Loading...
1983-03-24 - Appearance Commission - Minutes APPEARANCE COMMISSION VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, IL. THURS. , MAR. 24, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Don Hardt called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M. on Thursday, March 24, 1983 at the Village Hall . II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: B. Gibbs, C. Zusel , K. Krippes and D. Hardt, QUORUM! Commissioners Absent: C. Cea and Ed Larsen. Building Dept. Liaison: Dominic Saviano Village Board Liaison: Charles Gerschefske, Trustee III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 10, 1983 - Ch. Hardt asked that two sections of the H & R Block-Hyatt discussion be deleted. Page Three - Paragraph 3: delete "that was designed by Mr. Morelli ; Paragraph 6: delete all . Com. Gibbs made a motion to approve the March 10, 1983 minutes as amended. Com. Krippes seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Gibbs Krippes Hardt Nay - None Abstain - Zusel March 10, 1983 were approved and will be placed on file. IV. BUSINESS A. Maishes Deli - Plaza Verde Wall Sign Cancelled. B. Suffield Place - 5 ft. Stockade Fence Mr. Saviano explained the need for approval of a 5 foot stockade fence along the south lot line of all lots which shall abut on the Busch Rd. right-of-way. This is in accordance with the annexation agreement. Com. Gibbs made the following motion: I move we accept the proposed 5 ft. stockade fence at Suffield Place, to be erected with the good side facing Busch Road along the south lot line of all lots adjacent to the Busch Road right-of-way. Com. Krippes seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Zusel Gibbs Krippes Hardt Motion Passed 4 to 0. Nay - None C. Wes-Tech - Buffalo Grove Commerce Center Representative not present. Discussion was temporarily postponed until after Item D - Windfield. D. Windfield - New Model Mr. Henry Gilbert and Mr. Ken Struck, of KRSS presented the plans for a fourth model at Windfield. Mr. Gilbert explained the need for a new model . Of the three models they now have, one is selling very slowly. They feel they are missing a part of the market because of this; and they will soon be running into trouble with the Monotony Code. The new model will appeal to "empty nesters" who want a ranch type house, plus in situa- tions where a parent must move in with a family, this house offers two master bedrooms. For larger families, the optional 4th bedroom offers a full size house. The model will be built on Lot 5, next to the parking lot area. All materials used were previously approved, with the exception of the brick. A similiar brick was presented because the first brickyard went out of business. They will now use Heirloom Charlston by Beck Brick. Mortar will be natural grey color. A color chart was presented for the model . 1 . Roof - Antique Brown 2. Brick - Heirloom Charleston 3. Gutters and Downspouts - Brown 4. Soffits - Brown 5. Siding - Doeskin 6. Trim - Mohogony - Garage Doors, also 7. Shutters - Brown Some Windfield residents were present: George Voss - 1326 Rose Ct. West; Mr. Howard - 1324 Rose Court West; and Ken White - 1332 Rose Court West. Mr. Voss said that his house is presently up for sale, but if he cannot sell it, he will be staying in Buffalo Grove and asked if residents could have some time to review the plans. He asked for a week, but Ch. Hardt denied this request. He explained that the Appearance Commisiion was a recommending body and the Village Board would have authority to address any problems. Since the next Board meeting is not for about two weeks, there would be sufficient time for the plans to be reviewed. A set of plans can be secured from the developer, or they are available to be seen at the Building Department. The Appearance Commission only looks at the architectural features, colors and compatibility with existing models. Size and value are not considered by the AC. Shutters will be included on all windows, but not muttons. They are shown on the plans where they are included, mostly on the front windows and on other selected windows, but not bedrooms. The Commission discussed the architecture of the Model . It is offered in two elevations, each with a possible 4th bedroom. Elevation 1 has alumi- num siding and Elevation 2 has painted vertical wood siding. A Straw Poll indicated that the Commissioners agreed that for Monotony Code purposes the DOVER would be considered 1 Model with Two Elevations , The 3 bedroom is ,one elevation and the 4 bedroom is one elevation of the same DOVER Model . Specifically, the 3-bedroom would have to have two other models in between, but the 4-bedroom model would be considered different and could be built with only 1 other model in between it and a 3-bedroom. And vice-versa. APPEARANCE COMMISSION Mar. 24, 1983 - Page Two Ch. Hardt asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Voss acted as spokesman and expressed