Village of Glenview Plan Commission

Transcription

1 Village of Glenview Plan Commission STAFF REPORT July 25, 2017 TO: Chairman and Plan Commissioners CASE #: P FROM: Community Development Department CASE MANAGER: Jeff Rogers, AICP, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Official Map Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Planned Development with Variation, Final Site Plan Review and Preliminary Subdivision Approvals ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests consideration of a Plan Commission recommendation to the Board of Trustees. APPLICANT / CONTACT: Trammell Crow Company Johnny Carlson 2215 S. York Rd, Suite 204 Oak Brook, IL Tel: (630) OWNERS: MJB Saturn Realty, LLC 556 Randall South Elgin, IL Chicago Title Land Trust 5125 Old Orchard Rd #528 Skokie, IL LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: Waukegan Road Glenview Active Living Apartments T. Lappas PO Box 85 Glenview, IL PROPOSAL: Trammell Crow Company is requesting Official Map Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Planned Development with Variations, Final Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Subdivision approvals to allow for the construction of a new multi-family residential development upon the subject property. 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 Site Assessment VILLAGE OF GLENVIEW ZONING: PIN(s): , , & Current North East South West Glenview B-2 General Business District Glenview B-2 General Business District Glenview R-18 Residential District Glenview P-1 Public Lands District Glenview R-5 Residential District AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY: 2

3 PICTOMETRIC PHOTOGRAPHY: Northeast Elevations Southwest Elevations 3

4 Project Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Trammell Crow Company, proposes the demolition of two existing retail commercial buildings, rezoning of the property, and development of a new multi-family active living residential apartment building including 178 units comprised of approximately 270,000 square feet upon 3.09 acres. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Trammell Crow Company, has prior development experience in Glenview including the Midtown Square development at 1803 Glenview Road. The proposed multi-family residential building would be of similar scale and density as the Midtown Square development, but would not include any non-residential uses nor would multiple building forms be featured along the street frontage. The proposed inverted U -shaped building would however be comprised of two primary building forms, including a four-story component along Waukegan Road and a five-story component adjacent to the Milwaukee & St. Paul railroad right-of-way. Parking would be provided at grade with additional parking provided underground within a parking structure beneath the building. The subject property is comprised of three (3) parcels including a former automobile dealership, an existing office/commercial building, and a portion of an existing legal nonconforming residential property, each currently zoned B-2 General Business District. The subject property would feature a primary entrance which would align with an existing curb cut for the Carriage Hill condominium development opposite the development site across Waukegan Road. The proposed residential use would be situated north of a publicly-owned utility & existing 155-foot water tower. The new residential use would be situated adjacent to an existing low-intensity commercial use and an existing legal nonconforming singlefamily residential use to the north. An existing neighborhood of single-family detached residences is situated across the adjacent Milwaukee & St. Paul railroad right-of-way to the west. To accommodate the proposed development, a rezoning of the property would be required. The Village of Glenview s 2017 Comprehensive Plan does not provide any specific instruction regarding the proposed rezoning of the subject property from the existing commercial zoning to the proposed planned development multi-family zoning. Variations from the typical bulk regulations associated with the R-18 residential district would be required to allow the proposed unit density, floor area ratio, and impervious lot coverage. POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS: The subject property is situated between Waukegan Road, a Village-owned water tower, the Milwaukee & St. Paul railroad right-of-way, adjacent commercial uses & a legal nonconforming single-family residence. The Village will review land use, traffic, setback, height, and landscaping requirements in association with the proposed improvements. 4

5 Plan Commission Review COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: The parcels comprising the subject property are among various commercially zoned properties situated west of Waukegan Road between the public right-of-way and the Milwaukee & St. Paul railroad right-way. The 2017 Village of Glenview Comprehensive Plan does not provide specific guidance regarding the proposed rezoning of the property from B-2 General Business District to PD R-18 Planned Development Residential District as requested by the applicant. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be required to allow the proposed conditions. OFFICIAL MAP AMENDMENT: The Village s Official map prescribes appropriate land uses for property within the Village and property within 1.5 miles of the Village s corporate limits. Also, the Village s Official Map is incorporated by reference within the Village s Comprehensive Plan to provide guidance regarding rezoning petitions. Since the 2017 Village of Glenview Comprehensive Plan does not provide specific guidance regarding the proposed rezoning of the property from B-2 General Business District to PD R-18 Planned Development Residential District as requested by the applicant, an amendment to the Official Map would be required to allow the proposed conditions. REZONING: The Plan Commission should consider the applicant s responses as outlined within their application materials in regard to the following judicial standards and requisites for rezoning of property from B-2 General Business District to PD R-18 Planned Development Residential District: 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. If the proposed rezoning complies with the above judicial standards, the Plan Commission should recommend approval of the proposed rezoning to the Board of Trustees. If the Plan Commission believes the standards can be met by applying modifications to the proposed development, the commissioners should provide such guidance to the applicant. If the Plan Commission believes that standards have not been met, the proposed rezoning should not be approved. The Plan Commission should also consider the introduction of a residential land use upon the subject property in regard to the future land uses upon the existing commercially zoned property to the north. 5

