Appearance Review Commission (ARC)

APPROVED COPY Appearance Review Commission Meeting Minutes April 13, 2015 A meeting of the Appearance Review Commission was held on Monday, April 13, 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 7:00 p.m. Present were Dick Coen, Chairman Beth Chaitman Lisa Dunn Sherry Flores Jim Hollis Elizabeth Low Absent were: Sean Ehlke Also Present: Jean Spagnoli, Village Planner Jeri Cotton, Secretary Public Comment: There was no Public Comment. Document Approval Ms. Dunn moved to approve the minutes from the March 23, 2015 Appearance Review Commission meeting. Ch. Coen made a few corrections. Mr. Hollis seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Dunn, Flores, Hollis, Low (6) NAYS: None (0) Business: 1, Deerfield Train Station platform improvements Barbara Little, Director of Public Works and Engineering for the Village, was present. Ms. Little explained the train station was last renovated 15 years ago. Metra put in brick pavers just outside the station, the shelters and furnishings were also added. The pavers have not held up well, partially due to the amount of salt on the platforms. The Appearance Review Commission March 9, 2015 Page 2 of 6 holes have been patched with concrete. The Village has pushed Metra to repair the platforms. Metra stated they would only put in asphalt platforms. They would put in stamped, colored asphalt, but would not use other materials. If the Village wants a different material, the Village would be responsible for liability and maintenance. Metra representatives showed samples of the stamped asphalt platforms. She noted they will continue to use the yellow tactile strip adjacent to the tracks, but the Village has a choice of the pattern and color of the asphalt. Ms. Little explained Metra would offer a herringbone, an offset brick and/or a soldier course pattern. Metra provided a color pallet brochure; however, most communities use the terra cotta color. Ms. Little asked about the brick in the protected area of the station, and found they would not need to be repaired. She asked the Commission to consider the various options. Ch. Coen is sensitive to the fact this building is on the historic registry, but does not believe the Village should assume liability for the platform. He prefers the herringbone pattern, but is not excited about the terra cotta color. Ch. Coen noted the asphalt could not be blended; rather, it would be monochromatic. He would recommend selecting a color that is similar to the existing. Ms. Flores agreed, adding the terra cotta seems too orange. Ch. Coen asked if the color is throughout the asphalt. Ms. Little indicated the color is a topical application. The commissioners believe the color could fade or wear off over time. Ms. Little noted the existing platform is dark gray with a little red in it. Ch. Coen believes the selected color should work well with the existing brick under the loggia area which will remain. The commissioners walked to the train station to view the color and pattern options. Ch. Coen noted the original loggia brick would remain. Ms. Chaitman indicated the depot area has a huge expanse area. She also noted the building color is very dark. Ms. Spagnoli explained the building colors include gray, cream and a dark brown. Ms. Low preferred the Brickyard Red, Graystone or Brownstone. Ms. Flores believes there should be some red color so it does not appear so monotone. Ms. Dunn believes there will be a lot of a solid color. Ch. Coen suggested having some contrast with the building and believes the Brownstone may be too monochromatic. Ms. Chaitman would prefer either the Burnt Sienna or Brickyard Red color. Mr. Hollis prefers the Brownstone, but noted it would fade. Ms. Flores preferred the Brickyard Red. Ms. Chaitman moved to accept the Brownstone color. Mr. Hollis seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Hollis, Low (4) NAYS: Dunn, Flores (2) The commissioners discussed the pattern. They prefer the herringbone or running bond pattern with soldier courses. Mr. Hollis noted they already have the running bond pattern in the existing brick, which will remain. Ch. Coen questioned how many soldier courses. The Commissioners suggested adding the soldier course at the edge of the Appearance Review Commission March 9, 2015 Page 3 of 6 building drip line, by the track tactile strip, at the edge of the old loggia brick and the stair ramps. Mr. Hollis believes the standard soldier course would not work near the stairs because the running bond would disappear unless the soldier course was 8x8 rather than 2x8. The commissioners believe the 8x8 Texas soldier course would work. Ch. Coen requested a drawing showing where the soldier course would be located. He believes the soldier course would break up the long expanse of the platform. Ch. Coen questioned whether the commissioners want a specific distance broken up. Ms. Chaitman indicated the installer would need a detailed drawing. Ch. Coen noted the stair cases appear to be evenly spaced. He suggested also having the soldier course by the shelters. Ch. Coen suggested adding a soldier course half way between the two stair cases. The pattern would be the same on the east and west sides. The commissioners agreed. Mr. Hollis suggested leaving the brick expanse in front of the station without a soldier course running perpendicular to the tracks. Ms. Flores expressed concern that if the soldier course were place in front of the staircase in stage 3, it would be in front of the shelter. In the stage 4 area, the soldier course would be at the ramp on the south side of the depot. In stage 1, the track crossing, stair case and ramp would all have soldier course. Mr. Hollis would prefer to have the expanse interrupted in this area. Ms. Little will work on obtaining a drawing indicating the brick pattern with the solider courses for the Commission’s review. 2. Appearance Code Update a. Review of completed section/revised  Building Designs (highlighted text only) The commissioners discussed the large structures section of the Appearance Code. The commissioners did not have any changes. Mr. Hollis suggested rewording section “a” to read, “Consideration should be given to breaking larger buildings into multiple structures if possible. The commissioners discussed the components section of the Appearance Code. The commissioners do not have any changes to this section. Ch. Coen suggested adding a section “e” under roofs and it should read, “Perimeter lighting that outlines the expanse of a building is meant to draw attention to the entire building mass and will be considered signage.  Relationship of Building(s) to site and adjacent areas (highlighted text and diagram) The commissioners discussed the secondary building access section of the Appearance Code. They did not have any changes to this section. Appearance Review Commission March 9, 2015 Page 4 of 6 The commissioners discussed the compatibility section of the Appearance Code. They did not have any changes to this section. The commissioners discussed the patios and grade level decks section of the Appearance Code. They did not have any changes to this section. The commissioners discussed the bike facilities section of the Appearance Code. They did not have any changes to this section. The commissioners discussed the drive-through section of the Appearance Code. Ch. Coen noted that there are certain areas within a store that a drive-through can or cannot go. Ms. Low noted some drive-through locations expand through more than one façade and face major streets. Ms. Chaitman questioned whether the Commission should be more specific. Ms. Dunn believes petitioners will claim a hardship to have a drive- through at a specific location. Ms. Low questioned how the rear of a building is defined. Mr. Hollis suggested adding ‘non-street facing side’ to the list of areas drive-through components can be located. The commissioner discussed the utility services section of the Appearance Code. They did not have any changes to this section. The commissioners discussed the neighborly considerations section of the Appearance Code. They did not have any changes to this section. The commissioners discussed the proposed graphic for Building Mass Transition. They questioned where it would go. Ms. Spagnoli explained it would be part of the Appearance Code booklet. The commissioners did not have any changes to the graphic or text under the graphic.  Lighting, review of rough draft The commissioners discussed the lighting location section of the Appearance Code. Ms. Chaitman questioned illumination of displays. She suggested removing displays. The commissioners agreed. The commissioners discussed the phrase significant architectural element. Ch. Coen believes this would encourage petitioners to illuminate some of their architectural elements. Ms. Low believes this should be removed from this section. The commissioners agreed. Lighting should be provided to aid in public safety and should include the illumination of entries, signage, adjacent pedestrian and parking areas. Security lighting should be concealed from view to the extent possible. The commissioners discussed the illumination levels section of the Appearance Code. Ch. Coen believes the Village should have a maximum level, a minimum level and uniformity ratios built into the Code. A uniformity ratio would ensure the lighting is well distributed. Ch. Coen believes the lighting plan should be part of the permitting process. It would allow the Commission to say there is too little or too much lighting. Appearance Review Commission March 9, 2015 Page 5 of 6 Ms. Spagnoli questioned if there would be maximums and minimums for various scenarios. Ms. Low believes a lighting engineer would be able to provide industry standards. The commissioners discussed the exposed light source section of the Appearance Code. Ms. Low questioned the grammar of this section. She suggested removing one of the commas. The commissioners discussed the color section of the Appearance Code. Ms. Dunn questioned the meaning of this section. Ch. Coen explained the intent is that the light color would be the same. The illumination would all be the same, whether they are metal halide, LED, fluorescent or other illumination. Ms. Low questioned whether the light fixtures should also be the same. Ms. Flores noted that is in section 6. The commissioners discussed the dark-sky section of the Appearance Code. The commissioners did not have any changes to this section. The commissioners discussed the design plan section of the Appearance Code. The commissioners did not have any changes to this section. The commissioners discussed the glare section of the Appearance Code. Ms. Dunn questioned whether the text should be changed to nuisance rather than annoyance. The commissioners agreed. The commissioners discussed the canopy lighting section of the Appearance Code. Ch. Coen noted this would mean the lighting should be fully recessed. Ms. Low suggested just stating the lighting should be fully recessed, to make it very specific. Ms. Dunn suggested adding that fully recessed light fixtures are preferred. Ch. Coen noted specifying recessed lighting could be too restrictive. He does not believe the Commission should mandate that. He thinks the intent is to focus the light downward. The commissioners did not have any changes to this section. The commissioners discussed the interior lighting section of the Appearance Code. Ch. Coen explained this is discussing that what is done on the inside of the store when it affects the exterior. The Commission has not done this in the past. Ms. Chaitman does not believe the exterior lighting should be addressed in this section. She questioned whether the problem is that a bulb can be seen or if it is that the illumination is too bright. Ch. Coen noted this is mandating the use of blinds or shades. Ms. Spagnoli read an excerpt from the Highland Park Appearance Code, which states that light sources shall be shielded from view from public rights-of-way and residential districts. Ch. Coen believes that is referring to exterior light sources. Ms. Low suggested talking to a lighting engineer. Ms. Chaitman suggested permitting only a specific wattage at night. She suggested the commissioners drive by various businesses to see their interior lighting at night. Appearance Review Commission March 9, 2015 Page 6 of 6  Definitions The commissioners discussed the definitions section of the Appearance Code. The commissioners discussed the definition of the word “glare.” They did not have any changes to the definition. The commissioners discussed the definition of the phrase “sky glow.” They did not have any changes to the definition. The commissioners discussed the definition of the phrase “fully shield luminaire.” They suggested changing shield to shielded. The commissioners discussed the definition of the phrase “public way.” Ms. Low suggested adding a comma after easement for access. The commissioners discussed the definition of the word “parapet”. Ch. Coen suggested only including the first sentence. Ms. Chaitman asked if all of the “old” definitions are being used. Ms. Dunn believes this section should be tabled and if a word is not part of the Appearance Code, it should be removed. Items from the Commission: Mr. Hollis will be moving out of Deerfield after he sells his house. He will be happy to stay on the Commission until he moves. Items from Staff: Ms. Spagnoli noted PreCore will not be at the next meeting. They are moving to another location in the Village. The next meeting will be April 27, 2015. MOD Pizza and Queen Nails and State Farm on Lake Cook Road will appear before the Commission. Adjournment There being no further business or discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:27 pm. Respectfully submitted, Jeri Cotton Secretary