City of Highland Park met Nov. 5.
Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:
I. Call to Order
At 7:30 PM Chair Hecht the meeting to order and asked Director Fontane to call the roll.
II. Roll Call
Members Present: Glazer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Leaf, Lidawer, Pearlstein, Reinstein
Members Absent: None
Director Fontane took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Cross, Fontane
Student Rep.: Rubin
Council Liaison: Blumberg, Schuster
III. Approval of Minutes
October 22, 2019
Chair Hecht entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the October 22, 2019 meeting with corrections. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Reinstein. On a voice vote, the minutes were approved unanimously.
IV. Scheduled Business
1. Design Review: Sign Variation of Exterior Lighting at 1775 St. Johns Ave.
Planner Cross made a presentation including applicant is opening an orthodontist office in Highland Park, located at St. Johns and Laurel, has unique storefront with two side windows, sign code allows a sign on either window, addition of third sign requires a variation, sign falls within the allowable signage, no size variation required, request for a third awning sign, request for relief from sign code, no changes to request from previous meeting, does not require recommendation to Council.
Dr. Jessica Cohen stated they wanted to brand themselves and put the logo in that unique area and want to use the C brand as logo.
Commissioner Glazer stated the application made good sense and looks nice with the logo on the third awning. He stated the code requires a particular hardship or special unique circumstance in order to grant relief. He asked about the hardship or unique circumstance that is driving the application.
Dr. Cohen stated it is a little more narrow than the other two sides.
Commissioner Pearlstein stated she thought it was very tasteful.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she did not see this as a hardship, but for a new business to succeed branding is important and if this helps in the process then perhaps this is the hardship, and the more they can do to help this succeed the better.
Commissioner Glazer stated he did not think the hardship was the newness of the business, but the shape of the building. The logical place for the awning is where the applicant is requesting to put it to make it look right. He thought it was the shape of the building that helps the application. He thought it warranted the relief.
Commissioner Leaf mentioned the wall sconces and if they were ADA compatible.
Planner Cross stated ADA compatibility is reviewed as part of the building permit review and if there needs to be a change to the application then there would have to be an amendment to the design review approval. If it was significant they would come back to the Commission and if it was minor it would be done administratively.
Chair Hecht asked if that analysis had been conducted.
Planner Cross stated he was not sure of the status of the building permits.
Chair Hecht entertained a motion. Commissioner Kutscheid motioned to approve as submitted, seconded by Commissioner Lidawer.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Lidawer, Pearlstein, Leaf, Kutscheid, Glazer, Reinstein, Hecht
Nays: None
Motion carried 7-0.
2. Public Hearing #18-10-ZTA-003 for Proposed Changes to the Zoning Code for the addition of New Experiential Land Uses and Modifications to existing land uses, including changes to land use tables, definitions and parking requirements; Amendments to the POSO and B2RW Establishment and Purpose Language; Addition of Standards for Section 150.1404(A) and Section 150.902(G) Regarding Special Uses and Changes to a Non-Conforming Use.
Planner Cross stated there is on going work and staff is requesting a continuance to November 19, 2019.
Chair Hecht entertained motion to continue. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Pearlstein. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.
3. Public Hearing #19-08-ZTA-003 for Proposed Changes to the Zoning Code related to Lake Michigan Protection Zone and Steep Slope Zone Regulations.
Planner Cross requested a continuance to November 19, 2019.
Chair Hecht entertained a motion to continue. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Pearlstein. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.
4. Continuation of Public Hearing #19-011-ZTA-005 and Consideration of Staff Drafted Findings of Fact for Amendments to Article 150 Regarding Recreational Cannabis Business Organizations.
Planner Cross made a presentation for the above item, noting nothing has changed with the zoning text amendment, findings of fact are identical, background, table of uses, current regulations, Council discussion and recommendation.
Chair Hecht stated this was not a discussion of whether to allow or not. This will effectuate the policy set forth by Council.
Councilman Blumberg stated the policy has been set by Council and the language is designed to effectuate that policy.
Chair Hecht stated there are empty boxes meaning they are prohibited uses.
Planner Cross stated the code does not clarify specific land uses related to recreational cannabis.
Chair Hecht stated that other businesses that are permitted uses like a bakery, without any changes, could have brownies. He asked if it is an ancillary use and does code prohibit that as an ancillary use.
Planner Cross stated yes the accessory use is still prohibited.
Mr. Schuster stated under the current code a bakery would not be permitted to sell cannabis. If this is adopted it will continue to be prohibited.
Councilman Blumberg stated that is what Corporate Counsel recommended during the COTW meeting. Counsel recommended we add this kind of text.
Commissioner Lidawer asked if there will be any time after tonight’s hearing for a public hearing and has there been a public hearing with regard to this decision.
Councilman Blumberg there was a COTW meeting which was publicly noticed.
Commissioner Lidawer asked if there was a public hearing.
Councilman Blumberg stated yes.
Chair Hecht stated it is not the Commission’s place to question the policy the Council has set forth and they are not here to discuss whether they should allow recreational cannabis in the City.
Ms. Ann Schmidt, Resident, stated she was motivated to come to the meeting and did not know about it until tonight, she was disappointed by how it had been handled, and only one Council member and the mayor had responded to her. She was disappointed as a business owner with the way it was handled and the whole way it is coming about is making Highwood cool and making Highland Park empty. There are no shops, nothing interesting and nothing happening. Her contemporaries talk about Libertyville as cool, taxes are high. She stated they excluded people and did not engage the community and did not make this meeting known. There are no people of color on the Commission. It seems like a group of totally conservative group of people. She was frustrated as a community member and business owner. She wanted to make Highland Park different.
Mr. Dino DiMitrio, Resident, stated they could vote against this to tell Council they are not happy with this. They can send a message about the way this has been handled and the public has not been notified or involved the process. Other towns are legalizing it and they are losing tax dollars.
Ms. Barbara Denekker, Community Anti-Drug Collation, stated they offer resources on what happens when you have cannabis dispensaries in town. There is research to show that proximity can impact youth drug use. If young people live within four miles of a dispensary they are more likely to use marijuana. This law is for over 21 but youth can get their hands on alcohol, tobacco and vaping. They can ask adults to buy for them or use fake IDs. They did a survey of Highland Park residents and some said they were willing to drive a few miles further if it meant it was more difficult for youth to obtain.
Councilman Blumberg stated everyone has the right to say what they want and he wanted to reiterate the policy was made by Council. If they disagree they are welcome to contact and send emails and they read and consider everything. The meeting relative to this was publicly noticed. He continues to receive comments for and against the policy but this is not before the Commission tonight. The Commission is to recommend whether the text amendment before them supports the policy or does not. This is a recommending body. He appreciates the comments, but the policy issue is not here tonight.
Mr. Nick Standeford, Attorney, Schain Banks, made a presentation including procedural history, should cannabis be allowed, Council direction not binding, did not see notices of hearing, additional testimony, other communities have opted in.
Chair Hecht stated the forum for him is Council.
Councilman Blumberg stated he had reviewed the minutes and Council specifically did not send the policy question to the Plan and Design Commission.
Mr. Standeford stated the Commission should allow one recreational cannabis dispensary in one zoning district.
Mr. Ben Kimbrow, Harvest Health & Recreation, made a presentation including crime comparison, retailer types, crime in Tempe, AZ by retail category, Highland Park cannabis taxes, tax revenue projections for CA cities.
Ms. Olivia Alvarez, Highland Park HS student, sees impacts everyday of marijuana and vaping, people are vaping in the bathroom, adding dispensaries will encourage and make it worse.
Commissioner Leaf stated he had nothing to add.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated he had nothing to add.
Commissioner Glazer stated some solid points were made tonight and he did not know if the scope of the Commission is broad enough to accommodate all of the points that were raised. They are here to consider if staff drafted findings of fact comport with the charge to the Commission. Having read the findings, he thought they did. He thought that was the extent of what they are asked to consider.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated he had nothing to add.
Commissioner Pearlstein stated she had nothing to add.
Commissioner Lidawer stated the Commission carefully scrutinized Council’s text amendment language at the October meeting. Tonight’s continuation is for the express purpose of further considering the text amendment and to insure a true open hearing is held so the public could weigh in on the issue of recreational cannabis commercial usage in Highland Park. On the issue of the text amendment she supported Council’s attorneys who recommended this issue be included as a use to insure there is no confusion as to whether this use has been considered and accepted, declined or made conditional. This language corrects an omission. She believed Council explicitly asked for prohibition of this use in a split vote and the public hearing, while noticed, was not well attended counter to every other communities’ discussions. She found it disturbing that the City did not send out additional notice to the public of tonight’s hearing as instructed by the Commission. The Commission’s main concern was that the public have a true opportunity for input and understanding and that this is the time to make their voices heard. They continued this hearing to the make sure there was no confusion. While adequate notice was given, that does meet the standard and clarification that they felt had not been met previously. As commissioners they have a duty to insure they make recommendations that uses considered for the long term benefit the residents of the community as a whole, encourage economical development and increase revenue for the City as well as considered with the context of these goals of the City’s master plan. She thought they should consider a recommendation of this use as a conditional use in B3 and I districts following closely the regulations imposed for medical cannabis use.
Chair Hecht entertained a motion. Commissioner Kutscheid motioned to approve staff drafted findings of fact recommending approval. Commissioner Leaf seconded.
Director Fontane called roll:
Ayes: Leaf, Kutscheid, Glazer
Nays: Lidawer, Pearlstein, Hecht
Abstain: Reinstein
Director Fontane stated the motion did not carry with one abstention.
Mr. Schuster stated it does not pass. He stated there are a few options – there could be another motion or they could tweak the findings in any way they see fit.
Chair Hecht stated he would open another round of deliberations that may help guide the decision.
Commissioner Lidawer stated they should be forward looking and ask Council to consider all these things. She did not see a reason(s) to amend the ordinances twice. By using it with a C for conditional use for dispensaries, she felt they have the right to turn down every applicant if they are not ready and do not have the proper structures in place and that is kind of advice they are sending forward. She would make an amendment they accept the findings of fact and put a C next to dispensary. Vice Chair Reinstein seconded.
Commissioner Glazer stated on a substantive level he would likely support the motion. But that is not in front of the Commission. He stated they are not charged with recommending to Council that anything beyond the vote taken at the COTW be sent to them. It is not their mission. It is difficult to see that is the charge of the Commission with respect to the item on the agenda.
Chair Hecht stated he agreed with Commissioner Glazer and it is not before them to decide on conditional uses. He voted no because he has concerns about whether the text amendments actually effectuate the policies Council has set forth. He was concerned there could be loopholes they may want to discuss. He was also concerned because he felt he was being asked to give legal advice and he was uncomfortable with that. He did not know if it was before them to make those changes.
Councilman Blumberg stated he understood the personal feelings about the subject. He was part of the majority who voted in favor of the current policy. One thing that occurred was a decision to revisit the subject in the coming year. The text amendment is designed to insure our current policy while they take under consideration all of the competing interests that some of the Commission is concerned about. The reason he did not favor allowing recreational sales in Highland Park was that the amount of evidence presented by staff was inconclusive and only addressed communities substantially different from Highland Park and stated substantially different from Illinois. As a matter of general regulatory thoughtfulness they have always looked to other similar communities to see how things work. This is a unique circumstance that has not been done in Illinois before and as a responsible elected official, he would not be in favor putting this into use until he had a clear understanding of the pros and cons. There are studies that the best evidence may come from surrounding communities. Given the desire of programs like this to move into Highland Park, if they delay doing it the value of selling in Highland Park still remains. It is an affluent community and there will be other licenses likely allowed in Illinois beyond the few permitted. He was not concerned about the ability to change their mind in the future. To do that with good guidance and input so when they take public comment it is against a well informed background. This is not before the Commission tonight as several of the Commissioners have pointed out. It is not before the Commission tonight, it is not their business nor charge. You can express your concerns to Council through texts, emails and calls. What is before the Commission tonight is whether the text amendment supports and effectuates the policy Council has already voiced. If they do not want to support it that is fine, but that is what is before you.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she watched the tape and every Council member said they would reconsider this in the future. She thought it was better governance to plan for the future and have that option rather than change the ordinances back and forth. She found it extremely rude the way the Commission was treated by Council in terms of telling them what they can and cannot do. It is one thing to say it is beyond their purview. In reading through the master plan she found it extremely insulting to receive the letter they did and go in direct contradiction of the additional request for notification they asked for. She looked at their mission to recommend within uses and that is all she was putting forward. A logical step is to look at the ordinance and if they want something in there it should be something they can control and to say it is a specialty does not take control away, but it also makes it consistent so they do not have to go back on an ordinance that just passed. She did not mean to take it beyond their purview and it is only a recommendation. Council will do what they want in any case but they have heard testimony pro and con, both of which are crucial. She would like to study this further and have clarity that they are moving forward and will not permit a petition without going through the full process.
Chair Hecht stated they had a motion that had been seconded and asked for a roll call.
Director Fontane called for a restatement of the motion.
Commissioner Lidawer stated it was to address all the language put forward by Council and to add a C in front of dispensaries so there would have to be a process and that would have to be approved. And only in B3 and industrial.
Mr. Schuster stated under the drafted language for the ordinance there are several types of cannabis businesses. He asked if it was for all cannabis businesses or for the one she was proposing.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she went through the language and added unless conditionally approved and would restrict it only for dispensaries not for growers, infusers, processors or for transporters.
Chair Hecht stated the dispensers would be conditional and the others would be prohibited.
Commissioner Leaf asked can if a dispensary can exist without transportation of the product.
Chair Hecht stated the grower would not exist in Highland Park. They could not have the transporter domiciled in Highland Park.
Mr. Schuster stated it is not prohibiting delivery services. It is a business defined as a transporter. Under the definition in the code a transporter is defined as a business that is licensed by the Dept. of Agriculture to transport cannabis on behalf of a cannabis business establishment or a community college licensed for a cannabis training pilot program. It is different than a truck that brings it to a dispensary.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Lidawer, Reinstein
Nays: Leaf, Glazer, Hecht
Abstain: Pearlstein, Kutscheid
Director Fontane stated the motion failed.
Director Fontane stated Chair Hecht had mentioned a concern about the proposal being effective at what it is intended to do related to accessory uses. He asked if there was more information he wanted to provide.
Chair Hecht stated if the scope of their inquiry is to determine whether this does effectuate the policy set forth by Council it may be something he needs to read himself to understand it better.
Director Fontane stated it could be a general recommendation.
Chair Hecht stated it could be to make sure it is clear that an accessory use, even a deminimus use, would still be prohibited.
Councilman Blumberg asked if the two votes are adequate to function as a recommendation or not to Council.
Mr. Schuster stated it cannot.
Chair Hecht asked if it would go to Council with no recommendation.
Mr. Schuster stated at the moment there has been no majority for either motion.
Commissioner Glazer asked if anyone else thought there was some irony in the fact that on the subject of cannabis they are confused.
Planner Cross stated the first motion to approve the findings of fact which failed. It may be helpful for the Commissioners not in favor of the original motion to clarify how the findings are not consistent with the direction from Council. There is interest in adding dispensaries as a conditional land use. If that is the only reason why the findings as drafted are not consistent with Council’s direction, that needs to be clarified.
Mr. Schuster stated under the code provision it takes 45 days to make a recommendation from when the public hearing ends. If they do not make a recommendation within the 45 days the failure to provide the recommendation in writing shall be deemed a recommendation against the approval of the proposed amendment. If they close the public hearing without a vote passing 45 days from now it will be deemed a denial.
Director Fontane stated they voted to approve staff drafted findings of fact and that failed. An then they voted to change the amendment to a conditional use in certain places and that did not carry. There has been no motion to deny.
Mr. Schuster stated a failure to pass is different than a negative recommendation. If no action is taken 45 days from now the official action of this body will be a recommendation against these draft text amendments.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked if they are allowed to have another motion on something they have already voted on.
Chair Hecht stated he wanted to solicit from the nay votes on the first motion a motion to reconsider approval of the draft findings of fact recommending approval.
Mr. Schuster stated the nay votes can do a motion to reconsider of a new vote on the exact same motion or they could propose something else. They could modify a motion as well.
Commissioner Leaf asked what is the impact if the Commission does not have a clear vote and stopped now.
Councilman Blumberg it would be considered a recommendation against.
Commissioner Leaf asked if Council can proceed without a recommendation.
Councilman Blumberg stated yes in 45 days.
Commissioner Leaf asked if this means Council cannot do a thing until 45 days passes.
Mr. Schuster stated in 45 days they can take it up and consider it. If they do nothing it would be prohibited. The benefit of adopting the amendment is it provides clarity and it is spelled out in the code. That is the benefit. The other issue is someone would have to have a license to operate.
Commissioner Leaf asked if a license is state issued.
Mr. Schuster stated it is state-issued. One option is to take no action and the public hearing and in 45 days it becomes a negative recommendation to Council. They could have a motion to reconsider and they can take another vote. Someone could propose a new motion so they have the findings and if someone wants to modify them that is another option.
Chair Hecht solicited a motion from the Commission.
Commissioner Lidawer motioned to close the public hearing.
Chair Hecht stated the motion failed because of a lack of a second.
Chair Hecht stated he had solicited a motion to reconsider but no one motioned.
Director Fontane stated there is no prevailing side.
Chair Hecht asked for a motion to reconsider. Vice Chair Reinstein so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Pearlstein.
Commissioner Glazer asked what they are reconsidering.
Chair Hecht stated they are reconsidering the earlier inconclusive results of a motion to approve the staff drafted findings of fact recommending approval to Council.
Commissioner Glazer asked the purpose of reconsidering.
Chair Hecht stated it was to get a decision.
Mr. Schuster stated that vote failed. The prevailing side was a nay. A person who abstains has the same effect as nay vote.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Leaf, Kutscheid, Glazer, Reinstein, Hecht
Nays: Lidawer, Pearlstein
Motion passed 5-2.
Mr. Schuster stated they were voting on the reconsideration.
Mr. Schuster it is the original motion to approve the draft findings of fact as prepared in the packet.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Leaf, Kutscheid, Glazer, Reinstein
Nays: Lidawer, Pearlstein, Hecht
Motion carried 4-3.
Director Fontane stated the motion was to approve staff drafted findings of fact recommending approval to Council of the amendment to the zoning code.
V. Other Business
1. Administrative Design Review Approvals - None
2. Next Regular Meeting - November 19, 2019
3. Case Briefing
Planner Cross stated there is a continuation for Ravinia Brewing and a landscape item for design review for the November 19th meeting.
VI. Business from the Public
None
VII. Adjournment
Chair Hecht entertained a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Reinstein. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 9:05 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2294&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up