HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-2025 City Council Meeting MintuesCity Council Meeting Minutes
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING APRIL 28, 2025 Note: This meeting was conducted both as a virtual meeting and hybrid, where some
members of the Council or City staff were physically present at the Municipal building,
and some members of the public attended in person as well. Eight members of Council were present in Council Chambers for this session. Before calling the meeting to order, Mayor Starker stated the rules and procedures necessitated by this meeting format. 1. Call to Order Mayor Starker called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Those present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
3. Roll Call Council Members present: Jenny Snell, Scott Ohm, Rachel Hultin, Amanda Weaver, Korey Stites, Janeece Hoppe, Leah Dozeman and Dan Larson.
Absent: None. A quorum was established. Also present: City Manager Patrick Goff; Public Work, City Attorney Gerald Dahl,
Deputy City Manager Allison Scheck, Police Chief Chris Murtha, Parks and Recreation, Community Development Director Lauren Mikulak, and Sr. Deputy City Clerk Margy Greer 4. Approval of Minutes
Study Session Notes, April 7, 2025 City Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2025 Notes and Minutes stood as presented. 5. Approval of Agenda
Without objection or correction, the agenda stood as presented. 6. Proclamations A. Mayor Starker proclaimed May 4-10, 2025, 56th Annual Professional Municipal Clerk’s Week and read the proclamation into the record
B. Mayor Starker proclaimed the Month of May 2025, Older Americans’ Month and read the proclamation into the record.
7. Public’s Right to Speak Public Comments posted on Wheat Ridge Speaks:
Item No. 1 - ORD - Lutheran Legacy Campus Zoning
Fran Langdon
Apr 28, 2025, at 11:18am
3570 Miller street Wheat Ridge , 80033
Comment : It is a very sad comment on planning in Wheat Ridge to see what will
happen to the Lutheran property. Yes, there were “organized” meetings and surveys to
gather input —organized with leading questions that make you think your opinion counts
but “planners” already know what they want to see developed on a site. It may be off
record, but we know developers and real estate brokers talk to City planners.
Developers don’t just toss money after projects they don’t know will happen. Look at the
consultants that the City continues to employ to conduct surveys and organize input
meetings. Just attend one of the many “ put your post it note the poster type” of
study/input sessions and you’ll see how data is gathered on ANY issue/ project in
Wheat Ridge Then watch how 300 or so total participants over a period of months
become “the majority of Wheat Ridge residents” Yes, there was a ballot issue with
threats that non-passage of the issue would result in a blighted site in the City. And we
need to remember that the data is % of people who voted, NOT % of residents or
property owners in the City — let alone property owners who live right near the site.
Wheat Ridge had a great opportunity to develop a 100+ acre site into the quaint
downtown area we have been trying to find since Wheat Ridge 2020 was funded. We
COULD HAVE maintained the small, single-family houses with yards so popular in the
older sections of our City. We know these houses are popular as they are sought after
and sell quickly. As one person said, we COULD HAVE maintained the quality and
uniqueness that WAS Wheat Ridge. Instead, we are settling for just another California
style, high density apartment-condo-townhouse high rise development that we see
being crammed onto any piece of property in Denver, Aurora, Arvada, Lakewood,
Golden and in our “ once quaint” Wheat Ridge. Drive ( or as Council members would
like —take the bus or bike) by the former Target on Colfax, the former Kmart and Chuck
E Cheese in Arvada, the former Westminster mall, the Jolly Rancher site, the Belmar
development, sadly the Loretto Heights property on Federal. There is no history left
behind. The developers at Loretto Heights promised to maintain the character of this
historic site as they were ripping out the trees, tearing down the dorms, moving grave
sites and developing high density high rises right to the edge of property lines in every
direction — totally dwarfing the historically designated building the developer HAD to
leave behind. The residents of Denver watched things like this happen. They united and
fought a similar proposed development of the Park Hill golf course. Maybe it helped that
a former Mayor helped them!!! Maybe they paid attention to recent reports that we are
overbuilding high density high rises. Maybe they saw that FAMILIES are moving to
Loveland, Brighton, Firestone, Windsor so they can live in a house with even a small
yard rather than live in a high rise built five feet apart remembering that Covid social
distance was six feet !!! Maybe they realized a fire would be devastating with units so
close together. I understand the new development at 44th and Kipling is being called
The Stacks. How appropriate since we are doing just that —stacking people into
“elevator shaft” style houses stacked 3+ stories tall. These are not designed for young
families who would run up and down stairs to take care of babies. They are not
designed to encourage families with kids who want to play in their own yard. They are
not designed to maintain the once-quaint quality of life we call Wheat Ridge. It is
probably too late to do anything about the Lutheran property. The City vision has
changed without us really noticing. Sadly, it’s all about dollars and cents and “ pats on
the back” and that’s just what’s controlling decisions in our City. Thank you for listening.
A really long time Wheat Ridge resident
Item No. 1 - ORD - Lutheran Legacy Campus Zoning
Cody Hedges
Apr 27, 2025, at 11:30pm
Address: 3532 Ingalls St Wheat Ridge, 80033
Comment: I would like to write in support of this ordinance for the rezoning of the old
Lutheran campus. The City of Wheat Ridge has spent the last several years thoughtfully
engaging the public to prepare a master plan for the area and gaining approval from the
citizens to pass a charter amendment to lift the height restrictions in this area. They also
created a zone district to reflect the desires that the people of Wheat Ridge described
during participation in the master plan process. By this point, the people have shown
their support for this plan. However, there appears to be an effort to smear this work by
referring to it as “low-income” housing. I sincerely hope that this City Council recognizes
that all people, regardless of their income, should have a decent place to call home. And
that the mix of housing options that can be made available by this development,
whether market rate or affordable, will be a net benefit to the City of Wheat Ridge and
allow a greater number of people the opportunity to live a fulfilling life in our City. As a
part of the greater Denver metro, we also have a responsibility to grow in a healthy
manner that helps us meet our housing opportunity goals in order to support the future
success of both the City of Wheat Ridge and the greater metro area. If built as planned,
the former Lutheran Campus will help do just that. So, I hope this City Council chooses
to do what is both right and needed and pass that ordinance rezoning this area so
redevelopment opportunities can begin to take shape. Thank You.
Item No. 1 - ORD - Lutheran Legacy Campus Zoning
Kathleen Martell
Apr 28, 2025, at 7:28am
Address: 6455 W 31st Avenue Wheat Ridge, 80214
Comment: As a 25-year resident of Wheat Ridge who participated in the development of
the Lutheran Legacy Campus Master Plan, I appreciate the thorough multi-year process
that the city underwent to get to this point. Residents had multiple opportunities to learn
and provide their input through surveys, open house events, conversations with hard
questions and a wide range of answers, and the resulting Lutheran Legacy Campus
Master Plan provides for thoughtful development while protecting the Blue House and
the chapel, requiring open space and public use. I am encouraged as 68% of voters
voted in favor of changing height restrictions on the Lutheran Legacy Campus. And I do
realize that not everyone will get everything they want with this plan. But this plan is an
excellent roadmap for utilizing this large property to the fullest for current and future
Wheat Ridge residents. I encourage council to please continue with the rezoning plan
as it is written. It follows the direction of the community-led process and strikes the right
balance between preserving our community character and creating future opportunities.
Item No. 1 - ORD - Lutheran Legacy Campus Zoning
Celia Daly
Apr 27, 2025, at 9:10pm
Address: 3501 Sheridan Blvd Wheat Ridge, 80212
Comment: I support this rezone because it’s based on the community-led master plan,
and I see no reason to go against that. It keeps low-density, single-unit housing around
the perimeter of the campus, preserves the blue house and chapel, and dedicates 20%
of the private property to be used for public open space. Further, it’s important that a
plan is agreed to, or all the hard work and opinions of the community could be ignored.
Item No. 1 - ORD - Lutheran Legacy Campus Zoning
Kimberly Peters
Apr 27, 2025, at 7:03pm
Address: 3290 Cody Court Wheat Ridge, 80033
Comment: Can you please explain how you know that we are being misinformed? Have
you heard differently, or do you have documentation showing what is actually planned
for the old ELMC campus? Until I see something official, I am going to rely on the
information I received from the notice that was distributed. Also, I want to be clear that I
do care about the impact of low-income housing in Wheat Ridge. I am concerned about
how it could affect our property values. Many of us have lived here for 20, 30, even 40
years, and we are invested in maintaining the quality and character of our community.
There are many areas in and around Denver that already offer low-income housing
options. I strongly believe Wheat Ridge should be thoughtful about how any new
developments will affect the community long-term.
Item No. 1 - ORD - Lutheran Legacy Campus Zoning
Amanda Fixsen
Apr 27, 2025, at 1:46pm
Address: 3685 Allison Court Wheat Ridge, 80033
Comment: I am concerned that there are misinformed residents within 100 feet of the
proposed MC-LLC area. I am receiving flyers from a neighbor that tells residents that
the new zoning includes High-Density Low-Income housing. To my knowledge this is not
a part of the zoning. This is a fear tactic to make neighbors uneasy. And, even if low-
income housing is / was a part of the MU-LLC zoning, I would still be in full support of
having a range of housing options that are inclusive for all Wheat Ridge residents, and
for various income levels. This misinformation from a neighbor that I am seeing is
dangerous and mis-leading to residents who may not have had the time to be deeply
informed and involved in this process. I look forward to the zone change to MU-LLC
being successful and appreciate our city council for their time and talents.
Item No. 1 - ORD - Lutheran Legacy Campus Zoning
Mindy Mohr
Apr 27, 2025, at 9:10am
Address: 11570 W 70th Pl Unit A Arvada, 80004
Comment: I am writing as a neighbor in Arvada, who is concerned about the lack of
workforce housing throughout Jefferson County. In November 2023, 67% of Wheatridge
residents approved a five-story height limit on the center of the site. This reduces the
building heights allowed by current zoning – both lowering residential maximum height
in the areas closest to the existing neighborhood and limiting the height of buildings in
the campus interior to 5 stories. If we don’t honor the will of voters and zone the
campus, we will most likely end up with high-priced, single-family homes This zoning
aligns with the Lutheran Legacy Campus Master Plan, shaped by 1,200 residents
through surveys, public meetings, and workshops; this ensures that development
follows the community's vision, rather than being dictated by a developer. Please
continue to honor this zoning change!
Item No. 1 - ORD - Lutheran Legacy Campus Zoning
Chuck Reid
Apr 26, 2025, at 9:07am
Address: 601 16th Street 447 Golden, 80401
Comment: Thank you for your continued efforts to ensure a wide variety of Wheat Ridge
residents will be housed in this development. Viable communities include a broad mix of
housing options and your commitment to housing people within the entire housing cost
spectrum is appreciated.
Item No. 1 - ORD - Lutheran Legacy Campus Zoning
Andrew S Rasmussen
Apr 22, 2025, at 5:24pm
Address: 4465 Moore Ct Wheat Ridge, 80033
Comment: I know that there is a substantial, vocal minority in our city that would love to
block any progress on the redevelopment of the Lutheran Legacy Campus. I would
implore the members of City Council to listen respectfully to their pleas, and then
continue the fine work that has been ongoing in this matter for a long time now and was
approved by the voters of our city by about a 2 to 1 margin. Please listen to the voters.
Thank you.
Item No. 1 - ORD - Lutheran Legacy Campus Zoning
Braden Demmerly
Apr 23, 2025, at 12:37pm
Address: 7035 W 43rd Ave Wheat Ridge, 80033
Comment: This seems like it would be a good reuse of the current area. I look forward
to seeing the mixed use that goes in here!
Public Comments – Via Email
Lloyd Levy – resident – Email attached.
Public Comments – In Person
Valerie Beck – resident – asked people to complete the survey regarding keeping the
Anderson Pool and spoke about the Piranhas Swim Team and summer swim events.
Sandra Sands – resident – spoke about the noise emitted from a local car wash and
asked Council to do something about it.
Jenne Cessar – asked for assistance with creating zoning for private community
reservable outdoor space for people to use to allow their dogs to roam off-leash.
Rolly Sorrentino – resident – spoke about the City Council’s credibility regarding zoning
issues, in particular multi-use zoning and the lack of multi-use within the zones. He
stated it goes to the credibility of Council when Council passes ordinances and don’t
keep promises.
Jan Facinelli – resident/business owner – spoke to Council asking for assistance
regarding the noise being emitted from the car wash across the street from her home.
She stated the decibels are one thing, but the constancy of the noise wears her down.
Anne Brinkman – resident – stated they have coffer dams on their street where in the
past, engineers had dug into the aquafers. The dams are supposed to hold the water
back, but they are in need of cleaning and without cleaning will cause bad odors.
Betty Jo page – resident – stated there is an opportunity for the city to buy a trolley
which use to run in Wheat Ridge. It is in need of repair, but she stated she hopes the
city will follow up on it.
Gretchen Josten and Greg Primavera – residents - thanked police staff for their help
with the noise being emitted from the car wash. Ms. Josten stated that the consistency
of the noise is the problem. The car wash noise is affecting their lives.
City Manager Patrick Goff stated that the car wash has been cited for a noise violation.
The court date is Thursday, May 1st. Staff is working with the business in an effort to
resolve the problem. There is a pre-mediation session being held prior to their court
appearance. Mr. Goff stated that hopefully, there will be a decision made after that.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
None.
