The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M.
Plan Commission Members Present: Chairman James Sula, Stephen Park, David Nordentoft,
Sharon Salmons, Gwen Broughton (arrived at 7:50PM)
Plan Commission Members Absent: Richard McFarlane, 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 Joint Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009.
Mr. Nordentoft made a motion, seconded by Mr. Park, to approve the Joint Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009.
Roll Call
Ayes: Nordentoft, Park, Salmons, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain:
Motion Carried: 4-0-0
1. b. Approval of Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009.
Ms. Salmons made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nordentoft, to approve the Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009.
Roll Call
Ayes: Nordentoft, Park, Salmons, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain:
Motion Carried: 4-0-0
1. c. Approval of Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for June 3, 2009.
Mr. Park stated there was an adjustment needed on page 6, the 6th paragraph, 3rd line of paragraph which reads “at Gurnee Mills” should be changed to “at Village Hall”.
Mr. Park made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nordentoft, to approve the Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for June 3, 2009 as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Nordentoft, Park, Salmons, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain:
Motion Carried: 4-0-0
2. Continued Public Hearing: Special Use Permit for Miriam Ramirez (3523 Highland Avenue)
Mr. Mentkowski stated this is a continued Public Hearing previously having met on May 6, 2009 for a Special Use Permit for Miriam Ramirez to allow a home day care center at 3523 Highland Avenue for (15) clients. The subject property is zoned R-2 – Single Family Residence District and is located in the Frederick Bartlett’s Second Edition to North Shore Highlands subdivision. He stated at the previous Public Hearing on May 6, 2009 staff noted a couple of concerns that were raised by the Commissioners which included the (15) fifteen client maximum, the total number of employees, employee parking, drop-off / pick-up schedule, ingress and egress to the subject property and traffic impact along Highland Avenue. He also noted that a follow-up letter from the applicant dated June 17, 2009 was dropped off by the applicant on Monday, June 15, 2009 and that this was essentially a response to the previous Public Hearing comments held on May 6, 2009.
Chairman Sula stated an 8-page document from the petitioner was presented to the Commission right before this evening’s meeting. Chairman Sula stated he does not feel comfortable pursuing this matter without understanding exactly what is being said within the document and moves for a continuance.
Mr. Park asked if the applicant makes verbal testimony, is that different from written testimony in Chairman Sula’s mind.
Chairman Sula stated that may be a question for legal consul, and noted that the petitioner stated within the document (that was just received) they wish to revise their response to Mr. Nordentoft’s question from the last meeting. Chairman Sula asked Village Attorney Bryan Winter how this is dealt with.
Village Attorney Winter responded that this is at the discretion of the Planning Commission. He stated if the majority feels that this is something they wish to take time and read, it could be the Planning Commission’s own motion to continue the matter. He stated it would require a majority vote to do this. He stated there may be other alternatives and it is what the majority of the Commission members feel most comfortable with.
Chairman Sula asked the Commission members how they feel about this.
Mr. Nordentoft stated he just read the document about 1 hour ago from an emailed copy that was sent to him.
Mr. Park stated he did the same as Mr. Nordentoft and noted the information is not rocket science. He stated it is in response to some of the questions that the Commission had raised at the previous meeting and much of this relates to what Mr. Grieve reported on and is included in the Commission’s informational packet.
Chairman Sula stated he did not have the luxury of reading the email and noted he did not have an email upon leaving his office 2 hours ago.
Ms. Salmons stated she read the email earlier and if a continuance is called for, then she feels this is what the Commission should do, so they have a chance to review the entire 8 page document.
Chairman Sula stated he is not comfortable chairing a meeting that he is not prepared with in regards to the information the rest of the Commission already has. He stated he would like to have a continuance and asks staff for the next available date.
Planning Manager Tracy Velkover responded that the next available date is July 1, 2009.
Chairman Sula asked the petitioner if they are available on July 1, 2009.
The petitioners responded yes.
Mr. Nordentoft made a motion, seconded by Mr. Park for a continuance of the Public Hearing for a Special Use for Miriam Ramirez to July 1, 2009.
Roll Call
Ayes: Nordentoft, Park, Salmons, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 4-0-0
Chairman Sula recommended to the petitioner that they should not to present information at the 11th hour as it is not looked at favorably by the Commission.
3. Public Hearing: for Joseph and James Passalino (35957 – 35895 N. Dilleys Road)
Mr. Mentkowski stated the item before the Commission is for a rezoning for Joseph and James Passalino for the property located approximately 35900 N. Dilleys road and is currently unincorporated Lake County. He stated the zoning request is from R-1 Residential District in unincorporated Lake County to the C/O-1, Restricted Office District. He stated that in the Commission’s notes there were some potential recommendations to the Village Board as they relate to a petition for annexation. He stated these are items that can or can not be suggested to the Village Board as the annexation agreement moves forward. He stated what Staff will be looking for is similar to the Petroferm project that occurred a couple of weeks ago. He stated the rezoning should be a separate motion from any annexation petition recommendations to the Village Board. He noted that the applicant is requesting a rezoning to straight C/O-1 Restricted Office zoning and not as a C/O-1 PUD as a Planned Unit Development. He stated that at the informal meeting the applicant was proposing the project as a Planned Unit Development, but after the informal meeting the applicant decided to propose a straight C/O-1 Restricted Office zoning.
Chairman Sula asked for anyone from the petitioner or the general public who intend to give testimony or ask questions of the Commission to stand and be sworn in by the Village Attorney.
Mr. James Passalino stated this is a petition for rezoning of approximately 10 ½ acres on the east side of Dilleys Road. He stated what they envision for this site is a 3 building office development called Bellewater Place Business Center. He explained the first building to be constructed will be at the north end of the property and subsequently 2 additional buildings will be built to form a U-shaped design, all of which will take place over the course of 5-8 years.
Mr. James Passalino stated at the informal meeting Staff and the Commission had expressed some concerns and he feels these are addressed in the new site plan. He stated the first concern is in relation to overall bulk. He noted there were concerns by a few of the Commission members that the buildings may be too big for the site. He stated they have reduced the square footage of the building and have added more parking. He stated the first building (Building 1) is just over 60,000 square feet, Building 2 is 57,600 square feet and Building 3 is 57,600 square feet all being 2-story buildings. He referred to the elevation site plan which shows elevations of the front, back and sides of the buildings, in the French eclectic style, and designed to have more residential than commercial feel. He stated this is what they would like to do with their buildings and noted they have had success in the past.
Mr. Joe Passalino noted they are long time business residents of Gurnee having commenced their first project in 1987.
Mr. James Passalino stated the other issue from Staff was circulation, particularly in regard to cross access to a future development site located just to the south. He stated Mr. Tom Miles, their engineer is present this evening and he has made some changes in regard to this. He stated the size of this building has allowed them to reduce some of the turns before getting to the most natural point of cross access with the property to the south. He noted in most likelihood that would also be a commercial development in the future.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated they built and own Hawkson Hall, a 2 building office development located across the street. He stated they opened in 2000 and 2005 with 2 buildings and envision this project as a similar use with professional offices with very similar clientele that they have across the street. He stated that the comprehensive plan for the Village of Gurnee calls for office research on this property located on the east side of Dilleys Road and this is what they are proposing. He stated they are proposing C/O-1 which is probably the lightest of office type uses that are allowed in Gurnee zoning. He noted they have made a good effort to maximize the distance between the buildings and the 10 (ten) adjoining lots to the east/southeast. He stated there is almost 175 feet from these buildings to the lot lines. He stated that the retention area from the site plan and stated this will be heavily landscaped with screens. He stated they will have the area along the backside heavily screened with evergreens and other types of tree screening shrubs. He stated there will be a six foot high fence to block any headlights from the employee parking. He stated the lighting plan by design will be in accordance with the new lighting ordinance of Gurnee which does not permit any lighting from going off site, and the lighting they will have will not spread off the property line.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated that basically this is a low-traffic use relative to any type of commercial use. He stated many of the people you may see at Hawkston Hall are there for 8 hours per day as their office. He stated they may have some visitors but that is very light relative to a retail or office research use. He then referenced the water tower and Edison easement stating they are far away from any houses to the north and references a public park adjacent to the property. He stated they will put in road improvements including right and left turn lanes which will line up the entrance with the current North Nations Drive. He stated they do not foresee a traffic light at this location but it will be up to the traffic study. He lastly stated they have tried as much as possible to make this light office use building as residential in character and very nice looking.
Chairman Sula asked for questions from members of the Commission.
Mr. Nordentoft asked what building materials will be used for this building and if the sides and rear of the buildings will be treated differently from the facades in the front. He stated as a great amount of Building 2 and Building 3 will face quite a bit of residential areas that he would like to know what residents could expect to see from the backside.
Mr. Joe Passalino responded that all four sides of the building will be the same. He stated they will all be a light tumble colored brick similar to what they used on their last project on Rt. 45. He stated the roof will be some sort of nice architectural shingle roof. He noted obviously there will be more decoration on the front of the building compared to the sides or the back. He stated the materials and the look will be similar on all four sides.
Mr. Nordentoft referenced that a 5-8 year build period was mentioned and asked how the site will be handled over this extended period of time.
Mr. Joe Passalino responded what he will propose is to build the northern building first because most of the traffic is northbound on Dilleys Road as it will be the seen most prominently yet being the furthest away and having the least impact on surrounding areas. He also stated they will do the entrance way, retention pond with landscaping. He stated they will do the entrance and the parking lot on the north half, make the building pads for 2 of the buildings and probably won’t do the parking in front of Building 3. He stated they will keep the building pad as well as stripping the top soil on the whole site. He stated basically the perimeter of the property will be done and landscaped and the only thing that will not be finished is one parking lot.
Mr. Nordentoft asked for clarification from the applicant to state that the permanent landscaping or fencing will be going in at the beginning of the project allowing them to mature over the time of 5-8 years.
Mr. Joe Passalino responded yes for the perimeter landscaping. He noted landscaping may not be done for some islands interior to the property.
Mr. Nordentoft asked for a review of what Mr. Passalino envisions as retail being introduced or does he see this strictly as an office / professional use.
Mr. Joe Passalino responded that since their meeting in March the only retail he can envision is once the buildings are built might be an office building kiosk that may sell coffee, doughnuts or gum in one of the buildings off the lobby. He stated after talking with Staff this may be accepted as an ancillary use to a C/O-1 which would otherwise require a special use. He stated other than this they do not envision any other type of retail uses.
Mr. Nordentoft clarified that destination retail was of concern to him and he did not want to see these intertwined on the site.
Mr. Joe Passalino responded if the Commission looks at what they do and what they specialize in (referencing Hawkston and Windsor Court), the other businesses are basically similar to this project which are professional office use.
Chairman Sula asked for any other comments or questions from the Commission and then opened the floor to the public.
Ms. Frenchie Starks, 5368 Sequoia Court, stated that her property line is adjacent to the retention pond. She stated she understands this is supposed to be an office building and that she can see the buildings across Nations Drive from her kitchen window now. She stated a lot of the space in those buildings is vacant and asked why more office space is needed. She asked why this area cannot be kept residential as it is currently zoned residential. She asked for the Commission to keep the zoning residential as it has been for the last (18) eighteen years. She stated she has slowly seen the commercial buildings emerge but bringing this to the east side where it is a residential area is wrong. She also referenced the retention pond and that her patio / back door area will be a swarm of mosquitoes. She stated she has a day care at her residence and if water is sitting in this area it will not be good for her day care children. She asked with empty buildings / empty offices in Gurnee why are there more buildings being built. She stated she is against this and does not want it.
Mr. Roger Gazdzicki, 5362 Sequoia Court, recommended rejecting this petition due to the fact that there are several office buildings in Gurnee which are not completely filled at this time. He stated the initial plan that he had seen mentions the need of these extra building spaces due to the growth in the economy by 2011 – 2012. He stated a 5-8 year plan does not cover that. He stated if this is built for this reason, that one cannot predict the future. He also pointed out buildings that are currently defunct, i.e., the Gurnee Ford Dealer on Rt. 132 and the building on Wadsworth Crossing that was never built. He stated he doesn’t know what the economy holds and that there are a lot of projects and buildings going up and Gurnee does not need another building in this area. He stated he believed the buildings across the street are at least 50% vacant. He stated if the economy was able to survive for these buildings that are being built then what is being said by building this development is that the economy will grow 3 times bigger and 3 times stronger than it was in the past. He stated obviously there would be a need for more buildings for people with failed businesses who moved out of the other ones and that those would need to be refilled plus more. He lastly requested that the Commission to reject this proposal.
Mr. Carl T. Mazur, 5359 Balsom Court, stated that he lives within 500 feet of the eastern boundary of the proposed development and that he and his family have been residents of the Village of Gurnee since March 1993 when they moved from the City of Chicago 16 years ago. He stated at that time the population of Gurnee was 6,100 people. He stated they decided to settle in Gurnee for several reasons and move to a community that provided a small town atmosphere. He stated they realized all things in life are subject to change and the expansion of both residential and commercial projects in this community were to be expected as a fact of life. He stated there are limits to what some of those here are willing to tolerate. He stated as residents themselves, in what type of community do they wish to live. He noted as a resident of this Village in living within the 500 feet boundary he believes the following concerns must be addressed. He stated his first concern is with parking and according to the land plat and the proposal he received from the Village Hall, the parking is for 509 vehicles and his concern is parking lot lighting. He asked what types of light fixtures will be used, how tall will the fixtures be and what hours would the parking lot lighting be illuminated. He stated his second concern is regarding entrance / exits onto Dilleys Road. He feels if this project is built, a traffic control light would be necessary as there are children in the neighborhood and as the traffic on Dilleys Road travel at least the speed limit of 40 mph along with some traffic traveling as high as 55-60 mph. He asked who will pay for the stop lights; the developer or the Village. He asked if the Village of Gurnee will be offering any type of tax breaks or other incentives that will require the use of Village tax dollars for the benefit of this development. He noted as stated on the other proposal and already brought forward for attention is that this project is being built on the assumption that business will be better as the economy improves. He stated again that there are vacant office spaces across the street and asks if they really need more in the community. He asked that the members of the Village Zoning and Planning Boards as well as the Honorable Mayor to please listen to the residents who have supported and elected them to make wise and careful decisions for those who call Gurnee, Illinois their home.
Ms. Cheryl McDonald, 5351 Joshua Court, stated the retention pond will be in her back yard. She stated this residential district which is in unincorporated Lake County should not be rezoned. She stated this project will lower her property value in this area. She stated her first home was in Gurnee and after traveling all over the world because her husband was in the military she chose Gurnee, Illinois out of all the other stated for a home, because she sees it as a nice quiet country kind of living atmosphere. She stated this would be broken as she would have a retention pond and an office building as a back yard. She also stated the night time lighting would disturb her family’s sleeping at night no matter how tall the buildings may be. She stated to not forget about the increased traffic which they have more than enough of due to Six Flags, Gold’s Gym, KFC and Culver’s to mention a few. She stated with a retention pond, homeowners like her may need to take out flood insurance. She asked what guarantees them that the retention pond will not flood. She stated there is a lot of flooding taking place in Gurnee and she thought she was safe from that, due to where she lives. She stated now she may not be safe from flooding and may have to buy flood insurance. She stated many plants and wildlife will be destroyed if this land is rezoned. She stated numerous trees will be cut down and many animals including but not limited to skunks, possums, birds and raccoons would be harmed. She stated animals do come into her yard and she thinks how nice that it is that wildlife does live in this area. She stated she does not want this land rezoned and to please leave it residential. She asked if the Commission or their families would want this coming to their backyards. She asked if the Commission would want to put up with increased traffic, night time lighting, lower property values and possible flooding for their life style and their families.
Mr. Jerald M. Burkart, 1638 Pinetree Drive, stated with the proposal of 509 parking spaces, this is a potential of 500 cars. He stated the traffic on Dilleys Road is outrageous now and that there are times you have to sit through 2-3 light cycles when trying to turn west onto Grand Avenue. He stated the traffic gets backed up past Nations Drive and more traffic is not what is needed. He stated the lights in the parking lots are a major factor. He said he had heard the building would be similar to the building located across the street on Nations Drive and that building from his house looks taller than Key Lime Cove. He said homes are 2-story but this speaks of 2-story plus perhaps 8 feet of roof which makes the proposed building look a lot taller. He stated he would recommend having a limit in height for the buildings that is closer to the height for residences in the surrounding area so as to look more appealing for those wishing to sell their homes to potential residents who may want to move into one of the homes in the area. He said, as stated before, there are a lot of office buildings in Gurnee on Nations Drive and down Milwaukee that are half vacant. He stated he doesn’t know why Gurnee needs more office buildings and believes it should be kept residential.
Chairman Sula asked for any other statements from the public. With no other public coming forward, the floor was closed to the public.
Chairman Sula stated the Plan Commission strictly deals with land use and does not get into discussions about incentives or tax breaks. He said if this goes beyond the Plan Commission and to the Village Board that is the appropriate body to take that question to.
Chairman Sula stated in relation to lighting and from what he has heard in testimony the petitioner would conform to the existing lighting standards and asked Mr. Mentkowski to describe some of the standards of the lighting ordinance.
Mr. Mentkowski responded the lighting plan is proposed to meet the current regulations. He stated there will be requirements stating the night time lighting and that there will be limitations on the height of the light poles and that Staff would work with the applicant because there are specific requirements for cutoffs for lights so lighting shines down and out and not toward residential areas.
Ms. Velkover added that the petitioners have done a lighting plan and a lighting ordinance was adopted about 6-7 years ago and is pretty restrictive. She stated the ordinance has levels both horizontal and vertical photometric levels that can be at property lines depending upon if it adjacent to a residential property line or a commercial property line. She stated the ordinance has operating hours and security hours. She noted the ordinance has a maximum height for a parking lot light fixtures which is 25 feet and she believes this is what the petitioner is proposing. She stated there are maximum wattages, maximum foot candle levels interior to site plus at property lines as well as a requirement that lighting is reduced for security hours which are defined in the ordinance as (1) one hour after the close of business to (1) hour prior to the open of business. She stated it basically must go down to less than half of the lighting, closer to (1/3) one-third and photometric requirements as far as the security hours.
Chairman Sula stated there were two questions relating to retention ponds. He noted one question relates to whether or not they foster the breeding of insects and other pests and the other question related to flooding.
Mr. Ziegler stated the retention pond is proposed as a wet bottom detention basin which is required to have aeration systems to lessen the chance of breeding mosquitoes and to keep the water circulating so it does not become stagnant. He stated as far as the flood insurance, the detention pond has been designed by licensed professional engineer and has been reviewed at Staff level on a preliminary basis and everything appears to be in order. He stated the only requirement for flood insurance would be if FEMA declares the area a special flood hazard area which does not happen based upon creation of detention ponds. He stated those are basically depression storage areas which are along rivers and streams and that would not happen here.
Chairman Sula stated the rest of the comments dealt with property values, bulk as it relates to close to residential, vacant office space within the Village and why is more office space being proposed. He stated this is where the Commission gets involved in this matter. He stated that the comprehensive plan did envision that this particular parcel was eligible to be converted to commercial office within the Village but the Commission has an obligation to consider whether or not they are creating white elephants or whether it is a justified need or not as part of the Commission’s deliberations. He stated what the petitioner is asking for is not totally outside the reach of what was envisioned by the Village when the last comprehensive plan was put together.
Mr. Park asked Staff to double check the regulation book and to identify some of the non-office uses that are allowed in this zoning district.
Ms. Velkover responded that basically permitted uses are all office with some permitted uses for public education, utility, forest preserve, park and playground, and single family is allowed by right. She stated after that it is special uses with a limited list of retail uses which are drugstore and pharmacy, medical appliance store, optician sales, and restaurants. She stated there are service uses like an artist studio, bank, barber / beauty shop, credit union, dental/medical laboratory, financial institution, funeral parlor, photographic studios, telegraph office, ticket agency office, travel agency, animal hospital / veterinary clinic, public education, utility, fire station, police station, pumping station, business college / commercial school, special use as a residence for a proprietor, caretaker of a commercial use as well as health care/medical facilities that are also special uses such as a daycare center, nursery, nursery schools, geriatric centers and nursing homes.
Chairman Sula stated basically what this is saying for the benefit of the people that are in attendance is that the uses that people generally come once a day and park for the day are all allowed by right by the underlying zoning. He stated anything else that generates traffic and random traffic patterns would require a special use permit.
Ms. Velkover responded yes to Chairman Sula and that an applicant is basically limited to office uses and anything else is limited in terms of retail and service.
Mr. Park asked for verification that a special use has not been included with this application.
Ms. Velkover responded that is correct.
Mr. Park asked if the retail component that was discussed at the request of Mr. Nordentoft in regards to the mentioned coffee area would or would not be permitted by right.
Mr. Mentkowski responded that it would not permitted by right and this is one of the discussion points because it doesn’t really fit into the existing zoning ordinance as an accessory use. He stated it would have to go through the similar and compatible use process whereas the petitioner would probably be better off going through the special use process. He stated one of the things proposed in talking with Staff was to possibly allow these as part of the annexation agreement as any internal small non-permanent kiosk coffee shop that serves the office areas. They are looking at something like this as a permitted use by right. He then referred to the floor plan of the building and stated that through the main entryway into the lobby there would not be a particular permanent business in the lobby and to essentially envision a small little table or kiosk where coffee, bagels or doughnuts would be sold in the morning.
Mr. Park asked if this would be a permitted use rather than as a special use if the ordinance provides for it.
Mr. Mentkowski responded that it would be a permitted use if the agreement were amended to allow it.
Mr. Park stated as he understands, the sign package as proposed does not meet code and would require special approval as well, and asked if this was properly noticed.
Mr. Mentkowski stated that it is not on for action tonight. He stated this is something that was sent to Staff a little late to notice it for a public hearing and stated there is already a process for this in the current sign code for what they are requesting. He stated it is Staff’s recommendation that they stay within the existing zoning ordinance and would have to apply for a special use for the wall signs they are requesting.
Mr. Park stated his last question is in recalling discussion in the notes and materials about a traffic study or lack thereof. And he stated that there is no traffic study as part of the application to support this request.
Mr. Mentkowski responded that they had submitted a traffic study to Lake County but it was over a year old. He stated it is his understanding if a traffic study is over one year old it must be redone.
Mr. Parks asked if there is a traffic study in their Commissions materials supporting this application.
Mr. Mentkowski responded there is no traffic study and stated the only thing Staff has received which was this week from Bill Grieve is regarding a couple of thoughts regarding the plan that he had reviewed. He stated that Bill Grieve is waiting to do a full review once the traffic study is re-completed.
Chairman Sula asked if there was a formal traffic study.
Mr. Mentkowski responded there is no formal traffic study but pointed out that it was stated by Bill Grieve that internal circulation and parking orientation are both reasonable and that Lake County DOT may require more internal stacking. He stated for cross access Mr. Grieve stated the connection at the south is probably at the best spot and there may be greater concerns as one moves to the east. He stated that the key to this project will be to help warrant the traffic signal at north Nations Drive.
Chairman Sula asked Mr. Mentkowski if there was a formal traffic study that the Commission can rely on for recommending purposes.
Mr. Mentkowski responded no.
Ms. Salmons asked if Gurnee has an ordinance for times for office buildings as far as being open from 7:00AM to 5:00PM and if so, the Commission could address the lighting now as they have to go down to 1/3 and it would not be an issue if the lights were turned down by 7:00 o’clock.
Chairman Sula stated procedurally there are two issues here. He stated one issue the Commission is dealing with is whether or not the Commission wants to recommend the property to be rezoned. He stated separate from that which is outside of zoning are the rules of the property. He stated separately the Commission can make thoughts for consideration to the Village Board as it relates to things for the Village Board in their prevue to consider as it relates to an annexation agreement. He stated the Commission needs to be careful as far as lashing on lighting per say, because it is really two separate issues on what the Commission can formally recommend versus what the Commission can give as input to the Village Board at this particular stage.
Chairman Sula stated the Commission should deal with the rezoning issue first and then depending on where that ends up to come back and deal with anything the Commission would like to present to the Village Board as it relates to consideration for the annexation.
Mr. Nordentoft commented as you look at the Dilleys corridor basically from Pinewood north, there is already a stretch there that is zoned C/O-1 and this would make this a contiguous C/O-1 all the way up to the power lines. He stated it is appropriate to examine this as an office corridor and where he has a rub is just the size. He stated the petitioner has stated he is trying to make this project have a residential feel and stated if you look at the existing residential area, for the petitioner to blend in with this area, this is not a match to the area. He stated he thinks the parcel overall as an office use could be appropriate when you look at the corridor and that the comprehensive plan is what the Village had envisioned. He stated however, this particular project seems to be a bit out of scale relative to the rest of what is up against it. He stated when statements are made that the project is trying to be made a more residential feel and more in harmony with what is up against it, it does not match.
Chairman Sula stated this is kind of blurring the lines in terms of rezoning versus annexation agreement, however he believes Mr. Nordentoft’s points are valid. He stated Dilleys Road kind of creates a natural barrier in terms of the stuff that is on the west side of Dilleys and is a little bulkier. He stated on the east side of Dilleys there is vacant land and then the single family homes. He noted going south, there is some commercial but it is more adjacent to other commercial or multi-family homes which is more of a transitional use in terms of how things are blended historically in overall planning. He stated this is a little problematic in terms of the bulk.
Ms. Broughton stated this is too big and too close to the housing to the east.
Chairman Sula stated it is really close and bulky and this is what gets into the details of the annexation agreement versus the straight rezoning. He stated what troubles him most is in terms of dealing with whether or not to address the zoning issue is lack of a formal traffic study. He also stated in terms of whether or not the infrastructure improvements as portrayed to the Commission are feasible with traffic conditions. He stated he would like to see a formal traffic study before he acts upon a rezoning exercise.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated there was a formal traffic study done (2) years ago.
Chairman Sula stated it is the Commissions understanding that any traffic study done more than (1) year ago is not valid.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated for the Lake County Division of Transportation. He stated there was one done and submitted to the Village as part of this whole package on the PUD and when they had the informal meeting in March. He noted that indicated no warrant for a traffic light, etc. He stated they will redo one as IDOT requires it and that will be redone. He stated he is not sure what this has to do with the rezoning.
Chairman Sula responded in terms of what this has to do with rezoning is whether or not the traffic pattern that is proposed is feasible and allowable by the powers that be that make the traffic decisions.
Chairman Sula asked if Mr. Grieve has looked at the (2) two year old traffic study.
Ms. Velkover responded the traffic study was provided to Mr. Grieve. She stated as Mr. Mentkowski noted that Lake County will not accept anything older than (1) one year. She than stated in regards to the question from the public referring to a traffic signal at the location and who would pay for it – she noted when the property across the street, Key Lime Cove came in for the resort development, in their agreement / special use permit is language that puts the hotel on the hook for a potential signal at that location and they will pay a certain percentage / dollar amount. She stated this developer would be responsible for the additional cost. Ms. Velkover noted there might be the ability for them to recapture some of that as there is some office property further south and that with the cross access, they might benefit and this could be a possibility.
Ms. Velkover referred to the question regarding the height of the building and residential height. She stated residential height is allowed at 35 feet in height and office buildings in a C/O-1 district are allowed at 40 feet in height. She stated the building height is measured to mid-peak of roof. She noted with a building of this scale it will actually be more than 5 feet difference between a residential and an office building.
Chairman Sula asked Ms. Velkover if the traffic study is something that would be useful to the Commission even though it is 2 years old. He noted that Key Lime came on after that and he wonders if their submission and some other available information that Mr. Grieve could make comments on would be beneficial to the Commissioners.
Ms. Velkover responded she doesn’t know if Staff has any written comments from Mr. Grieve, but they do have that traffic study that could be provided for the Commission. She stated the question going forward is, does the Commission want to approve something without an updated traffic study.
Chairman Sula stated he would hate to see the Commission base a recommendation on something that is not valid.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated they have commissioned an updated study which will take a couple of weeks to do. He stated if the study warrants a traffic signal they will probably proceed on that basis and they are at the mercy of the traffic study at this point. He stated they have spoken with Staff and if needed they will do as Key Lime Cove had to do in presenting some sort of line of credit, which he believes is up to $225,000.00. He also stated this could also include some sort of time limit on when they would responsible for this line of credit, if the traffic study didn’t warrant it upon completion of the study. He stated this is not necessarily a deal breaker for them and they are not fighting it if the traffic study warrants it. They don’t feel the study will warrant a traffic signal as they do not believe the traffic has changed up that way. He stated in terms of Key Lime’s opening over a year ago, as most of their traffic comes in from the south side on Nations with very little traffic on the north.
Chairman Sula asked if he needs a couple of weeks to update the traffic study.
Mr. Joe Passalino replied they have to allow the professional consultant time to update the study which should take a couple of weeks for him to do this.
Chairman Sula stated if they need a couple of weeks to get a traffic consultant to update the traffic study and time for Bill Grieve to review it, the Commission would be best served by going down this path and it sounds to him that a continuance would be in order. He stated allowing two weeks for traffic study on behalf of the petitioner and some time for Bill Grieve the next available date for a meeting allowing enough time for packets to go out would be August 5th.
Mr. Joe Passalino asked how this will change the Commissions view on zoning if it is said a light must be put in, which they will do or not do if it is not needed. He stated this really has nothing to do with zoning of the property in terms of usage as it also complies with the comprehensive plan. He stated this isn’t really the same issue as rezoning.
Chairman Sula responded the traffic study will give the Commission key information that they need to consider in terms of the other recommendations for the Board to consider as it relates to annexation agreement issues. He stated by having the traffic study upfront he believes in the end the process will be streamlined.
Mr. Joe Passalino responded he would like to get in for this meeting in mid-July.
Chairman Sula encouraged Mr. Passalino to ensure that their traffic consultant gives Mr. Grieve plenty of time as the Commission does not take lightly to springing last minute information on them with not enough time to review it.
Ms. Velkover stated the meeting date would be July 15, 2009.
Chairman Sula stated a motion to continue to July 15, 2009 would be in order.
Ms. Broughton made a motion, seconded by Ms. Salmons to continue to the Plan Commission Meeting on July 15, 2009.
Roll Call
Ayes: Nordentoft, Park, Salmons, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 4-0-0
Chairman Sula asked for motion to adjourn.
Mr. Park made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nordentoft to adjourn.
The Meeting was adjourned at 8:35P.M.
Respectfully Submitted:
Joanne Havenhill
Plan Commission Secretary