Architectural Control Commission

APPROVED 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING 2 ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMISSION 3 VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK 4 COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 5 August 11, 2016 6 7 Commissioners Present (4) 8 Alan Schwall, Chairman 9 F. Dirk Heidbrink 10 Robert Katz 11 Cliff Town 12 13 Members Absent (3): 14 Lori Jordison 15 David Menn 16 Christopher Urbanczyk 17 18 Others Present 19 Jerry James, Owner, Anets Woods Residential Planned Development 20 Edward Augustian, Purchasing Manager, Anets Woods Residential Planned Development 21 22 Village Staff Present 23 Thomas Poupard, AICP, Director/Development and Planning Services 24 David Schoon, Assistant Director/Development and Planning Services 25 Michaela Kohlstedt, Senior Planner/Development and Planning Services 26 Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary 27 28 Call to Order 29 Chairman Schwall called the meeting to order in the Terrace Room of Village Hall, 1225 Cedar Lane, at 30 5:34 p.m. 31 32 Roll Call 33 Roll was established. There was a quorum. 34 35 Review of Minutes 36 Commissioner Heidbrink moved, seconded by Commissioner Katz, to approve the June 9, 2016, meeting 37 minutes as submitted. On a voice vote, there were all ayes, and the motion carried unanimously. 38 39 Commissioner Katz moved, seconded by Commissioner Town, to approve the July 14, 2016, meeting 40 minutes as submitted. On a voice vote, there were all ayes, and the motion carried unanimously. 41 42 Public Comments Regarding Items Not on the Agenda 43 There were none. 44 45 Continued Review of Docket No. PCD-16-09: 1220-1230 Voltz Road – Final Plan for Anets Woods 46 Residential Planned Development 1  APPROVED 1 Senior Planner Kohlstedt advised that the ACC had previously reviewed the color choices and elevations 2 for the planned development. Although the designs and colors were reviewed favorably, there are 3 some points the Commission wanted the Applicant to address. She stated that at the request of the 4 Commission, the Applicant provided more color selections (for a total of 13 colors) which 5 Commissioners reviewed. The Applicant noted that bay window and other exterior options provides 6 added variety. 7 8 Ms. Kohlstedt noted that Staff researched and identified similar projects with anti-monotony 9 considerations. Ms. Kohlstedt stated Timbers Edge is a good comparable. Chairman Schwall agreed the 10 process similar to Timbers Edge is favorable. 11 12 Mr. James concurred and wants to ensure there is not a monotony issue. He noted enforcing rules such 13 as: 14  No two home elevations shall be identical if adjacent, across, or diagonal (from each other). 15 Floor plans could be similar. 16  If two neighboring homes exist, the third home must be a different color. Senior Planner 17 Kohlstedt inquired if that would be the same model. Mr. James suggested the next rule. 18  If there are two alike floor plans, there would be two requirements – different elevation and 19 different color; this prevents monotony. 20 21 Director Poupard distributed the Site Plan to aid in reviewing the home layout. 22 23 The members discussed the homes and the Commissioner Town reminded there are no linear streets. 24 Chairman Schwall concurred there would be no conflicts with homes directly in a line. 25 26 Commissioner Heidbrink referred to the Site Plan and stated certain areas may not have Model A (for 27 example). Mr. James noted for Models 25-32, there needs to be distinction, etc. 28 29 Director Poupard and Senior Planner Kohlstedt clarified that in each cluster of four, there can only be 30 one of each of the four models. 31 32 Mr. James verified there are two front facades bringing the total to eight options. It was agreed if the 33 above rules are too restrictive, they will be revisited. Possible home options/scenarios were discussed. 34 35 Chairman Schwall concluded the Commission is in agreement with floor plans and elevations (or these 36 issues will be revisited). He advised, regarding colors in each four squares, there would be no substantial 37 similarities. 38 39 Mr. James distributed color samples; print chips and names were identified. He wishes to offer variety 40 yet not have like-colors nearby. 41 42 Members agreed that “Color 1” looks different than “Color 2” in the palette. Chairman Schwall stated 43 there is consistency but with different accents. Commissioner Town asked if buyers want to be 44 distinctive. 45 46 Mr. James advised that a harmonious palette is the intent. It was stated the tangible color samples are 47 better than the photocopies in the packet. Chairman Schwall concluded that unless the colors are the 2  APPROVED 1 exact same, they would be acceptable (next to each other). Mr. James reminded there are 13 shades, 2 and customers could be slightly persuaded (as colors are in the same family). 3 4 Where park areas are noted, the homes on either side of the park would not be considered adjacent. It 5 was agreed that same-color homes diagonal from each other are acceptable. 6 7 Mr. James stated he would provide a written document with a chart that defines the rules as decided 8 and submit same to Staff. 9 10 Commissioner Katz moved, seconded by Commissioner Heidbrink, that Staff will administratively review 11 homes for monotony and ensure that no same colors or elevations are allowed to be adjacent or across 12 from each other. If staff believes that commission input is needed the design will come to the ACC for 13 review. On a voice vote, there were all ayes, and the motion carried unanimously. 14 15 Director Schoon and Senior Planner Kohlstedt departed the meeting at 6:14 p.m. 16 17 Agenda items were altered to accommodate New Single Family Home Elevation, 759 Greenwood Road, 18 to be next. 19 20 New Single-Family Home Elevations - 759 Greenwood Road 21 Director Poupard noted that the applicant for Greenwood was present and suggested that plan be 22 reviewed now. On voice vote the Commission agreed to amend the agenda to discuss: 759 Greenwood 23 Road (R-3 District) – Gillespie Design Group, Architects 24 Commissioner Town moved, seconded by Commissioner Heidbrink, to approve as presented. On a voice 25 vote, there were all ayes, and the motion carried unanimously. 26 27 Commission Responsibilities – Review of Other Communities 28 Director Poupard discussed the survey/matrix. He asked if the ACC should spend its time on reviewing 29 single-family homes noting, nationally, most Appearance Commissions focus on commercial and multi- 30 family developments – not single-family homes. 31 32 Chairman Schwall reminded the ACC doesn’t want to tell petitioners what to do. Director Poupard 33 advised that Skokie has a rule to build with brick, and if the home is not built with brick, applicants must 34 come before the Commission for approval. 35 36 Commissioners cited various examples within nearby communities. Chairman Schwall shared he is 37 surprised there are so few communities looking at monotony. 38 39 It was agreed that at the topic would be discussed again when more commission members were present 40 and the agenda would allow the discussion. 41 42 New Single-Family Home Elevations 43 a. 1023 Dell Road (R-5 District) – NERI Architects 44 c. 2228 Oak Avenue (R-5 District) – Town Studios, Architect 45 d. 1872 Summerton Place (R-4 District) – New Look Development, Architects 46 3  APPROVED 1 Commissioner Katz moved, seconded by Commissioner Heidbrink, to have staff complete the review of 2 a., c., and d to Staff. On a voice vote, there were all ayes, and the motion carried unanimously. 3 4 New Business 5 There was no New Business. 6 7 Old Business 8 There was no Old Business. 9 10 Adjourn 11 There being no further business, Commissioner Katz moved, seconded by Commissioner Town, to 12 adjourn the meeting. On a voice vote, the motion unanimously carried and the meeting adjourned at 13 6:34 p.m. 14 15 Respectfully submitted, 16 17 18 Gale Cerabona 19 Recording Secretary 4