The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
Plan Commission Members Present: Chairman James Sula, Stephen Park, David Nordentoft,
Richard McFarlane, Sharon Salmons, Gwen Broughton
Plan Commission Members Absent: Patrick Drennan
Zoning Board of Appeals Members Present: Chairman Tom Hood, Edwin Paff, John Spadaro, Don Wilson,
Denise Smith, Jerry Kolar
Zoning Board of Appeals Members Absent: Mike Deimler
Other Officials Present: Bryan Winter, Village Attorney; Dave Ziegler, Director of Community Development, Tracy Velkover, Planning Manager; Molly Bacon, Associate Planner; Ryan Mentkowski, Associate Planner
1. Approval of Joint Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals Workshop Meeting Minutes (ZBA only) for September 30, 2009.
Mr. Paff made a motion, seconded by Mr. Spadaro, to approve the Joint Plan Commission & ZBA Workshop Meeting Minutes for September 30, 2009.
Roll Call
Ayes: Hood, Paff, Spadaro, Wilson, Smith, & Kolar
Nays: None
Abstain:
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
2. Public Hearing: Recreational Vehicles & Haul Trailers on residentially zoned or used properties
(Zoning Text Amendment)
Ms. Velkover stated this is a Public Hearing on possible amendments to the Village’s codes and ordinances regarding the outside parking of recreational vehicles and haul trailers on either residentially zoned or residentially used properties.
Chairman Sula stated that, because this is a Public Hearing, members of the general public wishing to ask questions or make comments must be sworn in by the Village Attorney. The Village Attorney swore in the public.
Ms. Velkover stated as background that the regulations are being reviewed because of not only resident complaints but also as a recognition that the Village’s regulations, which are over 29 years old, may not currently meet resident expectations of protecting property values. She stated there have been three (3) workshop meetings of both the Plan Commission and ZBA over the last seven months, occurring May 27, June 24 and September 30. She stated to obtain as much information as possible from the Public while going through the process, press releases were issued regarding meeting dates, meeting notices were distributed over the Village’s Listserve, Website and Phone System, the residents’ opinions were solicited through the conduction of a survey to gauge the level of regulations that residents would support. Finally, a notice of tonight’s public hearing was published, as required by law.
Ms. Velkover stated the workshop meetings were used to obtain and review the following information:
· Gurnee’s existing codes and ordinances that govern RV parking and storage.
· Approximately 20 other communities’ RV ordinances.
· Resident’s comments provided at the three (3) workshop sessions.
· Rates/cost of off-site storage of RV’s.
· Results from the resident RV survey.
· Photographs of existing RV/haul trailer parking conditions in Gurnee.
Ms. Velkover stated as this is a Public Hearing the review of Gurnee’s ordinances will be provided this evening as this testimony needs to provided for Public Record as well as residents who may not have attended the previous workshop sessions and may be hearing this information for the first time.
Ms. Velkover stated Gurnee’s existing codes and ordinances are as follows:
· Requires that RVs be placed on a hard surface pad.
· Prohibits the removal of wheels or other transportation devices.
· Prohibits the use of RV’s for inhabitation, except for guests visiting for not more than 30 days in a calendar year.
· Prohibits parking over or in to a right of way.
Ms. Velkover stated through the workshop meetings other communities’ ordinances were reviewed and nearly every community surveyed has the following basic regulations:
· Requirement for a valid registration or license.
· Requirement for ownership of the vehicle by the person living on the property or owning the property.
· A prohibition of parking into or over a right-of-way.
· Requirement that the vehicle be parked on a hard surface pad and maintained in a neat and clean manner.
Ms. Velkover stated that there are other communities that have additional regulations above the basic regulations, which were discussed at past workshop meetings. She stated they are as follows:
· Mundelein, Buffalo Grove, Vernon Hills, Streamwood, and Woodridge: include restrictions on size, number & location.
· Libertyville & Crystal Lake: include restrictions on size and number
· Waukegan: include restrictions on size and location and require screening
· Lincolnshire: include restrictions on number and location and require screening
· Round Lake & Wadsworth: include restrictions on location
· Round Lake Beach: include restrictions on number
· Zion: restrictions on weight for trucks, buses and trailers
· Bartlett and Hainesville: regulations are seasonal based and include location
Ms. Velkover stated there are some communities without specific regulations that apply to RVs. She noted that Winthrop Harbor & Antioch, do not have any regulations on RVs. Grayslake, on the other hand, controls the outside parking and/or storage of these vehicles by limiting the total number of vehicles that can be parked outside.
In regard to the community survey, Ms. Velkover stated that it was available for one month and was provided to residents online through the Village website and as a hardcopy available at the Village Hall. She stated 234 surveys were tabulated, but that the results of the survey did not provide Staff with any clear direction. The survey results revealed that, overall, residents who own RVs either support the existing regulations or a relaxing of the current regulations. Those residents that did not own RVs generally support greater restrictions and also support a complete ban on RVs. The survey also did not provide any real direction regarding where, on a lot, residents felt it was appropriate to allow RVs to be parked or stored. People who supported a complete ban on RVs appear to have skewed the results so that there was no support for allowing RVs to be parked or stored anywhere on a lot. However, when respondents who supported a complete ban were removed from the results there was support for allowing RVs to be parked on a driveway in either the front or corner side yard.
Ms. Velkover stated questions were also asked to gauge support for an ordinance that would allow RVs to be parked on a seasonal basis, require RVs to be screened, restrict the number of RVs, and prohibit the use of gravel as a hard surface pad. She stated the results showed that there was no support for a seasonal approach, no support for requiring RVs to be screened (except by those who supported a total ban), and no support for prohibiting the use of gravel as a hard surface pad. However, there was support for restricting the number of RVs on a property and for allowing guest of residents to utilize RVs for up to 30 days per calendar year.
Ms. Velkover stated that, at the last workshop meeting, the Plan Commission and ZBA reviewed a draft ordinance that provided basic regulation as well as an option for some additional regulations to restrict location and number of RVs. The Boards directed Staff to advertise for a public hearing on a draft that reflected the basic regulations with the addition of a restriction on the number of RVs and/or haul-trailers. Following is the draft Ordinance proposed for review at tonight’s public hearing.
The Ordinance starts with an overall definition of Recreational Vehicle, as follows:
Recreational Vehicle is any vehicle or boat designed for temporary living quarters, recreation, or temporary human habitation and not used as a commercial vehicle, including, but not limited to, the following: boat/watercraft, camper trailer, conversion vans, motorized trailer, off-the-road vehicle, racing car or cycle, travel trailer, and truck camper. Mobile homes, as defined elsewhere in this ordinance, are not included in the definition of recreational vehicle.
Ms. Velkover stated that there are also separate “sub-definitions” of each specific type of recreational vehicle (i.e., boat/watercraft, camper trailer, conversion van, motor home, off the road vehicle, racing car or cycle, snowmobile, specially constructed vehicle, travel trailer, truck camper/slide in pick-up camper). She noted that these are pretty self-explanatory but wanted to point out that, for the purpose of this ordinance, any number of Personal Watercraft (jet skis) or Snowmobiles mounted on a trailer would be considered one vehicle.
Ms. Velkover noted there is one other “sub-definition” that is somewhat unique. This is the definition for Specially Constructed Vehicle. She read the definition for this type of vehicle. Specially Constructed Vehicle - Any vehicle which was not originally constructed under a distinctive name, make, model or type, or which, if originally constructed has been materially altered by the removal of essential parts, or by the addition or substitution of essential parts, new or used, derived from other vehicles or makes of vehicles and used for temporary living quarters or recreation. An example of this would be the conversion of a school bus into a recreational vehicle.
Ms. Velkover noted that the Utility or Haul Trailer definition is not part of the recreational vehicle definition. She stated this is a separate stand alone definition. Specifically, a Utility or Haul Trailer is a vehicle, enclosed or non-enclosed, with or without its own motive power that is designed and constructed to transport another vehicle, such as a car, boat, motorcycle or snowmobile, or to transport equipment and/or tools, such as lawn mowers, bobcats, etc., and that is eligible to be licensed or registered and insured for highway use. For the purpose of this ordinance, a utility or haul trailer with vehicle(s) mounted on it shall be considered one vehicle.
Ms. Velkover stated that the proposed regulations for RVs and haul-trailers are as follows:
1) For properties zoned or used for single family or two-family residential that have less than 40,000 sq. ft. a maximum of 1 recreational vehicle or 1 utility haul trailer that can be parked or stored outside.
2) Properties zoned or used for single-family or two-family residential purposes that have 40,000 sq. ft. or more may have a maximum of two recreational vehicles or utility/haul trailers, or combination thereof, parked or stored outside a fully enclosed structure.
