The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M.
Plan Commission Members Present: Chairman James Sula, David Nordentoft, Richard McFarlane, Sharon Salmons, Gwen Broughton, Patrick Drennan
Plan Commission Members Absent: Stephen Park
Other Officials Present: Bryan Winter, Village Attorney; Tracy Velkover, Planning Manager; Molly Bacon, Associate Planner
1. a. Approval of the Joint Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals Workshop Meeting Minutes for May 27, 2009.
Mr. McFarlane made a motion, seconded by Ms. Salmons, to approve the Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for May 27, 2009.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, McFarlane, Nordentoft, Salmons, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain:
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
b. Approval of Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for June 17, 2009.
Mr. Nordentoft made a motion, seconded by Ms. Broughton, to approve the Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for June 17, 2009.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, McFarlane, Nordentoft, Salmons, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain:
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
2. Continued Public Hearing: Special Use Permit for Miriam Ramirez (3523 Highland Avenue)
Associate Planner Molly Bacon stated Ms. Ramirez previously appeared before the Plan Commission on May 6, 2009 requesting a Special Use Permit for (15) fifteen clients. At this meeting the following concerns were raised from both the Public and the Plan Commission members regarding the (15) fifteen client maximum, the total number of employees, employee parking, drop-off and pick-up schedule, ingress and egress to the property and the traffic impact along Highland Avenue. Ms. Bacon stated since then Ms. Ramirez has pursued a traffic study using the Village’s professional traffic consultant Mr. Bill Grieve with Gewalt Hamilton & Associates and also submitted additional material that provides more details and addresses concerns from the previous meeting.
Chairman Sula stated as this is a Public Hearing he requests anyone from the petitioner or members of the general public who intend on give testimony or give questions to please stand and be sworn in by the Village Attorney.
Chairman Sula turned the floor over to the petitioner to update the Commission on matters that were open.
Ms. Miriam Ramirez of 3523 Highland Avenue, Gurnee introduces herself as well as Mr. Dan Riegler of 5856 Hancock Lane, Gurnee, Illinois.
Mr. Riegler states last time the Commission felt more time was needed to review the subject and they have decided to suspend with a presentation this evening and to try to answer any additional questions the Commission might have.
Village Attorney Bryan Winter stated his recollection was basically of the open point of some discussion in terms of placing a condition of (8) eight children / clients. He stated Ms. Bacon has already indicated as well as the Commissioners reviewing the traffic study that most of that study was focused on the number of trips. He states the last item talked a little bit about egress to some extent and these are some of the points he noticed with this submission.
Mr. Riegler responded it was his understanding that the Commission kind of directed the traffic study. He stated it was their understanding from Ms. Bacon and Mr. Grieve that it was even going to be in greater detail than previous studies. He states they had little to do with this and with the outcome.
Attorney Mr. Winter responded he understands that and this is what Mr. Grieve does. He stated Mr. Grieve does a traffic count in terms of the trips. He stated there are other issues that the Commissioners previously talked about and that was addressed by Mr. Riegler as well. He stated these included the size of driveway, with photos submitted by Mr. Reigler showing cars parked in the driveway which certainly is evidence that the Commissioners can consider in terms of whether they feel that is adequate parking or not.
Chairman Sula stated some of the key issues were the shear size of requesting (15) fifteen, the drop-off and pick-up procedures as far as the safety factor, and there was some confusion on what is and what isn’t dictated by DCFS, as well as the hours of operation. Chairman Sula asked where they are on these key critical areas.
Mr. Riegler responded as far as the parking they showed via photographs that the driveway is capable of holding (6) six cars comfortably as well as (5) five cars across the front of the property.
Mr. Riegler asked Chairman Sula if this is what he meant.
Chairman Sula responded he actually means what is Mr. Riegler specifically proposing to be the pick-up and drop-off procedures; is Mr. Riegler allowing children to be dropped off in the street or on the driveway. He stated he does not get great comfort in knowing there is a total of (11) eleven cars on the driveway and in the street and not understanding what the drop-off and pick-up procedures are going to be.
Ms. Ramirez responded as she has said before she only has (3) three parents who come at different times. She stated if she were to get (15) fifteen kids / parents, which she thinks wouldn’t happen, that they would be able to park inside and outside. She stated last year, when working full-time with full capacity there was only (7) seven parents who all came at different times. She stated if they come close in time it will not be at the same time as it is difficult for all parents to arrive at the same time.
