The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M.
Plan Commission Members Present: Chairman James Sula, Stephen Park, David Nordentoft, Richard McFarlane,
Sharon Salmons, Patrick Drennan
Plan Commission Members Absent: Gwen Broughton
Other Officials Present: Bryan Winter, Village Attorney; Tracy Velkover, Planning Manager; Molly Bacon, Associate Planner; Ryan Mentkowski, Associate Planner
Chairman Sula formally welcomes Ms. Sharon Salmons as a member to the Plan Commission.
1. a. Approval of Joint Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals Workshop Meeting Minutes for
March 11, 2009.
Mr. Nordentoft made a motion, seconded by Mr. McFarlane, to approve the Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for
March 11, 2009.
Roll Call
Ayes: Drennan, McFarlane, Nordentoft, Park, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: Salmons
Motion Carried: 5-0-0
b. Approval of Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009.
Mr. Nordentoft made a motion, seconded by Mr. McFarlane, to approve the Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for
April 15, 2009.
Roll Call
Ayes: Drennan, McFarlane, Nordentoft, Park, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: Salmons
Motion Carried: 5-0-0
1. Public Hearing: Special Use Permit
Associate Planner Molly Bacon stated Miriam Ramirez is seeking a Special Use Permit to allow a home day care center at 3523 Highland Avenue for a maximum of 15 clients. The subject property is zoned R-2 – Single Family Residence District and is located in the Frederick Bartlett’s Second Edition to North Shore Highlands subdivision.
Ms. Miriam Ramirez introduced herself stating her address 3523 Highland Avenue, Gurnee.
Ms. Ramirez states she has been a resident of Gurnee for three years and is here this evening applying for a special use permit. She introduced her husband, daughter and business partner, Dan Wriggler. Ms. Ramirez states it is their wish to continue operating a licensed home-based daycare in compliance with any and all Gurnee ordinances.
Mr. Dan Wriggler introduces himself stating he has been a Gurnee resident for 19 years and lives at 5856 Hancock Lane, Gurnee. Mr. Wiggler states he is a school teacher and a licensed foster care provider.
Mr. Wriggler states he has been interested in the whole aspect of child care and foster care for many years and as he is approaching retirement he has given a lot thought to partnering with someone and building a successful day care center.
Mr. Wriggler states he met Ms. Ramirez seven or eight years ago and has watched their business grow as well as talking to them to great extent about the future. He notes he works with the Ramirez’s when he can on his off days and helps them during the summer months.
Mr. Wriggler states he has identified with the Ramirez’s this is a much needed service in the area.
Chairman Sula opens the floor to any questions from members of the Commission.
Mr. Drennan asked for the number of children they plan on watching and the hours involved.
Mr. Wriggler responded that DCFS has been in business as an organization for 36 years who set the standards, conduct the inspections and serves the licenses to day care providers. He notes the number of children would be 15 and 4 of those 15 per license are called “extended” children.
Mr. Wriggler explains “extended” means children that could be dropped off before school and just need a place to be “housed” until the school bus arrives. He notes the actual number of children would be 11 plus the 4 “extended” children totaling 15. He notes the number is a little deceiving as the children are not all the daycare at the same time.
Mr. Drennan asks if approval is being sought for the maximum number of children and asks if this is Mr. Wriggler’s intent.
Mr. Wriggler responded yes. He states as summer is approaching they do not know what kind of calls they will be receiving. He notes at the present time they only have 5 children and they have had more than 5 children in the past. He states they would like to have more than 5 children in the future.
Mr. Wriggler states they feel they are providing a day care service a little different than most in the area from what they have been able to learn. He states other day care services have been able to assess private fees. He states they can do the same, however they are working with the State to provide a service to low income families and their fees are paid through government subsidy. He notes this is another reason they are looking at a slightly higher number of children because the government subsidy would be slightly over ½ of what most day care providers in Gurnee charge privately for their services.
Mr. Nordentoft stated he is a little confused. He states in reviewing the notes that were received from staff, it states that the license would allow eleven day clients, which basically is for the time frame of 5:00AM – 4:00PM and four extended clients which are for the time frame of 4:00PM to 11:00PM.