Ms. Velkover stated that, at the last workshop meeting, the Plan Commission and ZBA discussed the fact that larger lots should be allowed the ability to park/store more than 1 RV or haul trailer. Therefore, staff drafted the draft ordinance to allow lots with less than 40,000 sq. ft. a maximum of 1 RV or haul trailer. Lots with 40,000 sq. ft. or larger are allowed a maximum of 2 RVs or haul trailers or combination thereof.
3) Properties zoned or used for multi-family residential purposes shall have no limit on the number of recreational vehicles or utility/haul trailers that may be parked or stored outside a fully enclosed structure as long as these vehicles do not occupy required parking per the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Velkover stated the multi-family regulations follow the same approach as commercial vehicles; as long as the number of available parking spaces does not drop below the minimum required by code for vehicles then there is no limit on the number of recreational vehicles or utility haul trailers.
4) Utility/haul-trailers may not contain print or logos which advertise a business.
Ms. Velkover stated this also mirrors some of the language that is in the commercial vehicle ordinance. She stated as long as there are no logos or commercial messages on the vehicle then it is most likely being used for residential recreational purposes. She stated if there is a logo or message then it is probably being used for commercial purpose. Trailers with logos or commercial messages would prohibited on residentially zoned or used properties by this ordinance.
5) Utility/haul-trailers may contain no more than 2 axles.
Ms. Velkover stated that at the last workshop meeting the threshold for utility or haul vehicles was 1 axle. However, based on comments at this meeting the threshold was increased to 2 axles.
6) Recreational vehicles or utility/haul-trailers shall have current and valid registration if required by state statute to be registered for operation on a public highway.
7) Recreational vehicles or utility/haul-trailers shall be parked, stored, and maintained in a clean, neat manner, and the equipment shall be in operable condition at all times.
8) Recreational vehicles or utility/haul-trailers shall be parked or stored on asphalt, concrete, crushed stone, or brick pavers, and shall be free of noxious weeds or grass.
9) Recreational vehicles or utility/haul trailers shall not have their wheels or other transportation devices removed.
10) Recreational vehicles or utility/haul trailers shall be owned by the resident, property owner, or occupant.
11) Recreational vehicles or haul trailers shall not be parked or stored so as to extend into or over any public sidewalk, street, or street right-of-way.
12) Recreational vehicles are prohibited from being occupied or used for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes by the resident, except that non-resident families or guests who have an established residence elsewhere and are visiting a resident may occupy an RV for no more than a total of 30 days in a calendar year. It shall be the duty of either the owner or the resident of the property on which a guest with a RV is located or the owner of the RV to register with the Director of Community Development of the Village within 24 hours after such RV is parked on said property.
Ms. Velkover stated this is the draft before the Boards based upon the discussions at the last workshop meeting.
Chairman Sula opened the floor to the Public and stated the Board would keep track of the questions and answer them one by one after they heard from all persons wishing to speak.
Mr. Richard Clay, 5109 Coventry Lane, asked for clarification of the definition of Recreational Vehicle, specifically the last sentence pertaining to mobile homes. He stated that it mentions that mobile homes, as defined elsewhere, are not included in the definition of recreational vehicle. But noted that the 4th sub-definition is for “motor home”, which is a self propelled vehicle. He stated a “mobile home” consists of Park City’s houses. He stated a motor home is specifically different and stated he saw nothing in the proposed ordinance which deals with “motor homes”.
Mr. Jim Vielbig, 2008 Madison Avenue, asked whether the definition of a conversion van was specific enough to distinguish from handicap accessible conversion vans that are equipped with wheel chair lifts. He also referred to regulation # 12, which allows guests the ability to utilize a recreational vehicle on a residential property as long as the guest(s) has an established residence elsewhere and occupies an RV for no more than a total of 30 days in a calendar year. He asked if this refers to an RV that is parked on the property or if this allows a guest to bring another RV on to the property for 30 days.
Mr. Dick Caldwell, 4400 Elm Street, asked why camper tops or pick-up tops were not included in the ordinance. He stated when going through the neighborhoods these camper/pick-up plastic tops are visible and leaning against garages, sitting on driveways and are on resident’s lawns.
Ms. Sandy Moon, 3868 Dorchester, stated that the RV ordinance was brought to the Commission by individuals worried about property values. She asked if there was consideration for homeowners associations that may have been having trouble enforcing their own rules in areas that do have homeowners associations and not the rest of the Village. She also asked if any business permits were issued for anyone looking to open up storage facilities in the Village to take advantage of this.
Ms. Marlene Hunt, 3921 Ellis Avenue, stated she is probably among the minority present at this meeting because she supports, along with other residents, a total ban on RVs in residential areas. RVs parked on residential properties have caused a lot of ill feelings among her neighbors and people in the community. She stated she would like to have the same property protection as those that live in the residential sub-divisions located primarily west of the toll-way, where there are conveyances that prevent the parking of motor homes, boats and other recreational vehicles on residential lots. She stated allowing motor homes that look like buses to be parked alongside a home has an adverse affect on that property, as well as the neighborhood looking like a commercial parking lot rather than a residential area. She stated this tends to devalue the nearby residential properties as well as reducing the overall ambiance of the neighborhood. She stated it puts the older neighborhoods, like the one she resides in, at a distinct disadvantage, especially in today’s real estate market where curb appeal is so important to the perspective buyer. She referred to a letter she sent to the Village in September 2009, where she mentioned a boat being parked in a circular driveway all year which is 8-12 feet from the public sidewalk. She noted that now this boat will be parked under a “tent” in front of the house. She stated this is not what she would expect to be allowed in Gurnee. She stated that the Village should contact the owners of the old “Handy Andy” property, which is now vacant, and see if something could be done to fence in the property and allow Gurnee residents to store their recreational vehicles on this property under lock and key. She stated this would provide for a re-use of the particular area as well as helping the neighborhoods. Most of the people who support a total RV ban realize they will not get a ban, but they would like the Boards to take a hard look at some of these concerns when the recommendations are put in front of the Village Board as it would be an important step in maintaining Gurnee as a beautiful and most desirable community.
Mr. Robert Dinelli, 3531 Highland Avenue, stated that he is a 20 year resident of Gurnee. He noted that he owns a boat and some of his neighbors own campers. He does not see this as a problem and noted everyone pays taxes to live in Gurnee. He noted with the economy as tough as it is people have to park their RVs on their property and cannot pay for storage. He stated as long as the vehicles are clean and maintained and if the driveway where the vehicle is parked is fine, then no one should have any issues. He stated he has neighbors who complain.
Mr. Dean Sprake-Jones, 1117 Laurel Lane, asked for clarification on regulation #4, which states that trailers may not contain print or logos that advertise a business. He questioned how a non-for-profit trailer or one with sponsorships would be viewed.
Mr. Kevin Moss, 2086 Windsong Court, stated he is very disappointed at the ordinance that is being discussed tonight. He stated the draft ordinance seems very watered down from what he thought was the original intent. He asked who determines what is “in a clean and neat manner”, which is found in regulation #7. He stated this is too vague for him and it should be more specific as to what the crushed stone or hard brick area should look like if there is a vehicle stored upon it. He also referenced regulation #12, the last paragraph which requires that a guest RV must be registered with the Director of Community Development within 24 hours of it being placed on a property. He asked if the Director of Community Development works on the weekends. He asked how this person would be notified within 24 hours if it were to be a Friday night and the Director has already gone home. He stated he believes there should be a restriction for RVs that are so large that they cannot be fully parked on the side of a house and are, instead, jammed in an area between bushes and the house with the rear end of the vehicle extending past the front façade of the house. He stated that this looks ridiculous.
Chairman Sula asked for any other questions or comments from the Public.
Chairman Sula closed the floor to the Public.
Ms. Velkover responded to the first question differentiating between a mobile home and a motor home. She stated a motor home is a temporary dwelling with an integral part that is self propelled. She stated the Zoning Ordinance currently provides a definition for a mobile home, which is a structure designed for permanent habitation.
Chairman Sula noted that, in the first paragraph, it reads “mobile homes, as defined elsewhere in this ordinance and it should state “motor homes” as defined elsewhere.
Mr. Winter responded that the definition indicates that the definition of RV “doesn’t apply to mobile homes”.
Ms. Velkover clarified that the statement “as defined elsewhere in this ordinance” is referring to elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance” and not elsewhere in the RV regulations. She noted that the RV regulations are proposed to be located in the Zoning Ordinance; specifically in the parking chapter.
Chairman Sula suggested it should state as defined in the “specific section” of the overall ordinance which might clarify this.
Ms. Velkover agreed with Chairman Sula.
Chairman Sula stated his understanding of the question was where do mobile homes, such as what is in Park City, come into play and he believes the Gurnee Ordinance doesn’t allow this sort of thing.
Ms. Velkover responded correct, except for in a mobile home park.
Ms. Velkover responded to the question about conversion vans and whether there is enough in the definition to separate this from the type of van used for handicapped individuals. She stated from the exterior it would be difficult to distinguish. But that a conversion van that is a recreational vehicle must, per the definition, be designed for temporary living quarters, recreation, or temporary habitation and equipped with living facilities. Therefore, it must be modified for temporary living quarters to qualify as a RV. She stated it this language used to appear in the sub-definition of Conversion Van, but instead can now be found in the overall Recreational Vehicle definition. A conversion van is a recreational vehicle would be equipped with living facilities, whereas a van that is used for transportation of handicapped individuals would not have living facilities.
Chairman Sula asked if there was a way that the definition could be tied to the vehicle license (i.e, vans with RV plates would be viewed as recreational vehicles, while those with passenger plates would be viewed as passenger vehicles).
Ms. Velkover responded possibly, but stated she didn’t believe that RV plates were mandatory for conversion vans with living facilities. Therefore, using license plates wouldn’t actually correlate to the vehicle’s use.
Chairman Sula stated a conversion van is a loose term in the auto industry and could be a van that came from the factory completely empty which ends up with a fancy interior and that is known as a conversion van as opposed to what Ms. Velkover is referring to.
Ms. Velkover stated that is why you would need to look at the specific definition of Conversion Van proposed for the Zoning Ordinance. It specifies that, for a conversion van to be considered a recreational vehicle, it must be equipped with living facilities.
Ms. Salmons asked if it can be specified that it is for a conversion van that is meant for living purposes.
Ms. Velkover responded it is already in the definition. If the Commissions feel this needs further clarification, Staff can work language to reinforce that, in order for conversion vans to be considered recreational vehicles, they must be equipped with living facilities and used for temporary habitation. .
Mr. Wilson stated the Commission may want to figure out another way to define “conversion van” because if someone had a motor home and a conversion van and they just use the conversion van, he would hate to see that counted as 2 recreational vehicles. He asked if the Commission could redefine conversion van, so it wouldn’t count as a second recreational vehicle.
Chairman Sula stated he believes there are 2 issues. One issue is a suggestion that a conversion van not count as a recreational vehicle for the purposes of the number limit for a property. The second is clarifying that a handicap accessible van doesn’t typically have living quarters.
Ms. Velkover mentioned the question of camper tops and pick-up tops. She noted that there is a definition of Truck camper/Slide in pick-up camper, which is a structure designed primarily to be mounted on a pickup or truck chassis and designed to be used as a temporary dwelling for travel, camping, recreation or vacation use. When mounted on a truck, such structure and the truck shall together be considered one vehicle. These are proposed to be regulated as a recreational vehicle.
Chairman Sula stated the question was actually regarding truck caps that are put onto a vehicle to protect the vehicle bed from the elements.
Ms. Velkover responded the definition encompasses not only the structures that have a larger door but also those with a cap put onto a vehicle.
Mr. Park stated caps are what are typically put over the bed of a pick-up truck and do not necessarily facilitate the use of living quarters and that caps provide covered storage. He mentioned the gentleman from the public was distinguishing the truck cap which is just the quick shell for storage and he felt that those were a problem which is not an RV and is a different issue.
Mr. McFarlane stated he agrees this is a problem but doesn’t feel it is relevant to what is being discussed at this meeting and that it needs to be covered somewhere else as it is not an RV.
Ms. Velkover responded to the question regarding if there was any consideration to address homeowners associations who may not be enforcing their provisions. She stated the Ordinance, as drafted, would apply to all properties within the community. She stated that whatever regulations are adopted by the Board would be enforced throughout the Community. Provisions in Homeowners Association documents, which regulate recreational vehicles, cannot be enforced by the Village.
Mr. McFarlane stated that the Homeowners Associations may enact more restrictive provisions, but that it is up to those associations to enforce those provisions.
Ms. Velkover stated that is correct.
Ms. Salmons asked if the homeowners associations take more precedence over the Village ordinances.
Mr. McFarlane responded only if it is more restrictive.
Ms. Velkover responded the Homeowners Association regulations are separate from Village regulations. If the Homeowners Association regulations are more restrictive, then residents in that subdivision must be held to those restrictions by the Homeowners Associations and not the Village.
Ms. Velkover responded to the question about clarification about whether language on a haul trailer that identifies sponsorship or a not-for-profit organization is allowed. She stated that, without seeing something specifically, it is difficult to comment on this. However, generally speaking if there is a commercial message it would be prohibited.
Chairman Sula stated his definition of sponsorship is seeking attention and that is considered advertisement.
Mr. Park stated, as an example he has seen haul trailers that are used for the boy scouts that have “for Boy Scout
Troop #) on the trailer. He stated that is not, per say, a commercial message but it is a message stating who owns the haul trailer and what their sponsorship is. He asked how this would be handled.
Ms. Velkover responded the way the ordinance is currently drafted, that would probably not be permitted.
Mr. Park questioned if a trailer were not on the “scoutmaster’s” property but on the property of the association or church that sponsors the trailer located in an R-1 district, how this would be handled.
Mr. Winter responded this is an area of interpretation. He stated the current language is “which advertises a business.” He stated he believes that a position could be taken that if it is merely sponsorship recognizing that contributions have been made, then that would not be in violation of this language.
Ms. Velkover stated language should be added to clarify this. The goal is to make this as clear as possible so that there is consistent interpretation.
Chairman Sula asked how this differs from the sign ordinance where you do not ban signs based on content. He asked how this can possibly be done; saying a particular logo is okay and another logo is not okay. He stated he doesn’t see the difference.
Mr. Winter responded this is an item that is probably not as crucial to the prior discussion. He stated he is not a great proponent deciding whether the supply is based on the content of logo, from a legal perspective. He stated he would like to see what is in the commercial vehicle language and asked if this was identical.
Ms. Velkover responded yes, in terms of commercial logos and in terms of advertising a business.
Ms. Velkover stated logos/names on vehicles, (i.e. ford, mercury) are the vehicle’s make & model and she would not view this as a commercial “message”.
Mr. Winter stated the distinction that Staff needs to review is some of the language that was used to decide whether it may be a commercial vehicle versus a private vehicle. He stated it may not be as appropriate to use it in the context presented at this meeting. He stated that there needs to be further clarification of regulation #4 and he volunteered to follow-up on this. He referred to some of the wordsmithing on this particular item and encouraged everyone to understand that a good point has been raised to this particular provision and that it is something that could be adjusted prior to advancement to the Village Board.
Mr. Nordentoft stated that he thought that we allowed some signage/logos on commercial vehicles.
Ms. Velkover responded there any vehicle that contains print or logos which advertises a business is considered a commercial vehicle. However, we allow a property to park 1 such vehicle outside if that vehicle does not also meet the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) threshold for a commercial vehicle or have a modified bed. The reason that we allowed 1 vehicle with print on it for the commercial vehicle ordinance is because we are talking about vehicles that you could normally see utilized as passenger vehicles for residential uses (i.e, pick-up trucks, Suburban’s, etc.). The ordinance for haul-trailers sets the allowed number, when the trailer has print or logos that advertise a business, at zero because these vehicles are not utilized as passenger vehicles for residential uses. Ms. Velkover noted that, if the Boards would like further wordsmithing on the provision regarding commercial messages on haul-trailers, this hearing can be continued to allow this to occur.
Mr. Winter responded this is a minor aspect, but still important. He believes that the direction that has been discussed at this meeting could be implemented in a final draft.
Chairman Sula stated the Commission could take the route of deleting the reference and dealing with it in the future if it became an issue.
Mr. Winter responded that might be an appropriate position to take.
Mr. Winter referenced the question regarding regulation # 7, which states that RVs shall be “stored and maintained in a clean, neat manner” and asked if this was the current language.
Ms. Velkover responded it is not the current language, but instead is language from another of other communities. She stated the Village has the requirement that vehicles be parked or stored on a hard surface pad and be operational. The Village does not have the “in a clean and neat manner” language anywhere in the current ordinance. She noted that this language was added because there were a lot of comments at earlier workshop meetings abut the need for the areas to be kept neat and clean. She agreed that this portion of the regulation is vague and could be hard to enforce, but at least it would provide the Village an opportunity to talk to a property owner should an area become cluttered. She also noted that this clause could be removed. She stated that it would be difficult to further clarify what is meant by neat and clean, but that she is open to suggestions.
Mr. Winter stated this was language that was used in other communities.
Ms. Velkover responded many other ordinances have similar language. She stated that she understands it is not as black and white, but instead somewhat subjective. She stated it provides something that a property owner could be approached about if the code enforcement officer believes it is an issue. She stated if the Commission feels this is too vague this could be firmed up or deleted.
Chairman Sula responded he would prefer to remove this language because “neat and clean” is so subjective and too vague.
He stated what Ms. Velkover stated before, “on a hard surface pad, operational and free of noxious weeds” are all the key points.
Ms. Velkover stated “neat and clean” would be deleted.
Chairman Sula stated there was a question about paragraph # 12, referencing someone occupying a RV for up to 30 days if someone was visiting a resident and whether or not it was referring to a RV that was always stored on a property or a temporary vehicle. He stated in his mind it doesn’t make any difference because there is only (1) one allowed at any time. He stated if a RV was there 12 months out of the year or 1-2 weekends a year, he doesn’t believe it makes any difference because there can only be (1) one at a time.
Ms. Velkover stated this needs to be discussed as there are a couple of issues. She stated the first issue is if a person owns a RV which is on their property and who may need room for out of town guests who are visiting. She questioned if the owner of the RV would be allowed to have these guests sleep in the RV for up to 30 days in a calendar year. She stated currently, the ordinance is not written to specify that the RV would have to be owned by the out of town guests.
Mr. Winter responded that paragraph # 10 states that RVs or utility haul trailers shall be owned by the resident, property owner or occupant. He stated this may have some implications.
Ms. Velkover stated maybe # 12 should be an exemption to the ordinance versus as a provision in the ordinance.
Mr. Park stated the one question is what Ms. Velkover stated referring to out of town guests staying in a property owner’s RV. He stated the second question would be what if the out of town guests bring their own RV and wish to stay in their own RV, and asked if this would this be permitted. He stated Chairman Sula raised a good question, in that if a property owner already has a RV, and there is now a visiting RV what is allowed.
Ms. Velkover stated this may be why # 12 belongs as an exemption to the ordinance versus an ordinance provision. She stated this would allow (1) one RV on a property and as an “exemption” guests could stay in their own RV, that was brought onto the property. She stated this is a valid point and # 12 should probably be separated out and provided as an exemption, similar to some of the exemptions that are currently in the commercial vehicle ordinance.
Chairman Sula stated Mr. Winter makes a good point in that a visiting RV violates paragraph # 10.
Mr. Park stated it would not violate paragraph # 10 if this were completed as an exemption for the visiting RV.
Mr. Paff asked what if a person was renting a RV and it was not owned.
Ms. Velkover stated the wording lessee or lessor could also be wordsmithed and be accommodated into the language as well. She stated the “ownership” language is not in Gurnee’s ordinance but it is in a number of other ordinances.
Chairman Sula suggested all of this be under “owned or leased by the resident”.
Ms. Velkover stated what is trying to accomplished is to ensure that Gurnee doesn’t become a “storage community” for RVs that belong to someone in another community where RVs are not allowed. She also mentioned leased RVs may be another issue to think about as well.
Mr. Park stated if someone where to lease an RV it wouldn’t be sitting on a driveway with the prices that are charged for leasing this type of vehicle. He stated the person(s) leasing this vehicle would be out using the RV not letting it just sit on a driveway.
Ms. Velkover stated this is probably the reason why this is not seen addressed in other communities’ ordinances.
Chairman Sula stated it would not hurt to put the word “lease” into the ordinance as it would cover the issue.
Mr. Park stated it could hurt, as someone could come up with a fictional lease.
Chairman Sula stated clarification is needed on # 12. He stated the way in which it is worded, he could technically say a person could have twelve different visitors stay at 30 days a piece. He stated it seems to refer to the visitor cannot occupy a RV for no more than (30) thirty days as opposed to the resident “hosting” no more than (30) thirty days per year.
Mr. McFarlane stated what really is to be said is that an RV whether it is a visitor or anything else can only be occupied for (30) thirty days or less per year.
Ms. Velkover stated she thought this was addressed this by stating “non-resident families or guest(s)”. She stated this would be if a person had (1) one guest and another month later a person had another guest for a “total” of (30) thirty days.
Chairman Sula stated if he were a skeptic person, it indicates that each one of those situations could generate an issue in the number of days.
Ms. Velkover stated this can be clarified by adding language and wordsmithing it so it is more clear than currently written.
Chairman Sula referred to the question about enforcement and how practical it is for a 24 hour notice, and whether or not someone from Staff would be available 24/7.
Ms. Velkover responded the Community Development Director does not work over the weekends. She stated this could be changed to include “a non-emergency” police number to be utilized over the weekends or change the 24 hour notice to 48 hours notice, or change it to “next business day”. She stated she felt “next business day” was the best solution.
Chairman Sula agreed that “next business day” is the best solution.
Ms. Velkover referred the question about whether any storage facility permits in town have been issued. She stated there have been not been any proposed to the Village nor have there been any approved within any recent time period.
Chairman Sula referenced the question that was asked about “curb appeal” and specifically whether vehicles should be parked forward of the front yard setback or how close a vehicle could be parked to the side of a dwelling. He stated no where within the draft ordinance is this dealt with.
Mr. Kolar asked if this was part of the parking issue that would be addressed at a later time as well as the situation if a vehicle was to be parked behind the forward line of the house.
Mr. Winter stated what the current understanding is within the Village is that the vehicle must be on a hard surface which has to be a driveway or an area that a permit has been pulled for a patio or pad. He stated a person cannot have a pad to store a vehicle on it in the front yard.
Ms. Velkover stated unless she misunderstood, the issue is concern for an RV that is parked on a driveway and out to the right of way line with the line of sight issues being caused by an RV that might block the right of way.
Mr. Winter stated a RV can be parked on a driveway and cannot encroach on the public right of way including the sidewalk. He stated there is a separate municipal ordinance that prohibits parking a RV over the sidewalk.
Ms. Velkover stated there were other communities that had some additional language because of situations where a RV that is on a driveway and that RV goes “up to” (but not over) the right of way or property line. She stated some sight triangle language could be written into the ordinance similar to the sign and fence ordinance.
Mr. McFarlane stated the situation is where a 40 foot RV is parked on a pad located next to a garage and the RV due to it being so long sticks out on one end or the other (10 feet), such as past the front façade.
Chairman Sula stated if a person had a long enough driveway, without encroaching on the right-of-way, the 40 foot RV could be kept on a driveway.
Mr. Winter stated this question refers to a RV not on a driveway, but on a pad adjacent to a garage.
Mr. Winter asked Mr. Ziegler what the parameters are for issuing a building permit for a pad that is adjacent to the garage or to a house.
Mr. Ziegler responded as long as it is contiguous to the driveway and joined with the driveway, the building department would issue a permit.
Mr. McFarlane stated this is exactly what happens and it is just widened so the RV can be just be driven into the area.
Chairman Sula stated there is nothing in the draft ordinance stating whether or not all or any part of a RV could be in the front yard, referring to a RV is sitting in a driveway or sticking out 10 feet past the front of the house. He asked if the Commission is comfortable with this and if there is an issue with any or all of the vehicle being in the front yard.
Mr. Paff asked if the Commission adopted the ordinance as is, would even one complaint that has been received over the years have been stopped. He stated he cannot see the ordinance stopping anything.
Ms. Velkover responded many of the complaints are pertaining to RVs not on a hard surface pad. She stated sometimes there are complaints when there are multiple RVs and that there is a restriction of the number of RVs allowed. She stated there are no locational standards in the draft ordinance.
Chairman Sula stated the only change is limiting the number of these types of vehicles to (1) one. He stated nothing else has changed and asked if the Commission is comfortable with this and asked if this solves what the mission was in the first place.
Mr. Nordentoft stated in referring back the to past meetings, that the whole reason that location, bulk or size was not included was because there was generally not enough support either through the survey or public testimony, and that it was important enough to have it included and that is why this was omitted. He stated that is why the Commission is where they are today.
Chairman Sula agreed with Mr. Nordentoft and stated as a group the Commission has chose to ignore the issue. He asked again if the Commission is comfortable with this as a group.
Mr. Hood stated he doesn’t believe the issue was ignored but that the Commission took it into consideration with the public speaking out about not wanting their rights taken away, thus the Commission has softened. He stated the Commission was tougher at first and the people who were most vocal were those that own RVs so the Commission cutback.
Chairman Sula asked the Commission again, if everyone is comfortable with this.
Mr. Hood responded yes to Chairman Sula.
Chairman Sula stated he believes the Commission it should be taken to a vote and asked Ms. Velkover for a summary of what has been changed.
Ms. Velkover responded the changes are as follows:
- it was decided to clarify the differentiation of the mobile home and motor home within the draft ordinance;
- it was decided conversion van which is under the overall definition of commercial vehicle which refers to temporary living and recreational and that it was repeated for conversion van, that nothing would be changed;
- Clarification of language for print or logos that advertise a business.
Chairman Sula stated he thought the sentence referring to clarifying print or logs would be deleted and this could be revisited later if there were issues.
Mr. Park asked Mr. Sula if what he was suggesting in that a utility or haul trailer used in a business would be permitted as an RV. He stated by deleting that language that is what the Commission would be doing. He stated he didn’t think that was the intent.
Chairman Sula stated he didn’t want to get into defining censorship in this particular ordinance. He believes this particular aspect should be deleted and revisited later if it becomes an issue.
Mr. Park stated he would suggest to leave it in and if it becomes in issue in the “interpretation” then the Commission could revisit it and tweak the language at a later date.
Chairman Sula asked Staff and the Village Attorney for their input.
Mr. Park stated this language is currently in the “commercial vehicle parking” ordinance and his thoughts are to leave it consistent with that and if there are issues that need to be clarified or modified at a later time, it could be done at that time. He stated to leave it as strong as it is now.
Ms. Broughton asked if it has been an issue.
Mr. Winter responded he felt it was very unlikely that an ordinance violation would be issued because of that. He stated even if it is left in, he believes it would be a code enforcement issue and the property owner would be spoken to.
Mr. McFarlane stated he would like it to remain in the ordinance so if there were complaints something could be done.
Ms. Salmons agreed with Mr. McFarlane.
Ms. Velkover stated whoever makes the motion could make it however they chose. She stated it sounds as though there is a consensus to leave it in the ordinance.
Ms. Velkover continued with summarizing the changes as follows:
- #4 to leave in the language regarding print or logos;
- #7 would be modified by deleting “in a clean and neat manner” so it will now read “equipment be in operational condition at all times;
Mr. Park stated there was a question in a previous meeting and also raised in this meeting referring to #8, whether crushed stone was a suitable surface and asked if Staff had an opinion on this because of the potential for weeds to grow.
Ms. Velkover responded weeds can grow through concrete and most other communities allow the crushed stone surface.
Mr. Wilson asked if there is anything stated in the ordinance where the hard surface is to be placed.
Ms. Velkover responded no, and that there was discussion on locational restrictions and it was decided that there would be no locational restrictions with this ordinance.
Mr. Winter responded that Mr. Ziegler stated it would have to be contiguous to the existing driveway. He asked for clarification that it would not be allowed to have a pad in the front yard detached from the driveway.
Mr. Ziegler responded the only way in which something like this would be allowed was if this was permitted as a patio and it would have to meet all of the patio restrictions, which are not allowed in the front yard, and only allowed in the side or rear yard if it is “detached” from the driveway.
Ms. Salmons stated if a person had a circular driveway in the front yard a RV could be parked on that driveway in front of a home’s front window.
Mr. Winter responded circular driveways have restrictions for how many access points are allowed as well as being an adequate lot size to allow a circular driveway. He stated a circular driveway isn’t allowed on a typical lot and that it would be a wider lot to have a circular driveway.
Ms. Velkover continued with summarizing the following changes:
- modify # 12, take it out of the ordinance and make it an “exemption” to the ordinance;
- clarify “within the next business day” rather than “within 24 hours”;
- clarify the property vs. the visitor to make sure guests could be visiting and still have a RV even if the property owner already had an RV
Chairman Sula opened the floor to the Public for a question.
Gere Bunnell of 3440 Woodlawn stated he owns a travel trailer and a boat, of which the boat is stored. He stated according to the ordinance he would not be able to prepare his boat or clean his boat for use having it on the driveway, while having his travel trailer parked on the driveway. He asked for a situation such as this would there be an exemption for a 24 hour period so he could ready his boat for use.
Ms. Salmons stated this is a very good point.
Mr. Hood stated he brought this point up at the first meeting.
Mr. Kolar stated 72 hours are allowed for loading, unloading and cleaning.
Ms. Velkover stated in an “earlier draft” of the ordinance this exemption was included and can be included into this draft ordinance as an exemption.
Ms. Salmons stated it is not listed as a “second” vehicle but listed as on the “first” vehicle.
Mr. Park stated the number is another issue, but maintenance and the “loading and unloading” was intended to be included.
Ms. Velkover stated this will be added as an exemption.
Ms. Salmons asked for clarification that it will be added as “a second unit.”
Chairman Sula stated language is needed for the effect stating a vehicle stored temporarily for up to 72 hours for purposes of preparation, loading and unloading shall not constitute a “second vehicle” under the ordinance.
Ms. Velkover responded it will be clarified that the exemptions are exemptions from the previous standards which limit the number of vehicles.
Mr. Park stated in reference to what was brought up by Mr. Kolar about the storage alongside a garage, and gave the example if a garage is setback 20 feet from a neighbors side yard, a RV could be fit into the area and also have room for the typically required open space yard. He stated as he understands it, being the current interpretation of the code is rear yard, side yard and in fact front yard are all allowed to have paved parking surfaces. He stated it was his understanding this was not the case and therefore, location was already addressed by saying it had to be outside those required yards.
He stated he obviously missed this and wondered if other members of the Commission missed this issue as well.
Mr. Hood asked if Mr. Park was referring to the placement of RVs and stated this was eliminated.
Mr. Park stated there was a lot of dialogue in the previous session about where you could have it and how big it could be. He stated there was also talk about how an RV that may be 10 feet in height had to be screened. He stated it was his understanding that if for example a person had a 30 foot rear yard, that a person couldn’t pave the whole rear yard and just park vehicles in the rear yard. He stated that he thought locational requirements were covered and he is now hearing at this meeting that these requirements are not covered.
Ms. Velkover responded to Mr. Park and stated he was correct in that parking can encroach into rear and side setbacks but not into front.
Ms. Velkover stated a person can pave right up to the property line, put a pad onto the interior side rear property line and park away and there is nothing in the current ordinance that prohibits this.
Chairman Sula stated by definition if it is an extension of a driveway that goes off to the side it can encroach into the front yard setback.
Mr. Park asked if there was a maximum width of a driveway.
Ms. Velkover responded just at the right of way line.
Mr. Wilson stated this is what he was addressing earlier. He stated the answer came back in terms that it would be under the “patio” ordinance in the front.
Mr. Winter stated another thing that the Board should be made aware of is that some communities do have a driveway permitting provisions under their municipal code. He stated the Village of Gurnee has never had this and stated there is reference to this in one of the memos that Staff is currently looking at this. He stated in the typical case there may be an impervious surface ratio. He stated communities that have enacted such regulations have their focus on the fact that you don’t want to have the entire front yard or entire back yard black top. He stated to address this would probably be an amendment to the municipal code not necessarily the zoning code. He stated this is not something that is being considered this evening and is an important point and is something that could be addressed in the municipal code.
Mr. Paff stated a RV can be parked on the driveway without being set back a certain distance, and asked if this is correct.
Ms. Velkover responded correct.
Chairman Sula stated as long as it doesn’t cross the right of way.
Mr. Hood referenced what Mr. Park had mentioned and stated if a person were to insert a pad and would follow the normal setback requirements then this would be allowed.
Chairman Sula stated his understanding from what Mr. Ziegler stated is that it would have to follow what the rules are for patios. He asked if this was correct.
Mr. Ziegler responded only if it is not contiguous to the driveway.
Mr. Hood asked if the patio can be put up right against the lot line.
Ms. Velkover responded there are setbacks for a patio.
Mr. Park stated what the alternative to what he thought was the case, which he was wrong, was parking for a RV could not be located in the rear or side yard setbacks.
Chairman Sula stated but it can be located in the rear or side yard setbacks as long as it is contiguous to a driveway.
Mr. Park stated if it is to be included in this ordinance it should say that it would not be allowed in those two conditions. He stated this language could be added. He stated he didn’t know if this was the preference of the Commission.
Chairman Sula stated no, and that it is forcing them to be in the driveway and he would rather the RVs be to the side or toward the rear. He asked why would he want to preempt the ability for them to be on the side.
Mr. Park stated he was in a totally different understanding.
Ms. Velkover stated she believes this brings up a good point in that work needs to be done as well as comprehensively amending the zoning ordinances. She stated the whole parking issue of any vehicle in a front yard versus driveway is not written clearly in the zoning ordinance. She stated Staff is aware this issue needs to be addressed and encourages this to be done in the future rather than at this meeting as she knows this will not be a simple ordinance change. She stated there are many different approaches to address this issue.
Chairman Sula stated this is part of the municipal code. He stated his vote is to keep this part of the municipal code.
Ms. Velkover stated Staff started to address this issue by an impervious surface ratio within the front yard but then it became very complicated when looking at cul-de-sac lots with front yards being so small. She stated whatever ratio would be established for a non cul-de-sac lot could not really be used for cul-de-sac lots. She Staff backed away from this but they are currently looking at other communities’ definitions of driveways and they know this is something that needs to be clarified. She stated it is not the intent for people to pave over their front yards and put vehicles whether they are RVs or any type of vehicle in their front yards. She stated vehicles must be on a driveway and a good definition of a driveway needs to be stated.
Chairman Sula stated everything Ms. Velkover is speaking about is municipal codes.
Ms. Velkover responded this is in both the municipal code and the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Park stated this is a much larger discussion than what is here this evening.
Ms. Velkover agreed and stated it just doesn’t address RVs but relates to vehicle parking.
Ms. Velkover asked for a clarification. She stated she was uncertain what the Commission was doing regarding whether vehicles could be leased or not and stored on someone’s property.
Mr. Wilson stated to leave “lease out” as Mr. Ziegler stated due to some false storage / lease scenarios.
Chairman Sula asked for a motion from the Plan Commission.
Mr. Park motioned, seconded by Mr. Nordentoft, to forward a favorable decision of the Plan Commission for the text amendment regarding Recreational Vehicles subject to (4) changes as discussed this evening:
1) Regarding a clarification of mobile homes not being provided for under this RV provision;
2) The elimination under item # 7 of RVs to be maintained in a clean and neat manner as being too vague;
3) Item # 12 should be recast and revised as an exemption to provide for the occasional guest provided that it is not a long term provision with a (30) thirty day cap as to the number of days;
4) An exemption to be provided for the temporary loading / unloading of an RV or boat prior to it’s use which is normal operation and maintenance for the equipment
Chairman Sula asked the Commission for any discussion on the motion.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, Nordentoft, Park, Salmons, Sula
Nays: McFarlane
Abstain:
Motion Carried: 5-1-0
Mr. Hood asked for a motion from the Zoning Board of Appeals for this ordinance.
Mr. Spadaro motioned, seconded by Mr. Wilson, to forward a favorable decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the text amendment regarding Recreational Vehicles subject to (4) changes as discussed this evening:
1) Regarding a clarification of mobile homes not being provided for under this RV provision;
2) The elimination under item # 7 of RVs to be maintained in a clean and neat manner as being too vague;
3) Item # 12 should be recast and revised as an exemption to provide for the occasional guest provided that it is not a long term provision with a (30) thirty day cap as to the number of days;
4) An exemption to be provided for the temporary loading / unloading of an RV or boat prior to it’s use which is normal operation and maintenance for the equipment
Roll Call Hood, Paff, Spadaro, Wilson, Smith, Kolar
Ayes:
Nays: None
Abstain:
Motion Carried: 6-0-0
3. Public Hearing: Day Care Centers on residentially zoned lots (Zoning Text Amendment)
Ms. Velkover stated the Village Board recently amended the fire and building code to increase the number of clients allowed in a home day care from (6) six to (9) nine before the home is required to meet the International Code Councils Commercial Building (IBC) and Fire Code Standards. She stated the Board approved these changes based upon the recommendation from the Village’s Fire Marshall because of recent changes to the State Fire Marshall’s office and the review and routine inspections of home day care centers. She stated previously the State Fire Marshall’s office was not conducting routine inspections of home day cares. She stated this has changed and the State Fire Marshall’s office is now conducting these reviews and inspections. She stated it is clear and less confusing for home day care providers to have the same threshold in terms of the number of children that can be cared for being required for both building and fire codes as well as securing a Special Use Permit. She stated since the threshold was just amended for the building and fire codes to increase the number of children from (6) six to (9) nine, and the Zoning Ordinance currently requires a Special Use Permit for (6) six or more, Staff is proposing to amend the Zoning Ordinance Provisions for home day care as follows:
- Change the definition of home day care to allow up to (8) eight clients and to allow these as permitted uses in all residential districts;
Ms. Velkover stated the external impacts caused by increasing the clients from (5) five to (8) eight by a total of (3) three, should not be significant and thus is why Staff is proposing home day cares be permitted by right in residential districts for only up to (8) eight children.
- To not allow more the (8) eight clients in a home day care in any residential district;
Ms. Velkover stated this means there will be no Special Use Permit process for obtaining more than (8) eight clients as proposed. She stated this change is proposed because the Plan Commission and the Village Board since the last amendment that was done to the home day care center provisions / ordinance have not issued a Special Use Permit for a home day care for more than (8) eight clients.
Ms. Velkover stated a discussion can take place if the Plan Commission and Zoning Board feel that it may be appropriate for home day cares to be allowed more than (8) eight children on larger properties which Staff would recommended that those home day cares require a Special Use. She stated this is something to consider if the Commissions are receptive to this, but this is not something that is being proposed at this point. She stated Staff is not proposing any provision for Special Use Permits to accommodate more than (8) eight children.
- To modify the definition so that it no longer only applies to “children”, but instead allows both children and adults.
Ms. Velkover stated this change is proposed because there is an increased demand for adult day cares, even in a home setting.
- Modify the definition so the number of clients is not the total enrollment at the home day cares but instead the total number of clients that are at the home day care at any one time.
Ms. Velkover stated this change is proposed for two reasons. She stated the first reason is the external impacts on a neighborhood are the results of the total number of clients at a site at any one time, and not the total enrollment. She stated the second reason is this change would allow the Village’s Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with both how DCFS and the Fire Building Codes regulate home day cares.
Chairman Sula stated this is a Public Hearing and asked for any members of the general public who intend to ask questions or make comments to stand and be sworn in by the Village Attorney.
Mr. Winter stated there was (1) one permit that was issued in excess of (8) eight, prior to the amendment tonight and this would become a legal non-conforming and have no retroactive affect to a prior permit that was issued.
Chairman Sula opened the floor to Public.
Mr. Dean Sprake-Jones of 1117 Laurel Lane stated he is opposed to increasing the amount due to National Fire Code or whatever grounds this is being based on. He stated in a residential setting he doesn’t feel it needs to be extended beyond the existing allowances made. He stated the consideration should be the total number of occupants in the house as well as the clients as he doesn’t believe this has been clearly addressed. He stated 24 hours is excessive and other considerations should be given to the size of the property the day care is conducted on as well as the burden of traffic.
Mr. Ron Shaffer of 2103 Madison stated he is surprised that the Fire and Building Departments have changed the regulations so it is no longer International Building Code and as an Ordinance of the Village it has been modified. He stated now the opportunity has been opened up for I-4 occupancy, institutional four (4) occupancy under the IBC to be in a residential area without a special use permit. He stated this also negates some of the requirements under the IBC that are purely safety. He stated the Fire Departments in this area are becoming less and less Fire Departments and more and more rescue departments with fire service. He stated it used to be fire service with a little bit of rescue and now it’s gone the other way. He stated in listening to scanners that several Fire Departments who are alerted to a working fire in the area will respond to that fire so they have exposure to some kind of emergency for the experience.
Mr. Shaffer then stated in the International Building Code, in Section 308.5.2, it states a facility that provides supervision and personal care on less than a 24 hour basis for more than (5) five children, 2 ½ years of age or less, shall be classified Group I-4. He stated at best this would be difficult to enforce. He stated for the code officer of the Village ascertaining the age of clients at a day care upon inspection it is being made more difficult. He noted in 3-10.1 Residential Group R includes R3 occupancy which is “child care facilities that provide accommodations for (5) five or fewer persons of any age for less than 24 hours”. He stated to keep in mind the exception to the rule in Section 308-5.2 where the five are 2 ½ years or less. He stated it goes on to say that R4 covers more than (5) five but not more than (16) sixteen occupants excluding staff. He stated in reading further that a Group R4 occupancy shall meet the requirements and construction for a Group R3 provided that the building is protected by an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 903-2.8. He stated 903-2.8 refers to NFPA Standard 13 which is the installation and operation of sprinklers which requires the same type of sprinklers that are in the Village Hall and in the room tonight. He stated it also requires a fire alarm, periodic inspections, hydraulic testing and flow testing. He noted this is a lot of burden on the inspectors to ensure this is being done because they are not the ones doing the testing. He stated it is a huge burden on the operator of the day care facility but that is what comes with I-4 (Institutional 4) occupancy.
Mr. Shaffer then stated what is being done is a watering down of the codes that make fire departments less of a fire department and more of a rescue service. He stated these codes have been successful and why should they be changed now. He asked if there were any I-4 occupancies in the Village and stated now the Village is going to let people have them without a Special Use Permit. He stated what is being done is saying it is a permanent occupancy and to just go ahead and do it. He stated in spite of all these regulations for safety both for the adults and the children you take a good measure of safety away that these people are to enjoy. He stated another problem in the proposal is with allowing up to (8) eight children at any one time. He stated it virtually opens up the possibility of a revolving door where a person could open up a day care center for people who go shopping at Gurnee Mills as long as there are not more than (8) eight and it would be okay under the regulation.
He stated with this type of operation and under this regulation it also impacts traffic and can cause a lot of traffic problems. He stated if it is open, there is nothing that can be done by the Village or anyone else in the neighborhood to stop it and that everyone’s hands would be tied. He suggested to go back to the drawing board and negotiate with the building and fire personnel to drop it to (5) five. He stated if it were to be at (5) five it would be easy for the inspectors, easier for the Village and there would be no need for Special Use Permits as well as preventing the I-4 (Institutional 4) occupancies from the residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Dean Sprake-Jones of 1117 Laurel Lane stated if an I-4 (Institutional occupancy) type of operation was to be run that commercial taxes should be paid and it should not be under the residential tax code.
Ms. Debi Shaffer of 2103 Madison stated she is opposed to this change. She stated speaking from personal experience living on a cul-de-sac with a (14) fourteen child day care next door to her home, traffic is still and issue. She noted her driveway has been blocked at various times and there are noise issues as well. She stated nothing seems to have improved and having this located on a cul-de-sac is very difficult for the residents that live there. She stated both sets of in-laws have been ill and both she and her husband are constantly in and out / back and forth caring for their parents. She stated not to be able to get in and out of their own residence due to the issues next door, which is clearly a business and not residential, is a problem and she asked the Commission to think about this as these laws are being passed. She stated competent day is needed, but it must be thought through on where these day cares are placed. She stated on a cul-de-sac with (14) fourteen children is not acceptable and creates too many problems for residents that reside in the area. She also requested if changes are to be made, that the changes be made across the board without “grandfathering” the others in and that the current day cares should be provided with a grace period to comply with any new laws. She stated that the new laws should be the same across the board to enable whoever will be enforcing the new laws to know exactly what they are enforcing. She stated currently with so many different day cares under different rules there is really no enforcement. She stated what good intentions that have been put in place by this Commission are not being enforced and it is a problem.
Mr. Spadaro asked Ms. Shaffer if she called the police in the past to advise them that vehicles have been blocking her driveway.
Ms. Debi Shaffer responded that people park in the middle of the cul-de-sac street, leaving their vehicles with engines still running while they enter the day care to take care of their business. She stated she has not called the police because but she has attempted to approach the owner of the day care came. She stated she loves living in Gurnee, in the back of her subdivision on a cul-de-sac, and wants to live peacefully. She stated the neighbors behind her property have done a great renovation of their property and landscaping and she stated she feels like she has her own personal private park in her backyard. She stated unfortunately due the large day care next door to her she is not able to enjoy the outside (like she would like to) because the noise prohibits her from staying outside for any length of time. She stated perhaps the homes are not as sound insulated as they could be but even her son stated that he could hear the screaming children at the day care next door to her home. She stated the noise is excessive and asked the Commission to take this into consideration as it is a residential area. She asked the Commission to keep the area residential and to put business in an appropriate location.
Mr. Kolar asked Ms. Shaffer how many clients the day care has.
Ms. Shaffer responded the day care is permitted for (14) fourteen clients before and after school as well as (10) ten clients for full day care. She stated at the time this was passed, she didn’t realize that per DCFS any time school is not in session the day care is allowed to have (14) fourteen children plus the owner’s two children, the day care worker’s children, plus children for play dates. She stated on occasion, she has counted as many as (21) twenty-one children. She stated this information has also been provided to the Mayor of Gurnee and to her knowledge, nothing has been done. She asked the Commission to again think about all of this and the impact it has on residents in the area.
Mr. Wilson & Mr. Spadaro asked Ms. Shaffer for her address.
Ms. Shaffer responded her address is 2103 Madison and that the day care’s address is 2098 Madison. She stated the owners of the day care are also present at tonight’s meeting. She stated she backs up to the corner of Stearns School Road and Dilleys Road. She stated that she has been present at these meetings previously.
Ms. Alicia Falls of 2098 Madison stated it saddens her that it is (4) four years later and she is still here. She asked when is this going to end. She stated the complaints she heard tonight are the exact same complaints she heard, almost (4) four years ago to the date. She stated she thought the date was December 3rd were she stood before the Commission with the same issues. She stated the issues with the cars blocking the driveway and with the cars running and being left in the middle of the cul-de-sac were issues that were brought up at that time. She stated these issues have not occurred since that time. She stated no one parks in the street and no one blocks Ms. Shaffer’s driveway.
Chairman Sula asked for this discussion to cease because this is not going to have this turn into a debate on one single topic. He stated this is not the forum to deal with specific issues for a specific situation. He stated the Commission is present this evening to understand whether or not they should remove the Special Use Permit for up to (8) eight people in a day care center and this is the input he is looking for. He stated they are trying to understand the merits of whether or not it is appropriate to change the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that if you want to provide information of why it’s appropriate for the Village to entertain a relaxation of the existing rules he is wide open to listening to that. He stated he is not interested in listening to a debate in terms of Ms. Falls’ particular situation with her neighbor as this is not the right forum.
Ms. Falls asked why Ms. Shaffer wasn’t asked to stop speaking earlier.
Mr. Winter responded that initially Ms. Shaffer was talking against the proposed amendment and seg-wayed into matters that were not appropriate. He stated at some point the “Chair” does have to instruct the public and stay on topic because this is a Public Hearing. He stated Ms. Falls doesn’t have a right to be absolutely recognized. He stated in retrospect the “Chairman” would have stopped that last exchange if he had known exactly where it was heading. He stated everyone in the room this evening now knows there is a long standing dispute between the two of you. He stated the Commission does not have to hear it right now because this Board is not in a position to take any action on any past dispute, current dispute or one that may occur in the future. He stated unless Ms. Falls has something that relates to the particular amendment it is not appropriate.
Ms. Falls responded that she does. She stated the question that was raised in regards to the number of children at one time which she believed was (8) eight children. She stated that a day care can actually have more than (8) eight clients because of the economy and due to many parents not working five days a week. She stated you may have a client on a Monday/Wednesday/Friday and everyday the client list can change.
Chairman Sula stated that Staff testified earlier that the Commission is not entertaining limiting the number to (8) eight specific individuals, but they are speaking about limiting the number to (8) eight at any one given time, which he believed addressed her issue.
Ms. Penny Dentino of 1989 Liberty Lane stated she has a Special Use Permit for her day care. She stated she applauds this decision to raise the number to (8) eight. She stated she believes it is a good decision and noted since she has her Special Use Permit she has been visited by the Gurnee Fire Department several times with favorable reports. She stated she was recently visited by the State Fire Marshall and has since found out that Gurnee will no longer being conducting these visits. She stated she believes it is a good idea in going along with what the DCFS says and that Gurnee is complying with this. She stated she applauds the Board’s decision to change this.
Chairman Sula asked for any other questions or comments from the Public.
Chairman Sula closed the floor to the Public.
Ms. Velkover stated the Plan Commission and Zoning Board are not charged with reviewing building and fire codes and making recommendations on amendments to those codes. She stated the Plan Commission and Zoning Board are charged with reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and making and recommending text amendments regarding that ordinance. She stated the Building and Fire Code has already been changed. She stated the reason for this evening’s meeting is to respond to the change that has already been adopted by the Village Board. She stated the change that was adapted to the Building and Fire Codes was to change where the ICC code applies from (6) six children to (9) nine children.
She stated what is being proposed is because most home day care centers recently approved in the past have not been any larger than (8) children. She stated the Special Use Permit is currently required for (6) six children or more. She stated that staff has proposed not to allow any more than (8) eight children at all in any residential district because the Plan Commission and the Village Board have not in the recent past, approved a day care larger than (8) eight children in a residential setting. She stated that because staff has proposed to cap the number at (8) eight children, the question arises as to what is to be done between (6) six, (7) seven and
(8) eight children. She stated the building code will not kick in any more until (9) nine children. She asked if the Commission wants to take the home day care providers through a Special Use Permit for (6) six, (7) seven and
(8) eight children. She stated right now, (5) five children are allowed by right. She stated what is proposed does not have that many significant external impacts that are different from (5) five children to (6) six children to (7) seven and to (8) eight children. She stated for the (3) three additional children and to require day care owners to go through a Special Use Permit process and then not require any Building or Fire Codes will just cause confusion. She stated staff does not believe that the external impacts are even there to require them to be reviewed by the Plan Commission in terms of traffic or noise. She reiterated that it is being proposed to not allow anything larger than (8) eight children. She stated in the past a home day care provider could come in and request a Special Use for (9) nine children and higher. She stated there have been some requests in the recent past for larger day cares, including one recently for 12 children which the Plan Commission recommended against. She stated that Staff is taking their queues from the Plan Commission. She stated these are in a residential setting and there should be a set number of children that may be appropriate and anything above that number would become a Commercial Use. She stated presently the number is (5) five children and the proposed change is for (8) eight children to be in compliance with the Building and Fire Codes.
Mr. Paff asked if anyone has ever been stopped from going higher, such as going up to (8) eight children.
Ms. Velkover responded that recently the Plan Commission had a request before them for (12) twelve children and they recommended against it, thus it was denied for (12) twelve. She stated they did recommend (8) eight children and it was approved for (8) children.
Mr. Paff asked if the cutoff now is (5) five children.
Ms. Velkover stated (5) five is allowed by right and after (5) five a day care owner is required to get a Special Use Permit.
Chairman Sula stated he believed the question is whether a day care proposing six, seven or eight children has ever been denied.
Ms. Velkover responded no, not that she is aware of.
Chairman Sula asked the Commission for any other discussion.
Chairman Sula stated as written, what is proposed for the Commission to consider is allowing up to (8) eight children but no provision for Special Use for beyond (8) eight children.
Mr. Park stated it is also suggested in this draft that it not be just children but it could also be adults.
Ms. Velkover responded that right now, clients are defined as children under the age of 12, and the proposed change would be that clients are defined as children and adults.
Mr. Park asked if you could then have infants to elderly in the same unit.
Ms. Velkover responded correct.
Mr. Wilson asked if adding the verbiage “at any one time” could increase traffic to that location.
Ms. Velkover responded correct. She stated currently it is worded as total clients that are enrolled at a day care facility. She stated this was done to provide a way to determine how many children the provider was actually caring for. She stated a request could be made to DCFS for a list of clients, but DCFS will not release this information. She stated if this is tied to total enrollment at the facility it might show only (4) four children on a Wednesday, and (4) four children on a Thursday with an entirely different group of (4) four children on a Friday which would be (12) twelve children and already violating, even though there would be only (4) four children at the facility at any one time. She stated the way in which this is regulated by DCFS and the Fire and Building Codes is the number of children at a day care at any one time and not the total enrollment.
Mr. Park asked with proposing the number of children at any one time whether it includes the occupant’s and operator’s children.
Ms. Velkover responded in this definition it does not include the operator’s children. She stated DCFS license including operator’s children. She stated this code can’t comply exactly with DCFS. She stated this does not include the children that are under legal guardianship of the provider or if they have legal guardianship of their parent.
Mr. Park asked why the definition will not include the operator’s children.
Ms. Velkover stated that one of the reasons is that there could be a situation where a family has (10) children and this would now be classified as a home day care center.
Mr. McFarlane stated he seemed to have heard different definition of the word client. He stated he wanted to be very clear that the children or adults being cared for are the client and this is how the count is made.
Ms. Velkover responded yes.
Chairman Sula confirmed that the individual under care is the client.
Chairman Sula stated he heard an interesting twist and asked how children of an employee of the operator or owner are counted. He asked if these children are considered a client.
Ms. Velkover stated the child of the employee would be counted as a client. She stated it is only the children of the operator/owner of the day care that are not counted as a client.
Chairman Sula stated any non-resident in a residence.
Ms. Velkover stated correct.
Mr. Kolar stated there is no provision in the proposed Ordinance for hours of operation. He stated that the last case referred to which requested (12) twelve children specified they would have (8) eight children between 5AM – 4PM, and another (4) four children at 6PM. He stated the way in which the proposed Ordinance is written, there is no definition of the hours of operation and he would like this clarified.
Ms. Vekover responded there is no restriction on hours of operation in what is being proposed. She stated they cannot care for children for more than 24 hours, but they could care for (8) eight children from 5PM to midnight or from midnight to 8AM.
Mr. Spadaro added that they can also do it from 4PM to 3PM the next day.
Ms. Velkover stated currently this can be done for (5) five children and that the proposal is just to change it to (8) eight children.
Mr. Park stated under the DCFS rules he understood that DCFS includes the resident occupied children in their count as well. He asked if DCFS provides for separate rules, regulations or limitations on adult care versus child care and/or does it provide for mixing of the two.
Ms. Vekover stated she did not know the DCFS regulations.
Chairman Sula asked if DCFS would even have jurisdiction over adult care.
Mr. Park stated in his view, the more the rules are patterned after what DCFS does, the simpler it is for everyone and that is why he is inclined to include the children of the occupant/operator because that is a total volume that this would be dealing with. He stated the count is based on the number of clients and he is a little cautious about the potential of mixing because he believes adult care and child care are two different types of care. He stated this proposed ordinance is silent on the matter.
Mr. McFarlane stated that if you added the word “or” you would be okay.
Ms. Smith mentioned that you could add special need children and asked where that would fall into this ordinance.
Mr. Hood stated that the mixing of the adults and children together is a positive thing and not a negative thing, because they have found that mixing the two together often works great.
Mr. Park stated that he does not know and that he would envision it as a tough time dealing with a bunch of little kids and a bunch of seniors.
Mr. Wilson stated the Commission should have in their heads and hearts their neighbors, and the impact it makes on the neighborhood. He stated it is up to the person that is running the day care business to find the clients that just does not drop their child off on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays to achieve the type of clients that they want to have within their business. He stated it should not be up to the Commission to figure out how to make a business run better for anyone, as he does not think that is the purpose for this Board.
Mr. Hood stated he believed the issue is how many clients are there at one time. He mentioned the point that was made earlier that if a day care’s clients are Monday, Wednesday and Friday with (8) eight people there at a time, this is what the Commission is concerned about.
Mr. Wilson stated expanding beyond the number of clients, is the traffic concerns and the number of vehicles that enter a neighborhood and create a traffic issue that occur in Waukegan.
Mr. Hood asked Ms. Velkover for clarification that all that is being proposed is to change from (5) five children to (8) eight children to match up with the change in the Fire Code.
Ms. Velkover responded it is (5) five to (8) eight and also changing it to be more generic to include adults or children because there is now a need for adult day care as the baby boomers get older.
Chairman Sula stated it is not as simple as going from (5) five to (8) eight because before it was for up to (8) eight specific individuals and this proposal could end up being up to 24 or 32 individuals depending on how a schedule would work. He stated he believes a good point is raised in terms of traffic and now that he has heard more thoughts at this meeting he believes this matter should be tabled and moved to a workshop type discussion with the matter to be brought back at a later date. He stated there are just too many issues to consider at this point.
Ms. Velkover responded that one of the reasons that Staff changed it to “any one time” was because of the application that had previously occurred where the person wanted to have (4) four during the day and (8) eight during the evening hour, which would have been (12) twelve and would have violated the special use. She then stated if do not have more than (8) eight there at any one time, the external impacts in terms of traffic is not any more than normal.
Mr. Wilson interjected that you have those extra vehicles that are coming to pick up and drop off. He stated if you look at the traffic from (8) eight in the day to (8) eight at night you have just doubled the traffic.
Mr. McFarlane added that you have a lot more traffic in a 24 hour cycle versus only looking only at the traffic at 4:00 p.m.
Mr. Paff added perhaps there could be a cap on the total number of clients permitted within the 24 hour period.
Chairman Sula asked for the Plan Commission to table the formal matter and go to a workshop meeting with
re-advertisement of a new date for a workshop.
Mr. Park of the Plan Commission made a motion, seconded by Mr. McFarlane to table the matter and move to a workshop meeting at a later date.
Roll Call
Ayes: Broughton, McFarlane, Nordentoft, Park, Salmons, Sula
Nays: None
Abstain:
Motion Carried: 6-0
Mr. Paff of the Zoning Board of Appeals made a motion, seconded by Mr. Spadaro to table the matter and move to a workshop meeting at a later date.
Roll Call
Ayes: Hood, Paff, Spadaro, Wilson, Smith, Kolar
Nays: None
Abstain:
Motion Carried: 6-0
Chairman Sula of the Plan Commission asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Nordentoft motioned, seconded by Ms. Broughton to adjourn.
Mr. Hood of the Zoning Board of Appeals asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Paff motioned, seconded by Mr. Wilson, to adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50PM.
Respectfully Submitted:
Joanne Havenhill
Plan Commission Secretary