Planning & Zoning Committee

PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE NORTHBROOK VILLAGE HALL, 1225 CEDAR LANE April 13, 2016, 6:30 P.M. TERRACE ROOM (SECOND FLOOR – VILLAGE HALL) The Planning & Zoning Committee of the Village of Northbrook Board of Trustees will hold a meeting on Wednesday, April 13, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. in the Terrace Room on the second floor of the Village Hall, 1225 Cedar Lane, Northbrook, Illinois. The following will be discussed. MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. HEAR FROM THE AUDIENCE 3. DISCUSSION: 1179-1275 Shermer Road – Jacobs Townhomes Development (PCD-15-19) 4. ADJOURN Jim Karagianis, Chair Planning/Zoning Committee Members: Trustee Buehler Please Note a “Light” Dinner will be served for Trustee Heller Board Members attending Village of Northbrook Cook County, Illinois April 13, 2016 The Village of Northbrook is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who require certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting, or who have questions regarding the accessibility of this meeting or the facilities, are requested to contact Greg Van Dahm (847/664-4014) or Debbie Ford (847/664- 4013) promptly to allow the Village of Northbrook to make reasonable accommodations for those persons. Hearing impaired individuals may call the TDD number, 564-8645, for more information.  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO: RICHARD A. NAHRSTADT, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DAVID SCHOON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 13, 2016 SUBJECT: PCD-15-19: JACOBS TOWNHOMES - 1179-1275 SHERMER ROAD - REVIEW PLAN COMMISSION & ACC RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION On April 13, 2016, the Board’s Planning and Zoning Committee is scheduled to consider the recommendations of the Plan Commission and Architectural Control Commission regarding an amended application submitted by Jacobs Companies, LLC (the “Applicant”), as the contract purchaser or interested contract purchaser of ten (10) properties alongside the south side of Shermer Road ranging in addresses from 1179 to 1275 Shermer Road (the “Subject Property”). The amended application would require the following approvals: A. A series of text amendments to the Northbrook Zoning Code to create a new high density multiple-family zoning district to accommodate the development proposed on the Subject Property; B. Rezoning of the Subject Property from the C-1 Special Commercial District to the proposed high density multiple-family zoning district; C. Special permit for a planned development on the Subject Property, and concept plan approval for said planned development. The proposed uses within the planned development include 72 townhomes. D. Tentative subdivision plat approval; E. Variation of the Subdivision and Development Code to allow vehicular access to the proposed townhomes be by shared driveways; F. Modification to reduce the minimum parking stall width requirement from nine feet to eight feet; G. Variation to reduce the required number of guest parking spaces in the Village Green Residential District (0.5 parking spaces per unit) from 36 to 29 spaces; and H. Approval of any other such variations, waivers, subdivision, and zoning relief as may be necessary to accomplish development and use of the Subject Property as requested by the Applicant. As described in greater detail later in this report, the Board of Trustees reviewed this application on March 22, 2016 and referred the matter to the Planning and Zoning Committee for further discussion. The Village has not received any new written correspondence from the public since the March 22 Board meeting. Page 1 BOARD OF TRUSTEES REVIEW On March 22, 2016, the Board of Trustees reviewed the recommendations of the Plan Commission and the Architectural Control Commission (Attached are copies of the staff report for that meeting and the Plan Commission’s resolutions recommending approval of the project; the approved minutes for March 22 Board meeting are not available). The Board also heard from 13 members of the public regarding the proposed project. Five members spoke in support of some sort of townhome development on the Subject Property, while eight spoke in opposition stating the project is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, is too dense, lacks sufficient open spaces, contains buildings that are too tall and too close to Shermer Road, will not bring significant additional customer traffic to the downtown, and is the type of development that does not fit in with the area. After hearing from the public, Board members provided individual comments on the project. The Board then referred the project to the Planning and Zoning Committee and asked the Committee to further study the following issues: 1. The relationship of the proposed development to Shermer Road, in particular a. the height, setback, and spacing of the townhome buildings; b. the appropriateness of the proposed building designs in terms of providing adequate architectural relief; and c. the width of the proposed carriage walk along Shermer Road. 2. The placement of the condenser units for the townhome air conditioning systems (e.g. they should not be within the required front yard along Shermer Road). 3. Adequacy of landscaping, in particular along the west property line of the Subject Property. 4. Appropriateness of the overall density of the proposed development. The Applicant has provided the attached letter stating that it looks forward to meeting with the Planning & Zoning Committee and discussing the concerns of the Board and how the Applicant could address those concerns. The Applicant has also submitted the attached revised landscape plan showing additional landscaping along the west property line. SHERMER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS As previously reported to the Village Board, staff continues to work with the Village’s consultant on the downtown street improvement project. As it relates to this proposed townhome development, staff has worked with the Village’s consultant to design roadway striping for this portion of Shermer Road that would have one lane of traffic in each direction, a shared left turn lane, a mid-block pedestrian crossing, and on-street parking on the south side of the street (across the frontage of the Subject Property). Attached is a sketch of what those improvements could look like. At a future meeting of the Board, staff will present more details regarding these and other downtown street improvements. However, at the April 13 meeting, staff will present an overview of the concept in order to get initial feedback on the concept from Committee members. As a reminder, both the Plan Commission and the Architectural Control Commission found that the addition of on-street parking on the south side of the street is critical to the success of the project. The parking spaces not only would provide additional parking that visitors to the proposed development could use, but the parking would also provide a buffer between the travel lanes of the street and the Page 2 proposed townhomes. Given the proximity of the townhomes to the street, each Commission felt that buffer was important. SUMMARY Staff suggests that the Committee consider the following questions as it reviews this application: 1. Does the Planning & Zoning Committee concur with the Plan Commission recommendation, which is that the requested zoning and subdivision relief is appropriate for the Subject Property and does meet the Village’s standards for granting such relief? 2. Does the proposed Village Green Residential (VGR) District provide appropriate development standards? 3. If the Committee does not concur with the Plan Commission’s recommendation, are their further changes to the project that would make the project acceptable? In particular, the Village Board asked the Committee to further study the following items: a. Is the relationship of the project to Shermer Road appropriate (e.g. building height, setback, spacing and design)? b. Is the proposed placement of air conditioning unit condensers appropriate? c. Does the revised landscape plan provide sufficient landscaping along the west property line? d. Is the overall density appropriate? The Applicant and staff will be present at the April 13 meeting to provide a brief review of the project and answer any questions. We also expect that members of the public may wish to speak regarding the development. Page 3  SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION Dated: April 7, 2016 SHERMER TOWNHOMES www.thejacobscompanies.net Applicant: The Jacobs Companies, LLC 700 Osterman Avenue Deerfield, IL 60015 847-945-6500 phone 847-945-6501 fax Contact: Keith Jacobs keithj@thejacobscompanies.net RESPONSE TO MARCH 22, 2016 BOARD OF TRUSTEE’S MEETING Jacobs Companies, LLC appreciates the thoughtful and insightful comments made by the Board of Trustees at the March 22, 2016 Board Meeting. In response, Jacobs desires to further explain their current designs and discuss their appropriateness. Specifically, Jacobs intends on demonstrating that due to the significant grade change from east to west, the Shermer frontage will have a roof line of varied heights. Furthermore, based upon the results of the PZA meeting, Jacobs will further revise its submittals as follows: Architectural Control Commission Due to the filing deadlines, Jacobs was unable to revise their plans before the Board Meeting. However, Jacobs intends on addressing many of the practical comments made by the ACC including but limited to, variety of roof lines, landscaping, more detail on the end units, and cooperating with Village with plans for parking along Shermer. Landscaping Jacobs has submitted revised a landscape plan (attached) which increases the vegetation screening on the west side of the property. Shermer Road Once the plans are revised, Jacobs will increase the width of the carriage walks as requested and relocate the air conditioner units out of the front yards along Shermer. Plan Commission Comments All of the Plan Commission Conditions set forth in the staff report dated March 22, 2016 are acceptable. Summary Jacobs believes it has addressed most of the Trustee’s comments and concerns. Jacobs in appreciative of the insight and diligence of both the Plan Commission and the Board of Trustees and Jacobs looks forward to working further with Board of Trustees to insure that the proposal achieves its goal to be the “Gateway”.  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO: RICHARD A. NAHRSTADT, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DAVID SCHOON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DATE: March 22, 2016 SUBJECT: PCD-15-19: JACOBS TOWNHOMES - 1179-1275 SHERMER ROAD - REVIEW PLAN COMMISSION & ACC RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION On March 22, 2016, the Board of Trustees is scheduled to consider the recommendations of the Plan Commission and Architectural Control Commission regarding an amended application submitted by Jacobs Companies, LLC (the “Applicant”), as the contract purchaser or interested contract purchaser of ten (10) properties alongside the south side of Shermer Road ranging in addresses from 1179 to 1275 Shermer Road (the “Subject Property”). The amended application would require the following approvals: A. A series of text amendments to the Northbrook Zoning Code to create a new high density multiple-family zoning district to accommodate the development proposed on the Subject Property; B. Rezoning of the Subject Property from the C-1 Special Commercial District to the proposed high density multiple-family zoning district; C. Special permit for a planned development on the Subject Property, and concept plan approval for said planned development. The proposed uses within the planned development include 72 townhomes. D. Tentative subdivision plat approval; E. Variation of the Subdivision and Development Code to allow vehicular access to the proposed townhomes be by shared driveways; F. Modification to reduce the minimum parking stall width requirement from nine feet to eight feet; G. Variation to reduce the required number of guest parking spaces in the Village Green Residential District (0.5 parking spaces per unit) from 36 to 29 spaces; and H. Approval of any other such variations, waivers, subdivision, and zoning relief as may be necessary to accomplish development and use of the Subject Property as requested by the Applicant. As will be discussed in greater detail later in this memo, on February 16, 2016, the Plan Commission adopted, by a vote of 5-2 (with two members abstaining), a resolution recommending approval of the Page 1 amended application. The Plan Commission separately recommended approval of a Zoning Code text amendment to accommodate the proposed development by a vote of 8-1. On March 10, 2016, the Architectural Control Commission reviewed the project and has forwarded comments that will be discussed later. The Village has received written correspondence from the public. A copy of the correspondence is attached. BOARD PRELIMINARY REVIEW On January 13, 2015, the Board of Trustees conducted a preliminary application review of the Applicant’s request (a copy of the minutes are attached). At that time the Applicant presented two options for a townhome development (54 or 82 townhomes) depending upon the number of lots it could put under contract. In general, Board members were very receptive to the proposed townhome development as they expressed the position that this type of development is a way to bring more people into the downtown; however, Board members expressed some concerns regarding the proposal:  While most Board members expressed support for a dense townhome development in the downtown, a couple of trustees stated that the development may be too dense.  Landscaping and buffering around the perimeter is important to minimize impacts on adjacent property owners. The developer must work with neighbors to address concerns the neighbors may have.  Consideration should be given to how the site could connect to other area properties, if they were to redevelop.  The site should be designed to adequately address the Fire Department’s need to ensure emergency vehicles can adequately maneuver the site.  The development must meet all stormwater management requirements.  A variety of designs for the townhomes is important to avoid a monotonous appearance. The Architectural Control Commission must review the project.  The concept of affordable housing was discussed. Most Board members did not favor including an affordable housing component, but a couple felt it was worth investigating.  A couple of trustees expressed the opinion that it may be desirable to have a mix of uses (commercial and residential), but they were open to the townhome development.  Guest parking may be inadequate. Overall the Board found a townhome development appropriate for the Subject Property and encouraged the developer to try to secure as many properties to incorporate into the development. Page 2 CURRENT PROJECT The current project, as recommended by the Plan Commission, consists of a 72-unit townhome development on the 5.34 acre Subject Property. It should be noted that the Applicant also has 1291 Shermer Road under contract and plans to redevelop it in order to relocate one of the existing businesses on the Subject Property to that site. That property is not part of the planned development; however, the Applicant’s plans show the future potential use of that property so that the Village is aware of the Applicant’s plans for that site. The proposed townhouse development would be accessed by two driveways off of Shermer Road. Each individual unit would have rear-loaded garage access via a series of internal shared driveways. The townhomes consist of 2-, 3-, and 4-story townhomes ranging in height from 32 feet to 43’-8”. The taller townhomes are along Shermer Road and shorter townhomes are along the east, west, and south property lines. The townhomes would consist of living areas ranging in size from 2,180 square feet to 2,650 square feet. The Applicant is providing parking for the townhome development through a combination of garage parking spaces, garage apron parking spaces, and parking spaces off of the internal shared driveways. The Applicant is proposing a total of 253 parking spaces for an overall parking ratio of 3.51 spaces per unit. This parking count excludes any on-street parking that may be available on Shermer Road. In terms of open space, landscaping and buffering, the Applicant is providing nearly one acre of open space, which is nearly one-fifth of the entire site. Along the south property line (backing up to the homes along Chapel Court) the Applicant is proposing a 40-foot deep yard free of any proposed buildings, streets or driveways. Along the east, west, and south property lines the Applicant proposes a 6-foot tall board-on-board fence with brick pillars as well as a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs to help screen the project from the adjacent properties. Along Shermer Road, the Applicant is proposing a 6-foot wide carriage walk, some shade trees between the carriage walk and the proposed townhomes, and shrubs and annual/perennials at the front of each townhome. Stormwater detention would be provided through a series of interconnected underground vaults located underneath the proposed open space area in the middle of the development and along the south property line. PLAN COMMISSION CONSIDERATION The Plan Commission held five public hearings on the requested zoning and subdivision relief, and on February 16, 2016 (the sixth meeting) the Commission voted on its recommendation. Copies of the Plan Commission resolutions, staff reports and minutes for each meeting are attached. Also attached are a series of slides highlighting the changes to the project as it moved through the Plan Commission public hearing process. September 29, 2015 Public Hearing. The Commission held its first public hearing on an application for zoning and subdivision relief for approval of a 76-unit townhome planned development. The Commission heard from nine members of the public objecting to the proposal. When discussing the Page 3 proposal, Commission members stated that that the development is appropriate for the Subject Property but listed a number of concerns regarding the current proposal, which included that the development was too dense, lacked sufficient open space, the homes along the south property line were too tall and too close to the property line, insufficient guest parking, the height of some of the exterior front stoops along Shermer Road were too tall, emergency access should be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, and Applicant should continue to work with neighbors. Following this discussion, the Applicant indicated that they would like to review alternatives and have continued discussion with the neighbors. The Commission continued the public hearing to Tuesday, November 3, to give the Applicant time to respond to the Commission’s concerns. November 3, 2015 Public Hearing. The Commission held its second public hearing on an amended application for zoning and subdivision relief for approval of a 73-unit townhome planned development. The Applicant presented a revised plan that reduced the number of units by three, reoriented townhomes along the south property line and increased the amount of open space. The Commission heard from eleven members of the public. Eight spoke objecting to the proposal and three spoke in support of the project. When discussing the proposal, Commission members continued to state that a townhome development is appropriate for the Subject Property but felt the Applicant did not adequately address the concerns Commission members expressed at the September 29, 2015 meeting. Commission members expressed concerns regarding the development’s density, lack of open space, the height of some of exterior front stoops along Shermer Road were too tall, and the buffer along the south property line. Some Commissioners expressed the opinion that for this project to work along Shermer Road, it needs to be coordinated with streetscape improvements within the right-of-way. The Commission members also asked the Applicant to work more cooperatively with the neighbors. The Commission continued the public hearing to Tuesday, December 1, to give the Applicant time to work with the neighbors and respond to the Commission’s concerns. December 1, 2015 Public Hearing. The Commission held its third public hearing on an amended application for zoning and subdivision relief for approval of a 72-unit townhome planned development. The Applicant presented a revised plan that reduced the number of units by one, reoriented the interior traffic circulation system, removed the tall exterior front stoops from the townhomes along Shermer Road, created a 40-foot rear yard, and increased the amount of open space. The Commission heard from eight members of the public objecting to the proposal. When discussing the proposal, a majority of the Commission members continued to state that a townhome development is appropriate for the Subject Property and that the Applicant had taken steps to start to address the Commission members concerns. However, Commission members found that the Applicant needed to address further concerns such as density, location of the open space, the driveway in the rear yard, and spacing between some of the structures. A couple of Commission members continued to express their position that this site should include some commercial space in addition to residential units. The Commission members also asked the Applicant to continue to work with the neighbors. The Commission continued the public hearing to Tuesday, January 19, to give the Applicant time to work with the neighbors and respond to the Commission’s concerns. January 19, 2016 Public Hearing. The Commission held its fourth public hearing on an amended application for zoning and subdivision relief for approval of a 72-unit townhome planned development. The Applicant presented a revised plan that reoriented units, increased the amount of green space and revised some parking and driveway plans as well as building elevations. After hearing public comment, the Commission discussed the plans, and the majority of Commission members felt the development is appropriate for the subject property. However, the Commission identified additional concerns regarding density and a number of other items related to parking, traffic flow and landscaping. The Commission Page 4 continued the public hearing to Tuesday, February 2 to give the applicant additional time to work with the property’s neighbors and respond to Commission comments. February 2, 2016 Public Hearing. The Commission held its fifth public hearing on an amended application for zoning and subdivision relief for approval of a 72-unit townhome planned development. The Applicant presented a revised plan that replaced landbanked parking with installed parking, modified driveway widths and curb radii for fire truck turning movements, redesigned the perimeter fence, and revised its landscaping plan. After hearing public comments, the Commission discussed the plans. After its discussion, the Commission directed staff to preparing a resolution recommending approval of the application as presented with a modification to the rear yard landscape design and a limitation being placed on any future changes to the rooftop decks of certain units along Shermer Road. The Commission is scheduled to consider the resolution at its Tuesday, February 16 meeting. February 16, 2016 Plan Commission Meeting. On February 16, the Commission considered two draft resolutions recommending approval of the requested relief. The request requires a Zoning Code text amendment to create a new zoning district, the Village Green Residential (VGR) District, as well as a rezoning, concept plan, tentative plat, and other related approvals. The Commission had closed the public hearing on this application on February 2, 2016 and asked the staff to prepare two separate resolutions regarding the application: one pertaining to the text amendment to create a new zoning district, and one related to the rezoning, concept plan, tentative plat, and other related relief to authorize 72 townhomes. The Plan Commission voted as follows on the two resolutions:  Resolution No. 16-PC-03 (Text Amendment to Create New VGR District) – The Plan Commission discussed the draft VGR zoning district in detail with the staff and then voted 8-1 to recommend approval of the new zoning district with some minor modifications made to the draft district.  Resolution No. 16-PC-04 (Rezoning, Special Permit and Related Relief for 72 Townhomes) – The Plan Commission voted 5-2 (with two other members abstaining) to recommend approval of the proposed townhome development subject to a series of conditions. The conditions included the following. Those in bold and italics are those the Commission specifically asked to be included. The others are conditions often included with such recommendations or staff felt should be included to clarify what is being recommended for approval. 1) Landscape Plan. At time of application for final plan approval, the Applicant shall submit a landscape plan that: a) Includes a walkway in the rear yard along the south property line that is located more in the center of the rear yard and more curvilinear in nature; b) Includes landscaping along Shermer Road that complements any proposed Village Shermer Road street improvements, if such improvements have been identified at that time, and that provides, to the Village Board’s satisfaction, a visual softening of the proposed four-story townhomes along Shermer Road; c) The final plan shall include tree protection measures as approved by the Village Arborist; d) All landscaping to be installed near and above the underground detention vaults shall meet Village Arborist requirements for specifies and planting specifications. Page 5  2) Rooftop Decks. At time of application for final plan approval, the Applicant shall submit for Village review covenants, conditions and restrictions of the homeowners association which include prohibiting decorative lights, the enclosure of the pergolas, and the addition of anything that deviates from the original approved building design. 3) Realignment of Driveway. Prior to the approval of the final engineering plans, the Applicant shall make every reasonable effort to work with the property owner of 1200 Shermer Road to reconstruct the existing driveway curb on the 1200 Shermer Road property so that said driveway better aligns with the proposed westerly entrance to the proposed townhome development. 4) Compliance with all Village Codes & Regulations. Other than the specific relief recommended by this resolution, the proposed Development shall be required to meet all Village codes and regulations, including but not limited to the Zoning Code, the Village of Northbrook Subdivision and Development Code (1988), as amended, the Standards and Specifications for Public and Private Improvements Manual (2000), as amended, and all building, fire, and life-safety code requirements. 5) Design Review. Prior to Board approval of the Concept Plan, the Applicant shall present to the Architectural Control Commission for review and recommendation the site plan, landscaping plan, and building elevations details. 6) Final Concept Plan Approval. Prior to final plan approval of the development by the Board of Trustees, the Applicant shall also: a) Present to the Architectural Control Commission for review and recommendation the final site plan, landscaping plan, signage plan, and building elevations details of all unit types. This review shall occur prior to the Plan Commission’s consideration of the final plan. b) Submit a final plan and final plat for Village staff review and approval pursuant to all Village ordinances and regulations. c) Submit for Village Attorney approval all covenants, conditions and restrictions for the maintenance of all common elements of the planned development. 7) Transferability. Any special permit for the mixed use planned development concept plan shall be granted to the Applicant as contract purchaser and shall not be transferable without formal approval of a transferee assumption agreement by the Board of Trustees. ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS As previously stated, the Plan Commission recommends the adoption of Zoning Code amendments to create a new zoning district, the Village Green Residential (VGR) District. In drafting the district, the Commission directed staff to prepare a new district that could also be potentially used in other areas of the downtown. With that direction, the proposed district not only allows high density residential uses, but it also allows a limited amount of non-residential uses by special permit approval. Page 6 The new district also incorporates some very general “form-based” code elements, by establishing different setback, height, and form standards for different housing types (e.g. single-family detached, townhomes, and multi-family buildings). This approach was taken based upon the feedback staff received when we presented the downtown zoning district to the Board several months ago. The new district also establishes parking standards (e.g. parking stall dimensions and required number of spaces for residential uses) that would be more appropriate in a downtown area. Lastly, the proposed district also includes a provision that would allow the Village to grant density bonuses for developments in this district that incorporate an affordable housing component. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMISSION CONSIDERATION The ACC reviewed the Applicant’s proposal on March 10, 2016. (Attached is a copy of the staff report. The approved minutes for that meeting are not available at this time). Most of the meeting was devoted to a review of the proposed townhome design that emerged from the Plan Commission review process. The Commission inquired as to why the plans did not come to the ACC before the Plan Commission made its recommendation, and staff informed the commission that it was at the applicant’s request that ACC review was postponed until the Plan Commission settled on a preferred site plan. The ACC did not make a formal recommendation to recommend approval or denial of the development, but instead offered individual comments on the design that they wanted transmitted to the Board of Trustees.  Member Urbanczyk noted that the townhomes facing Shermer Road needed more visual variety, particularly with the rooflines.  Member Town felt the color palette for the townhomes was generally very good. He said that traffic calming measures were necessary on this section of Shermer Road and it was not necessary for it be a four-lane road. He felt the introduction of on-street parking across the frontage would help slow traffic and also effectively provide more of a setback for the townhomes. He felt the side elevations of the end units of the townhomes could benefit from more architectural relief, such as extended bays of decorative brickwork. He also said that it seemed little attention had been paid to the landscaping along the backs of homes that face Church Street and that more landscape material should be added to protect those neighbors.  Member Katz felt the general architectural theme was good. He said it appeared the Plan Commission and applicant had devoted most of their attention to the rear property line and that the view or Shermer is going to be very important. He felt there were too many townhome units facing Shermer Road and that the “voids” (spaces) between units were too small. As a result he feared that someone driving would see a solid visual wall along Shermer Road. He did like the mix of unit types.  Member Heidbrink agreed that the introduction of on-street parking was key for this development, or the units would have the appearance of being right along the travel lanes. He was not as concerned as others were about the need for a design variation of the homes, as they have staggered setbacks. Page 7   Member Jordison liked the design, but said her biggest concern is the relationship of the homes to Shermer Road. She said on-street parking would definitely help. She suggested that “bump outs” be introduced along Shermer Road to help as a traffic calming measure and to also provide a space for much needed street trees. She also suggested that the drive aisles leading into the development should have an enhanced landscape treatment to create a more formal entrance.  Member Menn said most of his concerns had been stated. He reiterated that on-street parking along Shermer Road was a must. He also said he would like to see more variety added to the rooflines along Shermer Road.  Chairman Schwall stated that he believes this should have been a mixed-use project with retail along Shermer Road, as there are so few opportunities to add more shopping areas in the downtown. On-street parking with landscaped bump outs is definitely needed, or the buildings will need to be setback further. He agreed that more openings between buildings along Shermer Road are needed to avoid a feeling of a continuous wall. He would like to see more variety in the A, B and C units. If the development concept plan is approved by the Board, the ACC would also review the final building designs and landscape plans before the Board took action on the final plan SHERMER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS During the Plan Commission and Architectural Control Commission’s discussions regarding the proposed project, staff informed both bodies that the Village Board is considering roadways improvements to Shermer Road including the addition of on-street parking on at least one-side of the street, preferably the south side of the street. Village staff has had further discussions with our streetscape consultants regarding possible improvements along this portion of Shermer Road, which includes as one option to narrow Shermer Road to have one lane of traffic in each direction, a boulevard with left turn lanes at intersections and key driveways, and/or parking on one side of the street. After further study, it was determined that it would be possible to do this including parking on the south side of the street. Such plans still need to be discussed by the Board. It should be noted that both commissions found that the addition of parking on the south side of the street is critical to the success of the project. The parking spaces not only would provide additional parking that visitors to the proposed development could use, but the parking would also provide a buffer between the travel lanes of the street and the proposed townhomes. Given the proximity of the townhomes to the street, each Commission felt that buffer was important. Staff plans to present the proposed roadway improvements to the Board at a future meeting. AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Applicant is not proposing the inclusion of affordable units in the proposed development. As the Page 8 Plan Commission considered its resolution on the project, the Commission did not discuss or include a recommendation regarding the provision of affordable units. The new zoning district recommended by the Plan Commission does, however, include a provision that would allow the Village to grant a density bonus if a development does include some level of affordable housing. As summarized to the Board of Trustees during the preliminary review process, in March 2005, in response to a new state law that encourages communities to strive to attain at least 10% of their housing stock as affordable housing units, the Village adopted an Affordable Housing Plan with the goal of providing additional affordable housing opportunities in the community. The Plan identified several areas in the community that are “most appropriate for affordable housing developments.” One of the identified areas is the downtown as defined by the boundaries of Village Green Overlay District. Given this, the Village may wish to consider requiring the inclusion of affordable housing as part of the proposed townhome development. The Board will want to determine if affordable units should be a component of the Applicant’s project and if this general definition of affordable housing is appropriate. STAFF REVIEW Staff is in the process of reviewing the Applicant’s most recent resubmittal of the project to confirm that there are no major technical issues with the proposal. The Applicant has stated that it would comply with all engineering standards either now or at the final plan approval stages. If there should be any significant outstanding issues that should be brought to the Village Board’s attention, staff will present them to the Board at a future meeting. SUMMARY As a reminder to the Board, the Applicant is requesting a series of zoning and subdivision relief items, including concept plan and tentative plat approval. Should the Village Board approve both of these, the Applicant would then be required to file a final plat and final plan application for approval with the Village prior to starting any construction. As previously stated, the Plan Commission recommended approval of the requested relief and the ACC provided its comments on the proposal. Staff suggests that the Board consider the following questions as it reviews this application: 1. Does the Board concur with the Plan Commission recommendation, which is that the requested zoning and subdivision relief is appropriate for the Subject Property and does meet the Village’s standards for granting such relief? 2. Does the proposed Village Green Residential (VGR) District provide appropriate development standards? 3. If the Board does not concur with the Plan Commission’s recommendation, are their further changes to the project that would make the project acceptable to the Village Board? If so, what are those changes? Are the following components of the project appropriate for the Subject Property? Page 9  a. Overall site design and traffic access? b. Relationship of the project to Shermer Road as well as the adjacent properties? c. Building design and height? d. Open spaces, yards, buffers and landscaping? e. Parking? 4. Should the Applicant be required to provide a percentage of the residential units as affordable units? If so, what is affordable defined as? And what percentage? The Applicant and staff will be present at the March 22 meeting to provide a brief review of the project and answer any questions. We also expect that members of the public may wish to speak regarding the development, as there has been significant interest in the development throughout the Plan Commission review process. Page 10  RESOLUTION NO. 16-PC-03 VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK PLAN COMMISSION DOCKET NO. PCD-15-19A NEW VILLAGE GREEN RESIDENTIAL (VGR) ZONING DISTRICT ASSOCIATED WITH JACOBS TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by Jacobs Companies, LLC (the “Applicant”), as the contract purchaser or interested contract purchaser of the following ten (10) properties: (1) 1179 Shermer Road (owned by Julie Tonelli Dini); (2) 1183 Shermer Road (owned by Daniel Michalak, successor trustee under the terms of the Clifford B. Chase Declaration of Trust dated February 28, 2008); (3) 1199 Shermer Road (owned by Scott R. Emerson; (4) 1205 Shermer Road (owned by Linda S. Johnson and Joseph C. Johnson, trustees under the Linda S. Johnson Living Trust dated March 1, 2000); (5) 1229 Shermer Road (owned by Salmon S. Goldberg and Judith Goldberg, husband and wife, as joint tenants); (6) 1235 Shermer Road (owned by Northbrook Bank and Trust Company); (7) 1239 Shermer Road (owned by Northbrook Bank and Trust Company); (8) 1249 Shermer Road (owned by Dennis W. Strong and Patricia E. Strong as co- trustees of the Dennis W. Strong Trust dated December 21, 1993);(9) 1251 Shermer Road (owned by RGG Leasing LLC 1); and (10)1275 Shermer Road (owned by Dental House I, Limited Liability Company, an Illinois Limited Liability Company). The above 10 properties combined are referred to herein as the “Subject Property”). WHEREAS, The Applicant desires to develop the Subject Property as a townhome planned development ("Development"); and WHEREAS, the Application has been designated as Plan Commission Docket No. PCD-15-19 consisting of subparts A through F as follows: A. A series of text amendments to the Northbrook Zoning Code to create a new high density multiple- family zoning district to accommodate the development proposed on the Subject Property. The text amendment would establish district standards that would include, but not be limited to the following: the types of permitted, conditionally permitted and special permit uses authorized in the district; the building height, density, floor area ratio, setback and yard standards; accessory and temporary structure and use standards; off-street parking and loading requirements; sign regulations; buffer and landscaping requirements; and any other necessary amendments to the Zoning Code to establish and properly cross-reference the proposed zoning district. B. Rezoning of the Subject Property from the C-1 Special Commercial District to the proposed high density multiple-family zoning district. C. Special permit for a planned development on the Subject Property, and concept plan approval for said planned development. The proposed uses within the planned development include 76 townhomes. D. Tentative subdivision plat approval. E. Variation of the Subdivision and Development Code to allow private streets. F. Approval of any other such variations, waivers, subdivision, and zoning relief as may be necessary to accomplish development and use of the Subject Property as requested by the Applicant WHEREAS, a public notice for Docket No. PCD-15-19 was duly published on September 10, 2015, in the Northbrook Star and a public hearing was held at the Plan Commission’s regular meetings on September 29, 2015, November 3, 2015, December 1, 2015, January 19, 2016, and February 2, 2016 and; Resolution No. 16-PC-03 PCD-15-19: 1179-1275 Shermer Road – Jacobs Homes Townhomes WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted evidence that a sign was properly posted on the Subject Property indicating the time and date of the public hearing, and that all property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property were notified of the public hearing by certified mail return receipt requested; and WHEREAS, the Plan Commission has considered all the evidence presented to it, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Village of Northbrook Rezoning, Special Permit & Subdivision Application Form, Statement of Need for Zoning Map and Text Amendments, Special Use Permits, and other application attachments. 2. Site plan, floor plans, elevations, preliminary engineering plans, traffic study, perspective drawings, and other documents submitted by the Applicant. 3. Board of Trustees of the Village of Northbrook ("Board of Trustees") preliminary review materials and minutes. 4. All written and oral testimony concerning the application that was incorporated into the hearing of the Plan Commission; and WHEREAS, the Future Land Use Map of the Northbrook Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for Neighborhood Edge 1 land uses; and WHEREAS, at the February 2, 2015, public hearing, the Plan Commission directed staff to prepare two separate resolutions, one recommending approval PCD-15-19A and another recommending approval of PCD-15-19B/C/D/E/F. This resolution contains the Plan Commission recommendations regarding PCD- 15-19A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Plan Commission of the Village of Northbrook, Cook County, Illinois, THAT: 1. Findings. A. Text Amendment. With respect to Docket No. PCD-15-19A, a request to amend the Northbrook Zoning Code to create a new Village Green Residential, VGR, District, the Plan Commission hereby finds that it is appropriate to amend the Northbrook Code and said request does meet the standards established in Subsection 11-601E of the Northbrook Zoning Code for amending said Code. B. Comprehensive Plan Compliance. With respect to Amended Docket No. PCD-15-19A, the Plan Commission finds that the adoption of the proposed Village Green Residential (“VGR”) District is in general compliance with the goals and strategies of the Northbrook Comprehensive Plan and will help implement the Future Land Use Map and Neighborhood Edge 1 land use policies. 2. Recommendations: The Plan Commission does hereby recommend to the President and Board of Trustees, based upon the findings established herein, approval of Amended Docket No. PCD-15-19A, amendments to the Zoning Code to create a new high density multiple-family zoning district in substantially the form set forth in Attachment A. 2 Resolution No. 16-PC-03 PCD-15-19: 1179-1275 Shermer Road – Jacobs Homes Townhomes ADOPTED THIS 16th day of February 2016. AYES: (8) Collision, Elfant, Elisco, Franklin, Melnick, Nowak, Pepoon, Schimel NAYS: (1) Jacobs ABSENT: (0) ABSTAIN: (0) /s/ Marcia Franklin____ ______ Marcia Franklin, Chair Northbrook Plan Commission ATTEST: /s/ Thomas R. Poupard___________________ Director of Development & Planning Services 3 Resolution No. 16-PC-03 PCD-15-19: 1179-1275 Shermer Road – Jacobs Homes Townhomes ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS 4 VGR: Village Green Residential District X-101 Purpose The purpose of the VGR, Village Green Residential, District is to provide opportunities for predominantly residential developments in or in close proximity to the Village's central business area. The development standards in the VGR District are based upon pedestrian-oriented design principles that may not be applicable in areas further removed from the central business area. The VGR District is anticipated to be located within the Village Green Overlay (VGO) District to further ensure that all development occurring within the VGR District relates to the planning and design principles of the central business area, as a whole. The VGR District is intended to be a means of implementing the objectives of the Village Green Mixed Use and Neighborhood Edge land use classifications identified in the Northbrook Comprehensive Plan. A range of residential uses are allowed in the VGR District, including single family homes, townhomes and other multi-family structures. The development standards recognize that design elements vary depending upon the type of structure. The development standards in the VGR District are tailored to the structure type to ensure that new developments are properly oriented to the street and nearby properties and a high quality living environment. Compatible non-residential uses may be authorized in the VGR district by special permit. X-102 Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses and Special Permit Uses A. Permitted Uses. Except as noted below, the following uses, and no others, are permitted as of right in the Village Green Residential District: 1. Vacant Land 2. Townhouse Dwellings 3. Multiple Family Dwellings 4. Required Retention/Detention Facilities B. Conditionally Permitted Uses. Except as noted below, the following uses, and no others, are conditionally permitted uses in the Village Green Residential District: 1. Community residences, provided, however, that such community residence satisfies each of the following standards: a. It has no more than four (4) residents, b. It is located at least 1,500 feet from any other community residence, and c. It is registered as a community residence with the Village Manager. C. Special Permit Uses. Except as specifically limited in the following paragraphs, the following uses may be permitted in the Village Green Residential District subject to the issuance of a special permit as provided in Article XI of this Code and subject to the additional standards hereinafter set forth. 1. RETAIL TRADE a. Specialty Food Stores b. Apparel & Accessory Stores c. Home Furniture & Equipment Stores d. Eating Places (restaurants)  DRAFT VGR: Village Green Residential District As Recommended by the Plan Commission on 2-16-16 e. Outdoor Seating Accessory to Permitted Eating Places f. Carry-out Eating Places g. Drinking Places Accessory to Permitted Eating Places h. Drug Stores And Proprietary Stores Except S.I.C. No. 5912.01 i. Used Merchandise Stores j. Miscellaneous Shopping Goods Stores k. Florists l. News Dealers and Newsstands m. Optical Goods Stores n. Art Dealers – Retail o. Artist's Supply And Material Stores – Retail p. Cosmetics Stores – Retail q. Picture Frames, Ready Made – Retail r. Religious Goods Stores (Other Than Books) – Retail s. Telephone Stores – Retail t. Miscellaneous Retail Stores, Not Elsewhere Classified 2. SERVICES a. Photographic Studios, Portrait b. Beauty Shops c. Barber Shops d. Shoe Repair Shops And Shoeshine Parlors e. Miscellaneous Personal Services, Not Elsewhere Classified f. Hair Removal (Electrolysis) g. Hair Weaving Or Replacement Service h. Scalp Treatment Service i. Tanning Salons j. Business Services k. Yoga, Dance Studios, Schools, And Halls 3. RESIDENTIAL a. Single Family Dwellings b. Transitional Service Facility, subject to the standards and criteria in Section X-103. 4. MISCELLANEOUS a. Planned Developments b. Landbanking of Required Parking Subject to Subsection 9-104 E c. Home Occupations in Excess of the Limitations Provided in Section 9-102 C (Live/work unit) d. More Than One Principal Structure on a Zoning Lot e. Developments having both residential and non-residential land uses (mixed use developments) f. Increased Density or Floor Area for Providing Affordable Housing. X-103 CRITERIA FOR CERTAIN PERMITTED AND SPECIAL PERMIT USES A. Minimum Area for Planned Developments in the VGR District. Applications for a planned development in the VGR District shall have a minimum lot area of 25,000 square feet. B. Single Family Dwellings. Single Family detached dwellings may be authorized in the VGR District, but only as part of a planned development. 2  DRAFT VGR: Village Green Residential District As Recommended by the Plan Commission on 2-16-16 C. Townhouse Dwellings. Authorized townhouse dwellings in the VGR District shall be designed in accordance with the following criteria, unless a departure is specifically authorized by an ordinance or resolution duly adopted by the Board of Trustees. 1. Townhouses in the VGR District shall be of a rowhome style, with the placement of garages or parking spaces not permitted in front yards that face public streets. Parking spaces located in front of townhouses must be parallel parking and not located within any required yard or setback. 