City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met Nov. 2.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
CALL TO ORDER
I. At 6:30 PM Chair Reinstein called the meeting to order and asked Planner Cross to call the roll.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Bruckman, Kerch, Weil, Moore, Hecht (6:35), Hainsfurther, Reinstein Members Absent: None
Planner Cross took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop, Cross
Student Rep.: Nathanson
Council Liaison: Stolberg
Corporation Counsel: Martinez, Schuster
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 19, 2021 Special Meeting
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the October 19, 2021 special meeting. Commissioner Weil so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Moore.
Planner Cross called the roll:
Ayes: Kerch, Weil, Moore, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Abstain: Bruckman
Motion passed 5-0.
IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing #2021-ZTA-005 for a zoning text amendment for a new land use and related regulations for a pick-up and delivery retail type land use that includes storage onsite.
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including proposed land use, background, zoning review, staff recommendation, staff follow-up and recommendation.
Chair Reinstein asked if they went ahead with this that Crossroads could have something similar.
Planner Burhop stated yes.
Chair Reinstein asked about Target.
Planner Burhop stated yes.
Chair Reinstein asked about the zoning map attachment and if the B3 was in purple. Planner Burhop stated yes and the I district is grey.
Chair Reinstein stated there was some purple more on east side of town. He asked if there was an exception and another location for B3 besides the highway.
Planner Burhop stated there is no B3 there highway commercial in downtown or downtown adjacent area and none in Ravinia, Braeside and B1A. Staff is not proposing this use in those areas. This is a highway oriented use.
Chair Reinstein stated he agreed with the recommendation that if there is a traditional drive-thru it should get a special use permit. He agreed with this in B3 and in I.
Commissioner Kerch stated there might be overlap. Would there be both a grocery store and retail fulfillment. He thought there could be conflict in the code.
Planner Burhop stated it depends on the principal use. The primary difference between a retail fulfillment center and a traditional grocery is a retail fulfillment center has no on site shopping or transaction. There is no indoor or outdoor browsing area. Maybe Jewel has spots in front where you can park and they will bring your order to you. That is an accessory use. That is not the primary or principal use of the property. The principal is going inside and getting the retail goods, paying and then leaving. There is a distinction between principal and accessory use.
Commissioner Kerch asked if the category of retail sales not otherwise regulated was considered appropriate for these fulfillment centers.
Planner Burhop stated yes. It was discussed by staff and it was felt this type of use was put in there as part of the experiential use project. They feel this is clearly a new use that is becoming more popular because of Covid and they felt their recommendation for this be a permitted use in B3 and I was the correct recommendation.
Commissioner Hecht stated under the current code this is already permitted in I.
Planner Burhop stated it does not fall under the warehouse category. The zoning code is specific with land uses and it has to fit in the land use already in the code.
Commissioner Hecht asked if there any concern about allowing this use in B3 that is not along the highway. Should a new district be created or an overlay where you want this or is there consensus that this should be allowed anywhere in those districts. If the order is placed on line and filled in Highland Park is there sales tax revenue coming to the City and how does this affect the real estate tax base.
Mr. Schuster stated if the sale is fulfilled and picked up by the purchaser at a fulfillment center in the City then there is going to be a sales tax that is applied. They will realize the retailer’s occupation tax from the sale.
Commissioner Hecht asked if this would not allow for traditional fulfillment.
Mr. Schuster stated that would fall under the warehouse distribution center. This deals with customers coming in and picking up an order. They already have the warehouse component which does not fall under this.
Commissioner Hecht asked if a warehouse included a facility that ships to the end user, not to stores.
Planner Burhop stated the definition for warehouse in the code is “a building designed for the storage of goods.” The intent is for this to be defined to not allow for any type of wholesale activity or distribution. This must be a retail use - “sales to the ultimate consumer for direct consumption and not for resale.” It may come down to the business model and some will generate walk-in activity if they have a pick-up model and some will deliver and some will do both. In the B3 and I districts any new building 25,000 s.f. or more does require a planned development application. It does require a public hearing and would come before the PDC and Council.
