McHenry Times

City of Crystal Lake Planning and Zoning Commission met Nov. 17.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

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

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

Kathryn Cowlin, Director of Community Development, Elizabeth Maxwell, City Planner, and Katie Rivard, 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. He led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 3, 2021 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

Mr. Jouron moved to approve the minutes from the November 3, 2021 regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as presented. Mr. Atkinson seconded the motion. On roll call, members Atkinson, Gronow, Jouron, Repholz, Teetsov, Skluzacek and Greenman voted aye. Motion passed.

2021-192 WAREHOUSE – 275 SOUTH MAIN STREET – REZONING, FINAL PLAT, AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT – PUBLIC HEARING

The Petitioner requested a continuation to the December 1, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Mr. Skluzacek made a motion to continue the request to the December 1, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Mr. Atkinson seconded the motion. On voice vote, all members voted aye. Motion passed.

2021-190 UDO TEXT AMENDMENT – CANNABIS USES – PUBLIC HEARING Amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance recommending all cannabis uses (Cannabis Dispensary, Cannabis Business Establishments [Craft Growers, Cultivation Centers, Infusers/Processors, and Transporters], Medical Cannabis Cultivation Center and Medical Cannabis Dispensaries) as Limited Uses, the removal of the limitation to only allow two dispensaries at any one time and a reduction in the buffers from 500 feet to 250 feet.

The City Planner presented some background information on the cannabis state licensing and the proposed text amendment changes.

The Chairman requested that the proposed text amendment discussion be broken out by each sub-portion; the request to change it from a Special Use to a Limited Use, the elimination of the maximum number of recreational dispensaries, and the reduction of the buffers to 250 feet.

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

Mr. Skluzacek asked how the buffer is measured. Staff confirmed it is measured from the property lines of the identified protected uses and if a building is outside the buffer it is ok for the use to locate there.

Ms. Teetsov asked why the changes were proposed and if it was just to streamline the process. Staff confirmed it was to help reduce time and costs associated with the public hearing process.

Mr. Skluzacek said he was okay with making it a Limited Use Permit.

Ms. Repholz preferred that the process remain the same and kept as a Special Use Permit.

Mr. Gronow asked about the criteria for approval. Staff confirmed that the current Special Use criteria would become the Limited Use criteria. If the criteria could not be met it would cause it to become a Special Use and come before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.

Ms. Teetsov preferred that it remain a Special Use Permit so that the petitioner can come before them and share their business model and they can learn a bit more about the operation.

Mr. Atkinson was not in favor of making it a Limited Use Permit. All of these proposed changes are interrelated and they will make it easier to open a cannabis based business.

Mr. Jouron wanted the Special Use Permit so that the public can have input.

Mr. Greenman stated that if the criteria are the same then if it meets the standards this commission would be approving it anyway, so it really would not change the impact if staff was approving it or if the commission was approving it.

Ms. Repholz said that this industry was still new and felt they should have as much discovery and discussion as possible.

Mr. Gronow noted that the last petition for the dispensary would have become a Special Use anyway because it did not meet the buffer requirement.

Mr. Greenman introduced the next topic of eliminating the maximum number of dispensaries at any one time.

Mr. Atkinson said the number seems fine now and it makes sense to leave it at two until the City actually gets two, then evaluate the number.

Mr. Jouron asked about the limits on the licensing. Staff confirmed that the State issues only a certain number of licenses for the areas.

Ms. Teetsov wanted the number to remain at two.

Mr. Gronow asked how many inquiries the City is receiving. Staff stated that after the last batch of licenses was issued by the State the City received several calls, with three or four being serious inquiries. There have also been a few calls from the other businesses types including growers and infusers.

Ms. Repholz asked if consumption was allowed on site. Staff confirmed no public consumption and no cannabis cafes or lounges are permitted in the City.

Mr. Skluzacek asked for clarification on which uses were limited. Staff explained that only recreational cannabis dispensary is limited to two.

Mr. Jouron wondered if more dispensaries would help reduce the costs of the product for consumers since more supply would reduce demand and should lower the prices.

Mr. Greenman introduced the final question about the reduction of the buffers.

Mr. Jouron was okay with reducing the buffers to 250 feet, but then did not want to see any petitioners come forward and ask for variations from that buffer.

Mr. Atkinson reiterated that all these components tie together. There was a reason the buffer was set at 500 feet so they should leave it.

Ms. Teetsov said the 500 feet seems reasonable.

Mr. Gronow said the 500 feet seems too much, but that the 250 feet seems too little. It looks like most municipalities are more than 250 feet.

Mr. Skluzacek was okay with the 250 feet, but agreed they should not reduce it below that with variations.

Ms. Repholz liked the comparison chart of how Crystal Lake would compare with other municipalities. She asked staff to ballpark how many more sites would open. Staff guessed it would go from three or four locations to maybe seven or eight. She thought it could be hundreds so that was good to know that there are still limited spaces so the City would not be inundated with these uses.

Mr. Greenman said there appears to be a bit more consensus on this portion of the text amendment.

Ms. Repholz asked if the City ever undertook a community survey to get the feedback from the residents. Staff stated that the public meetings and hearings were held, but no individual survey was sent out.

Ms. Teetsov said it would be interesting to survey the other municipalities on what zoning regulations are working well and which are not working.

Mr. Greenman asked if they could adopt new language similar to best practices like what the recent petitioner explained about limiting the number of customers, having security, limiting traffic circulation, etc. Staff cautioned the commission that these items were out of the zoning ordinance authority and were more of a licensing restriction, which the City did not have authority to impose.

Ms. Repholz made a motion to deny the portion of the text amendment changing it from an SUP to LUP. Mr. Atkinson seconded the motion, on roll call members Atkinson, Jouron, Repholz and Teetsov voted aye. Members Gronow, Skluzacek, and Greenman voted no. Motion passed 4-3 to remain an SUP.

Mr. Atkinson make a motion to deny the portion of the text amendment removing the limitation. Mr. Jouron seconded the motion. On roll call members Atkinson, Jouron, Repholz, and Teetsov voted aye. Members Gronow, Skluzacek, and Greenman voted no. Motion passed 4-3 to keep the limit of two dispensaries.

Ms. Repholz make a motion to approve the portion of the text amendment to alter the buffer from 500 feet to 250 feet for all uses. Mr. Skluzacek seconded the motion. On roll call members Jouron, Gronow, Repholz, Skluzacek, and Greenman voted aye. Members Atkinson and Teetsov voted no. Motion passed 5-2.

TRAINING

Abby Wilgreen, City Engineer and Mike Magnuson, Director of Public Works presented information about the City’s traffic study process. Ms. Wilgreen shared that there is a list of pre-approved consultants and that the City hires the traffic consultant and the costs are paid for by the petitioner. There are certain parameters that would trigger a traffic study, as well as site by site analysis. Mr. Magnuson went through what a traffic consultant reviews to create the study, which includes existing conditions, future conditions of both build and no build situations, the specific use’s trip generation and the surrounding roadway network. They also analyze on site circulation, parking and pedestrian access.

The Commission members thanked staff for their presentation. They felt it was great for them to understand the inner workings of a traffic study. The PZC had some questions about site traffic and how it is analyzed and what their role should be in looking at these uses or their impacts. They also asked how staff got involved if there are problems with any on site circulation or backups and how they are resolved.

REPORT FROM PLANNING

Ms. Maxwell provided an update on the items approved by City Council and the itemsscheduled for the next PZC meeting.

COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION

There were no comments from the Commission.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Jouron made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Atkinson seconded the motion. On voice vote, all members voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

https://ecode360.com/documents/CR2206/public/633298731.pdf