DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Page 1

MEMORANDUMVILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK

TO: RICHARD NAHRSTADT, VILLAGE MANAGER

FROM: DAVID SCHOON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2013

SUBJECT: PCD-13-01: 770 SKOKIE BOULEVARDNORTHSHORE 770 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

On December 10, 2013, the Board of Trustees is scheduled to consider recommendations from the PlanCommission as well as the Architectural Control Commission, ICDC, and Bike Task Force regarding anapplication submitted by Morningside Crossroads Partners, LLC (the “Applicant”), as the contractpurchaser of the property located at 770 Skokie Boulevard, owned by CXA-10 Corporation, and theproperty located at 550 Dundee Road, owned by the Ralph J. Zengeler Family Trust, Trust #98250, andthe Robert J. Lechner Family Trust, Trust #97450, (the two properties combined referred to herein as the“Subject Property”) to develop the Subject Property with a luxury apartment building and grocery-anchored shopping center. The Applicant has requested the opportunity to briefly address the Board atthe December 10 meeting.

All of the materials that the Plan Commission, Architectural Control Commission and ICDC considered aswell as the Board during its preliminary review can be found on the following websitewww.northbrook.il.us/770skokie. Staff has included with this memo, copies of certain documents andreports that have been submitted along the way and that can also be found on this webpage.

Current Revised Conceptual Site Plan

Page 2

BOARD PRELIMINARY REVIEW

On November 13, 2012, the Board of Trustees conducted a preliminary review of the Applicant’srequest (a copy of the minutes are attached). Six out of seven Board members were present. Ingeneral, the trustees were receptive to the proposed mixed use development concept; however,trustees expressed some concerns regarding a few items:

Of those that expressed an opinion, they preferred the creation of a new zoning district ratherthan amendments to the existing zoning district in order to accommodate the proposeddevelopment.

Traffic impacts from the development on roadways in the area are a concern, in particular onthe intersection of Dundee Road and Skokie Boulevard.

Questioned the appropriateness of reducing the length of parking stalls.

Providing only 1 ½ parking stalls for each residential unit may not be adequate.

Concern regarding the overall density of the development, in particular the number ofresidential units.

Need to consider the impacts of the residential development on the school districts and takeinto consideration the impacts of commercial development on existing business, in particularexisting grocery stores.

It would be preferred, but not necessary, if the developer could incorporate the Zengeler parcelinto the development (The preliminary application did not include the Zengeler parcel, but thecurrent proposal before the Commission now does include it).

Questioned whether or not it would be appropriate to include affordable units as part of thedevelopment.

The Architectural Control Commission should review the project.

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND CURRENT PROJECT SUMMARY

The Subject Property is approximately 15.8 acres in size and is located on the northwest corner of SkokieBoulevard and Dundee Road. Approximately 14.40 acres is vacant while the remaining approximately1.40 acres is currently occupied by Zengeler Cleaners. The Subject Property is currently zoned O-4 OfficeBoulevard and is surrounded by O-4 Boulevard Office to the north, O-4, O-3 General Office, and C-5Commercial Boulevard to the east, O-2 Limited Office and C-2 Neighborhood Commercial to the south,and ComEd right-of-way and unused railroad tracks to the west with O-2 and O-3 districts to the west ofthe railroad tracks.

The Northbrook Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this area as appropriate for majorcorridor multi-use development. No portion of the Subject Property lies within the 100-yearfloodplain. The Village’s Master Stormwater Plan does not identify any specific recommendedstormwater improvements for this area.

In response to concerns raised by the Plan Commission during the public hearing process, the Applicantmade revisions to the project. The most significant changes occurred with the residential building. Thefollowing is a summary of the project as last reviewed by the Plan Commission.

Page 3

101,435 square feet of one-story commercial space, which would include:o a 71,320 square foot Mariano’s grocery store,o a 6,975 square foot retail space (One identified tenant to date: Kriser’s pet supply), ando 23,140 square feet in four outbuildings that could include a bank, restaurants, or retail

space; three of the outbuildings include drive-through facilities. (Identified tenants to date:PNC Bank, Verizon, Panera Bread, Chipotle, and Zengeler Cleaners)

8 & 9-story luxury apartment complex consisting of:o 342 luxury rental units on floors 2-9, consisting of:

142 1-bedroom units, average size 752 square feet200 2-bedroom units, average size 1,116 square feet

o Structured parking in the basement, first and second floors.o The complex would include a number of amenities such as an outdoor swimming pool,

fitness center, theater with stadium seating, E-business center, and many other featuresincluding on-site management and leasing.