Chairman Sula stated he believed the four is 5:00AM – 4:00PM.
Mr. Nordentoft states he mis-read the notes.
Chairman Sula asked if there could be 15 children on site at any one time during the hours of 5:00AM – 4:00PM.
Mr. Wriggler responded rarely, but possibly.
Mr. Nordentoft asked if the intent is not to operate in the evening and plan on keeping the operation from 5:00AM – 4:00PM.
Ms. Ramirez responded yes.
Chairman Sula stated it is confusing and asked what hours are being asked for the Commission to consider.
Ms. Ramirez responded from 5:00AM – 4:00PM.
Chairman Sula asked if the DCFS permit allows day care providers to do something from 4:00PM – 11:00PM.
Ms. Ramirez responded it is optional. She notes DCFS states if a day care provider wishes to work the second shift from 4:00PM – 11:00PM it is up to the provider. Ms. Ramirez said she is in college right now, and has her daughter to take care of after her normal hours work and she is not planning to have a second shift.
Chairman Sula stated it is not up to the Commission to run her business. He states the Commission is trying to understand what is being requested. He states he wants to be crystal clear in what Ms. Ramirez is requesting and asks Ms. Ramirez again if the hours are 5:00AM – 4:00PM.
Ms. Ramirez responds yes.
Chairman Sula asks if he is reading the request correctly and asks if there could be as many as 15 children on site during that period of time.
Mr. Wriggler responds yes, it is possible. He states they have children showing up at 10:00AM and children leaving as early as 1:30PM to 2:00PM. So, it is possible at some point in time that there could be 15 children, but it is highly unlikely.
Chairman Sula states in terms of what is being asked the Commission has to consider maximum saturation.
Chairman Sula asks for questions from the Commission.
Mr. Park states he would like a couple of clarifications. He notes in the application there are several different possible improvements that may be made to the property. He states one of those mentioned, is the petitioner is looking at a six-foot fence for better security for the children. He notes another improvement is the petitioner is adjusting for better smoke/carbon dioxide detectors and some sprinklers as well as an additional access point.
Mr. Park asks how many of these improvements are being done or are they just ideas? He asks where this stand does.
Mr. Wriggler responds the reason this house was chosen is prior to the purchase of the house by the Ramirez’s, the house was serving as a day care center. He states many of these improvements were done. He notes the sprinkler system was already in and per DCFS, nothing had to be changed. He states in wanting to work with the City of Gurnee in compliance with any and all of Gurnee’s ordinances they invited Fire Marshall Mr. Keefe and anyone else who wanted to visit. He states while they were at the house, it was suggested that it would not be a bad idea and per their recommendation, for additional sprinklers and changing all the carbon monoxide fire alarms to battery and electric. He states as the yard is currently fenced and they thought it would be more esthetically pleasing for two sides to match the other two sides of the fence. He notes all of this is being addressed as they are meeting tomorrow with the architect and going over anything that needs to be submitted to the Commission which will be submitted appropriately by a professional.
Chairman Sula stated one thing he would like to be clear on. He states the Plan Commission only deals with the aspects of the Special Use Permit. He stated anything that deals with building code issues and interior improvements is not under the purview of the Plan Commission. He notes the Plan Commission only deals with zoning and their recommendation will be subject to compliance with applicable underlying zoning laws and regulations.
Mr. Wriggler wanted to address the improvements.
Chairman Sula wanted to clarify the Plan Commission does not deal with interior improvements.
Mr. McFarlane stated he had a question regarding staffing. He notes the day care staff is Ms. Ramirez and one other assistant.
Ms. Ramirez responds yes and during the summer when they were at full capacity, that Mr. Wriggler was her third assistant and at times one other assistant. She states normally it is 3 or 4 persons as staff for the children.
Mr. McFarlane asks how many children are being handled now.
Ms. Ramirez responds at present only 5 children.
Mr. McFarlane asks how many children she anticipates handling with 4 staff persons.
Mr. Wriggler responds they do not have that choice. He states DCFS requires 1 employee per “x” amount of children.
Mr. McFarlane asks if they are at 15 children how much staff is required.
Ms. Ramirez responds she is required to have 3 staff, counting herself.
Mr. Wriggler responds 2 additional staff members.
Mr. McFarlane asks, aside from regulations and the practical standpoint of running their business, is this appropriate number of staff?
Ms. Ramirez responds, yes.
Mr. McFarlane states there will potentially be three or four employee vehicles in front and as he recalls there is room for four vehicles on the pad. He asks if this is correct.
Mr. Wriggler responds on the pad there is room for probably four vehicles. He states on the right side of the drive there is room for probably three vehicles and to the left of the drive there is room for probably three vehicles. He states in the case of one they would probably walk as they are that close. Therefore it would be two vehicles on the driveway.
Mr. McFarlane states if the employees change over time, there may end up being four vehicles. He states he wanted to understand this as it ties in with traffic for parents and this has been outlined in the petition.
Mr. McFarlane states he is uncomfortable with 15 children as it is a big number.
Chairman Sula states this is a big number without understanding the traffic situation.
Chairman Sula asks for clarification on the meaning of the “right” and “left” of the driveway.
Mr. Wriggler responds the lots are large and stepping out at the bottom of the drive standing to the right/east side in front of the house, there would be room for at least three more vehicles.
Chairman Sula asked if he is referring to areas that are grass or areas that are paved.
Mr. Wriggler responds there are not curbs.
Chairman Sula asks if he means on the street.
Mr. Wriggler responds yes and would be used only for pick-up and drop-off.
Chairman Sula states he wants to understand in terms of where staff would park.
Mr. Wriggler states there would possibly be two more staff members, in addition to Ms. Ramirez. He states he would be one of the staff members. He states Ms. Ramirez’s vehicle would most likely be in the garage and his vehicle would be on the driveway. He states there could be one more vehicle on the driveway in addition to his vehicle, for a total of two vehicles outside on the driveway.
Chairman Sula asks where would additional staff park?
Mr. Wriggler states there would not be additional staff as they are only required to have a maximum of three staff.
Mr. McFarlane states in reference to the 4:00PM end time - what happens if a situation arises when parents call to say they are running late in picking up their child?
Mr. Wriggler responds it is rare for a parent to arrive more than 10 minutes late when picking up their children. He notes that it is stated in their child care contracts with the understanding if parents arrive late, they must pay a fine. He said presently, it is rare that any run up to the 4:00PM pick up time. He states with the five children presently in day care, it is two families that represent these five children. He states only two cars would pull up between 5AM – 7AM, and two cars at 2PM – 2:30PM.
Chairman Sula opens up the floor to the public.
Mr. Jerry Kolar introduces himself stating he resides at 3456 Highland in Gurnee.
Mr. Kolar states he has been enlightened that there will be 15 children in the neighborhood and takes exception to this because he feels there are better locations for a day care center than on a residential street.
Mr. Kolar states there are presently two cars in the driveway now, with one car parked on the street most of the time. He states during the summer there was one car blocking the driveway so the driveway couldn’t be used. Mr. Kolar said it is not zoned for business and every day at 5AM a vehicle drops off children. He states this past Monday the vehicle did not show up until 6:00PM for pick-up. He notes both this morning and yesterday morning at 5AM when the vehicle pulled up, the vehicle did not pull into the driveway. He stated the vehicle was sitting the wrong way in the street with the blinkers on. He also notes there are not sidewalks in the area.
Mr. Kolar states it is not a great neighborhood to have cars parked on the street because there are school buses that go up and down the street. He states with these cars parked on the street the buses have to go around these cars.
Mr. Fred Gust introduces himself stating he resides at 1802 Bell Plaine in Gurnee.
Mr. Gust states he is not opposed to day care center, but he is opposed to a day care center in a residential area. He states as he resides in an area that has three day care centers and from 5AM to sometimes 7-8PM cars come and go. He notes he lives right next door to a day care. He states DCFS has regulations as to the numbers of children that can be cared for, yet there is no way to actually regulate it as no one comes and actually checks.
