The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M.
Plan Commission Members Present: Chairman James Sula, Stephen Park, David Nordentoft, Richard McFarlane, Gwen Broughton, Patrick Drennan
Plan Commission Members Absent: Sharon Salmons
Other Officials Present: Bryan Winter, Village Attorney; Dave Ziegler, Community Development Director; Tracy Velkover, Planning Manager; Ryan Mentkowski, Associate Planner
1. Approval of Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for July 1, 2009.
Mr. Nordentoft made a motion, seconded by Ms. Broughton, to approve the July 1, 2009 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, McFarlane, Nordentoft, Park, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain:
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
2. Continued Public Hearing: Rezoning for Joseph and James Passalino (35957-35895 N. Dilleys Road)
Mr. Mentkowski stated this was a continued Public Hearing from June 17, 2009 meeting and essentially is a proposal to rezone approximately 10.5 acres of land from R-1, Residential, in unincorporated Lake County to C/O-1, Restricted Office District in the Village of Gurnee. He stated the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which reflects the office service use. He stated the property abuts the county highway Dilleys Road which is also defined in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as a major highway that transverses the Village. He stated this is essentially the same plan that was seen by the Commission in June of this year.
Chairman Sula stated there are (2) two Agenda items this evening and the first item is strictly to deal with whether or not the Plan Commission recommends that the property is eligible for rezoning and secondarily that the Commission has the ability to make recommendations to the Village Board in terms of suggestions for an annexation agreement providing that the property is rezoned.
Chairman Sula asked for the petitioner(s) and any members of the general public to stand and be sworn in by the Village Attorney.
Mr. Jim Passalino stated this is a proposed (3) three phase office developmentto be completed over the course of the next 5-8 years depending upon market conditions. He stated they went through many of the details and noted many residents spoke and gave views on the proposed rezoning. He stated the reason why this was tabled until tonight was due to the question of an updated traffic study which has been completed and submitted to the Village. He stated Mr. Mentkowski has the results of the study. He stated if there are no other specific questions in regard to the construction he turns the floor back to the Commission for their comments.
Chairman Sula asked for questions or comments from the Plan Commission regarding the rezoning issue.
Mr. Park stated he had a couple of questions on the traffic study. He stated the information that was received from Mr. Grieve indicated a traffic signal would be warranted at the intersection. He asked the petitioner if they were aware of this and in agreement with the study’s recommendations.
Mr. Joe Passalino responded yes and he stated there was a response given this morning which states their traffic study (from Schwartz Engineering) opinion is that the peak hour warrant is nearly met with the construction of the (3) three office buildings and recommend with the property to the south contributing possibly toward the traffic signal. He stated this would be the third one built and with full occupancy that then they may need a traffic signal. He stated the timing of a traffic signal would be based on the construction schedule of three office buildings which would be built one at a time based on market forces and the development of the property to the south which would be several years away. He stated the third building would not be built for at least (7) years. He stated they would need 1 ½ - 2 years to build with 1 ½ years to obtain leases. He stated once they would be half leased they would start construction on the second building and then it would be to the year 2016, 2017, 2018, or 2019 when they would actually finalize and build the third building. He stated it would be 8-10 years according to what their traffic consultant stated in terms of when it would be warranted for the traffic signal based on current traffic counts assuming the full occupancy of all (3) three buildings.
Mr. Park asked to clarify the petitioner’s response. He stated the petitioner is not in agreement with Mr. Grieve and the petitioner’s substitute position is the traffic signal would not be warranted at this time and the petitioner would be willing to participate in this when the third building would be fully occupied.
Chaiman Sula stated he believed this is a detail for the Village Board to decide upon. He stated this would be fine if it was part of an annexation recommendation but doesn’t believe this has anything to do with the rezoning. He stated he wanted to stay on point and deal with the issues, rezoning first and recommendations for annexation second.
Mr. Park asked Chairman Sula if he didn’t think that traffic was relevant to the rezoning.
Chairman Sula responded this is a detail in terms of the ultimate development and didn’t think this is criteria whether the property is rezoned.
Mr. Park stated for the record he disagrees.
Chairman Sula opened the floor to the Public.
Mr. Carl Mazur, 5359 Balsom Court, Gurnee, stated he concurs with Mr. Park. He stated the traffic study is an important part of the rezoning petition and the rezoning is the reason for being present this evening. He stated the project cannot be built without being rezoned and the traffic is a major consideration. He stated he lives in this area and sees what it is like. He stated to rezone you must look at what the traffic is doing. He stated he just came off the expressway a couple of hours previous to this meeting and Dilleys Road was jammed packed with traffic. He stated for cars to enter or exit Pine Tree Drive was very difficult as the traffic was backed up pass Nations Drive while waiting to get onto Grand Avenue. He stated a traffic study is warranted along with there being children in the neighborhood as well as school buses. He stated Dilleys Road is a very busy street, not like it was sixteen years ago.
Mr. Roger Gzadzicki, 5362 Sequoia Court, Gurnee, stated he agrees with the traffic study. He stated he has another objection. He stated no matter what is built or what type of development is put into the area, it will not blend in with the neighborhood unless it is a small one story facility. He stated to build anything taller than one story is unrealistic for the area in his opinion. He stated he would push to keep the residential zoning. He stated Dilleys Road separates businesses on one side and housing on the other side. He stated there are no businesses on that side of the road (east side) and to build a business on this side of the road does not fit in with the neighborhood.
Ms. Cheryl McDonald, 5351 Joshua Court, Gurnee, stated her backyard is located up to the farmland. She stated “NO” to office rezoning and to keep the land zoned residential. She stated at the last meeting, the Commission did not vote on the rezoning because of the traffic lights. She stated this is one of the reasons the meeting was continued to this evening and there is still no information about the lights. She stated there is no reason for any more office space in this area. She asked if one of the Commission members’ back yards were to back up to this office development of 3 buildings, would they want this. She stated at the last meeting it was stated 5-8 years for building, and now it is up to 10 years for three buildings to be built. She asked for the Commission’s stance on the traffic light and why it is now up to 10 years for building this development. She stated as a resident her vote is still “NO”.
Mr. Carl Mazur, 5359 Balsom Court, Gurnee, stated the original proposal that was offered last month stated the affected properties equaled a total of (6). He noted that the information that he picked up at the Village Hall illustrates that there are (9) properties that are listed as residences and (1) one property with no listing, which he knows is a residence. He stated this totals (10) properties.
Mr. Mentkowski stated this has been noted in the Staff report and then stated he is correct and it is (10) properties.
Chairman Sula asked for any other questions or statements from the Public.
Chairman Sula closed the floor to the Public.
Chairman Sula stated there are two distinct items to be considered. One is whether or not this particular parcel of property is suitable or eligible to be rezoned from unincorporated Lake County to become Commercial Office Development. He stated this is the matter of formal opportunity to vote on as members of the Plan Commission. He stated once the Commission gets past whether or not this recommendation is being made, the other opportunity the Commission has for influence, but not formal recommendation, is with the annexation agreement which could include developmental standards, heights of buildings, timing of when signal lights go in, adequacy of traffic reports and these sorts of developmental details. He stated the primary reason in his mind for the continuation of tonight’s meeting was more to deal with the latter issues so the Commission could make some informed recommendations to the Village Board in the event the Commission goes down the path of rezoning. He stated at this point in time he would like to go back to the Commissioners and strictly discuss issues whether or not this particular piece of property is suitable for a rezoning to a commercial office development.
Mr. Park stated in his mind the use of this property for residential development would not be beneficial to the neighborhood or to the Village. He stated there would be residences right adjacent to Dilleys Road, traffic in immediate backyards, front yards, and side yards. He stated it is better to look at, as the comprehensive plan does, a transition between the higher intensity retail on the west side of Dilleys with some down scaling on the east side of Dilleys which is before the existing single family homes located at the east of this property.
Chairman Sula stated he agrees with Mr. Park’s comment. He then stated for the benefit of everyone else, that there are basically 4 broad choices in terms of how the land can be rezoned. He noted those choices are: residential, commercial office, retail (which is more intense in terms of traffic going in and out), and broad industrial. He commented when looking into what is most complimentary to the situation with Dilleys Road, the existing neighborhood, the underlying comprehensive plan, he stated the commercial office zoning makes the most sense of the four choices in his opinion.
Mr. McFarlane stated he agrees with Mr. Park and there is no reason for the Commission to expect Dilleys Road will get less busy. He stated this is the lowest impact from a traffic standpoint and an aesthetic standpoint that can be put up against a residential neighborhood. He stated he would certainly not want his house on Dilleys Road because it will become a lot busier. He stated this is the best choice both from the neighborhood and the Village standpoint as it regards to zoning.
Mr. Nordentoft stated he agrees with a lot of what has been said. He stated he wants to make the neighborhood aware there are (13) thirteen properties currently back up to what is zoned CO-1 property, but happens to be a little bit further to the south, basically from Pinewood north about even with the Gold’s Gym property. He stated on the east side of the road it is zoned for exactly this type of use and he believes the Commission is being consistent with how they are handling this basic corridor from Pinewood up to the ComEd right of way.
Chairman Sula asked Ms. Velkover and Mr. Mentkowski for any comments they wanted to add in relation to the choices the Commission has.
Mr. Winter stated even in the residential higher density apartment buildings, the comments made have been addressed to more low density residential. He stated people can think of busy thoroughfares and taller apartment structures. He stated there are classifications even within the residential category that probably would not be favorable.
Mr. McFarlane made a motion, seconded by Ms. Broughton, to make a favorable recommendation to rezone approximately 10.5 acres from R1 residential in unincorporated Lake County to C/O-1 Restricted Office District for the property located at the intersection of Dilleys Road and Nations, specifically 35957 North Dilleys Road.
Chairman Sula asked the Commission for any discussion on the motion.
Mr. Park stated he had a procedural question. He asked if it is appropriate from the legal standpoint on a zoning request to make a recommendation in favor, subject to an annexation agreement and conditions in the annexation agreement or should it stand on its own.
Mr. Winter responded the rezoning application should stand on its own. He stated the next portion of the meeting will be regarding the annexation agreement because if there isn’t an agreement then it will come in at the lowest zoning classification (R-1 Single-Family Residence District). He stated you can expect there will be an annexation agreement.
Mr. Park stated his position is slightly different. He stated he wouldn’t want to see this come in as R-1.
Mr. Winter stated that the motion as stated is appropriate and the next portion would be the Commission’s recommendations as to what should be considered for the annexation agreement.
Chairman Sula stated the Commission is not recommending annexation. He stated they are recommending rezoning and the only way this can happen is with an annexation agreement. He then asked the Commission for any other questions or discussions on the motion.
Mr. Nordentoft asked if the Village Board denies the annexation agreement, does the land stay within the County.
Mr. Winter responded yes the property would stay within the County. He stated the Village Board will require a super majority vote for the annexation agreement and just a majority vote for the annexation itself.
Chairman Sula asked the Commission for any other discussion on the motion, and seeing none, he asked for roll call on the motion.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, McFarlane, Nordentoft, Park, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain:
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
3. Petition of Annexation: Potential Plan Commission Suggestions Related to Development Standards
Chairman Sula stated the next portion of the meeting is the ability for Plan Commissioners to give informal recommendation to the Village Board. He stated even though informal, the Village Board takes to heart very seriously recommendations that the Plan Commission makes on matters like this. He stated this is where the discussion gets into the real details in terms of thoughts regarding heights of buildings, numbers of buildings, square footage of buildings, traffic, and when traffic signals should be installed.
Mr. Park stated as far as he is concerned the first part of this meeting in relation to possible use of this property for office is the simple part because of the appropriateness of office use at this location. He stated what is more difficult in detail are the plans which have been presented before us which have been discussed at several meetings, and the information the Commissioners have explaining how the zoning should be physically implemented on this property as part of the annexation agreement. He stated his general reaction to this plan has not changed with the additional information on the traffic study. He stated he believes the original site plan is significantly over building this site and should be cut back considerably as part of any annexation agreement. He stated he believes the layout, circulation and density of this project is an issue. He suggested that whether this is part of an annexation agreement or part of a PUD, he believes the pieces of this are significant enough, from floor area ratio, to setbacks, to circulation, to signs and that a lot of work is necessary for this project. He stated he didn’t know if this is something the Commission should go down a list on tonight or try to figure out potential compromises tonight. He stated the Commission has a zoning case that is valid but the implementation needs a lot of work.
Chairman Sula stated this is the third meeting on this matter and the Commission is not here to negotiate specific development matters as this is really a Village Board matter. He stated the Board needs to be very clear in terms of the concerns of the Commission and feels it is best for the Commission to come up with a list of items that the Village Board needs to consider as they enter into the annexation agreement cycle, if it gets to that point in time.
