Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1951-04-18 PZC MINUTESI I I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 18, 1951 Members present: Fred Janssen, Chairman L. M. Guilford Lee Jones Dale Rea R. George Woods PAGE 9 The plans for Lull Heights were approved subject to the following conditions: Setback of 20 feet in case of Lot 4 and setback of 25 feet in others fronting on Elati Street, Lots 1, 2, 3, 5. Homes to be minimum of 1,000 square feet, exclusive of garag e , Single family dwellings along Elati Street, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Floor area of dwelling units being built on Lots 6 and 7 be lot less than 1,000 square feet, exclusive of garage. Mr. Lull will contour ground so that Lots 6 and 7 will not be subject to flooding from lots above. Floor elevation ·of the houses is to be approved by the City Engineer. Building on Lot 7 must not be closer than ten feet to any prop e rty line. Mr. Lull agrees to put electric garbage disposals in all units. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of zoning with Mr. Hornbein. The meeting was adjourned at 5: 45 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth R. Beier, Secretary Approved: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 2, 1951 Members present: Lee Jones L. M. Guilford Dale Rea R. George Woods The meeting was called to order by acting chairman Lee Jones. Mr. Meyer presented a preliminary plan for a subdivision between Elati and Fox Streets and Tufts and Union Avenues. The Commission voiced the opinion that the plan would be favorably considered if the area were properly platted and the whole section brought in from the center of Delaware Street to the center of Fox Street. Mr. Jones expressed the belief that the Commission should take action in the near future on official grades, sidewalks and the pattern of through streets. Mr. Rea showed the group a contour map of Englewood and asked if it could be of assistance on this project. Meeting was adjourned at 5:30 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth R. Beier, Secretary Approved: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 18, 1951 The meeting was called to order at 8:30 AM by Chairman Janssen. Members present: L.M. Guilford Fred Janssen Lee Jones Dale Rea PAGE 10 1. Problems and questions in connection with curbs and gutter and sidewalk installations were considered as follows: a. What plans exist for installation of curb and gutter and approximate cost per lineal foot? The Planning Commission is preparing a suggested ordinance for City Council consideration to establish current standards of construction and alignment of curbs, gutters and sidewalks. The city does not do much installation work and contractors' costs depend on field conditions, current labor and material cost, and magnitude of project. b. Types of curb, gutter and sidewalk permissable and planned? Vertical or sloping curbs together with integral or separate walks are approved for specific locations. Standards for the different types and the designated streets on which each type may be used are on file at the City Clerk's office. c. Street width for residential and business? Subdivision dedications or quit claim deeds have in most cases established street widths. Minimum for residential streets is generally 60 feet. Other street widths will be governed by future traffic. d. Position of curb and gutter relative to property line? For residential areas the curb will usually be about 8 feet from property line on 60 foot streets. Other street widths and other type of streets have different spacings, depending on street use and location. e. May residents install curb and gutter? Curb, gutter, and sidewalk work must be by an approved contractor and according to specifications. f. Can residents have curb and gutter installed piecemeal? Residents may have such work done across front of their property, provided it conforms to established standards, grade andalignment. g. At whose expense must valve box and water meter be moved if it interferes with curb, gutter and sidewalk installation? Usually meter and valve box will not interfer with curb and gutter work if such box and meter has been properly located according to water board regulations. If it must be moved it should be at property owner's expense. h. Whose responsibility are trees in parking when they interfer with curb and gutter work? Care and removal if necessary of trees in parking are the property owner's responsibility. (Present owner or his predecessor probably planted such trees.) Final decision on this must of necessity rest with City Council and laws governing. i. Are plans of curb, gutter and sidewalk available? Such specifications are available to individuals at reproduction costs. j. Can one block of property owners petition city for curb, gutter and sidewalk? Owners of a block can have a qualified and approved contractor to install curb, gutter, and sidewalk at their expense, provided it complies with approved city standards, grades, and alignment. 2. Other business: a. Mr. Corah, who had requested consideration of a subdivision near Galapago and Oxford did not appear, and no plans of his had been previously submitted. Hence no action could be taken. b. Right-of-way proposal of Mr. Burchard for Hampden Drive in vicinity of Washington and Kenyon. Mr. Burchard h ad previously agreed to grant a 100 foot right-of-way across his property in return for a water main to be run to Kenyon and Washington intersection and sufficient fill dirt for his needs. Under present policy of the Water Department this line would normally cost customer $500.00. Fill requirements are estimated at 200 cubic yards by Mr. Rea. Commission recommends this proposal subject to Council approval. c. Changes in proposed rezoning suggested by Board of Adjustment. The following suggestions were approved: 1. Permit job printing shops employing not more than 4 persons in C-1 District. 2. Omit all references to requirements now covered in Building Code. 3. Reword last paragraph page 20 of proposed zoning code to clarify. 4. Prohibit filling stations and apparel c l eaning plants in C-2 District. I I I I I I PAGE 11 5. Permit apparel cleaning plants employing not more than 5 persons in C-1 District. 6. Add words: "Except storage" to paragraph 5, page 22. 7. Prohibit Blacksmith shops in M-1 and permit them in M-2; paragraph 7, page 23. 8. Prohibit horse barns within city and permit dog kennels in M-2 o n ly. Paragraph 11, page 23. 9. In paragraph 1, page 27 and after "buildings" add in R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4. 10. Check streets and revise in paragraph n, page 27. Meeting adjourned 11:30 AM. Respectfully submitted, Fred Janssen, Chairman * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Members present: L. M. Guilford Lee Jones Dale Rea Ju 1 y 16 , 19 51 The meeting was called to order at 1;3 0 P. M. by Acting Chairman Lee Jones. Jim Wilson's subdivision between Downing and Corona and Bates and Cornell was approved subject to the following conditions: Mr. Wilson to give quit claim deed to the city for 30 feet on Bates Avenue, if it has not already been deeded, and 8 feet on Corona. Mr. Wilson to obtain 8 feet on Downing from the Peterson estate. The plat is to be presented to Mr. Shivers; and Mr. Wilson wishes to confer with his lawyer, before final approval. Three representatives of the residents in the 4600 block on South Bannock inquired about what type of sidewalks they could install. Discussion brought out these facts and suggestions: Bannock has been tentatively set up as a through street clear through to Belleview. Mr. Johns did not do a proper job of grading for separate type sidewalks. Tufts Avenue is considered a feeder street to Clayton School, and some type of traffic control is urgently needed. 4500 block on Bannock has California type curb; 4400 block on Bannock has none. Mr. Franz had indicated to the group that he would favor California type curb from Oxford on south. Mr. Rea suggested exploring the possibility of having the City do part of the work of the regrading that would be involved in putting in separate curb and gutter. Mr . Rea felt that the Commission should get together with the City Street Committee to deter- mine definitely whether Bannock is to be a through Street. It was decided to meet with that Committee for final decision on the matter. Mr. W. J. Maxwell submitted a sketch of a proposed subdivision between Dartmouth and Eastman and Gilpin and Williams Streets. He wanted permission to include 60 foot lots. Due to the location of Maxwell's house it was felt that it would be advisable to take 10 feet off the Williams Street side and 2 feet off the Gilpin Street side for the easement. Mr. Rea suggested that Mr. Maxwell see Mr. Shivers about the easement and dedications of the streets. The Planning Commission indicated their approval of 60-foot lots because of the lay of this particular block and told Mr. Maxwell that they would notify the Zoning Commission of that approval. Meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth R. Beier