HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Packet 07/11/2011CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: J~ly 11, 2011 Page -2-
4. Motion to award RFB-11-05 Herbicide Applications Non-Turf Contract-to Vegetation
Management, Inc., Evergreen, CO in the amount of $21,509.10.
~ Resolution 21-2011 -A Resolution approvin~ a contract with the City and County of
Denver for a water line easement at West 37 h Place and Miller Court.
6. Motion to approve appointment of Joan ller to the Cultural Commission-District Ill.
CITY MANAGER'S MATTERS
CITY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS
ELECTED OFFICIALS' MATTERS
ADJOURNMENT
City Co-uncil Minutes Juhe 27-. 2011 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING
.L Council Bill 15-2011 -temporarily waiving two cents of the City's Sales Tax
within the Boundaries of the Longs Peak Metropolitan District.
The Public Hearing was continued from the meeting of June 13, 2011. Council Bill 15-
2011 had been previously assigned Ordinance No. 1490 .
Motion by Mrs. Adams to continue the hearing of Council Bill 15-2011, Series 2011
temporarily waiving the City's Two-Cent Sales Tax within the Boundaries of the Longs
Peak Metropolitan District until July 11, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers;
seconded by Mr. DeMott; carried 6-0 . -
2. Council Bill 21-2011 -reappointing Presiding Municipal Judge Christopher
Randall, increasing his hourly compensation and approving a Presiding Municipal
Judge Services Agreement.
Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing.
Council Bill 21-2011 was introduced on second reading by Mrs. Sang. Deputy City
Clerk Bruce Roome assigned Ordinance No. 1495.
Judge Christopher Randall, presiding Judge and Director of City of Wheat Ridge
Municipal Court was present to answer questions from Council.
Mayor DiTullio read into record an e-mail from Council Member Stites.
No citizens were present to speak on the issue.
Mayor DiTullio closed the public hearing.
Motion by Mrs. Sang to approve Council Bill 21-2011 (Ordinance 1495) an ordinance
reappointing Presiding Municipal Judge Christopher Randall and approving a presiding
municipal judge services agreement without an increase in the hourly compensation on
second reading and that if take effect upon adoption, as permitted by the charter;
seconded by Mr. DeMott; carried 6-0.
City Council Minutes June 27-, 2011 Page 3
ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING
~ Council Bill 22-2011 -approving the Comprehensive rezoning of property along
the Wadsworth Corridor between W . 35th and W. 45th Avenues to the Mixed Use-
Commercial (MU-C) Zone District (Case No . WZ-11-03)
Council Bill 22-2011 was introduced on first reading by Mrs. Jay.
Motion by Mrs. Jay to approve Council Bill No. 22-2011, on first reading, order it
published, public hearing set for Monday, July 11, 2011 at 7:00p.m. in City Council
Chambers and that it take it effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Mrs.
Sang; carried 5-1 with Mr. DeMott voting No.
DECISIONS, RESOLUTIONS, AND MOTIONS
4. Motion to award RFP-11-26 to Ennovate Corporation in the amount of $97,740
for technical energy audit and improvement for the Active Adult Center.
Motion by Mrs. Sang to award RFP-11-26 to Ennovate Corporation, Aurora, Colorado in
the total amount of $97,740 for a technical energy audit and improvements to the Active
Adult Center; seconded by Mrs. Langworthy; carried 6-0.
§. Motion to award RFP-11-07 Right-of-Way (ROW) Maintenance Services to
Terracare Associates, LLC, Centennial, Colorado, in the amount of $53,920.
Motion by Mrs . Sang to award RFP-11-07 Right-of-Way (ROW) Maintenance Services
to Terracare Associates, LLC, Centennial, Colorado, in the amount of $53,920 for the
year 2011; seconded by Mr. Reinhart; carried 6-0.
6 . Resolution 20-2011 -amending the Fiscal Year 2011 General Fund Budget to
reflect the approval of a Supplemental Budget Appropriation in the amount of
$4,000 for the acceptance of a Grant from Xcel Energy Foundation/Colorado
Tree Coalition for the purpose of purchasing trees and tree supplies.
Resolution 20-2011 was introduced by Mr. DeMott.
Motion by Mr. DeMott to approve Resolution No. 20-2011, amending the fiscal year
2011 General Fund Budget to reflect the approval of a supplemental budget
appropriation in the amount of $4,000 for the acceptance of a grant from Xcel Energy
Foundation/Colorado Tree Coalition for the purpose of purchasing trees and tree
supplies; seconded by Mrs. Langworthy; carried 6-0.
Council Action Form
July 11 , 2011
Page2
PRIOR ACTION:
City Council adopted a resolution to proceed with the proposed rezoning on March 14, 2011.
City Council held Study Sessions on the topic of the rezoning and outreach sessions to property
owners on February 14, 2011 and May 2, 2011 and approved the ordinance on first reading on
June 27, 2011.
Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning at a public
hearing on June 16,2011. The attorney for the owner of7525 W. 44th Avenue, located at the
northeast comer ofW. 44th and Wadsworth, provided testimony in opposition of the rezoning.
He cited opposition from his client due to (a) a belief that the rezoning will not lead to a
successful mixed use town center (b) concern that the new zoning would make property owners
unlike! y to invest in improving their property (c) existing easements and development
restrictions on this and adjacent parcels that would make a mixed use development difficult to
achieve. Planning Commission discussed the possibility of removing the property (7525 W. 44th
A venue) from the rezoning area but ultimately decided that it should be included since the
existing use on the lot would be legally conforming under the MU-C zoning and because, if
someone did assemble land at this comer in the future for a mixed use development, the zoning
for one of the parcels would remain C-1 and would not support mixed use redevelopment.
Draft meeting minutes from the Planning Commission Public Hearing are included as attachment
2.
FINANCIAL IMP ACT:
The proposed ordinance is not expected to have a direct financial impact on the City. However,
the new zoning should enable redevelopment that will advance the City's goals for economic
development and the creation of a diverse and resilient tax base.
BACKGROUND:
The property to be rezoned includes multiple parcels on or near Wadsworth Boulevard between
W. 35th and W. 45th Avenues. All ofthe properties in the rezoning area fall within the
Wadsworth Corridor and Times Square Urban Renewal Areas. The majority of the rezoning area
includes commercial and retail uses however there are some properties that contain multifamily
residential uses. Wadsworth is a state-owned highway and major commercial arterial that serves
regional vehicular and bus traffic.
Existing Zoning
The majority ofthe rezoning area is currently zoned Commercial One (C-1). There is one small
area zoned Commercial Two (C-2), one small area zoned Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), and
a handful of parcels zoned Restricted Commercial (R-C). The rezoning area also includes three
Planned Commercial Development (PCD) zoning designations. While there are a few properties
that currently have residential uses, there are no properties with residential zoning in the
rezoning area.
Council Action Form
July 11 , 2011
Page 3
Overall, the existing commercial zoning in the area allows for a wide range of commercial uses ,
especially in the C-1 district. The existing commercial zoning places considerable restrictions on
residential development, including the following conditions:
• No new residences as a primary or principal use shall be allowed
• The amount of floor area devoted to commercial use must exceed the amount devoted to
residential use
• Residential use density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per 5,000 square feet (roughly
8.7 units per acre)
In terms of building height, the current zoning limits commercial buildings to a maximUJll of 50
feet and any building with a residential use to a maximum of35 feet. Any development under the
current zoning would also be subject to the Architectural and Site Design Manual (ASDM). The
ASDM contains site and building design standards that encourage quality architecture and
pedestrian-friendly design.
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
The proposed rezoning area is surrounded by both commercial and residential zoning. The east
and west boundaries of the rezoning area are generally bordered by residential uses in established
residential neighborhoods. Toward the northern and southern ends of the rezoning area, existing
land uses include commercial and residential uses.
Adopted Plans for Wadsworth
The City is proposing that the subject property be rezoned to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C), a
zone district that allows a wide range of uses-including commercial, civic, and residential uses
-and that encourages mixed use development. The proposed zoning is consistent with the City's
adopted plans for the Wadsworth corridor. The City has two recently-adopted plans that establish
the goals and policies for the future of Wadsworth:
Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan
Adopted in 2007 , this plan calls for the redevelopment of Wadsworth with mixed use, medium
and high density development. The proposed rezoning to the MU-C zone district will enable the
redevelopment of the Wadsworth corridor over time in a manner that fits goals in the Subarea
Plan, including the development of a mixed use town center on Wadsworth and an increase in
density along the corridor to provide a critical mass of uses and residents to support businesses in
the area.
Comprehensive Plan
Envision Wheat Ridge , the comprehensive plan adopted in 2009 , also promotes the vision for
Wadsworth to become a mixed use town center. The plan identifies the Wadsworth corridor as
one of five priority redevelopment areas in the City and specifically recommends that the City, in
collaboration with economic development partners , guide the development of a pedestrian-
friendly , mixed use town center at this location.
Council Action Form
July 11, 2011
Page 4
Proposed Zoning: Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C) District
The MU-C zone district is intended for major commercial corridors and community activity
centers. It permits a wide range of land uses and encourages quality, higher density, mixed use
development.
Allowed Uses
The MU-C zone district allows a wide range of commercial, retail, civic, and residential uses.
Unlike the commercial zoning that is prevalent on the Wadsworth corridor today, it does not
contain restrictions that make residential development difficult to attain. While there are many
land uses allowed under MU-C zoning, several higher-impact and auto-oriented uses are
conditional uses, which require an additional administrative review by staff to ensure that the
building and site design have as few negative impacts as possible. New drive-through uses also
have separation requirements to ensure that they do not become a dominate use in one particular
area.
Building Height and Density
The MU-C zone district does not contain a unit per acre limit on residential development.
