Village of Lombard Legistar System

PC 08-32: 215 and 220 S. Lincoln Street (St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church

& School)

Requests that the Village take the following actions on the property located within the

R2PD Single Family Residence Planned Development District:

1. Pursuant to Section 155.504(A) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance (major changes to

a planned development), amend the conditional use for the St. John's Evangelical

Lutheran Church & School Planned Development, as established by Ordinance 5665, to

allow a private day care center to be operated within the old school building;

2. Approve a use exception, pursuant to Section 155.508 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance,

for a private day care center; and

3. A further variation from Section 155.602 (C), Table 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, as

approved by Ordinance 5665, to not require additional parking spaces to be constructed

as part of the petition.

(DISTRICT #1)

presented and the testimony given at the November 17, 2008 Plan Commission hearing.

The Village Board determined that a complete evaluation of the petition requires further

discussion regarding specific land use considerations.

As the Village Board has determined that additional testimony is necessary and that any

new information should be reviewed with the Commissioners as part of the public

hearing process, this petition was remanded back to the Plan Commission.

In the Village Board's remand back to the Plan Commission, the Board specifically

directed the Plan Commissioners to review only seven items which will be reviewed

following the meeting format.

The format of the Plan Commission meeting will be as follows:

Staff Presentation - staff will outline the reason for the Special Meeting and will note the

actions to be considered as part of the meeting. Staff will provide a very brief history of

the petition and will summarize the zoning actions and development regulations

associated with the petition. Once completed, an opportunity to cross-examine staff by

anyone in the public will be provided. The cross-examination will be limited to the items

as set forth by the Village Board.

The petitioner (Creative Day Learning Center) will be given an opportunity to review their

petition to the Village as it specifically relates to the Village Board remand. Once

completed, an opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner by anyone in the public will be

provided. The cross-examination will be limited to the items as set forth by the Village

Board and shall relate specifically to the petitioner's presentation.

Upon completion of petitioner's cross-examination, the public will be offered the

opportunity to speak. Once completed, an opportunity to cross-examine by anyone in

the public will be provided. The cross-examination will be limited to the items as set

forth by the Village Board and shall relate specifically to the presentation.

After completion of the cross-examination, the public participation period will be closed.

The Plan Commissioners shall then be given an opportunity to discuss the petition.

Questions may be asked to staff, objectors or the petitioner. The Plan Commission

should provide a response to each of the seven questions raised by the Village Board.

The Plan Commissioners shall then vote to deny, approve or approve the petition

subject to conditions. The Commissioners do have the ability to add any conditions they

deem appropriate should they recommend approval. However, these conditions should

be related to the items that were remanded back.

The recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board for consideration at their

February 5, 2009 meeting.

Staff has reviewed each of the items identified by the Village Board and offers the

following corresponding comments:

1. The introduction of a commercial enterprise in a residentially zoned district;

Staff expressed their initial concerns regarding this item within the staff report. The

majority of parcels near the subject property are residentially zoned. With the exception

of some properties to the east and the northeast, these properties are residential in use

as well. Residential properties are particularly sensitive to other uses that draw

additional traffic and activity to the vicinity. It is staff's opinion that the introduction of a

commercial entity at the subject property does have the potential to adversely affect

residential properties within the neighborhood. As stated within the Comprehensive

Plan, “Commercial operations, including traffic, parking, loading, and business activities

should not be allowed to affect neighborhood quality.”

If the Plan Commission deems that this commercial use is appropriate and compatible

with the adjacent residential zoning districts, it should make a finding as to how it is

compatible.

2. The impacts of providing for a use exception for a separate commercial

establishment within the confines of an institutional planned development;

But for the granting of a use exception, the proposed use is prohibited in the R2PD

zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property for Public and

Institutional uses. The establishment of a commercial entity on the property would be

contrary to the intended usage for the property established by the Comprehensive Plan.

The Plan Commission should make a statement noting how the commercial use is

compatible with an institutional planned development.

3. How establishing the commercial use will enhance the previously approved planned

development and would be within the public interest;

Staff stated that the proposed use may diminish the overall quality of the planned

development as the proposed use has the potential to interfere with the operations of

the existing uses. The petitioner and St. John's have stated there will be areas shared

by Creative Day and other uses on the property including indoor/outdoor play areas, the

gymnasium, the kitchen, lunchroom, and a downstairs bathroom. St. John's has stated

that the school use on the property would take precedence over the day care center

should overlapping use of these areas arise.

If the Plan Commission deems that this commercial use would be beneficial to the public

interest, it should make a finding as to how it is within the public interest.

4. Consideration of precedent this action could have, for other commercial entities or

uses not associated with St. John's, if they were to seek to operate on the premises;

If the requested relief is granted, another commercial day care operator could make use

of the relief in the future, provided that they operate under the conditions of approval.

The Village may have little control over who this operator might be. Further, the

presence of this relief would strengthen the arguments of other commercial entities

wishing to occupy space within the old school building.

Staff has researched day care operations within Lombard that are registered with the

Department of Children and Family Services. Of the ten such operations in Lombard,

seven were given Conditional Uses. One operation, The Growing Place, was issued a

Certificate of Occupancy as a legal non-conforming use. Another operation, Creative

Montessori Learning Center, was issued a Certificate of Occupancy for a school and

day care center as a continuation of the previously established Edgewood School use.

Lombard Park District Kiddie Campus has not been issued a Certificate of Occupancy

as a day care center. As it operates as a state licensed preschool, it would not fall

under the Zoning Ordinance definition of a day care center.

Of the ten day care centers, three are located within residentially zoned districts.

Creative Montessori Learning Center and The Growing Place were issued Certificates of

Occupancy for the reasons stated above. The Nursery School of Congregation Etz

Chaim was established following the approval of a Conditional Use for a Religious

Institution including an associated nursery/day school operated by the religious

institution itself as an ancillary use.

5. How can further parking variations be granted and how traffic flow can be

adequately handled between the various use operations;

The Village's traffic consultant, KLOA, prepared a report detailing an analysis of parking

and traffic circulation between the existing and proposed uses on the subject property.

Within that report, KLOA stated that they did not foresee a problem with the drop off and

pick-up plan proposed by Creative Day. They also suggested that the provision of some

parking spaces on the south lot will ensure that no additional vehicles queue on Ash

Street.

At this point, I would like to give Chris Stilling an opportunity to discuss his own

observations.

Chris Stilling stated he went out that morning to observe drop off at 7:45 a.m. He

indicated that stacking was occurring along Lincoln Avenue and the eastbound leg of

Ash. The queue extended approximately for one half of the block between Lincoln and

Main Street.

Stuart Moynihan continued, if the Plan Commission deems that additional traffic flow and

parking demand can be adequately managed, it should make a finding that this

additional demand will not adversely affect the subject property and the surrounding

properties.

6. Additional discussion regarding day care operations throughout the day, in addition

to the drop off and pick up periods noted by the petitioner; and

Creative Day's daily activities would be within the scope of normal day care operations

and would include: teaching and educational activities, indoor and outdoor play, lunch

preparation and service, and occasional field trips to nearby establishments.

The petitioner is present to further discuss the operation of the day care center and the

trip generation throughout the day.

7. Additional discussion and testimony by St. John's as to why they are authorizing a

request to amend their planned development, contrary to the conditions or limitations set

forth in the 2005 approval.

A representative from St. John's is present to provide testimony regarding this item.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there were any questions or comments of the staff report.

Hearing none, he called upon the petitioner.

William Dennis, husband of Cheryl Holtz-Dennis (owner and operator), 442 N Park Ave.,

Lombard, discussed the petition. He stated that most of this was previously discussed

and he would go number by number. He stated that with respect to the concern about

commercial enterprise it has preschool credentials and is considered a day care center.

