City of Geneva Planning and Zoning Commission met Nov. 14.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
Chairman Stocking called the meeting of the Geneva Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call followed:
Present: Chairman Stocking; Commissioners DeBates, Evans, Kosirog, Mead, Rittenhouse, Slifka
Absent: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director David DeGroot; City Planner Paul Evans; Ron Sandack, Esq., attorney for the City of Geneva
Public Present: Susan R. George, 269 Larsdotter Lane; Victor Portincaso, 2717 Blackman Rd.; John R. Stevenson, 521 Forest View Drive; Mary Lu and John O’Halloran, 1919 Heather Rd.; Dr. John and Christine Kefer, 210 S. Bennett; Julie Pouilly, 1635 Kein Circle; Brett Borter, 623 North St.; Planet Depos Court Reporter Joanne Ely; Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt; public and press
Approval of the Agenda
Motion by Commissioner Kosirog, second by Commissioner Slifka to approve the agenda. Motion passed by voice vote of 7-0.
Public Hearing
A. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments – Request for text amendments to Chapter 2 (Definitions), Chapter 3 (General Zoning Provisions), Chapter 4A (Downtown Districts), Chapter 6 (Office and Commercial Districts), Chapter 7 (Office Research and Industrial Districts), and Chapter 11 Off-Street Parking and Loading; Traffic and Access Regulations) of Title 11 (Zoning) of the General City Code related to the regulation of recreational and medical cannabis uses. Applicant: City of Geneva
Chairman Stocking read the procedures for the public hearing and administered the oath to those individuals that would be speaking on this matter. He further read a statement from the City Council to this commission as it relates to reviewing the zoning and land use ordinance for potential sites for legal businesses. Chairman Stocking emphasized to the commissioners and public that tonight’s meeting would focus on relevant land use and zoning matters only.
City Planner Paul Evans read into the record the contents of the Planning and Zoning Commission file.
Development Director David DeGroot reiterated the commission’s charge for tonight was to focus on where cannabis uses may be appropriate within the City of Geneva. A PowerPoint presentation followed with DeGroot reviewing what the passage of the State’s Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act (P.A. 101-0027) meant for the City, noting the Act becomes effective on January 1, 2020. A timeline for license applications followed which included the businesses for infusers, craft growers, and transporters, and would include an additional 75 dispensing organization licenses. Details followed on the various types of cannabis businesses and the fact that the State of Illinois would be responsible for licensing the businesses; not the City of Geneva. However, as explained by Director DeGroot the Act did provide municipalities the ability to regulate cannabis businesses through its zoning, i.e., the reason for tonight’s meeting.
Further elaboration followed on what authority the City had to regulate the cannabis businesses, where the City was currently with regard to this matter, and a summary of staff’s proposed zoning ordinance amendments. Director DeGroot explained that should the commission and City determine to not allow any uses, the commission should, nevertheless, define the use to remove any ambiguity about whether or not a certain type of business is permitted, either within its zoning district or within the City. If a use is defined and not listed as a permitted use or special use in the district or, if the use is not listed in any zoning district in the City, it was not allowed. However, if the use was not defined, then cannabis uses could be considered under the General Use categories – warehousing, packaging, processing or retail sales for dispensaries and would be permitted without any additional regulation.
A review of the nine Special Use Standards followed with Director DeGroot explaining how they would be required to be met before going forward to the City Council. Next, a review of the Table of Permitted & Special Uses within each zoning category followed along with parking space requirements for transportation organizations. Maps of potential sites were placed on the overhead, including their buffers. A list of those communities considering to prohibit or permit the Cannabis Act were also placed on the overhead. Director DeGroot offered to provide additional maps to the commissioners. A closing summary of the proposed amendments were clarified.
Per Commissioner Mead’s question, Director DeGroot provided on the overhead maps reflecting the various buffers the City could require in its zoning districts. Commissioner Mead also confirmed with staff that the commission could determine which zoning districts the use could be located – such as out of the central part of the City. Measurement of the buffer zones were clarified (property line to property line) noting that most of the development along Randall Road was located in Planned Unit Developments which had their own list of uses. Director DeGroot explained to the commission that buffer sizes could be determined by this commission as well as them picking and choosing where such uses should be located.
Concerns were voiced about the process that was before the commission, the fact that a significant amount of information was being presented by staff, and that a decision by the City Council had to be made in a short period of time. The Commission further asked Staff about its options, asked how the proposed use was compared to that of a liquor store, and the fact that the three uses: cultivation centers, craft growers and dispensing organizations could potentially be located in the City’s northeast industrial park.
Commissioner Kosirog pointed out to fellow commissioners that many of the uses could be categorized into the Light Industrial Manufacturing district, which made sense. Chairman Stocking confirmed with staff that City Council could determine how many dispensaries it wanted, wherein DeGroot explained it could be written into the zoning ordinance as a restriction. Per Commissioner Evans’ question, DeGroot confirmed that a person who rezones a parcel to residential within a buffer zone could do so knowing they were within that zone. However, as pointed out by Commissioner Mead, if the use ever closed and another one was proposed to be opened as a new special use, they might not be able to do so at the same location.
Chairman Stocking invited the public to speak.
Ms. Susan George, 269 Larsdotter Lane, pointed out why everyone moves to Geneva, i.e., for the love of our kids and for home values. Ms. George pointed out that cannabis was illegal under federal law, it affects the developing brain, and by increasing the availability of cannabis to the youth was sending the wrong message. She asked to not grow, package, or sell it in the City.
Mr. John Stevenson, 521 Forest View Drive, who grew up in Geneva, explained his own experience of moving to Colorado Springs, having a family and then returning to Geneva due to the significant changes he saw in that city and not in a good way. Regarding dispensaries, he read a letter from an individual from Colorado Springs as it pertained to the nine special use standards. In the letter, Mr. Stevenson pointed out this individual, who saw people come to Colorado Springs for the cannabis, saw increased traffic, increased questionable individuals, increased accidents, increased homelessness and panhandlers with signs, human waste, higher criminal activity and decreased home values. The individual’s letter summarized the social decline of Colorado Springs. Mr. Stevenson reminded the commission to consider the nine Special Use Standards and emphasized that Geneva was unique and it had to stay that way. As for the comparison of liquor stores to dispensaries, he pointed out there were numerous liquor stores or businesses that sold alcohol which diffused the customer base, whereas, if only a few dispensaries were allowed in the City, they would cause significant traffic to that dispensary. Mr. Stevenson asked commissioners to hold true to the nine special use standards.
Ms. Mary Lou O’Halloran, 1919 Heather Road, referenced a packet she and her husband gave the commissioners which discussed research on the cannabis topic. She also referenced a book to read discussing the same topics as mentioned by the previous speaker. Ms. O’Halloran suggested the commission table this matter until they reviewed and read the information provided since they were the City’s planners and that what was being proposed was against the character and values of the City.
Mr. John O’Halloran, 1919 Heather Road, also referenced the packet of information that was provided to the commissioners. He believed the commission could make a recommendation to opt out of all the proposed considerations. He distributed copies of information on local governments that have opted out, citing other cities have done it and so did Kane County. He also distributed a copy of a model ordinance drafted by the Illinois Municipal League that the City of Geneva could use to opt out. Mr. O’Halloran believed that if the model ordinance was used, staff’s statement about the defined terms would still exist.
With regard to cultivation centers and whether the City should consider them, Mr. O’Halloran believed an environmental impact study should be considered since certain smells would be associated with cannabis and certain chemicals could be added to the product. He distributed to the commissioners some pictures of dispensaries, pointing out that medical dispensaries are a cash business, which he believed was a target. On that point, Mr. O’Halloran suggested getting the police department’s perspective on this matter. He voiced concerns about how a dispensary should look from the outside and that commissioners should consider window signage or not, its location (not on Third Street or State Street), and remember that downtown Geneva was a tourist draw from other areas/states. Other concerns included dispensaries being located where children walk, such as shopping malls and parks, hours of operation, and how the marketing of edibles will be considered. Lastly, Mr. O’Halloran believed interior and exterior surveillance recording for such businesses should be kept for a certain period of time and the age of the employees be restricted.
