Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met Jan. 7.

Here is the minutes provided by the commission:

I. CALL TO ORDER

At 7:30 PM Chair Reinstein called the meeting to order and asked Director Fontane to call the roll.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Glazer, Hainsfurther, Hecht, Kutscheid, Lidawer, Reinstein

Members Absent: None

Director Fontane took the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Cross, Fontane, Kosmatka

Student Rep.: Galven

Council Liaison: Stolberg

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

December 17, 2019

Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the December 17, 2019 meeting with corrections. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht. On a voice vote, the minutes were approved unanimously, Vice Chair Hainsfurther abstaining

IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS

Design Review - Façade Improvements at the Marriott Courtyard Hotel Located at 1505 Lake Cook Rd.

Planner Kosmatka made a presentation for the above item including application summary, existing conditions, photos, proposed façade renovation, proposed elevations, proposed representative materials and styling, additional improvements, design review standards and recommendation.

Commissioner Lidawer asked if there would be two colors.

Planner Kosmatka stated there is no completed project with this type of configuration, but the applicant would address the question.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if the monument sign conformed to current standards. Planner Kosmatka stated this information has not been provided at this point. Commissioner Hainsfurther asked if they are being asked to approve the signage. Planner Kosmatka stated this will be at a future meeting.

Mr. Robert Powell, CR Architecture, made a presentation including elevation at main entry, elevation at stair entry, elevation at rear stair entry, Nichiha siding, lighting,

Planner Cross stated Marriott is doing this countrywide and has engaged Mr. Powell for six locations. The Plans contain a broad range of improvements. The review tonight is limited to the façade. It will not include signs and additional detail will be need for the illumination. They will work with the applicant on this. If the Commission is comfortable, they could condition an approval on insuring that the lighting as shown meets code.

Commissioner Lidawer asked about the colors and if it would be two-tone or mono-tone.

Mr. Powell stated they are trying to move from the lighter gray to Snowbound on each bay of the existing building. At the portal arch the portion will receive the accent color.

Commissioner Lidawer asked about the flat roof entry and if they had considered the weather.

Mr. Powell stated each porte cochere is engineered for the locale. Their projects in West Palm Beach, FL are engineered to withstand the wind standards of 180 mph. They have included the information about this in the permits. The general contractor will remove the existing attached porte cochere. The pre-fabricator brings his package in and engineers it and submits it in his permit documents. The general contractor comes back and paints it in the accent graphite color.

Vice Chair Hecht asked if Marriott is doing this nationwide.

Mr. Powell stated they are considering it to be revitalizing their brand. It is 30 years old and they want to continue their market share and attract the travelers. They believe these points of entry will be sufficient to create a new image for the facilities.

Vice Chair Hecht asked if this was a franchise location.

Mr. Powell stated yes. The owner is a REIT out of New York City. They are given instructions by Marriott.

Commissioner Hainsfurther stated he did multi-location buildings for major companies as an architect. He went by the Marriott in Lincolnshire which has been re-done and noticed a number of things that are different for this location. For example, the porte cochere was not removed and replaced by a McGee canopy which is a metal appendage. He asked if there were different levels of remodeling and, if so, how did they arrive at this level.

Mr. Powell stated they are working on the Lincolnshire project and it will do done to the same standard. Any work done previously was not done as part of the Marriott reimaging.

Commissioner Hainsfurther stated it was in the last few months. He stated there were different levels of remodeling – A, B and C. He asked if there are different levels of how far they are going or take this or if this remodel is going to be standard across the board unless the community does not accept it.

Mr. Powell stated this particular approach to reimaging is the only one they are charged with doing.

Commissioner Hainsfurther stated he did not have a clear enough drawing to tie it to the drawings as part of the approval and he wanted to be specific as to what he is approving. He asked Mr. Powell to go back to the client and ask them that.

Mr. Powell stated he would and would provide direct correspondence from the client. He stated they probably would not get an answer because it is a dynamic decision making process as to which ones they select to do what.

Commissioner Hainsfurther mentioned the material on the feature frame at the stairwells and asked what the frame was constructed of.

Mr. Powell stated it is fabricated from cold form metal framing structural steel stud with fire retardant plywood sheeting and drainable EIFS.

Commissioner Hainsfurther asked how the EIFS would be protected from 6’ down.

Mr. Powell stated there are different levels of EIFS manufacturing standards and their project manual recognizes anything that is 8’ below is the harder standard finish and above that the more standard.

Commissioner Hainsfurther stated EIFS tends to be stucco-like to be put over an insulation material. He asked how much impact will it resist. It will take a lot of abuse and he wanted to make sure it stays looking good.

Mr. Powell stated he could reference the drivit company. They have a panzer-mesh system which is the harder system utilized in the lower levels. Marriott standards apply to how the buildings are maintained and he doubted they would sustain a franchise if there was not adequate and timely maintenance.

Commissioner Hainsfurther asked about the image on page 5 and it showed the stair surround going up all three stories however it looks like it only goes up two on the drawing.

Mr. Powell stated the photo is of a Gen. 2 facility. This is the forward stair and is full height. The rear stair has been downsized to terminate below the third floor window.

Commissioner Hainsfurther stated he would like to see a head on view of how it will comport with the pitched fixed roof. People will see the pitched roof and he wanted to know how it will look. He stated a rendering with the context of the area around it would be helpful. He asked if the rest of the building was EIFS.

Mr. Powell stated the existing building is hard plaster on masonry.

Commissioner Hainsfurther asked if that was going to be painted or are they going to install new EIFS.

Mr. Powell stated they are painting the existing surfaces.

Commissioner Hainsfurther asked about the existing storefront and how does the new storefront compare in terms of size.

Mr. Powell stated a complete set of working documents had been submitted to the Building Dept. and this was an abbreviated set. He will make sure they receive a complete set of working documents.

Commissioner Hainsfurther stated colored would be nice.

Mr. Powell mentioned the rear stair entry and asked if he was referring to page 12 of 13, Elev. 1332.

Commissioner Hainsfurther stated on the front where it goes up three stories there is a pitched roof behind it and it peaks up over the stair closure. He wanted to see what it looks like and more focused on that. He wanted to see how the two elements mesh. He did not have clear picture of what it would look like. The elevations do not show what a person experiences when they see it. They need to see images that tell what they want to do so they judge whether it fits the context of what they want to see in the community. They want to make sure it looks right when they apply it to the building. He mentioned the Fidelity Bldg. and they are sympathetic to each other. He wanted to see the relationship between the two buildings after the remodeling. He asked if the porte cochere was metal. He was concerned about distortion in the metal fascia especially when the rest of the material in the building was different. He mentioned the recessed lights in the porte cochere. He wanted to see a rendering of the elevations that shows the improvements they are being asked to approve. He asked for a photometric plan. He asked about the impact of the lights.

Planner Cross stated to the extent the lights are washing the ground it would be possible. Otherwise they have asked for light LED specs.

Commissioner Glazer stated this is a façade renovation and they have a good idea what it looks like. He was not anxious for them to spend all kinds of money for depictions of what it will look like when they merely alter the façade. They could use their judgment about how much money they want to spend on what is a design review item. He stated this is being done nationwide and asked if this was one of the first.

Mr. Powell stated it is one of the first seven they have done. There are other firms doing them elsewhere in the country. It is the intent that Marriott wants to see all their courtyards reimaged.

Commissioner Glazer stated he was excited they are going to renovate and upgrade the property and it would help the community. It often leads to other updates in the neighborhood and he was pleased they were doing it and looked forward to this moving ahead. He thought the façade was a significant improvement and appreciated his time and investment.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if the gutters and downspouts were part of the new construction and how they would be handled.

Mr. Powell stated they are changing from sloped roofs to flat roofs. They have done an analysis of the rainfall collection requirements. The reduction of a roof pitch lessens the amount of water it collects. The analysis has demonstrated they can continue to use the existing underground leaders and continue to re-funnel water from the new assemblies into the existing stormwater system. They are not changing any stormwater appliances.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the aesthetic of the gutter and downspout and if the downspouts were internal or will they be external.

Mr. Powell stated they will continue to be external and they will paint them to match the color of the wall behind.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if they will receive a detail on this.

Mr. Powell stated once they have a complete construction set it will identify the stormwater management strategies.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked about removing the two handicapped spaces in the northeast corner of the building.

Mr. Powell stated this had been generated in error. One of their mandates is to make sure their facilities meet all current accessibility standards. They will revisit this.

Planner Cross stated if the Commission does not approve any site plan or parking design changes as part of the design review approval then none will be permitted. The certificate of approval for the design review will be restricted to the façade improvements described and there will not be any changes to the site plan, handicapped parking or regular parking allowed unless it goes through the proper review. The approval the Commission makes does not need to include any changes. If there are changes to the site plan it will need to come back to the Commission. The Commission does not need to include that as part of the approval.

Director Fontane stated restriping of parking lots is checked for ADA compliance.

Councilman Stolberg asked when he said façade only it would not require additional review. Are parking lot lights considered part of the façade review or do lights go with restriping.

Planner Cross stated any changes to lights would be evaluated for conformance with the standards. They have not seen that this evening. It does not appear to be part of the proposal. Their purview is limited to the façade renovations. The plans show more improvements than what Mr. Powell is charged with and they have worked with him to try and winnow what they showed the Commission. What they see now is less than they had originally, but still shows items that are beyond Mr. Powell’s purview. It will improve the discussion if the plans only show what is actually proposed and not the other parts which will be handled by others later on.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked since they are removing the two spaces, what is going back.

Planner Cross stated they will communicate that to the applicant to ensure that any plans are well thought out.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked about where the refuse enclosure would be and it should be on site. He was excited to have an upgrade.

Chair Reinstein stated he understood the Nichiha board and asked which color was the Snowbound.

Mr. Powell stated is was the white.

Chair Reinstein asked if the Heatherstone was still part of the project. Mr. Powell stated yes.

Chair Reinstein stated they were being asked to consider the new exterior skin and the accent lighting.

Mr. Powell stated it was for the architectural improvements include the new colors and the new soffit lighting fixture.

Chair Reinstein asked where the soffit light would be.

Mr. Powell stated wherever there is a portal feature frame component, the soffit is the highest point.

Chair Reinstein asked if it shone down. Mr. Powell stated yes.

Chair Reinstein stated they should consider if the commissioners were ready to address this tonight for the exterior and accent lighting.

Commissioner Lidawer stated she needed more information and specifics. Vice Chair Hecht agreed.

Commissioner Hainsfurther agreed.

Commissioner Glazer asked if it was to the applicant’s advantage to gain approval tonight on this limited part of the work or does it make better sense to present the entire request together.

Mr. Powell stated in light of the questions posed by the Board, it would be much better to re-present this at a future meeting to eliminate some of the existing questions.

Chair Reinstein asked about a schedule.

Mr. Powell stated the project had not been bid yet. The construction documents are awaiting permit review. They would like to see this move forward in a fluid manner.

Director Fontane stated staff will review building permits at any time the applicant wants. The question is whether it is at their risk of changes made which could be dealt with through revisions to plans and resubmittals as part of the building permit review process. It does require design review, but if the applicant wants to move forward with the building permit plan review they can do that. They cannot issue a permit until the Commission votes to approve.

Chair Reinstein asked about scheduling.

Planner Cross asked if February 4th would allow enough time for new drawings. For the January 21st meeting, revision documents would need to be submitted within the next two to three days.

Mr. Powell asked about the submittal date for February 4th.

Planner Cross stated about two weeks before the meeting date. For the February 18th meeting they would need revised drawings by the beginning of February.

Mr. Powell stated February 18th would be better.

Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to continue to February 18th. Vice Chair Hecht so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Lidawer.

V. OTHER BUSINESS

1. Outgoing Commissioner Recognition

Chair Reinstein commended Janet Pearlstein for her service as Commissioner on the Plan Commission.

Planner Cross congratulated Ms. Pearlstein and stated it had been a pleasure working with her.

Commissioner Hainsfurther stated he had been on the Plan Commission previously and was on the Zoning Board of Appeals for 10 years. He retired from private practice and is an Asst. Director for Project Management at UIC. Formerly he was an AIA national board member, vice president and fellow. He was looking forward serving on the Commission.

2. Administrative Design Review Approvals - None

3. Next Regular Meeting – February 4th, 2020

4. Case Briefing - None

Commissioner Kutscheid asked about a survey of historic buildings.

Director Fontane stated is an architectural historic survey. It is a multi-year Historic Preservation effort they are working on with staff and they have a budget of $30,000 some of which is from grant funds from the state. They are looking at areas already surveyed in the late 1990s. The are updating those and improving the quality of those surveys with regard to what is historic about homes and what is architecturally and historically significant. It is part of a program to improve the information they have to work with.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if it only impacted homes. Director Fontane stated yes.

Planner Cross stated first they are updating the central/east survey done in 1999. It is 20 years old and a lot has changed. They will be interested in seeing the difference in architectural value.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated he would not be attending the January 21st meeting.

Planner Cross asked who would be attending the January 21st meeting. Chair Reinstein and Vice Chair Hecht stated they would be attending.

Planner Cross stated there is a public hearing scheduled for a property who would like to be removed from the POSO.

Planner Cross stated if only two of six members are able to attend the meeting that will not constitute a quorum and the meeting will be cancelled.

Director Fontane stated the next meeting would be February 4th.

VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC

None.

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to adjourn. Vice Chair Hecht so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hainsfurther. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.

The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 8:30 PM.

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2324&Inline=True