He stated that any operation with three kids that aren't of the same parentage would be

considered day care. The proposed use would be regulated by state and county

entities. He stated that with respect to the residential zoning of the area, the area is not

what you would traditionally think of a residential area. You have 2 homes across the

street. He stated that across from the property in question are a library, churches, the

new school that acts as a buffer and the condos across the street. The only true

residential area is west of the property in question. He mentioned traffic concerns at

Parkview School as well as traffic problems in other areas caused by school drop-off

and pick up. He stated that with St. John's there might be some slight overlap but there

will not be forty kids dropped off at the same time. The parents bring them as they go to

work as other schools would do. That is a red herring in that you won't have a

concentrated mass. The parents will drop off and pick up with little conflict once traffic

patterns are learned. The only people that park are staff and volunteers, only a few

spaces by Creative Day staff during working hours. The pick up in the afternoon is after

St. John's has let out. He asked the Plan Commission take into consideration what the

old building was used for. It is a school and they teach kids there and it is a compatible

use. St. John's doesn't have day care and cannot accommodate all children and

families. They are compatible uses in that they both teach kids.

With regard to item two, he stated that it's the same use, teaching kids and having kids

stay for the day. Number one and two are tied in together.

With regard to item three, he stated that if you go by the church, the parking lot it is not

fully used all the time. It is only full for special gatherings and Sunday services. He

stated that Creative Day will not be operating during those times. It wouldn't be in

competition with peak uses. He stated that he takes exception to the statement that it

would not be an enhancement. He thinks a daycare and a school can be compatible

and complement each other. So, it will enhance the serviceability of the school. He

noted that staff said it was a “potential” conflict. He questioned if staff had hard

evidence of conflict. He mentioned again that other schools have traffic issues and

referenced Glen Westlake. He stated that Creative Day will not add to this.

He stated that this would not set a precedent. Staff already mentioned other entities that

are already in residential areas. He made the distinction between a commercial

endeavor and the use of the building and use across the street. Several daycares are

already in operation and he doesn't see any difference. He mentioned the Growing

Place. He stated that they are using the same parameters and operate in an area with

more houses across the street than this area.

He stated that with regard to the parking variation, the parking area would see no more

use than a typical time. The traffic study states that St. John's traffic works well as a

whole. St. John's and Creative Day will not be adverse to each other. Creative Day will

rely on four spaces in the parking lot. KLOA stated that even if they used the front

spaces they would have the ability to back in and out of those spaces. So it shouldn't tie

up traffic any more than it is.

With regard to item six, he stated that use of shared spaces is flexible. There have

been meetings between St. John's and Creative Day about scheduling, and there is no

problem. Creative Day can utilize other areas to do what they need to do. He indicated

it has been worked out and that it seems like micromanagement for the Village to state

something about that. Creative Day has worked out times and schedules and has been

doing so for twenty six years. He questioned why couldn't they do it now. The gym and

outside play area are the only areas that might cause conflict. However, you can be

creative to get around that by using nearby parks within walking distance and other

options.

Mr. Dennis stated that he had no comments regarding item seven. He stated that he

has looked over the document that was the 2005 agreement and believes St. John's is

not doing anything contrary to their agreement. They told us we needed to go through

the process and that is what we are doing. He stated that he did not think the church

was deliberately going against the agreement.

He stated that he thinks Creative Day will be a valuable asset and a good use of the

building. Having children in the building might not be deterrence to crime. However, if

there are people around and activities, it is less likely there will be graffiti or damage to

the building if someone knows its being used. He also referred to previous discussions

why the building is good enough for kids. He felt that the building is outdated but they

have talked with Fire Marshall and Building Department about the necessary upgrades.

What needs to be updated for the first floor and for fire prevention in the entire building

are two different issues. Creative Day would only need to install strobes and warning

lights. If anyone were to occupy the third floor, the whole building would have to be

sprinkled. The cost would be several hundred thousand dollars and they would also

need bathroom access.

