Plan Commission

APPROVED PLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD The Plan Commission of the Village of Deerfield held a Public Hearing at 7:30 P.M. on April 23, 2014 at the Village Hall, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Chairman Shapiro called the meeting to order. Present were: Dan Shapiro, Chairman Larry Berg Elaine Jacoby Mary Oppenheim Absent were: Alan Bromberg Jim Moyer Stuart Shayman Also present: Jeff Ryckaert, Principal Planner Dan Nakahara, Associate Planner Public Comment on a Non-Agenda Item There was no public comment. (1) Public Hearing on the Request for Approval of an Amendment to a Sign Plan for the Walgreens Company to Allow Ground Signs and Flag Poles at their Corporate Headquarters on Wilmot Road. Eric M. Friedman, AIA, Regional Development Manager, Walgreen Co, representing Walgreens ownership submitted proof of notification. Proof of Publication: April 2, 2015 in the Deerfield Review Mr. Friedman noted that Walgreens is requesting to amend their existing sign plan for their corporate campus by replacing an existing flag pole at the 200 Wilmot Road building with three flag poles at the 200 Wilmot Road driveway entrance. The existing flag pole at the 200 Wilmot Road building is approximately 50’ tall and flies the United States flag and two corporate flags. Of the three proposed flag poles, one 40’ flag pole will fly the United States flag and the other two flag poles will be 35’ feet tall and each fly a corporate flag. Also, at the 200 Wilmot Road driveway entrance the petitioner is requesting to replace an existing double faced ground sign with two single face ground signs. Mr. Friedman referenced a site plan with the locations of the proposed flag poles and the ground signs. Mr. Friedman explained that last December, Walgreens Co. completed a merger with European firm Alliance Boots, resulting in a global holding company, Walgreens Boots Public Hearing April 23, 2015 Page 2 Alliance, Inc. (WBA). At the time of the merger, it was decided that Walgreens Co., as the U.S. operating unit of WBA, would remain headquartered in Deerfield. They have now determined that 108 Wilmot Road will serve as our global headquarters location. One proposed ground sign will have the Walgreens Co red script logo and the other proposed ground sign will have the Alliance Boots text with a logo. The same entities will be reflected in the corporate flags. A discussion ensued on how the companies are branded globally. Chairman Shapiro asked the petitioner to explain the rationale for the flagpoles. Mr. Friedman explained that the property is not a cohesive site but one that Walgreens acquired over many years. The campus is challenged with a lot of access points along Wilmot Road especially with each access point having a distinct address. Mr. Friedman noted that the main visitor building is the 200 Wilmot Road building and therefore recognizing the main entrance as 200 Wilmot Road. Mr. Friedman commented that they want to call it out with the flagpoles so anyone coming to the campus will be able to distinguish this as the main entrance into the campus. Currently a flagpole is in front of the 200 Wilmot Road building. This proposal will remove the existing flagpole and locate three flagpoles at the 200 Wilmot Road driveway. Commissioner Oppenheim noted that the three flagpoles will be shorter than the existing flagpole. Mr. Friedman confirmed that the existing flagpole is 50’ tall and the proposed flagpole that will fly the United States flag is 40’ tall and the flagpoles that will fly the corporate flags will be 35’ tall. Mr. Friedman noted that they have heard from some of the residents regarding their concerns on negative impact this will have on the residential character of the neighborhood and concerns of Walgreens asking for this signage. He commented that from their perspective there is an existing flagpole in place and they are proposing to bring it to the main entrance for wayfinding. The quantity of flags will not change as there are 3 flags flying currently and they are proposing to fly 3 flags. Mr. Friedman also noted that the two ground signs that they are proposing is actually less total square footage and lower in height than the existing double-faced ground sign. Mr. Friedman added that the Walgreens campus is comprised of three separate properties with approximately one million square feet of office space. Their proposal to have signage to identify a development of this size seems appropriate in terms of the scale and character of their property. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing. Respectfully submitted, Daniel Nakahara  APPROVED PLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD The Plan Commission of the Village of Deerfield held a Workshop Meeting at 7:30 P.M. on April 23, 2014 at the Village Hall, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Chairman Shapiro called the meeting to order. Present were: Dan Shapiro, Chairman Larry Berg Elaine Jacoby Mary Oppenheim Absent were: Alan Bromberg Jim Moyer Stuart Shayman Also present: Jeff Ryckaert, Principal Planner Dan Nakahara, Associate Planner (1a) Discussion of the Signage Request for Walgreens Commissioner Oppenheim commented that she has a friend that lives across the street from the subject property and one house in on Laurel Avenue. This resident does not have a problem with the proposal. Commissioner Oppenheim noted that the petitioner brought up a valid point that driving north on Wilmot Road there are additional signs directing people into the other buildings. There is a need for something a little more recognizable to indicate the main building. Commissioner Oppenheim feels the signs are appropriate for the property. She does not have a problem with the