The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutANX-88-02CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO March 27, 1989 The City Council Meeting was called to order by the Mayor at 7 30 p m Councilmembers present Kent Davis, Tony Fiasco, Doris Ibbison, Larry Merkl, Moe Keller, Nancy Snow, Randy West, and Claudia Worth Also present City Clerk, Wanda Sang, City Administrator, Mike Smith, Acting City Attorney, Paul Godec, Public Works Director, Bob Goebel, Director of Planning & Development, Glen Gidley, Chief of Police, Jack Hurst, staff, and interested citizens APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 13, 1989 Motion by Mrs Ibbison for the approval of the Minutes of March 13, 1989 as corrected, seconded by Mr West, carried 6 -0 with Mrs Snow and Mr Merkl abstaining PROCLAMATIONS AND CEREMONIES Mayor Wilde administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed Boards and Commission Members Arthur Abell Civil Service Commission and Carol Luebke Election Commission Mayor Wilde stated that Bob Howard and Tom Abbott had been sworn in earlier in the week for the Board of Adjustment CITIZENS' RIGHTS TO SPEAK Phyllis Lancaster 4076 Everett, asked that a few trash cans be placed in the Greenbelt PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 1. P Public Hearing on Annexation Petition - Midwest Builders at West 32nd and Zinnia B Resolution 1130 - finding certain property eligible for annexation C Council Bill 368 - An Ordinance annexing certain property Council Bill 371 - An Ordinance providing for the approval of rezoning from Jefferson County Planned Unit Development (P U D ) to Residential- One -A, with conditions, on land located at 12930 W 32nd Avenue, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado (Case No WZ- 88 -18) (Midwest Builders, .Inc ) O Application by Midwest Builders, Inc for approval of a seven -lot preliminary and final ,subdivision plat for property located at 12930 W 32nd Avenue (Case No WS -88 -1) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1989 Glen Gidley presented the cases Applicant, Rex Haag, declined to speak 1. B. Resolution 1130 Ed Wilson 3125 annexation Pam Brumbaugh would maintain they widen 32nd Norm Ross 3145 annexation Page -2- was introduced by Mr Flasco, title read by the Clerk Zinnia, was sworn in by the Mayor, and spoke against the 3165 Zinnia, was sworn in by the Mayor and asked who the ditch, that runs through the property, in the event Avenue Zinnia, was sworn in by the Mayor and spoke against the Motion by Mr Flasco for the adoption of Resolution 1130, seconded by Mr Merkl, carried 7 -1 with Mr Davis voting No 1. C. Council Bill 368 was introduced on second reading by Mrs Ibbison, title read by the Clerk Lee Gillan 5126 W 38th Avenue, Denver, speaking for Midwest Builders, was sworn in by the Mayor and answered Council's questions Ed Wilson 3125 Zinnia, stated that the applicant, by his own admission, would come back in the future to ask for rezoning to Commercial Applicant is telling half - truths If property is rezoned to R -1 -A, .leave it that way for a long time Applicant is ruining a nice little neighborhood, houses there sell well Kevin Nichols representing County Commissioners, 1700 Arapahoe Road, was sworn in by the Mayor and read a letter from the County Commissioners into the record and passed out a Resolution from the Commissioners expressing no objection to the proposed annexation He answered Council's questions Diane Sweat Board member of Applewood Property Owners Association, 14725 W 30th Place, Golden, was sworn in by the Mayor and spoke regarding the poor timing of the traffic lights, another light will make it worse Why would the owner want to annex to Wheat Ridge and why would Wheat Ridge want it? From a financial standpoint, City would lose money by annexing a residential island Feeling is, that a commercial zoning will be sought as soon as all this dies down Connie Mauldin 3195 Zinnia Street, was sworn in by the Mayor and spoke regarding "traffic impact ", she counted an average of 11 cars each light backed up, this is with nothing on that property Nobody believes this rezoning is going to remain R -1 -A Pam Brumbaug 3165 Zinnia Street, lives directly across the street from the property, does not believe it will remain residential zoning, that is why people are opposing the annexation Norm Ross 3145 Zinnia, stated they would just like to remain unincorporated Jefferson County, feels the requests for rezoning will just go on and on, submitted pictures showing traffic problems Motion by Mrs Ibbison for the approval of Ordinance No 784 and make it effective 45 days after publication, seconded by Mr Merkl Mr West will vote No, because residential property will be of no value to the City of Wheat Ridge and will cost the citizens money in street repairs and police protection CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1989 Page -3- Mrs Snow will vote No, she sees no value to the City of Wheat Ridge, nor does she see any value to the neighbors who live near this property, she thinks it is valid to comment on future commercial development, since the applicant himself gave that as one of the good reasons to approve this, the applicant has not made much of a case, this is not Aurora, we don't need every piece of land between here and Golden Mr Gillan gave rebuttal Motion Failed 3 -5 with Councilmembers Flasco, Ibbison, and Merkl voting yes Glen Gilley stated that the City of Wheat Ridge had no jurisdiction to carry on with D and E Item 2. Council Bill 2 - An Ordinance approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, and the City of Lakewood, Colorado, relating to the design and construction of West 32nd Avenue Mr Goebel presented the case Mayor Wilde read a letter from the president of Jeffco citizens United into the record, objecting to this project Council Bill 2 was introduced on second reading by Mr Flasco, title read by the Clerk, Ordinance No 784 assigned Motion by Mr Flasco for the adoption of Ordinance 784, seconded by Mr Davis, carried 7 -1 with Mrs Worth voting No ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING Item Council Bill 5 - An Ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 2 -2 Fiscal Year, of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge by authorizing the adoption of a budget containing specific appropriations, and further providing that no expenditure shall be made in excess of said appropriations Council Bill 5 was introduced by Mr Merkl on first reading, title read by Clerk Motion by Mr Merkl that Council Bill 5 be approved on first reading, ordered published, public hearing be set for Monday, April 10, 1989 at 7 30 p m in City Council Chambers, Municipal Bldg , and if approved on second reading, take effect 1 day after final publication, seconded by Mr Flasco, carried 8 -0 Item 4. Council Bill 6 - An Ordinance providing for the approval of rezoning from Residential -One and Agricultural -One to Residential -One on land located at 11115 West 38th Avenue, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado (Case No WZ -89 -2) (Gerald Biehl) Council Bill 6 was introduced by Mr Davis on first reading, title read by Clerk Motion by Mr Davis that Council Bill 6 be approved on first reading, ordered published, public hearing be set for Monday, April 24, 1989 at 7 30 p m in City Council rhambers, Municipal Bldg , and if approved on second reading, take effect 15 days after final publication, seconded by Mr Merkl, carried 8 -0 1 i� RESOLUTION NO. 1130 Series of 1989 TITLE: A RESOLUTION FINDING CERTAIN PROPERTY ELIGIBLE FOR',. N IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, that: 1. Having held a public hearing concerning the Petition for Annexation attached hereto as Exhibit A and receiving evidence and testimony from all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council finds: a. The requirements of the applicable parts of sections 31 -12- 104 and -105 of the Ccicrado Revised Statutes have been satisfied, b. An election is not required under section 31 -12- 107(2) of the Colorado Revised Statutes, and C. No additional terms and conditions need be imposed upon the proposed annexation. 