HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-10 City Council Meeting MinutesMINUTES
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Monday, August 10, 2026
6:30 pm
The meeting was held in a hybrid format, with Councilmembers, City staff, and
members of the public participating either in person at the Municipal Building (7500
W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado) in Council Chambers, or virtually.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stites called the regular City Council meeting to order on August 10, 2026, at 6:30
p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Those present stood, if able, and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
Councilmembers Present: Rachel Hultin; Kathleen Martell; Scott Ohm; Mike Okada;
Patrick Quinn; Jenny Snell; Susan Wood; and Dan Larson.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE
City Manager Patrick Goff; City attorney Gerald Dahl; Director of Community Development
Lauren Mikulak; Police Chief Chris Murtha; Senior Deputy City Clerk Onorina Maloney;
Deputy City Clerk Lucy Spalenka; Officer Allan Fischer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
City Council Meeting Minutes, July 27, 2026
Special Study Session Notes, July 27, 2026 Minutes and study notes approved as presented.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Agenda approved as presented.
PROCLAMATIONS AND CEREMONIES
1. Proclamation – Honoring the Retirement of Officer Allan Fischer
The Mayor read a proclamation honoring Officer Alan Fisher upon his retirement from the Wheat Ridge Police Department after 24 years of service, beginning August 1, 2002 and concluding August 3, 2026. The proclamation recognized Officer Fisher's dedication to patrol duties, his exceptional bravery at a shots-
fired incident on Newland Street in October 2004, and his remarkable courage and resilience following a violent attack in April 2022 during which he sustained severe stab wounds. Officer Fisher briefly addressed the council, expressing gratitude and acknowledging Wheat Ridge as a great community with good people. Chief of Police then presented Officer Fisher with the Chief's Award, noting that Fisher is defined by more than any single incident, and that his 24-year career demonstrated pride, determination, and professionalism. The Chief also offered a lighthearted acknowledgment that Officer Fisher's repeated speed camera citations had contributed meaningfully to city coffers, quipping that "the solution to your problem is to slow down."
PUBLICS’ RIGHT TO SPEAK
a. In Person Public Comments on matters not on the agenda:
Tom Huxley, a board member of the Wheat Ridge Chamber of Commerce, spoke
in support of the Chamber's budget request and the Prosperity Plan, highlighting the Chamber's alignment with its goals including building a business support
ecosystem, identifying properties needing upgrades, connecting businesses to
resources, and reaching approximately 1,000 local businesses that have not yet
been contacted.
Ashenzo DiGiacomo, a land planner from Lakewood, raised concerns about the usability of the city's website for navigating project information, suggesting the
city consider improvements for public accessibility. He also expressed opposition to any potential reduction in public comment time from three
minutes to two minutes, noting that many speakers had spent considerable time
preparing their remarks.
b. Public Comments Received in Writing:
Patty Davies Aug 10, 2026 11:58am - Case WZ-24-09 — Wheat Ridge Station Village To the Members of the Wheat Ridge City Council: I respectfully ask Council
to vote NO on the current Outline Development Plan (ODP) until fundamental
safety, scale, and compatibility standards are mandated. The proposed density
and activity would be placed immediately against an established residential
neighborhood without adequate separation, buffering, traffic controls, or mitigation of resulting impacts. Our single story, ranch home directly borders the
proposed Wheat Ridge Station Village development. We strongly oppose the
current Plan because it does not adequately protect the health, safety, privacy,
and quality of life of existing neighboring residents. The proposed ODP layout
places two entry drives in close proximity, with an unaligned west entrance at Swadley Street that creates an unsafe intersection on a corridor with no
sidewalks. This would increase the road intersections along this short stretch of
52nd Ave to 5, including the stop at 52nd and Tabor Street. This concentration
raises concerns regarding sight distance, turning conflicts, speeding, emergency
access, pedestrian safety, and traffic spillover. The development as submitted will increase traffic on 52nd Avenue, Tabor Street, Simms, and Swadley, all of
which will absorb additional vehicle trips from the proposed development. The
52nd Avenue/Tabor Street four-way stop is already a safety concern, with vehicles
failing to consistently stop. Currently pedestrians and cyclists who are crossing at 52nd and Tabor have to walk into the intersection to get into an adjacent
neighborhood. As the house on the corner, we are frequently seeing cars and large
trucks fail to stop, fail to make the turns, and we watch large trucks instead use
residential streets to by-pass the difficult turn at Tabor and 52nd. Adding up to 18
homes, potentially with ADUs, will increase vehicle trips, pedestrian activity, deliveries, and turning movements in an area used by children, families,
pedestrians, cyclists and people walking dogs. According to data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a typical single-family household averages
approximately five to six vehicle trips per day. Based on this statistic, the
proposed development is projected to generate more than 60 trips daily affirming
the requirement of a Traffic Impact Study. Our immediate neighborhood has
already suffered extensive property damage—including run-over medians, struck light poles, destroyed landscape boulders, crushed park benches, and damaged
retaining walls—due to increased traffic flow from recent area development.
Approving an unaligned, high-density access loop directly compounds these
existing safety hazards. The loop road is not required by any service provider
(water, fire, Xcel). Obviously, the location and nature of the proposed loop would unreasonably disturb the comfort, peace, and health of those in the surrounding
areas. The new development would not only increase traffic, but the PRD-ODP
provides no extra visitor parking on site for the homes proposed. This needs to
be required of them because of the impacts of extra vehicle parking on adjacent
streets- especially at W 52nd and Tabor which will be a problem for the entire neighborhood. There certainly is not a need for more high-density housing near
the light rail station. In the past 6 years, more than 657 homes / units have been
built within a 2-mile radius of Rainbow Ridge. Additionally, it is my understanding
that Wheat Ridge is in the approval process to add 200 affordable homes near
Ridge and Miller, while Arvada is proposing 80 new units near Ward Road and 54th. For more than two years, adjacent residents have participated in good faith,
offering concrete suggestions regarding height transitions, landscape buffers,
and road alignments. Neither staff nor the applicant has incorporated this
feedback in the official record. Disregarding community input entirely defeats the
purpose of the public planning process. Before approval, the City should require a Traffic Impact Study addressing: • Traffic increases on 52nd Avenue, Tabor,
Simms, and Swadley addressing traffic, child and pedestrian safety, intersections,
and parking impacts; • The existing 52nd Avenue/Tabor four-way stop; • The
cumulative impact of multiple intersections in a short distance; • Sight distances
and turning movements at all proposed intersections; • Emergency and service vehicle access; • Speeding and appropriate traffic-calming measures; and • Visitor
parking and potential spillover parking onto surrounding streets. • A sight-
distance and intersection analysis for the proposed perimeter road. Requested
Action The proposal should not be approved in its current form. The City should
require enforceable conditions addressing the project's impacts on traffic and pedestrian safety, privacy, sunlight, noise, nighttime glare, and the peaceful use
of existing residential properties. At minimum, approval should require a 28-foot
height limit, 15-foot landscaped perimeter buffer, substantial privacy fencing,
upper-floor setbacks and screening, lighting and glare controls, and completion
of the required traffic, sight-distance, shadow, and photometric analyses. These measures are necessary to provide a safe and reasonable transition between the
proposed development and the established residential neighborhood. We ask that
Council vote NO on this ODP unless the above-mentioned conditions are included.
Ascenzo DiGiacomo Aug 10, 2026 ∙ 11:53am To Wheatridge City Council
Members: Please see the 41 comments posted for the Planning Commission in
June. Thank you. Ascenzo Di Giacomo
Patricia Weber Aug 10, 2026 ∙ 11:53am To: Wheat Ridge City Council From: Patricia Weber RE:5225 Swadley St Rezoning As a Rainbow Ridge resident of
more than 35 years, I can attest to the fact that we have seen HUGE changes in
the area surrounding our neighborhood. I understand that this is a new
development and this is expected as any metropolitan area grows. However, this
particular small development while strictly speaking is in Wheat Ridge, it is physically in the middle of two Arvada communities. Therefore, I believe
additional consideration needs to be given to the developers high density, the unit
setbacks, unit building max height and community impacts. These components
need to be compatible with the guidelines and goals of Arvada planning and
development guidelines and not only the standards for the city of Wheat Ridge. I attended the planning commission hearing and all I heard was how this
neighborhood fits in with the goals and guidelines of Wheat Ridge. As a good
neighbor to the city of Arvada, it is imperative that this little part of Wheat Ridge
(placed in the middle of Arvada ) must represent both cities and clearly take the
guidelines from both cities applying the least aggressive approach. Anyone that is astute can see that Wheat Ridge is truly a very different community than the
city of Arvada and this project needs to blend more clearly with the Arvada
community surrounding it. I heard nothing from the planning staff that indicated
any consideration of this fact or any acknowledgement of the concerns of the
impacted residents from Arvada. I believe this rezoning should be soundly rejected.
Andre Barrutia Aug 10, 2026 ∙ 11:24am My name is Andre Barrutia, and this is my
first time providing public comment. I live at 5250 Tabor Street in Rainbow Ridge,
and our backyard is directly adjacent to the property proposed for rezoning at
5225 Swadley Street, Case No. WZ-24-09. I am very concerned about whether the existing infrastructure in this area particularly West 52nd Avenue east of Tabor
Street can safely accommodate the additional traffic and parking demand
created by this development. The proposed development appears to provide
limited internal guest parking, and the proposed loop-style road does not
eliminate the need for additional parking. When on-site parking is insufficient, that demand is likely to shift to the nearest available public streets. West 52nd Avenue,
Rainbow Ridge, and the surrounding neighborhood streets could therefore
become the primary location for spillover parking associated with this
development. That creates a significant safety concern. West 52nd and the
surrounding streets do not have a continuous sidewalk network, meaning
schoolchildren, dog walkers, cyclists, and other pedestrians frequently share the
roadway with vehicle traffic. Additional vehicles parked along the roadway would
further reduce sight lines, narrow the usable travel area, and force pedestrians and cyclists closer to moving traffic. These conditions can become particularly
difficult for drivers when combined with existing visibility issues such as sun
glare. Additional non-resident street parking could also affect everyday
neighborhood operations by restricting traffic flow, making it more difficult for
residents to safely enter and exit their driveways, and creating challenges for mail delivery, trash collection, emergency access, and snow removal. I am asking the
Council to deny, or at minimum delay, this proposal until there is a clear and publicly supported plan demonstrating how the development's traffic, parking,
pedestrian safety, and infrastructure impacts will be addressed. This would
include the already planned developments that are approved on 52nd west of
Tabor Street. Before approving additional density for this site development, the
community deserves confidence that the surrounding streets can safely accommodate it without transferring the development's parking and traffic
burdens onto the existing neighborhood, where we have already seen significant
issues on the corner of 52nd and Tabor with resident and non-resident traffic
alike. Attached are photos of one of many incidents as an example.
Patience B Stevens Aug 10, 2026 ∙ 11:12am My name is Patience Stevens. I live in Golden and I lease and lesson at Hidden Lane Stables. I am respectfully asking
the Council to vote against the rezoning in direct opposition to the prior motion
that said rezoning would ‘contribute to the health and safety’ of the community.
That is absurd and was motioned with absolutely no supporting evidence. In fact,
the environmental health wil be adversely affected by increased pavement (common knowledge of impervious surfaces affecting ground water), increased
traffic congestion and consequent safety concerns by no sidewalks, non resident
speeding cut through and the congestion by 2-3 cars per new house wit attendant
trash/deliveries and the like. As for equine and rider/handler safety, the existing
urban noise and activity already stresses the horses. Increasing the proximity and volume of urban life and general lack of understanding regarding equine behavior
will lead to further stress to horse and rider-which if manifested in classic horse
response of a spook, bolt or shying-can result in significant injury to horse and
rider. Given that ‘peaceful coexistence’ is unlikely to be met, I respectfully request
disapproval of the rezoning. Should this proceed to the detriment of the land, RR residents, riders and horses unable to protest on their behalf, insurance of the
following is a MINIMUM: BEFORE ANY CLEARING, BUILDING OR ACTIVITY; AN 8
foot SOLID FENCE (at least on horse property side) and a MINIMUM 15 FOOT
NATURAL BUFFER OF SHRUBS AND TREES ARE TO NE ERECTED AND
ESTABLISHED IN ADVANCE. Thank you for preserving what little open space remains, Respectfully Patience Stevens MD, MPH
Marilyn and Robert DuVon Aug 10, 2026 ∙ 11:08am I've come to this discussion
later than most, but am frankly horrified by what will occur should this proposal
for Swadley St. be approved by City Council. Two things stand out to me as
beyond unacceptable. 1. Building what will be viewed as a wall towering (28 ft.) over the homes on the Rainbow Ridge side of the fence is very offensive. No one
wishes to look at a wall of 3 story box homes that are much taller than the existing
homes on the west side. Also, the severe contrast with the two types of
architecture is just ugly and off setting to anyone. 2. I hate to see the horse facility ruined, which may happen when the bulldozers and other large and loud
equipment arrive. You've had an explanation of the wonderful things that facility
offers citizens of Wheat Ridge and Arvada. Surely there is another plot of land that
can accommodate another of the Big Box communities without having to bring
havoc in both noise and appearance to this one area. I know the almighty dollar is king these days to so many people, but please use some common sense and
true neighborly actions. The proposed project is one that could go elsewhere and should have already after learning how off-setting it is to the existing neighbors.
Marilyn DuVon 12285 W. 54th Dr., Arvada Robert DuVon 5361 W. 26th Ave., Wheat
Ridge
Matthew Dunn ∙ Aug 10, 2026 ∙ 10:45am I am writing regarding the proposed
rezoning of 5225 Swadley Street (Case No. WZ-24-09) and respectfully urge a NO vote. While the proposal has been reduced to 18 homes, it still remains
incompatible with the existing Rainbow Ridge neighborhood. The planned homes
would be significantly taller than surrounding properties and located on
substantially smaller lots, creating a stark contrast with the established character
of the area. The proposed separation between existing and new homes is not a meaningful buffer, as it largely consists of a private road, sidewalk, setbacks, and
minimal landscaping. In addition, mature trees currently provide important
screening and neighborhood character, yet they could be permanently impacted
by construction. Residents have consistently opposed this proposal for more than
two years, and the fundamental concerns regarding height, density, buffering, and compatibility remain unresolved. The Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan calls for
a peaceful transition between developments, and this proposal does not achieve
that goal. Please listen to the residents most directly affected and vote NO on the
rezoning request.
Andrew Zehler Aug 10, 2026 ∙ 10:06am As a newer resident at 12081 W. 54th Avenue, I had just moved out of Denver due to some of the construction types as
noted in this plan (large boxy buildings that degrade the character of the
neighborhood). I believe that the height of these structures, parking and traffic
issues, and lack of proper setbacks and greenspace make it an easy no vote for
the council. Zoning regulations are in place for a reason and I don't understand why this property should be able to get those changed in the name of developer
profit. If they want to construct a new development then they can maintain the
current height regulations. My kids bike around this area and the increased traffic
on 52nd would definitely make me think twice about letting them bike in that area.
Do the new residents at this proposed complex have friends/family? I would assume so, but where will they park? A 5' setback for this development also
seems absurdly low and would not allow near enough landscaping to help hide
this eyesore.
Irene Grundin Aug 10, 2026 ∙ 9:46am We are members of this community. We are
writing to oppose this rezoning ahead of Monday’s vote. This rezoning affects the
community that we have chosen to be a part of. This area is a quiet, established
community that is increasingly rare to find in the Denver metro area. We want to
preserve this neighborhood. This rezoning decision doesn’t just affect this parcel of land. It tells every future developer how much the can Maximus height and
density. We are asking the city council to weigh that permanence carefully before
voting on a project that the people most directly impacted have consistently and
clearly said the do not want. Please vote no! Pete and Irene Grundin
Rhylae LaBrec ∙ Aug 10, 2026 ∙ 5:36am I am Rhylae LaBrec, co-owner of 5280
Tabor Street. Our property shares the west boundary of this site. I am writing in
opposition and asking Council not to approve this rezoning tonight as written. I want to make one narrow point, from where we actually live. Right now our back
yard looks onto open pasture. Under this plan it will look onto the back walls and
garages of new homes and a 24-foot private drive running along our rear lot line
— headlights and pavement where there is now open land. The new homes face
inward onto a private park. We get the driveway. Whatever the density works out to on paper, that is the trade being made at our boundary, and it is being made in
one direction. I would also ask Council to consider the horse property immediately
east. It is a working boarding and training operation with a riding arena. Horses
and heavy construction next to each other for months is a real welfare question,
not a decorative one, and I have not seen it addressed anywhere in the record beyond a fencing note. Please consider how this will be addressed further as it is
an issue of animal welfare as well as a local business being deeply affected. I
understand Wheat Ridge needs housing, and I am not asking Council to leave this
land empty forever. I am asking for two specific things that cost the applicant
nothing it has already promised the public: First, write 14 on the ODP. The applicant's own website markets this as 14 homes. The ODP being voted on
tonight permits 18, and lets the applicant choose between the two sketch plans
"dependent upon market conditions." If 14 is the plan, make 14 the maximum.
Otherwise the neighborhood was shown one project and the land is being zoned
for another. Second, hold the homes along our west and north boundary to two stories and about 28 feet. Our neighborhood is built at roughly 28 feet. Thirty-five
feet is the most the charter allows without a vote of the people, and nothing
obliges Council to grant the ceiling directly against houses half a story shorter. If
Council cannot condition it, I would ask that it be denied. Thank you for your time.
clay labrec ∙ Aug 10, 2026 ∙ 3:17am I am Clay LaBrec, owner of 5280 Tabor Street, an adjacent property owner on the development's west boundary in Rainbow
Ridge Filing No. 2, and a party to the protest on file. I submitted written comment
on this case to the Planning Commission on June 18 and am resubmitting it,
updated for this hearing, for the Council record. I respectfully ask Council to DENY
this rezoning on second reading. It does not meet the zone-change criteria. As staff notes on this item, the legal protest has been submitted and verified, so
approval requires at least six affirmative votes. 1. Incompatible with the
surrounding area. To the west are established single-family homes on 7,500 sq ft
lots, built around 1980, none taller than about 28 feet. To the east is a working
horse stable and open pasture; to the north, more homes and undeveloped open land. The proposal — up to 18 detached homes at 35 feet and three stories on
5,000 sq ft lots, in two rows turned inward — is denser and taller than the suburban
neighborhood to the west and more built-up than the rural, equestrian land to the
east. It is congruent with neither. 2. The design pushes its impacts outward onto existing neighbors. The homes face inward to a private pocket park, while their
backs, garages, and a 24-foot private drive face outward at my rear lot line. My
home already fronts Tabor Street; this plan would impose a second street-like
condition — pavement, headlights, and garage walls — against my backyard,
where there is now open land. The amenity is kept inside for the new residents; the traffic and bulk are exported to the people already here. That is not a
compatible transition between a neighborhood and a new development. 3. Minimum lots, minimum setbacks, maximum height — stacked together. With 5-
foot side setbacks on a 50-foot-wide lot, a home can span 40 feet of that width,
rising three stories to 35 feet, on a 5,000 sq ft lot. Set against the neighboring
7,500 sq ft, single-story and split-level homes, that is a fundamentally different
and incompatible scale. 4. The advertised density understates the reality. Spread across the whole 4.97 acres the project reads as 2.8 units per acre, but on the
2.10 acres of actual residential lots it is 6.7 units per acre at 14 homes — and 8.6
at 18. 5. Bind the count to 14. The ODP states 14 dwelling units maximum, yet the
notice for this hearing still describes "up to 18." This was raised at Planning
Commission and remains unresolved. If 14 is genuinely the plan, capping the approval at 14 costs the applicant nothing; preserving an 18-unit ceiling reserves
headroom for 29% more density, and ODP standards run with the land regardless
of the current concept. 6. The PA2 "common area" entitlements are open-ended
and permanent. They run with the land far beyond what today's concept
illustrates, and should be defined and narrowed before any approval. 7. Drainage is unresolved. The Wannamaker Ditch and its headgate condition are deferred to
a later plan rather than addressed now. For these reasons the application should
be denied. If Council nonetheless approves it, the approval should at minimum be
conditioned on: (a) a hard cap of 14 dwelling units; (b) homes abutting the
Rainbow Ridge boundary limited to two stories and about 28 feet, with no rooftop decks facing the west or north property lines; (c) an enlarged setback and
landscaped buffer where the private drive abuts the west boundary; (d) PA2
permitted uses defined and narrowed; and (e) drainage resolved before approval
rather than deferred. Thank you for considering these comments.
John Wabiszczewicz ∙ Aug 10, 2026 ∙ 12:37am The project as proposed is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and does not meet the standard
of peaceful coexistence. However, with the following modifications described
further in the attached file, I would support this project to be approved by City
Council: -Density: Drop # from 18 to 12 -Height: Lower from 35' to 28' -Landscape
buffer between properties: Increase to 15' from 5' -Fence: Solid fence between properties
Sara Hatayama Aug 9, 2026 ∙ 10:16pm I write as the owner of the horse property
immediately adjacent to the East of the property in question. My husband, two
kids and I run our horse business, with 17 horses currently on the property, and a
community of nearly 100 individuals - many of whom live nearby - who find solace in enjoying time with horses. Our barn offers the unique advantage of benefiting
people who live in the metro area easy access the horses. Our barn aims to be a
safe haven and respite from the busy world, making horses accessible to diverse
backgrounds in a multitude of income brackets. Our regular riders range in age from 5 to 80, and we have a large youth program full of kids who just don’t feel
they belong in other places. The proposed rezoning and subsequent development
poses an immediate and imminent threat not only to my livelihood as a horse
facility, but also to the safety of every person who comes to enjoy the horses. For
those who may be unfamiliar with horses, they are 1000lb prey animals with a strong flight-or-fight instinct. When they hear the sudden noise of a vehicle
whizzing by, or see sudden movement, they spin and bolt. When they experience the constant sound of construction equipment, they are put under immense
stress making them kick out and more likely to spook or to fall ill. If a rider is on
the horse’s back during these events, that persons lives are in danger. Falling from
a horse can cause brain damage, broken bones, and set-backs in a person’s
confidence. It is my job as a riding instructor and horse-property owner to do everything I can to mitigate these risks. We require all riders to wear helmets, we
take extreme precautions to ensure our horses are as stress-free as possible, we
ask that drivers entering the property not exceed 5mph, we don’t allow dogs, and
children are required to move slowly and speak softly. ALL of this goes out the
window the moment we have a residential street running right next to our riding arena, as the planned development calls for. The construction process will very
seriously hurt my business. The development architect has had horrible and
dishonest communication with us already, causing sudden changes in schedule
and a loss of income to myself and the other instructors at my facility. I fear our
barn will not be able to survive this huge redevelopment. Or maybe that’s the goal - to push all agriculture out of Wheat Ridge? It seems that way to me and to our
many neighbors who come for barn open houses and movie nights. There
certainly is not a need for more housing with so many new apartment buildings
going in nearby. Rezoning of this property is simply not necessary. Multiple
million-dollar homes can be built for profit without doing so - perhaps with the addition of a park and community space that everyone can enjoy. By changing the
zoning on this property, you are choosing to remove one more piece of what
makes this area so special. Yes, you might miss out on some new tax income, but
I can guarantee that changing from the current agricultural zoning which allows, I
believe 7 homes, to 18 homes which will likely each sell for 1M, does nothing to solve any sort of housing crisis and does nothing to promote housing equity.
Maintaining the agricultural zoning would provide the ability to consider a public
use space - a park with walking paths, for example, since the large recent
development to the South does not have access to a park. In fact, the current
pathway on 52nd which allows so many people to get to a playground, is only in place because our previous property owner gave the land as open space to the
city of Wheat Ridge with the legal promise that it would remain open space and
not be turned into a street. We BEG that if the zoning goes through, there be a
stipulation that a much larger and solid horse-safe wall with a berm-type buffer
goes up BEFORE construction begins. I also plead that we kindly be notified before construction begins, in order to minimize risk for our riders.
Mary Morley Aug 9, 2026 ∙ 7:26pm Hi! I lived in Wheat Ridge for 20 years and I
really like this plan! I live in Littleton now, but I still care about this community
because it is where my parents live and I visit there every week. I think this development is a great way to add beauty to the community both with the
architecture and gardens on the property. I also think the layout for the parking in
the new development is thoughtful and considerate to existing neighbors. This is
what developments in our communities should be like!!
Adam Schneider Aug 9, 2026 ∙ 5:56pm As a resident of the adjacent Rainbow
Ridge neighborhood, I am writing to formally request that City Council reject Case
WZ-24-09 in its current form or require mandatory, enforceable text amendments to the Outline Development Plan (ODP) prior to any approval. The adjacent
residents at Rainbow Ridge and surrounding properties have dutifully and in good
faith participated in this public process for over two years, offering constructive,
thoughtful feedback to improve this development. Unfortunately, these
community concerns and specific suggestions have been completely ignored by both the developer and planning staff. The staff memorandum fails to
acknowledge or address these persistent neighborhood concerns, treating citizen
input as if it did not exist. This total lack of engagement directly undermines the
principle of meaningful public participation in land-use decisions and violates the
spirit of "peaceful coexistence" guaranteed under the Wheat Ridge City Plan. To be completely clear: we are not asking to stop development. We fully understand
that growth is both a reality and progress for Wheat Ridge. I am pro-development,
and our neighborhood is simply asking for true collaboration on what gets
approved so that the project supports genuine coexistence on all sides. It is
beyond disappointing that despite our active participation, the Planning Commission refused to incorporate even a single fundamental safeguard into the
ODP text. Factually, there is not a single three story walk up- home on this side of
52nd Avenue bordering this site. Yet, the ODP permits 35-foot building heights
and three-story profiles (including living-space attic dormers) directly against
established 28-foot maximum, one- and two-story homes. Allowing homes that could max out at roughly 6,000 square feet directly against our property lines
creates a severe bulk and height mismatch. To ensure compatibility under Section
26-303, the perimeter height directly adjacent to established homes must be
strictly capped at 28 feet and 2 stories. Additionally, the proposed perimeter
setbacks and driving lane placement are in stark, unacceptable contrast to the established surrounding neighborhood. Forcing an active vehicular driving lane
onto a narrow outer strip against existing backyards creates continuous noise,
exhaust, and light spillover. The developer could easily adjust internal lot depths
to create a meaningful, proper setback for these outer drive roads without
disrupting the project's financial feasibility. A minimum 15-foot dedicated, landscaped bufferyard completely separate from the driving lane and planted with
dense screening vegetation must be legally required within the ODP text. Finally,
city staff and the developer must stop dismissing our neighborhood's input
simply because Rainbow Ridge sits across the municipal boundary line. While our
subdivision happens to hold an Arvada mailing address due to geographical borders, the reality on the ground is that we are an active, deeply invested part of
Wheat Ridge. Our families participate in Wheat Ridge water and sanitation
districts, contribute to Wheat Ridge parks and recreation facilities, and support
Wheat Ridge local businesses every single day. Simply because this portion of Wheat Ridge is bordered by Arvada on two sides does not give the city or the
applicant a free pass to blatantly disregard compatibility with existing homes. Our
property lines share a direct border with this site, our backyards bear the direct
impacts of this ODP, and our formal comments deserve equal weight and respect
regardless of our zip code. The City Council has a responsibility to ensure that a Planned Residential Development (PRD) delivers a high-quality project that
respects its neighbors, rather than simply maximizing a developer's yield at the neighborhood's expense. I urge City Council to vote NO on Case WZ-24-09 unless
these reasonable height and buffer protections are explicitly codified into the ODP
text.
Melissa Kaltenbach Aug 9, 2026 ∙ 5:31pm As a long-time resident of the Rainbow
Ridge area, this is my first public comment regarding this case. After following the development process and listening to neighboring residents for more than
two years, I respectfully ask the City Council to vote NO on this proposal as
currently designed—or, at minimum, require the outstanding concerns to be
resolved before approval. This is not an argument against growth or development.
It is a request for responsible development that protects existing residents, businesses, public safety, and the character of our community. 1. Traffic and
Road Safety The two proposed entrances appear unusually close together, and
the western entrance does not align with Swadley Street. This raises legitimate
concerns about traffic flow, pedestrian safety, and driver confusion. The
surrounding area already has a history of traffic and safety concerns, including issues near 52nd Avenue and Tabor Street and multiple accidents. The City
should learn from those experiences rather than approve a road configuration
that could create additional problems after construction. Before approving this
project, the Council should require a clear explanation of why this configuration is
necessary, what alternatives were considered, and what engineering analysis demonstrates that it will be safe. 2. Protect the Working Farm and Horses to the
East The property immediately east of the proposed development remains
agricultural and is an active working farm with horses. This is an existing
business—not simply vacant land. The proposed roads and increased traffic will
bring vehicles, noise, and activity much closer to the pasture. Horses can be frightened by sudden noise and traffic, creating potential safety concerns for the
horses, riders, surrounding residents, and drivers if a horse were to escape onto
a roadway. What specific measures will be required to protect this business, the
horses, and the people using the surrounding roads? At a minimum, the developer
should demonstrate how adequate separation, buffering, fencing, and traffic protections will be provided. The continued safe operation of an existing business
deserves meaningful consideration in the City's planning process. 3. Residents
Have Made Specific Requests That Remain Unresolved Residents have
participated in this process for more than two years and have made specific,
reasonable requests. Three important protections have not been incorporated: 1.-28-foot maximum building height to match the existing neighborhood standard;
2.-15-foot minimum landscape buffer to create meaningful separation and move
the active loop road farther from existing property lines; and 3.-mandatory,
developer-funded 7.2-foot privacy fence written directly into the ODP text. These are measurable protections intended to reduce the project's impacts. They do not
prevent development. If the developer or City believes these requests are
unreasonable, residents deserve a substantive explanation as to why. Public
participation should mean more than giving residents an opportunity to speak.
Their concerns should be meaningfully considered and addressed in the final decision. 4. Environmental and Wildlife Concerns This area has historically
included significant open and agricultural land and provides habitat for owls, birds, and other wildlife including bald eagles. Before additional open land is
converted to roads and development, the Council should understand what habitat
will be lost, what wildlife impacts have been evaluated, and what mitigation will
be required. Growth should not mean that existing residents, businesses,
agricultural operations, wildlife, and open space simply absorb the consequences without meaningful consideration. Please Vote No Until These Issues Are
Resolved Once roads are built, homes are constructed, and open space is lost,
these decisions are extremely difficult to reverse. I respectfully ask each Council
member to consider whether this proposal has adequately addressed: -Traffic
and road safety; -Protection of the existing working farm and horses; -The 28-foot building-height request; -The 15-foot landscape buffer; -The developer-funded 7.2-
foot privacy fence; -Neighborhood concerns raised over the past two years; and -
Environmental and wildlife impacts. If these concerns have not been adequately
resolved, the responsible vote is NO—not yet. A vote against this proposal is not
a vote against Wheat Ridge's future. It is a vote for responsible planning, public safety, meaningful public participation, and protection of the residents and
businesses that are already part of this community. Please do not simply
acknowledge these concerns. Require them to be answered and addressed
before approving this development. Thank you for your consideration and for your
service to the Wheat Ridge community. Melissa Kaltenbach Long-Time Rainbow Ridge Area Resident Arvada/Wheat Ridge
Jamie Barrutia Aug 9, 2026 ∙ 2:43pm To the Members of the Wheat Ridge City
Council, Please accept this public comment and the attached photographic
exhibit into the official record for the August 10, 2026 hearing regarding Case No.
WZ-24-09. I respectfully ask Council to vote NO on the current Outline Development Plan (ODP) until fundamental safety, scale, and compatibility
standards are mandated. 1. Constructive Engagement, Not NIMBYism Our
community's opposition is not a case of "NIMBYism"—we recognize that this 4.97-
acre parcel will be developed. Our goal throughout this two-year process has been
to collaborate with the City and the applicant to achieve what staff’s memo promises: a high-quality Planned Residential Development (PRD) that integrates
safely into the neighborhood. Seeking baseline compatibility standards is
standard land-use planning, not opposition to growth. 2. Over Two Years of
Citizen Input Ignored For more than two years, adjacent residents have
participated in good faith, offering concrete suggestions regarding height transitions, landscape buffers, and road alignments. Regrettably, neither staff nor
the applicant has incorporated or acknowledged a single piece of neighborhood
feedback in the official record. Disregarding community input entirely defeats the
purpose of the public planning process. 3. Severe Height & Massing Incompatibility (35' vs. 28') The proposed 35-foot maximum building height is
incompatible with the surrounding context. The established neighborhood
directly to the west operates under a strict 28-foot height limit. Allowing a 35-foot
limit—combined with a 2,000 sq. ft. building footprint and flat-roof architectural
designs—yields massive structures up to ~6,000 square feet. As shown in the attached Exhibit, placing 3-story box structures directly behind 1- and 2-story
homes creates an abrupt, towering visual wall right along our border, clashing directly with adjacent homes in both Rainbow Ridge and Haskins Station. The
2025 City Plan specifically mandates "Peaceful Coexistence" for transitional sites;
granting a 35-foot height allowance fails that standard. 4. Documented Traffic
Hazards & Unaligned Access Points The proposed ODP layout places two entry
drives in close proximity, with an unaligned west entrance at Swadley Street that creates an unsafe intersection on a corridor with no sidewalks. As documented
in Section 1 of attached Exhibit A, our immediate neighborhood has already
suffered extensive property damage—including run-over medians, struck light
poles, destroyed landscape boulders, crushed park benches, and damaged
retaining walls—due to increased traffic flow from recent area development. Approving an unaligned, high-density access loop directly compounds these
existing safety hazards. 5. Site Management & Code Compliance History Under
PRD evaluation criteria, Council must consider whether a development promotes
the public health, safety, and general welfare. As documented in Section 2 of
attached Exhibit A, the current property owners and proposed developers of this land have demonstrated a concerning lack of land stewardship over the past two
years they have owned. So much so, the site has required City of Wheat Ridge
Code Enforcement intervention and abatement for blight, refuse accumulation,
uninhabitable structures, and hazardous unpermitted electrical wires running
across open ground, etc. Granting customized PRD zoning flexibilities without strict, enforceable site conditions is unwise given this compliance track record.
Please exercise your legislative authority tonight. We ask that Council vote NO on
this ODP unless and until the building height is capped at 28 feet, access
alignments are corrected, and true buffering standards are secured for our
neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, Jamie Barrutia
Geoffrey Burg Aug 9, 2026 ∙ 2:41pm Concerns about the Traffic and Road Entry
Alignment: • The two access points created by the loop road are dangerous. They
add two “T” intersections with blind corners where they aren’t necessary. Exiting
the driveway at 5190 Swadley Street and 5185 Simms Place onto 52nd Avenue
would be especially dangerous. Between Tabor Street and Simms Place, 52nd Avenue would have 3 access points on the north side and 4 access points on the
south side – far too many for such a short distance! • 52nd Avenue as well as the
new loop roads shown in the developer’s submittal are not full size residential
streets. This will cause problems with truck accessibility (construction trucks,
moving trucks, utility trucks, fire trucks, etc.) • We already have a history of property damage issues from truck inability to navigate turns from and to 52nd
Avenue. The addition of two additional “T” intersections in this neighborhood
would only make this situation worse. • The original plan presented had Swadley
Street extended up the middle of the development on a full sized residential street with a cul-de-sac. This is the safest alternative for adding new 52nd Avenue
access to the new development. • The loop road is not required by any service
provider (water, fire, Xcel). It’s the choice of the developer in response to concerns
by Rainbow Ridge. Don’t force the residents of the area to live with bad
intersection designs that are not really required by the utilities. • Rainbow Ridge expressed the concerns that led to the creation of the loop road to gain separation
from the new houses along their back lot lines. These same people are now asking the loop road to be removed from the plan. Please consider the wishes of
the neighborhood.
Connie Burg Aug 9, 2026 ∙ 2:40pm Concerns about the Traffic and Road Entry
Alignment: • The two access points created by the loop road are dangerous. They
add two “T” intersections with blind corners where they aren’t necessary. Exiting the driveway at 5190 Swadley St would be especially dangerous. Between Tabor
St and Simms Pl, there 52nd Ave will have 3 access points on the north side and
4 access points on the south side – far too many for such a short distance! • The
traffic study completed in this area in 2025 should be reviewed – excess speeds
on 52nd are a problem and adding more intersections create a safety hazard for residents. • The loop road is not required by any service provider (water, fire, Xcel).
It’s the choice of the developer in response to concerns by Rainbow Ridge. Don’t
force the residents of the area to live with a bad design that’s not required. • The
original plan presented had Swadley Street extended up the middle of the
development and new home foundations 10 feet off the fence line of the Rainbow Ridge homes. • Rainbow Ridge expressed the concerns that led to the creation of
the loop road. These same people are now asking the loop road to be removed
from the plan. Please consider the wishes of the neighborhood. • If arriving at an
acceptable design means the development won’t be profitable for the developer,
maybe this isn’t the right location for this developer to pursue. • When Arvada was developing Haskins Station, the owner of the horse property requested single
story homes be built adjacent to her property and the developer agreed. • It’s time
for this Wheat Ridge development to reciprocate and build single story homes
with full basements adjacent to Rainbow Ridge. • We have heard that the water
table is too high on this property to accommodate basements. If it’s ok to have basements east of the horse property, it should be ok to have basements west of
the horse property. • The City of Wheat Ridge should request to see the
engineering study that shows the water table is too high for basements and not
just accept the word of the developer/architect who has proved to be less than
trustworthy throughout this process. • Please help us maintain the quaint nature of our little corner of the world and not allow monstrosities to be built on this
property.
Ross and Marie Fellenstein Aug 9, 2026 ∙ 1:49pm We are writing to urge you to
deny the re-zoning request of 5225 Swadley Street from Agricultural-Two (A-2) to
Planned Residential Development (PRD). The developer is requesting a 35-foot height for their proposed houses. This is incompatible with the 28-foot height
limitation for surrounding neighborhood homes, many of which are only single
story. This proposal directly violates the newly adopted Wheat Ridge City Plan by
failing to provide height compatibility between surrounding established neighborhoods and this dense proposed development. Additionally, the proposed
race-track style loop is incompatible with the surrounding, existing street design.
It does not adhere to the Wheat Ridge Code Enforcement Sec. 26-412, C-1 which
states: “The proposed street layout shall provide for the continuation of existing,
planned or platted streets in the surrounding area…all public streets shall be designed and constructed according to the city's current design.” The proposed
race-track loop would border neighborhoods to the west and north as well as Hidden Lane Stables (a Wheat Ridge business which provides horse boarding,
training and riding lessons) to the east. The street design is wholly incompatible
to both. Obviously, the location and nature of the proposed race-track loop would
unreasonably disturb the comfort, peace, and health of those in the surrounding
areas (see Chapter 15 of the Wheat Ridge Nuisance Code). Lack of a Traffic Impact Study is an additional concern. The applicant is required to submit a
Traffic Impact Study when a new development is anticipated to generate 60 or
more trips daily. No impact study has been completed and/or communicated to
us. According to data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a typical
single-family household averages approximately five to six vehicle trips per day. Based on this statistic, the proposed development is projected to generate more
than 60 trips daily affirming the requirement of a Traffic Impact Study. Due to
reasons stated above, we urge the Wheat Ridge City Council to deny the rezoning
request for the property located at 5225 Swadley Street in Wheat Ridge (Case WZ-
24-09). Thank you, Ross and Marie Fellenstein
Stan Armstrong Aug 9, 2026 ∙ 11:05am TO WHEAT RIDGE CITY COUNCIL: My
husband, Stan Armstrong, and I have lived in Rainbow Ridge since it was first
developed. Our address is 5290 Tabor Street. We are original owners in the
neighborhood, having moved into our home in December, 1978. During the last
forty-eight years of living in this corner of Arvada, we have seen many changes, such as the llama field being turned into townhomes, Tabor Street south of 52nd
having bumper to bumper vehicles parked along the east and west sides of the
street, and traffic along Ward Road to be at capacity during busy times of the day.
While we have always expected development to occur in the fields behind us, we
have also always hoped it would be a development consistent with the surrounding area. The development plans that we have been given are not
consistent with the surrounding area. These plans indicate that the homes will be
three stories high and there will be an alley/private drive directly behind our fence
along our backyard where trash trucks, delivery trucks, mail trucks, etc. will be
driving directly along our fence and removing the quiet enjoyment the houses along Tabor Street have enjoyed for decades. There appears to be no provision
for extra parking in the development, which will undoubtedly require vehicles to
be parked against the fences along the back of the Tabor Street houses, or lined
up along the front of the Tabor Street houses north of 52nd like they are lined up
along Tabor Street south of 52nd. We request that the Wheat Ridge City Council deny the application until the developer will reduce the height of the structures to
28 feet, provide a landscaped buffer around the perimeter of the development and
provide the required fencing. The thought of losing the quiet peacefulness that
we have enjoyed for so many years is very sad to us. While the proposed development will impact the houses along Tabor Street and W. 53rd Place the
most, it will have an impact on the entire Rainbow Ridge neighborhood, as well as
the Wheat Ridge neighborhood south of 52nd on Simms and Swadley. Please be
very mindful of the impact this requested development will have on the
surrounding areas and we request that you deny the plans in their current form. Thank you. Bette Bushell
Julie and Jared Hill Aug 9, 2026 ∙ 8:40am We are Jared and Julie Hill, and we live at 5240 Tabor Street. Our property directly borders this proposed development.
While we have previously left comments with the Planning Commission, we
wanted to list a few items that should be strongly considered in making a decision
about this proposed development. We had planned on attending the hearing but
will be out of town. Although we have other issues with the proposed development, the major issues are as follows: 1) Traffic / Parking for Guests /
Overflow / 2nd Vehicles: The two proposed entrances to the development are too
close to each other and create potential traffic issues. 52nd and Tabor is already
a scary intersection that has had many issues as cars constantly run that stop
sign. Multiple trucks have had accidents at this intersection by hitting Tabor median/barrier. The new development would not only increase traffic, but the
PRD-ODP provides no extra parking on site for the homes proposed. This needs
to be required of them because of the impacts of extra vehicle parking on
adjacent streets- especially at W 52nd and Tabor which will be a problem for the
entire neighborhood. Additionally, this area already has a lot of pedestrians/dogs and foot traffic (school kids walking to and from the bus stop), without sidewalks.
An additional development would just increase traffic and cause additional safety
risks for this area. – especially as there isn’t any way to expand the roads or add
sidewalks. 2) Architectural Character and Style / Building Height not Compatible:
The architectural drawings show that the homes will be modern styled, 3-story walk-ups which is a home style that is completely incompatible with the
immediate neighborhood - which is a mix of ranch style and 2-story traditionally
designed suburban homes. Additionally, the 35' proposed height vs. 28' height is
a very important issue, and if the 35' limit is approved and built, it will only
exacerbate the difference in height of the buildings to the west and south of the project. Additionally, with an allowed footprint of 2,000 square feet and a flat-roof
building, the size of the houses could max out at around 6,000 SF, which is
completely incompatible with all surrounding houses, including those at Haskins.
3) Fire Department Access Approval: We have yet to see any proof of access by
the local fire district in the proposal for the citizens to review. Adding this new development, without proof that there is enough accessible water for
emergencies, is an important issue to consider. Without this, we feel that puts
existing neighborhoods at risk.
Jill Fricker Aug 8, 2026 ∙ 6:58pm I’m writing to oppose the rezoning at 5225
Swadley St (Case WZ-24-09). My concern is simple: the scale doesn’t fit. A 35-foot height limit next to existing 28-foot homes, with reduced setbacks and
footprints that could reach 6,000 square feet, is not compatible with the ranch
and two-story homes surrounding this site. Neighbors have participated in this
process for more than two years and offered constructive suggestions, yet the staff report doesn’t acknowledge any of it. A rezoning that ignores the people
most affected, and sets a precedent for every remaining open parcel around us,
shouldn’t move forward as written. I ask Council to vote no.
Karen Baer Aug 8, 2026 ∙ 4:07pm I am a neighbor to this proposed development,
living in Rainbow Ridge which abuts the property under requested rezoning.
Please say no to this request. 35ft height allowance and significantly smaller lots
are NOT in keeping with the existing surrounding residential buildings and will allow these new neighbors to “peep “ into nearby backyards. Yuck! And the plan
to place roads right next to developed backyards is completely irrational and
disruptive to those who’ve owned their homes for decades with a quiet backyard.
This will clearly drop home values for them and for all of us in our community. No
developer has the right to come in and change the usefulness of existing homeowners’ property and make their property less valuable.
Garry Duncan Aug 8, 2026 ∙ 4:01pm I am writing as a resident of Rainbow Ridge
to oppose the rezoning of 5225 Swadley Street, case WZ-24-09 for the following
reasons: Wheatridge states on the Executive summary page that the city’s goal is
“peaceful coexistence with existing neighborhoods” and that the city “wants to see improvements between buildings and the curb and enhance the experience
in public places”. This proposal does neither. It is not compatible with existing
areas including Rainbow Ridge and Haskins. Wheatridge promised traffic
improvements after Parallel development but Tabor Street between 52nd and
44th remains rough and reminiscent of a 4-wheel road as does parts of Ridge Road. The promise is not fulfilled. This development will only worsen existing
conditions. Light rail is a failed promise and RTD’s own numbers show the Gold
line has declined usage last reporting year over the previous year. No wonder.
Does it take residents to shopping areas, grocery stores, medical centers or
places of work other than downtown? Stop buying into the transit area density nonsense. What open space or park areas does Wheatridge have north of I-70?
None I am aware of despite increased density building. Increased density lowers
property values, lowers quality of life and has been shown to increase depression
and crime. The height proposal of this zoning is not compatible. Thirty-five-foot
heights at the buffer level proposed will dramatically reduce morning sunlight on adjacent homes. Similar light studies document this. Please reduce this proposed
height. The fastest growing segment of the population are seniors, many
candidates for co-housing. Stairs are a danger and not compatible with their
needs. Additionally, the buffer zone is not compatible or realistic. This is a
suburban community, not an urban city development. No one should be required to live between two streets with car lights, noise, horns etc. Cohousing has it
disadvantages for its residents too beyond monetary issues, cohousing can also
be invasive and restrictive in regards to privacy and individualism. Each other’s
lives, private news and gossip can become common knowledge. Also, without
fences it is difficult to determine where one member’s property begins and ends, and property appearance, must be agreed upon by the entire community in many
cases. Many issues prove to be troublesome because storage and garage space
are often either minimal or nonexistent. Please decline this rezoning and protect
nearby existing Wheatridge residents and those adjacent in Rainbow Ridge and Haskins. We all visit Wheatridge merchants and restaurants, and ask for
protection of our property value and quality of life.
Harry Shriver Aug 8, 2026 ∙ 10:02am Harry Shriver & Irene Drabek, 5230 Tabor St.
As an over 35 year resident, I strongly recommend that the City of Wheat Ridge
vote NO on the 5225 Swadley St rezoning Case No WZ-24-09. The proposed plan
is not consistent with promoting the Health, Safety and Welfare of the citizens of
the existing neighborhoods and does not ensure quality development of the area. The proposed building height of 35 ft rather than 28 ft is not consistent with the
bordering properties. The proposed 3 story walk up designs are not consistent
with the adjacent properties. The minimum set back of roads and buildings is not
consistent with the existing neighborhoods and good practices. All of these
negative factors are detrimental to the quality of the existing and proposed homes and neighborhoods.
Danielle Dunn Aug 6, 2026 ∙ 9:25pm My name is Danielle Dunn. My property at
5310 Tabor Street in Arvada directly borders this development. My detailed
comments are in the Planning Commission record. These are the arguments I
believe deserve the council's closest attention. THE CHERRY-PICKING PROBLEM No Wheat Ridge zone district permits 5,000 sq ft lots combined with 35ft height
limits for detached single-family homes — each of which may also include an
accessory dwelling unit. The developer cherry-picked the most aggressive
standards from across the zoning code to create a combination that doesn't exist
anywhere in the surrounding area. The nearby Haskins Station development demonstrates compatible transitions are achievable — single-story homes were
built along the boundary with established neighborhoods. That precedent exists
right down the street. This developer chose not to follow it. That is a choice, not
a constraint. The 2025 City Plan designates this as a Transitional Area under
Special Case #3 requiring peaceful coexistence. This proposal doesn't meet that standard. THE DENSITY COMPARISON IS MISLEADING The density analysis
compared the development's density at a site level — averaging units across
roads and open space — against Rainbow Ridge's parcel-level standard. No
standard zoning comparison works this way. If site-level methodology applies to
the proposed development, it must also apply to Rainbow Ridge — including its roads and open space. That comparison was never made. A true lot-to-lot
comparison shows lots one third smaller and homes 25% taller. That is the
comparison that matters. THE LOOPED ROAD IS A DENSITY CHOICE The
Planning Commission accepted the looped road as a utility requirement. What
was not addressed is why — because the developer maximized 18 homes on a constrained site instead of reducing density to allow a simpler road design. The
racetrack-style perimeter loop is a consequence of that density decision, not an
unavoidable site constraint. THE "39 FEET OF SEPARATION" CLAIM IS
MISLEADING The applicant claimed 39 feet of separation between the property
line and the nearest structure. Those 39 feet contain 5ft of shrubs, a 24ft active private road, a sidewalk, and a building setback. The actual vegetated separation
is 5 feet. Vegetation absorbs sound, blocks light, and provides visual screening.
A road does the opposite — it reflects sound, amplifies light, and generates the
noise and activity that buffering is meant to protect against. The City Plan calls for trees and landscaping to achieve peaceful coexistence. Five feet of shrubs
next to an active road does not meet that standard. A road is not a buffer. A road
is what you buffer from. THE ROAD THREATENS EXISTING MATURE TREES The
mature trees on Rainbow Ridge properties are the only meaningful screening
along this boundary. Their root systems extend beyond the property line into the construction zone. According to Colorado State University Extension, soil
compaction from construction traffic can cause tree death — with decline appearing gradually over years. Once lost, these trees cannot be replaced. Council
should require an independent arborist assessment before approving zoning that
could permanently destroy what took decades to grow. REDUCING THE NUMBER
IS NOT THE SAME AS MEETING THE STANDARD The Planning Commission was
persuaded that reducing from approximately 40 units to 18 demonstrated good faith. Council should not accept that framing. Starting with an inflated number
and reducing it is a negotiating tactic — not responsiveness. The neighborhood's
concerns about height and density were never resolved. The developer made
surface-level adjustments to create the appearance of engagement while leaving
the core incompatibilities intact. The homes are 35ft tall — 25% taller than the surrounding neighborhood — on 5,000 sq ft lots, one third smaller than Rainbow
Ridge. This is the appearance of responsiveness, not the substance of it. Council
should not be satisfied with one without the other. THE COMMUNITY HAS
SPOKEN CLEARLY This proposal has been actively opposed for over two years.
Over 50 formal opposition comments were submitted. A validated rezoning protest was triggered. Not a single community member has come forward in
support — only the developer. City Council members are elected to represent their
constituents. The people most directly impacted by this decision have spoken
consistently and clearly. That is not something council should dismiss. 18 homes
will not meaningfully address Wheat Ridge's housing needs. But they will permanently degrade the quality of life of the residents who border this site. The
zoning decision made tonight stays with this land forever. The bar for approval
has not been met. Vote no.
Lauren Dauer Aug 6, 2026 ∙ 9:09pm As a local Rainbow Ridge resident, I am now
commenting on this subject for the first time as this greatly impacts our long time Arvada community and residents. Seeing the proposed redevelopment of the area
brings up significant concerns for our household. The most significant concern is
safety around increased traffic and lack of public concern around speed and
inadequate proposed parking. Over the last 5 years we have seen a significant
increase in speed and careless drivers in our neighborhood. Raising two children on Tabor St we are very concerned for our children’s safety on and near the roads.
The proposed development will only increase traffic and safety concerns with
individuals using our neighborhood as a cut through to 52nd and Ward. Parking
is always a premium and this new redevelopment will be no different. If approved
the parking needs to be re-reviewed and updated to account for additional parking spots. Increased traffic and lack of parking does not mix well with a long
established community with many active young children playing in the
neighborhood. I would also like to state that I do not agree with the design of the
proposed development. The modern/cookie cutter drab design will only take away from our custom built homes and charming neighborhood. It leaves our
neighbors with nothing appealing to marvel at and takes away from the Arvada
charm we moved here for. I understand development is in our future, but please
reconsider the overall design and proposed parking structure and safety impacts
this will have on our well established rainbow ridge community. Thank you!
Patty Davis August 10, 2026, 12:51:43 Good afternoon, This is my first time
contacting city officials regarding an area of concern in our neighborhood. I am writing specifically about the proposed development for Case WZ-24-09 —
Wheat Ridge Station Village at 5225 Swadley Street. Our single-story ranch
home, 5210 Tabor Street, directly borders the proposed Wheat Ridge Station
Village development. Although our ZIP code places us within the City of Arvada,
our water services, recreation, and community involvement are closely connected to the City of Wheat Ridge. Over the past six years, more than 657
homes and residential units have been built within a two-mile radius of Rainbow
Ridge in both Arvada and Wheat Ridge. We strongly oppose the current
development plan because we do not believe it adequately protects the health,
safety, privacy, and quality of life of existing neighboring residents. The location and design of the proposed loop road would unreasonably affect the comfort,
peace, and safety of surrounding properties. Most concerning, the west loop
entrance would be directly behind our bedroom, effectively creating a third street
immediately surrounding our home. Our immediate neighborhood has already
experienced extensive property damage associated with increased traffic from recent area development, including run-over medians, struck light poles,
destroyed landscape boulders, crushed park benches, and damaged retaining
walls. Approving an unaligned, highdensity access loop would compound these
existing traffic and safety concerns. The school bus stop is at 52nd and Swadley
where the kids congregate to wait for the bus. The safety concerns with the increase in traffic on our small residential roads are significant. Additionally, the
loop road does not appear to be required by any service provider, including
water, fire, or Xcel Energy. The proposed five-foot buffer adjacent to the loop
road also does not appear sufficient to protect the longevity of the mature trees
and established landscaping along the development's border. For more than two years, adjacent residents have participated in discussions regarding this
development in good faith. We have offered concrete suggestions concerning
height transitions, landscape buffers, and road alignment. Unfortunately, our
concerns and recommendations do not appear to have been incorporated into
the official record. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the proposal not be approved in its current form. At a minimum, the City should require
enforceable conditions addressing the project's impacts on traffic and
pedestrian safety, privacy, sunlight, noise, nighttime glare, and the peaceful use
of existing residential properties. At a minimum, approval should include: A
maximum building height of 28 feet; A 15-foot landscaped perimeter buffer; Substantial privacy fencing along the residential boundary; Upper-floor setbacks
and appropriate screening; Strict lighting and nighttime glare controls; and
Completion and public review of the required traffic, sight-distance, shadow, and
photometric analyses. Ideally, the development would utilize the existing Swadley Street access rather than introduce the proposed loop road, while
incorporating the other protections and conditions outlined above. We
respectfully ask the City to carefully consider the direct and cumulative impacts
this project will have on the existing residents who live immediately adjacent to
the proposed development. We appreciate your time, consideration, and attention to the concerns of the surrounding community. We ask that Council
vote NO on this ODP unless the above-mentioned conditions are included.
Matthew Dunn August 10, 2026, 10:24:59 am Dear Wheat Ridge City Council
Members, My name is Matthew Dunn, and I live at 5310 Tabor Street in Arvada.
My property directly borders the proposed development at 5225 Swadley Street
(Case WZ-24-09). I am writing to express my opposition to the current proposal.
My primary concern is the inclusion of 35-foot, three-story homes along the existing neighborhood boundary. These homes are not compatible with the
surrounding community and would directly overlook neighboring backyards,
creating significant privacy concerns. Similar developments, such as Haskins
Station, used single-story homes as a transition buffer between existing
neighborhoods and taller homes. The developer has had opportunities to make similar adjustments here but has chosen not to do so. I am also concerned about
the proposed loop road and the lack of a meaningful buffer between the
development and existing homes. The current plan appears to count the road as
part of the buffer, but a road does not reduce noise and light pollution. Instead, it
introduces additional traffic, noise, light pollution, and two new intersections in an area that already experiences traffic safety issues. The road primarily appears
designed to maximize the number of homes rather than benefit the surrounding
community. Finally, I question the community need for this specific plan. The
significant public opposition, including the petition that triggered the
supermajority requirement, demonstrates that many residents believe the proposal prioritizes developer profitability over neighborhood compatibility. To be
clear, my neighbors and I are not opposed to development of this property. We
recognize that growth is inevitable and we support responsible development.
However, the current proposal does not provide an appropriate transition between
the new development and existing neighborhoods. Meeting the minimum requirements of the PRD does not necessarily create a plan that is compatible
with or respectful of the surrounding community. I respectfully ask that the City
Council reject the current proposal and encourage a revised plan that better
addresses neighborhood compatibility, privacy, traffic impacts, and meaningful
buffering. Thank you for your consideration.
CONSENT AGENDA
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING
1. Council Bill No. 15-2026
Title: An ordinance approving the 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
Issue: The applicant is requesting 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. A legal
protest has been submitted and verified, so the zone change will require at
least six affirmative votes by City Council for approval at second reading.
Councilmember Okada read the Title and Issue into the record.
Mayor Stites opened the public hearing
Public Comment:
Ascenzo DiGiacomo - addressed the council in a professional capacity,
expressing confidence that at least three council members would vote to deny
the application. He raised a specific planning objection: the proposed north-
south lot orientation results in front setbacks running along the north or south
sides of each lot, which he argued is incongruous with standard planning
practice and potentially inconsistent with the city's land use code definition of
a front setback, presenting a basis for legal challenge.
Janeece Barutia - introduced the collective neighborhood presentation, clarifying that
residents were not opposed to development in principle, but that two years of
engagement had not resulted in any meaningful incorporation of their feedback. She
raised concerns about height compatibility with the adjacent 28-foot Arvada
neighborhood, the inadequacy of a 5-foot landscape buffer, and the alignment and
safety of the two proposed access drives relative to Swadley Street.
Greg Hatayama - expressed nervousness but appreciated the forum. He
raised concerns about the long-term impact of the loop road's proximity to
existing mature trees, noting that root systems can extend as far underground
as the visible canopy, and asked council to request a cross-section diagram
before making a decision.
Patty Davies - described existing traffic and property damage in the
neighborhood resulting from recent nearby development. She challenged the
stated need for the loop road, citing confirmation from the fire marshal that it
was not required for fire service. She raised concerns about the concentration
of five tight intersections within a two-block area and the proximity to a school
bus stop at 52nd and Swadley, and requested a denial or conditions including
a traditional access road and reduced density of 5 to 8 homes.
Andre Barrutia - focused on parking, noting that the ODP did not identify a
specific number or location for guest parking spaces. He pointed out that
under city code, if on-street parking is unavailable, up to four spaces per
dwelling are required—meaning the difference between 36 and 72 required
spaces for 18 homes—and that unresolved parking demand would spill onto
adjacent streets.
John Wabiszczewicz (Arvada, working in Wheat Ridge) submitted a written
analysis comparing densities and argued that the proposed 3.62 DU/acre,
while lower in gross terms, represents approximately 48.5% higher density
than Rainbow Ridge when open space and roads are accounted for
comparably. He objected to the 35-foot height limit given that surrounding
homes are visibly much lower, and requested conditions including a 15-foot
landscape buffer, a solid fence, and a reduced height limit of 28 feet.
Olivia Oliver - drew the council's attention to the applicant's own website,
which she had printed and submitted to the clerk. She noted that the website
described amenities including a ballet studio, farm school, coffee shop,
skating rink, riding arena, barn dances, corn maze, bathing pool, and frog
pond—uses she argued were either not permitted under the ODP or had never
been analyzed. She questioned whether the traffic study, which found fewer
than 20 peak-hour trips, could be valid if even one ballet class letting out
would exceed that number.
Danielle Dunn - challenged the compatibility of the proposal with surrounding
land uses, noting that 5,000-square-foot lots with 40% coverage at three
stories could yield structures twice the footprint of neighboring homes. She
cited elevation data contradicting claims that grading would reduce height
impacts, and pointed to adjacent Haskin Station development—where homes
are one story—as an example of what peaceful coexistence actually looks like
in practice.
Patient Stevens - spoke on behalf of the equestrian community at Hidden
Lane Stables, arguing that rezoning from agricultural to residential is
inherently contrary to equestrian safety. She requested a minimum 15-foot
landscape buffer and a solid fence of at least 8 feet along the outdoor riding
arena, noting that a horse's head height alone exceeds 5.5 feet and that
unpredictable traffic and construction noise are known spooking hazards.
Matthew Dunn - noted that despite nearly 70 formal comments in opposition
and a valid rezoning protest, not a single current neighborhood resident had
spoken in support of the proposal. He argued that the developer had not made
meaningful changes to address neighborhood concerns, and that the
community need for additional housing had already been addressed by nearby
developments.
Sarah Hatayama - described the barn's over 100 regular riders, ages 5 through
80, and the safety risks posed by the proximity of the loop road to the horse
facility. She noted that horses routinely spook at unpredictable stimuli such as
garbage trucks, and that constant, close traffic from a loop drive would be
incompatible with safe equestrian operations. She also pointed out that up to
seven houses could be built on the property under existing A-2 zoning without
any rezoning.
Joy Henderson - raised concerns about the financial impact on neighboring
properties from loss of mature trees, citing USDA Forest Service research on
tree value. She argued that 5 feet is insufficient for canopy tree establishment
and that soil compaction from road construction—particularly in clay soils—
can damage tree roots in ways not visible for years.
Ross Fellenstein - emphasized that the neighborhood was not anti-
development, but objected specifically to the loop road design, which he
characterized as motivated by maximizing housing density rather than
neighborhood compatibility. He argued the road design failed to comply with
code provisions requiring proposed street layouts to continue existing
patterns.
Stan Armstrong submitted written comments and waived his speaking time.
Gary Duncan - described a professional light study conducted for a similar
development behind his property, which found up to 42 hours of lost sunlight
per month for adjacent neighbors due to 35-foot structures. He requested that
a light study be conducted before any approval with a 35-foot limit. He also
raised concerns about increased pedestrian traffic on streets without
sidewalks, and noted that light rail ridership data shows RTD has not
materially reduced vehicle traffic in the area.
Ascenzo DiGiacomo - addressed the council in a professional capacity,
expressing confidence that at least three council members would vote to deny
the application. He raised a specific planning objection: the proposed north-
south lot orientation results in front setbacks running along the north or south
sides of each lot, which he argued is incongruous with standard planning
practice and potentially inconsistent with the city's land use code definition of
a front setback, presenting a basis for legal challenge.
Moved by Councilmembers Okada
Motion: I move to a recommended approval of case number WZ-24-9 a
request for approval for zone change from agricultural 2 to plan residential
development with an outlined development plan to facilitate the development
of up to 18 single dwelling 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
planned development compatible with surrounding land uses and will result in
a high quality development. 4, the infrastructure in the area can support the
development. And 5, the criteria used to evaluate a zone change supports the
request with the following conditions: reducing the height of 35 feet to 28 feet,
requiring a fence of 8 feet tall on the east side of development, and a 15 foot
landscape buffer around the west, north, and east perimeter.
Motion seconded by Councilmember Martell
Discussion: During discussion, Councilmembers expressed reservations about
overriding the charter's 35-foot standard but indicated willingness to compromise at
28 feet in the interest of neighborhood relations. Council Members expressed
support for the 8-foot fence on the east side and varying positions on the buffer, with
Mayor Pro Tem Hultin proposing to reduce the landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10
feet, citing the importance of preserving the interior communal open space.
Motion to Amend by Mayor Pro Tem Hultin: I would like to amend the
conditions to be an 8 foot fence along the eastern portion of the property, I
would like to amend the buffer from 15 to 10 feet, and keep the 28 foot
proposed height limit.
Motion seconded by Councilmember Martell
Vote: 7-1, Larson Nay, Motion Carried,
Main Motion by Okada as Amended: I move to approve case number WZ-24-9,
a request for approval for zone change from agricultural 2 to plan residential
development with an outlined development plan to facilitate the development
of up to 18 single dwelling 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
planned development compatible with surrounding land uses and will result in
a high quality development. 4, the infrastructure in the area can support the
development. And 5, the criteria used to evaluate a zone change supports the
request with the following conditions: reducing the height of 35 feet to 28 feet,
requiring a fence of 8 feet tall on the east side of development, and a 10 foot
landscape buffer around the west, north, and east perimeter.
Vote: 7-1, Larson Nay, Motion Carried
Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Hultin
Motion: Motion to reconsider council vote on last action taken, at the request of
Councilmember Larson.
Motion seconded by Councilmember Ohm
Vote: 8-0, Motion Carried
Moved by Councilmember Okada
Main Motion as Amended, Upon Reconsideration: I move to approve case
number WZ-24-9, a request for approval for zone change from agricultural 2 to
plan residential development with an outlined development plan to facilitate
the development of up to 18 single dwelling 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 planned development compatible with
surrounding land uses and will result in a high quality development. 4, the
infrastructure in the area can support the development. And 5, the criteria
used to evaluate a zone change supports the request with the following
conditions: reducing the height of 35 feet to 28 feet, requiring a fence of 8 feet
tall on the east side of development, and a 10 foot landscape buffer around
the west, north, and east perimeter.
Motion seconded by Councilmember Martell
Vote: 8-0, Motion Carried
ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING
2. Council Bill No. 16-2026
Title: An ordinance giving notice of and calling a special election to be held on
November 3, 2026, and submitting a ballot question concerning an increase in
the City sales and use tax of one percent for community capital
improvements.
Issue: City Council is asked to consider an ordinance calling a coordinated
election on November 3, 2026, and submitting to the registered electors of the
City of Wheat Ridge a ballot question authorizing a one percent (1.0%) sales
and use tax dedicated to funding voter-approved capital improvements.
Councilmember Wood read the Title and Issue into the record.
Moved and Seconded by Councilmembers Wood and Snell
Motion: I move to approve council bill number 16-2026, an ordinance giving
notice of and calling a special election to be held on November 3rd 2026, and
submitting a ballot question concerning an increase in the city sales and use
tax of 1% percent for community capital improvements.
Vote:8-0, Motion Carried
DECISIONS, RESOLUTIONS, AND MOTIONS
3. Resolution No. 35-2026
Title: a resolution amending the 2026 Fiscal Year Housing Fund budget to
reflect the approval of a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of
$2.64 million and approving a grant agreement with the Colorado Energy
Office
Issue: The City of Wheat Ridge was awarded $2.64 million from the Colorado
Energy Office Local IMPACT Accelerator Grant Program. The funding will
support several housing-related code
amendments and will provide financial assistance to certain affordable
housing projects. The city must approve a grant agreement to receive the funds. A
supplemental budget appropriation is also required to appropriate the funds in
the 2026 Housing Fund budget.
Mayor ProTem Hultin read the Title and Issue into the record.
Moved and Seconded by Mayor ProTem Hultin and Councilmember Ohm
Motion: I move to approve resolution number 35-2026, a resolution amending
the 2026 Fiscal Year Housing Fund budget to reflect the approval of a
supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of $2.64 million and
approving a grant agreement with the Colorado Energy Office
Discussion: Senior Housing Planner Shannon presented, noting that the city
was awarded $2,640,000 through the Colorado Energy Office Local Impact
Accelerator Grant Program. The funds will support housing-related code
amendments and provide financial assistance to certain affordable housing
projects. Approval of the resolution is required to execute the grant
agreement.
Council Member Quinn asked about the proposed creation of an R-4 zone
district. Staff and the Community Development Director explained that the
current residential base zoning stops at R-3 (12 DU/acre), creating a large gap
before the PRD maximum of 21 DU/acre. An R-4 district is intended to create
a townhome-oriented zone district aligned with market demand along
corridors such as 38th and 44th Avenues.
Council Member Larson asked about the reference to removing zoning
barriers near Main Street and commercial corridors. Staff explained that a
consultant would conduct a comprehensive zoning code audit to identify
requirements that may be inhibiting desired investment, drawing on lessons
from development inquiries that ultimately did not proceed.
Vote: 8-0, Motion Carried
4. Resolution No. 36-2026
Title: A resolution approving an Intergovernmental Agreement for Election
Coordination with the Clerk and Recorder for the County of Jefferson, State of
Colorado for participation in the November 3, 2026 General Election
Issue: This resolution authorizes the City of Wheat Ridge to participate in the
Jefferson County General Election on November 3, 2026, and authorizes
the appropriate City officials to execute an intergovernmental agreement with
Jefferson County for election services. The City intends to submit a ballot issue
or question to its eligible electors and will comply with applicable
state election and TABOR notice requirements. The resolution
also designates the Senior Deputy City Clerk as the City’s Election Officer and
Designated Election Official.
Councilmember Martell read the Title and Issue into the record.
Moved and seconded by Councilmembers Martell and Okada
Motion: I move to approve resolution number 36-2026, a resolution approving an
intergovernmental agreement for election coordination with the clerk and
recorder for the county of Jefferson, state of Colorado for participation in the
November 3rd 2026 general election.
Discussion: Mayor Pro Tem Hultin expressed appreciation for the state of Colorado's
management of election integrity, noting that voting is state-regulated and administered
by counties, and commended Jefferson County as a trustworthy partner.
Vote: 8-0, Motion Carried
5. Title: Agreement for Use of Transit-Oriented Communities Infrastructure grant funds
between the City and Foothills Regional Housing
Issue: The City of Wheat Ridge was awarded $4.5 million from the Colorado
Department of Local Affairs’ Transit-Oriented Communities
Infrastructure (TOCI) grant program to fund public infrastructure for Foothill
Regional Housing’s Ridge Road Master Plan. The city will pass these funds
to Foothills Regional Housing, and this Agreement establishes their obligations
in carrying out the project as a subcontractor.
Councilmember Larson read the Title and Issue into the record.
Moved and seconded by Councilmembers Larson and Wood
Motion: I move to approve the agreement for use of transit oriented communities
infrastructure grant funds between the city and foothills regional housing and further
move to authorize and direct the mayor and city attorney to execute the same with
instruments as necessary to facilitate and complete the obligations under the
agreements.
Discussion: The city was awarded $4,500,000 from the Colorado Department of Local
Affairs Transit-Oriented Communities Infrastructure Grant Program to fund public
infrastructure supporting Foothills Regional Housing's Ridge Road Master Plan. The
agreement establishes Foothills Regional Housing's obligations as a subcontractor to carry
out the project, which includes 200 units of affordable housing and a Red Rocks Community
College nursing facility.
Council Member Larson asked for detail on funded improvements. Staff confirmed
the grant covers sidewalks, curb and gutter, tree lawns, trees, and signal
modifications at Ridge Road/54th Avenue and Ridge Road/Miller Street, as well as
sanitary sewer upgrades carried out through a subcontract with the sewer district.
Council Member Okada asked specifically about signal improvements at Ridge Road
and Miller Street, adjacent to the railroad crossing. Staff confirmed that intersection
is included, with the specific signal modification design to be determined, and noted
the improvements are a city requirement.
Vote: 8-0
Motion Carried
ADJOURN TO SPECIAL STUDY SESSION AT 9:15 pm.
_________________________________________________ Rachel Hultin, Mayor Pro Tem
__________________________________________________ Lucy Spalenka, Deputy City Clerk