Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2014/07/09 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the July 9, 2014 Regular Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, July 9, 2014, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Commission members present: Chairman Michael Ley and Commissioners Guy Berg, Lloyd Culbertson, Tim Henry and John Anderson Commissioners absent: Commissioners Jeff Kuchman and Jim Carris Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff. Chairman Ley introduced the members of the Commission and City staff. He noted that Commissioner Tim Henry has joined the Commission. 2. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of an Amendment to Section 46-24, Special Uses, relating to Medical Cannabis Dispensaries and Cultivation Centers in response to recent State legislation. The proposed amendment would establish these types of facilities as Special Uses and establish review criteria. Chairman Ley introduced the agenda item and asked the members of the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from City staff. Ms. Czerniak presented the proposed Code amendment for Commission consideration. She explained that last year, the State adopted an Act that allows medical cannabis dispensaries and cultivation centers to be located throughout the State subject to some limitations. She noted that the Act allows municipalities and Counties to regulate the facilities from a zoning perspective, but does not allow these uses to be prohibited. She stated however that as a result of the predominately residential zoning in Lake Forest, and the number of schools; the restrictions in the State Act itself greatly limit potential opportunities for these facilities in Lake Forest. She stated that the Act does not allow the facilities to be located in a residential zoning district or within specified distances of schools of various types. She stated that although the State provided general parameters for these facilities, it is recommended that the City adopt Code language that establishes a local review process and criteria in the event that a request comes forward. She noted that the fundamental question is whether these uses should be allowed by right or should be reviewed through a Special Use Permit process. She noted that the City’s Legal Committee reviewed this issue preliminarily and recommended that the Special Use Permit process be used for these types of uses rather than allow for administrative Plan Commission Minutes – July, 9, 2014 Page 2 of 9 review. She reviewed the Special Use Permit process noting that the Code requires Special Use Permits for various institutional uses and for some business uses. She stated that the Special Use process provides the opportunity for a public discussion and most often, the attachment of conditions of approval in an effort to allow the use to coexist in a compatible manner with surrounding uses. She noted that the review process for new special uses requires a public hearing before the Plan Commission and action by the City Council. She reviewed the general criteria that must be considered for special uses and noted that the proposed amendment suggests additional criteria which would be specific to dispensaries and cultivation centers. She summarized that the additional conditions address issues such as hours of operation, signage, drive thru facilities, visibility of the facilities from the street, and security measures. She added that as with any Code amendment, the effectiveness of the adopted language would be considered on an ongoing basis and in this case, may need to be reconsidered if State legislation changes and based on experience here or in other communities. In response to questions from Commissioner Anderson, Ms. Czerniak stated that during the fall of 2013, City staff participated in a County-wide Task Force. She stated that the group researched the legislation and developed ideas of how the uses might be regulated. She stated that each community is different as a result of zoning patterns and locations of schools and day care facilities throughout the community. She noted that some communities are allowing dispensaries and cultivation centers as outright permitted uses subject to specific requirements. She noted that other communities, as proposed here, would use a public review process and have the ability to review and evaluate each petition individually and if appropriate, add specific conditions of approval. Commissioner Anderson noted that it would be useful information to understand what other communities are doing with respect to this issue. In response to questions from Commissioner Anderson, Ms. Czerniak stated that this could be a situation where the Commission directs that a review of the Code language occur after a period of time to allow reconsideration of the Code language with the benefit of what is learned about these uses going forward. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak stated that no facilities have been licensed yet for operation in the State. She confirmed that there is a State licensing requirement for the facilities and that these facilities will be a single purpose use and will not be combined with pharmacies. She stated that the State Act has an expiration date and is intended to allow some experience with this issue before a longer term decision is made on allowing and regulating these uses. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the State Act prohibits dispensaries and cultivation centers in residential districts and within certain distances of schools and day cares. Plan Commission Minutes – July, 9, 2014 Page 3 of 9 Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited public comment and swore in all those intending to speak. In response to a question from Roger Mohr, 927 Barclay Circle, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the dispensaries would be single purpose uses and require licensing by the State. She confirmed that dispensaries are not permitted as part of a traditional pharmacy. Ms. Condin, 721 Valley Road, thanked the City for making this issue a priority noting the importance of not sending a message that marijuana is safe. She stated that the impression given to youth in the community is important. She noted that the community is fortunate to have significant areas zoned for residential uses and a multitude of schools which together, limit the opportunities for these facilities to locate in the community. She stated that it is important to keep these uses out of the mainstream retail areas of the community and as a result, out of the everyday views of youth. She noted concern that if these uses are located in mainstream retail areas; it will create a perception that marijuana use is safe and normal. She stated that perceiving the use as normal directly correlates with increased use. She stated that she is the Program Coordinator for the Speak Up Coalition and a member of the Lake County Underage Drinking and Drug Use Task Force. She stated that operators of dispensaries are looking for communities that will allow the location of these uses in the mainstream areas of the community so that they are perceived as a normal retailer. She confirmed that the Village of Lake Bluff passed a similar ordinance. She stated that she is in contact with City staff on this issue and supports the Code amendment as presented. She confirmed that the State has not yet issued any licenses noting that State departments are still working on the rules under which dispensaries and cultivations centers will be licensed. She stated that licenses will likely start to be issued in early spring of 2015. She stated that she is thankful to live in a community that is doing what is legally allowed to regulate these facilities and asked that the youth of the community be kept in mind in reviewing any individual requests that may be received for these uses. Hearing no further requests to speak, Chairman Ley invited final questions or comments from the Commission. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the language be clarified to state that these facilities are allowed only by Special use Permit. The Commission agreed with Commissioner Anderson’s suggestion. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that if a request meets the requirements of the State Act and the City regulations, it could be approved with conditions or limitations depending on the specifics of the proposed location. Plan Commission Minutes – July, 9, 2014 Page 4 of 9 In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak explained that Special use Permits; once issued, give the petitioner certainty that a particular use will be permitted if the specific conditions of the Special Use Permit are satisfied and if the findings under which the permit was granted remain applicable. She confirmed that if the conditions of a special use permit are not met, a special use permit can be revoked by the City Council. She stated that she is not aware of any discussion or any permission given in the State Act to allow a mobile dispensary. She stated that if the issue comes up, or if another community faces the issue, discussion of that issue could occur at a later date. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson about public consumption of cannabis, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Code amendments before the Commission deal with the land use aspects of dispensaries and cultivation centers. She stated that law enforcement agencies deal with other legal aspects such as public use. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that if the City receives a request for location of a dispensary or cultivation center, specific facts about the proposed location, adjacent uses, site lay out, size of the facility and other relevant factors will be presented to allow the Plan Commission and ultimately, the City Council, to fully evaluate the request. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak clarified that the State Act does not allow municipalities to prohibit dispensaries or cultivation centers. She stated that the proposed Code language establishes a set of criteria that would be used to evaluate any requests received by the City. She stated that the criteria are broad enough to potentially allow the uses if the limitations of the State Act are met. Commissioner Berg suggested that the questions and comments raised by the Commission regarding public consumption be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Anderson stated support for a review of the effectiveness of the Code requirements after some period of time in light of evolving regulations on this issue and to take into account the experience of other communities. Commissioner Henry stated support for putting local regulations in place as a starting point so that the City is ahead of the issue. Chairman Ley asked that the Commission’s recommendation to City Council include a suggestion that the Code language, and its effectiveness, be revisited no later than 24 months after the adoption as suggested by Commissioner Anderson. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, he invited a motion noting that Commissioner Anderson’s suggestion that clarification be added that the facilities are “only” allowed by Special Use Permit. Plan Commission Minutes – July, 9, 2014 Page 5 of 9 Commissioner Anderson made a motion to recommend approval of a Code amendment to the City Council consistent with the language presented in the staff report as amended by the Commission to clarify that the uses are “only” allowed by Special Use Permit. He added that the recommendation to the Council should include the suggestion that the Code language be revisited no later the 24 months after adoption. He noted that the Council should also be made aware of the questions raised by the Commission about public consumption of cannabis. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Culbertson and approved by the Commission by a 5 to 0 vote. 4. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of an Amendment to Section 46-38, Single Family Residence District, relating to the use of accessory structures as secondary living units and establishing conditions and limitations on such use. Chairman Ley introduced the agenda item and asked the members of the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from City staff. Ms. Czerniak introduced the item noting that Alderman Moore held a Community Engagement Forum on the topic of Granny flats last year. She explained that the term “granny flats” is a generic term for a secondary living unit on a property zoned for single family use. She stated that it is not intended to mean that the units are geared only toward older individuals. She noted that a granny flat could take the form of a cottage, garage apartment or a coach house for example. She stated that a summary of the comments heard at the public forum is included in the Commission’s packet. She stated that at the public forum, and in subsequent discussions, including a Plan Commission workshop, there was interest in adding flexibility to the Code to provide some limited opportunity for secondary living units. She explained that providing this opportunity is seen as a way to encourage investment in historic properties and outbuildings, provide an additional amenity on the property that might interest potential buyers and provide greater diversity in the types of housing units available in the community. She noted that historically, many of the outbuildings were residential units for people who worked at the estates and commented that some of the structures have continued to be used as rental units. She explained that accessory structures that have continuously been used as secondary living units are considered “grandfathered” uses. She noted however that when these properties change hands, questions are raised about the legitimacy of the secondary living unit since secondary living units are not currently permitted by the Code. She stated that concerns were expressed during discussions to date that the door not be opened too wide initially since secondary living units could potentially add traffic on neighborhood streets or be perceived as a nuisance if the structure is located close to the property line. She stated that the proposed Code language includes several performance standards intended to allow this use to be compatible with the surrounding single family homes. She said the proposed Plan Commission Minutes – July, 9, 2014 Page 6 of 9 amendment would essentially put a pilot program in place to allow secondary living units in limited situations. She stated that as proposed, secondary living units would be limited to the R-4 zoning district which includes most of the City located east of Sheridan Road. She stated that as proposed, secondary living units would only be permitted in structures that exist at the time the Code is adopted and would only be permitted in structures that meet a 20’ setback distance from the property lines. She noted that as proposed, secondary living units would only be permitted on properties on which the main residence is owner occupied to increase the likelihood that the units would be closely monitored. She stated that the proposed Code language also requires on site parking and limits the number of secondary living units to one per property. She stated that if approved, the Code amendment is not expected to result in a large number of secondary living units in the community noting that based on a staff analysis, there appear to be as many as 60 structures that may have potential for this use but noted that the expectation is that possibly 20 properties may choose to take advantage of this Code provision. She added that any structure proposed for use as a secondary living unit will need to meet minimum Building Code requirements for living units. She noted that as proposed, the Code amendment would require that secondary living units be registered with the City to allow public safety records to be updated to accurately reflect the number of living units on a property. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that as proposed, the amendment would not allow new structures to be built, after the adoption of the Code amendment, for the purpose of being used as secondary living units. She stated that the intent is to make historic structures available as living units. She noted that the concept of allowing the construction of new structures for secondary living units is a broader discussion about permitted densities in residential neighborhoods. In response to questions from Commissioner Anderson, Ms. Czerniak clarified that new accessory buildings could still be built, but could not be used for secondary living units. She confirmed that accessory structures could still be built for use as garages and pool houses for example. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that existing accessory structures could be renovated, altered or retrofitted to make them viable as living units. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak suggested that existing “grandfathered” living units could be given time to come in and register and would then become permitted uses under the new Code language. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that existing structures that are used as secondary living units would not need to fully meet Plan Commission Minutes – July, 9, 2014 Page 7 of 9 current Building Codes, but would need to meet basic health and life safety requirements for living units. Commissioner Henry questioned whether registration of the units is necessary noting that if the City wants to encourage this type of use, additional paperwork should not be required. Chairman Ley questioned whether properties should be limited to one secondary living unit noting that some larger properties have multiple outbuildings. He suggested that it might be appropriate for the Code to permit two secondary living units to provide additional opportunities. He noted that he heard from Commissioner Kuchman who was unable to attend the meeting and he too questioned whether limiting the number of units to one is too restrictive. Commissioner Berg suggested that properties in the R-5 zoning district might also be appropriate for granny flats. Commissioner Anderson stated support for encouraging the use, but limiting it in some way. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that a variance for additional units may be possible, but would not be assured. Chairman Ley noted that the Code language can be modified if determined to be necessary based on requests received. Chairman Ley invited public comments and swore in all those intending to speak on this matter. Roger Mohr, 927 Barclay Circle, stated that he attended the meeting that Alderman Moore held noting that it was very well attended and there was significant interest in this idea. At the request of Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak responded to a question raised by Mr. Mohr explaining that the definition of family in the Code limits the occupancy of single family homes to 3 people not related by blood, marriage or adoption. She stated that given the concerns raised about the number of people who could live in a granny flat, that same language is repeated in the proposed Code amendment. She noted that this language has been helpful in situations involving students renting houses near Lake Forest College. Dave Cornell, 537 King Muir Road, noted that the amendment being discussed may apply to his property. He stated that his property shares a driveway with neighboring homes, all of which are historic outbuildings, and stated that although the arrangement, a handshake deal, works well today, he would have concerns about Plan Commission Minutes – July, 9, 2014 Page 8 of 9 additional traffic on the driveway as a result of secondary living units being occupied on the neighboring properties. He asked that consideration be given to situations where shared driveways exist. Rommy Lopat, 410 E. Woodland Road, noted that she has an accessory unit on her property and may have the opportunity to rent it under the provisions being discussed. She noted however that her unit would only be appropriate for occupancy by one person and questioned the requirement for two parking spaces. She suggested that the number of parking spaces be aligned with the number of adults living in the unit. Deborah Fischer, resident of Lake Bluff, stated that she is a realtor in Lake Forest, grew up in the community, and has personal and professional roots here. She stated that she attended the Community Forum on this issue. She added that personally, she would be interested in a rental unit, but found little opportunity to rent in Lake Forest. She stated that in her professional capacity, she sees younger and older people looking for rental opportunities in the community. She reviewed the number of available rental properties currently on the market and the rental rates. She commented that by providing the opportunity for secondary living units, owners of the properties may have some incentive to refresh the properties and increase their income. She stated that the proposed amendment has more positives than negatives and suggested that the use not be limited too much. She questioned whether it is fair to penalize a property on which an historic coach house is located close to the property line. She agreed that more than one unit should be permitted noting that some historic properties have multiple out buildings. She stated support for the proposed amendment, support for broadening it and stated her hope that it would be successful. Hearing no further requests to speak, Chairman Ley invited a staff response to public comment. Ms. Czerniak noted that a number of good points were raised that were not previously addressed. She suggested that the language in the Code could be revised to address situations where shared driveways exist. She acknowledged the comment about the requirement for two on site parking spaces, but noted that the City should not be put in the position of monitoring the number of adults living in a unit. She noted that a question was raised about whether the 20’ setback was too restrictive and noted that the intent was to respond to community comments about proximity of accessory structures to neighboring properties. She acknowledged that the opportunity for a variance would exist but noted that depending on the language of the Code, if may be difficult to meet the variance criteria. Chairman Ley suggested that given the discussion and ideas that have been presented, the Commission may want to continue this matter, leave the public Plan Commission Minutes – July, 9, 2014 Page 9 of 9 hearing open, and ask staff to modify the proposed Code amendment in light of the discussion and bring it back for further review. Commissioner Berg acknowledged that the 20’ setback may limit the ability to rent some outbuildings as secondary living units but stated that there is also a need to be respectful of the neighboring properties. He stated that he is hesitant to eliminate the 20’ setback requirement. Commissioner Culbertson stated that in a situation where there are very large back yards or open area, a variance may be appropriate. Commissioner Culbertson asked that “adoption” be included in the definition of family. Chairman Ley invited a motion to continue the matter. Commissioner Culbertson made a motion to continue consideration of the proposed Code amendment to allow granny flats on single family properties under some conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Anderson and was unanimously approved by the Commission in a 5 to 0 vote. 5. Public Testimony on non-agenda items. Ms. Lopat presented comments on the Amberley Woods petition and the review process. She provided a letter to the Commission. She questioned where the process will start if the petitioner comes back and whether the existing Special Use Permit for Amberley Woods should be revisited. She encouraged the City to look at underutilized parcels along Route 60 and meet with property owners in the area. She suggested that developments should be sustainable. She suggested that the process should be transparent and inclusive of the public. She thanked the Commission for its work on this issue. In response to a question from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Amberley Woods petition has not been withdrawn. 6. Additional information from staff. No additional information was presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 7:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development