concern that the colors being used lack continuity. Ch. Hardt explained that when the Appearance Commission approves color packages, and the Village Board subsequently approves them. The Appearance Commission cannot disapprove the colors now. The developer is changing only the brick, not any color selections. It was also noted that the Appearance Commissioners do not approve or disapprove colors because of personal preference. Colors are approved that are compatible, within a realm. It was noted that a homeowner can paint his house any color he chooses, after it is pur- chased. At times, the AC has restricted certain colors from being next to one another m e next question Mr. Voss asked concerned the islands on the cul-de- sac. He said the landscaping for the island was approved but never put in. He and some of the other homeowners have cut weeds and they would maintain the plantings if they are put in. Ch. Hardt stated that because of the economy, homes have not been built and it is customary for a new developer to take over any previous landscaping agreements relative to the areas within the right-of-ways. The Building Department would be able to look into the annexation agree- ment to see when the work was scheduled to be done. Mr. Saviano added that a developer usually landscapes the islands after the houses in an area are completed. When the court is finished, the islands will be done. It is the responsibility of the developer to keep the area as clean as possible. Mr. Voss expressed the concern about the parking along the street in front of the models. He said people come out on weekends and do not use the parking lot. The street is very narrow and there is not room for parking there. He felt a sign is needed to direct people to the lot, or a sign that says "No Parking Here To Corner. " Mr. Struck recalled that when the signage was presented to the AC last year, a Parking Ahead sign was presented and denied. If it is approved, they will be glad to put it up. The Commission agreed to increase signage to eliminate this problem. Com. Gibbs made the following motion: I move we approve the Dover Model as submitted with only two elevations: 1 - 3 bedroom unit 2 - 4 bedroom unit Brick to be Heirloom Charleston. Colors to be the same as previously approved. Natural mortar to be used on the brick. Shutters all around the house. Muttons on the windows as shown. Com. Zusel seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Krippes Gibbs Zusel Hardt Motion Passed 4 to 0. Nay - None APPEARANCE COMMISSION March 24, 1983 - Page Three Ch. Hardt asked about the lighting fixtures. Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Struck stipulated that the light fixtures will be the same as previously approved. Com. Zusel had to leave to attend another meeting. \./ 2 - LANDSCAPING OF MODEL AREA The Model will be Dover - Elevation #1 - 3 Bedroom with aluminum siding. Ch. Hardt asked about the existing lighting of the models and commented that the lights to the South of the buildings seem to be distracting to people coming down the main entry. He suggested that it be shielded, or turned toward the house. Mr. Howard asked if the landscaping proposed for the model is to be the same as the landscaping being given to the purchasers, relative to the grading of the land. Mr. Saviano said that would be up to the Engineering Department. Berms are graded by that department. Ch. Hardt asked what kind of buffer exists between the parking lot and the proposed model , and the existing models. Mr. Gilbert said there is a split rail fence around the existing models and will be continued around the new model, directing people around the parking lot to the Sales Office. There will be two flood lights shining on the front of the building. There will be one sign - DOVER in front of the model to match the other approved signs. The owner of the house on Lot 18 was present (Mr. Howard) and he was not opposed to the proposed lighting which is to be left on all night. A homeowner asked about allowing parking on the cul-de-sac because he has a three year-old. The Commission felt that the cul-de-sac is far enough away from the proposed model that people would not be parking down there. With reference to people coming out on weekends to see their new houses, there is nothing that can be done about parking until streets are dedicated. Mr. Saviano said that police cannot issue citations until streets are dedicated. People can park on a cul-de-sac as long as they do not block fire hydrants, driveways, public sidewalks or mailboxes. The workers have to park and the parking lot is not large enough to hold all the necessary vehicles. Mr. Gerschefske commented that the Village Board will be discussing parking and signage on April llth. They will also be talking about undeveloped areas & speed limits. Areas must be provided for people to park and for workers to park, etc. Com. Krippes made a motion to approve