Loading...
2007-01-17 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 01/17/2007 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION January 17, 2007 The Sports Academy Northwest 355 Hastings Drive Special use for a recreation use in the Industrial District Chairman Ottenheimer called the hearing to order at 8:12 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 Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Mr. Podber Commissioners absent: None Also present; Mr. Marc Brignola, The Sports Academy Mr. Don Gibson, The Sports Academy Mr. Maris Prieditis, The Sports Academy Mr. John Anderson, The Sports Academy Mr. Bruce Kahn, Village Trustee 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 Robert Pfeil to the Plan Commission dated January 12, 2007 Mr. Marc Brignola stated the Sports Academy began three years ago and has always hoped to have their own facility in their own building. They started out working with the South Barrington Park District who over time decided they were not going to build a facility. In the meantime their baseball and volleyball programs have continued to grow. Currently they are scattered among the northwest suburbs and they are currently renting space in Hoffman Estates, Palatine, Lake Zurich and even in Elgin. The decision to look for their own facility became necessary. Mr. Brignola stated this facility will be perfect for them. It is a basic square warehouse and they plan on having four full size volleyball courts, a smaller volleyball court that would be for mini volleyball. That is for the younger kids who would use a bigger and softer ball. It is played on a smaller court with smaller nets. That would be about 14,000 square feet with sport court. Sport court is the top of the line and only endorsed surface endorsed by the USAV. Mr. Brignola stated they have met with the fire marshall and the building commissioner. The sport court meets all the fire codes. He stated they will also have approximately 7,000 square feet of turf which is like an astro-turf type material. Along with that they will have hitting nets making sure they are protecting the ceiling and the sidewalls and volleyball area. Mr. Brignola noted they had been asked at the Village Board meeting if they would be willing to offer the facility to local groups in the area. He stated he stated then and now that they not only would entertain that idea but are actually planning on that. Mr. Brignola discussed the questions raised in Mr. Pfeil's memo of January 12, 2007 noting that the handicapped parking space will indeed be the close to the entrance. The second and third question regarding the note stating "new drive to match existing", is an original 1990 drawing and the site plan that asks about the new drive are already existing. This was in response to Banner Plumbing requesting that for their will call area. Number four asking about the program overview is generally what they do as a business. Specifically for the facility they are looking at, the showcases, the combines and award dinners have always been done off site and they will continue to do so off site. The wellness and adult programs are offered as part of their curriculum and part of their programs however, having dealt with Park Districts before they usually do those at a park district, wellness center or YMCA instead of on site. On site will be strictly for lessons, baseball practices and workouts and volleyball practices and workouts. Mr. Brignola stated the 24 parking spaces will be more than what they need during both prime time and also 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The remaining 81 spaces would be shared spaces from 5:00 p.m. on and weekends. He noted the majority of their clientele are drop-offs. There is only one volleyball team that is 18 years and older and drive and most of those girls carpool. Between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. there are only four full time employees and some independent contractors that come to help with practices. Those are also all after school hours. The building would be used on weekends quite a bit. Most volleyball tournaments are out of state and out of town. They would probably be using the facility more for baseball and other indoor activities versus volleyball. Mr. Brignola stated they can add to the community by adding to the sports and youth programs already in place. It will benefit those kids who need a place to come and practice. Commissioner Stark asked if during the school year between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. the only people who will really be here would be staff. Mr. Brignola stated that was correct. He further noted that even though they are allocated 24 spaces during that time, they are more than happy to share the spaces with any of the other neighbors who may need them. Most of the spaces they have would be needed during the week between 5:00 — 10:00 p.m. During the weekends they would need the spaces from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Stark asked if the entities at 351 and 353 Hastings are primarily Monday through Friday. Mr. Brignola stated currently 351 is vacant and 353 has been leased to a warehouse. Commissioner Bocek asked how they came up with a peak demand of 20 spaces. She asked if parents stay or drop off their children. Mr. Brignola stated the most spaces they have ever used has been less than 20 spaces. They anticipate most parents will drop off the kids and assume most parents will go out and shop in the area. Commissioner Bocek asked how many kids there are. Mr. Brignola stated they currently have about 130 girls for volleyball and about 40 boys for baseball. Commissioner Bocek stated she has no problem with the use but the parking numbers seem really light. Mr. Brignola stated their peak times would be quite sufficient especially since they need most of them during non-prime times. Commissioner Khan noted there is a portion of the building that is vacant now and wondered if there has been a shared parking analysis done here. He noted his fear is that the other sections of the building when rented might create some problems in the future. Mr. Brignola stated they worked with Banner representatives who used to have the entire space and have a history of how many spaces would be needed. For warehouse space Banner representatives gave them a past history of need. He noted 353 has already been rented for warehouse space and they would not anticipate anything different going into 351 because there were some specifications made for DHL that limit it to that. Commissioner Khan asked if there are any specific numbers of parking assigned to each building. Mr. Brignola stated he understood that from the 9:00-5:00 timeframe 351 has spaces 57 through 81, 355 has spaces 1 through 24 and 353 is allotted spaces 25 through 56. Commissioner Khan asked if they have anything going on Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Mr. Brignola stated the only things they could possibly do there is a few straggler lessons for college students or people who have more flexible hours. Even during the summer most of this is done offsite at fields. Prime time for them is during winter months on the weekends. Mr. Raysa asked for a review of the special use criteria. Secondly he asked how the petitioner was allocated the 24 sparking spaces. He asked if it was pursuant to a written lease that could be given to the lease. Thirdly he asked about showcases, combines and award dinners. Mr. Brignola stated showcases, combines and award dinners will be offsite. The parking space agreement was obtained from Banner's representatives and will be stipulated in the lease agreement. Chairman Ottenheimer asked for a copy of the lease to be supplied to the Village. Chairman Ottenheimer asked for a review of the special use criteria. Mr. Brignola stated that being able to offer more programs and availability and visibility to the youth in the area is a tremendous advantage to them and the community. He further noted the use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity. In fact it will actually increase property values. He believes that because their direct neighbor is Chicago Indoor Racing who seemed very excited at this venture and hopefully can do some things together. Chairman Ottenheimer noted parking has already been discussed and there is no issue with adequate utilities and access roads. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if they are required to be licensed by DCFS. Mr. Brignola stated no. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 01/17/2007 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION January 17, 2007 Banner Plumbing Supply Company 1020 Lake Cook Road Special use for a retail use in the Industrial 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 Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Mr. Podber Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. Lawrence LaLuzerne, Smith & LaLuzerne Mr. Gene Hara, Vice President, Banner Plumbing Ms. Michelle Henderson, Manager, Banner Plumbing Mr. Andy Korn, Kornerstone Mr. Bruce Kahn, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Bruce Kahn, Village Trustee Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit 1: Four documents of renderings Exhibit 2: Mock up of proposed sign Exhibit 3: Memo from Robert Pfeil to Plan Commission dated January 12, 2007 Mr. LaLuzerne stated Banner Plumbing is entering its 60th year in the plumbing wholesale and retail business. It recently moved to this new facility on Lake Cook Road. Primarily they provide rough plumbing supplies to plumbing contractors and have the opportunity to sell end products to customers for new construction or remodeling. Prior to this desire to open a showroom, many of their customers desiring final products for their homes had to go to other facilities or designers in Highland Park, Mundelein or Niles. A significant portion of their customers come from the North Shore in Lake County. The company has realized there is a significant market they have been unable to tap into without having the ability to feature the products they sell. It is their experience that most of their referrals for retail type items come from contractors they deal with. The only available advertising or marketing they have available at this time is catalogues, stock and trade magazines and things like that. Their experience is that when people are spending significant dollars on remodeling or new high end homes they like to see the products. They determined that if they could establish a showroom for people to come in to test out the features, there is a high likelihood that people would buy from them. One of the things they decided was to create 14,000 square feet of the CDW building to retail. Mr. LaLuzerne stated the actual showroom will have working fixtures where people can try them. Most of Banner's business comes from referrals from contractors and they feel they are losing business by not having the ability to have the customers come in to try these things out. Mr. LaLuzerne noted there will be a small section set aside for a cabinet contractor who will not be selling anything out of this location but will be a meeting location. This will be a good combination because cabinets mix well with the plumbing products. There will be not be any advertising for the business on the side of the building. Mr. LaLuzerne stated he feels they meet all the criteria for a special use. This was previously operated by CDW who had a retail portion of their business operating out of this facility. The site and location can stand such a use and is compatible with previous uses. Based on information provided to them about the number of customers and traffic generated by CDW, Banner Plumbing will have significantly less consumer customer traffic here and will not be a burden on the other businesses in the complex or adjacent property owners. The public convenience will be served by having a location on Lake Cook Road which will allow customers easy access to the property and it will not endanger the health and safety of the surrounding property. The use will be consistent with the previous use by CDW and it will be in harmony with the orderly development of the district and it will be an enhancement as this particular property has been vacant for a considerable period of time. He further stated they think it will perhaps draw additional businesses to this location as well. He stated they do not see any injury to the property or adjoining property by the permitted use here if granted and they do not feel it will impair the value of the surrounding property owners or their businesses. He stated it has the necessary access for parking so that it will not overwhelm the property by any means. He further noted they do not anticipate generating a significant amount of vehicular traffic. He stated they anticipate much of the business to be by appointment only and some walk in customers on some evenings or weekends. It otherwise complies with all the other requirements of the zoning ordinance and it will be a good addition to this particular industrial section. Mr. LaLuzerne noted the only variance they are requesting concerns the signage requested by the petitioner. The specific restriction which the special use zoning in an industrial district has limits them to 300 square ft whereas they are requesting a sign of approximately 392 square feet which is about 8 feet high and 49 feet wide. He noted the brick on the building creates a natural banner across the top of the building which was also the location for the CDW logo. Mr. Korn from the sign company has stated this is a natural canvas for putting a sign there. He further stated that this is a location on a very heavily traveled roadway. Given the speed limit that traffic is going and the character of Lake Cook Road, they anticipate many customers coming from the east and the building comes upon them somewhat quickly. The sign is necessary to catch their attention here and they feel that based on other signage in the Village, this sign accomplishes two purposes. It is aesthetically pleasing and it needs to be that large to catch the eye of the customers as they travel down Lake Cook Road. Therefore they are requesting this variance for the additional 92 feet of signage. He noted the CDW sign was about 400 feet and they feel they are not asking for anything more than has been allowed at this location. The unique nature of this business, the location, the contour of the road and speed limits all justify this request. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if the sign would be a similar red color as on the rendering. Mr. LaLuzerne stated yes and noted it will be illuminated. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if the sign would be backlit or lights inside the sign itself. Mr. Korn described the sign and noted it will be made to UL specifications and would have aluminum side returns and polycarbonate faces that would be internally illuminated with either LED's or light illuminated dials or white neon. Commissioner Bocek asked how this variance will work between the Plan Commission and the ZBA. Mr. Pfeil stated in the case of a retail use in the Industrial District, sign requirements are part of the special use standards, so the Plan Commission has the authority for reviewing this type of signage. Other types of signs are subject to the standards of the Village Sign Code, and are reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals if a variation is requested. Commissioner Bocek stated it seems there is a lot of text which is probably why the footage is so large. Typically a user like CDW would be granted a larger sign because it is only three letters which would make the sign more visible or more proportionate on the facade. She stated she does not feel all the text is necessary. Mr. LaLuzerne stated that is a judgment call about what his customer thinks is important. They are trying to enter into a new venture which is a kitchen and bath showroom. Commissioner Bocek questioned whether cars passing by will be able to read all that text in the short time they have. Commissioner Bocek asked if the showroom is actually on the upper level. Ms. Michelle Henderson stated it is on the second level. She stated it was a natural fit to put their offices on the first level because of the interaction between the warehouse and office people. There is an elevator and two stairways which can be used. Commissioner Khan stated he does not perceive any hardship here that would require so much space for a sign. Mr. Korn stated that when they attempt to size signs for a client there are many factors that come into the decision. He noted they always try to design things to the optimal environment. There are many people between 3-6 p.m. on weekdays traveling the posted speed limit and those are the people they are concerned about. Commissioner Khan asked what business hours would be. Mr. Hara stated they are currently open Monday through Friday but with the showroom they are open to considering appointments only perhaps one night a week and Saturday mornings if demand is there. Commissioner Khan asked what the hours of operation are Monday through Friday. Mr. Hara stated the showroom would be 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The warehouse is open as early as 6:00 a.m. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if there will be any Saturday hours for the showroom. Mr. Hara stated it is not currently scheduled but they would probably be available by appointment. Mr. LaLuzerne stated they feel this is a good opportunity for both Banner Plumbing Company to expand its operation which they feel will be a benefit to them and the Village. He noted the Village should hope that as their customers are drawn from other communities, they will stop and shop at other Village locations. Commissioner Khan asked if the petitioner could live with a smaller sign. Mr. LaLuzerne stated Mr. Korn has tried to design something that is consistent with what is out there and a pleasing aesthetic quality. There are certain industry standards which they look at given distance and speed on the roadway and they believe this is the minimum they can live with to be effective in that location. Commissioner Stark asked if the gray band on the building already exists and if there will be no changes. Mr. LaLuzerne state it already exists and nothing will be changed. Mr. Raysa noted the Village Planner has asked for testimony as far as square footage of the showroom. The narrative shows 14,000 square feet and the attachment shows 13,500 square feet. Mr. LaLuzerne agreed the footage is 13,500 square feet. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 8:10 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: 01/17/2007 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION January 17, 2007 Banner Plumbing Supply, 1020 Lake Cook Road Special use for retail sales in the Industrial District Sports Academy Northwest, 355 Hastings Drive— Special use for a recreation facility in the Industrial District Village Zoning Ordinance—Discussion of amendments Concerning administrative procedures for child day care homes Workshop #1 Discussion of Village Comprehensive Plan Plan Commission Annual Report—2006—Review Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 8:45 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 Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Mr. Podber Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. Lawrence LaLuzerne, Smith & LaLuzerne Mr. Gene Hara, Vice President, Banner Plumbing Ms. Michelle Henderson, Manager, Banner Plumbing Mr. Andy Korn, Kornerstone Mr. Marc Brignola, The Sports Academy Mr. Don Gibson, The Sports Academy Mr. Maris Prieditis, The Sports Academy Mr. John Anderson, The Sports Academy Mr. Bruce Kahn, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 6, 2006. Commissioner Teplinsky noted the minutes reflect that Chairman Ottenheimer was absent from the meeting but they also reflect that he called the meeting to order and adjourned the meeting. That needs to be removed. Commissioner Stark noted a typographical error on page 3, fourth paragraph. All Commissioners were in favor of the amended motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Ottenheimer and Podber abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Teplinsky attended the Village Board meeting on January 8, 2007 where there was a motion with respect to the transit oriented study. The Village Board determined that it should not be a part of the Comprehensive Plan at a prior board meeting. At this meeting an ordinance was passed recognizing the fact that it should represent a study. BANNER PLUMBING SUPPLY, 1020 LAKE COOK ROAD — SPECIAL USE FOR RETAIL SALES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Podber to recommend approval to the Village Board of a petition for approval of a Special Use for retail sales in the Industrial District pursuant to Section 17.48.020.15 of the Village Zoning Ordinance with the following variation: ZONING ORDINANCE— Section 17.48.020.15.c. (to allow a wall sign of 392 square feet instead of 300 square feet on the south wall of the building.) Commissioner Smith stated they have met the special use criteria. As far as signage, it is Lake Cook Road; it is a big building and the size of the sign if fine. In addition there has already been that size and larger before so he sees no issue with that. He stated he would like to see Banner successful and if a bigger sign will help he will support the proposal. Commissioner Teplinsky stated he agrees that the special use for the retail sales in that building should pass. However he is skeptical about the sign because it is a bright red illuminated sign in an area where there is not a lot of signage and he fails to understand why a 9 x 33 foot sign would not be just as effective there as a 9 x 49 foot sign. Commissioner Bocek stated she has no issues with the actual use, however, she does not see the need for an additional 92 feet in signage. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated she frankly does not care about the size of the sign. The CDW sign was 400 square feet and it did not seem to bother anyone. If we are going to make an exception to the policy the fact of the matter is this is a logical location for it to occur. This is an industrial district where the neighbors will not complain and there is no housing to be affected. There she has no problem with the proposal. Commissioner Stark stated he has no problem with the signage here. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Smith, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Stark, Cohn, Podber, Ottenheimer NAYS: Bocek, Teplinsky ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 7 to 2. SPORTS ACADEMY NORTHWEST, 355 HASTINGS DRIVE — SPECIAL USE FOR A RECREATION FACILITY IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval to the Village Board of a petition for a Special Use for a recreation facility in the Industrial District proposing to operate an indoor facility for sports training, including volleyball and baseball. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Cohn, Podber, Ottenheimer NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 9 to 0. VILLAGE ZONING ORDINANCE — DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS CONCERNING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR CHILD DAY CARE HOMES—WORKSHOP 91 Mr. Pfeil stated the zoning ordinance for child day homes requires that the special use is granted for two years after which the petitioner needs to reapply for reauthorization of the special use. The current regulations require a Plan Commission public hearing as part of that reauthorization. The Village Board asked staff to look at procedures that would streamline the reauthorization process for providers that are doing a good job and don't have any history of complaints or other reasons why the special use would possible not be re-approved. Staff has worked on some ideas and presented them to the Village Board and they are now before the Plan Commission to think through it to see what procedures could be changed to move toward a process for providers who are doing well and complying with their stipulations and ordinances and keeping their DCFS licenses in order. In these cases when the two year reapplication comes up perhaps there could be a process where they would not necessarily have to come back to the Plan Commission for a hearing. Perhaps it could get staff recommendation to the Board that the ordinance could be reauthorized. If there are issues that do need some probing the Plan Commission could then have a hearing for those providers. Mr. Pfeil noted that in the reauthorization process even the one that would not come back to the Commission would have notification of adjacent property owners so that they would know that reauthorization is up for review and a sign would be posted on the property so that anyone in the neighborhood would be aware that the home is there and is asking to be reauthorized. Commissioner Teplinsky stated it is a great idea but he has a problem with the subjective criteria that staff would have to consider before determining whether this is something that could go through the streamline process or whether it is something that needs to be referred to the Plan Commission. He sees that as a potential issue for someone who falls on the wrong side of that decision. There should be some more objective criteria that staff can follow in order to determine whether or not something should be referred back to the Plan Commission or if it can go through the streamlined process. He feels that staff might need that kind or protection as well. Commissioner Stark asked if there is one neighbor complaint about traffic for instance, would that signal it to go through the enhanced process or is there a specific number of complaints before the whole process would be required. Mr. Pfeil stated staff is troubled by that also. They have considered a point system with a list of criteria, and a record of complaints to determine if there is a pattern of non-compliance. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that just because a complaint is registered does not mean it is a valid complaint and that would be a problem in counting the number of complaints. You need to look at the total circumstances so perhaps if you get enough good or bad and cannot sort it out then perhaps it should just go to hearing at that point. Mr. Pfeil stated the other concern on a staff basis is to treat people fairly. Some providers may have a complaint or two and are perhaps just a bit less hands-on as far as managing things. This does not make them bad day care providers, but they need to be reminded that they are impacting a neighbor with the traffic or other issues. The Village enforcement procedure for child care homes focuses on achieving compliance on a cooperative basis before formal citations are issued, unless there is a serious health or safety problem that needs immediate correction. He said that during the two-year term of the special use, if there are only one or two instances when a provider had to be reminded about something, it does not seem necessary for Plan Commission to spend its time on a full hearing. But at the same time, the Village does not want to short-circuit due process and the rights of neighbors. Mr. Pfeil said staff can come back with a more-defined system based on objective criteria for evaluating complaints and overall performance of day care providers for the Commission to consider. Commissioner Bocek asked what if there are no complaints but their DCFS or state licenses have lapsed. Mr. Pfeil noted there is an annual business license renewal, and day care providers are now required to submit their current DCFS license. If the DCFS license has lapsed, it is cause for the Village to revoke the provider's special use. Commissioner Bocek asked if DCFS comes out to make sure that the house is still safe. Mr. Pfeil stated that he would hope that if the license has actually lapsed, DCFS requires re-application for a new license. He further noted the Village would still have ongoing inspections by the Village Fire Marshal and Health Officer. He noted the Village inspects the each day care home twice a year, and this procedure will continue. Commissioner Cohn agreed with Commissioner Teplinsky that the importance of objective criteria is high. He stated you can have a home that is run very well but a neighbor just does not like them or does not like the fact that there is a day care there who will run a complaint every day for two years. It may be completely unjustified and there is no reason for a hearing. The more objective the criteria are the less these kinds of situations will need to be dealt with. Commissioner Teplinsky stated one of the criteria is an existing need for day care in the area. He asked if that kind of decision would be made on the staff level. A day care home may not have had a complaint for years but in a number of years other day care homes may have been approved. It is really more than just how that particular facility is being operated and it is really an analysis of what else is going on in the area. Mr. Pfeil stated geographical clustering needs to be monitored and the current zoning regulations state that the Plan Commission can consider this issue in reviewing petitions for day care homes. If it appears that there is an undue concentration in a certain area, the Commission could determine that additional homes should not be approved for the area. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he agrees with that but the practical side is that anyone coming before us with an application for a home day care center probably already has had one operating so they already have the clients who will state to a need. Or, they will have many people lined up who state they will use them and this makes it very difficult to assess. Commissioner Podber asked what problem we are trying to solve with streamlining. Mr. Pfeil stated that the basic issue is whether or not it is necessary for providers who have good records to come back every two years for a public hearing. Commissioner Podber stated he does not feel that is a burden and it is something that ought to be done. He stated he feels we are trying to solve a problem we don't have. He does not feel the Plan Commission is overtaxed and if it is perhaps some of these renewals could be spread out so they do not all hit at the same meeting. All in all he feels the whole system is way too loose. He further noted he feels that we will actually be creating problems by taking what should be the authority of an appointed commission and delegating it to staff members. He also stated he would like to see some surprise inspections on the number of kids in a home. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated she too is concerned with the number of kids in a home and our ability to monitor that. Mr. Pfeil stated as far as he knows, the Fire Marshal and Health Officer do not do surprise inspections, but rather act on complaints. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated that then begs the question of why have a number at all if we have not figured out how to regulate the ordinance. Mr. Pfeil stated that the Village expects compliance when a special use is granted. If a provider violates the terms of the special use, the Village will take action to achieve compliance as soon as the situation is discovered. Commissioner Khan stated the concept is good here because once a special use permit is issued it is good forever. However, an objective ideal is necessary. He asked how one person can babysit 8 kids let alone 12. Mr. Pfeil stated that DCFS has criteria for the number of providers required in a home based on the ages of the children. If there are very young children, more providers are needed than if the children are older. Providers need an assistant for a certain number of younger children, and sometimes a part-time assistant is used even for an older group of kids. Commissioner Cohn stated we need to make sure that somehow we are not using the planning process to do enforcement. There is enforcement that should go on in the planning process to just really locate these facilities and determine if they work in the areas that are in and deal with the planning criteria. If there are too many kids or there is mischief going on that is impacting the neighborhood it would be enforcement questions and those should not be the criteria by which we re-evaluate the planning decision. That should be factored into the objective criteria for review. Commissioner Smith stated he agrees with this concept but we should not go overboard on the objective criteria. Once they are issued the special use and if there are one or two complaints it is not an undue hardship for them to come in here for a review. He asked if the two yearly inspections could be made unannounced. Mr. Pfeil said he will ask the Health Officer and Fire Marshal about spot inspections. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that everyone seems to think that surprise inspections might be appropriate to monitor compliance with Village regulations. DISCUSSION OF VILLAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Mr. Pfeil noted the Village Board is somewhat concerned with some of the densities that were recommended by the transit oriented study. He stated that for some of the residential property such as Half Day at the southeast corner and also on the northeasterly corner of Route 22 and Prairie where relatively high density was recommended in the transit area plan; staff is going back to the planned development for more of a townhouse type density. If a developer came in with a different idea with more density, obviously the Village Board and Plan Commission would entertain it if it was a quality project. However, a more conservative approach on the future land use map would be prudent so that high density is not encouraged. Mr. Pfeil stated in the area of the northwesterly corner of Main Street and Half Day where the Fiore Nursery is located, the map shows mixed use without specification about density or exact mix of uses. The concept is residential units over ground-level commercial or a mix of commercial and residential structures. Commissioner Cohn asked what it means when we say planned development where we had planned on building condos with stores on the bottom. Now it just says planned development which was put into the concept of townhouses. Mr. Pfeil stated where the plan shows the yellow pattern it would be residential, not commercial. The map tries to show basic land use types. "Planned development 6" does not dictate townhouses, but indicates the acceptable density for residential uses. If a developer has a different idea for higher density and could convince the Village Board and the Plan Commission that the proposal has merit, the Village would review it. Commissioner Cohn asked what if someone comes in and says they want to build some condos with stores on the bottom. Mr. Pfeil stated it is his opinion that does not fit well on either the southeasterly corner of Route 22 and Prairie Road or the northeasterly corner of Prairie Road and Route 22. If the developer could convince the Plan Commission that the proposal has merit, then obviously it should be reviewed and given full consideration. Commissioner Cohn asked what is really going to happen now that we are not approving the plan that we have come up with as part of the Comprehensive Plan. What does it really mean that it was only a "study"? When someone comes in and wants to understand what the Village's vision for development in these two areas around the train stations. Would they be able to go to the Village's planning office and ask what else has been done here? Can they look at the Village Comprehensive Plan and the study? He asked if a developer knows that we did a study if they want to develop around the train stations. Trustee Kahn the Village was sending a message that we did not accept or acknowledge the study as an element of our Comprehensive Plan for a number of reasons. First, it was not in keeping with our boundary agreement with Lincolnshire, the densities were in conflict. We accepted and appreciated all the work that was done for it but we are not in a position to put that in a format where it would be seen as part of our Comprehensive Plan and therefore potentially actionable by a developer or a group of people who wanted to come and develop according to that study. Commissioner Cohn noted his fear is that the study will be put into a file cabinet and never heard from again. He feels there is a lot of value there and he hopes that it would be part of something. Trustee Kahn stated it is his conjecture that if someone came to the Village and was asking what has been done to look at what potential could exist for this area they would be shown the plan with a caveat that this was a study that was done and it does not necessarily outline any intention for that property. PLAN COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT—2006—REVIEW Chairman Ottenheimer noted this is a very succinct conclusion of all that has been done this past year. Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the annual report, Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and all Commissioners were in favor of the motion. The motion passed 9 to 0. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next meeting will be held on February 7, 2007. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Bocek and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 9:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair