Village of Glenview Plan Commission

Transcription

1 Village of Glenview Plan Commission STAFF REPORT November 12, 2013 TO: Chairman and Plan Commissioners CASE #: P FROM: Community Development Department CASE MANAGER: Jeff Brady, AICP, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Official Map Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use, Final Site Plan Review and Preliminary Subdivision Approvals ACTION REQUESTED: Consideration of the applicant s request and the forwarding of a recommendation to the Village Board APPLICANT: Willow Creek Community Church 67 E. Algonquin Road South Barrington, IL Tel: (224) LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: 2000 Shermer Road Willow Creek Community Church CONTACT: PROPOSAL: Lawrence Freedman, Attorney Tel: (312) OWNER: Village of Glenview 1225 Waukegan Road Glenview, IL Tel: (847) PROPOSAL: The applicant, Willow Creek Community Church ( WCCC ), was selected by the Village of Glenview to develop acres of Parcel 24 and adjacent property. The applicant is requesting approval for Comprehensive Plan and Official Map Amendments, Rezoning from P-1 to R-1 Residential District, Conditional Use to allow a 72,000 s.f. building primarily devoted to religious worship with 717 parking stalls, Final Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Subdivision approvals. Both the north and south portions of the proposed Parcel 24 development will be heard by the Plan Commission concurrently. As part of a separate case (P ), Edward R James is proposing a single-family and multi-family residential development for the southern portion of Parcel 24. Updated Sections - 11/12/13 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.

2 Introduction 11/12/13 NOVEMBER 12, 2013 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant has submitted an updated traffic study, which has been reviewed by the Village s Traffic Consultant. Both the study and the review are attached to this report. The applicant has also modified the site plan to include an outdoor area adjacent to the café where previously there was a reflecting pond. Minor modifications have been made to the report and those sections are identified with an 11/12/13 over the heading. The primary focus of the November 12 Plan Commission meeting is to review the traffic impacts and that section of the report is located under the Traffic Review Study heading on page 17 of the report. The tentative project review timeline has also been adjusted to more realistically represent the likely review schedule. 11/12/13 OCTOBER 22 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY: At the October 22 Plan Commission meeting the ER James and Willow Creek Church cases were presented and the public hearing was opened. Staff presented an overview of events leading up to the latest Purchase and Sale Agreement, and provided an overview of both of the proposed developments. Each applicant presented their zoning case for the record and elaborated on the details of their proposal. Following the ER James presentation the Commission relayed the following summarized comments: Compare the density, height, and setbacks proposed with other similar developments Identify and add to the open space areas and pocket parks Provide a section drawing to show how the proposed units relate (height and distance) to the adjacent Pulte and Navy housing Following the Willow Creek presentation the Commission s comments were deferred to the next meeting to allow time for the public comments. Five members of the public spoke about their concerns with the proposed developments. The Plan Commission minutes summarizing the presentations and the public comments are attached to this report. 2

3 11/12/13 TENTATIVE VILLAGE OF GLENVIEW REGULATORY REVIEW PROCESS SCHEDULE: 1. Plan Commission 7pm Village Hall Board Room A. October 22 Overview :00pm (completed) Staff presents case background Staff presents overview of Edward R James (ERJ) proposal ERJ presents zoning case and site plan details Staff presents overview of Willow Creek Community Church (WCCC) proposal WCCC presents zoning case and site plan details Commission comments Public hearing and comment B. November 12 Traffic Presentations 7-9:30pm Staff outlines overview of traffic discussion Detailed presentation of applicant s (ERJ & WCCC) traffic study Presentation of review of applicant s traffic study by Village s traffic consultant Presentation by objector s traffic consultant (if requested) Commission comments Public hearing and comment C. December 17 Applicant Presentations of Revised Plans - 7-9:30pm Staff presents overview of revised submittals Presentation of remaining items (revised plans, fiscal study details, etc.) by ERJ Presentation of remaining items (revised plans, fiscal study details, etc.) by WCCC Commission comments Public hearing and comment Potential recommendation to Village Board D. January 14 Applicant Presentations of Revised Plans Presentation of plan changes by both applicants Public hearing and comment Further Commission consideration Potential recommendation to Village Board 2. Appearance Commission 7:00pm Village Hall Board Room A. December 18 - Preliminary Appearance Approval of ERJ and WCCC Staff presents an overview of ERJ and WCCC Presentation of ERJ and WCCC development details Consideration of preliminary review comments on architecture, signage, lighting, and landscaping Public comment B. TBD - Final Appearance Approval following submittal of building permits 3. Zoning Board of Appeals 7:30pm Village Hall Board Room A. November 18 Continue WCCC variances to December 9 B. December 9 WCCC Presentation of Variances Staff presents an overview of the case Variance presentation by WCCC Zoning Board consideration Public hearing and comment Potential recommendation to Village Board C. TBD Possible additional meetings 4. Board of Trustees 7:30pm Village Hall Board Room A. January 21, 2014 Consideration of a contract extension for both applicants B. February 4, Consideration of Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals recommendations C. February 18, 2014 Second consideration of recommendations and potential adoption of ordinances approving the proposals, or denial of the proposals 3

4 VILLAGE ROLE: For this project, the Village fills a dual role as both property owner and regulator, similar to when The Glen redevelopment project was ongoing. The regulatory responsibility of the Village with respect to a private development proposal is to facilitate the project through the applicable zoning and regulatory review process. The Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Appearance Commission are comprised of Glenview residents appointed by the Village Board of Trustees and authorized to review the proposed project and make a recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees who makes the final decision. The review process is accomplished by evaluating how the project meets the goals of the Village as expressed in its major planning documents, and whether it complies with the Village codes and regulations. Applicable reviews include: zoning, site planning and circulation, traffic and fiscal impacts, landscaping, lighting, architecture and signage. The Village also manages the public input process by ensuring that the public is aware of, and has the opportunity to review and comment on development projects through the regulatory process. This is accomplished by publishing a notice in the local papers, sending out mailings to adjacent neighbors, and the posting of information on the Village website, and by hosting both public hearings and meetings before the Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, Appearance Commission and Village Board of Trustees. The role of the Village staff is to synthesize the application materials submitted, review them for compliance with the codes and regulations of the Village of Glenview, incorporate the review into staff reports, respond to inquiries about the process, publishing the required public notices, posting the information about the case on the Village web-site and through communications, and facilitate the meetings. 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. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The public is invited to participate and provide input in the regulatory review process in the following ways: Attend planned regulatory review meetings of the Plan Commission ( PC ), Appearance Commission ( AC ), Zoning Board of Appeals ( ZBA ), and Board of Trustees ( BoT ), which will be listed on the Village s website when scheduled. Please note that residents can view broadcasts of the Plan Commission and Village Board meetings, on GVTV, live on the Village website, or review them after the meetings. Updates will also be posted on the Village s website. Submit written comments and questions regarding the project to the Village Planning Department staff (Tony Repp, arepp@glenview.il.us ) who will forward all correspondence to the Commissions and Village Board of Trustees. 4

5 REGULATORY REVIEW PROCESS: The applicants are requesting the following approvals from the Village s Commissions and Board of Trustees. The applicable section of the reports for each of the approvals is listed below: Parcel Willow Creek Community Church (WCCC) Requested Approvals Plan Commission (Recommends to Village Board) o Comprehensive Plan Amendment o Official Map Amendment o Rezoning from P-1 to R-1 o Conditional Use to permit a building primarily devoted to religious worship o Final Site Plan Approval o Preliminary Subdivision Approval o Technical Reviews: Fiscal Study Review Traffic Study Review Zoning Board of Appeals (Recommends to Village Board) Variances for the following: o Light poles in excess of 14 ft o More than 1 ground sign and at a size greater than the allowed 20 sf o Eave height above the required 23 ft and building height above the required 35 ft o Maximum Building Size (MBS) greater than required o More than 15 spaces in a row before including a landscape island o More than two parking bays before including a landscape row Appearance Commission (Final Determination) o Preliminary Appearance Approval Glen Design Guidelines (reviewed by AC) o Final Appearance Approval Report Sections Page 25 Page 25 Page 26 Page 26 Page 21 Page 27 Page 15 Page 17 Page 27 Page 24 5

6 Site Assessment VILLAGE OF GLENVIEW ZONING: PIN (S): Current North: East: South: West , , , , & Glenview P-1 Public Lands District Glenview R-1 & R-4 Residential District Glenview P-1 Public Lands District Proposed Glenview Planned Development District (PD/R-4 & PD/RT-8 Residential) Glenview I-2 Light Industrial District & PD/R-18 Residential District AERIAL PHOTO: 6

7 Project Summary PROPOSAL: Willow Creek Church, currently located at 315 Waukegan Road in Northfield, is proposing to construct a onestory 72,000 s.f. worship facility on 14 acres at the north end of Parcel 24, at West Lake and Shermer. Traffic generated by the church would be associated with the worship services at 9:00 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. on Sundays. A traffic control management plan would be implemented to regulate access to the site which is proposed via two driveways on Shermer Road. Besides a small office staff occupying the building during the week, the only other regularly scheduled Church activities are classes on Tuesday and Thursday evenings from approximately 6:00-8:00 p.m. for religious study, etc. The use would be a tax exempt; however in lieu of property taxes the church is agreeing to a 20-year Service Fee, totaling $1.78 million, payable as follows: $180,000 per year beginning from occupancy in 2016 through the end of the TIF period in 2022, and then from 2023 to the end of the 20-year period, the church would pay $40,000 per year. The Willow Creek North Shore Campus facility would be a satellite facility to the main campus in Barrington, Illinois and is compared below: Location Barrington Existing Campus in Northfield Proposed Glenview Acres Number of 860 auditorium 1200 auditorium (2 auditoriums) Seats 250 video café 300 cafe Parking Spaces spread across 3 lots 717 BACKGROUND: Parcel 24 is approximately 40 acres of land located at the northwest corner of West Lake Avenue and Shermer Road. Originally, the land was part of the 1,100-acre Glenview Naval Air Station. The Navy retained 92 acres of housing in Glenview during the 1993 Glenview Naval Air Station closure process to provide additional, remote housing for military families assigned to the Great Lakes Naval Base. Following a significant reduction in the need for remote military family housing units during the mid s, the Navy and its public-private-venture (PPV) partner Forest City decided to sell approximately 66 acres of surplus land in Glenview to Pulte Homes (25 acres) and to the Village of Glenview (approximately 40 acres). The Navy has retained approximately 26 acres containing bedroom townhomes. The Village of Glenview purchased Parcel 24 in 2007 to control future development in the area and to insure any future project would be compatible with surrounding areas and the capacity of services. Concept Planning Study for the Navy Disposition Parcel In 2007, the Village planned to develop Parcel 24 in accordance with the recommendations of a committee of community leaders that suggested half the site be developed residentially, with the remaining portion devoted to open space and/or civic use. The Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Committee that developed the plan was comprised of members from the Village of Glenview, School Districts 30, 34 and 225, the Glenview Park District, the Glenview Public Library, and Glenview/Northbrook Youth Services. Due to the economic downturn, however, the Village land-banked the property until the market value of the land recovered. A copy of the 2007 Concept Planning Study is attached for reference. 7

8 Request for Proposal (RFP): The attached Request for Proposal (RFP) document was issued by the Village in July 2012 for the sale of the entire Parcel 24. The aim was to meet as many of the original goals in the 2007 Concept Planning Study, but the economic market had changed, and it was determined that the current market values would require development of the entire parcel in order recoup a majority of the $23,891,262 purchase price. Ten developer responses were received in response to the Request for Proposal, with a variety of development concepts submitted, including residential (for-sale single-family and multi-family, and multi-family rental) and institutional uses. Staff analyzed the responses and used the following filters to evaluate the submittals: Meet the $500,000/acre minimum Apartment uses were determined an inappropriate use of this parcel The use must expand the community tax base Mitigation of the impacts on schools Create a product mix that would be responsive to the current real estate market High quality, attractive development Use compatible with surrounding Glen properties After evaluating the proposals, the Village Board of Trustees entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Willow Creek Community Church and ER James Partners on April 25, 2013, contingent on several items including compliance with the Village s rules and regulations, and the developers obtaining the land use entitlements being requested to the construct the proposed developments. PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENTS (PSAs): At the April 25, 2013 Board of Trustees meeting, Resolutions # and were adopted, authorizing the execution of Purchase and Sale Agreements regarding the sale of Parcel 24 at West Lake and Shermer to Edward R. James Partners, LLC ( ER James or ERJ ) and Willow Creek Community Church, Inc. ( WCCC ). As proposed then, the northern portion of the site would consist of residential dwelling units spread across townhomes, rowhomes and cluster homes, with the south portion being occupied by a religious building. Following the announcement regarding the purchase and sale agreement, the Village received significant feedback from the Southgate Homeowner s Association and other Glenview residents near the site regarding concerns about the impact of the proposed Church from traffic generated by the use, the size of the Church building and parking lot, and the Church activities. The Village asked the parties to address these concerns which resulted in the following: WCCC and ER James agreed to flip the parcels proposed to be acquired, so that the WCCC parcel would be located on the northern section of Parcel 24, and ER James would be on the southern section, adjacent to West Lake Avenue and Shermer Road. WCCC has submitted a letter dated August 7, 2013 to the Village (included at end of PSA attachment and in applicant s exhibits), that prescribes certain terms and conditions of the 8

9 operations of the facility, and site parameters that the Church would agree to as a condition of approval. The Southgate Homeowners Association, following review of the WCCC letter, has submitted a letter of support (included at end of PSA attachment) for the reorientation of the parcels. At the September 3, 2013 Board of Trustees meeting, Resolutions # and were adopted, authorizing the execution of PSAs with ER James Partners and Willow Creek Community Church, contingent on land use entitlements as documented in the previously agreement. At the Village Board meeting there was significant input from the neighbors of the Regency at the Glen (Pulte) development who expressed concerns ranging from potential traffic impacts to the visual impacts of the adjacent church building and parking lot. Two neighborhood meetings were then hosted by the applicants (WCCC and ERJ) to explain the details of the latest proposal and to listen to the Regency at the Glen neighborhood comments. The next step in the process is for each of the proposed developments to proceed through the public hearing and review process at which time the Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Appearance Commission will hear the applicants presentations, review the cases, listen to the resident comments, and discuss the merits of the proposals prior to making any recommendations to the Village Board of Trustees. ADDITIONAL LAND TO BE ACQUIRED BY WCCC: The attached Property Area Summary Exhibit identifies the various tracts of land that make up the development sites for WCCC and ERJ. Village Property: In order to accommodate the site layout of WCCC and ER James in connection with the new site plan and parcel orientation, the amended Purchase and Sale agreement includes Parcel 24 and the sale of additional property owned by the Village of Glenview north of Avenue E, northeast of Parcel 24, shown on Attachment: X of the PSA. This property includes part of the former Avenue E and a 30 foot strip of land at the far north end of the property. The remaining two parcels were acquired by the Michael Joseph Foundation for homeless shelter purposes under the provisions of the McKinney Act, as part of the GNAS base closure process. Ownership reverted to the Village when the Michael Joseph Foundation determined that it could no longer maintain ownership, Northfield Township property: The WCCC sale of Village Property is conditioned upon the sale of just under 1 acre of land owned by Northfield Township at 3000 Avenue E. The Township would relocate to new offices within Glenview. Connections for the Homeless property: This property was also part of the McKinney Act land distribution during the GNAS closure. Connections for the Homeless has entered into a contract to sell the property to WCCC, and the approximately acre parcel is included in the WCCC development application. Thresholds property (Not presently included in development site): The applicant has reached out to the ownership of the property. At this time the owner cannot commit to the sale of the property and as such it is not included in the WCCC development proposal. 9

10 11/12/13 POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS: Correspondence Numerous s have been submitted from neighboring property owners and several phone calls have been fielded by staff for the current and previous Parcel 24 proposals. The written correspondence has been broken up into two separate packets as follows: Correspondence Packet A - received prior to September 3 (prior to the flip) Correspondence Packet B - received from September 4 to October 17 Correspondence Packet C received from October 18 to November 8 The latest set of correspondence are attached to the staff report, and any written correspondence submitted after that date will be included in the next staff report. The primary concerns relate to traffic management of the uses and clarification as to the intensity of the proposed religious use. Neighborhood Meetings Below is a list of the neighborhood meetings hosted by the developers prior to appearing before the Plan Commission. A. June 17, 5:30 & 7pm - Community Room, Glenview Police Station Presentation of both residential and church proposals; traffic impacts and management plans; answer questions Primarily attended by Southgate at the Glen neighbors o As a result of these meetings, the developers flipped the proposed land uses and an amended PSA was approved by the Village Board. B. October 7, 7pm - Community Room, Glenview Police Station Presentation of church proposal; answer questions Primarily attended by Regency at the Glen neighbors C. October 8, 7pm Community Room, Glenview Police Station Presentation of residential proposal; answer questions Primarily attended by Regency at the Glen neighbors o As a result of these meetings the street pattern of the northern portion of the residential development has been reconfigured so Valcour Drive is no longer a through street past the church property into the Pulte development. Additionally, the church has created renderings to aid in visualizing the probable views of the church building and parking lot from adjacent Pulte residential units. 10

11 Technical Review COMPLIANCE WITH VILLAGE PLANS: Village Plan Compliance Yes / No / N/A Comments Comprehensive Plan No The proposed use will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Official Map No An Official Map Amendment is required to allow for the planned new streets. Waukegan Road Corridor Plan N/A - Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Plan N/A - Downtown Revitalization Plan N/A - Natural Resources Plan N/A - Bike & Sidewalk Master Plan Yes Sidewalk to and within the development are proposed. Bike racks shall be provided on site. The GNAS Design Guidelines Yes The architecture and landscaping are subject to the Glen Design Guidelines. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: The Zoning Ordinance stipulates formulas to be applied to various possible land uses in order to establish the minimum number of required parking stalls. These parking formulas have been examined by staff to establish the most restrictive requirements, which can be summarized as follows: Parking Requirements Formula Details Proposed Required Compliance Religious Facilities 1 space per 3 occupants 1500 seats Yes RESIDENTIAL USE STATISTICS: Allowed/Permitted Proposed Compliance Zoning P-1 R-1 (CU) Yes Lot Size 1.00 acres 14 acres Yes Building Height Variance Minimum Front Yard Setback (East) Yes Minimum Side Yard Setback (South) Yes Minimum Side Yard Setback (North) Yes Minimum Rear Yard Setback (West) Yes Maximum Building Size 106,370 sf Awaiting confirmation Variance Maximum Building Coverage 33.33% 12% Yes Maximum Lot Coverage Per site plan review 74.5% Yes Loading Berths 1 1 Yes 11