the Landscaping of the proposed Windfield DOVER model on Lot #5, as submitted. Com. Gibbs seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Krippes Gibbs Hardt Motion Passed 3 to 0. Nay - None Ch. Hardt said the Model and the Model have been approved. Should a problem with brick arise, a similiar brick may be substituted. If a very different brick is selected, it should be submitted to the Bldg. Department. APPEARANCE COMMISSION Mar. 24, 1983 - Page Four Ch. Hardt directed Mr. Gilbert to check into the model lighting. Ch. Hardt told the residents that they can attend the Village Board meeting when this proposed model will be approved, and if they have any concerns with compatibility, that is the time to speak. The recent ruling in Schaumburg concerning the building of smaller houses in a sub- division is of interest, but obviously this house is larger than the ones now being built, so it should not be a problem. C. Wes-Tech - Buffalo Grove Commerce Center Mr. John Thieboldt presented plans for an addition to the Wes-Tech building. He said the reason the addition is necessary is because the company is expanding rapidly and they wish to add one bay. The building is nearing completion. The bay will be 36' 12" and will be constructed of exactly the same building materials. There is a possiblilty that the owner will approve of a suggestion being made by Mr. Thieboldt to extend the front elevation treatment of two windows with the white stone cap continued. This treatment would en- hance the architectural features of the building. Construction would be the same. Com. Gibbs made the following motion: I move we approve the Architectural change in the Wes-Tech building, resulting in an addition of 36 ft. 1-1/2" on the East side of the building, with the stipulation that all building materials and colors will be the same. The motion includes the provision for the architecture to be changed to match the previously approved window/stone cap treat- ment; OR as presented. Com. Krippes seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Krippes Gibbs Hardt Nay - None Motion Passed 3 to 0. Landscaping of Wes-Tech Addition. Mr. Thieboldt presented a new landscape plan and explained that the landscape budget had been increased and the landscaping has been enhanced dramatically. Ch. Hardt asked if the area to the East side will be sodded? The proposed pavement planned cannot be put in because it is a future street and the required set back requiement will be 25 feet. Instead of sod, the area will be hydro-seeded, if this is agreeable. The owner is purchasing the two lots to the rear, and eventually the access road will be built. They will sod the front area from the build- ing line to the front walk. Ch. Hardt asked that some 4 to 5 evergreens be put in to break up the blank elevation, along with the hydro-seed on the East side. With sod in front with some additional planting to continue in front of the new section, the plan would be acceptable. Com. Krippes made the following motion: APPEARANCE COMMISSION Mar. 24, 1983 - Page Five Com. Krippes made the following motion: I move we accept the proposed Landscaping Plan for Wes-Tech as revised and adjacent to the proposed East elevation addition with the following stipulations: 1 . The area from the right-of-way to building set back line be sodded. 2. The area from the builidng line to the rear be hydro-seeded. 3. An additional 4 to 5 evergreens, bushes or trees to break up the blank elevation. 4. At the owner't option the front low landscaping treatment will be continued in the sodded area, East of the driveway. Com. Gibbs seconded the motion. Roll Call : Aye - Krippes Gibbs Hardt Nay - None Motion Passed 3 to 0. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS Ch. Hardt mentioned that no action was taken concerning the No Parking along the entrance to Windfield's models. Should the Village Board wish to approve the additional sign, it is acceptable to the AC. Ch. Hardt read a letter from Mr. Frank Hruby concerning posting signs on property that will have a hearing before the Appearance Commission. The Commission did not favor this action and a memo was dictated to Mr. Hruby and the Village Board. The memo was made in the form of a motion made by Com. Krippes and seconded by Com. Gibbs. I move that we recommend to the Building Department and the Village Board that on-site signage should not be required in matters that appear before the Appearance Commission. It is our opinion that we are trying to eliminate the proliferation of signage and since we are not required to conduct a Public Hearing, it is not appropriate in our case. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Krippes Gibbs Hardt Nay - None Motion Passed - 3 to 0. \s/ VI. ADJOURNMENT Com. Gibbs made a motion to adjourn. Com. Krippes seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Shin tes, Sec. APPEARANCE COMMISSION �s�� March 24, 1983 - Page Six