Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-04 PZC MINUTES• • • Planning and Zoning Commi ss ion Study Session Medi cal District Phas e II Stakeholder Meetings Upd ate Case #2009-05 Sign Code Amendm ents May 4 , 2010 P age 1of5 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 4, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was ca ll ed to order at 7:04 p.m. in the City Council Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Knoth presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Bleile, Roth, King, Welker, Knoth, Brick Fish , Calonder, Krieger, Kinton (alternate) Alan White, Community Development Director Tricia Langon , Senior Planner John Voboril, Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 20, 2010 [~ Roth moved: Bleile seconded : TO APPROVE THE APRIL 20, 2010 MINUTES Chair Knoth asked if there were any modifications or corrections. There were none. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Roth, Welker, Knoth, King, Brick None None Fish , Calonder, Krieger Motion carried. Ill. STUDY SESSION Medical District Phase II Stakeholder Meetings Update ~ Stak eholder meetings were held on April 1st, 15 th and 2 th. Mr. Voboril briefly reviewed what took place at each meeting and the comments from those who atte nded . • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Medical District Phase II Stakeholder Meetings Update Case #2009-05 Sign Code Amendments May 4, 2010 Pag e 2 of 5 Sub-area 3: There were several property investors at the meetings who were very interested in doing some type of development. Also, there were a number of people in the audience who lived close to the area that voiced concerns, but did realize that it's primarily an area that has apartment buildings and rental homes. They didn't want to be an area of change in the sense of medical district zoning. They would rather keep larger uses, such as a hospital, out, but did realize and recognize that some reforms could be helpful. They liked the idea of reduced height requirements from 60 feet to something that is more in line with what is there today and were interested in potentially increasing the number of units on certain lots to attract better housing. Office use was acceptable as long as they are smaller such as a clinic, dental office and doctor's office. Sub-area 5: There were not as many attendees from Sub-area 5 as the other areas. There were investors who were very interested in increasing the intensity of the allowed uses such as the number of units per lot size. They were also interested in adding office and retail as allowed uses throughout the area . Mr. Bleile reminded everyone that retail use in this area would involve a zoning change. Sub-area 5 would like change, just not too much . Sub-area 2: Attendees were very skeptical. They would like to eliminate hospital and office use; they don't want change. Two comments were received from owners who could not attend and they favored change for their area on Logan Street. Adjusting the boundary of Subarea 2 was discussed as well as down zoning; several commissioners felt down zoning was not an option. Mr. Bleile asked if anyone attending the meeting expressed gratitude that in the current government environment today, not many governments reach out and say "what do you want to see". Staff, Community Development and the Planning and Zoning Commission has put a lot of time and effort into this process and the public has really been silent, conspicuously absent until it suits them. The Commission has been discussing this issue for a very long time and the folks that wanted to have their voices heard, it was an exemplary example of the City going out to reach the citizens, but at the same time those of us who actually looked at the business case of this particular area, the fact of the matter is the neighborhoods need to thrive. Right now that neighborhood is not exactly thriving; it may be subsisting, but certainly not thriving. Mr. Brick commended Mr. Voboril on doing a great job. He stated he likes reaching out to the public, but financially it is almost impossible, but Staff has reached out in this process . At this point it's up to the community. • • • Plannin g and Zonin g Commi ss ion Study Ses sion Medical District Ph ase II Stakehold er Meetin gs U pdate Case #2009-05 Sign Code Amen dment s May 4 , 2010 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Voboril said Staff needs to do their best to try to make the residents as happy as they can, but it will never be 100%. Mr. Welker asked how many properties south of Girard were rentals . Mr. Voboril said 11; 10 were not. Mr. Welker noted that is not counting the multi-family properties. Mr. Roth said the current zoning in this area is zoned for change. Mr. Welker said the only thing current zoning excludes is non-residential. He said he believes the bottom one-third of Sub-area 2 should be included in the area of change. Mr. King asked if you can build multi-family on Grant Street today. Mr. Voboril said yes, that is zoned R-3-B. Sherman Street north of Eastman is R-2-B and Grant Street north of Eastman is R-1-C. Mr. Voboril said Sub-area 2 has been zoned R-3-B since 1955. Mr. Bleile said he can certainly appreciate somebody who has lived in the area for 30, 35 or 45 years, but for Englewood to thrive and be a community you want to read about in the planning magazines, people need to have the leadership skill to say this is the vision that I think would be best for the overall City. We don't want to offend people, but at the same time the Commission needs to take the opportunity at this time to do something with that particular area knowing what medical "stuff" is going to be in 5, 10 or 15 years from now. Do we want to miss out on that or do we want to retain that single character that's going to be a non-growth area for the next 20 years. Mr. Welker said with the economy being what it is, the City is probably at least five years away from any pressure to make changes. Mr. Brick noted the Commissioner's visions are in Roadmap Englewood; maybe we should revisit those visions publicly in those neighborhoods. Mr. Voboril reviewed the proposed amendments. Mr. Voboril will take the Commission 's feedback and rework the amendments to bring back to the Commission at a later date. Mr. Voboril will be taking this issue to City Council Study Session on June 7111 • Sign Code Amendments ~ Ms. Langon stated Staff attended the April 26th City Council Study Session to discuss banners, murals, new technologies, portable/temporary signs, South Broadway Sign Area and signs in the public right-of-way . The Department feels that the Code itself for permanent signage is not really broken; what is a concern to the business community is t emporary signage . • • • . Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Medical District Phase II Stakeholder Meetings Update Case #2009-05 Sign Code Amendments May 4, 2010 Page 4 of 5 Also discussed with Council was another method of preparing Sign Code amendments based on the "Street Graphics" model. She distributed information on how the "S treet Graphics" concept works. Mr. Bleile asked if this concept would simplify the sign code. Ms. Langon said it depends on how you use it. Chair Knoth said the biggest issue with banners and temporary signs is enforcement. Will this concept be easier to enforce? Ms. Langon said that is a policy determination by City Council as to how they want enforcement done. It will be discussed at a future study session with Council. Dir ecto r White said one of the reasons Staff and City Council likes this model is because we believe it is easy to enforce. Some signs may require permits, more discussion is needed . Mr. Bleile stated he liked the concept and it provides great flexibility. Mr. Welker agreed, but said there does need to be limits. Ms. Langon stated as she writes the code changes she'll be using a concept of street gra phics. The Commission's past work on the sign code will be incorporated into the new concept. Ms. Langon noted there are still areas that will need more discussion . Mr. Roth asked the Commissioners to take a look at a new LED sign at Broadway and Chenango to see if it is something the Commission would like to see more of. Ms . Langon said the current sign code allows a sign to flash no more than once every two seconds. Director White noted the South Broadway Sign Area allows flashing and blinking signs. IV. PUBLIC FORUM ~ There was no public present. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE l@l Director White had nothing further to report. VI. STAFF'S CHOICE ~ Future Meeting: May 18: Landscape Amendments Update Ms. Langon noted on August 7111 DRCOG will be hosting a planning comm1ss1oner workshop. Several commissioners attended last year's session. She will provide more information as it becomes available . • • • Pl an ning an d Zonin g CoIIlIIl.issio n Stu dy S essio n M edi cal Distric t Phase II Stakehold er M eetin gs U pd ate Case #2 009 -05 Si gn Code Amendments May 4 , 2 010 P age 5 of 5 Ms. Lan gon prov ided an u pdat e on Buy-back, Seco n d-hand, Thr ift and Consi gnment Us es in MU-B-1. She i nformed the Commission the re may b e c han ges to the am e n dments based on th e discuss ion at Fi rst Read i n g of the proposed amendm e nts at C ity Co u ncil. VII. ATTORNEY 'S CHOICE ~ Ms. Reid had nothing f u rthe r to report. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE ~ Th e re were no furth e r comments . Th e me et i ng adjourned at 8 :55 p.m . Barbara Kreck low Record i ng Secretary