Loading...
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