Chairperson Ryan asked if there were any questions of the petitioners.

William Heniff asked if the petitioner could clarify some issues related to item six. He

asked if they could make clear for the record about midday activities or trips as how it

relates to traffic.

Mr. Dennis indicated that most of the drop-offs and pick ups would occur during the

morning and evening hours indicated. However, if a child needs to be picked up for a

doctor's appointment or another reason, a parent could do that. As for field trips, the

students would walk to the train station which would take them to the aquarium. This

would create no additional traffic.

Mr. Heniff asked if there would be morning and afternoon classes which might cause a

midday rush.

Mr. Dennis stated that some children may do half days. However, some may come

directly from St. John's and would simply walk across the street. If the students come

from another school, there may be some small number of additional vehicles.

Commissioner Cooper asked if there would be any food delivery.

Mr. Dennis stated that there may be food delivery for a short period until the kitchen is

fully functioning. However, all meals would be prepared onsite.

Mr. Heniff asked for a representative from St. Johns to provide testimony related to item

seven.

Dave Freese, 569 Brewster Avenue, stated that he is the Chairman of the Congregation

at St. John's. He then introduced Joe Jaruseski as the former Chairman. Mr. Freese

stated that Creative Day came to the church looking for space to rent. He stated that

the church never hung out a for rent sign. St. John's council met on the issues and

decided that because it was a daycare center it would be compatible with what they

were doing as it fits on their campus. The church indicated to them that they would have

to go through the process with the Village. He addressed what has changed since 2005

and indicated that it is the economy that has changed. He stated that the church

thought that if this is an opportunity to have income and if it fits into that campus, then

why not.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that in 2005 the church agreed to use the old school for

storage and office space due to a substandard building. He had taken a look at the

website calendar. He stated that for January, every Tuesday at 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. there

is a quilter meeting. He asked if there are any other meetings like that.

Mr. Freese mentioned a room for Boy Scouts once a month. The lady quilters do use a

room on the third floor on a regular basis and there is a room being used as storage for

the food pantry.

Joe Jaruseski, 1107 Michelle Lane, stated that he wanted to clarify some items. He

mentioned the traffic concerns and asked that be taken into consideration that the

weather is bad right now. It takes longer to get out of the car and drop off children than

normally. He also stated that food delivery should not interfere with traffic as there is an

area at the rear of the old school building were such deliveries have taken place in the

past.

Chairperson Ryan asked what other commercial interests would fit into St. John's.

Mr. Freese stated that he didn't think any would. This was a unique situation and he

thought that God brought Creative Day to them as it was such a good fit. He stated that

he doesn't see any other commercial use that would fit in, and they don't want an

outside commercial use in that building especially with all the children nearby.

Chairperson Ryan referred back to what they said in 2005 when it was agreed to it

couldn't be used for kids.

Mr. Freese indicated that the building was not adequate for 233 students which would

require retrofitting the entire building. Creative Day would only have to retrofit certain

areas. He stated that he did not see anything within the wording of the 2005 Conditional

Use that would prohibit St. John's from making a petition for a daycare center. There

was discussion about a daycare related to whether St. John's wanted to open up its own

day care. Again, the opportunity came before them and they thought it was a good fit.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked if there were plans for the old school building beyond two

years.

Mr. Freese stated that there were not, in part because of economy. They found that

groups within the congregation like to use it for storage, the second gym is used for

occasional basketball practice, and the stage might be used for the fall play. He

estimated that they use about fifty percent of the facility.

Chairperson Ryan asked for the general public to ask questions or comments related to

the seven items remanded back.

Janet Imbrogno, 14 Lincoln Court, referred to the seven items and wanted to comment

on them. She stated that numbers one and two interact and contradict each other. With

regard to commercial enterprises in residential districts and having commercial in an

institutional planned development, she thought it is a commercial establishment that fits

into an institutional development. A daycare is like a preschool and would fit into

education of children. She did not think it's truly a residential area. With regard to item

four, it is obvious that other uses would be put under the same scrutiny and that

everything would be considered. With regard to items five and six, she mentioned that

the traffic study found everything acceptable. As far as traffic and children, she doesn't

think that is an issue. She stated that items three and seven complemented each other.

With regard to item seven, she stated that she did not think the intent was to shut down

the building completely. It would be such a waste to let it sit and rot. With regard to item

three, she did not know any better use for the property than to have children in it.

Karen Ness, 219 W Ash St., recapped her letter that she sent to the Village. She stated

that this is a for profit business that would be paying rent to St. John's, a not for profit

institution. She also stated that there should not be children in a building with such

inadequacies as were previously represented. She stated that St. John's has been

violating the previous planned development ordinance by allowing other users to use the

old school building.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for comments among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she wanted to lay groundwork in terms of

terminology and its importance this time. The word commercial has a broad

interpretation and broad scope and gives the sense that there is a lot of activity, that

there may be lights, action, and anticipation of growth. It is unfortunate that commercial

casts this type of designation. We have to address that and what it really means. It has

been pointed out that commercial can mean a lot of things other than what the staff

report indicates. Staff has indicated that of ten operations in item four, seven were given

conditional uses. It strikes me that when 70 percent of something has to be given a

conditional use that the definitions might not be characterized the best they can be.

William Heniff referred to the table included in the packet. He stated that for clarity,

where there are conditional uses most are located within business districts.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that was not her point, it was that there were conditional

uses needed for 70 percent of the institutions.

Commissioner Cooper added that do we want our children in the middle of a strip mall.

As Commissioner Sweetser was indicating, the way our codes and ordinances are set

up they aren't keeping our children in the forefront. She indicated that she has

comments in response to the seven items.

PLAN COMMISSION RESPONSE TO THE SEVEN (7) ITEMS

Chairperson Ryan mentioned that they should go through the points one by one. He

requested that Commissioner Cooper begin by discussing item one.

Commissioner Cooper stated that this item requires consideration of the type of

operation in this church. It is different than a car wash or auto body shop and this is a

service provided to families for children. However, it has different connotations for the

type of entity that it is. The day care has agreed to limit growth to forty students. In this

case, the owner of the day care is willing and wants to cap growth. So, that might be

one of the ways to decipher this as a separate approval and reject something in the

future. Caring for children is compatible with neighborhoods and that is where children

are. That is a wonderful part of Lombard's community and a marketable and unique

quality. This type of use is conducive to residentially zoned district. As mentioned,

there was a school in the building before and it had worked for many years. There is

synergy between the two and the other uses in the area. Lastly, looking at an aerial at

what the physical build out looks like, some of the adjacent land is zoned residential, this

an R2PD. To the north is recreational and includes a library. Where else do you want

your children to go? The historical museum is nearby. When you look at the land how it

is developed the uses are synergistic to this business.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if this is a commercial business then what commercial

area would we want that in. Commercial areas are strip areas. Is that something we

would say as a community, that is where a daycare center should be? Or in a

quasi-residential area?

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he realizes that day care facilities are part of society

today because of both parents and single family parents working and there is a need for

them. They have a place in the proper environment. After listening to all this today, he

is still opposed to this petition because granting it would set a precedent for setting a

commercial, for profit business into an residentially zoned residential area. He believes

it would set a horrendous example for the Village. As an extreme example of this, East

Central Avenue is one block south of where we sit. Central is a short distance from the

Roosevelt Road Corridor. Does that mean we could establish commercial endeavors on

Central? You don't only have to look at proximity to residential areas but how it is

zoned. If St. John's wanted its own daycare center, we would still have to look at it. A

substandard building would be an issue but the major concern is establishing a for-profit

in a residential area.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she had thoughts along the same line but these

issues are very interrelated and woven. This is where terminology doesn't serve us

well. As far as precedent, St. John's would not be forced to accept any other if they are

sought out. She asked if because this is a planned development it would not set a

precedent as each planned development is different.

Mr. Heniff stated that it is not automatic.

Commissioner Flint stated that he had the same thought as Commissioner Sweetser. A

precedent would not be set because this is a Conditional Use. He understands

Commissioner Olbrysh's comments but this petition should be evaluated on its own

merits and if something else came along we would have to look at it.

Commissioner Burke stated that he lives in the area. He stated that he does not believe

it is a quasi-residential neighborhood. We think it's a nice residential neighborhood. He

stated that he did not know how you can say it wouldn't set a precedent. Churches are

looking for ways to increase funding because of the economy and change of

demographics. This would have an effect on other opportunities for this to occur in

other planned developments in Lombard. It would be hard to stop that trend. Part of the

issue is that the language is getting in our way and without changing that, it's difficult to

address the situation.

Chairperson Ryan asked that the Commissioners begin discussion of item two.

Commissioner Cooper stated that there is compatibility with the school and the

institutional planned development. So, the daycare doesn't fall under institutional

heading.

Mr. Heniff stated that she is correct; it's a separate entity.

Commissioner Cooper stated that with the similarity of the educational focus we might

want to look at those issues in the future.

Chairperson Ryan cautioned the Commissioners to stick to the present and not worry

about the future at this point.

Chairperson Ryan asked that the Commissioners begin discussion of item three.

Commissioner Cooper stated that safety is increased by having people in the building

and eyes on streets. She also stated that there is the financial contribution made in

updating the building so it doesn't go into disrepair with the benefits of safety to public

and entrances and sidewalks being cared for. She stated that working families need

safe, loving environments to take children to. She mentioned that there is proven

clientele relying on them. She noted that with all of the physical resources within this

complex, they have something most do not have. Physical activity is so hard to come

by and finding a place for physical activity is a challenge. This is a service for our

community.

Commissioner Cooper also mentioned the location of the property and its proximity to

transit and biking opportunities. She mentioned the Prairie Path, transit for commuting

parents, and York theater. Also, no new construction would be required with having the

old building. There would be no new buildings impacting the neighborhood. Bringing

people to our downtown and enlivening the downtown and farmer's market is a benefit.

We need people to patronize our downtown businesses and by having people coming

into the downtown corridor it will be easier for people to access downtown.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that he agreed with Commissioner Cooper as to the

benefits. However, the issue is talking about a for profit organization in a residentially

zoned area. He cannot get past that point. All the other points are great but the

question is what organization is running the business. That is what bothers him.

Chairperson Ryan asked that the Commissioners begin discussion of item four.

Commissioner Flint stated the Plan Commission looks at each petition on its own merit.

There is not a car dealership coming in here, it's something compatible with the area.

We should look at it on a per case basis and this is a conditional use.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she wished to reiterate the points she made before.

Chairperson Ryan asked that the Commissioners begin discussion of item five.

Commissioner Cooper stated that she would defer to KLOA regarding this item. The

traffic study was completed and said this is one of the most efficient traffic flows they

have seen. With the provision of the parking spaces, additional queuing should not be

an issue.

Commission Sweetser stated that drop off times would only occasionally conflict with St.

John's so she was not sure why an example was given about the queuing.

Mr. Heniff stated that it was meant to clarify discussion from the November meeting

about traffic being delayed by queuing. It was given for reference purposes.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she doesn't see the relevance.

Commissioner Burke stated that the petitioner acknowledged that there would be some

overlap in traffic, particularly during morning drop off. He stated that he thinks there will

be some overlap and will verify that Ash has a lot of cars waiting to get onto Lincoln.

The petitioner's testimony comparing other schools traffic concerns is understandable

but Westlake and Parkview are public schools and they are obligated to take that traffic.

They are not asking to add to that traffic. If there is already a problem do we need to

add to it?

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she did not think they would be adding to a problem

because you mentioned it's an occasional overlap due to the time the center is open.

Commissioner Burke asked that the petitioner clarify the testimony.

The petitioner stated that pickup in the afternoon is usually after work, after the school is

closed. In the morning, there will be some overlap for drop off times. However, the

Creative Day parents will not be in the same queue and are not adding to any lines on

Ash.

Chairperson Ryan indicated that item six has been discussed by the petitioner and Plan

Commission. He asked that the Commissioners begin discussion of item seven.

Commissioner Cooper stated that St. John's has indicated that their decision has a lot to

do with the economy.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that it serves a cause or it doesn't but to point to

something and say you were going to do this and do that. Circumstances change and

things come up not of our own doing and that is the issue here. She stated she is

concerned that this opportunity came along and St. John's looked into it and it is coming

across as a violation. Ultimately, it is more technical in nature and does not constitute

premeditation or intent.

Chairperson Ryan asked for any other discussion.

Commissioner Flint asked staff if by approving this, would it set a precedent in their

mind.

Mr. Heniff stated that there are two things to look at. We have a planned development

in place. As information indicates that we have noted in the staff report, we haven't

approved a use exception of a commercial day care in a residentially zoned R2 property.

If approved, it could set a precedent. Day care centers are not listed as permitted or

conditional use in residential districts. They can only be brought forward through use

exception through their planned development. The Plan Commission gets to review

every use exception on its own merit. One of the challenges is that we look at each case

on own merits, but we have many institutional uses in the Village. The question comes

up, they did it why can't we?

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that his background is in law and lawyers look at

precedent. We can't ignore that. That is why he has his opinion. He has nothing

against daycare centers and they help the working family. However, it is where it is

located and the precedent that is being set and where does all this stop. That is the

concern.

Mr. Heniff stated that counsel has given additional direction as to a finding they should

make prior to any final consideration in this matter. Now that additional information has

been included as public testimony, the Plan Commission will be asked to make findings

related to the items presented this evening.

Mr. Moynihan stated that in addition to the findings to be made regarding the seven

items identified by the Board, counsel has added an eighth finding to be made:

The petition complies with the Standards of Planned Developments, Standards for

Planned Development with Use Exceptions, and Variation Standards for not requiring

additional parking spaces as set forth in the petitioner's Responses to those Standards

attached to the November 17, 2008 staff report.

George Wagner explained that in the staff report there is a summary of two possible

options. In the event the Plan Commission wishes to approve, there should be along

with those findings of fact, an eighth finding that provides that part of the motion of the

Plan Commission is adopting their previous findings that the petition has complied with

the Standard for Planned Developments, Use Exceptions and Variations. If there is a

motion for denial, he pointed out the recommended language should include the

acceptance of the Inter-departmental Review Reports from both November 17, 2008

and January 26, 2009.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that she would like attention paid to terminology as it

hasn't served us well in this case.

Commissioner Burke agreed with that. He said that looking at the seven items there are

some that are problematic and some that are non-issues. The precedence is something

we need to consider and that could be problematic. He asked staff is it only two options:

either we approve with all eight findings or deny altogether.

Mr. Heniff stated that with the seven findings the Board of Trustees wanted, ultimately,

with the additional testimony, we come back to a favorable or unfavorable

recommendation from the Plan Commission. Within those seven provisions there may

be one response you may or may not feel comfortable with but it does meet the

Standards required. The seven items should give clarity for final recommendation.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that they have observed the letter of the law but the

terminology doesn't begin to help us understand how they fit or don't fit. The spirit of the

law should be in play and she will use that in her vote.

Commissioner Olbrysh asked that if he made motion, will he get a second?

Mr. Wagner suggested making a motion.

2. Commissioner Sweetser also indicated that there was another correction on page 8,

bottom sentence, which was amended giving credence to state agencies.

3. Chairperson Ryan referred to the "Approval of Minutes" section on the January 26,

2009 agenda and noted that it incorrectly cites the November 19 (corrected) minutes

when it should say November 17 (corrected).