flagpoles especially since the flagpole lanyard will be inside of the flagpole to reduce noise. She does not think that they will impose on the residential feel of that neighborhood noting that Wilmot Road is a clear demarcation between the corporate campus and the neighborhood across the street. Commissioner Oppenheim is in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Jacoby agreed with Commissioner Oppenheim’s comments. Commissioner Berg thinks that this is a disjointed property and thinks that the proposal is a great idea by identifying the corporate campus and main building. He believes it is an enhancement, better identification of the main entrance, and does not have a problem with the petition. Chairman Shapiro commented that he lives in close proximity of the subject area and does not have a problem with the petition. Commissioner Oppenheim motioned to recommend approval of an Amendment to a Sign Plan for the Walgreens Company to allow two single face ground signs and three Workshop Meeting April 23, 2015 Page 2 (3) flagpoles at their Corporate Headquarters at the 200 Wilmot Road driveway with necessary variations for being in the perimeter setback, allowing additional signs at this location and exceeding the allowed maximum aggregate ground sign square footage. Commissioner Jacoby seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Yes (4): Berg, Jacoby, Oppenheim, Shapiro Nays (0): None (2) Request for a Finding of Substantial Conformance Re: Approval of a Final Development Plan for Taylor Junction, Jacobs Homes (824 and 836 Chestnut Street) Mr. Calvin Bernstein, Attorney, Samuels & Bernstein, representing the petitioner, introduced Joe Mascheck, architect, BSB Designs, to comment on minor changes from the preliminary development plan to the final development plan. Mr. Mascheck noted that the minor changes are due to final survey data and shifting the air conditioning units in a few locations. Survey data indicates the north setback went from 20.50’ to 20.49’, 22.50’ to 22.49’ and 40.00’ to 39.99’. The west setback went from 32.00 at the northwest corner to 30.84’. Four air conditioning units shifted locations but did not create any new perimeter setback variances. The landscape plan did not change. Commissioner Oppenheim applauded the petitioner on their landscape plan. Mr. Ryckaert noted that Village Attorney Peter Coblentz reviewed the Homeowner Association Declaration and is fine with the document. Commissioner Berg motioned that the Final Development Plan for Taylor Junction, Jacobs Homes (824 and 836 Chestnut Street) is in substantial conformance to their preliminary plan. Commissioner Jacoby seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Yes (4): Berg, Jacoby, Oppenheim, Shapiro Nays (0): None (3) Prefiling Conference: Proposed Special Use for a Medical Cannabis Dispensary at 151 S. Pfingsten Road, Unit V. Lawrence Freedman, Attorney, Ash Anos Freedman and Logan, representing the petitioner stated that in 2013, the State of Illinois passed a law qualifying patients with debilitating medical conditions the right to medical use of cannabis. The law also authorizes medical cannabis dispensing organizations to dispense cannabis to qualifying patients. The law prohibits municipalities from completely prohibiting the location of distribution facilities but may enact reasonable zoning regulations for the facilities. Workshop Meeting April 23, 2015 Page 3 Recently the Deerfield Village Board enacted a text amendment allowing medical cannabis facilities a special use in the C-2 and I-2 zoning districts. Mr. Freedman commented that the petitioner will be leasing a portion of the building at 151 S. Pfingsten Road in Unit V. The 4,103 square foot space will be used for the storage and dispensing of cannabis products as well as certain wellness services. The proposed hours will typically be Monday through Saturday, 8:00AM – 7:00PM and Sunday, 10:00AM – 3:00PM. Only patients with a State of Illinois Department of Health issued card will be allowed to enter the facility. By law, each patient is limited in quantity of 2.5 ounces of medical cannabis every two weeks. The facility will be designed so that all cannabis products will be stored in a steel reinforced vault. All deliveries will be conducted indoors in a secured area with the building door shut. Access into the facility will be limited to only patients with a card, caregivers and employees. Employees will be well screened and trained. Mitch Kahn, 22 year Deerfield resident, along with Matt Darin, both principals in Greenhouse LLC and Deerfield residents noted that they have authorization to open three medical cannabis dispensaries with the other two being in Mokena and Morris besides the current proposed location in Deerfield. Mr. Kahn commented that the facility that they are proposing will be a first class wellness center and are extremely excited and proud of the facility that they are proposing to the community. The facility will offer nutritional counseling, acupuncture, yoga, therapeutic massage and other wellness activities for patients who will have a state issued card. Mr. Kahn noted that, currently as the law exits, patients that utilize their facility will only be able to access medical cannabis from their facility. Mr. Kahn reiterated that only patients with cards issued from the State of Illinois Department of Health will be able to utilize this facility. He added that the process to get a card is extensive. Mr. Kahn referenced the proposed floor plan noting that patients will enter a vestibule area in the facility. The floor plan shows a vestibule area, waiting room, wellness rooms, dispensary area, offices, utility room, employee area, bathrooms and restricted areas including the inventory area, loading