My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 08 11
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
REVITALIZATION COMMISSION
>
2004-2019 Revitalization Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2014 Revitalization Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 08 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 10:20:26 AM
Creation date
8/12/2014 11:32:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
RCPKT 2014 08 11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Revitalization Commission <br />Minutes <br />June 30, 2014 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br />Urban Revitalization Consulting was hired to see if blighting conditions exist at <br />550 S. McCaslin Blvd. Austin Patten, representing Urban Revitalization <br />Consulting was at the meeting to present the findings. <br /> <br />Mr. Patten discussed there are eleven blight factors identified in the Colorado <br />Revised Statutes . Those factors were <br />listed in the June 30, 2014 LRC packet. <br /> <br />Mr. Patten reported the survey consisted of a physical visit to the site, collection <br />of data from various sources, and other investigations. Mr. Patten reported of the <br />11 blight factors, 4 were found: <br /> <br />1. Faulty layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or <br />usefulness <br />It is a very large facility. Any effort to partition the building is very difficult. <br />It is narrow and deep rather than shallow and wide. <br /> <br />2. Deterioration of site or other improvements <br />The site has been unused for 4 years. Minimal maintenance has taken <br />place. <br /> <br />3. Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title <br />nonmarketable <br />Restrictive covenants have made the property very nonmarketable and <br />difficult to reposition. <br /> <br />4. The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high <br />levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization <br />or vacancy of sites, building, or other improvements <br />A church meets in the building ½ day per week. It was originally <br />constructed as a high volume building. The church does not represent full <br />utilization of the building. <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Tofte asked how covenants are changed. Attorney Light <br />responded that the covenants themselves usually include a provision discussing <br />the procedures and voting requirements for amendments. <br /> <br />Commissioner Menaker would like LRC to have a copy of the original covenants <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Fisher said the building seems to have very little value and asked <br />if it would be demolished. DeJong replied it is premature to have that <br />discussion. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.