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING 9. Council Bill No. 06-2025 – an ordinance approving a city-initiated zone change
of the Lutheran Legacy Campus from Planned Hospital Development (PHD),
Planned Commercial Development (PCD), Residential-Two (R-2), and Residential-One (R-1) to the Mixed Use-Lutheran Legacy Campus (MU-LLC) zone district
Council Member Weaver read the Bill Title into the record.
Mayor Starker stated that the ordinance is on second reading and stated it was continued from the April 14, 2025, Meeting. He reconvened the public hearing.
Lauren Mikulak, Director of Community Development, stated that she would be presenting the case along with Scott Cutler, Senior Planner. Mikulak entered into the record the contents of the case file, the zoning ordinance, the comprehensive plan, and the digital presentation which was given at the meeting. She stated that property is in the City of Wheat Ridge, all appropriate notification requirements have been met, and
the City Council does have jurisdiction to hear this case. Lauren Mikulak then gave a PowerPoint presentation, stating the Lutheran Legacy Campus rezoning was a city-initiated zone change of the Lutheran Campus to the Mixed Use – Lutheran Legacy Campus (MU-LLC) zone district. She reviewed the
timeline and history including the Master Plan for the Campus which was adopted after months of public engagement (April to October 2021). She spoke to the key community expectations and goals which include public open space, integration of existing assets (chapel, blue house, ditch), mix of housing types, and development on the perimeter to serve as a buffer and transition between the campus and the adjacent neighborhoods;
integrate office and civic uses; and to provide neighborhood-serving retail without competing with 38th and Wadsworth. Mikulak stated that in May 2024 Council passed a resolution in support of a legislative zone change for the campus to catalyze investment in the site. She gave a summary of
the public engagement which included: 3 public open houses, 4 intercept events; 3 presentations to community groups; 2 rounds of polling, 12 City Council and Planning Commission meetings; mailing of multiple letters and postcards; and gathering comments from the “What’s Up” Wheat Ridge website and emails.
She stated that on the November 5, 2024, Election voters approved 2C, a charter amendment with 67% support to modify allowed building heights on campus: cap
building heights to 30’ on perimeter from 35’ and cap building heights to 5 stories (70’ max) in the middle. January 27, 2025, Council approved zoning regulations for the campus (MU-LLC zone district). She said the city-initiated zone change allows for public discussion during the process; will help the city achieve the vision of the Master Plan and align zoning with that plan; and puts the creation of zoning regulations with the
City, not the developer. Scott Cutler reviewed the zone districts by showing maps of the current zoning and the proposed MU-LLC zoning. The MU-LLC zoning allows for a mix of housing types and building heights, with lower/less-dense housing on the perimeter and taller buildings in
the middle; substantial public open space requirement (nearly 20% of the land); requires mix of uses (residential, open space, commercials, etc.); requires commitment to preserve/rehab existing structures of historic significance (blue house, etc.) aligns with the approved Lutheran Legacy Campus master Plan and the vision for the campus.
Cutler showed the Master Plan diagram and the proposed zoning for same. He showed
the proposed zoning, stating multi-unit apartments are not allowed in Zone 1; multi-unit apartments are only allowed conditionally in a part of Zone 4. He stated that regarding public notification: letters were sent tall owners and residents
with 1000’ of the campus, postcards were letters were sent to property owners within
rezoning boundary; signs were posted on the perimeter of the campus; emails were sent from “What Up Wheat Ridge” in January to 389 people with project update and future dates, re-sent in April sent after hearing date as changed; and 10 comments were collected on Wheat Ridge Speaks.
Mikulak stated that staff recommended approval of the zone change and the Planning Commission recommended approval after a hearing on February 20th. Public Comment
In-Person Tracy Martin – resident – spoke against high-density low-income housing at the Lutheran Legacy Campus and in opposition of the proposed rezoning.
Virginia Avery – resident – spoke about her concerns and stated she hoped Council would consider everyone’s homes when making these decisions. Valerie Beck – resident – spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning.
David DiManna – resident – spoke in opposition of the proposed rezoning and spoke to the rewriting of the zoning ordinance in Denver and how it did not turn out the way it was expected to.
Kelly Blynn – resident – spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning stating the comprehensive public outreach that went into the planning. Mark de la Torre – resident – spoke in support of the proposed rezoning.
Morgan Richards – resident – spoke in support of the proposed rezoning. Gene Pastor – resident – stated he hoped they are kept highly-informed about what will happen on the Campus. Some folks are unhappy with what they have heard so far.
