Architectural Control Commission

1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING 2 ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMISSION 3 VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK 4 COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 5 September 8, 2016 6 7 Commissioners Present (6) 8 Alan Schwall, Chairman 9 F. Dirk Heidbrink 10 Robert Katz 11 Cliff Town 12 David Menn 13 Christopher Urbanczyk 14 15 Members Absent (1): 16 Lori Jordison 17 18 Others Present 19 Nehal Desai, owner of 2229 Oak 20 Aaron Cole, Lifetime Fitness 21 Multiple representatives for Heritage Woods Assisted Living project 22 Darrell Ebert, 2055 Techny Rd. 23 Liam Ginsburg, 2121 Second St. 24 25 Village Staff Present 26 Thomas Poupard, AICP, Director/Development and Planning Services 27 David Schoon, Assistant Director/Development and Planning Services 28 Michaela Kohlstedt, Senior Planner/Development and Planning Services 29 Jackie Clawson, Building Official 30 Colleen Brunner, Recorder 31 32 Call to Order 33 Acting Chairman Cliff Town called the meeting to order in the Terrace Room of Village Hall, 1225 Cedar 34 Lane; at 5:35 p.m. Chairman Schwall arrived at 6:15 p.m. 35 36 Roll Call 37 Roll was established. There was a quorum. 38 39 Review of Minutes 40 A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes from the August 11, 2016 meeting as 41 submitted. On a voice vote, 5 members voted aye. 42 43 Public Comments Regarding Items Not on the Agenda 44 There were none. 45 46 Chairman Schwall noted that there was a member of the audience present for the review of the single- 47 family elevations. He asked for a motion to modify the agenda to review those next. Member Menn 1  1 moved, seconded by Member Urbanczyk that the agenda be so amended. On voice the motion carried 2 unanimously. 3 4 New Single Family Home Elevations- 5 6 1. 2229 Oak- A motion was made and seconded to approve the proposed elevation. All members 7 voted in favor with Cliff Town abstaining. 8 9 2. 1088 Greenbriar- A motion was made and seconded to approve the proposed elevation. All 10 members voted in favor with Cliff Town abstaining. 11 12 Review of LifeTime Fitness Mixed Use Development Proposed Final Plan Elements at 1000 Skokie 13 Boulevard (PCD- 16-10) 14 15 David Schoon recapped the Board’s approval of the concept plan and the changes made during that 16 process resulting in the Board conceptually approving a mixed use development consisting of a Lifetime 17 Fitness, a 5-story, 304-unit apartment building and a Children’s Learning Adventure child care facility. 18 19 David Schoon then reviewed the final plan before the Commission and noted differences from the 20 concept plan approval documents. Originally the developer thought the abandoned Com Ed lot would 21 be available to use for the project’s emergency access. That is not available so the fire lanes are 22 proposed on the subject property where landscaping was proposed. The Fire Department has approved 23 the changes. For the apartment there are proposed exterior changes to the balconies and the entrance 24 but the signage will remain the same. The most crucial issues remaining are the design and landscaping. 25 26 Aaron Koehler from Lifetime Fitness presented a PowerPoint update. There are some site modifications 27 to the residential building such as; 1) shifting of the trash enclosure location due to the reconfigured fire 28 lanes, 2) proposed stucco on the upper level being replaced by fiber cement panels, 3) upgraded 29 arched windows and 4) the parking structure is now even or flush with the residential portion. It 30 originally was at a higher elevation. Changes to the Lifetime Fitness plan are 1) it was originally pre cast 31 construction but changed to steel, 2) the thin brick veneer is being changed to full size bricks, 3) the 32 upper roof area panel will be a band with an EFIS finish, 4) replacing the steel trellis across the front 33 with 8 ft. steel canopies and 5) signage will read Lifetime Athletic, only the wordage has changed, not 34 the size, color, lighting etc. There are no proposed changes to the Learning Center. 35 36 Chairman Schwall requested an update from the developer on how the fiber cement panels will be 37 attached to the exterior walls. He doesn’t want to see exterior fasteners. The developer will follow up 38 with that request. 