Commissioner Hecht stated he wanted to make sure the definition of retail fulfillment center is where the primary use is for on site pick-up of goods and not shipping to end users.
Commissioner Weil stated she assumed they were delivering and it was local. She understood where that would be a concern. Overall it sounds logical to have the business as it was described in the B3. Assuming everyone is comfortable with the way the business is defined, she thought in the B4 BG it may not be permitted but a conditional use.
Commissioner Bruckman stated based on what was presented, it sounds like locations by the highway make sense. She wanted to hear more information.
Commissioner Moore agreed with Commissioner Hecht and would be concerned if they need to limit and how to limit if it is for a local person to pick up the item. How do they keep that from turning into picking up six items and delivering them to the neighbors. Would that be an issue. They do not want it to turn into a warehouse and deliver things with a separate trucking company to the end user in town. She thought this needed clarification. She agreed with Commissioner Weil that they could consider this to be allowed in Briergate.
Planner Cross stated the B4 BG is a very finite district. Briergate is a much broader neighborhood or planning district than the B4 BG.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he thought the rest of Briergate is I district. He thought putting it in the B4 as a conditional use would be a good idea. He asked if a ghost kitchen would be permitted as this kind of use. A ghost kitchen is a communal kitchen that several restaurants may share and you order your food and it is either delivered out of there or you pick it up. There is no real restaurant. It is kitchen shared by multiple restaurants to save on cash. Evanston has one and there are a number in the city. He asked if that fell under this kind of use.
Planner Burhop stated it is meant to be retail and not restaurant. Any food sold is meant to be pre-packaged. He did not know if that would be allowed in the in the B3 or I.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated it was worth considering because it is something that is growing in the marketplace. Whether it fits in this use or into its own use down the line is something worth consideration. He had concern when they were comparing it to convenience stores and grocery that they would be looking at districts other than B3 and I because those are the only places it works. It is a traffic intensive use. It would be good to tighten up the definition. He could see having deliveries and a local person picks up and delivers to someone’s house from this use. When hears fulfillment centers he thinks of potentially delivery and repackaging. He thought that was something they should tighten up and if they do not want deliveries they have to be specific. He understood the difference between pick up and many of the stores had specific places to park and you punch in a code and they bring it to your car. On line to store delivery is happening and they should look at that in general. They are going to see places that may want to do that may not fit into curbside pick up. This does not generate foot traffic for the business district. They have seen in the pandemic a lot of curbside pick up that they had not seen before including restaurants.
Chair Reinstein stated he had not heard support for this in the central business district.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he was talking about other businesses that may have curbside delivery as an accessory to their primary business.
Chair Reinstein stated he did not see the connection to what is being discussed tonight.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated they need to look at this in the future. He did not have a problem with what they were doing tonight. But with ghost kitchens he thought they should think about the impact on curbside delivery and where they want to regulate it.
Chair Reinstein stated it seemed everyone was supportive of the B3 and I. It sounded like there was movement to make it in the B4 BG as a condition. He asked if they had the definition on a slide and they could look at it.
Planner Burhop showed the slide.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther mentioned the statement that says “and/or the goods are delivered to the customer from the facility.” He thought they were delivered to the customer on site from the facility, not a remote delivery.
Chair Reinstein stated the issue with the delivery was the geographic region.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated the intention was someone was going to be coming to the site and enter a code or call the facility and they would bring it to the car. It is not clear that is what is proposed here. Delivery to the customer could mean on site or to the house.
Chair Reinstein asked what is the issue with it being delivered.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated they do not want it to be an Amazon type facility where vehicles are coming and going to take packages to a number of places.
Commissioner Weil stated there is a huge trend towards this. There is a company called Go Puff and they call it a micro fulfillment center. They delivery within 30 minutes and it is a very localized area. It seems a lot like what they are talking about. She did not want to do something where they would not be allowed. Maybe that could be a condition. She did not have a problem with local deliveries.
Chair Reinstein stated he thought fulfillment center was probably more likely they would be delivering than pick up. It sounds like they do not want deliveries from the Target site deliveries going out to WI. He was not sure he had a problem with that.
Planner Burhop stated it is written so this type of business could do either or.
Chair Reinstein asked about the definition where it says and/or delivery and if they were looking to alter that.
Commissioner Moore stated it was good to discuss it and they were clear about what could happen. It may be 90% of the people coming to the place are end users. As Covid subsides may be a van coming to make deliveries in town.
Chair Reinstein asked for comments from the public.
Planner Cross stated they received an email from resident, Mike Laxner, which will become part of the public testimony.
Chair Reinstein asked for any additional feedback from the Commission.
Planner Cross stated staff want to look at parking requirements and this will be influenced by the discussion about deliveries. If delivery is part of the dedicated land use it needs to be identified through the conditional use process. There are a couple of roofing gutter companies that have the required parking but half is used by the work trucks.
Chair Reinstein stated one of the public comments was perhaps if there is a fulfillment center that exists in nearby town they could look at it and get some feedback on how they handle parking, loading, etc.
Planner Burhop stated that was the plan and was not able to be completed for tonight. Planner Cross asked if there were other key points.
Planner Burhop thanked the Commission for the feedback. He was looking for a motion to continue.
Planner Cross stated they could continue to November 16, 2021. If they need more time they could continue to the first meeting in December.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to continue to November 16, 2021. Commissioner Hecht so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Kerch.
Planner Cross called the roll:
Ayes: Bruckman, Kerch, Weil, Moore, Hecht, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
B. Public Hearing #2021-ZTA-006 to consider a Section 150.405 land use interpretation related to a personal trainer, physical therapy, health club and related health/medical uses.
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including recommendation, Section 150.405 Interpretation of Uses, land use review, land use table, medical office definition, personal training, med-tail and med-spa and recommendation.
Commissioner Weil stated they recently looked at a physical therapy office in B2-RW on Roger Williams and asked how this would change that process.
Planner Burhop stated it would not change.
Planner Cross stated one was chiropractic and one was a medical office.
Planner Burhop stated if someone submitted something like that again it would change nothing. Staff is asking for formal recognition for how staff is already interpreting it. Staff is not asking to change use permissions. This is formalizing a past interpretation.
Commissioner Weil asked if it would streamline something and not so much she was worried that something would happen in the future.
Planner Burhop staff is starting to see different types of inquires requiring interpretation.
Mr. Schuster stated there are three ways to think about these uses one of which you amend the text of the code and define all these individual uses and make them permitted or special uses, second is they have this provision in the code that is one use is similar to another permitted use for the process they are talking about tonight for Council to approve after the ZBA weighs in, and the third is staff can make an interpretation and say as described by a particular applicant, this fits into the code and they deem it allowed. The risk with that approach it is a one off decision each time and every time the interpretation is made it subjects us to the situation that is staff comfortable with the interpretation and it could be challenged to the ZBA process in which a neighbor could say they disagree and want to fight it. By going this route or a text amendment they are removing the ability to challenge the zoning administrator’s interpretation. Instead they are going through this process set forth in the code so you get more certainty and the other benefit is that you and Council weigh in the bless the interpretation saying you are comfortable with this as a policy going forward.
Commissioner Kerch stated he was curious why they have so much specificity in the code and now they seem to want to lump all these into medical office. He was not sure it made sense. You do not think of yourself going to a medical office when you see a diet counselor. He liked option 1 and why are they getting less specific. They could add in several of these operations. He did not know why physical therapy was left out when massage therapy got in. Weight loss is regulated as personal service. He thought they should identify a handful of categories and put them in as zoning text amendments. If that is not satisfactory maybe they could create a general health and wellness operation.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he has used many ordinances and this one is pain to use and is not user-friendly. He would rather see less specificity and more like what other communities do where it is more types of uses and not as specific. He had no problem with the way staff is proposing it. He asked about the difference between a health club and a health club minor. That is an example of how silly their specificity gets them. He would support staff on this. This ordinance is over 50 years old and has been cobbled together trying to out guess what the market is going to do. He thought Council should take a look if this ordinance is still relevant given the current times.
Chair Reinstein stated Councilman Stolberg will take this back to Council. He thought staff was in a situation where they have to make interpretations and they have brought this opportunity to broaden the definition so they have PDC and Council support for the decisions they are making. He was in favor of this if the specificity of the code is perpetuated in the future these things can be defined then. Rather than cobble together a cure for some of the items on the City plate with users who are looking at space, he would recommend they bless this and move forward.
Chair Reinstein asked what they need to move forward.
Planner Cross stated this is a verbal recommendation from the PDC that they can communicate to Council.
Planner Burhop stated staff is asking for a motion indicating the interpretation that personal training, and med-tail and med-spa uses can be interpreted as medical office and those land uses are similar and compatible with those in the district and consistent with Section 150.101.
Chair Reinstein stated they would be allowed in B1A and B2.
Planner Burhop stated this interpretation is limited to B1A and B2 and the B2 RW overlay zone.
Chair Reinstein stated in the overlay it is not permitted, but conditional.
Planner Burhop stated in B1A and B2 medical offices are currently permitted by right and in the B2 RW they are allowed as a conditional use.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion providing the verbal recommendation for staff. Commissioner Moore so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht.
Planner Cross called the roll:
Ayes: Bruckman, Kerch, Weil, Moore, Hecht Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
A. FY2022 Work Plan
Planner Cross stated as part of the budget process the work plan is an important part of the way all Highland Park boards and commissions communicate to Council. Each board and commission has its own budget. He illustrated the page in the packet. Last year there were funds to pay for third party expenditures for review of traffic plans, etc. That money has gone to a different budget to cover a different activity and there are the operating expenses. This also pays for the minute taker, advertising, certified mailings and other expenses. He asked for a motion to adopt the PDC FY22 work plan with a condition that the typographical mistakes be corrected.
Commissioner Hecht asked about the vacancy.
Planner Cross stated that was a typo and they have seven members. Commissioner Hecht asked who was missing.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated next year Chair Reinstein will be cycling off and that is why there is a vacancy.
Planner Cross stated that was correct and the FY22 roster has a vacancy. Commissioner Moore stated last year’s budget was larger.
Planner Cross stated it had to do with the money paid for third party reviews.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked how they went from $18,000 to $8,000. He thought Council was going to undertake a review of the master plan starting in the next fiscal year in light to the fact that at the last meeting they had an applicant who was quoting from the master plan to support their petition when some people felt the master plan no longer represented what they considered. He thought they were going to start the process of looking at the master plan in the next year. He stated if they are going to start at 6:30 and some of them come from downtown he would like to see something considered for feeding those commissioners before the meeting. This puts a burden on some commissioners and at the very least they could provide a meal occasionally. He asked about the master plan.
Councilman Stolberg stated it was on the schedule for next year.
Planner Cross stated the work plan for next year is broad and does not prohibit the Commission from taking this on. The master plan is a collection of sub-area plans. The thought is to undertake more sub-area planning. Briergate resulted in the B4-BG and there is momentum behind the Crossroads sub-area plan. There is interest in looking at Roger Williams and the B2 RW. They are not contemplating bringing in a third party consultant and doing a massive update. They are excited about Ft. Sheridan area and doing some master planning. These items are not precluded from the PDC’s agendas.
Councilman Stolberg asked about Toys R Us at Briergate.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he was just wondering if they should be on the work plan.
Planner Cross asked for a motion to adopt the FY22 work plan. Vice Chair Hainsfurther so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht.
Planner Cross called the roll:
Ayes: Bruckman, Kerch, Weil, Moore, Hecht, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
B. Discussion Items - None
C. Next Special Meeting – November 16, 2021
Planner Cross stated there are no items on the agenda and if the zoning text amendment is not mature enough the meeting may be cancelled.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated the Braeside item had been continued to November 16th and asked if they needed to continue it tonight.
Planner Cross stated the applicant had requested a further continuation.
Mr. Schuster stated the key is to have someone there.
Planner Cross stated they are in close touch with the stakeholder groups and would make every effort to reach out to them beforehand to make sure everyone knows.
D. 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 Moore.
Planner Cross called the roll:
Ayes: Bruckman, Kerch, Weil, Moore, Hecht, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 8:00 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2609&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up