Walgreens Hearing Update-No Decision Yet by Planing Commission
Today, Tuesday March 21, 2006, the Planning Commission held the continuance hearing for the proposed rezoning to accommodate a planned Walgreens at the corner of Penn and South Braddock Avenues.
At the opening of the hearing, City Planner Susan Tymoczko presented the proposal of the applicant, and indicated that the City Planning Department was recommending the rezoning to the planning commission.
Pat Ford, Director of City Planning then led with a brief discussion explaining two ways to look at the zone change request- a change rule or a change correction. The change rule would be when a neighborhood has been evolving and the ruling makes the new use more consistent with that direction. A change correction would be when the original zoning was a mistake, and needs to be corrected.
At that point the planning commission asked for the legal council for Walgreens to present their request. They presented their site plan and witnesses for about an hour, with the commission then following up with questions. They argued that the site fit the change correction based on “geometry” because the zone change would make a straighter line of demarcation between zones. They also argued that is was change rule in that modern businesses required more space, and that specifically, they needed more space.
There was significant time devoted to review of the site plan, though the planning commission did note that they were indulging them in this, since the site plan has no relevance to the zone change request.
Next, three representatives from other organization were provided five minutes for testimony and opinion in opposition to the rezoning. Regent Square Civic Association, Young Preservationists Association of Pittsburgh and SPUR Consulting.
Then the legal council for neighborhood members in opposition was provided five minutes to speak, and then granted three additional minutes upon request after being cut-off. He focused on why this was a case of spot zoning.
Finally, members of the community were given the chance to speak. The large majority present and speaking was opposed to the rezoning.
The Greater Park Place Neighborhood association also spoke for five minutes. They also addressed the two ways Pat Ford suggested to look at the rezone request. First, the change rule was addressed by pointing out that the clearest indication of the way the neighborhood has been changing was the previous rezoning improve the *residential* character of the neighborhood by going from R-4 to R-2 zoning. As to the correction rule, it was pointed out that zoning is a planning tool used to plan larger than a lot. If one was to look at the neighborhood, and not just the lots adjacent to the commercial zone, then it was shown that the straight line suggested did not really exist. Just one addition lot past what was on the developers site plan was residential all the way to Penn Avenue, breaking the imaginary line the developers suggested should exist.
Finally, the commission followed up with questions for the community and the developer.
In conclusion, Pat Ford made a few comments. One of note, was that he stated that it was not the role of the Planning Commission to consider spot zoning, stating “that is what the courts are for, they can battle it out there.”
At the end of the meeting, the commission voted 5 to 3 to continue the hearing. This means merely that the decision will be given at the next meeting. There will be no more public comment.
Kudos to all those who were able to attend. We owe a BIG thanks to the experts and organizations that testified on our behalf. Well done all.
I think the presentation by the developers was more like an hour and a quarter and went well beyond zoning issues. (It diverged into site planning issues, arguments that it is not just their plan that needs more space, but unsubstantiated statements that no business could fit on that huge lot, the merits of historic status of the houses and neighbor hood, etc.) Testimony by at least one “expert” on the potential impact to the community was based on observation and driving through the community ONLY! On the other hand, our community provided experts and our neighbors’ testimony was limited to 3 minutes. We managed to articulate the adverse impact that we would experience in reality and debunked many arguments to back up our attorney’s brief statement that he was permitted. Our statements were routinely interrupted by one gruff board member who got upset when a citizen repeated himself or herself or gave testimony he viewed as irrelevant. Interesting contrast with the consideration paid to the developers’ rambling presentation. I felt the folks who took the time to attend should have been allowed to express themselves as well as they could in the 3 minutes allotted. Clearly there is room for some procedural improvement.
All in all, the board was attentive and engaged (with the exception of Pat Ford –one citizen criticized him for focusing on his Blackberry instead of the testimony). They really seemed to be weighing the issues and merits of the case. I’m glad they decided to consider the material and give it careful review. I fear it may be easier for them to pass the ball to the city council and make it a political decision, but we will see. The developers’ drawings and statements could be misleading if not closely examined so the extra time is a good thing in the end.
This bias that I felt was likely due to the fact that the city zoning staff supported the proposal (openly stated) and wanted to facilitate it. It was again interesting to learn that the city does not have to be balanced or see that resident viewpoints were facilitated by the format of the hearing. It was more shocking to hear that Pat Ford (director of planning) counseled the committee that they need not consider the legality of Spot Rezoning (spot rezoning is illegal) in this case. He claimed that this is something that could be worked our in the courts if they approved the proposal here. I consider that an abuse of the courts and a waste of taxpayer money. Nice. This may have been the guidance Bob Reppe had from the administration when he approved a plan that was subsequently proven illegal –only when the GPPNA challenged it. Does anybody else see a pattern here?
In the end the long presentation was somewhat balanced by the sheer volume of residents that came and spoke eloquently to the issues. It was nice to see some architects going out on a limb to stand up for community and design issues over developer interests (their bread and butter after all). Kudos!
With such leadership it is clear that only communities who have the $$$ to take issues to court can be assured of legal decisions by the city. Very troubling. Also kinda motivating. Did this bias piss anybody else off?
Comment by Gregg — March 21, 2006 @ 21:11
I agree with Gregg’s points. One argument the developers made was that the rezoning is essential to a viable retail development, because of City zoning requirements that would kick in for any new project. A smaller lot is not possible because of curb cut regulations. How ironic, that they are asking for a zoning change for purposes of making a larger lot, but they cannot imagine any developer asking for a change to make a smaller store possible.
As Gregg noted, the developers got all the time they needed, but opponents were limited. Our lawyer, to whom much money has been paid, was not allowed to present a case more than 8 minutes, nor was he allowed to question the “expert” testimony of the developers’ consultants. The reason, we were told, was that there were so many opponents that our time would equal the developers. What if more supporters of the zoning change had showed up – would they not also have been allowed their 3 minutes? As it is only a few supporters spoke, and all of them were property owners wanting to sell.
The moral of the story (other than money talks) is that it will be very important to pack the room with as many opponents as possible at the upcoming City Council hearing if we are to stop this development. Thanks to John Mayberry and the rest of the GPPNA for your excellent leadership on this. It was great to have the support of Regent Square Civic Assn. and others also.
One more thought: whatever the outcome of this battle, I hope the two sides (and there are two sides) can remain on friendly terms. We are all after the same thing, which is a more livable neighborhood. It would be ashamed if this community’s energy is wasted on hard personal feelings. This is an important issue, but one on which reasonable people can differ. I hope the supporters of the zoning changes as well as opponents feel welcome to join and participate in GPPNA in the future.
I believe that the GPPNA’s liaisons to the other neighborhoods should communciate as quickly as possible to the other groups’ leaders the bias and lack of responsiveness the GPPNA was shown.
GPPNA was very organized, with a top notch attorney, and had “experts” with credentials equaling and exceeding those presented by the developer. It is hard to imagine that a neighborhood group could prepare a more professional presentation, and we clearly have a viable position based on our previous “victory” – yet we were ignored!
That treatment should scare all neighborhood groups, and now is the time to make a statement about it by unifying to really make a “whole East End” uproar to City Council. Let’s use this to truly mobilize the other groups, who may (understandably) not be too motivated by our one specific zoning issue.
Let’s say to the other groups: this treatment of the GPPNA sends a terrible message to all groups in the East End and across the City: even when you invest signficant money and time in support of a reasonable position, you do not have a voice!.
We must tell all concerned in City government: we’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to stand for this! Let’s use this shameful conduct by the City as motivation to really get our voices heard.
In todays Post Gazette coverage of the meeting it states that ” the city planning commission voted to wait two weeks before APPROVING a zoning change of three residential parcels. ” Is this an accidental slip of the keyboard or has the decision been rendered before we left the room?
Hi folks,
I agree, this hardly qualified as a “public hearing.” I think we would have had more respect from the former board, but anyway, I was confused about the process, so I talked to Dolores (staff at Planning) and then to Linda (City Clerk of city council, and here’s what I learned:
The whole process should take about 2 months.
We have lots of opportunities to have input here.
Obviously we should put great energy into mobilizing for the public hearing– packing the room and packing the agenda. It will probably be televised. We should start lining up plans to talk to every council members. You can make appointements –their numbers are on the city website. Some are easeir to meet with than others — obviously the 2 most important ones are Carlisle (ours) and Len Bodack. I used to know all the members, but they’ve been changing very quicky over the past several years. I can’t guess how any would vote…. we need to talk to all of them and line up 5 votes for sure.
That’s all for now….
Ed-
Word is out that the administration wants this to happen, but I would not read to much into this piece. The entire article lacked attention to detail. It pretty much was a phone in. Not much thought went into it this time.