HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/14/1974
MINUTES
February 14, 1974
The two-hundred and twenty-ninth regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge
City Council was called to order by Mayor Paul B. Abramson at 7 30 p.m
at 7390 West 38 Avenue.
Aldermen attending wre Mary Jo Cavarra, Joseph Donaldson, Robert
Howard, Calvin Hulsey, Larry Merkl and Louise Turner.
Others attending were
E. McCarthy, City Clerk
divisions and rezonings
Mayor Paul Abramson, City Attorney William
Elise Brougham, staff, applicants for sub-
and interested citizens.
Motion by Alderman Turner "I move that the reading of the Minutes
of February 7, 1974 be dispensed with and that they be approved as
written." Motion was seconded by Alderman Donaldson and passed 5-1.
Alderman Howard voted "nay."
Case WS-73-05 Subdivision Hearing was begun Applewood Knolls Subdivision
12th filing at 32 Avenue and Quail by Applicant Ralph Jacobson was pre-
sented, and Applicant Ralph Jacobson was present and was represented
by Harold Lutz, attorney.
Garth Gibbons of the Planning Department stated
1. That the area is zoned Residential-One for single families
and that the lot frontages meet the requirements.
2 That the property has been properly posted and published.
3 That the Preliminary Plat was accepted on May 7, 1973 by
the Planning Commission subject to a park effort and drainage problems,
and that the drainage improvements to the south have been accepted by
the City Engineer.
4 On October 1, 1973 the Final Plat was presented to the Planning
Commission and it was approved with the drainage subject to reSolving
ownership of the lines. Dedication wording was confUSing so the utility
companies refused to service the area with water etc but that this has been
solved 5. The applicant on the original preliminary plat had provided
on the north part of the subdivision a dedication for parks for a
trail system to Prospect Valley Elementary School, but now due to the
great expense for the drainage system they desired to transfer the
park land for the drainage area
5 In answer to a question from Alderman Cavarra, he stated there
was dedication for east west traffic flow.
7. In answer to a question from Alderman Howard, there is a 48"
concrete pipe along 32 Avenue, and along the west side of the lots is
an open drainage channel.
Harold Lutz, attorney stated
1. On final plat there was a requirement that all water and sewer
easements when installed would be property of the City of Wheat Ridge
and this is why water co. etc. withdrew their statement of service and
he wished this problem clarified Mavor Abramson stated there was an
ordinance requiring that, in process of being rewritten, and that what
Council has done in the meantime that they sign an agreement with the
water and sewer companies giving up the City's ownership.
2 The applicant would dedicate half of 35 Avenue.
3. At one time the Park Department wanted 15' ROW for a bike pathway
of Lot 12, so consequently all the lots were shifted.
4 Upon solution of the drainage problem upon suggestion of the
City of Lakewood they had to revise the size of the conduit to carry the
estimated flood flow which took off so much of the lot size on lot 1
that the bikeway had to be given up for drainage. By this action, they
felt the park requirement had been met Also, the Planning Commission
presently did not reqJire it.
Emmett Lane, engineer of 2030 Applewood Drive hired by the applicant,
stated that they had had a meeting with Mr. Glen Taylor, Public Works
Director who had stated that the drainage easement was better than the
park easement
MINUTES - February 14, 1974 - Continued
-2-
Garth Gibbons stated
provided for in the
may be dedicated for
use at a rate of $75
that there are two forms of park contribution
subdivision regulations and they are that land
park use or that money may be paid for park
per dwelling unit
Harold Lutz stated that when they gave up the park land, they didn't
take away the land but are using it in a different easement type,
so there has been dedication of land.
Alderman Hulsev stated that the parkland is subject to the Park
Commission, and that the drainage problem has nothing to do with
parkland.
Mavor Abramson stated that drainage is required and parkland or a
fee is required and asked Mr. Lutz if they were offering any surface
park easements to which Mr. Lutz answered "No," which would leave the
fee to be required.
Garth Gibbons stated that the Public Works department has no authority
to waive any requirements, and that only Council has the power to
in case of a hardship etc
In answer to Mavor Abramson, Mr. Lutz stated that the drainage expense
would be approximately $20,000 to $25,000.
Alderman Cavarra asked what the width of Lot 12 was, and was told 115',
and she stated that R-1 zoning didn't have a corner lot requirement
so that possibly with a different house configuration etc. some land
could be taken off that lot
Harold Lutz stated that it was his understanding that the bikeway wasn't
wanted now, and that his applicant was asking for waiver of the park
requirement because of the City of Lakewood's drainage requirements
which created a great expense, and because of the easement being given
on Lot 1.
BoVd Kraemer, Director of Parks stated in regards to the biketrail,
that there had been citizen input for a bike trail, but since that
time THK had been hired for a master plan of Parks etc. The Public
Works Department felt that solution of the drainage problem created
a hardship for the applicant, and the land would not now be as usable
as a bikeway, so he felt that in lieu of the land dedication for parks
the applicant should pay the fee required, and that the park requirement
should not be waived He stated there had been 2 or 3 plans presented,
and the last drawing he had seen did not have the parkland dedication
Harold Lutz stated that the applicant would give 15' on Lot 12 or 1, but
that in either case that this dedication would not make it impossible to
build because at one time the then current City Attorney Maurice Fox
had said if it was off Lot 12 would be a double frontage. Garth Gibbons
stated that it would be legal to build with a 15' bikeway, plus 15'
sideyard which would make a 30' setback.
Alderman Turner asked if in this area there had been any plans for open
space, and Boyd Kraemer responded "Yes."
Alderman Howard asked with a 15' dedication on the north of Lot 12,
could the developer put a house facing north on West 35 Avenue? City
Attornev McCarthv stated "no" that the frontage is on the east facing Quail.
Alderman Cavarra stated that the Subdivision Regulations require a
cash contribution in lieu of land dedication shall be required at the
determination of the Parks and Recreation Commission, and asked Mr.
McCarthy if it was strictly their recommendation? City Attornev Mc Carthv
stated that proper city staffing had not been done and was reluctant
to give a legal opinion, and felt it should be referred back to the
"staff to be staffed" He also stated that City Council could "struggle"
and resolve it "right here" at the Council level
MINUTES - February 14, 1974 - Continued
-3-
Motion by Alderman Howard "I move that we take a 5 minute break,
or 5 minute recess." Motion was seconded by Alderman Merkl and
passed 5-0.
Meeting was called back to order by Mavor Abramson who stated that
the City had decided that they wanted the $75 per lot, rather than
a dedication
Harold Lutz suggested two alternatives for the applicant Either
to allow for the 1/3 additional cost recommended by the C~ of Lakewood
for drainage by means of a credit of the $75, OR to allow them to provide
drainage only for what is legally required to build, i e build the
drainage system to take care of runoff on their land, and only the
historic runoff and not the extra 1/3 created by development in the
City of Lakewood.
Alderman Turner stated that there is a drain from Lakewood which was
set in years ago and that the opening comes into the applicant's property.
Alderman Merkl stated that when the property is filled to be able to
build ~he historical runoff can no longer be used.
Emmett Lane stated under 32 Avenue there is a 24-30" culvert thus pro-
viding minorrnpacity. Lakewood plans to install a 48" culvert from
the south side of 32nd to the north Side, which will carry a small part
of the flow, with the rest overtopping 32 Avenue and go into the ditch.
Alderman Turner asked if this water flow would have a detrimental, corrosive
effect on the backyards of the houses planned? Emmett Lane stated that
two check dams would be put in to forestall flood conditions in once
every 5 to 10 years. Alderman Turner questioned the dropoff and Mr. Lane
stated that the garden level planned will still be higher than the ditch.
Alderman Turner stated the old plats show several natural waterwagse
and also that there is a drain under the area or a large concrete n ~r. Lane
stated that "there is something down in there" and stated he would guess
it's an old well, but that two galvanized pipes that he knows of are
relative shallow and they propose to bring them down for discharge into
the drain.
In answer to Alderman Donaldson as to whether or not they would pay the
$75, Mr. Lutz stated "We would like not to "
Alderman Hulsey asked Mr. Jacobson if the development to the south
(Applewood Knolls) was there when he bought the land, and Mr. Jacobson
stated"Yes."
Alderman Turner asked what percentage of the development would contribute
to normal runoff. Mr. Lane stated about 1/7 would be covered of each lot,
and that 400 cfs will enter the property off of 32 Avenue, that 2.5-3 cfs
per acre runoff on site, so on a 5 acre subdivision there would 15 cfs
of which 2/3 would have runoff normally.
Alderman Howard asked if the subdivision plat in the City's file was
signed by the Public Works Director, and Mr. Gibbons stated "Yes."
No one appeared in favor.
Speaking in opposition was
Mrs. Nancy Snow of 11155 West 40 Avenue who stated
1 The 1892 Subdivision Plat showed 3 stream channels so
is water on the property that has nothing to do with the runoff
2 She had sopken with a man living there who says there
water there
3 She felt that legally at the time the culvert was put in,
original owners could have sued, and that the new owners bought the
with its water problems and that they are required to solve them.
there
of subdivisions.
is always
the
land
MINUTES - February 14, 1974 - Continued
-4-
4. The park area doesn't have any correlation. At one time,
there was a petition for the City to buy all Lena Gulch flood plain land.
The present flood plain study shows it just over the northern part of
the land, but a new study would probably show it to come over the top
of the property
5. Mr. Kraemer had stated at the first Planning CommiSSion meeting
that in order to join with any future park that he wanted 5% at the top
for parkland, and that 55 feet is 5%, not 15'. This footage would
connect Prospect Valley School to the east and would coordinate parkland
and schools, and that the developers had never drawn this park dedication.
5. At the first Planning Commission meeting, a letter from Mr.
Eckhart from the schools was not read requesting an easement or road
for access to the school.
Harold Lutz summarized that they are aware there is water now, but
that with fill on the south there will be proper contour for proper
drainage, the road dedication was discussed at one time and abandoned
by another planner, "Nobody ever talked about a park dedication",
He was aware that the parkland was not 5% - "Nobody talked about 55 feet",
someone stated that 15' for a park dedication for bikeway would be
required, and the present plat shows no bikeway because it was his
understanding it was not wanted now, that the development cost for
the drainage solution they feel should be compensated by a credit for
the park dedication.
Mrs. Snow summarized That the developers should be required to
take care of the runoff as it is now, and that if the City of Lakewood
would make some provision for paying for the future additional water
then the developer could afford to give park and road easement thrugh
the center.
Garth Gibbons stated that Mr. Lutz did have knowledge of the parkland
requirement at the first Planning Commission meeting, and that there
is no letter in the file from Mr. Eckhart except in regards to the
student projection for such a development.
Motion by Alderman Turner "I move that Case WS-73-05 be continued
for one week for a decision to be rendered at that time." Motion
was seconded by Alderman Merkl.
Motion to amend previous Motion by Alderman Howard That we preclude
any additional testimony to be taken or rendered by the opponent or
proponent on this subdivision application." Motion was seconded by
Alderman Cavarra. Mayor Abramson stated that the staff or Council
could investigate the area etc themselves. Motion passed 5-0.
Original Motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
Case WS-73-04 Subdivision was heard. Applicant John Deffert was present.
The location was at 32 Avenue and Pierson for 5 single family dwellings
with the zoning of Residential-One.
Garth Gibbons of the Planning Department stated
1 That the final subdivision plat of Deffert Subdivision had
been approved by the Planning Commission.
2. That he had a check of $450.00 for the park requirement fee.
3 That drainage would run to the west and had been accepted by
the engineering department.
4. That the property had been properly published and posted.
5. In answer to Alderman Cavarra, he stated that 33 Avenue had
been vacated
Mr John Deffert stated
1. That he will put in an 18" pipe from Parfet to Pierson, and
that his engineer is Robinson Engineers.
