Village of Glenview Appearance Commission

Transcription

1 Village of Glenview Appearance Commission STAFF REPORT March 8, 2018 TO: Chairman and Appearance Commissioners FROM: Community Development Department CASE #: A LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: Waukegan Road Glenview Active Living Apartments CASE MANAGER: Jeff Rogers, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Preliminary Approval ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests preliminary review comments regarding the proposed architecture, landscaping, signage, and lighting. APPLICANT / CONTACT: Trammell Crow Company Johnny Carlson 2215 S. York Rd, Suite 204 Oak Brook, IL Tel: (630) OWNERS: MJB Saturn Realty, LLC 556 Randall South Elgin, IL Chicago Title Land Trust 5125 Old Orchard Rd #528 Skokie, IL T. Lappas PO Box 85 Glenview, IL PROPOSAL: Trammell Crow Company requests preliminary architecture, landscaping, signage, and lighting approvals for a new 168-unit multi-family residential development upon the subject property. New content denoted by 03/08/ Report Disclaimer: Village staff makes no representations regarding support, endorsement, or the likelihood of approval or disapproval by any Glenview regulatory commission or the Village Board of Trustees.

2 Site Assessment AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY: 2

3 PICTOMETRIC PHOTOGRAPHY: Northeast Elevations Southwest Elevations 3

4 Project Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 03/08/2018 Since the prior Appearance Commission review, the project received a positive recommendation from the Plan Commission and approval from the Board of Trustees. Since these approvals, the applicant has further developed plans in preparation for their building permit submittal and has provided revised application materials for preliminary approval of architecture, landscaping, and lighting. The revised plans feature 168 apartment units. Preliminary signage approval and final architecture, landscaping, and lighting approvals will be requested at a later date prior to letting of permits for these improvements. 07/26/2017 The applicant, Trammell Crow Company, proposes the demolition of two existing retail commercial buildings, rezoning of the property, and development of a new multi-family active living residential apartment building including 178 units comprised of approximately 270,000 square feet upon 3.09 acres. BACKGROUND: 07/26/2017 The applicant, Trammell Crow Company, has prior development experience in Glenview including the Midtown Square development at 1803 Glenview Road. The proposed multi-family residential building would be of similar scale and density as the Midtown Square development, but would not include any non-residential uses nor would multiple building forms be featured along the street frontage. The proposed inverted U -shaped building would however be comprised of two primary building forms, including a four-story component along Waukegan Road and a five-story component adjacent to the Milwaukee & St. Paul railroad right-of-way. Parking would be provided at grade with additional parking provided underground within a parking structure beneath the building. The subject property is comprised of three (3) parcels including a former automobile dealership, an existing office/commercial building, and a portion of an existing legal nonconforming residential property, each currently zoned B-2 General Business District. The subject property would feature a primary entrance which would align with an existing curb cut for the Carriage Hill condominium development opposite the development site across Waukegan Road. The proposed residential use would be situated north of a publicly-owned utility & existing 155-foot water tower. The new residential use would be situated adjacent to an existing low-intensity commercial use and an existing legal nonconforming singlefamily residential use to the north. An existing neighborhood of single-family detached residences is situated across the adjacent Milwaukee & St. Paul railroad right-of-way to the west. To accommodate the proposed development, a rezoning of the property would be required. The Village of Glenview s 2017 Comprehensive Plan does not provide any specific instruction regarding the proposed rezoning of the subject property from the existing commercial zoning to the proposed planned development multi-family zoning. Variations from the typical bulk regulations associated with the R-18 residential district would be required to allow the proposed unit density, floor area ratio, and impervious lot coverage. 4

5 03/08/2018 Architecture The applicant has summarized the proposed preliminary materials. Final material lists will be provided prior to Final Appearance Commission Review. Item Manufacturer Style/Texture Color Brick A TBD TBD Red Blend Brick B TBD TBD Buff Blend Cast Stone A TBD TBD Light Gray Cast Stone A TBD TBD Dark Gray CMU TBD TBD Light Gray to Match Stone Metal Panel A TBD TBD Dark Bronze Metal Panel B TBD TBD Champagne Siding/Paneling TBD TBD TBD Fiber Cement Paneling A TBD TBD Rich Espresso Fiber Cement Paneling B TBD TBD Gray Slate Fiber Cement Paneling C TBD TBD Navajo Beige Fiber Cement Paneling D TBD TBD Countrylane Red Aluminum Storefront TBD TBD TBD Metal Cap Flashing A TBD TBD Dark Bronze Metal Cap Flashing B TBD TBD Light Gray Metal Cap Flashing C TBD TBD Dark Gray Metal Flat Seam Roofing TBD TBD Champagne Metal Railing System TBD TBD TBD Metal & Glass Balcony TBD TBD TBD Metal & Wood Trellis TBD TBD TBD Screen Wall TBD TBD TBD Garage Door TBD TBD TBD Mechanical Vents TBD TBD TBD Exhaust Hood TBD TBD TBD / Painted to Match Adj. Gutters and Downspouts TBD TBD TBD Windows TBD TBD TBD Doors TBD TBD TBD Hardware TBD TBD TBD Awning/Canopy TBD TBD TBD Pavers TBD TBD TBD Fencing TBD Chain-link Black Vinyl 5

6 Appearance Commission Review APPEARANCE PLAN COMMENTS: Staff comments after evaluating the proposal for compliance with the Appearance Plan: Building Design Criteria from Appearance Plan: Quality of design and relationship to surroundings Good scale and harmonious conformance with neighboring development Materials with architectural character and harmony with adjoining buildings Building components with good proportions and relationship to one another Harmonious colors Avoidance of monotony; avoidance of inappropriate, incompatible, bizarre and exotic designs Staff comments: 03/08/2018 o To best facilitate the Appearance Commission s preliminary review, the applicant should furnish renderings of the proposed building. o Through coordination with staff, the Plan Commission, and in response to concerns from the Board of Trustees and the public, the applicant has reversed major building materials from the prior submittal, now featuring the traditional red brick elevations adjacent to Waukegan Road. o The applicant should confirm whether a common window material & color are proposed across all building components. The Appearance Commission should consider whether the proposed colors and variation/consistency are appropriate. o The courtyard elevations are predominantly comprised of single materials. The Appearance Commission should consider whether any alternate materials should be required on these elevations. o The applicant should provide a detail for the proposed arbors adjacent to the ground floor units. o Prior to final review, the applicant shall confirm via sight-line cross-sections that no rooftop mechanical units will be visible from adjacent properties. o Prior to final review, the applicant shall update all building elevations to include downspouts, ventilation, and utility infrastructure consistent with final building permit exhibits. 07/26/2017 o The Appearance Commission should consider the proposed building elevations and determine whether the proposed brick materials on the west half of the building should be used on the front building elevation facing Waukegan Road. o The Appearance Commission should consider whether there exist sufficient building forms on the Waukegan Road and railroad right-of-way elevations to provide architectural interest and minimize massing of the building. o In preparation of final designs, the applicant shall depict all proposed building penetrations including plumbing & HVAC ventilation systems. o The applicant shall confirm that window glazing will not create any negative impacts on pool users or adjacent property owners. o Prior to final review, the applicant shall furnish catalog cuts for all exterior finishes including hardware, architectural elements, furniture, and pavement materials. o The proposed trash area shall be screened and shall feature solid, metal doors. o At a future meeting, the applicant shall furnish material and color samples for proposed building materials and hardware. 6

7 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: 02/14/2018 & 07/26/2017 o Prior to final review, the proposed site & landscaping plans may be modified in the area of the north lot line to accommodate a relocation of the proposed cross-access curb-cut as well as a second cross-access location with the adjacent property to the north. o As outlined on the applicant s tree inventory plan, the proposed scope of work would include removal of twelve (12) mature trees which are subject to replacement in accordance with the Village s tree preservation ordinance. o Due to the adjacent non-residential land uses to the north and south of the subject property, a densely landscaped buffer yard should be provided for the protection of the residents of the proposed development. The Appearance Commission should consider the appropriate landscape treatments along these lot lines, and include additional species along the west lot line which may provide some screening of the lower levels of the building from the adjacent properties west of the Milwaukee & St. Paul railroad right-of-way. o Proposed fencing along the west lot line would be comprised of black vinyl coated chain-link. The Appearance Commission should consider whether a permanent screen should be provided with an alternate 100% solid privacy fence design. o The landscaping plan should depict the location(s) of any existing and/or proposed fencing. o It is encouraged that various species of trees and plantings (including parkway trees) are installed to prevent massive simultaneous loss from disease inherent to any particular species. o Utility meter locations should be unobtrusive, and screened from view from the adjacent public and private rights-of-way. Confirm the provided landscaping screens the utilities. o The Appearance Commission should consider whether the size of proposed materials should be between 6-8 feet instead of 6.0 feet. o There do not appear to be any conflicts between landscaping locations and proposed underground utilities. o A landscaping bed comprised of 2.0 square feet of materials for every 1 square foot of sign area shall be provided adjacent to the foundation of the proposed ground sign. o Prior to final approvals, samples of proposed brick pavers and/or stamped concrete shall be provided for review. o Additional details on the proposed patio concepts, any external furniture, and materials shall be submitted for review. 7

8 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: 02/14/2018 & 07/26/2017 o The applicant has provided rough designs of the proposed ground sign, wall sign, and address numerals pending further development of marketing materials for the subject property. In accordance with the requirements of the R-18 zoning district, one (1) non-illuminated identification sign is permissible with a maximum area of 5.0 square feet. The applicant is proposed a monument style ground sign with an area of approximately 36 square feet with additional wall numerals and canopy signage. The proposed monument sign and wall signs would require variations for sign area in association with the proposed Planned Development. The Appearance Commission should consider whether the proposed signage is appropriate and provide commentary for the Plan Commission to take under advisement when considering zoning variations that may be appropriate for the proposed development. o When final property branding efforts are complete, a final signage design will be required including dimensions, materials, and other details for all ground signage and signage upon the canopy or wall. o As proposed, the concept signage would need a waiver for omitting an architectural cap. The Appearance Commission should consider whether the concept ground sign design is appropriate. o The petitioner shall furnish material and color samples of all proposed signage for review by the Appearance Commission. o A sign easement has been provided north of the proposed full access drive for use by the adjacent property to the north to identify the primary access point for future cross-access among the properties. 8

9 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: 02/14/2018 o Lighting specifications have been provided for the whole site as well as three (3) composite areas of the site. If three (3) zones are proposed, the applicant should depict the extents of each zone on the photometric plan prior to final review. o When considered as one (1) zone, the proposed fixture heights, illuminance levels, average, and maximum illuminance would comply with all ordinance requirements. o The applicant should revised the uniformity ratio to depict average to min., with the minimum being 0.1 fc. o The proposed Framed Exterior Sconce (WS-W73620) noted as W3 on the lighting plan would emit more than 1,000 lumens and therefore is required to be a 100% cut-off style fixture. The applicant should identify an alternate fixture/solution for this location. o The proposed Lithium Exterior Sconce (WS-W ) would emit fewer than 1,000 lumens and therefore is not required to be a 100% cut-off style fixture. o All other light fixtures would comply with 100% cut-off design requirements. 07/26/2017 o The applicant should confirm the proposed fixture height of 16.0 feet. A variation would be required in accordance with the Planned Development under review by the Plan Commission for any fixture in excess of 14.0 feet. The Appearance Commission should consider whether light fixtures should exceed 14.0 feet. If fixture heights are limited to 14.0 feet, it is anticipated that additional fixtures will be necessary to provide adequate lighting for public safety upon the property. o An alternate 100% cut-off bollard fixture should be selected which does not project lighting above the lower horizontal edge of the light source. o The applicant should confirm that any patio lighting shall feature a 100% cut-off fixture. Such lighting should be depicted on the lighting plan unless the light elements/luminaires will not exceed 1,000 lumens per fixture. o The applicant shall provide a revised photometric plan to accommodate the change in the light fixtures. Upon review, a waiver from the Appearance Commission may be required for a uniformity ratio greater than 4:1. POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS: The subject property is situated between Waukegan Road, a Village-owned water tower, the Milwaukee & St. Paul railroad right-of-way, adjacent commercial uses & a legal nonconforming singlefamily residence. The Village will review land use, traffic, setback, height, and landscaping requirements in association with the proposed improvements. Adjacent residents have expressed concerns with the proposed building height, traffic impacts, and the proposed project density. 9

10 Technical Review PROJECT TIMELINE: A. 05/01/17 Application Submitted B. 05/24/17 Preliminary Site Plan Review C. 07/06/17 Public notice published in the Glenview Lantern D. 07/06/17 Public notice sign posted upon the subject property E. 07/06/17 Public notices mailed to surrounding property owners F. 07/25/17 Plan Commission Meeting G. 07/26/17 Appearance Commission Meeting H. 08/22/17 Plan Commission Meeting I. 09/12/17 Plan Commission Meeting J. 10/10/17 Plan Commission Meeting K. 10/17/17 Village Board of Trustees First Consideration L. 11/09/17 Village Board of Trustees First Consideration M. 11/23/17 Village Board of Trustees Second Consideration N. 03/08/18 Appearance Commission Meeting O. TBD Building Permit Application & Final Engineering P. TBD Building & Engineering Inspections Q. TBD Certificate of Occupancy 2017 A B CDE FG H I J K L M Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018 N Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 10

11 REQUIRED APPROVAL(s): The following chart details the necessary required approvals: Required Regulatory Review A. Annexation B. Annexation with Annexation Agreement C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment D. Official Map Amendment E. Rezoning F. Planned Development G. Conditional Use H. Final Site Plan Review I. Second Curb Cut J. Subdivision (Preliminary, Final, and Waivers) K. Variation(s) (Plan Commission in accordance with Planned Development) 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. Minutes of July 26, 2017 Appearance Commission Meeting 3. Petitioner s Application Materials & Exhibits 11

12 Sample Motion I move in the matter of A , Active Living Apartments by Trammell Crow, the Appearance Commission grants preliminary approval for architecture, landscaping, signage, and lighting based upon the findings the petitioner, through testimony and application materials, has demonstrated compliance with Section of the Municipal Code, Appearance Plan, and in accordance with the following conditions: A. The following documents prepared by ESG dated 02/27/2018: 1. Exterior Elevations East and Northeast (Sheet A3.1) 2. Exterior Elevations North and West (Sheet A3.2) 3. Exterior Elevations South and Southwest (Sheet A3.3) 4. Exterior Elevations Courtyard (Sheet A3.4) 5. Exterior Elevations Recesses (Sheet A3.5) B. The following documents prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and dated 02/28/2017: 1. Preliminary Landscape Plan (Sheet L2.0); and 2. Preliminary Landscape Details (Sheet L2.1); C. The following documents prepared by Emanuelson-Podas Consulting Engineers and dated 07/31/2017: 1. Photometric Site Plan (E0.2); 2. Pole Base Details & Light Fixture Schedule (E0.3); and 3. Fixture Cutsheets (E0.4). 12

