VILLAGE OF LINDENHURST
PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 4, 2008
7:00 p.m.

Call to Order

Chairman Jane Gattone called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Roll Call

The following Commissioners were present: Chairman Jane Gattone, Joy Gajda, Alice Cattani, Robert Reding, Vincent Springer, Gary Stittgen, and David Hartwig.

 

Others Present

 

 Pat Meehan, Village Planner, Paul Phillips, Village Attorney, Dominic Marturano, Village Trustee, and Liz Thomsen, recording secretary.

 

Approval of the Minutes of the May 7, 2008 and May 21, 2008 Meetings

A MOTION to approve the May 7, 2008 meeting minutes with no changes was made by Commissioner Reding and seconded by Commissioner Hartwig. All were in favor: Ayes- 7, Nays- 0.

 

A MOTION to approve the May 21, 2008, meeting minutes with no changes was made by Commissioner Reding and seconded by Commissioner Stittgen. All were in favor: Ayes- 7, Nays- 0.

Communications and Correspondence

None.

Old Business- Lindenhurst Village Green: Review of Design and Landscape Guidelines

[Admin. note: At the 5/21/08 meeting the Planning Commission asked that conditions still not met or to be discussed would be written in double-underlined bold italics in future text for Meehan & Co. Memos, architectural design guidelines and signage, and need to be met by the applicant.]

 

Refer to 5/24/08 Meehan & Company, Inc. memo and booklets previously distributed.

 

Wed., June 18, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting cancelled.

 

Presenting for the developers at the June 4, 2008 Planning Commission meeting were Mr. Charles Hickcox, OliverMcMillan, 733 8th Ave. , San Diego, CA, and Mr. Tim Kent, AIA, Pappageorge/Haymes, Ltd., Chicago, IL.

 

Mr. Meehan stated that at the last meeting they went through the architectural guidelines of his memo, and he incorporated the comments made by the Planning Commission. He wanted to get more input and give more direction for the developers as far as the Design Guidelines.

 

Chairman Gattone suggested they go through the May 24, 2008 Meehan & Co. Memo point by point. Mr. Meehan noted he had already discussed most of the changes at a staff level with developer OliverMcMillan (OM) and their team. (See the 5/15/08 Meehan & Co. Memo)

 

Mr. Meehan said after discussion at a staff level with Mr. Hickcox of OliverMcMillan and Mr. Kent of Pappageorge Haymes; it was decided a 7th item, a Site Plan, should be added for the overall zoning ordinance, so when developers apply for a building permit the Commission will see dimensions and exactly where each building would go.

 

Mr. Meehan proceeded to go through changes discussed on the memo starting with page 3. OM will add architecture and signage design guidelines concerning all buildings on the east side of the proposed spine road. Mr. Meehan mentioned that the specific requirement for façade protrusions would be met by the various building orientations and rooflines. (See pg. 4, number 3c of the 5/24/08 Meehan Memo)

 

Chairman Gattone summarized that each building would be brought before the Planning Commission on its own time line as a single entity and would follow the Design Guidelines.

 

Discussion continued on pg. 3 of the Meehan Memo about a blank wall on pg. 5.2 and on pg. 5.10 of the Lindenhurst Village Green Design Guidelines. Mr. Hickcox said this façade will be facing a paseo.

 

Mr. Hickcox commented that the guidelines for architecture were still conceptual. Mr. Kent explained that the paseo walls would be treated with landscaping because the paseo was a walk-through.

 

Chairman Gattone suggested banding in the brick or columns but Mr. Kent said beefing up the landscaping, including foundation plantings would be more appropriate under Kettlekamp & Kettlekamp’s plan.

Mr. Meehan suggested labeling the paseos in the Design Guidelines as well as labeling a View 1, or View 2 etc.; so Commissioners would have a better idea which orientation they were looking at.

 

Mr. Reding asked if the vegetation died in the future would they end up with blank walls.

 

Attorney Phillips said replacement of vegetation is covered in the easements ands restrictions recorded in the title of the property. If necessary, the Village would fix it and charge the cost back to the developer.

 

Commissioner Gajda suggested that landscaping along paseo walls should be both foundation type in addition to central landscaping.

 

Commissioner Hartwig commented that he hoped colors and landscaping will vary as the seasons change.

 

Chairman Gattone suggested adding a minimum mass or ratio requirement for landscape coverage.

 

Mr. Hickcox suggested that some of the landscape would need to grow into the area.

 

Mr. Meehan suggested they could put a diagram in design guidelines that included some sort of landscape coverage requirement for paseos and blank wall areas.

 

After further discussion, Chairman Gattone summarized that based on Mr. Meehan’s memos the Commission felt more comfortable with the blank wall issues and the landscaping.

 

Mr. Meehan mentioned that 3-sided versus 4-sided architecture would need to be discussed as well as public entryways to each building.

 

Mr. Hickcox said they would still follow the Design Guidelines, but they did not know specific tenants at this point. He said main entrances would be easily discernable. Entries will be done by each specific retailer/tenant in accordance with Design Guidelines. He noted each building could have 4 tenants or more.

 

Mr. Meehan clarified that since their may be more than 1 retailer in each building a statement could be added to the Design Guidelines saying something to the effect of “entryway layout to be determined for the future, that guidelines are in place, and each entry would be brought before the Planning Commission for approval.” Mr. Meehan noted they currently had 15 separate buildings.

 

Discussion continued on entryways, landscaping and what will happen in the future if tenants change.

 

Chairman Gattone summarized that tenants will make their appearance before the Planning Commission and be required to use some color and signage and design their entryway according to Design Guidelines and sign criteria.

 

Mr. Meehan said a note on page 5.16 of the Design Guidelines should be added saying: “Full-Size Masonry Unit Wall Assembly Typical”, (pg. 6, under 8a of the 5/24/08 Meehan Memo) and the note on “Precast Panels with Stone” should be changed to: “Finished Precast Panel Wall Assembly Typical with Exterior Finish to Emulate Stone Surface and Pattern.” (pg. 8 5/24/08 Meehan Memo).

 

Mr. Hickcox assured the Commission that cornice and decorative pieces would be concrete masonry. It was noted that Hardie Plank or other fiber cement panel would not be used on a mass scale.

 

Mr. Meehan noted he had a concern on hardware that would be used to attach fixtures and amenities. Commission members felt that because of the masonry on most buildings, it was important to use stainless steel or non-staining hardware, and this will be specified in writing in the Design Guidelines, to prevent future masonry staining. (pg. 9, #13 5/24/08 Meehan Memo)

 

Mr. Kent put up a slide showing an overhead view of roof-top mounted HVAC for the Planning Commission. Mr. Meehan said all language will stay in the guidelines regarding HVAC. Design guidelines regarding ground mounted will also stay, because of major tenants and language will include appropriate screening of any ground-mounted units. (pgs 9 and 10 of 5/24/08 Meehan Memo)

 

Commissioner Springer asked if there would be additional screening so roof mounted HVAC could not be seen from the parking lot. Mr. Kent said the higher parapet wall will screen that.

 

Discussion of HVAC and tenant usage continued.

 

Mr. Kent showed a PowerPoint slide with 3 possible overhead views of outdoor dining area options. He noted there was often a rail or berm in street side outdoor dining locations like Chicago.

 

Commissioner Cattani was concerned about street side seating without barriers because of car doors opening and exhaust.

 

Chairman Gattone clarified that language should be added to Design Guidelines making sure that a barrier of some kind be added for street-side dining areas, whether it was foundation wall with plantings or fence.

 

Mr. Meehan noted that the Village currently had a statement of conditional use in the Design Guidelines and placement of outdoor furniture currently would require a waiver from each tenant.

 

The Commission concluded that if more detailed language was added to “Outdoor dining” it would be enough to remove the conditional use in the ordinance.

 

Commissioner Gajda suggested being more flexible on the time that outdoor dining furniture must be removed. Language will be added to guidelines to make sure furniture and outdoor umbrellas are of a height and size that does not impede pedestrian traffic.

 

Discussion of outdoor dining and furniture placement continued. No restaurant may intrude into another retailer’s space; however; if they happen to be located next to a paseo, that area could be used for dining as well.

Mr. Meehan said a note would be added that movable furniture in paseos would not block pedestrian flow.

 

Discussion went back to 3-sided and 4-sided buildings (pg. 8.4 Design Guidelines) Mr. Meehan asked if labels could be added to differentiate between 3 and 4-sided buildings.

 

Chairman Gattone asked if all 4 sides of buildings would be the same material. Pre-cast scored concrete with an integral color would be used in some areas. It would match the fronts of buildings very closely. Developers noted that the scored masonry walls would be used on backsides of buildings in certain wall spots facing away from main traffic. Rear cornices would be of the same materials as front cornices.

 

Attorney Phillip had a concern that long term cracking could occur on larger concrete panels. He was told that masonry repair had advanced cosmetically and if cracks should need repair, it would not be noticeable.

The Commission asked for better picture examples in the Design Guidelines of bird discouragement hardware and awnings.

 

Discussion continued through points of the 5/24/08 Meehan & Co. Memo, and developers have discussed and will address all the double-underlined areas.

 

PowerPoint Presentation

 

At 8:30 p.m. Mr. Tim Kent of Pappageorge Haymes gave a short PowerPoint presentation to the Planning Commission on Building Design Guidelines. He used Building G as an example, a building that could possibly hold five tenants or more.

 

Commissioner Reding asked where Building G was shown in the Design Guidelines. Mr. Kent said a picture could be found on pg. 5.3 and pg. 5.8 of the Design Guidelines.

Included in the detailed presentation of Building G:

·         an over-all site plan

·         building roof plan view

·         floor plan with tenant divisions, including key dimensions

·         HVAC

·         building awnings, signage and placement

·         building elevation and footprint plan

·         a materials legend

·         construction wall section details

·         interior details

·         trash enclosures

 

Commissioner Springer asked if developers were committed to using decorative sidewalk. Mr. Hickcox said they were not sure in which areas that would be used.

 

Mr. Hickcox noted that the smallest tenant size would probably be about 1,200 sf.

 

Chairman Gattone clarified that the Planning Commission would receive a paper copy of the Building G Design presentation at a future meeting.

 

The Planning Commission asked Mr. Hickcox for names of some prospective tenants and was told that would probably still not be available for another 90 days.

 

Commissioner Springer asked when grading of the area would start. Mr. Hickcox said the plan was to start grading in July. He said IDOT is constraining progress because they have still not provided permits.

 

Chairman Gattone asked when they would be able to see the scale lighted model OM made. Mr. Hickcox said it is being taken to a shopping center convention in San Diego and will not be available for display until September. He said pictures of the model will be provided to the Commission.

 

The Planning Commission asked for examples of concrete cast panels with the integral color for the next meeting.

 

Commissioner Springer said he still had concerns about landscaping on both the main entry to Chatham Way and the front of the movie theater area. Mr. Kent said Mr. Kettlekamp was still working on that part of the proposal.

 

Commissioner Reding requested an example of fencing material that might be used along Route 45.

 

Commissioner Gajda asked about issues with tenants who disagreed with the Design Guidelines and signage. Mr. Hickcox noted they will have a flexible criteria for signage allowing the tenant to express their own branding while staying within Design Guidelines.

 

Discussion continued on the subject of the June 18 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Gattone clarified due to changes in signage, and architectural design guidelines action may not be taken to pass the proposal to the Village Board until July.

 

New Business

None.

Staff Updates/Status Report

None.

Public Participation

None.

Adjournment

A MOTION TO ADJOURN the meeting was made by Commissioner Gajda and seconded by Commissioner Cattani. All were in favor: Ayes- 7, Nays- 0.

 

The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Elizabeth Thomsen, Recording Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gattone, Chairman

 

Joy Gajda, Secretary Pro-Tem