Ms. Christine Kefer, 210 S. Bennett St., a current property owner and former business owner in the downtown area inquired why the City would be constraining the businesses that are trying to remain open by allowing such a use.
Dr. John Kefer, 210 S. Bennett St., explained the Medical Cannabis Patient Program -- a compassion use program -- started in 2014 in Illinois, which covered about 100 different ailments that cannabis could be used for. As a doctor, he described the conflict that exists with cannabis under federal law and State law. With regard to the zoning for its recreational use, Dr. Kefer explained that since cannabis was legalized in Colorado, the State has seen an increase in traffic accidents, traffic fatalities, and no test exists to measure a driver’s impairment. He envisions if cannabis becomes available here more traffic deaths will also occur. He reminded everyone of the incurred costs. He suggested the City consider using its current medical zoning for the recreational zoning. Lastly, Dr. Kefer asked the commissioners to consider the cost to the town and the young.
Ms. Judy Pouilly, 1635 Keim Circle, Geneva, President for the Geneva Coalition for Youth, asked about the age requirements for the patrons of such businesses, wherein Atty. Sandack confirmed they had to be 21 years old. Ms. Pouilly shared why she moved to Geneva when people ask her. Recently learning that Naperville opted out, she wondered whether people would then come to Geneva if the dispensaries were allowed. She extended appreciation to the commissioners for their work.
Mr. Brett Borter, 623 North Street, Geneva, strongly favored opting out since cannabis had no place in the community.
Ms. Pouilly returned and stated that Geneva School District 304 was holding a forum next Thursday (Nov. 21), 7:00 p.m. at the high school called Legalize Marijuana – What Now? and she believed it was another opportunity to hear another viewpoint. She emphasized the importance of educating families and the community about the perceived risk of cannabis.
Hearing no further comments, the Chairman entertained a motion to close the public hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Kosirog, second by Commissioner Evans to close the public hearing. Roll call:
Aye: DeBates, Evans, Kosirog, Mead, Rittenhouse, Slifka, Stocking
Nay: None
MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0
Commissioner Evans suggested discussing the three main types of cannabis businesses, as was suggested earlier by Commissioner Kosirog. The Chairman concurred. However, DeBates shared her concerns on this matter, specifically that cannabis was legal in the state, but not legal federally and could pose some problems. She believed the City Council should have made their decision first, followed by the commission determining the locations. She suggested waiting a year to see what happens, commenting that there would only be one year’s loss of revenue. Commissioner Rittenhouse questioned the up-side of the matter, what was the rush, how would the uses be regulated by the State, and that City Council should have made a firm stand.
Per the Chairman’s question, Director DeGroot emphasized the need to define the terms before January 1, 2020. Discussion arose regarding the options before the commission and how their recommendations would proceed to the City Council level. Additional dialog followed to not make a decision to opt out but to at least review the draft amendments, make any necessary amendments to them, before sending them to the City Council where Council could make their decision. Atty. Sandack provided clarification of the City’s opt out choice and reminded the commissioners that the City Council did want this commission’s input as to what would the zoning look like if the uses were permitted.
Commissioners agreed the definitions needed to be added to Chapter 2 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance but for now to discuss certain uses first, such as growers and cultivators, followed by a second discussion of the dispensaries. Commissioners proceeded to discuss what uses and the number of locations they wanted to allow in the City.
Motion by Commissioner Mead, second by Commissioner Kosirog to add the text amendments to Chapter 2, Definitions, of the Geneva City Code related to the Recreational Medical Cannabis Uses, subject to staff’s Findings of Fact, and those definitions listed on Page 2 of staff’s report. Roll call:
Aye: DeBates, Evans, Kosirog, Mead, Rittenhouse, Slifka, Stocking
Nay: None
MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0
Director DeGroot and the commissioners proceeded to review the City’s zoning map for possible cannabis craft grower locations. Commissioner Mead confirmed with staff that craft growers would probably not generate much foot traffic since the product was grown inside, nor would such businesses be visible to the community. Commissioners appeared to agree to recommend one or two craft grower sites to see the affects of this type of business on the City and then adding more locations later. Further commissioner dialog arose that the uses, such as growers or the infusers, was an economic opportunity for businesses to locate in the City, yet it was still important to have buffers away from schools, etc., and the sites be located away from the downtown. Commissioners confirmed with staff that it could recommend to Council to have no dispensaries within the City; staff confirmed in the affirmative.
