Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-05 PZC MINUTES• • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case #2010-01 , Medi cal and Downtown District Small Area Pl an , Phase II Amendments October 5, 2010 P age 1 of9 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER 1!11 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was cal led to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Knoth presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Bleile, Roth , Welker, Krieger, Knoth, Fish, Brick, Calonder Kinton (alternate) (exited at 8:55 ) King Alan White, Community Development Director John Voboril, Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 21, 2010 Welker moved : Krieger seconded: TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 MINUTES Chair Knoth asked if there were any modifications or corrections. There were none. AYES: NAYS: Roth, Welker, Krieger, Knoth, Fish, Brick, Calonder None ABSTAIN: Bleile ABSENT: King Motion carried. 111. PUBLIC HEARING Case #2010-01, Amendments to the Eng lewood Downtown and Medical District 1!11 Smal l Area Plan Krieger moved: Fish seconded: TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2010-01 • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case #2 010-01 , Medical and Do wntown Di strict Small Area Plan , Phase II Amendments October 5, 2010 Page 2 of 9 AYES: NAYS : Roth , Welker, Krieg e r, Knoth , Fish , Brick, Calonder, Bleile None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: King Motion carried. ~ Mr. John Voboril, Plann er, was sworn in . He provided background information on the Englewood Medical and Downtown Small Area Plan process to date. Community Development staff kicked off the small area planning process for the Englewood Downtown and Medical District in the fall of 2006. A number of stakeholder meetings were scheduled and 5,000 invitations were mailed out to all business, property owners and residents within the medical district and downtown district boundaries as well as one block beyond these boundaries. Three hundred people registered as stakeholders and out of those 150 actually attended the meetings . From the feedback gathered from the stakeholders staff developed a vision, goals and objectives that were then put together in the Small Area Plan document. This document was then taken to a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission and was forwarded with a favorable recommendation to City Council. City Council adopted the document by Resolution in the spring of 2007. Th e second step in the planning process was then to turn to looking at new medical zone district regulations for the areas identified as areas of change in the Small Area Plan process . Staff analyzed the existing zoning for major deficiencies and then began to develop new concepts for new zon es in the areas. Those concepts were then brought back to the Planning Commission for a series of study sessions where the Commission helped to refine thos e concepts. Next, staff went back out to the stakeholders and held another meeting to present the concepts. Staff rec eived a very favorable reaction to the concepts from the attendees. Staff then began to codify the language of the concepts into real regulations that could then be included in the Unified Development Code . A public hearing was then held on the regulations as well as the proposed area for rezoning. Those also were met with a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council. City Council also held a public hearing and first and second readings and voted to approve the two Ordinances; the first to amend the Code with the new medical district regulations and the second to rezone the area that was designated as an area of change. Today those areas have been rezoned to M-1 and M-2 medical. At the conclusion of that process th e Planning Commission realized there were a number of outstanding issues that had not been resolved. These include the following: 1. In areas of stability overnight in-patient hospital use is still an allowed us e in the areas north of Girard . 2. The 3400 block of Logan and Grant Streets should be reconsidered as an area of change due to the fact that this area is just to the west of th e Swedish campus • • Planning and Zoning Commission Publi c Hearing Case #2 010-01 , Medical and Downtown Di strict Small Area Plan , Phase II Amendments October 5, 2010 Page 3 of9 and is between the campus and the downtown area and therefore would make a logical area of change. 3. Sub-area 5 stakeholders should be reengaged concerning the possibility of increasing development options due to the area's proximity to the highway. Community Development Staff, in response to these issues, put together a Phase II stakeholder process for these unresolved issues. Focus was on Sub-areas 2, 3 and 5. 1,673 invitations were sent out to all residents, business and property owners within these three sub-areas as well as one block beyond the borders. One hundred and seven people registered for the meetings and 55 people actually attended the meetings. At the first meeting staff showed the stakeholders the existing conditions and talked about the new medical zoning district regulations. They were asked to take some time to consider whether these new zoning regulations were something they felt would be a good fit for their areas. They came back two weeks later and provided their input to staff. The vast majority of stakeholder comments was that no, these medical district regulations are not really appropriate for thes e areas. The one exception to that was there were a few stakeholders in the 3400 blocks of Grant and Logan Streets that did express support for the new medical district regulations for these blocks. At the same time, there also were a number of stakeholders that were living north of Girard in Sub-area 2 that were opposed to the new medical district regulations for the 3400 blocks of Grant and Logan Street. For the second half of the meeting staff said since the stakeholders were not interested in becoming areas of change and being rezoned to medical district regulations, would stakeholders then be in favor of reforming the existing zoning so stakeholders would be better protected from unwanted hospitals uses or large, dense uses coming into your area? By and large they were very supportive of that in both Sub-areas 2 and 3. Residents in Sub- area 5 are not affected by hospital use, but they wanted some additional redevelopment opportunities they currently do not have such as small offices, retail uses, or adding more residential units per land area. Staff then took the stakeholder feedback and developed draft goals and objectives and presented them to the stakeholders at the third meeting. A visual preference survey was also conducted at this meeting where staff showed different sizes of development and asked them if that particular picture was an appropriate scale for your neighborhood or not. This exercise gave staff a good idea of what th e stakeholders felt was an appropriate scale to use in future study sessions to figure out what these zoning regulations ought to b e. Planning Commission was asked to consider a request from several sub-area 2 stakeholders to down-zone the entire sub-area from a mixed use multi-unit residential and office district to a single-unit residential district. Planning Commission did not favor this option. Mr. Voboril reviewed the proposed amendments, concluded his presentation with • suggested Findings of Fact, and answered questions from the Commission . • • • Planning and Zoning Commission P ublic Hearing Case #20 10-01 , Medical and Downtown District Small Area Plan, Phase II Amendments October 5, 2010 Page 4 of9 Mr. Welker said you indicated stakeholder correspondence was sent to the people in the medical district, including the management of Swedish and Craig Hospitals. Is that true? Mr. Voboril said yes. Letters were sent to the hospitals inviting them to participate in the meetings and members from Craig hospital did attend the stakeholder me etings. Chair Knoth said as a clarification, the amendments are not for zoning changes, they are just for guid~lines. Mr. Voboril said yes, these are changes to the Small Area Plan document that was approved in 2007. It is a policy document giving staff official guidance of how we should conduct study sessions to look at zoning regulations. These are not laws, they are goals and objectives . Chair Knoth asked if someone came in to do a project tomorrow what regulations would apply. Mr. Voboril said if a project came in tomorrow they would have to follow the existing regulations in those areas as the Commission and staff has not done any actual zoning work. Staff will hopefully be moving forward with these regulations toward the end of the year if time allows. After analyzing the issues and holding study sessions with the Planning Commission staff will probably want to call back the stakeholders to show them the proposed changes and then go forward with the formal process to change the zoning regulations in these areas. Chair Knoth asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Voboril. There were not. Chair Knoth thanked Mr. Voboril for his presentation . ~ The following persons spoke during the public hearing: 1 . R.J . Scheck 2. Charles Smith 3. Maureen White 4. Gerald Tindall 5. Paul Douden 6. Cynthia Searfoss 7. Lisa Warren 8. Linda Cohn 9. Constance Crawford 10. Don Kent 11 . Matthew Machetta 12. Patrick Neil 13. Jim Christensen Bleile moved: Roth seconded: TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2010-01 TO A LATER DATE . AYES: Bleile NAYS: Roth, Welker, Krieger, Knoth, Fish, Brick, Calonder • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearin g Cas e #2010-01 , Medical and Downtown District Small Area Plan , Phase IT Amendments Octob er 5, 2010 P ag e 5 of9 ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Motion failed. Brick moved: None King Fish seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2010-01 AYES: NAYS : Roth, Welker, Krieger, Knoth, Fish, Brick, Calonder Bleile ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: King Motion carried. ~ Krieger moved : Welker seconded: CASE #2010-01 AMENDMENTS TO THE ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN ANO MEDICAL DISTRICT SMALL AREA PLAN BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENOA TION FOR ADOPTION . Mr. Welker said he wanted to let everyone in the audience know all the Commissioners are citizens of the City of Englewood; we don't all live in your neighborhood, but live in other neighborhoods in the City and have similar concerns. He stated he is the senior member of the Commission having been on it since 1995. The Commission has been through a lot of issues where changes have upset people in the City and most of it is under the guise of that we are somehow threatening your livelihood, devaluing your property, etc. The Commission's goal is not to do any of that and doesn't believe it is Council's either. We are trying to deal with things that will keep the City viable and allow the businesses, like Swedish, that are thriving to continue, but put some limits on them. These are goals, not laws or ordinances. He extended an invitation to all to attend Planning and Zoning meetings and become involved in the process. He noted the Commission is scheduled to meet twice a month. He assured the audience the Commission does care and this is not the end of this discussion ; it is not going to force something down your throats. Please convey that statement to the other people that you represent or that you know of that have concerns . We are here to try to work out solutions that will be good for the City in the long run; 20 to 40 years ahead. Ms. Krieger said to the best of our knowledge, there is no huge plan here. Swedish isn't planning on buying up the whole neighborhood that anyone knows about. There aren 't any developers that are sitting there ready to snap up your property. Development could be small offices, multi-family, it could be anything. There is no hidden agenda here. From where the Commission stands, especially the two blocks of Logan and Grant, when you • • • Pl an nin g and Zoning Commissi on Publi c Hearin g C ase #2010-01 , Medical and Downtown Di stri ct Small Area Plan , Phase II Amendments Octo ber 5 , 2010 Page 6 of 9 look at a map of the City it's completely encased by everything else. That is why from the Commission's standpoint and from a developer's standpoint it looks like a good place eventually to fill in. That doesn 't mean it's going to happen tomorrow. No one can force you to sell your house as witnessed by the woman who did live in the center of Swedish Hospital. In order to have huge development a number of people have to sell. As you have all seen tonight, there are a number of differing viewpoints. Some people are afraid their property values are going to go down, others think they will go up, some owners want the ability to rent their property and others like their neighbors that are invested and want more homeowners. There's a whole range of goals out there. The Commissions job is to try to sort out all of that and figure out what is best for the City in the long run, not in the short run. Mr. Fish said he felt Staff has done a good job of communicating. He said that is one point he must disagree with the public on. He said he wanted it on the record that he believes the process of communicating to the community and the feedback the community has given us has been an outstanding process and doesn't think it can really be improved. There have been multiple meetings with the public. Everyone has had a chance multiple times to speak. As Mr. Welker, said this process is not finished; there is still time to participate. He said he appreciated everyone that attended tonight's meeting. Ms. Krieger noted what the City envisions and what actually happens can be completely different things as evidenced by the old Comprehensive Plan. If people love their neighborhood, invest in their houses, and want it to be residential it will stay that way regardless of what vision the City has. Mr. Bleile said he has many things he would like to say and would like to continue this even if it's not from a public perspective. He said he has a page and a half of things, both rebuttals from the public and he is not necessarily sold on some of the additions. He said he does agree that the process the Planning and Zoning Commission and Community Development has done to reach out to this small medical area community has been outstanding. He said he doesn't know how many city governments anybody else has participated in, but this particular City has held numerous public hearings on this side of the fence. There have been numerous community events, flyers sent out, and the Commission has been working on this for years. He quoted a comment he made at an earlier meeting this year saying he was very disappointed that the Commission has had this much progress on the plan and nobody has come forward ... zero, not one in 4 years had come forward to this Commission to go on record in front of us. We have asked and reached out and it has been an outstanding effort. He said maybe that is because he sees the work that has transpired from Community Development and maybe you, the public, do not. There has been a tremendous effort to put this information out there. He said the members of this Commission is not here because we are paid by Swedish, we don't have any more vested an interest that Swedish expands versus one of you wanting to sell your house for development. We are here to protect not only your interest. The person sitting behind you isn 't going to have the same vested interest as the person sitting in front of you. The • • • Planning an d Zonin g Commission Public Hearing Case #2010-01 , Medical and Downtown Di strict Small Area Pl an, Ph ase II Amendments October 5 , 2010 P age 7 of 9 Commission cannot make decisions that are going to be perfect for everybody; you all know that. We put on our citizens hats quite often in meetings. As a Commission we have the duty to not just you guys here tonight, but the 21,000 other citizens that are not here speaking. We have to balance the needs of all the citizens, businesses, #1 employer, etc. What we decide is not final , this goes to City Council and the public gets to go through the process all over again. This is by no means the last step nor is it the first step, it is just a step. This is how government works. Chair Knoth said he believes the Commission has tried to soften the edges and tried to cut down heights, not allow hospital use in other parts of town where we don't want it and that is what is stated in these goals and guidelines. It's not completely down zoning into a single family situation, but said he didn't think that is what we want to see in this area. Mr. Roth addressed the down zoning issue. He said the problem with down zoning 1s 1t makes many properties, such as apartments, in the area non-conforming, which limits the owner's ability to do improvements on those properties. Mr. Fish said down zoning could create a situation in which the commercial properties would then begin to deteriorate . We don't know if it would actually happen, but that is certainly a likely possibility if they can no longer function as commercial properties. That is not in the best interest of the area . Mr. Welker stated we cannot take the commercial properties right to ex ist away either because they are property owners just like you are. The Commission must do what we believe is best for the future. Single-family housing is always acceptable as an existing use within higher zoned districts. The Commission is not taking away your right to have a house in those districts ever as long as it is there now, but we are not going to allow a car dealership to move in . There are certain areas where things are appropriate. Mr. Bleile said he wanted to address more of the public, but they have been leaving. It's frustrating that folks that got up and spoke to us and expected input have left. Knowing that they were going to trickle out I wanted to have an opportunity to actually speak to everyone that was here. Ms. Krieger said that is a problem we always have . Mr. Welker said they can always listen to the minutes. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Roth, Welker, Krieger, Knoth, Fish, Brick, Calonder, Bleile None None King Mr. Brick said h e voted yes on th e Amendments because they are consistent with th e following Objectives in Roadmap Englewood: 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan: • •• • Planning and Zoning Commis sion Publi c Hearing Case #2010-01 , Medi cal and Downtown District Small Area Plan , Phase II Amendments October 5, 2010 Page 8 of9 1. Section 5 Housing, Goal 2 Objective 2-3: Upgrade or replace substandard residential units. 2 . Section 7 Business and Employment, Goal 1 Objective 1-2: Actively engage in attracting new businesses to the City. 3. Section 7 Business and Employment, Goal 3 Objective 3-3: Recognize the complementary effects between the physical appearance of both commercial districts and the surrounding residential areas. 4. Section 7 Business and Employment, Goal 5 Objective 5-2: Increase the value and appeal of Englewood 's ret ai l and industrial corridors in order to stimulate economic growth. Ms. Krieger said she was voting yes too because she agreed with Mr. Brick. Mr. Roth voted yes and also agreed with Mr. Brick. Motion carried. IV. PUBLIC FORUM ~ Charles Smith shared concerns about staff not being introduced at the start of the meeting and asked what Swedish Hospital 's role was in the Small Area Plan . Cynthia Searfoss said many people left tonight frustrated and angry before the Commission was allowed to talk to the audience. The guidelines for holding a public hearing were discussed. Paul Douden also shared concerns about staff not being introduced. Several Commissioners noted Mr. Voboril did introduce himself at the beginning of his testimony. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE !?] Director White did not have any matters to bring before the Commission. VI. STAFF'S CHOICE ~ Director White stated the next meeting will be on October 191h, a study session regarding the medical marijuana amendments . VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE ~ Ms. Reid stated for the public that is still here, when you make a decision in the quasi - legislative roll, you have to have facts and something on which to base your decision, which is what Mr. Brick explained. There have been a number of meetings with the residents of the medical district and that is the time that staff allowed for give and take. It needs to be • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case #2010-01, Medical and Downtown District Small Area Plan, Phase II Amendments October 5, 2010 Page 9 of 9 understood that the Commission can only make a decision based upon what is provided in the public hearing. The purpose of the stakeholder meetings is to allow everyone in the area to give input to staff before the issue gets to the Commission . VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE ~ Mr. Brick said he appreciated Ms. Reid's clarification. Mr. Welker said he 's not sure it's a problem that can easily be fixed . He said he believes all the Commissioners would like to have a better dialogue and better communication with ourselves, with Council, with Staff and the citizens; we do the best we can. He said he felt like Staff and the Commission has tried to get public input. Mr. Brick said he feels we have been successful too. There were probably 20 to 30 people here; that usually does not happen . Mr. Welker said the problem is thos e people leave here feeling they were unheard. Ms. Krieger said and the Commission is actually thrilled to have them attend. • The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Barbara Krecklo •