Mr. Gust states he believes Gurnee has a no on-street parking ordinance for that area as there are no curbs. He notes where he is located that cars are constantly parked in the streets and children play in the driveway as there is no other area for them to play in. He states this is a money making business and it should be in a business location and suggests renting a spot on Green Bay Road or Grand Avenue where the zoning is commercial.
Mr. Kolar stated the house is only 1,344 square feet and believes there is not enough area for 15 children if requesting the maximum number of clients allowed.
Mr. Don Schreiber introduces himself and states he resides at 1801 Magnolia which is located on the corner of Highland and Magnolia. He states between 6AM – 7AM traffic is horrendous with people running stop signs as well as seemingly using the area as a cut-through. He notes this is 2 blocks from the school with a 25 M.P.H. zone and cars come around the corner without stopping. His concern is causing extra traffic in this area.
Chairman Sula asks for any other questions from the public and then closes the floor to the public.
Associate Planner Molly Bacon answers the question about on-street parking. She states she checked with the Engineering Department and parking is allowed along Highland Avenue.
Chairman Sula asks for clarification that the only parking restrictions in the Village for overnight parking.
Associate Planner Ms. Bacon responds that is correct.
Chairman Sula asks what is the understanding with the license as to how many children can be cared for if there was only one employee.
Ms. Ramirez responds eight children.
Chairman Sula states that the home occupation limits to one employee by right without a Special Use Permit.
Chairman Sula states the Commission is not under the purview of the DCFS rules and asks for clarification about the square footage question.
Associate Planner Ms. Bacon responds there are no square footage requirements for inside the house. She states the only square footage requirements are for outdoor play areas. She states the square footage required is 150 sq. feet per child. She notes for 15 children the requirement is 2,250 sq. feet for an outdoor play area. She states their lot is 15,000 sq. feet which meets the requirement.
Chairman Sula requests a better understanding of traffic, drop-off and pick-up procedures. He states he is concerned with the location of where vehicles are parked and the ability of vehicles to get around vehicles that are parked in the street. He is also concerned about the absence of sidewalks and vehicles that are temporarily facing the wrong way in the street during drop-off and pick-up times.
Mr. Wriggler responds that the amount of traffic that their neighbors feel is great in number is two cars that currently bring the five children to the center. He states this is the additional traffic that they are responsible for generating on the street. He states the reason a van is parked at times across the base of the drive is that DCFS asks for this to be done to keep people out of the driveway for the children’s safety. This is done to prevent the situation of where a car is accidently bumped into gear to go forward and children are not able to seen. He states DCFS prefers that children are dropped off at the base of the drive.
Mr. Wriggler states there are cameras outside all around the house and they are alerted when a vehicle pulls up. He referred to five minutes in the report but his guess is that it is closer to a two-three minutes that involves taking children out of the back of the car, walking to the back of the house, letting them in and then leaving, He states to help the parents and to help themselves at the end of the day, they watch the cameras as to when a vehicle pulls up. He notes by the time the parent leaves the car and walks to the back of the house they have the child waiting for the parent at the door. Mr. Wriggler states you could use the term “parking” but he feels the term drop-off and pick-up are more appropriate. He again states it is two-three minutes.
Chairman Sula agrees this is a drop-off and pick-up situation but he reminds Mr. Wriggler and the members of the Commission that presently there are only two families that are clients with two drop-offs and pick-ups but they are asking for 15 children. He states for the Commissions deliberations that it could be assumed that this is a maximum of fifteen trips as Mr. Wriggler cannot guarantee that it will only be two families. Chairman Sula states unfortunately the Commission must deal with worst case scenarios and that would be fifteen drop-offs and fifteen pick-ups every day if asking for a maximum of 15 children. Chairman Sula states he needs a very clear understanding of how this will be handled.
Chairman Sula states the Commission has had several of these requests in the past and this is the first time he has heard that DCFS states you cannot use the dwellings driveway for a drop-off / pick-up. Chairman Sula states he finds this hard to believe and would like to see this in writing especially when it is a situation where there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood.
Ms. Ramirez states she will bring a copy of this.