2. The main entrance to each unit shall be accessible directly from and face a public or private street, shared driveway system, or an approved common open space area with sidewalks. 3. No more than ten (10) dwelling units shall be constructed in a contiguous series of townhouses. 4. Garage access to townhouses may be from a private parking court. Such parking court may not exceed 150 in length. 5. Each townhouse units shall have a minimum front setback of at least ten (10) feet in depth. 6. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the following minimum standards: a. Off-street parking for the townhouse development, as a whole, including resident and guest parking shall be provided at a minimum ratio of 3.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. b. Individual townhouse dwelling units shall have a minimum of two (2) parking spaces on each townhouse lot. c. A minimum of 0.5 parking spaces per unit shall be provided in designated surface parking areas or on-street parking spaces available to the general public. These guest parking spaces may not be located in garages, on driveways or on individual townhouse dwelling unit properties. 7. Groups of townhouses shall be separated by a minimum distance of twelve (12) feet. 8. Each townhouse unit shall have its own private landscaped open space area located in the front or rear of each unit. 9. Driveways serving individual units shall be separated by permanent landscaped strips having a width of at least two feet. 10. Each unit shall have an enclosed or fully screened area for the storage of refuse and recycling material. 11. Townhouse developments shall have at least one landscaped common open space area that serves the entire development and is connected by a system of sidewalks. D. Transitional Service Facilities for Up to Six Transitional Service Facility Residents, subject to the following additional standards: 1. Supervision. Every transitional service facility shall provide qualified and experienced supervisory personnel in sufficient numbers and during sufficient and appropriate hours of the day and night, to meet all standards of any agency responsible for the licensing or 3  DRAFT VGR: Village Green Residential District As Recommended by the Plan Commission on 2-16-16 regulation of the transitional service facility and such additional services as may be required by the Board of Trustees. The special permit shall specifically establish minimum standards for supervision. The name and telephone number of at least one person having direct responsibility for the operation of the facility shall be kept on file with the Village Manager. 2. Structure Type. Every transitional service facility shall be located in a dwelling of the type permitted in the district where the facility is located. The type of construction shall be in compliance with the Village Building Code. No alteration of any such dwelling that would prevent its use as a dwelling shall be permitted. 3. Availability of Facilities. Every transitional service facility shall be provided with, or have ready access to, facilities and services necessary and appropriate to the needs of its residents for active and passive recreation; medical care; educational and cultural activities; consumer goods and services; and public transportation. 4. Required Approvals. No transitional service facility shall be established without the prior licensing, certification or other approval of every public agency charged with the regulation or supervision of any facet of the activity of the proposed facility. Every application for a special permit shall set forth each agency that must approve the establishment or operation of the facility and shall be accompanied by a formal acknowledgment of approval from each such agency. In the event any such approval has been delayed, the application shall set forth the status of each such application, and shall state any facts known to the applicant that might have contributed to the delay of any required approval that has not been obtained as of the time of the filing of the application for a special permit. 5. Financial Stability. No special permit for a transitional service facility shall be granted unless the applicant therefore shall establish to the satisfaction of the Board of Trustees that there exists a reasonably certain source of continuous and sufficient funds to provide for the operation and maintenance of such facility in accordance with the presentations of the application and the various standards applicable to such facility by reason of this Code and other laws and regulations. E. Mixed Use Developments: 1. Any authorized non-residential uses in the VGR District shall be located on the ground floor facing the street with residential units above or behind the non-residential space. X-104 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES Accessory structures and uses are permitted in the VGR District subject to the provisions of Section 9- 101 of this Code. X-105 HOME OCCUPATIONS Home occupations are permitted in the VGR District subject to the provisions of Section 9-102 of this Code. X-105 TEMPORARY USES Temporary uses are permitted in the VGR District subject to the provisions of Section 9-103 of this Code. X-106 PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 4  DRAFT VGR: Village Green Residential District As Recommended by the Plan Commission on 2-16-16 The general parking and loading requirements applicable in the VGR District are set forth in Sections 9- 104 and 9-105 of this Code; however, as part of a planned development, the otherwise applicable stall dimensions may be reduced by the Village as part of the process established for planned developments design review permits in Section 8-103 of this Code. The minimum aisle width may not be reduced; however, the minimum parking space dimensions may be reduced as follows: (1) The length of a standard parking space may be reduced to 18 feet. (2) The width of a standard parking space may be reduced to 8 feet. Such reductions in stall dimensions may be authorized only where the applicant or owner establish that: (a) the reduced parking space sizes are appropriate for the land use proposed; and (b) the requested reduction in parking space sizes would not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area given the uses proposed. X-107 SIGN REGULATIONS Sign regulations applicable in the VGR District are set forth in Section 9-106 of this Code, and as may be modified when also located in the Village Green Overlay (VGO) District. X-108 BUFFERS AND LANDSCAPING Requirements relating to buffering and landscaping of certain uses and structures in the VGR District are set forth in Section 9-107 of this Code. X-109 BULK, SPACE AND YARD REQUIREMENTS X-109 B. General Bulk Table. The building height, lot area yard, floor area, and dwelling unit size requirements applicable in the VGR District are set forth in the following table. Footnote references appear in Subsection X-109 B following this table. Single Family Townhouse Multiple- Mixed Use Detached Dwellings Family Developments Dwellings Dwellings Maximum Density 12 dwelling 16 dwelling 24 dwelling 24 dwelling units/acre units/acre (2,720 units/acre units/acre (1,815 (3,630 square square feet per (1,815 square square feet per feet per unit) unit) feet per unit) unit) Minimum lot width 40 feet 18 feet 100 feet 60 feet Minimum setbacks: a. Front and Corner 20 feet 10 feet 25 feet 10 feet Side b. Interior Side 5 feet 5 feet 12 feet 5 feet c. Rear: 20 feet 15 feet 20 feet 20 feet 5  DRAFT VGR: Village Green Residential District As Recommended by the Plan Commission on 2-16-16 d. Abutting an 20 feet 15 feet 18 feet 10 feet approved alley or shared drive e. Not abutting an 20 feet 25 feet 18 feet 25 feet alley or shared drive Maximum building 2 stories or 4 stories or 45 4 stories or 45 4 stories or 45 height (stories and 30 feet feet feet feet height, whichever is less) Floor area ratio n/a n/a n/a 1.5 Lot coverage (includes 60 percent 80 percent 75 percent 75 percent building, driveway, walkways, parking area) X-109 B. Exceptions and Explanatory Notes X-109 B. Exceptions and Explanatory Notes 1. Nonconforming Lots. See Section 10-105 for lot requirements with respect to nonconforming lots of record. 2. Application of Requirements to Townhouse and Two-Family Dwellings. In the case of townhouse and two-family dwellings, the stated requirement shall be applied with respect to the entire dwelling and the zoning lot on which it is located and not to individual dwelling units within such dwelling. 3. Clustering in Planned Developments. In planned developments, minimum lot size per unit requirements are intended only as a limit on overall development density and not as a requirement that each individual unit be placed on a lot of the specified size. In other words, units may be clustered together so long as sufficient common open space is provided within the development to meet the average minimum lot size requirement of the development taken as a whole. 4. Lot Dimensions and Yards in Planned Developments. a) Authority to Waive. The Plan Commission may recommend and the Board of Trustees may authorize the waiver of the lot dimension and yard requirements of the underlying district when approving special permits for planned developments. b) Special Requirements; Limitation of Waiver Authority. Special perimeter open space, setback and spacing requirements for planned developments are set forth in Article XI of this Code. Such requirements shall not be waived under any circumstances. c) Standards for Waiver. No such waiver shall be recommended or authorized except in accordance with the provisions of Article XI of this Code. 6  DRAFT VGR: Village Green Residential District As Recommended by the Plan Commission on 2-16-16 5. Yard Requirements for Uses Without Structures. On any lot occupied without structures, the minimum yards that would otherwise be required for such lot shall be provided and maintained. 6. Visibility Across Corners. Any other provision of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding, nothing shall be erected, placed, planted, allowed to grow or maintained on any corner lot in any residential district above a height of 2-1/2 feet from grade within the area of a sight triangle as defined in Section 12-206 of this Code. 7. Specified Structures and Uses in Required Yards. The following structures and uses, except as limited below, may be located in any required yard. a) Unenclosed porches that are open on three sides may project up to five feet into any required yard. b) Accessory uses, subject to the limitations of Section 9-101. c) Statuary, arbors, trellises and ornamental light standards having a height of ten feet or less. d) Awnings, canopies, eaves and gutters projecting not more than three feet from an exterior wall. e) Bay windows and balconies projecting not more than three feet from an exterior wall for a distance not more than 1/3 of the length of a side wall or ½ of the length of a front or rear wall; provided that such projections shall come entirely within planes drawn from the main corners of the building at an interior angle of 45 degrees with the wall in question. f) Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, cornices and the like projecting not more than two feet from an exterior wall. g) Outside stairways projecting from an exterior wall, but not extending beyond the property line. h) Off-street parking and loading of vehicles, but only as expressly authorized herein and regulated in Sections 9-101, 9-104 and 9-105 of this Code. i) Terraces. j) Fences, walls, and hedges, subject to the limitations of Section 9-107 of this Code. k) Decks of three feet or less in height. l) Air conditioners and other mechanical equipment up to four (4) feet in height that are fully screened from the view of adjoining properties, may project up to four feet into a required side or rear yard. 8. Platted Building and Setback Lines. See Subsection 12-101 F of this Code 9. Transitional Setbacks and Yards for the VGR District Adjacent to Single Family Residential Districts. Notwithstanding the general yard standards established in Section X-109 B, whenever a building in the VGR District in excess of 30 feet in height is located on a zoning lot adjacent to or abutting a zoning lot located in any Single Family Residential District, the minimum setback along all applicable lot lines shall increase to one (1) foot of setback for each one (1) foot of building height, as measured to the point of that building height. For example, a 35 –foot tall building must be setback a minimum of 35 feet, as measured from its highest point. 10. Opportunity for Increased Density or Floor Area in the VGR District for Providing Affordable Housing. A residential development in the VGR District may be granted a special permit Subject 7  DRAFT VGR: Village Green Residential District As Recommended by the Plan Commission on 2-16-16 to the procedures and standards set forth in Article 11 of this Code, the Plan Commission may recommend and the Board of Trustees may authorize an increase in the maximum residential density for structures in the VGR District by up to 25 percent or an increase in the absolute maximum floor area ratio in a mixed use development. No such adjustment in the density or floor area ratio shall be recommended or authorized except on the basis of a finding that the adjustment will not result in any undue congestion in, or adverse impact on, the surrounding area. The standards for determining affordability shall be established in the special permit ordinance. The special permit ordinance shall also include an agreement, suitable for recording as a covenant, obligating the owners and all successors in interest to: (a) maintain a specific number of dwelling units designated for affordable housing; (b) the number of years such affordable dwelling units will be made continuously available; (c) the rental rates or sales prices of the affordable units; and the (d) the means by which the rents or sales prices for the affordable units may be adjusted over the term of the agreement. 8  RESOLUTION NO. 16-PC-04 VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK PLAN COMMISSION DOCKET NO. PCD-15-19B/C/D/E/F 1179 – 1275 SHERMER ROAD – JACOBS HOMES TOWNHOMES WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by Jacobs Companies, LLC (the “Applicant”), as the contract purchaser or interested contract purchaser of the following ten (10) properties: (1) 1179 Shermer Road (owned by Julie Tonelli Dini); (2) 1183 Shermer Road (owned by Daniel Michalak, successor trustee under the terms of the Clifford B. Chase Declaration of Trust dated February 28, 2008); (3) 1199 Shermer Road (owned by Scott R. Emerson; (4) 1205 Shermer Road (owned by Linda S. Johnson and Joseph C. Johnson, trustees under the Linda S. Johnson Living Trust dated March 1, 2000); (5) 1229 Shermer Road (owned by Salmon S. Goldberg and Judith Goldberg, husband and wife, as joint tenants); (6) 1235 Shermer Road (owned by Northbrook Bank and Trust Company); (7) 1239 Shermer Road (owned by Northbrook Bank and Trust Company); (8) 1249 Shermer Road (owned by Dennis W. Strong and Patricia E. Strong as co- trustees of the Dennis W. Strong Trust dated December 21, 1993);(9) 1251 Shermer Road (owned by RGG Leasing LLC 1); and (10)1275 Shermer Road (owned by Dental House I, Limited Liability Company, an Illinois Limited Liability Company). The above 10 properties combined are referred to herein as the “Subject Property”). WHEREAS, The Applicant desires to develop the Subject Property as a townhome planned development ("Development"); and WHEREAS, the Application has been designated as Plan Commission Docket No. PCD-15-19 consisting of subparts A through F as follows: A. A series of text amendments to the Northbrook Zoning Code to create a new high density multiple- family zoning district to accommodate the development proposed on the Subject Property. The text amendment would establish district standards that would include, but not be limited to the following: the types of permitted, conditionally permitted and special permit uses authorized in the district; the building height, density, floor area ratio, setback and yard standards; accessory and temporary structure and use standards; off-street parking and loading requirements; sign regulations; buffer and landscaping requirements; and any other necessary amendments to the Zoning Code to establish and properly cross-reference the proposed zoning district. B. Rezoning of the Subject Property from the C-1 Special Commercial District to the proposed high density multiple-family zoning district. C. Special permit for a planned development on the Subject Property, and concept plan approval for said planned development. The proposed uses within the planned development include 76 townhomes. D. Tentative subdivision plat approval. E. Variation of the Subdivision and Development Code to allow private streets. F. Approval of any other such variations, waivers, subdivision, and zoning relief as may be necessary to accomplish development and use of the Subject Property as requested by the Applicant WHEREAS, a public notice for Docket No. PCD-15-19 was duly published on September 10, 2015, in the Northbrook Star and a public hearing was held at the Plan Commission’s regular meetings on September 29, 2015, November 3, 2015, December 1, 2015, January 19, 2016, and February 2, 2016 and; Resolution No. 16-PC-04 PCD-15-19: 1179-1275 Shermer Road – Jacobs Homes Townhomes WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted evidence that a sign was properly posted on the Subject Property indicating the time and date of the public hearing, and that all property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property were notified of the public hearing by certified mail return receipt requested; and WHEREAS, the Plan Commission has considered all the evidence presented to it, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Village of Northbrook Rezoning, Special Permit & Subdivision Application Form, Statement of Need for Zoning Map and Text Amendments, Special Use Permits, and other application attachments. 2. Site plan, floor plans, elevations, preliminary engineering plans, traffic study, perspective drawings, and other documents submitted by the Applicant. 3. Board of Trustees of the Village of Northbrook ("Board of Trustees") preliminary review materials and minutes. 4. All written and oral testimony concerning the application that was incorporated into the hearing of the Plan Commission; and WHEREAS, the Future Land Use Map of the Northbrook Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for Neighborhood Edge 1 land uses; and WHEREAS, during the public hearing process and in response to Plan Commission concerns, the Applicant amended its application as follows (“Amended Docket No. PCD-15-19”): 1. Amended Docket No. PCD-15-19C, special permit approval for a planned development on the Subject Property, and concept plan approval for said planned development has been amended by reducing the number of proposed townhome units from 76 to 72. 2. Amended Docket No. PCD-15-19E, variation approval to allow townhome units to be accessed by private streets has been amended to allow townhome units to be accessed by private driveways. WHEREAS, at the February 2, 2015, public hearing, the Plan Commission directed staff to prepare two separate resolutions, one recommending approval PCD-15-19A and another recommending approval of PCD-15-19B/C/D/E/F. This resolution contains the Plan Commission recommendations regarding PCD- 15-19B/C/D/E/F. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Plan Commission of the Village of Northbrook, Cook County, Illinois, THAT: 1. Findings. A. Comprehensive Plan Compliance. With respect to Amended Docket No. PCD-15-19, the Plan Commission finds that the townhome development as proposed by the Applicant is in general compliance with the goals and strategies of the Northbrook Comprehensive Plan and specifically in compliance with the Future Land Use Map and the Neighborhood Edge 1 land use policies. B. Text Amendment. With respect to Amended Docket No. PCD-15-19A, the Plan Commission adopted Resolution No. 16-PC-03 recommending approval of the Applicant’s request for text amendments to create a new high density multiple-family zoning district, the Village Green Residential (“VGR”) District, to accommodate the development proposed on the Subject Property. 