Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-07-19 PZC MINUTES' CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 19, 1977 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Pierson. Members present: Williams, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Wade Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Tanguma Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Pierson stated that Minutes of the July 6, 1977, meeting are to be considered .for approval. Parker moved: Owens seconded: The Minutes of July 6, 1977, be approved as written. AYES: Williams, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith NAYS: None · ABSTAIN: Wade ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried. III. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Pierson stated that Ed Smith was Vice-Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and that this position is now vacant as a result of Mr. Smith's resignation from the Com- mission. Mrs. Pierson stated that she understood the City Council has not yet commenced interviews of those persons in- terested in appointment to the Commission. Mr. Tanguma entered and took his place with the Commission. Mrs. Pierson suggested that the Commission should elect a Vice- Chairman now and not wait for the Council appointment of the new member. Mr. Williams asked that this matter be postponed until t h e new member is appointed by the City Council. Mr. Williams stated that he felt the Council appointee is deserving of a vote on the election of a Vice-Chairman, and that the appoint- ment should be made by the first meeting in September. -2- Williams moved: Parker seconded: The matter of election of a vice-chairman be postponed until September 7, 1977. Mrs. Pierson stated that she would, in all likelihood, have to miss a meeting during the summer months, and that she did not lik e to go until as late as September without a Vice- Chairman. Mr. Parker asked Mr. Williams why he had suggested postponement until September 7th rather than August? Mr. Williams pointed out that the City Council must have time for interviews. Discussion ensued. Mr. Smith stated that he did not think the matter of the Council appointment would matter that much in the election of a vice-chairman. He stated that he felt a vice-chairman is needed in the event the chairman cannot attend a meeting. The vote was called on Mr. William's motion. AYES: Williams NAYS: Tanguma, Wade, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith The motion was defeated. Mr. Parker nominated Mr. Tanguma for Vice-Chairman, Smith moved: Wade seconded: The Nominations be closed and Mr. Tanguma be elected Vice-Chairman by acclamatio.n. AYES: NAYS: Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Lathrop, Owens, Parker Williams The motion carried . IV. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #7-77 Mrs. Pierson inquired as to the action the Commission wished to take on the proposed Findings of Fact which had been sent to the members on July 15th? Mr. Wanush stated that the Com- mission may accept and recommend the Findings of Fact as presented, or recommend amendments to the Findings of Fact. Mr. Wanush noted that the City Council has set a Public Hearing date on Mr. Marshall's Rezoning request for August 8, 1977. Tanguma moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission accept and recommend to City Council the Findings of Fact on Case #7-77, the rezoning request filed by Mr. Donald L. Marshall. AYES: NAYS: Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Lathrop, Owens Williams The motion carried. -3- V. AUTO WRECKING YARD/JUNK YARD ORDINANCE CASE #33-16 Mr. Wanush introduced Gary Pittman, Chief Building Inspector. Mr. Wanush stated that while Mr. Pittman works primarily with the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, his division is charged with enforcement of the codes and ordinances of the City, and he was asked to sit in on the discussion of the Commission on the Automobile Wrecking and Junk Yard Ordinance. Mr. Wanush noted that the Commission has discussed this matter periodically for one year. The Planning Commission did recom- mend an amendment to the Automobile Wrecking/Junk Yard Ordinance to the City Council on April 5, 1977, the draft of the proposed amended ordinance being dated March 28, 1977. This draft of the proposed ordinance stated in effect, that the auto wrecking yards and junk yards would remain Non-conforming Uses, but would be allowed to improve within their present physical boundaries. At a study session with City Council on May 23, 1977, at which meeting this proposed amendment was discussed, the City Council disagreed with this proposal, and referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for further study and consideration. The City Council did not agree with the basic premise of permitting a Non-conforming Use to improve. Mr. Wanush discussed the alternatives open to the Commission: to reconsider the matter and make a decision on whether or not the Commission feels the original recommendation was proper; to determine that auto wrecking yards should be allowed as a Conditional Use in one or both of the industrial zone districts; or to determine that this use should be a "permitted use" in one or both of the industrial zone districts. Mr. Wanush stated that he understood the Commission reasoning behind the recommendation that auto wrecking yards remain a Non-conforming Use to be that no new auto wrecking yards are wanted in the City. If the Commission determines that the auto wrecking yards should be a Conditional Use in the industrial zone districts, there is a possibility that new auto wrecking yards might come in. Under the Conditional Use procedure, the Commission would have the opportunity to determine if a use would be compatible with the area for which it was proposed, or if it would have an adverse impact on the area, and to make their decision accordingly. If the Commission determines that auto wrecking yards should be designated as "Conditional Uses", two actions to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance would be needed; the first, to enact the Conditional Use section to the Zoning Ordinance which would apply to all Conditional Uses, and the second would be to amend the zone district regulations to state that auto wrecking yards are permitted as a Conditional Use. The Commission would, at the time of the amendment of the specific zone district, apply any restrictions they might feel should be applied to auto wrecking and junk yards. Mr. Smith asked how many auto wrecking yards were in the I-1 and I-2 Zone Districts? Mrs. Romans stated there are two auto wrecking yards in the I-1 District, and nine in the I-2 District. -4- Mr. Smith questioned the possibility of setting a minimum size for new auto wrecking yards, and how this would affect those auto wrecking yards that might want to expand. The matter of requiring owners of existing auto wrecking yards who want to expand their operation to expand to the minimum size o f a new yard was discussed. Mrs. Romans stated that she felt the growth would depend on whether or not there was land available for expansion of these auto wrecking and junk yards. If there was some land available for expansion, but not enough to bring the yard up to a determined minimum area, she felt the auto wrecking yard and junk yard owners should not be told they could not expand their operation. Discussion en- sued. Mrs. Romans stated that she did not think the restrictions placed on the auto wrecking yard/junk yard property owners should be so severe that they would be determined unreasonable. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma asked what, specifically, the City Council was opposed to in the March 28th draft recommended by the Com- mission? Mr. Wanush stated that it is the problem of amending the Non-conforming Use section to allow expansion --this is allowing a Non-conforming Use to be something other than non- conforming. There was also a sentiment that auto wrecking yards were being treated as second-class businesses. Mr. Tanguma asked if this was the opinion of the Councilmen on the Commission? Mr. Smith stated that this was not his feeling. Mr. Williams pointed out that in his opinion, the auto wrecking yards and junk yards are legitimate businesses, and they are being treated as second-class citizens. He added that this type of business is here to stay, and should be permitted ·to exist under the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. OWens stated that as he recalled the meeting, the City Attorney stated there were inconsistencies in allowing a Non- conforming Use to "expand and improve". By allowing this ex- pansion and improvement, they are no longer Non-conforming Uses. Mr. Parker stated that he felt by allowing the improvement and expansion within the physical boundaries of the auto wrecking and junk yards, he felt the City was removing the stigma of second-class citizens from these businesses. Mr. OWens asked if, in the Conditional Use procedure, the granting of a special exception went with the land or with the property owner? Mr. Wanush stated that he felt it would go with the land; the consideration was of the use and not the property owner, therefore, the permission would logically go with the land. Mrs. Wade stated that she felt the auto wrecking yards and junk yards could be classified as Conditional Uses, and the Commission could still accomplish what they attempted to do in the March 28th proposed amendment. The Planning Commission -5- has the authority to approve or disapprove all Conditional Uses. Mrs. Wade asked if improvements to Conditional Uses must be done with the approval of the Commission? Mr. Wanush stated that as long as the Conditional Use meets the restrictions contained in the ordinance, it does not have to have special Commission ap- proval for improvements. The Commission may include restrictions on the auto wrecking yards and junk yards as part of the Con- ditional Use approval, but they must be spelled out in the Ordinance. Mr. Wanush referred to the existing automobile wrecking/junk yard ordinance, and stated that these existing restrictions would remain in effect unless changed by amendment. Discussion ensued. Mr. Wanush pointed out that once the Com- mission has made a decision as to whether or not a Conditional Use should be allowed, the matter of determining if it meets the code is up to the Code Enforcement