Loading...
Minutes - 10/20/2014 - Plan CommissionMINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 20, 2014 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON NOVEMBER 17, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Tropinski in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:05 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Marcia Tropinski, Members Thomas Doyle, Raju Iyer, Raj Lal, Simon Sheers and Kenneth Wilczak ABSENT: Member Naveen Jain IN ATTENDANCE: Trustee Gerald Wolin, Director of Community Development Robert Kallien Jr., Village Engineer Michael Hullihan and Planning Technician Gail Polanek ChairwomanTropinski welcomed Ken Wilczak to the Plan Commission. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF AUGUST 18.2014 Motion by Member Doyle, seconded by Member Lal to approve the minutes of the August 18, 2014 Regular Plan Commission meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to discuss. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. 2ND RESUBDIVISION OF DANA PARK — VACANT LAND KNOWN AS DANA P RK °f 3111 -3115 CARA LANE — FINAL PLAT — FIVE -LOT SUBDIVISION 3111 -3115 CARA LANE -FINAL PLAT Jiun -Guang Lin, Ridgeline Consultants located at 1661 Aucutt Road, Montgomery, Illinois has been the Project Engineer for this property over the last 10 years. The property owner Doug Huff, Dana Park, LLC could not attend the meeting due to a business trip. He introduced Court Airhart, President of Airhart Construction. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 8 October 20, 2014 Izt He reviewed the history of the property. Dana Park Subdivision was approved in 2005 and construction was underway in 2006. In 2008, Dana Park Resubdivision with five (5) residential lots was approved, but only a small portion of the site improvements was implemented. In the spring of 2014, the owner contracted with Airhart Construction to market the properties and when sold, build new homes on the lots. Court Airhart and his team appreciated the unique storm water management features such as detention and floodplain composition that is present in Dana Park and turned these features from a site disadvantage to an advantage; and they do have a few strong prospects interested. Due to this reason, the owner decided to finish the site improvements so that the subdivision could be completed and the lots marketed. The changes proposed in the 2 °d resubdivision of the property are as follows: • Those elements approved in 2008, they are seeking to affirm those approvals of two more sets of water service and sanitary service required because the Dana Park Resubdivision had increased the number of lots from three to five. • As proposed in 2008 and still proposed in 2014 is the relocation of the existing 30 -inch storm sewer in lot 2. It will eventually drain to the existing detention pond. • A new change proposed is the elimination of the retaining walls behind the buildable areas in lots 3, 4, and 5. The walls have been replaced with a slope. • The other new change proposed is the location of the lot line between lots 4 and 5. Both lots will meet the lot area requirements. The storm water storage volume is completely preserved, which the Village Engineer has verified. The Village received the approval letter from Flagg Creek Water Reclamation District today. They are optimistic regarding the approval from the Midwest Club Homeowner Association. The owner is committed to completing all of the remaining site work. The contract between the owner and sewer - grading contractor was signed today. Member Doyle commented that the request appeared to be straightforward. He questioned whether the approval from Midwest Club should be included in the motion. Village Engineer Michael Hullihan responded that the routing of the pressure lines was previously approved on the previous subdivision action. He was not aware of any problem with the Midwest Club Homeowner Association as far as the routing; and the requisite easements have already been purchased. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 8 October 20, 2014 � to Motion by Member Doyle, seconded by Member Iyer to recommend approval of the proposed 5 -lot subdivision known as the 2 "d Resubdivision of Dana Park as proposed, subject to the following conditions: 1. All other provisions of Resolution R -1009 and Ordinance 5 -1225 will remain in full force and effect. 2. Final engineering approval. 3. Add the condition "Notwithstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all Village Ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically varied or waived. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Doyle, Iyer, Tropinski Absent: 1 — Member Jain Nays: 0 — Motion Carried. Lal, Sheers, Wilczak and Chairwoman 5. B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TEXT AMENDMENT — CANNABIS ANI - TEXT MENDMENT - DISPENSARIES AND RELATED FACILITIES — REVIEW AND cANNASIs DISCUSSION RELATED and FACILITIES Director of Community Development Kallien provided an overview of the request. The issue is something mandated by the State of Illinois. All municipalities and counties, including Chicago are required to have regulations in place to deal with cannabis dispensaries and cultivation centers. The state law does not provide guidance as to how municipalities should regulate this issue, but the basis is to have provisions in the Code that allows for it. A number of communities that have adopted regulations and there are still some that are working on them and many that have done nothing. Most have taken their zoning code and have identified one or more zoning districts to allow this type of use as a permitted use or a special use. He recommended the Village allow it as a special use, which would require each request to go through the review of the Plan Commission and public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals with approval by the Village Board. It cannot be denied, but our task is to find the right places to locate them. There were a limited number of licenses (60) available within given counties. Once those licenses are issued, there will not be additional dispensaries or cultivation centers approved. There was a recent submittal deadline and the applications far exceeded the number of possible locations within the county. When the process is completed to provide for this as required by the State, the village may never receive a request for this type of use. In addition to the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance, the State licensing requirements are very stringent. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8 October 20, 2014 Member Lal said that the reason for this is the compassionate use of marijuana for people who are suffering in pain and various states in the treatment of cancers, there is evidence that it helps to make the quality of life better, even though it is not a cure. As a village, you cannot deny anyone, so a process must be in place. The village is very conservative and frowns upon recreational use. However, steps must be in place so that if someone applies there are rules and requirements. Director of Community Development Kallien questioned that if there was a distribution facility, which passed the Village's zoning regulations and was approved by the State, if someone wanted to use the facility, how would a doctor be involved? Member Lal (Doctor Lal) responded that a doctor must write a prescription. Physicians are bound by certain rules, regulations and state laws. There are many checks and balances in place. Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed the areas in Oak Brook where cultivation centers could be located. A cultivation center cannot be located less than 2500 feet from an existing preschool, elementary or secondary school, daycare centers, group homes or any areas zoned residential. When the prohibited areas were mapped out, Oak Brook did not have any areas that would qualify to be used for a cultivation center, so the Village does not need to do anything relative to that section of the State law. The other use would be a dispensing type of facility. The rules for the dispensing centers cannot be located less than 1000 feet from an existing preschool, daycare centers, group daycare center, and may not be located in any areas zoned residential. Those areas were also mapped out and the available areas to the north are primarily office or commercial; and areas to the south are forest preserve holdings, park districts and a large swath of the retail corporate core. On page 14.a of the case file, the zoning districts that fall outside the dispensary restrictions, which would include the B districts (B -1, B -2, B -3 and B -4), O districts (ORA -1, ORA -2, ORA -3, 0-3 and 0-4), CR and Institutional districts. A portion of all of the districts would qualify on the surface. Each district was identified. In addition to identifying districts, the attorneys have said reasonable conditions could be attached. The southern section of the B district is also in the Historic Graue Mill Gateway Area. A condition could be added to prohibit the use in that underlying district. Some communities attached the condition that it is located in a freestanding building, but he did not know what that benefit would be. Using the B -3 District as an example, should a special use be required, an application would need to be filed with the State and they would need to get the concurrence of the property owner to support that activity at that specific location, which may be difficult. From a legislative standpoint, Oak Brook would in VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 8 October 20, 2014 compliance if we have provided for the area. However, there may not be any owners that would want that type of use, which would be the applicant's problem to resolve. Member Sheers said that he did not want to see the cannabis distributed anywhere near the shopping center. He would prefer that it be located in the far northwest corner. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that it could be allowed only in the B -1 District. Member Iyer suggested that a freestanding building could be required. Member Wilczak added that a freestanding building offers some advantages. Some of the communities have had some security concerns. By having a freestanding building, some of those concerns could be minimized to neighboring businesses and individuals. In a strip mall, you would have concerns from your neighboring businesses. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there were not any freestanding buildings in the B -1 District. Chairwoman Tropinski said that many of the people utilizing the compassionate use are in bad health to begin with and it could make it more difficult for them to have to walk in terms of the shopping centers. In an office, building security could be very cumbersome. Director of Community Development Kallien asked Dr. Lal if any thought had been given to using existing pharmacies. Member Lal responded that it would be difficult they want to specify and isolate where it can be sold. If it were at a pharmacy, then any pharmacist could do it. The other issue would be the follow up in order to keep track of it for reports. Member Wilczak asked if whether it could be delivered to hospice patients. Member Lal responded that it would be up to the prescribing physician. Member Doyle noted that in reviewing other communities there appeared to be two different trends. One seems to be where it is allowed in almost every zoning category, except for prohibited areas. The other is restrictive. He asked if there was any direction from the State law about the restrictions on the locations. He suggested there should be some logic in recommending an area and the rationale that would be used in choosing one district over another. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the attorneys' advised VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 8 October 20, 2014 that whatever is recommended to the Village Board must be reasonable. It cannot be something that is an impossible item to achieve. In some municipalities, it is not limited and is allowed in a number of different areas. Some other communities are doing the opposite. Oak Brook being a rather conservative community, it was his recommendation to approach this issue conservatively as well. The B District centers have multiple tenants; the B -1 and B -2 District do not have single tenant buildings. The B -3 District has several buildings meet the single tenant use. Member Doyle said that just because there a single tenant buildings does not exist in a district that would not mean someone could not request one. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there is logic that someone could apply; however, there are not many tracks of land available. The objective for the B Districts are shopping areas that tend to be a collection of uses in a unified shopping center and is a common theme between Oak Brook Court, Oakbrook Center and the Promenade. It could be viewed as unreasonable to require someone to allow the use in that zoning district and then require them to have a separate tenant building constructed. Trustee Wolin questioned the restrictions on residential properties. Member Wilczak noted that Naperville included a 250 -foot restriction from residential properties. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that Naperville is many times larger than Oak Brook, crossing two counties and is a very diverse community. Their opportunities may be far greater than in Oak Brook. Member Wilczak added that if the B -3 District were chosen with a freestanding building, it would show willingness since there are those types of buildings in the area. The special use provision would give the Village the opportunity to review it. Director of Community Development Kallien agreed and said that there would be consistency with the other communities. He added that there was not just one way to do it. Any of the areas could be chosen and it would come down to whether or not someone would be granted a state license and then must be able to negotiate a lease with the property owner. It is a multiple step process. Member Lal said that speaking as a physician, he talked about compassion and said that because of the data from the FBI in crime reports and federal justice statistics, approximately 99 out of 100 cannabis arrests in the United States are made under state law, rather than federal law. Consequently, changing the state law will have a practical effect of protecting from arrests; the vast majority of serious ill patients will have a medical need to use cannabis. It has to be made constructive, but at the same time if the long term Oak Brook residents wants to use it, they should be able to get it. These requirements need to be thought through. Any resident, at any time VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 8 October 20, 2014 -4?4.r could become seriously ill with extreme nausea and pain. The other medication for nausea would be through an IV and few other things, but the cannabis really relieves it and a physician is called for a prescription. It has been endorsed by many other organizations. It is not coming out of the blue sky it is based on evidence. This is the reason it should be thought through thoroughly and not rushed through the process. The commission represents the residents and wants to protect the Village at the same time, but not make it burdensome that they would need to go to Naperville or somewhere else. He did not want to see that consequence. Member Wilczak noted that in Hospice cases, the medication is actually delivered to the home and he questioned if cannabis would also be allowed. Member Lal responded that he was not sure and would need to check into that, but suggested the commission really think it through before making very stringent regulations. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he would seek out additional information on the law regarding how many actually licenses could be obtained in a particular county. He suggested that a map could be created to show the individual single unit building. Member Doyle thought that a single user building might provide a safe and secure environment with easier access. It was his understanding that the dispensaries are primarily cash operations, so there are literally tens of thousands of dollars some days in dispensaries and whatever the final decision, that would be an important part of it. Member Lal said that the dispensaries have very strict licensing and administration and they have to insure themselves before the state will give them approval. Director of Community Development Kallien will review the law and provide key parts of the Act for the next meeting. Motion by Member Iyer, seconded by Member Doyle to continue the review to the next regular meeting. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 6. OTHER BUSINESS A. CONFIRMATION OF 2015 MEETING SCHEDULE Chairwoman Tropinski reviewed the Plan Commission meeting date schedule for 2015. The Village must review and confirm its regular meeting schedule yearly for the Village Clerk's office, which publishes the schedule annually at the beginning of each year. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page�7 of 8 October 20, 2014 .�T OTHER BUSINESS 2015 MEETING SCHEDULE Currently the Plan Commission meets on the third Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m. After a brief discussion, there was a consensus to maintain the current schedule for 2015. Motion by Member Iyer, seconded by Member Doyle to confirm and maintain the current Plan Commission schedule and to meet on the third Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m. for its regular meetings in 2015. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. There was no other business to discuss. 7. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Doyle, seconded by Member Iyer to adjourn the meeting at 7:58 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: /s/ Robert L. Kallien Jr. Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 8 October 20, 2014