Village of Glenview Appearance Commission

Transcription

1 Village of Glenview Appearance Commission STAFF REPORT March 20, 2013 TO: Chairman and Appearance Commissioners FROM: Planning & Economic Development Department CASE #: A LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: 2550 Waterview Drive Tapestry Glenview CASE MANAGER: Jeff Brady, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Preliminary Architecture, Landscaping, Lighting, & Signage ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests a preliminary determination on the proposal. APPLICANT: Ryan McBride Lennar Multifamily 1300 E. Woodfiled Road, Suite 304 Schaumburg, IL Tel: (847) OWNER: PRII Willow/Sander JV, LLC 55 E. Monroe Street, Suite 3250 Chicago, IL Tel: (312) PROPOSAL: The applicant, GlenStar, proposes the subdivision and sale of various component lots for the development of a new grocery store, fitness center, day care center, bank, multi-tenant retail building, and 290-unit apartment building. At this time, the applicant requests preliminary approval of proposed building architecture, landscaping, lighting, and signage for the proposed 290-unit apartment building. 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): and Current P-D/R-18 Planned Development Residential District North: East: South: West Glenview I-1 Limited Industrial District Glenview I-2 Light Industrial District & Cook County R-4 Residential District Glenview B-2 General Business District and Cook County C-7 Office Research District Glenview B-2 General Business District, Glenview I-1 Limited Industrial District and Cook County Forest Preserve District AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY: 2

3 Photo # Photo #2 Photo #3 3

4 Project Summary PROPOSAL: The property owner, PR II Willow /Sanders Road JV, LLC, received a positive recommendation from the Plan Commission regarding various development requests including annexation agreement amendments, planned development, rezoning, final site plan, review, and preliminary subdivision, at their regular meeting on January 8, 2013 regarding the proposed GlenStar mixed-use project. The Village Board of Trustees considered these recommendations at their regular meeting on February 19, 2013 and adopted an ordinance on March 5, 2013 approving the development. The Appearance Commission reviewed the various components of each development within the GlenStar project on February 20, The Commission s discussion regarding the apartments was limited to the materials and colors of the building. The Commission recommended modifying the Maroon color and the applicant is returning with a request for Preliminary Approval of proposed building architecture, landscaping, lighting, and signage for the apartments, now to be called Tapestry Glenview. Appearance Commission Review APPEARANCE PLAN COMMENTS: Staff comments after evaluating the proposal for compliance with the Appearance Plan include the following, divided into sections applicable to each component of the development: APARTMENTS 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 Provide the following details: o Balcony materials and design o Garage door color and materials from manufacture specifications o Garage entry specifications o HVAC equipment o The Commission should consider whether the mix of materials is appropriate. In particular the north and west elevations are primarily hardi panels and siding with minimal areas of brick. A different arrangement of materials would aid in breaking up the massing of the building and should be considered. 4

5 o o o o o o On the north elevation, where the Siding 2 is proposed, there appears to be a reduction in the amount of windows included in previous designs. The windows should be added back into the design. Explain the use of the metal trim materials being proposed and provide photos of how this material and color have been used in similar types of buildings. Various perspective renderings would help the Commission gain a better perspective of the building design, especially the areas that transition into the alcoves. The applicant shall furnish preliminary material and color samples for review by the Appearance Commission. The applicant should clarify manufacturer names, product lines, colors, and finishes for any final building materials. The Appearance Commission should consider the proposed colors, finishes, and materials for the various components of the building. 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 provide the following clarifications: o The proposed landscaping plan for the Mariano s adjacent to the residential is needed, as the coordination between these two plans was a significant topic of discussion with the Plan Commission. o Will any of the furniture in the pool area be visible from the adjacent property? Is, so provide catalog cuts and or details for each type. o What color are the benches? o What color are the aluminum table and seating areas? o Provide a landscape plan and plant list for the lush landscaping adjacent to the pool area. o Provide a detail for the proposed pergola. o Add additional landscaping to the north of the path connection in the park area to discourage residents from crossing mid-block, instead of using the cross-walk. o The Appearance Commission should consider whether the variety, size, and locations of proposed plantings are appropriate. o A review of any final landscaping design will be required from the Capital Projects & Inspectional Services Department s Engineering Division to confirm there will be no conflicts with utility locations and related easements. 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 photometric levels for use within private roadways are regulated separately from the surface parking lot and the top floor of the garage. o The preliminary photometric plan needs to be revised for the parking garage to meet a maximum uniformity ratio of 4:1. o The applicant should confirm the light poles used on the top deck of the garage will not be visible. o Are any wall pack or pedestrian light fixtures proposed for the pool area, the alcoves, near the garages, or in the park? Catalog cuts should be provided for all such fixtures, and lighting levels for each should be incorporated within the photometric plan. o The applicant should furnish catalog cuts for all fixture types including wall pack and pedestrian level fixtures. Shields should be provided upon any fixtures along the east property line to ensure that there will be no clear lines-of-sight from the residential property east of the Tollway into any of the proposed fixtures in these locations. 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 has provided conceptual designs for the proposed signage for review. o The building sign appears to be located on a canopy and complies with the 18 inch tall letter height requirements listed in the Wall Sign Design Guidelines. Additional details on the materials, color, mounting, electrical supply, and sign type (non-illuminated, internally illuminated, halo illuminated) are needed. o The applicant did not receive any approvals for the proposed ground signs as part of the Planned Development process, which needed to be identified on the plan and compliant with the requirements of the ordinance. No ground signs were included on any Plan Commission exhibits. o Further coordination with staff is needed on the appropriateness of a monument sign, given the GlenStar developer is proposing a multi-tenant directional sign on the opposite corner. A monument sign would not be permitted by right within the R-18 Residential District. o Small directional signage for the benefit of the public may be appropriate near the main driveway entrance to the leasing office, however any such signage must be 2 sq. ft. or less. o Prior to Final Appearance review, the applicant shall furnish color wall sign details with all composite dimensions, colors, and materials noted for review by the Appearance Commission, in addition to providing color and material samples. 6

7 Technical Review PROJECT TIMELINE & OUTREACH: A. 11/27/2012 First Plan Commission Hearing B. 12/11/2012 Second Plan Commission Hearing C. 01/08/2013 Third Plan Commission Hearing D. 02/07/2013 Preliminary Appearance Application Filed E. 02/19/2013 Board of Trustees First Consideration F. 02/20/2013 Preliminary Appearance Commission Meeting G. 03/05/2013 Board of Trustees Final Consideration H. 03/20/2013 Preliminary Appearance Commission Meeting I. TBD Final Appearance Commission Meeting J. TBD Permit Issuance K. TBD Inspections 2012 A B Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 C D EF G H I J K Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 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) 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 7

8 POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS: The subject property lies within a new commercial redevelopment site which features a recently constructed office building. Adjacent property owners have expressed concerns about the proposed lighting levels for the site and any impacts on adjacent residences, especially those east of the I-294 Tri- State Tollway. The proposed construction would be subject to additional review through the building permit process for compliance with all other building, life safety, engineering, and related codes by the Village s Inspectional Services Division. Throughout the duration of construction, all construction activities would be required to comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code. Attachments & Exhibits 1. Sample Motion 2. Excerpt from Minutes of November 27, 2012 Plan Commission Meeting 3. Excerpt from Minutes of December 11, 2012 Plan Commission Meeting 4. Excerpt from Minutes of January 8, 2013 Plan Commission Meeting 5. Excerpt from Minutes of February 20, 2013 Appearance Commission Meeting 6. Petitioner s Application & Exhibits 8

9 Sample Motion I move in the matter of A , Tapestry Glenview, the Appearance Commission grants preliminary approval of proposed building architecture, landscaping, lighting, and signage based upon the findings the petitioner, through testimony and application materials, has demonstrated preliminary compliance with Section Appearance Plan and in accordance with the following conditions: A. The following preliminary building architecture exhibits subject to the revisions as noted in the staff report and discussed and requested by the Appearance Commission during consideration of the petition: 1. South Elevation prepared by JHP dated 03/13/ East Elevation prepared by JHP dated 03/13/ North Elevation prepared by JHP dated 03/13/ West Elevation prepared by JHP dated 03/13/ Courtyard A Elevation prepared by JHP dated 03/13/ Courtyard B Elevation prepared by JHP dated 03/13/ Courtyard C & D Elevation prepared by JHP dated 03/13/2013 B. The following preliminary landscaping exhibits subject to the revisions as noted in the staff report and discussed and requested by the Appearance Commission during consideration of the petition: 1. Preliminary Landscape Plan (Sheet 1) prepared by Dickson Design Studio and dated 03/08/ Preliminary Landscape Plan (Sheet 2) prepared by Dickson Design Studio and dated 03/08/ Preliminary Landscape Plan (Sheet 3) prepared by Dickson Design Studio and dated 03/08/ Preliminary Landscape Plan (Sheet 4) prepared by Dickson Design Studio and dated 03/08/2013 C. The following preliminary lighting exhibits subject to the revisions as noted in the staff report and discussed and requested by the Appearance Commission during consideration of the petition: 1. Preliminary Engineering Plan (Lighting Site Plan) prepared by Pearson, Brown, & Associated, Inc. and dated 10/23/12 2. Preliminary Photometric Plan entitled GlenStar prepared by Visual and dated 09/20/12 3. Revised Streetlight Plan prepared by Teska Associates, Inc. (undated) 4. Preliminary Streetlight Fixture Catalog Cut prepared by Holophane and dated 04/07/11 5. Pechina Catalog Cut prepared by Holophane and dated 12/21/09 6. OUC Series Catalog Cut prepared by Holophane and dated 03/10/08 7. Glen Star-Phase 1 Catalog Cut Sheet 1 prepared by Holophane and dated 04/11/11 8. Glen Star-Phase 1 Catalog Cut Sheet 2 prepared by Holophane and dated 04/11/11 9

