Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-02-21 PZC MINUTESPage 1032 I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 21, 1968 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P.M., Chairman Woods presiding. Members present: Carlson; Lentsch; Lone, Touchton; Woods Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Parkinson II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Woods stated that Minutes of the meeting of February 7, 1968, were to be considered for approval. Lone moved: Lentsch seconded: The Minutes of February 7, 1968, meeting be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. - - - -- - ---~ -- - - --- ---- III. NEW ~NGLEWOOD, LTD. Off-.treet Parking Plan Mr. Parkinson entered and took his chair with the Commission. Mr. Woods reviewed the tentative approval that was given to the plan in September of 1966. Mr. Woods stated that the Commission has been waiting for more specific plans showing ingress-egress points before giving definite approval to the plan. Mr. Art Davis and Mrs. Thelma Feldhammer, representing New Englewood, Ltd., were present for the discussion. Mr. Davis stated that Mrs. Feldhammer has been responsible for the design of the on-site parking plans for the center. Mr. Davis presented the Commission with plans which provide spaces for six thousand or more automobiles, which may be parked on two levels. Mr. Davis announced that the Grand Opening of the center is set for March 7, 1968, at which time more than 100 stores will be ready to open. Mr. Davis described the color coding method which will be used for the underground parking in an effort to assist the motorists. These colors will correspond to the malls, i.e., Rose, Aspen, etc. Mr. Davis stated that there will also be loudspeakers to remind customers t hat they are parking in a particular section of the lot. Mrs. Feldhammer noted that the directional signs in the parking lots will also be color coded. Mr. Woods asked Mrs. Romans if there were any suggestions she felt should be made on the plan as proposed? Mrs. Romans stated that most of the work had already been done as far as curb installations etc., so at this time a review of the plans was rather a formality; however, she questioned the parking on the immediate northwest corner of the lot. It is shown as 90 ° parking, and would cause persons parking in these stalls to back out into a lane of traffic. Mrs. Romans stated she would suggest that the 90 ° parking stalls might be eliminated wherever they would be situated in such a way that persons backing out of the parking stalls would be backing into a driving lane which serves other than that specific area. She also questione:l the number of curb cuts shown on the south side of West Floyd Avenue between South Elati arrl South Cherokee Street. Discussion followed. Mr. Woods asked if the parking stalls would be striped? Mrs. Feldhammer replied that this was now underway. The Director asked Mr. Davis if this plan has been approved by the Public Works Director ml Traffic Engineer? Mr. Davis replied that it had been discussed with Mr. Waggoner, and that he and Mr. Waggoner agree that changes may have to be made after a test period of possibly the first ten days or so. Mr. Touchton asked how truck deliveries would be controlled? Mrs. Feldhammer stated there would be points of access from both the north and the south. The Director pointed out that earlier agreements had been made with residents on South Fox Street to minimize the amount of truck traffic on the north side of the complex. Discussion followed. Mrs. Romans sug- gested that the plan be referred to Public Works Director Waggoner for his written approval. Parkinson moved: Carlson seconded: The Planning Commission receive the plans presented by New Englewood, Ltd.; the plans are to be referred to Public Works Director Waggoner for approval. The motion carried unanimously. IV. FLOYD AVENUE AGREEMENT. Mr. Davis stated that at the time the Floyd Avenue Agreement was amended, provision was made for an egress point of the Bannock-Cherokee alley westward to South Cherokee Street. They have now decided that a similar arrangement must be provided for the Cherokee-Delaware alley; this alleyway will run eastward to Cherokee Street. Both alleyways will be 16 ft. wide with a 15 ft. turning radius. The Commission felt it was unnecessary for them to take any action on this matter, inasmuch as it was already being handled by the Public Works Department. I I I I I I V. MR. BILL ANDERSON Metro Realty ZONING ORDINANCE §22.5-3 f Page 1033 CASE #6-68 Mr. Anderson and Mr. Ground were present for the discussion. Mr. Anderson stated he was an agent for Tenneco Oil, which has an option on property on the northeast corner of Broadway and Oxford. Tenneco Oil Company is proposing a food store and to install gasoline pumps on this