HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Agenda Packet 09/08/20146:45pm – Pre-Meeting
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING
September 8, 2014
7:00 p.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.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF August 18, 2014 and August 25, 2014
PROCLAMATIONS AND CEREMONIES
CITIZENS’ RIGHT TO SPEAK
a. Citizens, who wish, may speak on any matter not on the Agenda for a maximum of 3
Minutes and sign the Public Comment Roster.
b. Citizens who wish to speak on Agenda Items, please sign the GENERAL AGENDA
ROSTER or appropriate PUBLIC HEARING ROSTER before the item is called to be
heard.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
1. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Resolution No 50-2014 – Amending the Fiscal Year 2014 Open Space Fund Budget to
reflect the approval of a Supplemental Budget Appropriation in the amount of $350,000
for the purpose of constructing the Wheat Ridge Vehicle Storage Building
B. Motion to award bid ITB-14-10 to Growling Bear Company, Inc. in the amount of
$644,209 for the construction of a new Wheat Ridge Vehicle Storage Building, and a
ten percent contingency of $64,420
C. Resolution No 51-2014 – amending the Fiscal Year 2014 General Fund Budget
reflecting the approval of a Supplemental Budget appropriation in the amount of
$117,857 for the purposes of repairing damage to city assets caused by the July 7,
2014 hail storm
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: September 8, 2014 Page -2-
CONSENT AGENDA con’t
D. Motion to approve payment to Insight Public Sector in the amount of $51,618.51 for the
annual renewal of the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING
2. Second public input opportunity for the 2015 Budget
3. Council Bill 09-2014 -approving the rezoning of property located at 7671 W. 32nd
Avenue and 3299 Wadsworth Boulevard from Residential-Two (R-2) to Planned
Residential Development (PRD) and for approval of an Outline Development Plan
(Case No. WZ 14-06/Grove 21)
ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING
4. Council Bill 12-2014 – approving the rezoning of property located at 4360 Gray Street
from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Mixed Use-Neighborhood (MU-N) (Case No.
WZ-14-07/Germano)
5. Council Bill 13-2014 – repealing and reenacting certain sections of Chapter 5 of the
Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge concerning the Building Code, the
Mechanical Code, the Plumbing Code, the Property Maintenance Code, the Energy
Conservation Code, the Residential Code, the Fire Code, the Fuel Gas Code, National
Fire Protection Association 70 National Electrical Code, NFPA 99 Standards for Health
Care Facilities and penalties for violation of the same
DISCUSSION
6. Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
7. Discussion of Mayor and Council Budget
CITY MANAGER’S MATTERS
CITY ATTORNEY’S MATTERS
ELECTED OFFICIALS’ MATTERS
ADJOURNMENT
Special City Council Minutes , August 18 , 2014 Page 2
Guy Namiach (WR) gave a realtor's perspective. He and the families he brings in are
concerned about marijuana issues --the devaluation of property and the proximity to
schools.
Monica Harris (WR) said she doesn 't want her children to have to encounter this plant
every day when they walk to and from school. This location is on a path to 3 schools.
Tim Mullen (WR) said the marijuana shop he owns in Mountain View has had no issues
or impact. The zoning is there; the revenue will be good for the City. This is hysteria.
Jon Cooper (Denver) addressed the moratorium --asking for exclusion for MIPS
already in progress . Their facility is north of 1-70 and not located near any residential.
Lee Reichardt (WR) thinks putting a pot shop at 38th & Miller is wrong. He spoke of the
speeders and cut through traffic that already occurs. A pot $tore will just make it worse.
Fran Langdon (WR) noted the value of a public process required for certain uses. She
knows it's zoned C-1, but thinks a moratorium is appropriate. Demolition/rebuild in C-1
zones should be addressed .
· Joyce Camp (WR) said a marijuana shop at 38th & Miller will undermine ongo ing efforts
to update our housing stock . Also , the small lot doesn 't have enough room for parking .
Jennifer Yates (WR) doesn 't want her children to have to walk past this every day.
She only learned of this on Saturday and that upsets her. We need the moratorium .
Lora Sicard (WR) lives near 38th & Miller and she 's against having a marijuana shop
there .
Earl Moyer (WR) believes this product should be restricted to industrial areas --like
Denver does .
John Berquist (WR) questions the number of marijuana businesses in WR. He listed
all the cities that don 't have any . Plus , this lot is too small for growing and retail.
Serin Ware (WR) doesn 't want a marijuana shop at 38th & Miller. She said the facts
about the long term effects of marijuana are still out.
Jennifer Shepherd (WR) listed all the negative effects on her neighborhood from the
pot shop at 28th & Kipling . They also see out-of-state plates and the smell is very bad .
Steve Miller (WR) asked Council to help Miller Street and the area by not allowing
something that will bring more traffic and speeders. The zoning is antiquated . We need
to create safe neighborhoods .
Special City Council Minutes, August 18, 2014 Page 3
Mike Griffith (WR) is tired of smelling the pot from the shop at 28th and Kipling. He
wants the city to include stricter air regulations in the moratorium.
Vinnie Badolato (WR) voted for Am 64, but doesn't think this is a smart spot for a pot
shop. They have a day care in their home; this would put a dent in their business.
Ashley Sakker (WR) lives on Miller. They moved here for more space and there are
lots of children in her neighborhood. This is not a good location for a marijuana store
Lorrie Odom (WR) said marijuana facilities are not in line with the healthy lifestyle WR
is trying to promote. She listed negative effects on young users. She prefers an
indefinite moratorium.
John Suiter (WR) said marijuana takes away cognitive abilities and a long term public
health problem is coming. Council should figure out how to limit this-maybe remove it.
Fran Route (WR) congratulated the young mothers who are concerned about their
children being exposed to marijuana. It would also be great not to have surprises.
Becky Hathorne (WR) just learned about this recently. She has HS kids and thinks this
should be an adult focused industry. The revenue should be used to help those who
wi II be affected.
Reuben Martinez (WR) said that during and following his service in Viet Nam he's seen
the negative effects of marijuana addiction on fellow veterans.
Keith Lamb (WR) thinks the zoning is what's wrong. It produces too much traffic for the
residential area. This pot shop should be somewhere else.
John Clark (WR) wouldn't stigmatize pot, but this location is not good. WR is better
than this. -He's at the meetings every Monday and he found out about this on the
street.
Jane Dianich (WR) lives on Miller. Like the other speakers, they work hard to have a
nice residential neighborhood, and don't want a marijuana shop near the houses.
Cheryl Lee (LW) People are free to oppose marijuana, but CO and Jeffco voted for this.
She suggested rezoning 38th & Miller to residential and/or expanding separation
requirements for schools to allow responsible business owners to exist.
Mr. Johnstone verified that only one business, EBBU, has a pending application. They
would be exempt if Option 2 is approved.
Motion by Councilmember Wooden to impose an ordinance for a temporary moratorium
on the submission, acceptance, processing and approval of applications for a land use
City Council Minutes August 25, 2014 Page 2
Mom-and-Pop gaming establishments). We should ask where the money is coming
from for these million dollar extraction plants . She noted how Black Hawk is still a town,
but they've lost their community. She hopes that doesn't happen to us. It can happen
before you know it.
Kelly Brooks (WR) thanked Council for the special meeting last week and the
thoughtful consideration of the objections raised by so many. He hopes the moratorium
time will be used to consider not just one neighborhood, but understand the desires of
the whole city. Based on last week's attendance it's clear existing regulations fall short
in addressing all angles of Amendment 64.
Jennifer Yates (WR) shared some issues with the current pot shops . Three Kings Dab
Supply was cited for promoting onsite events where marijuana was encouraged. How
will Wheat Ridge stop businesses from putting in a patio, calling it private property and
allowing patrons to consume marijuana? -She described spending 2 1/2 hours at
Paramount Park watching 80+ children play soccer while a horrible stench from the pot
shop on 27th filled the air the entire time. Children play there daily and visiting teams
come as well. Is that what we want for our children and community? -She cautioned
taking building code advice from marijuana businesses. -She knows pot shops will
not go away, but they shouldn 't be near neighborhoods, schools and parks.
City Attorney Dahl confirmed for Councilmember DiTullio that marijuana shops that
operate illegally are shut down by the City.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING
.L Council Bill 10-2014-Submitting a Ballot Question to the voters of the City at
the November 4, 2014 Election, concerning an increase in the Sales and Use
Tax Rate and Revenue Bonds to Finance Public Works and Parks and
Recreation Infrastructure Projects
Councilmember Pond introduced Agenda Item 1. He read the proposed text of the
ballot.
SHALL THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE TAXES BE INCREASED BY UP TO $6.4
MILLION ANNUALLY IN THE FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR, AND BY WHATEVER
ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS ARE RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER, BY INCREASING
THE RATE OF SALES AND USE TAX LEVIED BY THE CITY BY ONE PERCENT
(1.0%), AND SHALL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE DEBT BE INCREASED BY UP TO $40
MILLION, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST NOT TO EXCEED $68.5 MILLION,
WITH THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH DEBT AND SUCH TAXES TO BE USED FOR:
• CRITICAL FACILITY, INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS TO ALLOW WHEAT RIDGE TO OPERATE, MAINTAIN AND
City Council Minutes August 25, 2014
IMPROVE ROADS, BRIDGES AND STORM WATER AND FLOOD PLAIN
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
Page 3
• CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
PARKS AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING REVITALIZATION
OF ANDERSON PARK TO IMPROVE ITS OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY AS A MULTI-GENERATIONAL FAMILY ACTIVITY PARK
INCLUDING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OUTDOOR POOL AND FACILITIES
AND THE ANDERSON RECREATION BUILDING,
SUCH INCREASE IN THE SALES AND USE TAX RATE TO BEGIN ON JANUARY 1,
2015; SUCH DEBT TO BE SOLD IN ONE OR MORE SERIES AT A PRICE ABOVE,
BELOW OR EQUAL TO THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF SUCH DEBT AND ON SUCH
TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE CITY MAY DETERMINE, INCLUDING
PROVISIONS FOR REDEMPTION OR REFUNDING OF THE DEBT PRIOR TO
MATURITY WITH OR WITHOUT PAYMENT OF PREMIUM OF NOT TO EXCEED
3.0%, AND SHALL THE CITY BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE DEBT TO REFUND THE
DEBT AUTHORIZED IF AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH REFUNDING DEBT THE
TOTAL OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ALL DEBT ISSUED PURSUANT
TO THIS QUESTION DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
AUTHORIZED AND IF ALL DEBT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION IS
ISSUED ON TERMS THAT DO NOT EXCEED THE REPAYMENT COSTS
AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION; AND SHALL THE REVENUES RAISED BY SUCH
SALES AND USE TAX RATE INCREASE AND PROCEEDS OF SUCH DEBT, ANY
OTHER REVENUE USED TO PAY SUCH DEBT, AND INVESTMENT INCOME
THEREON, BE COLLECTED AND SPENT BY THE CITY AS A VOTER-APPROVED
REVENUE CHANGE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO
CONSTITUTION?
Mayor Jay opened the public hearing.
There was no staff report.
Public Comment
Louise Treff-Gangler (WR) expressed concerns that this will make WR taxes higher
than surrounding cities and will discourage new businesses. She wonders if any of the
money will go for sidewalks in other areas besides 38th Avenue and how much of the
money will go to 38th Avenue.
Kim Calomino (WR) said she hopes for unanimous passage of the ordinance. Many
things have been neglected and she thinks this is important for the vision of the City.
John Clark (WR) said the ballot wording is so long he doubts people will understand it.
This 1% sales tax will go to float bonds for $40 million, but there will be another $30
million of debt service. He understands we are behind $6 million in infrastructure
spending, but doesn't think taking on $30million in debt service is a good solution. $30
million is a lot of money and we get nothing for it. He asked Council not to saddle his
kids with this debt, and postpone this indefinitely.
City Council Minutes August 25 , 2014 Page4
Council comments followed .
Councilmember DiTullio asked Mr. Goff to outline how the $40 million would be spent.
Councilmember Davis addressed having our sales taxes higher than neighboring cities,
noting that our property taxes are lower, other cities have storm water and drainage
fees , and their major shopping areas assess property improvement fees .
Mr. Dahl clarified for Councilmember Urban that Council will determine what are
"critical" projects, that all the money won 't have to be spent on roads, bridges, etc., and
that Council will have discretion about how the economic development money is spent.
Clerk Shaver assigned Ordinance # 1555.
Motion by Councilmember Pond to approve Council Bill No . 10-2014 , an ordinance
submitting a ballot question to the voters of the City at the November 4, 2014 Election ,
concerning an increase in the sales and use tax rate and revenue bonds to finance
public works and parks and recreation infrastructure projects , on second reading , and
that it take effect immediately upon adoption ; seconded by Councilmember Starker;
Mayor Jay closed the public hearing .
Motion carried 8-0.
2. Council Bill No 11-2014-Submitting a Ballot Question to the voters of the
City at the November 4, 2014 Election concerning a Street Width Designation
for portions of 38th Avenue .
Councilmember DiTull io introduced Agenda Item 2 anq read the proposed ballot
wording .
"Shall a street width for 38t h Avenue between Upham Street and Marshall Street
be established by City Council in order to implement the vis ion of the 38th Avenue
corridor plan to revitalize the 38th Avenue corridor between Upham Street and
Marshall Street into a main street business district to include wider pedestrian
sidewalks , amenity zones with landscaping and seating areas, on-street parking,
public art, and community gathering places, such that the street width for 38th
Avenue be established at 47 feet from Upham Street to High Court, 41 feet from
High Court to 230 feet east of High Court , and 35 feet from 230 feet east of High
Court to Marshall Street?"
Clerk Shaver assigned Ordinance number 1556 .
Mayor Jay opened the public hearing.
There was no staff report.
City Council Minutes August 25, 2014 Page 5
Public comment
Louise Treff-Gangler asked where the money will come from to pay for this project.
She believes a disproportionate amount of money has already been spent on 38th
Avenue and we have many, many other needs in the City.
Kim Calomino is pleased this is coming to the citizens and hopes for a unanimous
vote. This is a separate question from the sales tax increase. In community meetings
and polling she saw strong support for moving the City ahead and this is one step.
John Clark (WR) thinks good things can happen to brighten 38th without spending $10
million we don't have. -He questioned the word "vision" in the ballot. Whose vision? -
He noted no price tag is given and the 10 foot lanes aren't mentioned. This is one foot
wider than a parking space and he suggested service trucks (fire, garbage, delivery,
ambulances, etc.) will have problems. He believes the lanes should be 12 foot wide for
safety reasons and asked Council to postpone it indefinitely.
Vivian Vos (WR) is satisfied this is coming to the people. She explained her concerns
with the wording: Several words don't speak to the legality of the issue. The word
"vision" doesn't belong. It doesn't say that the width of the street will be changed and it
should include the current width of the street so voters know how much it's being
narrowed.
Council comments and questions followed.
• Councilmember DiTullio would support including the price tag of $9.3 million and
removing the word "vision".
• Councilmember Fitzgerald believes the word "vision" reflects public opinion.
• Council member Urban questioned use of the term Main Street Business District.
Mr. Dahl deemed it a matter of style for how Council feels. -Mr. Urban asked
how this will be paid for . Mr. Goff said the Charter requires construction to start
within one year after passage. He recommends having meetings as soon as
possible after the election to have that conversation.
• Councilmember Wooden sees this as just one step in a long process of many
years.
Mayor Jay closed the public hearing.
Motion bv Councilmember DiTullio to approve Council Bill No. 11-2014, an ordinance
submitting a ballot question to the voters of the City at the November 4, 2014 election
concerning a street width designation for portions of 381h Avenue, on second reading,
and that it take effect immediately upon adoption; seconded by Councilmember
Starker;
Motion by Council member Urban to add the phrase "at a cost not to exceed $9.3
million"; seconded by Councilmember DiTullio; failed 2-6, with Councilmembers
Wooden, Langworthy, Fitzgerald, Pond, Davis and Starker voting no.
City Council Minutes August 25, 2014 Page6
Main motion carried 8-0.
~ Resolution 47-2014-Approving a Four-Lot Subdivision Plat with Right-of-
Way Dedications for property zoned Industrial-Employment (1-E), Residential-
One (R-1) and Mixed Use Commercial TOO (MU-C TOO) at 12000 Ridge
Road (Case No. MS-14-04/Wheat Ridge Ward Station)
Councilmember Langworthy introduced Agenda Item 3.
Mayor Jay opened the public hearing and swore in the speakers.
Meredith Reichert of the Community Development Department presented.
• She entered into the record the case file and packet materials, the zoning
ordinance and the contents of the digital presentation.
• She declared that all proper posting and notification requirements had been met.
• This subdivision is to accommodate the light rail station at 12000 Ridge Road .
• She explained the diagrams and maps of the project noting that RTD has
assembled the properties for it.
• Rights of way for Taft Court and Ridge Road are being dedicated.
• All agencies (fire, water, sewer) can provide services with improvements installed
at the owner's expense. Xcel can serve .
• Wheat Ridge Public Works has reviewed and approved the drainage reports,
traffic studies and the plat document.
• Planning Commission recommends approval.
• Staff recommends approval with one condition:
o Unless other terms are mutually agreed upon, an SIA (subdivision
improvement agreement) with surety be executed at the time of recording.
Mr. Dahl explained. This is to guarantee that the public improvements will be
built. RTD requests this be added as an addendum to the 2011 IGA. Mr.
Dahl researched this and recommends an amendment for an addendum .
Patrick Stanley (WR), the applicant, spoke briefly. He's excited about this, appreciates
the support of Council and the staff, and thanked Mr. Dahl for looking at the IGA.
Councilmember Starker asked if the IGA would provide standard surety. Mr. Dahl
confirmed this and explained.
Mayor Jay closed the public hearing.
Motion by Councilmember Langworthy to approve case No. MS-14-02, a request for
a four-lot subdivision plat for property located at 12000 Ridge Road, for the following
reasons:
1. All requirements of the subdivision regulations have been met.
2. The proposed plat will facilitate construction of the end line Gold Line
commuter rail station.
City Council Minutes August 25, 2014
3. Utility districts can serve the property with improvements installed at the
developer's expense.
With the following conditions:
Page 7
1. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement be executed with a cost breakdown for
public improvements installation and surety at the time of recording.
Motion by Councilmember Pond to amend the main motion to approve an addendum to
the June, 2011 Intergovernmental Agreement with the Regional Transportation District,
to address matters customarily covered by the City's standard Subdivision Improvement
Agreement, in form approved by the City Attorney; seconded by Councilmember
Starker; carried 8-0.
Main motion as amended carried 8-0.
DECISIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
4. Resolution 49-2014-amending the Fiscal Year 2014 Capital Investment
Program Budget to reflect the approval of a Supplemental Budget
Appropriation in the amount of $121,312.18 to fund the Tabor Street
Property Acquisition Services for reconstruction, and award a contract to
H.C. Peck & Associates, Denver CO
The property acquisition services provided by H. C. Peck will include such work as
property surveys, preparing ROW plans, title work and appraisals, negotiations,
relocation assistance, closings, etc. This is in preparation for the access and safety
improvements planned for Tabor Street from 1-70 up to the light rail station at Ridge
Road. This project will widen Tabor Street and add new bike lanes, sidewalks and
lighting.
Funding for these improvements is a federal grant of $740,228 that comes through RTD
and DR COG. The funding arrangement requires the City to pay for the project up front
and seek reimbursement following completion.
Councilmember Wooden introduced Agenda Item 4.
There was no staff presentation. Council had no questions.
Motion by Councilmember Wooden to approve Resolution No. 49-2014, a resolution
amending the fiscal year 2014 Capital Investment Program budget to reflect the
approval of a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount to $121,312.18 to fund
the Tabor Street Property Acquisition Services for reconstruction, and to award a
contract to H.C . Peck & Associates, Denver, CO; seconded by Councilmember DiTullio;
carried 8-0.
~ Resolution 48-2014-beginning a City-Initiated rezoning of property located
North of 12525 W. 32nd Ave. to Planned Commercial Development (PCD)
City Council Minutes August 25, 2014
Councilmember Pond introduced Agenda Item 5.
Mr. Goff reminded Council this had been presented to them some months ago. It
involves a small strip of property for which the owner cannot be found. The land
Page 8
is not buildable and has been tax delinquent for over 20 years. Urban Renewal is
helping Regency obtain the plot so they can develop that portion of the shopping center
-hence the request for PCD zoning.
Councilmember Urban had questions. Mr. Goff responded.
• Urban Renewal will convey the property to Regency.
• The developer has money in escrow to pay for the property and appraisal.
• The plot is valued at about $750.
• Staff time and attorney time is being covered by the Urban Renewal Authority.
Motion by Councilmember Pond to approve Resolution No. 48-2014, a resolution
beginning a City-initiated rezoning of property located north of 12525 W. 32"d Avenue to
Planned Commercial Development (PCD); seconded by Councilmember Fitzgerald;
carried 8-0 .
6. Motion to appoint a member to fill the District IV vacancy for the Planning
Commission
Councilmember Langworthy introduced Agenda Item 6. This Planning Commission
seat has been vacant for several months.
Motion by Councilmember Langworthy to appoint Donna Kimsey to the Planning
Commission representing District IV, term to expire March 2, 2017; seconded by
Councilmember Wooden; carried 8-0.
L Retail Development Tutorial -Katy Press, KP Consulting & Associates
Given the developments in the City that are current and projected, Mr. Goff thought it
prudent to provide education on the topic for Councilmembers and the citizens. Ms.
Press has 30 years of experience in retail development -particularly on Denver's west
side. She proceeded with a Power Point presentation .
How do retailers make decisions [about where to locate)?
• Each retailer is unique (Ex: Einstein's and Starbucks make decisions differently.)
• National retailers evaluate opportunities from a global perspective
• Any new opportunity needs to meet basic criteria that retailer feels is necessary
for their success. (Mistakes not tolerated. High risk locations probably rejected.)
• Development horizons are relatively short. They don't think long term. A 2-3
year horizon is typical.
City Council Minutes August 25, 2014 Page 9
Retail falls into 5 distinct tiers
1. Convenience
o 1 ,000-3,000 sf
o 2 mile trade area
o Independent projects (can stand alone, or not)
o Co-tenancy is not a factor (rely on pass-by traffic)
o Auto-centric (most customers arrive by automobile)
o Visibility and access are key (need both together in the same location)
Ex: gas stations, fast food, Starbucks
2. Neighborhood (most common for our daily use; needs-based retail)
o 40,000-120,000 sf (123K sf grocery is considered a neighborhood store)
o 2 mile trade area (tight; hasn't changed; customers unwilling to travel)
o 15-25 acre projects
o Prefer convenience retail co-tenancy (ex: grocery w/ gas and fast food)
o Development "style" defined (grocery a very defined level of development)
o Destination oriented shopping trip (a conscious decision)
o Need to be highly accessible to residential base (nearby location)
Trends affecting grocery retailing
• Most dynamic genre coming out of the market downturn
• Birth of destination stores such as Sprouts, ethnic, healthy
• Erosion of conventional grocery dollars (Same money, more choices)
• Evolution of the traditional grocery chains (the genre is in transition)
3. Mid-Range Regional
o Junior anchors
o Store sizes vary depending on the genre of the retailer (15,000-40 ,000sf)
o Characterization as a junior anchor is less about store size and more
about the type of retailer they are
o Serve 30,000 to 100,000 folks (Emerged from the recession; in transition)
o High profile locations with Interstate visibility
o Co-tenancy with mid-range retailers is mandatory
o Co-tenancy with general merchandise retailers (like Target, Super
WaiMart, Home Depot; helps to regularly provide right consumer base)
Trends affecting Mid-Range Retail
• E-commerce (Retailers recognize the impact and are having online
and brick/mortar presence)
• Precision Shopping (Post recession we're becoming more educated
and specific in our shopping)
• "Showrooming" (ex: electronics; efforts on ways to mitigate the impact)
4. Super-Regional Retail (Mall-oriented retailing)
o Retail focus in primarily non-discount soft goods (clothing)
o Store size does not dictate super-regional classification (ex: Coach)
o 20 mile trade area
o Population numbers around 1 million; high-profile locations at Interstate
cross sections (If proposed today, Belmar might not be a super-regional
mall)
o Co-tenancy with other super regional retailers (They flock together.)
City Council Minutes August 25, 2014 Page 10
o Club Membership stores fit in this category (Sam's Club, Costco); need
250 ,000+ population ; not in malls (don 't need them); happy to stand alone
Trends affecting super-regional retail
• Enclosed mall preference (coming back)
• Lifestyle concepts (evolving)
• Outlet center growth (came out of the recession); now located in town
• E-commerce
• "Showrooming " (Working to keep on-line and in-store shoppers theirs)
5. Main Street Retail
o Highly discussed and debated concept
o As many successes as failures (initiating from the ground up is most
difficult; some aspects missing -possibly fatal)
o Reliance on independent retailers (d ifficult to identify; developers hope
retailers will respond to the infrastructure)
o Presents inherent risks to conventional retailers and the developers
Why some Main Street concepts thrive and others struggle .....
• Need significant resident ial density in close proxim ity to the project
(typically not well suited for suburbia)
• Importance of a grocery anchor (frequent shoppers I everyday needs)
• Competition from strip retail (retailers tend to choose the more
conventional locations with more shoppers)
• Automob il e dom inated orientation for the area (doesn 't lend itself well
to main street retailing ; almost impossible to overcome)
• Scale of the retai l (long veh icular corridors not well suited for this)
Ms . Press responded to questions from Council and the Mayor:
• Mid-range anchors determine their trade area with different perspective
• Hybrid lifestyle projects with complexity of use (mixing retail/residential/civic/etc.)
are difficult and not seen in the metro area .
• Signage is evolving . It helps dictate character. Newer centers have more art ,
colorful signs and creative architecture.
• Retailers don 't look at your population ; they look at the trade area , proximity of
competition and demographic.
• High volume streets like Wadsworth and Kipling are secondary considerations .
• Most retailers don 't care about jurisdictional lines ; they look for location and
opportunity.
• Aesthetics are important, but location is more important. Out of sight/out of mind
is fatal.
• Mixed use efforts (retail/residential) tend to be ill-conceive as it is hard to execute
both well. Developers know one or the other-but not both .
• You can 't recruit independent retailers to a main street. You have to build it and
hope they will come .
• Existing main streets already have the infrastructure ; building and hoping is a
tough thing.
Mr. Goff said he will put this presentation on the City website.
City Council Minutes August 25, 2014 Page 11
CITY MANAGER'S MATTERS
Mr. Goff reminded the public the Rec Center is closed this week for annual maintenance
and cleaning. It will reopen on Saturday.
CITY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS
CITY CLERK'S MATTERS
ELECTED OFFICIALS' MATTERS
Kristi Davis thanked her neighbors for their sth annual block party.
Tracy Langworthy hopes everyone stays safe and doesn't drink too much over the
holiday. The police will be out and kids are in school.
George Pond had a block party too and everyone enjoyed it. -He noted he's gotten a
lot of emails recently, and asked folks to be patient if they haven't gotten a response
yet. He will get to them.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council Meeting adjourned at 9:26 pm.
Janelle Shaver, City Clerk
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON September __ , 2014 BY A VOTE OF __ to
Kristi Davis, Mayor pro tern
The preceding Minutes were prepared according to §47 of Robert's Rules of Order, i.e.
they contain a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the
members. Recordings and DVD's of the meetings are available for listening or viewing
in the City Clerk's Office, as well as copies of Ordinances and Resolutions.
CAF -Supplemental Budget Appropriation for Maintenance Storage Building
September 8, 2014
Page 2
was purchased in 2008 , with open space funds , to accommodate the construction of a storage
building and additional open storage bays to meet the goals of the Master Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The original amount budgeted was for an open bay storage building; it was detennined that a
vehicle storage building be constructed due to site and logistic issues at the facility.
Additionally, costs have risen since the design of the building was initiated. The original design
did not meet the building requirements of the City and therefore required additional funding.
BACKGROUND:
Twenty percent of the vehicles and equipment that require indoor storage are located in four
small indoor locations . One current equipment and vehicle storage area is shared as office space
in the same building. These smaller sites in the park system are being utilized for storage of
general maintenance supplies , vehicles , equipment, and chemicals. The space currently available
to store general maintenance supplies is also inadequate, requiring staff to visit and stock
multiple sites during daily operations .
Approximately 80 % of equipment that should be stored indoors is being kept outside or being
rotated when indoor space becomes available. Vehicles and equipment are rotated seasonally and
are often exposed to the elements during periods of non-usage, resulting in premature rusting and
sun damage. There are also vehicles that are affected by cold and freezing temperatures causing
issues with pumps used in winter watering of trees. Additionally, the building would allow staff
to make repairs to vehicles and equipment during times of inclement weather in areas
specifically designed for that purpose .
The new storage building would also provide an easily-accessible, heated and secure indoor
space for all herbicides and pesticides , allowing more efficient daily operations . This storage
area would be separated from the Parks Di vision staff areas and would be located outside of the
flood plain area.
This building is the first step in a phased plan to move the Parks Maintenance operations
facilities out or Anderson Park. Accomplishing this move will open up space needed for
redesign and renovation of the park.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the approval of the budget amendment to allow for award of the
contract for construction of the Wheat Ridge vehicle storage building. The building will
provide needed storage, save wear and tear on vehicles and equipment, lower
replacement costs and provide a safe working area for staff.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No . 50-2014, a resolution amending the fiscal year 2014 Open
Space Fund Budget to reflect the approval of a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount
of$350,000 for the purpose of constructing the Wheat Ridge vehicle storage building."
CAF -Supplemental Budget Appropriation for Maintenance Storage Building
September 8, 2014
Page 3
Or,
"I move to deny approval of Resolution No. 50-2014, a resolution amending the fiscal year 2014
Open Space Fund Budget to reflect the approval of a supplemental budget appropriation in the
amount of$350,000 for the purpose of constructing a new Wheat Ridge vehicle storage building
for the following reason(s)
"
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director
Patrick Goff, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 50-2014
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 50
Series of 2014
TITLE: A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 OPEN
SPACE FUND BUDGET TO REFLECT THE APPROVAL OF
A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION IN THE
AMOUNT OF $350,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONSTRUCTING THE WHEAT RIDGE VEHICLE STORAGE
BUILDING
WHEREAS, the current Parks Maintenance Facility was constructed in 1972 and
does not meet the operational needs of the Parks Division; and
WHEREAS, there is no covered storage provided for vehicles and equipment;
and
WHEREAS, a Public Works/Parks Master plan was completed in 2004 and
includes the construction of this building; and
WHEREAS, property was purchased from the Open Space Fund in 2008 to
accommodate moving the Parks Maintenance facility to the Public Works Operations
yard; and
WHEREAS, the Wheat Ridge Charter requires that amendments to the budget
be effected by the City Council adopting a Resolution.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheat
Ridge, Colorado, as follows:
THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO THE 2014 OPEN SPACE FUND IS HEREBY
APPROVED:
A supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of $350,000 from
Open Space Fund undesignated reserves to account No . 32-601-800-862
for the purpose of constructing the Wheat Ridge vehicle storage building
DONE AND RESOLVED this 81h day of September 2014.
Joyce Jay, Mayor
ATTEST:
Janelle Shaver, City Clerk
Attachment 1
... ~A,
-~ r City of • ?WlieatRi_dge
ITEM NO : _j_[}
DATE : September 8, 2014
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
TITLE: MOTION TO AWARD BID ITB-14-10 TO GROWLING BEAR
COMPANY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $644,209 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW WHEAT RIDGE VEIDCLE
STORAGE BUILDING, AND A TEN PERCENT
CONTINGENCY OF $64,420
D PUBLIC HEARING
1:8] BIDS/MOTIONS
D RESOLUTIONS
QUASI-JUDICIAL:
ISSUE:
D ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING
0 ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING
D YES 1:8] NO
) CicyQ~
The City lacks adequate indoor storage for Parks Division equipment and vehicles at the
Parks Maintenance Shops located at Anderson Park. Indoor storage would provide for
less wear and tear of equipment and vehicles currently stored outside during the winter
season and reduce overall costs for replacement and repairs .
Heated , indoor space for chemical storage and space for general maintenance supplies is
also inadequate and located in smaller overcrowded storage areas. A new storage
building located at the Public Works Shops will provide additional areas to work on
vehicles and equipment and reduce the congestion in the present maintenance area.
Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture Inc. designed the new storage building, providing the
City with construction drawings in the spring of2014. The formal bid process conducted
this summer netted seven competitive bids garnering costs for the base bid and eight bid
alternates. All bids recei ved were over the advertised budget. Working with the base bid
and bid alternates 4, 5 and 7, Growling Bear Co., Inc. of Greeley, CO was identified as
the apparent low bidder. Staff has checked references and contacted the vendor to verify
bid information and intended construction management processes.
Council Action Form -Public Works Storage Building Bid
September 8, 2014
Page 2
PRIOR ACTION:
A combined Public Works and Park Maintenance Facility Master Plan was approved by
City Council in 2004. The plan includes a park's storage building on the current Public
Works site located at 11220 W. 45 111 Ave. A one-acre parcel of land adjacent to the Public
Works facility was purchased in 2008, with open space funds, to accommodate the
construction of a storage building as well as additional open storage bays to meet the
goals ofthe Master Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Approval of a budget amendment from the Open Space Fund undesignated reserves in the
amount of $350,000 will be required to award the contract. TI1e impact to the Open Space Fund
is that the increased costs for the building over the budgeted amount will decrease the amount
available in 2015 for the renovation of Prospect Park .
The original amount budgeted was for an open bay storage building; it was detennined that a
vehicle storage building be constructed due to site and logistic issues at the facility.
Additionally, costs have risen since the design of the building was initiated. The original design
did not meet the building requirements of the City and therefore required additional funding .
BACKGROUND:
Twenty-percent of the vehicles and equipment that require indoor storage are located in four
small indoor locations. One current equipment and vehicle storage area is shared as office space
in the same building. TI1ese smaller sites in the park system are being utilized for storage of
general maintenance supplies, vehicles, equipment, and chemicals. The space currently available
to store general maintenance supplies is also inadequate, requiring staff to visit and stock
multiple sites during daily operations.
Approximately 80 % of the equipment that should be stored indoors is being kept outside or
being rotated when indoor space becomes available. Vehicles and equipment are rotated
seasonally and are usually exposed to the elements during periods of usage resulting in
premature rusting and sun damage. There are also vehicles that are affected by cold and freezing
temperatures causing issues with pumps used in winter watering of trees. Additionally, the
building would allow staff to make repairs to vehicles and equipment during times of inclement
weather in areas specifically designed for that purpose.
The new storage building would also provide an easily accessible , heated and secured , indoor
space for all herbicides and pesticides , allowing more efficient daily operations . This storage
area would also be separated from the Parks Division staff areas and would be located outside of
the flood plain area.
This building is the first step in a phased plan to move the Parks Maintenance operations
facilities out of Anderson Park. Accomplishing this move will open up space for redesign and
renovation of the park.
Council Action Form -Public Works Storage Building Bid
September 8, 2014
Page 3
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the approval of the award for construction of the Wheat Ridge vehicle
storage building as it would provide needed storage, save wear and tear on vehicles and
equipment, lower replacement costs and provide a safe working area for staff.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to award JTB-14-1 0 to Growling Bear Company Inc., in the amount of $644,209 for
construction of a new Wheat Ridge vehicle storage building, and a I 0% contingency in the
amount of $64,420.
Or,
"I move to deny award ITB-I 4-I 0 to Growling Bear Company Inc. in the amount of $644,209
for construction of a new Wheat Ridge vehicle storage building for the following reason(s)
"
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director
Rick Murray, Parks, Forestry and Open Space Manager
Mark Ruote, Park Project Coordinator
Jennifer Nellis , Purchasing Agent
Patrick Goff, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
l. Bid Tabulation Sheet
2. Building Rendering
3. Site Plan
poge4of4
;o -· a. co
CD
< CD
=r' -· (") -CD
C/) ,......
0 ..,
Q) co
CD
tlJ c -· -a.
::J co
Attachment 2
CAF -Supplemental Budget Adjustment for Storm Damage
September 8, 2014
Page 2
• Roof damage at 9110 W. 441h Avenue (Parks , Forestry & Open Space building)
• Roof damage at 4335 Field Street (Anderson building)
• Damage to pool shelter roof at the Anderson Park Outdoor Pool
• Damage to two storage sheds at the Anderson Park Outdoor Pool
• Damage to paint at the restrooms, pavilion and shelter at Anderson Park
• Damage to two metal buildings , five sheds and one greenhouse at 4350 Garrison Street
(Parks Maintenance building)
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City will be responsible for one $10,000 deductible amount for the total damage resulting from
the stonn. CIRSA will cover actual costs for the repair of the vehicles and damage to the buildings .
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval ofthe supplemental budget appropriation .
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. 51-2014 , a resolution amending the fiscal year 2014
General Fund budget reflecting the approval of a supplemental budget appropriation in the
amount of$117 ,857 for the purposes of repairing damage to City assets caused by the July 7,
2014 hail stonn."
Or,
"I move to postpone indefinitely Resolution No . 51-2014 , a resolution amending the fiscal year
2014 General Fund budget reflecting the approval of a supplemental budget appropriation in
the amount of $117 ,857 for the purposes of repairing damage to City assets caused by the July
7, 2014 hail stonn for the following reason(s) "
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Heather Geyer, Director of Administrative Services
Patrick Goff, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 51-2014
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 51
Series of 2014
TITLE: RESOLUTION NO. 51-2014 - A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
FISCAL YEAR 2014 GENERAL FUND BUDGET REFLECTING THE
APPROVAL OF A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION IN
THE AMOUNT OF $117,857 FOR THE PURPOSES OF REPARING
DAMAGE TO CITY ASSETS CAUSED BY THE JULY 7, 2014 HAIL
STORM
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2014 Wheat Ridge was hit by a hail storm which caused
damage to numerous City assets; and
WHEREAS, the City carries property and liability insurance coverage through the
CIRSA with a deductible of $1 0,000; and
WHEREAS, the City received quotes from a variety of vendors to repair the
damages; and
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Charter requires that amendments to the
budget be effected by the City Council adopting a Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Wheat Ridge City Council, that:
Section 1. Effectiveness. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
Section 2. The City Council authorizes transferring $117,857 from General
Fund undesignated reserves to the following accounts,
01-303-650-662 $50,997
01-603-700-774 $66,860
And amending the 2014 General Fund revenues accordingly.
