HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 Ordinance No. 015•
•
•
ORDINANCE NO . ..I£
SERIES OF 2001
BY AUTHORITY
COUNCIL BILL 0. 12
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER GARRETT
AN ORDINANCE APPROVh G THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPME T (PUD) FOR
CRAIG HOSPITAL CA.i\1.PUS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTIO OF SOUTH
CL-IBKSO STREET AND EAST GIRARD A VENUE IN THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO .
WHEREAS, Craig Hospital submitted a Planned Unit Development application to
rezone the Craig Hospital campus from R-3 High Density Residence District to a PUD ;
and
WHEREAS, the subject site iB located at the intersection of South Clarkson Street
and East Girard Avenue and is ~-om posed of three parcels totaling 4.9 acres; and
WHER th, pplication requests rezoning from R-3 High Density Residence to a
PUD to allow updating of the Craig Hospital Campus; and
WHEREAS, the Craig Hospital campus is currenUy :r.oned R-3 with a Planned
Development (PJ,I overlay, which was pproved by City Council as Resolution No. 81,
Series of 1994; and
WHEREAS, the PD Ordiruulce was repealed as a result of the adoption of the
Piauned U nit Development Ordinance in 1996; and
WHEREAS, updating the campus to a P UD provid es an opportunity to ·mo re closely
tailor the district regulations to the specific development needs of Craig Hoapi and
provides the opportunity for unified development control of the entire site; and
WHEREAS, the proposed PUD site includes the original P and an additional
parcel on South Emer u Streflt; and
WHEREAS, the two existing apartment buildings on East Girard Avenue a.nd the
Friendship House will be removed in order to cons truct a 4-etory Family Housing
building BDd 6-level parking st:ructure on the South Emerson Street portion of the site:
and
WHEREAS, the proposed Craig Hospital PUD maximum building height ui with.in
the PUD is proposed for 80 feet. with the existing hospital buildings being at
approximately 60 feet in height including equipment towl'rs; actual building height is
approximately 45 feet : and
WHEREAS the height of the proposed Family Housing building and parking
structure is 64 BDd 70 feet respectively; and
WHEREAS, City parking standards require a total of 249 spaces for the hospital
and hDusU1g uses and the proposed provides 401 i,ark.ing spaces: and
-1-
WHEREAS, excess parking ia be ing provid ed now to relieve parking congestion in
the area and to ensure adequate parking in the future; and
WHEREAS , the proposed landscape area for the PUD ia approximately 33% of the
total site and ia consistent with comparable deve lopment and e:i:.ceeds the present R-3
landsc11ning standard or 25% for non -residential use in the D istrict: and
WHEREAS . the propoaed Craig Hospital PUD is consistent wi th the
Comprehensive Plan, contributes to the vitality of the ro mmunity and supports the
residential and hospital mixed-use nature of the neighborhood : and
WHEREAS, the proposal meets the intent of the PUD Ordinance by providing for a
use that is an e.'(J)ansion of the current use and that is compatible with the adjacent
usee ; and
WHEREAS, the Englewood Planning and Zoning Com mission held a Public
Hearing on Febl"llary 6 , 2001 reviewed the proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commiasion recomm,:,nded
approval of th.e PUD:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
E GLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
~-The Englewood City Council hereby ap proves the Planned Unit
. Development attached BS "Exhibit A" for Craig Hospital at the intersection of South
Clarkson Street a.nd East Girard Avenue.
Introduced, read in full , and pa ssed on fi.rat reading on the 5th day of Miuch. 2001.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 9th d ay of March, 2001.
A Public Hearing was held on the 2•• day of April, 2001.
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 16th day of April, 2001.
Published by title as Ordmsnce No . 1.£ Series of 2.001, on the 20th day of April,
2001.
-2-
•
•
•
•
•
I, Louc:rishia A. Ellis, City Cler k of toe Ci ty of Englewood , Color a do, hereby certify
t hat the a bove and fore going ia a true copy of the Ordinance p t ; on final re a ding
and p u blished by ti as Ordinance No.~ Series of 2 l .
-3-
•
•
•
COUNCIL COMM UNICATION
Date Agenda Item Subject Case PUD-2001-01
Craig Hospital Planned Unit
March .5 , 200 1 10 a iii Devel opment
INmATEDBY STAFF SOURCE
Cra ig Hosp ital Tricia Langon, Senior Planner
PREVIO US COUNCI L ACTIO N
There has bee n no previous Council ac:t1on concerning this proposal.
PR EVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered Cra ig Hospital Planned Unit Development at a
public hearing on February 6, 200 1. No members oi the public were present at the hearing. The
Commission voted to forward the Plann Uni t Development to City Council with a
recommend ation for approval.
RECOMME NDED ACTION
Staff recommends tl,at Council set April 2, 2001 as the date for Public Hearing on the proposed
Craig Hospit,d Planned Unit Development
BACKGROUND
Th e proposed Planned Unit Development site i s located at the intersection of South Cla rkson Street
and East C ir rd Avenue and is composed of three parcels totaling 4.9 acres . The su rrounding area
is zoned R-3 e c ept for an area of R-1-C Single-Family Resi dence District lying northeas t of the
Clarkson-Emerson alle y at Its intersecti on with Eas t G i rard Aven ue. Th e R-3 area indudes a mix of
single-fam ily, duplex and multi-family uses , the Swedish Hospital campus, commerci al and
professional office us es. The R-1 -C area includes sin gle-family reside nce us e.
The Craig Hospital ca mpus is current! zo ne d R-3 , 1th a Plann ed Development (PD ) overlay, which
was approved by Council as Resolution um ber 81 , Series of 1994. The PD Ordin ance wa s
repealed as a result of the aaoption of the Pl anned Unit De elopment Ordinance in 1996.
Upda tin g the campus to a PUD pro ides an opp ortunity to more cl osely tailor the district
regulations to the specific development need s oi the H ospital and pro ides th e o pportunity fo r
un i 1ed de\ elopm ent control of the entire si te. Th e proposed PUD si te i ncludes the origi nal PD and
an addi tional parcel on Sout h Emerson Stre et.
A ALYSJS:
The Planned Unit Developmen t is a rezoning process th at es tablishes speci Ic zo ni ng and site
planni n g c riteria to meet the needs of a specific de velopment proposal that may not be
a commodated within the existing zoning scheme or d velopment regulations. Approval of the
proposed Craig Hospital P D vacares the existin g PD ove rlay .
The Craig Hospital Planned Unit Development proposes th at th e e isling main hospital, transi tional
care building, and th e north surface parking lot rema in unchanged. T1 o ei isting apartment
b uildings on East Girard Avenu e and the Friendship House will be removed in order to co nstruct a
4-story Family Housing building and 6-le el parking struc1ure on the South Emerson Street portion
of the site . As a nationally recogn ized neurol ogical care center provi ding 1reatment and
rehabil itation of pa tients with brain and spinal cord injuries, Craig Hospital encourages family
members to participate i n pa tient rehabilitation. The Fam ily Housing build ing will provide accessible
hous ing for famil y members and former patients returning for re-evaluation. No medical services
will be pro ided in th ese units .
Maximum building height within the PUD is p roposed for 80 feel The existing hospital buildings are
approxima tely 60 feet in heigh t incl uding equipment rowers; actua l buil ding height is approxi ma tely
45 feet. Heigh t of th e proposed Family Housing bu ilding and parking structure is 64 and 70 feet
respec1 i11eiy.
•
City parking standards require a 1otal o f 249 spaces for the hos pital and housing uses. The proposal
provides 401 pa rk ing spaces . Excess parking is being provided no w to relieve parking congestion In •
the area and to ensu re adequate parking in the future.
Proposed landscape area for the PUD is approximately 33% or the total site . The proposed
landscape plan is consistent with comparable development and exceeds the present R-3
landscaping standard or 25% for non-residential use in the District.
The proposed Craig Hospital PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, contributes to the
vitality or the communi and supports the residential and hospital mixed-u se nature of the
neighborhood . The p roposal meets the i ntent of th e PUD Ordinance b p roviding fo r a use tha t is
an expansion of the curren t use and that is compa tible with the adjacent uses.
LIST Of ATTACH MENTS
Proposed Bill for O rdinance
Staff Report
Findings of Fa ct
•
•
•
•
4', ~~
C T y 0 F E GLEWOOD
COMMUNITY D E V E.L O P M E N T
TO:
THRU :
Planning and Zoning Commission .A't/
Robert Simpson, D irector, Community Development'\f r
.-(Jricia Lan gon, Senio r Planner
January 30, 2001
FROM :
DATE :
SUB/ECT: Case PUD-2001-01 -Publ ic H nng.
Crai g Hospital Planned Unit Dev I 1 11ent
APP LI CANT:
Cr aig Hospital
Denn is f. O 'M alle v, President
3425 South Clarkson Street
Englewood , Co lorado 80110
PROPERTY OW ER S:
Craig Hospital
Denni s J. O 'Malle y, Presidel't
3425 Sou th Clarkson Street
Eng lewood. Co lora d o 801 10
CURRE T ZONE DISTRICT :
R-3. High Density Residen ce District
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
See Plan ned Unit Development packet
REQUEST :
The app licJnt has sub mitted a Planned Unit Development .1pplication to rezone the Craig
Hospua l cam pus fro m R-3, H igh Densily Residence District to PUD .
RE COMMENDATION:
The Departmen t oi Community Development recomm en ds that the Planning and Zoning
Commiss ion ap prove the proposed Craig Hospital Planned Unit Development
LOCATION OF PROPERn':
The si te 1s locate d at th e i ntersection of South Clarkson St reet and East Girard Aven ue and
,s composed or three pa rcels totaling 4.9 acres. (See Propos ed Site Plan, Sheet PU0-3 for
parcel numbers and surrounding zoning). Parcel 1 (southeast corner of the in tersection )
1000 Englewood Par\:wtJv Engl ewood, Coloraco 801 10 PHONE 303 -7 62-2342 FAX J0J-i63-6895
www CLtf'Jl.-.wood.co.UJ
..
includes the "Easr building, two conver:ed apartment structure s, Friendship House, and •
pa rking lot and contains 2.1 3 acres . Parcel 2 (northeast corner of intersection) includes a
surface parking lot and conta ins .54 acres. Parcel 3 (southwest corner of in tersection)
incl udes the "West" building (main hospital) and contai ns 2.23 acres .
The surro unding area Is zoned R-3 except for the area north of East Girard Avenue and east
of the alle y be twe en South Cla rkson and South Em er son Streets , wh ich is zoned R-1-C. The
R-3 area includes a mix of single-family, duplex, and multi-family uses, the Swedish Hospital
campu s. and commercial and professional office uses. The R-1-C area includes single-family
residence use .
BA C1<GR OU D
Parcel 3 of the PU D site has been zoned R-3, Residence D is trict since 1940 . Parcels 1 and
3 were an n xed into the City in 1946 and zoned R-1-D . Both parcels were rezoned in
1963 to R-'·A and again in 1985 to their current zoning oi R-3 , H igh Density Residence
District.