On a motion by Flint and seconded by Sweetser the corrected minutes of the November

17, 2008 meeting were unanimously approved by the members present with the

aforementioned corrections.

December 15, 2008 minutes

On a motion by Sweetser and seconded by Burke the minutes of the December 15,

2008 meeting were unanimously approved by the members present with the following

corrections:

1. Commissioner Sweetser referred to Page 9, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. She

requested that the word "air" be changed to "err" so the sentence reads:

"If we are going to be green, she would prefer to err on the side of open space."

2. Mr. Wagner referenced petition PC 08-33 on page 1 and requested that language be

added explaining that this text amendment was heard jointly with PC 08-34.

1. Residential Development Handbook

Chris Stilling, Assistant Director of Community Development, presented the item. As

part of the Village Board of Trustees' 2007 - 2008 Strategic Plan, the Village Board

directed staff to pursue actions to institute better residential design review for residential

development. Under the Board's direction, a number of residential redevelopment items

were discussed with the Plan Commission and ultimately, the Village Board approved

text amendments for attached garages and residential front yard setbacks.

During the Plan Commission workshop sessions, direction was given to staff to create

an information packet for the public that outlines the residential development process.

Staff has drafted such information into a handbook titled the “Residential Development

Handbook” which is being brought forward tonight. The intent of the Residential

Development Handbook is to guide the public though the residential development

process by highlighting important issues associated with residential development. These

issues include: the permit process; planning, engineering and Building Code

requirements; recent changes made to the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code; and

directory information.

Staff essently broke the handbook out into sections. The goal was to have each section

stand on its own merit or flow as one item. He referred to Page 2, Planning Your

Project, Myth of the "Grandfather Clause" and noted that on the first line the word

"precede" will be changed to "preclude".

Concluding, Mr. Stilling noted that staff is looking for the Commissioners' input as to

suggestions, comments, changes, additions or deletions.

Commissioner Olbrysh referred to the first text page, the Application Submittal section,

and questioned if the exclusion was increased to 500 square feet as he thought it was

300 square feet. Mr. Heniff noted that with 500 square feet or more we would require a

french drain or engineering improvements. If the square footage is less than 500 square

feet, they would not need engineering. Commissioner Olbrysh asked if the number had

been increased as he always thought it was lower. Mr. Heniff noted that for the past

several years we have been using this number.

Commissioner Sweetser commented that she really liked the document and the

one-stop approach. She indicated that while it talks about a lot of things it never says

how to begin. She suggested that more specific information be provided such as a staff

person, department and/or phone number be inserted.

Commissioner Flint suggested adding a few basic items such as page numbers and a

table of contents. Mr. Stilling agreed and indicated that the approach staff wanted was

to be able to have each sheet stand on its own so if someone inquired about a certain

topic, a single sheet outlining the topic could be sent rather than weeding through the

whole packet.

Commissioner Olbrysh referred to the Building Your House section. Under Required

Surveys he noted that the last sentence in the first paragraph needed to be changed to

"there can be no vertical.....".

Commissioner Burke referred to the legend at the bottom of the Zoning Information

section and stated that the explanation for 2F needed to be amended.

Mr. Stilling stated that it is staff's goal to have this document available online. He

explained how staff went though and benchmarked with other communities. There

were a lot of other things staff could have added but focused on what people would

focus on and wanted the document to be user friendly.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if staff was going to track questions that came in from

residents so they would know whether the document was clear. Mr. Heniff indicated that

we have tried to track things like this before. After it is released for public comment, we

will find out how people are reviewing and interpreting it. At that point we would be able

to make the appropriate changes and the format that has been established would allow

us to do that. Commissioner Sweetser then suggested that it might be a good idea to

have an issue date.

Mr. Heniff indicated that staff will incorporate the changes as suggested. It will also be

released to the website and made available at the front counter.