Village of Arlington Heights Design Commission met June 13.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
Acting Chair Eckhardt called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Members Present: Ted Eckhardt, Acting Chair
John Fitzgerald
Kirsten Kingsley
Scott Seyer
Members Absent: Jonathan Kubow, Chair
Also Present: Robert Lisk, Lisk Homes for 739 N. Belmont Ave.
Ken Bucyk, Design Group Signage for Chipotle Mexican Grill
Steve Hautzinger, Planning Staff
REVIEW OF MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 23, 2023
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SEYER, TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2023. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM 1. SINGLE-FAMILY NEW REVIEW
DC#23-017 – 739 N. Belmont Ave.
Robert Lisk, representing Lisk Homes, was present on behalf of the project.
Mr. Hautzinger presented Staff comments. The petitioner is proposing to build a new two-story home with an attached, two-car garage on an existing vacant lot. The project complies with the R-3 zoning requirements. The surrounding context in this location is primarily traditional style two-story homes with attached garages. Therefore, the scale, massing and style of the proposed home generally fits in well in this location. The front elevation is nicely designed with a variety of materials and details. However, the side elevations are large, lacking detail, and have awkward massing and proportions due to the asymmetrical gable, which the commissioners should evaluate.
Mr. Lisk said that he previously received approval for a new home on this site over a year ago. It was a similar style; however, the design being presented tonight is smaller, more cost effective, and includes a master bedroom on the first floor that buyers often request, but presents a problem with massing because there is more square footage on the first floor than the second-floor with a lot of attic space on the back portion of the second floor. The asymmetrical roof is a result of needing ceiling height in the loft area at the front of the home so the front pitch was raised and the rear pitch reduced. He preferred if the roof pitches could be the same, but it didn’t work with the maximum allowed building height. Mr. Lisk acknowledged that the context drawing makes the new home look very large compared to the surrounding homes, and he agreed with the concerns about the proportions of the asymmetrical gable roof; however, with the existing trees and landscaping, he did not believe the roof will be as noticeable and look out of place in the neighborhood. He also pointed out that the adjacent home to the right also has dissimilar roof pitches.
Acting Chair Eckhardt asked if there was any public comment on the project and there was a response from the audience.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Robert Klancnik, 733 N. Belmont Avenue, lives directly right of the site. He said the new home looks fine, although it does look tall when looking at the context elevation. His home also has an asymmetrical roof.
The commissioners summarized their comments. Commissioner Seyer did not have much of a problem with the massing on the front of the home because these elevations tend to always read much stronger and more imposing with a main center roofline pitch that is being proposed; it looks really tall, but it is set back. He asked for clarification about the area at the base of the front elevation, and Mr. Lisk explained that this area is 6-inches of exposed concrete. Commissioner Seyer wanted the stone on the front of the garage brought all the way down to the ground. Mr. Lisk replied that the architect drew 6-inches of exposed concrete that is above grade around the entire home. Commissioner Seyer reiterated his concerns about how this is being shown on the drawings, especially the stone pillars on the garage that should come down to the ground, and Mr. Lisk agreed. Commissioner Seyer also said that the rear elevation appears odd and very bulky with no second-floor windows.
Commissioner Kingsley agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Seyer; the home is nicely designed, but there are little things that stand out, such as the front porch that is 4 steps higher than grade at the front door, but is a lot more than 24-inches on the south side of the home. This creates the need for a railing there. It almost seems like the home should be lowered and the garage should be raised, which could help with that. The rendering shows the base as concrete, but if the height of the concrete is shown accurately, then she felt it should be something other than concrete. She said the front elevation appears a little busy, and she had concerns about the small amount of roof and space between the gable and the dormer, as well as the details associated with that. She suggested raising the gable on the right, and then engaging it with the shed dormer to the left, which would create a continuous gutter line. Mr. Lisk agreed with the suggestion to bring those rooflines together, but said that this was one of the compromises agreed upon to bring the main roof height down.
Commissioner Kingsley agreed with Staff’s concerns about the side elevations that appear large and lacking details, and she had concerns about the massing of it. The rear elevation is missing something, and the center section should be celebrated more. Mr. Lisk agreed and said the roofline on the original design projected out further, but it did not meet code requirements. Commissioner Kingsley also suggested adding a covering over the sliding door on the rear elevation, and she questioned the details of the raised patio shown there without a railing. She said that smooth trim would be much nicer and would make the siding pop, and Mr. Lisk agreed.
Commissioner Fitzgerald agreed with the comments made by both commissioners. He was okay with the scale of the side elevations but said that more details like trim could improve the appearance of those elevations and make them look like they belong with the front elevation. He said the home is nice and he is okay with the scale of it.
Acting Chair Eckhardt liked the new home, but agreed that the front elevation needs a detail resolution of where the eaves of the shed dormer and the gable dormer almost meet. He felt it was most likely a drafting error that shows the stone at the garage not going down to the ground, because the stone should be within 2-inches of a paved surface or a planting area, and it looks fake and floating as currently shown on the drawing. There should be a concrete shelf on the foundation, with the siding stepped. He questioned the accuracy of the drawing that shows the backyard grading, and said that the ground can be brought up to the foundation and then sloped back down and away from the home. He was unsure how to solve this, but felt it was important and needed to be a requirement in the motion, particularly in the front of the home at the porch. Acting Chair Eckhardt agreed with Commissioner Kingsley’s comment about the center element on the rear elevation and the suggestion to add a covering over the patio doors. He was okay with the asymmetrical design of the sides of the home.
Commissioner Fitzgerald said that if a railing is required at the front porch, he wanted the petitioner to reconsider the slanted braces shown at the first-floor, to be reviewed and approved by Staff. Commissioner Kingsley asked about the color of the stone on the front of the home and Mr. Lisk clarified that it is actually brick and not stone being proposed, and he presented a sample.
Mr. Lisk said that a terraced landscape area can be created to solve the concerns stated tonight.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SEYER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KINGSLEY, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME TO BE LOCATED AT 739 N. BELMONT AVENUE. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS RECEIVED 4/5/23, DESIGN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATION AND POLICIES, THE ISSUANCE OF ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, AND THE FOLLOWING:
1. A REQUIREMENT THAT THE STONE BASE WHERE SHOWN ON THE FRONT ELEVATION, AND AS IT WRAPS AROUND ANY CORNER, WILL COME DOWN APPROXIMATELY 6 TO 8-INCHES TO MEET THE GROUND, AS DEPICTED ON THE RENDERING.
2. A REQUIREMENT THAT IF THE EXPOSED CONCRETE AT THE BASE OF THE HOME IS MORE THAN 8- INCHES, IT NEEDS TO BE A DIFFERENT MATERIAL THAN CONCRETE.
3. A RECOMMENDATION THAT IF A RAILING AT THE FRONT PORCH IS REQUIRED BY CODE, THAT THE DIAGONAL ACCENT MEMBERS ARE ELIMINATED.
4. A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE MAIN PITCHED ROOF OVER THE FAMILY ROOM ON THE REAR OF THE HOME BE EXTENDED TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR THE 2 RECESSED DOORS ON EITHER SIDE.
5. THIS REVIEW DEALS WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE AN APPROVAL OF, OR TO HAVE ANY OTHER IMPACT ON, NOR REPRESENT ANY TACIT APPROVAL OR SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LAND USE OR ANY OTHER ZONING AND/OR LAND USE ISSUES OR DECISIONS THAT STEM FROM ZONING, BUILDING, SIGNAGE OR ANY OTHER REVIEWS. IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL TECHNICAL REVIEW, PERMIT DRAWINGS WILL BE REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN COMMISSION AND ANY OTHER COMMISSION OR BOARD APPROVAL CONDITIONS. IT IS THE PETITIONER’S RESPONSIBILTY TO INCORPORATE ALL REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS INTO THE PERMIT DRAWINGS, AND TO ENSURE THAT BUILDING PERMIT PLANS AND SIGN PERMIT PLANS COMPLY WITH ALL ZONING CODE, BUILDING CODE AND SIGN CODE REQUIREMENTS.
Mr. Hautzinger explained that there is only 41 square feet of the maximum building lot coverage remaining that could be used towards adding additional roofed area over the doors on the rear of the home. Commissioner Kingsley said that adding a cover is only a recommendation, and if the petitioner decides to do this, then tweaks can be made elsewhere on the home in order to comply with the maximum building lot coverage allowed. Acting Chair Eckhardt said that stone against a hard surface can come down within 2-inches, and stone against landscape material can come down within 4-inches; however, 8-inches of the exposed concrete is too much for him. Commissioner Fitzgerald said that the stone should come down to the bottom of the garage door. Commissioner Seyer commented that the exposed concrete base was mitigated on the two side elevations, but it was left large on the front and rear elevations of the home. Commissioner Kingsley suggested the requirement in the motion to lower the stone base 6 to 8-inches be changed to lower it 2 to 4-inches, and be approved by Staff. She also asked if the concerns about the exposed concrete include the area of the front porch, and Commissioner Seyer replied that he was okay with the exposed concrete on the front porch and felt that all of these concerns with the exposed concrete could probably be resolved with grading. Commissioner Fitzgerald cautioned that raising the height of the grade will cause water to travel more quickly towards the neighbor, which could be an issue with Village Engineering. He liked that the exposed concrete porch is lower than the front door so a future homeowner could veneer the exposed concrete porch if they choose to. Mr. Lisk said that landscaping will also minimize the appearance of the porch. Commissioner Fitzgerald said that they are not allowed to require landscaping, but he would like to see all evergreens across the front porch.
Commissioner Kingsley wanted her previous comments about connecting the roof lines of the two dormers on the front of the home to be a recommendation in the motion. Mr. Hautzinger explained that the original design submitted for this project had the dormer and the gable on the front connected, but the design exceeded the maximum allowed 25’ building height relative to the mid-point of the roof. The front elevation was then revised to show what is being presented tonight with a narrower disconnected dormer, which meets code. Therefore, reconnecting the dormer would not be allowed by code. He also clarified that landscaping for single-family projects is under the purview of the Design Commission, and recommendations and/or requirements can be made by the commissioners. Commissioner Fitzgerald wanted to require evergreens along the exposed concrete, 18-inches tall at the time of installation. Commissioner Seyer presented an image of a similar home that shows the stone coming down on either side of the garage as well as across the front porch, which looks so much better and will solve a lot of the concerns discussed tonight. Mr. Lisk said that although he loves this idea, this is a spec home and adding more stone will definitely add more costs. The commissioners all agreed that something needed to be done with the exposed concrete.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SEYER TO AMEND THE MOTION AS FOLLOWS:
1. A REQUIREMENT THAT THE STONE AT THE GARAGE BASE COME DOWN TO THE DRIVEWAY, IN LIEU OF HOW IT IS SHOWN WITH A LARGE GAP ON THE CURRENT DRAWING.
2. A REQUIREMENT THAT THE FACE OF THE FRONT PORCH BE A MATERIAL OTHER THAN EXPOSED CONCRETE. IT CAN BE TREATED WITH THE SAME MASONRY MATERIAL AS THE GARAGE OR ANOTHER MATERIAL THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE HOME. EXPOSED CONCRETE IN EXCESS OF 6-8 INCHES IS TOO MUCH.
3. A RECOMMENDATION THAT IF A RAILING IS REQUIRED AT THE FRONT PORCH, THAT THE DIAGONAL ACCENT MEMBERS BE REMOVED.
4. A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE ROOF OVER THE FAMILY ROOM AT THE REAR OF THE HOME BE EXTENDED TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR THE 2 ENTRY DOORS.
5. A REQUIREMENT THAT THE SIDING ALONG THE SIDES OF THE HOME TO THE BACK OF THE HOME FOLLOW THE GRADE TO NOT EXPOSE ANY MORE THAN 4-INCHES OF CONCRETE BASE. IT CAN BE STEPPED, SIMILAR TO THE RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION, RESULTING IN LESS EXPOSED CONCRETE.
6. THIS REVIEW DEALS WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE AN APPROVAL OF, OR TO HAVE ANY OTHER IMPACT ON, NOR REPRESENT ANY TACIT APPROVAL OR SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LAND USE OR ANY OTHER ZONING AND/OR LAND USE ISSUES OR DECISIONS THAT STEM FROM ZONING, BUILDING, SIGNAGE OR ANY OTHER REVIEWS. IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL TECHNICAL REVIEW, PERMIT DRAWINGS WILL BE REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN COMMISSION AND ANY OTHER COMMISSION OR BOARD APPROVAL CONDITIONS. IT IS THE PETITIONER’S RESPONSIBILTY TO INCORPORATE ALL REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS INTO THE PERMIT DRAWINGS, AND TO ENSURE THAT BUILDING PERMIT PLANS AND SIGN PERMIT PLANS COMPLY WITH ALL ZONING CODE, BUILDING CODE AND SIGN CODE REQUIREMENTS.
COMMISSIONER KINGSLEY SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION.
FITZGERALD, AYE; KINGSLEY, AYE; SEYER, AYE; ECKHARDT, AYE.
ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM 2. SIGN VARIATION REVIEW
DC#23-021 – Chipotle Mexican Grille – 711 E. Palatine Rd.
Ken Bucyk, representing Design Group Signage, was present on behalf of the project.
Mr. Hautzinger presented Staff comments. Chipotle is currently in the process of constructing a new restaurant building at 711 E. Palatine Road, located within the Southpoint Shopping Center. The building faces Palatine Road. Per code, only one wall sign is allowed per street frontage, and a code compliant wall sign is currently installed on the north wall of the building facing Palatine Road. The petitioner is requesting a variation to allow a second wall sign on the west side of the building facing Chipotle’s parking area. The petitioner has submitted a letter stating that the proposed west facing wall sign is necessary to improve the visibility of the restaurant primarily to people and cars traveling through the Southpoint Shopping Center along the main internal access drive.
Staff does not object to the proposed additional wall sign due to the unique location of this building with customers approaching the restaurant from different directions. Additionally, the proposed wall sign is modest in size based on the size of the building, and the requested variation is similar to other recently approved variations for similar restaurant businesses such as Taco Bell at 1530 W. Algonquin Road, McDonald’s restaurant at 45 E. Golf Road, McDonald’s restaurant at 15 E. Dundee Road, and Popeyes restaurant at 7 W. Dundee Road. The only comment on the design is that the sign looks off balance and crowded into the corner of the west elevation as currently proposed. Staff recommends approval of the sign variation request, with a recommendation that the sign be centered above the west storefront windows for a more balanced appearance.
Mr. Bucyk saw no problem with moving the wall sign, however, he thought the sign would look better if it was the same distance from the corner of the building as the existing wall sign on the front, which would be off-center on the storefront, slightly closer to Palatine Road. He said that when approaching the building from the south, if you miss the turn behind the building, then you end up on the Palatine frontage road. Therefore, the additional wall sign is needed to prevent this.
Acting Chair Eckhardt asked if there was any public comment on the project and there was no response from the audience.
Commissioner Fitzgerald was in support of a second wall sign and liked the petitioner’s suggestion to move the sign on the west elevation to be the same distance from the corner of the building as the wall sign on the north elevation.
Commissioner Kingsley said it was really important to have a second wall sign on this building and she was in support of the variation request. She was okay with the wall sign being located where it is currently proposed, because the site lines are good and the sign location indicates where the front door is. She appreciated the petitioner’s suggestion to move the wall sign closer to the edge of the building to be consistent with the other wall sign, but that would result in the sign being slightly off-centered; therefore, she preferred the wall sign to be where it is proposed, otherwise it should be centered.
Commissioner Seyer agreed with the need for a second wall sign and recommended the location of the sign be studied to determine the maximum visibility from both Rand Road and from Palatine Road.
Acting Chair Eckhardt said the purpose of the second wall sign is that it be seen by visitors to the restaurant. He liked the suggestion about the equal distance from the corner, but he agreed with Commissioner Seyer’s comment that the best sight line location for the wall sign should be studied and determined.
Mr. Bucyk preferred the sign location as submitted because the adjacent Olive Garden building is closer to Palatine Road. However, the sign on the west is more for the internal road through the shopping center, he preferred the second wall sign be equally spaced with the front; however, most important to them is that there is a second wall.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SEYER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, TO RECOMMEND TO THE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING SIGN VARIATION FOR CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL LOCATED AT 711 E. PALATINE ROAD:
1. A VARIATION FROM CHAPTER 30, SECTION 30-402.A NUMBER, TO ALLOW A 38 SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN ON THE WEST WALL OF THE BUILDING FACING THE PARKING AREA, WHERE NONE IS PERMITTED.
THIS RECOMMENDATION IS SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANS RECEIVED 4/24/23, FEDERAL, STATE, AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES, AND THE ISSUANCE OF ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, AND THE FOLLOWING:
1. A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PLACEMENT OF THE WALL SIGN BE STUDIED TO DETERMINE THE MAXIMUM VISIBILITY FROM BOTH RAND ROAD & FROM PALATINE ROAD.
2. THIS REVIEW DEALS WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE AN APPROVAL OF, OR TO HAVE ANY OTHER IMPACT ON, ANY OTHER ZONING AND/OR LAND USE ISSUES OR DECISIONS THAT STEM FROM ZONING, BUILDING, SIGNAGE OR ANY OTHER REVIEWS. IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL TECHNICAL REVIEW, PERMIT DRAWINGS WILL BE REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN COMMISSION AND ANY OTHER COMMISSION OR BOARD APPROVAL CONDITIONS. IT IS THE ARCHITECT/HOMEOWNER/BUILDER’S RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE DESIGN COMMISSION APPROVAL AND ENSURE THAT BUILDING PERMIT PLANS COMPLY WITH ALL ZONING CODE, BUILDING PERMIT AND SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS.
SEYER, AYE; KINGSLEY, AYE; FITZGERALD, AYE; ECKHARDT, AYE.
ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Hautzinger advised the petitioner that the Design Commission is a recommending body to the Village Board for sign variations, and the project still requires final review by the Village Board. He will coordinate with the petitioner about the scheduling of that Village Board review.
ITEM 3. OTHER BUSINESS
Public Comment
Keith Moens commented that the review of the first agenda item tonight was confusing to him. In his opinion, there were 2 motions on the floor at the same time, and because the first motion was not disposed of, the second motion was out of order. The first motion should have been voted down and then a new motion made. Acting Chair Eckhardt said that Roberts Rules of Order are used as a guideline for the Design Commission.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER KINGSLEY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:30 P.M. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
https://arlingtonheights.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/Meetingsresponsive.aspx
Alerts Sign-up