Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-03-20 PZC MINUTES• D R A F T CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 1990 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Tom Gerlick at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Fish, Covens, Daviet, Schultz, Tobin, Becker, Gerlick, Glynn Members absent: Also present: Wanush, Ex-officio Shoop D. A. Romans, Planning Administrator H. J. Stitt, Planner Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney Environmental/Nuisance Task Force Members Eisenberg, Fischbach, Hendricks, Welker, York II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. February 21, 1990 Berlin, Chairman Gerlick stated that the Minutes of February 21, 1990 were to be con- sidered for approval. Fish moved: Schultz seconded: The Minutes of February 21, 1990 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Covens, Daviet, Glynn, None Shoop Gerlick, Becker The motion carried. III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chairman Vice-Chairman Fish, Schultz, Tobin, Mr. Gerlick stated that officers for 1990 are to be elected, and asked for nominations for the position of Chairman. Mr. Schultz stated that he would like to continue the leadership of the Com- missirin as it is presently, and nominated Mr. Gerlick as Chairman and Mr. Fish as Vice-Chairman. Ms. Becker seconded the nomination. The vote on the nominations was called: AYES: NAYS: Daviet, Gerlick, Glynn, Fish, Schultz, Tobin, Becker, Covens None -1 - • ABSENT: ~hoop ABSTAIN: None The motion carried; Mr. Gerlick was elected Chairman of the Commission and Mr. Fish Vice-Chairman. IV. MEMBERSHIP CHANGE Mr. Gerlick announced that Ms. Linda Baumgartner had submitted her resignation from the Commission due to a pending move from the City. Mr. Roger Shoop has been appointed to the Commission to fill her unexpired term, but had a pre- vious commitment this evening and could not be in attendance. v. TITLE 15, ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE CASE #1-90 Health, Sanitation and Environmental Protection Chairman Gerlick stated that the Public Hearing on the repeal of §16-4-1 of the Englewood Municipal Code, and incorporation of those provisions into a new Title 15, which Public Hearing was begun on February 6, 1990, and continued to March 6 and then to March 20, will now continue. Fish moved: Becker seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-90 be reopened and continue. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Gerlick, None Shoop None Glynn, Fish, Schultz, Tobin, Becker, Covens, Daviet The motion carried. Mr. Gerlick stated that members of the audience who have not previously ad- dressed the Commission on this issue will be allowed to speak first. Members of the audience who have previously addressed the Commission will then be al- lowed to speak to present new information. Mr. Gerlick asked that members of the audience wishin 'g to address the Commission raise their hands; five persons indicated they wished to speak before the Commission. Mr. Gerlick then asked Planning Administrator Romans to review the issue before the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that Title 15, as approved by the Environmental Code Review Committee, is a compilation of provisions presently contained in Title 6, Ti- tle 11, and Section 16-4-1. These provisions are located in three separate ordinances and enforced by three different divisions---Building & Safety, Police Department, and Code Enforcement. This has resulted in confusion for the enforcement personnel. Title 15 will be enforced by the Code Enforcement Division of the Community Development Department. Mrs. Romans stated that the Code Review Committee tried to clarify some provisions in their review, and the City Attorney's Office clarified other provisions when they compiled the provisions into one document. Mrs. Romans pointed out that restrictions on weed height, as well as the issue . of derelict and hobby vehicles have been contained in the Municipal Code since 1981. Title 15 is generally not enacting new provisions, but providing clarification of existing provisions and compiling all restrictions on health, sanitation and environment into one document. -2 - • Mrs. Romans stated that the Planning Commission's charge is to consider the repeal of §16-4-1 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and th~ incorporation of those provisions into the new Title 15. The Commission must also be aware, however, of all the provisions that the new Title 15 will encompass from Title 6 and Title 11. Mrs. Romans stated that members of the Environmental Code Review Committee spent a great deal of time reviewing all the codes and ordinances pertaining to health, sanitation and the environment. Mrs. Romans stated that this con- cluded her presentation, but she would be available for questions. Mr. Ge r lick asked if members of the Commission had questions of Mrs. Romans. No que s tions were posed to Mrs. Romans. Mr. Gerlick then asked proponents of Title 15 who had not previously addressed the Commission to come forward to speak. R. J. Berlin 2132 East Dartmouth Avenue -stated that he had served on the Environmental Code Review Committee, and had served as Chairman of that committee. Mr. Berlin stated that his service on this committee was one of the more pleasurable activities he has done in the past year; the com- mittee had good attendance, and while there was a diversity of opinion on a number of issues, everyone was heard and a consensus reached on a majority of those issues. Mr. Berlin stated that Title 15 provides for the quiet enjoy- ment of their homes by the citizens of Englewood. Mr. Berlin spoke against the infringement of one's lifestyle on a neighbor's lifestyle or enjoyment of his premises. Mr. Berlin stated that to encourage people to move to the City, and to retain existing residents, we must pro vi de an environment that is satisfying to existing and prospective residents. Mr. Berlin acknowledged that there are some provisions which are difficult to enforce, and which were difficu l t to write restrictions on such as the height of weeds. The committee addressed issues that could be dangerous, such as large vehicles parking on residential streets which may obstruct views at intersections; or snow blades which may protrude into the roadway. Mr. Berlin stated that the committee heard from owners of recreational vehicles who had been cited because of the size of the vehicle parked on the street, and who could not make provision to park the vehicle on the rear of their property. Mr. Berlin suggested that there are parking lots or storage yards where these vehicles may be parked for a fee. Mr. Berlin stated that he understands it is Mr. Kozacek's contention that the City of Englewood is and will be in violation of some of the provisions of this ordinance if it is enacted. If this allegation is, in fact, correct, then the City must comply with the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Berlin stated that he has lived in Englewood for 16 years, and feels that the City is a beautiful place to live. However, the tour of the City on which members of the committee were taken revealed some severe problems, and Mr. Berlin stated that he was "appalled" at some of the things he saw on this tour. Some of the problems have been and are being corrected, and the Code Enforcement personnel are working on the enforcement of the restrictions as presently written. Mr. Berlin stated that all residents must realize that it is only by example that Englewood as a whole will change, and that the City is reflection of the citizenry itself. -3 - Mr. Fish inquired as to the philosophy of the committee in addressing the en- forcement of restrictions that may be unenforceable or violations which may be so widespread that it is a norm. Did the committee address this possibility and try to eliminate provisions which may be commonly violated. Mr. Berlin stated that no one person or group can be allowed to impose their wishes on the community as a whole; people should not intrude on or interfere with the quiet enjoyment by a neighbor of his property. Mr. Fish cited the requirement that trash containers be covered, and concealed from public view by an opaque screen or fence. Is this provision enforceable? Mr. Berlin stated that in his opinion, this provision can be enforced. Mr. Fish then questioned the 6" maximum height of weeds vs. 4" maximum height. Mr. Berlin acknowledged that determining the maximum height of vegetation was one of the tougher issues that had to be addressed by the committee. Mr. Ber- l in stated that the majority of citizens do make every effort to comply with restrictions, and only habitual offenders are cited into court. Mr. Berlin stated that it is his opinion that when you choose to live in a community, you owe that community a debt of complying with the restrictions--it is not an entitlement to do whatever you wish to do. Mr. Berlin further acknowledged that . there may be some provisions that need further modification or possibly deleted in the future. Mr. Covens asked if Mr. Berlin envisioned the Code Enforcement officers con- centrating efforts on a particular problem or section or the City, or trying to police the entire City. Mr. Berlin replied that there are only two Code Enforcement Officers to police a community of 30,000+ residents. It is his understanding that these two individuals try to cover the entire city once a month. If a citation is issued in a particular block, they try to determine if there are other problems in that immediate area and cite those as well. Mr. Covens then inquired if the penalties should be increased. Mr. Berl in stated that penalties are at the discretion of the Judge; a fine may be levied, but suspended if the property is cleaned and maintained to acceptable standards. Mr. Berlin emphasized that ordinances are needed to regulate ac- tivities and prevent the infringement on rights of neighbors. Lois Lighthall 2945 South Logan Street -stated that progress on the matter of Code Enforcement is being made, and that th~ Code En- forcement Officers are covering the City on a regular basis. Ms. Lighthall stated that members of the Code Review Committee worked devotedly to get rid of unenforceable provisions. Ms. Lighthall stated that she would like to see ordinances enacted that can be enforced, and that are enforced. She urged the Planning Cammi ssi on to exert every effort to get Title 15 through the City Council. This new ordinance is for the betterment of Englewood. Carl Welker 4611 South Clarkson Street -stated that he a 1 so served on the Code Review Committee. The Committee was trying to set standards that are enforceable but also tried to look at standards that the community wanted. Mr. Welker stated that the covered trash containers are an attempt to prevent garbage from being strewn down the alleys. The issue of weeds and maximum heights may require a "judgment call" on the part of some- one. If the 6" maximum is accepted, by the time steps are taken to gain com- pliance by an individual they may be well in excess of 12" in height. Mr. -4 - Welker addressed the matter of snow removal and the use of blades on trucks. It seems reasonable to allow such blades to be on the trucks for a period of time following a snow storm, and thereafter to be removed or not parked on public streets. On-street parking of recreational vehicles was also discussed by the committee at length. The restrictions imposed against the on-street parking of these vehicles are reasonable. Mr. Welker stated that in this past year there has been a serious effort by the Code Enforcement Officers to clean up the City and enforce the provisions of the various codes. Sam Clothier Bob's Auto Service 500 West Yale Avenue -addressed the Commission regarding the matter of tow trucks. Mr. Clothier stated that companies with towing contracts with the Pol ice Department are required to have their tow trucks at their place of residence overnight to fulfill the obligations of the contract in regard to response time. Mr. Clothier stated that he has dealt with 13 cities with towing contracts, and Englewood is the only City with the problem of keeping the tow trucks at the place of residence. Mr. Wanush acknowledged that there is a response time written into the con- tract, but it would not require that the tow truck be kept overnight at the place of residence if the individual resided in Englewood and the towing con- tract was with Englewood. Mr. Covens stated that one of the problems cited at the previous phase of the Hearing was tow trucks with damaged vehicle attached being parked overnight on residential streets. Mr. Clothier stated that his company does not do that; they have their own tow yards, which are open 24 hours/day. Mr. Gerl i ck asked if there were other proponents who wished to address the Commission. No one else spoke to the Commission in favor of Title 15. Mr. Gerlick then stated the Commission would hear from opponents to Title 15. Gary Kozacek 1260 West Oxford Avenue -stated that there is a response ti me for tow trucks, and that a greater hazard can be created if a damaged vehicle is not removed from a street in a timely manner. Mr. Kozacek stated that he would agree that a hazard is created by vehicles left hanging in tow parked on public streets, and this should not be permitted. Mr. Kozacek stated that there can also be a problem with flat-bed trucks with vehicles on them. Mr. Kozacek stated that if the tow trucks are not allowed to be parked on residential streets overnight, this will force the companies to be in noncompliance with the contract because they cannot meet the response time. Mr. Kozacek addressed the definition of Trash which includes "yard clippings, leaves, and branches". Mr. Kozacek stated that this provision, if enacted, will affect the ability of the City of Englewood to use branches, leaves, and grass clippings in the "thatch" that is put around trees and on flower beds in the City parks. Mr. Fish stated that the issue of composting has been dis- cussed by members of the Commission at the initial phase of the Hearing, and will be further addressed. Mr. Kozacek then discussed the provisions on Page 14 E, pertaining to snow- plows or blades on trucks. Mr. Kozacek alleged that the City of Englewood is -5 - in violation of the 72 hour prov1s1on, because City vehicles with blades at- tached are frequently used to break up accumulations of ice a week or more following a storm. Mr. Kozacek stated that the phrase "remove them from public streets" means to him that vehicles with blades attached cannot have access to a public street. Mr. Kozacek further reiterated his statements from the previous phase of the Hearing that he makes use of the blade on his truck on a year-round basis; he also pointed out that the City has grader blades on vehicles to grade alleys on a year-round basis. Mr. Kozacek stated that the intent of the provision is good, but if it impacts people in business who can- not comply, and if the City won't comply, then he will complain. Mr. Kozacek reiterated his objection to the provisions pertaining to derelict vehicles, again noting that grown children are moving back into the family home with their parents, and that more than one vehicle may not be operable at any given time, which would, in his opinion, be in violation of the provisions of this ordinance. Mr. Kozacek stated that he agreed with the intent of the provision, but felt it could be imposing a hardship. Mr. Kozacek then ad- dressed the issue of parking of vehicles in rear yards, and stated there are properties with no alleys, and that may not have the means to park vehicles in the back yard. The requirement that driveways and parking areas be of con- crete, brick paver, asphalt surface or other similar hard surface was dis- cussed by Mr. Kozacek. He stated that he has · a gravel driveway, with the gravel embedded in dirt that is hard packed. If this is not acceptable, he and other property owners would have to "take a financial hit" to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Kozacek asked that the Commission look at the provisions of Title 15 and evaluate whether the provisions are hurting someone, or whether the problem they are supposed to "correct" is hurting anyone. Mr. Kozacek stated that he would commend the members of the committee who put the Ordinance together, "but they were under time constraints and they threw things together to meet the tinie limit." Mr. Gerlick asked if there were questions of Mr. Kozacek. Ms. Becker stated that the block she lives in is a small block, and there is more than one vehicle with a snow blade parked in that block, and l~ads to a very congested situation. She asked if vehicles with blades were permitted to park on-street would the number per block be restricted, or how would Mr. Kozacek suggest addressing this situation. Mr. Kozacek stated that the en- forcement officers would have to determine if the vehicles were improperly parked, or if the vehicles were parked too close to the corner. Mr. Kozacek noted that the parking restrictions at corners are not marked on the streets. Mr. Kozacek agreed that some hazards can be created by tow trucks with vehi- cles in tow, or elevated; he also pointed out that vehicles with winches at- tached can be hazardous to vehicles backing into a parking space on-street. Mr. Covens stated that the provision states that the vehicles with snow blades must be off-street; this does not mean that the vehicle cannot be parked on private property with the blade attached. Only that the vehicle with blade attached cannot be parked on or stored on a public street. Mr. Kozacek reiterated his perceived problem of the 72 hour time limitation and the fact that the vehicles cannot be parked on the public street. -6 - Ms. Tobin inquired on the types of blades --permanently attached vs. tem- porarily attached. Mr. Kozacek stated that blades are not permanently at- tached to one-half ton or three-quarter ton vehicles. Ms. Tobin inquired about the width of the blades. Mr. Kozacek stated that nine foot wide blades must be on a one-ton vehicle; he personally has a seven foot blade, which does not protrude beyond the sides of the vehicle. The majority of blades are six and one-half feet in width. Ms. Tobin asked if Mr. Kozacek used the same blade for snow removal as for soil leveling. Mr. Kozacek stated that some companies do use the same blade. Mr. Gerlick asked if there were others who wished to speak in opposition to Title 15. Paul Hendricks 4001 South Elati Street -stated that he had new information to present to the Commission. Mr. Hendricks stated that he has been at the State Capitol where consideration of a weed law which would apply state-wide has been under consideration. The law passed the House on a 60 to 5 vote, but has been slowed down in the Senate. This law would give a proper- ty owner 10 days to comply with the law if cited, or the state would clear the property and assess a 15% administration fee. If this law is approved, it will apply to the entire state and will supersede any provisions enacted by the City. Mr. Hendricks stated there is also a provision that this law may not be brought to bear on private citizens until the governmental entity is in compliance. Mr. Hendricks stated that this standard of fair treatment for governmental entities and private citizens should be applied to any ordinance enacted by the City. Mr. Gerlick asked if there were further opponents who wished to speak. No one else spoke in opposition. Mr. Gerlick asked if the proponents wanted to rebut any comments made by the opponents. No one spoke. Becker moved: Fish seconded: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Glynn, None Shoop None The Public Hearing on Case #1-90 be closed. Fish, Schultz, Tobin, Becker, Covens, Daviet, Gerlick The motion carried. Mr. Gerlick thanked members of the audience for their attendance and input, and stated that the Commission will recess for a short time. * * * * * * * * * * The Commission meeting reconvened at 8:30 P.M. Present: Fish, Schultz, Tobin, Becker, Covens, Daviet, Gerlick, Glynn Absent: Shoop -7 - Chairman Gerlick declared a quorum present. Mr. Gerlick asked for discussion on the proposed Title 15. Members of the Commission reviewed the proposed Title 15 page-by-page. Page 1: 15-1-3 --insert the word "the" in the first line before "Englewood City Council " . Page 2: Page 3: Page 4: Page 5: Page 6: Page 7: Delete the second 15-1-4 Definitions and the following two lines. No change. No change. No change. The prohibition of plastic bags was discussed. Mr. Wanush stated that plastic bags are torn open by animals, and the trash and garbage strewn around. This is the reason for the requirement of the trash container with a top or cover that can be fastened or closed secure- ly. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans pointed out that Denver requires closed containers, and that the Englewood Housing Code has a specific prohibition against use of plastic bags for the storage of trash or garbage. Mr. Wanush also pointed out that the requirement that trash containers be concealed by an opaque fence or screen is not a new provision. Discussion ensued. Mr. Wanush suggested that the wording "or if in a closed container as described above" be added to the end of the definition of "Trash Container" on Page 6. This was accept- able to the Commission. The Commission discussed Mr. Kozacek's concern about the use of yard clippings, leaves, and branches as thatch in parks, or for mulching ·in private yards. Mr. Wanush stated that this provision is not changed, and the operable word is "waste". Yard clippings, leaves, etc. used for composting or mulching was not waste, and would not be in violation. Mr. Fish questioned the definition of "truck" noting that it is to carry "property", but nothing is said about carrying people. Mrs. Romans stated that this is the existing definition. Mrs. Romans stated that the word "or" should be added to the second line of the definition on Usable Open Space. The definition of "vehicle" was considered. use of the word "vehicle" in defining same. this definition is from the Model Traffic definition would create a conflict. Mr. Fish questioned the Mrs. Romans stated that Code, and to change the The definition of weeds was considered. The inclusion of height limitation in the definition was of concern to members of the Commission. Mr. Fish stated that a "weed is a weed no matter what height it is". Mr. Fish further questioned the definition of weed, suggesting "Dandelions, thorns, or thistle bearing plants that grow wild without maintenance ·or care" be used as a definition. Discus- s ion ensued. Ms. Becker suggested that a "weed is a plant where it does not belong." -8 - The Commission determined that the definition of Weed would read: "Weeds, grass, brush or other rank or noxious vegetation." Page 8: Mrs. Romans stated that there should be a separate paragraph, not part of the definition of Yard, Side, beginning with ... be. "A. The definitions ... " Mr. Schultz asked if there needed to be further clarification of the definition of front yard. Mr. Wanush stated that a front yard is clearly defined in the Code. Page 9: Mr. Fish discussed 15-2-1 H. The way the provision reads, anyone driving through a muddy alley would not be allowed to exit to a public street because mud would be tracked onto the street. Mr. Wanush stated that this provision is geared to construction trucks and sites. Enforcement of this provision was discussed. §15~2-1 C was discussed. Ms. Daviet inquired about signs posted ad- vertising garage signs, or for lost animals. Mr. Wanush stated that there are special provisions governing garage sales, but generally signs posted on utility poles, etc. are prohibited. Page 10: Mr. Fish stated that he questioned whether there were many residents whose trash containers are concealed behind opaque or non-see-through screens or fences. He asked if this provision is enforceable. Mr. Wanush stated that in his opinion, it could be enforced. Mrs. Romans stated that this is not a new provision, and was instituted a number of years ago to address concerns about trash cans and bags being left in alley right-of-way. Mr. Wanush suggested that strict enforcement of this provision would be a good way to ensure clean up of alleys. Ms. Daviet stated that she could foresee problems if this was to be strictly enforced, in that a number of people on fixed income would have to expend funds to create or improve such an area. Ms. Daviet suggested that it is a useless provision and should be eliminated. Discussion ensued. Becker moved: Covens seconded: Section 15-2-1 D shall be retained in Title 15. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Schultz, Becker, Tobin, Daviet Shoop None The motion carried. Covens, Gerlick, Glynn, Fish Ms. Tobin spoke against selective enforcement of specific provisions of the codes and ordinances. Page 10: §15-3-1 A, Cutting or removing of weeds, was considered. Mr. Schultz stated that he did contact several municipalities, and 6" was an average height. . Covens moved: Fish seconded: The maximum height for weeds and grasses in §15-3-1 A be raised from 6" to 8". -9 - AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Tobin, Covens, Daviet, Glynn, Becker, Gerlick, Schultz Shoop None Fish The motion carried. Mr. Fish suggested that "or to a compost pile" be added at the end of §15-3-1 A. This suggestion met with the approval of the Commission. Ms. Tobin expressed concern that Xeriscaping had not been addressed, and wanted to make sure that this was not prohibited. Mrs. Romans stated that the last paragraph on Page 10 and the top of Page 11 should be deleted. Mr. Fish inquired about the appeal process. Mr. Wanush stated that cases are cited into Court where the alleged offender has an opportunity to question the judgment or interpretation of the Code Enforcement Officer. Page 11: No change. Page 12: No change. Page 13: Mr. Schultz inquired whether the distribution of political handbills would be permitted. Mrs. Romans stated that handbi 11 s may not be placed in mailboxes, and may not be placed so they can be blown about, but there would be no prohibition against political handbills. Mr. Fish inquired about §15-5-1 A. He stated that the maximum time of 4 hours for vehicles in excess of 7,000 pounds to park on residen- tial streets seems excessive. Mrs. Romans stated that this provision is from Title 11, and she knew of no problems that have resulted from this maximum time. Discussion ensued. No change was made. Page 14: §§E was discussed at length. Mr. Wanush suggested that the wording of the 1 ast sentence be as follows: "All owners and/or operators of vehicles with snow plows attached shall not store them on public streets.11 Members of the Commission felt that this was a good resolution to concerns that have been expressed during the course of the hearing. The recreational vehicle issue was discussed at length. Mrs. Becker stated that 72 hours seems a long time to allow recreational vehicles to be parked on-street. It was pointed out that sometimes vehicles cannot be unloaded and moved to a storage yard, if that is where the property owner chooses to keep it, within 24 hours and that the 72 hour limit is a reasonable time. Mr. Glynn asked whether a citation issued for recreational vehicles is a "warning" or a "ticket". Mr. Schultz stated that it is an actual "ticket". §15-5-2 B 4 was then discussed. Ms. Daviet asked if the issue of concern was the parking of tow trucks in residential areas, or the tow trucks with damaged vehicles in tow that is the problem. Mr. Wanush stated that it is his opi nion that the concerns were based on -10 - • Page 15: the parking of the tow trucks themselves --this signifies a commer- cial use in the minds of residents. Mr. Clothier's allegations regarding the requirement that tow trucks be at the residence over- night was considered. Mr. Wanush stated that he would check the wording of the contract, and he would like to contact other communi- ties to determine how they handle this issue. Mr. Gerlick spoke of personal experience of owning property next door to a resident who had two tow trucks coming and going all hours of the night. Mr. Covens suggested that tow trucks be prohibited from parking on- street; if they were to be parked on private property, he would not object to their being in a residential area. Mrs. Tobin expressed concern about "singling out tow trucks", and discussed a problem in her neighborhood with a property owner giving music lessons and re- citals, and the ensuing traffic congestion from this type of opera- tion. It was pointed out to Mrs. Tobin that tow trucks are not being singled out; that there is, in fact a listing of five types of vehi- cles which are prohibited in residential areas. Further discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker stated that she wasn't con vi need the response time argument advanced by Mr. Clothier justified the parking of towing vehicles in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Fish agreed that commercial activities in residential zones should be discouraged, and the towing business does have larger vehicles that can cause prob- lems. Mr. Schultz inquired of Assistant City Attorney Brotzman whether the towing companies were being "singled" out. Mr. Brotzman pointed out that the weight 1 imitation of over 7 ,000 pounds of any vehicle would also apply to towing vehicles. The Commission did not make any recommendation on this issue, but will defer it to the City Council. Mrs. Becker expressed her concern that on some blocks, one property may be surrounded on three sides by "back yards" of the adjoining properties, which would mean that recreational vehicles could be parked in the back yards of those three properties, but impact the enjoyment of the front yard of the fourth property. Mrs. Romans suggested the following statement: "If there is no vehicular access to the rear yard, and if the rear yard adjoins the front yard of an adjacent property, an alternate location on the property may be ap- proved by the director." This issue was discussed at length with no resolution. It will also be referred to the City Council for determination. §C 2 was considered by the Commission, and Mr. Covens suggested the addition of the wording "dust-free hardened" surface. It was also suggested that gravel be included, so that the provision would read " ... asphalt surface, gravel, or other similarly finished dust free hardened surface." Page 16: No change. Page 17: §15-6-2 was discussed, and the addition of refrigerator, freezer was added in the third line after the word icebox. Page 18: No change. -11 - • Mr. Gerlick asked the pleasure of the Commission. Schultz moved: Covens seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that Sec- tion 16-4-1 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be repealed, and those provisions incorporated into the pro- posed new Title 15 as written by the Environmental/Nuisance Code Task Force, and as amended by the Planning Commission. City Council is asked to give particular consideration to the issue of overnight parking of tow trucks in residential districts, and the storage Qf recreational vehicles in rear yards where those rear yards may abut the front yard of another property. AYES: Becker, None Shoop None Covens, Daviet, Gerlick, Glynn, Fish, Schultz, Tobin NAYS: ABSENT:. ABSTAIN: The motion carried. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Wanush stated that two registrations have been made for the APA Conference in Denver, one in the name of L. Covens, and one in the name of H. Tobin. Mr. Wanush urged members to bring a list of sessions they are interested in at- tending to the office for coordination so that the registrations may be used by as many members as possible . Mrs. Romans stated that she would arrange a tour of the City for new members of the Commission, and asked if a Saturday morning would be convenient. Mem- bers were asked to check their calendars and notify Mrs. Romans of available dates. Mrs. Romans stated that · she has copies of "The Job of the Planning Cammi s- si oner" for new members who have not received a copy. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Gerl i ck thanked members of the Cammi ss ion for their concern during the time he was not feeling well. Mr. Schultz reported that the Waste Management Task Force is still working on a number of issues, and hopes to have a report soon. Mr. Covens inquired about the agenda for April 4. Mrs. Romans stated that a speaker from RTD has been scheduled, and discussion on the Housing Task Force Report is also scheduled. Discussion ensued. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M. Recording Secretary -12 -