Plan Commission Minutes
February 18, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
Plan Commission Members Present: Stephen Park, David Nordentoft, Richard McFarlane, Sara Salmons, Gwen Broughton, Patrick Drennan
Plan Commission Members Absent: James Sula
Other Officials Present: Bryan Winter, Village Attorney; David Ziegler, Community Development Director; Tracy Velkover, Planning Manager; Molly Bacon, Associate Planner; Ryan Mentkowski, Associate Planner
Sara Salmons made a motion, Seconded by Mr. Nordentoft, for Mr. Park to be Chairman of this evenings meeting in Chairman Sula’s absence.
1. a) Approval of Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for January 7, 2009.
Mr. Nordentoft made a motion, seconded by Ms. Broughton, to approve the January 7, 2009 meeting minutes.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, McFarlane, Nordentoft, Park, Salmons
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
1. b) Approval of Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for January 28, 2009.
Mr. McFarlane made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nordentoft, to approve the January 28, 2009 meeting minutes.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, McFarlane, Nordentoft, Park, Salmons
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
Associate Planner Ryan Mentkowski stated United Growth Properties is requesting a petition for a second amendment to the existing Grand Hunt Center Planned Unit Development (PUD). Mr. Mentkowski stated the petitioner is requesting a major amendment to allow: (i) an additional outlot of 0.96 acres along Grand Avenue; (ii) an amendment to the existing 50 foot landscape buffer along Grand Avenue. He also stated the petitioner is also requesting a minor amendment to allow an amendment to the signage standards for the 6th outlot which was approved in 2008 and known as the Men’s Warehouse project.
Mr. Mentkowski stated they are also asking for an amendment to the exterior building elevations for that same building in the 6th outlot. And, lastly, there is a request for waivers per Article 9.4.2.B of the Village of Gurnee Zoning Code which is required as part of the PUD amendment application. There are certain waivers they are requesting; however the concept plan is essentially waived already because they are applying for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development. The correct waiver should have been Article 9.4.2.B.2 for the detailed site plan.
Chairman Park asked for the petitioner or his representatives to explain the project further.
Mr. Daniel Robison of Dan Robison Architects introduced himself and stated with him were Jerry Engen and Stephanie Walsey of United Growth Properties. Mr. Robison thanked the Commission for all the upfront work and he is sorry for not understanding what a detailed site plan is.
Mr. Robison stated they are focused tonight on the PUD amendment that is going to address Phase II, Lot 1 and they have already gone through this process previously for Phase I, Lot 1. He stated that this was the original site we did last year, Phase 1, Lot 1 which Mr. Mentkowski called Men’s Warehouse. He stated it will probably not be a Men’s Warehouse, but we will go into that later. He stated this is the lot we are talking about tonight, adjacent to Potbelly’s, to the west side of the detention pond and Home Depot is at the south end of the parking lot.
Mr. Robison stated, to give a little history, they have already pursued this process for Phase I and now are pursuing it for Phase II. He stated the Plat of Subdivision in your packet, to clarify, is the Phase II lot, which is representative of what the commission will see this evening.
Mr. Robison stated the amendment to the PUD is for the granting of the additional lot so they can pursue the lot on the west side which is similar to what was done in Phase I, and that the language in the packets addresses this. He also stated the Phase 1 property was previously presented as a single or multiple user tenant and this was presented in this site plan. Mr. Robison noted the building has not changed, the footprint is the same and the retail center was called the Men’s Warehouse. He stated what has changed is that his client is now speaking with Verizon which will potentially take most of the facility and there will be a second tenant space available. He than stated the front elevation now includes two entrances and will require two signs as opposed to one sign on the east side of the building.
Mr. Robison stated other than that, the architecture and color scheme they presented are not changing. He stated the only other change to this building is to address the signage. He stated as they previously agreed to in the last hearing process was a monument sign along Grand Avenue, a monument sign along the ring road and a building sign only along the east side of the building. Mr. Robison stated what the petitioner would like to pursue in terms of a change is the monument sign along Grand Avenue, consistent to what they had before, eliminating the monument sign along the ring road, and having two signs along the east side of the building, one for each tenant and a sign on the north side of the building facing Grand Avenue, a sign on the south side of the building facing the inward parking lots. He noted this is what is represented on the exhibit tonight. He stated the tenant signs would remain consistent with the language in the PUD and he would work out the details with staff. He noted this is the concept of the change they are looking for. Mr. Robison noted Mr. Jerry Enger could answer questions as he felt he had a better feeling on what the tenants are looking for.
