City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met Oct. 6.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:30 PM Chair Reinstein called the meeting to order and asked Director Fontane to call the roll.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Glazer, Hainsfurther, Hecht, Kutscheid, Lidawer, Moore, Reinstein
Members Absent: None
Director Fontane took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Fontane, Cross, Jackson
Student Rep.: None
Corporation Counsel: Fiske
Council Liaison: Stolberg
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 22, 2020 Special Meeting
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2020 meeting with corrections. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Kutscheid, Hecht, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS
A. Design Review:
1. 1505 Lake Cook Rd. – Sign Package for Courtyard by Marriott Hotel
Planner Cross made a presentation for the above item including application summary, existing signs, proposed signs, off-site advertising sign, zoning relief requested, standards for variations to sign code and recommendation.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked when they approved the landscape plan was there a stone base at the columns for the porte cochere.
Planner Cross confirmed this.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated the monument sign will be on a concrete base. Planner Cross stated that is what the plans reflect.
Commissioner Lidawer asked about the illumination and during what hours the white would be on. She asked if it conformed to their specifications regarding timing and brightness.
Planner Cross stated it was not specified in the application. They do not have regulations for brightness. The City has dark sky regulations which prohibit up glowing.
Vic Chair Hainsfurther stated it is just the letters that are illuminated.
Planner Cross confirmed this.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if the black background in the letters is illuminated.
Planner Cross confirmed this.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if the wall signs were channel cut letters and if they were halo illuminated or internally.
Planner Cross stated they were internally illuminated.
Commissioner Glazer stated he was troubled that the applicant was not here. He did not see any controversy, but it was not the practice to pass these kinds of requests without the opportunity to hear from the applicant.
Planner Cross stated this was understandable and it was the consistent practice of the Commission to hear from applicants. He understood a rep from Olympic Signs was to be here. If there is interest in getting answers to these questions he suggested continuing to the next agenda.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he wanted to see stone veneer on the monument sign base so it matches the porte cochere. He wanted to know why the channel cut letters cannot be backlit as opposed to internally. He understood the north face sign would be internally illuminated because it faces the traffic on Rt. 41. This is not the case on the south face. The people on Rt. 41 will not see that sign. He thought is was more elegant in keeping with what they have requested in the past. With Dunkin Donuts on Second St. the requirement was either surface illumination or halo channel cut letters. He asked if in the future to not let applicants bring these items piecemeal. It is hard to evaluate when they see it in bits and pieces.
Chair Reinstein stated there were two monument signs.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated the one was replacing the face on the Thornton property. The one relating to the porte cochere is the one on Lake Cook Rd. The stone should match the porte cochere so there is some consistency.
Commissioner Lidawer stated the wood looks is beautiful. She echoed Vice Chair Hainsfurther and why are they coming all the time. It seems to change with each packet and she understood they are updating it. It is hard to look at the whole package and where they are tonight.
Chair Reinstein asked Commissioners Moore and Kutscheid if they wanted to hear from the applicant and get some questions answered. Both Commissioners agreed. He asked for a new date.
Planner Cross stated the next meeting was 10-20-20 and it is not overloaded. It was appropriate to continue this meeting to the next meeting.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to continue. Commissioner Hecht so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Hainsfurther.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
Director Fontane motioned to reopen the item. Vice Chair Hainsfurther so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht,
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Guy Dragisic, Olympic Signs, stated the monument sign has an aluminum base cover painted grey to match to match the elevation sign. The sign has an aluminum background and is opaque. It is designed so that the light only projects through the letters. The sign is smaller than the current. The sign by Thornton’s is an existing sign and they are replacing it with their new logo. The illumination of the channel letter is called a day/night concept and during the day the letters are black and at night they are white. Halo illumination is not part of their design package. They have back lit channel letters throughout the country and they are basically the same throughout the chain.
Planner Cross asked about the brightness of the lights.
Mr. Dragisic stated they are not as bright as a standard white translucent plastic because the day/night is a little denser and the illumination is slightly duller than what you see in a normally internally illuminated white faced plastic channel letter. It is not extremely bright.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if there was a problem with the stone matching the porte cochere trim on Lake Cook Rd.
Mr. Dragisic stated that was not his call and it was up to the property owner. He did not know how open they would be to putting in a stone base. He could ask them.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he would like him to ask them because they have that treatment on the porte cochere and it is more fitting with Highland Park. He wanted him to ask them about halo lighting on the south sign on the entrance as opposed to the day/ night. He had no problem with the sign on the north. He thought it was overkill to have that kind of illumination on south facing sign.
