Loading...
2009-07-01 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 07/01/2009 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION July 1, 2009 Child day care home, 47 Chestnut Terrace— Special use In the R-4 District Chairman Ottenheimer called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Chairman Ottenheimer read the Notice of Public Hearing as published in the Buffalo Grove Daily Herald, explained the procedure to be followed for the public hearing and swore in all persons who wished to give testimony. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Ms. Myer Mr. Weinstein Commissioners absent: Mr. Cohn Also present: Mr. Murali Jalasutram Ms. Beverly Sussman, Village Trustee Mr. Brian Sheehan, Village Deputy Building Commissioner Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit 1: Memo from Mr. Robert Pfeil to the Plan Commission, dated June 26, 2009 Exhibit 2: Memo from Mr. Brian Sheehan, dated June 30, 2009 Mr. Murali Jalasutram stated he and his wife are requesting a special use permit for a home day care at 47 Chestnut Terrace. He noted they would like to provide a home day care for children where they are well taken of and encouraged to grow up at their own pace. Mr. Jalasutram noted the day care will operate from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Most children come to the day care after 8:00 a.m. up to about 10:00 a.m. He noted they would like a permit to care for the maximum number of children allowed which he believes is eight. He stated they are planning to take care of children between the ages of 6 weeks to 12 years of age. Mr. Jalasutram noted the property at 47 Chestnut Terrace is located in a cul-de-sac where traffic to and from the house will not cause any interruption from the main traffic flow. He further stated they have spoken to their neighbors in the cul-de-sac regarding the day care and they have stated they have no concerns about having such a day care. Some of the neighbors even wanted to sign a petition if needed. He stated he also spoke to them about any concerns for either traffic in the cul-de-sac or on Chestnut Terrace itself and they did not express any kind of concerns. Mr. Jalasutram stated parents will drop off and pick up their kids on the house driveway. Also parents do not have to walk on the main street of Chestnut Terrace causing any traffic issues. Mr. Jalasutram stated he has contacted Robert Taft, DCFS, in Lake County to obtain an Illinois license to operate a home day care. They have sent him a packet and asked him to attend an orientation session which is held on Wednesdays every month. He noted he will be attending a session on July 22, 2009 as all June sessions were already full. Mr. Jalasutram stated the fire marshals visited the home on June 29, 2009 and made recommendations about fencing the backyard from the play area and several other items to be taken care of in the home. He stated they will be attending to the issues inside the home within the next couple of days. He noted they recommended reducing the height of the front door step. He noted they will address this issue in a reasonable period of time pending any Village permits or such. Commissioner Myer stated there are five children in the home right now and the requirement is that there only be three. She asked how the petitioner would immediately address that. Mr. Jalasutram stated they know they cannot keep them all and they have talked to the parents. One of the parents actually took the child to a different place but came back because the child was not happy. They spoke to the other parents and a couple of them volunteered to take the kids for one day a week but we are telling them to take the kids to a different place. Commissioner Myer asked if he is ensuring that they meet the requirement right now of no more than three children. Mr. Jalasutram stated he definitely understands that and he is trying to achieve this goal and is working closely with the parents but they are not able to go to a different place at this time. Commissioner Myer stated she can sympathize with the dilemma from a parental standpoint of trying to find another daycare but at the same time it is very clear what the requirement is and we want to know that everything possible is being done to address that. She also noted another concern in that the length of driveways in a cul-de-sac can be somewhat challenging when there are various cars dropping off and picking children up. She asked how many cars can fit on this driveway at one time. Mr. Jalasutram stated his driveway holds up to four cars. He stated the parents come at various times for drop off and pick up and there will be no more than one or two cars at any one time. Commissioner Myer asked if the neighbors on the immediate sides of this home have no concerns about cars going in and out of the driveway with any frequency. Mr. Jalasutram stated he has spoken to them and they expressed no concerns. Commissioner Myer asked what the time frame is for the fence installation. Mr. Jalasutram stated he is willing to do it in a reasonable length of time. Right now the kids are small and they are not really going out so from that perspective there is no problem. He stated he understands that for licensing they need to have the fencing and he is willing to do it as soon as possible. Commissioner Myer asked how quickly the issues raised in the inspection will be resolved inside the home. Mr. Jalasutram stated he will get it done in a reasonable amount of time, perhaps within the next 30 to 45 days. Commissioner Myer stressed the concern is that there are already children in the home, a minimum of three, and there are some safety issues here that need to be addressed immediately. Mr. Jalasutram further stated they are trying to work out the number of children at this time. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if the petitioner had already applied for the DCFS license. Mr. Jalasutram repeated that he has spoken with Mr. Robert Taft and they did send him an information packet as well as asking them to attend an orientation session. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if DCFS has indicated they were reviewing the application. Mr. Jalasutram stated no not yet. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if the petition had indeed yet completed an application. Mr. Jalasutram stated no, he is still waiting. Commissioner Teplinsky asked who lives in the home. Mr. Jalasutram stated it is himself, his wife and two children ages 5 and 13. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if there will be anyone employed to assist in the day care. Mr. Jalasutram stated currently there is one person, a friend, who is helping out his wife. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if the assistant drives to the house. Mr. Jalasutram stated she is dropped off. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if there are any plans to expand beyond the five kids currently in the house. Mr. Jalasutram stated he is not planning to do so at this time but he would like the permit for the maximum just in case there is a possibility and a need to accommodate that. Commissioner Khan noted that since the petitioner has two of his own children he can only have one more. He stated he does not want the petitioner to continue to have five kids which is not in compliance with the Village code. He recommended to staff that the home be visited often to make sure of compliance. Mr. Jalasutram stated they are working on the issue but obviously it is taking longer than expected because of the parents' concern for their kids. Commissioner Khan noted Mr. Sheehan's letter listing fourteen items of concern that need to be taken care of He noted it would be wise on the petitioner's end when he comes before the Village Board that proof be shown of items having been taken care of. In fact, it would be a good idea to provide written confirmation to provide Village staff that issues have been taken care of. Commissioner Bocek asked if Mr. Jalasutram and his wife would both be watching the children. Mr. Jalasutram stated his wife would be the primary care giver as well as her friend. However, both he and his wife applied for a permit. Commissioner Bocek noted that a lot of these violations are serious whether or not a State license is received. These items need to be taken care of regardless of permits and licenses immediately whether there are three children or just their own children. Mr. Jalasutram stated he agrees and noted he has already stated that the recommendations for within the house will be started within the next 2-3 days. Commissioner Smith asked if there any other day care homes in this particular area. Mr. Pfeil said the only other day care home in this area is 15 Chestnut Terrace which is about 800 feet to the east. Commissioner Weinstein asked if there is landscaping or any other buffers such fences between 47 Chestnut Terrace and the adjoining properties. Mr. Jalasutram stated there is a fence on the west side of the property but not much else in terms of landscaping or fencing. Commissioner Stark asked how quickly the petitioner thinks he will get up to eight children. He asked if there are people on a list waiting to get into this day care home. Mr. Jalasutram stated they have no one waiting at this time. Chairman Ottenheimer asked what kind of experience the petitioner and his wife have in the day care business. Mr. Jalasutram stated they do not really have any experience outside of raising their own two kids. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 07/01/2009 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION July 1, 2009 Child day care home, 47 Chestnut Terrace— Special use in the R-4 District Adversity Volleyball Center, 1701 Leider Lane— Special use for a Recreation facility in the Industrial District—Workshop #1 Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 7:56 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Ms. Myer Mr. Weinstein Commissioners absent: Mr. Cohn Also present: Mr. Murali Jalasutram Mr. Michael Hulett, Adversity Volleyball Ms. Beverly Sussman, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner/Health Officer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Weinstein, seconded by Commissioner Myer to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 3, 2009. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Khan and Weinstein abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS—None CHILD DAY CARE HOME, 47 CHESTNUT TERRACE — SPECIAL USE IN THE R-4 DISTRICT Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval to the Village Board of the petition by Padma Jalasutram for a special use to operate a child day care home at 47 Chestnut Terrace, a single-family detached home zoned in the R-4 Single Family Dwelling District subject to: Receiving a license from the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services DCFS) Complying with all recommendations from the Village in terms of conforming the home, including, but not limited to, those items on the June 30, 2009 letter from Brian Sheehan, Village Deputy Building Commissioner. Installation of a fence enclosing the rear yard play area. Commissioner Bocek noted the role of the Plan Commission is ensuring the petitioner is in compliance with the special use requirements, and she noted that the person who will actually provide the child care, and who is listed as one of the petitioners, was not present at the public hearing. She asked to what extent the Plan Commission should address safety issues and ensuring that the home will provide a safe environment for children. Chairman Ottenheimer commented that a representative of the petitioner can present the petition at the public hearing. He agreed that not having the actual day care provider present to answer questions is a concern, but ultimately the day care home must be operated in full compliance with Village and DCFS regulations. He noted that the special use requires approval by the Village Board, and licensing by DCFS. Commissioner Weinstein concurred that the Commission's recommendation with the condition that the day care provider must obtain a DCFS license covers issues relating to safety. With respect to the fencing, he suggested that in addition to having a 4—foot fence, the play area has to be screened, with either solid fencing or landscaping. If there is no landscaping, then the fencing should provide screening from the adjacent properties, so a basic open chain—link design would not be adequate. Commissioner Teplinsky asked who received notice of tonight's public hearing. Mr. Pfeil stated owners of property within 250 feet of the subject site received notice. Commissioner Teplinsky noted there is no one here to speak against this petition even though there is another child day care home operating 800 feet to the east. He said that his concerns are alleviated since property owners close to the proposed day care home did not attend the hearing or express concerns. Commissioner Weinstein noted that at the recent hearing for the proposed child day care home at 21 Chestnut Terrace, the neighbors were present. Obviously those same people are not concerned with this proposal. Commissioner Stark noted that only people 250 feet away were notified and wondered if people 800 feet away would have known about this. Mr. Pfeil said there was no overlap in the property owners who received notice for the current petition and the previous hearing for 21 Chestnut Terrace. When the ordinance for 21 Chestnut Terrace was scheduled for consideration by the Village Board, notice of the meeting was sent to everyone who spoke at the Plan Commission hearing. He noted that a sign with copies of the notice was posted on the property at 47 Chestnut Terrace prior to the hearing, and this provides another way for people in the neighborhood to be informed about the petition. Commissioner Teplinsky commented that the people within 250 feet of the petitioner's property are the ones who know the petitioner best and probably have the greatest feel for negative impacts that might be created for the properties closest to the day care home. Commissioner Stark stated he would like to see all 14 items cited in Mr. Sheehan's letter taken care of before the petitioner is granted final approval by the Village Board. Some things might take a couple of days to remedy and others might take a couple of months. Therefore, he will not be voting in favor of this petition because of the number of items that need to be addressed to meet basic Village requirements. Commissioner Teplinsky pointed out that one of the conditions for issuance of the special use is that all the items cited by Mr. Sheehan must be taken care of. In other words, no special use unless these items, and anything else the Village may deem appropriate, are taken care of. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Smith, Bocek, Khan, Teplinsky, Myer, Weinstein, Ottenheimer NAYS: Stark ABSENT: Cohn ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 7 to 1. ADVERSITY VOLLEYBALL CENTER, 1701 LEIDER LANE — SPECIAL USE FOR A RECREATION FACILITY IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT—WORKSHOP 91 Mr. Michael Hulett stated he is the director of Adversity Volleyball club and have been in existence for twelve years. Prior to Adversity he ran two other volleyball clubs. He stated the club now draws kids from the city down as far as Wrigleyville and all the way up to Lake Forest and beyond. The purpose of applying for the special use is to take an existing warehouse space at 1701 Leider Lane. The building is volleyball perfect with high ceilings. Mr. Hulett stressed that this use will primarily be used in non-traditional business hours. Evenings are for practice for kids and these are kids ranging from 13-18 years of age. Weekends is tournaments which is a significantly larger group. It would be kids from all over the northern Illinois area. They also do camps during the summer which would be for kids from younger ages and they also will be operating something called volley kids which is for young kids about 5-10 years of age to start to get them to understand the sport of volleyball and start playing. Mr. Hulett stated general business hours will probably have a minimal number of cars in the building, 5 to 6 cars. The basic use during the week, Monday through Friday has the kids coming in for a two hour practice. There are eight teams a night maximum. Then a new waive comes in to practice from 8-10:00 p.m. We have already been allocated enough spaces to accommodate the coaches and players. That assumes, of course, that every player drives and with the age group being 13-18 it means roughly 40 percent of them will not be driving yet anyway. Car pooling is a fact of life when you talk about volleyball. Mr. Hulett reviewed a grid noting that this is just an estimate as he has never stood out in the parking lot to see how cars flow in and out at a tournament. However, knowing how tournaments run he is fairly confident that the numbers will hold. A tournament consists of pools with four teams in a pool. Of any given first match of a day there are two teams playing and one team officiating. In the first hour staff flows in. The next group is the teams who going to play who come in and warm up. They are usually there 45 minutes to an hour prior to the first match time. Eight teams flow in at the next hour which is the officiating team and this is definitely not going to be on the hour as they are required to be there about 15 minutes before. The last eight teams in the pool flows in for the next match. This is based on maximum. He noted his business plan does not assume 100% capacity at any of the ten years. Mr. Hulett stated he sees about 612 total capacity broken down as 10 players, not driving any vehicles, 1 coach with his own vehicle, and 4 parents are driving 10 players. Additional spectators come in and might be in a vehicle for a total of a team of 17 and 5 cars. We have a maximum of 32 teams for a total of 544. Then we bring in an additional 4 people per vehicle for additional spectators. It is not a high non-family type of event. Sunday is basically the same as Saturdays. What this breakdown does is it shows about .8 parents for every player. He noted his experience is probably a little above average but he wanted to plan for that. Mr. Hulett reviewed a document which is his estimate of what the site plan would look like. There are three things included for the commissioners. One is a letter from the same contractor who originally provided sprinklers for the building. Another document is a detailed site plan for volleyball, including bleachers, the netting that would divide the courts, tables and chairs in the common areas which are all things he has had discussions with the Fire Marshall to make sure all requirements are being met for them. The last diagram is the egress plan. He noted it is not correct as they overestimated the bleachers he intends to buy. They put in 80 and it is actually 42 which is well over what he expects to ever bring into the building. The reason is that teams camp; they pick a spot and hang around it. Therefore he wanted to make sure there was excess capacity because that is one of the things he has always seen when he goes to tournaments as a coach. There is never enough room and it was his goal to make sure they had enough seating capacity. For the bleachers alone they have enough for everybody who comes in. Then they provide some in the tables and chairs in the common area. Mr. Hulett noted the landlord has granted them 180 spots during the weekend and additional overflow parking in the 1700 Leider building. He noted they have addressed the Fire Marshall's issues in his letter, particularly the sprinkler heads which was one of his primary concerns. We had talked about caging the heads and he was concerned how that might affect the now of the sprinkler heads and the letter details that they believe that a lesser volume sprinkler head will suffice. Panic bars on all exit doors were also addressed. The developer has stated they will do that and provide them at the time of plan review. He stated they talked about adding a double door on the northeast side and the landlord included that in the latest drawing. A review of emergency lighting will be done but the developer is confident they are ample. However, they will review that as they have no racking to interfere as a warehouse space would. Mr. Hulett stated they will have a concession stand for tournament use primarily. There will be several average vending machines as well as coolers within the concession stand. He stated it is their intention not to cook but to cater in the business. He noted their goal is to have Malnati's as their pizza provider and hopefully provide the warming oven or something equivalent. There will probably be a couple of coolers and an ice machine or refrigerator. Mr. Hulett stated that when he talked to the Fire Marshall he promised that they will exceed any of the Village's recommendations or requirements for spacing around the courts and anything else they need to do. He noted they will be building some office space. In regards to the special use requirements, Mr. Hulett noted that they are in an area that has very low or no residential impact and surrounded by other industrial uses. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if there is anyone else in the building. Mr. Hulett stated it is empty at this time. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if there are any other signed leases. Mr. Hulett stated he does not believe there are any other negotiations now for any of the other space. There is, however, a short-term tenant who bought the inventory of one of the electronics manufacturer or outlets and it is temporary. They are using parts of both buildings and he believes it is their intent to move them out of the building into the 1700 building as they build a demising wall. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if the space is air conditioned. Mr. Hulett stated it will not be air conditioned in the playable area but they have addressed the air exchange so that they get two exchanges per hour. One of the things they have found in other facilities is that the windows ice up because of the high humidity. He further noted they will be keeping the loading doors in the rear open. Commissioner Bocek asked how they will be getting two air exchanges per hour. She asked if there is an exhaust fan or what. Mr. Hulett stated they will cut louvers in the wall and put in a fan ducting system to exchange the outside air. Commissioner Bocek stated her only concern is that the special use goes with the property and not the space. Mr. Pfeil said the special use would be specific issued only to this user. The special use can be structured for a specific user, and transfer to another user can be prohibited. Commissioner Bocek noted that since the rest of the space in the building is vacant, in theory they could have another sports use that would need 100% of the parking for tournaments on the weekend. Mr. Hulett stated the landlord has agreed to restrict athletic use in the building to just the Adversity facility. Mr. Pfeil noted that the property has to be self—sufficient in parking, so if the first tenant absorbs a large amount of the available parking, it would be a problem for subsequent tenants unless something can be structured for shared parking based on the lack of overlap in the hours of operation and parking demand for the various uses. If future tenants can document that the parking demand will always be satisfied based on the use characteristics of the tenants, then it may be possible to develop a shared parking plan. Commissioner Bocek noted that if the Adversity facility expands to take more of the available space in the building, there may not be an issue with parking. Her only concern is a secondary use that needs parking at the same times that Adversity is in full operation. Mr. Pfeil noted that this property has few alternatives for using street parking or adjacent properties for parking overflow, so the building owner knows that the parking demand for future tenants has to be fully evaluated in marketing and leasing space in the building. Mr. Hulett stated the landlord has agreed to not allow in another tenant with parking demand that would affect the Adversity facility. Commissioner Stark asked if the Village has any zoning regulations concerning the bleachers or volleyball courts and similar indoor uses. Mr. Pfeil said that regulation of the bleachers and other improvements affecting the use of the interior spaces are addressed by the Building Code. Related issues are egress and safe travel paths for people to enter and exit the interior spaces. The Commission concurred that this project is ready for a public hearing. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil said the next meeting is scheduled for July 15, 2009. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bocek and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair