1978-02-23 - Appearance Control Commission - Recommendation • v V JLLSV L ¶JI uvI i ni.v ......,. .. ... . ... ... _ •
•
•
- 1.) Planned development ( Special Use
I •.
Subdivision ( Commercial Addition
Mobil Oil cjtat ion '
Rezoning I. Other
inject Title (Or iarneP of Subaivision Sign •
(Corner)Arlinc,,ton T=ts. 'Rd. Q• Dundee Rd. '':ei ins ?`Ion ' •
Location • ; . Developer (Cramer)
•
• • Gas Service atiatinn
•rrent Zoning •
Zoning Requested Proposed Use
-ief Statement of Action Requested: Nevi sign •
Landscapincr
•
600 Woodfield. Dr,, Schaur uv
D. '7ong :Phone Address
arson to be Contacted . •
`' • ' /Date of Hearing:
Feb. 23, .1978 •
eta-Received: •
Do not write be ow this i ne .
ppearance Commission Recommendation:
Motion made by_ Commissioner Hardt•— - - • . . .
• I move that .•the' •tile accept the Mobil 04 acquisition of the - . • •
. . • Service Station at -Arlington Hts. and Dund:ee Rds.• end-.to approve
• •. :the• changes• as. speei:fiec .on the plan•.submitted with exceptions . - -
for the following- stipulations:
1. The additioni.d
of landscaping to the isla ' and area • ,
••• . . around the..island •fox• the:.%Identifi ation Cif : .The . • •• •
• •
• • " • addat oii•.of several Spi•tzex type or comparable:•typ -
eirergreenis to cover the •
:b• aae. of the ID� poles • •
' .2. ' •Also:,if, a S
• • t a �at�er date i1�:lu�inat'ed aelf•-.serve; Fu11:— • •
. . 'Ser•ve sgns are 'added; tha-6. the supiDorting• ,boles be. • :t
• • : the s• ame .,hape and . Color as. :tile •existin •s •
• �.• tandaxd: -
. An'addition .was laaed'e v;- -Commissioner i' 'by • '
•
• ' : ' • . .)a T.t :in e..iu• of sod,. the. deve may use';d .. a ..-
Hopei• ecora ve
•
• stoe :o
n ecora ive grave],'•av :r biscayne •(? •
-
• :r?'
• .The' motion was sa�cond.ed by Commissio .er krirby. - '
•• Roll Call Vote was.:taken and the motion passed unanimously,
. . •
•
Sherwin Roserfnl
Feb. 23, 1978 • .. •
ate of Approval � Chairman of Appearance Comm.
. ii,
• • •, ) Planned Development Special Use
Subdivision Commercial Addition
•
KII1)ER — CARE, DAY CARE"CL'N TER
i
) Razoning . ' Other LandscapinProject Title (Or Name of Subdivision ) Sign
1175Thompson Blvd. Woodson Holdin`. Co, Inc.
Location Developer (Craned 5th c Tompkins
• Bob Elkan St. Charles,, Mo. 63301
• Child Care
•
Current Zoning Zoning Requested Proposed Use •
Brief Statement of Action Requested: Presented b1(. _ and ta,_c-�, is
V. J. Ribando 466-4575 1 5 S. Print,, C7
Person to be Contacted . Phone Sugar Grove,I1 .. 60554
Date-Received: 0 /Date of Hearing:
• i
(Do not write below this line)
Appearance Commission Recommendation:
' The following motion was made by Comnissioner Kirby:-- • . • :.
I-move that• the 'landscaping portion •of the Kinder-Care
project be accepted: as presented with these stipulations':— • •
1. If the ..Zoning Board of Appeals requires any changes -
regarding -the- fence. variation approved..a_t the meeting of
' Jan.. 17,. 1978 —. If- the ZBA does not :find the •stockade•:fence . •
a sufficient buffer zone or if the front yard. planting area • •
• '
. . • • must be extended twelve (12) feet then. Kinder_Cai-e.
. return to= this'commission (Appearance• Control. Commission) ; • ' • •
2. The 'landscape plans yyill, be made. to show a -planted
•
area in front of the chain link fence-.on. the .North. side. of '
the building .be sot back 10 feet from-' the buffer z• • • one,
' 3. .• The bumper stopsdirectly in:' front" of the building • . *•''....
be moved 2 to. 3, feet. away from the building and .a planted.F ted ••
area be. proVided si: ilar to the picture that. was ry presented and
- . . 'that • the planted-:area •on the South side of the property:be .
'placed on the ;outside of the. • : • . -
chain lXnk fence,
4. Relocate-.
the chain link fence "to the North..
• Commissioner Hardt. seconded the motion then added this ammendment:—•
lie also stipulate that the isle' in front of the entry
• area will be extended 'into the parking g lot the same amount .
as the bumper stops. .
. The ammendment vote vras Aye unanimously. •
The vote .on the motion. was Kirby — Aye; Hardt — Aye;.
• '�Y , Rosenfeld — zJa,y.
Feb. 23, 1978
ate of Approval Ciairman of Appearance Comm.
h eryvin Ro s enf el d
'• VILLAGE OF EUFFALU GNU :. MYF'thKRi4Lt 1.,:M1:t33 LUYI
t
s 1
•
• Planned Development ( Special Use
Subdivision Commercial Addition
Kinder—Care -- 1.?otion B ) Rezoning
Other
Pject Title (Or Name of Subdivision ) Sign • I'
Location Developer (Owner) i
•
i
rrent Zoning Zoning Requested Proposed Use
• r
•ief Statement of Action Requested: • • 4
t
. t
arson to be Contacted • 'Phone - Address
'1
zte-Received:
0 /Date of Hearing: .
(Do not write below this line) -
ppearance Commission Recommendation:
The following- motion ws made by Commissioner iiardt:-
• I move that we .tablethe architecture and sign for . •
•
Kinder—Care•until a later date. •
. The motion..was seconded by Commissioner iirby. . ' . . • • '
• . Roll call vote was taken and the motion gassed 'unanimously, ,
•
• • Chairman of Appearance Comm.
Date of Approval S • •
. VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE APPEARANCE COMMISSION
• • Planned Development Special Use
• • • • • ( ) Subdivision Commercial Addition
• Oak Creel: — Phase III ) Rezoning Other {
Title (Or Name of Subdivision ) Sign rojectIBuffalo Grove Rd. — Dundee Oak Creek Develonmen_t Corp.__
Location Developer , O:,ner r
Apartment Complex
omplex
Zonin Requested Proposed Use'urrent Zoning ge
q
Presentation of architectural plans
Irief Statement of Action Requested: - ` -
Don Jorgenson • 5 Oak 'Creek Dr. ?' C=.
'erson to be Contacted
Phone Address
late-Received: I' /Date of Hearing:
(Do not write below this line) •
appearance Commission Recommendation: • '
The following motion -was made by Commissioner Hardt:- • •
. I move we.. accept the . a�n
arch itecturipls for Oak. Creek Apts.— .
• Phase III as presented with the stipulation that materials
• • : • • . and.colors :be. basically the same :as Oak Creek Phases I 'Z: II..
The roof aax' condensing units• be effectively screened or - • • •
painted out .to. match the roof.. Materials -used _will. be • •
• 'the .same or:•as nearly as possible, the, same within_ the . ,. •. '
availabi1ity�.'.of products. - If the •developer l as difficulty :• .
• . in finding a• close match he'must come back ..to the A•C for .• , '
approval of specific materials.- -Essentially a:close match . .
within the realm of what!s available will be acceptable. • •
• - • 'All material •within Phase III...shoul& be. the:. sa.ie for all •. . • -
• • . buiJdin s. All shall have the same brick.. • • - • - _
. The motion was.•seconded .by Commissioner: Kirby. • • . - ' • -
• • Roll tail vote:-was' taken and the motion• was passed*tiaaimously. • . .'• •
.
•
Sherwin Rosenfeld
Feb. 23, 1978 ' • Chairman of Appearance Comm.
Date of Approval •• • • . ' I'
11- • Planned Development ( Special Use
• Subdivision ( Com.nercial •Additjo
• Oak Creek Apts. — Phase III Rezoning . ( Other Landscapin `
o,ect Title (Or Name of Subdivision ) Sign
•
Buffalo Grove Rd, 9, DundeeOak Creek Development Corp. .
• Location • • • Developer (Owner)
• • ••Apartment Comrle - - ,
.Trent Zoning Zoning Requested Proposed Us
lef •Statement of Action Requested: Landscaping -Plan Approval .
•
- - Don Jorgenson • 5 Oak Creek Dr. ,B. G. -
arson to be Contactea • 'Phone Address
ite-Received: it /Date of Hearing:
• (Do not write below this line) •
)pearance Commission Reccrr;endation:
. '. -..The followa.ng; motion was made .by Commissioner U ardt • .' • - •
•
S move we accept the 3 andscapin8-• •P lens as presented • .'
• - - tonight. 'oo-SC. Oak Creek Apts. Phase• III .with r� • • • : -a' •
• itionalAtipulations.
• • ' - The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirby'
Roll eel was take and the m• ' • ors• carried }• • = • 4
vo. e o'ti uianinously.
•
• •• • •. •. •• • • •• •.. • • •• • •• .• ''- • • • • • • • • • • • • •• '.• ;1
•
•
••
.
• •
Sherwin Rosenfeld Feb, 23, 1971:3 • - ' •
ate of Approval r : , • "hairman of Appearance Comm.
II• 1
. •
s
•
Planned Development ( Special Use
•
' Subdivision Cor,.mercial Addition
•DEVOINSHIRE - UNIT TVIO Rezoning . ' , Other Ta:•dsof,pi 1g i
•oject Title (Or Name of Subdivision ) Sign of Parkways.
'Devonshire Develo ment Corp. - Z.P. Shari i an
Location Oevelopen Omer) ..
arrent Zoning Zoning Requested Proposed Use.
Fief Statement of Action Requested: Plan for landsca`ir_7 of n�• anu
L.P. Shassian • fIome - 835-1723 - 400 Lake 'Cook F.d_
arson to be Contacted . . •• 'Phone Deerfield,.tfjs 60015
�' /Date of Hearing: 'eb, �3, i 97 .s •
xte-Received: .
(Do not write below this line)
ppearance Commission Recommendation:
Motion made by. Commissioner Kirby:
I move that-•the landscaping plan f• or• s•treet. trees in the • . " • •
• ' Devonshire = Unit I3o. Two b rejected -on the grounds'"ghat•Three (3)
. . • species as -resented are *not recommended varieties., per the • " •
. Consulting •Torres t es's memorandum (see•attached), dated• Feb.. .7, 1978° •
from the:,Con_sultin orrester, 7fm. DaY,.t, to the Appearance Contro' " .
Corm scion; • nar elif. the .October .Glory Red Maple, the Green Mountain. • _ •
•••' • -. Sugar. I,Iaple and tb:e&:Ha:ckberry. And I.^$urther' si gest .that".subthti "
' • . tutes be made that"pigl�,t include-the •'orrester's* rectimr�endations '.per_ •
• . the .report, namely -the Red~Sunset LTaplJe; •• .Morway. Maple Fmer•ala •Green;
• Green Ash. . 13ut ate' by no means limited to •those species. •• -
The.'motion was seconded b• y Co•mmissioner:IH•ardt.. • ' ' • ; '
. Amendment made by-Mr; .Rosenfeld who had -tuned the•.char-over to • . -
• .• • That -th*,developer•provide'.-t•vo �(2) In .ba3:iper trees= " • . •
caliper.being:reasured six "(6) a.nch.es above the ground .level. and" . ' • :▪"
. • • • • 'that al], trees be.: tGkecL. If the. d•eve .oiler sod des5.res..not to stake
• . .. .then tvrrr and one-i • f '(2-21-) trees measured ,sir (6) -ine... s above' • • "
. • ground. level nay�b •' ez used in lieu. of tfe', tAro • (2") inch-caliper .••.. • •
• • • •trees mentioned' above. In all cases' thees shall be ;ylrapped to ' • • •
•• protect the. barks .regardless "of the' caliper.. . : • • '
The amendment was seconded by Commissioner Kirby, • -
•' , Vote on the amendment was aye unanimously. - • -
•Vote on the.original. motion was aye unanimously. Motion passed.
•
•
• Sherwin Rosenfeld
2/24/78 • Chairman of Appearance Comm.
ate of Approval . •
t -�' EEO J. PA IE
CONSULTINGe .4
FORESTER
r%04:2 4e
January 25, 1978
PROJECT: Devonshire - Unit No. 2
LOCATION: Buffalo Grove, Illinois
Architect: Michael L. Ives &Associates, Inc.
%, Plans dated: 1/10/78
ANALYSIS
TREE SELECTIONS
October Glory Be& Maple - a poor variety
ylsdue
o ttohe wifalnter
rococor nditions,
subject to freeze damage in our area.
good only about half of the time.
al= EDUlatain Sugar Maple - a poor choice for parkway planting
due to possible salt spray. An excellent selection for the back
yard.
Hackberry - a poor choice due to poor
oran successes in transplanting.
p
The mortality rate would be hi
Rosehill White Ash - a good choice with a good fall color (purple
leaf) .
Sh .demaster Honeylocust - a good variety of the hybred honey-
locust. I would limit the amount planted to a maximum of 10%
Of the total . Further south the honeylocust is subject to
severe damage by insect and disease; it could happen here so
suggest not overplanting this selection. ,
Sargent Cherry - an excellent ornamental but has no business
on the parkway. It could develop into a traffic haz.zard due
to its low growth. / ,
Northern Red Oak - a good choice where the drainage is good.
This is a tree that hasn't been planted enough and under the.
right conditions it could do well . i
• Conclusion
Overall, I think there is room for improvement on the selectiions
submitted. Following is a suggested planting schedule:
Red Maple - Red sunset 20% (Spring planted only)
White Ash - Rosehill 20o k
Honeylocust - Shac9.ema.ster 10%
Oak ' - Northern red 10% (Spring planted only)
Norway Maple - Emerald queen 20
Green Ash - Summit
F
E
('1191 '2g2.2312
r 1 eI ` j '/(jJ�rJJJ{ f_�`(\(\...� lF'... , c Y
Lew
' + K ' _' NCB FORESTER
CONSULTING� �
zir..L
TREE SPACING
The specifications elect to plant a tree every forty feet.
This is a good minimum and sixty feet is a good maximum.
The average lot on this plan is about sixty feet. If you
allow twenty feet for a driveway and twelve feet for a utility,
., you have about twenty eight feet left in which to plant a tree.
In this space one tree is sufficient because you still have to
center the tree on the house. Occasionally, there will be room 4
for more, but this could only be determined by physical field
survey.
Conclusion
Locating where a tree can be planted should be determined only 1
in the field (that is to avoid utilities and center the tree ;
on the house) . This plan calls for 121 trees but my estimate
of how many are needed would be closer to 90.
SUGGESTIONS FOR THIS PLAN
(1 ) Leave the amount of trees as shown unchanged; reduce the
• the number in ,the field when marking the locations for
tree planting.
(2) Change the tree selections shown to the recommendations
suggested.
(3) Try to retain as much top soil as possible for the tree
planting site (12 inches would be acceptable) .
•
(4) Alternate the tree selections as much as possible to
avoid one problem from attacking adjacent trees.
(5) Select the tree species in the field where you can see
what ground conditions exist.
Inn c flail Arlinntnn Heights. IL 60005 • (312) 392-3312