Sandra L. Simpson – resident – stated she hoped the plan would include a buffer of some type for the Lutheran Parkway/Balsam Street area. Jennifer Gibbs – resident – spoke in support of the proposed rezoning due to having
more walkable connectivity. The plans are helpful to both residents and the city.
Rose Kaffer – spoke in favor of home ownership, not apartments. She spoke about the need for different types of housing, and she liked the walkability plan for the area.
Gino A. Quintana – resident – spoke about his concerns about high-density low-income
housing and asked how many there would be. He stated he also heard that the land has already been sold, and they are ready to break ground. He voiced his concern about traffic, wildlife, and noise.
Adam Casey – resident – stated it is important that the city honor the promise the voters asked them to keep when it was voted on in November. He stated his support for the proposed rezoning. Kristine Disney – resident – stated she continues to support the plan for the project.
She recognized the unprecedented effort that went into keeping the residents involved and informed about every aspect of the project. She stated there is a great need for housing in the area. She stated her support for the proposed rezoning. Angela Mateus – resident – Spoke about her concerns about the proposed zoning,
stating what is down on paper isn’t necessarily what happens in reality. She asked Council to take into consideration the legacy they may be leaving behind. Dorothy Archer – resident - stated she was not against the project but was against the high-density zoning.
Elise Brougham – resident - spoke in opposition to the rezoning proposal.
Brandi Causey – resident – stated her concern about the difference between a binding agreement and stringent guidance and turning plans over to a developer to determine this. She stated there is an opportunity to create a downtown that is memorable and
leave a legacy. She asked if someone could address whether the property had already
been sold. Justin Slocum – resident – asked council to consider what low-income housing will bring to the city and that the city has a choice. He asked council to consider their decisions
wisely.
Kim Calomino – resident - spoke in favor of the proposed zoning, talking about the thoughtful approach that went into the zoning proposal.
Lindsay Burney – resident – spoke in support of the rezoning proposal and the strong
plan behind the zoning. Sheri Jaraczecki – resident – stated her concern about the high-density proposal and cautioned the city not to over-build.
Liz Veeder – resident - spoke in support of home ownership. People want neighborhoods with lawns and space and have a neighborhood watch to help build friendships. She asked for R-1 and R-2 to be included in the zoning proposal.
Carol Mathews – resident – read a quote from the 2008 Neighborhood Revitalization
Study stating what the community wanted for the future of Wheat Ridge, stating six key values. She stated the high-density and no requirements for off street parking is an issue.
Julia Reese – resident – spoke in opposition of the proposed zoning. She spoke to the relationship needed of business customers in order for businesses to survive. Home ownership provides stabilization in the neighborhood. She stated the city has a fiduciary responsibility to homeowners, business owners, and the community of Wheat Ridge, not SCL and the developer.
Marianna Storck – resident – spoke in support of the rezoning. She spoke to her about traffic, affordable housing, and spoke in favor of beautiful housing. She stated this is an opportunity to embrace this change.
Katie Zaback – resident – thanked Councilor Hultin for her visit to Stevens Elementary regarding safe walking and biking. Zaback stated the new Green in front of Stevens was nervous about that development, but the city made everything so easy on everyone. The proposed project is a testament to how far the city has come in engaging the residents in the process. She spoke in favor of the proposed zoning.
Walter Kordziel – resident – spoke in opposition of the proposed rezoning. He stated that density, setbacks, and heights can change.
Joann Sorrentino –resident - spoke in opposition of the proposed zoning. Other developments in the area are department complexes and they do not offer anything to
the people who live there. She spoke in favor of smaller homes and small yards, not
large apartment complexes. Rolly Sorrentino – resident – spoke in opposition of the proposed rezoning. He stated Lutheran Campus is the last jewel in the city and the proposal is to eviscerate it. He
had audience members who were opposed to stand up. He stated that the council does
not represent their constituents anymore. He said the best thing would be to make it a park and eliminate high-density, high-rise apartments there. Andrea Burch – President of Lutheran – stated she represents the essential workers at
the hospital. Many of the entry level workers that support the hospital cannot afford to
live in Wheat Ridge. She urged Council to move forward with the proposal to build affordable housing in the community. Betsy Coppoch – resident – stated she participated in the Master Plan and felt proud of
the work that was done. She spoke in support of the proposed zoning.
Maureen Van Houw – resident - stated this is an opportunity to provide diverse opportunities for the community. She spoke in support of the proposed zoning.
Nikki Larsen – resident – spoke in support of the proposed rezoning. She stated that
the Plan came from the community. Alicia D. Bennett – resident – spoke in opposition to the high-density plan mainly because of the traffic it will cause.
Anne Brinkman – resident – spoke in support of the rezoning proposal. She spoke about the cost of living and the need for affordable housing. She asked council to trust the community, the staff, and the vote of the people.
Alan Bucknam – resident – spoke in favor of the rezoning proposal, in particular in support of the 20% land set aside for open space. Betty Jo Page – resident – stated that the community was heavily notified, and people should not say they didn’t know what was happening. She spoke in support of the
proposed rezoning. Sandy Nance – resident – spoke in support of having a historic zone to save some of the buildings on the site. She stated that the historic designation can be done only if the owner and city sign off on it.
Shirley Nelson – resident – stated she liked many of the aspects of the plan, but she is concerned about the high rise of the buildings which does not fit into the rural feel of the community. She also spoke about concerns regarding lack of off-street parking.
Ryan Goold – resident - spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning. He stated he is passionate about community engagement and has followed the process and spoke to the excellence of the staff and the well-thought plan that was produced.
Via Zoom Daniel Findlay – resident – stated he wants the vision to be realized. He stated there is one chance for the city to get it right. He asked council to please hold people to the fire, so the vision is actually realized.
Mayor Starker recessed the meeting at 8:50 pm and reconvened the public
hearing at 9:05 pm. Council Member Hoppe – In the R1 and R2 buffer zone, she asked what wiggle room is there in that to not be for what is zoned in the area. Lauren Mikulak stated that the low-
density overlay has no wiggle room. She stated the purpose of using a mixed-use zone district is very prescriptive with definitive dimensions and very limited allowances for variances. What is in the code today regarding the overlay will dictate what will happen if the property is rezoned. In answer to another question from Hoppe, Mikulak stated no building can be within 30’ of the eastern boundary and the first row of development must
comply with the low-density overlay. Hoppe asked what is contained in part of Zone 2 is required retention of the chapel and the blue house. She asked what would happen behind those buildings. Mikulak stated there is more flexibility in that middle of the campus in zones 2 and 3. Since there is no developer at the table and no site planning being done at this time, there are a few things that could happen in zone 2 including
residential, office, or civic. Also, not knowing what would happen with the existing building which is about 150’ back will remain in whole or in part, just because we are not sure at this stage. Mikulak stated that zoning rules determine what you can do with your property and describes what something looks like. The zoning requested tonight ensures that any development will follow those rules, which is about 50 pages of
detailed descriptions. Once zoning is in place, the next step is to review any development. Because the property has been around for over 100 years, a subdivision plat, a concept plan, and then the site plan is submitted. Public outreach is a part of those plans.
Mayor Pro Tem Stites – Asked for clarification on statements he heard made from audience members. He asked if someone was able to build a 70’ single family home on the property. Mikulak stated that it would not be allowed. The setback is the same as the height of the building. With R-1 and R-2 are currently zoned on the west side of the campus, currently people can build a home to a 35’ height limit and with the proposed
zoning it would be 30’. Single units and duplexes are only allowed on this side of the property and the same would be true for proposed rezoning.
Council Member Ohm – Asked for traffic counts currently or in the past. Mikulak stated that she did not have the numbers. She stated that a traffic analysis was done when they did the Master Plan, and it will be required to happen again after the zone change.
The analysis stated that when the hospital was fully active, the traffic then would exceed
the proposed uses. Traffic patterns would probably change, but the total count is not expected to increase. The next step in the process would require a traffic impact analysis. Ohm asked about sidewalk connectivity on 32nd at Lutheran Parkway. Mikulak stated that the entire perimeter of the project would require sidewalks. A safe
connection across to Crown Hill would be good, but how far away from the said property
a developer is requested to perform that work is limited. Ohm asked about the 20% parkland who would be providing the maintenance of those parks. Mikulak stated that the long-term maintenance would not be the responsibility of the city, the developer and proposed Metro District would be liable for the maintenance.
Council Member Dozeman asked how the Master Plan will inform the design and how restrictive or stringent it is and how that process works with the staff and developer. Mikulak stated that the Master Plan does not have dimensional standards. It paints the picture of what the community’s priorities were and how the land uses may be laid out.
The Master Plan is the overall perspective, and the zoning provides very specific rules.
It is very prescriptive. The application process is lengthy and there is a lot of back-and-forth with the applicant until staff is assured that all rules and regulations have been met. She stated that all the documents are open to the public. Dozeman asked Mikulak to speak to affordable and subsidized housing and inclusionary housing. Dozeman
stated that we have an affordable housing plan that was adopted by Wheat Ridge a
couple of years ago and has not yet been codified into the zoning ordinance. When speaking with Intermountain Health it was made clear that the City would like the housing to be available to a mix of incomes. If the inclusionary housing does not get codified, other tools are anticipated agreements with the Urban Renewal Authority and
any potential TIF agreements. Council Member Weaver – stated that the City does not own this property. She asked why the City couldn’t buy it and make it into a park. Mikulak stated that it is outside the feasibility of the City’s budget. Weaver asked Mikulak to talk about the uniqueness of
working with the owner to do this type of planning in foresight rather than hindsight. She asked her to speak about the largeness of the development and why the City would want to have it zoned mixed-use. Mikulak stated that Intermountain Health wanted to put this property on the market but since it was zoned for hospital use, they wanted to work with the City to get the best use and realized the need for a Master Plan and
Intermountain paid the $150.000 that it cost. It was a true partnership with the City. Planning and zoning is what helps the City have better rules, clear expectations, vision, rules that support the vision, rules on the property that has to be followed. Mix of uses came out of the planning process from the residents. 100 acres is approximately 10-12 square blocks and throughout Wheat Ridge, there is mix-used within 10-12 blocks.
Mikulak stated the none of the buildings on the campus are on national or state historic registration. Lacking those designations, the plans state they are historically significant. After the Master Plan was approved, Council adopted a resolution stating that any
future owner or developer make a good faith effort to reuse those structures. The City has made their expectations clear that those structured be saved and honored.
Mayor Pro Tem Stites asked if the Developer can pay fees in lieu of the parkland
requirement. Mikulak said no. It is non-negotiable. Stites asked if Intermountain could put a fence around the property and not make it available for dog-walking and recreation. Mikulak said yes. Mikulak stated that there was extensive discussion about what the land would look like after the hospital moved. It was decided that putting a
fence around it was not the best option. The property has been maintained well since
the move. A vacant lot would cause more crime than a developed property. Council Member Hoppe stated that once the traffic studies are done, would that be an opportunity for neighbors to request traffic mitigation and potential for a roundabout.
Mikulak stated that the traffic study is not only determining volume, but it is to determine
traffic flows, patterns, and mitigations. Council Member Hultin – asked if there was anything that mandated rentals or could it be for homeownership as well. Mikulak stated that there is no mandate for rental
property. Multi-units as stated in the zoning code could mean apartments or condos,
both rental and owned. Hultin confirmed that nothing changed the density requirements in the charter and code. Mikulak confirmed as well. Changing density on this property would require another vote for a charter change.
Council Member Weaver made a motion to approve Council Bill 06-2025 – an ordinance
approving a city-initiated zone change of the Lutheran Legacy Campus from Planned Hospital Development (PHD), Planned Commercial Development (PCD), Residential-Two (R-2), and Residential-One (R-1) to the Mixed Use-Lutheran Legacy Campus (MU- LC) zone district. It was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stites.
Vote: 8 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried. Council Member Hoppe stated that the reason they went for a legislative rezone on the property is so that the community could be involved. If the developer asked for a
rezone, Council would not be able to engage the community on their wishes for the property. She clarified the number of public meetings, postings, mailings, social media, and website visits which was done intentionally to have the public involvement. She stated this development will be a unique piece of Wheat Ridge’s quilt. She stated she would vote yes on the motion.
Council Member Ohm thanked staff for thoughtfully working on the project, thanked the public and stated that he listened to them. He stated the diversity of building types is well-done. With all the public input and meetings, he stated he would be voting yes.
Mayor Pro Tem Stites stated when he was young, he lived on Allison Court and many family members live in the area of this hospital. He stated he is sympathetic to the people who live near the property, it is going to affect you the most. No matter what
happens, it will affect those closest to the property. He explained the low-density single-family housing and duplexes being built up against the homes already there. He spoke to the planned retail, commercial, and residential, which will be an asset to the
community. 20 acres of open space will be open to everyone and maintained by the
proposed metro district. Walking and biking connectivity is in the plan. The plan has already been voted on, nothing has changed, council cannot change it. He stated he was going to support the ordinance.
Council Member Hultin told a story about the change that took place when she recently
drove through the neighborhood she grew up in and the amount of change she saw. She stated change is hard. She stated that this is the last big neighborhood in Wheat Ridge, and it will be a great change to the City. However, this plan was very well thought out and it is an opportunity, realizing it will be hard on everyone. She stated
that she will be supporting it and knows the hard work is yet to come
Council Member Weaver stated she would be supporting it because it was such a community process. This plan gives so much of what people want: there is single family; opportunities for less density, higher density; amazing park space; and trying to
save historic spaces. She thanked everyone for the diversity of the comments. She
stated that when she moved to Wheat Ridge, her home was affordable; having affordable housing in Wheat Ridge is important for our future generations. Council Member Snell thanked staff for their commitment to the process and for
listening to the community. She thanked the residents for showing up in chambers and
taking the time to express their opinions. She also stated that there is a sentiment out there that renters don’t care and don’t want to be a part of the community. She stated that there are long-term renters who are a part of the community, are involved in the community and care. She took issue with the comment that renters don’t care about the
community, don’t care about their homes, and crime. Council Member Dozeman stated that she was born and raised in Wheat Ridge and is raising her boys in her childhood home, which she rents from her parents. She has served two terms on city council, has served on the Carnation Festival for 9 years and
have done many other things. She stated she is grateful to raise her children in a community that is so tight-knit and cares so much. She stated that prior to being on council, she was a resident who came to council and felt like she wasn’t being heard, that there was a pre-conceived outcome and that her comments didn’t matter. Being on council and going through this process, she stated that council and staff have moved
mountains to ensure that the public engagement process worked and gathered as much public input as they possibly could. She stated her generation would not be able to afford a house in Wheat Ridge. Bringing affordable housing is necessary She stated she would be supporting this ordinance.
ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING 10. Council Bill No.07-2025 – an ordinance amending the Wheat Ridge Code of Law
concerning membership of the Urban Renewal Authority.
Council Member Hoppe made a motion to approve Council Bill Number 07-2025 – an ordinance amending the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning membership of the Urban Renewal Authority, order it published and the public hearing set for Monday,
May 12, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. as a virtual meeting and in City Council Chambers. It was seconded by Council Member Ohm. Vote: 8 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried. 11. Council Bill No. 08-2025 – an ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws regarding Freestanding Emergency Departments.
Council Member Hultin made a motion to remove this item from the agenda and have it placed on the May 12th meeting agenda. It was seconded by Council Member Ohm. Mayor Starker removed it from the agenda and asked that it be placed on the May 12th agenda for action.
13. Council Bill 09-2025 – an ordinance amending Section 26-646 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and making conforming amendments therewith.
Council Member Hoppe made a motion to approve Council Bill Number 09-2025 – an ordinance amending Section 26-646 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and making conforming amendments therewith, order it published and the public hearing set for Monday, May 12, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. as a virtual meeting and in City Council Chambers. It was seconded by Council Member Ohm.
Vote 8 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried. 14. Council Bill 10-2025 – an ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws regarding Residential Occupancy limits and making conforming
amendments therewith. Council Member Dozeman made a motion to approve Council Bill 10-2025 - an ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws regarding Residential Occupancy limits and making conforming amendments therewith, order it
published and the public hearing set for Monday, May 12, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. as a virtual meeting and in City Council Chambers. It was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stites. Vote: 8 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried.
DECISIONS, RESOLUTIONS, AND MOTIONS
15. Resolutions 23-2025 – a resolution in opposition of HB25-1220, Regulation of
Medical Nutrition Therapy.
Council Member Hultin who is Chair of the Legislative Committee, stated that the committee is opposing this Bill due to cost impact it will have on the local grocers.
Council Member Hultin made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 23-2025 - a resolution in
opposition of HB25-1220, Regulation of Medical Nutrition Therapy. It was seconded by Council Member Larson. Vote: 8 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried.
16. Resolution 24-2025 – resolution in opposition of HB25-1300, Workers’ Compensation Benefits Proof of Entitlement. Council Member Larson spoke in opposition to the Bill, stating many areas of concern
and in particular the cost impact it will have on the City of Wheat Ridge.
Council Member Larson made a motion to adopt Resolution 24-2025, a resolution in opposition of HB25-1300, workers’ Compensation Benefits Proof of Entitlement. It was seconded by Council Member Hoppe.
Vote: 8 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried. 17. Resolution 25-2025 – a resolution in support of SB25-030, Increase Transportation mode Choice Reduce Emissions.
Council Member Snell made a motion to adopt Resolution 25-2025, a resolution in support of SB25-030, Increase Transportation mode Choice Reduce Emissions. It was seconded by Council Member Hultin.
Vote: 8 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried.
14. City Manager’s Matters None.
15. City Attorney’s Matters
None. 16. Elected Official’s Matters Mayor and City Council Members stated their pride in the City, thanked staff for their
hard work, and reported on events and activities they attended over the past weeks.
18. Adjournment There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor Starker adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
_________________________________
Margy Greer, Sr. Deputy City Clerk
_____________________
Korey Stites, Mayor Pro Tem