13 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2017 APPEARANCE COMMISSION MEETING: A Waukegan Rd Active Adult Apartments - Architecture, Landscaping, and Signage - Preliminary Approval Present to petition for the Active Adult Apartments were: John Carlson and Grady Hamilton with Trammell Crow Company Gretchen Camp, Architect Aaron Roseth with ESG Architects Tom Runkle, Landscape Architect with Kimley Horn Also present were concerned residents: Mary O Keefe 616 Carriage Hill Dr. Carol Hanley 625 Lehigh Ave. Ms. House summarized that applicant was proposing an active adult community on the site of two existing retail buildings. Existing buildings would be demolished and the property would be rezoned for the development of a multi-family active living resident apartment building including 178 units. Units were approximately 270,000 square feet total on 3.09 acres. She read the pertinent discussion points as noted in the staff memo. Aerial of the site under discussion, site plan, proposed landscape plan, tree removal plan, and elevations of the property were shown via overhead. Renderings of the proposed building elevations, proposed monument sign, courtyard, photometric and fixtures were also shown. Chairman Demsky opened the meeting up to public comment. Ms. House stated that she received an from a resident of Orchard Glen development to the north of building site under discussion who was hoping for more substantial landscaping for the northern border of the development to provide as much privacy as possible between the two developments Carol Hanley, 625 Lehigh, directly west of the building. She was concerned about the proposed trees, such as evergreens and something more permanent. She expressed concern about the proposed 5-story height of the building and would like more trees along the west elevation. She also commented on the view to the west. She mentioned the water tower which melted into the sky. She was now concerned about viewing a black building which would ruin views and lower property value. In response, Chairman Demsky confirmed with staff that the 5-story height was allowed on this site. If conforming, it would be difficult to deny allowable height for the development. Chairman Demsky stated that it would be a discussion/issue for the Plan Commission to consider and her concerns would be forwarded to the PC In response to landscaping concerns, Mr. Runkle stated that overhead power lines existed along the western property line, which were feet above grade. It was a narrow, but plantable area. They were considering a narrow, upright shrub, such as: Techny arbor vitae, airview juniper, or ornamental tree for winter interest. It would be a continuous wall of landscape material and installed at a mature height Mary O Keefe, 616 Carriage Hill Dr. and across Waukegan Road from the development. She stated that as she looked out her kitchen window, she would see the building. Of importance to her and others was preference for the building to be aesthetically pleasing. She also mentioned that others at the PC meeting were 13

14 concerned about adequate resident and guest parking. Regarding staff comments, she talked about the proposed building colors and felt that the yellow brick was a poor choice and would prefer the red brick that Glenview was known for. Regarding the trees, she would suggest Colorado blue spruce trees. Also, screening was proposed on the west side of the building and she would appreciate the same screening on the east side as well. In response, applicant stated that they were amenable to a change in brick color Regarding the architect, the architectural team presented an overview of the project. Walk up units for the residents were throughout the site Primary entrance and courtyard with amenities were pointed out on the rendering Front stoops and porches were emphasized within the landscaping. Attempt was to make a ground level relation between the public and private, which they feel is important in making a neighborhood feel within the site. Walking path around the site provides entry to units Primary entrance with pavers or stamped color concrete with drop off area Building was 5-stories along railroad right of way with different color shade of brick Building stepped down to a 4-story along Waukegan Intent of contrasting materials was to break up the vertical and horizontal nature of the building. (Neighbors comments would be considered) Composition around building was broken up with colors as well as projecting the base, unit plans in different colors, and unit porches. Layering of landscape from Waukegan Road: from sidewalk to semi-private to public yard within site to private entrance of resident unit Landscape was sparse in rendering but proposing denser landscaping. Intent was to differentiate ground floor from upper stories with change in brick color. 5-story portion with end caps and cornice line, projecting up along the rail line side. Intent to break up with undulating top surface. Building was 59 feet tall at the 5-story; 44 feet tall at the 4 th floor elevation Flat elevation showed scale in rhythm Material board was available for review with two metal colors and two brick colors Building intended focus was for active adults. Focus was on amenities in the courtyard, with private patio, shared pool, and was heavily landscaped. Courtyard can be seen from front yard but was set back. There would be no signage proposed. Development does not yet have a logo or name. Monument sign was submitted and applicant was seeking comments from the AC. Sign detail would be proposed at a later time. Comments made by commissioners regarding the building architecture were: Chairman Demsky stated that he appreciated the layering of the project. His concern was of changes to the proposal, such as: change to hardi plank, change to depth of building, eliminate metal panels. He mentioned that the Midtown Square which was applicant s development was not as successful with the changes made to it from drawing stage to reality. Chairman Demsky stated that if the proposed modern building with warm materials was changed to hardi plank and timber, he would not be receptive to it. 14

15 Applicant stated that the proposal represented the vision they had for the project. He added that there was more to do but overall what was proposed was their intent. Applicant stated that if AC preference was the proposed materials, they would move forward with it Architect mentioned that hardi panel had changed, was more expensive and close in cost to a metal panel. He was happy that all were committed to the proposed material. Commissioner Reynolds felt that the returns on the building and depth of the masonry were key. As presented, returns were two feet thick and concern was a reduction in depth Commissioner Reynolds mentioned that a one color building was monotonous. The contrast was strong on the 5-story and minimal on others. He liked the dark metal and suggested darkening more. He was in favor of the lighter base Applicant was in favor of the two brick option and could reconsider the cream color brick. Commissioner Jung commented that the building looked good as proposed, and he liked the dark metal panels. For residential, he felt it was strong and imposing and suggested to possibly tone it down a bit. Applicant stated that they were trying to emphasis the layering. He felt that they could lighten the building without losing the layering and contrast of material breaking up and emphasizing portions of it. At this time, elevations were reviewed. Concern was the west elevation had least amount of masonry. Four story of the building had the majority of metal with a base brick. Chairman Demsky commented that he liked the two metals, and mentioned consideration of a champagne color as one of the metals. Two different color windows were successful. Commissioner Reynolds was in favor of the townhome rhythm along Waukegan Road. He suggested considering some masonry on a portion of it. He felt that the south elevation wanted to wrap around to the east elevation. Applicant stated that charcoal portion of the 5 th story folded to the second story to re-emphasis the break without too many materials. Emphasis was on the bay projections with the silver material. Intent was the layering to respond to another portion of the building. Commissioner Reynolds commented on the south elevation and pointed out that brick was only at the base. He suggested treating the corner with special detail, possibly bookend it with brick somehow. Units were the same and the center was the same. South elevation would read as two wings of the building. Applicant would revisit and consider all commissioner comments. Regarding the lighting, applicant would use the bollard that would meet the down light requirements. All other lighting fixtures were in compliance. Regarding the proposed landscaping, comments made were: Commissioner Tracy commented on the density and mentioned that there was no room for landscaping on the north, west, or the south. Applicant stated that they would be asking for a variance of 80% impervious coverage and requirement was 50% impervious surface. They had no credit for rooftop or courtyard. 15

16 Parking was underground which applicant felt was important Applicant noted that the amenities area was heavily landscaped Landscaping would be lush on the perimeters Commissioner Tracy confirmed with applicant that there was an interior walk around the entire site Substantial buffer was necessary to give a sense of safety Commissioner Tracy suggested to ungulate the turf and plant material next to the building entrance to soften the entrance. Applicant was amenable to the suggestion Bedline could be changed for a meandering look Commissioner Reynolds commented that the first floor units were low to the ground with an elevated planting bed in front. He suggested adding a short rail, fence, or some type of landscaping to offer more screening, sense of security, and a separation from Waukegan Rd. Regarding the sign and location, comments made were: Canopy lettering was good Monument sign needed some revision; consider a couple of layers for more interest Several approved and interesting signs were mentioned for applicant to consider It was suggested that something less round be considered for the entrance. Applicant would consider a nice entry with plaza sense rather than a circular drive. Commissioner Reynolds suggested presenting an aerial shot with more ability to look around. Chairman Demsky stated that they would keep the neighbor comments in mind. There were no other comments at this time. Commissioner Reynolds moved in the matter of A , Active Living Apartments by Trammel Crow, Waukegan Road, that the Appearance Commission grant preliminary approval for architecture, landscaping, signage, and lighting based on the findings the petitioner through testimony and application materials has demonstrated compliance with Section of the Municipal Code, Appearance Plan, and in accordance with the following conditions: A, B, and C with taking into consideration all commissioner comments tonight. Commissioner Ciolek seconded the motion. Upon voice vote, motion carried. 16