Planning and Zoning Commission

PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES City of Geneva 109 James Street - City Council Chambers Meeting #1138 – October 24, 2013 Chairman Rogers called the Plan Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call followed: Present: Commissioners Case, Erickson, Leidig, Stevenson, Stocking, Chairman Rogers Absent: Commissioners Evans, Mead Others Present: Community Development Dir. Dick Untch; Planner David DeGroot; Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt Public Present: No registration sheet available, not a public hearing. ________________________________________________________________________________ Approval of the October 10, 2013 Meeting Minutes Minutes of the October 10, 2013 meeting were approved on motion by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Commissioner Leidig. Motion carried by voice vote of 6-0. Review and Recommendation Session (Public Hearing held on 9/26/2013) Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Amendments to the Land Use Plan and the Illustrative Development Concept for Opportunity Site 6, as shown in the Downtown/Station Area Master Plan (part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan). Applicant: City of Geneva; Location: 102, 120, 132 & 210 S. Bennett Street; 228 & 306 Crissey Avenue; and 4 & 12 E. State Street Chairman Rogers recalled that at the prior public hearing on September 26, 2013, the hearing was closed according to the rules of the public hearing process and no further public testimony could be heard at this time, except to review the summary and staff’s recommendations. Dir. Untch summarized in detail what was discussed at the prior two public hearings as it related to this case, explaining that this proposal would change the Land Use Plan designation from “Row Houses and Multi-family Development to Single-family Detached Houses.” He reminded the commissioners that at the prior meeting, staff discussed the reasons why the Plan recommended row houses and multi-family development, as well as the positive and negative reasons of keeping the Plan, as is, along with changing the plan to reflect single-family homes for the area. Public testimony was received from the many residents expressing no support for row houses and multi-family land uses in the Plan for the area and believed it would be a detrimental threat to existing homes and future homes and would also change the single-family character of the area. Dir. Untch also summarized staff’s review comments, pointing out the work that went into the Plan, the input received from interested community stakeholders, and the data and research reviewed by the planning development staff and consultants, forming the foundation that the plan was built on. But he also pointed out that if conditions changed, with parts of the Plan becoming out of date, community needs change, etc., the Plan could be amended by the City Council. While staff felt that the area had characteristics that could support row houses and multi-family housing, addressing housing goals in the plan, the residents’ comments and concerns about the negative impact of same had to be considered. He emphasized the Plan’s planning process focused on two issues: building consensus around the ideas in the Plan and being responsive to the community input received. He agreed the Plan should be adjusted and that it include a balance between the City’s planning goals and objectives and how those interact within individual property rights. Staff’s opinion was that what was stated in the Plan did not outweigh the concerns of the area residents and the Plan did identify Geneva Plan Commission -2- October 10, 2013 multiple areas throughout the downtown where multi-family could be provided and provide better land use compatibility. Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the Plan and illustrative development concept for Opportunity Site 6, deleting the recommended row house/multi-family land uses and inserting single-family detached residential land uses in that portion of that plan. Chairman Rogers asked for commissioner input. Commissioner Stocking reported that he was part of the downtown planning meetings and he agreed with staff’s comments. In those meetings, he noted the recommendations made were what were best, overall, for the downtown. The housing portion (density, types of housing, and density around the downtown area) was in the top two to three goals and objectives of the city and were important to the health of the downtown. Conversely, he believed staff’s reasons to leave the plan alone were important also, but those needs could actually be addressed in other areas within the Planning Commission through the approval process. Given that the area was somewhat removed from the downtown, and it’s uniqueness, Stocking believed it was not as key as in other locations and it was the right to amend the Plan; Commissioners Stevenson and Leidig concurred. However, Erickson disagreed, stating that the amount of land involved in the area may currently be single-family now but he questioned whether single-family was the highest and best use for the land. He believed it was not. He cited staff’s reasons to keep the Plan as is and believed the Land Use Plan was correct and should not be changed. He also believed it was up to future residents to decide what was best for the area. While Commissioner Case believed everyone brought up good points, he was leaning toward the residents’ concerns of what could occur in the future and agreed with Commissioner Stocking’s comments. Commissioner Stocking moved that the Plan Commission adopt the amendments to the Land Use Plan and the Illustrative Development Concept for Opportunity Site 6, as shown in the Downtown/Station Area Master Plan (part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan). Seconded by Commissioner Leidig. Roll call: AYE: Case, Leidig, Stevenson, Stocking NAY: Erickson, Rogers MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 4-2 In closing, Chairman Rogers voiced disappointment that at the last meeting the residents were under the impression that there was a conspiracy to take the residents’ land, which was not the case at all. Commissioner Case reminded the residents that this commission was an advisory body and tht City Council had the right to overturn this commission’s decision. Public Comment - None Other Business Mr. DeGroot updated commissioners on upcoming items, including a new sign variation request for Past Basket and the text amendments for the consolidation of the ZBA and Plan Commission. Dir. Untch mentioned that on November 7th a workshop meeting will be taking place to discuss and strategize long-term housing needs for the city through a grant developed by CMAP. Details followed. Other dialog followed regarding new in-fill homes being constructed and the dimming of the brightly lit signs at the Country House Restaurant located on Kirk Road. Staff offered to research that. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Leidig. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote.