Architectural Control Commission

1 APPROVED 2 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMISSION 3 VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK 4 COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 5 October 11, 2012 6 7 8 Commissioners Present (5) 9 Lori Jordison 10 Robert Katz 11 David Menn 12 Mike Rubenstein 13 Cliff Town 14 15 Commissioners Absent (2) 16 Alan Schwall, Chairman 17 F. Dirk Heidbrink 18 19 Village Staff Present 20 Lynne Coleman, Building Official and Licensed Architect 21 Michaela Kohlstedt, Senior Planner, Development and Planning Services 22 Tom Poupard, Director, Development and Planning Services 23 Stacy Seiden, Recorder 24 25 Additional Attendees 26 Karol Fahey, Insite RE Inc. 27 Marcia Filerman, resident at 3405 Riverfalls Drive 28 Chad Freid, Builder/General Contractor, Garden Court III, Inc. 29 William Mayerle, resident at 2387 Prestwick Lane 30 Brian Newton, Parvin-Clauss Sign Company 31 Pauline Shoback, resident at 3213 Prestwick Lane 32 Bonnie Spangler, resident at 3405 Prestwick Lane 33 David Spangler, resident at 3405 Prestwick Lane 34 35 1. Call to Order 36 Chairman Pro Tem Town called the meeting to order in the Development and Planning Services 37 Conference Room of Village Hall, 1225 Cedar Lane, at 5:35 PM. A quorum was present. 38 39 2. Public Comments 40 There were no comments from the public. 41 42 3. Design Review Permit Applications 43 a. 1100 Waukegan Road – Northbrook Bank and Trust: Request for a Level III Design Review 44 Permit to replace a drive-through sign 45 46 Senior Planner Kohlstedt presented the application. Parvin-Clauss Sign Company, on behalf of 47 Northbrook Bank and Trust at 1100 Waukegan Road, requested a Level III Design Review Permit. The  Page 2 Minutes of the October 11, 2012 Architectural Control Commission Meeting 1 applicant proposed replacing the limestone portion of the existing drive-through ground sign with an 2 aluminum sign. The proposed sign would be located adjacent to the Waukegan Road access drive. 3 4 Northbrook Bank and Trust is part of the C-2 Neighborhood Commercial and Village Green Overlay 5 (VGO) Districts and, therefore, design review is necessary before the applicant may replace the sign. As 6 such, the ACC reviews the relevant application and forwards its recommendation to the Board of 7 Trustees for consideration and approval, as appropriate. 8 9 Specifically, the applicant proposed removing the limestone sign, which states “Northbrook Bank 10 Entrance,” and replacing the existing sign with an aluminum sign on the same brick base. The proposed 11 sign would state, “Northbrook Bank & Trust Company a Wintrust Community Bank Drive-Up,” and 12 include a directional arrow. The existing sign face is approximately 1.58-feet in height by 4-feet in width. 13 However, the new sign would be 4-feet by 4-feet for total of 16-square feet in area. 14 15 The tallest of the sign text would be a maximum height of 5 ¼-inches and a total of 4-feet in length. The 16 directional arrow would be 9-inches in height. White LED lights would illuminate the sign. The proposed 17 sign face color would match the current limestone and the sign text would be black in color. The 18 proposed sign complies with the Zoning Code in terms of height and location of the drive-through 19 signage. The Village will issue a sign permit only after issuing a Design Review Permit, following ACC 20 review and, ultimately, Board approval, if appropriate. 21 22 Upon determining that the proposed replacement drive-through sign would not be obstructive and the 23 other existing signage on the property would remain, Commissioner Katz moved, seconded by 24 Commissioner Menn, to recommend approval of the September 7, 2012 application for a Level III Design 25 Review Permit for 1100 Waukegan Road. On a voice vote, the motion carried. 26 27 b. 1200 Shermer Road – TMobile: Request for a Level lll Design Review Permit to replace several 28 wireless antennae panels on the roof 29 Senior Planner Kohlstedt presented the application. She explained that panel equipment changes were 30 necessary to keep pace with changes in technology. Ms. Fahey noted that the antennae in question 31 needed to be replaced in order to upgrade TMobile customers to the fourth generation of cell phone 32 mobile communications standards (i.e., 4G). Accordingly, TMobile/Insite RE Inc. requested to replace 33 several wireless antennae panels on the roof of the Bank of America building at 1200 Shermer Road. 34 35 The property is an existing non-conforming four-story office building located on the north side of 36 Shermer, just west of Waukegan. The building is part of the C-2 Neighborhood Commercial and VGO 37 Districts and, therefore, any changes to the exterior of the building require a Level lll Design Review 38 Permit. As such, the ACC reviews the relevant application and forwards its recommendation to the 39 Board for consideration and approval, as appropriate, prior to the Village issuing a building permit. 