2. Therefore, the City Council finds that the area that is the subject of the Petition for Annexation is eligible for annexation, said land being legally described as follows: A portion of land located in the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, township 3 south, range 69 west of the 6th P.M., County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, described as follows: Commencing at the center of said section 29; thence S 89 W, along the north line of the southwest 1/4 of said section 29, 1322.49 feet; thence S 00 E along the east line of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of said section 29, 60.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence S 89 W parallel to the north line of the southwest 1/4 of said section 29, 687.46 feet; thence S 00 E along the west side of Zinnia Street, 541.98 feet; thence on a curve to the left with a chord bearing of S 85 E, a chord length of 74.76 feet, a radius of 463.83 feet, a length of 74.84, and a delta of 9 along the south side of west 31st Avenue; thence N 89 E along the south side of West 31st Avenue, 152.27 feet; thence N 07 E along the east side of west 30th Drive, 50.56 feet thence N 89 E, 453.06 feet; thence N 00 W along the east line of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of said section 29, 497.95 feet to the point of beginning, containing 8.1187 acres more or less. DONE AND RESOLVED this 27th day of March 1 198,9. ATTEST: DAN WILDE, MAYOR SANG, RESOLUTION NO. Series of 1989 TITLE: A RESOLUTION FINDING CERTAIN PROPERTY ELIGIBLE FOR ANNEXATION IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, that: 1. Having held a public hearing concerning the Petition for Annexation attached hereto as Exhibit A and receiving evidence and testimony from all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council finds: a. The requirements of the applicable parts of sections 31 -12- 104 and -105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes have been satisfied, b. An election is not required under section 31 -12- 107(2) of the Colorado Revised Statutes, and C. No additional terms and conditions need be imposed upon the proposed annexation. 2. Therefore, the City Council finds that the area that is the subject of the Petition for Annexation is eligible for annexation, said land being legally described as follows: A portion of land located in the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, township 3 south, range 69 west of the 6th P.M., County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, described as follows: Commencing at the center of said section 29; thence S 89 W, along the north line of the southwest 1/4 of said section 29, 1322.49 feet; thence S 00 E along the east line of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of said section 29, 60.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence S 89 W parallel to the north line of the southwest 1/4 of said section 29, 687.46 feet; thence S 00 E along the west side of Zinnia Street, 541.98 feet; thence on a curve to the left with a chord bearing of S 85 E, a chord length of 74.76 feet, a radius of 463.83 feet, a length of 74.84, and a delta of 9 along the south side of west 31st Avenue; thence N 89 E along the south side of West 31st Avenue, 152.27 feet; thence N 07 E along the east side of west 30th Drive, 50.56 feet thence N 89 E, 453.06 feet; thence N 00 W along the east line of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of said section 29, 497.95 feet to the point of beginning, containing 8.1187 acres more or less. DONE AND RESOLVED this day of 1989. ATTEST: WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK DAN WILDE, MAYOR 0 MEMORANDUM TOE: City Cou il F ROM: Glen Wey , Director of Planning & Development RE: Annexation Petition - Midwest.Builders at West 32nd and Zinnia DATE: January 3, 1989 MOW There are several specific actions before you relating to this annexation request. ACTION #1: After having held a public hearing on the Annexation Petition, adopt attached Resolution No. jj�o as printed adopt after modification, or deny the resolution. ACTION #2: -If Council adopts Resolution No. �k3O, then Council Bill No. 366, the ordinance which approves the annexation, should be adopted. ACTION #3: If the annexation ordinance is approved, then proceed to public hearing of Case WZ -88 -1 (Council Bill No. alL. which is a rezoning request. A separate staff report accompanies this packet with details of this related request. ACTION #4: If the rezoning ordinance is approved, then proceed to public hearing of Case WS -88- / which is -a subdivision request. GEG: slw pc /memoMidwestBldr C E R T I F I C A T I O N STATE OF COLORDO ) ) SS: COUNTY OF JEFFERSON) I, MARY ANN PECHMAN- FRITZ, DEPUTY CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO, CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NUMBER CC89 -17 ADOPTED BY SAID BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, HELD AT A REGULAR MEETING ON JANUARY 3RD, 1989. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL AT GOLDEN, COLORADO THIS 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 1989. SEAL EP TY CLERK TO THE BOARD Commissioner Clement moved that the following Resolution be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. CC89 -17 RE: Annexation - City of Wheat Ridge - Petition by Rex Haag - 32nd Avenue and Youngfield WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners and the County Attorney of Jefferson County received on December 9, 1988 a copy of the Notice of Proposed Annexation, together with Resolution No. 1121, Series of 1988 and a Petition for Annexation, which Petition is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A "; and WHEREAS, the above documents were found to be incomplete and inadequate for a careful review of the proposed annexation; and WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Planning Department requested and received further documents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department has reviewed the documents submitted by the City of Wheat Ridge and reported thereon to the Board of County Commissioners which report is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B "; and WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge recognizing the existing traffic and access problems on West 32nd Avenue and in the surrounding area has previously requested the County's cooperation and participation in improvements to West 32nd Avenue and has requested the County in the past to deny or modify rezoning applications which would increase traffic problems in the area; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning upon annexation would cause significant traffic hazards and is not compatible with surrounding low density residential uses in that it would allow commercial uses which generate high traffic volumes and further exacerbate existing poor access and traffic conditions on West 32nd Avenue; and WHEREAS, increased traffic congestion on West 32nd Avenue will negatively impact residents of nearby unincorporated Jefferson County. Page 2 CC89 -17 NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Board of County Commissioners objects to the annexation which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" for the following reasons: 1. Notice to the Board of County Commissioners and the County Attorney is inadequate because the above - mentioned documents do not contain a legal description or an address for the area proposed to be annexed, as required by section 31- 12- 107(1)(d), C.R.S. 2. The Petition fails to identify the landowner of the area proposed to be annexed, as required by Section 31- 12- 107(1)(a), C.R.S. 3. The Petition fails to contain an affidavit affirming that the signature on the Petition is that of the person it purports to be, as required by Section 31- 12- 107(1)(c), C.R.S. 4. A map attached to the above - mentioned documents is inadequate in that it does not contain a legal description of the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed nor the boundary of the annexing municipality and any other contiguous municipalities, as required by Section 31- 12- 107(1)(d), C.R.S. 5. Resolution 1121, Series of 1988, found the Petition to be in substantial compliance on November 14, 1988, but the Petition was signed December 1, 1988 contrary to Section 31 -12- 108(1), C.R.S. 6. The City has not adopted a plan for the three mile unincorporated area contiguous to_.the boundaries of Wheat Ridge as required by Section 31- 12- 105(1)(e), C.R.S. 7. The Petition was not published as filed in that publication omitted paragraph eight of the Petition, and omitted a legal description of the area to be annexed as required by Section 31 -12- 108(2), C.R.S. 8. The proposed zoning upon annexation would allow commercial uses which are inconsistent with the Jefferson County General Land Use Plan, not compatible with surrounding low density residential uses and which would cause significant traffic hazards by generating high traffic volumes, and thereby compounding access problems and traffic congestion on West 32nd Avenue and negatively impacting residents of nearby unincorporated Jefferson County. 9. The Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on November 3, 1988 recommended denial of the commercial phase of the rezoning. The City should not approve the proposed commercial zoning which generates significant traffic impacts on West 32nd Avenue when the City has specifically requested the County to deny or modify rezoing requests in the vicinity due to the increased traffic such rezonings would generate. 10. Since the Petition for annexation requests the annexation be contingent upon receiving the rezoning requested by the Petitioner and such rezoning is not in the best interest Page 3 CC89 -17 of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Jefferson County, the City should deny the annexation and terminate the annexation proceedings. Commissioner Stone seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Commissioner Marjorie E. Clement - "Aye "; Commissioner Rich Ferdinandsen - "Absent "; Commissioner John P. Stone, Chairman - "Aye ": The Resolution was adopted by majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. DATED: January 3, 1989 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION C= �c! -4(i31 i A THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE OWNERS OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND PURSUANT TO C.R.S. S31 -12 -107 Cl), DO HEREBY PETITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, TO ANNEX THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A. WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AND EXPRESSLY INCORPORATED HEREIN, INTO THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE AFTER COMPLIANCE WITH ALL NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE, AND AS GROUNDS THEREFOR STATE AS FOLLOWS: 1. IT IS BOTH DESIRABLE ANI> NECESSARY THAT SUCH AREA AS OWNED BY THE UNDERSIGNED ANI> DESCRIBED IN AGGREGATE AND BY INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP IN EXHIBIT A BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE. 2. THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED MEETS ALL APPLICABLE STATUTORY PREREQUISITES INCLUDING: (a) NOT LESS THAN ONE -SIXTH OF THE PERIMETER OF THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXEI> IS CONTIGUOUS WITH THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE; (b) A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST EXISTS BETWEEN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED AND THE CITY; AND (C) NONE OF THE SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN C.R.S SS31 12 -104 AND -105 ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTIES SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A. 3. THE SIGNERS OF THIS PETITION FOR ANNEXATION COMPRISE THE LANDOWNERS OF ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF�THE TERRITORY INCLUDED IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED, EXCLUSIVE OF STREETS AND ALLEYS. 4. THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY WAIVE ANY VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS THEY MAY HAVE UNDER STATE LAW WITHIN THE AREA TO BE ANNEXED. IF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION IS APPROVED, THIS PETITION FOR ANNEXATION MAY BE RECORDED BY THE CITY IN THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF JEFFERSON COUNTY AS EVIDENCE OF THIS WAIVER. S. NO SIGNATURE ON THIS PETITION IS VALID IF IT IS DATED MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THIS PETITION WITH THE CITY CLERK. S. NO PERSONS SIGNING THIS PETITION SHALL BE PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW HIS OR HER SIGNATURE AFTER THE PETITION HAS BEEN FILEI> WITH THE CITY CLERK. 7. THE UNDERSIGNEI> HAVE COMPLIED WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF C.R.S. S31 -12 -107 (1) IN PREPARATION, EXECUTION AND SUBMISSION OF THIS PETITION FOR ANNEXATION. Exhibit "A" I U WHEREFORE, THE UNDERSIGNED REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE TO: (a) APPROVE THE ANNEXATION OF THE AREA PROPOSED TO RE ANNEXED AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A; (b) ACCEPT THE WITHIN PETITION FOR ANNEXATION; ta) SET, PROVIDE FOR NOTICE AND PUBLICATION OF, AND THEREAFTER HOLD ALL REQUIRED PUBLIC. HEARINGS RELATING TO THIS REQUESTED ANNEXATION; AND (d) DO ALL ACTS REQUIRED BY STATUTE AND LAW TO ANNEX THE PROPERTIES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A INTO THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE. S. PETITIONER INTEND TO SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR REZONING AND SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL UPON THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE ANNEXED HEREBY. PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ANY ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION REQUESTED HEREBY BE AFTER THE DATE OF DECISION RELATING TO SAID REZONING AND SUBDIVISION APPLICATION. PETITIONER FURTHER RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT, IN THE EVENT SAID APPLICATION FOR REZONING AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL BE ACTED UPON IN A WAY OR MANNER NOT ACCEPTABLE TO PETITIONER, THAT PETITIONER BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW THIS PETITION FOR ANNEXATION, AND THAT ANY ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION BE THEREAFTER REPEALED. X - lwNER DATE — '` -Rex Haag, President --------------------------- TYPED NAME 11658 W 40th Cir -------- - - - - -- ADDRESS Wheatridge, CO 80033 ------------------------ - - - - -- SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 198 _. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: � NOTARY PUBLIC ------ - - - - -- II] t ilk! t' � L %C u r•n v ri • o OR U U W Z -88- 1 8 t! , FIST 4 V o r 0 3 ANNEXATION AREA REZONE /SUBDIVISION AREA i / W IQ I / I r 0 i z o � TO: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joe Crain DATE: January 1, 1989 SUBJECT: City of Wheat Ridge annexation and Zoning of a Parcel of Land 8.118 Acres, Located South of West 32nd Avenue Just West of Youngfield and Immediately Adjacent to the East of Zinnia Street County staff has reviewed the above referenced proposed annexation by Midwest Builders, Inc. and subsequent rezoning to commercial and residential uses. The County's General Land Use Plan for the area recommends low density residential for the area in recognition of the existing traffic problems on West 32nd Avenue. The County rezoned this very property in 1985 for an elderly housing project. County staff supported this project due to its low traffic impacts (estimated at 400 trips /day) and a high percentage of open space. In mid -1988, the owners of this property met with staff to discuss the potential of commercial zoning on the C7est 32nd Avenue frontage. The owners were told that staff could not support the concept of commercial uses on the West 32nd Avenue frontage. Apparently the owners then went to the City of Wheat Ridge to pursue annexation and rezoning of this parcel to a mixed use, containing a commercial strip along West 32nd Avenue. In reviewing the applicant's annexation and rezoning.package, County staff finds that the platting for the church site and five residential lots meets the General Land Use Plan's recommendations of suburban residential uses for this site. The proposed Commercial -one zoning on the West 32nd Avenue frontage is inconsistent with the County's Land Use Plan and is incompatible with surrounding low density residential uses. If the commercial zoning is allowed on West 32nd Avenue, the uses permitted would allow a number of high traffic generators which would greatly complicate the already poor access and traffic conditions on West 32nd Avenue. To staffs' knowledge, no traffic impact study has been submitted to address these concerns. In staff's opinion, addressing traffic impact is absolutely essential in order to determine commercial land use compatibility. EXHIBIT "B" ' Memo to the Board of County Commissioners Page 2 January 1, 1989 Apparently the applicant has now outlined a specific use for the property (i.e., Burger King) and if the rezoning is approved, it will be conditioned on compliance with a specific site plan. Using Burger King's own traffic projections, there could be 1,000 trips per day or twice what the presently zoned elderly housing project would generate. Traffic impact could be even higher if zoning approval is not tied to a specific site plan. County staff appeared at a November 3, 1988 Wheat Ridge Planning Commission meeting and presented the above analysis. The Wheat Ridge Planning Commission recommended denial of the commercial phase of the request - noting that residential land uses were more proper. Summary 1. The staff finds that the proposed commercial zoning for the annexation is inconsistent with land uses defined in the General Land Use Plan. 2. That if the commercial frontage along West 32nd Avenue is allowed, traffic impacts at least two times greater than current zoning could result greatly complicating the already poor access and traffic conditions on West 32nd Avenue. Recommendations 1. That the Board of County Commissioners consider opposing the proposed annexation due to the proposed commercial zoning along the West 32nd Avenue frontage which will further complicate already poor access and traffic conditions on West 32n4 Avenue. osetrh T. Crain upervisor, Community Planning JTC /ljv W r I I f W 51 A W SIC ALE° m ` ti N H O1 r Y F . W m Pl.' ° 50th n W J ? H AVE v W 50th AV m W W Y th PL 0 m H m I 49th 4" AVE a W I 4 rM I MOUNT OLWET 39 s W AVE r LL I CEMETERY S 9 I C I I ro Abt y � f- �,w" G 58 J ,M W I G1V s a e• 44th , F� 58 r ¢ O .R W VE 70 � 1 W O_ 1 a F 1 ROLLING HILLS I I APPLEWOOD GOLF s I 341h WE I 33rd IN- r _ COURSE I¢ W 33rd A —^ 1. m k./ -W : 1 H la 181 N GARDENIA W i SST RD 6 c F ¢ m BRAN RD a _ ROR —rte W 281 PL .. I i JEFFERSON COUNTY MAPPING DEPARTMENT CHECK SHEET I Et °�, 1988 COLORADO REVISED_ STATUTE CO_M- PLIANCEi PROPOSED_ ANN_EXAi' NS MUNICIPALITY:_],/�� - - - -- SECTION(S)__ .z2____ TOWNSHIP____I --- SOUTH RANGEWEST Any explanation of non-compliance for the following section(s) of the Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.) concerning annexations will be found on the back of this check sheet. I. Eligibility for annexation - C.R.S. 31 -12 -104 (1)(a) The proposed area to be annexed is contiguous to the existing municipal boundary. rc�tfo ! IiYs41 s,"t +;;,," 2.07 �4Sy,1.2 Gect tend 2. Limitations - C.R.S. 31 -12 -105 (1)(e) and (1)(4) le. The proposed area to be annexed gV_01_ extend the municipal boundary more than three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary. If. The proposed area to be annexed does/�!_1e1 contain .the full width of a platted or deeded street or alley. 3. Annexation of enclaves - C.R.S. 31 -12 -106 The proposed area to be annexed /will not create an enclave. 4. Annexation Impact Report r - Requirements (C.R.S. 31 -12 -108.5 (1) (a) (I) and (1) (e) 1 laI. A map or maps dojgjMWWV show the present and proposed boundaries of the municipality in the vicinity of the proposed annexation. le. To the best of our knowledge, the following special districts are within the area to be annexed: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. e. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. rvs 9/4/98 (over) I ,' .7EFFC0 MAPPING DEPARTMENT_CARTOGRAPHY UNIT RECOMENDATIQI4`:SpEET- _ PROPOSED ANNEXATION MUNICIPALITY:_WHEAr R+c��_____ C SECTIONS) zq TOWNSHIP __ 3 _ _SOUTH RANEE_ {,__ ___WEST + 4 SURVEYOR ALAN IZ_, C_� _ hN OF - - -__ CARTOGRAPHY JOB NO.:___ S)_ DATE RECEIVED:___J?1�g DATE DUE:___1 DATE COMPLETED: __- JzlzJ/g________ The following check list is meant as a recommendation for the city to consider before recording the ordinance and annexation plat with Jefferson County. Any explanation of items that appear to be incorrect will be written in the comments area. This list contains items that are required by Colorado State Statute and /or Jefferson County Land Development Regulations when an application for platting is reviewed by the Jefferson County Mapping Department. 1. Parcel closed 1:15000__✓ Did not close 1:15000_____ CORRECT_ INCORRECT 2. Written legal description(s) ✓_ _ 3. Land surveyor monumentation __ _ 4. Scale drawing of survey ✓ 5. Basis of bearing _ ✓__ _ -_'_ 6. Right(s) of way and Easement(s) _ ✓ 7. Boundary dimension establishment __ _ _ 8. Surveyor responsibility statement ✓ 9. Scale or Representative fraction._ _ _ —_ __ ✓_ 10. Bar -type or Graphical scale ✓ __ 11. North arrow 12. Title description ✓__ 13. Surrounding parcel description(s) _ __ 14. Monumentation records Existing zoning: P-Der.n_ AND A -- COMMENTS Nete : _e=- ZO O�iNG is THC EAST €RLr oOR 1O a'� THE PARGLL [..t ZQ R.O. w _ rv __t a v reo- Yyo_ rn.t-e.r �_aSe ASP- � rvs 8/4 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Joe Crain, Supervisor - Community Planning FROM: Charles Strum, Highways and Transportatioi DATE: December 28, 1988 RE: Corner Stone Annexation and Rezoning This Department has two major concerns with the above referenced proposal, site access and trip generation_ These two concerns are tied together since access must be improved to serve high traffic developments. Due to the location and existing street frontages for this property, good access is difficult to achieve. We concur with Len Mogno's finding that with the proposed zoning this site could generate upwards of 2,500 trips per day (up to 4,500 trips possible with high turnover sit down restaurant). Since West 32nd Avenue is designated as a minor arterial on the County Major Thoroughfare Plan, we are less concerned with the effect of these trips on 32nd Avenue as a whole than with their effects at the site access. Due to the close proximity of the existing traffic signal for the 32nd Avenue /1 -70 ramps, we strongly discourage any direct site access to 32nd Avenue. West 32nd Avenue is- already backed up past this site at peak hours so even access restricted to right turns only (as proposed) would produce undesirable weaving movements_ It follows then that most of the site generated traffic will use the 32nd Avenue /Zinnia Street intersection to access this site. While on the surface this would seem acceptable, it would mean forcing over 2,000 additional commercial trips onto a residential- street and would require the installation of a traffic signal at the 32nd Avenue /Zinnia Street intersection. This signal would be the third signal in a distance of only 600 ft. (desired minimum signal spacing is about 600 ft_). In 1985 this property was submitted to the County for platting as the Corner Stone Subdivision, an elderly housing project generating approximately 400 trips per day. Comments received from the Colorado Department of Highways for that proposal (attached) indicate that "all access MUST be confined to Zinnia Street ONLY ", and that the developer should be responsible for widening 32nd Avenue for speed change lanes and left turn lanes. This annexation and rezoning proposal should be forwarded to Colorado Department of Highways for review and comment. We feel a traffic impact study addressing these issues should be submitted for review since development will Impact portions of streets within unincorporated Jefferson County. Should you have any questions, please calf me at 278 -5714. CS:sdt attachment CC: Jerry O'Neall File (3) .,DEPARTMENT Of HIGHWAYS District 6 2000 South Holly Street Denver, Colorado 80222 (303) 757 -9011 June 17, 1985 Kevin Nichols Jefferson County Planning 1700 Arapahoe Street Golden, Colorado 80419 Re: Corner Stone Subdivision at 12930 West 32nd Avenue Dear Kevin: T1�E(I rkF�Ti�IiF>�r'-1 lull 13 19 5 JEFFERSON COUNrr�! - L.ANNINr R 7 . ^,cp-T We have reviewed this proposal and offer the following: All access MUST be confined to Zinia Street ONLY. Roadway widening of West 32nd Avenue should be required for speed change lanes, left turn lanes and may include curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm sewer system and Highway signing and striping. If you should have any questions, please call Neil McLeod at "-.- .,,795i . 7S7- 9a'eY6 Very truly yours, RICHARD J. BRASHER District Engineer_ ORVILLE A. RHOADES !`� Maintenance Superintendent OAR /NM /eh cc: Brasher /Bovee G. Prentiss File (S.H. 70)R RF MEMORANDUM TO: John Hayes, City Attorney FROM: Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development RE: Cornerstone Annexation, 32nd and Zinnia St. DATE: January 6, 1989 Regarding the date and nature of all contacts with Jefferson County relative to the Cornerstone Annexation, the following list is provided: 1. Sept. 30, 1988: Wheat Ridge Department of Planning and Development mailed referral letters and notice of rezoning and subdivision and a copy of the proposed subdivision plat to the Jefferson County Planning Department. 2. October 13, 1988: General notice was published in the Wheat Ridge Sentinel of the Planning Commission hearing for the rezoning and subdivision case. 3. October 28 1988: Kevin Nichols, Jefferson County Planning, met with Meredith Reckert to discuss the proposed annexation, zoning and subdivision request. Kevin provided Meredith with a copy of the Senior Housing Plan for the property. 4. November 3 1988: A letter was received by the Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department, written by the Jefferson County Planning Director to the Wheat Ridge Planning commission which addressed the rezoning and subdivision. 5. November 3. 1988: Wheat Ridge Planning Commission held a public hearing on Case WZ -88 -18 (rezone) and WS -88 -1 (subdivision), at which Kevin Nichols, representing Jefferson County Planning Dept., attended and spoke on record. 6. December 1 8 15 and 22• A legal notice was published in the Wheat Ridge Sentinel advertising the fact that a petition for annexation had been filed and a hearing had been set for January 9, 1989. A copy of the annexation plat was printed along with the notice. 7. December 6. 1988: Copies of the Public Notice, petition and general map was sent by Certified Mail to the Jefferson County Attorney (Pat Mahan) and Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder. 8. December 23 1988: Glen Gidley hand delivered a copy of the annexation plat to the Jefferson County Planning Department at their request. 9. December 28 1988: A letter from Charles Strum, Jefferson County Transportation Department, was sent to Joe Crain, Jefferson County Planning, with a copy also sent to Wheat Ridge Planning. 10. December 30 1988: Kevin Nichols, Jefferson County Planning, met with Glen Gidley at Mr. Gidley's office, and was given a copy of a development plan for Burger King, for the Commercial site. At this time there was substantial discussion regarding the plan, zoning, subdivision and annexation. 11. January 4, 1989: Wheat Ridge Planning Department received a packet of materials under the Certificate of the Deputy Clerk to the Board of Commissioners regarding annexation and rezoning. GEG:slw pc /memoHayesl /9 January 9, 1989 Patrick R. Mahan Jefferson County Attorney 1700 Arapahoe Street Golden, CO 80419 Dear Pat: The City of Wheat Ridge is now in receipt of Resolution No. CC89 -17 regarding the proposed Annexation by the City of Wheat Ridge of certain properties located at 32nd Avenue and Youngfield, which Resolution bears a date of January 3, 1989. It is, I believe, unfortunate that that Resolution was received by the City on the day materials are required to be placed in the City Council packet for distribution, and without any prior discussion. In particular, I strongly disagree with several of the conclusions of a legal nature stated in the Resolution, which I will specify below. However, you should be advised that I have determined that jurisdiction does not exist to consider this matter on January 9, 1989, because, as is correctly pointed out in paragraph 7 of the Findings, the paragraph denominated 8 in the Petition was not included in the published Notice. Therefore, in order to rectify that inadvertent omission and to allow us to clarify the other areas of disagreement, I have advised the City Council that the Annexation, and the related rezoning, must be withdrawn from the Wheat Ridge City Council's January 9, 1989 agenda. The earliest the matter can now be heard is February 13, 1989. With specific regard to the numbered paragraphs of the Board's Resolution, I offer the following comments: 1. The provisions of Colo. Rev. Stat. 31- 12- 107(1)(d) relate to what must be provided to the annexing municipality, not what must be provided to the County. In addition, at the time these documents were shared with you, a drawing identifying the property to be considered, and the neighborhood in which that property is situate, was provided to you. It is obvious that this drawing was sufficient to allow the County Staff to identify the property, review the Application, and make its recommendations. While we HAYES & PHILLIPS, P.C. Attorneys at Law Suite 450, The Market Center A 1350 Seventeenth Street' Colorado 80202 -1517 - Denver, (303) 825 -6444 .� Telecopier: (303) 825 -1269 - John E. Hayes Of Counsel: Harvey W. Curtis Herbert C. Phillips Star L. Waring James S. Maloney Paul Godec January 9, 1989 Patrick R. Mahan Jefferson County Attorney 1700 Arapahoe Street Golden, CO 80419 Dear Pat: The City of Wheat Ridge is now in receipt of Resolution No. CC89 -17 regarding the proposed Annexation by the City of Wheat Ridge of certain properties located at 32nd Avenue and Youngfield, which Resolution bears a date of January 3, 1989. It is, I believe, unfortunate that that Resolution was received by the City on the day materials are required to be placed in the City Council packet for distribution, and without any prior discussion. In particular, I strongly disagree with several of the conclusions of a legal nature stated in the Resolution, which I will specify below. However, you should be advised that I have determined that jurisdiction does not exist to consider this matter on January 9, 1989, because, as is correctly pointed out in paragraph 7 of the Findings, the paragraph denominated 8 in the Petition was not included in the published Notice. Therefore, in order to rectify that inadvertent omission and to allow us to clarify the other areas of disagreement, I have advised the City Council that the Annexation, and the related rezoning, must be withdrawn from the Wheat Ridge City Council's January 9, 1989 agenda. The earliest the matter can now be heard is February 13, 1989. With specific regard to the numbered paragraphs of the Board's Resolution, I offer the following comments: 1. The provisions of Colo. Rev. Stat. 31- 12- 107(1)(d) relate to what must be provided to the annexing municipality, not what must be provided to the County. In addition, at the time these documents were shared with you, a drawing identifying the property to be considered, and the neighborhood in which that property is situate, was provided to you. It is obvious that this drawing was sufficient to allow the County Staff to identify the property, review the Application, and make its recommendations. While we HAYES & PHILLIPS, P.C. Attorneys at Law Patrick R. Mahan January 9, 1989 Page Two have no quarrel with the County reviewing the Application and making recommendations, we do have a quarrel, offered in the interest of cordial and cooperative intergovernmental relations, with the interposition of hypertechnical objections, especially in view of the facts that the Petition received is in substantial compliance with applicable statutory requirements and the Notice which you received was sufficient to allow the County to undertake the review it deemed appropriate. In addition, it has been brought to my attention by Glen Gidley, the Director of Planning and Development of the City, that a development plat, which did contain a legal description of the property in question, was delivered to the County's offices well prior to the date the Commissioners considered Resolution CC89 -17. 2. The allegation that the Petition fails to identify the landowner, as required in Colo. Rev. Stat. 31- 12- 107(1)(a) is incorrect. The Petition which was signed on September 29, 1988, identifies "Midwest Builders, Inc.," as the owner of the property. 3. We dispute the assertion regarding the absence of an affidavit of the circulator. Such a requirement is meaningless when the person whose notarized signature appears on the Petition is the owner of one hundred percent (100 %) of the property seeking to be annexed, as in this case. 4. While we acknowledge that the drawing initially submitted with the Petition to you and the County Commissioners did not contain all of the requisites specified in Colo. Rev. Stat. 31-12 - 107(d), the plat of the "Corner Stone Annexation" which was submitted to the County prior to consideration of the Resolution by the Commissioners did in fact, and does in fact, comply with all statutory requisites. In addition, please see my comments specified under the first paragraph above. 5. The comments regarding the content of Resolution 1121 Series of 1988, need to be clarified. An original Petition, containing the Petitioner's desired paragraph 8, was submitted to the City Council and was considered on November 14, 1988. At that time, the originally proposed paragraph 8 was not accepted, and the Resolution was adopted subject to the Petitioner's acceptance of a new paragraph 8. This was accomplished by an amended Petition which bears a date of December 1, 1988. The language appearing in the December 1, 1988 Petition is that which was approved by the City Council and accepted by the Petitions on November 14, 1988. Therefore your conclusion stated in paragraph 5 is rejected. HAYES & PHILLIPS, P.C. Attorneys at Law Patrick R. Mahan January 9, 1989 Page Three 6. The City does have in place a plan such as that referred to in paragraph 6. Such a plan is for the benefit of the City and property seeking annexation, however, and the sharing of such a plan with the Commissioners is not, in my view, a legal prerequisite. 7. We agree with your concerns in paragraph 7, and will rectify these concerns before the matter is finally considered. 8. We believe your concerns in paragraph 8 concern the related, but separate issue of zoning and are not appropriate for consideration in connection with the annexation. These comments should be directed specifically to the applied for rezoning. 9. See discussion under paragraph 8 above. 10. The annexation is specifically not contingent upon approval of a rezoning. It was originally requested by the Petitioner that the annexation be made contingent upon a particular rezoning action, but the undersigned advised the City Council that the same could be construed to be contract zoning, and accordingly the Petition has become subject to the opportunity for the applicant to ask the City Council to repeal its annexation ordinance in the event zoning is not obtained which is satisfactory to the applicant. This, in my view, is considerably different than making the annexation contingent upon a particular rezoning action. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and may I please ask, in the spirit of cordial and positive intergovernmental relations, that if, in the future, your office finds matters which are properly to be discussed with this office, you pick up the phone and call me before submitting documents in writing to the City for public distribution. I pledge you the same consideration and professional courtesy in return. V rs, y es� � 'n^ JEH /kas xc: City Council PETITION FOR ANNEXATION THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE OWNERS OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND PURSUANT TO C.R.S. S31 -12 -107 (1), DO HEREBY PETITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, TO ANNEX THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AND EXPRESSLY INCORPORATED HEREIN, INTO THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE AFTER COMPLIANCE WITH ALL NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE, AND AS GROUNDS THEREFOR STATE AS FOLLOWS: 1. IT IS BOTH DESIRABLE AND NECESSARY THAT SUCH AREA AS OWNED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AND DESCRIBED IN AGGREGATE AND BY INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP IN EXHIBIT A BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE. 2. THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED MEETS ALL APPLICABLE STATUTORY PREREQUISITES INCLUDING: (a) NOT LESS THAN ONE -SIXTH OF THE PERIMETER OF THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED IS CONTIGUOUS WITH THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE; (b) A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST EXISTS BETWEEN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED AND THE CITY; AND (C) NONE OF THE SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN C.R.S SS31- 12 -104 AND -105 ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTIES SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A. 3. THE SIGNERS OF THIS PETITION FOR ANNEXATION COMPRISE THE LANDOWNERS OF ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TERRITORY INCLUDED IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED, EXCLUSIVE OF STREETS AND ALLEYS. 4. THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY WAIVE ANY VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS THEY MAY HAVE UNDER STATE LAW WITHIN THE AREA TO BE ANNEXED. IF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION IS APPROVED, THIS PETITION FOR ANNEXATION MAY BE RECORDED BY THE CITY IN THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF JEFFERSON COUNTY AS EVIDENCE OF THIS WAIVER. 5. NO SIGNATURE ON THIS PETITION IS VALID IF IT IS DATED MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THIS PETITION WITH THE CITY CLERK. E. NO PERSONS SIGNING THIS PETITION SHALL BE PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW HIS OR HER SIGNATURE AFTER THE PETITION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK. 7. THE UNDERSIGNED HAVE COMPLIED WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF C.R.S. S31 -12 -187 (1) IN PREPARATION, EXECUTION AND SUBMISSION OF THIS PETITION FOR ANNEXATION. WHEREFORE, THE UNDERSIGNED REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE TO: (a) APPROVE THE ANNEXATION OF THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A; (b) ACCEPT THE WITHIN PETITION FOR ANNEXATION; (C) SET, PROVIDE FOR NOTICE AND PUBLICATION OF, AND THEREAFTER HOLD ALL REQUIREI> PUBLIC: HEARINGS RELATING TO THIS REQUESTED ANNEXATION; AND (d) DO ALL ACTS REQUIRED BY STATUTE AND LAW TO ANNEX THE PROPERTIES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A INTO THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE. 8. SHOULD THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION PLAT ASSOCIATED WITH THE OWNERS LAND WITHIN THIS ANNEXATION BE DENIED BY THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, AT THE PETITIONERS OPTION, THEANNEXATIO4BECOMES NUL AND VOID. OW ER DATE Midwest Builders, Inc By Rex Haag, President 9 -29 -88 ----------------------------------- TYPED NAME 11658 W 40th Cir ----------------------------------- ADDRESS Wheatridge, CO 80033 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS _ �_ DAY OF 5�� z ✓�� 198Y _. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: i cc ---- - - - - -- NOTARY PUBLIC NOTARY ........... m F' WEST 1/4 CORNER ISEC. 29, T3S, , R69W FOUND WHEAT RIDGE BRASS CAP SET BY RLS 13212 IN RANGE BOX S 89*43130"W S 89*43*30" inn lies :q 50' R. WEST 32nd AVENUE W 4 2644.97 1322.48 EXISTING SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE /6a7.A6 / 0 x Lo 0 • 0 z N890 I OWNS R$- MIDWEST BUILDERS, INC - v A (101,0RADO CORPORATION REX HAAGo PRF�;11)FNT FIIN'I(-F HAAG, SECRETARY FOUND 1/2" SQ, PIN ACCEPTANCE t ACCEPTED BY THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE THIS, r)AY OF ATTEST., NOTES i I . BEARINGS FOR THIS ANNEXATION PLAT AREIRASED CIN THE NCIRT14 LINE OF DATE A L A N 1). liv 1 L 1, A N P. L. S. 25368 OD rwr *0 0 • 0 0 Z w It JEFFERSON COUNTY Cm LERK AND RECORDER W LAi 0 BY DEPUTY CLFRK cr cr F- w U. z w z o Go LL. 0 F- 0 W uj >- F- Z 0 I tl ]VIJI df[) Z UJ 0 cr. z w X 11 Vv r F- LLJ 0 z w Ll L"J' NOTES i I . BEARINGS FOR THIS ANNEXATION PLAT AREIRASED CIN THE NCIRT14 LINE OF DATE A L A N 1). liv 1 L 1, A N P. L. S. 25368 OD rwr *0 0 • 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: City Colancil FROM: Gle idley, Director of Planning & Development RE: Haag Annexation Petition DATE: November 9, 1988 As you are aware, Mr. Rex Haag (dba Midwest Builders) has petitioned for annexation of a parcel of land located at the southwest corner of I -70 and West 32nd Avenue. A copy of that annexation petition is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A . I would bring to your attention that statement number 8 on page 2 is a condition of annexation relating to ZONING AND SUBDIVISION. John Hayes, City Attorney, has suggested alternative language for statement number 8, as set forth in his memo to me attached hereto as EXHIBIT B . There are two decisions (actions) before you: DECISION 1: Council needs to adopt one of the two following resolutions: (1) Resolution #1 ( Exhibit C ) which TAKES NO ACTION ON THE PETITION; or (2) Resolution #2 (Exhibit D) which sets a public hearing date on-the petition. DECISION 2: If Council adopts Resolution #2, then the attached Council Bill (Exhibit E) shall be passed on first reading. Staff would suggest that the public hearing date be DECEMBER 12, 1988. GEG:slw �Xk1 �T PETITION FOR ANNEXATION THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE OWNERS OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND PURSUANT TO C.R.S. S31 -12 -107 (1), DO HEREBY PETITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, TO ANNEX THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AND EXPRESSLY INCORPORATED HEREIN, INTO THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE AFTER COMPLIANCE WITH ALL NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE, AND AS GROUNDS THEREFOR STATE AS FOLLOWS: 1. IT IS BOTH DESIRABLE AND NECESSARY THAT SUCH AREA AS OWNED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AND DESCRIBED IN AGGREGATE AND BY INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP IN EXHIBIT A BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE. 2. THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED MEETS ALL APPLICABLE STATUTORY PREREQUISITES INCLUDING: (a) NOT LESS THAN ONE -SIXTH OF THE PERIMETER OF THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED IS CONTIGUOUS WITH THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE; (b) A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST EXISTS BETWEEN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED AND THE CITY; AND (C) NONE OF THE SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN C.R.S SS31- 12 -104 AND -105 ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTIES SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A. 3. THE SIGNERS OF THIS PETITION FOR ANNEXATION COMPRISE THE LANDOWNERS OF ONE HUNDREI> PERCENT OF THE TERRITORY INCLUDED IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED, EXCLUSIVE OF STREETS AND ALLEYS. 4. THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY WAIVE ANY VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS THEY MAY HAVE UNDER STATE LAW WITHIN THE AREA TO BE ANNEXED. IF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION IS APPROVED, THIS PETITION FOR ANNEXATION MAY BE RECORDED BY THE CITY IN THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF JEFFERSON COUNTY AS EVIDENCE OF THIS WAIVER. 5. NO SIGNATURE ON THIS PETITION IS VALID IF IT IS DATED MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THIS PETITION WITH THE CITY CLERK. 6. NO PERSONS SIGNING THIS PETITION SHALL BE PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW HIS OR HER SIGNATURE AFTER THE PETITION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK. 7. THE UNDERSIGNED HAVE COMPLIED WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF C.R.S. S31 -12 -107 (1) IN PREPARATION, EXECUTION AND SUBMISSION OF THIS PETITION FOR ANNEXATION. WHEREFORE, THE UNDERSIGNED REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE TO: (a) APPROVE THE ANNEXATION OF THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A; (b) ACCEPT THE WITHIN PETITION FOR ANNEXATION; (c) SET, PROVIDE FOR NOTICE AND PUBLICATION OF, AND THEREAFTER HOLD ALL REQUIRED PUBLIC: HEARINGS RELATING TO THIS REQUESTED ANNEXATION; AND (d) DO ALL ACTS REQUIRED BY STATUTE AND LAW TO ANNEX THE PROPERTIES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A INTO THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE. R. SHOULD THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION PLAT ASSOCIATED WITH THE OWNERS LAND WITHIN THIS ANNEXATION BE DENIED BY THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, AT THE PETITIONERS OPTION, THE ANNEXATION, BECOMES NUL AND VOID. L LV f WD EER ( DATE Midwest Builders, Inc By Rex Haag, President 9 -29 -88 ----------------------------------- TYPED NAME 11658 W 40th Cir ----------------------------------- ADDRESS Wheatridge, CO 80033 ----------------------------------- SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 198 8 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: �� j - - - -� <✓ _ l "----- - - - - -- NOTARY PUBLIC i*10Aftr.S s OF CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE - MEMORANDUM To Glen Gidley From Suggested language to use on Subject Haag Annexation Petition Date John S. Hayes, City Attorney November 7, 1988 Approved Date I would prefer that paragraph 8 of the Annexation Petition filed by Mr. Haag on behalf of Mid -West Builders, Inc., read as follows (which would be in place of the language he had previously suggested): 8. Petitioner intend to submit a request for rezoning and subdivision plat approval upon the property sought to be annexed hereby. Petitioner respectfully request that the effective date of any ordinance approving the annexation requested hereby be after the date of decision relating to said Rezoning and Subdivision Application. Petitioner further respectfully requests that, in the event said Application for Rezoning and Subdivision approval be acted upon in a way or manner not acceptable to Petitioner, that Petitioner be allowed to withdraw this Petition for Annexation, and that any ordinance approving the annexation be thereafter repealed. We also need to put into the Resolution an acknowledgement of the provisions of Section 8, together with a statement that the City has made no guarantee with regard to zoning or subdivision and that we will allow him to withdraw the petitions prior to the effective date of the annexing ordinance. E.xml8rr L�' RESOLUTION NO. Series of 1988 TITLE: A RESOLUTION TO TAKE NO ACTION ON A PETITION FOR ANNEXATION. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, that: 1. The Petition for Annexation attached hereto as Exhibit 1 was filed with the City Clerk and referred to the City Council for action. 2. The Petition for Annexation is not in substantial compliance with C.R.S. 531-12-107(l). 3. The City Council is required by state law to take no further action on the Petition for Annexation. 1988. DONE AND RESOLVED this day of WILDE, MAYOR ATTEST: WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK \\ 0 x4 161 F b RESOLUTION NO. Series of 1988 TITLE: A RESOLUTION TO SET A HEARING ON A PETITION FOR ANNEXATION. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, that: 1. The Petition for Annexation attached hereto as Exhibit l was filed with the City Clerk and referred to the City Council for action. 2. The Petition for Annexation is in substantial compliance with C.R.S. 831-12-107(l). 3. No election for annexation has been held within the last twelve months for the same or substantially the same area. 4. A hearing shall be held at: date time �SKa to determine whether the proposed annexation complies with C.R.S.88 31 -12 -104 and -105. 5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to arrange for appropriate and timely notices to be published pursuant to C.R.S. 3 31 -12- 108(2). DONE AND RESOLVED this day of 1988. DAN WILDE, MAYOR ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk \ \1 � iA F-XN161 T' f INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER Ordinance No. Series of 1988 TITLE: A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING CERTAIN PROPERTY BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Annexation. The following described real property is hereby annexed into the City of Wheat Ridge, A portion of land located in the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, township 3 south, range 69 west of the 6th P.M., County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, described as follows: Commencing at the center of said section 29; thence S 89 W, along the north line of the southwest 1/4 of said section 29, 1322.49 feet; thence S 00 E along the east line of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of said section 29, 60.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence S 89 W parallel to the north line of the southwest 1/4 of said section 29, 687.46 feet; thence S 00 E along the west side of Zinnia Street, 541.98 feet; thence on a curve to the left with a chord bearing of S 85 E, a chord length of 74.76 feet, a radius of 463.83 feet, a length of 74.84, and a delta of 9 along the south side of west 31st Avenue; thence N 89 E along the south side of West 31st Avenue, 152.27 feet; thence N 07 E along the east side of west 30th Drive, 50.56 feet thence N 89 E, 453.06 feet; thence N 00 W along the east line of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of said section 29, 497.95 feet to the point of beginning, containing 8.1187 acres more or less. Section 2. Annexation Man A map in the form prescribed by C.R.S. §31- 12- 107(1)(d) is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence paragraph, or part of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Safety Clause The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Ordinance No. Page 2 Series 1988 Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective day(s) after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of , 1988, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for , 1988, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to this day of 1988. 1988. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of DAN WILDE, MAYOR ATTEST: WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM BY OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY JOHN E. HAYES, CITY ATTORNEY 1st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Sentinel: Effective Date: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE - MEMORANDUM 7o Glen Gidley From Suggested language to use on Subject Haag Annexation Petition Date John E. Hayes, City Attorney November 7, 1988 Approved Date I would prefer that paragraph 8 of the Annexation Petition filed by Mr. Haag on behalf of Mid -West Builders, Inc., read as follows (which would be in place of the language he had previously suggested): 8. Petitioner intend to submit a request for rezoning and subdivision plat approval upon the property sought to be annexed hereby. Petitioner respectfully request that the effective date of any ordinance approving the annexation requested hereby be after the date of decision relating to said Rezoning and Subdivision Application. Petitioner further respectfully requests that, in the event said Application for Rezoning and Subdivision approval be acted upon in a way or manner not acceptable to Petitioner, that Petitioner be allowed to withdraw this Petition for Annexation, and that any ordinance approving the annexation be thereafter repealed. We also need to put into the Resolution an acknowledgement of the provisions of Section 8, together with a statement that the City has made no guarantee with regard to zoning or subdivision and that we will allow him to withdraw the petitions prior to the effective date of the annexing ordinance. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSMITTAL LETTER PROJECT NO. DATE: TO From"Zh SUBJECT:_ I The item(s) listed below: V Attached ❑ Under Separate Cover IS/ARE Ia"`TRANSIVIITTED HEREWITH FOR YOUR: ❑ Approval E"' /Files - El Return Q_' Review/Comments ❑ Signature(s) ❑ Other IS/ARE ❑ RETURNED HEREWITH BY: ❑ Action ❑ Corrections Copy to 1. 2. 3. 4. C.6.1 ❑ Approved ❑ Approved as Noted ❑ Disapproved ❑ For Revision & Resubmittal ❑ Other ❑ Additional Comments Attached Return Date: Items Transmitted: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: CORNER STONE ANNEXATION A PORTION OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTER OF SAIL) SECTION 29; THENCE S 89 0 43'30" W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAIL> SECTION 29, 1322.49 FEET; THENCE S 00 E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 29, 60.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 89 W PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 29, 687.46 FEET; THENCE S 00 E ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF ZINNIA STREET, 541.98 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A CHORD BEARING OF S 85 E, A CHORD LENGTH OF 74.76 FEET, A RADIUS OF 463.83 FEET, A LENGTH OF 74.84, AND A DELTA OF 9 ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST 31ST AVENUE; THENCE N 89 E ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST 31ST AVENUE, 152.27 FEET; THENCE N 07 E ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF WEST 30TH DRIVE, 50.56 FEET THENCE N 89 E, 453.06 FEET; THENCE N 00 W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 29, 497.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 8.1187 ACRES MORE OR LESS. P.O. BOX 638 TELEPHONE: 303/237 -6944 The City Of 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE • WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80033 c Wheat September 8, 1988 GRidge Mr. Rex Haag, President Midwest Builders 3000 Youngfield Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: Proposed Annexation at West 32nd Avenue & Zinnia St. Dear Mr. Haag: As I discussed with you and Mr. several procedural steps involy you have proposed. Those steps 1. You, as owner, must submit along with an Affidavit of 1 & 2.) Gillan on August 30, there are =d with a voluntary annexation as are as follows: a Petition for Annexation Circulation. (Attached as Forms 2. You must have prepared a map of the area proposed for annexation which meets statutory requirements. At the time of petition submittal, 15 copies of this map must be submitted for review and referral. This map will be recorded with the Jefferson County Recorder so it must also meet their recording requirements. ( See copy attached.) 3. You must submit a copy of proof of ownership such as a Warranty Deed of Title Commitment. Once the above have been accomplished, the City will process as follows: 4. The City Clerk must ensure that: a. All signatures are dated 180 days or less before the date of filing; b. The annexation map has been submitted and the legal description is correct; and c. The Affidavit of Circulation is attached. 5. The City Clerk must then refer the Annexation Petition to City council at a regular meeting,, along with two Resolutions and a Council Bill: a. Resolution No. 1 compliance" with annexation. b. Resolution No. 2 compliance" with for annexation. finding the Petition to be "in State laws, and therefore ELIGIBLE for finding the Petition to be "not in State laws, and therefore NOT ELIGIBLE c. Council Bill on first reading for Annexation. (Copies of the two Resolutions and the Council Bill are attached for your information.) "The Carnation City" Mr. Rex Haag, President September 6, 1988 Page 2 6. If Council adopts the Resolution finding the property eligible for annexation, then they may pass an additional Resolution which sets a date for a hearing. They will also pass the Council Bill on first reading. 7. The City Clerk then must publish a notice once a week for four successive weeks, at least 30 days prior to City Council hearing. 8. The City Clerk must send copies of the Public Notice and Resolution to the County Clerk, County Attorney, R -1 School District and any special district having territory within your property. 9. At the City Council Public Hearing, anyone may be heard, and Council must adopt the Council Bill as an Ordinance annexing the property, or deny the Council Bill. Any special conditions or agreements must be introduced and adopted by Council at this hearing. A week prior to the hearing, I will need any agreements which you desire to be approved. 10. Rezoning and Subdivision. Rezoning and subdivision may be presented to the Planning Commission prior to Council taking final action on annexation, however, Council cannot consider such actions until after the effective date of the annexation ordinance. I have attached copies of forms and procedures for the rezoning and subdivision process for your information. Please review these materials and call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Glen E. Gidley Director of Planning & Development GEG:slw Enclosures