Since the Plan Commission’s review of the project, the Applicant has refined the floor plans, foraesthetic reasons described below, and is now requesting the flexibility to increase the number ofresidential units by 5 for a total of 347 units, consisting of 146 one-bedroom units and 201 two-bedroomunits. The Applicant is able to provide these additional units and their associated parking within thebuilding area of the structure reviewed by the Plan Commission.

Summary of Different Versions of the NorthShore 770 Residential BuildingDuring Formal Application Process

Original DesignSubmitted to

Plan Commission

Revised DesignRecommended byPlan Commission

CurrentRevised Design

Presented to Board

Residential Units 416 342 347

1 Bedroom 224 142 146

2 Bedroom 192 200 201

Total Parking 703 599 608

Internal 690 586 595

Included Guest 63 67 66

Included Tandem 132 83 90

External 13 13 13

Ratio 1.69 1.75 1.75

Building

Floors 10 8/9 8/9

Height 110’ 94/104’ 92’6”/105’6”

Floor Area 455,347 402,576 410,000

On the following page are perspective drawings of the front of the development.

Page 4

Rendering of Original Apartment Building Design Submitted to Plan Commission

Rendering of Apartment Building Design Recommended by Plan Commission &Current Revised Design Presented to Board

The Applicant has indicated that it is requesting the additional units to create a more physicallyattractive south façade to the building by reducing the “podium” height along the south facade. Thefollowing perspective drawings and floor plans show the location of where the five units would beadded.

Page 5

342-Unit Building – South Façade & 2nd Floor Plans

347-Unit Building – South Façade & 2nd Floor Plans

Page 6

PLAN COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION

Plan Commission Public HearingsThe Plan Commission held four public hearings on the application on the following dates: September 3,September 17, October 1, and November 5. Attached are copies of the staff reports and minutes (someof which are draft minutes) for each meeting. Also attached are copies of comments from members ofthe public. During the September 3 meeting and the first part of the September 17 meeting, staffsummarized the project, the Village’s traffic consultant presented a detailed summary of its findings andrecommendations concerning the Skokie Boulevard Corridor traffic study (a copy of which is attached),and the Applicant provided testimony regarding project details as well as its own traffic study. Duringthe second half of the September 17 meeting, approximately six individuals spoke mostly about trafficimpact concerns..

The public hearing was continued to October 1 at which staff presented additional information inresponse to questions from Plan Commission members. The most notable information provided by staffwere the details regarding the left turn-in movement at the proposed drive along Dundee Road,information regarding residential parking standards from other communities, and summaries of otherrecently approved higher density multi-family projects in the area. The Commission heard commentsfrom two members of the public, both of which had spoken at the September 17 meeting. TheCommission closed the public hearing and discussed the application.

Commission members commented on October 1 that they generally liked the overall developmentconcept; however, members had concerns regarding the residential density, the residential parkingratio, and potential impacts on traffic. Members found the residential development too dense from aphysical appearance or with regard to intensity of use of the site. The Commission also found theproposed parking ratio of 1.69 spaces per unit for the residential development too low. Some membersexpressed the belief that a ratio of 1.75 spacers per unit may be acceptable. The Commission expressedconcerns that additional Dundee/Skokie intersection improvements may be necessary (e.g. dual left turnlanes) and that the timing of any road improvements that may be necessary for this project or the thenpending Walmart project would need to be coordinated so as to minimize the impact of roadwayconstruction projects on commuters and existing businesses in the area. Individual Commissionmembers also expressed concerns regarding materials used on the residential building, the design ofsome of the drive-through lanes (in particular Panera’s), the need for some type of loading area for eachoutbuilding, and that this development should possibly include some affordable housing units for thecommunity.

The Applicant responded to the Commission members’ comments by indicating that it would revise theplans in relation to as many the Commission members’ comments as feasible. With respect to thequestion of affordability, the applicant believes their rental rates will accommodate professionalsworking in the community such as teachers etc.

On November 5, the Commission held its fourth meeting on the application. In response to Commissionmembers’ concerns on October 1, the Applicant submitted revised plans having made revisions to theproposed massing, density (reduction from 416 units to 342 units), design, and materials of theresidential structure, increasing the parking ratio for the residential units (from 1.69 per unit to 1.75), aswell as addressing some other features of the project.

Page 7

After hearing a presentation from the Applicant and hearing from approximately 10 members of thepublic, most of whom spoke in favor of the project, the Plan Commission closed the public hearing anddiscussed the revised application. The Commission found the Applicant’s proposed building design andother revisions acceptable and, by a vote of 6-1 (two members absent) directed staff to prepare aresolution recommending approval of the application with conditions as discussed below.

Plan Commission RecommendationOn November 19, the Commission considered a resolution recommending approval of the revisedproject with conditions. After thorough consideration, the Commission adopted, by a vote of 7-2,Resolution No. 13-R-12, (a copy of which is attached). In summary, the Commission recommends:

A. Amendments to the O-4 Office Boulevard District to accommodate the proposed development(see Attachment A of Resolution No. 13-R-12),

B. Special permit approval of a concept plan for a planned development with a floor area ratio nogreater than 0.75 and which includes general retail uses and multiple family uses,

C. Approval of a series of other forms of conceptual zoning relief, including:a. Special permit approval to allow three drive-through facilities,b. Special permit approval for specific wall signs and grounds signs,c. Exceptions reducing the required number of parking spaces, reducing the parking stall

dimensions and allowing tandem parking spaces within the residential structure, andreducing loading space standards for a couple of the outbuildings,

d. Waivers to allow the slopes of the parking area entrance drives and parking structureramps to slightly exceed the maximum allowed by Code,

e. Waiver of the building foundation landscaping requirements through the provision ofadditional landscaping elsewhere on the Subject Property, and

f. Variations reducing the required yards and setbacks along the perimeter of theproperty, and

D. Tentative Plat approval of a six-lot subdivision, consisting of five commercial lots and oneresidential lot.

The details of each of the provided forms of zoning relief are included in the attached Plan CommissionResolution.

The Commission’s recommendations also include a list of conditions. The Applicant has concernsregarding the following conditions:

1) Parking Spaces. The Plan Commission recommendation includes a condition that the Applicantshall provide parking for the residential building at the following ratios: 1.5 space per 1-bedroomunit and 2.0 spaces per 2-bedroom unit. Given the mix of units proposed by the Applicant, theydo not comply with this standard.

The Applicant continues to request that the parking requirement for the multi-family units be1.75 per unit. As indicated in the attached letter and additional information from the Applicant,the Applicant presents information supporting its position that 1.75 parking spaces per unit ismore than adequate.

The following table summarizes the required number of parking spaces based upon the PlanCommission recommendation and the Applicant’s request. The difference between the PlanCommission’s recommendation and the Applicant’s request results in a difference of between 13and 14 parking spaces depending upon the number of residential units..

Page 8

Required Number of Parking Spaces

342-UnitDevelopment

347-UnitDevelopment

Plan Commission Recommendation 613 spaces 621 spaces

Applicant’s Request 599 spaces 608 spaces

Difference 14 spaces 13 spaces

Drive-Through Emergency Exit. The Plan Commission recommendation includes a condition thatThe Applicant shall install an emergency exit for the drive-through lane for the Panera Buildingat the time the development is initially constructed with the Applicant having the right after twoyears of operation of the drive-through facility to request that the Village Board of Trusteesallow the Applicant to remove the emergency exit and replace it with landscaping.

As will be discussed later in the report, the Architectural Control Commission reviewed this topicand recommended that the emergency exit not be added to the Panera’s drive-through lane inorder to preserve the landscaped area.

The Applicant and Panera representatives continue to indicate that they do not believe that anemergency exit is necessary; however, they will defer to the Board of Trustees wishes regardingthis issue.

Green Roofs. The Plan Commission recommendation includes a condition that “green roofs”should be installed on the roofs of the 8-story portions of the residential building in order tosoften the visual impact of the roofs from the units located on the 9th floor as well as to providestormwater management and heat island benefits.

As noted later in this report, the Architectural Control Commission recommends that greenroofs not be added to the roofs of the 8-story portions of the building as the added expense ofthe green roofs did not justify the visual benefit they would provide tenants on the 9th floor

In the Applicant’s attached letter, the Applicant provides an exhibit listing all of sustainabilityfeatures of the residential portion of the project that are “in alignment with the National Green

Page 9

Building Standards.” The Applicant also states that given their existing emphasis on sustainablefeatures, the additional request by the Plan Commission would come at a significant cost to theproject that it feels is not warranted.. The Applicant also identifies that it is providing two activeroofs with substantial landscaping on the second level of the building. These are amenities thatwould be visible to a majority of residents.

2) Roadway & Intersection Improvements and Comprehensive Traffic Improvement Plan. TheCommission’s recommendation recognizes that an Illinois Department of Transportation permitis required for improvements on Dundee Road. The Commission recommended that at aminimum the Applicant shall be responsible for constructing the roadway improvements thatwere required for the former Center of the NorthShore project plus a new westbound right turnlane on Dundee Road so long as additional right-of-way along Dundee Road is available. (SeeAttachment A for a list of the proposed improvements).

The Commission recommendation goes on to state that although the above stated roadwayimprovements are intended to mitigate the traffic impacts of the proposed Development, theVillage should work with IDOT to pursue a long-term Comprehensive Traffic Improvement Planfor the general Skokie Boulevard corridor area corridor. The plan should be implemented in amanner so that improvements are completed in time for the opening of proposeddevelopments along the corridor.

Since the Plan Commission made its recommendation, staff and the Village traffic consultanthave met with IDOT representatives to discuss potential additional roadway and intersectionimprovements. IDOT has indicated a willingness desire to allow dual left turns lanes both oneastbound and westbound Dundee Road by varying from its standard geometric requirementsin order to install these. Staff is still in the early stages of discussion with IDOT regarding thispossibility.

The addition of the dual left turn lanes involves a more significant reconstruction of theintersection and would require the involvement of other property owners. Though thepreferred option would be to install the roadway improvements included within the PlanCommission recommendation simultaneous with the dual left lanes, staff has talked with IDOTabout the feasibility of phasing the improvements in order not to delay the NorthShore 770project. Staff will however, continue to explore ways to make all the improvements at the sametime without delaying the development.

It should also be noted that given the potential additional roadway improvements, staffrecommends that proposed future right-of-way area along Dundee Road frontage of theproperty be dedicated at this time.

The Applicant has indicated in its attached letter that it is willing to work with the Village andIDOT to determine the most appropriate roadway improvements, to determine who shouldinstall them, and how those improvements will be paid for. However, the timing of installing theimprovements is critical to the project being able to move forward as the Applicant would like tocommence construction by June 2014.

As previously noted, the proposed development requires Board approval of a series of Zoning Codeamendments, concept plan approval of a mixed use development, and other zoning and subdivisionrelief items. Should the Board approve the concept plan, the Applicant would need to return for finalplan approval at a later date. At that time, the plans for the project will be further refined and we

Page 10

should have a been understanding of what roadway improvements are possible at the time theNorthShore 770 project develops and those which may come at a later date.

ACC, ICDC, AND BTF RECOMMENDATIONS

In addition to the Plan Commission reviewing the project, the Architectural Control Commission, theIndustrial and Commercial Development Commission, and the Bike Task Force reviewed and maderecommendations regarding the project.

Architectural Control CommissionOn September 12, the Architectural Control Commission (ACC) reviewed the proposed building design,landscaping, and signage for the proposed NorthShore 770 project. The bulk of the ACC’s discussionfocused on the height and design of the residential building. The ACC, by a vote of 5-0 (two membersabsent), recommended approval of the design of the buildings, landscaping, signage, and residentialparking ramp slope of 9% as was submitted by the Applicant as part of its planned development conceptplan subject to the ACC reviewing the detailed design elements for the project (e.g. materials, colors,etc.) during the final plan approval process for the planned development and subject to all futurebuilding signs being reviewed and approved by the Commission.