The Craig Hospital campus is zoned R-3 with a Planned Development overlay, which was
ap proved by City Coun c il as Resol ution umber 01 , Series of 1994. The PD Ord inance
was repealed as a result of the adoption of the Planned Uni t Developmen t Ordinance in
199'1. Updating the campus 10 a Planned Unit Devel opment provides an op portunity to
more closely tailor the dis trict regulations to the spec ific development needs of the •
Hospital.
A preliminary site plan for the Craig Hospital Planned Unit De vel opment was submitted in
October 2000, and presented at a neighborhood meeting on December 6, 2000, as
required b the PUD Ordi nance . The formal PUD application was submitted on January 4,
2001. The District Plan and the Site Plan have been combined and submitted dS one
document for concu rr ent rev iew, as provided for in the PUD Ord inance.
AN ALYSIS :
The Planned L'nit D evelopment is a rezon ing proc €ss tha t establishes specific zoning and
site plann i ng criteria to meet the need s oi a specific development proposal that may not be
acco mmodated within the exist i ng zoning sc heme or deve lopment regulat ion s. The PUD
pro ides he opponunity for unified developme nt co ntrol fo r mult ipl e roper11es . The PUD
is composed of a D istrict Plan. which is the set of zoning regulations that will apply to e
propo sed developmen t project This District Plan is coupled with a Site Plan tha t specifies
the general si te des ign and requirements or the propos ed developme nt.
Th e Crai g Hospital Planned Unit Development proposes that the existing "East " and "West"
bu ildi ngs and the north suriace parking lo t remain unchanged. ew construction proposed
in the PUD is planned ior the Sout h Emer so n Street side or Parcel 1 and includes a 4-story
Fam 1lv Housing bu il ding and 6-level parking structure p roviding 333 parking spaces .
Craig Hosp ita l i s a nationally recognized neurologi ca l care center, provi ding treatment and
rehabilitat ion or patients with brain and spinal cord injuries. Pati ents with acute i njuries are
2
•
•
•
•
treated in the "West" building and p •·ogress to the "East" building to develop tunctional
skills before release from the Hosp•tal. Housing for returning patients and family memburs
is provided in the 2 existing apartm?nt buildings.
As part oi Craig Hosp ~l 's care system, family r.iembers are encouraged to participate in
patient rehabilitation. The 30 Craig-owned housing units on ;irt! and 13 rented units off-sitE
will be replaced by the proposed 47-un i r rami ly Housing building. The Family Housing
building will provide accessible housing for family m mbers and former patients returning
for re-evaluation . o medical services will be provided in these units.
The existing "East" and "West" buildings ue approximatel v 60 feet in height includir>6
equipment tow ers ; actual building height Is approx1m.;tel , 45 ieet. He ight oi the proposed
Fami ly Housing building and parking strurrure is 6-1 and iO it:et respectively . Maximum
building height within the PUD is proposed for 80 feet. This height would accommodate
furu;e additions to the Family Housing, "East" and "West• buildings, wh ich were structurally
designerl r allow additional Acors . At this lime the appl icant does not plan additional
Aoors 1 ,hes to reta in the option oi additional floors.
City parking standards require that in cases of mixed uses , the total parking requirement
shall be the sum of the requirements of the various uses . City minimum hospital parking
standards require one parking space for every two beds plus one parking sp.ice fo,· every
two employee s on duty. This standard requ i res 202 parking spaces for the hospital use . The
family housing use is most similar to the City 's minimum hotel park in g standard of one
parking space for each guest room. thus requiring 4i parkin g spa ce s. Therefore City
minimum parking requirements ·or the hos pital and housing uses is 249 spaces. The
proposal provi des 401 parking spaces . This toIal includes 31 handicapped accessible
spaces . The 333-parking spaces in the proposed parking structure w ill replace 52 surface
spaces. Excess parkin is being provided now to reliev e parking congestion in the area and
to ensure adequate parking in th e future.
Proposed signag e is minimal and is consistent with the Craig Hospital philosophy of fitting
into the surro unding neighborhood and providing a non-institutional environment .
Proposed landscape area or the full PUD sit e is approximately 33% of the total site. The
proposed landscape plan is consistent wit co mparable de elopment and exc eeds the
present R-3 landscaping standard of 25% for non-residential use in the Di trict. Existing
landscaping on Par cels 2 and 3 remains unchanged . The quan tity of trees and shrubs on
Parcel 1 alone excee ds qu antitv requ irem ents for the full PUD site .
The proposed Cra ig Hospital PUD is con sistent with the Comprehensive Pl an . and viii
contribute to th e vitali ly of the community and supportS the res1denual and hospital mixed-
us~ nature of th e neighborhood . The pr oposal meets the intent of the PUD Ordinance by
providing ·or a use tha t is an exp ans ion oi Ihe current use and that is compatible with the
adjacent use s. The design, architecture, scale, colors . materials , signage and lands capi ng of
the proposed new constru ion are compatible with ex isting structure s within the PUD and
with th e neighborhood.
3
PUD District Plan •
Craig Hosp ital PUO District Pl an sets forth the zoning regulations within which the
propo~ed development will occur. The Plan ning and Zon ing Commission is re qu ired to
make the iollowing findings concerning the Cra ig Hospital PUD District Plan:
I . The .O UD Disuict Plar is, or is not in coniorm ance with the District Plan requirements and
die Co mprehensive Plar,.
The proposed Craig Hosp ital PUD is in conformance with the applicable
requirements se t forth in Secti on 16-+-15 E, 3 e. PUD Distric t Plan .
2. A// required documf:!nts, dra wings, refe rrals, recommendations, and approvals have been
received.
All appropria r,. docum ents concerning the proposed Craig Hospital PUD have been
received and approved.
3. The PUD Disrria Plan is consistent with adopted and generally accepted standards of
de velopmem in the Oty of Englewood.
The proposed PUD District Plan is consistent with accepted development standa rds
established by the City of Englewood .
4. The PUD District Plan is substantially cons istent with th e goals, obiectives, design
guidelines, poliCtes and any other ordinance, law or requirement oi the Oty.
The pro posed Craig Ho~pi tal PUD District Plan is in conformance with all other
ordinan ::e s, la, s and requiremen ts of the City .
5. When the PUD Drsrrrct Plan 1s wi thin tlie Englewood Downtown Dev elo pment Authority
(EDDA) area, the Plan is co nsis1ent with the EDDA approved designs, policies and plans.
ot applicable.
PUD Si1e Pt n
Crai g Hospital PUO Site Plan sets forth the site planning and design parameters within
which the proposed development will occu r. The Planning and Zoning Commission is
required 10 'llake the ·ott owi ng iindings concerning the Craig Hosp ital PUD Site Plan:
J. The PUD Site Plan 1s, or is not,. in conformance wi th the District Plan requirements.
•
The proposed Cra i g Hospital PUD Site Plan is in conforma1ce with the Cra ig
Hosp ital PUD Dis tn c Plan . The PUD Site Plan establishes the size, orientation,
location, and bu ildi ng el evations that ill ustrate the design of the proposed structures •
as well as materi als to be used . The PUD Site Plan also includes landscape plan
4
• that provides details as to location of lands-ape areas and the plant species to be
used.
2. All requ ired docume nts, drawings, referra ls. recommendations, and approvals have been
rece iv ed.
All required si te plan materials ha v e been received and approved.
3. The PUD Site Plan is cons istent with adopted and gen erally accepted standards of
de velopment of the City of Englewood.
The proposed PUD Site Plan is consistent with the development standards set forth
in the PUD District Plan .
4. The PUD Sile Plan is substantially cof';is lent with the goals, obiectives and policies and/or
any other ordinance, law or requirement of the City.
The proposed PUD Site Plan is in confo rmance with all other ordinances, laws and
requirements of the City .
DEPARTME NT AND AGENCY REVIEW :
• The City 's Development Review Team re viewed the proposal with the follo wing comments:
•
1. Builcii ng and Safety : None at this time. Must comp ly with all applicable Building Codes.
2. Fire : Fire flow requirements and all other issues to be addressed at p lan review. Must
comply with all appl icable Fire Codes .
3. Eng ineering Services: South Emerson Street is a 2" AC and 6" base residential street
(approximately 2 years old) and may not hold up to heavy construction traffic. Any
damages caused by construction would have to be repaireL ·Jy owner or contractor.
4. Pub lic Works: If dedication of sidewalk at entrance of family housing building :s to be
made to the City, co ntact Public Works for requirements and procedure. Drainage
Report and Plan is acceptable : drainage and grading will be reviewed at time of
bu ilding permit.
5. Traffic : Driveway access at st re ets must be City standard curb cut and ffairs .
6. Utilities: 1 o comments .
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY:
On December 6, 2000, Craig Hospital conducted the requi red pre-a pplication
neighborhood meeting. One area re sident and representati ves oi Swedish Hospital
attended the rneeung tha t was held at Craig Hospital. The applicant and representatives
from H "" L Architecture presented a proposal for the 5-story famil\ housing building and 6-
story park ing structure. The resident. who has lived ior 1 ½ years diagonal! across from the
proposed parking structure, stated that being that close to Cra ig Hospi ta l has posed no
p roblems for him .
5
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING ANO ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF CASE PUD-2001-01 )
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS )
AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING )
TO CRAIG HOSPITAL PLANNED UN IT )
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 3425 SOUTH )
CLARKSON STREET )
)
) ITIATEO BY: )
Craig Hospital )
3425 South Clarkson Street )
Englewood , CO 80110 )
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF THE
CITY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
Commission Members Prese nt Rempel, Waggoner, Weber, Welker, Willis
Commission Members Ab sent: Rininger, Stockwell
This matter was heard before the City Pla nning an d Zoning Commission on Fe bruary 6,
200 I, in the City Council Ch ambers of the Englewood Civic Center.
Testimony was rece ived from staff, the appli cant. Mark Will iams of H+L Architecture, and
Scott Bonner of Gerald H. Phipps Construction . The Com mission received notice of Public
Hearing, Ce rtific ation of Posting, and the Staff Report, which we re inco rp o rated in to and
made a part of the record or the Pub lic Hearin g.
fter considering the state ments of the wi tnesses, and reviewing th e per tin ent documents,
the member s of the City Pl a nning and oning Commission made the following Findings and Conclusions .
FINO! GS OF FACT
I . THAT application for Craig Hosp ital Planne d Unit Development was initiated by
Craig Hospital by the r1 1ing of an application in Ja nua ry, 2001.
:?. THAT public notice ,,as properly given by publication in the Englewood~ on
January 26 . 2001 , and b post ing of five signs on the property settin g forth the da te.
time , and loca tion or the Public Hearing .
•
•
•
•
•
•
3. THAT test imony was rece d from Sen ior Planner Langon regarding the proposed
development, current zo ning. landsca pi ng, pa rking, neighborhood meeting, and the
1994 Planned Development for Craig Hospital.
4. THAT testimony was received fr om Dennis O 'Malley, President of Craig Hospi tal ,
regarding the proposed patient and fami ly housing, e isting facili t ies and fun cti ons,
n~ighborhood meeting, traffic, and pa rk ing.
5. THAT testimon y was received from Mark Williams of H+L Arch i tecture, regarding
lan dscaping. parking, he igh t of facilities . and p roposed structures .
6. THAT testimony was re ceived from Scott Bo nn er, Seni or Project Manager of Gerald
H . Phipps Const ruction, regard ing construction tra ffic and equipment, hours of
op eration. and access to the construction si te .
1.
2.
CONCLUSIONS
THAT the propl)sed Craig Hospital Planned Unit Development was bro ught before
the Plann ing Commi ssion upon application filed by Cra ig Hospital.
THAT notice of the Publi c H eari ng was p rope rly giv en b publi cation i n the official
City newspaper, and by proper pos ting of the property.
3. THAT tes timony wa s re ceived from staff, the applican t, the arc hi ect, and senior
project manage r of the cons tr uction com p any, which was made part of the record
of the Public Hearing.
3. THAT the pro pos ed Planned nit Develop ment is in compliance wi th th e
Comprehen sive Zo ning O rdinance and the Comprehensiv P Plan.
4. TH AT the proposed Pla nned Unit Development meets the requ ireme nts of the PUD
Di stri ct Plan .
5. THAT the proposed Planned Unit Development meets the requ iremen ts of the PUD
Site Pl an.
D ECISION
THEREFORE , It Is the decision of the City Planning and Zoning Commission thal the Craig
Hospital Planned Unit Development, be approved .
H~?IIOAJl~OJOOl,01 Cr.-. ~••J F~~ 2
The decis ion was reached upon a vote on a m ot ion made at the meeting of the City
Planning and Zoni ng Commission on February 6, 2001, by Mr. Waggoner, seconded by
Mr. Willis, whi ch motion states :
The Plann ing Commission recommend that City Council approve the appl icatio n for Cast
PUD-2001-01 , Craig Hospital Planned Unit De elopment.
The vo te :
AYES :
NAYS :
ABSTAIN :
ABSE T:
Rempe l. Waggoner, Web er, W illis, Welke r
one
None
Rin inge r and Stockwell
Th ese Fi ndings and Co nclusions are effective as of the meeti ng on Febru ary 6, 2001 .
BY ORDER OF TH E CITY PLA NNI NG & ZONING COM MISS ION
QJ£lA\A--
Carl Welker, Chai rman
•
•
•
• CI TY O F ENG LEWOO D PLANNIN G AND ZONI NG COMM JSS ION
February &, 200 1
•
•
I. CAL L TO OR DE R
The regular mee ting of the City Planning and Zoning Commiss ion was called lo order at
7:00 P.M . i n the City Council Chambers i n Englewood Civic Center; Chairman Welker
presided .'
Members Present:
Members bsent:
Also Present:
Rempel, Waggoner, eber, Weiker, Willis
Rininger, Stockwell
Senior PIJnner Langon
Assistant City Attorne Re id
(Se cretary ote: Two vacancies d ue to terms exp iring on Fe bruary 1, 2001 . Appointments to
Commission are sc heduled for February 20, 200 I.)
Mr. Welker declared a quorum p resent
II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 23, 2000
Chairman Welker stated the M i nu tes of Ja nuary 23, 2000 were to be considered for
appr::>val.
Rempel moved:
Waggoner seconded : The Minutes of Ja nuary 23, 2000 be appro ed as w ritten.
Mr. Welker asked if there were any changes o r corrections to the Minutes. one were
made . Mr. Welker asked for the vote .
YES :
AYS :
ABSTAI
ABSE T:
Rempel, Waggoner, Weber, Welker
one
Willis
Rininger , Stockwell
The motion carried.
Ill. ELECTI O NS
Chair Welke r sta ted that elections are usually held at the first meet ing in February; however,
two members are absent and City Council has not yet appointed two Commissioners .
Chair Welker recommended postponing elections until February 21. The Commission
agreed.
IV. PLANNED UNIT DEVEL OPMEN T
Craig Hospita l
3425 South Clarksor; Street
C SE PUD-2001--01
Mr . Welker stated the issue before the Commissio n is a Planned Uni t Deve lop ment for
Craig Hospital at 3425 So uth Clarkson Street. He asked fo r a motio n to open the Publ ic
Hearing.
Waggoner moved :
eber seconded: The Public Hearing on Cas e PUD-2001-01 be op en ed.
AYES: Rempel , Waggoner, Weber , illis , Welker
I YS :
ABSTAI
ABSEi T:
one
one
Rininge r and Stockwell
Motion carr ied .
Mr. Welker set forth parame ters for conduct of the Public Hea ring, and asked that staff
pr esent the case .
Trici a Langon , Senior Plann er, was sworn in . Ms. Langon sta te d the staff re port.
Ce rt ifica tion of Pos ti ng an d Proof of Pub lication were submitted to the Recording Secretary .
Com mun i Development recommends tha t th !'. Planning and Zoning Commission approve
the Craig Hospita l Planned Unit Development (P D ) and forward it to City Co un cil. With
that re com men dation, the Commission also will be asking to vacate the 1994 Cra ig
Hospital Planned Developmen t.
s. Langon stated the PUD si te i s located at the in tersection of South Cla rkson and East
Gi rard ; it con tains three pa rcels of land totaling ~-9 acres . For pres entation purposes and to
identify the parcels , Parce l 1 is at the southeast corn er of the in tersection. It pres entl y
contains the UEast" building. the Friendship House. and two convert ed apartment bui ldings .
Parce l 2 is north of Girard on the northeast co rner and con ta ins the surface parking lot.
Parcel 3. which contains the main Craig Hospital, is o n the southwes t corner of th e
i ntersection .
•
•
Ms . Langon continued ; the area is cu rrent! zoned R-3 . High Density with the Planned
De velopment overlay. The Planned Development Ordinance was repealed in 1996 with
the adoption of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. The PUD O rdinance provi de
a re zoning of the site for the purpose of unifyi ng development con trol of all three parcel s.
It also establishes the zoning and the site plan criteria which is specific to the PUD . The
PUD Ordinance contains two sections: che District Plan , co ntaining the dis tr ict zone
regula tions , and the Site Plan , con taining th e si te do!sign and req uiremen ts of the PUD . For •
this case , the applicant has chosen to take the District Plan and the Site Plan concurrently
through the process .
2
•
•
•
Ms . Langon testified the intent of the Craig PUD is the West and Eas t building, as well as
the north parking lot. will rema.in as they currently exist. Parcel 1, con taining the East
building, the rwr apartment buildings. and the Fr ie ndship House, is the area of
construction . The East buildi ng will remain; the two apartment buildings and the Friendship
House will be demolished. A 4-sto ry fami ly housing building with 47 accessible units will
replace the 43 uni ts which Craig Hospital currently uses to service family members and
former patients returning for re-evaluation . Also on that site, on the southwest corner of the
intersecti?n of Girard and Emerson , will be a 6-level, 333-space parking structure .
Ms . Langon further sta ted per the requirements vf the PUD Ordinance, Craig Hospi tal held
a neighborho od meeting on De ce mber 6, 2000 and presented preliminary plans . One area
resident and representatives from Swedish Hospital attended the meeting. The proposed
PUD was reviewed by the City's Development Review Team . All identified issues and
concerns we re resolved to each department's satisfaction. The surrounding zon ing is R-3 ,
except for an area which is R-1-C , located north of Girard and east of the alley separating
Clarkson and Emerson . The City Ordinance requ i res 249 parking spaces for the full PUD -
the hospital use and the family housing unit; Craig proposed 401 parking spaces . With
re gard to landscaping, the applicant is providing 33% of the entire site. The underlying R-3
requires onl . 25%. Craig exceeds both in area and also in quantity of materials . The
proposed heigh t is 80 feet. The East and West buildings are now approximately 60 feet in
height wi thout equipment on top of the buildings . The family housing and the parking
structure will be 64 feet and 74 fee~ respectively. Staff believes the overall District Plan
and Site Plan are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan , and they meet the requirements
of the Planned Unit Development. Staff recommends the Commission forward a
recommendation to City Council to vacate the 1994 Cr aig Hospital Planned Development
and to appro e the Craig Hospital Planned Unit Development.
Mr. aggoner clarified the parking structu re wou ld contain 333 parking spaces, but the
o erall site would prov ide 401 parking spaces. Ms. Langon stated that was correct; there is
parking to the north of Gira rd and also at the main hospital .
Chair Welker stated he had a problem with the pr ocedure being followed . There is no
mention in the staff report that the Com mis sion would be vaca tin g the Planned
Development. The Commission do es not have any documentation showing the
requirements or the limits of the PD; yet the Commission is being asked recommend
vacation of the PD . The PUD may be compatible with the Planned Deve lop ment, but he
has no prooi. Ms. Langon resp on ded ; the 1994 PD was for the East build ing or the
trans itional care build ing . It provided so me setback requ irements, which are the same in
the PUD . Chair Welker aske:l wh ere the West building was incorporated . Ms. Langon
stated it as also included In the PD . Chair Welker further stated that ;;ta ff shou ld have
pro ided the Commission wi th the PD information so the could comr,are 1t with the
proposed P D . Ms . Langon apologized for the oversight, and assured the Commission that
all the items in the Planned Development are contained in the PUD .
Mr. Willis asked how people were notified of the neighborhood meeting. Ms. Langon
responde d that the property owners were mailed notices . as well as hand delivered to the
multi-famil units. Mr. Willis asked for the area covered. Ms. Langon sta ted the
requirement is that noti ces be deli vered within a 500 foot rad ius of the property .
Mr. Rempel stated the turnout fo r the neighborhood meeting was low and ask ed if that vas
ty pical. Ms . Langon st ated ii depends on how interested people are in the proj ect. as well
as how controver;ial the to pic. Mr. Rempel a~ked hether Ms . Langon had a sense
whether people felt fairly neutral ab out the project. M s. Langon stated the one gentlemen
who attended the neighborhood meeti ng liv es diagonally across from the proposed parking
garage . When asked if he had any conce rns being that close to the hospital, he re sponded
tha t he had no issues with the hospital .
Mr. Willis asked whether the parking area to the north of Girard was used solely for Craig
Hospital. Ms . Lan gon stated it was sol e! for Craig Hospital 's use; however, she is unaware
of whether Craig has a policy nf monitoring the park ing area and a Craig representative
could better answer hat question .
