City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met Tuesday, March 1.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
CALL TO ORDER
I. At 6:40 PM Chair Hainsfurther called the meeting to order and asked Director Fontane to call the roll.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Quinlan, Kerch, Hecht, Hainsfurther
Members Absent: Bruckman, Weil, Moore
Director Fontane took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop, Coleman, Fontane
Student Rep.: Mendoza
Council Liaison: Stolberg
Corporation Counsel: Martinez
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 15, 2022 Special Meeting
Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2022 meeting. Commissioner Kerch so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht.
Commissioner Quinlan stated he had viewed the video of the February 15th meeting. Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Quinlan, Kerch, Hecht, Hainsfurther
Nays: None
Motion passed 4-0.
IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing #2022-SUP-003 for a Special Use Permit and Major Amendment to a Planned Development to Allow for a Personal Training Use (Medical Office), a Conditional Land Use in the B2-RW - Roger Williams Commercial Overlay Zone, at 555 Roger Williams Ave.
Planner Coleman made a presentation for the above item including subject property, Uncommon Fitness information, proposed special use - personal training, services provided on site, hours of operation, floor plan, advertising/signage, future plans, accessibility, intensity of use, retail component, parking detail, photos, public testimony, community business analysis, B2-RW, conditional use tools, special use standards, consideration and recommendation.
Planner Burhop stated this use is a personal training facility, but considered a medical office land use.
Planner Burhop stated there are two zoning actions requested. There is a special use permit because the proposed land use is a conditional land use in the district and requires a special use permit and this is considered a major amendment to the planned development for the property and as part of that is to add the use and the variation requested for one off-street parking space.
Commissioner Hecht asked how it was determined this is a medical use when neither a health club or gym is permitted. None of them exactly match the proposed use. The health club is closer than a medical office.
Chair Hainsfurther stated there used to be a health club minor and a health club major. He recalled there was a personal training establishment in the B1 district at Bloom and Waukegan which was classified as a health club minor. He asked why this is not a health club minor.
Director Fontane stated went through the process and they talked about an interpretation on various uses. This was in November and then went on to Council. This is in an allied field and was presented to the PDC and Council and it was deemed these could be considered a medical office.
Chair Hainsfurther stated the case in November was for a physical therapy office.
Director Fontane stated they also had a physical therapy case, but that was apart from this. In November they had an interpretation of the code.
Planner Burhop stated it went to the PDC on November 2nd for recommendation and then to Council. In the resolution Council adopted the personal training facility and it lists further explanations falling under the resolution that was interpreted as falling under the medical office land use.
Director Fontane stated it was determined to be that use and ultimately the recommendation will go to Council.
Commissioner Hecht asked if there was an ordinance passed by Council that says personal trainer is to be defined as medical office.
Planner Burhop confirmed this.
Commissioner Hecht stated the use table on line does not reflect that. Director Fontane stated the interpretation is from Council.
Commissioner Kerch asked why the parking requirement is different in the PUD than in the regular retail and are they rounding up or down.
Director Fontane stated the PUD captures a certain set of uses and captures residential and first floor commercial in the form of retail. This use has a higher parking requirement and 4.1 per thousand instead of 3.33. That necessitated the incremental space.
Commissioner Kerch stated he did not see a public comment in the packet.
Planner Coleman stated the public comment was provided by Ann Christophe and exceeded 200 words.
Chair Hainsfurther asked to see it before they adopt findings of fact. Planner Coleman stated he would send it right away.
Commissioner Quinlan stated on page 31 there is an email from Ms. Christophe. Planner Burhop stated is pdf page 31.
Chair Hainsfurther asked if the email was in favor or opposed.
Planner Coleman stated it was questioning what the requested specific parking relief was. Mr. Carson Neely, Applicant, stated he had nothing to add.
Planner Burhop read an email from Mr. Jeff Levin stating he was in favor of the application.
Director Fontane stated in response to Commissioner Hecht, it was November 8th when Council adopted the resolution entitled “Resolution Regarding Personal Training, Medical Spa and Medical Retail Land Uses.”
Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to direct staff to prepare findings of fact in favor of the application. Commissioner Kerch so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Quinlan.
