Village of Glenview Appearance Commission

Transcription

1 Village of Glenview Appearance Commission STAFF REPORT May 25, 2016 TO: Chairman and Appearance Commissioners FROM: Community Development Department CASE #: A LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: 1727 Waukegan Road Culver s / Chipotle Retail Center CASE MANAGER: Tony Repp, Planner SUBJECT: Preliminary Approval ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests a final determination on the proposal. OWNER: EHS, LLC E.J. Stern PO BOX 2055 Glenview, IL APPLICANT / CONTACT: Chad James SpaceCo Engineering 9575 W. Higgins Road, Suite 700 Rosemont, IL PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes construction of two (2) retail buildings at the former Matty s site to accommodate two (2) new restaurant uses, including one (1) drive-through food use and other another retail space. Preliminary Approval of the proposed architecture, signage, landscaping, and lighting is requested at this time. 1 Report Disclaimer: Village staff makes no representations regarding support, endorsement, or the likelihood of approval or disapproval by any Glenview regulatory commission or the Village Board of Trustees.

2 Site Assessment AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY: 2

3 Project Summary BACKGROUND: The subject property formerly housed a restaurant, but has been vacant since a fire in The subject property and the properties to the north, including the Taco Bell site and existing shopping center, are all under common ownership. In 2014, the intersection at Chestnut Avenue and Waukegan Road was improved with a signalized entrance following the demolition of an existing building on the southern end of the existing shopping center to the north. This allowed for a complete 4 th leg to be added to the intersection which lined up correctly with the existing roadways. This improvement was implemented as a result of recommendations in the Waukegan Road Corridor Plan and the implementation of a Business Improvement District which helped fund the necessary improvements. In 2015, the owner presented a preliminary plan to the Plan Commission in order to gather feedback and direction from the Commission and the public. The preliminary plan included the existing Taco Bell drive-through, a new drive-through restaurant, and a new drive-through coffee use. At that meeting, a number of concerns were raised regarding the intensity of the proposal, impact on surrounding properties, and overall impact on traffic in the area. The Plan Commission shared many of the public s concerns as well as other site plan and circulation issues. They provided feedback that called for the reduction in the number of drive-through uses and a very careful study of traffic impacts. The minutes from this Plan Commission meeting have been attached to this report for reference. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing the construction of two (2) new commercial buildings to house a drivethrough restaurant and two retail tenant spaces, one of which would be occupied by a fast casual restaurant. The proposed drive-through restaurant would be a Culver s. It would feature indoor and outdoor dining areas as well as the drive-through operation. Additionally, a Chipotle is proposed for the other retail building on the site which would include indoor and outdoor dining areas, but no drive-through. The plans currently show an additional retail space available on the southern end of the proposed Chipotle building, which could be occupied by any permitted use in the B-2 zoning district. The proposed detention for the site is in the far southeast corner of the site. 3

4 Item Manufacturer Model Color Brick Boral N/A New Orleans Brick Trim Hardiboard Smooth faced trim and Arctic White crown Windows TBD TBD White Exterior building light EF Chapman Sussex CH02032 Black fixture Exterior parking lot light fixture Cyclone Historia CY25T4 Black Text Culver s Culver s Culver s Culver s Location Wall above main entrance Wall above Drive- Front Facade Rear Wall Thru Design Internally illuminated Letters Internally illuminated Letters Internally illuminated Letters Internally illuminated Letters Letter Height Letter Color(s) White White White White Trim Cap Color White White White White Return Color Blue Blue Blue Blue Illumination White LED White LED White LED White LED Type & Color Raceway Depth Flush Mounted Flush Mounted Flush Mounted Flush Mounted Text Chipotle Chipotle Chipotle Location Wall above main entrance (East Elevation) Side Wall (North Elevation) Rear Wall (West Elevation) Design Applicant to confirm Applicant to confirm Applicant to confirm Letter Height Applicant to confirm Applicant to confirm Applicant to confirm Letter Color(s) Applicant to confirm Applicant to confirm Applicant to confirm Trim Cap Color Applicant to confirm Applicant to confirm Applicant to confirm Return Color Applicant to confirm Applicant to confirm Applicant to confirm Illumination Applicant to confirm Applicant to confirm Applicant to confirm Type & Color Raceway Depth Box Sign or Flush Mount Box Sign or Flush Mount Box Sign or Flush Mount 4

5 Appearance Commission Review APPEARANCE PLAN COMMENTS: Staff comments after evaluating the proposal for compliance with the Appearance Plan: Building Design Criteria from Appearance Plan: Quality of design and relationship to surroundings Good scale and harmonious conformance with neighboring development Materials with architectural character and harmony with adjoining buildings Building components with good proportions and relationship to one another Harmonious colors Avoidance of monotony; avoidance of inappropriate, incompatible, bizarre and exotic designs Staff comments: o The applicant has provided color elevations, renderings, and detailed elevations. The Appearance Commission should closely examine the elevations and explore any solutions which may reduce or mitigate any visual impact the building may have on the neighboring properties. o The Appearance Commission should comment on the proposed architectural materials for both buildings, including: The use of blue coping atop the parapet of the Culver s building The architectural features around the main entrance of the Chipotle building. o The applicant has provided exhibits which display how rooftop utilities will be screened from view. o The applicant should explore opportunities to break up the larger expanses of open façade on both buildings with additional architectural features which add interest and create dimensional activity on the façade. o The petitioner shall bring color/material samples to the meeting. Sign Criteria from Appearance Plan: Compatibility with building architecture Compatibility with signs on adjoining buildings Harmony with surrounding landscape Good scale in relationship to surroundings Use of harmonious colors Staff comments: o If the Appearance Commission agrees that the roof structure should be altered there may be the opportunity for additional wall mounted signage on the eastern façade. o Additional details should be submitted for the wall sign and monument sign for final review. o The rear wall sign at Culver s should be removed as it faces residential areas and will not advertise the location as well as the side wall and front wall signs. o The small specialty signs on the west elevation are advertising signs and should not be included on exterior elevations. o The applicant should investigate use of a multi-tenant sign near the Waukegan Road and Chestnut Avenue intersection to advertise location of all businesses accessible by using the traffic signal. This would include Chipotle, Culvers, Taco Bell, and a possible retail tenant. o The applicant will have to present additional detail for the Chipotle signs at future meetings. o The petitioner shall furnish material and color samples of all proposed signage for review by the Appearance Commission. 5

6 Landscaping Criteria from Appearance Plan: Grades of walks, terraces and other paved areas shall provide an inviting and stable appearance for walking, and if seating is providing, for sitting. Landscape treatment shall be provide to enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and provide shade. Plant material shall be selected for interest in its structure, texture, and color and for its ultimate growth. Plants should be indigenous, hardy, harmonious and of good appearance. Where plants are susceptible to injury they should be protected. Staff comments: o The applicant has proposed the planting of a number of trees in the rear of the property to add to the buffer between the single-family homes to the south and east the subject property. o The applicant should confirm there is no new fencing along the adjacent residential properties being replaced and to confirm the existing fencing is seven feet tall. o The Plan Commission should comment on the screening pattern and number of trees. Lighting Criteria from Appearance Plan Enhancement of the building design and adjoining landscape Compatible design and size with the building and adjacent areas Restraint in design Avoidance of excessive brightness and brilliant colors Staff comments: o The applicant should remove the two light fixtures on the eastern edge of the parking lot. o The proposed lighting plan features compliant 100% cut-off fixtures, but will require revisions prior to final review to ensure compliance with maximum, average, and uniformity ratio requirements. o All lighting fixtures within feet of a residential property may not exceed 14.0 feet in height. The lighting plan complies with this requirement. o The applicant will present a revised photometric plan and lighting fixtures for review by the Appearance Commission prior to seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for the final lighting design. POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS: The proposed use is in a B-2 General Business District east of existing residential properties and located in a business district along Waukegan Road which includes other business and commercial uses. Concerns gathered from the neighbors at a previous Plan Commission meeting includes the location of dumpsters, operational hours, noise, lighting, and traffic impacts on the area and residential streets in the neighborhood. Staff has received correspondence from several neighbors and met with several business owners in the area regarding the proposal. Many of the concerns expressed by neighbors remain the same. These include the possibility of cut-through traffic in the adjacent neighborhood, additional traffic utilizing the Chestnut/Waukegan intersection and impacts on the other properties in the area such as light and noise pollution. All public correspondence received by staff to date has been attached this report for reference. 6

7 Technical Review PROJECT TIMELINE: Submittal/Meeting/Action Date A. Preliminary Plan Commission Review 06/23/2015 B. Preliminary Site Plan Review 03/29/2016 C. Application Submitted 04/25/2016 D. Public Notice Published 05/05/2016 E. Public Notice Mailed 05/05/2016 F. Plan Commission Meeting 05/24/2016 G. Appearance Commission Meeting (Preliminary) 05/25/2016 H. First Consideration by Board of Trustees TBD I. Second Consideration by Board of Trustees TBD 7

8 REQUIRED APPROVAL(s): The following chart details the necessary required approvals. An associated appendix includes specific descriptions of each regulatory approval, the review criteria, and standards for approval. Each commissioner has a copy of this appendix and copies for the public are located on the table near the entry doors to the Village Board Room. The appendix can also be viewed on the Planning Division website at the following URL: Required Regulatory Review A. Annexation B. Annexation with Annexation Agreement C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment D. Official Map Amendment E. Rezoning F. Planned Development G. Conditional Use H. Final Site Plan Review I. Second Curb Cut J. Subdivision (Preliminary, Final, and Waivers) K. Variation(s) (Zoning Board of Appeals) L. Certificate of Appropriateness (Appearance Commission) M. Final Engineering Approval & Outside Agency Permits N. Building Permits O. Building & Engineering Inspections P. Recorded Documents (Development Agreements, Easements, Covenants, etc.) Q. Business License R. Certificate of Occupancy Attachments & Exhibits 1. Sample Motion 2. Excerpt from the Plan Commission minutes of June 23, Public Correspondence up to 05/19/ Petitioner s Application & Exhibits 8

9 Sample Motion I move in the matter of A , Culver s / Chipotle Retail Center, at 1727 Waukegan Road, the Appearance Commission grants preliminary approval, based upon the findings the petitioner, through testimony and application materials, has demonstrated compliance with Section Appearance Plan and in accordance with the following: A. The documents prepared by Ollmann, Enrnest, Martin Architects and dated 04/20/2016: 1. Color Elevations for Culver s (A2-1 & A2-2) 2. Color Elevations for Chipotle (A2-1 & A2-2) 3. Color Renderings (OA100) 4. Site Photometric Plan (SE-101) B. The Landscape Plan prepared by James Dowden & Associates and dated 05/18/2016. C. Building Service Light specification sheet for the SLIM18 from Rab Lighting. D. The Pole Mounted Light specification sheet for the D-Series Size 1 LED Area Luminaire from Lithonia Lighting. E. Gooseneck Fixture Light Specification sheet for the GN1 LED 13NAC11A from Rab Lighting. F. The Signage Package prepared by South Water Signs and dated 04/29/2016 (Metro L 1.1 L Metro 1.12). 9

10 EXCERPT FROM THE PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2015 P Waukegan Road Matty s Site (Public Hearing) Chairman Bucklin began by stating that similar to the Kensingston School discussion, the Plan Commission is asked to listen to the details of the case and provide feedback and direction to the petitioner. Mr. Brady summarized that the location of this proposal is the site of the former Matty s Site and includes the current Taco Bell parcel. He outlined the Case Summary: Request for direction regarding proposed 3 drive-thru uses *2 proposed drive-through restaurants (one currently exists), and *1 proposed coffee drive-through Applicant owns adjoining properties to the north, including Taco Bell Proposed ¾ access to the site south of the existing light at Chestnut and Waukegan As part of Waukegan Road Corridor, the intersection of Chestnut and Waukegan Avenue, was one of the Village s worst intersections and the Village has worked with the applicant and IDOT to completely redesign the intersection. Modifications have been made to the drive-through driveway to Taco Bell. Mr. Brady showed a slide of the Taco Bell Site Revisions, which included what currently exists and revisions that have been made, including relocation of the sign. Modifications are still needed for the balance of the site, including the reorientation of the drive-through lane that would allow for northsouth access at the eastern most point of the Taco Bell site. These modifications are still pending. The existing conditions Existing were shown noting that the NAPA development has a right-out at the northern edge of the property and a one-way lane into the former Matty s site and signs that prohibit a left hand turn. As part of the intersection improvements, the stacking distance was significantly increased to accommodate increases in traffic. A Cross Access Exhibit was shown as well as a few Concept Site Plan Comparisons. Mr. Brady summarized that the petitioner has submitted documentation on his difficulty in marketing the site. The following slide was utilized for discussion: 10

11 Chairman Bucklin noted that the Chestnut/Waukegan intersection was the most dangerous intersection in Glenview. A lot of work has been done and the Chairman complimented the petitioner on the muchimproved design. Commissioner Fallon stated that he prefers Concept Site Plan 2, but questioned if the large amount of shown parking was necessary. Mr. Brady replied that as part of any formal submittal and if all three 11

12 sites were redeveloped at the same time, a coordinated traffic study would be required. The potential tear down of the current Taco Bell was mentioned. Commissioner Dickson stated that she is partial to Concept Site Plan 2 because the three different drivethrough activities are self-contained. She added her concern in regards to the Taco Bell site is that the Village was trying not to have vehicles come to the intersection traffic. She would also like to see as much landscaping as possible to avoid a sea of asphalt. She also likes Concept Site Plan 2 because a consistent front edge is created for all of the buildings. Commissioner Witt questioned if studies had been done to establish that retail establishments would not be appropriate for these parcels. Mr. Brady commented that the applicant has found that there is very little interest in retail establishments. The Commissioner stated that she also prefers Concept Site Plan 2 due to the safer circulation patterns, but was concerned that this area will be very busy and worried about how much was put in this area, adding the continues to be treacherous traversing these parking lots. While not a reflection on the property owner, Commissioner Igleski added that he was disappointed that this request is a reflection on the current market situation. He is concerned that this intersection has already been dramatically improved and he doesn t want to see that change. Usually fast food restaurants stacked like this are seen in large retail outlets. He concurred with his fellow Commissioners that he preferred Concept Site Plan 2 and added that he would like to see an extremely thorough traffic study on this site. He would also like to know exactly what fast food restaurants would be built. Chairman Bucklin agreed that he does not want to mess up the current intersection improvements. He encouraged the property owners to work together, adding that the owner has the right to build what he wants, however stated that he did not prefer to see three drive-thru restaurants on this site while acknowledging that Waukegan Road can handle this use type. He does not want to see a sea of asphalt. He also prefers Concept Site Plan 2 and would like to see additional landscaping added to soften the area. Chairman Bucklin opened the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Tom Cunningham has been a Glenview resident for eight years, who has three children. When he moved here in 2007, he was directly behind Matty s Wayside Inn. He stated that he had no problem with Mr. Stern s plan for the three parcels, but felt the area might appear sterile with three drive-thru restaurants. He felt that three fast food restaurants would create significant traffic during the lunch and dinner hours. He is concerned about light pollution, trash, traffic patterns and idling cars (air pollution). While having no opposition to Mr. Stern, he feels that this plan is not the best for this location. Mr. Jim Planey, who lives on the block east of this parcel, noted the increase traffic that three drive-thru restaurants would create. He asked that the Village focus on traffic studies. Ms. Kristen Utiley stated that she understands that the property owners have the right to build in the area, but stated that she calls the police at least once per month about noise and cars parked behind the Taco Bell at night. She has squirrels eating tacos in her trees. The Day Care Center across the street was noted, with poor parking. She questioned the concept of our Village what does Glenview want to be? Do we want to be Hoffman Estates, Schaumburg or do we want to be Wilmette, Winnetka, Highland Park, Kenilworth or better? She is against the proposed three drive-thru restaurants. She added that the Kensington School would be welcomed in this area. 12

13 Commissioner Igleski questioned why Ms. Utiley called the police; she replied that teenagers go behind the Taco Bell because it is a dark place to hang out. She added that it is a sad concept that Glenview is even considering these types of retail development along Waukegan Road. Chairman Bucklin closed the public portion of the meeting. Chairman Bucklin noted that screening from residents is necessary in addition to trash collection, lighting and storm water detention. The petitioner, Mr. Stern stated that the parcel has been vacant for over six years. He owns several other shopping centers and noted that the large box retailers are squeezing out the mom & pop establishments. Although he has tried, the only interest in this property is the fast food businesses. He thanked the neighbors for their comments and added that he would address all of their concerns. Commissioner Igleski asked if Mr. Stern could name the businesses that could potentially fill these parcels. Mr. Stern noted that he is in discussion with Wendy s and Culvers. Culvers sales have a 60% customer sit down sales rate, which is very different from other fast food establishments. 13