Architectural Control Commission

1 APPROVED 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING 3 ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMISSION 4 VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK 5 COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 6 March 10, 2016 7 8 Commissioners Present (7) 9 Alan Schwall, Chairman 10 F. Dirk Heidbrink 11 Lori Jordison 12 Robert Katz 13 David Menn 14 Cliff Town 15 Christopher Urbanczyk 16 17 Others Present 18 Steven Rezabek, AIA, LEED, Senior Associate, Pappageorgehaymes Partners 19 Rob Wasserman, Rainmaker, The Jacobs Companies, LLC 20 Bryan Knigge, President, Tree & Timber, Inc. 21 Christopher Lonergan, Architect, HKM Architects & Planners, Inc. 22 Steve Friedman, KZF Builders 23 Brian Pawlik, Mornigside 24 25 Village Staff Present 26 Thomas Poupard, AICP, Director, Development & Planning Services 27 Nick Desario, Assistant Director, Development and Planning Services 28 Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary 29 30 Call to Order 31 Chairman Schwall called the meeting to order in the Terrace Room of Village Hall, 1225 Cedar Lane, at 32 5:30 p.m. 33 34 Roll Call 35 Roll was established. There was a quorum. 36 37 Review of Minutes 38 Commissioner Katz moved, seconded by Commissioner Menn, to approve the February 11, 2016, 39 meeting minutes as submitted. On a voice vote, there were all ayes, and the motion carried 40 unanimously. 41 42 Public Comments Regarding Items Not on the Agenda 43 There were none. 44 45 Building Permit Extension Request 770 Skokie Boulevard 46 Assistant Director Desario advised that the multi-family building is still under construction. He noted the 47 building permit duration is 18 months, and today marks the expiration. Morningside is requesting an 1  1 extension, to complete the development, to September 14, 2016. He advised that there are 30-40 unit 2 occupancies thus far. He shared the basic construction schedule (three sections). Landscaping will be 3 completed in June. 4 5 Chairman Schwall asked if there were any noteworthy problems casing the project to be delayed. Mr. 6 Poupard responded it was a large project and it was not expected that it could be completed in 18 7 months. 8 9 Mr. Brain Pawlik stated he was present on behalf of the developer. There were no further questions. 10 11 Commissioner Katz moved, seconded by Commissioner Menn, to approve the extension to September 12 30, 2016. On a voice vote, there were all ayes, and the motion carried unanimously. 13 14 Commissioner Jordison arrived at 5:34 p.m. 15 16 Review of PC Docket No. 15-19: 1179-1275 Shermer Road – Jacobs Homes Townhouses 17 Director Poupard advised that the Plan Commission recommended approval. He noted the unit mix has 18 changed. The reconfiguration of Shermer Road was referenced (the curb line will stay in place); currently 19 at concept-plan stage. 20 21 Director Poupard gave a brief introduction, noting that the Plan Commission had completed its review 22 and it was now before the Board of Trustees. He asked the applicant to present the project to the 23 Commission. 24 25 Mr. Rezabek introduced Messrs. Wasserman and Knigge. He advised the townhomes divide into 12 26 buildings (of various bedroom sizes and stories). Renderings and a PowerPoint presentation (site, 27 survey/parcel, etc.) were illustrated. 28 29 Commissioner Heidbrink arrived at 5:44 p.m. 30 31 Chairman Schwall asked if the single lot at the south end was part of the development. Mr. Rezabek 32 advised it is not and explained same. 33 34 Mr. Rezabek showed contextual photos. He shared the architectural site plan, and noted the bulk of the 35 townhomes are 3-4 stories. There are 10 steps going up to the front door, 6.8 ft. above grade; 2.8 ft. 36 higher than garage side. Various unit configurations were depicted. All townhomes have a two-car 37 garage. There is open space in the center of the development. There is a meandering pedestrian path 38 along the South and sidewalks on the front side. 39 40 It was asked what the setback is off of Shermer Road. Mr. Rezabek advised that it was approximately 12- 41 14 ft. 42 43 Mr. Rezabek stated the Emerson Group’s facility would be rebuilt on the southern/western lot. It was 44 noted the South elevation offers views in between buildings. 45 46 Materials are: Renaissance stone base, two levels (three colors) of brick, asphalt-shingle mansard roof 47 (brick with coping; 43 ft. high to top of parapet) with dormer. Windows are vinyl. Garage door color will 2  1 be Stone Gray. Aluminum gutters and downspouts. Metal railings. A sample material board was 2 distributed. 3 4 Mr. Rezabek noted there are one and two-story alternating bays. Front façade has two bays to provide 5 relief. Ceiling height is 9 ft. Rear side has a projected deck above the garage door with access through 6 the kitchen. 7 8 Mrs. Rezabek advised D units have gable roofs, outdoor decks; garage extends out in rear; window wells 9 on basement level. A units are three stories (22 ft. wide). B units are four stories (18 ft. wide), C units are 10 25 ft. wide. Landscaping will include fencing. 11 12 Mr. Knigge discussed landscaping. He noted trees are added for neighbors’ privacy. Evergreens are 13 placed along the ends of the road. There is a crushed stone path along the back line. 14 Mr. Rezabek identified the storm water vault (15 ft. of grade change). 15 16 Mr. Knigge continued noting parkway trees are increased along Shermer Road (planted behind the 17 fence; 4 ft. off of sidewalk which also increased). Mr. Rezabek advised there is 2 ft. of space between the 18 carriage walk and property line. Mr. Knigge stated perennial shrubs will be planted. 19 20 Director Poupard explained what was being proposed in terms of changing the flow of traffic on 21 Shermer Road and adding parking. He noted that the existing curb line would remain. Commissioner 22 Katz asked and Mr. Rezabek responded that there would be 21 ft. from the curb to the property line 23 (and delineated same). 24 25 Commissioner Heidbrink asked if there are two or three colors of red. Mr. Rezabek advised there are 26 two. He noted the range will be tight with full brick everywhere. 27 28 Commissioner Katz asked how far the buildings are from each other. Mr. Rezabek responded that they 29 are 15 ft. apart. Chairman Schwall asked how wide entryways are between buildings. Mr. Rezabek 30 advised there is 57 ft. He noted condensers will be placed on roof, patio, or front yard with screening. 31 32 Building comparisons were discussed. Commissioner Urbanczyk stated he would like to see height 33 variety. Chairman Schwall noted buildings 2 and 4 appear as condo buildings. Mr. Rezabek reminded of 34 grade changes. Chairman Schwall suggested three and four-stories within the 2 and 4 buildings. He 35 stated this would break up the massive wall. Commissioner Katz concurred buildings are tall and long 36 with no relief along Shermer Road. 37 38 Chairman Schwall noted that the Petitioner made accommodations for the residents along the rear; 39 however, he noted that many more people will see the Shermer Road elevations. Chairman Schwall 40 noted the creativity is in the rear and the mass is on Shermer Road. 41 42 Mr. Rezabek advised the goal is to create a gateway project to support downtown businesses. The 43 location of the green space in the center was discussed. 44 45 Chairman Schwall advised that the two types of townhomes make this appear as two different 46 developments. 47 3  1 Commissioner Urbanczyk advised he would like to see a variety (of roofs, façade) on Shermer Road. He 2 departed the meeting at 6:33 p.m. 3 4 Director Poupard advised the new piece/ceiling height on Shermer Road is 39 ft. Mr. Rezabek noted 5 some heights are above parapet (and some are not). 6 7 Commissioner Katz stated he has an issue with such a long building, the mass, and the height in not such 8 an urban area; not pedestrian scale. He noted the style on Shermer Road is very nice. Street parking was 9 briefly discussed. Mr. Rezabek suggested units may be able to be shifted to accommodate seven units 10 per building. Commissioner Katz stated he prefers losing units rather than shifting them. 11 12 Member Town felt the color palette for the townhomes was generally very good. He said that traffic 13 calming measures were necessary on this section of Shermer Road and it was not necessary for it be a 14 four-lane road. He felt the introduction of on-street parking across the frontage would help slow traffic 15 and also effectively provide more of a setback for the townhomes. He felt the side elevations of the end 16 units of the townhomes could benefit from more architectural relief, such as extended bays of 17 decorative brickwork. He also said that it seemed little attention had been paid to the landscaping along 18 the backs of homes that face Church Street and that more landscape material should be added to 19 protect those neighbors. 20 21 Member Katz felt the general architectural theme was good. He said it appeared the Plan Commission 22 and applicant had devoted most of their attention to the rear property line and that the view or 23 Shermer is going to be very important. He felt there were too many townhome units facing Shermer 24 Road and that the “voids” (spaces) between units were too small. As a result he feared that someone 25 driving would see a solid visual wall along Shermer Road. He did like the mix of unit types. 26 27 Member Heidbrink agreed that the introduction of on-street parking was key for this development, or 28 the units would have the appearance of being right along the travel lanes. He was not as concerned as 29 others were about the need for a design variation of the homes, as they have staggered setbacks. 30 31 Member Jordison liked the design, but said her biggest concern is the relationship of the homes to 32 Shermer Road. She said on-street parking would definitely help. She suggested that “bump outs” be 33 introduced along Shermer Road to help as a traffic calming measure and to also provide a space for 34 much needed street trees. She also suggested that the drive aisles leading into the development should 35 have an enhanced landscape treatment to create a more formal entrance. 36 37 Member Menn said most of his concerns had been stated. He reiterated that on-street parking along 38 Shermer Road was a must. He also said he would like to see more variety added to the rooflines along 39 Shermer Road. 40 41 To summarize, Commissioners’ final comments for Petitioner to consider include: 42  Commend Petitioner; like colors; would like to see more design work at ends of units; more 43 elements/variety along Shermer Road; unsafe to have a carriage walk without protection; more 44 landscaping for neighbors on the West 45  Would like to see detail on end units; narrow the street and create relief; color palette is fine. 46 Height and length of buildings on Shermer Road could be reduced; building characters are fine 47  Like the design and relief; parking lane is essential 4  1  Like the design; concerned with setback on Shermer Road and green space (more shade trees in 2 front) 3  Parking is a necessity due to traffic on the street; reduce building length 4  The Commission is also in favor of commercial space with residential space on top rather than 5 100% townhomes; parking lanes are essential; accommodate bump outs with trees; design walk 6 to be pedestrian-friendly; like metal bays and building colors; too much solid space on Shermer 7 Road (with limited sunshine); would like to see five and six-unit buildings; mix units with two 8 and three-stories (to create interest); there’s no room for more trees; different detail can make 9 a substantial difference; place something that will survive between the two-ft. sidewalks. 10 11 Petitioner thanked everyone for their comments. 12 13 New Single-Family Home Elevations: 14 a. 2720 Canterbury (R-3 District) – Pathmann Architects 15 b. 2215 Chestnut (R-5 District) – FWC Architects, Inc. 16 c. 1224 Glenoak Lane (R-4 District) – JMB Architects 17 d. 1233 Ridgewood Drive (R-4 District) – BK Architect Co. 18 e. 804 Timbers Edge Lane (R-4/PD District) – HKM Architects 19 f. 805 Timbers Edge Lane (R-4/PD District) – HKM Architects 20 g. 837 Timbers Edge Lane (R-4/PD District) – HKM Architects 21 h. 840 Timbers Edge Lane (R-4/PD District) – HKM Architects 22 i. 1101 Willow Lane (R-2 District) – Michael Hershnson Architects 23 24 Director Poupard noted that Christopher Lonergan of HKM Architects & Planners, Inc. was present to 25 provide the Commission with more information on the first four homes within the Timbers Edge 26 development. Mr. Lonegran provided the commission with a new exhibit depicting each of the homes 27 on the subdivision plan. 28 29 Chairman Schwall said this was a great way of depicting the development and hoped it would be 30 submitted each time. Mr. Friedman said that it would be used for each submittal. 31 32 Mr. Friedman then noted that they were considering an alternate building material for the units instead 33 of the hardy-board originally envisioned. The commission and ad applicant discussed the merits of the 34 alternate product and the colors. The commission members all felt the change was acceptable if so 35 desired. 36 37 Member Katz moved, seconded by Member Heidbrink to approve the elevations for the four homes in 38 Timbers Edge (84, 805, 837 and 840 Timbers Edge Lane), as presented and to accept the alternate siding 39 material. On voice vote the motion carried unanimously. 40 41 Member Town made a motion to approve the other five elevations: 42 1 2720 Canterbury (R-3 District) – Pathmann Architects 43 2 2215 Chestnut (R-5 District) – FWC Architects, Inc. 44 3 1224 Glenoak Lane (R-4 District) – JMB Architects 45 4 1233 Ridgewood Drive (R-4 District) – BK Architect Co. 46 5 1101 Willow Lane (R-2 District) – Michael Hershnson Architects 5  1 Member Jordison seconded the motion. On voice vote the motion carried. 2 3 New Business 4 Member Katz noted that he believes the Architectural Control Commission should be much more 5 involved in the review of homes and in new developments. 6 7 Chairman Schwall noted that he was not happy that the ACC was looking at the Shermer Road project so 8 late in the process. 9 10 Director Poupard explained that it was not that the Plan Commission had not wanted the ACC to look at 11 the project. The Applicant was repeatedly asked by staff when they wanted the ACC to look at the 12 design. The applicant wanted to wait until after the Plan Commission had made its recommendation 13 before coming to the ACC. 14 15 The Commission discussed their responsibilities and whether they should recommend that Board 16 approve specific changes. There was discussion about the Board’s view on design control and the role of 17 the ACC. 18 19 Director Poupard noted that he believed the Board values the ACC’s opinion, but they have their own 20 views on design, just as the Plan Commission does. 21 22 The Commission asked Director Poupard to invite a member of the Board to an upcoming meeting to 23 discuss this. Director Poupard agreed to do so and said he would report back to the Commission on 24 when that could occur. 25 26 Old Business - None 27 28 Adjourn 29 There being no further business, Commissioner Menn moved, seconded by Commissioner Town, 30 to adjourn the meeting. On a voice vote, the motion unanimously carried and the meeting adjourned at 31 7:35 p.m. 32 33 Respectfully submitted, 34 35 36 Gale Cerabona & Thomas Poupard, AICP 37 Recording Secretary Director 6