40 41 In 2007, the Board approved Ordinance No. 07-64, granting a Level lll Design Review Permit for the 42 applicant to install wireless antennae panels on the subject property. The applicant now proposed to 43 replace a total of six of the nine TMobile antennae--two on the north elevation, two on the east 44 elevation, and two on the west elevation. The mechanical equipment associated with the additional 45 antennae panels would be contained behind the roof parapet, as well as inside the existing building.  Page 3 Minutes of the October 11, 2012 Architectural Control Commission Meeting 1 The applicant proposed maintaining one of the original antennae on each façade, so that the total 2 number of antennae would continue to be nine. The six antennae to be swapped out would be replaced 3 with panels that would be 5.5-inches wider than the existing antennae. 4 5 In addition to replacing the panels, the applicant also proposed installing more electronic equipment 6 behind all nine antennae panels on the building. The additional equipment would change the panels 7 from appearing flush mounted on the parapet, to extending 1-foot, 6-inches from the façade. This 8 change in appearance was not consistent with the plans originally approved for the TMobile antennae 9 on this property and, therefore, would require the original approval ordinance to be amended. 10 11 The applicant specified that the electronic equipment behind the panels would be painted to match the 12 color of the panels and the proposed antennae would be reduced in height to 6-feet as required by the 13 Zoning Code. Accordingly, Commissioner Menn moved, seconded by Commissioner Katz, to recommend 14 approval of the application for a Level III Design Review Permit, with the modifications submitted on 15 October 9, 2012, for 1200 Shermer Road. On a voice vote, the motion carried. 16 17 4. Resident Comments – Regulation of Major Building Additions 18 Mr. and Mrs. Spangler had concerns regarding standards for construction remodeling versus new 19 construction. In a signed letter dated September 11, 2012 to the Board, they outlined the following 20 specific issues. 21 22 Remodel versus new construction—how is this differentiated? 23 When should construction fencing be required and should it be a solid fence or chain link? 24 Should venting into side yards towards neighboring homes be allowed? 25 Side yard requirements of the Zoning Code (9-feet in R-4)—should they be increased? 26 Construction site management (e.g., work hours, care of trees, etc.) 27 Standards for covering and emptying dumpsters 28 Location of “porta-johns” 29 30 The Board asked the ACC to consider the merits of the suggestions made by Mr. and Mrs. Spangler. 31 32 Chairman Pro Tem Town recused himself as Chairman because his architectural plans for 3325 Prestwick 33 Lane were included as part of the materials distributed to commissioners in advance of the ACC 34 meeting. Accordingly, Commissioner Rubenstein served as Chairman Pro Tem for the remainder of the 35 meeting. 36 37 Chairman Pro Tem Rubenstein clarified that the inclusion of drawings by Clifford Town as part of the 38 meeting materials in no way inferred that Commissioner Town or his firm were responsible for any 39 wrongdoing. Rather, the plans were included as background information to provide commissioners with 40 a sense of the scope of the relevant project. 41 42 Director Poupard noted that as the commission was in the process of reviewing building codes, this was 43 an opportune time to address these types of issues. He also clarified that none of the complaints raised 44 by the Spanglers constituted a code violation.  Page 4 Minutes of the October 11, 2012 Architectural Control Commission Meeting 1 Mr. and Mrs. Spangler, along with several other neighbors, reviewed their concerns regarding the 2 construction of the home addition at 3325 Prestwick, such as a lack of perimeter fencing, dumpsters 3 that appeared to be filled beyond their capacity, the presence of “porta-johns,” foliage that appeared to 4 be neglected, and other possible safety issues. Mrs. Spangler shared photos of the construction with the 5 ACC to illustrate some of her points. 6 7 Ms. Shoback inquired as to the rationale for new construction versus remodeling, commenting that the 8 safety issues should be the same. Mr. Freid noted that fencing had been erected for the excavation of 9 the front porch at 3325 Prestwick. Commissioners and the other meeting participants discussed how 10 construction requirements had evolved, become stricter over time. Ms. Coleman explained that 11 additions and excavations did not require fencing if the work was done in one day, the owners lived on 12 the property, and there was a fence around the backyard. Meeting participants also briefly discussed the 13 lack of requirements for window wells. 14 15 Director Poupard added that the Building Code did not distinguish “new construction” from 16 “remodeling.” As such, a prior Building Director began utilizing language from the Zoning Code to draw a 17 distinction. Currently, new construction requirements applied to “any alteration or enlargement of any 18 pre-code structure that required the removal of more than 40 percent (40%) of the total linear feet of 19 the existing exterior walls of the pre-code structure as measured around the exterior perimeter of the 20 structure.” 21 22 Mr. Freid apologized for any issues that may have emerged during the construction. He maintained that 23 he attempted to address each of the concerns of the neighbors in a timely manner. Mr. Freid also noted 24 that the project was nearly done, with the exterior already completed. Mrs. Stangler lamented the 25 change in character that she perceived in her neighborhood as a result of the increased new 26 construction. Commissioner Katz suggested that the Plan Commission was perhaps a better forum to 27 share these concerns. 28 29 Chairman Pro Tem Rubenstein explained that the ACC could not change what already had taken place 30 nor was it the role of the commission to police neighbors and builders. While he empathized with the 31 neighbors, acknowledging that it was not ideal to live with construction, Chairman Pro Tem Rubenstein 32 emphasized that the ACC heard their concerns and would determine what steps should be taken to 33 address them moving forward. He assured the neighbors that the commission would consider the issues 34 that they raised as the ACC reviews the latest building codes. 35 36 Director Poupard clarified that, on evenings and weekends, residents with construction-related concerns 37 should contact the police and Nick Desario, Assistant Director/Building and Development, during normal 38 business hours. Director Poupard also noted that no tickets had been issued on the construction site at 39 3325 Prestwick. Lastly, Mrs. Spangler expressed her appreciation to the ACC and her desire to assist 40 other Northbrook residents facing similar circumstances. 41 42 5. Previously Authorized Building Permit Extensions 43 Director Poupard updated the ACC regarding the construction status at 3310 Sunset Trail (Permit #10-G- 44 202) and 2110 Mallard Lane (Permit #10-G-170). At its September 13, 2012 meeting, the ACC agreed to: 45 1) grant a permit extension through October 10, 2012 for final grading and turf placement (seed 46 blanket/sod) and 2) consider granting a permit extension for the interior, subject to the property owners 47 satisfactorily meeting the above exterior deadline for the property at 3310 Sunset Trail. The contractor  Page 5 Minutes of the October 11, 2012 Architectural Control Commission Meeting 1 conveyed that final grading had been established and sod would be installed by the end of next week, 2 following the planting of trees. 3 4 At its August 9, 2012 meeting, the ACC granted a permit extension through December 1, 2012 for the 5 property at 2110 Mallard Drive, contingent upon: 1) receiving a progress report of the construction work 6 to-date on the property at the October 2012 ACC meeting and 2) the property owner explaining in 7 person at said meeting why construction had not progressed on or ahead of schedule, if that continued 8 to be the case. The contractor conveyed that construction was progressing according to schedule and 9 that he planned to complete the development by the specified December 1st deadline. 10 11 6. New Single Family Elevations 12 The ACC considered two new single family home elevations, 2210 Greenview Road and 1831 Kiest 13 Avenue. Director Poupard explained that the Kiest home is a Crescent model Sears house. This Colonial 14 Revival style cottage, built in 1925, appeared in the Sears catalog from 1921 until 1933. He noted that 15 while the home was not protected by regulations as far as being historical, a 2000 Northbrook 16 architectural survey deemed the home to be “significant.” 17 18 Commissioners acknowledged that the home had fallen into disrepair, the absence of regulations to 19 protect the house, and their limited authority to prevent the home from being razed. Accordingly, 20 Chairman Pro Tem Rubenstein moved, seconded by Commissioner Menn, to allow staff to review and 21 process the appropriate paperwork for the elevations at 2210 Greenview Road and 1831 Kiest Avenue. 22 On a voice vote, the motion carried. 23 24 7. New Business 25 There was no new business. 26 27 8. Old Business 28 There was no old business. 29 30 9. Adjournment 31 There being no further business, Chairman Pro Tem Rubenstein moved, seconded by Commissioner 32 Menn, to adjourn the meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried. Chairman Pro Tem Rubenstein 33 adjourned the meeting at 7:00 PM. 34 35 Respectfully submitted, 36 37 /s/ Stacy J. Seiden 38 Recorder