Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TUP-99-05
03/06/01 TUE 13:16 FA% 303 376 5001 GORSUCH BIRGIS GORSUCH KIRGIS L L P ATTORNEYS AT LAW Tower 1. Suitc 1000, 1515 Arapahoe Strcct, Denver, CO 80202 e-mail:gdahl@gorsuch.com Telephone: (303) 376-5000 Direct: 303-376-5019 Telecopy: (303) 376-5001 TO: Alan White, Planning Director City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 TELECOPY NO.: 303-235-2857 FROM: Gerald E. Dahl DATE: March 6, 2001 RE: City of Wheat Ridge MESSAGE: Order re: Medved v. Wheat Ridge NO. OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: 4 CLIENT NAME: City of Wheat Rid e PHONE NO. 303-235-2844 FILE NO. 53027 Q001 C0NFIDENTIA1'ITy ROTICE: The information contained in this telccQPier 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 suictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. FOR ASSISTANCE, CALL (303) 376.5141 03/06/01 TUE 13:16 FAX 303 376 5001 GORSUCH RIRGIS 16002 DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, Colorado 80401-6002 Case Number: 00 CV 0043 MEDVED CHEVROLET and METZGER THREE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DIVISION 10 COURTROOM- 4-C Plaintiffs, V. TBE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE and THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Defendants. ORDER THIS MATTER, comes before the Court upon the Opening Brief pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 106, and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to C_R.C.P. 12(6)(1) and/or for Summary Judgment on All Claims, Except Colo. R. Civ. P. 106(a)(4) and Supporting Brief The Court, having reviewed the Opening Briet Answer Briet Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, applicable rules and law, arguments of counsel, hereby dispenses with oral argument and makes the fallowing findings and issues the following order. Defendants have requested that this Court dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and/or enter summary judgment on Plaintiffs claims three through five of the Plaintiffs Complaint. The purpose of a motion for dismissal under Colo. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) is to test the formal sufficiency, of the complaint. Dorman v. Petrol AM= Inc., 914 P.2d 909, 911 (Colo. 1996). Upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the facts of the complaint should be taken as true. Denver r. R.G.W.R v. Wood, 28 Colo_ App. 534; 476 P.2d 299 (1970). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is viewed with disfavor, and should be granted only if it clearly appears that the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief under the facts pleaded. National Sur Coro v. Citizens State Bank, 41 Colo. App. 580, 593 P2d 362 (1978), a.Fd, 199 Colo. 497, 612 P.2d 70 (1980). When ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Colo. K Civ. P. 12(b)(5), the court must consider only those matters stated within the four comers of the complaint Dunlap v Colo Snriugs Cablevision 829 P2d 1286,1290 (Colo. 1996). If, on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. lAb)(5), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment. Colo. R. Civ. P. 12(6)(5), see also Alexander v Morrison-Knudsen 03/06/01 TUE 13:17 FAX 303 376 5001 GORSUCH KIRGIS Co., 444 P.2d 397 (Colo. 1968), test. denied 393 U.S. 1063, 89 S_Ct. 715, 21 L.Ed.2d 706 (1969). The purpose of summary judgment is to permit the parties to pierce the formal allegations of the pleadings and to save the time and expense connected with the trial. Because summary judgment is a drastic remedy, the Court may properly enter summary judgment only when there is no genuine issue about any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pueblo West Metropolitan District v. Southeaster Colorado Water Conservat ry± DistricK 689 P.2d 594 (Colo. 1994). In determining whether summary judgment is proper, the nonmoving party is entitled to the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the undisputed facts, and all doubts must be resolved against the moving party. Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370 (Colo. 1981); Casebolt v. Cowan 8298 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1992). Even where it is extremely doubtful that genuine issues of material fact exist, summary judgment is not appropriate. Mara v United Bank ofKue~, 818 P.2d 732 (Colo. 1991). The burden of establishing the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact is on the moving party. Colo. IL Civ. P. 56(c); Continental Air Lines. Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P2d 708 (Colo. 1987). The movant may satisfy this burden by demonstrating that there is an absence of evidence in the record to support the nonmoving parry's case. C Service Comin'n v. Pinder, 812 P.2d 645 (Colo. 1991)_ Once the movant makes a convincing showing that genuine issues of material fact are lacking, the opposing parry cannot rest upon mere allegations or denials in his or her pleadings, but must demonstrate by specific facts that a controversy exists. Sullivan v 474 P2d 218 (Colo. 1970). Plaintiff has confessed the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the mandamus claim is subsumed within the certiorari review of this Court. Therefore, summary judgment is granted on Plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief Plaintiffs third claim for relief has requested this Court to review the quasi judicial action taken by the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment in connection with the Temporary Use Permit, and the Board of Adjustment's overall application of the Zoning Code of the City of Wheat Ridge as applied to Plaintiffs temporary use- Hence, the relief sought by plaintiffs includes certiorari review of the actions of the Board of Adjustment in addition to a conclusion as to the proper applicable criteria for review of a Temporary Use Permit in the City of Wheat Ridge_ The Court finds that Plaintiffs third claim for relief involves a question of fact. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants' request to dismiss. The court finds that Plaintiffs have not met the point of administrative finality sufficient to bring the fourth and fifth claims for relief Therefore, Defendants' request to dismiss the Plaintiffs' fourth and fifth claims for relief for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted. 16 003 Plaintiffs' have brought a claim pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 106. A district court may review any governmental body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions for 03/06/01 TUE 13:17 FAX 303 376 5001 GORSUCH RIRGIS abuse of discretion In reviewing the governmental body's findings and conclusions, a district court acts as an appellate court. The court's review is based on the parties' motions and briefs together with any additional review of the record which the court may determine necessary. A governmental body's findings of fact cannot be altered unless web findings exceeded the governmental body's jurisdiction or were made by an abuse of discretion. Colo- R. Civ. P.106(ax4). This Court will not interfere with the decision of the Board absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. The Court has thoroughly reviewed the findings made by the Board of Adjustment and cannot find, based upon the evidence in the record, that Defendants either abused their discretion, exceeded their jurisdiction, or applied inappropriate standards of review. The Court funds competent evidence to support the Board's findings. This Court adopts the initial findings of the governing body- Therefore, Plaintiff s second, Fourth and Fifth claims of relied as well as plaintiffs Colo. R. Civ. P. 106 claim, are hereby dismissed. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third claim for relief is denied Done in Golden, Colorado this day of February, 2001. BY THE COURT: 1 11 Brian D. Boatright District Judge 2004 JUN-30-00 FRi 12:25 PM FAX NO. 11 fl CTTrU TITD T C T T it ~lJma %J X11 it11k T O LLr ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO: ALAN WHITE, PLANNING DIRECTOR Uh: WHEAT RiDGE CITY: WHEAT RIDGE FROM: LINDA C. MICHOW, ESQ. DATE: JUNE 30, 2000 MESSAGE: P. 01 CLIENT NAME: Wheat Ridge FILE NO.: 53027.3 FAX NO.: 303-235-2857 PHONE NO.: 303-235-2844 11415 MESSAOE MAY CONSTITUTE FAIVREGED ATTORNEY-CUENT COMMUNICATION 06 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT, AND UNAUtHORRED USE OR DISCLOSURE I$ PROHIBITED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THIS MESSAGE, PLEASE ADVISE US BY CALLING COLLECT AT DOM 376.5000 AND FORWARDING THE DOCUMENT TO US BY MM TO THE ADDRESS LISTED BELOW. NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: 18 (not including this page) FOR ASSISTANCE, CALL 303-376-5141 Tower I, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (3031376-5040 Fax: (303) 376 6001 JUN-30-00 FRI 12:29 PM FAX NO, P. 02 DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO Case No. 00-CV-0043, Division 10 DEFENDANTS' ANSWER BRIEF MEDVED CHEVROLET and METWER THREE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Plaintiffs, VS. THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE and THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGL, Defendants. COMB NOW the Defendants, The City of Wheat Ridge and the Board of Adjustment for the City of Wheat Ridge, by and through their attorneys, Gorsuch Kirgis LLP, and submit this Answer Brief pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court for certiorari review of a decision by the Board of Adjustment for the City of Wheat Ridge (hereafter "BOA") to deny a temporary use permit for a parcel of property consisting of approximately 11 acres located at 4950 Parfet Street in Wheat Ridge, Colorado (hereafter the "Property"). For purposes of consistency, references hercin to the certified record are consistent with those designations set forth in the Plaintiffs Opening Brief. LCK530373\351067,0t JUN-30-00 FRI 12:29 PM FAX NO. P. 03 H. STAMMENT OF THE CASE 113is case arises out of the BOA's denial of a temporary use permit (hereafter "TUP") concerning use of the Property for storage of vehicle inventory and for a vehicle demonstration area. The southern portion of the Property is zoned Commercial One ("C-1 and the remaining portion on the north is zoned Agricultural One ("A-1"). (Folio 2, page 3, zoning nap). The rezoning of the C-1 portion of the Property was part of a larger rezoning, consisting of Parcels 1 and 2 as reflected in the City's Zoning Ordinance No. 668 - Series 1986 (hereafter "Rezoning Ordinance"). (Folio No. 1.) At the time of this rezoning in 1986, only that portion designated as Parcel 1 in the Rezoning Ordiance was planned for development. (Folio No. 1.) Parcel 2, which contains the C-1 portion of the Property, was vacant and. had no pending development plan in 1986. Consequently, the City imposed a condition of approval on the rezoning of the C-1 portion of the Property, which provided: Section 2. Conditions. 1. The east th of Parcel 1 is subject to the use and design as per the adopted Craig Chevrolet-Official Development Plan. 2. The balance of land included within this change of zone is subject to $ite Plan approval including limitation of allowable uses lay Planning Commission and City Council VrioE Ig any change from the gresg v maintained use. (Folio No. 1) (emphasis added). Based on this specific condition of approval, any development of the C-1 zoned portion of the Property was subject to further review by the City's Planning Commission and City Council. More importantly, this condition of rezoning expressly contemplated that the Wheat Ridge City Council could limit otherwise "permitted" or "allowable" uses for the tk:SW3027.33351W.Ot _2_ JUN-30-OU FRI 12:29 FM FAX NO. N. 04 Property at the time a site plan was ultimately subrnined. The Property's C-1 zoning, therefore, was expressly and unequivocally conditioned upon site plan approval and potential limitations on otherwise permitted uses within a C-1 zone district. Uses of the Property were also restricted by virtue of the Agricultural zoning on the north portion of the Property, Thirteen years alter this rezoning to C-1, the Applicant requested permission from the City to use the Property for vehicle inventory storage and a "Hummer" test track on an interim basis (Folio No. 2, p. 1). The Applicant, by and through counsel, explained at the time of submitmi in a letter dated October 6, 1999: [t]he intent of the attached Application is to allow for temporary storage. and parking of vehicles on this site, together with a temporary testing/demonstration area for vehicles to be sold at the Medved Autoplex. It is contemplated that this will be an interim use until such time as a complete application for full development of this site is submitted. In the future, it is anticipated that the subject site will contain an additional auto dealership and related facilities, However, that process is in the design phase. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a temporary use to allow parking of vehicles and use of a portion of the property as a demonstration/testing facility. (Polio No. 9, p. 7 - Attachment "2"). The Plaintiff submitted a TUP application including a deed for the Property (Folio No. 2, pp. 1-2), along with a site plan consisting of an existing plat map of the Property with handwritten notes indicating the locations of the street access and the proposed inventory storage parking area for approximately 925 vehicles and vehicle demonstration area. (Folio No. 2, p. 4). No other information was provided. Subsequently, consistent with Section 26-6 (D) (3) (b) of the City of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (hereafter "Code of Laws"), City Staff requested the Plaintiff to supplement the application with information regarding proposed fencing; lighting; dimensions of parking 10AWM7.3W1U?.01 -3- JUN-30-00 FRI 12:30 PM FAX NO. F. Ob stalls; interim landscaping; surfacing of area; and drainage. (Folio No. 5.) In response, :lie Applicant, by and through counsel, indicated that no additional information or site improvements relating to lighting, fencing, parking stall locations, and landscaping would be provided, and that only the placement of crushed gravel or reconstituted asphalt would be installed, if so requested by the City. (Folio No. 9, pp. 8-9). On December 9, 1999, the BOA conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and considered the appropriate legal criteria for approval of a TUP. (Folio No. 11, pp. 57-58; Folio No. 12, p. 2, Certificate of Resolution). Based on the evidence and testimony presented, the BOA denied the Plaintiffs TUP request. (Folio No. 12, p. 2, Certificate of Resolution). the Applicant subsequently filed this Rule 106(a)(4) appeal, asserting three main claims of error: (1) that there is no competent evidence in the record to support the BOA's decision; (2) that there are no articulated standards that may reasonably be applied to the Applicant's request; and (3) that the BOA applied the wrong legal standard in reviewing the Applicant's request. (Opening Brief, p. 7). In the course of the Opening Brief, the Plaintiff also questions the fairness of the BOA's hearing, asserting that the BOA showed bias or a predisposition of the case based upon another car dealership application. IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review in a C.R.C.P. 106(x)(4) action is well established. A court subjecting a rezoning decision of a zoning authority to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) review must uphold the decision unless there is no competent evidence to support it. C= r v. City and County of r ver, 552 P,2d 13, 15 (Colo. 1976), citing Ford Leasing Development Co. v Board of irMIZM1.31351967.01 -4- JUN-30-OU FRI 12:3U FM FAX NO, P. Ub County Commissinners, 528 P.2d 237 (Colo. 1974). "No competent evidence" means that the decision is so lacking in evidentiary support that the decision could only be characterized as arbitrary and capricious. Cruzen v. Career Service Board of Denver, 899 P.2d 373 (Colo. App. 1995). Consequently, the weighing of evidence and the determinations of fact are not matters tot consideration by the reviewing court, but are functions of the zoning authority acting in its quasi-judicial capacity. The role of a reviewing court in a challenge to a zoning decision is not and should not be to sit as a zoning board of appeals. .Courts should not interfere with the decision of zoning authorities absent a clear abuse of discretion. Board of County Commissioners v. Routt County, 920 P.2d 48, 50 (Colo. 1996). Courts have found that a decision made in furtherance of a legitimate zoning objective is not an abusc of discretion. Western-Paving Construction Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 689 P.2d 703, 706 (Colo. App. 1984). Even where a particular finding by a zoning authority is fairly debatable, reviewing courts have found no abuse of discretion. See e.L. Corner.. supra at 17; Board of Cg= !Commissioners v. Simmons, 494 P.2d 85 (Colo. 1972). Thus, if this Court finds that the record shows there is some competent evidence of a factual basis for the decision, it must affirm the action of the BOA. Cort7er at 15. V. ARGUMENT A. THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THE BOA'S DENIAL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S TEMPORARY USE PERMIT. The BOA's decision to deny the temporary use permit concerning the Property is supported by competent evidence in the record. In accordance with Section 2-61(d) of the City of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (hereafter "Code of Laws"), the BOA is charged with, among LCM:`7UA.7\75[861.91 -5_ JUN-30-00 FR1 1231 PM FAX NO, P. 07 other things, the "responsibility, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, section 26.D, to permit in any district a temporary building which is used for a permitted use in that district, or a temporary use of land which is not allowed in that district; such permit is to be issued for no longer than one (1) year per application." (Folio No. 13). Section 26-6 (D) (1) of the Code of Laws sets forth the application requirements (Folio No. 14, p. 1696) and Section 26-6 (D) (3) (b) sets forth the approval criteria for a temporary use permit by the BOA. (Folio No. 14, pp. 1698 & 1698.1) Pursuant to Section 26-6 (D) (3) (b), the BOA must apply the following approval criteria in deciding requests for a temporary use permit: FINDINGS OF FACT: The proposed temporary use, building or sign: 1. Will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use; and 2. Will not adversely affect the adequate light and air, nor cause significant air, water or noise pollution, or cause drainage problems for the general area; and 3. Will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards, or unsafe parking, loading, service or internal traffic conflicts to the determent of persons whether on or off the site; and 4. Will be appropriately designed, including setbacks, heights, parking, bulk, buffering, screening and landscaping, so as to he in harmony and compatible with character of the surrounding areas and neighborhood, especially with adjacent properties; and 5. Will not overburden the capacities of the existing streets, utilities, parks, schools, and other public facilities and services. LC%fd30r1-W5l"7.01 JUN-30-00 FR1 1231 FM FAX NO. P. 08 There is no question that the BOA applied each of these specific criteria in denying the Plaintiff's TUP. The transcript reflects that the City planner responsible for processing the application, Meredith Reckert, presented ample testimony regarding the City's concerns with the TUP, based in part on various referral agency responses to the application. Ms. Reckelt explained that various ditches bisected the Property and that at least one ditch company, the Swadley Ditch Company, expressed concern about vehicles crossing the ditch and deteriorating the banks of the ditch. (Folio No. 11, p. 5). Ms, Reckert further stated that the City Public Works Department required a final drainage plan and report addressing storm, water quality and erosion control, which to date had not been supplied by the Plaintiff (Folio No. 11, p. 6). Ms. Reckert then went on to explain her planning-related concerns, based on the numbered criteria of approval in Section 26-6(D) (3) (b): [Criteria §26-600)(b)(1)J.- Number one, staff is concerned that there could be negative effects to the general health, safety and welfare ....if no paving is being proposed. There is the potential that oils and other residue may come off the cars and-permeate into the ground.. there also would be some negative effect on aesthetics in the area ...because the vehicle storage lot is proposed with no landscaping or buffering.... (Criteria §26-6(p)(3)(b)(2)]. Number two, staff has concluded that, since no additional buildings are proposed with the temporary use application, that there should be no significant effect on the amount of light and air to adjacent properties. However, once again, we are concerned for, uh, any sort of water pollution not only in the test track area but also in the storage area, with-potential of, residue corning off the cars. ...the testing of the vehicles on the south half will negatively affect the ditches by breaking down the banks causing erosion and eventually silting in of those ...ditches. Additionally, dust could be generated by the driving on an unprepared surface on the south side. tcauwzr.s is est.ot -7- JUN-30-00 FRl 12.31 PM FAX No. P. 09 [Criteria §26-600)(b)(3)]. Number three there are only public improvements installed along the western side [of Parfet Street] and...you can't really see it because of the vehicles, but you can see the east side.... that there is no existing curb, gutter and sidewalk. There's also been a tendency for employees and customers of the ..,Medved facility to park along here and...Staff is worried, because of the parking along Parfet Street, that there could be some sight distance problems... exacerbated and, also, that there could be the creation of traffic... movement conflicts with cars coming in and out of the property... (Criteria §26-6(D)(3)(b)(Q.Number four, the applicant is proposing this as an interim use and has indicated that they would be coming shortly, within the next six months or so, in front of Planning Commission and City Council for their permanent site plan approval and that is why they're... proposing no paving, fencing, or landscaping at this time...staff is a little bit worried-.. sometimes temporary uses get extended more than once and, therefore if the approval is given for this temporary use, we would recommend that there be some buffering along the street frontages... jCriteria §26-0D)(3)(b)(SY..• Criteria number five, we have concluded that the temporary use permit would not have negative effect on utilities, parks, schools or other public facilities and services. ...Staff has concluded that there are potential negative health, welfare and aesthetic impacts which have not been addressed by the applicant. (Folio No. 11, pp. 7-9) 't'hese staff comments were memorialized in the staff report, which was made part of the record (Folio No. 9, pp. 3-5). The BOA also heard testimony from an adjacent property owner who complained about the potential oil leaks and other environmental problems that would accompany a vehicle storage area and vehicle testing track. (Folio No. 11, p. 46). The BOA relied up this evidence in denying the temporary use permit for the Property, finding that the application did not meet the specific findings of fact for approval. (Folio No. 11, pp. 57-58; Folio No. 12, Certificate of Resolution). In addition, members of the BOA noted that the application, as presented, inadequately addressed the specific findings of fact that -8- JUN-30-00 FRI 12;32 PM FAX NO, P. 10 the 130A is charged with considering. For example, BOA member Thiessen stated that "we [the BOA] really have to look at these... the potential impacts that could happen when we really don't have ...we have this rough outline here. We have nothing else to go on." (Folio No. 11, pp. 55-56). Similarly, BOA member Abbott explained that "due to the scope of this proposal (storage of up to 925 vehicles], its uses and size, the proposal is insubstantial in significant areas necessary to allow the Board to make a sufficiently educated decision." (Folio No. 11, P. 58). This decision is supported by competent evidence in the record. See Tri-State Generation and Transmission Assn Inc, v. Board of County Commissioners, 600 P.2d 103 (Colo, App. 1979). This Court, therefore, should affirm the BOA's decision. 13. THE BOA APPLTED THE CORRECT LEGAL STANDARD IN MAILING ITS DETERMINATION. The Plaintiff asserts that the BOA, as well as City staff, erroneously applied the criteria for approval of a variance request rather than a temporary use permit. In so arguing, the Plaintiff relies exclusively on a minor typographical error on page 3 of the staff report, which referenced "Variance Criteria" rather "Temporary Use Permit Criteria" in the caption under which the awrect criteria for approval of a TUP are listed. (Folio No. 9, p. 3). Apart from this single typographical error, the staff report not only lists the correct criteria for approval of a TUP, but also provides staff comments on each of these criteria. (f=olio No. 9, pp. 3-5). Nowhere in the record is there any evidence that the BOA or staff was ruisinfornred about the nature of the application or the appropriate criteria for approval. In fact, the transcript of the public hearing reflects that staff presented the application as a temporary use permit, and applied the criteria for approval of a temporary use permit in -9- JUN-30-00 FRI 12:32 PM FAX NO. P. 11 making a recommendation to the BOA. (Folio No. 11, pp . 1-10). More importantly, the BOA applied the correct criteria for approval for a temporary use permit (Folio No. 11, p. 54; pp. 57-58). The Plaintiff's fabricated argument is completely without merit. As an ancillary argument which is asserted throughout the Opening Brief, the Plaintiff appears to argue that the BOA somehow misapplied the TUP criteria in a case where, as here, "the underlying use is a use by right." The Plaintiff relies on the faulty premise that a vehicle inventory storage area as well as a vehicle demonstration area are "permitted uses" within the C:1 zone district and are therefore permitted on the Property. The use of Plaintiffs property for vehicle inventory storage and for a vehicle demonstration area is not a use by right for several reasons. First, a portion of the Property is zoned A-1 (agricultural) and as staff pointed out to the BOA, A-1 zoning does not allow vehicle inventory storage or a vehicle demonstration area. (Folio No. 11, p. 4). Therefore, the Plaintiff was not "entitled" to use that portion of the Property for the purposes sought in the TUP application. Second, as noted above, that portion of the Property zoned C-1 was subject to the conditions of approval of the 1986 Rezoning Ordinance, which expressly reserved to the City the discretion to further restrict permitted uses on the Property, based on the Plaintiffs submitral of a site plan to Planning Commission and City Council, which has not yet occurred. (Folio No. 1). Because no site plan has been submitted, the Plaintiff has no right to use the Property for the purposes sought in the TUP application. Regardless of permitted uses for a C-1 zone district enumerated in the City's zoning ordinance, the Plaintiff was bound by the conditions of this Rezoning Ordinance. What the Plaintiff fails to recognize is that the City t.Cl4i5341-7.3VS1867.01 -10- JUN-30-00 FRI 12:33 PM FAX NO. P. 12 Council is authorized, pursuant to the conditional C-1 zoning, to further restrict or limit the allowable uses on the Property. Notwithstanding this conditional C-1 zoning on the Property, the proposed use of the Property for storage of up to 925 vehicles is not a permitted use under C-1 zoning. While automobile sales and rental is a permitted use within the C-1 zone district (See Folio No. 14, p. 1730, Section 26-22 (B) (4)), such permitted use contemplates selling or renting of vehicles. It does not contemplate the storage of vehicles. Even assuming, arguendo, that the temporary use of the Property as a vehicle inventory storage area is a permitted use, the requirements for such use have not been complied with. The C-1 regulations concerning "automobile and light-duty truck sales and rental" require, among other things, that. • all parking and vehicle display areas shall be paved; • there shall be a minimum tea foot landscape buffer adjacent to any public street; • there shall be at least one (1) interior landscaped island for each thirty parking and/or vehicle display spaces. (Folio No. 14, p. 1730). It is undisputed that the Plaintiff's application did not contain these site plan improvemenrs. In fact, the record is clear that the plaintiff intended to use the Property to store up to 925 vehicles without making any improvements whatsoever.' (Folio No. 9), Under these circumstances, the Plaintiff cannot argue that it is entitled to use the property as a parking/inventory storage area when it has completely failed to comply with the requirements for such use_ While du: rruscript of the BOA bLariag reveals that the Plaintiff would have installed crushed gavel upon request by the BOA, this alone does ; of meet the City's paving regain vents. txW-4027.3351e67.01 -11- JUN-30-00 FRI 12:33 PM FAX NO. P. 13 In addition, it is not evident from the record that a vehicle demonstration area is a permitted use within a C-1 zone district. Nowhere in the list of permitted use is this type of use contemplated. (Folio No. 14, pp. 1730-1732). For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs references to and argument concerning a use by right are meaningless. C. THERE ARE SUFFICIENTLY ARTICULATED STANDARDS TO GUIDE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN REVIEWING APPLICATIONS FOR TEMPORARY USE PERMITS. As indicated above, the five approval criteria for a TUP are set forth in Section 26- 6(D)(3)(b). In summary, these criteria relate to; (1) effects on general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of residents in the neighborhood; (2) adverse effects on light, air, noise, water or drainage; (3) traffic impacts and traffic hazards or unsafe parking, loading, service or internal traffic conflicts; (4) design of setbacks, heights, parking, bulk, buffering, screening dud landscaping; and (5) burden on capacities of existing streets, utilities, parks, etc. (Folio No. 14, pp. 1698-1698.1). The Plaintiff cites Beaver Meadows y. Board of Country Commissioners, 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985) and Cherry Hills Resort Development Co v City of Cherry Hills Village, 790 11.2d 827 (Colo. 1990) in support of its assertion that the City's approval criteria for a temporary use permit are insufficiently precise to provide guidance to applicants as well as the dt6sion-makers. Both of these case are inapplicable to the BOA's decision, because both heaver Meadows and Cherry Itilis Village involved a local government's ad hoc determination to impose conditions of approval (ie,, exactions) on the approval of the specific development. LcNm34127.3W Iam.oi -12- JUN-30-00 FRI 12:33 PM FAX NO. P. 14 For example, the dispute in Beaver Meadows arose out of a determination made by the Poard of County Commissioners of Larimer County to impose development exactions as a condition of approval of a planned unit development ("PUD"). The exactions sought by the County included a 4.73 mile off-site access road and a requirement that the developer provide emergency medical services to the PUD. In holding that the County had no authority to impose these conditions of approval, the Court found that the County could not impose development exactions as conditions of approval where the underlying regulations did not contain sufficient standards to guide the County's discretion. Beaver Meadows, 709 P.2d at 938. In this matter, the BOA did not impose any conditions of approval on the temporary use permit, but rather denied the Plaintiffs application based on the specific criteria set forth in the zoning ordinance. Significantly, Colorado courts have upheld comparable standards of approval in the context of a special use application. In C &-M Sand & Gravel v. Board of Country t'.ommissioners, 673 P.2d 1013 (Colo. App. 1983), for example, an applicant for a special use permit challenged similar standards for granting or denying a special use. Boulder County's standards included, among other requirements, that the proposed use would be "in harmony and compatible with the character of the surrounding areas-will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazard, will not cause significant air, water, or noise pollution... will be adequately landscaped, buffered and screened; and will not otherwise be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the present or future inhabitants of the County." C M (Travel, 673 P.2d at 1018. The Court upheld these provisions, stating they provided 1,CW53037.31351967M -13- JUN-30-00 FRl 12:34 PM FAX NO. P. 15 sufficient standards for the denial of a special use. Id-, See also Tri-State Generation and ;1E'ran.:mi.Wrin Co. v. City of Thorntoa, 647 P.2d 670 (Colo. 1982). Likewise, here, the criteria for approval of a TUP are sufficiently clear to provide guidance to applicants such as the Plaintiff as well as to the BOA. These criteria relate not only to general considerations regarding health, safety and welfare, but also to very specific potential impacts of the proposed temporary use, including but not limited to noise, traffic, drainage, landscaping, and other on-site considerations. The Plaintiff was well aware of these criteria and was specifically asked by staff to supplement its application to address these items, (Folio No. 5). As previously discussed, the BOA applied these criteria in denying the Plaintiff's application, specifically finding that the information presented in the application failed, among other things, to adequately address impacts to traffic flow, parking and access; drainage; landscaping; and fencing. (Folio No. 12, Certificate of Resolution), This Coutt, therefore, should uphold the BOA's decision. C. THE BOA DID NOT SHOW BIAS OR PREJUDGMENT OF THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE. The Plaintiff summarily argues that the BOA "likened or showed a predisposition to a rosult based upon some other applicant's conduct regarding a Temporary Use Permit for a parking lot of an automobile dealership." (Opening Brief, p. 12). Colorado courts have long recognized the presumption that administrative boards will act fairly and with proper motives and upon valid reasons upon an application before it. Lev X. Board of Adigstment, 369 P,2d 991, 994 (Colo. 1962). In order to overcome this presumption, the challenger of the quasi-judicial decision must demonstrate a conflict of LMS=7.71151467.01 -14- JUN-30-00 FR1 12:34 PM FAX NO. P. 16 interest or impermissible bias upon the part of the decision maker. Leonard v. Board of Directors, 673 P.2d 1019 (Colo. App. 1983). A decision maker may be biased if he has a personal or financial stake in the decision that may create a conflict of interest, or if the decision maker has personal animosity toward the applicant. Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 v. Hortonville Education Assn, 426 U.S. 482 (1976). Here, no evidence was presented to establish that any BOA members had a personal bias against the Plaintiffs application. In fact, the BOA specifically recognized that it could not consider the circumstances of a separate BOA case concerning another automobile dealership, as evidenced by the following discussion between BOA chairperson, Bob Howard, and BOA members, Tom Abbott and Bill Echeimeyer: Bob Howard: Any questions of staff? Tom... Tom Abbott: 1 have ...I have one just to bring our memory back on the-other car dealer which is not... Bob Howard- We can't talk about that, Tom. Tom Abbott: ...which is... Bob Howard: We can't talk about the other case. Tom Abbott: I think this is, uh...I just want clarification. I'm not sure I would be out of hounds with this nne. T ,.jest wie trying to remember the other m, dealer..... hh, that issue was about temporary parking, of...well, temporary any enLf loyce parking. Bob Howard: Tom, I'd rather you didn't talk about this... we've got that second-third case is... Tom Abbott: That's a good point. Bob Howard: ...in regard to... Tom Abbott: Okay. I was just trying to...that's a good point. Excuse me. Okay, Bill Echelmeyer: Is this really... in our ballpark? Should we be looking at this at all? If I remember correctly, three years ago when another auto dealer wanted to come in along (inaudible)... LCK53U T319si967.01 -ts- JUN-30-00 FR1 12:34 PM FAX NO. P. 17 Bob Howard: Bill, we can't discuss it, please, Because we've got-the other dealer coming in...the case right after this-we're not... going to be comparing case against case. (Folio No. 11, pp. 10-1.1). It is clear from this exchange that the BOA was not "predisposed" to a particular outcome or biased in any way based on another application before them. To the contrary, the Chair of the BOA warned board members against mating any such comparisons. Moreover, there is nothing else in the record to reflect bias or bad faith on the part of the Board members. Sus Ambmadpr Building Corr. v. Board of Review of Regional Bldg. E ftt in and For City of Cnlorado Springs and El Paso County, 623 P.2d 79 (Colo. App. 1980). VI. CONCLUSION There is competent evidence in the record to support the BOA's denial of Plaintiff's temporary use permit application. The BOA correctly applied the criteria for approval of a temporary use permit in making its determination. The Plaintiff has failed to show that the 130A misapplied or misconstrued the TUP criteria for approval or that the BOA's determination was somehow tainted by personal bias or predisposition of the case. This Court should find that the Plaintiff has failed to show any abuse of discretion or act which is in excess of the BOA's jurisdiction or arbitrary, and should affirm the BOA's decision. t r~. M027.J%351 7.m 46- JON-30-00 FRI 12:35 PH DATED this day of Y , 2000 FAX NO. P, 18 Respectfully submitted, GORSUCH KIRGIS LLP By: &4& Gerald E. Dahl, #7766 Linda C. Michow, #19101 Tower I, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Tel. (303) 376-5000 Fax: (303) 376-5100 Josh A. Marks, #16953 David R. Brougham, #1950 Hall & Evans LLC 1200 I.Th Street, Suite 1700 Denver, Colorado 80202 Tel: 303-628-3300 Fax: 303-628-3368 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO and THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE IkK53027.353518E7.01 -17- JUN-30-00 FR1 12:3b PM FAX NO. P. 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this day of 2000, I caused a true and correct copy of DF,FFNDANTS ANSWER BRIEF to be deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Dennis B. Polk, Esq. Halley, Albertson & Polk, P.C. Deaver West Office Park Building 19, Suite 100 1667 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401 L(AWon.3vs1867.01 -18- 06/21/00 RED 09:03 FAI 303 376 5001 GORSUCH KIRGIS 1 GORSUCH KIRGIS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAw TO: OF: CITY: FROM, DATE: MESSAGE: CLIENT NAME: Wheat Ridne FAX NO.: 303-235-2857 FILE NO.: 53027 PHONE NO.. 303-235-2844 Q001 THIS MESSAGE MAY CONSTTUTE PMinAPPO ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNMCATION O8 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT, AMP UNAUTHORM USE OR OMCLOSURE M PROHMrfM. IF YOU ARE NOT THE ME/OM RECS4EHr OF THIS MESSAGE, PLEASE AOY US SY "LUNG COLLECT AT {303) 376.5000 AND FOSNAROWG THE DOCUMENT TO US BY MAIL To THE ADDRESS usm mLow. NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: 15 (not including this page) FOR ASSISTANCE, CALL 303-376-5141 Tower 1, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 376-5000 Fax: (303) 376-5001 ALAN WHITE, PLANNING DIRECTOR WHEAT RIDGE WHEAT RIDGE LINDA C. MICHOW, ESQ. JUNE 21, 2000 06/21/00 RED 09:03 FAX 303 376 5001 GORSUCH %IRGIS The record has been filed by the City of Wheat Ridge and consists of a series of folio information and a transcript of a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment that occurred on December 9, 1999. The record consists of 14 separate folio items, including the following: 1. Zoning Ordinance Number 668; 2. Application Materials; 3. Agency Referral Correspondence; 4. Ditch Company Correspondence; S. Letter from Planning Staff; 6. Temporary Use Permit Posting Certificate; 7. Notice of Public Hearing; 8. Adjacent Property Owner Notices; 9. Planning Staff Report; lo. Public Hearings Speakers List; 11. Transcript; 12. Board of Adjustment Resolution and Cover Letter; 13. Section 2-61 Board of Adjustment of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws; and 14. Excerpts from Chapter 26 Zoning Code of the City of Wheat Ridge. For ease of reference in reviewing the Record, references will be made to the folio or index number and to the page number as applicable. with respect to the transcript, references will be made to the page number of the transcript. Q002 -2- 06/21/00 RED 09:04 FAX 303 376 5001 GORSUCH %IRGIS The majority of the subject property is zoned Commercial One in the City of Wheat Ridge with a small segment zoned Agricultural 1(Folio 1). However, that zonin resolution contains certain restrictions, principally a restriction requiring a site plan approval with respect to the property that is subject to the Temporary Use Permit Application in this instance. The general zoning is found at folio number 1. As indicated, the underlying land use is a Commercial One use within the City of Wheat Ridge. Due to the fact that the applicant in this instance was not proceeding forward with a permanent type of use, requiring a site plan, the City Staff made a determination that, to allow parking of vehicles on the subject property, it was necessary to proceed forward with a Temporary Use Permit. That Temporary Use Permit is referred to throughout the case proceeding as TUP-99-05. As indicated in the Staff Report, folio number 9, the request of the applicant was a for a Temporary Use Permit to allow interim vehicle inventory storage and vehicle testing on property zoned Commercial One and Agricultural One located at 4950 Parfet Street (See folio number 9, page 2.) As indicated in the Staff Report, a new and/or used car lot is an allowed or use by right in the C-1 Zone District However, since the site plan approval had not occurred, the Staff determined that it was necessary prior to utilizing the subject property as a temporary parking facility that a Temporary Use Permit be obtained. For •,t unknown reasons, the Staff determined that it would be necessary to apply the criteria for G obtaining a variance to the temporary use process. See folio number 9, page 3. There is no ~g a ~CN 6a provision within the City of Wheat Ridge Zoning Code or the Code of the City of Wheat oa" Ridge which expressly requires or permits the City to evaluate a Temporary Use Permit utilizing the criteria normally applied to a variance. It is significant to note that under the 10 003 -3- 06/21/00 WED 09:09 FAX 303 376 5001 GORSUCH RIRGIS JJ Not tw eve UlnlW existing Wheat Ridge Zon/bod a parking facility of the type contemplated by the Applicants i a use by tight ee onumber 14 at page 1730. As indicated in Section 26 22 Commercial-One District (C-1), this district is established to "...provide for areas with a wide range of commercial land uses, which include office, general business and retail sales and service establishments." Therefore, the issue that was properly before the Board of yes ~t d id - - Towpo~ yy use Adjustment did not concern the contemplated land use of a temporary parldtlg lot or e*r~ge of mvei a y display. in fact, as indicated under Section 26-22(B)(4) ~a use by right in this zoning category. Here, however, it was not contemplated at this time that the parking use would be of a permanent nature such as to require a full site plan and was of a temporary nature. Likewise, as set forth ate page 1731, under Section 26-22(B)(23), parking of -fky:G ave. inry a-*Y51 ho ovooWMV'&, automobiles of clients, patients and patrons of adjacent commercial districts is a use by right in this zoning category. Similarly, under Section (C) Permitted Accessory Uses and Accessory Buildings, subparagraph (3) the display or storage of merchandise, material or stock is permitted. In carefully reviewing the permissive subparagraph, (3) (c) exempts from its application certain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Likewise, under subparagraph (C) (4), stocking of items intended for use or sale upon the premises is permitted and is a use by right. Therefore, the application that was before the Board of Adjustment should only have been properly considered as a Temporary Use Permit and not considered under the criteria for granting of a variance. The Temporary Use Permit procedure for the City of Wheat Ridge is found in folio number 14 at page 1698 under Section 26-6(D)(3)(b). This provision of the Ordinance sets forth only five criteria that must be evaluated. However, for Q004 -4- 06/21/00 RED 09:04 FAX 303 376 5001 GORSUCH %IRGIS whatever reason, the Board of Adjustment apparently chose to adopt the criteria to be utilized for the granting of variances, which are a separate and distinct legal concept from a Temporary Use Permit. The only specified requirements for a submittal to the City of Wheat Ridge for a Temporary Use Permit are found in Section 26-6(D)(1). No other articulated standards are found in the Record for guidance of an applicant. These requirements are as follows. 1. Copy of the deed for the property; 2. Power of attorney if the applicant is not the owner of the property; 3. Property survey; 4. Posting certificate; 5. other information as requested by the Zoning Administration. Here, the Applicant submitted a site plan, survey, deed and all of the other information that was requested from the Zoning Administrator. Therefore, the Applicant has complied with the only articulated standard set forth in the Wheat Ridge Code for processing of a Temporary Use Permit. As indicated above, this was an application for a Temporary Use Permit as opposed to a variance or other land use type of determination. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the applicant satisfied all of the requirements of the Code of the City of Wheat Ridge, and the City's actions were arbitrary, capricious or taken in excess of the authority granted by the Code of the City of wheat Ridge to the Board of Adjustment. Moreover, as indicated by the actual transcript of proceedings, there is no competent evidence to support the findings and determination of the Cary of Wheat Ridge. The actual resolution of the City of ®oos -5- o6/21/oo WED 09:05 FAX 303 376 5001 GORSUCH RIRGIS Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment is found at folio number 12 of the record. The reasons set forth by the Board of Adjustment are not contained within the criteria set forth in the Zonin oluti r the Code of the City of Wheat Ridge. For example, in fording number 31 which is the fundamental basis for the claimed denial, there are six purported reasons for the denial. None of these reasons are contained within any of the criteria that an applicant is required to address in a submittal for a Temporary Use Permit and are more akin to those in which an underlying land use determination is sought As indicated above, the use contemplated under the Temporary Use Permit is a use by right. 00 The actual transcript of the proceedings is before the Court. It is significant to note that the findings of the Board of Adjustment, when contrasted with the actual evidence before the Board of Adjustment, cannot be reconciled. In addition, it shows that it was the City Staff that recommended the Temporary Use Process to allow the Applicant to submit a temporary inventory storage proposal as opposed to some type of attempt to circumvent City Council- See folio. number 11, page 4. Indeed, the only information that is contained within the transcript which even addresses the allowable criteria set out within the Code does not arise to the level of competent proof. For example, on page 7 of the transcript, there is the bald assertion by the planner, "However, once again, we are concerned for, uh, any sort of, uh, water pollution, not only in the test track area but also in the storage area Z006 with, uh, potential of, uh, residue coming off the cars." There is an utter paucity of evidence on behalf of the City with regard to the other criteria set forth under the Zonin esolution. Indeed, it appears that members of the Board of Adjustment had a predisposition with regard to the outcome in this matter based upon another application for a temporary use, -6- 06/21/00 RED 09:05 Felt 303 376 5001 GORSUCH KIRGIS which was apparently considered by the Board of Adjustment. See folio number 11, transcript page 10 through page 11. Here, the Board of Adjustment has acted as a zoning authority as opposed to an agency imbued with the power to address temporary use permits. The Board of Adjustment has, therefore, abused its discretion. II. ARGUMENT The actions of the Board of Adjustment in the City of Wheat Ridge in this matter must be reversed and vacated for three reasons. First, there is no competent evidence before the Board of Adjustment which supports its findings. The findings are based upon an erroneous criteria, which is not applicable to an evaluation of a temporary use permit where the underlying use is a use by right Secondly, there are no articulated standards that may reasonably be applied to the Applicant's request such as to deny the Applicant's request and third, the Board of Adjustment applied the wron Y 1 standard in reviewing the Applicants request. for each of these three separate reasons, the determination of the Board of Adjustment should be reversed, and this matter should be remanded back to the Board of Adjustment with directions ordering the Board of Adjustment to approve the Applicants submittal for a Temporag Use Permit on the subject yroyerty- In addressing similar ambiguous standards such as those found in the Wheat Ridge Code, the Supreme Court has held: "Therefore, notwithstanding the general delegation of authority by the legislature to consider adequacy of access, the obvious concern of the County Regulations about this same subject, and the general policy of the county to require new development to pay its own way and share in the cost of upgrading county Q007 06/21/0o RED 09:06 FAX 303 376 5001 GORSUCH HIRGIS facilities to the extent that it is fair and equitable, we conclude that the statutes and regulations, taken in combination, do not authorize imposition of the road improvement condition at issue here. This is because they provide insuffident standards review of that action will be available and effective." Beaver Meadows v Board of County Commissioners of the County of er. 709 P.2d 928, 938 (Colo. 1985). Q008 y eN f ,„a Ny e~aery It is the keystone that regulations be sufficient to guide an applicant in processing land development applications. in reviewing criteria that were very similar to those at issue, the Supreme Court noted: 'These regulations not only lack criteria for evaluating the sufficiency of emergency medical services but are totally silent as to the possibility that a developer might have to consider such services as a factor in development approval. The regulations are not sufficient to show that the county has exercised the legislatively delegated authority in the necessary manner. For this reason, the Board had no authority to require the developer to pay for or provide a plan for emergency medical service as a condition of the approval of the Beaver Meadows PUM" Beaver Meadows Page 939. Here, the criteria that are sought to be addressed in a Temporary Use Application lack sufficient precision to support the findings made by the Board of Adjustment In fact, the criteria set forth m the Staff Report erroneously cite the criteria that are applicable for granting a variance as opposed to a Temporary Use Permit Therefore, the vague and general criteria espoused by Staff and seemingly adopted by the Board of Adjustment have the fundamental failure that has been disapproved by the Supreme Court. Indeed, the only precise or articulated requirements of an Applicant were satisfied in this case. The City can point to no other criteria that are necessary to establish one's entitlement to a special or temporary use permit other than those set forth in Section 26-6(D)(1) (a) and (b). If the -a- 06/21/00 RED 09:06 FAX 303 376 5001 GORSUCH KIRGIS 0 009 City of Wheat Ridge had intended to apply the criteria set forth in Section 26-6(D) (3) (b), then there is no evidence to support the alleged or claimed detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the Wo' 900 neighborhood of the proposed use. In fact, the actual Staff comments show that crit;; 2, 3, 4 and s were, in fact, satisfed and, therefore, the only disputed issue concerned finding of fact number 1. There is no competent evidence nor is there any articulated established criteria existent in the City of Wheat Ridge to establish what would constitute a "detrimental effect on the general health, welfare, safety and convenience" of persons. Therefore, the action of the Board of Adjustment cannot be sustained in light of the absence of sufficient criteria where use is a use by right, it is submitted that the Board of Adjustment of the City of wheat Ridge erred in refusing to approve the Applicant's request for an interim parking use on the subject property. Thus, where, as here, there has been adequate compliance with the only articulated requirements of the City and the actions of a lower tribunal are without record support, the Court should reverse the decision of the Board of Adjustment. In this instance, the Board of Adjustment has applied void or improper criteria to the Applicant's proposal that are not supported by the Code of the city of wheat Ridge. Where, such matters are before the Court in a C.R.C.P.106(a)(4) proceeding, the reviewing Court may consider, in considering the eiastence of an abuse of discretion, whether the hearing authority misconstrued or misapplied the applicable law. Board of County Commissioners v. Conder. 927P.2d 1339, 1343 (Colo. 1996). It is also significant to note that in addressing zoning related issues, the Court has held: -9- 06/21/00 WED 09:06 FAI 303 376 5001 GORSUCH %IRGIS "However, in requiring master plan compliance, the masterplan q provisions at issue must be drafted with sufficient exactitude so rt~~~ that proponents of new development are afforded due process, the county does not retain unfettered discretion, and the basis for the countys decision is dear for purposes of recent judicial review:' Condez. 1351. Thus, this Court may determine, in reviewing the entire record and the lack of articulated Z010 standards, that the City of Wheat Ridge acted improperly in connection with the Applicant's ( ? Temporary Use Permit /-W',,,; ite * ~P y Similarly, where a city has previously determined that the land use allows the contemplated use, a city may not thereafter attempt to reserve to itself the discretion to decide which of the allowable land uses will be permitted. Sherman v City of Colorado Snrins;s. 680 P.2d 1302, 1304 (Colo. App. 1983). Thus, where a lower tribunal exercises discretion not afforded to it in its Zoning Ordinance, it is deemed to have exceeded its jurisdiction, and the rejection of a development plan is invalid. Sherman 1304. In this instance, the underlying use is a use by right on this property, and the Board of Adjustment's attempt to inject matters not property contemplated within its authority is an abuse of discretion mandating reversal of this proceeding. Likewise, as indicated in Sherman the rejection of a land use plan is an abuse of discretion where the ordinance lacks adequate standards. See Sherman v City of Colorado Springs 763 P.2d 292, 294 (Colo. 1988). It is respectfully submitted that a Temporary Use Permit under the circumstances u11~-F? s where the tmderlvinQ use is a use of right is akin to a subdivision plat In Cherry Hill gemrr Rgypl=e_nr Co. v. City of Cherry Fills Village. 790 P.2d 827 (Colo. 1990), the Supreme Court has held: -10- 06/21/00 WED 09:07 FAX 303 376 $001 GORSUCH EIRGIS "if a plan meets all of the zoning requirements and authority to impose additional conditions or criteria to guide such authority is lacking, the plan must be unconditionally approved." Chexa Hills, 832. In accord, see Bauer v. City of Wheat WE 513 P2d 203 (1973); Westem Pita& Consavcdon ComRany v Board of County Commissioners 506 P.2d 1230 (Colo. 1973). moll As here, the Court in the Cherry Hills case was reviewing a situation where the municipality sought to impose conditions with regard to traffic congestion, fire protection and other off-site limitations on the applicant's property. Similar to the present circumstance, the City sought to do so under the general rubric of health, safety and welfare. The Court specifically noted that, absent specific regulations dealing with such issues, the municipality acted improperly because there were not sufficient standards to ensure that any action taken by a city in response to a land use proposal will be rational and consistent with that judicial review of that action and that judicial review of that action will be available and effective. Cherry Hills. 832. In the present circumstance, there is no record support for the Board of Adjustments actions with respect to this particular application. At most, there is an unsupported conclusion as opposed to any competent evidence that parking of vehicles At4V may cause the discharge of hydrocarbons. Interestingly, there is no factual basis for such assertion and, therefore, it cannot rise to the level of competent proof. Likewise, the City has failed to show any definitive regulation or rule which would provide an applicant sufficient notice to guide it in seeking approval. In those situations where a use a permissive type of use within a particular zone category, the Court has held that an W aw administrative board's refusal to issue a conditional use permit will be upheld only if there is substantial evidence to establish that denial of the permit is beneficial to the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community. City of Colorado Spins v. Blanche, -11- 06/21/00 WED 09:07 FAX 303 376 5001 GORSUCH HIRGIS 761 P.2d 212, 217 (Colo. 1988). In the instant proceeding, there is no competent evidence, let alone substantial evidence. Therefore, under the e)dsdng law as applied to the facts before the Board of Adjustment in this case, there must be substantial evidence to establish that denial of the Temporary Use Permit would be beneficial to the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community. The record before the Board of Adjustment is absolutely devoid of any such quantum of proof. Therefore, the action of the Board of Adjustment was improper. The action of the Board of Adjustment in this instance becomes even more egregious ntq ~`'y in that if the Board of Adjustment likened or showed a predisposition to a result based upon y~ y some outer applicants conduct regarding a Temporary Use Permit for a parking lot of an automobile dealership. This is not a proper consideration for any tribunal to consider. Each applicant has a due process right to have its proposal considered solely based upon the facts that exist at that hearing and not interjecting other applicants' interests in such proposal. It is clear that once an -applicant applies under an ordinance, an adjudicatory body such as the Board of Adjustment may consider only those factors which apply generally to all applicants. M=m Pavm& Construction Co v Board of County Co boners. 506 P.2d 1230 (1973); Bauer v. City of Wheat Ridge. 513 P.2d 203 (Colo. 1973). Even giving the tau evidendary standard for an administrative proceeding before a Board of Adjustment, the law still requires that there be a basic sense of fundamental fairness. Monte Vista Prf ssional nn; ding Inc. v. QU of Monte Vista. 531 P.2d 400, 401 (Colo-App. 1975). Consideration of another applicant is not proper and tainted the entire process. Q012 -12- 06/21/00 RED 09:08 FAX 303 376 5001 GORSUCH %IRGIS Z013 In this case, the City Staff apparently determined that a variance criteria should be applied to the Applicant's request Within the City's own Municipal Ordinance, however, variance criteria are distinguished from special use or temporary use applications. A i temporary use application is not subject to the same criteria as set forth under the variance IW- procedures within the City of Wheat Ridge. Indeed, a variance allows a use that is not a use Jol by right or is a variation from a use that might otherwise be permitted For example, variance criteria would apply if there is a difference in set back requirement or a difference in other similar types of matters. A Temporary Use Permit is not subject to the same types 1 of criteria and this type of permit exists as a matter of right once the applicant satisfies the 101 " procedural requirements of the City's Code. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that an improper procedure was applied, and the Court should reverse the inferior tribunal on this basis. Municipalities must complywith their own procedural requirements in passing upon land-use related matters. Here, that procedure was not applied in that improper criteria were utilized by Staff, which was ultimately adopted by the Board of Adjustment in passing on this unique proposal. Accord, see lkwsell v Qa of Central. 892 P.2d 432, 437 (Colo.App. 1995). Therefore, at a minimum, this Court should remand this matter to the City of Wheat Ridge to conduct a proper hearing utilizing the proper criteria after development of sufficiently intelligible and definite standards to evaluate such a proposal. -13- 06/21/00 FED 09:08 FAX 303 376 5001 GORSUCH %IRGIS HL CONCLUSION As demonstrated above, the position of the City of Wheat Ridge and the Board of Adjustment in denying the applicant's Temporary Use permit was arbitrary, capricious and an act taken in excess of that body's jurisdiction. The Board of Adjustment considered improper matters, and passed upon the Applicant's request after commenting about those matters, including, as indicated in the transcript, another proposal thatwas before the Board of Adjustment, conclusory remarks as opposed to competent evidence and an inapplicable standard. In light of these deficiencies, the Court should reverse the action of the Board of Adjustment and remand this matter to the Board of Adjustment in the City of Wheat Ridge with directions to the approve the applicant's request for a Temporary Use Permit as sought by the Applicant. DATED this seh day of June, 2000. Respectfully submitted, HOLLEY, ALBERTSON & POLY, P.C. By: 14V 1A ~wj B. Polk, No. 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Denver West Office Park 1667 Cole Blvd., Ste. 100 - Bldg. 19 Golden, Colorado 80401 Telephone; (303) 233-7838 Z014 -14- 06/21/00 /FED 09:08 FAX 303 376 5001 GORSUCH %IRGIS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the ~ day of June, 2000, a true and correct copy of the foregoing pLARfMS, OPENING BRIEF was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to the following: Gerald E. Dahl, Esq. Linda C. ivlichow, Esq.. Tower i, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe St. Denver, CO 80202 Josh A. Marks, Esq. David R. Brougham, Esq. HALL & EVANS 1200 17t" SG, Suite 1700 Denver, CO 80202 Q015 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Wheat Telephone 303/ 237-6944 Ridge FAX 303/234-5924 December 16, 1999 Mr. Dennis Polk Medved Chevrolet c/o Holley, Albertson & Polk 1667 Cole Blvd., STE 100 - Bldg. 19 Golden, CO 80401 RE: TUP-99-05 Dear Mr. Polk: Please be advised that at its meeting of December 9, 1999, the Board of Adjustment DENIED your request for approval of a temporary storage and parking of vehicles with a temporary testing/ demonstration area for vehicles being sold at the Medved Autoplex for property zoned Commercial- One and located at 4950 Parfet. Attached is a copy of the Certificate of Resolution stating the Board's decision which became effective the date of the meeting. Should you decide to appeal the decision of the Board, you will need to notify the Jefferson County district court in writing within 30 days of the Board's decision. Please feel free to contact me at (303) 235-2846 if you have any questions. AL/ SJ CerelyI Barbara Delgadillo Senior Secretary /bd cc: Metzger Three, LLC 1001 Lincoln Ave... Denver, CO 80203 TUP-99-05 C.\Barbara\BOA\CORRESP1tup9905.wpd CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION I, Ann Lazzeri, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment, do hereby certify that the following Resolution was adopted in the City of Wheat Ridge, County of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, on the 9th day of December, 1999. CASE NO: TUP-99-05 APPLICANT'S NAME: Medved Chevrolet LOCATION: 4950 Parfet Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member ECHELMEYER the following resolution was stated: WHEREAS, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. TUP-99-05 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and there was a protest registered against it; and WHEREAS, the relief applied for may not be granted without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. TUP-99-05 be, and hereby is, denied. TYPE OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT: Temporary use permit to allow inventory storage and vehicle testing. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: Staff report has indicated that the Wheat Ridge economic development specialist has commented that the vehicle testing area would not benefit the city either visually or economically. This individual does not support the use of the south half of the property as a testing area. 2. Staff concludes that since the site plan requirement was placed on the rezoning approval, granting of the temporary use may circumvent the authority of the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. Due to the scope of this proposal, its uses and "size, the proposal is insubstantial in significant areas necessary to allow the Board to make a sufficiently educated decision. For example: Board of Adjustment Resolution TUP-99-05 Page two (2) a) No approval of impacted irrigation ditch companies. b) No written management plan. C) No drainage plan. d) No written fire hazard abatement plan describing mowing, fire department access, etc. e) No analysis of impact to public roadways including traffic flow, parking and access. f) Inadequate consideration to impact upon the neighborhood; i.e., landscaping, fencing, lighting, sound abatement, pollution and other health, welfare and aesthetic impacts. VOTE: YES: ABBOTT, BROWN, ECHELMEYER, HOVLAND, MAURO, THIESSEN NO: HOWARD ABSENT: JUNKER DISPOSITION: A request for a temporary use permit to allow temporary storage and parking of vehicles with a temporary testing/demonstration area was DENIED. ADOPTED and made effective this 9th day of December, 1999. BOB HOWARD, Chairman Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment Page 2 12/09/99 For the following reasons: Because of the way in which Owens Street was vacated, an irregular shaped lot was created. By retaining the southern 40 feet of Owens Street as a turn-around for emergency vehicles, a situation of two different setback requirements along the eastern property line has resulted. In the absence of this anomalous remainder of Owens Street, no variance would be required for the design as submitted. 2. Since the small part of Owens Street right-of-way is not used as a public roadway but only functions as a tum-around space for emergency vehicles, approval of this request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. Approval of the request will not impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties or endanger the public safety. 4. Only an approximate 10-foot by 30-foot section of the southeast corner of the impacting fourth unit encroaches into the 30-foot required setback. The balance of this structure facing this eastern property line is in compliance with the required setback. With the following condition: This variance shall apply only to the design as presented to the Board at the December 9, 1999 meeting (i.e., no extension of approved variance). The motion passed by a vote of 7-0 with Board Member JUNKER absent. Chair HOWARD informed the applicant that his request for variance had been granted. B. Case No. TUP-99-05: An application submitted by Medved Chevrolet for approval of temporary storage and parking of vehicles with a temporary testing/demonstration area for vehicles being sold at the Medved Autoplex for property zoned Commercial-One and Agricultural-One and located at 4950 Parfet. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She reviewed the staff report, presented slides and overheads of the subject property and answered the criteria involved in granting a temporary use permit. All pertinent documents were entered into the record. She advised that all notification and posting requirements had been met and the Board had jurisdiction to hear the case. Staff recommended denial of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board of Adjustment Page 3 December 9, 1999 Board Member ECHELMEYER expressed concern that the proposed plan would be in opposition to previous Council direction that this area not become a "West Colfax" in regard to the standard for separation of adjacent car lots. Board Member BROWN stated that she would prefer the proposed area be used only for storage of new cars which would have less chance of leaking oil. She also felt that even if such a condition were imposed, it would be extremely difficult to monitor. Board Member MAURO expressed concern about parking cars on dry grass which could constitute a fire hazard. Meredith Reckert stated that the Arvada Fire Department did not have a concern with the situation. Board Member HOWARD asked if the Army Corps of Engineers had determined that this area is not a wetlands area. Ms. Reckert replied that the Corps of Engineers had not been involved to this point. Dennis Polk 1667 Cole Boulevard, Golden Mr. Polk, attorney for the applicant, was swom by Chair HOWARD. He stated that his client's business was welcomed to the city in 1984 and has been regarded as an excellent corporate citizen. He took exception to the staff report which stated there would be no economic benefit to the City. The Hummer dealership is the only one of its kind in a ten- state region. People who purchase these vehicles also purchase parts and repairs which generates substantial sales tax for the City of Wheat Ridge. He stated that the City has not offered proof regarding ground contamination and that the applicant does not want to contaminate his own ground or ground water. In regard to the reason for this request, Mr. Polk stated that dealers are required to maintain large inventories and that this storage situation would be temporary only until a new building can be constructed.. He stated that his client does not want to produce a West Colfax image. He noted that alleviating the pressure of inventory storage would ease the parking issues on Parfet. He informed the Board that the residential structure on the property is occupied by Mr. Medved's ranch hand and has never been used as an office. There is no commercial use intended for this residence. Mr. Polk did not feel the city should act as an intermediary for ditch companies who no longer use their lateral ditches but complain when someone wants to pipe them. He asked the Board to divide the parking issue from the test track issue. In conclusion, he stated that this was not a land use issue, but an entitlement issue and requested approval of the request. Board Member BROWN asked about the surface of the storage area. Mr. Polk said they would put down crushed gravel. In response to her questions about possible wetlands, Board of Adjustment Page 4 December 9, 1999 Mr. Polk stated that a Phase I and Phase II environmental impact studies have been done which has assured the applicant that there are no designated wetlands in this area. Board Member BROWN expressed concern about the location of this storage area when their new building is constructed. She also asked how many cars would be stored in this area. Mr. Polk estimated approximately 900 vehicles would be kept there. John Medved 1334 Grapevine Road, Golden Mr. Medved was sworn by Chair HOWARD. He stated that he has tried to be a good neighbor in Wheat Ridge for twelve years. He also noted that every time the dealership secures a mortgage, the lender requires environmental impact studies to be completed before granting a mortgage. In response to a question from Board Member BROWN, Mr. Medved stated there would probably be 300 to 450 cars stored in the area of which 70% would be new vehicles. He stated that he would be willing to eliminate the test track if necessary to meet his need for inventory storage. Board Member ABBOTT expressed concern about the scope of the request which involves eleven acres and indicted that he would like to see more documentation regarding this project before any decision is made. Dennis Polk responded that his client met all the city's criteria for documentation fora TUP application. Board Member BROWN expressed concern with any development such as placing crushed rock on a temporary use permit. She felt that vehicle demonstration would have to be restricted because of the ditches and soil erosion. She would only be comfortable with new cars being parked above the ditch. John Medved stated that he would be agreeable to parking only new car inventory in the area and that he only needs the TUP for a year. In response to questions from Chair HOWARD, Mr. Polk said there is no site plan developed at this time, but architects and designers are working on it. Chuck Steismeier 4996 Parfet Mr. Steismeier was sworn by Chair HOWARD. He stated his opposition to the application and expressed concern about security issues associated with cars being stored in the proposed area which would allow more convenient access to thieves. He felt the security of his house would also be compromised because of the close proximity to the Board of Adjustment December 9, 1999 car storage area. He was also concerned with environmental issues associated with the project. He also stated that the residential structure has never been used for an office. He expressed concern about the test track going through ditches on the property which results in muddy water coming to his property. ECHELMEYER expressed concern that a TUP would probably have to be extended for more than a year and stated that he would also prefer to see a more complete plan before any decisions are made. Board member THIESSEN expressed concern regarding the intent of the code which prohibits car dealers from building next to each other. She also felt there was not sufficient documentation regarding possible impacts. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member ECHELMEYER, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. TUP-99-05 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there was a protest registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may not be granted without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. TUP-99- 05 be, and hereby is, denied. Type of TUP Temporary use permit to allow inventory storage and vehicle testing For the following reasons: 1. Staff report has indicated that the Wheat Ridge economic development specialist has commented that the vehicle testing area would not benefit the city either visually or economically. This individual does not support the use of the south half of the property as a testing area. 2. Staff concludes that since the site plan requirement was placed on the rezoning approval, granting of the temporary use may circumvent the authority of the Planning Commission and City Council. Board of Adjustment Page December 9, 1999 3. Due to the scope of this proposal, its uses and size, the proposal is insubstantial in significant areas necessary to allow the Board to make a sufficiently educated decision. For example: a) No approval of impacted irrigation ditch companies. b) No written management plan. C) No drainage plan. d) No written fire hazard abatement plan describing mowing, fire department access, etc. .e) No analysis of impact to public roadways including traffic flow, parking and access. f) Inadequate consideration to impact upon the neighborhood; i.e., landscaping, fencing, lighting, sound abatement, pollution and other health, welfare and aesthetic impacts. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1 with and Chair HOWARD voting no and Board Member JUNKER absent. Chair HOWARD informed the applicant that his request for a temporary use permit had been denied. (Chair HOWARD declared a recess at 9:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:50 p.m.) C. Case No. TUP-99-06: An application submitted by John Elway Auto Nation for an extension of TUP-98-08 allowing for employee and service vehicle parking on the south side of the current Friendly Ford facility zoned PCD and located at 3601 Wadsworth Boulevard. This case was presented by Alan White. He reviewed the staff report, presented overheads of the subject property and answered the criteria involved in granting a temporary use permit. All pertinent documents were entered into the record. He advised that all notification and posting requirements had been met and the Board had jurisdiction to hear the case. Staff recommended approval for reasons outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Board Member THIESSEN, Mr. White replied that the request is basically due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. Board Member HOVLAND asked if it were realistic to believe this would be the last request for a temporary use permit. Mr. White replied that he was convinced this would be the last request because it is planned to get approval for a planned commercial development for this area from City Council during the next year. Board of Adjustment Page 7 December 9, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST CASE NO: DATE: December 9, 1999 REQUEST U -fs 7~' -4r us e C/ /ow ii1 e 5 ~ e ;.r _ ~IY2 ~fe//O/e7~ - ref S~ Z/ f, Speaker Name (PLEASE PRINT) Address/Phone In Favor / Opposed 1 GG7coc- 91-W19-1o0 GhVc1,~ S hesw 2/~ fq'`~(o P grtC! Sl 3d3 ~Sro D789 / CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 9,1999 DATE PREPARED: Nov. 30, 1999 CASE NO. & NAME: TUP-99-05 ACTION REQUESTED: CASE MANAGER: M. Reckert Temporary Use permit to allow inventory storage and vehicle testing LOCATION OF REQUEST: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: DATE PUBLISHED: DATE POSTED: DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: 4950 Parfet Street Medved Chevrolet c/o Holley, Albertson & Polk 1667 Cole Blvd. Suite 100 - building 19 Golden, CO 80401 Metzger Three LLC 1001 Lincoln Avenue Denver, CO 80203 10.982 acres Commercial-One and Agricultural-One Single-Family, Agricultural N: A-1, S: C-2, A-1; E: PID; W: C-1 N: low density residential; S: vacant, billboard; E: industrial, commercial; W: commercial car lot Agricultural Estate Residential November 19, 1999 November 24, 1999 November 19, 1999 ENTER INTO RECORD: (IQ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Q SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS O OTHER (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS Q SLIDES (X) EXHIBITS JV14UL1~ The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 9-1 I. REQUEST The applicant requests approval of a temporary use permit to allow interim vehicle inventory storage and vehicle testing on property zoned Commercial-One and Agricultural-One located at 4950 Parfet Street. II. CASE HISTORY The property in question is comprised of two parcels containing a total of 10.982 acres. It is located on the eastern side of Parfet Street and extends over to Oak Street. The applicant, Medved Chevrolet, is in the process of purchasing the parcel to develop an additional car dealership. The applicant has existing car dealerships to the west addressed as 11001 W. I-70 Service Road and 11201 W. I-70 Service Road. The larger parcel was zoned and platted in 1986. Although it has Commercial-One zoning, a condition of the rezoning ordinance requires site plan approval by Planning Commission and City Council through a public hearing process prior to development. A new and/or used car lot is an allowed use in the C-1 zone district; however, since site plan approval has not occurred, a temporary use permit is required to allow the interim storage and vehicle testing. A new and/or used car sales lot is not an allowed use in the Agricultural-One zone district. The applicant is requesting the TUP to allow vehicle inventory storage on the northern two-thirds and to allow the southern portion to be used as a vehicle test track. The property is relatively flat, has a house and several outbuildings on the very north part. An open ditch (Wadsworth Ditch) runs along the north side of these buildings. Two additional open channel ditches (Bayou and Swadley) traverse the southern end of the property. In July of 1999, the owner was cited for having illegal vehicle storage with over 200 cars parked on the north half of this property as overflow inventory for the Medved sales lots. At that time, it also appeared that the house was being used as an office. The owner was issued a warning notice and the violation ceased by September of 1999. There have been no subsequent violations of this nature on the property. III. SITE PLAN The applicant is requesting the TUP to allow vehicle inventory storage on the northern two-thirds and to allow the southern portion to be used as a vehicle test track. A site plan has been submitted which has been included under Exhibit `A'. It shows enough storage area for over 900 cars. The proposal does not include paving for the parking area. The parking will occur on the native grasses already in place on the property, although the applicant has indicated that crushed gravel or reconstituted asphalt may be put down if required by the City. A single access is provided from Parfet in the location of the existing driveway for the house. TUP-99-05/Medved Page 2 Board of Adjustment -B 'on,,, The applicant has indicated that at this time, no additional fencing, lighting or landscaping is proposed. Please refer to Exhibits `B' and `C' which are letters from the applicant. The Swadley Ditch Company has responded that no activity can occur which will negatively affect the ditch or maintenance easement for the ditch.. No storm water can be put into it; it cannot be driven across. Any structural crossing or piping plans will require approval by the ditch company. IV. AGENCY REFERRALS The Wadsworth Ditch Company has an open ditch which runs north of the existing buildings on the property. The ditch and maintenance easement cannot be negatively affected by any activity on the property. The Bayou Ditch has not had the opportunity to discuss this proposal with their Board of Directors. However, at the time of this writing, the ditch rider indicated that he doesn't believe it will be supported. The Arvada Fire Protection District has no concerns as long as adequate aisle width (24') is maintained between vehicle rows. The Wheat Ridge Economic Development Specialist has commented that the vehicle testing area would not benefit the City visually or economically by revenues generated. He does not support the use of the south half of the property as a testing area. Wheat Ridge Public Works Department will require a final drainage report which must address storm water quality measures as well as erosion control prior to any use of the property. All ditch companies will need to review and approve the proposed drainage report and water quality measures. If approved, no access will be allowed to Oak Street. No improvements or vehicle storage will be allowed in the anticipated right-of-way for West 50`s Avenue. Wheat Ridge Building Division has commented that the existing houses can be used only residentially until a site plan for permanent development has been approved by City Council and after the structures are brought up to commercial code standards. V. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a temporary use permit. Will the temporary use have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use? Because no paving is proposed, there could be negative affects to the general health safety and welfare due to oils and other residue from the vehicles saturating into the ground TUP-99-05/Medved Page 3 Board of Adjustment 6-3 water. This would be less of a concern if only new cars are stored in this area. There may also be a negative affect on aesthetics in the area as the vehicle storage is proposed with no buffering. 2. Will the temporary use adversely affect the adequate light and air, or cause significant air, water, or noise pollution, or cause drainage problems for the general area? No additional buildings are proposed with the temporary use application; therefore, there should be no affect on the amount of light and air to adjacent owners. Staff is very concerned regarding the potential for water pollution for not only the test track area, but also the storage area. Since no paving is proposed, oils and residue from the vehicles being stored will be absorbed into the ground. The testing of vehicles on the south end will negatively affect the ditches by breaking down the banks causing erosion and the silting in of the open channels. Dust will be generated from driving on an unprepared surface. 3. Will the temporary use result in undue traffic congestion and traffic hazards, unsafe parking, loading, service or internal traffic conflicts to the detriment of persons whether on or off the site? Parfet Street has adequate right-of-way, however, there are no public improvements on the east side of the street. Employees and customers of the existing dealership to the west already park along both sides of Parfet Street. This has been an ongoing problem which has prompted the City to pursue code action against the owner. At the time of the last car lot expansion (1998-1999), a condition of City Council approval was that "construction and employee parking shall be allowed on Parfet Street only during construction and only to the north driveway on Parfet and not adjacent to the residential properties." Access to the proposed parking area is by way of an open area south of the existing buildings. The additional vehicles coming in and out of the temporary parking will exacerbate existing sight distance problems and create potential traffic movement conflicts. Staff has witnessed golf carts crossing Parfet Street which is an added concern. If approved, no access will be allowed to Oak Street. 4. Will the temporary use be appropriately designed, including setbacks, heights, parking, bulk, buffering, screening, and landscaping, so as to be in harmony and compatible with character of the surrounding areas and neighborhood, especially with adjacent properties? The applicant contends that this is an interim use and that the owner will be pursuing site plan approval from the Planning Commission and City Council. Therefore, no paving, fencing or landscaping improvements are being proposed. Recognizing the fact that many TUP-99-05/Medved Page 4 Board of Adjustment &I times temporary use permits get extended while permanent case processing occurs, staff feels landscaping and buffering is crucial. If the request is approved, the Board should require at a minimum, installation of street trees and buffering along the street frontages. 5. Will the temporary use not overburden the capacities of the existing streets, utilities, parks, schools, and other public facilities and services? Approval of the temporary use permit would not have a negative affect on utilities, parks, schools and other public facilities and services. There could be a negative affect on Parfet Street since there are no public improvements in place. VI. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff concludes that there are potential negative health, welfare and aesthetic impacts with the proposal which have not been addressed by the applicant. Staff questions the wisdom of establishing the inventory lot because if, and when, this property is developed, the inventory vehicles will have to be moved somewhere else. Staff further concludes that since a site plan requirement was placed on the rezoning approval, granting of the temporary use will circumvent the authority of the Planning Commission and City Council. For these reasons a recommendation of Denial is given for Case No. TUP-99-05. TUP-99-05/Medved Page 5 Board of Adjustment 6".^ I i 1 I ~ 56IOI > 1 y I=LL !1i\ ~\Ql Y S V f TI CL i i\ r I \ i I i I see s j a16oI \ i sat Ise, T mot 666, sse \ 1 1- IMaI S F ~S~ u 1 3\ _~r i 1S F aOSaI (n~ r R ae s 1 1 r Ir \ o i 1,\ 1 rol II F~ • o N I ~ ~ ~ Y 1 y M40L Wool 3 1 E 0005 \ {lT I~ % S 3 tt ` ( ll~.~ 1 1 UNL 3 i \ - I i 33 \v ii \ ` 066Y Mot y' Q rSj \ !1 6515 ~ _ \ ' 2 I y ~ 1 rL 2 6ggl 1 ja Oa1S ~ \ OSIS Of IS OZIi 01 19 0505 \9005 1 9\96Y 09at 1 Q \ / 1513-liJVd 1.. ~ % F i 10011 IOOII y112~ a Il J i ~ \ y ~ O1 S.5 v V Z ~3 1 . O2ES \ 1 \ V gRq.ry t BAWM DITCH HOLLEY, ALBERTSON & POLK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DENVER NEST OFFICE PARK SUITE 100, BUILDING 11 1667 COLE BLVD. GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401 GEORGE ALAN HOLLEY SCOTT D. ALBERTSON DENNIS-B. POLK ERIC E. TORGERSEN HOWARD R. "RICK" STONE HEATHER M. DAVIS Meredith Reckert CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Planning and Development Dept. 7500 W. 29`h Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 October 6, 1999 Re: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE - TEMPORARY USE PERMIT Dear Meredith: PHONE (303) 233-7838 FAX (303) 233-2860 This letter will set forth the intent and purpose of the attached Temporary Use Permit with respect to the property lying immediately east of the current Medved facility. As we have previously indicated to you, the Medved interests have leased the subject property under certain terms and conditions. The intent of the attached Application is to allow for temporary storage and parking of vehicles on this site, together with a temporary testing / demonstration area for vehicles to be sold at the Medved Autoplex. It is contemplated that this will be an interim use until such time as a complete application for full development of this site is submitted. In the future, it is anticipated that the subject site will contain an additional auto dealership and related facilities. However, that process is in the design phase. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a temporary use to allow parking of vehicles and use of a portion of the property as a demonstration / testing facility on site. You will note that the general intent of the entire proposed temporary use is set forth in the attached site plan documents. Please contact me with any questions. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, HOLLEY, ALBERTSON & POLK, P.C. C4 ~ - Dennis B. Polk c Enclosures ATTACHMENT 2 HOLLEY, ALBERTSON & POLK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DENVER WEST OFFICE PARK SUITE 100, BUILDING 19 1667 COLE BLVD. GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401 GEORGE ALAN HOLLEY SCOTT D. ALBERTSON DENNIS B. POLK ERIC E. TORGERSEN HOWARD R. "RICK" STONE HEATHER M. DAVIS November 22, 1999 VIA FACSIMILE (303) 235-2857 / ORIGINAL VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL Meredith Reckert CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Planning and Development Dept. 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE - TEMPORARY USE PERMIT Dear Meredith: PHONE,(303) 233-7838 _FAX (363) 233-2860 This letter is written in response to your letter dated November 21 1999, that was actually received in this office on November 8, 1999. As I have indicated to you in our telephone discussions and other discussions concerning this matter, the purpose of the underlying proposal is to provide a temporary parking and storage facility for vehicles at the Medved Autoplex. The plan is truly temporary in nature until such time as a facility is constructed on this property. At such time as the appropriate plans are developed, we will be submitting an appropriate submittal for the permanent use of this property. However, in the interim, our client desires to utilize this property for storage of vehicles. 1 wid attempt to address the other items in the numbered fashion contained in your letter: 1. At this time, no particular type of fencing is being proposed on an interim basis. It may be necessary for security reasons to utilize temporary fencing. 2. At this time, no additional lighting is being proposed. - Parking is not of such a nature that there will be defined stalls. However, the property owner will maintain minimum aisle widths of at least 24 feet .between rows or lines of parking. 3. At this time, no interim landscaping is being proposed because of the truly _ temporary nature of the use of the property. The property is intended to remain in its present grade and configuration. 4. On a temporary basis, it is anticipated, if required, that the applicant will utilize crushed gravel or reconstituted asphalt. 24 ATTACHMENT 3 RECEEDM-D 1112 fV iJ 11 E; t°~Y°7 Meredith Reckert November 22, 1999 Page 2 5. As you may be aware from past dealings, the ditch company's possessory interests in this property are of a prescriptive nature. Our use will not interfere, in any manner, with their prescriptive use. Certainly, we do not believe that the City should be placed in the position of arbitrating use issues between the fee owner and a prescriptive user such as a ditch company. 6. There will be no additional site work performed other than, if required, placement of crushed gravel or reconstituted asphalt. You have listed other items with regard to other uses of property. This letter will confirm that the applicant understands the restrictions and limitations set forth in these three items. As I further indicated to you, the subject property is now held in a limited liability company. I am enclosing a copy of the limited liability company's consent to this proceeding. If this form of authorization is not acceptable to you, please notify me immediately as to further authorization required. As you will recall, attached to the original application is a copy of the current vesting deed showing ownership in the limited liability company. In your letter, you indicated that part of the trouble is past performance by the applicant/owner, as well as political pressure from the City's elected officials. I am uncertain what past trouble with regard to the applicant / owner to which you are making reference. It is my recollection that this particular applicant / owner has been a model citizen in Wheat Ridge and the facilities that have been constructed have always been first rate and an asset to the community. Perhaps I have not understood what you intended by this language. Please rest assured, however, that this applicant will continue to conduct itself as a model corporate citizen in Wheat Ridge, and you will be proud of any project that is constructed :,n this property by phis apps Cant. As always, thank you for your courteous attention to this matter. Sincerely, HOLLEY, ALBERTSON & POLK, P.C. IQ 4,10xt Dennis B. Polk DBP:plc Enclosure cc: John Medved F ? 04:3OPM y y-p~ GEORGE ALAN HOLLEY SCOTT D. ALBERTSON DENNIS,B. POLK ERIC E. TORGERSEN HOWARD R, "RICK" STONE HEATHER n DAVIS **VIA HAND DELIVERY* Carolyn Gruber, Eso_. SullivanHayes Companies 2401 East 2nd Avenue, Suite 600 Denver, CO 80206 Re: METZGERIII, LLC/MEOVED Dear Carolyn: REVEiVED SULLIVANHAYFS OCT 0 61999 PHONE (303) 233.7838 FAX (303) 233-2860 Enclosed herewith you will find a map / site plan with respect to the above matter. As you may be aware, the tenant is hereby seeking your consent on behalf of Metzger III to process a Temporary Land Use Permit with the City of Wheat Ridge. Essentially, the enclosed map demonstrates the temporary land use that is going to be proposed to the City of Wheat Ridge. There have been preliminary discussions with Wheat Ridge with regard to this matter, and we are now at the application phase of the project. The proposal essentially envisions a temporary use until the design of a new facility is complete. That temporary use would be a testing / demonstration area for vehicles to be sold at the Medved Autoplex and envisions a temporary storage facility for vehicles on the balance of the site. To process the application, I am also requesting a copy of the deed to the subject property. Sincerely, DBP:plc Enclosure xc: John Medved By. 6-10 ATTA FROM-SULLIVANHAYES BROKERAGE 3038311333 HOLLEY, ALBERTSON & POLK, P.C. ArrORNELS AT LAW Dmv mit Won OmcmPARx Sur E 100. BmLpu4c 19 1667 COLE BLVD. GOLDEN, COLORADO NMI October 6, 1999 HOLLEY ALBERTSON & POLK, P.C. 0: i L Dennis B. Polk IT APPROVED THIS DAY OF ©~il 1999 MET ER TII E L ED LIABILITY COMPANY, a o liability company r n. Des M. S43.lVan, Manager HMENT 4 T-147 P.02/04 F-971 s V o _Z a z i IF Md _Egn'_ N a o a FLI 1 i MED VED 4UT0 DEALERSHIP 1 +a~u~ L6h rTP ! rMf> / nv °t !~[}9b j I A ' - _ L. CO/B( ~~rrU AWtr ~ Hv NWR [).An n AeT ACHMEM~-~ I I I 1 1 I I I } L W ' 4 I I i I I i •I 1RW -AN ~n~-• 93036 W J3 75' NvwN Afi NYW NAY ~ I W>G IXM' 1 ~ ~ 2/.t l MN OLIN I I t 3 IIRCEL 2 /71 1 ' I I J l I Qf or I I • 893036`WI 579,87 --j 7 WA 10 ftTl' `'I-, ~ARl~Mi I I 1 ; I I I I ARCEL N 4L ~~AI I I g.W kP.v„rA~~ I I I al2ner~ (I I N IOU 4/ (WxN YIX/}W OIp NL brfiT ~A YyAI AYYd/d (r 4WF RM M4r I1'[.3MNr I • A ' I ^~5LA Ax~. -11'. °'L ab l6g .xi ICI 1 r,l'~ nI'•' H- wl1NT _ .r r w /M VF~~~+~•E ~►a"'ml _ T$O1 { `dNxAa 1 t? cr.. _i / N F g r~4~ Y p W/lam / ,,F ..n~ F + • brl.,'~ •y6'i S ZT ..W WIG. E. aWW WSf - W. 50th AVENUE A9 l PAT PhY IOUs A.vv+1 PARCEL 1 A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH EAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTH NEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16. TOWNSHIP 3 SOON, RANGE 69 WEST OF TIE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDAN MIND MONO PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS COMMENCING AT THE SOON EAST CORNER OF THE SOON EAST WARTED OF THE SOUTH WEST QUARTER M SAID SECTION 15. THENCE H0012'SB W AT ONG THE EAST LINE OF ME SW, WEST WAFTER OF SAID SECTION 16 A DISTANCE OF b&OI FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNIND; THENCE CONTINUING H0012'58 W ALONG SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 582.79 FEET; THENCE Sp9'3C'76-W ALONG A LINE THAT IS 347,50 FEET SCUMMY AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOON EAST QUARTER OF THE SWM WEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION T6, A DISIA111 OF 529.67 FEET TO ,A POINT ON THE EASTERLY FIGHT-OF-WAY OF PARILI ST.; THENCE 50"514-E ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY A DISTANCE OF 730.38 FEET TA . aCC NNING.'~ _ r"-•°u G1 Ila.21 FEET To THE TRUE POINr or - SAID PARCEL CONTAINS ?.969 ACRES MORE OR LESS. PARCEL 2 A PARCEL W LAND LOCATED IN ME SOUTH EAS1 OUAFTTER OF THE SoO•r WEST WAFTER OF SECTION 16. TOWNSHIP 3 SW TH, RANGE 69 W5+ Cf THE SXD1 PPNOPAL MERIDIAN QEINC MORE Rnc1VULARLV OFSrn Q[D 1S FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SQUTH EAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH EAST QUARTER CI DIE SOUTH WEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION I6; THENCE N00'12'M, ALONG THE EAST ONE OF ME SOUTH WEST QUARTER OF SAID SECnoN 16 SOUTH EAST WAFTER OFT THE SOUTH WESTHwu%iER LINE ID ME A DISTANCE OF 90.75 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTI SAID ERLY RIGIII-11N •6, _W.° OF PARFET ST., THENCE 500FEET-'E ALONG SAID EASTERLY IaG UNr WAY A DISTANCE EE2Q.60 FEET; THENCE O6T LLEL ALONG A A - THAT 15 241.50 FEET SOUTHERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE NORM ❑E N DIE ME SOUTH TH EAST QUARTER '87 OF ME SOUTH OUST WARIER W SAID Sf rNON 16. A DISTANCE Or 5"29,8] WEFT TO NE TRUE POINT OF QFGNN Ir~ SAID PARCEL CONTAINS SOTJ ACRES MORE OR LISS. BASIS OF BEARING: BEARINGS ARE EASED ON'A BEARING Or ICO12"WW ALONG i [ CAS' LINE OF TNr SOON WEST QUARTER CF CTIOM 6 E3 S 64 D-E 674. FL, Bf WC ON.... NEED q p CUT OF MEAT P F - 6NA55 CAP 0.E N 2 A• BO' THE 10,11, Oa ARETP G,NN[ CLNTER OLAREEV VER Or SA!) E^. OV •G BENCHMA A- TTr 0 ITY L, EAT WJuE H- CnP SE' P rOhCRI 11 1. OLD O"ARTER C 1IHr Sr Cr,.. iF•FLTA 0 1 [ N EAR A }Ar IT FII P ON 11P181 jryt .11 L_GEND PKIFFTTY pM1r FLIP, & - EDGE 0 AIy • [ICE IKE Y Ruw BOLD NC DITCH G GI.INN LINE TEL II AKI ENO SEC ' ^yTP I ^%1 r9 i 6 III 0 H',W N'. RNl - MCDVW AN"orox INVm7m4{eomtARMdre+(~Ce aMryz~wlnn 1r1 i Q WAFER LINE - WATER WAI SANITARY $EW.i HPN11LE ')WRrFAD FLECT9IC eN 4 T I a l ! n W t p p I i 1 I 4 J 1 C' ! ' f a 1 o ° v - ;I _ IF r E ~ a 0 0~. k OCT-08-99 94:30PM FROM-SULLIVANHAYES BROKERAGE 3038311333 T-147 P.03/04 F-971 : r~.un lu' rv- w•9 rt.VV Y17: UUU1-OU2 742~r RECORDED IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORRDL 5/31/96 10:47 p0- A. L. Metager whoa addmssis 1001 Lincoln Screer, Denver, Colorado 80203 City b County of Denver and State of Colorado for the consideration of av t Y ~ rw•/ lylylylll~ c v t O A 0 2 P Y b w a ti F N N u a m - u m o w o .y M r-1 O N ~ O V .n Y M 7 u. M m L R m v H 1 a w 6 Ten Dollars, in hand paid, herebyseR(s)andquitclaims(s)to METZGER THREE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, a Colorado limited liability campany whom address is 1001 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 80203 City b County of Denver and State of Colorado the following real property, in the County of , and State of Colomdo, to wit: See Exhibit A attached. also known as strum and number assessor's schedule or parcel number. with all its appurtenances signed this Is} day of MOtt:1. 119 96 - A. L. Metager STATE OF COLORADO, ss. County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this l s4 day of ' N0.eeH 19 9& , by P 1. me-Yzw My commission expires i0 MY COMMI1 VIN1 EXPIRES AUGUST 31, 1,098 - y01 44 WITNESS my hand and Official seat. N., P,eur No8911.1tm.4.94. qurfctntm osxo esa,N r,mq fkWfoN PJeefelvn IrI1 Wauc 51., Demee Cn9a102-DOa139Y2500 ATTACHMENT 6 a of w ear ;AND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION aE w eq o ° Planning and Development Department " 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 co oR~oo Phone(303)235-2846 cotoRna° (Please print or type all information) Applicant MEDVED CHEVROLET Addressc/o HOLLEY, ALBERPSON & POLK Phone (303) 233-783 1667 Cole Blvd. Ste. 100 - Bldg. 19 City rr,t~P Rnafii Owner uFmzcmg THItEE, limited Address Phone Liability Company a Colorado Limited Liabilit9 • SU Q v~ Location of request (address) C an Vacant Propert Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions li sted below which pertain to your request.) ❑ Change Of zone or zone conditions ❑ Variance / Waiver ❑ Site development plan approval ❑ Nonconforming use change ❑ Special Use Permit ❑ Flood plain special exception ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interpretation of Code X❑ Temporary Use, Buildings, Signs ❑ Lot line Adjustment ❑ Minor Subdivision (5 lots or less) ❑ Planned Building Group ❑ Subdivision (More than 5 lots) ❑ Street Vacation ❑ Preliminary ❑ Final ® Other: Detailed description of therequest:Tc) allow t „ „ , arpa Fill out the following information to the best of your knowledge. Current Zoning: - Size of Lot (acres or square footage): Current use: Vacant Proposed use. Temporary Parking and test Z demonstration area i Assessors Parcel Number: I I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in iling this application, I am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above, without whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than owners must submit power-of-attorney m the owner which approved of this action on his behalf. Signature of Applicart By. ELVNIS B. P LK, Applicant's Attorney 19 9 d f m ' ay o , nd sworn to e this Subscr Notary Public O My commission expires o2U-J ~ S Date received Receipt No. - Case No. ~ J, ~ ` I _ Related Case No. Zoning Quarter Section Map ATTAUMMENT 7 6-r,3 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE P 0. BOX 638 The City of WHEAT RIDGE. CO 8003<Gc36 .3031 23~'-5900 Wheat City Admin. Fax ; 234.5924 Police Deot. Fax = 235 29,19 GRidge POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE NO. PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Circle One) HEARIkG ~DATE: qq n a m e residing at as the applicant for Case No. Gfq- hereby certify that I have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at i_ _ , l i _ (10 ,,o// c a t i o n) on this ~ day of ym 19 67q and do hereby certify that said sign has been posted and remained in place for fifteen (15) days prior to and including the scheduled day of public hearing of this case. The sign was posted in the position shown on the map below. Signatur f NOTE: This form must be submitted at the public hearing on this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file at the Department of Planning and Development. H Wo AV - - i _ ~TGN i a L E IC IND :RAIG C EVROL ET MINO SUB,.,`- <pc>postingce: ~l rev. 05-19-94 70 -n R r_'f ~ F. .sd uro,nn,wn,. s a M Y 00 00 y ~ > o c o Q Wn zU) ZN ^^ll W N CIO Q U 1- O . N LLl N O 3 F w ° i n r= P P N N N -D N _ N N - W4 mY ¢aa PW OQW NO O3O z QG:z W OW _ .i V7 OLV1 _ 7 02 - OOJ 00 _ JEFF fn OZWWWz N=WJJP _ O7Y m7 WFWZW = Y >7¢ 'K IXO = .1 WE O 0 O N C N F C H W W E 1? ~}Y e~ i M 0 ,v a $Sp I e. fF i 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Wheat Ridge FAX 303/235-2857 November 16, 1999 Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you that Case No. TUP-99-05 which is a request for approval of a temporary storage and. parking of vehicles with a temporary testing/demonstration area for vehicles being sold at the Medved Autoplex for property zoned Commercial-One and located at 4950 Parfet will be heard by the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue. The meeting will be held on December 9, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. All owners and/or their legal representative of the parcel under consideration must be present at this hearing. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other person whose presence is desired at this hearing. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 235-2846. Thank you. Planning Division. C:\Barbara\BOA\PUBHRGS\wp9905cenletter.wpd N ~I d N ~ 'V N N C ~ 'U d K d a N Q ~ ~ 'v o y d a ~ O N N E Z > NI ~ d K C 7 I I iI ' > o 3 `o N 0 y rn O H C N . - ' O I ~ ¢ a E 0 t N ~ m o N c Emo ~°r=o- = y # N o 0 0 0 0 a x~N N m a m ¢ m o m o rn n N U . a U 0 N L C old a M O°o a a ; Z' E M N _ C U S m J L O Om 0 N dm J d O ~ fnrn N m rn d n E y0 U d m N w m ' N N0 U N N N CO L o 0 L y O rn 0 F NUN O N N a 'O N J n N N p a Q ~O 41 N N Q °~mK rn > N > T-f!] N Nm c cLL~ J R-O O'V d Lm N Q N N OU O ~ OZL 5 N m NN V N vc'~ UvL ~~O mNa N"O W L~ 9 Om ZN j QIO> C UWiw E N N ~ u ~ N C Q m m r m m O `o m m m m m p co n W O a £ m rn rn rn rn U z QQW z O W = 0 Z a r O W Z F LO 5 U i. 3: a ' MetroScan / Jefferson ' Owner :Stiesmeyer Charles Schedule :042703 Site :4996 Parfet St Wheat Ridge 80033 Parcel :39 163 00 008 Mail :4996 Parfet St Wheat Ridge Co 80033 Xferd :09/24/1997 LandUse :1112 Res,Improved Land Price :$97,700 TaxDist :3109 OwnerPh :303-456-0789 Bedrm:l Bth:1.00 YB:1929 Parking:Detached Firepl: TotArea:624 Ac:.41 * ' MetroScan / Jeffe rson Owner :Metzger Three Limited Liability Company Schedule :043765 Site :4990 Parfet St Wheat Ridge 80033 Parcel :39 163 00 015 Mail :1001 Lincoln St Denver Co 80203 Xferd :05/31/1996 LandUse :1112 Res,Improved Land Price - TaxDist :3109 OwnerPh Bedrm:3 Bth:1.00 YB:1927 Parking:Detached Firepl: TotArea:1,017 Ac:2.58 : MetroScan / Jeffe rson Owner :National Advertising Company Schedule :043805 Site :4800 Parfet St Wheat Ridge 80033 Parcel :39 163 00 022 Mail :2502 N Black Canyon Hwy Phoenix Az 85009 Xferd :11/06/1973 LandUse :2111 Vacant,Commercial Price :$6,800 TaxDist :3109 OwnerPh Bedrm: Bth: YB: Parking: Firepl: TotArea: Ac:.43 MetroScan / Jefferson Owner :Natio al vertising Co Schedule :136632 Site :*No Si ddress* Parcel :39 163 00 023 Mail :2502 N ack Canyon Hwy Phoenix Az 85009 Xferd :04/04/1977 LandUse :1111 aca t, Residential Price :$7,300 TaxDist :3109 OwnerPh Bedrm: B YB: Parking: Firepl: TotArea: Ac:.81 : MetroScan / Jefferson • Owner :Bear Land Holdings-Llc Schedule :193121 Site :11001 I 70 Frontage Rd N Wheat Ridge 800 33 Parcel :39 163 02 001 Mail :11001 I 70 Frontage Rd N Wheat Ridge Co 80033ferd :01/12/1999 LandUse :2112 Com,Improved Land Price TaxDist :3109 OwnerPh Bedrm: Bth: YB:1987 Parking: Firepl: TotArea:58,202 Ac:8.86 • MetroScan / Jefferson - Owner :B Land 0ldings Llc Schedule :193122 Site :1105 I 0 Frontage Rd N Wheat Ridge 800 33 Parcel :39 163 02 002 Mail :11001 Frontage Rd N Wheat Ridge Co 80033ferd :01/12/1999 LandUse :2112 m, Imp ved Land Price TaxDist :3109 OwnerPh . Bedrm: Bt YB:1999 Parking: Firepl: TotArea:46,871 Ac:8.71 MetroScan / Jefferson Owner :Met ge Three Limited Liability Co Schedule :193681 Site :*No to Address* Parcel :39 163 00 016 Mail :2401 E Nd Ave #600 Denver Co 80206 Xferd :03/01/1996 LandUse :115 Vaca Residential Price TaxDist :31 9 OwnerPh Bedrm: the YB: Parking: Firepl: TotArea: Ac:8.12 l The Information Provided 15 Deemed Reliable, But IS Not Guaranteed. i 1 -1 r4- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT on December 9,1999, at 7:30 p.m. at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments. The following petitions shall be heard: 1. Case No. WA-99-27: An application submitted by Jim Pieters for a 10.6' side yard setback variance from the 30' side yard setback requirement along Owens Street reducing the setback to 19.4' allowing for a 4-unit town home for property zoned Residential-Three and located at 10960 West 45`h Avenue. 2. se No. TUP-99-05: An application submitted by Medved Chevrolet for approval of a temporary storage and parking of vehicles with a temporary testing/demonstration area for vehicles being sold at the Medved Autoplex for property zoned Commercial-One and located at 4950 Parfet. 3. Case No. TUP-99-06: An application submitted by John Elway AutoNation for an extension of TUP-98-08 allowing for employee and service vehicle parking on the south side of the current Friendly Ford facility zoned PCD and located at 3601 Wadsworth Boulevard. )Vj",' '4 Barbara Delgadillo, Rec ding Secretary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City To be Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript Date: November 19, 1999 C:\Barb=\BOA\PUBHRGS\991209pub.wpd HOLLEY, ALBERTSON & POLK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DENVER WEST OFFICE PARK SUITE 100, BuUDING 19 1667 COLE BLVD. GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401 GEORGE ALAN HOLLEY SCOTT D. ALBERTSON DENNIS B. POLK ERIC E. TORGERSEN HOWARD R. "RICK" STONE HEATHER M. DAVIS December 2, 1999 Meredith Reckert CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Planning and Development Dept. 7500 W. 291h Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE - TEMPORARY USE PERMIT Dear Meredith: PHONE (303) 233-7838 FAX (303) 233-2860 Enclosed please find the original POSTING CERTIFICATE relating to Temporary Use Permit 99-05 (temporary parking and storage facility for vehicles at the Medved Autoplex). Please ensure that this document is placed in the appropriate case file. Thank you. Sincerely, HOLLEY LBERTSON & POLK, P.C. i Dennis B. Polk DBP:plc Enclosure cc: John Medved J - i _ caae 7-LJP- i~q-os References DITCH COMPANIES 1. Wadsworth Ditch Co. P.O. BOX 820 Arvada, Co 80001 Attn: Ray Jump 2. Swadley Ditch Co. 8975 Grandview Arvada, CO 80002 Attn: Don Feland City of Arvada: 303-431-3035 50- 11 ow C Ck n-+- b6'0 e- l 47-(0 / co utN N ~c~,o rn rl CY) ro N W V, H Q 0 H H O N r M N N N C r l0 [I' M m CN CA m m N ti rn m o m In 0 o m o w lp In r ' N V' Ol In N N N [T O 1f1 u) 1f7 rn m r m H ho I m r V r o m N v m In H H W O "m O H v m In a N m m In m w OD m m In m Of w r N O w H r w to In z I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 l N l0 lD In I r co N W v cp m H N lO V' I 1 O In ri i M C' C N N m N I- N m 1 cT N N M M I Ol I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I H In x N N N N m m N N r N m m a V r r N H am In .-1 N H r In r r N N W d' C' cp C C d~ d' N C N N r 'V' 'q' x ~ N N N N c N C d' V' a c N N c S x o w a w W m c~ w N v y w w H ° 3 z o x z o a a w H a W 11 Na w H E 0 ° N a d O o r 7 E C4 E y w Q H W E U d ' o + O H a a I H d G' r 1 w N l0 01 N Q Iy In .Y. N N rn V' N N m C~ In LL H N m p,' m Ol N m U m m m m m a M U M w tb z o v H ~a z ° a w o o co 1 ~ E a W a O O z W m a Q W Q W a W W O z ~ ff a a' a U1 W [y m ry x H W "l £ a H U H H N H a M 'J H a F W U k. W x rn m O W + O r l W a U to N H x a H a O W x W as H a h W h a w ra O W H L~ O cl) x i co a a H W > z W W W W W H F Q W U y W F U W _ W m O ~y a' ' 2 H y W E.I H a E C7 W to Q `ti [Hy W W ~ a7 H x j E FL In H a W M a Q H m N [G i H W m ~ ~i ~j 5 U a a H a U E 94 C4 x O E Q r E a W E C4 U W ] z W W W x O E H W a rn r H a H E E R W a I -l 7 } ' z z P a a I -l a W Ia z rn H w W 1 a ' O , W O 4J i y rn F4 H E a E Co a a H IC (n H x W a Iz w q R y w rG E N w W Q z L3 a H W F O W z S y zb N W 'n E Q Q W H Q rC W F x DI RC S v E x Q m W p S rL' U O U m a U 0 W m r ~ a OP E, q Q U C4 0 0.1 V) I ) W m a O a N x W W ~ Y ryE W U ° m N W O 3 a a a x mam ad ;wiwoLd OL-I 194 L_ p ~ Rp f ; - a / 7 l O diO $I 390 L~-dns J 7AV It* M 39'1pFb'IdVM Guyl 055Y aid ar i Y2Nd ' wrd191@11 / ~ 4%SW SL901P/v I, 1 ` YCYA2Pd i i 91KL-ZF1 i~ ala I 'ON 6M91d 2HJIVLN00 ssvw sbco~ OO-6L-IM 4N I ~ 3 1 aid 1' ZM WIS bmw 9H1SA5 ib7J1V1N0~ ' q ' is z-~ aid y0 % OI OI ZM 101 ..I NDISNI00 YMYd'IYI2LL -'8ns ONIW " Y 13 lOZlh3 7 OIY'6'D - e ~ .'rya Hy L-rarzn 9-£6-d'16 v YV_ a ~ B-BL-ZM Id d NL I13i7SYd w ~J XNP QI ~ s ow mom'" baVA2}V ~Y U q? 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Wheat FAX 303/235-2857 November 2, 1999 Dennis Polk Holley, Albertson & Polk 1667 Cole Blvd. Suite 100 - Building 19 Golden, CO 80401 Dear Dennis: This letter is in regard to your temporary use permit application for property located at 4900 Parfet. This case is scheduled for public hearing in front of the Board of Adjustment on December 12, 1999. There are several items of concern regarding the submitted site plan which need to be addressed: 1. Please indicate what type of fencing is being proposed. 2. Please indicate what type of lighting is being proposed. Please indicate minimum aisle widths and stalls sizes. 3. Please indicate what type of interim landscaping is being proposed along the perimeters of the property.. 4. What type of surfacing is being proposed? Parking on the existing turf is unacceptable. 5. Approval letters from the ditch companies will be required with any of their concerns regarding the potential use of the southern portion as a test track. Please provide this information for our review at your earliest convenience. 6. A drainage report and erosion control plan will be required before any site work is initiated on the property. There are other items of concern which you need to be aware of if the temporary use permit application is approved: 1. The existing buildings on the property cannot be used commercially in any way until a permanent site plan is approved by Planning Commission and City Council through a public hearing process. 2. No access will be allowed to either the frontage road or Oak Street. 3. No improvements will be allowed in the area which falls within the W. 50i° Avenue alignment. It is unclear at the time of this writing whether Staff will be supporting this request. Part of the trouble is past performance by the applicant/owner as well as political pressure from the City's elected officials. We have had a similar experience with another land owner which has never been resolved to Staff s and the City's satisfaction. I will need the new information no later than December 2, 1999 and letters from the ditch companies as soon as possible. If these deadlines cannot be met, the case will be continued. If Les Metzger is still the owner of record, a specific power of attorney will be required to represent him at the public hearing. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 303-235-2848. Sincerely, Meredith Reckert, AICP Senior Planner cc: TLTP-99-05 Alan White Darin Morgan Greg Knudson MEMORANDUM Approved Date ➢DMUTN9 WOFFUBLIC WGRU TO: Meredith Reckert, Planner FROM: Greg Knudson, Development Review Engineer DATE: October 28, 1999 ' SUBJECT: TUP-99-05/Medved Chevrolet, 4900 Parfet Street The Public Works Department has reviewed the Planning Department referral dated October 25, 1999 for the above referenced site, and has the following comments: 1. We will need a final drainage report based upon the City's drainage criteria, and prepared by a Colorado licensed professional engineer. This report will need to include the necessary technical information pertaining to the required stormwater quality measures for this site. Also, all affected ditch companies will need to review and approve in writing, the proposed final drainage report and water quality measures. 2. We will need a completed Application for Minor Dumping/Landfill Permit, along with fees due. In conjunction with the requirements of this permit, a detailed erosion control plan will need to be submitted for review and approval. 3. The City Surveyor has reviewed this referral with no comments at this time. 4. A CDOT access permit will be required if any access is proposed on to the North I-70 Frontage Road North right-of-way in conjunction with the proposed temporary use permit. cc: Alan White, Planning & Development Director Steve Nguyen, Traffic Engineer John McGuire, City Surveyor File TUP99-05.MEM City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner FROM: Martin Omer, Economic Development Specialist 01-1-1 SUBJECT: TUP-99-05/Medved Chevrolet DATE: October 26, 1999 Thank you for the referral of the above referenced application. I offer the following comments from an economic development perspective: 1. The land in question is comprised of several undeveloped acres. Although the area designated as "vehicle demonstration area" is impacted by existing billboards between it and Interstate 70, it is'still visible from the Interstate. It is commonly accepted that undeveloped acreage adjacent to urban interstate highways is very valuable from a development perspective due to accessability and visibility. We are witnessing this in the 44`h Industrial Park where vacant land is being developed to satisfy a demand for light industrial and commercial uses. Other cities in the Denver area have recognized the value of such land and have realized quality industrial and/or commercial land uses which benefits such as quality well paying jobs, tax revenue, and visual integrity for the City's image. Staff does not see that the vehicle demonstration area on this property will benefit the City in any of the above mentioned ways. 2. It is not apparent from the referral how long the applicant intends to use the property for a vehicle demonstration area. Should the application be approved, Staff recommends that it be done so with a definitive ending date after which the land would be developed for typical commercial or industrial land uses. 3. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to investigate what would be necessary to coordinate the development of the subject land with the property currently developed with the bill boards, including the permanent removal of the billboards. OAT-27-99 THU 4:40 Ft, FA 10. 3034327995 .7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Telephone 303/ 235-2846 Ridge October-25,1999 F. The Wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has received a request for a change of zoning conditions at the property described below- Your response to the following questions and any comments on this proposal would be appreciated by November 8. 1999 No response from you by this date will constitute no objections or concerns regarding this proposal. CASE NO: TUP-99-OS/Medved Chevrolet LOCATION: 4900 Parfet REQUESTED ACTION: Temporary Use Permit PURPOSE: To allow temporary parking of vehicles and to allow as a "temporary use," a test/demonstration of vehicles area. APPROXIMATE AREA: 3.013 acres /eS t. Are public facilities or services provided by your agency adequate to serve this development? 2. Are service lines available to the development? OW 3. Do you have adequate capacities to service the development? )!e 4. Can and will your agency service this proposed development subject to your rules and regulations? 71n--> 5. Are specific easements needed on this or any other document? N a 6. Are there any concerns or problems your agency has identified which would or should t roval of this request? np Please reply to: Meredith eckert (303/235-2848) Department of Planning & Development DIS RIB Water District 0 Sanitation District) X Fire District (Arvada) Adjacent City 0 Public Service Co. US West Communications Jefferson County Planting Dept. State Land Use Commission State Geological Survey Colorado Dept. Of Transportation X Slough Ditch Co. X Juchem & Oulette Ditch Co. Co eted by: O 9 me, Agen /Department, Din x X X X Jeffco Health Department Jeffco Schools Jeffco Commissioners TCI of Colorado WHEAT RIDGE Post Office WHEAT RIDGE Police Department WHEAT RIDGE Public Works Dept. WHEAT RIDGE Park & Rec Commission WHEAT RIDGE Forestry Division WHEAT RIDGE Building Division WHEAT RIDGE Economic Development "The Carnation City" c\aarbu AoEN?YT\my9905,..gd 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Telephone 303/ 235-2846 Ridge October 25, 1999 The Wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has received a request for a change of zoning conditions at the property described below. Your response to the following questions and any comments on this proposal would be appreciated by November 8, 1999 No response from you by this date will constitute no objections or concerns regarding this proposal. CASE NO: LOCATION: REQUESTED ACTION: TUP-99-05/Medved Chevrolet 4900 Parfet Temporary Use Permit PURPOSE: To allow temporary parking of vehicles and to allow as a "temporary use," a test/demonstration of vehicles area. APPROXIMATE AREA: 3.013 acres 1. Are public facilities or services provided by your agency adequate to serve this development? 2. Are service lines available to the development? 3. Do you have adequate capacities to service the development? 4. Can and will your agency service this proposed development subject to your rules and regulations? 5. Are specific easements needed on this or any other document? 6. Are there any concerns or problems your agency has identified which would or should affect approval of this request? Please reply to: Meredith Reckert (303/235-2848) Department of Planning & Development DISTRIBUTION Completed by: t" /LNr/ to Z~/~ (Name, gency/Department, Date) Water District Jeffco Health Department Sanitation District) Jeffco Schools X Fire District (Arvada) Jeffco Commissioners Adjacent City TCI of Colorado Public Service Co. WHEAT RIDGE Post Office US West Communications X WHEAT RIDGE Police Department Jefferson County Planning Dept. X WHEAT RIDGE Public Works Dept. State Land Use Commission WHEAT RIDGE Park & Rec Commission State Geological Survey WHEAT RIDGE Forestry Division Colorado Dept. Of Transportation X WHEAT RIDGE Building Division X Slough Ditch Co. X - WHEAT RIDGE Economic Development X Juchem & Oulette Ditch Co. "The Carnation City" CABarbam\AGENREFmp9905.wpd Cl,n"~b~e-L taco 05 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ibbison ORDINANCE NO. 668 Series of 1985 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF REZONING FRGM AGRICULTURAL-ONE TO COMMERCIAL-ONE ON LAND LOCATED Al T11E NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS OF WEST I-70 FRONTAGE ROAD NORTH AND 'ARFET STREET, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, . COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Upon application by James M. Sullivan for approval of rexon n~Tn Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Case Mc. WZ-86-10 and pursuant to findings made based an testimony and evidence presented at public hearing before the Wheat Ridge City Council, Wheat Ridge maps are hereby amended to exclude from the Agricultural-One District and to in.lude in the Commercial-One District, with conditions, the following described land: PARCEL I i A tract of land being a portion of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 16, Township 3 South, Range 69 Nest of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County o. Jefferson, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the nort..aest corner of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 16; thence X89043146"E along the north line of said southeast quarter of the southwest quarter 750.07 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way of Parfet Street; thence SOOo01112"W, along said westerly right-of-way, 992.07 feet to a point on the southerly boundary line of the Denver and Northwestern Railroad Company right-of-way as recorded in Book 126 Page 583 in the Recorder's Office of Jefferson County; than S74007'34"W along said southerly right-of-w.y, 99.96 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way of Interstate Highway 70 as recorded under Book 1909, Page 161 in the Recorder's Office of Jefferson County; thence along said. northerly boundary lire the following two (2) courses: (1) Thence 489040'36"W, also. belnd parallel with the south line of the SE 114 of the SW 1/4 of Section 16, 467.55 feet to a point of curvature; (2) Thence along a curve to the left having a central angle of 050101040, a radius of 2060.00, an ■rc length of 185.80 feet to a point on the west line of Said southeast quarter, of the southwest quarter; Thence NOOo01146"W along said west line of 1027.92 feet to the point of beginning, containing 17.522 acres more or less. PARCEL II A tract of land being a portion of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 16, Township 3 South, Range 69 Weft of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of the southwest quarter of Section 15; thence X00001'12"E along the east line of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 16, 448.01 feet to a point on the southerly boundary line of the Denver and Northwestern Railroad Company right-of-way as recorded in Book 126, Page 583 in the Recorder's Office of Jefferson County, Said point being the point of beginning; thence S74007'34"W along said right-of-ray, 549.33 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-::ay of Parfet Street; thence NOOo011120E, along said easterly right-ef-way, 730.58 feet to a point being 247.30 feet Southerly of the. north line of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 16; thence X89043'46"E, parallel with and 247.50 feet distant Then measured at right angles to said north line 528.33 feet to ■ point on the east line of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Station 16; thence 500001112"W, along said east line 582.83 het to the point of beginning, containing 7.965 acres more or less. V\,, 4-o d15 w~3 ORDINANCE NO. 668 PAGE 2 section 2. Conditions. 1. The east 1/2 of Parcel I is subject to the use and desidn as p:r the ado* Ited Craig Chevrolet-Official Development Plan. 2. The balance of land included within this change of zone -.a subject to Site Plan approval, including limitation of allowable. uses, by Planning Commission and City Council prior to any change from the presently maintained use. Sectlon s The City Council hereby finds, Qetermines, and declares the t ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of :he City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. Th. City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper lagizlatlve object sought to be attained. Section t. Severabilit . If any clause, !entente, paragraph, or paro-r7;La or nance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjudged by ■ court of competent jurisdiction 1 ialld, such judgment shall not affect, impair or Invalidate the remainder of this ordinance or Its application to other persons or circumstances. Section S. This ordinance shall take effect t days after final pu61re-a-Uon. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first raiding by a vote of 8 to 0 on this 12th day of Ma , 1986, ordered puull3hed 4de8 JJnP864f,lA$af4n$fa$$nEo$ 184F $ 'SR 14n~gep~J3lXggfs 4°P1Jr June 9 1986 1966, at 7:.30 o'clock p.m., in the Council am ers, 750 West 29th Avenue, wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISRED on second and final reading by a vote of 7 to I , this 9th day of June , 1986. SIGNED by the Mayor on this 10thday of June 1936. ,KST'~ TaATUR Wanda Sang, C Clerk _ APPROVED ~7TFORM )Y CITE NEY 101111 Y 1st Publication: May 15, 1986 2nd Publication: June 12, 1986 Wheat Ridge Sentinel Effective Date: June 27, 1986 Solomon= 14 f OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WHEAT RIDGE COLORADO MAP ADOPTED'. -Una 15, 1994 Last Revision: February 8, 1995 DEPARTHHfr OF PLM W AND DEVEDRENT - 2357851 ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) - CITY LIMIT LINE WATER FEATURE DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRE55ES SW I( o a ao x» ero uo SCALE 1=400 L:\DRAWINGS\PLANNING\GS\SWJ6 1 IR W" fRIA1 I,, P PhRK WZ-75-08 LOOR., oi..LSS CONTAINER FILING No.I CONTAIN5R E-- MINOR .z 5Y MINOR P I D t : PID ' ARVADA WADStJORTH CITG4 gt W 50TH AVE------- - x s ~I LEK - - r Pp ly I ND - 8 y PARI z-GI 3 wz-7~ WL-0°r90 ASSOCIATED PIE) WARCMIG.6E L,R-77-10 A ~ -I Q - Plp _ ~ ? I 6 IN Tmce!E PnR[ A~e41 G- In 7D LEST WhAF ,n MOIZE - pip T PARK - L6 I? 1 L T 1-70 FRONTAGE RD NORTH TERRACE GA1mERG IN➢l6TRIA PARK PID _ Ltl2_TI-5] o 0 W A9fN AVE 1-70 OFFICIAL 11 AREA REQUIRING SITE PLAN APPROVAL IZ O N I N 6 M A P -ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY N HEAT 1 HEAT RIDGE -PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY - (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) COLORADO CITY LIMIT LINE SCALE I'=400 MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1994 ' - WATER FEATURE. Last Revision: September 20, 19% • DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES 3 ARTMEIT OF PUMW MW DEVELOPMEM - 235-2852 L.\DRAWINGS\PLANNING\QS\SE76 . > ~t x ° ~ i ? Y ~b+] ! 4"' xs # wn^' A" y~ ~ ~ ~w ' Y - _ - _ m,, . ~ x +~a~ A ~ - ~ 1 _ tt J► t t l; ~ ~ ~ .~M li '_s~a - f i + t < e° z ' g t ~ i~ @ 4~ ! ~ i ~t~ . R} '{5y ~ n i~ :016 ~w v g M .m ~ G $.h. { ' a C ~ ~1 d i t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m, „ ~ . ~ ~ M i 8~.. ~ , ~p ~ ~ z .t ~ € ' ~ ~ A, . ~ ~ t s ~ ~ ~ 6~ ~ ~ cap ( 1r ,P ~ { ; # . f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ d ~ ~ { ; ~ ~ ~ ; a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s F ~ a. i 't ~ ~P ~ f ~ ~ ~ { { f 3 d & ~ 1 „r ~ ~ t k. T A, iA ~ ~ ~ Y 4 q V AA 4 C'~C °f r r ~ ~ ~ t 6 S ^ Ir 9 ~ ~ ,.'"i' spa a;a~' - , M,~ ,.~-v ' A ~ ~ f i .4. ~f i, ~ 1' ~ 8 ~9 ~ t 1 ~ ~ ~ FRa~+~~~ H 1 w: G] t t K n.,. A.: ~~1 i f t $i`! ~ ' ! ~ a J ~ E. ~ ~ . ~M:. ~ I ~ ,p.~ ~ ~ x,11' J`,' 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ _ _ ~ . r r ' k .gym t t l k p ~ ~ ~ r- ~ ~ ~ 'f i ; a f t dd ~ t ~ ~ t 41 ~ ~ ~ ~ C M f f 1 5M1 w~ r k ~ f v4 a 5 } M t ~Y Kl~ } k ~ 5 r ,q 1 tJ 1 4+J {{gg 7 1 ff l J i f a sSy 5 I t lJ ~ 4 Ar.... ,~i s', c e ~ : ~ t i' ~ ~ ~ y ro~ ° t ~'~'6 5 , ~ ~ e t~ r L~ ~ E ~ `t ~ ~ a - - I I i F- I W I I . l , ~ ,z 9 ~ ` a ; ~ I P S , L_ ' ~ 1 P ~ 1 ~ . i- . t~ s~~ L. „ ~ w.. 7s 6p~~xa' ~ 1 t x P. r _ ~.e 1 ~ ~ ~t + d 1 ~ ~ ~ ~l~,f 4 ~ <a ~ ~ 5~. • a~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ n. ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ,~p,,~,~ ' ~~p ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 t~ ~ ~ ~ p ~a~ -rtl~~ t a >ie~`' . ~p . t e a ~ a n x imv,m+',..., w., ~ ~ fir.*~: j L iii @ k^ 84, &4. n g an 0 vow 9~j. a _a E fis t 4.4 a i ~q~46 " i v = j #v v wo~ 7a " 7 N v ou r-- ?a 94 v (XI ~ 78 66 rr i 1 "i T O S m m U ~i F L,. O m: N . O 2 T a y N m > m 4: a N p > m Q: s N a A > O a a m > O a a ° a a O O w ~ D o d d ~ m m d d ~ i i 1 a m t ~ o i N of R D O U m j ~ N N O NI J O ( 7 ~ M ( a~ v m ~ d3 , ~ a'~ N ~ t01 M i L E j 3 A - O z a m u E £ z z a O N m m iii N v N : w N. ~ y 2 Z N N ul d d d c D d O a a E _ ~ y q LL a` m z a Q ; L a ¢ A z m N U Z j LL d d Q y a d ? W d O N a O N a a O C a T a C T O O ~ T N ~ m a a 3 3 a ~ a 3 . + 3 m o a a o o .a S a o Q _o a w 0 o rc 0 N O a N O d v N 0 a a O _0 a O U i Y LAL a c c O A a U C 1/J y J N O d m a O 0 LL