Village of Glenview Appearance Commission

Transcription

1 Village of Glenview Appearance Commission STAFF REPORT January 29, 2014 TO: Chairman and Appearance Commissioners FROM: Community Development Department CASE #: A LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: 2000 Shermer Road Willow Creek Community Church CASE MANAGER: Jeff Brady, AICP, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Preliminary Approval ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests a preliminary determination on the proposal. APPLICANT: Willow Creek Community Church 67 E. Algonquin Road South Barrington, IL Tel: (224) CONTACT: Lawrence Freedman, Attorney 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1211 Chicago, IL Tel: (312) OWNER: Village of Glenview 1225 Waukegan Road Glenview, IL Tel: (847) PROPOSAL: The applicant, Willow Creek Community Church (WCCC), represented by Larry Freedman, requests preliminary approval of landscaping and signage for a 72,000 square foot building primarily devoted to religious worship at 2000 Shermer Road. 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: PICTOMETRIC PHOTOGRAPHY: East Elevation 2

3 Project Summary BACKGROUND: 01/29/2014 The applicant has prepared revised plans in response to commission comments and comments from the public. The applicant has removed parking and landscaped islands from various areas of the site in order to facilitate an additional 9.0 feet of landscaping along the western property line. The applicant s treatment of this landscape buffer has been revised to eliminate the original retaining wall and hedgerow in favor of a berm and taller landscaping materials. The applicant has additionally submitted revised signage plans. Lighting plans will require additional revisions prior to final review and approval, but the preliminary lighting plan has been included for review and discussion. Summary of January 15, 2013 Appearance Commission Meeting The Appearance Commission reviewed the architecture, landscaping, signage, and lighting for the proposed Willow Creek Community Church. After review, preliminary approval was granted for the architecture. The applicant had changes to make based on Code requirements for lighting. Based on the review the following comments were generated: Signage: Were concerned over the size of the signs and the precedent the Appearance Commission would be setting by approving such signs Questioned previous church signage approvals and the sizes of each Felt that the number of signs was excessive Landscaping: Suggested the addition of more than one variety of trees in the parking lot islands A row of Arborvitae was suggested during the meeting to place along the far western property line to block the view of the site from the Pulte property. This option was deemed not possible because of the block retaining wall and compacted material along that wall. The applicant shared a revised landscape plan with three additional parking islands. The Appearance Commission stated it was a step in the right direction but was not necessarily the final solution as it did not provide any screening during winter months. The applicant stated they would stage the planting to try and install the landscaping as early as possible to allow for as much screening prior to and during construction as possible. PLAN COMMISSION & ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 01/29/2014 At the Appearance Commission meeting the neighbors requested more of a buffer along the western edge of the property and the Appearance Commission requested additional and taller landscaping. To accommodate this, the applicant has modified the site plan and landscape plan from what was approved by the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. The modifications directly address an issue raised by the neighbors and echoed by both commissions direction that the Appearance Commission review this buffering issue. Staff presented the related site plan changes to the chairmen of the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals, respectively, both of whom determined the changes an improvement to the plans their commissions reviewed and de minimis in nature relative to the 3

