Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-12-30 PZC MINUTESI I I Page 815 IV. NEXT MEETING DATE. The Planning Director stated the next regular meeting date would be December 30, 1964, and that Mr. Eitel of the Planning Department staff would be present. Rice moved: Parkinson seconded: The meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was declared adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 30, 1964 The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Carlson. Members present: Whitcomb; Rice; Fullerton; Carlson Members absent: Touchton, Parkinson Also present: Tom Eitel II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Carlson stated there were two sets of Minutes to be approved; those of December 9, 1964, and December 16, 1964. Mrs. Romans stated that it had been suggested that the Minutes of December 16, 1964, be amended by deleting a quote accred"ted to a person at the meeting. She asked the feeling of the Commission on the present method of distributing the Minutes of the various City Departments, City Council and the press prior to approval by the Commission; or whether, in fact, they are not official Minutes until they are approved and, therefore, should not be released in advance. Mr. Parkinson entered and was seated with the Commission. Very thorough discussion followed on the distribution of the Minutes prior to approval by . the Commission. Mr. Fullerton stated he felt the Council should have the benefit of the Minutes sooner than the proposed procedure would allow. Mr. Parkinson asked about the memorandums sent to the City Council from the Planning Commission; that is, if they would also be delayed by the proposed procedure? Mrs. Romans replied the memorandums are sent as an attachment to the Minutes, but a direct memorandum would be sent to the City Council through the City Manager. Mr. Parkinson then asked about the possibility of preparing Minutes for distribution within the City offices only, and labeling them "unofficial". Rice moved: Whitcomb seconded: No Minutes of the City Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and actions be distributed until they have been declared official Minutes as presented or as amended by the members of the Planning Commission. Further discussion ensued. Upon call of the role, the vote: AYES: Fullerton; Parkinsoni Rice; Whitcomb; Carlson NAYS: None ABSENT: Touchton The motion carried. Mr. Rice commented he felt Minutes should reflect what was said at a meeting, and what happened at that meeting. If one were not satisfied with a quote credited to him, he could make a retraction at the next meeting. Fullerton moved: Parkinson seconded: The Minutes of December 9, 1964, be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. Parkinson moved: Fullerton seconded: The Minutes of December 16, 1964, be approved as corrected. Mr. Rice commented he felt this was not a correction of actual happening, but a correction of intent. Rice moved: The Minutes of December 16, 1964, be approved as written. Discussion f ollowed. Page 816 Mr. Rice's motion was declared dead for lack of second. The vote on Mr. Parkinson's motion: AYES: Fullerton, Parkinson, Whitcomb NAYS: Rice, Carlson ABSENT: Touchton The motion carried. III. YALE-TEJON SUBDIVISION CASE #22-64B Mrs. Romans reported that Mr. Berenbaum had requested this matter to be laid over until the next meeting when he could be present. IV. CURRENT PROJECTS: Mrs. Rom ans asked Mr. Eitel to give a report on the status of the Housing Code. Mr. Eitel is working in conjunction with ICRPC in the drafting of a proposed Model Housing Code for the metropolitan area. Mr. Eitel stated he had met on several occasions with Frank Justus, of the Denver Housing Authority; J.K. Smith and John Robson, of ICRPC; and Mr. Brigg s a nd Mr. Veasey from Aurora. He stated that the responsibility of preparing the basic material for the Housing Code had been placed on the Englewood Planning Department and on Mr. Robson from the ICRPC S taff. Mr. Eitel reported that they are studying Housing Codes from several different states and municipalities. Mr. Eitel then explained proposed Administrative Provisions, which he has prepared for pre- liminary s tudy and discussion. The enforcing official has been suggested as the City Manager, who may then delegate the authority to Housing Inspectors, which may be appoint e d by the City Manager. Mr. Eitel emphasized that these Housing Inspectors should have special qualifications in the fields of housing; i.e. construction, health, enforcement, plumbing, electrician, etc. He stated he was suggesting a "Housing Board of Appeals" to which appeals from the directives of the Housing Inspectors would be directed; again, the members of this Board should be qualified in the various applicable fields. Mr. Eitel commented that Denver has a "Hearing Officer" to hear the first appeal from the Housing Inspector. He said it has been suggested a traveling "hearing officer" be shared by the municipalities, and each municipality wo u ld have their o wn Board of Housing Appeals. " Mr. Fullerton asked if Tri-County Health Department would be considered as a possible Housing Inspection agency? Mr. Eitel stated that he had discussed with several persons the authority vested in the Tri-County Health Department, and that no where is it clearly set forth that the Tri-County Health Department had been granted the authority tomforce a Housing Code wit h in the City. The Planning Director stated that the staff would recommend against Tri- County Health Department acting a s the enforcement agency within Englewood. Mr. Eitel asked if members felt that technical information as to size of pipes etc should be included in the Code? Mr. Parkinson commented that such information is subject to change at any time, and would, therefore, be difficult to include. Mr. Whitcomb asked how far reaching the Code would be; if it would affect newer areas sub- ject to annexation by a municipality? Mr. Eitel stated that it was hoped that the Model Code would be adopted by the cities and counties in the metropo litan area. Further brief discussion followed on the Housing Code. Mr. Eitel then discussed the revision of the Subdivision Regulations. Authority vested in the Planning Commission by virtue of the City Charter and State Statutes was discussed. The territory over which the Commission would have jurisdiction was discussed. This includes all land lying within the corporate limits of the City, as well as land lying within three miles of the corporate limits in regard to the major street plan. Mr. Eitel explained that under this particular phase of jurisdiction, through cooperation with the County, a sub- divider could be required to plan streets in his subdivision to correspond with the streets as shown on the Master Street Plan of the City of Englewood. Discussion ensued. Sections 139-59-13 and 139-59-14 of the Colorado State Statutes, Revised, 1953, were d iscussed. Mrs. Romans displayed a map from ICRPC indicating the major thoroughfares in the metropolitan area as projected to 1980. She emphasized the fact that on this map and on a map from Arapahoe County, as well as on those at the State Highway Department, Highway #70 is shown as a "freeway". Mr. Leigh from ICRPC has stated this would require a 240' right-of -way, with the carrying capacity of 8,000 cars per lane per day. Discussion on the adoption of a revised Master Street Plan followed. Mrs. Romans asked if the Commission felt there would be merit to adopting the applicable portion of the Major Thoroughfare Map from ICRPC as the revised Englewood Master Street Plan. Further discussion followed. Mr. Fullerton stated he would like to see the Planning Staff proceed on the revised Master Street Plan preparation. Mrs. Romans commented the Traffic Pattern as shown on the Traffic Map in the Planning Office had been approved by the Commission in 1962. Mr. Eitel then discussed the requirement of a performance bond for a subdivision. Mr. Fullerton asked wh y a Bond was needed, inasmuch as the City Council could initiate improve- ment districts when needed. Mr. Parkinson commented that an area could easily be bankrupt by this practice. The reservation of sites for Public uses, i.e., for parks, public utilities, churches, etc was discussed. Mr. Eitel felt the wording in this provision was particularly confusing. Discussion followed. I I I I I I Page 817 Mr. Eitel pointed out according to the present Subdivision Regulations, no action may be taken on a Subdivision Plat without benefit of Public Hearing. This would include action on the Preliminary as well as Final Plats. Discussion followed; it was suggested the Pre- liminary Design Plan be submitted t o the Planning Department f o r study and review; the Final Plat would then be submitted directly to the Planning Commission for Hearing. Mr. Rice stated he wished to commend Mr. Eitel for the research and study given to the Housing Code and Subdivision Regulations. He felt this was giving a very comprehensive background to the Commission for their future consideration on these subjects. V. PARKING MONOGRAPH CASE #23-64E Mrs. Romans asked members to again thoroughly review the Parking Monograph and be prepared to discuss it at the next meeting of the Commission. She asked that they feel free to make any suggestions or criticisms of the Monograph they wished. VI. BOULDER PLANNING INSTITUTE Members were informed of the dates of the Seventh Annual Planning Institute to be at the University of Colorado in Boulder, on February 12 and 13 this year. Persons planning to attend were asked to notify the Planning Office in order that reservations might be made. Rice moved: Whitcomb seconded: The meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was declared adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary