Appearance Review Commission (ARC)

APPROVED COPY Appearance Review Commission Meeting Minutes February 9, 2015 A meeting of the Appearance Review Commission was held on Monday, February 9, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. at the Village Hall Conference Room, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Chairman Dick Coen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present were Dick Coen, Chairman Beth Chaitman Lisa Dunn Sean Ehlke Absent were: Sherry Flores Jim Hollis Elizabeth Low Also Present: Jean Spagnoli, Village Planner Jeri Cotton, Secretary Public Comment: There was no Public Comment. Document Approval Mr. Ehlke moved to approve the minutes from the January 26, 2015 Appearance Review Commission meeting. Ms. Chaitman seconded the motion. Ms. Dunn made minor corrections. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Dunn, Ehlke (4) NAYS: None (0) Business: 1. Appearance Code Update a. Review of completed section/revised: Building Designs (highlighted text only) Appearance Review Commission February 9, 2015 Page 2 of 3 The Commissioners discussed the highlighted portions of the Building Design section of the Appearance Code, which was revised on January 12, 2015. Ch. Coen suggested changing the word congruent in section 2a. He also asked about the term historic lot size. Mr. Ehlke explained the Commission used the phrase historic lot size to reflect the character of the Village. Ms. Chaitman questioned how the façade corresponded with the lot size. Ms. Spagnoli explained the intent is to keep with the small lot feel of the Village, similar to Deerfield Square where the facades change. Ms. Chaitman believes a façade is an exterior face rather than the building. Ch. Coen noted the word choice is very important and the intent needs to be interpreted by others in the future. Ms. Dunn suggested having a picture to show what the Commission and Village would like to see. Ms. Chaitman suggested defining historic lot size. Ms. Dunn believes the second sentence works well, because it states the Village wants a variety in height, recesses and materials. Ch. Coen read section 2a as if he were a petitioner. He asked if the section suggests that the Village wants a historical look. Mr. Ehlke explained the Commission wants to avoid having one large structure that has minimal variation in the façade. There needs to be a reasonable scale and relationship to the other buildings in the Village Center. Mr. Ehlke does not believe the section refers to modern versus historic design; rather, discusses the lot size. Ch. Coen suggested changing the word congruent to the phrase in keeping. Mr. Ehlke suggested developing a revision to 2a for the next meeting. Ch. Coen read Mr. Hollis’ recommendation to change the order of the words scaled and selected in section 4b to selected and scaled. The other commissioners agreed with Mr. Hollis’ recommendations. Mr. Ehlke discussed section 4d1. He believes stucco is a more durable material that EIFS. Ch. Coen indicated it is still not very durable. The commissioners discussed section 5a. Ch. Coen suggested the section should read, “Every building shall incorporate building address numerals that shall be a minimum of three inches in height, a contrasting color to the mounting surface and placed on the building facing the public street for which the address is given, or if not possible, a public way.” Ch. Coen questioned whether the information should include graphic examples of what not to do, as it may be considered slanderous. He suggested Ms. Spagnoli check with the legal department. The commissioners discussed section 9, roofs. Ch. Coen questioned the use of the word structure in 9a. He suggested, “Visible and pitched roofs should be of a material, color and texture appropriate to the building design character and use.” Mr. Ehlke agreed. Ch. Coen questioned whether there is enough “historic character and development in Deerfield. Mr. Ehlke believes development is ongoing; however, historic calls out older designs. Appearance Review Commission February 9, 2015 Page 3 of 3 The commissioners discussed section10f. If an awning/canopy is used as the background for an allowed wall sign, it would be in lieu of a permitted wall sign. The commissioners discussed section 11, decks and balconies. Ms. Dunn and Ms. Chaitman believe decks and balconies are raised. Ch. Coen suggested updating the header as well. Mr. Ehlke suggested adding the phrase “upper level” before decks to denote it is raised. He also recommended adding decks to the definition section. Ch. Coen noted patios would not fall into this section. Ms. Chaitman asked if information about eating areas and patios is included. Ms. Dunn suggested adding 11d, reflecting eating areas. Ms. Spagnoli questioned whether patios and at grade decks should be moved to the site section. Mr. Ehlke suggested providing a note in the decks and balconies section directing you to the site section for information on patios. Ms. Dunn believes this would encourage developers to put any balcony on the other side of the building away from the street. Ch. Coen suggested having a graphic that shows the screening. Items from the Staff Ms. Spagnoli discussed the two petitions she received for the next meeting. Adjournment: There being no further quorum, Ms. Dunn moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Ehlke seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 PM. The next regular meeting of the Appearance Review Commission will take place on Monday, February 23, 2015 at 7:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Jeri Cotton Secretary