Mr. Winter asks if children would walk on the street until getting to the path when going to Shaw Park.
Mr. Wriggler responds yes, the length of two house lots to the path or the sidewalk which would lead them to the park.
Chairman Sula asks how fifteen drop-offs and pick-ups would be handled during the course of the day.
Mr. Wriggler responds he cannot guarantee, but there is not going to be fifteen drop-offs / pick-ups. He states it would be more likely seven or eight at the maximum. He states it is rarely that a client is a family with one child and most often it is a family with two or three children. Mr. Wriggler states it will not be fifteen and when the time comes the Commission is welcome to come and do any type of check that they would like.
Mr. Park responds with regard to the notes from the staff stating there was a traffic study done a couple of years ago for another day care home that was proposed for fourteen clients. Mr. Park asks the staff if this addressed the expectation of drop-off and pick-up traffic and the number of cars that would be generated.
Planning Manager Ms. Tracy Velkover responded that in looking in the memo this was not addressed. Ms. Velkover stated that in the past, the traffic consultant has indicated with an average number of children it probably will not be one two vehicles, that it probably would be somewhere in between those numbers. Ms. Velkover stated one of the off-setting principles is that the drop-off and pick-up deliveries are over extended periods of time perhaps over a couple of hours versus all within a ½ hour period.
Mr. Wriggler asked if the application for fourteen children was awarded.
Village Attorney Bryan Winter responded they have since amended the ordinance on this. He states there was one received for fourteen children, but again there have been some subsequent amendments to the ordinance. Mr. Winter states since the amendments the Village has only allowed up to eight children.
Ms. Velkover verifies the number is eight.
Mr. Winter states they have allowed a number of them for up to eight children and the trigger is how many additional employees. He further notes about the discussion of running a business in a residential area. He states the Village does have home occupation, there is a limit to just one employee for that type of occupation.
Mr. Wriggler states the Ramirez’s were in business in a neighboring town and they have always complied with everything and anything. He states when they bought the home they were looking for not only a better school system and other opportunities to grow the day care business. He notes they stumbled upon this one which was already operating and possibly serving twelve children. He states they called the Village to obtain information and the State Fire Marshall coming in. He states they thought they had all their bases covered until they received a letter from the Village of Gurnee questioning the number of children, being five kids or more.
Mr. Wriggler states they promptly adjusted this with Ms. Bacon, had subsequent meetings and filled out the appropriate forms per the request from the Village. He states they will spend an additional $18,000 - $20,000 dollars but they believe strongly enough in what they are doing and the purpose they are serving.
Mr. Winter states it has been pointed out that the building code is not part of this discussion and asks if this sum of money is what is anticipated to put in the additional sprinklers.
Mr. Wriggler responds a number of improvements. He states the Fire Marshall of Gurnee came to the home and recommended this to be done. Mr. Wriggler stated if this is what he recommends to have them better comply then this is what they would do.
Mr. Winter states some of the prior applicants recognized you can go up to eight children as long as it is located on the first floor. He notes sometimes those improvements are not required with up to eight children. He states this is what may have motivated some of the prior petitioners.
Mr. Wriggler responds I guess it did.
Mr. Park states Ms. Velkover just gave him a copy of the memo from Gewalt Hamilton on the prior home day care project. He reads what was stated the memo as a practical matter and what was included rather than explicit data. The memo stated that obviously some children will arrive via carpool or from the same family. He notes from the memo that sometimes there will be absences and some children may be in the neighborhood and walk. In addition, the memo notes even if the maximum was provided for on a one trip per child, that it wasn’t believed that the number of trips would be significant in the specific neighborhood that was being addressed.
Mr. Park notes what also written, is that typically only about 50% of the children arrive within specific time periods and it’s not as though they are all arriving at the same time. He states these were written comments by Mr. Bill Grieves for a pervious case where the location was on a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Park said they addressed that the drop-off is often on-street and sometimes in the drive which is subject to discussion this evening.
Chairman Sula asked for any other questions or comments from the Commission.
Mr. Parks states his inclination is as a practice and a policy that the Village and this Commission has generally look favorably upon providing day care facilities in a home as a positive experience for the children and one that necessarily doesn’t harm the neighborhood. Mr. Parks states the question to him is one of size and how the external pieces are dealt with. He states for example, how many employees and where do the employees park? Do they park on the driveway instead of on the street? He states his question regarding to size in relation to the code which specifies play area outside, which is “x” square feet per client. He states just using the size of the property isn’t necessarily appropriate. He notes it is really what the play area is and how the play area is controlled. Mr. Parks asks how large the rear fenced yard is and if it is adequate.
Mr. Parks’s last comment is that he less concerned about the lack of sidewalks in the neighborhood with the exception of an occasional trip 100 feet away to the walking path; they are pretty much controlled on-site. He also states if someone is dropping off their child here, the child is under parental control to come to the facility and the fact there are not sidewalks is less of an issue.
Mr. Winter mentions in the one instance, prior to the amendment, it was fourteen children that were permitted. He states this was an issue that surfaced afterwards. He notes the neighbors who live next the backyard on a daily basis not just on a periodic basis when there is a party, and by and large families just don’t have 15 children. He states this is consideration that the Board should look at.
Mr. McFarlane commented he is not willing to support more than 8 children on the property. He states he believes it is inappropriate for the number of employees and it is a 1,300 square foot house. He notes at eight children you have about 150 sq. feet per person using every amount of space in the house and doesn’t feel the size of the house is big enough to handle more than eight children, regardless if the yard is 10-acres. He states the children would be in the house most due to our climate and is not comfortable with any amount above eight children.
Mr. Nordentoft agrees with this as well and tends to look more at the standards of special use. He states coming back to the concerns about ingree/egress from the property. He notes going back to worse case scenario of fifteen drop-offs / pick-ups in addition to the employee parking in driveways he shares concerns with some of the concerns the neighbors had. Those concerns are narrow streets with people being on the street with the additional traffic. He comments looking on the map that Highland is one of the few streets in that neighborhood that goes all the way from Greenbay to Magnolia and believes that Highland picks up a greater amount of thru-traffic compared to some of the other streets to the north or the south. He states, he is working off of a worse case scenario.
Mr. Drennan states he echoes what others have said and believes eight children would be the maximum number he would consider.
Chairman Sula states the Commission is coming down to eight children. He states he will give the petitioner a choice to proceed with that particular motion or the petitioner can ask for a continuance and re-group to find a compelling reason to present this at a later date as to why the Commission should consider more than eight children.
Mr. Wriggler said part of the difficulty he is having is that up to this point they have complied with everything that was implied. He notes one day they are told one thing and the next day they are told something else. He comments two of the gentlemen from the public who spoke this evening should not be considered neighbors because they are not really neighbors. He stated the fact that the one gentleman has day cares near his home, it is his problem and that he doesn’t live next to them.
Mr. Wriggler stated they will go for the continuance because this is their livelihood. He stated that even though the traffic seems to be an issue they are talking about two family cars arriving in the morning and leaving at night.
Chairman Sula asks if Mr. Wriggler would like to request a continuance, how much time would they need to gather and develop a case.
Mr. Wriggler responds it depends on what is involved as he is unfamiliar with the process. He asks for Chairman Sula to help him understand.
Chairman Sula responds it lies in Mr. Wriggler’s court and what was presented tonight has not convinced the Commission to allow more than eight children. He states if Mr. Wriggler thinks time will allow him to gather more facts and testimony that will convince the Commission to go beyond eight children, it is in Mr. Wriggler’s court to decide on the amount of time he needs to develop that case.
Mr. Wriggler responds two weeks.
Chairman Sula responded the next available meeting is Wednesday, June 3, 2009.
Chairman Sula asked for motion to move for continuation.
Mr. Park made a motion, seconded by Mr. Drennan for the continuation on June 3, 2009.
Roll Call
Ayes: Drennan, McFarlane, Nordentoft, Park, Salmons, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
Chairman Sula moved to adjourn.
Mr. Nordentoft made a motion, seconded by Mr. Drennan to adjourn.
The Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted:
Joanne Havenhill
Plan Commission Secretary