1981-11-19- Appearance Commission - Special Meeting Minutes APPEARANCE COMMISSION
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILL.
THURS., NOV. 19, 1981
Special Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Don Hardt called the meeting to order at 7:36 P.M. on Thursday,
Nov. 19, 1981 at the Village Hall.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: L. Gibbs, L. Paolillo, D. Knaak, C. Cea and D. Hardt.
Commissioners Absent: L. Kirby and P. Carr (C om. Carr has indicated that she
will be resigning because of other personal commitments.)
Building Department: Mr. Dominic Saviano, Deputy Bldg. Commissioner
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes from Oct. 9, 1981 and Oct. 20, 1981 were postponed until the end of the
meeting.
IV. BUSINESS
A. Plaza Verde - Sign Package Discussion with Mr. Marvin Hymen
Ch. Hardt made a statement concerning the intent of Sign Packages. Developers
are asked to present a sign package which defines: colors, size and letter
styles for each center. When approved by the Appearance Commission, permits
can be issued without approval of each individual sign. However, many varia-
tions have been allowed by developers. At this time, all signs must be re-
viewed by the Appearance Commission. The AC views a sign package with relation
to the architecture of the buildings. When a tenant comes in and tells the AC
that the manager of the center has approved any signage, it is difficult to
know, without written consent, if this is so or not. This has happened at
Plaza Verde many times, and it seemed advisable to communicate with Mr. Hymen
to see if he would like to change the Sign Package and avoid further incon-
venience to all concerned parties.
Mr. Hymen noted that the original Sign Package was approved in April 1975 and
he agreed that problems have occurred for various reasons. He expressed con-
cern about the document in force being complete enough. Since there are some
exceptions, and it is difficult to cover every possible variation, Mr. Hymen
felt that the wording of "illuninated letters" has caused the most difficulty.
Since some business names do not fit in the alloted space, allowances have been
made. Mr. Hymen does not want a document that is too rigid. He noted that no
variations have been allowed in specifications. All signs are individual inter-
nally illuminated letters. Color No. 2461 - Red has been added. No shields or
crests have ever been approved by Mr. Hymen. When submitted and denied, the
Village Board has upheld the Commission's ruling. Letter styles have been var-
ied and Mr. Hymen stated that he feels the variety is refreshing to the Center.
Ch. Hardt explained the Commission's concern with precedent. If changes are to
be allowed, they must be made by the developer/owner because it is important to
be consistent.
After further discussion, it was agreed that basically the Sign Package is
comprehensive. It was also noted that the Buffalo Grove Sign Code must be
considered to be over and above Sign Packages. All tenants should be given
copies of both documents when they come in lease space.
Regarding the offices at the east end of the Center on Arlington Heights Road,
Mr. Hymen would allow additional wall signs but he would prefer one color -
but so far, no other tenants have requested a sign. All are professionals.
Clarification of the Sign Code restriction of signs to the licensed name-DBA-
was outlined. Advertising is not allowed. This section of the Sign Package
will be defined more clearly to avoid future problems.
Mr. Hymen agreed to eliminate "secondary copy" - Paragraph 3 and allow non-
illuminated lettering only with special approval. All variations must be
submitted with written approval of Mr. Hymen and will be considered ONLY if
this is done. Also, it should be clearly understood that signs are not to
be ordered before coming to the Appearance Commission. Mr. Hymen will make
the appropriate changes and submit to Mr. Saviano for AC approval.
Ch. Hardt thanked Mr. Hymen for his co-operation vith the AC.
B. Sign - Shoe Repair) Plaza Verde
Mr. Grate - Grate Signs presented a sign for Plaza Verde that was not in
compliance with the Sign Package at the center nor with the Sign Code.
Shoe Repair is not the legal DBA for the business and the neon shoe to be
in the window is also questionable. Since no representative of the store
was present to make a decision, it would be necessary for the Commission to
reject the sign. The other alternative was to Table and redesign the sign.
Mr. Grate agreed that it would be more appropriate to Table. Com. Gibbs made
a motion to Table the sign presented by Shoe Repair, Plaza Verde until the
Dec. 10, 1981 meeting. Com. Cea seconded the motion. Vote was Aye Unanimously.
Regarding the neon tube, Mr. Hymen stated that he is still considering it also.
C. Gentry . :Homefurnishinp
Out of order - See Page Four
D. Chatham - Directional Signs
Ms. Diane Walker presented two signs -"Visitor Parking"and"Models - Sales
Office Parking" and explained their location. Visitor Parking will be
Weidner Road, a dedicated street and the Models/Sales Office Parking sign will
be on Weidner Court South, not a dedicated street.
Ms. Walker also requested a construction entrance sign to be placed at the
East end of the property off Dundee Road. This will eliminate traffic from
using the blacktop roads. In addition, a fourth sign on the construction
office which is at the rear of the model building. These signs will be the
Chatham colors, but the signs will be enameled, not sand-blasted.
The Commission had no objections to any of the signs as presented.
Com. Gibbs made the following motion:
I move we accept the Visitor Parking and
Model/Sales Office Parking signs as presented,
at the locations specified. Signs to be
single faced/non-illuminated; mounted on 4 x 41s
stained to match the redwood. Height to be 4 ft.
as per Sign Code.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Nov. 19, 1981 - Page Two
Chatham Motion, Cont+d
Com. Paolillo seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Knaak, Paolillo,
Gibbs, Cea and
Hardt
Nay - None
Motion #2 - Com. Knaak made the following motion:
I move we accept Construction Entrance and
Construction Office signs for Chatham.
The signs will be Blue lettering on a
flat Brown background.
The sign to be on the construction office
reading "Construction Office."
The sign to be located on Chatham property,
to the West side of the construction road,
and to be a two-faced sign reading "Construction
Entrance:
Com. Cea seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Knaak, Paolillo,
Gibbs, Cea and Hardt.
Nay - None
Two Motions Passed 5 to 0.
Ms. Walker noted that on page 7, point #5 of the March 12, 1981 minutes
incorrectly states that the stones (on the monuments) will be one of the
approved stones on the houses. The motion is correct and the stones will
be natural river stones. The reference on page 7 will be deleted.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
November 19, 1981 - Page Three
C. Gentry Homefurnisng his
Wayne Hawley, from Gentry and Vic Laska, Duo Sign presented a color rendition
of the proposed sign. Homefurnishings is one word.
Ch. Hardt stated that the presentation tonight is being made after other
discussions with the Appearance Commission.
Com. Knaak explained the problem the Commission has with Logos. They have
not been allowed.
Mr. Hawley explained the importance of the lamp to their business. It appears
on their tags and in their advertising. It gives quality to their image.
The l7 Century lantern is meant to convey the idea of antique quality items.
Com. Gibbs felt the lantern is too large for the space on.the sign. He
feels it is not to scale. Mr. Hawley said thought could be given to making
it smaller.
Com. Cea stated he does not see how the concept of the lamp projects their
intent to identify the business.
Ch. Hardt said his opinion differs from the other Commissioners in that he
does not consider the lamp a Logo in the sense that the intent of Logos in
the Sign Code. He feels the lamp adds balance to the sign and the signs needs
it because of the size of the sign. He considers it an embellishment, not a
Logo.
The discussion continued, but agreement was not reached.
Mr. Hawley presented photographs of other businesses that have logos on the
signs. He felt the lamp would not be establishing a precedent.
Com. Paolillo made a motion to approve the sign submitted by Gentry Home—
furnishings as presented.
Com. Gibbs seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Gibbs.
Hardt.
Nay — Knaak,
Paolillo,
Cea.
Motion denied — 3 to 2
Ch. Hardt explained the appeal process and Mr. Hawley chose to go to the
Village Board.
Ch. Hardt mentioned that the lights that are now on the temporary sign are
not legal; but no action will be taken until after the Appeal. He added
that they probably do not meet the Electrical Code.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Nov. 19, 1981 — Page Four
06009 714' `tea rung' .f::,,t) 'po7x' Wm ?M�o3� Oz7,13311g30 -tD"c974- .
E. Lexington Commons - Full Review
James Freiberg and Jeffrey Samuels, Lexington Development Corp.
Representatives of the construction firm who will build the houses.
Homeowners of Commons: Mr/Mrs. Stewart Parr, 411 Gardenia Lane
Mr/Mrs. Barry Katznelson, 406 Gardenia Lane
Mr/Mrs. Joseph Fehsenfeld, 506 Windover Circle
Mr. Norman Shalett, 509 Harris Drive
Mrs. Joseph Marchewka, 408 Gardenia Lane
Mr. Freiberg presented the site plan, showing the model area: Lots 3, 4, and
5; the parking area: Lot 1; Landscaping of the model area and the proposed
elevations for the models.
Ch. Hardt reviewed the history of the Commons Development. Originally being
developed by Lou Shassian's development company. When sales dropped, the
development was taken over by Unity Savings. Unity presented models which
were rejected because of size (900 to 1,200 sq. ft.). Upon appeal, the Vil-
lage Board affirmed the Appearance Commission's rejection. The houses did
not blend architecturally or in size with the existing houses.
Mr. Lou Gradishar of Formal Builders presented two houses for review, but
has never submitted plans. He has never contacted the Building Dept.
Unity has been working with Lexington Development to complete the project.
Lexington Development would act as Construction Managers.
Mr. Freiberg expressed the hope to have the three models approved, so that
construction can begin this fall. The intent is to develop the entire area.
Mr. Stewart Parr (Commons) stated that Mr. Gradishar had options to build on
two lots, but he has never acted upon them.
Mr. Freiberg presented drawings and plans for Lot 3 - Model #301 (A-B-E).
Lot 4, Model #401 (A-B-E) and Lot 5, Model #501 (A-B-E). The building
materials are the same for all three models:
Brick - General Shale
Siding - Aluminum
Trim - Soffit, fascia: Wood ** White
All vertical pieces - Wood **White
Shutters - Pre-fabricated plastic (A and E) - possibly painted.
No. 2 or better pine, stained with oil base paint
Fireplaces - Optional, brick appearance (1/2 in. masonary board)
Elevations have blank right side elevations - will treat.*
Size of house: 1,600 square feet including finished family room.
Trim board - painted white to match fascia. **
Patio Door - Aluminum sill with toteboard.
Downspouts - White aluminum
Gutters - White aluminum
Garage doors - two styles: paneled and one with wood trim.
Color packages: will be presented later.
B-Vents for furnace and fireplaces - painted to match roof
Roof vents - to be placed on rear of house, or if on a corner and
exposed they will be painted out to match the roof.
Railings - Black, wrought iron
Gable Vents - painted aluminum
Front Door - Typically will match trim (#301 - white)**
Window frames - Metal: some bronze, others white.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Nov. 19, 1981 - Page Five
..
06009 W 4 rya a##� ��aix /� kiAtoo
MA-011� one ' - ' .30 MtDIrZZ=�
*Left side elevation all right for corner. Right side elevation prohibited.
**Com. Knaak raised a question about the color combination submitted for #301.
He felt with cream color siding that White was not a good trim color. See the
later discussion of Color Package.
Chairman Hardt explained the Monotony Code.
The Commission was polled to determine how many elevations will be considered
for each model. Houses to be constructed in Phase 1, at this time.
Model #301 - Sherwood (A-B-E)
Two Elevations - L. Paolillo
#1 - A and E D. Knack
#2 - B C. Cea
D. Hardt
One Elevation - B. Gibbs
Model #401 - Concord (A-B-E); 1,750 square feet.
Two Elevations - D. Knaak
#1 - A and E C. Cea
#2 B D. Hardt
One Elevation - L. Paolillo
B. Gibbs
Blank side elevations - will treat with windows or landscaping.
Stucco on Tudor - Stacato Board
Trim will be stained.
When placed on a corner lot, plans will be submitted to AC.
Model #501 - Warwick (A-B-E); 1,850 sq. feet.
Pillars are wooden posts (Wolmanized) - Teako plate.
When placed on corner lots, plans will be submitted to AC.
"B" elevation has scored firred plywood. (41x 8I lapped panels)
Two Elevations - D. Knack
#1 - A and E C. Cea
#2 - B D. Hardt
One Elevation - L. Paolillo
B. Gibbs
The number of actual model was discussed. L. Paolillo and D. Knack felt
#301 and #501 are the same. G. Gibbs, C. Cea and D. Hardt see three models.
#&* Before the motion was stated, it was noted that color packages will be sub-
mitted at a later date. Also when models are placed on corner lots, plans
will be submitted showing treatment with windows or landscaping.
The Homeowners were asked for comments: Mr. Parr expressed the concern of
the Commons owners about the size of these houses. He noted that all the
existing homes have basements, which is a definite value item. He noted the
homeowners are pleased with the architecture.
Ch. Hardt explained that the Appearance Commission is a recommending body
and is concerned with compatibility. The size is not considered unless it
affects monotony. He suggested that the comment be brought up to the Vil-
lage Board when they meet on Monday, Nov. 23, 1981.
It was noted that the Village is still operating under the PUD agreement
and they will want to continue to operate under the original agreement.
All the Commons houses are Tudor style and that is because that was the only
style that Mr. Shassian offered.
The motion will include a stipulation regarding the front entryway and
common area. As far as the detention area, the Engineering Department has
control of that area. APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Nor. 19, 1981 - Page Six
•
06009 . (tea r1/# ) W Vihnz
1K.0�-D
Lexington Development Corp. — COMMONS
Motion No. 1 — Architecture and Materials: Com. Gibbs made this motion:
I move we approve the Architecture, Materials and Elevations submitted
by Lexington Development Corp. as construction agents for Unity Savings
for the following models:
Model #301 — Elevations A and E = 1 elevation for purpose of
the Monotony Code.
Elevation B is a second elevation.
Model #401 — Elevations A and E = 1 elevation.
Elevation B = second elevation.
Model #501 — Elevations A and E = 1 elevation.
Elevation B = second elevation.
Materials as follows:
Roofs — Shingles, Flint Coat asbestos.
Aluminum Siding.
Brick where indicated.
Wood trim to be painted out.
Shutters — plastic or pine wood #2 — stained.
Fireplaces — option, to be covered with masonary board panel brick.
Tote boards to be used under sliding doors where necessary.
Downspouts and gutters — to be accent painted.
Cornerboards are wood.
Muttons on windows are removable.
Vents for any heaters to be painted out to match roof.
All vents visable from the street are to be painted out.
Right side of Model #301 will not appear on corner lots.
Right side of Model #501 will not appear on corner lots.
Model #401 if to appear on a corner lot will have plans submitted
to the Appearance Commission for approval.
Treatment will be a fireplace, shrubbery or architectural
feature (window, etc.). Approval must be given prior to
building.
Railings are to be wrought iron — Black.
All gable vents are to be painted out.
Front doors ape to be white.
Garage doors are the trim color.
Windows are Acorn metal — bronze or white, depending on color scheme.
Approval is being given for Phase 1 only.
Siding for the Tudor will be Stacato Board.
Posts on #501 — Wolmanized wood on concrete tubes.
Vertical siding on #501 to be Texture 111 or equal.
Concrete Driveways.
Com. cea seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Paolillo
Gibbs
Cea
Hardt
Nay — Knaak, because he does
not feel there are three
distinct models.
Motion Passed 4 to 1.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Nov. 19, 1981 — Page Seven
��o � o'Z7,.313ng "brm7-7, 30 -0-TcrZZIJ.
Motion No. 2 and 3 - Color Package
Ch. Hardt stated that Models #301, #401, and #501 have been approved for con-
struction in Phase 1 - Commons. Color packages have not been approved. The
colors of the Models was discussed. Basically #301 will be cream with white.
#401 will be grey with grey.
#501 will be green with beige.
The Commission agreed with the color packages for #401 and #501 were acceptable.
The white trim-with cream siding on #301 was not acceptable to Commissioners
Paolillo, Knaak and Gibbs. The Homeowners did not object to that color scheme.
Mr. Freiberg did not have an alternate color package available. He agreed to
submit a color package and discuss the situation further before erecting the model.
Com. Gibbs made a motion to Table the Color Package selection on Lot #301.
Com. Knaak seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was Aye unanimously to Table.
Further discussion resulted in a second motion made by Com. Paolillo to approve
three (3) buildings on the three (3) lots - #301 on Lot 3; #401 on Lot 4; and
#501 on Lot 5 with the stipulation that the color selection for #301 be submitted
at a later date.
Com. Gibbs seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye Unanimously.
Motion No. 4 - Commons-Landscaping Parking Area and Model Area
Mr. Freiberg presented the Site Plan showing the Model Area. There is a split-
rail fence leading from Model #301 around Model #501. Board on Board fences at
the rear of each Model around the patios. Landscaping around models and patios.
Lighting for each model - fixtures were presented. 500 Watt lamps to illuminate
the front of the house.
Parking area to the East has parking for 8 cars on concrete and an overflow gravel
area adjacent. Parking bumpers will be installed in both sections.
Lighting fixtures are located in the parking area. Also between parking and #301.
Additional landscaping has been provided North of the entrance and parking area
Lots will be sodded and part of the area east of the parking lot will be seeded.
Trees are 4" Sunset Maple and 2i" Pin Oaks in the Parkway.
Com. Knaak asked if the floodlights could be shielded with low plantings. OKl
Concrete patios are optional. Lighting will be on a timer to go en at dusk and
off at 11 P.M. Lights will be welcome to the residents and will not reach their
Com. Gibbs made the following motion: houses.
I move we approve the lighting for the Model area;
Landscaping for the Model area; and parking lot area;
as presented by Lexington Development Corp. for
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 at the Commons. Stipulations:
1. Lights to be on a timer to go on at
dusk and off at 11 P.M.
2. Planting to be added around floodlights.
3. Fences as per Plan dated Nov. 9, 1981 - Privacy fence
4. Parking area to be striped and bumpers in L to be 5 feet.
both the concrete and gravel areas.
Com. Cea seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Paolillo, Knaak, Gibbs,
Cea and Hardt.
Nay - None
Motion Passed 5 to 0.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Nov. 19, 1981 - Page Eight
0600�9 ��� ` ova ariain� waffe l� V fe
a�o�-o oz-rsa�3ng , , .30 ZZI11.
Motion No. 5 — Signage
Mr. Freiberg submitted the signs. The large project sign at the entrance will
be 8' by 15' (total 120 sq. ft.) Two directional parking and model signs —
14" by 27" and model signs 14" by 22".
The Commission objected to the price on the entrance sign and the large arrow.
Mr. Freiberg agreed to delete this copy and also agreed to change the design to
match the other signs, with a brown border and brown posts. No lights on signs.
The large sign is double faced. The others single faced. They will be constructed
of all—weather materials and the back of the single faced signs will be painted out.
The entrance sign will be approved for a 1 year time period with renewal as per
Section 11.1 of the Sign Code. Renewal contingent with 30 days advance written
notice. Any other signs (office, etc.) will need a permit.
Com. Gibbs made the following motion:
I move we approve the signs for the Buffalo Grove Commons
as presented by Lexington Development Corp. as submitted,
with the following stipulations:
1. Large billboard sign — double—faced with
brown border and brown posts to match the
other signs. Delete price and arrow.
Sign to be no larger than 8' x 15' and it
is not to be illuminated.
2. The parking signs and the model signs to
be as indicated in the drawing. Sizes:
14" x 27" and the model signs to be 14" x 22".
3. Colors as indicated in the drawing.
4. ALL other Commons signs (Shassian Development)
must be removed before erection of new signs.
5. All additional signage must be approved by the
Appearance Commission.
6. Time period is for 1 year with renewal as per
the Sign Code (Section 11.1). Renewal to be
for an additional one year periods
7. Location of signs as indicated.
Com. Knaak seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Paolillo, Kn ek,
Gibbs, Cea and Hardt.
Nay — None
Motion Passed 5 to 0.
Statement to the Village Board:
THE APPEARANCE COMMISSION STRONGLY RECOMMENDS THAT THE
"COMMON AREA" ACROSS FROM THE NEWLY PROPOSED MODEL AREA
BE PLACED INTO AN ACCEPTABLE LANDSCAPED CONDITION.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Nov. 19, 1981 — Page Nine
osoo9 '�1fi' `tea ���1' . waiga V ih'ir � '
.o�.o ozNT.33ng ' , , ..ao -D-V"'z'zi.Z .
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Commissioners called Mr. Sayianots attention to several signs that
are in possible violation. Dominic will check and report back to the AC.
ADJOURNMENT
Com. Anaak made a motion to adjourn. Com. Paolillo seconded the motion.
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley Bater ecretary
Appearance Ir .ae scion
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Nov. 19, 1981 — Page Ten