Appearance Review Commission (ARC)

APPROVED COPY Appearance Review Commission Meeting Minutes May 11, 2015 A meeting of the Appearance Review Commission was held on Monday, May 11, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. at the Village Hall Conference Room, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Acting Chairman Sean Ehlke called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present were Beth Chaitman Lisa Dunn Sean Ehlke, Acting Chairman Jim Hollis Absent were: Dick Coen, Chairman Sherry Flores Elizabeth Low Also Present: Barbara Little, Director of Public Works and Engineering 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 April 27, 2015 Appearance Review Commission meeting. Ms. Chaitman seconded the motion. Acting Ch. Ehlke made some corrections. The motion passed unanimously as amended on a voice vote. Business: 1. Deerfield Train Station platform improvements Ms. Little explained Metra was asked to provide drawings for the Metra platform, but they were unable to provide a drawing or details of the patterning. She was concerned the pattern may be too complicated for the contractor to install. Ms. Little provided a detailed drawing of her own. Detail A would have a tactile strip next to the tracks with an asphalt solider course adjacent, then the running bond. She suggested having the running bond abutting the existing concrete pavers on the east side. Meaning the Appearance Review Commission May 11, 2015 Page 2 of 5 existing pavers located from the building face to the roof drip line would stay. This way the concrete pavers will circle the building on all sides. Ms. Spagnoli indicated this is a little different than what the Commission discussed at the last meeting. Ms. Little noted if any of the concrete pavers between the platform and the depot are not in good condition, they could leverage some of the bricks they are replacing. Acting Ch. Ehlke questioned how the asphalt brick pattern compares to the existing running bond. Ms Chaitman noted the building exterior was closest to the brownstone color. Acting Ch. Ehlke asked if the asphalt color should change, because it is no longer going to be adjacent to the building. Ms. Little discussed the staircase feature. She believes they should go with a running bond until the staircases. Ms. Little noted there will be soldier courses perpendicular to the staircases, one on each side framing the location. Ms. Spagnoli noted there is nothing at the main crossing. Ms. Dunn believes pedestrians look for the middle. She believes it should be the running bond. Acting Ch. Ehlke indicated the tactile strip is wider at the main crossing. Ms. Dunn moved to approve the brownstone color for the stamped asphalt. The staircases would be framed with a soldier course, there would be a soldier course adjacent to the tactile strip and the rest would be running bond. Ms. Chaitman seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Chaitman, Dunn, Ehlke, Hollis (4) NAYS: None (0) 2. Appearance Code Updates a. Building Design (highlighted text only) The commissioners discussed the large structures section of the Appearance Code. The commissioners were okay with the highlighted section. The commissioners discussed the roof section of the Appearance Code. Ms. Spagnoli read a recommendation from Ch. Coen. She amended it in section 9e in the materials sent to the Commission. Acting Ch. Ehlke believes a phrase should be added so the section reads: “Perimeter lighting that outlines the expanse of the building or a specific building feature/element that is meant to draw attention to the structure, such as signage is meant to do, will not be allowed. Exemption: Holiday Decorations (Zoning Ordinance 9.01-A, 3.)” b. Relationship of Building(s) to site and adjacent areas (highlighted text only) The commissioners discussed the drive-through section of the Appearance Code. Acting Ch. Ehlke believes the second highlight should read, “and/or on a non-street facing side” instead of just “on a non-street facing side.” Ms. Dunn believes this change could create an issue. The commissioners decided to keep the section as previously written. Appearance Review Commission May 11, 2015 Page 3 of 5 c. Lighting (highlighted text and diagram) The commissioners discussed the lighting section of the Appearance Code. Acting Ch. Ehlke noted there is a bullet point from the KSA Lighting attachment that states “window glazing or films that inhibit two-way visibility, such as tinted or mirrored windows are prohibited.” He believes clear glass should be used on the street level. Acting Ch. Ehlke is in favor of keeping things clear, open and visible. Ms. Spagnoli thought the information provided by KSA Lighting was interesting. Acting Ch. Ehlke believes this document is too specific for the Village; however, he believes it provides good background information. Ms. Spagnoli noted there is not an IES standard for the interior lighting situation. Acting Ch. Ehlke spoke with an electrical engineer about IES standards and also found there were no specific standards regarding the effects of interior lighting on the exterior. He likes the idea of having a Zoning Code specify the type of lighting that can be used in the downtown. He believes it is important to call out the average