The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M.
Plan Commission Members Present: Stephen Park, David Nordentoft, Richard McFarlane, Gwen Broughton,
Chairman James Sula
Plan Commission Members Absent: Sara Salmons, Patrick Drennan
Other Officials Present: Bryan Winter, Village Attorney; Tracy Velkover, Planning Manager; Molly Bacon, Associate Planner; Ryan Mentkowski, Associate Planner
Informal Discussion: Bellewater Place Business Centre
Associate Planner Ryan Mentkowski stated Jim and Joe Passalino are seeking informal feedback on a proposed development plan for a 10.55 acre parcel located east of Dilleys Road, opposite the north leg of Nations Drive. He stated the current plan is proposing three separate commercial buildings on the parcel with two of the buildings to be 60,674 sq. ft. and the third building, located in the middle, is proposed to be 57,682 sq. ft. He stated that all three proposed buildings are to be two-story buildings with a total of 179,030 sq. ft. He stated the proposed development will primarily be used as an office complex but contains some uses which are not strictly regarded as conventional office uses. The property is currently zoned R-1, Residential, in unincorporated Lake County.
Mr. Mentkowski stated, to summarize, some of the major concerns from the staff are as follows:
The lack of landscape buffer; buffer yards especially along the single family boundaries; the amount of building square footage on the property; the type of uses marketed for the site as those have not been stated; if there is retail and how
that would affect parking ratios and cause potential for re-configuration of the site plan; and the cross access easement configuration is unusable as proposed on the parcel to the south.
Chairman Sula stated this is an informal hearing with no formal proposal being made to the Village at this time. He stated this is an opportunity for the developer to bounce ideas and for some free-form thoughts from the Commission absent an official proposal and that the Commission is not bound by anything said this evening. He also stated there will not be a motion made at the conclusion of this informal meeting being held tonight.
Mr. James Passalino introduced himself, his brother Joe Pasalino and engineer Mr. Tom Miles.
Mr. James (Jim) Passalino stated the outline that Mr. Mentkowski gave was comprehensive. He stated their hope tonight is to get the Commission familiar with the concept which is similar to other projects they have done in the area. Mr. Passalino asked the Commission for feedback on anything the Commission would like to see with regard to the project.
Mr. Jim Passalino stated the buffer between their property and the six or seven houses to the east would have the detention pond along most of that boundary. He stated it was their intention to put extensive landscaping and/or a fence to minimize the site lines from the residences to their building and they felt it was a good idea to put the pond in the proposed location as it is the low spot on the property and put distance between their buildings and the houses.
Mr. Jim Passalino asked the Commission if there was a question about density.
Mr. Mentkowski responded yes, that was the comment.
Mr. Jim Passalino noted that Hawkston Hall located directly across the street is actually higher density. He stated they have never gotten that kind of feedback on that development and the proposed project is slightly less dense with a more pleasing configuration due to the fact it is a larger parcel.
Mr. Jim Passalino stated the parking ratios are much higher on this property, actually 27 spaces over what is required by the underlying zoning.
Chairman Sula asked for comments/questions from the Commission.
Mr. Nordentoft commented the north building had several entrances on the ground floor which looks like a retail building. He stated this is where the parking issues are being raised because it would change the parking configuration
Mr. Jim Passalino responded they do not expect to have straight up retail. He stated those designations / categories have become blurred in the last few years. He stated what they consider conventional office users are taking storefronts and some storefront users are taking office space. He stated most businesses have become designations of themselves not relying on surrounding businesses as once was the traditional concept for a shopping center.
Mr. Jim Passalino said the idea is to establish separate identity for those tenants who have a separate front entrance and would be limited to those of a certain size. He stated those would be upwards of 3,000 – 5,000 square feet. He stated this makes for better flow around the property from a pedestrian standpoint as well as a traffic flow due to not having the impulse to park nearest to the main front entrance. He said if there was a separate entrance this would be the place a person would want to go.
Mr. Jim Passalino stated they found in the market that this is a desirable attribute to offer to certain tenants.
Mr. Nordentoft commented the Commission would then need to treat this as retail because of this as an option.
Mr. Jim Passalino responded no. He stated the underlying zoning is CO-1 and that would be fine with them. He stated the only additional uses they see would be a possible financial institution or some hybrid uses. He stated he didn’t envision any merchandisers occupying the building.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated one of the reasons they proposed the ground floors is that in Hawkston Hall they have a couple of good size users. He stated one user is Aerotec, strictly an office use who does employment placement, has two of their own entrances on the south end of Hawkston Hall. He noted another tenant, Computer Systems Institute, has 10,800 sq. ft. and has the opportunity to take the other entrance on the south end of the building which would allow them to monitor and control the flow of their students who are there for computer training.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated the idea of a few retail uses was brought up in a conversation with Administration. He stated that the conversation dealt with having the PUD incorporating a few retail uses without having these uses go through a special use hearing. He stated the primary impetus behind this is to build office and professional space. He notes possibly a bank use which would fall into the CO-1 or CO-2 zoning. He stated retail is not their market and they want to keep this strictly office professional. He stated there is a small café within Gold’s Gym and if someone wanted to put in a small coffee shop in the proposed development that might be possible, but not a likely scenario.
Mr. Joe Passalino referred back to his brother’s statement about outside entrances commenting that the flow of traffic, the circulation and parking it is very helpful.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated Sylvan Learning Centers, located at Windsor Court, does not have a separate entrance and generates a little traffic from 5-6PM. He noted another tenant, Huntington Learning Center, moved into Saratoga last summer and wanted a separate entrance. He stated there is now a blend with no true small retailers left in the market.
Mr. McFarlane asked if the façade on all three of the buildings will be the same.
Mr. Joe Passalino responded yes, that all three buildings would basically look the same.
Mr. Nordentoft asked if the buildings would be brick and tile on the front.
Mr. Jim Passalino stated it would be brick and limestone façade, limestone accents, and canopies over most doorways. He stated the pavilions on the end would have canopies or awnings (which are not shown) and architectural shingle roof, a lighter brick with a French feel.
Mr. Park stated the concept of office does not pose a problem for him. He stated the undefined uses need a lot more definition to be understood and during the final application, these uses will need to be fine-tuned. He stated this is not just an issue of compatibility of one tenant to another, but the impact, particularly on parking and visibility.
Mr. Park stated there is too much square footage on this site. He stated the parking worries him not just in the quantity but the location as well. He noted the circulation and parking behind places can work for employees, but depending on the use it cannot be presumed that this will be employee parking. He mentioned with people coming in and out, they will not want to park necessarily behind the building.
Mr. Joe Passalino noted most of the parking at Hawkston is employee parking. He stated parking at this site could also be controlled with internal regulations such as blue stripping vs. yellow stripping. The blue stripping is used for employees and the yellow stripping is used for patrons and with monitoring this goes a long way with controlling usage of parking.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated in being more specific with uses, they will do that. He stated they might throw those out the retail uses of the proposal and go with a CO-1 or CO-2. He noted that is a 99% thing.
Mr. Park stated he knows this is a preliminary and that they are working on their final. Mr. Park stated he felt their objective was to find what issues the Commission would see and what would the Commission pay attention to.
Mr. Joe Passalino asked is the parking and configuration of the parking inefficient.
Mr. Park responded he felt the configuration was inefficient. He also questions the slim ratio of parking - 509 stalls and 170,000 square feet of office space.
Mr. Joe Passalino responded the amount of office space is actually about 144,000 – 145,000 square feet of space with the common area of 20%. Mr. Passalino commented it is less dense than across the street. He stated this property is 10.72 acres and the property across the street (minus the 100 foot berm that was made at the PUD), is 4 ½ acres with 90,000 square feet on that property, which is less dense.
Ms. Velkover noted she did the floor area ratio for Hawkston Hall and the floor area ratio for the proposed development. She stated Hawkston Hall is 0.337 and this is 0.402, which is significantly denser. Ms. Velkover stated not all of this berm/buffer can be taken out – that it would still have some buffer residential to the east. She noted on the Hawkston Hall site (which is an overall PUD), there is joint storm water detention that is off-site. She notes this has storm water detention and this is not comparing apples to apples. She stated the storm water detention area on Bellewater Place would have to be taken out in order to actually be comparing apples to apples and making this denser.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated, to address that and to get the facts straight, 25%+ of Hawkston was the big berm. This is about
1.5 – 1.6 acres of the detention area which is about 15% of the property. The berm alone was over 25% and had a much bigger affect than this detention area by at least 10% or almost double.
Ms. Velkover responded it is taking the building area over the site area.
Mr. Park stated this is something the petitioner needs to do when presenting the facts when applying and moving forward.
Chairman Sula reminded everyone that tonight is dealing with the concept.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated he didn’t want specific things brought in that they didn’t know about and that they don’t believe is the case. He stated he would make a note of this when it comes time for the formal approval or process the Commission would deal with the numbers.
Chairman Sula stated it is important for Mr. Passalino to get on the same page with staff in terms of how the calculation works.
Mr. Nordentoft stated he feels this is dense as well. He states one of his concerns is the buffering between the residential area. He stated typically the Commission always tries to achieve the maximum amount of buffering and screening between residential areas and commercial office developments.
Mr. Nordentoft asked, if considering a PUD, what is seen as being exceptional about this site and what is driving you to make this a PUD rather than straight zoning. Mr. Nordentoft stated usually there is a give and take.
Mr. Jim Passalino responded this is a close question for us. He stated the only advantage going under a PUD that they really found was avoiding the special use permit process in the event they do get a potential tenant that wants the retail space. He stated there are some advantages in going with the straight zoning. He stated Mr. Jim Hayner recommended that they go under a PUD, but he really hasn’t seen much advantage to doing that.
Mr. Joe Passalino responded that he didn’t understand why they are at a PUD at this point. He stated this will be 99% professional office use with CO-1 or CO-2 zoning. He noted he still hasn’t figured this out and stated maybe Ms. Velkover can hallucinate from the Village’s standpoint why a PUD is better, as this is for professional office use as we’ve always done. He further notes they are doing this project and have bought it, because Hawkston has been successful with
90-90% leased up.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated this is a lousy market and they are still holding their own. He stated they are probably crazy for proposing the project this year and are probably the only people loony enough to even step up to the plate to think about it. He notes they are not ones to shirk away from it even with seeing the recessions of the past and they have been doing this for over twenty years. He stated when they first opened Saratoga it was a recession for the first six months of them being open and for the next 2-3 years it was tough and they got through it.
Mr. Joe Passalino states the point of the matter is their concentration market is for professional office use and wants to make sure that is clear to everyone. He further notes, they actually might just go in as straight zoning and they really don’t have the answer to that yet.
Mr. Passalino asked Ms. Velkover for her thoughts.
Ms. Velkover responded it’s their decision and believes it gives them some flexibility for uses they may not have under straight zoning and notes it’s a little bit of a give and take.
Mr. Park asked if under straight zoning would each building have a defined lot with its own parking.
Ms. Velkover responded that multiple buildings are allowed on a single lot.
Mr. Park asked how you would define parking for each building.
Ms. Velkover stated it would be common parking.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated they are starting with the first building by the water tower.
Chairman Sula asked what the thought process is with starting with that building.
Mr. Jim Passalino responded most of the time the traffic flow comes from the south and that building will be the most visible.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated ¾ of the parking goes north here and it’s the first building visible. He stated the 2nd building would then be done and then the 3rd building. He stated if he 3rd building slightly blocked the views that would be okay as the first two buildings would already built.
Chairman Sula asked to elaborate more on the architecture around the building and if the same materials will be taken around the entire building or if something different will be on the backside of the buildings where the residences will be.
Mr. Jim Passalino responded it will be the same face brick and same materials all the way around. He notes the window configuration is a little bit different and a little simpler.
Chairman Sula stated it is hard to tell on black and white drawings, but he likes the apparent curb appeal of the building and the architecture. He said it appears it will be articulate enough, not be boring and pleasing to look at.
Chairman Sula stated there was some commentary in the notes regarding addressing density issues. He doesn’t want to be redundant with what others have stated, but he tends to believe it is over built. He said it’s not inconceivable in a pure office setting with that amount of square footage to need 600 parking places just for employees coming and going in that size of an office complex.
Chairman Sula stated there was some discussion within the notes to accommodate additional parking to go 3 stories instead of 2 stories to decrease the footprint. He would not be a proponent of that. He stated given the proximity to the residential area this would not be a good route to take.
Chairman Sula stated to find a smaller overall footprint of the buildings because parking will be a problem with buildings of that size and the Commission would need some sort of traffic study both as it relates to surfacing from the exterior and circulation flow within the site. He notes with one entrance in/out and the magnitude of the parking it could be problematic at peak times.
Chairman Sula also stated the Commission would like to see more definition of what the target audience is and how this would be marketed. He said they need to work with staff to explore the PUD, vs. straight zoning vs. special use issues.
Mr. Park asked about the south property boundary and what will happen south of Building 3, not just in the parking but detention and access to the south parcel so there is less in access per county requirement along Dilleys.
Mr. Tom Miles responded it is a wet bound detention basin; with the only wet portion being along the east property line.
He notes the section is higher and not wet all the time.
Mr. Park said its labeled wet but not really wet.
Mr. Miles responded this portion is wet, along the south property line. He said it is still a detention basin with the normal water level being up.
Mr. Miles stated a cross access easement was put in closer to Dilleys. He said there have been some questions regarding moving this to provide cross access farther to the south. Mr. Miles stated this probably can be moved and didn’t see it as a major issue.
Mr. Park stated he understood this is partially a Village issue and partially a county issue, and that the end resolution would be part of the final application as they move forward. Mr. Park stated if someone was going to access the parcel to the south, would they access opposite Nations Drive and drive through your parking lot across the face of the building.
Mr. Miles responded correct.
Mr. Park asked if it was practical for persons to come in between the buildings around the side, in the back and then forward.
Mr. Miles stated a traffic study was done and sent to the DOT with approved access for the site. He stated typically a cross access is along the frontage and driving around the building is not the standard way of doing this. He stated with concern to the number of cars, this was extended to provide more stacking.
Mr. Park stated part of the answer is when you have multiple constraints and it is so tight, it is difficult to meet all of the constraints.
Chairman Sula stated it comes back to the density issue.
Mr. McFarlane asked if the façade is not actually flat.
Mr. Jim Passalino answered he has a floor plan and noted it has some relief.
Chairman Sula asked for any other questions or comments.
Mr. Joe Passalino asked the Commission if they liked the project overall. Mr. Passalino noted whoever develops the property to the south will need to get their own primary access by the county.
Chairman Sula stated in terms of Mr. Passalino’s closing question, that the Commission is okay with the overall use but there are serious concerns in terms of how much is going into the footprint of the property, i.e, bulk of the building and parking requirements. Chairman Sula added there are technical issues with staff and they need to figure out the PUD vs. zoning. He also stated the market plan needs to be figured out in terms of who this will be marketed to.
Chairman Sula stated architecturally the project is appealing with curb appeal that the Village is looking for.
Chairman Sula asked for any other comments.
Ms. Velkover stated there is more than the sliver to the south, and that there is a total of six acres with office potential. She stated they typically do not get cross accesses that meander through sites and have parking spaces that back out onto those. She stated this is what staff is concerned with.
Chairman Sula said it is a valid concern.
Mr. Park made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nordentoft, to adjourn.
The Meeting was adjourned at 8:12 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted:
Joanne Havenhill
Plan Commission Secretary