Divisiono Mr. Tanguma asked how many areas in Englewood would accommodate a new auto wrecking yard? Mrs. Romans referred to a map which indicates vacant land, and pointed out that it would depend on the minimum lot area determined by the Commission. Mr. Smith pointed out that if auto wrecking and junk yards are made Conditional Uses in only I-1 or only in I-2, the problem would not be solved for all of these yards, and, in his opinion, if they are made Conditional Uses in both I-1 and I-2 Zone Districts, it could create more problems. The expansion of existing lots was discussed. Mr. Owens sug- gested that a restriction could be placed in the ordinance re- quiring all expansion to be on land that is contiguous to the present siteo Discussion ensued. Mr. Parker noted that if designation of auto wrecking and junk yards as Conditional Uses is limited to I-2, this would leave the two yards in the I-1 Zone District non-conforming. Mr. Parker questioned if City Council would approve the designa- tion of auto wrecking and junk yards as permitted uses in the industrial zone districts? He stated that he felt the proposal of March 28th was much better than making these uses permitted, but the City Attorney disagreed. Mro Parker stated that he felt the amendments proposed in the March 28th draft were "as en- forceable as anything else is." Mrs. Pierson pointed out that one alternative the Commission has is to refer the matter to Council as it was proposed in the March 28th draft. Discussion ensued. Mrso Pierson stated that the function of the Planning Commission is to come up wi th what the members think is the best solution to a problem, and the proposal of March 28th reflects what the majority of the Com- mission felt achieved that endo Mrs. Wade pointed out that it is clear the Council will not accept the Planning Commission's recommendation that the March 28th draft be approved, and if the Commission hopes to accomplish anything there will have to be a change in the recommended proposal. -6- Mr. Owens stated that he felt the problem was centered around the fact that the recommended proposal of March 28th would have allowed expansion of Non-conforming Uses, which is contrary to the definition of a Non-conforming Use. Discussion ensued. Lathro p moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission refer the March 28th draft of the Automobile Wrecking Yard/Junk Yard Ordinance amendments back to the City Council, for their review and consideration; the Planning Commission has reconsidered this proposal as requested by the City Council, and has also con- sidered the possibility of designating the auto wrecking and junk yards as Conditional Uses, which the Commission does not feel is appropriate. The Commission does feel that the March 28th draft of proposed amendments is the proper way to proceed. Discussion ensued. Mr. Smith noted that he agreed with Mrs. Wade that referring the March 28th draft of the proposed amended Automobile Wrecking and Junk Yard Ordinance back to City Council will not accomplish anything. The City Attorney has expressed the opinion that the Commission's action is contrary to the definition of a Non-conforming Use by proposing to allow Non- conforming Uses the right to expand and improve within their physical borders. Mr. Owens pointed out that it is a legal definition of Non- conforming Uses that appears to govern this matter;· a Non-con- forming Use cannot be allowed any alteration, improvement or expansion. Mr. Owens pointed out that there could be enough restrictions placed on the Conditional Use status of auto wrecking and or junk yards that they could not improve, expand, or do anything over and above what they are allowed to do now, if this were the Commission's desire. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Smith stated that he felt the Commission would have to re- consider the Conditional Use designation and that they will have to consider a minimum lot area requirement for new lots as well as a minimum area expansion for the existing automobile wrecking yards. He stated that he felt any area used for ex- pansion of existing wrecking or junk yards must be contiguous to the yard. Mr. Smith stated that he would vote against the motion. Mrs. Wade agreed that the Commission must consider the Conditional Use designation for auto wrecking and junk yards. Mr. Owens stated that he felt the Commission would be defeating their purpose to recommend the March 28th draft back to the City Council. He stated that he felt the Commission could still come up with a good ordinance, and if the City Council is opposed to ~ the Non-conforming Use improvement, the Commission should put ~ some teeth into the Conditional Use designation of these businesses. -7- Mr. Owens st~ted that he felt the Commission could still work with City Council on this matter. Discussion ensued. The vote on Mr. Lathrop's motion was called. AYES: Parker, Lathrop NAYS: Owens, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams ABSTAIN: Pierson ABSENT: None The motion failed. Parker moved: Tanguma seconded: That the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that automobile wrecking yards and junk yards be made a permitted use in the 1-1 and I-2 Zone Districts. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Wade questioned why Mr. Parker moved to allow the auto wrecking and junk yards as Permitted Uses rather than Conditional Uses? Mr. Parker stated that the auto wrecking yards and junk yards are legitimate businesses. He pointed out that some of the Councilmen were upset because they felt the Commission recommendation that they remain Non- conforming Uses was "down-grading them". Mr. Parker stated that he did not agree with the Council's opinion, and that he did not agree with the City Attorney's opinion that it is in- consistent to allow Non-conforming Uses to improve and expand within their physical boundaries. Brief discussion followed. The vote was called. AYES: Parker NAYS: Lathrop, Owens, Pierson, Smith, Wade, Williams The motion failed. Mr. Smith asked for a geographical outline of the I-2 Zone District. Mrs. Romans indicated the same on the map. Mr.Williams left the meeting. Mr. Smith asked if the Conditional Use procedures would apply to only the auto wrecking yards and junk yards? Mr. Wanush stated that once the Conditional Use procedures were adopted, they would apply to all Conditional Uses permitted by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Following adoption of the Conditional Use procedures, the Commission would have to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to make automobile wrecking yards and junk yards Conditional Uses in the I-1 and/or I-2 Zone District as determined by the Commission. -8- Mr. Smith stated that he felt it should be made clear the ex- pansion by an existing auto wrecking yard will no t automatically make the area of expansion a part of the "Conditional Use", even if the land is contiguous to the existing auto wrecking yard. Discussion ensued. Smith moved : Owens seconded: The Commission request the staff to draft a proposed ordinance making auto wrecking yards and junk yards a Conditional Use in the I-2 Zone District. Discus s ion ensued. Mr . Owens suggested that possibly more restrictions could be placed on the Conditional Uses in the I-1 Zone District than would be placed on Conditional Uses in the I-2 Zone District; thus, auto wrecking yards and junk yards might be permitted as conditional uses in both zone districts but not under the same restrictions . The vote was called: AYES: Lathrop, Owens, Pierson, Smith NAYS: Parker, Tanguma, Wade ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. The guidelines the staff should use in drafting thi~ Ordinance include the premise that expansion of existing auto wrecking or junk yards would be permitted, but only onto land that is contiguous to the existing yard. Such acquisition shall not automa t ically make t hat land available for use as part of the auto wrecking yard, but must be approved by the Commission. There shall be a minimum lot area set for new auto wrecking and junk yards, and there shall be a minimum acquisition standard set forth for the expansion of existing yards. VI. INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICT AMENDMENTS. Mr. Wanush stated that the Commission has asked the staff to prepare an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which would prohibit shredders of automobiles or metal products in the I-1 and I-2 Zone Districts. Mr. Wanush proposed the following gener a l statement to be drafted into an amendment: "EXCLUSION of Metal Shredders and Similar Shredding Operations. Au t o shredder, scrap met a l shredder or other operations of a similar nature involving t he destruction, disintegration, or transformation into raw materials of previously manufactured metal products or metal items which have become worn out and useless scrap goods. Such similar operations shall be those that create a physical hazard to persons or property beyond the property line of the premises in question, by the emission -9- of excessive sound, vibration, heat, glare, dust and fumes of a degree and type normally associated with auto shredder or scrap metal shredder operations." The Public Hearing on the amendment of the I-1 and I-2 Zone Districts was scheduled for August 16, 1977, at 7:00 P.M. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Wanush stated that he had nothing to discuss under Director's Choice. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mrs. Wade extended an invitation to members of the Planning and Zoning Commission to attend the Parks and Recreation Review Committee meeting of August 4, at which meeting Council- man Doug Sovern will speak on drainage. Mrs. Wade stated that the Review Committee is looking at drainageways as greenbelt developments throughout the City. Mrs. Wade stated that the meeting begins at 7:00 P.M. in the Community Room. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M. yertrude G. "Welty ./ -Recording S~cretary -10- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: July 19, 1977 SUBJECT: Findings of Fact: Rezoning of 3270, 72, 74, 76, 78, and 80 South Bannock Street. RECOMMENDATION: Tanguma moved: Smith seconded: The City Planning Commission accept and recommend to City Council the Findings of Fact on Case #7-77, the rezoning request filed by Mr. Donald L. Marshall. AYES: Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Lathrop, Owens NAYS: Williams The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 7-77, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ) THE APPLICATION OF DONALD L. ) MARSHALL TO REZONE A CERTAIN ) AREA OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD ) FROM R-2, MEDIUM-DENSITY RES!-) DENCE, TO B-1, BUSINESS, PUR-) SUANT TO §22.3-2 OF THE COM-) PREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF ) THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. ) -11- A Public Hearing was held in connection with Case #7-77, on June 21, 1977, in the City Council Chambers at the Englewood City Hall. A quorum of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was present, those being: Mr. Lathrop, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Don Smith, Mr. Ed Smith, Mr. Tanguma, Mrs. Wade and Mr. Williams. Those members of the Commission who were absent: Mr. Owens. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and filed documents, the Commission makes the following findings of fact: 1. That proper notice of the Hearing to consider the requested rezoning was given by posting the property and by publishing a notice of the Hearing in the official City news- paper, the Englewood Herald Sentinel. 2. That the area in question is described as follows: Part of the E 1/2 of the S 1/2 of the S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Section 34 Township 4 South, Range 68 West, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at point on center line of South Bannock Street which is 140 feet South of the North line of said E 1/2 of S 1/2 of S 1/2 of NE 1/4 of SW 1/4; thence East parallel to said North line a distance of 163 feet, thence South parallel to the center line of South Bannock Street 101 feet more or less to a point 91 feet North of the South line of said E 1/2 of S 1/2 of S 1/2 of NE 1/4 of SW 1/4, thence West parallel to said South line a distance of 163 feet more or less to the center line of South Bannock, thence North along the center line of South Bannock Street a distance of 101 feet more or less to the point of beginning, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado. -12- 3. That the application for rezoning was filed by Donald Lo Marshall, 6059 South Elati Street, Littleton, Colorado 80120, who, together with his wife, Helen, is the owner of the above described property and that the applicant was represented by Attorney John A. Criswell. 4. That the area which is the subject of this application was zoned R-1, Single-family Residence from 1940 to 1955 and it was zoned R-2-A, Two-family Residence, by Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1955, which zone district permitted a maximum density of two units on a building site having a minimum density of 9,000 square feet, and that the property having frontage on South Bannock Street which lies to the south of the subject site was rezoned from R-2-A to B-1 in 1963. 50 That the R-2-A Zone District was repealed by Ordinance No. 30 of 1975 and an R-2, Medium Density, Zone District was enacted by said Ordinance No. 30 of 19750 6. That the subject property, together with a majority of the other property in the City which had been zoned R-2-A, was zoned R-2, Medium Density Residence, by Ordinance No. 50, Series of 1975. 7. That the owners of the subject property were represented at a public hearing on that rezoning, with testimony being given that the property should be considered separately rather than being included with property which was in other pa~ts of the City, and that it should be considered for a different zone classification. 8. That three times since 1940, zoning has been imposed on the subject property which made the existing use non-conform- ing rather than imposing a zoning on the property which re- flected the use of the land. 9. That the property to the north and west of the subject site is zoned R-2, Medium-Density Residence and that the property to the east, south and southwest is zoned B-1, Business, and that the requested rezoning would extend the boundary of that B-1 District to include the subject parcel of lando 10. That the subject property has 101 foot of frontage on South Bannock Street and a depth of 133 feet. 11. That there are three small frame, two-unit residential structures approximately 50 years old, on the subject property, each unit having 350 square feet of floor area. 120 That these units are in poor repair and do not meet the minimum standards of the R-2 Zone District as to density or floor area and they could not be brought into compliance with the pres·ent regulations without reducing the density and thereby deprtving the owner of the income from two units 0 ~ , -13- 13. That the southeast portion of the subject property abuts the parking lot for the Checker Auto Parts and Yellow Front businesses, which uses adversely affect the subject property as a medium-density residential site. 14. That the Generalized Land Use Map of the 1969 Compre- hensive Plan, projects that the business zoning which is to the east and south of the subject site will, in the future, extend west to South Bannock Street and north to West Eastman Avenue, encompassing the property which is the subject of this application. 