Plan Commission Minutes
November 19, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
Plan Commission Members Present: Stephen Park, Richard McFarlane, Sara Salmons, Gwen Broughton, Patrick Drennan, Chairman James Sula,
Plan Commission Members Absent: David Nordentoft
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. Approval of Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2008
Mr. Park noted a correction to be made to the Plan Commission Meeting Minutes of September 3, 2008. The correction to be made is on page 1, item 1, paragraph 3. Mr. Park said that he asked whether an analysis was done on coverage patterns for T-Mobile’s antennas, not sprinkler coverage as indicated in the minutes. He requested that the word sprinkler be changed to coverage. There were no objections to this change.
Mr. Park made a motion, seconded by Ms. Broughton to approve the minutes from September 3, 2008, as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, McFarlane, Park, Salmons, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
2. Approval of Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008
Mr. Park made a motion, seconded by Ms. Salmons, to approve the September 17, 2008 meeting minutes.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, McFarlane, Park, Salmons, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
3. Minor Sign Exception: Dunkin Donuts
Mr. Mentkowski stated that Dunkin Donuts is seeking a minor exception to the Sign Ordinance to allow an increase in the height and size of a secondary menu board sign. The proposed height of the menu board would be approximately 7-ft 3 ½ inches and the area would be approximately 16.30 sq. ft. The Sign Ordinance allows a secondary menu board to be 6-feet in height and 15 sq. ft. per face. The subject property is zoned C/B-2 – EGG, East Grand Gateway Overlay District and is located at 3430 Grand Avenue.
Mr. Sula stated no one was present from Dunkin Donuts and the Plan Commission can proceed if they concur that this is a minor exception. Mr. Sula asked if anyone disagreed if this was a minor exception versus a major exception.
Ms. Salmons asked if the sign was strictly for advertising. She asked if Dunkin Donuts really needs the proposed secondary menu board as a second advertising board.
Mr. McFarlane stated he thought it was an order board.
Ms. Salmons replied that it is not an order board.
Mr. Park stated that he also has concern about what the sign would be advertising. He does not have a problem with the concept of a minor exception himself. But, as he understands it, what they are trying to do is exactly what Ms. Salmons has mentioned. If so, the proposed sign is not a menu board sign, rather it is just an advertising panel. He is not sure if this is an appropriate use.
Mr. McFarlane asked what Mr. Park sees in the submission that leads him to believe that this sign is an advertising board instead of a secondary menu board.
Mr. Park replied he was reading the staff memo, paragraph 2, which states the “full pop image” on page W-4 of the attached packet material will display images of new projects and promotions. As he understands, the location of the “full pop image” will not identify what products are available and the price, which one would typically see on a menu board sign. Rather, the proposed sign will display images of new projects and promotions, which is not a menu board sign.
Mr. Sula questioned the Commission that if the sign had pictures of items on the menu and specials (i.e., three donuts for the price of two), then why would it not be considered a menu board sign. Menus have either names of products or pictures of products and prices. He is not sure why this is an issue.
Mr. Park stated he is narrowly defining what a menu board is. His interpretation is that a menu board lists product items and a list of product prices; therefore, one is able to order the items seen on the menu board at the drive-up window
Mr. Sula asked Mr. Park if he ever has gone to a restaurant that has pictures of French fries and chicken wings on their menu.
Mr. Park stated he is not challenging that interpretation at all. He is saying what the proposed menu board is and maybe that staff can elucidate.
Ms. Velkover stated one of the problems is that the petitioner is not here to answer questions for the Commission. The petitioner informed staff after the agenda had been published that they would not be able to make the meeting. Ms. Velkover stated that she does not want to speak for the petitioner and they did not provide an image of what goes in the sign. But based upon what she has seen with other preview boards it is pretty much what Mr. Sula stated. It is images of their products, meals, a select few items and the price. It’s purely a preview of some of the items they have on the menu so that when customers get to the menu board sign they have an idea of what they want so that they can move faster thru the line. It’s not uncommon; we have preview boards in a number of our fast food drive-thru restaurants. Gurnee’s sign ordinance contemplates this also as we have standards for primary menu board signs and secondary menu board signs.
Mr. Sula asked if we can craft the motion to approve this matter in such a way that we can conceive that this is a minor amendment and as long as it is limited to pictures of items on the menu and promos are specifically related to buying items on the menu as opposed to advertising other things, i.e., free getaways.
Ms. Velkover stated this is the intent. It is a preview board and not an advertisement for other products off-site.
Mr. Sula asked if we can have these limitations and if so, if anyone has an issue with this approach.
Mr. McFarlane stated that the request is actually an increase to the size and area of a secondary menu board. This is what he’d like to approve.
Mr. Sula asked if everyone was ok with the pop-up images & promotions as long as the images & promotions relate to items on the primary menu board sign.
The consensus of the Plan Commission was that this would be an appropriate limitation to put on the approval.
Mr. McFarlane made a motion, seconded by Ms. Broughton, to approve the request by Dunkin Donuts for a minor exception to the Sign Ordinance to allow an increase in the height and size of a secondary menu board sign.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, McFarlane, Park, Salmons, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
4. Final PUD Plat: Avis Investments, Inc. – Silverleaf
Mr. Mentkowski stated that Avis Investments, Inc. is seeking Final PUD Plat approval for a 133 unit townhouse development for 14.46 acres. The subject property is located along St. Paul Avenue between Barberry Lane and Wedgewood Creek Condos and is zoned R-6 PUD, Limited Multi-Family Residence District as a Planned Unit Development.
Mr. Glenn M. Christensen, Senior Planner with Manhard Consulting, Ltd., and Mr. David Loeb and Mr. Mark Avis, with Avis Land Development, were all in attendance to present the project and answer any questions the Commission had.
Mr. Sula requested that Mr. Christensen highlight any major changes between the plans approved at Preliminary PUD Plat stage and those requested for approval tonight with Final PUD Plat
Mr. Christensen stated the petitioner is seeking approval of the Final PUD and the Final Subdivision Plat. He stated they are in substantial conformance with preliminary plans and all submitted documents to date. He stated that the petitioner was before the Plan Commission approximately one year ago requesting Preliminary PUD Plat approval. He noted that since that meeting there have been a few changes made to the plans which they presented to staff in the form of detailed engineering of all items that were required. He stated he believed all items have been addressed with staff. He requested the Plan Commission to make a recommendation of the approval based the fact they are insubstantial conformance with the preliminary plan.
Mr. Christensen presented two plans on easels to the Plan Commission. He stated the first plan is the original preliminary PUD plan that was previously approved. The second plan is the proposed final PUD plan. He stated the only change is that they reduced the number of units by 4. This change was made in order to make the engineering work and to have the proper amount of preserved trees. He stated the major change is to northwest corner along the Wedgewood Condominiums where units were pulled out in order to provide for an additional increase in woods in that area. He stated that residents in the area had been concerned about the loss of woods and the reconfiguration of the plan will provide the residents additional woods. He noted there were minor shifts and changes associated with the final engineering. He also noted they have been consistent with providing the landscaping that is required and everything within the PUD Agreement that was approved at the preliminary PUD level. He stated that based on that, he is looking for the Plan Commission’s recommendations and to answer any questions.
Mr. Sula asked, for the record, if the is architecture and style is consistent with what was previously approved with the Preliminary PUD Plat?
Mr. Christensen replied yes, exactly the same.
Mr. Park mentioned the comparison between the two plans presented by Mr. Christensen. As he had previously remembered, it appeared that the land southeast of St. Paul Ave. was identical. He stated that he thought the real change in the layout appears to have occurred on the flipside, or the northwest side.
Mr. Christensen stated that is correct, except that one unit was pulled out on that side.
Mr. Park clarified that there was a 5 unit building and it is now a 4 unit building.
Mr. Christensen replied yes. He also noted that a 3 unit building is now a 2 unit building.
Mr. Park stated he wanted to know for clarification that the real effect is actually ending up with a few more larger-unit buildings, specifically, the plan has more 6 unit buildings, but the total unit count decreased.
Mr. Christensen replied that is correct.
Mr. McFarlane asked if the fencing had changed.
Mr. Christensen replied that the fencing has not changed, but that some of the fence locations have changed. He stated there was a wrought iron fence running on a straight line, basically along the right of way of Barberry. This has been moved further west in order to stay along the interior side of the site and out of the hedgerow along Barberry.
Mr. McFarlane asked if all the fencing was made of wrought iron.
Mr. Christensen stated most of the fence on site is wrought iron/metal, with the exception of two sections along the south property lines which are made of solid wood in order to provide a screen to the adjacent industrial.
Mr. Park made a motion, seconded by Ms. Salmons, to forward a favorable recommendation on the petition of Avis Investments, Inc. for Final PUD Plat approval for a 133 unit townhouse development on 14.46 acres located along St. Paul Avenue between Barberry Lane and Wedgewood Creek Condos.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, McFarlane, Park, Salmons, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
5. Final Subdivision Plan – Avis Investments, Inc. – Silverleaf
Mr. Sula stated that the final item is on the agenda is the Final Subdivision Plat for the same project they just discussed. He asked staff if there was anything to add.
Ryan Mentkowski stated this is the same project and they are re-subdividing 15 lots into two consolidated lots in order to allow for the 133 unit townhome development to proceed forward.
Mr. Sula asked for any questions or comments from the members of the Plan Commission.
Ms. Salmons made a motion, seconded by Ms. Broughton, to approve the Final Subdivision Plat for Silverleaf.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Drennan, McFarlane, Park, Salmons, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
Motion to adjourn.
The Meeting was adjourned at 7:45PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne Havenhill
Plan Commission Recording Secretary