Mr. Robison explained the Phase II project was previously presented to the commission as a Sonic and for tonight’s meeting it is off the table. He stated if it would be Sonic, they will return at a later date for their preliminary PUD and their final PUD processes with their presentation drawings. He noted they had not fully committed and that there were a lot of issues with their site plan design that village staff and the Sonic designers had to work out. Mr. Robison stated United Growth was having some timing problems with their commitment to Home Depot and that is the reason they are moving forward in a Step 1, Step 2 fashion, rather than trying to bring this all to the commission this evening. Mr. Robison said they had also studied the site for other possibilities but Sonic seemed to have the most potential.
Mr. Robison also addressed with regards to both properties and what was brought up by Mr. Mentkowski, this being the landscape change that is being requested. He noted the exhibit, which shows all 3 parcels, the center one being the retention pond. He stated the trees that are highlighted on the exhibit are rather large evergreen trees and that all of the tenants that United Growth has spoken to about potentially taking these properties have a lot of difficulty with these trees because they cut off significant views to the sight and cannot see the potential views of the buildings that would be located there.
Mr. Robison stated they are proposing to eliminate the six evergreens on one site and eliminate the nine evergreens on the other site, which is the bufferyard. He noted that on one of the sites, that additional evergreen trees and understory trees were present, and it is more than what is required in the PUD. He stated one site was a little bit short and one site had an excess of evergreens. He explained by eliminating evergreens from one site, and then proposing to add three understory trees to one of sites, this would meet the requirements of the bufferyard according to the language of the PUD in terms of understory and evergreens. He noted with the additions, there would be more understory trees, more transparent, and block fewer views.
Mr. Robison stated the other part of the proposal was relocation of the removed trees which plans do not show specific tree locations, as recommended by staff because of not having specific development plans in place and no way of knowing where the trees would actually be placed. He also stated in addition to this, the Phase II site has some on site trees that would have to be taken down and there would be a replacement requirement for those trees. He noted the combination of this and those replacements might be better served at this point to wait for a later time for a detailed site plan.
Mr. Robison further stated what he is bringing to the commission tonight is a concept plan that basically by bubble shows the evergreens that would be removed from in the buffer, because it is a significant visual change, are proposed to be added at a ratio of 2:1. He stated they would be placed on the west side of Phase I and on both sides of Phase II with exact locations to be determined at a later time as both sites are developed. He stated the logic of the relocation is the evergreens would partially be visible from Grand Avenue, would not block views, and could be used positively to screen the elements of the backsides of the buildings, parking lots, services and all nasty things that should be screened. Mr. Robison then stated the tricky part is to remain on the specific properties that are mentioned and they need to make sure there is enough room to do just that.
Mr. Park asked for any comments/questions from the Plan Commissioners.
Mr. Nordendtoft asked that when the two lots develop that the petitioner will attempt to relocate the existing evergreens and not remove and replace the evergreens.
Mr. Robison responded the trees that exist are of various sizes, some which may be too large to relocate. He stated it would be combination of both relocation and replacement. The smaller trees, those that a landscaper would decide upon, would probably be relocated and those, which would not survive, would be replaced. He then stated that if the landscaper decided none of the trees are movable, they might end up replacing all of the trees. He stated the trees are not all of the same size and that there are some smaller trees mixed in with larger ones and there is likelihood that some of them could be moved.
Mr. Nordentoft asked if any of the tree relocation or removal would be done before the site actually develops and the commission had received a hard site plan.
Mr. Robison responded that none of this would be done until the Phase II site would come before the commission again and that the commission would be seeing more detail of how that will be addressed at that time.
Mr. Nordentoft stated that this is a reasonable step even though he had issues when the development plan was site specific to Sonic. He feels moving forward with the dedicated and prepared plans is a fine move.
Mr. Robison stated that in relation to the Phase II site there has been discussion with the neighbor who wasn’t all that positive about a cross access easement and about the possibility of the petitioner adding additional parking to the neighbor’s site. He stated that the cross access will probably not happen as the site develops and that will be specific to the development in the future and the Commission will be able discuss that again. He stated that these two elements of the previous proposal would probably disappear for whatever is built on the site.
Mr. Park stated he was happy to hear that because he thought the cross access would not work well.
Ms. Broughton stated that she has no comments.
Mr. Drennan stated that considering this was originally limited to 4 outlots, why is this amendment coming to the commission?
Ms. Velkover stated that this PUD agreement was entered into before she started here, but the Village Board at the time wanted some open space along Grand Avenue. She stated they did not want to have building after building along Grand and that they wanted green space. She stated that there are detention areas along Grand Avenue that break up the views or the amount commercial areas. She also stated since this agreement was entered into the early 1990’s, the Village Board has also made the decision that they do not want Washington Street to be commercialized, making land up along Grand Avenue more valuable. She stated that this is a piece of property that is not needed to meet the parking requirements for Home Depot. She lastly stated that as development has become more possible along this location, developers have looked at it and approached the Village about adding additional development outlots.
Mr. McFarlane asked in relation to the signage on the two buildings, if it is logical for him to assume that the north tenant will want a sign on the north wall and the south tenant is looking for a sign on the south wall?
Mr. Robison responded yes. He stated the north tenant, which is the larger tenant will want an east sign for his entrance and a north side for the north exposure and likewise the smaller southern tenant would want an east sign over his entrance and a south sign so the people in the south parking lot can see what his facility is.
Mr. Park asked if he was correct from a staff perspective, that the Village code doesn’t allow the north tenant to have a sign on the south wall, which they have no occupancy of.
Ms. Velkover stated that it would not be allowed; however, the building elevations did change because when it was a multi-tenant building there were no windows on the north or the south wall. She stated that one of the reasons why walls signs were previously not allowed on the north or south wall was due to the sign code requiring windows and/or a public entrance. She stated elevations have been amended to include windows on the north and south elevations.
Mr. McFarlane asked Ms. Velkover if these signs comply with the new ordinance.
Ms. Velkover stated yes they do and that the signs would be actually smaller than what the new code would allow.
Mr. McFarlane asked how this differs from the monument sign sign Unos has. He stated trashing the trees troubled him and that the reason for the trees is to block the view. He then asked how high the sign is going to be on the wall and if the removed trees really block the sign when driving by. He asked what the line of sight is because he thought the sign is going to be 25 feet high.
Mr. Robison stated that the wall is a little over 20 feet, so the sign would not be 25 feet. He stated that the sign would be in the 16ft – 18ft range to the center line of the sign with some of the trees being up 20 feet plus and the landscape birm which is 3 or 4 feet tall.
Ms. Velkover stated that for the Grand Hunt area there are a certain amount of trees that are required in the Grand Avenue buffer. She stated that those two lots, outlot 6 that was created in 2008, and this outlot that is trying to be created tonight carry a high number of trees required for the Grand Avenue buffer which are higher than any other of the lots because they were not considered to be developable lots. Ms. Velkover also stated that a lot of evergreen trees were installed on these lots when they had the opportunity to install canopy, ornamental or evergreens. Ms. Velkover stated the evergreens were put in because it was not developable and typically you do not have evergreen trees in front of a developable outlot. She stated that usually something that can grow up, a canopy or ornamental is chosen where you can get a view in of the buildings. She stated that the combination of the birm and the evergreens really do block the view of these lots and if they are every going to be developable for retail, service, or office they probably do need a better view especially if we are trying to modify the codes in terms of signage to reduce the amount of signage.
Mr. Robison stated the supplemental commentary to address your question in which he wanted to state was that he didn’t know if it was ever intended for the bufferyards in front of commercial properties ever be solid screens. Mr. Robison stated they are supposed to be decorative, ornamental, green, colorful but not necessarily solid. He stated that there should be some transparency allowed. Mr. Robison stated in addition to that, they are not just eliminating those trees, they are planning to replace trees. Mr. Robison then stated in relation to the location of where the trees were, they are adding some understory trees again, so they are not just leaving those areas vacant. He stated those will be the actual locations where the monument signs go and there will be ground cover and shrubbery around those monument signs. He stated that those areas of landscaping will not be vacated and that there will be significant landscaping there.