2. He plans to put up 5 houses total, and that 7 foot fill is
needed and that this fill will need time to settle
3 That 2 houses need to be put up by June for the gas taps
requirements by Public Service.
MINUTES - February 14, 1974 - Continued
-5-
4. That his engineer caused the delay in presentation, and
that his first hearing was in April 1973
Garth Gibbons in answer to Mavor Abramson stated that City Engineer
Larry Thomas had approved the plans for 100 year storm including the
drainage basin.
Alderman Turner asked Mr. Deffert if the concrete pipe out of his pro-
perty and under the previous discussed property east of him was what
normally drains his property and if all drainage from both properties
would go under his development and into the existing drainage. Mr,
Deffert answered "Yes." He also stated that he had owned the property
B months and had not seen its condition during the May flood.
No one appeared in favor
Speaking in Opposition were
Mrs. Thomas Hatrak of 3293 Pierson Street stated that the area
has a drainage problem, and that the area doesn't flood as easy as
the previously discussed property, but the "little creek" does overflow
when there is a slightly above normal rain, and during the last flood
last Spring all the basements were flooded.
Mrs. Nancv Snow of 11155 West 40 Avenue stated that 33 Avenue should
go through, and questioned if some dedication could be made by the
applicant. Mr. Deffert stated this would require more money from
him to put in curb and gutters etc. Alderman Turner asekd if there
could be a dedication without improvements? Alderman Cavarra asked
if this could be ruled a hardship case, and City Attornev McCarthy said "Yes."
Willis Alderman owner of property to the east at 10925 West 32 Avenue
and stated that if this street was required to be put in that it leads
nowhere, and that the northsouth road is private on the east side.
Motion by Alderman Cavarra "I move that Case WS-73-04 be closed for
further testimony from proponents or opponents and to refer it to the
Planning Department for suggestions regarding 33 Avenue dedication to
be returned to Council as quickly as possible." Motion was seconded
by Alderman Turner.
Alderman Hulsev stated he would vote against it and that he felt it
wasn't fair to the applicant in view of the gas moratorium and that
the street goes nowhere. Alderman Merkl suggested that Council could
decide "tonight" if a street was to be required and that it didn't have
to be referred back to Planning Dept.
Alderman Cavarra "I amend the Motion that it (the Planning Department
input) comes back next week." Second approved.
Mr. Deffert asked when he could get a building permit, and Mayor Abramson
stated he could get it the Friday after the decision. Alderman Howard
stated he could make an application then, but if he could make the application
earlier then perhaps the plans could be inspected ahead of time.
Motion passed 5-1. Alderman Hulsey voted "nay."
Rehearinq of Rezoning Case WZ-73-15 was heard Case was previously heard
and denied by Council on January 17, 1974 The applicants, Wayne and
Marguerite Selders were present and were represented by Charles Beck, attorney
The request was for rezoning from Agricultural-One to Residential-Two-A
at 43 Avenue and Moore Mayor Abramson stated that only new additional
testimony WQuld be taken and that anything repetitive would be ruled out
of order
Charles Beck, a~torney at 2314 Prudential Plaza stated
1 That the District Court had ruled it was unconstitutional for
rezoning on agricultural land to be denied where agricultural use is unfeasible
2 That his applicants want to develop the land with the least
density possible feasible for development
~lINUTES - February 14, 1974 - Continued
-6-
Mr Timothv Guire of 3333 S Monaco Parkway, realtor, broker stated
1 That the developer, R Dearmin would sell the land at the
present zoning for $65,000 00 which makes the land unmarketable
2 ThaL single family home with each having a lift station
would cOSc + site in excess of $77,000 00. Since 5ep+ember 1973 no
home has sold in Wheat Ridge above $56,SOO.00 from multi-list, that
this type of house would not be marketable especially in a neighborhood
with surrounding R-3 zoning
3 Single family homes with lift stations would have $1,SOO.00
maintenance fee
4 If zoned Residential-Twofor duplexes a 2 bedroom would have
to rent for $312/month, and a 3 bedroom would rent for $358/month to
break even, and the buyer would get no return for his money and would
lose money
Charles Beck summarized a letter from Max P Arnold and Assoc , app-
raiser and consultant in valuation which st.ated that the "highest and
best. use of the property should be R-2-A or R-3 " The letter is attached
to the Minutes.
