Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-03-08 PZC MINUTES1 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMl\fiSSION March 8, 1994 I. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Covens called the regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to order in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood City Hall. Members Present: Tobin, Becker, Clemens, Dummer, Covens, Mason (late) Merkel, Ex-officio Members Absent: Garrett, Gerlick, Shoop (all with previous notice) Also present: Planning Administrator Harold J. Stitt Assistant City Attorney Dan Brotzman Il. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 23, 1994 Chairman Covens called for consideration of the Minutes of February 23, 1994. Tobin moved: Clemens seconded: The Minutes of February 23, 1994, be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Becker, Clemens, Tobin, Covens None Dummer Mason, Shoop, Garrett, Gerlick The motion carried. ID. COOPER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 260 West Jefferson Avenue Mr. Covens asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Becker moved: Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #5-94 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Clemens, Dummer, Tobin, Becker, Covens None Garrett, Gerlick, Mason , Shoop None 1 CASE #5-94 The motion carried. Mr. Covens asked that staff present the case. Harold J. Stitt was sworn in, and presented to the Chair the Certification of Posting and a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing that was published in the Englewood Herald. The proposed Planned Development is for a small apartment complex to be constructed at 260 West Jeffer- son Avenue (West Jefferson Avenue at South Cherokee). The site is divided by the Chero- kee/Bannock alley, and the parcels are identified as "Parcel A" and "Parcel B". The division of the ownership into two parcels inhibits development configuration. Four units are proposed on Parcel A, and two units are proposed on Parcel B. Mr. Mason entered the meeting and took his seat with members of the Commission. The Planned Development process does provide for minor variations from strict application of the required setbacks, parking locations, landscaping requirements, etc. This particular own- ership has less lot area than is normally required to construct six units, but the lot area deficit does not have a significant impact on the proposed development. The unit on the south end of Parcel A will be three feet from the property line; however, the City Ditch runs diagonally along the southeastern boundary and provides a 30 foot buffer between this proposed develop- ment and the properties south and east of the Ditch. The subject site has apartment develop- ments on three sides, and a parking lot on the south side. Mr. Stitt discussed issues that arose during the Technical Review Committee review. These issues include documentation for the survey to identify what monumentation the survey is tied to; a plan for on-site storm water detention, as well as construction issues. Mr. Stitt discussed the 12 foot off-set on South Cherokee Street, and the need for a second monument point on the survey to verify Mr. Cooper's actual ownership. The retaining walls for the City Ditch are not on Mr. Cooper's property, so they will not .have to be repaired or replaced by Mr. Cooper. However, the restriction on construction adjacent to the retaining walls from April 1 through November 1 will still apply. Mr. Stitt emphasized that the water is turned into the Ditch on April 1, and if something were to disrupt the flow of that water, the City of Englewood and Mr. Cooper would be liable. Ms. Becker asked for clarification on the requirement of fire-resistive walls. Mr. Stitt stated that this is a Building Code requirement, and all construction must comply with the Building Code. Mr. Dummer inquired about the statement that the plan has not been reviewed for compliance with the 1988 Fair Housing Act Amendments, nor with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Stitt stated that the ADA is not enforced by the City; this statement on the Plans will be required so that everyone will know up-front that the plans have not been reviewed for compli- ance with these two acts. 2 Mike Cooper, 2115 West Chenango A venue, Littleton, was sworn in. Mr. Cooper testified that he purchased property in 1979 at 3795 South Bannock, which is a six unit apartment building, and a few years later purchased the property on West Jefferson Avenue. In 1988, a house that was on the West Jefferson property was relocated to 4273 South Sherman Street, and rehabilitated. Mr. Cooper stated that his initial plans were to apply for permits to con- struct the apartments in 1988, but interest rates and the housing market were bad at that time, and he did not pursue this course of action. Mr. Cooper stated that he now owns 20 units of housing in Englewood, and has worked with the Housing Authority on the rental of many of these units. Mr. Cooper expressed the opinion that the proposed development will be a nice