Village of Glenview Plan Commission STAFF REPORT January 8, 2013 TO: Chairman and Plan Commissioners CASE #: P2012-052 FROM: Planning and Economic Development Department CASE MANAGER: Jeff Brady, AICP, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Official Map Amendment, Final Site Plan Review, Conditional Use, and Preliminary Subdivision Approval ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests consideration of the petitioner s request of a Plan Commission recommendation to the Village Board. APPLICANT / CONTACT: Matt Hendy Regency Centers, L.P. One Independent Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202 Tel: (630) 645-2830 LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: 1601 Overlook Drive Avon Redevelopment OWNER: Avon Products Inc. 1345 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10105 Tel: (212) 2825-5103 BDC Waukegan Golf LLC 1156 West Armitage Ave Chicago IL, 60614 Tel: (773) 755-0600 PROPOSAL: Regency Centers, a national shopping center developer, is requesting Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Official Map Amendment, Rezoning, Final Site Plan Review, Variances (heard by Zoning Board of Appeals), Conditional Use and Preliminary Subdivision approvals to allow for a 75,245 sf Mariano s Fresh Market grocery store, 15,400 sf of inline retail, a 3,895 sf Chase drive through bank, a 11,786 sf retail outlot building and a 238 unit apartment building on a 20.98 acre parcel. 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.
Site Assessment VILLAGE OF GLENVIEW ZONING: PIN: 10-07-314-009-0000 Current I-2 Light Industrial District North B-2 General Business District w/ B-3 District Conditional Use East RR Right-of-way and Village of Golf South B-3 General Service District and Village of Morton Grove West I-1 Limited Commercial District and Village of Morton Grove AERIAL PHOTO: dated - 5/30/2008 2
AERIAL PHOTO: dated - 6/30/2010 3
PICTOMETRIC PHOTO: Project Summary TUESDAY S PLAN COMMISSION MEETING: The January 8 meeting will include a presentation of the proposed project and an overview of the proposed traffic improvements and proposed mid-block traffic signal. The Plan Commission will have an opportunity to ask questions and provide initial feedback, and the public will be able to comment on the proposed development. Afterwards, the case should be continued to the regular Plan Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, January 22, 2013. A more detailed review of the fiscal impacts of the proposed development will occur at later meetings, as well as more specific site plan review and traffic comments. Following the January 22, additional Commission meetings may be needed to address any outstanding issues prior to the Plan Commission making any recommendation to the Village Board. BACKGROUND: The 300,000 s.f. Avon distribution facility was closed in 2010 and employed between 200-270 people in three shifts during the peak use of the property. The site typically handled over 50 semi-truck deliveries to the more than 30 docking stations between 4 a.m. to 12 a.m. each day. The approximately 250 employee parking stalls were located on the north side of the building, with the south side parking lot devoted to the maneuvering and storage of trailers. 4
PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: Regency Centers submitted their applications to the Village of Glenview for the redevelopment of the former Avon property at 1601 Waukegan Road, consisting of a Mariano s grocery on the north and a McGrath Audi auto dealership on the south in December 2011. Significant issues of concern were raised at the February 2012 Plan Commission meetings and Regency requested that the project be tabled in in order to try to address the traffic concerns raised by the nearby residents and businesses over the use of Overlook Drive as the major entry point into the commercial shopping center. CURRENT PROPOSAL: In the intervening months, Regency has undertaken a number of significant modifications to the project and they are seeking regulatory approval to permit following elements: Incorporation of the Baker Development parcel at 3 Waukegan Road into the development project, which previously only included the Avon parcel. Modification of the original plans to place a 75,000 square ft. Mariano s grocery and approximately 31,000 square feet of other retail/bank uses, with 556 parking spaces, on the southern 11 acres of the site. Development of the north 7.5 acres as a proposed residential rental parcel consisting of 238 dwelling units in a maximum 3 story project to be developed by Focus Acquisitions, LLC. o o The residential parcel is proposed to be zoned Planned Development Although the residential project will be 3 stories, the maximum height is proposed to be 54 feet at the top of the roof peak, to accommodate a higher pitched roof line, decorative gables, dormers and hip roofs. o 351 parking spaces will be provided for the residential parcel, to be located within a parking deck interior to the rental units, and a parking ratio of 1.47 spaces/unit 49 designated parking spaces for use by Jennings Chevrolet/Volkswagen employees, to be located on the residential parcel adjacent to the Metra rail line. Construction of a mid-block traffic signal between Golf and Overlook to provide access to Mariano s and other regional off-site improvements on Golf and Waukegan to accommodate the existing and projected traffic volumes in the area including: o Dual left turn lanes at Golf and Waukegan o New right turn southbound on Waukegan to westbound Golf o Modifications to the Overlook traffic signal o New traffic signal at Golf and Waukegan o Modification of the northbound to eastbound lane at Golf and Waukegan Construction of a 10 ft. wide multi-modal sidewalk along the property frontage, consistent with the Waukegan Road Corridor Plan VILLAGE BOARD APPROVED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU): The cost of the off-site improvements, estimated to be in excess of $4,700,000, cannot be undertaken by Regency without financial assistance from the Village. A Memorandum of Understanding was approved by the Village Board on December 11, 2012 and is attached to this report. The MOU provides that the Village will support up to $3,500,000 of the off-site infrastructure costs by taking the appropriate steps to establish a redevelopment project area, a redevelopment plan, and to adopt tax increment financing, provided that all legal requirements and findings are satisfied, pursuant to the Illinois Tax Increment Financing Act (65 ILCS 5/11-74.4) ( TIF ). In return, Regency agrees to proceed 5
with the zoning and other regulatory approvals necessary for the project, close on the acquisition of the parcels, construct the commercial portion of the project, enter into a lease with Mariano s on the Retail Parcel, close on the sale of the property to the Residential Developer. The MOU further provides that prior to the gaining access to the TIF funds, Regency and the Residential Developer will provide guarantees to the village to secure the construction of the project and the off-site improvements. Acceptance of the MOU by the Village Board does not guarantee approval of the site plan and other regulatory approvals that will be sought by Regency in connection with the proposed project and site plan. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Regency Centers and Focus Development, are requesting the following approvals: Parcel Requested Approvals Overall Comprehensive Plan Amendment Official Map Amendment Final Site Plan Approval Preliminary Subdivision Approval Grocery Store Rezoning from I-2 and B-3 to B-2 Zoning Board of Appeals Variance for lighting fc levels at the property line Variance for lighting pole heights over 18 ft Variance for lighting uniformity ratio Apartments Rezoning from I-2 to R-18/PD with variances for density, perimeter yard setback less than 50 ft, building height greater than 50 ft, parking less than 2 spaces per unit, and a non-accessory parking lot. POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS: The Village is in receipt of letters from the Village of Golf, dated September 17, 2012 and the Golf Acres Community Corporation, dated December 5, 2012. Both letters are attached to this report and give their support to the revised conceptual plan included in the exhibits packet for this case. 6
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. Staff has organized the Final Site Plan Review comments by the two proposed parcels. The applicant and staff have been conducting coordinated reviews of the concepts plans during which time many of staff s comments have been addressed. The following is a summary of issues to consider when evaluating compliance with the Site Plan Review Ordinance Criteria: GROCERY & RETAIL (SOUTH) Circulation: Sheet C2.1 demonstrates the turning radius of a large delivery truck. The applicant should explain circulation patterns for deliveries to and from the site. Include a slightly larger driveway area in front of the grocery story to accommodate the inevitable drop offs at the front of the store to prevent traffic from backing up along the main access road. Building and Structure Locations: The proposed bank layout sites the building with its front door facing inwards, rather than being visible from the Waukegan and Golf Roads intersection. Place the drive thru lanes on the east side of the building and orient the front door towards the north. The sidewalk along Waukegan at the northeast corner of the midblock intersection has a tight shift in direction. Smooth this out to be a gentler curve. The Waukegan Road sidewalk shall be installed with a 10 ft wide width. The cart corrals are more permanent structures than found at other grocery stores in Glenview. Confirm all trash enclosures are sufficiently sized to avoid the need for any roll-away dumpsters outside of a designated trash enclosure. Building Scale: Submit a rendering of the bank building. As proposed the façade facing Waukegan Road (west elevation) should include more architectural details and windows. Submit a rendering of the Retail B building, grocery store building and inline retail building. Submit building material samples (brick, colors, metal panel, etc.) to provide a better understanding of the design and to demonstrate how the architecture of the different buildings will aesthetically tie together. The middle two tower elements along Retail B should be lowered slightly below the northern tower as they seem too thin when viewed across the entire elevation. 7
The rear wall of Retail B should be broken up with some architectural details to prevent a long, blank wall condition. The canopy above the south entrance to the grocery store should be the same height as the canopy to the north entrance in order to provide a visual clue to the shopper on the entrance locations. Provide the trash enclosure details for the site to confirm they match the building architecture and include metal doors. http://www.glenview.il.us/planning/reports/mechanicalscreeningdg.pdf Any outdoor dining shall be subject to the Appearance Code design guidelines, including any protective barriers and furniture. Parking Lots: The parking stalls along Golf Road can be 17 ft deep instead of the proposed 19 ft if there is adjacent landscaped area available to allow for the 2 ft vehicle overhang. Confirm there is enough parking provided for the peak demand of the grocery store. Identify where grocery store customers and employees will park and explain if signage will be used to identify the employee parking areas. Site Illumination: A variance for pole height, uniformity ratio of the foot candle readings, and the foot candle limits at the property line will be needed. o Variance - Maximum Average Uniformity Ratio = 4:1 o Complies - Maximum fc = 12.0 o Complies - Maximum fc at east property line of Mariano s Lot (residential) = 0.10 o Variance - Maximum fc at north property line of Mariano s Lot (residential) = 0.10 o Complies - Maximum fc at west property line of Mariano s Lot (roadway) = 5.00 o Variance Maximum pole and fixture height is 18 ft tall. The proposed photometrics plan and lighting fixtures shall be subject to review and approval by the Appearance Commission. Landscaping: The landscape plan should identify which symbols correspond to which landscape species. A landscape island is required adjacent to trash enclosure behind Retail B. Add some additional landscaping in the island at the northeast corner of the grocery store. The petitioner should confirm there is sufficient landscaping at the end of the new mid-block drive aisle to block the view of headlights shining to the east. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Appearance Commission and should address the following: o Foundation planting details should be provided, with the grocery store plantings being consistent with those found at the Vernon Hills location. o A seed mix and maintenance plan should be provided for the naturalized detention area. Staff has seed lists and plug ideas for such dry detention basins that have been successful in other Glenview locations. Graphics and Signage: Provide the dimensions of the various façades and signage to demonstrate the signage will comply with the applicable ordinance requirements and design guidelines. http://www.glenview.il.us/planning/reports/multitenantgroundsigndg.pdf Are signs proposed for both elevations of the Retail C? 8
How will the metal panels on the retail buildings be repaired if the tenant signage on them is replaced? On what walls are signage proposed on the bank building? Are the monument sign panels stencil cut out and backed up with acrylic or are they solid panels with external illumination? The monument signs should have room for address numerals. Will Mariano s be using the new logo design for the sign as seen on the proposed Willow Road store or using the design as proposed? A signage easement at the southeast corner of the property should be provided for future Village of Glenview gateway signage. All proposed signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the Appearance Commission. o Create shopping center tenant sign criteria that all the tenants will have to follow. This established the expectations for design and speeds up the Appearance Commission review process. Demonstrate the building signage will comply with the applicable ordinance requirements and design guidelines. http://www.glenview.il.us/planning/reports/wallsignsdg.pdf APARTMENTS & PARKING (NORTH) Circulation: The applicant should explain how moving vans will navigate the site and where the unloading areas are designated. Building and Structure Locations: Residential building perimeter yard does not meet the minimum requirement of 50 for a PD with building height exceeding 35. A variance will be required as all structures, including parking need to be outside of the perimeter yard. The residential building exceeds the total number of units allowed by the underlying R-18 zoning district. A variance will be required. Provide comparably dense projects from other Chicagoland areas or the like, so the Commission can see the bulk and scale impacts of similar apartment developments. The residential building height is proposed a 53-8 tall. A variance will be required to allow the building height over 50 ft. The dog run will need to be approved as part of the Planned Development. Add a 10 ft wide multi-modal path along the south side of Overlook. The path was discussed at the previous February Plan Commission meetings. Is a fence proposed around the pool area at the northeast corner? Is the dog run area at the southeast corner fenced? Building Scale: Provide a rendering of the proposed residential building Provide elevations of the north and south facades. Provide material samples of the building to ensure there is enough material and color transitions across the various facades. Describe why the pitched roof concept was chosen. In some areas it approaches 20 ft in height and 9
may be too dominate an element if not reduced or broken up with architectural details such as dormers. The proposed architecture shall be subject to review and approval by the Appearance Commission. Parking Lots: The parking deck is completely surrounded by apartment units, but is not enclosed. The parking ratio for residential units is 2 spaces per unit and a variance is required to allow 1.47 spaces per unit. Provide examples of other similar projects near a suburban train station and the parking ratios used to gain a better understanding of the parking demand. Demonstrate the typical need for visitor parking and confirm the 20 surface parking stalls are sufficient given this parking is also to be used by potential tenants, leasing office employees, or maintenance staff. The provided parking only leaves 1 visitor stall for every 12 units, if all the spaces were for visitors. Describe the activity and peak times of Jennings auto parking lot. Variances as part of the Planned Development will be required to allow a non-accessory parking lot and a 22 ft drive aisle. Site Illumination: A lighting plan shall be submitted to confirm compliance with the applicable requirements. The proposed photometrics plan and lighting fixtures shall be subject to review and approval by the Appearance Commission. Landscaping: Some planters with landscaping should be introduced into the top deck of the parking. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Appearance Commission. Graphics and Signage: The location and size of the proposed signage shall be approved as part of the Planned Development. Is the monument sign along Waukegan Road necessary, given signage in the fence is proposed at each of the Waukegan corners of the property and at the Overlook entrance? All proposed signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the Appearance Commission. 10
Technical Review COMPLIANCE WITH VILLAGE PLANS: The proposed development complies with the various long range plans adopted by the Village as noted in the chart below: Village Plan Compliance Comments / No / N/A Comprehensive Plan No The 1990 Comprehensive Plan recommends an office land use upon the subject property. Official Map No The 2011 Official Map shows the existing zoning which is I-2 Light Industrial District and B-3 General Service District. Waukegan Road Corridor Plan There was anticipated to be 1 new curb cut on Waukegan to provide access to a redevelopment. Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Plan N/A - Downtown Revitalization Plan N/A - Natural Resources Plan N/A - Bike & Sidewalk Master Plan The Bike & Sidewalk Master Plan and Waukegan Road Corridor Plan prescribe a 10 ft multi-modal path in the adjacent right-of-way. The applicant is proposing a 10 wide path along Waukegan Road. The Bike & Sidewalk Master Plan also recommends a future bike route along Overlook (road designated for use by bicycles in mixed traffic with automobiles signs are used to remind drivers to share the road). A 10 ft wide multi-modal path should be provided along Overlook. 11
USE STATISTICS: The proposed development complies with the bulk and scale regulations of the applicable zoning district as noted in the statistics chart below: Allowed / Permitted Existing Proposed Compliance Zoning Parcel Size Building Height Perimeter Yard Setback Front Yard Setback (Retail) Side Yard Setback (Retail) Side Yard Setback (Retail) Loading Areas Units Per Acre n/a I-1 n/a 40-0 Retail 50-0 Residential 2 parcels 20.98 acres 50 feet n/a 50 feet from center line of R.O.W. (Waukegan Road) 50 feet from center line of R.O.W. (Golf Road) 10 feet from lot line of residential use Grocery - 3 Retail B - 2 Retail C 1-100 feet 50 feet B-2 for Retail PD/R-18 for apartments and parking 4 parcels 10.97 acres for retail 7.65 for apartments and non-accessory parking 2.00 acres for surface detention 31-4 (Grocery 'A') 28 (Retail 'B') 28 (Retail C ) 26-5 (Bank 'D') 53-8 (Apartments) 5 feet (measured a nearest parking space setback) 71 feet from center line of R.O.W. (Waukegan Road) 85 feet from center line of R.O.W. (Golf Road) Rezoning requested No No 50 feet 41 feet n/a 3 2 1 18 n/a 37.8 No 12
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 Total Required Total Proposed Business, office & commercial establishments 1 parking space for every 300 square feet 106,326 square foot grocery and retail space 355 556 - complies Apartments 2 spaced for every unit 238 units 476 351 variance needed Automobile Parking Facilities n/a n/a 49 49 - complies Trees in Parking Lot 1 tree/5 spaces 556 112? Trees in interior of Lot 65% of trees in interior of parking lot 112 73? PROJECT TIMELINE: A. 10/25/12 Preliminary Site Plan Review B. 11/09/12 Application Submitted C. 11/22/12 Public Notice Published D. 11/22/12 Public Notice Mailed E. 12/11/12 Plan Commission Meeting (Case continued) F. 12/11/12 Village Board Meeting (MOU approved) G. 01/08/13 Plan Commission Meeting H. TBD Plan Commission Meeting I. TBD Plan Commission Meeting J. TBD First Consideration by Board of Trustees K. TBD Second Consideration by Board of Trustees L. TBD Appearance Commission Meeting 2012 A B CD EF Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 G Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 13
TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE: Any landmark tree (non-nuisance tree) that is 16 caliper inches or more, and is proposed to be removed is subject to the Tree Preservation ordinance. If trees are removed from the site they need to be replaced in accordance with the established formula or an in lieu fee needs to be provided. The petitioner has submitted a tree preservation plan in which there are? trees to be removed from the entire subject parcel. The following chart demonstrates how compliance with the ordinance was met: Replacement Replacement Site Trees Removed Trees Required Trees Proposed Applicable Fee Regency???? Focus???? FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: A fiscal study is required for this development and as part of the proposed tax increment finance district. The Laubie Companies has submitted a fiscal study dated December?, 2012 which is currently being reviewed by the Village s consultant, S.B. Friedman & Company. The results of the review will be provided for the January 22, 2013 Plan Commission meeting and a summary of the findings will be included in the updated staff report for that meeting. Additionally, the Village requested Tracy Cross and Associates evaluate the market potential for new construction apartments in the Glenview area. The study concludes there would be market support for the various new construction apartment developments proposed in the Glenview area. A copy of the October 2012 study is attached for reference. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: A revised Traffic Impact Study was prepared by KLOA and is dated October 9, 2012. A review of the revised traffic study was conducted by the Village s Traffic Consultant, Benes and Associates, dated December 6, 2012. Both the study and review are attached to this staff report. The traffic study review by Dan Schoenberg details REZONING STANDARDS: The Plan Commission should consider the applicant s responses to the following judicial standards and requisites 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. 14
7. The community need for the proposed use. 8. The care with which the community has undertaken to plan its land use development. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/OFFICIAL MAP AMENDMENT: In addition to the proposed rezoning of the property, the applicant is also requesting an amendment to the 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. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as office, therefore any zoning change to the property also requires an amendment to Comprehensive Plan. 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. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING: The purpose of the Planned Development (PD) District is to facilitate a more creative and efficient use of land than would otherwise be possible under traditional zoning regulations (Sec. 98-491, Municipal Code). PD s typically revolve around a mix of product types (horizontal or vertical) that when applied against their respective traditional zoning districts would create multiple variances. Other factors necessitating a PD include a unique product type, unusual parcel configuration, or environmental features of a site. While some would suggest PD zoning is a method to gain multiple variances for higher density developments, the Village has the additional authority to tailor a PD by imposing conditions to offset any development impacts. Traditional zoning establishes bulk and scale requirements in order to separate structures/uses and limit nuisances. Created in 1966, the PD district works differently by establishing a perimeter yard based on the height of structures to create a buffer area between adjacent properties. Inside of the perimeter yard there are no bulk and scale zoning requirements to follow, which allows flexible and variance-free developments controlled by site plan review criteria rather than by lot sizes and building setbacks (bulk and scale requirements). Sometimes variances from the perimeter yard or other PD standards may be requested to account for unique building types or designs. To gauge compatibility, site plans within a PD 15
are evaluated against other similarly scaled projects. Through the greater flexibility of a PD, creative developments can be permitted through site plan specific approvals that ensure site planning best practices are achieved. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION: The petitioner has submitted a preliminary plat of subdivision which designates 3 lots of record; Lot 1- to be owned by Regency, Lot 2 - to be owned by Focus, and Lot 3 to be detention for the development. If the project is approved and following the granting of Final Engineering Approval from the Village s Senior Civil Engineer, the petitioner will prepare a final subdivision plat and appear before the Plan Commission to gain approval of the final lot configuration and any necessary easements. In addition to utility easements, an ingress/egress easement will be required to allow access between Lot 1 and Lot 2 along the shared mid-block drive off Waukegan. ENGINEERING REVIEW COMMENTS: No preliminary engineering issues exist that would prevent this project from proceeding to final engineering review and approval. There are several minor engineering concerns outlined in the attached memorandum dated 01/03/13 from James Tigue, Civil Engineer. 16
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: http://www.glenview.il.us 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 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Public Notice 2. Engineering Review Memo from James Tigue, dated 01/03/13 3. Public Correspondence a. Letter from Village of Golf, dated 09/17/12 b. Letter from Golf Acres Community Corporation, dated 12/05/12 4. Memorandum of Understating between Regency Centers and Village of Glenveiw 5. Fiscal Study (December?, 2012) 6. Traffic Study (October 1, 2012) 7. Traffic Study by Benes and Associates (December 6, 2012) 8. Applicant s Exhibits 17
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 regular Plan Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, January 22, 2013. 18