10 D. The following preliminary signage exhibits subject to the revisions as noted in the staff report and discussed and requested by the Appearance Commission during consideration of the petition: 1. Monument Identification Sign (undated) 2. Median Directional Sign (undated) 3. Building Identification Sign (undated) 4. Untitled Signage Site Plan (undated) E. The applicant shall appear before the Appearance Commission for final approvals of building architecture, landscaping, lighting, and signage prior to initiating any work associated with these specific site improvements. 10

11 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 27, 2013 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING: P Willow Road Glenstar Development (Public Hearing) Chairman Bucklin introduced the Glenstar Development proposal stating that due to the size of the proposal, the Plan Commission will review the proposal in chunks and will not complete the review tonight. The traffic and fiscal impacts will be discussed at the December 11 th meeting. Mr. Brady presented an agenda for tonight s discussion which included background information, a parcel overview and development (grocery, fitness club, retail and bank as well as day care), staff overview, applicant presentations, Plan Commission responses and public comment. He added that ultimately, the Plan Commission would make their recommendations to the Village Board of Trustees. Public notice was published in the November 8 th Glenview Announcements and mailings were sent out to adjacent neighbors. Utilizing an aerial photo, Mr. Brady stated that the discussion area is the Culligan site development at the northeast corner of Willow and Sanders Road, adjacent to the toll way. The Estelí s office building has already been developed. This property was part of the Willow Road corridor agreement that was approved by both the Village of Northbrook and the Village of Glenview. Mr. Brady stated that several amendments have been agreed upon in the Village of Glenview and the Village of Prospect Heights in April, 2012 and those amendments allowed for these concept plans. Mr. Brady outlined the 2007 Culligan Site Principles which allowed for various roadway configurations connecting the various sites as well as appropriate land uses and design parameters. In 2008, the applicant received approval of an Annexation Plan which included hotels, townhomes and retail components. In 2009, the applicant received approval for a revised office development which included a surface parking lot, a parking structure and the Astilis office site. Mr. Brady explained the roadway developments, stoplights, detention area, and parking lot configuration. Utilizing aerial photos, he explained to the Plan Commission where the proposed retail parcels would be located to include the grocery store hanger, parking for employees, a health club, bank drive-through, and a day care facility as well as the rezoning that would be necessary. The petitioner, Mr. Larry Debb, addressed the Plan Commission reiterating several points including the expanded grocery store and the fact that he had met with Allstate, CVS & Astellis in relation to the development. The Commission questioned the overall site plan in relation to the boardwalk and pond, adding that the current plan looks like a drainage ditch next to the parking lot. In relation to a focal point, this is a concern. The dog run was also discussed; the petitioner added that the dog run is small and believes that it is appropriate in relation to the location of the pond. Lighting height was discussed as well as the depth of parking stalls. The individual parcels were then discussed. Marianno s Grocery Store 90, 000 square feet, 322 parking spaces & 142 parking spaces (primarily employee parking) Mr. Brady outlined the side access points as well as the glass entrance area. The landscape islands and rows renderings were reviewed. Due to the private drives, the applicant is looking to have the building fairly close to the street edge. The rear driveway will be a service drive; there is no direct access to the apartment complex from Waterview. The loading docks were shown in relation to the side yard setback. Parking lot landscaping and buffer renditions were shown. Chairman Bucklin noted the considerable differences between the originally proposed Avon sites Marianno s vs. this location. He noted that these renderings resemble a big box and lack the 11

12 character of the original proposal. Commissioner Brinckerhoff noted that the renderings do not indicate a trash enclosure which is noted to be a wood fence, adding that the enclosure should be the same raw material as the building. The lack of windows which break up the masonry - were also mentioned. Mr. Dan Farrell, Marianno s/roundy s Vice President of Real Estate stated that the attempt was made to design a store unique to the character of the surrounding neighborhood. There is no prototype and each building is designed individually to fit the character of each location. The Commission questioned the size of the proposed facility at 90,000 square feet. Mr. Farrell stated that the Arlington Heights facility is 67,000 square feet (which does not include a small 3,000 foot addition) and that most recent stores 72,000-80,000 square feet. This proposed larger facility would allow for larger aisles, more back-room space and a larger footprint to address the need for a grocery store in this location. Commissioner Igleski questioned the unique situation of a toll-way bordering the property; in referring to the Marianno s Vernon Hills site, Mr. Farrell stated that he felt the proposed site could handle a large influx of customers from the toll way. In relation to square footage, Mr. Brady interjected that Costco is 120,000 square feet. The pond, parking lot, and southern edge were discussed in relation to the store s image; the petitioner agreed to investigate further. Health Club LA Fitness The health club is seeking final site plan review located at the corner of Sanders in Willow with parking in the back. A rendering illustrated the trash enclosure and various elevations. The elevations were shown as well as the building height variation (cornice is above the height limit). Retail Buildings The 1 st building has a drive-through component (Starbucks) and the 2 nd is the inline retail building. The proposed building elevations were shown as well as the conditional use for the drive-through on Capital Drive circulating towards Willow Road. Outdoor dining was shown. Chairman Bucklin noted the importance of the appearance of both the back and front of the buildings. To address this issue, Mr. Debb added that glass has been added to the building facade. Commissioner Igleski noted the look of Panera in front of the Jewel on Waukegan Road, noting that it needed to be 4-sided. The petitioner added that Chipolte is the other retailer. The Commissioner noted that he didn t like the configuration of the trash enclosure and the drive-through, noting that customers would need to follow a circuitous route to get to Point Drive (driving through a lot of parking spaces). The petitioner added that they did look different drive-through configurations. In relation to the trash enclosure, the proposed outdoor dining area is awfully near by. The petitioner agreed and offered to investigate moving the location further south. The Commission asked if there was a way to get from the health club to Starbucks? The petitioner replied; sidewalk. The amount of parking lot asphalt was discussed; the petitioner agreed to look at landscaping alternatives. Day Care Facility 16,000 square feet Utilizing a visual that illustrated the Final Site Plan Review, Mr. Brady spoke to the design features, adding that the pattern pavement is different for aesthetic reasons. Because the this is one of the main access points and for circulation reasons to pull traffic back (to avoid congestion), Village State has worked with the petitioner to have the access point the furthest point front the stop light at the intersection. The site features on way in and one way out. Typically, day care sites are focused on drop-off and pick-up rhythms and patterns. The proposed playground was shown. 12

13 Mr. Mike Larson, Director of Development for InSite Real Estate spoke about the development of the Gardner School, an A-caliber Day Care Facility. Commissioner Igleski stated that this site is probably the most challenging, adding that it looks like the building was designed for a different site and simply plopped down in this location. Opportunities might have been missed, i.e., fenced-in supervised playground, wouldn t it be nicer to be backed up to the pond vs. the parking garage of the office building? Mr. Larson agreed that it was a very challenging site to design. The elevation portico was discussed (projected out a couple feet); perhaps this is another missed opportunity. Commissioner Brinckerhoff agreed with Commissioner Igleski in relation to the challenges of this particular site (in relation to geometry and layout). The petitioner agreed to revisit the site layout based on the Plan Commissions comments. Apartment Site Mr. Brady stated that the apartment site has a boulevard access that goes directly to the south which connects to the Marianno s grocery site. To the north is a pullover, drop offer area that can be used for loading and unloading. Rather than two access points, the site has one access point into the interior parking level (4.5 levels of parking). The landscape plan for the site was discussed. The residential rendering was shown which showed the main office, various elevations and the materials to be used. Mr. Brady added that an apartment complex of this nature was a welcomed new concept for the Village. Mr. Doug Bober, added to Mr. Brady s comments stating that apartments will be 1-2 bedroom, square feet units. He described the building and apartment features to include a brick exterior, undulations, wood floors, granite countertops, a dog park, pool, clubroom and parking. The targets professionals, singles and does not expect a lot of children (due to the size of the units). Parking was discussed; the petitioner replied that in previous complexes, this parking configuration worked well. Commissioner Brinckerhoff expressed the desire to see an overall site plan to better understand how all of the site elements work together (i.e., sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, access between buildings, etc.) Density and parking was discussed; the petitioner added that in relation to the area and the neighboring corporate facilities this type of facility was appropriate. He agreed to look at the parking situation further (in relation to apartment size/number of bedrooms). Chairman Bucklin opened up the public portion of the meeting. Ms. Lana Weiner, Director of the Child Care Learning Center (across the street) addressed the Plan Commission. As an existing Day Care facility, she questioned the need for another childcare facility, although acknowledging the need for childcare in the area. Noting that several child care facilities are already in the area (Crème de la Crème, Bright Horizons, Knowledge Beginnings) and acknowledging the appreciation for healthy competition, she noted that while Allstate has their own child care facility, this proposed day care center might adversely affect traffic already congested in this area. In relation to traffic congestion, she stated her concern with short-visit traffic to include Starbucks, Chipotle, Chase Bank and potentially Marianno s. She also expressed concern with construction dust control. Lastly, she asked Mr. Brady for a letter than Representative Shoenburg had written in relation to the traffic impact analysis; Mr. Brady agreed to provide the letter to Ms. Weiner. Chairman Bucklin inquired about the plans for Sanders & Willow Road; the petitioner replied that IDOT has guaranteed that if funding is available, that the roads will be widened. Chairman Bucklin closed the public portion of the meeting. 13

