Appearance Review Commission (ARC)

Approved Copy Appearance Review Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2015 A meeting of the Appearance Review Commission was held on Monday, August 31, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Village Hall Conference Room, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Ch. Coen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Dick Coen, Chairman Beth Chaitman Sean Ehlke Sherry Flores Jim Hollis Elizabeth Low Absent was: Lisa Dunn Also Present: Jean Spagnoli, Village Planner Jeri Cotton, Secretary Public Comment: There was no Public Comment on non-agenda items. Business: 1. Deerbrook Mall renovations to the northern portion of the PUD – preliminary review David Hene, Sr. Real Estate Manager with Jewel, Peter Theodore, Architect with Camburas and Theodore, Bill Ferguson, Associate with Daniel Weinbach & Partners, Ltd., Gil Magnelli, Managing Associate with OKW Architects, Patti Mahony, Vice President Construction Management with Mid-America Asset Management and Michelle Panovich, Principal with Mid-America Asset Management were present. Mr. Magnelli explained they propose building a larger Jewel, which will be about 15,000 feet larger than the existing building as well as two outlot buildings. The new Jewel building will take over the vacant space adjacent to their current building. The drive aisle in front of the store will be reconfigured to create zero curb lines. They propose also adding bollards. Appearance Review Commission August 31, 2015 Page 2 of 7 The proposed building for Jewel includes a drive-thru pharmacy, a reconfigured parking to reduce drive aisle conflicts and more consistent grade levels. The pedestrian traffic will be moved further into the site. Mr. Magnelli discussed the proposed photometric plan. They will replace the existing 25’ metal halide light poles with new 30’ LED fixtures. The existing poles are white and square and they will match the color and shape for most of the poles. There will be one pole in front of the building that will be round. Mr. Ferguson discussed the landscape plans. There will be three different landscaping areas. 39” caliber of trees will be replaced with 54” caliber of trees. Mr. Ferguson explained the new parking islands/aisle endcaps will be similar to the existing island plantings. The retail “E” building will have extensive planting to stabilize the slope. The planting will be continued throughout the site, to create a stronger planting presence. They will be adding roses, day lilies and juniper plantings. The retail “F” building will have landscape treatment along the north and south sides, including the drive aisle to the north. The pharmacy drive thru will have a screening buffer added. Mr. Theodore initially thought knocking down the store was the proper thing to do, because the store was outdated and energy inefficient. The store was much smaller than the current food store trends. Mr. Theodore noted the existing architecture and colors are somewhat dated. The proposed building exterior will be developed by the activity within the store as well as its form and function. The proposed colors have warm tones and complement the existing center. Mr. Theodore indicated there is an alleyway between the Jewel building and the rest of the mall. He proposes creating a lattice or gate to create an offset between the two buildings. The proposed outlots will also look similar to the proposed building. He wants the new building to create a new, fresh look. Mr. Theodore discussed the proposed signage, which is more than what currently exists. He explained there are new departments and outlots creating a visibility issue, which create the need for additional signage. Mr. Theodore proposes adding two new signs and increasing the size of the Jewel Osco sign. The existing Jewel Osco sign is 150’ from Lake Cook Road and the new building will be 300’ from Lake Cook Road. There are new obstructions in front of the building as well. There will be a 5’ separation between the Jewel Osco building and the Back to Bed building for egress. He proposes a darker brown, louver gate between the buildings. Mr. Magnelli discussed the proposed outlot buildings. The existing outlot buildings transition from masonry and dryvit to just masonry on the Starbucks building. Mr. Magnelli proposes keeping a masonry building, but transitioning the colors to be similar to the proposed Jewel Osco building colors. The outlot “F” building will have a similar architectural style as the Subway building. Ch. Coen asked about the vacant space next to Subway. Ms. Panovich expects to have an application before the end of the year. Ch. Coen noted both outlots have Appearance Review Commission August 31, 2015 Page 3 of 7 outdoor