Appearance Review Commission (ARC)

Approved Copy Appearance Review Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2015 A meeting of the Appearance Review Commission was held on Monday, November 9, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. at the Village Hall Conference Room, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Ch. Coen called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Present were Dick Coen, Chairman Beth Chaitman Lisa Dunn Sean Ehlke Sherry Flores Jason Golub Elizabeth Low Also Present: Jean Spagnoli, Village Planner Jeri Cotton, Secretary Public Comment: There was no Public Comment on non-agenda items. Document Approval Ms. Dunn moved to approve the minutes from the October 26, 2015 Appearance Review Commission meeting as corrected. Ms.Chaitman seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Dunn, Flores, Golub, Low (6) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAIN: Ehlke (1) Business: 1. Appearance Code Update a. Building Design, highlighted text and revised exhibits Appearance Review Commission November 9, 2015 Page 2 of 5 Ch. Coen read the components section of the Appearance Code. Mr. Ehlke suggested removing the first line of section b, so it reads, “When designing a commercial building or structure, consideration shall be given to the placement of future tenant signs.” The commissioners discussed the exhibits for the building design section. Ch. Coen questioned the use of the phrase “oversized box raceway,” as the Commission strives to not have raceways wherever possible. The commissioners suggested removing the word “oversized.” In the awnings and canopy exhibit, Ch. Coen suggested removing the comma for the first “no” section. It would read, “An awning which wraps around the entire building ignores the building architecture.” Ms. Dunn suggested changing the second no to start with “The” instead of “An” to read, “The awning material shall not allow light to pass through the fabric.” b. Relationship of Building(s) to site and adjacent areas, revised exhibit Ms. Spagnoli rewrote the “no” section on the Patio and Grade Level Decks exhibit. The Commission was pleased with the rewrite. c. Lighting, highlighted text and exhibits Ch. Coen read the exposed light source section of the Appearance Code. The commissioners were okay with what was written as well as the exhibits affiliated with the lighting section. d. Site Design, rough draft The commissioners discussed the site design section of the Appearance Code. In the landscaping section, Ch. Coen suggested the first sentence read, “A major and integral part of a project’s design shall be landscaping. Good landscape design is beneficial to the Village and property owner. The retention of a landscape architect is encouraged throughout the design process.” Mr. Ehlke believes projects should come in with a level of proper preparation to meet the Village’s requirements. Ch. Coen noted the bullet points (a through g) cannot be accomplished without involving someone with expertise. Ms. Low believes the list of recommended plantings should be removed, as they can change very frequently. She suggested directing petitioners to a specific source, such as the Lake County Forest Preserve District or the Morton Arboretum. Mr. Ehlke thought subsection “a” should read, “Existing trees shall be identified, and if deemed to be desirable, be protected as part of the project planning and implementation.” Ms. Low noted there is great language in the residential portion of the redevelopment plan. Ch. Coen suggested adding a subsection (1) which states that any removed trees should be replaced with like-caliper plantings. Appearance Review Commission November 9, 2015 Page 3 of 5 The commissioners discussed subsection “b”. Ms. Low suggested changing the section to read, “The overall site landscaping plan should consider options for providing color and textures throughout the growing season, along with interest created during the dormant season.” The commissioners discussed subsection “c”. Mr. Ehlke explained that a small site would have issues with requiring not more than a certain percentage of any species. Ms. Low believes in some situations, the numbers do not work. She believes there should be plant diversity, while keeping the design. Ch. Coen suggested removing the middle section with the percentages. Ms. Chaitman believes the phrase, “good for the environment” should be changed to “provides for sustainability.” Ch. Coen noted percentages and number of species should be dependent on the nature and size of the development rather than dictating specific percentages or dimensions. Mr. Golub suggested requiring diversity in plant materials. Ms. Low explained we want diversity, but not too many different plantings. The commissioners discussed subsection “d”. Ms. Low noted if this section calls out an oak tree, it should ensure oak trees are appropriate for the location. Therefore, the commissioners suggested removing the second sentence of this subsection. Ms. Low suggested adding a resource for native species. The commissioners discussed subsection “e”. Ch. Coen suggested changing the word “should” to “shall”. It would read, “Plants designated as invasive species in the State of Illinois shall not be planted. Existing invasive plants should be removed from the site.” The commissioners suggested only using one source for invasive species. The commissioners discussed subsection “f”. Ch. Coen suggested replacing the word “should” with “shall.” It would read, “Plants adjacent to streets and parking lots shall be salt, pollution and heat tolerant. All plantings should be hardy and resistant to disease and insects.” The commissioners discussed subsection “g”. Ms. Low asked if a multi-stemmed tree would be permitted. Ch. Coen suggested the section should read, “The single trunk trees shall have a straight central leader and should be of a reasonable caliper at the time of planting to increase the success of the tree’s survival.” The commissioners discussed the foundation landscaping section of the Appearance Code. They believe the section should read, “Along blank building walls, a planted area of at least 5 feet in width should be established. Where space is not available, free standing planters should be utilized.” The commissioners discussed the parking areas section of the Appearance Code. They did not have any changes in subsection “a”. The commissioners discussed subsection “b”. Mr. Ehlke asked if the 8’ recommendation included the curb. Ch. Coen believes it would include the curb. He noted 180 square feet is larger than a parking Appearance Review Commission November 9, 2015 Page 4 of 5 stall, which could create a hardship. Mr. Ehlke would like the parking stall length as the increment. He believes requiring a landscape island every 10 consecutive parking spaces is too restrictive. Mr. Golub suggested changing 10 to 12. The commissioners agreed. The commissioners discussed subsection “c”. Mr. Ehlke suggested adding the word “strongly” before the word “discouraged.” Ms. Low believes adding additional reasons would be beneficial. The commissioners discussed subsection “d”. Ms. Low noted this restriction would prohibit some of the ornamental grasses. In addition, a tree trunk could also be considered an obstruction. Ms. Spagnoli explained the intent is to avoid a large mass of area that would block sight lines. The commissioners discussed subsection “e”. Ch. Coen noted California has shading requirements. He believes adding a shade percentage requirement at plant maturity would drive more plantings as well as plantings with a higher canopy. Ms. Spagnoli suggested inviting a landscape architect to the next meeting. The commissioners discussed the screening section of the Appearance Code. They believe subsection “a” should also state that fence screening must be attractive facing the residential property. Mr. Ehlke suggested adding an exhibit for this section. The commissioners discussed subsection “b” which was taken from the Zoning Ordinance. Ch. Coen questioned where parking areas are screened within the Village, as it is not implemented. Ms. Spagnoli noted there are some variances for PUDs. The commissioners discussed subsection “c”. Ch. Coen suggested removing the painting reference. The commissioners discussed subsection “d”. Mr. Ehlke asked what would happen if the adjacent building was higher than the trash enclosure. Ch. Coen noted section (1) is already an Ordinance. Ch. Coen suggested leaving the wording as stated in section 3. Ms. Low suggested adding the phrase, “As conditions permit” so it reads, “All trash enclosures should be surrounded by landscaping as conditions permit.” Ch. Coen suggested changing “as conditions permit” to read “where appropriate.” The commissioners discussed the site consideration section. They believe subsection “a” should be represented graphically as well. Ch. Coen suggested changing the suggested minimum pathway width to reflect a five foot clearance. The commissioners discussed subsection “b”. Ch. Coen suggested using only ancillary and removing the phrase “and accessory.” The commissioners did not have any changes in subsection “c”. Appearance Review Commission November 9, 2015 Page 5 of 5 The commissioners did not have any changes to the amenities section of the Appearance Code. The commissioners discussed the exhibit portion and believe the images are appropriate. Items from the Commission Mr. Ehlke asked about the property next to the Mobil station on Deerfield and Saunders Roads. Ms. Spagnoli noted the Deerfield Road parcel is not in the Village of Deerfield. Items from Staff Ms. Spagnoli sent out a violation notice to Queen’s Nail as their approved sign was not installed according to their approval. They misrepresented the size of the background, thereby the letters were too large, leaving no margin. Also, the sign was installed with three colors instead of the approved two colors. Ms. Spagnoli noted the Jewel drive-thru sign was voted down by the Trustees. The vote upheld the Appearance Review Commission’s recommendation. Adjournment: There being no further business or discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 pm. Respectfully submitted, Jeri Cotton Secretary