area, storage, vault and trash enclosure. Commissioner Berg asked if the entry door will be locked. Mr. Kahn noted that this is still being discussed and it will depend on if they will have security personnel at the door or not, but there will be at least two security guards on site at all times during the operating hours. He added that no one will be able to enter the dispensary area from the vestibule unless they are buzzed in from inside. Commissioner Jacoby asked if there was a rear access door. Mr. Kahn referenced the loading area that will be a secured, fully enclosed and restricted area in the principal structure. They will be following state required protocols from receiving cannabis and cannabis products to disposing of cannabis waste and cannabis products. Mr. Kahn introduced their security consultant Tim Sutton and stated that they have met with the Chief of Police and have gone through the details of their security plan. Due to the sensitive nature of the security plan, details of the plan were not shared in this public Workshop Meeting April 23, 2015 Page 4 forum. Mr. Kahn did comment that their security plan is far in excess of what the state requires. Chairman Shapiro asked if the Chief of Police was okay with their security plan. Mr. Ryckaert noted that the Chief of Police has fine with the preliminary review of the security plan. Commissioner Oppenheim asked if security personnel will be on site through the night. Mr. Kahn noted that there will be security guards on site while they are open but not when the dispensary is closed. Mr. Kahn also commented that the security cameras system they will install will cover all appropriate areas within the facility. Commissioner Oppenheim asked if there will be security lighting or cameras in the parking area noting that the building is isolated. Mr. Kahn noted that the site is isolated and commented that this was possibly the reason a dispensary was allowed in this area. He did add that parking lot is lit at night and that there will be multiple cameras viewing all outside areas of the facility. Mr. Kahn noted that a security officer will be able to watch each camera at all times. Chairman Shapiro asked if the petitioner has reached out to neighboring martial art studio or Bizar Entertainment business in the building. Mr. Kahn commented that they have not done so yet but they have discussed it internally and they will be happy to do so. Chairman Shapiro encouraged the petitioner to do so. Chairman Shapiro asked if the petitioner’s peak hours will be the same as the martial arts studio or Bizar Entertainment business. Mr. Kahn commented that they don’t believe they will have normal peak hours due to their patient base. He believes that due to the types of medical conditions that they will be dealing with, the patients may be older, they may not be able to work and they may be caregivers. Mr. Kahn noted that they will listen to their patients and adapt to their needs by possibly change their hours of operation so that they can be accessible to their patients or providing services that they can utilize. Mr. Kahn commented that the patients will not be able to consume the products on site nor will they be able to open their bags in the store once they are purchased. The type of bags they will use is still being discussed. Mr. Kahn noted that their cannabis products will come to them prepackaged and the dispensary is not allowed to open the packages or repackage the cannabis. They are working on creating relationships with their cultivators on producing the products that their patients will need. Commissioner Berg asked if they will only be able to buy from certain cultivators. Mr. Kahn stated that there were 20 cultivator licenses issued and 56 dispensary licenses issued in Illinois and the Illinois dispensaries can only purchase their products from the Illinois cultivators and the Illinois cultivators can only sell to the Illinois dispensaries. Commissioner Jacoby asked where the next closest dispensaries are located. Mr. Kahn noted that there are three in Mundelein but believes two of them will be moving. There is also as a dispensary in Evanston. Commissioner Jacoby asked how they will handle cash management. Mr. Kahn noted that they have established a relationship with a bank and trying to figure out how many deposits will be made per day or per week. There will not be a lot of cash on-site. They are hopeful that there will be a credit card solution in the future. Workshop Meeting April 23, 2015 Page 5 Chairman Shapiro asked how employees will be trained. Mr. Kahn commented that employees will have to pass state mandated requirements to get hired and they are working with a consultant on an extensive training protocol. Commissioner Oppenheim asked how easy it will be for the patients to access the facility. Will there be accessible parking spaces? Mr. Kahn commented that their end of the parking lot is not heavily utilized. There is an accessible parking lot outside their entry door and will add more if there is a need. Employees will park in the back of the facility. Commissioner Oppenheim commented from an earlier statement that was made that the Village picked these types of locations for this type of business. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that there were very few locations that were left after meeting required distances from parks, schools and childcare facilities and not because the area was isolated. She continued that the Bizar Entertainment facility is in close proximity of this proposed location and it will be an issued that will be raised in the future. Commissioner Oppenheim does not have an issue with this use being in close proximity to Bizar Entertainment. Mr. Kahn noted that he does anticipate that this will be brought up in the future but commented that they take security very seriously and no one will be able to tell what is going on inside of their space. They want to be good neighbors and are willing to discuss any issues with the neighboring businesses. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that this issue will come up whether it is from the businesses themselves or someone speaking for the businesses. Mr. Freedman commented that the reality is that no matter where you set up a dispensary there will be business in the area that caters to youth. The real key is how you secure is the business and how do you insulate your facility from problems. Mr. Kahn also commented that another key is understanding your patients. Commissioner Oppenheim applauded the petitioner for wanting to locate in Deerfield but she concerned that the patients may not have adequate access to the dispensary and it is hard to find. Mr. Freedman stated that the patients will be repeat customers so the first time may be difficult but following visits will be easier for the patients. A discussion ensued on challenges of getting into the site especially for patients whom have significant medical conditions. Commissioner Oppenheim asked that since minors are not allowed in the dispensary, what do single parents do when their children are with them if they can’t bring them in. Mr. Kahn is not sure if this will happen but noted that they will have a lot of staff that they may be able to provide some type of temporary childcare in these types of situations. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that she liked the inclusion of the other wellness services and looking at the patients in a holistic way. Commissioner Berg asked if the only sign being proposed is on the awning. Mr. Freedman confirmed this and noted that it will blend in with the other awning signs for the other tenants. A discussion ensued if awning signs were prohibited by zoning ordinance. Mr. Ryckaert stated that a sign on an awning is considered a wall sign. Workshop Meeting April 23, 2015 Page 6 Mr. Freedman asked the Plan Commission if there were any other comments they would like to add in preparation of the public hearing. Mr. Ryckaert noted that the petitioner is asking for a waiver of the traffic and parking study. A discussion ensued on the traffic impact that this facility will have. It is hard to quantify parking and traffic for a brand new industry with no data. Chairman Shapiro suggested that the parking and traffic study be deferred and look at it again in six months to determine if a traffic and parking study is needed. Commissioner Berg suggested that for the pubic hearing the petitioner calculate the number of parking spaces that they are providing under the current set-up and how many spaces are occupied during the peak hours. The petitioner agreed to provide parking counts. Chairman Shapiro would like the petitioner to take parking counts and do some analysis on the traffic for the public hearing. Mr. Kahn commented that parking is important to them because they want to make sure that their patients are able to access their facility. Commissioner Berg added that the petitioner should consider adding more accessible parking spaces. Items from the Staff Mr. Ryckaert followed up two issues that were brought up at the April 2, 2015 Plan Commission meeting regarding the resubdivision of 1555 Wilmot Road. The first concern was about the size of the proposed smaller lots created by resubdivision being out of character with the existing lots in the area. This issue was examined several years ago when the Residential Redevelopment Review Task Force brought this issue up in 2005- their concern was larger lots out of character with smaller lots. Mr. Ryckaert stated that in a 2005 memo, Village legal counsel explained that three is little discretion in when it comes to approving a subdivision. The second concern was turning an existing front yard (with a large) set back into a corner side yard (with a lesser set back) when a resubdivision of property occurs. In the proposed resubdivision at 1555 Wilmot Road, this was not a concern because an existing 40 foot building line on Wilmot Road (the old front yard) would remain in place. It is not uncommon to turn a front yard into a corner side yard when a resubdivision occurs; it was discussed if a text amendment would be needed at some point in the future to address this issue. Mr. Ryckaert could not recall complaints about this matter during the past resubdivisions. Mr. Ryckaert also spoke with longtime Building and Code Enforcement Supervisor, Clint Case who commented that he has not heard complaints when a house is being constructed and the neighbors see the house closer to the lot line than where the old house was located. A text amendment could address this issue by keeping the corner side yard set back the same as the front set back when a resubdivision of property occurs. Based on his conversation with Mr. Case and what he has witnessed in the zoning approval process, this matter has not been an issue in the past. Chairman Shapiro suggested that this issue could be looked at again in the future. Workshop Meeting April 23, 2015 Page 7 The commissioners observed that many times building lines are already in place when a resubdivision occurs and these building lines will stay in place. Mr. Ryckaert explained that vacating a building line is hard because all of the property owners in a subdivision have to agree to vacating a building line, sometimes that’s 40 homeowners. Vacating building lines is not a common request in the Village. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing. There being no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Daniel Nakahara