Chairman Sula stated as was said last time, the Commission cannot base their recommendation on how many clients Ms. Ramirez has today. He stated Ms. Ramirez is asking for (15) fifteen students/children and the Commission has to assume that this could be as many as (15) fifteen different families dropping off or picking up their children. He stated the Commission needs to specifically understand how this magnitude would be handled.
Ms. Ramirez responded in that case, she is planning to have a plan with the parents. She stated most of the parents have cell phones and they would call her ahead of time advising her how long it would be for them to arrive at her location. She stated this way she could have the children ready for the parents. She stated as she had said prior there are cameras outside and they are always watching who is inside and who is coming. She stated this will save them a lot of time when the parents arrive to either pick-up or drop-off children.
Chairman Sula stated last time they were together for discussion on this matter there were concerns from area residents that cars were parked in the street facing the wrong way and those pick-ups and drop-offs could not be done in the driveway. He stated he wants to understand specifically what Ms. Ramirez’s procedures are proposed to be.
Mr. Riegler responded first of all the car that was parked the wrong way happened just one time.
Chairman Sula responded he doesn’t care if it happened one time or twelve times.
Mr. Riegler responded he thinks it is important because Chairman Sula used the word “cars” (being plural) not just a singular.
Chairman Sula stated lets not get into semantics. He stated he wants to understand specifically what the procedures are going to be.
Mr. Riegler responded how can they have the Commission better understand that there will never be (11) eleven cars. He stated with the odds, this just won’t happen. He stated per the research they did average Hispanic family has 3.5 children and in the past at another location it was extremely staggered. He stated on a rare occasion (2) two cars may have shown up at the same time.
Chairman Sula stated going back to this again; it is not based on what your current client base is. He stated the petitioner is asking for (15) fifteen children and he wants to know how Mr. Riegler is going to handle (15) fifteen. He stated if Mr. Riegler cannot give the Commission a direct answer, the Commission will just move on. He stated he wants to know the specific procedures as he is losing his patience on this after asking four times this evening as well as asking at the last meeting, still without a straight answer.
Mr. Riegler stated they would hold a meeting with their children’s parents and discuss with them when they would absolutely have to drop-off their children vs. when they could possibly drop their children off as well as ensuring it be a staggered drop-off. He stated beyond this, he doesn’t know what more they or anyone could do.
Chairman Sula responded that Mr. Riegler is still not answering his question. He asked, mechanically, how the transfer is going to occur.
Mr. Reigler responded parents would pull into the driveway, open the car door, take their child out, walk the child to the back door of the day care, return to their car and pull-out onto the street.
Chairman Sula asked for the hours of operation.
Mr. Riegler responded it depends on the outcome of this meeting.
Chairman Sula stated Mr. Riegler needs to tell the Commission what he wants or what he is requesting.
Mr. Riegler stated if they are able to get approval for the (15) children the hours of operation would be 5:00AM – 4:00PM, and if they are not able to get approval for this many and due to financial responsibilities they would need to open up an evening session as well, that would operate from 4:00PM to 11:00PM.
Chairman Sula asked for any questions from members of the Commission.
Ms. Broughton asked if the 4:00PM – 11:00PM has to be approved.
Chairman Sula responded it is not clear to him what they are asking for.
Mr. Riegler responded they are asking for approval for (15) fifteen children and to have them in the house between the hours of 5:00AM – 4:00PM. He stated, if however, the Commission decides for whatever reason this would not be appropriate, then they would need to open up a second shift that would operate from 4:00PM – 11:00PM which they are currently licensed to do.
Chairman Sula asked if Mr. Riegler realizes whether the amount of children is 4, 6, 8 or 15, that this number of individual children is over the course of the day, not at any one time.
Mr. Riegler responded that this would alleviate the traffic.
Chairman Sula stated he just wants to be clear that if Mr. Riegler has a shift from 5:00AM – 4:00PM and there are (8) children in that shift and the Special Use Permit is for (8) children, there is no second shift because it is (8) individual children, not (8) children at any one point in time.
Mr. Riegler stated during the day, like now if they were only able to have (5) five children, they (3) children could be picked up for the 2nd shift.
Chairman Sula stated he wants to make sure there is an understanding about what is being talked about.
Chairman Sula asked Ms. Broughton if this answers her question or if she needs a follow-up.
