Loading...
2005-01-12 - Appearance Review Team - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑Appearance Review Team Document Type: ❑Agenda 0 Minutes Meeting Date: 01/12/2005 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting Appearance Review Team (ART) Meeting 6:00 p.m., 1/12/2005 Proposed Gateway Center, 1500 Busch Parkway— Proposed Mixed-Use Development Petitioner: Scott Greenberg, ECD Company ART TEAM: Lester Ottenheimer, Plan Commission Chairman Denice Bocek, Plan Commissioner Ghida Neukirch, Assistant Village Manager Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Greg Summers, Associate Planner ALSO PRESENT: Scott Greenberg, ECD Company Renee Solomon, ECD Company Kevin Forrest, ECD Company Mark Kurensky, HKM Architects & Planners, Inc. Matt Dzick, HKM Architects & Planners, Inc. CC: Jeffrey Braiman, Trustee Liaison to the Plan Commission Bruce Kahn, Trustee Liaison to the Plan Commission Plan Commission SUBJECT SITE 1500 Busch Parkway&Vacant Parcel to the West PETITIONER REQUEST ECD Company is seeking approval to remove the existing industrial building at 1500 Busch Parkway and construct a new mixed use development consisting of a two retail buildings, an office/retail building, a bank, a hotel, and a parking structure. OVERVIEW Mr. Summers provided an overview of the Appearance Review Team Memo dated January 6, 2005, including changes noted since the prior submittal of the development plans. ART RECOMMENDATION / NOTES Chairman Ottenheimer noted that he liked the overall direction that design of the development has taken in response to the comments at the first ART meeting. Commissioner Bocek concurred with Chairman Ottenheimer regarding the design of the structures. She asked if the design narrative to direct future phases of the development had been drafted. Mr. Kurensky distributed copies of a one page design narrative. He indicated that this narrative should be used in conjunction with the Village's Appearance Plan to guide future phases of the project. Mr. Greenberg stated that the proposed design concept is difficult to capture in narrative form. The intention is to create unique modern elements, blended together as a cohesive whole. Commissioner Bocek stated that she understands the intent of the overall development. She is concerned that the hotel does not live up to that same standard. She understands the need for the hotel's corporate identity but would like to see something different. Mr. Summers suggested that he would like to see a blending of the hotel's corporate identify with the identity established for the overall development. Mr. Greenberg said that the hotel will have residential design elements and will incorporate visual elements of the overall site appearance. Mr. Kurensky note that the final designs of the hotel and office buildings will be reviewed by the Village in the future. Mr. Kurensky stated that the landscape is the thematic element which holds this site together. The site has repeating benches, light poles with banners, and bollards. Each of these items has the same metal finish that blends with the aluminum storefront window finish. The landscape also provides screening along the adjacent roadways and adds a splash of color to the site. Mr. Pfeil asked if the overall development would be under common ownership and what provisions woudlbe made to maintain the landscaping and other site elements. Mr. Greenberg replied that the site will be subdivided and some lots may be sold. The site will have restrictive covenants and an association which will ensure common area maintenance. Mr. Summers asked for clarification of the height of the proposed sign along Milwaukee Avenue as compared to the sign at City Park in Lincolnshire. Mr. Greenberg indicated the signs are roughly the same height, within one foot of each other. Mr. Summers noted that the sign at City Park appears to be very large, and it is located next to a two-story structure. The Gateway Center sign would be most proximate to one story buildings and would therefore appear to be even larger. Mr. Greenberg responded that this sign is more aesthetically pleasing than the sign which was constructed at City Park. Mr. Kurensky noted that the sign is also better integrated into the overall site, with the plaza and weir, and that it provides a terminus to the pedestrian walkway that connects the development internally. He commented that the size of the sign is appropriate for the site and it is necessary to provide visibility since the site has no vehicular access from Milwaukee Avenue. Mr. Greenberg further expounded that having these endpoints gives the pedestrian a focal point to walk toward within the development. Ms. Neukirch asked if the group had concerns about the medical suites in the retail/office building looking down onto the roof of the Junior Anchor and Shops A retail buildings. Mr. Greenberg noted that he is still investigating solar panels for the roof of the Junior Anchor space. He is trying to determine if it is financially feasible to construct such a system. Ms. Summers stated that the roof view issue is more of a problem for the building owner and tenants than it is a public appearance issue. Regardless, this situation is not atypical when compared to other developments. Mr. Summers asked about building materials. Mr. Kurensky presented a board representing materials including metal, brick, and E.I.F.S. The board represented color ranges for the brick, without identifying a specific brick. The petitioner comfortable that the brick ultimately selected with be consistent with the colors shown on the board. A copy of the board will be submitted for inclusion in the file. Mr. Greenberg added that they may add additional brick colors to introduce more variety into the mix. Additional selections would be in the similar range of tan colors. He will not come back with red or brown brick. Mr. Summers asked where the transition would be made from the cast stone to E.I.F.S. on the Junior Anchor building's signage tower. Mr. Kurensky replied that the transition will take place at the canopy so that the two materials do not meet at any point. The two materials will be seamlessly blended so that one cannot perceive the difference between the cast stone and the E.I.F.S. Commissioner Bocek commented that she liked the fabric canopies and the use of two different colors for the canopies. Mr. Summers concurred with Commissioner Bocek's comment. Mr. Summers commented that the overall design quality of the for the site is very high. The design of the office building has progressed every well since the previous meeting. He is hopeful that the hotel design will undergo a similar design transition when the plans for it are finalized. Mr. Greenberg noted that he is trying to create a pedestrian environment, so he wants to make the office building as accessible as possible rather than having a monolithic or fortress-like structure. The ART recommended that the project, as submitted, is ready to proceed to the Plan Commission for a vote. The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.