VILLAGE OF LONG GROVE
MEETING MINUTES OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING – FEBRUARY 9, 2009

7:00 P.M.

 

Call to Order:  Chairman Michaelson-Cohn called the regular meeting of the Architectural Commission (AC) to order at 7:28 p.m. with the following members present.

 

Members Present: Lynn Michaelson-Cohn, Chairman, John Marshall, Rod Beadle, Terry Connolly

 

   Also Present:  Village Planner James Hogue, Secretary Marietta Calas and members of the public     

 

   Absent: Valerie Plunkett, (2 vacancies also exist on the Commission)

 

1.  Approval of the November 17, 2008 Draft Meeting Minutes.

 

Commissioner Connolly moved to accept minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Marshall.  On a voice vote; all aye.

2.  Consideration of elevations for a commercial structure at 7107 Route 83 and within the B-2 Business District, submitted by Daniel Lesus Architects Inc. 

Mr. Pat O’Looney, on behalf of the petitioner reiterated the request. He noted the substitution of “soft” awnings over the middle section of the building as requested by the AC at their November meeting. These awnings are proposed to be black in color (as suggested by the AC). The “hard” awnings on each side of the building are proposed to be “bronze/golden” in color as was previously submitted.

 

Upon discussion the AC indicated a preference for a more “traditional” awning style and a brown/tan color (possibly darker) to match the brick façade of the building. Examples of style and color were shown to the petitioner.

 

A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Connolly to accept the awning concept per the October 23, 2008 submittal (page 3) with the color (tan/brown) to coordinate with the brick façade of the building and to accept the concept for building signage as shown with signage for individual tenants to be brought back to the AC for final approval on a case by case basis. On a voice vote; all aye.       

 

3. Consideration of a request by Mr. George Callas to reface the existing monument sign at “Gridley’s” Rt. 83 and Gilmer Road to “Double G’s  Roadhouse”,  submitted by Nick Mele, Kieffer & Co.  Inc.    

 

Mr. George Callas indicated that the restaurant owners want to change the sign and restaurant name to help to create a new image for the business. Their goal is to revamp the entire restaurant and the change in signage is part of that makeover. With regard to the sign they propose to change to the look of the sign not the structure.

 

Mr. Mike Mele of Kieffer & Company signs explained the specifics of the proposed change to the existing signage at the restaurant. He noted the sign will remain in the same location and utilize the same structure which currently houses the existing signage. Only the sign face and internal illumination of the signage will change. He noted that internal LED illumination was proposed for the letters on the sign. This will keep the softness of the sign but change the “halo” effect currently utilized in the sign illumination. Less lumens will be required to illuminate the sign than are currently used and the sign will be more readable as well utilizing the LED technology. Small channel letters with LED lighting are proposed. 

 

Chairman Michaelson-Cohn explained that this sign was created by ordinance as a minor amendment to the “Preserve” PUD. She noted the sign size and type of illumination were specified in the approval ordinance. Modification of this ordinance would need to be considered and an amendment made by the Village Board for this request to be approved. The Architectural Commission is merely acting in an advisory capacity in this instance and their findings will be forwarded to the Village Board for consideration in the approval process.

 

Chairman Michaelson-Cohn suggested that a “mock-up” of the proposed illumination be created for review by the Commission.

 

Commissioner Marshall had questions as to the appearance of the sign at night. 

 

Commissioner Connolly noted this represented a new concept in internal illumination of signage. Most signage was externally illuminated.

 

Marietta Calas noted that a softer more readable sign (than what exists now) may be a good idea at this location.

 

The AC questioned as to why “of Long Grove” was being dropped from the sign copy. The petitioner responded that this was simply too much signage. The AC also indicated they wanted to see a “mock-up” of this proposal particularly as it relates to the illumination.

 

Resident Sara Rubin indicated she lived in the area and was concerned with the effect of the sign illumination on the area.

 

Commissioners discussed various alternatives for illumination of the sign. Petitioner noted that due to the  close proximity of  the sign to Route 83 and Gilmer Road both IDOT and the County Highway Department had placed constraints on external illumination (including up-lighting) as this may cause confusion with traffic signals in the area and possibly pose a hazard (glare) to traffic in the area. Visibility of the sign is also an issue. Without adequate illumination the sign becomes “invisible” at night and fails to alert customers to the location of the restaurant.

 

The Commissioners reiterated their request for a “mock-up” of the sign particularly as it relates to the internal illumination issue.

 

A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Beadle to continue this request to the March 16th regular meeting to allow the petitioner the opportunity to create a “mock-up” of the signage including the proposed lighting. On a voice vote; all aye.

 

Adjournment:  Commissioner Connolly made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Marshall.  On a voice vote, all aye.  Meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

James M. Hogue

James M. Hogue, Village Planner