Appearance Review Commission (ARC)

APPROVED COPY Appearance Review Commission Meeting Minutes June 13 2016 A meeting of the Appearance Review Commission was held on Monday, June 13, 2016 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 Jason Golub Daniel Moons Absent was: Lisa Dunn Sherry Flores Elizabeth Low Also Present: Jean Spagnoli, Village Planner Jeri Cotton, Secretary Public Comment: There was no Public Comment. Document Approval Ms. Chaitman moved to approve the minutes from the May 23, 2016 Appearance Review Commission meeting. Mr. Moons seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote. Business: 1. Josh’s on the Square, 740 Waukegan Road – patio umbrellas Josh Kaplan, owner of Josh’s on the Square and Chris Siavelis with CRM Property Management representing Deerfield Square ownership were present. Mr. Siavelis explained they would like nine, outdoor umbrellas in mustard yellow. He indicated the umbrellas would not have a logo or verbiage. Ch. Coen questioned what the white space on the submittal represents. Mr. Siavelis explained the white space is the umbrella seams. Ch. Coen noted the head space shown is 68”, but the ADA requires an 80” head clearance. Mr. Kaplan will look into it and ensure they are in compliance. Ch. Coen noted the proposed umbrellas are 90” in diameter, which would be very tight for the space. Mr. Kaplan explained if it is too crowded, they would remove what is necessary to make it look right. He indicated he could put some of the smaller tables under the awning rather than use umbrellas with them. Appearance Review Commission June 13, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Ms. Chaitman moved to approve the addition of up to nine yellow umbrellas to the outdoor seating area for Josh’s on the Square. The width of the patio needs to appropriately accommodate the umbrellas so it does not look too crowded. The umbrellas would be R-554 Yellow and the head clearance needs to be ADA compatible. Mr. Golub seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Golub, Moons (4) NAYS: None (0) 2. The 636 Building, 636 Deerfield Road – building, site, signs and tenant sign criteria, final review Warner Brisske and Martina Stoycheva with Partners in Design Architects, Inc. were present. Ms. Stoycheva displayed a PowerPoint presentation showing the existing building which they would like to turn into a multi-tenant building. She noted the two narrow windows on the east side of the building were removed due to structural concerns. Ms. Spagnoli noted the Commission requested the signage to be backed up with the wall, not floating multiple feet away from the wall. Mr. Brisske explained they would reword the information so the sign letters are flush and do not extend past the building wall. Ms. Stoycheva explained on the southwest corner they previously proposed two doors but are now requesting one. She noted a sporting good tenant requested a larger door opening so they suggested using a glass, overhead door. Ch. Coen noted that deliveries would be made at that door as well and cautioned the petitioner that having a delivery truck there at the wrong time of day could be an issue. The commissioners like the proposed overhead glass door. Ch. Coen noted the east, west, south and building sign numerals would have channel letters with white faces, returns and trim caps that are facelit with white LED lamps. The signs will have black, metal backs. Ms. Stoycheva noted the tenants are allowed to have a two color logo in addition to white. The text, which could be any font, would be up to 24” for one row sign and up to 36” for a two row, stacked sign. Ms. Stoycheva explained they propose moving the handicapped parking spaces with the intention of adding one additional space. Ch. Coen confirmed the parking lot was in compliance with ADA guidelines. Mr. Golub expressed concern about the proximity of the handicapped parking spaces to the Deerfield Road business entrances. The commissioners discussed the proposed landscaping. Mr. Brisske explained they would keep one existing tree and add landscaping. Ms. Stoycheva explained they would be upgrading the rest of the landscaping. On the west side of the building, they would remove a couple trees and add feather reed grasses. Ch. Coen noted there is little room for landscaping on the west elevation. Ms. Stoycheva noted they are open to adding public art to the west elevation building façade. Mr. Moons likes the existing nine tile brick pattern on the façade. Ch. Coen agreed. Mr. Golub asked about adding landscape planters on Deerfield Road. Ms. Spagnoli cautioned