Village of Glenview Appearance Commission

Transcription

1 Village of Glenview Appearance Commission STAFF REPORT September 10, 2014 TO: Chairman and Appearance Commissioners FROM: Community Development Department CASE #: A LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: Milwaukee Avenue JB Plaza CASE MANAGER: Michelle House, Planner SUBJECT: Certificate of Appropriateness ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests consideration of a Final Approval of the applicant s proposal. APPLICANT / OWNER: Chicago Food Property, LLC 580 N. Pulaski Road Chicago, IL Tel: (773) CONTACT: Keehong Han K.H. Han and Architects 9933 Lawler Ave Suite 446 Skokie, IL Tel: (847) PROPOSAL: The applicant, Chicago Food Property, LLC, requests final approval of proposed landscaping, and site lighting in accordance with the remodeling and completion of three (3) existing buildings upon the subject property to include an anchor grocery store, two (2) multi-tenant retail/office buildings, and parking lot alterations intended to improve onsite circulation and increase the number of available off-street parking stalls. New content denoted by 09/10/14 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 VILLAGE OF GLENVIEW ZONING: PIN(s): & Current Glenview B-2 General Business District North Cook County Residential District East Glenview B-2 General Business District South Cook County Residential District West Cook County Residential District AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY: 2

3 PICTOMETRIC PHOTOGRAPHY: East Elevation (prior to construction) West Elevation (prior to demolition of Building E) 3

4 Project Summary BACKGROUND: The subject property is currently improved with three (3) incomplete building shells initially approved in 2009 and constructed in The applicant is a new owner of the property and requests approval of alterations to the previously approved architecture, landscaping, lighting, and ground signage to accommodate a single-use retail grocery store in the north building as well as various office, retail, and service use tenants within buildings along Milwaukee Avenue. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 04/23/2014 The applicant received preliminary approval of the architecture, landscaping, signage and lighting based on drawings which are currently partially completed onsite. 07/09/2014 The applicant submitted revised drawings for the building architecture, landscaping, lighting and signage. The Appearance Commission approved the building architecture for all three buildings onsite. The lighting plan was not compliant and would have to return at a future meeting. The neighboring Triumvera development had concerns over the landscaping and the screening from their residences to the property. The Appearance Commission recommended additional shade trees along the western property line and evergreen screening at the northwestern corner of the property to help screen the trash enclosure. 09/10/2014 The applicant has revised the landscape plan to include three (3) additional shade trees along the property line. Along the northwestern corner the applicant has added four (4) Serviceberry and four (4) Upright Chinese Juniper. The remaining landscape has remained the same from the previous review at the 07/09/2014 Appearance Commission meeting. The applicant has also revised the proposed photometric plan which is now compliant with the Village s lighting code for uniformity ratio, maximum foot candles, and average foot candle levels. The applicant will return for signage approval at a later date as tenants get closer to occupying the building. POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS: As of press time, staff had not received any correspondence from the public regarding the proposed conditional use. The Homeowners Association and several individual residents of the adjacent residential development to the northwest have expressed concerns with the upkeep of the property and have expressed a preference to a.) expedite the completion of the remaining onsite improvements as soon as possible; or b.) demolish the existing incomplete improvements and return the site to green space until such time that a future development may be proposed and constructed in an expedient manner. The applicant is requesting approval of the plans as proposed in order to allow for a restart of construction in 2014 and finalization of the onsite improvements as soon as possible. As such, there would be no expected negative impacts upon adjacent properties created by the scope of the proposed site plan revisions. All property maintenance requirements and construction standards would remain in full force throughout the duration of construction activates onsite and beyond. 4

5 Appearance Commission Review 09/10/2014 APPEARANCE PLAN COMMENTS: Staff comments after evaluating the proposal for compliance with the Appearance Plan: 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 50 parking lot trees would be required for the proposed improvements. The applicant s proposed preliminary landscaping plan included 86 trees and the applicant has added 4 shade trees to the latest plan to address the previous review comments along the western property line. o 35 trees are required within the interior of the proposed parking lot. The applicant s proposed landscaping plan includes 51 interior parking lot trees. o Additional parkway trees will be required along the subject property s frontages along both Milwaukee Avenue and Central Road at intervals of approximately every 40 feet on-center, which will be represented on the approved final engineering plans for the site. o The applicant added plantings along the northwest corner of the property to help screen and dampen the sound of the trash enclosure in the same location. o The Appearance Commission should consider whether the landscape design and plant list are appropriate. 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 photometric plan has been revised to note light levels along the northwest and west lot lines which do not exceed 0.1 fc. o The proposed fixture heights, fixture types, maximum, and average comply with ordinance requirements. 5

6 Technical Review PROJECT TIMELINE: A. 04/11/08 Board of Trustees Approval of Original Site Plan B. 04/16/09 Board of Trustees Approval of First Amended Site Plan C. 08/07/09 Administrative Approval of Second Amended Site Plan D. 12/15/09 All construction activities abandoned by original developer E. 11/28/12 Property acquired by Chicago Food Properties, LLC F. 03/06/13 Preliminary Site Plan Review G. 10/11/13 Application Submitted H. 11/12/13 Plan Commission Meeting I. 12/10/14 First Consideration by Board of Trustees J. 01/07/14 Final Consideration by Board of Trustees K. 04/23/14 Preliminary Appearance Commission Meeting L. 07/09/14 Final Appearance Commission Meeting M. 09/10/14 Final Appearance Commission Meeting 2008 A Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec B C D Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 F G H I Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 J K L M Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec E 6

7 REQUIRED APPROVAL(s): The following chart details the necessary required approvals: 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. Petitioner s Application Materials & Exhibits 3. Excerpt from Minutes of April 23, 2014 Appearance Commission Meeting 4. Excerpt from Minutes of July 9, 2014 Appearance Commission Meeting 7

8 Sample Motion I move in the matter of A , JB Plaza at Milwaukee Avenue, the Appearance Commission grants Preliminary Approval of proposed building architecture, landscaping, signage and site lighting, based upon the findings the petitioner, through testimony and application materials, has demonstrated compliance with Section Appearance Plan and in accordance with the following documents: A. The following exhibits prepared by K.H. Han and Architects, Inc.: 1. Proposed Landscape Plan dated 08/20/ Plant List and Landscape Calculation dated 08/20/2014 B. The following exhibits prepared by LSI Industries: 1. Lighting Proposal dated 09/03/ Greenbriar Flat Lens Catalog Cut dated 12/06/ Patriot Wall Sconce Catalog Cut dated 12/06/2011 8

9 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF 04/23/2014 APPEARANCE COMMISSION MEETING A Milwaukee Ave JB Plaza - Architecture, Landscaping, and Lighting - Preliminary Approval Keehong Han, Architect, was present to petition for the JB Plaza proposal. Ms. House summarized that the site had previously been under construction (2010) but had not been completed. Applicant was the new owner of the site and was requesting alterations to the previously approved architecture, landscaping, lighting, and ground sign to accommodate his tenants. Site plan and proposed elevations were shown via overhead. Proposed changes and concerns were: South Building - flat roof and glass atrium entrance to proposed grocery store East building elevation of Building A/B - window change to one-way glazing to limit view in service area Trash enclosure considering adding cedar wood panels over metal doors Color and material samples of all buildings materials, doors, and window systems. All materials are conceptual at this time Photometric plan and fixtures were shown and photometric plan was to be revised to note light levels not exceeding 0.1 or if necessary, add shields or applicant seek a variance Address numerals were to be revised to indicate correct address range Consideration by applicant of wall sign guidelines for entire center for consistency Continuing, Ms. House showed a photo of the proposed landscape plan with plant list. She stated that the parking lot trees were compliant but additional parkway trees were to be added along Milwaukee Ave and along Central Rd. She also mentioned that applicant was to confirm if additional on-site fencing was being proposed. Chairman McJilton confirmed with petitioner that there was nothing to add to the summary at this time. Regarding the architecture, the proposed materials were reviewed. Petitioner stated that existing building was a painted precast concrete wall panel. He pointed out that they would try to match existing color of building for the proposed addition to building A and B. Proposed material was reviewed: Reynobond Colorweld 500 Cadet Grey Brick color for Building A HC Georgian Brick Brick color for Building B 2156b Fine China Stair railing Super White Limestone cap for ground sign and some window sills for Building A and B Silver cornice material would be bent for proposed canopy shape Commissioner comments were: Commissioner Reynolds commented that the proposed canopy appeared to float on the glass Commissioner Shaw pointed out that there were no measurements/dimensions for the submitted elevations Commissioner Shaw clarified that the petitioner was not repainting the existing painted panel but would be painting new panels to match existing panels Commissioner Shaw pointed out the access staircase to the second story 9

10 Commissioner Demsky stated that the stairway had been approved with roofing to protect staircase from the elements Petitioner stated that it was currently open but would consider adding roofing over the staircase due to weather concerns Chairman McJilton noted that the roof addition would be dependent on the design of the building and stairwell Commissioner Shaw stated that there were no cutsheets for the stairwell. Ms. House stated that they would be submitted for final approval. Commissioner Shaw asked that photos of existing buildings from ground level be available at final approval for comparison. Commissioner Demsky stated that he would like to review drawings of what had been previously approved. Regarding Building A/B, north elevation Commissioner Shaw pointed out the wide expanse of the proposed yellow color for north elevation of Building B. Petitioner explained that the brown color brick had a pattern to it, but that there was no pattern at the wide expanse of yellow color. Commissioner Reynolds suggested painting the middle section to break up the expanse at this point. He suggested possibly adding a pattern to it. Regarding Building D, left elevation, Commissioner Shaw noted that there were first floor columns that appeared to be unpainted brick. Petitioner stated that this was an oversight and he would correct it. Regarding Sign Criteria, Commissioner Demsky confirmed with Ms. House that a signage scheme had been previously approved. Commissioner Demsky noted that the AC would like to see sign standards established for the center under discussion. Petitioner stated that they were only seeking approval for the ground sign at this time and that they were establishing center sign guidelines. Regarding the ground sign, comments made were: Commissioner Demsky stated that he had no issues with the proposed ground sign in terms of scale and design. He felt that they were proportionally acceptable. Commissioner Reynolds confirmed with petitioner that the overall height was 13 feet and a maximum of 15 feet was permitted. Regarding the landscaping, Chairman McJilton stated that petitioner was seeking preliminary approval for landscaping. Comments made were: Commissioner Shaw stated that in terms of proposed fullness of the landscaping, the plan looked good. She suggested that more variety of trees be proposed and specifically the shrubs and lower growing plants. She noted that as proposed, there were only two varieties of shrubs being proposed at this time. Petitioner was amenable to the suggestion. Commissioner Shaw suggested more variety of plantings around the two (2) proposed ground signs. Ms. House and applicant clarified that the Plan Commission requested that every main tree in the parkway be spaced every 40 feet. Applicant stated that overall, they have met the tree requirement. 10

11 Commissioner Shaw asked if there was any concern regarding landscaping from the Triumvera residents. She noted that the landscaping appeared sparse along the west and north borders of Triumvera. At this time, Doreen Miller of 3942 Venice Court, President of the townhome association and vice president of HOA approached the podium to present her concerns. She stated that they had been working with Mr. Lim and have reviewed the landscape plan. She further stated that there was concern about the townhomes on the west end facing the rear wall of the grocery store. The west end of the property was an open area and the HOA would like to see more shrubbery in that area to differentiate between the parking lot and the townhomes in this area. Ms. Miller stated that they did not want to fight the proposal but to see the property developed. They wished Mr. Lim well but also wanted to shield the Triumvera property from the property under discussion. Comments made were: Ms. Miller stated that the townhomes behind the grocery store were two levels and the others were lower in height. The owners of the townhomes near the parking lot were hoping to have screening from the parking lot. Commissioner Shaw stated that based on comments from homeowner, she suggested more shade trees along the west side where townhomes were located for better coverage for height above the fence. Commissioner Demsky confirmed that there was a thin strip of property on the other side of the fence line behind grocery store. He suggested that the tree plantings be installed on the homeowners property. Petitioner would work with the homeowners regarding screening at this portion of the site. Ms. Miller briefly mentioned funds that she secured from the previous property owner and was able to install the fence. With any funds left over, trees were installed. Petitioner was willing to work with the HOA regarding the location of the additional trees. Commissioner Shaw clarified with petitioner that the prairie mix would be installed only in the center of the parking islands. There were no other comments regarding landscaping. Regarding the proposed lighting, Chairman McJilton confirmed with petitioner that they would be in compliance with the.1 foot candle at property line. Petitioner stated that they could provide shields on the light fixture or they could use a lower wattage of lamp. Petitioner would review lighting and would bring the photometric in to compliance. Cutsheets for the fixtures would be provided for final approval. As a final comment, Commissioner Shaw referenced the proposed Greenbriar flat lens light fixture and stated that she would prefer no striping on the light fixture. There were no other comments. Regarding the trash enclosure, brief discussion followed on the proposed wood on the metal doors of the trash enclosure. Commissioner Shaw stated that typically, full metal doors were required on trash enclosures. Ms. House clarified that the proposed doors were metal but would have a wood covering. Petitioner stated that the purpose was to protect the doors with a cedar wood panel, approximately 3-4 inch plank, mounted on a plate over the metal doors. He felt that it would be easier to maintain. 11

12 -Commissioner Shaw stated that she would like to see the detail of the proposed wood covering. -Commissioner Demsky commented that the metal would rust and the wood would be acceptable. -Petitioner would submit final cut sheet for final approval. There were no other comments or questions. Commissioner Shaw moved in the matter of A , JB Plaza, Milwaukee Ave., that the Appearance Commission grant preliminary approval of proposed building architecture, landscaping, conceptual signage and site lighting, based on the findings the petitioner through testimony and application materials has demonstrated compliance with Section Appearance Plan and in accordance with the following: A, B, C, and D as listed in the sample motion with specific emphasis on items discussed tonight. Commissioner Hebson seconded the motion. Upon voice vote, motion carried. 12