Ms. Broughton responded if they are going to do a second shift, is that shift permissible without being approved by the Village.
Chairman Sula stated no, it would be part of the Special Use Permit. He stated whatever operation hours the Commission recommends and whatever the Board ultimately approves must be within those hours, whether the Board treats it as one shift, two shifts, or three shifts is irrelevant to this Commission. He stated during whatever period of time that “x” number of individuals over the whole course of the day is what would be permitted.
Attorney Mr. Winter stated one consideration with the night hours is lighting at the site and there may be some additional considerations if the request is to go to 11:00PM.
Mr. Sula stated 11:00PM is kind of late for a home use in his opinion.
Chairman Sula asked for any other questions from members of the Commission.
Mr. Riegler stated so the Commission understands the hours are not necessarily set by them, but set by DCFS. He stated when they were licensed these are the hours they were allowed to operate and they did not just randomly choose to stay open until 11:00PM.
Chairman Sula stated this is a Special Use process where the Village sets the rules for these things.
Attorney Winter stated DCFS are the ones who actually license the operation. He stated this Hearing is for the citing which is under the Zoning Code. He stated what the Commission is dealing with this evening is analyzing the site and determining what are the proper parameters for this site without being intrusive to neighbors and taking into consideration the safety issues. He stated these are on independent tracks, which explains why the request is being made but it is not a standard that necessarily translates to the land usage issue at hand.
Mr. Riegler stated they went back and spent hours over this and thought they did more than an adequate job expressing their interest in doing this properly ensuring that there is adequate parking. He also stated the counts that they have from Mr. Greive’s findings were found in their favor. He stated he expected to be here tonight and have a favorable response to their request. He stated there is not much more than he thinks wasn’t adequately covered.
Attorney Winter stated there is one point on the submission from June 17, 2009 at the very end, being a statement on the last page that says “if we eliminated the extended children from discussion you might be able to view our request in this process as an application for really (11) eleven children or just (3) more than you have indicated you would approve”.
Attorney Winter stated this is the understanding now that this has been explained to you and that maximum is a total of how many children you could have during the day. He stated this is not a particular count at one point in time during the day. He stated it is (8) eight children and that is all that can be cared for in one day, in one 24-hour period.
Mr. Riegler responded he recalled Mr. Park asking them what hours that they intend to operate and that is why he felt it was important to have the Commission understand that again, per their license there are ordinarily two shifts. He stated at the time they expressed no interest in operating with a second shift but since that time they just might have to operate a second shift. He stated this is the only reason they are talking now in these terms because it was different the first time they came before the Commission.
Chairman Sula asked what is different. He stated the Ordinance is what the Commission is referring to and that is how the children are counted. He stated it is not by shift, and wants to make sure this is understood.
Mr. Riegler stated he understands this.
Chairman Sula stated this should not be contradicting what was said at the first meeting and he doesn’t believe that it does.
Chairman Sula opens the floor to the Public for questions to the Commission.
Chairman Sula closes the floor to the Commission.
Chairman Sula asked for additional questions or discussion from the Commission.
Mr. Nordentoft stated when the Commission has looked at other special use permits in the past the Commission has taken all different aspects of the home day care operation into account. He stated one of the things which have come up before and not really discussed this evening is the impact on the neighborhood as it relates to noise. He stated if you put 15 children in the back yard it will create a certain amount of noise, as does a park and as does children playing the in the middle of the street. He stated he understands the petitioner is going to upgrade the fence to six-feet, but in his opinion this primarily runs in the line of visual rather than sound abatement. He states this is where his primary concern is at this point minus the overall impact based on noise. He stated he thinks there is clearly space for parking and he understands what will be done in terms of off loading children in/out of cars which he is now not as concerned about. He stated he is concerned about meeting the (7) seven standards that the Commission is asked to look at for Special Use Permit petitions. He stated he is having a little trouble with the second standard which directly relates to the use and enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity of the neighbors and how that may be impacted. He stated if he can get a better idea if talking about worse case scenarios which the Commission has to do, and that is assuming (15) fifteen children playing in the yard. He asked if all (15) fifteen children would be outside at one time, if their playtime outside would be staggered or if they would be restricted as to when they could play outside.
Ms. Ramirez responded in that case, to remember she has infants, as well as 2 month old children to 12 year old children. She stated the infants will still go outside but not make much noise. She stated in this case she can split the playtime outside for (15) fifteen children into (3) three groups of five children. She stated last year she worked with (15) fifteen children with no complaints from her neighbors. She stated the (3) groups of children would be taken out at different hours which would be (5) children outside at one time over different hours.
Mr. Riegler stated most of the neighbors work and they are not home during these hours.
Chairman Sula stated he keeps coming back to the same concern of (15) fifteen children. He stated this is a lot of children and the thought of the hours being from 5:00AM – 11:00PM which is early in the day and late at night regardless if the neighbors work or don’t work, which chances they will be home during some of those hours. He stated he does not want to create a situation where it is difficult to enforce and monitor on behalf of Staff and where they are relying on neighbors to complain. He stated (15) fifteen children are way too many and would be disrupting to the neighborhood and he is not comfortable that the Commission could create operating rules that are easily enforceable and observable by the people who need to enforce them.
Mr. Riegler stated the worse case scenario if looking at (15) fifteen children it is talking about (15) fifteen children on the inside of the home, not understanding how that would bother neighbors. He pointed out as Miriam stated, if the children were to come outside they would be broken up into (3) three shifts which would be smaller numbers of children outside.
Chairman Sula stated his concern is there is no way to really enforce this. He stated the Commission has to deal with the situation that there is as many as (15) fifteen children that would run around and cause disruption to the surrounding area. He stated he is not comfortable with this.
Chairman Sula asked for any other views from the Commission.
Ms. Salmons asked if the hours were for Monday through Friday or (7) days a week.
Ms. Ramirez responded it is Monday through Friday only.
Ms. Broughton asked if it was last year that Ms. Ramirez had (15) fifteen kids.
Ms. Ramirez responded yes she did. Mr. Riegler responded it was at another location.
Ms. Broughton asked up to what age were the children.
Ms. Ramirez responded 2 months to 12 years old during the summer which is the time they get the older kids. She stated during the school year she only gets (11) eleven children because (4) four of them are part time as they are school age and only stay with her sometimes only ½ hour – 1 ½ hours at the most.
Ms. Broughton asked out of the 15 children, how many were from same family.
Ms. Ramirez responded when she had (15) fifteen kids they were from (7) seven families.
Chairman Sula stated once again, it is (15) fifteen and the Commission cannot think in terms of what the current customer base is. He states we cannot think that four of the children are 2 months old, and three of the children are 7 years old and the rest are 12 years old.
Mr. Drennan stated he is not sure what the next step is and everyone could sit all night and talk about this. He stated he will never get to (15) fifteen children and the most he would be comfortable with is (8) eight children. He stated he doesn’t know how the rest of the Board feels but if this is the case, the Board should get into the specifics if they will allow (8) eight children what would be the hours of operation.
Chairman Sula stated he thinks this has been very well summarized and thinks this is where the Commission is at.
Chairman Sula stated assuming the Commission makes a recommendation to approve a maximum of (8) eight children, and then what would be the hours of operation that the petitioner is asking for.
Ms. Ramirez responded from 5:00AM – 11:00PM.
Chairman Sula stated he would never endorse something of that magnitude and asked the petitioner for something more reasonable.
Ms. Ramirez responded then from 5:00AM – 6:00PM.
Chairman Sula stated that 5:00AM seems early to him.
Mr. McFarlane stated he is comfortable with 5:00AM – 6:00PM and this is exactly what he had written down 10 minutes ago as these seem like the kind of hours that would be reasonable.
Chairman Sula responded okay.
Mr. Riegler asked if there was any way he could convince the Commission to perhaps go up an additional (2) two children, which would be going up from (8) eight to (10) ten children.
Chairman Sula stated the Commissions view have been pretty consistent and clear on this, from the very first meeting.
Chairman Sula asked for someone in the Commission to advance a motion to include specifying drop-off and pick-up procedures.
Mr. Nordentoft moved, seconded by Ms. Broughton, to forward a favorable recommendation for the petition for a Special Use Permit for a home day care at 3523 Highland Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
- That Ms. Ramirez shall maintain all required State of Illinois permits and current licenses for the operation of a home day care center at the subject location.
- That the number of clients (children) cared for at the subject location shall not exceed (8) eight clients.
- That the hours of operation are restricted from 5:00AM – 6:00PM Monday through Friday.
- That all drop-offs and pick-ups of children shall occur in the driveway of the home.
