Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/24/2011 P&Z Minutes 03-11 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-03-11 Hearing Date: March 24, 2011 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 580 Slawin Court PETITIONER : Camelot Therapeutic Schools, LLC PUBLICATION DATE: March 9, 2011 PIN NUMBERS: 03-35-104-055-0000, 03-35-104-053-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use Approval for a Vocational School MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Leo Floros Theo Foggy Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBER ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES : Adam Moore, Joe Carter, Sheila Deal, Tim Minor, Tom Hefty Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Mr. Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 24, 2011 meeting; Mr. Foggy seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 3-0 with Mr. Roberts, Mr. Foggy, and Mr. Youngquist abstaining. After hearing 3 previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-03-11, 580 Slawin Court, Conditional Use for a Vocational School at 9:11 p.m. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner for PZ-03-11 was seeking Conditional Use approval to operate a Vocational School at 580 Slawin Court. Ms. Andrade stated the Subject Property is located in the end of the Slawin Court cul-de-sac, and included a vacant office/warehouse building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial and is adjacent to the I-1 District on all sides. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner proposed to remodel the 30,163 square foot building to operate a Vocational School. The Vocational School would provide special education to students ages 6-21 and would focus on education of children with Autism Spectrum disorders. The school would consist of an academic and vocational program, with the vocational component occupying roughly 63% of the floor plan. Vocational Schools require Conditional Use approval in the I-1 Limited Industrial District. Ms. Andrade stated the proposed floor plan would include 14 classrooms, 16 offices, a computer room, library, nurse room, kitchen, cafeteria, multi-purpose room, art room, music room, and workshops. The Petitioner has indicated that most of the programming would occur indoors due to the development level of the students. Outdoor activities would primarily consist of walks through the area’s natural paths. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-03-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 1 of 7 Ms. Andrade showed a slide that illustrated the proposed breakdown of the school. The school would be divided between administrative, educational, transitional, and vocational functions. As previously stated, the vocational component would take up approximately 63% of the floor plan. Ms. Andrade said the school intended to provide a comprehensive curriculum in traditional areas of study customized to each student’s individual need. It also planned to teach vocation and life skills that would start in a classroom setting and transition to workshops. Class sizes would vary from 8-10 students at one time, with a maximum of 10 students per classroom as regulated by the State. The proposed number of staff would be 50 initially. However, the Petitioner anticipated a maximum of 140 students and 100 staff members when fully operational. The hours of operation would be Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated Village Code required parking based on the land uses. In this case, the parking regulations for a vocational use are difficult to apply as the proposed use is unique. The students would not drive to the school, they would only be bused. Therefore, the Petitioner’s parking requirements are based on the number of staff and vehicles. A total of 70 parking spaces would be required for the proposed use. Per the Petitioner’s Plat of Survey, the Subject Property currently provides 73 parking spaces, including one accessible parking space. The existing parking spaces currently exceed the minimum required number of parking spaces by 3 spaces. However, the number of existing accessible parking spaces does not comply with current code. Per Village Code, a minimum of 3 accessible parking spaces shall be provided for a parking lot with 51 to 75 parking spaces. The parking lot would be required to be restriped to provide a minimum of 3 accessible parking spaces and comply with the overall parking requirement based on the number of staff and school vehicles. The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. The following is a summary of these findings: The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; And adequate provision for utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets are provided. Ms. Andrade said Staff reviewed the Petitioner’s proposal and did not object to the use or find that it would have adverse impact on the adjacent tenants or properties. Village Board approved a similar use back in 2007 for the property located 625 Slawin Court (PZ-25-07). Similar methodology to calculate the required parking and impact of the proposed use on neighboring properties was utilized to approve this previous case. Staff was not aware of any issues with the operation of that use in the area. Ms. Andrade stated the Village Code allowed transferring a Conditional Use permit to another similar user. The Petitioner’s proposed vocational school is unique as it will provide special programs focusing primarily on the education of children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Since the Petitioner’s request for a vocational school is unique, it should be noted that the Conditional Use permit would only be transferable to the exact same type of Vocational School that would be operated in the same manner where students would be bused to the facility. The parking lot would have to be expanded if it was determined there was a parking shortage. Ms. Andrade said the proposed Vocational School met the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the school being operated as noted in the Petitioner’s application. Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the motion listed in the Staff report. Chairman Rogers swore in Adam Moore of First Industrial Realty Trust, 1661 Feehanville Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Moore stated that First Industrial Realty owns the subject property and would be the landlord; the Petitioner would be the tenant based on a 10 year lease agreement pending approval by the Village. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-03-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 2 of 7 Mr. Moore said his company owns 5 separate properties within the Kensington Business Park. They have owned up to 11 properties at one time within the business park. Mr. Moore believed the school would fit in well with the business park and surrounding businesses. Chairman Rogers swore in Joe Carter, Vice President of Operations for Therapeutic Day Schools, 232 Cambridge Drive, Coatesville, Pennsylvania. He confirmed with the Petitioner that Camelot is a national organization. Chairman Rogers swore in all individuals who wished to speak on the subject case and asked when they first speak to announce their name and address for the record. Mr. Carter provided a background and discussed Camelot Schools. He stated that they run two different types of schools. The first is a therapeutic day school where every student has special needs. The other type is an alternative day school for students who have misbehaved and have been dismissed from the public school system. Camelot Schools are presently located within 5 states. There are 5 therapeutic day schools presently in the Chicagoland area. Mr. Carter said that with the proposal, they were just looking at moving a therapeutic school to the subject property, not an alternative school. Sheila Deal, 1455 E. Prairie, Des Plaines, Illinois stated that she is the Principal of the Des Plaines Camelot School and would be Principal of the Mount Prospect location if it is approved. She said they currently have 75 students with 50 Staff members. Ms. Deal said that the school is not a traditional school and the highest teacher to student radio is 10:1 (state legal limit). The lowest ratio is 1:1. Ms. Deal discussed the purpose of the school is to provide students what they will need to face challenges in their lives. She stated the school is very supervised and focused on the students all the time. Ms. Deal said the students would all be bused in by the school district. No students would walk or ride their bikes to the subject property. Mr. Floros asked if the school was a substitute or if it augmented the public school system. Ms. Deal said that Camelot would receive referrals from school districts that do not have the necessary resources for a child. Students would be attending Camelot instead of the public school system; however, Camelot is sanctioned and funded by the public schools. Public Schools pay tuition based on the state rate. The Petitioners showed a clip of Camelot Therapeutic School being featured on the Today Show to provide the Commission with an insight of their school. Chairman Rogers asked if the school had standard grades. Ms. Deal stated that students can attend the school between the ages of 6 and 20 per the Illinois State Board of Education rule. Students are grouped based on age, need, and ability level. Mr. Beattie confirmed that the subject property would just be a therapeutic day school and not be used to serve the residential unit. He then asked how long the facility has been located in Palatine. Ms. Deal stated the facility was in Palatine and since moved to Des Plaines where the school has been located inside an old Catholic school for the past 5 years. Mr. Roberts confirmed that there would be no students from the alternative education program at the subject property. Mr. Beattie asked how many school districts Camelot serves. Ms. Deal said her referral base would not change from her current Des Plaines location, but Camelot serves approximately 25 districts ranging from Zion to the closest in Des Plaines and Park Ridge. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-03-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioners if they were aware that the building at the subject property would be in need of remodeling and would have to meet the current Village Building and Fire Codes. Mr. Carter stated he understood. Chairman Rogers asked what the budget was for remodeling the subject property. Mr. Carter said the budget was approximately $1 million to outfit the building. It would be all interior changes. Chairman Rogers swore in Tim Minor, 852 Feehanville Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois and Tom Hefty, 227 W. Monroe, Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Hefty stated he was an attorney representing opposition to the Petitioners request by Cummins-Allison Corporation. Mr. Hefty requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the subject case until Cummins could have a dialogue with the Petitioner and Staff to resolve some of its concerns. He stated that Cummins occupies 4 of the 5 buildings it owns in the Kensington Business Park. One of Cummins’ buildings abuts to the subject property and they also believe their other properties would be affected by Camelot’s activities. Mr. Hefty said that Cummins did not know about the proposed activities. He stated that Cummins attorneys met with Staff on the morning of March 24; they were hoping to also meet with representatives from Camelot at the same time but were unable to do so. Mr. Hefty stated if Cummins is not able to find common ground regarding its concerns with Camelot, they would like to state their concerns for the record at the public hearing. He stated that Cummins received the legal notice a little more than 10 days before the hearing. Chairman Rogers and Mr. Beattie asked Cummins to specifically address their concerns before the Commission. Mr. Minor provided the background and history on the Cummins-Allison Corporation. Mr. Minor stated that they are at the public hearing not opposing the concept of improving the welfare of individuals with special needs. He said that Cummins is concerned with Staff’s recommendation to move forward. Mr. Minor believed that there was a public safety and security issue involved with the subject case. He stated that there have been public safety issues in the past and compromises have been developed with Staff. Mr. Minor said compromise could potentially be achieved, but Cummins needed additional time for review. Mr. Minor believed the Petitioner’s application was incomplete as it did not address recreational use. He said the subject property has no outdoor space for activities outside. Mr. Minor was also concerned with the maximum number of students. Mr. Hefty stated there was no traffic study to show what kind of traffic the proposed school would bring in on a daily basis. He said there is no area on-site for outdoor recreational space and questioned whether or not the subject property conformed to the Village Code in regards to lot coverage. Mr. Hefty also discussed that the Petitioner’s application discussed the proposed facility as being vocational and academic. Mr. Hefty discussed the subject property and its proximity to Cummins’ property at 852 Feehanville. He stated there is a detention pond that is situated between the two properties. Mr. Hefty said the Petitioner proposed outdoor walks on the jogging path for outdoor activity. He believed the issue was that the jogging path crosses into Cummins’ main parking lot and continues west and crosses Feehanville Drive. Mr. Hefty stated this was a safety issue with trucks entering and leaving Cummins’ 3 buildings on the west side of Feehanville Drive. He said Cummins worked with the Village in the past to install traffic control signs around the path crossing at Feehanville Drive. He believed that this would be a safety issue because the original markings were designated for less volume of foot traffic. Mr. Hefty stated that the park and the jogging trail were not designed for school outdoor activities. He said the distance from the subject property to Maple Park is approximately ¼ of a mile. Mr. Hefty felt that for the proposed use there should be some sort of on-site recreational facility. Mr. Roberts appreciated the concern for safety, but he said he did not understand how the proposed use would affect the Cummins property. Mr. Minor stated Cummins has invested a substantial amount of money into the Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-03-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 4 of 7 business park and community. He said that their concerns were not about money, they were about public safety from past experiences. Mr. Beattie stated that he did not hear from the opposition how the proposed use would affect Cummins and the safety of its employees. There was additional discussion regarding safety. Mr. Minor said that there was a drowning in the past in the aforementioned detention pond. He also referenced an incident that evolved on Cummins’ property with another school originally utilizing the local park. Mr. Minor stated there were liability issues, but that was not the reason why they were in attendance at the hearing. He said that Cummins has approached the Village in the past with several safety issues regarding fencing, the median strip in the road, and other items. Mr. Minor stated with added time and discussion, Cummins could learn what is to be expected and planned. He indicated that Cummins had approached the Village a few years ago regarding installing some fencing on their property and did not receive approval for the request. He stated Cummins was not present at the hearing to stop the proposed use but were simply present to request additional time to clarify the issues and voice their concerns. Mr. Roberts said there have been other vocational schools that have been approved in the industrial park. He stated the public library was also located there for a few years. Mr. Roberts believed when the library was located in the Kensington Business Center, traffic was as heavy as it would be with that kind of use. Chairman Rogers said that Cummins had some legitimate concerns but wanted to provide the Petitioner an opportunity to respond. Mr. Minor reiterated that Cummins is simply asking for additional time to work with Camelot, Staff, and the Planning and Zoning Commission on their concerns before the subject case advances to the Village Board. Mr. Floros believed that Cummins had a reasonable request and it would be wise to have the Petitioner and Cummins group work with Staff to resolve some of the differences. Mr. Hefty asked the Commission to review the Petitioner’s application. The application stated that the Petitioner’s were applying for a therapeutic day care center that emphasized academics and vocation. He believed the Petitioners were focusing more on the vocational element at the hearing. Mr. Hefty said an academic school is not permitted and not eligible for a Conditional Use in the I-1 zoning district; only vocational schools are permitted in I-1 under a Conditional Use. Mr. Carter did not foresee having their students walk ¼ mile to the park’s playground. He stated that the school does have small buses that can be utilized to transport students to the park. Mr. Carter said not all Staff and students would be walking outside at one time. He stated students do take breaks outside, but they would not be walking to the park. Mr. Carter stated that the school does have an inside recreational area because they do not have large outdoor playgrounds at their sites. Chairman Rogers asked what type of supervision was utilized when students are outside. Mr. Carter stated the majority of teacher to student ratio is 1:1. The least amount of teacher to student is 1:5. The school has a lot more Staff and supervision than the public school system. A majority of the students do not have a full range of motion, so the outdoor activities would be limited. Ms. Deal stated the jogging path would be considered more for a break rather than a physical education activity. She said the walks would mostly be with a ratio of 1:1 or 1:2. Chairman Rogers asked if there were any requirements for students to be outside. The Petitioners stated no. Ms. Deal said that they like to take students outside in a planned and organized manner. Mr. Carter stated that two of their other schools are located within industrial parks in Naperville and Hoffman Estates. Mr. Roberts confirmed that the students would either be dropped off or bused to the subject property; no students would be walking or riding their bikes. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-03-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Beattie asked the school hours of the facility. Ms. Deal said students would be in school from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. with the Staff on-site from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Chairman Rogers stated there was a legitimate concern for safety if the students were taken outside of the building. Mr. Carter said their Naperville school is located closer to a detention pond than the subject property; there have been no incidents at the Naperville site in over 10 years. Chairman Rogers asked if there were any fences around the Naperville detention pond, Mr. Carter stated no. Mr. Beattie asked if there was any fencing around the Mount Prospect detention pond which was affirmed there is no current fencing. Mr. Youngquist confirmed that the Hoffman Estates and Naperville schools were comparable in size with the Subject Property. Mr. Carter stated when plans were drawn for the Mount Prospect location; the other two schools were used as a model. Mr. Youngquist asked Staff regarding the academic/vocational use in the I-1 district. Mr. Simmons stated the primary use of the structure was the vocational school which occupied over 60% of the building. Mr. Simmons stated the other uses are ancillary to this primary use and Staff’s recommendation of support is similar to requests for uses on other properties within the Village. Mr. Roberts confirmed with Staff that the primary use is defined by the square footage that is dedicated in the facility for the specific purpose. Mr. Simmons clarified the public notice requirement. He said letters were mailed in advance of the hearing per the public notice regulations; a sign was posted on the subject property; and a legal notice was published in the newspaper regarding the public hearing. Mr. Roberts asked when notices were mailed. Mr. Simmons stated the notices were mailed to property owners 15 days before the scheduled hearing. Mr. Moore wanted to address the concern regarding the traffic study. He stated any use added to the park would increase the traffic so the proposed use would not be detrimental to the designed traffic flow of the business park. Mr. Minor was concerned with congestion issues. He said buses were not included in the Petitioner’s proposal and wanted to know where they would be parked. Mr. Minor stated that he was by the subject property at 3 p.m. and noticed the neighboring vocational school had 6 PACE buses lined up to transport its students. Mr. Hefty reiterated that Cummins had liability concerns due to the proximity of the vocational school to their property and detention pond. Mr. Hefty stated the jogging path is Village owned, but not the detention pond. The detention pond is on Cummins’ property. He discussed the only pathway to the park is the one that has been discussed and leads by Cummins property. Mr. Hefty said that data is needed for how often the students would be outside and utilizing this path. Mr. Minor stated there is another adjacent business located in the cul-de-sac who was unaware of the public hearing and was not able to attend the meeting. He stated he believed they would be in contact with Village Staff for additional information. Chairman Rogers recommended that Cummins meet with the Petitioner in the time between the public hearing and the Village Board meeting to go over the concerns. He said if the Cummins group still felt a safety issue after discussions to bring it up with the Village Board. Mr. Minor said that Cummins has had success working with the Planning and Zoning Commission and Staff in the past and preferred to continue the case to the next zoning meeting. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioners if they would be willing to meet with the Cummins group and any other party that had concerns with the subject case. Mr. Carter stated that he would be willing to meet. He said when they were originally contacted regarding the issues; they did reach out to Cummins and stated they would meet. The response the Petitioner received was that they would meet after the hearing. Mr. Carter stated they were then contacted by Cummins two days before the hearing asking if they would meet with Village Staff and Cummins’ Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-03-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 6 of 7 attorneys. He stated they were not prepared to talk with attorneys on such short notice and that is why they did not meet the morning of the hearing. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if they would consider continuing the case to the next Planning and Zoning Meeting. Mr. Carter stated this would create a hardship since they were looking for the Conditional Use approval and opening the school at the end of August for the new school year. An additional month delay would severely impact their ability to open on schedule. Chairman Rogers asked if there was anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 10:19 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. Floros re-stated that he would vote no to allow the Petitioner, Cummins, and Staff time to meet and discuss the concerns and work out an agreement or accommodation. Mr. Roberts said Cummins had some valid concerns and agreed that they should have more time to review the case. He preferred to vote on the subject case to allow the Village Board to make the final decision. Mr. Roberts stated the Planning and Zoning Commission’s vote was just a recommendation to the Village Board. He believed continuing the case would place the Petitioner in an impossible position on opening up the school by the end of August. Mr. Foggy stated if there was an approval, would the Commission be allowed to make a condition stating that the two parties must meet with Staff’s involvement to discuss the issues. Chairman Rogers said both parties have already stated they would agree to meet before going forward to the Village Board and such a condition would not be necessary. Mr. Foggy made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to approve a Conditional Use to operate a vocational school at 580 Slawin, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Foggy, Roberts, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: Floros Motion was approved 5-1. The Village Board’s decision is final for this case. After hearing one case, Mr. Floros made a motion, seconded by Mr. Foggy to adjourn at 10:37 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ________________________________________ Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-03-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 7 of 7