The meeting was called to order at 7:30P.M.
Plan Commission Members Present: Chairman James Sula, Stephen Park, Gwen Broughton, Patrick Drennan, David Nordentoft
Plan Commission Members Absent: Sara Salmons, Richard McFarlane
Other Officials Present: Bryan Winter, Village Attorney; Tracy Velkover, Planning Manager; Molly Bacon, Associate Planner; Ryan Mentkowski, Associate Planner
1. Approval of meeting minutes for Joint Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals for
October 29, 2008
Mr. Drennan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Broughton, to approve the October 29, 2008 meeting minutes.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, Nordentoft, Park, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 5-0-0
2. Approval of Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2008
Mr. Park made a motion, seconded by Ms. Broughton, to approve the November 19, 2008 meeting minutes.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, Nordentoft, Park, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 5-0-0
3. Public Hearing: Special Use Permit Amendment: Neiman Marcus Last Call
Ms. Bacon stated TMA Affinity Architects is seeking an amendment to the Special Use permit for Gurnee Mills’ signage standards to allow, as a Special Use, an increase to the mounting height for a specific anchor store sign. The subject project is zoned C/B-2 Community Business District, and is located at approximately 6108 Grand Avenue (within the Gurnee Mills Shopping Center.
The Village Attorney swore in all persons making testimony on behalf of this petition.
Mr. Marc Walk, President of TMA Affinity Architects, stated that he is the architect representing Gurnee Mills and Neiman Marcus. He stated that Mr. Bill Carmel, of Parvin-Claus Sign Company, is also present to answer any questions or concerns in regards to the specific sign proposed by Neiman Marcus.
Mr. Marc Walk stated that he is asking for an amendment to the special use permit for Gurnee Mills, to allow a 30 foot tall mounting height for a wall sign, in lieu of a 25 foot mounting height, for an anchor store located in a very specific location on the Mills’ property. He stated that the amendment targets a building almost at the center of Gurnee Mills’ property. He placed a drawing up on an overhead and stated that the highlighted area near the very center of the mall is the proposed Neiman Marcus building. He referenced the locations of Grand Avenue, Hunt Club Road and the Tollway in regards to the anchor store location.
He noted that the building is set back as far as you can go from the different roadways.
In regards to the specific sign proposed by Neiman Marcus, Mr. Walk stated that the sign is proposed on the northwest façade. The sign is more of less pointing out in this direction (he pointed toward where Stearns School Road crosses over the Toll Road). The building itself, because of the nature of the mall building and the location of Bass Pro and the Bass Pro outdoor boat storage lot, is actually screened from some views. He stated that the façade renovations and the higher sign mounting height is proposed in order to give the tenant as much identity as possible whenever there is an opening in the ring road. The opening is very intermittent. The north end of site is more open because only parking exists between the storefront and the ring road.
Mr. Walk stated that the language in the application for the amendment to the Gurnee Mills’ special use permit describes the location of the building where Neiman Marcus is proposed to locate. This language denotes the highlighted box (yellow portion on the overhead drawing), which coincides with the Neiman Marcus store. The requested amendment to the Gurnee Mills special use permit requires that a special use permit be obtained by the tenant at that location before a sign can be mounted in excess of 25 feet in height. Should Neiman Marcus move out and another tenant occupy the building, they would have to come back and request another amendment to have a sign exceed the 25 foot mounting height. This is just for Neiman Marcus.
Ms. Velkover clarified that there are actually 2 requests before the Plan Commission. She stated that Gurnee Mills is subject to a special use permit for a regional shopping center and within that special use are certain sign standards. One of the standards is a 25 foot maximum mounting height for anchor wall signs. The first request before the Plan Commission this evening is for an amendment to the Gurnee Mills special use permit to allow, as a special use, the ability for an anchor store at this specific location, to obtain a sign mounted at 30 feet in height. The second request, which is item number 5 on the agenda, is the request for a special use permit specifically for Neiman Marcus to install a sign at 30 feet in height on the wall where the store entrance is located. If Neiman Marcus moved out a new tenant moved in, a new special use permit would have to be secured in order for that anchor to install a wall sign over 25 feet in height.
Mr. Walk showed the Commission the sign drawings for Neiman Marcus Last Call. He stated that the elevation shown on the overhead is 64 feet wide and is the small northwest angle portion of the building. The sign itself is the Neiman Marcus corporate sign criteria. He stated that every Neiman Marcus Last Call sign looks like this; a tall but not very wide sign. Proportionately, this façade renovation was done to mimic other Neiman Marcus Last Call properties. This creates an area for signage, which is actually almost square. If the sign was mounted at 25 feet it would shrink proportionately, and become small and out of place. The Neiman Marcus letters would shrink by approximately one third. What is requested is the ability to mount the sign at a height of 30 feet so the sign will fill the façade. The proposed sign is under the 200 sq. ft. size (187 sq. ft.) allowed for an anchor store. Only a small portion of the sign, 21%, would extend above the 25 foot mounting height.
Lastly, Mr. Walk stated that he understands that there is some sort of precedence for this type of request. He noted that he was involved in other similar projects where the facades were renovated and signs were approved above the 25 foot mounting height. He specifically referred to Sears, Circuit City, Marcus Cinema, and Bass Pro.
Mr. Sula asked about the size of the store.
Mr. Walk stated that the store is 30,000 sq. ft. in size.
Mr. Sula asked Ms. Velkover how this compared to other anchors in Gurnee Mills Mall.
Ms. Velkover stated that she did not have detailed information on the size of anchors within the mall, only noting that there are a range of sizes. She noted that one of the principal determinants of whether a store is an anchor is whether there is direct access to the store from the outside.
Mr. Walk stated that any store with direct access to exterior is considered an anchor. Having worked on several projects, he noted that Bass Pro is approximately 125,000 sq. ft. and Circuit City is a smaller anchor, at around 25,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Sula asked what store Neiman Marcus is replacing and if the former store was considered an anchor (i.e., did it also have direct access from the exterior).
Ms. Velkover stated that the Neiman Marcus is proposing to occupy the former Vanity Fair building and that Vanity Fair also had an exterior entrance and was classified as an anchor.
Mr. Park stated he had 2 questions. On the third page of the sign drawings, the special use language states that the maximum mounting height requested is 32 feet. Is 30 or 32 feet requested for the maximum mounting height?
Mr. Walk responded that 30 feet is the maximum mounting height requested.
Mr. Park stated that the renovation of the storefront for Neiman Marcus was done to create more of an identity for Neiman Marcus, which is in keeping with other Neiman Marcus stores. Was the façade sized for a sign mounted at 25 feet or 30 feet in height?
Mr. Walk answered 30 feet.
Ms. Velkover clarified that the wording that Mr. Park referred to on page 3, the 32 foot mounting height, was actually corrected by the applicant. She stated that she must have inadvertently copied the earlier incorrect page and apologized to the Commission and applicant.
Mr. Walk stated that when the façade was designed, signage was put under a separate permit track. It was never put onto the building to show what it looked like. The result is that when the sign mounted at 25 feet in height was placed on the building it ended up looking awkward and disproportional to the building façade.
Mr. Sula opened the floor to the public.
Mr. Kevin Moss stated, from the back of the room, that the petitioner repeatedly said that the wall sign faced toward then northwest, when it actually faces toward the northeast. He asked for the petitioner to correct this statement.
Mr. Sula stated that Mr. Moss would need to go to the microphone and state his name and address in order to be recognized.
Mr. Moss continued to make statements from the back of the room.
Mr. Sula stated again that if Mr. Moss didn’t follow the protocol and address the Commission from the microphone after stating his name and address that he would not be recognized.
Mr. Sula then closed the floor to the public.
Mr. Park noted that the dimensions of the sign are not clearly identified. It appears to be 24.6 ft wide, but is unclear what the exist height of the sign is. He asked Mr. Walk to clarify. He stated that he is trying to get a feel for the size of the sign itself and not just the façade that it is mounted to.
Mr. Walk stated that the actual width of the sign 20’10’ and the height is 16’10’.
Mr. Winter clarified that this is not the Value City location. He noted the Value City is further north.
Mr. Park stated that the overall area of façade is 357 square feet. He stated that he is trying to get a feel for how small the sign would be if it was proportionally reduced to fit at the 25 foot mounting height
Mr. Walk stated that it might be possible to drop the sign a couple of feet. However, aesthetically you need to provide some room between the bottom of the sign and the storefront banding. The proposed height is what they believe is what looks best being in proportion with the storefront and leaving some room from the bottom of the sign and the storefront banding. He stated that they initially had the sign several feet higher, so that the maximum height was 32 feet. However, they believe that it looks better at 30 feet.
Ms. Velkover stated that her quick calculations, which may not be correct, have the sign shrinking about approximately 25%.
Mr. Park stated if sign is shrunk proportionately, to drop it by 5 feet, and not lower the entire height, it would end up being a dramatic loss in size; much larger than 25%. He stated that it would be such a major reduction that it wouldn’t be visible or appropriate given the storefront’s distance from the ring road and other sight line impediments.
Mr. Walk stated with corporate identity they are very strict with the proportions.
Mr. Park believes the special sue permit is warranted and the justification is the reduced visibility resulting from the proportional shrinking of the sign.
Mr. Sula asked for any other questions.
Mr. Nordentoft made a comment and asked how we ended up at this point where a special use permit is required. He stated that it seems like they created their own hardship with the façade renovations. On the other hand, is their situation a result of the store location; distance from the ring road and other portions of the mall blocking their views (Bass Pro)? He noted that he is just somewhat concerned with how they got to this point and the process.
Mr. Walk explained the maximum height of an anchor store at Gurnee Mills is 35 feet. He pointed to an exhibit that showed the façade when the store was Vanity Fair. He noted that they took the top off the old store and basically squared it off rather than going higher and extending building out in all directions. He stated they were basically set with this footprint and chopped off the top of the triangle. If the building was bigger or shorter and if we only went to a certain height, we wouldn’t be able to have a different sign than what you see here. We knew we had this issue, and worked through it.
Mr. Sula asked for any questions or comments from the Commission.
Mr. Park made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nordentoft, to forward a favorable recommendation to the Village Board for an amendment to the Gurnee Mills special use permit, to allow, as a special use, an anchor store at the specific location noted in the petition, the ability to mount a wall sign up to 30 feet in height.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, Nordentoft, Park, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 5-0-0
4. Public Hearing: Special Use Permit: Neiman Marcus Last Call
Ms. Bacon stated TMA Affinity Architects is seeking a Special Use permit to allow an exterior wall sign for Neiman Marcus Last Call to be mounted at a maximum height of 30 feet. The subject project is zoned C/B-2 Community Business District, and is located at approximately 6108 Grand Avenue (within the Gurnee Mills Shopping Center).
Mr. Park made a motion, seconded by Ms. Broughton, to forward a favorable recommendation to the Village Board for a special use permit, per the pending amendment above, to allow Neiman Marcus to mount the sign reflected in the plans provided with this petition up to 30 feet in height at this specific location on the elevation reflected in the drawings, for the following reasons:
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, Nordentoft, Park, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 5-0-0
5. Public Hearing: Special Use Permit for ASSURE Home Healthcare, Inc.
Ms. Bacon stated that the first item from ASSURE Home Healthcare, Inc. is a Special Use Permit to allow an administrative branch office within an existing 1,400 sq. ft. building. The second item is for Minor Exception to the Sign Ordinance to allow a decrease in the required 8-inch letter height for a freestanding sign. The subject property is located at 4072 Old Grand Avenue and is zoned C/S-3 Village Center Residence/Business District.
