Loading...
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 -