Ms. Salmons stated that she had no comments or questions as they had already been answered.
Mr. Park asked about the amount of plant material along the Grand Avenue frontage for the project as opposed to just for this site. He stated that Mr. Robison mentioned there is more plant material on these two lots because they were un-developable. He asked how much of that is what would be called over standard and how much of it was standard for the rest of the project that happened to be placed here, and therefore still should be on Grand Avenue?
Ms. Velkover asked for clarification as to the question.
Mr. Park stated, in theory, if there were supposed to be 200 trees along Grand Avenue, and 50 trees were packed onto these two lots. He asked if this is because there needed to be 50 trees on these two lots or there needed to be a total of 200 trees in the buffer? He stated that if you take them off these two lots and get rid of them they should be placed somewhere else because you still need 200 trees along Grand Avenue. He stated he thought that he was hearing that there are too many trees on this lot and the landscaping still meets the overall Grand Avenue requirement.
Ms. Velkover stated that once they remove the fifteen trees from the buffer yard and replace the buffer yard with six ornamental trees, they are still meeting the minimum amount of landscaping required per 100 linear foot along the Grand Avenue buffer yard. She stated in terms of the grand picture, they are not losing any amount of required buffer yard material because replacements will also be planted interior to outlots instead of along Grand Avenue.
Mr. Park stated that it appeared the requirement was not just to have plant material just along Grand Avenue, and therefore it can be just shifted more into the site.
Ms. Velkover responded, no, it was to be along Grand Avenue and that is why this is a major amendment to the PUD. She stated that if they were just shifting it up and down Grand Avenue we would look at that as a minor. She stated that they are actually taking it out of the Grand Avenue buffer. She then stated this is a request they are seeing more of from developers and property owners along Grand Avenue. She stated that Applebee’s as well as other business have made requests as well. She stated they had no idea how the trees would grow up and interfere with views into the buildings and stated this may be something that the commission may see more of in the future.
Mr. Park stated what he is seeing is that fifteen trees are being removed from Grand Avenue and they are being supplemented by six trees along Grand Avenue(three trees in the buffer yard in front of each outlot); therefore, there is a net reduction of nine trees which is the major amendment.
Ms. Velkover responded, yes, and they are also replacing the fifteen trees.
Mr. Park stated that the rationale here is if a tree substitute is not placed along Grand Avenue that the tree can be replaced interior to the parcel at twice the number removed from the Grand Avenue buffer.
Ms. Velkover stated that is correct.
Mr. Park asked how the proposed monument sign along Grand Avenue differs from the previously approved monument sign on Grand Avenue, other than the fact that the petitioner is asking for two tenant panels instead of a single tenant panel.
Mr. Jerry Engen of United Growth stated the sign along Grand Avenue is theoretically the same except that it will have two tenant names on it versus one tenant name.
Mr. Park asked if the petitioner thought the Phase II parcel is suitable for an independent development. He also asked why the petitioner feels an additional building along Grand Avenue is a positive addition for this project considering complaints that are seen in other areas, in particular the retail project where Amish Furniture is now going out of business. He stated that the complaint was that with all the outlots developed with buildings that you are not able to see the buildings in the main retail center. He asked why this situation does not pose a problem to the overall proposed project.
Mr. Engen stated that there is no site plan and it is correct that they are not bringing it forward as part of the subdivision process now. He stated they did do a number of site plans for that parcel. He stated they worked with Sonic, which they still are, but don’t have a deal yet because they are a victim of the current economic climate. He then stated that they have worked through a number of site plans both for Sonic and other tenants that we are talking with, so we know it works from the standpoint as far as size and configuration.
Mr. Engen then stated from his perspective that choice is always good for the consumer and as Tracy mentioned before, the Board has made a decision not to concentrate the retail and commercial in one location of the city versus doing it here. He stated that he drives up and down Grand Avenue to remind himself of the orientation and notes that there are a number gaps between those buildings. He stated that by adding this building it’s not like adding a large screen that will completely block views. He stated as you drive up and down Grand Avenue looking at this particular parcel there is quite a distance between most of the pad buildings and you have quite a bit of view between those pad buildings back to those tenants (Home Depot, Target) that are along that area. He lastley stated that it is not like it is a solid screen of building pads.
Mr. Park stated that he had no further questions and asked if there any questions on the architecture or any other questions from the commission at this time.
Mr. Robison stated that if Sonic proceeds, to keep in mind that the width of the building is only 30 feet, and the evergreens block more view than the Sonic would. He then stated there would be better views of the building with the Sonic going in than you would have leaving the evergreens there.
Mr. Park stated that the orientation of the building is 90 degrees.
Mr. Robison stated that you might end up getting better views to the backs of these sites with the development of these buildings.
Mr. McFarland asked if the footpad and the windows on the north and south side are the only change to the buildings.
Mr. Robison stated that he forgot to mention the window changes. He further stated when they originally brought it through it did not have windows on the north and south which was an issue that the Plan Commission brought up. He stated that as they started developing the working drawings when it was the Men’s Warehouse, they added the windows. He stated he just forgot they were there already. He stated that is the only change to the façade other than the two entrances and the two signs. He lastly stated the height of the building, the materials, the details are all still the same.
Mr. Park stated there are several different items. A major amendment for an outlot for Phase II; a major amendment for the landscape buffer for the net loss of plant material and substitution of it; a minor amendment for signs and elevations for Phase I; and the request for waiver for a number of the documents.
Mr. Park stated that with no one else coming forward to make a comment on the Public Hearing, that the hearing is closed.
Mr. Nordentoft made a motion, seconded by Ms. Broughton, to forward a favorable recommendation to the Village Board for a second amendment to the existing Grand Hunt Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow the following: a major amendment to allow an additional outlot along Grand Avenue, creating the Phase II lot; a major amendment to the landscape buffer along Grand Avenue which follows the tree relocation and replacement plan as submitted; a minor amendment to the signage standards and the exterior elevations to the 6th outlot as presented; and waiver of the following specific submission requirements as part of their PUD application: a detailed site plan, schedule of development, environmental information, traffic analysis, tax and school impact, market analysis for commercial use and architectural plans, all of which are expected to be submitted upon the presentation of a development.
Roll Call
Ayes: Drennan, Broughton, Nordentoft, Park
Nays: McFarlane, Salmons
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 4-2-0
Mr. Park asked if there were any specific items in particular to regards to the “no” votes.
Ms. Salmons stated the specific items were a combination of everything that just did not sit right with her at this time.
Mr. McFarlane stated that he concurs with Ms. Salmons and further stated that there are signage issues on the street and that there are a lot of distractions on Grand Avenue as it is and would prefer to be able to find the companies when you get inside the development.
3. Final Subdivision Plat: United Growth at Grand Hunt Center Phase II
Mr. Robison noted that the proposal is for Lot 1 Phase II and is on the west side of the detention pond as previously described with the previous agenda item.
Mr. Park confirmed the lot is 0.96 acres, just less than one acre of land. He then stated this is not a public hearing but if anyone wanted to speak on this item to please do so. He then confirmed that this is on for approval of the second lot as approved with the previous agenda item.
Mr. Park asked for comments or questions from the commission.
Mr. Nordentoft made a motion, seconded by Ms. Broughton, to forward a favorable recommendation to the Village Board for the Final Subdivision Plat for United Growth at Grand Hunt Center creating the Lot I Phase II, 0.96 acre site, as presented this evening.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, McFarlane, Nordentoft, Park, Salmons
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
4. Informal Discussion: Bobby’s Driving Range Property
Mr. Park stated this is not a public hearing and it is for a new improved project being proposed for Bobby’s Driving Range Property. He stated public comment would be allowed with no swearing in, and asked for those wishing to comment to please state their name and address and to clearly identify the questions.
Ms. Velkover stated this is for the property at the northeast corner of Gages Lake Road and Hunt Club Road, currently zoned a combination of commercial and residential; with 16.4 acres zoned C/B-2, Community Business District and 11.87 acres zoned R-2, Single-Family Residential. Ms. Velkover stated the petitioner before the commission this evening would like feedback on their concept plan. The village has had a couple of petitions on this property over the years, and based upon staff’s experience we felt that they might need some input from the commission in order to ensure they are on the right track. Ms. Velkover stated the plan before the Commission this evening is approximately 177,000 square feet of commercial, anchored by a 70,000 square foot tenant. The plan also reflects three drive-thru businesses including a pharmacy on a 1.6 acre out lot at the corner.
Ms. Velkovoer stated the preference indicated by the developer is for a grocery store to anchor the commercial center with a two acre out lot on the west end of the site for a day care center and a five acre out lot north of the day care center for a 94 unit supported living facility. Also detention is proposed on 2.6 acres located at the northeast corner of the property. In addition, the plan provides a 30-foot buffer to Hunt Club Road, a 22-foot buffer to Gages Lake Road, a 30-foot buffer to the north, and at this time there is no information regarding what the setback is to the east property line.
Mr. Kirk Hudson, Vice President of Sales with Vranas & Chiaros Real Estate Group stated his company is engaged in commercial real estate and development and they represent Mr. Jacob Monahiem, developer and contract purchaser of Bobby’s Driving Range Property located at the northeast corner of Hunt Club Road and Gages Lake Road, in Gurnee.
Mr. Hudson stated that in May of 2008 they had the opportunity to view the site for the first time and at that time Mr. Monaheim decided to pursue a commercial retail development for this parcel. They looked at developing a center that would be neighborhood friendly, provide short term and long term jobs for the area and provide a great source of tax revenue for the Village.
Mr. Hudson noted the center would be built in a park type setting, taking advantage of the retention ponds and the neighborhoods to the north and the east. Walkways within the center would provide pedestrians and neighbors use of the facilities, stores and services without using a vehicle. Park bench settings would be provided as well.
Mr. Hudson stated the center itself would be built on a 15.6 acre site of the total property and consists of 162,610 square feet of inline stores and out lots. He stated the plan is for a national drug store chain to take the corner of Hunt Club Road and Gages Lake Road.
Mr. Hudson stated they are in negotiations with a senior housing project and a premium day care provider. The day care provider would take the two acre site along Gages Lake Road and the senior housing project would be directly behind the day care on a 5 acre site consisting of a 92 unit Independent Living facility.
Mr. Hudson noted the center would be anchored by a 70,000 square foot full-line grocery store, He noted the balance of the stores in the center would be leased to retailers and service providers that are needed in the community including full service restaurants, coffee shop, banks with drive-up facilities, higher educational bookstores, teacher programs, dry cleaners, beauty shops, nail salons, eyeglass providers and physicians.
Mr. Hudson stated the information he received from a marketing study shows a grocery store could be easily supported in this area as the closest grocery stores, Jewel and Dominick’s, are located on Grand Avenue and Hunt Club Road. He said the centers they are located in are 90% – 98% leased. He stated this site is at least two miles away from that area, which would be a secondary market in a primary area and he doesn’t think they would affect that area by much. He stated according to his information they would be pulling customers from the immediate area plus northern Libertyville, Grayslake, and also close enough proximity to east Gurnee and Waukegan.
Mr. Hudson stated they want to develop the center into a park-like setting, which includes fountains in the front. He said they want to be very community friendly so that people use development not only by automobile traffic but pedestrian traffic as well.
Mr. Hudson stated it was his understanding, based on a market study, that a grocery store in this area would produce $27.5 million dollars in gross sales in the first year. He stated the store they are looking at is between 60,000 square feet to 65,000 square feet which would be close to their 75,000 square foot store.
Mr. Hudson said that the residents in the senior housing project would also use the convenience of the center as well as parents picking up their children from the day care facility.
Mr. Hudson noted the household income in the market area of the property is $97,200 per year and the average age of persons is 36.9 years, which lends to money and youth, which provides growth. He also stated the center can handle the population growth in the future.
Mr. Hudson turned the floor and presentation over to the architect, Mr. Richard Schultz of Capital Design, to explain more details of the center and the elevations.
Mr. Schultz stated they have tried to break up the elevation with different materials and different heights to create a neighborhood setting using face brick, stone, shingles, and various wood elements. He stated they have clear stories, which would be lighted to emphasize the center. He explained the rear of the center would match the front of the center due match the elevations of the senior housing, which would be located behind the center.
Mr. Schultz said the site plan includes the fountains, walking paths from the neighborhoods through the pond area between the senior housing and the day care center.
Ms. Salmons asked clarification on entrances (ingress/egress), the traffic pattern, and if they had spoken to the Lake County Department of Transportation.
Mr. Schultz responded that a meeting took place with the Lake County Department of Transportation about site access. He stated that they would put in a street directly across from the drive for the church, located south of the proposed site. He stated a full access on Hunt Club and a right-in and right-out is requested onto Gages Lake. He stated internally the flow is through a ring road around the site.
Ms. Salmons asked why a cul-de-sac is proposed and if it was necessary.
Mr. Schultz responded the cul-de-sac is necessary for the senior housing and day care center.
Ms. Salmons stated she found the traffic pattern to be a little awkward.
Mr. McFarlane asked if the buffers proposed are smaller than what they normally see.
Mr. Schultz responded the buffers on Gages Lake & Hunt Club meet the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Velkover stated that under straight zoning the zoning ordinance’s parking setback would be five feet which is why in an annexation or PUD agreement this setback is negotiated. She stated the last plan on this property proposed a 30-foot buffer along both Gages Lake and Hunt Club Road and it appears that scaling off the current plan the setback is around 22 feet for Gages Lake. Ms. Velkover added the buffers to the north really depend upon the intensity of the development. A 30-foot buffer might be fine for a neighborhood commercial but this is more than a neighborhood commercial, and as such a greater buffer should be provided to the residential.
Mr. McFarlane stated that the scale of this plan feels very large and for a site of this size, more of a buffer is needed regardless of what the ordinance requires. He stated the feedback the last time they saw the property was that they were trying to create a neighborhood feel and center. He stated the size of the proposed plan would require traffic from Waukegon and Libertyville to make it economically viable. He stated it just looks huge.
Mr. McFarlane asked if the senior suites are assisted living or independent living.
Mr. Hudson responded it is 94 units, independent living and not people who cannot get around. It is people who can use the services and go to the stores.
Mr. Farlane asked to define this, it is independent persons who can drive and seniors, 55 years and older.
Mr. Hudson stated 55 years and older. He stated that Lake County approved a PUD, across the street on the southwest corner of Gages Lake Road and Hunt Club Road, 94-units mixed use condos and town homes. He stated once this is completed they will also be customers for the retail stores and services in the proposed center.
Mr. Drennan commented that this plan seemed very condense and appeared there was a lot going to be put into the area. He stated if the neighborhood wanted to walk in then they may not want people walking through their neighborhood. He stated it would be nice to have their feedback. He asked where everyone would be parking for the grocery store and where the different entrances would be located as half of the parking is in front of the store and half of the parking in back of the store.
Mr. Hudson said both corners would have entrances to the grocery store.
Mr. Nordentoft commented that the scope and scale of this project has a feel of a regional retail center. He stated the feeling of the general body, in the past, was that this is not an appropriate corner for a regional type of an operation. He stated it screams regional with a 70,000 square foot anchor tenant..
Mr. Nordentoft asked what other use would end up in the 70,000 square foot anchor tenant space if the grocery store failed. He stated nine basic out lots blocking the entire perimeter which he does not feel is ultra appealing. He stated the fountains are nice as well as the senior housing option and day care center concept. He stated past plans were heavily single family orientated, placing an undue strain on the school system. He stated linked pedestrian wise to neighborhoods is good, and not with roads.
Mr. Nordentoft stated the traffic pattern creates a multitude of conflict points and is challenging He stated this center would have to draw from a very large area and questions if the neighborhood would appreciate the traffic generated from this center.
Mr. Nordentoft stated across the street is a very large church that brings in a lot of traffic on Saturday evenings and a big chunk of Sunday mornings and early afternoons. He stated a big conflict on the cul-de-sac street may be an issue as people enter/exit the church.
Mr. Park asked what the intended difference was on the landscape buffer along Hunt Club and Grayslake; one pattern is a simple light green at the corner and the rest is shown depicting trees.
Mr. Schultz stated it is an out lot.
Mr. Park opened the discussion up to the public for comments/questions.
Mr. Dave Borbath, 6260 Doral Drive, stated he is on the east perimeter of this property on what he refers to as a cul-de-sac, but it’s actually a stub. He asked for a better understanding of the perimeter, not on Gages Lake or Hunt Club but the neighborhood perimeter what is now over the years a decrepit fence line. He stated previous proposals have always involved knocking the stubs through but this proposal appears not to include that.
Mr. Schultz stated there is no access to bring the streets through to the development.
Mr. Schultz answered it’s difficult to comment on the day care center, as they do not know who is taking it yet. He stated the pond will be landscaped according to the ordinance, as well as the senior center.
Mr. Park stated for those on the east, from the north corner of the property, about half of that eastern edge is identified as detention, and only about 25%-30% of the north edge is identified as detention.
Ms. Broughton asked on each side of the anchor tenant building, how many stores would be present and would there be adequate parking.
Mr. Hudson responded they do not know the size of the stores, depends on the type of stores are put in. He said the stores may be larger, they may be smaller. He said they are pursuing a higher education bookstore to occupy 10,000 – 12,000 square feet of space.
Ms. Velkover responded parking is based upon the net area; gross floor area is the only area currently provided and based on that amount, they are under the required parking. She stated typically 1 space per 200 square feet is used because generally restaurants require more parking and when office and storage areas of the center are taken out, you are usually right in the ballpark. She said at this point they are probably under parked especially if there are restaurants.
Ms. Velkover stated the other concern was the parking distribution as the buildings didn’t have parking distributed very well around them. She stated for example, the 14,000 square foot retail area at the north end of the center only has a few parking spaces whereas 70 spaces are required by code and you would have to go across the circulation aisle, which is somewhat of a physical barrier that customers tend not to cross. She said there are a few design issues that could be done better in terms of the parking distribution.
Ms. Salmons asked, regarding the parking and the senior housing facility, would that parking be west of the building or included in the building.
Mr. Hudson acknowledged where the parking would be on the plan.
Ms. Salmons said there are 94 senior suites and 46 parking spaces.
Ms. Salmons questioned where the parking for the day care would be.
Mr. Hudson said they do not have a layout for the day care as of yet and they would be building 10,000 – 12,000 square feet of building for the day care.
Ms. Salmons stated there would be a parking problem. She said looking at the other parking spaces would not bring the available spaces up to 94.
Ms. Velkover said when discussions took place with the senior housing representatives, it was presented to the Village as more of a supportive living facility, where a fairly large percentage of the seniors do not drive. She stated the senior center might be over parked.
Ms. Salmons asked how do the seniors come and go, by bus.
Ms. Velkover answered yes, by bus or vans, which is typical, and used to take the residences to shops, doctor’s appointments, etc.
Ms. Salmons stated she was under the impression it was not quite assisted living.
Ms. Velkover said what was heard this evening is that it is more independent living. The units presented to staff did not have a full kitchen, just a refrigerator and a sink and residents would go down to a dining area for their meals. Ms. Velkover said more details are needed to determine whether the parking is adequate, but believes the senior center is over parked, based on what was heard this evening.
Mr. Winters asked if there was any discussion about the structure itself.
Ms. Velkover stated it was indicated the structure was three stories.
Mr. Park stated putting senior housing is a fine use on this site. He stated there is too much square footage of retail on this site for the type of development that was envisioned by the Village. He also said even if it was a community center site there is still too much square footage. He said the circulation, the amount of parking, the number of out lots as opposed to square foot of retail all pose some serious problems to the success of this center. He stated there are questions about what is an appropriate buffer, parking distribution, the need for nine out lots, circulation around all the out lots why a cul-de-sac as opposed to just a continuation of a drive is proposed, and buffers to the single-family homes to the north and the east. He stated the proposal as presented causes a fair amount of heartburn.
Mr. Nordentoft made a motion, seconded by Ms. Salmons, to adjourn.
Meeting adjourned at 8:49PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne Havenhill
Plan Commission Secretary