Village of Glenview Appearance Commission STAFF REPORT March 20, 2013 TO: Chairman and Appearance Commissioners FROM: Planning & Economic Development Department CASE #: A2013-038 LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: 1841 Waukegan Road Elite Athletic Center CASE MANAGER: Jeff Rogers, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Preliminary Architecture, & Landscaping ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests a preliminary determination on the proposal. APPLICANT /OWNER: Mike Ipjian Elite Athletic Academy 916 Indian Road Glenview, IL 60025 Tel: (847) 804-2588 CONTACT: Mehran Farahmandpour Maemar PC Architects 3996 RFD Orchard Lane Long Grove, IL 60047 Tel: (847) 550-9805 PROPOSAL: The applicant, Elite Athletic Academy, represented by Mike Ipjian, proposes the acquisition and consolidation of two (2) vacant parcels at the northeast corner of Waukegan Road and Pleasant Lane to allow for the construction of a new athletic training specialty school comprised of approximately 8,975 square feet to include sports instruction, yoga, and related fitness uses. Report Disclaimer: Village staff makes no representations regarding support, endorsement, or the likelihood of approval or disapproval by any Glenview regulatory commission or the Village Board of Trustees.
VILLAGE OF GLENVIEW ZONING: PIN(s): 04-26-203-069-0000 & 04-26-203-086-0000 Current North East South West B-2 General Business District B-2 General Business District B-2 General Business District B-2 General Business District B-2 General Business District / B-3 General Service District AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY: 2
PICTOMETRIC PHOTOGRAPHY: South Elevation(s) West Elevation(s) 3
Project Summary PROPOSAL: The applicant, Elite Athletic Center, seeks preliminary approval of proposed building architecture and site landscaping for a proposed building intended to accommodate a new specialty training school including a basketball court, yoga studio, and private professional offices. The proposed building would stand one (1) story in height, would be comprised of approximately 8,975 square feet, and would feature two (2) different building heights with the west half of the building at a reduced height from the east half of the building which will feature the basketball gymnasium floor space. No lighting alterations are proposed at this time. Sample wall signage has been depicted upon the proposed building elevation exhibits to demonstrate how wall signage will relate to the applicant s building materials and color palette, but final signage approval will be sought at a future meeting in conjunction with final wall sign details. No monument signage will be proposed. To facilitate the new building, the applicant would acquire land area from the adjacent property owner to the east. The final site plan was reviewed by the Plan Commission at their regular meeting on January 29. 2013. A zoning variation was required to allow the proposed rear yard (east) building setback. This request was considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals at their regular meeting on February 4, 2013. Meeting minutes from these discussions are attached to this report. The project received final site plan, preliminary subdivision, and zoning variation approvals from the Village Board of Trustees on March 5, 2013. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Building Material Manufacturer Color(s) Masonry Face Brick & Quoins - Not specified - - Not specified - Limestone Rosettes, Lintels, Sills, & Cap - Not specified - - Not specified - Manufactured Stone Accent Band - Not specified - - Not specified - Smooth Finish Manufactured Stone - Not specified - - Not specified - Stone Veneer Ashlar - Not specified - Aluminum Coping - Not specified - - Not specified - Thermally Broken Mill Finish Aluminum Sash - Not specified - - Not specified - Mill Finish Anodized Door & Frame - Not specified - - Not specified - Painted Steel Canopy - Not specified - Silver Panted Steel Door & Frame - Not specified - - Not specified - 4
Appearance Commission Review APPEARANCE PLAN COMMENTS: Staff comments after evaluating the proposal for compliance with the Appearance Plan: Building Design Criteria from Appearance Plan: Quality of design and relationship to surroundings Good scale and harmonious conformance with neighboring development Materials with architectural character and harmony with adjoining buildings Building components with good proportions and relationship to one another Harmonious colors Avoidance of monotony; avoidance of inappropriate, incompatible, bizarre and exotic designs Staff comments: o The applicant shall furnish preliminary material and color samples for review by the Appearance Commission. o The applicant should clarify manufacturer names, product lines, colors, and finishes for any final building materials. o The Appearance Commission should consider the proposed colors, finishes, and materials for the various components of the building. o The Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals requested specific Appearance Commission consideration of proposed faux window architectural treatment upon the south building elevation facing Pleasant Lane. The applicant has previously noted concerns regarding potential conflicts with the inclusion of real windows on this elevation due to the orientation of the southerly basketball goal. In lieu of windows, a system of off-set masonry, window framing, and materials is proposed to mimic the scale and appearance of the proposed windows provided along the west (front) building elevation, however window glass would be omitted from the system proposed for use along the south elevation. The Appearance Commission should comment on the proposed treatment. o All rooftop mechanical equipment would be screened from view either by a proposed parapet wall upon the lower building roof or setback upon the upper building roof. Landscaping Criteria from Appearance Plan: Grades of walks, terraces and other paved areas shall provide an inviting and stable appearance for walking, and if seating is providing, for sitting. Landscape treatment shall be provide to enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and provide shade. Plant material shall be selected for interest in its structure, texture, and color and for its ultimate growth. Plants should be indigenous, hardy, harmonious and of good appearance. Where plants are susceptible to injury they should be protected. Staff comments: o The Appearance Commission should consider whether the variety, size, and locations of proposed plantings are appropriate. o Two (2) varieties of parking lot trees are proposed along Waukegan Road and a third variety is introduced along Pleasant Lane. 5
o o The applicant has excluded landscape plantings from the area at the north end of the parking lot. This area has been noted as an area for snow piling and sod is proposed. This area may also be subject to future alterations to accommodate eventual cross-access improvements with the adjacent property to the north. As such, staff recommends that no required tree plantings be located in this area. The applicant has furnished catalog cuts of the proposed bench and bicycle rack. The Appearance Commission should consider whether the proposed stainless steel finish of the bicycle rack is appropriate. Lighting Criteria from Appearance Plan Enhancement of the building design and adjoining landscape Compatible design and size with the building and adjacent areas Restraint in design Avoidance of excessive brightness and brilliant colors Staff comments: o The applicant is proposing the installation of two (2) wall sconce fixtures upon the west building elevation near the building entrance and one (1) walls sconce fixture near a utility room entrance along the south end of the east building elevation. The applicant intends to include low-wattage elements in these fixtures to serve as architectural accent lighting. As such, and since no other lighting is proposed, a photometric plan would not be required. o A catalog cut for the proposed wall scone fixtures has been provided confirming that the fixture will be 100% cut-off style fixture. Sign Criteria from Appearance Plan: Compatibility with building architecture Compatibility with signs on adjoining buildings Harmony with surrounding landscape Good scale in relationship to surroundings Use of harmonious colors Staff comments: o The applicant has provided conceptual wall signage plans upon the proposed building elevations for reference by the Appearance Commission as these relate to proposed building materials and building scale, but the applicant is not seeking signage approvals at this time. The applicant will seek final signage approvals at a future Appearance Commission meeting. No ground signage will be proposed. o Prior to Final Appearance review, the applicant shall furnish color wall sign details with all composite dimensions, colors, and materials noted for review by the Appearance Commission. o Prior to Final Appearance review, the applicant shall furnish color and material samples of proposed wall signage for review by the Appearance Commission. 6
Technical Review PROJECT TIMELINE & OUTREACH: A. 10/29/2012 Application Filed B. 01/29/2013 Plan Commission Hearing C. 02/04/2013 Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing D. 02/19/2013 Board of Trustees First Consideration E. 03/05/2013 Board of Trustees Final Consideration F. 03/20/2013 Preliminary Appearance Commission Meeting G. TBD Final Appearance Commission Meeting H. TBD Permit Issuance I. TBD Inspection 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 B C D E F G H I Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec A REQUIRED APPROVAL(s): The following chart details the necessary required approvals. An associated appendix includes specific descriptions of each regulatory approval, the review criteria, and standards for approval. Each commissioner has a copy of this appendix and copies for the public are located on the table near the entry doors to the Village Board Room. The appendix can also be viewed on the Planning Division website at the following URL: http://www.glenview.il.us Required Regulatory Review A. Annexation B. Annexation with Annexation Agreement C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment D. Official Map Amendment E. Rezoning F. Planned Development G. Conditional Use H. Final Site Plan Review I. Second Curb Cut J. Subdivision (Preliminary, Final, and Waivers) K. Variation(s) (Zoning Board of Appeals) L. Certificate of Appropriateness (Appearance Commission) M. Final Engineering Approval & Outside Agency Permits N. Building Permits O. Building & Engineering Inspections P. Recorded Documents (Development Agreements, Easements, Covenants, etc.) Q. Business License R. Certificate of Occupancy 7
POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS: The subject property was previously improved with a gas station and lies within an existing general business district among similar land uses. A public meeting was held before both the Plan Commission and a public hearing was held before the Zoning Board of Appeals and no objectors were present. There would not be any apparent negative impacts upon adjacent property owners from the scope of the proposed building materials, colors, and landscaping improvements. Attachments & Exhibits 1. Sample Motion 2. Excerpt from January 29, 2013 Plan Commission meeting minutes 3. Excerpt from February 4, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes 4. Petitioner s Application & Exhibits 8
Sample Motion I move in the matter of A2013-038, Elite Athletic Center, the Appearance Commission grants preliminary approval or proposed building architecture and landscaping, based upon the findings the petitioner, through testimony and application materials, has demonstrated compliance with Section 54-64 Appearance Plan and in accordance with the following conditions: A. The following documents prepared by Maemar, PC: 1. Sheet A-2 Proposed Elevation, dated 11/30/12 2. Sheet A-3 Proposed Elevation, dated 02/18/13 3. Sheet L1 Proposed Landscape dated 11/26/12 4. Elevation depicting West Building Elevation (undated) 5. Elevation depicting Southwest Building Elevations (undated) 6. Elevation depicting Southeast Building Elevations (undated) 7. Elevation depicting Proposed Faux Window System (undated) 8. Belson Outdoors Heavy Duty Challenger Bicycle Rack Catalog Cut (undated) 9. Belson Outdoors Classic Precast Contrete Bench dated 12/26/12 B. The applicant shall appear before the Appearance Commission for final approvals of building architecture, landscaping, lighting, and signage prior to initiating any work associated with these specific site improvements. 9
EXCERPT FROM DRAFT MINUTES OF JANUARY 29, 2013 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING: P2012-048 1841 Waukegan Road Elite Athletic Academy (Public Hearing) Mr. Brady summarized that this is a proposal for final site plan review for the Elite Athletic Center. The subject property is at the northeast corner of Pleasant Lane and Waukegan Road and is a former gas station site. The tree line is the general rear property line of the former gas station site, and the applicant is looking to combine the former gas station site with an undeveloped portion of the office building that is located to the east and combine it into one parcel for the proposed development. The proposal is to include a new building as part of the Waukegan Road Corridor Plan, which has a concept to reduce the amount of curb cuts along Waukegan. The applicant is looking to close up both curb cuts on Waukegan, and place a new curb cut on Pleasant. The applicant is proposing a drive aisle with parking on both sides and a one-story building. The rear portion of the building has a two-story height, but it is a one-story elevation because of the proposed basketball court. There is a landscape plan which has additional buffering along the rear. There are windows on three elevations; the fourth elevation does not have windows due primarily to the glare and light that would occur as part of the basketball court. Mr. Brady displayed renderings of the proposed building, façades and elevations. The site plan showed the proposed instructional rooms, the reception area, lobby, washrooms and office space. It does have a proposed rear yard on the east portion of the site. There is a request for a variation to allow less than the required setback, which is pending before the Zoning Board of Appeals and the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Both of those recommendations will appear at the same time in front of the Board of Trustees. In place of the curb cuts are some parkway trees in that location and the access out along Pleasant. From an access standpoint and use generation, this particular use would generate far less cars than a gas station would and have less impact than the former proposed gas station site. One of the staff comments relating to landscaping is that two of the trees should be relocated closer to the building to accommodate the interior landscaping requirements for the parking lots. The architect for the project, Mr. Mehran Farahmandpour, was present. He addressed the three items that staff requested be clarified. He first explained why the trees are pushed toward Waukegan Road rather than the ends of the parking spaces. They do have a driveway for the adjacent property immediately north to the property line, and felt by putting a tree close enough to the property line the branches might encroach onto the driveway and would present a problem they would have to solve later. The same thing goes for the tree facing north; the branches are too close to the sidewalk and would end up getting hacked off. Mr. Farahmandpour stated they are happy to work with staff to accommodate the trees. For signage, the owner does not anticipate or request having any ground signs. He feels the building signage is more than adequate for his purposes. The buildings signs are indicated on the renderings and building calculations were provided. As far as the sight lighting, the applicant does not feel it is necessary at this point. It is on Waukegan Road and there is a light pole in the middle of the parking lot, which should be more than adequate. Chairman Bucklin stated that he served on the Waukegan Road Commission and one of their recommendations was to eliminate curb cuts, so he fully supports eliminating two potential problem areas exiting and entering Waukegan Road. He asked if there would be any type of roof equipment, such as air conditioning, and if it will be screened. Mr. Farahmandpour stated that equipment is to be screened and that a 6 foot person will not be able to see what is on top from across the street. Chairman Bucklin then inquired about trash facilities and how that will be approached. Mr. Farahmandpour explained that it is mostly office garbage and there will not be that much trash generated. They intend to just put out carts on collection days. Commissioner Ruter requested additional information regarding the business owner s intentions since the petition is requesting site plan approval and not conditional use. He asked if they intend to sell memberships or if it is to be a fee basis by class or activity. Mr. Farahmandpour stated that he currently operates this business elsewhere at a rented facility and shares the basketball court with other activities that go on. His business has now gotten to the point where he has enough students and activities that he can afford having his own space. He trains promising young adults from middle school through high school, along with some college age students who are proficient in basketball and intend to pursue a sports career. Some are dropped off by parents and some drive themselves. 10
Commissioner Ruter stated that the proposal is quite good and it would be wonderful to have something occupy that property after all these years; however, he is concerned about traffic capacity given the possibility that at any given time there might be a number of teenage student clients with driver s licenses. However, if the facility increases in popularity, he is concerned that the parking and ingress/egress will be sufficient as proposed. Mr. Farahmandpour said that the gap being referred to is between the yoga classes in the morning and the applicant s classes in the evening, and that he does not have multiple classes. It is one-on-one training where a student is assigned a time. There might be some overlap, but basically the trainer will go from one student to the next. He reiterated that it is one on one instruction. Since the gymnasium is full size, Commissioner Ruter inquired about the possibility of rental groups wanting to use it. Mr. Farahmandpour stated that the applicant s original intent was additional classes that would overlap his by other people. However, as he went through the engineering design process, the issue of having contaminated soil and water detention overlap came up, and eventually he decided it was not worth it. He resolved the engineering issues by cutting off the whole bottom half of the building which is where there would have been additional classroom space. Then he moved the detention into a system built into the ground. He was initially concerned about parking as well, which is why they have 23 parking spaces when only 17 are needed. Commissioner Ruter asked it is safe to assume that the owner will very likely consider renting the gymnasium out. Mr. Farahmandpour said he has decided that is not what he wants to do. The yoga classes will be instructed by his wife and the basketball will be instructed by him, and that is it. Commissioner Igleski asked if there are any plans for any sort of competitive basketball games. Mr. Farahmandpour stated it is not for leagues. Chairman Bucklin made a request regarding the building. Since the south elevation will be seen by everyone coming down Waukegan Road and traveling north, he wanted to know if it would be possible to make it look like those are real windows versus just more brick with that little arch over it. He realizes there is a slight cost involved, but wanted to know if it could be done. Commissioner Igleski said that anything is possible, and agreed that it was a nice suggestion and could dramatically improve the appearance of that south wall. Chairman Bucklin feels it would enhance it and asked if the applicant would consider the suggestion. Mr. Farahmandpour agreed to present the idea to his clients as a suggestion from this Commission. However, he cautions that because it faces south, it could present an issue with reflecting into traffic. Commissioner Ruter agreed it would enhance the appearance of the building. Mr. Brady noted that as part of this proposal and consistent with the Waukegan Corridor Plan, there is final subdivision that would be required and there will be the requirement for ingress and egress easements to allow potential connection to the property to the north. Until the property to the north agrees or does some type of redevelopment and is required to have some cross connection, it won t be initiated until that time that it is mutually agreed upon by both of the properties. As part of the final subdivision, there will be easements to allow for that cross access. He addressed Commissioner Ruter s concerns relating to the potential of this going from private instruction to something more of a recreation league, and how the parking would be an issue. If it was more than instructional purposes, it would then require the applicant to obtain a parking arrangement with the nearby businesses to allow parking in those lots to accommodate what would be needed for this site. Commissioner Ruter asked Mr. Brady if that requirement is to allow for easements for cross access assumed as part of subdivision approval and would thereby be compliant with the Waukegan Road Corridor plans. Mr. Brady said it would be part of a sample motion with respect to the preliminary subdivision approval that the requisite cross access easements be included as part of the submission for final subdivision. MOTION: Commissioner Ruter made the following motion: Based upon the Petitioner s application materials, testimony and discussion relating to the petition which together demonstrate compliance with Chapter 54, Article IV of the Municipal Code, I move in the case of P2012-048, Elite Athletic Academy at 1841 Waukegan Road, the Plan Commission recommend the Village Board of Trustees grant approval of an Ordinance subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final Site Plan Review approval is granted for the subject property in compliance with documents prepared and submitted at this meeting. 11
2. Preliminary Subdivision approval is granted for the subject property, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 66, Article IV, of the Village Municipal Code, including requisite cross access easements submitted by Petitioner for preliminary subdivision. 3. Final Engineering approval through the building permit review process associated with the development site, and 4. Final Appearance Commission approval of any proposed building architecture, signage, awnings, site lighting, outdoor furniture, and landscaping, including the possibility of windows or window-looking material added to the south elevation. Motion seconded by Commissioner Fallon: YEAS: Commissioners Fallon, Igleski, Ruter NAYS: None ABSTAINED: None 12
EXCERPT FROM DRAFT MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4, 2013 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING: Z2013-002 1841 Waukegan Road The petitioner, Elite Athletic Center, represented by Mike Ipjian, requests a Variation from the provisions of Sections 98-131(c)(3) and 98-132(b)(3) of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a new commercial building at a rear yard (east) setback of 10.33 feet instead of a minimum rear yard (east) setback of 20.00 feet, as allowed and required by said ordinance. Project architect Mehran Farahmandpour, 1841 Waukegan Road, presented the case on behalf of Mr. Mike Ipjian, the contract purchaser of the property and part owner of the adjacent property (currently being re-subdivided into one lot). He is seeking a variance for a rear yard setback of 10 4 rather than the 20 foot minimum. The building location is dictated by the existing conditions of the property. Lot 1 of the site, which was previously a gas station, is now designated for parking spaces and landscaping in order to minimize the amount of disturbance to the soil, which has had issues in the past. Test wells have to be maintained for IEPA. The level of contamination is very low but Mr. Ipjian remains concerned about the property where he wants to build a building and operate a business. The southeast corner of the lot will be used for detention, which is the only area that won t affect any of the contaminated soil. The building was pushed back to the northeast corner and the full-size gym and basketball court have only a minimal amount of clear space around it. This leaves a 25-foot area to the west of the gym for the remaining building functions. He reviewed the site plan and referred to the trapezoid-shaped rear yard, which is less than the 20 foot required setback. The proposed setback is a minimum 10 4 at the southeast corner and a maximum 15 11 setback at the northeast corner of the property. Because the lot is large and open, Chairman Greco wondered why the building was pushed back rather than moved forward. Mr. Farahmandpour said given the building requirements, landscaping along Waukegan Road, parking spaces, odd space and the sidewalk, the area proposed for the building is what is left for the placement of the building. Chairman Greco asked if there was any contaminated soil in the front half of the building or outside it Mr. Farahmandpour said there was contaminated soil from about the middle of where the locker room and offices are located to the west. The petitioner wants the contaminated soil to be disturbed as minimally as possible. Any soil that is disturbed must be removed and replaced with clean soil. He indicated on an exhibit the soil areas that will be excavated, removed and disposed of properly, with new soil being added. Even if the first three to four feet of soil in the parking lot is tested and found to have zero contamination, there could be vapors further down where the contamination lingers for awhile and then becomes an issue. Chairman Greco understood that limiting the amount of excavation helps to keep down the contamination. Commissioner McPeek said the Zoning Board saw this parcel about 7 to 8 years ago when BP considered a gas station for the site. He asked if the environmental issues were contained, if there was an NFR letter from the State of Illinois, whether the contamination issues across Waukegan Road to the west had been addressed and if there was a cross easement agreement in place with the property owner to the north. Mr. Farahmandpour indicated there was an NFR letter. A series of tests have conducted and the results showed that the amount of soil contamination is below the IEPA threshold. However Mr. Ipjian is concerned with any amount of contamination since his clients are young children in middle school, high school and early college. He doesn t want anything on his property to be hazardous to their health. For example, the specific design of the building foundation will have two layers of vapor barrier with a tar material in between situated underneath the concrete slab. Any vapor that penetrated the barrier would be stopped by the slab. He does not believe there is a cross access easement agreement in place at this time. Part of the subdivision approval process requires that a cross access easement is recorded granting cross access to the property to the north, but the agreement won t be formalized until the property to the north does the same. 13
Mr. Rogers agreed. As part of the project scope, the property must provide public and reciprocal cross access to the adjacent property to the north, but improvements to accommodate that cross access would not be expected until the adjacent property to the north provides a similar easement. The easements are required as part of the subdivision process for the subject project but the improvement won t be done until such time as the adjacent property owner wishes to participate voluntarily or at such time that a new development is proposed for the adjacent property to the north. At that point the Village would require a cross access agreement. No one came forward from the audience to speak to this issue. Chairman Greco said the subject property was the first case he worked on when he started on the Zoning Board about 15 years ago. The property has been back before this Board twice since then. The problem with the property has been soil contamination. In this case there is potential for partial contamination, which is the hardship. The objective is to keep the contaminated soil contained by not disturbing it if possible. There is a benefit for using the space as proposed. He asked where the utilities were coming into the building and if the electrical box on the building would be visible. Mr. Farahmandpour said the utility room was at the south end of the building which is where the water comes in and the soil is being removed. The only electrical that will be visible is the CT cabinet and the meter. Commissioner Siegel said the property and the situation are unique and the hardship has been proven. The Appearance Commission minutes indicate that the Plan Commission was asking for windows on the side. She agreed and remarked that even faux windows would break up the bulk and mass of that side wall. Commissioner Perl recalled reviewing this property twice. He is pleased the property will finally be developed. He likes the plan and the look of the building. It is a big improvement over what currently exists on the property. Commissioner Jester agreed. The petitioner is constrained by the contaminated soil and the detention requirements. The building doesn t appear to be oversized in any way. There is only four feet of space between the back of the basketball court and the wall, the programming doesn t seem to be too large for the space and curb cuts are being eliminated. He felt the applicant presented a thoughtful plan. Commissioner McPeek moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend to the Village Board of Trustees that they grant a variation in the case of Z2013-002, 1841 Waukegan Road, for the petitioner, Elite Athletic Center, represented by Mike Ipjian, from the provisions of Sections 98-131(c)(3) and 98-132(b)(3) of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a new commercial building at a rear yard (east) setback of 10.33 feet instead of a minimum rear yard (east) setback of 20.00 feet, as allowed and required by said ordinance provided that the construction be in substantial accordance with the plans and drawings submitted and consistent with the testimony and discussion provided during consideration of the petition. Commissioner Perl seconded the motion. On Roll Call: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Commissioners Jester, McPeek, Perl, Siegel, Chairman Greco None Commissioner Whipple 14