Plan Commission

APPROVED PLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD The Plan Commission of the Village of Deerfield held a Public Hearing Meeting at 7:30P.M. on April 14, 2016 at the Village Hall, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Present were: Mary Oppenheim, Chairperson Larry Berg Al Bromberg Elaine Jacoby Stuart Shayman Absent were: Bob Benton Jim Moyer Also present: Jeff Ryckaert, Principal Planner Dan Nakahara, Associate Planner Public Comment on a Non-Agenda Item No public comment on a non-agenda item (1) Public Hearing re: Request for Approval to Amend the Parkway North Center Sign Plan to Allow a Wall Sign at 7 Parkway North Center and Workshop Meeting re: Request for Approval of Final Development Plan for 7 Parkway North (American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology) Donna Pugh, Attorney, Foley & Lardner LLP, submitted proof of mailing, stated that the Petitioners are seeking an Amendment to the Parkway North Sign Plan to allow a wall sign. The proposed wall sign for ABPN will not exceed one percent of the south building wall. Ms. Pugh then introduced Dr. Larry Faulkner, President and CEO of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN), the owner of the 7 Parkway North property, to speak on ABPN’s goals for the property. Dr. Faulkner identified ABPN as one of twenty-four member boards of the American Board of Medical Specialists, which provides board certification and maintenance of the certification for physicians throughout the United States. ABPN focuses on two of those specializations: psychiatry and neurology. ABPN’s main function is to determine the characteristics and qualifications of individuals who seek to become Board Certified in psychiatry and neurology and to develop examinations to determine their competence in providing quality patient care in psychiatry and neurology. APBN is the only recognized Board in the United States that develops and maintains the examinations that certify Public Hearing April 14, 2016 Page 2 psychiatrists and neurologists. ABPN will use their proposed 7 Parkway North building as a meeting place to develop the certification examinations for psychiatry and neurology, host small conferences throughout the year in the fields of psychiatry and neurology to gather and assist in writing the examinations. There will also be larger conferences a few times a year for individuals from all of the major associations and professional organizations in psychiatry and neurology to assess certain important controversial issues in regards to developing, identifying and evaluating the competence of psychiatrists and neurologists. Chairperson Oppenheim asked the petitioners explain their request to land bank the majority of their parking spaces. Nate Koschmann, Architect, Perkins Eastman, commented that their decision to land bank the majority of the parking spaces was based on ABPN’s use of the property, in which there will be a small number of full time employees whose offices are located in the building while the vast majority of individuals visiting the building are going to be conference attendees flying in from out of town and staying in nearby hotels. He added that based on the function of ABPN’s programs and conferences, the petitioners are confident that only fulltime employees will be driving to the facility on a daily basis, whereas conference attendees will be coming from nearby hotels, or be transported by hotel shuttles or taxi services. The landbanking plan demonstrates how the landbanked area will meet the parking requirements should their needs change in the future. The number of required parking for the proposed office building is 150 parking space, with 48 parking spaces provided and 92 parking spaces being landbanked. Mr. Koschmann commented that there is not a current demand for bike racks among the fulltime ABPN employees, and it is not foreseen that any of the conference attendees will be using bikes to travel to and from their building, so they are not planning on installing bike racks on-site. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that the conference attendees are going to be flying in from out of town and staying in nearby hotels, and are not likely to use bicycles to travel from the hotel to ABPN’s facility. Mr. Koschmann commented that it was a very short distance from the hotel (referring to the Marriot Hotel within the Parkway North Center) to the 7 Parkway North property, and conference attendees are foreseen to walk over or be dropped off by the hotel shuttle. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that bike storage was put into the Village’s Zoning Code as an effort to encourage biking as a mode of transportation. She asked if there was a place to put a bike rack on the 7 Parkway North property in the future if there were employees that expressed interest in riding their bikes to work. Mr. Koschmann confirmed that they would be able to find an area for bike storage should the need arise. Mr. Koschmann presented the Plan Commission with the building materials samples for the exterior of the building (brick, metal and glass building samples). He noted that the brick will be a Norman brick size to achieve a more linear look to the building. The design and materials of the 7 Parkway North building are meant to keep with the design and look of the other buildings in the Parkway North Center. Mr. Koschmann noted that they addressed the special use standards as part of their submission. Mr. Koschmann Public Hearing April 14, 2016 Page 3 clarified that of the150 parking spaces, 92 parking spaces will be landbanked. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if the Petitioners were still planning on providing 18 parking spaces at grade, and 40 underground parking garage spaces for the 7 Parkway North property. Mr. Koschmann confirmed this and that the number of parking spaces they will be providing has not changed. Craig Soncrant, Landscape Architect, Wolff Landscape Architecture, commented that there have been minor adjustments to the landscape plan since the prefiling conference but overall landscape design is consistent with the landscaping throughout the Parkway North Center. There is an informal landscape approach at the outer areas of the subject property, and the landscaping becomes a little more formal in nature closer to the building. The landscape design at the approach coming in off of Parkway North Boulevard creates a guiding path towards the entrance of the building. The parking area will be well landscaped and screened, with a large grass area (the land banked area) in front of the parking lot, which creates a softened look between the building and the parking lot. There is a patio at the back of the building that approaches the Parkway North pond, with some additional screening on the north side of the building. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that the tree preservation plan has a number of existing, reasonably healthy ash trees that are going to stay on the property. Mr. Soncrant confirmed that upon initial inspection the trees appeared to be in decent shape; and that their plan is to preserve those ash trees. Steve Corcoran, Traffic Engineer, Eriksson Engineering Associates LTD, prepared the parking and traffic study for the 7 Parkway North property. Mr. Corcoran considered the traffic study for the new proposed building for the 8 Parkway North property in his traffic study, and found that the road system within the Parkway North Center can handle the traffic from both the 7 Parkway North and the proposed 8 Parkway North properties, as well as the traffic generated by the Woodview apartment building. Mr. Corcoran reiterated that their proposal to landbank much of the parking area was based on ABPN’s low demand for parking at the facility due to the unique use of the building. He noted that there will be 58 parking spaces on the property, but the landbanked area would allow for an additional 92 parking spaces for a total number of 150 parking spaces. There are two access easements for the property: One easement is to the east, the Walgreens Property at 6 Parkway North, which is a relocation of an existing easement to allow for Walgreens to have a second access in and out of their parking lot, as well as to provide a cross emergency access for the fire department to access both properties in case the main driveways are blocked. The second easement is being worked out to the west, off of the main north/south road (property of 8 Parkway North) to allow 7 Parkway North access to and from their parking garage and visitor lot. Mike Renner, Principal, Engineer, Eriksson Engineering Associates LTD, commented that the petitioners are currently working on finalizing the agreements for the 7 utilities and 4 easements; and pointed out that the utilities and easements are not only going to be beneficial to 7 Parkway North, but to the other Parkway North Center properties as well. Mr. Renner commented that the dry utilities including electric, telephone and cable Public Hearing April 14, 2016 Page 4 TV are going to be relocated as well; however, they are working with their neighbors to ensure that their business operations are not inconvenienced during the relocation, and are going to perform the relocations after work hours or on the weekends. 7 Parkway North has been working with the Village as well as 8 Parkway North on the sewer water to ensure that there is adequate retention provided (with consideration of the land banked spaces). Mr. Renner reiterated that their parking and traffic study found that the infrastructure and roadway improvements made for the property are adequate to serve the building. Chairperson Oppenheim asked staff for clarification on if there is an understanding that the easements and agreements need to be accomplished by the first or second reading of the ordinance. Mr. Ryckaert commented that standard practice was that the easements and agreements would need to be completed by the seconded reading of the ordinance with the Board of Trustees. Ms. Pugh commented that the easements are completed, and they are all out for signature, as well as under review by the Village’s Engineering Department. Chairperson Oppenheim asked the petitioners to speak on their request for approval to Amend the Parkway North Center Sign Plans to allow a Wall Sign at 7 Parkway North Center, and commented that the sign is in conformance with the Village’s Code, but the reason the sign needed a formal approval was that it was not a part of the preliminary approval for the 7 Parkway North site. Ms. Pugh commented that the sign is very understated and tasteful. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that the sign identifies the building and the tenant (ABPN). (2) Public Hearing re:Request for Approval to Amend the Shoppers Court Commercial Planned Unit Development to Permit Major Renovations to the 636 Deerfield Road Building to Convert This Building Into a Multi-Tenant Building and Renovations to the Sidewalk at the West End of the Village Owned Parking Lot; and a Special Use for a Self-Improvement Facility for Shredd415 Deerfield LLC. (The Special Use Portion for Shredd415 Was Continued Because the Petitioner Is Not Ready to Proceed.) Johnathan Berger, Managing Member, Bensenville Associates, LLC and new owner of Deerfield Shopper’s Court, commented that the 636 Deerfield Road building is a vacant single story 14,000 square foot building that was occupied for about 65 years by a single tenant. The building has had very little maintenance or modernization over the years and as a result is functionally obsolete and unattractive. The petitioner’s business plan is to re-lease the property and in order to do this the entire building needs to undergo a complete renovation. The addition of store front windows and doors on the east and west side of the building will allow the building owners to divide the property into smaller spaces (smallest space being 1,800 square feet) with as many as five tenants. The petitioners are confident that there is a demand for smaller tenant spaces for Deerfield. Mr. Berger noted that in order to put doors on the east façade, the Village- Public Hearing April 14, 2016 Page 5 owned sidewalk needs to be slightly raised to meet the bottom of the doors. The petitioners are also seeking permission to place signage and lights over the Village owned sidewalk. There will be railings going up the ramp to the building, per the staff’s recommendations. The petitioners are in conversation with the Village to receive permission to restripe one row of parking in the municipal parking lot (no parking spaces are being eliminated, just relocated). The petitioners are also planning on adding a new sidewalk on the west side of the building to allow for store front windows and doors on that side of the building as well. In order to add the sidewalk on the west side, 3 parking spaces will be relocated from the west side to the north side of the building, and one landscape island with 3 trees will to be removed (one of the trees will be added back to the property). Public art and sculptural bike racks are planned on the west side of the building. Martina Stoycheva, Architect, Partners in Design Architects, Inc., commented that the 636 Deerfield Road building is the first visible building in the commercial district as traffic enters the Village from the east. The petitioner’s goal is to enhance the visual appearance of both the interior and exterior of the building, which includes stripping the many layers of paint from the exterior brick of the building to reveal the original brick and stain it to give a fresh look to the building. The metal detailing that will be added to the exterior of the building pays tribute to the original design of the building and concurrently gives it a modernized look. The address of the building (636) is going to be displayed on the decorative fin of the building, and the addition of a steel brow along the top trim of the building is going to have tenant signage resting on top of it. There are going to be improvements to the landscape planters and landscaping throughout the property. The petitioner noted that their goal is to transform the building into a 3 sided building with commercial tenants on all 3 sides. Mr. Berger commented that the doors are going to be set back by two feet on the east side, and feels that it is an exciting look both architecturally and aesthetically. These recessed doors will be an operationally functional feature that expands the sidewalk by two feet. The sidewalk is going to be a spacious 8 feet wide, and the sidewalk is only going to be impacted by one foot when the doors are opened. Ms. Stoycheva commented that in order to achieve the transformation of the building into a 3 sided commercial store front building, extensive civil improvements will have to be made, including raising the sidewalk on the east façade so that the store fronts are even with the sidewalk and accessible; adding the two additional steps down to the parking lot; and, creating a grade that allows storm water to drain away from the building. Mr. Berger explained that the current asphalt impact is designed in a way that allows storm water to flow away from the doors of the building, and the storm water is going to continue to flow in the same pattern away from the building even with the slight grade change. Chairperson Oppenheim asked how many inches the sidewalk was proposed to be raised on the east side of the building. Ms. Stoycheva commented that the sidewalk will be raised approximately 14 inches. Mr. Berger explained that there is a slight slope in the grade on the east side of the building and the slope levels out at the north side of the building at the highest point of the property. Public Hearing April 14, 2016 Page 6 Ms. Stoycheva commented that their landscape plan included improvements to the landscape island. Chairperson Oppenheim commented asked staff if mitigation would be required for the 3 trees that were being removed. Mr. Ryckaert commented that it is not a residential property therefore the Village’s tree ordinance does not apply to commercial property, and mitigation would not be required but the property has a landscape plan that is being enhanced. Mr. Berger commented that although they are removing 3 trees they are adding one tree back to the property along with additional plants and landscaping. Chairperson Oppenheim acknowledged that the petitioners are limited in areas that they can plant a tree on the property. Mr. Berger commented that they are going to be making landscaping improvements to the areas that have existing landscaping on the property to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Stoycheva commented that they covered the signage criteria with the Appearance Review Commission (ARC), and reiterated that the building is going to have the address displayed on the decorative fin, and that tenant signage is going to be placed on the steel brow element. The petitioners are largely focusing on stabilizing the interior of the building structurally. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that many residents in the Village are very familiar with the unique interior of the building as the building previously served as a market and later a furniture store. Mr. Berger commented that the trusses were hidden by a dropped sealing for many years, and that they have pulled the sealing down to expose the trusses. A lot of work has been done to ensure the structural stability and safety of the building. Commissioner Shayman asked about the signage criteria for the building’s tenants, and if their signage would be uniform. Mr. Berger commented that all of the tenants’ signage is going to have one color lettering (white), and their logos will be allowed to have two colors which is consistent with the current signage criteria in Shopper’s Court. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if the ARC has approved their signage criteria. Mr. Berger confirmed, and commented that their conversations with the ARC were very productive and inspired a lot of positive changes to their signage design and criteria. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that a sign variation was needed for the property since the petitioners were requesting an additional identification sign. She added that two building identification signs would be allowed if the property were a corner lot and would not warrant a sign variation. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that the property visibly appeared to be a corner lot, and asked staff why the 636 Deerfield Road building was not considered a corner lot. Mr. Ryckaert noted that the actual corner lot was legally the municipal parking lot, and not the lot that the 636 Deerfield Road building is on. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that the other variation that was requested was for the height of the identification sign being above the allowed 15 feet from grade. The building identification sign is being placed on an existing architectural element (the decorative fin) that cannot be lowered as it is structurally a part of the building. Public Hearing April 14, 2016 Page 7 Commissioner Shayman asked if the brick recesses on the fin of the building were being removed. Mr. Berger confirmed that the brick recesses were being removed. Chairperson Oppenheim asked about the size of the square panels on the brick wall on the west side of the building that the petitioners are proposing as a platform for public art. The petitioners commented that the exact size of the square panels was not known but their thought was to place the art directly inside of the architectural squares while incorporating them into one unified wall art piece. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that the public art piece would have to work as a whole, and that it would be most visually appealing to incorporate the squares into one art piece, rather than having nine individual art pieces on brick squares. Mr. Berger agreed, and commented that the art piece would have to work from a longer distance away and up close. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that there has been a lot of discussion about placing public art on the side of the 636 building over the years, and is confident that there is going to be a lot of enthusiasm from the community to transform that wall into public art. Commission Berg inquired about the exterior lighting and signage lighting. Ms. Stoycheva commented that the signage will be internally lit and will have a white base and black sides and back. The building will be lit with sconces and inspired by the midcentury feel that the design of the building embodies. There will also be lighting coming from Deerfield Road and the existing parking lot lighting. Commissioner Bromberg inquired about the trees on the property. Chairperson Oppenheim reiterated that one of the landscaped islands with 3 trees was being removed, and commented that there is very limited space on the property to place trees. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that transforming the building into a 3 sided commercial store front building with windows on all 3 sides is going to give the building a more aesthetically pleasing look, along with the additional landscaping on the property. Commissioner Bromberg asked the petitioners what is their development schedule for the building, and their goal for moving tenants into the building. Mr. Berger commented that their architect is currently working on their construction drawings; and their goal is to have their plans submitted for a building permit by May or June. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if there are potential tenants interested in the space. Mr. Berger confirmed that there is a lot of interest in the building. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if each tenant space is going to be around 2,000 to 3,000 square feet. Mr. Berger commented that there may be a tenant space as small as 1,800 square feet; and that there is interest from tenants for a space as large as 8,000 square feet, so the sizes of the tenant spaces are going to vary. Mr. Berger added that there is a tenant interested in the entire 14,000 square foot space, but he is not interested in entertaining that proposal, and is set on dividing the building into a multi-tenant space. Ideally, the north side of the building (the back of the building) is going to house a commercial tenant, and the south side of the building is going to serve as a retail tenant store front. The prospective tenant, Shredd415, for the 636 building would be a commercial tenant as it Public Hearing April 14, 2016 Page 8 is a self-improvement facility, and would therefore be located on the north side of the building. There being no further business to discuss a motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing. Respectfully Submitted, Mary Glowacz  APPROVED PLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD The Plan Commission of the Village of Deerfield held a Workshop Meeting at 7:30 P.M. on April 14, 2016 at the Village Hall, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Present were: Mary Oppenheim, Chairperson Larry Berg Al Bromberg Elaine Jacoby Stuart Shayman Absent were: Bob Benton Jim Moyer Also present: Jeff Ryckaert, Principal Planner Dan Nakahara, Associate Planner (1a) Discussion of Wall Sign and Final Development Plan for 7 Parkway North in the Parkway North Center on Site 7 (American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology) Chairperson Oppenheim explained that the petitioners are requesting the Plan Commission’s favorable recommendation to the Board of Trustees based on their substantial conformance with their previously approved Preliminary Development plan and approval to amend the Parkway North Center Sign Plan to allow a wall sign at 7 Parkway North. The Commissioners were in favor of the requests and thought that the proposed building will be an asset to the community. The Commissioners also felt that the wall sign was appropriate for the building and did not have any issues with it. Commissioner Bromberg motioned to approve the Amendment to the Parkway North Center Sign Plan to allow a Wall Sign at 7 Parkway North, and the Final Development Plan for 7 Parkway North in the Parkway North Center on Site 7. Commissioner Jacoby seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: (5) Berg, Bromberg, Jacoby, Shayman, Oppenheim Nays: (0) None The motions passed and will be on the May 2nd Village Board Meeting agenda. Workshop Meeting April 14, 2016 Page 2 (2a) Discussion of 636 Deerfield Road Building Renovations Commissioner Bromberg, Commissioner Berg and Commissioner Shayman were all in agreement that the building renovations for the 636 Deerfield Road building were improvements to the existing building and very aesthetically appealing. Chairperson Oppenheim asked staff if the pending agreement between the Village and the owner of the 636 building for the changes along the east side of the building affected the Plan Commission’s ability to send a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Ryckaert confirmed that the Village Manager’s Office is in conversation with the owners of the 636 building about developing a formal agreement for the changes to the municipal parking lot. He noted that the Plan Commission is able to proceed with their recommendation to the Board in regards to the 636 building. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if it was necessary for the Plan Commission to state their support of the changes to the municipal parking lot as a part of their recommendation to the Board, or if it was implicit in their approval of the petition. Mr. Ryckaert commented that it was implicit in their approval, but the Plan Commission could state it as a part of their recommendation if they found it necessary. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that the changes to the building are both necessary and sensible, and feels that the changes to the sidewalk and the parking lot are important for safety reasons. Commissioner Shayman motioned to approve the request to amend the Shoppers Court Commercial Planned Unit Development to permit major renovations to the 636 Deerfield Road Building to convert the building into a multi-tenant building and renovations to the sidewalk at the west end of the Village owned Parking Lot. Commissioner Jacoby seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: (5) Berg, Bromberg, Jacoby, Shayman, Oppenheim Nays: (0) None The motions passed and will be on the May 2th Village Board Meeting agenda. Commissioner Bromberg motioned to continue the request for approval for a Special Use for a Self-Improvement Facility for Shredd415 Deerfield LLC to the Plan Commission Public Hearing Meeting on June 9th, 2016. Commissioner Berg seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: (5) Berg, Bromberg, Jacoby, Shayman, Oppenheim Nays: (0) None The motions passed and will be on the June 9th Plan Commission Public Hearing Meeting agenda. There being no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Mary Glowacz