2 In regards to park access, he stated there is other access to the
park if the park department would like more access
RudV Dearmin stated Residential-Two-A development because there would
be a single lif+ station with the maintenance fee dispersed over 20
units The cost of land incurred including the raw land, curb & gutter
and lift. station equals $1S,SOO.00 per lot, for single family or duplex
development. Alderman Turner stated that one engineer had told her the
cost of lift stations for single family units could be $400-600 each,
and Mr Dearmin said that's "a diffp~Rnt thing" called a sewage ejection
system The costof a lift station with an alternate pump for a
single family unit is $1300, a duplex is $1600-1900, and for 20 units
$2,900. If and when Fruitdale Sanit.ation runs a sewer line down Moore
Street the lift station could be removed, but that presently Fruitdale
is "flat broke "
Alderman Cavarra stated it appeared that the applicant would have to
have a subdivision hearing if the zoning is approved Garth Gibbons
stated that proposed plat shows altered street pattern and different
lot frontages than what was subdivided in Jaylarry Subdivision, so
that the subdivision process would be required for the plat presented.
Mr Dearmin said he would "change anything that does not conform."
Mr. Gibbons stated that as platted 17 units would be allowed, with no
access to park.
Alderman Howard stated he felt there had been no testimony why the
property should be rezoned Charles Beck stated that the motivation
for Residential-Two-A zoning is that it is not feasible to develop
with less density
Alderman Howard asked Mr Beck if he felt single family development on
this property would be good sound zoning. Mr Beck stated "no."
Alderman Howard asked that since the property is surrounded on
three sides by multl-family dwellings that it makes the area in question
conducive to R-2-A zoning Mr. Beck answered "Yes "
No one else appeared in favor other than the applicants
5peakinq in Opposition were
Mrs. EvelvnBaker of 4290 Newcombe who said that presently the
old sanitary facilities are overloaded, that the development would cause
more crowding in the schools, and that she had no objection to a few
duplexes
Mr. Jim Lhotak of 4300 Newcombe stated that he owns property through
to Moore, that he was formerly opposed, that there were no drains in
the bottom of the floor and that water comes up within 4' of the ground.
That the Newgate Apartment complex had at one time 4' of water in each
apartment, that if you dig down 6' there is water, and that 8' fences
are not allowed to be built to block view of apartments.
MINUTES - February 14, 1974 - Continued
-7-
Alderman Turner stared that the pro~ty in question is not
surrounded entirely bymul ti-family and that there are single
family uses on one side.
Mrs. James Lhotak stated she agreed.
Mrs Claudia Worth of 4650 Oak stated that there was no access,
that Mrs Baker and the Lhotaks constituted 20% of the neighboring
property owners thus requiring the 3/4 vote, that other R-3 zonings
in the area were fought but were passed anyway, the Land Use Plan
shows low density, the schools are overcrowded and the constant
change in students slows up teaching in the school room.
City Attornev McCarthv stated that it appeared to him and that he
would rule that the 3/4 majority vote rule did apply
Motion by Alderman Howard "I move that we
WZ-73-15 for one week and render a decision
that time, and that the hearing be closed "
by Alderman Donaldson and passed 6-0
table rezoning Case
in these chambers at
Motion was seconded
Resolutions ~o. 273, 274 and 275 were all introduced by Alderman
Donaldson and were read. Said Resolutions pertained to transfer
of savings to the General Fund.
Motion by Alderman Turner "I move that Resolutions No. 273, 274,
and 275 be approved." Motion was seconded by Alderman Hulsey and passed
6-0
Resolution No. 276 pertaining to a separate account for unclaimed
refunds from the Mountain Bell Telephone Company was introduced by
Alderman Donaldson and read
Motion by Alderman Merkl "I move that Resolution No. 276 be adopted."
Motion was seconded by Alderman Turner and passed 6-0.
Resolution No. 277 adopting the Rules of Procedure for Liquor Violations
was introduced by Alderman Turner and was read.
Motion by Alderman Cavarra "I move that Resolution No. 277 be adopted."
Motion was seconded by Alderman Donaldson and passed 6-0.
The following purchases for the Parks Department wee made
Motion by Alderman Hulsey "I move that the Treasurer be authorized
to purchase one Crew Cab Pickup Truck through the State-Local Purchasing
Program at a total cost not to exceed $3,868.90 from Account 452 16 "
Motion was seconded by Alderman Merkl and passed 6-0.
Motion by Alderman Merkl "I move that the Treasurer be authorized to
purchase one 88" Mower from Heckendorn Manufacturing Co. at a total
cost not to exceed $2,884.6B from Account 452 16" Motion was seconded
by Alderman Hulsey and passed 6-0.
it- AMol;I,-rt Motion by Alderman Hulsey "I move that the treasurer be authorized to
CcR/(I2dcD prucha~e Baseball Fencing from Elcar Fence Co. at a total cost not to
7/1117'1 "'i J"""exceed~4,B97 00 from Account 452 15" Motion was seconded by Alderman
Merkl and passed 6-0
'~r-t~3
Alderman Cavarra asked for the low bid for fiberglass grandstands instead
of aluminum.
Motion by Alderman Cavarra, "I move that we accept the $7,100.00 bid
from Miracle Equipment for fiberglass grandstands because the $400.00
extra would be worth it in terms of comfort." Motion was seconded
by Alderman Donaldson and was defeated 4-2 Alderman Howard, Hulsey,
Merkl and Turner voted "nay "
MINUTES - February 14, 1974 - Cont.inued
-8-
Motion by Alderman Merkl "I move that t.he Treasurer
to purchase Baseball Grandstands from Sturdisteel Co
not to exceed $5,700.00 from Account 452 15" Motion
and passed 5-1 Alderman Cavarra voted "nay."
be aut.horized
at a total cost
was seconded
Mavor Abramson read goals he wished the Arborist Board to meet and
stated that. the Board is reactivated and that the old members are
to be contacted if they wish to serve with the goals in mind. Alderman
Turner suggested that the Board have two advisors also.
The following appointments were made to various committees
Motion by Alderman Merkl "I move that Frank
as an Alternate to the Board of Adjustment."
Alderman Hulsey and passed 5-0
Henderson be appointed
Motion was seconded by
Motion by Alderman Cavarra
an Alternate to the Board of
Donaldson and passed 5-0.
"I move that Ken Alley be appointed as
Adjustment" Motion was seconded by Alderman
Motion by Alderman Turner "I move that James S Stone be appointed
to the Building Code Advisory Committee." Motion was seconded by
Alderman Donaldson and passed 5-0.
Motion by Alderman Merkl
the Building Code Advisory
Turner and passed 5-0.
"I move that A J. Sargent be appointed to
Committee" Motion was seconded by Alderman
Motion by Alderman Turner "I move that Robert Hilsenroth, DVM be
appointed to the Animal Control Commission" Motion was seconded by
Alderman Cavarra and passed 5-0.
Motion by Alderman Hulsey "I move that the Personnel Schedule for Parks
and Recreation, Account 451, Page 57 of the 1974 Budget, be amended as
follows Add Recreation Leader II, 1 each, Grade 13, salary range $507-
$530, with estimated cost of $5,500.00 to be paid from the $38,000 00
lump sum appropriation for instructors." Motion was seconded by Alderman
Donaldson and passed 5-0.
Motion by Alderman Cavarra "I move that the Personnel Schedule of the
1974 Budget be adjusted to reflect revised authorizations as follows,
based on recommendations from the Personnel Committee Account 412
Court Delete Administrative Clerk II (part-time), add Administrative
Clerk III (Part time), Account 431.81 Public Works Delete Administrative
Clerk III Add Secretary II" Motion was seconded by Alderman Donaldson
and passed 5-0
Walter Johnson explained that bids had been received for life insurance
for employees and that the lowest bid had a better benefit in that depen-
dents would be covered up to age 21, and that the low bid is less than what
is being presently paid
Motion by Alderman Donaldson "I move that the low bid of Security Life
and Accident Company of 27~ per $1,000 term life insurance, 05~ per $1,000
A D & D, and 33~ per family for family coverage, be accepted effective
for the twelve months starting March 1, 1974." Motion was seconded by
Alderman Turner and passed 5-0
Motion by Alderman Turner "I move that the agreement. between the
City of Wheat Ridge and the Regional Transportation District be approved
subject to filling in the proper figure." Motion was seconded by
Alderman Hulsey and passed 5-0 Said agreement provided for reimbursement
to the City for a portion of losses incurred.
Guidelines for travel was discussed
Motion by Alderman Turner '~move that the City pay registration and
room for the employee or elected official only" Motion was seconded
by Alderman Donaldson and passed 4-3 Aldermen Howard, Hulsey and
Merkl voted "nay" and Mayor voted "Aye" breaking the tie.
MINUTES - February 14, 1974 - Continued
-9-
Motion by Alderman Merkl "I move that the word 'spouse's' be striken
on No. 4 ~o read as follows City will pay for meals but only in the
case where receipts are turned in" Motion was seconded by Alderman
Donaldson and passed 4-2. Aldermen Howard and Hulsey voted "nay "
Motion by Alderman Turner "I move to add to No. 4 that the limit
for employee or elected official be $13 00 per day (for meals )"
Motion was seconded by Alderman Donaldson and passed 4-3 Aldermen
Howard, Hulsey and Merkl voted "Nay", and Mayor Abramson voted "Aye"
breaking the tie.
Motion by Alderman Hulsey "I move that we adjourn." Motion was
seconded by Alderman Howard and passed 4-1. Alderman Donaldson
vo+ed "nay", and Alderman Cavarra's vote was not called
The meeting was declared adjourned at 12 30 a m.
~'~~~
Else Brougha
City Clerk
APPROVED
;"'/~I hc! '-!It?',-?
! ' .,
'~
J\f:AX P ARNOLD & ASSOCIATES
TWO NINETY.FIVE BUILDING
SUITE 207
EAST 3RD AVENUE AND CLAYTON
DENVER, COLORADO 80206
MAX P ARNOLD, F.A.S.A.
February II, 1974
APPRAISERS AND CONSUL,.ANTS
IN VALUATION
303 I 322.-8428
MI~UTES - 2/14/74 - Continued - Page 10
City Council and Charles A Beck, Attorney
City Offices
Wheatridge, Colorado
SUBJECT
Highest and Best Use of
Lots 13, 14 and IS, Jaylarry Subdivision
Wheatridge, Colorado
Gentlemen
Recently we made a study and an
for the Dearmin Construction Company
advise you of our findings
appraisal of the subject property
Our client has authorized us to
The areas of discussion evolve around the highest and best use of
the site
1 The site is not suitable for agricultural uses because the
land capabilities along with the size of the site would
not permit utilization for agricultural purposes
2 It is our opinion that as residential permissive use the
property could not be developed as single family residences
since the main sewer service system would require station
lifts for each single family residence The investment
cost would approximate $IS,SOO per unit for each station
with an annual maintainance cost of approximately $1,300
It is not economically feasible to pursue this course of
development
3 It was our opinion that the highest and best use with
these same limitations would prevail in R-2 permissive
use for two family units~ as cited above
It was our conclusion that the highest and best use of the subject
property should be R-2 A or R-3 which would be compatible with the
surrounding development and would be economically feasible It is our
opinion, further, that the limitation of the permissive use of the sub-
ject land other than its highest and best use would have an adverse
effect upon the developed community
Sincerely, '7
I /~
'/ / / /' /
::::c--- __:;:::::-;/;;:: // . C ~JV7
Max P Arnold
"-//// / /) ( ./
MPA/ie
cc Dearmin Construction Company