Appearance Commission

MEMORANDUM Community Development Department To: Michael Lynk, Chairman and Appearance Commission Members From: Peter Peyer, Community Development Director Carrie Haberstich, Planner Nathan Kriska, Building and Zoning Supervisor Brian Augustine, Zoning Administrator Date: April 5, 2013 SUBJECT: APPEARANCE COMMISSION/CASE SUBMITTAL – STAFF REPORT Staff offers the following comments on the cases scheduled for the April 10th Appearance Commission meeting: RESIDENTIAL REQUESTS 2013-013A (7530 Keeler) Staff recommends that the petitioner clarify “top of roof” (24.5 feet and 26 feet are noted) as it may impact whether or not the design meets the overall height requirement of 23 feet to “top of beam”. In addition, windows on the south elevation in the stairwell area are recommended. Technical items that need to be addressed include compliance with the 50% masonry requirement, the removal of the bedroom in the basement, and the relocation of the air conditioning units to a location at least 10 feet from the property line (or relief will be required by the Zoning Board of Appeals). 2013-014A (5220 Dobson) Staff has no objections with this request. 2013-015A (8422 Kimball) Staff has no objections with the overall design; however, it is recommended that the entry porch stoop be widened to the width of the door and sidelight ensemble. Technical items that need to be addressed include the detached garage meeting zoning code requirements and the foundation of the existing carport structure meeting building code requirements. Staff questions: (1) if the existing glass block on the front façade will be removed, and (2) the height of the limestone base on the elevation drawing. 2013-016A (9606 Keystone) Staff has no objections with the overall design; however, the location of the windows in the south elevation in relation to the stair landings should be described. Technical items that need to be addressed include ensuring the driveway does not exceed the maximum impervious surface coverage in the front VOSDOCS-#426469-v1-April_10_2013_Appearance_Commission_Meeting_Report 1  yard of a home in a R1 Single-Family district, and any attic area with a ceiling height of 6’-9” or greater is included in the floor area ratio (FAR) calculation. COMMERCIAL REQUESTS 2013-017A (Northwest Corner of Touhy and McCormick) The “Skokie Commons” planned development review process is expected to occur later this spring or early summer. Staff has no objections with the overall design package; however, it is requested that the following design-related issues be considered: All Buildings 1. Provide “four-sided” architecture, as all four sides of the buildings can be seen by the passers-by and visitors to the center. 2. Ensure all HVAC units are screened. Building Design – Mariano’s 3. Consider relocating the round tower from the northeast corner of the building (and the back side of the property) to the southeast corner of the building (to serve as a gateway at the main entrance to the center). Alternately, consider adding a second tower or other special building design feature to the southeast corner of the building, including the use of more metal panels and darker brick. 4. Consider adding height to the round tower with an “uplifting” roof design. 5. Consider additional opportunities for shadow lines and other features that create depth to the building façade. 6. Consider individual channel letters on contrasting backgrounds for the wall signs on the south and east façades. 7. Consider orienting the building entrances to face east so their locations can be easily recognizable from the parking lot. Building Design – Multi-Tenant Retail 8. Consider how the north façade looks to southbound motorists, as this is the gateway to the north side of the site. 9. Consider adding piers, brick reveals, and awnings/canopies to all four sides of the building to create a more interesting façade design. Building Design – Longhorn Steakhouse 10. Consider the first impression of the north façade to users of the driveway off McCormick Boulevard. 11. Consider giving depth to the tall feature walls so they appear to be more substantial than just a wall. Building Design – Bank – Future Appearance Commission Meeting VOSDOCS-#426469-v1-April_10_2013_Appearance_Commission_Meeting_Report 2  Sign Package 12. The sign package, as proposed, would require requests for relief and determinations during the planned development approval process. The Sign Code allows one sign per occupancy per street frontage (or one sign per occupancy per façade facing a parking lot if no street frontage is provided). Per the Sign Code and the Sign Location Map, Mariano’s is allowed a wall sign facing Touhy (“M1”); the multi-tenant retail building is allowed a wall sign facing McCormick (“R6”) and wall signs for each tenant façade facing a parking lot (“R1” – “R4”); Longhorn Steakhouse is allowed 1 wall sign facing Touhy (“LH2”) and 1 wall sign facing McCormick (“LH4”); and the bank is allowed 1 wall sign facing Touhy (“B1”). The remaining wall signs will require relief and the ground signs will need specific approval by the Appearance Commission and the Plan Commission and Village Board during the planned development approval process. For reference only: Sec. 82-28(b)(1)a. 1 sign allowed per street Sec. 82-28(b)(1)b. 1 sign allowed toward parking lot façade Sec. 82-28(c)(1)a. number of ground signs permitted as part of a planned development approval Allowed as proposed:
Mariano’s: sign facing street (“M1”)
Multi-tenant retail: sign facing street (“R6”) and 4 signs facing the parking lot (“R1” – “R4”)
Bank: sign facing street (“B1”)
Longhorn: signs facing streets (“LH2” and “LH4”) Relief needed as proposed:
Mariano’s: sign facing parking lot (“M2”)
Multi-tenant retail: 1 sign facing parking lot (“R5”)
Bank: allow 3 additional wall signs facing the parking lot (“B2” – “B4”)
Longhorn: allow 1 logo sign facing street (“LH1”) and 2 additional wall signs facing the parking lot (“LH3” and “LH5”) Specific approval needed as proposed:
Allow 3 ground signs (“A”, “B”, and “C”)
(All ground signs are dimensionally correct) VOSDOCS-#426469-v1-April_10_2013_Appearance_Commission_Meeting_Report 3