- That Ms. Ramirez is required to obtain and maintain a valid Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Day Care Center from the Village of Gurnee.
Chairman Sula stated he wished to clarify that the motion be consistent with the Commission’s discussions throughout the course of the day that this is for a total of (8) eight individual clients (not eight at any one point in time).
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, McFarlane, Nordentoft, Salmons, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain:
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
Chairman Sula stated the Commission is a recommending body to the Village Board and the final decision rests with the Village Board. He stated Staff can keep the petitioner updated as to when this matter will go up in front of the Village Board.
3. Informal Review: Oglesby Medical Office Building (13767 W. Oglesby Avenue)
Chairman stated this is informal and is a free exchange of ideas with no motion being made to the Village Board. He stated this is an opportunity for the Commission to discuss and to let the petitioner know how the Commission is thinking in general.
Chairman Sula turned the floor over to whoever chooses to speak.
Mr. Tim O’Leary introduced himself and stated he is representing Dr. Issac and Dr. Jaya Thomas who are not present this evening due to their attendance at a medical conference in Chicago. He stated it has been requested to give the Commission this informal review as they wish to construct and annex into the Village a 5-acre parcel on which they constructed a 12,400 square foot medical office building. He stated Dr. Thomas’ have been members of the Gurnee business medical community for more than 10 years and have grown their practices at the Greenleaf Center at the corner of Washington and Greenleaf Street. He stated Dr. Ike is a cardiologist and Dr. Jaya is a pediatrician.
Mr. O’Leary stated as the Doctors’ practices have grown so has their need for more space in newer facilities with focus on the cardiac practice as it advances along with the need of new equipment and to update their facilities. He stated the Doctors wish to remain within the Gurnee business community as they purchased the 5-acres adjacent to Greenleaf Center.
Mr. O’Leary stated he was brought in as the developer due to mutual acquaintances and he has just completed two medical offices buildings on the other side of the new traffic court. Mr. O’Leary takes a moment to introduce some of the members of his team who have been assembled to accomplish the project. Those members are: Ms. Barbara Swanson who will handle the legal work for the annexation and PUD; Mr. Tom Miles of Infraland Engineering Consultants; and Mr. Dave Korbel of Partners in Design who will handle the architecture.
Mr. O’Leary stated they also have landscape architects, traffic analysts, foresters, and wetland specialists, and others to provide a comprehensive review of this site. He stated they are happy to invite them to the formal review if the Commission has any questions for them.
Noting the 1st slide on the presentation Mr. O’Leary stated the property brought some interesting challenges, not the least of which that Oglesby Street did not come all the way to the property line. He stated when the two parcels, for many years before Greenleaf Street was built, they accessed Washington Street through the easement sharing a driveway for many years. He stated the neighbors Harry and Madge Peterson are in attendance this evening.
Mr. O’Leary stated both of the parcels during the time that Don Nelson developed Green Leaf Center, having them travel through the parking lot was no longer practical and Oglesby Street was constructed. He points out where the two neighbors share the driveway after all these years. He stated they both built in 1950 long before Green Leaf Street was reality.
Mr. O’Leary stated since the property is currently in the county, yet they want to annex into the Village of Gurnee they felt they had to adhere to all of the Ordinances and recommendations of both county and Gurnee to preserve the natural resources that drew Dr. Ike and Dr. Jaya to this site. He stated they have wetlands, flood plains, and flood way that they needed to avoid and protect and he credits his team for coordinating with all the various agencies and departments in the Village and the county as well as the federal level to achieve these goals.
Mr. O’Leary notes some of the characteristics of this site include the wetland delineation, flood plain, flood way, all of which he points out on the presentation. He noted where the extent of Olgesby stops and noted in working with Ms. Velkover and Mr. Zielger they have recommended that they extend Olgesby right of way all the way out to the property line. He stated in working with the Petersons they have been able to angle the driveway which will save the area of trees which is not on their property as they wanted to make sure they did not affect drip line.
Mr. O’Leary states the only trees impacted are working with the Village Forester, Jake Balmes. He stated most of the site will be preserved in its natural state remaining the way it is. He points out the only other buildable area on his presentation. He stated with the design of the building this was all taken into consideration to where even the two that he built at Green Leaf Square down south have (4) four sides of the building with parking in front of all (4) four sides. He notes at this location, the parking will only be on (3) sides and Dr. Ike and Dr. Jaya are taking only ½ of the building so parking will not be cramped into the back affecting any of the natural areas.
Mr. O’Leary states as he is looking at the 1st building slide on his presentation how the driveway is angled into the site. He notes the parking area and the building envelope as well as the cross hatches for the wetland delineated area, flood way and flood plane. He stated with the wetlands the letter of no impact was achieved (LONI) from the Core. He stated there will be ample parking and at the request of the Peterson’s, a fence will be put up as part of their landscaping package to provide them with continued privacy and not have any headlights shining onto their property during the winter months. He notes another entrance angle will help preserve trees in the area with the balance of the site being the same way. Mr. O’ Leary stated there are also details included on the drawing for garbage enclosures as well.
Looking at the next slide Mr. O’Leary points out a 3-D rendering of building with the iconic tower for the Thomas’ entrance and covered entryway. He stated spaces that will probably be done are medical office building condominiums that would give the Thomas’ the ability to either rent or sell the spaces. He points out the entrances which include two on the front with each opening up to a 2,000 square foot space. He notes this could be further split into single 1,000 square foot spaces as well. He stated all of the medical office buildings out this way seem to follow a pattern where each of the units are about 25 by 40 feet, 1,000 square feet with the buildings mostly being 12,000 square feet with (6) six on a side. He stated the reason for this is that it is an extremely efficient use of space with minimized travel distance to evacuate the building, for movement of employees and for movement of patients.
Mr. O’Leary stated there is a stone highlight on the sides, a 40 year asphalt roof and architecturally wise after going through about 12 different versions they arrived at this stage and are very pleased. He notes you can see (6) six units per side and mentions that normally there would be parking located in this area. He stated Dr. Ike and Dr. Jaya are taking 6,000 square feet which precludes any parking along the back of the building. He points out the tower which will help the Doctors function with seminars that they do for other cardiac specialists as well as echocardiography.
Mr. O’Leary points out where other entrances open up into 2,000 square foot spaces and notes heating and air conditioning will not be rooftop but internal heating units. He stated there is more roof impact without exceeding any roof guidelines and they are not asking for any variations from the building codes or any waivers from the PUD requirements on any area noted.
Mr. O’Leary points out another view, basically a ground floor view and mentions the stone will turn out very attractive. He stated the lighting engineers are working on the lighting plan so the wall mounted units compliment the lighting in the parking lot while following the updated lighting Ordinance.
Mr. O’Leary mentions the architectural details including the stone that will be used. He stated along the back where they do not have to have it as a façade they will be able to save some money and put it into the parts of the building that do show. He stated this product is called Hearty Plank which is very attractive, without being stone. He stated eventually they anticipate there will be walking trails throughout the site.
Mr. O’Leary stated more details include high quality clad wood windows and doors throughout. He stated following the Gurnee signing Ordinance they have integral signage which will be very controlled, attractive and cohesive the whole building providing a very nice attractive package.
Mr. O’Leary points out another slide shot showing where the entry sign will be indicating (2) two-three office suites on one sign directing visitors one way and on the backside Dr. Thomas will have an ambulance entrance in case of any patient needing emergency evacuation. He stated this area will house the emergency generator for the building.
Mr. O’Leary points out the new driveway for the Peterson’s which provides them access to their drive/garage and will be provided for them once the building is built.
Mr. O’Leary noted where the water comes and where standpipes should be. He stated the building will be fully sprinklered. He stated sewer has to come up all the way along Olgesby Street and connect in the Henderson parking lot where there is an existing easement for public utilities. He stated the sanitary sewer would come down and access through the parking lot to an existing manhole in the parking lot and noted with the help of Ms. Velkover and the Engineering Department they figured out the best way to do this. He stated storm water will be fee in lieu of a water quality treatment area.
Mr. O’Leary notes the landscape plan slide which he believes exceed the requirements in the landscape Ordinance. He stated if requested by the Peterson’s they will put evergreens on their property to minimize their impact on the Peterson’s serenity. He notes most of the site will remain in its natural state and are awaiting the results of the tree survey as well as the report from the lighting person.
Mr. O’Leary included a slide of the Doctor’s suite for the Commission to see. He stated the portion of the tower than comes in will be used as a meet and greet area for sign in. He stated the patient waiting room will also serve as a presentation area where Doctor Ike will give his lectures on echocardiography which is a popular program that cardiac surgeons from Chicago will be attending. He points out the reception area with different nurses stations, business office, exam rooms along the interior wall, file areas and rest rooms. He stated everything is ADA compliant. He points out the rear entrance which will also be the employee entrance, the employee lounge, the fire/sprinkler riser room where utilities will come in as well as the main doctor area which includes private areas for dictation and a medical reading room. He also notes where the nuclear medicine room will be located. He states they will be using the basement area of 1,500 square feet for storage and for some computer equipment. He notes there will be an EECP area as well as Dr. Jaya’s area which provides a clear view of the office area to keep on eye on things.
Chairman Sula reminded everyone in attendance this is an informal meeting and the Commission will not be making any specific recommendations to the Board this evening.
Chairman Sula reminded everyone that annexation matters are a little bit different than they normally see. He stated if this was a formal meeting the Commissions primary recommendation would be whether or not to recommend re-zoning or not. He stated then separate from that the Commission can suggest other things for the Board to consider as they consider the annexation matters
Chairman Sula asked to deal with the formal aspect of this first and asked if any of the Commission members have concerns about whether or not it’s an appropriate re-zoning.
Mr. Nordentoft stated he does not have any issues with this because it is consistent with what is happening within that corridor. He states his only thought when the Commission has typically looked at other annexation situations, not necessarily commercial and even residential, is the Commission has hesitated wanting to develop parcels peace meal. He stated he knows the Doctors do not own the parcel that is west to the Green Leaf site but this is something that runs through the heads of the Commissioners as they like to see continuity in the way things develop instead of a postage stamp sort of way. He stated he thinks the use and the zoning side of this is appropriate given everything else that is happening around the area.
Chairman Sula asked if anyone else has concerns or feels uncomfortable with the zoning aspect of this.
The Commissioners responded they don’t have any concerns.
Chairman Sula asked to move on to the quality and development type of things. He stated access is an important one as well as the cross development-type things.
Mr. Nordentoft referenced the Commissions notes stating there some challenges in offering cross access to the development located to the North. He asked for Mr. O’Leary to touch on this.
Mr. O’Leary referenced the 1st slide in the presentation and stated referenced the area in question in regarding room to cross access the first Henderson area. He stated there a couple of issues. He stated one of which is the Grade, which is as much as 3-4 feet through the area. He pointed out one spot where it is too close to Green Leaf Street and a giant fiber optic vault (possibly Ameritech) that is buried. He stated probably the most important reason for not considering it, is because Green Leaf Street in this area is a right-in/right-out only. He stated every time they are out at the area, they see a lot of people come in and they realized it is the wrong way. He stated there is a lot of southbound traffic that does a U-turn to get into the Green Leaf Center area. He stated they believed they would see an incredible flow of traffic from the people who may want to go southbound. He notes the direction for all the traffic that would come out of Tower Court and out through Ogelsby and they did not feel that was appropriate. He noted a full access at Ogelsby Street. He stated with the other lining up of things they would have to have Henderson give them an easement as well, thus it was something they abandoned after giving considerable thought to this. He also noted the main problem is where Ogelsby stops. He notes the trees they are saving even though not on their property along with if they had moved this the trees would be in jeopardy. He stated anytime he can save trees he bends over backwards to do so.
Mr. Nordentoft asked for a review of what the plans might be to identify this center from Green Leaf as the property is somewhat tucked back.
Mr. O’Leary stated that is one of the reasons for the tower as it could be seen easily, by any patients who may be visiting this area. He stated in both of these cases there will be a lot of referrals, especially with the cardiology. He stated they had also talked about putting a sign up in the front, and would have been part of this presentation until Ms. Velkover reminded him that this is not coming into the Village, and is in the “County” on the Peterson’s property. He stated the Petersons agreed to allow a 10ft x 10 ft easement. He stated in their meetings they were told by David and Tracy they would have to account for whatever happens and the sign would have to be a 2-unit sign, in particular, one for their parcel and one for the parcel in the future. He stated this will be dealt with separately with the County. He stated as this just came to light a few days ago, he does not have a good answer. He stated the concept was to put the sign up in the corner on the Peterson’s property on a 10ft x 10ft easement.
Mr. Nordentoft asked if the sign will not come into play until the other property develops?
Ms. Velkover responded the Village still has a review over this sign because this will be an annexation agreement and the Village will want to write in what the sign can be. She stated they will have to work simultaneously with the County and the property owner to obtain an easement for the sign and to make sure the County will allow a sign to go onto the property. She stated at this point that property is still zoned residentially in the County and she isn’t sure if this will even be allowed.
Mr. Nordentoft asked if this is then a separately negotiated deal with Lake County.
Ms. Velkover responded they will have to work with Lake County to make sure whatever they are going to request be approved but they will still have to come to the Village as the Village will want to put what they are doing in terms of signage at this location into the annexation and PUD. She also stated the Village will need to make sure if they will be allowing a sign in this location, that the Village thinks about the future so there are not two sign structures; one being for their parcel and one for the parcel to the west. She states it should be a unified sign; when the parcel to the west re-develops as office, (which is on the comprehensive land use plan) there will be one unified sign instead of two structures.
Mr. Nordentoft clarified that the concern of the Commission is with the sign itself. He notes the citing of the sign and the ability to put it on the property has to do with the County. He stated for clarification the Commission is to be concerned with what the sign will look like and what the structure would be.
Ms. Velkover responded basically yes.
Mr. O’Leary stated it will be another hurdle for them to jump through and they still meet the requirements that
Ms. Velkover described.
Mr. McFarlane stated the Commission could state this is the sign and it looks good to the Commission, but the petitioner could still run into a problem getting the sign cited.
Mr. O’Leary responded yes and it is a different issue.
Chairman Sula stated at the end of the day the Commission is a “friendly” recommendation to the County is this sense as the Village does not really have prevue over the sign.
Mr. McFarlane stated the Commission can state what the sign needs to look like.
Ms. Velkover stated before they come in with the formal application for their PUD, they need to come up with what the sign is and run it by the County making sure this can be done and provide some sort of written approval from the County so the Village of Gurnee is sure what they are doing. She stated the Village will not want to approve something and have the County say this cannot be done.
Ms. Velkover stated the Village can do it, and maybe the County would change their Ordinance. She stated if this happens they would need to come back to the Village of Gurnee and amend their PUD agreement.
Chairman Sula stated at the end of the day, it is County property and Gurnee Ordinances would not apply. He stated the Village can make recommendations but it is up to the County to deal with this.
Mr. O’Leary responded they will comply with whatever the Commission would want to do.
Mr. O’Leary stated they didn’t catch this until Ms. Velkover mentioned it. He stated they may have to look to another corner of the property which is in Gurnee. He stated the problem with this corner is there is already some power poles in that location. He states this may be an option, depending on what the County ordinances are. He stated perhaps a billboard could be put up as the County has those allowances.
Mr. O’Leary said they will not know until they investigate this and they will have the answer for the Commission before they return.
Mr. McFarlane questioned Mr. O’Leary about the issue to deal with run-off and water retention coming off the property. He asked if there would be a retention pond or if there would be some other way to handle this in relation to rain water and maintaining the water on the property. He stated he thought Mr. O’Leary mentioned something in the back of the property and a term different from retention pond was referred to by Mr. O’Leary.
Mr. O’Leary stated they are doing “fee in lieu of” with a water quality structure. He stated there is really not enough storm water to justify tearing out a bunch of trees. He stated some water will sheet off coming down into a swale and then into an area which will be a depression with prairie plants. He stated this will also have a water control structure which allows hydrocarbons and salt to be removed from the water so it does not flow downstream.
Mr. McFarlane asked if it will be a basin with some sort of structure at the bottom that will filter these hydrocarbons, etc. out of the water.
Mr. O’Leary responded yes, that is correct.
Chairman Sula stated that he personally feels this is a neat looking project noting he likes the architecture. He stated aside from working with Staff making sure everyone is comfortable with the easements and cross access he believes this looks good.
Mr. McFarlane said the signage looks nice and that it is restrained and he now understands that the tower is being done to create a landmark. He stated he agrees this is a good looking project that fits well into the area along with good effort into using the piece of land.
Chairman Sula stated he believes the tower will be okay as well.
Mr. McFarlane refers to Mr. O’Leary mentioning in the presentation the only developable area would be on the end and clarifies that is on this property with no plans to do further development.
Mr. O’Leary responded this is the extent of the development and as they bring this in for the PUD the zoning of the whole parcel will be for the CO-1.
Chairman Sula asked for a motion to adjourn.
Ms. Broughon made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nordentoft, to adjourn.
The Meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted:
Joanne Havenhill
Plan Commission Secretary