12 11/12/13 PROJECT TIMELINE: A. 04/25/13 PSA Approved B. 05/10/13 Preliminary Site Plan Review C. 05/24/13 Application Submitted D. 06/06/13 Public Notice Published E. 06/06/13 Public Notice Mailed F. 06/17/13 Neighborhood Meeting (hosted by applicants (WCCC & ERJ)) G. 06/25/13 Plan Commission Meeting case continued from meeting to meeting and withdrawn H. 09/03/13 PSA Amended and Approved I. 09/20/13 Application Resubmitted J. 10/03/13 Public Notice Published K. 10/03/13 Public Notice Mailed L. 10/07/13 Neighborhood Meeting (hosted by applicants (WCCC)) M. 10/08/13 Neighborhood Meeting (hosted by applicants (ERJ)) N. 10/22/13 Plan Commission Meeting O. 11/12/13 Plan Commission Meeting P. 12/09/13 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Q. 12/17/13 Plan Commission Meeting R. 12/18/13 Appearance Commission Meeting S. 01/14/14 Plan Commission Meeting T. 02/04/14 (?) First Consideration by Board of Trustees U. 02/18/14 (?) Second Consideration by Board of Trustees 2013 A B C DE F G H I JKLMN O PQR ST Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec BUILDINGS PRIMARILY DEVOTED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP: Conditional Use Explanation In general, a conditional use is a type of property use that is expressly permitted within a zoning district, so long as the use meets certain criteria or conditions set forth in the Zoning Ordinance (see page 24 for Conditional Use Standards). Because conditional uses are considered compatible with other uses in the zoning district in which they are included, it is generally held that an application may not be denied on the ground that the conditional use is not in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood (i.e. a house of worship is in harmony with a residential district, because both uses are permitted in the same zoning districts). The Commission must determine whether there are facts or circumstances that show the use proposed would have any adverse impacts uniquely attributable to the particular use and that are above and beyond those inherently associated with such a religious use (i.e. are the impacts of the proposed house of worship more severe than other houses of worship already permitted in the Village?). Some adverse impacts may result from a religious use. However, in this circumstance, if the Commission attempts to mitigate that possible impact such regulation may be considered placing a substantial burden on the 12

13 exercise of religion and in violation of the federal Religious Land Use Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (IRFRA). Consideration of Religious Building Conditional Use The Commission s task is to determine whether the proposed house of worship meets the conditional use standards or would have an adverse impact (e.g. lights, noise, traffic, landscaping, etc.) on the surrounding area that are above and beyond those associated with other houses of worship in the Village. The recommendation to the Village Board by the Plan Commission may include appropriate and reasonably related restrictions on the use towards the mitigation of possible adverse impacts that may be generated. Examples of appropriate restrictions would be regulation of the parking, traffic circulation, landscaping, lighting, the location of the building, ingress or egress of the site, regulation of non-religious activities, among others. WCCC has provided answers to whether the proposed use meets the conditional use criteria in the attached application submittal. The applicant has also submitted the August 7, 2013 letter to the Village supplementing their application which is a representation of the proposed use. The letter is intended to respond to some of the concerns raised initially about the applicant s operations as a religious facility (see schedule at right), and the measures that would be implemented or restrictions they would agree to, in order to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of the use, and thereby meet the conditional use standards. If the representation of the use were modified in the future, a revised conditional use would be required to evaluate the impacts of the modified use. Each of the following considerations needs to be taken into account when considering the proposal: o Buildings used for religious worship are only permitted in residential districts by Glenview s Zoning Code. o Since houses of worship are listed in the same zoning districts as residential buildings it is generally held by the courts that buildings used for religious worship are in harmony with the surrounding residential neighborhood. o The development of this particular house of worship cannot be held to a higher standard than other houses of worship in Glenview. 13

14 Existing Religious Buildings in Glenview Religious buildings only became conditional uses in residential districts within the past 20 years, so most of Glenview s religious buildings exist as legal non-conforming structures/uses compared to the residential standards which are currently used to regulate their bulk and scale. As such there is no conditional use associated with the many of these facilities, and therefore they are grandfathered and can continue to operate without specific controls in the manner in which they have existed for years. The list below is an inventory of the religious buildings in Glenview and some of the key statistics regarding each: Religious Institution Inventory Name Proposed Willow Creek Community Church 2000 Shermer Rd OLPH Grove Street Acres acres 5.9 acres Size of Bldg. 72,000 s.f. 36,208 s.f. (Church Only) # of Seats Church Café 1562 Highest Attendance 1276 at 11:15 a.m. Sunday service 11:00 a.m. Sunday: 770 Total attendees on Sunday: ~2300 Estimated Membership Parking Stalls Regulated by Conditional Use Proposed 3,200 Families 258 No for church or school use Yes for parking lot St. Catherine Thornwood Avenue 15.2 acres 22,057 s.f. (Church Only) No Ismaili Worship Center 100 Shermer Road St. Peter & Paul Wagner Road Glenview New Church 74 Park Drive Glenview Community Church 1000 Elm Street Canaan Presbyterian Church 1424 Greenwood Road Holy Trinity Lutheran Church Central Rd 9.3 acres 30,432 s.f. 650 Friday Evening: Yes 3.8 acres 32,497 s.f. ~ No 9.5 acres 33,737 s.f No 3.4 acres 58,514 s.f. (Church / Day Care) 2.1 acres 14,142 s.f No Sunday 11:30 - ~300 Adults / 180 Children No (the Vision Center is regulated) 1.5 acres 12,662 s.f. ~ No 14

15 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: Fiscal Study The Village s third-party fiscal consultant, S.B. Friedman and Company, has evaluated the applicant s fiscal impact study prepared by Laube Companies, dated March 27, 2013, and projects the proposed development will generate a positive net fiscal impact (see right column in below chart). Due to the tax exempt status of the church, the ownership will not be subject to property taxation, however the applicant has agreed to a service fee (for municipal services in lieu of property taxes). Revenue would be generated from the service fee and from the sales taxes (on the café) and utility taxes. The applicant has also included for reference an appraisal to be used in consideration of the proposed rezoning and conditional use. A summary of the fiscal benefits from the review of the study is included below: The Glen Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Impacts The sale of Parcel 24 under the proposed plan would result in a net positive impact on the Glen TIF Retirement and Management Plan. These benefits potentially help to mitigate the fact that the current land sale price is less than the original acquisition price for Parcel 24 in The property would be coming on the tax rolls in a developed condition sooner than anticipated. o Parcel 24 was programmed in the TIF Pro Forma for sale in By closing now on the sale of the parcel, the village will retire most of this current debt and save approximately three years of future interest payments ($1M annually). The incremental tax revenue generated by the developments on Parcel 24 has not been included in the TIF Pro Forma, because there was no certainty on the date of sale or the date of development, and the land use was unknown. The proposed property sale will result in a net positive increment to The Glen TIF, from the following sources: o Willow Creek Service Fee: During the time from January 1, 2016 to the end of the TIF, (2022) Willow Creek has agreed to pay an annual service fee of $180,000. For a period of seven years, this equates to $1,260,000. After the expiration of the TIF, the service fees continue for another 13 years at $40,000 annually, for another $520, o ER James Property Taxes: S.B. Friedman projects property taxes from the proposed units during the TIF to average approximately $2.4M annually once fully developed. 15

16 The school age children projections anticipate the number of school children to be 12 elementary students and 11 high school students. The proposed development minimizes the impact of school age children and therefore minimizes the make-whole payment (MWP) obligation to the school districts for this residential development within the TIF boundaries which would be between $ M. The variance is dependent upon the school age population trending during the period of the TIF, i.e., at what age do the students enter the school system, elementary or high school. When calculated with the overall property tax revenue based on the projected 324 residents for the development, this results in a net positive impact to the TIF of approximately $ M. The chart below provides a summary of the expected projected impacts to The Glen TIF as a result of the proposed land sale: (1,692,100) LAND SALE $22.308M 2013 Land Sale vs. $24M 2017 Land Sale 1,260,000 SERVICE FEES Willow Creek Church - $180,000 for seven years 15,971,446 TIF REVENUE ER James Residential (3,870,332) MAKE-WHOLE PAYMENTS (minimum) 12,101,114 4,000,000 DEBT 2013 Refinance of $28.125M avoided, which would save $1M per year for four years ,000,000 DEBT 2013 Debt - Shortfall of $22.308M Land Sale vs. $ Balloon payment due (7,080,000) DEBT 2013 Debt Service & Cost of Issue 2,920,000 14,589,014 Net Impact to Glen TIF 16

17 11/12/13 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: November 12 Meeting Outline Applicant s Presentation: Overview of Common Traffic Terminology Study Methodology Existing Traffic Conditions Proposed Infrastructure Improvements (regardless of development) No-Build Projected Traffic Conditions (projected traffic after improvements, but with no development) Projected Traffic Conditions (with development) 2019 Projected Traffic Conditions Proposed Development Infrastructure Improvements WCCC Traffic Management Plan - Explanation Presentation of Synchro Traffic Model Village s Traffic Consultant s Presentation: Confirmation of study conforming with accepted traffic engineering practices Summary review of applicant s traffic study Recommended modifications Common Traffic Engineering Terms ITE - The Institute of Transportation Engineers is an international educational and scientific association of transportation professionals who are responsible for meeting mobility and safety needs. Trip - is described as a vehicle arriving or leaving a destination, therefore a total of 2 trips are logged per visit. Peak Hour - is the highest volume of traffic seen during the day (rush hour), which is typically separated out by the AM and PM hours. Level of Service (LOS) - Traffic impacts are measured by a Level of Service analysis generally accepted in the traffic engineering field and by the Village. Level of Service is a measure of delay in seconds that a vehicle experiences when passing through an intersection, and is expressed as a Letter Scale ( A is the best, no delay, and F is the worst, significant delay). Generally, a LOS of D or better is considered acceptable in a suburban environment. Current Traffic Traffic counts for the roads and intersections in the vicinity of the project were completed in April, May, June and September 2013 during the weekday morning (7:00-9:00AM), weekday evening (4:00-6:00PM) and Sunday midday (10:00AM-1:00PM). The average weekday traffic on Shermer near West Lake Avenue is 1,850 with 75 trucks, and Sunday daily traffic is 800 with 5 trucks. The average weekday traffic on West Lake Avenue is 9,350 with 170 trucks, and Sunday daily traffic is 6,150 with 60 trucks. Projected Traffic The traffic study details two traffic data collections that occurred at the Willow Creek Northfield Campus to determine what trip rates to apply for the proposed use. This actual usage data was compared to the ITE Trip Generation Manual rates which were higher than observed. To provide a more conservative approach to the analysis the higher than observed rates listed in the ITE manual were used 17

18 for the trip projections. Additionally, the Shermer Road bridge condition and the projections from proposed new uses in the area were factored into the study. The Village requires that future developments project traffic volumes at the time of final construction, plus 5 years. For these studies, 2019 was chosen as date of final construction and a 1% growth rate consistent with the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) studies were applied in accordance with best practices. For reference, the Regency at the Glen development (40 cluster home units and 109 townhome units) were accounted for through actual counts and supplemented with projections for not yet occupied units to accurately reflect the future conditions. With the Shermer Road bridge closure, past study data and projections were used to reflect future conditions. Based on the data from the Traffic Study submitted for the proposed WCCC and ERJ developments, traffic is projected to be 1,918 trips on a typical weekday and 3,724 trips on a typical Sunday. Residential Use - The proposed 172 new residential units are anticipated to generate an additional 101 new trips (20 entering and 81 exiting) during the weekday morning peak hour (7:15-8:15AM) and an additional 120 new trips (79 entering and 41 exiting) during the evening peak hour (5:00-6:00PM). Religious Use - The proposed church has 1,200 auditorium seats and 300 café seats, and is anticipated to generate 985 new trips (484 entering and 501 exiting) during the Sunday morning church peak hour (10:15 to 11:15am the time between the two Sunday services). A smaller service is held on Sunday evenings from 6:00-8:00pm. Classes and small groups meet concurrently with the Sunday services. There are weekday meetings that do not generate large attendance. The traffic study states Saturday evening services (5:45pm) may be added in the future if growth in membership warrants. The impacts on the roadway system should be clarified based on the anticipated attendance during this potential service. Traffic Study and Review of Study A detailed presentation of the applicant s traffic study and the Village s review of such study will be presented to at the November 12 Plan Commission meeting. The applicant submitted a revised and updated traffic study prepared by Sam Schwartz and Associates, dated November 7, 2013 to reflect the current configuration of the site and proposed uses. The study was reviewed by the Village s traffic consultant, J.J. Benes Associates, with the findings included in a memorandum by Thomas Adomshick, dated November 8, 2013, which are summarized below: All normal protocols in assessing present and future traffic volumes were followed. 18

19 The trip distribution was generated based upon the location of residences of congregation members, rather than an estimate which is an acceptable method. While the site specific data of traffic volumes is considered appropriate the applicant used the more conservative trip generation data from the ITE data base. All intersections studied identify an acceptable level of service during the 2019 full build scenario, given all the planned and proposed infrastructure improvements, and only a slight increase in delay. Identification of minor inconsistencies which need to be corrected which are not anticipated to impact the study s conclusions. The Village retained a third professional traffic engineer to review the original study performed by Sam Schwartz which analyzed the previous land use configuration. This review corroborated the findings of the applicant s traffic study and came to similar conclusions as original J.J. Benes Associates review. 11/12/13 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS: Pending Area Infrastructure Improvements: West Lake Avenue / Greenwood Road intersection Based on current traffic congestion, the Village will construct intersection improvements which include additional capacity (additional left hand turn lane stacking) and a new permanent traffic signal. Pedestrian improvements are also included. The storm sewer components of the work will be completed in conjunction with the construction of the Centennial Trail bike path adjacent to West Lake Avenue. This project is scheduled to start next summer and conclude in November Shermer and UP Bridge A new railroad bridge to replace the viaduct that collapsed July 4, 2012 over Shermer Road just south of Willow Road should be in place by the end of the this year. The condition of the roadway under the temporary crushed rock train bed, however, must still be assessed. In the worst case scenario, Shermer Road is scheduled to be reopened no later than September For the long-term, both Glenview and Northbrook are pursuing opportunities to work with IDOT to implement the construction of a typical roadway cross-section which would contain a typical sidewalk and a multi-use path running under the bridge and along Shermer Road. Temporary Intersection at Old Willow Road and Patriot Boulevard The Village of Glenview, the Village of Northbrook, and the Union Pacific Railroad Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding by which all parties agreed, that the recently installed Old Willow Road intersection with Patriot Boulevard would only be a temporary intersection. Once the Union Pacific Bridge over Shermer Road is installed and the roadway section under the bridge reestablished, the temporary intersection will be removed and the median along Patriot restored. Proposed Development Traffic Improvements West Lake Avenue / Shermer Road intersection: 19

20 ERJ and WCCC, along with Pulte Homes - the developer of Regency at the Glen, are required to pay for the installation of a new traffic signal at West Lake and Shermer, to accommodate the development impacts associated with the redevelopment of the former Navy land. The cost sharing formula will be established by the Village based on the projected traffic generation of each use. The stoplight light and intersection work is anticipated to be installed during Phase I of their construction - presumably summer Shermer Road: Dedicated Left Turn Lane on Shermer Road to Valcour Drive Dedicated Right Turn Lane on Shermer Road to Valcour Drive Dedicated Left Turn Lane on Shermer to Constellation TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT: Proposed Church Traffic Management Plan The church has included a traffic management exhibit which details how traffic would enter and exit the site during the Sunday church services and would be incorporated as a requirement of any conditional use for the site. It is the church s intention to use the eastern most parking lots during any other activities that may occur during the week to minimize the impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. A detailed explanation of the plan will be provided at the November 12 meeting. Valcour Drive Connection to Regency at the Glen (Pulte) During the October neighborhood meetings, several concerns regarding the connection of Valcour Drive from Shermer into the existing Pulte development were expressed. Since this time, the applicants have reviewed the street connections in the proposed residential development and modified Valcour Drive so it no longer directly connects to the Pulte development. The connection to the Pulte development is currently proposed via Coral Drive, which is intended to provide a landscaped buffer where Valcour Drive extended would be located, while maintaining another connection to Shermer Road for the Regency at the Glen neighborhood. Prior to the roadway shift, the Village s traffic consultant identified the advantages and disadvantages of three separate options (A-C) for Valcour Drive for the Commission s reference which include: A. Keep the connection open between Pulte and Shermer B. Install a gate (or temporary access control) along Valcour which could be used during the primary operating hours of the church on Sunday C. Close the access between Pulte and Shermer to only allow access to the church 20

21 Remainder of Report Intentionally Omitted No Changes See October 22, 2013 Report for Content 21

22 Final Site Plan Review FINAL SITE PLAN COMMENTS: The purpose of Site Plan Review is to go beyond the basic zoning, subdivision, design and building requirements in order to address site details which these other codes may not regulate in such detail. The review process is intended to promote more orderly and harmonious development and are intended to ensure that all codes and ordinances have been met helping to provide a logical and coordinated review of proposed developments. The following is a summary of issues to consider when evaluating compliance with the Site Plan Review Ordinance Criteria: CIRCULATION The discussion on November 12 should focus on the following traffic management operations: o Explain how the traffic management plan would be implemented from the beginning of the first Sunday service to the end of the second service. o With two entrances/exits on Shermer Road, explain how the off-duty officers would ensure traffic efficiently travels north or south on Shermer Road. o Explain how the areas for curb-side pick-up & drop off near the main entrances would operate. o Explain whether cones, a parked police vehicle, construction horses, volunteers, etc. would be used to prevent church traffic from using Coral Drive. o Present the findings from the traffic study and show a traffic simulation model which would represent the traffic flows entering and exiting the site and along the adjacent roadways and nearby intersections to demonstrate the traffic impacts during the Sunday peak times and special events would be mitigated. o Separate from the peak times on Sunday, explain where users of the site would enter and park during the rest of the week. Explain how the shared access to Shermer Road on the north side of the Thresholds development to the east of the church would operate. Explain where deliveries would occur. The applicant has verified a ladder truck can circulate around the site through the included autoturn exhibits. BUILDING AND STRUCTURE LOCATION The applicant should explain how the building s location, within the middle of the parcel, is sited to maximize its association with the main street - Shermer Road. 22

23 BUILDING SCALE Explain the intent of the building design. Will light project outwards into the adjacent neighborhood based on the extensive use of windows in the building design. Provide material and color samples to gain a better understanding of the building design. The building design shall be subject to the review and approval of the Appearance Commission. PARKING LOTS Explain how the building entrances relate to the interior building layout and how a parishioner who is parking their vehicle furthest away from the building would safely walk towards the main entrances. The applicant should explain why there is more parking proposed than required by the ordinance. The site would be expected to generate significant amounts of piled snow after winter storm events. Where will areas for snow piling be provided to ensure that required landscaping will not be damaged? Is there any benefit to parking in the east lot compared to the west lot to gain easier access to certain areas of the church? SITE ILLUMINATION The proposed fixture heights of approximately 25.0 feet would require a zoning variance. How will the light levels be controlled in the evenings to reduce the impacts on the adjacent neighbors while maintaining minimum security light levels and at what time would they be triggered? The photometrics plan depicts all light levels extending to the property lines and demonstrates compliance with the maximum fc level of 5.0 at Shermer Road and West Lake Avenue, and 0.1 along all interior lot lines. A maximum uniformity ratio of 4:1 is shown with a compliant average of up to 2.0 fc. The maximum fc level complies with the 8.0 fc requirement. The proposed photometrics plan and lighting fixtures shall be subject to review and approval by the Appearance Commission. LANDSCAPING The applicant should describe the grade changes and proposed landscaping along the north portion of the site. Explain the height of the proposed berms at the southwest corner of the site and what type of landscaping is proposed to buffer the adjacent residences. Is there a fence proposed along the west property line? A sufficient quantity of landscape should be provided to the south of the church along Valcour Drive to bring down the building scale, as the new townhomes across the street are the closest residences to the church. What type of buffer is being provided to the Thresholds development directly to the east of the 23

24 building? Describe the purposes of the outdoor space adjacent to the café area located to the south of the proposed building. What type of landscaping is proposed surrounding this area? Should parking way trees be removed from the along the western Shermer Road parkway, north of Valcour Drive to allow an expanded view of the building from Shermer. Is there any foundation planting proposed? Explain how the landscape treatments in the parking lot, around the building, and near the water amenities are being tied together from a design perspective. Variances are being requested to allow less than the amount of landscape islands along the north side of the parking lot and less that the required amount of landscape rows at the southwest section of the parking lot closest to the building. Explain where on the site this square footage of required landscaping has been relocated. The plant list should feature a palette of native plantings as listed in the GNAS Design Guidelines, as amended to eliminate any species identified to be at risk since development of the list. No replacement trees or cash in lieu penalties are anticipated. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Appearance Commission. GRAPHICS AND SIGNAGE Only one ground sign is permitted per frontage, each to be up to 20 sq. ft. per face, and setback one-half the required setback for the building. The proposed signage footprint at the northwest corner of Valcour Drive and Shermer Road shown on site plan suggests a variance would be required for the sign square footage. Signage details are needed to confirm the proposed number of signs and the square footage. Any proposed wall signage? Any proposed directional signage needed to guide visitors to the main entrances? All proposed signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the Appearance Commission 24

25 EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH GNAS DESIGN GUIDELINES: The residential guidelines refer to single-family homes. The guidelines for the SLE (Sports Leisure and Entertainment) would include museum buildings which are more closely related to and more compatible with the building architecture of a church. The Appearance Commission will refer to the GNAS Design Guidelines as part of their evaluation of the appropriateness of the proposed architecture, landscaping, lighting, and signage. S-L-E Design Guidelines: Building Placement & Setbacks: Buildings are encouraged to orient towards the addressing streets to help define the street and create a pedestrian friendly environment. Compliance: Yes while the building is siting within the middle of the parcel, the facades and water feature will feature prominently from Shermer Road. There are pedestrian connections from the parking lot. Building Height: A maximum height of 40 ft is allowed, however buildings intended for public assembly may be built up to a maximum of 55 ft. Compliance: Yes the building is proposed to vary in height (16-44 feet) among the different sections. Roof forms and Screening: Screening systems required for all roof top equipment, using materials similar to building façade. Compliance: Yes the applicant intends to screen the mechanical equipment either on the roof or at grade. Building Materials and Colors: High quality and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods is encouraged. Compliance: Yes glass and steel construction is consistent with other institutional buildings in the Glen. Parking Location: Parking requirements would be determined during site plan review with consideration given to the proposed building location and hours of operation. Compliance: Yes the parking areas are easily accessible and sidewalks are provided for pedestrians who are walking towards the building. 25

26 Service Location: Service and loading activities must occur at the rear or non-required side yard of the building and screened from public view. Building service areas oriented away from major and addressing streets are encouraged. Compliance: Pending a loading area is not depicted on the current plan. Landscaped setbacks: A 10 ft setback zone surrounding the perimeter of the surface parking lots is encouraged. Hedges and groupings of trees should be provided to screen the parked vehicles. Compliance: Yes landscaping is proposed along all lot lines and the proposed 7 ft landscape zone complies with the current zoning ordinance requirements. Landscaped parking lots: Islands and perimeter are encouraged to be landscaped to visually disrupt the large expanse of pavement. At minimum trees and groundcover are needed. Compliance: Yes parking lot is heavily landscaped and islands are provided in a majority of the required locations. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/OFFICIAL MAP AMENDMENT: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Village s Comprehensive Plan to reflect the proposed zoning and an amendment to the Official to incorporate the revised roadway configurations. Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Village of Glenview Comprehensive Plan was last adopted in 2004 and designates land suitable for annexation or redevelopment, and recommends zoning classifications and development standards for such land. Since a future land use map was not included in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan, the 2004 Plan references the previous 1990 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as the tool for guiding future land use decisions. For this property the Concept Planning Study for the Navy Disposition Parcel was used to guide the future development of the site. Official Map Amendment The Village of Glenview Official Map establishes permissible minimum lot sizes via the assignment of future zoning classifications and designates roadway configurations. This assignment applies to both properties within the Village as well as and per State of Illinois law unincorporated property within the Village s 1.5 mile planning boundary. The Official Map ensures connectivity of future subdivided lots to existing and future transportation infrastructure. The Village of Glenview s Official Map only lists properties in which formal guidance on future zoning classifications is being provided, and as such, very few future zoning designations are listed on the map. The blank areas on the Official Map reference the Village s current zoning as designed on the Glenview Zoning Map, therefore any zoning or roadway change to the property also requires an amendment to the Official Map. 26

27 REZONING STANDARDS: The Plan Commission should consider the applicant s responses to the following standards for rezoning: 1. The existing uses and zoning of nearby property. 2. The extent to which property values may be diminished by the particular zoning restrictions. 3. The extent to which the destruction of property values upon the plaintiff promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public. 4. The relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual property owner. 5. The suitability of the subject property for the zoned purposes. 6. The length of time the property has been vacant as zoned considered in the context of land development in the area in the vicinity of the subject property. 7. The community need for the proposed use. 8. The care with which the community has undertaken to plan its land use development. CONDITIONAL USE: A Conditional Use is the use of land, building, and/or structure which, because of its unique characteristic, can only be allowed in a particular Zoning District through a special approval process. There are five standards the Plan Commission uses to evaluate the impact of a particular Conditional Use and determine the appropriateness of that use in the designated zoning district. Per Sec of the Municipal Code, the Plan Commission shall evaluate any petition for Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the following standards before offering a recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees: 1. The proposed conditional use at the particular location is necessary or desirable for the public convenience; and it will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of property already permitted in the immediate vicinity; nor will it diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood; nor will it affect a significant change in the character of the neighborhood. 2. The location and size of the conditional use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved in or conducted in connection with it, the size of the site in relation to it, and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it, shall be such that it will be in harmony with present development and the appropriate and orderly future development of the district in which it is located, as well as other butting districts. 3. The location, nature, and height of buildings, walls, and fences, and the nature and extent of the landscaping on the site shall be such that the use will not unreasonably hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent and nearby land and buildings. 4. Parking areas shall be of adequate size for the particular use, properly located, and suitably screened from adjoining residential uses, and the entrance and exit drives shall be laid out so as to prevent traffic hazards and nuisances, and minimize traffic congestion in the area. 5. A use which is permitted in another district by conditional use shall comply with all applicable bulk regulations of the district in which the use is located. The following additional items should be considered when identifying what types of conditions may be applicable to this property: o The various accessory uses that are subordinate to and serve the principal use which could include such activities as job fairs, health clinic, support & recovery groups, etc. should be noted for inclusion in the ordinance to accommodate such uses in a building that is primarily used for religious worship. 27

28 o o Due to proximity of the site to adjacent residential uses, any proposed outdoor activities should be identified and it should be noted such activities shall not encumber any required parking stalls, nor exceed performance standards for noise, lighting, odor, etc. Special events shall be conducted in accordance with required permits for same available after advanced review from the Village Manager s Office and Village Board of Trustees. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION COMMENTS: The site plan for both developments will act as the Preliminary Subdivision plat. Easements and associated language shall be included on the Final Subdivision plat. Final Subdivision approval will be required prior to the letting of building permits for the proposed development. VARIATION STANDARDS: The Zoning Board of Appeals will consider the requested variances by evaluating how the requests satisfy the following standards before offering a recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees: 1.) The Commission shall not vary the regulations of Chapter 98 of the Municipal Code unless it shall make a finding of fact based upon the evidence as presented to it in each specific case that the: a. Particular physical surroundings shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a practical difficulty or hardship upon or for the owner, lessee or occupant, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulation were carried out. b. Conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based are unique and would not be generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. c. Alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. d. Granting of the variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. e. Proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. f. Variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 2.) If all of the standards set forth in subsection (1) of this section cannot be met, yet an identifiable overriding public benefit can be realized by the granting of the requested variation, the zoning board of appeals shall forward a written recommendation, including a specific finding of fact of overriding public benefit, to the board of trustees for final disposition. 3.) The Commission may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the premises benefited by a variation as may be necessary to comply with the standards set forth in this subsection (1) to reduce or minimize the injurious effect of such variation upon other property in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the general intent of Chapter 98 of the Municipal Code. 28

29 Requested Variances The applicant is seeking the following relief in the form of variations: 1. Light fixture pole heights in excess of 14 feet for most of the proposed poles in the parking lot. 2. More than only one ground sign which is allowed in the R-1 District, and signage in excess of the 20 s.q.f. per sign face which is all that is permitted in the R-1 Zoning District. 3. Although the proposed buildings will not contain traditional eaves, portions of the building could be interpreted to exceed the maximum eave height of 23 feet, relief from which is requested. 4. As maximum building height is measured from the average of the four comers of the building from existing grade, and as there will be fill introduced to the site which will counted toward the height of the building, relief is requested to exceed the maximum 35 foot height which is permitted in the R-1 District. 5. Inasmuch as the computation of maximum allowable building area may include double height volume spaces, relief is requested to allow a maximum building area in excess of that permitted. 6. To allow portion of the parking lot to have 15 or more parking spaces without a landscaped island, provided that the landscaped area which would have been provided as part of any such island shall be provided elsewhere on the site. 7. To allow a portion of the parking lot to be developed without requiring a continuous parking island between two parking bays provided that the landscaped area which would have been provided as part of such landscaped area shall be provided elsewhere on the site. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: The attached memorandum dated 11/07/13 from Steve Amann, outlines the engineering comments the applicant will need to address in their next round of submittals. No preliminary engineering issues exist which would prevent this project from proceeding to final engineering review and approval. 29

30 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: 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 30

31 11/12/13 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Sample Motion 2. Public Notice 3. October 22, 2013 Plan Commission Minutes 4. Engineering Memorandum, dated November 7, Review of Traffic Study by Benes and Associates, dated November 8, Correspondence Packet C received from October 18 to November 8 7. Applicant s Exhibits A. Traffic Study prepared by Sam Schwartz Engineering, dated November 7, 2013 B. Site Plan & Architectural Elevations 8. Previously Distributed in 10/22/13 Packet (Available upon request) A. Pages of Staff Report B. Property Area Summary Exhibit C Concept Planning Study for the Navy Disposition Parcel & July 2012 RFP Document- D. PSA approved September 3, 2013 (includes August 7, 2013 WCCC Use Letter & Letter of Support from the Southgate HOA) E. Correspondence Packet A - received prior to September 3 (prior to the flip) F. Correspondence Packet B - received from September 4 to October 17 G. Applicants Letters and Applications H. Fiscal Study prepared by Laube Companies and dated 03/04/13 I. Review of Fiscal Study by SB Friedman and Company dated 04/11/13 J. Appraisal Report from Renzi and Associates and dated 10/17/13 31

32 Sample Motion The Plan Commission should listen to the petitioner s presentation, solicit public comment, and provide feedback to the petitioner on the particular aspects of the proposal. After discussion and comment by the Plan Commission, the case should be continued to the Plan Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 19,

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57