McHenry Times

City of Crystal Lake Planning and Zoning Commission Met Jan. 6.

Here is the minutes provided by the commission:

The meeting was called to order by Chair Greenman at 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Greenman called the meeting to order. On roll call, members Esposito, Gronow, Jouron, Repholz Skluzacek, and Greenman were present.

Elizabeth Maxwell, City Planner and Katie Cowlin, Assistant City Planner were present from Staff.

Mr. Greenman said this meeting is being recorded for broadcast and future playback on the City’s cable channel.

APPROVE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 2, 2020 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

Mr. Jouron moved to approve the minutes from the November 19, 2020 regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as presented. Mr. Gronow seconded the motion. On roll call, members Jouron, Esposito, Greenman, Skluzacek, Repholz and Gronow vote aye. Motion passed.

2020-200 UDO TEXT AMENDMENT – ARTICLE 9-200E. 13 – PUBLIC HEARING 

Text Amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance Article 9-200 E. 13 Amendment to a Final PUD plan.

Mr. Walter Krawczyk, petitioner, was present to represent the request.

Ms. Maxwell gave an overview of the request. Currently, the UDO requires all of the homeowners in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) sign-off on a PUD Amendment. The petitioner owns property within the Ashton Pointe Subdivision, which has both townhomes and single-family homes. The townhome HOA approved of the proposed PUD Amendment, but the single-family HOA does not have the ability to sign-off and all of the individual property owners must agree. The proposed amendment to the UDO text allows for the sign-off on a PUD Amendment application to be based on a percentage instead of the 100% rule, if there are multiple product types in a PUD.

Mr. Krawczyk stated he would like to amend the UDO so he can apply for a PUD Amendment for the Ashton Pointe PUD. He owns the last five-unit townhome lot and would like to construct two duplexes instead of the five-unit townhome. The duplexes would match the architecture of the existing townhomes and would be higher in price since they would be new construction and each unit would be an end unit. The townhome HOA approved the proposed plans. Due to COVID, Mr. Krawczyk had to mail a request to each single-family home, only 50 have responded and two stated they were not supportive of the request. The current UDO language would therefore prohibit the PUD Amendment from moving forward. The proposed UDO language would allow for the single-family homes to have a say, but would also allow a petition to move forward.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Daniel McLaughlin, 1749 Hartford Lane, stated he would like to see responsible building going on at the subdivision. Developers hire contractors that do not care about a project and he does not like to see that here in Crystal Lake. As a representative of the union, they work to ensure workers have fair wages and provide quality work.

There was no one else in the public wishing to speak on the agenda item. The public hearing was closed.

Ms. Repholz asked how long the UDO has required a 100% consent for a PUD Amendment. Ms. Maxwell stated the current UDO was adopted in 2009, the 100% consent rule was added in 2013.

Mr. Esposito stated he was worried that it would be removing some of the protection that a PUD provides homeowners, but understands that it would be hard to ever get 100% consent.

Mr. Jouron asked what the petitioner’s plan was for the lot he owns. Mr. Krawczyk stated he would like to construct two duplexes instead of a five-unit townhome, so there would be one less unit. Constructing two duplexes allows each unit to be an end unit, which is desirable for homeowners, and the units would sell for a higher price point.

Mr. Gronow asked if the projected sale prices were based on existing end units or interior units and if the townhome HOA approved of his plans. Mr. Krawczyk stated both types of units were used in his analysis and the townhome HOA did approve of the plan. Mr. Gronow said it makes sense to keep a community moving forward and he agrees with staff’s recommendation.

Mr. Greenman stated he shared the same concern as Mr. Esposito. Mr. Greenman asked how many subdivisions the text amendment would affect. Ms. Maxwell said only a handful; there are not a lot of developments that had multiple product types within the same PUD. After hearing that the amendment would not affect many subdivisions in Crystal Lake and that public notices would still be done for a PUD Amendment, Mr. Greenman stated he can support the proposed UDO amendment.

Mr. Esposito said he understands that it would be very difficult to ever get 100% consent and believes the Planning & Zoning Commission will always be open to hear objectors; overall he does not like the idea of opening up PUDs.

Mr. Esposito made a motion to approve the revised language for Article 9-200 E 13 Amendment to a final PUD plan as follows to change the consent threshold as recommended by staff:

Amendment to a final PUD plan. Except as provided herein, for residential planned unit developments, when amending an approved final PUD plan, unless the homeowners' association, where one is present, is authorized to act on behalf of the entire development, every property owner within the PUD is required to consent to the amendment to the PUD. The following exceptions shall apply:

Where a planned unit development consists of different categories of dwellings (single family attached, single-family detached, two-family and multifamily dwellings, or category as identified by the City) any amendment to a final PUD plan relating to one or more category of dwellings shall require the consent of:

a. Ninety percent (90%) of every unit owner of properties within the category of dwellings located within the planned development to which the proposed amendment pertains. Where a homeowners’ association is authorized to act on behalf of some or all of owners within such category, such consent by the homeowners’ association shall be deemed sufficient with respect to the owners who are members of such consenting homeowner’s’ association; and

b. Three-fourths (3/4ths) of the owners of properties within category of dwellings located within the planned development to which the proposed amendment does not pertain. Where a homeowners’ association is authorized to act on behalf of some or all of owners within such category, such consent by the homeowners’ association shall be deemed sufficient with respect to the owners who are members of such consenting homeowners’ association.