Given that the Applicant had made changes to the proposed residential building design, the southfaçade of the Mariano’s building, and some limited landscaping areas since the Architectural ControlCommission reviewed and recommended approval of the project in September, the redesignedelements of the development were presented to the ACC on November 14.

After reviewing the revised design plans, by a vote of 6-0 (with one member absent), the ACC:

Recommended approval of the revised residential building plans, including the building design,materials, massing, height, and colors, subject to review of the final plans at which time detailsof certain items, such as the size and method of fastening the Trespa panels and the use of theproposed materials and windows at the corners of buildings; and

Recommended approval of the larger windows on the south façade of the Mariano’s building;and

In response to Plan Commission recommendations,o Recommended that green roofs not be added to the roofs of the 8-story portions of the

building as the added expense of the green roofs did not justify the visual benefit theywould provide tenants on the 9th floor

o Recommended that the emergency exit not be added to the Panera’s drive-through lanein order to preserve the landscaped area.

Though the Commission found the previous building design bold and attractive, they did find that thenew design also compatible with the buildings in the corridor and that it would stand the test of time.

Industrial & Commercial Development Commission (ICDC)On September 24, 2013, the Industrial and Commercial Development Commission reviewed theproposed NorthShore 770 project and its associated zoning and subdivision relief request. TheApplicant was at the meeting and responded to questions from Commission members. TheCommission’s discussion focused on potential traffic impacts of the proposed development on SkokieBoulevard as well as questions regarding the potential market impacts on other existing retailers, inparticular, grocery stores in the community. After a brief discussion, the Commission adopted the

Page 11

following recommendation by a vote of 8-0 (one member absent, and one member abstaining):

The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s land use designation formajor corridor multi-uses and that an appropriate zoning district should be created to accommodatethe development. Recommendations regarding the specific requirements of the new zoning districtand other necessary zoning and subdivision relief should be left to the Plan Commission and theArchitectural Control Commission, both of which have far greater expertise with these areas.

As was previously noted the Commission only commented on the zoning and subdivision relief, andasked to be provided the opportunity to comment on the Applicant’s tax increment financing requestwhen that information becomes available.

Bike Task ForceOn September 11, 2013, the Bicycle Task Force reviewed the proposed bicycle facilities for both theNorthShore 770 project at 770 Skokie Boulevard as well as the Wal-Mart project at 1000 SkokieBoulevard and made the following comments regarding the NorthShore 770 project for possibleconsiderations:

Were improvements to the Dundee Road/Skokie Boulevard intersection (including thesouthbound entrance ramp for the Eden’s Expressway) a part of the initial Traffic Study forbicycle/pedestrian site access and safety?

Can pavement and signage enhancements be made at the proposed ingress/egress locationsto better distinguish the sidewalk crossings locations from the driveline pavements? (i.e.Pavement material types, additional signage and pavement striping).

When the Skokie Valley Trail is constructed and as a separate conceptual project that wouldentail the construction of a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Dundee Road as a future trailamenity. It is appropriate at this time to request input from the 770 Skokie developer forany concerns regarding a conceptual bicycle/pedestrian trail feature as a potentialdeterment to the 770 Skokie site.

IMPACT ON VILLAGE SERVICES

Village staff prepared the attached report estimating the cost of providing additional Village servicesthat may be required as a result of both the proposed Walmart development (which is now withdrawn)

and the NorthShore 770 project. For comparison, we have attached property tax and sales tax revenueprojections submitted by the Applicant. It should be noted that the Applicant’s tax revenue projectionsdo not account for the project’s potential impacts on sales taxes and property taxes generated by otherbusinesses and developments in the community. Also, the NorthShore 770 project’s property taxrevenue projections do not account for the fact that a portion of the property tax revenue from theproject may be diverted into a tax increment financing fund to support the redevelopment of the 770Skokie Boulevard site.

TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REQUEST

On May 30, 2013, the Administration and Finance Committee initially reviewed the Applicant’s taxincrement financing (TIF) request. At that time, the Committee found that the potential public benefits

Page 12

of the Applicant’s project warranted further study. Since that meeting, staff has been working with theApplicant, its TIF consultant, and the Village’s TIF consultant to further evaluate the Applicant’s requestand how the TIF financing could be structured. The Administration and Finance Committee will meetagain after the Board of Trustees reviews and provides staff with general direction regarding theApplicant’s zoning and subdivision relief application.

It is at that next Administration and Finance Committee meeting that Board members will want to havefurther discussions regarding the necessary road improvements associated with the project and otherTIF eligible expenses for which TIF funds could potentially be used.

SUMMARY

At the December 10 meeting, staff will provide a summary of the project and outstanding issues, andthe Applicant would like to address the Board. As the Board considers the application, staff suggeststhat the Board consider the following issues:

1) Is a mixed-use development consisting of commercial uses and a major residential componentand of the density now proposed by the Applicant appropriate for the Subject Property?

2) Does the Board concur with the Plan Commission recommendations to amend the O-4 Districtto allow the proposed development and to approve the proposed mixed use planneddevelopment with a series of special permits, variations, exceptions and waivers?

3) Is the Applicant’s request for the flexibility to add up to five additional apartment units toimprove the aesthetics of the building acceptable?

4) Should an emergency exit for the Panera drive-through lane be installed?

5) Does the Board agree with the Applicant’s requested parking ratio of 1.75 spaces per residentialunit?

6) Does the Board agree that the Village should be working with IDOT and the Applicant to pursueadditional beneficial roadway and intersection improvements and to construct them in such away as to allow the NorthShore 770 development to move forward in a timely fashion whilecausing the minimum amount of disruption to traffic in the area?

7) Does the Board agree with the Applicant’s position that the proposed sustainable features in theresidential building are sufficient and that no further green features are warranted on the 8-story portions of the residential structure??

As previous stated, the Applicant will attend the December 10, 2013 meeting and would like theopportunity to address the Board. Staff and the Village traffic consultant will be present to answerquestions the Board may have regarding the project and potential traffic.

Page 13

ATTACHMENT APUBLIC ROADWAY & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED

DURING PLAN COMMISSION PROCESS

Roadway & Intersection Improvements. Contingent upon the Illinois Department of Transportationapproval, the Applicant shall be responsible for constructing at minimum the followingimprovements to Skokie Boulevard and Dundee Road:

1. Skokie Boulevard, North of Dundee Road:a. Installation of a traffic signal at the main development entrance that is interconnected with

the Dundee Road/Skokie Boulevard signal and the Henrici Drive/Skokie Boulevard signal.b. Removal of the Skokie Boulevard striped median and re-striping of the roadway between

the Dundee Road/Skokie Boulevard intersection to the Henrici Drive/Skokie Boulevardintersection;

c. Extension of the single southbound left turn lane at Dundee Road the maximum lengthpossible;

d. Installation of a northbound left turn lane at the main development drive;e. Extension of the southbound right turn lane at Dundee Road to the most southerly right-

in/right-out development entrance;f. Installation of a two-way left turn lane north of main entrance drive to the Henrici

Drive/Skokie Boulevard intersection;g. Installation of a southbound right turn lane at main development drive;h. Installation of a median at the north development drive to prohibit outbound left turns; andi. Installation of a median at the south development drive to prohibit inbound and outbound

left turns.

2. Skokie Boulevard, South of Dundee Road:a. Extension of the northbound right turn lane the maximum length possible; andb. Extension of the northbound left turn lane the maximum length possible.

3. Skokie Boulevard-Dundee Road Signal & Pedestrian Improvements:a. Installation of new traffic signal equipment that accommodates right turn overlap signal

phasing; andb. Improvements to existing crosswalks, sidewalks and safety islands to enhance pedestrian

safety at the intersection

4. Dundee Road, West of Skokie Boulevard:a. Extension and provision of a painted single left turn lane from Skokie Boulevard to the

westerly site driveway along Dundee Road.b. Installation of a painted single left turn lane accessing the westerly site driveway along

Dundee Road.c. Installation of a third westbound through lane to at least the western boundary of the

unused Union Pacific Right of Way, if not all the way to Midway Road.

5. Dundee Road, East of Skokie Boulevarda. Installation of a new westbound right turn lane, so as to be able to convert the existing right

turn lane to a third through lane, so long as the right of way is available.