Village of Glenview Appearance Commission

Transcription

1 Village of Glenview Appearance Commission STAFF REPORT May 14, 2014 TO: Chairman and Appearance Commissioners FROM: Community Development Department CASE #: A LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: 3780 Willow Road CVS /pharmacy CASE MANAGER: Jeff Brady, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Preliminary Approval APPLICANT: Charlie Haapala TMC Illinois 2, LLC 501 S. Pennsylvania Parkway, Suite 160 Indianapolis, IN Tel: (312) OWNER: PR II Willow Sanders Road JV LLC 55 E. Monroe, Suite 3250 Chicago, IL Tel: (312) CONTACT: Jerremy Foss 900 Woodlands Parkway Vernon Hills, IL Tel: (773) PROPOSAL: The applicant, TMC Illinois 2, LLC, represented by Jerremy Foss, requests a Preliminary Appearance Approval for a retail store and drive-thru CVS/pharmacy at 3780 Willow Road in the GlenStar development. 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 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, TMC Illinois 2, LLC, represented by Jerremy Foss, proposes the construction of a retail store and drive-thru pharmacy at 3780 Willow Road in the GlenStar development. The 13,225 sq. ft. one-story masonry building is surrounded by 69 parking stalls with the primary entrance to the store being located at the southwest corner of the lot addressing the intersection. The store would be open seven (7) days a week from 7am-10pm, with slightly more restrictive hours of operation for the pharmacy use. The peak use of the site occurs during the evening rush hour and peak demand for the pharmacy drive-thru is typically no more than three (3) vehicles, including the one (1) stacking space at drive-thru window. The curb cuts for the use are located as planned directly across from existing curb cuts, and the proposed northern and southern drive aisle connect into the planned bank site to the east. The site can accommodate the turning radius of delivery vehicles and emergency equipment, complies with the parking lot landscaping requirements and contains 24 more parking stalls than required by Village code. To maintain as many stalls close to the entrance, employees will be parking in the northern portion of the parking lot. There is no proposed ground identification sign, although a tenant panel will be located in the monument sign for the shopping center. In addition to pavement markings, two direction ground signs are proposed to guide patrons to the drive-thru. The building signage is comprised of red individually mounted letters using LED illumination with bronze trim caps and returns. An awning over the main entrance and a canopy over the drive-thru window are proposed and each has signage which would count towards the total allowable signage for the building. BACKGROUND: A brief description of the steps associated with the development of the subject parcel is listed below: The property is subject to the Willow Road Corridor Agreement between the Village and the Village of Northbrook, dated March ; o Amended June 4, 2007 o Amended June 12, 2007 o Amended July 1, 2008 The property is also subject to the Milwaukee Road and Sanders Road Corridor Agreement between the Village and the City of Prospect Heights, dated June 17, 1997; o First Amendment to the Agreement, dated September 16, 2006 A Joint Planning Team, appointed by Northbrook and Glenview, met in 2007 to establish the Joint Community Concept Plan ( JCCP ). The JCCP outlined the land uses and design parameters for the redevelopment of the site. An Annexation Agreement between the Village of Glenview and PR II Willow /Sanders Road JV, LLC was executed on August 5, Pursuant to the annexation agreement, the Village adopted Ordinance No. 5128, August 5, 2008, which provided for rezoning, planned development approval, final site plan approval, preliminary subdivision, and associated variations for the GlenStar office and hotel parcels. Ordinance 5156, adopted November 18, 2008 included a change from two hotels to one hotel and modifications to the office proposal. 3

4 Astellas acquired the office parcel from GlenStar and the Village adopted Ordinance No on September 1, 2009, permitting the development of the office buildings completed in Ordinance No was adopted on June 15, 2010 modifying the access road and connection to the Willow Road intersection In April 2012, the Village Board signed the Fourth Amendment to the Willow Road Corridor Agreement between the Village and the Village of Northbrook and the Second Amendment Milwaukee Road and Sanders Road Corridor Agreement between the Village and the City of Prospect Heights. Both agreements were amended to permit the revised development plan proposed by GlenStar and being presented to the Plan Commission for review. The Annexation Agreement was to permit the revised development plan including the Tapestry Apartments, Mariano s, and the various retail parcels. The drive-thru pharmacy is on a lot that was described as future retail and the latest version of the development plan was approved as part of Ordinance No on March 5, 2013 (attached). POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS: There does not appear to be any direct impact to adjacent residential neighbors as the existing office building will shield the proposed development from the residential neighborhoods to the east of I-294. 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 cornice at the main entrance should continue further down the west and north facades at least one bay to provide more emphasis for the main entrance. o The applicant should explain how the proposed design and/or building materials exhibit characteristics seen elsewhere in the shopping center. o Confirm that the proposed building height is measured from the average existing grade, as defined per ordinance. o Furnish detail sheets for any exterior structures or prefabricated units (windows, doors, fencing, lighting, benches, etc.) o Building material and color samples will be required for the Appearance Commission review. 4

5 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 The applicant shall submit additional details on the proposed signage for final review, such as dimensions from the edge of the proposed letter locations to the architectural features of the building. o Awning details including the color fabric, the wind load measurements, structural details, and the proposed lettering shall be submitted for review. o The directional sign for the drive-thru needs to be reduced to 2 square feet to be compliant. o The cumulative square footage of signage on the south elevation is 146 sf, while only 125 sf is permitted. Either the signage needs to become smaller, the Drive-Thru Pharmacy removed, or some other combination, otherwise a variance would be required. o The Appearance Commission should determine the appropriateness of the proposed 42 inch tall, bold stroke capital letters. o Likewise, the north elevation is proposed at 78.5 sf of signage, while only 75 sf is permitted. The CVS/pharmacy sign should be reduced in size to 24 inches to alleviate the need for a variance and be more proportionate to the architectural panel in which it is located. As such the east elevation signage should be reduced to match. o The petitioner shall furnish material and color samples of all proposed signage for review by the Appearance Commission. 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 added a pocket seating area at the northwest corner of the site. o The applicant should demonstrate how the trash enclosure and the area screening the compactor and transformer area match the architecture of the building and are screened by landscaping. o The applicant should explain how the landscaping along Capital and Willow have been increased to offset the lack of foundation plantings along the south and west elevations. o The applicant should add additional materials for maximum screening within the landscaped median between the drive-thru and future bank use, but confirm adequate sight lines are maintained for vehicles traversing the area. o The Appearance Commission should determine whether the proposed landscape materials are appropriate and include enough variety. 5

6 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 proposes the use of fixtures at heights of 12.0 feet, consistent with the previously approved fixture designs in use elsewhere across the retail areas of the site. o The applicant s lighting engineer will need to revise site calculations for the proposed light levels and area of measurement before compliance with maximum, average, and uniformity ratio can be confirmed. o The Appearance Commission should determine whether the proposed lighting plan is appropriate. Technical Review PROJECT TIMELINE: A. 04/07/14 Preliminary Site Plan Review B. 04/11/14 Applications Submitted C. 05/13/14 Plan Commission Meeting(s) D. 05/14/14 Appearance Commission Meeting E. TBD Village Board of Trustees First Consideration F. TBD Village Board of Trustees Second Consideration G. TBD Building Permit Application & Final Engineering H. TBD Building & Engineering Inspections I. TBD Business License(s) J. TBD Certificates of Occupancy 2014 AB CD Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 6

7 REQUIRED APPROVAL(s): The following chart details the necessary required approvals and is provided as a Regulatory Review Appendix. The appendix includes specific descriptions of each regulatory approval, the review criteria, and standards for approval. Each Commissioner has a copy of the appendix and copies for the public are located on the table near the Board Room entrance doors and are available in the Planning Division section of the Village website 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. Ordinance Applicant s Exhibits 7

8 Sample Motion I move in the matter of A , CVS/pharmacy at 3780 Willow Road, the Appearance Commission grants a 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 Manhard Consulting Inc. and dated as noted: 1. Landscape Plan L-1 dated Photometric Site Plan ES1 & ES2 dated B. The documents prepared by T.M. Crowley & Associates and dated as noted: 1. Willow Road Perspective dated Building Elevations dated C. The Permit Package sign documents prepared by ICON Identity Solutions and dated 05/08/14. 8