Attachment 3: Plan Commission Staff Report

Transcription

1 Attachment 3: Plan Commission Staff Report 48

2 Village of Glenview Plan Commission Staff Report February 28, 2017 TO: Chairman and Plan Commissioners CASE #: P FROM: Community Development Department CASE MANAGER: Tony Repp, Planner SUBJECT: Planned Development with Variations, Final Site Plan Review, & Preliminary Subdivision ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests consideration and preliminary review of the proposed site plan APPLICANT / CONTACT: Tom Drake The Drake Group 1967 Johns Drive Glenview, IL Tel: (847) OWNER: Village of Glenview 2500 East Lake Avenue Glenview, IL LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: 1225 Waukegan Road Park Place Glenview PROPOSAL: The applicant, Tom Drake of the Drake Group, requests approval of a Rezoning, Planned Development with Variations, Final Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Subdivision to allow the construction of twenty-six (26) residential units upon the subject property. New content denoted by 02/28/2017 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. 49

3 Site Assessment VILLAGE OF GLENVIEW ZONING: PIN (S): Current North East South West Glenview D-D Downtown Development District Glenview D-D Downtown Development District Glenview R-5 Residential District Glenview D-D Downtown Development District Glenview D-D Downtown Development District AERIAL PHOTO: PICTOMETRIC PHOTOGRAPHY: 50

4 South Elevation West Elevation 51

5 Project Summary BACKGROUND: 02/28/2017 On February 14, 2017, the Plan Commission completed an initial review of the proposed redevelopment of the former Village Hall site at 1225 Waukegan Road. Staff presented information on similar small home developments in the region, background on the subject property, and an overview of the proposed development. The Plan Commission and applicant continued to discuss the overall plan for redevelopment, which called for the construction of three (3) different product types including rowhome units (13 units), duplex units (4 units), and small-lot single-family residences (9 units). The Plan Commission s discussion focused on the following issues: Density: 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 is included below: Development Units Gross Density Midtown Square units per acre Riverforest units per acre Proposed Park Place (Subject Property) units per acre Neighborhood character: A good deal of the Plan Commission s discussion 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 commented the design examples from other communities showed street layouts on through-streets which did not result in the deadend sections shown on the proposed plan. 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. 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. Comments on the availability of guest parking were relayed, however it was clarified that in addition to the street parking, fourteen (14) of the units had one or two parking stalls within driveways. The proposed driveway aprons along the east end of the development site do not provide sufficient width to serve as required parking stalls. 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 52

6 Green space: The Plan Commission asked the applicant to identify on the plan where the proposed green space and buffer areas were located. The intent was to ensure sufficient landscaping was provided to compliment the compact layout of the development. 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. Relationship to surrounding properties: The Plan Commission inquired about other examples from within Glenview or surrounding communities where residential buildings and commercial buildings share a building line adjacent to a major state-route as seen with the proposed development. Photos of townhome projects featuring an urban edge representing multiple styles are included below for reference. Northwest Hwy Arlington Heights Palatine Road Downtown Palatine 53

7 Patriot Blvd. Glenview Following these review comments, members of the public spoke. Questions and concerns raised by the public focused on existing poor drainage conditions, the height of the proposed homes, a request for additional landscaping, preservation of pedestrian cross-access for neighborhood children attending Lyon School, and mitigating impacts of lighting within the development. 02/14/2017 The Village of Glenview relocated the Village Hall to the consolidated Municipal Center at 2500 East Lake Avenue in December 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 (see attached brochure) to numerous developers in the first quarter of 2016 to ascertain potential redevelopment options. The subject property was zoned D-D Downtown Development District in accordance with figure 2.5 of the Downtown Development Code which was adopted by reference via 5112 in 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 54

8 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 ( Drake ) 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). Photo examples of each development have been provided and a more detailed overview of the characteristics of these types of developments and the proposed Park Place development will be provided during the Plan Commission meeting. 55

9 Floral Avenue - Skokie School Street - Libertyville Cambridge at the Glen 56

10 SITE ENGINEERING: The engineering of the site has also been designed with consideration given to the adjacent single-family neighborhood and existing drainage routes. The Village is 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. Historically, the Bonnie Glen neighborhood has had flooding problems especially near the Raleigh Road and Elizabeth Lane intersection. The development was constructed in an area where a creek and low lands previously existed. This subdivision has been designated a Tier 3 flood area. 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. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 02/28/2017 The applicant has made several changes to the proposed site plan and architecture. These changes have been itemized in the Drake Group s written response to comments from the Plan Commission and from Staff. The first item addresses the units in the far southeastern corner of the property. By utilizing fencing and additional landscaping, the applicant has attempted to create a sense of privacy from the adjacent fire station use. The applicant has made changes to the elevations of rowhomes along Waukegan Road to increase the effect of the built-over-time aesthetic and reduce the mirroring effect of the two unit groups. In order to highlight the urban edge, the applicant has added masonry and fencing features to the western lot line to provide a firmer separation and create an aesthetic which establishes a more defined right-of-way line. Additional refinements were made to the architectural elevations for the single-family and duplex products to enhance the design and emphasize the urban nature of the proposed development. Alterations to the parking and pedestrian circulation patterns were included as discussed with staff and the Plan Commission. The alterations were limited in scope and located in the rear of the property near unit

11 02/14/2017 The applicant s proposed plan for the property features a mix of twenty-six (26) for-sale, single-family attached and detached dwelling units, which include three (3) different product types including rowhome units (13 units), duplex units (4 units), and small-lot single-family residences (9 units). The proposed units would be two-stories (single-family homes) and three-stories (two-story townhome with a first floor garage) in height and are oriented in a north-south configuration accessible from private streets and alleys. The larger rowhomes along Waukegan Road address that street, while smaller rowhome units would be positioned east of the fire station. The front facades of the single-family and duplex units would be oriented toward an internal private street, with all the units having access to their garages via private alleys. POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS: At press time, staff had not received any formal correspondence from any neighbors or adjacent property owners. Staff has received phone calls from several residents inquiring about the regulatory review process. The applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting on January 31, 2017 and presented plans to approximately a dozen residents. Plan Commission Review FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW 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 coordinated with the applicant on the included submittal which substantially complies with the Site Plan Review Ordinance Criteria: BUILDING AND STRUCTURE LOCATIONS 02/28/2017 The applicant has added masonry fencing elements to the western lot line in order to add interest and identity to the proposed development. The applicant should elaborate on why a looped street pattern is not possible or compatible with the proposed character and usability of the development. The applicant shall relocate the AC condensers for units 1-8 in an area away from vehicle circulation. These units could be grouped in between buildings or placed on the roof. The applicant shall relocate AC condensers for units These may be located in the front yards or on the roof of the units. The Plan Commission should forward necessary comments to the Appearance Commission regarding whether brick materials should be included on all three floors of certain townhome 58

12 units along Waukegan Road in order to establish a clearer urban edge and provide differentiation of the units. 02/14/2017 Driveway widths should be expanded to provide adequate width for multiple vehicles where applicable. An approved site plan would be the controlling document for the Planned Development. As such the following items need to be identified on the site plan as part of any Planned Development approvals: o Accessory uses such as patios, generators, HVAC equipment, spas/pools, sheds, decks, etc. o Final designs should assume full build-out of any home site, inclusive of any accessory uses which may be permitted by the Declaration/CCRs. A summary of the available permissible structures types and maximum area should be provided for review by the Plan Commission. o Building setbacks and dimensions for the latest version of the site plan. o All masonry walls, fences, and fence details are identified and dimensioned. CIRCULATION 02/28/2017 The applicant has removed a parking stall adjacent to unit 21 in order to aid in circulation and for vehicles and pedestrians. The parking stall adjacent to unit should be removed as well because it conflicts with the fire truck turning radius. The applicant shall create a wider outside turning radius for the curve adjacent to units 14 & 15 in order to aid in circulation of the largest fire apparatus accessing the site. Bollards or a small fence shall be added to the north end of the eastern alley in the area around the retaining wall to prevent vehicles from reversing over the edge of the retaining wall. The applicant shall maintain 2.0 feet clear from the back of the curb on the Fire Station 6 site to the face of the proposed fence adjacent to units This will require alterations to the landscaping configuration in those front yards to accommodate the same improvements in a smaller space. The wheel stops on the Fire Station property should also not be included on future plans The applicant should identify the manner by which vehicles will be able to turn-around without entering private property at the south end of the west alley and at the north end of the east alley. The Plan Commission shall determine whether sufficient pedestrian access is provided from Waukegan Road and throughout the site to the adjacent neighborhoods and elementary school. 02/14/2017 The applicant should elaborate on reasons why the main entrance was situated at northwest corner of property. The fire department s largest truck can circulate the site, but does clip potential snow piling areas or parking areas in certain locations. The applicant should widen curb radii and shift parking / snow piling areas to accommodate vehicle circulation. Staff requested that the applicant investigate the possibility of locating a carriage walk immediately adjacent to the northern drive-aisle to accommodate southbound pedestrian 59

13 traffic. The applicant is opposed to this alteration and has provided written response regarding the proposed change. The main sidewalk route through the property should be straightened where possible. PARKING LOTS 02/28/2017 The applicant should confirm the turnaround method(s) for vehicles utilizing the parallel parking stalls in the center of the site. The applicant is proposing typical driveway widths of 17.0 feet. These should be increased to 18.0 feet to provide compliant parking stall widths for two (2) vehicles. The applicant should identify proposed areas which would accommodate snow piling. BUILDING SCALE 02/14/2017 The Plan Commission should provide comments regarding the proposed building scale and elevations of the various product types, particularly with regard to how the scale and proposed building heights of between approximately feet are consistent with the D-D District requirements which allow for a maximum height of 53.0 feet. LANDSCAPING 02/28/2017 The Plan Commission should review the proposed landscape plan and determine whether the interior and perimeter landscaping are adequate for screening and visual interest. The Downtown Development code does not limit impervious lot coverage. In typical development circumstances within this district, the site could be completely covered in impervious material. In the case of the proposed development, the impervious lot coverage for the site is 52.6%. Alterations to the final landscaping design and all landscaping materials shall be shall be subject to the review and approval of the Appearance Commission. GRAPHICS AND SIGNAGE 02/28/2017 The Plan Commission should comment on the proposed location and character of the sign adjacent to the main entrance. SITE ILLUMINATION 02/28/2017 The applicant has submitted a preliminary photometric plan for review. The preliminary lighting plan will need to be revised to comply with lighting requirements of the ordinance. All exterior fixtures will be required to be 100% cut-off style fixtures. The applicant should confirm that all light fixtures including building-mounted fixtures which include light elements exceeding 1,000 lumens are included upon the photometric plan. 60

14 All lighting elements, poles, and fixtures shall be subject to additional review and approval by the Appearance Commission. Technical Review PARKING REQUIREMENTS: The Zoning Ordinance stipulates formulas to be applied to various possible land uses in order to establish the minimum number of required parking stalls. These parking formulas have been examined by staff to establish the most restrictive requirements, which can be summarized as follows: Parking Requirements Residential Formula Details Proposed Required Compliance 2 Parking Spaces per unit 26 Units 84* 52 Yes *(52 stalls within garages / 27 stalls within driveways / stalls on-street ) RESIDENTIAL USE STATISTICS: Allowed/Permitted Proposed Compliance Zoning PD / D-D PD (D-D) Yes Building Height Yes Perimeter Yard No Variation Required Land Ownership Common Ownership Fee Simple Lots No Variation Required 61

15 DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS (FORM BASED CODE): Within the body of the Downtown Revitalization Plan are specific recommendations on how to implement the vision for downtown using a new regulatory tool called a Form-Based Code. The FBC allows for the downtown characteristics desired by the community to be reinforced through the coding of a building s form in accordance with the Preferred Concepts. The Plan recommends that a formbased code be developed as the primary regulatory tool for guiding new development within the Downtown. Form-based codes address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. The regulations and standards in form-based codes, presented in both diagrams and words, are keyed to a regulating plan that designates the appropriate form and scale (and therefore, character) of development rather than only distinctions in land-use types. This is in contrast to conventional zoning's focus on the segregation of land-use types, permissible property uses, and the control of development intensity through simple numerical parameters (e.g., FAR, dwellings per acre, height limits, setbacks, parking ratios). Form-based codes commonly include the following elements: Regulating Plan - A plan or map of the regulated area designating the locations where different building form standards apply, based on clear community intentions regarding the physical character of the area being coded. Building Form/Envelope Standards - Regulations controlling the configuration, features, and functions of buildings that define and shape the public realm. Public Space/Street Standards - Specifications for the elements within the public realm (e.g., sidewalks, travel lanes, street trees, street furniture, etc.). Annotation - Text and illustrations explaining the intentions of specific code provisions Architectural Standards - Regulations controlling external architectural materials and quality. Administration - A clearly defined application and project review process. Definitions - A glossary to ensure the precise use of technical terms. GLENVIEW S DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CODE (FORM-BASED CODE): Below are the relevant excerpts from the Downtown Code: Land Use: 62

16 Building Height: Setbacks: 63

17 Design: 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 , 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 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. 64

18 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. 7. The community need for the proposed use. 8. The care with which the community has undertaken to plan its land use development. Technical Review COMPLIANCE WITH VILLAGE PLANS: Village Plan Compliance Yes / No / N/A Comments Comprehensive Plan Yes - Official Map Yes - Waukegan Road Corridor Plan N/A - Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Plan N/A - Downtown Revitalization Plan Yes The Downtown Revitalization plan calls for a mix of uses in this area, including residential on the ground floor and upper floors. Natural Resources Plan N/A - Bike & Sidewalk Master Plan Yes Sidewalks are provided throughout the site and along Waukegan Road. The GNAS Design Guidelines N/A - 65

19 PROJECT TIMELINE: A. 11/11/16 Application Submitted B. 11/30/16 Preliminary Review Meeting with Staff C. 01/13/17 FSPR Exhibits Submitted D. 01/26/17 Public Notice published in Glenview Lantern E. 01/26/17 Public notice sign posted upon the subject property F. 01/26/17 Public notices mailed to surrounding property owners G. 01/31/17 Neighborhood Meeting H. 02/14/17 Plan Commission Meeting I. 02/15/17 Appearance Commission Meeting J. 02/28/17 Plan Commission Meeting (2 nd ) K. TBD Village Board of Trustees First Consideration L. TBD Village Board of Trustees Second Consideration M. TBD Building Permit Application & Final Engineering N. TBD Building & Engineering Inspections O. TBD Business License(s) P. TBD Certificates of Occupancy C DEFG H I J A B Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 02/28/2017 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: The Village s third-party fiscal consultant, S.B. Friedman Development Advisors, has evaluated the applicant s fiscal impact study prepared by Laube Companies, dated February 1, 2017 and projects the proposed development will generate a positive net fiscal impact on an annual recurring basis to the Village, as well as School Districts 34 and

20 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: A traffic study was prepared for the proposed project which evaluated the use and scope. A review of projected impacts and site analysis was conducted by James J. Benes and Associates. This memo showed the proposed use would have minimal impact on traffic during peak travel times and identified several modifications which would improve the site configuration. ENGINEERING REVIEW COMMENTS: Per a memorandum from Steve Amann, Consulting Engineer, there are design revisions and other studies that will be required as part of the final engineering process. However, the Village of Glenview s Engineering Division and Consulting Engineer have been heavily involved with the engineering design from the outset of the project and while additional modeling of the changes to the site plan is required, staff believes the proposed methods for the site improvements are feasible and practical. A copy of staff s engineering review comments are attached to this report. REQUIRED APPROVAL(s): The following chart details the necessary required approvals: Required Regulatory Review A. Annexation B. Annexation with Annexation Agreement C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment D. Official Map Amendment E. Rezoning F. Planned Development G. Conditional Use H. Final Site Plan Review I. Second Curb Cut J. Subdivision (Preliminary, Final, and Waivers) K. Variation(s) (Plan Commission via Planned Development) L. Certificate of Appropriateness (Appearance Commission) M. Final Engineering Approval & Outside Agency Permits N. Building Permits O. Building & Engineering Inspections P. Recorded Documents (Development Agreements, Easements, Covenants, etc.) Q. Business License R. Certificate of Occupancy ATTACHMENTS: 1. Engineering Memorandum from Steve Amann, Consulting Engineer, dated 02/08/ Traffic Impact Analysis Review Memo from James J. Benes and Associates, dated 02/09/ Fiscal Impact Study Analysis Review Memo from S.B. Friedman dated 02/16/

21 68

22 69

23 70

24 71

25 72

26 73

27 74

28 75

29 76

30 77

31 78

32 79

33 80

34 81

35 82

36 83

37 84

38 85

39 86

40 87

41 88

42 89

43 90

44 91

45 92

46 93

47 94

48 95

49 96

50 97

51 98

52 99

53 100

54 101

55 102

56 103

57 104

58 105

59 106

60 107

61 108

62 109

63 110

64 111

65 112

66 113

67 114

68 115

69 116

70 117

71 118

72 119

73 120

74 121

75 122

76 123

77 124

78 125

79 126

80 127

81 128

82 129

83 130

84 131

85 132

86 133

87 134

88 135

89 136

90 137

91 138

92 139

93 140

94 141

95 142

96 143

97 144

98 145

99 146

100 147