Community Development Department

Community Development Department SUBJECT: First Consideration of an Ordinance for Final Site Plan Review, Preliminary Subdivision, and Planned Development for Park Place Glenview at 1225 Waukegan Road AGENDA ITEM: 11.b. MEETING DATE: April 6, 2017 TO: Village President and Board of Trustees FROM: Jeff Brady, Director of Planning, (847) 904-4306 THROUGH: Donald K. Owen, Interim Village Manager CASE #: P2016-053 LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: 1225 Waukegan Road Park Place Glenview ACTION REQUESTED: The Plan Commission, via a 6-0 vote, recommends approval of a Final Site Plan Review, Preliminary Subdivision, and Planned Development for the proposed twenty-six (26) unit residential development upon the former Village Hall site. 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 1

MARKETING PROCESS BACKGROUND: The Village of Glenview relocated the Village Hall to the consolidated Municipal Center at 2500 East Lake Avenue in December 2015. Prior to the move, direction was provided by the Village Board to begin the marketing process associated with the sale of the former Village Hall property. The Village coordinated with its development advisors, Michael Tobin and Marty Stern of CBRE, who began marketing the former Village Hall site to numerous developers in the first quarter of 2016 to ascertain potential redevelopment options. The subject property is zoned D-D Downtown Development District in accordance with figure 2.5 of the Downtown Development Code which was adopted by reference via Ordinance 5112 in 2008. The opportunities for the site could include up to a four-story building height with retail, office, service, or residential uses, or a mix of those uses, as they are all currently permitted under the D-D Downtown District zoning. From April to July 2016, a review of the submitted offers for the redevelopment of the site was conducted by staff and CBRE. All short-listed proposals met the minimum thresholds that would be used to evaluate the offers and included such criteria as: Minimum price range A compliant D-D use(s) Developer s capacity to construct the proposed project Ability to address engineering requirements Medium residential densities Previous high-quality development experience Through the review process, an emphasis was placed on creative site layouts that could add to the vibrancy of downtown, be compatible to the existing uses along Waukegan Road, and be of a similar scale to the existing residential neighborhood to the east. Additionally, the prospective purchaser needed to conduct due diligence in regard to preliminary engineering to ensure any site engineering requirements could be addressed in the proposed development plans. Following the evaluation of the multiple configurations of various residential product types and site layouts, and given the constraints of the infill site, the Board of Trustees chose The Drake Group as the purchaser of the subject property. The proposed Park Place development features mixed-density residential product types similar to several recent new urbanist developments located elsewhere in suburban Chicagoland. For example, the School Street and Floral Avenue developments, in Libertyville and Skokie respectively, offer a mix of housing products including townhomes and higher-density single-family homes with narrow but deep lot widths in locations near the downtown districts of these communities. Within the Village of Glenview, the Cambridge at the Glen development followed a similar model with various housing types located within one neighborhood (rowhomes, single-family, duplexes, two-flats). PLANNING BACKGROUND: Downtown Revitalization Plan In March 2004, the Village of Glenview formed a Downtown Plan Committee, which was charged with developing a long-range revitalization plan for its downtown district. Downtown was defined as an area along Glenview Road from Washington Street east to Waukegan Road, and along Waukegan Road from East Lake Avenue south to Henley Street. This larger area went beyond what was historically considered Glenview s traditional downtown to include the Waukegan Road corridor, which is an auto-oriented commercial strip with deteriorated and vacant properties. The Committee believed it was important to 2

include this corridor to significantly improve its land use mix and physical conditions, and to make it part of the pedestrian and transit oriented main street character of Downtown. With the aid of the Committee, Village staff, stakeholders, comments from the public, feasibility studies, and a consultant team, goals and objectives for the downtown were created and a range of concepts crafted. The 2006 Downtown Revitalization Plan is an action plan that defines block-by-block steps to revitalize the downtown. The concept (see below) at the time for the former Village Hall site included two 52,000 square foot office buildings. One building in the concept would be an office building and the other four-story office building would have housed a combined Village Hall and School District Administration building along Waukegan Road with the balance of the site surface and/or deck parking. 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 3