Dennis O 'Malley, President of Craig Hospital, was sworn i n. Mr. O'Malley sta t ed Mark
Williams of H+L Architecture would also be presenting and rep resentatives from Phipps
Construction are available to answer q ue stions if nee de d . Mr. O ' llev testified that there
are rwo components to the project. One is the patient and family housing facility which will
consolida t e the use within th e existing two apartment buildings . The hospital cur rent!
leas es the th ird apartment building. Approximately 50% of Craig's pa tients are from •
outside the metro area . Famil y members of patients need a place to stay , and the hospital
has provided housing for families which has work ed very well . The buildings currentl y
occupied are getting old; do not justi much more capital expen di tures ; and are not very
"friendly" to people in wheelchairs. The facility would al so be used for patients who return
for re-evaluation and need housing . Even though it will be a new facility i t replaces an
existing function . The actual units within th e proposed facility are very similar to those in
the East building
Mr. O 'Malley further tes tifie d that the second phase of the proje ct is the parking st ructure.
Craig has been somewhat dependent upon leased parking space from Swed ish . As
Swedish expands and grows, Craig fee ls i t is important to take care of the i r own parking
nee ds. Th e p roposed parking structure will allow Craig to be more independent and will
allow fo r future growth . Since the famil ho u se has been in place for some tin1e, the
hospital anticipates a very small incr ease in staff; 3--4 new emp loyees at most. It is also
very importan t to Cra ig that the ho~pital fit into the neighborhood . When the bridge was
constructed across Clarkson. the hospital trie d to do i t in a way that added to the
ne ighbo rhood and was aesthetically pleasing. The hospital desires to con tin ue i ts
harmonious re lationship with the neighborhood . W i th regard to the low turnout at the
public hearing, Mr. O ',\,\alle v stated he hoped that was because Craig has tried to
communicate with the neighborhood . Also , to the immediate east of the project is a
parkin g lot and a Swedish Senior Da Center; to the west is Craig Hospital; and to the •
south is Swedish and Craig land only. It is only on the north where homes and re siden ts
are affected . When the facility is finished , there will be a green space buffer on the corner
of Girard and Clarkson which does not currently exist
4
•
•
•
Mr. O'Malley continued ; the hospital is concerned with the impc:rts of the construction and
parking dunng construction . Craig has been working with Swedish to lease a large portion
of their new surface parking lot during construction. Craig is also looking at other
alternatives, such as shuttling employees to remote parking sites during construction.
Mr. Weber clarified that the apartment building to the south is not owned by Craig. Mr.
O'Malley stated that was corr Mr. Weber stated tha t the parking lot to the south of that
apartm ent building is shown ,1e plans as being owned by Swedish . Mr. O 'Malle sta ted
that w as correct.
Mr. Willis asked whether Craig owned the apartment building on the corner of Girard and
Clarkson . Mr. O'Malley stated it did . Mr. Willis asked how the tran si tion will affect the
people cur ren tl y living there . Mr. O 'Malley responded that he way the project is phased
the fam il housing facility will be constructed while still keep ing the existing units
operational during the full construction period . Those units will be demolished onl after
the construction of the new facility is complete; they will then start construction on the
parking strucrure
Chair Welker !lated tha t the other buildings are suited for future expansion and asked
whether the p;,rking garage or the apartments are pl anned for expansion. Mr. O'Malley
responded that Craig is intending to build the parki ng ga rage one time and not to have
addi 1onal capacity . The housing structure can accommodate 4i units. At this po int, the
hospital is evaluating whethe r to finish 34 or all 47 units initially . When the East building
was built, one floor was finished and the second fl oor was shelled; however, a year later
they finished the shelled floor . The design of the building is for 47 units, and there is no
capacity beyond that. Chair Welker also sta ted that there currently is a small building
where the first building w ill be located . Mr. Welker clarified that the function within that
build i ng will transfer to another facility . Mr. O' alley responded that building is the
Friendship House and is a facility families can use for 3 hours on weekends or during
holida s for fami ly gatherings . A Friendship Center will be located i n the new tien t an d
famil . housing facility . The function will be relocated into the new facility . During
construction , Craig is looking at relocating that funct ion to the therapeutic re cre at ion room
and a few other patient education rooms i n order to "make due" until the ne facility is
complete .
Chair Welker stated that south of the building is an existing parking lo t, which is part of the
site whert the first building will be constructed . Since that parking lot is not available
duri ng co nstruction . Chair Weiker asked whether there wou l d be enough parking during
cons truct ion Mr. O'Malley responded that appro){imately 45 spac es will be lost with that
park ing lo t during construction. The new lease with Swedish pro ides 140 spaces on the
old greenhouse property. The hospital believes that ill prov;rl e adequate parking during
construction . Further, Swed ish is making some parking changes on the ir campus, and Craig
will have more information in approximately 2 months, but Craig anticipates us ing the
Swedish parking lot in approximately 2-4 weeks . Mr. O 'Malle stated from their
calcula tions he believes there will be sufficient parking during construction . As a safeguard.
M c.,,-90AAQJ'ft,.Jt,"<0MM'trVINa)I.Q1C,._H...,.iA\oll _..., ....., 5
Craig has lookPd at remo te parking areas nd providing a shuttle. Craig will have a
definitive answe . prior to starting construction. Chair Welker clarified there are i 40 parking
spaces on Swedish property and approx imate ly 60 par king spaces on the north lot of
Girard. Mr. O'Malley stated that was co rr ect and there is also wheelchai r accessible
pa rking around the existing apartments, which will remain during construction. The re is
also parking on the wes t There are approximately 245 parking spaces, not including street
parking, available during construction.
Chair elker asked wha t area would be used as the construction stage arec1 . Mr. o·Malley
responded that it will be a "tight'' site , but there have been a num ber of pre-construction
mee tings with Phip ps Construction . Access to the site will be from Emerson Stree:;
Clarkso n Street is too busy . Some of the area between the Friendship House and the
parking lot will be uti lized fo r construction staging, and on-si te material will need to be
limited since th ere isn 't much room for staging .
•
Chair Welke r state d that he had issues regarding construction hours and construction
equ ipment. He understands Emerson has a 60-ioot right-of-way, but it is approximately a
30-foot wide street; .i la ne each way . Chair Welker stated there may need to be some
pa rking rP.:.trictions on Emerson for constr uction traffic. Mr. L) ,vla ll ey stated they w ould
a~reP . Ch~ir Welk er stated it is public right-of-way and no t under Craig 's control. but the
Ci v-1 11 deal with that issue . Chair Welker stared Craig is p re senting a bit of a probl em to
the neighborho0d, even though Craig and Swedish are primary uses of that street. •
Chai r Welker sta ted there i; an apartment building to the south, and he is concerned with
the impact !o that p roperty. Mr. O'Malley stated that bui lding is 100 perce nt leased by
Craig Hospital . It is used exclusively for family/patient housi ng . Th e parking requiremen ts
associated with that building are nominal because the maj ority of the occupants are
temporary, short-term , and from out of sta te. There are adequate pa•;_mg sp aces Jround
that bui lding and those spaces wi ll not be interrupted du ring construction. Chair Welker
sta ted that the re is a potential conflict with access to that pa rking area because on the
nor side of the building is only 15 fee t from the property line . Mr. O'Malley stated that
the alley immedia te ! north of the building wi ll rem ain in ta ct during constructio n to provide
access from the north and so uth of the building. Chair Welker clarified that Craig was
requesting a vacation of the alley between the East bui lding and the new cons truction. Mr.
O 'Malle~ stated that it was vacated in conjunc tion with the East bu ilding construction .
Chair elker asked whether the alle would still be used for access because north of the
East building there is a drive coming through along the proposed parking structure. Mr.
O 'Malley responded that the onl access to the parking garage will be from Emerson Street,
but not through the en tir e property. Chair Welker clarified ; there currently exis ts a private
"L-shaped" drive along the north side of the East building which goes north to Girard . ·chair
Welker asked if that drive would stay . Mr. O ',\1alle stated that it is not involved in the
access to the parking way; it will sti ll be necessarv to use it during construction to provide
access to the north entrance of th e north building . It will continue to be used for a drop off •
and a pass through area to get through to Girard. It will never be used to access the
parking garage .
H ,CIIOUNO,W)S'I\A""°"°""''lllll!Ol-01 0-., 6
•
•
Chair Welker cla rified that the re ma inin g vacated area wi ll be land scaped and the area
betwee n the garage and the Fri endship House will be a pedestrian area . Mr. O'Malley
stated that was co rre ct; there will be some landscape area betw ee n the tw o bu ild in gs but
bec ause of th~ height of ,he buil di ngs there is only a certain amount of gre e n sp ac e that
will grow . Th e area on the north, the corner of Girard and Clarkson , will be a green space .
Chair Welk er clao1fied tha t the o nl y veh ic ular acces s to Friendship House wi ll be along its
south side , adjacent to the other apartment buildin g. Mr . O'Malley stated that drive will be
maintained du ring and aft'::!r construction . There are some oxygen tanks an d other items
that need to be acc es sed by trucks on a regular ba sis .
Chair We lk er asked whether traffic surve ys had bee n done to s ow impa cts on Emerson ,
Girard , Hampden, and Cl ar kson Streets . Mr. O'Malley stated th at he cannot produce a
pr ofessio nal stud y, but the hospital has done its ow n analysis . The access on old Ham pden
wi ll rem ain the same . and there shou ld be no impact as a result of the new construction.
The re will be som e impact on Gir ard, but there shou ld be 110 increase on Clarkson. There
also wi ll be som e inc rease on Emerson because it is the onl y entran ce and exit to the
garage ramp .
Chai r Welke r clarified that construction traffic would use Hampden and Emerson. Mr .
O'Malley sta ted he would defer that question to the architect and/or construction
co mp any .
Mr . Wil lis asked whether Craig was aware of Swedish 's proposed expansion, and whe th er
Crai g's cons truction wo uld be done concurre ntl y with Swedish 's construction . Mr.
O'Mall ey stated there would be so me ov erlap . Mr . Wi llis asked whether Craig has been in
conta ct with Swed is h to coordinate the construction traffic sinc e a la rge area is unde r
const ru ction at the sam e time . Mr. O'Malle y stated they have talk ed with Swed ish
rega rding the co nstruction . The Swedish constructio n will be from the ma in hospital to th e
south a,d will probably impact old Hampden . Craig's acti vi ty will be approximate ly 2-3
blocks awa from Swedish . The re may be some add itional I.raffle in that arei!, bu t access to
Craig's site will be fa irl y separated fro m Swedi sh . The bigger qu es tion is : What happens to
the added vo lume of construe ion workers who ne ed parking? That question is what lead
the I\ o hospitals to the joint plan of Craig moving to the east so Swedish co uld conserve as
man y spaces as possible clos er to their bu il din g. Mr . illis clarifi ed co nstru ctio n traffi c
wo uld sta y off of Gir a rd an d stay more to the south . Mr . O'M alley stated they were try ing
to keep their access to th e south . Of all the streets around th e project Emerson is the
st reet wi th the least am ount of traffic. It ha s lim ited traffic by neighbors ; mo st is by campus
employe es. Craig intends to keep construction traffic on Emerson and to a ccess it from the
sout h to mi nimize the impact to the neighb ors on the north . Th ere ar e no residences sou th
of Gira rd.
Chair Welker asked whet her Craig has ta lked to City sta ff rega rding the capacity of
Emerso n hand ling the he · construction vehicl es . It is proba bly ;\ rr.inimal st re et as far as
pa vement and mavbe e e J b-surfa ce . Mr . O'Malle v stat ed he ould nee d to defer that
qu esti on . Ch air V\lelker sta ed it would be an iss ue for City staff to ve ri fy, bu t the question
was whether Craig had talked to the City. There is a comment in the staff rep ort regarding •
that issue on Emerson .
Mr . Rempel stated he was int er e~ted in the he ight of the structure; it is considerably higher
than what currently exists. He sked if any of the Swedish re presentatives had a particular
perspective for the senior daycare center and how the y felt about the parking structure
being directl y ta their west. Mr . O'Mall ey stated no concerns have been expressed . The
Johnson Center has no overnight residents ; it is a day treatment program . The Corona
residence has been made aware of the proposal and were invited 10 the neighborhood
meeting . In terms oi elevat ion , the are higher and should have no difficulty see ing over
the new building .
Chair Welker asked for the height of the Cra ig building in comparison with the top of
Swedish buildings . Mr . O ' alley stated he was unaware of the height of the Swedish
building. bu t it is a 10-story facility . Craig's st ru cture will be considerably lower than the to p
of that facility .
Mr . Willis asked whether there were plans for future expansion . Mr . O 'Malley stated the y
do not have any such plans . The number of occup ied beds today has not changed since
1974 . There are additional facilities and buildings, but Cr2i g does not believe its future is in
ca ring for more patients . The system is sized, in terms of patient Aow, at its practical
maximum . There are r.o plans for additional bu ildings; any expansion would be "up ." •
Craig has chosen not to add footings to the proposed building for additional stories; adding
additional stories is also very disruptive to operations , as well as expens ive . That was one
of the main reason for building the East building rather than adding stories onto the West
building .
Chair We lke r stated th t this overlaps with his concern about th r Planned Development
regard ing the height. He assumes the PO gave Craig the right to "go up • on both the West
and East buildings . He wants to confirm that the PD reserved the maximum height without
"blessing" the proposed PU0 without that stipulation .
Mr. Weber stated the Friendship House is a relatively ne w building and asked whether
there was any sa lvation for the building. Mr . O'Malley responded that Craig has talked to .
horn~ mover that has previously moved some homes from the site ; however, the way the
facility is constructed does not allow it to be moved "as is." It is a slab on grade
construction ; the mover is look ing into saving as much of the building as possible .
r. Willis asked how old the apartments were that will be demolished . Mr O"Mailey stated
he did not know ; the bu ilding on the corner of Girard and Emerson was originally
purchased by Swedish in 19 2. Craig purcha se d the other bu ilding, which is the older of
the two buildings , approximately 8-10 years ago . His guess is they are approximately SO
years old.
Ma rk Williams , H+L Architecture. was sworn in. Mr. Williams stated he had a brie i Power
Point presen tation . On the firs t slide , Mr . Williams pointed ou t Clarkson Street, the West
H 8
•
•
•
•
building, Swedish 's cam pus, old Hampden Stree t, the Eas t building, the parking lot on the
north side of Girard, and the area of the proposed development. The second slide shows a
site map of the enti re Craig property. Mr. Williams pointed out the West building. the Eas t
building, the bridge connecting across Clarkson Street. the pa rking lot on the north side of
Gira rd Street, and the parcel of land which is the primary top ic of the P D for
development. The th ird slide is a propos ed site pla n which sho ws the proposed
development. M r. William pointed to the parking structure, the family hous i ng bu ilding,
and the pa rk-like area which will be developed. Mr. Williams also pointed out the drive
going u noer the north canopy oi the East building, which exits onto Gi rard Str ee t and will
not access the parking stru cture. The major change in that dr ive is the reduction o( some
surfac ing par king.
Mr. Williams stat ed with rega rd to the phasing of the site, the antic ipated start of
construction of the fam ily housing building is in earl y Summer 2001 wi th anticipated
com pletio n in Spr ing 2002. Due to moving pati en ts from exi stin g apartment bui ldin gs into
the famil y hous ing building prior to dem olition, the demolition of those buildings will start
immediate ly after the fami l ho usi ng building is co mp le te d in Spring 2002 . Th e parking
structure will start construction immediate! the reafter wi th an anticipa ted comple tion date
of Fall 2002 . The vehi cular ci rcula tion will be simil ar to wha1 is cu rrently occurring on the
sit e. The primary areas of parking fo r Craig Hospi tal occur off of Emerson ; and they do not
anti c ipate increase d traffic on Emerson . The co nstruction tra ffic wi ll be primarily along
Ha mpden and Emerso n. Ther e have been discussions with the City Trame Engineers
reg arding the c o·1 stru ction, an d Craig understands th e contra ct or s will need to have permits
to use those streets for cons tru cti on . Also . the routin g of traffic dur ing co nstruction will be
gone over wi th the City Traf;ic Enginee rs. Furth er, an y damage caus ed by the construction
to Em erson Street would be repaired b Craig Hospital.
M r . Willia ms conti nu ed ; there are 3-J units o 3 Acors of th e family housing building; the
bui ldi ng its elf is 4 storie s, wi th the fo urth Ooor be in g she lled for future build-out There will
be 13 additional units on the fourth Aoo r hen it is co mpleted, which will be a total of 47
units in that building. The parking exceeds the City 's zoning req uirements, and the parking
structure will house 333 vehicles. Mr. Williams stated th at there are antic ipated setbacks
along Emerson arid Girard Streets of JO fe et for th e new deve lopment. The ~ ,, no
an ticipated cons tru ct ion along Clarkson Street or Parcel 3; the sP'l-iacks will conio rrr t" the
R-3 requi rements . The landscap e plan cu rrend y exceeds the r<-.> requ ir ements or ·j%;
Craig is proposing 33%. All of the existing Landscape on the parcels will not be altered with
this proj ect. The landscape areas primarrl consist of the major pedestrian circula tion which
will occu r between the thr ee buildings ; pedes tria n access between the par ki ng str ucture
and the family housing building; and the park -like green space on the north srde of the East
building. There is also green space along the perimeter of the parking structure to provide
some pedestrian scale and re liei at the stree t level. There is a significant amount of
hardscape on the pedestrian routes to provide access for people in vhee lchairs . The
landscap e plan is designed to provide facili patients i n w heelchairs access lo the
landscaped are as as pa rt of their therap .
9
Mr. Williams con tinued; a proposed canop y at the secondary entrance to the famil
hou sing building will pr oject in to the setback 5 feet. M r. Wil liams showed the pri mary
elevations that face the majo r str ee ts. The height or the family housing buildi ng is 64 ee t to
th e top of the roof, and the height of the majority of the parking st ructure is 64 feet The
overrun of th e ele va tor on the parking stru cture and the stairs to the upper parking deck is
70 fee t to the top or the stair to wer; however. it step s down towa rd the periphery o the
site . 1 he fam il housing building shows the massing of the buildin g broken up to help
minim ize th e scale of the bu ilding at the street le vel. The masonry proposed is the sa me
masonry used on the other Cr ai g facil ities to tie all the buildings togethe r as a campus . The
sloped roof is an effo rt to acce ntuate the residential character Th e location or the
wi ndows is more in character w ith an apartment bu ildi ng, rather than an institutiona l
building. The park ing structure is pr opose d to be a pre-cas t stru cture. Once the family
hous i ng huil di ng is co mpleted , the park ing stru cture will go up in pieces ; the refore, there
will no t be the same nee d for construction staging as there is for th e other building. The
pieces will be li fted off the truc k and set in place. The pre-cast elements of the parking
struc ture are proposed to be exposed aggregate and colo re d conc rete in order to tie it in
with th e colors of the ma sonry being used on th e remainde r of the campus.
Chair Welker clarified that the canopy is on the thi rd lev el. Re fe rring to the slide, Mr.
Williams poin ted out where the canopy wou ld be located ; it is a very simp lv cantilever that
will project from the building. simil ar to the cano py that proj ec ts onto the w est sid e of the
East building. Chair Welker clarified that th e building wi ll be rec essed at the second floor
and the re is a b ridge across . Mr. Willia ms stated there viii be a small balcony on the th ird
an d fourth floors to hel p bre ak up the mass i ng of th e bui lding and provide some sh ado w
and in t erest. Cha ir Welke r stated he was trying to unders tand th e transition between the
darker and lighter br ic k. Looking at the west elevation. the north th ird of the building is
light bric k, bu t on the north eleva tion there is da rk brick. Chair Wel ker asked whether the
dark and light bri ck joined at the corn er . Mr. Williams stated it did not there is an erro r in
the ele va ti ons , but th e dark brick actually turn s the corner. The idea is to u se the da rker
brick at the corne rs of th e building to solidify those co rne rs .
Ch ai r We lker ask ed for clar ification on the recess in he roof. Mr. Williams stated the roof
is being used as a charac ter element, as well as screening for the me ch anical systems .
Cha i r Welker clarified that the top of the elevator tower, on the sou thwest corner of the
parking structu re , is 1 5 fee t 9 inches . Mr. Williams stated it is 70 fe et to the top . Chair
Welker referred Mr. Williams to Sheet PUD-6 . On the righ t-han d dt' ation in the middle, it
indica te s th e top of th e ro of is 1 75 feet 9 i nches . Chair Welk er asked what that
meas urement referre d to if 1t is n't th e top of the sta ir to\ er . Mr. Williams sra te d there are
some dimensior.al eleva tion inaccuracies . Chai r Welker asked whether there was any
structure\ ithin the PUD tha t was 175 feet 9 inches abo ve grade . Mr. Williams sta ted if the
fou rth floor were added to the East building. which it as str ucturallv designed for , it wo uld
be , -1 fee high . Chair We lker asked if th e 1 i2 feet also reierred to th at imaginary li ne .
Referr ing to the plans , Chair Welker stated that there are two elevatio r' o ne in dicates 175
feet 9 inches above finish floor top of roof. Mr. Williams stated that w , inaccu rate . Chair
We lker again asked wha t the 172 feet is in reie rence to; it doesn 't appear because below
that it indicates that the top of the parapet is 163 feet 8 inches . Mr. William s stated the 172
H ,c:.aoo. l'ltO.Wl<~'<CO>!JoN'I/D\:oll-01 C:U,. ..,.,..,,.._ C,.,,..,.,.
•
•
•
•
•
•
fe ec 1s the top of the sc reen portion of the roof. Chair Welker stated that did n't correspond
with the other drawin gs ; it ind icates the to p of the parapet as 163 feet 8 inches. Chair
Welk er sta ted he is try ing to determine the top of the building. Mr. Williams stated tha t the
to p of the buil din g is 64 fee t to the ridge line of the roo f. Cha.i r Welker cla rifie d that the 172
feet does not exist. Mr. Williams stated that was co rr ect. Chair Welk er further clarified that
th e 179 feet 9 inche s does not exist. Mr . Willia ms sta ted that was corre ct Mr . Williams
stated in itia lly Craig was co ns idering a 5-story bu ildi ng. Cha ir Welker stated it indicates
Craig pre se nte d a 5-s tory b uilding to the nei ghbo rhood. Mr . William s stat ed that was also
an ina ccuracy . Du e to budg etary concerns , one floor was removed to ma ke it a ~story
building . Chair elker clarified that the Co mmiss ion is co nsi de ring a 64 foot buil ing; the
other two dimensions ne ed to be remo ve d from the drawing . Mr . Williams stated tha t was
co rrect Chair We lk er asked whether the highest po int of the e le va tor or stairwa y on the
pa rking structure 1s 69 fee t ➔ inc hes. Mr . Willia ms sta te d that vas co rrec t. Chair Welke r
stat ed a 64 fo ot b ui lding and a 69 foot bu ildi ng are being p roposed, with no plans for
fut ure hei ght. Mr . illiams stat ed that was cor re ct; neither stru ctu re is designed for future
capaci .
Cha ir Welk er asked if Ph ipps Co ns truction would pr esent to address iss ues of con stru ctio n,
equipment. and traffic . Mr . William s sta ted they would present if the re we re qu estions he
co uld not sufficientl y an swer . Chair Welker stat ed he ask ed most of th e questions before
and asked whe th er Mr . Williams was capable of ans wering those questions, or woul d they
be deferred to Phi pp s Cons tru ction. Mr . William s stated he att~9ted to respond to the
co ncerns regar di ng th e construction staging; bu t if it wasn 't adequate, represen tat ives from
Ph ipp s Co 11stru ction can answer those questions . He stated he also attem pted to respond
to the tra ffic co ncern . Crai g ha s been in con tact with the Traffic Engin eers. and they ar e
aware of the project. Chair Welker stat ed th e o the r parts of the questi o n are the type s of
eq uip ment us ed and materials, and ask ed if Mr. Williams co ul d answer those questio ns or
sho uld thev be deferred. Mr . Willia ms stated if there is a crane the re will nee d to permits
and coordinatio n with me Traffic Engineers to deliver the cran e to the si te. Phipps
Construction buil t the East bui ldin g, as well as the bridge ac ross Clarkson Street, and are
very familiar with wha t is ne cessary to coordina te with the City. Chair Welke r stated he
wa nt s lo kno w the height of the crane , its posi tion , and ho w it impacts the helipad on
Swedish . Mr . Williams stated he would defer those issues to the cons tru ction company.
Mr . Weber stated there are curren tly mature tre es around the site, an d the proposed plan
o nl y sliows one remaining ah'r co nstructio n. Mr . Weber asked whether th e mature trees
in fro nt of the apartment build ings were too close and why they ca n't be saved . Mr.
Williams stated those trees are sta ying; the y are trying to save as man of the trees as
possible . lnternall to the site, there is a large green space between the Friend sh ip Ho use
and th e Eas t building; the re are no tr ees in that area. There is a row of trees along the
current parking, which viii be removed wi th the PUD . Thos e tre es are appro ximately 2-2.5
calibe r trees . Mr. Weber referred his attention to th e Emers on elevation and pointed out
the tre es 1n front of the apartment building. Mr . Weber asked if those were existing trees .
Mr . Williams stated there were so me existing trees at tha t loc ation, and they will try to save
those as much as the y can. On th e site plan, there is a drop off that will eliminate one or
two of those existing trees . Mr . Weber asked why smaller tr ees we re cho sen for in fro nt of
"'-W 141 Caor--0....,_ 11
the parking structure . Mr . Williams respo'lded the size of the tree is as large as the b ud get
allows. Mr. Weber clarifi ed the tree s were different species. Mr. Williams stated th at was
correct; there is a cost difference between different sizes and types of trees .
Chai r Welker stated the landscape plan is inconsistent with his testimony . The landscape
plan shows ex isting tree s along the Girard/Clarkson corner, but it does not show an y
existing tree s remaining along Emerso n except fo r one spruc e. Chair Welker as ked if that
was corr ect. Mr . Wlll iams stated that was correct. Chair We lker con tin ue d; the existing
trees along Emer so n will be new . Mr . Will iams stated that was co rr ect. Chair Welker
stated he didn 't run the calculations on the landscape area , but asked whether there is
more landscap ing than requ ired. Mr . Williams stated the current zoning requ irement for R-
3 is 25%, and Craig is at 33%. Cha ir Welker asked if he excluded the northwest corn er, the
park. would there be 25% landscaping . Mr . illi ams stated he was not comp lete ly sur e,
but belie ed it would not meet the 25% require ment; the park is part of the ca lcu lated
33%. Chair Welker stated he wanted it in the record that the Co mmission has co nsid ered
that ar~.:1 beca use in the future someone may wis h to amend the PUD and build a structure
on that co rn er . Mr. Williams stated that are a is important to th e neighborh ood, the site,
and th e project. Again , the mi nim um 25% landscaping could not be met without that area .
Chai r We lker asked if there was an intent to de tail that ar ea fu rt her with hardsca pe. Mr .
Williams stated th at coul d be consid ered if it was desirable . Cu rrentl y ther e is a la rge open
space between the Friendship Ho use and the East bu ilding . Chair Welker stated th e
pro blem with th at sp ace is th at it is confined with buildings; th er e won't be much sun in •
that are a. He believes peop le will wan t to wheel their cha irs to the green space where th ey
can ac tual! be in the sun .
Mr. eber stated he did n't understand the calculation. O n the cover page of the plans, it
indicates the total si te is 214,000 square feet, wh ich appea rs to be th e number on which
landscaping is calculated. However, re garding lot coverage, it indi cates total bui 1t is
240 ,000 square fee t. Chair Welker asked if that includ ed an y right-of-way landscaping. M,.
Williams stated he didn 't know , bu t if the ri ght-oi-wa landscaping is rypic all calc ulated, it
, obab ly is included. Chair Welker sta te d the City O rdinance allows the right-o f-way
landscaping to be included in the lands ca ping calcula tion . Cha ir Welker stated th a t ma y be
an answer as to why the number s do not add up . Mr . Webe r sta ted the plans indica te lot
cove rage , not incl uding the parking ;tructure . is larg er than the total sq uar e foo tage
calcula ti on for landscap in g. Mr. Williams stated if the right-of-way landscapi ng were not
included in the calculation , the landscaping wou ld still exceed the required 25%. Chair
Welker sta ted in the site data it indicates 6,000 sq uare iee t of landscaping in the public
righ t-of-way . Mr . Weber st a ted on the front page of the plans, there is a square footage
calculation of 21 ~.000 sq ua re feet and below that there is lot co vera ge , not including the
parking structure . of H0.000 square feet . r. Williams stated that accordi ng to the
Zoning Ordinance you do not ha e to calc ulate the parking structure in to the l;indsca ping
percentages . r. Weber asked wh y the 240,000 wasn't used as the calculati on for
landscap ing ; he st ill doesn't understand ho w 21 ➔,000 square feet was used rather than •
240,000 square feet. Furth er, he assumes the entire lot is not cove red. Chai r Welker stared
in the first square footage calculation there is a total landscape space of appr oxim ately
0,500 square feet. He ask ed if other item s in the site data bl ock we re to ta led in, would ft
N--GIOIJl'IIOAll)S"-'-'CllM""1.1J<lm1.Ql C--... 12
•
•
re ach 240,000 square feet. Chair Welker stated he believes the missing number is
somewhe re between the excess landscaping space and the lot cove rag e of the parking
structure . Chair Welker referred Mr. Williams to the top left corner; there are 3 square foot
areas. First is the total demolished building; second is the total foo tprint; and third is the
total landscape space . Those three approximate 213.936 square feet. Mr. Williams stated
that was correct. Chair Welker asked if that was the total site square footage within
property lines . Mr. Williams responded that was site coverage . Chair Welker stated the lot
cov era ge , not includ in g parking structure, exceeds 213 ,936 squa re feet. Mr. Williams
stated it includes the floor levels . Chair Welker cla rified th at it wasn't lot coverage it is
actual built square footage . Mr. Williams stated that was cor rect. Chair Welker further
clanfied that it is not indicating lot coverage in the second par agraph of the plan ; it actually
refers to built square footage. Even though you are allowed to go to 1.5 times the lot area
in your total square footage, it is called lot coverage in your presentation. Mr. Williams
stated it is not lot coverage ; i t is built square footage and he understands the confusion.
The calculation is for determining the allowable lot co ve rage . Chair Welker stated 32 l ,000
squa re feet of floor area is allowed. and it should be clarified in the presentation whether it
is an allowable lot coverage calcul ation, which is what it is, but that it really deals with floor
area not lot cove rage . One number is allowable lot coverage , and the other part of the
calculation is proposed total sq uare footage of Hoer are a. Mr. Williams stated that was
correct .
Mr. Re mp el stated he was curious about the aesthetic quality of the pre-cast units for th e
parking structure and asked that Mr. Williams describe the color and the te xture ; he asked
whether the color was comparable to the drawings. Mr. Williams responded; the drawings
are sche matic elevations, but the intent is to match the brick wh ich has been used on other
Craig fa cil ities . Cha ir Welker clarified that part of the East building is pre-cast. Mr. Williams
sta .-d II1 at building is all brick.
Scott Ho nner, Senior Pr oject M anager of Geral d H . Ph ipps, was sworn i n. Chair Welker
sta te d he is concerned with the co nstruction impact on the neighborhood -traffic,
equ,u men etc . He is interested in the construction staging area, where equipment and
mat ,,als will be stored , and how it wi ll be protected . He is also i nterested in the type and
he i ~ht of the crane , lighting, and how long the crane will be on site . Mr. Sonner responded
that the co mpan y has been fortunate enough to work with Craig Hospital, as well as
Swedish , on previous projects . He was in volved in the East project and the logistics
neces sary to build the bridge across Clar on Street. as well as the helipad project at
Swedish . Both of th ose projects created ve challenging opportunities to work with the
neighborhoods . By working on the helipad at Swedish, the company has extensi ve
knowledge with the Hights in and out of the Swedish campus and the need to provide
appropriate lightin g and communication with the cram• operators when there are
helicopters i n the area so there isn 't a public safety issue . On the East bu ild ing,, the y spoke
with the Air life representall es and were able to re-route the helicop ter tra ffic ar ound the
proiect it worked very well. When constructing the helipad at Swedish . there was
communication with the crane operators. He is confident the appropriate measures can be
taken to ensure public safety and accommodate Swedish .
Chair Welker clarified there would be a mobile crane. Mr . Bonner stated it was their intent •
to locate the crane in a posi tion which minimizes traffic impact. as well as allowing them to
construct the building. As the design progresses, they will continue to meet with the City to
coordina te efforts with the Engineering Department. Having worked for Craig prev io usly ,
he belie ves Craig go es the extra mile to ensure the contractors conform to the
requirements . There will be a crane on si te , and it ill be intemalized as much as possible
to keep it o the str eet. Th er e will be a staging area between the existing apa rtment houses
which viii help keep the equipment off the street.