Mr. Mahinay, president of ASSURE, stated their head office is located in Skokie, Illinois. They are a certified home health care for Medicare and Medicaid and are licensed by State of Illinois to provide skilled medical services, licensed registered nurses, licensed therapists for speech, occupational, and physical therapies, and non-skilled services like certified nurses aids to patients recuperating at home.
Mr. Mahinay stated they are here tonight requesting approval of a Special Use to an existing residential building located at 4072 Old Grand Avenue for a branch office. The branch will provide more immediate clinical services to patients in Lake County and facilitate administrative support to field personnel who reside near Gurnee. The proposed office activities are limited to administrative support only and the hours of operation are 8:30A – 5:30P, Monday through Friday.
Mr. Mahinay stated the main agency operations like hiring, corporate meetings, personnel services and administration of benefits will continue to be managed at the parent office in Skokie. Also, the company officers will continue to report to Skokie.
Mr. Mahinay stated the proposed improvements onsite include additional parking spaces with an accessible space, construction of an accessible ramp, and interior refurbishment. The property has more than enough land for the proposed parking lot to accommodate both staff and visitors. Also, he added that the ingress/egress from the premises will be designed in such a way so traffic and the public street will not congested.
The floor was opened for public comment and closed when there was no public comment.
Mr. Nordentoft made a motion, seconded by Ms. Broughton, to forward a favorable recommendation to the Village Board for a Special Use Permit request for ASSURE Home Healthcare, Inc. to locate a branch office at 4072 Old Grand Avenue. He stated the petition meets the standards for a Special Use.
Mr. Park stated the staff notes suggested conditions be placed on the lighting for the freestanding sign.
Mr. Nordentoft amended the motion, Ms. Broughton seconded, to include the following conditions:
The petitioner stated that he was agreeable to the conditions.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, Nordentoft, Park, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried 5-0-0
6. Minor Exception: ASSURE Home Healthcare, Inc.
Mr. Sula stated ASSURE Home Healthcare, Inc is seeking a Minor Exception to the Sign Ordinance to allow a decrease in the required 8-inch letter height for a freestanding sign.
Mr. Park made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nordentoft, to approve the Minor Exception in accordance with the proposed sign plan.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, Nordentoft, Park, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried 5-0-0
7. Informal Discussion: Heritage Woods of Gurnee
Ms. Bacon stated that Heritage Woods of Gurnee, LLC is seeking feedback on a proposal to construct a 99 unit, approximately 82,180 square foot senior supportive living facility on 3.8 acres. The property is zoned C/B-2 EGG East Grand Gateway Overlay District and R-3 Single-Family Residence District and is located at approximately 3775 Grand Avenue (Southwest corner of Grand Ave. & Waveland Ave)
Mr. Sula stated that the first part of this presentation is informal discussion on the project itself. Petitioner has not been given any specific binding guidelines or presentation to follow. Mr. Sula further stated this means anything that the Plan Commission says is stream of consciousness without any firm findings or fact, and only how the Plan Commission feels about the project. He then stated the second aspect of this item is for a waiver of certain preliminary PUD application requirements which would require formal action.
Mr. Bob Kenny, Attorney for the Heritage Woods of Gurnee LLC stated that he was accompanied by Blair Minton of BMA Management and Steve Barron and Mark Higginson, both principals of Barron Development. Mr. Bob Kenny stated Blair Minton is with BMA Management, the management company that will operate the facility. He stated that Barron Development is the development arm of the joint venture for the facility. He stated Barron Development has 20 facilities in Illinois and are one of the largest supportive living facilities in Illinois. He stated a supportive living facility is through a program through the State of Illinois where Medicaid dollars can be used to pay to live in the supportive living facility (SLIF). He stated that these residents would otherwise be in a state nursing home. He stated this program can save the State of Illinois substantial dollars by having residents in this type of affordable assisted living facility versus nursing homes.
Mr. Kenny stated that they understand no formal action on the concept will be forthcoming but they did hope for some reaction from the Plan Commission so they can incorporate the comments as the go forward.
Mr. Kenny stated that the property consists of approximately 3.8 acres and that on the exhibit presented, the projects boundaries consisted of: north (to the right of the exhibit) is Grand avenue; east is Waveland Ave; south is University Avenue; west is railroad tracks (and west of the tracks is Route 41 before you get back to other properties). He stated that currently the property is vacant and the property is zoned C/B2-EGG overlay, East Grand gateway district overlay on the north and a portion of the south property where the property begins to narrow is zoned R-3 Single Family Resident’s. He noted that it is staff’s recommendation to seek re-zoning for CO/1 Restricted Office District and have a Special Use approved for the supportive living facility. He stated that the types of residents that will be in facility are residents that require activities of daily living assistance such as assistance with ambulation, dressing, bathing. He stated that this facility is not nursing home care. He stated that as an example, residents cannot stay if they have an IV and the State has specific requirements and limitations where you are in the continuum care as to when you qualify. He stated that the State program for the SLIF is affordable and that the affordable standard is that at least 60% of the residents in the facility will be under 60% of the mean income in the area. He stated that the residents of the facility are typically on Medicaid. He stated that the facility will be licensed by State of Illinois to operate the SLIF.
Mr. Kenny then stated part of what they are looking for is consideration for the waiver of the requirement for a traffic study and the tax and school impact study. He stated this is because anything they can reasonably do to keep expenses down will help to make the facility that much more affordable.
.
Mr. Blair Minton stated that BMA Management is located in Bradley, Illinois, in Kankakee County, and they have 29 types of these facilities open today and 7 more under construction today. He stated that this is a very popular program and that between now and 2030, the number of people who will reach 85 will triple in the United States and probably triple in Illinois. He stated that the state developed affordable assisted living or supportive living facilities 10 years ago, saving $72M in public aid funds last year because the people were not in nursing homes but in a lower level of residential care. He stated this type of residential level of care is much more dignified then nursing homes and that each of the individuals living in the facility have their own apartment with their own furniture and are provided 3 meals a day. He stated that the 24-hour staff will assist the residents with ambulation, bathing, dressing, getting in/out of bed, etc. He stated that they have tools available that others do not have.
Mr. Minton than stated that this project is for 99 units. He stated that there are 79 of these facilities open in the state of Illinois and 29 are run by their company. He stated one of the projects close to Gurnee was opened in McHenry, located on Royal Drive across the street from the new high school, in July, and it was full in 35 days. He stated a similar project in Rockford was opened and full in 40 days as well. He stated the average resident is 84 years old, female, and median to lower income status. He stated they will accept anyone of any income, and private pay is also available and rooms are set-aside for those. He stated that there are not many choices available to those on moderate or lower income. He stated that 60% of residents statewide are on Medicaid and the other 40% are in some type of spend out program in which they have some asset, and Medicaid requires them to spend that asset.
Mr. Minton then stated that this project will be a beautiful building which includes, art work in building, common areas, beauty/barber shop, movie room, activity rooms, full time activity staff, bus available for trips offsite within the area which include shopping, doctors appointments, to schools to see plays, etc. He stated that this is a dignified program that is not a nursing home situation where they have to get up at a certain time, go to bed at a certain time. He stated that people make their own decisions, and can do what they want when they want, and they can leave when they want and they have their own key and can lock their own apartment. He stated that no one is allowed in the facility with mental illness or drug rehab because it is not allowed by the State License. He stated that this facility is only open to individuals who are 65 years of age or older who need traditional care.
Mr. Minton stated he was open to questions.
Mr. Nordentoft asked if this is typical of the size of the buildings they have built.
Mr. Minton stated there are different sizes; including 65, 75, and 99 units; however most projects they build in Illinois or in the surrounding area of Chicago are the 99 unit size buildings.
Mr. Nordentoft asked if the individuals have the ability to can come and go as they please.
Mr. Minton stated yes they have that ability but most residents cannot drive. He stated that 2-3% residents own autos and are still able to drive. Most have a spouse who is ill, and unable to care for the spouses themselves. Several reasons for persons moving here are loss of license, unable to travel, unable to go to the store for themselves, unable to cook for themselves, unable to stand for long periods of time.
Mr. Nordentoft stated that he noticed on the site plan that the building would be located close to Grand Avenue, and with the grade change and the three stories it will be quite the presence on that corner under the viaduct.
Mr. Minton interjected by stating they are looking for that, and it is purposeful, and they want a visible presence from the road and Grand Avenue. The drive by visibility helps them but they could move it a few feet off Grand Avenue if they do not lose that presence from Grand.
Mr. Nordentoft asked if they had talked with staff about the overlay district that is in place there and the goals put in place when the overlay district was created.
Mr. Mark Higginson stated that he had talked with staff about the overlay district.
Mr. Nordentoft stated that one of his observations, and he understood that there is budget involved in this, but this is fairly modest architecturally with entry level building materials being used such as vinyl siding, standard fiberglass type shingles and nothing that was ultra inspiring. He stated one of things the commission is trying to do on the east side is to encourage through ordinance language, redevelopment and façade upgrades, including encouraging upgrades to materials on buildings. He stated that he is feeling a little bit of a conflict here. He stated that they have a large parcel with a lot of frontage, and granted, it is a vacant lot with an abandoned building, but at the same time we have vision for the whole area not just that lot and he addressed building materials and location of the building as it relates what we are trying to do and how that benefits the Village.
Mr. Higginson stated that he had spoke with staff about these concerns and that it is important for this commission to take a look at their facility in McHenry because you will be able to get a good idea of what the building would look like on this site. He stated that this would be a real positive asset to the site.
Mr. Minton continued by stating that the building materials which Mr. Nordentoft stated are entry level, contain brick up the first 6-8 feet of the building and siding above that. He stated the reason for not doing all brick as much as the expense is part of it, is the whole purpose of this project is to look like a residential project, not like a nursing home, or institutional type of model. He stated they purposely try to keep the look of the building as residential as possible which is why the whole building will not be in brick. He stated they would consider other materials such as a concrete type mix siding or harder type of siding; however, he stated we do not want to do the whole building as brick because it makes it way to institutional. He stated, for the residents we have, institutional means one thing, nursing home and we want to keep that away.
Mr. Park stated that one of the questions we have to ask ourselves when we look at a project like this is to what degree do we want to insert a residential environment into an area we are pushing as more of a retail area and as a gateway site over the long term. He added the question if this is a compatible use to the vision we have for this retail corridor? He stated he did not have an answer on this and was just raising the question.
Mr. Sula stated that he is a little concerned on a couple of different levels. He stated that he is concerned with the 99 units on 4 acres and is having trouble visualizing that and was trying to compare it to the McHenry site.
Mr. Steven Barron described the McHenry building and property. He then stated that one thing to keep in mind that the units are quite small because the residents are eating together in one location, three times a day, in a community. He stated that Efficiency units are 320 square feet and one bedroom units are 460 square feet compare to other larger units. He stated they configured the building the way they did because it allows the residents to get to the center of the building more easily.
Mr. Sula stated that he shares Mr. Park’s concern in that the site is in the gateway is a commercial area, but it is a difficult site because it is impossible to gain direct access to Grand Avenue given the proximity to Rt. 41. He stated that he would have a hard time waiving the traffic study requirement and would need expert advice to translate what has been said at the meeting. He stated that he thought there is a great need in communities at large for these types of facilities but he needed to understand what the traffic impact would be because it is kind of a difficult site without direct access to Grand Avenue.
Mr. Ryan Mentkowski stated that in the information provided in the packet, there is a picture of McHenry building the applicant has been referring to. He stated that a tree survey is not fully completed as of yet, and even though the whole site is covered by woodlands, it is not clear if the site contains native trees, such as Oak trees. He stated that the applicant has been encouraged, once it is determined what sort of woodlands are on the property (Oak Trees, Hickory Trees other high quality trees) that they work their site plan around these natural features. He stated that they may not be fully working with the natural features they have there. He lastly stated that the commercial use of the property will create traffic concerns because it may be difficult to access Grand Avenue and staff does not want people going back through the neighborhood to get to Belle Plaine Avenue to access the traffic lights.
Ms. Tracy Velkover asked Mr. Mentkowski to touch on density. And further stated, if you look at Franciscan ministries, the Assisi homes a little east of this facility, I think it is 60 some units and the density is similar right in the neighborhood of 25 units, 23, 24.
Mr. Mentkowski referenced the Sunrise Assistance Living off of Hunt Club Road, approved in 2000, is 3.1 acres, approved for 60 units which is roughly 20 units per acre. He stated this proposal would be 26 units per acre and a little more dense.
Mr. Minton stated that most of the traffic is by residents going in/out will be by bus. Bus service would typically be 2-3 runs a day, not a lot. The maximum number of employees per shift is 21. Residents driving in and out of the facility would be 1 or 2, maybe once a week. There is not a lot of traffic in/out of here with the exception of visitors that come with the heaviest visitor days being Saturday, Sundays and Holidays. Mr. Minton referenced his web address to view other buildings they have in the State of Illinois: www.bma-mgmt.com to allow the commissioners to see all 29 facilities in the State of Illinois.
Mr. Winters asked if they had done a traffic study for Mc Henry County or any of the other facilities.
Mr. Minton stated that they have not had done a traffic study.
Mr. Barron stated that they may have done a traffic study for McHenry.
Mr. Winters stated that if they had a traffic study done already that tracked the experience of that one, it should be pretty inexpensive to modify a traffic study for this project.
Mr. Minton stated that a traffic study was not done for similar project in Batavia where a 99 unit building was constructed. He also stated that the Mayor of 32 years has received more positive comments about that project over any other project in 32 years.
Mr. Winters stated that he felt the neighboring residents would be very interested as to what effect this proposal could have on the traffic because they know this project needs access onto Grand and would be worried about cut through traffic into the neighborhood.
Mr. Sula stated he is familiar with the McHenry area and the project that you have there has direct access to the main road however, this particular site does not afford you that same luxury so there is going to be a traffic concern. He stated that because the sites are different, he did not see how the commission could waive a traffic study. He stated that a school impact study would be meaningless.
Mr. Winters asked if the McHenry site was two stories or three stories.
Mr. Barron described the reasoning for the McHenry being two stories versus their regular 3 story model as the following: they ran up against some opposition from the neighbors when they went through the annexation process; the Alderman whose area it was, needed to give something back to her people so she said make it 2 stories instead of 3; as they engineered site the site they found that it was easily 10 feet below the grade of the road and fully wooded; the two story model created longer hallways for the residents, making them walk longer than they really had to be.
Mr. Barron then described the State of Illinois process for getting a license to run a SLIF facility. He stated that the State of Illinois last granted a license three years ago before opening up the application process again. He stated that this application process was done with a twist this time because the State of Illinois is only targeting certain communities, with Lake County being one of the targeted communities. He stated that there will be 2 or 3 SLIFS in Lake County and that Gurnee is competing against the Round Lakes or Vernon Hills or whoever else may be competing against us. He stated this is an asset to the community because it allows people in who cannot afford the Sunrise developments at $4-5,000 per month and allows them to get the same care as a Sunrise.
Mr. Winters stated that he was not posing the three stories as necessarily a detriment, but pointing out its proximity to the property line, that per staff’s comments the project still has the trees to consider, and that it is crowding the property line.
Mr. Minton stated that he is willing to work with staff to move the building further to the south.
Mr. Barron stated that when looking at this site originally he saw a railroad track, route 41 and the major renovations associated with route 41. He stated that after seeing these features that he walked away from the site. He stated that he wanted to be in Gurnee for demographic reasons and discussed the site with Mr. Ziegler and Mayor Kovarik who said the site was a positive site for the proposed use. He stated that the more they got their arms around the site the more they liked it because it was the right size and because they could save more trees by utilizing the detention basin downstream versus putting a pond onsite.
Mr. Sula asked to back up and decide if the commission felt it was okay to use this property as residential instead of gateway commercial. He stated that he had not heard from the other commissioners about their opinions.
Mr. Park stated that he was on the fence as stated by Mr. Sula.
Mr. Drennan stated that he was not opposed to the property being residential, and given the current retail environment we are in who knows if retail will ever happen.
Ms. Broughton added that with the traffic on Grand Avenue she was not sure how that would appeal to retail.
Mr. Sula stated that even in robust times he was not sure given the access to the property that this will ever be a great retail or commercial site.
Mr. Nordentoft stated that he agreed with the commissioners that this is a challenging site if this property is kept at straight retail. He also stated that they want to be careful how we define this residentially to the general public because it is a different type of residential use than the traditional thought of residential which is generally condos, townhouses, or rental units. He stated if it was straight apartments we would see a lot of traffic. He stated that if it cannot go to straight retail the property could stay an undeveloped site, and thought that this type of use is worth entertaining.
Mr. Sula stated that there is some precedence in the area with placing these types of buildings next to railroad tracks with some high end senior housing in Lake Forest next to the train station and did not feel that the commission would be creating a situation where the quality of life would be awful.
Mr. Minton states their Project in Batavia is right next to the railroad tracks and it actually separates the residential from the light industrial there. He stated that this create no problems for our residents, as a majority of them are hard of hearing. He stated that the railroad tracks are not a problem and did not faze us from placing the building there.
Mr. Barron stated that financing a facility like this is much easier today than conventional financing. He stated that the retail sites are not developing because the financing is just drying up.
Mr. Park stated that if this project is going to go forward that you should look closely at your site plan, not just for access issues, but for how much on-site circulation and asphalt you really need. He stated that there is a huge amount of asphalt for the loading area and asked if they actually needed such a large loading area. He gave an example of another facility in the area that has a huge loading area that is not utilized much. He stated that they should look at how the circulation works to make it easier for those people coming off of Grand Avenue and visiting.
Mr. Sula stated that as to the Informal Review, they are receptive to accommodating this type of use on the corner, but be mindful that this is our gateway so any special attention to building materials, architectural elements, and the curb appeal aspect of it. These are important not only for us as a community because it is a gateway, but it also benefits you in terms of how the residents view the development.
8. Request for Waiver of Certain Preliminary Plat Planned Unit Development Application Materials:
Heritage Woods of Gurnee
Mr. Sula asked if any of the commissioners had any other feeling about the traffic study waiver request than previously discussed during the informal discussion item on this agenda.
Mr. Park stated that he does not have an issue waiving the traffic study because facilities like this do not generate traffic and the McHenry building traffic study previously utilized by the applicant could be transferred fairly quickly and easily. He stated that trip generation is negligible in something like this.
Ms. Broughton stated that when the applicants get further in the process they may run into the concerns of neighbors and will have to do the study anyway.
Mr. Sula stated he did not think we should waive it because he believed they have all the data possible to deal with all the residential concerns and that the overall review process would benefit if a traffic study was done.
Mr. Park stated that he thought they should waive the tax and school impact study.
Mr. Nordentoft stated that he agreed with Mr. Sula’s previous statement about not waiving the traffic study.
Mr. Nordentoft made a motion, seconded by Ms. Broughton, to waive the Tax and School Impact Study requirement but not to allow a waiver from the Traffic Analysis requirement as part of their application for a Preliminary Plat Planned Unit Development.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, Nordentoft, Park, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion carried: 5-0-0
Adjournment at 8:52PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne Havenhill
Plan Commission Secretary