The meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M.
Plan Commission Members Present: Chairman James Sula, Stephen Park, David Nordentoft, & Richard McFarlane
Plan Commission Members Absent: Gwen Broughton, Patrick Drennan
Other Officials Present: Bryan Winter, Village Attorney; David Ziegler, Community Development Director; Tracy Velkover, Planning Manager; Molly Bacon, Associate Planner; Ryan Mentkowski, Associate Planner
1. a. Approval of Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for March 11, 2009.
Chairman Sula noted one minor change to be made to the minutes. The last full paragraph on page 4, second to last sentence, he stated to change the language from “northbound traffic” to “traffic from the north”.
With this correction, Mr. Park made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nordentoft, to approve the Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for March 11, 2009.
Roll Call
Ayes: Sula, Park, Nordentoft, McFarlane
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 4-0-0
b. Approval of Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for March 18, 2009.
Mr. McFarlane made a motion, seconded by Mr. Park, to approve the Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for March 18, 2009.
Roll Call
Ayes: Sula, Park, Nordentoft, McFarlane
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 4-0-0
2. Minor Exception for Sign: Local Roofing Co., Inc.
Associate Planner Mr. Mentkowski stated Local Roofing Co., Inc is seeking Minor Exception to the Sign Ordinance to allow a second free standing sign for the property located at 1394-96 St. Paul Avenue. The signs are each 3 feet 4 inches tall and have a sign area of 10.2 sq. ft. The signs are two-sided and non-illuminated. The signs are located on the property that is zoned I-2 PUD in the Gurnee Center for Commerce and Industry. He stated the PUD Agreement for this property regulates the height and size of the signs which can be up to 6 feet tall and 24 sq. ft. in size but is silent on the number. The underlying zoning ordinance applies and, per the sign ordinance, a second ground sign can be approved as a minor exception.
Mr. Nordentoft requested that he be recused from this matter due to a business relationship with the petitioner.
Chairman Sula and the board acknowledges Mr. Nordentoft’s request to be recused.
Mr. Tom Stauffer, from Local Roofing Co., Inc, stated he owns the property at 1394 St. Paul Avenue in Gurnee, which was purchased and had two yard signs with two separate businesses. The businesses are separated with a firewall down the center and have two separate entrances. He stated he is trying to get approval to keep both signs up.
Mr. Park asked what the rationale is for having two signs versus one sign.
Mr. Stauffer responded when the property was purchased there were two separate companies since the time they bought the property which has been less than one year. He stated the existing company is still in the building and when they moved in there was an existing vacant sign. He stated the previous company had a piece of plywood in the sign and the two signs were permanently mounted in concrete. He stated they switched out the plywood and put his sign panel in its place. He noted the two signs are existing and he would like to keep the two companies separate from each.
Mr. Park asked if the company in the building is Mr. Stauffer’s tenant and if the tenant’s lease provides them the right to have a sign.
Mr. Stauffer responded yes to both questions.
Mr. Park asked Mr. Stauffer if he foresees the tenant to be a long term tenant or a short term tenant.
Mr. Stauffer responded the tenant signed a three year lease and they plan on staying at the location for awhile.
Mr. Park asked if the size for Mr. Stauffer’s business is adequate for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Stauffer responded yes, they will be in the location for the long haul.
Mr. Park stated part of his question is whether or not Mr. Stauffer’s business would ultimately take over the entire facility or whether he sees this as indefinitely being two separate businesses.
Mr. Stauffer responded he does not see taking over the entire building. He stated this will be kept as two separate businesses with neither one expanding into the other space at this time.
Mr. McFarlane stated he has no questions.
Mr. McFarlane made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation for a minor exception to the sign ordinance to allow two separate free standing signs on the property at 1394-96 St. Paul Avenue subject to the condition that should the petitioner convert this building to one unit by tearing down the firewall, moving into one unit or any one business taking over the entire space/building, that the petitioner reverts to one sign instead of two signs.
Chairman Sula asked for Ms. Velkover’s comments.
Ms. Velkover clarified the Commission has the final say in this matter. She stated this would not be a recommendation; rather it would be a final decision.
Chairman Sula stated it would be a motion to grant.
Mr. McFarlane made a motion, seconded by Mr. Park, to approve a minor exception to the sign ordinance to allow two separate free standing signs on the property at 1394-96 St. Paul Avenue subject to the condition that should the petitioner convert this building to one unit by tearing down the firewall, moving into one unit or any one business taking over the entire space/building, that the petitioner reverts to one sign instead of two signs.
Roll Call
Ayes: Sula, Park, McFarlane
Nays: None
Abstain: Nordentoft
Motion Carried: 3-0-1
3. Informal Discussion: Thomas Place Senior Independent Living
Associate Planner Ryan Mentkowski stated Ryan Companies, Inc. is seeking informal feedback for a proposed development plan on a 12-acre parcel located approximately 700 feet north of Washington Street on the east side of Hunt Club Road. He stated this is the northern half of the previously approved Courts of Hunt Club which was annexed into the Village of Gurnee in 2007 as a PUD and approved for 58 single family homes on 24 acres. He stated the current proposal would essentially change from single family on the northern half to allow a 150-unit affordable senior independent living facility with three stories of occupied living space and one level (ground floor) of sheltered parking for the residents. The property is currently zoned R-2 PUD - Single-Family Resident District as a Planned Unit Development.
Chairman Sula reminded everyone for purposes of this discussion this is an informal discussion with no formal proposal being made to the Village. This is an opportunity for the potential petitioner to share their concept with the Commission. Chairman Sula stated the Commission will not be making any motions and the Commission is not bound by anything they say or comment on this evening. This is a free-flow exchange of ideas.
Mr. Thomas E. Monico of Thomas & Thomas Associates, Inc., 727 Pleasant Lane, Glenview, Illinois introduced himself and two members of the Ryan Companies, Mr. Curt Pascoe, Civil Engineer and Mr. Daniel E. Walsh, Vice President of Development.
Mr. Monico stated his firm, Thomas & Thomas Associates, and the Ryan Companies have a partnership to develop one half of this site into a 150-unit affordable development. He stated this will be made into a similar project they developed in Fox Lake and Glenview, at The Glen. He stated 100 of the units will be 2 bedroom units and 50 of the units will be 1 bedroom units. He noted all of the engineering has not been completed and the property slopes significantly from front to back. He stated most of the underground or sheltered property would be below grade in the rear and that the slope for the parking grade will be slightly above ground level in the front.
Mr. Monico stated most of the units are fairly large 2-bedrooms with 1033 sq. ft. and tall ceilings and the 1-bedroom units are 784 sq. feet. He stated the exterior will consist of masonry on the first floor and hardy board with masonry material on the upper floors. He stated every unit has a balcony or patio, every bedroom has a walk-in closet, range, refrigerator, microwave, dishwasher and a stackable washer and dryer with the exception of the ADA units which will have a side by side washer and dryer.
Mr. Monico stated they intend to replicate what they built in Glenview and he invited the Commission to visit the Glenview property for a tour. Mr. Monico stated some changes have been made to the common amenity areas and the parking below grade. He noted other than those changes, the proposed project will be very similar to the property in Glenview.
Mr. Monico stated the approximate cost will be $240,000 per unit and they are age restricting every resident in the building to 55 years and older.
Mr. Monico stated the common area amenities consist of an arts and crafts room, library/billiard room, TV lounge with a large screen TV, dining/kitchen area for resident use, and an exercise facility. He noted a baby grand player piano is put into the common area for the residents, they offer free computer service, and there are rooms for relative get together with the residents.
Mr. Pascoe, Civil Engineer for Ryan Companies, stated the site plan layout is on the northern 12-acre portion of the previously approved R-2 PUD. He stated the proposed site plan continues to utilize the access drive on Hunt Club Road that is aligned with the church across the street as this single access point which provides the shared access for both the northern and southern halves of the property.
Mr. Pascoe stated they are looking at potentially grading the property to allow the first floor / garage level to be buried in the front and exposed in the rear as the property slopes approximately 15 feet from west to east. He stated in the rear of the property there is detention as well as a large amount of wetlands and flood plain which makes the eastern six-acres generally undevelopable.
Mr. Pascoe asked the Commission for any questions.
Mr. Park noted there is essentially a one-way circulation system around the building. He asked why is and how does this define who is parking where.
Mr. Monico responded each unit will have one reserved space underground. He stated outside there will be another ½ space per unit and that will be free, first come, first served for employees, etc.
Mr. Monico stated at their facility in Glenview the parking was buried because they are located in The Glen and there is no on-street parking. He stated there are 145 units at the facility and they squeezed in 142 spaces below grade; however they have a younger population at the Glenview site compared to other senior buildings have which tend to be more towards the 70-75 year old range. He noted approximately 125 of the underground spaces are filled and the additional spaces outside are empty at all times.
Mr. Park asked why the one-way circulation system and what mechanism do you define for who parks where.
Mr. Monico responded that the one-way circulation is for trucks and vehicles, which allows ingress and egress for the underground garage, and was the easiest for the residents, causing fewer problems. He noted the Glenview site has the garage in a square with a circulator and signs. He stated the residents do not get confused and there have been no problems at this site.
Mr. Park asked if the parking under the building is two banks of parking or if the entire space underneath is used for parking. He stated the reason he is asking this question is because it appears that the entrance into the underground parking is approximately in the middle of the building in an east-west fashion on both the north and the south side. He asked if this is accurate. He also asked if there is any inter-relationship below grade between the two parking banks.
Mr. Pascoe responded below grade and he believes this is shown in the packet beyond the architectural rendering. He noted the following page shows the lower level layout of the parking which is one drive aisle around the entire lower level with parking on both sides of the drive aisle. He stated this essentially wraps around the building and there is not a connecting drive through the center of the building. He noted because of the layout the entrances can essentially be moved anywhere around the exterior perimeter of the building to allow access to the entire garage footprint.
Mr. Park asked why they are proposing to utlize only ½ of the property. He asked if it is because of the size of the unit or if it has something to do with the property.
Mr. Monico responded they have been looking for sites in Lake County for a long time. He stated the Mayor helped him look at sites in Gurnee a long time ago. He stated it has a lot to do with cost and they are an affordable housing project. He stated they want to keep the rents as low as possible, as affordable as possible for the local citizens. He stated the density in Glenview is 30 some per acre. He stated the Glen has a high density and they wanted this development so they accommodated that to fit the Gurnee area. He stated because they are rental and they are an affordable project they try and keep the cost as economical as possible. He noted in this case they have a rule of thumb number which has been gone over for the 12 acres. He stated he would love to be able to afford 24 acres, but the cost of up-keeping the extra land would severely impact their operating expenses.
Mr. McFarlane asked in regard to the land, if they have purchased this northern property. He also asked if they own the property next door (to the south) and if this was a future development possibility for them.
Mr. Monico clarified that they haven’t purchased the land; they are under option to buy the 12 acres from Phalen Sand & Gravel or an LLC of theirs.
Mr. McFarlane asked if they would see something entirely different on that property to the south versus another proposal like this.
Mr. Monico responded there are a few problems on the south side with the floodplain. He stated this is shown on the site plan. He stated the current owners would like to develop some of what they originally planned for this site, maybe a smaller unit. He said they were open to suggestions and if the proposal were successful he would love to do a Phase II.
Mr. McFarland said that Mr. Monico mentioned affordable housing. He asked is there is a definition under regulations of what affordable housing is and what does affordable housing mean.
Mr. Monico responded there are a lot of definitions of what affordable housing is in the United States. He stated the Federal Government defines affordable housing as anybody below 80% of the average median income as being a low income person. He stated 80% of the adjusted median income is probably what would qualify for a majority of residents in this vicinity and a lot of the neighboring communities. He stated in this case they try to peg their rents at 50%-60%. He noted that most of these would be at 60% of the adjusted median income level for the county. He stated most of their rents would fall into the category of $800 - $950 per month.
Mr. McFarlane asked if their projects in The Glen and Fox Lake are of similar design and considered affordable housing.
Mr. Monico responded yes.
Mr. Monico stated they are directly north of the Kohls Children Museum and the fire station is directly north and right next door. He stated the units are completely sprinkled. He noted the construction in Glenview was finished in mid- September 2007. They did no advertising, with the exception of a small sign located at the front and they took 585 applications for the 144 rental units. To this date they still have 250-300 people on a waiting list.
Mr. Nordentoft asked staff how the density of this project relates to the density at Sunrise across the street.
Mr. Mentkowski responded that he thought the density of this project is lower than Sunrise and that Sunrise is on a parcel approximately 6 acres in size.
Mr. Monico responded he believes that Sunrise is zoned R-2 like this property, but they have a special exemption because it is an assisted living facility.
Ms. Velkover responded Sunrise is different, since it is an assisted living facility and this project is an independent living facility.
Mr. Monico stated this is completely independent, 100% rental. He stated after 15 years the existing owners can make another decision. He stated there are a lot of options and they will need to leave these options open. He stated the options could be whether they would rehab it, continue it as a rental, or if the residents would want to buy the units. He notes a lot of their residents will age in place while they reside there. He stated if residents become non-ambulatory, not being able to live on their own or needing assistance then they would have to leave. He noted they will need a few more services brought to them at the site and he believes they have enough common space to accommodate this.
Mr. Nordentoft asked, other than common areas, if there are services provided for the residents; or is this something that might come down line?
Mr. Monico responded common amenities include such things as a barber/hair salon. He stated after the property is fully rented they will give a 15-20 question survey to their residents asking what other social activities and social services they would like on-site. He noted at the Glenview property he was completely wrong on what the residents would want. He stated he thought the residents would want more social services and instead, the residents wanted more social activities. He stated the residents did not want anything to do with being called assisted living. He stated he felt quite a few residents needed assistance but they wanted to be known as independent. He stated he had even planned for a local grocery store to perhaps bring a meal a day. He stated the residents wanted nothing to do with this. What the residents wanted was activities in the building as well as activities outside of the building.
Mr. Monico stated they do a monthly news letter of activities which include birthdays and, a monthly pot lock dinner. He stated there are a lot of diverse residents living in the community and they all bond together. He then stated they bring in a podiatrist who does in home visits for a reduced cost. He offered the residents an exercise program to be brought in but they prefer to use the exercise room by themselves with no one teaching them.
Mr. Nordentoft asked if an exercise room was provided.
Mr. Monico replied yes.
Mr. Nordentoft asked if there is a kitchen.
Mr. Monico replied there is a small kitchen with a range, stove and microwave. He stated the residents bring their own food for their private parties. He stated in Glenview, the tableware (forks, knives, spoons) is supplied and all they ask is for those to be put into the dishwasher when the residents are finished. He clarified that there are no meals provided for the residents at this facility. The kitchen is an amenity for resident events/parties.
Mr. Nordentoft asked how the facility is staffed.
Mr. Monico replied the residence manager in Glenview lives on-site and a second staff person for the office which equals two full time office employees. He stated in Glenview they have 1 ½ maintenance men but when they originally started they had 2 ½ maintenance men to accommodate all the new residents moving in. He stated after the first year to 15 months they decreased the maintenance personnel to 1 ½ men. He stated they also keep one full-time janitor on staff who vacuums hallways every day in addition to making sure the elevators are working correctly.
Chairman Sula stated one thing to keep in mind is this is dealing with zoning. He stated how Mr. Monico runs his business sounds great but there is no guarantee that any future owners would choose to operate the property in the same manner. Chairman Sula stated the focus needs to remain on whether or not the number of units in this particular development is appropriate for the acreage or for the site in general. The zoning issues must be separate from the business issues. He stated the Commission is dealing with the zoning and they must be careful in seeing if having 150 units on the site is a good thing.
Chairman Sula stated he is a little concerned with what happens to the property to the south. He stated he is somewhat tainted, but he liked what was proposed with the prior developer and thought it was a great and unique development and that they could be proud of as a Village. He stated having affordable housing is something the Village can be proud of as well, but he is a little taken back with how many units per acre proposed on this parcel. He also mentioned his concern for the future developabilitly of the parcel to the south and to the north.
Mr. Park agreed that this is his concern is as well.
Chairman Sula stated he is not sure the surrounding residents would be very fond of this particular development.
Mr. Winter stated that so much of the property is wetland and to calculate the density based the buildable portion of the property results in it being bulky.
