Community Development Department SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Final Site Plan Review, Preliminary Subdivision, and Planned Development for Park Place Glenview at 1225 Waukegan Road MEETING DATE: March 28, 2017 TO: FROM: Village of Glenview Plan Commission Village of Glenview Board of Trustees CASE # : P2016-053 LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: 1225 Waukegan Road Park Place Glenview ACTION REQUESTED: The Board of Trustees has remanded the case back to the Plan Commission to review new concerns that were not relayed or discussed during the public hearings hosted by the Plan Commission on February 14, 2017 and February 28, 2017. APPLICANT / CONTACT: Tom Drake The Drake Group 1967 Johns Drive Glenview, IL 60025 Tel: (847) 729-7700 OWNER: Village of Glenview 2500 East Lake Avenue Glenview, IL 60026
BACKGROUND: On February 28, 2017, the Plan Commission recommended the Board of Trustees approve the proposed redevelopment of the former Village Hall site. Over two separate public hearings, the Plan Commission heard comments from several neighbors, discussed the proposed plan, and ultimately chose to recommend approval with several conditions. The Board of Trustees was set to review the Plan Commission s recommendation on March 21, 2017. However, in the days prior, staff received numerous calls and correspondence from neighbors regarding the cluster of six (6) townhomes along the rear lot line of the development. At the meeting the Board of Trustees remanded the case back to the Plan Commission before hearing any portion of the recommendation from the Plan Commission or comments from residents. The Village Board had reservations about sending the case back to the Plan Commission, as the typical regulatory process was handled appropriately and all the residents were given ample opportunity to comment on the project over several months. The Board ultimately decided that given the amount of comments on issues that were not reviewed or discussed during the Plan Commission process, and given the Village is the property owner, that it was appropriate, in this instance, to have the Plan Commission review the recently raised issues. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS & PUBLIC OUTREACH: January 26, 2017 Public Notices distributed to 130 adjacent property owners January 31, 2017 Developer held Neighborhood Meeting February 14, 2017 First Public Hearing by Plan Commission February 15, 2017 Preliminary Appearance Commission Review February 28, 2017 Second Public Hearing by Plan Commission March 21, 2017 Board of Trustees Meeting - Remanded back to Plan Commission March 28, 2017 Plan Commission reconsideration Staff has attached the list of addresses to which the public notice for the February 14 Plan Commission meeting was mailed and a map of those residents invited to the Developer s Neighborhood Meeting on January 31. Several residents have noted they did not receive the notices and were unaware of the neighborhood meeting and/or the pending review by the Plan Commission. Additionally, staff has attached for reference the Village newsletter and local newspaper articles covering the redevelopment of the former Village Hall site. PLAN COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Prior to the consideration of this case by the Village Board and after the Plan Commission s recommendation on February 28, 2017, the following new concerns were raised by the adjacent residents, as seen in the attached correspondence and summarized by staff below: Height of six (6) townhomes in southeast corner of the site Use and height of optional 3 rd floor decks on six (6) townhomes in southeast corner of the site Bulk and scale difference between the proposed six (6) townhomes and the adjacent existing single-family residences
The applicant has submitted a written response in an attempt to mitigate the neighbor s concerns, which includes the following modifications: Revised roof top deck configuration (see Drake Group memo from 3/21/17) o Decking reduced by two feet which reduces the overall size of the deck o Additional lattice is proposed above the fence to provide additional screening Additional landscaping along the rear property line adjacent to the six (6) townhomes (see Drake Group 3/24/17 memo) o Additional canopy trees at 4 caliper sizes proposed at 20 foot spacing instead of 40 foot spacing o Offer of supplemental landscaping in adjacent neighbors yards that could include shade trees or 8 foot tall arborvitae. Modifications to fourth floor roof height to include a proposed flat roof instead of the proposed gable roof (see Drake Group 3/24/17 memo) The Plan Commission should consider the new materials from the applicant and the neighbors, hear additional public testimony, and review all the information prior to directing the applicant to explore certain modifications and/or forward another recommendation to the Board of Trustees. Height: Recent correspondence from neighbors has centered on concern regarding the impact of overall height of the six (6) proposed townhomes in the southeast corner of the site. Staff has prepared a marked exhibit displaying the proposed building height and setback from the adjacent residential properties. Under normal D-D code regulations, a mixed-use building of up to 53.0 feet (plus a 5 foot tall parapet wall) could be constructed in this area and would be permitted to have a 25 foot rear yard setback for floors 1-3 and a 35 foot setback for the 4 th floor. Under the D-D regulations, an all residential building of up to 48 feet (plus a 5 foot tall parapet wall) could be constructed with the same rear yard setbacks as a mixed-use building. The maximum height allowed in the adjacent single-family R-5 Residential District is 32 feet.