4 recommendations previously rendered by the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. Any changes to the plans currently proposed as may berequired by the Appearance Commission will be incorporated into the plans which will go along with the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals recommendations to the Village Board for final consideration at the Board s February 18 meeting. 01/15/2014 Willow Creek Community Church, currently located at 315 Waukegan Road in Northfield, is proposing to construct a one-story 72,000 square foot worship facility on 14 acres at the north end of Parcel 24, at West Lake and Shermer. Traffic generated by the church would be associated with the worship services at 9:00 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. on Sundays. A traffic control management plan would be implemented to regulate access to the site which is proposed via two driveways on Shermer Road. Besides a small office staff occupying the building during the week, the only other regularly scheduled church activities are classes on Tuesday and Thursday evenings from approximately 6:00-8:00 p.m. for religious study, etc. The Willow Creek North Shore Campus facility would be a satellite facility to the main campus in Barrington, Illinois. In total, Parcel 24 is comprised of approximately 40 acres of land located at the northwest corner of West Lake Avenue and Shermer Road. Previously, Parcel 24 was included among the U.S. Department of the Navy s land holdings comprising the Glenview Naval Air Station. The U.S. Navy retained approximately 92 acres of land subsequent to the base closing to serve as housing for military families assigned to duty in the Chicago area. Following a significant reduction in the need for remote military family housing units during the mid-2000 s, the U.S. Navy and its public/private venture (PPV) partner Forest City decided to sell approximately 65 acres of surplus land contained within this landholding. Pulte Homes purchased 25 acres west of Parcel 24 and developed the site with the Regency at The Glen development. The remaining 40 acres were purchased by the Village of Glenview. The U.S. Navy retains approximately 26 acres of land southwest of the subject property and continues to use this site for military and market rate multi-family housing. The Village s purchase of Parcel 24 was completed in 2007 and was intended to control future development in the area to ensure any future project would be compatible with surrounding areas and the capacity of services. The applicant is proposing a curvilinear one (1) story building to include a 1,200 seat auditorium, classrooms for infants through middle school, office space, and a café. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 01/29/2014 Text Location Willow Creek Community Church South facing sign at corner of Shermer and Valcour Willow Creek Community Church North facing sign at corner of Shermer and Valcour 4 Willow Creek Community Church Sign at parking lot entrance Willow Creek Community Church Sign at western terminus of Valcour Drive Design External External External Painted metal

5 illumination pinmounted letters illumination pinmounted letters illumination pinmounted letters sign affixed to pole Letter Height Letters 10.0 Letters 10.0 Letters 10.0 Letters -? inches, Logo 24.0 inches, Logo -? inches, Logo -? Letter Color(s) Dark gray Dark gray Dark gray White Trim Cap Color N/A N/A N/A N/A Return Color N/A N/A N/A N/A Background Color Concrete Concrete Concrete Gray Illumination Type & External, Type -? External, Type -? External, Type -? N/A Color Raceway Depth N/A N/A N/A N/A COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ZONING: Ground Sign(s) South facing sign at corner of Shermer and Valcour North facing sign at corner of Shermer and Valcour Sign at parking lot entrance Sign at western terminus of Valcour Proposed Sign Area sq. ft sq. ft sq. ft sq. ft. Proposed Text Area 44.8 sq. ft sq. ft sq. ft sq. ft. Compliance (One (1) 20 sq. ft. per site per Ordinance) No Variance required No Variance required No Variance required No Variance required Proposed Sign Height 3.25 ft ft ft. 4.0 ft. Compliance with Design N/A N/A N/A N/A Guidelines % Over Code When Compared to One (1) 20.0 sq. ft. Sign % 601.2% 366.7% Compliant Appearance Commission Review APPEARANCE PLAN COMMENTS: Staff comments after evaluating the proposal for compliance with the Appearance Plan: 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 Appearance Commission should consider the number and size of the proposed ground signs vis-à-vis the signage permitted per ordinance for religious institutions in residential districts (one ground sign per street frontage each comprised of up to 20.0 square feet). 5

