Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-07-07 PZC MINUTESI I I Page 857 The matter of the variance granted to Mr. Betwick, Case #65-5, February 10, 1965 , was dis- cussed. The members o f the Board of Adjustment and Appeals left the meeting. The Planning Director showed a preliminary sketch of a proposed subdivision of the KLZ Site to the Commission. After considerable discussion, it was agreed that the sketch was a "starting point" and that the general concept of the plan was feasible and could be approved; however, the Commission members felt that more consideration will necessarily need to be given to the traffic plan and layout at the time the Preliminary Subdivision Plan is to be considered. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. D. A. Romans Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 7, 1965 The regular meeting o f the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:10 P.M. by Chairman Carlson. Members present: Woods, Touchton, Rice, Fullerton, Carlson Romans , Ex-officio Members absent: Parkinson II. APPROVAL OF MINUTE S. Mr. Carlson stated the Minutes of the regular meeting of June 23rd, and the Minutes of the informal discussion of June 30th , were to be considered for approval. Rice moved: Fullerton seconded: The Minutes of June 23, 1965, and June 23, 1965 , be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. The members of the Commission discussed the informatl meeting of June 30, 1965, at which time members of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals were present: III. ST. GEORGE'S CHURCH 3239 South Logan St. CASE #9-65A June 23, 1965 Mr. James Wilson and Dr. William Nies, members of the St. George's congregation, were present to discuss a possible solution for the use of their Church building after the con- gregation vacates it. Mrs. Romans reviewed the case. An application requesting B-1 zoning has been filed; this zoning classification is the only classification which will permit the use desired by the potential purchasers of the property, the Eagle's Lodge. She stated there were three possibilities to be considered: (1) Extend B-1 zoning to the centerline of Logan between East Hampden Avenue and East Eastman Avenue as has been requested in the application on file; (2) Extend the R-3 zoning to the centerline of Logan between East Eastman and East Hampden Avenues; this would permit the structure to be used for several uses such as a pro- fessional office building, but would exclude any retail uses, or the use of the structure as a lodge hall; (3) Zone only the Church property B-1. This constitutes "spot zoning", and is not regarded as good zoning practice. Discussion followed. Mr. Rice suggested two additional alternatives; (1) amend the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to make provision for the use of such public buildings after the original use becomes impracticable; and (2) The Church make direct application to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals f or a variance. He stated that the Church has a plight which demands alleviation; to do so by extension of the B-1 Zone District is not, in his opinion , feasible; and an extension o f the R-3 district could still require amendment of the Zoning Ordinance if the structure is to be used by the Lodge. "Spot zoning", he felt, could well instigate additional problems in the entire City. Mr. Rice stated he felt it is well within the power of the Board to grant such a variance to the Church. Dr. Nies asked why the variance was denied by the Board. The following excerpt from the Minutes of the June 9, 1965, meeting of the Board was cited: "The variance be denied be- cause it does not meet all of the requirements for granting a Variance as set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in Section 22.2-6(c), particularly Part (1) 'That the variance will do substantial justice to all and not to just the particular applicant for the variance.' and part (4) "that the variance if authorized, will neither weaken the general purpose of this Ordinance nor the regulations prescribed for the District in which the property is located.' Also, the objections of the property owners in the area are considered." Page 858 Dr. Nies stated the petitions presented by the opponents were signed by persons who were not in the immediate area, and would not be affected by the variance. It was also pointed out that only 3 persons attended the Hearing who were opposed to the Variance, and that 25 persons attended the Hearing who were in favor of the Variance. Further discussion ensued. The possibility of amending the Ordinance was considered in more specific detail. It was estimated that it would take a minimum of 4 months to amend the Ordinance, and that an extended lapse of time in disposing of the building is creating a h ardship for the Church. The case as set before the Board was discussed. It was suggested that the Church should make an appeal for Variance to the Board at their next meeting on July 14, 1965. The Planning Director was instructed to continue study and consideration of the possible future use of obsolete public buildings (churches, schools, etc.) as private clubs and similar uses. Dr. Nies and Mr. Wilson left the meeting. Mr. Fullerton questioned the possibility of including private clubs as a "conditional use" in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Touchton asked if such inclusion would affect all residential zone districts? Discussion followed. Mrs. Romans read the following memorandum, written March 31, 1965, to the City Manager at his request: "SUBJECT: Use of the St. George's Church Building "After our conversation yesterday about the use of the St. Georges Church building, I decided to check the Charter and Statutes looking for direction before I discuss the matter with the Planning Commission. I still believe and rather strongly may I add, that we should try to work something out so that this building and any other church or school buildings that may be on the market in the future can be put to a reasonable use without opening the proverbial Pandora's box as far as Use variances are concerned. "In my opinion, we have four courses of action which we might follow: first, change the zone classification of the area in which the structure is located to one which permits the desired use; in this case for a fraternal organization, it would require either B-1 or B-2 zoning. Second, the parcel upon which the structure is situated could be spot zoned; this is contrary to good planning and I would have to recommend against this. Third, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance could be amended to permit private clubs and lodges in the residential zones; this could be offensive in certain areas and I would have to recommend against this change. Fourth, each case could be considered separately on its own merit as I am suggesting here. "The Charter states in Article VIII, Section III, subsection 60 that ... "The Board (of Ad- justment and Appeals) shall exercise its authority in accordance with State Statutes, except as otherwise provided in this Charter." In a sentence preceding this statement, it recites that the Board may ''make special exceptions to the terms of the zoning regulations in harmony with their general purpose and intent; (and) authorize variances from the strict application of regulations in such situations and subject to such limitations as may be set by ordinance. "Section 22.2-5 and Section 22.2-6 on variances of the Municipal Code set forth such limitations by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Section 22.2-6 c, Variance, could, in my opinion, cover this situation. The subject Church is in an R-1-C (single-family) zone district. The structure is in good repair but the congregation of the Church has outgrown the building and it is necessary for them to locate elsewhere in a larger structure. If they have made a reasonable attempt to place the property on the market and no other Church, educational or public organization desires to purchase the structure for use a Church, educational institution or public building, then it would seem that to require them to sell the structure for a single-family use would be completely unreasonable. The structure is not adaptable to that use and it would not be economically feasible to remove the structure and replace it with a single-family residence. It would appear that the Church should have a right to dispose of the property if it no longer suits their purpose. Therefore, it would seem that due to unique circumstances not created by the Church, a hardship has been or will be created. "The use of the structure for a Church or a Lodge seems to have similar characteristics. The Church holds services on Sunday and there are meetings held throughout the week --both during the daytime and in the evening. Church organizations hold dinners, canivals and similar activities in order to raise funds and for fellowship. A lodge would hold regular meetings, I understand the Eagles meet twice a month, and I would assume would hold additional meetings, dinners, etc., on occasion. Therefore, the use of the structure by a fraternal organization would not substantially alter the character of the District. The St. Louis Church and school is located one block to the west, the projected plans of the Planning Department anticipate a higher density development in that area and it would, therefore, appear that the orderly use of the building as a lodge would not have an adverse effect on the future development of the area. "The Statutes (139-60-7) provide that "where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of such ordinance ( in this case, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance) the board of adjustment shall have the power in passing upon appeals, to vary or modify the application of the regulation or provisions of such ordinance relating to the use, construction or alteration of buildings or structures, or the use of the land, so that the-B"pirit of the ordinance shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done." "Taking all of this into account, I would recommend that consideration be given to follow the route of appeals to the Board of Adjustment nd Appeals in the case of obsolete school and Church structures in order that each case could be considered on its own merit, rather than promiscuously rezoning, spot zoning, or amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. /s /D. A. Romans /gw D. A. ROMANS, Director Planning & Traffic Regulation DAR /gw" I I I I I I Page 859 Discussion of the entire case followed. The Commission members reemphasized that in their opinion the Church members should proceed to make an application for a variance from the Board. No further action was taken. IV. KLZ SUBDIVISION CASE #10-65A June 30, 1965 An amended sketch of the proposed subdivision of the KLZ site was shown the Commission. Following consideration of the preliminary sketch at the June 30, 1965, informal session, at which time the Commission approved the general concept of the plan, a letter indicating such was written to the developer. Discussion followed. No action was taken. V. H. J. CORAH WEST JEFFERSON AVENUE CASE #11-65 3597 South Bannock Mrs. Romans stated that the parking at the projected intersection of West Jefferson Avenue and South Bannock Street had been restricted for 150 feet. This has been done in an effort to alleviate the congestion caused by left-turning movements from Bannock southbound to Jefferson eastbound. Mr. Corah has strongly prote ted this action; he owns an apartment house to the north of the extended intersection, and feels the parking restriction is detri- mental to his business. He has requested that left-turn movements be denied, and that West Jefferson Avenue between South Bannock and the South Bannock/South Cherokee alley be opened, if possible, to give access to his property. If this is not feasible, his request is for the vacation o l West Jefferson between South Bannock and the South Bannock/South Cherokee alley. He would use the portion of the land reverting to his property for access and for parking for his tenants. Discussion ensued. Rice moved: Woods seconded: The request to open West Jefferson Avenue between South Bannock and the South Bannock /South Cherokee alley be referred to the City Engineer for recommendation. The motion carried unanimously. VI. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT South Washington and Floyd CASE #8-65A May 19, 1965 Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Shelton had been in the Planning Office with a sketch o f his pro- posed Planned Unit Development. Mr. Shelton has been referred to the Building Department. VII. MEETINGS Mrs. Romans stated a meeting is to be held on July 9, 1965, at the American Legion, 1400 Broadway, at 6:30 P.M. This meeting is to discuss the Platte River Flood Plain area. Dis- cussion of this problem ensued. The Commission feels some coordinated program throughout the metropolitan area should be adopted, in an effort to control the zoning of the area, and the uses permitted. It was also felt the Inter-County Regional Planning Commission would be in a position to coordinate such a program. Mr. Rice was instructed to transmit the thoughts of the Commission to Inter-County. The Inter-County Regional Planning Commission annual dinner meeting at the Hiwan Country Club is planned for July 20, 1965. Reservations will be made for those Commission members planning to attend. The next regular meeting of the Commission will be July 21, 1965. Fullerton moved : Rice seconded: The meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was declared adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1965 The meeting was called to order at 8:10 P.M., Chairman Carlson presiding. Members present: Woods, Touchton , Rice, Parkinson, Fullerton, Carlson, Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: Mayor Love; Administrative Assistant Malone; City Attorney Criswell; Planning Assistant Monson; Messrs. Von Frellick, Davis, Jameson and Ludwig. - - - --- - - ----