6 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH VARIATIONS: To accommodate the proposed building and site design, the applicant is requesting relief from various zoning provisions in accordance with the proposed Planned Development ordinance. The proposed zoning relief includes the following bulk regulation requests: Density: In accordance with the requested Planned Development ordinance, the Plan Commission may consider the proposed bulk and scale of the development in context to the permitted density of the underlying zoning district. In accordance with the Planned Development request, the applicant is requesting approval of a density in excess of the provisions of the R-18 Residential District. Instead of a maximum density of 18 units per acre, the applicant proposes a density of 55 units per acre. Due to the relative proximity of the development to the Village s Downtown Frame R-18 District and Downtown-Development District, the applicant requests consideration of the proposed increased density. For comparison purposes, the densities of other multi-family developments throughout the Village can be summarized as follows: Development Units Gross Density Reserve at Glenview units per acre Tapestry at Glenview units per acre Midtown Square units per acre Riverforest units per acre Haverford units per acre Active Living Apartments units per acre Additionally, due to the nature of the age-targeted marketing for the development, even when 100% leased, the building may frequently operate with less than 100% occupancy due to the travel schedules and preferences of the residents. Building Height: In accordance with the requested Planned Development ordinance, the Plan Commission may consider a site plan and associated bulk regulations in context to the development site provided the maximum building height permitted within the underlying zoning district is considered as a reference to evaluate the proposed building height. In accordance with the Planned Development request, the applicant is requesting approval of a building height in excess of the provisions of the R-18 Residential District. Instead of a maximum building height of 40.0 feet, the applicant proposes a building height of 59.0 feet. Due to the relative proximity of the development to the Village s Downtown Frame R-18 District and the Village s Downtown- Development District, the applicant requests consideration of the proposed increased building height. For comparison purposes, the building heights of other developments throughout the Village can be summarized as follows: Development Haverford Riverforest Patton House Reserve at Glenview Tapestry at Glenview Midtown Square Northwestern Medicine Astellas Building Height 38.0 feet 48.0 feet 49.0 feet 54.0 feet 54.6 feet 60.5 feet 66.0 feet feet 6

7 Former Aon Office Building Active Living Apartments feet 59.0 feet The development would be permitted additional building height to allow for mechanical and elevator penthouses extended above any approved building height by up to 11.0 feet. Also, the proposed residential use would be situated adjacent to an existing 155-foot water tower. Floor Area Ratio: In accordance with the requested Planned Development ordinance, the Plan Commission may consider a site plan and associated bulk regulations in context to the development site provided the maximum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) permitted within the underlying zoning district is considered as a reference to evaluate the proposed F.A.R. In accordance with the Planned Development request, the applicant is requesting approval of an F.A.R. in excess of the provisions of the R-18 Residential District. Instead of a maximum F.A.R. of 0.50, the applicant proposes an F.A.R. of Due to the relative proximity of the development to the Village s Downtown Frame R-18 District and the Village s Downtown-Development District, the applicant requests consideration of the proposed increased F.A.R. For comparison purposes, the F.A.R.s of other multi-family developments throughout the Village can be summarized as follows: Development Floor Area Ratio The Abington 0.51 Midtown Square 1.23 Reserve at Glenview 1.34 Tapestry at Glenview 1.66 Riverforest 2.40 Active Living Apartments 1.40 Parking: In accordance with the requested Planned Development ordinance, the Plan Commission may consider a site plan and associated bulk regulations in context to the development site provided the minimum parking requirements required within the underlying zoning district are considered as a reference to evaluate the proposed parking stall quantity to be provided. In accordance with the Planned Development request, the applicant is requesting approval of a parking stall quantity less than the required number of parking stalls as stipulated by the provisions of the R-18 Residential District. Instead of a minimum of 356 parking stalls, the applicant is proposing a total of 232 parking stalls. Due to the relative proximity of the development to the Village s Downtown Frame R-18 District and the Village s Downtown- Development District, the applicant requests consideration of the proposed quantity of parking stalls. For comparison purposes, the quantities of parking stalls provided for other multi-family developments throughout the Village can be summarized as follows: Development Riverforest Midtown Square Tapestry at Glenview Reserve at Glenview Active Living Apartments Off-Street Parking 1.51 stalls per unit 1.22 stalls per unit 1.70 stalls per unit 1.47 stalls per unit 1.30 stalls per unit 7

