MEETING MINUTES OF THE ARCHITECTURAL
BOARD
REGULAR MEETING – MARCH 20, 2006
7:00 PM
Call to Order: Chairman John Staub called the meeting of the Architectural Board (AB)
to order at 7:02 p.m. with the following members present:
Members Present: Chairman
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Village
Planner James Hogue, Members of the public
1. Approval
of the December 19, 2005 Draft Meeting Minutes.
Commissioner McLaughlin asked that certain paragraphs under “Other
Business” item 2 “Rules of Procedure” be deleted and a summary statement be inserted
in its place. The consensus of the Architectural Board was to move this item to
the end of the agenda for further discussion and consideration.
2. Consideration
of a request for modification of the façade of “Mel’s
The AB noted that Mr. Towner was not present. Planner Hogue gave a brief overview of the
request noting that the request was a bit different than what was approved in
the fall of 2005.
After brief discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Lyman to
accept the modification to the façade of “Mel’s
3. Long Grove
Commons requests;
a. Consideration of exterior alterations and
signage to building #6 for “Scotto’s
Pizza” in Long Grove Commons, RT 22 & Old McHenry Road, within the B-2 PUD
District.
The architect for the project reviewed the exterior alterations as
proposed for the structure. She noted that the vents being proposed were to
provide for exhaust fans within the building. The existing approved
architecture was given strong consideration in relation to the proposed alteration.
Dormers were considered to cover the vents but were deemed cost prohibitive and
posed safety issues (fire) should a flare up occur in one of the vents. It was
also felt that dormers would detract from the overall architecture of the
structure. The proposed alterations represented the cleanest and safest way to
provide exhaust ventilation to the structure. Vents were pushed as far back on
the structure as possible. Color of the vents will match the roofing material.
The AB then discussed various options concerning the alteration,
specifically the use of dormers to cover the vents. Upon conclusion of that
discussion it was determined that the proposal as submitted was the best
alternative for the alteration. Motion by Commissioner Lyman, Seconded by
Commissioner McLaughlin to approve the exterior alterations to “Scotto’s Pizza”
as submitted on the February 13th plans. On a voice vote; all aye.
The AB then considered signage as proposed by the petitioner. The AB
asked the petitioner to revise the signage proposal to illustrate the proposed
signage in relation to the building (i.e. scaled drawing in relation to the
building elevation). A detail of any exterior illumination of the sign (i.e.
down lighting) was also requested. Also, the Board asked that the color of the
signage be illustrated in relation to the color of the building. The revisions
will be presented to the AB at their
April 17th meeting.
b. Consideration of a request for
signage at Long Grove Commons for “All Cleaners”, Building #6 in Long Grove
Commons, RT. 22 & Old McHenry Road, within the B-2 PUD District, Submitted
by Mr. Yong S. Yang.
The AB noted that Mr. Yang was not present. They requested additional
information with regard to the proposed signage namely; 1) any down lighting
specifications. 2) Illustration of the color of the signage in relation to the
color of the building. 3). the location of the signage on the building drawn to
scale (i.e. a scaled elevation of the building illustrating the proposed
signage). The AB requested the
petitioner re-submit the proposal for signage in accordance with the
specifications as identified by the AB.
c. Consideration of a request for
signage (temporary & permanent) at Long Grove Commons for “Curves”,
Building #6 in Long Grove Commons, RT. 22 & Old McHenry Road, within the
B-2 PUD District, Submitted by Robert & Janet Faulkner.
Mr. Robert Faulkner presented the request for signage to the AB. He
indicated the request was for “basic” signage and that the proposed sign would
be white on a brick background as illustrated in the submittal packet. The sign
would be non-illuminated and located on the south side of Building number 6. No
signage is proposed for the north elevation at this time.
A motion was made by Commissioner Connolly, seconded by Commissioner
Cohn to accept the request for signage for “Curves”, Building #6, in Long Grove
Commons,. On a voice vote; all aye.
4. Consideration
of a request for signage at Leider’s Flower Farm, 22491 RT. 83, Long
Grove, within the R-1 & R-2 PUD
District submitted by Leider Greenhouses.
A representative of Leider’s Flower Farm explained their request for
signage to the AB. She indicated that
the proposal was to replace the existing wooden signs with new aluminum signage
as illustrated in the application packet. The sign would contain the company
logo and company name (i.e. Leider Flower Farm). Signs will use the existing superstructure
on-site. Signs would measure 37” x 79” and 34”x 79” and are to be in
conformance with the drawings as submitted in the application packet.
Motion made by Commissioner Cohn, Seconded by Commissioner Connolly to
accept the request for signage at
Leider’s Flower Farm, 22491 RT. 83, Long Grove as submitted. On a voice vote
all aye.
5. Consideration
of a request by Richmond American Homes for compliance review with the
Anti-Monotony Code of the
Chairman Staub indicated that this item would likely take some time to review. He asked that it be placed at the end of the agenda. By consensus the AB moved on to the next item.
6. Consideration
of a request for exterior screening of
mechanical equipment within the B-1 Historic District for property at
512 Robert Parker Coffin Road to be know as Patisserie New Orleans, submitted
by Terri Miller.
The architect for the petitioner, Chad Boomgaarden, presented the
proposed alterations to the property. He also presented a letter from the
property owner, Sherman Gerber, indicating that he had no objections to the
proposed alterations.
Mr. Boomgaarden then discussed the proposed screening of the make-up
air unit for the bakery as identified on sheet A200 of the exhibit submitted by
the petitioner. The AB then discussed the proposed color of the screening. Dark
Brown was suggested to provide both contrast to the existing structure and make
the screening appear smaller.
Motion by Commissioner Lyman, Seconded by Commissioner Connolly to accept
the plans as submitted with the screening to be dark brown as discussed. On a
voice vote; all aye.
7. Consideration
of a request by Richmond American Homes for compliance review with the
Anti-Monotony Code of the
Planner Hogue indicated that he had spoken with Mr. Kevin Crowe, Vice President of Land Acquisition for Richmond American Homes on Friday March 17th. At that time Mr. Crowe indicated that the company wished to withdraw their request for compliance with the Village anti-monotony code indefinitely.
Mr. Hogue had requested the company submit that request in writing for the consideration of the AB regarding the withdrawal of the request. That correspondence had not been received as of meeting time and no representative of the company was present.
Mr. Hogue suggested that this item be continued until the next meeting with the understanding that if a formal request for withdrawal was received the item would be dropped from the next agenda.
Motion made by Commissioner Lyman, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to continue this request to the April 17th meeting unless a formal request for withdrawal is received. On a voice vote; all aye.
It was noted that should the petitioner wish to pursue this further a site plan of building locations along with proposed color schemes should be submitted.
8. Approval
of the December 19, 2005 Draft Meeting Minutes.
The main body of the minutes were
deemed to be satisfactory by the AB. Commissioner McLaughlin again asked certain paragraphs under “Other
Business” item 2 “ Rules of Procedure” be deleted and a summary statement be
inserted in place of these paragraphs.
Commissioner Lyman felt that the minutes as presented were an accurate reflection of what occurred at the meeting. An additional summary paragraph could be considered for inclusion in the minutes however.
Chairman Staub indicated that everyone had aired their views at that meeting and while perhaps uncomfortable, no impropriety was implied in the discussion. He wished the Board and Village Attorney had been contacted prior to going to the AG. He felt the December meeting was a good meeting and everyone had the opportunity to bring their concerns to the table regarding this issue.
It was reiterated that there was nothing improper which occurred but that the “positive” results could have been attained by contacting the Chairman and/or Village attorney before going to the AG for guidance.
Commissioner Cohn reiterated that Commissioners should work through the system beginning with the Chair and staff, such as the Village Attorney, prior to making outside contacts. Although good things may have come from this action she feels the ends don’t justify the means.
Commissioner McLaughlin indicated there were inaccuracies in the minutes. It was suggested by the AB that Ms. McLaughlin make corrections for consideration by the AB at the next regular meeting. Planner Hogue is to provide an electronic version of the draft minutes to Commissioner McLaughlin.
A motion to table consideration of the December 12th meeting minutes until the next meeting made by Commissioner Lyman; seconded by Commissioner Cohn. On a voice vote; all aye.
Other Business;
1. Consideration of draft of Rules of Procedure
(2nd Draft).
The AB asked that the proposed Rules of Procedure be updated to reflect
the additional members as permitted in the recently approved ordinance ( next
agenda item). The “background” of members should also be changed to match the
ordinance.
Commissioner Cohn questioned the need for the public hearing section as
the AB did not hold public hearings per se.
Planner Hogue responded that he debated on whether or not to include
this section for that reason. It was included in case the AB should be directed
to hold a public hearing for whatever reason. In that instance, some sort of
guidelines would be in place for such an occurrence. Planner Hogue also
indicated that Village Attorney had questioned this as well and recommended this
section be dropped as the AB does not hold public hearings. The AB concurred
and asked this be stricken from the proposed Rules of Procedure.
Chairman Staub indicated the Rules of Procedure were a good thing to
have. That such a document could in particular provide guidance for new members
as well as give guidance to the AB on how to properly take action on items
which come before them that may not be of a routine nature.
Planner Hogue indicated in his experience Rules of Procedure were
commonly adopted by Boards and Commissions. He further indicated such a
document was intended to simplify how the Board functions and to allow the AB
to operate in a more efficient manner. In addition such a document can be
helpful to new Board members appointed to the AB, can provide a more consistent
forum for decision making and would allow the AB to develop “good” habits in
the way they conduct their meetings and make decisions. On the other hand,
there is no statutory requirement that such a document be adopted and the AB is
not required to do so.
Commissioner Cohn indicated that the Chairman should be the key figure
in how meetings are conducted and that consideration should be given to
adapting the Rules and Procedures to meet needs of the Chairman.
The AB then directed staff to continue with revisions to the document
as discussed and bring it back to the AB at their next meeting. Review by the
Village Attorney would be sought once the AB was satisfied with the draft
document.
2).
Ordinance authorizing additional AB Members.
Planner Hogue indicated that one of the items noted during the
discussion of the Rules of Procedure at the December meeting was expanding the
AB to seven members. Mr. Hogue noted that the Ordinance included in the packet
was approved by the Village Board and authorized the expansion of the AB to
seven (7) members. The item was strictly an FYI for the AB.
3). Discussion
of candidates for additional AB positions.
The AB noted that several applications for new AB members had been
received. The Board then reviewed and discussed the applications as well other
individuals they felt may be good candidates for consideration.
Commissioner Lyman indicated the AB could use someone from the Building
Trades as a member.
Commissioner Cohn indicated an additional architect would be helpful from
the technical perspective as well as providing additional expertise and support
in the event of absence of the architects which currently sit on the Board.
Ms. McLaughlin indicated someone from the Historical Society would be
very useful on the AB.
Overall the AB indicated a preference for the addition of individuals
with technical skills useful to the AB such as an engineer, architect or
builder.
The consensus of the AB was to have the Chairman relay the discussions
of the AB with regard to new membership to the Village President for
consideration by the Village President and Village Board.
Adjournment: Commissioner McLaughlin made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner
Connolly. On a voice vote the motion was
unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted;
James
M. Hogue
James M. Hogue
Village Planner