Mr. Jouron seconded the motion. On roll call, members Esposito, Gronow,Jouron, Repholz, Skluzacek, and Greenman voted aye. Motion passed 6-0.

2020-197 UDO TEXT AMENDMENT – OTHER CANNABIS USES – PUBLIC HEARING 

Text Amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance to make changes to Article 2, 4, and 10 to address the uses of Medical Cannabis Dispensaries, Medical Cannabis Cultivation Centers and Other Cannabis Business Establishments, which include Craft Growers, Cultivation Centers, Cannabis Infusers, Cannabis Processors, and Cannabis Transporters.

Ms. Maxwell provided a presentation on the proposed text amendment. The text amendment is being discussed because one year ago, adult recreational use cannabis dispensaries were approved by the City Council and it was requested that the other cannabis uses permitted by the State be re-evaluated one year after the approval. Ms. Maxwell reviewed the definitions of the uses that would be discussed and options for motions relating to the cannabis uses. Staff looked at the amending the language for medical cannabis dispensaries and adopting the buffer requirements that were approved for adult recreational use cannabis dispensaries and reviewed expanded buffers of 2,500 feet, 1,000 feet, 500 feet and 250 feet from residential properties for the other cannabis business establishments.

Ms. Maxwell outlined the discussion points: 1. Currently, medical cannabis dispensaries have greater restrictions than the adult use cannabis dispensaries and staff proposes making them equal, 2. Medical cannabis cultivation centers are a special use in the Manufacturing zoning district and staff proposes allowing it as a special use in the Watershed zoning district as well, 3. Other cannabis business establishments could be allowed with buffers or the other uses could be reviewed in the future. The City has not received an application for a cannabis dispensary and there is no knowledge on how cannabis uses affect the community.

Ms. Repholz asked if the other cannabis uses and dispensaries go hand-in-hand. Ms. Maxwell stated they do not, the State issues licenses for each of the uses described in the presentation.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Dave Goss, 633 S. Brentwood Drive, stated he served the City of Crystal Lake for 34 years either on the City Council or a commission. He was a member of the PZC at the time the City adopted language to allow cannabis dispensaries. First, it speaks volumes that the State of Illinois never put the question of cannabis to referendum so the people could decide if they wanted it to begin with, only the legislature voted on the issue. At the city level, the restrictions should be applied to cannabis. When the PZC reviewed the proposed language for cannabis dispensaries, Chief Black provided excellent insight and recommendations, which the PZC voted on and recommended. The City Council did not approve the PZC recommendation as presented and voted to allow the cannabis dispensaries in the B-2 zoning district. Mr. Goss believes that the buffer from residential should have been 500 feet, not 250 feet.

There was no one else in the public wishing to speak on the agenda item. The public hearing was closed.

Ms. Repholz asked if they can wait to discuss the other cannabis uses, it is so new and we could benefit from dispensaries opening up and knowing if any issues arise.

Mr. Greenman asked the Commission if they feel they should have a discussion on the other uses at this time or wait. There was a mixed response. The Commission voiced that they either had an issue with one of the other uses or all of the other uses.

Mr. Greenman focused the discussion on the topic of medical dispensaries and cultivation centers. There was a discussion on the buffer from residential for recreational and medical cannabis dispensaries. The majority of the commission agreed with the staff recommendation. Mr. Greenman stated he feels that medical and recreational cannabis dispensaries are different animals, but understands treating them equally in the UDO.

Mr. Esposito asked if it was a state requirement that the dispensaries be located in a stand-alone building. Ms. Maxwell believed so. Mr. Esposito stated that with the requirement that the dispensary be in a stand alone building and the UDO buffer requirements, the allowable locations are limited.

The Commission agreed that the other cannabis uses should be discussed in the future.

Mr. Esposito made a motion to approve the items A(i) and A(ii) per the staff report and to continue the discussion on other cannabis business establishments for six months.

Mr. Jouron seconded the motion. On roll call, members Esposito, Skluzacek, Gronow, Jouron, Repholz and Greenman voted aye. Motion passed 6-0.

REPORT FROM PLANNING

Ms. Maxwell reviewed the items that were on the previous City Council meeting agenda and the items that are scheduled for the upcoming PZC meeting.

COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION

None.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m.

https://ecode360.com/documents/CR2206/public/583954054.pdf