8 Front Yard Setback: The required front yard (east) setback for the building upon the subject property is equal to the average of the front yard setbacks of the existing structures on the adjacent properties to the north and south along Waukegan Road. A variation will be required in association with the Planned Development to allow a front yard (east) building setback of 33.0 feet. As proposed, the east elevation would include private patios adjacent to ground floor units within the front yard setback. The applicant proposed landscape screening and grade changes to provide privacy for residents from the public right-of-way in these areas. Signage: When final signage plans are developed, variations may be required in association with the Planned Development for sign area and other design elements. Lighting: When final lighting plans are developed, variations may be required for light fixture heights in excess of 14 feet and fixture designs which do not include shields in association with the Planned Development. FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW: 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. Staff comments after evaluating the development for compliance with the Final Site Plan Review Ordinance Criteria: CIRCULATION The 2010 Waukegan Road Corridor Plan calls for a specific streetscape design which can be accommodated within the existing street right-of-way width of feet. The architectural site plan should be updated to reflect the lane dimensions at the primary entrance conditions of the geometric plan and depict alignment with Palmgren Drive. With the cross-access lane with the adjacent property to the north, the drop-off lane by the main entrance, and the left-turn lane exiting the site, there are potential circulation issues at the northeast corner of the site. The applicant should introduce additional traffic controls including pavement markings and signage to improve conflicts and limit movements in this area. Exit only signage should be provided for vehicles in Waukegan Road at the south curb cut. The applicant should confirm sight-lines are adequate at the entrance/exit to the underground parking structure. The applicant shall confirm the clear height for the proposed covered building entrance exceeds 16.0 feet. The applicant should confirm that all pedestrian routes within site including locations of cross-walks and depressed curbs and access to the public sidewalk & Pace bus stop comply with Illinois Accessibility Code / ADA requirements. 8

9 BUILDING AND STRUCTURE LOCATION In accordance with the requested Planned Development, a variation will be necessary for the proposed front yard (east) setback since the required setback is equal to the average of the setbacks of the existing structures on the two adjoining properties. The applicant should denote the location of any proposed ground-mounted utility infrastructure, including generators, transformers, A/C condensers, etc. Any such existing infrastructure to be removed should be noted on a demolition plan. Roof-mounted mechanicals should be screened from view from adjacent properties, including west of the adjacent railroad right-of-way and east of Waukegan Road. Wall-mounted units should be included upon the proposed building elevations. The location of any existing or proposed fencing should be noted on all site plans. Appearance Commission approval is required for both preliminary and final building architecture, building materials, light fixtures, and hardware. 9

10 BUILDING SCALE In accordance with the requested Planned Development, a variation will be required for the proposed building height, density, and floor area ratio (F.A.R.). The maximum building height shall be measured above the average existing grade at 4 corners of the building closest to the lot corners. Refer to the Village of Glenview Zoning Code definition of average existing grade (Sec of the Code). The trash area shall be screened and shall feature solid, metal doors. Please depict all proposed building penetrations including plumbing & HVAC ventilation systems. Please confirm that window glazing will not create any negative impacts on pool users or adjacent property owners. Considering the proposed building height, the applicant should clarify the proposed shadows created by the proposed building. PARKING LOTS The parking plan and site plan indicate differing information regarding the proposed parking counts. The applicant should confirm the correct number of directly accessible stalls versus tandem stalls, and the number of compact stalls shall not exceed 5% of the total number of proposed parking stalls. OPEN SPACE The allowed maximum impervious lot coverage for property in the R-18 district is 50%. If the subject property were relocated within the downtown frame neighborhood up to 62% impervious lot coverage would be permitted. The proposed 80% impervious coverage in lieu of 50% would require a variation in association with the proposed Planned Development. SITE ILLUMINATION All proposed exterior light fixtures shall be 100% cut-off style fixtures with no visible light elements. Shielding may be required upon fixtures to comply with maximum lighting levels permitted per ordinance. Shielding should be incorporated for any light elements which may otherwise be visible from any residential property. Fixtures in excess of 14.0 feet would require a variation in association with the proposed Planned Development. A waiver from the Appearance Commission will be required for a uniformity ratio in excess of 4:1. The lighting plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Appearance Commission. LANDSCAPING Due to the adjacent non-residential land uses to the north and south of the subject property, a densely landscaped buffer yard should be provided for the protection of the residents of the proposed development. The landscaping plan should depict the location(s) of any existing and/or proposed fencing. It is encouraged that various species of trees and plantings (including parkway trees) are installed to prevent massive simultaneous loss from disease inherent to any particular species. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Appearance Commission. 10

11 GRAPHICS AND SIGNAGE The proposed monument sign would require a variation for sign area in association with the proposed Planned Development. When final property branding efforts are complete, a final signage design will be required with details for all ground signage and signage upon the canopy or wall. Address numerals are required to be a minimum of 6 in height. Appearance Commission approval is required for all proposed exterior signage. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL: Staff is currently working with the applicant to draft a plat of subdivision which would be forwarded to the Commission for consideration at a future date. Final Subdivision including consolidation of the parcels comprising the development area and grant of new utility easements and reciprocal vehicular and pedestrian cross-access & ingress/egress easements will be required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 11

