The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M.
Plan Commission Members Present Chairman James Sula, Stephen Park, David Nordentoft, Sara Salmons,
Gwen Broughton, Patrick Drennan
Plan Commission Members Absent: Richard McFarlane
Other Officials Present: Bryan Winter, Village Attorney; Tracy Velkover, Planning Manager; Molly Bacon, Associate Planner; Ryan Mentkowski, Associate Planner
1. a. Approval of Joint Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes for January 28, 2009
(Plan Commission only)
Mr. Nordentoft made a motion, seconded by Ms. Broughton, to approve the Joint Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes for January 28, 2009.
Roll Call
Ayes: Sula, Park, Nordentoft, Salmons, Broughton, Drennan
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
b. Approval of Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for February 18, 2009
Ms. Salmons made a motion, seconded by Ms. Broughton, to approve the Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for
February 18, 2009.
Roll Call
Ayes: Sula, Park, Nordentoft, Salmons, Broughton, Drennan
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
2. Informal Discussion: Gurnee Fuel Stop Addition
Ms. Bacon, Associate Planner, stated Mr. Thomas Chummar is seeking informal feedback on a proposed development plan at the existing Gurnee Fuel stop located at 2301 North U.S. Highway 41. The development plan is proposing a new automotive and truck repair facility, a truck parking lot and a temporary boarding facility in Unit C of the existing retail building. The subject property is zoned C/B-2 PUD and was annexed into the Village in 2005.
Chairman Sula reminded all in attendance this is an informal hearing and is for Gurnee Fuel stop to present information
and that the Commission is not bound or held by anything that is said this evening. In addition, no recommendations would be made to the Village Board this evening.
Mr. John Hulander, representing the Gurnee Fuel Stop, and introduced Mr. Thomas Chummar, owner of Gurnee Fuel Stop, and Mr. Peter Zasadzien, General Contractor.
Mr. Hulander stated Mr. Chummar is proposing to increase his business by building an auto/truck repair facility, having long term parking for semi-trailer trucks (located at the south end of the property) and to convert one of the retail spaces into a boarding area for over-the-road truckers to rest, shower, and spend the night.
Mr. Hulander stated there are a lot of these facilities located in truck stops along I-80 and I-90 and the thought process is to boost Mr. Chummar’s business in a number of ways. He also stated that Mr. Chummar and Mr. Zasadzien have met with staff to discuss how this would be operated. He stated that to his knowledge a number of concerns that were raised by staff have been addressed and he believes this is becoming closer on an agreement on how this facility would function.
Mr. Hulander stated they elected to come before the Commission on an informal basis to get a reaction before making a formal request to the amendment to the annexation Agreement.
Mr. Hulander also stated they are asking for a third sign along US 41 at the south end of the property in order to direct traffic to the both the new boarding facility as well as the auto/truck repair facility. He stated they would also like consideration to change the middle existing second sign and have a message board on top advertising specials and coming events as a means of drawing more customers into the business.
Chairman Sula asked for comments or questions from the Commission.
Ms. Salmons stated she had no problem with what is being done, but had questions regarding how the proposal is laid out. Ms. Salmons referred to the layout of semi trucks “plugging in” for evening and asked how would semi-trucks be prevented from idling all night versus being “plugged in”?
Mr. Hulander responded idling would be prohibited.
Ms. Salmons stated there is a house to the south and asked that idling would just be prohibited?
Mr. Hulander stated idling would not be allowed.
Ms. Salmons referenced that there is a lot going on with the traffic pattern and in some places it actually looks dangerous. She noted at the southern entrance coming off from Route 41, there are seven parking spots right for automobiles. She stated having seven parking spaces for people to walk across to get to the retail area does not appear to be a safe thing.
Ms. Salmons stated the traffic pattern that is for the semis behind the auto truck repair is two-way. Ms. Salmons asked how wide a semi is and then further commented that 25 feet doesn’t seem wide enough for two-way semi traffic behind the auto repair.
Mr. Hulander responded for a private drive situation he has seen past clients use 21 feet back-to-back for an industrial park.
Ms. Salmons stated this is not an industrial area. She said this is mixing automotive and retail with both cars and trucks which is her concern.
Ms. Salmons stated with regard to the third sign, she would rather see the two existing signs be redone. She stated this is a really busy area and third sign may detract from what someone is doing on Route 41 which could be a lot of trouble.
Mr. Hulander asked what Ms. Salmons meant by detract?
Ms. Salmons replied taking eyes off the road.
Mr. Park stated he had a couple issues. The first issue is problems with sign and the message center that is being discussed. He stated the second issue is the circulation on site is convoluted and isn’t clear for circulation and could be improved. He stated one-way drives and two-way drives being so close on the south side of the main loop is a concern. Mr. Park noted there needs to be concern about the setbacks not just from residential to the south but also what the appearance would be along the main road and Route 41. He stated the concept for offering truckers a place to rest and clean up is manageable with good controls. He also stated concept of having a service operation poses no concerns and this is a very good location for this type of service. Mr. Park stated there is more attention needed for the details and how this would all lie out, as well as the signs.
Chairman Sula asked for comments / questions from Mr. Patrick Drennan.
Mr. Drennan stated his comments were similar to what was already noted as well as the traffic pattern. He also stated he was unsure on how it would look having the trucks in the parking spots upfront.
Mr. Nordentoft stated the idea is good to increase business and offer more for the customers. He stated his concern is for the overall site. He stated he has site concerns with spacing and integration for trucks and cars, as well the issues mentioned by Mr. Park. He stated he is a little grey on the motel use and asked staff to further address how things are looking as it relates zoning code for the use of the motel. Mr. Nordentoft asked as presented, are there any conflicts on this?
Ms. Velkover replied she thinks this can be worked out and will work with the Village attorney. She stated this is an annexation agreement in a PUD. She stated if the use doesn’t necessarily mesh with staff’s definition of a hotel / motel, then something else can be worked out within the annexation and PUD agreement. Ms. Velkover stated she felt these issues can be overcome if the Commission is agreeable to this kind of use for boarding rooms on this property for the truck drivers.
Mr. Nordentoft stated he is not ecstatic about it, but thinks there is value to the service and to the truck parking. This would get the trucks off the streets and other commercial sites in town as well as providing the police department with a place to encourage the trucks to go. He stated he sees a community value with this use but wants to make sure this fits in with the code structure.
Mr. Nordentoft stated he is not agreeable with the third signage request and messaging portion of the sign due to public safety issues. He stated he feels it is a bit too much and would rather see a package presented to re-engineer the two signs and see if something can be worked out with those two locations.
Ms. Salmons stated with listening to all the comments so far, one of main the issues seems to be how the traffic will flow and suggested to request a traffic study be done to see how many trucks and cars the site can handle.
Mr. Hulander asked if Ms. Salmons meant traffic engineering for the site or a traffic study.
Ms. Salmons responded traffic engineering.
Mr. Park stated in the notes, that part of the request involves the landscaping/firewood business next door. Mr. Park asked for Mr. Hulander to elaborate on the request for storage of landscape materials.
Mr. Hulander responded in a very twisted and convoluted way. He stated the firewood place has the right to store firewood just past the guard rail on the north end of the fuel stop. He stated he has spoke with Village staff and staff has no problem with the storage of firewood in this vacant area as long as a fence and screening is put up and the request for a special use permit is done.
Mr. Park asked who has given the right for the storage of the firewood?
Mr. Hulander responded the annexation agreement.
Mr. Park asked if this was being changed by fencing a different area or is this the area that is being referred to?
Mr. Hulander responded this is the area he is speaking about.
Ms. Velkover stated she wished to clarify. She stated she disagrees that the annexation agreement does not allow this. Ms. Velkover stated that her understanding is there is a separate side agreement between the owner of the landscape business to the north and Mr. Chummar the owner of Gurnee Fuel Stop. She stated the side agreement allows him to store some materials on this site since the annexation and PUD agreement do not contemplate this. She stated this storage requires a special use permit.
Ms. Velkover stated staff’s concern of the proposed landscape area is 1) that it is screened, and 2) that within the annexation & PUD agreement there is a provision at a certain point that the access to the landscape business to the north will be cut off and that access to that site would be through a cross access easement on the Gurnee Fuel Stop property. She also stated that firewood storage area would be right in the area where the wood would be stored. Staff would need to get something into any special use permit that when the cross access occurs, the proposed landscape storage area would not negate staff from getting cross access and that storage would have to cease.
Mr. Park stated this helps and recalls from the earlier discussion on the entire project with the landscape firewood place that one of his objections was not to allow them to expand because of trying to constrain them. He stated this appears to be allowing them to expand. Mr. Park asked if this is part of the annexation agreement, yet staff is saying otherwise.
Mr. Hulander stated he understands the situation is that the two land owners both annexed at the same time and they came up with a side agreement for leasing this property and the process for a special use permit got started but was never finished.
Mr. Park stated the short answer is that it is not part of the right according to the Village.
Mr. Huldander responded that is correct but it was part of the annexation process as he understands it.
Chairman Sula stated he has a lot of mixed feelings about this entire project. He stated he is not in favor of another sign. He also stated thinking back over the course of time the Commission has struggled with this site because of the floodplain and surrounding wetland issues. He stated he is concerned about adding more traffic to this site and further hampers the ability in keeping the situation mitigated. He also stated he is not all that excited about having any sort of lodging facility on the site as well. He notes part of his concern is about the existing problem where truckers are exiting the Tollway and driving through town to avoid the toll at the Waukegan toll plaza. He stated he appreciates a person’s right to earn a living and make a business thrive but he isn’t sure he wants to create a nuisance on Grand Avenue and Milwaukee Avenue. He stated he struggles with the site in that it is not accessible to traffic from the north without some dangerous maneuvering. He also stated he struggles with attracting more truck traffic to this particular site.
Chariman Sula asked for any other questions or comments.
Chairman Sula stated to Mr. Hulander he should have a fairly good understanding on how the Commission feels with regards to this plan.
Mr. Park asked for motion to adjourn.
Mr. Park made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nordentoft, to adjourn.
The Meeting was adjourned at 7:50PM.
Respectfully Submitted:
Joanne Havenhill
Plan Commission Secretary