foot candles. Ms. Spagnoli broke down the Highland Park Zoning Ordinance illumination levels and created a proposal for the Deerfield Appearance Code. Acting Ch. Ehlke noted the average foot candle section is in the proposal. He would like to add the maximum light pole height from grade into the proposal. Acting Ch. Ehlke believes there should be lighting uniformity based on the activity. He suggested looking at the Ordinances from other communities. Acting Ch. Ehlke believes section b under illumination levels is too general. He would like the section to provide a maximum pole height in each zone. Ms. Spagnoli noted some of the information is not appropriate for the Appearance Code; rather, it would be part of the Zoning Ordinance. Acting Ch. Ehlke believes section b should be removed and another line item should be maximum pole height in section c. Ms. Dunn suggested that b should read, “Light pole heights must be in scale with the building(s) and site, and shall be used to obtain the proper illumination as set forth in section c below.” Acting Ch. Ehlke would like to see “(0)” added when the word zero is used. At the end of the first sentence, he would like to add, “and can be an annoyance to the general public.” Ms. Chaitman believes annoyance may be too strong. Ms. Dunn suggested using the word nuisance instead of annoyance. The commissioners agreed. The commissioners discussed section 1b under lighting location in the Appearance Code. The commissioners are okay with what is proposed. The commissioners discussed the color section under lighting in the Appearance Code. The commissioners are okay with what is proposed. The commissioners discussed the dark-sky section under lighting in the Appearance Code. Acting Ch. Ehlke questioned the proposed addition. Ms. Spagnoli explained this would go with the proposed illustration. Ms. Chaitman read the addition, “All parking lot Appearance Review Commission May 11, 2015 Page 4 of 5 lighting shall not have light emitted above 90°.” The commissioners agreed to keep the verbiage. The commissioners discussed the design plan section under lighting in the Appearance Code. Acting Ch. Ehlke would like the section to read, ”Freestanding fixtures should be coordinated in appearance with building-mounted light fixtures, and shall be compatible with the overall architectural design for the property.” The commissioners discussed the glare section under lighting in the Appearance Code. Acting Ch. Ehlke would like lighting to be changed to light. “No light source” instead of “No lighting source.” The commissioners discussed the canopy lighting section under lighting in the Appearance Code. Acting Ch. Ehlke does not find drop down lenses under a canopy objectionable. He believes what is proposed is too restrictive. Ms. Spagnoli noted the Commission has always requested canopy lights be directed down rather than shoot out the sides of the light fixture. Acting Ch. Ehlke can let this go, but believes a petitioner may want a fixture with a drop down lens under a canopy. Ms. Spagnoli suggested keeping this section highlighted and look at it again. The commissioners discussed the interior lighting section under lighting in the Appearance Code. Ms. Dunn believes businesses want illumination after business hours. Acting Ch. Ehlke noted Chipotle uses exposed bulbs as their light source in their seating area. He explained the Commission is now dictating the interior lighting from the exterior of a building. He is not comfortable dictating the interior lighting. Ms. Dunn questioned the enforcement of this section. The commissioners discussed businesses with a 24 hour drop off. They believe only the drop off area should have full illumination; the rest of the business should have reduced illumination. Ms. Spagnoli indicated the blue highlighted section will not work, but suggested the yellow highlighted section as an alternative. Acting Ch. Ehlke believes the proposed yellow section is appropriate. The commissioners are not sure about this section. Ms. Dunn suggested keeping the yellow section for discussion at the next meeting. d. Definitions (highlighted text only) The commissioners discussed the proposed definitions. Acting Ch. Ehlke would like the word lighting to be changed to light in the glare definition. He believes the last sentence under IESNA or IES: should read, “The IESNA is a (rather than the) recognized technical authority on illumination.” Under light trespass, Acting Ch. Ehlke suggested changing the word “lighting” to “light.” Appearance Review Commission May 11, 2015 Page 5 of 5 Items from Staff: Ms. Spagnoli noted there is a sign criteria for the Charles Ifergan building, but Mr. Ifergan did not inform his tenants. The proposed tenant signs will need to redesigned to conform to the criteria, or Mr. Ifergan may propose amendments to the sign criteria. Ms. Spagnoli stated Zion Lutheran Church wants to build 48 low income housing units on their property. There are more than 100 letters against the development. The church would own the property. Ms. Spagnoli will try to get someone to discuss landscaping for the next meeting. Adjournment There being no further business or discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 pm. Respectfully submitted, Jeri Cotton Secretary