Source: Missing Middle ZONING BACKGROUND: Downtown Development District New development regulations were needed for the Downtown District because the existing zoning, subdivision, site plan, and appearance ordinances included provisions that were inconsistent with the principles of the Downtown Revitalization Plan. A Code Review Committee was formed and charged with the task of ensuring that the goals and objectives of the approved Downtown Plan would be effectively implemented by the form-based code. This committee included the chairs of the Plan Commission, Zoning Board, and Appearance Commission. To continue involving the community and informing stakeholders, an initial workshop was conducted to discuss why zoning needed to be changed and why a form based code was the best approach. The Committee held numerous working meetings and provided on-going briefings to the Village Board. Several public meetings were held to review drafts of the code and to gain specific input on a site-by-site basis from area residents, property and business owners, and local developers. The overall process took approximately 16 months to complete and the Downtown Development District regulations were adopted in 2008. The new D-D District regulations replaced the commercial zoning of the B-2 General Business District which ran adjacent to Waukegan Road and abuts the bordering single-family neighborhoods lining the corridor from south of Dewes Street to East Lake Avenue. The use map and height map showing the D-D District zoning requirements for the former Village Hall site are highlighted below by the red circles. 4

Zoning Comparison The chart below highlights the differences between the zoning districts (before and after 2008) along Waukegan Road and the adjacent R-5 Single-family Residential District. District B-2 (prior to 2008) D-D (since 2008) R-5 Uses Retail, Office, Service Retail, Office, Service, Residential Residential Height Density Rear Yard Setback 40 ft. n/a 48 ft. (all-residential) 53 ft. (mixed-use) An additional 5 ft. parapet wall is permitted No density restriction 32 ft. to peak 21 ft. to eave 1 unit per 8,712 s.f. lot 20 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. Downtown Development Comparison The chart below lists the roof heights and 4 th floor stepbacks for downtown developments, as well as the distance between the façade of downtown developments and the adjacent single-family lot lines, and the shortest distance from the single-family homes to the adjacent lot line. For reference, please note the statistics for the proposed Park Place development are listed in bold and the zoning requirements are listed in italics. 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 April 6, 2017 Board of Trustees Meeting First Consideration of Ordinance May 2, 2017 Board of Trustees Meeting Second Consideration of Ordinance 5

Outreach Requirements The state and Village procedures for public notification are as follows: State statutes require a public hearing for rezonings. Village regulations require: o The publication of a public notice in the local newspaper, not more than 30 days, nor less than 15 days before the hearing. The notice was published in the Glenview Lantern on January 26, 2017. o A sign notifying the public of a public hearing shall be posted on the site and is currently still present at 1225 Waukegan. o Copies of the public notice shall be sent, not less than 10 days before the hearing to the property owners as recorded in the Office of the County Tax Assessor, of property contiguous to the property under review and to the owners of lots adjacent to the first group. Outreach 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. It was also noted some residents did not receive the letter in time to attend the neighborhood meeting. Ample time was allowed for the mailings, but there could have been a Post Office delivery delay that staff is not aware of or the notices could have been considered junk mail and overlooked. Additionally, one resident noted their address did not show up on the mailing list, however a notice was sent to the property owner on file in the Village records. This situation was likely due to a recent property sale and the use of Tax Assessor information that is now outdated. Notwithstanding the notice concerns, which were outside of the Village s control, the adjacent neighborhood was given further opportunities to comment on the proposed development when the case was remanded back to the Plan Commission on March 21, 2017. A map of the neighbors who have sent in correspondence and/or spoke during one of the three public hearings has been provided for reference (see right). Also attached for reference, are the Village newsletter and local newspaper articles covering the redevelopment of the former Village Hall site. 6

FEBRUARY 14 AND FEBRUARY 28 PLAN COMMISSION DISCUSSION: The Plan Commission reviewed the applicant s request at two meetings in February for a Planned Development and Final Site Plan Review for the building and site improvements and Preliminary Subdivision approvals for the lot configurations. The following topics were reviewed and discussed during the February Plan Commission meetings: Site circulation (vehicle, delivery/garbage, fire truck) Private and guest parking Stormwater detention Overflow routes Lyon School detention Neighborhood character, urban edge, and density Pedestrian access Landscaping and fencing Alley widths Snow removal 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 preferred 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. Site Engineering 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 7

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. Lyon School Stormwater Detention Project Historically, the Bonnie Glen neighborhood has had flooding problems especially near the Raleigh Road and Elizabeth Lane intersection (see below). 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 (see below). In 2016, the Plan Commission and Village Board of Trustees approved a 5 acre-foot detention vault on the Lyon School property which 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. 8

February 2017 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. The applicant reworked the landscaped area and fencing in front of the townhomes along the east property line so the front entrances had a stronger relationship to the north portion of the development. 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 designation 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 9

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 which lack 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 and Commissioner Dickson seconded, in the case of P2016-053, Park Place Glenview at 1225 Waukegan Road, the Plan Commission recommends, via a 4-0 vote, the Village Board of Trustees grant approvals in accordance with a motion that is reflected in the Plan Commission minutes. The motion included approval of the following: A. 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 with several conditions. B. 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 several conditions. C. 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 several conditions. D. Final Appearance Commission approval is required for any proposed architecture, signage, landscaping, and lighting. Plan Revisions Submitted by The Drake Group The Plan Commission recommended approval of the proposed project with several specific site changes which are summarized in the graphic (see below). An updated site plan dated 03/15/17 was included as an attachment to the draft approvals ordinance and the associated conditions have been removed from the ordinance as they are no longer applicable. 10

MARCH 21 BOARD OF TRUSTEES DISCUSSION: 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 proposed development. 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 roof decks on six (6) townhomes in southeast corner Bulk and scale difference between the proposed six (6) townhomes and the adjacent existing single-family residences At the March 21 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. PLAN REVISIONS SUBMITTED BY THE DRAKE GROUP: To address the neighborhood concerns relayed ahead of the Village Board meeting the applicant made the following modifications, which were submitted to and reviewed by the Plan Commission on March 28, 2017: Revised roof top deck configuration (see right) o Decking depth from rear building edge reduced by two feet which reduces the overall deck size and moves deck west away from adjacent neighbors o Additional lattice proposed above the required fence around the extents of the deck to provide 52 high screening around the deck area 11

Additional landscaping along the rear property line adjacent to the six townhomes (see right) o 50% more canopy trees at 4 caliper sizes instead of 2.5 caliper, all proposed at 20 foot spacing instead of 40 foot spacing o Offer of supplemental landscaping in adjacent neighbor s yards - 8 foot tall arborvitae in addition to the 6 foot tall fence Major modifications to fourth floor roof height reduction of seven feet in roof height from a 48 tall gable roof to a 41 tall flat roof (see right) MARCH 28 PLAN COMMISSION DISCUSSION: The Plan Commission reviewed for a third time 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. The review and discussion during the March Plan Commission meeting was focused on the six (6) townhome units at the southeast corner of the proposed development. Public Hearing Comments A summary of the concerns relayed by the thirteen (13) members of the public who participated in the public hearing are summarized by staff below and reflected in more detail in the Commission minutes: Use (parties) of 3 rd floor roof decks Noise and light from 3 rd floor roof decks Concerns with fire places and BBQ s on 3 rd floor roof decks Privacy concerns with 3 rd floor roof decks Height of townhouse units Townhome height more conducive to city environment Compatibility of townhomes adjacent to single-family homes and impact on property values Economics of the land sale versus the reduction of building height/units Viability of selling townhomes in Glenview Depth of lot related to development opportunities 12

March 28 Plan Commission Review The Plan Commission reviewed the new materials provided by the applicant and the neighbor s correspondence, listened to additional public testimony, and reviewed all the information prior to forwarding another recommendation to the Board of Trustees. At the meeting staff reviewed several exhibits, some of which were referenced earlier in this report. Building Height - Based on the recent correspondence from neighbors, the primary concern is the impact of the six (6) proposed townhomes in the southeast corner of the site. Staff prepared a marked exhibit (see below) 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, although the neighbors noted many of the new homes on the block were built at 30 feet tall. 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. 13

Plan Commission Comments - The Plan Commission had several questions for the applicant on the proposed modifications and on questions raised during the public hearing. The Plan Commission reviewed the appropriateness of fire places, placement of lights, and BBQ s being used on the 3 rd floor roofdeck. Adding landscaping across those existing single-family lots directly adjacent to the proposed new single-family homes commensurate with the landscaping along the townhomes was also discussed. The Commission asked staff for clarification on the height regulations within the D-D district and confirmed the revised townhome building heights met those standards. Discussion ensued on the precedent set with the recently approved and D-D compliant development (Riverforest) adjacent to a single-family neighborhood. While a few Commissioners noted the position of the townhomes was awkward, the Commission expressed concern in considering less units for the proposed development when it complies with the zoning requirements. Ultimately, The Plan Commission noted its role was in reviewing the site plan and other aspects of the development as it relates to the zoning, confirmed the proposal did comply with the zoning, and deferred consideration to the Village Board who has the option to review the townhome economics. Plan Revisions Required by the Plan Commission - The following revisions were included in the Plan Commission s motion for approval: o Modifications to landscaping along east lot line increase the amount and size of shade trees and additional supplemental arborvitae in neighbor s yards adjacent to the proposed single-family homes, similar to what was proposed adjacent to the townhomes. Following the meeting, the applicant submitted a revised landscape plan (see below) which is referenced in the draft ordinance that addresses the Plan Commission requirement to add more landscaping along the eastern edge of the development. o o Optional 3 rd floor roof decks shall be limited to 200 s.f. in size, shall only include lighting that is shielded so as to project light downwards, and shall be limited to gas burning (no wood burning) fireplaces that face west. 14

MARCH 28 PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Plan Commission recommended approval of the Park Place development, as submitted with the modifications described above, based on the findings that the development meets the zoning requirements of the Downtown Development District. In response to the neighbor s concerns and within the preamble section of the Plan Commission s motion to the Village Board, the Commission noted the Board (not the Plan Commission) should review the effectiveness of the proposed modifications, and whether the building height and/or number of units should be adjusted further, which could affect the economics of the land sale. Motion for Approval On March 28, 2017, Commissioner Witt moved, the Plan Commission makes a finding that the petitioner s proposal has met the zoning requirements of the D-D Downtown Development District, and the Plan Commission finds if the Village Board of Trustees desires to proceed with the current site plan (as amended below), or to make specific modifications to townhome units 21-26, which may include their removal, that the Plan Commission s findings do not change. Based upon the petitioner s application materials, testimony, and discussion relating to the petition for Planned Development, Rezoning, Final Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Subdivision Approval which demonstrate compliance with Chapter 54, Chapter 66, and Chapter 98, Article II of the Municipal Code, I move in the case of P206-053, 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 03/16/17 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 encumbering all pedestrian sidewalks upon the property. 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. All air-conditioning condensers must be located in areas which do not abut a fee-simple property line or conflict with circulation patterns for vehicles. F. 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 and compliance with applicable bulk regulations. Such restrictions prohibiting accessory uses shall be clearly documented in the Homeowner s Association (HOA) declarations. G. Balconies (primarily units 21-26) shall project no further than the back of curb located in the alleys. H. The optional third floor roof deck of units 21-26 shall be positioned 2 feet back from the rear façade and shall include a fence and lattice work along the entire perimeter that is no lower than 52 inches, as shown in the 03-24-17 Character Elevations (all four sides) prepared by BSB Design. I. Optional third floor roof decks shall be limited to 200 s.f. in size, shall only include lighting that is shielded so as to project light downwards, and shall be limited to gas burning (no wood burning) fireplaces that face west. 15