39 40 A motion was made and seconded by finding that the proposed final design plans are consistent with 41 the concept design plans and recommended that the Board of Trustees approve the plans as submitted, 42 subject to the developer confirming how the fiber cement panels will be attached to the walls. 43 44 Review of Heritage Woods Assisted Living Facility at the SW Corner of Techny & Shermer Roads (PCD- 45 16-11) 46 47 Michaela Kohlstedt explained the 2005/2007 Techny and 2064/2074 Shermer sites that are being 48 proposed to be developed with an assisted living facility. It is currently zoned R-2 single family 2  1 residential. A small portion of the site is in the flood plain. The Village Board conducted a preliminary 2 review of the proposed plan for a building with 3 stories and 105 units and found the plan to be 3 generally appropriate. The Board indicated that the design should be residential in nature and needs 4 screening, the Board also suggested that the pitch of the roof be reduced. 5 6 The development requires a rezoning of the property and a text amendment for the signage to allow 7 more than one ground sign on the property. 8 9 The zoning code currently allows a maximum height of 35 feet by right and the proposed building height 10 is 36.5 feet, which is allowed y special permit approval. The facility will be staffed 24 hours per day and 11 has space for 65 parking spots. The landscape plan depicts landscaping around the foundation of the 12 building and on the north and east sides of the site as well as a proposed 6‘ fence on the west side which 13 stops 40’ from Techny Rd. 14 15 Darrell Ebert of 2055 Techny lives directly west of the project. He expressed his concerns about the bulk 16 of the project, the density, and the lack of landscaping or screening. The proposed garbage pick-up area 17 is 10 feet 6 inches from his lot line so he is concerned with the noise. The parking lot lighting will affect 18 his home but mostly the residents on Second Street. The exterior lights will be on 24 hours a day. 19 Currently he looks at a quiet wooded lot and it will be replaced by a 3-story structure. He is not in favor 20 of making any zoning changes to accommodate the project. 21 22 Liam Ginsburg of 2121 Second St. stated that most of the neighbors are not in favor of the project and 23 they are in the process of gathering together a petition. This project will directly affect his father’s 24 property at 2075 Second St. 25 26 The development team presented the project as affordable senior living. They have built similar facilities 27 in Vernon Hills and Gurnee. This facility is a state and federal funded facility for seniors who have run 28 out of money and their social security checks are paid to the facility for their occupancy. The facility is 29 intended for residents who are non- ambulatory and frail but do not need full care like a nursing home. 30 There is a private pay option with costs of $6800-7000 per month. 31 32 The developer feels the location is appropriate for the project as it is across the street from a 33 commercial development on one corner and a gas station on the other. It is located at the intersection 34 of two busy streets. The area is 95,000 sf., with 105 units, 3 stories with one main entrance and a 35 walking path. The site includes 4 parcels three of which contain single family homes and the fourth is 36 vacant. The parking lot will be using night time friendly lighting that avoids light spillage onto the 37 neighboring properties. The lot will mainly be used by employees and weekend visitors. All of the trees 38 on the site have been catalogued. Trees have been identified that need removal for safety reasons but 39 they will be saving numerous trees and installing 1033 caliper inches of trees. The requirement is 594 40 calipers. Evergreens will be added for screening in addition to tall trees. They have chosen evergreen 41 varieties that will work well with wet areas. The courtyard areas will have a lawn. 42 43 Member Jordison who is absent, sent a memo requesting no arborvitae as it does not tolerate salt from 44 the roads. Arborvitae is not part of the landscaping plan. The developer welcomes planting additional 45 landscaping along both sides of the fence area and screening by the parking lot. Trees cannot be planted 46 in the flood plain area. 47 3  1 The applicant continued to explain the general look of the development being residential with 50 foot 2 set backs on the west side so it is understated. The public side will have mixed material of stone and 3 fiber cement. The front porch will have a covering and the facades will have architectural bays. The 4 shingles will have a cedar shake look. The siding is Hardy fiber cement with the addition of brick and 5 cultured stone. Windows are Anderson fiberglass, white trim. The cooling units are Ptak and Vtak which 6 are hidden on the public façade side whenever possible. The color theme is blue and slate grey. 50 % of 7 the foundation will be covered by plantings. The rendering shown at the meeting did not show the full 8 landscaping to be planted. 