Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.18 Planning Commimssion Agenda PacketAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO Thursday, June 18, 2026, 6:30 p.m. This meeting will be conducted as a virtual meeting, and in person, at: 7500 West 29th Avenue, Municipal Building, Council Chambers. Planning Commissioners and City staff members will be physically present at the Municipal building for this meeting. The public may participate in these ways: 1. Attend the meeting in person at City Hall. Use the appropriate roster to sign up to speak upon arrival. 2. Provide comment in advance at www.wheatridgespeaks.org (comment by noon on June 17, 2026) 3. Virtually attend and participate in the meeting through a device or phone: a) Click here to join and provide public comment (create a Zoom account to join) b) Or call 1-669-900-6833 with Meeting ID 859 8028 2459 and Passcode: 422764 4. View the meeting live or later at www.wheatridgespeaks.org, Channel 8, or YouTube Live at https://www.wheatridge.gov/view CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE SWEARING IN OF NEW AND RENEWING COMMISSIONERS APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 4, 2026 PUBLIC FORUM This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the Public Hearing agenda. Public comments may be limited to 3 minutes. PUBLIC HEARING* 1. WZ-24-09 – An application filed by A&E Ventures Swadley LLC for approval of a zone change from Agricultural-Two (A-2) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) with an Outline Development Plan to facilitate the development of up to 18 single unit dwellings on the 4.97-acre property located at 5225 Swadley Street. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. Upcoming Dates 2. Project and Development Updates 3. Commissioner Updates *Public comment is welcome during any public hearing item. The standard procedure for a public hearing is as follows: a. Staff presentation b. Applicant presentation – if applicable c. Public comment – time may be limited at the discretion of the Chair, often to 3 minutes d. Staff/applicant response e. Close public hearing f. Commission discussion and decision Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. The City will upon request, provide auxiliary aids and services leading to effective communication for people with disabilities, including qualified sign language interpreters, assistive listening devices, documents in Braille, and other ways of making communications accessible to people who have speech, hearing, or vision impairments. To request auxiliary aid, service for effective communication, or document in a different format, please use this form or contact ADA Coordinator, (Kelly McLaughlin at ada@wheatridge.gov or 303-235-2885) as soon as possible, preferably 7 days before the activity or event. ADA Accessibility Statement The City of Wheat Ridge (City) is committed to providing accessible facilities, services, and communication to all members of the public. As part of this commitment, the City aims to provide an accessible website compatible with W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.2) that is in compliance with Colorado HB 21-1110, allowing individuals with a disability to understand and use the website to the same degree as someone without a disability. As the City works toward this goal, you may have a need to access documents in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audio, etc.). In that event, please contact the ADA Coordinator, Kelly McLaughlin, at ada@wheatridge.gov or 303-235-2885 who will make every effort to respond to your inquiry and provide an alternative solution. Planning Commission Minutes - 1 – June 4, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION Draft Minutes of Meeting June 4, 2026 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair DISNEY at 6:30 p.m. This meeting was held in person and virtually, using Zoom video-teleconferencing technology. 1. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Kristine Disney Jennifer Gibbs Daniel Graeve Krista Holub Simon McGowan Michael Moore Syrma Quinones Anna Sparks Commission Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Jana Easley, Planning Manager Stephanie Stevens, Senior Planner Gerald Dahl, City Attorney Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by consensus to approve the order of the agenda. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – March 19, 2026 It was moved by Commissioner SPARKS and seconded by Commissioner GRAEVE to approve the minutes of March 19, 2026, as written. Motion carried 5-0-3 with Commissioners HOLUB, MOORE and QUINONES abstaining. 5. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) No one wished to speak at this time. 6. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes - 2 – June 4, 2026 No cases to be heard. 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS A. City Attorney Training Mr. Dahl led a training session for the commission and staff on items including Quasi-judicial actions, conducting public hearings, taking action, exactions, and conditions of approval. B. Upcoming Dates Ms. Easley mentioned that the June 18 Planning Commission meeting will be held, the July 2 meeting has been cancelled, and the July 16 meeting is to be determined. She also informed the commissioners that on July 13 there will be a public hearing at City Council about the Board of Adjustments possible transfer of duties to Planning Commission, and if approved there will be additional training on how the meeting will be run. C. Project and Development Updates D. Commissioner Updates Nothing at this time. 10. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner HOLUB and seconded by Commissioner QUINONES to adjourn the meeting at 7:48 p.m. Motion carried 8-0. __________________________ _______________________________ Kristine Disney, Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN CITY MEETINGS Wheat Ridge City Council & Planning Commission City Council and Planning Commission meetings are held in person and are also accessible online. Community members are encouraged to participate in the way that works best for them—whether attending live, joining virtually, submitting comments in advance, or simply watching live or later. FOUR WAYS TO PARTICIPATE 1. Attend in Person • Meetings are held at City Hall in Council Chambers • Agendas are available at the meeting and online in advance • You may speak during public comment or at a public hearing • Speakers are typically limited to 3 minutes 2. Join & Comment Live on Zoom • Meetings are accessible via Zoom using the link on the meeting agenda or City calendar • Advance registration is typically required (see agenda for details) • Participants are muted upon entry • When it’s your turn, you will be called on by the Chair or Clerk to speak 3. Submit Comments in Advance • Visit: www.wheatridgespeaks.org • For City Council, meetings take place on Monday evenings, meeting agendas are posted the Friday before, comments are due by noon on the day of the meeting • For Planning Commission, meetings take place on Thursday evenings, meeting agendas are posted about a week in advance, comments are due by noon on the day before the meeting • Comments are visible to decision-makers and become part of the public record 4. Watch the Meeting Live or Later • Watch live or recorded meetings: o Wheat Ridge Speaks (with agenda materials) o YouTube o Channel 8 (Comcast) • No participation required—this is a viewing-only option 2 WHAT IS PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO SPEAK? During regular business meetings, this is dedicated time on the agenda to speak about anything not appearing on the agenda. During study sessions, public comment is limited only to those items appearing on the agenda. WHAT IS A PUBLIC HEARING? A public hearing is a formal process where City Council or Planning Commission: • Reviews an application (such as zoning, development, or code changes) • Takes public testimony • Makes a decision Public hearings are often just one part of the agenda for a public meeting. The public hearing follows a structured format including: • Staff presentation • Applicant presentation • Public comment • Decision and vote TIPS FOR PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENT • State your name and spell your last name before speaking • Address comments to the decision makers • Keep comments clear and concise • Know that comment is often limited to 3 minutes, and sometimes less depending on attendance • If attending virtually, wait to be called on before unmuting and speaking • Questions for staff or applicants may be addressed after public comment MEETING SCHEDULE Meetings may be canceled if there are no agenda items. Please check the City calendar to confirm if a meeting is scheduled or canceled: www.wheatridge.gov/calendar. When held, the typical meeting schedule is: • City Council meetings: 2nd and 4th Mondays of the month • City Council study sessions: 1st and 3rd Mondays of the month • Planning Commission: 1st and 3rd Thursdays of the month CASE NUMBER: WZ-24-09 DATE: June 18, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5225 SWADLEY STREET FROM AGRICULTURAL-TWO (A-2) TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) WITH APPROVAL OF AN OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (CASE NO. WZ-24-09) ☒PUBLIC HEARING ☒QUASI-JUDICIAL ☐LEGISLATIVE ☒RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ☐FINAL ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION ENTER INTO RECORD: ☒CASE FILE AND PACKET MATERIALS ☒ZONING ORDINANCE ☒COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ☒DIGITAL PRESENTATION JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. ACTION REQUESTED: A request by Franklin Salazar on behalf of A&E Ventures Swadley LLC for approval of a zone change from Agricultural-Two (A-2) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) with an Outline Development Plan to facilitate the development of up to 18 single unit dwellings on the 4.97-acre property located at 5225 Swadley Street. BACKGROUND: Existing Conditions The property is located on the north side of W. 52nd Avenue and Swadley Street, east of Tabor Street (Exhibit 1, Location Map). The property is currently zoned Agricultural-Two (A-2) and is platted as Lot 12 of the Standley Heights Subdivision. The property is approximately 4.97-acres and currently contains three single unit homes, two pole barns, and two detached garages all built in 1937 and 1961. Adjacent properties to the west and north are incorporated into the City of Arvada. The adjacent property to the northeast is part of unincorporated Jefferson County. Properties within the City of Wheat Ridge to the south are zoned Residential-Two (R-2) Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 2 and the immediate property to the east is zoned A-2. Uses in the immediate vicinity include low- to moderate-density residential and agricultural. The site is located in the northwest corner of Wheat Ridge but is just outside of the boundary of the Northwest Subarea Plan which covers the area south of W. 52nd Avenue. The site is about a quarter mile from the Wheat Ridge · Ward commuter rail station and within one mile of the Arvada Ridge station. See Exhibit 2, Zoning Map and Exhibit 3, Map of Adjacent Uses. The City Plan identifies this site as a Moderate Variety Neighborhood Place Type, and it also qualifies as a ‘Special Case Agricultural Re-Use Site’. The City Plan specifies the appropriate application of use and form in this context. For this location, a wide variety of housing types ranging from single-unit residential up to multi-unit residential adjacent to 52nd Avenue are appropriate. See Exhibit 4, City Plan Excerpts. Process The property is approximately five acres in size. Any property over one acre in size which is applying for a zone change for a residential purpose is required by code to rezone to Planned Development. The Planned Residential Development (PRD) zone district was created to promote public health, safety and general welfare by permitting greater flexibility and innovation in land development based upon a comprehensive, integrated plan or Outline Development Plan (ODP) (Exhibit 5, Outline Development Plan). Rezoning to a planned development in the City of Wheat Ridge entails approval of two documents. The first is the subject ODP. The approval of the ODP changes the zoning designation on the land, establishes allowed uses and development standards for the property, and establishes access configurations for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles. The second document is the Specific Development Plan (SDP), which focuses on specific details of a development such as site design, architecture, landscaping, and drainage design. The SDP must be found to be compliant with the ODP in order to be approved. Section 26-302 of the Municipal Code allows for concurrent or sequential applications for the ODP and SDP. In this case, the applicant is requesting sequential review, and the SDP will be submitted as a separate application after the ODP, if approved. City Council is the final approving body for the subject ODP. Zone Change Protest After the zone change application was submitted, Community Development staff received and reviewed a package of protests in October 2024 and confirmed that the package contains the required minimum number of valid protests to trigger a required super majority vote by City Council in favor of the zone change ordinance at the final public hearing for approval in accordance with requirements of Charter 5.10 and Sec. Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 3 26-112.C.7 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. This means that the zone change ordinance will require at least six (6) positive votes by City Council for approval. This does not affect the Planning Commission’s review. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: Attached is a copy of the proposed Outline Development Plan for the site, which contains three sheets (Exhibit 5, Outline Development Plan). The first page is a cover sheet with certification and signature blocks for the property owners, Planning Commission, City Council, and the Mayor. It also includes a character of development statement, development standards, and other standard notes. The second page includes permitted uses and a conceptual layout of the property, including access, open space, and lots. The third page includes an alternative conceptual layout under the same standards. As noted above, the ODP is a property-specific zoning document that establishes the underlying uses and development standards. These are described below, would run with the land if approved, and cannot be changed without going through a subsequent zone change process. Site Configuration The ODP represents a phased approach to development, with two distinct Planning Areas. Planning Area 1 (PA 1) is to contain single-unit homes, while Planning Area 2 (PA 2) is to be reserved primarily as open space with allowances for secondary uses that are more agricultural in nature to complement the existing zoning and adjacent uses. The ODP proposes a 14- to 18-home Traditional Neighborhood Development centered around a linear open space surrounded by a pedestrian-focused drive. Homes will face the linear open space. The design is intended to emphasize community interaction, walkability, and peaceful coexistence with surrounding neighborhoods. Two access points are proposed near the west and east borders of the site leading to a looped perimeter drive that provides a buffer between adjacent uses, vehicular circulation, a pedestrian network, fire access, and looped utility infrastructure. Primary buildings are located mainly inside the looped drive with potential for a common building located within PA 2 either north of the looped drive or centrally located between the homes. Six-foot tall solid fencing will border the perimeter of the site. Amenities are provided through a common building and common open space proposed within PA 2. The ODP offers two scenarios for the layout of the site in an effort to visualize the zoning standards while providing the flexibility to respond to market conditions. The first scenario consolidates PA 2 in the center of the site with potential for two single- Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 4 unit home lots on the north end, while the second scenario splits PA 2 into a linear open space between the homes with the option for common amenities north of the drive. The ultimate layout will depend on the desires of those residing within the development and preference on the location of common buildings and amenities. As noted above, a Specific Development Plan would be required to document the ultimate layout. Allowable Uses The allowable uses in PA 1 include single-unit dwellings to match those permitted in base residential zones such as Residential-One (R-1). PA 2 is intended as an extension of PA 1 and is primarily reserved as open space with accessory uses that could be more agricultural in nature; no dwelling units are permitted in this part of the site. Density Pursuant to the city charter, the density limitation for the site is 21 dwelling units per acre resulting in a maximum of 104 units being allowed on the subject 4.97-acre site, where a maximum of only 18 units is proposed. While individual lots are comparable to the city’s R-1C zone district, the overall density of the site is more comparable to the city’s R-1 zone district which allows four units per acre. The lots are spread evenly throughout the development with the intent of harmonizing with the densities of the adjacent neighborhood to the west. Development Standards The development standards generally follow Residential One-C (R-1C) zone district standards, with some standards borrowed from A-2 to create a unique zoning framework. The intent is to locate uses in appropriate locations that are compatible with adjacent uses. For example: • To the west lies a typical single unit neighborhood in Arvada, with lots that are approximately 75 feet wide on the adjacent side. The adjacent homes within the subject development are proposed to be 100 to 120 feet wide on this side. • PA 2, which is proposed to be more agricultural, is sited to the north and/or east where adjacent uses are agricultural and residential. Perimeter setbacks are stricter than typical residential districts and match those of agricultural districts for this reason. • Buffering is substantial where adjacent to lower density residential and agricultural uses. Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 5 • In the spirit of providing a high-quality development through a PRD, the project also proposes on-site parking and circulation; increased open space; on-site detention; and architectural and design standards not typical of single-unit neighborhoods. Specific zoning requirements are summarized below: Height, Size, Lot Coverage, and Setbacks – The ODP calls for the following development standards which compare to the city’s standard zone districts as shown in the table below. Height, Size, Lot Coverage, and Setbacks Table Standard Proposed Compared to R-1C Compared to A-2 (existing zoning) *Maximum Building Height 35 feet primary 15 to 25 feet accessory 35 feet primary 15 to 25 feet accessory 35 feet primary 15 to 25 feet accessory Maximum Building Coverage 40 percent in PA 1 25 percent in PA 2 40 percent 25 percent Perimeter setbacks 35 feet front 15 feet first story plus 5 feet per additional story sides and rear 20 feet front 5 feet sides 10 feet rear 30 feet front 15 feet sides 15 feet rear Internal Lot(s) Front setback 20 feet 20 feet 30 feet Internal Lot(s) Side setbacks 5 feet 5 feet 15 feet Internal Lot(s) Rear setback 5 feet 5 feet 15 feet *Bulk plane also applies in accordance with standard residential zones. Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 6 Parking – Parking requirements are proposed to match the city’s base residential districts. Guest parking is required at the discretion of the director. Bike parking and electric vehicle parking shall be required in accordance with typical standards. Access – Two access points are proposed along 52nd Avenue forming a looped perimeter drive that will accommodate a buffer between adjacent uses, on-site circulation, fire access, and looped utility infrastructure under the drive. In early designs, the applicant proposed one point of access only from 52nd Avenue, but due to the strict need for looped utility systems, two points of access are required. The drive creates additional buffer from adjacent uses, resulting in primary buildings that are set back around 35 feet even if setback requirements are less. Drainage – Full water quality and detention for the site will be required and is planned to be provided as low impact design within the linear open space. The Engineering Division has no concerns based on the preliminary drainage analysis provided with ODP. A full drainage report and final design will be required at the time of SDP application. Traffic –The development is not anticipated to create negative impact on traffic operations for the surrounding streets and for the proposed site access. The analysis of site generated traffic concluded that the anticipated traffic volumes of the proposed development will be minor, with less than 20 trips expected in the peak hour. Landscaping, Open Space, and Fencing – Proposed landscaping and open space exceed city standard. In addition to the minimum requirements listed in the table below as compared to city standard zone districts, the ODP also requires a five-foot buffer and solid fencing at side and rear property lines. Any fencing placed to the east is to be horse-safe out of respect for the adjacent agricultural use. Landscaping and Open Space Table Standard Proposed Compared to R-1C Compared to A-2 (existing zoning) Open Space and Landscaping Minimums 25% of the gross lot area and 100% of the front yard in PA 1 40% in PA 2 25% of the gross lot area and 100% of the front yard 25% of the gross lot area and 100% of the front yard All other typical landscaping requirements of Section 26-502 shall apply, including the requirement for waterwise landscaping. Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 7 Form, Massing, Architecture – While typically there are no architectural standards that apply to single unit home development, the ODP requires architecture that is traditional and varied, yet unified amongst the homes. In addition, lots directly abutting 52nd Avenue are required to be oriented toward the street for community integration. At least three model types shall be provided to create variety in form, rooflines, materials, and colors. Bulk plane regulations and standard maximum height limits apply to align with typical low density residential requirements. General Code Compliance – In all other areas, the project is proposed to comply with the zoning code including but not limited to lighting, signage, fencing, and streetscape design. ZONE CHANGE CRITERIA Staff have provided an analysis of the zone change criteria outlined in Section 26-303.D. The applicant also provided a response to the criteria (Exhibit 6, Applicant Letter of Request). The Planning Commission shall base its recommendation on consideration of the extent to which the following criteria have been met: 1. The change of zone promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community and will not result in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding area. The proposed zoning contributes to housing needs of the community, provides a unique and context-sensitive design, improves public utility infrastructure by improving storm systems and upgrading utilities, and advances public improvements along 52nd Avenue. The proposed zoning complies with safety and access requirements of the fire district, and servicing requirements of utility districts. The development will likely add value to the area through high-quality design. The use and intensity of the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding land uses by incorporating context-sensitive restrictions such as increased setbacks, buffers, open space, fencing, and architectural standards that respect adjacent development. Staff conclude that this criterion has been met. 2. The development proposed on the subject property is not feasible under any other zone district and would require an unreasonable number of variances or waivers and conditions. The current A-2 zoning would allow one (1) single-unit home per acre and accessory structures, with up to 25-percent building coverage and 35-foot height. Because of Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 8 the size of the property, the current zoning could result in more intensive agricultural uses and incompatible development that is taller with minimal setbacks and buffering from adjacent uses. Because the site is over one acre, City Code does not allow it to be rezoned to a base zone district such as R-1C which could potentially accommodate the proposed type of development. Section 26-301.B.2 requires any application for a zone change for residential properties over one acre in size to be to a planned development. Given the proposed use, the surrounding conditions, and servicing requirements (i.e., looped systems and fire access), the PRD zoning is the most appropriate zone change option. It will also allow the applicant to commit to enhanced architecture and landscaping not