J. The fourth floor flat roof of units 21-26 shall be 41-2.5 in height and the 3 rd floor roof shall be 32-2.5 in height, as shown in the 03-24-17 Character Elevations (all four sides) prepared by BSB Design. K. The tight spacing of the 4 caliper shade trees along the entire eastern lot line and the supplemental 8 foot tall arborvitae offered to be placed in the adjacent single-family rear yards (number and placement to be coordinated with neighbors at a later date), shall be as shown on the Preliminary Landscape Plan L3 of L9 and L5 of L9, prepared by Manhard Consulting. L. The HOA declarations shall also include the following acknowledgements from purchasers: i. The units are adjacent to an active Fire Station. ii. There are public sidewalks traversing the development. iii. To allow for adequate emergency vehicle access, parking in drive-aisles, alleys, and roadways outside of the designated on-street parking stalls is not permitted. 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 HOA for the proposed development in perpetuity. vi. The fence along the eastern lot line shall be replaced in full by the applicant prior to transfer of responsibilities to the HOA. vii. Petitioner shall 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. 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 03/15/17. 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. 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 HOA 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. 16

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 HOA. E. Snow-plowing will be required to be provided by the HOA for any private streets or drives. F. The reduction in the depth of the parking stalls at the east end of the Fire Station 6 parking lot at 1215 Waukegan Road from 19.0 feet to 18.7 feet with landscape overhang of 1.5 feet and the proposed fence adjacent to these stalls, which shall be owned and maintained by the HOA. G. The installation of sidewalk and minor retaining wall upon the north side of the Fire Station property to facilitate public access to the site and the conveyance of the stormwater overflow route and the associated easements on Village property. H. 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. I. School and Park District impact fees are require to be paid for each unit in the singlefamily development according to applicable Village codes. J. 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 successors, and assigns, including any future HOA 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. ii. A waiver from Section 66-172(b) to allow lots which do not front upon a public street. iii. A waiver from Section 66-173 to allow lots which do not meet minimum lot size requirements. iv. 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. Motion seconded by Commissioner Igleski. YEAS: Commissioners Fallon, Dickson, Burton, Witt, Duff, and Igleski (6) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) 17

ATTACHMENTS: 1. 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 c. Excerpt from Minutes of March 28, 2017 Plan Commission Meeting 2. Excerpt from Minutes of March 21, 2017 Village Board Meeting 3. Plan Commission Staff Report a. Staff Report b. Engineering Memorandum from Steve Amann, Consulting Engineer, dated 02/08/2017 c. Trip Generation Memorandum from Sam Schwartz dated 12/16/16 d. Traffic Impact Analysis Review Memo from James J. Benes and Associates, dated 02/09/2017 e. Fiscal Analysis Report from Laube Companies dated 02/01/17 f. Fiscal Impact Study Analysis Review Memo from S.B. Friedman dated 02/16/2017 g. Preliminary Stormwater Management Report prepared by Manhard Consulting dated 01/12/17 4. Public Notice, Public Notice Address List, Neighborhood Notice, and Neighborhood Address Map 5. Newspaper and Newsletter Articles 6. Public Correspondence to Plan Commission prior to 02/28/17 7. Public Correspondence since 02/28/17 8. Applicant s Application Materials and Exhibits 9. Draft Ordinance 18

Attachment 1: Plan Commission Minutes Excerpts of 02/14/17, 02/28/17 and 03/28/17 Meetings 19

EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2017 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING P2016-053 1225 Waukegan Road Park Place Glenview (Public Hearing) Chairman Bucklin began by stating that the applicant requests approval of a Rezoning, Planned Development with Variations, Final Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Subdivision to allow the construction of twenty-six residential units on the subject property which is the site of the former Glenview Village Hall. Mr. Rogers reviewed tonight s proceedings as follows: 1. Village Hall Site Background and Marketing presented by Staff 2. Case Summary & Comparable Community Examples presented by Staff 3. Project Summary presented by Staff & applicant 4. Clarifying questions by Plan Commission, Staff and Applicant 5. Public Hearing from public 6. Commission discussion and comments by Plan Commission & Staff 7. This public hearing will be continued to the Plan Commission s 2.28.17 meeting to allow the applicant opportunity to incorporate changes to the plan (if any) in response to comments/concerns Mr. Jeff Brady provided background information on the former Village Hall Site and highlighted the following: Village services were relocated to Municipal Center in December of 2015, vacating the building on the subject property. Site is zoned D-D (Downtown Development District) Board of Trustees and staff coordinated with Development Advisor (CBRE) on marketing process D-D zoning would allow development with a 4 story height with mix of uses Submitted offers were evaluated based on the following criteria: Minimum price range A compliant D-D use(s) The developer s capacity to construct the proposed project Ability to address engineering requirements Medium residential densities Previous high quality development experience The purchase and sale agreement was approved by the Board of Trustees in 2016 and the Drake Group has been proceeding through the typical regulatory review process. 20

Mr. Rogers showed a series of slides that outlined the following: A history of Downtown Glenview Planning Existing Drainage conditions of the site via the 100-year flood Inundation Map. The slide showed the route by which stormwater travels in this area. Mr. Rogers noted that the intersection of Raleigh/Elizabeth is the lowest elevation in the watershed Details of the Lyon School Detention Project Proposal. The project is intended to provide extra capacity for stormwater affecting the Bonnie Glen residential neighborhood during large rain events. The plan to construct an underground stormwater detention structure on the adjacent Lyon School property was approved by the Board of Trustees in early 2017. Examples of Small Single Family Home Communities were shown from other communities including Libertyville and Skokie. Mr. Rogers also highlighted the similar alley conditions, site plans, and residential units. Mr. Rogers presented the Case Summary: Proposal for 26 residential units including single-family, duplex, and row home units Current plan allows for passage of stormwater through the site during large rain events from northeast corner of the site to the southwest corner of the site, existing onto Waukegan Road Applicant is requirement preliminary review and comments from the Plan Commission regarding the product type mix, site plan and other high-level planning issues. Mr. Rogers showed the Proposed Landscape Plan and explained the traffic circulation and roadways, on-site parking, service access road for the alleys and garages for the single-family and the single duplex-unit. Pedestrian access is provided along the fronts of the buildings via a sidewalk that connects to the adjacent northern property and continuing on to Lyon School. Other slides that were shown included: Waukegan Road Rendering Single-Family Home Rendering Proposed Site Plan (utilizing colors to show row homes, duplex and single-family detached homes) Proposed Engineering On-site underground detention 100-year storm overflow route Stormwater overflow area Row home elevations Single-family & duplex units Three product types of single-family elevations (larger and smaller versions shown) Duplex elevation (rendering shown) Mr. Rogers also stated that all architectural renderings and elevations will be reviewed by the Appearance Commission on February 15, 2017. Building & Structure Locations Commissioner Burton inquired about the allowable heights of the various residences; Mr. Rogers replied that up to four stories are permitted on the east side, and there is an area south of the subject property where heights are limited to 48 ft. and areas along this stretch can be as high as 54 ft. with additional height provided for major architectural elements that add interest to the building. The highest proposed residences would be the row homes. The development across the 21

street is 54 ft. Mr. Rogers added that the applicant has complied with all zoning requirements. Mr. Rogers addressed the River Forest development, located on the west side of Waukegan Road, and was formerly comprised of a single family home and a vacant lot. This development is directly adjacent to residents to the west and in the long-term the Village would like to see an alley improvement connecting south to Grove Street. Commissioner Igleski addressed this proposed development s building types. Row homes aren t similar to homes on Waukegan Road, especially with front doors facing out front. While he understands the site is difficult to work with, there are homes facing the back of the Fire Department, which don t appear to be desirable. He is in support of the architecture, but is concerned with the feasibility and marketability of the proposal. Commissioner Dickson agreed with the potential challenge of selling many of these units, but added that these proposed units look like they do not belong and while the density is very urban and the design is attractive, she s not convinced that it s appropriate for this area in the Village. In relation to stormwater overflow, Mr. Rogers added that the developer is capturing the stormwater throughout the extents of the subject property as per code. The Village did have an opportunity to entertain a multi-family mixed-use proposal for this site, which would have significantly increased the development s density. Currently, this proposal is for a medium density development. Mr. Rogers explained the modeling of the stormwater overflow from the adjacent neighborhood, which is one of the primary reasons for the north/south orientation of the area. It was noted that water would move east to west on this property and each of the site plan iterations were heavily dependent on where the water would be directed. Mr. Rogers referenced Mr. Brady s previous comments, adding that the Village did have the opportunity to entertain multi-family, mixed-use developments for this site. Preliminarily, one of the proposals received would have increased the density significantly vs. this current proposal, which is a medium density project that balanced the impact by creating many more units vs. a dense single-family development. Lastly, he added that these facts are provided as background information on this project. Circulation Commissioner Igleski asked about on street parking on Waukegan in front of building; Mr. Rogers replied, no, it is not currently part of the proposal, but could be requested of the Illinois Department of Transportation. He also noted that there is a pedestrian pathway from this development to the Raleigh/Elizabeth neighborhood for additional parking. Commissioner Igleski noted that parking was not generous, but that he understood the desire for the development to have an urban feel. He added that he would like to see a better way for pedestrians to get to Waukegan Road to get people out to patronize local businesses. While there is parking available on the west side of Waukegan Road, there are no pedestrian cross walks. Parking Lots Chairman Bucklin inquired where else would people park. Mr. Rogers replied that considering the hours of businesses on the west side of Waukegan Road, parking would be available for this development s residents, however there are no pedestrian cross walks to the east side of Waukegan Road. 22

Building Scale Chairman Bucklin noted that this topic had been previously discussed as part of other topics. Landscaping Chairman Bucklin stated that landscaping would be discussed tomorrow at Appearance Commission meeting. It was noted that at the end of the northeast side of the property, there will be a dual use grass feature where perhaps benches/furniture would be available, but this area also functions as a pedestrian walkway that serves as a major rain overflow area. Commissioner Dickson inquired about the percentage of pervious vs. impervious coverage. Mr. Rogers stated that he did not know the percentage of green space, however the developer would be allowed 100% concrete coverage in the downtown district. Commissioner Dickson referenced the southeast corner and noted the three parking spaces could be changed to perhaps a green area for residents, adding that the goal is to make this section of the property feel more desirable vs. residents looking at the Fire Department parking lot. Graphics & Signage The applicant is proposing entry signage at the southeast corner of the main drive aisle, which would include the name of the development (currently references as Park Place Glenview). Further information will be provided when the final Site Plan is submitted. Traffic can make a full turn in and out. A proposed curb cut is very similar to the existing location of the dual access curb cut. Site Illumination While Mr. Rogers does not have the final illumination plan, the applicant is permitted to install light poles up to 18 ft. and there will be 100% shielding provided for the neighboring residents. Light levels will be reviewed at a future meeting. There will be light fixtures on the building. Chairman Bucklin asked the petitioner to address the Plan Commission. Mr. Tom Drake of the Drake Group began by stating that he lives in Glenview and his business is also located in Glenview on Johns Drive. He added that that the project s Civil Engineer has developed other projects in The Glen and along Waukegan Road. The Drake Group has been building developments in both the city and suburbs. He noted that they don t want to build another apartment building like the one directly across the street on Waukegan. This development will be built 14 ft. back from the sidewalk, which allows residents more privacy. In regards to lighting on the east side, out of concern for neighboring residents, there are no plans to add lighting on the alley side, other than safety lights. Lastly, he added that they have modeled service vehicle and fire/emergency vehicle maneuverability requirements and are that these types of vehicles will have no problems navigating the site. Commissioner Burton asked about underground water detention; Mr. Rogers replied that the applicant s proposal would provide significantly more water detention than currently exists. The applicant will be providing additional water detention information at a future meeting. Commissioner Dickson clarified her earlier comments about appropriateness. She noted that the two submitted renderings of similar developments that the applicant said were successful have an urban edge. This proposal does not have that same urban edge. If it did have an urban edge, she felt that this development could be more successful. She referenced the Downtown Development guidelines, which also encourage new developments to have an urban edge. 23