addition to, and increase property values in, the immediate neighborhood. Discussion ensued regarding the monumentation requirement, and the "jog" in South Cherokee Street. Mr. Cooper stated that this "jog" is shown on the 1924 Plat. Mr. Covens inquired what significance the restriction on construction between April 1 and November 1 will have on the development. Mr. Cooper stated that there is an existing retain- ing wall along Parcel A, and Parcel Bis sloped; he did not see that he would have to construct additional retaining walls, or that construction of the units would be affected by this restric- tion. Mr. Cooper emphasized that the existing retaining walls are on City Ditch property. Mr. Clemeris inquired about the size of the proposed units. Mr. Cooper stated that he is pro- posing two bedroom units, 1, 144 square feet in size. The four unit complex will be con- structed first, and then the two-unit complex. The total construction should require six to nine months to completion. Ms. Tobin commented on the fact that the street is not paved, and it will become a quagmire during the construction period. She noted that it could be very difficult for the individuals using this part of West Jefferson to access garages, etc. Mr. Cooper commented that the City may have some plans for paving this area, but he wasn't sure. Mr. Stitt clarified that ap- proximately one year ago, City representatives did meet with property owners in this immedi- ate area to discuss paving of Jefferson and creating a hammerhead turnaround. Concerns were expressed on the amount of traffic that was using the alley between Kenyon and Jefferson. Mr. Stitt commented that if this paving were to be included in the next paving district, final decisions will have to be made on what is to be paved so that it may be included on the ballot for this next election. Mr. Stitt expressed the opinion that the chances of vacating the alley are remote. Steve Wagner, 3629 South Bannock Street, was sworn in. Mr. Wagner stated that he is at- tending only to get information on the proposal. His property would be adjacent to the pro- posed hammerhead. Jim Mollner, 3642 South Cherokee Street, was sworn in. Mr. Mollner testified that he pur- chased his property approximately three years ago; the property was rundown, and he has tried to fix it up. Mr. Mollner described problems with dust, dirt, speeders in the alley, trash trucks, etc. that the immediate residents have experienced. The dust is brought into his house 3 through the air intake on the furnace, and his health has suffered because of this. The drainage is poor, and he has experienced flooding in his yard and in his basement from stormwater running down the alley. City personnel have tried to divert some of the drainage from his yard every time they grade this portion of Jefferson by creating a small "berm" to direct the flow to Cherokee Street. Mr. Mollner described the poor maintenance of Mr. Cooper's prop- erty. He stated that he didn't want to stand in the way of progress, but did ask that an envi- ronmental study be done to evaluate the impact this construction and development will have on the neighbors. The increased residential activity will increase the amount of carbon monoxide, dust, gas fumes, etc. in the air, and he "wants a fair shake". Mr. Mollner wants a barricade placed down the center of West Jefferson during the period of construction, and all construc- tion traffic be required to stay south of this barricade. Mr. Mollner does not make use of West Jefferson Avenue, and does not want to pay for paving this section of the street. Mr. Mollner discussed the lack of parking provided by the City for Miller Field usage; he noted there may be as many as 50 additional vehicles on the streets surrounding the field. He urged that the City consider providing parking areas for Miller Field users. Discussion ensued. Ms. Becker commented that Mr. Mollner's concerns may not all be re- lated to the proposed development, but they should be noted, and suggested that resolutions to many of the concerns expressed by Mr. Mollner be pursued. John Wise, ·3105 South Gilpin Street, was sworn in. Mr. Wise stated that he owns a six unit apartment complex to the west of Parcel A, and has owned this property since 1976. Mr. Wise stated he considered purchasing Mr. Cooper's property in 1986 or 1987, but was told at that time that a maximum of two units could be constructed in addition to the existing house. He asked if it is not true that strict adherence to the zoning restrictions would allow only three units on Parcel A. · Mr. Stitt stated that if Parcel A is considered by itself, only three units can be constructed. Mr. Wise stated there is a distinct separation of the two parcels by the alley, and he contends they should be treated as separate parcels as far as density and development standards ar~ con- cerned. Mr. Wise suggested that a better alternative would be to vacate the alley between Kenyon and Jefferson, develop a hammerhead turnaround, and combine these two parcels into one buildable site. Mr. Wise stated the Bannock/Cherokee alley between Jefferson and U.S. 285 has already been vacated. He agreed there is a problem with traffic in the alley, and dust and dirt. Mr. Wise stated the alley is used as a drag strip from Kenyon to Jefferson, and that he has seen kids "spin-out" attempting to make the turn onto West Jefferson and they have ended up on the property now owned by Mr. Mollner. Mr. Wise urged that the Commission and City "do things legal rather than Mickey-Mouse around". Construct the hammerhead to provide turnaround movements, vacate the alley, and reduce or eliminate the high speed traffic coming down the alley. The construction of the hammerhead could be done in such a way to eliminate the drainage problems, also. Mr. Wise stated he is not happy with the trashy prop- erty to the rear of his property (Mr. Cooper's property), and he would like to see something done with it, but does not want a development that will be detrimental to his property values, to his tenants, or to the neighborhood. 4 Mr. Wise inquired about the type of construction which is proposed. Mr. Cooper stated the construction will be frame with a stucco finish. Mr. Wise stated that fire danger is of great concern to him, and questioned whether there will be sufficient maneuverability for firefighters if they needed to fight a fire on the site. The development will be very close to a frame structure on his property, and fire could easily spread. Also, the southern-most unit on Coo- per's property would block the view from units on Mr. Wise's property. Mr. Wise expressed the opinion that the triangular area on the extreme southern part of Parcel A will become a "trash catch-all". Mr. Wise summarized his objections: • A fire hazard because buildings are too close to structures on his property (only eight feet between units on Mr. Cooper's property and on his property. • Problems with electrical and utility services. Overhead wires cross the fourth unit on Mr. Cooper's development. • Traffic problems. • Density --adhere to the existing requirements of Englewood zoning. • Drainage of storm waters. His property is also affected by drainage, and he wants no ad- ditional runoff on his property. Further brief discussion followed on development of a hammerhead, and vacation of the alley. Donald Joyce, 3910 South Galapago, was sworn in. Mr. Joyce stated he owns 3620 South Cherokee Street, and there has been a problem with traffic for a number of years. The alleys are not properly maintained, and there are problems with dust and dirt. He is not opposed to development of Mr. Cooper's property, but the development will create more problems. Us- ers of Miller Field sometimes use Mr. Cooper's property for parking . Mr. Joyce stated the City had overlooked the need for parking for Miller Field users. Mr. Joyce is in favor of closing the alley; and is opposed to any development which would obstruct views. Mr. Clemens asked whether Mr. Joyce would be affected if West Jefferson was included in a paving district. Mr. Joyce stated his property would be included on the assessments, but the paving would not be of benefit to his tenants, nor to his property. He opposes assessments to property owners who do not benefit from the improvements. Mr. Covens stated it appears there are several issues which need to be further addressed, among them monumentation identity on the survey, traffic, and drainage. Covens moved: Clemens seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #5-94 be continued to March 22, 1994. Mrs. Becker cited need for additional information on several items, including whether or not this alley is vacated. Mr. Wise stated that the alley from Kenyon to Jefferson is NOT vacated; he contends that the alley from Jefferson north to U.S. 285 IS vacated. 5 Mrs. Becker stated that she wanted more information on population density as it pertains to this site. Mr. Covens asked if staff could secure the additional information within the next two weeks. Mr. Stitt replied in the affirmative. The roll was called on the motion to continue the Hearing. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Dummer, Mason, Tobin, Becker, Clemens, Covens None Garrett, Gerlick, Shoop None The motion carried. Mr. Covens announced that the Public Hearing has been continued until March 22; all persons who have an interest in this issue were asked to attend that meeting for further discussion on this issue. ********** A brief recess was declared by Chairman Covens. IV. OMAK'S PLACE 3958 South Broadway ********** CASE #9-93 Mr. Covens stated that a Conditional Use was granted to Miguel and Omak Yanez to operate an amusement center at 3958 South Broadway on August 17, 1993. One of the conditions im- posed by the Commission was a review after six months in operation. Mr. Covens asked Planning Administrator Stitt to address the information that staff has gathered regarding this operation. Mr. Stitt stated that the applicants, Messrs. Miguel and Omak Yanez, are not in attendance, and he questioned whether it is appropriate to proceed in their absence. Mr. Stitt stated that the Messrs. Yanez were mailed notification of the meeting and a copy of the information sent to the Commission. He asked if this should be rescheduled for March 22. Mr. Covens asked if the Commission needs to reopen the Hearing. Mr. Stitt stated the Hear- ing should not be reopened. This is a "review" of the operation to determine compliance with the conditions imposed on the approval granted at the time of the Hearing, and whether addi- tional conditions need to be imposed to lessen impact on the neighborhood. 6 Mr. Brotzman clarified that this is a public "meeting", and not a "public hearing"; there is no need to reopen the hearing, or to require reposting of the property prior to conducting the re- view. The Commission may take statements from members of the audience who have an in- terest in this issue. Mr. Covens stated that the staff has testified that the Messrs. Yanez were mailed the information; they were in attendance at the Hearing six months ago, and are aware the review is a condition imposed at that time. The inattendance by the Messrs. Yanez was discussed. Mr. Stitt stated he would attempt to contact the Messrs. Yanez by telephone to inform them that the review process has begun. Ms. Tobin expressed the opinion that those persons in attendance regarding this issue should be heard this evening. Mr. Covens stated that the Commission will hear from the audience regarding this review. Mr. Robert Naudack, 3997 South Lincoln Street, stated that he is still opposed to the amuse- ment center at 3958 South Broadway. Mr. Gregorye Carter, 6699 South Helena, business address of 3978 South Broadway, ad- dressed the Commission. Mr. Carter stated that when he was granted Conditional Use ap- proval to operate the Broadway Sports Center at 3978 South Broadway, he regarded the con- ditions and ·review process as a "serious matter". Mr. Carter stated there is a loitering prob- lem, youngsters gathered outside Omak's push and shove each other; one of the youngsters was hit in traffic; the blinds in the establishment are closed so that passers-by cannot see what is occurring within the business. The games that are in the establishment are those that are "rated", and a sign advertising "Mortal Combat" is posted in the window. Mr. Carter expressed concern because a recent news article in the Denver Post lists Englewood as having the sixth highest crime/violence rate in the metro area. Mr. Carter stated that the hours of operation at Omak ' s Place have been limited since police calls. Youngsters stand in line to get into Omak' s Place, a lot of them come down to his establishment, and the "younger kids want to fight the older kids"; more enforcement problems have been created for him and his staff members. Mr. Carter recited one incident when he called the Police because of a report that a young person had a gun; he assumed this individual was a client of Omak' s. A lot of the problem is created by the size of the establishment --it's too small, and a lot of the youngsters frequenting the establishment are not from this area. Mr. Carter stated that the intent of his business is to promote the sport of Foos-Ball, and com- petitions. He stated there has been an increase in pedestrian traffic by his place, and more people have come into his establishment, but the increase is "not for the right reasons". Mr. Carter stated that the curfew rules are prominently posted in his place of business, and he has worked diligently with his neighbors (both residential and commercial), and with the Police in an effort to limit the possibility of problems with youngsters. Mr. Carter stated that Omak' s Place installed a sign with no permit; this has since been ad- dressed. He did not have the proper licensing for all the machines when he opened for busi- ness, but this has apparently also been addressed. 7 Mr. Covens asked Mr. Carter if he had contact with any of the signers of the petition he pre- sented in opposition to Omak 's Place in August. Mr. Carter stated that a lot of the individuals who signed the petition were concerned about two such establishments in such close proximity. Mr. Carter then recalled that much of the concern of petitioners was on the condition of the building. Mr. Mason asked for amplification on the "gun incident". Mr. Carter stated that a young man came into his establishment and "wanted to take on some of my customers". One of Mr. Car- ter's customers reported that the young man had a "piece"; upon questioning, the "piece" was identified as a gun, and the Police were called. Mr. Carter emphasized that it is his assump- tion that this young individual came from Omak' s. Officer John Collins of the Englewood Safety Services Department addressed the Commission. Mr. Covens asked Officer Collins to discuss the two incidents cited in the report submitted to the Commission. Officer Collins stated that Incident 93-25017 was a "near riot" which began with a verbal altercation and a young patron of Omak's threw rocks at an adjacent merchant. The altercation spilled into South Broadway, one of the youngsters was hit by a vehicle, the paramedics and fire personnel were called to administer to the injured youth, but were im- peded by the volume and attitude of the young people. The Fire personnel estimated between 30 -100 young people participated in this altercation, and both Police and Fire personnel were "overwhelmed" by the number of unruly young people. Police personnel could not maintain the safety of the F ire personnel on the scene. Two arrests were made. Officer Collins stated that while only two "incidents" were cited on the memorandum to Chief e Stanley , he is aware that there have been a number of other reports and problems in the 3900 block of South Broadway. In February , a pedestrian was "mugged"; one person was chased into the next block and beaten by individuals who reportedly came from Omak's. There have been over 200 "disturbances" in the 3900 block of South Broadway in recent months. Officer Collins stated that Omak's has become a problem for the neighborhood; people simply passing by have been accosted by youths congregating at Omak's, and many people that do walk in the area have expressed concern for their safety. Mr. Clemens asked if the 200 disturbances reflect a dramatic increase in the six months since Omak's opened. Discussion ensued regarding the manner in which Police reports are taken and documented. Mr. Dummer expressed the need for comparative analysis on reported inci- dents and disturbances: before Omak's opened versus after the opening; for the same period of time last year, etc. Mr. Mason commented that the report on Incident 93-25017 concerns him; even if only 30 youngsters were involved, this qualifies as a "riot", and is in itself a problem. Discussion en- sued. Officer Collins recalled one earlier incident wherein an altercation of that magnitude occurred at the Gothic after a rock concert; this group was an entirely different composition. 8 t , Ms. Becker asked wh at the occupancy limit is for a business of 250 square feet; there may be a violation on this issue as well. Ms. Tobin recalled that occupancy and fire exits were one of her major concerns ex pressed at the Hearing in August. Ms. Becker stated tha t , in her opinion, visibility by the Police Personnel is vital and the issue of windows being covered is of concern to her. Discussion ensued on Englewood's placement in the top 10 cities in crimes. Officer Collins stated that the designations reflect , in part, the manner in which records are kept. Mr. Merkel also pointed out that Englewood has a vibrant business community that attracts employees and shoppers who are not residents of the City; the crimes are reported on a "per capita basis", and many of the crimes may be against or by outsiders, but occur in Englewood and reflect on the ratio of crimes to residents. Responsiveness of Englewood Police personnel compared to the responsiveness of police personnel in other municipalities was commented on. The Commission discussed continuing the review process to March 22. Ms. Tobin stated that she would not be in attendance on that evening, and asked if it could be continued to April 5. The consensus of the Commission was that this review should be expedited as much as possi- ble. Mr. Clemens asked that staff personally contact Messrs. Yanez and strongly recommend to them they should attend the next meeting; the future of their business may be in jeopardy. Mr. Brotzman clarified the procedure the Commission must follow regarding Omak's Place. The review process is to determine if the Messrs. Yanez are in compliance with the conditions which were placed on the approval, and to determine what problems may have occurred as a result of the business. The Messrs. Yanez must be notified what the problems are, and be given an opportunity to resolve those problems prior to revocation of the Conditional Use ap- proval. If the problems are not resolved within the time span determined by the Commission, then a Public Hearing must be scheduled on revocation of the approval granted on August 17, 1993. Discussion ensued. Becker moved: Clemens seconded: Case #9-93 be tabled to March 22, 1994, to allow staff to gather addi- tional information requested by the Commission. Messrs. Miguel and Omak Yanez are strongly urged to attend the meeting on March 22. Ms. Becker asked if it is a fair assumption that staff will talk to one of the Messrs. Yanez in person to impart the need for attendance. Mr. Stitt indicated he would try to call the Messrs. Yanez. Mr. Merkel stated that the Messrs. Yanez will be put on notice, and they need to be made aware the situation is serious; staff will get the additional information from the Safety Services Department. Mr. Merkel cautioned Commission members to make every effort to show no bias in their discussions on this case. The vote was called: AYES: Mason, Tobin, Becker, Clemens, Dummer, Covens 9 NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: None Gerlick, Shoop, Garrett None The motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM Mr. Covens welcomed Councilman Vormittag and Neighborhood Services Administrator Dana Glazier to the meeting. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Merkel stated he would be on vacation the week of March 22, and will not be attending the Commission meeting that evening. Mr. Merkel suggested that a study session be scheduled to discuss Planned Development re- view and approval process. City Council approved Council Bill #11 on the Adult Businesses on March 7. Council Bill # 11 allows no exceptions in the definition of Adult Bookstore. Mr. Merkel estimated an at- tendance of approximately 50. Mr. Merkel reported the earliest a meeting could be scheduled with City Council is May 16. If there are any changes in Council's schedule, the Commission will be notified. VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Covens reminded members of the meeting on March 10 at the Englewood High School auditorium starting at 7:00 P. M. This is a wrap-up of the public input meetings on Cinderella City. Mr. Merkel stated the airplane in Belleview Park was brought up to City Council, and became a "Council Project", with an E-mail message from the Assistant City Manager directing that a joint meeting of the Parks & Recreation and Planning & Zoning Commission be scheduled. Mr. Merkel stated he clarified that maintenance and refurbishment of the plane is NOT a Planning Commission project; that some members of the Commission may have volunteered to work on the refurbishment, but this was not an official action of the Commission. Mr. Mason stated he has obtained additional information regarding the airplane. The plane was con- structed sometime in the 1950's. The plane is fenced to prohibit children playing on it because it is an insurance liability for the City --it is not an "approved playground apparatus", and if a child were injured the City is liable. Mr. Mason reported he has discussed the issue with Parks Administrator Korba, and one proposal is to place the plane on 12 foot high I-Beams. The cheapest solution is to remove the plane, but it is a "landmark" and a source of identity for Belleview Park, and placement of the plane on the stilts is an acceptable solution. Discussion e 10 , ensued. Ms. Tobin suggested that if the plane must be relocated, could it be incorporated on the museum site. Mr. Clemens discussed the Hearing before City Council on the adult business issue. Mr. Clemens expressed the opinion that the Commission did not have the evidence in making their deliberations that the City Council had, this evidence being clarification on what comprises "adult material". Mr. Clemens stated that he understood from discussions at the Planning Commission level that the "exceptions" of gross sales or square footage were needed. Mr. Covens agreed that the arguments put forth to the Commission was the need to be "reasonable" or the City would be sued. Further discussion followed. Mrs. Becker stated that she did not know that the Commission was "voted against", and urged the members to keep in mind that this is an "advisory" board to the City Council. Mrs. Becker also commented on the need to adequately publicize issues such as this so that the community as a whole does have an oppor- tunity for input. Mrs. Becker stated that she heard a lot of sincere community concern ex- pressed at the Council Hearing, and it was interesting to see the community come together on an issue. Mrs. Becker stressed the need to make people aware of issues before the City Council and before the boards and commissions. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Brotzman and Mr. Covens further discussed the review process for Omak's Place. Mr. Brotzman stressed the need to finish the review process and notify the Messrs. Yanez of the need to make corrections "before the clock starts". If the corrections are not made within the time set forth, then the Commission sets a date for Hearing on revocation of the Conditional Use. Mrs. Becker commented that the Planning Commission follows the procedure of swearing in all persons who give testimony, yet at the City Council apparently does not. She questioned why Council does not swear people in. Mrs. Becker commented that the hearing on the adult businesses had a lot to do with economic development. She stated that she would like a list of businesses that have located in Engle- wood within the last four to five years; she would like to visit some of the businesses to de- termine why they chose to locate in Englewood. The issue of "incentives" for business location was discussed. Mr. Mason discussed one business he is aware of that is considering reloca- tion; the state of Utah is offering a 50-year lease on the land at $1 per year. Mrs. Becker wondered how other businesses who have "come in the hard way" feel about new businesses getting tax breaks and other incentives. Mr. Merkel commented that incentives vary from city-to-city and from state-to-state. Mr. Covens commented that Pace Warehouse received in- centives from Sheridan to locate there, and Pace is now closed. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared adjourned at 9:50 P. M. ' ~ Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secretary 11