normally required in other zone districts. Staff conclude that this criterion has been met. 3. Adequate infrastructure/facilities are available to serve the types of uses allowed by the change of zone, or the applicant will upgrade and provide such where they do not exist or are under capacity. All service providers and utility districts have indicated that they have no concerns with the proposal and have indicated they can serve the property with improvements installed at the developer’s expense. The development of the site will require significant public improvements, including on-site drainage, stormwater upgrades, utility upgrades, and public improvements along Right-of-Way. Staff conclude that this criterion has been met. 4. The Planning Commission shall also find that at least one (1) of the following conditions exists: a. The change of zone is in conformance, or will bring the property into conformance, with the City of Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies, and other related policies or plans for the area. The proposal aligns with the City’s adopted plans including the City Plan. The housing options allowed by the proposed zone change directly support the City Plan core value to be inclusive and the principle of serving a mix of incomes. It also aligns with the desired outcome of peaceful coexistence by thoughtfully applying and calibrating form and use tools based on the features of adjacent properties. The City Plan identifies this site as a Moderate Variety Neighborhood Place Type, and it also qualifies as a ‘Special Case Agricultural Re-Use Site’. The plan specifies Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 9 the appropriate application of use and form in this context. For this location, a wide variety of housing types ranging from single-unit residential up to multi-unit residential adjacent to 52nd Avenue are appropriate. The proposed site design responds to the form and design recommendations of the City Plan. It incorporates increased setbacks that match agricultural uses to the east. Architecture, bulk plane, and form requirements provide for compatibility with adjacent properties, appropriate screening and buffering are included, and parking needs are addressed on site. Finally, the City Plan includes an implementation strategy to support housing development to meet community goals. This includes reviewing the situation against regional housing needs. The DRCOG regional housing needs assessment shows that there is a clear need for additional market-rate, single-unit homes in Wheat Ridge. Staff conclude that this criterion has been met. a. The existing zone classification currently recorded on the official zoning maps of the City of Wheat Ridge is in error. Staff find no evidence of an error on the official zoning maps. Staff conclude that this criterion is not applicable. b. A change of character in the area has occurred or is occurring to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changing character of the area. The area has changed character significantly over the last 10 years with the construction and opening of RTD’s Wheat Ridge · Ward Station which resulted in an increasing mix of housing types and medium to high densities. The investments and changes complement the diversity of land uses in the area and could strengthen the residential market. Multiple development sites nearby have recently seen investment including the development of small lot, single-unit residential developments such as Haskins Station in Arvada and Quail Run to the east, and a multitude of higher density TOD residential developments to the west near Wheat Ridge · Ward commuter rail station, such as Hance Ranch, the Parallel apartments, and Ridge at Ward Station townhomes. The proposed zone change provides a housing type that complements both the established and new housing in the area. Staff conclude that this criterion has been met. Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 10 c. The proposed rezoning is necessary to provide for a community need that was not anticipated at the time of the adoption of the City of Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan. The 2025 City Plan anticipated moderate variety housing as a need in this area. Staff conclude that this criterion is not applicable. Staff conclude that the criteria used to evaluate zone change support this request. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING & PUBLIC INPUT: Pursuant to Section 26-109 of the Code of Laws, the applicant notified all property owners and residents within 1,000 feet of the site of the neighborhood meeting. Neighborhood meetings are required prior to the submission of an application for a zone change. The neighborhood input meeting was held on January 23, 2024. Fifty-four (54) members of the public attended the meeting in addition to the applicant and staff. A full summary of the meeting is attached in Exhibit 7. In response to comments made at the neighborhood meeting and made in conversations outside of the formal process, the applicant reduced allowable uses in PA 2, increased lot sizes to complement adjacent developments, increased buffers and screening, and confirmed utility districts can serve. Public noticing is required prior to public hearings. If any comments are provided prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on June 18, they will be entered into the record and distributed to Commissioners at the public hearing. Comments collected on Wheat Ridge Speaks will also be reviewed by Planning Commissioners and entered into the public record. REFERRAL: There were no concerns expressed by internal departments including the City of Wheat Ridge Engineering Division, Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Building Division, Police Department, Economic Development, or Urban Renewal Authority. All affected service agencies were contacted for comment on the ODP, specifically regarding the ability to serve the property. Referral responses from service districts follow: Valley Water District: Can serve subject to district requirements. Looping of systems shall be required to serve the rear portion of the lot. Coordination will continue through development. Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 11 Fruitdale Sanitation District: Can serve subject to district requirements. Coordination will continue through development. Arvada Fire Protection District: Can serve subject to district requirements. Coordination will continue through development. Xcel Energy: Can serve subject to district requirements. Coordination will continue through development. Comcast Cable/Xfinity: No comments provided. Coordination will continue through development. Century Link/Lumen: Can serve subject to district requirements. Coordination will continue through development. A utility letter has been provided by the applicant’s engineer as Exhibit 8 that confirms ongoing coordination with service districts and acknowledgement that district requirements can be met. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff have concluded that the proposed rezoning and Outline Development Plan (ODP) are consistent with the zone change criteria. Because the requirements for an ODP have been met and the review criteria support the ODP, a recommendation for approval is given. RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-24-09, a request for approval of a zone change from Agricultural-Two (A-2) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) with an Outline Development Plan to facilitate the development of up to 18 single unit dwellings on the 4.97-acre property located at 5225 Swadley Street, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed zone change will promote public health, safety, or welfare of the community and does not result in an adverse effect on the surrounding area. 2. The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s adopted plans. 3. The proposed zoning, density, and land use are consistent with the intent of a planned development, compatible with surrounding land uses, and will result in a high-quality development. Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 12 4. The infrastructure in the area can support the development. 5. The criteria used to evaluate a zone change support the request. Or, “I move to recommend DENIAL of Case No. WZ-24-09, a request for approval of a zone change from Agricultural-Two (A-2) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) with an Outline Development Plan to facilitate the development of up to 18 single unit dwellings on the 4.97-acre property located at 5225 Swadley Street, for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. …” REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY: Stephanie Stevens, Senior Planner Jana Easley, Planning Manager Lauren Mikulak, Community Development Director EXHIBITS: 1. Location map as aerial photograph of site 2. Zoning map 3. Map of surrounding uses 4. City Plan excerpts 5. Outline Development Plan 6. Applicant letter of request and response to ODP criteria 7. Neighborhood meeting summary 8. Utility letter provided by applicant’s engineer Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 13 EXHIBIT 1: LOCATION MAP AS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF SITE Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 14 EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 15 EXHIBIT 3: MAP OF SURROUNDING USES Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 16 EXHIBIT 4: CITY PLAN EXCERPTS Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 17 EXHIBIT 5: OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN See attached. ) )SS ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY OF JEFFERSON STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER CERTIFICATE : THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER OF JEFFERSON COUNTY AT GOLDEN, COLORADO, AT____________________O'CLOCK______.M. ON THE __________ DAY OF____________________, 2026, A.D., IN BOOK __________, PAGE __________ , RECEPTION NO. __________________. JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER DEPUTY BY : ________________________________________ MIN. 40% OF GROSS LOT AREA SHALL BE LANDSCAPED P.R.D. PARCEL = 216,551 SQ. FT. = 4.97 AC.SITE DATA ODP-02 SKETCH PLAN ODP-03 ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLAN AND LANDSCAPE BUFFER INCLUDES PERIMETER WALK AND PA 2 PA 1 ITEMIZED 170,481 101,093 69,388 46,070 216,551 3.91 1.06 SUBTOTALPA 1 4.97 1.59 2.32 SQUARE FEET TOTAL PRIVATE DRIVE RESIDENTIAL LOTS ACRES ALTERNATIVE, DEPENDENT UPON MARKET CONDITIONS. DRAINAGE, AND CIRCULATION NETWORK. AN ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT IS PROVIDED. THE FINAL SHALL BE GENERALLY AS DEPICTED ON THE SKETCH PLAN OR THE SKETCH PLAN DEPICTS THE CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT OF THE LOT, OPEN SPACE, 25% MAXIMUM 40% MAXIMUM PER LOT OR TRACT WES CHRISTOPHERSON AND/OR AN ENHANCED STREET-FACING ENTRY SHALL BE PROVIDED. DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE ODP. THE SDP SHALL IDENTIFY EXACT AND FINAL DIMENSIONS, QUANTITIES, ETC.. FIRE LANE DIMENSIONS ARE THE MINIMUM ALLOWED, AND CAN BE WIDER THAN THE PARAMETERS IN TERMS OF MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM STANDARDS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE OTHER DIMENSIONS OR QUANTITIES. THE ODP IDENTIFIES THE DEVELOPMENT ODP DOCUMENT DOES NOT LIST EXACT FINAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, SETBACKS AND D. STREETSCAPE DESIGN SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE STREETSCAPE B. SIGNAGE : ALL SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ARTICLE VII OF THE WITH SECTION 26-503 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS. G. EXTERIOR LIGHTING : ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS. VISITOR PARKING MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE C. PARKING : ALL PARKING SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH SEC. 26-501 OF THE A. PERMITTED USES : SEE SHEET 2-ODP PERMITTED USES. WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS : RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION MAX HEIGHT 7' F. FENCING : ALL FENCING SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH SEC. 26-603 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS. SOLID PERIMETER FENCING REQUIRED. DESIGN MANUAL. LOTS DIRECTLY ABUTTING 52ND AVENUE SHALL FRONT THE PUBLIC STREET DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS : CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOOD : OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTE : THIS OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. SPECIFIC HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED ON THIS DOCUMENT. AS A RESULT, A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENTS SUCH AS SITE LAYOUT AND BUILDING ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY OR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION AND ANY SUBSEQUENT SITE DEVELOPMENT. COMMON AREAS SHALL 5' PA 1 AND PA 2 20' 5' FRONT SIDE REAR INTERNAL ACRES RESIDENTIAL LOTS PRIVATE DRIVE SQUARE FEET 2.47 1.59 PA 1 SUBTOTAL 0.91 4.06 REAR FRONT 35' MINOR MAJOR 25' MAX. 25' MAX. PA 2 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS: PRINCIPLE BUILDINGS: ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH SEC.26-502 PA 1 MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE PA 2 SUBJECT TO SEC. 26-502PA 1 LANDSCAPE COVERAGE AND OPEN SPACE: 50' MINIMUM WIDTHLOT DIMENSION: OVERALL DENSITY: RESIDENTIAL LOT DATA : PA1 LOT SIZE:5,000 SQ. FT. MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS : PER IRC PRINCIPLE BUILDINGS: ACCESSORY BUILDINGS: BUILDING HEIGHTS : PA 1 SETBACKS : PERIMETER EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS: COMMON OPEN SPACE / POCKET PARKPA 2 18 DWELLING UNITS MAX. 15' MAX. 10' MAX. MAJOR MINOR ADU (DETACHED)25' MAX. CI T Y B O U N D A R Y CITY BOUNDARY ________________________________ ________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ LEGAL DESCRIPTION : SURVEY. OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND TO THE BEST OF MY THE BOUNDARY OF WHEAT RIDGE STATION VILLAGE WAS MADE BY ME APPLICABLE COLORADO STATUES, CURRENT REVISED EDITION AS KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL I, ROB HALL, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE SURVEY OF SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE : (SURVEYOR'S SEAL) SIGNATURE AMENDED, THE ACCOMPANYING PLAN ACCURATELY REPRESENTS SAID Wes.Christopherson@Purcelltire.com PARKER, COLORADO 80138 13229 PINEY LAKE ROAD A & E VENTURES SWADLEY LLC FRANKLIN SALAZAR / ARCHITECTURE123.COM 6990 WEST 33RD AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80033 Franklin@Architecture123.com / 303-870-5943 ARCHITECTURE SURVEYOR CIVIL ENGINEER OWNER PROJECT DIRECTORY : RHall_GLC@msn.com / 303-513-1106 BENNETT, COLORADO 80102 PO BOX 375 ROB HALL / GILLIANS LAND CONSULTANTS SUE MIZUNO/ ARROW CIVIL ENGINEERS 883 MCMURDO CIRCLE CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO 80108 Sue@ArrowCivilEngineers.com / 303-292-9004 VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALE 52ND AVENUE TA B O R S T R E E T WH E A T R I D G E RIDGE ROAD WA R D R O A D TA F T S T R E E T SW A D L E Y S T R E E T SI M M S S T R E E T UN I O N S T R E E T S T A T I O N V I L L A G E MANAGING MEMBER OF A & E VENTURES SWADLEY LLC ________________ , ________________BY THE WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THIS __________ DAY OF PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION : CHAIRPERSON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MAYORCITY CLERK CITY CERTIFICATION APPROVED THIS __________ DAY OF _______________, ____________ ATTEST BY THE WHEAT RIDGE CITY COUNCIL WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES : NOTARY PUBLIC ______ DAY OF ___________ , A.D. 20 ________ BY _________________ , THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS ) )SS ) COUNTY OF JEFFERSON STATE OF COLORADO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26-121 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS. VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS MAY ONLY ARISE AND ACCRUE PURSUANT TO DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DOES NOT CREATE A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND APPROVAL OF THIS OUTLINE HEREON WILL BE DEVELOPED AS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN THEREOF, DO HEREBY AGREE THAT THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED CONTAINED IN THIS PLAN, AND AS MAY OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED BY ACCORDANCE WITH THE USES, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS THE BELOW SIGNED OWNER(S), OR LEGALLY DESIGNATED AGENT(S) OWNER'S CERTIFICATE : LAW. I (WE) FURTHER RECOGNIZE THAT THE APPROVAL OF A REZONING TO COMMISSION. THAT PART OF THE WEST ONE HALF OF BLOCK 12, STANDLEY HEIGHT, SAID BLOCK 12; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF BLOCK 12, 320 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 12; THENCE EAST TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF BLOCK 12; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF LESS TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 12, 320.0 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK 12, A DISTANCE OF 219.16 FEET BLOCK 12, 180 FEET: THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 206.05 FEET MORE OR COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO PARCEL A: PARCEL B: THE WEST ONE-HALF OF BLOCK 12, STANDLEY HEIGHTS, EXCEPT THAT PART OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF BLOCK 12, STANDLEY HEIGHTS COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO BLOCK 12, 180 FEET: THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 206.05 FEET MORE OR ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK 12, A DISTANCE OF 219.16 FEET OF SAID BLOCK 12, 320.0 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE LESS TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF BLOCK 12; 320 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 12; THENCE EAST SAID BLOCK 12; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF BLOCK 12, ODP-1 OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, FURTHER LYING IN THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 17, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO STANDLEY HEIGHTS, WEST 1/2 OF BLOCK 12, LOT 12 AN OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO WHEAT RIDGE STATION VILLAGE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WZ-24-09 CASE HISTORY : ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SEC. 26-206 ( R-1A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ) ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZE LIMITATIONS SUBJECT TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZE LIMITATIONS SUBJECT TO SEC. 26-214 ( A-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ) 39,721 69,387 107,443 176,830 W.R.S.V. IS A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT. FENCING ABUTTING AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES SHALL BE HORSE-SAFE. THREE (3) MODEL TYPES SHALL BE PROVIDED. MODELS SHALL HAVE DIFFERENT MATERIALS AND COLORS. BULK PLANE REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY PURSUANT TO FREESTANDING SIGNS /MAXIMUM 32 SQ.FT./MIN. SETBACK 5' FROM PROPERTY LINE, W.R.S.V. INTEGRATES WITH THE LARGER COMMUNITY BY MEETING CITY GOALS, W.R.S.V. FORMS A SHARED SPACE COMMUNITY BY INTEGRATING THE PERMITTED USES OF THE SINGLE UNIT HOMES WITH THE PERMITTED USES OF THE COMMON INCLUDING THE PROVIDING OF A SUSTAINABLE, PATCHWORK QUILT NEW HOUSING AREAS. THE COMMON AREAS ARE AN EXTENSION OF THE SINGLE UNIT HOMES. SIDE FLOOR PLANS. APPEARANCES SHALL VARY INCLUDING : FORM, ROOFLINES, WHEAT RIDGE STATION VILLAGE (W.R.S.V.), PER THE WHEAT RIDGE CITY PLAN, HAS THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER OF A MODERATE VARIETY NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SINGLE UNIT HOMES AND COMMON AREAS ARE EACH SCALED ACCORDING TO PA 1 ITEMIZED PA 2 35' MAX. USE, EITHER AS A PRIVATE HOME & YARD, OR, AS SHARED SPACE. OPTION WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT. SEC. 26-642 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS. 35' MAX. BE MAINTAINED BY AN OWNER'S ASSOCIATION. SHALL BE FIFTEEN FEET (15') FOR THE 1ST ONE (1) STORY AND AN ADDITIONAL FEET (5') FOR EACH ADDITIONAL STORY SIDE AND REAR PERIMETER SETBACK OVER ONE (1) STORY SHEET INDEX : SHEET 0DP-1 TITLE PAGE SKETCH PLANSHEET ODP-2 INCLUDES PERIMETER WALK AND AND LANDSCAPE BUFFER SHEET ODP-3 ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLAN PORCHES, VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SIDING AND/OR MASONRY, OPEN REAR E. ARCHITECTURE SHALL BE TRADITIONAL AND SHALL FEATURE COVERED FRONT PATIOS AND A HIGH-LEVEL OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY. FRONT SETBACKS SHALL VARY A MINIMUM OF 2.5 FEET. NO THREE ADJACENT HOMES SHALL HAVE THE SAME FRONT SETBACK. ELEVATIONS. NO TWO ADJACENT HOMES SHALL USES THE SAME ARCHITECTURALLY DETAILED ARCHITECTURE OF THE HOMES SHALL BE UNIFIED. EAVES ARE REQUIRED, AND SHALL BE AT MINIMUM 12 INCHES. SOLAR PANELS SHALL BE PLACED IN SUCH A WAY SO AS NOT TO PRODUCE GLARE ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. ALLOWANCESNOTES RESIDENTS AND THEIR GUESTS ONLY 6' PERIMETER FENCE / FENCING ADJACENT TO AG. PROPERTY MUST BE HORSE-SAFE ALL COMMON SPACE USE ARE INTENDED TO ACT AS AN EXTENSION OF THE SINGLE HOMES AND YARDS. ANY USES NOT EXPRESSLY PERMITTED (P) OR ALLOWED AS A SPECIAL USE (S) SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE EXCLUDED. EXACT DEDICATION SHALL BE DETERMINED AT . ROW DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS / 30' SE C T I O N L I N E P P PP P P P URBAN GARDENS SEE SEC. 26-637 / SEE GENERAL NOTES PRIVATE CLUBHOUSE FOR THE BENEFIT OF PRODUCE STANDS GREENHOUSE FOR THE USE OF RESIDENTS ONLY PROHIBITED : THE RAISING OR KEEPING OF SWINE ANIMALS SUCH AS RABBITS OR CHINCHILLAS OF STOCK, BEE KEEPING, POULTRY OR SMALL GENERAL FARMING AND RAISING OR KEEPING ALLOWANCESNOTESPRINCIPLE USES PLANNING AREA 2 PERMITTED USES COMMON OPEN SPACEP S S NOT TO EXCEED 35' WIND POWERED ELECTRICAL GENERATOR ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION SUBSTATIONS ACCESSORY USES ALLOWANCESNOTESPRINCIPLE USES PLANNING AREA 1 SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING SUBJECT TO PERMITTED "ACCESSORY USES FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS" SET FORTH IN SEC. 26-204 6' PERIMETER FENCE 5' 5' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 5' LANDSCAPE BUFFER - EXISTING TREES TO PRESERVED OR MITIGATED. 5' 6' PERIMETER SOLID FENCE 6' PERIMETER SOLID FENCE AN OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO WHEAT RIDGE STATION VILLAGE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT L.I.D. STORM WATER DETENTION INCORPORATED 35 ' P E R I M E T E R F R O N T S E T B A C K ACCESS TO 52ND AVE ACCESS TO 52ND AVE 15 ' GENERAL NOTES 15 ' CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE SE C T I O N L I N E 30' SWADLEY ST. 52 N D A V E N U E CI T Y O F A R V A D A CITY OF ARVADA TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, FURTHER LYING IN THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 17, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO STANDLEY HEIGHTS, WEST 1/2 OF BLOCK 12, LOT 12 SCALE : 1" = 40'-00" 250' 200'10' 20'5' 50' 40' 30' 100'O D P-02 01SCALE : 1" = 40'-00"SKETCH PLAN PLAN DEVELOPMENT OUTLINE ODP-2 FR A N K L I N R I C H A R D S A L A Z A R CO N T A C T : 11 7 9 5 W E S T 5 2 N D A V E N U E WH E A T R I D G E , C O L O R A D O WH E A T R I D G E S T A T I O N V I L L A G E AR C H I T E C T U R E 1 2 3 . C O M 30 3 - 8 7 0 - 5 9 4 3 WZ-24-09 INTO PA1 COMMON USE OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPE VISTA RIDGE DRIVE SUBDIVISION PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS, TELEVISION OR RADIO ANTENNAS PINCLUDES OTHER SIMILAR COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVING OR SENDING DEVICES. NONE MAY EXCEED 35' IN HEIGHT. WHETHER GROUND OR STRUCTURALLY MOUNTED. FOR SATELLITE EARTH RECEIVING STATIONS, SEE SEC.26-616 AND 26-617 1.) 2.) NOT INCLUDING A PRIVATE CLUB WHICH PROVIDES SERVICES CUSTOMARILY CARRIED ON AS A BUSINESS FIFTEEN FEET (15') FOR THE 1ST ONE (1) STORY AND AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET (5') FOR EACH ADDITIONAL STORY OVER ONE (1) STORY TIME OF SUBDIVISION PLAT SIDE AND REAR PERIMETER SETBACK SHALL BE 15' PERIMETER PERIMETER REAR 15' PLANNING AREA 2 (PA 2) SIDE AND REAR PERIMETER SETBACK SHALL BE ADDITIONAL STORY OVER ONE (1) STORY AND AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET (5') FOR EACH FIFTEEN FEET (15') FOR THE 1ST ONE (1) STORY 15 ' 15 ' PERIMETER SIDE SETBACK PERIMETER SIDE SETBACK PA 1 ACCESSORY USES PRIVATE RECREATIONAL USES. INCLUDES NONCOMMERCIAL PLAYGROUNDS OR OTHER SEE SEC. 26-603 AND 26-607 ANCILLARY USES OPERATING WITHIN PRIVATE CLUBHOUSE SEE GENERAL NOTE 3 E.G. DAYCARE USES, SCOUT MEETING, TUTORING. SEE SEC. 26-613 DETACHED PRIVATE GARGAGE OR CARPORT P SEE SEC. 26-605 AND 26-606 FOR PURPOSES OF APPLYING THESE STANDARDS, THE SUBJECT PA 2 ACCESSORY USES LARGE AND SMALL ANIMALS PLANNING AREA 2 PERMITTED USES CONTINUED NOTES ALLOWANCES PRIVATE STORAGE SHEDS, BARNS,SEE SEC. 26-605 AND 26-606 PUBLIC UTILITY LINES AND POLES, IRRIGATION P P P SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A-1 OR A-2 ZONING ANIMAL SHELTERS OR OUTBUILDINGS CHANNELS, STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES INCLUDES OTHER SIMILAR FACILITIES SUCH AS ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINES AND POLES SEE SECS. 26-123 AND 26-605 (EXCLUDINGACCESSORY BUILDINGS P KEEPING OF SWINE) AND SEC 26-606 P 3.)ANY BUSINESS-RELATED USE IS PROHIBITED IN PA 2, EXCEPT THOSE USES LISTED AS ALLOWABLE HOME OCCUPATION SHALL BE PERMITTED TO EXTEND WITHIN THE PRIVATE CLUBHOUSE AS ACCESSORY TO THE PRIMARY HOME OCCUPATION USE CONTAINED WITH A RESIDENCE IN PA 1. FOR EXAMPLE, DAYCARE, SCOUT MEETINGS, TUTORING. SEE SEC. 26-613 4.)DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE PROHIBITED IN PA 2 SETBACK SIDE SETBACK SIDE SETBACK PERIMETER COMMON USE OPEN SPACE PA 1 PA 2 PA 1 PA 1 PA 1 PA 1 PA 2 PA 1 PA 1 PA 1 PA 1 PA 1PA 1 PA 1 PA 1 PA 1 PLANNING AREA 1 (PA 1) PLANNING AREA 1 (PA 1) SKETCH PLAN CIRCULATION LEGEND ANTICIPATED VEHICULAR CIRCULATION NETWORK ANTICIPATED PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION NETWORK LOT TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF TYPICAL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF ODP LAYOUT IN COMPLIANCE WITH LOT TYPICAL MIN. 5,000 SQ.FT. 5' SETBACK 120.00' 120.00' 5' S E T B A C K 5' SETBACK MI N . 5 0 ' 20 ' S E T B A C K PA1 WA N N A M A K E R D I T C H N 8 9 ° 1 1 ' 1 3 " E / P R O P E R T Y L I N E / 2 1 7 . 6 9 ' CI T Y O F A R V A D A CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CURRENT USE :URBAN FARM / EQUESTRIANURBAN FARM / ORCHARDCURRENT USE : UNINCORPORATED JEFFERSON COUNTY UNINCORPORATED JEFFERSON COUNTY BEYERS SUBDIVISION, BLOCK 1, LOT 1 S 00°18'09" E / PROPERTY LINE / 994.24' STANDLEY HEIGHTS EX SUR #1, LOT 3 CURRENT USE :DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS CITY OF ARVADA RAINBOW RIDGE FILING NO. 2 SUBDIVISION N 00°17'17" W / PROPERTY LINE / 994.24' S 8 9 ° 1 1 ' 1 3 " W / P R O P E R T Y L I N E / 2 1 7 . 9 4 ' IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS WITH THIS PROJECT, ALONG WITH OTHER PUBLIC OVERHEAD ELECTRIC SHALL BE UNDERGROUNDED PLANNING AREA 1 (PA 1) PLANNING AREA 1 (PA 1) PA 1 PA 1 PA 1 PA 1PA 1PA 1PA 1 PA 2 PA 1 PA 1PA 1 PA 1 PA 2 PA 1 COMMON USE OPEN SPACE PERIMETER SIDE SETBACK SIDE SETBACK SETBACK PA 1 PERIMETER SIDE SETBACK 15 ' 15 ' FIFTEEN FEET (15') FOR THE 1ST ONE (1) STORY AND AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET (5') FOR EACH ADDITIONAL STORY OVER ONE (1) STORY SIDE AND REAR PERIMETER SETBACK SHALL BE PLANNING AREA 2 (PA 2) PERIMETER REAR PERIMETER 15' TIME OF SUBDIVISION PLAT VISTA RIDGE DRIVE SUBDIVISION INTO PA1 COMMON USE OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPE WZ-24-09 30 3 - 8 7 0 - 5 9 4 3 AR C H I T E C T U R E 1 2 3 . C O M WH E A T R I D G E S T A T I O N V I L L A G E WH E A T R I D G E , C O L O R A D O 11 7 9 5 W E S T 5 2 N D A V E N U E CO N T A C T : FR A N K L I N R I C H A R D S A L A Z A R ODP-3 OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLANSCALE : 1" = 40'-00"01 O D P-03 250' 200'10' 20'5' 50' 40' 30' 100' SCALE : 1" = 40'-00" STANDLEY HEIGHTS, WEST 1/2 OF BLOCK 12, LOT 12 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO FURTHER LYING IN THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, STANDLEY HEIGHTS EX SUR #1, LOT 3 N 00°17'17" W / PROPERTY LINE / 994.24' S 00°18'09" E / PROPERTY LINE / 994.24' BEYERS SUBDIVISION, BLOCK 1, LOT 1 UNINCORPORATED JEFFERSON COUNTY RAINBOW RIDGE FILING NO. 2 SUBDIVISION CITY OF ARVADA CITY OF ARVADA CI T Y O F A R V A D A 52 N D A V E N U E UNINCORPORATED JEFFERSON COUNTY CURRENT USE :URBAN FARM / ORCHARD URBAN FARM / EQUESTRIANCURRENT USE : SWADLEY ST. 30' SE C T I O N L I N E CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 15 ' S 8 9 ° 1 1 ' 1 3 " W / P R O P E R T Y L I N E / 2 1 7 . 9 4 ' DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGSCURRENT USE : 15 ' ACCESS TO 52ND AVE ACCESS TO 52ND AVE 35 ' P E R I M E T E R F R O N T S E T B A C K L.I.D. STORM WATER DETENTION INCORPORATED WHEAT RIDGE STATION VILLAGE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AN OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 6' PERIMETER SOLID FENCE 6' PERIMETER SOLID FENCE 5' 5' LANDSCAPE BUFFER - EXISTING TREES TO PRESERVED OR MITIGATED. 5' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 5' 6' PERIMETER FENCE SE C T I O N L I N E 30' ROW DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS / . OVERHEAD ELECTRIC SHALL BE UNDERGROUNDED WITH THIS PROJECT, ALONG WITH OTHER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS EXACT DEDICATION SHALL BE DETERMINED AT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 6' PERIMETER FENCE / FENCING ADJACENT TO AG. PROPERTY MUST BE HORSE-SAFE SIDE AND REAR PERIMETER SETBACK SHALL BE ADDITIONAL STORY OVER ONE (1) STORY AND AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET (5') FOR EACH FIFTEEN FEET (15') FOR THE 1ST ONE (1) STORY CI T Y O F A R V A D A N 8 9 ° 1 1 ' 1 3 " E / P R O P E R T Y L I N E / 2 1 7 . 6 9 ' ANTICIPATED PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION NETWORK ANTICIPATED VEHICULAR CIRCULATION NETWORK SKETCH PLAN CIRCULATION LEGEND PA1 20 ' S E T B A C K MI N . 5 0 ' 5' SETBACK 5' S E T B A C K 120.00' 120.00' 5' SETBACK MIN. 5,000 SQ.FT. LOT TYPICAL LAYOUT IN COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF ODP EXAMPLE OF TYPICAL LOT LOT TYPICAL PA 1 PA 1 WA N N A M A K E R D I T C H PL A N N I N G A R E A 2 ( P A 2 ) CO M M O N U S E O P E N S P A C E Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 18 EXHIBIT 6: APPLICANT LETTER OF REQUEST AND RESPONSE TO SDP CRITERIA Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 19 Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 20 EXHIBIT 7: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY See attached. City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 www.ci.wheatridge.co.us NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES Meeting Date: January 23, 2024 Attending Staff: Stephanie Stevens, Senior Planner Alayna Olivas-Loera, Planner II Scott Cutler, Senior Planner Location of Meeting: Virtual Property Address: 5225 Swadley Street Property Owner(s): Irene Baker Property Owner(s) Present? No Applicant: Franklin Salazar Applicant Present? Yes Existing Zoning: Agricultural-Two (A-2) Existing Comp. Plan: Neighborhoods Existing Site Conditions: The property is located on the north side of W. 52nd Avenue and Swadley Street, east of Tabor Street. The property is currently zoned Agricultural-Two (A-2) and is Lot 12 of the Standley Heights Subdivision. The property is approximately 233,133 square feet (5.352 acres) and currently contains three single unit homes, two pole barns, and two detached garages all built in 1937 and 1961. Adjacent properties to the west and north are incorporated into the City of Arvada. The adjacent property to the northeast is part of unincorporated Jefferson County. Properties to the south are zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and the immediate property to the east is zoned A-2. Uses in the area include low- to moderate-density residential and agricultural. The site is located in the northwest corner of Wheat Ridge but is outside of the boundary of the Northwest Subarea Plan. It is about a quarter mile from the Wheat Ridge · Ward commuter rail station. Applicant/Owner Preliminary Proposal: The applicant has proposed to rezone the property from A-2 to Planned Residential Development (PRD) to allow for the development of 18 single-unit dwellings on the front portion of the property. The rear portion of the site is proposed to be subdivided and reserved for agricultural and low density residential uses only. All 18 proposed single-unit dwelling units will front one another into a common amenity open space area. A perimeter access drive is proposed around the property which would provide access to the rear facing garages. Two access points are proposed 2 along W. 52nd Avenue only, one on the west side and one on the east side. The following is a summary of the neighborhood meeting: • In addition to the applicant team and staff, 54 members of the public attended the neighborhood meeting. The participant list is below, which serves as the virtual sign-in sheet. • Staff discussed the site, its zoning and potential future land use. • The applicant discussed their proposal. • Only 8 members of the public spoke at the meeting due to time constraints. Staff encouraged members of the public who did not get to speak to contact staff directly with questions, comments, and concerns. • The applicant and members of the public were informed of the process for the rezoning. • The members of the public were informed of their opportunity to make comments during the process and at the public hearing. The following items were discussed: • No information on homes within the lots, just lot size? Can you tell us max. number of stories for the home? Max. square footage of homes? Per applicant, limited to 2 stories. A couple of different floor plans and various square footages, approximately 3,000 square feet. Marketed in $900k-1mil+ range for sale. • Plan for fence on the west side between development and existing houses to west? Not specifically decided on fence. Welcome to feedback on fence type and location. • Hire arborist to look at trees on the west side of the property? Work on the development may affect trees on other side of property. Depending on type of fence that is put in, the applicant thinks they would need to do this. Would need to work out specifics when specific design is planned. • Developer should consider adding a landscape strip between west sidewalk and fence. Road goes along the perimeter of the property and there is a small utility easement between the sidewalk and property line so there will be some space. No specific designs yet. • Resident owns 2.5 acres immediately to the northeast of the site in unincorporated Jeff Co. Opposed to this because there is already so much development around the area including Haskins Station. What will happen to Wannamaker Ditch? If development does get approved, wants coordination with fence. Lots are too small at 1/10 of an acre. Applicant responded regarding development in the area. An owner can sell their property and often the most profitable route is to sell to a developer. The applicant later responded that they desire the community to be gated. The Wannamaker Ditch does not cross the subject property. Historic drainage patterns will have to be maintained. • When do details of the building standards come in? Setbacks? Height? Staff responded that with the ODP the standards will be set including height and setbacks. The applicant stated that the setback will be further from the perimeter property line than the A-2 standards because of the private drive. The applicant wants to limit building height to two stories. • 52nd Ave is a fairly narrow street east of Tabor. Is adding 18 homes too much? Are there any plans to improve access in this area? Staff noted that trip generation is analyzed during the review process. The street network is being reconfigured with the Haskins Station development, and there are no plans to extend 52nd Ave. straight through. 3 • How will the site be served by water, specific for fire protection? Fire hydrants will need to be added to serve the property including interior units and water line is looped. Staff noted that any application will be referred to Arvada Fire and the water district for review and approval. • Adjacent property owner on 52nd Ave runs a horse training and boarding business. Concerned about loss of habitat. Worried about increase of traffic and safety of horses on the road. Does the City want to maintain any rural character in this area? Will the utility easement extend onto their property at all? The new utility easement will be only on the development’s property. • Resident noted they moved away from Denver to escape development and feels like these homes are packed in. Frustrated with gated community comment and doesn’t want their street (Tabor) to become a thoroughfare. Applicant stated that the proposed homes are spaced further apart than the adjacent development on Tabor and is overall less dense due to the amount of open space provided on site. • Resident noted distrust of developer and does not like high density near the TOD area. The applicant stated that their proposed development is not high density and is pedestrian oriented to the open space. • What are the minimum standards of the R-2 zone district to the south? 25’ front setback, 5’ side and rear setbacks. • The lot sizes are much smaller in this proposed development than surrounding developments. The applicant stated that yes, the lots are smaller, but the density is lower because the lot sizes don’t factor in all of the open space and pocket park. So the lot sizes are smaller but the overall use is not dense due to the communal spaces. They are trying to incorporate traditional neighborhood design and orient the development to the pocket park and pedestrian infrastructure. • Is rezoning done as part of a hardship? Why is the applicant trying to expand their rights from A-2 to a denser development? Staff responded that hardship is a justification for a variance. For zone changes, staff mentioned that Planning Commission and City Council have to review against the rezoning criteria. • Planned developments are meant to permit developments that may not be feasible under a standard zone district and should not circumvent the spirit of the code. Why isn’t is possible to build under a standard zone district? This is not large lot estate living. Adjacent HOA strongly opposes the zone change due to increased density and potential for crime. Staff noted that it is not possible to rezone to any zone district except for Planned Residential Development because the property is larger than 1 acre; it is not possible to rezone to R-2. 4 Participant List: Zoom Attendee Report Staff/Applicant: Stephanie Stevens City of Wheat Ridge Alayna Olivas-Loera City of Wheat Ridge Scott Cutler City of Wheat Ridge Wes Christopherson Applicant Franklin Salazar Applicant John Elliott Applicant Public Attendees: User Name First Name Last Name 1 Robin’s iPad Robin’s iPad 2 James Cillessen James Cillessen 3 Harry Shriver Harry Shriver 4 Mark Hunter Mark Hunter 5 Stan Armstrong Stan Armstrong 6 Pat Weber Pat Weber 7 Ernest Fuller Jr Ernest Fuller Jr 8 Anthelia Fellenstein Anthelia Fellenstein 9 Fulkerson Household Fulkerson Household 10 Sara and Greg Hatayama Sara and Greg Hatayama 11 Jared Hill Jared Hill 12 Julie Hill Julie Hill 13 Heidi Leoni Heidi Leoni 14 Mary Cook Mary Cook 15 Gail Hamilton Gail Hamilton 16 Rita Richardson Rita Richardson 17 Louise Mousseau Louise Mousseau 18 Bryan Kinkaid Bryan Kinkaid 19 Ashley Vap Ashley Vap 20 Nathan Beck Nathan Beck 21 Jesse White Jesse White 22 Tammy Odean Tammy Odean 23 Jamie Barrutia Jamie Barrutia 24 Geoffrey Burg Geoffrey Burg 25 Dunn Dunn 26 Lauren Rindels Lauren Rindels 27 John Nell John Nell 28 AL Alecci Wardell AL Alecci Wardell 29 Erika Nelson-Wong (She/Her) Erika Nelson-Wong (She/Her) 30 Jill Egburtson Jill Egburtson 31 Alyssa Wilson Alyssa Wilson 32 Andre Barrutia Andre Barrutia 33 John Wabiszczewicz John Wabiszczewicz 34 Elizabeth Walker Elizabeth Walker 5 35 Jeff Hahn Jeff Hahn 36 Wil Henderson Wil Henderson 37 Kathy Staller Kathy Staller 38 Arthur Pansze Arthur Pansze 39 Daisy Daisy 40 Diana Bobo Diana Bobo 41 Zoom user Zoom user 42 Colleen McClary Colleen McClary 43 Melissa Kaltenbach Melissa Kaltenbach 44 Lorraine Bowen Lorraine Bowen 45 Greg Miller Greg Miller 46 Ross Fellenstein Ross Fellenstein Other Attended by Phone 47 15402007283 48 13037175594 49 17203381130 50 13035177898 51 13035894298 52 15125893494 53 13035945198 54 Call-In User_1 3 Attachment 5225 Swadley St. Neighborhood Meeting Written Comments 1 Stephanie Stevens From:Bryan Kinkaid <bkinkaid@jpfcapital.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 16, 2024 10:53 PM To:Stephanie Stevens Subject:Wheat Ridge Station Village P.R.D. upcoming neighborhood meeting   Hi Stephanie,  I hope this message finds you well.  I've learned about the upcoming neighborhood meeting to discuss the recent proposal for 5220 & 5225 Swadley St. As of my  last update, the property is not under contract and remains available for sale, indicating that the prospective buyer currently  holds no control over the property and is essentially speculating.  Given the speculative nature of the situation and the property's public listing(not an offmarket discussion), there's a significant  risk of potential time wastage for both the City and local residents especially if the property were to go under contract with  another buyer. To ensure more meaningful and conclusive discussions, I strongly recommend postponing these conversations  until the project is officially under contract.  I believe adopting this approach would be in the best interest of all parties involved, allowing for a more focused and  productive dialogue at the right juncture. As a developer, I can attest that the current strategy of shopping this opportunity to  prospective investors by the same architect is creating a rift between the local community and himself, potentially leading to a  community that will vehemently oppose this project and any proposed rezoning. This, in turn, may result in legal challenges,  causing significant challenges and frustration for the City.  Thank you for your understanding, and I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.  Best regards,    Bryan Kinkaid Portfolio Asset Manager   T 562-355-6800 | jpfcapital.com bkinkaid@jpfcapital.com I 675 Hartz Ave, Danville CA 94526  You don't often get email from bkinkaid@jpfcapital.com. Learn why this is important    Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the IT Division. Thank you.   2   The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. This message cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free.       The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. This message cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free.  Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the IT Division. Thank you. From:Connie & Geoff Burg To:Stephanie Stevens Cc:Dan Larson; Leah Dozeman Subject:Wheat Ridge Station Village - concerns & comments Date:Friday, January 26, 2024 4:41:27 PM You don't often get email from burgcg@comcast.net. Learn why this is important Stephanie,   Thank you for moderating the neighborhood meeting regarding the Wheat Ridge Station Village proposed development. I have included our City Council representatives on this email to ensure they are aware of the proposals. I have lived at the southwest corner of 52nd & Swadley St for 35 years.   Comments/Concerns · Please have the neighborhood meetings in person in the future. COVID taught us many great things about meeting remotely. This situation doesn’t necessitate a virtual meeting. The virtual format only benefits the developers, not the residents. Most of the residents who spoke at the meeting asked for in-person meetings in the future.  Many of the residents that wanted to speak were not afforded an opportunity to be heard (technical issues, limited time, argumentative nature of developer, etc.) which was supposed to be the purpose of the meeting. · Gated community – The original plans that were sent to residents stated that it would be “a gated safespace” but gates are not shown on the plans. The adjacent neighbors will have to listen to the opening and closing of the gates day and night. What will be done for noise mitigation? · Disagree with the developer’s calculation for the square footage of the lots. It’s not ok to divide the entire 5 acres by 18 to come up with a square footage per residence so they can claim it’s “low density”. There’s a lot of creative calculations taking place to make this development appear to be something it’s not. The lot sizes shown on the plans are 4676 sq. ft. – a fraction of the size of the lots in the adjacent neighborhoods. Definitely not “low density”. o PRD vs R-2 – The developer wants PRD zoning to allow flexibility with the density and set-back requirements.  The R-2 is more in line with the intent of the zoning requirements and consistent with the existing surrounding homes. o Wil Henderson’s discussion regarding the “fun with math” calculations the developer is using to include open and green space and mislead about lot density was not included in the meeting notes so anyone not listening to the actual meeting won’t be aware of it. This should be corrected as it is a major omission. · It’s unfortunate that Franklin became defensive and belligerent at the end of the meeting, choosing to argue with the speakers who were intelligently expressing concerns regarding density calculations and the fear of increased crime. These are the type of developers/architects the City of Wheat Ridge should not bend the rules for (PRD vs TND). · Urban Farm/Equestrian area water supply. Assuming barns and lofts will contain combustible material (hay), will there be adequate access to water for the fire department should a barn catch fire? Valley Water has limited availability in the Urban Farm area. Franklin claimed water would be “looped” through the development. Does the loop he referred to include the Urban Farm or only the front section where the houses will be built? Has he verified his claims regarding the loop with Valley Water? Will the plan be presented to Arvada Fire for review/approval? · The access road around the outside of the development adds traffic concerns to an already constricted street. The original plan for Wheat Ridge Station Village with the road up the middle was more practical since it aligned better with the existing Swadley Street. The present design will create three (3), three-way intersections within 160 ft. of each other along 52nd avenue. This causes hazards with vehicles turning onto and off of 52nd Ave at Swadley St and a few feet to the east and west where the proposed access roads connect to 52nd Ave. This also creates a difficult situation for the homes on the south side of 52nd whose driveways face 52nd. Visibility will be poor for those on the access roads as well as for the eastbound and westbound vehicles on 52nd.  This looping roadway design creates a traffic safety hazard. · Parking – “Each home has a minimum two car garage accessed from the drive aisle, with an optional adjoining 3rd car space”. We politely request that the adjoining 3rd car space not be “optional” but that it be required. With the narrow access road, there is very little parking provided for guests. · Dwelling Size - Staff notes neglected to include the discussion about the two story houses that will also include an attic dormer on the top level of the house (not just a two story house like the ones already in the neighborhood). · 10 years of construction! Residents in this area have endured more than 10 years of constant construction, starting with the G Line station. We have watched our beloved quiet community fill in with hundreds of townhomes and a 5-story apartment building. Haskins Station has taken over what was once a vast open space, and now work is beginning on more high density (apartment buildings and townhomes) northeast of Ridge Rd and Simms Place. There will be at least 2 years of construction on the apartments and townhomes followed by another 2 years of construction on the Wheat Ridge Station Village. That adds up to 15 years of constant construction with the noise, traffic, dust, etc. It’s no wonder the residents in this area have had enough!!   We look forward to further opportunities to provide feedback regarding this proposed development, hopefully in person.   Thank you, Connie & Geoff Burg 5195 Swadley St 1 Stephanie Stevens From:Hellodi <hellodi@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2024 9:40 PM To:Stephanie Stevens Cc:hellodi@aol.com Subject:Wheat Ridge Station Village Questions and Concerns Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged   Stephanie, Thank you again for tonight! Here are my questions and concerns: 1. Parking- There is no parking- how did they come up with 2 cars per home. I have 3 people in my family with 4 cars. When families have extended families living with them- there is a need for parking. They will park on 52nd Ave. 2. We had the Commander Ammon from Arvada Police spoke at our Annual meeting a week ago. He talked about the crime in our sector. This is why a large concern with our Community. The top crime thefts- more people - more issues- Top Crimes per Arvada PD: 1. Motor Vehicle Thefts- Colorado has the highest car theft 2. Vehicle Trepass ( Car Break in) 3. Burglary 4. Porch/package Thefts 3. How did you get a gated community approved? Last year, you stated- you could not get it approved? 4. We have hawks and eagles nest in the Cottonwoods- there is an issue of taking down the trees- how to address? 5. I'm requesting a Economic Analysis and Road Study. Franklin would not give me either reports last year. I feel - he is hiding his reasons why he is at 18 homes. We have seen a large amount of people from the apartments, townhomes walking their dogs in our neighborhood, dog waste in yards, trash, and attempted breakins. We had  You don't often get email from hellodi@aol.com. Learn why this is important    Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the IT Division. Thank you.   2 3 cars stolen this past year. We had a guy try to get into a resident's home (with multiple warrants), etc. 6. Narrow roads-We had a resident hit at 52nd and Tabor St on her bike. City of Wheat ridge never widen or plan to widen this road to the property. There is no sidewalks. 7. Franklin has 6 kids per his comment tonight- how would he feel if a development with a road in your backyard was built behind his house? I thought he got condescending to Wil about the crime. He needs to speak to Arvada and Wheat ridge about the sector. It was my home that had the homeless guy jumped our 6ft fence. 8. Fire danger with his private barns with no running water/infestation of rodents. Last, Franklin told me last year- he does not get paid until he closes the deal. He has never reached out to get our opinions before this next buyer. I will opposed this development. We have a lot of people who want to fight it. Thank you again for your leadership!   Dianna Cillessen  303‐522‐5826     Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the IT Division. Thank you. From:harry shriver To:Stephanie Stevens Subject:Swadley St. Proposed Zoning Change Date:Friday, January 26, 2024 12:13:58 PM Attachments:1-24-24 Questions.docx You don't often get email from harry.shriver@comcast.net. Learn why this is important Stephanie Stevens, AICP Senior Planner Community Development Department Dear Stephanie, As a follow up to the zoom webinar on 1-23-24, following are my questions concerning the proposed Zoning Change and development at 5225 Swadley Street, Wheat Ridge, CO. 1. If a zoning change is approved, what prevents a future developer from changing the layout and/or putting in more dense three story town houses? 2. What will be the layout of the barns in LOT B? 3. What will be the ownership of the area in LOT B? 4. How will the space in LOT B be maintained and administered. 5. What prevents LOT B from later being submitted for a zoning change? 6. What is a “Traditional Walk-up attic.” The residential structures are referenced as two story with traditional walk-up attic space and the square footage is estimated at 3,300 sq ft above grade. “Walk-up attic” sounds like a fancy wording for a third story of usable living space. 7. What steps/requirements are being taken to maintain the sanctity (privacy, quiet, etc.) of existing residential back yards. There is no buffer between the private drive around the east and west sides of the planned development and the existing residential back yards. This drive is the only vehicular access to the proposed area for the residents, deliveries and services. This will have a significantly negative impact on the current home owners back yards. Private back yards will now be subject to vehicle traffic noise, vehicle lights and street lighting. Appropriate planning would provide a meaningful buffer between back yards and access roadways. Additionally, excessive street lighting as we now see on W52nd and Tabor St south of W 52nd is inconsistent with the nature of the community. 8. What is the parking plan for the development? Parking appears to be extremely limited. Three car spaces per unit is cited. The limited parking provided for in presented by the developer. 9. The density of the proposed plan is inconsistent with the adjoining properties. Lot sizes are approximately half that of adjoining homes. In general, the proposed zoning change plan appears to have many problems and is inconsistent with the nature of the existing neighborhood and the space available. Thank you for your consideration. Harry Shriver 5230 Tabor St. Arvada, CO 80002 303-423-9536 1 Stephanie Stevens From:heidi leoni <heidileoni@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2024 7:08 PM To:Stephanie Stevens Subject:Input to Community Meeting on 1/23, Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged   Hi Stephanie,    Here is my input for the meeting that occurred tonight.  I think in the future, you must have an in‐person  meeting.  It is very frustrating when the chat is shut down and there is no way to communicate when the  microphone isn't working.  Obviously, I wasn't the only person struggling with this.  In addition, the community  was not able to provide enough input because Franklin Salazar spoke so much!  Please make sure the  following comments are put into the record:    I am adamantly opposed to the riding area and barns.        In my opinion, the proposed barn/riding area is an attempt for the architect and builder to exact a premium  from potential homeowners at the expense of current homeowners and to circumvent low to medium density  by offering two‐story "houses" for livestock that are 6 feet apart and 5 feet off existing properties to the  north.  In addition the following concerns arise from this proposal, specifically related to the north section of  the property:  1. Smells   2. Noise  3. Rodents (from 18 different feed areas)  4. Potential mess with trailers, feed, manure, atvs, motorcycles and any other items new homeowners  would like to "store" in/on the property.  Current homeowners will have no recourse because the  property will be governed by another HOA with 18 homeowners that do not care since the structures  will not be in their back yards.    5. No water year‐round so no ability to keep the area clean or dust down  6. Loss of a vital habitat with cottonwoods for hawks, owls, and other raptors as well as coyotes.  7. Currently Prospect Recreation and Park District has two other public riding areas that are underutilized  (Crestview Park and Arena in Juniper Estates and Prospect Arena at 52nd and Eldridge.  I personally  have never seen horses at either of these two arenas in the twenty years I have been driving/walking  past them.    8. The Urban Equestrian area is not holistically connected to the community, nor will there be an urban  farm because if one resident wants a garden and on either side of them there are two story barns, they  will not be able to have a garden.   There will be no light available for that purpose.    You don't often get email from heidileoni@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important    Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the IT Division. Thank you.   2 9. There is no precedent for a community like this.  This small patch of land is not the place for this  experiment.  The riding area and park in Juniper Estates is the closest example in the area with double  the amount of land and NO private barns.  10. This does not represent a higher quality design as required from planned developments    Thanks, Heidi Leoni  11796 W 53rd Place  Arvada CO 80002  1 Stephanie Stevens From:heidi leoni <heidileoni@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 24, 2024 9:22 AM To:Stephanie Stevens Subject:Additional Comments on Wheat Ridge Station Village Development Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed   Hello again,    Here are additional comments I would like to have added to the record:    As proposed, each 850 sf, two story barn would be placed on a lot size of 1220 sf with a minimum of 6 foot  spacing and 5 feet off the north property line.  The concept does not promote a family‐friendly, child‐friendly,  environment due to safety concerns from livestock and the associated disease/pestilence that accompanies  this in a tight space with potentially high numbers of livestock.  In addition, livestock do not walk up stairs, so  the two‐story concept is unnecessary and another attempt by the developer to squeeze as much in to the  space as possible to the detriment of the surrounding neighbors.  Another concern is that these "barns"  become extra storage space for the homeowners.  There are plenty of storage facilities in the area, and this  use in not needed.  There is no mechanism to control this at the community level.     There is a professionally managed horse property adjacent to this property that offers boarding and a riding  arena, so this setup is redundant.      A better use of the 1.2 acres on the north end of the site is to retain its current habitat and model it after the  park installed at Indiana and Van Bibber park.  This would promote a family‐friendly, walking path‐oriented  landscape with natural flora/fauna.  In addition, the cottonwood trees on the north end would remain to allow  for the raptors to continue to nest in the area.    Thanks, Heidi Leoni  11796 W. 53rd Pl  Arvada, CO 80002   You don't often get email from heidileoni@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important    Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the IT Division. Thank you.   1 Stephanie Stevens From:Julie Hill <julieahill72@icloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 24, 2024 6:53 PM To:Stephanie Stevens Cc:El Hefe Subject:Fwd: Wheat Ridge Station Village Proposal/Zone Change Protest         Hi Stephanie,    I have a few comments and questions that I don't believe were addressed in the Zoom  call last evening.    1) I am very opposed to the proposed development for many reasons, which includes  the decrease in my property values, the loss of use and enjoyment of my backyard, the  continued intrusion and inconvenience of all the construction that has gone on year  after year. .      Here are my questions:      ‐ For the developer to say traffic for the development would only increase by 36 cars (2  cars per/day per household) a day on 52nd is ridiculous.  I believe they are failing to take  into consideration the traffic increase on 52nd of family and friends, delivery drivers,  carpool drivers etc.  With so many proposed homes being built in such a small area,  where are these additional vehicles supposed to park, so that those of us on Tabor  Street don't have to look at cars parked  along on the streets?      ‐ What is going to be done to 52nd to make that road safer for pedestrians/bicyclists, for  this increase in traffic?     ‐ Per the link below, it appears additional housing is being built on 50th and Ward.  With  those new developments, will the City of Wheat Ridge have enough police  officers/emergency personnel to handle yet another new development?  I know the City  of Arvada doesn't have enough police officers on staff ‐ does Wheat Ridge?  https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/c981845330eb45ff998914720ba071ad    ‐When will Wheat Ridge add more businesses, restaurants etc. for all of these newly  allowed or proposed residences?   Seems to me we don't have enough of these for the  residences that are already here.    Thank you.    Julie Hill  5240 Tabor Street  303‐332‐1276.   You don't often get email from julieahill72@icloud.com. Learn why this is important    Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the IT Division. Thank you.   2   Begin forwarded message:    From: Rainbow Ridge <arvadarainbowridgeha@gmail.com>  Subject: Wheat Ridge Station Village Proposal/Zone Change Protest  Date: Jan 23, 2024 at 9:08 PM  To: Rainbow Ridge <arvadarainbowridgeha@gmail.com>      Hello RR Residents! Thank you for your participation and attendance tonight at the meeting! We have several residents not able to speak and share their questions and/or concerns. Please email Stephanie below with your questions and concerns as soon as possible. Here is Stephanie's contact information below: Stephanie Stevens, AICP Senior Planner Community Development Department Office: 303-235-2848 sstevens@ci.wheatridge.co.us Per Stephanie- her comments on a zone change protest: As for the zone change protest, this would come into play if this becomes a formal application. The applicant has yet to submit, and a neighborhood meeting is a requirement prior to application. Hold on to this for later and keep in mind that you’ll need a few more neighbors to submit the same because 20% of the neighboring properties have the sign. See geographic requirements on page 2 of this document.   ‐‐     Rainbow Ridge Homeowners' Association  Arvada, CO     Virus-free.www.av .com 1 Stephanie Stevens From:pkdcrown@aol.com Sent:Thursday, January 25, 2024 3:24 PM To:Stephanie Stevens Subject:Re: Neighborhood Meeting - Baker Property Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged   Thank you for sending the meeting summary. I do have some additional Concerns / Questions: 1. Our home sits on the corner of 52nd and Tabor directly behind the proposed development. The plan puts a new entry road and entry drive way directly behind our bedroom window. The increase in traffic both behind our hours, to the side of our home and down Tabor will cause significant disruption to our home. The road also empties directly into the living rooms of the homes to the south of the proposed developments.  Increased noise at all hours of the day / night  Lighting along the back road way will impact our home, quality of life and privacy.  If a gate is added for the "gated Community" the noise of a gate opening and closing at all hours of day and night will be significant and problematic.  There must be a tall landscape buffer between any proposed development. There does not need to be a sidewalk. 2. The distance between the existing fence and the proposed development does not allow for any buffer or landscaping or higher privacy fences. Any work on the East of our fence line will cause severe damage to our existing trees that are over 40 years old. 3. We are on a 1/3 of an acre lot. The density of the proposed development is significantly more than the neighborhood along Tabor. 4. There is a lack of transparency about the back (north) two acres of the development. The plan shows mini-barns with a loft which the developer alluded to as: The rear portion of the site is proposed to be subdivided and reserved for agricultural and low density residential uses only. This implies that the "lofts" will be used as dwelling units and not just agricultural. We are very  Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the IT Division. Thank you.   2 concerned about the lack of water on the back section / fire hazard / accessibility in case of emergencies. This will also increase the number of vehicles using the access points. 5. Any road improvements along 52nd will impact our mature landscaping. We already had the large 40 year old trees across from our house cut down for development and road work. We bought this home as a retirement home in a quiet and stable neighborhood. There have been over 5000 new units (at least) put up within .5 miles of our home in the last two years. Enough is enough. The five acre Baker property can be sold as an equestrian property. There are multiple people who are losing access to their boarding stables who would purchase this land as is and keep the agricultural feel for the area. Please do not approve the request to rezone. Thank you for considering this feedback. Patty Davies / John Nell 5210 Tabor Street On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 02:38:15 PM MST, Stephanie Stevens <sstevens@ci.wheatridge.co.us> wrote: Hi Patty, The neighborhood meeting summary is attached. I’ll be on the lookout for your comments and questions. Thank you, Stephanie Stevens, AICP Senior Planner Community Development Department Office: 303-235-2848 3 From: pkdcrown@aol.com <pkdcrown@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 8:19 AM To: Stephanie Stevens <sstevens@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Subject: Neighborhood Meeting - Baker Property Hello Stephanie I was only able to join the ZOOM for about 30 minutes last night so am eager to get the list of concerns that were raised and the initial responses. I will be sending in some additional questions / concerns later today or tomorrow. Thank you for facilitating the discussion. Patty Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the IT Division. Thank you.   Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the IT Division. Thank you. From:Anthelia Fellenstein To:Stephanie Stevens Subject:Response to 1/23/24 "neighborhood" meeting Date:Monday, February 5, 2024 8:54:48 PM You don't often get email from amfellenstein@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Hi Stephanie, As you mentioned on the call, the January 23rd zoom meeting had a number of unanticipated shortcomings, and we feel it did not serve as a Neighborhood Input Meeting. The zoom format provided by the City of Wheat Ridge and the prospective buyer/ developer did not give the neighbors currently living adjacent to the property/proposed project at 11795 W. 52nd Avenue a true opportunity to have their questions answered or their voices heard by the prospective buyer/ developer and/or city officials. Due to the technical difficulties as well as the nature of the format, the promoters and beneficiaries were able to speak/ interrupt at any time, and many neighbors who were on the call to address this proposal were interrupted while voicing their questions and concerns. Several people, who set aside the time to participate and voice their own concerns and questions, were not able to speak at all. The meeting gave an impression of deliberately trying to stifle those who have concerns and questions about this proposed project. Many concerns were not addressed including, but not limited to, a few that we personally wish to address: The reason for, and design of, the two-story barns with solar panels at the north end of the property. We’d like to see current examples of this style of development and where examples of it exist as current, real locations. How the developer plans to work with current neighbors regarding trees and other landscaping along the edge of the property. Currently birds of prey nest in several trees adjacent to this property. It’s vital that these trees be left alone. Questions were not answered clearly as to what the developer plans to do. Property setbacks. Concerns of infrastructure, density, safety, etc. Many questions and concerns remain about the principals, developers and architect, and the way they conducted themselves in the obfuscated ‘neighborhood’ meeting, as well as the questions & concerns remaining unanswered from the many neighbors left out of the process. Within all this, we do appreciate your time and stated desire to do what’s right for our community. Thank you for your involvement, and please feel free to connect with us to address any of the above. Sincerely, Ross and Marie Fellenstein Rainbow Ridge Residents 1 Stephanie Stevens From:susan.stroup@icloud.com Sent:Tuesday, February 6, 2024 2:13 PM To:Stephanie Stevens; Alayna Olivas-Loera Cc:Gail Hamilton; Mark Hunter Subject:5220 & 5225 Swadley Street, Wheat Ridge, CO Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged   Hello Stephanie and Alayna,     I am Susan Stroup, Personal Rep for The Estate of Irene Baker.  I was on the neighborhood meeting call and I want to express  the Estates feelings.  The Estate is fully behind the rezoning and development of the property.   We feel a gated community  with access to activities outdoors is a great solution to the property.    The neighbors are opposed to any development.  As I listened my thoughts were boy these people are a bunch of cry babies!  They want open space and live in the Denver metro area!  Of course if they were really serious they could pool their funds  together and their HOA could buy the property for the neighborhood.  That is a not starter because of the cost of that  luxury.  So they are going to fight the development of the property so others pay for their open space.    It was mentioned that there was no hardships associated with not approving the rezoning but again they are not paying for  the up keep, mowing, taxes and insurance.  The two older homes need to be demolished.  People have broken into them and  left messes and/or stolen things. And, the trees, why did they plant them on the property line and expect other owners to  make accommodations for them.  One of the trees had to be trimmed on our side of the property because it was rubbing on  the roof and causing damage.      In the past neighbors have dumped their grass clipping and garbage over the fence.  There was also a 2X4 board from a weak  fence to a tree in our yard to keep the fence standing.  They have no respect for others.  It’s all about them.     They complained about the land going away, the loop drive is too close to their fences, etc. too many people, too many cars, if  they want to live in the country and not metro Denver they need to move.  People don’t like change but it’s a part of life. And  the property is located in a desirable area of the metro Denver area and needs to be developed.    Thank you for your time.  Sincerely,    Susan Stroup       You don't often get email from susan.stroup@icloud.com. Learn why this is important    Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the IT Division. Thank you.   Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the IT Division. Thank you. From:susan.stroup@icloud.com To:Stephanie Stevens; Alayna Olivas-Loera Cc:Steve Baker Subject:Fwd: 5220v& 5225 Swadley Street, Wheatridge, Co Date:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 7:01:50 PM You don't often get email from susan.stroup@icloud.com. Learn why this is important Begin forwarded message: From: Steve Baker <sleepers.sb@gmail.com> Subject: 5220v& 5225 Swadley Street, Wheatridge, Co Date: February 13, 2024 at 8:20:27 PM EST To: ssteven@ci.wheatridge.co.us, aloera@wheatridge.co.us Cc: "ghamilton@ccim.net" <ghamilton@ccim.net>, MarkHunterHomes@gmail.com, susan.stroup@icloud.com Dear, Stephanie Stevens, I have gone over the proposed plan for the development of the property at 5220 & 5225 Swadley street. The proposed plan has had a great deal of thoughtful allowances granted to the existing residences. The property is in an area that is under a lot of change being performed by the State, and cities of Wheatridge & Arvada. A gated community of eighteen (18) single family units ranging from $900 to $1.5 . should not increase the level of crime. In fact it should be reduced. With the overflow of parking the gated community and not being a thorough street would contain the problem. Trees that are on the property that may need to be removed are the property of the owner or developer. In closing I would greatly appreciate your moving forward with the rezoning request. As you know this property has been on the market for way too long. Thank you, Stephan C. Baker Hello, My name is Patti McLaughlin, I am the daughter of Walter and Irene Baker, the owners of the property. Both of my parents have passed leaving the property to myself and my 2 other siblings, both who live out of state. I have grown up on this property and have lived most of my life at the property or in the area. I have seen the changes and the growth. I am for the re-zoning of this property to be developed into what sounds like a beautiful, gated community, with million-dollar homes. My parents re-zoned this property to agricultural, because my father grew hay in the pasture, and it decreased the property taxes. We have not used the pasture for farming for at least 10 years. Boy, if we had known then what a nightmare this would cause for us later down the road, when we were ready to sell, we would have kept it the way it was. It is my understanding that there is concern from the Rainbow Bridge neighborhood about re-zoning and development of the property. I know there has recently been development around our property, which is to be expected with the addition of the light rail down the street. There cannot be a major public transit way with no communities to support it. I am all for open space and parks and we are lucky to have several in very close proximity to this property. There is Vanbibber, Stenger, and Prospect parks just to name a few. All are within walking or biking distance of the property, where people and animals can enjoy nature. The property at 5220 and 5225 is privately owned and is not used for recreation or in any way for agricultural purposes. It would lay empty and unused for "looks" only. People are not able to go onto our private property to walk dogs and enjoy it like a park. If we are unable to re-zone this property so we can sell, it would cause a hardship for us by trying to keep up with the maintenance of of such a large plot of land. Not to mention the cost, it will require. My siblings and I all own and maintain our own residence, two of which are in different states, so you can imagine the stress of having this property to maintain is. I wanted to also to bring awareness to the Wannamaker ditch and the concerns I heard. For the last several years the headgate has been broken. When I contacted the ditch company, I was informed that the HOA at Rainbow Bridge has the rights, that this happened when they built there, and they are responsible for fixing the headgate. After several attempts by the ditch company and myself nothing was ever resolved, and the headgate was never fixed. This causes a problem every summer when the water comes down causing flooding of the pasture and into neighbor’s yards along the west side. I have had neighbors on the west side come and talk with me about the water flooding and I informed them to contact their HOA. Again, nothing was ever resolved. As mentioned, before we have delt with vandalism, homeless people breaking in squatting and stealing. This property will eventually be developed. Leaving this small plot of land in the middle of a growing metro Denver area for a neighborhood to enjoy is only benefiting one neighborhood, Rainbow Ridge,and not the greater good of the community, in which I am a part. Sincerely, Patti McLaughlin Planning Commission Staff Report – Wheat Ridge Station Village ODP June 18, 2026 Page 21 EXHIBIT 8: UTILITY LETTER PROVIDED BY APPLICANT’S ENGINEER