Loading...
1979-10-11 - Appearance Commission - Minutes () k-: a X , T ( J APPEARANCE COMMISSION • VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILL. THURS. , OCT. 11, 1979 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Don Hardt called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M. at the Village Hall. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : L. Kirby, Dana Knaak, G. Weiss and Chairman Don Hardt. 2U0RUhi. Commissioners Absent: L. Paolillo, L. Gibbs and M. Holland (Mr. Holland arrived later. ) Building Department Rep. Present - James Griffin 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES and CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS MENTS Because the minutes of the previous meeting were not distributed, they were held over until Oct. 25, 1979 for approval. Ch. Hardt reported on the joint meeting of the Plan Commission and Town Center Commission regarding the rough draft of the B-5 Ord. Mr. James Truesdale requested a written review of the Appearance Commission' s comments. A tape was given to Mr. Truesdale for tran- scription. A letter from Pres. Verna Clayton was read concerning the require- ment of Commissioners to be Village residents for a period of one year. Com. Weiss will have lived in B. G. one year in Nov. 1979. 4. OLD BUSINESS a) Northwood Condominiums - Jerry De Grazia presented signs as requested at the Sept. aim) the trash container locations and Gar port/garages; with landscaping. Trash Containers Mr. De Grazia presented the ._>lanned locations of the trash containers, which are enclosures near each building with heavy landscaping in mounded areas. The containers meet with PUD requirements for solid waste. Pickups will be twice per week by a scavenger service. Wood fence enclosures surroundtaH5rs. Com. Knaak was concerned with the visibility of the containers and felt that at times they will overflow, and being located in the parking areas, he thouht • other possible means should be sought. Ch. Hardt noted that these recepticles are somewhat separated from the parking lot. In many other apartment complex trash several parking spaces are used and these are very unsightly. Mr." Griffin said that if a problem occurs, the Health Dept. would act. However, it is better to consider the possibilities before the situation becomes a problem. . \• APPEARANCE COMMISSION VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE ILL. 0.21 S, OCT 11 1979 OR?� P.M. at i. CALL T° meeting to order at 7:37 Chairman Don Ta11at called the the Village H 2. ROLL CALL Weiss and G• Commissioners Present: L. Kirby, Dana Knaak,Chairman Don Hardt. agORUrI• Commissioners Absent: L. Pail L. Gibbs and M. Holland C (Mr. Holland d arrived later.) Building Department Rep. Present - James Griffin � COi�i:fiENTS OF I�'IINUTES and CHxIRMAN S �y+were not distributed, �• APPRO of the previous meeting approval. minutes Oct. 25, 1979 for Becausey the until they were held over T the Plan Commission and reported on the joint meeting of draft of the CBommission Ch, Hardt regarding the roughAppearance Ord. Town Center Commission re reg review of thedale for tran- scription. written review Trueomme requested given to Mr. James comments. A tape was Commission' s the require- ment ton was read concerning of one Verna Clay �, residents for a A letterto Commissionersfrom to be Village G. one year periodn Nov. one meet of r. Wsswill have lived in B. 79. . .year. Com. 4. OL`SI_ :LESS resented signs as Jerry De Grazia p alto the trash container locations a) Northwood Condominiums dscaaing• requested at the Sept'with lan and car Port/garages; Trash Containers ed the planned locations of the trash resent near each building Mr. De containers,rW presented enclosures The containers meet with n which areas. in mounded Pickups will be twice per heavy nscaping for t �i'iers• requirements scavenger solid . e. PUDvice. Wood fence enclosures scontainers per sero f the week Knaak a sca concerned with the visibility located will overflow, and being Com. was attimes they possible means located and theel that parking areas, he thought other in be sought• ticles are somewhat separatedlex trash these reCep apartment oh comp from the parking In' many otherare very omslgxttr from the are used and these several parking spaces the Health Dept. ' said that if a problem occurs, possibilities ;vim•" driffin owever, it is better to consider the would act. a roblem. �,�,. ,; t„atior. becomes P Ch. Hardt noted there is a difference between condominium owners and renters, in that beinG an owner more consideration is given to appearance. Also there will be a .Condo Assn. that would require proper care of the storage areas. Com. Kirby felt the AC could be overstepping their bounds bg- cause the proposed method of disposal of trash meets the re- quirements and the developer has well landscaped the areas. Chairman Hardt proposed dealing with the plan submitted with the stipulation that if more provision is needed in the future, that more containers are added. He also stated that the trash must be accessable to the trucks; and therefore should be near the major roads, because parking lot surfaces are subject to damage from heavy equipment. After more discussion, Com. Knaak made a motion to DENY the plans submitted by Northwoods Condominiums for trash recepti- cles. • Mr. De Grazia stated that they have done the best they can do. After much discussion, this was the best design with 6' eedar stockade fencing and sufficient landscaping. They are placed in the most unobtrusive spots that are reasonably close to the buildings. They have no other plan. Com. Weiss seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was taken: Aye to DENY - Weiss, Knaak Nay - - - - - Kirby, Hardt Ch. Hardt ruled a tie vote is defeated, that the Appearance Commission would deny the request, but an appeal can be made to the Village Board. Signs - Northwood Grove Condominiums Mr. De Grazia presented color copies of the three proposed types of signage: 1 - large, 10' x 12' billboard sign, double-faced, unlit, erected on two poles with no back brace; with arrow. • 2 - Welcome to N.G.C. - phone number; : 8'x 12° - against the side of building. 3 - Small 2' x 2' doublefaced sign: Sales Office Information and on reverse: Thank you. 4 - Two parking lot signs with arrows. Com. Knaak made the following motion: I move we accept the signs for the Northwood Grove Condominiums as presented with the stipulations: 1. the sign Northwood Gr. Condo. -"Turn. . . ." a) Not to exceed 20 ft. total height b) Not to be lit 2. signs to be at the site locations indicated on the Plat. 3. If the phone number is changed, the new number is to be painted on, not affixed in any way. Com. Kirby seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was taken: Aye - Weiss, Kirby, Knaak & Hardt. Nay - None Motion Passed Unanimously. APPEARANCE COMMISSION Oct. 11, 19?9 - Page Two ;• - ' Rear Entry Lights - presented design as per 9/27/79 minutes. Car Port/ Garages Mr. De Grazia presented photographs of the proposed garages and described their construction. Brick portions to match the buildings. No definite decision has been made to whether all car ports; all garages; or some of each on an optional basis. They are considering 116 garages and 86 car ports, but Will give the Plan Commission tithe to make a final review. After seeing these structures in relation to the trash recep- ticies, Com. Knaak and Com. Weiss both felt differently about the denial of the plans submitted previously. Corn.. Kirby suggested tabling the garage proposal until after the Plan Commission has reviewed the final plans. Ch. Hardt suggested withdrawing the recommendation to Deny the trash recepticle plans until the whole parking area can be pre- sented. Mr. De Grazia further-explained the design of the car ports and placement. They are not planning to place them directly in front of the buildings, but at the sides so they would have the least . impact on the architecture. Com. Weiss made a motion to reconsider the motion to deny the trash recepticles as stated on the original plan shown. ° Com. Knaak seconded the motion and all were in favor of this. Com. Kirby made a motion to table the car ports/ garages and trash recepticles as per the Sept. 27, 1979 meeting. Com. Weiss seconded the motion and all were in favor. b) Ranch Mart Pharmacy - Signage Mr. Alan Sear presented the proposed sign which read: MARK • DRUGS LIQUORS Mr. Sear informed the Appearance Commission that a decision to retain the name Mark Drugs, with the addition to their DPA the 'Liquors ' - He noted the error on the copy of the colors, it should be Red on White background on all three p anals. Com. Knaak made a motion to approve the sign as presented, with the stipulation that the colors are to be red on white as shown; and that proof of the business name is presented to the Building Department (State Tax Form). - Com. Weiss seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was taken: Aye - Weiss, Knaak and Hardt Nay - Kirby Motion Passed. Further discussion concerning the Corporation Name followed and Mr. Sear stipulated that the name of his business is in • deed Mark Drugs and Liquors. His attorney has been notified and will submit a letter if necessary. He will also submit the State Tax Form when it is received. APPEARANCE COMMISSION - Oct. 11, 1979 Page Three Ch. Hardt asked this be so noted and also that the motion was based on that assumption. DBA = Mark Drugs & Liquors.` The large pylon sign was mentioned and since it reads Mark Family Drugs - it is now an illegal sign. This will be called to the attention of the Village 3oard. Mr. Griffin was asked to follow this up according to the Sign Code. c) Bank of B. G./Office Complex Mr. Burton Harris presented the wall signage as approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals . The height of the lower portion is 4 ft. and gradually rises to 7 ft. piers; the lettering is ivory plastic stud mounted, flush with wall ; landscaped spot lights were requested. It was stipulated that the brick .would match the buildings. The discussion centered around the placement of the lights, which will be 4 ft. from the sidewalk and the walls are set back 12 ft. from the walk. The nine feet in between will be well landscaped. It was noted that homeowner' s were present at the ZBA meeting and do not object to the walls. Com. Kirby made the following motion: I move we approve the Sginage, Walls, and Lighting as presented, noting that the ZBA has granted a variation allowing for this treatment, with the stipulation that land- scaping is planted between the sidewalk and the ground lighting for each of the walls, Lighting to be appropriately shielded from the view of the Homeowners, and from the road traffic. Com. Weiss seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Kirby, Knaak, Weiss and Hardt. Nay - None • • Motion Passed. Mr. Harris requested permission to move the temporary construction sign to a 75° angle so that it is more visable to the East . It is single-faced and will not be more unpleasing to the Homeowners in the area. It will be up for about 6 more months (Hopefully no longer) -L no screening was proposed. -It was noted that the sign is legally placed and that Homeowner' s should not be allowed -to dictate to the Appearance Com. Com. Weiss . made a motion to approve the relocation of the Temporary Rental sign for the Office Complex as presented - that it be turned to a 75° angle as presented. Com. Knaak seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: . Aye - Kirby, Knaak, Weiss, and:Hardt. Nay - None • Motion Passed. • . Com. Holland arrived - 9:10 P.M. APPEARANCE CO -MMISSICN Oct. 11, 1979 - Page Four 5. NEW BUSINESS a) Steeple View - Sinage and Lighting Mr. A. T. Henderson presented a site location and described his proposal to erect Permanent Entrance Signs with roofs made of rough sawn cedar; size of roof 15' x 4' with a Steeple; the sign is double-faced, French blue with soft yellow. Two identical signs were requested. The Sign Code allows for only one permanent sign - 32 sq. ft. and if the sign proposed is measured it exceeds this greatly. (Approximately 180 sq. ft. including the total height of the steeple. ) Mr. Henderson withdrew the request and was, informed he could try for a ZBA variance. Section 4.1 (b) of the sign code refers to permanent identification signs fo2 residential developments. Usually homeowners do not main- tain such signage, however sometimes bonds are posted with the Village. Next Mr. Henderson explained his intention of relocating the present signage. The models are being completed and it would be more appropriate to have signage nearer. The large sign, now located at Lake/Cook and Veiland Rds. r�i:ll be on Lake/Cook parallel to the road West to the point in- dicated on the site plan. Arrow to be removed. The Information Center sign, now on the sales office on Weiland Road would be placed on the Model and an identical 18"x 16' sign is requested on the building facing West. The 3 ' x 4' Information Center Sign to be moved to the new driveway at a point on Steeple Drive. Each of these requests were discussed and the locations reviewed. Condition of the signs was considered good. Mr. Henderson agreed to remove the overlay with the phone number and have it painted on when the arrow is painted out. Care will be taken to match the colors. Com. Kirby made the following motion: I move we accept the signage for Steeple View Condominiums excluding the entry signs, as presented for the temporary signage during the sales duration as follows: a) we will grant the request to move the temporary sign now located at the corner of Lake/Cook & Weiland Rds. West to the site indicated on the Landscape Plan. b) the- 'nformation Sign, presently on the building at the Northeast end of the property be moved to the South face of the model; c) The small directional sign indicating Information Center be moved to the drive- way directly West of Steeple Drive d) a sign 18" x 16' be placed on the West end of the models, to be the same colors as the existing signage (Information Center - copy to be 16 inch letters. ) cont'd PPEARtS NCE9QQMMISSION uct. 1, 11 7yy - Page Five - Steeple View motion cont 'd • e) ref. "a" above - large temporary sign, .1. stipulation that the arrow be painted out and the phone number be painted on. The motion was seconded by Com. Knaak. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Weiss, Holland, Knaak, Kirby and Hardt. Nay - IJone Motion Passed. Lighting Mr. Henderson explained their desire to place four spotlights on the Buildings #1 and #2. Ch. Hardt requested the addition of shrubbery for screening, and that the lights be shielded. They shall remain for the duration of the model use only. Com. Knaak made the following motion: I move we approve the lighting for Buildings 1 2 as submitted- That the four lights be shielded and landscaped, locations as shown on the site plan. Com. Holland seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Weiss, Holland, Kirby, Knaak and Hardt. Nay - None Motion Passed. • Mr. Griffin was instructed that a permit can be issued for flags for 15 days. b) Buffalo Grove TV Representatives did not appear. 6. SIGNAGE WORKSHOP a) The Commons "arrow" will be appealed to the Board. b) B. G. TV - the sign presented (photo) has been up for a month; it is not legal - Mr. Griffin was asked to act. c) Lieberman will be in on Oct. 25th d) Osco sign is still in disrepair - Mr. Griffin will follow up. e) B. G. Dodge 's sign .is only partially lit. Also there is a sign - "for Sale" next to B. G. Dodge on the West. Check! f) Red/White - "Models now open" has been attached to Cam.onLake. g) Shell sign - Mr. Griffin reviewed and it is OK - self serve ,new. - h) Old Winfield sign has been painted out - Can it be removed? i) Check, to see if the Tanglewood sign (Gayle & Gr. Knolls) approved j) Tony of Italy has no sign - business is fine. k) ' B. G. 'has not been added to the Cleaners at Strathmore Center. 1) Highland Square has put up a sign - not approved. m) School Dist. #96 will submit a sign next meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT Com. Kirby made a motion to adjourn at 10:05 P.M. Com. Weiss seconded the motion. All in favor. Respectfully. submitted, Shirley Bates, Secretary -APPEARANCE COMuMISSION Oct. 11, 1979 - Page Six • . • VILLA - Gam' ``:` BL` -. F.c3.LO G- ©V ? 627 i* af{i�f� Alt=�. � _ , - 4" ` N064 (glove 1/f. 600.90 • October 9, 1979 Village of Buffalo Grove 50 Raupp Boulevard Buffalo Grove, IL 60090 Attention: Mr. Jim Truesdell Subject: Appearance Commission Comments of the Draft for the B-5 Ordinance Dear Jim: As per our recent telephone conversation and our discussions during the October 3rd meeting of the Plan Commission and the Business District Development Commis- sion, I would like to bring to your attention specific comments of the Appearance Commission with respect to the above referenced ordinance. Please be advised • that the Appearance Commission was asked to review this draft by Carl 'Genrich and • has done so during a recent workshop session. Because of the time restriction and the fact that Bob Katz can not meet with us, we would like to identify potential problems in the proposed ordinance. The first problem identified by the Commission was in conjunction with Section 7.3.1 , paragraph I. This paragraph appears to be misleading and in direct con- tradiction with Section 7.4.6, paragraph A, sub-paragraph 1 . This problem was discussed at the recent Plan Commission meeting and it was decided at that time to eliminate Section 7.3.1 , paragraph I. Under Section 7.4.6, the.-Appearance Commission feels that Section 2 of the Buffalo Grove Sign Code (Ordinance #78-70) should be included in the first paragraph. Section 2 of the Sign Code is a section giving definitions for all terms used throughout the Sign Code. Since the Appearance Commission deals with the Sign Code during every meeting, we have seen tie need for a definition of terms with- out which there can be no continuity in the regulation of signage. The next problem occurs under Section 7.4.6, paragraph B, sub-paragraph 1 dealing with the frequency and size of ground or free-standing signs. The verbage in this paragraph of the draft states that a ground sign can be erected where any business establishment has a lot frontage of 75' or more. Although Mr. Katz implied that this would limit one ground sign per business center, the verbage used in the para- graph also states that the sign area for a particular sign shall be computed on the basis of one and one-half square feet for each lineal front foot of that portion of the building occupied by the business involved. Although the total area of the -continued- • Appearance Commission Comments October 9, 1979 B-5 Ordinance Page 2 ground sign is limited to 50 square feet per face, these ground signs could be erected at 75' intervals. The current sign code states that one ground sign can be erected for each developed parcel having a front footage of 300' or more and an additional ground sign can be erected for each additional 500' of front- age provided that no two ground signs are within 500' of each other along the same frontage. This point has been strongly supported by the Village Board and the `Appearance Commission in an attempt to eliminate proliferation of ground signs in our business areas. It should be pointed out that the current sign code also allows for ground signs to have an area of 120 square feet per sign face on a two-faced sign. This might be somewhat large for the Town Center and a com- promise should be considered between the proposed 50 square foot area per side and the existing 120 square foot area per side. The final problem with this paragraph is the maximum height of 25' allowed for the ground sign. The Sign Code allows for ground signs to have a maximum height of 20' and it is the Commission's recom- mendation that the B-5 Ordinance also regulate ground signs to a maximum height of 20' . Paragraph C under the same Section deals with directional signs and allows for a maximum area of 8 square feet with a maximum height of 4 feet. The Sign Code allows for a maximum area of 4 square feet. Here again it is the Appearance Com- mission's recommendation that consideration be givem to using the criteria estab- lished in the Sign Code. Under Item D in the same Section dealing with under canopy signs, the Appearance Commission feels that a further stipulation that being that the maximum height of 1 ' also be inserted into the criteria. The proposed verbage assumes that people - will be dealing in good taste but does not allow for restrictions should someone wish to erect an under canopy sign of unusual dimensions. Under paragraph E of Section 7.4.6, the Appearance 'Commission would like clarifica- tion as to what "Board" will be handling the special request for temporary window signs. . Under paragraph F of the same Section dealing with multi-tenant building identifi- cation signs, the Commission would like to recommend the elimination of the 25' maximum height for ground signs as previously identified in paragraph B. Further, _ we would like to bring to your attention the verbage stating that "such signs shall not extend beyond the property line or into the right-of-way and shall be used solely to identify the shopping center,- shopping area, or all of the businesses or activ- ities conducted therein. " Phase underline all of the businesses or activities con- ducted therein. The Appearance Commission feels that these additional ground signs should serve the purpose of shopping center identification and should not deal with a listing of all the businesses or especially the activities conducted therein. It should be further pointed out that if ground signs allowed under paragraph B, sub-paragraph 1 for each business with a front footage of 75' than consideration should be given to eliminating shopping center identification signs. Failure to correct the verbage in these areas could allow for ground sins to be erected even more frequently than 75' intervals. 1 J R. • Appearance Commission Comments October 9, 1979 B-5 Ordinance Page 3 • Under paragraph G, the Appearance Commission would like clarification as to who will be reviewing the uniform sign package for each of the developments. We concur with the theory of sign packages for each development so as to eliminate the requirement that tenants meeting the criteria would have to appear before a commission for additional review. Under paragraph H of the same Section, the Commission feels that it is vitally important to define special events. Special events can be interpreted by different people in very many ways and could -lead to additional signage not intended in the preparation of this draft. Paragraph I dealing with residential signs other than nameplates presents a severe problem as written. An interpretation of this verbage could allow a developer of a multiple dwelling to spell out whatever message he intended by using a series of signs each incorporating one letter of a message provided that sign does not exceed 10 square feet in area. Under paragraph J -of the same Section, the Appearance Commission would like to bring to your attention the fact that this verbage does not restrict neon signs or a combination of neon signs and multiple small light bulbs. The reason for our concern results from the various signs that have been presented for review to the Appearance Commission. It appears that some sign companies have, convinced their clients that gaudy signs attract attention and therefore, added business. If examples are required of some of the unacceptable signs that might qualify under this verbage, we would be more than happy to present them at your conveni- ence. With respect to Section 7.4.7, the Appearance Commission would like to question. the purpose of paragraph A. In our copy of the draft it appears that this is a definition and does not really state anything other than the definition of mis- cellaneous structures. Please be advised that we do not have a revised copy of the draft and therefore, this paragraph may have already been corrected. • Our final comments obtaieto Section 7.4.8 under landscaping. The Appearance Commission would like to recommend that all species of plants be reviewed by the Village Forester prior to acceptance of that landscaping plan. Further, • under paragraph H, it is the Appearance Commission's opinion that the 90 day replacement time period is too lengthy in certain planning areas. A 90 day delay in replacement would prevent any planting for a better part of an entire season. In conclusion, the Appearance Commission feels that the sign regulations as pro- posed in the B-5 Ordinance are entirely too liberal as stated. It was our under- standing and was reaffirmed by Mr. Katz during the October 3rd meeting that the intent was to make the signage criteria more restrictive than the existing Sign Code. These restrictions were to aid in the overall architectural character and to provide identification of business establishments in a pedestrian oriented environment. The Appearance Commission also feels that you should give additional consideration to the review process for the signage. It is my understanding. that an initial review will be conducted by the Business District Development) Commission • �. • • • Appearance Commission Comments October 9, 1979 B-5 Ordinance Page 4 and that final permits and interpretation of the ordinance will be made by the Sign Administrator. We would like to point out that when dealing with aesthetics it is very difficult to establish criteria in black and white. Also, please be advised that dealing with aesthetics you may be creating a hardship on the part of the petitioner in the fact that one person with specific likes and dislikes may not be able to judge the aesthetic quality of a proposed sign. Therefore, since specific guidelines dealing with aesthetics can not be thoroughly estab- lished, we feel that there is a need to review proposed•signage using as a basis the intent of the ordinance. This' can only be accomplished with a multiple person panel . Consideration should be given to the establishment of a special panel or commission to review the signage requests within the Town Center or referral to the established Appearance Commission for such review. We realize that you do not want to burden the developer or tenants with the necessity of review before addi- tional commissions. However, this additional review may be beneficial to both the developer or tenant and the residents of the Village of Buffalo Grove. We will appreciate your consideration of our preceding comments. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE APPEARANCE COMMISSION GoLsX5i7 Donald L. Hardt, Chairman DLH/ps cc Pat Shields Carl Genrich Bob Katz