Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-17 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 17, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman McBrayer at 7:00 P.M. Members present: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Barbre, Carson Romans, Acting Ex-officio Members absent: Allen, Becker, Gilchrist Also present: Jeri Linder, Planning Technician It was noted that Mrs. Becker had called earlier in the day to state she would be unable to attend; a cast had been put on her foot and ankle earlier this date, and the doctor had ordered her to stay off the foot until the cast had set. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman McBrayer stated that minutes of the meeting of August 3, 1982, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of August 3, 1982, be approved as written. AYES: Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen, Becker, Gilchrist The motion carried. Mr. Allen entered the meeting and took his chair with the Commission. III. SUBDIVISION WAIVER Leonard & Claris Chesler 2303 East Dartmouth Avenue CASE #17-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that this matter was continued from the August 3rd meeting to give the staff and applicants additional time to clarify some questions that had arisen. Mr. Berardini, representing the applicants, stated that he was in receipt of a staff report addendum dated August 17th. Mr. Berardini addressed the matter of drainage on the site. He stated that the applicants had contacted Mr. Harold Candella, currently a building superintendent with a major builder in the metro area; Mr. Candella had a copy of the document that was approved by Rick Kahm, Office Engineer, on the grading and drainage of the site. Mr. Berardini stated that this document is also a part of the City records. Mr. Berardini stated that the site has a berm along the north and west sides of the property, which retains the drainage flow on-site. Mr. Berardini stated • -2- that the site was excavated to keep the structure which was moved onto the property at a "low profile" because of its size, and the soil which was excavated was used in construction of the berms. Mr. Berardini reiterated that the drainage had been approved by the City at the time the "Brown House" was relocated to the site. Mr. Berardini stated that future development would be subject to approval of a drainage plan that would have to be sub- mitted with the plans for development. He stated that the applicants wanted to assure the Planning Connnissi9n there will be no water coming off this property to damage adjoining properties. Mr. Berardini stated that Mr. Candella was present if the Planning Commission had any questions of him. Mr. Berardini then addressed the matter of fire protection. He stated there is a fire hydrant on the northeast corner of Dartmouth and University Boulevard, which is in the City of Denver. Englewood has a fire hydrant at Dartmouth Avenue and Dartmouth Circle; and the City also has a hydrant at the southwest corner of Dartmouth Place and South University Boulevard. Mr. Berardini noted that the staff report addendum states that both of the hydrants in Englewood are in excess of 600 feet of Parcel "C", apparently required by the Uniform Fire Code. He stated he was unsure of the means of measurement from these hydrants to the subject site. Mr. Berardini stated that the applicants feel that any need for fire suppression could be handled with the existing hydrants. He stated they realize that if the hydrant in Denver were to be used, it would cause traffic disruption on South University Boulevard, but did not feel this was a valid consideration in requiring installation of another hydrant by the applicants. Mr. Berardini stated that the Baptist Church has to have fire protection also; and that this service would presumably be from the hydrant across University Boulevard in Denver. Mr. Berardini then discussed an agreement between Englewood and Denver, which would allow use of hydrants in the adjoining municipality, even though equipment may not be dispatched unless it is a matter of life safety. The cost of installation of the fire hydrant was discussed by Mr. Berardini; he stated to have the total cost of installation borne by one property owner seems unreasonable. Water service was addressed by Mr. Berardini, stating that there is a 6" main in Dartmouth Avenue, which goes to University Boulevard, and then runs south in University from that point. Mr. Allen questioned the distance from the site to the fire hydrant in Denver? Mr. Berardini estimated the distance to be 260 feet to the nearest section line from the hydrant. Discussion followed. Mr. Allen stated that i f there is indeed an agreement with Denver that would allow use of that hydrant, there would be service available within the 600 foot limit cited b y the Fire Department. The traffic problems on South University that would result from using the Denver hydrant were discussed. Mr. Allen stated he did not feel this is a great problem. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer stated that if installation of a fire hydrant is not made a required condition of the approval, future owners and developers would be unaware of the requirement until they applied for a building permit. • -3- Mr. Stoel asked if this requirement would have to be fulfilled by Mr. and Mrs. Chesler, or whoever develops the site in the future? Mr. McBrayer stated that this would go with the land and would be "buyer beware". Mr. Allen stated that "the City is, in essence, saying we are remiss in not having put in a fire hydrant in this location; now we have someone who wants to build, so we'll get him to do it"; he stated that this doesn't "sit" with him. If there is a need for a _fire hydrant there, the City should put it in. Mr. Chesler addressed the Commission and noted that streets in the vicinity of any fire are blocked off as a rule; he noted that if the reason advanced for requiring another hydrant is the blocking of traffic on University if the Denver hydrant is used, he did not feel it was sufficient reason to re- quire another hydrant at an estimated cost of $3,000. He stated he would assume the Building Department would be aware of the possible need for a fire hydrant, and that this could be considered logically by the developer and Building Department personnel at the time a Building Permit application is made. He pointed out that consideration should be given to the number of buildings to be constructed, water pressure, etc., in determining the need. He stated that as applicants, he and Mrs. Chesler would do whatever is required, but are asking that the installation of this fire hydrant not be made a requirement, but left open t .o logical argument at time of develop- ment. Mr. Stoel asked if this was made a condition of the approval, would a de- veloper have the same opportunity to present a case against the installation as he might if it was not a requirement of the approval? Mrs. Romans stated she felt the advantage of making the fire hydrant a requirement is that future purchasers/developers would be put on notice of the requirement. Mr. Stoel asked if a developer felt the requirement were unjust, could they present a case in opposition? Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans suggested that the Planning Commission could always preface the requirement with "if it is felt to be necessary", or "if at the time of development, it is felt necessary to be installed." Mr. Tanguma expressed opposition to "saddling" property and property owners with requirements and restrictions. He stated if the requirements were made a part of the record, any change would require consideration of the Planning Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that if the requirements are through a par- ticular department, she felt negotiations between that department and the applicant could resolve any problems and it need not come before the Planning Commission for further consideration. Discussion followed. Mr. McBrayer stated he felt requirements and restrictions on property should be a matter of record so that purchasers and developers may be aware of them. Mr. Allen spoke in opposition to going on record "requiring" the fire hy·drant installation. Mr. Senti expressed the opinion that making the installation of the fire hydrant a requirement may be exceeding what is needed; he noted that at the time of development, if there is a need and requirement for the hydrant it will have to be done. -4- Mrs. Romans pointed out the reasons for requiring subdivision of raw land -- to assure proper access, utility service, etc., so the property can be de- veloped. The waiver to the Subdivision Regulations was designed to be used when there is access, utility service, etc. but the land is not part of an approved subdivision, and is being divided. She stated she felt the question the Planning Commission is considering is where the responsibility to meet the conditions should be placed --on the person dividing the property or future owners/developers? She _pointed out that if a large piece of ground is being platted, the burden of the necessary public improvements is on the subdivider. Mrs. Romans discussed the history of the subject site --noting this is the third or fourth time the Planning Commission has considered division of the land formerly owned by the Hampden Hills Baptist Church. She pointed out that Parcel C, under consideration at this time, is large enough to acconunodate more than one residential use on it. Mr. Allen stated he still questioned the necessity of an additional fire hy- drant in this area; would one or two additional buildings put a great over- load on the existing capabilities, or it is more a matter of convenience? Mrs. Romans stated it is more a mctttetl ltf "reach" from existing hydrants in Englewood than overload. Mr. Harold Cordella addressed the Commission. He noted that developers and subcontractors know they have to meet any requirements and obligations in order to develop a property. He stated that the city imposes rules and regulations governing developments, but from the discussion that has occurred he feels the Connnission is saying the present property owner would have to comply with the laws and regulations before development of the land. Dis- cussion ensued; Tanguma moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Connnission approve the Subdivision Waiver as requested by Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Chesler for property at 2303 East Dartmouth Avenue, with the following conditions: 1. A drainage plan needs to be submitted before a Building Permit is issued. 2. Curb, gutter and sidewalk along the South University Boulevard and East Dartmouth Avenue frontages of both parcels is to be installed to City specifications at the owner's expense before a Building Permit is issued. 3. A street design shall be submitted and the area between the curb and existing asphalt shall be paved to City specifications at the owner's expense before a Building Permit is issued. 4. Before any Building Permit is issued, the water and sewer service needs to be resolved. 5. That an easement of at least five additional the 15 foot by 95 foot strip of Parcel "C". tend along the entire back portion of Parcel of the parcel developing and water and sewer ment will be needed to maintain the lines. feet be provided along The easement should ex- "C" because in the event locating there, an ease- Discussion followed. Mr. McBrayer stated he felt the need for a fire hy- drant should at least be pointed out, and suggested that a sixth condition • -5- read: 6. "Developers should be aware that the potential installation of a fire hydrant in the Dartmouth Avenue/University Boulevard vicinity must be addressed before any new Building Permits are issued on Parcel C". Discussion followed. Mr. Tanguma and Mr. Barbre accepted the suggested sixth condition, and incorporat~d it into the motion. The vote was called: AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker, Gilchrist The motion carried. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #15-82 1236 East Hampden Avenue Chairman McBrayer stated that Findi~gs of Fact on Case #15-82, the location of an auto transmission/clutch repalr-shop at 1236 East Hampden Avenue, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact for Case #15-82. AYES: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker, Gilchrist The motion carried. V. ARCADE 25 West Girard Av~fiue CASE #18-82 Mr. McBrayer announced that the Public Hearing on the amusement arcade pro- posed to be located at 25 West Gir~rd Avenue has been rescheduled for August 24th at 7:00 P.M. VI. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION CASE #19-82 Mrs. Romans stated that Ms. Powers had hoped to be present for this discussion, and had indicated she would be here about 8:00 P.M. or a little after. Mr. McBrayer suggested that the order of the agenda be altered to allow discussion on Condominium Conversion to be last. VII. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr. McBrayer asked if any member of the audience would like to address the Commission? No one indicated a desire to speak to the Commission. • -6- VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Romans stated that she has nothing new to report on the Prowswood de- velopment, except that some of the residents in Kent Village are not pleased with the mounding of soil being excavated from the area of the proposed lake; the staff is attempting to work out a solution to this problem and relocate this mound of dirt. The remodeling in Cinderella City is progressing; the contract for the Broad- way is reported to have been signed, and this will be their prime location in the Denver area. Many of the other stores are in the midst of remodeling their quarters, also. Mrs. Romans stated that Assistant City Attorney Holland indicated that he will be gathering the information the Commission desired outlining the rol e and responsibility of the Commission, and will be prepared to present this for discussion at the next meeting. Mrs. Romans stated that copies of the letter from Chairman McBrayer to the City Council have been given the Commission for their information. Mrs. Romans reported on progress that is being made on the revision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. She stated that it is hoped that something will be available for discussion by the Commission in September. Mrs. Romans stated that she was asked to extend Mr. Gilchrist's apologies for his absence; he is on a fishing trip to Canada. IX. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Tanguma stated that he has received several complaints about a house at Belleview and South Elati Way; a business is apparently being run from this residence, and trucks are parked along Elati creating a traffic hazard. Mr. Tanguma stated that there are also reports that this property has trees "stored" in the back yard on occasion. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff would check into this. Mr. McBrayer stated that he understood Mrs. Dorothy Dalquist has been hired to work on public relations for the City, and will begin her new duties on Monday, August 23rd. Mrs. Dalquist has been a reporter for the Denver Post supplement covering the Englewood area. He stated that he felt this is a good step for the City, and a shot in the arm for the public relations/promote Englewood committee. Mr. McBrayer asked if every member of the Commission had had an opportunity to view the quilt case since the quilt has been hung? Members went into the adjoining Community Room to view this case. Mrs. Romans stated that she un- derstood the City Council would provide the plaque to be hung on the case, and were very pleased with the contribution of the Planning Commission. Ms. Powers entered the meeting. VI. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION CASE 1119-82 Ms. Powers stated that one of the specific goals set forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission during the first part of the year was the development • -7- of an ordinance pertaining to conversion of apartment units to condominium units. A staff report and background research was prepared by Planning Technician Jeri Linder, and has been presented as a point of discussion at this meeting. The staff would like to determine what points the Com- mission feels should be addressed in such an Ordinance. Ms. Powers stated that the concern of the staff is as the result of in- quiries about converting 152 f~mily-units in Kimberly Village to condominium units. It was proposed that these units, upon conversion, would sell for approximately $100,000; the families who are renting these units would prob- ably not be able to afford to purchase the unit, and would be displaced. This would result in their having to leave Englewood because of the lack of rental units that will accommodate families. Ms. Powers stated that there has been no follow through on these inquiries. Ms. Powers stated that condominium conversions are very popular on the east and west coast, and are becoming more prevalent in this area. This activity has a considerable impact on the low-income, moderate-income, and elderly who may be displaced by not being able to afford the purchase of the unit once it is converted. Ms. Powers stated that the State of Colorado did pass the Condominium Ownership Act, which requires written notification to tenants, and guarantees 90 days or the length of the lease before being evicted. The Ownership Act also contains other general requirements. Upon researching the adjacent communities, the staff found that none of them had adopted condominium guidelines, although Boulder does follow the State standards. Ms. Powers stated that the report addresses tenant interests and buyer in- terests, and cites provisions for the protection of the tenants and buyers that are frequently included in condominium conversion ordinances. Ms. Powers stated that it seems to be more acceptable to provide for protection of the prospecti~e buyer than it is to provide protection for the existing tenant. Discussion ensued on benefits that tenants could receive upon conversion. The length of tenancy was also considered. Mr. Stoel pointed out that the buildings that are converted are often sold; the new owners are not aware of the length of time individuals have lived in the building. He commented that the report seemed to be slanted to favor protection of the tenant, and questioned the responsibilities owners have to tenants. He stated that de- velopers would have to honor a lease if a tenant was on a lease. Mr. McBrayer stated that there were some of the protection items proposed for tenants, such as a six months notice, first right of purchase, and requiring developer assistance in locating another site to rent that he could under- stand. However, he could not agree requiring developers to pay rent for the tenant, paying relocation expenses, etc. Ms. Powers commented that giving the tenants first right of refusal seemed like good business. Mr. Stoel agreed that it would be. Mr. McBrayer stated that perhaps the developer could offer good financing to tenants who do purchase units. Mr. Stoel agreed that this possibility should be explored. Mr. Allen commented that "it's hard to work up a lot of compassion for tenants", and cited instances of destruction by tenants. • -8- Mr. McBrayer stated he understood that special consideration should be required for the handicapped and elderly tenants. Page 10 of the report was considered at length. Ms. Powers pointed out that State Law requires a 90-day notice to tenants. Mr. Stoel suggested that "low" and "moderate" income should be defined. Ms. Powers stated that HUD guid~lines would be used to determine income levels. Mr. Stoel stated he wanted to see some rules for developers and persons wanting to convert units --a set of guidelines to be used in accomplishing conversion of units. Mr. McBrayer stated that what has been presented is an outline, and needs to be filled in. Mr. Allen stated he could not understand the necessity for tenant protection. Ms. Powers stated that tenant protection is a requirement of State Law. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer stated he felt the Commission wanted to see something "non-radical", with very basic elements for protection of tenants; it should set out guidelines for the persons converting the units, and in- clude means to protect the buyer. Mr. Tanguma stated he felt the State Law provides pretty good protection; he stated he felt the matter of bringing the building up to Code is the primary issue we need to address. The problem of new buildings having to be constructed to specific standards, but buildings being converted not having to meet those same standards, was discussed. Mr. Allen stated he did not feel this "double standard" was right. Ms. Powers commented that the Fire Department is trying to develop require- ments for existing buildings to assure protection for tenants as well as for home owners. Mr. Stoel stated that if the renter is not satisfied with the accommodations, they can move; he did acknowledge that there is a housing shortage which will be getting worse. Tenant protection provisions were further considered. It was pointed out that the State Law requirements are minimum requirements. Mr. Allen stated he felt the time element on first right of refusal to a tenant should be increased to 90 days rather than the 60 days as proposed. It was the consensus that #4 should state that terms of tenancy cannot be altered unless it is mutually agreed. Discussion followed. It was noted that #2, requiring a 90-day notice to vacate, should be modified to state 90 days or "length of lease", and that Item #4 should be scratched. Mr. Allen stated he did not feel a developer should be responsible for moving elderly or handicapped tenants. Mr. McBrayer stated he did not feel a developer should be required to pay tenant's rent; he suggested that #5 be worded more specifically, and that assistance be confined to elderly and handicapped, but not to low or moderate income. He suggested that the staff present the Commission with a range of relocation assistance for their consideration. He stated that if an ex- • -9- tension of time were to be granted, he felt it should be no more than six months maximum, and not up to one year. Mr.McBrayer also asked that the rights of the developer/converter be written into the proposal. Mr. Stoel stated he felt the developer/converter is the one the City should be concerned about and dealing with --not the tenant or buyer. Buyer protection elements were then considered. Ms. Powers noted that State law only requires that the condo by-laws be presented to the buyer. Other items suggested in the report are not required by the State law. Discussion on the items suggested in the report ensued. The requirement of a warranty on common elements was discussed. Ms. Powers stated this would include common laundry facilities, swimming pool, etc., it would not cover ranges, dish washers, refrigerators, etc. in the individual units. Ms. Powers stated that the engineer's report (or physical elements report) would indicate the condition of the appliances. She emphasized this would not be a warranty, but a disclosure statement. Mr. Allen questioned whether the third suggestion would mean a building would have to be brought up to code if it does not meet the code? Ms. Powers pointed out that it may not be possible to bring some structures up to existing code, but it might be possible to assure compliance with the code in effect at time of construction. The word "certification" was questioned. Mr. McBrayer suggested that possibly this section should be a "disclosure" of compliance with the codes rather than "certification of compliance". Ms. Powers stated she felt certification of compliance with the codes in effect at time of construction could be done. Major renovations to older buildings and code compliance was further dis- cussed. It was pointed out by Mr. Stoel that if compliance with present codes was to be required, low and moderate priced units would go to high- priced units. Mr. McBrayer suggested the structures should be brought into compliance with today's codes where reasonably possible. Ms. Powers questioned the legal opinion of such a provision. Mr. Tanguma discussed the need for safe housing for tenants. Mr. Senti stated he did not for the community. He felt not encourage conversions. trend is to the converter. think promotion of condo conversion does anything there is a need for strict provisions that will He stated the only benefit of this condo conversion Mr. Stoel disagreed; he felt this would lead to the improvement of the structures, even if they may not be up to existing code. Further discussion followed~ Mr. Tanguma stated that there are regulations whereby unsafe structures can be condemned. Ms. Powers stated that the City does have that right at the present time. She pointed out that a life safety situation is not at issue in most of the apartments in Englewood; however, it is difficult to distinguish between life safety matters and code deficiencies in some instances. Discussion ensued. Ms. Powers stated she felt there must be a determination on whether structures to be converted should comply with existing codes or those applicable at time of construction. • -10- It was suggested that the staff prepare some alternate suggestions on com- pliance with codes. Provision #4, compliance with Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance provisions such as off-street parking was then discussed. Mr. McBrayer stated he would be opposed to this provision, noting that no additional land may be available for parking. Mr. Allen pointed out that some buildings could not be approved for condominium conversions because they cannot meet the minimum requirements. Mr. Stoel pointed out that if parking isn't available, people won't buy. Mr. Stoel suggested that the conversion of office buildings and warehouses to condominium use also be addressed. Ms. Powers stated this facet has not been explored because such conversions do not have the same impact on people and safety implications. Mr. McBrayer stated he would like to see the report structured to address multi-family, office, and warehouse conversions. Mr. Allen asked how many inquiries for conversion had been received? Ms. Powers stated that there have been inquiries on Kimberly Village, a totally- occupied family development. Mrs. Romans stated that an inquiry was also received on an apartment house in the 3700 block of South Acoma Street. Mr. Allen asked if there were any statistics on units purchased by present tenants? Miss Linder stated the national figures show that only 22% of the units are purchased by the tenant. Mr. McBrayer welcomed Councilman Bilo, who entered the meeting earlier during the above discussion. Brief discussion ensued on the condo conversion report. Mr. McBrayer declared the meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Recording Secretary • • CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 15-82, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO §22-. 4-llh2 ) OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, ) AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 44, SERIES ) OF 1981, THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLO-) RADO; WHICH AMENDMENT RELATES TO THE ) OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR ) BUSINESS AS A CONDITIONAL USE. ) A Public Hearing was held on August 3, 1982, in connection with Case No. 15-82 in the City Council Chambers in the Englewood City Hall. The following members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Mr. Gilchrist, Mr. McBrayer, Mr. Senti, Mr. Stoel, Mr. Tanguma, Mr. Allen, Mr. Barbre, Mrs. Becker, and Mr. Carson. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports, and filed documents, the City Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Findings of Fact. 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given. 2. That upon the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1981, amending Section 22.4-11 h 2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1963. 3. The amended Section 22.4-11 h 2 relates to motor vehicle repair businesses and motor vehicle laundry or polishing businesses, establishing these businesses as Conditional Uses in the B-2 Business District. 4. That the following requirements and conditions need to exist or be met as a condition by the applicant before such use may be permitted: a) Adequate off-street parking spaces for cars waiting to be serviced; b) Adequate screening to shield such uses from adjacent residential uses; c) Adequate storage of materials in a manner to keep them from blowing off of or being carried from the property onto ad- jacent public or private property. • • -2- d) All work must be performed within an enclosed structure. 5. That the property at 1236 East Hampden Avenue, which is owned by Mr. Jess Crane, the applicant, is located in the B-2 Business District. 6. That persons appeared at the Public Hearing who indicated a desire to address the Commission in favor of the proposed motor vehicle re- pair business, and that no one wished to speak in opposition to the request. CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given in compliance with §22.5-21 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 2. That two persons present addressed the Commission expressing their consent in favor of the proposal. 3. That the automobile transmission and clutch repair business is permitted as a Conditional Use in the B-2 Business District. 4. That the transmission and clutch repair business is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the business will provide a service to the area. 5. That the adverse impacts will be minimized because there are provisions for: Off-street parking. The work will be in an enclosed structure. Storage of materials used in relation to the business will be enclosed. Wheeled traffic will be located at the front of the property and away from the adjacent residential district to the south. 6. That the applicant will comply with Article 29 of the 1979 Uniform Fire Code. ACTION Therefore, the City Planning and Zoning Commission approves the request of Mr. Jess Crane, permitting an auto transmission and clutch re- pair business to be located at 1236 East Hampden Avenue • • • -3- Upon the vote on a motion made at the meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on August 3, 1982. Those members voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Senti, Mr. Stoel, Mr. Tanguma, Mr. Allen, Mr. Barbre, Mrs. Becker, Mr. Carson, Mr. Gilchrist and Mr. McBrayer. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Edwin E. Chairman