6 o o o o o o The applicant should consider alternate designs which feature a raised profile sign band or inset band to which the pin-mounted text could be affixed, thereby substantially reducing the sign area as measured per ordinance. Additional details should be specified for signage prior to applications for final approval including the proposed letter and logo finishes. The applicant should specify which fixture of the proposed signage light fixture is proposed along with the proposed fixture finish, electrical module, and fixture options during the final approval submittal. The applicant should confirm that the proposed signage light fixture will only illuminate the proposed ground signs. The applicant should confirm the landscape maintenance treatment for the proposed landscaping around the ground signs to provide year-round interest. 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 should confirm that proposed landscaping locations will not conflict with proposed utility installations including parking lot landscaping over the underground detention at the northeast corner of the site, berm landscaping over the Village s bypass sewer at the southwest corner of the site, water mains, sanitary sewers and storm sewers. o The Appearance Commission should consider the size of the proposed planting bed and landscape buffer proposed along the western property line. Since plans were last presented, this buffer has been increased by 9.0 feet. o The Appearance Commission should consider the proposed landscaped details for the west lot lines and north lot lines. o The applicant should elaborate upon the rationale and planting design to be implemented to ensure that proposed light poles will be screened from view from adjacent property owners in the existing Regency at the Glen development and the proposed residential development to be constructed by Edward R. James Homes. o The applicant should include in their landscape management plan that the grasses surrounding the monument signs shall not be cut in the fall to allow for winter interest. o Landscape plantings should be identified on the plan with identification of species, quantity, and proposed size of plantings at the time of installation. A planting palette for the Glen is included in the Glenview Naval Air Station Master Plan and Design Guidelines for reference. o The applicant should submit cut sheets for outdoor furniture to be used on the patio area. o The applicant should submit cut sheets for any proposed fencing to be used on the property. o The petitioner shall furnish material and color samples of all proposed landscape elements for review by the Appearance Commission. o Any outdoor statuary shall require review and approval from the Appearance Commission prior to installation. 6

7 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 Appearance Commission should consider whether waivers from the average maximum, average and uniformity ratio shall be permitted or whether the applicant shall further explore the lighting characteristics to come into compliance. o The applicant should submit catalog cuts for all lighting fixtures including any bollard fixtures, ground-mounted fixtures, and/or wall mounted fixtures to be utilized onsite. o The applicant should submit a compliant photometric plan per Section in the Code. In accordance with the recent lighting text amendment, the Appearance Commission is empowered to provide relief from various lighting requirements that the applicant may request through the final appearance review process for lighting. o Shields should be utilized adjacent to residential districts to ensure there will be no spillover onto adjacent properties. As proposed, the applicant should provide a detail of the shields to be used along the north lot line. o Staff had concerns about second floor outdoor globe lights directing light outward at the second story level. The applicant has suggested they will shade on the globe light on the residential (east) side, so the filament would not be visible. The applicant should confirm if these will be opaque or be tinted. Ordinance requires that all light fixtures be fully shielded except for architectural accent lighting which includes light elements which provide light levels which do not exceed 1,000 lumens. POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS: Numerous s have been submitted from neighboring property owners and several phone calls have been fielded by staff for the current and previous Parcel 24 proposals. The primary concerns relate to traffic management of the uses, sight lines, and clarification as to the intensity of the proposed religious use. The applicant has tried to satisfy some of the neighbor s concerns by flipping the building to the northern end of the property and adding additional landscape buffer area next to the single family Pulte homes. Several residents of the duplex unit would like additional landscape screening for their properties which extend farther north than the single family homes. Any new correspondence since that previously distributed to the Appearance Commission will be provided prior to the meeting. 7

8 Technical Review PROJECT TIMELINE & OUTREACH: A. 09/20/13 Application Submitted B. 10/22/13 Plan Commission Meeting C. 10/31/13 Public notice published in the Glenview Announcements D. 10/31/13 Public notice sign posted upon the subject property E. 10/31/13 Public notices mailed to surrounding property owners F. 11/12/13 Plan Commission Meeting G. 11/21/13 Public notice published in the Glenview Announcements H. 11/21/13 Public notice sign posted upon the subject property I. 11/21/13 Public notices mailed to surrounding property owners J. 12/09/13 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting K. 12/17/13 Plan Commission Meeting L. 01/06/14 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting M. 01/14/13 Plan Commission Meeting N. 01/15/14 Appearance Commission Meeting O. 01/29/14 Appearance Commission Meeting P. TBD Village Board of Trustees First Consideration Q. TBD Village Board of Trustees Second Consideration R. TBD Expiration of Zoning Variation S. TBD Permit Issuance T. TBD Inspections U. TBD Certificate of Occupancy 2013 A BCDE F GHI J K Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 L MNO P Q Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 8

