Loading...
BRB_2021_01_06_MINUTESThe City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of January 6, 2021 Meeting A meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, January 6, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. This meeting was conducted remotely in compliance with Governor’s Executive Order 2020-07, issued on March 16, 2020 that suspended certain Open Meetings Act provisions relating to in-person attendance by members of a public body due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Building Review Board members present remotely: Chairman Jim Diamond and Board members, Chris Bires, Joanne Bluhm, Sally Downey, John Looby and Richard Walther. Building Review Board members absent: None Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development Jennifer Baehr, Assistant Planner 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Diamond Chairman Diamond reviewed the role of the Building Review Board and the meeting procedures followed by the Board. He asked the members of the Board and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Consideration of the minutes of the November 4, 2020 meeting of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the November 4, 2020 meeting were approved as presented. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of the design aspects of a new commercial development at the southeast corner of Everett and Waukegan Roads. The Board’s review will include review of the overall site plan, the architectural design of the buildings, the exterior materials, building height, lighting locations and fixtures, hardscape and landscape. Signage will be considered at a later date. Property Owner: J1015 LLC and 1045 LLC (Carmine Iosue, Luke and Nicole Mertens, Joshua Iosue, Megan Iosue and Joseph Iosue). Project Representatives: Jack Frigo, Real Estate Advisor Diana Melichar, Architect Carrie Woleben-Meade, Mariani Landscape Chris Lewis, Lighting Consultant Ron Adams, Civil Engineer Chairman Diamond asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Building Review Board Minutes – 1/6/2021 Page 2 of 12 Mr. Patera introduced the project team. He stated that the property is located in the west Lake Forest business district at the southeast corner of Everett Road and Waukegan Road. He stated that the Lake Forest Chateau residential development is located east of the property and the Villa condominium development is located to the south. He added that the existing residential areas surrounding the property were an important consideration during the design process. He explained that the proposed site plan reflects a cohesive campus type arrangement of buildings. He stated that one entrance to the commercial development is located generally at the midpoint of the property line along Waukegan Road and the other entrance is located at the far south end of the property off of Waukegan Road. He noted that the existing seven curb cuts on the site will be reduced to three. He stated that when visitors enter the development site, the internal circulation will be intuitive. He stated that the parking lot for the proposed development is located behind the multi-story medical office building. He stated that the proposed site plan allows the buildings on the site to be the focus instead of the parking lot. He noted that the medical office building could provide some sound attenuation from Waukegan Road and the train tracks for the residential development to the east. He noted that a single lane drive thru is planned around the retail building at the northwest corner of the site. He pointed out the two trash areas on the site noting that they are enclosed with fencing. He pointed out the loading area for the medical office building. He stated that the medical office building is sited away from the townhouse development to the east and has a presence on the street signaling the entrance to the Waukegan Road business district. He reviewed the height of the medical office building in the context of the surrounding buildings along Waukegan Road including the Forest Square commercial center, the former Lovell’s Restaurant building and the CIBC bank building. He stated that the parking lot on the site will be well screen from the adjacent residential areas to the east and south. He noted that a landscape feature is planned at the corner of Everett and Waukegan Roads as a point of interest. Ms. Melichar explained that the design concepts and the height and size of the buildings are derived from the campus type setting. She stated that the buildings are proportional to each other as they step up from smaller to larger as they move away from the intersection of Waukegan and Everett Roads. She stated that the retail building is the smallest of the buildings and is a single story to allow for views beyond to the 1025 Everett Road building and the medical office building. She stated that the existing 1025 Everett Road office building is labeled as building “C” on the site plan and complements the scale and height of the proposed one story retail building and the larger medical office building. She noted that the footprint of the proposed medical office building is one third larger than the 1025 Everett Road building footprint adding that the medical office building is the tallest building on the campus. She explained the buildings on the site share a common stylistic balance and symmetry. She stated that the existing 1025 Everett Road building is a traditional building and reflects a central pediment portico entry with tall columns and a lantern tower that dominates the façade. She added that the building has two subordinate gable roof wings that flank the main building mass. She stated that the exterior materials and detailing of the existing 1025 Everett Road building include asphalt shingles, brick walls, brick quoins at the corners, stone sills and windows with muntins. She stated that the design of the Building Review Board Minutes – 1/6/2021 Page 3 of 12 proposed retail building is inspired by the 1025 Everett Road building. She noted that the retail building features symmetrical massing and consistency on all four elevations. She stated that nontransparent glazing is proposed in locations where interior building functions should not be seen from the outside, similar to the Chase Bank building. She stated that the retail building has shingle gable roof forms that hide the mechanical equipment on the roof, brick walls, windows with muntins and stone accents to complement the 1025 Everett Road building. She added that pergolas will provide outdoor seating and balance the front entry. She explained that the style of the medical office building blends the traditional aspects of the neighborhood’s commercial architecture while taking a fresh approach to reflect the forward thinking nature of the health care industry. She explained that the medical office building, like the 1025 Everett Road and retail buildings, has a balanced symmetry and a central entrance feature flanked by subordinate building masses. She noted that the building floor to floor heights are sized to allow a 10 foot street level ceiling and 9 foot ceiling heights at the upper two floor levels. She explained that the medical office building will have brick walls with decorative stone belts, a curtain wall system at the center, brick pilasters with stone bases and a stone entablature at the top of the building. She noted that decorative painted metal sunshade elements are proposed above the stone entablature to visually terminate the brick pilasters. She stated that on the east side of the medical office building, a passenger drop off area under a canopy supported by columns is planned. She added that a cantilevered canopy without columns is also being considered. She explained that a canopy element is also proposed on the west side of the medical office building highlighting a pedestrian entrance. She stated that the mechanical equipment for the medical office building is located on the roof and will be hidden from view by a louvered screen. She stated that non-reflective glazing systems are proposed for the glass surfaces on the building. She noted that they are working closely with the lighting designer to ensure that the building and campus lighting is respectful of the neighbors. Mr. Frigo explained that Mr. Iosue has owned the 1025 Everett Road building for a number of years and purchased the property at the corner of Waukegan and Everett Roads in 2019 with the goal of creating a unified, high quality development and a long term investment for his family. He stated that offices for health care providers including dermatologists, oral surgeons and dentists are planned for the large building. He stated that after City approvals, the Iosue family will enter into leases with construction planned to start in 2021 with the goal of delivering spaces to tenants in mid-2022. Ms. Czerniak stated that this property has been the subject of a much discussion over a number of years. She stated that the property is a transition point from the business district and the residential areas to the south and east. She explained that through a combination of building form, lighting, and pedestrian amenities, the proposed development has the opportunity to become a landmark, a signal to people traveling on Waukegan Road that they are entering a business district. She stated that the proposed plan incorporates two new buildings into a campus with the existing 1025 Everett Road with shared parking, pedestrian pathways and landscaping anchoring the southeast corner of Waukegan and Everett Roads. She stated that the Plan Commission has reviewed the land use aspects of the project and voted to Building Review Board Minutes – 1/6/2021 Page 4 of 12 recommend approval of the development to the City Council. She stated that the project is before the Building Review Board for review of the design aspects: architectural detailing, massing, exterior materials, landscape, hardscape, and lighting. She noted is preliminary at this time and will be further detailed and reviewed by staff as the site begins to take shape. She explained that lighting and landscaping will require careful review to assure an appropriate transition to the adjacent residential areas adding that a condition is recommended to address this. She noted that the source of the lighting, as required by Code, will need to be shielded and directed downward and the intensity of the light and reflectivity of materials considered. She stated that an after hours lighting reduction plan will be required and will be subject to City review and approval. She stated that a six foot solid fence is proposed along the east and south property lines with space between the fence and the parking lot to accommodate substantial landscaping. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the petition subject to a number of conditions detailed in the staff report. She stated that signage for the development will be presented at a later date to allow the property owner to confirm specific tenants and understand their needs before a signage plan is developed. In response to questions from Chairman Diamond, Ms. Melichar stated that the specific building materials have not been selected at this point. She explained that the intent is to have materials that are compatible with the 1025 Everett Road building. She explained that the color of the windows, brick, and the stone will be considered in relation to one another. She stated that the fence will be a high quality but a non- natural material. Board member Bires commended the petitioner for their efforts and commitment to improving the property and the business district. In response to questions from Board member Bires, Ms. Woleben-Meade explained that the fence will be double-sided. She stated that a row of shade trees is planned along the fence to create a substantial screen between the development site and the neighbors. She stated that the trash areas will be enclosed by a six foot tall fence. In response to questions from Board member Bires, Mr. Frigo reviewed the site plan noting that the existing driveway, near the 1025 Everett Road property, will be widened to more comfortably accommodate two-way traffic. He added that some of the parking spaces on that site will be shifted to improve circulation through the combined site. He stated that the entire site will be repaved as the development is completed. He noted that the 1025 Everett Road building has been maintained very well over the years and no changes are proposed to the building. In response to questions from Board member Bires, Ms. Melichar stated that the windows on the retail building will be non-reflective and may or may not be tinted. In response to questions from Board member Bires, Mr. Lewis confirmed that the lamp posts in the parking are planned at 12 to 14 feet tall and the pedestrian lamp posts, 10 to 12 feet tall. He confirmed that the lighting on the site will be reduced after hours. Building Review Board Minutes – 1/6/2021 Page 5 of 12 Board member Bluhm expressed support for the site plan and building designs. She stated that the architecture of the medical office building fits with the context of the site while presenting a state of the art design. She explained that initially, she was concerned about the height of the medical office building at 49 feet but noted that only a small portion of the building is at the full height. She stated that the height of the medical office building appears to be compatible with the height of the surrounding commercial buildings. She commended the siting of the medical office building to allow parking to be sited behind the building. In response to questions from Board member Bluhm, Mr. Frigo confirmed that the medical office building will have floor to ceiling windows. He explained that different types of glass are being considered for the medical office building to allow the windows to appear the same from the outside as is shown on the drawings, while providing for privacy in some of the interior spaces. He confirmed that some of the employees will be required to park off site either on the north side of Everett Road through an agreement with St. Patrick’s Church or in the public parking lot at the train station. He confirmed that this parking requirement will be part of the lease for the individual tenants. He stated that the only retail use on the site will be in the small building at the corner which is planned at a coffee shop. He explained that the outdoor seating is located on the east side of the building retail building, instead of on the west side, to avoid facing the cars waiting in the drive thru. He noted that there is an additional seating area between the retail building and the medical office building with shade protection provided by an arbor. He added that the landscape element at the corner of Waukegan and Everett Roads will likely have some seating as well. He stated that on the east side of the retail building, consideration is being given to a system that would allow for the windows to open to the outside. In response to questions from Board member Bluhm, Mr. Patera explained that the small parking area and walkway will between the retail and medical office buildings will allow pedestrians to move between the buildings internal to the site. He said that landscaping is planned in this area. He pointed out the trash enclosure near the retail building. In response to questions from Board member Bluhm, Mr. Frigo confirmed that prospective tenants have reviewed the drive thru configuration and found it workable. Board member Looby expressed an interest in reviewing material samples, the light fixtures and the height of the light poles in relation to the buildings and the surrounding area. In response to comments made by Board member Looby, Ms. Czerniak suggested that as final design details are developed, they can be presented to the Board for review and comment. She noted that there is a condition included in the recommendation that speaks to lighting. She noted that although the final details of the lighting and exterior materials are not confirmed at this point, Board action is appropriate to provide a clear indication to prospective tenants on whether or not the project is moving Building Review Board Minutes – 1/6/2021 Page 6 of 12 forward. She noted that with virtual meetings, the Board has not had the opportunity to review material samples as it has in the past. She suggested that as the project moves forward, on site mock-ups of materials can be provided. Board member Looby asked that the City’s Certified Arborist weigh in on the species proposed in the landscape plan particularly the proposed use of Maple trees. He observed that