE POLL - Model #3320, A - B - C - D : Com. Zusel : A & B Same model-C different; D different. Com. Gibbs: A & B Same model-C different; D different. Com. Krippes: A & B Same model-C different; D different. Com. Hardt: A & B Same model-C different; D different Chairman Hardt said the Commission does not consider brick to be different. Mr. Levin - 707 Pinehurst, wanted to make a comment, but he was asked `./ to wait until all the models had been reviewed. Ch. Hardt said that he felt all questions would be answered during the review and it would save time not to have double questions. The audience would be given time to express all feelings at a later time. Mr. Levin objected to this procedure and most of the people left to confer elsewhere. APPEARANCE COMMISSION Jan. 27, 1983 - Page Nine Mr. Levin continued his statement and said that he hoped the Appearance Commission would take as firm a position with the review of these houses as they did with signs earlier in the meeting. He felt the homeowners are not being given any opportunity to speak. Com. Zusel said she is distressed with the situation. If the homeowners ask questions that are redundant, she can understand the need to wait. If there are questions that have not been answered, she felt they should be heard. Ch. Hardt said all questions would be answered, but a number of the questions that are being asked are not relative to the Appearance Commission's review. The AC is a recommending body to the Village Board and questions regarding economic hardship, cost of houses, and home values and any effect on the environment outside of aesthetics and compatibility of the new homes with the existing homes, the Village Board would consider. To avoid argument, Ch. Hardt said the Appearance Commission is on record. over and over again, requesting that the Village implement an ordinance so that an homeowner's purchasing land in Buffalo Grove are made aware of what could be built there. In several instances, people have said they were not aware that a house could be built as small as 1 ,200 square feet. It is a zoning ordinance and a public record that anyone could have found out, but they did not know because they were not told. Mr. Levin noted that the Mobil statements made previously were the basis for denial of additional signage. He was reminded that it is not the Commission's responsibility to inform purchasers of any stipulations agreed upon. Mr. Guggamos stated for the record that all purchasers of Standard Pacific houses were aware of a statement printed in capitol letters above their signatures: "I HAVE READ THIS DOCUMENT CAREFULLY AND IT SUPERCEDES ALL WARRANTIES, REPRESENTATIONS, ETC. OTHERWISE MADE. NO VOCAL REPRESENTATIONS ARE BINDING." This was read by adult people and signed in front of a witness. We did not make false representations ! Mr. Griesmeyer challenged the AC with the question: how can they consider when reviewing. aesthetics of the proposed houses that a small single-story ranch home is going to fit in with two-story homes? Mr. Guggamos said there are no ranch homes in the presentation. Ch. Hardt pointed out that if the homeowners had listened to the review, they would have been informed that the house is a split. There is a ranch home in the Hoffman area sub-division. Com. Zusel stated she felt the homeowners have not been fair with the AC and that if they would have waited they would have been fully informed. Mr. Levin again pointed out that several people had already left and he did not feel the Commission would be able to satisfy their questions. He left. Model #3400 - A, B, C, and D. 12 Story (Cade - with optional unfinished rooms. ( Cod.= Mr. Guggamos stipulated that all building materials will be the same as designated for Model #3320. The B-vents will possibly come up on the front elevation. They must project 2 feet above ridge line. They will be painted out to match the roof. Blank side elevations on corners will have landscape treatment, so stipulated later. MONOTONY CODE POLL, Model#3400, A - B - C - D. All Commissioners agreed that Elevations A and C are the same; Elevation B - Different Elevation D - Different APPEARANCE COMMISSION Jan. 27, 1983 - Page Ten Model 3620, A, B, C, and D. Two Story, With options. Ch. Hardt commented that this model is similiar to one of the Hoffman homes Several are scattered throughout the sub-division, and it is compatible with '`./ this model . Mr. Rafferty said this house is not going to be built as a model . The location of gutters was discussed. Water will be diverted from the front portion to the rear portion and down at the side, not to the left of the front door. A second drain will come down the far left side of house. Two optional fireplaces are offered, one in the Living Room and/or one in the Family Room. The color of the chimneys would match the siding on the house. On Elevation C - The vertical plywood siding will be painted either white of the trim color. The Columns will be wood, White and the overhang is 4 feet. On Elevation D - Same specifications as Elevation C, wood siding and columns. MONOTONY CODE POLL, Model 3620, A B - C - D. The Commissioners discussed the elevations and agreed that there are two (2) . Elevations A and B are the same; Elevations C and D are the same. Also: C and D will be considered distinctly different if one is built with the brick front. Otherwise two houses must be in between. Model #3630, A, B, C, and D. It was stipulated that all materials will be the same as listed in the above discussion. No particular features are different from other houses. MONOTONY CODE POLL, Model 3630, A - B - C - D. Commissioners Gibbs, Krippes and Hardt: A and B - Same; C and D - Same. Commissioner Zusel : A - Different; B - Different; C and D - Same. '3 to 1 ' Model #3630 when built will optional bedroom: Different model - A and B - Same; C and D - Same. A total of 4 different elevations will be considered - 2 without optional bedroom and 2 when the bedroom is added. Models #3620, #3400, and #3320 will not be considered different even with the slight roof line changes when optional rooms are added. ARCHITECTURE - MATERIALS - MONOTONY CODE: Motion #1 . Com. Gibbs made the following motion: I move we approve the Architectural Review, as submitted for Standard Pacific Models Nos. 3320,3400, 3620 and 3630, Elevations A, B, C, and D for each with the Materials as specified on the plans and stipulations as per the discussion, including the specific stipulation that B-Vents on roof will be painted out to match the roofs. Models and Elevations as designated for the Monotony Code are as per discussion. Color packages and related materials for future production houses will ae brought back-for review at a -later date. Com. Zusel seconded the motion. APPEARANCE COMMISSION Jan. 27, 1983 - Page Eleven Standard Pacific continued: Roll Call Vote: Aye - Krippes Gibbs Zusel Hardt Motion Passed 4 to 0. Nay - None LIGHTS - Side Doors, Rear Doors and Front Doors; Motion #2. Com. Krippes made the following motion: I move we approve the light fixtures for the doors of the Standard Pacific Models, as submitted for all four models. Com. Gibbs seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel Krippes Gibbs Hardt Motion Passed 4 to O. Nay - None CORNER LOTS WITH BLANK SIDE ELEVATIONS - No Motion but made a part of Review. It is assumed that models with garage on blank side elevations are never located on a corner, or secondary right-of-way. The AC suggests two options: an architectural addition (window?) or additional landscaping to break up the blank side. Usually, new homeowners concentrate their efforts to the front or inside of house at first. Mr. Guggamos recalled that the last time, people were disagreeable because different landscaping packages were approved and it was confusing. He would like some flexibility and the experience he has had with bushes has not been good. He would agree to add Oho 4 foot evergreen., and one deciduous tree, similiar to a parkway tree. Ch. Hardt asked that parkway trees not be used, he would prefer a more decora- tive tree. Mr. Guggamos suggested a flowering tree and that was agreeable. Ch. Hardt instructed that the stipulation to include the following additional landscaping for houses with blank side elevations built on corner lots: 1 . 2-inch caliper flowering deciduous tree. 2. 1 evergreen at least 48 inches tall , balled and burlapped. MODEL AREA with PARKING LOT, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6. The Model Area was reviewed, with the Parking Lot entrance off Pauline Avenue. The garage of Model 3630 - Elevation D with brick front will be used as a Sales Office. The Model will be built without the optional bedroom. Com. Gibbs made the following motion: #3 - I move we approve the exterior colors for Standard Pacific Model 3630 - D; as submitted. on the plan dated Jan. 13, 1983 with alternate brick front, no bedroom option. Com. Krippes seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel Gibbs Krippes Hardt Motion Passed 4 to O. Nay - None APPEARANCE COMMISSION Jan. 27, 1983 - Page Twelve Com. Gibbs made the following motion: #4 - I move we approve the color selections for Model #3400 - Elevation D (without brick) as specified. Com. Krippes seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel Krippes Gibbs Hardt Motion Passed 4 to 0. Nay - None Com. Gibbs made the following motion: #5 - I move we approve the exterior colors of Model 3320 - Elevation with Brick, as submitted. Com. Zusel seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Krippes Gibbs Zusel Hardt Motion Passed 4 to 0. Nay - None LANDSCAPING OF MODEL AREA, excluding lighting and signage. The driveway of the model area will be concrete; but NO . decision for the . production area. No sidewalk is necessary around the cul-de-sac. The land- scaping around model areas is always very cooprehensive and needs no fores- ters report. Patios will be poured concrete, scored and outlined with red- wood. Com. Zusel made the following motion: #6 - I move we approve the Model Area Landscaping Plan and Parking Lot, for Standard Pacific, as submitted - deleting lighting and signage. Com. Gibbs seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Krippes Gibbs Zusel Hardt Motion Passed 4 to 0. Nay - None LIGHTING FOR MODEL AREA - Motion #7. There is a light standard on the island that lights the cul-de-sac. Floodlights with 500 watt quartz bulbs (white) will be attached to .&directed at the models and will be turned off by a timer. Some lights inside the models are left on all night. The lights will be the same as Standard Pacific used on the other models and pictures of the light fixtures will be submitted to the Building Department. Com. Gibbs made the following motion: `.o #7 - I move we approve the Model Area Lighting, six (6) 500 watt quartz floodlights, as depicted on the Landscape Plan., on a timer. Com. Krippes seconded the motion. Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel , Krippes, Gibbs,Hardt. APPEARANCE COMMISSION Nay - None Jan. 27, 1983 - Page Thirteen SIGNAGE - Entrance Sign with lights, Motions #8 and #9. Highland Point - ground sign at the entrance of the parking lot will be identical to the existing sign. Located on Pauline - double-faced. Two lights were requested. One for each side to be on timers to go off when the sales office is closed, or on a switch to be operated by the staff. Ch. Hardt explained that there are no lights on any other temporary signs in the Village and the Commission would not set the precedent of approving any. Mr. Guggamos said he felt lights were needed because it is dark at 5 R.M. in the winter. He asked about lighting at the Westwood Sub-division parking lot? The Commission was not aware that Westwood has any lights and Mr. Saviano was asked to check the parking lot sign. A straw poll was taken concerning the lights: Com. Zusel - Lights OK Com. Krippes - No Com. Gibbs - No Ch. Hardt - No, precedent. Com. Gibbs made the following motion: #8 - I move we approve the Highland Point Parking Lot Two-faced Sign as presented. Copy and colors as submitted by petitioner. Post constructed of rough sawn cedar, set in concrete. Sign to be 4' x 62' not to exceed 6 feet in height as per specifications. Com. Krippes seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel u Krippes Gibbs Hardt Motion Passed 4 to 0. Nay - None Com. Gibbs made the following motion: #9 - I move we approve lighting for both sides of the ground sign - 150 watt bulbs maximum, to be tied in with the timers on the lighting at the models. Com. Krippes seconded the motion. Com. Zusel asked that the lights be tied in with the lights at the Sales Office, on a timer or on the same switch. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel Nay - Krippes Gibbs Vote: 3 to 1 . Hardt Motion Denied. / An appeal for the lights may be made to the Village Board. The sign may be erected. MODEL SIGNAGE - Motion #10 and #11 . The Models have not yet been named, but each model will be identified with �✓ a name and the Plan Number. They will be Painted White on Redwood Posts/ One Sales Information Center sign will be over the garage door of the model . Two - Sales Center signs will be over each entry door to the garage. APPEARANCE COMMISSION Jan. 27, 1983 - Page Fourteen Com. Gibbs made the following motion: e.i #10 - I move we approve 2 - Sales Center signs and 1 - Sales Information Center sign for Highland Point; Color to be Pantone #160 - C: Brown on, White background to be installed as depicted on the drawing. Com. Krippes seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel Krippes Gibbs Hardt Motion Passed 4 to 0. Nay - None Com. Krippes made the following motion: #11 - I move we approve the 3 Model ID signs including the Plan Number as submitted. Com. Gibbs seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel Krippes Gibbs Hardt Motion Passed 4 to 0. Nay - None Mr. Guggamos requested consideration of a future temporary sales trailer, similiar to the Lexington in the Park trailer approved this night. It would be located in the parking lot area from March until completion of the models. It would be landscaped. Signage would also be requested. Ch. Hardt said Sales Trailers are allowed with restrictions. Plans should be submitted to Mr. Saviano for Appearance Commission Agenda. Mr. John Perkins, 791 Dunhill Drive - a Highland Point homeowner remained until the end of the meeting and commented that the review was very informa- tive and thorough. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS None VI. ADJOURNMENT Com. Gibbs made a motion to adjourn. Com. Zusel seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 11 :55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, 1 A<?-aRA aft,i.. 0.4tAttiy Shirley Bates, Secretary Appearance Commission APPEARANCE COMMISSION sb Jan. 27, 1983 - Page Fifteen