Loading...
2004-12-01 - Appearance Review Team - Minutes Board orCommission: ❑Appearance Review Team Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 12/01/2004 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting Appearance Review Team (ART) Meeting 4:30 p.m., 12/1/2004 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: Jeffrey Braiman, Trustee Liaison to the Plan Commission Scott Greenberg, ECD Company Renee Solomon, ECD Company Kevin Forest, ECD Company Mark Hopkins, HKM Architects & Planners, Inc. Mark Kurensky, HKM Architects & Planners, Inc. Tony Cilia, M-K Sign CC: 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 Scott Greenberg provided an overview of the proposed development. The development is being driven by a junior anchor, Staples, who would occupy a portion of the Shops A building. The junior anchor store would be tucked behind retail frontage on Milwaukee Avenue. At this time the petitioner is seeking appearance approval for the Shops A and junior anchor buildings only. The designs provided for the balance of the site are conceptual in nature and are intended to depict the style and quality of the other buildings. These conceptual buildings will come back for detailed review at the time each building is ready to proceed. Mark Hopkins stated the site is designed as thematic architecture without repetition. The design expresses the virtues of modernity, urbanity, and pedestrian friendliness. The site is designed to be a unified development with subtle changes in site layout, building design, and streetscape to create a continuous experience as pedestrians most from east to west on the site. Mr. Hopkins further explained that Shops A will be clear glass, various colors of brick, E.I.F.S., cast stone base and accent banding, an E.I.F.S. or metal mechanical screen, flat and standing seam metal roof, and a suspended metal canopy armature. The Staples store is designed to be asymmetrical with a subtle unwrapping towards the intersection of Milwaukee Avenue and Busch Parkway. The tower element would be cast stone with an E.I.F.S. top. ART RECOMMENDATION / NOTES Ms. Neukirch asked if Staples has approved this design. Mr. Greenberg explained that the letter of intent from Staples requires a corporate prototype fagade design. This store design deviates from Staples prototype, but the store has expressed interest in moving forward. Staples would like to see some refinements to the design, such as more use of their corporate red color. The over scaled stapler, push pins, paper clips, and pencil are some of the elements that ECD Company has used to sell this concept to Staples. Staples likes the "fun theme" to add a little humor. Ms. Neukirch asked how you regulate the next tenant that wants these types of elements, for example what if a restaurant wants a large knife and spoon? Mr. Greenberg stated that ECD Company will regulate these elements via good taste. Some tenants are also more important to the development than others, those tenants tend to get concessions that other tenants that are less important do not. In this case, Staples is the linchpin in getting this development off the ground. The signs is intended to be upscale, interesting and dynamic. Commissioner Bocek asked what happens if the Village does not grant permission for all pf the Staples signs. An upper-end development should not have "Pack&Ship" and "Copy & Print" Mr. Greenberg indicated that Staples is working with them to find an acceptable solution to balance the needs of the store, developer, and Village. This is a difficult fit because it is not the type of tenant one typically finds in an upscale development. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that the Village has run into this before with other national tenants. The Village has been able to work with them to reach a reasonable compromise. Ms. Neukirch said that she appreciates the whimsy the stapler et cetera provide, but is concerned that they take away from the professionalism of the business park. Mr. Hopkins believes that you have to get into the spirit of the building. Part of the issue is scale, and these elements are not overdone. Chairman Otteheimer indicated that he is not sold on the whimsical elements. Mr. Greenberg reiterated that they are trying to have a little fun and fit ordinary into this development which exceeds ordinary. Mr. Hopkins stated that the bank building uses a range of materials to express the architectural concept and blanace the architecture of the other buildings in the center. The bank has horizontal elements, modulation, and variation in its massing. The bank design is organic and balances the whimsy of the Staples details. Ms. Neukirch asked if a bank will accept this pre-determined design. Mr. Greenberg indicated he will have to shop the design to various banks that are interested in the site. Mr. Summers asked the development team to review the proposed ground signs on Milwaukee Avenue and Busch Parkway. Mr. Greenberg stated the sign on Milwaukee Avenue would be 35 feet in height. This is the same height as the parapet on the Staples building. The sign on Busch Parkway would be 24 feet in height, which is approximately the same as the one story retail building. Ms. Neukirch asked why a monument sign was needed on Busch Parkway. Mr. Hopkins explained that people accessing the site tend to drive to the sign. In this case, there is no access at the main sign on Milwaukee Avenue, so the second sign guides people to the entry. The sign on Milwaukee Avenue is proposed to be the larger of the two monument signs, with a smaller version without the LED display, on Busch Parkway. Mr. Summers asked if appearance approval is to be requested in phases. Mr. Greenberg replied that it was. Shops A and the Staples store are first, then the bank. He would come back later for approval of Shops B and the other buildings for the development. Commissioner Bocek indicated that although the proposed buildings are each unique she would prefer to see them blend together better. The developer should consider use of brick on the first floor of the office/retail building and other ways to tie all of the buildings together into a unified center, such as carrying the circular corner feature on the Shops A building into other buildings on the site. She is uncomfortable approving the development is phases. Her experience has been that phases tend to change and cheapen as time moves on. Approval in phases can work against the Village. Future changes to accommodate specific businesses can be a problem if the changes result in lowering the overall quality of the site architecture. Commissioner Bocek suggested that a narrative should be created to establish design principles for the development. Mr. Greenberg indicated that the tone for the development will be set by Shops A and Staples. They can think about additional ways to provide linking of visual elements throughout the development. He is comfortable locking in materials choices for the bank and Shops B, but he would like the flexibility to make changes to the design. The office/retail building and hotel are even less certain as to their ultimate architectural design. Ms. Solomon indicated that they could create a narrative describing the design principles for the development. The narrative could be used to guide future phases of the development and any changes that may be necessary as the project advances. Mr. Summers stated that the plan has adequate landscaping proposed in the parking lot, at the weir, and at the monument sign on Busch Parkway. He asked the developer to consider enhanced landscaping at the bank drive through to screen the drive through as well as screen the vehicle lights from proximate roadways. For the past several banks the Village has asked that they turn their drive through to the rear of the building. In this case, that concept is incompatible with the pedestrian design for the site. Therefore the layout seems appropriate, but will require ample landscape screening to be successful. The site needs to balance better perimeter landscaping with appropriate visibility for the retail tenants. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Board orCommission: ❑Appearance Review Team Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 12/01/2004 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting Appearance Review Team (ART) Meeting 6:00 p.m., 12/1/2004 Edward R. James Homes, Waterbury Place, Powernail Property, Half Day Rd [IL Route 22] Petitioner: Steven Spinell, Edward R. James Homes ART TEAM: Susan Kenski-Sroka, Plan Commissioner Denice Bocek, Plan Commissioner Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Greg Summers, Associate Planner ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Braiman, Trustee Liaison to the Plan Commission Steven Spinell, Edward R. James Homes John Lifka, Edward R. James Homes Scott Freres, Lakota Group Daniel O'Malley, Bloodgood Sharp Buster Architects CC: Bruce Kahn, Trustee Liaison to the Plan Commission Plan Commission SUBJECT SITE Powernail Property, 201 /301 Half Day Road PETITIONER REQUEST Edward R. James Homes, is seeking approval to remove the existing Powernail industrial building and construct a total of 156 new single family detached, single family attached, and multiple family units on approximately 31 acres. OVERVIEW Steven Spinell provided an overview of the site plan. The plan has been reduced to 156 units. The new plan eliminates most, if not all, variations that were previously requested. They have opened up the central green to a full one acre and reduced the visual mass of the rowhome product by reorienting the buildings. The product along the north property line has been changed to rowhomes to limit the height to two stories along Half Day Road. In the southwest quarter of the site they have eliminated a villa building in order to better orient the buildings to the central green. Daniel O'Malley stated that they have designed the architecture of the buildings to be neo-classical in appearance with a classical base, middle, top design. The buildings have different elevations but are designed to achieve a unified community look. He emphasized the need to review the project in terms of streetscape, not the appearance of individual buildings. The buildings will use a blend of materials including brick, stucco, cast stone, and vinyl siding. He emphasized that more brick is not necessarily better. Color palettes were presented to the ART. Scott Freres provided an overview of the landscape plan. He reiterated that extensive landscaping is a hallmark of Edward R. James Homes' developments. They have provided typical foundation landscape packages for the various building types, although these would deviate slightly from building to building to incorporate a wide range of plantings. The trees on the site will be a variety of sizes rather than all the minimum 2.5"diameter like most other new developments. ART RECOMMENDATION / NOTES Mr. Summers noted that in comparison to the front, the sides and rears of the buildings lack commensurate use of durable building materials. More masonry should be used on these elevations, especially where these building sides are visible from adjacent roadways or developments. Mr. Spinell provided photographs of other Buffalo Grove developments which lack masonry materials on the rear elevations. Mr. Summers responded that the photographs depict developments that were completed prior to the current version of the Appearance Plan. Those developments complied with the version of the plan in place at that time. The current Plan states that building materials should be the same, or architecturally consistent, for all sides of the building wholly or partly visible from public ways. Commissioner Bocek asked for more variation in the color palette. The samples provided are all too similar to create a diverse look in the development. She also asked the petitioner to consider cementitious siding in lieu of the vinyl. Mr. Spinell stated that they will look at broadening the color range. They can consider cementitious siding in place of the vinyl, but the intent here is to have a maintenance free community. Commissioner Bocek stated that Buffalo Grove is an upscale community and the property values reflect that. She is not convinced that vinyl siding reflects that value. Commissioner Bocek asked if the window muntins would be inside or outside the windows. Mr. Spinell indicated that they will be in between the two panes of glass. Trustee Braiman indicated that despite the fact that the Village's public works department prefers the Village standard street lights, he would prefer to see a "quaint" street light that would better reflect the developer's vision of the community and blend in with the streetscape. Mr. Spinell responded that they also would prefer that type of street fixture and that they will provide those details at the next ART meeting. Mr. Summers asked about the type of shingle proposed for the buildings. Mr. Spinell noted it will be a standard three-tab 25 year asphalt shingle. Mr. Summers asked for consideration of an upgraded look, using a dimensional or shadowline product, especially given the prominence of the roof element backing up to Half Day Road. Members of the ART and the developer's team reviewed the points in the staff memo dated November 23, 2004. The petitioner's draft of"response to Village memo dated November 23, 2004" is attached for reference. Single Family Detached Mr. Spinell indicated that they can modify the single garage roof dormer on the Chatham model to be one larger dormer or two small dormers. The ART consensus was for one larger dormer. John Lifka acknowledged the minor drawing error on the Chatham side elevation and noted that it will be corrected prior to the second ART meeting. Mr. Spinell stated that stucco is proposed for the gable ends of the Chatham and Oxford models to blend the single family homes with the rowhomes located across the water feature. The ART members agreed that the stucco should remain as depicted. Mr. Spinell clarified that all stucco proposed for the development is cementitious, not an E.I.F.S. product. In response to the staff memo Mr. Spinell indicated that they will add brick above the garage door on the Essex model in lieu of the wood detail. Mr. Lifka clarified that the three models submitted are a sample of those that will be available. Additional floor plans and alternate elevations will be available to purchasers. Each individual home will come to a minor ART meeting before being constructed. Duplex Mr. Spinell again noted that the stucco gable ends are proposed to blend with use of stucco throughout the community and the ART agreed that the stucco was acceptable. ART members discussed opportunities for increased usage of brick on the duplex elevations and concluded that adding brick to all three gables would create one all-brick side elevation which would out of character with the other three elevations. The ART concluded that the elevations as currently depicted were acceptable. Tuckunder Townhomes The staff memo raised the issue of increasing the quantity of brick on the side and rear elevations. The tuckunder townhomes back up to the railroad tracks and are visible to properties west of the tracks as well as from Prairie Road. Mr. Spinell provided photographs from Prairie Road and stated that he does not believe motorists on Prairie Road will be able to see the rear of these units. He does not believe brick on the second and third level will provide a benefit to the community. He stated they will add brick around the first floors and garage areas of the townhomes as requested. In lieu of brick on the second or third floor they will enhance the rear elevation by adding window and gable details. Villas The staff memo questioned why brick is used as the base material on one side of the side entry porch, and stone for the same area on the other side. It also raised the issue of increasing the quantity of brick on the rear of the villa units. Mr. Spinell explained that the stone detail was not continued because there would not be a suitable break point to change to a brick base before reaching the garage structure. They feel that due to the light color of the stone material it is not a suitable material for use around the snow plowing and dirt from the alley. They will add brick at the side elevation to replace the siding currently shown for the sidewall of the garage. The rear elevation will be enhanced by adding brick around the entire first level surrounding the garage doors. Differentiation in garage door sizes will not be incorporated because experience has taught them that purchasers prefer the double garage door over two single doors. Rowhomes The staff memo raised the concepts of brick on the side elevation of the garage, brick wall patio dividers in place of the cedar fencing, and brick use on the rear elevation to enhance the Half Day Road streetscape. Mr. Spinell stated that they will add the brick side elevations on the garage for all end units. They feel that the cedar fence screen is effective, provides a good balance to the aesthetic of the brick elevations, and allows residents to easily hang plantings or art in the patio area. The ART agreed that with the addition of the brick for the full first floor of the garage side and rear wall that the use of Cedar fencing would be appropriate to break up the building mass. The fence posts will be constructed around steel posts to ensure durability and reduce maintenance issues. The ART expressed concern regarding the all vinyl and roof shingle appearance of the rear of the rowhome units from Half Day Road. Mr. Spinell stated that the site will be bermed and heavily landscaped with evergreen materials. As an entry to the community, he is also concerned about the appearance of the rear of these units and will consider the addition of dormers along the rear of these buildings to break the large expanses of uninterrupted roof. Materials Color and materials samples were provided by the petitioner. Commissioner Bocek commented that the brick colors are too similar and more varied colors are needed to create distinction between the buildings. Mr. Summers expanded on Commissioner Bocek's comment by asking the petitioner to consider broadening the range of the color palette for the brick, stucco, and siding colors. Mr. Spinell stated they will review more options, including darker tones. New color palettes will be brought to the second ART meeting for review. Mechanical Equipment& Utility Boxes The memo raised concern about the screening of mechanical equipment and utility boxes. The memo suggested that the boxes be relocated onto the rear elevations of the buildings or that the petitioner commit to heavily screening the equipment to minimize its visibility from public ways. Mr. Freres stated that they will work to ensure proper screening with foundation plantings as they do in all of their communities. Mr. Summers noted that despite their efforts some of their communities did not adequately screen the appurtenant equipment with plantings of sufficient height. Mr. Freres indicated they will work with the plant materials here to ensure evergreens of sufficient height are adequately located to screen this equipment. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. M Powernail James-Response to Village Memo Dated November 23 2004.pdf RECEMO DEC 0 2 2004 VI. Response to Village Memo dated November 23, 2004 PLANNING SERVICES The following represents a point by point response of items raised within the context of the memo provided by Greg Summers, dated 11/23/04 summarizing ER James Partners ART Submittal, dated 11/17/04. Resolutions, as we understand, agreed upon during the formal ART Meeting on 12/1/04 have also been included in bold. A. Single family Detached Homes ER James Partners will comply with Village Monotony Code in regards to elevation and color scheme with the utilization of multiple elevations and color schemes for each model type. We further realize that simply flipping garage orientation is not an acceptable means of differentiation. Chatham- 1. Two dormers or one larger single dormer can and will be provided as an alternative elevation for this home. Additionally, one option for this unit type offers a bonus room over garage that would allow for an elevated garage elevation similar to that of the Essex. 2. Yes-Error is acknowledged on side view elevation and will be corrected. 3. Stucco usage was considered here as a continuance of similar materials throughout the entire community. Siding could be replaced here if desired. However, it was agreed upon during ART meeting that stucco could remain as depicted on current elevation. Essex 1. Brick will be added above the garage door ilo the wood detail. Oxford 1. Siding at gable above front porch could be provided. However, it was agreed in meeting that stucco would be appropriate. B. Duplex 1. Stucco on front elevation is consistent with the other multifamily products and continues to provide a variety of high quality materials. Stucco will remain as depicted. 2. Brick on the three two-story gable details (right side and rear elevations) is not consistent with the ongoing theme of blending materials and color to provide for a rich feel to the elevations. As discussed, adding brick to side yard gables would provide for a complete brick side elevation,which is not desired. By default in order to remain consistent, rear yard gable will also remain as siding. C. Tuckunder Townhomes 1. Adding more brick to side elevations will not provide a benefit to the streetscape nor the community as a whole. At a separation of 25ft this elevation is not realized from the streetscape. However, a streetside elevation including brick in this area will be provided for the two northern and southern most townhome units where the side elevation is visible from Rt 22 at the north and Villa neighborhood at the south. 2. In reference to the addition of brick to the rear elevation, brick will be continued along the entire lower level elevation around the center four garage doors. As stated above, brick on the second/third level will not provide a substantial benefit to the community and will not be considered above the balconies on the second or third levels. In reference to comment suggesting brick due to views from Prairie Road, we respectfully disagreed in that these views span a distance from 400 to over 650 ft to the townhome product. In addition to brick around garages, ER James Partners will also look to enhance rear elevation by adding window/gable details within the center four units roofline and upper level. 3. Currently, a four-unit townhome building is not planned for this site. D. Villas 1. Side elevation- Stone detail was not continued from side elevation entry door to garage because there would not be a suitable break point to stop stone around to garage doors. Due to the natural light appearance of the stone,this is not an appropriate material along alley ways where snow plowing and dirt from alleys tends to diminish the look of the stone at grade level. As further discussed, brick will be added at the side elevation to replace siding currently shown above the brick course at the first level garage elevation. 2. Rear elevation will be also enhanced by adding brick on first level around garage doors similar to Southgate on the Glen. 3. While it was agreed that double garage doors do add variety- in order to create ease of entry into the garages, double garage doors will not be incorporated. We have had concerns and input from our customers at the Glen pertaining to the difficulty when entering the double door garage scenario. 4. For reasons stated previously, brick will be maintained on the 1 sc level of the rear elevation. It was agreed that the rear elevation of the Villa possessed good differentiation in windows and roof line. E. Rowhomes 1. Brick will be added to the garage at 1s' level side elevation on all end units. 2. Fencing provides adequate privacy and as seen in Bartlett photographs helps in breaking and softening a predominantly brick lower level. Cedar fencing also allows for customers to easily hang items such as plantings in their patio area. It was further explained in order to create a low maintenance fence system, cedar fence would be secured to steel posts ilo wood posts which are set in concrete below grade. Brick privacy walls are not to be included. 3. Views from Rt. 22 and distant Prairie Station will immediately be focused on the berm landscaping adjacent to the roadway. As an entry feature to the community, it was explained that this berm would be planted with evergreens and shade trees in order to create an impressive entrance as well as screen Rt 22 from the property. While views from Rt. 22 will be softened by the landscape,it was agreed to consider the addition of dormers to break up the roofline and will be presented at the next ART meeting. 4. As a point of clarification, it was noted that Heatherfield rowhomes provide brick on front and side elevations. The rear elevation provides primarily vinyl siding. 5. Since the time of submittal the addition of 4 & 8 unit Rowhomes have been introduced to the site plan. Front of elevations for both were provided at ART Meeting. A combination of three buildings (8,6, & 8 units) can be seen at South Commons of Deerfield and will demonstrate the architecturally pleasing use and appearance of the multi-unit mix. F. Materials Color and material samples were provided. Color palette was discussed and concerns that the overall palette for the multifamily products were too similar. It was requested by the ART Team that additional consideration be given to bring darker brick colors into program in order to create more differentiation between buildings. As a result of changing brick color,siding and stucco colors may also change as appropriate. ER James Partners agreed to work with staff on varying the brick/color palette and bring forth options at next ART Meeting. Furthermore, it was requested that the possibility of an ornamental streetlight fixture be introduced ilo of the standard Buffalo Grove light fixtures. ER James Partners will furnish a proposed street light fixture along with plans for benches and mailboxes planned for the community at the next ART meeting. 1. Stucco as a cementatious masonry product will be used. 2. 3-Tab , 25-year Asphalt fiberglass shingle by Owens Corning, with a Class A fire resistant and wind resistant rating is provided. 3. In reference to Single Family elevations, additional elevations will be available for each model type. We understand that these elevations would be reviewed at staff level at the time of permit submittal. -► G. Mechanical Equipment and Utility Boxes 1. By virtue of product design,the rowhomes will be the only product that will have a/c units in the front yards. As presented in photographs at meeting, ac units screened by foundation plantings cannot be seen from street view with foundation plantings. 2. Discussions of visible meters at existing communities were discussed. It is the exception and not the rule when mechanical equipment can be seen from the streetscape. ER James Partners cannot guarantee that once we have left a community that plants will all remain in place or be replaced appropriately if they die. It was agreed that commitment to proper screening with foundation plantings is planned for this community as is intended for all our communities.