9 10 The applicant further stated that the facility will employ 22 people. The traffic in and out will be mainly 11 employees and visitors. The entrances will be on Shermer Road only. For the residents there will be 12 small buses holding 14-16 people going out and in a few times per week. Traffic in and out of the facility 13 will be minimal. The parking lot lighting will be LED night time friendly with as little impact on the 14 neighbors as possible. The two 8 ft. x 4 ft. monument entrance signs will contain cultured stone bases 15 supporting the facility name. 16 17 Members were then asked to weigh in on the project. 18 19 Member Katz feels they achieved the residential character the Board desired. The entry is nice but more 20 landscaping would help soften the entire building. The west elevation needs more detail, it’s just too 21 plain. The color palette is fine. He would like to see the height lowered. Suggested that the west side 22 area could be a combination of fencing and landscaping. 23 24 Member Menn agrees with Member Katz. The west side should be addressed with a better screening 25 and landscaping. His experience with a family member in a similar facility is that the traffic in and out is 26 minimal. There is some ambulance activity and not many visitors. The parking lot is often fairly empty. 27 The location is typically in a neighborhood. 28 29 Member Heidbrink likes the residential look. Perhaps lower the roof pitch. He would like to see 30 additional landscaping. The lighting foot candles are fine. 31 32 Member Town understands the shape and design of the building. He appreciates that there is no access 33 from Techny Road and suggested they take a look at the landscaping at the southwest corner of 34 Willow/Shermer development and the privacy it affords. He likes the entrance look but would perhaps 35 add faux porches on the other sides to create the residential look. The exterior color scheme is good. 36 Would like to see the west side area stepped up with a berm and additional plantings. 37 38 Member Urbanczyk would like to see the west side fence offset and additional plantings with trees. If 39 the eaves were dropped down the overall look would be less massive. 40 41 Member Schwall would like to see extensive landscaping, screening and fencing that would be pleasing 42 to the neighbors. He feels the best feature is the main entrance but no one will see it. It would be nice 43 to add brackets, cantilevers and porches to improve the residential look. The west side looks like an 44 extended stay hotel. The set back is fine but the development is close to the corner which adds to its 45 bigness. If he were a neighbor he would not want the lights on 24/7. Would recommend a 5/12 roof 46 pitch, breaking up the straight gutter line and breaks in the wall lengths. He feels it is a big building for 47 where it is sitting and would not recommend this project. 48 4  1 The applicant responded as to the berms. There are drainage swales and inlets so extensive berming is 2 not possible. The south side cannot have any berming due to the flood plain. Could possibly add a slight 3 or gentle berm along Shermer Rd. 4 5 The ACC Commission did not make any motion to endorse the proposed development. They would like 6 the developer consider the suggested changes and come back with a revised plan. 7 8 Request for an Above-Ground Fuel Tank at Green Acres Country Club 9 10 Mr. Poupard noted that the Applicant could not attend, so the matter will be discussed at a future 11 meeting. 12 13 New Business 14 Mr. Poupard noted that the November ACC meeting is scheduled the same night as the Family Dinner. 15 Meeting will be cancelled. If necessary, a special meeting will be scheduled. 16 17 Old Business 18 There was no Old Business. 19 20 Adjourn 21 There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. On a voice 22 vote, the motion unanimously carried and the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. 23 24 Respectfully submitted, 25 26 Colleen Brunner 27 Recording Secretary 5