15. That the applicant plans to remove the six substandard units which are on the subject property and to construct a small office building, if the rezoning is approved. 16. That because of limited access to the site, and be- cause of its proximity to a residential area, an office build- ing could be compatible with adjacent development while more intense retail uses would not be compatible. 17. That Counsel for the applicant stated that his client plans to construct an office building on the site and that his client would agree to limit the use of the subject property to the following uses by covenants or by any other means approved by the City Attorney: Any · use permitted presently by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in the R-2 Medium Density Residence District, as the property is presently designated; plus the following uses from the B-1 Zone District: §22.4-10 b ( 4) (11) (12) (15) (24) (35) (41) (57) (59) (70) (71) (72) (77) (78) (79) (86) (94) (107) Any use intended to provide health treatment for the payment of a fee; Barber shops; Beauty shops; Book stores; Clinics, dental or medical; Educational institutions; Floral shops; Laboratories, dental or medical; Library or reading rooms; Office buildings; Opticians; Optical and scientific instrument shops; Picture framing; Photographic studios; Photostating and blueprinting Public buildings; Studios; Any similar lawful use which, in the op1n1on of the Commission is not objectionable to nearby property by reason of odor, dust, fumes, gas, noise, radiation, heat, glare or vibration or is not hazardous to the health and property of the surrounding areas through danger of fire or explosion. -14- 18. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission does not bind the City Council and that if the Commission attaches a condition to its recommendation relative to the rezoning case, such recommendation is advisory only. CONCLUSIONS lo That proper notice of the Public Hearing on Case No. 7-77 was given by posting the property and by legal notice in the official City newspaper. 2. That because of the proximity of the subject area to land zoned for business use and to business development, the land does not lend itself to medium-density residential use. 3. The development which has been on the subject property for approximately 50 years has become substandard and the units do not meet the density or floor area requirements of the exist- ing zoning regulations, and to demolish the units and to re- develop the land under the existing zoning, would deprive the owner of the use of the land which existed at the time of its purchaseo 4. That the land was developed at its present density prior to the first Englewood Zoning Ordinance of record, the 1940 Zoning Ordinance, and since that time zoning has been imposed on the property which did not reflect the actual use of the land. 5. That since the units were constructed, the land ad- joining the subject property to the south has been zoned and developed for commercial useo 60 That the extension of the B-1, Business District to include the subject property would be in conformance with the 1969 Comprehensive Plano 7. That there are certain uses permitted in the B-1, Business District which would permit the property to be re- developed compatibly with the adjacent properties; while other uses permitted in the B-1 Zone District would not be compatible with the adjacent development. 8. That the application of the B-1, Business, zone classification to the subject property, will conserve and stabilize the value of property in the subject area and will not cause undue concentration of population, traffic or stress upon community utilities and services and will promote the health, safety, morals and general welfare of all in accordance with a comprehensive plan. -15- RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council of Englewood that the above described area be zoned B-1, Business based on the following conditions: That the applicant will enter into a Restrictive Covenant, running to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a period of ten years, restricting the use of the subject property as follows: Development as is presently allowed in the existing R-2 Zone District; the uses contained in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-10 b (70) Office Buildings, and §22.4-10 b (107) Any similar lawful use which, in the opinion of the Commission is not objectionable to nearby property by reason of odor, dust, fumes, gas, noise, radiation, heat, glare, or vibration or is not hazardous to the health and property of the surrounding areas through danger of fire or explosion. The Restrictive Covenants shall meet with the concurrance of the City Attorney that such Covenant is legal and binding on both parties. Upon vote at the meeting of the Commission on June 21, 1977: Those members voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Lathrop, Mr. Parker, ·Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Don Smith, Mr. Ed Smith, Mr. Tanguma, and Mrs. Wade. Those members voting in opposition to the motion: None. Those members abstaining: Mr. Williams. Those members absent: Mr. Owens. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission.