MEETING MINUTES OF THE ARCHITECTURAL
BOARD
REGULAR MEETING – MAY 15, 2006
7:00 PM
Call to Order: Chairman John Staub called the meeting of the Architectural Board (AB)
to order at 7:08 p.m. with the following members present:
Members Present: Chairman
Members Absent: Dee McLaughlin
Also Present: Village
Planner James Hogue, Village Attorney Vic Filippini @ 8:00 p.m. and members of the public
1. Approval
of the April 17th Draft
Meeting Minutes.
Commissioners noted
several typo’s in the minutes. Commissioner Beadle made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Marshall, to approve the April 17th meeting minutes as
corrected. On a voice vote; all aye.
2.
Consideration
of a replacement Subdivision Identification Sign for the Elenora Estates
Subdivision and mail box housing structure located off of Indian Creek Road,
Submitted by Schmechtig Landscape Company on behalf of the Eleanora Estates
Homeowners Association.
Chairman Staub read the request into the record. He noted that the site plan as submitted identified two entrance signs as part of the proposal. Village Code would only allow one sign which could be double faced.
Mr. Jessie Swanson representing the petitioner explained the request and would check into the viability of a single sign.
Commissioner Cohn questioned the landscaping. Planner Hogue noted that CSCC had reviewed that portion of the request and requested additional information for their meeting of May 17th.
Commissioner Marshall questioned the adequacy of the 5’10” height of the mailbox structure should individuals walk up to the mailbox structure. Commissioner Beadle suggested the roofline of the mailbox structure be raised.
It was noted that both the subdivision sign and the mailbox structure will be illuminated with low voltage lighting. The AB suggested the sign be landscaped to screen the illumination source.
After discussion Commissioner Cohn made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Beadle to accept the sign as presented with regard to color and copy with the condition that the request be limited to one sign; specific location, landscaping and lighting to be reviewed by staff. On a voice vote; all aye.
The AB had questions regarding the height, construction and lighting proposed for the mailbox structure. The AB directed the petitioner to provide additional information regarding this structure. Action on this item was continued to the next meeting pending the receipt of the requested information.
3.
Consideration
of a request for approval of a sign for the “The Olive Tap” within the “B-1”
Historic Business District, on property
known as 308 Old McHenry Road , Submitted by Kathi & Richard Petrocelli.
Chairman Staub read the request for the record. He noted the sign dimensions should be measured in feet not inches.
Mr. Petrocelli explained his request to the AB noting that
the colors in the photograph he presented to the AB were more accurate than the
copies presented to the AB. He is asking for two signs. One to hang on existing
hooks on the front (
The AB questioned whether the proposed sign to the north would interfere with pedestrian traffic. Mr. Petrocelli indicated it would not as it is proposed to be parallel to the structure not perpendicular to it.
A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Beadle to approve the signage as presented. On a voice; vote all aye.
4.
Consideration
of a request for approval of a sign for the “Adagio Hair Studio” within the
“B-1” Historic Business District, on
property known as 229 Robert Parker Coffin Road , Submitted by Yvonne Laycox .
Ms. Laycox presented her request to the AB. One sign would be a small hanging sign suspended from existing hooks. The other would be mounted to the wall in approximately the same location as that of the previous tenant “The Bag Shop”.
Commissioners questioned the total square footage of the proposed signage. Planner Hogue noted that he calculated 11.6 square feet of proposed signage but that this did not take into account the small hanging sign. He also noted petitioner would be held to the 12 square foot maximum regardless what the drawings indicated. If the applicant is over the maximum allowable signage, signs would need to be reconfigured to meet this requirement. Petitioner indicated she believed she was within the 12 square foot maximum as allowed per Village Code.
Motion made by Commissioner Beadle, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to accept the signage as proposed with the condition that such signage not exceed the 12 square foot maximum area as permitted by Village Code. On a voice vote; all aye
5.
Reconsideration
of the color scheme of building six in Long Grove Commons
Per the direction of the Village Board staff brought this item to the AB. The architect for the project noted that the color of a segment of building six as painted was “honeycomb” and should have been “soft apricot”. Staff presented this information along with “paint chips” of each of the colors. After a brief discussion the AB noted the color of the building as currently painted was in “substantial conformance” with the color scheme as identified on the approved building elevations. A motion was made by Commissioner Lyman, seconded by Commissioner Connolly to accept the color scheme for building six as it exists presently. On a voice vote; all aye.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1.
Review of Signage, Landscaping & Lighting
provisions of the proposed Long Grove Zoning Ordinance –
This item was continued to the next meeting for discussion.
2.
Consideration of draft of Rules of Procedure
(3nd Draft).
The AB reviewed the revisions to the Rules and Procedures as suggested
by the Village Attorney. The AB noted that there were no substantial changes
made to the document by the Village Attorney as a result of that review.
A motion was made by Commissioner Lyman, Seconded by Commissioner Cohn,
to approve the Rules and Procedures as revised by the Village Attorney. On a
voice vote; all aye.
3.
Village Signs
Commissioner Marshall brought up the issue of Village signs noting that
he was on a committee which was reviewing new signage for the village
entrances. The committee had asked him to discuss this item with the full AB.
Attorney Fillipini noted two things; 1) as this was not an item which
was placed on the agenda for action. Therefore, there could be no formal action
by the AB on it. 2) As these were Village signs no permitting was required and
therefore there was no necessity for the AB to review the proposal. Discussion of the issue by the AB could take
place however.
Commissioner Lyman explained she was on the same committee and
explained what was being considered for signage for the Village. She also noted
that the committee had asked the AB to review the signs as proposed.
4.
Letter from Chairman Staub.
Chairman Staub indicated that he had prepared a letter to be delivered
to the Village President concerning personnel related matters.
Adjournment: Commissioner Beadle made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Marshall. On a voice vote the motion was unanimously
approved. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted;
James M.
Hogue
James M. Hogue
Village Planner