seating areas proposed. Ms. Panovich believes there will be at least one food use in each building. Ch. Coen expressed concern about a traffic surge during food use hours. He noted some of the drive aisles in outlot “F” are shown as 24’. He noted the drive aisle can be 26’. Mr. Magnelli noted the parking stalls will be 19’ in length with a 24’ wide drive aisle per Village code. Ch. Coen expressed concern about the two-way parcel pickup area. He believes there needs to be a significant increase in pedestrian protection in the zero curb line area. Mr. Theodore suggested adding additional pedestrian lighting in the area. Ch. Coen believes the amount of traffic will be significantly increased. Ch. Coen discussed the proposed drive-thru lane. Mr. Magnelli explained there will be a single drive-thru lane with a by-pass lane. He indicated there would be enough room to stack up to four vehicles. Mr. Ehlke asked if the drive-thru window could be shifted to allow for at least one additional vehicle. Mr. Magnelli will work with store planning. Mr. Ehlke believes the corner parking area needs to be improved. Ms. Mahony will look into it. Mr. Ehlke noted the existing building has 389 spaces. The proposed building has 294 spaces for the larger Jewel Osco store. Mr. Magnelli explained the employees will park in the rear of the building. Ch. Coen noted there are a number of spaces along the west property line that are not useful. Mr. Ehlke indicated the parking aisle for outlot “E” has the trash enclosure. He questioned whether there is a better configuration. Mr. Ferguson explained the trash enclosure location allows it to be heavily screened. They looked into other locations, but it was not a straight shot. Mr. Ehlke asked the petitioner to look at other options so the trash pickup provider will not need to back up 200 feet. Ch. Coen believes the trash enclosure should be moved to the east of the building. Mr. Hollis believes there should be additional sidewalks on the site. Mr. Ferguson explained they do not have a sidewalk along Lake Cook Road. Mr. Hollis would prefer to have a sidewalk leading to the 72 spaces. Ch. Coen would also prefer to have a sidewalk connection from the west as well, to accommodate people walking from the Metra station. Ms. Chaitman expressed concern about the congestion within the center. Ms. Panovich explained the existing site has additional ingress and egress. They are proposing straightening out the north egress to improve the flow. In addition, the projected traffic numbers are lower than what was approved in 2005. Ch. Coen would prefer the trash enclosure for outlot “F” to be moved to the south side of the building. He asked the petitioner to look at rotating outlot “F” so it is parallel to the drive aisle. Mr. Hollis was disappointed with the number of honey locust trees and believes other varieties could be added. Mr. Ferguson believes honey locusts are the best tree for this situation. Mr. Hollis expressed concern about the gravel mulch at the end of the landscape islands travelling throughout the parking lot. Mr. Ferguson explained they could add a binder to better control the gravel. He noted it provides a place for people to stand as well as a place to store snow. Ch. Coen indicated there is a substantial length of parking along the north side of Lake Cook Road. He requested additional landscaping to be added to break up the large spance and add interest. Mr. Ferguson would look into adding some elm trees along Lake Cook Road. Appearance Review Commission August 31, 2015 Page 4 of 7 The commissioners discussed the proposed planters. Ms. Low suggested adding additional planters instead of bollards or pedestrian lights. The commissioners would prefer additional planters be added. Mr. Theodore will look into refining the planters. Ms. Spagnoli noted a walking path will need to be maintained during outdoor seasonal merchandising. Ms. Low asked if the cart corrals could be made more attractive. Mr. Theodore will speak with Jewel about the possibility of utilizing precast curbs to allow the carts to be stored. The commissioners discussed the photometric plan. Ch. Coen asked if the lighting in the rest of the center will be updated. Ms. Mahony indicated they will be upgrading the lighting throughout the center to LED as the center is redeveloped. Ch. Coen noted the photometric contrast between 6.8 f.c. at Jewel and the rest of the mall at 2.83 f.c. is substantial. Ms. Mahony noted the rest of the center would not be lit at 6.8 foot candles. Mr. Theodore will look at the photometrics, including the color, as a complete package. The commissioners believe the lighting needs to be balanced. Ms. Low asked if the mall will have white color poles throughout the center. Ms. Panovich indicated