Loading...
2004-07-15 - Appearance Review Team - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑Appearance Review Team Document Type: ❑Agenda 0 Minutes Meeting Date: 07/15/2004 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting Appearance Review Team (ART) Meeting 6:30 p.m., 7/15/2004 Proposed Single Family Detached Villas, East Side of Prairie Road at Chestnut Terrace Petitioner: John Green, Groundwork Limited, for Insignia & Concord Homes ART TEAM: Zill Khan, Plan Commissioner Michael Samuels, Plan Commissioner Susan Kenski-Sroka, Plan Commissioner Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Greg Summers, Associate Planner ALSO PRESENT: John Green, Groundwork Limited Alan Scimeca, Insignia Homes Jeff Hitz, Concord Homes Karl Krogstad, Pugsley& LaHaie CC: Steve Trilling, Trustee Liaison to the Plan Commission Jeff Berman, Trustee Liaison to the Plan Commission Plan Commission SUBJECT SITE East side of Prairie Road at Chestnut Terrace (immediately north of Mirielle Phase II) PETITIONER REQUEST Insignia Homes, is seeking annexation of four parcels on the east side of Prairie Road at Chestnut Terrace (immediately north of Mirielle Phase II), and approval of an R-7 Planned Unit Development. The plan proposes the removal of the current single family residences and related structures and construction of 21 new single family detached villas including associated streets, walks, water retention, landscaping, and recreational features. John Green, Groundwork Limited, represents Insignia Homes. Insignia has represented that the project will be conveyed to Concord Homes after annexation and zoning approval. ART RECOMMENDATION / NOTES John Green provided an overview of the revised plan. The plan consists of 21 single family detached villa units each with four elevation options. Unit "590" ranges from 2,650 square feet to 2,900 square feet and unit "591" is approximately 3,400 square feet. Unit sizes will vary slightly because the buildings have bays, porches, and room extensions to vary the massing of the elevations. The unit mix is ten "590" and eleven "591" units. All of the units will have three bedrooms. Mr. Hitz stated that units would cost in excess of$700,000, possibly approaching $800,000 after finishes are selected. Mr. Green acknowledged that units "590-K" and "590-L" do not vary significantly enough from one another and are "substantially similar" as defined in the Village's Appearance Plan. He suggested that although both models would be available they would not be used within four lots of one another thereby meeting the intent of the Monotony Code as set forth in the Village's Appearance Plan. Elevation materials would be defined as shown on the exhibits including fiber-cement siding, brick, E.I.F.S., cultured stone, pre-engineered wood trim, architectural grade shingles, and two single garage doors (plan "590"), and one double car garage door (plan "591"). Color choices for the materials would be made by purchasers. Commissioner Samuels expressed his concern that purchasers do not always make appropriate color choices and suggested pre-approved color palette choices which could be used on any of the available elevations. Jeff Hitz explained that Concord Homes typically uses a hierarchical color selection process in which a buyer's selection of one material limits the choice of the next. The system allows buyers a sense of freedom in selecting colors while ensuring overall development compatibility. That system will be used for this development. Mr. Green also acknowledged that according to the Monotony Code adjacent buildings could not have the same predominant color and that color choices are submitted to the Village at the time of permit in order to ensure conformity with the Code. Mr. Green stated that in this development the fireplaces (and the resulting chimneys) are standard. After lengthy discussion Mr. Hitz stated that they could add masonry facing to the "591-K," "591-L," and "591- M" chimneys. The "591-J" would not incorporate masonry on the chimney due to its traditional style and likewise none of the "590" models would make use of masonry on the chimney due to the "590" chimney's internal design. Mr. Pfeil inquired about how the sides of buildings 12 and 17 would appear along Avalon Drive given that both units are model "591" and have a minimum ten foot setback along the north side. Mr. Green noted that the staff memo suggested that one unit be either a "591-J" or"591-L" and the other unit be a "591-K" or"591-M" and Mr. Hitz stated they could work with that restriction. Furthermore, the two units would not have the same siding color. All units will have an 11 foot by 19 foot concrete patio which would not have a railing nor fence screening. Restrictive covenants would not allow patio expansions or privacy fencing. The development would be buffered from Prairie Road via a combination board-on-board and high-impact plastic ornamental fence which would be five feet high. The north-south sections of the fence would be board-on-board three feet from the west property line (four feet from the edge of sidewalk) and the east-west sections of the fence would be high-impact plastic ornamental. The fence would contain recesses 10 feet deep and 30 feet wide which would be landscaped. Mr. Pfeil inquired if the developer could modify the fence plan to use all ornamental to which Mr. Scimeca indicated that at this price point the buyer expects the level of privacy that a solid fence provides. Prior to this submittal they shifted the fence away from the sidewalk and enhanced landscaping on the Prairie Road side of the fence in order to address Mr. Pfeil's concern. Mr. Summers noted that as currently designed the site contains board-on-board, ornamental, split-rail, and chain-link fencing and asked if it possible to achieve a more uniform fence plan for the development. Mr. Green stated that he wanted to keep the split-rail fencing because of its informal curve and open vista to the recreation area. The petitioner will modify the cellular tower fence to board-on-board, eliminating the chain-link. Additionally, they will modify the split-rail fence to a "ranch-style" rectangular rail to blend it with the board-on-board fence. Commissioner Khan asked about the term of the cellular tower lease, the schedule for removal of the tower, and how the area would be incorporated into the site after the tower is removed. Mr. Green noted that the lease expires in 2009 and at that time the cellular tower and surrounding fence would be removed and the space added to the recreation area next to it. The recreation equipment and gazebo could be relocated at that time to open the space up, and additional landscaping would be added as well. Commissioner Samuels noted that the association's budget should set aside reserves for fence removal and landscaping after the tower has been removed. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.