9 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 Draft Minutes of the January 15, 2014 Appearance Commission Meeting 3. Petitioner s Application & Exhibits 9

10 Sample Motion I move in the matter of A , Willow Creek Community Church, the Appearance Commission grants preliminary approval of lighting, landscaping, and signage, based upon the findings the petitioner, through testimony and application materials, has demonstrated compliance with Section Appearance Plan and in accordance with the following conditions: A. The following exhibits prepared by Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill Architecture and dated 01/23/ Illustrative Site Plan 2. Photometric Study 3. Sign at Shermer and Valcour Perspective Looking South 4. Sign at Shermer and Valcour Perspective Looking North 5. Signage Details 6. Lettering Area 7. Monument Sign 1 (Pair) A 8. Monument Sign 1 (Pair) B 9. Monument Sign 2 (Single) 10. Proposed Up Lighting For Sign B. The following exhibits prepared by Brickman and dated 01/23/ Sign Planting Details 2. Landscape Plan (Sheet L-2) 3. Berm, Parking Island, and West Property Line Details (Sheet L-3) 4. Front Terrace Landscape Plan (Sheet L-4) C. The following exhibits prepared by Haeger Engineering and dated 09/30/ Concept Site Plan 2. Concept Engineering Grading Plan 3. Concept Engineering Utility Plan D. The following exhibits prepared by Haeger Engineering and dated 01/23/ Property Area Exhibit E. The following exhibits prepared by Haeger Engineering and dated 01/15/ Regency at the Glen Sight Line & Aerial Coordination Exhibit 10

11 EXCERPT OF DRAFT MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 15, 2014 APPEARANCE COMMISSION MEETING A Shermer Rd Willow Creek Community Church - Preliminary Architecture, Lighting, Signage and Landscaping Present to petition for the Willow Creek Community Church were: Lawrence Freedman, Attorney Sara Beardsley, Senior Architect Todd Schaefer, Civil Engineer Dick Mallory, Landscape Architect with Brickman Group Matt Riley, Executive Pastor of WCCC Ms. House summarized that the proposal was part of the Parcel 24 land that was part of the Glen. WCCC would be located on the northern end of the site. WCCC has received approval for several variances from the ZBA and site plan approval from the PC. The Appearance Commission would review landscaping, lighting, signage, and architecture for the proposed church. Regulatory process was reviewed and it was noted that the proposal would still have several AC meetings leading to final approval. They would also attend two Village Board of Trustee meetings. Continuing, Ms. House showed aerial views of the Pulte Development, cemetery, site, and site plan with WCCC located in the middle of the site with parking lots on the east and west sides. WCCC was proposing a 1200 seat auditorium, outdoor café/exterior patio area. Ringed around the auditorium was office space and classrooms. Ms. House noted that the west parking lot would be used primarily on Sunday. Mid-week classes would use the east parking lot. A wide buffer was proposed on the south and west sides and on the north side of parking lot to buffer the Pulte single family homes. PC commented on the proposed landscaping on the western property line which would be discussed in detail during the landscaping presentation. Proposed building and site elevations were shown. Site greening plan and preliminary floor plans were shown for clear understanding of the proposal. Property line near the duplex homes was shown. Ms. House mentioned that the duplex owners commented that they would have a view of the parking lot and were concerned. Variance was received to allow 20 foot poles in the parking lot. Variance was allowed for poles being closer to the lot line adjacent to the cemetery. Poles on western property were compliant with the 100 foot setback from property line. Proposed signage for building of this nature was typically one sign, 20 square feet for religious facilities. WCCC was proposing four (4) signs: One at the Shermer Road entrance to the north Two (2) along Shermer Road and Valcour Drive entrances One directional sign at the terminus of Valcour Drive Proposed monument sign and sign locations were shown. Ms. House stated that proposed signs exceeded the 20 square feet requirement and would need further discussion. Based on AC direction, the ZBA would determine if variances would be granted for number of signs and square footage of signage. Chairman McJilton confirmed with Mr. Freedman that there was nothing to add to the summary and that the consultants were present and would present an overview of the project. Chairman 11

12 McJilton acknowledged that members of the public were present to address the AC after the proposal overview. At this time, Ms. Beardsley approached the podium to present a brief overview of the WCCC proposal. She stated that the shape was inspired by the mustard seed and with community as the core value of the church. The design of the church was contemporary yet classic and she felt it would be a new landmark for Glenview. The site was at the corner of Shermer Rd and Valcour Dr. Valcour Drive would dead end at the church to limit the traffic for residents. Continuing, Ms. Beardsley stated that main frontage of WCCC would be seen off Shermer Rd. She noted that the building was set back to allow for parking access and parking from both sides of the building. Interior of the building was the main auditorium. Size and height of the building was to accommodate the worship space which was the auditorium with its sloping space in the church. Symmetrical wings were around the auditorium to accommodate the classrooms for children ministry and office wing. Harvest café was located at the front of the auditorium. Layout of plan was shown, and two outdoor spaces and outdoor space for children were pointed out. Building was placed in the middle of a green area with terracing and trees which would be visible from the inside. Proposed building materials were: Glass building for landscaping to be seen o Clear glass with low E-coating and solar shading within it o PPG Solar Band glass product submitted Glass and aluminum window wall system (aluminum sample submitted) Exterior protrusions to catch sunlight. Classroom wing butt glazed and possibly using pattern of dots or lines on glass (sample submitted) Harvest café has anodized aluminum sun shade, possibly powder coated metal (sample submitted) Front terrace has water feature with 6 maximum depth and extensive landscaping Rear of building has classroom space for older children with mirror and massing to back of auditorium. Raised portion of building was set back 70+ feet from face of building. Paver with additive for more interest (photo submitted for review) White coating of building would be traditional stucco system with fine finish of pure ultra- white. o Petitioner confirmed that E-fis was not being proposed Proposed signage with stucco plaster finish with dark gray metal lettering to maintain same classic appearance of building o Sample of finished coat and gray lettering were submitted for review o Lettering on glass as art feature for individuals in building; not readable from street Comments made were: o Commissioner Shaw clarified with Mr. Mallory that the concrete paver was poured in place concrete with integral aggregates that would be brought to surface, possibly granite chips. Additional materials would be seed in to complement paver, pick up building 12

13 colors. All would be fairly neutral and would transcend from basic concrete to possibly a terrazzo-like surface. No other comments regarding architecture. Mr. Mallory presented an overview of the landscaping for the commissioners. He stated that there would be a wedge view to the building with parkway trees collected species changed from a typical parkway tree brought in on site and used in the embankments of the retention area. Trees would be mix of oaks, swamp whites, for example. Proposed materials (list submitted) were chosen from the Glenview Naval Air Station guidelines. Toward building, landscaping would change to stylized planting with variety of low perennial materials about 2-2 ½ feet, with 4 high evergreen hedge, possibly yews and double rows of tall, locust trees for canopy. Mr. Mallory stated that the terrace steps down with focus out to the pond area which could be used for possible Baptism events. Entire landscape plan was reviewed. Mr. Mallory noted the locations of specific plants and explained why they were chosen. Materials would be consistently mixed with simple materials but would add interest at rear of building and at entrances. Parking lot had strong lines of landscaping along pedestrian walks. Buffer was shown and detail had been submitted to staff. Petitioner reviewed the proposed buffer material for clear understanding. Proposed fence was described. Comments made were: Commissioner Shaw suggested having more than one variety for the line of parking lot trees. o Petitioner was in agreement with proposing more variety. Petitioner was concerned for strong linear massing. It was suggested to have half runs for natural break. Chairman McJilton asked Mr. Mallory to discuss what was being proposed for the western border parking area. Section of western edge and was shown and petitioner stated that the retaining wall was located about six (6) inches off property lines with 2 ½ feet high segmental block wall tied back into slope. At this time, Ms. Beardsley stated that they were still working on the lighting and that they had primarily reviewed the parking lot lighting. She stated that: Parking lot lighting was full cut off with LED and dimming capability (photo shown) o High pressure sodium was considered with similar fixture o Fixture would be turned downward, not to the sides Proposed 14 foot poles close to the residential Photometric plan indicated all fixtures being proposed Architectural lighting was being proposed next to the building but met required levels All details were not yet firmed up; less bollard and more lighting integration with building, near stairs, entrances, etc. o Proposing 14 foot or lower fixture near building to illuminate entries Wall washing lighting near classroom area for illumination for students walking in area Wall washing lighting facing the cemetery for interest. Up lighting for signage with in-ground light fixture in lieu of illuminated letters. Specific details would be presented at the next meeting. 13

14 At this time, Chairman McJilton opened the Public Meeting. Ms. Fran Dougherty, resident at 3066 Valcour Drive and presenting comments provided by John Wakerly, resident at 3065 Valcour Drive regarding the SW are of the WCCC parking lot. There were four major areas of concern: 1. Impact of huge parking lot and church as seen from home, porches, and yards 2. Visual effect and intrusiveness of 22 ½ foot lighting 3. Noise factor on Sunday mornings due to vehicle activity in west end of parking lot which exits last 4. Negative impact of above on property values Ms. Dougherty presented slides that were shown at previous PC and ZBA meetings. Overall views of property, parking lot showing berm, western end of WCCC project and Regency neighborhood along Valcour Drive were shown. WCCC was providing a 30 foot buffer of trees between the southern parking edge to the most eastern Regency homes; Ms. Dougherty stated that there was nothing at the western edge of WCCC parking lot along Valcour Dr. She further stated that the edge of the parking lot was only seven (7) feet from the property line and graded approximately 2 ½ feet higher than existing grade of nearby cemetery and Regency homes. She pointed out that the existing trees would most likely be removed and replaced with four (4) foot high shrubs providing no screening. Photos depicting site lines from the homes on western portions were shown. She felt that the tops of cars as well as lighting would be visible from the first floor porches and yards of their homes and all second floor homes. Ms. Dougherty pointed out that all neighbors would have more view of WCCC and less screening and that the grading issue created a problem. Continuing, she stated that the WCCC simulations did not show illumination from the 20 foot parking lot poles which would be equivalent to 22 ½ foot poles due to the grading. She stated that their concerns had been expressed in great detail at the board meeting and again tonight. She quoted from the Municipal Code, Section paragraph D3 states that any lot line separates the lot from a residential lot, the off street parking shall not be located closer to the lot line than the minimum required yard depth which was feet for side or rear yard. Current parking lot design appeared to violate the requirement. The PC dismissed this issue on technicality that it applies to borders between residential and non-residential districts and that WCCC was considered residential. She felt that the drafters of the code had not anticipated such a large facility and parking lot in a residential district and believe that the spirit of the code should be maintained in the same manner as bordering a non-residential district. Ms. Dougherty commented that the AC has the ability to request that WCCC amend the parking lot design or provide additional landscaping along the western property line or on specific Regency properties to mitigate the parking lot visibility. She then offered an alternative design for AC consideration, listed in order of homeowners preference. 1. Western border could be moved 15 feet to the east to create wider buffer zone for planting tall trees along entire western border which would require WCCC to give up 2 parking stalls at western end of each east/west parking row. Suggestion could solve visibility problem for Regency owners and provides nicer view of western border for church goers. 2. Eliminate 10 or more of most southern parking stalls along western edge of property creating approximately 70 feet of additional space for berming and tall landscaping

15 parking spaces would still be available, 200 more than required by code and solve problem for nearest Regency homeowners 3. Provide at WCCC expense, specific landscaping solution in nearby Regency backyards to mitigate their visual impact. Final comments made by Ms. Dougherty were: Number 3 has already been offered to some homeowners. Regarding details of a solution recommended by the AC, residents would like to formally request that AC solution would include a requirement for WCCC to provide that backyard landscaping for affected view by Regency homes as needed No solution would do any good if 5-10 years was needed for mature growth to achieve intended purpose. Regency homeowners request that any landscaping provided for screening at the west end of the parking lot whether installed on WCCC property or Regency property be fast growing, mostly evergreen or non-deciduous, be the largest practical size, and be installed as early as feasible during the project. Mr. Brian O Brien, resident at 3050 Valcour Dr. He stated that his property was the first home on the corner and expressed his concerns. He stated that they have been working with the WCCC landscaper and their own landscaper to ensure a workable solution. He felt that the berm should be the first priority from the south end and around his property to the west as well. He felt that the west end of the lot should be resolved as well and mentioned that the solution should begin as soon as possible to block homes during construction. He was not aware of start date but wanted his request to resolve the berm issue ASAP to be noted for the record. Additional comments were: The homeowners would be working with the village to understand the type of lighting and lighting concepts to determine what was best for residents and for WCCC. Homeowners want to be sure that the maintenance equipment for lawn or snow would not be stored outside on the property and visible to residents Should proposal proceed, construction entrance should be off Shermer and West Lake and not off of Dauntless and Valcour. He thanked Fran Dougherty and John Wakerly for their time and work involved to make the issue work for everyone. He also thanked the AC for their time. Chairman McJilton stated that the proposal was an extraordinary site with much thought and cooperation for all to help mitigate the western boundary issue. Mr. Freedman asked to put things in context and mentioned that the neighbors who spoke were not adversarial and that they have been working together. He stated that WCCC had met with neighbors immediately adjacent to the WCCC site to design screening for their individual sites. Plans the WCCC felt were appropriate were forwarded to the individual homeowners to review and suggested that they also have their landscaper review and suggest any changes in terms of how proposed landscaping could be repositioned, changed, etc. WCCC would consider any suggested changes but that field conditions would have to be considered. Residents were currently following through reviewing proposal at this time. Mr. Freedman stated that WCCC was aware that cost and placement was the responsibility of WCCC but that screening could be achieved by placing a tree or something in an individual s yard. Continued, Mr. Freedman stated that the west side was the main issue and explained the discussion on pole light height. He stated that WCCC fully intended to meet code but having the 15

16 height no greater than 14 feet would result in more light poles and located closer to the lot line and detrimental to the homeowners. The ZBA granted the 20 foot allowable height for stated reasons. Regarding the parking, Mr. Freedman explained that the proposed parking was considered by them to be a minimum number of parking spaces. The WCCC has fixed capacity of 1200 in the auditorium and 300 in the café. There would be no offsite parking available. Mr. Freedman stated that they were willing to address the buffering at the west end but do not feel it was reason to address it by moving everything into the parking lot and losing valuable parking spaces. He stated that there were new ideas recently formulated for adding buffering on the west end as well as working with the individual owners. Mr. Mallory reviewed the possible solution by adding landscaping and losing a few parking spaces. He pointed out locations that were considered impacted. He mentioned that the farther west the greater impact to the view of the project. He pointed to a vegetative border of volunteer growth mixed with trees but can t guarantee that it would remain in place. He showed the location of the proposed light standards via power point and pointed out three trees and three new islands that would be placed to further block the lights for the homeowners. Chairman McJilton asked Commissioner Shaw if it were reasonable to install a row of arborvitae along the cemetery border because the church and cemetery would be in place permanently. Commissioner Shaw felt it could be an option to consider. Petitioner pointed out the proposed block walls and explained that the block walls were built up by using a back fill of compacted material back into the slope and that there would not be a lot of soil to work with when considering a row of arborvitae and survivability. Mr. Freedman noted that they would screen homes on the SW and consider their angle of site which were the poles. He felt that strategically placing the new islands and trees would effectively screen the homeowners. He further added that the shrubbery at six foot would screen the vehicles. Shrubs would be maintained at the six foot height. Petitioner pointed out specific movement on the plan that they were now considering. Chairman McJilton confirmed with petitioner that they feel what was being proposed was a good start but not necessarily the final solution. He mentioned that there was concern of the winter view as well as spring and summer when trees have their leaves. Mr. Freedman was in agreement with the timing of the installation that was mentioned by Mr. O Brien and that they would like to install planting that would maximize growth. Additional comments made at this time: In response to Commissioner Shaw, petitioner explained that the snow would be banked at the ends of the islands and in extreme cases, snow would be removed from the site. Petitioner stated that the intense site use was one day per week for the west lot. During the week, only eastern part of lot would be used. Village code calls for 25% of pond being 10 feet deep. Proposed detention basin was a wet bottom and WCCC was asking for flexibility to have pond five (5) feet deep. Water surface would be year round. 16