After having dialog with staff on how one would increase the number of growers in a specific location (text amendment by the City or a petitioner) in the Light Industrial zoning district (east side of the City), and after reviewing the buffer sizes, the commissioners agreed to consolidate the following uses: craft growers, cultivators, transporters, and infusers/processors into the industrial zones with a 150 feet buffer (Stocking steps away 9:34 pm), except for dispensaries. (Stocking returns 9:36 p.m.).
Asked if the City needed to provide an opportunity for medical dispensaries within the corporate limits, Atty. Sandack offered to research the matter.
Discussion followed whether the Commission should consider allowing medical dispensaries with the consolidated uses above, wherein some commissioners pointed out there were such dispensaries already located in St. Charles and North Aurora. Commissioners Kosirog and DeBates were of the believe that having a medical dispensary in Geneva offered some flexibility to the City and allowed the City to evaluate the matter for the future. For the record, Commissioner Kosirog was supportive of locating a recreational dispensary far from the downtown and limiting it to one or two dispensaries. Commissioners agreed to wait and not allow recreational dispensaries at this time. Consensus was reached to include medical dispensaries in the list of allowable uses.
Motion made by Commissioner Mead to request that the text amendments to Chapter 7 of the Office Research Industrial districts (Industrial I-1 and I-2 Districts) of the Geneva City Code, as listed on Page 8 of staff’s report, be adopted. The list will not include: Cannabis Cultivation Center-Medical, Cannabis Cultivation Center-Recreational or Cannabis Dispensing Organization-Recreational, subject to staff’s Findings of Fact provided in staff’s report. Second by Commissioner Evans. Roll call:
Aye: DeBates, Evans, Kosirog, Mead, Rittenhouse, Slifka, Stocking
Nay: None
MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0.
Motion made by Commissioner Mead to strike and not adopt the text amendments to Chapter 4A - Downtown Districts -- as listed on Pages 6 and 7 of staff’s report. Second by Commissioner Evans. Roll call:
Aye: DeBates, Evans, Kosirog, Mead, Rittenhouse, Slifka, Stocking
Nay: None
MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0.
Motion made by Commissioner Mead that the text amendments for Chapter 6 – Office and Commercial Districts -- as listed on Page 7 of staff’s report, not be adopted. Second by Commissioner Slifka. Roll call:
Aye: DeBates, Evans, Kosirog, Mead, Rittenhouse, Slifka, Stocking
Nay: None
MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0.
Motion made by Commissioner Mead that the text amendments for Chapter 11, Off Street Parking and Loading, Traffic and Access Regulations of Title 11 (Zoning) of the Geneva City Code, and as listed on Page 9 of staff’s report, be adopted. Cannabis Dispensing Organizations-Recreational, Cannabis Cultivation Centers-Medical and Cannabis Cultivation Centers-Recreational are not adopted. Second by Commissioner Evans. Roll call:
Aye: DeBates, Evans, Kosirog, Mead, Rittenhouse, Slifka, Stocking
Nay: None
MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0.
Motion made by Commissioner Mead that the text amendments related to Chapter 3 General Zoning Provisions of Title 11 (Zoning) of the Geneva City Code and as listed on Page 3 of staff’s report, be adopted. Item C -- Cultivation Centers-Medical and Recreational is not adopted. Item D, Recreational Dispensing Organizations is not adopted. Item E is deleted in its entirety. Second by Commissioner Slifka. Roll call:
Aye: DeBates, Evans, Kosirog, Mead, Rittenhouse, Slifka, Stocking
Nay: None
MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0.
Public Comment – None
Other Business
Director DeGroot stated he would confirm with the City Administrator the scheduled date for City Council to consider this matter, possibly for November 25, 2019.
Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Evans. Second by Commissioner Rittenhouse. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote of 7-0.
https://www.geneva.il.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_11142019-1534
Alerts Sign-up