Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9960 W. 35th AvenuePERMIT: P�- ( ADDRESS: s �qo '9 -/, Ai4) INSPECTION RECORD JOB CODE: Inspection online : http://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/inspection Cancellations must be sub via the online form befoss insneatir Inspections will not be performed unless this card is posted on the project site Request an inspection before MIDNIGHT (11:59 PM) to receive an inspection the following business Foundation Inspections Date Inspector Initials Comments 102 Caissons / Piers 103 Footing / P.E. Letter 104 Foundation Setback Cert. 105 Stem Walls 106 Foundation wall Insulation Do Not Pour Concrete Prior To Approval Of The Above Inspections Underground / Slab Inspections Date Inspector Initials Comments 201 Electrical / Cable/ Conduit 202 Sewer Underground Int. 203 Sewer Underground Ext. 204 Plumbing Underground Int. 205 Plumbing Underground Ext. 206 Water Underground - Do Not Cover Underground or Below / In -Slab Work Prior To Approval Of The Above Inspections Rough Inspection Date Inspector Initials Comments 301 Rough Framing 302 Wall Sheathing 303 Roof Sheathing 304 Sheer Inspection 305 Insulation 306 Mid -Roof._ - 307 Metal / Lath / Stucco 308 Rough Electrical Residential 309 Rough Electrical Commercial 310 Electrical Meter Residential 311 Electrical Meter Commercial 312 Temp. Const. Meter 313 Rough Plumbing Residential 314 Rough Plumbing Commercial 315 Shower Pan SEE OVER FOR ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS Rough Inspection (continued) Date Inspector CommentsInitials 316 Rough Mechanical Residential 317 Rough Mechanical Commercial 318 Boiler / Furnace 319 Hot water tank 320 Drywall screw and Nail 321 Moisture board/ shower walls 322 Rough Grading 323 Miscellaneous /14 Final Inspections Date Inspector Initials Comments 402 Gas Meter Release 403 Final Electrical Residential 404 Final Electrical Commercial 405 Final Mechanical Residential 406 Final Mechanical Commercial 407 Final Plumbing Residential 408 Final Plumbing Commercial 409 Final Roof /14 410 Final Window/Door 411 Landscape/Park/Planning Inspections from these entities shall be requested one week in advance. For landscaping and parking inspections please call 303-235-2846 For ROW and drainage inspections please call 303-235-2861 For fire inspections please contact the Fire Protection District for your project. 412 Row/Drainage/Public Works 413 Flood plain Inspection 414 Fire Insp. / Fire Protection 415 Public Works Final 416 Storm Water Mgmt. 417 Zoning Final Inspection 418 Building Final Inspection Note: All items must be completed and approved by Planning, Public Works, Fire and Building before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Approval of the Final Building Inspection does not constitute authorization of occupancy. For Low Voltage permits please be sure that rough inspections are completed by the Fire District and Electrical low voltage by the Building Division. � �� L CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE - Building Inspection Division (303) 234-5933 Inspection line (303) 235-2855 Office • (303) 237-8929 Fax INSPECTION NOTICE Inspection Type: - Job Address: 0 Permit Number: �2a('iQ (:) 5 ❑ No one available for inspection: Time ' ` -(�_-M/PM Re -Inspection required: Yes ('No When corrections have been made, call for re -inspection at 303-234-5933 Date: /(°' %✓� Inspector: DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE } City of Wheat Ridge Residential Roofing PERMIT - 201708043 PERMIT NO: 201708043 ISSUED: 10/05/2017 JOB ADDRESS: 9960 W 35th AVE EXPIRES: 10/05/2018 JOB DESCRIPTION: Residential Re -roof to install GAF asphalt shingles - 21 sq Pitch = 5/12 *** CONTACTS *** OWNER (303)408-9762 KOCHAN BRET SUB (303)421-7663 Stephen W. Simpkin 120242 All Around Roofing & Exteriors *** PARCEL INFO *** ZONE CODE: UA / Unassigned USE: UA / Unassigned SUBDIVISION CODE: 2406 / BEL AIRE,HILLCREST HEIGHTS, ME BLOCK/LOT#: 0 / *** FEE SUMMARY *** ESTIMATED PROJECT VALUATION: 9,000.00 FEES Total Valuation 0.00 Use Tax 189.00 Permit Fee 188.45 ** TOTAL ** 377.45 *** COMMENTS *** *** CONDITIONS *** Midroof & Final Roof inspections for ROOFS 6/12 PITCH & OVER: 3rd party inspection will be required for both the midroof and final inspections. The 3rd party inspection report AND THE ORIGINAL PERMIT CARD needs to be dropped off to the Permit Desk at the City of Wheat Ridge. The report MUST BE SIGNED by the Homeowner. REGARDING ROOF VENTILATION: Roof ventilation shall comply with IBC Sec. 1203.2 or IRC Sec. R806. The installation of ridge venting requires the installation or existence of soffit venting. For calculation purposes, one hat or turtle vent equal to one-half of one square foot of opening. Effective December 1, 2014, asphalt shingle installations require an approved midroof inspection, conducted when 25-75 percent of the roof covering is installed, prior to final approval. Installation of roof sheathing (new or overlay) is required on the entire roof when spaced or board sheathing with ANY gap exceeding one half inch exists. Sheathing and mid -roofs may be called in at the same time, one hundred percent of the sheathing must be complete and 25-75 percent of the mid -roof may be complete. Asphalt shingles are required to be fastened to the roof deck with a minimum of 6 nails per shingle. Ice and water shield is required. Eave and rake metal is required. A ladder extending 3 feet above the roof eave and secured in place is required to be provided for all roof inspections. Roof ventilation is required to comply with applicable codes and/or manufacturer installation instructions, whichever is more stringent. In order to pass a final inspection of elastomeric or similar type roof coverings, a letter of inspection and approval from the manufacturer technical representative stating that "the application of the roof at (project address) has been applied in accordance with the installation instruction for (roof material brand name) roof covering" is required to be on site at the time of final inspection. City of Wheat Ridge Residential Roofing PERMIT - 201708043 PERMIT NO: 201708043 ISSUED: 10/05/2017 JOB ADDRESS: 9960 W 35th AVE EXPIRES: 10/05/2018 JOB DESCRIPTION: Residential Re -roof to install GAF asphalt shingles - 21 sq Pitch = 5/12 I, by my signature, do hereby attest that the work to be performed shall comply with all accompanying approved plans and specifications, applicable building codes, and all applicable municipal codes, policies and procedures, and that I am the legal owner or have been authorized by the legal owner of theproperty and am authorized to obtain this permit and perform the work described and approved in conjunction with this��ppermit. I further attest hat I am legally horized to include all entities named within this document as parties to the work to be perform and that all r to be perfo s disclosed in this document and/or its' accompanying approved plans and specifications. Signature OWNER or CONTRACTOR (Circle one) Date I . This permit was issued based on the information provided in the permit application and accompanying plans and specifications and is subject to the compliance with those documents, and all applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies and procedures. 2. This permit shall expire 365 days after the date of issuance regardless of activity. Requests for extension must be made in writing and received prior to the date of expiration. An extension of no more than 180 days made be granted at the discretion of the Chief Building Official and may be subject to a fee equal to one-half of the originalpermit fee. 3. If this permit expires, a new permit may be required to be obtained. Issuance of a new permit shall be subject to the standard requirements, fees androcedures for approval of any new permit. Re -issuance or extension of expired permits is at the sole discretion of the Chief Budding Official and is not guaranteed. 4. No work of any manner shall be performed that shall results in a changeof the natural flow of water without prior and specific approval. 5. The permit holder shall notify the Building and Inspection Services Division in accordance with established policy of all required inspections and shall not proceed or conceal work without written approval of such work from the Building and Inspection Services Division. 6. The issuance or granting of a permit shall not be construed to be a permit for or an approval of, any violation of any provision of any applicable code or any ordinance or regulation of this jurisdiction. Approval of work is subject to field inspection. A Signature of Chief ' mg Official Date REQUESTS MUST BE MADE BY 11:59PM ANY BUSINESS DAY FOR INSPECTION THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY. Dane Lovett Z07010 10 contractors only. This type of permit is ONLY being processed online --do not come From: no-reply@ci.wheatri dge.co.us Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 10:49 AM varies and is subject to change. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED WHEN YOUR To: CommDev Permits Subject: Online Form Submittal: Residential Roofing Permit Application your contractor's license or insurance has expired, and you may update those documents at the time you are issued your permit. C Follow Up Flag: Follow up j Flag Status: Completed Residential Roofing Permit Application c —� This application is exclusively for new permits for residential roofs and for licensed contractors only. This type of permit is ONLY being processed online --do not come to City Hall to submit an application in person. Permits are processed and issued in the order they are received and due to the volume of requests, time to process varies and is subject to change. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED WHEN YOUR 1 PERMIT IS READY FOR PICK-UP AND WILL BE GIVEN A SPECIFIC DATE AND TIME WINDOW TO COMPLETE THE TRANSACTION. You will be notified if your contractor's license or insurance has expired, and you may update those documents at the time you are issued your permit. For all other requests: Homeowners wishing to obtain a roofing permit must apply for the permit in person at City Hall. Revisions to existing permits (for example, to add redecking) must be completed in person at City Hall. All other non -roofing permits must be completed in person at City Hall. The Building Division will be open from 7:30-10:30 a.m., Monday through Friday to process these types of requests. THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PERMIT. DO NOT BEGIN REROOFING UNTIL PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED. Is this application for a Yes residential roof? How many dwelling units Single Family Home are on the property? PROPERTY INFORMATION Property Address 9960 W'35th .► Property Owner Name Bret Kochan Property Owner Phone 303-408-9762 Number (enter WITH dashes, eg 303-123-4567) S7T 33 Property Owner Email Address Do you have a signed contract to reroof this property? Applications cannot be submitted without an executed contract attached below. Attach Copy of Executed Contract Field not completed. Yes contract 9960 W 35th ave.pdf CONTRACTOR INFORMATION Contractor Business Name Contractor's License Number (This is a 5 or 6 digit number for the City of Wheat Ridge) Contractor Phone Number (enter WITH dashes, eg 303-123-4567) All Around Roofing and Exteriors 120242 303-421-7663 Contractor Address 5665 GRAY ST UNIT A (Primary address of your business) Contractor Email Address frontdesk@allaroundroofing.net Retype Contractor Email frontdesk@allaroundroofing.net Address DESCRIPTION OF WORK TOTAL SQUARES of the entire scope of work: Project Value (contract value or cost of ALL materials and labor) Are you re -decking the roof? Is the permit for a flat roof, pitched roof, or 21 9000 No Pitched roof (2:12 pitch or greater) 34 both? (check all that apply) What is the specific pitch of the PITCHED roof? How many squares are part of the PITCHED roof? Describe the roofing materials for the PITCHED roof: Type of material for the PITCHED roof: Provide any additional detail here on the description of work. (Is this for a house or garage? Etc) 5/12 21 GAF Timberline HD Laminated Shingles Asphalt house Roof Remove and Replace roofing material SIGNATURE OF UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT I assume full Yes responsibility for compliance with applicable City of Wheat Ridge codes and ordinances for work under any permit issued based on this application. I understand that this Yes application is NOT a permit. I understand I will be contacted by the City to pay for and pick up the permit for this property. I understand that work Yes may not begin on this property until a permit has been issued and posted on the property. I certify that I have been Yes authorized by the legal owner of the property to 35 submit this application and to perform the work described above. I attest that everything Yes stated in this application is true and correct and that falsifying information in this application is an act of fraud and may be punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both. Name of Applicant Stephen Simpkin Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 36 ALL AROUND 5665 Gray St. Unit A �COEEER ROOFING & EXTERIORS 303 -421 -R -R Arvada, OF (7OOF (7663) S www.allaroundroofing.com F:303-433-1017 ""=M Property Owner: �— �D /�/ Email* p b" a U/tc� r. U IrC E Z 1y ' IA Date: ! 9� �� r � �y�1- Phone 1 �) Z,Dy�,p�rl �t�� Phone 2: street I �� �V� r��� U�� city: w�Q�K`C_ State ' zip We propose to furnish all materials and labor completed in accordance with the specifications below for the sum of: insurance claims. With your approval, All Around Roofing & Exteriors (hereafter the "Company"), will perform the repairs or replacements specified by (A) you; or (B) by your insurance company for insurance approved proceeds only and with no additional costs to you except for your deductible and any up- grades or additional work authorized by you that are not part of your insurance claim. Supplemental claims billed by Company on behalf of the Property Owner (hereafter "Owner"), and are approved by your insurance company for additional work or increases in costs, in addition to this contract, are a part of this contract as If contained herein. i-yC% j Shingle Manufacturer.. 7r �% ` Year: " L Color: Initials ❑ Remove layers of asphalt shingles and/or wood shingles. ❑ Install New Felt Synthetic. yy�� ❑ Install pre -painted Drip Edge to code L3 White Ll Beige .�i Own ❑ Light Gray ❑ Charcoal Ll Forrest Green ❑ Initials LlInstall New Decking. GG`` ❑ ❑ (s) will be ❑Closed Open Ridge ❑ Ridge(s) to be color coordinated. idge(s) will be "High Profi" color coordinated shingles. ❑ Install new Pipe Jacks. ❑ Replace vents as needed. ❑ Re -flash chimneys and wall abutment as needed and if possible (stucco or siding may be a deterrent) ❑ Install linear feet of series ridge vent. ❑ Install linear feet of Ice & Water Shield to code. ❑ Install nails per shingle. ❑ Install Ice and Water Shield around all penetrations and in valleys ❑ Clean out gutters. ❑ 5 Year Warranty on Workmanship only. ❑ The Company will provide general liability insurance coverage of at least $2,000,000. ❑ Make a magnetic sweep of driveway and yard for removal of any nails & Remove all debris resulting from work above. Cl Insurance Company: ❑ Cash Estimate: Claim #; Policy #: THE SCOPE OF ROOFING SERVICES AND MATERIALS TO BE PROVIDED: Approximate Dates of Service: 6ta- (Subject to change with possible s o ,?Ag tr terials w other slays.) The approximate costs of services based on damages known at this time are entered as: $( d L_-gw P -7 - The Company, however, will perform the scope of the work approved by the insurance company for the amount of the insurance approved proceeds, with no addI lona[ costs to you other than you deductible. irie iihai scope and pffce agreed -on betweerr"h insurance company and Company shall become the final contract price for the insurance approved scope. You will be responsible to pay for any upgrades or any additional work authorized by you that the insurance company determines is not covered within the scope of coverage provided by your insurance policy. THE COMPANY SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ANY PAYMENT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER UNTIL THE COMPANY HAS DELIVERED ROOFING MATERIALS AT THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SITE OR HAS PERFORMED A MAJORITY OF THE ROOFING WORK ON THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. AMOUNT.- $ Date., Senior Project Manager Initials. I (We) also authorize any legal representative and or agent of The Company to obtain information necessary to complete any funding process relative to claim number and referred above. I (We) further authorize The Company to pick up in person any loss drafts or checks bo our) behVofCmparry. Date of Accep nce: _Owner's Signature(s): Representative: •-(� � � /( p 7/03 A ROOFING CONTRACTOR THAT PERFORMS ROOFING WORK, THE PAYMENT FOR WHICH WILL BE MADE FROM THE PROCEEDS OF A PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED PURSUANT TO PART 1 OF ARTICLE 4 OF TM.E 10, CRS., SHALL NOT ADVERTISE OR PROMISE TO RAY, WAIVE, OR REBATEALL OR PART OF ANY INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLE APPLICABLE TO THE CLAIM FOR PAYMENT FOR ROOFING WORK ON THE COVERED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. i CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE _:�9�Building Inspection Division (303) 234-5933 Inspection line (303) 235-2855 Office - (303) 237-8929 Fax INSPECTION NOTICE Inspection Type: M 10 rZp(),_ Job Address: Permit Number: 2-01'1 a b04_5 A.L OL,, ❑ No one available for inspection: Time %%33 AM' Re -Inspection required: Yes No When corrections have been made, call for re -inspection at 303-234-5933 U f Date: O J (moi Inspector: 1 DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE ` 1J I r CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Building Inspection Division (303) 234 -5933 Inspection line (303) 235 -2855 Office * (303) 237 -8929 Fax INSPECTION NOTICE Inspection Type a Vie= Job Address �9 w 15 Permit Number y<.?G F /' !Fd 'm,C�Q d'Y�•c? a�i` i:? Jgu �� er11�9'.Z?¢_ . s�rP h 'r t e�eal £i: F t ❑ No one available for inspection: Time CA /PM Re- Inspection required: Yes R When corrections have been made, call for re- inspection at 303- 234 -5933 Date: Z 1 21 11 0 Inspector: DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE City of Wheat Ridge Faxed Roof Permit PERMIT - 094136 PERMIT NO: 094136 ISSUED: 11/18/2009 JOB ADDRESS: 9960 W 35TH AVE EXPIRES: 12/31/2010 DESCRIPTION: Reroof 21.33 sqs of 30 yr shingles * ** CONTACTS * ** owner 720/297 -5508 Bret Kochan sub 719/492 -1396 Whitney Smith 08 -0243 Seaback Roofing ** PARCEL INFO ** ZONE CODE: UA SUBDIVISION: 0740 USE: UA BLOCK /LOT #: 0/ ** FEE SUMMARY ** ESTIMATED PROJECT VALUATION: 4,577.08 FEES Extend Expired Permi 72.35. Permit Fee 144.70 Total Valuation .00 Use Tax 82.39 ** TOTAL ** 299.44 Conditions: Both front and back of permit need to be posted on job site. If one or the other is not present, INSPECTION WILL NOT BE PERFORMED. 6 nail installation & mid -roof inspection required. Board sheathing spaced more than a 1/2 of an inch apart requires plywood overlay on entire roof. Ice and water shield required from eave edge to 2' inside exterior walls. ** *Contractor /Property owner shall provide ladder(s) secured in place for inpsections. Subject to field inspection. I hereby certify that the setback distances proposed by this permit application are accurate, and do not violate applicable ordinances, rules or regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge or covenants, easements or restrictions of record; that all measurements shown, and allegations made are accurate; that I have read and agree to abide by all conditions printed on this application and that I assume full responsibility for compliance with the Wheat Ridge Building Code (I.B.C) and all other applicable Wheat Ridge Ordinances, for work under this permit. Plans subject to field inspection. Signature of contractor /owner date 1. This permit was issued in accordance with the provisions set forth in your application and is subject to the laws of the State of Colorado and to the Zoning Regulations and Building Codes of Wheat Ridge, Colorado or any other applicable ordinances of the City. 2. This permit shall expire 180 days from the issue date. Requests for an extension must be received prior to expiration date. An extension may be granted at the discretion of the Building Official. 3. If this permit expires, a new permit may be acquired for a fee of one -half the amount normally required, provided no changes have been or will be made in the original plans and specifications and any suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one (1) year. If changes have been or if suspension or abandonment exceeds one (1) year, full fees shall be paid for a new permit. 4. No work of any manner shall be done that will change the natural flow of water causing a drainage problem. 5. Contractor shall notify the Building Inspector twenty -four (24) hours in advance for all inspections and shall receive written approval on inspection card before proceeding with successive phases of the job. o The issuance of a permit or the approval of drawings and specifications shall not be construed to be a permit for, nor an approval of y violation of the provisions of the building codes or any other ordinance, law, rule or regulation. All plan e w subject to field inspections. Signature Ch' Building Official date INS PEC ON REQUEST LINE: (303)234 -5933 BUILDING OFFICE: (303)235 -2855 REQUESTS MUST BE MADE BY 3PM ANY BUSINESS DAY FOR INSPECTION THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY. 010 1MON 01:16 PM___Seaback_Roofing S EAIBACK ROOFING AND RESTORATION FAX _No. 281 -345 2441 - -- P.001/001 Seaback Roofing and Restoration 13780 Cliffbush Ter. Colorado Springs, CO 80921 T ®1: (719) 492 -1396 Fax: (719) 481 -0444 Date - City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W. 29' Ave Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Attn: Melissa. Mackey Fax# 303 -234 -2857 To Whom It May Concern: It has been brought to our attention that we have an expired permit that basu't passed inspection_ Please re -o n per nit # and charge our emlit card on file in the amount of • S and fax the receipt back to 281- 345 -2441. Thank you, . Erin Escatnilla CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 09/26/10 12.17 PM cdbb Tracy L Frank RECEIPT NO:CDB005181 AMOUNT BPSP Reroof 21.33 sqs of 72.35 094136 Extend Expired Perri 72.35 PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT V5 0310 72.35 Auth Code: 575167 TOTAL 72.35 T m ♦ ♦ CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Building Inspection Division (303) 234-5933 Inspection line (303) 235-2855 Office • (303) 237-8929 Fax Inspection Type: Job Address: Permit Number: INSPECTION NOTICE 45, ~Z( , ❑ No one available for inspection: Time PM Re-Inspection required: No , 'eV When corrections have been made, call for re-inspection at 303-234-5933 Date:,; Inspector: t DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE ♦ i CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Building Inspection Division (303) 234-5933 Inspection line (303) 235-2855 Office • (303) 237-8929 Fax INSPpECTIO NOTICE Inspection Type: vy\t Address: On 60 t') 7~ 1' y ! , Permit Number: 0914 13(19 t' ❑ No one available for inspection: Time PM Re-Inspection required: Yes No *When corrections have been made, call fo,,re-Inspection at 303-234-5933 Date: jhL Inspector: DO NOT REMOVE THISOTICE INSPECTION RECORD OccupancvlTVpl INSPECTION LINE: (303) 234-5933 Inspections will not be made unless this card is posted on the building site Call by 3:00 PM to receive inspection the following business day. INSPECTOR MUST SIGN ALL SPACES PERTAINING TO THIS JOB FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS DATE INSPECTOR COMMENTS: INITIALS Footings/Caissons Stemwall / (CEG) Concrete Encased Ground Reinforcing or Monolithic Weatherproof/ French Drain Sewer Service Lines Water Service Lines YOUR NO CONCRETE UNTIL ABOVE HAS BEEN SIGNED CONCRETE SLAB FLOOR - Electrical (Underground) Plumbing (Underground). Floating (Underground) - DO NOT POUR FLOOR UNTIL ABOVE HAS BEEN SIGNED ROUGHS Sheathing Lath / Wall tie - Mid-Roof - Electrical Service Rough Electric Rough Plumbing Gas Piping Rough Mechanical CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ii/18%09 8.36 RM cd`ua ABOVE INSPECTIONS TO BE SIGNED PRIOR TO I Framing Tracy L Frank Insulation -T H0°CDfi003260 AMOUNT Drywall Screw HPSP Reroof 21.333 sqs of 227.09 094136 Permit Fee 144.70 FINALS Use Tax 82.39 b erocf 51. i4 sqs 0 Electrical - 094137 Permit Fee 253.90 Plumbing - Use Tax 197.90 Mechanical PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT Roof VS 0310 678.89 ituth Code: Building Final - 565442 Fire Depart ment _ T-THL____________________ 6`!8_89__ R.O.W & Drainage INSPECTIONS FOR PLANNING & ZONING, FIRE AND PUBLICE WORKS Parking & Landscaping SHOULD BE CALLED AT LEAST ONE WEEK PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTIONS. "NOTE: ALL ITEMS MUST BE COMPLETED AND APPROVED BY PLANNING AND ZONING, BUILDING AND PUBLIC WORKS BEFORE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED. FINAL INSPECTION BY THE BUILDING DIVISION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AUTHORIZATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NOR PERMISSION FOR OCCUPANCY. OCCUPANCY NOT PERMITTED UNTIL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED NOV/18/2009/WED 10:24 AM Seaback Roofing FAX No.281 345 2441 iariur svny WED 1.0=1-1 FAR 303 237 8929 303 Hest Nay P. 002/002 wool/o02 NOV/18/2009/WED 09:39 AM Seaback Roofing FAX No,281 345 2441 P. 001/001 City of W'heat F~d~e "ate` COMMUNL7 Y DLOPM1 NT Perariftt:~, Building Div/s/on ; 7-500 W. 29t" Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Office: 303-235-2855 * Fax. 303-237-8929 Inspection Line: 303-234-5933 Plvpedy Addlass: Property Owner (p/e Add 19 Add A ress: (if different than property address) Address: Use of sppaace (description): Description of work; J . ~ NJ r fj(Qwy'vJood Plan Retdaw (drre.rnm. orstrbm6lglj; S ~ Sq• Ft/LFt added: Sgmres f-I • 5 BTU's Gallons , Emps ODNTRA'TOR SIGN0.1'[fRE OF UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT `rtiiy that 9 setback dtstanQn propased by this penpit applimVen are zc rate, and do not viola(, applf shle ordvranca^[ gulaflons or the ORy of Wheat Ridge or os,,narda, e,sejnerlls or mbicdons of record; that as ffje,,,,,s Is gpoyy), and made are ac mtC that 1 hale read and apes to aside by alt mndibona p&W on two applicatlun and that I assume U 1ty for MMPfi2nm wRh the Wheat R~tige suildng Code (I_e.C) and ap other applicable Vvhegt Ridge Otdimftces, for wmk erch( Plans subject to Cold inspection. E; (OWNER) CONTRnCTOR of PERS0NALREPPRR63ENTAT~TV15of( (CONTRAT E:-_tir~ (~Lr~iiy\l jl~ SIGNATURE/bat~~~"I1 DEPA RTMENT USE ONLY Revle . - - ' PUBLtc'WORIOS COl~Ntb: Ravipwr ~rffi.7ltir tffiPAR'I~RTCLR4AETIi$ OCCUPAuCY,~ Re~war. rImOEPARTWBB'= Dap9mvwv,ecvmr enb o:geapp ved 0 m&%4e,, Mgtqud .Bldg Valuation: s Credit Card Payment: Use credit carts listed on fife, Date: Print name= 1 l am. t ,K Signature~.~ Facsimile Building Permit Application Sub ConETaE4pee; CgmpahYNama: LiceneeA Exolnstlon Date,, Trade/Profession- Aonrovaf- "Ty°`w''ea`Ridge M E M O R A lI D ~I M Department of Public Works TO: Cindy Hagerman, Code Official II ;s CC: Darin Morgan, Chief Building Official Greg Knudson, City Engineer FROM: Michael Garcia, Development Review Engineer DATE: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 $UBdEC'T(~ 9 ~ _ . vPniiP - Frncinn=nnt~ The letter dated April 10, 2001 that was mailed to the Engineer-of-Record, Mr. Jeff Davis, P.E. stated the following: 1. Erosion control for the proj ect shall be placed in the appropriate locations designated by the Engineer-of- Record, Mr. Jeff Davis should circumstances require this prevention. Conformance with the approved grading/drainage plan (including erosion control prevention)shall be maintained as needed during the course of construction. The site shall have some form of soil stabilization (i.e.: sod or some form ofpermanent landscaping . placed) to prevent the topsoil from eroding offthe site. Erosion conhol may be required until permanent landscaping is placed. Should there be no permanent soil stabilization inplace, temporary erosion control should be placedto protectthe drainage pipe under the driveway entrance and also to protect the adj acent properties. The Engineer-of-Record is to consulted as to the Best Management Practice (BMP) if erosion control is required. 9960w35th erosion.mem . GORSUCH KIRGIS LLr ATTORNEYS AT LAW TOWER I. SUITE IOOO' SSSS A0.APAHOE $TREET I DENVER, COLORADO E0202 1 TELEPHONE (303) 376-5000 1 FACSIMILE (303) $76-5001 CARMEN N. BEERY DiaecT Dint: (303) 376-5064 email: cbeery@gorsuch.com January 7, 2002 Darin Morgan Cindy Hagerman City of Wheat Ridge Code Enforcement 7500 W. 29~' Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80215-6713 0 ~ ~ p ~ q0 Re: L. Stewart appeal: Court's Order on trial de novo and motion to dismiss Dear Darin and Cindy: Enclosed please find a copy of the District Court's Order concerning Mr. Stewart's request for a trial de novo (a "new" trial on the matter) and the City's motion to dismiss. As you will see, each party was partly victorious: Mr. Stewart's request for a ttial de novo was denied and the City's motion to dismiss was likewise denied. Pursuant to state statute and the court's order, Mr. Stewart must now certify the relevant record to the court at his own expense. The process of transcribing all relevant court proceedings can be costly. Thus, Mr. Stewart may be more inclined to negotiate some settlement agreement with the City than he has been up to now. 9n light o€ Yhis, it wo:a!d be helpfal for me to have some sp°C!f!C pIBR Of direction to give to Mr. Stocker as a starting point of negotiations. It would be very helpful if one of you could provide me with the foilowing: (1) the specific locations of current or potential erosion channels from Mr. Stewart's property; and (2) what particular erosion control methods (blankets, hay bails, sod, fences, etc.) you would find satisfactory for each of those locations. I realize that it may seem that we are doing much more work on this matter than Mr. Stewart is. Litigation often muddies the line between offense and defense. I do believe, however, that our chances for negotiating a settlement are better than before. CNB153027.3\397330A t Darin Morgan Cindy Hagerman January 7, 2002 Page 2 Please contact me after you have had a chance to gather the information mentioned above. Certainly feel free to call me before then with questions or concerns. Yours truly, GORSUCH KIRGIS, LLP Z~ Carmen Beery Enclosure cc: Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney CNB\53027.3\397330 ~ DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF 7EFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO CourtAddress: 100 Jefferson County parkway Golden, Colorado 80401 Plaimiff/Appellee: THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE v. Defendanr/Appellant: LAWI2ENCE STEWART ~ Court Use J4~,1Q z CaseNtimbar: 01-CV-1772 I Div.: 9 ORDER THIS MATTER is before me upon the plaintiff/appellee's (the "City") motion to dismiss and response to defendant/appellant's motion for trial de novo filed on September 28, 2001 (defendanUappellant's motion for trial de novo filsd on July 18, 2001). Defeudaut/appellant ("Mr. Stewart") filed a response to the motion to dismiss and a reply to the motion for triai de novo on November 13, 2001. li motion to dismiss pursuant to C.RC.P, 12 should not be granted if there is any possible theory of relief. DunZap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc., 829 p,2d 1286 (Colo. 1992). Further, all facts in the complaint must be viewed as true and favorable to the complainaut. Id. Mr. Stewart signed two entry of guilty plea and waiver of rights forms (`,plea agreemenP') in Wheat Ridge Municipal Court on November 27, 2000. Subsequently, interrelated compliance hearings were scheduled for February 26, 2001 (Mr. Stewart was found "not in compliance"); Apri14, 2001 (continued); May 7, 2001 (continued); June 4, 2001 (continued); 7une 18, 2001 (Mr. Stewart found "not in compliance"); June 25, 2001(Mr. Stewart A ~ / ar~ I ~~~SS.~'S"F,} ~A'X~'~bnl.~'3 F=55Y.ffi SERVICE REQUEST Dac-: a s now Received: _ Phor.z: _ Le[tec _ Ic Peron: - Received / Submit'ed b;i:~ ~ ~,nMa6qN Reauester's N2ne: Mn.. 1.,_cun~i ~ swu,~~' (One Request per Form) REQliEST (PleasePrint): M2 Response Comple[zd By: Dept. Head Signature:. Phor.e: 30~~ 235 - 2°oj 3 Phor.e: Phor:e: [Ci[izea Yacificacion of Disposieion] NOne: This Form:_ phone:_ Date: Date: Le«er:_ Personal Visit:__ The City o/ GWheat GRidge P.O. BOX 638 WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80033 MEMORANDUM TO FILE A ~ BY PAGE OF 1 ~ FtLEM0.: ~o O I G.R~/~ ~ ~ vROJECT _ ( MEETING EVMONE a E ~ ~ ~~TN {Ll.~t (C_1 L sue~ecr/ Jlt) / (T O~ ~t5 ~tsFs ATTENO/ NCE/W iTN 1 h10~ 6c FOLLOW UP NOTES ACTION rL. ~rrEU[ ae~~~E s~ ►:30 : Zrc.~ as s E pm:,-t , STOP ORDER YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO STOP WORK LOCATED AT 60 W, BY ORDER OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S): ~ ~ ~✓Oc~~ er/J~~'~ ~'G~s ZJ t/ 7"O k 7~9 f~ This notice may be removed ONLY by THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BUILDING DEPARTMEN7' ! Date: Building inspector ~en GC~ ~t ~ r (30RSUCH KIRGIS LLr ATTO0.NEY5 AT LAW TOWER I. $UITE IOOO 1 1515 AMPAHOE $TAEET I DENVER. COLOMDO BOZOZ J TELEPHONE (303) $76-5000 1 FACSIMIL£ (303) 376-500I CARMEN N. BEEAY DIRECT DIAi:(303)376-5064 October 9, 2001 Darin Morgan Cindy Hagerman ~ City of Wheat Ridge Code Enforcement 7500 W. 29t" Ave. q Wheat Ridge, CO 80215-6713 email: cbeery@gorsuch.com r/ Re: L. Stewart appeal: Motion to Dismiss and Response to Request for Trial De Novo. Dear Darin and Cindy: Enclosed please find a copy of the latest pleading we have filed in the Stewart matter. As you can see, we have asked the court to dismiss Mr. Stewart's appeal on two bases: (1) the appeal was not timely; and/or (2) Mr. Stewart knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. If the district court does not dismiss the appeal, we have asked that Mr. Stewart's request for a trial de novo (a "brand new" trial on the matter) be denied. We have argued that the records of all the municipal court proceedings in this matter constitute an adequate record upon which to evaluate Mr. Stewart's claims. Please don't hesitate to call me with questions or concerns about this case. I will continue to pass along to you pleadings and other new information I receive. Yours truly, Carmen Be Encl. cc: Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney CNB\530272\390520 i DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, COLORADO 20fl!'$EP 28 fi3 4: 02 CourtAddress: 100 Jefferson County Pkwy., Golden, Colorado, 80401 t= iLED C0M61NEQ GOURT Tele hone: 303-271-6215 JEFFERSOPi COUNTY C0. Plaintiff/Appellee: THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WFIEAT RIDGE, a Colorado home rule municipality, DefendantlAppellant: LAWRENCE STEWART Attorney for Plaintifr"/Appellee: Name: Carmen Beery ACOURT USE ONLY,& Gerald E. Dahl Address: Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 Case Number: O1CV 1772 1515 Arapahoe Slreet Denver, Colorado 80202 Division: Phone Number: (303) 376-5000 Fax Number: (303) 376-5001 E-mail: cbeery+Qeorsuch.com gdahl~s,gorsuch.com Atty. Reg. #s: 32234 7766 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DI5NIIS5 AND RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT- APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR TRIAL DE NOVO Plaintiff-Appellee, the City of Wheat Ridge (hereinafter the "City"), by its undersigned counsel, hereby submits ttris Motion to Dismiss and Response to Defendant-Appellant's (hereinafter ffie "Defendant") Motion for Trial de Novo, dated July 18, 2001. PROCEDURAI.BACKGROUND 1. On November 27, 2000, the Defendant tendered to the Wheat Ridge Municipal Court (the "Municipal Court") two documents entitled "Bnhy of Guilty Plea and Waiver of Rights." These documents reflected the substance of plea bargain agreements between the Defendant and the City: one concerning City of Wheat Ridge Snuuuons and Complaint Number CE00-024 ("Agreement CE00-024"), attached hereto as Exhibit A; and one conceming City of Wheat Ridge Summons and Complaint Number CE00-035 ("Agreement CE00-035"), attached hereto as Exhibit B. CNB\53027.2\388823.02 2. Defendant, by lus signature on each Entry of Guilt Plea, represented: "I fully understand the nature and elements of the aforementioned chazge, and I agree that there is a factual basis for my plea." "I fixlly understand that by pleading GLTII,TY to the charge, I waive the following rights: £ To appeal the decision of the Court to the District Court of Jefferson County.° "By signing this form, I aclrnowTedge I haue read it and understand it completely." (Emphasis added.) 3. Defendant was represented and accompanied by counsel during these negotiations, as evidenced by counsel's signature on each Entry of Guilty Plea. 4. On November 27, 2000, the Municipal Court accepted each entry of guilty plea and waiver of rights, and entered a judgment of guilty against Defendant in each of the aforemenfioned cases. 5. As a condition of the plea bargain agreement reflected on Agreement CE00-035, Defendant was to submit a grading plan "within 5 weeks;" in eazly January of 2001. See, Eafhibit B, Item 5. The Municipal Court set a compliance hearing for Febniary 26, 2001. 6. The Municipal Court found the Defendant not in compliance at the February 26 hearing and set the matter over to Apri14, 2001. 7. At the Apri14 compliance hearing, Defendant moved for a continuance. The City did not oppose. 8. The next hearing, held on May 7, 2001, was set over to early June. 9. At the next hearing, June 4, 4001, Defendant again moved for a continuance. The City did not oppose. 10. At the hearing of June 18, 2001, the Municipal Court found Defendant not in compliance with either plea agreement. The Municipal Court found that Defendant did not grade the front yard, as required by Agreement CE00-035, and that Defendant did not restore the back yard to its "original state," as required by Agreement CE00-024. The Court gaue Defendant unril June 25, 2001, to bring his property into compliance. 2 11. On June 25, 2001, the Municipal Court found Defendant still not in compliance and granted the City permission to enter DefendanPs property to "restore the properiy as neaz as possible, to it's [sic] original condition, including the sodding of the property to ensure that ground cover is established." See, Memorandum from Plamiing and Development reviewed and approved by the Hon. Judge Rose, attached hereto as Exhibit C. 12. On July 2, 2001, Defendant failed to appear for a hearing before the Municipal Court on these matters. 13. On 7uly 9, 2001, Defendant moved the Municipal Court for reconsideration and a stay of execution. Tlus motion was denied and the Municipal Court issued an Order that Defendant be in compliance by 7uly 19, attached hereto as Exhibit D. Tlris Order further authorized the City to enter DefendanYs properry on July 20 if he violates the Order. 14. On July 16, 2001, Defendant moved the Municipal Court to set a hearing and stay execution of the July 9 Order. This motion is denied on 7uly 16. 15. On July 18, 2001, over seven and one-half months from the date Defendant entered guilty pleas on these matters, Defendant filed with this Court a Norice of Appeal, Designation of Record, and Motion for Trial de novo. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW Rule 237(b), Colorado Municipal Court Rules of Procedwe. 2. Rule 37, Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure. 3. Rule 235(c), Colorado Municipal Court Rules of Procedure. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This appeal should dismissed, as this Court does not have jurisdicrion over this matter: Defendant did not appeal to this Court within thirty days of entry of judgment or within thirty days of any valid post-trial motion. Even if tlus Court had jurisdiction, Defendant voluntarily waived his right to appeal to this Court. If this Court determines that it does have jurisdiction over this matter and that Defendant did not waive his right of appeal, DefendanYs motion for trial de novo should be denied. Trial de novo is required only when an adequate record cannot be certified to the District Court. Every hearing, proceeding, motion and order concerning these matters was recorded by the Wheat Ridge Municipal Court and can be certified to this Court. CNM53027.2U88823.02 ARGUMENT 1. This Court lacks jurisdictiou over Defendant's appeal because: A. Defendant's appeal was not entered within thirty days from entry of judgment; B. Defendant's appeal was not entered within thirty days of the denial of any valid post-trial motion; and C. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot waived or consented to when it does not exist 2. Even if tl►is Court had jurisdiction of this matter, Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right of appeal to this Court 3. If this Court finds jurisdiction and no waiver, the issues properly raised may be resolved by review of the complete and adequate municipal court record; trial de novo is therefore inappropriate. 1. This court lacks jurisdiction to hear this aQneat. Defendant may appeal judgxnent and sentence "within thirty days after the date of entry of the judgment or the denial of post-trial motions, whichever is later." Crun. Pro. Rule 37(a). Accordingly, in order for this court to haue jurisdiction in the above-captioned matters, the date of appeal, July 18, 2001, must be either (1) thirty days from enhy of judgment; or (2) thirfy days from the denial of post-trial motions. A. Defendant's agpeal was not entered within thirtv days from entrv of iudEment Pursuant to Rule 232(b) of the Colorado Municipal Court Rules of Procedure, judgment consists of "a recital of the plea, the verdict or findings, the sentence, and costs if any are awarded against the defendant." On November 27, 2000, Defendant entered lus plea of guilty, the Municipal Court entered the guilty verdicts, and Defendant was sentenced. Accordingly, under the plain and clear terms of Municipal Court Rule 232, judgxnent in these matters was entered on November 27, 2000. The several compliance hearings scheduled over the course of next eight months do not each constitute a sepazate final judgment from which Defendant may maintain an appeal pursuant to Crim. Pro. Rule 37(a). At these compliance hearings, Defendant did not enter a plea nor did the Municipal Court enter a verdict. Compliance hearings are held for the purpose of determining whether a defendant is in compliance with an order of a court to perform or refrain from perfoiming certain acts in connection with a judgment and sentence that has already been entered. As such, these hearings do not, themselves, constitute entry of judgment. 4 B. Defendant's appeal was not entered within thirty days the deniai of any timelv filed post-trial motion. Defendant could nonetheless maintain an appeal to this Court if his appeal was entered within thirty days of the denial of a valid post-trial motion. Motions for post-convicrion review in municipal court must be made "within six months after the date of conviction." (emphasis added). Municipal Court Rule 235(c). Tlus generous post-convicrion review window provides municipal court defendants (many of whom appear pro se) the opportunity to investigate their rights and to obtain the servioes of an attorney, if desired. As noted above, the date of conviction in these matters is November 27, 2000. Defendant's iwo motions for post-conviction review were filed with the Wheat Ridge Municipal Court on July 9, 2001, and 7uly 16, 2001, respectively. Neither was filed within the six month review period provided by Rule 235(c). Common sense dictates that a defendant can not use a post-trial motion that was not filed withiu the proscribed review period as a springboazd to appeal a judgment and sentence entered several months ago. This is obvious when one hypothesizes whether a defendant could maintain an appeal based on a mofion to a municipal court filed eight years after judgment is entered. Whether eight yeazs or eight months, a motion filed after the applicable review period is not a timely motion that can resurrect the review period that the defendant has let lapse. C. The City's failure to obiect on the record to Defendant's untimely Julv, 2001. Subject matter jurisdicrion concerns a court's authority to deal with a class of cases in which it may render judgment. A court has jurisdiction over the subject matter if the case is one of the type of cases that the court has been empowered to entertain by the sovereign from which the court derives its authority. This Court has been empowered by the Colorado Supreme Court to heaz appeals from municipal court convictions filed within tlvrty days of final judgment or of the denial of post-trial motions. Municipal Court Rule 235(c). This Rule sets forth the scope of this Court's jurisdicrion of municipal court appeals. As noted above, Defendant did not file this appeal within tlurty days of final judgment or denial of any valid post-hial motion. Thus, under the plain terms of Municipal Court Rule 235(c), this Court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal. Defendant may contend that his untimely motion for post-conviction review can be the basis of appellate jurisdiction in this case because the City failed to object to the motions on the record and the Municipal Court ruled on the motions. This azgument fails, however, when one reviews the basic principles of subject matter jurisdiction announced by Colorado courts: A party cannot consent to or waive jurisdicfion when a court does not have jurisdiction. People v. Torkelson, 971 P.2d 660 (Colo.App. 1998). Nor can a court confer jurisdiction upon itself when it has none. See, Evans v. District Court, 572 P.2d 811 (Colo. 1977). Thus, neither the City nar the Municipal Court could act in such a way as to consent to or waive this Court's jurisdiction when it has none. CNM530271U88823.02 2. Even ff this Court had lurisdfction of this matter. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right of apaeal to this Court. Defendant's appeal in the above-captioned matter should be dismissed even if this Court deternunes that it has subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant lrnownigly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal to this Court on each Enhy of Guilty Plea. Defendant acknowledged on Agreement CE00-024 and Agreement CE00-035 that he was waiving lus right "to appeal the decision of the Court to the District Court of Jefferson County." See, Exhibits A and B, Line 4.f. Defendant further represented on each Agreement that he understood the agreement completely. See, Exhibits A and B, last (bold) line of Agreement. Further, Defendant was represented by legal counsel during the negofiations resulting in the Agreements, witnessed by counsel's signature on the line designated "Defense Attorney." All of tlus evidence points to a knowing, voluntaty, intelligent and informed waiver of this right by Defendant. Accordingly, his appeal of the above-captioned matters should be dismissed. 3. If this court decides it has jurisdiction of this appeal, the issues ~roperly raised may be resolved by review of the municipal court record: trial de novo is therefore inannropriate. Trial de novo shall occur on appeal from the final judgment of a municipal court when an adequate record cannot be certified to the district court. Colo. Critn. Pro. Rule 37(g). The central allegation of Defendant's appeal is that the City has "changed the rules" regarding Agreement CE00-024 and Agreement CE00-035. Resolution of this allegation can be achieved by detenviniug what "the rules" really are. To put it another way, the basic quesfion at issue here is, to what did the parties really agree? This question can be answered by examining the Municipal Court's records of the above-captioned matters. The Wheat Ridge Municipal Court is a court of record. Both plea agreements Defendant entered into on November 27, 2000 are (i) in writing, and (ri) on the record of the Court's proceedings of that date. Every subsequent hearing and judicial finding regazding these two plea agreements is on the record; specifically, in the records of Wheat Ridge Municipal Court dated (a112001): Febrnary 26, Apri14, May 7, June 4, June 18, June 25, July 2, 7uly 9, and July 16. The records of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Court proceedings on these dates together with all written orders of that court consfitute an adequate record to evaluate Defendant's claim that the requirements unposed upon him aze "onerous and unconscionable" as outside the scope of Agreement CE00-024 and Agreement CE00-035. Any allegation that the City or the Municipal Court has imposed conditions on Defendant that are inconsistent with the agreements or with the representations of the Defendant or of the City can be answered by examining the recard. CNN\530272U88823.02 WHEREFORE, the City respectfully requests this Court dismiss Defendant's appeal on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction; or, in the alternarive, deny Defendant's motion for trial de novo. Respectfully submitted this 28fl' day of September, 2001. Address of Plaintiff-Appellee: 7500 W. 29~' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215-5900 GORSUCH KIRGIS, LLP ATTORNEYS FOR CTTY OF WHEAT RIDGE - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 28' day of September, 2001, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff-Appellee's motion to dismiss and response to Defendant- Appellant's motion for trial de novo was forwazded by First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas H. Stocker Attorney at Law 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 Lakewood, CO 80228 ~liAa~, (Au^- CNB1530272\388823.02 r ' DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, COLORADO Court Address: 100 Jefferson County Pkwy., Golden, Colorado, 80401 Tele hone: 303-271-6215 Plaintiff/Appellee(s): THE PEOPLE OF TE3E CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Colorado home rule municipality, DefendantlAppellant(s): LAWRENCE STEWART Attomey for Plaintiff/Appellee Nazne: Carmen Beery ACOURT USE ONLYA Gerald E. Dahl Address: Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 Case Number: Ol CV 1772 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Division: Phone Number: (303) 376-5000 Faac Number: (303) 376-5001 E-mail: cbeeryQeorsuch.com WW@¢orsuch.com Atty. Reg. #s: 32234 7766 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS COURT, upon consideration of Plainriff=Appeilee's Motion to Dismiss and Response to Defendant-Appellant's Motion for Trial de novo, and being fully advised of the premises, hereby: ORDERS, that Plaintiff-Appellee's motion to dismiss is granted. Dated this day of , 2001. District Court Judge CNB\53027.2\388823.02 DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, COLORADO Court Address: 100 Jefferson County Pkwy., Golden, Colorado, 80401 Tel hone:303-271-6215 Plaintiff/Appellee(s): THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Colorado home rule municipality, DefendanUAppellant(s): LAWRENCE STEWART Attorney for Plainriff/Appellee Name: Cannen Beery ACOURT USE ONLYA Gerald E. Dahl Address: Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 Case Nuxnber: 01CV1772 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Division: Phone Number: (303) 376-5000 Fax Nuxnber: (303) 376-5001 E-mail: cbeerv@gorsuch.com gdahlnn.@orsuch.com Atty. Reg. #s: 32234 7766 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTTON FOR TRIAL DE NOVO THIS COURT, upon consideration of Plainriff-Appellee's Motion to Dismiss and Response to Defendant-Appellant's Motion for Trial de novo, and being fully advised of the premises, hereby: FINDS that an adequate record of the proceedings of the lower court can be certified to this Court; and therefore ORDERS, Defendant-Appellant's motion for trial de novo is denied. Dated this day of 12001. District Court Judge CNB\530272\188823.02 MUNICIPAL COURT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COlORADO Sununons No. Yf C - 0z~/ ENTRY OF GUILTY PLEA AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, vs. /~✓/.Gr-ci- Si/C~%~~~ Defendant. I, the Defendant in the above-captioned case, do hereby tender to the court a plea of GUILTY to the original charge of 33j5,3 ~ or a plea of GUILTY to the amended chazge of , and fiuther state as follows: 1. No threats or promises as to sentence or any other matter have been made to me to induce a plea of GLTII.TY, and my plea is voluntary and not a result of undue influence or coercion on the part of anyone. 2. I fully understand the nature and elements of the aforementioned charge; and I agree that there is a factual basis for my plea. 3. If the Court accepts my GUILTY plea, I will be subject to a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 and/or a jail sentence not to exceed one year in the Jefferson County jail for each count. 4. I fully understand that by pleading GUILTY to the charge, I waive the following rights: a. To a trial either by court or to a jury • b. To confront and cross-exanune witriesses against me, c. To subpoena witnesses on my own behalf. d. To be represented by an attorney, e. To testify on my own behalf, and f. To appcal t~'ie decision oi the Court to the Dis`uict Court of Jefferson 5. 64 eL) sr;"uz zt 19k 2,%.n,,7, L~' 15vn, 1) n~. m.. "i~&L. 74iu~ 14L'It"I A L 4G-- .~U~ ee all of the a ve matter , I do hereby plead GUILTY the ch ge~./~ IaX d~~'M ~iYQW~ 1D5/~- 0~~f7K C~iG°~0"d71~~ C.~.h?46~f{T ~ lrc.. CAU By signi his form, I cknowledge I have read it and understand it co pletel . ~ Defend t Date Parent/Legal Guazdian Date D~ if 2z p o~(`~~ Defense Attomeya ate Recommended by: 3el~ , City Attomey ~ -7 - pate GUILTY PLEA ACCEPTED BY THE COURT: dc1l 11127 G0 Ivlunicipal Judge Date REVISED:093098 E'U" t . ~ / MUIVICIPAL COURT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, JEFFERSON COLNTY, COLORADO Summons No. C~C''C - C3s' ENTRY OF GUILTY PLEA AND WAIVER OF RIGF3TS CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, vs. L~'.,w~~~, c.Z~ ~f •~cyfi Defendant. I, the Defendant m the above-captioned case, do hereby tender to the court a plea of GLTILTY to the original chazge of dL j3/B)/y~ or a plea of GUILTY to the amended chazge of y , and further state as follows: ,n,~ 1. No threats or promises as to sentence or any othc~r matter have been made to me to induce a plea of GIJII,TY, and my plea is voluntary and not a result of undue influence or coercion on the part of anyone. 2. I fully understand the nature and elements of the aforementioned charge, and I agree that there is a factual basis for my plea. 3. If the Court accepts my GUiLTY plea, I will be subject to a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 and/or a jail sentence not to exceed one yeaz in the Jefferson County jail for each count. 4. I fully understand that by pleading GUII,TY to the chazge, I waive the foflowing rights: a. To a trial either by court or to a jury b. To confront and cross-examine witnesses against me, c. To subpoena witnesses on my own behalf d. To be represented by an attomey, e. To testify on my own behalf, and f. To appeal the decision of the Court to the Di ct Court oFJefferson County. 5. r2p~u '4~' *9t9 / (Iir ' z ) a a' ~ ,n/• 1~ ru?i 7r`~ `//.,~cvu ~ x~ t~.o~,.ie lei,.t ' l- (fo) 5 i~'u~. ~'G~ii- C✓ttlc.o 3 L ut~~ ~i . w.~ ~ Understandi g all of'th,ab~e ma ers,~do hereby ple d GLJILT~to the aforementioned chazge. `f~~ C~ 2 ~ By signin his orm, I cknowledge I have read it and understand it cor~pletely. C ~i Z; oT~ Def dant Date Parent/Legal Guardian Date - 11 7 00 Defense Attomey Date Recommended by: c,nty attomey " Date GUILTY PLEA ACCEPTED BY THE COURT:l umcipal Judge Date REVISED: 093098 City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: MEMO TO FILE FROM: CINDY HAGERMAN SUBJECT: 9960 WEST 35T" AVENUE DATE: JUNE 25, 2001 NNE 25. 2001 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEER MIKE GARCIA AND I WENT TO DEFENDANT LARRY STEWART'S RESIDENCE AT 9960 WEST 35T" AVEA'UE TO DETERMINE THE STATUS OF HIS PROPERTY. WE FOLTND THAT, ASIDE FROM RELOCATING A PILE OF DIRT FROM THE FRONT YARD TO THE REAR YARD, NO CHANGES HAD BEEN MADE TO RESTORE THE PROPERTY TO IT'S ORIGINAL CONDITION. ON J[JNE 18, 2001, NDGE ROSE HAD TOLD STEWART THAT HE HAD UNTR, TODAY, NNE 25Tx IN WHICH TO RESTORE HIS PROPERTY TO IT'S ORIGINAL CONDITION. J[JDGE ROSE STATED THAT AT THAT TIME THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE COULD ARRANGE FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE BROUGHT AACK TO THE CONDITION 7'HAT IT HAD BEEN, PRiOR TO THE HOLE, FOR THE UNAPPROVED GARAGE, BE:NG DLiv^. THERE ARE NINE CARS PARKED IN THE REAR YARD, ON THE DIRT. THEY WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE REAR YARD IN ORDER FOR THE RESTORATION TO BEGIN. AT STEWART'S COMPLIANCE HEARING TODAY, I RECOMMEND THAT NDGE ROSE: I) GRANT CITY ENGINEERS AND ANY CONTRACTORS THAT ARE fIIRED VIA THE CITY TO ENTER STEWART'S PROPERTY AT ANY TIME, DURING NORMAL WORKING HOURS (MONDAY-SAT[JRDAY, 8:00 AM-6:00 PM) UNTIL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. 2) STEWART MUST HAVE ALL OF THE VEHICLES THAT ARE PARKED IN HIS REAR AND FRONT YARDS REMOVED, SO THAT THE RESTORATION MAY BEGIN. THE DATE TI-IAT THE CARS ARE TO BE REMOVED SHALL NOT BE LATER THAN JUNE 29, 2001. IF, AT THAT TIME, CARS REMAIN IN AREAS THAT RESTRICT THE RESTORATIOA', THE CITY MAY TOW SUCH VEHICLES TO THE CITY LOT. 3) THE CITY, ALONG WITH COLORADO LANDSCAPE SOLUTIONS, WILL UTILIZE THE CITY APPROVED PLANS, AND RESTORE THE PROPERTY AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE, TO IT'S ORIGINAL CONDITION, INCLUDING THE SODDING OF THE PROPERTY TO ENSURE TIIAT GROLJND COVER IS ESTABLISHEA ESTABLISHED GROUND COVER WILL ASSIST IN CONTROLLING EROSION. LAVVRENCE STEWART WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ALL CHARGES, WHETHER TAEY APPLY TO TOWING, CONTRACT WORK, RESTORATION, OR ADNIINISTRATION FEES, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF BILLING. 8 r19• 20ui,10:a?~IA 41=ION STE 4.35 303 ~2Q ' RECEIVED WHEAT RIDGE COURT JUL 19 200i Tn- 3398a2e'":,'.y363 ~ , ~.~.as~ael P•ECHIV_fl IN'rICAT FJpZ-.E . . .1 npURT JUL 0 9 ZU01 MUNICfPAL GCJUFCT, CIN flP WNr=A7 FtlD[3E. 8TA1"E 6F COLOR4DO Case Nos. CE00-2, 23. 24 and 35 DRDER THF f'EOPI,,.E 4FTHE G!7',' OF WHEA.T RIQQE, SYa1uD ON BEHALF OFTHE PE4PL.E OF THE STA'TE AF GOL:{>AAaQ, Plaintiif, dllL 14 2001- WWREEVGH STEV1(A1970 Defendard, TtilS MA'Tl'ER cames before tho Caur1 gn tt,a Mat"rcn of d¢fondant. StewarE, for recansfdaratlosl and 4ilr a stay af executton; and, "{`HE COURT haviRg read the Mation and being fuqy appraissci tn the HERESY ORDERS as follaws: the Giiy b prohlbfted fmm antering upon defendant's pmperty fior the purposes i#zqW* WSW fheret ; ~g lbq[tY to CnJsrupon dk1aEr3anVs ~yatty; L/ r; U/~4Tc c_ The hearing da c rre tiy set for July fS; 2001, shall ha:emaewsramk ~yyy~~ya ~ DATED; ~ gi ;d(JI rt°So»/~ "~~?OSr Gv C~yi7(Jl~L ~ el-N-- C'rt~ E3Y TNE CQURT: " ~~l APy, , ExHpBIT !F-1p CouK.ludge ~'Raceived Time Jui•10, 9:1Wi;86 666 E(E 9E4 3i5 NOIN11 tY WjlV~l l0 7 "7! >'q ~c'phr 'v1~!• FROM 303 674 222a OAVIS ENGINEERING SUN•26.01 10:1dAM P.001 24504 Norman I.ane Jeff Davis Engineering, L.L.C. $vrgreen, Co 80~3~ O _ Phcme and Fnx 303*674*2224 June 2b, 2001 @Ppmm~uuGI~ y~ ~~.•a o OA1rj °y~'y~ TO: Darin lvforgan Wheat Ridge Codes Administrator ~~S ~~26 =a 7500 West 291h Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 50215 ~o~`~•.~~ ' ' ~~.•'~~FAX: 303 235 2868 ~',y~~l•••~+ ~~~h ~ rn n ~~y FROM: JeffDavis, P.E. ~ gE; Drainase Pian 9960 W. 35m Ave, Lazry Stewa[E As per the request of Mike Garcia, Develapment Review Engineer, piease be advised that i will review and certify the finai constructipn for the proposed, above referenced, grading and drainage control plan. "i'he gcadinng and exeavarion associated with plan completion is to be performed by an independent contractor. The estimated cost for review and certifrcation of the proposed plan will not exceed $500.00. Shouid you have further quesdons please call. t2N~b C'ty °"W''ea`R`d9e M E M O R A lI D u M Department of Public Works TO: Darin Morgan, Chief Building Official CC: Cindy Hagerman, Codes Officer II Bob Goebel, Public Works Director Greg Knudson, City Engineer FROM: Michael Garcia, Development Review Engineer DATE: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 SUBJECT: Larry Stewart Property - 9960 W. 35"' Avenue I spoke to the Engineer-of-Record, Mr. Jeff Davis, P.E. today to discuss Mr. Stewart's property. Jeff informed that he would accept this job and be the engineer far the site. He informed me that he could not attend the meeting at the site on June 26, 2001. Jeff said that the City could give his name and phone number (303-674-2224) to the landscape contractor if they needed any information. I did inform Jeff that the City would need a memo stating that he would continue to be the Engineer-of- Record and provide the technical assistance when needed at the site. He would also be responsible for certifying the site. (This message was left on his recorder at a later time.) Please let me know if you have any questions. 9960 W.35'".mem 0 Jeff Davis Engineering, L.L.C. 0 7uly 9, 2001 TO: Darin Morgan Codes Administrator 7500 West 2961 Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 FROM: JeffDavis, P.E. RE: 9960 W. 35`b Ave. Larry Stewart Property 24504 Norman Lane Evergreen, CO 80439 Phone and Fax 3039674•2224 ° . o o%~_' 1. a ,.,22126 ~ rto e This correspondence is to confirm that Larry Stewart, as per the approved grading plan of 3-26- 01, has excauated and reshaped the existing driveway. Excess soil has been excavated and transported to the back yazd and used to fill existing excavations. The backyazd and driveway have now been restored to the pre-existing grade. Some handwork is still needed around existing shrubbery in the front yazd. As per the drainage plan, a rock lined drainage swale has been constnxcted in the backyard to direct any excess surface runoff along the property line between the houses and into the city storm sewers. The existing driveway culvert ends have been uncovered and appear open. The city may wish to use a high pressure water nozzle to thoroughly clean the center portion of this culvert to remove any silt that may haue settled in that location. Should you need further information please call. cc:/ Tom Stocker, Lazry Stewart o 4-: o~ m 0 r ~ r t^) ) e=. ^ I cri~ ~ y'• ~ ~ 3 _ . . . ~p.:~ y. 1. G~J~L 0 q ~ ~ v. . ~ ~ .i 1 9 . < (~ti . - ar;.a»~nal~~.. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE - MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Gazcia, Development Review Engineer FROM: Ray Carlyle, Street Superintendent A~' DATE: June 8. 2001 SUBJECT: 9960 West 35' Avenue The Public Works Street Division cut the weeds on the City right-of way in front of 9960 West 35`° Avenue on June 6, 2001. We also cleaned out the culvert ends that runs east of this address so the water will drain. We will continue to monitor this to see if anything more needs to be done. City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department COURT RULING LAWRENCE STEWART ADDRESS: 9960 WEST 35"' AVENiJE VIOLATION: TJNIFORM BUII.DING CODE: STORAGE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY UNIFORM BUILDING CODE: PERIVIITS REQLiIRED UNIFORM BUILDING CODE: EXCAVATIONS FOR BUILDINGS FENCE REGULATIONS COURT DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2001 OFFICER: CINDY HAGERMAN DISTRICT: 3 DEFENDANT LAWRENCE STEWART APPEARED FOR HIS COMPLIANCE HEARING. CODES ADMRVISTRATOR DARIN MORGAN AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENGINEER MIKE GARCIA APPEARED FOR REASONS OF CLARIFICATION. NO PROGRESS HAD BEEN MADE ON THE PROPERTY, AND THE REQT.JIREMENTS, WHICH HAD BEEN SET ON NOVEMBER 27, 2000, HAD NOT BEEN MET. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TAMMY GREENE, DARIN MORGAN, AND I AGREED TO RECOMMEND TO THE NDGE THAT COMPLIANCE MUST BE MET WITHIN THREE WEEKS, OR PERMISSION WOULD BE GRANTED TO THE CITY TO ENTER THE PROPERTY AND ABATE THE VIOLATIONS. WE FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT $500.00 OF THE SUSPENDED $1,800.00 FINES BE IMPOSED. THE DEFENDANT AND ffiS ATTORNEY STATED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE 60 DAYS IN WHICH TO REACH COMPLIANCE, STATING THAT DUE TO WINTER CONDITIONS, MOVING DIRT WAS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE. THEY ALSO PLED FINANCIAL HARDSAIP. NDGE CHUCK ROSE ORDERED THAT TAE PROPERTY BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO APRIL 2, 2001, AT WHICH TIME THE CITY WOULD BE GRANTED AN ORDER TO ENTER THE PROPERTY AND ABATE THE VIOI,ATIONS. DUE TO STEWART'S FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS, JtJDGE ROSE DID NOT IMPOSE FINES AT THIS TIME. HE STATED THAT SUSPENDED FINES WOULD BE IMPOSED IF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE. MIKE GARCIA REVIEWED THE NECESSARY PLANS AND PERMITS THAT MUST BE SUBMITTED/OBTAINED BY STEWART. WE ALSO REITERATED THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE MUST BE LOWERED. I ADVISED STEWART T'HAT HIS FENCE PERMITS HAVE EXPIl2ED, AND A NEW PERMIT M[JST BE OBTAINED. MEMORANDUM A roved Date c. >tr, :c W. rl:.; TO: Darin Morgan, Chief Building Official Cindy Hagerman, Code Enforcement Officer II CC: Greg Knudson, City Engineer FROM: Michael Garcia, Development Review Engineer DATE: Mazch 30, 2001 SUBJECT: 9960 West 35`h Avenue - Larry Stewart Grading Issues The plan that was submitted for Public Works to review is can not be approved for the following reasons: 1. The topography lines shown on plan do not have elevations. 2. The profile for the driveway needs to have elevations for the existing grade and final grade. 3. The profile needs to have the existing Corrugated Metal Pipe shown. 4. Where will the soil from the driveway be relocated? Offsite or wiil it be relocated on-site? The redline plan is to be submitted with the cosected plan. Please include rivo (2) plans with the next submittal. Theplan corrections are to be submitted no later than Apri14,2001tothePublicWorksDeparftnent. Shouldthis plan set be acceptable, the Public Works Department will issue a grading permit on Apri14, 2001 with the work to be completed by April 16, 2001. Please call me at 303-235-2868 if you have any questions. cc: File (3) 9960w35th reviewl.mem oF Whi~q T APPL/CATION FOR M/NOR DUMP/NG/LANDF/LL PERM/T c~CORA00 APPLICANTS NAME: APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: CC) (include City, Siate, Zip) ADDRESS OF FILL: DATE OF APPLICATION: ~ All permits shall be applied for through the Public Works Department. An approved permit is effective for a period of one (1) year from date of issue and may be renewed. All fees shall be in accordance wi?h those f=es established by the Uniform Building Code or other appiicable City adopted Resolutions or Ordinances. Nofe: A// pub/ic improvements, when constructed, shal/ be maintained (by the respective individua/(s) and/or company responsib/e for the construction of ihat pub/ic and/or private improvement in the respecSve developmenY) on a dai/y basis, or as needed, such thai they are fiee of mud and other construcfion debris tracking from the site. Failure to comply with this iequirement wi// resu/t in the enforcement of Article Specified Nuisances, Section 15-21 (3) of fhe City of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. MINOR EXCAVATION AND FILL PERMITS 1. 1-50 Cubic Yards: No permit is required for dumping or excavation of earth aterials, which do not exceed 50 cubic yards, provided, however, that any fill deposited is on natural terrain of less than three (3) horizontai to one (1) vertical slope, or such fill is less than three (3) feet in depth and is not intended to support permanent structures, and in addition, such fiil or excavation does not obstruct or otherwise adversely affect any drainageway. Should any of the above standards be exceeded, or a drainage way be affected, a permit shall be required under the guidelines for No. 2. 2. 51-Cubic Yards: Dumping or excavation of earth materials not exceeding 500 cubic yards may be allowed with a permit approved by the City Engineer. All applications are to be submitted on the appropriate completed appiication form and shall be accompanied by the appropriate fee and sketch plan indicating the following information before the permit will be issued. A Location and dimensions of all property boundaries and structures on the site. B Location and extent of areas to be filled and/or excavated. C. Location of existing and proposed drainageways, irrigation ditches, etc., and indication of how and where historic run-off will be maintained on and through the site. D. Cross section area to be filled and/or excavated indicating original slope, new slope and depth of filL E. Statement which indicates the proposed use or purpose for said fill or excavation. F. Relative elevation of adjacent properties. G. Erosion control plan showing placement of control devices such as hay bales, etc.. Files on EnginentlEortn\Fill Pertnit.wpd 1 . Rev. 03100 3. 501-20,000 Cubic Yard. -)perations in which earth material fili excavation exceeds 500 cubic yards but does not exceed 20,000 cubic yards may be allowed by a permit issued by the City Engineer after review of an application and supporting information. The foilowing information shall be submitted with the required application form: A. A site plan, prepared and signed by a Colorado registered professional engineer, at a scale of no less than 1 inch to twenty feet (1:20) which illustrates the following: 1. Location an dimensions of all property boundaries and structures on the site. 2. Location and extent of areas to be filled and/or excavated. 3. Location of existing waterways and drainage courses indicating any changes. (for a site containing an established irrigation ditch, a letter of approval from the appropriate ditch company shall be required). 4. Location of existing and proposed points of ingress. 5. Location and extent of existing vegetation, proposed changes in such vegetation and methods of rehabilitation on site vegetation after earthwork operations are complete. 6. Erosion control plan. 7. Grading plan with existing (dashed lines) and proposed (solid lines) ground contours with contour intervals of 2 feet and spot elevations. 8. At least two cross sections (east to west and north to south) through the site showing depth of fill and/or excavation. 9. A drainage report may 6e required if site runoff characteristics are changed 10. Relative elevations of adjacent properties and structures. 11. Statement of purpose of intended fill and/or excavation. 4. Performance Standards: The following provisions shall apply to ail Minor Excavation and Fill Perm its: A. Rehabilitation: Within thirty(30) days after cessation of filling and/or excavation, renabilitation for the site shall have been completed in accordance with the approved plans. Rehabilitation shall consist of leveling, grading, landscaping or any combination thereof to minimize potential erosion and be acceptable to the City Engineer. B. Debris: Debris and/or contaminants shall not be used except with the approval of the City Engineer. "For the purpose of this Section, the term debris shall have the same meaning as the terms "garbage, trash or junk" as defined in the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Section 20- 21." In no case shall debris or contaminates identified or classified as hazardous waste by local, state or federal agencies be used as fill in any fill areas within the City of Wheat Ridge. Files on Enginent\Fortn\Fill Pertnit,wpd 2 Rev. 03100 C. Excavation and/c I areas shali be greded to facilitate ~;d control until final grades are set and site rehabilitation and use occur (must be leveled with side slopes not to exceed 3 to 1 5. Permit Fees* 50 cubic yards or less 51 to 100 cubic yards 101 to 1000 cubic yards for the first 100 cy 7 plus for each additional 100 cy or fraction thereof 1001 to 10,000 cubic yards for the firsi 1000 cubic yards plus, for each additional 1000 cy or fraction thereof 10,000 cubic yards or over *Wheat Ridge Code of Laws Section 5-76. $10.00 $15.00 $15.00 ~ $5.00 $60.00 $4.45 $100.00 TOTAL g ~ ~ ~/(v/0/ AII permits shall be applied for prior to fill deposition or excavation operetions begin. Any permit applied for after cutting or filling operations on site are in progress shall be subject to a double fee and other penalties as prescribed by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Appendix A, Section 24.8. Any fiil requested under this permit within the 100 year flood zone MUST COMPLY WITH WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, SECTION 26-201, FLOOD PLAIN ZONING ORDINANCE. I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS APpLICATION IS CORRECT AND UNDERSTAND THAT I CANNOT START THIS PROJECT UNTIL THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED. I SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO AND WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND BUILDING CODE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE. ANY VIOLATION OF THE ABOVE TERMS WIL! CAUSE IMMEDIATE REVOCATION OF THIS PERMI; AyD COVIMENCEMEtJT OF ENFORCEMEN7 PROCEEDINGS BY THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE. THIS APPROVED PERMIT WILL BE KEPT IN MY POSSESSION OR PERMANENTLY ON TWE JOB SITE. APPLICANT: App s Signature (if different than above) OF WHEAX RIDGE: 4/iX5 ArI App oval D te Files an EnginrnBFortn\Fill PertniCwpd 3 Rev. 03/00 PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW FEE STRUCTURE FOR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS Date 40k I Applicant Lr~-g~ Phone # Location of Construction jn7(~U w•',5rrk ay=^/ut_~ _ Purpose of Construction'~-~n2a~E L'C'~ Building Permit Value Single Family ✓ Commercial Multi-Family DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES Development Review Processing Fee: $50.00 (for document processing) Single Family Residential Review Fee: 5.00 (for review of applicable technical documen s Commercial/Multi-Family Review Fee: $50.00 fee (for review of existing technical documents), $500.00 fee (for review of technical documents for construction in right-of-way, final drainage report and erosion control plan). Subdivision Improvement Agreement Fee: $125.00 (for document processing and recording) Development Covenant Fee: $125.00 (for document processing and recording) CDOT Access Permit Fee: $100.00 (for document application and processing) Traffic Impact Study Review Fee: $100.00 (for document review and processing) Flood Plain Variance Review Fee: Class I=$100.00 Class 11 =$150.00 (for document review and processing) TOTAL REVIEW FEES: (due at time of building permit issuance) $ 2~'• c~0 $ 27-~~". f' o PLEASE NOTE THAT IN ADDITION.TO TFfE ABOVE FEES, THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL LICENSING AND PERMITTING FEES REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. Signature of Applicant z,(,~ ' Date T-~6 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (303) 235-2861 7500 WEST 29T" AVENUE • WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215 FAX (303) 235-2857 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS RESTORATION DATED o r ADDRESS Glcl&o IGl• ~5'"• ~~re . Dear Contractor: In conjunction with the approval of the building permit application for the above referenced address, this letter is to inform you that all existing public improvements located along the frontage of said address shall be restored, (if damaged from related construction) to an acceptable condition, as determined by City of Wheat Ridge Public Works Department, and prior to the issuance of a Cerfificate of Occupancy. Prior to any construction commencing, the City's representative will conduct an onsite inspection to determine the existing condition(s) of the public improvements at this address. If you have any questions, please contact me at 303-235-2868. Sincerely, ~U-+-- Mic ael Garaa, Development Review Engineer cc: File Files on Enginent\Development Review/Forms & form letters\Notificafion of PI Restorafion Rev 05100 STOP YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO STOP WORK LOCATED AT 9 q6o r,v''~ 5- L:5✓~~e . BY ORDER OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BUILD[NG DEPARTMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S): I•O ,o Pir H9~j 'j'0!" ~XCd~!/rr9-J~+CI~'I/O~r.gil9v9G~ l'v 0 r' k . This notice may be removed ONLY by THE C[TY OF WHEAT RIDGE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ! Date: s Building inspector BUILDING DEPARTMENT ~ (303) 235-2855 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE * * Correction Notice ~ : Job Located at qd7 4(7 ~ s s- " "O I have this day inspected this structure and these premises and have found the following violations of City and/or State laws gov- erning same: You are hereby notified to correct the foregoing violations. : When corrections have been made, call for inspection. Date FORM WR6•22 DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Building Permit Number : 10366 BUILDWG INSPECTION LINE - 303-234-5933 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Date : 4/12/00 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215 - (303-235-2855) Property Owner: Property Address : 9960 W 35TH AVE Contractor License No. : Company : Phone: 233-3302 Phone : OWNER/CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE OF UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT I hereby certify that the setback distances proposed by this permit application are accurate, and do not violate applicable ordinances, rules or regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge or covenants, easements or restrictions of record; that all measurements shown, anii allegations made are accurate; that I have read and agree to abide by all conditions printed on this application, and that I assume full responsibility for compliance with the Wheat Ridge Building Code (U.B.C.) and all other applicable WheARidge ordinanps, for work under this permit. (OWNER)(CONTRACTOR) Construction Value : $650.00 Permit Fee : $29.60 Plan Review Fee : $0.00 Use Tax : $16.25 ~ Total: $45.85 Use Description : 200 ft length of 6 ft high wood fence. East side 97 ft, south end 103 ft BUILDING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY s..... m SIC : Sq. Ft. : Approval : MLC Complies w/fence regulations Zoning : R-1 rhmifeta WEEREMEM / bmapadblefartoeuingprapoly Okay liaes nd woshuMitig improvements according to Uu Approval : DM appfoycQ plan wW reqtdred development standards, The City is not responsible for inaccurate infoemation submitted within the plau se4 and any caasavction Approval : errors resuidng from inaccueate information. Occupancy : Walls : Roof : Stories : Residential Units : Electrical License No : Company: Expiration Date : Approval: Plumbing License No : Company: Expiration Date : Approval: Mechanical License No : Company: Expiration Date : Approval: (1) This permit was issuetl in a( Regulations and Buildin~ G (2) This permit shall expire if (A abandonetl for a penod of 1 (3) If this permit expires, a new (4) (5) (6) and z provisions sel forth in yopur application and is subject to the laws of the State of Coloredo and to the Zonin9 3e, Colorado or any o[her applicable ordinances of the City. ied is not commencetl wiihin sixty (60) days from issue date or (B) the building authorizetl is suspentletl or quired for a fee of one-half the amount nortnally required, provided no changes have been or will be made in the oension or abantlonment has not exceeded one (1) yeac If changes are made or if suspension or abandonment 3r a new permit . . I change the naW21 flow ofwater causing a drainage problem. lwenty-four (24) hours in advance for all inspections antl shall receive written approval on inspedion card before I zwings antl specifiwUOns shall not be consirued to be a permit for, nor an approval of, any violation of the provisions law, rule or regulatioa Chief Building DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Building IPermit Number : BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION - 235-2855 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Date : 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215 qPPLICATIo N' Property Owner a. e~Ge- S74e tJcc Property Address : Phon~° 3- ~33 "33~ Z, Contractor License No. : /~,l ct;) /b Company Phone : OWNER/CONTR,4CTOR SIGNATURE OF UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT Construction Value 6~ a, rf'Gd I hereby certify that the setback distances proposed by this pertnit application are acwrate, Peff1'llt FeB : Z C. (2O and do not violate applicable ordinances,. rules or regulations of the City of iNheat Ridge or 2 covenants, easements or restrictions of record; that all measurements shown, and allegations made are accurate; that 1 have read and agree to abide by all conditions printed on this USe T8X ; Z C~ application, and that I assume full responsib)))'liry for compliance with the Wheat Ridge Building Code (U.B.C.) and all otherapplicable ~I~At Ridge inances, forwork underthis pertnit TOt81 (OWNER)(CONTRACTOR) SIGN pq-~ y-/D 4 se : A &-r~ 64F /-'ch ~ e. Description:Ce-~~ 97lal- CoZ.hf BUI,LDING ,D~,E/PARTMENT USE ONLY CM~~ SIC : Sq Ft Zonin9 APProval APProvai ('Units ~ ~~fApproval : Occupancy : Walls Roof : Stories ResiElectrical License No : Plumbing License No : Mechanical Lic ~ Company : Company : Company : ~ Expiration Date : Expiration Date : Expiration Date : Approval : Approval : Approval : (1) This pertnit was issuetl in accordance with the provisions set torth in yopur application an0 is 5u0ject to the laws of the Sfate of Colorado antl to Ne:.oning Regulations antl Builtling Code of Wheat Ritlge, Coloratlo or any oNer applicable ortlinances of the City. (2) This pertnit shall expire if (A) the work authonzetl is not commence0 abandoned for a period of 720 days. within sixty (60) days from issue tlate or (B) the building authorized is suspended or (3) If this pertni[ expires, a new permit may be acquiretl tor a tee of one-half the amount nortnally required, provided no changes have been or will he made in the original plans antl specifiwlions and any suspension or abantlonment has not exceedetl one (1) year. If changes are matle or if suspension or abanGOnment exceetls one (1) year. fu0 fees shall be paid for a new pertnit . (4) No work ot any manner shall be done that will change the nam21 flow of water wusing a d2inage pmblem. (5) ConVactor shall notlfy the Building InspeMOr twenry-four (24) haurs in advance for all inspections and shall receive written approval on inspection card before proceetliing with successive phases of the io6. .(6) The issuance of a pertnit or the approval of tl2wings and specificadons shall not be wnsWed to be a pertnit for, nor an approval of, any violatian of the provisions of the 6uildi~s orny oNer orCinance, law, rule or regula6on. . ~ v a 3.3 u a~- ~,3~- ~aoz 1 ~ /e/Ff ~ x ~x >c x x;~~;,~ x ~ ~ x U add~~ A -2 F# Il/e Lt-) e~ c x-. x ~ ~ l4 lk~ >G-4<-JF X-xjc V/ Hd ucre, llydl~c~ p= ~ ,t >2- 4,),, 2,t';'z a. c~ ~ /15`3 P~ J,./ M 0 O x 0 4 z m 0 H ~ N 3 Q W H U) w U W Z w o x O Q J F~ Q W F- ~ t.i Q t LC) M 3 0 ~ m m ~ E ~ g 3 a ¢ Z n V ~ m o a a Z zw g ~ f Q ~ OC J a co W ; o _ N O0. L Cl o "O ~ S ¢z ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ Z O U) cr LU LL L~ w ~ U- O } F- Z :D 0 U LLJ ~ ~ ~ Q W 3 ~ 0 } ~ U O W ~ Q 0 J 0U x 'L 0 M W` r J Vl ~ ~ ~ ~ J W ~7 o D a U / F z CO O ~ 4 ~ W J ~tu 2 / ~ h co ~ 0 / a Q L ¢ Q a = 0 3NNo iu M G J~ ~ 3NoNd,3731 J W ~ WZ~ SO y 1 ~ . L £SI O *Hb3,10 ,L' ~ ,b'IZ W a ~ Zb ~ 0 _ . m W ~ > ~ a . • ~ o Q « X _ H LL M . U 1~ (n Q$ Z : .;Q w Y 3 Z D u O ( O ~ m ,6 SZ O N 11 W J ~ 1; o Q~ ~ 0"£I O. V.: a~ W D Z W C O Q i 0 6 u 0 F u U) w 3 x oa Zm w ~ oa ~ 'a a ~gg I v E$JoB U i odt;o c D Q V j 0~ W q>` V I ~ U U N s E a; C q C L I 0 ~ D d oL y I s~xa~ ~ ~ c E OZ ~ o d cLi . ` I 1- p W y O ~G ~ m N e ¢ E O O L ~ d ~ N ~ CC C N ~ ~ N O N ~ N ~ ~ L U ~ d ~ z==~v=o= ~ W O J C = ` ~ ~ cpd.E cc - Q 2 y p~ q U J J N y a EmEV R~.= u _dy o O 1] L~ N~ A > 0 E C L L (G I ~ u 2 h _ gy,-°» m Q d~y a~~ m T L I C L L C ~ ~ -vc c ~ ~rgS~d- = I o a E cz C Y ~ ~ ~E-°qgm b°B'~3 E 5~ O p y C A N3 aE o m`o i~ ~ E - nc°co ~ C ,n ~ E m u - i G'm~y a d L N O Tp J N ~L__~~L F ! v C~n2'c'4 ~ c Z C . y w y L L O= q d O C I - C V rv DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Bt11LDING INSPECTION LINE - 303-234-5933 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE " 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215 - (303-235-2855) Building Permit Number Date 9251 7/30/99 Property Owner: Property Address : 9960 W 35TH AVE Contractor License No. : Company: Phone: 233-3302 Phone: OWNER/CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE OF UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT I hereby certify that the setback distances proposed by this permit application are accurate, and do not violate applicable ordinances, rules or regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge or covenants, easements or restrictions of record; that all measurements shown, and allegations made are accurate; that I have read and agree to abide by all conditions printed on this application, and that I assume full responsibility f~ r compliance with the Wheat Ridge Building Code (U.B.CJ and all other applicable Wheatjge ordinDnces, for wgrk under this permit. (OWNER)(CONTRACTOR) Construction Value : $400.00 Permit Fee : $23.50 Plan Review Fee : $0.00 Use Tax : $10.00 Total: $33.50 Use Description : 80' of 6' high wooden/cedar fence BUILDING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY gismilimmm Approval : SM Zoning: R-2 Approval: DM Approval: Occupancy : Walis SIC : Sq. Ft. : 6' fence must be 30' back from front property line along W. 35th Avenue. Okay Roof Electrical License No : Company : Expiration Date : Approval: Plumbing License No : Company : Expiration Date : Approval: Stories : Residential Units : Mechanical License No : Company : Expiration Date : Approval: (1) Th is permit was issuetl in accordance wi[h the provisions se[ forth in yopur application and is subject to the laws of ihe State of Colorado and to the Zoning Regulations and Buildin~ Code of VJheat Ridge, Coloretlo or any other applicable ordinances of the City. (2) Th is permit shall expire if (A) the work authorized is not commenced within sixty (80) days from issue date or (B) the building authorizetl is suspended or abandoned for a period of 720 days. (3) If this permit expires, a new pertnit may be acquired for a fee of one-half [he amount normally requiretl, provitletl no changes have been or will be made in the original plans and speciPCations and any suspension or abandonment has noi exceeded one (i) year. If changes are made or if suspension or abandonment exceeds one (1) year, full fees shall be paid for a new pertnit. (4) No work of any manner shall be done that will change the natural Bow of water causing a tlrainage problem. (5) Contrec[or shall noliry the Building Inspector hvenry-four (24) hours in advance for all inspections and shall receive wntten approval on inspec[ion card before proceediing with successive phases of ihe job. (6) The issuance of a permit or the approval of drawings and specifrations shall not be consWed to 6e a permi[ for, nor an approval oF, any violadon of the provisions of the 6uilding codes or any other ortlinance, law, rule or regula[ion. Chief Buiiding Ins ector DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Building Permit Number : BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION - 235-2855 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Date : 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215 AppI:ICATIo N Property Owner: c. "J" Property Address : ~'(r-/GU QJ 3..f'~L Ck-~ Phone Contractor License No. : Company : Phone : 2' G U ~.Sl OWNER/CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE OF UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT Construction Value :(la-eg, I hereby certify that the setback distances proposed by this permit application are accurate, PeffTtlt F8B : and do not violate applicable ordinances, rules or regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge or covenants, easements or restrictions of record; that all measurements shown, and allegations made are accurate; that I have read and agree to abide by all conditions printed on this US2 TaX : application, and that I assume full responsibility complia ce with the Wheat Ridge Building Code (U.B.C.) and all other applicable Wheat ge ordin ces, for )rk under this pertnit. , ~ Total: (OWNER)(CONTRACTOR) SIGNED ` DATE ~ Use: Description ~o- ++C ~ BUILDING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY 7~2g q~ 2a~1~' ortt " Approval: GpyyC~ ~~k~- vwkSY h'e 30 6a.fiiv Zoning : pt fz2 V-`*wc n vu • aiy"o Ave- < Approval.~~. gm 7/Z0 ( Approval : Occupancy : Walls : Roof : Stories : Electrical License No : Company : Piumbing License No : Company : X' Ak . RECEIVED JUL 2 31999 Mechanical License No : Company : Expiration Date : Expiration Date : Expiration Date : Approval: Approval: Approval: (1) This permit was issued in accortlance with the provisions set forih in yopur application antl is subject to the laws of the State of Coloretlo and to the Zoninq Regulations antl Building Code of Wheat Ridge, Coloredo or any other applicable ordinances of the Ciry. (2) This permit shall expire if (A) the work authonzed is not commenced within sixty (60) days from issue date or (8) the building auNOnzed is suspended or abandoned tor a periotl of 120 daya (3) If ihis permit expires, a new pertnit may be acquiretl for a fee of one-half the amount nortnally require4 provided no changes have been or will be made in the onginal plans antl specifications and any suspension or abantlonment has not exceetled one (1) year. It changes are matle or if suspension or abantlonment exceetls one (1) year, full fees shall be paitl for a new permd. (4) No work of any manner shall be done that will change the natural flow of water causing a drainage problem. (5) ConVactor shall notify the Building Inspector hventy-four (24) hours in advance for all inspections and shall receive wntten approval on inspeclion wrd 6efore proceediing with successive phases of Nejob. (6) Theissuance of a permit he approval of drawings and specificatlons shall not 6e consWed to be a pertnit for, nor an approval of, any violatlon of the provisions of the 6uilding cotles o ny o er ortlinance, law, rule or regula6on. ti~ Chief Building In e tor 6(1 3s~ ~ ) ~ ~ d'/ ? ~ ~ -F-- J l d aS~ ~ J vUec.,~- ~aFF F ~wJf ° ~ V C _ Lr ~ FD~f 109,d CC2,i-,r~ ~Ff x T ~o -;r- ~ STr~ W ~S'~C~ Cel~ e , 3ot ei O V rn ~ ~ d' rn :4 0 z F ~ ~ W a H Z W ~ a OZ p ~ W y J >-O O O U w N p 0 Z ~ ~aa W 0 ~?3 O L)L. Z O Z o} W J H ~ m U Q a O W W ~ a0 L m ~ 0 Na W M 30 ~ ~A N ~ U a N U V a y U V ¢ w w a w z o o ~ w O Q a ~ O N ~ W a ~ Q ~ 0 ~ ~ U ¢ U a P 9 s a S u e 0 4 0 ~ $ N ° N ° o o G ~ O S • p O „ eZao a°o n E 'v o a I y e Y e c t e O H W N O S N ~ 0 1 O 0 0 0 0 3 ~ ; Y O I❑ a J I❑ ~ I❑ 0 c I❑ y O y 0 C 2 r 2 ❑ o z ^ z o 0 _ ~ J ~ J p ❑ ~ n O ~ n W c ~ Y W ~ 0 K 3 3 0 n 0 y 0 ~ O w ~ n t~i N V a< u Z a u w~ m w W m a J W 6 f r f 1~ ~ J I /1 F - ~ N = fV o1 d ~ ol In = fV fA N W ~ W = (D Z cn w ~ LL Ci Z w W U W a o W 2 C ~ ~ 4 ti w z ~ N n z 1 ~ W ~ 7 F ~ K N ¢ x O O 2 N zo W G LL = ~ Z 0 Q m ~ U O ' = O N¢ a U ~ rx W Q N m W ~ y ~ F Z + o ~ W ~ 3NIl Al!l3dOHd 3015 ~ ~ T W 3 = J Y J Y H ~ ~ a O ~ 0 a a ¢ a Z o ~ ~ LL aNll A1~13d0lJd 3 IS Z 0 ~ Z 0 W y d y W z C ~ Q J ~ ~H mz ~ w- W x Q d } > 2 J m p O a Z W W V o= a J Z ~ H Q J ~ > 2 W U z vi W a Y ~ ~ } o J o :i z 3 z Qo_ s~ N U s z ~ W CC ~ Q P ~a (~j°wN y y W ¢ LL J o ~ W ~ W a ~ j Q z Q 0 = w Z F x Z a m ¢ ~ 2 ? 00 ¢ u 02 J w ~n > a 6 X a° o r zf 0 w p r LL~ w 1- D z Z 6 1 N m 0 ¢ X = N w w Q Z F ~ J > 3 o~ a3w LL a Q O 1 V ~ Q U J a N Z O ~ a ~ N N s 0 N ~ W $ ~ f- c ~ W g g y LLJ 1 Q 6 m m m = m y N y~j J $ t7 x ' 0 4 Z ~ F 2 p 3 W 4 ~ ~ W W ~ LL Z ln Q O ~ 2' Q z H a ¢ Mf ~ Z ~ N ~ d N Z o N m W m ~ = u N ~ o a N w w S - m w w = ~ x W s 3 a ~ v~ LL N x ; ~ a W W Q g u. a 3 a 3 a m = fn 3 vi a c~ a 3 ~ a uzi o ~ m D w m r=- o o ~ F Q W ^ f W N 2 ~ Er J J - N N ' ¢ W J p x W LL r d ~ 2 2 N N Z W R N N ¢ a a t g o ~ o Q U y1 F- I w V ~ W (15 N ~ = p 7 > V t 'J ~ ~ O K W Z Y Q U N ' m N m p O Z O y j W R W , W W U Z V, ~ W ~ w g " ' z ~ r w J ~ z N Z L o 2 3 a U a S 3 p - 1- ~ 2 a H o Q - Q 2 f 2 J 1 ~ li '2 (N I N ~ ~ Q g ~ W U u ~ Z Z ~>o ~ N y ~ ~6U ?a j 'V N J V7 N ? U¢ j p j LL O ~ z P " 1~ O y ` o ~ U ~ ~ O ~ a ~ VI Z \ ~ C7 Z W LLJ W p w L~ m = F' Q f- J a w y j w ~ d w (f) a a, o ~ N E p= O T p 9 O_ n v~ E o m v 3° t o~ ~ o K _ c o E c 0 0 ~ o o m o =o " y`o .+t o m ~ ` 3 > c O O o ; O N o y y Or« 7 i u c V r> V r ufR ~ T 0^ O O C` O= y~ u~ a w 3~ o p, o_ O c O O o.~ o C ~ ~ ~ m 0 V - ~ O O O O 0~ E ~ u ut «U'> 3 f DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO LITH2 �� 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff- Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge De fendant - Appell Law rence Stewart ACourt Use Only® Case No: 01 CV 1772 Division: 9 ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice made by the parties; and, THE COURT having read the Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice and being fully appraised in the premises; HEREBY ORDERS that pursuant to the Stipulation, this case is dismissed with prejudice, with each side to pay his or its own fees and expenses. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT, pursuant to the Stipulation, the City of _Wheat Ridge_shall_process_anv future applications for building, permits filar! by Lawrence Stewart with the City in the ordinary course of business without regard to any proceedings in this appeal. Dated: (6 )-vv TO F " � COP`: (,,ORDERED DocUMENT "r� h Hls PAR 11„O 4 ni ` }•HER THEIII `}, O` C3 01- �NSEL VVIT-;IiV 48MOUH DF RECEIPT, BY THE COURT: Distr' t Court Judge s_ Y SENT Z J TO: —�? f I By TOM STOCVCER J W Be'ryhill UJRSUCH KIRGI rv� ATTORNEYS AT LAW TOWER L SUITE 1000 1 1515 ARAPAHOE STREET ! DENVER, COLORADO 80202 ! TELEPHONE (303) 376-5000 1 FACSIMILE (303) 376-5001 Apri115, 2002 Clerk of the Court Wheat Ridge Municipal Court 7500 West 29' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 -6713 Re: Case Nos. CE00 -2, 23, 24 and 35 City of Wheat Ridge v. Lawrence Stewart Dear Clerk: Enclosed for filing is a fully executed Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice in regards to the above - captioned matter. Sincerely, GORSUCH KIRGIISSnL/LP Winona Correa, Secretary to Carmen Beery Enclosure r , DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303- 271 -6215> Plaintiff- ADOellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendanit- Appellant Lawrence Stewart ®Court Use Only® Thomas H. Stocker Ph: 303 - 988 -4205 Attorney at LavV Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom@thstocker.com Case No: 01 CV 1772 Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg. No. 14716 Division: 9 Attorney for Defendant- Appellant STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 1. Thomas H. Stocker, of Thomas H. Stocker, P.C., Attorney at Law, counsel for defendant Lawrence Stewart ( "Stewart"), and Carmen Beery, Attorney at Law, of Gorsuch Kirgis, LLP, counsel for The City of Wheat Ridge ( "Wheat Ridge "), for and on behalf of their respective clients, represent to the Court that the above - identified cases have been resolved and therefore stipulate to the immediate dismissal with prejudice of this case, with each side to pay his or its own attorney's fees and costs. 2. This stipulation is made by Wheat Ridge without prejudice as to any future applications for building permits that Stewart may file with Wheat Ridge and Wheat Ridge represents that such applications will be processed in the ordinary course of business without regard to this stipulation or any proceedings in this case. 3. The Parties pray that this Court will promptly issue its Order dismissing this case with prejudice. DATED: April l Zf� 2002_ Respectfully submitted, GORSUCH KIRGIS, LLP THOMAS H. STOCKED, P.C., Attorney at Law By: Carmen Beery at Law .432234 Tower[, Suit 000 1 515 Arapahoe Street Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303 -376 -5000 Fax: 303 - 376 -5001 Attorneys for the City of Wheat Ridge Thomas H. Stocker, V14716 143 Union Blvd., #k900 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 Fax: 303 -989 -2825 $mail: tom@thstocker.com Attorney for Lawrence Stewart ce COPY SENT 2- 0 Z T O: cs� Stewert\PLD-AppeallSlip for Diamissal -2- By TOM STOCKER GORSUCH KIRGI 1.P t� ATTORNEYS AT LAW TOWER I, SUITE 1000 1 1515 ARAPAHOE STREET i DENVER, COLORADO 80202 1 TELEPHONE (303) 376-5000 1 FACSIMILE (303) 376-5001 April 8, 2002 Thomas H. Stocker, Esq. Suite #900 143 Union Boulevard Lakewood, CO 80228 Re: City of Wheat Ridge v. Lawrence Stewart Dear Mr. Stocker: Enclosed please find the Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice for your signature and for filing at the Jefferson County District Court once we receive the Order dismissing this case from the Wheat Ridge Municipal Court. Sincerely, G o r s uch KIRGIS LLP Winona Correa, Secretary to Carmen Beery. Enclosure WINONA \53027.3 \406725.01 DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart A.Court Use OnlyAL Thomas H. Stocker Ph: 303 - 988 -4205 Attorney at Law Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Case No: 01 CV 1772 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom@thstocker.com Lakewood, CO 80228 Atfy Reg. No. 14716 Division: 9 Attorney for Defendant- Appellant STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 1. Thomas H. Stocker, of Thomas H. Stocker, P.C., Attorney at Law, counsel for defendant Lawrence Stewart ( "Stewart "), and Carmen Beery, Attorney at Law, of Gorsuch Kirgis, LLP, counsel for The City of Wheat Ridge ( "Wheat Ridge "), for and on behalf of their respective clients, represent to the Court that the above - identified cases have been resolved and therefore stipulate to the immediate dismissal with prejudice of this case, with each side to pay his or its own attorney's fees and costs. 2. This stipulation is made by Wheat Ridge without prejudice as to any future applications for building permits that Stewart may file with Wheat Ridge and Wheat Ridge represents that such applications will be processed in the ordinary course of business without regard to this stipulation or any proceedings in this case. 3. The Parties pray that this Court will promptly issue its Order dismissing this case with prejudice. DATED: April r 2002. Respectfully submitted, GORSUCH KIRGIS, LLP By: Carmen Beery, orney at Law #32234 Tower 1, Suit 000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303 - 376 -5000 Fax: 303 - 376 -5001 Attorneys for the City of Wheat Ridge THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney at Law M $teweA\PLD- AppeaMlip for Diarnleeal � 2 Thomas H. Stocker, #14716 1433 Union Blvd., #900 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 Fax: 303 -989 -2825 email: tom@thstocker.com Attorney for Lawrence Stewart Thomas H. Stocker, P.C. Attorney at Law 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 Lakewood, CO 80228 -1857 Phone: 303 - 988.4205 Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 tom @thstocker.com April 1, 2002 Via Facsimile to 303 - 376 -5001 Carmen Beery Gorsuch Kirgis, LLP 1515 Arapahoe St., Tower 1, # 1000 Denver, CO 80202 Re: Wheat Ridge Municipal Court Cases and District Court Appeal Dear Carmen: We exchanged emails discussing the best way to get these cases resolved, I think the best way would be to file a Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice in the Municipal Court. When the Order is issued, then file a Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice in the District Court. I have prepared draft Stipulations and Orders which are enclosed for your review, comment and approval. One of Larry's concerns is that the City not retaliate against him when he files his application for a building permit for the garage he wants to build. I trust that this would not be a problem, but to accommodate this concern I put some language in the Stipulations and Orders along these lines (that such application will be treated "in the ordinary course of business without regard to any proceedings in these cases "). Please give me your thoughts as soon as possible. My o ening brief is due on Friday, April 5" , so if we can't get all this paperwork done by a 3th will file an uncontested motion for an extension representing that we have resolved the cases and are preparing the proper motions. I trust that you are feeling better, but don't rush it, it takes time. Sincerely yours, Thomcke , By: r�ho mas H. Schocker Attorney at Law THS /ts Enc. c(w/ enc): Larry Stewart Z 'd 0ztiZIIN 9Z8Z 686 HE 90 ]IS NOINA tti NO Z;9 Z00Z 'I '?dV �ISf� MUNICIPAL COURT, CI OF WHEAT RIDGE, STATE OF COLORADO Case Nos. CE00 -2, 23 2 and 35 STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V. LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. 1. Thomas H. Stocker, of Thomas H. Stocker, P.C., Attorney at Law, counsel for defendant Lawrence Stewart ( "Stewart"), and Carmen Beery, Attorney at Law, of Gorsuch Kirgis, LLP, counsel for The City of Wheat Ridge ( "Wheat Ridge "), for and on behalf of their respective clients, represent to the Court that the above - identified cases have been resolved and therefore stipulate to the immediate dismissal with prejudice of the above - identified cases and of all charges that were filec(or could have been filed,? ? against defendant Stewart in the above - identified cases, with each side to pay his or its own attorney's fees and costs. 2. This dismissal with prejudice is intended by the Parties to be a full and complete dismissal of all claims that were made,Cand of all claims that could have been made against defendant Stewart in these cases ,TWs dIsmisealVith udice-includes� �® �the�,aive�by�W- heat• Rrdge =of�ali�f►rres�nd�pe�alt�esiF� njithatwe�eo��coutd�fave b e tm osed �n th sss cas s 9a+.ns&Stawa& 3. This stipulation is made by Wheat Ridge without prejudice as to any future applications for building permits that Stewart may file with Wheat Ridge and Wheat E 'd O7,f1'IN 9 181 886 E0E 9 E ti 31S N01NN t WdtiZ:9 4001 'l '.Idd Ridge represents that such applications will be processed in the ordinary course of business without regard to this stipulation or any proceedings in these cases. 4. The Parties pray that this Court will promptly issue its Order dismissing these cases with prejudice. Upon receipt of the Order, the Parties agree to file a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice of an appeal to the Jefferson County District Court (case no_ 01 CV 1772) filed by Stewart in this matter. DATED: April 2, 2002. Respectfully submitted, GORSUCH KIRGIS, LLP THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney at Law Carmen Beery, Attorney at Law 432234 Tower f, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303 - 376 -5000 Fax: 303- 376 -5001 Attorneys for the City of Wheat Ridge S16W2r1PIePStip to Dismiss By: Thomas H. Stocker, 414716 143 Union Blvd., #900 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 email: tom@thstocker.com Attorney for Lawrence Stewart -2- t A UZVZ' 9Z8Z 686 EN 90 31S NOINN tt NdtZ :9 ZODZ 'I 'AV MUNICIPAL COURT, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, STATE OF COLORADO Case Nos. CEOO -2, 23, 24 and 35 ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V. LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice made by the parties; and, THE COURT having read the Stipulation and being fully appraised in the premises; W I ' Je4' HEREBY ORDERS that pursuant to the Stipulation, the a ove -noted cases, and -7 all charges that were filed or that could have been filed in them,�nd all fines and �- penalties9if any, that were or could have been imposed in any of these cases are dismissed with prejudice, with each side to pay his or its own fees and expenses. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT, pursuant to the Stipulation, the City of Wheat Ridge shall process any future applications for building permits filed by Lawrence Stewart with the City in the ordinary course of business without regard to any proceedings in these cases. Dated: BY THE COURT: Municipal Court Judge y 'd OZUZ'IN 9Z8Z 686 EDE 90 hS NOW tt Wd9Z:g ZOOZ 'l 'ady DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff- Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart ACourt Use OnlyA Thomas H. Stocker Ph: 303 -988 -4205 Attorney at Law Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Case No: 01 CV 1772 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom@thstocker.com Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg. No. 14716 Division: 9 Attorney for Defendant- Appellant STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 1. Thomas H. Stocker, of Thomas H. Stocker, P.C., Attorney at Law, counsel for defendant Lawrence Stewart ( "Stewart"), and Carmen Beery, Attorney at Law, of Gorsuch Kirgis, LLP, counsel for The City of Wheat Ridge ( "Wheat Ridge "), for and on behalf of their respective clients, represent to the Court that the above - identified cases have been resolved and therefore stipulate to the immediate dismissal with prejudice of this case, with each side to pay his or its own attorney's fees and costs. 2. This stipulation is made by Wheat Ridge without prejudice as to any future applications for building permits that Stewart may file with Wheat Ridge and Wheat Ridge represents that such applications will be processed in the ordinary course of business without regard to this stipulation or any proceedings in this case. 'd 07ti1 9281 686 HE 90 31S NOINN VV Nd91:9 1004 'I 'adV I The Parties pray that this Court will promptly issue its Order dismissing this case with prejudice. DATED- April , 2002. Respectfully submitted, GORSUCH KIRGIS, LLP THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney at Law By: Carmen Beery, Attorney at Law #32234 Tower 1, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303 - 376 -5000 Fax: 303 - 376 -5001 Attorneys for the City of Wheat Ridge By: Thomas H. Stocker, #14716 143 Union Blvd., #900 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 email: tom @thstocker.com Attorney for Lawrence Stewart Stewart\PLD- AppeaPStlp for Dfsmissal -2- L 'd a7,tiU`ON gZEZ 686 EOE gEt ]IS NOINn tt WdgZ:9 ZOOZ 'I 'adV DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff-Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart OCourt Use OnlyA Case No: 01 CV 1772 Division: 9 ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice made by the parties; and, THE COURT having read the Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice and being fully appraised in the premises; HEREBY ORDERS that pursuant to the Stipulation, this case is dismissed with prejudice, with each side to pay his or its own fees and expenses THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT, pursuant to the Stipulation, the City of Wheat Ridge shall process any future applications for building permits filed by Lawrence Stewart with the City in the ordinary course of business without regard to any proceedings in this appeal, Dated: BY THE COURT: District Court Judge 8 1 d II1,U1 9184 686 EDE 9Et 3tS NOINA tt Wd91:9 1664 'I 'JdV City of Wheat Ridge Gorsuch Kirgis, Attorneys At Law Carmen Beery 1515 Arapahoe Street Tower 1 Suite 1000 D? ±ver. CO 80202 March 26, 2002 Dear Carmen, This letter is to confirm that the rock that Larry Stewart has placed in his front and rear yard is sufficient for erosion control. Ideally, some type of cloth would have been laid underneath the rock, to prohibit the rock from sinking into the earth or sliding and becoming displaced. Larry stated that he has brought fifty tons of rock on to his property, with the majority of the rock being placed in the rear yard. Larry will be expected to bring more rock on to the property if the above mentioned becomes a problem and thus, a safety hazard to the dwelling. When you, Tom Stocker, Larry Stewart, and I met on the property, on March 20 2002, Larry and Tom demonstrated that any water that would flow north, would be diverted away from the home by means of a slight gully. The hill on the south side of the property has been significantly leveled off. I have spoken with Director of Public Works Bob Goebel, as will as City Engineer Greg Knudson. They agree that the rock, if maintianed, will constitute sufficient erosion control. Please call me with any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Serely, Cindy agerman Property and Zoning Inspector Feb -26 -02 11:42A DEVREVFAX 303 235 2857 P_01 City of wr,��at Ridge Fax Trarvsrnj{taI 7500 West 29"' Avenue Planning: Building: Engineering: Fax DATE I� I uZ Name: Organization: Fax: Phone: From: Division: Subject: # of Pages: Wheat Lidge, Colorado 80215 Phone if (303) 235 -2846 Phone if (303) 235 -2855 Phone if (303) 235 -2861 Phone if (303) 235 -2857 (3a3) - T - - Pl anning Buildins; ❑ Engineering ❑ (Including cov r page) �2- Commen LAM. �� u c,\ � ...Fj uU. Original to follow in the mail ❑ Yes 5+40- Feb -26 -02 11:42A DEVREV 303 1 235 2857 P_02 . P. 1 J D r Wheat ment o f Pub M E M O RAND U M Department Public Works TO: Cindy Hagerman, Code Official II CC: Darin Morgan, Chief Building Official Greg Knudson, City Engineer FROM: Michael Garcia, Development Review Engin ler 'f DATE: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 SUBJECT: 9960 W. 35' Avenue - Erosion Control The letter dated April 10, 2001 that was mailed to the Engir - er -of- Record, Mr. Jeff Davis, P.E. stated the following: 1. Erosion control for the project shall be placed in the appro .uriate locations designated by the Engineer -of- Record, Mr. Jeff Davis should circumstances require this prevention. Conformance with the approved grading/drainage plan (including erosion control prevention); hall be maintained as needed during the course of construction. The site shall have some form of soil stabilization (i.e.: sod or some form of permanent landscaping placed) to prevent the topsoil from eroding off he site. Erosion control may be required until permanent landscaping is placed. Should there be no permanent soil stabilization in place, temporary erosion control should be placed to protect the drainage pipe under the driveway entrance anc also to protect the adjacent properties. The Engineer -of- Record is to consulted as to the Best Manageme it Practice (BMP) if erosion control is required. 9960w351h erosion.mem Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet Please Deliver To: Carmen Beery - Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Facsimile Number: 303 - 376 -5001 Date: February 25, 2002 Number of pages Including this cover sheet: 2 Please contact sender if you did not receive all pages in legible condition. Sender: Thomas M. Stocker, P.C. Phone: (303) 988 -4205 Attorney at Law 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 Fax: (303) 989 -2825 Lakewood, CO 80228 tom@thstocker.com Message: Carmen: Attached is the Wheat Ridge memo dated March 30, 2001. The handwritten comments are mine. Regards, Tom Stocker Confidentiality Notice The information in this facsimile transmission is privileged and confidential between attorney and client, and is strictly intended for the use of the person or entity named above. If the reader of any part of this transmission is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any part of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone, and return the original transmission to sender at our expense by first class mail. I A EBH"N 9181 686 SOE Ht 31S NOINN tti Nd19:8 1004 '81'9'3 FROM: Michael Garcia, Development Review Engineer DATE: March 30, 2001 SUBJECT: 9960 West 35T Avenue - Larry Stewart Grading Issues The plan that was submitted for Public Works to review is can not be approved for the following reasons; 1. The topography lines shown on plan do not have elevations_ w 2. The profile for the driveway needs to have elevations for the existing grade and final grade. 3. The profile needs to have the existing Corrugated Metal Pipe shown. 4^ ere will the s 'I from the driveway be relocated? Offsite or will it be rrclocat e `x site? The redline plan is to be s milted with the corrected include two (2) plans �withthe next submittal. The plan corrections are tobe submitted nolaterth ri14,2001 the Public Works Department. Shouldthis plan set be acceptable, the Public Works Department r issue a grading permit onApri14,2001 with the work to be completed by Please call e at 303 - 235 -2868 if you have any questions, ,2,dd` cc: File (3) 9960w95th reviewl.mem d E6ll' 9Z8Z 686 EOE 9Et hS NOW tt N Z91 ZOOZ '9Z'gad CC: Greg Knudson, City Engineer Feb -26 -02 12.53P DEVREV \l FAX 303 235 2857 P_01 city o f wr,E:at Ridg@ F::a>c Tran srn i{t 7500 West 29' Avenue • Wheat R.i Age, Colorado 80215 Planning: Phone # ;303) 235 -2846 Building: Phone # (303) 235 -2855 Engineering: Phone # (303) 235 -2861 Fax Phone # (303) 235 -2857 Fax: Phone: From: — Division: Planning Building ❑ Subject: _ # of Pages: (including_ cover page) Comments: Engineering ❑ Original to follow in the mail ❑ Yes t3.-No Feb -26 -02 12:53P OEVREVFAX 303 235 2857 P_O2 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Wheat Telephone 303/ 235 -2868 ' �� Ridge FAX 303/235 -2857 April 10, 2001 Mr. Jeff Davis, P.E. Jeff Davis Engineering LLC 24504 Norman Lane Evergreen, Colorado 80439 FIL I I' Copy Re: 9960 W. 35t Ave., Wheat Ridge, Co..orado - Approval of Grading & Drainage Plan, Erosion Cont301 Dear Mr. Davis, This letter is to inform you that the Grading & Drainage Plan, for the above referenced project have been reviewed and approved for construction. Please be aware of the following items regarding the construction of t]Le project: 1. The proposed drainage facilities shall be constructed then approved by the City of Wheat Ridq prior to issuance of the Certificate of Completion. 2. Erosion control for the project shall be placed in the appropriate locations designated b+ the Engineer -of- Record, Mr. Jeff Davis should circumstance's require this prevention. Conformance with the a,>proved grading /drainage plan (including erosion control pr: vention)shall be maintained as needed during the coarse of construction. The site shall have some form of soil stabilization (i.e.: sod or some form of permanent landscaping placed) to prevent the topsoil from.eroding off the sl.te. Erosion control may be required until permanent landscaping is placed. 3. All drainage improvements shall be constructed in conformance with the approved drainage report and plan. 4. Upon completion of the drainage improvements the engineer, Mr. Jeff Davis, P.E. shall provide to the City of Wheat Ridge a letter of certification an3 spot elevations on an as -built plan stating that the various improvements, as Feb -26 -02 12:53P DEVREVFAX _ 303 235 2857 P_O3 defined in the grading /drainage plz accurately surveyed to confirm that in accordance with these documents . letter shall be written and stampe( prepared the grading /drainage plan, for review and approval by the Cit, the Certificate of Completion. n, have been their construction is The certification by the engineer who and shall be submitted prior to issuance of 5. It will be the responsibility of the contractor for the project to repair any damage to th. existing public improvements on 9960 W. 35 Avenue as a result of related construction traffic in the area. Also, the contractor will be responsible for maintainin-r W. 35t Avenue on a regular basis such that they are free of construction debris and tracking from construct.on traffic accessing the site. 6. It will be the responsibility of tie developer /owner, to provide the necessary testing, as applicable for the scope of this project, for subgrade compaction and other related material tests for those improvements to be constructed within public right -o£ -way. (SEE ATTACHED MATERIAL SAMPLING & TESTING REQUIREMENTS) 7. Prior to any construction within tie public right -o -way, the necessary right -of -way constructioi permit(s) and respective licensing will need to be submittel for processing by the City. If you have any questions, please corL::act me at 303 -235 -2868. Sincerely, 5 ichael Garcia Development Review Engineer cc: Bob Goebel, Public Works Director Greg Knudson, City Engineer Alan White, Planning 6 Developmen. Director Darin Morgan, Codes Administrator Cindy Hagerman, Code Enforcement )fficer II File (3) 9960w35th approva1.1tr Feb -26 -02 12.53P ®EVREVFAX 303 235 2857 P_04 2/99 CITY OF WHEAT R DGE MATERIALS SAMPLING AND TEST ING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC I vTROVEMENTS DESCRIPTION Materials sampling and testing for public improvements shall be performed by an independent materials testing company at the expense of the developer, and/or .itility district. Unless otherwise designated, all referenced specifications, standards or policies shall be t to latest edition as revised or updated by approved supplements published and issued prior to the :late of the building permit. REQUIREMEM 'S All materials sampling and testing shall be performed b, certified, experienced and qualified materials testing technicians who work under the supervision of a registered professional engineer in the State of Colorado. All materials sampling and testing equipmen shall be serviceable and calibrated. Soil classifications and moisture- density curves shall be provided to the Department of Public Works inspector prior to in -place density testing. Materials test ng technicians shall furnish copies of failed test results to the inspector promptly as the results become a tailable. On a weekly basis when testing is being performed, the developer shall furnish the inspect )r with copies of all test results taken during the prior week and a cover letter, signed by the supervising, - egistered professional engineer, which summarizes the results and discusses any failed tests or nconsistencies. The City materials testing requirements are provided in fable 720 -1. All testing procedures, point of verification and central lab requirements shall be as spec ified in the Frequency Guide Schedule of the Colorado Department of Transportation Field Materials Manual. One test is required for any fraction of the specified frequency. The reference to Section 20' .07 in the table is from the Colorado Department of Transportation Standard Specifications b �r Road and Bridge Construction. Feb -26 -02 12_54P DEVRE\(FAX 303 235 2857 P_05 Table 720 -1 City of Wheat Ridge Materials Te Ming Requirements Type of Test F Remarks Soil Survey (Classification), 1 per 1000 feet of roads ay, Surveys for roadway, sidewalk AASHTO M145 sidewalk or pipe trench and trench may be combined Moisture - Density Curve, 1 per on -site soil type AASHTO method determined AASHTO T99 or T180 1 per import material sc urce by soil or materials type Embankment in -place density, 1 per 300 feet per lane 1 -er 8 Minimum density per soil Colorado Procedures inch loose lift classification, Section 203.07 Roadway subgrade in -place 1 per 300 feet per lane Minimum density per soil density, Colorado Procedures classification, Section 203.07 Sidewalk subgrade in -place 1 per 300 feet of sidew; Ik Minimum density per soil density, Colorado Procedures classification, Section 203.07 Pipe trench in -place density, 1 per 200 feet of trench per 2 Minimum density per soil Colorado Procedures foot vertical interval classification, Section 203.07 Aggregate base course in -place 1 per 300 feet per lanai Minimum 95% of maximum density, Colorado Procedures density, T180 Lime treated subgrade in -place 1 per 300 feet per lane No less than 95% of std. dry density, Colorado Procedures density and opt, moisture, T99 Cement treated base in place I per 300 feet per lane Density in accordance with density, Colorado Procedures contract documents, T134 Hot Bituminous Pavement 1 per each HBP grade t nd Within specifications of asphalt content and gradation Marshall blow specifies i approved mix design Hot Bituminous Pavement in- I per 300 feet per lane )er lift 92 -96% of max. density except place density, Colo. Procedures Grade F to be 90 -95 %, T209 Concrete compressive strength 1 per 100 cubic yards PCC pavement, structural AASHTO Procedures concrete, sidewalks and curbing Concrete air content and slump 1 per 50 cubic yards PCC pavement, structural - AASHTO Procedures concrete, sidewalks and curbing "GORSUCH KIRGIS_. LP _- ATTORNEYS AT LAW TOWER 1, SUITE 1000 [ 1515 ARAPAHOE STREET I DENVER, COLORADO 80202 i TELEPHONE (303) 376-5000 1 FACSIMILE (303) 376-5001 CARMEN N. BEERY DIRECT DIAL: (303) 376 -5064 email: cbeery @gorsuch.com January 7, 2002 Darin Morgan Cindy Hagerman City of Wheat Ridge Code Enforcement 7500 W. 29 Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 -6713 Re: L. Stewart appeal: Court's Order on trial de novo and motion to dismiss Dear Darin and Cindy: Enclosed please find a copy of the District Court's Order concerning Mr. Stewart's request for a trial de novo (a "new" trial on the matter) and the City's motion to dismiss. As you will see,, each party was partly victorious: Mr. Stewart's request for a trial de novo was denied and the City's motion to dismiss was likewise denied. Pursuant to state statute and the court's order, Mr. Stewart must now certify the relevant record to the court at his own expense. The process of transcribing all relevant court proceedings can be costly. Thus, Mr. Stewart may be more inclined to negotiate some settlement agreement with the City than he has been up to now. In light of this, it would be helpful for me to have some specific plan or direction to give to Mr. Stocker as a starting point of negotiations. It would be very helpful if one of you could provide me with the following: (1) the specific locations of current or potential erosion channels from Mr. Stewart's property; and (2) what particular erosion control methods (blankets, hay bails, sod, fences, etc.) you would find satisfactory for each of those locations. I realize that it may seem that we are doing much more work on this matter than Mr. Stewart is. Litigation often muddies the line between offense and p#�S €�to _br'li�e., ahos: ever,- that our.chances- for negotiating- a- settlement are better than before. CNM53027.3\397330.01. Darin Morgan Cindy Hagerman January 7, 2002 Page 2 Please contact me after you have had a chance to gather the information mentioned above. Certainly feel free to call me before then with questions or concerns. Yours truly, GORSUCH KIRGIS, LLP Carmen Beery Enclosure cc: Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney CNB \53027.3 \397330 GORSUCH KIRGIS"LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW TOWER L SUITE 1000 1 ISIS ARAPAHOE STREET i DENVER. COLORADO 80202 i TELEPHONE (303) 376-5000 j FACSIMILE (303) 376 CARMEN N. BEERY DIRECT DIAL: (303) 376-5064 October 9, 2001 email cbeery@gorsuch.com Darin Morgan Cindy Hagerman City of Wheat Ridge Code Enforcement 7500 W. 29 Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 -6713 Re: L. Stewart appeal: Motion to Dismiss and Response to Request for Trial De Novo. Dear Darin and Cindy: Enclosed please find a copy of the latest pleading we have filed in the Stewart matter. As you can see, we have asked the court to dismiss Mr. Stewart's appeal on two bases: (1) the appeal was not timely; and /or (2) Mr. Stewart knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. If the district court does not dismiss the appeal, we have asked that Mr. Stewart's request for a trial de novo (a "brand new" trial on the matter) be denied. We have argued that the records of all the municipal court proceedings in this matter constitute an adequate record upon which to evaluate Mr. Stewart's claims. Please don't hesitate to call me with questions or concerns about this case. I will continue to pass along to you pleadings and other new information I receive. Yours truly, Carmen Encl. cc: Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney CNB \53027.2 \390520 Thomas H. Stocker, P.C. Attorney at Law 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 Lakewood, CO 80228 -1857 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 tom @thstocker.com August 8, 2001 Carmen Beery Gorsuch Kirgis, LLP 1515 Arapahoe St., Tower 1, # 1000 Denver, CO 80202 Re: Wheat Ridae Settlement Proposal Dear Carmen: I received the City's settlement proposal and have forwarded a copy to Larry. After he and I discuss it, I will respond. Enclosed is a copy of the Drainage Plan drawing prepared by Jeff Davis, P.E., and approved by the City, along with a copy of Jeff's July 9, 2001, letter verifying that all work required by the Drainage Plan had been completed. Based on all of the dealings that I had with the City over about a six month period, with Larry's satisfactory completion of this work, I understood that the matter was closed and that the City had no further issue with Larry's property. The proposed garage and other drainage and landscaping that the settlement proposal addresses were never an issue and were never mentioned to me in the many meetings that I had with City representatives (Larry was always present at these meetings). Thus, the settlement proposal involving the garage and drainage is a surprise to me, and I sure will be a surprise to Larry. I understand that the City issued a building permit for the proposed garage, and then pulled it without explanation. Also, in all of these meetings, erosion, other than from the driveway in the front (which has been rectified), was never an issue, in fact was never mentioned. Nonetheless, we will consider the proposal and respond. At the outset, I note that the City wants Larry to provide "specific time frames" for such things as "Review of Plan by City & Approval /Return" and "Pick -Up Date for approved permit." Needless to say, neither Larry or I have any control of when the City Carmen Beery August 8, 2001 Page 2 does anything, so I don't think we can specify dates such as these. Beyond this, I will respond in a week or so after Larry and I have considered the proposal and had a chance to confer. Sincerely yours, Thomas H. Stocker, P.0 THS /ts Enc. By: / o"p a"Lgg-� 4/� \ �) Tomas H. Stocker Attorney at Law c(w /o enc): Larry Stewart Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet Please Deliver To: Carmen Beery - Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Facsimile Number: 303 - 376 -5001 Date. August 1, 2001 Number of pages including this cover sheet: 1 Please contact sender if you did not receive all pages in legible condition. Sender: Thomas H. Stocker, P.C. Phone: (303) 988.4205 Attorney at Law 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 Fax: (303) 989 -2825 Lakewood, CO 80228 tom @thstocker.com Message: Carmen: This will confirm that Larry and I will meet with you and Cindy Hagerman and Daron Morgan at my office at 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435, Lakewood, CO, on Wednesday, August e, at 2:30 PM. Regan c; Larry Stewart Confidentiality Notice The information in this facsimile transmission is privileged and confidential between attorney and client, and is strictly intended for the use of the person or entity named above. If the reader of any part of this transmission is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any part of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone, and return the original transmission to sender at our axpense by first class mail st��.s �►. �.,-}' - G. @ -�w� ✓k I l v� �-- 1. -cH.do �r� �,.e ��r2nK -� �a,N„ I 'r G1WON Q7,87, fig HE Ut ?IS NOINO tt WdII:E 1007, '1 'SnV v Jeff D avis Engin eering, L.L.C. 24504 Norman bane Evergreen, CO 80439 WIF July 9, 2001 TO: Darin Morgan Codes Administrator 7500 West 29' Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 FROM: Jeff Davis, P.E. RE: 9960 W. 35 Ave. Larry Stewart Property Phone and Fax 303.674.2224 This correspondence is to confirm that Larry Stewart, as per the approved grading plan of 3 -26- 01, has excavated and reshaped the existing driveway. Excess soil has been excavated and transported to the back yard and used to fill existing excavations. The backyard and driveway have now been restored to the pre - existing grade. Some handwork is still needed around existing shrubbery in the front yard. As per the drainage plan, a rock lined drainage swale has been constructed in the backyard to direct any excess surface runoff along the property line between the houses and into the city storm sewers. The existing driveway culvert ends have been uncovered and appear open. The city may wish to use a high pressure water nozzle to thoroughly clean the center portion of this culvert to remove any silt that may have settled in that location. Should you need further information please call. cc:/ Tom Stocker, Larry Stewart X'vL 2001 Arrv. 24504 Norman Lane QO Jeff Davis Engineering, L.L.C. Evergreen, CO 80439 Phone and Fas July 9, 2001 303.674.2224 ' \ ,�puttivma+rurg n TO: Darin Morgan Codes Administrator 7500 West 29 "' Avenue w Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 = 221 20 e FROM: Jeff Davis, P.E. n RE: 9960 W. 35" Ave. Larry Stewart Property 0 1�/ This correspondence is to confirm that Larry Stewart, as per the approved grading plan of 3 -26- 01, has excavated and reshaped the existing driveway. Excess soil has been excavated and transported to the back yard and used to fill existing excavations. The backyard and driveway have now been restored to the pre - existing grade. Some handwork is still needed around existing shrubbery in the front yard. As per the drainage plan, a rock lined drainage swale has been constructed in the backyard to direct any excess surface runoff along the property line between the houses and into the city storm sewers. The existing driveway culvert ends have been uncovered and appear open. The city may wish to use a high pressure water nozzle to thoroughly clean the center portion of this culvert to remove any silt that may have settled in that location. Should you need further information please call. cc:/ Tom Stocker, Larry Stewart F f City of Wheat Ridge Department of Public Works MEMORANDUM TO: Darin Morgan, Chief Building Official CC: Cindy Hagerman, Codes Officer II Bob Goebel, Public Works Director Greg Knudson, City Engineer FROM: Michael Garcia, Development Review Engineer tA DATE: Monday, June 25, 2001 SUBJECT: Larry Stewart Property - 9960 W. 35' Avenue I spoke to the Engineer -of- Record, Mr. Jeff Davis, P.E. today to discuss Mr. Stewart's property. Jeff informed that he would accept this job and be the engineer for the site. He informed me that he could not attend the meeting at the site on June 26, 2001. Jeff said that the City could give his name and phone number (303- 674 -2224) to the landscape contractor if they needed any information. I did inform Jeff that the City would need a memo stating that he would continue to be the Engineer -of- Record and provide the technical assistance when needed at the site. He would also be responsible for certifying the site. (This message was left on his recorder at a later time.) Please let me know if you have any questions. 9960 W.35'.mem City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: MEMO TO FILE FROM: CINDY HAGERMAN SUBJECT: 9960 WEST 35 AVENUE DATE: JUNE 25, 2001 JUNE 25, 2001 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEER MIKE GARCIA AND I WENT TO DEFENDANT LARRY STEWART'S RESIDENCE AT 9960 WEST 35 AVENUE TO DETERMINE THE STATUS OF HIS PROPERTY. WE FOUND THAT, ASIDE FROM RELOCATING A PILE OF DIRT FROM THE FRONT YARD TO THE REAR YARD, NO CHANGES HAD BEEN MADE TO RESTORE THE PROPERTY TO IT'S ORIGINAL CONDITION. ON JUNE 18, 2001, JUDGE ROSE HAD TOLD STEWART THAT HE HAD UNTIL TODAY, JUNE 25 IN WHICH TO RESTORE HIS PROPERTY TO IT'S ORIGINAL CONDITION. JUDGE ROSE STATED THAT AT THAT TIME THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE COULD ARRANGE FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE CONDITION THAT IT HAD BEEN, PRIOR TO THE HOLE, FOR THE UNAPPROVED GARAGE, BEING DUG. THERE ARE NINE CARS PARKED IN THE REAR YARD, ON THE DIRT. THEY WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE REAR YARD IN ORDER FOR THE RESTORATION TO BEGIN. AT STEWART'S COMPLIANCE HEARING TODAY, I RECOMMEND THAT JUDGE ROSE: 1) GRANT CITY ENGINEERS AND ANY CONTRACTORS THAT ARE HIRED VIA THE CITY TO ENTER STEWART'S PROPERTY AT ANY TIME, DURING NORMAL WORKING HOURS (MONDAY- SATURDAY, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM) UNTIL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. 2) STEWART MUST HAVE ALL OF THE VEHICLES THAT ARE PARKED IN HIS REAR AND FRONT YARDS REMOVED, SO THAT THE RESTORATION MAY BEGIN. THE DATE THAT THE CARS ARE TO BE REMOVED SHALL NOT BE LATER THAN JUNE 29, 2001. IF, AT THAT TIME, CARS REMAIN IN AREAS THAT RESTRICT THE RESTORATION, THE CITY MAY TOW SUCH VEHICLES TO THE CITY LOT. 3) THE CITY, ALONG WITH COLORADO LANDSCAPE SOLUTIONS WILL UTILIZE THE CITY APPROVED PLANS, AND RESTORE THE PROPERTY AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE, TO IT'S ORIGINAL CONDITION, INCLUDING THE SODDING OF THE PROPERTY TO ENSURE THAT GROUND COVER IS ESTABLISHED. ESTABLISHED GROUND COVER WILL ASSIST IN CONTROLLING EROSION. LAWRENCE STEWART WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ALL CHARGES, WHETHER THEY APPLY TO TOWING, CONTRACT WORK, RESTORATION, OR ADMINISTRATION FEES, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF BILLING. UPDATE 6- 25 -01 STEWART FTA'D FOR HIS COMPLIANCE HEARING AT 1:OOPM. JUDGE ROSE READ THE ABOVE, SIGNED IT, AND STATED THAT STEWART HAD BEEN CLEARLY TOLD AT THE TIME OF HIS TRIAL ON 6- 18 -01, THAT THE CITY WAS GRANTED PERMISSION TO ENTER THE PROPERTY ON OR AFTER 6- 25 -01, IF THE PROPERTY WAS STILL OUT OF COMPLIANCE AT THAT TIME. 6- 26 -01: MIKE GARCIA AND I WENT TO STEWART'S PROPERTY TO MEET WITH COLORADO LANDSCAPER SOLUTIONS OWNER CRAIG BEATY AND HIS WORKER COLE CATTOOR. WE DISCUSSED THE APPROVED PLANS WITH THEM, AND THEY PLAN ON BEGINNING THE WORK ON TUESDAY, JULY 10 AND COMPLETING IT THE NEXT DAY. ALL OF THE CARS IN THE REAR YARD MUST BE REMOVED AT THAT TIME, AND THE FRONT YARD MUST BE ACCESSIBLE BY WAY OF THE WEST GATE FOR THE CONTRACTORS TO ENTER THE PROPERTY WITH THEIR EQUIPMENT. IF A CAR IS PARKED IN FRONT OF THE GATE, IT MUST BE TOWED AS WELL. STEWART WAS COMBATIVE AND ARGUMENTATIVE WHEN WE MET WITH HIM AND HIS WIFE. IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR A POLICE OFFICER TO BE AT THE PROPERTY DURING THE TIMES THAT THE WORKERS ARE THERE (JULYI OTH, AND I I T ', 8:OOAM- 6:00 PM, WITH A LUNCH BREAK). SINCE THE WORK ON THE PROPERTY WILL NOT BEGIN UNTIL JULY 10 THE VEHICLES WILL NOT HAVE TO BE TOWED UNTIL JULY 9 TH I (CINDY HAGERMAN, EXT. 2847) HAVE A TRIAL THAT DAY, BEGINNING AT 8:30 AM. IT CAN BE ARRANGED FOR AN INSPECTOR TO BE AT THE LOCATION WHEN THE VEHICLES ARE TOWED IF THE PD WOULD LIKE. IF THIS IS THE CASE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW BY JULY 6 THANKS! YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO STOP WORK LOCATED AT BY ORDER OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR THEE FOLLOWING REASON(S): Z), i G,1 7� 17Z 1OC h ke pin l 7'0 h This notice may be removed ONLY by THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ! Building inspector Y l� L Name: Firm: From: Re: MESSAGE: Tom: GORSUCH KIRGIS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY TO Thomas H. Stocker Stocker Law Office Carmen Beery Stewart appeal — pulated agreement Here is a very preliminary draft of a stipulated agreement — nothing fancy. I gather from the City that it reflects its priorities in this whole thing. Feel free to call me with comments or send me proposed revisions via fax, e-mail, etc. IF you would like to have this document electronically so you can manipulate it, I'm happy to e-mail it. Thanks, Carmen The information contained in this fax message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the address below via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. Total number of pages: 1 (not including cover sheet) August 8, 2001 Fax No.: 3031989 -2825 Confirm No.: 303/988 -4205 File No. 53027.2 Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303/376 -5000 Fax: 3031376 -5001 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE V. LAWRENCE STEWART PROPOSED STIPULATED AGREEMENT The City would stipulate to continue the emergency stay of execution on the following proposed stipulated agreement. Within thirty (30) days of a Court Order approving such Stipulated Agreement: 1) Mr. Stewart submits a Garage Construction Plan. ■ Such plan must include specific time frames for: • Application for a Building Permit • Review of Plan by City & Approval /Return • Date to Re- submit (if necessary) • Pick -Up Date for approved permit • Time in which construction must begin • Expiration of Permit ■ Such plan must also include a temporary method of erosion control Ia 2) Mr. Stewart establishes some form of permanent erosion control. The City would not necessarily require that Mr. Stewart lay sod. There are a number of ways that erosion control can be established and the City is amenable to any effective method. Parties agree that, should the above conditions fail to be met, the City may enter the subject property at any time (during regular business hours) on or after the 31 day after the Court Order approving the Stipulated Agreement, for the purpose of installing some mechanism of erosion control. CNB \53027.2 \385709 Wa �� TRANSACTIO R EPORT DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE P. 01 AUG -08 -01 WED 11:08 AM NOTE M# D >K T AUG -08 11: A M 93039892825 -53027 40" 2 SEND OK 702 � m TOTAL : 40S PAGES: 2 >K „- GORSUCH KIRGIS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLEASE DELNER IMMEDIATELY To: dame: Thomas H. Stocker Firm: Stocker Law Office From: Carmen Beery Re: Stewart appeal — draft stipulated agreement MESS AGE: Tom: Here Is a very preliminary draft of a stipulated agreement nothing fancy. I gather from the City that it reflects its priorities in this whole thing. Feel free to ca11 me with comments or send me proposed revisions via fax, e-mail, etc. IF you would like to have this document electronically so you can manipulate it, I'm happy to e-mail it- W> KWWfi' WWWWNcNc% KNcWW K: KNc% K K�WWW�KW: KM: M: �WW�KWW: K�KM: NcWWWWW�KNcNcNc: KNcWtCNcWWWWWWNcWWWW' �^ tMc �KWNc: KWWWWWWWWWWWIK :KWIC�KICWW�KNcWWNcWW TRANSACTION REPORT P. 01 W AUG -08 -01 WED 11:08 AM f D ATE S TART RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP W w AUG -08 11.07 AM 930398 Y 92825 -53027 40" 2 SEND OK 702 W W _ � W TOTAL 40S PAGES: 2 W � W WWWNcWNcWWNcWWWWWWW KKK: K WWWN c WWWWWWWW: KNcWWW: K: KWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNc�WWWWW: K�KWWWWWW�K: K�KWICM ::KNc:KNcMCtCWWWW:KWWWWWWW .,. GORSUCH KIRGIS LL ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY TO: Name: Thomas H. Stocker Firm: Stocker Law Office From: Carmen Beery H Stewart appeal - draft stipulated agreement MESSAGE= Tom: Here is a very preliminary draft of a stipulated agreement - nothing fancy. I gather from the City that it reflects its priorities in this whole thing. Feel free to call me with comments or send me proposed revisions via fax, e-mail, etc. IF you would like to have this document electronically so you can manipulate it, I'm happy to e—mail it. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE V. LAWRENCE STEWART PROPOSED STIPULATED AGREEMENT The City would stipulate to continue the emergency stay of execution on the following proposed stipulated agreement. Within thirty (30) days of a Court Order approving such Stipulated Agreement: 1) Mr. Stewart submits a Garage Construction Plan. • Such plan must include specific time frames for: • Application for a Building Permit • Review of Plan by City & Approval /Return • Date to Re- submit (if necessary) • Pick -Up Date for approved permit • Time in which construction must begin • Expiration of Permit ■ Such plan must also include a temporary method of erosion control IQ 2) Mr. Stewart establishes some form of permanent erosion control. The City would not necessarily require that Mr. Stewart lay sod. There are a number of ways that erosion control can be established and the City is amenable to any effective method. Parties agree that, should the above conditions fail to be met, the City may enter the subject property at any time (during regular business hours) on or after the 31s` day after the Court Order approving the Stipulated Agreement, for the purpose of installing some mechanism of erosion control. CNB \53027.2 \385709 ------------- 00 72!� � I U.Rw� oozy tf /') I 2q el / 7V (Z�10 � — �v�jt117NLe Y(taV1(n�1 — Cl mot ,N iAIjj 6(c v( � � �i�M re_ W /a/o( _�igon5 c a (t/4u.e �iZ+� e "k 51 �ol _' / `4 Pot J?k Ve-wP&bL � A, �i 6 �ee�l � � � - P/Vodi (-- Ve 5ef 3 �Kd NO F� W/ — C4, ( o/(�p�Pa lAka `4 Gt y l,Rl �M�v - ?/�m -'� q IN!? ' �UV���`? 0+1)'✓; �� �1i %� i,T;G,,` /vm� � �� �!� ✓err � S�� I �,rn ,��- , ?mil -�� d� �,,i vi x 1 1 lik Dom, 7 � 4 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80215 RANDALLJ. DAVIS PRESIDING JUDGE CHARLES J. ROSE ASSOCIATE JUDGE MUNICIPAL COURT (303) 235 -2835 MUNICIPAL COURT FAX (303) 235 -2829 March 18, 2002 Thomas H. Stocker, P.C. Attorney at Law 44 Union Blvd., Ste. 435 Lakewood, CO 80228 RE: Defendant: Stewart, Lawrence CE00 -002, CE00 -023, CE00 -024 & CE00 -035 Dear Mr. Stocker: TheCityof �OF WHEgT�o i Wheat v m GR i d ge C, 0 1 O R ADO In reference to the above -named Defendant and his cases, I certify all attached transcripts are provided to you in their entirety and there are no other recorded court sessions pertaining to the above in the Wheat Ridge Municipal Court. Respectfully submitted, Vicki R. Deputy Court Clerk' /vlr Enclosures (303) 234 -5900 • ADMINISTRATION FAX: (303) 234 -5924 • POLICE DEPARTMENT FAX: (303) 235 -2949 DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 -271 -6215 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart ACourt Use OnlyA Thomas H. Stocker Ph: 303 - 988 -4205 Attorney at Law Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Case No: 01 CV 1772 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom @thstocker.com Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg. No. 14716 Division: 9 Attorney for Defendant - Appellant MUNICIPAL COURT RECORD The City of 7500 W E S T 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80215 RANDALL J. DAVIS PRESIDING JUDGE CHARLESJ.ROSE ASSOCIATE JUDGE March 18, 2002 Thomas H. Stocker, P.C. Attorney at Law 44 Union Blvd., Ste. 435 Lakewood, CO 80228 MUNICIPAL COURT (303) 235 -2835 MUNICIPAL COURT FAX (303) 235 -2829 RE: Defendant: Stewart, Lawrence CE00 -002, CE00 -023, CE00 -024 & CE00 -035 Dear Mr. Stocker: GWheat 9 Ridge In reference to the above -named Defendant and his cases, all of the hearings before this court were heard by the Honorable Charles J. Rose with one exception. The exception is in the transcript of the court session held on Tuesday, October 3, 2000 (CE00 -00023 & CE00- 00024). This session was heard by the Honorable Randall J. Davis, who is now the Presiding Judge for the County of Broomfield. Judge Davis is on the bench today in Broomfield so I was unable to obtain an original signature. Therefore, the signature was obtained by facsimile. Judge Davis will be forwarding to me the original signature today via U.S. Mail. If your intent is to file these transcripts in District Court and a signature which was obtained via facsimile is not acceptable, please let me know and the original signature can be provided. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (303) 235 -2832. Cll( Deputy Court Clerk /vlr (303) 234 -5900 • ADMINISTRATION FAX: (303) 234 -5924 • POLICE DEPARTMENT FAX: (303) 235 -2949 1 WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 2 Case No. CEOb- 00023, CE00 -00024 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 4 TRANSCRIBER'S TRANSCRIPT 5 --------------------------------------------- ------------------ 6 THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF 7 THE STATE OF COLORADO, B Plaintiff, 9 V. 10 LAWRENCE STEWART, 11 Defendant. 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- 13 14 The hearing in this matter commenced on Tuesday, 15 October 3, 2000, before TH,E HONORABLE RANDALL J. DAVIS, Judge 16 of the Municipal Court. 17 18 19 20 FOR THE DEFENDANT: Appears pro se 21 22 23 24 25 G 1 THE COURT: The Court would next call up Lawrence Stewart, 2 CE00 -23. Good evening, sir. 3 MR. STEWART: Hi. 4 THE COURT: Would you like an opportunity to speak to - the 5 attorney about these code enforcement cases? 6 MR. STEWART: Yes. 7 THE COURT: All right. If you'll join the group in the lobby, 8 through the door to your left, the city attorney will see you 9 in a few moments, then. 10 (The Court recesses and then reconvenes.) 11 THE COURT: Lawrence Stewart, CEOO -023. Mr. Stewart reappears 12 after speaking with the city attorney. Taking these cases one 13 at a time, first of all in the case number I just called, CEOO- 14 023, there is one charge in that case, a violation of Section 15 26- 31(C)(1), improper surfacing of driveway having occurred on 16 August 28th, 2000, at 9960 West 35th Avenue, in the City of 17 Wheat Ridge. Your plea to that charge, guilty or not guilty? 18 MR. STEWART: Not guilty. 19 THE COURT: And your request for a trial, judge trial or jury 20 trial? 21 MR. STEWART: I would like to request to speak to - -talk to an 22 attorney. 23 THE COURT: So you anticipate hiring an attorney- - 24 MR. STEWART: Yes. 25 THE COURT: ...or possibly hiring an attorney? 3 1 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. 2 THE COURT: I will enter a not - guilty plea on your behalf thi.s 3 evening. I will order the matter set over for a pretrial 4 conference if you anticipate hiring an attorney- - 5 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. 6 THE COURT: ...so that you can come back to court with your 7 attorney if you have one at that time. So if the matter is not 8 resolved at that time, we can clear a trial date then- - 9 MR. STEWART: Okay. 10 THE COURT: ...with your attorney at that time. You'll be 11 required to waive your right to a speedy trial between now and 12 the time of the pretrial conference. And, again, if this case 13 were ultimately to proceed to trial, would you be requesting a 14 judge trial or a jury trial? 15 MR. STEWART: Jury. 16 THE COURT: I will note that request for a jury trial; however, 17 in order to be able to preserve that right, you must, within 10 18 days of today's date, both post a $25 jury deposit and a 19 written request for a jury trial with the court clerk's office, 20 in order to be able to preserve that right. 21 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. 22 THE COURT: Do you understand that procedure? 23 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. 24 THE COURT: In the second case, CE00 -024, there are three 25 alleged violations of the Uniform Building Code. You wish to El 1 enter not - guilty pleas to all three of .these charges, as well, 2 is that correct? 3 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. 4 THE COURT: And, again, you wish to consult with an attorney, 5 presumably, is that correct? 6 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. 7 THE COURT: I will also order this case, then, set over for a 8 pretrial conference on the same date. You'll be required to 9 waive your right to a speedy trial between now and the time of 10 the pretrial conference. You also will be requesting a jury 11 trial in that case if it's not resolved at the time of the next 12 hearing, is that correct? 13 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. Will that fee on that apply for all of 14 them? 15 THE COURT: Well, I was just trying to sort through that myself 16 in terms of -- 17 MR. STEWART: I was wondering about that, too, 'cause that's 18 basically in the same category, I think, for the jury fee. 19 THE COURT: Well, I'm trying to decide if these cases all arise 20 out of the same incident or series of incidents at the same 21 location on the same date. It's your understanding that it all 22 arises out of the same incident? 23 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. What was that, August 28th, you said? 24 THE COURT: August 28th, yes, sir. 25 MR. STEWART: Okay. Yes, sir, l think so, 'cause the papers 5 1 that were sent to us were for all those four things. 2 THE COURT: There will be one jury fee for both cases. 3 MR. STEWART: Is that paid to the Wheat Ridge Court? 4 THE COURT: Yes. So, again, you need to post within 10 days of 5 today's date a written request for a jury trial in both cases 6 and one $25 jury fee, then. 7 MR. STEWART: Okay. 8 THE COURT: And there will also be - -your older case will be 9 trailing on the motion to impose suspended sentence, so we will 10 be reviewing your older case on the same date that the other 11 cases are set, so we'll have all three files back before us on 12 the pretrial conference date. Do you have any questions then? 13 MR. STEWART: No, sir. When will that date be for the next- - 14 THE COURT: I'm going to have the clerk give you that date. 15 MR. STEWART: Thank you. 16 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. 17 18 (The proceedings were concluded.) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 2 Case No. CE00- 00023, CE00 -00024 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 4 TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE 5 ------•--------------------------------------------------------- 6 THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF 7 THE STATE OF COLORADO, 8 Plaintiff, g V. 10 LAWRENCE STEWART, 11 Defendant. 12 ---------------------------------------------- 13 14 1 certify that I transcribed this record from the tape 15 recording of the above- entitled matter which was heard on 16 Tuesday, October 3, 2000. 17 18 1 further certify that pages 2 through 5, inclusive, 1g constitutes a complete and accurate transcript of the tape - 20 recorded hearing, based upon the audio facilities of the tapes 2 and my ability to understand them. 22 23 24 < r � _ �� .i March 1. 2002 Jaliet D orn, court Transcriber Date 25 . �._ MAR-18 -BQ92 19:15 FROM: 303 235 2829 7C:Braomiield Divisions P.0 ©B F08 I WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 2 Case No. CE00- 00023, CEDO -00024 g -------------------------------- ---------- ----- -- - - - -- --- 4 JU011E'S CERTIFI S ---------- -------- - -- --- ------------- --------------- --- - - - - -- 6 THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF 7 THE STATE OF COLORADO, 8 Plaintiff, 10 LAWRENCE StEWART, 71 Defendant. 12 -------- -- ------- -------------- - - -- ---- --- - - - - -- T3 stele of Colorado County of Jefferson i4 City of Wheat Ridge ss. 75 98 This transcript for the above - entitled matter 17 Cohtains all of the prOCeOdings at the hearing on Monday, TS Oct ober 3, 2000, it is requested that this transcript be made is a Part of the record. 20 21 I certify that, to the hest of my knowledge, this 22 transcript is cgmplete. It is now made a part of the record. 22 24 rr 25 Randal! U. D&Vis,l..11unlcipa) Court Judas Date [A d SUOisdAiO PJOL�WOOJU 9L 6Z 188 - �Z 6Q Sb - £0 ZQOZ 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 MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. CE00- 00002, CE00- 00023, CE00- 00024 --------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIBER'S TRANSCRIPT --------------------------------------------------------------- THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V . LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- The hearing in this matter commenced on Monday, October 30, 2000, before THE HONORABLE CHARLES J. ROSE,, Judge of the Municipal Court. FOR THE DEFENDANT: Appears pro se 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 THE COURT: Lawrence Stewart, CE -02, CE -23, CE -24. Mr. Stewart, good afternoon, sir. MR. STEWART: Good afternoon. THE COURT: All right, two of these charges, CE -23, Mr. Stewart, which is the design standards violation, and the charges in CE -24, which is the USC violations, you have a pretrial stay of them, we were going to continue these for no more than two weeks, is that correct? MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And I'll grant that request to continue, Mr. Stewart. We'll set it for within two weeks. You do waive your right to speedy trial until the new pretrial dates, do you understand what that means, sir? MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Any questions about it? MR. STEWART: No, sir. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Stewart, we'll reset those. Now, on the other case, CE -02, that's the one in which you entered guilty pleas back in February. On each of those you had a $1,000 fine, 875 of which were suspended. The condition is that you had no further code violations for 12 months. The City has now filed a motion to impose a suspended sentence; the allegation is that, of course, you are charged, albeit not yet convicted of anything, but charged with these two new cases, and so you could be facing, of course, the $875 on each of 3 1 those old charges being imposed. Do you understand what the 2 City is asking for? 3 MR. STEWART: No, I don't understand that. 4 THE COURT: Okay. Do you remember when you were here in 5 February you had two charges, and guilty pleas to, and had $875 6 of each of the fines suspended? 7 MR. STEWART: Yes. 8 THE COURT: And, again, the condition was that you had no other 9 code violations for one year, and that was as of February 15th. 10 Now you have other code charges. So the City, and I'll explain 11 this to you, Mr. Stewart, but basically the City has filed a 12 motion saying that if you have any convictions, that they would 13 be seeking to have those suspended fines imposed. 14 MR. STEWART: Okay, is that - -okay. 15 THE COURT: Okay. You follow me on that? 16 MR. STEWART: Yes. 17 THE COURT: Okay. Now that you understand that, Mr. Stewart, 1s there are a couple of options that you can choose here. 1 19 assume I know which one you will. You can admit as of today 20 that you did in fact have new code convictions, and if you 21 admit that today, then, of course, you're facing the $875 on 22 each of those prior charges coming to life. You can deny the 2 allegation that you have other convictions, and if you deny it, 24 we'll set that for a hearing. At the hearing, again, you have 25 the right to have your own attorney, you have the right- -the F1 1 City would have to- -would have to prove by a preponderance of 2 the evidence, once again, that you did in fact have other 3 convictions within one year of February 15th of 2000. If the 4 City is able to prove that by a preponderance of the evidence, 5 you could be looking at, you know, the total amount of, what, 6 $1750 from those other, on the old case. If the City was 7 unable to prove that by a preponderance of the evidence, no 8 other action would be taken. At any hearing on that issue, Mr. 9 Stewart, you'd have the right again to have your own attorney, 10 you'd have the right to cross - examine the City's witnesses, 11 you'd have the right to make your own witnesses appear in court 12 with the subpoena power of the court, you'd have the right to 13 testify, yourself, or remain silent. Do you understand what 14 your options are? 15 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. 16 THE COURT: Any questions about your options? 17 MR. STEWART: No, you have explained it real good. 18 THE COURT: Okay, thank you, Mr. Stewart. 19 MR. STEWART: Thank you. 20 THE COURT: All right, sir, do you wish to admit or deny the 21 allegations that you have other code convictions within one 22 year of February 15th? 23 MR. STEWART: Deny that allegation, sir. 24 THE COURT: Which is I assumed what you would do. All right, 25 so, denial will enter. And what we're going to do, Mr. 5 1 Stewart, we're just going to set that old case to trial on 2 these two new cases. 3 MR. STEWART: Yes. 4 THE COURT: So, obviously, whatever happens in these two new 5 cases will determine- - 6 MR. STEWART: Then 1'11 -- 7 THE COURT: ...what happens or not in the old case. 8 MR. STEWART: Or not, yeah. 9 THE COURT: But now we've just got everything working in sync, 10 and we'll set the two new ones for the new pretrial date within 11 two weeks, and then we'll see what happens, and we'll take it 12 up at that time. 13 MR. STEWART: Can I ask you a question? 14 THE COURT: Sure. 15 MR. STEWART: Yeah, 'cause I was wondering, how can you find 16 somebody guilty of something before that they've not yet been 17 guilty of. 18 THE COURT: Right. 19 MR. STEWART: That's what had me worried, too. 20 THE COURT: That's a legitimate question, Mr. Stewart, and 21 that's why I was trying to tell you, I'll explain this to you, 22 but, basically, the City is doing this to cover itself, because 23 they have to file a motion like that if they want to keep that 24 right alive of asking for the imposition of those previously 25 suspended fines. Only unless you wanted to admit it today 1 would I assume- -you know, I assumed that you would deny it, in 2 which case we'll just trail those new cases. 3 MR. STEWART: Yes. 4 THE COURT: So, I mean, I had a pretty educated guess about 5 what your decision would be -- 6 MR. STEWART: Yeah, sure. 7 THE COURT: ...but I have to advise you of this. 8 MR. STEWART: Oh, yes, because to me that would be like saying 9 you're guilty before you're proven guilty. 10 THE COURT: Right. And the only way you can do that is if you 11 admitted that you were guilty before you were proven guilty, 12 which I assume you were not going to do. 13 MR. STEWART: To me, when they first said that, it was almost 14 like an intimidation thing, like, "If you don't go for this, 15 you're going to do this," but I see what you're saying, and 1 16 understand what you're saying. 17 THE COURT: Yeah. I just had to advise you of that, knowing 18 what you would probably do, Mr. Stewart. 19 MR. STEWART: Exactly. 20 THE COURT: Just so we can get that old case to now follow 21 these new cases. 22 MR. STEWART: Okay. 23 THE COURT: Until we have a final determination of what happens 24 on the new cases. 25 MR. STEWART: Thank you. 0 7 1 THE COURT: No intimidation. 2 MR. STEWART: Oh, no, not - -no, not you. 3 THE COURT: Okay. 4 MR. STEWART: Thank you. 5 THE COURT: All right, sir. 6 MR. STEWART: Okay. 7 THE COURT: Come up here, we'll give you the new pretrial 8 dates. 9 MR. STEWART: Have a good day today, sir. 10 THE COURT: Okay, thank you, Mr. Stewart. 11 12 (The proceedings were concluded.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. CE00- 00002, CE00- 00023, CE00 -00024 --------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V. LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. ------------------------------------------- -------------- - - - - -- I certify that 1 transcribed this record from the tape recording of the above - entitled matter which was heard on Monday, October 30, 2000. I further certify that pages 2 through 7, inclusive, constitute a complete and accurate transcript of the tape - recorded hearing, based upon the audio facilities of the tapes and my ability to understand them. Dockhorn, Court Transcriber March 1, 2002 Rate I 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 MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. CE00- 00002, CE00- 00023, CE00 -00024 -------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGE'S CERTIFICATE -------------------------------------------------------------- THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V . LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. State of Colorado ) County of Jefferson ) ss. City of Wheat Ridge ) This transcript for the above - entitled matter contains all of the proceedings at the hearing on Monday, October 30, 2000. It is requested that this transcript be made a part of the record. I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, this transcript is complete. it is now made a part of the record. ar/i1�. Rose, Municipal Court Judge Ljmc /�, )5i� Date 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 MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. CE00- 00002, CE00- 00023, CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 --------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIBER'S TRANSCRIPT --------------------------------------------------------------- THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V. LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- The hearing in this matter commenced on Monday, November 13, 2000, before THE HONORABLE CHARLES J. ROSE, Judge of the Municipal Court. FOR THE DEFENDANT: Appears pro se 2 1 THE COURT: Lawrence Stewart, 02, 023, 024, and 35. Good 2 afternoon, Mr. Stewart. 3 MR. STEWART: Good afternoon. 4 THE COURT: The latest case, Mr. Stewart, six violations. The 5 first one is excavation not exceeding 500 cubic yards; the 6 second one is the permit required; third one is a failure to 7 obey; fourth one is basically a nuisance or hazard construction 8 site; fifth one is an improper storing, junk material, trash, 9 and construction material; and the sixth one is a nuisance by 10 littering. All six of these allegedly occurred October 12th of 11 this year, 9960 West 35th Avenue. Do you understand those six 12 charges, sir? 13 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. 14 THE COURT: Do you have any questions about your rights in 15 court today? 16 MR. STEWART: No, sir. 17 THE COURT: You received a written advisal of your rights 18 today? 19 MR. STEWART: Yes. 20 THE COURT: Okay. And how are you going to plead to all six? 21 MR. STEWART: Not guilty. 22 THE COURT: The not - guilty plea will enter. We're going to set 23 this, evidently, for a pretrial. You do, again, as we 24 discussed before, waive your right to speedy trial until the 25 pretrial date. 3 1 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. 2 THE COURT: We'll set the pretrial with your counsel, Mr. 3 Stocker. The pretrial - -do you have any questions on that one? 4 MR. STEWART: No. 5 THE COURT: All right. The pretrials in CE -23 and 24, we're g going to continue those. We'll set all at the same time, we'll 7 continue those. We'll set those with Mr. Stocker, also. You g waive your right to speedy trial on those, too, since- - g MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. 10 THE COURT: ...we're continuing the pretrial. The motion to 11 impose that we continued last time to trial these others will 12 also be continued to trail this new case and the two pretrials. 13 MR. STEWART: Okay. 14 THE COURT: We'll set them all at the same time, we'll set them 15 all with Mr. Stocker, is that your understanding? 16 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. 17 THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any questions today, Mr. 18 Stewart? 19 MR. STEWART: No. Thank you. 20 THE COURT: Okay, sir, thank. Come on up here first. 21 22 (The proceedings were concluded.) 2.3 24 25 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 MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. CE00- 00002, CE00- 00023, CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE ------------------------------------- - - - - -- THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, v . LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. I certify that I transcribed this record from the tape recording of the above- entitled matter which was heard on Monday, November 13, 2000. I further certify that pages 2 through 3, inclusive, constitute a complete and accurate transcript of the tape - recorded hearing, based upon the audio facilities of the tapes and my ability to understand them. Janet Dockhorn, Court Transcriber March 1. 2002 Date 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 MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY,, COLORADO Case No. CE00- 00002, CE00- 00023, CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 -------------------------------------------------- ------ - - - - -- JUDGE'S CERTIFICATE THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, v . LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. ------------------------------------ State of Colorado ) County of Jefferson ) ss. City of Wheat Ridge ) This transcript for the above - entitled matter contains all of the proceedings at the hearing on Monday, November 13, 2000. It is requested that this transcript be made a part of the record. I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, this transcript is complete. It is now made a part of the record. Rose, Municipal Court Judge Date 1 WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 2 Case No. CE00- 00002, CE00- 00023, CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 4 TRANSCRIBER'S TRANSCRIPT 5 ---------------------------------------------------- 6 THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF 7 THE STATE OF COLORADO, 8 Plaintiff, 9 V. 10 LAWRENCE STEWART, 11 Defendant. 12 -------------------------------------------------- 13 14 The hearing in this matter commenced on Monday, 15 November 27, 2000, before THE HONORABLE CHARLES J. ROSE, Judge 16 of the Municipal Court. 17 18 19 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Tammy K. Greene, Esq., Rag. No. 17817 20 FOR THE DEFENDANT: Thomas H. Stocker, Esq., Reg. No. 14716 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 THE COURT: Lawrence Stewart, 024, 035, 023, 02. Mr. Stewart, 2 good afternoon. 3 MR. STOCKER: Your Honor, Tom Stocker, appearing on behalf of 4 Mr. Stewart, who is here beside me. 5 THE COURT: Thank you. Good afternoon. I don't even know 6 where to begin, but I guess we'll start at the beginning. All 7 right, 024, on that one the offer is Mr. Stewart pleads guilty 8 to the storage -of- public - property UBC violation, the permits - 9 required UBC violation; the excavation UBC violation would be 10 dismissed. Mr. Stocker, that's your understanding there? 11 MR. STOCKER: I don't have copies of all the paperwork, but I 12 believe that one of them was dismissed, and two= -the failure to 13 get a permit, basically the two involving the permit were the 14 ones that he'll plead guilty to. 15 THE COURT: Right. Okay, Mr. Stewart, that's your 16 understanding? 17 MR. STEWART: Yes. 18 MR. STOCKER: And the third count of that- - 19 THE COURT: Will be dismissed. 20 MR. STOCKER: Will be dismissed, correct. 21 THE COURT: Mr. Stewart, if you plead guilty to two of those 2 counts that allegedly occurred August 28th of this year at 9960 23 West 35th Avenue, you would give up the rights on this case 24 that you have, the right to have a trial on this case, on these 25 charges, all the charges; the right to have Mr. Stocker 3 1 represent you, the right to apply for court - appointed counsel, 2 the right to a presumption of innocence, unless the City could 3 prove you guilty at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. You would 4 give up your right to cross - examine the City's witnesses, your 5 right to make your own witnesses appear in court with the 6 subpoena power of the court. You would give up the right to 7 testify, yourself, or to remain silent, which only you could 8 decide, and you would give up the right to an appeal. The 9 maximum fine, Mr. Stocker, can be a fine up to $1,000 and /or up 10 to one year in jail. Do you have any questions about the 11 rights you give up or what the possible penalties could be ?', 12 MR. STEWART: No. 13 MR. STOCKER: There was a disposition- - 14 THE COURT: That's what I'm getting to; Mr. Stocker. 15 MR. STOCKER: ...arrived at with the city attorney. 16 THE COURT: All right, that's the next thing I'm going to talk 17 about. There is a stipulation that a $1,000 fine would be 18 imposed, 900 would be suspended on each of the following 19 conditions: Number one, no further code violations for one 20 year; number two, provide corrections to the plan already 21 submitted within three weeks; number three, if the permit is 22 denied, then restore the back yard to the original state within 23 three weeks of the denial; and, number four, bring the height 24 of the fence into compliance within three weeks. And the City 25 also would agree not to request imposition of a previously- El 1 suspended fine in CE -02. Mr. Stocker, is that your 2 understanding of the recommendation? 3 MR. STOCKER: That's my understanding, Your Honor. I'd like to 4 add just a couple comments for the Court's consideration. 5 Number one, this involved outdoor work, and we're coming into 6 the winter months. We've discussed this with the city 7 attorney, the building code people, and they're -- although we've 8 agreed on these deadlines, understanding that if there's a 9 weather interruption or delay, that that would be taken into 10 consideration. Secondly - -I guess that's the main consideration 11 that we're concerned with, getting it done over the winter 12 time, and especially with the holidays coming up. But other 13 than that, my client is agreeable to these terms and 14 conditions. 15 THE COURT: Well, since there are different twists and turns 1 here, unless I made Mr. Stewart come back for a review every 17 few weeks on each one of these things, what l would propose is 18 just set this off next year sometime and see if he's in 19 compliance by then, or we can have him come in like every other 20 week or two on each of little things he's got to do in all the 21 cases. Presumably, the first way of doing it is more what you 22 would prefer. 23 MR. STOCKER: Yeah, I mean, it's Mr. Stewart's intention to 24 comply with this, obviously. I only offer that caveat because 25 of the winter months. 5 1 THE COURT: Okay. Well, the weather, sure; the holidays, 1 2 don't care if it's holidays or not. If anything, he's got more 3 time to do stuff over the holidays, maybe, so that doesn't 4 matter to me. The weather, I understand. I mean, the first 5 thing is no -- corrections to the plan within three weeks, if 6 denied, and there's another three weeks, and the height of the 7 fence is three weeks, so we're looking at six weeks, anyway, 8 right then and there, and Mr. Stewart can obviously discuss 9 that with code people if there's a weather problem. I don't 10 think any, you know, assuming it's a legitimate weather problem 11 that prevents him from doing this within the time frames, and 12 no one is going - -I'm not going to revoke him or impose the 13 suspended fine, even if the City asks for it, if it's obvious 14 he can't do some of this work, but, I mean, I have to be 15 convinced that's the case. 16 MR. STOCKER: And I think that's fair, Your Honor. That's the 17 only reason I mentioned it. 18 THE COURT: Okay. I mean, there's a reasonableness attached to 19 this, I understand, Mr. Stocker. All right, Mr. Stewart, is 20 that your understanding of the recommendation or the 21 stipulation? 22 MR. STEWART: Yes, it is. 23 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Stocker - -Mr. Stewart, I'm sorry, do 24 you have any questions about the proposed disposition, and the 25 stipulations of the time frames, or anything else, other than N 1 what we've already discussed? 2 MR. STEWART: No. 3 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Stewart, let's start with the 4 violation of the Uniform Building Code regarding the storage of 5 public property, which is, "Material and equipment necessary 6 for work to do done under a permit shall not be placed or 7 stored on public property so as to obstruct free, convenient 8 approach to and use of any fire hydrant, fire or police alarm 9 box, utility box, catch basin, manhole, so as to interfere with 10 the free flow of water in any street or gutter," how do you 11 plead? How do you plead to that charge? 12 MR. STEWART: Guilty. 13 THE COURT: And how do you plead to the UBC violation of 14 permits required, "No person shall do any grading without 15 having first obtained a grading permit from the building 16 official," also alleged to have occurred August 28th this year 17 at 9960 West 35th Avenue. 18 MR. STEWART: Guilty. 19 THE COURT: Those two guilty pleas are accepted. The remaining 20 charge is dismissed. Mr. Stocker, do you have any statements 21 in mitigation, sir? 22 MR. STOCKER: One other statement, Your Honor, I believe the 23 City has recommended suspension of most of the fine, and 24 there's another charge, as well, that, anyway, the total of the 25 fines that the City is recommending is $500, 1 be.lieve. I'm 1 going to ask the Court to -- 2 THE COURT: It's $200. 3 MR. STOCKER: I'm sorry, Your Honor? 4 THE COURT: $200. 5 MR. STOCKER: There's a second set of charges here. 6 THE COURT: Right. Each one of them is a $1,000 fine with 900 7 to be suspended. 8 MR. STOCKER: Right. There's 200 on this one, and there's 300 9 on another one. 10 THE COURT: The way I see this, Mr. Stocker, is that there's a 11 $1,000 fine on this case, $1,000 fine on the second case; 12 that's a total of $2,000, 1800 of which would be suspended, 13 leaving a balance of $200 total, plus costs. 14 MR. STEWART: And that's the total, all of it? 15 THE COURT: As long as you fully comply, the City is agreeing 16 not to request imposition of the previously- suspended fines. 17 MR. STOCKER: All right. This is on CE -24, Your Honor. 1$ THE COURT: Right. 19 MR. STOCKER: I believe there's a CE -35, as well. 20 THE COURT: Right. Each of them, Mr. Stocker, says a $1,000 21 fine, $900 suspended. 22 MR. STOCKER: Okay. Well, maybe- - 23 THE COURT: On each, okay, I'm sorry. So it would be- -okay, 1 24 see, there are three pleas there that he'd be entering in 35, 25 two in 24, so it would be 500, right. I've got it. it 1 MR. STOCKER: Okay. You know, we spent half the afternoon with 2 the city attorney, so I thought I had that nailed down. Your 3 Honor, just let me make a statement on Mr. Stewart's behalf. 4 The work that the City is asking him to do, which he's agreeing 5 to do, involved some engineering work to regrade his driveway 6 and bring it up to city code, and engineers are not cheap and 7 are difficult to get, given our environment today. I tried to 8 contact an engineer by phone this afternoon and was unable to 9 do it before our hearing. I'm going to ask the Court if it 10 would suspend, or waive, or defer the $500 fine until- - 1 THE COURT: Mr. Stocker, as I understand this, this is a 12 stipulated agreement, and if you don't want to do that part of 13 it, then I guess we'll pull the whole thing out, and we'll have 14 a trial. 15 MR. STOCKER: Oh, we're agreeing to it. The City was not - -the 16 City is not here, but they did not object to my suggestion that 17 we somehow defer that $500 so that Mr. Stewart can hire his 18 engineer. 19 THE COURT: We'll ask her. Ms. Greene? 20 MR. STOCKER: There she is. 21 THE COURT: Do you agree that we not impose the $500 on these 22 cases? 23 MS. GREENE: No, no. What I said was that I wouldn't object to 24 a stay on the $500, if the Court decided that- - 25 THE COURT: Mr. Stocker is representing that Mr. Stewart 0 1 shouldn't have to pay any of these fines, and that's- -you don't 2 have a problem with that? 3 MR. STOCKER: No -- 4 MS. GREENE: That was not my understanding. 5 MR. STOCKER: No, that- - 6 MS. GREENE: My understanding was that he agreed to pay the 7 500, but would ask for a stay until after he'd paid the 8 engineer for the things that we're going to set, that was the 9 more immediate need. 10 MR. STOCKER: That's my understanding, Your Honor. That's what 11 1 was trying to articulate. in other words, we've got to get 12 an engineer. 13 THE COURT: All right. Well, I'll take up the issue of a stay 14 later, then. All right. The plea is accepted. Are there any 15 statements just in mitigation here, Mr. Stocker? 16 MR. STOCKER: I think this involves land use, this involves his 17 property and the way he uses his property. Apparently, there's 18 differences of opinion, at least amongst one neighbor, at to 19 whether it's appropriate or not. Mr. Stewart is trying to 20 improve his property and bring it into compliance with the 21 City's requirements. I believe he's - -and i looked at the 22 property, myself, today, and I believe he's making good -faith 23 efforts to do that, and I believe we've reached a fair 24 agreement here; basically get a grading permit, which will 25 require some engineering work, and then perform that work 10 1 within the time limit specified, and I think the matter, all of 2 the matters, will be disposed of; bring the fence into 3 compliance, and so on. I think Mr. Stewart is doing all this 4 work himself; he's a maintenance man at Jefferson County, doing 5 the best he can. I think he's done a good job. I think he'll 6 conform to these requirements. The key is the economics of it. 7 THE COURT: okay. Mr. Stewart, why did you do all of this 8 stuff without getting a permit? 9 MR. STEWART: Because when I applied for the permit in May from 10 the City of Wheat Ridge, the incompetent employees of the City 11 didn't get the permit to me on time, and I was told by people 12 that worked for the City that I could do these certain things 13 before I did 'em, and that's the reason. 14 MR. STOCKER: Basically excavate a foundation for a garage, is 15 what he's referring to, and that permit is in process right 16 now. 17 `° MR. STEWART: Yeah. 18 THE COURT: All right. Let's move over to CE -35, and on that 19 one the offer is Mr. Stewart pleads guilty to section 26 -33 20 regarding the dumping or excavation of work materials not to 21 exceed 500 cubic yards; also pleads guilty to the permit 22 required; and pleads guilty to the nuisance regarding 23 littering, basically. That the other three charges would be 24 dismissed. Mr. Stocker, is that your understanding? 25 MR. STOCKER: I believe that's correct, Your Honor, yes. 11 1 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Stewart, is that your understanding? 2 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. 3 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Stewart, you give up all, exactly the 4 same rights I just explained to you in the first case if you 5 plead guilty to these three charges in this case, do you 6 understand that? 7 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. 8 THE COURT: And the stipulation here is 'that, again, $1,000 9 fine on each, 900 suspended on each, and the conditions, once 10 again, no further code violations for a year; number two, 11 grading plan back to the original - -the grading plan approved by 12 a professional engineer certified in Colorado, submitted within 13 five weeks; bring the height of the fence in compliance within 14 three weeks, property in compliance within six days of the 15 issuance of the permit for the driveway. And, once again, the 16 City will not request imposition of the fines, previously - 17 suspended fines. Mr. Stocker, is that your understanding of 18 the conditions? 19 MR. STOCKER: That's correct. 20 THE COURT: Mr. Stewart, is that yours? 21 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. 22 THE COURT: Mr. Stewart, do you have any questions about the 23 rights you give up, what the penalties could be, or the 24 stipulations regarding the dates for compliance? 25 MR. STEWART: No. 12 1 THE COURT: All right, sir, how do you plead to the violation 2 of section 26- 33(B)(2), allegedly occurring October 12th of 3 this year, 9960 West 35th Avenue, regarding the dumping or 4 excavation not to exceed 500 cubic yards? 5 MR. STEWART: Guilty. 6 THE COURT: And how do you plead to the charge of permit 7 required on the same date and location? 8 MR. STEWART: Guilty. 9 THE COURT: And how do you plead to the nuisance charge 10 regarding littering of the location? 11 MR. STEWART: Guilty. 12 THE COURT: Those guilty pleas are accepted. The remaining 13 charges dismissed. Anything you'd like to say, Mr. Stocker, in 14 mitigation on this one? 15 MR. STOCKER: I'd just reiterate the prior statements that I've 16 made, Your Honor, concerning the weather -- possible weather 17 concerns. 18 THE COURT: Right, with that understanding. I'll follow the 19 recommendations, first case $2,000, $1,000 in each; 900 20 suspended on each on those discussions that we've already 21 discussed. That leaves a balance of $200, plus $1800 total 22 suspended. $200 is the balance, 25 court costs, 10 stay fee, a 23 total of $235. That $235 is due at the review hearing that 24 we're going to set for approximately 90 days for compliance. 25 If everything is totally in compliance by then, Mr. Stewart, 13 1 you don't have to reappear as long as Code agrees with you that 2 everything is in compliance, but the 235 is due on that date, 3 whatever that date may by. Case number CE -35, $1,000 fine on 4 each, total of $3,000; $900 suspended on each, total of $2700, 5 leaves a balance of $300, plus 25 court costs; that's a total 6 of 325, and that is due now. So, I'm splitting the difference, 7 basically, with you. I will also set a compliance review 8 hearing on this in approximately 90 days. There will be one 9 review date for everything, Mr. Stewart. If everything is in 10 compliance in all the cases, you don't have to reappear, except 11 you've got to make sure the balance of 235 is paid by that new 12 date; 325 is due today. Mr. Stewart, do you have any 13 questions? 14 MR. STEWART: On that 325 -- 15 THE COURT: The other case is dismissed; CE -23 and CE -02 the 16 City is withdrawing its motion to impose, which is granted. 17 Sorry, Mr. Stewart? 18 MR. STEWART: On that, what, 325, could I have about one week 79 to pay that? 20 THE COURT: You can't pay it today, Mr. Stewart? 21 MR. STEWART: No. 22 THE COURT: All right. That's another $10 there, so that makes 23 it $335. You have a stay on that until a week from today, 24 December 4th, to pay that in full. We'll give you that in 25 writing, also, Mr. Stewart. 14 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 MR. STEWART: Okay. THE COURT: Any other questions, sir? MR. STEWART: That's it. THE COURT: Mr. Stocker, any questions? MR. STOCKER: No, sir. THE COURT: Okay, thank you. (The proceedings were concluded.) 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 MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. CE00- 00002, CE00- 00023, CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 --------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V. LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. I certify that I transcribed this record from the tape recording of the above - entitled matter which was heard on Monday, November 27, 2000. I further certify that pages 2 through 14, inclusive, constitute a complete and accurate transcript of the tape - recorded hearing, based upon the audio facilities of the tapes and my ability to understand them. li - �, ✓_mot s . Janet;yflockhorn, Gbur`t Transcriber March 1, 2002 Date 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 1 WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. CE00- 00002, CE00- 00023, CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 -------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGE'S CERTIFICATE THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE -OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V . LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------- State of Colorado ) County of Jefferson ) ss. City of Wheat Ridge ) This transcript for the above- entitled matter contains all of the proceedings at the hearing on Monday, November 27, 2000. It is requested that this transcript be made a part of the record. .1 certify that, to the best of my knowledge, this transcript is complete. It is now made a part of the record. es J. Rose, Municipal Court Juc _ a&vh e Date 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 MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 --------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIBER'S TRANSCRIPT --------------------------------------------------------------- THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V. LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- The hearing in this matter commenced on Monday, February 26, 2001, before THE HONORABLE CHARLES J. ROSE, Judge of the Municipal Court. FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Tammy K. Greene, Esq., Reg. No. 17817 FOR THE DEFENDANT: Thomas H. Stocker, Esq., Reg. No. 14716 E 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 THE COURT: Call the case of Lawrence Stewart, CE -24 and CE -35. Good afternoon. MR. STOCKER: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Tom Stocker for Mr. Stewart. THE COURT: Okay, thank you, Mr. Stocker. Mr. Stewart, good afternoon. MR. STEWART: Good afternoon. All right, this was set for a review on all the stipulations we entered into. What- - MS. GREENE: Your Honor, I think what we need to do today is, the City's position, and i think the defendant agrees, is that the- - MR. STOCKER: Your Honor, we'll speak for the defendant. MS. GREENE: Oh, okay. The City's position is none of those conditions have been met, and the City has a recommendation for the Court as to what should be imposed and how that should be handled, since none of the conditions have been met. THE COURT: Okay. MR. STOCKER: Your Honor, if I can respond to the city attorney? THE COURT: Sure. MR. STOCKER: Mr. Stewart was in this courtroom a couple - -about three months ago and agreed to certain conditions. When he was in this courtroom, when he advised the Court, that the conditions were contingent upon weather, and that's the problem. Mr. Stewart works about 12 -hour days as a maintenance 3 1 man out in Jefferson County; he doesn't have the week days to 2 do this work, he has weekends. So weather has been a factor. 3 Number two, he did consult with two engineers, one that 1 4 recommended to him and another one, and he got two different 5 stories from the engineers as to what he needs to do. One 6 engineer wanted a $1,000 retainer just to get the work started, 7 which seems excessive. And there was some confusion as to what 8 engineering work was actually needed. Terracon Engineers, and 9 Mr. Stewart - -and I'd be happy to put him on the stand and make 10 a record here if we need to, told him he didn't need a permit; 11 that he didn't need a permit to do this work. So Mr. Stewart 12 is not a rich man, didn't have $1,000 to spend for an engineer, 13 and was confused as to what needed to be done. Coupled with 14 the weather and the holidays, it's true he has not moved any 15 dirt. Now the City is saying that he needs a permit to move 16 any dirt; they want him to get the permit and move the dirt 17 within the next three weeks, and it's a Hobson's choice. I 18 think it's virtually impossible. Mr. Stewart will state, and 19 I'd be happy for him to state it, that if he has 60 more days, 20 he believes he can get the work done once he gets the permit, 21 the he's not sure what permit he needs. Do you want to add 22 anything? 23 MR. STEWART: No, just what Tom said here about- -the weather 24 will be getting better, it should, in the next 60 days, to get' 25 everything back to compliance, and we would like to do that. 0 1 THE COURT: What's the issue on the permit? 2 MS. GREENE: Your Honor, there were two things here that were 3 to be considered. One was the defendant had applied for a 4 building permit to foot a building where he had pulled - -move 5 the dirt away from, which caused all the problems in the first 6 place. He wanted to foot a building. 7 MR. STOCKER: If 1 can interrupt, the garage is not going to be 8 built. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 MS. GREENE: That's - -okay. 11 THE COURT: One at a time. 12 MR. STOCKER: I'm sorry. 13 MS. GREENE: The defendant tells us now that he's not going 'to 14 build the garage, so, obviously, he won't need a building 15 permit for that purpose. That building permit was addressed in 16 one of our plea agreements, and I think it's 023, 1 think was 17 the case number. The other issue was a grading permit, a 2 18 grading plan that has to be submitted, in our plea agreement, 19 under CE00 -035. 2 THE COURT: All right. 21 MS. GREENE: The requirement that a grading plan, back to the 22 original state, be approved by a professional engineer, 23 certified in Colorado, would then have this plan submitted 24 within five weeks. So he knew; he signed this form that a 25 grading plan would be required. That's not new; nothing that 5 1 we're saying today that would be new. The grading plan has not 2 been provided. 3 MR. STOCKER: Your Honor, that's where the confusion is. He's 4 not building a garage in the back, he's agreed, and he's going 5 to back -fill that foundation where he took out the dead trees. 6 The engineer, Terracon, told him that he didn't need a grading 7 permit for the little bit in the front that needs to be done. 8 The big grading is in the back, but he's returning that to 9 original contours, is that correct? 10 MR. STEWART: Yes. 11 MR. STOCKER: So that's where the confusion lies. And, 12 frankly, I'm confused. I don't think he needs a permit in the 13 front. 14 THE COURT: Ms. Hagerman, do you know? 15 MS. HAGERMAN: He needs a plan; he needs a grading plan to move 16 more than - -what is it? 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 150 cubic yards was our agreement. 18 THE COURT: And this is more than 50 cubic yards? 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The back area- - 20 MS. GREEN: Part of it is in the front, and part of it is in 21 the back. In the back it's more than 50, in the front it's 22 less than 50. 23 MR. STOCKER: The engineer that looked at it said it was less 24 than 10. 25 MR. STEWART: in the front. 1 MS. GREENE: 2 project. 3 THE COURT: 4 anyway? 5 MR. STEWART: I 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: that still -- So he knew that he needed a grading plan to do the So you never got - -you got a new one for the back, Yes, for the whole project now, yes, sir. ay. So is that - -is that still an issue, or is MR. STOCKER: Does he need a permit to return it back to where it was? MS. GREENE: Not a permit, but he needs a plan. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He needs a grading plan now (inaudible) and a grading permit, not a building permit. MS. GREENE: A grading permit; not a building permit. THE COURT: Just a grading permit. UNIDENTIFIED MALEL: Grading. THE COURT: Okay. And that's, at least as of right now, Mr. Stocker, that's your understanding? MR. STOCKER: A grading permit for the entire property, is that what you're saying? THE COURT: Plan and permit, twofold, right? MR. STEWART: Plan and permit? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You need the grading plan before Public Works can establish (inaudible) ease for the grading (inaudible). MR. STOCKER: Okay. Weil, if that's the case, then he needs to 7 1 get one of the two engineers or somebody else back out, do a 2 survey of the property, the topography, the topographics there, 3 right, and come up with some kind of a plan, and that's 4 probably $1,000, 1 don't know. I'm just guessing. 5 MR. STEWART: Yeah. 6 MR. STOCKER: You know, it just seems like- -one of the problems 7 with the construction industry right now, Your Honor, is it's 8 hard to get Engineers to do a little job like this, but 1,000 9 bucks seems like a lot of money. That was the one quote he 10 had. 11 MR. STEWART: Yeah. 12 MR. STOCKER: And that's where he stopped, because he didn't 13 have the $1,000. 14 MS. GREENE: He wouldn't need a survey. 15 MR. STOCKER: Well, we have to establish the grades. 16 MS. GREENE: Public Works wouldn't need a survey. 17 MR. STEWART: So that the water doesn't go into other areas in 18 the city? 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, there's no adverse conditions that are 20 being (inaudible). 21 MR. STOCKER: But how do you do that without topography? 1 22 mean, I think you need contour lines, you need topographic 23 data. 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, I mean that's something (inaudible). 2 5 MR. STOCKER: That's what the engineer is saying, that to do 0 1 that, he needs to do a -- 2 MS. GREENE: Survey? 3 MR. STOCKER: ...level survey of the property, and then we get 4 the $1,000 cost without any dirt being moved, and that wasn't 5 an estimate at all. 6 MS. GREENE: But he knew that. He knew that when we indicated 7 a grading plan had to be submitted within five weeks by an 8 approved, Colorado- certified engineer. 9 THE COURT: Okay. Well, that's certainly here in the 10 stipulation, there's not much to argue about that. Now that 11 we're here, and now this is the situation, what are we going to 12 do about it? I guess that's- - 13 MS. GREENE: Right. I would also indicate to the Court that 14 the fence has not been brought into compliance. There was a 15 condition that the fence be cut down (inaudible) I think three 16 feet. 17 THE COURT: Right. 18 MS. GREENE: And the rest, I guess, has already been covered. 19 What I would suggest is that the Court (inaudible), I would ask 20 the Court to order and then impose $500 of the suspended fine 21 today; resuspend the rest; and give the defendant three weeks 22 to bring the property into compliance. If the property is not 2 3 in compliance at that point, I'm asking the Court to order 24 today that if the property is not in compliance within three 25 weeks that the City can go onto the property and bring it into P 1 compliance. I've talked with engineers at Public Works; the 2 director of Public Works, Bob Gobel, says that there's no 3 problem with the City going on and doing that, as far as us 4 being able to move dirt in the winter time. And the fine- - 5 obviously, the cost to the City would be assessed against the 6 property. 7 THE COURT: Does the City do work cheaper than a private a contractor? 9 MS. GREENE: It may be; I doubt it, with the necessary charges 10 added on top. 11 MR. STOCKER: If I can respond, Your Honor, three weeks 12 doesn't - -I don't even think we can get an engineer out there in 13 three weeks to do the plan. Let's assume that he gets an 14 engineer back out there, I assume Jeff can go back out there, 15 then you have $1,000 for it. 16 MR. STEWART: Uh -huh (affirmative). 17 MR. STOCKER: Do you have $1,000 for it? 18 MR. STEWART: Yes. 19 MR. STOCKER: All right. So he'll scrape up the 1,000 bucks. 20 Then they want the permit. I don't think the City can give him 21 a permit in three weeks, even if he gets all the data. If the 22 City can give him a permit in three weeks I'd be shocked. But 23 if they did, he's got to get all the data to them and then do 24 the work, I think it's an impossibility. 25 THE COURT: Well, at least he has a plan. 10 1 MR. STOCKER: Sixty days works; sixty days I think we can live 2 with. 3 THE COURT: How much time does it usually take to get the 4 permit? 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Inaudible). 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that's saying there's no revisions. 8 THE COURT: Well, yeah, assuming everything goes smoothly and 9 there's not a problem, I understand that, yeah. So the City is 10 asking for three weeks, and the defense is asking for 60 days. 11 MR. STOCKER: Correct. And part of the request is because of 12 the weather, and we think that Mr. Stewart can do this work 13 himself if he has a few good weekends to do it, and not have to 14 pay contractors, and certainly not have to pay the city 15 contractors, which are going to charge an arm and a leg. 16 MS. GREENE: Your Honor, this has been a property that's been 17 in violation since August 28th, 2000. 18 MR, STOCKER: Your Honor, Mr. Stewart would like to make a 19 comment, if he could, please? 20 MR. STEWART: I would just like to ask the Court to give me 21 time to get that done, a reasonable amount of time. I just 22 want to get it in compliance, because I want to get the house 23 and everything looking back to the way it should be. The 24 property, and the weather, and the time, three weeks seems like 25 too short of time. N 11 1 THE COURT: The City wants that, too, Mr. Stewart. All right, 2 I'm not going to impose part of the fine at this point 'cause I'' 3 think that defeats the purpose if Mr. Stewart needs the money 4 to pay the engineer. I'm going to set this for a compliance 5 hearing, continued compliance hearing April 2nd. The City 6 wants three weeks, the defense wants 60 days, we'll make it 7 about five weeks. It appears, Mr. Stewart, it should be 8 adequate time. I mean if we have a blizzard that lasts for the 9 next five weeks, then I guess you'll have a good reason not to 10 get it done, but assuming we don't- - 11 MR. STEWART: I'll get it done. 12 THE COURT: Okay. Assuming we don't, and based upon the 13 representations from the Public Works people that they'll 14 expedite the process, that you get that permit - -I'm sorry, that 15 you get the plan in to them, they'll certainly give you top 16 priority so they can get you the permit, assuming that 17 everything is in order, so you can get stuff taken care of. 18 MR. STEWART: Okay. 19 THE COURT: I will make an order at this point that if the 20 property is not in compliance by April 2nd, of course, the 21 defense is entitled to a hearing at that time, 'cause it's set 22 for a hearing, but if the property is not in compliance, and 23 the Court so rules, the City will be able to go in and bring 24 the property in compliance at the defendant's expense, starting 25 immediately after April 2nd. 12 1 MS. GREENE: Judge, are you going to impose any fine at this 2 time, or would you- - 3 THE COURT: No. 4 MS. GREENE: ...consider imposing that on April 2nd? 5 THE COURT: I'll take that up on April 2nd. I think you were 6 busy for a moment, but I mentioned that already, 1 don't think 7 that - -I don't want to defeat the purpose here, if it's costing 8 him money to get the engineer and get this plan together, I 9 mean I don't want him paying us money that should be going for 10 that, to get him in compliance in the first place. if 1 find 11 that there seems to be bad faith on April 2nd, I'll certainly 12 address the situation again. 13 MS. GREENE: Can we set a time on that date so I can give these 14 guys -- 15 THE CLERK: it will be at 2:30 in the afternoon. 16 MS. GREENE: 2:30. 17 THE COURT: Does that work, Mr. Stocker? 18 MR. STOCKER: It's my youngest son's birthday, that's all 1 19 know about. Yeah, that's fine. 20 THE COURT: Okay. Well, hopefully, you'll both have something 21 to celebrate that day. 22 MR. STOCKER: Your Honor, could you - -I don't know if we have 23 a - -is there some information that you can give us as to exactly 24 what you want for this permit application? Is there a form? 25 We need to know specifically what you need. 13 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 THE COURT: Sure. If you can do that, maybe take a few minutes and sit down now while you're all here, maybe, and clear up anything that's in contention or you're not sure about. MR. STOCKER: We get two engineers that told us two different stories. THE COURT: Well, you'll get it from the horse's mouth here. MR. STOCKER: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. We'll reset it, we'll give you the date in writing up here. Mr. Stewart, good luck. Hopefully, you can get it taken care of. MR. STEWART: It will be done this time. THE COURT: Okay. All right, thank you, Mr. Stocker. MR. STOCKER: Thank you. (The proceedings were concluded.) 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 MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 --------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE --------------------------------------------------------------- THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V . LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- I certify that I transcribed this record from the tape recording of the above- entitled matter which was heard on Monday, February 26, 2001. I further certify that pages 2 through 13, inclusive, constitute a complete and accurate transcript of the tape - recorded hearing, based upon the audio facilities of the tapes and my ability to understand them. Jab *t Dockhorn, Court Transcriber March 1, 2002 Date 1 WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 2 Case No. CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- 4 JUDGE'S CERTIFICATE 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- 6 THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF 7 THE STATE OF COLORADO, 8 Plaintiff, 9 V. 10 LAWRENCE STEWART, 11 Defendant. 12 -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 13 State of Colorado ) County of Jefferson ) ss. 14 City of Wheat Ridge ) 15 16 This transcript for the above - entitled matter 17 contains all of the proceedings at the hearing on Monday, 18 February 26, 2001. It is requested that this transcript be 19 made a part of the record. 20 21 1 certify that, to the best of my knowledge, this 22 transcript is complete. It is now made a part of the record. 23 24 ;J.Rose, /� x a jCa les Municipal Court Judge Date 25 I 1 WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 2 Case No. CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 4 TRANSCRIBER'S TRANSCRIPT 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- 6 THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF 7 THE STATE OF COLORADO, 8 Plaintiff, 9 V. 10 LAWRENCE STEWART, 11 Defendant. 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- 13 14 The hearing in this matter commenced on Monday, April 15 2, 2001, before THE HONORABLE CHARLES J. ROSE, Judge of the - 16 Municipal Court. 17 18 19 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Tammy K. Greene, Esq., Reg. No. 17817 20 FOR THE DEFENDANT: Thomas H. Stocker, Esq., Reg. No. 14716 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 THE COURT: Lawrence Stewart, CE -24 and 35. Good afternoon, 2 again. 3 MR. STOCKER: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Tom Stocker. 4 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Stewart, good afternoon, again; Ms. 5 Hagerman, Ms. Greene. It looks like there's a request to 6 continue the compliance hearing again, and the City is agreeing 7 to it one more time? 8 MS. GREENE: Your Honor, you'll note that the order last time 9 was that if there wasn't compliance by today, that the City can 10 enter the property. We're asking that you continue that order 11 till May 7th, so that we can enter the property at that time if 12 there isn't compliance. There's been somewhat of an effort at 13 compliance, and the code personnel want to go ahead and give 14 them another 30 days. 15 THE COURT: So May 7th? 16 MR. STOCKER: Your Honor, if I can correct Ms. Greene's 17 statements slightly? As I recall, the order of the Court was 18 that there would be a compliance hearing today, and that you 19 would evaluate the efforts Mr. Greene has made - -or Mr. Stewart 20 has made at compliance, and I'd represent to the Court that the 21 efforts that he's made have been substantial. We have an 22 engineer's drawing, which is what the City wanted. However, 23 the City doesn't like the drawing; they want changes made to 24 it. They have given us a list at 3:30 today of the changes 25 they want made to the drawing. The drawing was made by an 3 1 engineer, registered engineer, who came and surveyed the 2 property. Let me just give you a footnote, it's not easy to 3 get guys out to do that kind of work, given our economy right 4 now. The changes can be made. The City wants them by April 5 4th, that's Wednesday. It's four o'clock. I don't think we'll 6 even be able to get a hold of the engineer until tomorrow; that 7 assumes he's in his office, he could be in the field. I mean 8 that's how he makes his living, travels a lot. They want the 9 revised drawing on Wednesday. He's in Evergreen. I don't 10 think it's practical. What I would request the Court to do is 11 give us till Friday to get a revised drawing done here, and 12 then I would Like the Court - -and nothing can be done until the 13 permit is issued. I don't know if the City will agree or not 14 agree with the revised drawings. I apologize, Your Honor, I'm 15 a little frustrated. Some of the things that the City wants 16 are already on the drawing, but they want them different. But, 17 anyway, I think Mr. Stewart, if he has 30 days from when the 18 permit is issued; that's a realistic time for him to get the 19 work done. 20 THE COURT: I'm sorry, say that again, Mr. Stocker? 21 MR. STOCKER: That if Mr. Stewart were given 30 days from the 22 date the permit is actually issued, I think that's realistic 23 and reasonable to get the actual work done on the property. 24 MS. GREENE: Your Honor, the City has agreed to issue a permit 25 assuming that, first of all, there's a memo that we've given Il 1 him a copy of, that was dated March 30th, Wednesday, and they 2 actually had them earlier, but that tells exactly what the 3 engineer is to address on the plan, okay? The city engineer 4 agreed that upon receipt of an appropriate plan with that 5 information on it, within 48 hours he will approve or 6 disapprove, but, you know, get the permit through within 48 7 hours. 8 THE COURT: That's dated when? 9 MS. GREENE: March 30th. 10 MR. STOCKER: Well, that's the point, if we don't get the 11 permit, he can't do any work, so how can he be held- - 12 THE COURT: Well, I realize that. 13 MR. STOCKER: And we thought we had a good drawing. I mean it 14 cost $500 to get this drawing. 15 MR. STEWART: Yes. 16 THE COURT: Well, you know, I don't know the details, Mr. 17 Stocker, but whatever the City is requesting be changed, do you 18 feel that's something that you're willing to do and can be 19 done? 20 MR. STOCKER: I feel that the drawing can be changed. The 21 information that the City wants is already on the drawing; they 22 want it in a different format. 23 THE COURT: What I'm getting at, is there any reason to believe 24 that the changes won't be made, or assuming they are made, that 25 they'll be- -that it would allow the permit to be issued? 5 1 MR. STOCKER: Yes, because the City gave us a list the last 2 time we were here in February of what they wanted, three 3 things, existing contours, proposed contours, drainage areas. 4 That was the list I communicated to the engineer, and that was 5 what he worked off of. He presented that information, and now g they give us a list of four more things, "Topographic lines on 7 the.plan do not have - -" g MS. GREENE: Your Honor, (inaudible). 9 THE COURT: Hold on, Ms. Greene. Hold on. 10 MR. STOCKER: Please don't interrupt me, Ms. Greene. "Profile 11 of driveway," in other words they want more information, and 12 they want it in a different format. All I'm saying is that 1 13 will get this to the engineer tomorrow. I don't know if he's 14 in his office tomorrow. As soon as I can communicate to him, 15 I'll pass it to him tonight, he will do the work. I mean, he's 16 got other jobs to do. I think it's impossible to get a revised 17 drawing down here on Wednesday. That's what the City wants. 1s What I'm suggesting is give us till Friday to get the revised 19 drawing down, we'll get it down here from Evergreen, submit it, 20 and then if the City approves it, then the 30 -day clock runs, 21 because, as Ms. Greene stated in her statement, if the City 22 rejects it, then we're back to square one again. 23 THE COURT: Okay, but- - 24 MR. STOCKER: And we've already done everything we thought we 25 were supposed to do the Last time. 0 1 THE COURT: But assuming that your time.table works there, Mr. 2 Stocker, and he can get the revised drawing done by Friday, 3 that's the 6th, and presumably, the, the permit will be issued, 4 so we're still about 30 days out for the hearing. 5 MR. STOCKER: And 1 agree with that. That presumes the permit 6 is issued the following, you know, like the following Monday. 7 1 don't know, the City could come back with something else. 8 I've dealt with bureaucracies for many years, and I can't 9 control them. 10 THE COURT: I understand that, yeah. I mean I'm hopeful that 11 if both sides understand what needs to be done, that it can be 12 done, as long as, you know, you're willing to go forward with 13 what they want for changes. It appears that probably the thing 14 to do at this point, 'cause we're not going to resolve it 15 today, is go ahead and reset the compliance hearing for May 16 7th. Mr. Stocker, obviously, from your point of view, and on 17 Mr. Stewart's behalf, if you feel that the City is improperly 18 withholding the permit, or, you know, changes horses on you in 19 midstream after the new drawing is done, then you can always 20 apply to the Court for relief on that basis in terms of the 21 compliance - hearing date. We just can't anticipate everything 22 that may come up, I guess, and there's always, you know, that's 23 always built into all this, I guess. I mean if everyth.ing goes 24 according to plan, even from your point of view, then May 7th 25 should work. if it doesn't, and you feel that again the City 7 1 is changing the rules, or something, and you can't get the 2 permit issued by, let's say, Friday, or at the worst, the 3 beginning of next week, then you can always apply to the Court 4 for relief from that in terms of the May 7th compliance. 1 5 don't know else they can really do at this point, but- - 6 MR. STOCKER: Okay, I'll go along with that plan. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 MS. GREENE: Your Honor? 9 THE COURT: Uh -huh (affirmative). 10 MS. GREENE: The file indicates that he pled on this case on 11 November 27th, is that correct? 12 MR. STOCKER: I didn't hear your question. 13 MS. GREENE: When did - -when was the guilty plea- - 14 THE COURT: November 27th, yes. ' 15 MS. GREENE: Can I make a record, just for my sake? b 16 THE COURT: Sure. 17 MS. GREENE: This was set for a compliance hearing on February f� 18 27th, which I think was the second compliance hearing, but, 19 anyway, the- - 20 THE COURT: Well, the first compliance hearing was set for 90 21 days, and that was the one on February 26th. 22 MS. GREENE: Okay. And that's because we wouldn't have any- - 23 they wouldn't have enough time, they needed 90 days to get this 24 done. February 27th they came in, the plan hadn't even been 25 submitted. "Oh, I'm sorry, we didn't understand that a plan F.] 1 needed to be submitted." So that was February 27th. There was 2 no plan even - -or 26th. There was no plan even submitted to the 3 Planning Department, to the city engineer, until March 28th, 4 which was last Wednesday. They turned around, and by March 5 30th he had made this memo, "he" being Mike Garcia, the 6 engineer, saying, "What we need (inaudible) the simplest 7 elevations show on your plan," very basic things. The City has 8 shown a pretty quick turn - around. The defendant is having a 9 hard time getting this done in a timely manner. My position is 10 that I'd be fine with the City going on and just taking care of 11 this today, but, certainly, those people want to give them 30 12 more days, the Court wants to give them 30 more days, but 1 13 don't want the Court to think there's a problem here with the 14 city engineer working with the defendant, when the defendant 15 has taken, December, January, February, March, four months to 16 submit a plan. 1T THE COURT: Okay. Well, you've made your record, and let me 18 clarify that. By anything I've said, I'm not implying one way 19 or the other. 20 MS. GREENE: Right, and I'm just making a record. 21 THE COURT: I'm just trying to resolve this for purposes of 22 today, because the two of you can argue back and forth, and 23 we're not going to get anywhere at this point. 24 MS. GREENE: Right. 25 THE COURT: I'm just trying to try to keep things in line. And 0 1 as long as the City is willing to agree to this continuance to 2 May 7th, then we'll work toward that. You know, what happens 3 in terms of these drawings, amended drawings, Mr. Garcia's 4 position, you know, that's what all of you have to work out. 5 So from my point of view, all I'm trying to do is give you the 6 extra time. 7 MR. STOCKER: Your Honor, may I-- 8 THE COURT: I'm not trying to insinuate that one side or the 9 other is playing games or causing things to be changed. I 10 understand if the City says that - -if the City feels that these 11 amendments have to be made, there's a reason for that. I 12 understand that the defendant might be getting somewhat 13 frustrated by some of this, but, hopefully, we're working 14 toward a resolution of this, and that's the main thing today. 15 MR. STOCKER: I would hope, Your Honor. May I make a rebuttal 16 statement to hers? 17 THE COURT: Sure. 18 MR. STOCKER: Let me just give you an example; the fourth item 19 that they want on their request states, "Where will the soil 20 from the driveway be located, off -site, or will it be relocated 21 on site ?" That's on the memo I just got. The drawing, itself, 22 says, "Remove excess driveway silt and fill excavation in rear 23 to natural grade, as shown." I get the impression that the 24 people that are reviewing the drawing haven't even looked at it 25 or gave it a very cursory look. 9 10 1 THE COURT: Okay. Well, everyone has made their record, 1 2 guess, at this point. All I can hope is that, you know, aside 3 from any frustration that's been obviously occurring, that we 4 can get it resolved by May 7th to each side's satisfaction. 5 That's the goal here, I know, from each side. So, if we can, 6 we can, we'll take it from there, but I certainly would hope 7 that it can be resolved outside of court, not in court. 8 MR. STOCKER: I think once the permit is issued, the work can 9 get done fairly quickly. 10 THE COURT: Okay. Well, we're hoping that the permit will be 11 issued quickly, and the work will be done real quickly. All 12 right, anything else from either side? 13 MS. GREENE: No, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: Okay. All right, May 7th, we'll give you the date 15 and time up here. If, in fact, Mr. Stocker, that Mr. Stewart 16 is in full compliance and the City agrees to that by May 7th, 17 no one has to appear again for that hearing. 18 MR. STOCKER: Just let me confirm that we're to submit the 19 revised drawing by Friday of this week, not Wednesday, is that 20 your understanding? 21 MS. GREENE: You can submit it whenever you want. 22 THE COURT: Yeah, I'm not issuing an order on that. Obviously, 23 no permit is going to be issued until it's submitted. If it's 24 submitted Wednesday, it can be reviewed by that. If it's 25 submitted Friday, it will be reviewed then. 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 MR. STEWART: The quicker it's submitted, the longer you have to get it done. THE COURT: Well, exactly. I mean, it works against your best interests, Mr. Stewart, to, you know, delay this, obviously. MR. STEWART: Right. THE COURT: I'm not suggesting you are, but when you get it in is when you get it in, at this point. MR. STOCKER: Okay. It's really in the hands of the engineer, that's the problem, and then the bureaucracy. Then we get it. THE COURT: Right, I realize that. It's not the two of you going back to your office and sitting down and doing this, I understand. Okay, we'll give it to you up here in writing, then. Good luck. MR. STOCKER: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Stocker. (The proceedings were concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. CE00- 00024, CEOO -00035 TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, v. LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. 12 ---------------------------------------------------- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I certify that I transcribed this record from the tape recording of the above - entitled matter which was heard on Monday, April 2, 2001. I further certify that pages 2 through 11, inclusive, constitute a complete and accurate transcript of the tape - recorded hearing, based upon the audio facilities of the tapes and my ability to understand them. Janet lbockhorn, Court'Transcriber March 1, 2002 Date U 1 WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 2 Case No. CEOO- 00024, CE00 -00035 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- 4 JUDGE'S CERTIFICATE 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- 6 THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF 7 THE STATE OF COLORADO, B Plaintiff, 9 V. 10 LAWRENCE STEWART, 1 Defendant. 12 -------------------------------------------------------------- 13 State of Colorado ) County of Jefferson ) ss. 14 City of Wheat Ridge } 15 16 This transcript for the above- entitled matter 17 contains all of the proceedings at the hearing on Monday, April 18 2, 2001. It is requested that this transcript be made a part 19 of the record.. 20 21 1 certify that, to the best of my knowledge, this 22 transcript is complete. It is now made a part of the record. 23 r 24 �f1 S, a les 25 J. Rose, Municipal Court Judge bale 1 WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 2 Case No. CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 4 TRANSCRIBER'S TRANSCRIPT 5 ------------------------------------------------------ 6 THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF 7 THE STATE OF COLORADO, 8 Plaintiff, 9 V. 10 LAWRENCE STEWART, 11 Defendant. 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- 13 14 The hearing in this matter commenced on Monday, May 7, 15 2001, before THE HONORABLE CHARLES J. ROSE, Judge of the 16 Municipal Court. 17 18 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Tammy K. Greene, Esq., Reg. No. 17817 19 FOR THE DEFENDANT: Thomas H. Stocker, Esq., Reg. No. 14716 20 21 22 23 24 25 E 1 THE COURT: Lawrence Stewart, CE -24 and 35. Mr. Stewart, good 2 afternoon again, Mr. Stocker. 3 MR. STEWART: Hi, how you doing today? 4 THE COURT: All right, sir, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. 5 Stocker. 6 MR. STOCKER: Tom Stocker. 7 THE COURT: Good afternoon. Ms. Hagerman, good afternoon. 8 MS. HAGERMAN: Good afternoon. 9 THE COURT: Mr. -- 10 MS. HAGERMAN: Mike Garcia. 11 THE COURT: Garcia, okay, thank you. Here we are again. 12 There's a note here from Ms. Greene that we're going to reset 13 this for three weeks, and Mr. Stewart has a grading permit; 14 that we need to have on the record that Mr. Stewart will need 15 to have his engineer of record to recertify the property upon 16 completion. Mr. Garcia is present. And Mr. Stewart agrees to 17 Mr. Morgan going onto the property to confirm compliance after 18 receipt of the engineer's recertification. 19 MR. STOCKER: That's not entirely correct, Your Honor. If 1 20 could amend it, I've got a comment on it. First off, for the 21 record, we were never, ever advised that we needed an engineer 22 to come back at the end of the project to recertify - -or certify 23 that it was built in some.particular way until today. There's 2 nowhere in my notes that 'I have that. We were never informed 25 of that. That's additional expense. This is part of what I 3 1 2 3 n 5 6 7 8 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 talked about the last time when we were here, the City changing the rules as we go along. So we object to that requirement. Secondly, in terms of Mr. - -I think it's Morgan, or whoever it is, we have no objection to him inspecting the front yard or inspecting the driveway, because the purpose of all this was to get the driveway, which was out on the public road to some extent, back up onto Mr. Stewart's property, and that's what he's doing, and that's what he's done, basically; he's still got some dirt to move in the back yard. Mr. Stewart objects strongly to having Mr. Darren, or any of them, in the back yard, because that's not a subject of the permit or a subject of any of the complaints. He's putting the dirt in the back yard and filling the hole, but I don't think the City has a right to carte blanche come in and walk all over his property. So we're not - -we're not amenable to that. We are amenable to them looking at the driveway, they can drive by and look at it any time they want. They've done that everyday we've been here. Mr. Stewart has done basically everything that was supposed to be done. We've had two weeks of rain and snow, which has been a problem, but he's basically got the project 90% done. The drainage ditch is cleaned out. And, to and behold, we find out that the next neighbor's ditch, not only is there not a ditch there, but there's not even a pipe there. So now the water goes through the drainage pipe onto Mr. Stewart's driveway, goes to the neighbor's house, doesn't go anywhere, Il 1 and backs up, and goes back up onto his driveway, so we've 2 created a problem instead of solved a problem. So this whole 3 thing is getting to be kind of a circus in my mind. With all 4 due respect to the Court, it's like everything we do gets 5 changed when we come back. 6 THE COURT: All right. Ms. Greene just has come in. Thank 7 you, Mr. Stocker. Ms. Greene, Mr. Stocker just indicated the 8 defense would object to the recertification because it's an 9 additional expense and because he said that was never discussed 10 before, it's a new condition today. That's number one. Number 11 two, he's objecting to Mr. Morgan going onto the property. He 12 said he can drive by and see the front and the driveway, but h' 13 should not have carte blanche to go into the back or anything 14 like that. So those are the two issues I guess we're hung up' 15 on right now, at least based upon your note, which I read int' 16 the record. 17 MS. GREENE: Right. Then I guess I'd just ask the Court for an 18 order that we go ahead and go on tomorrow and bring the 19 property into compliance. Why do this? We'll go fix it 20 ourselves. That's my request. I mean, if he's not going to do 21 everything the normal way, and work with us, and we've pushed 22 this off, and have given him more, and more, and more, and more 23 time to come into compliance, 'cause obviously he's not in 24 compliance today, then, you know, I guess rather than work with 25 them, if they don't want to work with us on following the 5 1 rules, then I'd just ask to have permission to go onto the 2 property and bring it into compliance. 3 THE COURT: Let's try to deal with this one at a time. What 4 about the recertification, was that something- - 5 MS. GREENE: It's normal procedure that when an engineer drafts 6 a plan, that they then certify that it's in compliance once the 7 property ha's been done. It's normal procedure for the- - 8 MR. GARCIA: We usually get that done for any residential or 9 commercial development as far as the grading. 10 MS. GREENE: Anything that requires grading is done. 11 MR. STOCKER: Your Honor, this is a residence. Mr. Stewart is 12 doing this work by himself, on his own, and at considerable 13 expense, to try to get the City happy. Mr. Garcia, and I'll 14 call him as a witness if you'll let me, told Mr. Stewart this 15 morning that the work looked fine. That was this morning, and 16 now we come in here and we find all these problems. We keep 17 getting mixed signals and mixed messages. Recertification was 18 never, ever mentioned to me, and I'll get on the stand and 19 testify to that if I have to. 20 MR. STEWART: Yeah, 'cause he was at my house about 10:30 this 21 morning. I asked him two or three times out in front of the 22 house, "is this what you guys wanted ?" He said, "Yes." 1 23 said, "Okay. There's a little bit here to do, and that's it." 24 Then we get here, and then there's all these other things. 25 MS. GREENE: Do you want to respond to that? C I MR. GARCIA: I did tell him he was making progress, Your Honor. 2 MS. GREENE: Which is the first progress we've seen in this 3 case. Did you tell him that everything looked fine and he was 4 in compliance? 5 MR. GARCIA: I-- 6 MR. STOCKER: Whoa, whoa, whoa, are we taking testimony now? 7 If we're taking testimony, I want him on the stand so I can 8 cross - examine. 9 MS. GREENE: Let's just go clean it up. 10 THE COURT: What about the issue that the defense objects to 11 Mr. Morgan being able to go into the back yard of the premises? 12 MS. GREENE: It's to determine if the property has been 13 returned to its original state without going into the back. I 14 guess if we get an engineer who certifies that it's been done, 15 then we sue this engineer if there's ever issues, draining 16 issues, and maybe that's not a big deal. 17 MR. GARCIA: And that's the reason we do get those. 18 MS. GREENE: But if we don't have a recertification from the 19 engineer, somebody needs to certify or verify that there's been 20 compliance. 21 MR. STEWART: Well, we will have the recertification. 22 MS. GREENE: That's why you get certification on grading, I'm 23 assuming., 24 MR. STOCKER: Your Honor, I don't think the back yard has ever 25 been an issue, though. It's never been mentioned. 7 1 MS. GREENE: Your Honor, from the beginning of this case the 2 back yard was the issue, because he took the dirt from the back 3 yard, caused a major hole that was the problem, by moving it to 4 the front yard. He said he was going to build a garage, and 5 that's why he took all that out, he was going to lay a 6 foundation. Now he's decided not to do the garage. This is 7 stuff that was explained to me by the defendant months ago. 1 8 understand that the back yard was an issue. 9 MR. STOCKER: The dirt, a lot of the dirt in the driveway, that 10 came from the front yard where he had lowered the elevation of 11 the front yard. 12 MR. STEWART: Yeah. 13 THE COURT: Anything else you want to disagree about? 14 MS. GREENE:___No. 15 THE COURT: And the reason, the original reason, just for my 16 own clarification --that we're going to reset this for three 17 weeks is to allow - -just to allow Mr. Stewart to complete 18 everything, is that correct? 19 MR. STOCKER: Yeah. It's 90% completed. There's some dirt on 20 the - -I think it's the right side of the driveway- - 21 MR. STEWART: Uh -huh (affirmative). 22 MR. STOCKER: ...that hasn't been graded off completely yet, 23 but the driveway is the engineer's plan, the driveway is back 24 to that grade which is required. 25 MR. STEWART: Yeah. U 1 MR. STOCKER: And that was the fundamental issue that we've 2 been- - 3 MR. STEWART: And the right -of -way in the street has been 4 brought back. 5 THE COURT: What's the defense position? I mean, Mr. Garcia, 6 let me clarify again, you're saying this is the ordinary course 7 of business, if you will, that your department would require a 8 recertification? 9 MR. GARCIA: Actually, the building department would require 10 that, yeah. 11 THE COURT: Building. And this is true in any residential or 12 commercial situation? 13 MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir. 14 MR. STOCKER: And my response is that may be true, but they 15 should tell us up front, and that was the point I made here 16 before, is that on the permit somewhere, I mean where is the 17 authority -- 18 MR. STEWART: Yeah. 19 MR. STOCKER: I wasn't aware of that, and neither was Mr. 20 Stewart. 21 MR. STEWART: Neither was 1. 22 MR. STOCKER: So it's not that getting an engineer's 23 certification is that big of a deal, although it costs him 24 maybe a couple hundred dollars; it's the issue of the 25 credibility of the City here changing the rules. And Mr. 0 1 Stewart has made a good -faith effort, given two weeks of really 2 bad weather, to get everything done, and I think, certainly in 3 our view, he's 90% there. 4 THE COURT: I realize the weather was squirrely last week. 5 MR. STOCKER: Yeah. It's hard to move dirt when it -- g MR. STEWART: When it turns to mud. 7 MR. STOCKER: A mud pile. g MR. STEWART: Yeah, because even the neighbors that first got 9 this going, they even came out and said I was doing such a good 10 job of getting this straightened out in front, and before, two 11 months ago, they were enemies, now they're best friends. 12 THE COURT: All right. We're going to reset it for three w 13 for compliance. I will require recertification by the 14 defendant's engineer of the property. As long as that is 15 received, then there's no need for Mr. Morgan to go onto tr Lv 16 property. 17 MS. GREENE: Okay. And that recertification, that's to be 18 received by three weeks from now, as well? 19 THE COURT: Well, in order to have compliance, yes. 20 MS. GREENE: Okay. 21 THE COURT: Hopefully, we can just get it done then. 22 MS. GREENE: Thank you. 23 THE COURT:, All right. Mr. Stocker, do you have any questions? 24 MR. STOCKER: Excuse me, Your Honor, my client has a question 25 here, hold on. 10 1 THE COURT: Okay, hold on. 2 MR. STEWART: Your Honor, I was just told a while ago by the 3 City that it never rains around Denver here in April and May, 4 so I was just wondering if -- 5 THE COURT: April and May are two of the months with the most 6 precipitation. 7 MR. STEWART: I know. But, anyway, say in the next two weeks 8 it did like it did last week? 9 THE COURT: You know, again, Mr. Stewart, there's always got to 10 be the understanding that this has got to be within reason. I 11 mean if the next three weeks we have weather like we did last 12 week, then I understand that's going to be a problem. 13 MR. STEWART: Yeah. Should I document it? 14 THE COURT: You know, that's not what the forecast is for the 15 rest of this week. You know, we just have to there's always 16 that built -in reasonableness factor. 17 MR. STEWART: By the grace of God, I hope it's nice, really, 18 seriously- - 1s THE COURT: Well, I understand. 20 MR. STEWART: ...because it would have been even done more by 21 today if we wouldn't have had the problem last week, 'cause 1 22 had all last week I would have been able to do it. 23 THE COURT: I understand, Mr. Stewart. 24 MR. STEWART: But it's just - -the City is saying that--telling 25 me- -I've been here for 53 years in this part of Denver, and 11 1 telling me it doesn't do this in April and May? 2 MS. HAGERMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Stewart is misquoting me. I did 3 say - -what I did say is we'll give you the two weeks, because it 4 looks like we're going to have a nice week. I said the 5 forecast looks like we're going to have nice weather. I said 6 nothing about no rain in -- 7 THE COURT: Well, whatever might have been said or not said, 1 8 mean it's not going to change anything. 9 MR. STEWART: Exactly, I know. 10 THE COURT: I mean, if the weather is good, get it done. If 11 the weather makes it impossible for you to get it done, then, 12 needless to say, we'll take that into consideration. 13 MR. STOCKER: Thank you, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: Mr. Stocker, anything else? 15 MR. STOCKER: No, that's all, Your Honor. Thank you. 16 17 (The proceedings were concluded.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 --------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE --------------------------------------------------------- - - -- -- THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V . LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. ------------------------------------------- -- -------- ---- - - - - -- I certify that I transcribed this record from the tape recording of the above - entitled matter which was heard on Monday, May 7, 2001. I further certify that pages 2 through 11, inclusive, constitute a complete and accurate transcript of the tape - recorded hearing, based upon the audio facilities of the tapes and my ability to understand them. .Janet'�,ckhorn, court Transcriber March 1, 2002 Date 1 WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY., COLORADO 2 Case No. CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- 4 JUDGE'S CERTIFICATE 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF 7 THE STATE OF COLORADO, 8 Plaintiff, 9 V. 10 LAWRENCE STEWART, 11 Defendant. 12 -------------------------------------------------------------- I 13 State of Colorado ) County of Jefferson ) ss. 14 City of Wheat Ridge ) 15 16 This transcript for the above - entitled matter 17 contains all of the proceedings at the hearing on Monday, May 18 7, 2001. It is requested that this transcript be made apart i of the record. 20 21 1 certify that, to the best of my knowledge, this 22 transcript is complete. It is now made a part of the record. 23 srtc�� 24 t h S, a es J. Rose, Municipal Court Judge Date 25 1 WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 2 Case No. CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 4 TRANSCRIBER'S TRANSCRIPT 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- 6 THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF 7 THE STATE OF COLORADO, 8 Plaintiff, 9 V. 10 LAWRENCE STEWART, 11 Defendant. 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- 13 14 The hearing in this matter commenced on Monday, June 15 4, 2001, before THE HONORABLE CHARLES J. ROSE, Judge of the 16 Municipal Court. 17 18 19 FOR THE DEFENDANT: Appears pro se 20 21 22 23 24 25 N 1 THE COURT: Lawrence Stewart, CE -24 and 35. Mr. Stewart, good 2 afternoon. 3 MR. STEWART: Good afternoon, Judge. 4 THE COURT: Are we waiting for your attorney today or -- 5 MR. STEWART: No, he withdrew from the- - 6 THE COURT: Oh, he did? 7 MR. STEWART: Yes. I think there's a paper in there on that. 8 THE COURT: Okay, yes, that's right. He's not withdrawn yet, 9 but Judge Davis agreed that he didn't have to be here today, 10 'cause we have to wait for the time frame for any objections. 11 MR. STEWART: Yeah. 12 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So now we're still waiting for 13 the recertification? 14 MR, STEWART: Okay, yeah. Last week, when they came over to 15 the house to do that, Jack Davis, the engineer, he took it, 16 said everything was right, and I talked to him this morning, 17 and he said he would have the certification back to me by 18 Friday or Saturday of this week, then I could bring it down to 19 the engineering department of Wheat Ridge, 'cause this been 20 completed except for that part of it. 21 THE COURT: Okay. Well, Ms. Penaloza said that she won't 22 object to setting this over one more time, I guess, in the hope 2 3 that we'll finish this up. 24 MR. STEWART: Oh, I'm just waiting for them, now, 'cause I've 25 done what I'm supposed to do, and I just keep wanting to just -- 3 1 if I have to run up to Evergreen to get.it, 1'I1 run up there 2 to get it, just to get it here quicker. 3 THE COURT: How much time, Mr. Stewart? 4 MR. STEWART: Well, he said he'll have it to me by Friday or 5 Saturday. How about one week? 6 THE COURT: A week from today? 7 MR. STEWART: That sounds good. What's good for you? 8 THE COURT: This thing has gone on so long. 9 MR. STEWART: I know, but it's like- - 10 THE COURT: But do you think - -you know, I'd rather give yogi 11 weeks if that's going to -- 12 MR. STEWART: Okay. 13 THE COURT: ...ensure it, as opposed to one week, and if you 14 think it's going to be one week, fine. 15 MR. STEWART: Let's say two weeks, but in that week that he'll 16 have it to me, I mean by this Friday, I'll have it to the City 17 before the two weeks, 'cause I'll bring it down as soon as 1 18 get it, right to them, so it will be a week before that time. 19 But two weeks is good, to be safe. 20 THE COURT: I'll continue it to June 18th. 21 MR. STEWART: Okay. 22 THE COURT: And if you get that taken care of ahead of time, 23 and get it over there, and if everyone agrees you're in 24 compliance then, then we can close these things up. 25 MR. STEWART: Let's do that, yeah. I want to do that, too. U 1 THE COURT: Do you have any questions, then, Mr. Stewart? 2 MR. STEWART: No, I'd just thank you. 3 THE COURT: Okay, sir. 4 MR. STEWART: I'll get that to you so that we can get this 5 squared away. 6 THE COURT: All right, hopefully we can do that. 7 MR. STEWART: (Inaudible) see you on the street and say hi. 8 THE COURT: I hear you. All right, we'll continue it again, 9 both of these, till June 18th. 10 MR. STEWART: Okay. Thank you, sir. 1 THE COURT: All right, thank you, Mr. Stewart. 12 13 (The proceedings were concluded.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 --------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V. LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. i certify that I transcribed this record from the tape recording of the above- entitled matter which was heard on Monday, June 4, 2001. I further certify that pages 2 through 4, inclusive, constitute a complete and accurate transcript of the tape - recorded 'nearing, based upon the audio facilities of the tapes and my ability to understand them. ''Jan : t7 - bockhorn, Court Transcriber March 1. 2002 Date 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 MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 -------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGE'S CERTIFICATE -------------------------------------------------------------- THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V . LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------- State of Colorado } County of Jefferson ) ss. City of Wheat Ridge ) This transcript for the above - entitled matter contains all of the proceedings at the hearing on Monday, June 4, 2001. It is requested that this transcript be made a part of the record. es)J. Rose, Municipal Court Ju da )Z,)- Date 1 certify that, to the best of my knowledge, this transcript is complete. it is now made a part of the record. es)J. Rose, Municipal Court Ju da )Z,)- Date M 1 WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 2 Case No. CE00 -00024 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 4 TRANSCRIBER'S TRANSCRIPT 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- 6 THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF 7 THE STATE OF COLORADO, 8 Plaintiff, 9 V. 10 LAWRENCE STEWART, 11 Defendant. 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- 13 14 The hearing in this matter commenced on Monday, June 15 18, 2001, before THE HONORABLE CHARLES J. ROSE, Judge of the 16 Municipal Court. 17 18 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Caroline Penaloza, Esq., Reg. No. 26209 19 FOR THE DEFENDANT: Appears pro se 20 21 22 23 24 25 ...............:.. 1 INDEX 2 PAGE 3 4 WITNESSES: 5 CINDY HAGERMAN 6 Direct Examination by Ms. Penaloza 4 7 Examination by the Court 10 8 MICHAEL GARCIA 9 Direct Examination by Ms. Penaloza 11 10 Cross - Examination by Mr. Stewart 16 11 Examination by the Court 20 12 Redirect Examination by Ms. Penaloza 22 13 CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MS. PENALOZA 24 14 CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. STEWART 24 15 FINDINGS AND ORDERS OF THE COURT 28 16 17 18 EXHIBITS OFFERED ADMITTED 19 City's Exhibits 20 1 - 9 Photographs P. 9 P. 9 21 22 23 24 25 Q 3 1 THE COURT: Lawrence Stewart, CE -24. 2 MS. PENALOZA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Caroline Penaloza 3 for the City. 4 THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Stewart, good afternoon. All 5 right, the matter comes on for a compliance hearing. Mr. 6 Stewart has $1800 that was previously suspended as long as he 7 was in compliance, and that was back in November. Is the City 8 ready to proceed? 9 MS. PENALOZA: Yes, Your Honor. - 10 THE COURT: Mr. Stewart, are you ready to proceed? 11 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. 12 THE COURT: Ali right. The issue, of course, today, the only 13 issue - -I don't know which avenue we're pursuing here, but the 14 original agreement was that, "Provide corrections to the plan 15 already submitted within three weeks; if denied, restore the 16 back yard to the original state within three weeks of denial; 17 and bring height of fence into compliance." So which of those 18 is the City pursuing? 19 MS. PENALOZA: The first two, Your Honor. 20 THE COURT: The first two, "Provide corrections or restore to 2 original state within three weeks of denial ?" 22 MS. PENALOZA: Yes, Your Honor. 23 THE COURT: Okay. Is that your understanding, Mr. Stewart? 24 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. 25 THE COURT: Okay. Any questions from the City before we start? M 2 1 MS. PENALOZA: No, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Mr. Stewart, anything? Any questions? 3 MR. STEWART: I don't think so. 4 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead and have a seat at the defense 5 table. 6 MS. PENALOZA: Your Honor, the City calls Cindy Hagerman. 7 CINDY HAGERMAN 8 Testified on her oath as follows: 9 DIRECT EXAMINATION 10 BY MS. PENALOZA: 11 Q Would you state your name and spell your last 12 name for the record? 13 A Cindy Hagerman, H- a- g- e- r- m -a -n. 1 4 Q What do you do for a living? 15 A I'm a code enforcement officer with the City of 16 Wheat Ridge. 17 Q How long have you been a code enforcement officer 18 for Wheat Ridge? 19 A Four years. 20 Q And are you familiar with the property located at 21 9960 West 35th Avenue? 22 A I am. That's Mr. Stewart's property. 23 Q And how long have you been familiar with Mr. 24 Stewart, as well as that property? 25 A I've been familiar with the case for two years; 0 5 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 two years this August. Q And have you had an opportunity recently to visit that property? A Yes. I was out on the property this morning at about 9:00 a.m. Q And before today, were you aware of the condition of the property at the time of the violations and at various times since them -- A Yes. Q ...up until today? A Yes, I have been. Q Okay. What are you major concerns with this property at this point? A I believe the major concern, really, was that the - -no permit had been pulled, and a lot of dirt was removed from the back yard, placed around the yard in different areas, to kind of up - -to raise the - -to raise the surface of the property, while still leaving a hole in the back yard. Q How large-- A That created some draining problems among others. Q How large would you say the hole was? A The size of his back -yard lot, I'm not really sure of the size. Q Is the whole yard a hole? A No, not the whole yard; the back yard, most of M 1 the back yard was altered. 2 Q When you say altered, was it taken down? 3 A Correct. 4 Q Okay. And did you find the property today to be 5 in better condition than it had been previously? 6 A No, I had not. 7 Q Had it been changed at all? 8 A I believe, yes, it had been changed; I actually 9 have been working with our engineers on that, and they could 10 specifically answer that question, I think, better, although 11 today I was given the opportunity to observe the back yard from 12 the neighbor's, at which time I viewed a virtual - -the beginning 13 of a junk yard, 10 to 15 derelict vehicles placed on unimproved 14 surface, the hole was still there. Clearly, the property had 15 not been brought into compliance. 16 MS. PENALOZA: May I approach? 17 MS. HAGERMAN: Sure, if you're asking me. 1a DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED 19 BY MS. PENALOZA: 20 Q Ms. Hagerman, are you aware of the stop -work 21 order placed by Darren Morgan on this property on June 5th of 22 this year? 23 A That's correct, I'm aware of that. 24 Q Okay. Are you aware of the scope of that stop - 25 work order? 7 1 A The scope of the stop -work order pertained only 2 to the fence issues, and that was specified on the work order. 3 Mr. Morgan, who wrote the stop -work order, noted "For fence 4 only." 5 Q And there was an issue in this case about the 6 fence being lowered, is that right? 7 A Yes, that's affirmative, that came up at one 8 point. We discussed with Mr. Stewart that he was not permitted 9 to build on top of a property line and then put a fence, in 10 essence making the fence higher. That really was unrelated to 11 what we're here for today. 12 Q Okay. What was the reason for the stop -work 13 order, are you aware? 14 A His permit for any fence construction had 15 expired, when we had discussed this with Mr. Stewart, so in 16 order to do any kind of fence work, he needed to reapply for a 17 permit. 18 Q Were there concerns about whether the new fence 19 that Mr. Stewart was attempting to build was on his property or 20 not? 21 A Apparently, and I believe this is civil, his 22 neighbor had contacted us, saying that he had removed a fence 23 that was his neighbor's fence; and, one, without a permit; and, 24 two, that it was not his fence. 25 Q Would this stop -work order in any way stop Mr. 0 1 Stewart from coming into compliance on the dirt issues and the 2 junk - vehicle issues? 3 A No, it would not. 4 Q Okay. Did you take photographs of Mr. Stewart's 5 property today? 6 A I did. 7 Q Have you taken photographs on a previous day? a A Yes. I believe all the photos that you're 9 looking at now were taken by me. 10 Q Do you know when the previous photographs not 11 taken today were taken? 12 A I'd need to refer to my photos. 13 Q Ms. Hagerman, I'm handing you what's been marked 14 Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 through 9, do you recognize those 15 photographs? 16 A Yes, I do. 17 Q And what are those photographs of? 18 A They're photographs I took this morning; two of 19 them were taken from the - -three of them were taken from the 20 front of the property, two at some standing water in a ditch. 21 1 believe he had been speaking with our engineering department 22 about finding a solution to one of the pipes that had been 23 blocked and some drainage issues. I note two areas of the 24 ditch had standing water this morning, so I photographed those. 25 The remainder of the photographs are of the back yard, and they rJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 were taken from the neighbor's property, and the other violations that I saw today, which trash and violations, as well as parking on Q And are all of the photographs described, Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 through 9, Avenue? they just detail were junk and the dirt. that you've just of 9960 West 35th 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2.3 24 25 A They are. Q And are those photographs a fair and accurate depiction of that property as it looked today? A Yes, they are. MS. PENALOZA: Your Honor, I'd ask that Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 through 9 be admitted into evidence. THE COURT: Has Mr. Stewart seen these? MS. PENALOZA: I offered for him to see these, and he refused,, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you wish to see these, Mr. Stewart? MR. STEWART: No, because, Your Honor, they set these pictures up themselves, because every vehicle we have in that back yard is on (inaudible), by what they told us before, and that's it. So I don't need to see them. Every time we come to this court and talk to you, they change this game every time. So it don't matter what they do. THE COURT: All right, the pictures will be admitted, no objection, Exhibits 1 through 9. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED 10 1 BY MS. PENALOZA: 2 Q At this point, Ms. Hagerman, what do you think is 3 the solution to getting this property into compliance? 4 A At this point I believe the solution is really 5 for the City to be given permission to hire a contractor and 6 put the property back into its original form. We have given 7 Mr. Stewart many, many extensions. The case really began two 8 years ago, and we've been .working at it with the planning 9 department, and the engineering department, and Mr. Stewart 10 since August of last year, and we have seen very little 11 resolution. What we seem to get from our court appearances is 12 just more time that we give Mr. Stewart to bring the property 13 into compliance, and it does seem that while there's an excuse, 14 whether it's weather related or manpower related, there's 15 always some reason why it's not been brought into compliance. 16 MS. PENALOZA: 1 don't have any other questions, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Mr. Stewart, questions for Ms. Hagerman? 18 MR. STEWART: No, sir. 19 EXAMINATION 20 BY THE COURT: 21 Q 22 First of all, 23 this entry of 24 It says that, 25 submitted wit All right, Ms. Hagerman, let me ask you this. the plans that were submitted was the subject of guilty plea back on November 17th of last year. "Provide corrections to the plan already iin three weeks, or if the permit denied, restore 11 1 the back yard to original state within three weeks of denial," 2 can you address those two things, specifically, and why you 3 feel or do not feel that that is accomplished? 4 A I think that Mike Garcia, the second witness, 5 could address those questions better than 1 could. 6 THE COURT: All right, thank you. You can step down. Next 7 witness? 8 MS. PENALOZA: At this time, Your Honor, the City calls Mike 9 Garcia. 10 THE COURT: Are those the admitted ones? 11 MS. PENALOZA: Yes, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Thank you. All right, Mr. Garcia, sorry. 13 MICHAEL GARCIA 14 Testified on his oath as follows: 15 DIRECT EXAMINATION 16 BY MS. PENALOZA: 17 Q Mr. Garcia, could you state your name and spell 18 your last name for the record? 19 A Michael Garcia, G- a- r- c -i -a. 20 Q What do you do for a living? 21 A I'm the development and review engineer for the 22 City of Wheat Ridge. 23 Q Would you describe for the Court what that 24 position entails? 25 A Any new developments or any reconstruction 12 1 projects that come through, we review all the drainage and 2 grading plans and get the landfill permits issued. 3 Q Is that on new construction as well as existing 4 property? 5 A Yes, ma'am. 6 Q Okay. Are you familiar, Mr. Garcia, with the 7 property at 9960 West 35th Avenue? 8 A Yes, ma'am. 9 Q And have you personally visited that property? 10 A Yes, ma'am. 11 Q And could you tell the Court what your role has 12 been in determining any concerns about drainage and grading on 13 that property? 14 A Well, the concerns, obviously, would be what 15, the- -the increase in elevation of the property, and without any 16 proper grading plans that were - -that would have been required 17 if they'd come through in the proper permitting phase. The 18 issue would be the drainage, because if you raise the 19 elevation, we have no control - -we don't know where the water 20 would be running to or how it would be addressed. 21 Q And did you have any contact with Lawrence 22 Stewart about this? 23 A Yes, ma'am. I was contacted by Mr. Joe Ramirez, 24 ex- code - official, and he took me to the site, and we.spoke with 25 Mr. Stewart regarding the concerns we had about the grading. 13 1 Q And do you recall approximately when that 2 occurred? Q 3 A Around September of last year. 4 Q And after your meeting, what happened? 5 A Well, after the meeting, we told Mr. Stewart what 6 we would like to have; obviously, a grading plan, and an 7 approved grading plan, done by a registered Colorado 8 professional engineer, so we could review it, and then give Mr. 9 Stewart a proper permit, and let him continue on as far as 10 getting that site back to its original state. 11 Q Was there ever a grading plan submitted by Mr. 12 Stewart and approved by your department? 13 A Yes, ma'am, recently. Do you want the specific 14 date? 15 Q Would it refresh your recollection to look at 16 your notes? 17 A Yes, ma'am. Let's see, April 10th, 2001 is the 18 approval date on the plans. 19 Q And who submitted those? 20 A The Colorado PE is Mr. Jeff Davis of Davis 21 Engineering. 22 Q 23 A 24 Q 25 A And did you approve those plans? Yes, ma'am. - What happened after that? Mr. Stewart came in, and applied, and received 14 1 his grading permit, which gave him his okay to proceed to bring 2 the property into compliance. 3 Q And are you aware of what has happened since 4 then? 5 A A little bit. I've driven by the site, 'cause 6 on -- referring back to my notes, on June 4th of 2001, Mr. Darren 7 Morgan received a call from Mr. Stewart requesting Public Works 8 go look at the right -of -way to make sure that the drainage was 9 draining properly to the east from his property. So me and the 10 city engineer went out there at that time, and reviewed the 11 site, and we did do a formal service request that was addressed 12 by our street superintendent's crew. 13 Q I'm sorry, what ,was the last thing you said? 14 A The problem with the drainage, the service 15 request was completed on 6/5 by Ray Carlisle, who is our street 16 superintendent. 17 Q When you say service request, you mean going out 18 to the property? 19 A Yes, ma'am. 20 Q Okay. And have those approved plans come into 21 effect, is the property in compliance? \ L 22 A No, ma'am. As a matter of fact, upon being 23 acceptable by the City of Wheat Ridge, we require a 24 certification letter from the engineer of record, in this case 25 Mr. Jeff Davis, and on June 15th, 2001, Friday, at 8:37 a.m., 15 1 Mr. Jeff Davis left a message for me on.my voice mail stating 2 that he could not issue a certification letter at this time for 3 this property, because it was not in compliance. 4 Q Okay. Mr. Garcia, at this point, what would it 5 take to bring that dirt, that issue of the dirt being elevated, 6 into compliance at that property at 9960 West 35th Avenue? 7 A There's some material that still looks like it 8 has to be relocated in the front of the property. Even Mr. 9 Davis, in his message, stated that there still seemed to be a 10 hump in the driveway, which shows excess material still, 11 instead of -- 12 THE COURT: Okay, well, this is hearsay. 13 MS. PENALOZA: Well, Your Honor, we're not in a trial. The 14 rules of evidence allow in these kinds of hearing for hearsay 15 if -- 16 THE COURT: Well, whether or not we impose $1800 to Mr. Stewart 17 is not going to be contingent upon hearsay statements; the 18 engineer is not here. I mean, Mr. Garcia can testify as to his 19 observation, but we're not going to listen to hearsay by an 20 engineer who is not here. 21 MS. PENALOZA: Okay. I don't have any other questions. 22 THE COURT: Mr. Stewart, do you have questions for Mr. Garcia? 23 MR. STEWART: Yes, sir, I do. A few times I've been there when 24 Mr. Garcia has come around- - 25 THE COURT: Questions for him? W. 1 MR. STEWART: Oh. 2 CROSS - EXAMINATION 3 BY MR. STEWART: 4 Q Mr. Garcia, has there been times when you've come 5 to my house with Joe Ramirez where you've told me that 6 everything was okay, and then the next day it's just like this, 7 you stab me in the back? To me, you're a liar, that's all I've 8 got to say. 9 THE COURT: Mr. Stewart, this isn't the time to make statements 10 or make characterizations. This is the time to ask questions 11 of Mr. Garcia. 12 MR. STEWART: I'll ask a question. He's told me that I was- - 13 THE COURT: Just ask him a specific question. 14 MR. STEWART: Okay. 15 CROSS - EXAMINATION CONTINUED 1 BY MR. STEWART: 17 Q Have you ever told me that I've done things right 18 and had what you wanted? 19 A I have told you that you were making progress., 20 Q And have you ever told me that what I have - -I've 21 asked you what I have to do to get this done, and you've told 22 me what to do, and then when I do it, you've come up with 20 23 other things to do? 24 A Uh, no, sir. 25 Q Have you ever told me that? 17 1 A No, sir. 2 THE COURT: Do you want to ask something more specific, other 3 than just general, "You've got 20 more things for me to do "? 4 Why don't you ask him specifically what you're referring to? 5 MR. STEWART: Well, okay. 6 CROSS - EXAMINATION CONTINUED 7 BY MR. STEWART: 8 Q The day I came in to get the dirt - removal permit, 9 and you told me before I came in that day, I think that the fee 10 was $25 or $35, and when I got there, then you said you have 11 your own fee to add onto that, it wasn't even listed in the 12 fees; their fee added on to the permit fee, and it wasn't ever 13 mentioned till I came here that day to get the permit, and then 14 he says, "Well, you got to pay this, too," did you tell me 15 that? 16 A Well, with any permit, we always - -it's a standard 17 issue, it's a public works -- public works review fee and the fee 18 for the permit. 19 Q Yeah, but when you gave me the papers to get the 20 permit, you asked me - -I mean, "What do I have to do for this 21 permit ?" and you said this went under this- - 2 2 A You asked me about the minor dumping and landfill 23 permit, which was $15, yes, sir. 24 Q Dirt, uh -huh (affirmative), but you didn't give 25 me--all you gave me was the one to get the dirt removal - -or to I 1 move dirt permit. After I got there, you told me I had to have 2 the other one. 3 A The review fee, our standard review fee from the 4 Public Works Department for $25. 5 Q Well, did you give that to me? 6 A Did I give that to you? 7 Q Yes. 8 A Yes, sir, you signed it. 9 Q Yeah, but you gave it - -I'm saying you gave it to 10 me after I came in to get that first permit. 11 A Uh, I don't understand- - 12 Q 1 turned in to get a permit just to remove dirt, 13 and then we came back when we were in court here, and you said 14 we had to get - -to pay this other part of the fee- - 15 A Well, it's a standard city fee. I mean, I quoted 16 you what it would cost for the dumping fee, the landfill fee. 17 Q That's - -okay. 18 A And then our review fee is $25. That's standard 19 with any project for any permit. I mean- - 24 Q 'Cause even when I returned with my lawyer that 21 day, he - -you never told him that, that we had to have basically 22 two permits. All we applied for was one, and got one. 23 A This is in - -if I may clarify it, Mr. Stewart? 24 Q Is that the same date on it? 25 THE COURT: Let him clarify. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 CROSS- EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. STEWART: A If I may clarify, there's one permit, Mr. Stewart, which is the $15 one for the -- that's the grading and landfill fee. The standard fee that goes with this, for any project within the city, is our standard review fee of $25 for • residential family, which this is a single family, that's not • fee that we can waive or - -I mean that's the city's standard- - Q How much is the one that I paid, then, to the city? A You paid both of the fees, Mr. Stewart. You paid for your review fee, which is our standard fee, and you paid for your grading fee, which is an appropriate method, so there is no- -there is nothing that was omitted, you were legal. Q Okay. That was a mistake on that part right there. 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q What I wanted to ask you, when you was at the 19 property, I think you said you was at the property today? 20 A No, sir, I was not there today. 21 Q On the 5th - -when was it, the 4th of -- 22 THE COURT: He said the 5th. 23 MR. STEWART: The 5th of June? 24 THE COURT: Two weeks ago. 25 1 CROSS- EXAMINATION CONTINUED ME 1 BY MR. STEWART: 2 Q Did you observe what she was saying about this 3 amount of dirt left that has to be removed, did you observe 4 that? 5 A We made a service request, Mr. Stewart, and we 6 asked for Public Works crews to go out there and establish 7 flow. This was done by our city engineer. B Q Did you establish flow? 9 A According to our service request, it was 10 established. They blew out the pipe. 11 Q How could she say that was never done, because 12 that's why the water is backed up right now, because you guys 13 never did the house to the east to remove that water flow, 14 cause you told me you were going to come back and put a pipe 15 in, and they didn't do it. There's no pipe there. 16 A I didn't do the job. I don't- - 17 Q Is there? Is there a pipe there? 16 A Yes, sir, there is. 19 Q On the house to the east? 20 A Yes, sir, there is. 21 MR. STEWART: Okay, that's all. 22 THE COURT: Redirect? 23 MS. PENALOZA: Nothing, Your Honor. 2 4 EXAMINATION 25 BY THE COURT: 21 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 Q Mr. Garcia? A Yes, sir? Q In a way that even I'l.l be able to understand it, would you explain to me what you feel the City's position is and what Mr. Stewart has to do to come into compliance as of this moment right now? A Your Honor, there is excessive material in the driveway still. For the engineer to tell me that he can't certify a site, that means there's still some work to be donee From what I've seen, there is excessive material in the driveway, and -- Q So what would have to be done to come into compliance on that issue, first? A They would have to go in with some equipment, remove the material to bring that grade back down, and take it either off -site or wherever it originated from, which is - -and I don't want to speculate. Q Presumably the back -yard hole? A Yes, sir. Q Okay. Now, Mr. Stewart received the permit to do this as of April 10th, is that correct? The grading permit? A Yes, sir. Q Okay. What is your understanding as to why he has not complied, only from your own observations, Mr. Garcia, in the last two months? 22 1 A What hasn't he complied? 2 Q I mean, was there anything obvious as to why he 3 could not comply? 4 A No, sir. 5 Q What did he have to do to comply with the City? 6 A Have a piece of equipment remove the dirt and put 7 it back. 8 Q And that's it? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q Okay. And you were there two weeks ago? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q Or two weeks ago tomorrow, I guess. 13 A Roughly, yes, sir. 14 Q Okay. And you're telling us that as of that 15 date, then, the excess dirt was still there? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q Okay. You did not go out there today, earlier? 18 A No, sir. 19 THE COURT: Okay. Any questions from the City based upon mine? 20 MS. PENALOZA: Yes, Your Honor. 21 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 22 BY MS. PENALOZA: 23 Q Mr. Garcia, when you're talking about compliance, 24 you're specifically just talking, because of your role as the 25 engineer, about this gradation and not - -you don't get involved 23 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 with junk vehicles or anything like that, is that right? A Yes, ma'am, that's correct. MS. PENALOZA: Nothing further. THE COURT: Mr. Stewart, do you have any other questions of Mr. Garcia? MR. STEWART: No, sir. THE COURT: Okay, thank you, Mr. Garcia. You may step down. MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Any further witnesses from the City? MS. PENALOZA: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Ms. Hagerman, if I may, I'm not concerned about junk vehicles today; he's not cited with that, that's not the issue. You were there this morning? MS.. HAGERMAN: Yes, I was. THE COURT: What's the situation regarding the mound of dirt? MS. HAGERMAN: It's still there. THE COURT: Okay. And the hole you were referring to, is that Exhibits, since these weren't gone into individually, 1 and 2? MS. HAGERMAN: That's correct. THE COURT: Okay. MS. HAGERMAN: Those are the ditch I referred to that have got standing water. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Stewart, do you wish to present any witnesses? MR. STEWART: No, sir. 24 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 THE COURT: Do you wish to testify? MR. STEWART: No, sir. THE COURT: All right. Argument from the City? CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MS. PENALOZA: Well, Your Honor, as you heard from Ms. Hagerman, at this point the position of the City is that this case has been dragging on for so long, and it does not appear that Mr. Stewart intends to comply, or if it's a case where he does intend to comply, he's not able to comply, so I would request that the Court at this time take the action of ordering that the City be allowed to go in and correct the situation, that's what I would request. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Stewart, anything you'd like to say? CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. STEWART: Just I think what she was saying about the hearsay, that he heard from the engineer about not being in compliance of the height of dirt, does even the city engineer here know what the height used to be and is now, does he know that? THE COURT: Well, I don't know, Mr. Stewart. That's not- - doesn't appear to be the issue right now. Let me ask you how come this dirt is still there? How come you're not coming into compliance? MR. STEWART: Probably because the City of Wheat Ridge, on June 25 1 5th -- 2 THE COURT: Well, aside from the stop -work order, because l 3 think I have a satisfactory answer to that, that does specify 4 the fence and the property line. 5 MR. STEWART: Yeah, but it says on that stop -order thing that 6 since - -the engineer told me- -well, this would be hearsay, too, 7 told me that my property wasn't in the engineering report for 8 the dimensions of somebody's property. 9 THE COURT: Okay, but it does say fence construction, only. 10 MR. STEWART: It says right on there- - 11 THE COURT: It doesn't say anything about the dirt. 12 MR. STEWART: It says right on there, though, that the fence 13 not being in the - -which is called the plan, the engineering 14 plan, like a site plan, the engineer told me they can't re -do 15 the thing with the dirt, because we don't know the exact 16 dimensions of my land, now, so that's when we stopped work. 17 And it states right on that yellow piece of paper, 'cause we 18 have one on our front door. And then about a week after that, 19 the City of Wheat Ridge came and took that notice. 20 THE COURT: What about that, Ms. Penaloza? It does say that, 21 "You are hereby ordered to stop work." 22 MS. PENALOZA: Well, Your Honor, you're talking about the 23 first, top line or -- 24 THE COURT: Right. 25 MS. PENALOZA: Well, then it goes on in numbers one and two to I 0 1 talk about the fence, and then there's an asterisk at the 2 bottom of this that says, "For fence construction only," and 3 "only" is underlined twice. 4 THE COURT: Are you concerned, Mr. Stewart, that any dirt you 5 might remove might be your neighbor's dirt, is what you're 6 telling me? 7 MR. STEWART: That's right, exactly, because, see, the neighbor s that we're talking about, that same day of all the- -the 5th or 9 6th of June, 1 filed a lawsuit in Jefferson County Court 10 against him, and that's right when he called the City of Wheat 11 Ridge about this fence -line problem, so that created the deal 12 where -- 13 THE COURT: Right, but the dirt that's on your driveway came 14 out of your backyard, right? 15 MR. STEWART: I don't know where it came from. The dirt in our 16 back yard is piled back in our back yard right now; it's piled 17 on the sides of the back yard in the back, both sides. The 18 dirt in the front, most of - -a lot of that dirt that has been 19 moved around has been - -it's been there since that house has 20 been there, 50 years. There was dirt out in the front of the 21 City's part of the right -of -way, and we removed that, what they 22 said to do on the first thing, and then all these other things 23 happened, so - -but that dirt and rocks that's been out there has 24 been there for - -well, I've lived there for 10 years, and that 25 dirt and rock has been there for 10 years, 'cause the elevation 27 1 of that property and the driveway is the same, exactly, as the 2 house next door, the house on the other side, down here, and 3 it's always been like that. 4 THE COURT: So what's the City's position that this could 5 possibly be the neighbor's dirt, and if Mr. Stewart moves it, 6 he could subject himself to civil liability? 7 MS. HAGERMAN: I believe we're only talking about dirt that's 8 on his property, not anything that's beyond the property line. 9 THE COURT: But is the property line in dispute? I mean, that 10 seems to be the whole purpose of the stop -work order. 11 MS. HAGERMAN: Well, the stop order, no. The purpose of that 12 is he hasn't gotten a fence permit. if there's a dispute, it 13 sounds like it may be civil, but I went and looked at it today, 14 and the dirt that we're talking about is not the dirt that's 15 near that fence. 16 THE COURT: It's located where? 17 MS. HAGERMAN: Located in the front yard and in the back yard. 18 There are piles of it in various areas. 19 MR. STEWART: Your Honor? 20 THE COURT: Yes? 21 MR. STEWART: There is no piles of dirt on the front of the 22 house right now. 2 MS. HAGERMAN: Well, I guess we're talking about the hump, the 24 hump- - 25 MR. STEWART: A hump in the driveway? W 1 MS. HAGERMAN: Yes, that had not actually been there, so I'm 2 not sure, you know, how that came about. 3 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honor, how can she say that it wasn't 4 there and it is there? I mean, does she have- -can she prove it 5 wasn't there at one time and now it's there? 6 MS. HAGERMAN: Yes. I believe we had photos taken from 1999. 7 1 can dig through our files and see, but, apparently, according 8 to the engineer that contacted our department, they can't even 9 certify the property because of this variation in what the- - 10 what the grade of the front yard should be. 11 MR. STEWART: Your Honor- - 12 MS. HAGERMAN: I guess that's- -the dirt has sort of been moved 13 around, and I'm not sure where. I know that the grade is 14 what's a concern now. To have the dirt, I'm assuming, smoothed 15 out in the back yard, would put the grade at where it should 16 be. And I can't make that call; the engineer that Mr. Stewart 17 hired, I imagine, is the person that can make that call. 18 FINDINGS AND ORDERS OF THE COURT 19 BY THE COURT: 20 All right, the standard here is by a preponderance of 21 the evidence. The Court finds that the City has proven by a 22 preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Stewart is not in 23 compliance. The back yard is not restored to the original 24 state. The mounds of dirt varying the grade in the front yard 25 are not in compliance. NE 1 Mr. Stewart has until June 25th, a week from today, at 2 9:00 a.m.; it must be in compliance by that date, according to 3 and only according to a city code engineer. If Mr. Stewart is 4 in compliance by that date - -well, let's start this way, if he's 5 not in compliance by that date, the City may enter without any 6 further court order as of 9:01, next Monday, a week from today, 7 and bring the property into compliance. 8 The $1800 that was previously suspended by this Court 9 back on November 27th of last year is now imposed; however, it 10 is resuspended until June 25th, next Monday, at 9:00 a.m. if 11 the City enters the property to bring it into compliance, the 12 $1800 is due and owing by July 2nd; in other words, two weeks 13 from today. 14 If the defendant is in compliance by next Monday at 15 9:00 a.m., the $1800 will remain suspended on the original 16 conditions from November 27. So the bottom line, Mr. Stewart, 17 is you have until a week from today at nine o'clock to be in 18 full compliance in accordance with their standards. if you 19 are, you save yourself $1800, the City does not enter. If 2.0 you're not in compliance by their standards and only their 21 standards, that's it, there's no more debate about this, and 22 they can enter the property, bring it into compliance, bill 23 your accordingly, and then you will have $1800 that's due and 24 owing two weeks from today's date. 25 MR. STEWART: So they have to come out and certify it, then, 0 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 the City of Wheat Ridge? THE COURT: They certify it. MR. STEWART: Okay. So I don't have to have any engineer to do it at all? THE COURT: No, they do it. MR. STEWART: Okay. THE COURT: Is that - -do you need any clarification? MS. PENALOZA: No, I don't. Thank you. MR. STEWART: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes? 11 MR. STEWART: You're saying, then, the engineer that I had, he 12 doesn't have to certify that work right now? 13 THE COURT: City engineers, only, certify it. 14 MR. STEWART: Do I have to come back here on the 25th? 15 THE COURT: All right, let's set it for a review at 10:30 next 16 Monday only to know if the City has entered, or it's in 17 compliance because if the City entered, then the $1800, we'll 18 give you that in writing, that's due a week later. 1s MS. PENALOZA: I guess - -my understanding, since Mr. Garcia is 20 gone, that they do need to work in conjunction with the 21 engineer that Mr. Stewart is referring to? 22 THE COURT: I'm saying the only issue - is whether or not through 23 the City's eyes that Mr. Stewart is in compliance. 24 MS. PENALOZA: Okay. 25 THE COURT: It's not a debate through engineers, or anything. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Either he's in full compliance based upon the City's codes and interpretations, or he's not. MS. PENALOZA: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. STEWART: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay, 10:30 next Monday, Mr. Stewart, to be here one way or the other, unless they tell you that you're in full compliance, then you'll have to be here. MR. STEWART: Your Honor, I will not be here next - -on the 25th of June. THE COURT: Why not? MR. STEWART: Because I'm leaving for - -my grandfather died Saturday, and I'm leaving to Scotland this Wednesday. We're leaving on a plane and won't be back until the 27th of June. thought this would end today. THE COURT: Okay. If they go in -- MR. STEWART: If they go in and do it -- THE COURT: ...you owe $1800 by July 2nd. MR. STEWART: Okay. THE COURT: So let's just give him the stay date, July 2nd, $1800 that he doesn't have to pay if the City deems him to be compliance. MR. STEWART: THE COURT: next Monday. MR. STEWART: Okay. So that will be July 2nd, Your Honor? $1800 will be due unless you're in compliance by Okay, thank you. I 32 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 THE COURT: If you're in compliance by next Monday, you don't have to pay the 1800. MR. STEWART: Okay. THE COURT: Otherwise, you pay it by July 2nd. If you don't pay it, we issue a warrant. MR. STEWART: All right. THE COURT: Any questions? MR. STEWART: Thank you. Sorry to take up all your day here today. THE COURT: That's okay. MR. STEWART: He was busy here all morning, too, huh? THE COURT: I have 1800 due by July 2nd. THE CLERK: Just the part about the 25th? You're just keeping it the same, that he still has to be in compliance on the 25th? THE COURT: Well, I didn't put that in here in the first place. THE CLERK: Oh, okay. THE COURT: There's either compliance or not, and if there is compliance, no one has to be here next Monday and there's no $1800 due. if there's no -- THE CLERK: Okay. MR. STEWART: Thank you. (The proceedings were concluded.) N 1 WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 2 Case No. CE00 -00024 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 4 TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- 6 THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF 7 THE STATE OF COLORADO, 8 Plaintiff, 9 V. 10 LAWRENCE STEWART, 11 Defendant. 12 ---------------------------------- ----------------------------- 13 14 1 certify that 1 transcribed this record from the tape 15 recording of the above - entitled matter which was heard on 16 Monday, June 18, 2001. 17 18 1 further certify that pages 3 through 32, inclusive, 19 constitute a complete and accurate transcript of the tape - 20 recorded hearing, based upon the audio facilities of the tapes 21 and my ability to understand them. 22 23 } 24 March 1. 2002 rn Janet dourt Transcriber Date 25 i z 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 MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. CE00 -00024 --------------------------------------------------------- JUDGE'S CERTIFICATE THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V. LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------- State of Colorado ) County of Jefferson ) ss. City of Wheat Ridge ) This transcript for the above - entitled matter contains all of the proceedings at the hearing.on Monday, June 18, 2001. It is requested that this transcript be made a part of the record. I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, this transcript is complete. it is now made a part of the record. , Municipal Court Judge -.14h /y, 'xa Date DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart ACourt Use OnlyA Thomas H. Stocker Ph: 303 - 988 -4205 Attorney at Law Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Case No: 01 CV 1772 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom @thstocker.com Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg. No. 14716 Division: 9 Attorney for Defendant - Appellant CERTIFICATION AND FILING OF RECORD FROM THE MUNICIPAL COURT Defendant - appellant, Lawrence Stewart, through counsel, hereby certifies to the District Court and files with the District Court the record of all hearings and proceedings before the Municipal Court of Wheat Ridge, Colorado. This record consists of the following: 1. Transcripts of hearings held on the following dates: a. b. C. d. e. f. 9• October 3, 2000 October 30, 2000 November 13, 2000 November 27, 2000 February 26, 2001 April 2, 2001 May 7, 2001 h. June 4, 2001 i. June 18, 2001. 2. Letter from the Deputy Court Clerk, Vicki, to Thomas H. Stocker, dated March 18, 2002, explaining the fax signature of Judge Davis on the October 3, 2000 hearing transcript. 3. Letter from the Deputy Court Clerk, Vicki, to thomas H. Stocker, dated March 18, 2002, certifying that the above - described transcripts constitute the entire record of this matter before the Municipal Court. Dated: March 18, 2002 Respectfully submitted, THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney at Law By: rGZ a Thomas H. Stocker, #14716 44 Union Blvd., #435 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Email: tom @thstocker.com Attached: Transcripts and letters described above. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on March 18, 2002, a true and correct copy of the foregoing CERTIFICATION AND FILING OF RECORD FROM THE MUNICIPAL COURT was served by depositing it in the United. States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Original to (via messengerl District Court Clerk First Judicial District 100 Jefferson County Pkwy. Golden, Colorado 80419 Copies to (via maid Carmen Beery Gorsuch Kirgis, LLP 1515 Arapahoe St., T -1, # 1000 Denver, CO 80202 Larry Stewart 9960 W. 35 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Stewart\PLD- AppeaRRecord Certification -3- resLrG. IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT IN AND FOR THE CITY" OF WHEAT RIDGE STATE OF COLORADO No. " CE -00 -0035 SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT RECEIVED WHEAT RIDGE The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, MUHtCWALCOURRT by and on behalf of the People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiffs, OCT 3 0 2000 VS. Lawrence Stewart , Defendant(s). TO THE ABOVE -NAMED DEFENDANT(S), GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO APPEAR IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT, 7500 West 29`h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado at the hour of 6:00 o'clock, P .m., on the 14` day of November 20 00. TO ANSWER CHARGES OF VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 1976 AS ADOPTED AND AMENDED, WHICH OCCURRED WITHIN THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO, AT THE APPROXIMATED LOCATION OF: 9960 West 35 " Ave Said violation is alleged to have occurred on: October 12` 2000 Said violation is contrary to: )(p Section 26- 33(B)(2): Fifty -one to five hundred (51 -500) cubic yards. Dumping or excavation of earth materials not to exceeding five hundred (500) cubic yards may be allowed with a permit approved by the city engineer. Application shall be made to the public works. department. )66�,Section 21 -11(a) Permit required: It shall be unlawful for any person to perform work within the public right of way. With out first pbtaining the proper permits. � a? it ection 15 -1(5): Any activity, operation or condition which, after being ordered abated, corrected or discontinued by a lawful order f an agency or officer of the city. �q Section 15-21(3): Construction site all places at which construction or excavation operations occur and from which trucks or other vehicles emerge from the site and carry onto or deposit in any street mud, or dirt, other liner which causes _a haz ard to the automobile tr ffic or which otherwise causes a determent to the health, safety on the public. 1jction 15- 21(4): All places at which the owner or occupants keeps, stores or permits to be kept or stored any building material, construction material, trash, waste material or litter upon any property in such a manner to cause a fire or other detriment to the health, safety or general welfare of the inhabitants of the city, o in such a manner that the stored material may be blown or deposited upon any other public or private property. - Section 15- 22(f): It shall be unlawful and deemed a nuisance for any person to deposit, throw or place any litter on any public or private property or in any water in the city. FAILURE TO APPEAR IS A SEPARATE OFFENSE AND WILL RESULT L\ A BENCH WARRANT BEING ISSUED FOR YOUR ARREST. The undersigned deposes and states that he has reasonable grounds for believing that the aforementioned offense was, if fact, committed by the Defendant(s) as alleged. I further certify that a copy of the foregoing Summons and Com had been- served upon the Defendants) as required by law. Person Served: r 1 r A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Served By: ,1� Dated Served:_ Time Served: t� DATE Location of Service IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT IN AND FOR THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE STATE OF COLORADO No. CE -00 -0035 SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, by and on behalf of the People of the State of Colorado, VS. Law rence Stewart Plaintiffs, Defendant(s). TO THE ABOVE - NAMED DEFENDANT(S), GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO APPEAR IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT, 7500 West 29` Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado at the hour of 6:00 o'clock, P .m., on the 14 day of November 20 00. TO ANSWER CHARGES OF VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 1976 AS ADOPTED AND AMENDED, WHICH OCCURRED WITHIN THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO, AT THE APPROXIMATED LOCATION OF: 9960 West 35 Ave Said violation is alleged to have occurred on: October 12` 2000 Said violation is contrary to: Section 26- 33(B)(2): Fifty-one to five hundred (51 -500) cubic yards. Dumping or excavation of earth materials not to exceeding five hundred (500) cubic yards may be allowed with a permit approved by the city engineer. Application shall be made to the public works. department. C � Section 21 -11(a) Permit required: It shall be unlawful for any person to perform work within the public right of way. With out first obtaining the proper permits. - Section 15 -1(5): Any activity, operation or condition which, after being ordered abated, corrected or discontinued by a lawful order of an agency or officer of the city. Section 15- 21(3): Construction site all places at which construction or excavation operations occur and from which trucks or other vehicies emerge from the site and carry onto or deposit in any street mud, or dirt, other litter which causes a hazard to the anmmobile traffic or which otherwise causes a determent to the health, safety on the public. Section 15- 21(4): All places at which the owner or occupants keeps, stores or permits to be kept or stored any building material, construction material, trash, waste material or litter upon any property in such a manner to cause a fire or other detriment to the health,, - safety or general welfare of the inhabitants of the city, or in such a manner that the stored material may be blown or deposited upon 6 any other public or private property. Section 15- 22(f): It shall be unlawful and deemed a nuisance for any person to deposit, throw or place any litter on any public or private property or in any water in the city. - FAILURE TO APPEAR IS A SEPARATE OFFENSE AND WILL RESULT IN A BENCH WARRANT BEING ISSUED FOR YOUR ARREST. The undersigned deposes and states that he has reasonable grounds for believing that the aforementioned offense was, if fact, committed by the Defendant(s) as alleged. I further certify that a copy of the foregoing Summons and Complaint had been sery ed upon the Defendant(s) as required by law. Person Served: d �$ Served By: Dated Served: /C , 1,5 =Q Time Served: t OMPL ANT DATE Location of S ervice: 9 � (¢ d 3 �g CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT Date Pleading Filed by 1 08/29/00 Summons & Complaint Joseph Ramirez - Code Enforcement Officer 2 10/12/00 Summons & Com laint Joseph Ramirez - Code Enforcement Officer 3 11/27/00 Court Ruling Jude Rose 4 04/05/02 Stip for Dismissal w /Prejudice City of Wheatride / Lawrence Stewart 5 04/12/02 Summary Sheets & Status Kersten Armstrong - Court Administrator 6 04/12/02 Order for Dismissal w /Prejudice Charles Rose - Municipal Court Judge JEFFERSON COUNTY DISTRICT COURT The People of the City of Wheat Ridge v. Lawrence Stewart 7 07/18/01 Notice of Appeal, Designation of Record & Motion for Trial de Novo Lawrence Stewart 8 07/18/01 Verified Emergency Motion for Stay of Execution or Alternatively, for Injunctive Relief Lawrence Stewart 9 07/19/01 Amended Certificate of Service Lawrence Stewart 10 07/19/01 Order - City is enjoined from entering defendant's property Jude Berr hill 11 07/24/01 Entry of Appearance - Carmen Beery City of WR 12 07/30/01 Plaintiff -A ellee's Motion for Extension of Time City of WR 13 07/31/01 Order - Granting Extension of Time through 8/29/01 Jude Berr hill 14 08/28/01 Plaintiff -A ellee's Response to Motion for Stay of Execution City of WR 15 08/31/01 Defendant-Appellant's Reply to Response to Motion for Stay Lawrence Stewart 16 09/11/01 Order - Dfndnt to File Record of Muni Ct Proceedings 18 days Judge Berr hill 17 09/17/01 Bond for Restraining Order Lawrence Stewart 18 09/28/01 Plainitiff- Appellee's Motion to Dismiss & Response to Motion for Trial de Novo City of WR 19 10/06/01 Uncontested Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Trial de Novo Lawrence Stewart 20 10/24/01 Uncontested Motion for Additional Enlargement of Time to Responde to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Trial de Novo Lawrence Stewart 21 11/2/01 Order - Defendant shall have until 11/9/01 to file Response Jude Berr hill 22 11/8/01 Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and for Trial de Novo Lawrence Stewart 23 12/31/01 Order - Defendant to file Record of Municipal Court Proceedings by January 14, 2002 Judge Berryhill 24 01/10/02 Defendant's Uncontested Motion for Enlargement of Time to Submit Municipal Court Transcript Lawrence Stewart W INONA \53027.3 \3 89931.01 25 1/15/02 Order - Stewart to submit Transcript by 2/25/02 Judge Berr hill 26 2/22/02 Motion for Enlargement of Time to Submit Transcript Lawrence Stewart 27 1/27/02 Order - Stewart to submit Transcript by 3/18/02 Judge Berryhill 28 04/04/02 Defendant's Uncontested Motion for Enlargment of Time to File Opening Brief or to File Settlement Stipulation Lawrence Stewart 29 04/09/02 Order - Defendant has until April 22 to file Opening Brief Judge Berr hill 30 04/12/02 Sti ulation for Dismissal with Prejudice Parties 31 04/16/02 Order for Dismissal with Prejudice Judge Berryhill WINONA \530273 \389931.01 IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT ) IN AND FOR THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE STATE OF COLORADO SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, by and on behalf of the People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiffs, VS. Lawrence Stewart , Defendant(s). TO THE ABOVE -NAMED DEFENDANT(S), GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO APPEAR IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT, 7500 West 29`s Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado at the hour of 6:00 o'clock, P .m., on the 3 day of October 20 00. TO ANSWER CHARGES OF VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 1976 AS ADOPTED AND AMENDED, WHICH OCCURRED WITHIN THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO, AT THE APPROY.IMATED LOCAIrO `r OF 9960 West 35t Ave Said violation is alleged to have occurred on: August 28` 2000 Said violation is contrary to: Section 3301.1 Uniform Building Code(1997) Excavations for buildings or structures shall be so constructed or protected that they do not endanger life or property. Section 3303.3 Uniform Building Code(1997) Storage On Public Property. Material and equipment necessary for work to be done under a permit shall not be place or stored on public property so as to obstruct free convenient approach to and use of any fire hydrant, fire or police alarm box, utility box, catch basin, or manhole or so as to interfere with the free flow of water in any street alley gutter. Section 3306.1 Uniform Building Code(1997) Permits Required. Except as specified in Section 3306.2 of this section, no person shall do any grading without having first obtained a grading permit from the building official. FAILURE TO APPEAR IS A SEPARATE OFFENSE AND WILL RESULT IN A BENCH WARRANT BEING ISSUED FOR YOUR ARREST. The undersigned deposes and states that he has reasonable grounds for believing that the aforementioned offense was, if fact, committed by the Defendant(s) as alleged. I further certify that a copy of the foregoing Summoy s and Complaint h een served upon the Defendant(s) as required by law. f 15F: Person Served: Lia.wRz% u 74tr + C DATE Served B Tsl-, E ENFORCEMENT OFFIC Dated Served: b_ Time Served: Location of Service h R�' c( DEFENDANT SUMMONS NUMBER / %3v/co • /3 npp - @ Prc 1z /3 z r /a7/co 2 /z�ot Ccn7'. ?rlf Av /Yiorc 744n � c✓1 s . � wf s��.. ' h iGT/1v T . G no /Wrc 6- Eep 'rh ayr�CpS ,�'oc�yr cScc P IeA Iwo cn e .� w /ch = acl� 4 f All sYlp� /ar ons 1500 S a$ p /Fov l U13 �' 2ev�e� t a-oo t a5 = a2S OPP• 1 4 IV • can/oll"ce- hq /� 1? r It? eunpfirpce le rcvie'd J A l T c� c�rmr5 ��3 need Iza-n r mi —.Ser 2cvla,/ cornp/e/�lct,� • C�1 /71 c/ t� 9�jYee T Coyr. ccmpl /!0 -pt2 aJks G �' rz • Cern�cn -Tlon e� t s BnGrneer c.G PrWr�f gr"41rcD tG to *ocr (zr m� q� c�m�rllr�ncG nce� c� ZT �ecerve5 ei�ganurs cc�� & "p �� 6J A rtie ?v ccryT: � •cerrr(7cca�ron � � j eagan�i -- 4 pp • Ccffip11/! -Pcc �� /layyr /rJc! C ?• � �h�' /1 Sir!l nor tn carnplll�/ce �e . ��YT Gr? cn� rn cirn�z lid (ran yn 6fX&fM D POT Mltjr6D 7v cll9 1n d-1 571)1•c �TeWYWl c ran c� CC co • c2C-1 p DEFENDANT SUMMONS NUMBER _it] CcrnplItWe 6u 7 2SCr 4AfroM na �U ( c77i �a�e r Inc not /* hv >> 4' amPl(r.2- e" "blo7 • o erp • Cay enrcret) _ A s Drop • -# l ,FOo �/ u, : S/e , 6 1G 00T Cc7"4 rhn-u nnr�r f -� ��rrn�nrrnerru rh z �o�nl�/� -srce rO0 //ylpOS2i1 KP505y. cif TA � ( 2 q /a W g pjq�IPA1.Ck 2 kb 6 � OcT 9 0 TN THE MUNICIPAL COURT IN AND FOR THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE STATE OF COLORADO No. { IRMFU T-5 SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT RECEIVEti WHEAT RIDGE The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, MUNICIPAL"WRT by and on behalf of the People of OCT 3 0 20M the State of Colorado, Plaintiffs, vs. Lawrence Stewart , Defendant(s). TO THE ABOVE -NAMED DEFENDANT(S), GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO APPEAR IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT, 7500 West 29 " Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado at the hour of 6:00 o'clock, P .m., on the 14" day of November 20 00. TO ANSWER CHARGES OF VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 1976 AS ADOPTED AND AMENDED, WHICH OCCURRED WITHIN THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO, AT THE'APPROXIMATED LOCATION OF: 9960 West 35 " Ave Said violation is alleged to have occurred on: October 12t 2000 Said violation is contrary to: Section 26- 33(B)(2): Fifty-one to five hundred (51 -500) cubic yards. Dumping or excavation of earth materials not to exceeding five hundred (500) cubic yards may be allowed with a permit approved by the city engineer. Application shall be made to the public works. department. ,Section 21 -11(a) Permit required: It shall be unlawful for any person to perform work within the public right of way. With out first obtaining the proper permits. Section 15 -1(5): Any activity, operation or condition which, after being ordered abated, corrected of discontinued by a lawful order of an agency or officer of the city. Section 15- 21(3): Construction site all places at which construction or excavation operations occur and from which trucks or other vehicles emerge from the site and carry onto or deposit in any street mud, or dirt, other litter which cau a haz ard to the automobile traffic or which otherwise causes a determent to the health, safety on the public. Section 15- 21(4): All places at which the owner or occupants keeps, stores or permits to be kept or stored any building material, construction material, trash, waste material or litter upon any property in such a manner to cause a fire or other detriment to the health, safety or general welfare of the inhabitants of the city, or in such a manner that the stored material may be blown or deposited upon any other public or private property. Section 15 -22(0: It shall be unlawful and deemed a nuisance for any person to deposit, throw or place any litter on any public or private property or in any water in the city. FAILURE TO APPEAR IS A SEPARATE OFFENSE AND WILL RESULT IN A BENCH WARRANT BEING ISSUED FOR YOUR ARREST. The undersigned deposes and states that he has reasonable grounds for believing that the aforementioned offense was, if fact, committed by the Defendant(s) as alleged. I further certify that a copy of the foregoing Summons and Com laint had bee served upon the Defendant(s) as required by law. Person S erved : !C t.WJ s / t I d ' 'n `/( Served n Alliti Dated Serer ved:. f�J.. /� - QQ ��� Time Served: 60 ANr DATE Location of Service: 4 g/o� W. s S r4 0 T 11 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DEFENDANT. SUMMONS NUMBER / „I/! 3 / /� ��45 SFocK Pr yP. Q 1'/)G ru al( arc C"/ speo,� 9 g8- Laos Src C / n J . J °f89�a8a5 �i63 IL IA 7 /vo • /J ; "P P - W See �l t nll sr /� /nilans /uvo on e4. c/v0 Soap. /[ a7u0 L'cmplN>nre ao0 4T &CII&O *90 tv 33s' P/x�or • &1 Pvp. q� corn liYa n �e h� mr in arnp/iaPce 6lc o r, �/J -7ryeY ?• �pt� siar7 iG•. �/ I/h� r / cIY4�II7Y Pl/�/llj�,I /3 does neev� �cT Peu leo AYr eompkrapor 3 c�ks. comp /� r /� cvnm� Cod �1 � / /a /o, ai on ampllr�nUe 64 r/�, 7�' m evarcr f Grin tv co p ,.�` 5 /gyp: _, p /i�n�= C /) S ex/�nge 4�h �p 44 /ffj /7 hr� . S /� wks r CWPkOPCC f� � '. re ccrn�cuvT�n cC `5 e/i�jrheer eF ra rmt*� ro `n�u% � ccwvgl�r�ce 1 F v1" Can AOAVM 7T t /2 raclrvez Tu ccn �irnt eYGme'e' 1-(t63 oG re-cevTi� /cnT� /1 • S en�anert - s C /acres (1 1s hnTe. ;h Cn)e - OVy • .J City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department COURT RULING DEFENDANT Larry Stewart ADDRESS 9960 West 35" Ave VIOLATIONS Reference Summons #CE -00 -024 COURT DATE November 27 ", 2000 The defendant Larry Stewart was scheduled for pretrial conference for November 27 ", 2000. Per agreement with ( Prosecuting Attorney)T ammy Green A guilty plea to the charges of: Section 3303.3 Uniform Building Code(1997 Storage On Public Property. Material and equipment necessary for work to be done under a permit shall not be place or stored on public property so as to obstruct free convenient approach to and use of any fire hydrant, fire or police alarm box, utility box, catch basin, or manhole or so as to interfere with the free flow of water in any street alley gutter. Section 3306.1 Uniform Building Code(1997) Permits Required. Except as specified in Section 3306.2 of this section, no person shall do any grading without having first obtained a grading permit from the building official. With the dismissal of charges : Section 3301.1 Uniform Building Code(1997) Excavations for buildings or structures shall be so constructed or protected that they do not endanger life or property. Finial disposition: The defendant pleaded guilty to two of the code violations with a fine of $1000.00 with 5900.00 suspended, for a total of $200.00 plus court cost of $35.00 for a total of 5235.00 in fines. Another 12 months no further code violation period was imposed starting 11/2000 to 11/2001. The defendant was also ordered to submit any required documents to the building department in reference to the building permit in the process for the backyard garage addition by February 26, 2001. iY _ �/�[ v�31Y �S 5 a . This ruling was imposed by Judge Rose IA MUNICIPAL COURT, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, STATE OF COLORADO Case Nos. CE00 -2, 23, 24 and 35 STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V , LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. 1. Thomas H. Stocker, of Thomas H. Stocker, P.C., Attorney at Law, counsel for defendant Lawrence Stewart ( "Stewart'), and Carmen Beery, Attorney at Law, of Gorsuch Kirgis, LLP, counsel for The City of Wheat Ridge ( "Wheat Ridge "), for and on behalf of their respective clients, represent to the Court that pursuant to the March 26, 2002, letter from Cindy Hagerman, Property and Zoning Inspector, attached hereto as Exhibit A, the above - identified cases have been resolved and therefore stipulate to the immediate dismissal with prejudice of the above- identified cases and of all charges that were filed or could have been filed against defendant Stewart in the above- identified . cases, with each side to pay his or its own attorney's fees and costs. 2. This dismissal with prejudice is intended by the Parties to be a full and complete dismissal of all claims that were made, and of all claims that could have been made, against defendant Stewart in these cases. This dismissal with prejudice includes the waiver by Wheat Ridge of all fines and penalties that have been suspended or otherwise that have not been paid, if any, that were or could have been Imposed in these cases against Stewart. Any fines or penalties that have been paid by Stewart shall be retained by Wheat Ridge. 3. This stipulation is made by Wheat Ridge without prejudice as to any future applications for building permits that Stewart may file with Wheat Ridge and Wheat Ridge represents that such applications will be processed in the ordinary course of business without regard to this stipulation or any proceedings in these cases. 4. The Parties pray that this Court will promptly issue its Order dismissing these cases with prejudice. Upon receipt of the Order, the Parties agree to file a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice of an appeal to the Jeff erson County District Court (case no_ 01 CV 1772) filed by Stewart in this matter. DATED: Apri1X2002. Respectfully submitted, GORSUCH KIRGIS, LLP By. � s Carme B A y at Law #32234 Tower r,-Suite 1 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303 - 376 -5000 Fax: 303 - 376 -5001 THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney at L w By: homas H. Stocker, #14716 143 Union Blvd., #900 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303- 988 -4205 Fax: 303- 989 -2825 email: torn 0 thstocker.com Attorneys for the City of Wheat Ridge Attorney for Lawrence Stewart Attached as Exhibit A : Letter dated March 26, 2002, from Cindy Hagerman, Property and Zoning Inspector for the City of Wheat Ridge to Carmen Beery stewarxpmStip to Dismiss —2 City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department 7500 West 29 "' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 (303) 235 -2851 Gorsuch Kirgis, Attorneys At Law Carmen Beery 1515 Araioahoe Street. , rower t sidle 1000 bonver; CO 80202 MA 2 8 2002 March 26, 2002. I T.H. t!10C*Bifi AM. Dear C".aa nieo, This letter hx to Forlrtrm that the rock that Larry Stewart has placed in his front and rear yard is sufficient for erosion control. Ideally, some type of cloth would have been laid underneath the rack, to prohibit the rock from sinking into the earth or sliding and beronning displaced. Larry stated that he has brought fifty tons of rock on to his property, with the fnajority or the rock being placed in the rearyard. Larry will be expected to bring more rock on to the property if the above mentioned becomes a problem and thus, a safety hazard to the dwelling. When you, Tom Slocker, Larry Stewart, and f met on the property, on March 20 2002, Larry and Toth demonstrated that any water that would flow north, would be diverted away from the borne by means of a slight gully. The hill on the south side of the property Jim been significantly leveled off. I have spoken with Director of Public Works Bob Goebel, as will as City Engineer Greg Knudson. 'I'llcy Agree that the rock, it maintianed, will constitute sufficient erosion control. Please c:'ll me Lvith any questions. Thank You for your assistance in this matter, S userefy, Cindy Flagcrtnutt Property and•I.ordng laspcctor �XH' T+ J � MUNICIPAL COURT, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, STATE OF COLORADO Case Nos. CE00 -2, 23, 24 and 35 ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V. LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice made by the parties; and, THE COURT having read the Stipulation and being fully appraised in the premises; HEREBY ORDERS that pursuant to the Stipulation, the above -noted cases, and all charges that were filed or that could have been filed in them are hereby dismissed with prejudice, with each side to pay his or its own fees and expenses. All fines and penalties that have been suspended or otherwise that have not been paid, if any, and any that were or could have been imposed in these cases against Stewart are hereby Ordered waived by Wheat Ridge, and any fines or penalties that have been paid by Stewart shall be retained by Wheat Ridge. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT, pursuant to the Stipulation, the City of Wheat Ridge shall process any future applications for building permits filed by Lawrence Stewart with the City in the ordinary course of business without regard to any proceedings in these cases. Dated: BY THE COURT: Municipal Court Judge MUNICIPAL COURT, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, STATE OF COLORADO Case Nos. CE00 -2, 23, 24 and 35 STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V, LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. 1. Thomas H. Stocker, of Thomas H. Stocker, P.C., Attorney at Law, counsel for defendant Lawrence Stewart ( "Stewarr" ), and Carmen Beery, Attorney at Law, of Gorsuch Kirgis, LLP, counsel for The City of Wheat Ridge ( "Wheat Ridge "), for and on behalf of their respective clients, represent to the Court that pursuant to the March 26, 2002, letter from Cindy Hagerman, Property and Zoning Inspector, attached hereto as Exhibit A, the above- identified cases have been resolved and therefore stipulate to the immediate dismissal with prejudice of the above - identified cases and of all charges that were filed or could have been filed against defendant Stewart in the above - identified cases, with each side to pay his or its own attorney's fees and costs. 2. This dismissal with prejudice is intended by the Parties to be a full and complete dismissal of all claims that were made, and of all claims that could have been made, against defendant Stewart in these cases. This dismissal with prejudice includes the waiver by Wheat Ridge of all fines and penalties that have been suspended or otherwise that have not been paid, if any, that were or could have been imposed in these cases against Stewart. Any fines or penalties that have been paid by Stewart shall be retained by Wheat Ridge. Z 'd ZL�Z' SZSZ 686 EoE 9E� 31S NOIN bV Nd9ti ZOOZ -'9 'adU 3. This stipulation is made by Wheat Ridge without prejudice as to any future applications for building permits that Stewart may file with Wheat Ridge and Wheat Ridge represents that such applications will be processed in the ordinary course of business without regard to this stipulation or any proceedings in these cases. 4, The Parties pray that this Court will promptly issue its Order dismissing these cases with prejudice. Upon receipt of the Order, the Parties agree to file a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice of an appeal to the Jefferson County District Court (case no. 01 CV 1772) filed by Stewart in this matter. DATED: Apri1;V2002. Respectfully submitted, GORSUCH KIRGIS, LLP By: ZZAZ - Carme B A y at Law #32234 Tower uite 1 QW 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303 - 376 -5000 Fax: 303-376-5001 THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney at L w By. Stocker, #14716 homas H. 143 Union Blvd., #900 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303 -988 -4205 Fax: 303- 989 -2825 email: tom@thstocker.com Attorneys for the City of Wheat Ridge Attorney for Lawrence Stewart Attached as Exhibit A : Letter dated March 26, 2002, from Cindy Hagerman, Property and Zoning Inspector for the City of Wheat Midge to Carmen Beery StewanPIOZStip to Dismiss -2- 'd L9Z'oN 9Z8Z 686 £0£ 90 hS NOINA bt Wd9U 6 ZOOZ '9 'adV WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Summons No. CE00- 00002, CE00- 00023, CE00- 00024, CE00 -00035 THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, vs. LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. Attached are case summary sheets for the above - captioned summonses. The status or actions taken in the above - captioned cases are as follows: CE00- 00002: Guilty plea entered to 20 -24(7) Displaying upon the property any junk on February 15, 2000. Guilty plea entered to 26-31(C) Design standards for Driveway on February 15, 2000. Case has been in "closed" status since January 22, 2001. No further actions taken on this date. CE00- 00023: Case was dismissed November 27, 2000. Case has been in 'closed' status since November 27, 2000. No further actions taken on this date. CE00- 00024: Guilty pleas entered to two counts of Uniform Building Code on November 27, 2000. Any outstanding fines or costs suspended. Any scheduled reviews or compliance hearings vacated. Case closed April 12, 2002. CE00- 00035: Guilty pleas entered to 26 -33 Excavation and Deposit Control, 21 -11 Permits Required, and 15 -1 Condition not abated on November 27, 2000. Any outstanding fines or costs suspended. Any scheduled reviews or compliance hearings vacated. Case closed April 12, 2002. Completed this 12t' day of April, 2002, by: 9= K rsten Armstrong, Court Admini a CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that the above SUMMARY SHEET and the ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE were placed in the U.S. Mail, postage pre -paid this � day of April, 2002, addressed to: Carmen Beery, Attorney at Law Tower 1, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, CO 80202 I Thomas H. Stocker, Attorney at Law 143 Union Blvd. #900 / Lakewood, CO 80228 04/12/02 12:52:02 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ' Page 1 cmll5 -1s CASE PRINT Kersten CASE NUMBER: CE0000023 STEWART, LAWRENCE BIRTH: SEX: Male VIOL DT: 08/28/00 LOC:9960 W 35TH AVE 9960 W 35TH AVE HEIGHT: 0.00 EYES: XXX DRIVER# STATE: WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 WEIGHT: 0 HAIR: XXX PLATE# STATE: CITATION: 00023 COURT: 11/27/00 TIME: 2:00 PM FILED: 09/14/00 CITY AT: CITY ATTORNEY TYPE: CE DEF DT: ROOM: A CLOSED:11 /27/00 DEF AT: STATUS: CASE CLOSED SENTENCE: DISMISSED /SEE CEOO- 00023 /CE00 -00035 OFFICER: RAMIREZ DATE TYPE VIOLATION /CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT SUS AMT PTS AMND DISPOSITION 08/28/00 C 2631 OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS .00 .00 0 0 DISPB 11/27/00 ** TOTAL AMOUNT DUE ** .00 DATE BY NEXT DATE TIME STATUS DESCRIPTION 08/28/2000 O 10/03/2000 6:00 PM ARR 10/03/2000 A PTC COURT STATUS UPDATE 10/03/2000 0 10/30/2000 3:00 PM NG 10/30/2000 P PTC COURT STATUS UPDATE 10/30/2000 0 11/13/2000 1:00 PM PTC CONT. 11/13/2000 J PTC COURT STATUS UPDATE 11/13/2000 O 11/27/2000 2:00 PM SCHEDULE NEXT COURT ' 11/27/2000 A CLOSE DISMISSED /SEE CE00- 00023 /CE00 -00035 i 04/12/02 12:47:24 - -� CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE f � Cm115 -15 CASE PRINT CASE NUMBER: CE0000035 Page 1 Xersten STEWART, LAWRENCE BIRTH: 12/28/1947 SEX: Male VIOL DT: 10/12/00 LOC:9960 W 35TH AVE 9960 WEST 35TH AVE HEIGHT: 0.00 EYES: XXX DRIVER# STATE: WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 WEIGHT: 0 HAIR: XXX PLATE# STATE: CITATION: 00035 COURT: 07/02/01 TIME: 8:30 AM FILED: 10/31/00 CITY AT: CITY ATTORNEY TYPE: CE DEF DT: ROOM: A CLOSED:04 /12/02 DEF AT: STATUS: CASE CLOSED SENTENCE: OFFICER: RAMIREZ DATE TYPE VIOLATION /CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT SUS AMT PTS AMND DISPOSITION .10/12/00 C 2633 EXCAVATION AND DEPOSIT CONTROL 1,000.00 900.00 0 0 GPO 11/27/00 10/12/00 C 2111 PERMITS REQUIRED 1,000.00 900.00 0 0 GPO 11/27/00 10/12/00 C 151 DEFINITIONS 1,000.00 900.00 0 0 GPO 11/27/00 10/12/00 C 1521 OFFENSIVE TRADE OR BUSINESS .00 .00 0 0 DISPB 11/27/00 10/12/00 C 1521 OFFENSIVE TRADE OR BUSINESS .00 .00 0 0 DISPB 11/27/00 10/12/00 C 1522 LITTERING PUBLIC PROPERTY .00 .00 0 0 DISPB 11/27/00 11/27/00 F CFEE COURT FEES 15.00 .00 11/27/00 F CTS COURT $1 FUND 1.00 .00 11/27/00 F CT4 COURT $4 FUND 4.00 .00 11/27/00 F DRS DIRECT SERVICES 5.00 .00 11/27/00 F SOE STAY FEES 10.00 .00 12/01/00 M CFEE 101616 COURT COSTS PAID 25.00 .00 12/01/00 M CT1 COURT $1 FUND PAID 1.00 .00 12/01/00 M CT4 COURT $4 PAID 4.00 .00 12/01/00 M DRS DIRECT SERVICES PAID .5.00 .00 12/01/00 M FOTH FINE A B C S PAID 300.00 .00 ** TOTAL AMOUNT DUE ** .00 DATE BY NEXT DATE TINE STATUS DESCRIPTION 10/12/2000 0 11/14/2000 6:00 PM ARR 11/13/2000 J PTC COURT STATUS UPDATE 11/13/2000 0 11/27/2000 2:00 PM SCHEDULE NEXT COURT. 11/27/2000 P SOB COURT STATUS UPDATE 11/27/2000 0 12/04/2000 8:30 AM SCHEDULE NEXT COURT 11/27/2000 V 11/28/2001 SUSPENDED SENTENCE - 12/01/2000 O 02/26/2001 1:00 PM BEG COMPLIANCE BRG 02/26/2001 A BEG COURT STATUS UPDATE 02/26/2001 0 04/02/2001 2:30 PM COMPLIANCE BEG CONT. 04/02/2001 A ERG COURT STATUS UPDATE 04/02/2001 O 05/07/2001 1:00 PM COMPLIANCE HRG 04/02/2001 A ERG COURT STATUS UPDATE 04/02/2001 0 05/07/2001 1:00 PM COMPLIANCE BEG 05/07/2001 A HRG COURT STATUS UPDATE 05/07/2001 O 06/04/2001 2 :30 PM COMPL BEG 06/04/2001 A HRG COURT STATUS UPDATE 06/04/2001 0 06/18/2001 1:00 PM - SCHEDULE NEXT COURT 06/18/2001 A HRG COURT STATUS UPDATE 06/18/2001 O 06/25/2001 10:30 AM COMP NO STAY, NO COMP STAY 06/25/2001 A SOB COURT STATUS UPDATE 06/25/2001 0 07/02/2001 8:30 AM DEF NOT IN COMP, SS IMPOSE 07/10/2001 0 FEND 07/16/2001 V 07/21/2001 GIVE TO JUDGE FOR COMPLIANCE 04/12/2002 0 CLOSE PER COURT ORDER 04/12/02 12:48:59 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Page 1 CM115 -1s CASE PRINT Keisten CASE NUMBER: CE0000002 STEWART, LAWRENCE BIRTH: SEX: Male VIOL DT: 12/06/99 LOC:9960 W 35TH AVE 9960 W 35TH AVE HEIGHT: 0.00 EYES: XXX DRIVER# STATE: WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 WEIGHT: 0 HAIR: XXX PLATE# STATE: CITATION: 00002 COURT: 11/27/00 TIME: 2:00 PM FILED: 01/12/00 CITY AT: CITY ATTORNEY TYPE: CE DEF DT: ROOM: A CLOSED:01 /22/01 DEF AT: STATUS: CASE CLOSED SENTENCE: COMP SS OFFICER: RAMIREZ DATE TYPE VIOLATION /CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT SUS AMT PTS AMND DISPOSITION 01/21/00 C 2024 DISPLAYING JUNK ON PROPERTY 1,000.00 875.00 0 0 GPO 02/15/00 01/21/00 C 2024 DISPLAYING JUNK ON PROPERTY .00 .00 0 0 DISM 02/15/00 01/21/00 C 2631 OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS 1,000.00 875.00 0 0 GPO 02/15/00 01/21/00 C 2630 GENERAL REGULATIONS .00 .00 0 0 DISM 02/15/00 ; 01/21/00 C 2022 VIOLATION AND PENALTY .00 .00 0 0 DISM 02/15/00 02/15/00 F CFEE COURT FEES 15.00 .00 i 02/15/00 F CT1 COURT $1 FUND 1.00 .00 02/15/00 F CT4 COURT $4 FUND 4.00 .00 j 02/15/00 F DRS DIRECT SERVICES - 5.00 .00 02/15/00 F SOE STAY FEES 10.00 .00 02/15/00 F CC SERVICE FEE 22.00 .00 03/06/00 F SOE STAY FEES 10.00 .00 03/20/00 M CFEE 96320 COURT COSTS PAID 57.00 .00 03/20/00 M CT1 COURT $1 FUND PAID 1.00 .00 03/20/00 M CT4 COURT $4 PAID 4.00 ..00 - 03/20/00 M DRS DIRECT SERVICES PAID 5.00 .00 03/20/00 M FOTH FINE A B C S PAID 250.00 .00 *" TOTAL AMOUNT DUE ** .00 DATE BY NEXT DATE TIME STATUS DESCRIPTION 01/21/2000 0 02/01/2000 6:00 PM ARR 02/01/2000 A ARR CON'T PER /DAVIS 02/01/2000 0 02/15/2000 6:00 PM SCHEDULE NEXT COURT -. 02/15/2000 A HRG COURT STATUS UPDATE 02/15/2000 0 03/06/2000 1:00 PM COMPL. ERG 02/15/2000 V 02/15/2001 SUSPENDED SENTENCE 03/06/2000 J BOB COURT STATUS UPDATE 03/06/2000 O 03/20/2000 8:30 AM SCHEDULE NEXT COURT 03/20/2000 0 PEND 10/03/2000 A HAG COURT STATUS UPDATE 10/03/2000 0 10/30/2000 3:00 IN MOTION TO REVOKE 10/30/2000 A TIC COURT STATUS UPDATE 11/13/2000 J DEG MOT TO IMPOSE 11/13/2000 0 11/27/2000 2:00 PM SCHEDULE NEXT COURT 11/27/2000 J PEND COURT STATUS UPDATE 01/22/2001 0 CLOSE xx TOTAL AMOUNT DUE *+ .00 DATE BY NEXT DATE TIME STATUS DESCRIPTION 08/28/2000 O 10/03/2000 04/12/02 12:45:04 ARR "�� CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE - Page 1 Cm115 -1s 10/03/2000 O CASE PRINT 3:00 PM NG Karate. CASE NUMBER: CE0000024 PTC COURT STATUS UPDATE 10/30/2000 0 STEWART, LAWRENCE BIRTH: 12/28/1947 SEX: Male VIOL DT: 08/28/00 LOC:9960 W 35TH AVE 9960 W 35TH AVE HEIGHT: 0.00 EYES: XXX DRIVER# 11/13/2000 0 ,11/27/2000 2:00 PM SCHEDULE NEXT COURT 11/27/2000 V 11/28/2001 STATE: WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 WEIGHT: 0 HAIR: XXX PLATE# HRG STATE: CITATION: 00024 COURT: 07/16/01 TIME: 8:30 AM FILED: 09/14/00 CITY AT: CITY ATTORNEY SCHEDULE NEXT COURT TYPE: CE DEF DT: ROOM: A CLOSED:04 /12/02 DEF AT: HRG COURT STATUS UPDATE 02/26/2001 STATUS: 05/07/2001 CASE CLOSED SENTENCE: PER SIGNED ORDER COMPLIANCE HEARING CONT. OFFICER: RAMIREZ DATE TYPE VIOLATION /CODS DESCRIPTION AMOUNT SUS AMT PTS AMND DISPOSITION 08/28/00 C 32B UNIFORM BLDG CODE 3301.1 .00 A .00 0 0 DISPB 11/27/00 08/28/00 C 0001 UNIFORM BLDG CODE 3303.3 1,000.00 1,000.00 0 0 GPO 11/27/00 08/28/00 C 0001 UNIFORM BLDG CODE 3306.1 1,000.00 1,000.00 06/18/2001 0 0 GPO 11/27/00 07/02/01 F SCC SHOW CAUSE FEE 15.00 15.00 11/27/00 F CFEE COURT FEES 15.00 15.00 DEF NOT IN COMP, IMPOSE SS 11/27/00 F CT1 COURT $1 FUND 1.00 1.00 07/02/2001 0 11/27/00 F CT4 COURT $4 FUND 4.00 4.00 07/21/2001 11/27/00 F DRS DIRECT SERVICES 5.00 5.00 PEND 11/27/00 F SOB STAY FEES 10.00 10.00 11/01/2001 P xx TOTAL AMOUNT DUE *+ .00 DATE BY NEXT DATE TIME STATUS DESCRIPTION 08/28/2000 O 10/03/2000 6:00 PM ARR 10/03/2000 A PTC COURT STATUS UPDATE 10/03/2000 O 10/30/2000 3:00 PM NG 10/30/2000 P PTC COURT STATUS UPDATE 10/30/2000 0 11/13/2000 1:00 PM PTC CONT 11/13/2000 J PTC COURT STATUS UPDATE 11/13/2000 0 ,11/27/2000 2:00 PM SCHEDULE NEXT COURT 11/27/2000 V 11/28/2001 SUSPENDED SENTENCE 11/27/2000 P HRG COMPLIANCE /SOE 11/27/2000 0 02/26/2001 1:00 PM SCHEDULE NEXT COURT 02/26/2001 A HRG COURT STATUS UPDATE 02/26/2001 0 05/07/2001 1:00 PM COMPLIANCE HEARING CONT. 05/07/2001 A HRG COURT STATUS UPDATE 05/07/2001 O 06/04/2001 2:30 PM COMPLIANCE ERG 06/04/2001 A HRG COURT STATUS UPDATE 06/04/2001 O 06/18/2001 1:00 PM SCHEDULE NEXT COURT - 06/18/2001 A HRG COURT STATUS UPDATE 06/18/2001 0 06/25/2001 10:30 AM COMP HRG. IF COMP NO STAY, OR STAY 06/25/2001 A .SOB COURT STATUS UPDATE 06/25/2001 O 07/02/2001 8:30 AM DEF NOT IN COMP, IMPOSE SS 07/02/2001 A BCC COURT STATUS UPDATE 07/02/2001 0 07/16/2001 8:30 AM SHOW CAUSE /SOB 07/10/2001 V 07/21/2001 GIVE FILE TO JUDGE FOR COMPLIANCE 07/10/2001 0 PEND 07/20/2001 V 07/30/2001 STAY ISSUED BY DISTRICT COURT 11/01/2001 P PEND STAY ISSUED BY DISTRICT COURT 11/30/2001 V 05/31/2002 PROCESS MTN TO EXTEND RRVIEWNEXTPRO 11/30/2001 O PENDING DECISION ON APPEAL 04/12/2002 0 CLOSE PER SIGNED ORDER APR -08 -02 MON 10:22 AM FAX NO, MUNICIPAL COURT, CITY OF WHEAT RIDOE, STA OF COLORADO Case No*, CF-00-2, M, 24 and 35 ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Tf IE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT MIDGE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Pk0tiff, V . LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. THIS MXr(ER comes before the Court on the Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice made by the parties; and, 7 HE COURT having read the Stipulation and being fully appraised In the prnmixcs; P. 05/05 u� 0 I­ IEREBY ORDERS that pursuant to the Stipulation, the above -noted cases, and all charges that were filed or that could have been filed in them are hereby dismissed with prcludics, with each side to pay his or Its own fees and expenses. All fines and penalties that have been suspended or otherwise that have not been paid, if any, and any that wore or could have been imposed In those cases against Stewart are hereby Ordered waived by Wheat Fudge, and any fines or penalties that have been paid by Stewart shall be retained by Wheat Ridge. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT, pursuant to the Stipulation, the City of Wheat Ridge shall process any future applications for building permits filed by Lawror,w Stewart with the City In the ordinary course of business without regard to any proceedings in these cases. Oatod: b Jul•�19, 2001 10 4 ,)!ION STE 425 H3 989 2825 RECENE'Z� WHEAT RIDGE dbtl� 2 INr•4363 P. 2 DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO eorst;!s.4:> ,� 100 Jefferson County Parkway 7K�FC - i:` �.; ! ' "IY CO- Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 PlaintifFAppellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge defendant- Appellant Lawrence Stewart *Court Use Only® Thomas H. Stocker .Ph: 303 -988 -4205 Attorney at Law Fax: 303 -989 -2825 7 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom@thstocker.com s t o 'CV -- Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg, No. 14716 Division: - - -- Attorney for Defendant - Appellant NOTICE OF APPEAL, DESIGNATION OF RECORD, and MOTION FOR TRIAL DE AfOVO This is an appeal to the District Court of Jefferson County, Colorado, by defendant - Appellant, Lawrence Stewart, through counsel, from Orders and Judgments entered by the Municipal Court of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, in several related cases alleging violations by defendant- appellant of the Municipal Cade of the City of Wheat Ridge as related to defendant - appellant's resid'ntiaf property located at 9960 W. 35` Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033. The City of Wheat Ridge is referred to herein as the "City" and the Municipal Court of the City of Wheat Ridge is referred to herein as the "Municipal Court." 1. Municipal Court from which anneal is taken Municipal Court City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 Jul-19. 2001 10 494M 44,_)ION STE 435 3103 989 2825 2. Municipal Court Honorable Charles J. Rose No.4363 P. 3 3. Party initiating appeal Lawrence Stewart 4. Municipal court case nos CE -00 -2, 23, 24 and 35- 5. Nature of the case 1. Alleged Violations of the Municipal Code In August 2000, defendant - appellant was charged by the City with various violations of the 2 Municipal Code relatedto the condition of his residential property. a �� 2. Settlement Stipulations Defendant - appellant entered into various stipulations with the City to resolve the alleged violations, and then performed as required by the stipulations. In reliance on the stipulations, defendant- appellant waived his rights to a trial and other rights to due process. However, the City has not -kept its part of the bargain and defendant - appellant therefore seeks to withdraw any waivers he may have made, 3. Defendant-appellant performed as required in conformance with the stipulations, defendant - appellant hired a Colorado Registered Professional engineer (Jeff Davis, P.E.) to evaluate the alleged problems and to develop an engineering drawing and specifications for corrective measures (the "plan "). The plan was submitted to the City for comment or approval. The City rejected the initial plan with comments. Davis made the coiiBctions required by the City and the plan was resubmitted. The revised plan was approved by the City.. Defendant- appellant then constructed the corrective measures in accordance with the City approved revised plan. Such construction was inspected by Davis who certified that the construction was completed in compliance with the City approved plan. Such certification was delivered to the City as the City requested. 4. Unilateral Imposition of Changed Requirements Upon submittal of the engineer's certification to the Municipal Court and the City, the City imposed substantial additional requirements that were never part of any stipulated Stews WLl>-App=NNDlJm of Appeal -2 Jul-19. 2001 10 494M 4a; )ION STE 436 3103 989 2826 Ivo.4 63 P• 4 resolution. The additional requirements require that the property be returned to its "original condition." See Memo to File dated June 25, 2001, and attached hereto as Exhibit A'. Returning the property to "original condition," whatever that means, was never part of any stipulation,with the City. Throughout this matter, the City continued to unilaterally change its requirements for corrective measures, sometimes verbally and sometimes in writing. 5. Ex varte Communications between the City and Court On information and belief, the City communicated with the Municipal Court, ex parte, and persuaded the Court, ex parte, to incorporate additional onerous requirements into one or mgre Court Orders. For example, see Judge Rose's handwritten Order dated July 9, 2001 (attached hereto as Exhibit B) in which Judge Rose refers to a conversation the court had with Cindy Hagerman (a City code enforcement person). Such communications were made without notice to defendant - appellant or his counsel and without their presence. 6. Imoositiorf of Substantial Fine and _Original Condition Requirement. Code enforcement agents, including Cindy Hagerman, acting on behalf of the City, instructed defendant - appellant NOT to appear a compliance hearing scheduled July 2, 2001, before the Municipal Court because, they said, defendant- appellant's property was in compliance with the City requirements. Such hearing then proceeded ex pane without defendant - appellants presence, and on information and belief, on the City's motion, the Municipal Court imposed a fine of $1,800 on defendant - appellant for not appearing. The Municipal also unilaterally imposed a new that defentiantzppellant resod his property. The Court also included in its Order the Memo to File attached hereto as Exhibit A which requires that the property be returned to its "original condition." Such requirement was never part of any stipulation, was never part of the City approved engineering plan, is onerous and unconscionable, and is drastically different from "re- sodding." 'The cars referred to in the Memo are licensed operable vintage oars of substantial value. Defendant appellant had planned to park them in a garage that he had obtained a City permit allowing him to construct on his property. For unknown reasons, the City pulled the permit it had previously issued, and the garage has not been built. Thus, defendant - appellant faces a Hobson choice: The City maintains that he can't have the vintage cars on his property, but can put them in a garage, but the City pulled the building permit it had Issued to defendant- appellant to build the garage. &feYmtPLD.AppmMolJce of Appeal -3- Jul 19. 2001 10 :50AM 4 .MN GTE 435 303 989 2825 N0.063 P. 5 7. Motions to Reconsider Defendant - appellant, through counsel, then filed a motions for reconsideration dated July 9, 2001, and a motion for hearing to reconsider dated July 10, 2001. The Municipal Court denied both motions. Exhibits B and C attached. 8. Court granted City leave to enter defendant aDDel[ant's 1ropeEe jy on Friday. July'20. 2001 On the ex paste motion of the City, the Municipal Court granted the City leave to enter upon defendant - appellant's property on July 20, 2001, to return the property to "original condition" and to charge defendant - appellant all costs in connection therewith (see Handwritten Court Orders dated July 9 and 16, 2001, attacligd hereto as Exhibits B and C and the. Memorandum attached as Exhibit C #hat was attached to the July 16, 2001, Order). B. Judgment being appealed and appellate court's jurisdiction Defendant - appellant appeals all of the Orders and Judgments of the Municipal Court in all of the cases naming Lawrence Stewart as a defendant that have been filed since July 2000. No trial has ever been held orfany of these cases. Jurisdiction is pursuant to Colorado Municipal Court Rules ( "C.M.C.R. °) 237(b), C.R.Crim. Proc. 37 and C.R.S. §§ 13 -10 116(2) and 13 -6- 310(2). 7. Whether judgment resolved all Issues The judgment and orders being appealed resolved all issues and these cases are ripe for appeal, The Municipal Court declined two opportunities to reconsider such judgments and orders and has declined to do so. 8. Date last order was entered The Municipal Court entered its last Order on July 16, 2001, directing the City to enter upon defendant - appellant's property on July 20, 2001. 9. Were any motions filed rote tingextensions of time to request post trial Leligi? Yes. See ¶ 5.g. above. 10. PaWQf filing motion for relief See ¶ 5.g. above. 11. pate relief motion was decided See T 5.g. above. StewartN'L4AppeaM ow_- of Appeal -4- Jul-19. 2001 10:50AM 44 <�.�JION STE 435 303 989 2825 ��� No•4363 P. 6 Were there any extensions granted to file any notices of appeal No. 12. Advisory listing of issues to be rai b plaintiffs appellees in their cross a. Whether the Municipal Court judge abused his discretion and �—violated defendant - appellant's constitutional rights with ex pane communications with the City? b. Whether defendant - appellants rights were violated when, in reliance on the City's promise that the stipulations"would resolve the alleged violations, defendant - appellant entered into certain stipulations with the City, ` s which including waiving his rights to a trial? 0 c. Whether the City should be held in contempt of court for Intentionally misleading defendant - appellant and directing him not to appear at a — hearing, and then, whefi defendant - appellant did not appear, asking the Court to impose a substantial fine and impose onerous new conditions on defendant - appellant? d. Whether the City should be held, in contempt of court for misleading the Court and for continuing to change the requirements it sought to impose on defendant - appellant in violation of the stipulations? e. Whether the CWs actions as outlined -above constitute an illegal taking of defendant - appellant's property in violation of the Colorado and/or Federal constitutions? fi. Whether the City s actions as outlined above violate the City's own rules for dealing with such matters? g• Whether, under the circumstances set forth above, the City should be ordered to pay defendant - appellants attorneys' fees and costs and possibly other damages? Sfew rWLD- App"rNaw0Appeal _ g Ju1.19. 2001 10:50AM 0 4 ION STE 435 303 989 2825 No•4363 P. 7 14. Designation of Record Defendant - appellant designates the entire Municipal Court file and transcripts of all hearings held in this matter, all engineering drawings and correspondence related to this matter, the Municipal Code, and all City Code Department documents, memoranda, notes, correspondence, and permits related to this matter. 15. Sggygst for Vacation of Order and Trial De Novo Defendant- appellant prays that the District Court will vacate the Municipal Courts Orders directing the City to enter defendant - appellant's property on July 20, 2001, grant a trial de novo as provided for in C.R.Crim. Proc. 37(g) and C.R.S. § 13- 6- 310(2) for all issues in this matter. 16.. , Request for Injunctive Relief or Stay of Execution Pending Trial de novo Contemporaneous herewith, defendant - appellant is filing an Emergency Motion for Stay of Execution of the Municipal Court's Order directing the City to enter defendant - appellant's property. 17.r. Counsel a. F or 1 2 1 . intiffs-a Carolina Penaloza City Attorney City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 7500 West 2V' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 Phone: 303- 235 -2840 b. Por defendants - appellants Thomas H. Stocker, # 14716 Thomas H. Stocker, P.C. 44 Union Blvd., #435 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 St,walMlD -APP6a W6tL0 d Appeal JA I� Ju1:19. 2001 10:50AM 4! 'NION STE 435 3113 989 2825 No 4363 P. 8 Fax: 303.989 -2825 Email:tom@thatocker.com C. Appendix Copies of the following are attached: ExhibitA — Memo to File from Cindy Hagerman dated June 25, 2001, Exhibit B — Handwritten Court Order dated July 16, 2001. Exhibit C - Handwritten Court Order dated July 9, 2001. Dated: July 18, 2001. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C.; Attorney at w By: voe SzZ Thomas H. ttocker, #14716 44 Union Blvd., #435 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: $03- 988 -4205 Fax: 303- 989 -2825 Email: tom@thstocker.com Stewa U)-Appeaf Notim of Appeal _ - Ju,l'•19 2001 10 61AM 41 � ]ON STE 435 31)3 989 2826 No.4363 P. 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on July 18, 2001, a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEAL, DESIGNATION OF RECORD, and MOTION FOR TRIAL DE NOVO was served by depositing it in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Original to (hand carried District Court Clerk First Judicial Distrid€ 100 Jefferson County Pkwy. Golden, Colorado 80419 Copies to (via mom Caroline Penaloza City Attorney City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 2e Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 Larry Stewart 9960 W. 35' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 BWwdMPL0- .44V¢a"boe of Appeal Iii SUL- 16i '��'�' 11�EiJ �Ini''d � va _.,e3��,928 11 :RECEIVED WHEAT RIDGE 4 WHE, COURT �G City OC Whcat Ridgc JUL, 1 � 2DO;1 Planniuig 411d DCvelUpment Dep.TtMc , Mem orandum FLORA TO: MEMO TO FILE FROM. CINDY IIAGTLRII TA`I SUBJECT :9860 WEST 35 — Ay.. E DATE: JUNE 25, zoo ,• I �1���t7:i JUL 1 t 2001 TUNE 2s. 2001 PUBLIC WORKS ENGENBE:R Ulu GARCIA AND I WENT TO DEFENDANT LARRY STPWART'S RESIDENCE AT 9966 WEST 35 AVHNUE TO DETERMDM THE STA'T'US OF HIS PROPERTY. WE FOUND THAT, ASIDE FROM RELOCATING A PILH OF DIRT FROM TINE FTROTIr YARD TO THE RE YARD, NO CHANGES HAD BEEN MADE TO RESTORE TIM PROPERTY TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDI nN ICTNB 19, 2661, JUDGE ROSE HAE) TOLD STEWART THAT HE HAD UNTIL TODAY, .TCTaR 25T , WHICH TO RESTORE HIS PROPERTY TO IT'S OTITGINAL CONDEl'ION. ILTDGE ROSE STATED Tom' THAT TMfEmm CM OF WHEAT RIDGE COULD ARBANCE POR T= kROeLXTY TO BE SROUG _. RACK,.TO THE CONDMON TRAT TT HAD BEE; i , PRIOR TO THE BOLT, FOR TEE UNAPPROVED OVED GARAGE, BEING DUG. — THERE ARE NINE CARS PARKED IN THE REAR- YARD, ON THE DIRT. THEY WILL HA VH TO BE RIIvIOVI D 1; 0�[ XX7E ,RGAIR YARD IN ORDER FOR THE RESTOIt.MON TO BEGIN. AT STEWART'S COMPLIANCE HEARING TODAY, I RECONVAENTD THAT JUDUE ROSE {: I) GRANT CITY ENGINEERS AND ANY CONTRACTORS THAT ARE HIPM VIA THE CITY TO M STEWART'S PROPERTY AT A.Tv"Y TEMIR, DURING NO, MAL WORKING HOUIRS (MONDAY..9Aril< 8.60 AM 00 PA0 UNTIL TES PROJECT IS COMPLETkD. r; 2) STRVrART ,fUST HAVE ALL OF TFTE YEXITCi 3 T-RAT lRE PA2 �r�3 IN i3TS REAR r1ND i�RONI' YARDS REMOVED, SO THAT THE RESTORATION MAY BEGIN. THE, DATE THAT THE CARS ARE BE REMOVED SHALL NOT RE LATER TITAN JUNE 29, 2661. IF, AT THAT TLA M CARS REMAIN IN AREAS THAT RESTRICT UM RESTORATION, THE CITY MAY T,QW SUCH VMCLES TO THE CT 3) THE CITY, ALONG WITH COLORADO LANDSCAPE SOL MONG . WILL UM TIIE CITY APPROVED PLANS, AND RES"WRE THE PROPERTY AS NEAR AS 1`6SSIIIF H, TO IT'S nIZT(I NAT. CONDITION, TNCLUDING THE SODDWG OF THE PROPERTY TO ,ENSURE TRAT" OROUNp COVER ESTABLISFIED. ESTAELISBx- D CMOWND COVER W¢.L ASSISI' RN CONTROLLn -;a EROSION. LAWRENCE STEWART WU-L BE HELD R ESPONSMLE FOR PAYING ALL CHARGES, WIT _ }y Y.A VPLV TO TOWING, CONTRACT WORK. RESTORATION, OR ADMIT T.RATION )y SENT 6 6 WITHIN THIRTY (36) DAYS OF BIi.7.XljG. EfJIYGJEI) ! /?��JTCd� / � JJ EXH TOM S TOCK1 eived Time Jnl,16. 19:19Pfd AT Y, JUL•-16j1J VV I� / �i I; "m 7" v7Z Af� Y RECEIVED WHEAT RIDGE $.g nai mpR!PAi COURT JUL 19 2001 MUNICIPAL COURT, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, STATE OF COLORADO JUL 'I 1 Case Nos. CEO4 -24 and 35 TH. . t MOTION TO SET FOR HEARING and MOTION FOR ST; Y4P F-XEOl9T1C3+1 PEN0 1 H5ARINO THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE 00'CGLORADO, � Plaintiff, 7,T�rJ �Jef�ref� 1�nApn! ry 6G (n CC�njy/rd f _ ac7�ifz�� V. b�.{ u.slr <j LAWRENCE STEWART, an1"cr r/v- pr� Defendant. ` a oa f • 7� / f Defendant, Lawrence Stewart, through counsel, prays that a hearing will be to replace the hearing set for July 16, 2001, that has been vacated; and prays for a temporary stay of execution of the order allowing the City to enter defendant's props pending such hearing. In support thereof, defendant states as follows; 1. Counsel has spoken with Kay in the CRVA, ttofney s office who expressl�d agreement that this motion for hearing should be filed and fife matter set fora hearing. 2. By Order dated July 9, 2001, this Court prohibited the City from enteric defendant's property prlor to July 20, 2001, for the purposes of laying sod, and vacat a show 6aus9 hearing previously act for July 16, 2oo1,`No now hearing date has be n set. 3. Defendant has fully complied with the +engineer's pian;for corrective acllon on his property. See letter from the engineer, Jeff Davis, attached hereto as Exhibik This plan was approved by the City. This plan did not require laying sod anywhere �n defendant's property and defendant is not aware of any requirement that was ave imposed on him to lay sod. The Clty has again changed the rules, and now see enter defendant's property and lay sad. ;Opy BENT FO: EXHIBiT i Recei. „d Time Jul,16, 12.12PN �y TrJ'it a uTuL 2001 i 10 :52AM 4 STE 436 393 989 2826 RECEIVED WHEAT RIDGE W IN."MRAL COURT JUL 19 2001 T:''. �. \3e3989as l o. 4 3 6 3 RECEI� WFtp4r.RfbvE , OUR JUi 0 9 2001 Z0u. /ees MUNICIPAL CQURT, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, STATE OF COLORADO Casa Nos. CEb4 -2, 23. 24 and $5 ORDER THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT FU Dee, BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE QP COLORADO, Plaintiff, V, JUL I X12001 LAWRENCE STEWA197, T. ar ATr Defendant, THIS MATTER comss before tho Court on thv Motion of defendant, La wran Stewart, for reconsidaratlon and for a stay of execution; and, THE COURT having read the Motion and being fully appraissd In the premise ; HERESY ORDERS as follows: a- I the City is prahlbfted from antering upon defendant s property for the purposes J noWthe to c. The hearing DATED; ' �dDl EXHIBIT Court Judge �o Gy �y De 'W 'Received Time Jul.10, 9 696 8H 90 91S NOW 17 - Wdlt:l t q15 ul�rsc p set fcT July f S; r; 2001, strati ba W" /17 GlnOl /PPcr, J15'� ryuPS/1/ 1 7�/`1�a1 or efk Crft� BY THE COURT:( / � i ,I�r Jul l9. 2001 10:48AM 4_'�NION STE 435 303 989 2836 p1o.4263 P. Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet Please deliver the attached documentsTo: 1. Wheat Ridge Municipal Court 2. Wheat Ridge City Attorney - Caroline Penaloza Facsimile Number: 303- 235 -2829 Date. July 18, 2001 rr Number of pages including this cover sheet: 4 Please contact sender if you did not receive all pages in legible condition. Sender: Thomas H. Stocker, P.C. Phone: (303) 988 -4205 Attorney at Law 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 Fax: (303) 989 -2825 Lakewood, CO 80228 tom @thstocker.com Message: Attachments: 1. Notice of Appeal, Designation of Record, and Motion for Trial De 2. Verified Emergency Motion for Stay of Execution or Alternatively, Injunctive Relief (and corresponding proposed Order). 3. Amended Certification of Service. Confidentiality Notice The information in this facsimile transmission is privileged and confidential between attorney and client, and is strictly intended for the use of the person or entity named above. If the reader of any part of this transmission is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any part of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone, and return the original transmission to sender at our expense by first class mail. '?fl- 19. 2001 10 :5'10 44� )]Oki STE 435 303 989 2825 K0.4353 13 RECEIVED WHEAT RIDGE AhUNICIRA!_ COURT JUL 19 2001 ,,, I n r, ; 4.26 DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO r ?,` "r;f D ccu, 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart ACourt Use OnlyA Thomas H. Stocker Ph: 303 - 988 -4205 Attorney at Law Fax: 303. 989 -2825 r . ; � , � �e�'N�r 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom @thstocker.com Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg. No. 14716 Division: - -- Attorney for Defendant - Appellant VERIFIED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION or ALTERNATIVELY, FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Defendant - appellant, Lawrence Stewart, through counsel, pursuant to C.R.Crim. Proc. 37(f) prays for a stay or execution of the Order of the Municipal Court of Wheat Ridge granting the City leave to enter upon defendant - appellant's residential property on July 20, 2001, for the purposes of re- sodding and returning it to "original condition." In the alternative, defendant - appellant prays for injunctive relief barring the City from taking such action. Defendant - appellant prays that such stay or injunctive relief shall remain in place until the District Court can property review the appeal that defendant appellant has filed contemporaneous herewith. In support thereof, defendant - appellant states the following: 1. Contemporaneous herewith, defendant - appellant has filed his Notice of Appeal, Designation of Record, and Motion for Trial De Novo (t)pe "Notice of Appeal "). 2. In accord with C.R.G.P. 121, § 1 -15, 1 8, and C.R.C.P. 65(b), undersigned counsel contacted counsel for the City of Wheat Ridge requesting that the City stipulate to a stay of execution pending appeal, and advising the City attorney that defendant - appellant intends to file an appeal on July 18, 2001, along with a motion for stay of Ja1.19. 2001 10:52AM 44` )ION GTE 435 303 989 2826 No- 4363 P. 14 execution or injunctive relief. The City attorney refused to cooperate in any manner, and refused to stipulate to a stay of execution pending this appeal 3. Defendant - appellant has requested that the Municipal Court for the City reconsider its orders granting the City leave to enter upon defendant - appellants property on July 20, 2001 the Municipal Court has denied such requests. 4. Defendant - appellant therefore has no choice but to ask the District Court, pursuant to C.R.Crim. Proc. 37(� for a stay of execution of the Order of the Municipal Court granting the City leave to enter upon defendant - appellant's property on or after July 20, 2001. Alternatively, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 65, defendant - appellant seeks a temporary injunction barring the City from entering his property on or after July 20, 2001, pending the outcome of this appeal. 5. . As outlined in more detail in the Notice of Appeal, defendant - appellant believes he has satisfied all stipulations entered into with the City regarding the condition of his property. Hovlever, the City continues to up the ante and now wants the property returned to its "original condition." The City obtained an Order from the Municipal Court, ex parte, to this effect. This requirement not only violates all previous stipulations and agreements entered into between the City and defendant - appellant, but, if imposed, will work a tremendous hardship and expense on defendant - appellant. It the City undertakes such work, it will charge defendant - appellant for same, and the cost could be many thousands of dollars, The City has also stated that it will tow to a City lot defendant - appellants vintage cars (e.g., a 1969 Corvette) which are valued at many thousands of dollars. Such cars are licensed arkd.operable and would be in a garage on defendant - appellant's property but for the City's unexplained decision to pull a building permit that it previously granted to defendant- appellant. Towing such vintage cars will cause damage that may be irreparable. 6. If the City enters defendant - appellant's prop®rty cAh July 20, 2001, as it says it will do and as the Municipal Court's Order grants itperrrlission to do, defendant- appellant and his spouse will suffer immediate and irreparable injury and damage. stewat\PLDAPP aP, oc stay -2- Jul-19. 2001 10:53AM 44+,_.)ION STE 435 303 989 2825 No•4363 P. 15 7. On the contrary, if the City's actions are stayed by order of the District Court pending the outcome of this appeal, no prejudice or damage will result to the City or anyone else. WHEREFORE, defendant- appellant, Lawrence Stewart, prays that this Court will: a. Issue its Order vacating the Order of the Municipal Court of Wheat Ridge allowing the City to enter on defendant - appellant's property on or after July 20, 2001, pending the outcome of this appeal; or, b. Alternatively, issue its Order staying the execution of the Municipal Court of Wheat Ridge allowing the City to enter on defendant - appellant's property on or after July 20, 2001, pending the outcome of this appeal; or, C. Alternatively, issue an injunction barring the City of Wheat Ridge from entering defendant- appellant's' property on or after July 20, 2001, pending the outcome of this appeal; and, d. Granting defendant - appellant such other and further relief as is just and proper. Dated: July 18, 2001. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney at By: Thomag H. Stocker, #i4 6 44 Union Blvd., #435 Lakewood,' Cold 80228 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 Fax: 303-989-2825 Email: tomOthstocker.com stewWN1.Q- ACOeaWXspar _ 3 _ ■ Ju1.19. 2001a;10:53AMaPM 44 -)ION STE 435 3103 989 2825 : State of Colorado No.4363 P• 16� ss, County of Jefferson ) f, Lawrence Stewart, being first duly swom, do state and affirm that I have read the above motion and that the factual allegations stated therein art true and oorract tra the best of my Mowledge, information and bnlief, Daled. July 18, 2001. Lawrence Stewart, Affiant The fore0oinE; instrun*nl was acknnwledgad before me July '1 8,2001. by Lawrence Stewart, Witness my hand anti official seal. My commission expires, stm v"LO. ;gmvAMat $lay A �Ola . - O p z v a 7 IVL4RY NOtARY PUBt ttw FM a�xxcs, Receiived Time Ju1.18, p ;' r . 2.29 �i r .. � -.,. :i. i r. ?pf, Jul.19. 2001 10:53AM 4J ION STE 435 303 989 2825 : 7 No•4363 P• 17 IQERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on July 18, 2001, a true and correct copy of the foregoing VERIFIED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION or ALTERNATIVELY, FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF was served by depositing it in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following, Oriainal to (hand n- wriadl- District Court Clerk First Judicial District 100 Jefferson County Pkwy, Golden, Colorado 80419 Copies to (via mail): Carolina Penaloza City Attorney City of W49at Ridge 7500 West 29' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 Larry Stewart 9960 W. 35"' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 $tMd%P.ak r=r)na Stw -5- J�I.19. 2001 10:53AM 4J , � ION ST 435 303 989 2825 No- 436:2_ P. 18 DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO RECEIVED 100 Jefferson County Parkway WHEAT RIDGE Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303- 271 -6215 A a� COUR JUL 200' Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant- Appellant Lawrence Stewart ®Court Use Only® Thomas H. Stocker .Ph: 303- 988 -4205 Attorney at Law pax: 303 - 989 -2825 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom @thstocker.com Case No: -- CV - - -- Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg. No. 14718 Division: - - -- Attorney for Defendant - Appellant ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the court on the Motion of defendant - appellant, Lawrence Stewart, for a stay of execution of an Crder of the Municipal Court of Wheat Ridge granting the City leave to enter upon defendant- appellant's residential property on July 20, 2001; and THE COURT having read-the Motion and being4ullyapprized in the premises, HEREBY ORDERS (cross out those not applicable): a. The Order of the Municipal Court of Wheat Ridge allowing the City to enter on defendant - appellant's property on or after July 20, 2001, is hereby vacated pending the outcome of this appeal or further court order. b. The Order of the Municipal Court of Wheat Ridge allowing the City to enter on defendant - appellant's property on or after July 20, 2001, is hereby stayed pending the outcome of this appeal or further court order. J 1 1 . 2001 10:53RM 44 ION STE 435 303 989 2825 _ No•4363 P• 19 C. The City of Wheat Ridge is hereby enjoined from entering defendant- appellanYs property on or after July 20, 2001, pending the outcome of this appeal or further court order. " Dated: District Court Judge f StewWPLD•AppmAOrder imt Stay '� . 2001 10:5NM 44 iION STE 435 303 989.2825 I DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401. Ph: 303- 271 -6215 Plaintiff- Appeflee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart ACourf Use OnIyA Thomas H, Stocker Ph: 303 - 988 -4205 Attorney at Law Fax: 303- 989 -2825 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom@thstocker.com Case No; 01 CV 1772 Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg. No. 14716 Division: 9 Attorney for Defendant - Appellant AMENDED CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE Defendant - appellant, Lawrence Stewart, through counsel, submits this Amended Certification of Service for the following pleadings: 1. Notice of Appeal, Designation of Record, and Motion for Trial De Novo. 2. Verified Emergency Motion for Stay of Execution or Alternatively, for Injunctive Relief (and corresponding proposed Order). 3. This Amended Certification of Service. Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of each of the foregoing documents was served as set forth below: No-4363 P, 20 I . - ^» R1p �uRr 0� Jul•19. 2001 10:64AM 44:' ION STE 436 303 989 2826 Ho.4 P. 21 R .,, wyFgrF'�F � pion Original of Nos. 1 and 2 filed on July 18 2001 and original of no 3 mailed on �'- I9 00;! T July 19. 2001 to Z0 District Court Clerk First Judicial District 100 Jefferson County Pkwy. Golden, Colorado.80419 Conies of nos. 1. 2 and 3 mailed and faxed on July 19 2001 to Caroline Penaloza City Attorney City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 Wheat Ridge Municipal Court City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29'h Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 802°f5 Copy of nos 1 2 and 3 delivered on July 19 2001 to: Larry Stewart 9960 W.35 " Avenue Wheat Ridge, GO 80033 Dated: July 19, 2001 Respdetfully submitted, THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney a aw Thomas H. Stocker, #14718 44 Union Blvd.,4435 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 Fax: 303 -989 -2825 Email: tom@thstocker.com StewarAPLD- APpeaflCert Mail Amended IP41 �7 -19 16:00 THU...FRhM: -� T0:9 39892925 PgGE:02 W, 8 " „ q,�.T R OG 2po� T The City of Wheat Ridgo 13 hereby enjoined from entering def'endant- appellanra property on or after July 20 2001, pending further court order. Dated: 7 y • 9 rr - s aw Court Judge /� /• / ` �4 iMr• aarreyhlM /NO ow .A a F 4 L ��lll�r ab iva / ot Ai- Cowrq- :okay ` Cfaw Mkfov d& Foy w�►� N Md /�eJ` Y r eo 411 ir /OIL / , Mit V i I S )rM to 00e L...J. C 41 "'ti et Ire 7 - -O SENT- ff -2- 9 Y T0V- gTOCKER d iec 68Eh . o i�ime Jul .19. 3,12P '. 686 88E 981: hS NOW tt Wd9l:E IOod 61'InP £O "d LSSZ S£Z £O£ XVJA3dA30 VOZ =.60 to- OZ -Lnr (I Facsimile Trar smission Cover Sheet Please Deliver To: 1. Wheat Ridge Municipal Court 2. Wheat Ric Igo City Attorney - Caroline Penaloza Facsimile Number: 303 - 235 -2829 Date: July 19, 2001 Number of pages Including this cover sheet: 3 Please contact sender If you did not receive all pages In legible condition. Sender. Thomas H. Stocker, F.C. Phone: (303) 988 -4205 Attorney at Law 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 Fax: (303) 989 -2825 Lakewood, CO 8022E tom®thstocker.com Message: Attached is copy of District Court O - der received today at 4 :30 PM. Ca didentiality Notice The information in this facsimile transmissioi is privileged and confidential a between attorney and client, and Is strictly Intended for the use of the per 'on or entity named above. it the reader of any part of this transmission is not the intended recipient, o the employee or agent respdnsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified the: any dissemination, distribution or copying of any part of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you rece red this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone, and return the original ransmission to sender at our expense by first class mail. d EBEt'oN 978i 686 EOE 90 31S NN Nn tit M Z :E 1OOZ '61'Inf _170 - d LS8Z S£Z £O£ XVAA3NA30 V03=60. 10- OZ -Lnr DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Court Address: 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, Colorad 80401 Plaintiff /Appellee: THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Defendant /Appellant: LAWRENCE STEWART Attorney for Plaintiff /Appellee The City of Wheat Ridge Name: Carmen Beery #32234 Gerald E. Dahl # 7766 Address: Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone Number: 303 - 376 -5000 Fax Number: 303 - 376 -5001 E -mail: cbeerv(a)gorsuch.com dg�Oeorsuch.com ENTRY OF APPEARANCE ACOURT USE ONLYA Case Number: OICV1772 Division Gorsuch Kirgis LLP hereby enters its appearance in the above - captioned matter pursuant to C.R.C.P. 121, section 1 -1. (a) The identity of the party for whom the appearance is made: Plaintiff /Appellee The City of Wheat Ridge. (b) The attorney's office address: Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower 1, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 (c) The attorney's telephone number: (303) 376 -5000 CNB \53027.2 \384585 1 - [ Z4 L;R DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, U ' l + COLORADO a Court Address: 100 Jefferson County Pkwy:, Golden ,iCl � Colorado, 80401 Telephone: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff /Appellee(s): THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Colorado home rule municipality, Defendant /Appellant(s): LAWRENCE STEWART ACOURT USE ONLYA Attorney for Plaintiff /Appellee Name: Carmen Beery Gerald E. Dahl Address: Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 Case Number: OICV1772 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Division: Phone Number: (303) 376 -5000 Fax Number: (303) 376 -5001 E -mail: cbeeryw)gorsuch.com gdahlCa gorsuch.com Atty. Reg. #s: 32234 7766 PLAINTIFF - APPELLEE' S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Rule 121 Certification Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that she has, in good faith, conferred with opposing counsel about this Motion and is authorized to state that this Motion has been agreed to by the parties and will not be opposed. COMES NOW, the Plaintiff- Appellee, the City of Wheat Ridge (hereinafter the "City "), and moves this Court for an extension of time within which it may respond to Defendant's Motion for Stay of Execution past that date set for response by Order of this Court, dated July 19, 2001. In support of its Motion, the City states the following: 1. The City was authorized to enter onto Defendant's property for the purpose of remedying certain Wheat Ridge Municipal Code violations by a Wheat Ridge Municipal Court CNB\53027.2 \385005 Order dated July 9, 2001. The Municipal Court denied Defendant's Motion to Set for Hearing and Motion for Stay of Execution Pending Hearing on July 16, 2001, and the City was authorized to enter Defendant's property on July 20, 2001. 2. On July 19, 2001, this Court granted Defendant's Motion for Stay of Execution until July 30, 2001, at which time this Court indicated it would continue, modify, or dissolve the stay. See Court Order dated July 19, 2001, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. This Order also granted the City the opportunity to respond to Defendant's Motion on or before July 30, 2001. 3. Undersigned counsel for the City entered her appearance in this matter on July 24, 2001. See Entry of Appearance, attached here to as Exhibit 2. 4. In the four (4) business days since undersigned counsel entered her appearance, she and Defendant's counsel have been able to engage in substantive discussions concerning this matter only once, due primarily to scheduling conflicts. 5. Based on the discussion referenced above, the City believes that further negotiations between the parties may be fruitful in terms of reaching an agreement. The City believes that a thirty (30) day extension of time would permit the parties to adequately explore the avenues of negotiation. 6. As indicated in the Rule 121 Certification above, Defendant has no objection to the granting of this Motion. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff- Appellee, the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, prays for an Order from this Court extending the time within which Plaintiff- Appellee may file a response to Defendant's Motion for Stay of Execution, to and including August 29, 2001. Respectfully submitted this 30' day of July, 2001. Address of Plaintiff- Appellee: 7500 W. 29' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 -5900 Ca ee , # 322_ Gerald E. Dahl, # 7 6 Gorsuch Kirgis LLP ATTORNEYS FOR CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CNB \53027.2 \385005 2 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 30' of July, 2001, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff - Appellee's Motion for Extension of Time was forwarded by First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas H. Stocker Attorney at Law 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 Lakewood, CO 80228 CNB \53027.2 \385005 3 DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, COLORADO Court Address: 100 Jefferson County Pkwy., Golden, Colorado, 80401 Telephone: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff /Appellee(s): THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Colorado home rule municipality, Defendant /Appellant(s): LAWRENCE STEWART ACOURT USE ONLYA Attorney for Plaintiff- Appellee Name: Carmen Beery Gerald E. Dahl Address: Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 Case Number: 01CV1772 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Division: Phone Number: (303) 376 -5000 Fax Number: (303) 376 -5001 E -mail: cbeeEy(a?gorsuch.com dg ahl(dRoruch.com Atty. Reg. #: 32234 7766 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Court, upon consideration of Plaintiff - Appellee's Motion for Extension of Time, and being fully advised of the premises, does hereby: ORDER, that Plaintiff - Appellee's Motion for Extension of Time is granted, and it is FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiff - Appellee shall have until and including August 29, 2001, to respond to Defendant's Motion for Stay of Execution. Dated this day of 2001. District Court Judge CNB \53027.2 \385005 R •4 wy�TERi�o J U4 ,�� 2 r I, The City of Wheat Ridgo is hereby enjoined from entering defendant - appellanrs property on or after July 20 2001, pending further court order. Dated: 4 7V46y aeftw. Be ym 'TL+. C ,*1 ray /�aJ 4m Mr . J*Wbwfr �HA'IrOrs eA er � :. Vh f &VII j Il r,,I. :CLw n Ca%w+— irk CAP,*,,ftwe 71& .PAY w,,,/ Oil 1�►I 9N_ � �► Irk C M�AV'! o ��I'i4� s at t oe. -a rwi-- Z...J. `-. C "y wk v- wowl ftw+ itu ' Aweale/ 4t 7- StSM" - A0"Mfd6f Mel 61w .2- 9 Off,' S TOCKER DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, COLORADO Court Address: 100 Jefferson County Pkwy., Golden, Colorado, 80401 Telephone: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff / Appellee(s): THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Colorado home rule municipality, Defendant /Appellant(s): LAWRENCE STEWART ACOURT USE ONLYA Attorney for Plaintiff- Appellee Name: Carmen Beery Gerald E. Dahl Address: Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 Case Number: OICV1772 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Division: Phone Number: (303) 376 -5000 Fax Number: (303) 376 -5001 E -mail: cbeeKy(dgorsuch.com gdahla2oruch.com Arty. Reg. #' 32234 7766 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Court, upon consideration of Plaintiff - Appellee's Motion for Extension of Time, and being fully advised of the premises, does hereby: ORDER, that Plaintiff - Appellee's Motion for Extension of Time is granted, and it is FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiff - Appellee shall have until and including August 29, 2001, to respond to Defendant's Motion for Stay of Execution. Dated this 3 Si-- day of u t,�/ 2001. istrict Court Judge 7 B h111 CNB \53027.2 \385005 � DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, COLORADO Court Address: 100 Jefferson County Pkwy., Golden, Colorado, 80401 Telephone: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff /Appellee(s): THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Colorado home rule municipality, Defendant /Appellant(s): LAWRENCE STEWART ACOURT USE ONLY,& Attorney for Plaintiff /Appellee Name: Carmen Beery Gerald E. Dahl Address: Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 Case Number: 01CV1772 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Division: Phone Number: (303) 376 -5000 Fax Number: (303) 376 -5001 E -mail: cbeerynagorsuch.com dg ahlagorsuch.com Arty. Reg. #s: 32234 7766 PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT - APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION Plaintiff- Appellee, the City of Wheat Ridge (hereinafter the "City "), by its undersigned counsel, hereby submits its Response to Defendant- Appellant's (hereinafter the "Defendant ") Motion for Stay of Execution, dated July 18, 2001. 1. An Order of this Court, dated July 19, 2001, granted the City the opportunity to respond to Defendant's Motion for Stay of Execution in the above - captioned matter and to recommend the amount of bond this Court may require pursuant to Rule 237 of the Colorado Municipal Court Rules of Procedure, and Rule 37(f) of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure. 2. Without waiving any right the City may have to object or otherwise respond to Defendant's Motion for Trial De Novo, the City respectfully requests that, if this Court grants Defendant's Motion for Stay of Execution, Defendant be required to post a bond in the amount CNB \53027.2 \387434 of two thousand -five hundred dollars ($2,500.00). This amount reflects the approximate cost to the City of executing the Order of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Court dated July 9, 2001, in which the Municipal Court authorized the City to enter Defendant's property and lay sod. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff- Appellee, the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, respectfully requests this Court to require Defendant - Appellant to post bond in the amount of two thousand - five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) in the event that Defendant - Appellant's Motion for Stay of Execution is granted. Respectfully submitted this 29 day of August, 2001. Address of Plaintiff - Appellee: 7500 W. 29' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 -5900 Carmen Beery, 4 Gerald E. Dahl, # 7766 Gorsuch Kirgis LLP ATTORNEYS FOR CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CNB \53027.2 \387434 2 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 29' day of August, 2001, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff - Appellee's Motion for Extension of Time was forwarded by First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas H. Stocker Attorney at Law 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 Lakewood, CO 80228 /i 4(&u &' We - CNB \53027.2 \387434 3 TRANSACTION REPORT DATE START RECEIVER P. 01 AUG -29 -01 WED 04:42 PM TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# >K DP K AUG -29 04:40 PM 93032716188 -00093 1 4 SEND OK 070 TOTAL 1M 5S PAGES: 4 t tc � FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT MANDATORY FAX COVER SHEET Due to problems created by multiple filings of the same document, the First Judicial District and County Courts will not accept fax filings unless they are accompanied by the mandatory fax cover sheet and the attorney or party filing the pleading has signed a certification that he or she will not send or deliver other copies of the document to the court unless requested to do so by the court. Please photocopy this sheet and use it on all fax filings with the First Judicial District, PLEASE DO NOT FAX DOCUMENTS MORE THAN 10 PAGES IN LENGTH TO DATE 1906 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET FAX TELEPHONE NUMBER OF RECIPIENT FROM Gc,)0!644� y i j03) d) ( G(��' FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT MANDATORY FAX COVER SHEET Due to problems created by multiple filings of the same document, the First Judicial District and County Courts will not accept fax filings unless they are accompanied by the mandatory fax cover sheet and the attorney or party filing the pleading has signed a certification that he or she will not send or deliver other copies of the document to the court unless requested to do so by the court. Please photocopy this sheet and use it on all fax filings with the First Judicial District. PLEASE DO NOT FAX DOCUMENTS MORE THAN 10 PAGES IN LENGTH TO DATE JON NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET FAX TELEPHONE NUMBER OF RECIPIENT FROM ` y CO3) REGULAR TELEPHONE NUMBER OF SENDER (3 3 io- 5// CASE NUMBER Gv - / ?� Z TITLE OF DOCUMENT Mfg AA U INSTRUCTIONS CERTIFICATION The undersigned attorney of record or pro se party hereby certifies that I have read C.R.C.P. Rule 121, Sec. 1 -25, Facsimile Copies. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I WILL MAINTAIN THE ORIGINAL OF THE FAXED DOCUMENT IN MY FILES AND THAT I WILL NOT MAIL, FAX OR DELIVER OTHER COPIES OF THE DOCUMENT FAXED WITH THIS COVER SHEET TO THE COURT UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE COURT. CARLA \00093 \369523.01 is DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart ACourt Use Only® Thomas H. Stocker Ph: 303 - 988 -4205 Attorney at Law Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Case No: 01 CV 1772 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom @thstocker.com Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg. No. 14716 Division: 9 Attorney for Defendant - Appellant DEFENDANT- APPELLANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT - APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION Defendant- appellant, Lawrence Stewart through counsel, replies herein to plaintiff - appellee's Response to Stewart's Motion for Stay of Execution. Defendant- appellant is referred to herein as "Stewart," and plaintiff - appellee, The City of Wheat Ridge, is referred to herein as "the City." 1. As set forth in more detail below, the City will suffer no damages if the injunction continues in force pending further court order and therefore Stewart objects to the posting of anything other than a` nominal bond of $1. 2. Under imminent threat from the City to enter upon his property to `lay sod," an action that was never part of any grading plan approved by the City and that Stewart therefore believes is not authorized (and not necessary in any event), Stewart filed his Notice of Appeal and Verified Emergency Motion for Stay of Execution on July 18, 2001. 3. By Order dated July 19, 2001, this Court granted the requested stay of execution, pending further court order, and ordered that if the "stay and injunction are continued pending this appeal, Mr. Stewart will be required to post a bond." By Order dated July 31, 2001, this Court granted the City until August 29, 2001, in which to respond to Stewart's Motion for Stay of Execution. 4. On August 29, 2001, the City filed its Response to Stewart's Motion for Stay of Execution. The City did not object to the stay of execution. The City merely requested that this Court impose a bond on Stewart of $2,500 which the City claims "reflects the approximate cost to the City ... to enter Defendant's property and lay sod." Response, ¶ 2. The City did not provide any supporting evidence, affidavit or authority supporting this bald conclusion, nor did the City indicate in any way what damages the City might suffer, if any, if the stay of execution continues in effect. 5. "C.R.C.P. 65(c) requires the court to order the party seeking injunctive relief to provide security `in such sum as the court deems proper.' The amount of security required is discretionary with the court so long as it bears a reasonable relationship to the potential costs and losses occasioned by a preliminary injunction that is later determined to have been improperly granted. Atmel Corp, v. Vitesee Semiconductor Corp., 2001 W L 125909, p. 8 (Colo. App. 2001) (not released for publication in the permanent law reports). See also, Apache Village, Inc, v. Coleman Co., 776 P.2d 1154, 1155 (Colo. App. 1989). Stewart\PLC- Appeai\Reply Mot Stay -2- 6. A nominal bond of $1 is appropriate where the court has made findings that the enjoined party would not suffer any compensable loss if it were later determined that the injunction was wrongfully issued. Kaiser v. Market Square Discount Liquors, Inc., 992 P.2d 636, 643 (Colo. App., 1999). 7. Stewart was required by the City to retain the services of 'a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer to design a grading plan, submit a drawing of the design to the City for approval, and then inspect the completed work and opine as to whether Stewart had conformed with the plan. Stewart retained Jeff Davis ( "Davis "), Prof. Engr. # 22126, to perform the engineering work. Davis developed a plan and drawing (copy attached as Exhibit A), submitted it to the City, which, after comment, approved the plan as amended. Stewart performed the work as required by the plan, and Davis submitted a letter dated July 9, 2001, to the City verifying that the work was performed as required. A copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Therefore, Stewart believes that he has fully complied with the City's requirements. 8. Subsequently the City directed Stewart to "lay sod" and when he refused to do so, decreed that it would enter Stewart's property to "lay sod." This was a new requirement that was never part of the City approved plan. 9. The City's Response makes no allegation that it will suffer any damage if the injunction remains in effect. It makes no allegation that the City is suffering damages or that any damages are being caused to any public property, right -of -way or street. The City makes no allegation that it will suffer any damages in the future. The City merely states that Stewart should post a bond in the amount the City "estimates" the sod laying will cost the City to perform (even if Stewart were ultimately ordered to lay sod, presumably he would be given the opportunity to do so, and presumably he could do so much cheaper than the City). StewarWLD- AppeaRReply Mot Stay -3- 10. If a bond of $2,500, or any substantial amount, is imposed on Stewart, it has the effect of punishing Stewart for asking the District Court to rule that the City cannot arbitrarily and unilaterally change its requirements after it has approved his grading plan and after Stewart has performed as required by the City under the plan. "The purpose of an injunction is to prevent `future harm,' not to penalize a defendant for alleged past unauthorized actions." Atmel Corp,, supra, at p. 7. 11. As in kaiser, supra, where the Court makes findings based on the evidence before it that the enjoined party will suffer no damages while the injunction remains in effect, it is appropriate for the Court to impose a nominal bond of $1. Id, at 643. WHEREFORE, defendant - appellant, Lawrence Stewart prays that this Court will (i) deny plaintiff' appellee's request that Stewart post a bond of $2,500; (ii) order that the stay of execution continue until further court order; and, (iii) grant such other and further relief as is just. Dated: August 31, 2001. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney at Lgw By. Thomas H. Stocker, 04116 44 Union Blvd., #435 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 Fax: 303- 989 -2825 Email: tom @thstocker.com StewarAPLD- Appeal\Reply Mot Stay - - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 31, 2001, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT - APPELLANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF - APPELLEE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT - APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION was served by depositing it in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Original to District Court Clerk First Judicial District 100 Jefferson County Pkwy. Golden, Colorado 80419 Copies to Carmen Berry (w /o the drawing in Ex. A that was previously provided to counsel) Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, CO 80202 Larry Stewart 9960 W. 35 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 v Stewart\PLD- Appeaffleply Mot Stay - - 24504 Norman Lane 19 Jeff Davis EnOneering, L.L.C. Evergreen, CO 804.39 Phone and Fax July 9, 2001 303 ®674 ®2224 TO: Darin Morgan O Codes Administrator V �r QS0 7500 West 29' Avenue �g ,- a Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 ��� s a Y. Q FROM: Jeff Davis, P.E. xi RE: 9960 W. 35' Ave. Larry Stewart Property This correspondence is to confirm that Larry Stewart, as per the approved grading plan of 3 -26- 01, has excavated and reshaped the existing driveway. Excess soil has been excavated and transported to the back yard and used to fill existing excavations. The backyard and driveway have now been restored to the pre - existing grade. Some handwork is still needed around existing shrubbery in the front yard. As per the drainage plan, a rock lined drainage swale has been constructed in the backyard to direct any excess surface runoff along the property line between the houses and into the city storm sewers. The existing driveway culvert ends have been uncovered and appear open. The city may wish to use a high pressure water nozzle to thoroughly clean the center portion of this culvert to remove any silt that may have settled in that location. Should you need further information please call. cc:/ Tom Stocker, Larry Stewart 1131T jUL c O 2001 TX V 1 ,xwti ABM. DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart ACourt Use Only1 Case No: 01 CV 1772 Division: 9 ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the request by plaintiff - appellee for the imposition of a bond on defendant - appellant in the amount of $2,500 for so long as the stay of execution remains in effect. The Court denies plaintiff - appellee's request. THE COURT finds that there is no evidence presently before it that plaintiff - appellee will suffer any damages if the stay of execution remains in effect. More specifically, the Court finds that there is no evidence before it that any public way or property will be damaged in any way pending the resolution of this case. Therefore, the Court finds that there is no justification for a $2,500 bond. THE COURT further finds that C.R.C.P. 65(c) requires a bond, but that the amount of the bond is within the Court's discretion. Under Kaiser v. Market Square Discount Liquors, Inc., 992 P.2d 636, 643 (Colo. App., 1999), a nominal bond is appropriate where, as here, the Court has found that the enjoined party will not suffer any damages during the stay. THEREFORE, THE COURT Orders that defendant - appellant shall post a nominal bond of $1 within 30 days of the date of this Order. Dated: BY THE COURT: District Court Judge .5 CERTIFICATE OF MA y ING DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, a copy of this docrument STATE OF COLORADO the counsel or parties 100 Jefferson County Parkway indicated at their last known address th e Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303-271-6215 day of _ J - -hT. 20 9 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Law Clerk. Division e Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart ALCourt Use OnlyA Case No: 01 CV 1772 Division: 9 �V *04$ - Mft 16 t IS ORDERED ORDER TO MAIL A COP{ OF THIS DOCUMENT TO ALL OTHER PARTIES OF RECORD OR THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the requesi p appelTee for the imposition of a bond on defendant - appellant in the amount of $2,500 for so long as the stay of execution remains in effect. The Court denies plaintiff- appeIlee's request. THE COURT finds that there is no evidence presently before it that plaintiff - appellee will suffer any damages if the stay of execution remains in effect. More specifically, the Court finds that there is no evidence before it that any public way or property will be damaged in any way pending the resolution of this case. Therefore, the Court finds that there is no justification for a $2,500 bond. THE COURT further finds that C.R.C.P. 65(c) requires a bond, but that the amount of the bond is within the Court's discretion. Under Kaiser v. Market Square Discount Liquors, Inc., 992 P.2d 636, 643 (Colo. App., 1999), a nominal bond is appropriate where, as here, the Court has found that the enjoined party will not suffer any damages during the stay. THEREFORE, THE COURT Orders that defendant - appellant shall post a nominal bond of $1 within days of the date of this Order. to Dated: Ee 1 fi, avol 17c �.r — covfc lcer eJ �ceror sett. BY THE COURT: ? ?(c) Ma (04). � f � ed to (4- ° i , 4 V le4,,.111 * t 1 4 d4ty: t? DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart ®Court Use Only® Thomas H. Stocker Ph: 303 - 988 -4205 Attorney at Law Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Case No: 01 CV 1772 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom @thstocker.com Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg. No. 14716 Division: 9 Attorney for Defendant - Appellant BOND FOR RESTRAINING ORDER Defendant - appellant, Lawrence Stewart, pursuant to Court Order dated September 11, 2001, hereby posts a nominal bond of one dollar and in support thereof states the following: 1. By Order dated July 19, 2001, this Court granted a restraining order against plaintiff - appellee, The City of Wheat Ridge, to remain in effect until further order of the Court. 2. By Order dated September 11, 2001, this Court entered an Order directing defendant - appellant to post a "nominal bond of $1" within ten days. 3. .Attached hereto is check no. 6340 in the amount of $1.00, drawn on the account of Thomas H. Stocker, P.C., attorney for defendant - appellant, which is hereby tendered to the Clerk of the Court as the required bond in this matter. Dated: September 17, 2001 I Respectfully submitted, THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney at w i By:� Thomas H. Stocker, #f4716 44 Union Blvd., #435 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Email: tom @thstocker.com Attached: Check no. 6340 payable to the Clerk of the Court in the amount of $1.00 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on September 17, 2001, a true and correct copy of the foregoing BOND FOR RESTRAINING ORDER was served by depositing it in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Original to District Court Clerk First Judicial District 100 Jefferson County Pkwy. Golden, Colorado 80419 Copies to Carmen Berry Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, CO 80202 Larry Stewart 9960 W. 35 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Stewart\PLD- Appeal\Bond I -2- WELLS FARGO THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C. COLORADO 44 UNION BLVD., SUITE 435 LAKEWOOD COLORAD 80228 6340 0 23- 7/1020 9/17/2001 303- 988 -4205 -- PAY TO THE ORDER OF Clerk of the Court $ *`1.00 ° One and 00 /1 00 * * * *. * * *. ** *** ** xx * *x * ** *xxx * *n* * ** * * * ** *****x * *** * x ** * * * > * *x* *x * * *x * * * *•x * * *x *** ** DOLLARS Clerk of the Court i First Judicial District / 8 100 Jefferson County Parkway - -.. Golden, CO 80419 _ MEMO AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE fW Defendant - appellant bond for case no. 01 CV 17'72 11'00634011' 1:1020000761:823014024611' 2 DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, COLORADO ?'D' SEA' 28 'Pi1 �,, 0 2 Court Address: 100 Jefferson County Pkwy., Golden, Colorado, 80401 ', a t_ ED rr��:, «u Coins Telephone: 303 - 271 -6215 JEEEI��SC: CQUPi IY CO. PlaintifflAppellee: THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a Colorado home rule municipality, Defendant/Appellant: LAWRENCE STEWART Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellee: Name: Carmen Beery ACOURT USE ONLY,& Gerald E. Dahl Address: Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 Case Number: OICV1772 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Division: Phone Number: (303) 376 -5000 Fax Number: (303) 376 -5001 E -mail: cbeerv(@Rorsuch.com gdahl6a),gorsuch.com Atty. Reg. #s: 32234 7766 PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT - APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR TRIAL DE NOVO Plaintiff - Appellee, the City of Wheat Ridge (hereinafter the "City"), by its undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Motion to Dismiss and Response to Defendant- Appellant's (hereinafter the "Defendant ") Motion for Trial de Novo, dated July 18, 2001. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. On November 27, 2000, the Defendant tendered to the Wheat Ridge Municipal Court (the "Municipal Court") two documents entitled "Entry of Guilty Plea and Waiver of Rights." These documents reflected the substance of plea bargain agreements between the Defendant and the City: one concerning City of Wheat Ridge Summons and Complaint Number CE00 -024 ( "Agreement CE00- 024 "), attached hereto as Exhibit A ; and one concerning City of Wheat Ridge Summons and Complaint Number CE00 -035 ( "Agreement CE00- 035 "), attached hereto as Exhibit B CNB\53027.2\388823.02 I 2. Defendant, by his signature on each Entry of Guilt Plea, represented: "I fully understand the nature and elements of the aforementioned charge, and I agree that there is a factual basis for my plea." "I fully understand that by pleading GUILTY to the charge, I waive the following rights: f. To appeal the decision of the Court to the District Court of Jefferson County." "By signing this form, I acknowledge I have read it and understand it completely." (Emphasis added.) 3. Defendant was represented and accompanied by counsel during these negotiations, as evidenced by counsel's signature on each Entry of Guilty Plea. 4. On November 27, 2000, the Municipal Court accepted each entry of guilty plea and waiver of rights, and entered a judgment of guilty against Defendant in each of the aforementioned cases. 5. As a condition of the plea bargain agreement reflected on Agreement CE00 -035, Defendant was to submit a grading plan "within 5 weeks," in early January of 2001. See, Exhibit B, Item 5. The Municipal Court set a compliance hearing for February 26, 2001. 6. The Municipal Court found the Defendant not in compliance at the February 26 hearing and set the matter over to April 4, 2001. 7. At the April 4 compliance hearing, Defendant moved for a continuance. The City did not oppose. 8. The next hearing, held on May 7, 2001, was set over to early June. 9. At the next hearing, June 4, 4001, Defendant again moved for a continuance. The City did not oppose. 10. At the hearing of June 18, 2001, the Municipal Court found Defendant not in compliance with either plea agreement. The Municipal Court found that Defendant did not grade the front yard, as required by Agreement CE00 -035, and that Defendant did not restore the back yard to its "original state," as required by Agreement CE00 -024. The Court gave Defendant until June 25, 2001, to bring his property into compliance. CNM53027.2\388823.02 - 2 3 11. On June 25, 2001, the Municipal Court found Defendant still not in compliance and granted the City permission to enter Defendant's property to "restore the property as near as possible, to it's [sic] original condition, including the sodding of the property to ensure that ground cover is established." See, Memorandum from Planning and Development reviewed and approved by the Hon. Judge Rose, attached hereto as Exhibit C . 12. On July 2, 2001, Defendant failed to appear for a hearing before the Municipal Court on these matters. 13. On July 9, 2001, Defendant moved the Municipal Court for reconsideration and a stay of execution. This motion was denied and the Municipal Court issued an Order that Defendant be in compliance by July 19, attached hereto as Exhibit D . This Order further authorized the City to enter Defendant's property on July 20 if he violates the Order. 14. On July 16, 2001, Defendant moved the Municipal Court to set a hearing and stay execution of the July 9 Order. This motion is denied on July 16. 15. On July 18, 2001, over seven and one -half months from the date Defendant entered guilty pleas on these matters, Defendant filed with this Court a Notice of Appeal, Designation of Record, and Motion for Trial de nova RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW Rule 237(b), Colorado Municipal Court Rules of Procedure. 2. Rule 37, Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 235(c), Colorado Municipal Court Rules of Procedure. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This appeal should dismissed, as this Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter. Defendant did not appeal to this Court within thirty days of entry of judgment or within thirty days of any valid post -trial motion. Even if this Court had jurisdiction, Defendant voluntarily waived his right to appeal to this Court. If this Court determines that it does have jurisdiction over this matter and that Defendant did not waive his right of appeal, Defendant's motion for trial de novo should be denied. Trial de novo is required only when an adequate record cannot be certified to the District Court. Every hearing, proceeding, motion and order concerning these matters was recorded by the Wheat Ridge Municipal Court and can be certified to this Court. CNM53027.2\388823.02 1. This Court lacks jurisdiction over Defendant's appeal because: A. Defendant's appeal was not entered within thirty days from entry of judgment; B. Defendant's appeal was not entered within thirty days of the denial of any valid post -trial motion; and C. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot waived or consented to when it does not exist. 2. Even if this Court had jurisdiction of this matter, Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right of appeal to this Court. 3. If this Court finds jurisdiction and no waiver, the issues properly raised may be resolved by review of the complete and adequate municipal court record; trial de novo is therefore inappropriate. 1. This court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Defendant may appeal judgment and sentence "within thirty days after the date of entry of the judgment or the denial of post -trial motions, whichever is later." Crim. Pro. Rule 37(a). Accordingly, in order for this court to have jurisdiction in the above - captioned matters, the date of appeal, July 18, 2001, must be either (1) thirty days from entry of judgment; or (2) thirty days from the denial of post -trial motions. A. Defendant's anneal was not entered within thirty days from entry of judgment Pursuant to Rule 232(b) of the Colorado Municipal Court Rules of Procedure, judgment consists of "a recital of the plea, the verdict or findings, the sentence, and costs if any are awarded against the defendant." On November 27, 2000, Defendant entered his plea of guilty, the Municipal Court entered the guilty verdicts, and Defendant was sentenced. Accordingly, under the plain and clear terms of Municipal Court Rule 232, judgment in these matters was entered on November 27, 2000. The several compliance hearings scheduled over the course of next eight months do not each constitute a separate final judgment from which Defendant may maintain an appeal pursuant to Crim. Pro. Rule 37(a). At these compliance hearings, Defendant did not enter a plea nor did the Municipal Court enter a verdict. Compliance hearings are held for the purpose of dete whether a defendant is in compliance with an order of a court to perform or refrain from performing certain acts in connection with a judgment and sentence that has already been entered. As such, these hearings do not, themselves, constitute entry of judgment. CNW3027.2\388823.02 4 . B. Defendant's appeal was not entered within thirty days the denial of any timely filed post -trial motion Defendant could nonetheless maintain an appeal to this Court if his appeal was entered within thirty days of the denial of a valid post -trial motion. Motions for post- conviction review in municipal court must be made "within six months after the date of conviction." (emphasis added). Municipal Court Rule 235(c). This generous post- conviction review window provides municipal court defendants (many of whom appear pro se) the opportunity to investigate their rights and to obtain the services of an attorney, if desired. As noted above, the date of conviction in these matters is November 27, 2000. Defendant's two motions for post- conviction review were filed with the Wheat Ridge Municipal Court on July 9, 2001, and July 16, 2001, respectively. Neither was filed within the six month review period provided by Rule 235(c). Common sense dictates that a defendant can not use a post -trial motion that was not filed within the proscribed review period as a springboard to appeal a judgment and sentence entered several months ago. This is obvious when one hypothesizes whether a defendant could maintain an appeal based on a motion to a municipal court filed eight years after judgment is entered. Whether eight years or eight months, a motion filed after the applicable review period is not a timely motion that can resurrect the review period that the defendant has let lapse. C. The City's failure to object on the record to Defendant's untimely July. 2001. motions and the Municipal Court's consideration of said motions does not operate as a waiver of this Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction concerns a court's authority to deal with a class of cases in which it may render judgment. A court has jurisdiction over the subject matter if the case is one of the type of cases that the court has been empowered to entertain by the sovereign from which the court derives its authority. This Court has been empowered by the Colorado Supreme Court to hear appeals from municipal court convictions filed within thirty days of final judgment or of the denial of post -trial motions. Municipal Court Rule 235(c). This Rule sets forth the scope of this Court's jurisdiction of municipal court appeals. As noted above, Defendant did not file this appeal within thirty days of final judgment or denial of any valid post -trial motion. Thus, under the plain terms of Municipal Court Rule 235(c), this Court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal. Defendant may contend that his untimely motion for post - conviction review can be the basis of appellate jurisdiction in this case because the City failed to object to the motions on the record and the Municipal Court ruled on the motions. This argument fails, however, when one reviews the basic principles of subject matter jurisdiction announced by Colorado courts: A party cannot consent to or waive jurisdiction when a court does not have jurisdiction. Peo ly e v. Torkelson 971 P.2d 660 (Colo.App. 1998). Nor can a court confer jurisdiction upon itself when it has none. See, Evans v. District Court 572 P.2d 811 (Colo. 1977). Thus, neither the City nor the Municipal Court could act in such a way as to consent to or waive this Court's jurisdiction when it has none. CNN\53027.2\388923.02 5 2. Even if this Court had jurisdiction of this matter, Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right of appeal to this Court Defendant's appeal in the above - captioned matter should be dismissed even if this Court determines that it has subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal to this Court on each Entry of Guilty Plea. Defendant acknowledged on Agreement CE00 -024 and Agreement CE00 -035 that he was waiving his right "to appeal the decision of the Court to the District Court of Jefferson County." See, Exhibits A and B, Line 41. Defendant further represented on each Agreement that he understood the agreement completely. See, Exhibits A and B, last (bold) line of Agreement. Further, Defendant was represented by legal counsel during the negotiations resulting in the Agreements, witnessed by counsel's signature on the line designated "Defense Attorney." All of this evidence points to a knowing, voluntary, intelligent and informed waiver of this right by Defendant. Accordingly, his appeal of the above - captioned matters should be dismissed. 3. If this court decides it has jurisdiction of this appeal the issues properly raised may be resolved by review of the municipal court record, de novo is therefore inappropriate. Trial de novo shall occur on appeal from the final judgment of a municipal court when an adequate record cannot be certified to the district court. Colo. Crim. Pro. Rule 37(g). The central allegation of Defendant's appeal is that the City has "changed the rules" regarding Agreement CE00 -024 and Agreement CE00 -035. Resolution of this allegation can be achieved by determining what "the rules" really are. To put it another way, the basic question at issue here is, to what did the parties really agree? This question can be answered by ex aminin g the Municipal Court's records of the above - captioned matters. The Wheat Ridge Municipal Court is a court of record. Both plea agreements Defendant entered into on November 27, 2000 are (i) in writing, and (ii) on the record of the Court's proceedings of that date. Every subsequent hearing and judicial finding regarding these two plea agreements is on the record; specifically, in the records of Wheat Ridge Municipal Court dated (all 2001): February 26, April 4, May 7, June 4, June 18, June 25, July 2, July 9, and July 16. The records of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Court proceedings on these dates together with all written orders of that court constitute an adequate record to evaluate Defendant's claim that the requirements imposed upon him are "onerous and unconscionable" as outside the scope of Agreement CE00 -024 and Agreement CE00 -035. Any allegation that the City or the Municipal Court has imposed conditions on Defendant that are inconsistent with the agreements or with the representations of the Defendant or of the City can be answered by examining the record. CNNM53027.2\38882102 6 WHEREFORE, the City respectfully requests this Court dismiss Defendant's appeal on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction; or, in the alternative, deny Defendant's motion for trial de novo. Respectfully submitted this 28` day of September, 2001. GORSUCH KIRGIS, LLP ATTORNEYS FOR CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Address of Plaintiff- Appellee: 7500 W. 29` Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 -5900 QgTnenl3eepy, # Gerald E. Dahl, # CI 7 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING �'[l3 The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 28' day of September, 2001, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff - Appellee's motion to dismiss and response to Defendant - Appellant's motion for trial de novo was forwarded by First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas H. Stocker Attorney at Law 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 Lakewood, CO 80228 CNB\53027.2)388823.02 i l i 4 MUNICIPAL COURT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Summons No. > /_`riYiw__ ffli EINTRY OF GUILTY PLEA AND WAIVER ORRIGHTS CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, VS. / /� / / /G� e- .Siiwlk�p Defendant. I, the Defendant in the above- captioned case, do hereby tender to the court a plea of GUILTY to the original charge of 33d,3, 3 - 3-3o(, / or a plea of GUILTY to the amended charge of and further state as follows: 1. No threats or promises as to sentence or any other matter have been made to me to induce a plea of GUILTY, and my plea is voluntary and not a result of undue influence or coercion on the part of anyone. 2. I fully understand the nature and elements of the aforementioned charge and I agree that there is a factual basis for my plea. 3. If the Court accepts my GUILTY plea, I will be subject to a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 and/or a jail sentence not to exceed one year in the Jefferson County jail for each count. 4. I fully understand that by pleading GUILTY to the charge, I waive the following rights: a. To a trial either by court or to a jury b. To confront and cross- examine witnesses against me, c. To subpoena witnesses on my own behalf. d. To be represented by an attorney, e. To testify on my own behalf, and f. To appeal the decision of the Court to the District Court of Jefferson County. 5. 6 r,4 ter. 4 /._: gqz�„ -. 1., J. J „ __ - „ AV-, . ,1 UVefsk0cTffig all of the alS6ve matte4,/I do hereby plead GUILTY to the aforeme o d c hh a / ge , /� y (tJ d� 7 /! i IDS��/n 00 �1/t /n C�CrD—�L7J�� Co.iJ� (fT �Cnc . By signi his orm, I cknowledge I have read it and understand it co pletel . /J Defend t Date / Parent/Legal Guardian Date l( &ate C Qo -*Tf7 Defense Attorney Re commended by: City Attorney Date GUILTY PLEA ACCEPTED BY THE COURT: Jl I I 47 /Grp REVISED: 093098 Municipal Judge Date MUNICIPAL COURT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Summons No. CG?63> _ENTRY OF GUILTY PLEA AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, vs. Defendant I, the Defendant in the above - captioned case, do hereby tender to the court a plea of GUILTY to the original charge of _� 33 /B) /a l ? / - / //w ,-- 4�� r /c = >a �.��� , or a plea of GUILTY to the amended charge of and further state as follows: I. No threats or promises as to sentence or any othdr matter have been made to me to induce a plea of GUILTY, and my plea is voluntary and not a result of undue influence or coercion on the part of anyone. 2. I fully understand the nature and elements of the aforementioned charge, and I agree that there is a factual basis for my plea. 3. If the Court accepts my GUILTY plea, I will be subject to a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 and/or a jail sentence not to exceed one year in the Jefferson County jail for each count. 4. I fully understand that by pleading GUILTY to the charge, I waive the following rights: a. To a trial either by court or to a jury b. To confront and cross - examine witnesses against me, c. To subpoena witnesses on my own behalf. d. To be represented by an attorney, e. To testify on my own behalf, and f. To appeal the decision of the Court to the Di ict Court of Jefferson County. $. ( �,c4 - /A ""/- ¢ /cw'n L_.I /,-n _. /. J.. /,n r- /a4 / .I I /. Co SN/JAI G� - ,4.-, charge. C-4 "i'// By signin-, all of the abo e ma ters, do hereby ple d GUILTY to the aforementioned I _J ` -.� <z'u Y,� {G13p fl'Q A � �.:1 /.✓ l -c'Z „Q orm, I have read it and understand it corm ira letely. J/f Z DO f fidant Date Parent/Legal Guardian Date 71� Defense Attorney Date Recommended by: 9 1.l nil,,., � I Date GUILTY PLEA ACCEPTED BY THE COURT: �/ /( la7& I�icipal Judge Date REVISED: 093098 City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum co o OR TO: MEMO TO FILE FROM: CINDY HAGERMAN SUBJECT: 9960 WEST 35 AVENUE DATE: JUNE 25, 2001 JUNE 25. 2001 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEER MIKE GARCIA AND I WENT TO DEFENDANT LARRY STEWART'S RESIDENCE AT 9960 WEST 35 AVENUE TO DETERMINE THE STATUS OF HIS PROPERTY. WE FOUND THAT, ASIDE FROM RELOCATING A PILE OF DIRT FROM THE FRONT YARD TO THE REAR YARD, NO CHANGES HAD BEEN MADE TO RESTORE THE PROPERTY TO IT'S ORIGINAL CONDITION. ON JUNE 18, 2001, JUDGE ROSE HAD TOLD STEWART THAT HE HAD UNTIL TODAY, JUNE 25 IN WHICH TO RESTORE HIS PROPERTY TO IT'S ORIGINAL CONDITION. JUDGE ROSE STATED THAT AT THAT TIME THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE COULD ARRANGE FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE CONDITION THAT IT HAD BEEN, PRIOR TO THE HOLE, FOR THE UNAPPROVED GARAGE, BEING DUG. THERE ARE NINE CARS PARKED IN THE REAR YARD, ON THE DIRT. THEY WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE REAR YARD IN ORDER FOR THE RESTORATION TO BEGIN. AT STEWART'S COMPLIANCE HEARING TODAY I RECOMMEND THAT JUDGE ROSE: 1) GRANT CITY ENGINEERS AND ANY CONTRACTORS THAT ARE HIRED VIA THE CITY TO ENTER STEWART'S PROPERTY AT ANY TIME, DURING NORMAL WORKING HOURS (MONDAY - SATURDAY, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM) UNTIL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. 2) STEWART MUST HAVE ALL OF THE VEHICLES THAT ARE PARKED IN HIS REAR AND FRONT YARDS REMOVED, SO THAT THE RESTORATION MAY BEGIN. THE DATE THAT THE CARS ARE TO BE REMOVED SHALL NOT BE LATER THAN JUNE 29, 2001. IF, AT THAT TIME, CARS REMAIN IN AREAS THAT RESTRICT THE RESTORATION, THE CITY MAY TOW SUCH VEHICLES TO THE CITY LOT. 3) THE CITY, ALONG WITH COLORADO LANDSCAPE SOLUTIONS WILL UTILIZE THE CITY APPROVED PLANS, AND RESTORE THE PROPERTY AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE, TO IT'S ORIGINAL CONDITION, INCLUDING THE SODDING OF THE PROPERTY TO ENSURE THAT GROUND COVER IS ESTABLISHED. ESTABLISHED GROUND COVER WILL ASSIST IN CONTROLLING EROSION. LAWRENCE STEWART WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ALL CHARGES, WHETHER THEY APPLY TO TOWING, CONTRACT WORK, RESTORATION, OR ADMINISTRATION FEES, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF BILLING. vuffoe') t _ 19. 2001 10:62nM 4 )]ON STE 1 303 989 2326 40.4363 P• 12 _ Tn _ea�e ��u ee7 RECEIVED WHEAT RIDGE Mi inn I ? � COURT P•ECEIVEEp JUL 1 2001 — WI` IpATRB7UE ^ OURT J UL 0 9 21101 MUNI COURT, CITY 01: WHEAT R IOGE, ST ATE Of: COLORA Casa Nos. 0E00 -2, 23.24 and 35 ORDER THE PEOPLE OF THE 017Y OF WHEAT MIDGE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STA'T'E OF COLORADO, Plalntfif, id i V. JUL 14 20M LAWRENCE STEWART, T14.!1 ' k7T Defendant. THIS MATTER comas bofore the Court +pn thq Moti of dofondant. Stewart, for reconsideratlon and for a stay of execution; and, THE COURT having read the Motion and being fully appraisad In the HEREBY ORDERS as follows: II ,the City Is prohibited from antertng upon defendenra property for the purposes #, „ the j^ f+�in� seb aliowIrm QTtyto 4 qwrupon d a9 knrs Rtgsrty) c. The hearing �cnity set for July f S; 2001, e mff ba //7 Grp) /ryVcr- 1 Cri9 lq�rl DATED; _g+ c�d�i tt°so ?�/ : a�3?U37 uls� f �/9�0% or ebx C- BY THE COURT: ' , E XHI B IT M U klp Court Judge L 'Received Time Jul•10. 9 %8G 696 CH SE8 !118 NOINII 11 mtk;l 10 47o ` �a9R of d 6y �9 DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart 6Court Use OnlyAL Thomas H. Stocker Ph: 303 - 988 -4205 Attorney at Law Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Case No: 01 CV 1772 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom @thstocker.com Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg. No. 14716 Division: 9 Attorney for Defendant - Appellant UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT - APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR TRIAL DE NOVO Defendant - appellant, Lawrence Stewart, through counsel, prays for a enlargement of time to October 26, 2001, in which to Respond to plaintiff- appellee's Motion to Dismiss and to Reply to plaintiff- appellee's Response to defendant - appellant's Motion for Trial De Novo ( "plaintiff - appellee's pleading "), and as grounds therefore states as follows: 1. Undersigned counsel has conferred with counsel for plaintiff- appellee and is authorized to state to the Court that plaintiff - appellee has no objection to the requested enlargement of time. 2. Undersigned counsel will be out -of -town on vacation from October 7 through October 15, 2001, and is expected to return to his office on October 16, 2001. He then has a day long trial set for October 18, 2001, and, of course, all of the other matters that have backlogged while on vacation. Therefore, counsel will not be able to turn his attention to plaintiff- appellee's_pleading. until the week of October 22, 2001. J 3. No prejudice will result to either party if the requested enlargement of time is granted. WHEREFORE, defendant - appellant prays that this Court will allow him until October 26, 2001, in which to file his Response to plaintiff - appellee's Motion to Dismiss and Reply to plaintiff- appellee's Response to defendant - appellant's Motion for Trial De Novo. Dated: October 6, 2001 Respectfully submitted, THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney at Law y: , L` Thomas H. Stocker, #14716 44 Union Blvd., #435 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 Fax: 303-989-2825 Email: tom@thstocker.com Stewad \PLD- AppeaWof Time Ex[ 001 -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on October 6, 2001, a true and correct copy of the foregoing UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF - APPELLEES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT - APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR TRIAL DE NOVO was served by depositing it in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Original to District Court Clerk First Judicial District 100 Jefferson County Pkwy. Golden, Colorado 80419 Copies to Carmen Berry Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, CO 80202 Larry Stewart 9960 W. 35"' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 — Stewart\PLD- AppealWot Time EM 001 -3- DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart ACourt Use OnlyA, Case No: 01 CV 1772 Division: 9 ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on defendant - appellant's uncontested motion for an enlargement of time; and, THE COURT, having read the motion and being fully appraised in the premises, grants the motion; and, HEREBY ORDERS that defendant - appellant shall have to October 26, 2001, in which to file his Response to plaintiff- appellee's Motion to Dismiss and Reply to plaintiff - appellee's Response to defendant - appellant's Motion for Trial De Novo. Dated: BY THE COURT: District Court Judge �20 DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart OCourt Use OniyA Thomas H. Stocker Ph: 303 - 988 -4205 Attorney at Law Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Case No: 01 CV 1772 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom @thstocker.com Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg. No. 14716 Division: 9 Attorney for Defendant - Appellant UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT - APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR TRIAL DE NOVO Defendant- appellant, Lawrence Stewart, through counsel, prays for an additional enlargement of time to November 9, 2001, in which to Respond to plaintiff - appellee's Motion to Dismiss and to Reply to plaintiff - appellee's Response to defendant - appellant's Motion for Trial De Novo ( "plaintiff - appellee's pleading "), and as grounds therefore states as follows: 1. Duty to Confer Undersigned counsel has conferred with counsel for plaintiff- appellee and is authorized to state to the Court that plaintiff- appellee has no objection, under the circumstances, to the requested enlargement of time. Undersigned counsel has also conferred with defendant - appellant and is authorized to state to the Court that defendant - appellant has no objection, under the circumstances, to the requested enlargement of time. 2. Father's Death On October 22, 2001, undersigned counsel's father, age 85, died of a heart attack while visiting a daughter in Phoenix. His body is being transported to his home town of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The funeral is scheduled for October 29, 2001. He will be at the Wolf Funeral Home, 3604 Greensburg Pike, Forest Hills, PA (phone: 412 - 731 - 5001). Undersigned counsel and his family will be traveling to Pittsburgh on the 25 or 26 and with a planned return on the 30 and a planned return to the office on October 31, 2001. 3. No Prejudice No prejudice will result to either party if the requested additional enlargement of time is granted. WHEREFORE, defendant - appellant prays that this Court will, under these unexpected circumstances, allow him until November 9, 2001, in which to file his Response to plaintiff- appellee's Motion to Dismiss and Reply to plaintiff- appellee's Response to defendant - appellant's Motion for Trial De Novo. Dated: October 24, 2001. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney a�+aw By. i 1G ' � f Thomas H. Stocker, #14716 J 44 Union Blvd., #435 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 Fax: 303- 989 -2825 Email: tom @thstocker.com StewarAPLD- AppealWut Time EM 002 -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on October 24, 2001, a true and correct copy of the foregoing UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT - APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR TRIAL DE NOVO was served by depositing it in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Original to District Court Clerk First Judicial District 100 Jefferson County Pkwy. Golden, Colorado 80419 Copies to Carmen Berry Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, CO 80202 Larry Stewart 9960 W. 35 Avenue �. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 J Stewart\PLD- AppealWlot Time Ext 002 -3- 1 -/ DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, t ndica st w` t�� � last STATE OF COLORADO known address this 100 Jefferson County Parkway day of « � - 2 Golden, CO 50401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 , 2 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City Law Clerk - Division 9 of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart Court Use OnlyAk Case No: 01 CV 1772 Division: 9 ORDER 2 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on defendant - appellant's uncontested motion for an additional enlargement of time necessitated by the death of the father of Counsel for defendant- and, THE COURT, having read the motion and being fully appraised in the premises, grants the motion; and, HEREBY ORDERS that defendant - appellant shall have to November 9, 2001, in which to file his Response to plaintiff - appellee's Motion to Dismiss and Reply to plaintiff - appellee's Response to defendant - appellant's Motion for Trial De Novo. Dated: ffoJw.4v x )00) BY THE COURT: MOVING PARTY IS ORDERED / TO MAIL A COPY OF THIS �I PA OF RECORD OR OTHER THEIR COUNSEL WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIPT. Pik" °'�O w 0 b Y�el�l w:• / aI U LAA . )ist ict. Court Judge ` Sack W. Derr COPY SENT - 0: G �_ CERTIFICATE OF MAMMG I certify that I have mailed SL ennv o f i- t to movqg file Y® �Cil: �OGKFF DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart ACourt Use OnlyA Thomas H. Stocker Ph: 303 - 988 -4205 Attorney at Law Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Case No: 01 CV 1772 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom@thstocker.com Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg. No. 14716 Division: 9 Attorney for Defendant - Appellant DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S: (I) RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS and (ii) REPLY TO PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT - APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR TRIAL DE NOVO Defendant- Appellant, Lawrence Stewart ( "Stewart "), through counsel, responds to the motion of plaintiff - appellee, City of Wheat Ridge ( "the City") for dismissal, and replies to the City's response to Stewart's motion for a trial de novo. The City's Motion is referred to as the "Motion" or the "City's Motion ". RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS Legal Standards for Motion to Dismiss Without citing authority, the City seeks dismissal of Stewart's appeal, presumably under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction) and 12(b)(5) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). The City presents matters (Exhibits A and B to the City's Motion) that are outside the scope of the pleadings. To the extent such matters are considered, the City's Motion should be considered a motion under Rule 56 for summary judgment. To the extent that the City's Motion is viewed as falling under C.R.C.P. 12, then all facts in the complaint must be viewed as true and favorable to the complainant, and if there is any possible theory of relief, then the complaint should not be dismissed. Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc., 829 P.2d 1286, 1290 (Colo. 1992). To the extent the City's Motion is viewed as a motion for summary judgment (because of matters presented outside of the pleadings), then all doubts as to whether any genuine issue of material fact exists must be resolved against the City and if there are any genuine issues of material fact, then the City's Motion must be denied. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Savio, 706 P.2d 1258, 1276 (Colo. 1985). Factual Setting It is undisputed that pursuant to plea agreements, Stewart entered his guilty pleas on November 27, 2000. It is undisputed that Stewart filed his Notice of Appeal on July 18, 2001, well after 30 days after the entry of the guilty pleas. It is also undisputed that between November 27, 2000 and July 18, 2001, the Municipal Court held a series of compliance hearings. StewartlPLD- AppealtRes Mot Dis & Reply Mot T D Novo -2- Stewart proffers that throughout these hearings the City continued to "up the ante" by continuing to expand the requirements it sought to impose on Stewart for the grading and maintenance of his residential property. The most blatant example of this is set forth in the City's Memorandum dated June 25, 2001, from Cindy Hagerman to the File, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (copies are also attached to Stewart's Notice of Appeal and to the City's Motion). This Memo was approved by the Municipal Court on June 25, 2001, making it a court order.' This Memo imposes much greater burdens on Stewart than he ever agreed to in any plea bargain. For example, it requires removal of licensed operable cars and sodding, and grants the City access to the property and use of a City designated contractor. Stewart never agreed to any of this, nor is any of it part of any prior City approved plan or plea bargain. The Court's approval of this Memorandum modifies its earlier "judgments" based on the plea bargains. Another hearing was held on July 2, 2001. Stewart did not appear because Cindy Hagerman, the City employee who wrote the Memorandum being used against Stewart, told him not to be present. See ¶ 6 of Exhibit B attached. Stewart's counsel was also not present because Stewart's counsel was never notified of this hearing, nor of another hearing that was apparently held on July 16, 2001. Despite the City's continued attempts to force Stewart to do more than he ever bargained for, or more than was originally ordered, Stewart did comply with the City's ' Stewart's counsel was not present and was not notified of this hearing. Counsel for Stewart had previously filed a Motion to Withdraw. Although the Municipal Court excused counsel from attending the compliance hearing held on June 4, 2001, the Municipal Court never ruled on the Motion to Withdraw. Nonetheless, additional hearings were set without notification to Stewart's counsel. Counsel for the City knew, or should have known, that Stewart continued to be represented by counsel, however, neither she nor the court made any effort to contact Stewart's counsel at any time regarding these additional hearings. Stewart\PAD- AppeahRes Mot Dis & Reply Mot T D Novo -3- J } original requirements. He hired a licensed engineer to prepare a grading plan that conformed to all of the City's requirements. This plan was reviewed, revised, and ultimately approved by the City. After the City's approval, Stewart complied with the plan, and the engineer certified such compliance in writing to the City. A copy of the engineer's letter is attached as Exhibit C. However, Stewart subsequently learned that compliance with this City approved engineering plan was not enough to satisfy the City's "new" requirements that are set forth in Hagerman's June 25, 2001, Memorandum. Upon learning that the City had obtained a Municipal Court Order directing it to enter upon Stewart's property to take the actions set forth in Hagerman's Memorandum, Stewart, through counsel, promptly filed with the Municipal Court a Verified Motion to Reconsider and Verified Motion for Stay of Execution dated July 9, 2001. Copy attached as Exhibit B. The Motion to Reconsider was denied but the Verified Motion for Stay of Execution was temporarily granted. Exhibit D attached. Stewart then filed a Motion to Set for Hearing and Motion for Stay of execution Pending Hearing dated July 10, 2001. Exhibit E attached. This Motion was denied by the Municipal Court. Exhibit F attached. Subject Matter Jurisdiction The City argues that the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Stewart's Notice of Appeal was filed outside of the 30 days provided for in C.R.Crim. P. 37(a) and outside of the 6 months provided for in C.M.C.R. 235(c). For the reasons set forth below, the City's arguments fail. StewarITLD- Appeal \Res Mot Dis & Reply Mot T D Novo -4- Rules for Filing an Appeal The burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction rests with the proponent, here Stewart. Delk v. City of Grand Junction, 958 P.2d 532, 533 (Colo. App. 1998). The Municipal Court of the City of Wheat Ridge is a "qualified municipal court of record." C.R.S. § 13 -10- 102(3). Appeals may be taken under Colorado Municipal Court Rules ( "C.M.C.R. ") 237(b). This rule specifies that appeals may be taken according to Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure ( "C.R.Crim.P. ") 37. C.R.C.P. § 13 -10- 116(2) provides that "appeals from judgments of a qualified municipal court of record shall be made to the district court of the county in which the qualified municipal court of record is located." C.R.Crim.P. 37(a) states that such appeals must be filed "within thirty days after the date of entry of the judgment or the denial of posttrial motions, whichever is later...." (Emphasis added.) Stewart Appeals Actions Occurring After Entry of the Pleas After Stewart entered his guilty pleas pursuant to plea bargains, the City continued to up the ante and impose additional requirements on Stewart. By Motions submitted on July 9 th and 10 2001, Stewart asked the Municipal Court to review these actions, some of which were taken ex parte when Stewart and his counsel were not present. The Municipal Court denied these motions. Stewart is not appealing his original plea bargains because he maintains that he has complied with them. He is appealing the actions of the City and the Municipal Court that occurred in the months afterthe plea bargains. In these actions, the City did not comply with the plea bargains. This is clear from the advisory listing of issues set forth in ¶ 13 of Stewart's Notice of Appeal. This paragraph (with typographical errors in the original corrected) is reproduced in Exhibit G attached. StewarITLD- AppeaPRes Mot Dis & Reply Mot T D Novo -5- Thus, Stewart Has Shown Good Cause for Filing After the Six Month Limit C.R.M.P. 235(c) allows an appeal to be filed within six months "after the date of conviction unless the applicant can show good cause for the delay." Here, analogous to a C.R.C.P. 59 motion to reconsider, Stewart filed his appeal only after the City continued to change the ground rules and only after he had exhausted all of his options before the Municipal Court. The instant situation is analogous to the tolling of a statute of limitations where the cause of action does not accrue until "both the injury and its cause are known." C.R.S. § 13 -80 -108. Here, the injury was not known, and could not have been known, until the City imposed more severe restrictions, in particular through the Hagerman Memorandum dated June 25, 2001, that was made an Order of the Municipal Court. This effectively became a revised judgment of the Court. This occurred some seven months after the entry of the guilty pleas. Stewart could not have earlier appealed this "new" judgment of the Municipal Court because the "new" judgment was not entered until June 25, 2001. Thus, Stewart has shown "good cause" for filing his appeal beyond the six months provided for in C.R.M.P. 235(c). The City claims its argument is based on "common sense" (Motion, p. 5), but the City cites no authority for this proposition, and cites no authority supporting its position that Stewart's July 91h and 10 Motions are not legitimate posttrial motions under C.R.Crim.P. 37(a). Stewart Also Bases His Appeal on C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) If the City's logic is to be believed, then Stewart has no remedy after the entry of his guilty pleas and the running of the 30 day and 6 month time limits. This in nonsense. Stewart alleges, among other things, that the Municipal Court has abused its discretion, that his Constitutional rights protecting him from an unjust taking have been violated, and that ex parte communications between the City and the Municipal Court have occurred, and that the City has over reached and made arbitrary and StewarttPLD- Appeal \Res Mot Dis & Reply Mot T D Novo -6- capricious decisions. Notice of Appeal, ¶ 13. Under these circumstances, Stewart's appeal comes within the provisions of C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), and Stewart hereby amends his Notice of Appeal accordingly. Without the District Court's review of these matters, Stewart has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy; in fact, he has no remedy. C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). Stewart Did Not Waive His Rights to Appeal Actions Occurring After Entry of Pleas The City argues that by signing the guilty pleas pursuant to plea bargains Stewart knowingly waived his rights to appeal. On the contrary, the express language of the Entry of Guilty Plea and Waiver of Rights defeats the City's argument. Paragraph 4 and 4.f. of the Entry of Guilty Plea and Waiver of Rights states: "I waive the following rights ... to appeal the decision of the Court to the District Court of Jefferson County." Emphasis added. The "decision of the Court" can only mean its acceptance of the guilty plea, not any increasingly onerous conditions that are added, at the instance of the City, months later. Stewart could not have made a knowing waiver of something that had not yet happened. Therefore, Stewart did not waive his rights to file this appeal. The City cites People v, Torkelson, 971 P.2d 660 (Colo. App. 1998) and Evans v, District Court In and For Arapahoe County, 572 P.2d 811 (Colo. 1977) for the propositions that a party cannot consent to or waive jurisdiction when a court does not have jurisdiction, nor can a court confer jurisdiction upon itself when it has none. Motion, p. 5. The City misses the point. Whether the City did or did not object to Stewart's two Motions for Reconsideration filed on July 9 and 10, 2001, is irrelevant to the issue of jurisdiction. Stewart\PLD- Appeal\Res Mot Dis & Reply Mot T D Novo -7- For the reasons stated above, this District Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal and the City's Motion to dismiss should be denied. REPLY TO PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT- APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR TRIAL DE NOVO Th City argues that because an adequate record can be certified to the District Court, Stewart is not entitled to a trial de novo. Motion, p. 6. A "trial de novo is not an entirely new trial, but is, instead, a continuation of the original trial in the form of an appeal." Rainwater v. County Court In and For Fremont County, 604 P.2d 1195, 1197 (Colo. App. 1979). The City agrees that one of the principal issues in this appeal is whether the City "changed the rules" subsequent to the entry of the plea agreements. Motion, p. 6. Presumably, the hearings held in this matter are on record and transcripts can be obtained. However, much of what of what is at issue in this appeal was discussed and decided between Stewart and the City in Wheat Ridge Municipal Center hallways and offices outside of the courtroom. Records of these meetings and conversations reside in notes and memories and can only be elicited by human testimony. Stewart's allegation that City employee Cindy Hagerman instructed him not to attend the July 2, 2001, hearing is a factual dispute that cannot be resolved from the official record. A few days earlier, Hagerman had obtained a Court Order allowing the City to enter Stewart's property and granting the City carte blanche thereon. Stewart's failure to appear, at Hagerman's direction, may have prejudiced the Municipal Court against Stewart. Stewart has requested a trial de novo because only through a trial de novo can his complaints be heard by the District Court sitting as an appellate court and only in this manner can Mr. Stewart's constitutional rights be protected. Stewart\PLD- AppealVRes Mot Dis & Reply Mot T D Novo -8- WHEREFORE, defendant - appellant, Lawrence Stewart, prays that plaintiff - appellee, the Motion to Dismiss filed by the City of Wheat Ridge be denied, that Stewart be granted the trial de novo he has requested and is entitled to, and that Stewart be granted such other and further relief as is just and proper. Dated: November 8, 2001 Respectfully submitted, THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney at Law_ e ez'oo By: r� ," t ,) Thomas" ET. Stocker, #14716 44 Union Blvd., #435 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303- 988 - 4205 _ Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Email: tom @thstocker.com Stewart\PLD- AppeaJ\Res Mot Dis &&plyQ qt t DNovo "" �- 9 - Exhibits Attached A — Memorandum from Cindy Hagerman to File dated June 25, 2001 and signed by the Municipal Court Judge as a Court Order on June 25, 2001 B — Verified Motion to Reconsider and Verified Motion for Stay of Execution dated July 9, 2001 C — Letter from Jeff Davis Engineering to Darin Morgan of the City of Wheat Ridge dated July 9, 2001 (previously submitted along with the plan as Exhibits B and C to Defendant - appellant's Reply to Plaintiff - appellee's Response to Defendant - appellant's Motion for Stay of Execution ) D — Municipal Court Order dated July 9, 2001 E — Motion to Set for Hearing and Motion for Stay of Execution Pending Hearing dated July 10, 2001 F — Municipal Court Order dated July 16, 2001 G Paragraph 13 from Notice of Appeal dated July 18, 2001, setting forth an advisory listing of issues presented StewarAPLD- Appeal \Res Mot Dis & Reply Mot T D Novo _10- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on November 8, 2001, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT - APPELLANT'S: (i) RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF - APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS and (ii) REPLY TO PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT - APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR TRIAL DE NOVO was served by depositing it in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Original to District Court Clerk First Judicial District 100 Jefferson County Pkwy. Golden, Colorado .80419 Copies to Carmen Beery Gorsuch Kirgis, LLP 1515 Arapahoe St., T -1, # 1000 Denver, CO 80202 Larry Stewart 9960 W. 35 ' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Stewarl \PLD- Appeal \Res Mot Dis & Reply Mot T D Novo - 11 - City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum JUNE 25, 2001 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEER MIKE GARCIA AND I WENT TO DEFENDANT LARRY STEWART'S RESIDENCE AT 9960 WEST 35 AVENUE TO DETERMINE THE STATUS OF HIS PROPERTY. WE FOUND THAT, ASIDE FROM RELOCATING A PILE OF DIRT FROM THE FRONT YARD TO THE REAR YARD, NO CHANGES HAD BEEN MADE TO RESTORE THE PROPERTY TO PIS ORIGINAL CONDITION. ON JUNE 18, 2001, JUDGE ROSE HAD TOLD STEWART THAT HE HAD UNTIL TODAY, JUNE 25 IN WHICH TO RESTORE HIS PROPERTY TO IT'S ORIGINAL CONDITION. JUDGE ROSE STATED THAT AT THAT TIME THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE COULD ARRANGE FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE CONDITION THAT IT HAD BEEN, PRIOR TO THE HOLE, FOR THE UNAPPROVED GARAGE, BEING DUG. THERE ARE NINE CARS PARKED IN THE REAR YARD, ON THE DIRT. THEY WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE REAR YARD IN ORDER FOR THE RESTORATION TO BEGIN. AT STEWART'S COMPLIANCE HEARING TODAY, I RECOMMEND THAT JUDGE ROSE: 1) GRANT CITY ENGINEERS AND ANY CONTRACTORS THAT ARE HIRED VIA THE CITY TO ENTER STEWART'S PROPERTY AT ANY TIME, DURING NORMAL WORKING HOURS (MONDAY- SATURDAY, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM) UNTIL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. 2) STEWART MUST HAVE ALL OF THE VEHICLES THAT ARE PARKED IN HIS REAR AND FRONT YARDS REMOVED, SO THAT THE RESTORATION MAY BEGIN. THE DATE THAT THE CARS ARE TO BE REMOVED SHALL NOT BE LATER THAN JUNE 29,200 1. IF, AT THAT TIME, CALLS REMAIN IN AREAS THAT RESTRICT THE RESTORATION, THE CITY MAY TOW SUCH VEHICLES TO THE CITY LOT. 3) THE CITY, ALONG WITH COLORADO LANDSCAPE SOLUTIONS WILL UTILIZE THE CITY APPROVED PLANS, AND RESTORE THE PROPERTY AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE, TO IT'S ORIGINAL CONDITION, INCLUDING THE SODDING OF THE PROPERTY TO ENSURE THAT GROUND COVER IS ESTABLISHED. ESTABLISHED GROUND COVER WILL ASSIST IN CONTROLLING EROSION. LAWRENCE STEWART WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ALL CHARGES, WHETHER THEY APPLY TO TOWING, CONTRACT WORK, RESTORATION, OR ADMINISTRATION FEES, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF BILLING. MUNICIPAL COURT, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, STATE OF COLORADO Case Nos. CE00 -24 and 35 VERIFIED MOTION TO RECONSIDER and VERIFIED MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF ORDER ALLOWING THE CITY TO ENTER DEFENDANT'S PROPERTY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, M LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. Defendant, Lawrence Stewart, through counsel, prays that this Court will reconsider its Order allowing the City to enter his property and further prays that the Court will stay such Order until a hearing can be held regarding same. In support thereof, defendant states as follows: 1. Counsel has spoken with the City Attorney, Caroline Penaloza, regarding this matter, and appraised her of the need for a stay of execution until the matters raised below can be sorted out in a court hearing with all parties in attendance. 2. Counsel had previously filed a Motion to Withdraw; however counsel has never received any Order from the Court permitting such withdrawal, and therefore believes that he remains counsel of record for defendant. At the request of defendant, counsel hereby withdraws his Motion to Withdraw. 3. Counsel did, however, receive a court order directing him not to appear at a hearing set for June 4, 2001, and counsel did not appear at such hearing. Counsel was never notified of any subsequent hearings nor was counsel consulted as to any proposed dates of any subsequent hearings. EXHI PAGE 4. At the June 4 " hearing, defendant was granted additional time in which to submit the engineer's certification that he had made the improvements required by the engineer that had been approved by the City. The engineer's certification has now been obtained and the engineer, Jeff Davis, notified Cindy Hagerman, of the City's code enforcement department, on July 9th, that defendant's property IS in compliance with the engineer's design (that was previously approved by the City). 5. At the June 4 " hearing, the Court also set a hearing for July 2, 2001. Defendant was aware of the July 2n hearing. 6. On or about June 26 City employee Cindy Hagerman stopped in front of defendant's property and directed defendant NOT to appear at the July 2, 2001.' Therefore, defendant did not appear at the July 2, 2001, hearing. ® 7. The Court has never issued any Order directing Counsel to withdraw from this case, and therefore Counsel remains Counsel of Record for defendant. However, Counsel has not received any documents or Orders issued since May 30, 2001. 8. On July 9, 2001, defendant received a telephone message from Cindy Hagerman, informing defendant that the City was going to enter his property on July 10' for the purposes of placing sod and making other changes to defendant's property. 9. Such actions, if the City takes them, were never part of any agreement reached with the City, or any prior requirements made by the City on defendant. The City will also attempt to recover from defendant the costs of such actions which could be many thousands of dollars. 10. The City has, and continues to, violate defendant's constitutionally protected rights of due process and rights to be free from illegal taking. WHEREFORE, defendant, through undersigned Counsel, prays for the following relief: a. That the Court issue its Order prohibiting the City,from entering upon defendant's property, pending further hearing and Court Order; 'At some point, a hearing was set without Counsel's knowledge for July 16, 2001. Counsel has a trip to Pocatello, Idaho, planned for July 12 -16, and therefore this hearing will need to be rescheduled. StewartPIcAMo[- ,Reconsider -Stay - 2- Q IBIT PAGE _— b. That the Court reconsider any Order previously issued allowing the City to enter upon defendant's property; C. That the Court issue its Order directing that the hearing date currently set for July 16, 2001, be reset; d. And for such further relief as is just and proper. DATED: July 9, 2001. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney at Law ,R By:?'% omas H. Stoc r, 14716 44 Union Blvd., #435 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 email: tom @thstocker.com StewartPfdWot- ReconsiderStay -3- MAY 10 '02 01 :03PM RR _ P.1 /1 FAC RDMZM 1 (ERJRLQ+.C1..rQN State of Colorado 7 County of Jefferson } I, Lawrence Stewart, d€ Wdant, state and affirm that the factual allegations made in the preceding Motion are true and correct to the [)est of rrty Icnowlcadgc ?. information, and belief, Dated; July 9, 2001 t.awrence Stewart T n foregoing instrument was sworn and subscribed before me this day of 20 , by Lawrenoe Stewart, Witness my hand alld G)ff)c,•ial seal. :'itc�dertPl.PJ'dr, +t Pauo raider "Racy ei Recved Time Jul, 9 -4- IBIT' PAGE 7 s , JENNIFFER L, RODRIGUEZ U i NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO My Commission �ipire® March 29 2006 T n foregoing instrument was sworn and subscribed before me this day of 20 , by Lawrenoe Stewart, Witness my hand alld G)ff)c,•ial seal. :'itc�dertPl.PJ'dr, +t Pauo raider "Racy ei Recved Time Jul, 9 -4- IBIT' PAGE 7 s , JENNIFFER L, RODRIGUEZ U i NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO My Commission �ipire® CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on July 9, 2001, a true and correct copy of the foregoing VERIFIED MOTION TO RECONSIDER and VERIFIED MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF ORDER ALLOWING THE CITY TO ENTER DEFENDANT'S PROPERTY was served as follows: Original to Clerk of the Court (via fax to 303 - 235 -2829) Wheat Ridge Municipal Court. 7500 West 29 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 -6713 Copy to Caroline Penaloza (via fax to 303 - 235 -2829) Wheat Ridge City Attorney 7500 West 29 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 -6713 Lawrence Stewart (via mail) 9960 W. 35 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 e StewartPld Wiot- Reconsider -Stay ' 1 .., ✓_ a -5- EXHIBIT L; PAGE_ J 24504 Norman bane Evergreen, CO 304,39 'hone and Fax 303o674 ®2224 TO: Darin Morgan Codes Administrator 7500 West 29' Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 FROM: Jeff Davis, P.E. �, ® © 6 I N C OW g le RE: 9960 W. 35"' Ave. Larry Stewart Property This correspondence is to confirm that Larry Stewart, as per the approved grading plan of 3 -26- 01, has excavated and reshaped the existing driveway. Excess soil has been excavated and transported to the back yard and used to fill existing excavations. The backyard and driveway have now been restored to the pre - existing grade. Some handwork is still needed around existing shrubbery in the front yard. As per the drainage plan, a rock lined drainage Swale has been constructed in the backyard to direct any excess surface runoff along the property line between the houses and into the city storm sewers. The existing driveway culvert ends have been uncovered and appear open. The city may wish to use a high pressure water nozzle to thoroughly clean the center portion of this culvert to remove any silt that may have settled in that location. Should you need further information please call. cc:/ Tom Stocker, Larry Stewart J - ' a 1 n x IB jUL 1 -0 2001 T.H. VRA-A VA A M. 10:17 FROM: 303 235 2829 T 13039892825 P.ECEIVLp t/VFIc:AT RIIIC�E n 01JRT JUL 0 g 2001 MUNICIPAL COURT, CITY OF WHEAT RID STATE OF COLORADO? Case Nos. CE00 -2, 23.24 and 35 THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V. LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant, JUL 18 2001 T.t{. THIS MATTER comes before tho Court on the Motion of dafondant, Stewart, for reconsideration and tsar a stay of execution; and, THE COURT having read the Motion and being fully appraised In the P.001/001 HEREBY ORDERS as follows: a. the City Is prohibited from entering upon defendant's property for the purposes ctf wnbWKHxWWN theret ; �/ r �,�,n sod rn711 f /, o/ to C. J The hearing date currently set for July 1 G, 2001, shah Ian. DATED: G / (PSo1)t)0c1 Ge (&rpIPIgi 7�l ul'S )I�f X119 /o/ or efx 67 BY THE COURT: HtBtT _ --- Mu Ipa. Court: Judge Gy L 'Received Time Jul -10, 9:134H 686 COS 9Et 31S NOM V7 NIdkG l t60Z11 6 WHEAT RIDGE �.nr �..; , w, -1URT JUL 1 `g 2001 MUNICIPAL COURT, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, STATE OF COLORADO Case Nos. CE00 -24 and 35 MOTION TO SET FOR HEARING and MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING HEARING THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, V. LAWRENCE STEWART, Defendant. Defendant, Lawrence Stewart, through counsel,,prays that a hearing will be set to replace the hearing set for July 16, 2001, that has been vacated; and prays for a temporary stay of execution of the order allowing the City to enter defendant's property pending such hearing. In support thereof, defendant states as follows: 1. Counsel has spoken with Kay in the City Attorney's office who expressed agreement that this motion for hearing should be filedtand the matter set for a hearing. 2. By Order dated July 9, 2001, this Court prohibited the City from entering defendant's property prior to July 20, 2001, for the purposes of laying sod, and vacated a show cause hearing previously set for July 16, 2001. No new hearing date has been set. 3. Defendant has fully complied with the engineer's plan for corrective action on his property. See letter from the engineer, Jeff Davis, attached hereto as Exhibit A. This plan was approved by the City. This plan did not require laying sod anywhere on defendant's property and defendant is not aware of any requirement that was ever imposed on him to lay sod. The City has again changed the rules, and now seeks to enter defendant's property and lay sod. EXHIBIT t PAGE C ix '1 4. The issue of whether defendant should be forced to lay sod, in addition to the many other corrective measures he has taken on his property, should be decided by this Court after a hearing on the matter. The City does not have cart blanche to impose whatever requirements it wants on defendant. 5. Additionally, the issues that were to be heard at the previously scheduled July 16t show cause hearing also should be heard by this Court at a rescheduled hearing (these issues appear to involve questions of why defendant did not appear on July 2 " and what fine, if any, should be imposed). relief: WHEREFORE, defendant, through undersigned Counsel, prays for the following a. That a hearing be set in this matter at the earliest possible date after July 17, 2001, regarding show cause and sodding; b. That an Order be issued temporarily prohibiting the City from entering upon defendant's property for the purpose of laying sod pending further hearing and Court Order; C. And for such further relief as is just and proper. DATED: July 10, 2001. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney at La, 'Thomas H. Stocker, #14716 44 Union Blvd., #435 Lakewood; :Colorado 80228 Phone:, 303- 988 -4205 Fax: 303-98,972825 email: tom @thstocker.com Attachment: Exhibit A - Letter dated July 9, 2001, from Jeff Davis to Darin Morgan StewartPlMot- Hearing -Stay -2- EXHIBIT PAGE ';' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on July 10, 2001, a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION TO SET FOR HEARING and MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING HEARING was served by first class mail to the following: Original to Clerk of the Court Wheat Ridge Municipal Court 7500 West 29 t11 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 -6713 Copy to Caroline Penaloza Wheat Ridge City Attorney 7500 West 29 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 -6713 Lawrence Stewart 9960 W. 35 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 StewartPlMot- Hearing -Stay f f 7 7 , , ! . -._ -, -3- IBIT PAGE____ -_ IUL -10 -2001 07 :46 THE COLORADO TRUST 1 3033399034 P.01 /e1 Jeff Davis Engineering, L.L.C. duly 9, 2001 T0: Darin Morgan Codes Administrator 7500 West 29" Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 FROM: Jeff Davis, P.E. RE: 9960 W. 35" Ave. Larry Stewart Property This correspondence is to confirm that Larry Stewart as per the approved grading plan of 3 -26- 01, has excavated and reshaped the existing driveway. Excess soil has been excavated and transported to the back yard and used to fill existing excavations. The backyard and driveway have now been restored to the pre-existing grade. Some handwork is still needed around existing shrubbery in the front yard, As per the drainage plan, a rock lined drainage Swale has been constructed in the backyard to direct any excess surface runoff along the property line between the houses and into the city storm sewers. The existing driveway culvert ends have been uncovered and appear open. The city may wish to use a high pressure water nozzle to thoroughly clean the center portion of this culvert to remove any silt that may have settled in that location. Should you need further information please call. cc:/ Tom Stocker, Larry Stewart 24504 Norman Lane Evergreen, CO 80439 Received Time A1,10. 6:41AM Phone and Fax 303.674.2224 TOTAL P.01 il - 'JUL -16 -2001 13:16 FROM: "') 303 235 2829 T`}3039892825 MUNICIPAL COURT, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, STATE OF COLORADO Case Nos. CE00 -24 and 35 MOTION TO SET FOR HEARING and MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING HEARING �•. iI 1620 THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, � Plaintiff, f'�oTl�? d,J�lllei�- �I1Jr�i 7U k to C�mpfin9lc•._ oA� ` V. y �vo SiJr� Jvv ter , ar Gr+ LAWRENCE STEWART, n'r anicr r/ie. Arz Defendant. " ".y ' V0 - Defendant, Lawrence Stewart, through counsel, prays that a hearing will be to replace the hearing set for July 16, 2001, that has been vacated; and prays for a• tP mporary stay of execution of the order allowing thn City to enter defendant's prop pending such hearing. In support thereof, defendant states as follows: 1 _ Counsel has spoken with Kay in the City Attorney's office who e agreement that this motion for hearing should be filed and the matter set for a 2. By Order dated July 9, 2001, this Court prohibited the City from enti defendant's property prior to July 20, 2001, for the purposes of laying sod, and vi a show cause hearing previously set for July 16, 2001. No now hearing date has sot. 3. Dofondant has fully complied with the engineer's - plan for corrective ac ion on his property. See letter from the engineer, Jeff Davis, attached hereto as Exhiblt� . This plan was approved by the City. This plan did not require laying sod anywhere On defendant's property and defendant is not aware of any requir that was ever imposed on him to lay sod. The City has again changed the rules, and now -seek t enter defendant's property and lay sod. jOPY SENT � f� � I�ISIT PAGE ? r — I Peceived Time Jul 16. 1?:12PM ?Y TOh . 5STOC E,R 13. Advisory listing of issues to be raised by_(defendant- appellant]' in his appeal: a. Whether the Municipal Court judge abused his discretion and violated defendant - appellant's constitutional rights with ex parte communications with the City? b. Whether defendant - appellant's rights were violated when, in reliance on the City's promise that the stipulations would resolve the alleged violations, defendant - appellant entered into certain stipulations with the City, which including waiving his rights to a trial? C. Whether the City should be held in contempt of court for intentionally misleading defendant - appellant and directing him not to appear at a hearing, and then, when defendant - appellant did not appear, asking the Court to impose a substantial fine and impose onerous new conditions on defendant - appellant? d. Whether the City should be held in contempt of court for misleading the Court and for continuing to change the requirements it sought to impose on defendant - appellant in violation of the stipulations? e. Whether the City's actions as outlined above constitute an illegal taking of defendant - appellant's property in violation of the Colorado and /or Federal constitutions? f. Whether the City's actions as outlined above violate the City's own rules for dealing with such matters? g. Whether, under the circumstances set forth above, the City should be ordered to pay defendant- appellants attorneys' fees and costs and possibly other damages? EXHIBIT PAGE G� 'The original ¶13 heading is erroneously labeled "plaintiffs- appellees in their cross" appeal. The correct language is stated above. f �3 DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO Court Address: 100 Jefferson County Parkway L • 0 2 20 Golden, Colorado 80401 87 Court Use Only' Plaintiff/Appellee: THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE V . Defendant /Appeiiant: Case Num'uer: 01-CV LAWRENCE STEWART Div.: 9 ORDER S1 q 3`Y. THIS MATTER is before me upon the plaintiff/appellee's (the "City ") motion to dismiss and response to defendant/appellant's motion for trial de novo filed on September 28, 2001 ( defendant/appellant's motion for trial de novo filed on July 18, 2001). Defendant/appellant ( "Mr. Stewart") filed a response to the motion to dismiss and a reply to the motion for trial de novo on November 13, 2001. A motion to dismiss pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12 should not be granted if there is any possible theory of relief Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc., 829 P.2d 1286 (Colo. 1992). Further, all facts in the complaint must be viewed as true and favorable to the complainant. Id. Mr. Stewart signed two entry of guilty plea and waiver of rights forms ( "plea agreement ") in Wheat Ridge Municipal Court on November 27, 2000. Subsequently, interrelated compliance hearings were scheduled for February 26, 2001 (Mr. Stewart was found "not in compliance "); April 4, 2001 (continued); May 7, 2001 (continued); June 4, 2001 (continued); June 18, 2001 (Mr. Stewart found "not in compliance "); June 25, 2001(Mr. Stewart found "not in compliance "); July 2, 2001 (Mr. Stewart failed to appear). Later compliance orders were entered by the municipal court on July 9, 2001 (which also denied Mr. Stewart's motion for reconsideration of its June 25 and July 2 nd orders), and on July 16, 2001. Mr. Stewart filed a notice of appeal and designation of record in this District Court on July 18, 2001. City urges that this appeal be dismissed for the following reasons: (1) Defendant tendered his guilty plea agreement, which expressly waived his right to appeal the decision to District Court, and (2) The District Court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Stewart's appeal because it was not timely filed. I will address these in order. (1) WHETHER THE PLEA AGREEMENT WAIVED DEFENDANT'S RIGHT OF The City avers that Mr. Stewart expressly waived his right to appeal the municipal court decision to district court upon signing the plea agreement on November 27, 2000. Mr. Stewart claims that he is not seeking review of the original plea agreement, but rather is appealing the actions that occurred in the months after the plea agreement was signed. Specifically, Mr. Stewart is appealing the municipal court orders of June 25, 2001; July 2, 2001; July 9, 2001, and July 16, 2001. while Mr. Stewart certainly waived the right to appeal his entry of a guilty plea on November 27, 2000 by virtue of signing the plea agreement, he did not prospectively waive the right to appeal any future municipal court orders. These above - referenced orders constitute appealable "judgments" within the meaning of CALC.R. 232 and . Crim. P. 32 and are therefore subject to judicial review. After careful consideration of the pleadings and attachments thereto, I find that Mr. Stewart waived the right to appeal the plea agreement signed on November 27,2000, but he did not waive the right to appeal the municipal court orders entered on June 25, 2001; July 2, 2001; July 9, 2001; and July 16, 2001. 2 (2) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT LACKS JURISDICTION The City claims that the appeal should be dismissed because it was not timely filed and therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction. An appeal must be filed within thirty days of entry of judgment or within thirty days of denial of post trial motions, whichever is later. Crim. P. 37(a); C.M.C.iL 237. To the extent that Mr. Stewart is appealing the judgment entered on November 27, 2000, City is correct. The notice of appeal was filed on July 18, 2001. Mr. Stewart did not file within thirty days of November 27, 2000 and no post trial motion was filed addressing the plea agreement. However, Mr. Stewart did file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the June 25, 2001; July 2, 2001; July 9, 2001; and July 16, 2001 orders. Accordingly, Mr. Stewart's appeal cannot be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Crim. P. 37(a). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that City's motion to dismiss is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, because transcripts of all reviewable proceedings are available, that Mr. Stewart's motion for trial de novo is DENIED. Crim. P. 37; see People v. Lessar, 629 P.2d 577 (Colo. 1981). If he has not already done so, Mr. Stewart is directed to file a certified record of the pertinent municipal court proceedings, pursuant to Crim. P. 37[d], on or before January 14, 2001; after which Mr. Stewart's opening brief shall be due within 20 days. Dated: December 31, 2001 A r M cld =t iS ORDERED TO MAIL A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT = , ;LL OTHER ?ARl"IES Oi ' CORD OR THEIR COUP ; >t L WITHIN 48 HOURS OF AiCEIPT. CEEt'IMC OF M&UM I certify that I have matted the copy of this document to /aPP�GLA�"1 indicated at their last known addreh`s t1lis day of jar—G Law Clerk - Division 9 BY THE COURT: W. Berryhill (� ict Court Judge 9 2 - L7 i -_... _ DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff- Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart ACourt Use OnlyA Thomas H. Stocker Ph: 303 - 988 -4205 Attorney at Law Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Case No: 01 CV 1772 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom @thstocker.com Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg. No. 14716 Division: 9 Attorney for Defendant - Appellant DEFENDANT- APPELLANT'S UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO SUBMIT MUNICIPAL COURT TRANSCRIPT Defendant - appellant, Lawrence Stewart ( "Mr. Stewart "), through counsel, moves this Honorable Court for an uncontested 45 day enlargement of time to February 25, 2002, in which to obtain and submit the transcript of the Municipal Court proceedings and as grounds therefore states the following: 1. Duty to Confer. Undersigned counsel has discussed this matter with counsel for the City and is authorized to represent to the Court that counsel for the City has no objection to the requested enlargement of time. 2. By Order dated December 31, 2001, this Court denied the City's Motion to Dismiss, denied Mr. Stewart's Motion for a Trial de Novo, and Ordered Mr. Stewart to obtain and submit to the Court a transcript of the Municipal Court proceedings by January 14, 2002, followed by his opening brief 20 days later. 3. Undersigned Counsel has contacted Bonnie in the Municipal Court Clerk's office and learned that the Clerk will not order a transcript of the proceedings until a deposit of $150 per case has been submitted (even though all four cases were consolidated and handled in every hearing as one). For the four cases, a $600 deposit is required. Mr. Stewart has represented that he will have these funds on January 11, 2002, at which time Counsel will send them to the Municipal Court Clerk with a request for the transcript. 4. Counsel also learned from Bonnie in the Clerk's office that after the Municipal Court Clerk receives the deposit, the tape recordings are assembled and sent to a transcriber who then estimates the total cost and the amount of time necessary to generate a transcript, and who then generates the transcript. An estimated delivery date for the transcript cannot be determined until the transcriber has the tape recordings. As this Court's December 31 at Order noted, this matter involved at least 9 Municipal Court hearings, from November 2000 to July 2001, and several Court actions for entry of Orders. As of the date of this Motion, Bonnie in the Municipal Court Clerk's office could not determine how long it will take to get a transcript. After submitting the deposit and request for transcript, undersigned Counsel has no control over this process. 5. Counsel estimates at least 45 days (although it could be more or less), and therefore requests an enlargement of time in which to obtain the transcript of 45 days from the date hereof, or until February 25, 2002, in which to submit the transcript Stewart\PLD- Appeal\Mot- Time - Transcript -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on January 10, 2002, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT - APPELLANT'S UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO SUBMIT MUNICIPAL COURT TRANSCRIPT was served by depositing it in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Original to District Court Clerk First Judicial District 100 Jefferson County Pkwy. Golden, Colorado 80419 Copies to Carmen Beery Gorsuch Kirgis, LLP 1515 Arapahoe St., T -1, # 1000 Denver, CO 80202 Larry Stewart 9960 W. 35 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 s y Stewart\PLD - Appeal \Mot- Time - Transcript -4- .1 '+� A DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 JAN 17 r Plaintiff-Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge TH. r Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart 1Court Use OnlyA Case No: 01 CV 1772 Division: 9 ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the uncontested request by Mr.' Stewart for a.45 day enlargement of time to February 25, 2002, in which to submit a transcript of proceedings from the Municipal Court, and for Mr. Stewart's opening brief to be due 20 days after the transcript has been submitted; AND THE COURT, having reviewed the Motion and being fully advised in the premises; HEREBY ORDERS that Mr. Stewart shall have until February 25, 2002 (he shall file it sooner, if available), in which to submit the transcript of Municipal Court proceedings, and an additional 20 days after it is submitted in which to submit his opening brief. Dated: *A!�ne IS ON BY THE COURT: CERTUTCATE OF 'urAUM ®J� Dist ct Court Judge 1 certify that I have mailed a co document to , the inc Oast know ,._ _ .0a flits x a' �S (c day of 'TpcN• ,:20 ®Z _ Law Clark, - Div18UaII 9 ,F JaCWW. Serryhj!j MOVING PARTY IS ORDERED - TO MAIL A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT TO ALL OTHER PARTIES OF RECORD OR .®..-:,._THEIR COUNSEL WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIPT. DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart ACourt Use Onlyi Thomas H. Stocker Ph: 303 - 988 -4205 Attorney at Law Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Case No: 01 CV 1772 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom @thstocker.com Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg. No. 14716 Division: 9 Attorney for Defendant - Appellant DEFENDANT - APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO SUBMIT MUNICIPAL COURT TRANSCRIPT Defendant - appellant, Lawrence Stewart ( "Mr. Stewart'), through counsel, moves this Honorable Court for an enlargement of time from February 25, 2002, to March 18, 2002, in which to submit the transcript of the Municipal Court proceedings and as grounds therefore states the following: 1. Duty to Confer. Undersigned counsel placed telephone calls to counsel for the City on February 21 s` and 22 leaving voice mail messages both times, but as of this writing (on the evening of the 22 "d ), counsel for the City has not returned the calls (she is usually prompt in returning calls). Therefore, counsel have not been able to confer regarding this motion. 2. By Order dated January 15, 2002, this Court directed Stewart to submit to the Court a transcript of the Municipal Court proceedings by February 25, 2002. 3. On February 5, 2002, Stewart, through counsel, paid $600 to the Wheat Ridge Municipal Court Clerk's office and ordered the transcripts. Undersigned counsel has had several telephone discussions with Municipal Court personnel and it appears that pulling all of the tapes involved proved to be more of a job than initially anticipated. In any event, the Municipal Court has notified undersigned counsel in writing that the tapes have now all been pulled and that the transcripts will be prepared no later than March 15, 2002. See attached letter dated February 21, 2002, from Vikki, the deputy Court Clerk, to undersigned counsel. Assuming that the transcripts are delivered to undersigned counsel on or before March 15, 2002, they can then be filed with the District Court no later than March 18, 2002. 4. Counsel apologizes for this request for additional time. However, the transcripts have been ordered and paid for; now it is only a matter of them being prepared. No prejudice will result to anyone because, by order dated September 11, 2001, this Court found that no public property will be damaged in any way pending the resolution of this case, and therefore set a nominal bond of $1.00, which has been posted. WHEREFORE, for good cause shown, Mr. Stewart requests an enlargement of time to March 18, 2002, in which to submit the Municipal Court transcript to the District Court, and 20 days after submittal of the transcript to submit his opening brief. Dated: February 22, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Stewart\PLD- Appea6Mot -2- Time - Transcript - - THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney at Lays - By.- / Thomas H. Stocker, #11716 44 Union Blvd., #435 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Email: tomCthstocker.com Attachment Letter dated February 21, 2002, from Wheat Ridge Municipal Court to Thomas H. Stocker. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on February 22, 2002, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT- APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO SUBMIT MUNICIPAL COURT TRANSCRIPT was served by depositing it in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Original to District Court Clerk First Judicial District 100 Jefferson County Pkwy Golden, Colorado 80419 Copies to Carmen Beery Gorsuch Kirgis, LLP 1515 Arapahoe St., T -1, # 1000 Denver, CO 80202 Larry Stewart 9960 W. 35 " Avenue WheaU Ridge, CO 80033 Stewart\PLD - Appeal\Mot -2- Time - Transcript -3- - -_- v E3 -21 -2002 14:39 FROM: 303 235 2829 7500 WEST 29TH AV ENUE WHEAT RIDGE. COLORADO 80215 RANDALLJ. DAVIS PArSIDING JUDGE CHARLES J. ROSE ASSOCIATE JUDGE February 21, 2002 VTA FACSMILE T.haoias 1T. fotookcr, P.C. 44 Union Blvd., Ste. 435 Lakewood, CO 80228 -1£57 Tr'$3039892825 4 • `Ta I;. # j ' l v l FEB 21 2002 T.H. w y ooK.CA. AM. Ke: Stewart, Lawrence; CE00- 00002, CE00- 00023, CCOO -00024 & CL 7 0M0035 Dear Mr. Stocker: This letter is being provided to you in response to your request dated February 5, 2002 for transcripts on the above cases in. the Wheat Ridge Municipal Court. All.tapes have been collected and are being transcribed. The transcripts will be ready by the close of business on Friday, .March 15, 2002. 1 will notify your office when the transcripts are completed. Should you have any questions regarding the ab vc matter, please do not .hesitate to contact me at (303) 235 -2832. Sincc ly, 4 ",r' Vicki Deputy Court Clerk /vlr MUNICIPAL COURT (3u3) 236.2835 MUNICIPAL COURT FAX (303) 235 -7829 (Ana) Psa -5900 • ADMINISTRATION FAX: (303) 234.5824 • POLICE DEPARTMENT FAX: (303) 235.2949 Received Time Feb,21. 1:34PM DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway _ �H• €::. Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart ACourt Use OnlyA Case No: 01 CV 1772 Division: 9 ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the request by Mr. Stewart for an enlargement of time to March 18, 2002, in which to submit a transcript of proceedings from the Municipal Court, and for Mr. Stewart's opening brief to be due 20 days after the transcript has been submitted; AND THE COURT, having reviewed the Motion and being fully advised in the premises; HEREBY ORDERS that Mr. Stewart shall have until March 18, 2002, (he shall file it sooner, if available), in which to submit the transcript of Municipal Court proceedings, and an additional 20 days after it is submitted in which to submit his opening brief. Dated: 0 MOVING PAF"- IS ORDERED TO MAIL A G- OF THIS DOCUMENT 7, : ++ 1.OTHER PARTIES Or FLs `. , D OR THE IR COUNSEL WITHIN 484IOURS OF RECEIPT. BY THE COURT: W - /J 2002 i, r4Ty. ric Court Judge / / jack W. 8:41 t CERTMCATE OF 7urnir.'r*tra I certify that I have mailed a copy of this,, document to the c.. ° "; l cr parties knc this Z7 day <.'..__.._ , 20— 0-r1 DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant- Appellant Lawrence Stewart ACourt Use OnlyA Thomas H. Stocker Ph: 303 - 988 -4205 Attorney at Law Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Case No: 01 CV 1772 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom @thstocker.com Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg. No. 14716 Division: 9 Attorney for Defendant - Appellant DEFENDANT - APPELLANT'S UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE OPENING BRIEF or TO FILE SETTLEMENT STIPULATION - Defendant - appellant, Lawrence Stewart ( "Stewart"), through counsel, prays for a two -week enlargement of time to April 22, 2002, in which to file either his opening brief or a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice. As grounds therefore Stewart states as follows: 1. Undersigned counsel has conferred by telephone with counsel for plaintiff- appellee and is authorized to state to the Court that plaintiff- appellee has no objection to the requested enlargement of time. 2. Stewart's opening brief is due on April 8, 2002. However, the parties have reached a tentative settlement of this matter and are in the process of seeking Municipal Court approval of the settlement. It appears that the Municipal Court will not G J be able to review the settlement proposal before the week of April 8, 2002. Assuming that the Municipal Court approves the settlement, there will be no need for an opening brief, and the parties then intend to file with the District Court a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice. 3. No prejudice will result to either party if the requested enlargement of time is granted. WHEREFORE, without objection by plaintiff - appellee, defendant - appellant prays that this Court will allow him until April 22, 2002, in which to file his opening brief, if such should become necessary, and until April 22, 2002, in which to file a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice if the Municipal Court approves the proposed settlement. Dated: April 4, 2002. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney at L By: Thomas H. Stocker, # 4716 44 Union Blvd., #435 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 Fax: 303- 989 -2825 Email: tom @thstocker.com �3. Steviar!TLD- Appea!Wot Time Ext 003 -2- ........... ........ ...... :. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on April 4, 2002, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT- APPELLANT'S UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE OPENING BRIEF or TO FILE SETTLEMENT STIPULATION was served by depositing it in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Original to District Court Clerk First Judicial District 100 Jefferson County Pkwy. Golden, Colorado 80419 Copies to Carmen Berry Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower 1, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, CO 80202 Larry Stewart 9960 W. 35 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 StewartlPLD- AppeaKMot Time Ext 003 -3- DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, I certify'th�*) STATE OF COLORADO a copy of this 100 Jefferson County Parkway the counsel or Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 L_r. H.APR 2002 P laintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge ry. Defendant - Appellant Lawrence Stewart ACourt Use OnlyA Case No: 01 CV 1772 Division: 9 ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on defendant - appellant's uncontested motion for an enlargement of time to file opening brief or settlement stipulation; and, THE COURT, having read the motion and being fully appraised in the premises, grants the motion; and, HEREBY ORDERS that defendant - appellant shall have to April 22, 2002, in which to file his opening brief should one be necessary. If the parties' tentative settlement is finalized, then the parties are to file the settlement stipulation by April 22, 2002, and no opening brief would then be required. �+ NO ce Dated: � �- MOVING PARTY IS ORDERED TO MAIL A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT TO ALL OTHER PARTIES OF RECORD OR THEIR COUNSEL WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIPT. BY THE COURT: ts. ' /cam Court Judge _I W. BerrtvhM cr I certify'th�*) r t_, a copy of this ir, the counsel or k indicated at th Down addr21 da, day IMI �q t�Y .u_ TOM_ S7'OCK€R� 30 DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff- Apoellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge Defendant Appellant Lawrence Stewart ACourt Use OnlyA Thomas H. Stocker Ph: 303 -988 -4205 Attorney at Law Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 Case No: 01 CV 1772 44 Union Blvd., Suite 435 tom@thstocker.com Lakewood, CO 80228 Att'y Reg. No. 14716 Division: 9 Attorney for Defendant - Appellant STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 1. Thomas H. Stocker, of Thomas H. Stocker, P.C., Attorney at Law, counsel for defendant Lawrence Stewart ( "Stewart"), and Carmen Beery, Attorney at Law, of Gorsuch Kirgis, LLP, counsel for The City of Wheat Ridge ( "Wheat Ridge "), for and on behalf of their respective clients, represent to the Court that the above - identified cases have been resolved and therefore stipulate to the immediate dismissal with prejudice of this case, with each side to pay his or its own attorney's fees and costs. 2. This stipulation is made by Wheat Ridge without prejudice as to any future applications for building permits that Stewart may file with Wheat Ridge and Wheat Ridge represents that such applications will be processed in the ordinary course of business without regard to this stipulation or any proceedings in this case. 3. The Parties pray that this Court will promptly issue its Order dismissing this case with prejudice. DATED: April t Lo 2002_ Respectfully submitted, GORSUCH KIRGIS, LLP By: Carmen Beery, orney at Law 432234 Tower t, Suit 000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303 - 376 -5000 Fax: 303 -376 -5001 THOMAS H. STOCKER, P.C., Attorney at Law By: homas H. Stocker, V14716 143 Union Blvd., #900 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Phone: 303 - 988 -4205 Fax: 303 - 989 -2825 email: tom@thstocker.com Attorneys for the City of Wheat Ridge Slewar6PLD-AppanMfip for Diarriaeal - 2 - Attorney for Lawrence Stewart �VY)I- Ji� i BY TO— M STOCKER _ i-: N DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY STATE OF COLORADO L PR 17 20 100 Jefferson County Parkway #10 ;*, Golden, CO 80401 Ph: 303 - 271 -6215 Plaintiff - Appellee The People of the City of Wheat Ridge De fendant - Appell Lawrence Stewart OCourt Use OnlyA Case No: 01 CV 1772 Division: 9 ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice made by the parties; and, THE COURT having read the Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice and being fully appraised in the premises; HEREBY ORDERS that pursuant to the Stipulation, this case is dismissed with prejudice, with each side to pay his or its own fees and expenses. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT, pursuant to the Stipulation, the City of _ Wheat.Ridge shaq.process,anv future applications for buildingpermits fil.nd by Lawrence Stewart with the City in the ordinary course of business without regard to any . - proceedings in this appeal. Dated: .x.16 d-vo TO MAIL ,q r- is ORDERED py OP DOCUMENT JO ALL. TH OTHER PARTIES OF s ER THEIR, COUNSEL V ITHW 4 "OUR ; OIP RECEIPT. BY THE COURT: Court SENT J 'T .. ar�'�rt f B Y TOM ST QYi