HomeMy WebLinkAboutW 32nd & Youngfield (Richter)
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE - MEMORANDUM
To City Attorney Fox
From
Ci ty Cle rk
Subject Dwaine Richter Lawsui t
AllIlBxatlon 1\10. 5
Date
1/5/77
Approved
Date
Enclosed are certified copies of the following for Annexation No.5
at W. 32 Ave. and Youngfield:
1. Minutes Transcript and Minutes of 2/13/75 and Resolution No. 374.
2. Minutes Transcript and Minutes of 7/21/75 and letter from Arthur
Brunton.
3. Proof of publication of Ordinance No. 171 (Published 2/18/75 and
July 31, 1975). Public Hearing Notices for Outline Development
Plan (Published 6/19/75 and 7/3/75) Public Hearing Notices for
Preliminary and Final Plans (Published 8/19/76 and 9/9/76)
4. Minutes Transcript and Minutes of 9/27/76.
5. Minutes Transcript and Minutes of 10/11/76.
6. Ordinance No. 171.
All of the action on this same parcel of land in 1974 do not apply
to this case in my opinion. Please verify. (See attached Motion
File card on this property).
-..-.-
" 644863 g
6 rr:, ('
c:~C') 'fH 0')
~ - 0
Ci ::n
INTRODUCED ~-< a - . A
BY Turner .., (T1
..... ~ A
...'
~..~ c., (X)
po .. ..,J
:0,
",' e?
n
ORDINANCE NO. 152 o~r
;;;0' W
0''''
...' .-
Series of 1974 ;;;0 J L.:
I
, ,
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
WHEAT RIDGE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT
RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. That all the requirements, except the passage
and adoption of this ordinance, have come to pass to annex the
hereinafter described real property to the City of Wheat Ridge,
which now permits the City Council to adopt and pass this ordinance.
Section 2. That the following described real property,
situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, be and the
same is hereby annexed to the City of Wheat Ridge, to wit:
'\
Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Applewood
Gardens Subdivision, Jefferson County, Colorado; thence N 0
degrees 48.2' W along the easterly line of Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
and 7 of said Block 1 8 distance of 488.43 feet to the north-
east corner of said Lot 7; thence continuing N 0 degrees 48.2'
W a distance of 50 feet to the northerly line of West 33rd
Avenue; thence S 89 degrees 39' W along the northerly line of
West 33rd Avenue a distance of 92 feet to the southeasterly
corner of the west 30 feet of Lot 5, Block 4 of said Applewood
Gardens Subdivision; thence N 0 degrees 48.2' West along the
easterly line of the west 30 feet of said Lot 5 a distance of
130 feet to the north line of said Lot 5; thence 5 89 degrees
39' W along the northerly line of said Block 4 a distance of
211.03 feet to a point 1062.48 feet west of the east line of
Lot 15, Roxbury Gardens, Jefferson County, Colorado; thence
N 0 degrees 31.3' W parallel to the east line of said Lot 15
a distance of 205 feet to the north line of said Lot 15; thence
N 89 degrees 39' E along the north line of said Lot 15 a dis-
tance of 728.38 feet to a point 334.1 feet west of the north-
east corner of said Lot 15, said point being on the westerly
right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 1-70; thence
southerly along the westerly right-of-way line of said Highway
for the following four courses: 5 6 degrees 3705' W a distance
of 119.2 feet; S 0 degrees 3D' E a distance of 266.70 feet;
S 89 degrees 40' W a distance of 32.8 feet; and S 6 degrees
31' W a distance of 547.73 feet to a point 70 feet north of the
so~th line of the NW 1/4 of Section 29, T3S, R 69 W; thence
S 0 degrees 17 3/4' E a distance of 70 feet to the south line
oflthe NW 1/4 of said Section 29; thence N 89 degrees 43.5' E
along the south line of the NW 1/4 of said Section 29 a distance
of 456.57 feet to the southeast corner of the SW 1/4 of the NW
1/4 of said Section 29; thence S 0 degrees 36' E along the east
line of the W 1/2 SW 1/4 of said Section 29 a distance of 60
feet; thence S 89 degrees 43.5' W a distance of 687.84 feet to
a point 635 feet east of the west line of the SW 1/4 of said
Section 29; thence N 0 degrees 39.5' W parallel to the west line
of the SW 1/4 of said Section 29 a distance of 15 feet; thence
S B9 degrees 43.5' ~ parallel to the north line of the SW 1/4
of said Section 29 a distance of 240 feet; thence N 0 degrees
39.5' ~ a distance of 45 feet to the north line of the SW 1/4
"..-3" 29"';
,,;~ '(j -~
(
(
2631 2~j8
of said Section 29; thence N 0 degrees 48.2' W parallel
to the west line of the NW 1/4 of said Section 29 a distance
of 30 feet to the north line of West 32nd Avenue, as shown
on the plet of said Applewood Gardens Subdivision; thence
N 89 degrees 43.5' E along the north line of West 32nd Avenue
a distanae of 50 feet to the intersection of the south line of
said Lot 1 with the west line of said Lot 1; thence N 0 degrees
48.2' W a distance of 95 feet to the northwest corner of said
Lot 1; thence N 89 degrees 43.5' E along the north line of
said Lot 1 a distance of 115 feet to point of beginning.
Section 3. The Clerk of the City shall perform all statutory
duties to complete said annexation.
Section 4. The owners of one hundred per cent (100%) of
the property have petitioned for annexation.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force thirty (30) days after publication following
final passage.
INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND POSTED
on first reading by a vote of 5 to 0 this 11th day of
April , A.D., 1974.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND POSTED on second
and final reading by a vote of 5 to 0 this 2nd day of
May , A.D., 1974.
,,' \,
I ), ~ t ; \ '" \ ~
; I)
1\
~b~??'~ . ~~k?
Pau fl. Abramson, MaljDrr_
- . . 6<<_4,r- P9. 'f
Jj..._ I '~~L.J..t~If'-N' ~
, \ \ ,I,
.-i.
~"jl: I , ~ '
6 4 4 8 6 4
/
I: l ,
~ 1"!. -i F
C iLi J 1
: I,"
"--( ~~
-" z~-:
.),-~~
.. "<..,
~. c_
'j- '"
JUH G
08 d1 ' l4
.. r''' IUUU!!" ill
.:J........_".,.
c "~, ~ r ,Ii '
. '~'t
.c.k - ,;J.td I -
f3 ::.!;!7
6 4 4 8 6 3
L' { ~ ~1 ~ ,
s r t, r L
FILeD I"~ iAl
" _ ~: N
:,00
j; : I '" ~ G ~~
t
<..,
~-
\
JUH 6 I 07 r'M 'N
\
r - T- .' P ~
._'1
1////,,'((/
WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 26, lSJ7/1
Minut es
Special meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order
at 6:30 P.M. bV Chairman Leland Stewart in the Albert E. Anderson Community
Building, 4355 Field Street. ~
Members of the Commission present were:
Cal Jenks, Mickey Harlow, Bonnie Scoma,
was Zoning Administrator Dennis Wigert,
heard, and other interested citizens.
Leland Stewart, Dr. Otto Bebber,
and Garth Gibbons. Also attending
repTFcsentatives -of the cases to be
CASE NO. WZ-74-l8 Dwaine Richter, northwest of intersection of 1-70 and
West 32nd Avenue. Mr. Wigert made the following comments and recommendations:
1. Zoning Amendment Request - Planned Commercial Development
2. Approximate Area - 10 acres
3. Contiguous zoning - east - 1-70
west - unincorporated
north - unincorporated
south - unincorporated
4. Contiguous land use - east - Commercial
west - Residential
north - Vacant
south - Residential
5. The parcel is not in the designated Flood Plain.
6. The parcel is presently vacant.
The Planning Department makes the following comments and recommendations:
1. The applicant has submitted an outline development plan. A decision
must be rendered concerning rezoning to PCD. Intensive scruting of
the plan should occur at the Preliminary Development phase.
2. The State Geologist has concluded the parcel has no commercially
valuable mineral deposits.
3. The proposed uses described in the developer's statement are generally
consistent with Commercial One zoning. One exception is the indoor
warehousing, a Commercial Two use.
4. An irrigation ditch traversing the property will be relocated to
follow along the west property line. This area will be planted, and with
the surplus water, dense vegetation will grow providing a buffer effect
for the residential area to the west. '
5. Several design alternatives have been discussed with the developer.
Depending upon uses approved, the appropriate overall design will be
incorporated in the Preliminary Plan.
5. The Planning Department recommends that the Outline Development Plan
be approved for the following reasons:
1. The Land Use Plan does not cover this area. The Planning Department
recommends the parcel be zoned commercial because of its proximity
to 1-70.
2. Planned Commercial Development will insure optimum uses and design.
Mrs. Harlow asked if letters were sent to adjacent property owners who were opposed
to the case. Mr. Wigert stated that they were notified by hand carried letters.
Dwaine Richter, 2850 Berry Lane, Golden, Bsked if the property was properly posted.
Mr. Wigert stated that it was. Mr. Richter stated that the intent of the request
is to have a Planned Commercial Development, beginning with the Outline Development
Plan, and progressing to the preliminary and final stages. Intended use is for a
unique center. Mr. Richter has submitted a soil test which states that there are
no economically minable gravel areas. He stated that the site will be a benefit
to thR City and t,hR Cr1l1nty in LoIR~1 nf t8xe8. Nr. Richter steted thet he feels the
site should be commercial. The reason for the change in zoning is that there has
been a recent substantial change in charactRr in thR nRiahhnrhnod which blRrrents
~
--------
such a change. Mr. Richter cited the 900 acre rezoning case of Coors from
Agricultural to Industrial. Mr. Richter stated that sound studies which have
been submitted indicate that the area is already at a commercial or industrial
level.
Mrs. Harlow asked Mr. Richter to explain what has happened to the property since
he aquired it. Mr. Richter stat1P that in 1966-1968, the previous owner and
developer of Applewood Gardens, tried to rezonf3 the property Residential Two.
He failed at this and sold the property to Mr. Richter in 1968. At this time,
Mr. Richter felt that it was commercial area. Proposed to the citizens a service
station and convenience store on West 32nd Avenue and PRQ on the northern part
of the lot. The neighbors objected to the commercial area so they changed the
plans and made it all apartments. The neighbors objected to the density so they
cut the density down and went before the Jefferson County Commissioners. The
Planning Department approved the plan unamiously but the Commission disapproved
the plan unamiously. Two years later he applied for annexation to Wheat Ridge
contigent to commercial zoning. Council tied and the request died. In 1973
he applied the same way, subject to zoning and Council passed the request for
annexation and zoning Commercial One, and Restricted Commercial One for the north-
west area by a vote of 4-2. Neighbors made a legal protest and sued the city.
They asked the judge to reverse the decision. Case was dropped and Mr. Richter
reapplied.
Dr. Bebber asked Mr. Richter to go over the restrictions placed on his praoos8d
uses at the last Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Lewman asked if Mr. Richter would add, "automobile, campers, and trailers~,
to item 10. i page 3. Mr. Richter agreed to this addition.
Mary Dodder, 3238 Zinnia Court, stated that she worked with the property owners
association with Coors, and the land is still Agricultural. She stated that the
land is planned for a Planned Development for lakes, and is not zoned Industrial.
Mrs. Dodder explained the. development for the 11 lakes and the surrounding area
to the Commission. She stated that Coors initially planned to rezone the area
Industrial, but they received a lot of neighborhood opposition so they agreed on
a Planned Development for lakes. She stated that Coors is no~mining gravel out
of the area, and that it will take approximately 10 to 12 years to clear out all
of the gravel. Mrs. Dodder stated that there is a piece of property on West 32nd
Avenue which is zoned Agricultural One. There is a posting sign on the property
requesting a change to MR-l zoning. She stated that they are proposing 70,000
square foot lots for single family residence.
Mr. Gibbons stated that he did not see anything relative between geographical
features of surrounding areas and the proposed development. Mrs. Dodder stated that
Mr. Richter stated that the area was zoned Industrial, and she was saying that
there was no change of zoning.
Mr. Gibbons stated that through new postings there is a plan for more single
family units. He asked Mrs. Dodder if she felt that this will create a need
for neighborhood services. Mrs. Dodder stated that she does not feel that
there will be such a need.
Mr. Stewart asked Mrs. Dodder if she feels that the proposed area would be possible
for a residential development. Mrs. Dodder referred to Planning Commission decision
of March, 1973, stating recommendation for approval if Restricted Commercial One
was substituted for Commercial One and leaving the Residential One-A.
Mrs. Dodder stated that Mr. Richter made the comment that there wasn't enough
room available in the commercial area across the street. S~e stated that she
spoke to Mr. Becker and he said that there is quite a bit of room available. She
stated that Mr. Richter's development will detract from the commercial area across
the street. Mrs. Dodder stated that when they bought their home they were promised
that the area surrounding them would be single family residential.
Mr. Gibbons asked when Mrs. Dodder purchased their home. Mrs. Dodder stated that
it was in 1966. Mr. Gibbons asked if at that time, the interstate was complete.
Mrs. Dodder stated that it was not completed, but that it was designated on the
plan.
~-'
-3-
Alan Demuth, attorney, stated that there could be a need for some commercial
services in the area, but it should be a Restricted Commercial nature. There
is no Industrial areas surrounding Mr. Richter's property. He stated that
Coors has a permit to mine the gravel, but there is no Industrial zone. Mr.
De;nut'1 stated that the Planninij Commission will not be adding on to an existing
commercial district, but will be .,creating a nBW one at an undesirable site.
He stated that 1-70 is H natural'barrier betw88n the existing commercial
district and the residential area.
Mr. Demuth submitted recorded covenants for Applewood Gardens, which stated
that this area is intended to be single family residential. Mr. Demuth stated
that the Commission is being contradictory to their decision of last year. Mr.
Demuth stated that if the Planning Commission approves the outline development
plan, they are allowing Mr. Richter to breach contractural rights of the people
living under the covenants of Applewood Gardens. He stated that one of the things
absent in Mr. Richter's presentation is an adequate demonstration of the need
for commercial property. Mr. Demuth stated that if there was an adequate
demonstI'ation, Mr. Richter would have filed a preliminary development plan at the
time he submitted the outline development plan so they would have a better idea
as to what he proposes.
Dr. Bebber asked Mr. Demuth if he considers Applewood Shopping Center a good
center. Mr. Demuth stated that he feels that it is an Lnder c8veloped C~~~3~.
He stated that it has its good qualities and its bad qualities.
Mr. Demuth stated that if they go with Planned Commercial Development, it would
be contrary to what he thinks the City would want to stand for, and that is to
encourage people to meet contractural agreements.
Mr. Gibbons asked what Mr. Demuth thought about the gravel mInlng in the area
directly northwest of the residential area. Mr. Demuth stated that if they
had had the opportunity to do something about the mining they might have, but
the Planned Development is for lakes in the area. The gravel trucks will not
always be there.
Mr. Jenks asked how the proposed zoning violates the covenants. Mr. Demuth stated
that they are intended to create single family residence and not a commercial
area.
Mr. Wigert stated that if the Planned Commercial Development is approved, it will
replat the covenants.
Mr. Richter submitted newspaper clippings from October 17, 1973 issue of the
Denver Post stating, "the Adolph Coors Company last week completed the final part
of its Industrial rezoning of Clear Creek Valley." Mr. Richter stated that he
did go to Jefferson County Courthouse in an attempt to get a copy of the current
map. The map has not been updated since the time the zoning was approved. He
stated that the map however, is in place and it does show Industrial-Two Planned
Development. He stated that the implication is that there will be lakes there,
but it is Planned Industrial-Two. Mr. Richter stated that he has three legal
opinions stating that the covenants do not prohibit commercial development, and
no where is it inclusive that that is a residential area. Mr. Richter stated that
there has been problems in the transfers and recording of some of the covenants,
but even if they are applicable the buildings can be built in a different location
on the site. Mr. Richter stated that he fails to see how a highway like 1-70 can
be a natural barrier. He stated that the outline development plan was not meant
to be evasive. It is one that is within the ordinance, and one that the Planning
Commission can approve.
MOTION by Dr. Bebber, second by Mr. Jenks, "Case No. WZ-74-18, northwest intersectio
of 1-70 and West 32nd Avenue be forwarded to Council for approval in that it is
a material upgrading of the area, and is good usage. We will look forward to
the Preliminary Plan, at which time we will layout definite development plan as
we established. On the basis that the deletions and amendments that were restated
tonight be sent to City Council." Motion passed 5-0.
-4-
Mr. Wige"t stated that Case No. DP-7402, which was to have a decision made
tonight, be tabled indefinitely.
MOTION by Mr. Lewman, second by Dr. Bebber, "Move that dumping permit on 4801
Tabor Street be tabled indefinitely." Motion passed 5-0
'.
DEEDS AND SPECIAL PERMITS Speci~l permit fo" Lane Engineering for B proposed
sanitary sewer line extension within Westridge Sanitation District. Mr. Emmet
Land presenteu case stating that Mr. Alvin Alberts bought the property from Mr.
Lockhart. Mr. Alvin had to pay a application fee of $3,000 to Westridge Sanitation
for the application to put sewer line in. At the time he filed for the application,
he gave West ridge permission to install the line.
MOTION by Dr. Bebber, second by Mr. Lewman, "The permit be given subject to
easement." Motion passed 5-0.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
(I,
i/" t" .
\,... 1..- , \. '- ~ -
I
l /, \
cr~ ,',
Greene, Secretary
Connie
CIr1 COUNCIL HEARllJG DATE: August 29, 1974
,
r".....~\J
wJ..J.
CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION
~, WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
(To City Council)
I, Connie Green2 , Secretary tJ the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission,
do hereby and her2~ith certify that the following resolution was duly adopted
by 5-0 vote of the members present at their Rppri 81
public meeting, held in the City Hall, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the 26th
day of August , 19~, and the roll having been called, the vote
of the Commission was as follows:
Stewart Aye
Bebber Aye
Lewman Aye
Jenks Aye
Harlbw Aye
Case Number; WZ-74-18
Applicant1s name: Dwaine Richter
Location; Northwest of intersection of 1-70 and West 32nd Avenue
From Present Zoning of;
To Proposed; Planned Commercial Development
Purpose;
Area: Acres = 10 Square Feet =
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Department has submitted a list of
factors to be considered with the above noted rezoning application, and said
list of factors is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and
made a part hereof; and
MOTION by Dr. Bebber, second by Mr. Jenks, "Case No. WZ-74-18, northwest intersectio
of 1-70 and West 32nd Avenue be forwarded to Council for approval in that it is
a material upgrading of the area, and is good usage. We will look forward to
the Preliminary Plan, at which time we will layout definite development plan as
we established. On the basis that the deletions and amendments that were restated
tonight be sent to City Council."
c,,; TL~ ~iJ::i.5
Lath
dol} of
AIIQIIst
'0 _.
~ .1. J --'..f:i.-.
(I {;11. i~ f'{' (/ \ (I Q VlO
Connie Gre!!e, Secretarl}
to the City of Wheat Ridge
Planning Commission
ltl.R. Form 5-34
CIrv COUNCIL HEAR~JG DATE: August B, 1974
CERTIFICATION OF RE5oLUTION
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
(To City Council)
I,
do
by
public
day of
of the
Connie Greene ,Secretary t8 the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission,
hereby and herewith certify that the following r8solution was duly adopted
5-0 vote of the members present at their regular
meeting, held in the City Hall, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the 5th
August , 19~, and the roll having been called~ the vote
Commission was as follows:
Stewart Aye
Bebber Aye
Harlow Aye
Scoma Aye
Lewman Aye
Case Number: WZ-74-18
Applicant1s name: Dwaine Richter
Location: Northwest of intersection at 1-70 and West 32nd Avenue
From Present Zoning of:
To Proposed: Planned Commercial Development
Purpose: Commercial Development - Outline Development Plan
Area: Acres == 10 Square Feet ==
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Department has submitted a list of
factors to be considered with the above noted rezoning application, and said
list of factors is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and
made a part hereof; and
MOTION by Dr. Bebber, second by Mrs. Scoma, "r move that the Preliminary Outline
Development Plan, Case No. WZ-74-18, be accepted and forwarded to Council
with the deletions as accepted by the developer from the group that he has
submitted. r feel that it is an upgrade of this plece of land, and is good
for the community."
r..,,-rr"" .1..!-~_
....\i _-" _.1_-'
6t~
day of
AUGust
. ],9'7& <
(7nf1 N: '(; O,},?p He
Connie GTe~e, Secretarv
to the City of Wheat Ridge
Planning Commission
II R. F'lTm 6-34
\v
{~! ar;.:~
(r
(
M E M 0
3 April 1974
TO
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT
RICHTER PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
Planning Department has reviewed the petition for annexation submitted by
MI'. Dwaine Richter on 19 March 1974, and hereby makes the following
Finding of Fact:
1. The boundary of the proposed annexation that is contiguous
with the City of Wheat Ridge, exceeds the 1/6th requirement
as per 139-2~-3(2) of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
2. It has been determined by the Engineering Department that
the legal description of the proposal is valid and accept-
able. (See attached memo from the Chief of Engineering)
The Planning Department makes the fallowing comments and recommendations:
1. The Jefferson County Future Land Use Plan prepared in 1961,
and adapted by the City of Wheat Ridge, recommends low
density residential uses (0-4 dwelling units/acre) far the
general area in question. The Land Use Plan prepared and
adopted by the City of Wheat Ridge in September, 1971 do
not extend beyond its present corporate limits therefore,
not inclusive of the parcel in question. However, it does
recommend commercial uses immediately to the east, adjacent
to the proposal. ....-
/'
2. The Planning Department recommends that within 90 days of
the effective annexation, the petitioner make application
for zoning under Section Twenty of Ordinance 98 "Planned
Commercial Development District". This method of zoning
and development will provide for proper site development
including: (a) Approval of uses; (b) Controlled access;
(c) Interior vehicular and pedestrian circulation design;
'(d) Desirable sign graphics; (e) Landscape design; (f)
Building design providing proper architectural continuity
throughout the development. This concept will offer the
amenities and uses that will be an asset to the area.
3. The Planning Department feels that this location is a
potential commercial area and would be the most appropriate
and reu~unable use of the parcel.
GWG/cs
~
INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
APRIL 1, 1974
TO
FROM
SUBJECT
GARTH GIBBONS, PLANNING TECHNICIAN
CHIEF OF ENGINEERING
PROPOSED ANNEXATION BY MR. DWAINE RICHTER
In reviewing the attached legal description and plat of the
proposed annexation, I find the description and plat ~o be
adequate and correct within tolerable limits.
However, in reviewing the proposed annexation, we found that
there is a bust in the current legal description of the
Ci ty limits.
The City legal description states a distance of 357.0' W.
from the North West corner of the NE Quarter, SW Quarter of
Section 29 to the West Right-of-Way line of 1-70 being the
Western City boundry at this point. The plat submitted by
Mr. Richter shows this distance to be 456.57' which I believe
is correct.
(
I \
1.-;""
It appears to me that the legal description of the City limits
should by reviewed by a registered land surveyor to correct
this error and any other error which may be present.
~~/,,""/" / A.-' 77~~-~"-,,
--- '..../--
LARRY R .,"':tROMAS
LT....
LRT/lt
Attachment
cc: Walter Rubkowski, Director of Planning
WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTHENT
CDr'U"1ENTS
CASE NO: WZ-74-18
Name Dwaine R. Richter
Address 2860 Berry Lane, Golden, Colorado
Location Northwest of intersectio~ at 1-70 and West 32nd Avenue
Zoning Amendment Requested
Planned Commercial Development
Purpose: Commercial Development
Approximate Area:
Acres = 10
Square Feet =
Contiguous zoning is:
Contiguous land use is:
East 1-70
West Unincorporated
North Unincorporated
South Unincorporated
East Commercial
West Residential
General area land use is:
North Vacant
South Residential
East
West
North
South
East
West
North
South
General area zoning is:
The following factors should be considered in the overall perspective of the
request for zoning amendment:
1. The parcel is not in the designated Flood Plain.
2. The parcel is presently vacant.
The Planning Department makes the following comments and recommendations:
1. The applicant has submitted an outline development plan. A decision
must be rendered concerning rezoning to PCD. Intensive scruting of
the plan should occur at the Preliminary Development phase.
2. The State Geologist has concluded the parcel has no commercially
valuable mineral deposits.
3. The proposed uses described in the developer's statement are generally
consistent with Commercial-One zoning. One exception is the indoor
warehousing, a Commercial-Two use.
4. An irrigation ditch traversing the property will be relocated to
follow along the west property line. This area will be planted, and with
the surplus water, dense vegetation will grow providing a buffer effect
for the residential area to the west.
5. Several design alternatives have been discussed with the developer.
Depending upon uses approved, the appropriate overall design will be
incorporated in the Preliminary Plan.
6. The Planning Department recommends that the Outline Development Plan
be approved for the following reasons:
1. The Land Use Plan does not cover this area. The Planning Department
recommends the parcel be zoned commercial because of its proximity
to 1-70. ~
2. Planned Commercial Development will insure optimum uses and design.
[
~'
TI
T
J
<;Tq[(T
;f.'. !
,.
\,
, I
','I
: I
,I
-<' -,
G)
l>
:0
o
!TI
Z
en
"
I
.
'o~_:C~ ~--~-'::~~-'-~-./:r~~~.~~' --~~-=~ :~1.n
. ,:~C"':=--_:c:,:'C~'.__ - .. '--:I:
'I~lfl~}~!~~~~j~~~c~:
--- .-='-- --. -. ~ ;:c-._-~- ._..::_ __ ~. _:-::;:
~~
LAW OFFICES OF
ROVIRA. DEMuTH 8. EIBERGER
LUIS 0 ROVIRA
WALLIS L. CAMPBELL
LAEl.5 DEMUTH
CARL F EIBERGER
WilliAM G KEMP
ALAN C DEMUTH
ROBERT A. BACKUS
ROBERT L. ROBERTS
WilLIAM F SCHENKEIN
DONALD A HOUlEHAN
1600 WESTERN FEDERAl- SAVINGS BUILDING
718 SEVENTEENTH STREET
J H SHEPHERD
"F COUNSEL
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE 303- 222 -1808
RUSSELL P ROWE
J WALTER HYER III
EDMUNDO A. GONZALES
CHARLE::; A. HILLESTAD
DANIEL C LYNCH
RICHARD M LAVERS
LORING I::: HARKNESS
JEFFREY G PEARSON
DOU GLA~ 0 POOTE
January 24, 1975
William E. HcCarthy, Esq.
City Attorney
The City of Wheat Ridge
3760 Vance Street
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
Re: Mary C. Dodder, et al. v.
~l:.:h.~ ~ .:i'i~i:i}J-_eil_,_13r~~g_ham.. ~_~_ a 1 .
Dear Bill:
Enclosed is a fully executed copy of the Stipulation
for an enlargement of time. As you had already signed it,
we took the liberty of forwarding the original to the Court
for filing.
I wish to thank you for making it clear in the
Stipulation that an Answer will be filed. This clarifies
our earlier telephone conversation wherein I indicated the
Plaintiffs consent to the enlargement of time would be
viewed more favorably, if an Answer was filed and not a
Rule 12(b) Motion.
Your courtesy in preparing the Stipulation is much
appreciated. I apologize for the delay in returning the
executed Stipulation to you; however, I have been out of
the office for the last week at an extended trial.
Very truly yours,
ROVIRA, DEMUTH & EIBERGER
CLL~LL7~~
Alan C. DeMuth\'
ACD Ikc
Enclosure
LAW OFFICES 0'"
ROVIRA. DEMuTH a EIBERGER
LUIS D ROVIRA
WALLIS L, CAMPBELL
LAEL S. DEMU1"H
CARL F EIBERGER
WILLIAM G, KEMP
ALAN C. DEM UTH
ROBERT A. BACKUS
ROBERT L. ROBERTS
WILLIAM F SCHENKE1N
DONALD A. HOULEHAN
.800 WE:STERN IfEOERAL SAVINGS BUILDING
7'. SEVENTEEH'fH STREET
j H. SHEPHERD
OF COUNSEL
DENVER, COL.ORADO 80202
TELEPHONE 303- 222 -Ieoe
January 24, 1975
RUSSEL.L P ROWE
J WAL. TER HYER It I
EDMUNDO A. GONZALES
CHARLES A. HILLESTAD
DANIEL C LYNCH
RICHARD M LAVERS
LORING E. HARKNESS
JEFFREY G PEARSON
DOUGLAS 0 FOOTE
Clerk of the District Court
County of Jefferson
1701 Arapahoe
Golden, Colorado
Re: Dodder, et al. v. Brougham, et al.
Civil Action No. 46041, Div. 3
Dear Sir:
Enclosed herewith is the original and one copy of a
Stipulation for an enlargement of time along with the original
Order in connection with the above-referenced action. If the
Stipulation appears satisfactory, kindly have the Court execute
the Order. In addition, please return a time-stamped copy of
the Stipulation to the undersigned in the enclosed, self-addressed
envelope.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
ROVIRA, DeMUTH & EIBERGER
(]lL8{LW,( ~
Alan C. DeMuthC
ACD/dh
Enclosures
cc: William E. McCarthy, Esq.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON M~D
STATE O~ COLORADO
Civil Acti..on No.
46041
Div.
3
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
STIPULZ\TION
~''Ln.RY C. DODDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ELISE HcHILLEN BROUGHlIl1, et al. f
cmres Nml, Nilliam E. t1cCarthy, Attorney for
Defendants, and Alan C. De!1uth and J. vIal ter Hyer, III,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, and stipulate as fo110\15:
The above defendants may be allowed an enlarge-
ment of a period of time in 'ilhich they are required to anSiver
service of Summons and Complaint.
co from
plaintiffs' Complaint to an additional
vHLLIAl'1 E. Hc THY
Attorney for Defen
Post Office Box 6 0
~fueat Ridge, Colorado 80033
Tel~~:'~Q .
ALfu~ C. DeHUTH ..
Attorney for Plaintif s
718 17th Street, Suite 1600
Denver, Colorado 80202
;/i
~I
.:v.' HALTER I ~E., IIIJ
Aktorney for Plaintiffs
718 17th Street, Suite 1600
Denver, Colorado 80202
IN T:-J:E DISTRICT COUR'l' IN AND For, THE
COill1TY OF JEFFERSON M1D
STATE OF COLOR.i\DO
Civil Action No.
46041
Div. '1
De fendan ts .
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
OROBe<
~t.i\RY C. DODDE'R., et al"
Plaintiffs,
v.
ELISE 11dlILLE~1 BROUG'{;\H, et aI.,
Defendants are granted an additional t\venty (20)
days from service of SUffi!T\ons and Complaint in 'tlhich to
anslver.
DONE THIS
DAY OF
A.D. 1975.
B'1 THE COURT:
lJUDGE
.~
,No. 195CA. Re.... '73 8UMMON81N CIVIL AC'ri~N',--Bmtord PubU.hI.c1::.... t824'~6 Sto..t St...... Donv.r, Color.do 1~n-.QIl)-l\looH
~------~
_.__.---
.- .:":1
COUIe Filing Stamp
---
DISTRIcr
IN TIIE........,.., ,. ..............._..COURT
IN i'\NO FOR
..,......m.,._...COUNTY OF....,~~~~,..,......__
AND STAT}: OF COLORlI,DO
Civil Action No............,................._ Div...........m...
MARY C. OOODER, FRANK FFAUENFELDER,
ARI'HUR F. BRU:n'Ol1, GARY H. HOLBFroK,
JEIDNE W. BOE'ITCHER, NADINE J.
BOETI'CHER, llARRY NILLIAMS, T.TIJ.TAN'
IRENE WILLIAMS, in behalf of them-
selves and all. 9ttters similarly
situated Plaintiff..S..._..
SUMMONS
c
-.
...,
l>
-1
o
::0
~
-, <)
I~~'-l
-I
...- .<
~
,-- --,
0 ;:D
l-!
L...; :0
_fTJ
I /
,
J~1
-10
- .:J
.
J
G. i:)
U ;,
('":'
'\
ELISE McMII.U:N BRI5tGm\M, City Clerk
of the City of t'1heat Ridge, State of
Colorado i THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, a
municipal corporation of the State
of Colorado, DR. PAUL B. ABRN-1SON,
and HGr-1E L. ROES:ENER, as Mayors of 1
the City of Wheat pidge; IARRY G.
MERKIE, Defendant..!?___. JOSEPH
M. OONALDSCN, FOBERT G. HaVARD, au;
O. HUlSEY, !DUISE F. TURNER and MA..-q'{ JO
CAVARFA, Alderrren of the Citv of t'lheat Ridge
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT-.s--__, GREETING:
You are hereby summoned and required to file with the clerk an answer to the complaint within
20 days after service of this summons upon you. If you fail so to do, judgment by default will be taken
against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
If service upon you is made outside the State of Colorado, or by publication, or if a copy of the
complaint be not served upon you with this summons, you are required to file your answer to the com-
plaint within 30 days after service of this summons upon you.
Warning: If this summons does not contain the docket number of the civil action, then the
complaint may not now be on file with the clerk of the court. The complaint must be filed within ten
days after the summons is served, or the action may be dismissed without notice upon your proper
request to the court. Information from the court concerning this civil action may not be available
until ten days after the summons is served. ',,- "\-
This is an action* for declaratory and injunctive :relief as rrore fully set
forth in the Carrplaint attached hereto.
January 13, 75
Dated..''.....'....,__...'..' ..."..,......,....",,' ..__..".., 19..,..,.___..
....... .... ................. ...... ...... ........_.._.__.._.................._.........~.n....._......
Clerk of. said Court
.:;:;!1l'li:?~J'(............
r;~ /t;lfft'plai'
By "'..".,......."._'..m._.._.._______.__.,.._..".....'......-.
Deputy Clerk
.~i~~1~~TId~~t1t~~;;'~f~'.)?~~9.:..
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: [303] 222-1606
(Seal of Court)
.-nIl IUIIl",0111 t. baued punu...t to Rut. 4. C.R-C.P.. U &mddecl. U the aum.mO'U .. l)abUalt.ed or .oft"p~ .{thout. . ~ of the eoIIIplaJat.
a1t.r the 'Word .'&C.t.lon" at.at.e the re~le( deft\&..... u: ~ eseeuUOQ '- .,u.ht. the RlDftlOIl. 1JlU.' .\.a.... o-rb.1a ~ &II. actlOIl fouadcd Upoll wrt.u
,"0$
, ...L
,.is..
, .oiiW!D\
"
,)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE
COUNTY OF JE~FERSON
STATE OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. _~___ Div.
MARY C. DODDER, FRANK FRAUENFELDER }
ARTHUR F. BRUNTON, GARY H. HOL-- }
BROOK, JEROME W. BOETTCHER, )
NADINE J. BOETTCHER, HARRY )
WILLIAMS, LILLIAN IRENE WILLIAMS, )
in behCilf of themselves and all ~
other!'> similarly sit.u"ted, ~
[
)
)
)
}
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff~r
vs.
ELISE McMILLEN BROUGH~I, City
Clerk of the City of Wheat Ridge,
State of Colorado; THE CITY OF
WHEAT RIDGE, a municipal cor-
poration of the Stat:e of Colorado,
DR. PAUl, B. ABRAMSON, and HOMER
L. ROESENER, as Mayors of the
City of Wheat Ridge; LARRY G.
MERKL, JOSEPH M. DONALDSON, ROBERT
G. HOWARD, CALVIN O. HULSEY,
LOUISE F. TURNER and MARY JO
CAVARRA, Aldermen of the City of
Wheat Ridge,
Defendants.
COMPLAIN'!'
Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Rovira, DeMuth &
Eiberger, and Alan C. DeMuth and J. Walter flyer III, allege
for their Complaint the following~
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEI:'
~~"-".~-',-
I-I. Plaintiffs Mary C. Dodder, Frank Frauenfelder, Arthur F,
Brunton, Gary H. Holbrook, are citizens and residents of the State of
Colorado and tlf the County of Jefferson, and are the duly appointed
representatives of the peti.tioners of the referendum petition as more
fully set forth infra.
1-2. Plaintiffs Jerome W. Boettcher, ~'adine J. Boettcher, Harry
Williams and Lillian Irexw \'7illiams, are citizens, residents and
qualified electors of the State of Colorado, County of Jefferson and
the City of Wheat Ridge, and were signers and/or circulators of the
referendum petition as more fully set forth, infra.
1-3. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as
representatives of the class of all citizens and residents of the City
of Wheat Ridge, who signed referendum petitions challenging the validity
of municipal legislation designated as Rezoning Case WZ-74-18 enacted
1...... .L'!..._ ....._z:__..:I__~ ~.: .J...... _.1: ...'11..__...... ft.J ~__
" c".Jt&!
.'
1-4. Defendant Elise McMillen Brougham, is, and was at all times
herein mentioned, the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of
Wheat Ridge.
1-5. Defendant City of ~lheat Ridge, is, and was at all times
herein mentioned, a statutory municipal corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws and the Constitution of the
State of Colorado.
1-6. Defendants Dr. Paul B. Abri:!mson, succeed.ed by Homer L. Roes{^nex,
Larry G. Merkl, Joseph M. Donaldson, Hobert G. Howard, Calvin O.
Hulsey, Louise F. Turner, and Mary Jo Cavarra, are the duly elected
mayors and aldermen respectively of the City of Wheat Ridge.
1-7. The class herein consists of 1108 (1808) qualified electors
of the City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson and State of Colorado
who signed referendum petitions as more fully set forth infra; as such
the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
1-8. There are questions of law or fact common to the class.
1-9. The claims of the Plaintiffs herein are typical of the
claims of the class of petitioners they represent.
1-10. The representative parties Plaintiff herein will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.
1-11. The Defendants opposing the class have acted or refused to
act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making
appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory
relief with respect to the class as a whole.
1-12. Pursuant to C.R.S. S 31-23-204 (1973), the City of Wheat
Ridge adopted by duly enacted ordinance on March 2, 1972, a comprehensive
zoning ordinance for the City of Wheat Ridge.
1-13. On August 29, 1974, pursuant to C.R.S. 31-8-109 (1973) a
notice of protest was filed with the Aldermen and Mayor of the
City at Wheat Ridge objecting to the zoning of a 10 acre tract of land
for "planned commercial development" in Rezoning Case WZ-74-18, herein-
after referred to as the Richter property at I-70 and W. 32nd Avenue.
-2-
:...;)"
1-14. On August. 29, 1974, pursuant. tel C.l"S. ~ :n-8~115
(1973), the Aldf>rman and Mayor of the City of Wheat Ridge exercised
a legislative function by unanimously Cl.dopting a "motion" l~ather than
an ordina1')('e or resolution within the 90 day statutory period fOT
annexed land; the efff!ct of such enactnH?Ylt, \\'o~; te> ,.mend the Zoning
(l'r(1:i nance of the Cit.y of Whcat. Ridge' t(", :ume 1 h(' 1 (J 21.('1 (' t'rac't fOT
"planned ccmunercial developm.;;;nt". (Rezoning case W7.--'/!j'.18),
1-15.. Pursuant to C.R.S. ~ 1"40-115 (197:1) and (',R.S. S 1, ItO.lOG
(1973), referendum pet.it.ions were duly circulat.ed itlTlong the
qualified l"Ject:oIs of the Ci't-y of Whe...t Ridqe chaLlenging thf> zc)))inq
legis1aticm adopt.ed in WZ- 74,-18.
1-16, l'ursuant, to C.fLf:. S 1-40"11'1 (Jqrn n;f(''f(~ndul1l pelH,iems
bearin~r the, 1808 sig'f!<'l.tu.res which is in excef,,; of ) !,% pi the total
vote (459S voted) for. all candidateft fol' m.CiYc))- e:of;t in the last. pre.cec3:iIJ9
election of mayor were filed on September 27 and Sr:pt,ember 301 19? 41
wit,h Elise McMillen Broughi'.uJ'l, Clerk of the City of. V~hE'a.t Ridge.
1-17 < On October 3, 1974, Elise Mdhl1cn nrougbarll., Clerk of the
City of Wheat Ridge, exceed.ed her authority and act:ed \.mlawfully in
refusing to accept the petitions and in refusing t.o forward the petitions
to the municipal legislative body for approval, ill violation of C.R<S.
51'"40-115 (1973) and C.R.So ~S 1~40-1Hi (1973), and l\rticle V, Section
1, Constitution of Colorado.
1-18. On October 10, 1974, t:he referendum petit"ions were presented
to the Aldermen and Mayor of the City of Wheat Ridge who adopted
<
Rest':.lution No, 34 (; refusing the p('tit~iQn1';,
1~19< Resolution 346, adopted after t.he circulation and presentaticllJ
of petit.icms, purports t,Q impose additional ].-equi.rel1lElots for: the lawfuJ
exercise of the right of referendum, such requirements imposing a burden
upon peti tioners in excess of the constitutional cHld statutory pro-
cedure: dS such the passage and content of Resolution 346 are unlawful,
violat:ive of Article V, Section I, Co10rado Constitution, in that the
same impa,irs the petitioners' right of referendum.
-3~
1-20. The referendum petitions were signed by qualified electors
and were circulated in compliance with C,R.S. S 1-40-106 )1973).
1-21. The legislative act sought to be reconsidered by the
petitioners consisted of an amendment to the zoning ordinance for the
City of Wheat Ridge, and as such, is a proper matter for referencum
pursuant to C.R.S. S 1-40-115 (1973).
1-22. The municipal ordinances of the City of Wheat Ridge, insofar
as they refer to referendum petitions, do not contain criteria for the
manner of exercise or for the conduct of municipal. referenda within the
City of Wheat Ridge.
1-23. The Defendants' refusal to accept the :referendum petitions and
their passage of Resolution 346, were, therefore, an arbitrary, capricious
denial and' unlawful exercise of municipal authority in excess of
their jurisdiction, and constitute a violation of Article V, Section J
of the Constitution of Colorado and impair the r:iqht of referendum as
reserved to the class of petitioners of said constitutional provis)o))
and by C.R.S. S 1-40-115 (1973); further, said Defendants had no authority
or discretion to refuse to accept said petitions or to refuse to
either reconsider WZ-74-18 or call a referendum.
1-24. The petitioners and the members of the class whom they
represent will suffer immeasurable and irreparable harm in that Defendants
have effectively denied Plaintiffs and the members of the class they
represent their constitutional and statutory referendum right by
virtue of a purposeful, arbitrary, capricious and unlawful exercise of
municipal authority.
1-25. There is a real and actual controversy between the parties.
1-26. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff's pray:
1. For the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing responding
City of Wheat Ridge to:
a. Rescind its action of October 10, 1974, wherein it
denied to act upon the referendum petitions filed with the City Clerk
on September 27 and September 30, 1974, and refused to either repeal
the zoning "motion" or to submit the same to the voters;
-4-
-dr
b. Suspend the effective date of the zoning "motion" until
respondent City of \~heat Ridge repeals 'lhC'~H" ,;ection::> or ,.mU 1 the
electors of the City of Wheat Ridge are affonlecl the right to referendum;
2. For a declaration that a municipal legislative act, properly
the subject matter of ordinance or resolution, may not be enacted as a
"motion" t.o impair the right of referendum or for any other purpOSE:;
or, in the dlten,,,,t.ivE?, a mCltJ,OII 1S of the same effe(,t as CI. rcsoluUon fox
referendun! purposes onder C.R.S. S 1-40~115 (1973);
3. For a dec~lar..t:ic.m th;,t the motion adopted Dnd enacted in \~i\'
74-18 is void, (;,nd of flO ~ffect fOl the r.eanc,n that j t vias in C;'XC€:Sf;
of the )u:x:i.sdicti.of! and autho:tity of Defend"mU", cwd Uw'l. j t C0nst) 1 \lted a.
arbitrary, "apricicms, and unlawful (''J.{:f~rc:isE' of T1i\lJdc,"ipa) authority;
4 < For a declaration that, the motion adopted and enacted in W7.--
74-18, the action of Defendant City Clerk in refusing t:he petit.ions
and the adoption of Resolution 346 were unconstitutional, void and of
no effect for the reason that said municipal al:t:i ems Wf~:re 5n c(Jni;rc:.vcnU,ol1i
of Article V, Section I, Colorado Constitution and C.R.S. !i 1-40-115 (1973
5. For a delcaration that, the substantive and procedural form
of pet.itions were regularly, ,properly and lawfully prepared, as circulatec
and presented to the Clerk of the City of Wheat Ridge ana to the Mayor andi
Aldermen and that the Clerk and Mayor and Aldermen exceeded their
authority and jurisdiction in refusing to accept said petition.
6. l'or a declaraticm that the state statutory criteria apply to
govern the qualifications of signers and circulators of referendum
petitions when a statutory city has no ordinance procedures for the
conduct of a referendum:
7~ For an order enjoining Defendants herein from giving force and
effect ,~nc1 consideration to WZ-74-18 and any actions regarding any
development or conducting any hearing regarding the d~ve1opment of
the Richter property at 1-70 and West 32nd Avenue, pending resolution
of the issues raised herein.
8. For Plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees;
9. For such further relief as the court may deem just and proper,
-5-
t .f,: .~d$
..'
/
SECOND CLAHi FOR RELIEF
2-1. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations
contained in Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief.
2-2. C.R.S. S 31-23-204 (1973) provides that the legislative body
of a municipality may provide for the manner in which municipal zoning
regulations shall be established, enforced, amen0ed, and repealed.
Pursuant to that statutory authority, the city of Wheat Ridge adopted
by duly enacted ordinance a comprehensive zoning ordinance for the
City of Wheat Ridge on March 2, 1972.
2-3. C.R.S. S 139-60-4 (1973) contemplates that subsequent zoning
determinations, amendments, supplements, changes, or repeals, shall, be,
enacted with the same formality and with equal dignity as that manner
and procedure by which the municipality first exercised the power to
zone by municipal ordinance. The Defendants, however, purported to
give effect to that zoning ordinance by enacting a "motion" on August
29, 1974, to zone the Richter property at 1-70 and West 32nd Avenue,
for "planned commercial development." This subsequent procedure of
zoning by "motion" lacks the same dignity and formality as the municipal
zoning ordinance which it purports to implement.
2-3. C.R.S. S 31-12-301 to 31-12-309 (1973) permits municipalities
in Colorado to impose local penal sanctions only by ordinance. Failure
to act by ordinance in imposing local penal sanctions deprives citizens
of adequate notice and denies to local citizens due process of law as
guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution and
Article II, section 25, of the Colorado Constitution.
2-4. Section 32 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Wheat
Ridge imposes criminal penalties for violation of the zoning ordinance;
but subsequent zoning actions whether by way of rezoning, amendment,
or repeal enacted by "motion" and not by ordinance need not and are
not published to ?,fford citizens of Wheat Ridge notice of proscribed
conduct. The imposition of penal sanctions by a.procedure of less
dignity than by ordinance not only violates C.R.S. 31-12-301 to 31-12-309
(1973) but also deprives the citizens of Wheat Ridge of the fundamental
fairness guaranteed by the due process clauses of both the federal and
state constitutions.
-6-
, J!lC
'",
WlJEREl"ORE, Plaintiffs pray:
I, For a decla,ratiox, that sa10 zorLing jJ'J'oC:fdure by "motion" Jf;
null and void in that a nmation" lackA the ctignity and formality to
alter, amend, or implement an initial zoning ordinance;
2. For a declaration that said zoning pro~edure by "motion" is
unconstitutional aT,d in cCll1traventic.>rJ uf state 'l,l\1 ill thi'lt the pnwechn (
subjectf< the ('iti:<"ens of Wheat Ridc:, iO 1'eni'11 SclllC tiOXlS without adfll\lat(
notice in violation of Color.;l,do stiitut{->f~, federal and state canstj i \It )(,),S;
3. Par a permanent injwi~:t.i.('n ('njoin.in\~ 1)I,feodant Ci ty of
Wheat Riclqe froll! enfo:r:cj,ng or i'i t. teniyting t.o c,n f"(J)'ce sc~id ,",orling II 1IJ()i. :i (Jj) i," ,
4. For Plaintiffs' ~nBtH 01 buit herein; ~nd
5. Jo'or such further reJief C;'i the (OO\JT'\~ Illi;y (~('em jtlst. <,~nd
proper,
ReSl.>€'c:t.~ful1y !"ubmi tl.ed I
ROVJ n7J)eM~'~\ ).::lllERGr~r
rJY: ,., .L29, ':"~ ~~~-::tj~-:_u~
.y,.. J\l.~j)J;E:3}j(&~...
J,rWal~er Hyer '&II ' J
~torneys for Plaintiffs
1600 vlestern Federal Say < Bldg,
718 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 2n~ 1606
I ACCEPTED THIS SUMMONS JANUARV 13, 1975 AT 4:10 PMc
, R[C'[IVEO
elT y "'''' <..~'...
("I T" ~) (' ;,~ ': i'\:fl ~~ J G;:::
- ,1_ -, -:~ -J _~ .... ~
ELISE BROUGHA~ . ,
17~)- ,IAN .1;3 PM 4; 35
.' l," !.; /, lJ:JJ
: j ,~.. j-- {. ';:..- () i:
-7-
CITY CLERIC
CITY TREA90
CtJUNCIC V
MAYOR -"
CI7Y ADM, .-/'
CITY ATTY, ~
OEPT, HEADS'
DISTRIBUTED ~
OAT~ lj;a/7~-
'j!iJ,
-.JOHN -.J GIBBONS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
255 CLAYTON STREET
DENVER. COLORADO 80206 .~ .:::::>
TELEPHONE 3i83 8-PJ~-/c:::..f ~
-' .. "">--
CALIFORNIA ADDRESS
1910 SUr-JSET BOULEVARC'
SUITE 460
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90026
1 ~LEPHONE 484-1870
0ctober 11, 1074
William E. \IcCarthy. )'sq.
City Attorney
City of Wheat Ridge
Colorado 8003:)
Re: Rezoning Case Wz-74-l8
Dear Bill;
Just a short note to give you the following citations of
Colorado cases on the question of "qualified" electors
and one touching initiative and referendum.
Benson v. The Election Commission of TJenver-- 6~
Colo. 206. (this is the case I talked with vou
about that has "whishers" on it, decided in t11e
September term in 1916)
r. L. Frances et al v. Tean J. Pogers, City Clerk
of the City of Lakewood, et aI, (this decis ion
touches"base" on the question of referendum, how-
ever, the subject matter is a special initiative
and referendum ordinance passed by theCity of Lake-
wood, although no such regulation' exists in the r:ity
of Wheat qidge, this may prove of some merit to
your contentions), This w~s decided September 21,
197:) and is reported in 514 P, 2d. 311.
Colorado Project-Common Cause V. Byron A. ~nder-
son, Secretary of State of the State of Colorado.
!)ecided ~1arch 24,1972, renorted 495 p. 2d. 220.
(interesting case on the question of "':,l"ilified"
electors). .
Sa~,tiago ll. Valdez, etal V. Flection Commission
of Denyer, et al. (this is the latest enunciation
of the Colorado Supreme Court on the "qualified,"
and "registered" elector). Decided Anril l, ] 974
and cited in 521 D. 2d. 165.
Bill, again, 1 stand ready, willing and (1 hone??)
to assist in any way to helD sustain your nosition
the above caDtioned'matt~
"'~
'~, ,Tf)I"'rf' ]. r; I RRr)1\JS.
81'11e
lJ1
(
DATE: 1~~Tt4-
TO: )~ G\\-\-~
SU8~C~
I \ o?~ tt.l
Cl\a ~ ~~.
t \
WILLIAM E. McCARTHY
, CITY ATTORNEY
1 nctober 1q7!
Elise Brougham, ~lty Clerk
Petition of Referendum, ~ezoninn Case WI-7G-18
I have acanned the subject petitions, reviewed the rity 'lerk's
findings thereon, and have e' amined the lBw BDPlirable thereto.
It is my determination that this netition effort falls short of
ronstitutional/statutorv requirements.
The Colorado Constitution. 1n Sertion 1 of Artirle V, amonqst
other things, provides the followinq: "The initiative and
referendum Dowers reserved tD the niople by this sertion are
hereby further reserverl to the legal voters of every rlty,
town and muniripallty as to all 10rsl, sperlal and munirinal
legislstlon of every -hsTarter in or for their respective
municipalities".
In errordan, e with this constitutional orovislon, the state
legislature has presrribed the manner for e.ercising the nower
of referendum. C.R.S. 1953, 7n-1-15. It is thpre nrovided
that this power may be exercised as to ordinanres, resolutions
or franchises. And, 7r-1-9 provides that each oetition rontain
an affidavit of 8 qualified elector.
Statutory I"ities have the authority to provide for the manner
in which zonina regulations and restrictions and the boundaries
of zonin9 districts shall be determined, established and amended,
supplemented or changed. 13g-~r-~.
Applying the above references in reverse order, it is to be
remarked that since its incer,tion, this city has accomplished
its rezoning by motion rather than by ordinance, and it did so
in this instance.
It is therefore evident that the Dower of referendum is not
available here since there is no ordinance, resolution or
franchise to protest.
Last but not least, it is to be noted that the constitutional
and legisletive requirements as to qualified elertors applies
not only to those signing the netition, but to those circulating
the same (affiant). Therefore, the fourty-seven petitions
(containing 1721 Signatures) circulated by other than qualified
electors of Wheat Ridge are on their face invalid.
Elise 8rou~ham, City Clerk
1 October 1971,
Page Two
Consequently, the remaining "valid" petitions carryinq but
eighty-seven signatures do not rresent the reouired oercentage.
I have attached a draft of 2 resolution implementinq this ooinion.
WILLIAM E. McCARTHV
City f1ttorney
WEM/kkw
~. John A. Jerman,
City Pdministratnr
Attachment
Introduced by Alderman
RESOLUTION NO.
Series of 19'7"
WHEREAS, this body, on I\ugust Y-, 1'171" unanimously (G-n)
adopted n motion approvinc rezonino in Rezoninc C~se WZ-74-18; and
WHEREAS, 8 pretest has been rereived rEPresenting 18GB
signatories contsined unon fifty-one (~1) petitions; end
WHEREAS, fourty-seven (47) of these ~etitionG, containing
1721 signntures, were rirr.ulatec by nersons other than oualified
ele'tors of the City of Wheat Ridre; Gn~
WHEREAS, the rezoninc action by this body was by motion
rather than by ordinance or resolution; and
WHEREAS, the power of referendum enn be eyer-leed only
in protest of an ordinance, resolution or franchise.
NOl~, THEfIEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the aforedeecribed
petition effort is hereby declared to be invalid and of no effect.
DONE AND RESOLVED this day of
A.D. 1Q7', by e \late of to
Homer L. Roesener,
!"laljor
ATTEST:
Elise Brougham,
Citlj Clerk
DATE
1 October 1974
Elise Brougham, City Clerk
Petition of Referendum, Rezoning Case WZ-74-13
TO
SUBJECT
I have scanned the subject petitions, reviewed the city clerk's
findings thereon, and have examined the law applicable thereto.
It is my determination that this petition effort falls short of
constitutional/statutory requirements.
The Colorado Constitution, in Section 1 of Article V, amongst
other things, provides the following: "The initiative and
referendum powers reserved to the people by this section are
hereby further reserved to the legal voters of every city,
town and municipality as to all local, special and municipal
legislation of every character in or for their respective
municipalities".
In accordance with this constitutional provlslon, the state
legislature has prescribed the manner for exercising the power
of referendum. C.R.S. 1963, 70-1-15. It is there provided
that this power may be exercised as to ordinances, resolutions
or franchises. And, 70-1-9 provides that each petition contain
an affidavit of a qualified elector.
Statutory cities have the authority to provide for the manner
in which zoning regulations and restrictions and the boundaries
of zoning districts shall be determined, established and amended,
supplemented or changed. 139-60-4.
Applying the above references in reverse order, it is to be
remarked that since its inception, this city has accomplished
its rezoning by motion rather than by ordinance, and it did so
in this instance.
It is therefore evident that the power of referendum is not
available here since there is no ordinance, resolution or
franchise to protest.
Last but not least, it is to be noted that the constitutional
and legislative requirements as to qualified electors applies
not only to those signing the petition, but to those circulating
the same (affiant). Therefore, the fourty-seven petitions
(containing 1721 signatures) circulated by other than qualified
electors of Wheat Ridge are on their face invalid.
Elise Brougham, City Clerk
1 October 1974
Page Two
remalnlng "valid" petitions carrying but
n present the required percentage.
esolution implementing this opinion.
~-------~
WILLIAM E. McCARTHY
City Attorney
WEM/kkw
cc: John A.;td~man,
City Administrator
Attachmen
Introduced by Alderman
RESOLUTION NO.
Series of 1974
WHEREAS, this body, on August 30, 1974, unanimously (6-0)
adopted a motion approving rezoning in Rezoning Case WZ-74-18; and
WHEREAS, a protest has been received representing 1808
signatories contained upon fifty-one (51) petitions; and
WHEREAS, fourty-seven (47) of these petitions, containing
1721 signatures, were circulated by persons other than qualified
electors of the City of Wheat Ridge; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning action by this body was by motion
rather than by ordinance or resolution; and
WHEREAS, the power of referendum can be exercised only
in protest of an ordinance, resolution or franchise.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the aforedescribed
petition effort is hereby declared to be invalid and of no effect.
DONE AND RESOLVED this day of
A.D. 1974, by a vote of to
Homer L. Roesener,
Mayor
ATTEST:
Elise Brougham,
City Clerk
Int~oduc~d by Ald2~m3n
RESOLUTION NO.
Series of 1974
W~EREAS, this body, on August 30, 1974, unanimously
(5-0) adopted a motion approving rezoning in Rezoning Case
WZ-74-18; and
WHEREAS, a protest has been received representing 1508
signatories contained upon fifty-one (51) petitions; and
WHEREAS, fourty-seven (47) of these petitions, containing
1721 signatures, were circulated by persons other than qualified
electors of the City of Wheat Ridge, thereby failing to comply
with constitutional and statutory requirements; and
W~EREAS, the remaining eighty-seven (87) signatures
on the four (4) petitions circulated by qualified electors of the
City of Wheat Ridge fail to meet the statutory requirement for
fifteen (15) per cent of the total vote cast in the City of Wheat
Ridge at the last preceding election for all candidates for mayor;
and
WHEREAS, the rezoning action by this body was by motion
rather than by ordinance or resolution; and
WHEREAS, the power of referendum can be exercised only
in protest of an ordinance, resolution or franchise.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the aforedescribed
petition effort is hereby declared to be invalid and of no effect.
DONE AND RESOLVED this day of
A.D. 1974, by a vote of to
Homer L. Roesener,
Mayor
ATTEST:
El1.se Brougham,
City Clerk
U;,\ It.: ,.t-. ~
TO:
-Pi
SU8JECT'
~~-
.;t~ ~~
~.
,
~~\
WILLIAM E
, CITY AT" McCARTHY
TORNE'f
Acril ~, 197~
Mr. Dwaine R. Richter
286n Berry lane
Golden, :olorado Bn4rl
Dear Mr. Richter:
This is to confirm our conversation after last night's
City Council meeting with reference to your annexation
petition to the City of lDheat fiidge, which was approved
by Council resolution.
May I remind you that you have ninety days in whioh to
present your C8se for the rezoninQ process (City Planning
Commission and City Council Public Hearings). Otherwise,
the City Council will handle this matter without your
consent and in accordance with their decision.
!f the Planning Department can be of any further help,
please do not hesitate to callan us.
Very truly yours,
Walter T. Rybkowski
Planning Director
WTR/kkw
cc; City A~min18trator
City Council
~Dril In, 1974
Mr. Dwaine R. Richter
28Gn Derry Lane
Golden, Colorado sn4n1
Dear Mr. Richter:
Confirming our telephone conversation of last night, r
l"ould like to reiterete once again that your application
ror rezoning should not come for change of zoning until
annexation of your property is completely finalized by the
City Council and not before thirty days after the ordinance
is finally adopted.
Sincerely,
Walter T. Rybkowski
PlanninQ Director
WTR/kkw
M E M 0
3 April 1974
TO
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT
RICHTER PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
Planning Department has reviewed the petition for annexation submitted by
Mr. Dwaine Richter on 19 March 1974, and hereby makes the following
Finding of Fact:
1. The boundary of the proposed annexation that is contiguous
with the City of Wheat Ridge, exceeds the 1/5th requirement
as per 139-21-3(2) of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
2. It has been determined by the Engineering Department that
the legal description of the proposal is valid and accept-
able. (See attached memo from the Chief of Engineering)
The Planning Department makes the following comments and recommendations:
1. The Jefferson County Future Land Use Plan prepared in 1951,
and adopted by the City of Wheat Ridge, recommends low
density residential uses (0-4 dwelling units/acre) for the
general area in question. The Land Use Plan prepared and
adopted by the City of Wheat Ridge in September, 1971 does
not extend beyond its present corporate limits therefore,
not inclusive of the parcel in question. However, it does
recommend commercial uses immediately to the east, adjacent
to the proposal.
2. The Planning Department recommends that within 90 days of
the effective annexation, the petitioner make application
for zoning under Section Twenty of Ordinance 98 "Planned
Commercial Development District". This method of zoning
and development will provide for proper site development
including: (a) Approval of uses; (b) Controlled access;
(c) Interior vehicular and pedestrian circulation design;
(d) Desirable sign graphics; (e) Landscape design; (f)
Building design providing proper architectural continuity
throughout the development. This concept will offer the
amenities and uses that will be an asset to the area.
3. The Planning Department feels that this location is a
potential commercial area and would be the most appropriate
and reasonable use of the parcel.
GWG/cs
INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
APRIL 1, 1974
TO
FROM
SUBJECT
GARTH GIBBONS, PLANNING TECHNICIAN
CHIEF OF ENGINEERING
PROPOSED ANNEXATION BY MR. DWAINE RICHTER
In reviewing the attached legal description and plat of the
proposed annexation, I find the description and plat to be
adequate and correct within tolerable limits.
However, in reviewing the proposed annexation, we found that
there is a bust in the current legal description of the
City limits.
The City legal description states a distance of 357.0' W.
from the North West corner of the NE Quarter, SW Quarter of
Section 29 to the West Right-of-Way line of 1-70 being the
Western City boundry at this point. The plat submitted by
Mr. Richter shows this distance to be 456.57' which I believe
is correct.
It appears to me that the legal description of the City limits
should by reviewed by a registered land surveyor to correct
this error and any other error which may be present.
~ (-
LARRY R. THOMAS
LRT/lt
Attachment
cc: Walter Rubkowski, Director of Planning
M E M 0
March 20, 1974
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: City Attorney, William McCarthy
SUBJECT: Richter Annexation Petition
--- >
I have reviewed the attached documents and have found them to be
legally sufficient.
The following matters should have your attention:
1. It should be determined that in fact not less
than 1/6 of the perimeter of the area is contiguous
(Planning or Public Works).
2. It should be determined that description of
the land is accurate (Ibid).
3. I understand that Richter is sole (100%)
owner of the land -- if so, Council, by ordinance,
may proceed to annex without notice or hearing.
139 - 21 - 6,(~ ytJ (h).
4. Land must be brought under our zoning within
90 days of effective date of annexing ordinance.
--).
139 - 21 - 14 (2).
5. Planning should review this entire package
and make comment.
6. If it is determined to have notice and hearings
you should use resolutions etc. in Annex file #3 as
model. I will review them.
No fee is charged for annexation.
~:::..-
-~i~-~ )
-.-- _.. .../
William McCarthy
cc: Mr. Jerman
Dr. Abramson
,<-.---
--
-.
.-
I
"-"
-i
,-
---- ---,...,---~~--_._--~--~---_._-_. ----
LAW OFFICES
BRUNO, BRUNO AND BRUNO
<IV<
c;\\
"
\) \-<, I
V "-
~'<V'
SUITE: 1175 CAPITOL LIP-I:: Ce:NT;::Ff
c. 'eTH A\ll!:HU=:' &. S)>4i:RM"~ STREET
ASSOC,AoTCS
H~ C. REE:O
DENVER,COLORADO 80203
861-8397
f"RAM'" A~ aRUMO
LOUl5 B. B~UNO
DAVia .J. BRU..o
February 19, 1974
Mr ~_ :Ma.rti.n P. Mi.1.1.er
Attonley ~t Law
1901 West Littleton Boulevard
Littleton, Colorado 80120
:Re: Dodder vo Richter
Dear Mr. Mi.ller:
After our lunch on Wednesday, February 13, 1974,
I met with the Plaintiffs in connection with the
above entitled matter and fully discussed with them
our conversation in the hopes of arriving at a settle-
ment herein.
Generally speaking, the Plaintiffs will accept
and actively support the uses permitted by R-Cl _
zoning as provided by Jefferson County, Colorado. ,-:-
Further, they ~l1 accept a motel-restaurant complex
on the subject property if the rezoning proposal
proceeds through Jefferson County rather than the
City of Wheat Ridge. The Plaintiffs have a basic
distrust for the City and its elected representatives
and are therefore willing to concede the uses of the
motel if Mr. Richter is willing to proceed through
JefferSon County rather than the City. It should
be understood that while the use as permitted by
R-Cl of the county regulations are acceptable,
.'
,
~ --
,/~
they would wish to work out a detailed plan with
~k. Richter to locate such uses on the subject
tract.
Please let me hear from you at your earliest
convenience.
.- .,.--'~
- ..'''''~
';"'r~.--
".-.-.-,---
~, .:1:.:
: .L:;;_.._
+: ~
~
LBB/tc.
.,
,
--.:-"..
t,:,,"
-:;I -
.,
1 j,!~,~ l~
Findings by the City Clerk regarding petitions turned in
on Rezoning Case WZ-74-18 which was approved by City Council
at approximately 3:00 a.m. on August 30, 1974 (Said Council
Meeting began on August 29, 1974) requesting by petition
that "the City Council reconsider and repeal entirely said reso-
lution, or alternatively, to submit the same to a referendum vote
of the qualified electors of the City of Wheat Ridge, State of
Colorado."
1. A spot check by myself of the signers of the petitions
shows that they are residents of Wheat Ridge.
2. A total of 51 petitions were turned into the City Clerk's
Office. Of these, 47 were circulated by non-residents of
Wheat Ridge, and 4 were circulated by residents of Wheat Ridge.
3. There was a total of 1,721 signatures on the petitions
passed by non-residents, and 87 signatures on the petitions passed
by-residents. There was a total of 1,808 signatures.
4. According to C.R.S., 1963, as amended, 70-1-15 and 70-1-17
the number of signatures required is 15% of the votes cast for
all candidates for mayor.
5. In the regular Municipal Election held on November 6, 1973
the total number of votes cast for all the candidates for Mayor
was 4,595. Fifteen percent of that number is 689.25.
6. The rulings of the City Attorney are as follows.....
7. I therefore~ Elise Brougham, City Clerk of the City of Wheat
Ridge declare the petitions to be INVALID based upon the recommen-
dation of the City Attorney William E. McCarthy.
Petitions Circulated by a Non-Resident of Wheat Ridge
Petition Number Number of Siqnatures
1 14
2 50
3 49
4 48
5 50
6 2
7 50
8 31
9 50
10 35
12 25
13 35
14 18
15 49
16 48
17 2
18 .- 31
19 50
20 50
21 50
22 6
23 50
24 50
25 50
25 Lf9
27 34
28 27
29 1
30 50
31 50
n 32 49
33 49
34 3
35 49
36 36
37 50
Petitions Circulated by a Non-Resident of Wheat Ridge
Peti tion Number Number of Siqnatures
3B 50
39 50
40 49
41 49
42 24
43 27
44 23
45 50
46 7
47 11
48 41
TOTAL 47 TOTAL 1,721
Petitions Circulated by a Resident of Wheat Ridge
Petition Number
Number of Siqnatures
11
49
50
51
50
3
8
26
TOTAL
4
TOTPL
87
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
GRAND
TOTAL
51
GRAND
TOTAL
1,80B
"-' '"
... -< c
}--'
0
t:D
8
0 -0
:l n ::D
0 -:J rr
:= 0 l-j
OJ
EO: 3
-' m
i- 0
~ ::l
Cl
G1
- ::0
J:>
Z
C1
-l
CJ
-l
;p
r
CJ
-rl
e::
:D
::0
C1
U1
H
H
H
G'l
::0 :D
J:> ;2
2 C1
C1
H
-l 1-1
0 H
-- -l
;p :D
r Z
0
:D
OJ
U1
r<1
Z
-l
r<1
r r<1
c::::
CJ
-I
JT\
U1
II 11 it \I
.l:" ~ (\.1
- ~ -.J .+:"
\Jl ~
. -. \0 ~ ....:l CJ
\Jl Cl' CtI ~
rI "- \
. ;--' <..: w
0 l-j \
. 0 :;:~\
G'l .
('] -0 C,)
::l [lJ :D <CJ
to -0 \ u o Cl
:= ro l-j l-j ::l
CJ 0-
E: 3 I-"
::r L1 0-
t-" a \ p
& ::J <1"
ro c:1
N N e::
LT\ (\.1 \.D -0
\.D (Jl -J t-:l :D
c:1 ::0
t1 C1
I-'"
:l 1-1
n
~
~
+" ....
-.J CJ OJ
\Jl -.J (Jl N
U1
~ (Jl LT\ C
.l:" \.,l OJ tr
.+:" \.,l \.,l rl'
0
c+
III
l-'
I
..de::
>i J:>
...>. 1II ::0
\.-1 -.J LT\ n 0
...>. .+:" CJ I-'"
:l H
n H
c+
v.:
\ N \ ...>.
UI co \.C
0\ co .+:" +
~ ~ UI
.+:" O:l \.,l
..,J O:l Cl"I
- en
c
~ Ul + CT
\.,l Ul \.C rl'
+ CJ CJ a
rl'
i ! ~\ i
t . ,
\ ~t::::::- ,
-,- I
$-i:~~ ,
ro>"l
n 0-
I-'"
VI 0\ ::J HI
..,J Cl"I N n H
..... O:l -J .... H
0\
N \ \Jl
0\ CJ -.J ..,J
+" N -J
g'\
-> rt\
...>. \Jl N
\.>I -.J CJ
\Jl CJ +" ~\ I
N N ~\
\.,.l \Jl +"
I i\
~
0
H
--I
-<
CJ
-rl
:;: E:
;p :;:
-< r<1
0 :D
::0 -I
n :0
;p H
2 0
0 G1
1-1 P1
0
:D :;:
-l C
fTI 2
U1 H
n
H
-0
Z :D
0 r
c::::
r<1 r<1
~ r"
r<1
r<1 CJ
::0 -l
H
CI\ 0 --
2-
....
\.C :0
-J {"1.
\.>I. tn
c
..
-l
en
~/
./ . -
H E i"l 0
TQ: Jchn A. Jerman
City Administrator
FROM: City Attorney
DATE: March 4, 1974
SUBJ: Changes/Amendments to Zoning Ordinance
You have asked that I consider the idea of Council making
zoning changes by numbered resolutions and give you my
reaction.
Wheat Ridge regulates zoning by ordinance (#98) and official
zoning map. Since its inception, the city has amended or
changed zoning by motion.
It is a well established general rule that an ordinance is
changed or amended by a substitute ordinance. (I understand
that statutory cities Brighton and Broomfield amend their
zoning by ordinance--and home rule cities Aurora, Lakewood,
end Englewood do likewise.)
I understand that an earlier Wheat Ridge administration
considered the substitute ordinance procedure and rejected
it. While it is not a firm (unquestionable) determination,
this decision can find support in CRS '63, 139-60-4, which
allows a city to establish its own rules as to the manner
in which zoning provisions may be amended, supplemented, or
changed.
Change or amendment by numbered resolution has the admin-
istrative advantage of permitting a more orderly and efficient
record keeping. However, numbering and titling of zoni~g
motions would meet the resolution advantage.
Change and amendment by ordinance would reach general rule/
practice; would alleviate any question about legality of
present procedure; would obtain the mentioned ord2rliness
and efficiency anc; would, because of the 3: day delav-in
beccning effective, permit the public better o~~ortunity to
express objection.
Jchn A. .Jerman
Page Two
But, this procedure can be viewed 65 objectionable--two
readings, 10 day delay in public hearing, in addition to
the 30 days, plus the possibility of 8 public protest
resulting in the ordinance being abandoned by Councilor
an election (referendum).
Parenthetically, some Colorado cities attempt to get around
the protest/election by making their substitute ordinance
an "emergency" one taking effect in five days--a questionable
practice.
Perhaps we should discuss this further.
WILLIAM E. McCARTHY
City Attorney
WEM/kkw
AMENDED PETITION
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED
TERRITORY IN THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON,
STATE OF COLORADO
TO THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE,
STATE OF COLORADO
TO THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE,
COLORADO:
The undersigned, In accordance with the Municipal Annex-
ation Act of 1965, chapter 303, Session Laws of Colorado 1965,
and colorado Revised Statutes of 1963 as amended Chapter 139,
Article 21, hereby petitions The city council of the city of
Wheat Ridge for annexation to the city of Wheat Ridge of the
following described unincorporated territory located in the
county of Jefferson, state of colorado, to-wit:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A"
In support of the said petition, your Petitioner alleges that:
1. It is desirable and necessary that the above des-
cribed territory be annexed to the city of Wheat Ridge.
2. Not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area
proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the city of Wheat
Ridge.
3. A community of interest exists between the territory
proposed to be annexed and the city of Wheat Ridge.
4. The territory proposed to be annexed is urban or
will be urbanized in the near future.
5. The territory proposed to be annexed is integrated
or is capable of being integrated with the city of Wheat Ridge.
6. No land held in identical ownership, whether consist-
lng of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more
contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate:
(a) is divided into separate parts or parcels
without the written consent of the landowner
or landowners thereof, unless such tracts or
parcels are separated by a dedicated street,
road or other public way;
(b) comprising ten acres or more which has an
assessed value in excess of Seven Thousand
Dollars for ad valorem tax purposes for the
year preceding the annexation lS included
within the territory proposed to be annexed
without the written consent of the landowner
or landowners.
7. I, Dwaine R. Richter, the slgner of the Petition comprise
the landowner of one hundred percent of the territory included
in the area proposed to be annexed, exclusive of streets and
alleys.
8. The mailing address of the signer, the legal descrip-
tion of the land owned by the signer, and the date of signing
of his signature are all shown on this Petition.
9. Attached to this petition is the affidavit of the
circulator of this Petition that the signature hereon is the
signature of the person whose name it purports to be.
Your Petitioner further requests that the city of Wheat
Ridge approves the annexation of the area proposed to be
annexed.
SIGNATURE
DWAINE R. RICHTER, whose address lS 2860 Berry Lane,
Golden, colorado
80401, owns the above described real
Jif/Lk/ :{fJ2IL-
DWAINE R. RICHTER
Date: ,JI/7y
-=If'/ /
I
property.
-2-
~
STATE OF COLORADO
!
COUNTY OF ;"-. lj;')~ . J' L
ss.
AFFIDAVIT
~t)1JJ.J--
/' ,
1\ ~,J~; c t
, being first duly sworn,
upon oath, deposes
1. That the affiant circulated the Petition for
Annexation herein for the purpose of obtaining the signature
of the above petitioner.
2. That the signature thereon is the signature of the
person whose name it purports to be.
., ~ _ 'L
oJ, ......-1,. ~- I ". .
-., ,
. t ., /lhe /_\
~~__-1 ....--i ./1
· ~-}7
~-".-'
/"(
Subscribed and sworn to before me this~_ day of
(. ct ~~ l
, 1974.
/
~ commission expires:
, /, l. I
f
:/
I J /7 )(,
I
/';,j r
~'- (,.4.- ,.,ff. {.,t.'.;
,("" /' /
v..... '1 {( '-r;,L.c---
(SEAL)
-3-
EXHIBIT "A"
DESCRIPTION
;;:Jcq/nn/nq of fhe norfheo:Jf COf"ner or Loi I) Block I) App
~c.v-den~ 5#/?/;j.j'tj/on.> JeffertJon r:ounfy, Colorado; fhen
o long fne .J-":;______';;'":j Ime of Lots 2) 3) 4) 5) G and 7 of 50
C' d/:;Ionce of 468.43 feef to the norfheo:Jf corner of ~
f:7t'nce conft'nu/nq tV 0048.2' W a d'6fance of 50 feef fo f
/:One of We::;f 33rd Avenue; thence 5C3:;03:J'W along f-he
//ne of hie:;f 33ro A venue a d/5fonce of ~2 feef to fhe
corner oT fhe wesf 30 feef of Lot 5; 810ck 4 of :5010 ,-
GO,voden!:> .3ubd/v/5/0n; thence N 0048.2' fY along fhe e0:57
the wesf 30 feet of .sa ld Lof 5 a d/5fance of' 130 Tee t fo
of .5o;"d Lof 5 JO fhence 58:;o3;)'W alonq the norfher/y I/n.e ,
4 a d;~fance of 211.03 feef to a,po/nf IOG2.48 -reef VY
//ne of Lot 15) Roxbury Gorden!:>) Jef"rer5on County) Calc
N 003 J.3'W parallel 10 fhe e05f I/ne of said Lot /5 a d/5
feef fa the norfh line of .501d Lot 15; fhence 1Y3~o3:;'E ole
J/ne of saId Lot 15 a d/::Jfonce of 728.38 feef to a poir.
we:3f of fhe norfhea!)f corner of !3old Lot 15) .501d po;'nf
>ve5ferly r/qhf-of-way /lne of Inter.5tafe H/qhway No.I
.'oufherly along fhe we:3fer/~ righf-of-way //ne of 60ld j-
l'ne follovv;'nq -four COUr5efJ: :5 G" 37.S-'W 0 dl6fance of 119.,
o d/:dance of 2GG.70 feef; 589"40'h/ a dl5fonce of 32.8
:3 G,"3t'y.; 0 dl5rance of' 547.73 feef fo a po/nf 70 reef ne
:Jou fA !/ne of fhe (Y W 'It/. of 5ec lion 2:J, T 3 5, R G:; W; fhe!
S 00 17~~'E. 0 d/~fance of 70 fee f to fhe 60ufh It'ne of f)
60ld .5ecf/on Z~; fhence /Y89043.5'E along the .5oufh /1
of 5o/d 5ecf/on 29 a d/~fonce of 45G.57 {"eef to fhe .50U
cf fhe 5h'Y4- ofihe NH'I4 ofsoid5ecft'on 2~jfhence .5003G'Ealo
of the NYz 5h'14. of 5o/d Secf/on 2;3 0 di5fcnce of GO reefj fhen,
a Y;'5fonce of w87.84 feet to a pot'nf G35 feet eO:3f of/he we,
5 x}~ of 50id 5ecf/on 2~J'
~::ence ~O~ 39.5 '1;'7 parallel to the west line of the Sh'!:( of said Secb.ion
.
di~tance of 15 feet; thence S89043.5'W parallel to the north line of t
of said Section 29 a distance of 240 feet; thence Noo39.5'W a'distance
=2et to the no~th line of the SW~ of said Section 29; thence N0048.2',~
to ~he west line of the m'll:( of said Section 29 a distance of 30 feet t
:::o::th line of West 32nd Avenue, as shown on the plat of said Applewood
Sucdivision; thence N89043.5'E along the north line of West 32nd Avenu,
t~nc~ of 50 fe~t to the intersection of the south line of said Lot 1 w
',Iest line of said Lot 1: thence Noo48.2'W a distance of 95 feet to' the
wast co~ne~ of said Lot 1; thence N89043.5'E along the north line of Si
~ d~~tance of 115 feet to point of beginning.
(
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED
TERRITORY IN THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON,
STATE OF COLORADO
TO THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE,
STATE OF COLORADO
TO THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE,
COLORADO:
The undersigned, In accordance with the Municipal Annex-
ation Act of 1965, chapter 303, Session Laws of Colorado 1965,
and Colorado Revised Statutes of 1963 as amended Chapter 139,
Article 21, hereby petitions The city Council of the city of
Wheat Ridge for annexation to the city of Wheat Ridge of the
following described unincorporated territory located in the
County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, to-wit:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A"
In support of the said Petition, your Petitioner alleges that:
1. It is desirable and necessary that the above des-
cribed territory be annexed to the City of Wheat Ridge.
2. Not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area
proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the city of Wheat
Ridge.
3. A community of interest exists between the territory
proposed to be annexed and the city of Wheat Ridge.
4. The territory proposed to be annexed is urban or
will be urbanized in the near future.
5. The territory proposed to be annexed is integrated
or is capable of being integrated with the city of Wheat Ridge.
6. No land held in identical ownership, whether consist-
lng of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more
contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate:
(a) is divided into separate parts or parcels
without the written consent of the landowner
or landowners thereof, unless such tracts or
parcels are separated by a dedicated street,
road or other public way;
(b) comprising ten acres or more which has an
assessed value in excess of Seven Thousand
Dollars for ad valorem tax purposes for the
year preceding the annexation lS included
within the territory proposed to be annexed
without the written consent of the landowner
or landowners;
7. The signer of the Petition comprlses the landowner
of more than fifty percent of the territory included in the
area proposed to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys.
8. The mailing address of the signer, the legal descrip-
tion of the land owned by the signer, and the date of signing
of his signature are all shown on this petition.
9. Attached to this Petition is the affidavit of the
circulator of this Petition that the signature hereon is the
signature of the person whose name it purports to be.
Your petitioner further requests that the city of Wheat
Ridge approves the annexation of the area proposed to be
annexed.
SIGNATURE
DWAINE R. RICHTER, whose address lS 2860 Berry Lane,
Golden, colorado 80401, owns the above described real
property.
Date:
Jt16' C \7./:,' / ~- //c;-'/ V
./
-2-
STATE OF COLORADO )
~1'1'r"r5t'JJf )
COUNTY OF ~ )
ss.
AFFIDAVIT
\.. /_LuL V-Uj.,
,
, being first duly sworn,
upon oath, deposes and states:
1. That the affiant circulated the Petition for
Annexation herein for the purpose of obtaining the signature
of the above Petitioner.
2. That the signature thereon is the signature of the
person whose name it purports to be.
G~0~ Vul
Subscribed and sworn to before me this~day of
??J~.A:
, 1974.
SEAL
expires, 0,1 /..sJ9''7?
,/ i .0
_~~7/~f:
My commission
EXH1Jj,n A
DESCRIPTION
E3eglnn/nq 01 the norfhea:Jf corner of Lof I) Blocl< I) App/ewood
Gordens 5ubd/vI5/on) JefrertJon r:oun!y, Colorado; thence IV 0048, 2'yl
a/onq the :::;t.;:.{br...-.>:1 line of Lots 2,3) 4,5, r; and 7 of 5o/d Block I
a d/5fance of 438.43 feef fa Ine nor/-heo!}! corner of :Jo/d Lol 7;
fhence confinu/nq /'10048.2.' W a dt'::dance of 50 Teef fa fhe nOr'fhe,-iy
II'ne of Wesf 33rd Avenue; ihence :3!J:J 033'W along +he norfherly
(ine of Wesf 33rel Avenue a d/;Jfance of 92. feef to fhe :7oufnea5ferly
corner of fhe we5t 30 feef of Lof 5) Bloc/< 4- of 50/'0' Applewaod
Garden5 .!3ubdivi5/0n; thence N 0048.2' hi along fhe e05ferly line of
the wes! 30 -reef of .sa/d Lof 5 0 di~:;fance of 130 feet fo the north lIne
of :scnd Lof 5 j thence 58:J038'W olonq the norfherly Itne of .5ald SiccK
4 a disfonce of 211.03 -reef to a,poin! IOG2.48 ree-l- west of" the eC:3
Ime of Loi 15) Roxbury GardentJ) Jerf'er!7on Counfy) colorado.> fhence
N 003 J 3'w porallel fo {he e05f I/ne of 50ld Lot 15 0 d/5fance of 205
feef fo the north !/ne of 5ald Lot 15; thence NtJ'303:J't along fhe ncr+h
!/ne of said Lot 15 a d/:3fance of 728.38 feef fa 0 pomt 334. ( -feeT
we.5f of the norfhee:J! corner of :Joid Lot /5) 50ld pOinf being on i-he
we5ferly right-of-way line of Inter5tare H/qhway No.J>70; fherce
50ufhGrly along the we:3ferl'j rlghl-o/-way line of :JOte! /-I/qfn/lfay _:c~;-
-the fo/lowmg four Cour5e!"!' 5G0375Wo dl::dance of /19.2 feefj5Co:'O't
o dl5fonce of ZGG. 70 feef.; :; 8~ 040' hi 0 d/5fance of 32 8 feef". ena
:3 GO 3;' /4 0 d/5fonce of 547. 73 fee f fa 0 po int 70 reef norfh of fho':
:7o'..dh ilne of +he NW'Ic;. of5ecl/on 2:J,T3.5,RG:JW; fhence
:; CO !7~4-'E a d/~fance of 70 feet to fhe :5oufh line of the NW'I4 cf
:701d 5ectlOn 2:7j thence /y8")043.5'E along the .5oufh line of tne s;../
of 5al'd Section 2'3 a dl5fonce of 45G.57 reef to fhe ..5oulheo:Jf c:Jr,~e,-
c;f fh: 5f,-,!0 of the NW!i4 of .5aid 3ecflon 2.'3j fhence 5003C'E along fhe cc:-/ ,
of fhe Yifiz 3h'Y-;. of 50ld 5ecfton 2'3 0 d/~dcnce of GO reef:, thence 5830c,:.....]
C c:),~dQnce of 087.84 feet to 0 painf G35 feef e05f offf.e weST Ime of' .J.,,~
5:--:/::. 0,>' 5::Jld 5"!cfton 2:)}'
t~ence ~0"39.5.W parallel to the west line of the SW~ o~ said Se~b~on 29 a
distance of 15 feet; thence S89"43. 5 'w parallel to the north line' of the S\'1':;
of said Section 29 a distance of 240 feet; thence Noo39.S'w a distance of 4S
:eaet to th'O! north line of the swl;, of said Section 29; thence NOOcj8.2'\,/ ':)Clr31lcl
to ~he west line of th~ NWl;, of said Section 29 a distance of 30 feet to'the
;"orth line of \'lest 32nd Avenue. as shown on the plat of said Apple,'Jood G"rd,,~s
Subdivision; thence N89043.5'E along the north line of \'lest 32nd Avenue ~ dis-
tance of 50 feet to the intersection of the south line of said Lot 1 wit~ t~e
west line of said Lot 1; thence NO"48.2'W a distance of 9S feet to the ~orth-
~)est corner of said Lot 1; thence N89043.5'E along the north line of sa,d Lot 1
a difjtance of 115 feet to point of beginning.
!
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF A~7WU. '1./
.,
'I
\ f:2-rn. -J./ ;\cJ...t..vT tj;...y,-,-~, , being first duly s\\Orn,
!j (!
upon oath, deposes and states:
ss.
AFFIDAVIT
1. That the affiant circulated the Petition for
Annexation herein for the purpose of obtaining the signature
of the above Petitioner.
2. That the signature thereon is the signature of the
person whose name it purports to be.
r-1/V'V> ~ .,(\~yc 1;t
1:<-
...............-.....---L--.-.........~/J
' :./
, ~-r
Subscribed and SWorn to before me this / --- day of
(SEAL)
",h,l:~ /y fj 7(,
oj' f '
)
~ct~uJ?: ~-t~L,-
, /
-3-
,
EXHIBIT "A"
DESCRIPTION
8eq,nn/nq of -the norfhea::Jf corner of Loi I, Block I) Applewood ,
Gordens 5ubd/v/5/on.> Je!Yer:;on r:ounf'j, Colorado; fhence /'100413.21-1
along the ~';j!'.!!.S!.---r line of Lof5 2, 3} 4,5, G and 7 of 5o/d 810cx I
a d/5fance of 488.43 feef fa fhe norfheo::d corner of :laid Loi 7;
thence conft'nu/nq IV 0048.2' W a d/6fance of 50 feef fo fhe nor-fhe{'/y
J:'ne of We5f 33rd Avenue j thence :3 8:3 033'01 along +he northerly
I/ne of We5f 33ro Avenue a d/:;fonce of:32 feet fo Ihe 8oufhea:5rerly
corner of fhe wesf 30 feef of Lof 5) Block 4 of :JCI/O Applewood
Garden5 .5ubdlvl.5/on; thence N 0048.2' H along fhe eO:5fer/y line of
the we:3f 30 feef of 60' ld LvI 5 a d/:,fO'nce of /30 Tee f fo the north /In,
of .5cl/d Lof 5 j fhence 58:303f)'W alonq the norfherly I/ne of. .5aid eloc/
4- a di5fance of 2//.03 feef fo Ci ,po"nt /0 G 2.48 reef we:3t of" fhe eo
line of Lol /5) Roxbury GardentJ) Jerf"er:Jon Counfy) Colorado j fhence
N 003 !.3'w parallel fo the eo:d I/ne of .5O'/d Lof 15 a d/5fonce of 205
feef fa the north I/ne of ,;')oid Lot 15; fhence Nt3'!)o3:J'E along fhe norf}-
I/ne of sold Lof 15 a d/f)fance of 728.38 feef fa 0 pomf 334./ -feef
we:3r of fhe norlheO'tJf corner of .5old Lot 15, .5oid pomf be:/nq on fhe
we5ferly rlghi-of-woy Ilne ,of :Inrer:dale H/ghwoy No.I-70j fhence
50ufhcrly along the we5fer/'j r/CJ.hf -o,f-woy, I/ne of 6o/d /-Ilqhwoy f:?r,
fhe followmg f"our coursefJ: 5 G 37.0 W a d/::Jfonce of 1/9.2 feef j:; 0 30 L
a dl5fance of 2GG.70 feef; 58:3040'r; 0 dl5fonce of 32.8 feefJ. end
:5 GO 31' vi a d/5tonce of 547.73 feef to a poinf 70 reef north of fhe
:)ou Ih //ne of fhe /Y W ';4- of 5ecf/on 2:3, T 35, R. G:3 w; -thence
5 00 17~~'E 0 d/~fO'nce of 70 feef fa fhe :5oufh I/ne of the /'IN '14 of
5'o/d .sect/on 29; thence IYC3:3043.5'E along the .5oufh I/ne of the N0/
of sar'd 5ecf,'on 2:3 a dl':5 fonce of 45G.57 reef to Ihe .,5oulheo:Jf corne,'
of the 51-\'% of fhe NW!i4 of said 5ecf/on 2:7; fhence 5003C'E along fhe ec~f./
of fhe NJz 5WJ.4 of 50ld !3ecf/on 29 a d/5fonce of GO feet; fhence 583043.6 ;-
o di5fonce of 087.84 feet to a po/nf G35 feef eo::Jf of -Ihe weST line of fhc
5 x;,; of 5o/d 5ectlOrJ 2'3J'
~::ence :-:oo39.s'H parallel to the west line of the SW\ of said Secb;ion 29 a
c:i:;;:ance of 15 feet; thence S89043.s't-I parallel to the north line' of the S\,,~
of said Section 29 a distance of 240 feet; thence NOa39.s'W a distance of 45
=2et to the north line of the SW~ of said Section 29; thence Noo48.2'\~ parallel
to ':ne west line of the NW~ of said Section 29 a distance of 30 feet to the
:-oo::-th line of West 32nd Avenue, as shown on the plat of said Apple\1ood Gardens
SUDdivision; thence N89043.S'E along the north line of West 32nd Avenue a oi5-
~a~ce of 50 feet to the intersection of the south line of said Lot 1 with the
'dest line of said Lot 1; thence Noo48. 2 'w a distance of 95 feet to' the north-
west corner of said Lot 1; thence N89043.S'E along the north line of said Lot 1
a d~6tance of 115 feet to point of beginning.
!
City of Wheat Ridge
In this space there is a large scale map that could not be scanned at
this time. Please see the City of Wheat Ridge Clerks office if you
would like to see the map. Thank You.
1808 residents sign
petitions seeking
reversal of zoning
More than 1800 Wheat Ridge residents are upset with
the City Council's handling of the zoning of 10 acres at W
32nd Ave. and Interstate 70. They want the Council either
to reverse its decision to approve planned commercial
development for the site or put it to a vote of the people.
Petitions with 1808 names have been turned in to City
Clerk Elise Brougham asking for the repeal or referen-
dum on the zoning.
She accepted them, subject to the approval of City At-
ty Bill McCarthy The City Council will hear a report on
the petitions Thursday (tonight) at its study session and
will take action by resolution a week later at its regular
meeting.
Mrs. Brougham said state law requires that referen-
dum petitions must contain signatures of at least 15 pet.
of the number of persons who voted for mayor in the last
election. Since there were 4595 votes cast for mayor Nov
6, 1973, about 690 signatures were required.
She said 47 of the peti.tions were circulated by non-
residents and only four were circulated by Wheat Ridge
residents.
Four non-residents from the Applewood Gardens area
led the petition drive to repeal the zoning of Dwaine
Richter's property at the northwest corner of W 32nd
Ave. and 1-70. They were Mary 'C. Dodder, Frank
Fraunfelder, Arthur F Brunton and Gary H. Holbrook.
Their attorney is Alan C. DeMuth.
Richter successfully annexed the property to Wheat
Ridge this spring after three tries, and came in for rezon-
ing of the land Aug. 29. His outline development plan for
planned commercial development zoning was un-
animously app1'OV'ed by the CounCll.
Council members urged him and the residents op-
posing the zoning to get together to work out compatible
uses of the property When no effort was made,
the Applewood Gardens residents decided to circulate the
referendum petitions.
Richter has previously tried to rezone the property for
duplexes, apartments or restricted commercial uses,
before the County Commissioners and later the Wheat
Ridge City Council, but was strongly opposed in each
attempt.
Area residents feel the proposed commercial-I uses
are too intense next to a residential area and that the traf-
fic problems and hazards for school children will be in-
creased. Part of Richter's property has protective
covenants on it to restrict development ot low density
residential uses.
Richter
applies_
unoPposed
Suppose D .
tried to annex~al~e Richter I
Ridge and no~ to Wheat I
protest? Y came to I
That's ex
happened last actly What
ordinanc week when an :
Richter's roe annexing
northwest co acres at the
Ave a ndrneroC.W 32nd
U' 1-70
nammously . was
reading by th:~~ed on !irst
CIty Council' eat RIdge
. !
bu~o~~;hc:~e t~hoPPose it.
change, when a~ will
comes to the - RIchter
rezoning of th cIty for
RIC~ter was un e property
I obtaming'" successful In
, th " rezoni
j e COunty ng from
HIS first attem
to Wheat Rid e pt to annex
dIed in a f g and rezone
Council. Hl~ ~ote ?f the City
. Was approve~con(j attemp't
reSIdents Went i but area
the de' .0 COurt and
CIS I 0
overturned n was
main objecti ResIdents'
change for c~~ was the zone
m their r . merclal Uses
borhood. eSldential neigh.
.~ During his th.
Inclusion in th lrd try for
first attempf e cIty. he is
and will later ~~~ /0 annex
.Change. or a zone
1 Q-acre rezoning
faces third attempt
Dwaine Richter is back
before the Wheat Ridge City
Council once again, trying to
annex his property to the
city and perhaps the third
time will be a charm.
Richter a ttempted to
rezone and annex 10 acres of
undeveloped land at the
northwest corner of W 32nd
Ave. and 1-70, two times
before. The first time, the
request died with a tie vote.
The Council approved his se-
cond request despite much
op.positon ,of area
homeowners. They were OJ>-
posed to the 7.8 acres of
commerciaH zoning and 1.4
acres of restricted
commercial.l property he
requested.
The case was taken to
court, and District Judge
Winston Wolvington over.
turned the annexation and
rezoning because the City
Council erred in denying a
legal protest by surrounding
neighbors.
In his third approach to
the Wheat Ridge Council,
Richter is simply asking for
annexation to toe city,
retaining its present
agriculture-2, residential.}
and residential.lA zoning.
He called it his "annual
. ftillolity.", Helntends to ask.
for rezoning later for com.
mercial uses_
-I
::0
C
'i
en
D.
Ol
<
He told the Council he was
bringing his dog-eared, beat.
up petition for annexation to
them again. "I was rejected
once, accepted once, and
then disected by the District
Court_ "
:P
-a
'i
1-'.
I--'
...
City Attorney Bill
McCarthy told the Council
members they could annex
the property by ordinance
without the normal
hearings.
Alderman Louise Turner
made a motion the the
Richter Annexation procede
by ordinance, and that the
public works and planning
departments check out the
petition, so that action may
be taken on it at the study
session Thursday (tonight)
The motion was approved.
A public hearing will then
be held April 11 when the or.
dinance comes up on first
reading.
Alderman Larry Merkl
voted against Mrs, Turner's
motion to protest the rush
treatment. "What's the
hurry?" he said. "I hear a
railroad. "
Richter lives at 2860 Berry
Lane. Golden: .
-'
Ul
-.J
...
-I
::0
ro
E
::0
ro
Ol
c+
::0
1-"
D.
lD
ro
u:
ro
:J
ci
I-'
:J
ro
I-
.,
o
u::
n