the planters cannot be on Village property as the Village tries to keep a 10 foot streetscape sidewalk. If there is additional room, the property owner could add planters. Mr. Brisske would discuss the possibility of planters with the property owner and potential tenants. Ch. Coen expressed concern about the large expanse of about 40’ with only ornamental grasses. He would recommend breaking up the long expanse with additional planting varieties. Mr. Moons believes adding additional color would break up the expanse. Appearance Review Commission June 13, 2016 Page 3 of 4 Mr. Golub moved to approve the L1.0 landscaping plan dated 3/21/2016 as submitted, subject to fast track consideration of additional plantings on the west elevation. Ms. Chairman seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Golub, Moons (4) NAYS: None (0) The commissioners discussed the proposed site plan. There are no handicapped parking stalls on the west side of the building, as the current stall has been moved near the Italian Kitchen. Mr. Moons questioned whether the two parallel parking stalls on the north side would interrupt the natural traffic flow. Mr. Brisske explained there is a concrete pad and the minimum width requirements are maintained. Mr. Moons moved to approve the proposed site plan dated May 6, 2016 as submitted. Mr. Golub seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Golub, Moons (4) NAYS: None (0) The commissioners discussed the proposed exterior elevations including the colors, materials and massing. Mr. Brisske explained the brick will be sandblasted and tuck pointed. He noted they are proposing adding stucco or cement fiber board above the limestone or concrete brick band. Mr. Moons noted the building is modern and stucco does not seem to fit. Mr. Brisske explained if they use stucco, it would not be patterned. Ch Coen noted the downspouts on the south elevation are recessed and flush to the wall. The downspouts will be musket gray, which is the same color as the coping. The commissioners discussed the proposed light fixtures on the north, east and west elevation. The fixtures will be matte black. The window glazing will be clear. The commissioners are in favor of the exterior elevations. Mr. Golub moved to approve the exterior building elevations with the downspouts and gutters to be musket gray to match the presented coping color. Ms. Chaitman seconded the motion. Ch Coen noted the approval is for Hardie board and limestone materials. If something changes, the petitioner needs to come back before making any changes. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Coen, Chaitman, Golub, Moons (4) NAYS: None (0) The commissioners discussed the proposed signage. Ch. Coen questioned the electrical wiring. Ms. Stoycheva explained the wiring would run along the beam. Ch. Coen noted the wiring would be visible. Mr. Brisske explained the wiring would be painted to match the building and the electrical would run horizontally on top of the beam. Ch. Coen questioned whether the sign could be enclosed on the back side, so the wires are completely concealed. Mr. Brisske does not believe the wiring will be visible. Ch. Coen suggested giving a conditional approval, based on seeing the installation details. Ch. Coen questioned the letter stacking. Mr. Brisske explained the sign would need a 2” connector. The beam would be 18” from the building with the letters on top of the beam. Ch. Coen questioned how the sign would look while not having visible wiring. The commissioners Appearance Review Commission June 13, 2016 Page 4 of 4 like the look of the signs, but want to see the details. Ch. Coen read the criteria for tenant signage in the 636 building. Ch. Coen suggested making a couple updates to the signage criteria to ensure it is clear. Mr. Golub ensured the signage would only be on the brow and would not be on the wall. Ms. Spagnoli suggested the petitioner make the changes to the sign criteria for fast track consideration. Items from the Commission: Ch. Coen thanked the commissioners for their support at the Board of Trustees meeting when the updated Appearance Code was considered. Items from the Staff: Ms. Spagnoli asked for Appearance Review Commission support at the next Board of Trustees meeting. The Portillo’s request for appeal and the First Reading of the Appearance Code Ordinance will be discussed. Adjournment: There being no further business or discussion, Mr. Golub moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Chairman seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 pm. Respectfully submitted, Jeri Cotton Secretary