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