HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session Packet 12-17-12STUDY SESSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
7500 W. 29th Ave.
Wheat Ridge CO
December 17, 2012
6:30p.m.
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the
City of Wheat Ridge . Call Heather Geyer, Administrative Services Director at 303-235-2826 at
least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion
assistance.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS
APPROVALOFAGENDA
1. Kipling PEL Update -COOT
2. Staff Report(s)
3. Design for entry of City Hall Plaza
4. Televising City Council Study Sessions on Channel 8
5. Discussion of Renewal Wheat Ridge Appointments
6 . Discussion of term limits for Board and Commissions
7. Elected Officials' Report(s)
~+em-J.
~~·~
... ~ r City of • .. rPr"WheatRi_dge ~PUBLIC WORK S
Memorandum
TO: Patrick Goff, City Manager
FROM: Tim Paranto, Director of Public Works
DATE: December 11, 2012 (for 12117/12 Study Session)
SUBJECT: 1-70 & Kipling Street Interchange PEL Study
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has requested the opportunity to update the
City Council on the status of the ongoing Planning Environmental Linkage Study for
improvement of the 1-70 I Kipling Street Interchange. CDOT will discuss the purpose ofthe
study and the remaining alternatives under consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CDOT Exchange handouts
1-70 & Kipling Interchange PEL Study
Level 2 Screening
Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI)
Alternative I
This interchange consists of a single signalized intersection on Kipling Street serving all movements to/from
the 1-70 ramps and the Kipling Street through movements.
The alternative provides a compact layout, eliminates one signal on Kipling Street, and increases signal
spacing on Kipling Street.
Operations and Safety
• Westbound 1-70 Off Ramp delay reduced by 30% from the No Action alternative in the PM peak hour.
• Peak hour queues on the westbound 1-70 off ramp are reduced by almost 75%.
• Greater intersection spacing and directional interchange layout is easy for drivers to negotiate.
Multimodal Connections
• Shared use path and bicycle lanes are provided directly through the interchange.
• The large single intersection may be intimidating for bicyclists and pedestrians to negotiate.
Environmental and Community Impacts
• Minimal environmental impacts expected.
• Interchange estimated to directly impact five properties with partial acquisition (total = 0.2 acres).
• No increase in traffic traveling through the surrounding neighborhoods expected.
Constructability
• Clear-span bridge for 1-70 over Kipling Street is required, which creates difficult traffic impacts during
construction and limited opportunities to construct in phases.
• Typical construction costs expected with minimal right-of-way costs. ($ -relative low costs)
Summary of Critical Considerations
Advantages Disadvantages
• Improved vehicular operations • Pedestrian crossings of high-speed right turns
• Easy perceived driver expectancy • Relatively difficult construction impacts compared to
• Direct multimodal connections through interchange other alternatives
• Minor right-of-way impacts • Limited opportunities to construct in phases
• No change to current frontage road access
• Typical construction and minimal right-of-way costs
Recommendation: CARRIED FORWARD
Stakeholder Favorite
Alternative favored by:
-Resident focus group
-Business focus group
-Multimodal focus group
-local emergency responders
10' Shared Use Path
.a Potenti•
Wetland
• Potential
Hezardou$
Materials Site
NoiM Rec:eptor
Existing Trail
Parks
Graphics represent schematic layouts to
Hlustrate general concepts only.
1-70 & Kipling Interchange PEL Study
Level 2 Screening
Partial Cloverleaf with Loops Southwest & Northeast Quadrants
Alternative 7
This interchange consists of a loop ramp in the southwest and northeast quadrants providing free-flow
operations for the left turn movements from Kipling Street to eastbound and westbound 1-70. South
Frontage Road is relocated with a traffic signal on Kipling Street south of the interchange with location
depending on local land use plans.
The alternative eliminates two traffic signals by removing the left turn movements onto the 1-70 ramps and
increases signal spacing on Kipling Street.
Operations and Safety
• Westbound 1-70 Off Ramp delay reduced by 75% from the No Action alternative in the PM peak hour.
• Peak hour queues on the westbound 1-70 off ramp are reduced by almost 70%.
• Greater intersection spacing and typical urban interchange layout is moderately easy for drivers to
negotiate.
Multimodal Connections
• Shared use path and bicycle lanes are provided directly through the interchange.
• Shared use path and bicycle lanes cross free-flow loop ramp movements.
Environmental and Community Impacts
• Interchange estimated to directly impact 18 to 20 properties with seven to nine full and 11 partial
acquisitions (total= 14.3 to 21.2 acres), depending on South Frontage Road relocation.
• Potential increase in traffic traveling on Independence Street in northeast quadrant expected due to
closure of direct access to frontage road.
Constructability
• Relatively easy to construct with areas outside Kipling Street and opportunities to construct in phases.
• Typical construction costs expected with moderate right-of-way costs. ($$-relative moderate costs)
Summary of Critical Considerations
Advantages Disadvantages
• Improved vehicular operations • Pedestrian crossings of free-flow ramp movements
• Moderately easy perceived driver expectancy • Frontage road access to northeast quadrant closed
• Direct multimodal connections through interchange • Moderate right-of-way impacts
• Opportunities to construct in phases
Recommendation: CARRIED FORWARD
Stakeholder Preference
Alternativ e f avored by:
-Lo cal emergency resp o nders
_.._,...._,..,~,, Potential new
signalloction
along Kipling with
Frontage Road
connection
0 Free Flow Traffic
over Crosswalk
A. Potential
Wetland
• Po tenti
Hazardous
Materials S e
No ise Receptor
Existing Trail
Parks
-Property Line
Graphlca reprM4tfll ac:hemalic la)'OW to
~lustr general c:oncepts only.
1-70 & Kipling Interchange PEL Study
Level 2 Screening
Traditional Diamond Interchange
Alternative 12
This interchange consists of two signalized intersections on Kipling Street serving the 1-70 ramps with
increased spacing between the signals and the existing frontage road intersections are unsignalized and
limited to right-in/right-out movements. The South Frontage Road is relocated with a traffic signal on
Kipling Street south of the interchange with the location depending on local land use plans.
The alternative provides a eliminates two signals on Kipling Street and increases signal spacing.
Operations and Safety
• Westbound 1-70 Off Ramp delay reduced by 45% from the No Action alternative in the PM peak hour.
• Southbound Kipling Street peak hour queues leading to the interchange are reduced by about 75%.
• Peak hour queues on the westbound 1-70 off ramp are reduced by about 90%.
• Greater intersection spacing and directional interchange layout is easy for drivers to negotiate.
Multimodal Connections
• Shared use path and bicycle lanes are provided directly through the interchange.
• Pedestrians and bicyclists cross ramp intersections at signals.
Environmental and Community Impacts
• Interchange estimated to directly impact 20 to 22 properties with five to seven full and 15 partial
acquisitions (total= 7.3 to 19.8 acres), depending on South Frontage Road relocation .
• Potential increase in traffic traveling on Independence Street in northeast quadrant expected due to
limitation of left turns at access to frontage road.
Constructabi lity
• Relatively easy to construct with areas outside Kipling Street and opportunities to construct in phases.
• Typical construction costs expected with moderate right-of-way costs. ($$-relative moderate costs)
Summary of Critical Considerations
Advantages Disadvantages
• Improved vehicular operations • Existing frontage road access limited to right-in/right-
• Easy perceived driver expectancy out movements
• Direct multimodal connections through interchange • Moderate right-of-way impacts with South Frontage
Road relocation
• Opportunities to construct in phases
Recommendation: CARRIED FORWARD
Stakeholder Preference
Alternative favored by:
-Resident focus group
-Business focus group
-Multimodal focus group
Potential new
signal loction
along Kipling with
Frontage Road
connection
lrriglllion Ditch
.. Potential
Wetland
• Potential
Hazardous
Materials Site
Noise Receptor
Ellisting Trail
Parks
-Property Line
Graphics represent schem tic layouts to
illustrate general conc:epb only.
1-70 & Kipling Interchange PEL Study
Level 2 Screening
Button Hook Ramps
Alternative I 7
This interchange consists of a loop ramp in the southwest quadrant providing free-flow operations for the
left turn movement from southbound Kipling Street to eastbound 1-70 and a loop ramp in the northwest
quadrant providing access from the westbound off ramp to southbound Kipling Street with direct access to
the frontage road in the northwest quadrant. ·
The alternative eliminates two traffic signals on Kipling Street and provides access between 1-70 and the
frontage roads.
Operations and Safety
• Westbound 1-70 Off Ramp delay reduced by 70% from the No Action alternative in the PM peak hour.
• Southbound Kipling Street peak hour queues leading to the interchange are reduced by 85%.
• Peak hour queues on the westbound 1-70 off ramp are reduced by 75%.
• Unusual movements for ramp access to/from Kipling Street is relatively difficult for drivers to negotiate .
Multimodal Connections
• Shared use path and bicycle lanes are provided directly through the interchange .
• Shared use path and bicycle lanes cross free-flow loop ramp movements.
Environmental and Community Impacts
• Interchange estimated to directly impact 18 properties with four full and 14 partial acquisitions (total=
6.2 acres).
• No increase in traffic traveling through neighborhoods expected .
Constructability
• Relatively easy to construct with areas outside Kipling Street and opportunities to construct in phases.
• Typical construction costs expected with moderate right-of-way costs. ($$-relative moderate costs)
Summary of Critical Considerations
Advantages Disadvantages
• Improved vehicular operations • Difficult perceived driver expectancy
• Direct multimodal connections through interchange • Pedestrian crossings of free-flow ramp movements
• Full access between ramps and frontage roads • Moderate right-of-way impacts
• Opportunities to construct in phases
Recommendation: CARRIED FORWARD
Bridge/Structure
10' Shared Use Path
0 Free Flow Traffic
aver Crosswalk
Irrigation o· ch
• Potential
Wetland
• Potenti
Hazardous
Materiels Site
Noise Receptor
Existing Trail
Parks
-Property Line
Graphica represent IChematio layou to
illustrate general c:cncepts only.
j+ern 2
~~·~
... ~ r City of • ~(?WheatRLdge ~PUBLIC WORKS
Memorandum
TO: Patrick Goff, City Manager
FROM: Tim Paranto , Director of Public Works
DATE: December 10 , 2012 (for 12 /17 /12 Study Session)
SUBJECT: Improvement of City Hall Entry Plaza
The improvement of the front entrance to City Hall has been a deferred project since 2006. In
2008 , a concept plan was developed in anticipation of inclusion in the 2009 Capita] Investment
Program (CIP). Funds have been included in the 2013 CIP Budget for this project. The 2008
plan is attached for your review and use.
Once the City Council approves a concept plan for the plaza improvements , the project will be
scheduled for design and construction. Please note that the landscaping proposed in the 2008
plan has, generally, been implemented , along with sidewalk elements providing access to the
parking lot. The current project would be confined to the immediate plaza area near the front
entrance. The existing plaza area would be demolished and a new design constructed. Canopies
are also proposed to address afternoon sunlight entering the building and roof snow melt.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Plaza Concept
ARC~ITECTURAL TRELLIS --
ANNUAL PLANTINGS IN POTS
LIG~TING UNDER CANOPY
BOLLARD LIG~T
Scope of Project
L BUILDING
ARC~ITECTURA L CANOPY
WIT~ DOWN LIG~TING
RED SANDSTONE STEPPERS
PROPOSED BENC~
Attachment 1
~ . ~
... ~ # ~ City of • ~[?."Wheat&_dge ~ADMINISTRATfVE SERVICES
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager
Heather Geyer, Administrative Services Director
FRO M: Nathan Mosley, Management Analyst
DATE: December 11 ,2012 (for 12 /17/12 Study Session)
SUBJECT: Televising City Council Study Session Meetings
City Council requested infonnation on the cost and availability of the City's videography
contractor for televising City Council study session meetings as well as having them available
on-demand through the City website.
Jesse Johnson from IOTK Media indicated that based on the length of study session meetings he
would charge a discounted rate of$350 per meeting. His normal rate for filming meetings is
$425. Jesse has the staff available to start filming study sessions at City Councils request.
Based on two study sessions per month a supplemental budget appropriation would be required
in the amount of $8 ,400 for budget account 01-111-700-704, Contractual ServicesNideo, to
cover the added costs if Council moves forward with this request.
~ A .f ~~ _ .,. City of
--~Wheat&_dge ~OFFICE OF THE CllY CLERK
Memorandum
TO: City Council
FROM: Bruce Roome, Deputy City Clerk
DATE: December 11 , 2012
SUBJECT: Renewal Wheat Ridge Applications
Please find attached four applications for two vacancies on Renewal Wheat Ridge (RWR.)
Rick Adams and Walt Pettit were the At-Large appointees to RWR and their five-year terms expired as
ofNovember 30, 2012. Mr. Adams chose not to reapply but Mr. Pettit has.
For reference per City Code:
Sec . 25-24. -Same-Appointment of members ; number.
The authority shan oonslst ol seven (7} members, one (1) of such members being frOOl each of 1lle existing, or hereaner altere<!, dly councl districts, and three (3) membefs
to serve at large. If, alter reasonable a<IVerllsement, no appliCatiOns are receNe<llrom res1e1erts wthin 1lle retevant city coundl dlslr1CI or a vacancy on 1lle authollly, atrt w.erwtse
qualllle<l resident ol the dly may be appointe<! The at large members may lncllde one (1) electe<l ely ol1ldal (excluding 1lle mayor), and/or one (1) non-resident lndVIdual w110
owns an ilterest in or is a corporate offiCer of a license<! business in good standilg locate<! wllllllhe Clly. Each appointment to the aulllorily shall be made by the mayor subject to
approval by majonly vote of the entire city council The term of oflice of each member sha be five (5) years.. Arrf member (with 1lle exce~ ol a nonresident business cmner
member) who shaD change his personal residence to an address outside 1lle dly or oulslde the 1tst11c1 he r~ Sllal cease to be a member of the authOrity and his seat shaD
automatlcaly be deemed vacant as of 1lle da eon which he cease<! to be a resident ofllle ely or of tile dlslltct. Afr.J nonresident business owner member v.11ose business ts no
1o11Jer in good standing With the dly or YAlose buslless ceases operatbns or moves outskle tile ely 11rr1ts shall cease to be a member of the authority and the member's seat shaD
be deemed vacant as of the dale of that occurrence. A member w11ose term has expfe<l shaD contnJe to hold ollice until his successor has been appoilte<l and has quallie<l
Terms of omce sh be staggered so that the term of at least one (1) member shall expire each year. The dly CXlllldl may appoint any numberofex-oflldo nonvolilg members to
serve for terms at the pleasure of the aty cotlldl
Further reference from State Statutes:
CRS 31-25-104
(2) (a) An authority shall consist of any odd number of commissioners which shall be not less than five
nor more than eleven, each of whom shall be appointed by the mayor, who shall designate the
chairman for the first year. Such appointments and designation shall be subject to approval by the
governing body. Not more than one of the commissioners may be an official of the municipality.
b) The commissioners who are first appointed shall be designated by the mayor to serve for staggered
terms so that the term of at l east one commissioner will expire each year. Thereafter, the term of office
shall be five years. A commissioner shall hold office until his successor has been appointed and has
qualified. Vacancies other than by reason of expiration of terms shall be filled by the mayor for the
unexpired term. A majority of the commissioners shall constitute a quorum. The mayor shall file with
the clerk a certificate of the appointment or reappointment of any commissioner, and such certificate
shall be conclusive evidence of the due and proper appointment of such commissioner.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Applications
11 /07 /2012 10:40 FAX 30343175~5 Larson 's ~1 & Sport ~u;>-4:-.)"f-~-, .A!-1
. ,.
... ··~ _p-wli6~1:R!9ge
Board and Commission Application
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE:
Renewal Wheat Ridge
(Board/Commission/Committee)
DATE: 11/6/2012 DISTRJCI': 4
ll)OOl
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF WHEAT RIDGE? Business Owner 30 ~
ARE YOU A REGISTERED VOTER? y
WHY ARE YOU SEEKING THIS APPOINTMENT?
t em hoping to oontinve to help Wheat Ridge with economic devetopmenl
DO \'OU HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA?
I own 2 commercia l buildings , and numerous resfdenUa l propartie$. 1 have owned L.erson•a Ski end Spcm for 30 years . I
am the current C~l rman of the Wheat Ridge Business District, end I em the VIce Cha irman of the Board or Adjustment
In the city of Arvada .
HAVE YOU EVER SERWD, OR ARE YOU CURRENTLY ON A
BOARD/COMMISSJON/COMMJTTEE AND IF SO, WHICH ONE? HOW
LONG?
I have been a member of the Wheat Ridge Sus lnen District for 7 years
ARE THERE ANY CONFLICt'S WHICH WOULD INTERFERE WITH
REGULAR ATTENDENCE OR DUTIES?
No
PRINT NAME
John Marriott
ADDRESS
5595 C&r St Atveda . Co. 80033
HOME PHONE no.m-Jilll BUSINESS PHONE 303-41)-065;
E-MAIL ADDRESS jobn®lmonspor\.Com
Checking here cotnpletes your application, constitutes your si&natute aod
affirmation that tbe statements made are true.
APPLICATION WILL BE J<ltPT ON FILE FQR ONE yEAR
City Clerk's Office, 7500 W. 29'11 Ave., Wbeat Ridge CO 80033
Attachment 1
A 'IPL C 0 HE:
•• ((' mmt H l't
•: 11 ·27*12 D1 l'lU J : II
0 ,' LO (; U ' '1!. 0 1:J R ID 1 U _ \\'I 1'. f' ltiDG '/1 yea
RF.. \'0 vo Jl'f yes
in~s
1 tn
OH (!) INT .. RFJil : Wl'l t1
N
r INT AMI·:
t Rl dg , CO 0033
III JSE
ure ue.
City of Wheat Ridge
Board & Commission
Application for Reappointment
Please circle one of the following :
Yes , I would like to reapply for another Five -year term (Go to Section A ) .-----
No, I do not wish to serve another term (Go to Section B)
A. APPLICATION FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE :
f?E-.NEa..JA( V/{cAr' ~ /) if€
(BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE)
DATE : ltftt UL DISTRICT Ar· LAL~£
ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS WljiCH WOULD INTERFERE W ITH REGULAR
ATTENDANCE OR DUTIES?___._~ .......... .____ _____________ _
B. INFORMATION -PLEASE COMPLETE TO UPDATE RECORDS
NAME : Viu . ..:aL brr1T
ADDRESS : J 9 3o €4-z-ON 5c
HOME PHONE: .103'--f..2:S:-412.4
BUSINESS PHONE : __ Af___._/,.....;_A...:;..._ _____________ _
E-MAIL ADDRESS: \,/CZ f7~ TTt r 3et Q 1"1 :Mf. t?oM
SIGNATURE Ll_a~t .; zf7t£.
APPLICATION WILL BE KEPT ON FILE FOR ONE YEAR
NAME : Walt Pettit BOARD/COMMISSION : Renewal Wheat Ridge
P.leaae circle one of the following:
@would like to reapply for another five-year term (application attached)
No , I do not wish to serve another term .
•
~.,
~ ~ .. . City of
p Wlieat'Rt_dge
Board and Commission Application
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE:
RENEWAL WHEAT RIDGE
(Board/Commission/Committee)
DATE: 11/27/12 DISTRICT: I
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF WHEAT RIDGE? 5 years
ARE YOU A REGISTERED VOTER? Yes
WHY ARE YOU SEEKING THIS APPOINTMENT?
I see the City's potential (especially in its Urban Renewal Areas) and want to be involved in the decision-making to help
the City realize its full potential.
I am also personally i nterested in economic development and infill development
DO YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA?
Through previous work experience as an environmental consultant I am familiar w ith the environmental due diligence
part of property transact ions and the environmental investigation I clean -up process . This work experience is relevant to
decision-making at any potential brownfield sites in Urban Renewal Areas . a
HAVE YOU EVER SERVED, OR ARE YOU CURRENTLY ON A
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE AND IF SO, WHICH ONE? HOW
LONG?
Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment, Alternate (201 0-present)
ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS WHICH WOULD INTERFERE WITH
REGULAR ATTENDENCE OR DUTIES?
One potential conflict from August 2013 -December 2013 for a night class that meets Tuesday and Thursday evenings .
PRINT NAME
JENNIFER WALTER
ADDRESS
2890 QUAY STREET, WHEAT RIDGE , CO 80033
HOME PHONE 303-906-8855 BUSINESS PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS jenwa lte @y ahoo .co m
II Checking here completes your application, constitutes your signature and
affirmation that the statements made are true.
APPLICATION WILL BE KEPT ON FILE FOR ONE YEAR
City Clerk's Office, 7500 W. 29 1h Ave., Wheat Ridge CO 80033
a
~ ~ 4 .(
... _ ~ City of • _.~Wheat"&_dge ~OFFICE OF THE CllY CLERK
Memorandum
TO: City Council
FROM: Bruce Roome, Deputy City Clerk
DATE: December 10 , 2012 (for Dec. 17th Study Session)
SUBJECT: Term Limits for Boards and Commission Members
At the November 19 ,2012 Study Session it was decided to have a discussion regarding
term limits for Board and Commission members at the December 17, 2012 Study
Session .
In an effort to assist Council I did some research and prepared the following documents:
• The first is a survey that I performed through the CML Clerkserv list
posing such questions as term lengths , term limits , etc. I received replies
from 14 towns/municipalities varying in size from 250 citizens (Crestone)
to 330,000 (Aurora).
• The second document is the makeup and years of service for our current
Boards and Commissions .
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CML Survey
2. Boards and Commissions data
Housing
Term Length (in Urban Renewal Authority Term
Agency #of B & C's years) Term Length Length Term Limits How Many
Arvada 14 3 5 City Council Yes 12 Years
Aurora 29 2-6 (most 3) City Council 5 Yes 12 Years
Berthoud 6 3 N/A N/A Yes 2 terms
Commerce City 8 Varies City Council 5 No N/A
Crestone 2 3-6 N/A N/A No N/A
Edgewater 6 3-5 5 N/A No N/A
Englewood 24 2-5 (most 3-4) 5 5 Yes 3 terms (set by voters)
Ft. Collins 23 3-4 City Council 5 Yes 2 Terms
Ft. Morgan 8 3-4 N/A N/A Yes 2 Terms
Leadville 1 6 N/A N/A No N/A
Lone Tree 7 3 N/A N/A Yes 2 Terms
Nederland 6 4 N/A N/A Yes Not Stated
Snowmass Village 9 2-3 N/A N/A No N/A
Thornton 10 4 City Council N/A No N/A
Attachment 1
Board/Commission
Animal Welfare & Control Commission
Board of Adjustment
Building Code Advisory Board
Cultural Commission
Housing Authority
Liquor Licensing Authority
Parks & Recreation Commission
Planning
Renewal Wheat Ridge
Years of Service Per Board/Commission
As of December 10, 2012
0-3 Years 4-GYears 7-9 Years 10-12 Years
3 2 0 2
3 1 1 0
1 1 1 1
6 1 2 0
2 0 1 1
2 1 1 2
4 2 0 1
5 3 0 0
2 4 0 0
13+
1
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
Vacant Total Members
0 8
1 8
0 5
0 9
1 5
0 8
1 8
0 8
0 7
Attachment 2
City of Wheat Ridge
City Clerk's Office