the landscape plan shows Gingko trees and asked that female Gingko trees not be installed. He suggested that the petitioner consider arborvitae in place of juniper trees for durability. In response to questions from Board member Looby, Ms. Czerniak stated that as the project begins to take shape, the City Arborist will meet with representatives of Mariani Landscape on the site to discuss the details of the landscape plan. In response to questions from Board member Looby, Ms. Woleben-Meade stated that juniper have proven to be durable adjacent to parking lots in her experience. She confirmed that no female Gingko trees will be planted. She stated that a light gray color is being considered for the fence. Board member Looby stated that the architectural style and quality of the medical office building is compatible with the surrounding commercial buildings however the mass and height of the building appears to be large in comparison to other buildings in the area. He expressed concern about how the floor to ceiling windows in the medical office building will appear if accommodations are made to create private areas in the interior. Board member Downey stated that although it would be ideal to have more vitality in the business district with new retail, restaurants and other businesses on this site, she understands the value of a medical campus. She added that the proposed development will bring people into the area to support other businesses in the area. She explained that if the development is to serve as a gateway to the business district, some type of feature should be considered to soften the transition from the smaller scale buildings to the large medical office building. She expressed concern about lighting on the site and the potential for impact to the surrounding residential areas. She asked that the Board review additional details of the lighting and the lighting reduction plan. She expressed concern about the parking layout along Everett Road and the limited amount of accessible parking on the site. She added that the landscaping at the entrances may pose a visibility issue for drivers. In response to comments from Board member Downey, Mr. Frigo stated that widening the drive aisle north of the 1025 Everett Road building facilitates access to the drive thru. He added that the parking spots north of the 1025 Everett Road building are dedicated to that building and are not intended for the retail building. He noted that the parking spots that will most likely be used for the coffee shop are immediately south of the small building. He reviewed the location of the trash enclosure for the retail building and confirmed that is accessible to a garbage truck. Building Review Board Minutes – 1/6/2021 Page 7 of 12 Mr. Lewis stated that the proposed parking lot lighting is a warm tone and the building lighting will be dimmable. He confirmed that the lighting will not be left on all night with the exception of security lighting. He stated that no up lighting is proposed near the residential areas and accent lighting is only being considered between the 1025 Everett Road building and the retail building. He added that there is some lighting proposed at the top of the medical office building at the overhang. In response to questions from Board member Downey, Ms. Czerniak stated that the development will be approved through a special use permit which will detail the permitted uses and any limitations on those uses. She confirmed that the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code encourage buildings to be designed in a manner to accommodate alternative uses in the future. She noted, as an example, the original traditional bank building plan for Chase Bank was rejected and instead the building was redesigned to accommodate a non-bank use in the future. She confirmed that in the case of the development now proposed, a coffee shop use is specified in the Special Use Permit so the drive thru could not later be used for a fast food restaurant without further public review and approvals. She confirmed that both the petitioner’s engineer and the City Engineer are looking carefully at circulation into, out of and on the site. Board member Walther agreed with Board member Looby’s concerns about the height of the medical office building. In response to questions from Board member Walther, Mr. Frigo stated that the grades on the property are higher at the retail building than at the medical office building. In response to questions from Board member Walther, Mr. Adams, project engineer, stated that the first floor height of the three buildings on the site are all within a foot of each other. He stated that there is about a four foot difference in grade between Everett Road and the subject property. He added that the elevation of Waukegan Road is generally level with the proposed development. In response to questions from Board member Walther, Mr. Patera stated that the streetscape elevations included in the Board’s packet reflect the grades as shown on the civil plan. He added that the Villas to the south of the development are at a higher grade level than the medical office building. In response to questions from Board member Looby, Mr. Adams stated that the Lake Forest Chateau development is at a lower elevation than the subject site. In response to questions from Board member Looby, Mr. Patera explained that looking north toward the commercial development from the Villas, the view will be primarily of the fence with evergreen plantings and the medical office building behind it. He added that similarly, as viewed from the Chateau’s looking west, the view of the commercial development will be screened by landscaping. In response to questions from Board member Walther, Mr. Patera stated that the Building Review Board Minutes – 1/6/2021 Page 8 of 12 landscape plan includes a wide variety of plant material. He stated that there are existing evergreens on the adjacent property to the east. He stated that the proposed Junipers on the east property line will be tall and statuesque. He added that deciduous trees are also proposed with the evergreens along the south and east property lines. In response to questions from Board member Looby, Ms. Woleben-Meade stated that at the time of planting, the shade trees three inches in diameter and 12 and 15 feet tall. In response to questions from Board member Looby, Mr. Patera explained that all of the pedestrian hardscape on the site will be broom finished concrete for durability and the parking lots will be asphalt. In response to questions from Board member Looby, Mr. Frigo stated that pavers are being considered for the aprons on Waukegan and Everett Roads. In response to questions from Board member Looby, Ms. Melichar explained that the sun shade element on the medical office building is a finely detailed, open metal feature that extends from the face of the exterior wall. She stated that the sun shade is intended to appear very light weight. Board member Walther noted that the existing 1025 Everett Road building and the proposed medical office and retail buildings appear to have different color window frames and muntins. He stated that all three buildings on the campus should have the same white window frames and muntins. He explained that the north and west elevations of the retail building, facing Everett and Waukegan Roads, appear to be under developed compared to the other elevations of the building. He stated that although the north and west elevations of the retail building are subservient to the east and south elevations, they should be detailed to avoid the appearance of the back sides of the building. He stated that because the drive thru is located on the west side of the building, facing Waukegan Road, it will be important that the appearance of the menu board and speakers is compatible with the building. He suggested that encasing the menu board and speakers in brick may be an option worth considering. He explained that the lighting reduction plan should take into consideration the fact that the medical office building will likely have primarily daytime business hours while the retail building will have longer hours. He added that when developing the lighting reduction plan, the parking lot lighting behind the medical office and the 1025 Everett Road buildings should dim down earlier than the parking lot lighting for the retail building. He added that this will be beneficial from the neighbor’s point of view. He noted that Boy Scouts put up flags in the area around the holidays and suggested that the petitioner consider putting sleeves for the flags in the sidewalk. In response to comments from Board member Walther, Ms. Melichar stated that they are proposing landscaping at the corner of the site to mitigate views of the back side of the retail building and the drive thru from the street. She confirmed that all of the buildings on the site will use colors from the same palette. In response to comments from Board member Walther, Mr. Frigo stated that the pickup Building Review Board Minutes – 1/6/2021 Page 9 of 12 window for the drive thru will be on the south side of the retail building. In response to questions from Chairman Diamond, Ms. Melichar explained that the mechanicals on the roof of the medical office building will be screened by a metal and glass enclosure. She added that the enclosure likely will be louvered for airflow. She stated that the windows in the medical office building will have aluminum muntins. She added that the muntins will vary in size across the building. In response to questions from Chairman Diamond, Ms. Woleben-Meade stated that the landscaping, when installed will be more mature than landscaping typically installed in commercial developments. She stated that the landscaping should look relatively established at the time of installation. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited public testimony. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board. Board member Walther asked that the window treatments in the tallest section of the medical office building should minimize views of light from off of the site. In response to Board member Walther’s comments, Mr. Frigo stated that the Iosue family is very sensitive to light impacts to neighbors. He explained that they will be working closely with their lighting consultant to develop a sensitive lighting plan. In response to Board member Looby’s comments, Mr. Frigo stated that the lighting plan will be driven by the needs of the tenants and the specific practices. In response to Board discussion, Ms. Czerniak suggested that detailed signage and lighting plans be brought back for Board review and approval when they are developed. She offered that the Board has the option of appointing a subcommittee to review the color palette and material samples on the site if desired. She added that the subcommittee could also review the details of the sunshade or that can be delegated to staff. She stated that Board action on the petition will be helpful in giving clear direction on the overall building designs and the request for a height variance. She explained that at the top of the parapet, the height of the medical office building is 39 feet and 10 inches and the central element of the building rises to 49 feet to completely screen the rooftop mechanicals. She explained that the center element steps away from the edges of the building, helps to define the entrance and is located away from the single family homes to the east. She stated that the height variance appears to be consistent with other height variances granted for buildings in this area. She recommended that sightline studies be required to verify that all views of the roof top mechanicals are screened. Board member Walther acknowledged that this is a significant project and will change the way the business district looks. He stated that the Board should have the opportunity to further review the details of the project further in an open forum. Board member Bires stated that the limited number of attendees at the meeting and Building Review Board Minutes – 1/6/2021 Page 10 of 12 the fact that no public testimony was offered is a testament to the successful relationship the petitioner has with the neighbors. Board member Walther stated that he is inclined to recommend approval of the project with the caveat that there is an additional opportunity for public comment on the project as the details are further developed including the color palette, exterior building materials, and the lighting plan. Board member Looby and Downey agreed with Board member Walther’s comments. In response to questions from Chairman Diamond, Mr. Frigo explained that they would like to move the project forward as quickly as possible to facilitate ongoing discussions with tenants. He agreed to provide additional details as final design development proceeds. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited a motion. Board member Walther made a motion to recommend approval of the petition including a three-story medical office building and a single story small retail building with a drive thru, a height variance for the medical office building and associated landscaping and, hardscape subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. At the time the following items are more fully developed additional information and details shall be provided to the Board for further review: a. Detailed signage plan. b. Detailed lighting plan that includes information on site and building light fixtures and a lighting reduction plan. c. Mock ups of material and color palette, including a sample of the proposed synthetic fence. d. Details on the sunshade element. e. Details on the louvered mechanical equipment enclosure. f. Sightline studies from various points including from the adjacent residential properties to verify that the mechanicals are fully screened by the roof form and louvers. g. Details for drive thru menu board and speaker for the small retail building. h. Color palette. 2. Any modifications or refinements made to the plans that were presented to the Board, either in response to Board direction or as the result of final design development, shall be clearly called out. A copy of the plans originally provided to the Board shall be included in the submittal for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 3. The plans submitted for permit shall include detailed information about all roof top mechanical equipment. Building Review Board Minutes – 1/6/2021 Page 11 of 12 4. The perimeter fence shall be screened with landscaping. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a detailed, landscape plan shall be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. As the site takes shape, the landscape plan shall be reviewed on site with appropriate City staff to discuss refinements and any modifications determined to be necessary to provide adequate sightlines. 6. A final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the project is consistent with the applicable Code requirements and that runoff from the site does not negatively impact neighboring properties. 7. After a lighting plan and a lighting reduction plan are approved by the Board, details of all exterior lighting shall be submitted with the plans for permit including building, parking and landscape lights. Lighting shall be respectful of the adjacent residential development. All light sources shall be fully screened from view and drop down shields shall be installed on all parking lot lights along the common property lines with the residential developments. All lights except for those determined by the City to be necessary for safety and security purposes shall be turned off after business hours with lights closest to the residences prioritized for early turn off. Any lighting of landscape or hardscape elements shall be limited to the streetscape and areas away from the residential neighborhoods. Cut sheets of all light fixtures shall be provided and all fixtures shall direct light downward. After installation, staff is directed to inspect the lighting levels and as necessary, work with the property owner to make adjustments to mitigate off site impacts. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be subject to City approval in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Board member Looby and approved by a vote of 6 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 4. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 5. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented to the Board. The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. Building Review Board Minutes – 1/6/2021 Page 12 of 12 Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Baehr Assistant Planner