Mr. Park stated his list of items he suggests the Village Board considers is as follows.
· The internal circulation of this property is very convoluted particularly with respect to where the parking exists and where clients tend to gather and access the property to the south. He stated this is partially a function to the layout of the (3) three buildings that are being proposed and their size;
· The size of the buildings is too large;
· The amount of parking provided is insufficient;
· The setbacks should be increased in several instances;
· The lack of information on whether or not the landscaping for this property, not just along Dilleys, but also along the rear property line is appropriate and if it can be successfully achieved. He noted as an example the detention basin along the east and south property lines is so tight up against the property lines that landscaping would be very difficult.
· The impervious surface ratio is too high, and in this case should not necessarily be as high as the 72% that has been provided. He stated it is his opinion that this should be less because of those setbacks required.
· He noted his last item is the concept of retail integrated with the office use and he is very hesitant at this location to allow for the integration of retail uses in with a true office use.
Mr. Mentkowski asked for clarification regarding the retail use of the proposal. He stated that if retail would want to go into “Suite 102”, this would be a Special Use but noted that the petitioners have discussed with Staff of only allowing retail as a Permitted Accessory Use that would only be permitted within the common areas, such as a cart of some sort that would just serve the office personnel breakfast such as coffee and a doughnut.
Mr. Park stated his comment is about retail as a Primary Use and not an incidental use of a coffee cart in the middle of the entrance way for the convenience of the occupants as opposed to bringing retail tenants in and therefore bringing retail customers in.
Chairman Sula stated the Commission is not looking at destination retail.
Mr. Nordentoft stated his concerns are that this is too much for this parcel and because of the fact the parcel does butt up directly to the residential area he was hoping to see something that was more scaled back to integrate in more calmly with the residential area. He stated this is a bit of an over developed site and this was his largest concern. He stated in relation to the setbacks from the residential area that there needs to be something more courteous provided.
Chairman Sula noted Ms. Broughton was nodding her head in agreement to what Mr. Nordentoft just stated.
Chairman Sula stated the Commission has been very clear and consistent in stating they are extremely disappointed in terms of the density and the ratio of parking to the potential density. He stated if this were to be developed the recommendation for traffic signals on the onset would be strongly considered by the Village due to this being very difficult to monitor after the fact.
Mr. Mentkowski noted some points of conversation. He stated as far as setbacks from the residential area, Staff has illustrated and made suggested recommendations to the Village Board. He stated in working with the applicant they have established 105 foot building setback from the rear property line (east). Mr. Mentkowski asked for direction, if the Commission was looking for an increase in the amount of these setbacks. He stated if the Village Board approved this, the setback would be 105 feet from the rear property line (east). He stated the front property line along Dilleys Road would have a setback of 50 feet, the south property line where there is some CO-1 zoning and (4) residential properties would have a setback of 50 feet, and the northern property line which abuts the water tower and Com Ed would have a setback of 15 feet.
Mr. McFarlane stated the issue with the 105 foot setback sounds sufficient but questions if there is any room for any vegetation landscaping between the detention pond and the property line. He questioned if there is enough room to put mature pine trees to present screening for the neighborhood.
Mr. Joe Passalino responded there is 173 ½ feet from the building to the (east) lot line on the second phase building. He noted the first phase building would not have any affect on the residential. He stated according to his landscaper there is 8-10 feet to put in sufficient screening in a nice attractive way with bundles of evergreens and other plants to achieve sufficient screening. He also stated the residents currently have a fence which is part of their property. He then stated there is an area with a double retaining wall to prevent any headlights during the evening. He stated their lighting will be very low-key, will be done per the Village Ordinance and will not spill out onto anyone’s property. He stated he believes once they are done with the project the impact will be very minimal and resident’s view may actually be enhanced. He stated he has a lot of confidence that they can make this look very nice.
Mr. McFarlane asked if the pond is 7 feet deep and whether it is a wet pond or not.
Mr. Joe Passalino responded from the property line to where the slope starts is 7-8 feet. He clarified this will be a wet pond being 4-5 feet deep with water being contained in the pond and it will include an areator.
Mr. Park stated in answering Mr. Mentkowski’s question, he stated his issue was not so much from the building side of things and believes this is helped by the architecture and materials of the building. He stated his concern is about setback for parking and in his mind there is a shortage of good horizontal space to put plant material. He stated 8 feet allows essentially for a hedgerow and doesn’t allow for much more than that.
Chairman Sula stated there shouldn’t be encouragement of berms or fences on top of berms. He stated there should be something of a more natural buffer and that there should be screening that would prevent headlight bleed into the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated they believe they want to be very good neighbors and noted this is one of the reasons they put the detention pond in the back. He stated that this was done to maximize the distance between the buildings, the parking and the lot lines. He stated this creates a nice buffer and there is 100 feet from the back of curb to the lot line. He stated this has been designed to maximize the distance and maximize the screening effect.
Chairman Sula stated this is kind of a mixed bag because this does provide physical distance but it somewhat limits the opportunity for visual blockage.
Mr. Park stated while looking at the preliminary site plan, he noted the west edge of the detention basin and that the top of the wall is 742 feet in elevation and bottom is 737 feet. He stated the reason the water is retained is due to this vertical wall located on the west side and this is part of what the residents will be looking at. He stated the reason they will not see headlights along this edge is due to the cars being lower in this particular stretch across a couple of the parking lots. He also stated this is a function of how much area is needed to accommodate the detention.
Mr. Joe Passalino responded the wall is about 5 feet and this is the reason it was done this way. He stated it was done to ensure there would be no spillage of lighting or anything off of the property.
Mr. Park stated if they didn’t have the wall they would have to take a lot more land to provide the detention and the setback would be significantly greater which would push the parking and building, in essence a domino effect.
Chairman Sula stated the overall concern with the property as proposed is overbuilt.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated that Mr. Grieve the Village’s traffic consultant, stated the flow of the property with the traffic onsite is quite appropriate. He stated he wanted to clarify this for the record.
Chairman Sula stated this is one case where from a practical driving point of view finds it hard to understand how the traffic consultant came to his conclusions because the cross access is somewhat problematic in his opinion.
Mr. Park stated he believes what he said in being fair to Mr. Grieve was that the cross access to the parcel to the south is at a good location for the parcel to the south but it did not address getting to there. He stated his own point is how you get there from this particular parcel.
Mr. Joe Passalino responded that is true. He stated the traffic consultant also stated parking is well distributed around the site to serve the (3) three office buildings. He stated it was noted this is all that is said about circulation and didn’t say that anything was specifically inappropriate or that something should be done differently. He stated the main thing to find out were the findings to see if it were warranted or not and the traffic consultant’s suggestion is not met with the facts of the traffic counts in terms of whether or not traffic signals are warranted at any peak hour which are according to Mr. Passalino’s consultant’s experts.
Mr. Park stated that comment # 4 stated by Mr. Grieves should be part of this discussion. He stated this is about the traffic signal and not to wait until some determined amount of occupancy is achieved.
Chairman Sula asked Staff if a formal motion is needed or are the Commission’s comments incorporated by reference in the record.
Ms. Velkover responded she prefers a formal motion.
Chairman Sula stated he would allow comments from the Public as he thought it was appropriate.
Mr. Roger Gzadzicki, 5362 Sequoia Court, Gurnee, stated his property is inches off the property line, located on the corner of Sequoia and Pinewood. He stated he has concerns because of the retention pond and asks why the retention pond needs to be located at the back of the property. He asked if there is any way this could be re-graded and put up to the front of the property. He stated the reason for this is that standing water with all the mosquitoes. He stated he understands there will be aeration but is concerned that water that is stagnant around the edges will be a breeding ground for mosquitoes. He also stated he knows there are Village regulations for parking lot lighting and knows the petitioner has stated this would be taken care of. He stated he would like to see the plan on this as well. He stated he would like to know how mature the trees will be that will be replanted along the lot lines. He asked if they will take 10-15 years to grow, and if so when will these be grown. He also stated another concern was the massive traffic lights being so close together located between Grand Avenue, Dilleys Road, and Nations Drive. He stated it would seem to be very difficult to time all these lights to achieve a nice even traffic flow.
Ms. Cheryl McDonald, 5351 Joshua Court, Gurnee, stated the retention pond would be in her back yard. She questioned if there would be a fence line by the retention pond which would back up to her fence line. She stated that the concern with the retention pond relates to the children in the neighborhood and stated one of the resident’s have a pool in their backyard and they also have fences to prevent children from gaining access to their yard / pool. She also stated concern regarding noise that will be created from refuse companies coming onto the petitioner’s property. She stated she feels the zoning board came in and shook hands, already having a done deal on this and chose not to listen to the residents. She stated this is America and she has to have her say.
Mr. Carl Mazur, 5359 Balsom Court, Gurnee, stated the original proposal for these buildings is based on speculation and that was reaffirmed this evening with a 5 to 8 to 10 year build-out. He mentioned the AutoNation development on Nations Drive that in essence went bankrupt. He stated the 40 foot high pile of dirt is known to him as the road that goes no where. He stated there was approximately 600 feet of road built with some lights and it remained this way for about 2 ½ years. He stated to the petitioners that if they should go bankrupt will the residents be left with a construction site and debris including a mound of dirt and half finished buildings with vacancy/for rent signs in the windows. He stated the residents do not want this development and it should be obvious to the people who represent the Village of Gurnee.
Mr. Jerry Burkhart, 1638 Pinetree Drive, Gurnee, stated he has a petition of (8) eight of the (10) ten properties that go against the proposed building project and request this property be kept residential. He stated he didn’t think the traffic is of concern on Nations Drive and Dilleys Road but it is a concern on the corner of Dilleys and Grand Avenue. He stated this is a very busy intersection and to put 300 additional cars through this intersection would have a big impact on the traffic.
Chairman Sula closed the floor to the public.
Chairman Sula stated with regard to the questions raised, the lighting on-site would have to comply with all the Village Ordinances which are very tight Ordinances in terms of lighting and light bleed into residential areas and the Ordinance does a great job controlling light. He stated in regard to the number of lights on Dilley Road and their frequency, this would be a matter for the Lake County Department of Transportation.
Mr. Ziegler stated Lake County Department of Transportation does control the sequencing of the traffic signals. He mentioned one of the notes in the traffic study indicated these lights will be interconnected to the ones at the south intersection of Dilleys and Nations as well as to those along Grand Avenue and Dilleys Road so all are sequenced together and work in tandem. He stated the spacing of the traffic signal from the south intersection of Nations to the north intersection of Nations does meet the county’s distance separation requirements.
Chairman Sula asked Mr. Ziegler to comment on the location of the detention pond.
Mr. Ziegler stated the basic concept in locating storm water detention basins is to mimic the natural grade and natural drainage of the site and this is what the engineer has done on this site as best as can be done. He stated you want to make the water run off the site in a similar matter as to what it is pre-construction. He stated the concept in this plan does accomplish that task.
Chairman Sula asked Mr. Zielger about the safety considerations and insect considerations of the detention pond.
Mr. Ziegler responded there are wet bottom storm water detention basins all over the Village of Gurnee with a lot being located in residential areas. He stated typically they are not fenced in. He stated as a mandated feature of every storm water detention basin there is a safety shelf located around the entire perimeter of the basin. He stated the first (10) ten feet in from all of the edges of the normal water line is limited to 18” inches of depth of water which is very shallow and very flat for the first (10) ten feet off the edge of the pond. He stated this gives a bit of a safety check to allow recovery before getting to very deep water. He stated this is a standard feature and there are many with this design or similar design all throughout the Village and in residential areas that are not fenced.
Mr. Mentkowski responded to a question brought up by Mr. Gadzicki. He stated in regard to tree sizes, the most recent landscape plan illustrates evergreen trees from 6-8 feet in height when planted which is normal for landscaping plans.
Chairman Sula asked to move to a formal motion.
Mr. Park made a motion, seconded Ms. Broughton, that the Village Board consider a number of very serious constraints and limitations on the development of the property under the C/O-1 Restricted Office District. Because the present site plan is over built, over designed, has too much floor area, and insufficient parking, insufficient setbacks, and insufficient landscaping, the commission suggests the following conditions, as amended:
· That the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) be limited to 0.30;
· That the parking ratio be a minimum of (4) four spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area;
· That the Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) be a maximum of 0.60;
· That the vehicular circulation throughout the site plan needs to be improved;
· That the vehicular cross access easement be more direct off the central entrance drive;
· That the landscaping standards are clarified to be similar to the adjacent property across the west side of Dilleys Road (Auto Nation PUD);
· That the parking setbacks along Dilleys Road are a minimum of 25 feet, which includes Lake County’s requirement of a 10 foot setback, as long as there can be a minimum 3 foot berm with landscaping installed. If the berm cannot be provided within this setback, the parking setback should be pushed back further;
· That the parking setback from the east side (property line) is a minimum of 105 feet and by the time the landscaping is done, it should actually increase;
· That the parking setback from the south side (property line) which is also adjacent to the residential properties is a minimum of 105 feet;
· That the building setback from the east side (property line) is a minimum of 170 feet and by the time the landscaping is done, it should actually increase;
· That the building setback from the south side (property line) which is also adjacent to the residential properties is a minimum of 170 feet;
· That the traffic signal recommended by the traffic engineer Bill Grieve is installed initially with the project;
· That the architectural standards as presented for the design of the buildings in terms of materials and general design are positive with the pitched roof and quality of materials and these should also be included in the trash enclosure design;
· That no primary uses be retail on this site, office use only;
· That the development of a sign package for the entire project is developed;
· That signs should not be allowed on the second floor of the building identifying tenants and the only wall signs allowed should be for a tenant who has access directly from the exterior;
· That the commission encourages the sign package to provide a project sign as opposed to all the individual signs for each office, therefore providing a directory of signs.
Chairman Sula asked the Commission if there was any discussion on the motion.
Chairman Sula asked Mr. Park to incorporate into the motion the setback as it relates to the east side of the property as well.
Mr. Park stated the provision for the east side setback for parking is a minimum of 105 feet and for building was 170 feet and this should be a minimum limitation and by the time the landscaping is done, it should actually increase.
Mr. Ziegler stated as far as the berm setback along the Dilleys Road setback, the County requires a 10 foot setback before a berm can be started or a lowering of grade for detention basin. He stated therefore, this would increase the (15 foot) setback (to 25 feet).
Chairman Sula asked the Commission for any other comments on the motion.
Mr. Nordentoft asked if anyone else had concerns about the setback off the southeast corner.
Mr. Park asked Mr. Nordentoft if he was referring to building or parking.
Mr. Nordentoft responded both, and stated it seems they do not have nearly the depth of base along that area and the building has been moved much closer to the backside of the three properties on the southeast corner.
Mr. Park stated the building as presented is 105 feet from the south parcel.
Mr. Nordentoft stated he has it at 95 feet.
Mr. Joe Passalino stated the building setback is 105 feet.
Mr. Park stated he sees what Mr. Nordentoft is saying. He stated at the corner measurement of 105 feet but the building does move south and therefore at it’s narrowest it would be probably 90+ feet. He asked Mr. Nordentoft if he is suggesting that this be increased.
Mr. Nordentoft replied yes. He said it feels to him like the southern most office building is up tight against the residences that are bordering the south property line.
Mr. Park asked Mr. Nordentoft what he suggests.
Mr. Nordentoft responded it (setbacks) should be just as reasonable as what they have given on the east side residences.
Chairman Sula asked Mr. Nordentoft if he was suggesting that the setbacks that abut residential properties to the east should also be required for residential frontage along the south.
Mr. Nordentoft responded he didn’t think this was unreasonable.
Mr. Park stated he was willing to amend his motion.
Ms. Broughton seconded the amendment to the motion.
Mr. Mentkowski asked to clarify if the 105 foot building setback would be for the entire southern property line or only adjacent to the residential properties.
Mr. Park stated that the 105 foot building setback would only be adjacent to the residential properties.
Mr. Drennan asked if the development is over built, does going from 0.38 to 0.3 mean there will be three smaller buildings and how does this affect how the overall layout will look.
Chairman Sula stated at this stage the Commission is not addressing specific layout but trying to address specific developmental guidelines. He stated based on what the Village Board ultimately approves, the petitioner will be required to do have certain setbacks and floor area ratios and it is up to the petitioner to configure it properly on the property.
Mr. McFarlane asked if this project will come back through the Plan Commission again.
Chairman Sula and Mr. Park both stated that this project may not come back through this Commission again and it will stay at the Village Board level unless the Village Board would like more insight or input from the Plan Commission or if it is a PUD (Planned Unit Development).
Mr. Mentkowski lastly stated for the record that a 0.3 FAR is approximately 137,000 square feet for this property.
Chairman Sula asked the Commission for any other discussion, and seeing none, he asked for roll call on the motion as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, McFarlane, Nordentoft, Park, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain:
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
Chairman Sula asked for motion to adjourn.
Ms. Broughton 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