VILLAGE OF LONG GROVE
MEETING MINUTES OF THE ARCHITECTURAL BOARD

REGULAR MEETING – December 19, 2005

7:00 PM

 

Call to Order:  Chairman John Staub called the meeting of the Architectural Board (AB) to order at 7:01 p.m. with the following members present:

 

Members Present:         Chairman John Staub, Lynn Michaelson-Cohn, Dee McLaughlin, Terrance Connolly, Lori Lyman

 

Members Absent:         None   

                         

Also Present:                Village Planner James Hogue, Members of the public

 

  1. Approval of the November 21, 2005 Draft Meeting Minutes.

 

The AB noted several typographical errors and other minor corrections.  Motion by Terry Connolly, seconded by Lynn Michaelson-Cohn to approve the November 21st meeting minutes as corrected. On a voice vote; all aye.    

 

  1. Consideration of a request for an addition to “The Arlington” 1666 Checker Road; specifically the use of stucco or brick on façade improvements, submitted by Mr. Jimmy Mann and referred by the Long Grove Plan Commission.

 

Mr. Sig Lefkovitz, on behalf of The Arlington, explained the project to the AB. He noted that that both the proposed major additions would use the same building materials, keep the same roof line etc. He referenced the site plan and elevations which had been supplied to AB members.

 

Mr. Connolly questioned Mr. Lefkovitz with regard to the proposed building layout and where brick and stucco façade treatments were proposed.  

 

Ms. Lyman indicated she had a preference for the brick façade.

 

Mr. Lefkovitz explained that the “brick” facades were actually stucco made to look like brick. He indicated that these panels were no longer manufactured and that the existing panels had been problematic in that moisture gets behind them and they fall off the building.

 

After discussion the Board determined that the south elevations of the proposed additions should be brick. The east and west elevations are to remain stucco. An exception was discussed for the proposed office addition on the south elevation.  This may remain stucco. In addition, Mr. Lefkovitz indicated he would provide brick quoins at the junction of the brick and stucco elevations.       

 

Motion made by Lori Lyman, Seconded by Dee McLaughlin that the facade of the south elevation of  proposed additions to “The Arlington” be brick with the exception of the proposed office addition on the south elevation which shall be stucco. The east and west elevations of the proposed façades shall remain stucco as identified on the site plan 12-12-05 and presented for AB review. On a voice vote; all aye.

 

  1. Consideration of a request by Menard’s Inc. for final approval of plans, including signage, as part of the final PUD plan approval, located on Old Route 53.

 

Representatives of the Menard’s development were present and explained that the preliminary approval of the project had taken place approximately one year ago. They explained that no major differences existed between the preliminary approval and what was being proposed for final approval. Differences were largely related to signage on the property.

 

Mr. Theron Berg, of Menard’s indicated he had included gate and canopy signs for the consideration of the AB. These were new and had not been previously reviewed by the AB. These signs are typical signs used in all Menard’s stores mostly to direct customers to the “yard” and for ingress and egress.

 

The AB had concerns with the size, location and height of these signs. The AB suggested the gate/canopy sign be reduced by 30%. Discussion was also held regarding placement of the signs lower than originally proposed. The goal was to bring signage to a more pedestrian scale.  

 

Motion made by Lori Lyman, Seconded by Dee McLaughlin, to accept the gate and canopy signage 30% smaller than proposed by the petitioner (from the proposed 96”x 36” to 64” x 24” on the canopy signs and from the proposed 48”x 18” to 32” x 12” on the ingress & egress signs). If the signage is to be placed upon a fence sign height may be seven (7’) feet to the top of the sign. If freestanding (pole mounted) sign height is limited to four (4’) feet to the top of the sign. The sign post shall be painted wood or metal. Any further directional signage must be brought back to the AB for review and approval. On a voice vote; all aye.

 

A sub-motion was made by Ms. Lyman, seconded by Ms. McLaughlin to accept the pylon and building signs as submitted. On a voice vote; all aye.

 

Ms. Lyman indicated she had reviewed the landscape plans. Her comments and the response to those comments by the petitioners firm HKM Architects and Planners had been reviewed. Ms. Lyman indicated she concurred with the response and the landscape plan was satisfactory. One issue however, was the maintenance of landscaped “prairie areas”. It was suggested this be run by the CSCC for any comments or recommendation. It was noted that the Covenants and Restrictions to be put on the property did address this issue.

 

Motion made by Lori Lyman, seconded by Dee McLaughlin to approve the landscape plans as submitted contingent upon review of the “detention basin seed mix” (naturalized grass mix/mixed grass matrix; sheet L100 & L201) by the CSCC.

 

This motion was then amended to state that the maintenance of the “prairie area” landscaping was to follow the recommendations of the CSCC as well.  The amendment to the motion was approved and the motion as amended was approved on a voice vote.

 

Planner Hogue noted that no final lighting plan had been submitted. Petitioners indicated this will remain identical to the March 1st 2005 plan as given preliminary approval.       

 

Motion made by Lynn Michaelson-Cohn, Seconded by Lori Lyman to accept the amended elevation as presented by the petitioner.  On a role call vote; all aye.   

 

Other Business;

 

1.      Approval of the 2006 AB Meeting Schedule – Planner Hogue presented the draft 2006 meeting schedule. He noted that there were two conflicts between regular AB meeting dates and recognized holidays these being Martin Luther King Day (January) and Presidents Day (February).  The AB decided to cancel the meeting in January and hold the February Meeting on the 13th instead of the 20th. All other meetings would be held the on the 3rd Monday of the month at 7:00 PM in Village Hall unless otherwise noticed.  Motion by Terry Connolly seconded by Dee McLaughlin to approve the 2006 meeting schedules as amended. On a voice vote; all aye.

  

2.      Rules of Procedure – The AB began discussion of the Rules and procedures by noting that they felt the size of the Board should be increased. This was principally for two reasons; 1). On occasion a quorum may not be established; a larger Board would limit this occurrence. 2.  As noted in the recent Open Meetings Act Seminar, with a 5 member Board no two members can converse without violating the Act. This is potentially problematic should members wish to confer or seek the advise of another on a specific petition prior to a scheduled meeting. The AB would like to see the process of expansion the AB begin as soon as possible. Planner Hogue suggested that Chairman Staub contact the Village President with regard to this issue.

 

Ms. Cohn also commented that she felt the role of the Chairman should be central in the functioning of the AB. All concerns regarding procedure or other functions of the AB (inside or outside of meetings) should be made know to the Chair as a matter of protocol.  She felt this was not adequately addressed in the draft rules and procedures as provided to the AB for review and asked that this be better clarified. Staff will work to strengthen the duties of the Chair per these comments and present the results in a future draft of the Rules of Procedure.            

 

Adjournment:  Commissioner Connolly made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Cohn.  On a voice vote the motion was unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted;

 

James M. Hogue

 

James M. Hogue

Village Planner