Based on the varied mix of housing types and the layout of the proposed development, the proposal does not fit within any typical zoning category, thus the Planned Development zoning is being applied. A Planned Development permits a 50 foot tall building and locks in all the design features shown on the site plan. This zoning does not permit any modification to the development layout without going through the entire regulatory review process (public notice, Commission reviews, etc.) again to amend the original approvals. While the Planned Development zoning applies to this proposal, the development meets the requirements outlined in the D-D regulations. Third Floor Rear Decks: Recent correspondence from neighbors has raised concerns about the impact of roof top decks on the third floor of the proposed townhomes in the southeast corner of the site. Residents are concerned that the outdoor space will have noise and sight impacts on their property which would limit the enjoyment and use of the adjacent properties. Bulk and Scale: Several neighborhood concerns relate to the differences in the bulk and scale of the townhomes along the rear of the property versus the adjacent single-family homes. For reference, it is common practice in the area of land use planning to locate townhomes and other multi-family product types as a transition between single-family residential areas and more intense commercial uses. The townhomes along Waukegan Road and behind the Fire Station exhibit these transitional relationships. Graphics from two urban planning organizations displaying these conditions are included below. Source: Congress for New Urbanism Source: Missing Middle
PREVIOUS PLAN COMMISSION DISCUSSION: The Plan Commission previously reviewed the applicant s request for a Planned Development and Final Site Plan Review for the building and site improvements and Preliminary Subdivision approvals for the lot configurations. In addition to the above noted concerns, several other items were raised in the attached neighborhood correspondence. Outlined below were the concerns raised during the previous public hearings and a summary of the Plan Commission s review and recommendation. Public Hearing Comments: The application appeared before the Plan Commission on two (2) occasions (February 14 and February 28) as part of the public hearing process. At each meeting, neighbors expressed their concerns regarding the proposal and its impact on drainage and stormwater as well as the impact of locating such a use adjacent to an existing single-family neighborhood. A summary of the concerns relayed by the public are listed below: Engineering: The residents that spoke at the public hearings were not in opposition to the proposed use, but did express concerns regarding the proposed plan for stormwater detention and drainage. Residents felt that the pattern depicted on the plans was not consistent with the existing conditions they have seen and experienced. If not designed and planned correctly, the proposed development may make the conditions worse in their neighborhoods. Engineering staff has confirmed the plans comply with Village requirements. Density: Several residents felt that this type of development was too dense to fit with the singlefamily character of the neighborhood, but appreciated the building scale compared to an apartment building. Operational Impacts: Members of the public who spoke raised concern regarding overflow parking from the proposed use occurring on their streets and deliveries having to occur on Waukegan Road rather than within the development. Engineering Studies: The engineering of the site has been designed with consideration given to the adjacent single-family neighborhood and existing drainage routes. Per the Village s engineering standards, the development will hold on site in a stormwater detention vault any run-off that is generated within the lot lines of the parcel. The Village is also requiring the developer of the site to accept an existing stormwater overflow from the Bonnie Glen neighborhood across the site and into existing storm sewer infrastructure in Waukegan Road. The flow will be handled via the overall site grading and multiple conveyance structures around the site, including a small channel at the south end of the property. This requirement greatly altered the site plan seen in the earliest development concepts.
Historically, the Bonnie Glen neighborhood has had flooding problems especially near the Raleigh Road and Elizabeth Lane intersection. The subdivision was constructed in an area where a creek and low lands previously existed and is designated a Tier 3 flood area by the Village. Vehicle access, including emergency vehicles, to the area is limited during heavy rain events. The 2013 accelerated stormwater program identified this area as a potential candidate for underground stormwater storage. The Village s long-term goals for stormwater management have included providing relief for this neighborhood. As part of this long-term goal, the Village partnered with School District 34 to locate stormwater improvements on the Lyon School property. In 2016, the Plan Commission and Village Board of Trustees approved a 5 acre-foot detention vault on the Lyon School property would provide benefits, both direct and indirect, to 340 parcels with flood levels being reduced along public roadways and on private property. The greatest benefits would be realized during the most commonly occurring storm events, such as 2-, 5-, 10-, and 25-year events. New inlets would be installed on Raleigh Road with storm sewer pipe to connect to the underground detention chamber.
