MEETING MINUTES OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING – August 18, 2009
7:00 P.M.
Call to Order: Chairman Michaelson-Cohn
called the regular meeting of the Architectural Commission (AC) to order at 7:22
p.m. with the following members present.
Members
Present: Lynn Michaelson-Cohn; Chairman, Terry Connolly,
Also
Present: Village Planner James Hogue and
members of the public.
Absent: Valerie
Plunkett; (2 vacancies exist on the Commission).
1. Approval of the June 15, 2009 Draft Meeting
Minutes.
Commissioner Calas moved to accept the June 15th
draft meeting minutes as corrected (minor typo’s noted/corrected), seconded by
Commissioner Connolly. On a voice vote; all aye.
2. Consideration of a request for signage for
“Little Portraits”
Mr.
Marco explained the request noting that he had made a mistake in noting the
dimensions of one of the signs in his original request. As revised the proposed
signage is within the parameters established by the Village Code.
He further
indicated that he had considered a free standing sign as suggested by the AC
but space limitations on the property prohibited this. As proposed the wall
sign near the door will be converted to a double faced hanging sign. The
initially proposed wall sign on the side of the building will not change.
The
materials as previously proposed have not changed. The signage will be black
and white on engraved urethane board. He noted the building color was red and
the black and white signage contrasted well with this color.
Planner
Hogue noted that as revised the proposed signage was within Village Code and
was now approvable.
Commissioner
Beadle questioned the window signs. Planner Hogue noted that window signs which
covered less than 10% of the window area were permissible and no permit was
required for these. The window signs as existing were within those parameters.
A motion was
made by Commissioner Calas, seconded by Commissioner Connolly to accept the
signage as revised. On a voice vote, all
aye.
3. Consideration of elevations for water system improvements (water
treatment plant and storage reservoir structure) to service Sunset Grove and
Downtown Business District on property located at 4180 Route 83 submitted by
ESI Consultants LTD.
Planner
Hogue references an e-mail for Mr. Mark Eddington, Project Manager with ESI
Consultants, requesting a continuation of this item until the September 21st
regular meeting. Planner Hogue explained that the revisions to the elevations
as requested by the AC at the July meeting had been completed. The site plan
however was not revised and required more time to complete.
He further
explained that the AC could review the elevations but it was better to review
the site plan and elevations at the same time so the entire “package” could be considered
by the AC. Furthermore, as this item had been placed on the published agenda
Planner Hogue felt it was better to bring the request for continuation to the
AC for consideration at a public meeting rather than simply amending the agenda
with regard to this item.
A motion
was made by Commissioner Calas, seconded by Commissioner Connolly, to continue
this request to the September 21st regular meeting. On a voice
vote; all aye.
4. Consideration of a request for two (2) subdivision
entrance signs for the White Oak Estates Subdivision submitted by Mr. Jack
Cassidy on behalf of the White Oak Estates HOA.
Mr. Cassidy explained
the request noting that the face of each sign was 39 square feet, just shy of
the 40 square feet mandated by the Village Code. The entrance signage would
consist of two signs single faced located in the existing landscaped islands at
the subdivision entrances on
The signs will be constructed of buff limestone and mounted on a reinforced footing 48” inches deep. Copy will be sandblasted on an oval limestone insert. Two 28” square columns will be on each side of the ‘mounting surface”. A 12” soldier course in matching stone with limestone caps will top each column. Material samples were presented for consideration by the AC. The existing illumination source would be retained for illumination of the sign.
Overall the AC liked the materials and look of the sign. There was a concern however with the readability of the sign as proposed.
Planner Hogue explained how the area of signage is calculated noting that the smallest rectangle encompassing just the copy of the sign (not the “sign face” as noted by the petitioner) is used in the calculation of square footage. In this instance just the “oval insert” (36” x 42” or 10.5 sq. ft.) would be measured in calculating the square footage of the proposed signage. Petitioner is allowed a total of 40 square feet of signage. As such, petitioner is entitled to two “oval inserts” of 20 square feet each (or any combination thereof not to exceed a 40 square foot total for both signs). He further noted that if the AC was satisfied with all other aspects of the sign, a condition limiting the “oval inserts” to a maximum of 20 square feet each would be an appropriate condition as part of the recommendation for approval. Staff could then ensure that the revisions as requested had been complied with.
A motion was made by Commissioner Beadle, seconded by Commissioner Connolly, to approve the signage as submitted with the condition that a the oval inserts be limited to 20 square feet per sign and that a scaled drawing of the sign with revisions be submitted for staff review. On a voice vote; all aye.
OTHER BUSINESS: NONE
Adjournment: Commissioner Beadle made a motion to adjourn, seconded
by Commissioner Calas. On a voice vote; all aye.
Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James M. Hogue
James M. Hogue, Village
Planner