17 Ms. Beardsley confirmed that stucco would have controlled joints and carefully detailed to ensure that it stood up in this climate. It has been used in nearby suburbs (Oak Park) and mentioned that there was an acrylic additive or cement plaster added to it. There would be no formal function on terrace, just people gathering before or after service o Matt Riley, Executive Pastor, clarified that this was not a Ravinia type of thing and that there would be no outside service. o Mr. Riley clarified that there was an opportunity to hold a Baptism on the patio for a small gathering of people. o Should WCCC plan an outside event, they would petition for village approval Regarding signage, Commissioner Shaw stated that the proposed signage appeared to be large for the large building and excessive in number. Ms. House presented the square footage for the proposed signage: 100 square feet, 135 square feet, 77 ½ square feet, and 1.32 square foot. Because of the design of their signs, the entire sign was calculated and added to the square footage. Text was not calculated by staff. Ms. Beardsley stated that the text on the sign was approximately square feet and pointed out that it was noted on the drawing. Text area was much smaller than the actual sign area. Letters were one foot high and feel that it was necessary to be legible from the cars. Two sign were proposed at one location to be seen by traffic from both north and south. Ms. Beardsley mentioned that the ZBA suggested adding a plate rather than the letters to help bring signage to compliance, but the WCCC was not in favor of proposing a plate. Mr. Repp explained that if there was a change in material, only the text would be calculated. The proposed sign did not have a change in material, therefore the entire sign was calculated. Mr. Repp stated that should only the text be counted it would still be over but not significantly. Mr. Freedman stated that all of the variances requested to date were granted. They would be seeking variance for the signage at the ZBA meeting on February 4 th. Mr. Freedman clarified with staff that should different materials be added around the text, the entire sign would not be calculated. -Commissioner Shaw requested examples of past signs to help with decision on this case. -Commissioner Hebson stated that he liked the sign being part of the church architecture. He felt it was a unique building and that he liked the sign. He also mentioned that he didn t want to revise the proposal without reviewing it more closely. -Commissioner Shaw was concerned of setting precedent. -Ms. Beardsley stated that they were open to landscape bed around the sign and would add address numerals to comply with code. -Commissioner Shaw stated that she liked the sign but that the number of signs was excessive. She felt that it needed further discussion. -Chairman McJilton noted that the site was large with two entrances. Petitioner stated that they were willing to revisit the proposed sign, work with the homeowners regarding the landscaping, add detail to the rendering and resubmit for review at the next AC meeting. Petitioner would seek direction from staff for herself as well as for the ZBA meeting on 2/4/

18 Commissioner Shaw moved in the matter of A , Willow Creek Community Church, 2000 Shermer Road, that the Appearance Commission grant preliminary approval based on the findings the petitioner through testimony and application materials has demonstrated compliance with Section Appearance Plan and in accordance with the following conditions: Preliminary approval for A, B, and C. D and E would be continued as well as signage so petitioner can submit further detail for consideration. Commissioner Demsky seconded the motion. Upon voice vote, motion carried. 18