Mr. Dragisic stated on the south elevation he would ask about the halo illumination and the stone to match the porte cochere landscape treatment.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he would look to conditioning the approval with those two items.
Commissioner Kutscheid agreed with Vice Chair Hainsfurther in that the face of the sign should match the porte cochere.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked how the Commission wanted to proceed.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated they could continue to the next meeting with resubmittal per the comments.
Commissioner Kutscheid motioned to continue to October 20th, seconded by Commissioner Lidawer.
Mr. Dragisic stated he would not be in town on October 20th and asked if he could send revised drawings to Planner Cross.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated yes.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion carried 7-0.
2. 2699 Skokie Valley Rd. – Exterior Improvements for Pauly Acura
Planner Jackson made a presentation for the above item including application summary, project location, existing conditions, proposed addition, façade improvements, new branding column, site improvements, foundation landscaping requirement, standards and recommendation.
Mr. Simon Yu, Architect, stated this is the last Acura in Chicagoland to be rebranded.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated in the application it said the reason why they requested to omit the landscape planting was that they cannot maintain it. He did not think this was a good reason to not do it. He understood foundation landscaping does not always work, but he could see moving the shrubs somewhere else on the property rather then just not doing it.
Commissioner Lidawer asked what a RTU was. Planner Cross stated it was a rooftop unit.
Commissioner Lidawer stated that because they want to show more cars that was why they want the extra space rather than the landscaping. She asked if that was why they are asking for the variance.
Mr. Yu stated one of the reasons they are asking for this is because the showroom is depressed by 3-4’. One of their concerns was what they are talking about and if they had landscaping it would block the view of the cars. Also, there is glazing to the grade and when you have landscape next to glass it is not a clean situation.
Chair Reinstein asked if they looked for alternate locations on the site. Mr. Yu stated they did not but would be open to that.
Commissioner Moore stated she looked at the other dealerships in the area on line and most of them do not have any foundations plantings. For the ones that do have some it is scrubby. She was OK with granting the variance. She did like the idea of maybe adding some landscaping elsewhere on the property.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he did not think anyone had foundation planting in front of the showroom windows. This property used to be a racquetball club bought by Pauly and has been hodge-podged over time. He was concerned that they do not have a chance to see the materials. He understood the importance of car dealerships to the tax base and the importance of corporate images and they spend millions to make sure everything looks the same. He was willing to overlook this. He asked if they could figure out a way to have samples in the future as opposed to photos in the packet.
Chair Reinstein asked Mr. Yu if they would be willing to come back after they look for a location for the foundation plantings.
Mr. Yu stated yes and requested if this could be a condition of approval.
Chair Reinstein stated if they voted they could make this a condition. He asked if a material board could be dropped off at the Community Development office so the commissioners can take a look at it.
Mr. Yu stated he would be happy to do that and could share some images of a similar project. The materials are the same and it is an Acura dealership in Hoffman Estates.
Chair Reinstein stated he would like to see the images.
Mr. Yu illustrated the images of other dealerships with landscaping, entry tower 2-3’ above the façade, EIFS buff and aluminum stripe across the top, blue aluminum stripe in the center and EIFS in the lower section.
Chair Reinstein asked if the sconces were included in the proposal for Highland Park. Mr. Yu stated they deleted the sconces because they shine light upward. Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the foundation plantings.
Mr. Yu stated it is a different situation with the grade.
Chair Reinstein asked if the applicant wanted to come back after they have seen the material board and a new location for plantings. If the Commission felt the images filled that void and with conditional approval, he would entertain a motion. Vice Chair Hainsfurther motioned to approve as presented with the condition that they return with a revised landscape plan that shows the plantings in another location. Commissioner Kutscheid seconded.
Director Fontane stated the condition of approval will be reviewed by staff at the time of building permit.
Planner Cross asked if there is interest in having them come back with a revised plan.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated they could brief them as part of an administrative design review.
Director Fontane stated they could do this.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated this was what he would like to do subject to submitting a landscape plan with additional plantings in other locations.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
V. Public Hearing #20-09-ZTA-005 and Draft Findings of Fact for Amendments to Chapter 150 (Zoning Code) of the Highland Park City Code Concerning Land Uses and Regulations Related to Adult Use Cannabis.
Planner Cross stated they had been through the adult use cannabis a couple of times and during the public hearing they presented the body of regulations staff is proposing. The overall policy has not changed from the 9-1-20 meeting. Staff has revised some exhibits which were posted in the on line packet. The map showed where dispensaries can be located, specific property lines, due to a mapping error some properties were omitted, staff has created improved maps that show more clearly and give a better representation of the area in Highland Park where the proposed zoning code amendment allows conditional use permits for adult use cannabis dispensaries to be considered. This is the only new graphic. The policy has not changed.
Chair Reinstein asked if the Commission wanted to see the presentation they had seen before or just limit it to the new information.
Planner Cross stated they had covered the policy exhaustively. He illustrated the I - Light Industrial District along Rt. 41 between Rt. 41 and the railroad ROW. It is not related to property lines and these can change. The green areas are buffers and it more accurately depicts the area.
Director Fontane stated it is not permitted on the Solo Cup property nor on the Greenberg property at 1535 Park Ave. West.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if increasing the parking is part of the proposal. He stated he drove by the one in Northbrook and it is big the lot and is packed.
Planner Cross stated in September staff was recommending 3.3 spaces per 1,000 s.f. of gross floor area. Following deliberation and a condition of approval, it was increased to 4.0 spaces per 1,000 s.f. which is consistent with the medical marijuana requirement.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she could not tell where 1,000’ is on the map. She asked if staff could explain what the maximum could be. She did not understand what the spacing would be.
Director Fontane stated the spacing is the same and it depends on which parcels are picked.
Planner Cross stated they estimated eight if they were perfectly spaced apart throughout the district. The properties are inconsistently laid out. The overall spacing of 1000’ from a new cannabis dispensary has not changed.
Commissioner Lidawer stated eight might fit but the reality is there is no way it could happen for a minimum of a year or two.
Director Fontane stated he could not estimate that and there is only a certain number that are allowed. The process to become a dispensary is difficult. It is more of a difficulty of finding exactly the perfectly placed properties to locate to get the full eight. The reality of finding tenant space will factor in pretty heavily.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked how big are the facilities if they are doing four per 1,000 s.f. so they are saying 20 spaces.
Director Fontane stated they have not looked at their business plans and that would be a special use consideration. There is no fixed square area and it depends on what is available and what the requirements are in terms of parking.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if they would set a minimum number of spaces.
Director Fontane stated you could set a minimum number of spaces. Right now it is based on square footage.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated it is four per 1,000 s.f. with a minimum of 20 spaces.
Director Fontane stated that is not what it is now. If they want to propose that to the Commission they could meet that.
Chair Reinstein stated if the store was 1,500 s.f. would he still be looking for that.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated if the store was 1500 s.f. then they are only required to have six spaces and that could be a problem. He thought they needed the 20 at a minimum based on the traffic they are seeing at others.
Commissioner Moore asked if they had a maximum size allowed for a facility like this. She had seen some really large ones.
Planner Cross stated there is no established maximum size in the code for a dispensary.
Chair Reinstein asked if someone wanted to come into the Toys R Us store it could be a big place.
Director Fontane stated the Toys R Us property is not a property that could be used. It is not zoned I.
Chair Reinstein asked about the size of the Williams property.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated if they wanted to see a big store they should see the one across from Old Orchard.
Commissioner Moore stated the one by Mariano’s is a similar size and she had driven by both.
Commissioner Hecht stated it is a big parcel.
Councilman Stolberg stated they worked hard on the requirements for medicinal use and asked about the parking requirement for medicinal operation.
Planner Cross stated the parking requirement for medicinal is 4.0 spaces for 1000 s.f. They are proposing the consistent requirement for adult use cannabis.
Commissioner Hecht stated they was why they came up with that.
Councilman Stolberg mentioned Briergate and how it is laid out and in front of the stores on the west end they are parking in front. There is also quite a bit of parking across the street on the east end as it abuts the grassy area. This could provide walkable overflow parking. To assume they would have more use on a recreational site than a medicinal site is probably appropriate, but to what extent.
Director Fontane stated that would require a variance. This is setting a requirement for parking on private property.
Commissioner Moore asked about the size of the Elevele facility in terms of square footage.
Director Fontane stated Mr. David Meek, Attorney, was in the audience and may be able to answer the question.
Mr. David Meek, Attorney, stated he did the special use zoning for the medicinal dispensary and the gross floor area was about 1800 s.f. and they were required to provide seven spaces on site. They are in a fully tenanted building and the parking is allocated. There is parking in the back and in the front. There is street parking on the other side. He was concerned that imposing a requirement for a minimum of 20 would necessitate a variance. He asked them to consider staff’s requirements and recognize there is a special use process to go through when they come back to apply for a special use to add recreational to their location.
Commissioner Glazer asked if Mr. Meek was representing the petitioner.
Planner Cross stated no, there is no petitioner and Mr. Meek has expertise and knowledge about Elevele.
Planner Cross read emails from Catherine Spencer and Marie Lutz into the record. The following attendees expressed their opinions:
Ms. Barbara Denecker, Community–The Anti-Drug Coalition Ms. Catherine Spencer
Mr. David Fettner
Mr. Michael Laxner
Limit use by youth, studies show young people who live near dispensaries have increased use of cannabis and use more often, Highland Park should not have retail dispensaries, allow only one dispensary, what is the rush, children and youth frequent areas designated, do not allow on site consumption, limit hours to 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM, in favor of adult use dispensary, it is legal and regulated, it is proven teens cannot enter cannabis dispensaries, more difficult to purchase cannabis than beer, would like to see dispensaries limited, likes requirement of 5,000 s.f., concerned about on site consumption, 500’ requirement from residential properties, keep dispensaries off intersections.
Chair Reinstein mentioned on site consumption and if it was illegal.
Mr. Fiske stated the adult use cannabis statue does allow a process by which there is the ability for communities to designate that on-site consumption is permitted in certain circumstances. However you have to say you want to do that and describe the conditions to allow that. Here there is not an express provision for that. In the associated regulations there is nothing to authorize on-site consumption.
Chair Reinstein asked if there were comments on the number of stores.
Commissioner Moore thought they have an east-west boundary and she would like to see a north-south boundary. They probably want to avoid the areas around CVS, Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts.
Chair Reinstein stated the CVS and Starbucks would be on the north end of zone that would be considered excluded. He asked about the south.
Commissioner Moore stated it was not so much of an issue for the south because there is not any retail that kids would be going to.
Chair Reinstein asked if the CVS was part of this district.
Planner Cross stated it was B3.
Chair Reinstein asked how far it goes.
Director Fontane stated in the I zone there is a CVS and Starbucks. Chair Reinstein asked how far south does it go.
Planner Cross stated the businesses are off Park Ave. Vice Chair Hainsfurther it is north of Muller’s.
Chair Reinstein stated it did not sound like there is much of a risk at the south boundary. They could consider something at the north. He asked for comments on the number of stores that could open.
Commissioner Glazer stated this a conditional use at most. Anyone who wants to come in would have to obtain approval from the Commission and City Council. He thought it was a self-regulating function.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he did not agree and he understood it is hard to limit it based on a special use. He thought the 1500 s.f. rule is a good limiter in terms of keeping it out there. He did not know how difficult it is to get a license from the state. He did not think they would grant five licenses in Highland Park when they are so many other areas looking for licenses. There is a limited number for the state. Maybe the answer to limiting them on the north would be a limitation of being a certain distance from a food establishment.
Commissioner Lidawer stated a company doing medicinal could get a permit and have a store. As far as issuing new ones between lawsuits and other processes, it will be tied up for a while. The chances of having more than one come before the Commission in the next 12 to 18 months is highly unlikely. Eight seems like a lot and maybe they should limit it to five. This would be mirroring Deerfield. We have geographically limited it to one particular area.
Commissioner Hecht stated there are limitations in state law for licenses in Lake County. He thought it could be 20. He thought the risk is minimal for having a sudden demand and for eight different operators opening in Highland Park. It is not going to happen. There are not that many liquor stores in Highland Park.
Commissioner Moore stated she was concerned everyone else was making the rules for them and they should set the standard for themselves.
Director Fontane stated there was an idea two commissioners mentioned. Vice Chair Hainsfurther mentioned 1500’ between establishments. Commissioner Lidawer mentioned five. 1500’ between establishments would essentially make the maximum five from eight. If that is what the Commission wants to do they can increase it to 1500’. Or if they are not concerned about the proximity of these establishments to each other they could limit it to five anywhere in the district.
Planner Cross stated they have findings of fact and the action by the Commission would be either to approve the findings or deny or amend.
Chair Reinstein stated they have findings of fact and there was discussion about adding something that would eliminate the ability of one of the stores to locate in the Park Ave. West district where the Dunkin Donuts, CVS and Chase are located. That is both the north side of Park Ave. West and the south side. He was not sure of the appropriate way to add that in. He asked for a show of hands of who would be in favor of that. Commissioners Moore, Kutscheid and Vice Chair Hainsfurther raised their hands.
Director Fontane stated they can create another buffer around the intersection.
Planner Cross stated it could be the properties north of Park Ave. West and within 1500’ south of it.
Director Fontane asked if the Commission was looking to see nothing north of that area. Chair Reinstein asked if he meant nothing north of Park Ave. West.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated that is a big area. Maybe they should go back to the idea of a certain distance from a food establishment.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated a food establishment could go in on Old Skokie Road and then you are limiting it.
Commissioner Lidawer you would be limiting to who can come in.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated maybe within 1000’ of the intersection of Park Ave. West.
Director Fontane stated they could create a 1000’ buffer from the center point of the intersection of Rt. 41 and Park Ave. West. That would be north of the Starbucks property.
Commissioner Lidawer stated that would get at the issue of the maximum number. By taking out the 1000’ in the middle you might lose another two to three locations. At the last hearing they discussed the 1500’ vs. the 1000’ and if they took out the intersection they may solve the same thing.
Director Fontane stated it was a good point and 1000’ above and below takes out at least one opportunity if not two.
Commissioner Glazer stated it would serve that purpose, but no one has answered the rationale for doing that. Why would they strike Park Ave. West as if it was a magic location and decide they will not allow anything within 1500’ of that location. He had not heard any rationale for doing it. Keeping it away from food has no rationale. Why carve out Park Ave. West and say you cannot build near it.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther thought the proximity to residential was part of it. Commissioner Lidawer stated she did not think that was what it was.
Director Fontane stated there were concerns about traffic and the location being close to where some youth might congregate. Those stores can change at any time. If you set it from the intersection of the two roads it would be based on traffic. The Dunkin Donuts is not very large as it is and the CVS lot is better. There could be traffic concerns but it is a signalized intersection but not performing that well.
Planner Cross stated it would be helpful, as part of the recommendation, to have comments on the nexus of this idea. CVS and Starbucks can attract a younger clientele. The Commission may wish to consider how land uses cycle through these properties.
Councilman Stolberg stated he agreed with Commissioner Glazer and if the idea is accessibility to a neighborhood as you go further south to where Elevele is there is simple access over the tracks and past the police station. Typically when they allow a use, do they carve out areas not allowed.
Director Fontane stated here are other sensitive uses. There was some thought about a certain number of feet from residential. The proposal from staff is essentially the ROW is a sufficient buffer from residential. That is what the proposal says.
Chair Reinstein stated he appreciated the conversation on the topic. He asked about limiting the number of stores.
Commissioner Lidawer asked if they could have a straw poll about the limit of five. She thought it was important to send Council a strong vote.
Chair Reinstein stated there is a question about limiting the number of stores and Commissioner Lidawer has selected five. The question is are we good with five.
Commissioner Glazer asked if they were considering increasing the distance between the stores or keep it at the staff recommendation.
Chair Reinstein stated they would keep it at the staff recommendation. Commissioner Moore agreed with the idea of starting slow.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated eight is fine but he did not have a strong opinion on the number of stores.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther agreed with Commissioner Kutscheid.
Commissioner Glazer stated if they kept them 1000’ apart that naturally leads to a maximum of eight.
Planner Cross stated that is based on the length of the easily accessible land in the district and it is approximately 8,000 linear feet.
Commissioner Glazer stated if they went with 1000’ it has a natural limitation on the number. He could not imagine it would be as many as eight. He thought they should leave it at the 1000’ limit.
Commissioner Hecht stated he was ambivalent and his main concern was that they were already moving slowly and that is why a big dispensary was built at Dundee and Skokie and not in Highland Park. He was worried about what they are projecting to the development community and are they trying to put something in place that will never work and are they making things difficult. Are they projecting they are open for business and they want people to develop here. He did not know if limiting it to five or eight matters there. He would not go below five.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she did not feel strongly about the number.
Chair Reinstein stated they had explored the Park Ave. West and the number questions. They have findings that have 1000’ apart and is silent on consumption on site and there are the realities of this business that will keep Highland Park from having a store every 1000’ in that area. They have findings and he entertained a motion to accept the findings. Commissioner Lidawer, seconded by Commissioner Hecht.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
VI. Public Hearing #20-03-ZTA-002 for Amendments to Chapter 150 (Zoning Code) of the Highland Park City Code Relating to Short Term Rentals.
Planner Cross made a presentation for the above item including background, existing STR regulations, Village of Lake Bluff, proposed code amendments, new land use in the code, no limit on quantity of STRs in Highland Park, STRs in occupied properties, intensity of use, operational requirements, sign and advertising, registration of STRs, notification requirements, Lake Bluff requirements not proposed in Highland Park and recommendation.
Chair Reinstein stated they should take public comments.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated they had discussion about proof of insurance and he still thought it was a reasonable request to furnish as part of the licensing. He asked why they chose not to include this as a requirement.
Director Fontane stated this not a licensing program. A license is a permission to do something and registration is communicating who you are and what you are doing. People can do this in a responsible and reasonable manner. The set of regulations proposed are to project that. Trying to get people to report on their insurance each year is another barrier to the registration process. What are they insuring against. The primary reason for doing this is to know who is the responsible party and limit the intensity. Their private insurance needs to be taken care of by themselves. It is not what they are trying to regulate.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stating he was concerned about protecting the neighbors.
Director Fontane stated if someone does property damage to a neighbor that is a crime and police would be involved in arresting the perpetrator. It is not necessarily the property owner.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he thought the were trying to avoid situations like New Year’s Eve of last year.
Director Fontane stated he did not know how insurance would do that.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated insurance provides that there is a responsible party to pay for any damages without a neighbor having to go through an exhaustive process.
Commissioner Hecht stated if there is a claim against the tenant on a short or long term rental the lawsuit will sue the owner too and the insurance is there for both. Whether the claim is valid is another matter. The insurance is not only to pay the claim, but also to defend it. There is some value and you would be an irresponsible landlord not to have it.
Chair Reinstein stated when you hand someone a certificate of insurance there are a bunch of numbers on it. When someone hands it to the City and the City accepts it what are they really saying. Director Fontane is trying to keep the City out of that business.
Commissioner Glazer stated Director Fontane stated it very well. They could set up high hurdles for something like this if they are opposed to the concept. He did not think this is where they were. They should not be afraid. He thought staff did a tremendous job of putting this together and adjusting the previous versions from other towns to make it fit Highland Park. It seems to be responsive to what they are trying to do. Erecting barriers is counter productive.
Commissioner Moore stated at the beginning of the presentation it indicated that a long term renter could go ahead and lease out the property for a short term rental. She asked who registers that.
Director Fontane stated it does not require the homeowner to be physically using the building. The rental registration program consists of almost 600-700 properties that are rented. The homeowner is not the occupant. It is a long term rental arrangement. There are times when there is a vacancy and the property owner could choose to utilize it as a short term rental between long term leases. If they allow for subleasing within their leases perhaps a long term renter could do the same. It does not set an arbitrary prohibition against those types of relationships.
Chair Reinstein asked who registers the unit.
Director Fontane stated the property owner has to register the unit.
Commissioner Moore asked if a long term renter wanted to rent out the property on a short term rental and there is a problem who does it go back to.
Director Fontane stated the property owner needs to register the property. The way the registration program works is the owner has to declare who they are and provide a point of contact with authority to do something.
Commissioner Lidawer stated they had discussed they did not want to adopt Lake Bluff’s residency requirement of 275 days and she thought they said 180 days. She thought staff did a wonderful job of recapping the restrictions they did want to put on. She did not see anything as to what constituted an owner in terms of being present. She asked if the owner needed to be there 180 days a year.
Director Fontane stated Lake Bluff’s ordinance does say 275 days but they are saying it is more open and if the Commission wants to have it that way it is based on the intensity and use limitations.
Commissioner Lidawer stated they are trying to regulate the usage, not the owner. If they are calling them a present owner they need a definition of what a present owner is. In the language it said something about an owner who is on the premises. She thought they agreed is was properties where the owner is present.
Director Fontane stated in previous discussion staff made mention of 275 and staff would not want this to be less than 180 days. The rationale is that if it is a principal use as a home you would want someone there for more that half a year. Having thought about it further, they basically insure that it is an accessory use by the intensity and use limitations specifically the limit on the number of days the unit can be used as a STR. In their opinion it is unnecessary to regulate how many days a year the owner is actually there.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she just wanted clarification.
Councilman Stolberg stated the homeowner is responsible for the actions of their tenants. He was a fan of not stepping on homeowners rights. He thought homeowners have a right to do what they want until it affects someone else’s right to do what they want. Regarding insurance, leases or short term leases they are the responsibility of the homeowner.
Mr. Fiske concurred and stated there can be additional parties beyond the owner. One of the strengths of these materials is the amount of reporting and information about what the owner is doing.
Councilman Stolberg stated a rule is only as good as its enforcement capabilities. He asked how they were going to approach enforcement.
Director Fontane stated for the purposes of the discussion they are looking at it as a land use. They are exploring some services and when they get back to Council they will be talking how to go about enforcement once they have the basics laid out. As long as they have some agreement what they require then they can talk about that. One of the things is requiring the registration number be used in terms of a short tern rental service. That would allow an easy check. There are services that provide monitoring and they are looking into it. They would be able to know the responsible party and would have limits for how many people these could be rented to. If you have a short term rental and 30 people in the building and they create a disturbance you have a 10 person limit. There is a potential contract breach. The New Year’s Eve case was that there was an agreement for eight and they exceeded it. They are trying to limit the use for these single one night events by requiring a two night rental. Notification to neighbors is an idea Commissioner Glazer had brought up.
Chair Reinstein asked for public comment.
Mr. Ken Cooper, Cooper’s Pond HOA, stated they have been in court with the owner of a property for the last five years, home has hosted 4,000 people who resided there for short terms, HOA has spent $150,000 or more in court costs, owner has grossed over $350,000 in rentals, have had police called on numerous occasions for long and short term rental, long term rental was rented to a criminal element rapper, there were near riots, he was shot at police came out with machine guns and pulled people out of the home, owner does not live on premises and bought another home in Highland Park, end result is the home has been abandoned, electricity has been cut, they do not know what will happen with no electricity, water could be flooding, at one time during short term rental 300 kids showed up for a party, during this time one of the neighbors was physically attacked by one of the revelers, buses have come on at 2:00 AM with 30-40 people, does not want this to happen to other people in Highland Park, has been a nightmare, one of the neighbors passed away possibly due to the aggravation, concerned about insurance, have in HOA charter there are no short term rentals, how would this affect any action by the Commission, police, fire and the Commission has been fantastic and he hoped they do the right thing.
Director Fontane stated he was aware of what he is talking about and it is unfortunate. He wanted to make clear that these rules will not undermine the HOA to not allow this type of rental. Anyone who is in an HOA who does not want short term rentals would be able to do that through their HOA documents. This law would apply to anyone engaging in short term rentals. If they were violating this law the City could prosecute for violations.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if they could add notifications to HOAs within 100’.
Director Fontane stated they do not necessarily know who the HOAs are. If they are notifying abutters within 100’ in all directions they could bring it to the attention of the HOA. They do not have a list of the HOAs.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if the City handles the notification or the homeowner. Director Fontane stated the homeowners would be required to do the notification. Commissioner Kutscheid asked if they could make the homeowner notify the HOA.
Councilman Stolberg stated he had never seen a declaration that permits short term rentals. Regardless of what the City does, those governing HOA documents are very strong. The HOA has a lot of power in Illinois and allows a forcible entry that allows associations to evict and take possession of a unit for unpaid assessments and dues including fines. The HOA documents prohibit this type of rental 99% of the time. Sites are required to know those ordinances and not rent to condo HOAs that file notice with those organizations stipulating they do not allow short term rentals. This is not unique to Highland Park and there are laws, declarations and by laws that everyone agrees to when they buy into a HOA.
Chair Reinstein stated they have an outline for the ordinance and a recommendation to Council. They are here to ask staff to draft findings of fact on this matter. If there was no objection to have having a limit on short term rentals that can exist in town that was the only issue he circled. He would feel better with a limit. He was also agreeable without one.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he would vote no tonight. As a neighbor he would have a problem with this. He did not think limiting the number of days is enforceable.
Commissioner Hecht stated he did have a problem with the proposed regulations. He looked at VRBO and Air B&B and saw a total of eight listings in Highland Park, three of which were for rooms in houses. He asked if this was a solution to problem that does not exist. Do they need to do this or is it creating an administrative task for staff for something that is small and that it is not an issue.
Planner Cross stated the COTW directed staff to look into this.
Director Fontane stated they did have some problems in select locations but it was not a widespread problem or a widespread use at this time. Council directed the Commission to look at the Lake Bluff ordinance and have it considered.
Commissioner Glazer stated Commissioner Hecht made a good point, but as he understood the presentation they are not here to endorse the concept. The Commission is here because it is their charge to consider laying the ground work and give them something to consider if they decide they want to implement additional regulations for these kind of rentals. He thought it was their limited charge to develop regulations rather then to decide they need regulations. He intended to vote yes.
Commissioner Moore stated this is already being done in the community. She stated a no vote does not make it go away.
Commissioner Hecht stated a no vote means they are not sending anything to Council.
Director Fontane stated they have a petition and Council directed to have a petition to change the code. It is an amendment to the code. They are looking to get a recommendation whether or not to regulate short term rentals in the way they are proposing. A no vote would be no to the ordinance. Whether that means not to regulate them at all it just means no to this ordinance.
Chair Reinstein stated one of the parameters is 45 days or 15 bookings. He asked if they were proposing that here.
Director Fontane stated they are proposing just the 45 days.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to have staff draft findings of fact in approval of the ordinance as presented in the packet. Commissioner Lidawer stated an approval of the direction given with regard to the ordinance. Commissioner Kutscheid seconded.
Director Fontane stated they do not have an ordinance yet. They are asking for direction to draft findings of fact approving an ordinance that they will draft so they can see what this ultimately looks like with all the changes talked about. Then they can decide on the ordinance itself at a future meeting.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Kutscheid, Glazer, Reinstein
Nays: Hecht, Hainsfurther
Motion passed 5-0.
Director Fontane stated staff will draft findings of fact recommending approval and draft an ordinance with these provisions for further inspection and deliberation at a public hearing. He recommended continuing to a date certain.
Planner Cross recommended they come back on November 3rd.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to continue. Vice Chair Hainsfurther so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Lidawer.
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein Nays: None
Motion carried 7-0.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
1. 2021 PDC Meeting Dates Resolution
Planner Cross stated he went through the dates with great care taking into account holidays and religious observances. The biggest change is switching the meeting time from 7:30 PM to 6:30 PM.
Chair Reinstein asked for comments.
Commissioner Moore stated she was fine with 6:30 PM but 7:00 PM is better.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated 6:30 PM is OK but he will be retiring at end of the year.
Commissioner Glazer stated it will not affect him.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated 6:30 PM may or may not be a problem depending on whether he is working out of his office or house. He would prefer 7:00 PM.
Commissioner Hecht stated no on 6:30 PM. He can live with 7:00 PM but would prefer 7:30 PM.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she can make 6:30 PM and could do 7:00 PM. She would prefer 7:30 PM.
Chair Reinstein stated he was used to 7:30 PM and 7:00 PM is better than 6:30 PM. 6:30 PM is not doable if they are in a non-pandemic environment.
Chair Reinstein stated the dates are fine.
Planner Cross stated he will redraft it and bring it back to the next meeting.
Director Fontane stated it is whatever direction of the Commission is.
Chair Reinstein asked if the change was for staff.
Director Fontane stated no commissioner had requested it and it was a staff-led proposal.
Chair Reinstein asked if someone wanted to make a motion with 7:00 PM that might the direction they can give them.
Director Fontane stated the needed to vote.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther motioned to accept the resolution with the amendment that the start times for meetings be 7:00 PM. Commissioner Lidawer seconded.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Abstain: Kutscheid, Glazer
Motion passed 5-0.
Director Fontane they defer to any commissioner who would not be able to make it because of a time change.
Chair Reinstein asked Commissioner Hecht if he could make the meetings at 7:00 PM.
Commissioner Hecht stated probably but it definitely is easier at 7:30 PM. 7:00 PM is probably fine and there may be times when he cannot make it. If they know they will have two seats filled by others they may want to find out from them if this matters.
Director Fontane if this will preclude a member from participating then they should not do it. They would recommend it stay at 7:30 PM.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Hainsfurther, Reinstein Nays: None
Abstain: Glazer, Kutscheid
Motion passed 5-0.
2. Administrative Design Review Approvals - None
3. Next Regular Meeting – October 20, 2020
Planner Cross stated there will be a public hearing for the Highwood boundary change.
Director Fontane mentioned the Highwood boundary/zoning changes and over the course of a year they have been working with Highwood to change the boundaries. There are some parcels that are oddly cut by the boundaries and the two jurisdictions came to agreement about where that will be. Both city councils voted and they managed to get the Recorder of Deeds to accept the legal description so the boundary is changed. When they take on additional land the zoning is a R1 district. It necessitates a zone change and the reason is because they agreed to change that zoning to the zoning that the portion of the parcel in Highland Park already has. They agreed to make that district the zoning district for the new portion of the parcel as well. They have to do this for each of the parcels. There will be a package coming with several rezonings. They are alerting the property owners to this.
Planner Cross there will be a public hearing for POSO discussion.
4. Case Briefing - None
VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to adjourn. Vice Chair Hainsfurther so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Kutscheid.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Kutscheid, Hecht, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 10:40 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2427&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up