Plan Commission Review: The Plan Commission reviewed the information presented by the applicant and by the neighbors in conjunction with their review of the proposed development. The Plan Commission requested modifications to the site plan at each of the two meetings and placed conditions on the recommended approval of the development to mitigate the concerns raised. A summary of the Plan Commission s review and the subsequent modifications to the proposal are listed below. Density: At the February 14, 2017 meeting, the Plan Commission commented on the perception that the development felt overly compact and dense for the size and location of the property and requested additional information in order to compare the proposed development to recent projects in the Downtown Development District. The density comparison presented to the Plan Commission at the February 28, 2017 meeting is included below: Development Units Gross Density Midtown Square 127 52.5 units per acre Riverforest 36 53.0 units per acre Proposed Park Place (Subject Property) 26 11.2 units per acre Neighborhood Character: A large portion of the Plan Commission s discussion at the first meeting focused on design elements which were noted as cottage-like and lacking a defined urban feel and building edge particularly along Waukegan Road. The Commission requested the applicant look at providing architecture or features along Waukegan Road that created an urban edge and asked for confirmation on how the units behind the fire station relate to the street in a more intimate manner given their location and isolated orientation. Revised plans were shown at the February 28 th Plan Commission meeting which featured additional revisions to the elevations and design elements along Waukegan Road which were intended to provide the urban edge that had been requested by the Plan Commission. Parking / Circulation / Usability: Given the lack of a looped street pattern or grid system, all circulation is internal and may be circuitous for guests, deliveries, and others accessing the site that may not be familiar with the street pattern. The Commission commented the design examples from other communities showed street layouts on through-streets which did not result in the dead-end sections shown on the proposed plan. Comments on the availability of guest parking were relayed by the Plan Commission, however it was clarified that in addition to the street parking, fourteen (14) of the units had one or two parking stalls within driveways. Units Garage Driveway Total 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, & 14 2 per unit 2 per unit 4 per unit 8 2 per unit 1 per unit 3 per unit 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, & 26 2 per unit 0 2 per unit In the motion made by the Plan Commission, several conditions are meant to control parking on the site including the dedication of all drive-aisles as fire lanes, the requirement that driveways be widened to 18.0 feet to accommodate two (2) vehicles, and removal of certain parking stalls that interfere with circulation. The Village s code requires two (2) parking stalls per residential unit which are provided within the garages of each unit. In addition there are 29 additional stalls within many of the driveways for the units, and 12 guest parking stalls for those units with lack of driveway parking.
Pedestrian Access: The Plan Commission encouraged the developer to investigate other opportunities for pedestrian access to the site from Waukegan Road in addition to the proposed sidewalk location on the south side of the site. No viable alternate routes were identified by the applicant and therefore not included in the revised plan. In the Plan Commission s motion, necessary easements for pedestrian cross access were also listed requirements. FEBRUARY 28, 2017 PLAN COMMISSION ACTION: On February 28, 2017, Commissioner Witt moved in the case of P2016-053, Park Place Glenview at 1225 Waukegan Road, the Plan Commission recommend the Village Board of Trustees grant approvals in accordance with the following: Section 1: A Downtown-Development Planned Development with associated Variations from the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with the Site Dimensional and Paving Plan, prepared by Manhard Consulting, Ltd. and dated 02/22/17 is approved and shall include the following: A. A perimeter yard of 1.06 ft. instead of a minimum of 50 ft. as required. B. Fee simple lot ownership instead of common ownership as required. C. Provision of a perpetual pedestrian ingress, egress, and cross-access easement agreement from the applicant to allow pedestrian access to Lyon School along the provided sidewalks. D. All drive-aisles, alleys, and private roadways (excluding designated parking areas) will be designated as fire lanes and shall include signage or other markings designating them as such, and shall be kept clear of standing or parked traffic at all times. E. *Bollards or fencing should be added to the northern end of the eastern alley to prevent vehicles from driving off the edge of the retaining wall. F. *The applicant shall maintain 2.0 feet clear from the back of the curb location on the Fire Station 6 site, as amended in accordance with Section 5, to the face of the proposed fence adjacent to units 21-26 to allow proper parking of Fire Department vehicles. G. *All air-conditioning condensers must be located in areas which do not straddle a feesimple property line, is out of circulation patterns for vehicles, or on upper floors of the proposed units. H. There shall be no accessory uses, such as but not limited to decks, sheds, storage cabinets, and/or fences, permitted on any multi-family or single-family lot without subsequent review and approval by the appropriate Village authority. Such restrictions prohibiting accessory uses shall be clearly documented in the HOA declarations. I. The HOA declarations shall also include the following acknowledgements from purchasers: i. The units are adjacent to an active Fire Station. ii. There is a public sidewalk traversing the development. iii. Parking in drive-aisles, alleys, and roadways outside of the designated on-street parking stalls is not permitted to allow for adequate emergency vehicle access. iv. A stormwater overflow route crosses the site from the northeast to the southwest. v. The wood fence on east and south lines adjacent to the existing single-family lots shall be owned and maintained by the homeowner s association for the proposed development in perpetuity.
Section 2: Final Site Plan Review approval is granted for the subject property, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 54, Article IV of the Village Municipal Code and subject to the following: A. The proposed Site Dimensional and Paving Plan prepared by Manhard Consulting, Ltd. and dated 02/22/17. B. Final engineering approval through the building permit process for the parcels and improvements comprising the development site, which shall include the following: i. Necessary easements for access, repair, and emergency maintenance of any and all Village utilities and improvements. ii. The development shall meet Village of Glenview Stormwater management standards. iii. *Necessary alterations to increase internal and external curb radii between and adjacent to lots 14-15 to accommodate turning movements of public safety vehicles. iv. Petitioner shall, to the extent necessary, commit to remove snow from the subject property or place the snow in an area of the site that does not interfere with circulation, parking, or drainage. v. *Driveway widths shall be 18.0 feet. vi. *Removal of the on-street parking stall west of and adjacent to unit 20 to eliminate a turning conflict with public safety vehicles. Section 3: Preliminary Subdivision approval of the parcels represented in the Site Dimensional and Paving Plan prepared by Manhard Consulting, Ltd. and dated 02/22/17 in accordance with the following: A. Subject to the Village s review with respect to the conditions of approval listed herein, the applicant shall record homeowners association declarations, covenants, codes, and restrictions which are compliant with the State of Illinois Common Interest Community Association Act. B. Necessary easements for stormwater utility structures related to the proposed Lyon School Detention project. C. Necessary easements and an agreement requiring the HOA to maintain the pedestrian and drainage improvements upon the subject property or adjacent Village of Glenview property in perpetuity. D. Utility costs for any streetlight fixtures, water, and other utility costs associated with private common improvements would be required to be provided by the Homeowners Association. E. Snow-plowing will be required to be provided by the Homeowners Association for any private streets or drives. F. The subdivision plat shall be subject to approval of Final Engineering and Final Subdivision through the building permit process of the lot comprising the development site. G. School and Park District impact fees are require to be paid for each unit in the singlefamily development according to applicable Village codes. H. The associated waivers from the Subdivision Code shall be granted as part of the Final Subdivision approval and include the following: i. A waiver from Section 66-167 to allow the Private Street as referenced on the plans with all costs related to the installation, maintenance, replacement, and related costs to be borne by the developer, their
ii. iii. iv. successors, and assigns, including any future homeowners association responsible for such private improvements; and provision of utility, drainage, cross-access, ingress, and egress easements as required by the Village through the final engineering review and approval process associated with Final Subdivision approval of the subject property. A waiver from Section 66-172(b) to allow lots which do not front upon a public street. A waiver from Section 66-173 to allow lots which do not meet minimum lot size requirements. A waiver from Section 66-163 to allow cul-de-sacs which do not provide a minimum clear radius of 55 feet. Section 4: Final Appearance Commission approval is required for any proposed building, signage, landscaping, and lighting. Section 5: Modification to the of agreement between the Village of Glenview and the applicant to amend the extents of the improvements required in accordance with the development to reduce the depth of the parking stalls at the east end of the Fire Station 6 parking lot at 1215 Waukegan Road from 19.0 to 17.0 with landscape overhang of 2.0 feet, including a new curb, or other similarly negotiated solution which provides separation between the vehicles in these stalls and the proposed fence adjacent to these stalls, which shall be owned and maintained by the homeowner s association. Motion seconded by Commissioner Dickson. * The items within the Plan Commission motion marked with an asterisk have been addressed in the revised site plan dated 03/15/2017. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Applicant s Revised Materials 2. Public Correspondence 3. Public Notice 4. Public Notice Address List and Map 5. Newspaper Articles 6. Staff Presentation Materials 7. Plan Commission Minutes a. Excerpt from Minutes of February 14, 2017 Plan Commission Meeting b. Excerpt from Minutes of February 28, 2017 Plan Commission Meeting 8. Previously Distributed Plan Commission Staff Report a. Engineering Memorandum from Steve Amann, Consulting Engineer, dated 02/08/2017 b. Public Correspondence to PC prior to 02/28/17 c. Traffic Impact Analysis Review Memo from James J. Benes and Associates, dated 02/09/2017 d. Fiscal Impact Study Analysis Review Memo from S.B. Friedman dated 02/16/2017 e. Application & Exhibits 9. Applicant s Application Materials