the poles will be white throughout the center. Ch. Coen noted the poles are 25’ high throughout the center, but the proposed poles are 30’ high. Mr. Theodore will look at dropping the poles down to 25’ high. Mr. Hollis noted the light spread cannot go beyond 90° to avoid light pollution of the night sky. Ms. Spagnoli noted the new Appearance Code proposes foot candles shall not exceed 1.5 f.c. for commercial parking lots. Ch. Coen asked about light spillage from the inside of the building. Ms. Theodore explained the internal LED lights will be oriented toward the inside of the store so it will reduce spillage. The commissioners discussed the proposed materials. Ch. Coen noted the proposed brick is full-depth, 4x12” utility-size brick. Mr. Theodore believes it is the correct scale for the building size. He noted the white on the canopies and upper end of the building is a Reynobond ACM (Aluminum Composite Material), which is a seamless, self- washing product. Mr. Theodore indicated the Nichiha fiber cement material will flag the store entrances, as well as a signature placement highlighting the building name. Mr. Theodore noted the Nichiha material is weather-resistant and permanent. The commissioners like the proposed Nichiha material. Ch. Coen would prefer not having a faux-wood material on this building. He noted there is no Nichiha on the other buildings in the Mall. Mr. Theodore indicated the brick on the outlot buildings would be smaller in size. Mr. Ehlke suggested adding changes to the parapet to reduce monotony on the façade. Mr. Theodore explained there is a sense of variation on the entries, because they are dropped back to create vertical variations. The bands and window frames will be white. Ch. Coen questioned how the Nichiha will handle the sign placement. Mr. Theodore noted they are proposing individual, channel letters. The commissioners discussed the proposed north elevation. Mr. Hollis noted the aluminum framing on the drive-up window does not appear white. Mr. Theodore explained the aluminum framing will be white. Ch. Coen confirmed the coping would Appearance Review Commission August 31, 2015 Page 5 of 7 also be white. He asked about “L” over the drive-thru roof. Mr. Theodore indicated they could make the “L” into a rectangle if the Commission prefers. Mr. Ehlke asked if the grade line would be level on all elevations. Ch. Coen asked how the drive-thru canopy would drain. Mr. Theodore explained the canopy would have an internal drain. Mr. Ehlke asked about the color and the surface of the background where the drive-thru sign is located. Mr. Theodore explained it would be a natural, aluminum color with a small gap for light to filter through. Mr. Hollis wanted to ensure the conduit and disconnect switches would not be visible through the screens. Ms. Flores expressed concern about the screen. Ch. Coen questioned whether the canopy would be constructed the same way if the signage was not approved on the canopy. He noted the Commission will need to see wall packs as well as anything else on the elevations. Ch. Coen noted the additional signage is not permitted by Village Code, so the petitioners will need to get a variation. The commissioners discussed the proposed west (rear) elevation. Mr. Theodore explained they propose face brick on this elevation. The doors will be painted to match the brick. The commissioners think the proposed materials are appropriate for a rear elevation. The commissioners discussed the proposed gate between Jewel and the main building. Mr. Theodore explained the gate is proposed to be integrated into the screening, and will be 25’ in height. The commissioners discussed outlot “E”. Mr. Magnelli indicated they would have black, fabric awnings. The storefront will be antique bronze in color. The rest of the materials will match the proposed Jewel Osco materials. Ms. Spagnoli noted the center has forest green awnings. Mr. Hollis asked why the cast stone base was added to this building. Mr. Magnelli explained this building would serve as a transition building from Jewel to the existing outlots, which have cast stone bases. Ch. Coen ensured the windows would have clear glazing. Mr. Magnelli noted the up and down fixtures would be compact fluorescent and would be located on the north and east elevations. The trash enclosure’s louvered metal utility doors will be painted to match the brick, which is on all four elevations of the structure. Mr. Hollis questioned whether the parapet height on the north and east elevations would screen the hvac units. Mr. Magnelli explained they would work with the engineers to ensure the hvac units are screened. Mr. Hollis believes the south elevation facade should be enlivened and the parapet height varied, as it will be visible from Jewel. The commissioners agreed. Mr. Magnelli explained they added generous landscaping to screen the rear of the building. The commissioners discussed outlot “F”. Ch. Coen ensured the colors and materials would be the same as outlot “E” and Jewel. The commissioners believe the rear elevation will not be as visible, so the façade does not need additional embellishment. The commissioners discussed the proposed Jewel Osco signage on the east elevation. Ms. Spagnoli explained there is now a cap of 250 square feet per the Zoning Ordinance Appearance Review Commission August 31, 2015 Page 6 of 7 but the existing sign is 294 feet (pre-regulation of cap). The proposed sign is 410 square feet. The commissioners would like to see a conforming sign on the elevation. Ms. Chaitman would not be in favor of endorsing a substantially larger sign. Mr. Ehlke would also like to see what was approved versus what was allowed by the other major tenants in the center. Mr. Hollis would also like to see the existing 294 square foot sign on the east elevation as well. Ch. Coen noted the top of the roof deck is at 23’. The top of the sign is shown at 24’. The Commission has the authority to approve a sign up to 3’ above the roof deck. The commissioners discussed the two additional wall signs on the east elevation. Ch. Coen noted the listing of products and services is generally not allowed. Mr. Theodore noted TCF Bank may want signage as well. The commissioners believe listing Wine & Spirits and Pharmacy would be menu board signs. The commissioners would not be in favor of supporting the additional signs on the east elevation. Mr. Theodore asked about a possible TCF Bank sign and showed a board with a proposed TCF Bank sign and an RX Drive-Thru sign on the east elevation with a total square footage of the three signs at 333 square feet. The Jewel Osco sign on the newly presented board has the Jewel Osco sign at 290, the TCF Bank sign at 15 square feet and the RX Drive-Thru sign at 23 square feet. He also reduced the Jewel Osco sign on the north elevation. Ch. Coen noted there was a variation granted in 2002 for the bank sign at 15 square feet. The commissioners are okay with the bank sign at 15 square feet. The commissioners also believe the proposed 294 square foot Jewel Osco sign is okay, as it was previously approved at that size for the east elevation. The commissioners discussed the proposed RX Drive-Thru sign, which would be considered a directional sign because it has an arrow. Ms. Chaitman noted that without the arrow, the RX Drive- Thru sign would be considered an additional sign. Mr. Theodore believes a reference to the Drive-Thru pharmacy is necessary as it is an added feature to the store. Ms. Flores noted the Highland Park location does not have signage calling out the Drive-Thru. Mr. Hollis suggested adding ground-mounted directional signs. Mr. Hene would like an illuminated wall sign denoting the Pharmacy Drive-Thru on the north elevation. Ch. Coen believes the RX is more advertising, but would be okay with the words Drive-Thru on the north elevation. Mr. Ehlke would not be in favor of the RX Drive-Thru with an arrow on the east elevation. He would be okay with a Drive-Thru sign on the north elevation. Ms. Flores agreed. The drive-thru sign would be internally illuminated channel letters at 18 square feet. Mr. Hollis would not be in favor of the additional signage because they did not allow the additional signage for Walgreens. Mr. Hene explained Jewel is further from the main road than Walgreens and the drive-thru is a new feature in this store. Ch. Coen, Mr. Ehlke and Ms. Chaitman are conflicted, based on Mr. Hollis’ comments and setting a precedent. After some thought, they would not be in favor of the additional signage. Ms. Chaitman believes people will know there is a drive-thru at the location in a short period of time. Appearance Review Commission August 31, 2015 Page 7 of 7 The commissioners discussed the proposed Jewel Osco sign on the north elevation. Mr. Theodore noted the proposed sign will be 184 square feet, which is the maximum size sign stated in the Deerfield Zoning Ordinance at 4% of the wall area. The commissioners discussed the proposed informational signs. Ms. Spagnoli explained the proposed informational signs are larger than the 2 square feet that is allowed by the Village’s sign provisions. The proposed ground sign is also larger than the allowed 2 square feet. Mr. Theodore will update those signs so they conform to Deerfield’s Ordinance. Ms. Mahony asked if she can get a read from the Commission on updates before the September 24th Plan Commission meeting. Adjournment There being no further business or discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, Jeri Cotton Secretary