HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/1969
MINUTES
November 14, 1959
The second continuation of the November 10 meeting was called to order
at 8:00 p.m. for the purpose of conducting a public hearing regarding
the adoption by reference of the Arvada Building Code to be the Wheat
Ridge Code.
Meeting was declared open for comments from the citizens present.
Mr. James S. Stone of 3445 Garland Street read a prepared statement
which is on file. He recommended that Wheat Ridge adopt the Colorado
Building Code Commissions ITMetro CodeIT which has been developed
specifically for this area and is under constant revision. This code
is used in Denver and Englewood.
Questions from Mr. Lee Stewart and others brought out the following
points:
--That there is a cost, though minimal, to use the "Arvada Code"
and none for the "Metro Code."
--That according to Mr. Stone the Arvaua Code is not specific in
a local sense.
--That Arvada is sati3fied with its code.
--That a uniform code is necessary if Federal funds are sought.
--That Arvada officials had not considered the Denver code
applicable to Arvada.
--That UBC is a guide code and Metro a performance code~
--That Arvada officials felt the Arvada Code was closer to being
uniform in the area and much consulting work had been done by
them to make the UBC applicable.
--That the Denver Regional Council of Governments didn't recognize
either code as better than the other.
--That it was necessary to have a code in effect at the required
time.
Mr. Anderson stated that adopting one code wouldn't mean that another
couldn't be studied.
Mr. Stone felt that Wheat Ridge should have consulted architects and
builders as well as city and county officials. The list of people who
had been asked to attend the preliminary hearing was read.
Mr. Howard Buchanan of the Zoning Commission reported that the Jefferson
County Zoning Resolution has been incorporated into the Wheat Ridge
Zoning Ordinance even though the Council knew that it was not the whole
answer but that it was a place to start and much work will be done on
it. He said it certainly was reasonable to assume that the same
consideration would be given in respect to the Building Code.
November 14, 1969
In answer to a question from Alderman Howard, City Attorney Fox said
the ordinance, on second reading could be rejected, adopted or
amended, even quite severely, but the title could not be changed.
Alderman Eckhardt expressed appreciation to Mr. Stone for coming to
present his viewpoint. He emphasized as had Mr. Buchanan that a start-
ing place had to be chosen even if Council knew that revisions would
have to be made (as with the Zoning) in order that the normal sequence
of Building be allowed to continue.
On the suggestion of Alderman Howard, the meeting was declared continued
until 3:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 15, with a vote to be called for
at that time.
-'-____/f
,/ /' -,
7,.,f-< '" /l..~''- '
TURNER CITY CLERK
- L,' A, )-L
LOUISE F.
~\J1Pto~i.'d /
(/_; /y // /- ,7 /~f
- 2 -