Appearance Commission

MEMORANDUM Community Development Department To: Michael Lynk, Chairman and Appearance Commission Members From: Peter Peyer, Community Development Director Carrie Haberstich, Planner Nathan Kriska, Building and Zoning Supervisor Brian Augustine, Zoning Administrator Date: September 6, 2013 SUBJECT: APPEARANCE COMMISSION/CASE SUBMITTAL – STAFF REPORT Staff offers the following comments on the cases scheduled for the September 11th Appearance Commission meeting: RESIDENTIAL REQUESTS 2013-040A (8912 Laramie) Staff has no objections with the overall design; however, brick quoins in lieu of stone quoins are recommended, and please note that there are no windows on the side elevations of the second floor. The overhead wire service to the home must be buried as part of the addition’s construction activities. 2013-041A (9332 Springfield) Staff has no objections with the overall design; however, the dormers should be removed (preferred) or the slopes should be steeper to match the pitch of the main roofline, and shutters should be added to the smaller first floor windows to complement the second floor windows. 2013-043A (4741 Bobolink) Staff has no objections with the overall design. The addition is replacing a semi-circular addition from the 1960s that is in a state of disrepair. Trim boards are recommended for all corner windows to complement the corner window design detail on the existing home. 2013-044A (8501 Monticello) Staff has no objections with the overall design. VOSDOCS-#436053-v3-September_11_2013_Appearance_Commission_Meeting_Report 1 COMMERCIAL REQUESTS 2013-034A (4849 Oakton) Staff has no objections with the overall design; however, there is a concern regarding maintenance, since the existing brick façade will be partially exposed and covered by furring strips and smooth Hardiplank batten boards. Please note that the necessary interior space infrastructure details are being finalized, so this request may be continued to a future Appearance Commission meeting. 2013-035A (5432 Howard) This item has been withdrawn from further consideration. 2013-039A (9625 Skokie) Staff has no objections with the updated entrance design. The painted brick feature is no longer being considered by the petitioner. Staff recommends that the petitioner verify the entrance window treatment, as it appears that a window film is proposed. 2013-042A (5115 Suffield) Staff has no objections with the overall design. The modifications are planned for the north façade only. 2013-045A (4700 Dempster) Staff likes the overall design. The northern drive aisle is an alley, and the landscaping to the north is on private residential property. The landscaping cannot be planted as shown, as it makes the alley too narrow; however, arrangements can be made with the property owners to the north to install landscaping on their respective properties. 2013-046A (8050 Lincoln) Staff has no objections with the overall design. The bricks from the north façade will be salvaged and reused for the new parapet over the corner entrance. The façade renovation is substantially historically correct to the original appearance, so per the Sign Code, certain signage can be exempt from the criteria in §82-27(b); however, several concerns regarding the proposed signage remain. 1. Only the “PIZZA” signs on the north and east facades are considered historically correct. Clear and colorless lexan faces are recommended in lieu of the red faces shown in the renderings. 2. The proposed flashing signs on the north and east facades are not allowed per §82-11(7); however, a changeable copy sign is allowed as long as it does not exceed 25% of the wall sign surface area per §82-23. If the sign is reduced from the proposed 29% to 25%, and the display is changed only once per 24- hour period, the signage concept can remain as proposed. 3. The corner “Village Inn” sign is approximately double the allowable sign area; however, it is smaller than previous box signs on this façade. Staff would recommend relief from §82-27(c)(1)a. and shifting the sign down approximately 1 foot so the bottom of the oval is in line with the bottom of the “PIZZA” letters. 4. Although not shown on the elevations, staff wants to clarify that the existing flags on the roof must be removed, and the window sign coverage cannot exceed 25% of a window pane. VOSDOCS-#436053-v3-September_11_2013_Appearance_Commission_Meeting_Report 2  It is recommended that the petitioner describe the structure of the awnings, as the frame for the awnings must be a minimum of 7’-6” above the ground and the descending skirt of the awning must be a minimum of 6’-8” above the ground. The bottom of the awning is labeled at 7’-4”. Source: www.brooklynbrewery.com Source: http://www.idaillinois.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/skokiepo02/id/2421/rec/2 (circa 1960s) VOSDOCS-#436053-v3-September_11_2013_Appearance_Commission_Meeting_Report 3