Mr. Park stated a good deal was worked with the previous property because of the site conditions and this is not to that stage with the level of information provided. He stated it would have to be the height of the building, the placement of the building, and the grading. Mr. Park stated Mr. Monico said these are issues and that he should be aware that it took quite a lot of work to make the other plan work.
Mr. Park stated his bigger concern, like what Chairman Sula mentioned, is what the residual land along the east side of Hunt Club will eventually be if this sets that stage. He stated he is not sure if this is the best of ideas.
Chairman Sula stated he concurs with Mr. Park’s statement.
Mr. Monico stated there are a lot of sites along Hunt Club Road, including the former driving range, which he has looked at. He stated kitty corner from the former driving range, which is not in Gurnee is already zoned for townhouses and a mid-rise building. He stated they have looked at a few other sites.
Mr. Monico stated he felt given the location of this site, it is ideal for the senior population for a number of reasons. He stated the site is not next to Gurnee Mills and not on Grand Avenue which he felt is a nice buffer from Hunt Club to the residential areas that are located east of site. He stated it is across the street from Hunt Club Park, which includes the aquatic center and a fishing pond which the residents could use.
Chairman Sula stated that Hunt Club Park is probably ¾ mile down the road from the site.
Mr. Monico stated the park is still close by along with the bank at the corner and nearby churches. He stated for a senior population this would be a good site. He said they are trying to stay as low density as possible with making their numbers work and make it something that is digestible by the Village.
Mr. Monico stated that is why they want the 12 acres, even though some is unbuildable. He understands the Commission’s point, but by the same token it is still 12 acres.
Chairman Sula stated if Mr. Monico does go forward with this, a detailed traffic study would be needed as Hunt Club and Washington is one of the most difficult intersections in the area. He noted putting 150 units with 55+ year old seniors puts more cars in and out of the area which does not seem senior friendly.
Mr. Park stated as he mentally goes throughout the sites in the community, and notes what a good parcel is for something like this. He mentions one site which is along Milwaukee Avenue, near Woodlake Apartments, and previously approved for townhomes a couple of years ago. He stated that is a site, from a land use perspective, that would be suitable for this building and notes it is next to an apartment complex that is multi-story. He stated this proposal is much tighter and would have much more affect on the surrounding area for future impact.
Mr. Monico stated each community develops as its own. He doesn’t know which residents will be in each community. He stated in Glenview there were a number of traffic studies in The Glen. He said there is “in” coming from the north and an “out” going south. He said a lot of their seniors have cars but a lot of the cars are sitting in the lot.
Mr. Park asked if the seniors are not as mobile.
Mr. Monico responded they are not moving much. He stated they tend not to move during the morning or evening rush hours. He stated this is what was found in Glenview and believes this would remain the same at most of their sites.
Mr. Park notes the traffic pattern on Patriot Boulevard is very different than Hunt Club Road.
Chairman Sula stated Hunt Club Road, a County Highway, is a designated alternate route to get to Gurnee Mills and is a very busy street. He stated eventually Washington will be four lanes wide from where we sit all the way to Route 45 and will only get busier.
Chairman Sula asked for any other questions or comments.
Mr. McFarlane stated on the flip side, that this counter balances the typical rush hour traffic because these people will be out during the middle of the day when traffic might be easier to navigate.
Chairman Sula stated his biggest concern is the density and what it does to the development potential for the property to the south and north. He also noted that staff may need to look into issues related to the units going from rental to owner occupied. He believes that would cast a different light on how this proposal would be viewed and there would be technical zoning issues to be dealt with.
Mr. Park asked if there is concern of this going from rental to owner occupied.
Chairman Sula responded he was not sure on how the existing zoning ordinances allow this.
Mr. Park asked if it were age restricted or if it was age restricted rental to free market owner occupied?
Chairman Sula responded his concern was rental property going to owner occupied property, regardless of age restriction and something that would have to be looked at from a legal point of view.
Chairman Sula asked for any more questions or comments.
Chairman Sula thanked Mr. Monico for using the informal process and stated it helps the developer in the long run come up with a better development.
Chairman Sula asked for motion to adjourn.
Mr. Park made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nordentoft, to adjourn.
The Meeting was adjourned at 8:15P.M.
Respectfully Submitted:
Joanne Havenhill
Plan Commission Secretary