The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWZ-05-07 (2)WMEM=. I IL To: Alan White; Randy Young Subject: IBC Case 'Mor. RAW *10M This and all other communications to the recipients regarding this matter are privileged, confidential, and not a public record. EMEMEOM Gerald E. Dahl, Esq. 2401 15" Street, Suite 200 Denver, • 80202 Re: IBC Denver II, LLC v. City of neat Ridge and City Council cif the City of Wheat Ridge Jefferson County District Court, Case No. 05 CV 4203, Division 9 Ms. Merrill has stated that she is looking into whether the dismissal of the damages claims will affect the coverage provided to Wheat Ridge for this case and will advise the City on CIRSA's decision. am lmro�m IMIUMMMSIM WAN IV a i�l��ll� cc: Patrick Goff Alan White DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Court Address: 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, Colorado 80401 rx.� IBC Denver 11, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company M•�� IM The City of Wheat Ridge, a Colorado municipal corporation, and The City Council of the City of Division 9 Ctrm: 5F Wheat Ridoe 11� 11 i 111111��p�1111 11111111 ii 1 1 il MZM=1Z%-KM=MflMKMM the applicable legal authority, I enter the following order: 1. Introduction IBC seeks judicial review of the City's denial of their application to rezone a 14.6 IBC contends that the reasons cited for denial are merely pretexts for the City's real reason for denying the application: IBC's failure to provide a "transit oriented development" on the property. 11. Standard of Review 2 9 m Since there is competent evidence to support the City's denial of IBC's application on the grounds cited by the City, there is no need to analyze whether the City imposed new stank of • Se e "transit oriented development." In conclusion, the City Council did not abuse its 8..� a Luxam Dated: August 18, 2006 Jack W. Berryhill District Court Judge Wayne F. Forman, Esq. Victoria 0. Williams, Esq. Brownstein Mua—It—&EadgL, P.C. 410 Seventeen St., 22nd Floor Denver, CO 80202-4437 RE: IBC Denver II, LLC v. The City of Wheat Ridge, et al., Jefferson County District Court, Case No. 05 CV 4203, Div. • i•rjiiij� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 111 11 M i A N the City could locate have now been produced. Very truly yours, Sophifl. ;Fsai Denver Commerce Center — West Discussion with City of Wheat Ridge Settlement Solution Set UM 1w "UMI a. Perfect tap transfer rights b. Other TIF (or quasi TIF) possibilities lt euj-. C.. 6CkJ,440ttC Denver Commerce Center — Wesi- Discussion with City of Wheat Ridge Settlement Solution Set IV. Other a. Perfect tap transfer rights b. Other TIF (or quasi TIF) possibilities AkWb$ K lfb A< ;�&t--4wca, Cfl 6 > cn -.i m > Z z Ln ........ . r z > Z 1 — — ------------ 7- 7 , TLI" am km rz --- ------ ----- 7, T7 T7, RANCHER LANE D H , hHi� rn T othit" p I IBC POTENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT FEES , cmrf -- - • +.g Valuation Business $ Storage $ 65,000 50% 50% $ 3,542,500.00 $ 1,917,500.00 $ 5,460,000-00 $ 28,480 $ 18,511 $ 98,280 $ 145,271 � � � C> zy) co (o CY) co 001 (o co � p U YARD AREA m / DRIVEWAY PAD SITE ALIGNED n 00 8,0 SF WITH OPPOSING STREET 8,000 SF I � p U YARD AREA m Denver Connnerce Center — We Ridge Discussion with City of Wheat Proposal — Revised Op C IBM • :I r,• A $ 325,000 300,000 $ 0 $ 0 v_ $ 625,000 E F .. m 2.i / I .. SF 2 76' 80' IBC HOLDINGS, DC2 WEST PROPOSED MASTER PLAN - PHASE TWO WITH STREET MAY 12, 2006 Denver Commerce Center — West Discussion of # • Proposal — Revised Option A Road Construction 1 32 ,000 300,000 $ 0 $ 225,000 000 $1,225,000 I 3NVI JJ3 H 0 NV�j c; ------------ ----- ---- UG — --------- od - LU OU, - 7-7 ft - 7 - A --- --- ------------ - — --------- 4- 0 U. CN ------- . ....... 6 P44- Ptil ------ Ul otc LU Gvo�i obvm m • • I I o z zM L) > 0 3NVI JJ3 H 0 NV�j c; ------------ ----- ---- UG — --------- od - LU OU, - 7-7 ft - 7 - A --- --- ------------ - — --------- 4- 0 U. CN ------- . ....... 6 P44- Ptil ------ Ul otc LU Gvo�i obvm m • • I I z z 3NVI JJ3 H 0 NV�j c; ------------ ----- ---- UG — --------- od - LU OU, - 7-7 ft - 7 - A --- --- ------------ - — --------- 4- 0 U. CN ------- . ....... 6 P44- Ptil ------ Ul otc LU Gvo�i obvm m • • I I I I U 3NVI Nj3HONVN I F- i L w - - - - Uz - - - w 77,-r7 ark 1� JZ- - 77 i, AJ Z L --------- uj --------- > LL- ---------- Ul to tu tu < Gvo�i 0�:lvm 75 6 E= E 0 I �O 0 I U 3NVI Nj3HONVN I F- i L w - - - - Uz - - - w 77,-r7 ark 1� JZ- - 77 i, AJ Z L --------- uj --------- > LL- ---------- Ul to tu tu < Gvo�i 0�:lvm 75 6 E= E 0 I Denver Commerce Center — West Discussion with City of Wheat Ridge Proposal — Initial Architectural & Engneering $ 300,000 Interest Expense $ 250,000 Land Area East of Proposed Road $ 200,000 Land Area Under Proposed Road r- �t $ 450,000 Road Construction (+/- 85OLF Ca $650/LF) 1 550000 TOTAL $11,750,000 j t e 73' PAD SITE t f 17,100 SF Milli FROM , fm A 0 A 117,100 SF i 1 -1-171-771� 1 17 APRIL 18, 2606 U n',e" I rn 1, t. 4",-, s , k- 141-1 ��, ?AJ a f � 19 m GKIt W\k4f, AJ 9 -1 f I # 0 Z- Jf }' 1331315 .L�vd t LJ ij - ------------ 12 avou Gwvm M i Oil; }' 1331315 .L�vd t LJ ij - ------------ 12 avou Gwvm M i Total vaw "ti Fee 11 IN # t# • fraction thereof. tt Aw 1 ;:J!I�j �Iii Ti] 1 li I I I I :�117 for each ition, fraction • add thereof, to and including $2,000. -$25, ol: � fo F 0 6 ol: e oi the �i. 5 106,b60 # 0-6 # #t • �T000 06 ATM ffff LN • 4#0 Mt # t# • fraction thereof. tt Aw `S s p s„ a s . f NJ) a 0 I f Cl. URIMUNW. If you have any questions, please call. cc (w/encl.): Patrick Goff Alan White Gerald • Dahl, Esq. Very truly yours, IOWMMO % UN • Defendants: THE CITY OF W TM F *10W 74A Phone Number: 303.223-1100 FAX Number: 303.223.1111 E-mail: wforman@bhf-law.com mmathews@bhf-law.com vowams@)bhf-law.com I • Plaintiff IBC Denver 11, LLC ("113C"), through counsel, Brownstein, Hyatt & Farber, P.C., respectfully requests leave to file a supplemental reply brief The grounds for this motion are as follows: M r r Plaintiffs counsel has conferred with Defendants counsel regarding the subject of this motion. Defendants' counsel indicated that Defendants oppose this motion. Plaintiff submitted its Reply Brief under C.R.C.P. 10• (a)(4) • July 5, 2006, 2. Plaintiffs counsel only recently became aware of the Northwest Subarea Plan ("Subarea Plan") recently adopted by Defendant the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, The Subarea Plan is attached as Exhibit 1. 7. Accordingly, the Subarea Plan is compelling evidence validating IBC's argumen and should be considered by the Court in its determination of Plaintiffs claim under C.R.C. 106(a)(4). i A proposed order, along with Plaintiffs Supplemental Reply Brief, are attached for court's convenience. I WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to file the attached Supplement Reply Brief. .1 918912\991633,1 2 Brr w ' nstein - Hyatt Far - ber pursuant to CR.CP. 121 § 1-26 By: s/ Victoria Williams Wayne F. Forman Mark J. Mathews Victoria 0. Williams •�� V KOJ W MIN. MIIII{ { via Courtlink, on the following: Steven J. Dawes Sophia H. Tsai Light. Harrington ♦ Dawes, PI 1512 Larimer Street, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80202 I'll, 'm - r r I -4-07AU'. Brownstein Hyatt Farber pursuant to C&CP. 121 § 1-26 By: s/ AMy Oehmen 9189\2W9]633.1 4 Defendants: THE CITY • WHEAT RH)GE, a Colorado municipal comoration an a &"CljLwF_TT, &TF—C 1 J& rry ax f1re in, ". to 1 ".1 'w Phone Number: 303.223.1100 FAX Number: 303.223.1111 E-mail: wfbrman@bhf-law.com,1 mmathews@bhf-law.co vowilliamsAbhf-law.co, I R. IM I Ilk IIII�IIIIqII!11 111�111q�111111 ll;;:�111111�11 1 11 0 Ull 111; 1 &i 0 0 (collectively, the "City). The Subarea Plan, prepared by Winston Associates and dated June 2006 is attached as Exbi & 0 1 W i W Rif—i- i I ii I I ill • '00- s r ss s r M "IMA The Subarea Plan removes all doubt ree 9189\2\992123,3 2 T , P , 7-Tecisi non than TOD. But as set forth below, the Subarea Plan provides compelling evidence that the City's IBC's Property is central to the City's TOD vision in the Subarea Plan. Indeed, it is now identified as the "transit oriented core" of the Subarea. ee Land Use Map, Subarea Plan at 28). Given the importance • the Pro• erty's location to the City, the City faced a dilemma when 9189\2\992123.3 3 MUM I . and drainage — are again revealed in the Subarea Plan to be regional problems not related to 11 1 11 1 1 111 111 111 111111 1111111 I� 1111111 1 9189\219921233 4 statements in the Subarea Plan contradict the City's hollow justification in denying the Application that IBCs development would alone cause traffic congestion. The Subarea Plan's comments on circulation also shed light on the folly of the Citys F Finally, the Subarea Plan confirms that the drainage problem cited by the City in th* 9189\2\992123,3 5 I a - CRCR 121 § 1-26 By: s/ Victoria Williams Wayne F. Forman Mark J. Mathews Victoria 0. Williams 11 Welm 9189\21992123,3 6 Steven J. Dawes Sophia H. Tsai Light, Harringtan-&-D—awes. P.] 1512 Larimer Street, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80202 1 1-26 918912\992123,3 7 10 Defendants: THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Colorado municipal corporation and CITY CO'LNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE COURT USE ONLY *ADER.'0'U MOTIOR-M,%M71�,7E TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL REPL? BRIEF 119MM W77MI 1, aliff -67 TI IT-Swo M777 Mauer, nere*j kj7f-Mn7n Tz follows: IN Dated this day • 200• Hon. Jack Berryhill District Court Judge n I • • rM • err a M I I NW] • • h3 • • • • • • t db NW] • • h3 • • • • • • • • • db AMR • dik C%4 er u co � c° r' uIll cfa w 0_ pct rxi d Q Q co tri Q CC F Z w YL '. C 2 to uj c w t p J w v m U- tf= p cJ " w <C U- u j v Z: 0 UJ 0 z Q uJ o CL C? try w t c.1 Q C7 e+� • • +r • go co • • 9 I —"- M I N FR Ml I �04 I R ma I UR I 0 0 M � � } �q N km 8 N, O N M Fa I P-1 I I ME - E , r-lim HE rt • • ♦ ♦ 0 ♦ • • • • • ♦ ♦ * • • • • • • • 91 z a rip H ce d w C� A a� w B a s i 5 W m 7@ • .55 2 f C • 72' • 0 7 S I • = -g • • • • IOU aF • • P L • 4a UJ Ot 5 W m R 130131w] .55 2 f C • 72' • 0 7 ♦ • • • IOU a • ql> • wr R 130131w] 0 • • m 9 • • • s. wr • IM Y 9 i1 a ar CO CO W ra cu as Jv -C-4- B it� Eid T W i ll r }"`` ,•' � ^ a s s �, "' �+e: qt ��.z,� X¢-� � d ° Ao %7 , I 1Ma. 9 IWO M ' & i _ , "l , . r,' . r." x ..Y. .� .,S c ,'.. r.E 7' y ,.^ '� , `1..' "a• 8 RE N 99 99 B La u n a B P-4 B P f " P" `'gym N} rx x rot OW. ° wi 4 Y, t r y a '4W a 5 J aY V. rf� G p R YF f Y #( 1 44 1� to AT " e s e MY t � M to d" ''Awn , t t ' 8 low }y � ty On NQ o i S�` ." {� " Vo l , j . 4x..: 9i i y e#"p '� § u " "n .+a Amv!2 `'�_ .{ y:' *� .+.„ 0 e w --: " * q: Ui "? 13 " Ci ftt wi (P cti to to to to (0 Ci Is 0 IV Dorothy Ostermeier From: LexisNexis File & Serve [eFile@fileandserve.lexisnexis.com] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 6:00 • To: Dorothy Cistermeier Subject: Case: 2005CV4203; Transaction: 11868393 - Notcation of Service Steven J Dawes, Sophia H Tsai has allowed you, Dorothy Ostermeier, to receive a copy of this notification for Transaction ID 11868393. The details for this transaction are listed below. To: Steven J Dawes, Sophia H Tsai Subject: E- Service for CO Jefferson County District Court 1st JD Titles: Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply Brief (4 pages) Exhibit 1, part 4 - Motion for Leave (10 pages) Proposed Order Re Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply Brief (1 page) Thank you for using LexisNexis File & Serve. Questions? For prompt, courteous assistance please contact LexisNexis Customer Service by phone at 1-888-529-7587 (24/7). 0 This and all other communications to the recipients regarding this matter are privileged, confidential, and not a public record. mmm�� Alan White Community Development Director City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: IBC Deni II, LLC v. City of Wheat Ridge and City Council cif the Qy of Wheat Ridge Jefferson County District Court, Case No. 05 CV 4203, Division Dear Mr. White: The final draft of the City's written discovery responses is enclosed. To aid in your final review of these responses, the responses that were modified after our discussion this morning are: Interrogatories 5, 6, and 7 and Requests for Admission 1, 4, 8, 10, and 11. If you find any items in any of the responses that are not accurate, please let me know as soon as possible. If these responses are correct, please sign the interrogatories where indicated, and have your signature notarized. As we discussed this morning, I have also enclosed another copy of the Supplemental Certification of Record for your notarized signature. Please return this document and the signature page from the interrogatories to my by fax (to 303-298-1627) and by U.S. Mail (a return envelope is enclosed for your convenience). If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, LIGHT, HARRINGTON & DAWES, P.C. WTsai Sophia . Tsai 1. Produce all documents relied upon, relating to, referenced, or identified in response to the Interrogatories and Requests for Admission submitted herewith. 4. Produce all documents evidencing or relating to any communications between or among any City Staff members and between City Staff members and City Council members regarding IBC's Application or redevelopment of the Property, including, without limitation, all e-mails, notes, and memoranda among members of the City Planning Department. RESPONSE: Objection. This request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving any objections, see disclosures. 5. Produce all documents evidencing or relating to any communications between the City and Winston Associates regarding the Property, 6. Produce all documents evidencing or relating to any communications between the City and RID regarding the proposed Gold Line. ams��•� T Produce all documents relating to the north-south interior road connector through the Property requested by the City. RESPONSE: None. 8. Produce all documents related to the City's consideration of access alternatives to and from the proposed Gold Line terminal. RESPONSE: None at this time. N Respectfully submitted, Steven J. Dawes Sophia H. Tsai Attorneys for Defendants City ojJf Ridge and City Council of the City of "eat Ridge The undersigned herein certifies that on this day of April, 2006, a true and complete copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS was served electronically via Lexis/Nexis Court link and addressed to the following: In accordance with C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-26(7), a printed copy with original signatures is being maintained by the filing part) and will be made available for inspection by other parties or the court upon request, I DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO Jefferson County Court and Administrative Facility 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Plaintiff: IBC DENVER 11, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company M Defendants: THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Case No.: 2005 CV 4203 Colorado municipal corporation and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 1"KFETIT; 4ANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FO& ADMISSIONS IM611111M 0 & - a • 1=98MIM - WE- I RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague. Without waiving any objections, tKk request is admitted in part and denied in part. The City admits that it encouraged IBC to proceed 2. Admit that no extension of the light rail line into the City will occur before 2015, RESPONSE: The City has made reasonable inquiry and the information known or readily obtainable by the City is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny this request. 3. Admit that the City is planning to modify its Zoning Code and/or Comprehensi Plan to include specific transit-oriented development requirements or regulations, I RESPONSE: Denied, The Wheat Ridge Code qfLaws does not permit the City Council F to approve a zoning change ij'that change of zone adversely affects public health by creating f E drainage problems, There was evidence at the November 14, 2005 hearing that the proposed development would create drainage problems. . 5. Admit that the requirements of neither the City Zoning Code nor the City Comprehensive Plan requires a north-south public street through the Property. I i RESPONSE: Denied. The City's Code of Laws grants the City the authority to requ I the dedication of public streets when they are needed to serve developments. The Comprehensi Plan has a major roadway plan which does not show local streets; however, the need for loc streets is assessed at the time of development review and • a case by case basis. 6. Admit that the traffic estimated to be generated under IBC's Application is equal to or less than the traffic that was generated by the former use of the Property as a Jolly Rancher fIctory. I i�Ma M # fif ename it to admit or Ceny this req 7. Admit that the city will not approve any redevelopment of the Property that the City does not consider to be transit-oriented development. IN AESPONSE: Denied. The City evaluates every development application for compliance with the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan and Code of Laws. 8. Admit that the City's Public ♦ Works Department and Engineering Manager: a) did not request that IBC dedicate a north-south public connector road as condition of approval of IBC's Application; and I b) acknowledged IBC's ability to adequately control drainage on the Property, RESPONSE: Denied. The City's Public Works Department and Engineering Manager expressed concern regarding traffic and the need for a road and drainage. 9. Admit that the City's Transportation Plan does not identify a north-south connector road running through the Property. Steven J. Dawes Sophia H. Tsai Attorneys for Defendants City of Wheat Ridge and City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge 9 I I DIM 2 MTA r1l . The undersigned herein certifies that on this day of April, 2006, a true complete copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRS I SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS was served 31 electronically via Lexis/Nexis Co link and addressed to the following: El INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, telephone number, and relationship to you of each person who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses t these interrogatories. h RESPONSE: Alan White, Director, Community Development Department, 7500 West 29 Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033, 303-235-2844, with the assistance of counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify each denial of a material allegation (in paragraphs • 8-13, 15-16, 18-23, 26-29, 31-34, 36-40, and 42-46 of Defendants' Answer) and each affirmative defense in your pleadings: RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Without waiving any objections, Defendants state as follows. The City Council members and Wheat Ridge employees identified in Defendants' initial disclosures have knowledge of these facts. See the documents before the City Council in considering IBC's application, previously disclosed. M INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: RESPONSE: See individual responses to each request for admission. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Describe in detail all communications that the City had with IBC, including any em ployee, agent, owner, consultant, or representative of IBC, related to IBC's Application or the redevelopment of the Property. Include in your description the date (not just month), time and duration of each communication and the substance of the communications. INTERROGATORY NO. S. Describe in detail all communications between and among City representatives and/or City Council members during which IBC's Application or the redevelopment of the Property was discussed. Include in your description the date (not just month), time and duration of each communication and the substance of the communications. 13 FUA 1�;Maloqf IL11 t I IMILSI�Mvapsl a , INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Describe in detail all communications between the City and Winston Associates related to IBC's Application or the redevelopment of the Property. Include in your description the date (not just month), time and duration of each communication and the substance of the communications. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving any objections, see response to Interrogatory No. 6. The meeting between the City and Winston to discuss planning issues in the subarea and potential modifications to IBC's application occurred on July 1, 2005 and lasted approximately 6.5 hours. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Describe all communications between the City and the Regional Transportation District ("RTD") regarding the proposed Gold Line and identify when the City first learned that RTD was considering relocating the Gold Line to its currently proposed location. Include in your description the date (not just month), time and duration of each communication and the substance of the communications. RESPONSE: RTD sent a copy of the "RIT) Three Corridors Scoping Study Corridor Definition Report" to the City's Public Works Department in late January 2005. INTERROGATORY O.9: Describe all City requirements for landowners to dedicate new public roads through their properties as a condition of rezoning, platting, or subdivision approval. RESPONSE: The City's requirements for landowners to dedicate new public roads are set forth in the City's Code of Laws, Article IV: Subdivision Regulations. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Describe in detail the City's e-mail retention/ deletion policy. RESPONSE: Objection, This interrogatory is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving any objections, there is no City policy requiring the retention or deletion of e-mails. E-mails are kept for 30 days. After 30 days, any e-mails that are not specifically saved are automatically deleted, 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Describe all regulations, policies, plans, rules or guidelines regarding transit-oriented development which the City or City Staff have evaluated from January, 2005 to present. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving any objections, currently, there are no such written regulations, policies, plans, rules or guidelines. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Describe all other instances within the past two years in which the City has applied 7ts screening requirements for storage of outdoor materials or equipment at industrially-zoned properties. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving any objections, none, as there have been no applications for industrially-zoned properties in the last two years, INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Describe all other instances within the past two years in which the City has applied the Comprehensive Plan policies identified on Page 2 of the Denial Resolution. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving any objections, the City has applied the Comprehensive Plan policies identified on Page 2 of the Denial Resolution to every request for rezoning in the past 2 years. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify all other land use applications which the City has evaluated within the past two years that concern properties that front Ward Road. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving any objections, none. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify all other land use applications which the City has evaluated within the past two years that concern the use or proposed use of land for industrial purposes. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is vague, not relevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving any objections, none, 9 0 STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this day of April, 2006 by Alan White, Director, Community Development Department, Cit� of Ridge, Colorado. My Commission Expires: MEMMUM AS TO OBJECTIONS: I The undersigned herein certifies that on this day of April, 2006, a true and complete copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES was served electronically via Lexis/Nexis Court link and addressed to the following: ORIGINAL SIGNATURE ON FILE In accordance with C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-26(7), a printed copy with original signatures is being maintained by the filin g party and will be made available for inspection by her parties or the court upon request. ■ Wayne F. Fonnan, Esq. Brownstein H)Latt & Farber, P.C. 410 Seventeen St., 22nd Floor Denver, CO 80202-4437 April 14, 2006 RE: IBC Denver II, LLC v. The City of neat Ridge, Jefferson County District Court, Case No. 05 CV 4203, Div. 9 . . 0 bcc: Patrick Goff Alan White Gerald Dahl, Esq. Pat Merrill This and all other communications to the recipients regarding this matter are privileged, confidential, and not a public record. IMMMM Gerald E. Dahl, Esq. Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister & Renaud LW 2401 15 Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Re: IBC Denver II, LLC v. City of neat Ridge and City Council oj'the City of neat Ridge Jefferson County District Court, Case No. 05 CV 420 3, Division 9 t ii Moreover, it appears that several of the slides were shown only briefly, and it is impossible to tell from the transcri �'r4vwffj itf V slides were shown). LIGHT, HARRINGTON & DAWES, P.C. Steven J. Dawe Sophia Tsai cc: Patrick Goff Alan White Pat Merrill Brownstein I Hyatt I Farbel 410 Seventeenth Street Twenty-Second Floor MEMO Steven J. Dawes, Esq, Light, Harrington & Dawes, P.C. 1512 Larimer Street, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80202 ZE: IBC v. City of Wheat Ridge Sincerely, cc: Brian Mott Rick Gunter 9189\2k973354.1 Tictorla 0. Williams Attorney at Law T 303.2231216 F 303,223.8016 Brownstein Hyatt & Farber, P.C. Denver, Colorado T 303,223,1100 F 303223,1 111 Washington, D.C. T 202,296,7353 F 202.296,7009 Albuquerque, New Mexico T 50 0770 F 505,244.9266 Aspen/Vail, Colorado T 970,945,5302 F 970,384,2360 r� #x z, :z 6 w FA ra> SN 40 +wrr ► t • 4 • • l • • r • • t • t m �" ��: m I m - � � \ w� RICH df\ � y < (j m � � � \ �\ . \ v�> � \^ � \ � .� ��\ � � �� \�� .. � . : a .� < . �� y . t�� , ��d. \ � � \~ \ \ \ � \ \ \ � � � � <. . � � � } � ~ ^� � � � y .2� w x � � � . � .. � � � � < � \ § � � Z.� < a , a I F Y a im mz r 0 =r *-M)w 3 ;u Avow# 0) #NNW# co A"RW 0 s 'gib r .. cv «-s a w N te��- i I / �. , v a-, � j -- k DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Plaintiff: IBC DENVER 11, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company A COURT USE ONLY - M I I M Case No.: 2005 CV 4203 ON MINE" I I 1 11 AMIJ12141 I we] 0 1: 1 NOW • Div.: 9 lr� � !I! M M 5 11 IMMMON13MMMUZ Defendants The City of Wheat Ridge and City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, • undersigned counsel, LIGHT, HARRINGTON & DAWES, P.C., hereby submit their Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories. IRTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, telephone number, and relationshiN tQ riou of ea these interrogatories. RESPONSE: Alan White, Director, Community Development Department, 7500 West 29' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033, 303-235-2844, with the assistance of counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify each denial of a material allegation (in paragraphs • 8-13, 15-16, 18-23, T6-29, 31-34, 36-40, and 42-46 of Defendants' Answer) and each affirmative defense in your pleadings: RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Without waiving any objections, Defendants state as follows. 1# IMM29ron"'k I I • The City Council members and Wheat Ridge employees identified in Defendants' initial disclosures have knowledge of these facts. See the documents before the City Council in considering IBC's application, previously disclosed. Paragraph 15: Affirmative defenses 1. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate reasonably its alleged damages, if any. 11 POP IN ��ilill�l 5. Plaintiffs claims and damages, if any, are barred by, subject to, and limited by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, § § 24- 10- 10 1, et seq., C. R. S. 6. Plaintiffs claims and damages, if any, are barred by, subject to, and limited by ordinances, codes, statutes, and regulations of the State of Colorado and the City Wheat Ridge, I 7. Plaintiffs claims and damages, if any, were proximately caused by the improper acts, omissions, and illegal conduct on the part of Plaintiff. 8. Plaintiffs claims and damages, if any, were proximately caused by the improper acts or omissions • others over whom Defendants had no control nor right of control. I ;J;p1i 1 111111 1 11111111 �1�11i' 111111 11 111 11111 11 Y 12=9 i MM LM=4 a ITM M M2= 14. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including but not limited to § 13-80-102, C.R.S. 15 Defendants are entitled to an award of attorney fees as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1988; the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, §§ 24 -10-1 et seq,, C.R.S.; §§ 13-17- 101, C.R.S. and 13-17-201, C.R.S.; and all other applicable statutes and regulations. 16. Defendants affirmatively assert that §§ 24-68-101, et seq., C.R.S. are not applicable, pursuant to the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge. If § § 24-68- 10 1, et seq., C.R.S. are determined to apply, then Plaintiffs claims and damages, if any, are barred by, subject to, and limited by said statutes, INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories • unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: Ili 1111111 ll�lllllil 11111 I'll 1101 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Describe in detail all communications that the City had with IBC, including any employee, agent, owner, consultant, or representative of IBC, related to IBC's Application or the redevelopment of the Property. Include in your description the date (not just month), time and duration of each communication and the substance of the communicatiRns. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving any objections, the communications between the City and IBC are documented in the City's disclosures. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Describe in detail all communications between and among City representatives and/or Fity Council members during which IBC's Application or the redevelopment of the Property was discussed. Include in your description the date (not just month), time and duration of each communication and the substance of the communications. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving any objections, see the documents contained in the Community Development Department file and the City Council meeting minutes for the meetings on November 14 and 28, 2005. C, 1121 INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Describe in detail all communications between the City and Winston Associates related to IBC's Application • the redevelopment of the Property. Include in your description the date (not just month), time and duration of each communication and the substance of the communications. 01 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Describe all communications between the City and the Regional Transportation District ("RTD") regarding the proposed Gold Line and identify when the City first learned that RTD was considering relocating the Gold Line to its currently proposed location. Include in your description the date (not just month), time and duration of each communication and the substance of the communications. RESPONSE: RTD sent a copy of the "RTD Three Corridors Scoping Study Corridor Definition Report" to the City's Public Works Department in late January 2005. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Describe all City requirements for landowners to dedicate new public roads through their properties as a condition of rezoning, platting, or subdivision approval. RESPONSE: The City's requirements for landowners to dedicate new public roads are set forth in the City's Code of Laws. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Describe in detail the City's e-mail retention/ deletion policy. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving any objections, INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Describe all regulations, policies, plans, rules • guidelines regarding transit-oriented development which the City • City Staff have evaluated r rom January, 2005 to present. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving any objections, equipment at industrially-zoned properties. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving any objections, INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Describe all other instances within the past two years in which the City has applied the Comprehensive Plan policies identified on Page 2 of the Denial Resolution. 9 RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensom Without waiving any objections, I INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify all other land use applications which the City has evaluated within the past two years that concern properties that front Ward Road. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead • the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving any objections, INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify all other land use applications which the City has evaluated within the past two years that concern the use or proposed use of land for industrial purposes. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving any objections, Steven J. Dawes Sophia H. Tsai Attorneysfor Defendants City of Wheat Ridge and City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge 2 The undersigned herein certifies that on this day of complete copy • the foregoing DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES SET OF INTERROGATORIES was served electronically via addressed to the following: • Man"' its K DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO Jefferson Countij Court and Administrative Facilito 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 • kv Defendants: THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Case No.: 2005 CV 4203 Colorado municipal corporation and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Div.: 9 DEFENDANTS'RESPONSES TO Defendants The City of Wheat Ridge and City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, by undersigned counsel, LIGHT, HARRINGTON & DAWES, P.C., hereby submit their Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. 1. Produce all documents relied upon, relating to, referenced, or identified in response to the Interrogatories and Requests for Admission submitted herewith. # 111111111 =11�1111111111111�1 2. Produce all documents relating to the City's consideration of transit-oriented development alternatives for the Property from January 1, 2003 to the present, RESPONSE: Objection. This request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving any objections, 3. Produce all documents relating to the City's contemplated moratorium on the acceptance and processing of applications for building permits and lands use approvals in any area within the City which includes the Property. RESPONSE: See City Council Meeting Minutes from November 14, 2005, November 28, 2005, and January 9, 2006, previously disclosed. 4. Produce all documents evidencing or relating to any communications between or among any City Staff members and between City Staff members and City Council members regarding 113C's Application or redevelopment of the Property, including, without limitation, all e-mails, notes, and memoranda among members of the City Planning Department. 5. Produce all documents evidencing or relating to any communications between the City and Winston Associates regarding the Property, In 6. Produce all documents evidencing or relating to any communications between the City and RTD regarding the proposed Gold Line. 9512i 1 51 1 15!4� # Zzcmml 7. Produce all documents relating to the north-south interior road connector through the Property requested by the City. 8. Produce all documents related to the City's consideration of access alternatives to and from the proposed Gold Line terminal. 113 9 Respectfully submitted, Steven J. Dawes Sophia H. Tsai Attorneys far Defendants Cit)� qf neat Ridge and City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge The undersigned herein certifies that on this day of A il, 2006, a true and pr complete copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS was served electronically via Lexis/Nexis Court link and addressed to the following: In accordance with C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-26(9), a printed copy with original signatures is being maintained by the filing party and will be made available for inspection by other parties or the court upon request. 3 DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE • COLORADO Jefferson County Court and Administrative Facility 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Plaintiff: IBC DENVER 11, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company is 1 1 #, • Case No.: 2005 CV 4203 160 - a 11 1 1 1 L4191111 " 1 1 we] a 19, 1 --- r Div.: 9 1 ! r r 3 , 5 0e , #Vf ADMISSIONS • Plai�tiff s First Set • Requests for Admissions. U U411111 1. Admit that the City Staff members, including the Community Development Director, encouraged IBC to proceed with its Application to redevelop the Property both before and after it learned • RTD's relocation • the proposed light rail expansion near the Property. RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague. Without waiving any objections, this request is admitted, 2, Admit that no extension of the light rail line into the City will occur before 2015. 3. Admit that the City is planning to modify its Zoning Code and/or Comprehensive Plan to include specific transit-oriented development requirements or regulations. IN 4. Admit that IBC's Application complied with all existing City requirements relating to drainage. RESPONSE: Denied. The Wheat Ridge Code of Laws does not permit the City Council to approve a zoning change if that change of zone adversely affects public health by creating drainage problems. 5. Admit that the requirements of neither the City Zoning Code nor the City's Comprehensive Plan requires a north-south public street through the Property. XESPONSE: Denied. The Wheat Ridae Code of Laws does not permit the City Council to approve a zoning change if that change of zone adversely affects public health by creating excessive traffic congestion. 6. Admit that the traffic estimated to be generated under IBC's Application is equal to or less than the traffic that was generated by the former use of the Property as a Jolly Rancher factory. RESPONSE: The City has made reasonable inquiry and the information known or readily obtainable by the City is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny this request. 7, Admit that the City will not approve any redevelopment ♦ the Property that the City does not consider to be transit-oriented development. 8. Admit that the City's Public Works Department and Engineering Manger: a) did not request that IBC dedicate a north-south public connector road as a condition • approval • IBC's Application; and N b) acknowledged IBC's ability to adequately control drainage on the Property. 9. Admit that the City's Transportation Plan does not identify a north-south connector road running through the Property. 10. Admit that the drainage problem discussed in the Denial Resolution was a regional problem not speccally attributable to the Property. RESPONSE: Denied. The drainage problem discussed in the Denial Resolution arose from community members' specc concerns regarding drainage issues arising from IBC's proposal. 11. Admit that IBC has sufficient area within the Property to control drainage in a manner so as not to exacerbate any regional drainage problems. RESPONSE: The City has made reasonable inquiry and the information known or readily obtainable by the City is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny this request, MMMMBMMIM= Steven J. Dawes Sophia H. Tsai I The undersigned herein certifies that on this day of April, 2006, a true and complete copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS' RESPO�SES T6 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS was served electronically via LexisNexis Court link and addressed to the following: 0 This and all other communications to the recipients regarding this matter are privileged, confidential, and not a public record. Alan White Community Development Director City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: IBC Denver II, LLC v, City of neat Ridge and City Council of the City of neat Ridge Jefferson County District Court, Case No. 05 CV 4203, Division 9 Our responses to these requests are due on April 17, 2006. Therefore, I would like to discuss Wheat Ridge's responses with you as soon as possible. I will contact you in a few days to discuss completing these responses. If you have any questions, please call. UMMMI= e -11-1-111 7 � ' Sophia p. Tsai cc (w/encl.): Patrick Goff Gerald Dahl Pat Merill DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 1■■ Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 limited liability company a kv Defendants: THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Colorado municipal corporation and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VvrHEAT RIDGE DEFENDANTS'RESPONSES TO =S'T-7.21 Defendants The City of Wheat Ridge and City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, by undersigned counsel, LIGHT, HARRINGTON & DAWES, P.C., hereby submit their Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories. VITERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, telephone number, ar7i relationshif#L, to-pou of each (oerson wh these interrogatories. RESPONSE: ®l White, Director, Community Development Department, 7500 West 29 Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033, 303-235-2844, with the assistance of counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify each denial of a material allegation (in paragraphs 6, 8-13, 15-16, 18-23, 26-29, 31-34, 36-40, and 42-46 of Defendants' Answer) and each affirmative defense in your pleadings: 19 wm�� m d. identify all documents and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Describe in detail all communications that the City had with IBC, including any employee, agent, owner, consultant, or representative of IBC, related to IBC's Application or the redevelopment of the Property. Include in your description the date (not just month), time and duration of each communication and the substance of the communications. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensom Without waiving any objections, I It RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensoin Without waiving any objections, I INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Describe in detail all communications between the City and Winston Associates related to IBC's Application or the redevelopment of the Property, Include in your description the date (not just month), time and duration of each communication and the substance of the communications. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Describe all communications between the City and the Regional Transportation District ("RTD') regarding the proposed Gold Line and identify when the City first learned that RTD was considering relocating the Gold Line to its currently proposed location. Include in your description the date (not just month), time and duration of each communication and the substance • the communications. 11 IPAIMRM 10 ItINIQ61010vt "FIS � RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving any objections, INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Describe all regulations, policies, plans, rules or guidelines regarding transit-oriented development which the City or City Staff have evaluated &om January, 2005 to present. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving any objections, RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving any objections, 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify all other land use applications which the City has evaluated within the past two years that concern the use or proposed use of land for industrial purposes. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving any objections, Steven J. Dawes Sophia H. Tsai Attorneysfor Defendants City ♦ Wheat Ridge and City Council of the City of neat Ridge The undersigned herein certifies that on this day of April, 2006, a true and complete copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES was served electronically via Lexis/Nexis Court link and addressed to the following: 1111! R DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 l!"laintiff: IBC DENVER II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company im Defendants: THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Case No.: 2005 CV 4203 Colorado municipal corporation and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY • WHEAT RIDGE Div.: 9 DEFENDANTS'RESPONSES TO Defendants The City of Wheat Ridge and City Council ♦ the City of Wheat Ridge, by undersigned counsel, LIGHT, HARRINGTON & DAWES, P.C., hereby submit their Responses • Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production • Documents. 1. Produce all documents relied upon, relating to, referenced, or idented in response to the Interrogatories and Requests for Admission submitted herewith. 2. Produce all documents relating to the City's consideration of transit-oriented development alternatives for the Property from January 1, 2003 to the present. 3. Produce all documents relating to the City's contemplated moratorium on the acceptance and processing of applications for building permits and lands use approvals in any area within the City which includes the Property. 4. Produce all documents evidencing or relating to any communications between or among any City Staff members and between City Staff members and City Council members regarding IBC's Application or redevelopment of the Property, including, without limitation, all e-rinails, notes, and memoranda among members of the City Planning Department. 5. Produce all documents evidencing or relating to any communications between the City and Winston Associates regarding the Property. 6. Produce all documents evidencing or relating to any communications between the City and RTD regarding the proposed Gold Line. 1151 i � l 7. Produce all documents relating to the north-south interior road connector through the Property requested by the City. l F MiT Vill 8. Produce all documents related to the City's consideration of access alternatives to and from the proposed Gold Line terminal. N Steven J. Dawes Sophia H. Tsai Athtraivs failefem"a C6 itf VAe A The undersigned herein certifies that • this day of April, 2006, a true and complete copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS' RESPQ�SES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS was served electronically via LexisNexis Court link and addressed to the following: DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO Jefferson County Court and Administrative Faciliby, 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Uip-Mr,"Mim UM limited liability company is . .11.1 Case No.: 2005 CV 4203 MORS1,6102#1 11 111 ME LIJ Z M I MV91MffM1MM1L%1A':#"A -8 f 9 J Defendants The City of Wheat Ridge and City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, by undersigned counsel, LIGHT, HARRINGTON & DAWES, P.C., hereby submit their Responses to Plaintiff s First Set of Requests for Admissions. RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague. Without waiving any objections, this request is i I I 11goliq I ��111 111111 ZM813= • .�c nlvnroiili� villinairill rirl I 1 11 '1 113MMMM 4. Admit that IBC's Application complied with all existing City requirements relating to drainage. 5. Admit that the requirements of neither the City Zoning Code nor the City's Comprehensive Plan requires a north-south public street through the Property. 6. Admit that the traffic estimated to be generated under IBC's Application is equal to or less than the traffic that was generated by the former use of the Property as a Jolly Ranch factory. 7. Admit that the City will not approve any redevelopment of the Property that the City does not consider to be transit-oriented development. 8. Admit that the City's Public Works Department and Engineering Manger: 2) did not request that IBC dedicate a north-south public connector road as a condition of approval of IBC's Application; and b) acknowledged IBC's ability to adequately control drainage on the Property. A 9. Admit that the City's Transportation Plan does not identify a north-south connector road running through the Property. URDU 10. Admit that the drainage problem discussed in the Denial Resolution was a regional problem not specifically attributable to the Property. ze� 11. Admit that IBC has sufficient area wn the Property to control drainage in a manner so as not to exacerbate any regional drainage problems. Respectfully submitted, Steven J. Dawes Sophia H. Tsai Attorne r Defendants C4 oi neat R and 0 The undersigned herein certifies that • this day of April, 2006, a true and complete copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS was served electronically via LexisNexis Court link and addressed to the following: 0 This and all other communications to the recipients regarding this matter are privileged, confidential, and not a public record. Gerald E. Dahl, Esq. Murray Dahl Kuechemneister & Renaud LU 2401 15 Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Re: IBC Denver II, LLC v. City of neat Ridge and City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge Jefferson County District Court, Case No. 05 CV 4203, Division 9 "MoM MMI UrV-M Y=C*rjaTTer in uenying firr I– - s a — pfffc -- a - 5on. Specifically, the City Council determined that IBC's application was not consistent with several Comprehensive Plan policies. Most of these policies are contained in Chapter 2. However, the City Council also cited the following policy in its Findings: That all new development provides internal streets, adequate circulation and pedestrian walkways that provide non-motorized connections to adjacent develol2ment and that integ late with the city's overall street and pedestrian network. WINTIff M41 Very truly yours, Steve 41.:Dawes Sophia H. Tsai 1 • 1. aim LIGHT, HARRINGTON & DAWES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW YIA2UNA BA�r-AaA UPI secretuy Pat Merrill, PC Supervisor CIRSA Denver, CO 80209 TEL, (303) 298-1601 FAX (303) 298-1627 WNME i i t Re: Claim No. 5001672 Member City of Wheat Ridge Claimant IBC Denver 11, LLC Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concern. M= cc: Gerald E. Dahl, Esq. Alan White, Community Development Director 10603327 Feb 16 2006 6:07PM Plaintiff: MC DENVE12- 11- LLC_ 9. DeIqw?.r vi, Defendants: L ITY C • A corporation and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ♦ W E Phone Number: 303,223,1100 FAX Number: 303.223,1111 E-mail: wfornian@,bhf-law.com m,mathews@bhf-Iaw,com, vowillianisa,blif-law.com Div.: Ctrm. 9 Plaintiff IBC Denver TI, LLC ("1130"), duough its counsel Brownstein Hyatt & Farber, P,C., submits the following initial disclosures pursuant to CR.C.P. A. INDIVIDUALS LIKELY TO HAVE DISCOVERABLE INFORMATION RELEVANT TO DISPUTED FACTS ALLEGED WITH PARTICULARITY IN THE PLEADINGS I Q & 5 ou m i R 71 a C I i Me # a sol to A a Z RIX a =1 M] =A a K#1 J= UV I a UV no tGEAMAtAi jop Ine property at 5+67TT'ard&oad in Wheat Ridge, Colorado ("Property"), and may have information relevant to the Application and Property, communications with the City regarding the Application, the City's mid City Council's actions, and the claims at issue in this case. 2, Rick Gunter, Ware Malcomb, 6120 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Suite 120, Greenwood Village, Colorado, 80111, (720) 488-2626. Mr. Gunter was the principal architect of the proposed development of the Property. He may have information relevant to the Application and Property, communications with the City regarding the Application, the City's and City Council's actions, and the claims at issue in,this case. 3. Matt Chaiken, Ware Malcomb, 6120 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Suite 120, Greenwood Village, Colorado, 80111, (720) 488-2626. Mr. Chaiken was an architect who worked on the Application and may have information relevant to the Application mid Property, communications with the City regarding the Application, the City's and City Council's actions, and the claims at issue in this case. 9189\2k962160.1 2 MB � • J ill i 11 �IIJJ�Jlll MWIT-1= 9189\2'%962160,1 a Respectfully submitted, 918%2\9021603 9189x2\962160A Dorothy Ostermeier I-- From: LexisNexis File & Serve [eFile@fileandserve.lexisnexis.comI Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 6:08 PM To: Dorothy Ostermeier Subject: Case: 2005CV4203; Transaction: 10603327 - Notification of Service Steven J Dawes requested that you, Dorothy Ostermeier, receive a copy of this notification for Transaction ID 10603327. The details for this transaction are listed below. To: Steven J Dawes Subject: E- Service for CO Jefferson County District Court lst JD Thank you for using LexisNexis File & Serve. Questions? For prompt, courteous assistance please contact LexisNexis Customer Service by phone at 1-888-529-7587 (24/7). 0 DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO Jefferson County Court and Administrative Facility 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Plaintiff. IBC DENVER 11, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company IN . I I I Case No.: 2005 CV 4203 Div.: • M1110= DEMME= .1, Alan White, am the Community Development Director for the City of Wheat Ridge. I hereby certify the record for Plaintiffs First Claim for Relief (C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)) which consists of the following documents. 2 Community Development Department Staff file. (Bates Nos. WR 0055 to WR 0632) 3. Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan — A Guide to Development, Chapter 2: The Land Use Plan. - (Bates Nos. WR 0633 to WR 0662) 4. Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge. (Bates Nos. WR 0663 to WR 0891) 5. Transcript of proceedings of the Wheat Ridge City Council meeting held on November 14,2005. (Bates Nos. WR 0892 toWR 1014) 6, Transcript • proceedings of the Wheat Ridge City Council meeting held on November 28, 2005. (Bates Nos. WR 10 1 5 to WR 1022) I certify that the above is the authentic record before the Wheat Ridge City Council in the above captioned matter. Dated this 0 day of February, 2006, STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) Subscribed and sworn before me this day of February 2006 by Alan White, Community Development Director for the City of Wheat Ridge. My Commission expires: //( , /0'(p Nota4ryub M My Commission Expires 04/16/2006 P) Dorothy Osterrneier Via Hand Delivery Alan White Community Development Director City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29"' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 M143MBISM RE: IBC Denver II, LLC v. City of neat Ridge and City Council Qf the Ci�y of'Wheat Ridge Jefferson County District Court, Case No. 05 CV 4203, Division 9 Dear Mr. White: Enclosed please find a copy of the corrected transcribed portion of the audio recording of the Wheat Ridge City Council Meetings on November 14, 2005 relevant to the above case. Please review this corrected transcript for accuracy. To assist you with your review, we have enclosed the original copy of the transcript that you corrected and returned to our office. We have tabbed the pages where you indicated that corrections needed to be made. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns. LIGHT, HARRINGTON & DAWES, P.C. Dorothy Osierineier, Paralegal Enclosures LIGHT, HARRINGTON • DAWES, P.C. ATTORN�EYS AT LAW 1 mw MIM"wompiffonal - Dorothy 0stenneier Alan White Dear Mr. White: January 27, 2006 TEL (303) 298-1601 FAX (303) 298-1627 E-MAIL dostei-itteier(r i)llillai,, Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns. M� Enclosures J x Dorothy 0siditneier, Paralegal DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO Jefferson County Court and AdministrAix%&r4kk 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Plaintiff.- IBC DENVER 11, LLC, a Delawaj limited liability company 52 1 *1 # � 1 0 Case No.: 2005 CV 4203 0 11 - 1011 0 02 1 11 1 1 '1 X011K - ojmv Mly * , K.-Igwy Defendants, by their undersigned counsel, for their Answer and Jury Demand in response to the Plaintiffs Complaint, state as allege as follows. 1. With regard to the allegations of paragraph I of the Complaint, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form an opinion as to the truth of said allegations and therefore deny the same. 2. Defendants admit the allegation of paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 3. With regard to the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that the City Council is the governing body • the City and is authorized to exercise certain powers of the City and Defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form an opinion as to the truth of all other allegations and therefore deny the same. 4. With regard to the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction and has personal jurisdiction over the parties, and Defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form an opinion as to the truth • all other allegations and therefore deny the same. 5. Defendants admit the allegation of paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 7. Defendants admit the allegation • paragraph 7 • the Complaint. • With regard to the allegations • paragraph 8 • the Complaint, Defendants adm' the allegations of the first sentence. With regard to the allegations of the second sentence paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that in accordance with, the City's Municip 3 3 Code a series • pre-application and neighborhood meetings were held throughout 2004, ani, Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations of the second sentence. 9. With regard to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Defendants admit the allegations of the first sentence. With regard to the allegations of the second and third sentences of paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations. Defendants admit the allegation of the fourth sentence of paragraph • • the Complaint. 10. With regard to the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff submitted a three-part application to the City including a Rezoning and Outline Development Plan, Final Development Plan, and Final Plat in May 2005; and Defendants deny all allegations of said paragraph other than the foregoing. 12. With regard to the allegations of the first sentence of paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiffs proposal was to develop offices and warehouses and that Plaintiff modified its rezoning plan to allow some residential uses but did not change its development plan proposal to include the development of residences, and Defendants deny all allegations of said paragraph other than the foregoing. 4 13. With regard to the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Defendants admit the allegations of the first three sentences; Defendants deny the allegations of the fifth sentence; and Defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form an opinion as to the truth of all other allegations and therefore deny the same. I III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1; L • go IQ# 11 MOM 11 16. With regard to the allegations of paragraph 16 • the Complaint, Defendan admit the allegations of the third sentence, and Defendants deny all other allegations paragraph 22. With regard to the allegations of paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Defendants it ezat oni • 1 1 • # 2 1 9 El 43. Defendants deny all allegations • paragraph 43 of the Complaint. Fiffliffiliffil ffiffiliiii�1111 I I =I 47. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in the PRAYER FOR RELIEF, including paragraphs I through 4. 6. Plaintiffs claims and damages, if any, are barred by, subject to, and limited by the ordinances, codes, statutes, and regulations of the State of Colorado and the City of Wheat Ridge. 7. Plaintiffs claims and damages, if any, were proximately caused by the improper acts, omissions, and illegal conduct on the part of Plaintiff. 8. Plaintiffs claims and damages, if any, were proximately caused by the improper acts or omissions of others over whom Defendants had no control nor right of control. .10A a 111 1 . -M��;Jsjrgffll 111�111111111 1111�1111�11111111 11111ill 11111111! ill ��Iilil 1111111111 �111 14� 111 111 1 1 1 ! �ili;iii 9 14. Plaintiff s claims are barred by the applicable statutes • limitations, including but ni limited to § 13-80-102, C.R.S. 15. Defendants are entitled to an award of attorney fees as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1988; the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, 101, C.R.S. and 13-17-201, C.R.S.; and all other applicable statutes and regulations. 16. Defendants affirmatively asset that §§ 24-68-101, et seq., C.R.S. are not applicabl pursuant to the Municipal Code • the City • Wheat Ridge. If § § 24-68-1 1, et se C.R.S. are determined to apply, then Plaintiffs claims and damages, if any, are b by, subject to, and limited by said statutes. 17. Defendants reserve the right to add additional affirmative defenses upon completi • discovery and investigation. I WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants pray that the same be dismissed, with prejudice, that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff, and that Defendants • awarded their attorney fees, costs, expenses, interest, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and necessary. DEFEAD• NTS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY • NO LESS THAN SIX (6) PERSONS ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE. wmmmmma�� mo " F MURRAY OAHL- KUECHENMF-ISTER RENAUD LLR December 16, 2■05 Pat Merrill 3665 Cherry Creek North Drive Denver, Colorado 80209 azz r Gerald E. Dethl t2N I enclose a complaint received today in the referenced matter. I have accepted service on behalf of the City. Please review the complaint against the City's policy coverage and advise whether CIRSA will offer defense in the matter. INEM \!: �� Z� \ ( . � }�. . ) .. � . � �� I I - AIM* "IIL*,ILIII*mXzJl 24011 : Street Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202 Main 303.493,6670 Fax 303,472 0965 Direr-t 303.493. 6686 gdah Amy rlaxv,com lainumumpolumming nowLsKUMV go] iino COURT ADDRESS: 100 Jefferson County Parkway, Golden, Colorado 80401 Plaintiff: IBC DENVER 11, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 0 Defendants: , THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Colorado municipal corporation and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Attorneys for Plaintiff 113C DENVER 11, LLC: Name(s): Wayne F. Fornian, #14082 Mark J. Mathews, #23749 Address: BROWNSTEIN HYATT & FA. ER, P.C. 410 Seventeenth Street Twenty-Second Floor Denver, Colorado 80202-4437 Phone Number: 303 223.1100 FAX Number: 303.223.1111 E-mail: wforinan0ablif-law.com, nirnathewsna,bhf-law.com Div.: Ctrm. WAIVER AND ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE 1, Gerald Dahl, of the law finn of Murray, Dahl, Kueclienn & Renaud, LLP, being of lawful age and duly sworn upon any oath, depose and state diat. 1. I any an attorney at law duly admitted to practice in the courts of the State of Colorado. The City of Wheat Ridge and the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge ("Defendants") expressly authorize me to act on their behalf concerning the subject matter of this Waiver and Acceptance of Service. 2. 1 hereby acloiowledge receipt of and accept service of the attached Summons, Civil Cover Sheet, Complaint, Motion for Certification of the Record and Proposed Order. Defendants waive the necessity for any other service and agrees that this Waiver and Acceptance of Service shall have the same force and effect as if said Summons, Complaint and Motion for Certification of the Record and Proposed Order had been duly issued, served and returned as provided by law. DATED this day of December, 2005. Gerald Dahl, Esq. Murray, Dahl, Kuechenmeister & Renaud, LLP 2401 15" St., Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 2 9 ownstein I Hyatt I Farber 410 Seventeenth Street Twenty-Second Floor Denver, Colorado 80202-4437 bhf-law.com Mcgmag�� Gerald Dahl, Esq. Murray, Dahl, Kuechenmeister & Renaud, LLP 2401 15th Street Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Wayne F. Form Attorney at 0 L T 33.223111 0 F 3122109 RE: IBC Denver 11, ILLC v. The City of Wheat Ridge and City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge - Case No. OSCV4203 Enclosed are the Summons, Civil Cover Sheet, Complaint, Motion for Cercation of the Record with proposed Order and the Waiver and Acceptance of Service in connection with the above-reference case. As we discussed, please sign the Waiver and Acceptance of Service and return it to our office in the enclosed self- addressed envelope. Thank you for the courtesy in accepting service and feel free to call me if you wish., to discuss this case further. ;Sin rely, 'Y' � Wayne Forman Brownstein Hyatt & Farber, P.C. Denver, Colorado T 303,2231100 F 303.2231 111 Washington, D.C. T 202,296,7353 F 202.296,7009 Albuquerque, New Mexico T 505.244.0770 F 505.244,9266 Aspen/Vail, Colorado T 970,945,5302 F 970384,2360 DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO COURT ADDRESS: 1 100 Jefferson County Parkway, Golden, Colorado 80401 Plaintiff: IBC DENVER 11, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company M Defendants: THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Colorado municipal corporation and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE I Attorneys for Plaintiff IBC DENVER 11, LLC: Name(s): Wayne F.Foirnan, #14082 Mark J. Mathews, #23749 i � Address: BROWNSTEIN HYATT & FARBER, P.C. 0 Case Number: 05CV4203 Div.: Ctnri. To: THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 7500 W 29 Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 You are hereby summoned and required to file with the clerk of this court an Answer or other response to the attached Complaint. If service of the Summons and Complaint was made upon you within the State of Colorado, you are required to file your answer or other response within twenty (20) days after such service upon you. If service of the Summons and Complaint was made upon you outside the State of Colorado, you are required to file your answer or other response within thirty (30) days after such service upon you. If you fail to file your answer or other response to the Complaint in writing within the applicable time period, judgment by default may be entered against you by the court for the relief demanded in the Complaint, without any further notice to you. The following; documents are also served with this Summons: Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, Motion for Certification of the Record and Proposed Order Dated: this J5 day of December, 2005. By: 4 * 7 4 ;9 ayne F an, #I - Mark J. Mathews, ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF IBC DENVER 11, LLC This is a class action or forcible entry and detainer, Rule 106, Rule 120, or other similar expedited van Plaintiff- , v-c—*hLF E V 1 11. LLC, a Delaware ted liabty company - , x M Defendants: THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Colorado municipal corporation and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Name(s): Wayne F. Forman, #14082 C Div.: Cam, J'. Mathews, #23749 1 D 5MIGUMMI P.C,, submits thefollowing Complaint against letendants, Ine UlTy oT 1vnea7MZfg7 7XIN the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge ("Council"): I I - Plaintiff IBC is a Delaware limited liability company authorized to do business the State of Colorado, managed by IBC Holdings, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, with its principal place of business located at 1 3 Bergen Park-way, Suite M454, Evergreen, Colorado, 80439. 1 2. Defendant the City of Wheat Ridge (the "City") is a home rule municipal corporation of the State of Colorado located in Jefferson County. 3. Defendant City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge (the "Council") is the governing body of the City authorized to exercise the powers of the City that are the subject of this Complaint. KRISDICTION AND VENUE 4, The Court has jurisdiction over all claims set forth in this Complaint pursuant to Section • of Article VI of the Colorado Constitution. 5. Venue is proper for this action under C.R.C.P. •8. MMORVENT MM. I IMMMIMMM93 6. IBC owns approximately 14.6 acres that was the former site of the Jolly Rancher candy manufacturing plant located at 5060 Ward Road in the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado February 2005, however, the City learned that the proposed FasTrack-s Gold Line light rail expansion and a Park and Ride site is forecasted to be located in close proximity to the Property. At that po th��mined that the e trial zoning and Comp Plan designation for thMe P were iri:a�� - k — coinmodate the sypRqsed new transit 91 &911 \953(113.1 2 10. Unaware of the City's plans, IBC proceeded with the proposal it had been deKq encouraged to wo_rk__o_nT6i a — Year and submitted a three-part application ("Application") to the City including a Rezoning and Outline Development Plan, Final Development Plan, and Final Plat in May, 2005. 13. Under the proposal, the Property is divided into three use areas that would be developed in phases. Phase I consists of eight lots in the middle of the property. Phase 11 consists of three lots adjacent to Ward Road. Phase III comprises the eastern most portion of the Property. IBC has no immediate plans for development in Phase 11 or 111, leaving them available s with eve one of the C rezomnV particularly as applied to a change from one industrial use to a different, I ss intense set of industrial and commercial uses. 14. On September 15, 2005 and October 6, 2005, the City's Planning Commission held hearings on the Application. It recommended approval of the Application with conditions. IBC agreed on the record to comply with each condition of approval. 15, A public hearing was held before the City Council on, November 14, 2005, Upon information and belief, a pre-meeting was held at which Council members discussed the Application ong t e selves and with staff without noti��IBC or giving it the opporqtunity isten ith its as yet unprepared TOD plans. = 9189\1\953013A 3 16. After the presentation of evidence at the hearing, the Council did not -7- meaningfully deliberate on the record. Rather, the Council adopted a ple 2t: _Iqp�at the ir,Wsi***f Ae hearin to table indefinitely the Application, ic�atin its decision was ,, inqL _yflIat INMON MV,9��§ WITil wat a FRED= I I III t; 17. It is the City's practice and procedure to table indefinitely an ordinance or application as a means to deny it. The City concedes that its decision to table indefinitely the Application was in effect a denial. (Ito s o NA 20. The Council also heavily relied on traffic concerns to justify its decision, is not res onsible and cannot control. pen AA , f uld not be substantially d"i the d tr f any kind a s operating, No industrial project of any kind cou f the traffic generated. SIM&IIIIMIIIIII�l I WIN 25. The Council denied the Application on November 14, 2005. This Complaint has been filed within thirty (30) days of the Council's denial. Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction over this claim under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) and 106(b). 26. The Council's Denial was a quasi-judicial action, and in all respects constituted an abuse of the Council's discretion. �DA) 27. The Council's denial of the Application exceeded its jurisdiction and was arbitrary and capricious because, among other things: winj 9189\N953013A 5 9189k1\953013A THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (42 U.S.C. §1983) 35. IBC restates the previous allegations and incorporates them herein by reference. 36. This claim is brought by IBC against the City and the Council. 40. As a result of the City and Council's actions, IBC has suffered the loss of the � I value of the Property and the loss of development expenses incurred to date, including legal, architectural, planning and engineering fees and costs, loss of income and loss of past and future sales and profits. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to and C.R.S. §24-68-102.5) 41. IBC restates the previous allegations and incorporates them herein by reference. 42. The Application constituted a request for approval of a site-specific development plan as defined in C.R.S. §24-68-102(4)(a). Accordingly, pursuant to CKS. §24-68-102.5. the Council's decision on the application "shall be governed only by the duly adopted rules and regulations in effect at the time the application" was submitted to the City. 9189\1\953013A 7 44. As a result of the City and Council's action, IBC has suffered a loss of —yahie,of It -- ic Ppqperly and the loss of development expenses incurred to date, including legal, architectural, planning and engineering fees and costs, loss of income and loss of past and future sales and profits. 45. IBC is entitled to a declaration that the City and Council violated C.R.S. §24-68- 102.5 and for further relief in the form of damages as a result of such unlawful conduct. 46. A declaration in this regard will terminate the uncertainty and controversy giving rise to this proceeding. RIM11 l or 11 order under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) that the Council exceeded its jurisdiction acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying IBCs Application. • W M� i • 11tTM*1vM:11§1MX� 9189\1\953013A 8 TIMP. .jr?jflq t o ' v e -ng" Plaintiff: IRC JkENVEV, 11, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company LN Defendants: jWiT_ RIDGE,, a Colorado municipal corporation and CITY COUNCIL OFTHE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Attorneys for Plaintiff IBC DENVER II, LLC: Name(s): Wayne F. Forman, #14082 Mark J. Mathews, #23749 Address: BROWNSTEIN HYATT & FARBER, P.C. 410 Seventeenth Street Twenty-Second Floor Denver, Colorado 80202-4437 Phone Number: 303-223.1100 FAX Number: 303.223.1111 E-mail: wforman@bhf-law.com minathewsaftf-law.com M Div.: Ctrm. 9 0 1 Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)(111) and C.R.S. §13-51.5-103(l), Plaintiff IBC Denver 11, through its counsel, Brownstein, Hyatt & Farber, P.C., respectfully moves the ku��g f-7 and the Wheat RidjLCit# Council, to timely file with the Court the certified record in this matter. • grounds for this motion, IBC states as follows: TIM ,-nd proposed order requiring cermication oi 7 MITT MY file with the clerk on a specified date, the record, together with a certificate of authenticity. 3. CKS. § 13-51.5-103(l) requires a governmental body that is sued under Rule 106(a)(4) to file the certified record within thirty days after the filing of the complaint or counterclaim alleging a claim under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). 4. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)(111) and C.R.S. § 13-51.5-103(l), IBC's hereby requests that the Court issue an order requiring the Defendants to file the administrative record related to IBC's Application together with a certificate of authenticity, with the Clerk of the Court, within thirty days after the filing of IBC's Complaint, or by January 13, 2006. 5. The record should include all transcripts, documents, exhibits, correspondence, transcripts, e-mail messages, memoranda, technical reports and studies (collectively, "Documents") in the possession of Defendants and related to IBC's Application, including, but not limited to, the following: WHEREFORE, IBC respectfully requests that this Court issue an order requiring the City and City Council to file the record related to the denial, including the documents specifically referenced herein, on or before January 13, 2006. 9189\1\953089A 2 MEMMEMEMM • 049�� 9189\1\953089A Plaintiff: IBC DENVER 11, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 0 Defendants: THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Colorado municipal corporation and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COURT USE ONLY WHEAT RIDGE Div.: Ctrm. THIS MATTER, having come before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Certification • the Record and the Court being fully advised in the premises, HEREBY ORDERS that the City of Wheat Ridge and the City Council • the City • Wheat Ridge shall file the administrative record related to the Plaintiff s Application as described in the accompanying Complaint, together with a certificate of authenticity with the i Jhj u tv-djW4Wr - anuary 13, 2006. _ M t"f n jitheCOMDlaint 15#190MR-kojEf DATED: ,2005. 9189 \11353443.1 S December 20, 2005 Steve Dawes Light, Harrinlytons—'a3i 1512 Larimer Street W-enver, CO 80202 RE: Claim No: TBA Member: City of Wheat Ridge Date of Loss: November 14, 2005 Claimant: IBC Denver 11 LLC This letter will acknowledge your acceptance of the defense of The Town of Castle Rock. # .4 This is the first notice of this incident therefore; no claim file has been generated. Once you have had an opportunity to review the pertinent information, in conjunction with the Summons and Complaint, please provide you thoughts regarding the defense of this matter. Kindly be certain to include your projection of the defense cost, research cost and any other anticipated expenditure. Your comments regarding the potential liability of our member and the possible settlement value are requested. Please note that no action is to be taken until your written response has been submitted to this office. Please feel free to call and discuss any action, which must be taken prior to the preparation of your response. Please refrain from deviation from your plan of action without first consulting this office. CIRSA requires the following specific action on the part of your firm: 3665 Cherry Creek North Drive, Denver, Colorado 80209 (303) 757-5475 (800) 228-7136 Fax (303) 757-8950 wwwcirsa.org Kim Page 2 Steve Dawes December 20, 201 I Billings at intervals of $2,000 or three months, whichever occurs first. I you must deviate from this schedule, please advise this office in advancl -a W ' III; II - It# I 3. Copy the member contact and/or member attorney unless they request not to be copied. Pat Merrill will be working with you toward a successful resolution of this case. Z� James Adams Litigation Specialist cc: Patrick Goff City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29' Avenue Wheat Ridge, Co 80215-6713 Gerald E. Dahl Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister Renaud LLP 2401 15 Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 3665 Cherry Creek North Drive, Denver, Colorado 80209 (303) 757-547 (800) 228-7136 Fax (303) 757-8950 www.cirsa,org I Dec-9 -12:09pm From-Srowngtoin Hyatt & ... T-024 P,001/004 F-080 Brownstein I Hyatt I Farbel 410 Semnteenth Street Twenty-Sccond Rear I, Alt M TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL OUR OFFICE 303.223.1100. THANK YOU. Message: Please see attached order regarding the above-mentioned matter, Staftment of Confidentiality The information contained in this fax message is attorney privileged and confidential infornlistion, intended only for the use of the individual • enfity nomad above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of ttfis communication is strictly prohibited, If you have received this communfttion In error, please notify us immediately by telephone and raturn the 069inal message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Th3rk YOU, Z • #► � I I 11110�ri tmm��# im Defendants: THE CITY OF WIEAT RIDGE, a Colorado municipal corporation and CITY COUNCLL OF TRT.- CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE COURT USE ONLY qt# THIS MATTEB, having come before the Court on Plaintiff s Motion for Certcation, of the Record and the Couit being fully advised in the premises, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dec-272005 !. t 1 P103/004 • 9189M k953443.1 DOC-27-?n05 1,:09pm From - Brownstein Hyatt & T-024 P-004/004 F-089 court: • Jefferson County District Court 15t JD judge: Berryhill, Jack W pile & Serve reviewed Transaction ID: 7650765 current date: 12/23/2005 case number: 2005cv4203 Case name: iBc Denver II, LLC VS The city of wheat Ridge Plaintiff's counsel is ordered to mail copies of this document to all Other parties of record or their counsel within 48 hours of receipt and furnish to the Court a certificate of mailing within one week. /s/ judge hack w serryhill CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 7500 W. 29"' Avenue 235- A k93, r I Indicate the information you desire and/or list each requested document. Please be as specific as possible. Allow three (3) working days for a search of the record Per the State of Colorado open Records Act (C.R.S. 24-72203), if the request is substantially large, an extension of seven (7) working days is permitted. You Will benotified prior to the three (3) days of any extension and all estimated costs. R2-cument Fee: - $0.50 per page Research Fee: *$25.00 per hour calculated to the neamst V4 hour. DESCRIPTION OF RECORDS BEING REQUESTED: Attach additional page if more space is needed. Copies requested (Please check one): YES Z- NO Brownstein I Hyatt I Farber 'TY OF WHEtT RIII - "TY CLERK'S Oi'-F LTHAUX1904IMM am M�M As a follow-ug to my reguest • December 1, 2005, 1 au� writitip to Le• ugst .•• owi;i Ut 1-1-MA190-MI the Colorado Open Records Act, C.R.S. §§ 24-72-201 et.seq.: I . Any and all documents relied upon by the City Council of Wheat Ridge when it made decisions relating to the Proposal, including any internal notes and memoranda; and OEM 71776j Me InImung ati towTUM control. Furthermore, if it is not possible to provide copies, please notify me as to when I may review and copy the records. 101oxyl WINNIN - - - # ^ " Denver,Colorado T303.223.1100 F303.223,1111 Washington, D.C. T202.296.7353 F202.2963009 Albuquerque, New Mexico T505,244,0770 F505,244,9266 A,qmAm/VAiJ rWnrA,4^ T6 70QAR;;qM POW)WAOIZAA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WHEAT RIDGE CITY COUNCIL November 28, 2005 N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 APPEARANCES: Chairman: Mayor Jerry DiTullio Council Members: Karen Adams Karen Berry Dean Gokey Lena Rotola Wanda Sang Mike Stites Larry Schulz 19 s I 0 7 A REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. 4 COUNTY OF ADAMS 5 1, Geneva T. Hansen, do hereby certify that I am a Professional Shorthand 6 Reporter Notary Public within the State of Colorado. 7 1 further certify that the foregoing transcript constitutes a true and 8 correct transcript to the best of my ability to hear and understand the tape 9 recording. I further certify that I am not 10 related to, employed by, nor of counsel for any of the parties or attorneys herein, nor 11 otherwise interested in the result of the within action. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature and seal this 26th day 13 of January, 2006. 14 W W 24 25 Rmt U=aqVp- Motion by Mr, DiTullio for the approval of the Minutes of November 14, 2005; seconded by Mrs. Sang; carried 8-0. PROCLAMATIONS AND CEREIVIQN&�� Judge Randall administered the Oath Of Office to Mayor-Elect Jerry DiTullio and Councilmembers-Elect Terry Womble, Dean Gokey, Mike Stites, and Lena Rotola. D. R ESOLUTION 5 AUTHORIZI SUBMITT A PP LICATI O N FO a. • VENTU w w . JEFFE RSON S PA CE w C PAR w w O M w i a w O a w w a � � w a ��# � w • a • w w � � � w � • � w °�► w a �`„a � a ww� • : w a Consent Agenda was introduced and read by Mrs. Sang, # . • • # EMM iTflotion by Mrs, Sang for approval of the Consent Agenda Items IA-1 w M ! carried M Motion by Mr. Gokey to approve the findings and decisions regarding Case Nos. WZ- 05-07 and WS-05-02/113C Holdings; seconded by Mrs. Sang. City Attorney Gerald Dahl detailed the report of findings, 2 Ori motion carried 6-1-1 with Ms. Berry voting no and Mr. Womble abstaining. Emergency Ordinance 1354 was introduced by Mr. Schuh, and 'he read the executive summary. CITY COUNCIL MINUTEo: November 28, 2005 Page -3- Alan White, Director of Community Development, presented the staff report. Jeff Dean, 3424 West 40th Avenue, Denver, spoke on behalf of the developer, as an employee of IBC Holdings, He stated his Opposition to the emergency ordinance due to the market inefficiencies that it will cause. Motion by Mr. Schulz to direct staff to prepare a standard ordinance to include a narrower scope of the types of applications that would be subject to the temporary suspension and that the ordinance be brought to first reading at the first available date: seconded by Mrs. Rotola; carried 6-2, with Mrs. Sang and Mr, Gokey voting no, 0 1 • M Item 3. Election of Mayor pro tem and Council President, City Clerk Par Anderson collected the voted nomination ballots and announced the results, Mrs. Sang received the majority of the nominations for Mayor pro and Stites received the majority of the nominations for Council President: Motion by Mrs, Sang to ap , Mike Stite_�%wK*iwoww,#w_- y sum e4' #1 mar Roto « cztrried 8-0. , z r Motion by Mr. Stites to appoint Wanda Sang as Mayor pro tem; seconded by Mr, Schulz; carried 8-0. APPROVED By CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 12, 2005 BY VOTE OF Q , to Mike Stites, Council President 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 WA 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: Chairman: Mayor Pro Tem Larry Schulz Council Members: Karen Adams Karen Berry Jerry DiTullio Dean Gokey Lena Rotola Wanda Sang Mike Stites 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Travis Crane 6 Rick Gunter 22 Blaine Mott 41 Mike Camp 47 Shaun Baker 49 Bob Harmsen 53 John Cillessen 56 Ranya Kelly 58 Paul Rohrer 61 Gary Pettit 66 Joel Scott 68 Eric Weber 71 Steve Sealy 72 Ron Creach 74 John Geiger 75 Mary Cavarra 76 Mike Baran 78 M 9 0 I request on October 6, 2005 and recommended approval of each request with some 3 conditions. I m 0 m m w m W w m i m w HE m w w 1 your last name? 2 MR. RICK GUNTER: My name is 3 Rick Gunter, G-U-N-T-E-R. I live in 4 Littleton, Colorado. I work for Ware 5 Malcomb. We are the architect on this 6 project. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would 8 you raise your right hand, please? Do you 9 swear to tell the truth and only the truth 10 as you know it in this matter? 11 MR. RICK GUNTER: I do. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 13 Please remember to speak into the 14 microphones so we get a good record of the 15 presentation. 16 MR. RICK GUNTER: I'll try to 17 speak loud so I can reach the computer. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: okay. 19 MR. RICK GUNTER: I thought it 20 would be helpful just to quickly go through 21 the visuals on the project. so everybody has 22 a (inaudible). 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Are they working 24 up here now? 25 MR. RICK GUNTER: They are MR W m M 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 houses that have since been converted into some businesses. And then the gas station, remember again that the site actually in the very northwest corner is not our property. It's a gas station that's been developed quite some time ago. So we don't actually have access to that intersection. So up on the other side, these are also in Arvada. This is kind of a three dimensional view of what we're trying to do. And we thought this was helpful to look at the project in the context of its surroundings. So this is an aerial view looking from the southwest towards the northeast. The building in the foreground is kind of a close-up of what the entry would look like for each one of the buildings. on the overall aerial, you see that we've left the Ward Road frontage out of this picture because we don't know what's going in there. We'd love to have restaurants, m M 1 And what that does is that gives 2 a kind of a varied facade along where the 3 people use it, kind of more of a pedestrian 4 scale. So each entry, each business has an 5 identity. Each one has separate so your 6 not just -- it's not just one uninterrupted 7 facade. W U includes more special reviews and thats! M M m 33 1 taking an old warehouse that's currently 2 vacant and we're turning it into a full 3 blown, 30,000 s e-foot office building. tIS, 4 .And„ will talk later on 5 about that and what's involved in getting 6 those tenants on board, getting those 7 people excited about this development, and 8 coming into kind of doing an arts center, 9 office development in what currently is 10 vacant and not doing much of anything. 11 And what you see there on the 12 top of the plans, Building 4 on the left is 13 the one at the very top of the site. 14 That's up on 52nd. What that is, is that's 15 currently planned as some office and 16 warehouse with storage in the back, 17 It could easily be modified into 18 full office and parking in the back so that 19 we make sure it's available for future 20 uses. 21 If I'm going too slow, I can 22 move on if everybody wants to, but I just 23 want to be thorough. 24 This little exhibit here talks 25 about the Ward Road turn lane. There was a m w w m m m 1 m m m ♦ f m # • fS d m ON M 1 be offering the space for sale, especially 2 in light of our low interest rate 3 environment. 4 And we project that this project 5 will be very successful and will bring 6 high-quality jobs to that City of Wheat 7 Ridge. Thank you. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 9 MS. JONES: Shaun Baker. 10 R. SHAUN BAKER: I'm Shaun 11 Baker. I own the property at 5040 Ward 12 Road. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you spell 14 your last name, please? 15 MR. SHAUN BAKER: B-A-K-E-R. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 17 MR. SHAUN BAKER: I'm 18 immediately -- 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you raise 20 your right hand, please? Do you swear to 21 tell the truth and only the truth as you 22 know it in this matter? 23 MR. SHAUN BAKER: Yes, I do. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 25 MR. SHAUN BAKER: I own the w 61" m M 1 hands, but we'd like to see us not further 2 worsen an already bad problem with traffic. 61M m m m m m m M. 6 10�v lla has done some things in Arvada just 7 "recently and some of it's vacant. I really 8 think that everybody on the Council needs 9 to come out and take a look at what is 10 being rented and what is not. 11 And, hopefully, you'll be at the 12 meeting for Jefferson County. They have a 13 drainage meeting that is going to be on 14 December 8th at 2005 at 3:00 p.m., at 15 Jefferson County Admin building and it's 16 concerning the drainage issues on the other 17 side of Ward Road that are really serious. 18 Okay. Thank you. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 20 MS. JONE S: Pam Rohrer. 21 MR. PAUL ROHRER: My name is 22 Paul Rohrer. Pam is close. And my last 23 name spelling is R-O-H-R-E-R. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would 25 you raise your right hand, please? Do you M m m M r w w i • .• 1 name, please. m w r. m W- 1 this matter? m m m m Im W 1 Wheat Ridge, B-A-R-A-N. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Do 3 you swear to tell the truth and only the 4 truth as you know it in this matter? 5 MR. MIKE BARAN: I do. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 7 MR. MIKE BARAN: I'm really 8 excited about these guys. It sounds like 9 they have really, really good ideas and the 10 right kind of development we need in Wheat 11 Ridge. 12 But the Jolly Rancher property, 13 and I love Jollywood, by the way, it's just 14 such a key piece of property and like Mary 15 just said, we can't screw it up. 16 And the thing that I see that 17 seems to be a problem is there's not 18 another road that dissects it. There's no 19 plan for a road to dissect it. 20 When you drive around some of 21 these other developments where there is big 22 office buildings or big office complexes, 23 you go in one way and you kind of drive 24 around until you get lost, try to find your 25 place, nothing has an address. They all m NO 1 we don't want to be stuck again and we're 2 stuck in lots of places in Wheat Ridge 3 because of some bad decisions that we've %W NX NO s NIN :, M . 1 operation. 2 I'm sorry. I can't say 3 precisely the counts, but we do have the 4 traffic report. 5 Now, I do want to comment on one 6 decel lane. Our traffic study did not 7 suggest that that decel lane was 8 necessary. And I feel pretty strongly that 9 that decel lane on Ward Road just south of 10 50th there is probably a mistake. 11 We've agreed to it, but what I 12 would much rather do, to be honest with 13 you, is take that capital, take that 14 investment, put into some sort of 15 assessment district or fund and then let 16 those that really understand these issues, 17 of which I'm not one, do the right thing 18 with it. 19 It may be a signal. It may be a 20 decel. It may be something, but my 21 instincts tell me that a decel lane in that 22 location is maybe not the wisest use of 23 that money. And I'm happy to let the 24 experts make those determinations. 25 We've sort of agreed to do it. M 1 I'd rather do it differently if I had my 2 druthers. :• m W 1 MR. WHITE: You wouldn't add 2 those necessarily to the 3200. The 3200 is 3 for the entire site. If some of it went 4 residential -- 5 MS. BERRY: You would have to 6 subtract that part of it? 7 MR. WHITE: Subtract some of 8 those. 9 MS. BERRY: Okay. 10 MR. WHITE: But your general 11 observation is correct. 12 MS. BERRY: I noticed in the 13 Planning Commission comments and through 14 that, that Staff strongly recommended an 15 internal connector, but I don't see that as 16 a condition of approval. 17 For the ODP here, can you maybe 18 talk a little bit more about why that isn't 19 there if you changed your mind about that 20 or 21 MR. WHITE: We didn't change our 22 mind. It would necessitate the applicants, 23 basically, reengineering phase 1 of the 24 project. 25 It is set up with those drive m w I prototypical McDonald's, for example. # y WWI m W 1 office warehouse? 2 MR. WHITE: I think that J� z :. 3 A vision is still unfolding through the 4 sub -area plan process, but in a 5 transit- oriented development those would be 6 the kinds of uses that you'd be looking at. 7 MR. DITULLIO: Thanks 8 THE CHAIRMAN Questions? " ti ry . ' ,hUNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER': It' not 10 really a question. I have observation and 11 comment. I frequent that area there 12 because I go to Kaiser Permanente and I 13 know how I try to maneuver around to go to 14 a street that has Lights so that I can get 15 across Ward Road because of the traffic. 16 My concern is that, it seems to 17 me that with the traffic on Ward Road, 18 people who have this facility as a 19 destination may try to use alternative ways 20 out, such as Ridge Road, 52nd, and 50th. 21 And these streets are already 22 overburdened with traffic due to new 23 development in the area. I wonder if 24 you'll then have people utilizing this 25 facility to shy away because of the traffic M 1 concern and eventually then you'd end up 2 with empty buildings. .. m ow om • ;, m w w •: • om 112 1� ow om om 1 So with that, I think the fair thing to do is, perhaps, as Mrs. Berry says 3 to continue further develop the traffic 4 issue. 5 I think the connector that's 6 been mentioned north /south would be a 7 terrific improvement if that can be done 8 and can be seen as something workable for 9 the owner's plan. 10 Mr. Gokey? 11 MR. GOKEYs I'm going to 12 supporting this motion just due to a lack 13 of a better motion. I, too, share some of 14 the sentiments of Karen Berry, but I think 15 my concerns go much deeper. 16 I've done a little bit of 17 research into neighborhood building and 18 when I look at a project, I look at it in 19 probably* a different light than most people 0 would. 21 But I have to tell you, would I 22 use this as a destination to go walk to, 23 to go and visit the businesses there? 24 Perhaps I might go up and take a 25 look at one of the studios. I might do RM I that. But it wouldn't be easy to get there 2 because there wouldn't be enough 3 infrastructure for me to get there. 4 It wouldn't be a type of 5 development that I think is going to be 6 taking place in the next five to ten years 7 in that area. 8 1 think it's a shame that 9 developers put this much effort, this much 10 work to go through. I've been where you 11 are at. I've been there. It's not a 12 comfortable deal for me. . . ........ . I've been a 13 developer. 14 1 just have to look at a 15 community that's asking me to affect change 16 in this community that will be a long-term 17 plan and effective for building stronger 18 neighborhoods. 19 While this is a good project, I 20 don't believe it meets the criteria for 21 that specific area. So I won't be 22 supporting it. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any 24 other comments, any other discussion? Are 25 we ready to vote? 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.2.. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MS. JONES: Motion carried 6 to with Mr. Schulz and Ms. Berry voting no. Mr. Chairman? Can I ask you, in light of your motion, take two additional motions? One, just to clear our agenda to take a motion, and I• assume it will pass if it's the same vote count to table indefinitely the Final Development Plan and subdivision plat application and then I'll have another motion after that. THE CHAIRMAN: So moved. Second? MS. ROTOLA: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: Vote. MS. JONES: Motion carried 6 -2 with Mr. Schulz and Ms. Berry voting no. MR. Ld..0 : And if I might ask if you'd take a motion to direct me to prepare a findings and memorializing your decision. THE CHAIRMAN: so moved. MR. DITULLIO: Everything goes back to the Council on its meeting for the 28th. 122 1 THE CHAIRMAN: So moved. 2 M. SANG: Second. 3 MS. JONES: Motion carried 7-1 4 with Ms. Berry voting no. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 6 (The portion of the hearing, as 7 requested, is concluded.) 8 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 123 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 21 22 23 24 25 Deputy City Clerk, Christa Jones, read a public announcement prepared by City Clerk, Pam Anderson, into the record. The announcement explained why the Swearing in of the new Mayor-elect and Councilmember-elect would take place on November'28, 2005. There will be a reception and photo opportunities, Janelle Shaver, representing the A Ridge R rts Council of Wheat ide, announced a 2005 Wheat Christmas lighting and decoration contest, it will be sponsored by the Arts Council, They will provide further information, UITY COUNCIL MINUTES: November 14, 2005 Louise Turner asked that the City continue publishing Ordinances etc. in the Wheat Ridge Transcript. F- Consent Agenda was introduced and read • Mr. DiTullio, Motion • Mr. DiTullio for approval • the Consent Agenda; • seconded • by ed Mrs. Sang; carri 8-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: November 14, 2005 Page -3- M John Cillessen, owns the property at 12200 West 52 nd Avenue, He addressed the situation with the Fire House across the Street, the truck comes out at least 4 times a day. He thinks their development looks nice. He will hold further comments on the moratorium ordinance. She thinks Council should come out and look at what office warehouse space is bv� rented and what is not. She hoped they would attend a drainage meeting in Jeffers County on December 8, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. at the Jefferson County Admin Building. concerning drainage issues on the other side of Ward Road that are really serious. roject ancl wants to be part of Studio 10 in what refer • as "Jollywood". His company would benefit all existing businesses without bringing a lot of traffic to the area, Gary Pettit spoke in favor of the project and stated he is excited about being part o Studio 10 part of the development, He feels they are developing a model for the offi building of the future. Joel Scoff spoke in favor of the project. They are interested in moving their compat to this location. When Jolly Rancher was fully operational, they had 400 people employed, Eric Weber, photographer, one • the companies who wants to move to - Studio 10. is excited about the project and feels it could be a great success and a benefit to the City of Wheat Ridge, Steve Sealy and his wife own a video production company called Denver Digital. specialize in working with non-profits and foundations. They are looking forward to moving out to Wheat Ridge and to Studio 10., They want to foster a family oriented • to work, Ron Creach addressed traffic problems, He owns a business at 5040 Ward Road, south • the Jolly Rancher area. Traffic is horrid at rush hour. Mike Baran is very excited about this development. He has a problem that • other road is going through the property and no plan for a road. We need this kind of developer in Wheat Ridge. We need to plan for the future, M_Otion by Mr. DiTullio to DENY Case No. WZ-05-07, a request for approval of a Fi Development Plan for property located at 5060 Ward Road for the following reason The rezoning ordinance has been tabled indefinitely and the Outline Development I has been denied; seconded by Mrs. Rotola; carried 6-2 with Mr. Schulz and Ms. Be voting no. Motion by Mr. DiTullio to DENY Case No. WS-05-02, a request for approval of a seventeen lot subdivision plat for property located at 5060 Ward Road; seconded by Mrs. Rotola; carried 6-2 with Mr, Schulz and Ms. Berry voting no, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: November 14, 2005 Page -6- IT-iotion by Mr. DiTullio to instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings memorializing Councils' decision and to bring those back to the November 28, 2005 Council Meeting; seconded by Mrs. Sang; carried 7-1 with Ms. Berry voting no. Emergency Ordinance was introduced Mr. DiTulli'll Bob Harmsen has a problem with this moratorium, but could go along with it for • days, He suggested that a group of various agencies get together and get something accomplished. John Cillessen is against this moratorium, It ties the hands of the landowners in the area. Ranya Kelly is concerned that the moratorium was handed to one of the Councilmembers at such a late date. Shouldn't people in the community know about this? Shaun Baker is also concerned and feels the neighbors should be informed if the moratorium is extended beyond 90 days, Motion by Mr. DiTullio to continue Emergency Ordinance 1354 to the November 28, 2005 City Council Meeting, seconded by Mr. Gokey; carried 8-0. • Ing Resolution 53 was introduced by Mrs. Adams, Randy Young gave brief update on Cabela's. There will be an Open House on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 from 4:00 — 8*00 p.m. at the Wheat Ridge Recreation Center. - 1 it W EiRnINSAIROMMIDiI *_ two • Jerry DiTullio gave update on Housing Authority project on 45' & Everett, He invited Council to go by and take a look at it, He also stated that the Christmas lighting contest would be addressed in the City�newsletter. J I meeTing on,secemiDer 5, 2005 It will be held at the Richards-Hart Estate and will be a combination holiday celebration and there will be talks about the Wadsworth sub area plans, Dean GokeX as F" 0 -,11i I * • , * , • ". 0 - 1 - W" A i lis '0� • PLOINN NOW A VOTE • 8 to 0. The preceding Minutes were prepared according to §47 of Robert's Rules of Order, i.e they contain a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members, Tape recordings and video recordings • the meetings are available for listening or viewing in the City Clerk's Office, as well as copies of Ordinances and Resolutions.