Instead, it regulates density through building height, setbacks, and open space requirements.
Buildings are allowed up to a height of four stories. To incentivize mixed use development,
buildings that contain a mix of land uses (such as office and retail, or retail and residential) may
be as high as six stories.
Open Space Requirements
Under the MU-C zoning, for single-use development, 15% of the net development area must be
open space. Mixed-use development has a 10% open space requirement. At least 75% of all open
space must be usable open space, such as parks and plazas.
Residential Transitions
In an effort to protect existing residential neighborhoods, the MU -C zone district contains
specific requirements for new development that is adjacent to residential uses. Where any
parking lot or drive-through abuts a lot that has a residential use, screening must be provided
(including a six-foot tall wall/fence or hedge and a six-foot wide landscaped buffer). For any new
building that is adjacent to a lot with a single-or two-family residential use that has residential or
agricultural zoning, the following regulations apply:
• A minimum 1 0-foot wide landscape buffer for one or two-story buildings. The buffer
must be 15-feet wide for a three-story building, and 20-feet wide for buildings four
stories or taller.
• In addition to the landscaped buffer, buildings over two stories must step the upper floors
back an additional five feet per story for the third or forth stories.
• Any portion of a building within 1 00 feet of a residential use may not be taller than four
stories (except where an arterial or collector street separates the new building from the
residential use).
Council Action Form
July 11 , 2011
Page 5
Architectural Standards
With the goal of ensuring high-quality development, the MU-C zone district contains
architectural standards. The design standards include:
• Requirements for fa9ade articulation and material variation
• A build-to requirement that places buildings close to the street, with parking at the side or
in the rear. The build-to requirement in the MU-C district is flexible, allowing a 0-20 foot
build-to zone for 50% of the lot frontage, to enable a wide range ofbuilding types
• Transparency requirements at the ground floor to help create active and interesting
ground floor facades
• Screening and placement requirements for drive-throughs
• Screening requirements for utilities and loading areas
Process
Outreach to Property Owners
Staff started outreach to property owners about a potential City-initiated rezoning in January
2010 at the Wadsworth Summit. At this time, the MU-C zoning was still being drafted and staff
requested feedback from property owners on the content of the code , as well as whether they
were in support of a City-initiated legislative rezoning. Sixty-seven percent of property owners
who completed a survey said that they were strongly in favor of a legislative rezoning and 25%
said that they were somewhat in favor. Based on this high level of interest, staff held a study
session with City Council in the summer of2010 to discuss proceeding with a legislative
rezoning along Wadsworth once the new mixed use zoning was adopted. City Council directed
staff to proceed with a potential rezoning, but to first conduct additional outreach to property
owners, including another survey.
City Council adopted the mixed use zoning in September of2010. Two months later, staff held a
meeting for all property owners in the target rezoning area on Wadsworth to share the newly
adopted code and ask again whether there was support for a legislative rezoning. Staff also
mailed a survey to every property owner in the rezoning area asking them to state support or
opposition for the rezoning. Of the 56 surveys mailed, 13 were returned. Ten owners stated
support and three owners indicated opposition. At a study session with City Council in February
of2011, City Council directed staffto move forward with the rezoning but to directly contact the
three property owners who expressed opposition. Staff met with the two owners who live in
Colorado to discuss their concerns. After meeting with staff, both owners are now in favor of the
rezomng.
The third owner who expressed opposition is out-of-state and owns the property at 7525 W. 44th
Avenue, which is currently leased to a Pep Boys facility . Staff has spoken on the phone and
exchanged letters with the owner's attorney (see attachment 2). Reasons cited for opposition
include existing easements and development restrictions that are recorded on the property and
other adjacent properties, as well as concern that the mixed use zoning will not lead to successful
mixed use development in the area. While it is true that the easements and restrictions on the
property would need to be removed in order for any significant redevelopment of the land to
occur, the proposed new zoning would not directly impact any privately recorded restrictions on
Council Action Form
July 11, 2011
Page 6
the land . Staff has exchanged letters with the owner's attorney and requested to speak directly
with the owner via phone regarding their concerns, but thus far the owner has not responded
beyond the attorney's letters.
Most recently, staff mailed another letter to all property owners in the rezoning area to notify
them that the rezoning is moving forward (see Attachment 4). The letter included the dates for
the Planning Commission and City Council public hearing dates and informed owners that the
public hearings were their final opportunity to comment on the proposed rezoning. A map
showing current owner responses to the survey mailed in late 2010 is included in Attachment 3.
Code-Required Process for Comprehensive City-Initiated Rezonings
Section 26-113 of the Wheat Ridge Zoning Code allows the City to initiate rezonings without
consent of affected property owners. The first step in the process is for City Council to adopt a
resolution that indicates the proposed area to be rezoned and states the intended purpose of the
rezoning. This was completed on March 14, 2011.
The next step is for the City to hold a neighborhood meeting, to which any property owner
within 600 feet of the site is invited. The City held a neighborhood meeting on April13, 2011
(please see neighborhood meeting notes in Attachment 5). Meeting attendees asked questions
about how the new zoning might impact future development on Wadsworth. They also asked
questions about the future of Wadsworth in general, including the potential for the street to be
widened in the future.
After the neighborhood meeting, the proposed rezoning must go to a public hearing before
Planning Commission, who shall make a recommendation to City Council to approve, approve
with modifications, or deny the rezoning proposal. Upon receipt of the Planning Commission's
recommendation, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposal and shall vote to
approve, approve with modifications, or reject the proposal.
City Council's decision shall be based on the facts presented in the public hearing in
consideration of the criteria for review specified in Section 26-112D. Staff has provided an
analysis of the zone change criteria, outlined as follows:
1. The existing zone classification currently recorded on the official zoning maps of the
City of Wheat Ridge is in error; or
Staff has not found any evidence that there is an error with the current zone districts as they
appear on the City zoning map.
2. A change in character in the area has occurred due to installation of public facilities,
other zone changes, new growth trends, deterioration, or development transitions.
The Wadsworth corridor has seen significant change over the past few decades. Traffic
congestion, underutilized land, and blight along the corridor led the City Council and Urban
Council Action Form
July 11, 2011
Page 7
Renewal Authority to adopt the Wadsworth Boulevard Corridor Redevelopment Plan in 2001.
This plan, which coincides with the rezoning area, calls for the redevelopment of Wadsworth in
order to remove blight, improve pedestrian safety, and provide economic benefits for the City as
a whole.
3. The Planning Commission shall also find that the evidence supports the finding of at
least four of the following:
a. The change of zone is in conformance, or will bring the property into conformance,
with the City of Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies, and
other related policies or plans for the area. ·
The proposed zoning is consistent with the policies and goals in the City's Comprehensive
Plan and the Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan. Both plans call for higher density, mixed use
development along Wadsworth Boulevard. More specifically, the Comprehensive Plan
identifies the land between W. 38th and W. 44th Avenues as a quality, mixed use town center.
The proposed MU-C zoning, which encourages mixed use development and contains design
standards, directly fits with these goals.
b. The proposed change of zone is compatible with the surrounding area and there will
be minimal adverse impacts considering the benefits to be derived.
The proposed change of zone is compatible with the surrounding area, especially since
Wadsworth Boulevard is a primary commercial corridor targeted for higher density
commercial and mixed use development. Where there are existing residential neighborhoods
adjacent to the rezoning area, required residential transitions in the MU-C code should help
protect the character of these neighborhoods and ensure that there are minimal, if any,
adverse impacts.
c. There will be social, recreational, physical and/or economic benefits to the
community derived by the change of zone.
The proposed zone change should be a benefit to the community. The new zoning will
enable mixed use redevelopment of an urban renewal area, bringing new uses that are likely
to improve the character of the street, generate sales tax for the City, create housing to attract
new residents, and provide a balanced mix of land uses. The new zoning also requires that
any new development provides new open space, which will benefit the community.
d. Adequate infrastructure/facilities are available to serve the type of uses allowed by
the change of zone, or that the applicant will upgrade and provide such where they do
not exist or are under capacity.
Any new development under the proposed MU-C zoning will be required to complete a site
plan review process, which includes referral to all impacted utility agencies. Where utility
Council Action Form
July 11, 2011
Page 8
upgrades are needed to service new development, the applicant will be required to provide
those upgrades.
e. The change of zone will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare by
creating excessive traffic congestion, creating drainage problems, or seriously reducing
light and air to adjacent properties.
The change of zone will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. While the new
zoning would allow high-density development that could generate additional traffic, it is not
clear that development under the proposed zoning would generate any more traffic than
might occur with development under the existing commercial zoning along the corridor. Any
larger proposed development under the new MU-C zoning would be required to complete a
traffic study as part of the site plan submittal and to install infrastructure and traffic signal
improvements as required by Public Works. Development proposals will also be required to
meet stormwater drainage and water quality requirements in order to be approved, thus no
drainage problems are anticipated.
4. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in
the Architectural and Site Design Manual.
This criterion is not applicable since the Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply in
the MU-C zone district.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The proposed MU-C zone district would encourage the type of quality, mixed use development
that is called for in the City's plans for Wadsworth. Key aspects of the MU-C zone district that
would promote the mixed use redevelopment of this site include :
• A streamlined development review process
• A wide range of allowable land uses, including residential
• Architectural standards, such as build-to requirements and ground floor transparency, that
encourage quality design but allow for more flexibility than the ASDM, which currently
applies to the site
• Higher allowable building heights and densities
• Flexible parking requirements
• Requirements for residential transitions that will help protect the existing residential
neighborhood close to the site
For these reasons, the proposed rezoning would help advance redevelopment of a priority
area within the City, enabling high-quality mixed use development that fulfills the City's
adopted plans for a mixed use town center on Wadsworth.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Council Bill No . 22-2011, an ordinance approving the comprehensive
rezoning of property located along the Wadsworth corridor between W. 35 1h and W. 45th
Council_Action Form
July 11 , 2011
Page 9
Avenues to the Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C) zone district on second reading and that it takes
effect 15 days after publication."
Or,
"I move to postpone indefinitely Council Bill No. 22-2011, an ordinance approving the
comprehensive rezoning of property located along the Wadsworth corridor between W. 35th and
W. 45th Avenues to the Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C) zone district for the following reason(s)
"
REPORT PREPARED BY;
Sarah Showalter, Planner II
Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Council Bill No. 22-2011
2. Draft Planning Commission Public Hearing meeting notes
3. Letters from the attorney representing the owner of7525 W. 44th Avenue
4. Map showing property owner responses to the survey on rezoning
5. Letter to property owners with notification of public hearings
6. Neighborhood meeting notes
TITLE:
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER JAY
COUNCIL BILL NO. 22
ORDINANCE NO. ___ _
Series 2011
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE
REZONING OF PROPERTY ALONG THE WADSWORTH
CORRIDOR BETWEEN W. 35TH AND W. 45TH AVENUES TO
THE MIXED USE-COMMERCIAL (MU-C) ZONE DISTRICT
(CASE NO. WZ-11-03)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge is authorized by Section
26-113 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws to initiate rezoning of property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat adopted a resolution on March
14, 2011 initiating the rezoning of property located along the Wadsworth Corridor Mixed
Use-Commercial (MU-C); and
WHEREAS, the Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan was adopted in 2007 and the
Envision Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan was adopted in 2009 ; and
WHEREAS, both plans recommend that the Wadsworth corridor redevelop over
time with a higher density, mixed use development pattern; and
WHEREAS, the existing zoning designations in this area are commercial, which
only allows for limited residential development; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning of the property to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C)
would support City's adopted policy for the corridor to redevelop over time in a higher
density, mixed use pattern; and
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission held a public hearing
on June 16, 2011 and voted unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning to Mixed
Use-Commercial (MU-C).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1: Pursuant to the findings made based on testimony and evidence presented
at the public hearing before the Wheat Ridge City Council , Mixed Use-Commercial (MU -
G) zoning is approved for the following land:
Attachment 1
Section 2: Approval of this zoning does not create a vested property right. Vested
property rights may only arise and accrue pursuant to the provisions of Section 26-121
of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge.
Section 3: Safety Clause . The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares
that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat
Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety and welfare of the public and that this
Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection
of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the
Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative objective sought to be
attained.
Section 4: Severability: Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, -
subsection or clause of the ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall
not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of the ordinances in conflict with
the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 5: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after final
publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 5 to 1 on
this 27th day of June, 2011, ordered it published with Public Hearing and consideration
of final passage set for Monday, July 11th, 2011 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council
Chambers, 7500 West 291h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, and that it takes effect 15
days after final publication
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of to , this day of , 2011.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this ___ day of ________ , 2011.
Jerry DiTullio, Mayor
ATTEST:
Michael Snow, City Clerk
First Publication: June 30, 2011
Second Publication:
Approved As To Form
Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney
-----------------------
Wheat Ridge Transcript:
Effective Date: ---------------------------
..,.~A~
.... ., City of
?\VheatRi_dge
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting
June 16, 2011
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair BUCKNAM at 7:00p.m. in the City
Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat
Ridge, Colorado.
2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
Commission Members Present:
Commission Members Absent:
Staff Members Present:
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Anne Brinkman
Alan Bucknam
Marc Dietrick
Tracy Guildner
Dick Matthews
Scott Ohm
Steve Timms
George Pond
Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner
Sarah Showalter, Planner II
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by
Commissioner OHM to approve the order of the agenda. The motion passed
unanimously.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -May 19, 2011
It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by
Commissioner BRINKMAN to approve the minutes of May 19, 2011 as
presented. The motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners GUILDNER and
TIMMS abstaining.
6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not
appearing on the agenda. Public comments may be limited to 3 minutes)
Planning Commission Minutes Attaqhment 2 June 16 , 2011
No members of the public wished to address the Commission at this time.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Case No. WZ-11-03: A city-initiated rezoning ofthe Wadsworth
Corridor to Mixed Use Commercial (MU-C)
This case was presented by Sarah Showalter. She entered all pertinent documents
into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the
case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended
approval for reasons outlined in the staff report.
Chair BUCKNAM opened the public hearing.
Louise Turner
11256 West 381h Avenue
Ms. Turner stated she was here to learn more about the proposed rezoning but
expressed concern with city-initiated, rather than citizen driven, rezoning because
it eliminates checks and balances. It's difficult for City Council to sit as an
im~artial judge when the matter has been initiated by the city. Residents north of
44 1 are opposed to high density development. She expressed concern about
higher population density and questioned whether it would result in a better
quality of life in Wheat Ridge. Since population studies have not been done in the
past twenty years, she encouraged the Commission to consider a current
population study.
Michael Smith
Mr. Smith stated that he is an attorney representing an out-of-state client who
owns property in the subject area and who remains in opposition to rezoning. He
and his client do not believe the concept will work because there are a variety of
property owners along Wadsworth without one major property owner to drive
development. There is also a problem with Wadsworth, a major state highway
bisecting the area. This is not a neighborhood that can be pedestrian friendly. He
stated that his client produces $200,000 in sales tax every year and did not believe
that small storefronts would produce those kinds of results. He expressed concern
about residential units above retail units. He stated his belief that mixed use
development prevents big economic drivers from coming into the area and mixed
use would also ultimately result in residential rental properties. Mixed use
restrictions discourage existing businesses to improve what they have. Further,
there are no tools in place to encourage developers to assemble properties. His
client's property constraints remain in effect until 2023 and there is no plan to
ever relinquish them. He stated that he has learned from his experience with
mixed use developments that they are not always successful.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 June16,20ll
In response to a question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Mr. Smith
commented that Wadsworth is a 6-lane state highway that drives mixed use away.
Commissioner BRINKMAN commented that she did not believe there are any
aspirations to make Wadsworth pedestrian friendly.
Commissioner BRINKMAN asked what impact the urban renewal area has had
on his client. Mr. Smith replied that there has been no positive impact.
Mr. Smith requested that his letters to the city regarding this matter be made a part
ofthe official record. Ms. Showalter advised Mr. Smith that these records would
be included in the official record.
In response to a request from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Ms. Showalter
explained the noticing process. She stated that, although there is no requirement
other than to provide notices in The Transcript, City Council directed staff to
notify individual property owners in the area. Five separate mailings have been
sent to property owners. Addresses were obtained through county records. Due
to cost constraints, the letters were not sent by certified mail.
In response to a question from Commissioner GUILDNER, Ms. Showalter
explained that the mixed use zoning was adopted last September. Commissioner
BUCKNAM commented that this is only the second time that Planning
Commission has been asked to approve a rezoning to mixed use-commercial
(MU-C).
In response to a question from Commissioner TIMMS, Ms. Showalter stated that
the rezoning would not cause the bank and Pep Boys properties to become
nonconforming.
In response to a question from Commissioner DIETRICK, Ms. Showalter stated
that she was not aware of any negative impacts that the proposed rezoning would
have on existing businesses.
Commissioner BUCKNAM asked Mr. Smith if his testimony had covered the
material contained in the letters sent to the city. Mr. Smith indicated that he was
satisfied that the Commission had heard all his concerns through his testimony.
Commissioner OHM asked if an elevated crossing over Wadsworth might be
considered in the future. Ms. Showalter stated that while it could not be ruled out,
elevated crossings are very expensive.
Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if there was an estimate of the number of
residential units that could be built in the subject 95-acre area. Ms. Showalter
stated that a very rough estimate would be several hundred new units. These 95
acres represent a very minimal percentage of the land in Wheat Ridge.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 16,2011
Commissioner BUCKNAM asked why more uniform boundaries were not
established rather than adhering to the urban renewal boundaries. Ms. Showalter
explained that City Council and property owners were in favor of rezoning only
commercially zoned properties in the designated urban renewal area.
It was moved by Commissioner GillLDNER to continue this matter until
more information is available regarding letters and surveys. The motion
died for lack of a second.
Commissioner MATTHEWS commented that he promised to never rezone a
property ifthere were objections from the property owner. He stated that he
would like to exclude the entire northeast comer of the area of 44th Avenue , that
includes Mr. Smith's client's property, from mixed use . If this client's property
alone is excluded, it would not leave a deep enough strip of property for any
future application of mixed use zoning.
It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by
Commissioner TIMMS to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-11-03, a
request for a City-initiated zone change from Neighborhood Commercial,
Restricted Commercial, Commercial-One, Commercial-Two and Planned
Commercial Development to Mixed Use-Commercial, for properties located
along Wadsworth Boulevard, generally between West 35th and West 45th
A venues, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan and the Wadsworth Corridor Subarea
Plan.
2. The proposed zone change is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. Any applicant for development under the proposed zoning will
provide adequate utility upgrades where needed.
4. The proposed zone change will not adversely impact the public health,
safety or welfare.
It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by
Commissioner GUILDNER to amend the motion to exclude the northeast
corner of 44th and Wadsworth from the MU-C rezoning.
Commissioner BRINKMAN stated that she would vote against the amendment
because the property represented by Mr. Smith would not become nonconforming
as a result of the rezone. The property owner can stay with his present situation
until 2030 or as long as he likes.
The amendment failed by a vote of 2 to 5 with Commissioners TIMMS,
DIETRICK, BUCKNAM, BRINKMAN and OHM voting no.
A vote was taken on the main motion which carried 7-0.
Pl anning Commission Minutes 4 Jun e 16 ,2011
(Chair BUCKNAM recessed the meeting at 8:20p.m. The meeting was
reconvened at 8:25p.m.)
Sarah Showalter took this opportunity to further explain the reasons for choosing
the boundaries of the proposed rezone. The primary reason was that the urban
renewal area alone is exempted from the height and density restrictions contained
in the charter.
B. Case No. MS-11-01: An application filed by BCS Community Credit
Union for a 4-lot consolidation plat on property zoned Commercial-One
and located at 4203 Wadsworth Boulevard
This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She entered all pertinent
documents into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to
hear the case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff
recommended approval for reasons and with conditions outlined in the staff report
The applicant stated he had nothing to add to the staff presentation.
Chair BUCKNAM opened the public hearing.
Tammy Kaiser
Ms. Kaiser lives two houses west of the subject property. She stated that she was
happy to see this property improved and asked if there would be a buffer between
the business and residential area. She also expressed strong objection to
removing the traffic signal at Wadsworth and 3-Acre Lane due to the amount of
traffic in her neighborhood.
Ms. Reckert explained that a 6-foot landscaped buffer with a 6-foot solid fence
will be required along the western property line of the credit union. She also
commented that the credit union will have much less impact on the neighborhood
than the previous use as a fast food restaurant.
It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner
OHM to APPROVE Case No. MS-11-01, a request for approval of a four-lot
consolidation plat on C-1 zoned property located at 4203 Wadsworth, for the
following reasons:
1. All requirements of Article IV of the zoning and development code
have been met.
2. All utility providers can serve the property.
With the following condition:
1. The language for the city certification be slightly modified.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 16 , 2011
The motion carried 7-0.
8. OTHER ITEMS
A. 38th Avenue Corridor Plan Update
No update was available at this time .
B. Garden Tour
Commissioner BRINKMAN reminded the Commission about the first
annual Wheat Ridge Garden Tour to be held on June 27. Tickets are $10
and may be purchased at the Richards Hart Estate. The tour is sponsored
by Live Well Wheat Ridge.
9. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by
Commissioner OHM to adjourn the meeting at 8:44 p.m. The motion carried
7-0.
Alan Bucknam, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 16 , 2011
JACOBS CHASE
Michael A. Smith
(303) 389-4643
msmith@jacobschase.com
i A I I DR IE Y S
1050 17th Street
Suite 1500
December 10,2010
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
7500 West 29th Avenue, Second Floor
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
A TIENTION: Sarah Showalter
sshowalter@ci.wheatridge.co.us
Re: REZONING OF WADSWORTH BOULEVARD-WEST 38TH TO WEST 44TH
Dear Ms. Showalter:
I am writing on behalf of Pacific Realty Associates, LP, which is the owner of
the property located at the northeast comer of the intersection of 44th Avenue and
Wadsworth Boulevard in Wheat Ridge . That property is occupied by a Pep Boys
store. It is a large site, containing 113,974 square feet, on which there is located a
27,756 square foot building and an approximately 86,000 square foot parking lot.
Last year, this parcel generated $33,827.28 in real property taxes and in excess of
$200,000.00 in sales taxes.
My client strongly opposes the proposed rezoning. Additionally, my client
would request that their property not be included in the area of the proposed rezoning
if the City Council decides to proceed ahead.
My client's opposition is based on a number of points. The first point has to
do with the encumbrances, easements and restrictions of record. This portion of
Wadsworth Boulevard has been an automobile-focused development since it was
initially developed. As a result, the development of the individual properties along
this portion of Wadsworth Boulevard has proceeded using schemes that supported
and enhanced commercial uses and development based on automobiles. An
examination of the status of the underlying title to many of these properties, including
my client's property, would indicate that there are complementary cross easements
and access easements that burden and benefit many of these properties . These
easements generally exist to provide access from Wadsworth, 44th and 38th to a group
of businesses sharing a parking lot. and to provide back and forth access across
shared parking lots to those businesses. Because these easements affect multiple
properties, it would take the consent of all of the owners of the affected properties to
Denver, CO 80265
303-685-4800
303-685-4869 fax
www.jacobschase .com Attachment 3
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
A T1N: Sarah Showalter
December 10, 2010
Page 2
make any changes to those agreements. Additionally, the consent of any lenders who
have encumbered any of these properties would also be required for changes.
The Pacific Realty Associates, LP Property is encumbered by the attached
AGREEMENT CREATING GRANT OF EASEMENTS WITH COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS
AFFECTING LAND . This document imposes a number of restrictions and easements on
my client's property. Many of those restrictions are fundamentally inconsistent with
the terms of the proposed rezoning, however, the proposed rezoning does nothing to
eliminate or modify the provisions of the AGREEMENT CREATING GRANT OF
EASEMENTS WITH COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS AFFECTING LAND .
This problem is critical, because no development can take place that would be
inconsistent with these easements and rights without the amendment of the easements
and rights, short of the exercise of eminent domain. A property owner who might be
interested in developing its property in accordance with the proposed standards would
find that the easements and other rights which affect his property would not allow the
proposed development. Unless all of the property owners would be willing to amend
their property rights, and all of their lenders would be willing to consent to those
amendments, the proposed rezoning does not provide any meaningful opportunities
for change.
The proposed rezoning, even with the provisions for non-conforming uses,
would only discourage the existing property owners from investing in those buildings
and properties. The requirements for parking lot screening, street orientation and
transparent facades, as examples, only serve to discourage property owners from
improving their existing properties.
The businesses along this portion of Wadsworth Boulevard provide
substantial sales tax revenue to the City of Wheat Ridge. Any evaluation ofthe
proposed rezoning should consider seriously whether the types of businesses that
would occupy the proposed development would produce sales tax revenue that would
replace the sales tax revenue generated by the existing businesses .
Additionally, this concept of pedestrian-friendly development is not
appropriate for this location. The portion of Wadsworth Boulevard proposed for this
change is immediately south oflnterstate 70-a large and very busy multi-lane
highway. There is no prospect that Interstate 70 will ever be relocated away from its
current location. The most likely future for Interstate 70 will be continued expansion.
Interstate 70 serves as an almost complete barrier to persons coming on foot or by
bicycle from north oflnterstate 70. Additionally, the exit and entrance ramps on the
south side of Interstate 70 make getting to this portion of Wadsworth Boulevard,
(00275186.DOC 2}
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
ATTN: Sarah Showalter
December 10, 2010
Page 3
north of the interstate, also problematic and dangerous for pedestrians. Each of
Wadsworth, 44th Avenue and 38th Avenue are major thoroughfares. Pedestrians will
not easily be strolling across Wadsworth to window shop and explore. Additionally,
this portion of Wadsworth Boulevard is not within a meaningful proximity to the
FasT racks station proposed for the Gold Line to take advantage of the transit-oriented
development possibilities.
The proximity of Interstate 70 serves to provide a serious detriment to any
residential development that would be proposed for these properties along
Wadsworth--one of the goals of the proposed changes. The noise alone would
discourage residential living. Additionally, the residential development planned in
the proposed rezoning would be on the upper floors of vertical development. Those
upper floors would be even more adversely affected by the noise from Interstate 70,
Wadsworth Boulevard, 441h Avenue and 38th Avenue.
The vision of a town center, as contemplated by the proposed rezoning, does
not have a strong track record of success. Before any rezoning is adopted, other
attempts at creation of town centers should be examined to evaluate the factors that
led to success or failure. The most recent example in the metropolitan area was the
attempt in Aurora, which has not yet succeeded in creating a pedestrian-friendly town
center. In other locations where a town center has been created, the first, and most
significant differentiating factor has been the fact that the entire property involved has
been under the control of a master developer. Both Belmar and the Stapleton Town
Center had that advantage. Here the properties covered by the proposed rezoning are
owned by a fairly large number of owners, some of whom own large parcels and
some of whom own small parcels. Both Belmar and Stapleton also had the
advantage of being large parcels where the entire parcel was going to be developed
over time. Both were designed with adjacent high density residential complements.
The Wadsworth corridor does not have either of those advantages.
Neither Belmar nor the Stapleton Town Center has a sufficient track record to
determine if this type oftown center development will be successful in the long term.
Pacific Realty Associates, L.P .has significant experience in mixed use
development. It is the developer of the 200-acre nationally recognized Orenco
Station in Hillsboro, Oregon. This project was awarded the National Home Builders
Association "Best Planned Community in America" in 2000 and the "ULI Top 10
Communities in the World" in 2002. Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. believes the
requisite components for successful mixed use development does not exist in this
Wadsworth Boulevard location.
{00275186.DOC 2}
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
A 1TN: Sarah Showalter
December 10,2010
Page4
Pacific Realty Associates, LP strongly opposes the proposed rezoning. If the
proposed rezoning proceeds, Pacific Realty Associates, LP would request that the
boundary of the proposed rezoning ends at the south side of 441h Avenue, or that the
Pacific Realty Associates, LP property be excluded from the proposed rezoning.
MAS:jc
Attachment
{00275186.00C2}
~ ~ ~ "4~ . ~ City of ~Wheat~dge ~OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
C ity of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29'h Ave . Wheat Ridge, CO 8003 3-8001 P: 303 .235 .2846 F: 303 .235.2 857
April 21 2011
Mr. Michael A. Smith
Jacobs Chase Attorneys
1050 17th Street, Suite 1500
Denver, CO 80265
Re: City-Initiated Rezoning of the Wadsworth Corridor
Dear Mr. Smith,
I am writing in response to your letter, dated December 10 , 2010, which you wrote on behalf of
your client, Pacific Realty Associates , LP , the owner of7525 W. 44th Avenue. I, along with the
Community Development Director, Kenneth Johnstone, attempted to set up a conversation with
you and your client to discuss your client's reasons for opposing the rezoning. Since we have not
heard back from you or your client, we wanted to send a letter addressing the concerns raised in
your letter from December.
As indicated during a brief phone call on March 21 , 2011 , the Wheat Ridge City Council adopted
a resolution on March 14 ,2011 that officially started the process of a legislative rezoning of
properties on the Wadsworth corridor, roughly between W. 35th and W . 45th Avenues, to the
Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C) zone district. The resolution included a map (enclosed) depicting
the proposed rezoning area, which includes your client's property . The boundaries of the rezoning
area align with the urban renewal areas, established in the 1990s, along Wadsworth Boulevard.
We have reviewed your client's reasons for opposition to the proposed rezoning to MU-C. We are
aware of the easements and covenants that encumber your client's property and the limitations
that this creates for new development on the property. However, this situation is also true under
your client 's current zoning , Commercial-One (C-1), due to an architectural overlay that was put
in place with the adoption of the Architectural and Streetscape Design Manual (ASDM) in 2007 .
Your client's property is within the Contemporary Overlay, which has build-to requirements very
similar to those in the MU-C zone district, as well as architectural requirements that, in some
cases, are less flexible than those in the MU-C zoning.
While the easements and covenants that encumber your client's property pose some challenges to
redevelopment of the site, they in no way preclude new development that would comply with the
proposed MU-C zoning. It is possible that the various property owners subject to the restrictions
would agree to amending the restrictions . It is also possible that , in the future, one owner would
gain control of all ofthe properties and have the ability to amend or terminate the restrictions . The
document that establishes the easements and covenants is a private agreement that could change,
that expires in 2023 , and that is not directly related to the zoning of the site.
www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
We understand your client 's position that Wadsworth has traditionally been an auto-oriented
street. We purposely developed the MU-C zone district to encourage a greater mix of uses and an
increased emphasis on the pedestrian, while also recognizing the auto-oriented nature of this
major arterial. For that reason, several car-focused uses such as auto repair (with no outdoor
display) are allowed as conditional uses. This means that these uses are allowed, subject to an
administrative review focused on site design in order to mitigate impacts on neighboring
properties. We would also like to emphasize that the City's adopted plans for the area , including
the Wadsworth Subarea Plan (2007) and the City's Comprehensive Plan , Envision Wheat Ridge
(2009), call for the transformation of the Wadsworth area with higher-density, mixed use
development. The intent of the rezoning is to help enable such changes over the coming decades.
In response to your client's concern that the new zoning would discourage existing property
owners from investing in their properties, there is language in the MU-C zoning that allows some
flexibility for existing structures. For example, an existing building can expand up to 15 percent
without having to meet the requirements of the code. Second, an existing building that is
nonconforming due to design requirements in the code may be altered or expanded as long as the
nonconformity is not made any worse. This means that a property owner could upgrade an
existing fa~ade, for example, without having to meet the transparency requirements in the code.
Overall, the proposed rezoning to MU-C is intended to be a win-win for the City and property
owners. It increases the development options for properties through higher allowable densities , a
wide range of permitted uses, reduced open space requirements, and flexible parking
requirements. In addition, the MU-C zoning creates a streamlined , administrative review process
for all new development proposals .
I hope that this letter helps to clarify some of the issues related to your client 's concerns. Please do
not hesitate to contact me or Kenneth Johnstone to discuss any of these points in further detail.
s;;1{ JZ~
Sarah Showalter, AICP, LEED AP
Planner II
JACOBS CHASE
Michael A. Smith
(303) 389-4643
msmilh@Jacobschase .com
r~ · . ~ I ~ I U H r: f Y S
1050 17th Street
Suite 1500
Denver, CO 80265
303-685-4800
303-685-4869 fax
www.jacobschase.com
June 13, 2011
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
7500 West 29th Avenue, Second Floor
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
ATIENTION: Sarah Showalter
sshowalter@ci.wheatridge.co.us
Re: REZONING OF WADSWORTH BOULEVARD-WEST 38TH TO WEST 44TH
Dear Ms. Showalter:
I am writing on behalf of Pacific Realty Associates, LP, which is the owner of
the property located at the northeast comer of the intersection of 44th Avenue and
Wadsworth Boulevard in Wheat Ridge. This letter is in response to your letter of
April21, 2011. In addition to the objections that I raised on behalf of Pacific Realty
Associates, LP in my December 20, 2010 letter, your letter prompts additional
questions and objections.
First, let me point out that, in order for any development of the property to be
successful under the proposed new zoning, something has to happen on the part of the
owners of my client's property, as well as any other property that has an interest in
the common easements. Additionally, any property lenders having a lien against the
property must consent to any changes. The City's premise is that something is
"possible". "Possible" does not lead to a necessary conclusion that any
redevelopment will happen and, if it happens, will be successful.
You make reference to the 2007 Architectural and Streetscape Design Manual
and its potential effect on my client's property and the general neighborhood. The
fact that little has occurred along this portion of Wadsworth Boulevard using the new
standards contained in the 2007 Architectural and Streetscape Design Manual is
telling. Property owners have not engaged in any significant redevelopment or
improvement of their properties in response to the 2007 Architectural and Streetscape
Design Manual. There has been no groundswell of participation in the new standards.
This lack supports the point I made in my December letter. This location does not
lend itself to the type of redevelopment that has been successful in other locations.
There are few true success stories in this type of rezoning, as I pointed out in my
{00283004.DOC 2}
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
A TIN: Sarah Showalter
June 13, 2011
Page2
December letter. And there are far more examples of this type of attempt that are
unsuccessful than have been successful.
Right now, the City's existing and proposed development restrictions do not
foster redevelopment for the existing property owners and uses. Instead, the effect
will be that the existing property owners have an economic incentive to not make
changes to or redevelop their properties. The most logical financial response is to -
minimize investment in properties which are in the proposed rezoning area.
Finally, the map itself poses some very interesting questions. For example,
the properties along the east side of Wadsworth Boulevard, from 35th to 38th, are not
included, while the properties on the west side of Wadsworth Boulevard, from 35th to
38th, are included. The most glaring omission is the southeast comer of Wadsworth
Boulevard and 44th Avenue. Three of the four comers of that intersection are
included in the proposed rezoning, while the fourth comer is excluded.
The map of the proposed Commercial MU-C district shows that my client's
parcel is an isolated island on the northeast end of the district. The boundaries
indicated that there is a two block section of the east side of Wadsworth and a two
block section on the south side of 44th that are not included. These gaps defeat the
purpose of a pedestrian friendly district. The two block gap as a pedestrian walks
north along the east side Wadsworth will discourage pedestrian traffic from
proceeding any further north than 4200 Street. And the exclusion of the south side of
44th means that the businesses on the north side of 44th are also disadvantaged. The
exclusion of the southeast quadrant of Wadsworth and 44th does not make sense. If
the intent is to create a pedestrian friendly development scheme, leaving out key
parcels is a critical flaw, especially at a major intersection. Since the City finds it
critical to exclude that parcel, the north east quadrant is not enhanced by the proposed
rezoning. It does not become a parcel that supports pedestrian friendly development.
In your letter, you posit that one owner might gain control of all of the
properties. If the City is interested in creating new pedestrian centric development,
then that is probably the best option . My client would be willing to discuss the
possibility of selling its parcel to the City so that the City can proceed to carry out the
type of development that the City desires.
Again, my client, Pacific Realty Associates, LP strongly opposes the proposed
rezoning. If the proposed rezoning proceeds, Pacific Realty Associates, LP would
request that the boundary of the proposed rezoning ends at the south side of 44th
A venue, or that the Pacific Realty Associates, LP property be excluded from the
proposed rezoning. Either of those results is consistent with the exclusion of the
{00283004.00C 2}
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
A 1TN: Sarah Showalter
June 13, 2011
Page3
southeast comer of the Wadsworth and 44th intersection and the exclusion of the east
side ofWadsworth between 35th and 38th.
MAS :jc
{00283004.DOC 2}
~·"., ~ ~ City of
.. ~Wheat~dge ~OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P : 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857
Meeting Date:
Attending Staff:
Location of Meeting:
Land Use Proposal:
Attendees:
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES
April 13, 2011
Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director
Sarah Showalter, Planner II
Lauren Mikulak, Planner I
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building
7500 W. 291h Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
City-initiated rezoning of the Wadsworth Corridor to Mixed Use-
Commercial (MU-C); proposed rezoning boundary is the area
within the urban renewal area
Jackie Ingenthrone
Tom and Gay Anne Fey
AI Buerger
Jeff Sparkman
Dave and Debbie Dowda
Don Matoush
Ana and Lynne Martineli
David Gardenas
Susan Peguero
Linda Wolf
Katie and John Field
John Bever
Dan Boise
Chad Harr
Todd Hammond
F. Schiller
Deanna Leind
Lorraine Newmann
Maria Nunez
John Minshall
Alice and Richard Doyle
Scott Ohm
Jerry Roach
Jen Embree-Bever
Rolly Sorrentino
Margaret Schalt
ATTACHMENT 6
www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
Existing Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Wadsworth Subarea Plan:
Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), Restricted Commercial (R-C),
Commercial-One (C-1), Commercial-Two (C-2), Planned
Commercial Development (PCD)
Mixed Use Town Center; Primary Commercial Corridor
Medium to High Density Mixed Use
Existing Site Conditions: The proposed area for rezoning encompasses over 60 properties along the
Wadsworth corridor, roughly between W. 35th Avenue and W. 45th Avenue. The proposed rezoning
boundaries follow the urban renewal boundaries for this area. The properties that compose the rezoning
area consist of a wide range of commercial uses and all have a commercial zoning designation _today (C-
1, C-2 , N-C, R-C or PCD). There are a few properties with residential uses and commercial zoning .
Wadsworth Boulevard is a 5-lane commercial arterial , owned by the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT).
Applicant/Owner Preliminary Proposal: The Wadsworth corridor, between W. 38th and W. 44th
Avenues, is designated in the City 's plans as a priority area for mixed use , medium-to high-density
redevelopment. The Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan, adopted in 2007, designates this portion of the
corridor for future medium-to high-density development with a mix of land uses . This vision was
refined in the City's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, Envision Wheat Ridge , which designates
Wadsworth as a primary commercial corridor and calls for a mixed use town center between W. 38th and
W. 44th Avenues. Envision Wheat Ridge identified this area of Wadsworth as one of five priority
redevelopment areas and recommended the development of new mixed use zoning that could be utili z ed
on Wadsworth, along with other priority redevelopment areas, to allow and encourage high-quality,
mixed-use development.
To this end , the City developed a mixed-use zoning ordinance that was adopted by City Council in
September, 2010 . One of the mixed use zone districts , Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C), was
specifically designed for major commercial arterials like Wadsworth . The zoning is intended to allow
greater flexibility than the existing commercial zoning in the area (particularly by allowing residential
uses), to ensure quality design through the incorporation of design standards, and to create a streamlined
development review process for any new development under the MU-C zoning.
In order to help implement the City's plans for Wadsworth and establish zoning that will allow for
medium-and high-density mixed use development, City Council adopted a resolution on March 14 ,
2011 to pursue a comprehensive legislative rezoning ofthe Wadsworth corridor.
The following is a summary of the neighborhood meeting:
• Staff presented a 30-minute overview of the proposal. The presentation addressed the following
topics :
o Purpose of the neighborhood meeting
o Overview of the current zoning
o Overview of the proposed boundary and proposed zoning
o H istory of the City 's planning efforts along the corridor, including the Wadsworth
2
Subarea Plan and Envision Wheat Ridge
o Overview of the Mixed Use-Commercial zone district, including: allowable uses,
building height, and architectural standards
o Overview ofthe rezoning process
o Overview of the site development process (assuming MU-C zoning is approved),
including the concept plan and site plan review procedures
• Staff informed attendees of the anticipated Planning Commission and City Council public
hearings. The hearings are required parts of the rezoning process at which members ofthe
public will be able to comment on the proposal. Notification of the hearings will be posted on
the City website and in the Transcript, but there will be no mailings to property owners.
The following issues were discussed regarding the rezoning proposal:
• Wadsworth is already very busy road, and the proposed mixed use zoning could attract additional
traffic. What plans does the City have for widening Wadsworth Boulevard, so it can handle the
additional traffic?
Wadsworth Boulevard is planned to be upgraded to a 6-lane facility within a 150-foot right-of-
way envelope. Wadsworth is a state highway and is controlled by the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT). CDOT will be responsible for conducting environmental assessments
and a public planning process to identify a final roadway design for the corridor. The City 's
Department of Public Works is working with CDOT to secure funding for these processes, but it
will likely be at least a couple of years before they begin. In the meantime, new development will
be subject to the requirements of the Streetscape Design Manual which will help to improve the
pedestrian environment along Wadsworth before and after the road is widened
• Are there currently any development proposals for the west side of Wadsworth between W . 38th and
W. 35th Avenues (vacant land and the former GO Ford dealership)?
No ; no specific development proposals have been identified for the site at this time. City Council
has identified the property as a high priority redevelopment area and will be defining their
vision for the site in the upcoming months.
• Why is the southeast corner of Wadsworth and W. 38 1h Avenue not included within the boundary for
the proposed rezoning?
This corner includes a church and residential neighborhood The area is not included in the
rezoning because it is not part of the urban renewal area. It was probably excluded from the
urban renewal area because it is a well-established area and with no finding of blight.
• Will the intersection ofW. 41 st Avenue and Wadsworth (by the elementary school) become a
signalized intersection?
This intersection was identified as a signalized intersection in the Wadsworth Subarea Plan, but
CDOT has not taken any action to put a light at this location. The signal was proposed as a
tra.Jfic engineering solution to create better traffic flow and even spacing between 38th' 4Ft, and
44t Avenues. Discussion of signa/locations will be part of CDOT's planning process if or when
Wadsworth is widened
• The vacant lot at W. 35th Avenue and Wadsworth (south ofthe former Ford dealership) used to be a
running water wetlands, but it currently retains stagnant water . Does this standing water have to
stay?
To accommodate regional water flow and meet water detention requirements, it probably needs
to remain. The water stagnancy may be a reflection of recent drought conditions. Future
developers may reengineer the water detention facility to improve its function and flow.
(Some discussion followed regarding unsucces sful attempts to drain this facility by developers in
3
the past.)
• There are no sidewalks along Wadsworth from W. 35th toW. 38th Avenues. Are there any future
plans to install sidewalks?
The City wants to see sidewalks along Wadsworth/rom W. 35th toW. 46th Avenues, and we can
require that sidewalks be installed as new development occurs along the corridor. Typically a
right-of-way reservation will be required with new development to accommodate the future
widening of Wadsworth. Based on the reservation, the City will estimate where developers can
put sidewalks now so they remain intact even as the road is widened in the future.
• How will the neighborhoods on the east and west sides of Wadsworth be connected , and will there
be improved ways to cross Wadsworth as a pedestrian?
Different options for crossing Wadsworth will be considered during CDOT's planning process
for the roadway widening. Future crossings will probably continue to be at grade (as opposed
to an elevated walkway), however there are improvements that can be considered to make the
crossing feel more safe. For example, medians would allow pedestrians to stop safely {n the
roadway and adjusted signals would allow more time for crossing.
• Will the mixed use zoning allow six (6) story apartment buildings?
It depends . The Mixed Use-Commercial zone district only allows six (6) story structures for
mixed use buildings. For example, if the first floor contains commercial uses, an additional five
(5) stories may include residential uses. Single use buildings in the MU-C district are only
allowed up to four (4) stories. For point of reference, the Commercial-One (C-1) zone district
currently allows structures up to 50-feet in height.
• If the mixed use zoning is approved, how do you prevent the construction ofthousands of rental
apartments in six ( 6) story buildings?
The zoning code does not distinguish between renter-occupied and owner-occupied residential
units, and six (6) story structures would only be allowed for mixed use buildings. Based on
market conditions and preliminary utility capacity studies, it is unlikely that the corridor will be
able to support thousands of new residential units. That being said, there is the potential for
several hundred new residential units, and the City is encouraging this type of development.
New residential construction attracts more people to the corridor, supports business in the area,
and provides more housing options for the City. For a variety of reasons, the City wants more
people living and working along Wadsworth.
• Will there be a new public library on Wadsworth?
There is currently no proposal for a new library on Wadsworth, although civic uses are allowed
and encouraged under the mixed use zoning.
• If the rezoning is approved and existing property owners want to make improvements to their
property, will they be subject to the new architectural standards?
The Community Development Department has met with many property owners along the
corridor and recognizes the limitations of existing properties. In response, the mixed use code
includes language that provides some relief for current structures that do not meet the
architectural requirements in the code . If an existing structure is expanded by more than 15% of
the gross floor area, the new standards will apply to the expansion, where practical.
• The residential transition requirements address new mixed use development adjacent to single-and
two-family uses. What are the setback requirements for mixed use development next to the
Residential-Three (R-3) zone district (where there is multi-family residential)?
Residential transition and upper story stepbacks are required where new mixed use development
abuts residentially or agriculturally zoned lots that contain single-or two-family residential
uses. These upper story stepbacks do not apply where new development is adjacent to properties
z oned R-3 , however there are other setbacks and buffers that will apply. For ex ample , surface
4
parking lots on MU-C property are subject to landscape buffer requirements, and all other
development is subject to a 5-foot rear yard setback.
• If the rezoning is approved, how soon can someone build and be subject to the mixed use
requirements?
The Wadsworth rezoning is expected to be approved by late summer, and the mixed use zone
district would become effective 15 days after City Council approval.
• When the property at 44th and Wadsworth was rezoned, wasn't there discussion of including County
buildings? Is Jefferson County still expected to build on that site?
The Urban Renewal Authority has been negotiating with potential end users of this site. While
Jefferson County had indicated significant interest in locating services at 4lh and Wadsworth,
they have since withdrawn from the site. A recent change in County Commissioners has resulted
in a review of the County's capital investment budget. At this point there are no plans for a
County building on the site .
• Didn 't City Council approve $1 million for infrastructure at 44th and Wadsworth to attract the
County to the site?
City Council did authorize money to supplement the Urban Renewal Authority in the short-term
for infrastructure costs. They are using some of that money now for demolition of the existing
structures, and will continue to use the funds for infrastructure regardless of whether the County
is an end user on the site .
• Within the proposed boundary are you planning to rezone only the C-1 properties to MU-C?
No, the proposal includes rezoning all parcels within the boundary to Mixed Use-Commercial.
This includes properties that are currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), Restricted
Commercial (R-C), Commercial-One (C-1), Commercial-Two (C-2), and Planned Commercial
Development (PCD).
• What is the timeline for this rezoning process?
Although it is not a required step in the rezoning process, our next action will be a study session
with City Council. After the study session there will be a public hearing before Planning
Commission, followed by a public hearing before City Council. The City Council public hearing
is expected to take place sometime in mid to late summer.
5
Council Action Form
July 11, 2011
Page2
PRIOR ACTION:
A contract was awarded to Design Concepts for the purpose of design, construction documents
and project management for Phase III of the park. A design build contract was awarded to Team
Pain for the purpose of designing and constructing a skate park, not including grading and
drainage. A contract was awarded to the Public Restroom Company for the off site construction
of a prefabricated restroom structure. Both amenities were included in the original park master
plan and Phase III of the park.