Commissioner Kerch stated in the future maybe they should revisit the Roger Williams overlay. This is moving farther away from it and that is the reality of the market. He thought it was weird that they have a plan and are not sticking to it. Otherwise he was in favor of the application.
Director Fontane stated the are looking at that and it is a major project for City staff to look at the uses permitted and report back.
Chair Hainsfurther stated it is similar to the position they took with the POSO in the central business district.
Director Fontane stated they agree with Commissioner Kerch and it is a project on the docket for this year.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Quinlan, Kerch, Hecht, Hainsfurther
Nays: None
Motion passed 4-0.
Director Fontane stated they recommend they continue the public hearing to a date certain.
Planner Burhop stated the next meeting is March 15th.
Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to continue to March 15th. Commissioner Hecht so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Quinlan.
Ayes: Quinlan, Kerch, Hecht, Hainsfurther
Nays: None
Motion passed 4-0.
Director Fontane stated notice is actual and no new notice will be given.
B. Public Hearing #2022-SUP-002 for a Special Use Permit to Operate a Medical Cannabis Dispensing Organization in the I – Light Industrial Zoning District at 2030 Skokie Valley Rd.
Continued from the February 15, 2022 PDC meeting.
C. Public Hearing #2022-PUD-002 Amending Ordinance 30-12 Granting Special Use Permits for a Planned Development and for the Operation of Drive-Thru Facilities at 2030 Skokie Valley Rd. due to a Change in Land Uses on the Property.
Continued from the February 15, 2022 PDC meeting.
D. Public Hearing #2022-SUP-001 for a Special Use Permit to Operate an Adult Cannabis Dispensary in the I - Light Industrial Zoning District at 2030 Skokie Valley Rd.
Continued from the February 15, 2022 PDC meeting.
Items B, C and D will be considered concurrently.
Planner Burhop stated he had four comments: 1) the staff recommendation is that the PDC should consider the draft findings recommending approval as presented, 2) Commissioner Kerch pointed out a typo that the variation requested does not rigger a public benefit consideration, 3) they received public comments from Mr. Mike Laxner which exceeded 200 words and will be posted and were sent to the Commissioners and the applicant, 4) regarding the traffic impact, the third party reviewer had initial comments and the applicant responded in two documents which were sent to Civil Tech and they followed up with the City on the final review and thoroughly addressed the comments.
Director Fontane stated they received written comments late this evening and they could take a look at them. It will be in the packet sent to Council.
Mr. Mike Laxner, stated it is to be processed as part of the agenda and send to Council.
Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to adopt findings of fact as amended. Commissioner Hecht so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Kerch.
Commissioner Quinlan asked if this was a motion to adopt findings of fact. Chair Hainsfurther confirmed this.
Commissioner Quinlan stated he was not at the last meeting. He stated this was a learning process. This was an incubator site for the business and it is moving up. He acknowledged the applicant was a member of the Chamber Commerce. He was not used to the Police Chief being present from previous experiences. He had heard of the difference in locations and he was familiar with the existing site. He lives nearby and the site is isolated. He was trying to factor in business growth in terms of new customers and increased traffic. He thought the traffic study was based on the current site and not the new one. When he read the packet from February 14th the growth was indicated at 160% in customers. He was trying to get a feel of customer growth which indicates traffic. He
asked if the customer growth was based on square footage. It was described as a retail business and he did not know how deep the transportation book goes.
Director Fontane stated the IT is not every use and these uses are new. It is mostly a retail use. From staff’s perspective it is not a problem. It is a retail mall and has parking and they reviewed the parking aspects. The site can handle an additional tenant. The business will grow and this is a better location in terms of what it offers for its tenants. Where they are now is quite popular and it serves an important purpose. There are certain setbacks and regulations in the code that this site meets and it is an eligible location. The Police Chief did testify on this matter and this is a use that warranted that testimony. He has particular knowledge to provide to the Commission.
Chair Hainsfurther stated one of the reasons he was there was they were asking for a variation not to do deliveries in a confined space. In terms of traffic, the shopping center currently has a pharmacy, coffee shop which generates traffic. Certainly a drive-thru bank which there previously could generate a decent amount of traffic. He would be surprised if it would contribute enough traffic onto the highway that it would be a problem. He stated making a left-hand turn onto Park Ave. West is not the easiest thing to do regardless. There is another way to exit the site onto Rt. 41. All that was taken into account in preparing the traffic study.
Director Fontane stated they are not seeking relief for parking and those are set in the code. They use the ITE standard for retail uses. Some retail uses attract more business than others. There is a surplus of parking of 21 spaces. The site has the capacity to handle this. They have a full day in terms of hours of operation and there is opportunity to visit the site at various hours. There will be busier and slower times and you can say that about general retail and the holidays are busy and lots are full and other days of the year are much less busy. The ebbs and flows are with the tolerance ranges of retail.
Commissioner Quinlan mentioned nuisance complaints from consumption in the parking lot.
Director Fontane stated you are not allowed to do that.
Commissioner Quinlan stated there were calls to the police at the existing site which is hard to find. There is the multiplier of customers and secondly it is site specific to the bank and having two major different tenants. He had a strong visual of parking north facing the Starbucks drive-thru and even though the parcels are separated he was picturing people consuming on site. He looked at Pure Leaf in Northbrook and it is an island with nothing adjacent to it. With the increase in customers and major anchor tenants next to it and increased hours, he asked if there was a way to table the evening hour change until they can demonstrate that these questions are unfounded and they could revisit it a year from now. They could demonstrate they could handle the customer growth and the sizeable anchor tenant visibility they are experiencing.
Chair Hainsfurther stated they could amend the findings of fact and add conditions that are not currently there.
Mr. Martinez stated that is within their discretion.
Director Fontane stated the findings are drafts and they can make them their own. They could continue the item to another meeting. They may want to ask the applicant for his input.
Chair Hainsfurther stated they could see what else is on the table the applicant can respond to.
Commissioner Quinlan stated when he layers these things together it is a big jump like have a successful business on lower Wacker Dr. and them moving to upper Wacker Dr.
Chair Hainsfurther stated he originally asked for a friendly amendment to reduce the hours to comply with the hours for the dispensary in Northbrook and it was not supported.
Director Fontane stated they can allow the applicant to speak.
Planner Burhop stated there is still a motion before Commission.
Chair Hainsfurther stated he always wants a motion on the table before discussion.
Mr. Anthony Marsico, Applicant, stated regarding the traffic and ITE manual, Lynn Means took the data from the ITE manual and was clear in saying she was also taking data from the current store and others in IL in a similar setting. They have data to add and this is real data not pulled from outside studies. They operate 10 locations in IL and over 100 nationally. They have a good idea of what the impact of the relocation will be from a traffic and customer uptick. The 200% increase in sales was mentioned and he did not anticipate it being anywhere near that. IL is a mature market and they are seeing stabilizations in sales statewide. Dispensaries are a destination for the overwhelming majority. There are some impulse buyers driving by who are cannabis users. Cannabis users seek out dispensaries and most people know dispensaries exist. There may be a slight uptick and they spend a lot of time marketing the business which is why they have reached the level of success they have. He thought there will be some uptick in business around 5-15% at the maximum. The reason for moving is about logistics and customer retention. Parking is an issue at the current location and it is tucked away. The new location is more of a flagship retail location that can handle the flow much better. The interior customer experience will be better. They have additional point of sales which will allow them to serve customers more quickly on high volume days and peak times. They will be able to accommodate medical as well as recreational customers. The square footage takes more into account the minimum parking requirements and that is the way the code is classified. Regarding the hours, they were proactive with the Police Chief and his stamp of approval should hold quite a bit of water. They were before the Commission a year or two ago and there were similar reservations to the hours of operation. The approach was to give it a year and they can revisit it. They have been a responsible operator and met and in almost every case, exceed, the standards for compliance, security and community engagement. They are a member of the Chamber of Commerce and active in the community and IL. There is a strict no loitering policy with on site security both interior and exterior with camera coverage. They have a strict no consumption policy with signs posted and it is very clear. He understood some of the concerns because it is a newer business and they have proven themselves to be a responsible operator and a good community partner with Highland Park. They want to operate the most successful business possible from a tax dollars perspective in Highland Park.
Commissioner Quinlan stated he thought they were doing everything right. He was tripped up on an item from the February 15th packet on page 69. He was looking at business growth and the square footage of retail was used to project growth and what was submitted was a 1.59% growth over time and did not specify over what period of time.
Mr. Marsico stated the initial square footage was data pulled from the ITE manual. They have relocated two stores in IL and several nationally. There may be a decline in business over time and there are 185 new dispensaries coming in IL. There will be more dispensaries and it dilutes the market. If an Italian restaurant is open on one corner and a Chinese opens across the street they may be complementary businesses because they are offering different products. Dispensaries in IL offer identical products at almost identical price points. It is a straight line where the cannabis market for IL is “X” and you are dividing it by “Y.”. Some dispensaries will do a better job and some will do a poorer job. They will fall within those lines. They are seeing people slowly experiment with cannabis as an alternate to liquor or for medical purposes. It is no not millions of people because this dispensary pops up. With the additional stores it will dilute down over time. The growth drivers are people who are curious. They would love a 200% increase but would be happy with a 10-15% increase.
Director Fontane stated there is a significant increase in the number of licenses now and as the market matures you start to find the end point and size of the market. New stores attract attention and then it subsides a bit. When competition is ratcheted up it will become a more acute situation in terms of who has the best location.
Mr. Laxner stated he had not heard about the number of security personnel on site and if they are armed. He stated traffic data was taken from other locations and he did not recall seeing it in the packet. He asked about transactions in their Rt. 59 location which has a similar setup in a high traffic location. Also, the Police Chief did not submit the data regarding the how many calls they had to respond to.
Chair Hainsfurther stated he read his email from the last meeting and specifically asked the questions he had asked. They walked the Commission through the entire delivery process and they did mention the number of guards on site and the delivery process so it is randomized and not any set time. They said guards are armed and the Police Chief did not give specific data but did say it was very minimal and he did not recall being called to the site.
Director Fontane stated this was stated previously and there were complaints about parking from the point of view of where people are parking. There were concerns about whether people were using products in cars. They talked about that specifically and made it clear signs were put up about that mater. The Chief did not share concerns about the number of calls or what was going on.
Mr. Laxner asked about the number of security personnel.
Director Fontane stated the Police Chief has spoken to the applicant about security. There are elements that they do not want to be made public. Part of maintaining security is not divulging all aspects of the security plan including everything they are going to do. The Police Chief has met with the applicant and the police were satisfied.
Mr. Laxner asked if the Commissioners had seen the security protocol. Director Fontane stated everything the Commission has is on line for viewing. Chair Hainsfurther stated it was testified to in the public hearing.
Mr. Marsico stated their security is held to highest standard for retail use and much more than a bank or pharmacy. They are held to an extremely high standard by the IDFPR and IL State Police. They have regular visits from the IDFPR and state police a minimum of
once every 30 days. They review everything from visitor logs, inventory spot checks, camera functionality, camera playback, employee badges and delivery logs. There are parts of their security SOP they hold proprietary. The amount of guards varies based on peak hours and high volume. For the grand opening they will have extra security. This is not their first opening and they have a strong track record. They will have 1-4 guards on site at any given time. They like to be over prepared.
Mr. Laxner stated this proposal doubles the amount of traffic compared to the Chase bank. He will be watching how much traffic it generates throughout the day. Coming out of the facility onto Park Ave. West on property there are signs that say exit left to Rt. 41 is available. The sign is on the CVS property and he asked if they could provided one on their property.
Mr. Marsico stated if there are any additional questions they have their traffic engineer on the call. She took into account the data she collected and the ITE trip generation manual traffic counts were higher based on square footage of the new facility. She used those as opposed to the local data to be more conservative.
Director Fontane stated that was the preferred way to approach that.
Director Fontane stated there was a motion with an amendment to the findings to eliminate the finding for a public benefit.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Quinlan, Kerch, Hecht, Hainsfurther
Nays: None
Motion passed 4-0.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Next Special Meeting - March 15, 2022
Planner Burhop stated there are two items on the agenda, two PUDs one for Ravinia Festival and one for 1950-64 Sheridan Rd.
B. Case Briefing - None
Director Fontane stated Council took up the Buchanan Oil (now to be Casey’s) update to the gas station and voted 7-0 to approve that item.
VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC - None
Mr. Laxner thanked the Commission for the opportunity to express his opinions. VII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Kerch so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Quinlan, Kerch, Hecht, Hainsfurther
Nays: None
Motion passed 4-0.
The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 8:15 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2653&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up