MINUTES
TOWN OF NORMAL DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION
CONFERENCE ROOM C CITY HALL
100 E. PHOENIX AVE.
NORMAL, IL
REGULAR MEETING
February 14, 2005 @ 4:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Rick Kentzler, Dennis French, Pam Locsin, Kathy Wilcox,
Members Absent:
Mark Comerford, Rebecca Landau, Dirk DeWerff
Others Present:
Lauren Kerestes, Associate Planner, Wayne Aldrich, Downtown
Re-Development
Debbi Whitehouse, Office Associate, Mercy Davison, Town Planner, Mike Sparks
and Brian Davies, Farnsworth Group Inc., Larry Maschhoff, Bank of Illinois,
Jeff Tarter and Dave Brunston, Johnston Contractors.
Call to Order:
Mr. Kentzler called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and noted a quorum was present.
Minutes:
The commission approved the minutes of the regular meeting of January 10,
2005.
The motion carried 4-0.
CC-05-02-03 New Bank of Illinois building design review
Mr. Sparks spoke to the commission on behalf of the Farnsworth Group. Mr. Sparks asked that the review of the signage and exterior lighting plans be waived at this time. Mr. Sparks indicated that both the signage and exterior lighting plans would be ready for submission and review by the April 2005 DDRC meeting. Mr. Kentzler acknowledged the request to review the signage and lighting plans at a later date.
Mr. Kentzler chose to review the proposed building design by referring to each requested waiver as expressed in the January 24th Farnsworth memo. The first waiver identified in the memo concerned window coverage, operability, vertical to horizontal ratio, and height above the sidewalk. Mr. Kentzler expressed that he had no concern with the proposed vertical to horizontal ratio or the height of the windows above the sidewalk as shown in the design. He did express concern with the lack of windows and/or design elements, particularly on the north façade (Mulberry side) of the building, both on the outer wall that fronts on Mulberry and the inner wall that serves as the Bank face to the drive-thru lanes.
Mr. Sparks clarified that the 1st floor of the north end of the building is designed to house the Bank’s drive-thru and that there are four lanes for drive thru traffic between the inner teller windows/night depository and the outer façade face. Mr. Sparks felt that window coverability requirements for both the inner and outer walls should be waived given the nature of the drive-thru at this location. Mr. Maschhoff further supported the proposed design of the blank drive-thru wall given that the interior vault would be located behind that wall.
Mr. Kentzler said that more consideration should be given to the design of Mulberry façade, including both the outer and inner faces of the first floor and the upper floors.
Mr. Davies spoke saying that the fourth floor louvers shown in the plans
submitted prior to the February 14th DDRC meeting, had since been replaced
with windows on all faces (north, east and west). The reason for the change
was that the mechanical penthouse had been moved from the north end to the
middle of the fourth floor.
Ms. Kerestes asked for clarification that all the louvers on all faces of
the building had been eliminated and replaced with windows. Mr. Davies
confirmed such.
Mr. Kentzler asked if it was necessary for the stairwells (one of the east side and one on north side) to resemble each other. Mr. Sparks said that uniformity of the stairwell space allows for those spaces to be easily identified and provides a break from the window monotony.
Mr. Kentzler discussed the operability of the windows. Mr. Kentzler said that a portion of the upper floor windows are required to be operable as part of the ordinance.
Ms. Davison commented on the difficulty that arises when promoting green building standards, like LEED. Ms. Davison mentioned the conflict between providing fresh air and ventilation within a building, particularly residential units, versus maintaining energy efficient HVAC systems. Ms. Davison reminded the Commission that the Town chose to have operable windows in the Children’s Discovery Museum in order to receive LEED points. Ms. Davison said that the requirement that windows be operable was being reviewed as part of the code update.
Mr. Kentzler said that he preferred fixed windows, but asked if the architects had considered making the windows appear operable, even if they are fixed, in order to better comply with other buildings in the downtown. Mr. Sparks said they had not considered such.
Mr. Kentzler addressed the next waiver requested in the January 24th memo and said that he liked the way the storefront cornice was presented.
Ms. Kerestes discussed the monotony of the west side of the building (bathroom area) facing south and asked the architects if they had pursued any of the additional design elements suggested by staff. Mr. Davies said that they had not and were interested in moving forward with the design as is, making the case that the brick face provided a break from the monotony of the windows.
Mr. French indicated that he was not as concerned with the west side bathroom portion of the building as he was with the monotony of the north elevation, largely because the view of the west side bathroom portion looking north from Broadway Avenue is set back from the street and is balanced out by the rounded storefront area on College.
Mr. French requested that Farnsworth produce an isometric drawing of the north façade (Mulberry side) of the building to provide a better visual of that elevation from a vehicle or pedestrian perspective traveling westbound on Mulberry. Mr. Sparks said that it could be done.
Mr. Kentzler said he felt the Commission had addressed the next waiver regarding anti-monotony and indicated that he had no issues with last requested waiver dealing with the scale of building design.
Mr. Kentzler asked if the Commission had any other comments. Ms. Wilcox expressed concern regarding the first floor entry doors, and asked if they could be recessed to avoid opening onto the sidewalk.
Ms. Kerestes indicated that staff had not been concerned with the minimal encroachment of the doors opening onto the sidewalk, because the sidewalk was private and not a public right-of-way as on North or Beaufort Street in the downtown. Mr. Davies said that the encroachment would be less than one foot.
Ms. Wilcox expressed concern about the location of the cooling towers. Mr. Davies said they would be located on the roof and not be visible from the street. Ms. Wilcox asked about signage. Ms. Davison said that by code the building was allowed only one monument sign and would need a waiver for two signs, one on College and one on Mulberry. Ms. Kerestes indicated that this, along with other sign and lighting considerations, would be addressed when those plans were submitted. Ms. Wilcox concluded with questions about the landscaping and asked the architects if they were pursuing LEED certification for the building. Mr. Sparks indicated that they were.
Mr. Kentzler discussed the Staff Report prepared by Ms. Kerestes. Ms. Locsin made a motion to not recommend approval of the requested waiver for window coverage and anti-monotony compliance issues on the Mulberry Street side of the building. The Commission requested that the applicants consider another design for the north façade. Ms. Wilcox seconded. Motion carried 4-0.
Ms. Locsin moved to affirm staff recommendations of approval on waivers #3 through #6 and #8 of the Staff Report. Ms. Locsin moved to approve, Mr. Kentzler seconded. Motion carried 4-0
Ms. Kerestes stated staff did not recommend approval of the design of the bathroom portion on the west side of the building.
Mr. French and Mr. Kentzler requested that waiver #7 of the Staff Report concerning anti-monotony be granted against staff recommendation for the east side stairwell and the west side bathroom portion, but not the north stairwell or facade. Mr. French moved, seconded by Mr. Kentzler. Motion carried 4-0.
Mr. Davies asked if the there was any concerns about the type of brick that was submitted. Ms. Kerestes said that the colors and materials that were submitted were fine.
Other Business:
Mr. Aldrich said there would be a council work session next Monday, February 21st, at 5:00 p.m. the council chambers if the commission would like to attend.
The Downtown Design Ordinance changes will be discussed at the next meeting.
Adjournment:
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lauren Kerestes
Associate Planner
Debbi Whitehouse
Office Associate