FINANCIAL IMP ACT:
Total funds appropriated for this contract award are $535,000 from Fund 32 Open Space. A
Jefferson County Open Space Grant was awarded in the amount of $275,000 for this proJect.
BACKGROUND:
This specific area of Wheat Ridge has been identified as underserved and in need of a
neighborhood park in both the 1992 and 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The eight (8)
acre site was acquired in December of 2000 based on the master plan recommendations. The site
was acquired with Jefferson County Open Space Funds for the purpose of constructing a
neighborhood park. Phase I and II were constructed and completed in October of2010. This
contract award is for Phase III.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based upon the Contractor's references, experience, and pricing Staff recommends approval of
the contract award to Colorado Designscapes, Centennial, CO in the amount of $461,195.65
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to award ITB-11-30 Discovery Park Phase III contract to Colorado Designscapes,
Centennial, CO in the amount of$461,195.65 for the purpose of park construction."
I further move to award a contingency in the amount of $46,000."
Or,
"I move to deny award ofiTB-11-30 Discovery Park Phase III contract to Colorado
Designscapes, Centennial, CO in the amount of$461,195 .65 for the following reason(s)
"
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director
Linda Trimble, Purchasing Agent
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Discovery Park Phase III Bid Tabulation Sheet
2. Park Master Plan
~ ..
D» n :r
3
CD ::s ..
..lo
~. ~
.... City of
___;P'WheatRi_dge
PROJECT: ITB-11-30 DISCOVERY PARK PHASE Ill
DUE DATE/TIME: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2011 AT 2 P.M. LOCAL TIME
REQUESTED BY: JOYCE MANWARING, PARKS
OPENED BY: LINDA TRIMBLE, PURCHASING AGENTct2--
WITNESSED BY: DENISE WOOD, PURCHASING TECHNICIAN cL(J\(
VENDOR Arrow J Landscape & Design Colorado Designscapes Urban Farmer White Construction I
LOCATION Denver, CO Centennial, CO Thornton, CO Castle Rock, CO
~~~rj~~~·{lQit:.;~;~~':.n1;;r:.:::">M 1~~-: ~·---~-~;~~~~~ii~~~t~~:S!~~<~ .~~~~~;~ ~~ ,,~~...-~~~!>"'~~ ~~~K .• .. ~ .: _,, ',..:.-;< ..
SIGNATURE PAGE YES YES YES YES
ACKNOWLEDGE ADDENDUM 1 YES YES YES YES
ACKNOWLEDGE ADDENDUM 2 YES YES YES YES I
I
ACCEPTS VISA NO NO YES NO I
CONTRACTOR'S QUALIFICATION YES YES YES YES
LIST OF SUB-CONTRACTORS YES YES YES YES
NON-COLLUSION AFFADAVIT YES YES YES YES
ILLEGAL ALIEN COMPLIANCE YES YES YES YES
BID BOND YES YES YES YES
BASE BID: $ 528,343 .70 $ 428,007.65 $ 425,205 .54 $ 550,460.85
ADD ALTERNATE #1: GATEWAY #2 $ 7,797 .34 $ 14,758.00 $ 30,780.00 $ 40,000.00
ADD ALTERNATE #2: POTABLE REFILL
SYSTEMS FOR IRRIGATION $ 11,143.55 $ 18,430.00 $ 17,887.68 $ 25,430.00
ADD ALTERNATE #3: CHILDREN'S MAZE $ 52,522.41 $ 47,381.85 $ 37,036.13 $ 67,273.50
TOTAL WITH ALL3 ALTERNATES: $ 599,807 .00 $ 508,577 .50 $ 510,909.35 $ 683,164.35
Page 1 of 1
Council_ Action Form
Jul y 11 , 2011
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
The City adopted the Wheat Ridge Town Center Urban Renewal Plan on December 14, 1981
which provided for the utilization of propert~ and sales tax increment in the commercial area east
of Wadsworth Boulevard, between West 38 1 Avenue and West 44th Avenue. The property tax
increment expired after 25 years in 2006. Through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
between the City and the Authority on June 26 , 2006, the sales tax increment was amended so
that the maximum increment for the Wheat Ridge Town Center Project paid to the Authority
shall not exceed $100 ,000 in any fiscal year and the increment was extended to and including
December 31, 2008. An amendment to the IGA in October 2007 removed the $100,000 ~ual
cap and extended the agreement to and including December 31 ,2014 .
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends distribution of the sales tax increment for the first six months of fiscal
year 2011 in the amount of$94,469 .24 to the Authority.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve payment of the sales tax increment for the first six months of fiscal
year 2011 from the Town Center project in the amount of$94,469.24 to the Wheat Ridge
Urban Renewal Authority."
Or,
"I move deny payment of the sales tax increment for the first six months of fiscal year 20 11 from
the Town Center project in the amount of $94 ,469.24 to the Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal
Authority for the following reason(s) "
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Steve Art, Economic Development and Urban Renewal Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Council Action Form
July 11, 2011
Page2
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Total financial impact for this program will not exceed $21,509.10 and is appropriated in the
General Fund Open Space Program Budget. Staff time will be required to administer the
herbicide application program.
BACKGROUND:
The State of Colorado noxious weed law mandates control of specific noxious weeds. Weeds are
also sprayed as part of the department's integrated pest management program. Various chemicals
are used on different weeds at different times in a specific weed's growth cycle to achieve the
most control. In both the open space areas and right-of-way areas , a re-vegetation program is
also occurring to control types of weeds that do not respond to chemicals, to crowd out -
undesirable plants, and to reduce the need for chemical spraying.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based upon the contractor's past demonstrated capabilities, experience and performance, Staff
recommends approval of the one-year contract with the option to renew the contract for three
one-year periods to Vegetation Management, Inc., Evergreen, CO in the total not-to-exceed
amount of $21,509 .10 for the year 2011.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to award RFB-11-05 Herbicide Applications Non-Turf Contract to Vegetation
Management, Inc., Evergreen, CO in the amount of $21 ,509 .1 0 for year 2011."
Or,
"I move to deny award ofRFB-11-05 Herbicide Applications Non-Turf Contract to Vegetation
Management, Inc. in the amount of$21,509.10 for the following reason(s)
"
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Rick Murray, Parks, Forestry and Open Space Manager
Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director
Linda Trimble, Purchasing Agent
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Herbicide Application Non-Turf Bid Tabulation Sheet
PROJECT: RFB-11-05
HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS
.... ~
"" 4 City of • ~Wheat:Ri_dge
DUE DATE/TIME: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2011 AT 2 P.M. LOCAL TIME
REQUESTED BY: MARGARET PAGET
OPENED BY: LINDA TRIMBLE, PURCHASING AGENT~
WITNESSED BY: DENISE WOOD, PURCHASING TECHNICIAN ~
VENDOR Co CAL FOOTHILLS VEGETATION
LOCATION DENVER, CO CONIFER, CO
:t~: . ~ ~~~~<~~Y:: ... ~$~Y;.;,.~~ (~~~,~~-EY~~~~::-~ ~: .,_:~~:::.·~~~-~~;~ i~~~:~;~~:~\· ·~ ~~~:.;-~ .. ~ ~::>~·~);
SIGNATURE PAGE YES YES
ACKNOWLEDGE ADDENDUM #1 YES YES
ACCEPTS VISA NO NO
ILLEGAL ALIEN COMPLIANCE YES YES
CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATION FORM YES YES
QUESTIONNAIRE YES YES
ATTACHMENT A PRICING:
SUMMER 2011 $ 8,750.00 $ 10,962.00
FALL 2011 $ 8,750.00 $ 10,962.00
OPTION 1: AQUATIC WEED CONTROL $ 8,750.00 SEE BID
' 2011 TOTAL: $ 26,250.00 $ 21,924.00
SPRING 2012 $ 9,125.00 $ 10,962.00
SUMMER 2012 $ 9,125.00 $ 10,962.00
FALL 2012 $ 9,125.00 $ 10,962.00
OPTION 1: AQUATIC WEED CONTROL $ 9,125.00 SEE BID
2012 TOTAL: $ 36,500.00 $ 32,886.00
SPRING 2013 $ 9,125.00 $ 10,962.00
SUMMER 2013 $ 9,125.00 $ 10,962.00
FALL 2013 $ 9,125.00 $ 10,962.00
OPTION 1: AQUATIC WEED CONTROL $ 9,125.00 SEE BID
2013 TOTAL: $ 36,500.00 $ 32,886.00
Page 1 of 2
HORIZON VEGETATION T-P ENTERPRISES
BENNETI, CO DENVER, CO
:{(.' ''."··~;· ':"''~-·~~~~-~· ,_.,.,X ···. ~· ., ··t ~(.•,c;,;.,l;-. ,.,,~· . , ,,. ~,...,. •••• ..... m~.·;' -'·~~ .-:.-7'-0!'•·"'.-.·-·.-.· .. -~·'i~""~"'-~r:~: _, .-~ '-~-<-~--,~.::tt .. --r.-=,.;:·f-. .:r...-. ·
YES YES
YES YES
YES YES
YES YES
YES YES
YES YES
$ 10,680.00 $ 11,384.00
$ 10,680.00 $ 11,384.00
$ 6,000.00 $ 2,395.00
$ 27,360.00 $ 25,163.00
$ 10,680.00 $ 11,384.00
$ 10,680.00 $ 11,384.00
$ 10,680.00 $ 11,384.00
$ 6,000.00 $ 2,395.00
$ 38,040.00 $ 36,547.00
$ 10,680.00 $ 11,384.00
$ 10,680.00 $ 11,384.00
$ 10,680.00 $ 11,384.00
$ 6,000.00 $ 2,395.00
$ 38,040.00 $ 36,547.00
TRU GREEN
WHEATRIDGE, CO
~r···· . -.. :.-: --:-vy·· . -~1::.: .. l-;:e~·';;f&..~ ~;~t~ ,~-,~:-~ -·"'· .. .-. M-. '
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
$ 8,204.10
$ 8,204.10
NO BID
$ 16,408.20
$ 8,204.10
$ 8,204.10
$ 8,204.10
NO BID
$ 24,612.30
$ 8,204.10
$ 8,204.10
$ 8,204.10
NO BID
$ 24,612.30
""' .,
c
G)
E .c u
ftl ., .,
Cl:
PROJECT: RFB-11-05
HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS
DUE DATE/TIME: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15,2011 AT 2 P.M. LOCAL TIME
VENDOR VEGETATION MNGT o WEED WRANGLERS
LOCATION EVERGREEN, CO LITILETON, CO --~ •'>""i"= o;;"/N"..oX"'l'?'!"o~!.\t"c '" .. ·t,M~~~ .:. -.·:~o -~t{ o_, ..J~" ~~m?!:t'-"~~:t'j;~:~:~J?4~~
SIGNATURE PAGE YES YES
ACKNOWLEDGE ADDENDUM #1 YES YES
ACCEPTS VISA NO YES
ILLEGAL ALIEN COMPLIANCE YES YES
CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATION FORM YES YES
QUESTIONNAIRE YES YES
ATTACHMENT A PRICING:
SUMMER 2011 $ 9,415080 $ 14,000000
FALL 2011 $ 9,415 080 $ 14,000.00
OPTION 1: AQUATIC WEED CONTROL $ 2,677 050 NO BID
2011 TOTAL: $ 21,509.10 $ 28,000.00
SPRING 2012 $ 9,415080 $ 12,333000
SUMMER 2012 $ 9,415080 $ 12,333000
FALL 2012 $ 9,415 .80 $ 12,333.00
OPTION 1: AQUATIC WEED CONTROL $ 2,677 050 NO BID
2012 TOTAL: $ 30,924.90 $ 36,999.00
SPRING 2013 $ 9,415.80 $ 12,333000
'SUMMER 2013 $ 9,415.80 $ 12,333000
FALL 2013 $ 9,415080 $ 12,333000
OPTION 1: AQUATIC WEED CONTROL $ 2,677050 NO BID
2013 TOTAL: $ 30,924.90 $ 36,999.00
Page 2 of 2
REQUESTED BY: MARGARET PAGET
OPENED BY: LINDA TRIMBLE, PURCHASING AGENT;d_
WITNESSED BY: DENISE WOOD, PURCHASING TECHNICIAN (i~
DAVEY TREE
ENGLEWOOD, CO
/;,'~;~-0 • 0 00
···.~~ . ·--~-~~,z~ --~~~~"';ot1?.-~"'/' .. _.f..._. .. -~ ··.:-.•;..~: ,:...·_! .. \!' ;:::~
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO I
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
$ -$ -$ -
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
$ -$ -$ -
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
$ -$ -$ -
CounciLAction Form
July 11 , 2011
Page 2
Denver Water has recently identified the water line deviation from the Wheat Ridge streets and
requested an easement over the City-owned lot to preserve its rights to operate and maintain their
pipeline. Denver Water has offered Wheat Ridge the appraised value of the easement, $22,800.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the attached resolution granting Denver Water a water line easement be
approved.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. 21-2011 thereby granting a water line easement to the City
and County of Denver." -
Or,
"I move table indefinitely Resolution No.21-2011, a resolution granting a water line easement to
the City and County of Denver for the following reason(s): "
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Tim Paranto, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No . 21-2011
2. Easement agreement
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 21
Series of 2011
TITLE: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER FOR A WATER LINE
EASEMENT AT WEST 37th PLACE AND MILLER COURT
WHEREAS, the City and County of Denver, acting by and through its Board of
Water Commissioners, constructed a water line across property owned by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City and County of Denver has requested an easement across
said property which will allow maintenance and replacement of the water line .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Wheat Ridge City Council, that:
1. Contract Approved .
The contract between the City of Wheat Ridge and the City and County of Denver
is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized and directed to
execute the same.
This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
DONE AND RESOLVED this __ day of _____ , 2011 .
Jerry DiTullio, Mayor
ATTEST:
Michael Snow, City Clerk
Attachment 1
NONEXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AGREEMENT
Contract # 13689A
THIS NONEXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made this
_day of , 2011, by and between THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Colorado
municipality (the "City"), and THE CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER, ACTING BY AND
THROUGH ITS BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS, a Colorado municipal corporation
("Denver Water"), together referred to as the "Parties."
RECITALS
A. The City is the owner of certain real property located within Jefferson County,
Colorado, and described as follows:
Lot 12, Horace Heights Subdivision, City of Wheat Ridge
(hereinafter the "Subject Property").
B. Denver Water desires to operate and maintain a public water line upon and
through the Subject Property.
C . The City desires to grant a nonexclusive easement to Denver Water for water line
purposes, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, the City and Denver Water agree as follows:
1. Conveyance ofWater Line Easement and Consideration. In consideration of
Twenty-two Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($22,800.00) and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the City has this
day bargained and sold and by these presents does grant unto Denver Water, the following
easement, subject to the terms and conditions herein set forth :
A nonexclusive perpetual easement, for the purposes described in
paragraph 2 below, over, upon, across and through all of that
portion of the Subject Property that is depicted and described on
the attached Exhibit A as the "Water Line Easement."
2. Denver Water's Use of Easement. The Water Line Easement shall be used by
Denver Water only for the installation, maintenance, replacement, operation, and repair from
time to time of an underground public water line, along with such other subsurface
improvements, permanent or temporary, as Denver Water shall determine to be reasonably
required in connection therewith. The easement area shall be free of obstacles throughout the
length of the easement. Due to variations in topography, the easement and the pipe may take on
an uphill or downhill direction having a slope of greater than 4%; however, the City shall not
create an increase in the degree of sloping within the easement in any direction to ensure
stability of maintenance equipment.
Attachment 2
I
I
! .,
I
I
I
I
I
! j•
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I. ,.
! ,.
I
,.
I
i
3. Citv's Use of Easement. The City shall have the right to use and occupy the
Water Line Easement for any purpose that does not unreasonably interfere with Denver Water 's
full and complete enjoyment of the rights hereby granted.
4. Access to Easement. With the advance permission of the City's Public Works
Director, Denver Water may cross such additional areas of the Subject Property as may be
reasonably necessary to provide ingress and egress to the Water Line Easement for purposes of
maintenance and repair from time to time. In cases of emergency, Denver Water may cross
additional areas of the Subject Property without advance permission of the City's Public Works
Director and shall notify the City's Public Works Director as soon as reasonably possible
thereafter.
5. Obstruction of Easement. The City shall not construct or place any building, -
fence, street light, power pole, yard light, mail box, sign or trash receptacle, temporary or
permanent, or plant any shrub, tree, woody plant or nursery stock , on any part of the Water Line
Easement.
6. Improvements and Maintenance. Denver Water shall be responsible for all costs
of improvement and maintenance of all of its facilities in the Water Line Easement and to
maintain the surface thereof in a level and safe condition.
7. Other Utilities. Denver Water agrees that other public utilities such as sanitary
sewer, storm sewer, gas, and electric lines, may be installed in the Water Line Easement as long
as they do not interfere with Denver Water's rights and as long as piping crossing the water
line(s) at right angles, or a substantially right angles, is metallic or concrete. Any piping or cable
that crosses the water line(s) and is not metallic or concrete, must be encased within steel
conduit and/or concrete ducts. Any and all utilities which parallel Denver Water's facilities will
not be permitted within ten (10) feet of Denver Water facilities without prior express permission
of Denver Water. The intent is to reserve for Denver Water's water lines at least twenty (20) feet
of the easement width.
8. Liability. Within the limitations of the Colorado Constitution and statutes, each
Party agrees to be responsible for its own negligent acts and omissions. However, neither party
waives the monetary limitations of$150,000 per person, $600,000 per occurrence, and all other
rights, immunities and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act,
C.R.S. § 24-10-101, etg:g., as it maybe amended from time to time.
9. Benefits and Burdens to Run With the Land. The provisions of this Agreement,
including all benefits and burdens, are intended to be real covenants running with the land to
which they pertain, and each of the benefits and burdens of this Agreement shall inure to and be
binding upon the Parties, their successors and assigns.
10. Sole Beneficiaries. It is the intent of the Parties that they, their successors and
assigns, be and remain the sole beneficiaries of this Agreement and that no third party shall be
entitled to claim the benefits hereof.
-2 -
'
I
I
I·
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
i .
;
i
i
I
I
r
11. Termination. If Denver Water abandons use and operation of its facilities laid
pursuant to this Agreement, such ab andonment shall not constitute abandonment of Denver
Water's rights under this Agreement.
12. Enforcement. The Parties agree that each of the provisions of this Agreement
shall be subject to specific enforcement. Jurisdiction and venue for all actions concerning this
Agreement shall be proper and exclusive in the District Court for Jefferson County, Colorado.
13. Recording. This Agreement shall be filed for record with the Jefferson County
Clerk and Recorder by Denver Water.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above. ·
-3-
I
I
I··
I
[·
!
I
I·
I
Council Action Form
July 11 , 2 011
Page2
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to appoint Joan Iler to the Cultural Commission representing District III , term to expire
March 2, 2014"
Or,
"I move to deny the appointment of Joan Iler to the Cultural Commission for the following
reason(s) ________ _
REPORT PREPARED BY:
Bruce Roome, Deputy City Clerk
Michael Snow, City Clerk
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application