2 Resolution No. 16-PC-04 PCD-15-19: 1179-1275 Shermer Road – Jacobs Homes Townhomes C. Rezoning. With respect to Amended Docket No. PCD-15-19B, the Plan Commission hereby finds that the Applicant’s request to rezone the Subject Property from the C-1 Special Commercial District to the proposed VGR District and remaining within the Village Green Overlay (“VGO”) District is consistent with the Northbrook Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and does comply with the standards for approval of such rezoning requests as established in Subsection 11-301 E(8) of the Northbrook Zoning Code. D. Planned Development Special Permits. With respect to Amended Docket No. PCD-15-19C, the Plan Commission hereby finds that the requested special permit approval for concept plan approval of a planned development on the Subject Property, and which includes 72 townhome units satisfies the special permit standards established in Paragraph 11-602 E1 of the Zoning Code as follows: 1) The planned development will be in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which the Zoning Code was enacted and for which the regulations of the proposed VGR District and the VGO District were adopted, and with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) The planned development will not have a substantial or undue adverse effect upon adjacent property and the character of the area or the public health, safety and general welfare; 3) The special permit uses will be arranged and operated so as not to dominate the immediate vicinity or to interfere with the use and development of neighboring property; 4) The planned development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services; 5) The planned development will not cause undue traffic congestion nor draw significant amounts of traffic through residential streets; 6) The planned development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural, scenic or historic features of significant importance; and 7) The planned development complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the particular provisions of the Zoning Code authorizing such uses. E. Tentative Plat of Subdivision. With respect to Docket No. 15-15D, a request for tentative plat approval for a 72-lot townhome subdivision with one common outlot, the Plan Commission hereby finds that the requested tentative plat satisfies the criteria established in Article II of the Village of Northbrook Subdivision and Development Code for approval of a 72-lot subdivision in the proposed VGR District and the VGO District, as is proposed to be created. F. Subdivision Code Variations. With respect to Amended Docket No. 15-19E, a request to allow proposed townhome units to be accessed by private shared driveways rather than private streets, the Plan Commission hereby finds that the evidence presented satisfies the standards of the Northbrook Subdivision Code for authorizing such variation. G. Other Relief Necessary. With respect to Amended Docket No. PCD-15-19F, the Plan Commission hereby finds the following: 1) Parking Stall Dimensions. The Plan Commission finds that the evidence presented regarding a request to reduce the width of a parking stall from 9 feet to no less than 8 feet, complies with the standards for approval of such parking space dimension modification. 2) Number of Guest Parking Stalls. The Plan Commission finds that the evidence presented regarding a request to reduce the required number of parking spaces for townhomes in the VGR District specifically available for the general public (0.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit), 3 Resolution No. 16-PC-04 PCD-15-19: 1179-1275 Shermer Road – Jacobs Homes Townhomes from 36 to 29 spaces, a 19.4% reduction, complies with standards for variations established in Subsection 11-503 F of the Zoning Code. 2. Recommendations: The Plan Commission does hereby recommend to the President and Board of Trustees approval of the following items associated with Amended Docket No. PCD-15-19B/C/D/E/F based on the findings established herein, and subject to the conditions, restrictions, and obligations contained in this Resolution, as follows: A. Rezoning. The Subject Property shall be rezoned to the proposed VGR District and remain within the VGO District. B. Planned Development Special Permits. Special Permits shall be granted for a Planned Development (SIC No. 9820.00) consisting of 72 townhome units. C. Concept Plan Approval. The Development Concept Plan for the Subject Property, consisting of the following plans shall be approved: 1) Architecture Site Plan-Dimensioned, prepared by Pappageorgehaymes Partners, dated January 28, 2016, consisting of one sheet. 2) Parking Plan, prepared by Pappageorgehaymes Partners, dated January 28, 2016, consisting of one sheet. 3) Landscape Plan, prepared by Tree & Timber, Inc., dated January 27, 2016, consisting of one sheet. 4) Residential Building Conceptual Elevations, prepared by Pappageorgehaymes Partners, dated December 28, 2015, consisting of three sheets. D. Tentative Plat Approval. The Tentative Subdivision Plat for 72 townhome units and one common area lot, prepared by R.E. Allen and Associates, Ltd., with the most recent revision date of December 29, 2015, and consisting of one plan sheet shall be approved. E. Conceptual Approvals. The following forms of relief are recommended for approval on a conceptual and preliminary basis. Final approval of the following relief shall occur concurrently or subsequently to the approval of the Final Plan and Final Plat for the planned development. At such time the Applicant will be required to establish compliance with the appropriate standards for each aspect of the requested relief. 1) Parking Relief. A modification shall be granted to reduce the width of a standard parking stall dimension from 9 feet to no less than 8 feet. 2) Number of Guest Parking Stalls. A variation shall be granted to reduce the required number of parking spaces for townhomes in the VGR District specifically available for the general public from 36 spaces to 29 spaces. F. Conditions. The relief recommended above shall be conditioned upon the satisfaction of the following recommended conditions: 1) Landscape Plan. At time of application for final plan approval, the Applicant shall submit a landscape plan that: 4 Resolution No. 16-PC-04 PCD-15-19: 1179-1275 Shermer Road – Jacobs Homes Townhomes a) Includes a walkway in the rear yard along the south property line that is located more in the center of the rear yard and more curvilinear in nature; b) Includes landscaping along Shermer Road that complements any proposed Village Shermer Road street improvements, if such improvements have been identified at that time, and that provides, to the Village Board’s satisfaction, a visual softening of the proposed four- story townhomes along Shermer Road; c) The final plan shall include tree protection measures as approved by the Village Arborist; d) All landscaping to be installed near and above the underground detention vaults shall meet Village Arborist requirements for specifies and planting specifications. 2) Rooftop Decks. At time of application for final plan approval, the Applicant shall submit for Village review covenants, conditions and restrictions of the homeowners association which include prohibiting decorative lights, the enclosure of the pergolas, and the addition of anything that deviates from the original approved building design. 3) Realignment of Driveway. Prior to the approval of the final engineering plans, the Applicant shall make every reasonable effort to work with the property owner of 1200 Shermer Road to reconstruct the existing driveway curb on the 1200 Shermer Road property so that said driveway better aligns with the proposed westerly entrance to the proposed townhome development. 4) Compliance with all Village Codes & Regulations. Other than the specific relief recommended by this resolution, the proposed Development shall be required to meet all Village codes and regulations, including but not limited to the Zoning Code, the Village of Northbrook Subdivision and Development Code (1988), as amended, the Standards and Specifications for Public and Private Improvements Manual (2000), as amended, and all building, fire, and life-safety code requirements. 5) Design Review. Prior to Board approval of the Concept Plan, the Applicant shall present to the Architectural Control Commission for review and recommendation the site plan, landscaping plan, and building elevations details. 6) Final Concept Plan Approval. Prior to final plan approval of the development by the Board of Trustees, the Applicant shall also: a) Present to the Architectural Control Commission for review and recommendation the final site plan, landscaping plan, signage plan, and building elevations details of all unit types. This review shall occur prior to the Plan Commission’s consideration of the final plan. b) Submit a final plan and final plat for Village staff review and approval pursuant to all Village ordinances and regulations. c) Submit for Village Attorney approval all covenants, conditions and restrictions for the maintenance of all common elements of the planned development. 7) Transferability. Any special permit for the mixed use planned development concept plan shall be granted to the Applicant as contract purchaser and shall not be transferable without formal approval of a transferee assumption agreement by the Board of Trustees. ADOPTED THIS 16th day of February 2016. 5 Resolution No. 16-PC-04 PCD-15-19: 1179-1275 Shermer Road – Jacobs Homes Townhomes AYES: (5) Elfant, Elisco, Collison, Franklin, and Schimel NAYS: (2) Jacobs, Melnick ABSENT: (0) ABSTAIN: (2) Pepoon, Nowak /s/ Marcia Franklin Marcia Franklin, Chair Northbrook Plan Commission ATTEST /s/ Thomas R. Poupard_____________________ Director of Development & Planning Services 6  Proposed Shermer Road Restriping Plan Between Church Street and Angle Avenue  Proposed Shermer Road Restriping Plan Between Church Street and Angle Avenue