site. They applied for a building permit and were denied the permit for the installa- tion of the gas pumps under the provisions of §22.5-3 f, inasmuch as there is an existing service station within 500 feet of this site. They then applied for a variance to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, and were denied a variance under the same section of the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Anderson stated they were applying for the permit on the basis that the gas pumps were an accessory use to the food store, and that they felt the 500 foot limitation should not, therefore, apply. Mr. Anderson read the following letter s : "February 5, 1968 Mr. John Criswell, City Attorney Mr. William Anderson of Metro Realty made application to the Board of Adjustment to permit the accessory use of gasoline pumps in conjunction with a grocery store at 4094 South Broadway. The proposed store would be a similar use as the 7-11 Stores and would have 6 gasoline pumps. The Board heard the case and asked for further facts and data to support the accessory use claim. The information was to be forwarded to the City Attorney by the Board Secretary re- questing an opinion whether the use of the pumps with the grocery store is an accessory us~ The proposed use of the pumps is closer than 500 ft. of another service station use. The next Board meeting will be held February 14, 1968 and we would appreciate if possible an opinion from your office by the next meeting. "February 14, 1968 Susie Schneider Recording Secretary Board of Adjustment and Appeals Englewood, Colorado By Order of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals /s / Susie Schneider Recording Secretary" re: Gasoline Pumps as Accessory Use to Grocery Store Dear Susie: In your letter of February 5, 1968, you enclosed a copy of a letter from Tenneco Oil Company giving certain information relative to that company's plans, if permitted to erect gasoline pumps in conjunction with a grocery store similar to a 7-11 Store. It is my understanding that building plans were submitted to the Building Department for the construction of such gasoline pumps and that the Building Department refused to issue a permit on the grounds that these gasoline pumps would not be an accessory use to the grocezy store, the site for which is located in the B-2 zone district. It is also my understanding that, subsequent to this denial, the applicant appealed this decision to the Board of Adjust- ment and Appeals and that the Board has held a hearing thereupon and the case is now awaiting decision by the Board of Adjustment. You have askep me, specifically, my opinion as to whether the use of the property . for gasoline sales is an "accessory use" to the use of the property as a grocery store. In my opinion it is not. Section 22.4-ll(b) of the City Zoning Ordinance authorizes numerous uses in the B-2 zone, including any use permitted in the B-1 business district. A principal permitted use of the B-1 district is a grocery store. (Section 22.4-lO(b) (49). In addition, the zoning ordinance authorizes "any use incident to the above permitted uses, when located on the same building site as the permitted use." This authorization is found in subsection (c) to Section 22.4-11 and is entitled "Accessory Uses." In Section 22.8 an "accessory use" is defined as "a use which is clearly incidental to and customarily found in connection with and located on the same lot as the principal use." While I have not been able to discover any court decisions, either in Colorado or elsewher~ which discusses a situation specifically similar to this one, there are many cases which hold that unless the use which is being carried on in connection with the principal permitted use is one which is customarily found being carried on by other principa l permitted uses of the same type, the alleged accessoried use is not a true authorized accessory use. The question, therefore, is whether the operation of gasoline pumps "is clearly incidental to and customarily found in connection with", a grocery store. While it is true that there are some grocery stores that do operate gasoline pumps, it is my understanding that these are in the quite decided minority and are not so prevelant as to make the gasoline sales use one which is "customarily found . in connection with" a grocery store. On this basis, therefore, it is my opinion that the gasoline sales use is not an accessory use to the principal permitted use of a grocery store. Page 1034 As I understand the request, this was the only question which was presented to the City Attorney's Office for opinion. However, I should call your attention to the fact that a gasoline and oil service station is a principal permitted use in the B-2 District. The definition of a "gasoline and oil service station (filling station)" as set forth in the ordinance is "a use devoted to the retail sale of fuels, lubricants and other supplies for motor vehicles. Any repair activities conducted shall be minor in scope and subordinate to the sale of petroleum products." Using this definition of gasoline and oil service stations, therefore, it would appear to us that there is no prohibition against carrying on two principal permitted uses on the same lot, assuming the supplementary, and other, regulations are complied with. Therefore, it would be our opinion that it is not necessary for this to be an accessory use in order for this use to be authorized. However, as you know, Section 22.5-3(f) of the City Zoning Ordinance prohibits a filling station within 500 feet of an entrance to a school building or a playground, or within 500 feet of an existing filling station property line. If this provision is valid, (see City Attorney's Opinion 67-1, dated March 23, 1967), then, while the use would be a principal permitted use in the B-2 District, it would not be permitted if it were to be placed within 500 feet of the above uses. Respectfully submitted, MYRICK, CRISWELL AND BRANNEY JAC /jr John A. Criswell cc: Mr. Stanley H. Dial Building Department" Mr. Anderson cited City Attorney's opinion 67-1, and stated in light of the TBA store approval for New Englewood, that he felt that the tenneco operation was being discriminated against. Mr. Anderson stated that the operation was definitely oriented more toward the food store than the service station; therefore, it was their determination that the gas pumps were accessory to the food store. He cited some statistics taken from similar operations at other locations which show the food store to be the main use: gross revenue of food sales approximately 25% greater than gasoline sales; inventory of products for sale shows food value approximately $15,000 and gasoline value of $5,000; construction costs average approximately five times more for the food store than for the gasoline facilities. Mr. Ground stated that the facilities are owned and operated by Tenneco Oil; they are not leased out. Discussion followed. Mr. Criswell, City Attorney, stated that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to vary the 500 ft. rule contained in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. He stated he di~ in Opinion 67-1, take the position of questioning whether or not the 500 ft. provision could be enforced, inasmuch as it appeared to discriminate against "filling stations" as opposed to garages, etc. which might have a gas pump as an accessory use. He stated he was under the impression that Mr. Anderson was in attendance at the Commission meeting to inquire on the possibility of amending the Ordinance, either to the point of eliminating the 500 ft. restriction completely, or enlarging upon the applicability of the restriction. Discussion followed. Mr. Ground stated that if special action to approve the use at this particular location could not be enacted, that they then would request that the 500 ft. rule as set forth in §22.5-3f would be eliminated from the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Criswell stated that the City could not give the Tenneco Oil Company individual consideration and relief in this matter. Mr. Parkinson stated that it was his understanding that there were a number of matters under consideration in amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and asked if this matter would happen to be one of them. The Director stated it was being considered. Mr. Parkinson pointed out to Messrs. Anderson and Ground that even tho the Ordinance were to be amended, that this would not give immediate action, inasmuch as it requires approximately three months to amend an Ordinance. Further discussion followed. Mr. Criswell stated he did not feel there was any question of "accessory use"; both uses are permitted principal uses in a B-2 business district. Mr. Criswell stated that the problem was the 500 ft. limitation, and reviewed this section as it was enacted several years ago. At that time, there was a provision in the ordinance whereby the 500 ft. limitation did not apply when there was a median strip in a street separating two service stations. This provision was invalidated by the Court, and the ordinance was amended in 1963 and enacted as it presently reads. Mr. James White 1101 W. Quincy -stated he owned property in the area, and asked if there was a possibility that Mr. Wallace, Chief Building Inspector, could reverse his decision without causing the applicant to go back to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals? Discussion followed. Mr. Carlson stated he did not understand why there was any question of "accessory" uses; both are clearly a permitted use in the B-2 Zone District, therefore, the only restriction which is causing problems is the 500 ft. restriction. Mrs. Romans stated she had told Mr. Anderson that the staff and Commission are studying several points in the Zoning Ordinance which are in need of revision, and that this ma -tter would be considered. Mr. Ground asked that a specific motion be made by the Commission stating that this matter would be considered in the revision of the Zoning Ordinance. Parkinson moved: Touchton and Lone seconded: The Planning staff be directed to further study the 500 ft. restriction on service stations as set forth in §22.5-3f in the planned revision of the Zoning Ordinance. The motion carried unanimously. I I I I I I Page 1035 Mr. Criswell stated there are numerous court decisions upholding footage restrictions between service stations. He stated that his decision (67-1) was based on the wording of the restriction in the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. He stated he felt the Planning Commission should, in their revision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, either abolish the 500 ft. restriction, or make it applicable to all uses that might have an underground gasoline tank or gasoline pumps, so that there would be no question on the validity of the restriction. Further dis- cussion followed. VI. NORTHWEST ENGLEWOOD REZONING CASE #30-67C I-1 to R-1-C Mr. Woods stated that the matter has been tabled by the Commission since the Public Hearing on January 17, 1968. He asked what the feeling of the Commission was in regard to raising it from the table this evening for discussion and possible decision. Mr. Lone stated he would appreciate additional time to consider the matter. Mr. Lentsch commented that he did not feel he could vote on the matter at this time, and that he would like to become better in- formed about the case before he voted on it. Mr. Woods asked Mrs. Romans if she felt the staff needed more time to study the matter? Mrs. Romans replied that the staff would ap- preciate additional time to consider the matter. She stated she had talked to FHA representa- tives, realtors, lending agents, and members of the school board, but still feels additional time is needed to complete the staff report. It was the concensus of the Commission that the matter be left on the table for further con- sideration and study. VII. NEW ENGLEWOOD, LTD. CASE #5-68A Alley Vacatio.n Mr. Woods stated this matter was tabled at the February 7, 1968, meeting. Touchton moved: Carlson seconded: The matter be raised from the table. The motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Romans stated the matter had been referred to the various utility departments and companies for their consideration. The Police Department has said they haven't any objections to the vacation; the Public Service Gas Department stated they would require that a 16 ft. easement be retained; Public Works Director Waggoner has recommended the vacation; Utilities Director Dobratz requested that an easement be retained for the existing sewer line. The Fire Department has indicated, verbally, that they are concerned about access to an area between the tracks which they have to serve occasionally when sparks from the trains start weed fires. They feel that access should be assured emergency vehicles. Mrs. Romans stated she had discussed this matter with Mrs. Feldhammer of New Englewood, and was assured that access would be available from the lower level. Discussion followed. Mr. Woods commented that, in his opinion, there had not been access to this area prior to the construction of the shopping complex. Mr. Lone asked if there wasn't an agreement where- by if a structure is erected on this property, the lower level will be enclosed? Discussion followed. Mr. Criswell stated that this alley may well be in the area that will be reconveyed to the City under terms of the contract with Von Frellick Associates. Discussion followed. Lone moved: Touchton seconded: The matter be tabled for further information on the exact area to be reconveyed to the City by Von Frellick Associates. The motion carried unanimously. VIII. HEALTH SPA CASE #4-68B Mr. Ray Ludwig Mr. Woods stated that the Planning Commission has received a letter from Chief Building In- spector Wallace asking for determination whether or not a Health Spa could be permitted in an R-3-A Zone District. Mr. Wallace cited several uses which might be considered similar, as motels and motor courts with swimming pools and health spa type facilities; hospitals and clinics which may provide this type treatment; and parks and playgrounds which, of course, may provide swimming pools, etc. Mr. Ludwig stated that he had available a complete set of plans on the proposed Health Spa. He presented a pamphlet of a similar use for the Commission to view, .Mr. Ludwig pointed out that this would be a "club" and would be for service for members, not transients. Mr. Ludwig stated his clients wanted to begin construction within two months, and that the time element is critical. Discussion followed. Mr. Parkinson commented that he could not see anything that was completely dissimilar from some of the uses presently mentioned and permitted in this zone district. Mrs. Romans, with reference to §22.5-19-, asked whether or not the Commission felt that this use was mentioned in the Comprehensive Zoning Oreinance, inasmuch as the B-1 Zone District does permit "any use intended to provide health treatment for the payment of a fee". She pointed out that "heal th treatment" is not defined in the ordinance. . Discussion followed. Parkinson moved: Touchton seconded: In conformance with Section 22.5~19 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission go on record that they do not feel the proposed use (Health Spa) is incompatible with the R-3-A area or the uses permitted in an R-3-A Dis- trict. Further, that they do not feel that this use is a "health treatment for a fee" as is within the meaning of the permitted principal use listed in the B-1 Zone District. Upon the call of the roll, the motion carried unanimously. e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- Page 1036 IX. FIRST NATIONAL BANK 3400 S. Cherokee and S. Cherokee Circle REZONING CASE #7-68 R-1-C to B-1 Mrs. Romans stated the Planning Department has received a rezoning application filed by property owners in the 3400-block of South Cherokee Street and South Cherokee Circle, represented by Mr. Wm. K. Malone. They are requesting rezoning from R-1-C (Single-family Residential) to B-1 (Business). Lone moved: Parkinson seconded: The Public Hearing on the request ofproperty owners in the 3400 block South Cherokee and South Cherokee Circle for change of zoning from R-1-C (Single-family Residential) to B-1 (Business), be set for March 20, 1968. The property is to be posted, and public notice is to be given in the official City Newspaper. The motion carried unanimously. X. MR. KINGSLEY 1900 W. Harvard SUBDIVISION CASE #8-68 Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Oliver Kingsley owns property at the northeast corner of West Harvard Avenue and South Tejon Street. Mr. Kingsley has sold off a portion of his property, which is not a part of an approved subdivision, and is, therefore, in conflict with the pro- visions of the Subdivision Regulations. The Director reported that Mr. Kingsley had approached the Engineering Office and requested a tax split on these two properties, and that the Engineering Office had brought it to the attention of the Planning Department. The Engineering Department has refused to give Mr. Kingsley a tax split until the property has been subdivi.ded, or until a waiver has been given to Mr. Kingsley by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Romans pointed out that additional right-of-way is needed for West Baker Avenue, which borders this land on the north, and suggested that if, indeed, a waiver is granted, that it be subject ta dedication of this additional 30 ft. of right-of-way. Discussion followed. Mr. Criswell suggested that a copy of the letter Mrs. Romans sent to Mr. Kingsley be sent to the County Clerk and Recorder with the request that. it be recorded. Inasmuch as Mr. Kingsley was not present, no action was taken. XI. COMMISSION CHOICE. Mr. Touchton asked if the Commission should write a letter of appreciation to Mr. Sam Love for his service on the Commission. It was agreed that this would be done. Mr. Parkinson discussed the Commission recommendation of February 7, 1968, that an Urban Renewal Authority be formed in the City of Englewood. The City Council has referred the matter back to the Planning Commission. He stated he knew the Urban Renewal Authority Director in Littleton, and felt this gentleman would be happy to discuss the matter with the Commission. Mrs. Romans suggested that perhaps Mr. Miles, the State Planning Director, would also be well qualified to discuss the matter. She also felt that personnel with the HUD office in Fort Worth, Texas, should be invited to discuss the matter with the City officials. Further discussion followed. Carlson moved: The meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded, carried, and the meeting was declared adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 1968 The Regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Woods at 8:05 P.M. Members present: Touchton; Lone; Lentsch; Carlson; Woods Romans, Ex-officio Criswell, City Attorney Members absent: Parkinson II. ·APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Woods stated the Minutes of February 21, 1968, were to be considered ~or approval. Touchton moved: Carlson seconded: The Minutes of February 21, 1968 be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. I I I