14 MOTION: Made by Commissioner Fallon to continue to December 11 th ; seconded by Commissioner Brinckerhoff. 14

15 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2013 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING: P Willow Road Glenstar Development (Public Hearing) The petitioner and the Plan Commission have had extensive discussions on this project; tonight s discussion focused on fiscal and traffic studies. Mr. Jeff Brady gave a brief summation on changes that the Commission requested and the petitioner s reply to date. He updated the Commission on the upcoming regulatory reviews: 1. Plan Commission a. November 27 presentation of development proposal and initial Plan Commission comments b. December 11 th fiscal and traffic reviews; specific site plan comments c. January 22, 2013 tbd 2. Board of Trustees consideration of: a. Plan Commission recommendations tbd b. Annexation Agreement Amendment - tbd 3. Appearance Commission detailed review of architecture, signage, lighting & landscaping a. Preliminary Appearance Approval tbd b. Final Appearance Approval following submittal of building permits Utilizing an architect s rendering, Mr. Brady reviewed the revised landscape plans. The overall modifications included refinements in landscaping, treatment edges for parking and the walking path around the pond, the parking facility for the apartment building, and day care facility (moved further back on the property). The dog run area has been significantly shrunk for more of a pocket park area. In relation to the retail area, the petitioner is now using landscaped islands in an effort to break up the asphalt parking area. The applicant also examined the exiting points from the parking stalls and has decided to add a right-out and an easy way to exit and get to Willow road. Mr. Brady stated that since the Commissioner s received their packets for tonight s discussion, additional information has been received in respect to revisions to the fiscal study review and additional information on the grocery store, which include revised elevations and renderings. A Sidewalk/Signage Plan was also shown which illustrates how the parcels will now be connected. Included in the Commissioner s packet was a summary of the applicant s requested approvals: Parcel Overall Grocery Store 90,080 sf grocery store; 142 space parking lot Health Club 2 story, Requested Approvals Amendment to Annexation Agreement Rezonings Comprehensive Plan Amendment Official Map Amendment Final Site Plan Approval Preliminary Subdivision Approval Variances for: -Parking stall depth less than 19 ft. -Lighting pole heights over 18 ft. -Lighting uniformity ratio Rezoning from RT8/PD to B2 Variances for: -Side yard setback less than 20 ft. -Parking lot landscaping and buffer -Lighting fc levels at the property line Variance for building to be more than 40 ft. tall 15

16 41,000 sf building Retail & Bank 4,200 sf building w/drive thru; 8,250 sf building; 4,408 sf bank with drivethru; future 1.5 acre retail building site Day Care 16,007 sf facility Apartments 2.2 acre future office site Conditional use for drive-through restaurant (coffee) Variances for parking lot landscaping & buffer Future conditional use for drive-through pharmacy Rezoning from FT8/PD to B2 Variances for: -Parking lot landscaping buffer -Variance for rear yard set back less than 20 ft. Rezoning from FT8/PD to R18/PD with variances for density, perimeter yard setback less than 50 ft and parking less than 2 spaces per unit Rezoning from PD to I2 light industrial Mr. Larry Debb addressed the Plan Commission and utilized renderings/drawings to explain several changes made based on feedback received including landscaping, building materials, signage, parking lot island improvements, walkways, access between properties, etc. Sidewalk connections between the retail buildings was discussed; for example, the Willow Road sidewalk coming from west what happens if the pedestrian doesn t turn to health fitness? Do they need to go all the way down and then circulate back? Commissioner Brinckerhoff requested a small sidewalk connection at this location; the applicant agreed to add. The challenging area between the grocery store and the residential building was discussed. Another challenging area - the median divided roadway to the south (area between the day care and the residential building) was discussed. The applicant replied that this area was redesigned to be green space; Commissioner Brinckerhoff replied that he would like to see a perspective of this specific location. The lack of sidewalk locations from Astellas to the GlenStar development was discussed; the applicant replied that they would have to discuss this issue with Astellas because any sidewalk connection would be on their property. Marianno s Parcel A The landscape architect, Mr. Nick Patera from Teska discussed the landscaping changes to accomplish a cohesive image. Mr. Patera added that Teska is the landscape architectural firm for the entire development. The promenade walk wraps around the entire pond and now is the hub of the entire development. Commissioner Igleski added that he would like to see the sidewalk wider than 5 ft. Seating elements have been added as well as a 4 ft. retaining wall and a fence. The spacing of the benches (on concrete pads) was reviewed. The area will include dense evergreen plantings and a landscaping screen that will serve as a backdrop to the pond. The sidewalk in the area is not in a straight line to add character and gives some rhythm/form to the area. The Plan Commission would like to see the residential landscaping (vs. a white area on the rendering). The parking area was discussed; the Commissioners stated that they would like to see the islands distributed versus one island even if it meant losing a few parking spaces; Mr. Patera stated that he would investigate further. Safe Fire Department access to the development was discussed and confirmed. The requested variations were discussed; the majority of which the Commissioners had already discussed. The front elevation, landscaping and glass facade of the building were reviewed. The applicant doesn t plan to add landscaping on the eastern half of the building. Lighting was briefly discussed and it was agreed that the topic would be discussed at greater length in January. Mr. Drew Ranien, architect on the project, discussed the big-box store and the feel of the entire building. The glass facade was reviewed as well as the interior look and feel of the store in relation 16

17 to the café and other specialty areas inside Marianno s. Punctuation every 30 ft. was shown which breaks up the straight lines was shown in the rendering as well as the 12 ft. windows. The compactor was shown and the screening wall. The masonry will turn the corners and graphic designing will only be on the southern side of the building. The building s lettering will be 5 ft. tall and have mixed graphics (which is in the process of being finalized). The signage will be metal and in a panel and the lighting will come from the canopy above or below. Commissioner Brinckerhoff started the discussion about the two colors of brick being utilized and the fact that in it s current rendering, the 90,000 square foot building looks like a big box. He added that much of the articulation included in other Marianno s is lacking from this property and the opportunity exists to correct this situation with the use of the proposed precast panels. The petitioner agreed that this is an area that can be corrected. The Commission added that the east elevation - facing the residential area looks only minimally broken up with three windows and the rotunda feels like a slick metal cube. The west side landscaping was briefly discussed and the landscape architect added that the dark green area has not yet been detailed. Commissioner Igleski stated that the renders do the store a disservice and felt that a lot could be done (precast panels, shifting to get more shadow lines, brick colors, canopies, etc.) The renderings do not reflect the shadows and true appearance of what the building could look like. Garbage truck circulation (page 8 of the packet) shows trucks heading east. Mr. Dan Farrell, VP Real Estate briefly discussed the steel compactor and added that the trucks will come from the west and continue east, however the garbage is low volume and is only pulled twice a week. Commissioner Brinckerhoff left the meeting Mr. Brady spoke about a requested variation to the directly adjacent roadway and that generally speaking, it is more of a service type of roadway situation. The setback is 20 ft. to the edge of the right-of-way. Lastly, in relation to traffic comments, it was confirmed that no variation would be requested in relation to letter height. The petitioner concurred. Health Club LA Fitness Mr. Brady reviewed the building height variation; the grocery store building height is 27 ft., this requested variation is for 40 ft. (41.5 ft. in height to the very top building element). The building height is so tall to accommodate the indoor basketball court. Landscaping will be in multiple layers on Willow and Sanders and will include evergreens plantings. Window signs will not be permitted. Retail / Parking Lots The sidewalk off Willow Road was previously discussed. Commissioner Igleski stated that this area of the development is well defined (right-out onto Capital Drive). The health club is a massive building at the corner and has imposing volume. Mr. Larry Debb stated that 42.5 ft. is needed for the gymnasium and an eight-story office building - height is a function of the building. Mr. Brady reviewed site plan comments and requested variations. As previously proposed, the applicant has broken up a larger row of landscaping and seems appropriate from a Plan Commission perspective. The same issue exists as the parking lot to the north, and in some areas, there is less than 5 ft. landscape setback from the property line to the parking area (variation requested). To accommodate loading area, suggestion to potentially have be 10x25 ft. area (currently 14x20/12x25) would allow for the extra area in front of the garbage enclosure to count toward loading requirement for the retail shop, however, this would necessitate that the garbage enclosure be pushed back slightly (which may be an issue to the Commissioners backed on the last meeting). 17

18 As developer refines the architectural details with respect the signage, the Plan Commission would appreciate design criteria established ahead of time to ensure uniformity in relation to location, size and color. Bank At the last meeting, there was a request to shift a drive aisle to west and increase the landscaping so that it hides the drive-through area. Day Care Center At the last meeting, the position of the building as well as the dog park (to the north) was discussed. Also, landscape changes had to do with the setback of the building, which allowed for relief to the parameter walkway around the pond. The foreground of a broader lawn will incorporate shade/ornamental trees. The plants around Water View Drive would obscure the parking. The pocket park on the north side is for residents to use; the dog run is now 1/3 or the area and the park is 2/3 s. The dog park will have some sort of fencing and will be accessed from the west side. A cross walk comes from Astellas. Landscaping around the garbage enclose was discussed; the applicant now plans to relocate the garbage enclosure and landscaping will be added to the west side. Evergreen plants will be on the north/northeast side. In relation to signage, Mr. Eric Pederson stated that the main signage would be on the main doorway and additional signage will be on the western side of the school (can be seen when entering the property). One monument sign will be added and plenty of landscaping will be included around the sign. Commissioner Fallon questioned pushing the building/moving the playground on the pond side of the building. Mr. Pederson explained a handful of scenarios that were considered, however, none proved to be conducive especially when considering pickup/drop-off traffic flows. It was noted that this one parcel has been really difficult to layout and it appears that this building was not designed for this site, but the Commission noted that the applicant has done their best with a difficult parcel. Mr. Brady mentioned the cross walk and based on the Commissioners conversation, didn t appear that it needed to be modified. Regarding circulation, clarification/geometry is such if a vehicle went straight, has to make a slight jog mentioned in the most recent traffic review. When a left hand turn lane was added, the through lane jogs a little. He added that based on discussion at the last meeting related to the rear yard setback, the Plan Commission doesn t have an issue. Details on playground equipment are still needed as well as awning details. In relation to the proposed parking plan there are some areas along Water View that require more of a separation from the property line; variations are requested. Details on overall dimensions of the facade to ensure continuity are also needed. Apartments As requested from the last meeting, Mr. Doug Bober showed a 3D view of the front entranceway. In addition, the full landscaping proposal was included in tonight s packet of information. A big issue at the last meeting was density and parking. Information has been provided comparing this development to Texas and South Carolina and other areas where work has been done to illustrate how density/parking works. A chart was shown that illustrated actual sites that are being built/are proposed within the Chicago-metro area. This development has a better parking ratio than other Chicago-metro area developments. Parking is controlled through assigned-parking and paying for additional spots. Everyone who has a unit will get one free parking spot (included in the rent) and if an additional parking spot were desired, the tenant would pay a targeted $100 monthly fee. In relation to visitor parking, there is restricted access to the parking garage and the proposal is to move the restricted area (residents 18

19 are admitted via a gate for example) further up the ramp to allow for more visitor parking when immediately entering the garage on the lower level. Mr. Brady stated that a perimeter yard variation has been requested. Additional variations have been requested in relation to the R18 district and the parking requirement (1.7 parking spaces vs. the required 2.0 parking spaces). Commissioner Fallon discussed a letter received 12/11/12 that addressed concerns regarding density in relation to parking. Also the confidence that 90 units can be rented was discussed. Mr. Bober replied that jobs have tripled in this area over the past 15 years, while housing for high-end luxury apartments has not. The Lots in the Glen have a 99% occupancy rates. Lighting To be discussed at greater length in January. FISCAL STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * The petitioner s Consultant, Teska Associates President, Lee Brown, addressed the multi-use development and stated that some of it is already in place. The numbers in his reports are with and without Astellas. Property valuation was discussed with the following consultant chart: Mr. Brown also discussed the square footage in relation to sales and tax rates as follows: 19

20 Mr. Brown proceeded to explain that projected revenues estimated from the site plan as explained below: Mr. Brown also discussed the projected revenue summary: 20

21 The school impact was discussed as follows (the school and park land dedication based on tables provided in the Village code): 21

22 Additionally, the impact of the Class 7B incentive was reviewed. Mr. Brown added that the typical commercial property is assessed at 25% of the fair market value and reviewed projected years as follows: 22

23 The Commission discussed the fact that revenues get split and expenses do not between Northbrook & Glenview. Mr. Brady stated that this fact was true and that is was indeed an unusual agreement. TRAFFIC STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Luay Aboona discussed the area intersections and the projected amount of traffic. Willow Road is congested at peak hours and IDOT is getting close to finalizing construction plans for intersection improvements and plans for six lanes of traffic all the way to Milwaukee Avenue. IDOT is getting ready to bid the fully funded project, which will greatly improve traffic flow. There will be dual left turn lanes on Willow, dual left turn lands on Sanders going southbound. He added that Astellas is producing 40%-50% less traffic than originally anticipated. The projected traffic flow of how vehicles will approach the development was reviewed in relation to retail, office and residential living. The projected assignment of site traffic, the additional traffic that this development will generate, and where traffic will enter/exit the development were reviewed. Reverse traffic patterns were also discussed. Lastly, Mr. Aboona added that he has worked extensively with the Village Traffic Consultant to fine-tune these recommendations. Chairman Bucklin asked if the petitioner had received any comments from Allstate. Mr. Debb replied that Allstate is pleased because the applicant paid for the stoplight. He added that Allstate has five-times the traffic that the GlenStar development will have. IDOT is projecting a Spring 2014 start for the roadway construction at the Sanders & Willow Road intersection. The cross-access with AT&T was brought up; Mr. Debb replied that they would love to have the opportunity and that Mary Bak is currently spearheading this effort. Mr. Debb added that even if they don t get the cross-access, the plan still works due to the relatively small amount of traffic. Mr. Brady concurred adding that the Village is working on opportunities with this connection and there are still some more investigative work to investigate the pros & cons. There are issues with the property owner to the north relative to the road being a private vs. public access road. Commissioner Igleski asked for clarification is the analysis included the 2 future parcels the one on the northeast quadrant and the one right off of Willow Road. The petitioner replied yes. 23

24 Commissioner Igleski stated that the traffic in the area is currently not in very good condition. With the addition of this development, it will still be in poor condition. Mr. Aboona added that this area is very congested during peak hours and that after the IDOT improvement are completed, this intersection will operate much more effectively. The Commission asked if IDOT has provided any comments; the petitioners will follow-up with IDOT, adding that nothing has changed from the original 2008 proposal. Mr. Debb did add that he has met with IDOT and they have reviewed the proposal and have received no comments. Mr. Brady added that the Village will also make sure they stay in touch with IDOT in relation to all traffic signals and planned construction. The stacking of traffic through the drive through was discussed in relation to peak times. Stacking is currently projected for 8-9 vehicles. The Commission wants to ensure that there is enough room for these vehicles. Marianno s traffic at peak hours in relation to parking was discussed further. In relation to employee parking, the petitioner did not believe there would be any issue. The petitioner added that traffic is anticipated with the regular stacking of vehicles, stating that Marianno s will have the most traffic. On weekends, Willow Road will have 50%-60% less traffic than during the week. Chairman Bucklin opened up the public portion of the meeting Lana Weiner Gertrude B. Nielsen Child Care & Leaning Center Ms. Weiner discussed traffic concerns and added that it is important to look at Sanders Road; Caremark was not mentioned in tonight s discussions. North of AT&T is well populated and many of her families are from there. Land across street (used to be Household) currently empty probably will be developed in future no discussion in relation to traffic impact. Consider families currently come off toll way, go west on Willow & make U-turn to come into parking lot due to median on Willow. Ms. Weiner would like more information; can IDOT work with her business? How about entering the back drive after passing the gas station? She has significant issues with the entire plan it may be that IDOT is addressing, but don t know with 100 cars coming between 7-9a.m & 4-6p.m. in evening. Chairman Bucklin stated that Mr. Brady will work with Ms. Weiner to provide information she should contact Jeff. They can work with Capital Project Department so Ms. Weiner has a copy of the proposed improvements. Do they have Allstate permission to make left turn land onto Accenture Drive. Quite a few of her parents make U-turns off of Willow. Chairman Bucklin closed the public portion of the meeting MOTION: Motion to continue made by Commissioner Ruter & seconded by Fallon YEAS: NAYS: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Fallon, Igleski, and Fallon None None 24

25 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 2013 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING: P Willow Road Glenstar Development (Public Hearing) Mr. Jeff Brady referred to the Commissioners packets and mentioned that a few pieces of information have been received prior to tonight s meeting (those documents were distributed to the Commission). More information has been distributed to the Commission on the Willow/Sanders road intersection and the proposed IDOT improvement timeframes. Mr. Brady reviewed the following upcoming regulatory reviews: 1. Plan Commission A. November 27 Presentation of development proposal and initial Plan Commission comments B. December 11 Fiscal & traffic reviews; specific site plan comments C. January 8, 2013 Further consideration by Plan Commission D. January 22, tbd 2. Board of Trustees Consideration of: A. Plan Commission recommendation - tbd B. Annexation Agreement Amendment tbd 3. Appearance Commission detailed review of architecture, signage, lighting & landscaping A. Preliminary Appearance Approval tbd B. Final Appearance Approval following submittal of building permits The applicant has submitted revised Landscaping Plans and a revised Site Pan. Mr. Brady reviewed the Revised Landscape Plans in relation to the garbage area and the landscaping associated with the enclosure. The landscaped islands have been broken up in the retail areas parking lots. The pocket park areas were illustrated (with dimensions) including the seating areas. Landscaping coordination (in relation to continuity) between the apartment development and the grocery store sites was shown. The revised dog run area, open space for the park and the continuation of the path (with another pocket area) were shown. The sidewalk/signage plan was updated (now shows a new crosswalk) and shows the connection from the Astellas property to the pond area. Revised grocery renderings including the landscaping plan were shown. On the grocery store, the applicant has added additional windows below the screen panel. The applicant refined the architecture behind the rotunda section the new renderings were shown. Revised elevations of the grocery store (new vs. old) were shown. Lastly, Mr. Brady added that anything not addressed or outstanding is reflected in tonight s sample motion. There are also numerous Appearance Commission items for submittal of exhibits that show more details and the Appearance Commission will review those items. The Plan Commission is more big picture and the Appearance Commission focuses more of the finite details and issues. In page 9 of the Staff Report, in relation to the parking lots, the comment was made for the need for 7 ft. wide vs. 5 ft. wide. Mr. Brady explained that the requirements are 9 ft. wide x 19 ft. deep parking stalls and the applicant is requesting 9 ft. wide x 17 ft. deep parking stalls. For a 9x17-parking stall, the landscape setback requirements move 5 ft. The day care center is the only area where a variation is being requested (sidewalk 5/7 ft.). A minimum 5 ft. sidewalk exists (in relation to car overhang). Why can t the sign be 15 ft. (vs. 18 ft.)? Mr. Brady clarified that the applicant has made a change and now the sign will be 15 ft. The recent information from IDOT was discussed; the timeframe appears to 1 year later than what the Plan Commission was originally told. The Commission thought that the improvements could begin as early as Given IDOTs reputation in relation to delays, discussion ensued about the impact to this development. Considering a worse-case-scenario, if IDOT improvements begin 2-3 years late, do we have 2-3 years of serious problems? Mr. Larry Debb shared the latest IDOT information IDOT has 25