12 Technical Review COMPLIANCE WITH VILLAGE PLANS: Village Plan Compliance Yes / No / N/A Comments Comprehensive Plan No The 2017 Plan does not specify a change from the existing commercial land uses upon the subject property. Official Map No The Official Map depicts a commercial land use upon the subject property. Waukegan Road Corridor Plan Yes The proposed building placement would accommodate the future design of improvements within the Waukegan Road right-of-way prescribed by the Plan which would be undertaken in accordance with a wider public improvement project. Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Plan N/A - Downtown Revitalization Plan N/A - Natural Resources Plan N/A - Bike & Sidewalk Master Plan Yes Public sidewalk is existing in this area. Affordable Housing Plan No The applicant expects a small number of the proposed one-bedroom units to meet the criteria associated with the official parameters which would recognize the units as affordable, however the number of such units may not exceed 10% of the total number of units. The GNAS Design Guidelines N/A - 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 Residential Formula 2 parking spaces per residential unit Quantity Total Required Total Proposed Compliance 178 units No 12

13 LAND USE STATISTICS: Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Proposed Conditions Compliance Zoning B-2 PD R-18 PD R-18 PD Ordinance Requested Minimum Lot Size 6,250 sq. ft. 6,250 sq. ft. 140,877 sq. ft. Yes Maximum Density N/A 58 units 178 units No Maximum Building Height 40.0 feet 40.0 feet 59.0 feet Yes Maximum Floor Area Ratio N/A 0.50 (0.65 in DFN) 1.40 No Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage 100% 50% (62% in DFN) 80% No Minimum Front Yard Setback feet (20.0 feet) 84.0 feet 33.0 feet No Minimum Side Yard Setback (North) 0.0 feet 12.0 feet 61.0 feet Yes Minimum Side Yard Setback (South) 0.0 feet 12.0 feet 54.0 feet Yes Minimum Rear Yard Setback (West) 20.0 feet 10.0 feet 44.0 feet Yes Minimum Parking Setback 5.0 feet 5.0 feet 5.0 feet Yes Loading Berths 1 (10 feet x 25 feet) 0 0 Yes FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: A fiscal impact study was prepared for the project by Teska Associates. A review of the applicant s fiscal impact study was completed by the Village s third-party consultant, S.B. Friedman. Since the development is comprised of age-targeted housing directed at persons 55 and older, the development would be expected to have a net neutral impact financial impact upon the Village of Glenview and net positive impacts upon local school districts. The rezoning of the property would eliminate potential for sales tax generating uses upon the property, however the existing land uses upon the subject property are currently generating no sales taxes for the State or local jurisdictions. A copy of both analyses are attached to this report. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: A traffic study was prepared for the proposed project by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. A review of projected impacts and site analysis was conducted the Village s third-party consultant, James J. Benes and Associates. The various traffic impacts have been incorporated into the Final Site Plan Review section above, especially in regard to the Circulation and Parking Lots subsections. A copy of both analyses are attached to this report. 13

14 PROJECT TIMELINE: A. 05/01/17 Application Submitted B. 05/24/17 Preliminary Site Plan Review C. 07/06/17 Public notice published in the Glenview Lantern D. 07/06/17 Public notice sign posted upon the subject property E. 07/06/17 Public notices mailed to surrounding property owners F. 07/25/17 Plan Commission Meeting G. 07/26/17 Appearance Commission Meeting H. TBD Village Board of Trustees First Consideration I. TBD Village Board of Trustees Second Consideration J. TBD Building Permit Application & Final Engineering K. TBD Building & Engineering Inspections L. TBD Certificate of Occupancy 2017 A B CDE FG Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec REQUIRED APPROVAL(s): The following chart details the necessary required approvals: 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) (Plan Commission in accordance with Planned Development) 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 14

15 Attachments & Exhibits 1. Sample Motion 2. Public Notice 3. Waukegan Road Corridor Plan Excerpts 4. Engineering Memorandum dated 07/20/17 from Stephen Amann, P.E., Baxter & Woodman 5. Traffic Impact Analysis Memorandum dated 07/13/17 from Tom Adomschick, P.E., P.T.O.E., President, James J. Benes and Associates 6. Fiscal Impact Analysis Memorandum dated 07/14/17 from Geoff Dickinson, S.B. Friedman 7. Public Correspondence received through 07/21/ Petitioner s Application Materials & Exhibits 15

16 Sample Motion The Plan Commission should consider the applicant s application materials and plans, review the presentation provided by staff, and request clarifying information from the applicant regarding any relevant details of the proposed plans prior to soliciting public comment during a public hearing. Upon closure of the public hearing, the Plan Commission should provide direction to the applicant regarding the proposed development so the applicant can finalize plan designs for resubmittal and consideration at a future Plan Commission public hearing at which time additional testimony and public comment will be heard. Revised materials for the August 8, 2017 Plan Commission meeting would be needed by August 1, 2017 to allow sufficient time for updated review of engineering, traffic, fiscal, site plan, and design changes. 16

17 VILLAGE OF GLENVIEW PUBLIC NOTICE P PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH VARIATIONS Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Glenview Plan Commission to consider a petition requesting an Official Map Amendment, Rezoning, Planned Development with Variations, Final Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Subdivision in accordance with the Glenview Zoning Ordinance. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 7:00 P.M., in the Village Hall, 2500 East Lake Avenue, Glenview, IL. The properties involved are commonly known as Waukegan Road and are legally described as follows: LOT 1 IN SAGA SUBDIVISION, BEING A PART OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAST OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, AND ST. PAUL RAILROAD AND WEST OF CENTER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY; LOT 1 IN TSORONIS SUBDIVISION, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 2 IN DEL MONTE S SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ALSO THAT PART OF THE SOUTH 93 FEET OF THE NORTH FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 35, LYING WEST OF THE EAST 210 FEET THEREOF, OF THE SOUTH CHAINS OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING BETWEEN THE CENTER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY AND THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, AND ST. PAUL RAILROAD, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JANUARY 3, 1997 AS DOCUMENT NO ; AND THAT PART OF THE NORTH FEET (EXCEPT THE EAST 210 FEET THEREOF) ANDALSO EXCEPT A STRIP 20 FEET WIDE, PARALLEL TO AND ADJACANT TO THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, AND ST. PAUL RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND A WEDGE BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AFORESAID STRIP, AND EXTENDING AS FOLLOWS: 7 FEET EAST, THENCE IN SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION 7.05 FEET THENCE NORTHWEST ALONG EAST BOUNDARY OF AFORESAID STRIP, 5 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE SOUTH CHAINS OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN LYING BETWEEN THE CENTER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY AND THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, AND ST. PAUL RAILWAY; ALL IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. 17

18 The applicant, Trammel Crow Chicago Development, Inc., requests an Official Map Amendment, Rezoning, Planned Development with Variations, Final Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Subdivision to allow a multifamily development upon the property comprised of up to 180 residential units with variations relating to the building height, floor area, quantity of parking stalls, and other relief as necessary in association with the proposed development plans. All persons interested in this matter should attend and will be given an opportunity to be heard. For further information, please contact Jeff Rogers, Planning Manager, at (847) ATTEST: Jeff Rogers Planning Manager Glenview Plan Commission Steven K. Bucklin, Chairman 18

19 Waukegan Road Corridor Plan Excerpts The Village of Glenview s 2010 Waukegan Road Corridor Plan includes several prescriptions for high density development and long-term streetscape conditions throughout the corridor. The plan can be reviewed in full on the Village s website at the following URL: The below excerpts highlight the various prescriptions of the plan: 19

20 20

21 21

22 22

23 23

24 24

25 Interdepartmental Memo TO: Jeff Rogers, Planner FROM: Steve Amann, P.E., CFM, Baxter & Woodman, Inc. DATE: July 20, 2017 SUBJECT: Glenview Active Adult Residences Preliminary Engineering Review We have reviewed the Proposed Site Plan and the Preliminary Engineering Plan dated June 23. There are no engineering issues which would prevent this project from proceeding to final plans. Some engineering items of note include: 1. The site is within a Tiered Flood Mitigation Boundary but not a Special Flood Hazard Area. 2. Detention will be required by the Village and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. Volume control (infiltration practices) will be required by the MWRDGC. 3. Downspouts will need to discharge at grade in landscaped areas, and be connected to storm sewers in hard-surfaced areas. 4. Runoff from the 10-year and 100-year events will need to be routed in storm sewer to the underground detention reservoir. The underground reservoir will be privately owned and maintained. 5. Water mains and water services will need to be sized to provide the required domestic and fire flows. 6. Permits will be required from the following outside agencies: a. The Illinois Department of Transportation for work in the Waukegan Road right-of-way; b. The MWRDGC for sanitary sewer construction and stormwater management; c. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Division of Water Pollution Control for the sanitary sewer service; d. The IEPA DWPC for construction site runoff; e. The IEPA Division of Public Water Supplies for any public water system expansion; and f. Cook County for demolition of the existing buildings. Please let us know if you have any questions or need any additional information. C: Shane Schneider, P.E., Engineering Services Manager James Tigue, P.E., Civil Engineer Jeffrey G. Brady, AICP, Director of Planning Joe Rizzo, Superintendent of Operations G:\PLANNING\PC\CASE FILES\2017\P Waukegan Road - Active Adults Apartments\CORRESPONDENCE\P Engineering PC Memo docx

26 Captain Jim Sincox, Fire Department

27 JAMES J. BENES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 950 Warrenville Road Suite 101 Lisle, Illinois Tel. (630) Fax (630) MEMORANDUM Date: July 13, 2017 To: Jeff Rogers, AICP Planning Manager Village of Glenview DRAFT From: Tom Adomshick, PE, PTOE Grant Hicks, E.I. President Project Engineer Re: Traffic Impact Analysis for proposed 178-Unit MF Development Waukegan Road (Glenview) At your request, we have performed a review of the following documents for the proposed Active Adult Residences off of Waukegan Road in Glenview, IL Waukegan Active Adult Apartments Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Kimley-Horn, June AutoTurn Exhibits prepared by Kimley-Horn, June 23 rd, Site Plan prepared by Kimley-Horn, June 23 rd, Glenview Active Adult Apartments Floor Plans prepared by Trammell Crow Company, High Street Residential, and ESG dated June 23 rd, We offer the following comments. 1. The site plan prepared by Kimley-Horn (6/23/17) shows Access A having three lanes. The First Floor Plan prepared by Trammell Crow Company, High Street Residential, and ESG (6/23/17) shows Access A having two lanes. We assume that the proposal is for three lanes (2 out and 1 in) based on the TIS. The plans should be updated to be consistent. 2. The alignment of lanes for through movements across Waukegan Road should comply with IDOT BDE design guidelines. The site plan does not show the alignment of Access A with Palmgren Drive.

28 DRAFT Active Adult Apartments 630 Waukegan Road July 13, Kimley-Horn used ITE Trip Generation Equations for Senior Adult Housing Attached (Land Use 252) to predict the number of trips the new development will add to the road system. We found the projections to be reasonable. 4. The trip distribution assigned to the network is consistent with the current patterns of traffic and is reasonable. 5. We have reviewed the intersection capacity analyses performed by Kimley-Horn for the weekday AM and PM peak hour periods under existing and project traffic conditions. The projected conditions analyses considered two cases; the first with only the proposed apartments, and the second adding in the potential future day care center. The results of the capacity analyses appear reasonable except as described below. For east bound left turns onto Waukegan Road from Access A, Kimley- Horn assumed that a two-step left turn onto Waukegan Road can be made where the vehicle stops in the median on Waukegan while waiting for a gap in traffic to enter the northbound lanes. This is unlikely to happen because there is an exclusive left turn lane on southbound Waukegan to Palmgren Drive. The vast majority of drivers will not attempt a two-step left turn at this location because to do so conflicts with marked the exclusive turn lane. Without a two-stage left turn to Waukegan Rd from Access A, exiting vehicles will experience long delays, but the 95 th percentile queue is projected to be one vehicle for the apartments only. If the day care use is added, the long delays for exiting vehicles will increase and the 95 th percentile queue will increase to about 6 vehicles, which will block access to the through/right turn lane. For left turn queues of two to five vehicles, exiting vehicles turning right will likely use the drop off area to bypass the left turn queues. This is not desirable. We recommend that the proposed drop-off area design to be reevaluated, and modified to reduce potential for on-site circulation issues with future day care access through the site. Page 2

29 DRAFT Active Adult Apartments 630 Waukegan Road July 13, The length of the proposed separate northbound left turn lane from Waukegan Rd (IL-43) to Access A is subject to review and approval by IDOT. 7. Access B is proposed to be an exit only lane. A signage plan should be provided for Waukegan Road to notify northbound drivers that left turns to Access B are prohibited. This is also subject to approval by IDOT. 8. The AutoTurn exhibits prepared by Kimley-Horn demonstrate that an ambulance, trash truck and SU-30 moving truck will be able to navigate the site. A fire truck exhibit is also provided, but the type of fire truck used for the analysis is not specified. The appropriate design fire truck type for this five story use should be obtained from the Glenview Fire Department and the exhibit modified as necessary. We recommend that the Police and Fire Departments also review emergency access to the site, including the lower level garage. 9. It appears that sight lines for egress from the parking garage are impeded by the generator and transformer enclosure. The developer should address adequacy of sight lines at the garage entry. 10. The south half of the existing driveway shared by the spa and medical office will be removed. The impact of the half driveway removal to access for the adjacent medical office site should addressed. 11. The Site Summary on the Site Plan indicates a total of 232 proposed parking spaces including 168 in garage spaces. The number of spaces shown on the Lower Level Parking Plan differs. The discrepancy between Site Summary and Parking Plan should be corrected. 12. The lower level parking plan appears to show 9 compact spaces that do not meet the minimum required parking area. There also appears to be 4 tandem parking spaces, on which the Zoning Ordinance is silent. 13. Assuming the 232 total parking space supply is correct, the proposed parking ratio is 1.30 spaces per dwelling unit. According to Sec of Glenview s Code of Ordinances, two parking spaces are required for each unit (2.0 ratio) for multi-family dwellings, and one parking space is Page 3

30 DRAFT Active Adult Apartments 630 Waukegan Road July 13, 2017 required for every three units (0.33 ratio) for senior citizen housing facilities. The proposed apartments will be age restricted. The ITE Parking Generation 4 th Edition provides peak parking demand information based on surveys at similar land use types. The manual defines an apartment building with five or more floors as a high-rise apartment (ITE Land Use 222). For high-rise apartments the average peak parking demand is 1.37 vehicles per dwelling unit. The 85 th percentile is 1.52 vehicles/dwelling unit. The data is based on 7 studies in a central city location but not in the downtown. The smallest site included in the ITE data had 300 dwelling units, which is about 70% larger than the proposed development. For low/mid-rise apartments (ITE Land Use 221) the data indicates an average peak parking demand of 1.23 vehicles per dwelling unit, with an 85 th percentile peak parking demand of 1.54 vehicles /unit based on 21 studies in suburban locations. Senior Adult Housing Attached (ITE Land Use 252) indicates an average peak parking demand of 0.59 vehicles per dwelling unit, and an 85 th percentile peak parking demand of 0.66 vehicles/dwelling unit. The data for Senior Adult Housing is based on only three studies, all in a suburban setting. The average total parking supply provided on the three study sites was 1.0 parking space per dwelling unit. The ITE senior adult housing parking data should be used with caution due to the small sample size. The proposed parking supply ratio of 1.30 spaces/dwelling unit is similar to the ITE average peak parking demand for apartments, but less than the 85 th percentile demand ratio of about 1.5 spaces/ apartment unit. In comparison to the limited data on Senior Adult Housing, the proposed parking supply exceeds the ITE data average peak and 85 th percentile peak parking demand ratios, as well as the average parking supply ratio provided at the three ITE study sites. -- End-- Page 4

31 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Jeff Rogers, Planning Manager, Village of Glenview Geoff Dickinson, SB Friedman Development Advisors Direct: (312) DATE: July 14, 2017 RE: Review of Fiscal Impact Analysis for Proposed Trammell Crow Senior Apartment Development SB Friedman Development Advisors ( SB Friedman ) was engaged by the Village of Glenview (the Village ) to review the fiscal impact analysis prepared by Teska Associates ( Teska ) on behalf of Trammell Crow Company (the Developer ). The fiscal impact study (the Teska Study or the Study ) is dated June 23, 2017, and presents the estimated net fiscal impact of a proposed market rate, active adult, senior apartment development (the Project ) on the Village and two affected school districts, Glenbrook High School District 225 and School District 34. The Project is to be located on an approximately three-acre site at 633 Waukegan Road (the Site ) in the Village. The Site is currently occupied by a vacant automotive dealership and an occupied salon/day spa. The Teska Study includes an estimate of property tax revenues currently generated by the Site but does not consider any expenses associated with the Site in its current condition. SB Friedman has accepted that the Project s net fiscal impact should be evaluated on its own without taking into account current Village costs and revenues from the Site. Teska also considers a potential alternative, all-commercial redevelopment outcome for the Site at the end of the Study. SB Friedman has not reviewed the projected fiscal impact of this hypothetical in detail. However, we agree that retail land uses usually generate more positive fiscal impacts than residential land uses. This memo presents SB Friedman s review of the Teska Study s findings regarding the Project s estimated net fiscal impact, including estimates of the projected stabilized Project population, an estimate of the Project s stabilized property tax revenues, and operational expenses attributable to the Project. Development Program The Developer anticipates developing a five-story, luxury senior apartment that will include 178-market rate residential units and 236 parking spaces. The proposed active adult development concept, which is restricted to residents 55 and older, will serve seniors that desire a more social, urban, and maintenancefree lifestyle. Key project characteristics are presented in Table 1. 1

32 Table 1: Proposed Development Program Component Unit Square Feet Total Residential Units ,435 [1] 1-Bedroom [2] 95 2-Bedroom 83 Amenities 12,192 Parking Spaces ,036 Site Acreage ,909 Note: [1] Gross square feet. [2] Includes Bedrooms. Source: Teska Study dated 6/23/17. Projected Stabilized Project Population Projected stabilized population is often used to help estimate costs associated with a proposed project. TESKA STUDY KEY FINDINGS Due to its age-restrictions (age 55+), the Teska Study assumes the Project will not generate any non-adults, and therefore only considers adult-aged residents in its population projections. The Teska Study projected stabilized Project population using two methods: 1) A more conservative, Illinois School Consulting Service (ISCS)/Associated Municipal Consultants formula-based method; and 2) A comparable-based method. The Study s ISCS formula-based method resulted in a projection of 307 adult residents. Based on average occupancies of comparable, existing senior apartment developments, Teska projected that 230 adult residents would be likely to reside in the Project. Although Teska refers to both projections throughout the Study, the Study based most conclusions on the comparable approach that projected 230 residents. SB FRIEDMAN ANALYSIS KEY FINDINGS SB Friedman sought to validate the Teska Study s population projections by using the same ISCS formulabased data and methodology to calculate projected Project population. Because the Project is intended for an age-restricted senior population, SB Friedman believes the Study s assumption of no schoolchildren is reasonable. Therefore, we assume neither school-aged children nor additional school district expenses will result from the Project. SB Friedman believes the Study s ISCS-based projection of 307 adults is also reasonable. 2

33 SB Friedman did not independently verify the population data from comparable projects presented in the Study. However, assuming the data on the comparable developments as presented by the Teska Study are accurate and appropriate, SB Friedman believes the Study s revised projected population estimate of 230 residents is accurate. Our calculations (based on unit mix and population per unit ratios for the same comparable development as provided by the Study) resulted in a slightly different projected population of 231 adults, as presented in Table 2. This difference does not appear to be material to the Study s conclusions. Table 2: Projected Project Population Units Unit Mix Teska Study Population/Unit Ratio SBF Population Projection Verification Teska Study Population Projection 1-Bed Bed Bed Total Source: Teska Study dated 6/23/17, Illinois School Consulting Service (ISCS)/Associated Municipal Consultants, SB Friedman. Because SB Friedman has not independently verified the comparable development research presented in the Study, we utilized the more conservative ISCS projected Project population of 307 adults in our review. Anticipated Property Tax Revenue from Stabilized Project For the purposes of this analysis, SB Friedman analyzed only property tax revenues from the stabilized Project. SB Friedman believes the Study s inclusion of state income tax revenues, motor fuel tax revenues, and utility tax revenues from the Project will result in largely net neutral revenues and expenses. Therefore we do not consider these sources in our review. TESKA STUDY KEY FINDINGS The Teska Study estimates $826,323 in total annual property tax revenues will be generated by the Project. Of that total, $54,168 is anticipated to go to the Village, $230,841 is anticipated to go to Glenbrook High School District 225, $304,732 is anticipated to go to School District 34, and $236,582 is anticipated to go to all other taxing districts. These estimates appear to be based on a 2016 composite tax rate of 8.924% and the Study s estimated Project stabilized equalized assessed value ( EAV ) of $9,259,555. SB FRIEDMAN ANALYSIS KEY FINDINGS Due to differences in EAV estimation as outlined in Appendix A, SB Friedman estimates approximately $789,000 in total annual property tax revenues will be generated by the Project. Of that total, approximately $52,000 is anticipated to go to the Village, approximately $220,000 is anticipated to go to Glenbrook High School District 225, approximately $291,000 is anticipated to go to School District 34, and approximately $226,000 is anticipated to go to all other taxing districts. SB Friedman verified the 2016 composite property tax rate of 8.924% used in the Study methodology outlined above using 2016 Cook County Assessor data. 3

34 The stabilized Project s estimated annual property tax payments to taxing districts is presented in Table 3 below. Table 3: Project s Estimated Stabilized Annual Property Tax Payments to Taxing Districts Taxing District 2016 Tax Rate Proposed Project: Teska Projection Proposed Project: SBF Projection [1] Village of Glenview 0.585% $54,168 $52,000 Glenbrook High School District % $230,841 $220,000 School District % $304,732 $291,000 All other Taxing Districts 2.555% $236,582 $226,000 Total 8.924% $826,323 $789,000 Note: [1] SBF projections rounded to nearest $1,000. Source: Teska Study dated 6/23/17, Cook County Assessor, Illinois Department of Revenue, SB Friedman. Anticipated Expenses from Stabilized Project Because the Project is intended for an age-restricted senior population, SB Friedman assumes no schoolaged children and therefore no additional school district expenses resulting from the Project. TESKA STUDY KEY FINDINGS The Teska Study estimated Village expenses resulting from the Project based on costs related to Village operating expenses supported by property taxes. This estimate was generated based on the 2016 Village property tax levy (excluding debt service) and adjusted according to what the Study asserts as the Village s residential land use ratio of 74.6%. This methodology resulted in an estimated annual operating expense per capita of $ This per capital cost was multiplied by the projected number of new residents in the Project (230) to arrive at an annual Village operating cost attributable to the Project of $37,750. SB FRIEDMAN ANALYSIS KEY FINDINGS SB Friedman believes the Teska Study s approach to estimating expenses from the Project is generally reasonable, but believes the Study s Village population figure of 45,400 is inaccurate. According to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data, 2 the Village s population is 47,475. Additionally, Cook County Clerk data from 2014 indicates that 72% of the Village s tax base (EAV) is residential. These differences result in a $151 per capita estimated annual operating expenses attributable to the Project. We elected to use the more conservative ISCS formula population projections rather than the comparable-based projections. From this, we estimate approximately $46,500 in annual operating expenses attributable to the Project. 1 Based on the Village of Glenview population of 45,400 (as presented in the Study). 2 As of July 11,