Chair Welker aske d for clarification as to whether the first building will be wood or metal
frame construction . Mr. Bonner responded it would probabl v be steel frame building, and
access to the site will be from the south in order 10 keep as much construction traffic away
from the neighbors on the north. Chair Welker asked where the construction materials
:vould oe staged . Mr . Bonner reite rated there will be a staging area between the e isting
apartment houses along Girard Street. One of the firs t pha ses of the construction will be to
demolish the Friendship House and utilize that area as construction staging for the family
h ·1sing project . The area ill be fenced and the appropriate safety measures taken to
keep the public out of he construction area . Chair Welker asked for the construction
hours . Mr . Bonner responded they would stay within th e City oise Ordinance; they
no rmal! work between i a.m . to 4 p.m . If there is an issue with the neighbo rs. they will
make the appropriate adjustments . Also , one of the ad antages of using pre-cast is that it
goes togethe r ve ry quickly , and it minimizes the construction traffic. Chair Welker asked •
what route would be used for deliveries . Mr . Bonner stated he would like to continue the
discussion with the City Engineering and Tr affic Department to ensure they take the
appropriate measures ; but It is his intent to acces s the site from the south side oi the
project. It is a problem that 1s not Insurmountable : he has done it before with the removal
of the homes where the East building is current! located . Chair Welker stated his concern
is with the largest pieces that are pre-cast and haw and when they are deli ered . Mr.
Bonner stated he will vork with the company suppl yi ng the pre-cast and t e Traffic
Engineers to choose the most appropriate and saie route to the job site . When the East
building and Friendship H 1use were built, they were able to access along Emerson and use
that street for construcoo .
Ms. Langon distributed copies of the Minutes and Findings of Fact from the 1994 PD case
to the Commission . Chair Welker stated he wants to ensure that height. landscaping, and
dr inage, which might be mentioned in the original PD , are similar ly included in the PUD.
s. Langon stated the 1994 PD was the R-3 zoning with some minor modifications ; the PD
allo ed modification of se cks, landscaping. and parking . The remainder oi the
0rdi nJn ce held to the R-3 requirements . B recommending approval of the PUD , it. by
default, removes the PD . Chair elker stated he understoo d, but wanted to be sure that
nothing c.ontained in the PD is viola ted . Chair Welker st;i te d he woulci entertain a mot ion
to recess to allow the Commission to peruse ., e new information .
Mr. Waggoner move d ·
Mr . Willis seconded: TO RECESS FOR 15 Ml UTES
H~\N\ 141 0-,tl""' •--• .-,
14
•
•
•
•
AYES:
AYS :
ABSTAI
/\BSE T:
Rempel, Waggoner, Weber, Willis . Welker
one
one
Rininger and Stockwell
Motion carried .
The Commission reconvened al 9:20 p.m.; Chair Welker called for the roll .
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Rempel. Waggon er, Weber, Welker, Willis
Rininger , Stockwell
Chair Welker stated he wanted to bring into the record the issues talked about during the
recess . He ta lked wit,1 staff and the Findings of Fact in the 1994 PD case gives Craig
approval on the origin al PD on the East proper . He stated he also had 1he Minutes from
that case, and staff can provide Craig with copies fo r the ir record . The Commission did nol
find the PD which governs the ~ est part oi the site , so there isn 't a complete paper tra il on
how the City gave Craig what they currently have. He is not debating the issue, except for
one point. The 1994 PD, which he has seen , does not address specific maximum building
height. The assumption is made that the default of a non-resi denti al building height in the
Zoning Ordinance applies , which is 60 foo t maximum height. That is what Craig would
have been allowed, regardless of wh ether it was 3 or 4 stories . The O rdinance requ ired the
maximum height of any part of the building be 60 feet. The reques t before 1he Commission
is an BO ioot maximum height. Chair Welker stated what he doesn't understand i s what
wa s allowed on 1he west parcel and wonders if that part was originall part of :he Swedish
campus and governed by the ir 1-'D . He is trying to determine wha t was allowed so the
Commission knows what it is getting into. Chair Welker asked for explanation on the need
of a max imum height of 80 fee t beca use the tallest structure proposed is 64 feet.
Mr. Williams responded: he believes on the west building the stru cture was originally
designed for 10 floors ; however, he does not have any information on the documen tati on
of the PD or discussio n with the City. Chair Welker clarified that the building was desig ned
for 10 floors . Mr. Williams stated that at one time , it was reasonable to consider building
the infrastructure ior that building to be 10 floo rs. It is considerably higher than the 80 feet
requested . and it is more in li ne wi th the existing Swedish buildings . On the eas t side of
Clarkson Street , the bu ilding was designed to add an additional lloor i n the future which is
what generated the 80 feet. Cha ir Welker stated the PD addressed it in •floors ", but not in
maximum height. Mr. Will iams rei terate d that the additional floor was vha t generated the
80 foo request, as well as allowing the flexibility on the West building to add an additional
lloor. Chair We lker staled the request ior 80 feet extends to the enure property; even
though the structure on the original west side might be allowed to go taller , the BO foot is
the li mit speciiicall discussed . Chair Welker stated that is why he is ask111g Mr. Williams to
clarify that request and to understand it. Mr. illiams stated it was a decision that was
disc usse d with Craig Hospita l. and there are no plans to add on the fourth floor oi the East
building nor add any floor space on the roof of the West building. Chair Welker clarified
that Craig is requestmg the right to add on the additional floor by asking for the 80 feet.
Mr. Williams stated they wanted to allow for the future floor and rather than trying to make •
it more complex than necessary with different heights on different portions on the site, they
choose to put a limit of 80 feet on the East and West bu ilding. The two new structures are
limi ted by their structural capacity . Th e open space on the north side f the East building
will always remain open; it will be necessary that it remain open in order lo mainta in the lot
co erage . (hair Welker clarified that they are excluding the 80 foot rec;u :~ement from that
part of the P D . The norrnal procedure is 80 feet governs the entire site, not portions. Mr.
illiams stated it will be BO feet maximum height throughout the L,roject His point is that
it will oni apply to the East and West buildings because the remainder of the site is buil t
out; there is no opportuni ty to build further . Chair Welker madP ·. ·Je .. r that the 80 feet is
for th e _ me si te. The two new buildings under the PUD are 6-1-70 /,-et in height. While
th er e is no current proposal to go higher, there will be an 80 ,oct ·•ca p" on the entire
campus . Ch i r Welker stated he wanted everyone to be dear on what is being asked for
and what might be granted. For everyone's informa tion, the PO was unrestrictive; there
were a fe~ changes in setbacks so the East building co11ld be built. Craig is not asking
an th ing beyond that, and the PUD actually becomes more restrictive than the R-3 zoning.
Mr. Welker asked if there were further comments or questions and indicated no m'-' -~ nrs
of the public were present. He asked fo r a motion to close the Hearing.
Waggoner moved :
Willis seconded : The Publir-Hearing on Case PUD -2001-0 1, Craig Planned Unit
Development be closed .
AYES:
NAYS :
Rempel, Waggoner, Weber, Willis, Welker
1 one
one ABST I
BSENT : Rininger , -tockwe ll
The mo tion carried.
Waggoner moved :
Rempel seconded: The Planning Comm ission recommend that City Council
approve the application for Case PUD-2001-01 , Craig Hospital
Planned Unit De elopment.
,\.Ir . Rempel stated the plan is tremendous amenity to the neighborhood an d the City. He
e'<pressed his appreciation fo r the care and planning Craig has put into the project; Craig
Hospital is a very highly va luabl e asset.
•
M, Willis stated he had a concern w ith the simultaneous construction of Swedish and
Craig; he believes it will impact the neighborhood . Chair Welker asked whether anvthing
could be done by power of limitations or conditions rin the PUD that would enhance that
other than it is a concern . Mr. Willis stated he did not; l,e believes it ls a "tight" area and •
there isn 't anyth i ng Craig can do but be a\ are of the situation and be sensiti e to the
ne i ghborhood
Mr. Waggoner stated there were several concems raised b Ci departments In the staff
report, and he assumes those conditions do not need to be placed on the PUD to ensur e
those concerns are addressed . Chair Welker sta ted the Commiss ion would need to add
co nditions for tho se items that are missing or unresolved .
Cha ir Welker stated that one issue he doesn 't belie e is docum ent ed is th ,affic imp act, to
the extent the Commission might require other groups to conduct a tr 1 • ; ,,, dy or prove
the issue had been addressed other than talking about it at a meeting. 1 :hair W el !<er stated
he didn 't know if that is a requirement since i t isn 't a bigger building; it ,s " parkin~ stru cture
and a compilation of 3 other buildings on the si te. He isn 't sure i : i~ :;o mething th e
Comm is sion can require, but it is a big issue during construction .
Mr. Willis asked how that would be worded to City ·-:ouncil. Chair We lker stated it is in the
dialogue of the Commiss ion 's discussion, and Counc il hould see i t in the Minutes. Mr.
Willis stated that the park area on Girard should ha e a pa th so i t doesn 't limit people's
access . Chair Welker asked if that needed to be required . Mr. W illis stated it do esn 't need
to be a requirement, but it should be noted that a path wou ld enhance the usage of the
park .
Mr. Weber s, •,-,d the staff report indicates the parking structure Is being built due to a
severe parkint,, shortage on the campus ; however, Crai g app ea rs to exceed the City's
parking standards . Perhaps that is som ething that should be looked into when revi~ing the
Zon ing Ordinance. Chair Welker clari 1ed that he as stating the minimum is no t enough .
Mr. Weber stated that is a possibility. Chair Welker stated that there are defin ite parking
problems in that area , and every parkin g space buil t s ems to be filled . Mr. Weber stated
that perhaps the minimum of 1 space for eve ry 1 beds, plus a spa ce for ev E -y employee is
not en ou gh . He points i t out only so it w ill be co nsidered w hen ,~v ising the Zoning
Ordinance.
M r. Weber suggested asking J Parks and Recrea uon 0 °partment to con tact Craig
Hosp ital about the Friendship House ; perhaps they coul d ti nd a use fo r it.
Chai r W el ker stated that for the sake of disc ussio n, he Comm1ss1on needs to ad dress the
requirements on Pag es 4 and 5 of the sta ff report. Chair v\ _I ker stated the first req uirement
is th at the PUD District Pla n is, or is not. i n con n r r e wi 'h(: District Plan requirements
ar d the Comprehensi e Plan . Cha ir Welker sta t, lieves 1 s a very st rong presence
w1ich the City wants and has acknowledged i n the ompreh'?nsive Plan . The District Plan
de.es not change what is happening i n the neighborhood; and the proposed pa rk ing and
la ndscaping are i n co nformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing condit.ions
in ::1at area .
Rega rdi ng the seco nd requirement under the P D Dis trict Pla n, Chai r We lker stated there
was !Orne issue wi th heigh t and com men ts on the firs t page of the plans that he would. by
re fer,!nce and discus~1on, ask that Craig correct and amend th ose ra ings before they are
pre~ent"d to Ci ty Council . W i th regard to th e third requirem ent. Chair Welker stated it is
consistent with accepted deveiopment standards established by the City of Englewood . •
There was no discusslcn on the third requ ire ment Regarding the fifth requ irement. Chair
1ve lk ·~r stated EDDA does not exist and is not applicable.
'v ••'-regard to the PUD Site Plan requirements, Chair Welker stated the first requir ment is
in, ,ally the same requireme t under the Distri ct Plan . Mr. Waggoner stated the second
requirement has been met. Ch air Welke r stated the thi rd requirement is met. Regarding
the fourth requirement, Chair Welker stated the Commission has already made the ff
report part of the r'!Cord for the public hearin!. Chair Welker asked if there were further
com ments . Being none, Chzir Welke r asked the recording se cretary to call the ro ll.
AYES :
AYS:
ABSTAI
ABSE T:
Rempel w, gc,ner, Web er, W illis, Welker
one
one
Rininger, Stockwell
The motion carried.
Chair Wel ker informed the applicant that the Commission has recommended approval to
City Council. As discussed, min or amendments need to be made and worked out with staff
prior to presenting the case to City Council.
IV . PUBLIC FORUM
o one was present to address the Commission .
V. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE
Ms . Reid st atec the ques t ions of a quorum and voting ar ise frequently; therefore, she has
prepared a mem o discussing those ite ms. She asked the Commission when they would like
to discuss the memo . Chair Welker suggested the memo be in the next packet and that it
be ciscussed at th e '1ext meeting. Ms . Reid further stated that the current Commission
Handbook is actually a draft. and it has not been approved.
Mr. Waggoner asked Ms. Rei d to also address abstaining from voting on a set of Minutes if
a Commissioner has not been at a meeting. Mr. Waggoner stated he believes a
Commissioner should be allowed to vote on Minutes, rather than abstaining, as long as the
Commissioner ha s read the Minutes. Ms . Reid stated that she ha.s a concern with a
ColT'm iss1 oner voung on the Findings of Fact if they were not present at the meeti ng, but
had reviewed the Mi nutes . Chair Welker stated all those issue s should be discussed at one
tim e
Kaool~AADS'lt.A.'<lliM""""~' 10.,.--""' 18
•
•
•
•
•
VI. DIRECTOR'S CHO ICE
s. Lango n rem inded the C mmiss 1on that the next meetin g is Februa 21 , which is a
\ ednesda . ,\Ir. Rempel stated e ould not be able 10 attend and asked 1f that created a
oroblem 1th voting on the Findings of Fae . Ms. Reid stated that i t would not; t~.ree of the
fi e Commissioners present at his meeting voting to ar ro ve the Findings is sufficient.
Ms . Langon stated she prepared a letter fr om Chair We lker to City Council regard ing Mr.
Rininge r.· She was informed the pro edure is to present it to Council under the
Communic ati on Section , and Counc il ill consid er th at request. Chair Welker stated he
spoke v1th Mr. Rininger , and he indica ted that he was still living in Engl~wood and wishe d
to remain on the Commi ssio n. Howe er, he also indicated that he wou ld be at tonight's
meet ing, and he wasn'L Cha tr Welker state d the position needs to be filled with someone
who can regular! attend . Mr. aggoner agreed . Chai r Welker directed staff to do what
w1s ne cessary for City Council to appoint a new Comm is sioner .
VII. COMMISSIONER 'S CHOICE
,r . Willis asked whether Council filled the two vacancies . Ms. Reid stated that Ms.
Lath ram and s. Krieger will be reappoin ted to the Commission on Febru ary 20 . Ms.
Langon stated the reason they are not at tonight's meeting is because their term expired
February ; therefore , the tec hnical! are not on the Comm iss ion and have no votin g rights
until they are reappo i nted on Februarv ~O . Discussion ensued.
Chair elker asked that Ms . Reid research conducting te lephone polls to approve Minutes ,
Findi ngs of Fact. and items that do not require disc ussion or a mee ting.
j\M. ag30ner sta ted that Findings ere approved at tonight's meetinB, but asked wh y the
Fi nd i ngs oi Fact will need to be J proved at the ne t meeting . Ms . Reid cl ari fied the
Commission made the Fi ndings -,, Fa ct tonight the recor ding secretary reports them in
wriung; and as part oi the procedure. the Commission re iews what the recording se creta ry
recorded and then appro es those Findings of Fact if there are no errors.
There was no further business brought before the Commission for discuss ion. The meeting
vas declared adjourned .
:'.;-~3!:'~.:::":C-"?-·==~~ ___ _. _____ -~-=.:--------= :='.=:'C::,.::.:--=:-..:~-::.=:= -------~--.... --... ~ --•--....-·------------·----...--...··-·· .-...-==--=:-,:.~==---== .-:.::..':: __________ __,_ __ .. ,., .. _._,.. .. ___ .,..._ __ _
•
l flANNED UN~l DEVELOPMENT ~H+L=====-=--.... ~ .......
RADO
PUP DISTRICT PlAN
.DEVELOPMENT STANQARDS
' ----,..-···--------__._ --•---..a.••----··• ....... __
.. ----'--._,.., .. _.,. -----.-------
t ----' .......... -..... ....... , ...
. --_,...,. ____ _
. ---. .... ---.... _____ ..,_. _____ ...__ ......
SITE DATA e-.:--==.
------~-===--·-~::. -----~ ....... ..,,,. .. ..... ---..--·• ==-·-=e:i ---------·· -------· =-==-:::;
l='----ca.ta.!, ... ,_ .. .:.:-·
~:=,-:a_-I lll
I ]aNAnJRES
-1111111 .... w1-•------.------..... .._.,, ......... _ .... _________ , __ =---"E"--___ .,... ____ ..,.. ·--. --1 ....._ _______ . .......,_ __ ....... _____ _____
. -------·-------·--·--•---...
-------______ _,_,.. ___ ___
.. ~------..-....-....--------------..--------------~
-------------------■-.... .-..-·-·---------,,,...., ____ ,._....,_ __ _ _____ ................ ........
■ -----.... ~ ... ---------------·---------.. ....
GENERAL N ons _---,:_,,_ ______ ., ............
.. ==----..... ---..-•.-.· ..... ----~~---.--.~-=..-::::::=.--..:==::i::c::. -_____ ,... __ ,... ____ _ __ .,__ ____ ._.... __
=-----------....... -· _____ _,_
_._ ___ "----_____ ..
.......
•
·-------::..----
un• -··--ID.IIUllO -°"' .. .,. r.oa•-
0)5, QPIPK
~ • NAlffG. COical..19111 IMQICIJII IC,
11tN •M'l'M.11>.A 'IC. ... K "IO ..._ ......
i::>(~~1411
wtP:Wff AftOfltCI\S --UIO -otcr l tlll'n.U1lHJO
OC)l'IIJI CQ,,~ .... ~~,,~i=---
SHE ET INDEX -----.. ..... -----------·-------
YJCI NITY MAP
-
7r7rir 7
CONSTRUCTION SCHEQ UU
---~---,.._, ..... 191 .__ _____ ,.,,_...,.. ...... ..
_,_.,.... -.-,__,,, _______ ...,..__.., ... -
------0.-•~--..... .. ---------... -
•
id u ~,
IJ g R ---
~ ,1 I I
f I iii
hli;
iii~I ,Ji ............
W065 .... .....
Z·Z0-01 _ .. ,.
= _,,._
PUD•1 .. .
• i i I i I I I
j
__ j
--,
I
i
!
J
' i I
-------: ------·------------
1
i
I :
'
I i I I i I
[ ______ _
,.----
' !
!
i
............. -...... ,. ........... ----,--,
ITAL
FAM11.Yt«lU51NG
P'.NINED \HT OEVB.OPMEKT
3-QI SOJTl< ST
EkUllOCD. 00..0WX> IOTI)
H+L CM. ._
......... ,""1'H» OMmlDf ---
• Q.., !
I~ I ~! i? CAAlG HOSPITAL
•c FAHU. Y HOUSING
Zi oj PWINED IMIT llfVB.OPHENT ' "'' 8?6 3AZI 9CIJTH ST . -· Nl.fwan lXl.CJWX) 1011)
H+l ..... ___ .. -· -··-..... ~----__ ...,
r----------
1
I 'I' I •I
I
I L----------
-
di
CM. LNCllCN'li -·-------
-'1~11
----I> ---
1 I I I l I I ;-
I I I : V
'
I 1 n G>
"'' •
I'. ~!!~r E EVATION -FAMILY HOUSING
r,--·-
---;;·---
I
, NORTH ELEVATION -GARAGE
• • •
...... ~
2·20-01 -....
:JC'-,11 ..: ----PUD-1 ~·
WEST ELEVATION
......... .. ..... /~ ...... -
i
.--••,:.•.-...~-;----:--. ·-=-= -·· --
SOUTH ELEVATION· FAMILY HOUSING
• •
EAST EL EVATION • EAST BUILDING
. /---
. l '":
WEST ELEVA ION· EAST BUILOJNC
------·-
EW • EXISTING WEST BUllDINC
• • •
.... "' Z-20-01 ....
., I ftlJ. -..,,._
PUD•7 ., .
j;
•
lllSTf\OOl
5(C()Hl)f\.00..
maDROOl 9
FOUtlll ROOI. 9
AlST llOOl
!KOf«>llOOl I
llfllO flOOI
!OUITH R00R l
•
COltNER UNITS
1Collll 1/,r"■(-#
FaSTROOl
5£COMJ flOOR
'ltWIO I\OOt
FOUaTH ll0041 1
•
u -----PUD•8
<I' I
AL TA/ACSM SlRVEY
CR,W HOSP/ TAI. PROl'['H TY
CO(,#/ TY or AIW'AHOC. STA TC OF en OIW)()
L0041lD IN THC SOIJTHCAST ONE-OIJAlfTCR OF SCCTION .J4
AND THt SCV TH»csT ONC-0/JM TER er SCC'10N .13
~ 4 SOIJTH. RANCC U #EST OF ff# TH .A9IOl'At IIDflDWI
---'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ._,
I ---•-I I I
I I I
I 'I
~-----~JL':':. _____ ~
-··-··-i ' -··-·-··-.. -··-··-
I
I
---r -----------
1; ---·--
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_,,
1:--=-
i t
I
·-...... ....,~ __ ..._,
_______ J L ___ _
•
... ,, .
----
,.,...
•
OVERALL~ DSC.APE Pl.AN
~-'~· ---=---=-=._· -=-~=-J
I: -•
i I
I
I
!
•,
~-; .. _:_~
•
' ,,
1·
~=== ~ _,:-=Q·:
•e ,.,........,.. ...... 0•---·------=::.-a:--
--.. L-2
• •