DONE AND RESOLVED this 81h day of September, 2014.
Joyce Jay, Mayor
ATTEST:
Janelle Shaver, City Clerk
Attachment 1
Council Action Fonn -Microsoft Renewal
September 8, 2014
Page 2
Prior to 2005 , software licensing control and purchases were not standard or centralized , and
recordkeeping was sporadic and incomplete. In 2005 , based on an IT evaluation of the status of
the City's software needs and requirements, IT staff decided to leverage the City's purchasing
power by engaging Microsoft in a five-year agreement to get the City of Wheat Ridge properly
licensed. It was also decided that the IT division would manage all the software. As a result, the
City has been compliant with Microsoft's licensing rules and regulations since 2005.
In addition , this program allows for discounts on Microsoft licenses , professional services and
planning and training. This renewal will include upgrades to Exchange 2012 , Windows 8, Office
2013 and other features of the Microsoft software.
REC O MMEN DATI O NS :
Staff recommends approval of the annual renewal for the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve payment to Insight Public Sector in the amount of $51 ,618.51 for the annual
renewal of the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement."
Or,
"I move to deny payment to Insight Public Sector in the amount of $51 ,618 .51 for the annual
renewal of the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement for the following reason(s) _______ "
REPORT PREPA RED/REVIEWE D BY:
Michael Steinke, IT Manager
Heather Geyer, Administrative Services Director
Patrick Goff, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Insight Microsoft Quote # 215941418
lnsigh!ic SECTOR
Material
228-04433-ESA2
Description
Microsoft SQL Server Standard Edition -Software
assurance - 1 server-additional product-Enterprise,
Select, Select Plus -Win-All Languages
STATE OF COLORADO WSCA SOFTWARE VAR CONTRACT(# ADSP011-00000358-2/
20556YYY11 MIWSCA)
AUlliORIZATlON NUMBER:
LICENSE:
ANNUAL BILLING DUE 10/1/14
4732607
COVERAGE PERIOD : 10/1/15-9/30 /15
312-02257 -ESA2 Microsoft Exchange Server -Software assurance - 1
server -Enterprise, Select, Select Plus -All Languages
STATE OF COLORADO WSCA SOFTWARE VAR CONTRACT(# ADSP011-00000358-2 /
20556YYY11 MIWSCA)
AUlliORIZA TlON NUMBER :
LICENSE:
ANNUAL BILLING DUE 10/1/14
4732607
COVERAGE PERIOD : 10/1/15-9/30 /15
359-00792 -ESA2 Microsoft SQL Server-Software assurance - 1 CAL-
Enterprise, Select, Select Plus -All Languages
STATE OF COLORADO WSCA SOFTWARE VAR CONTRACT(# ADSP011-00000358-2 /
20556YYY11 MfWSCA)
AUlliORIZA TlON NUMBER :
LICENSE :
ANNUAL BILLING DUE 10/1/14
4732607
COVERAGE PER IOD: 10/1/15 -9/30 /15
A07-00042 -ESA2 Microsoft Enterprise Desktop Professional Platform -
Software assurance - 1 user-Enterprise -Win -All
Languages
STATE OF COLORADO WSCA SOFTWARE VAR CONTRACT(# ADSP011 -00000358-2 I
20556YYY11 MfWSCA)
AUTHORIZATION NUMBER :
LICENSE :
ANNUAL BILLING DUE 10/1/14
4732607
COVERAGE PERIOD: 10/1/15 - 9/30 /15
D87 -01159-ESA2 Microsoft Vislo Professional -Software assurance - 1
user-EDU -Enterprise, Select, Select Plus -Win -All
Languages
STATE OF COLORADO WSCA SOFTWARE VAR CONTRACT(# ADSP011-00000358-2 /
20556YYY11 MIWSCA)
AUTHORIZATION NUMBER:
LICENSE:
COVERAGE PERIOD : 10/1/15 - 9/30 /15
ANNUAL BILLING DUE 10/1/14
4732607
Quotation Number/ Creation Date
215941418 I 12-AUG-2014
Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
2 146.66 291.12
114.81 114.81
60 26.63 1,326.60
276 147.26 40,493 .76
6 86.36 431 .76
Page2 of 4
lnsigb!j c SECTOR
Material
H30-00238-ESA2
Description
Microsoft Project Profeaalonal -Software aaaurence -
1 unr -Enterprise, Select. Select Plua -Win -All
Languages
STATE OF COLORADO WSCA SOFTWARE VAR CONTRACT(# ADSP011 -00000358-2 /
20556YYY11 MNVSCA)
AUTHORIZAnON NUMBER :
LICENSE :
ANNUAL BILLING DUE 10/1/14
4732607
COVERAGE PERIOD: 10/1/15 - 9/30/15
J3A-00162-ESA2 Microsoft Syatem Center Configuration Manager -
Software a11urance - 1 aerver -Enterpriae, Select,
Select Plua -Win -All Language•
STATE OF COLORADO WSCA SOFTWARE VAR CONTRACT(# ADSP011-00000358-2 /
20556YYY11 MIWSCA)
AUTHORIZAnON NUMBER:
LICENSE:
ANNUAL BILLING DUE 10/1/14
4732607
COVERAGE PERIOD: 10/1/15 -9130/1 5
P72-00188-ESA2 Microsoft Windowa Server Enterprise Edition -
Software aaaurance - 1 uaer -Enterprise, Select, Select
Plua -All Languagn
STATE OF COLORADO WSCA SOFTWARE VAR CONTRACT(# ADSP011-00000358-2 /
20556YYY11 MNVSCA)
AUTHORIZA nON NUMBER :
LICENSE:
ANNUAL BILLING DUE 10/1/14
4732607
COVERAGE PERIOD: 10/1 /15 - 9/30 /15
P73-00226-ESA2 Microsoft Windowa Server Standard Edition -Software
aaaurance - 1 uaer -EDU -Enterpriae, Select, Select
Plus -AIILanguagn
STATE OF COLORADO WSCA SOFTWARE VAR CONTRACT(# ADSP011 -00000358-2 /
20556YYY11 MNVSCA)
AUTHORIZA nON NUMBER:
LICENSE:
COVERAGE PERIOD: 10/111 5 - 9/30 /15
ANNUAL BILLING DUE 10/1/14
4732607
Quotation Number/ Creation Date
215941418 I 12-AUG-2014
Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
10 168.36 1,683.60
93 .95 93 .95
5 382.54 1,912.70
25 117.71 2,942 .76
Product Subtotal 51,618.51
Tax 0.00
Total 51,618.51
Page 3 of 4
First Public Input Opportunity on the 2015 Budget
September 8, 2014
Page2
The 2015 Budget is scheduled to be presented to City Council and the Mayor on Monday,
October 6, 2014. Following review and direction from City Council , the City will hold a Public
Hearing on the proposed 2015 Budget on Monday, October 27 , 2014. The 2015 Budget is
scheduled for adoption on Monday, November 10 ,2014. The Proposed Budget will be available
online on the City website prior to the October 6th meeting. Additionally, a hard copy will be
available in the City Clerk's Office and at the Wheat Ridge library. The public is invited to
provide input on the proposed 2015 Budget at the October 2ih and November lOth meetings.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
No recommendation on this item is necessary.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
No formal action by City Council is necessary at this time .
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Heather Geyer, Administrative Services Director
Patrick Goff, City Manager
CAF -Rezoning of property at 32 11d and Wadsworth
September 8, 2014
Page 2
1. The proposal is consistent with the City's guiding documents including the
Wadsworth Subarea Plan, the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan and Envision
Wheat Ridge.
2. The proposed zoning and density provide a logical land use transition between
Wadsworth, the surrounding higher density developments and the low density
neighborhood to the west.
3. The proposal meets the zone change criteria.
4. All requirements for an Outline Development Plan have been met.
With the following conditions:
1. Additional architectural design will be required and reviewed at the time of SDP .
2. The schematic detail for Lots 7-20 must be revised to more accurately represent the larger,
narrower lots.
3. The developer is encouraged to work with the City Forester to create a tree-friendly plan
with consideration of old and new plantings.
4. The developer work with staff to add a crosswalk on the southern portion of the street.
Subsequent to the June 19 , 2014 Planning Commission hearing but prior to the City Council
hearing scheduled for August 11 , the applicant realized that several of the proposed lots could not
accommodate certain home models due to the maximum building coverage of 40% which was
included on the ODP as a development standard . As such , the applicant requested the maximum
building coverage for the project be increased . Because of this change to the ODP , the August II
Council hearing was continued and the case was referred back to Planning Commission for their
action. All other components of the June 19 ODP remained the same.
On August 21 , Planning Commission heard the request with the amended development standard
and recommended approval for the following reasons:
l. The proposal is consistent with the City's guiding documents including the Wadsworth
Subarea Plan, the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy an Envision Wheat Ridge.
2. The proposed zoning and density provide a logical land use transition between Wadsworth , the
surrounding higher density developments and the low density neighborhood to the west.
3. The proposal meets the zone change criteria.
4. All requirements for an Outline Development Plan have been met.
With the following conditions:
I. Additional architectural design will be required and reviewed at the time of SDP.
2. The schematic details for Lots 7 -20 must be revised to more accurately represent the larger,
narrower lots.
3. The developer is encouraged to work with the City Forester to create a tree-friendly plan
with consideration of old and new plantings.
4. The developer will work with City staff for a safe placement of crosswalk and termination of
sidewalk adjacent to Tract A.
CAF -Rezoning of property at 32nd and Wadsworth
September 8, 2014
Page 3
5. Note #2 under Development Standards must be modified to indicate that a maximum of eight
one-store home models are allowed a 50% building coverage and the remainder one and
two-story home models have a maximum of 40% building coverage.
The staff reports and meeting minutes from the July 17 and August 21 Planning Commission
public hearings have been included with the ordinance for second reading.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Fees in the amount of$1,675 were collected for the review and processing of Case No. WZ-14-06.
BACKGROUND:
Subject Property
Both of the subject parcels have unusual shapes. They have a combined area of3.48 acres . The
propert)' at 7671 W. 32nd Avenue is long and narrow with about 110 feet of street frontage along
W. 32n Avenue. The property at 3299 Wadsworth is essentially a flag lot. The main portion of
the property is rectangular with the exception of the northern property line which is angled and
parallel to the Rocky Mountain Ditch. The southeast corner of the property includes a "pole"
portion which extends east to Wadsworth and provides 60 feet of street frontage.
Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding properties include a variety of land use~. To the west are parcels zoned R-2 which
have single and two-family homes on them. To the southeast at 32nd and Wadsworth are two
multi-family apartment complexes zoned Residential-Three (R-3). Immediately to the north , the
property is bordered by the Rocky Mountain Ditch ; across which there are additional properties
zoned R-2 and R-3. Finally, to the south across W. 32nd Avenue is Crown Hill Cemetery which is
part of unincorporated Jefferson County and outside the boundaries of the City of Wheat Ridge.
Current and Proposed Zoning
The property is currently zoned R-2 which allows primarily single or two-family dwellings. The
proposed uses on the ODP document will be limited to single family homes , in-home businesses
and household pets. There is a restriction included prohibiting RV and boat parking. Detached
accessory structures would also not be allowed.
The neighborhood design is urban in character and will feature smaller lots with a minimum of
3,500 square feet of area. Side setbacks are proposed to be five feet. Front and rear yard setbacks
will be modest in size, no more than 10 feet in depth on the front with a minimum of 15 feet on the
rear.
The proposed density for the project results in a gross density of 5.75 dwelling units (du's) per
acre. This figure includes street right-of-way. When street right-of-way areas are removed from
the calculation , the net density is 8.73 units per acre .
The development gains access from a single cul-de-sac extending north from 32nd A venue.
The application has been through the standard referral process and all outside agencies or City
departments can serve the property with improvements installed at the developer's expense. A
CAF -Rezoning of property at 32"d and Wadsworth
September 8, 2014
Page 4
separate referral process will be required as part of the future application for the Specific
Development Plan and plat.
Guiding Documents
When staff reviews a zone change application, there are specific criteria in Section 26-122.E. of
the City Code which must be evaluated in regard to the request. One of the criteria is compliance
with the City's guiding documents. In this case, there are three documents which must be
considered: the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy, the Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan and
the comprehensive plan, Envision Wheat Ridge.
The Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy identifies strategies for the City to become a
"community of choice." It established goals for Wheat Ridge to be competitive with adjacent
jurisdictions by upgrading housing stock, increasing the variety of available housing stock ,
targeting underutilized properties for redevelopment and redevelopment of the Wadsworth
Con·idor.
The Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan provides guidance for the future development and
redevelopment of properties along Wadsworth. The subject property is shown as Medium High
Density Residential on the edge of Medium Density Residential to the west and Medium High
Density Mixed Use to the east. In the description of land use categories, Medium High Density
Residential is defined as having 1 0-21 units per acre, including townhomes, condominiums and
apartments. Medium Density Residential is defined as 5-10 units per acre, including single family
homes on small lots to be compatible with adjacent single family homes.
Envision Wheat Ridge is the City's comprehensive plan and designates this property as being in a
neighborhood buffer on the edge of a Commercial Corridor (Wadsworth). The intent of the
neighborhood buffer designation is for buffering and transition between low intensity residential
areas and higher intensity commercial corridors.
Staff has concluded that the zone change and density proposed are consistent with the goals and
objectives established by these documents.
MODIFICATION OF ODP DEVELOPMENT STANDARD
Subsequent to the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicants infonned staff that they
wanted to modify one of the development standards shown on the ODP document relative to
maximum building coverage. On the ODP document reviewed by Planning Commission on June
19, the maximum lot coverage is indicated at 40%. The applicant would like to increase allowable
coverage to allow slightly larger structures and more flexibility with design.
The City's planned development approval is a two-step process. The first step is for the zone
change and approval of an Outline Development Plan (ODP). The ODP document establishes
pennitted uses and development standards for the property. The ODP also contains a general
concept plan which labels areas of landscaping, parking, building footprints and access points.
The development standards required to be included on the ODP include the following: a list of
pennitted land uses , minimum lot size , minimum petimeter setbacks , maximum building height
and minimum lot coverage .
CAF -Rezoning of property at 32 nd and Wadsworth
September 8, 2 014
Pa ge 5
When analyzing the development standards for a new planned development , the most closely
related straight zone district is typically referenced as a starting point for negotiating standards
with the developer. As an example, if a developer was requesting a zone change and ODP
approval for a large lot single family project , staff would initially reference the standards in the R-
1 zone district for setbacks , lot coverage, etc.
The proposed minimum lot size in the subject project is 3500 square feet with a minimum lot
width of 45 '. Proposed lot sizes on the ODP plan vary in size from 3519 sf to 6192 sf. The
smallest single family zone district in the straight-zone districts is R-1 C. The R-1 C zone district
requires a minimum of 5000 sf of lot size with 50' of lot width. The maximum lot coverage of
40 % is a standard used throughout the residential zone districts (R-1 B, R-1 C, R-2 , R-2A , R-3 and
R-3A).
The applicant has provided an exhibit whereby the lots are laid out with home model templates
identified to illustrate where the increase in building coverage would be applicable. According to
this information , the lots which an increase in lot coverage would benefit are those which would
have single-story ranch homes or Model A on the graph. According to the figures provided , the
maximum estimated building coverage would be 46.45 %. The applicant has provided modified
language in Note 2 on the front sheet to address the needed increase in building coverage.
Staff has considered the potential impact on the development and the surrounding neighborhood
and has concluded that the proposed single-story models will complement and be consistent with
the single story neighborhood to the west. Staff has also concluded that the increase in building
co verage is negligible and will not be easily identified on a lot-by-lot basis.
However, the language in Note 2 should be modified to be consistent with Planning Commission 's
condition added at the August 21 public hearing. This language has been added as a condition to
the recommended motion for approval.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Council Bill No . 09-2014, an ordinance approving the rezoning of
property located at 7671 W. 32n d Avenue and 3299 Wadsworth Blvd. from Residential-Two
(R-2) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) and for approval of an Outline
Development Plan on second reading and that it take effect 15 days after final publication for
the following reasons :
1. City Council has conducted a proper public hearing meeting all public notice requirements
as required by Section 26-1 09 of the Code of Laws.
2. The required rezoning has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, which has
forwarded its recommendation .
3. The required rezoning has been found to comply with the "criteria for review" in Section
26-112-E and 260-303-D ofthe Code of Laws.
With the following conditions :
I. Additional architectural design be required and reviewed at the time of SOP.
CAF -Rezoning of property at 32n d and Wadswmth
September 8, 2014
Page 6
Or,
2. The schematic detail for Lots 7-20 must be revised to more accurately represent
the larger, narrower lots.
3. The developer is encouraged to work with the City Forester to create a tree
friendly plan with consideration of old and new plantings.
4. The developer work with staff to add a crosswalk on the southern portion of the street.
5. Note #2 under Development Standards be modified to indicate that a maximum of eight
one-storey home models are allowed a 50% building coverage and the remainder one and
two-story home models have a maximum of 40% building coverage. "
"I move to deny Council Bill No. 09-2014, an ordinance approving the rezoning of property
located at 7671 W. 32n d Avenue and 3299 Wadsworth Blvd. from Residential-Two (R-2) to
Planned Residential Development (PRD) and for approval of an Outline Development Plan on
second reading for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
and direct the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution of Denial , to be scheduled for Council
consideration at the next available regular business meeting."
REPORT PREPARE D/R EVIEWED BY:
Meredith Reckert , Senior Planner
Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director
Patrick Goff, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Council Bill No . 09-2014
2. Planning Commission staff report dated August 21 , 2014 (includes staff report of
June 19 , 2014)
3. Planning Commission minutes dated June 19 , 2014
4. Planning Commission draft minutes dated August 21 , 2014 (excerpt)
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FITZGERALD
COUNCIL BILL NO. 09
ORDINANCE NO. ___ _
Series of 2014
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE REZONING OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 7671 W. 32"d AVENUE and 3299 WADSWORTH
BOULEVARD FROM RESIDENTIAL-TWO (R-2) TO PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRO) AND FOR APPROVAL
OF AN OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (CASE NO. WZ 14-
06NUKON GROVE 21)
WHEREAS, Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws establishes
procedures for the City's review and approval of requests for land use cases; and,
WHEREAS, Calier Capital, LLC has submitted a land use application for
approval of a zone change to Planned Residential Development for property located at
7671 W. 32nd Avenue and 3299 Wadsworth Boulevard.; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed zone change is supported by the City 's guiding
documents including the Wadsworth Subarea Plan , the Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy and the comprehensive plan-Envision Wheat Ridge , and ,
WHEREAS, the zone change criteria specified in Section 26-112 support
approval of the request,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1. Upon application by Calier Capital, LLC for approval of a zone
change from Residential-Two (R-2) to Planned Residential Development (PRO)
and for approval of an Outline Development Plan (ODP) for property located at
7671 W. 32 nd Avenue and 3299 Wadsworth Blvd., and pursuant to the findings
made based on testimony and evidence presented at a public hearing before the
Wheat Ridge City Council, a zone change is approved for the following described
land:
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26 ,
TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST, OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN , CITY
OF WHEAT RIDGE , COUNTY OF JEFFERSON , STATE OF COLORADO AND BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26 ;
THENCE S89°45'02"W , 423.03 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26 ; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SECTION
LINE N00°14'58"W , 25 .00 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
32ND AVENUE , AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S89°45'02"W , 111 .41
Attachment 1
FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT ON THE
EASTERLY LINE OF RIDGEVIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION; THENCE DEPARTING
SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF
SAID RIDGEVIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION N00°19'27"W , 370.00 FEET; THENCE
CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE N89°45'02"E , 111.41 FEET; THENCE
N00°19'27"W , 466 .00 FEET ; THENCE S53°44'06"E, 278.98 FEET; THENCE
S00°19'27"E, 300 .00 FEET; THENCE N89°45'02"E, 184.00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WADSWORTH BOULEVARD; THENCE S00°19'27"E , 60 .00
FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE; THENCE DEPARTING SAID RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE S89°45'02"W, 408.00 FEET; THENCE S00°19'27"E, 310.00 FEET TO THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 32ND AVENUE AND THE POINT OF
BEGINNING . SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 151,495 SF (3.48 ACRES) MORE OR LESS .
BASIS OF BEARINGS : BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST
OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEARING N89 °45'02"E BETWEEN THE WEST
QUARTER CORNER BEING A FOUND 3 %" ALUMINUM CAP PLS # 13212 IN RANGE
BOX AND THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER BEING A FOUND 3 %"ALUMINUM
CAP PLS # 13212 IN RANGE BOX .
Section 2. Vested Property Rights. Approval of this zone change does not
create a vested property right. Vested property rights may only arise and accrue
pursuant to the provisions of Section 26-121 of the Code of Laws of the City of
Wheat Ridge .
Section 3. Safety Clause. The City of Wheat Ridge hereby finds , determines ,
and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power
of the City of Wheat Ridge , that it is promulgated for the health , safety , and
welfare of the public and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of
health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The
City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the
proper legislative objective sought to be attained.
Section 4. Severability; Conflicting Ordinance Repealed. If any section ,
subsection or clause of the ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections , subsections and clauses
shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final
publication , as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on
this 14th day of July, 2014 , ordered published with public hearing and consideration on
final passage set for Monday, August 11,2014 at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council
Chambers, 7500 West 291h Avenue , Wheat Ridge , Colorado, and that it takes effect 15
days after final publication . Public Hearing continued to September 8, 2014.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of to , this day of , 2014.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this ___ day of _______ , 2014.
ATTEST:
Janelle Shaver, City Clerk
1st publication: July 17' 2014
2nd publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript:
Effective Date :
Joyce Jay, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
Gerald Dahl, City Attorney
All notification and posting requirements have been met ; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this
case.
I. REQUEST
This application is for approval of a zone change from Residential-Two (R-2) to Planned Residential
Development (PRO) for property located at 7671 W. 32nd Avenue and 3299 Wadsworth Boulevard
with an Outline Development Plan (ODP).
The Planning Commission originally reviewed this case on June 19 , 2014 and recommended approval.
Subsequent to that hearing but prior to City Council , the applicant realized that several of the proposed
lots could not accommodate certain home models due to the maximum building coverage of 40%
which was included on the ODP as a development standard. The applicant is requesting the maximum
building coverage for the project be increased . Staff has concluded that this is a substantial change to
the ODP and therefore has referred it back to Planning Commission for their input. All other
components of the June 19 ODP remain the same. (Exhibit I, Original staff report for June 19, 20 14)
Attached also are a copy of the minutes from June 19 , 2014 (Exhibit 2, PC minutes
II. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO BUILDING COVERAGE
The City 's planned development approval is a two-step process. The first step is for the zone change
and approval of an Outline Development (ODP). The ODP document establishes permitted uses and
development standards for the property. The ODP also contains a general concept plan which labels
areas of landscaping, parking, building footprints and access points.
The development standards required to be included on the ODP include the following: a list of
permitted land uses, minimum lot size, minimum perimeter setbacks, maximum building height and
minimum lot coverage.
When analyzing the development standards for a new planned development, the most closely related
straight zone district is typically referenced as a starting point for negotiating standards with the
developer. As an example, if a developer was requesting a zone change and ODP approval for a large
lot s ingle family project , staff would initially reference the standards in the R-1 zone district for
setbacks, lot coverage, etc.
The proposed minimum lot size in the subject project is 3500 square feet with a minimum lot width of
45 '. Proposed lot sizes on the ODP plan vary in size from 3519 sf to 6192 sf. The smallest single
family zone district in the straight-zone districts is R-1 C. The R-1 C zone district requires a minimum
of5000 sf of lot size with 50 ' of lot width. The maximum lot coverage of40% is a standard used
throughout the residential zone districts (R-1 B, R-1 C, R-2 , R-2A, R-3 and R-3A).
Planning Commiss ion
WZ-14-06/Grove 21
2
The applicant has provided an exhibit whereby the lots are laid out with home model templates
identified to illustrate where the increase in building coverage would be applicable. Exhibit 3, Lo
coverage analysis) According to this information , the lots which an increase in lot coverage would
benefit are those which would have single-story ranch homes or Model A on the graph. According to
the figures provided , the maximum estimated building coverage would be 46.45%. The applicant has
provided modified language in Note 2 on the front sheet to address the needed increase in building
coverage. (Exhibit 4, revised front sheet ofODP plan set)
Staff has considered the potential impact on the development and the surrounding neighborhood and
has concluded that the proposed single story models will complement and be consistent with the single
story neighborhood to the west. Staff has also concluded that the increase in building coverage is
negligible and will not be easily identified on a lot-by-lot basis.
However, the language in Note 2 should be modified to remove the reference to an average in the
development of 40% as this would be difficult to administer and track. Staff also feels that 48%
should be increased to 50% and be applicable to only single-story homes. Two-story homes would
still need to meet a maximum of 40%.
III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff has concluded that the proposed Planned Residential Development zoning and accompanying
Outline Development Plan are consistent with the goals and policies ofthe City guiding documents
including the Wadsworth Subarea Plan , the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan and Envision Wheat
Ridge. Staff further concludes that the proposed zoning and density provide a logical land use
transition between Wadsworth , the surrounding higher density developments and the low density
neighborhood to the west. Because the proposed zoning and ODP meet the criteria used to evaluate a
zone change, a recommendation of approval is given for Case No. WZ-14-06 with the conditions listed
below.
With regard to the increase in building coverage, Staff has concluded that the increase for single story
home models should be negligible and could encourage construction of ranch-style homes which
would complement the neighborhood to the west.
Staff has provided suggested motions which reflect the Commission's motion made at the June 19
public hearing and added a condition of approval regarding the increase in building coverage.
IV. SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Option A: "I move to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-14-06 , a request for approval of
zone change from Residential-Two (R-2) to Planned Residential Commercial Development (PRO)
zoning and an Outline Development Plan (ODP), on property located at 7671 W. 32nd Avenue/3299
Wadsworth Blvd for the following reasons:
I. The proposal is consistent with the City 's guiding documents including the Wadsworth
Subarea Plan, the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and Envision Wheat Ridge.
2. The proposed zoning and density provide a logical land use transition between Wadsworth , the
surrounding higher density developments and the low density neighborhood to the west.
Planning Commission
WZ-14-06/Grove 21
3
3. The proposal meets the zone change criteria.
4. All requirements for an Outline Development Plan have been met.
With the following conditions:
I. Additional architectural design be required and reviewed at the time of SOP.
2. The schematic detail for Lots 7 -20 must be revised to more accurately represent the larger,
narrower lots.
3. The developer is encouraged to work with the City Forester to create a tree friendly plan with
consideration of old and new plantings.
4. The developer work with City staffto add a crosswalk on Yukon Court.
5. Note #2 under Development Standards be modified to indicate that ranch home models are
allowed a 50% building coverage and two-story homes have a maximum of 40% building
coverage."
Option B: "I move to recommend DENIAL ofCase No. WZ-14-06 , a request for approval ofzone
change from Residential-Two (R-2) to Planned Residential Commercial Development (PRO) zoning
and an Outline Development Plan (ODP), on property located at 7671 W. 32nd Avenue/3299
Wadsworth Blvd for the following reasons:
I.
2.
3."
Planning Commission
WZ-I 4-06/Grove 2 I
4
Planning Commission
WZ-14-06/Grove 21
Exhibit 1, June 19,2014 staffreport
5
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this
case.
I. REQUEST
This application is for approval of a zone change from Residential-Two (R-2) to Planned Residential
Development (PRO) for property located at 7671 W. 32"d Avenue and 3299 Wadsworth Boulevard.
The City's planned development approval is a two-step process. The first step is for the zone change
to PRO and approval of an Outline Development (ODP). The ODP document will set allowed uses
and development standards for the property. The ODP also contains a general concept plan which
labels areas of landscaping, parking, building footprints and access points. The ODP approval requires
a public hearing in front of each Planning Commission and City Council. City Council is always the
final authority for approval of zone changes so Planning Commission will be making a
recommendation.
The Specific Development Plan (SOP) and plat is the second step ofthe process which focuses on the
details of the development such as final drainage, street improvements, architecture and final lot
layout.
The applicant is requesting approval of the zone change to allow the construction of a twenty-unit
small lot, single family neighborhood. (Exhibit I, Letter of Request)
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS/PROPERTY HISTORY
The site is located at 7671 W. 32"d A venue and 3299 Wadsworth Boulevard and both pro erties are
zoned Residential-Two (R-2). Neither property has ever been platted. (Exhibit 2. Aerial hoto
Surrounding properties include a variety of land uses. To the west are parcels also zoned R-2
including single and two-family homes. To the southeast at 32"d and Wadsworth are two multifamily
apartment complexes zoned Residential-Three (R-3). Immediately to the north, the property is
bordered by the Rocky Mountain Ditch , across which there are additional properties zoned R-2 and R-
3. Finally, to the south across W. 32"d Avenue is Crown Hill Cemetery which is outside ofthe City of
Wheat Ridge boundary and is part of unincorporated Jefferson County. (Exhibit 3, Zoning rna
The subject parcels both have unusual shapes and each currently have vacant houses built around
1930. The total size ofthe two sites combined is 3.48 acres. The property at 7671 W. 32"d Avenue is
long and narrow with about I I 0 feet of street frontage along W. 32"d A venue. The property at 3299
Wadsworth is essentially a flag lot. The main portion of the property is rectangular with the exception
of the northern property line which is angled and parallel to the Rocky Mountain Ditch. The southeast
corner of the property includes a "pole" portion which extends east to Wadsworth and provides 60 feet
of street frontage. The property is heavily wooded but most of the trees are cottonwoods and Siberian
elm suckers, which are species the City encourages. (Exhibit 4, Site hotos)
The property was subject to a prior land use application. Case No. WZ-05-13 was a request by
Jefferson County Housing Authority for a zone change to PRO for construction of 42 multi-family
Planning Commission
WZ-14-6 /Grove 21
2
dwelling units in multiple structures. Planning Commission reviewed this request at a public hearing
held on March 2, 2006. Planning Commission gave a recommendation of denial for the following
reasons:
I. This is a high-density project that is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. This is
not a reason to degrade the neighborhood from R-2 zoning.
2. This project is not compatible with the recent 2020 Plan that recommends more strong
households to upgrade Wheat Ridge.
3. This area has a high vacancy rate in both homes for sales and units for rent in the Jefferson
County/Wheat Ridge areas. There are plenty of houses for young people to purchase a
starter homes.
The application was subsequently withdrawn and did not proceed to City Council public hearing.
II. OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Attached is a copy of the proposed Outline Development Plan which contains two sheets. The ODP
will set allowed uses and development standards for the property. The ODP also contains a general
concept plan which designates a street layout, proposed lots. building footprints and general
architectural themes. (Exhibit 5. ODP document)
The applicants have proposed two-story and raised ranch homes with front porches . Shared driveways
will reduce the impervious area in the front ya rds and will provide access to garages at the back of the
lots.
The neighborhood design is more urban in character and will feature smaller lots with a minimum of
3500 square feet of area. Side setbacks are proposed to be 5 feet. Front and rear yards will be modest
in size, no more than I 0 feet in depth on the front with a minimum of 15' on the rear.
The properties on the southern portion of the site will be slightly wider than those on the northern
portion . The proposed public street will extend north from W. 32nd Avenue with a cul-de-sac bulb at
the north end of the site. The street would be dedicated as public right-of-way via a future plat
document.
Allowable Uses:
The property is currently zoned R-2 which allows single-or two-family dwellings (depending on lot
size). foster care homes, governmental buildings and group homes . The proposed uses are limited to
single family homes, in-home businesses and household pets. There is a restriction included
prohibiting RV and boat parking. Detached accessory structures are not allowed.
Lot size, Setbacks and Lot coverage:
Lot sizes proposed are a minimum of 3500 square feet with 50' of lot width. On the conceptual
layout, the smallest lots are Lots 1-4 on the southern portion of the site with the smallest lot being
3519 square feet in size. The largest is Lot 14 at the end of the cul-de-sac bulb with 6980 square feet
of area.
Building envelopes are shown which depict minimum setbacks. Proposed setbacks are I 0' from the
front property line , IS" from the rear property line and 5' on the sides.
Plannin g Commission
WZ-14-6/Grove 21
3
Maximum building coverage is 40% which would allow a maximum of a 1400 square foot structure
pad on a 3500 square foot parcel. On Sheet 2, schematic layouts are shown which depict building
setbacks, house locations and the shared driveways . The detail for Lots 7 -20 must be revised to
more accurately represent the larger, narrower lots.
Maximum building height allowed is 35 ' which is consistent with all residential zone district
classifications in the City.
Parking
Each of the homes will have an attached two car garage accessed via a shared drive reducing the
amount of impervious surface in the development. On-street parking will be allowed on the eastern
side of the southern portion of the street. Parking on both sides ofthe street will be allowed on the
north.
Section 26-50 I of the City's zoning and development code requires that two spaces per dwelling unit
be provided when there is street parking available. Staff concludes that the parking is consistent with
the city code.
Street System and Drainage
The development gains access from a single cul-de-sac extending north from 32"d A venue. The street
sections being required by the City are detailed on Sheet 2. The southern portion ofthe street will
have 48 ' of right-of-way with detached 5' sidewalk and a tree lawn on the western side with no
parking allowed. The eastern side of the street will have curb and gutter with a 5' landscaped buffer
without a sidewalk but parking will be allowed.
After the "bend"' in the street, the right-of-way width increases to 59 '. Both sides of the street will
have curb and gutter with a 5' tree lawn and a 5' detached sidewalk. Parking will be allowed on both
sides of the street on this wider stretch. The Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District has reviewed these
street sections and has indicated that they have adequate room for maneuvering through the
development. As such the additional access point from the ·'leg" that extends east to Wadsworth is
not required for emergency access. The street designs are consistent with the Streetscape Design
Manual.
Public Works has reviewed and approved a preliminary drainage study. The lot is relatively flat. As
such , the drainage system has been designed to split the flows between the north and south portions of
the site. The stormwater on the south part will be directed to a detention pond adjacent to 32"d Avenue
(Tract Con page 2). Another pond will capture flows on the north side in a pond labeled Tract B. The
outlet from this pond will release to a pipe system bored under the Rocky Mount Ditch and release
onto the property to the north. A preliminary agreement has been made with that property owner
which will be finalized at the time ofSDP and plat.
Another smaller pond will be located on Tract A which is the "leg" that extends east over to
Wadsworth. The remainder of Tract A will be utilized for an amenity such as a community garden for
the development. The southern 30 ' of the Tract A will be paved to accommodate the looped water
system required by Consolidated Mutual. It is not required for emergency fire access but could
provide pedestrian access over to Wadsworth . All three tracts will be maintained by the Homeowners '
Association.
Plannin g Commission
WZ-14-6/Grove 21
4
Proposed Density and Relationship to Surrounding Area
The proposed density for the project results in a gross density of 5.75 dwelling units (du's) per acre.
This figure includes street right-of-way. When street right-of-way areas are removed from the
calculation, the net density is 8. 73 units per acre.
The existing neighborhood currently contains a mix of residential densities. Directly to the south and
east of the subject properties is an existing apartment building (7669 W. 3211 d Avenue) containing 33
units . This property is owned by the Jefferson County Housing authority and contains 18 dwelling
units per acre. Directly north of the site is another apartment complex addressed as 3445 Wadsworth.
This complex contains 40 du·s for a density of22.9 du"s per acre.
Directly west of the site is a well-established neighborhood which contains single and two-family
dwelling units. The neighborhood extends generally from 32nd Avenue to 34th Drive, between Yarrow
and Zephyr. These properties are zoned R-2. The R-2 zone district density can vary from 4.84 du 's
per acre to 6.9 du 's per acre depending on the mix of housing types (single or two-family).
Staff concludes that the proposed zoning and density provides a logical land use transition between
Wadsworth , the surrounding higher density developments and the low density nei g hborhood to the
west.
Architecture
The applicant has indicated that the homes will be des igned around a ·'cottage theme .. and will be one
and two stories in height . Desi gn concepts include covered front porches and trim detail which will
include brackets. corbels. sills and lintels. Materials will be primarily painted lap siding. Staff
recommends that at least 50% of the front fac;:ade have brick, stone or other masonry material.
Additional architectural desi g ns be required and reviewed at the time of SDP. (Exhibit 6. Architectural
elevations)
IV. ZONE CHANGE CRITERIA
Staff has provided an analysis of the zone change criteria outlined in section 26-122.E. The Planning
Commission shall base its recommendation in consideration of the extent to which the following
criteria have been met:
l. The change of zone promotes the health , safety, and general welfare of the community and
will not result in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding area.
The change of zone will not result in adverse effects on the surrounding area . The property is
currently poorly maintained and an eyesore . It has been an attractive nuisance for the
neighborhood attracting vagrants and wildlife. The new homes should have a positive impact on
the neighborhood both aesthetically and from a property value perspective.
Staff concludes that this criterion has been met .
2. Adequate infrastructure/facilities are available to serve the types of uses allowed by the
change of zone, or the applicant will upgrade and provide such where they do not exist or are
under capacity.
Plannin g Commission
WZ-14-6/Grove 21
5
All utility agencies have indicated that they can serve the property with improvements installed at
the developer 's expense. Should the zone change be approved, a more detailed review will occur
at the time of Specific Development Plan and plat.
Staff concludes that this criterion has been met.
3. The Planning Commission shall also find that at least one (1) of the following conditions
exists:
a. The change of zone is in conformance, or will bring the property into conformance, with
the City of Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies, and other
related policies or plans for the area.
The following documents are applicable to the property and are to be used for guides when
considering zone changes.
NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION STRATEGY -adopted 2005
This document identified strategies for the city to become a ·'community of choice··. It
established goals for Wheat Ridge to be competitive with adjacent jurisdictions by upgrading
housing stock , increasing the variety of housing stock available , targeting underutilized
properties for redevelopment and redevelopment of the Wadsworth Corridor.
WADSWORTH CORRIDOR SUBAREA PLAN-adopted 2007
This document is considered an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan for this portion of the
city. It is intended to be used as both a short-term and long-term planning document by
providing guidance for the future development and redevelopment of properties along
Wadsworth.
The property is shown as Medium High Density Residential (brown color) on the edge of
Medium Density Residential to the west (yellow color) and Medium High Density Mixed Use
to the east (red and brown striped). In the description of land use categories, Medium High
Density Residential is defined as having I 0 -21 units per acre including townhomes,
condominiums and apartments. Medium Density Residential is defined as 5 - I 0 units per
acres including single family homes on small lots to be compatible with adjacent single family
homes.
Other identified goals being met are:
I. Encouraging a gradual increase in density closer to Wadsworth
2. Preservation and enhancement of the residential neighborhoods to the east and west of the
corridor
3. Increased pedestrian opportunities
Planning Commission
WZ-14-6/Grove 21
6
The proposed rezoning does not relate to an unanticipated need .
Staff concludes that this criterion is not applicable .
V. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
The required pre-application meeting for neighborhood input was held on February I I, 2014. There
were approximately 20 persons in attendance (Exhibit 6. Neighborhood meeting reca . Exhibit 7. Sign-
u sheet.)
VI. AGENCY REFERRALS
All affected service agencies were contacted regarding their ability to serve the property. The
developer will be responsible for any needed upgrades to accommodate the proposed development.
Specific referral responses follow.
Consolidated Mutual Water District: Can serve the property subject to installation of
improvements. A ''looped .. system will be required so a paved connection must be made to
Wadsworth via Tract A.
Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District: Can serve the property. Water plan and hydrant locations
will be addressed at the time of SDP and plat. Does not need a secondary access into the
development.
Wheat Ridge Parks and Recreation Department: Will require fees-in-lieu of land dedication
assessed at the time of final plat.
Wheat Ridge Police: Can serve the new development.
Wheat Ridge Public Works: Has reviewed and approved preliminary drainage design and a traffic
study. All requirements are being met.
Wheat Ridge Sanitation District: Has adequate capacity to accommodate development. Final
design review will occur at the SDP and plat stage.
Xcel Energy: Can serve.
VII. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff has concluded that the proposed Planned Residential zoning and accompanying Outline
Development Plan are consistent with the goals and policies of the City guiding documents including
the Wadsworth Subarea Plan. the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan and Envision Wheat Ridge.
Staff further concludes that the proposed zoning and density provide a logical land use transition
between Wadsworth , the surrounding higher density developments and the low density neighborhood
to the west. Because the proposed zoning and ODP meet the criteria used to evaluate a zone change.
a recommendation of approval is given for Case o. WZ-14-06 with the conditions listed below.
Planning Commission
WZ-14-6/Grove 21
9
VIII. SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Option A: " I move to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-14-06 , a request for approval of
zone change from Residential-Two (R-2) to Planned Residential Commercial Development (PRO)
zoning and an Outline Development Plan (ODP), on property located at 7671 W. 32" Avenue/3299
Wadsworth Blvd for the following reasons:
I. The proposal is consistent with the City 's guiding documents including the Wadsworth
Subarea Plan , the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan and Envision Wheat Ridge.
2. The proposed zoning and density provide a logical land use transition between Wadsworth , the
surrounding higher density developments and the low density neighborhood to the west.
3. The proposal meets the zone change criteria .
4. All requirements for an Outline Development Plan have been met.
With the following conditions:
I. At least 50 ' of the front fayade have brick , stone or other masonry material.
2. Additional architectural designs be required and reviewed at the time of SOP.
3. The schematic detail for Lots 7 -20 must be revised to more accurately represent the larger,
narrower lots.
4. The developer is encouraged to salvage as many healthy trees as possible.''
Option B: "I move to recommend DENIAL of Case No . WZ-14-06 , a request for approval of zone
change from Residential-Two (R-2) to Planned Residential Commercial Development (PRO) zoning
and an Outline Development Plan (ODP), on property located at 7671 W. 32 "d Avenue/3299
Wadsworth Blvd for the following reasons :
I.
2.
3."'
Plannin g Commi ss ion
WZ-1 4-6/Grove 21
10
Exhibit 1, Letter of Request
Grove 21 at Wheat Ridge
-Overview-
This project will consist of 21 single family homes gathered around a new street running off of 32nd Avenue
West of Wadsworth Blvd.
Currently the site is owned by Jefferson County and is surplus property that was proposed for a multi family
project. It was submitted to the City in and subsequently withdrawn in 2006/2007 .
We feel that this proposal creates a buffer between the Hilltop Apartments and the single family & the duplex
homes immediately to the West.
Figure one, attached, shows the current character of the site. The 3 existing single family houses and
outbuilding are derelict and provide haven for squatters and present a danger to the children living adjacent.
-Why change the zoning-
Currently zoned R -2 (9,000 SF lots). The site does not lend itself to the larger single family homes that such
zoning would mandate. The proximity to Wadsworth Blvd and the adjacent multi family projects suggests a
higher density and moderately priced neighbourhood. Utilizing this parcel as a transition between Wadsworth
Blvd and existing R-2 is the appropriate solution .
The proposed community will promote an active lifestyle and neighborhood interaction by utilizing a village
concept that is walker friendly and invites interaction by reduced front setbacks and front porches on each
home. In addition , the shared driveways minimize the impact of automobiles.
-Existing zone district physical character-
To the North, South, and East, older apartment complexes exist in neighboring zone districts. To the West is
Yarrow Street zoned R-2 .
The rear of the community abuts a 1 acre parcel also zoned R-2 that also abuts Wadsworth Blvd . Across 32nd
Avenue is the Crown Hill Mortuary & Cemetery.
Close by is the Intersection of 32nd Avenue & Wadsworth Blvd with its varied commercial uses.
This community will be a positive addition to the character of the area . With its new construction and additional
residents, it will help revitalize an area that is a bit long in the tooth.
-Access/Traffic Patterns/Impact-
As the included Traffic Impact Study indicates the majority of the traffic generated will utilize Wadsworth Blvd
and to a lesser extent 32nd Avenue . We anticipate that a portion of the new residents will utilize the Light Rail
conveniently located nearby at 13111 Avenue & Wadsworth Blvd.
With the minimal amount of additional car trips, the overall impact in the area and adjacent streets will be
negligible.
-Utilities-X-Cel Energy currently serves the site for Electrical and Gas. The City of Wheat Ridge supplies
Sanitary Sewer. Consolidated Water serves the Northern half of the site and they have expressed a
willingness to annex and supply all 21 homes.
-Effect on Public Facilities-
Preliminary meetings have been held with the City to examine and explore services and their impact. A quick
summary:
Planning Commission
WZ-14-6/Grove 21
II
Fire-Our consultants have met with the Fire Department and no secondary access will be necessary. All road
designs meet their standards .
Police-No adverse effects are anticipated .
Water· Service lines are available on 32nd .
Storm Water-The site will have two detention facilities for controlled release into the existing storm
Sewer. We anticipate an offsite discharge pipe running through the Northern adjacent Oak Hill partments
( ). The easements and agreements are currently underway.
Roadways -A R.O .W will be reserved on Wadsworth Blvd for future COOT expansion . A R.O .W will be
dedicated on 32nd Avenue and appropriate improvements made along the street frontage .
Parks & Schools -City mandated contributions, in lieu, have been discussed and are anticipated.
-City Policies-
Discussions have been held with the City to adhere to all requirements for the rezone process .
A neighbourhood meeting was held on February 11, 2014 to solicit neighbourhood input. We feel that the
feedback was positive and the adjacent landowners are looking forward to the removal of the adjacent blight.
We have committed to meet the requirements for roads, setbacks , heights and associated municipal codes .
Planning Commission
WZ-14-6/Grove 21
12
Planning Commission
WZ-14-6 /Grove 21
Exhibit 3, Zoning Map
14
Planning Commission
WZ-14-6/Grove 21
Exhibit 5, ODP document
19
Exhibit 7, Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Meeting Date:
Attending Staff:
Location of Meeting:
Property Address:
Property Owner(s):
Property Owner(s) Present?
Applicant:
Existing Zoning:
Existing Comp. Plan:
Existing Site Conditions:
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES
February II , 2014
Meredith Reckert. Senior Planner
Lauren Mikulak , Planner II
Wade Sanner, Planner I
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building
7500 W. 291h Avenue
Wheat Ridge , CO 80033
7671 W. 32nd Avenue & 3299 Wadsworth Boulevard
Jefferson County
No
Bill Fritz. Bob ettleton, Mark Thornbrough (all present)
Residential-Two (R-2)
Neighborhood Buffer Area
The site is located at 7671 W. 32nd Avenue and 3299 Wadsworth Boulevard and both properties are
zoned Residential-Two (R-2). either property has ever been platted.
Surrounding properties include a variety of land uses. To the west are parcels also zoned R-2
includin g mostly two-family homes. To the southeast at 32nd and Wadsworth are two multifamily
apartment complexes zoned Residential-Three (R-3). Immediately to the north , the property is
bordered by the Rocky Mountain Ditch , across which there are additional properties zoned R-2.
Finally. to the south across W. 32nd Avenue is Crown Hill Cemetery which is outside of the City of
Wheat Ridge boundary and is part of unincorporated Jefferson County.
The subject parcels both have unusual shapes and each is currently developed with sing le family
homes which were originally built around 1930. Based on Jefferson County records. the total size of
the two sites is 145 ,926 square feet (3.35 acres). The property on W. 32nd Avenue is long and narrow
Planning Commission
WZ-14-6/Grove 21
21
with about II 0 feet of street frontage along W. 32nd A venue ; the size of the lot is 41 ,382 square feet
(0.95 acres).
The property at 3299 Wadsworth is I 04 ,544 square feet (2.4 acres) but is essentially a flag lot. The
main portion of the property is rectangular with the exception of the northern property line which is
angled and parallel to the Rocky Mountain Ditch. The southeast corner of property includes a pole
portion which extends east to Wadswo1th and provides about 60 feet of street frontage. The existing
home is located on the southeast corner of the property.
Applicant/Owner Preliminary Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from R-2 to Planned Residential Development
(PRD) for the development of small lot single-family homes. The applicants have proposed two-story
and raised ranch homes with front porches. Shared driveways will reduce the impervious area in the
front yards and will provide access to garages at the back of the lots.
The neighborhood design is more urban in character and will feature smaller lots varying in size from
about 3,750 to 4, I 00 square feet. Side setbacks are proposed to be 5 feet. Front and rear yards will be
modest in size , no more than 20 feet in depth.
The properties on the southern portion of the site will be slightly smaller than those on the northern
portion. Primary access will extend from W. 32nd Avenue with a cul-de-sac bulb at the north end of
the site. The street would be dedicated as public right-of-way.
The following is a summary of the neighborhood meeting:
• In addition to staff, 19 members of the public attended the neighborhood meeting.
• Staff explained the site conditions, zoning in the neighborhood , and the reason for the rezoning
request.
• The applicant explained the proposed single-family development, the market conditions that
trend to smaller lots , and the village-like feel of the design.
• The members of the public were informed of the process for a zone change.
• The members of the public were informed of their opportunity to make comments during the
process and at the public hearings.
• Neighbors compared the proposed design to a previous multi-family development and were
more receptive the applicant's single-family proposal. Concerns were related to drainage ,
preservation of existing trees , additional traffic on W. 32"d A venue , and perimeter fencing.
The following issues were discussed regarding the zone change request and proposed
development:
Proposal
• How many lots are proposed?
The proposal includes 21 single-family lots.
• What is the size of the home?
The homes will range from I 500 to 2000 square feet .
• What is the price point for the homes?
Planning Commission
WZ-14-6/Grove 21
22
The homes will be around $300,000.
• Will the homes include basements?
Some may include basements.
• How tall are the homes?
They will be offering two-st01y and ranch styles. The homes are custom built , so the total of
each design will be a function of the market. The applicant is seeing an equal pre.ferencefor
both designs recently.
• Will the homes be energy efficient?
The energy efficiency is measured in HERS (home energy rating) and consumes about 60% of
the energy of a normal home. Because the homes are custom, they can include passive solar
and other features at the request of the buyer.
• Has the perimeter fencing been designed?
The details of the design . such as the type ofperimeterfencing, have not yet been designed.
Neighbors expressed a preference for something more durable than a cedar privacyfence,
such as masomy or vinyl.
• Will there be an HOA?
The applicants do not expect an HOA ; each lot will be fee simple ownership.
• What are the proposed setbacks?
The preliminary site plan shows a minimum 5:foot setback which is the standard minimum in
all residential zone districts. The rear setback will vary based on the shape of the lots. The
deeper lots could include up to a 25 foot setback to maximize back yard space .
• Will the trees be saved?
The applicants have the desire to preserve as many trees as possible . Staff noted that a
required ubmitta/ will likely include an inventory and analysis of existing trees on the site .
• Is the theme of the architecture Victorian in nature?
The homes include a somewhat Victorian design with front porches and clapboard siding that
evoke a cottage-or village-likefeel.
• How will the residents access the garages?
Shared driveways and garages behind the homes are a centra/feature of the design .
Resident· will access the side-loaded garages.fi·om the street. The garages are setback about
25.feet.fi·om the western property line.
• The notification letter indicated the site is mostly vacant-what does that mean?
There are two homes and several outbuildings on the site, butt hey are not currently occupied
and the majority of the site is undeveloped.
• What is the expected timeline for the project?
The rezoning process alone can take 4 to 6 months, plaffing and spec[fic site design willfollow.
There is not yet an estimated completion date.
• How does this compare to the previous proposal by Jefferson County for the site?
In 2005 , a different applicant-the Je_fferson County Housing Authority-requested a rezoning
to construct 8 residential buildings with a total of about 43 dwelling units. The current
proposal is much less dense with only 21 lot ·and includes detached single family homes. The
Planning Commission
WZ-14-6/Grove 21
23
current proposal still represents a transitional/and use with moderate density between the
multi-family and commercial uses on Wadsworth and the R-2 neighborhood to the west.
• Who currently owns the two lots that comprise the site?
Zoning
The property was previously owned by the Jefferson County Housing Authority, but now
Jefferson County itself owns the site.
• Is PRO a zoning designation , and if so is there any minimum lot size in the PRO district?
A Planned Residential Development is a zone district, but it does not include codified
development standards in the same way as other "straight " residential zone districts . A
planned development is intended to be used for unique physical conditions or a unique
development proposal. In this case, the unique conditions include the shape of the lot and the
desire to provide a more urban, smaller lot development/hat is not considered in other
residential zone districts .
The P RD is a negotiated zoning that allows a developer more flexibility to propose a design
that may not be permitted in another zone district. The intent is not to circumvent the zoning
code, and the expectation is the provision of a high quality design in exchange for the
flexibility offered by a PRD.
• Is each PRO established on an ad hoc basis?
Each planned development is reviewed individually on its own merits. Staff and service
agencies will review the documents and provide comments. Staff and Planning Commission
will make a recommendation of approval or denial, but ultimately City Council approves each
planned development. Because a PRD is a more flexible , negotiated type of zone district, the
application includes more detail about the proposed design and is reviewed with more scrutiny
than other types of by right development.
• Why are the lots so much smaller than the 9000 square feet required in R-2?
Housing preferences in the real estate market are increasingly shifting awayfrom large lot
suburban homes. Empty nesters, seniors, and young professionals are seeking smaller lots
with less maintenance, but they still want the independence that comes with single family
homeownership. The proposed design is more similar to the neighborhoods seen in Stapleton,
Lowry, and Belmar that respond to this new preference and increase the variety of housing
options in Wheat Ridge.
Utility, Drainage, Traffic
• How will you address the abandoned ditch along the southwest perimeter of the property?
A neighbor described an abandoned ditch along the west side of lots 1 through 6. She
explained that water rights had been sold, but the ditch had neither been baclifilled nor was the
easement vacated. The applicants explained they would be using surveys and title work to
clean up and remove as many encumbrances as possible. An abandoned ditch would be
included in that effort if it affects the subject property.
• Will the development impact existing utility easements on the neighboring lots?
No , the utilities and easements on the existing lots to the west will not be impacted. The new
development will include its own utility easements along the perimeters of each lot.
• Will utilities be undergrounded?
Planning Commission
WZ-14-6 /Grove 21
24
Utilities for new developments are typically required to be undergrounded. Xcel will be given
the chance to comment on the application. Applicants are not required to underground
existing utilities in adjacent neighborhoods.
• Will drainage in the surrounding area be better or worse after the project is completed?
The proposal will result in an increase in impervious surface, however, the applicants will be
required to complete a drainage report and keep and treat all runoff water on-site. The
proposed site design includes two detention ponds that will discharge into the storm sewer
system. The proposal will not result in swface runoff onto neighboring properties which may
be happening now since now drainage system is in place.
• Will there be any access on or off of Wadsworth?
Wadsworth is a state highway conh·o/led by CDOT. The only access to Wadsworth will be for
emergency vehicles. CDOTwill not allow access for several reasons , include thefactthat a
narrow fron tage prohibits construction of acceleration/deceleration lanes . The topography of
the area and the presence of the Rocky Mountain Ditch complicate access in this area.
Primary access will be off of W 32"d Avenue.
• Will a traffic signal be added at W. 35 1h Avenue?
The applicants would not be responsible for a new stop light at W 35'" Avenue because it is
not adjacent to the subject site. and their project alone would not increase traffic at this area.
CDOTwould have to approve the addition of a traffic signal in this location-new signals are
added when traffic counts reach a certain threshold.
• Will Wadsworth be widened?
Wadsworth Boulevard is slated to be widened in the future , but there is no timeLinefor the
project. To accommodate the future widening, the applicants will be required to provide a
22-foot wide right-of-way dedication and a 2-l:foot wide reservation along the Wadsworth
frontage .
• What can be done to fix traffic issues and the bus stop location on W. 32"d A venue?
The neighbors noted that curb cuts at the gas station and mulli:family development are too
close to the intersection and make it d(fficultto turn left (eastbound) onto W. 32"d Avenue. As
a result , vehicles.fi'equently turn right (westbound) and turn around on Yarrow Street or by
weaving through the neighborhood. There is also a bus stop at the gas station that
complicates turning movements in this area. The neighbors are concerned about this issue in
general. and don 't want to the see the issue exacerbated by the new development.
The applicants will be required to complete a traffic study to understand the impacts of the new
development . The y expect that the new road will be .far enough west that the resident will be
able to turn left (eastbound) onto W 32"d Avenue without the same trouble experienced at the
gas station.
Staff received no written comment prior to the neighborhood meeting.
Planning Commission
WZ-14-6/Grove 21
25
8. e!) See fow
9. ~k/LA{~
10. (It~ ?/w+ktP
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Planning Commission
WZ-14-6/Grove 21
, J'){) 1~1' Ydw Ci
I
j6DI/ /J, 3.>f~~~~
3tro ~JLJ~.-+;, 8/vi
2
28
Exhibit 2-June 19, 2014 minutes
A. Case No. WZ-14-06:. A request filed by Calier Capital , LLC for approval of a zone change
from Residential-Two (R-2) to Planned Residential Development (PRO) with an Outline
Development Plan for property located at 7671 W. 32nd Avenue and 3299 Wadsworth
Boulevard.
Ms. Reckert presented the case. She entered into the record the contents of the case file and
packet materials, the zoning ordinance, the comprehensive plan and the digital presentation.
She stated the public noticing and posting requirements have been met. She provided an
explanation about the Planned Residential Development and Outline Development Plan
processes. Planning Commission will make a recommendation to City Council which is the
final authority. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation.
Commissioner BUCKNAM asked for a clarification ofthe setbacks and inquired about the lot
on the north of the pole on the flag on Wadsworth and what the status of that property. Ms.
Reckert stated the front setback is I 0-feet , 5-feet on the sides and 15-feet on the rear and the lot
is vacant.
Commissioner DORSEY inquired about the name ofthe new street and asked if the developer
will develop the whole area at the same time. Ms. Reckert stated she didn 't know what the
street name will be yet but it would follow the Denver Metro grid system and it will be decided
at the time of plat. She deferred the development question to the developer.
Commissioner Dorsey inquired about parking; that on the south portion parking will only be
permitted on one side of the street and parking on the cul-de-sac is permitted on both sides.
Ms. Reckert stated that is correct.
Commissioner TIMMS asked if staff calculated the potential on-street parking availability.
Ms. Reckert stated she has not done the calculation. The development meets the minimum
parking requirements.
In response to Commissioner TIMMS inquiry about lot coverage, the Homeowners'
Association , 50% masonry requirement, signage and condition four with the tree preservation
and how that will be monitored , Ms. Reckert stated the size of the lots that were discussed at
the neighborhood meeting were larger than what is proposed today . A Homeowners'
Association will be required because ofthe three tracts that will have to be maintained. She
deferred the masonry question to the developer. She stated the only signs that would be
allowed besides real estate signs and constructions signs would be a subdivision identification
sign with a 36 square foot maximum. Home occupations would permit a 2 square foot sign.
She stated Wheat Ridge does not have a tree preservation ordinance but there are some mature
cottonwood trees on the site. A tree assessment has been submitted by the applicant and we
will engage the parks Naturalist for suggestions.
Commissioner TIMMS asked ifstaffhas received any additional emails or phone calls from
the public since the public notice. Ms. Reckert replied no.
Planning Commission
WZ-14-06/Grove 21
7
Commissioner OHM asked about condition number four. He stated cottonwood trees are
typically weak wood and typically are forbidden in most municipalities. He suggested
rewording to condition to have the developer perform a tree assessment with the City's
Naturalist. He asked if there was any consideration for pedestrian access to connect to
Wadsworth. Ms. Reckert stated the southern 30 feet is to be paved which will act as a
pedestrian connection to Wadsworth and to satisfy the requirements of Denver Water and
Consolidated Mutual Water Districts.
Commissioner BUCKNAM asked ifthere was any discussion between staff and the applicant
about making the west slightly shallower in depth to provide more space for sidewalks on both
sides of the street. Ms. Reckert stated that the first five lots are at the minimum of3519 square
feet, so there would probably be a reduction oflots on that side.
Commissioner WEAVER inquired about first condition for the masonry. Ms. Reckert stated
the masonry was to upgrade the architecture.
Commissioner DORSEY inquired about the "flag pole" portion of the lot. Ms. Reckert replied
that it is 60 feet wide. The southern portion will be used for the water line looping into the
development. The water companies require a 30 foot paved easement or an unpaved 50 foot
easement.
Chair BRINKMAN inquired that since this is going to be a public street would the city plow it.
Ms. Reckert stated there is a hierarchy plowing policy and this would be a low priority. 1t
would be plowed into the pond.
Chair BRINKMAN asked staffto confirm that there is no flood plain related to the Rocky
Mountain Ditch. Ms. Reckert stated there is not.
Discussion continued regarding the proposed drainage system and whether the off-site
easement would vest with the owner or the property.
Commissioner DORSEY asked ifthe number of houses on the south side could be reduced to 5
to accommodate a sidewalk on the east side. Ms. Reckert stated that could be discussed with
the applicant.
Applicant, Bill Fritz
I 0827 Bobcat Terrace, Littleton, CO 80124
Mr. Fritz spoke briefly about the history of the project. Mr. Fritz introduced his partners to
speak and answer questions.
Commissioner WEAVER inquired about the home price points and square footage. Mr. Fritz
stated that home prices would start in the lower 300's and that average finished square footage
will be 1500 to 2000 square feet.
Discussion continued regarding sidewalk on the east side ofthe street.
Planning Commission
WZ-14-06/Grove 21
8
Commissioner TIMMS inquired about the masonry condition. The applicant indicated they
envision a "cottage style" with doesn't accommodate for a lot of masonry accents.
Bob Nettleton
Project Builder
220 S. Cherry St, Denver, CO
Mr. Nettleton stated masonry requirements are not architecturally correct for cottages. He
stated masonry accents are desired without a specific percentage of coverage.
Commissioner BUCKNAM asked if Lots 1-6 could be configured to accommodate a sidewalk
on the east. Mr. Nettleton stated there is a five foot buffer between the street and the
apartments which could be a sidewalk instead of a landscape buffer
Commissioner DORSEY asked about fencing for the apartments. Mr. Nettleton stated there is
a wire fence. Ms. Reckert stated she didn 't think there was enough room for a sidewalk and
fence and there is a grade change between the "C Court" to the south and the property.
Discussion on possible solutions continued.
Commissioner TIMMS stated he didn 't think there was room to extend the sidewalk around the
curve. He thought a better option was to stop it at the pavement.
Chair BRINKMAN inquired about the pipe installation under the ditch and impact on the
adjacent property. She also asked where the snow from the street would be directed .
Mark Thornbrough
Civil Engineer
6037 Cole Ct, Arvada , CO
Mr. Thornbrough stated that regarding drainage through their property they worked with the
owners ofOakhill Apartments to the north and there is a memo of understanding. The storm
water eventually ends up in a storm sewer line at Wadsworth. He stated the snow will be
plowed to the retention pond located on the east side.
Chair BRINKMAN asked ifthey can push any snow to the Rocky Mountain Ditch. Mr.
Thornbrough stated no .
Chair BRINKMAN asked ifthere would be an official path that connects with the Rocky
Mountain Ditch. Mr. Thornbrough stated he wasn't sure if it was a public path. Chair
BRJNKMAN stated it is not.
Commissioner BUCKNAM asked if there was anything he could add to the conversation about
the lack of sidewalk on the east side. Mr. Thornbrough stated ifthe sidewalk ended at Lot 20,
a crosswalk could be installed to the other side.
Chair BRINKMAN opened the hearing to members ofthe audience.
Pat Hott
3330 Yarrow St.
Planning Commission
WZ-14-06/Grove 21
9
Ms. Hott spoke in favor ofthe development but voiced concerns with an existing easement
behind the homes on Yarrow Street and possible privacy issues. She inquired about the empty
lot to the north on Wadsworth and wanted to know what could be developed there. Ms.
Reckert stated that is under separate ownership and the applicant was encouraged to
incorporate it into the site.
Ms. Reckert stated there is a strip of land on the west side of the subdivision with unclear title .
Mr. Johnstone clarified it is a plat issue, not a zoning issue.
Frank Stites
3354 Zephyr Ct.
Mr. Stites had questions about where the setback will be in regards to the easement.
Carol Greene
3300 Yarrow St.
Ms. Greene has requested construction of a masonry privacy fence between the properties.
Mike Greene
3310 Yarrow St.
Mr. Greene stated he is in favor of the project but wants to be cautious about putting too many
restrictions on the developer. Mr. Greene is seeking feedback regarding the property lines on
Yarrow and the easement.
Pat Hott
3330 Yarrow St.
She hopes the development will have an HOA . Chair BRINKMAN confirmed that it would.
Mark Thornbrough
Mr. Thornbrough stated the easement at the rear of the property did not show up in the title
commitment. He stated the developer is intending to provide a six foot privacy fence and the
setback from the rear of the homes will be from the property lines defined in the legal
description.
Commissioner OHM asked staff if a landscape buffer is required for the paved connection to
Wadsworth and if a condition would be required for the crosswalk. Ms. Reckert stated no for
the landscape buffer and yes for the condition for the crosswalk.
Commissioner BUCKNAM asked if there is a requirement for on-street parking in a PRD. Ms.
Reckert stated this is referred to in Section 26-501. Single or two-family has a require for 4 off
street parking space ifthere is no on street parking or 2 if there is on street parking but it
doesn't specifY how many on street parking spaces are needed.
Chair BRINKMAN closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner WEAVER and seconded by Commissioner DORSEY to
recommend approval of Case No. WZ-14-06, a request for approval of a zone change
from Residential-Two (R-2) to Planned Commercial Development (PRD) zoning and an
Planning Commission
WZ-14-06/Grove 21
10
Outline Development Plan (ODP), on property located at 7671 W. 32"d Avenue/3299
Wadsworth Blvd. for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is consistent with the City's guiding documents including the Wadsworth
Subarea Plan, the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan and Envision Wheat Ridge.
2. The proposed zoning and density provide a logical land use transition between
Wadsworth, the surrounding higher density developments and the low density
neighborhood to the west.
3. The proposal meets the zone change criteria.
4. All requirements for an Outline Development Plan have been met.
With the following conditions:
1. Additional architectural design be required and reviewed at the time of SDP.
2. The schematic detail for Lots 7-20 must be revised to more accurately represent the
larger, narrower lots.
3. The developer is encouraged to work with the City Forester to create a tree friendly
plan with consideration of old and new plantings.
Friendly amendment made by Commissioner OHM to have the developer work with staff
to add a crosswalk. Amendment accepted by Commissioners Weaver and Dorsey to add
this as Condition #4.
Commissioner TIMMS stated the 50% masonry requirement is too high for this development
but he is sensitive to the reality ofthe market and to staff. He suggested 25% masonry .
There was a discussion about the masonry requirement. Mr. Johnstone stated this will be in
front the Planning Commission again as a SDP and architectural criteria will be addressed at
that time.
Chair BRINKMAN spoke of the request of the sidewalk to the east. She stated if she had to
put in a sidewalk she would rather put it next to the house versus the other side.
Commissioner BUCKNAM stated his concern for public safety.
Motion carried 5-1 with Commissioner BUCKNAM voting no.
Planning Commission
WZ-14-06/Grove 21
II
Planning Commission
WZ-14-06/Grove 21
Exhibit 4-Revised ODP cover sheet
13
... \·~ .... ~ ., City of • ?\Vlieat~e
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting
June 19, 2014
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair BRINKMAN at 7:01 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
Commission Members Present:
Commission Members Absent:
Staff Members Present:
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Anne Brinkman
Alan Bucknam
Emery Dorsey
Scott Ohm
Steve Timms
Amanda Weaver
Silke Popp
Kenneth Johnstone, Director of Community
Development
Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
Bruce Roome , Recording Secretary
4. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner
TIMMS to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried 6-0.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-May 15, 2014
It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner OHM
to approve the minutes of May 15, 2014, as written. Motion carried 4-0-2 with
Commissioners WEAVER and TIMMS abstaining.
6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing
on the agenda.)
No one wished to speak at this time .
Attachment 3
7. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. WZ-14-06:. A request filed by Calier Capital , LLC for approval of a zone
change from Residential-Two (R-2) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) with an
Out I ine Development Plan for property located at 7671 W. 32"d A venue and 3299
Wadsworth Boulevard.
Ms. Reckert presented the case. She entered into the record the contents of the case file
and packet materials , the zoning ordinance, the comprehensive plan and the digital
presentation. She stated the public noticing and posting requirements have been met.
She provided an explanation about the Planned Residential Development and Outline
Development Plan processes. Planning Commission will make a recommendation to City
Council which is the final authority. She reviewed the staff report and digital
presentation.
Commissioner BUCKNAM asked for a clarification of the setbacks and inquired about
the lot on the north ofthe pole on the flag on Wadsworth and what the status of that
property. Ms. Reckert stated the front setback is I 0-feet, 5-feet on the sides and 15-feet
on the rear and the lot is vacant.
Commissioner DORSEY inquired about the name of the new street and asked ifthe
developer will develop the whole area at the same time . Ms . Reckert stated she didn 't
know what the street name will be yet but it would follow the Denver Metro grid system
and it will be decided at the time of plat. She deferred the development question to the
developer.
Commissioner Dorsey inquired about parking; that on the south portion parking will only
be permitted on one side of the street and parking on the cul-de-sac is permitted on both
sides. Ms. Reckert stated that is correct.
Commissioner TIMMS asked if staff calculated the potential on-street parking
availability. Ms . Reckert stated she has not done the calculation . The development
meets the minimum parking requirements.
In response to Commissioner TIMMS inquiry about lot coverage, the Homeowners '
Association , 50% masonry requirement , signage and condition four with the tree
preservation and how that will be monitored , Ms . Reckert stated the size of the lots that
were discussed at the neighborhood meeting were larger than what is proposed today. A
Homeowners ' Association will be required because of the three tracts that will have to be
maintained . She deferred the masonry question to the developer. She stated the only
signs that would be allowed besides real estate signs and constructions signs would be a
subdivision identification sign with a 36 square foot maximum. Home occupations
would permit a 2 square foot sign. She stated Wheat Ridge does not have a tree
preservation ordinance but there are some mature cottonwood trees on the site. A tree
assessment has been submitted by the applicant and we will engage the parks Naturalist
for suggestions.
Commissioner TIMMS asked if staff has received any additional emails or phone calls
from the public since the public notice. Ms. Reckert replied no.
Commissioner OHM asked about condition number four. He stated cottonwood trees are
typically weak wood and typically are forbidden in most municipalities. He suggested
rewording to condition to have the developer perform a tree assessment with the City 's
Naturalist. He asked if there was any consideration for pedestrian access to connect to
Wadsworth. Ms. Reckert stated the southern 30 feet is to be paved which will act as a
pedestrian connection to Wadsworth and to satisfy the requirements of Denver Water and
Consolidated Mutual Water Districts.
Commissioner BUCKNAM asked ifthere was any discussion between staff and the
applicant about making the west slightly shallower in depth to provide more space for
sidewalks on both sides of the street. Ms. Reckert stated that the first five lots are at the
minimum of 3519 square feet , so there would probably be a reduction of lots on that side.
Commissioner WEAVER inquired about first condition for the masonry. Ms. Reckert
stated the masonry was to upgrade the architecture.
Commissioner DORSEY inquired about the "flag pole" portion of the lot. Ms. Reckert
replied that it is 60 feet wide. The southern portion will be used for the water line
looping into the development. The water companies require a 30 foot paved easement or
an unpaved 50 foot easement.
Chair BRINKMAN inquired that since this is going to be a public street would the city
plow it. Ms. Reckert stated there is a hierarchy plowing policy and this would be a low
priority. It would be plowed into the pond.
Chair BRINKMAN asked staff to confirm that there is no flood plain related to the
Rocky Mountain Ditch. Ms. Reckert stated there is not.
Discussion continued regarding the proposed drainage system and whether the off-site
easement would vest with the owner or the property.
Commissioner DORSEY asked if the number of houses on the south side could be
reduced to 5 to accommodate a sidewalk on the east side. Ms. Reckert stated that could
be discussed with the applicant.
Applicant, Bill Fritz
10827 Bobcat Terrace , Littleton , CO 80124
Mr. Fritz spoke briefly about the history of the project. Mr. Fritz introduced his partners
to speak and answer questions.
Commissioner WEAVER inquired about the home price points and square footage. Mr.
Fritz stated that home prices would start in the lower 300's and that average finished
square footage will be 1500 to 2000 square feet.
Discussion continued regarding sidewalk on the east side of the street.
Commissioner TIMMS inquired about the masonry condition. The applicant indicated
they envision a "cottage style " with doesn 't accommodate for a lot of masonry accents.
Bob Nettleton
Project Builder
220 S. Cherry St, Denver, CO
Mr. Nettleton stated masonry requirements are not architecturally correct for cottages.
He stated masonry accents are desired without a specific percentage of coverage.
Commissioner BUCKNAM asked if Lots 1-6 could be configured to accommodate a
sidewalk on the east. Mr. Nettleton stated there is a five foot buffer between the street and
the apartments which could be a sidewalk instead of a landscape buffer
Commissioner DORSEY asked about fencing for the apartments . Mr. Nettleton stated
there is a wire fence. Ms. Reckert stated she didn 't think there was enough room for a
sidewalk and fence and there is a grade change between the "C Court'" to the south and
the property.
Discussion on possible solutions continued.
Commissioner TIMMS stated he didn 't think there was room to extend the sidewalk
around the curve. He thought a better option was to stop it at the pavement.
Chair BRINKMAN inquired about the pipe installation under the ditch and impact on the
adjacent property. She also asked where the snow from the street would be directed.
Mark Thornbrough
Civil Engineer
6037 Cole Ct, Arvada , CO
Mr. Thornbrough stated that regarding drainage through their property they worked with
the owners of Oakhill Apartments to the north and there is a memo of understanding.
The storm water eventually ends up in a storm sewer line at Wadsworth. He stated the
snow will be plowed to the retention pond located on the east side.
Chair BRINKMAN asked if they can push any snow to the Rocky Mountain Ditch. Mr.
Thornbrough stated no.
Chair BRINKMAN asked if there would be an official path that connects with the Rocky
Mountain Ditch. Mr. Thornbrough stated he wasn't sure if it was a pub I ic path. Chair
BRINKMAN stated it is not.
Commissioner BUCKNAM asked if there was anything he could add to the conversation
about the lack of sidewalk on the east side. Mr. Thornbrough stated if the sidewalk ended
at Lot 20 , a crosswalk could be installed to the other side.
Chair BRINKMAN opened the hearing to members of the audience.
Pat Hott
3330 Yarrow St.
Ms. Hott spoke in favor of the development but voiced concerns with an existing
easement behind the homes on Yarrow Street and possible privacy issues. She inquired
about the empty lot to the north on Wadsworth and wanted to know what could be
developed there. Ms. Reckert stated that is under separate ownership and the applicant
was encouraged to incorporate it into the site.
Ms. Reckert stated there is a strip of land on the west side of the subdivision with unclear
title. Mr. Johnstone clarified it is a plat issue , not a zoning issue.
Frank Stites
3354 Zephyr Ct.
Mr. Stites had questions about where the setback will be in regards to the easement.
Carol Greene
3300 Yarrow St.
Ms. Greene has requested construction of a masonry privacy fence between the
properties.
Mike Greene
3310 Yarrow St.
Mr. Greene stated he is in favor of the project but wants to be cautious about putting too
many restrictions on the developer. Mr. Greene is seeking feedback regarding the
property lines on Yarrow and the easement.
Pat Hott
3330 Yarrow St.
She hopes the development will have an HOA. Chair BRINKMAN confirmed that it
would.
Mark Thornbrough
Mr. Thombrough stated the easement at the rear of the property did not show up in the
title commitment. He stated the developer is intending to provide a six foot privacy fence
and the setback from the rear of the homes will be from the property lines defined in the
legal description.
Commissioner OHM asked staff if a landscape buffer is required for the paved
connection to Wadsworth and if a condition would be required for the crosswalk. Ms.
Reckert stated no for the landscape buffer and yes for the condition for the crosswalk.
Commissioner BUCKNAM asked if there is a requirement for on-street parking in a
PRO. Ms. Reckert stated this is referred to in Section 26-50 I. Single or two-family has a
require for 4 off street parking space if there is no on street parking or 2 if there is on
street parking but it doesn't specify how many on street parking spaces are needed.
Chair BRfNKMAN closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner WEAVER and seconded by Commissioner
DORSEY to recommend approval of Case No. WZ-14-06, a request for approval of
a zone change from Residential-Two (R-2) to Planned Commercial Development
(PRD) zoning and an Outline Development Plan (ODP), on property located at 7671
W. 32"d Avenue/3299 Wadsworth Blvd. for the following reasons:
l. The proposal is consistent with the City's guiding documents including the
Wadsworth Subarea Plan, the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan and Envision
Wheat Ridge.
2. The proposed zoning and density provide a logical land use transition between
Wadsworth, the surrounding higher density developments and the low density
neighborhood to the west.
3. The proposal meets the zone change criteria.
4. All requirements for an Outline Development Plan have been met.
With the following conditions:
1. Additional architectural design be required and reviewed at the time of SDP.
2. The schematic detail for Lots 7-20 must be revised to more accurately represent
the larger, narrower lots.
3. The developer is encouraged to work with the City Forester to create a tree
friendly plan with consideration of old and new plantings.
Friendly amendment made by Commissioner OHM to have the developer work with
staff to add a crosswalk. Amendment accepted by Commissioners Weaver and
Dorsey to add this as Condition #4.
Commissioner TIMMS stated the 50% masonry requirement is too high for this
development but he is sensitive to the reality of the market and to staff. He suggested
25% masonry.
There was a discussion about the masonry requirement. Mr. Johnstone stated this will be
in front the Planning Commission again as a SOP and architectural criteria will be
addressed at that time.
Chair BRINKMAN spoke ofthe request ofthe sidewalk to the east. She stated if she had
to put in a sidewalk she would rather put it next to the house versus the other side.
Commissioner BUCKNAM stated his concern for public safety.
Motion carried 5-l with Commissioner BUCKNAM voting no.
x cerpt fr om August 21 Pl anning Commission DRAFT minutes
B. Case No. WZ-14-06: A request filed by Calier Capital , LLC for approval of a zone
change from Residential-Two (R-2) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) with an
Outline Development Plan for property located at 7671 W. 32"d Avenue and 3299
Wadsworth Boulevard.
Ms. Reckert presented the case. She entered into the record the contents of the case file
and packet materials , the zoning ordinance , the comprehensive plan and the digital
presentation. Jurisdiction was established. She stated Planning Commission will make a
recommendation to City Council which is the final authority. The property is 3.48 acres
in size and is zoned R-2. She stated the case was heard by Planning Commission on June
19 , 2014 and it was recommended for approval. Subsequent to that meeting and prior to
the City Council hearing the applicant realized that several of the proposed parcels could
not accommodate the proposed models due to the maximum building coverage shown on
the ODP at 40%. The applicant is requesting that maximum to be reconsidered to better
accommodate the proposed development. It was decided that Planning Commission
should review the revision. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation.
Commissioner BUCKNAM expressed his concern about the lack of sidewalks as a public
safety concern. He asked if there was any consideration by the applicant to move lots 1-6
to shift the street to add sidewalks. Ms. Reckert stated there was additional conversation
about the sidewalk and the issue of the crosswalk.
Commissioner WEAVER stated there are six homes over 40% building coverage. She
asked if Planning Commission can limit that to six. Ms. Reckert stated a condition could
be added , "not to exceed a certain number of parcels".
Commissioner POPP stated she has strong concerns about traffic and asked for a copy of
the traffic impact study. She is concerned of the traffic generated by the units on the
footprint of development.
Commissioner OHM inquired about the west side oftract A and whether a fence is
proposed.
Commissioner OHM expressed concern for sight distance visibility with the crosswalk.
Ms. Reckert stated that could be reviewed again with Public Works. Commissioner
OHM stated at the previous hearing there was discussion about a crosswalk between lot
20 and 7. Ms. Reckert asked the commission to that add as a condition.
Bill Fritz
I 0827 Bobcat Terrace, Littleton , CO 80124
Mr. Fritz stated the community has expressed interest in ranch style homes and the
models require more building coverage than 40%. Lots one through six will only be able
to accommodate two-story homes.
Commissioner BUCKNAM asked if there was any chance of a sidewalk being installed .
Attachment 4
Robert Nettleton
220 S. Cherry St., Denver, CO
Mr. Nettleton stated the five foot landscape buffer could be displaced to accommodate a
sidewalk. Many streets in Wheat Ridge do not have sidewalks on both sides and he feels
the crosswalk is an appropriate solution. The solid fence is along the rear property line to
create a buffer between the development and the existing development. The internal
fence is envisioned to be an open rail fence due to the green space and trees. There is no
need to compartmentalize the community from the landscaping and green space that
exists along the perimeter.
Commissioner WEAVER asked the applicant if they are willing to limit the development
to six model A's. Mr. Fritz stated limiting to eight would be fine.
Discussion continued about location for the ranch models .
Commiss ioner POPP asked about the pote ntial traffic increase and stated the pedestrian
options are limited on Wadsworth. She asked about the density relative to the traffic
impacts . Mr. Fritz stated the traffic study indicated there would be no discernible impact
on traffic in th e area. Mr. Fritz believes the development will be a nice neighborhood
that fits the urban design with a mix of people including young urban professionals and
retirees .
Commissioner POPP stated that in her opinion , Wheat Ridge has an identity with the
larger lot and home sizes which are a huge attraction for people to move to Wheat Ridge.
Ms. Reckert stated a traffic report was submitted and Public Works had no comments.
She continued that all of the City's adopted guiding documents (Envision Wheat Ridge ,
the Wadsworth Subarea Plan and the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy) are
referenced with land use applications and all of those identify the need for alternate types
of living situations.
Commissioner DORSEY inquired if there was a possibility to relocated 32nd Ave. bus
stop further to the west due to adjacency of the new street. Chair BRINKMAN stated the
reason for bu s stop placement is for connections and for the vision impaired.
Chair BRINKMAN opened the public hearing.
Daniel Boise
3433 Wadsworth Blvd.
Mr. Boise was in favor of the development. He asked if there is a fence along the ditch.
He stated the sight distance triangle will be obstructed no matter where the bus stop is
located. He didn 't agree with a restriction of six to eight lots for ranch style models.
Lesa Mullaney-Meeks
4583 Allison St.
4. The developer work with City staff for a safe placement of crosswalk and
termination of sidewalk adjacent to Tract A.
5. Note #2 under Development Standards be modified to indicate that a maximum
of eight one store home models are allowed a 50% building coverage and the
remainder one and two-story home models have a maximum of 40% building
coverage.
Commissioner OHM indicated that it is refreshing to see shared driveways which will
hide the garages and eliminates more impervious areas. Eventually he hopes there will
be a continuous sidewalk along Wadsworth that will connect to the light rail station.
Commissioner BUCKNAM stated he is in support of the motion and the added crosswalk
is an acceptable solution.
Chair BRINKMAN stated she was around when the 2006 case was heard . One of the big
concerns was traffic on 32"d Avenue as there was no tum signal on Wadsworth. A turn
lane and signal was added about a month after and it helps the traffic flow.
Motion approved 6-1 with Commissioner POPP voting no.
1. OTHER ITEMS
A. Chair BRINKMAN stated Donna Kimsey is in the audience. She submitted an
application for District IV for Planning Commission.
B. Ms. Reckert stated there is one case for September 4 1h along with the Wadsworth PEL
update. Staff is also trying to schedule a study session with the city attorney .
C. Chair BRINKMAN asked when the lighting standards and sign code will be
addressed. Ms. Reckert stated that code revisions will be initiated later in the fall.
D. Ms. Reckert stated on Monday August 18 , City Council passed a 90-day moratorium
on any marijuana applications.
9. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner
BUCKNAM to adjourn the meeting at 9:34 p.m. Motion carried 7-0.
Anne Brinkman, Chair Kim Waggoner, Recording Secretary
Ms. Mullaney-Meeks stated she owns a 6000 square foot property with a ranch style
home and would like to downsize to a smaller property with a ranch home. There are a
lot of communities in Wheat Ridge that do not have sidewalks.
Mike Green
3310 Yarrow St.
Mr. Green stated he has an issue with increasing price in development with decreasing
the number of lots. Wheat Ridge needs single family homes not apartments and supports
the project. He had no opposition to allow more than eight ranches as long as they meet
the requirements.
Mr. Fritz stated the fence by the ditch will be a split rail fence. He asked if the limitation
could be modified to eight ranch style homes at the 50% building maximum with
additional ranch style homes at the 40% building maximum.
There was discussion about the proposed limitation and language for a condition on the
motion.
Ms. Reckert stated the public hearing on June 19 included a friendly amendment to have
staff work on the crosswalk location which was not included in the recommended motion
for tonight and if still desired it should be included.
Chair BRrNKMAN closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner OHM and seconded by Commissioner WEAVER to
recommend approval of Case No. WZ-14-06, a request for approval of a zone
change from Residential-Two (R-2) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) with
an Outline Development Plan (ODP), on property located at 7671 W. 32"d
Avenue/3299 Wadsworth Boulevard, for the following reasons:
l. The proposal is consistent with the City's guiding documents including the
Wadsworth Subarea Plan, the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy an Envision
Wheat Ridge.
2. The proposed zoning and density provide a logical land use transition between
Wadsworth, the surrounding higher density developments and the low density
neighborhood to the west.
3. The proposal meets the zone change criteria.
4. All requirements for an Outline Development Plan have been met.
With the following conditions:
l. Additional architectural design be required and reviewed at the time of SDP.
2. The schematic details for Lots 7-20 must be revised to more accurately
represent the larger, narrower lots.
3. The developer is encouraged to work with the City Forester to create a tree
friendly plan with consideration of old and new plantings.
Council Action Form -Rezoning 4360 Gray Street
September 8, 2014
Page 2
FINANC IAL IMP ACT:
The proposed zone change is not expected to have a direct financial impact on the City. Fees in
the amount of$848 were collected for the review and processing of Case No. WZ-14-07.
BAC KGRO UN D:
The property is located at 4360 Gray Street in the northeast quadrant of the City, one lot south of
W. 441h Avenue. The property is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC) which allows
for various types of office uses and a very limited range of neighborhood-oriented retail uses.
The primary structure on the property was originally built as a single-family home in 1948. Since
that time , the building was converted for commercial use. Most recently, the site served as offices
for Benetti Bookkeeping and Tax Service. The property retains a residential character inside and
in the backyard with a detached alley-loaded garage and a gazebo.
Surrounding Land Uses
The site is currently zoned NC and is surrounded by residential and commercial uses . To the
north and northwest along W. 44th Avenue are parcels zoned Restricted Commercial (RC) and
Commercial-One (C-1 ). These properties include a clothing store, RadioS hack , carwash and
pawnshop. To the south is neighborhood zoned Residential-Three (R3) which includes mostly
single-family homes. The propetty immediately to the west of the subject site is zoned RC , but is
used as a single-family home.
Current and Propos ed Zoning
The current and proposed zone districts are very similar as NC and MU-N were both established to
provide for neighborhood serving commercial uses. A significant difference, however, is in the
treatment of residential uses. In the NC zone district , residential uses are permitted on a very
limited basis per section 26-626 of the City code. Existing residential uses may continue, but new
residential uses must be accessory to a commercial use. Because the subject property was
previously converted entirely to a commercial use, it ca1mot be converted back to a primary
residential use under the current NC zoning.
Unlike in NC , a new residence is considered a pem1itted use in the MU-N zone district. The
property has been on the market for several months , and most potential purchasers have expressed
interest in using the property residentially. The applicant and property owner are seeking a zone
change to allow more options for potential purchasers in terms of use and financing. The MU-N
zoning will allow for the desired residential use and will also preserve for future tenants the
possibility of live/work or commercial uses.
REC OMMENDED MO TI O N:
"I move to approve Council Bill No. 12-2014 an ordinance approving the rezoning of property
located at 4360 Gray Street from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Mixed Use-Neighborhood
(MU-N) on first reading, order it published , public hearing set for Monday, October 13 , 2014 at
7 p.m . in City Council Chambers , and that it take effect 15 days after final publication."
Council Action Fonn -Rezoning 4360 Gray Street
September 8, 2014
Page 3
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Lauren Mikulak, Senior Planner
Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director
Patrick Goff, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Council Bill No . 12-2014
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER-------
COUNCIL BILL NO. 12
ORDINANCE NO. ___ _
Series of 2014
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE REZONING OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 4360 GRAY STREET FROM NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL (NC) TO MIXED USE-NEIGHBORHOOD (MU-N)
(CASE NO. WZ /GERMANO)
WHEREAS, Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws establishes
procedures for the City's review and approval of requests for land use cases; and,
WHEREAS, Rocco Germano has submitted a land use application for approval
of a zone change to the Mixed Use-Neighborhood zone district for property located at
4360 Gray Street; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge has adopted a comprehensive plan-
Envision Wheat Ridge-which calls for a mix of land uses and appropriate transitions
between commercial corridors and neighborhoods; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission held a public hearing
on September 4, 2014 and voted to recommend approval of rezoning the property to
Mixed Use-Neighborhood (MU-N).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1. Upon application by Rocco Germano for approval of a zone change
ordinance from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Mixed Use-Neighborhood
(MU-N) for property located at 4360 Gray Street, and pursuant to the findings
made based on testimony and evidence presented at a public hearing before the
Wheat Ridge City Council , a zone change is approved for the following described
land:
LOT 4, SEGER SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF
COLORADO
Section 2. Vested Property Rights. Approval of this zone change does not
create a vested property right. Vested property rights may only arise and accrue
pursuant to the provisions of Section 26-121 of the Code of Laws of the City of
Wheat Ridge.
Section 3. Safety Clause. The City of Wheat Ridge hereby finds , determines,
and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power
of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health , safety, and
ATTACHMENT 1
welfare of the public and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of
health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare . The
City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the
proper legislative object sought to be attained.
Section 4. Severability; Conflicting Ordinance Repealed. If any section ,
subsection or clause of the ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid , the validity of the remaining sections , subsections and clauses
shall not be affected thereby . All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed .
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final
publication , as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of _ to _ on
this 81h day of September, 2014 , ordered it published with Public Hearing and
consideration on final passage set for Monday, October 13, 2014 at 7:00 o'clock p.m.,
in the Counc il Chambers , 7500 West 29 1h Avenue , Wheat Ridge , Colorado , and that it
takes effect 15 days after final publication.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of to , this day of , 2014 .
SIGNED by the Mayor on this ___ day of _______ , 2014.
ATTEST:
Janelle Shaver, City Clerk
1 st publication :
2 nd publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript:
Effective Date :
Joyce Jay , Mayor
Approved as to Form
Gerald Dahl , City Attorney
Council Action Fonn -Code Reenacting
September 8, 2014
Page 2
• 20 12 International Codes
• 2014 National Electrical Code
• 2015 NFPA 99 Standards for Health Care Facilities
PRIOR ACTIO N:
Council adopted the 2006 version of the International Codes , with the exception of the Property
Maintenance Codes, in 2010. The 2011 the National Electrical Code was adopted in 2012. The
2005 NFPA 99 Standards for Health Care Facilities were adopted in 2006.
At its August 18 1h Study Session, Council discussed a draft of the proposed adoption of these
codes , including amendments , and directed ce1tain changes. Those changes are reflected in the
draft ordinance.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Financial impact to the City is approximately $5 ,000 in costs for the purchase ofbooks related to
the newer versions of the codes. No changes are being proposed to the cuJTently adopted building
pennit fee schedule.
BACKGRO UN D:
In 201 0, Council adopted the 2006 versions of the International Codes with amendments that
were based on: 1) Building Division staff recommendations , 2) an external assessment of the
codes and Building Division practices and procedures by an independent consulting finn , and 3)
recommendations from a task force consisting of local appointees , including representatives of
the construction industry, property owners and fire distJict representatives. Recommendations
from the various sources involved during the process of adopting the 2006 International Codes,
and the actual amendments adopted by Council at that time, have generally been maintained in
the proposed amendments to the 2012 versions .
Some of the amendments and changes included in the 2006 versions of the codes that remain
unchanged or unaltered in the 2012 amendments contained in this Ordinance are:
The adopted building permit fee schedule
Fixed fees for particular permit types
Exemption from pennits for fences 6 feet and less in height
Increased occupant load thresholds before requiring separate-sex bathrooms
Less restrictive requirements related to ventilation of commercial occupancies (is part of
the 2012 text and was extrapolated and used previously in the 2006 adopted version)
The exclusion of Appendix J of the IRC, which requires full compliance with newer
versions of the codes when work areas exceed 50% of the structures floor area
A change in the square footage area of"Hoop Houses" exempt from pem1it (400 SF)
Definitions of "Spaced sheathing" related to roofing
A few minor changes to previous amendments are reflected in this Ordinance. Those changes
are:
The requirement to obtain a building pennit for exterior cladding was removed from the
Council Action Form -Code Reenacting
September 8, 2014
Page 3
2006 codes on the recommendation of the task force. Based on issues related to poor
installation practices and homeowner complaints received since that time, the exemption
of exterior cladding from permitting requirements in the 2012 version of the codes has
been removed.
Amendments to the International Fire Code included in the previous adoption process
have been reduced in an effort to be less restrictive and have been included in the
amendments proposed for adoption during this process.
The updated version (20 12) of the International Property Maintenance Code was not
included in the family of International Codes adopted in the previous process but is being
included in this adoption process.
Amendments to the International Building and Mechanical Codes have been made to
define marijuana related occupancies as Mercantile (sale of marijuana related products),
Factory (cultivation of plants and production of edibles), and Hazardous (water-based
extraction of hash oil; solvent-based extraction prohibited) to allow for consistent and
definitive application of code requirements to these occupancies. Additionally,
requirements for source capture systems (ventilation and exhaust systems designed to
filter exhausted air) have been imposed on all marijuana related occupancies.
The number of copies of construction documents required to accompany permit
applications is reduced from three (3) copies to two (2).
References to the appeal processes in the Codes are amended to reference the appeals of
fines .
Occupancy load at which separate-sex restrooms are required for "M" occupancy is
reduced from 250 to 125 .
Minimum height (7 feet) ofvent extensions above roofline amended to apply to roof used
"for any occupiable purpose other than weather protection." (new language in italics)
Other amendments not previously addressed but contained in this Ordinance are:
The requirement for residential sprinkler systems has been removed from the
International Residential Code.
Updates to City Code 5-81 , which establishes demolition and sign permit fees. The
proposed change removes the fifteen dollar fee for simple face changes on signs and
leaves all other portions of that section intact.
Updates to City Code 5-88 adopting the 2015 version ofNFPA 99 , Standards for Health
Care Facilities, which is applicable to projects at Exempla Lutheran Medical Center and
is referenced in other areas of the International Codes .
The proposed amendments are aligned with the recommendations and amendments derived from
the 20 I 0 independent assessment , and are less restrictive than many of the amendments adopted
by Arvada and/or Lakewood. In those jurisdictions, local amendments adopt Appendix J, require
a minimum one-inch water tap for single-family homes , require residential sprinklers, and limit
monolithic slabs to 600 square feet in size.
Council Action Form -Code Reenacting
September 8, 2014
Page4
The National Electrical Code, the 2011 version of which was adopted without amendment , is
proposed to be upgraded through inclusion of the 2014 version in this adoption process. No
amendments to the 2014 version ofthe NEC are contained in this Ordinance.
REC O MMEND ATIONS:
1. Approve the ordinance as presented on first reading;
2. Approve the ordinance with amendments on first reading;
3. Request further research and information from staff on a particular issue(s) and continue
consideration of the ordinance to a future meeting; or
4. Postpone consideration of the ordinance indefinitely.
REC OMMEN DED MO TI ON:
"I move to approve Council Bill No. 13-2014, an ordinance repealing and reenacting certain
sections of Chapter 5 of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge concerning the Building
Code, the Mechanical Code, the Plumbing Code, the Property Maintenance Code, the Energy
Conservation Code, the Residential Code, the Fire Code, the Fuel Gas Code, the National Fire
Protection Association 70 National Electrical Code and the NFPA 99 Standards for Health Care
Facilities and penalties for violation of the same, on first reading, order it published , public
hearing set for Monday, October 13 ,2014 at 7:00p.m. in City Council Chambers , and that it take
effect fifteen (15) days after final publication ."
Or,
"I move to postpone indefinitely Council Bill No. 13-2014, an ordinance repealing and
reenacting certain sections of Chapter 5 of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge
concerning the Building Code, the Mechanical Code, the Plumbing Code , the Property
Maintenance Code, the Energy Conservation Code , the Residential Code, the Fire Code, the Fuel
Gas Code, the National Fire Protection Association 70 National Electrical Code and the NFPA
99 Standards for Health Care Facilities and penalties for violation of the same, for the following
reason(s) "
REPORT PREPARED AN D REVIEWE D BY;
Carn1en Beery, City Attorney's Office
Patrick Goff, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS :
I. Council Bill No. 13-2014
TITLE:
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ___ _
Council Bill No. 13
Ordinance No. ___ _
Series 2014
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING . CERTAIN
SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 5 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF THE
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CONCERNING THE BUILDING CODE,
THE MECHANICAL CODE, THE PLUMBING CODE, THE
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, THE ENERGY
CONSERVATION CODE, THE RESIDENTIAL CODE, THE FIRE
CODE, THE FUEL GAS CODE, NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION
ASSOCIATION 70 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, NFPA 99
STANDARDS FOR HEALTH CARE FACILITIES AND PENAL TIES
FOR VIOLATION OF THE SAME
WHEREAS, the City Council ("Council") of the City of Wheat Ridge,
Colorado ("City") has authority to enact ordinances for the protection of public
health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Home Rule Charter ("Charter''}
Section 5.16 provides that standard codes promulgated by any recognized trade
or professional organization may be adopted by reference; and
WHEREAS, exercising this authority, the Council has determined that it is
in the best interest of the City to adopt the 2012 promulgated versions of the
International Building Code, the International Mechanical Code, the International
Plumbing Code, the International Property Maintenance Code, the International
Energy Conservation Code, the International Residential Code, the International
Fire Code, the International Fuel Gas Code, the 2014 National Electrical Code
and 2015 NFPA 99 Standard for Health Care Facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend certain sections of Chapter 5 of
the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge ("Code") to incorporate the 2012
versions of the above-referenced International codes, the 2014 version of the
National Electrical Code and the 2015 version of NFPA 99 Standard for Health
Care Facilities.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 5-76 of the Code is repealed in its entirety and reenacted to
read as follows:
Attachment 1
(a) Adoption . The International Building Code, 2012 Edition , is hereby
adopted by reference and incorporated into this article as though fully set
forth herein as the building construction code of the City of Wheat Ridge .
One copy of said International Building Code shall be filed in the office of
the city clerk and may be inspected during regular business hours.
Except as otherwise provided hereafter, such Code is adopted in full ,
including the outline of contents, index and appendices contained herein.
(b) Amendments. The International Building Code adopted by this section is
amended as follows . Section numbers referred to herein refer to and
correspond with the section numbers of the 2012 International Building
Code.
101 .1 Title. Amend to read in its entirety :
101 .1 Title . These regulations shall be known as the Building Code of the
City of Wheat Ridge , hereinafter referred to as "this code ."
105.1.1 Annual permit. Delete entire section .
105. 1. 2 Annual permit records . Delete entire section.
105.2 Work exempt from permit. Amend to read in its entirety:
105.2 Work exempt from permit. Exemptions from permit requirements
of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in
any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or
ordinances of this jurisdiction . Permits shall not be required for the following:
Building:
1 . One -story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage
sheds , playhouses and simi lar uses , provided the floor area is not
greater than 120 square feet.
2. Fences not over 6 feet high.
3. Oil derricks .
4. Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet in height measured from the
bottom of the footing to the top of the wall , unless supporting a
surcharge or impounding Class I, II or lilA liquids.
5. Water tanks supported directly on grade if the capacity is not
greater than 5,000 gallons and the ratio of height to diameter of
width is not greater than 2:1.
6. Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches above adjacent
grade , and not over any basement or story below and are not part
of an accessible route.
2
7. Painting , papering , carpeting , cabinets and countertops and similar
finish work that is not a part of the scope of a larger permittable
project.
8. Prefabricated swimming pools that are less than 24 inches in depth ,
not greater than 5,000 gallons and are installed entirely above
ground.
9. Shade cloth structures under 400 square feet constructed for
nursery or agricultural purposes , not including service systems.
10 . Swings and other playground equipment accessory to detached
one-and two-family dwellings.
11 . Window awnings in Group R-3 and U occupancies , supported by
an exterior wall that do not project more than 54 inches from the
exterior wall and do not require additional support.
12 . Nonfixed and movable fixtures , cases, racks , counters and
partitions not over 5 feet 9 inches in height.
13.Hoop houses as defined in Section 3102.2 that do not exceed 400
square feet in floor area , that are not occupied by the general
public, and that do not contain mechanical or electrical devices,
equipment or systems.
Electrical:
Gas:
Repairs and maintenance: Minor repair work , including the
replacement of lamps or the connection of approved portable
electrical equipment to approved permanently installed receptacles.
Radio and television transmitting stations: The provisions of this
code shall not apply to electrical equipment used for radio and
television transmission , but do apply to equipment and wiring for a
power supply and the installation of towers and antennas.
Temporary testing systems: A permit shall not be required for the
installation of any temporary system required for the testing and
servicing of electrical equipment or apparatus .
1. Portable heating appliance.
2. Replacement of any minor part that does not alter approval of
equipment or make such equipment unsafe.
Mechanical:
1. Portable heating appliance.
2. Portable ventilation equipment.
3. Portable cooling unit.
3
1 07.3. 1 Approval of construction documents. Amend to read in its entirety:
107.3.1 Approval of construction documents. When the building official
issues a permit, the construction documents shall be approved, in writing
or by stamp, as "Approved Subject to Field Inspections-Wheat Ridge
Building Dept.". One set of construction documents so reviewed shall be
retained by the building official. One set shall be returned to the applicant,
shall be kept at the site of work and shall be open to inspection by the
building official or a duly authorized representative.
109.2 Schedule of permit fees. Amend to read in its entirety:
109.2 Schedule of permit fees. On buildings, structures, electrical, gas,
mechanical and plumbing systems or alterations requiring a permit, a fee
for each permit shall be paid as required, in accordance with the schedule
as established by the applicable governing authority. The permit fee shall
be established as set forth in Table 1-A.
109.3 Building permit valuations. Amend to read in its entirety:
109.3 Building permit valuations. The applicant for a permit shall
provide an estimated project valuation at the time of application. Permit
valuations shall include the value of all work, including foundation work,
structural and non-structural building components, electrical, plumbing,
mechanical and interior finish materials. Project valuation shall be
calculated by the Building Division based on data published on the City
website, and the higher of the applicant stated valuation and the division
calculated valuation shall be used to determine building permit fees. Final
building permit valuation shall be set by the building official.
109.6 Refunds. Amend to read in its entirety:
109.6 Refunds. The code official shall authorize the refunding of fees as
follows:
1 . The full amount of any fee paid hereunder that was erroneously paid or
collected.
2. Not more than 100 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has
been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code.
5
3. Not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an
application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been pa id is
withdrawn or canceled before any plan review effort has been expended .
4. Not more than 50 percent of the plan review fee paid when an
application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is
withdrawn or canceled after initiation of any plan review effort.
Note: The code official shall not authorize the refunding of any fee paid
except upon written application filed by the original permittee not later than
180 days after the date of fee payment.
114.4 Violation penalties . Amend to read in its entirety:
114.4 Violation penalties. Any person or entity who shall violate a
provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements
thereof or who shall erect , install, alter or repair work in violation of the
approved construction documents or directive of the code official , or of a
permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code , shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1 ,000.00 dollars
or by imprisonment not exceeding 90 days , or both such fine and
imprisonment; provided , however, that no person under the age of
eighteen (18) years shall be subjected to imprisonment. Each day that a
violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a
separate offense .
115.2 Issuance. Delete entire section .
115 .3 Unlawful continuance. Rename and amend in its entirety:
115.3 Issuance and unlawful continuance. Upon notice from the code
official that work is being done contrary to the provisions of this code or in
a dangerous or unsafe manner such work shall immediately cease . Such
notice shall be in writing and shall be given to the owner of the property , or
to the owner's agent, or to the person doing the work , or visibly posted at
the work site . The notice shall state the conditions under which the work is
6
authorized to resume. Where an emergency exists, the code official shall
not be required to give a written notice prior to stopping the work. Any
person who shall continue any work in or about the structure after having
been served with a stop work order, except such work that person is
directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition, shall be
liable to a fine of not less than 60 dollars or not more than 1000 dollars.
202 Definitions Delete the following definition from this section:
LIVE/WORK UNIT. A dwelling unit or sleeping unit in which a significant
portion of the space includes a nonresidential use that is operated by the
tenant.
202 Definitions Add the following definitions to this section:
HASH OIL. A resinous matrix of cannabinoids obtained from the cannabis
plant by solvent extraction, formed into a hardened or viscous mass.
306.2 Moderate-hazard factory industrial, Group F-1. Add the following use to
this section:
Marijuana cultivation
Marijuana products containing hash oil
309. 1 Mercantile Group M. Add the following use to this section:
Sale of marijuana, products containing marijuana and hash oil, and
devices for use in the consumption of marijuana
419 Live/Work Units. Delete entire section.
7
420.4 Automatic sprinkler system. Amend to read in its entirety:
420.4 Automatic sprinkler system. Group R occupancies, with the
exception of Group R-3, shall be equipped throughout with an automatic
sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.2.8. Group 1-1
occupancies shall be equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler
system in accordance with Section 903.2 .6. Quick response or residential
automatic sprinklers shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.3.2 .
1101.2 Design. Amend to read in its entirety:
1101.2 Design. Buildings and facilities shall be designed and constructed
to be accessible in accordance with this code and ICC A 117.1-2009
Edition
1209.2 Attic spaces . Amend to read in its entirety:
1209.2 Attic spaces. An opening not less than 20 inches by 30 inches
shall be provided to any attic area having a clear height of over 30 inches .
A 30-inch minimum clear headroom in the attic space shall be provided at
all points directly above the access opening . The finish opening
dimensions of attic accesses shall be a minimum of 20 inches by 30
inches.
1502 Definitions . Add the following text under the definition of "ROOF DECK":
Solidly sheathed deck shall be defined as decking consisting of American
Plywood Association (APA) approved wood structural panel sheathing.
Closely fitted deck shall be defined as decking consisted of APA approved
wood structural panel sheathing or lumber sheathing conforming to the
requirements of Tables 2304 . 7(1) through 2304. 7(5) in which no gap
between members exceeds one-half of one inch .
Spaced decking shall be defined as lumber sheathing conforming to the
requirements of Tables 2304 . 7(1) through 2304 . 7(5) in which any gap
between members exceeds one-half of one inch.
1507.2. 7 Attachment. Amend to read in its entirety:
1507.2.7 Attachment. Asphalt shingles shall be attached with a minimum
of 6 nails per shingle or as specified by the manufacturer, whichever is
more restrictive. Where the roof slope exceeds 20 units vertical in 12 units
horizontal (167 percent slope) special methods of fastening are required.
Special fastening methods shall be tested in accordance with ASTM D
8
3161, Class F. Asphalt shingle wrappers shall bear a label indicating
compliance with ASTM D 3161, Class F.
1507.2.8.2 Ice barrier. Amend to read in its entirety:
1507 .2.8.2 Ice barrier. Ice barrier complying with ASTM D1970 shall be
required in lieu of normal underlayment at roof eaves and shall extend
from the eave edge to a point at least 24 inches inside the exterior wall
line of the building.
Exception: Detached structures and attached garages that contain no
conditioned floor area.
1609.1 Application. Amend to read in its entirety:
to
1609.1 Application. Buildings, structures and parts thereof shall be
designed to withstand the minimum wind loads prescribed herein .
Decreases in wind loads shall not be made for the effect of shielding by
other structures.
Exception: Hoop Houses as defined in Section 3102.2 shall be designed
provide resistance to a minimum wind speed of 70 miles per hour.
9
3001 .2 Referenced Standards. Amend to read in its entirety:
3001.2 Referenced Standards. Except as otherwise provided for in this
Code, the design, construction, installation, alteration, repair and
maintenance of elevators and conveying systems and their components
shall conform to ASME A90.1 , ASME B20.1, ALCTV , and ASCE 24 for
construction in flood hazard areas established in section 1612.3 of this
code. The design , construction installation, alteration, repair and
maintenance of elevators and conveying systems shall also conform to
ASME A17 .1, ASME A17.2, ASME A17.3, ASME A18 .1 and ASME QE-1
and all other standards referenced in Section 2-6-1 (1) of the Colorado
Department of Labor and Employment , Division of Public Safety
Conveyance Regulations , 7 Colo . Code Regs . 1101-8, as now and
hereafter amended (the "OPS Regulations ").
3102.2 Definitions. Add the following language to Section 3102.2:
HOOP HOUSE. A structure not exceeding 1 ,000 square feet in floor area
with a maximum six mils thick poly film roof and wall covering installed
over rounded structural members in which there is no storage of solvents,
fertilizers, gases or other chemicals or flammable materials. Structures not
complying with all of the specifics set forth in the definition above shall be
defined in accordance with adopted code and standard practice. Hoop
houses exceeding 1,000 square feet in size shall be defined as
greenhouses for the purpose of determining applicability of adopted codes
and regulations .
3102 .3 Type of construction. Amend to read in its entirety:
3102.3 Type of construction. Noncombustible membrane structures
shall be classified as Type liB construction. Noncombustible frame or
cable-supported structures covered by and approved membrane in
accordance with Section 3012 .3.1 shall be classified as Type liB
construction. Heavy timber frame-supported structures covered by an
approved membrane in accordance with Section 3102 .3.1 shall be
classified as Type IV construction. Other membrane structures, and hoop
10
houses as defined in Section 3102 .2, shall be classified as Type V
construction.
Exception: Plastic less than 30 feet above any floor used in hoop houses
as defined in Section 3102.2 and greenhouses, where occupancy by the
general public is not authorized, and for aquaculture pond covers is not
required to meet the fire propagation performance criteria of NFPA 701.
3102.3.1 Membrane and interior liner. Amend to read in its entirety
3102.3.1 Membrane and interior liner material. Membrane and interior
liners shall be either noncombustible as set forth in Section 703.4 or meet
the fire propagation performance criteria of NFPA 701 and the
manufacturer's test protocol.
Exception: Plastic less than 20 mil in thickness used in hoop houses as
defined in Section 3102.2 and in greenhouses, where occupancy by the
general public is not authorized, and for aquaculture pond covers is not required
to meet the fire propagation performance criteria of NFPA 701.
3102.4 Allowable floor areas. Amend to read in its entirety:
3102.4 Allowable floor areas. The area of a membrane structure shall
not exceed the limitations set forth in Table 503, except as provided in
Section 506. The floor area of Hoop Houses as defined in Section 3102.2
shall not exceed 1 ,000 square feet.
3102.5 Maximum height. Amend to read in its entirety:
3102.5 Maximum height. Membrane structures shall not exceed one
story nor shall such structures exceed the height limitations in feet set
forth in Table 503. Hoop houses as defined in Section 3102.2 shall not
exceed applicable heights as determined by regulations set forth in
Municipal Code Sections 26-205, 26-214, and 26-625.
Exception: Noncombustible membrane structures serving as roofs only.
3102.6.1 Noncombustible membrane. Amend to read in its entirety:
Section 3102.6.1 Noncombustible membrane. A noncombustible
membrane shall be permitted for use as the roof or as a skylight of any
building or atrium of a building of any type of construction provided it is at
least 20 feet above any floor, balcony or gallery. A noncombustible poly
film not exceeding 6 millimeters in thickness shall be permitted to be used
as the roof and wall covering for structures defined as Hoop Houses in
Section 3102 .2, regardless of height.
11
3109.3 Public swimming pools. Amend to read in its entirety:
3109.3 Public swimming pools. Public swimming pools shall be
completely enclosed by a fence at least 60 inches in height or a screen
enclosure. Openings in the fence shall not permit the passage of a 4-inch-
diameter sphere. The fence or screen enclosure shall be equipped with
self-closing and self-latching gates complying with section 31 09.4.1. 7
Gates.
3109.4 .1 Barrier height and clearances. Amend to read in its entirety:
3109.4.1 Barrier height and clearances. The top of the barrier shall be at
least 60 inches above grade measured on the side of the barrier that faces
away from the swimming pool. The maximum vertical clearance between
grade and the bottom of the barrier shall be 2 inches measured on the
side of the barrier that faces away from the swimming pool. Where the top
of the pool structure is above grade , the barrier is authorized to be at
ground level or mounted on top of the pool structure , and the maximum
vertical clearance between the top of the pool structure and the bottom of
the barrier shall be 4 inches.
Only the following appendices are adopted:
Appendix E: Supplementary Accessibility Requirements . Appendix E is adopted
in its entirety to set forth requirements not otherwise covered in other areas of the
code or referenced documents for accessibility requirements.
Appendix 1: Patio Covers. Appendix I is adopted in its entirety to set forth
requirements not otherwise covered in other areas of the code for Patio Covers.
Section 2. Section 5-77(a) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws , concerning the
National Electrical Code , is hereby amended as follows:
(a) Adoption. The National Electrical Code , 2014 Edition , copyrighted by
the National Fire Protection Association , Batterymarch Park , Quincy ,
Massachusetts, 01269-7471, is hereby adopted by reference and
incorporated into this article as though fully set forth herein as the
electrical code of the city . Except as otherwise provided in this article ,
such code is adopted in full , including the index contained therein . One
copy of said National Electrical Code shall be filed in the office of the
city clerk and may be inspected during regular business hours.
Section 3. Section 5-78 of the Code is repealed in its entirety and reenacted to
read as follows:
(a) Adoption. The International Mechanical Code , 2012 Edition , is hereby
adopted by reference and incorporated into this article as though fully set
12
forth herein as the mechanical code of the City of Wheat Ridge. One copy
of said International Mechanical Code shall be filed in the office of the city
clerk and may be inspected during regular business hours. Except as
otherwise provided hereafter, such code is adopted in full, including the
outline of contents and index contained herein .
(b) Amendments. The International Mechanical Code adopted by this section
is amended as follows. Section numbers referred to herein refer to and
correspond with the section numbers of the 2012 International Mechanical
Code.
101 .1 Title. Amend to read in its entirety:
101.1 Title . These regulations shall be known as the Mechanical Code of
the City of Wheat Ridge hereinafter referred to as "this code."
106.4.3 Expiration. Amend to read in its entirety:
106.4.3 Expiration . Every permit issued by the code official under the
provisions of this code shall expire one year (365 days) after the date of
issuance . The building official is authorized to grant, in writing , one or
more extensions of time, for periods of not more than 180 days each. The
extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated .
13
106.5.2 Fee Schedule. Amend to read in its entirety:
106.5.2 Fee Schedule. The fees for all mechanical work shall be
established as set forth in Table 1-A.
106. 5. 3 Fee refunds. Amend to read in its entirety:
106.5.3 Fee refunds. The code official shall authorize the refunding of
fees as follows:
1. The full amount any fee paid hereunder that was erroneously paid or
collected.
2. Not more than 100 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has
been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code.
3. Not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an
application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is
withdrawn or canceled before any plan review effort has been expended.
4. Not more than 50 percent of the plan review fee paid when an
application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is
withdrawn or canceled after initiation of any plan review effort.
Note: The code official shall not authorize the refunding of any fee paid
except upon written application filed by the original permittee not later than
180 days after the date of fee payment.
108.4 Violation penalties. Amend to read in its entirety:
108.4 Violation penalties. Any person or entity who shall violate a
provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements
thereof or who shall erect, install, alter or repair mechanical work in
violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the code
official, or of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this
code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more
than $1,000.00 dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, or both
such fine and imprisonment; provided, however, that no person under the
age of eighteen (18) years shall be subjected to imprisonment. Each day
that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be
deemed a separate offense.
108.5 Stop work orders. Amend to read in its entirety:
108.5 Stop work orders. Upon notice from the code official, work on any
mechanical system that is being done contrary to the provisions of this
14
code or in a dangerous or unsafe manner shall immediately cease . Such
notice shall be in writing and shall be given to the owner of the property, or
to the owner's agent, or to the person doing the work, or visibly posted at
the work site. The notice shall state the conditions under which the work is
authorized to resume. Where an emergency exists, the code official shall
not be required to give a written notice prior to stopping the work. Any
person who shall continue any work in or about the structure after having
been served with a stop work order, except such work that person is
directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition, shall be
liable to a fine of not less than 60 dollars or not more than 1000 dollars.
Section 4. Section 5-79 of the Code is repealed in its entirety and reenacted to
read as follows:
(a) Adoption. The International Plumbing Code, 2012 Edition, is hereby
adopted by reference and incorporated into this article as though fully set
forth herein as the plumbing code of the City of Wheat Ridge. One copy
of said International Plumbing Code shall be filed in the office of the city
clerk and may be inspected during regular business hours . Except as
15
otherwise provided hereafter, such code is adopted in full, including the
outline of contents and index contained herein.
(b) Amendments. The International Plumbing Code adopted by this section is
amended as follows. Section numbers referred to herein refer to and
correspond with the section numbers of the 2012 International Plumbing
Code.
101 .1 Title . Amend to read in its entirety:
101.1 Title . These regulations shall be known as the Plumbing Code of
the City of Wheat Ridge hereinafter referred to as "this code ."
106.5.3 Expiration. Amend to read in its entirety:
106.5.3 Expiration . Every permit issued by the code official under the
provisions of this code shall expire one year (365 days) after the date of
issuance . The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or
more extensions of time, for periods of not more than 180 days each . The
extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated .
106.6 .2 Fee Schedule. Amend to read in its entirety:
106.6.2 Fee Schedule . The fees for all plumbing work shall be
established as set forth in Table 1-A.
106.6 .3 Fee refunds. Amend to read in its entirety:
106.6.3 Fee refunds. The code official shall authorize the refunding of
fees as follows:
16
1. The full amount any fee paid hereunder that was erroneously paid or
collected.
2. Not more than 100 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has
been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code.
3. Not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an
application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is
withdrawn or canceled before any plan review effort has been
expended.
4. Not more than 50 percent of the plan review fee paid when an
application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is
withdrawn or canceled after initiation of any plan review effort.
Note: The code official shall not authorize the refunding of any fee paid except
upon written application filed by the original permittee not later than 180 days
after the date of fee payment.
108.4 Violation penalties. Amend to read in its entirety:
108.4 Violation penalties. Any person or entity who shall violate a
provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements
thereof or who shall erect, install, alter or repair plumbing work in violation
of the approved construction documents or directive of the code official, or
of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code, shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00
dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, or both such fine and
imprisonment; provided, however, that no person under the age of
eighteen (18) years shall be subjected to imprisonment. Each day that a
violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a
separate offense.
108.5 Stop work orders. Amend to read in its entirety:
108.5 Stop work orders. Upon notice from the code official, work on any
plumbing system that is being done contrary to the provisions of this code
or in a dangerous or unsafe manner shall immediately cease. Such notice
shall be in writing and shall be given to the owner of the property, or to the
owner's agent, or to the person doing the work, or visibly posted at the
work site. The notice shall state the conditions under which the work is
authorized to resume. Where an emergency exists, the code official shall
not be required to give a written notice prior to stopping the work. Any
person who shall continue any work in or about the structure after having
been served with a stop work order, except such work that person is
17
directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition , shall be
liable to a fine of not less than 60 dollars or not more than 1000 dollars.
403 .1 Minimum number of fixtures . Delete the text of this section , while
maintaining Table 403 .1, and insert :
403.1 Minimum number of fixtures. Plumbing fixtures shall be provided
for the type of occupancy and in the minimum number shown in Tables
403 .1 and 403 .1.1.Types of occupancies not shown in Tables 403.1 and
403 .1.1 shall be considered individually by the code official. The number
of occupants shall be determined by the International Building Code .
Occupancy classification shall be determined in accordance with the
International Building Code. Table 403.1.1 shall be as follows :
Table 403.1.1
Occupancy Description
A-1
A-2
A-3
Theaters and other buildings
For the performing arts and
Motion pictures
Nightclubs , bars, taverns , dance halls and
buildings for similar purposes
Restaurants, banquet halls and food courts
Auditoriums without permanent seating , art
galleries , exhibition halls, museums ,
lecture halls , libraries , arcades and
gymnasiums
18
Separate Sex
Facilities Required
When Occupant
Load Exceeds
65
40
75
65
A-4
A-5
8
E
F1 & F2
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-3
1-4
R-1
R-2
Passenger terminals and transportation
facilities
Places of worship and other religious
services
Coliseums , arenas, skating rinks, pools
and tennis courts for indoor sporting
events and activities
Stadiums, amusement parks, bleachers
and grandstands for outdoor sporting
events and activities
Buildings for the transaction of business,
professional services, other services
involving merchandise , office buildings ,
banks, light industrial and similar uses
Educational facilities
Structures in which occupants are
engaged in work fabricating, assembly or
processing of products or materials
Residential care
Hospitals , ambulatory nursing home
patients
Employees, other than residential care
Visitors, other than residential care
Prisons
Reformatories , detention centers, and
correctional centers
Adult day care and child care
Hotels, motels , boarding houses (transient)
Dormitories , fraternities , sororities and
boarding houses (not transient)
19
250
75
40
40
25
50
100
10
N/A
25
75
N/A
15
15
N/A
10
101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Property
Maintenance Code of the City of Wheat Ridge, hereinafter referred to as
"this code."
Section 111.4 Failure to comply. Amend to read in its entirety:
111.4 Failure to comply. Any person who shall continue any work in or
about the structure after having been served with a stop work order,
except such work that person is directed to perform to remove a violation
or unsafe condition, shall be liable to a fine of not less than 60 dollars or
not more than 1000 dollars.
Section 302.4 Weeds. Amend to read in its entirety:
302.4 Weeds. All premises and exterior property shall be maintained free
from weeds or plant growth in excess of twelve (12) inches in height. All
noxious weeds shall be prohibited. Weeds shall be defined as all grasses,
annual plants and vegetation, other than trees or shrubs provided;
however this term shall not include cultivated flowers and gardens.
Section 303.2 Enclosures. Amend to read in its entirety:
303.2. Enclosures. Private swimming pools, hot tubs and spas,
containing water more than 24 inches in depth shall be completely
surrounded by a fence or barrier at least 60 inches in height above the
finished ground level measured on the side of the barrier away from the
pool. Gates and doors in such barriers shall be self-closing and self-
latching. Where the self-latching device is less than 54 inches above the
bottom of the gate, the release mechanism shall be located on the pool
side of the gate. Self-closing and self-latching gates shall be maintained
such that the gate will positively close and latch when released from an
open position of 6 inches from the gate post. No existing pool enclosure
shall be removed, replaced or changed in a manner that reduces its
effectiveness as a safety barrier.
21
Exception: Spas or hot tubs with a safety cover that complies with ASTM
F 1346 shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.
Section 304. 14 Insect screens. Amend to read in its entirety:
304.14 Insect screens. Insect screens shall be provided on every door,
window and other outside opening required for ventilation of habitable
rooms, food preparation areas, food service areas or any areas where
products to be included in food for human consumption are processed,
manufactured, packaged or stored shall be supplied with approved tightly
fitting screens of minimum 16 mesh per inch, and every screen door used
for insect control shall have a self-closing device in good working
condition.
Exception: Screens shall not be required where other approved means,
such as air curtains or insect repellant fans , are employed.
Section 602.3 Heat supply. Amend to read in its entirety:
602.3 Heat supply. Every owner and operator of any building who rents,
leases or lets one or more dwelling units or sleeping units on terms, either
expressed or implied, to furnish heat to the occupants thereof shall supply
heat to maintain a minimum temperature of 68 degrees in all habitable
rooms, bathrooms and toilet rooms.
Section 7. Section 5-84 of the Code is repealed in its entirety and
reenacted to read as follows:
(a) Adoption. The International Energy Conservation Code, 2012 Edition, is
hereby adopted by reference and incorporated into this article as though
fully set forth herein as the energy conservation code of the City of Wheat
Ridge . One copy of said International Energy Conservation Code shall be
filed in the office of the city clerk and may be inspected during regular
business hours. Except as otherwise provided hereafter, such code is
adopted in full, including the outline of contents and index contained
herein.
(b) Amendments. The International Energy Conservation Code adopted by
this section is amended as follows. Section numbers referred to herein
refer to and correspond with the section numbers of the 2012 International
Energy Conservation Code.
C101.1 Title. Amend to read in its entirety:
22
C101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Energy
Conservation Code of the City of Wheat Ridge , and shall be cited as such .
It is referred to herein as "this code."
C103.1 General. Amend to read in its entirety:
C103.1 General. Construction documents and other supporting data shall
be submitted in three or more sets with each application for permit. The
code official is authorized to require necessary construction documents to
be prepared by a registered design professional.
Exception: The code official is authorized to waive the requirements for
construction documents or other supporting data if the code official
determines they are not necessary to confirm compliance with this code.
C108 Stop work orders. Amend to read in its entirety:
C108 Stop work orders. Upon notice from the code official that work is
being done contrary to the provisions of this code or in a dangerous or
unsafe manner shall immediately cease . Such notice shall be in writing
and shall be given to the owner of the property, or to the owner's agent , or
to the person doing the work , or visibly posted at the work site. The notice
shall state the conditions under which the work is authorized to resume .
Where an emergency exists , the code official shall not be required to give
a written notice prior to stopping the work. Any person who shall continue
any work in or about the structure after having been served with a stop
work order, except such work that person is directed to perform to remove
a violation or unsafe condition , shall be deemed to be in violation of this
code .
C110 Violation penalties . Add the following section:
C110 Violation penalties . Any person or entity who shall violate a
provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements
thereof or who shall erect , install , alter or repair work in violat ion of the
approved construction documents or directive of the code official , or of a
23
permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code , shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1 ,000.00 dollars
or by imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, or both such fine and
imprisonment; provided , however, that no person under the age of
eighteen (18) years shall be subjected to imprisonment. Each day that a
violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a
separate offense.
Section 8. Section 5-85 of the Code is repealed in its entirety and
reenacted to read as follows :
(a) Adoption. The International Residential Code , 2012 Edition , is hereby
adopted by reference and incorporated into this article as though fully set
forth herein as the one -and two-family dwelling code of the City of Wheat
Ridge . One copy of said International Resident ial Code shall be filed in
the office of the city clerk and may be inspected during regular business
hours . Except as otherwise provided hereafter, such code is adopted in
full , i ncluding the outline of contents and index contained herein .
(b) Amendments. The International Residential Code adopted by this section
is amended as follows . Section numbers referred to herein refer to and
correspond with the section numbers of the 2012 International Residential
Code.
R101 .1 Title. Amend to read in its entirety :
R101.1 Title . These provisions shall be known as the Residential Code for
One-and Two-family Dwellings of the City of Wheat Ridge , and shall be
cited as such and will be referred to herein as "this code."
R101 .2 Scope . Amend to read in its entirety :
R101.2 Scope. The provisions of the International Residential Code for
One-and Two-Family Dwellings shall apply to the construction , alterat ion ,
movement, enlargement , replacement , repair, equipment, use and
occupancy, location , removal and demolition of detached one-and two-
family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade
plane in height with separate means of egress and their accessory
structures.
R105.2 Work exempt from permit. Amend to read in its entirety:
R1 05.2 Work exempt from permit. Permits shall not be required for the
following. Exemption from permit requirements of this code shall not be
deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in
24
violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of
this jurisdiction .
Building:
1. One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and
storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor
area does not exceed 120 square feet.
2. Fences not over 6 feet high.
3. Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet in height measured from
the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless
supporting a surcharge.
4. Water tanks supported directly on grade if the capacity does not
exceed 5, 000 gallons and the ration of height to diameter or
width does not exceed 2 to 1 .
5. Sidewalks and driveways.
6. Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, counter tops and
similar finish work that is not part of the scope of a larger
permittable project.
7. Prefabricated swimming pools that are less than 24 inches
deep.
8. Swings and other portable playground equipment.
9. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall which do not
project more than 54 inches from the exterior wall and do not
require additional support.
10. Hoop houses as defined in Section 3102.2 of the International
Building Code that do not exceed 400 square feet in floor area,
that are not occupied by the general public , and that do not
contain mechanical or electrical devices, equipment or systems.
Electrical:
1. Listed cord-and-plug connected temporary decorative lighting.
2. Reinstallation of attachment plug receptacles but not the outlets
therefor.
25
3. Replacement of branch circuit overcurrent devices of the
required capacity in the same location.
4. Electrical wiring , devices , appliances , apparatus or equipment
operating at less than 25 volts and not capable of supplying
more than 50 watts of energy.
5. Minor repa ir work, including the replacement of lamps or the
connection of approved portable electrical equipment to
approved permanently installed receptacles .
Gas:
1. Portable heating , cooking or clothes drying appliances .
2. Replacement of any minor part that does not alter approval of
equipment or make such equipment unsafe .
3. Portable fuel cell appliances that are not connected to a fixed
piping system and are not interconnected to a power grid.
Mechanical:
1. Portable heating appliances.
2. Portable ventilation appliances.
3. Portable cooling unit.
4. Steam , hot or chilled water piping within any heating or cooling
equipment regulated by this code.
5. Replacement of any minor part that does not alter approval of
equ i pment or
make such equipment unsafe.
6. Portable evaporative cooler.
7. Self-contained refrigeration systems containing 10 pounds (4 .54
kg) or less of
refrigerant or that are actuated by motors of 1 horsepower
(7 46W) or less.
8. Portable fuel cell appliances that are not connected to a fixed
piping system and are not interconnected to a power grid.
26
Plumbing:
The stopping of leaks in drains, water, soil, waste or vent pipe;
provided, however, that if any concealed trap, drainpipe, water, soil,
waste or vent pipe becomes defective and it becomes necessary to
remove and replace the same with new material, such work shall
be considered as new work and a permit shall be obtained and
inspection made as provided in this code.
The clearing of stoppages or the repairing of leaks in pipes, valves
or fixtures, and the removal and reinstallation of water closets,
provided such repairs do not involve or require the replacement or
rearrangement of valves, pipes or fixtures.
R105.5 Expiration. Amend to read in its entirety:
R1 05.5 Expiration. Every permit issued by the code official under the
provisions of this code shall expire one year (365 days) after the date of
issuance. The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or
more extensions of time, for periods of not more than 180 days each. The
extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated.
R108.2 Schedule of permit fees. Amend to read in its entirety:
R108.2 Schedule of permit fees. On buildings, structures, electrical, gas,
mechanical and plumbing systems or alterations requiring a permit, a fee
for each permit shall be paid as required, in accordance with the schedule
as established by the applicable governing authority. The permit fee shall
be established as set forth in Table 1-A.
27
R108 .3 Building permit valuations. Amend to read in its entirety:
R1 08.3 Building permit valuations. The applicant for a permit shall
provide an estimated project valuation at the time of application. Permit
valuations shall include the total value of all work , including foundation
work , structural and non -structural building components , electrical , gas ,
plumbing , mechanical and interior finish materials. Project valuation shall
be calculated by the Building Division based on data published on the City
website , and the higher of the applicant stated valuation and the division
calculated valuation shall be used to determine building permit fees . Final
building permit valuation shall be set by the building official.
R108.5 Refunds . Amend to read in its entirety:
R1 08.5 Refunds . The code official shall authorize the refunding of fees as
follows:
1. The full amount any fee paid hereunder that was erroneously paid or
collected.
2. Not more than 100 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has
been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code .
3. Not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee pa id when an
application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is
withdrawn or canceled before any plan review effort has been expended .
4. Not more than 50 percent of the plan review fee paid when an
application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is
withdrawn or canceled after initiation of any plan review effort.
Note: The code official shall not authorize the refunding of any fee paid
except upon written application filed by the original permittee not later than
180 days after the date of fee payment.
28
R113.4 Violation penalties. Amend to read in its entirety:
R113.4 Violation penalties. Any person or entity who shall violate a
provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements
thereof or who shall erect, install, alter or repair residential work in
violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the code
official, or of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this
code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more
than $1,000.00 dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, or both
such fine and imprisonment; provided, however, that no person under the
age of eighteen (18) years shall be subjected to imprisonment. Each day
that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be
deemed a separate offense.
R114.2 Unlawful continuance. Amend to read in its entirety:
R114.2 Unlawful continuance. Any person who shall continue any work
in or about the structure after having been served with a stop work order,
except such work as that person is directed to perform to remove a
violation or unsafe condition, shall be liable to a fine of not less than 60
dollars or not more than 1 000 dollars and shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 dollars or
by imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, or both such fine and
imprisonment. Each day that a violation continues after due notice has
been served shall be deemed a separate offense.
R202 Definitions. Add the following text under the definition of "ROOF DECK":
Solidly sheathed deck shall be defined as decking consisting of APA
approved wood structural panel sheathing.
Closely fitted deck shall be defined as decking consisted of APA approved
wood structural panel sheathing or lumber sheathing conforming to the
requirements of Table 503.2 .1.1 ( 1) in which no gap between members
exceeds one-half of one inch.
Spaced decking shall be defined as lumber sheathing conforming to the
requirements of Tables 2304.7(1) through 2304.7(5) in which any gap
between members exceeds one-half of one inch.
Table R301 .2(1): Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria. Table R301.2(1)
shall apply as referenced in this code and is hereby completed as follows :
29
GROUND
SNOW
LOAD
30 PSF
Table R301.2(1)
CLIMATIC AND GEOGRAPHIC DESIGN CRITERIA
WIND DESIGN SEISMIC SUBJECT TO DAMAGE FROM WINTER ICE BARRIER AIR FLOOD DESIGN DESIGN UNDERLAYMENT FREEZING FROST HAZARDS SPEED TOPOGRAPHIC CATEGORY WEATHERING LINE TERMITE TEMP REQUIRED INDEX
(MPH) EFFECTS DEPTH
105 YES B SEVERE 36" SLIGHT 0 YES 1979 1500 FIRM
R401 .2 Requirements. Amend to read in its entirety:
R401.2 Requirements. Foundation construction shall be capable of
accommodating all loads according to Section R301 and of transmitting
the resulting loads to the supporting soil. Fill soils that support footings
and foundations shall be designed , installed and tested in accordance with
accepted engineering practice. Gravel fill used as footings for wood and
precast concrete foundations shall comply with Section R403 . With the
exception of prescriptive monolithic slabs less than 1000 square feet in
size for garages or similar non-habitable occupancies , foundation systems
shall be designed , inspected and approved by a State of Colorado
registered Structural Engineer.
R602. 5 Interior non bearing walls . Amend to read in its entirety:
R602.5 Interior nonbearing walls. Interior nonbearing walls shall be
permitted to be constructed with 2-inch-by-3-inch (51 mm by 76 mm) studs
spaced 24 inches on center. Interior nonbearing walls shall be capped
with at least a single top plate. Interior nonbearing walls shall be fire
blocked in accordance with Section R602 .8.
R602. 7. 3 Nonbearing walls. Amend to read in its entirety:
R602.7.3 Nonbearing walls. In interior and exterior nonbearing walls , a
header constructed of two(2) 2-inch-by-4-inch members placed on edge
shall be required over all openings spanning less than eight(8) feet.
R703.6 .1 Lath. Amend to read in its entirety:
R703.6.1 Lath . All lath and lath attachments shall be of corrosion-resistant
materials. Expanded metal or woven wire lath shall be attached with 11/2-
inch long, 11 gage nails having a 7/16-inch head , or 7/8-inch-long , 16
gage staples , spaced at no more than 6 inches , or as otherwise approved .
Whenever the wall sheathing is of code approved material capable of
receiving and sustaining fasteners , lath fasteners shall be spaced at no
30
MEAN
ANNUAL
TEMP
45
more than 6 inches on center both horizontally and vertically, or as
otherwise approved.
R803.1 Lumber Sheathing. Amend to read in its entirety:
R803.1 Lumber Sheathing. Allowable spans for lumber used as roof
sheathing shall conform to Table 803.1. Spaced lumber sheathing for
wood shingle and shake roofing shall conform to the requirements of
Section R905. 7 and R905.8. Spaced lumber sheathing is not allowed in
Seismic Design Category 02. Lumber sheathing installed with any gap
exceeding one-half inch shall not be considered to be solid or closely-fitted
sheathing, and shall be defined as spaced sheathing.
R807. 1 Attic Access. Amend to read in its entirety:
R807 .1 Attic Access. Buildings with combustible ceiling or roof
construction shall have an attic access opening to attic areas that exceed
30 square feet and have a vertical height of 30 inches or more.
The rough-framed opening shall not be less than 22 inches by 30 inches
and shall be located in a hallway or other readily accessible location. A 30-
inch minimum unobstructed headroom in the attic space shall be provided
at all points directly above the access opening . The finish opening
dimensions of attic accesses shall be a minimum of 20 inches by 30
inches. See Section M1305.1.3 for access requirements where
mechanical equipment is located in attics.
R905. 2. 6 Attachment. Amend to read in its entirety:
R905.2.6 Attachment. Asphalt shingles shall be attached with a minimum
of 6 nails per shingle or as specified by the manufacturer, whichever is
more restrictive. Where the roof slope exceeds 20 units vertical in 12 units
horizontal (167 percent slope) special methods of fastening are required .
Special fastening methods shall be tested in accordance with ASTM D
3161 , Class F. Asphalt shingle wrappers shall bear a label indicating
compliance with ASTM D 3161, Class F.
905.2. 7.1 Ice barrier. Amend to read in its entirety::
905.2.7.1 Ice barrier. An ice barrier complying with ASTM 01970
shall be required in lieu of normal underlayment at roof eaves and shall
extend from the eave edge to a point at least 24 inches inside the exterior
wall line of the building.
Exception: Detached structures and attached garages that contain
no conditioned floor area.
31
R905.2.8.5 Other Flashing. Amend to read in its entirety:
R905.2.8.5 Other Flashing. Flashing against a vertical front wall, as well
as soil stack, vent pipe and chimney flashing, shall be applied according to
the asphalt shingle manufacturer's printed instructions. A minimum 2-inch
by 2-inch galvanized flashing shall be required at eaves of all roofs.
Flashing shall be installed to as recommended by manufacturer or as
necessary to seal gaps between roof sheathing and roof gutters .
M1305. 1.4 Appliances under floors. Amend to read in its entirety:
M1305.1.4 Appliances under floors. Underfloor spaces containing
appliances requiring access shall have an unobstructed passageway large
enough to remove the largest appliance, but not less than 30 inches high
and 22 inches wide, no more than 20 feet long when measured along the
centerline of the passageway from the opening to the appliance. A level
service space at least 30 inches deep and 30 inches wide shall be present
at the front or service side of the appliance . If the depth of the
passageway or the service space exceeds 12 inches below the adjoining
grade , the walls of the passageway shall be lined with concrete or
masonry extending 4 inches above the adjoining grade in accordance with
Chapter 4. The rough-framed access opening dimensions shall be a
minimum of 22 inches by 30 inches where the dimensions are large
enough to remove the largest appliance. The finish opening dimensions of
under floor accesses shall be a minimum of 20 inches by 30 inches.
R101 .1 Title. Amend to read in its entirety:
R101.1 Title. These provisions shall be known as the Residential Code for
One-and Two-family Dwellings of the City of Wheat Ridge , and shall be
cited as such and will be referred to herein as "this code ."
P2904 Dwelling Unit Fire Sprinkler Systems. Delete this section and all
corresponding subsections in their entirety.
Appendices. The following appendices are adopted in their entirety:
Appendix A (IFGS): Sizing and Capacities of Gas Piping
32
Appendix 8 (IFGS): Sizing of Venting Systems Serving Appliances
Equipped with Draft Hoods, Category 1 Appliances, and
Appliances Listed for Use with Type 8 Vents
Appendix C (IFGS): Exit Terminals of Mechanical Draft and Direct-vent
Venting Systems
Appendix D (IFGS): Recommended Procedure for Safety Inspection of an
Existing Appliance Installation
Appendix H: Patio Covers
Appendix G: Swimming Pools in its entirety, with the following
amendments:
AG105.2 (1). Amend to read in its entirety:
AG1 05.2(1 ). The top of the barrier shall be at least 60 inches above grade
measured on the side of the barrier that faces away from the swimming
pool. The maximum vertical clearance between grade and the bottom of
the barrier shall be 2 inches measured on the side of the barrier that faces
away from the swimming pool. Where the top of the pool structure is
above grade, the barrier is authorized to be at ground level or mounted on
top of the pool structure, and the maximum vertical clearance between the
top of the pool structure and the bottom of the barrier shall be 4 inches.
Section 9. Section 5-86 of the Code is repealed in its entirety and
reenacted to read as follows:
(a) Adoption. The International Fire Code, 2012 Edition, is hereby adopted
by reference and incorporated into this article as though fully set forth
herein as the fire code of the City of Wheat Ridge. One copy of said
International Fire Code shall be filed in the office of the city clerk and may
be inspected during regular business hours. Except as otherwise provided
hereafter, such code is adopted in full, including the outline of contents
and index contained herein. Only Appendices 8, D, F and I, published by
the International Code Council are hereby adopted by reference. The
2012 International Fire Code shall be known as the "I.F.C." or the "fire
code" and may be cited and referred to as such.
(b) Amendments. The International Fire Code adopted by this section is
amended as follows. Section numbers referred to herein refer to and
correspond with the section numbers of the 2012 International Fire Code.
Section 102. 1 Construction and design ._Amend to read in its entirety
33
102.1 Construction and design prov1s1ons. The construction and
design provisions of this code shall apply to :
1. Structures, facilities and conditions arising after adoption of this
code.
2. Existing structures and conditions not legally in existence at the
time of adoption of this code .
3. Existing structures, facilities and conditions which, in the opinion of
the fire code official, constitute a distinct hazard to life or property.
1 03.4. 1 Legal Defense. Amend to read in its entirety:
103.4.1 Legal Defense. Any suit instituted against any officer or employee
of any fire protection district or any officer or employee of the City of
Wheat Ridge because of an act performed by that officer or employee in
the lawful discharge of duties and under the provisions of this code shall
be defended by the legal representative of the fire protection district or
City by which he or she is employed by the legal representative of the fire
protection district or City by which he or she is employed until the final
termination of the proceedings . The fire code official, city officer or
employee or any subordinate shall not be liable for costs in an action , suit
or proceeding that is instituted in pursuance of the provisions of this code ;
and any officer or employee of the department of fire prevention or the
City, acting in good faith and without malice , shall be free from liability for
acts performed under any of its provisions or reason of any acts or
omission in the performance of official duties in connection therewith .
104. 1 General Authority and Responsibilities. Amend by adding the following
subsection :
104.1.1 Responsibilities . The International Fire Code shall be administered
and enforced by the Building Official of the City of Wheat Ridge and
designated assistants , who shall perform the following functions:
1. Approval of plans for building new structures and remodeling of
existing structures;
2. The inspection of all construction of new and remodeling of existing
structures ;
3. The destruction of unsafe structures ;
4. Enforcement of the International Fire Code shall be by the Division of
Fire Prevention of the Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District, the Life
Safety Division of the Arvada Fire Protection District , or the designated
office of West Metro Fire Rescue and the Fairmount Fire Protection
District for the functions listed pertaining to each jurisdictions
respective amendments.
34
5. The Fire Marshal or his designated representative shall be responsible,
as the designee of the Building Official of the City of Wheat Ridge, for
the administration and enforcement of the code and shall enforce all
ordinances of the jurisdiction.
6. Wherever this code refers to the Fire Code Official in the context of
code administration it shall refer to the Fire Marshal, or his/her
designee, of the respective fire district having jurisdiction enforcement,
or designated representative of the Building Official of the City of
Wheat Ridge or his/her designee.
7. Wherever this code refers to the Fire Chief, it shall refer to the Chief of
the Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District, the Arvada Fire Protection
District, West Metro Fire Rescue or the Fairmount Fire Protection
District.
Section 108 Board of Appeals. Amended as follows:
108.1 Board of appeals established. Appeals of decisions and
determinations made by the Building Official or the fire code official shall
comply with the process and procedures set forth in City of Wheat Ridge
Municipal Code Sections 2-59 and 5-25.
108.2 Limitations on authority. Unchanged and adopted as written.
108.3 Qualifications. Delete in its entirety.
109.4 Violation penalties. Amend to read in its entirety:
109.4 Violation penalties. Any person or entity who shall violate a
provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements
thereof or who shall erect, install, alter or repair work in violation of the
approved construction documents or directive of the code official, or of a
permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code, shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 dollars
or by imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, or both such fine and
imprisonment; provided, however, that no person under the age of
eighteen (18) years shall be subjected to imprisonment. Each day that a
violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a
separate offense. The denial, suspension, revocation, or restriction of any
permit or other privilege conferred by this code shall not be regarded as a
penalty for purposes of this chapter.
Section 111. 1 Order. Amend to read in its entirety:
111.1 Order. Whenever the building code official or fire code official finds
any work regulated by this Code being performed in a manner contrary to
35
the prov1s1ons of this code or in a dangerous or unsafe manner, the
building code official or fire code official, with the concurrence of the other
code official, is authorized to issue a stop work order.
Section 111.4 Failure to comply. Amend to read in its entirety:
111.4 Failure to comply. Upon notice from the code official, work that is
being done contrary to the provisions of this code or in a dangerous or
unsafe manner shall immediately cease. Such notice shall be in writing
and shall be given to the owner of the property, or to the owner's agent, or
to the person doing the work , or visibly posted at the work site. The notice
shall state the conditions under which the work is authorized to resume.
Where an emergency exists, the code official shall not be required to give
a written notice prior to stopping the work. Any person who shall continue
any work in or about the structure after having been served with a stop
work order, except such work that person is directed to perform to remove
a violation or unsafe condition, shall be liable to a fine of not less than 60
dollars or not more than 1 000 dollars.
308. 1.4 Open-flame cooking devices. Amend to read in its entirety:
308.1.4 Open-flame cooking devices. Charcoal burners and other open-
flame cooking devices shall not be operated on or within 1 0 feet (3048
mm) of combustible construction.
Exceptions:
1. One and two family dwellings.
2. Where buildings and decks are protected by an automatic
sprinkler system.
3. LP-gas cooking devices having a LP-gas container with a water
capacity not greater than 20 pounds.
Section 315 General Storage . Amend by adding the following subsection:
315.3.5 Marking maximum permitted storage height. Identification of
the maximum approved storage height shall be provided in areas where
stacked or shelved storage of materials occurs. The maximum approved
height will be based upon the presence and design of the fire sprinkler
system. Maximum storage height identification shall consist of a minimum
of a four (4) inch (101.6 mm) stripe on a contrasting background shall be
placed at twelve (12) feet (3657.6 mm) above the finished floor and clearly
labeled with the designation: "No Storage Above This Line."
Section 503. 2. 1 Dimensions. Amend to read its entirety:
36
503.2.1 Dimensions-Public and Private Streets. Public and private
streets that are used for fire apparatus access shall have an unobstructed
width that meets the dimensions and parking restrictions as set forth by
the Street Standards adopted by the City of Wheat Ridge; and an
unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6)
inches (4115 mm).
Section 503.2.1 Dimensions. Amend by adding the following subsection:
503.2.1.1 Dimensions-Private Drives. Fire apparatus access that is
designated as a private drive shall have an unobstructed width of not less
than twenty-six (26) feet (7924.8 mm) and an unobstructed vertical
clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches (4115 mm).
Section 507. 5. 1 Where required (water supply). Amend to read in its entirety:
507.5.1 Where Required. Where a portion of a facility or building
hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than
300 feet (90m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or
building. Onsite fire hydrants and mains shall be provided were required
by the fire code official.
Exception:
1. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic
sprinkler system in accordance with section 903.3 .1.1 or
903.3.1.2 the maximum distance requirement shall be 500 feet
(150 meters).
Section 507. 5. 1. 1 Hydrant for standpipe systems. Amend to read in its entirety:
507.5.1.1 Hydrant for sprinkler and standpipe systems. Buildings
equipped with a sprinkler and/or standpipe system installed in accordance
with section 903 or 904 shall have a fire hydrant within 150 feet (45
meters) of the fire department connection.
Exception : The distance shall be permitted to exceed 150 feet (45
meters) where approved by the fire code official.
Section 507. 5. 1. Where required (water supply) Amend by adding the following
subsection:
507 .5.1.2 Location and spacing of hydrants. Fire hydrants shall be
provided along required apparatus access roads and adjacent public
streets with spacing between hydrants no greater than 300 feet. Fire
hydrant spacing for complexes or subdivisions shall not exceed 300 feet.
37
Section 903.1 General. Amend by adding the following subsection :
903.1.2 Location of sprinkler control valves. When automatic sprinkler
systems are required within a building and the system serves more than
one tenant space, the main control valves shall be located within an
approved room that is accessible directly from the building exterior. The
door to said room shall be not less than three (3) feet (914 mm) in width
by six (6) feet eight (8) inches (203.2 mm) in height. The door to said room
shall be identified as required in section 509.1 .
Section 903.4 .2 Alarms. Amend by adding the following subsection:
903.4.2.1 Audible and visual signals. Audible and visual fire alarm
notificat ion devices shall be connected to every automatic sprinkler
system. Such audible and visual devices shall be activated throughout the
building upon water flow .
904 .11 .6.2 Extinguishing system service . Amend to read in its entirety:
904.11.6.2 Extinguishing system service. Automatic fire-extinguishing
systems shall be serviced at least every six months and after activation of
the sys t em . Inspection shall be by qual ified ind ividuals who shall forward a
certificate of inspection to the fire code official as soon as reasonably
practical upon completion. Pre-engineered systems that are not compliant
with the UL 300 must be clearly noted on the certificate of inspection and
must state if the system is serviceable and appropriate for its application
per the existing system manufacturers listing and maintenance
requirements.
Section 904 Alternative Automatic Fire-Extinguishing Systems. Amend by add ing
the following subsection :
904.12 Residential cooking equipment. Installation of an approved
residential fire extinguish i ng system shall be installed to protect the
equipment when residential cooking equipment is installed within Group A,
B, E, F, I, M, S, and R-4 occupancies.
912.3 .1 Locking fire department connection caps . Amend to read in its entirety:
912 .3.1 Locking fire department connection caps. Approved locking fire
department connection caps shall be installed on fire department
connections on all new water-based fire protection systems. Installation of
approved locking fire department connection caps shall be required on
existing water-based fire protection systems where there is a history of
missing caps or interior obstructions of the fire department connection.
38
Section 1030.3 Obstructions. Amend by adding the following subsection:
1030.3.1 Exterior signage. Exit doors that could be obstructed or blocked
from the outside shall be posted with a permanent sign on the exterior
side of the door stating "EXIT DOOR -DO NOT BLOCK." The sign shall
consist of letters having a principal stroke of not less than three-fourths
(3/4) inch (19 mm) wide and at least six (6) inches (152 mm) high on a
contrasting background.
1101. 1 Scope. Amend to read in its entirety:
1101.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to existing
buildings constructed prior to the adoption of this code that in the opinion
of the fire code official, constitute a distinct hazard to life or property.
5704.2.9.6.1 Locations where above-ground tanks are prohibited. Amend to read
in its entirety:
5704.2.9.6.1 Locations where above-ground tanks are prohibited. The
storage of Class I and II liquids in above-ground tanks shall conform to the
geographic limits established by Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Municipal
Code of Laws.
5706.2.4.4 Locations where above-ground tanks are prohibited. Amend to read in
its entirety:
5706.2.4.4 Locations where above-ground tanks are prohibited. The
storage of Class I and II liquids in above-ground tanks shall conform to the
geographic limits established by Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Municipal
Code of Laws.
5806.2 Limitations. Amend to read in its entirety:
5806.2 Limitations. Storage of flammable cryogenic fluids in stationary
containers outside of buildings shall conform to the geographic limits
established by Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code of Laws.
6104.2 Maximum capacity within established limits. Amended to read in its
entirety:
6104.2 Maximum capacity within established limits. Within the limits
established by law restricting the storage of liquefied petroleum gas for the
protection of heavily populated or congested areas, the aggregate
capacity of any one installation shall not exceed a water capacity of 2,000
gallons within the City of Wheat Ridge.
39
Chapter 80 Referenced standards. Amend by adding a subsection titled
Insurance Service Office and listing the following standard:
INSURANCE SERVICE OFFICE
Insurance Service Office
545 Washington Boulevard
Jersey City, NJ 07310-1686
Insurance Service Office Guide for Determining Fire Flow, Fire
Suppression Rating Schedule May 2008.
Appendix 8 Section 8105.1. Amend to read in its entirety::
8105.1 One-and two-family dwellings. The minimum fire-flow and flow
duration requirements for one-and two-family dwelling having a fire-flow
calculation area that does not exceed 3,600 square-feet (344.5 square-
meters) shall be 1,500 gallons per minute (5678 Llmin) for 1 hour. Fire-
flow and flow duration requirements for one-and two-family dwelling
having a fire-flow calculation area in excess of 3,600 square-feet (344.5
square-meters) shall not be less than that specified in Table 8105.1.
Exception: A reduction in required fire-flow of 50 percent, as approved by
the fire code official, is allowed when the building is equipped with an
approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
Appendix 8 Section 8105.2. Amend to read in its entirety:
8105.2 Buildings other than one-and two-family dwellings . The
minimum fire-flow and flow duration requirements for buildings other than
one-and two-family dwellings shall as specified in Table 8105.1.
Exception: A reduction in required fire-flow of 50 percent, as approved, is
allowed when the building is equipped with an approved automatic fire
sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or
903.3.1.2 . The resulting fire-flow shall not be less than 1 ,500 gallons per
minute (5678 Llmin) for the prescribed duration as specified in Table
8105.1.
Appendix D Section D102 .1Access and loading . Amend to read in its entirety:
0102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings
hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by
way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete
or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load
of fire apparatus weighing at least 85 ,000 pounds (38636 kg).
40
Appendix D Section 0103.5 Fire apparatus access road gates. Amend to read in
its entirety:
0103.5 Fire apparatus access road gates. Gates securing fire apparatus
access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria:
1. The minimum gate width shall be 16 feet (4877 mm) or as wide as
necessary to facilitate the required turning radius.
2. Gates shall have an approved means of automatic operation upon
approach of emergency equipment.
3. Gates shall be of the swinging, sliding, or specifically approved lift type.
4. Construction of gate shall be of materials that allow manual operation by
one person.
5. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times
and replaced or repaired when defective.
6. Electric gates shall be equipped with a Knox electronic override switch for
all inbound directions of travel and any outbound direction of travel where
automatic opening of the gate when a vehicle is present does not occur.
7. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock, or chain and
padlock, unless they are provided with a Knox padlock in series with the
padlock, or chain and padlock.
8. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval by the fire
code official.
9. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with
UL 325.
10 . Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed
and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F2200.
11 . Electronically operated gates must stay open a minimum of 30 seconds
when the Knox electronic override switch is turned on/off and must remain
in the open position when the switch is turned on and left on.
12.A Knox fire department decal shall be placed adjacent to the Knox
electronic override switch unless other approved fire department marking
is provided.
41
Section 10. Section 5-87 of the Code is repealed in its entirety and
reenacted to read as follows:
(c) Adoption. The International Fuel Gas Code , 2012 Edition , is hereby
adopted by reference and incorporated into this article as though fully set
forth herein as the fuel gas code of the City of Wheat Ridge . One copy
of said International Fuel Gas Code shall be filed in the office of the city
clerk and may be inspected during regular business hours . Except as
otherwise provided hereafter, such code is adopted in full , including the
outline of contents and index contained herein .
(d) Amendments. The International Fuel Gas Code adopted by this section
is amended as follows. Section numbers referred to herein refer to and
correspond with the section numbers of the 2012 International Fuel Gas
Code .
101 .1 Title . Amend to read in its entirety:
101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Fuel Gas Code of
the City of Wheat Ridge , hereinafter referred to as "this code ."
106.5.3 Expiration . Amend to read in its entirety:
106.5.3 Expiration. Every permit issued by the code official under the
provisions of this code shall expire one year (365 days) after the date of
issuance. The building official is authorized to grant , in writing , one or
more extensions of time, for periods of not more than 180 days each. The
extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated.
106.6.2 Fee schedule . Amend to read in its entirety:
106.6.2 Fee Schedule. The fees for work done pursuant to this code
shall be as set forth in Table 1-A.
106 .6.3 Refunds . Amend to read in its entirety :
106.6.3 Refunds. The code official shall authorize the refunding of fees as
follows:
1. The full amount any fee paid hereunder that was erroneously paid or
collected.
2. Not more than 100 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has
been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code.
42
3. Not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an
application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is
withdrawn or canceled before any plan review effort has been expended.
4. Not more than 50 percent of the plan review fee paid when an
application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is
withdrawn or canceled after initiation of any plan review effort.
Note: The code official shall not authorize the refunding of any fee paid
except upon written application filed by the original permittee not later than
180 days after the date of fee payment.
108.4 Violation penalties. Amend to read in its entirety:
108.4 Violation penalties. Any person or entity who shall violate a
provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements
thereof or who shall erect, install, alter or repair work in violation of the
approved construction documents or directive of the code official, or of a
permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code, shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 dollars
or by imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, or both such fine and
imprisonment; provided , however, that no person under the age of
eighteen (18) years shall be subjected to imprisonment. Each day that a
violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a
separate offense .
108.5 Stop work orders. Amend to read in its entirety:
108.5 Stop work orders. Upon notice from the code official that work is
being done contrary to the provisions of this code or in a dangerous or
unsafe manner shall immediately cease. Such notice shall be in writing
and shall be given to the owner of the property, or to the owner's agent, or
to the person doing the work, or visibly posted at the work site. The notice
shall state the conditions under which the work is authorized to resume.
Where an emergency exists, the code official shall not be required to give
a written notice prior to stopping the work. Any person who shall continue
any work in or about the structure after having been served with a stop
work order, except such work that person is directed to perform to remove
a violation or unsafe condition, shall be liable to a fine of not less than 60
dollars or not more than 1000 dollars .
43
406.4 Test pressure measurement. Amend to read in its entirety:
406.4 Test pressure measurement. Test pressure shall be measured
with a manometer or with a pressure-measuring device designed and
calibrated to read , record, or indicate a pressure loss caused by leakage
during the pressure test period. Mechanical gauges used to measure test
pressure shall have a maximum pressure range of 150 psig , except for
one and two-family dwellings , which shall have a maximum range of 30
psig and shall display measurements in 1 psig increments.
406.4 .1 Test Pressure . Amend to read in its entirety:
406.4.1 Test Pressure . The test pressure to be used shall be no less than
1-1/2 times the working proposed maximum working pressure , but not less
than 20psig , irrespective of design . Where the test pressure exceeds 125
psig , the test pressure shall not exceed a value that produces a hoop
stress in the piping greater than 50 percent of the specified minimum yield
strength of the pipe.
406.4.2 Test duration. Amend to read in its entirety:
406.4.2 Test duration. Test duration shall be not less than one-half hour
for each 500 cubic feet of pipe volume or fraction thereof, except for one
and two-family dwellings , which shall a test duration of not less than 15
minutes . The maximum test duration shall not be required to exceed 24
hours.
Appendices. The following appendices are adopted in their entirety without
amendment:
Appendix A (IFGS): Sizing and Capacities of Gas Piping
Appendix B (IFGS): Sizing of Venting Systems Serving Appliances
Equipped with Draft Hoods , Category 1 Appliances , and Appliances Listed
for Use with Type 8 Vents
Appendix C (IFGS): Terminals of Mechanical Draft and Direct-Vent
Venting Systems
Appendix D (IFGS): Recommended Procedure for Safety Inspection of an
Existing Appliance Installation
44
Section 11. Section 5-88 of the Code is repealed in its entirety and reenacted to
read as follows:
(a) Adopted. The NFPA 99 Standards for Health Care Facilities 2015
Edition, Copyright by the National Fire Protection Association,
Batterymarch Park, Quincy, Massachusetts, 02269 is hereby adopted
by reference thereto and incorporated into this article as though fully
set out herein as the health care facilities code for the city. Except as
otherwise provided in this article, such code is adopted in full, including
the index and annex contained therein . One (1) copy of said Standards
for Health Care Facilities 2015 Edition shall be filed in the office of the
clerk and may be inspected during regular business hours.
(b) Amendments. None
Section 12. Table 1-A concerning building permit fees and other related fees,
attached hereto as Attachment 1, is hereby adopted; provided, however, the
City Council may amend the same from time to time by motion or resolution.
Section 13. Severability, Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section,
subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses
shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed .
Section 14. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days
after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of _
to _ on this 8th day of September, 2014, ordered published in full in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge, and Public Hearing
and consideration on final passage set for October 13,2014 at 7:00p.m., in the
Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final
reading by a vote of_ to_, this day of , 2014.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this __ day of _____ , 2014.
Joyce Jay, Mayor
45
ATIEST:
Janelle Shaver, City Clerk
First Publication:
Second Publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript
Effective Date :
Approved as to Form
Gerald E. Dahl , City Attorney
46
Attachment 1
2012 Table 1-A-Building Permit Fees
Total Valuation Fee
$1 .00 to $500 .00 $26 .50
$501 .00 -$2,000 .00 $26.50 for the first $500.00 plus $3.40 for each
additional $100 .00, or fraction thereof, to and
including $2,000.00 .
$2,001 -$25 ,000.00 $77.50 for the first $2,000 plus $15 .85 for each
additional $1 ,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and
including $25,000.00.
$25,001.00-$50,000 .00 $442.05 for the first $25,000.00 plus $11 .50 for
each additional $1 ,000.00, or fraction thereof, to
and including $50,000 .00.
$50 ,001.00-$100,000 .00 $729 .55 for the first $50,000 plus $8.05 for each
additional $1 ,000.00, or fractions thereof, to and
including $100 ,000 .00 .
$100,001 .00-$500,000.00 $1132.05 for the first $100 ,000.00 plus $6.45 for
each additional $1 ,000.00, or fraction thereof, to
and including $500 ,000.00.
$500 ,001 .00-$1 ,000,000 .00 $3712 .05 for the first $500,000 .00 plus $5 .50 for
each additional $1 ,000 .00 , or fractional thereof,
to and including $1 ,000,000 .00 .
$1 ,000,001.00 and up $6462 .05 for the first $1,000,000 .00 plus $4 .10
for each additional $1 ,000.00, or fraction thereof .
Other Inspections and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours (two hour minimum) $60 .00 per hour (1)
2. Re-inspection fees $60.00 per hour (1)
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (one hour minimum) $60.00 per hour (1)
4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans $60 .00 per hour (1) *(two hour minimum)
5. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspections, or both Actual costs (2)
6. A fee equal to the permit fee shall be applied to all permits for work initiated prior to issuance of the required permit
(1) Or the total hourly costs to the jurisdiction , whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision , overhead,
equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employee(s) involved .
(2) Actual costs including administrative and overhead costs.
Fees for specific projects shall be as listed below, plus use taxes based on
project valuation:
Residential Furnace/Boiler Replacement $40.00
Residential Water heater replacement $40.00
Backf/ow device for Residential/awn irrigation $40.00
Residential Evaporative Coolers $40.00
47
Residential Window Replacement $50.00
Demolition Permit $50.00
Residential Hot Tubs and Above-Ground Pools $60.00
Residential Air-Conditioning $60.00
New Residential Furnace/Boiler installation $100.00
(non-replacement)
* Prices are exclusive of applicable use taxes based on valuation
48
~ ~ A -t
... # ~ City of • .. ~Wheat&.,dge ~OFFICE OF THE CI1Y MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Introduction
Memorandum
Mayor and City Council ~
Patrick Goff, City Manager 1/.)
September 3, 2014
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
I-fe I?'L !P .
The City of Wheat Ridge has received two proposals to participate in a solar garden agreement through
Xcel Energy 's Solar*Rewards Community program . One proposal was submitted by Clean Energy
Collective, LLC (CEC) and a second proposal was submitted by SunShare, LLC . The intent of each
proposal is to help the City generate electricity cost savings through the production of renewable energy,
while promoting environmental stewardship to the conununity.
Although participation in a solar garden can provide value to a community, it can also bring inherent
risks . Therefore, the City contracted with Lotus Engineering & Sustainability to perform a due diligence
review on the proposed solar garden models and to identify potential risks and opportunities to the City .
The attached report includes the following swrunaries:
• Discussion of how the proposed solar gardens support the City 's goals and serve the public.
• A review of the contracts and proposals , including the pro forma and calculation assumptions.
• Discussion of the potential risks and opportunities of participation in the proposed agreements,
including "what-if' scenarios for savings and investment potential.
• General industry and marketplace trends.
• Other considerations for further discussion.
• Summary of the differences between CEC 's and SunShare 's approach .
CEC's Proposal
The proposal offered by CEC would allow the City to purchase up to 972 panels in CEC's Jefferson
Cow1ty Solar Garden for approximately $776 ,628. The panels would provide up to 228.42 kilowatts of
electricity to offset nearly 100% of electricity consumption at 13 City facility locations . The City would
receive savings in the form of Xcel bill credits and income in the form of renewable energy certificate
(REC) payments each billing cycle. The savings and income streams would offset current electricity costs
at the identified 13 locations and help payback the initial investment. CEC estimates the projected
payback to be 8 to 9 years . Total best-case scenario cumulative savings , over a 20 year contract, is
estimated at $1 ,594 ,720 .
SunShare's Proposal
The proposal from SunShare describes an opportunity for the City to purchase up to 308 kilowatts of
electricity from its Jefferson County Solar Garden. Rather than purchase the panels outright, the City
would pay SunShare a monthly fee for electricity consumption called the Solar Service Agreement (SSA)
payment. SunShare proposes that this electricity will offset consumption at 25 sites owned by the City.
The City would receive savings in the form ofXcel bill credits each billing cycle. The savings could be
uses to pay the SSA rate to SunShare. SunShare would receive REC payments directly from Xcel Energy
and will not distribute those to the City. Sunshare proposes that the City will begin to offset electricity
costs inm1ediately. Total best-case scenario cumulative savings , over a 20 year contract , is estimated at up
to $627,147.
The following table presents key attributes of each business model based on information obtained from
each solar garden developer.
Approach ICEC ISunShare
SIZE
1228.42 k\X' p o8 k\x ·
PREMISE LOCATIONS
I Serws 13 locations I Se n·e~ 25 loc:uinns
PAYMENT
I One time, up from paymem; may reqUJre tinancin~ I ~lonthh-pa1·ment basc..-.1 on k\\'h l(cnerated b1· sy>tem
CURRENT ELECTRICITY COSTS
I Assumes blended rate of S0.30 pe r k\\'h I Assumes blended rare of SO.I 7 (ali111nltd)
SAVINGS
I Bill credits and REC p01·ments I Bill credits
BILL CREDIT RATES
I Assumes initial bill credit rate of S0.20065 per k\\'h : r\ssumcs inioal bill credit of 0.133 per k\\h I REC of S(W2 per k\\'h (for 20 -ycar contract)
AVAILABILITIOF DATA
ITransparcm , able 10 reproduce I Parualh transparcm, most of the data was rc-creoted
OPPORTUNITIES
1. PotcmiaJ to achicw Cnv ~oaJ, 1. Potenualt o achtc\ l' Cm g<r.tb
2. Potential to partner wtth CO ptnncn 2. Putt·nnalto partner with C<) ptoncn
3. Establi>hed 0&.\J procedures 3. Establbhcd 0&,\1 procedure>
4. Participate in a progressil·e model 4. Partictpate m a pro~-:re,sil c model
5. Solar garden ho,tcd on Count\ land 5. Solar garden hosted nn Count\ land
6. Solar can be tmnsfcrrc<l 6. Solar can be transfe rred
-. Ci11 will be •upponnltf CEC g<>e> out of bu"nc" -. Ci11 willlx· >UpJ>oflcd if SunSharc goe' out of bu>mc''
8. Potemial to receive sa~~ngs after S\'stem has been paid 8. No upfront cost
9. Jeffen<on Count}· <olar garden is wmmcrcio.llr 9. Potential to sa1•e mone1· in the first year
operational to. Ci11 o nh paiS for clcctricitl' generated b1 s1 stem
RISKS
I. Vanabilitl' and unccrt:linitY with kev F.tctors I. Variabi lity and unccrtaimn· with kcr factors
2. 13iU credits arc mdependcnt of CECs net purchase price 2. Bill credit s arc independent of SunSharc's SSA price
3. Cm could lose cxcc5' btll crcdus at end of contract 3. Cory could lose excess btll crcJns at end nf contract
4. Projec ted payback pcrtod ma1 · be best case se<·nario 4. Project eel payback period ma~ be best ca<c scc nano
5. City could pa y Xccl cn:n when >I'S t<·m is producmg 5. Ctt) could pa) higher dt-ctric rat<"s to SunShan· than to
Xccl Encrc)
6. 0&,\1 costs could mcreasc 6. SunShare could experience lcarntng cun·e
7. Annual production ma1 1·an• 7. Annual utiln) escalation rate' and bill credits ma) 1·ar) 8. Annual utihl)' csca lauon rates and btll crcdns may 1·ary
TOTAL COST
Total co>t is 5776,628 Initial SSA of S0.12 per k\\'h bast-don solar production,
escalated at 2.9% per \'Car
CUMULATIVE SAVJNGS
Be st-case sccna no is Sl ,594,720 Best -case sce nario is S62-,147
A "moderate" sccnano is 51 ,0 16,7(>9 A "moderate" scenario is (510,165)
\\o r>~-<:asc scenario is S268,1l82 \X 'orst-casc .ccnario i~ (S7 69,964)
Emily Artale, Principal Engineer, with Lotus Engineering and Sustainability will provide more
detailed infonnation in regard to each proposal at the September 8111 City Council meeting.
This report was developed and prepared by the City of Wheat Ridge and Lotus Engineering and
Sustainability, LLC, with peer review provided by Merrill Group, LLC.
City of Wheat Ridge
Patrick Goff
City Manager
{303) 235-2805
pgoff@ci. wheatridge .co. us
Lotus Engineering & Sustainability
Emily Artale
Principal Engineer
(303) 709-9948
Emily.artale@lotussustainability.com
Hillary Dobos
Principal and Owner of Merrill Group, LLC
(303) 550-6498
hillary@merrillgroupllc.com
Disdaimer
The risk scenarios included in this report illustrate the potential opportunities for savings and were
developed based on available data. These scenarios are hypothetical in nature and are not intended to
provide a recommendation as to which solar garden developer should be chosen. Every attempt has
been made to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of the data. Lotus Engineering and
Sustainability, LLC is not liable for any errors or omissions in this information and Lotus Engineering and
Sustainability, LLC will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this
information.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND .................................................•..................................................................................................... 1
CEC's PROPOSA L. ..................................................•............................................•....•........•..•......................................... 1
Su NSHARE's PROPOSA L .............•.....••.........................•...•....................................................................................••......... 2
OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE SUSTAINABILITY GOALS AND SERVING THE PUBLIC.. ......................................................... 4
CEC'S AND SUNSHARE'S PROPOSED CONTRACTS AND PROPOSALS ....................................................................... S
POTENTIAL RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................................................................ 6
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTNERI NG WITH CEC OR SUNSHARE .................................................................................................. 6
Potential to Achieve Ci ty's Sustainability Goals .................................................................................................... 6
Potential to Partner wi th a Colorado Solar Garden Pioneer ................................................................................. 7
Established Operation and Maintenance Procedures ........................................................................................... 7
Opportunity to Join a Model that Continues to Grow and Flourish ...................................................................... 8
Solar Garden Hosted on County Land ................................................................................................................... 8
Solar Garden Can Be Transferred to a Different Prem ise Location ....................................................................... 8
The City Will Be Supported if a Solar Garden Developer Were to Go Out of Business .......................................... 8
ADDITIONA L OPPORTUNITIES FOR PART NERING WITH CEC. ....................•..........................•.........................................•.......... 8
Potential to Rece i ve Annual Savings after Initio/Investment Has Been Met ........................................................ 8
CEC's Jefferson County Solar Garden is Commercially Operational ...................................................................... 9
A DDITIONAL OPPORTUN IT IES FOR PARTNER ING WITH SUNSHARE ............................................................................................ 9
No Upfront Cost .................................................................................................................................................... 9
Potential to Save Money in the First Year ............................................................................................................. 9
The City Only Pays for the Electricity Generated by the System ........................................................................... 9
RISK S WITH PART NER ING WITH CEC OR SUNSHARE .............................................................................................................. 9
Moderate Risk : The City Could Lose Excess Bill Credits at the End of the Contract Term ................................... 10
High Risk : Variab i lity and Uncerta inty Exists with Key Factors Used to Calculate Financial Performance ......... 10
High Risk : Fluctuations in Bill Credits will Not Impact CEC's Net Purchase Price or SunShare 's SSA price .......... 11
High Risk : Projected Payback Period May Represent a Best-Case Scenario ....................................................... 12
ADDITIONAL RI SKS WITH PART NERING W ITH CEC ............................................................................................................... l2
Very Low Risk : The City could Pay Xcel Energy for Electricity even when the Solar Garden is Generating
Electricity ............................................................................................................................................................ 12
Low Risk : O&M Costs Could lncrease ........................................................................................... ....................... 13
Low Risk: Total Production Output May Vary ..................................................................................................... 13
High Risk : Annual Utili ty Escalation Rates May Vary and Annual Bill Credits May Vary .................................... 14
ADDIT IONAL RIS KS WITH PARTNERING WITH SUNSHARE .................•...........•........•...................•........................................... 17
Very Low Risk : The City could Pay Higher Rates to SunShare than to Xcel Energy .......... ................................... 18
Low Risk : SunShare could Experience a Learning Curve with the Operational of New Solar Gardens in Xcel
Energy 's Territory ................................................................................................................................................ 18
High Risk: Annual Utility Escalation Rates May Vary and Bill Credit Rates May Vary ........................................ 18
GENERAL MARKETPLACE TRENDS ......................................................................................................................... 20
C OMPAR IS ON OF SOLAR PAN EL COST AGAINST CEC's PR ICE ........................................................•....................................... 20
Analy sis of Solar Garden Pr oposals
COMPARISON OF CURRENT ELECTRICITY COSTS AGAINST SUNS HARE'S SSA PRICE .................................................................... 21
DECLINING COST OF SOLAR INSTALLATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 21
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 23
IF THE CITY CHOOSES TO FINANCE CEC'S SOLAR GARDEN, ADDITIONAL COSTS WILL BE INCURRED .............................................. 23
IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY WILL REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION .................................................................................. 24
EFFICIENCY OF PANELS IS ESTIMATED ............................................................................................................................... 24
UNDER CEC'S PROPOSAL EQUIPMENT COULD NEED TO BE UPGRADED .................................................................................. 24
SUNSHARE'S LENDER HAS A SECURITY INTEREST IN THE SOLAR GARDEN ................................................................................. 24
SOLAR GARDEN PRODUCTION WILL NOT REDUCE ELECTRICITY DEMAND ................................................................................ 24
THERE ARE OTHER APPROACHES TO ACQUIRING SOLAR ENERGY ........................................................................................... 25
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CEC'S AND SUNSHARE'S APPROACH ............................................................................... 25
ANALYSIS OF RISK FOR CEC'S AND SUNS HARE'S PROPOSALS ................................................................................................ 26
Saving Scenarios for CEC's Array ........................................................................................................................ 2 7
Saving Scenarios for SunShare's Array ................................................................................................................ 29
POTENTIAL ELECTRICITY COSTS TO XCEL ENERGY ................................................................................................................ 30
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................ 32
INSIGHT FROM INDUSTRY .................................................................................................................................... 32
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ........................................................................................................................................ 33
ATTACHMENT A : REVIEWED PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS WITH RESPONSES ........................................................... 33
ATTACHM ENT 8: SUMMARY OF VARIABILITY IN ANNUAL PRODUCTION OUTPUT DATA FOR CEC ................................................. 33
ATTACHM ENT ( : SUMMARY OF VARIABILITY IN UTILITY ESCALATION RATE DATA AND SUMMARY OF VARIABILITY IN BILL CREDIT RATE
DATA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 33
ATTACHMENT D: SUMMARY OF "MODERATE" SCENARIO AND FINANCING SCENARIOS .............................................................. 33
ATTACHMENT E: COMPARISON OF NET ELECTRICITY COSTS DATA ......................................................................................... 33
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Solar* Rewards Community Program process ................................................................................. .
Figure 2. Summary of premise locations to be served by CEC's solar garden as shown in CEC's proposal..1
Figure 3. Solar garden pro forma proposed by CEC, ..................................................................................... 2
Figure 4. Summary of premise locations to be served SunShare's solar garden as shown in SunShare's
proposal ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 5. Solar garden pro forma proposed by SunShare ............................................................................. 3
Figure 6. Time line of Colorado's Community Solar Gardens (image courtesy of Xcel Energy) ...................... .
Figure 7. Boulder Cowdery Meadows Solar Array performance ................................................................... .
Figure 8. Summary of impact from reduced annual production for CEC's array at two escalation rates .. 14
Figure 9. Solar* Rewards Community Program cost components for SG rate ............................................ 16
Figure 10. Impact from three varying escalation rates on CEC's array ....................................................... 16
Figure 11. Impact from three decreasing escalation rates for CEC's array ................................................. 17
Figure 12. Impact from three escalation rates for SunShare's array .......................................................... 19
Figure 13. Impact from three decreasing escalation rates for SunShare's array ........................................ 19
Figure 14. CEC's solar garden price ............................................................................................................. 20
Figure 15. Installed price of residential and commercial solar PV systems for select states in 2012 ......... 20
Figure 16. Installed price of residential and commercial solar PV over time .............................................. 22
Figure 17. State/utility cash incentives for residential and commercial solar PV over time ......................... .
Figure 18. Comparison between key attributes of CEC's and SunShare's proposals .................................. 26
Figure 19. Comparison of projected values from a "moderate scenario" against a best-case scenario and
a worst-case scenario for CEC's array ......................................................................................................... 27
Figure 20. Graphic comparison of a "moderate scenario" against a best-case case and worst-case savings
scenario for CEC's array ............................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 22. Comparison of potential impact of two financing arrangements on a "moderate" savings
scenario for CEC's array .................................................................................................................................. .
Figure 22. Graphic comparison of potential impact of two financing arrangements on a "moderate"
savings scenario for CEC's array ..................................................................................................................... .
Figure 21 . Comparison of project values from a "moderate" savings scenario against a best-case scenario
and a worst-case scenario for SunShare's array ............................................................................................ .
Figure 24. Comparison of a "moderate" savings scenario against a best-case scenario and a worst-case
scenario for SunShare's array ...................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 25. Potential net electricity costs for a best-case scenario and a "moderate" scenario for CEC's
array ............................................................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 26 . Potential net electricity costs for a best-case scenario and a moderate scenario for CEC's array
..................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
The savings and income streams will offset current electricity costs and help payback the initial
investment. Bill credits (credits on the utility bill) are determined based on the amount of electricity
generated by the solar system and are issued directly from Xcel Energy to the City. The REC payments
are also determined based on the electricity generated by the solar system; however, REC payments are
provided to CEC from Xcel Energy and the City will receive a portion of these payments after the
operation and maintenance (O&M) fee has been deducted. Until the initial capital investment has been
paid off, the City will be re-allocating money that was once used to pay Xcel Energy for electricity to pay
off the solar system. The capital investment can be financed by a lending agency or the capital
investment can be paid through a contribution from the City. Once the initial capital investment has
been met, the bill credits and REC payments will offset a portion or all of the electricity costs .
Annual Total Avoided CO,
N~t Purchau Projected BiD Annual REC Projected Firat Total Cumulativ~ Emi .. iona (tons)
Sizc(kW) Price Crcdlta Pay menta Year Income Savings Over 20 yeara Over:ZOYeara Projected Payback
228.42 $776,628 $74,582 $7,434 582,016 Sl,594,720 6,152 8/9 r~~rs
Figure 3. Solar garden pro forma proposed by CEC1
,
2
SunShare's Proposal
The proposal from SunShare describes an opportunity for the City to purchase up to 308 kW of
electricity from its Jefferson County Solar Garden. Rather than purchase the panels outright, the City
would pay SunShare a monthly fee for electricity consumption call the Solar Service Agreement (SSA)
payment. The SSA payment is initially set at $0.12 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) produced by the solar panels
serving the City . The SSA payment is less than the City's current assumed blended electricity rate of
$0 .1 7 per kWh 3. The SSA will escalate at 2.9% per year for the 20-year contract period . SunShare
proposes that this electricity will offset consumption at 25 sites owned by the City .
1 The proposed pro forma does not include costs incurred from financing.
2 Total Cumulative Savings is the difference between the Net Purchase Pr ice and projected savings and income from bill credit
and REC payments
3 See the section titled "Comparison of Current Electricity Costs against SunShare's SSA Price" for more information on how this
rate was calculated .
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 2
Estimated On-Current Effective
Address Bill Credit Rate Schedule Retail Rate
4900 Marshall St -Area ughts $0.52840 SG $0.7315
4355 Field St -Park Shops $0.46280 SG $0.6426
7500 \V.I 29th Ave Bldg P UJ\IP $0.20850 SG $0.3156
11220 W 45th Ave Bldg Po li ce $0.11450 SG so. 1703
6363 W 35th Ave -WRCC $0.11190 SG $0.1575
9110 \XI 44th Ave -Park Shops $0.09030 SG $0.1361
4355 Field St -Pool $0.07200 SG $0 .0993
5349 \XI 27th Ave -Park Shops $0.07440 R $0.1190
6363 1 /2 W 35th Ave -WRCC $0.07369 c $0.1117
11220 W 45th Ave -Bldg B $0.07369 c $0 .1 125
5355 W 38th Ave -LTG $0.07369 c -
5201 \XI 38th Ave -Sign $0 .07369 c -
4355 Field St -Park Shops $0 .0736 9 c -
5500 \XI 38th Ave -LTG $0 .07369 c -
5795 W 38th Ave -LTG $0.07369 c -
3705 Jay St. $0.07369 c -
4355 Field St -Park Shops $0.07369 c -
11490 W 44th Ave-Park Shops $0.07369 c -
5990 W 38th Ave -LTG $0.07369 c -
4150 Youngfield St -Park Shops $0.07369 c -
3400 Fenton St -Park Shops $0.07369 c -
4232 Garrison St -Park Shops $0.07369 c -
3975 Kipling St -Park Shops $0.07369 c -
3701 J ohnson St $0 .07369 c -
11580 \'\' 44th Ave -Pump $0.07369 c -
Figure 4. Summary of proposed premise locations to be served by SunShare's solar garden
To make this model economically attractive, SunShare proposes that the City will receive savings in the
form of bill credits each billing cycle. The savings seen as bill credits can be used to pay the SSA rate to
SunShare. SunShare will receive REC payments directly from Xcel Energy and will not distribute these to
the City . SunShare proposes that the City will begin to offset electricity costs immediately and these
costs will be offset throughout the life of the 20-year contract .
Projected Cumulative Projected Cumulative
First Year First Year First Year Savings Over 20 years Savings Over 20 years
Size Projected BiU Payment to Projected at 2.9% Utility Rate at s•;. Utility Rate Projected
(kW) Credits SunShare Savings Escalation Escalation Payback
308 S73,513 S66,528 S6,985 S620,208 St76,398 Immediate
Figure 5. Solar garden pro forma proposed by SunShare
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 3
OBJECTIVE
Although participation in a solar garden can provide value to a community, it can also bring inherent
risks. The intent of this effort is to perform a due diligence review on the proposed solar garden models
and to identify potential risks and opportunities to the City. The report will include the following
summaries:
• Discussion of how the proposed solar gardens support the City's goals and serve the public.
• A review of the contracts and proposals, including the pro forma and calculation assumptions .
• Discussion of the potential risks and opportunities of participation in the proposed agreements,
including "what-if' scenarios for savings and investment potential.
• General industry and marketplace trends.
• Other considerations for further discussion.
• Summary of the differences between CEC's and SunShare's approach.
The intent of these topics is to achieve the following goals:
• Gain a technical understanding of long-term potential for energy savings .
• Receive a third-party review of data and assumptions.
• Understand a comprehensive overview of "what-if" scenarios.
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE SUST AINABILITY GOALS AND SERVING THE
PUBLIC
The proposed agreements can provide significant benefits to the community. Participating in a solar
garden may have the potential to save the City of Wheat Ridge money, keep more of the City's money
within the local community, and promote the City as a leader in sustainability. Fossil fuel based
resources generate toxic air pollutants and high levels of greenhouse gas emissions and shifting
dependence to a more sustainable form of energy will benefit public health and the environment.
Recent history has indicated that solar gardens are a popular model for Colorado communities to
highlight their commitment as an early adopter of a progressive solution to energy generation. The City
can play an important and competitive role among its peers as other Front Range communities move
towards renewable forms of energy. The City will act as a role model to the community and
demonstrate the City's commitment to sustainability, sustainable community solutions, saving taxpayer
dollars, and purchasing locally.
Although the City of Wheat Ridge has not specifically identified sustainability or renewable energy goals,
the City does wish to become more proactive towards sustainability issues . As the City begins to develop
more concrete goals, it is important to understand how participation in a solar garden may impact and
fulfill those goals .
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 4
Both solar garden proposals include the sale of REC payments to Xcel Energy. This is not a unique
approach and is applied to all grid-tied solar systems within Xcel Energy's territory. Xcel Energy is
motivated to purchase the REC payments so that they may achieve compliance with the State of
Colorado's Renewable Energy Standard.4 However, when a community sells REC payments they are
selling the rights to the environmental attributes generated by the solar system and, according to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, they are no longer able to make claims to the renewable energy
generated by the system.5 And, in the event that future environmental or financial benefits from the
production of a solar photovoltaic system become available, the City may not be able to claim a right to
these benefits.
Although no official guidance is available on the exact phrasing of the arrangement, some energy
industry experts recommend that a community can only claim to "host" a renewable energy system. If
the City chooses to participate in a solar garden, the language used to market environmental benefits
should be carefully reviewed to verify that the language is consistent with industry best practices.
Also available, are creative REC exchanges, in which the City would purchase RECs from a renewable
energy system owned by another entity. These RECs could allow the City to claim certain environmental
attributes from that system; however, some would argue that creative REC exchanges are a form of
"greenwashing"; and therefore, this approach must be carefully vetted.
CEC'S AND SUNSHARE'S PROPOSED CONTRACTS AND PROPOSALS
Four documents from CEC and two documents from SunShare were reviewed to identify potential risks
and opportunities. CEC's documents included:
• "CEC proposal_6.23.14"
• "EXAMPLE ONLY JeffCo Public Schools I PEA sample"
• "PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Boulder Cowdery Meadows Solar Array OM Trust Agreement"
• "PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Boulder Cowdery Meadows Solar Array OM Trust Services
Agreement"
SunShare's documents included:
• "SunShare proposal_5.29.14"
• "SunShare Xcel Gov't SSA 13Aug2014"
4 As defined in House Billl0-100, the Renewable Energy Standard requires investor-owned utilities to acquire 30 percent of
electric sales from recycled energy or renewable energy sources by 2020 .
s "EPA's Green Power Partnership : Renewable Energy Certificates". EPA . July 2008 .
http://www .epa .gov /gree npowe r I docu me nts/gpp bas ics-recs . pdf
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 5
The marked-up documents and responses from each solar garden developer are included in Attachment
A.
The predictions for energy savings and performance are based on data and assumptions made by CEC
and SunShare. The data and assumptions were reviewed for soundness and alignment with general
energy industry best practices. It was determined that both proposals included a very high-level
description of the proposed project and were not detailed enough to adequately inform the City of
inherent risks. When a request for more information was made to CEC and to SunShare, the information
needed to provide a more transparent description of the process was readily available and delivered.
CEC, the City of Wheat Ridge, and Lotus Engineering and Sustainability, LLC (Lotus) discussed the
comments made to CEC's proposal on August 14, 2014. SunShare, the City of Wheat Ridge, and Lotus
discussed the comments to SunShare's proposal on August 15, 2014 . In both cases all comments were
adequately addressed .
Many of the issues that were not originally included in the proposal documents are the same issues that
provide the greatest risk to the City. These include the following items:
• Proposed payback period may represent a best-case scenario.
• Annual performance of the systems will vary each year .
• Utility rates will vary annually.
• Bill credit rates will vary annually.
• The City could be required to make on-going payments to Xcel Energy.
A detailed review of each item is included in the following section, "Potential Risks and Opportunities".
POTENTIAL RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Partnering with CEC or SunShare may offer some of the same potential opportunities and risks, while
each partnership will bring a unique set of benefits and challenges.
Opportunities for Partnering with CEC or SunShare
Potential to Achieve City's Sustainability Goals
Participating in either solar garden agreement has the potential to help the City achieve its sustainability
goals . These goals are listed in the section titled, "City of Wheat Ridge Sustainability Goals and Serving
the Public" and include :
• Potential to save money.
• Potential to keep the City's money within the local community .
• Promoting the City as a leader in sustainability within the community and among peers .
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 6
• Improving public health and the environment.
• Participating as an early adopter of a progressive and innovative solution to furthering the
production renewable energy .
Potential to Partner with a Colorado Solar Garden Pioneer
CEC and SunShare are some of the first solar garden providers in Colorado . CEC claims to have built the
nation's first community-owned solar facility in 2010 and SunShare claims to have built and fully
subscribed the first community solar garden. CEC's and SunShare's long (relatively) involvement within
the solar garden industry has afforded them the opportunity to learn quickly, adapt quickly, and pass on
these lessons to their partners . It can be assumed that both CEC and SunShare clearly understand the
model and approach to community solar gardens.
Established Operation and Maintenance Procedures
Proper O&M will optimize production; and therefore , optimize savings seen as bill credits and income
received as REC payments . CEC has established a robust O&M plan and trustee account that will cover
insurance, initial commissioning, scheduled/preventative maintenance activities, unscheduled
maintenance activities, and routine inspections to support warranties . CEC provided a "Global Operation
and Maintenance Procedures for Denver-JeffCO Projects" that describes equipment warranties.
Equipment warranties include a 25 -year limited warranty on the solar panels, modules material
workmanship, and racking ; a 12 -year limited warranty on modules; and a 10-year limited warranty on
inverter and installation workmanship . It should be noted that the 25 -year warranties exceed the life of
the contract. An automat ic deduction of $0.02 per kWh will be made from the REC payment to fund the
ongoing O&M trust during the life of the contract . Although the likelihood is low according to CEC, the
contract with CEC allows for the O&M deduction to increase if the O&M trust does not have sufficient
funds.
As owner of the solar panel system, SunS hare will assume all O&M of the panels. SunShare will also
cover the insurance and conduct activities that will support the warranties. SunShare stated that O&M
activities will include at a minimum scheduled/preventative maintenance activities, unscheduled
maintenance activities, and routine inspections to support warranties. SunShare provided a brief
statement on the warranties of the equipment that includes a 20 -year warranty for solar panels and a
10-year warranty for inverters and racking . SunShare will also receive a warranty on workmanship that
may range between 5 and 10 years. Although not stated by SunShare , it is assumed that the cost of
O&M is embedded in the SSA rate .
In both instances, robust and effective O&M is critical to ensure maximum production of the solar
panels; and therefore, utility incentives . SunShare states that they are further incentivized to ensure
effective O&M because the City will only pay for electricity that is generated by the system and if the
system is not producing than SunShare will receive less income.
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 7
Opportunity to Join a Model that Continues to Grow and Flourish
Based on conversations with both solar garden developers and local municipalities, interest and
participation in solar gardens is quickly growing. However, it should be noted that industry growth in
Xcel Energy territory is currently limited by Xcel Energy to 6.5 MW per year each year until 2023.6
Solar Garden Hosted on County Land
The solar garden systems will be located on land owned by Jefferson County and the City does not have
to engage in management of the land . The process simplifies the responsibilities for the City.
Solar Garden Can Be Transferred to a Different Premise Location
If a premise location served by the solar garden were to use less energy, presumably through
improvements in energy efficiency, the electricity generated by the solar garden can be transferred to a
different premise location . This arrangement allows the City to continue to pursue energy efficiency
upgrades as appropriate.
The City Will Be Supported if a Solar Garden Developer Were to Go Out of Business
In the unlikely event that either solar garden developer were to go out of business, each solar garden
developer has developed mechanisms to ensure that the City will be supported. Once the payment to
CEC has been made, CEC will continue to act as the Trustee to the O&M account. If CEC were to go out
of business, a new Trustee will be assigned and the Trustee will be responsible for the on-going
management of the O&M Trust.
Once the City signs an agreement with SunShare, SunShare will manage the O&M of the system and bill
the City for production. If SunShare were to go out of business, SunShare's lending agency would take
over the system. The lending agency has the right to either continue to operate the system, or more
likely, assign a different solar garden developer to operate the system. It should be noted that if the
lending agency were to take over the system, they have the right to re-write the terms of the contract
without the City's consent .
Additional Opportunities for Partnering with CEC
Potential to Receive Annual Savings after Initial Investment Has Been Met
6 "2014 Renewable Energy Standard Plan ". Volume 1. Xcel Energy . July 2013 .
http://www.xcelenergy .c om/staticfiles/xe/Regulatorv/Regulatory%20PDFs/CO -RES -Pian -2014 -Vol -l .pdf
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 8
According to CEC's proposal, the proposed solar garden agreement has a payback period between 8 and
9 years . As described below in the section titled, "Additional Risks with Partnering with CEC", this
payback period has the potential to be met at a later date, yet, it is likely that the initial investment will
be paid back at some point prior to the 20-year contract end date. Once that occurs, the City will receive
annual savings and income from bill credits and REC payments until the contract expires . If the system
lasts longer than the 20 -year contract period the City could continue to realize savings and receive
income until the system expires or the solar garden incentives are no longer available. It should be
noted that the amount of savings realized both before and after the payback period has been met is
difficult to predict.
CEC's Jefferson County Solar Garden is Commercially Operational
As of July 2014, CEC's Jefferson County Solar Garden went live and the City of Lakewood is one of its first
subscribers. By joining CEC's solar garden, the City of Wheat Ridge can receive the benefits of solar
energy sooner rather than later.
Additional Opportunities for Partnering with SunShare
No Upfront Cost
Under SunShare 's "pay as you go " model, the City would not have to consider financing or incur the
additional costs or effort associated with financing.
Potential to Save Money in the First Year
According to SunShare's proposal, the proposed solar garden agreement will yield a net savings of
approximately $6,985 in the first year and savings will increase year after year . As described below in
the section titled, "Additional Risks with Partnering with SunShare", the first year savings and
subsequent savings have the potential to be less than the projected value . Yet, it may be likely that the
City could save money annually through the duration of the 20-year contract period . This money will be
available immediately for City use . It should be noted that the savings amount is difficult to predict.
The City Only Pays for the Electricity Generated by the System
It is very likely that the production output of any solar system will vary. Under SunShare's proposed
model, the City will only pay SunShare for the electricity generated by the solar system. Any electricity
needs not met by the solar system will be met by Xcel Energy and the City will pay Xcel Energy
accordingly .
Risks with Partnering with CEC or SunShare
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 9
The following analyses are based on data and information obtained from CEC and SunShare. Applied
escalation rates are used to represent variable changes over a 20-year period; it is not expected that any
rate will consistently increase or decrease year-to-year. All assumptions used in the calculations are
documented in this report and final data tables can be found in the attachments.
It should be noted that "savings" are hypothetical in nature and are represented by the amount the City
would see as bill credits on the final bill from Xcel Energy . In other words, bill credits are what the City
would have spent on electricity in the absence of electricity generated by the solar garden. At no time
will bill credits be provided as a cash payment.
In the event that the premise location's electricity needs are not met by the solar garden, the City will be
responsible for paying Xcel Energy for electricity accordingly. The risk scenarios do not include potential
payments to Xcel Energy. Scenarios illustrating potential payments to Xcel Energy are included in the
section titled, "Potential Electricity Costs to Xcel Energy".
The City may choose to discuss the analyses with each solar garden developer for soundness and
alignment with their data and assumptions.
Moderate Risk: The City Could Lose Excess Bill Credits at the End of the Contract Term
If bill credits exceed the utility bill amount they will roll over to the next billing cycle; however, excess
bill credits acquired at the end of the contract period will be not be issued as a payment to the City. As
the City approaches the end of its contract period, the City should take advantage of excess bill credits
to the degree possible. If a site receives a significant excess of bill credits, the City may consider
transferring the solar garden program to a different premise location owned by the City.
High Risk: Variability and Uncertainty Exists with Key Factors Used to Calculate Financial
Performance
Because the proposed solar garden models have only been recently available through the adoption of
the 2010 Colorado Community Solar Gardens Ace, there are few projects with a longstanding legacy
from which to learn. According to CEC, CEC has completed the interconnection of seven solar gardens in
Xcel Energy's Colorado territory8, including:
• Jefferson County, two arrays totaling 686 kW July 2014;
7 House Billl0-1342:
http://ssl.csg.org/dockets/2012cycle/2012volume/2012volumeoriginalbills/0332a03cocommunitvsolargarden.pdf
8 Both CEC and SunShare have worked on and continue to develop solar gardens outside of Xcel Energy's territory. It is assumed
that both CEC and SunShare are continually pursuing the development of all solar gardens for which they have rece ived award
through Xcel Energy's Solar* Rewards Community Program . Other solar garden developers : EcoPiexus , Inc ., Solar Power
Financial , Community Energy Solar, LLC, are developing and/or have completed at least six additional solar gardens in Saguache ,
Mesa , Logan , Boulder, Conejos, and Jefferson Counties .
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 10
• Boulder County, 500 kW April
2013;
• City of Aurora (Arapahoe County),
500 kW July 2013;
• Denver County, 500 kW and 400
kW August 2013; and
• Summit County, two 500 kW
arrays August 2013 .
Since the program started, SunShare
has not completed the
interconnection of a solar garden
2010-2014: From pilot phoJe to ••tobllsh•d program
XC<IEM!IYsul>mib Pubic UtlltioJ CA:600MW Pilot
Community Solor Comm-odo,Jb 12 oddillonal .... ty Procr-m IPP~
Pfotlnm to PUC rules rNted to So&lr Community So&.r
tlvCJU&hfts Glrdtns Pf~m• approved MN : XC<I £n<'IY
Renewable EnerrY (CCRnH~ or under development ueates Its second
S.lndlrd Complance compi<tlnl2 yur In COlorado Community Sol.r
Pion pubic p<O<til Garden Procram
June 2010 1 2011 12012 1 2013 1 201'
Co6orado State Xcel [Mf&Y aeates XL<I£nern t6 stat6 developlnc
tqts&.ture pesse-s Sobt 'Rew•rds implements not 9 Community~'
Soler Gardens Act Community Procrarn MW of Community .... .,., ..
(H8 1CH3-42) Solor Proje<1s
XC<IIroplornents lint
9 ..rw ol Communfty ..
Figure 6. Timeline of Colorado's Community Solar Gardens (image courtesy of
Xcel Energy)
within Xcel Energy 's territory. However, according to SunShare 's website
(http://mysunshare.com/colorado-solar-gardens) SunShare is currently working on the development of
four solar gardens in Adams , Arapahoe , Denver, and Jefferson Counties .9
With the exception of the system size and CEC 's net purchase price/SunShare's SSA price , all figures in
the proposed solar garden agreements are estimates . Because no historic bill credit data exists , it is not
poss i ble to apply knowledge from previous projects to assess the accuracy of the proposed solar garden
estimates. In addition, the variability in data adds to the difficultly in accurately projecting the long -term
potential for savings and performance. As presented in this report, a critical review of the data and
assumptions will help identify significant issues and improve confidence in the data .
In addition , Xcel Energy will not have a contract with the City for either solar garden arrangement . This
means that any support provided by Xcel, such as bill credits, can be changed or can be eliminated
altogether. Although Xcel Energy is incentivized to support solar garden arrangements and , through
regulation by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Xcel Energy must acquire the RECs from solar
gardens, the potential for support over the long-term horizon is unknown . However, significant changes
to bill credit rate calculations (i.e ., a change in the calculation methodology itself) or eliminating them all
together requires a lengthy process i ncluding a petition to the PUC and a revision of the Colorado Code
of Regulations .
High Risk: Fluctuations in Bill Credits will Not Impact CEC's Net Purchase Price or
SunShare's SSA price
Under either model , the payments to CEC or SunShare are fixed . Any changes in savings from bill credits
and/or income from REC payments will not result in a change in payment to CEC or SunShare .
9 Based on a conversation with Su nSh are, Su nSha re is requ ired to have the Jefferson County Solar Garde n co m me rci ally
ope rationa l by May 26, 2015, and they hope to have it com pleted by January of 2015 .
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 11
High Risk: Projected Payback Period May Represent a Best-Case Scenario
Much of the financial performance of the solar garden arrangements is based upon proposed bill credits
and projected electricity rates . CEC has proposed the system will pay for itself within 8 to 9 years
(excluding financing costs). This projection is largely based on the assumption that bill credit values will
track the increase of utility rates, which CEC assumes to be 4.8% annually. In reality, utility rates do not
escalate at a constant rate. Overestimating a rate over a period of time can result in an overestimation
of generated savings. Utility rates and bill credit values will vary and may not always track utility rate
changes.
Likewise, SunShare's proposal assumes two scenarios: one in which bill credit rates increase at a rate of
2.9% annually and a second scenario in which bill credit rates increase at a rate of 5% annually . There is
no guarantee that bill credits will increase or that the bill credits will increase at a constant rate
annually . If the bill credit rates increase at a rate lower than the projected value the cumulative savings
will be impacted .
As described below in the following sections, it is likely that the projected payback periods presented by
CEC and SunShare presents a best-case scenario and the cumulative savings and payback periods could
be significantly influenced by a variety of factors.
Additional Risks with Partnering with CEC
In the following sections, quantified risk summaries include a comparison of projected payback period
and cumulative savings, where cumulative savings represents the amount of savings after the initial
investment has been paid off. Additional costs associated with financing are not included in the analysis
below. A discussion of potential impacts from financing is presented in the sections titled "Other
Considerations" and "Differences between CEC's and SunShare's Approach".
The analyses below were based on information provided by CEC. The following assumptions and
variable were used in all equations:
• Sites selected by CEC include Secondary General (SG), Commercial (C), and Residential (R) rate
classes as shown in the document provided by CEC titled "Copy of Wheat Ridge Analysis-AT edit
v3".
• Small discrepancies in values may be attributed to rounding and significant digits.
• An initial bill credit rate of $0 .20065 is based on information submitted in CEC's proposal.
V ecy Low Risk: The City could Pay Xcel Energy for Electricity even when the Solar Garden
is Generating Electricity
Under CEC's proposal, the City would own a share in a solar garden that would be producing renewable
energy and this energy would be put into the grid . In the very unlikely event that bill credits drastically
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 12
The table below presents a hypothetical scenario in which the production output represents 80% of the
projected production output annually at two utility escalation rates : 4.8% and 3%. {Note: At 80% of the
projected production [120% of actual usage], the production will cover approximately 96% of the site's
electricity consumption .) The utility escalation rate of 4.8%10 was used by CEC in their data analyses and
the utility escalation rate of 3% is applied as a contrast to represent a more conservative assumption,
see the section titled "High Risk : Annual utility escalation rates may vary and annual bill credits may
vary". For detailed information refer to Attachment B.
Total
Escalation Projected Cumulative
Rate Payback Period Savings
4.8% 10/11 ye a rs S1,120,4 51
3.0% 10/11 years $822,91 3
Figure 8. Summary of impact from reduced annual production for CEC's array at two escalation rates
It is likely that production could vary annually; however, it is also likely that annual variances in
production should balance out over 20 years . The systems are designed to provide up to 120% of
current electric usage at each premise location and the excess should be able to account for any
deficiencies in performance that could occur. If performance is not met, the warranty will address
efficiency issues.
Recommendation:
• Review CEC's process for predicting production output.
• Verify that production output projections match electricity consumption values based on actual
utility bills at each premise location .
High Risk: Annual Utilin' Escalation Rates May Vary and Annual Bill Credits May Vary
CEC's proposal assumes that electric utility rates will steadily increase at 4.8% each year and that bill
credits will consistently increase at the same rate. Assuming this to be true, then any increase or
decrease in utility rates will result in the same degree of change for the bill credits . And , the portion of
the electricity cost that is offset will remain the same . Under this same assumption, if utility escalation
rates are less than the proposed 4.8% each year, then the savings realized as bill credits will also be less,
resulting in a lower cumulative savings and a longer payback period.
Although it is not possible to accurately predict future electric rates , for Colorado projects within Xcel
Energy's territory the general industry recommendation for a utility escalation rate is between 3% and
10 This esc alation rate is in cont ract to the esca lation rate of 5% proposed by SunShare .
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 14
3.5%. In response to the Clean Air Clean Jobs Act 11, Xcel Energy will be replacing several coal-fired power
plants with natural gas-fired power plants. This transition is expected to have an average annual rate
impact of 2% over the next 10 years 12 ; however, the likelihood of a high -sustained increase is low.
(Likewise, the likelihood of a low-sustained increase is also low.)
Xcel Energy estimates that bill credits are approximately equal to 75% to 80% of the customer's
aggregate retail rate . However, through spot checks of various bill credit calculators, it appears that bill
credits may be closer to 65% to 70% of the customer's aggregate retail rate for Secondary General Rates
and may be even lower for Residential and Commercial Rates.
Each rate class is assigned a specific bill credit calculation methodology. Residential and Commercial
Rates are assigned fixed bill credit rates and Secondary General Rates are assigned bill credits through a
manual bill credit rate calculation . In 2014, the fixed credit for Residential Rates is $0 .07441 and fixed
credit for Commercial Rates is $0 .07369 13 . Bill credits for Secondary General Rates are calculated using
the following formula:
Bill credits= A-[(B +C) *A], where:
A= Total aggregate variable retail rate (TAVRR)
B =Transmission and distribution cost component% (T&D)
C = Transmission cost adjustment component% (TCA)
The TAVRR is determined using actual demand charges and applicable riders from the City's previous
electric bill and two Solar*Rewards Community program cost components. The Solar* Rewards
Community program cost components that contribute to the TAVRR include a rate specific base energy
rate with general rate schedule adjustment (GRSA) and an electric commodity adjustment (ECA). In
addition, T&D and TCA are also defined as Solar* Rewards Community program cost components .
It is likely that electric rates and cost components will vary due to changes in Xcel Energy's energy costs,
the cost to transport and distribute energy, and investments in transmission. As these costs change
annually, Xcel Energy will petition the PUC to revise electric rates and cost components accordingly . All
11 For more information, vis it:
http://www.xcelenergy.com/Environment/Doing Our Part/Clean Air Projects/Colorado Clean Air -Clean Jobs Plan
12 For more info r mation , visit :
http ://www .xcelenergy .com/Environment/Doing Our Part/Clean Air Projects/Colorado Clean Air -Clean Jobs Plan
13 CEC states that the rate structure for the premise location at 4610 Robb St is an R class ; however, they present a bill cred it
rate of $0 .07369 , which co rrelates with the bill credit rate for the C class rathe r the R bill cr edit rate of $0 .07441. The i mpact of
th is discrepancy is assumed to be mini ma l and this analysis uses the bill credit rate provided by CEC.
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 15
change requests must be approved by the PUC, which ensures that proposed changes are in the best
interest to the ratepayers .
Cost Component Effective 2012 Effective 2013 Effective 2014
Base Energy Rate $0.00539 $0.00545 $0.00554
ECA $0.03318 $0.03142 $0.03297
T&D 22.99% 23.51% 22.87%
TCA 0.03% 0.80% 1.03%
Figure 9. Solar* Rewards Community Program cost components for SG rate
Because of the limited scope of data it is not possible to determine what trends future bill credits will
follow. Based on conversations with energy experts it is likely that bill credits will track utility rates in the
short-term . It is also likely in the short-term that electric rates will increase due to the costly transition
from coal -fired power plants to natural gas -fired power plants and other known operational costs.
Although very unlikely, it is also within Xcel Energy's right to petition the PUC to revise the calculation
methodology and, if this were to occur, it could result in a decrease of bill credit values . However,
revising the calculation methodology would require a substantial, lengthy petition process to the PUC,
which would include input from various stakeholders, and it would also require a change to the
Colorado Code of Regulations. There is significant debate within the solar garden community as to the
likelihood and feas ibility of a substantial change to the calculation methodology. Yet, we do know that in
the near-term, Xcel Energy is incentivized to offer attractive bill credits so that organizations will
subscribe to the Solar * Rewards Community program and sell REC payments to Xcel Energy.
Considering that the PUC is an advocate for the ratepayers, Xcel Energy is incentivized to purchase REC
payments, and the short-term energy horizon is fairly predictable, it is likely that the bill credits will track
increases in electric rates in the short-term. However, the long-term horizon is less predictable and it is
possible (though very unlikely) that bill credit values could decrease, which would impact the potential
payback period and projected cumulative savings.
A comparison of the impacts of various utility escalation rates at i ncreases of 1%, 3% and 4.8% on CEC's
project pro forma is presented below. This comparison assumes that the REC payment remains steady
at $0.02 per kWh for the life of the contract. For detailed information refer to Attachment C.
Total
Escalation Projected Cumulative
Rate Payback Period Savings
4.8% 8/ 9 yea rs $1,5 94 ,7 20
3.0% 8/9 yea rs $1,2 22 ,7 98
1.0% 9/10 years $894 ,170
Figure 10. Impact from three varying escalation rates on CEC 's array
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 16
It is likely that fluctuations in utility rate increases will occur and it is likely that these fluctuations will be
fairly moderate over a long period of time. Reducing the proposed escalation rate to a more
conservative value does not significantly impact the projected payback period and, if the utility rate is
greater than predicted, the City may receive additional, unexpected savings .
Recommendation :
• Verify bill credit rates with Xcel Energy and CEC prior to signing contract .
• Assume a conservative utility escalation rate for planning purposes.
• Develop a mechanism to track received savings from bill credit and income REC payments.
In addition, a worst -case scenario in which bill credit values decrease every year at 1%, 3%, and 5% for
CEC's project pro forma is presented below. Note: If bill credits decrease and utility rates increase , the
City will be responsible for paying additional money to Xcel Energy for electricity use . This additional
cost is not included in the analysis below. For detailed information refer to Attachment D.
Total
Escalation Projected Cumulative
Rate Payback Period Savings
-1.0% 10/1 1 years $635,318
-3.0 % 11/12years S430,649
-5 .0 % 12/13 vears S268,082
Figure 11 . Impact from three decreasing escalation rates for CEC's array
Recommendation :
• Understand the boundaries of this scenario; however, the likelihood of a decreasing escalation
rate is very low and, based on the methodology as structured today, this also means that retai l
rates would decrease .
• Discuss the like lihood of future bill credit rates with your Xcel Energy representative, the PUC,
and your solar garden developers .
Additional Risks with Partnering with SunShare
In the following sections, a quantified risk summary presents an illustration of potential cumulative
savings, where cumulative savings is the difference between projected bill credits and payments to
SunShare . In cases where the cumulative savings are negative, the payment to SunShare exceeds the
savings seen as bill credits . For more information on this scenario please see the section, titled
"Differences between CEC's and SunShare's Approach".
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposa ls Page 17
SunShare was unable to provide detailed data. The analyses below were re-created based on data
included in the proposal and assumptions provided by SunShare. The following assumptions and
variable were used in all equations:
• Sites selected by SunShare include Secondary General (SG}, Commercial (C), and Residential (R)
Rates as shown in the document provided by SunShare titled "Wheat Ridge Building List 2014
August 14".
• Small discrepancies in values may be attributed to rounding and significant digits.
• An initial bill credit rate of $0 .133 applies based on information submitted in SunShare's "Wheat
Ridge Building List 2014 August 14". According to conversations with SunShare, this document is
intended to supersede information in SunShare's proposal.
Very Low Risk: The City could Pay Higher Rates to Sun Share than to Xcel Energy
SunShare has established that the SSA price will be $0.12 per kWh and the SSA price will escalate by
2.9% each year. In the event that utility rates escalate at a rate much less than 2.9%, the City could be
paying a higher escalation rate to SunShare; however, the lower SSA rate should keep the payment to
SunShare less than Xcel Energy's blended retail rate .
Low Risk: SunShare could Experience a Learning Curve with the Operational of New Solar
Gardens in Xcel Energy's Territory
To date, SunShare has not completed the interconnection of a solar garden within Xcel Energy's
territory. SunShare could go through a learning curve as they operate and maintain their first system in
Xcel Energy's territory. However, according to SunShare's website (http://mysunshare.com/colorado-
solar-gardens }, SunShare has two fully constructed and operational solar gardens in Colorado Springs:
Venetucci Farms and Good Shephard.
High Risk: Annual Utility Escalation Rates May Vary and Bill Credit Rates May Vary
SunShare assumes that bill credit rates track changes in utility rates and that utility rates will increase by
either 2.9% of by 5%14 each year. Under this assumption, if utility escalation rates increase at a rate less
than the proposed 2.9% or 5% each year, then the savings realized as bill credits will also be less,
resulting in a lower cumulative savings.
A comparison of the impacts of various utility escalation rates at increases of 1%, 3%, and 5% on the
project pro forma is presented below.
14 This escalation rate is in contract to the escalation rate of 4.8% proposed by CEC.
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 18
Total
Escalation Cumulative
Rate Savings
5.0 % $627,147
3.0% $200,715
1.0% ($133,828)
Figure 12. Impact from three escalation rates for SunShare's array
It is likely that fluctuations in utility rate increases will occur and it is likely that these fluctuations will be
fairly moderate over a long period of time. Reducing the proposed escalation rate to a more
conservative value reduces risks to the City and if the utility rate is greater than predicted, the City may
receive additional, unexpected savings.
Recommendation:
• Verify bill credit rates with Xcel Energy and SunShare prior to signing contract.
• Assume a conservative utility escalation rate for planning purposes.
• Develop a mechanism to track savings from bill credits.
In addition, a worst-case scenario in which bill credit values decrease every year at 1%, 3%, and 5% is
presented below . Note : If bill credits decrease and utility rates increase, the City will be responsible for
paying additional money to Xcel Energy for electricity use.
Total
Escalation Cumulative
Rate Savings
-1.0% ($397,076)
-3.0% ($604,999)
-5 .0 % ($769,964)
Figure 13. Impact from three decreasing escalation rates for SunS hare's array
For detailed information refer to Attachment C.
Recommendation :
• Understand the boundaries of this scenario; however, the likelihood of a decreasing escalation
rate is very low and, based on the methodology as structured today, this also means that retail
rates would decrease.
• Discuss the likelihood of future bill credit rates with your Xcel Energy representative, the PUC,
and your solar garden developers .
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 19
agreement (PPA) (similar to the proposed solar garden agreement) was not significantly different than
the price of a solar system through any other arrangement.
Other solar garden prices include:
• CEC's Boulder County solar garden is offering commercial customers rates that vary from $3.7
per W to $3.8 per W after incentives are applied .17
• CEC's solar garden in the territory of Holy Cross Energy installed cost was $6 per Wand panels
were sold to owners at $3.15/W.18
• United Power's rural cooperative solar farm Phase II had an installed cost of $5.50 per W.19
Although it is not possible to determine exact solar photovoltaic panel prices due to significant
variability and constant fluctuations, this research indicates that the proposed solar garden gross price is
more than the state of Colorado median solar photovoltaic cost as of 2012, but the net price is
consistent with recent solar garden net prices across the state of Colorado .
Comparison of Current Electricity Costs against SunShare's SSA Price
SunShare has presented a SSA price of $0.12 per kWh that will escalate by 2.9% each year. Requests
were made to SunShare to receive data on the City's current blended electric rate for the chosen sites,
but only partial data was received in the document titled "Wheat Ridge Building List 2014 August 14".
(Note : A blended rate of electricity is the total cost of the energy [including demand and riders] divided
by the electricity consumed as kWh.) The buildings that did not have an electricity rate listed are on the
Commercial Rate . Based upon industry experience, typical electricity rates for Commercial Rate
customers range from $0.11 per kWh to $0.12 per kWh. Assuming that the buildings listed with no rate
assigned have an electric rate equal to $0.115 per kWh then the average electricity rate for all sites is
approximately $0.17 per kWh . Therefore, the SSA price is lower than the City's current blended
electricity rate.
If the City would like a more detail comparison of their current electricity costs against the proposed SSA
price, the City can request the utility information from SunShare and have an energy expert perform a
comprehensive utility bill analysis .
Declining Cost of Solar Installations
17 http://www .denverpost .com/ ci_ 22648912/ constructio n-u nde rwa y-bou Ide r -community-solar-garden
18 www .newrules .org From Holy Cross page 5, community solar power document page 5
19 "A Guide to Community Solar : Utility, Private, and Non-profit Project Development". National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
2010 . http:/ /www.nrel.gov/docs/fyllosti/50919 .pdf
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 21
As solar prices continue to decline, it is possible that utility incentives may adjust accordingly, but it is
also possible that access to solar energy will improve and new models for acquiring renewable energy
will develop, such as Xcel Energy's Solar*Connect program 22
•
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
If the City Chooses to Finance CEC's Solar Garden, Additional Costs Will be
Incurred
If the City wishes to finance the net purchase price of CEC's system than the City will incur additional
costs that will lengthen the payback period and reduce the cumulative savings. CEC's proposal presents
two hypothetical loan scenarios: (1) Zero down, 15-year lease purchase at 4%; and (2) Zero down, 10-
year lease purchase at 5.5%. Rates are based on CEC's recent financing experience. CEC's estimates that
the 10-year, 5.5% loan will increase the payback period by 1-2 years and will result in a total cumulative
savings of $1 ,364,548 and the 15 -year, 4% loan will increase the payback period by 6-7 years and will
result in a total cumulative savings of $1,340,752 .
Based on conversations with Larry Dorr, Finance Director for the City of Lakewood, the City of Lakewood
received an attractive rate for a 10-year term. In addition to financing costs, the City also incurred costs
from their legal advisors and incurred staff time to arrange and develop the financing request -for-
proposal (RFP) and financing process. However, the City of Wheat Ridge may be able to reduce staff
time by using the City of Lakewood financing RFP.
According to conversations with Alpine Bank, the financing arrangement for a community solar garden
will be slightly different than for traditional financing arrangements. The Jefferson County Solar Garden
is a tax equity array23 , which prevents CEC from selling the panels until the panels have been
commercially operational for five years . At year six, CEC can then sell the panels. The purchase price of
the panels at year 6 is typically very low, but cannot be less than $1. Under a financing arrangement, the
lending agency would "own" the electricity generated by the solar system, but not the panels
themselves, and the City would pay the lending agency for the electricity generated . It should be noted
that the financing structure of the tax equity arrangement prohibits the City from being eligible for a tax-
exempt lease purchase agreement. After year five, the lending agency can buy the panels from CEC, and
22 For more information, visit :
http ://www.xcelenergy .com/About Us/Energy News/News Releases/Xcel Energy proposes new solar program for custom
ers in Colorado .
23 Large solar garden arrays may be constructed through a 1603 grant program or a tax equity program . Each approach has
different financing implications for the end user . For more information, see: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fv12osti/53720.pdf.
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 23
once the financing term has ended, the City can then purchase the panels from the lending agency, at
the same low-rate that they were purchased from CEC.
Improving Energy Efficiency will Reduce Energy Consumption
A common idiom in the energy industry is "eat your efficiency vegetables before your renewable energy
dessert." Improving energy efficiency at the selected premise locations will reduce energy consumption
and lead to a reduced solar system size and less cost. If the electricity consumption at any of the chosen
sites decreases, then the production output from the solar garden can be transferred to a different
premise location. The City may want to consider pursuing efficiency as way to maximize the City's
investment.
Efficiency of Panels Is Estimated
Based on information provided in January 2014, CEC estimates that their panels will produce 1,684 kWh
of electricity for every 1 kW. SunShare estimates that their panels will produce 1,900 kWh of electricity
for every 1 kW. The production output cannot be guaranteed. In addition, CEC assumes that panel
production will degrade at variable rates hovering near 0.7% each year and SunShare assumes that
panel production will degrade at approximately 0.5% each year.
Under CEC's Proposal Equipment Could Need to Be Upgraded
The warranty for the modules is limited to 12 years and the warranties on the inverter and installation
workmanship are limited to 10 years . If these systems need to be upgraded, the City will be responsible
for payment. However, routine O&M practices should ensure that these systems are kept in good
working order.
SunShare's Lender has a Security Interest in the Solar Garden
Sections 24 and 25 ofthe SunShare's current contract describe the lender's security interest in the solar
garden . In the unlikely event that SunShare were to go out of business or default with the lender then
the lender would assume responsibility of the solar garden agreement with the City. The lender has the
right to revise the agreement without the City's consent. Based on conversations with SunShare, the
lender will most likely sell the arrangement to another solar company. However unlikely, solar
companies have defaulted in the past. The City of Wheat Ridge should clearly understand the
implications on the solar garden agreement if SunShare were to default.
Solar Garden Production Will Not Reduce Electricity Demand
The solar production output from a solar garden is measured at the solar garden and the solar energy is
directly tied into the grid . Unlike other solar energy models, solar energy production will not meet the
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 24
demand load of the premise location 24
. Models in which the solar energy is directly tied into the facility,
such as with a power purchase agreement (PPA), the demand load may be met and the facility may see
more savings as a result of having a lower demand.
There are Other Approaches to Acquiring Solar Energy
There are several existing models and emerging models that offer municipalities the opportunity to
acquire solar energy. Two of the more popular models include a PPA and energy performance
contracting (EPC).
Under a PPA, a land-owner leases adjacent property or roof space, typically at no charge or at a very low
price, to a private solar company for the installation of solar photovoltaic panels. The land -owner
purchases electricity generated from the solar photovoltaic panels from the private solar company at a
rate equal to or less than the current rate offered by the land owner's utility company. The land or
rooftop space used to host a PPA must be contiguous to where the energy will be used, and as a result,
most PPA systems will be smaller than systems offered through a solar garden. A solar photovoltaic PPA
is a way to receive electricity from a renewable source at a reasonable cost without the responsibility of
managing or owning the system .
EPC is a financing mechanism used to pay for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements all
at once and is then paid back through annual energy savings. Many EPC projects include renewable
energy systems in addition to energy efficiency upgrades . The Colorado Energy Office provides technical
assistance to public agencies, helping them navigate the process and ensuring that the service providers
maintain the highest levels of quality.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CEC'S AND SUNSHARE'S APPROACH
CEC and SunShare have developed different solar garden offerings based on their different business
models. The following table presents key attributes of each business model based on information
obtained from each solar garden developer. Note: The intent of this report is not to offer a
recommendation of one business model over the other. It is recommended that the City request
clarification from each solar garden developer on projected performance metrics, if necessary.
24 Demand is define d as kW , whereas usage or consumption is defined as kWh .
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 25
I Approach ICEC ISunShare
SIZE
f 228.42 kW 308 kW
PREMISE LOCATIONS
I Serves I 3 locations I Ser\'CS 25 l oc:~tio n s
PAYMENT
I One time, upfront pa )'ment; may require financing I Monthly J>2rment based on k\'ilh genern ted by sys tem
CURRENT ELECTRICITY COSTS
Assumes blended rate of $0.30 per kWh J Assumes blended rnte of SO . I 7 (nlitlloltd)_
SAVINGS
I Bill credits and REC p:t)'fTlents I Bill credi ts
BILL CREDIT RATES
I Assumes initial bill credit rate of $0.20065 per kWh :A sumcs initial bill credit of $0.133 per kWh I REC of $0.02 per kWh (for 20 -rear contract)
AVAILABILITY OF DATA
Transparent, able to reproduce f Partially transparent, most of the data was re-created
OPPORTUNITIES
I. Potential to achieve Ci ty goals I. Potential to achic,•e City goals
2. PotcntialtOJ>a rtn cr \\~th CO pioneer 2. Potential to partner with CO pioneer
3. Established 0&1\1 procedures 3. Esmblishcd O&M procedures
4. Parti cipate in a pr~ressive model 4. Participate in a progressh•e model
5. Solar garden hosted on County land 5. So lar garden hosted on Counry land
6. Solar can be tran sferred 6. Solar can be transferred
7. City will be supported if CEC goes out of busines s 7. City \\~II be supported if SunSharc goes out of bu sine ss
8. Potential to receive savings after system has been paid 8. No upfront cost
9. Jefferson Cou nty solar garden is commcrciallr 9. Potential to sa\'c monel' in the first yea r
operational 10. City o nl r pays for electricity genera ted by system
RISKS
I. Variability and uncertainitv with key factors I. Variability and uncertainity with key factors
2. Bill credits arc independent of CEC's net purchase price 2. Bill credits arc independent of SunShare's SSt\ price
3. Ciry coulcl losc excess bill credits at end of contract 3. Ciry could lose excess bill credits at end of comract
4. Projected pa yback period mal' be best case scenario 4. Projected parback period rna)' be best case scenario
5. City could par Xed e\·en when system is producing 5. Cit)' could par higher electric rate s to SunShare than to
Xcel Ene rgy
6. O&M cost s could increase 6. SunShare could experience learning cun• c
7. Annual production ma y \'an• 7. Annual utilitr scalation rate and bill cr dit mar \':If)" 8. Annual utility escalation ra tes and bill credits may van·
TOTAL COST
Toral cost is 776,628 In itial SSA of SO. I 2 per k\X 'h ba sed on solar production,
escala ted at 2.9% per rear
CUMULATIVE SAVINGS
Best-case scenario is S I ,594,720 Best-case sce nario is $627,147
A "moderate" scenario is $1,016,769 A "moderate" scenario is ($10,165)
\'i orst-case scenario is 5268,082 Worst-case scenario is ($769,964)
Figure 18. Comparison between key attributes of CEC's and SunShare's proposals
Analysis of Risk for CEC's and SunShare's Proposals
The most realistic pro forma is a hybrid of the risk scenarios described above. Annual production output,
utility rates, and bill credit values will not follow a consistent annual increase or decrease. It is most
likely that these variables will vary each year and that the rate of change of variability will also vary each
year . Based on conversations with energy experts, research on historical trends, and predictions on
future energy rates the following trends are assumed to be the most likely to occur :
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 26
• Annual production will vary; however, long-term production output over 20 years should match
the projected performance. Note: Each system is designed to provide up to 120% of current
electric usage, which should make up for any shortfalls in productions.
• Annual utility rates may increase at a higher rate in the short-term, but may level out over the
long-term . A conservative estimate of 3% annual increase should account for variances over 20
years.
• Financing a system with CEC will extend the payback period and impact cumulative savings.
Additionally, variability in bill credit rates is expected to occur. And, this variability may not be
represented by a consistent increase over a 20-year timeframe . The following assumption attempts to
account for an unpredictable variability over 20 years . In the event that this approach is too
conservative, the City will end up saving more money.
• Annual bill credits may vary. Based on information regarding Xcel Energy's rates, the role of REC
payments, and participation from the PUC , it is expected that the bill credit values will track
changes in utility rates in the short-term and may be more likely to increase at a slower rate in
the long-term . De -coupling bill credit rates from utility rates would require a change in the bill
credit calculation methodology; and if this were to happen , it is assumed that this change would
not take effect until years from now. The variability of bill credit rates is illustrated by an
example of a "moderate" scenario, in which bill credit rates increase by 3% year 1 through year
7, followed by a bill credit increase of 1% from year 8 through year 14, and a final bill credit
decrease of 1% year 15 through year 20 .
Three scenarios are compared against one another to determine the possible extent of risk associated
with the CEC's and SunShare's proposals . These scenarios include a "best-case" scenario, a "moderate"
scenario and a "worst-case" scenario, and are intended to provide a range of savings opportunities.
Saving Scenarios for CEC's Array
Projected Payback Total Cumulative
Scenario Period Savings Net Present Value
Be~t-ca~e ~cenario: 4.8% bill credit c ~calation 8/ 9 year~ 51,594.720 57 59,77 1
l\lodernte ~cenario: \'::uying b1ll credit e~calation 8/ 9 years 51,016 ,7 69 5438 ,298
\X 'o~t -case scenario: -5% bill cre dit e~calation 12 /13 years 5268,082 519,662
Figure 19. Comparison of projected values from a "moderate" scenario against a best-case scenario and a worst-case
scenario for CEC's array
A discount rate of 4% was used to calculate net present value {NPV). The data provided by CEC was
given on an annual basis; therefore, the NPV calculations were done on an annual basis as well (i.e .
assumes that all savings are received on Day 365) instead of on a monthly timetable (i.e. given on the
last day of the month). In reality, the City will be receiving and providing their payments monthly; and
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 27
Estimated Xcel Energy
Estimated Xcel Energy Cost after Bill Credits Total Net
Scenario Cost Without Solar and RECs are Applied Cost
Best-case scenario: 4.8% bill credi t escalation $3,337,648 $966,300 $1,742,928
Modera te scenario: Varyi ng bill credit esca lation $2,781,572 $988,175 $1,764,803
Figure 25. Potential net electricity costs for a best-case scenario and a "moderate" scenario for CEC's array
In addition, if the "moderate" scenario were to be financed, a 15-year loan would yield a total net cost
of $2,018 ,765 and a 10-year loan would yield a net cost of $1,994,975 compared to a cost without solar
of $2 ,781,572 .
Under SunShare 's proposed model there are various components affecting final electricity costs . These
components include: current electricity rates from Xcel Energy, bill credits , and SunShare 's SSA rates .
Based on partial data provided by SunShare it is assumed that the City 's blended electricity rates for the
chosen sites is $0 .17 per kWh . SunShare calculated an initial bill credit rate of $0 .133 per kWh and the
initial SSA rate is $0 .12 per kWh .
An example scenar io is presented to compare the net cost of pursuing the solar garden with SunShare
against the net cost of cont i nu i ng to purchase electricity from Xcel Energy over the course of the next 20
years . Two example scenarios are presented that represent a consistent increase in Xcel Energy's
electric rates .
1) Best-case scenario : Xcel Energy's costs increase at 5% annually, bill credits increase at 5%, and
solar production is equal to 100% of the electricity consumed at the premise locations .
2) "Moderate" scenario : Xcel Energy's costs increase at 3% annually; bill credits increase by 3%
from 1 through year 7, followed by a bill credit increase of 1% from year 8 through year 14, and
a final bill credit decrease of 1% in year 15 through year 20; and solar production is equal to
100% of the electr icity consumed at the premise locations .
Estimated Xcel Estimated Xcel Energy
Energy Cost Cost after Bill Credits Total Net
Scenario Without Solar are Applied Cost
Best-case scenario: 5% bi ll credit escalation 52,948,965 5641,833 52,321,818
:Moderate sce nario: Varying bill credit escalation 52,403,902 $734,082 52,414,066
Figure 26. Potential net electricity costs for a best-case scenario and a moderate scenario for SunShare's array
For detailed information refer to Attachment E.
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 31
CONCLUSION
The opportunity to participate in a solar garden can yield financial benefit if the right energy conditions
are met. However, several factors influence the financial performance of the proposed solar garden .
When considering the decision to participate in the solar garden agreement the role of non -financial
benefits may help the City determine the acceptable level of risk and acceptable payback period.
INSIGHT FROM INDUSTRY
Insight from energy experts considered for this report was provided by: Clean Energy Collective, LLC;
SunShare, LLC; Lynne Westerfield, Executive Director of Cloud City Conservation Center; Craig Konz,
Associate Product Portfolio Manager at Xcel Energy; Kevin Cray, Rewards Marketing Assistance at Xcel
Energy; Matt Teeters, Executive Vice President of Alpine Bank; Larry Dorr, Finance Director for the City
of Lakewood; John Nangle, Senior Engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; and Bill
Dalton, Professional Engineer at the Public Utilities Commission. Peer review was completed by Hillary
Dobos, Principal and Founder of Merrill Group, LLC.
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 32
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Reviewed Proposal and Contract Documents with Responses
• CEC response to reviewed solar garden proposal, titled "CEC response to proposal_6 23
14_Lotus comments"
• Reviewed "PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Boulder Cowdery Meadows Solar Array OM Trust
Agreement"
• Reviewed "PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Boulder Cowdery Meadows Solar Array OM Trust
Services Agreement"
• Reviewed "EXAMPLE ONLY JeffCo Public Schools IPEA sample_Lotus comments" [Proprietary]
• Reviewed "SunShare proposai_5.29.14_Lotus comments"
• SunShare's response "City of Wheat Ridge Questions 08 .14.14"
• Reviewed "SunShare Xcel Gov't SSA 12Aug2014 _Lotus comments"
Attachment B: Summary of variability in annual production output data for CEC
Attachment C: Summary of variability in utility escalation rate data and summary of
variability in bill credit rate data
Attachment D: Summary of "moderate" scenario and financing scenarios
Attachment E: Comparison of net electricity costs data
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals Page 33
Attachment A: Reviewed Proposal and Contract Documents with Responses
See attached documents. Note : Contract documents and supporting O&M documents are confidential.
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
Attachment B: Summary of variability in annual production output data
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator 4.80% Panels 972
Bill Credit Rate $0.20065 Watts 228,420
Class of Service SG/C/R Net Purchase Price $776,628
REC Rate $0 .02 Cumulative Savings $1,120,451
100% 80% Credit Est. Bill Est. REC Cumulative
Year kWh kWh Rate Credits Payments Est. Total Savings Savings
1 . -.371,702 297,362 $0.20065 $59,666 $5,947 $65,613 ($711,015)
2 >;' 369,159 295,327 $0.21028 $62,102 $5,907 $68,008 ($643,007)
3 366,617 293,294 $0.22037 $64,634 $5,866 $70,500 ($572,507)
4 364,074 291,259 $0.23095 $67,267 $5,825 $73 ,092 ($499,414)
5 361,531 289 ,225 $0.24204 $70,004 $5 ,784 $75,788 ($423,626)
6 358,988 287,190 $0.25366 $72 ,848 $5,744 $78,591 ($345,035)
7 356,445 285 ,156 $0.26583 $75,804 $5,703 $81 ,507 ($263,528)
8 353,902 283,122 $0.27859 $78,875 $5,662 $84,538 ($178,990)
9 ··. 351,360 281 ,088 $0.29196 $82,068 $5 ,622 $87 ,689 ($91,301)
10 348,817 279 ,054 $0.30598 $85,384 $5,581 $90,965 ($336)
11 346,274 277 ,019 $0.32067 $88,830 $5 ,540 $94,371 $94 ,035
12 343,731 274 ,985 $0.33606 $92,411 $5 ,500 $97,910 $191,946
13 341,188 272 ,950 $0 .35219 $96,130 $5,459 $101 ,589 $293,534
14 338,645 270,916 $0.36909 $99,993 $5,418 $105,412 $398,946
15 336,103 268,882 $0.38681 $104,006 $5,378 $109,384 $508,330
16 333,560 266 ,848 $0.40538 $108,174 $5 ,337 $113,511 $621,841
17 331,017 264 ,814 $0.42483 $112,502 $5,296 $117,798 $739,639
18 328,474 262 ,779 $0.44523 $116,996 $5 ,256 $122,252 $861,891
19 325,931 260 ,745 $0 .46660 $121,663 $5 ,215 $126,878 $988,768
20 323,388 258,710 $0 .48899 $126,508 $5 ,174 $131 ,682 $1 ,120,451
Yrs 1·20 6,950,906 5,560,725 $1,785,864 $111,214 $1,897,079 $1,120,451
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator 4.80% Panels 972
Bill Credit Rate $0.20065 Watts 228,420
Class of Service SG/C/R Net Purchase Price $776,628
REC Rate $0.02 Cumulative Savings $1,594,720
Projected Output Credit Est. Bill Est. REC Cumulative
Year (kWh) Rate Credits Payments Est. Total Savings Savings
1 371,702 $0.20065 $74,582 $7,434 $82,016 ($694,612)
2 369,159 $0.21028 $77,627 $7,383 $85,010 ($609,602)
3 366,617 $0.22037 $80,793 $7,332 $88,125 ($521,476)
4 364,074 $0.23095 $84,084 $7,281 $91,365 ($430,111)
5 361,531 $0.24204 $87,504 $7,231 $94,735 ($335,376)
6 358,988 $0.25366 $91,060 $7,180 $98,239 ($237,136)
7 356,445 $0.26583 $94,754 $7,129 $101,883 ($135,253)
8 353,902 $0.27859 $98,594 $7,078 $105,672 ($29,581)
9 351,360 $0.29196 $102,584 $7,027 $109,612 $80,031
10 348,817 $0.30598 $106,730 $6,976 $113,707 $193,738
11 346,274 $0.32067 $111,038 $6,925 $117,964 $311,701
12 343,731 $0.33606 $115,513 $6,875 $122,388 $434,089
13 341,188 $0 .35219 $120,162 $6,824 $126,986 $561,075
14 338,645 $0.36909 $124,992 $6,773 $131,764 $692,839
15 336,103 $0.38681 $130,008 $6,722 $136,730 $829,569
16 333,560 $0.40538 $135,217 $6,671 $141,889 $971,458
17 331,017 $0.42483 $140,627 $6,620 $147,248 $1,118,706
18 328,474 $0.44523 $146,245 $6,569 $152,815 $1,271,520
19 325,931 $0.46660 $152,079 $6,519 $158,597 $1,430,118
20 323,388 $0.48899 $158,135 $6,468 $164,603 $1,594,720
Yrs 1-20 6,950,906 $2,232,330 $139,018 $2,371,348 $1,594,720
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator 3.00% Panels 972
Bill Credit Rate $0.20065 Watts 228,420
Class of Service SG/C/R Net Purchase Price $776,628
REC Rate $0.02 Cumulative Savings $1,222,798
Projected
Output Credit Est. Bill Est. REC Cumulative
Year (kWh) Rate Credits Payments Est. Total Savings Savings
1 371,702 $0.20065 $74,582 $7,434 $82,016 ($694,612)
2 369,159 $0.20667 $76,294 $7,383 $83,677 ($610,935)
3 366,617 $0.21287 $78,042 $7,332 $85,374 ($525,561)
4 364,074 $0.21926 $79,825 $7,281 $87,107 ($438,454)
5 361,531 $0.22583 $81,646 $7,231 $88,876 ($349,578)
6 358,988 $0.23261 $83,504 $7,180 $90,683 ($258,894)
7 356,445 $0.23959 $85,399 $7,129 $92,528 ($166,366)
8 353,902 $0.24677 $87,334 $7,078 $94,412 ($71,954)
9 351,360 $0.25418 $89,308 $7,027 $96,335 $24,381
10 348,817 $0.26180 $91,321 $6,976 $98,298 $122,678
11 346,274 $0.26966 $93,375 $6,925 $100,301 $222,979
12 343,731 $0.27775 $95,470 $6,875 $102,345 $325,324
13 341,188 $0.28608 $97,607 $6,824 $104,430 $429,754
14 338,645 $0.29466 $99,786 $6,773 $106,558 $536,313
15 336,103 $0.30350 $102,008 $6,722 $108,730 $645,042
16 333,560 $0.31261 $104,273 $6,671 $110,944 $755,986
17 331,017 $0.32198 $106,582 $6,620 $113,203 $869,189
18 328,474 $0.33164 $108,936 $6,569 $115,506 $984,695
19 325,931 $0.34159 $111,336 $6,519 $117,854 $1,102,549
20 323,388 $0.35184 $113,781 $6,468 $120,249 $1,222,798
Yrs 1-20 6,950,906 $1,860,408 $139,018 $1,999,426 $1,222,798
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator 1.00% Panels 972
Bill Credit Rate $0.20065 Watts 228.420
Class of Service SG/C/R Net Purchase Price $776,628
REC Rate $0.02 Cumulative Savings $894,170
Projected
Output Credit Est. Bill Est. REC Cumulative
Year (kWh) Rate Credits Payments Est. Total Savings Savings
1 371,702 $0.20065 $74,582 $7,434 $82,016 {$694,612)
2 369,159 $0.20266 $74,812 $7,383 $82,196 ($612,416)
3 366,617 $0.20468 $75,040 $7,332 $82,373 ($530,044)
4 364,074 $0.20673 $75,265 $7,281 $82,546 ($447,497)
5 361,531 $0.20880 $75.487 $7,231 $82,717 {$364,780)
6 358,988 $0.21089 $75,705 $7,180 $82,885 ($281,895)
7 356,445 $0.21299 $75 ,921 $7,129 $83,050 ($198,845)
8 353,902 $0.21512 $76,133 $7,078 $83 ,211 ($115 ,635)
9 351,360 $0.21728 $76,342 $7,027 $83 ,369 ($32 ,266)
10 348,817 $0.21945 $76,547 $6,976 $83 ,524 $51,258
11 346,274 $0.22 1 64 $76,749 $6,925 $83,674 $134,932
12 343,731 $0.22386 $76,947 $6,875 $83 ,822 $218,754
13 341,188 $0.22610 $77 ,142 $6,824 $83 ,965 $302 ,720
14 338,645 $0 .22836 $77 ,332 $6,773 $84 ,105 $386,825
15 336,103 $0 .23064 $77 ,519 $6,722 $84,242 $471 ,067
16 333,560 $0 .23295 $77,702 $6,671 $84,373 $555,440
17 331,017 $0.23528 $77 ,881 $6,620 $84,501 $639,941
18 328,474 $0 .23763 $78,056 $6,569 $84,625 $724,566
19 325 ,931 $0.24001 $78,226 $6,519 $84,744 $809,311
20 323,388 $0.24241 $78,392 $6,468 $84,859 $894,170
Yrs 1-20 6,950,906 $1,531,780 $139,018 $1,670,798 $894,170
An a lysis of Solar Garden Proposa ls
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator -1.00% Panels 972
Bill Credit Rate $0.20065 Watts 228,420
Class of Service SG/C/R Net Purchase Price $776,628
REC Rate $0.02 Cumulative Savings $635,318
Projected
Output Credit Est. Bill Est. REC
Year (kWh) Rate Credits Payments Est. Totai·Savings Cumulative Savings
1 371,702 $0.20065 $74,582 $7,434 $82,016 ($694,612)
2 369,159 $0.19864 $73,331 $7,383 $80,714 ($613,898)
3 366,617 $0.19666 $72,098 $7,332 $79,430 ($534,468)
4 364,074 $0.19469 $70,882 $7,281 $78,163 ($456,304)
5 361,531 $0.19274 $69,683 $7,231 $76,913 ($379,391)
6 358,988 $0.19082 $68,501 $7,180 $75,680 ($303,710)
7 356,445 $0.18891 $67,335 $7,129 $74,464 ($229,246)
8 353,902 $0.18702 $66,186 $7,078 $73,264 ($155,982)
9 351,360 $0.18515 $65,054 $7,027 $72,081 ($83,901)
10 348,817 $0.18330 $63,937 $6,976 $70,914 ($12,987)
11 346,274 $0.18146 $62,836 $6,925 $69,762 $56,775
12 343,731 $0.17965 $61,751 $6,875 $68,626 $125,400
13 341,188 $0.17785 $60,681 $6,824 $67,505 $192,905
14 338,645 $0.17607 $59,627 $6,773 $66,400 $259,305
15 336,103 $0.17431 $58,587 $6,722 $65,309 $324,615
16 333,560 $0.17257 $57,563 $6,671 $64,234 $388,848
17 331,017 $0.17085 $56,553 $6,620 $63,173 $452,021
18 328,474 $0.16914 $55,557 $6,569 $62,126 $514,148
19 325,931 $0.16745 $54,576 $6,519 $61,094 $575,242
20 323,388 $0.16577 $53,608 $6,468 $60,076 $635,318
Yrs 1-20 6,950,906 $1,272,928 $139,018 $1,411,946 $635,318
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator -3 .00% Panels 972
Bill Credit Rate $0.20065 Watts 228,420
Class of Service SG/C/R Net Purchase Price $776,628
REC Rate $0.02 Cumulative Savings $430,649
Projected
Output Credit Est. Bill Est. REC
Year (kWh) Rate Credits Payments Est. Total Savings Cumulative Savings
1 371,702 $0.20065 $74,582 $7,434 $82,016 ($694,612)
2 369,159 $0.19463 $71,850 $7,383 $79,233 ($615,379)
3 366,617 $0.18879 $69,214 $7,332 $76,547 ($538,833)
4 364,074 $0.18313 $66,672 $7,281 $73,954 ($464,879)
5 361,531 $0.17763 $64,220 $7,231 $71,451 ($393,428)
6 358,988 $0.17230 $61,855 $7,180 $69,035 ($324,393)
7 356,445 $0.16714 $59,575 $7,129 $66,704 ($257,689)
8 353 ,902 $0.16212 $57,375 $7,078 $64,453 ($193,236)
9 351,360 $0.15726 $55,254 $7,027 $62,281 ($130,955)
10 348,817 $0.15254 $53 ,209 $6,976 $60,185 ($70,770)
11 346,274 $0.14796 $51,236 $6,925 $58,162 ($12,608)
12 343 ,731 $0.14353 $49,334 $6,875 $56,209 $43,601
13 341,188 $0.13922 $47,500 $6,824 $54,324 $97 ,924
14 338,645 $0.13504 $45,732 $6,773 $52,504 $150,429
15 336,103 $0.13099 $44 ,027 $6,722 $50,749 $201,178
16 333,560 $0.12706 $42,383 $6,671 $49,054 $250,231
17 331,017 $0.12325 $40,798 $6,620 $47,418 $297,650
18 328,474 $0.11955 $39,270 $6,569 $45,839 $343,489
19 325,931 $0.11597 $37,797 $6,519 $44,316 $387,805
20 323,388 $0.11249 $36,377 $6,468 $42,845 $430,649
Yrs 1-20 6,950,906 $1,068,259 $139,018 $1,207,277 $430,649
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator -5.00% Panels 972
Bill Credit Rate $0.20065 Watts 228,420
Class of Service SG/C/R Net Purchase Price $776,628
REC Rate $0.02 Cumulative Savings $268,082
Projected
Output Credit Est. Bill Est. REC
Year (kWh) Rate Credits Payments Est. Total Savings Cumulative Savings
1 371,702 $0.20065 $74,582 $7,434 $82,016 ($694,612)
2 369,159 $0.19062 $70,368 $7,383 $77,751 ($616,861}
3 366,617 $0.18109 $66,389 $7,332 $73,722 ($543,139}
4 364,074 $0.17203 $62,632 $7,281 $69,914 ($473,225)
5 361,531 $0.16343 $59,085 $7,231 $66,316 ($406,909)
6 358,988 $0.15526 $55,736 $7,180 $62,916 ($343,993)
7 356,445 $0.14750 $52,574 $7,129 $59,703 ($284,290}
8 353,902 $0.14012 $49,589 $7,078 $56,667 ($227,623}
9 351,360 $0.13312 $46,771 $7,027 $53,799 ($173,824)
10 348,817 $0.12646 $44,111 $6,976 $51,088 ($122,736}
11 346,274 $0.12014 $41,600 $6,925 $48,526 ($74,211)
12 343,731 $0.11413 $39,230 $6,875 $46,105 ($28,106)
13 341,188 $0.10842 $36,993 $6,824 $43,816 $15,710
14 338,645 $0.10300 $34,881 $6,773 $41,654 $57,364
15 336,103 $0.09785 $32,888 $6,722 $39,610 $96,975
16 333,560 $0.09296 $31,008 $6,671 $37,679 $134,653
17 331,017 $0.08831 $29,233 $6,620 $35,853 $170,506
18 328,474 $0.08390 $27,558 $6,569 $34,127 $204,633
19 325,931 $0.07970 $25,977 $6,519 $32,496 $237,129
20 323,388 $0.07572 $24,486 $6,468 $30,953 $268,082
Yrs 1-20 6,950,906 $905,692 $139,018 $1,044,710 $268,082
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
SunShare
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator 5.00%
Bill Credit Rate $0 .13300 Watts 308,000
Class of Service SG/C/R Initial SSA price ($/kWh) $0.12
REC Rate $0.00 Cumulative Savings $627,147
Projected
Output Credit Est. Bill SunShare SunShare PPA Cumulative
Year (kWh) Rate Credits SSA Price Payments Est. Total Savings Savinss
1 554,400 $0 .13300 $73 ,735 $0.120 $66,528 $7,207 $7,207
2 551,628 $0 .13965 $77,035 $0.123 $68,115 $8,920 $16,127
3 548,870 $0 .14663 $80,482 $0.127 $69 ,740 $10,742 $26,869
4 546,126 $0 .15396 $84,084 $0.131 $71,404 $12,680 $39,549
5 543,395 $0 .16166 $87 ,847 $0.135 $73,107 $14,740 $54 ,289
6 540,678 $0 .16975 $91,778 $0.138 $74,851 $16,927 $71,216
7 537,975 $0 .17823 $95,885 $0.142 $76,636 $19,248 $90,464
8 535 ,285 $0 .18714 $100,176 $0 .147 $78,465 $21 ,711 $112 ,175
9 532 ,608 $0 .19650 $104,658 $0 .151 $80,336 $24 ,322 $136,497
10 529,945 $0 .20633 $109,342 $0.155 $82,253 $27 ,089 $163,586
11 527 ,296 $0 .21664 $114,235 $0.160 $84 ,215 $30,020 $193 ,606
12 524 ,659 $0 .22748 $119,347 $0.164 $86 ,224 $33 ,123 $226,729
13 522 ,036 $0 .23885 $124 ,688 $0.169 $88 ,281 $36,407 $263 ,136
14 519,426 $0 .25079 $130,267 $0.174 $90,387 $39 ,881 $303 ,017
15 516,829 $0 .26333 $136,097 $0.179 $92 ,543 $43,554 $346,571
16 514 ,244 $0.27650 $142 ,187 $0.184 $94,750 $47,437 $394,008
17 511 ,673 $0.29032 $148,550 $0.190 $97 ,011 $51 ,539 $445 ,547
18 509,115 $0 .30484 $155,198 $0.195 $99 ,325 $55 ,873 $501,420
19 506,569 $0.32008 $162 ,143 $0.201 $101,694 $60,449 $561,868
20 504,036 $0.33608 $169,399 $0.207 $104,120 $65,278 $627,147
Yrs1-20 10,576,792 $2,307,131 $1,679,984 $627,147 $627,147
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator 3.00%
Bill Credit Rate $0 .13300 Watts 308,000
Class of Service SG/C/R Initial SSA price ($/kWh) $0 .12
REC Rate $0.00 Cumulative Savings $200,715
Projected
Output Credit Est. Bill SUnShare SUnShare PPA Cumulative
Year (kWh} Rate Credits SSA Price Payments Est. Total Savings Savings
1 554,400 $0.13300 $73,735 $0.120 $66,528 $7,207 $7,207
2 551 ,628 $0.13699 $75,568 $0.123 $68,115 $7,452 $14,660
3 548,870 $0.14110 $77,445 $0.127 $69,740 $7,705 $22 ,365
4 546,126 $0 .14533 $79,370 $0 .131 $71,404 $7,966 $30,331
5 543 ,395 $0 .14969 $81,342 $0.135 $73 ,107 $8,235 $38 ,567
6 540,678 $0.15418 $83,364 $0 .138 $74,851 $8,513 $47 ,080
7 537,975 $0.15881 $85,435 $0 .142 $76,636 $8,799 $55,878
8 535 ,285 $0 .16357 $87,558 $0 .147 $78,465 $9,094 $64 ,972
9 532 ,608 $0 .16848 $89,734 $0 .151 $80,336 $9,398 $74 ,370
10 529,945 $0 .17353 $91,964 $0 .155 $82 ,253 $9,711 $84,081
11 527 ,296 $0.17874 $94,249 $0.160 $84 ,215 $10,034 $94 ,115
12 524,659 $0.18410 $96,591 $0 .164 $86,224 $10,367 $104,483
13 522 ,036 $0.18963 $98,992 $0.169 $88,281 $10,711 $115,194
14 519,426 $0.19531 $101,452 $0.174 $90,387 $11,065 $126,259
15 516,829 $0 .20117 $103,973 $0 .179 $92,543 $11,430 $137,688
16 514 ,244 $0 .20721 $106,556 $0 .184 $94,750 $11,806 $149,494
17 511,673 $0.21343 $109,204 $0 .190 $97,011 $12 ,194 $161,688
18 509,115 $0.21983 $111,918 $0 .195 $99,325 $12,593 $174,281
19 506,569 $0.22642 $114,699 $0.201 $101 ,694 $13,005 $187,286
20 504 ,036 $0 .23322 $117,549 $0.207 $104,120 $13,429 $200,715
Yrs 1-20 10,576,792 $1,880,700 $1,679,984 $200,715 $200,715
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator 1.00%
Bill Credit Rate $0.13300 Watts 308,000
Class of Service SG/C/R Initial SSA price ($/kWh) $0.12
REC Rate $0.00 Cumulative Savings ($133,828)
Projected Credit Est. Bill SunShare SunShare PPA Cumulative
Year Output (kWh) Rate Credits SSA Price Payments Est. Total Savings Savings
1 554,400 $0 .13300 $73,735 $0.120 $66,528 $7,207 $7,207
2 551,628 $0 .13433 $74,100 $0.123 $68,115 $5,985 $13,192
3 548,870 $0.13567 $74,467 $0.127 $69,740 $4,727 $17,919
4 546,126 $0.13703 $74,836 $0.131 $71,404 $3,432 $21,351
5 543,395 $0 .13840 $75,206 $0.135 $73,107 $2,099 $23,451
6 540,678 $0.13978 $75,578 $0.138 $74,851 $727 $24,178
7 537,975 $0 .14118 $75,952 $0.142 $76,636 ($684) $23,494
8 535,285 $0.14259 $76,328 $0.147 $78,465 ($2,136) $21,358
9 532,608 $0.14402 $76,706 $0.151 $80,336 ($3,630) $17,728
10 529 ,945 $0 .14546 $77,086 $0.155 $82,253 ($5,167) $12 ,561
11 527 ,296 $0 .14691 $77,467 $0.160 $84,215 ($6,747) $5 ,813
12 524 ,659 $0.1 4838 $77,851 $0.164 $86,224 ($8,373) ($2 ,560)
13 522 ,036 $0.14987 $78,236 $0 .169 $88,281 ($10,044) ($12,604)
14 519,426 $0.15137 $78,624 $0.174 $90,387 ($11,763) ($24,367)
15 516,829 $0 .15288 $79,013 $0.179 $92,543 ($13,530) ($37,897)
16 514,244 $0 .15441 $79,404 $0 .184 $94 ,750 ($15,347) ($53,244)
17 511 ,673 $0.15595 $79,797 $0 .190 $97,011 ($17,214) ($70,458)
18 509,115 $0 .15751 $80,192 $0.195 $99,325 ($19,133) ($89,591)
19 506,569 $0 .15909 $80,589 $0.201 $101,694 ($21,105) ($110,696)
20 504,036 $0 .16068 $80,988 $0 .207 $104,120 ($23,132) ($133,828)
Yrs 1-20 10,576,792 $1,546,156 $1,679,984 ($133,828) ($133,828)
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator -1.00%
Bill Credit Rate $0.13300 Watts 308,000
Class of Service SG/C/R Initial SSA price ($/kWh) $0.12
REC Rate $0.00 Cumulative Savings ($397,076)
Projected
Output Credit Est. Bill SUnShare SUnShare PPA Cumulative
Year (kWh) Rate Credits SSAPrlce Payments Est. Total Savings SaviJ\IS
1 554,400 $0.13300 $73,735 $0.120 $66,528 $7,207 $7,207
2 551,628 $0.13167 $72,633 $0.123 $68,115 $4,518 $11,725
3 548,870 $0.13035 $71,547 $0.127 $69,740 $1,807 $13,532
4 546,126 $0.12905 $70,477 $0.131 $71,404 ($926) $12,606
5 543,395 $0.12776 $69,424 $0.1 35 $73,107 ($3,683) $8,923
6 540,678 $0.12648 $68,386 $0.138 $74,851 ($6,465) $2,458
7 537,975 $0.1 2522 $67,363 $0.142 $76,636 ($9,273) ($6,815)
8 535,285 $0.12396 $66,356 $0.147 $78,465 ($12,108) ($18,923)
9 532,608 $0.12273 $65,364 $0.151 $80,336 ($14,972) ($33,895)
10 529,945 $0.12150 $64,387 $0.155 $82,253 ($17,866) ($51,761)
11 527,296 $0.1 2028 $63,425 $0.160 $84,215 ($20,790) ($72 ,551)
12 524,659 $0.11908 $62,476 $0.164 $86,224 ($23,747) ($96,299)
13 522,036 $0.11789 $61,542 $0.169 $88,281 ($26,738) ($123,037)
14 519,426 $0.11671 $60,622 $0.174 $90,387 ($29,764) ($152,802)
15 516,829 $0.11554 $59,716 $0.179 $92,543 ($32,827) ($185,628)
16 514,244 $0.11439 $58,823 $0.184 $94,750 ($35,927) ($221,556)
17 511,673 $0.11324 $57,944 $0.190 $97,011 ($39,067) ($260,622)
18 509,115 $0.11211 $57,078 $0.195 $99,325 ($42,247) ($302,870)
19 506,569 $0.11099 $56,224 $0.201 $101,694 ($45,470) ($348,340)
20 504,036 $0.10988 $55,384 $0.207 $104,120 ($48,737) ($397,076)
Yrs 1·20 10,576,792 $1,282,908 $1,679,984 ($397,076) ($397 ,076)
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator -3.00%
Bill Credit Rate $0 .13300 Watts 308,000
Class of Service SG/C/R Initial SSA price ($/kWh) $0.12
REC Rate $0.00 Cumulative Savings ($604,999)
Projected
Output Credit Est. Bill SunShare SunShare PPA Cumulative
Year {kWh) Rate Credits SSA Price Payments Est. Total Savings Savings
1 554,400 $0.13300 $73 ,735 $0.120 $66,528 $7,207 $7 ,207
2 551 ,628 $0.12901 $71 ,166 $0.123 $68,115 $3,051 $10,258
3 548,870 $0.12514 $68,685 $0.127 $69,740 ($1,055) $9,203
4 546,126 $0.12139 $66,292 $0.131 $71,404 ($5 ,112) $4 ,091
5 543 ,395 $0.11774 $63,981 $0.135 $73,107 ($9 ,125) ($5 ,034)
6 540,678 $0.11421 $61,752 $0.138 $74,851 ($13 ,099) ($18,133)
7 537 ,975 $0.11079 $59,600 $0.142 $76,636 ($17,037) ($35,170)
8 535 ,285 $0 .10746 $57,523 $0.147 $78,465 ($20,942) ($56 ,112)
9 532 ,608 $0.10424 $55,518 $0.151 $80,336 ($24,818) ($80,930)
10 529 ,945 $0.10111 $53,583 $0.155 $82,253 ($28,670) ($109,600)
11 527 ,296 $0 .09808 $51 ,716 $0.160 $84,215 ($32,499) ($142 ,099)
12 524 ,659 $0 .09514 $49,913 $0.164 $86,224 ($36,310) ($178,410)
13 522 ,036 $0 .09228 $48,174 $0.169 $88,281 ($40,107) ($218,516)
14 519,426 $0 .08951 $46,495 $0.174 $90,387 ($43,892) ($262,408)
15 516,829 $0.08683 $44,875 $0.179 $92,543 ($47,668) ($310,076)
16 514 ,244 $0 .08422 $43,311 $0.184 $94 ,750 ($51,440) ($361 ,516)
17 511 ,673 $0 .08170 $41 ,802 $0.190 $97,011 ($55 ,209) ($416,725)
18 509 ,115 $0 .07924 $40,345 $0.195 $99,325 ($58 ,980) ($475 ,705)
19 506,569 $0 .07687 $38,939 $0.201 $101,694 ($62,756) ($538,461)
20 504 ,036 $0 .07456 $37,582 $0.207 $104 ,120 ($66,539) ($604,999)
Yrs 1-20 10,576,792 $1,074,985 $1,679,984 ($604,999) ($604,999)
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator -5.00%
Bill Credit Rate $0.13300 Watts 308,000
Class of Service 5G/C/R Initial SSA price ($/kWh) $0.12
REC Rate $0.00 Cumulative Savings ($769,964)
Projected
Output Credit Est. Bill Sun Share SunShare PPA Cumulative
Year (kWh) Rate Credits SSA Price Payments Est. Total Savlncs Savings
1 554,400 $0.13300 $73,735 $0.120 $66,528 $7,207 $7,207
2 551,628 $0.12635 $69,698 $0.123 $68,115 $1,583 $8,790
3 548,870 $0.12003 $65,882 $0.127 $69,740 ($3,858) $4,933
4 546,126 $0.11403 $62,275 $0.131 $71,404 ($9,128) ($4,196)
5 543,395 $0 .10833 $58,866 $0.135 $73,107 ($14,2 4 1) ($18,437)
6 540,678 $0.10291 $55,643 $0.138 $74,851 ($19,208) ($37,645)
7 537,975 $0.09777 $52,596 $0.142 $76,636 ($24,040) ($61,685)
8 535,285 $0.09288 $49,717 $0.147 $78,465 ($28,748) ($90,433)
9 532,608 $0.08823 $46,995 $0.151 $80,336 ($33,342) ($123,775)
10 529,945 $0.08382 $44,422 $0.155 $82,253 ($37,831) ($161,606)
11 527,296 $0.07963 $41,990 $0.16 $84,215 ($42,225) ($203,831)
12 524,659 $0.07565 $39,691 $0.164 $86,224 ($46,533) ($250,365)
13 522,036 $0.07187 $37,518 $0 .169 $88,281 ($50,763) ($301,128)
14 519,426 $0 .06827 $35,464 $0.174 $90,387 ($54,923) ($356,051)
15 516,829 $0.06486 $33,522 $0.179 $92,543 ($59,021) ($415,072)
16 514,244 $0.06162 $31,687 $0.184 $94,750 ($63,064) ($478,136)
17 511,673 $0.05854 $29,952 $0.190 $97,011 ($67,059) ($545,195)
18 509,115 $0.05561 $28,312 $0.195 $99,325 ($71,013) ($616,208)
19 506,569 $0.05283 $26,762 $0.201 $101,694 ($74,933) ($691,140)
20 504,036 $0.05019 $25,297 $0.207 $104,120 ($78,824) ($769,964)
Yrs 1-20 10,576,792 $910,020 $1,679,984 ($769,964) ($769,964)
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
Attachment D: Summary of "moderate" scenario and financing scenarios
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator Varies Panels 972
Bill Credit Rate $0.20065 Watts 228,420
Class of Service SG/C/R Net Purchase Price $776,628
REC Rate $0 .02 Cumulative Savings $1,016,769
Projected
Output Credit Est. Bill Est. REC
Year (kWh) Rate Credits Payments Est. Total Savings Cumulative Savings
1 371,702 $0.20065 $74,582 $7,434 $82,016 ($694,612)
2 369,159 $0.20667 $76,294 $7,383 $83,677 ($610,935)
3 366,617 $0.21287 $78,042 $7,332 $85,374 ($525,561)
4 364,074 $0.21926 $79,825 $7,281 $87,107 ($438,454)
5 361,531 $0.22583 $81,646 $7,231 $88,876 ($349,578)
6 358,988 $0.23261 $83,504 $7,180 $90,683 ($258,894)
7 356,445 $0.23959 $85,399 $7,129 $92,528 ($166,366)
8 353,902 $0.24198 $85,638 $7,078 $92,716 ($73,650)
9 351,360 $0 .24440 $85,873 $7,027 $92,900 $19,250
10 348,817 $0.24685 $86,104 $6,976 $93,081 $112,331
11 346,274 $0.24931 $86,331 $6,925 $93,257 $205,588
12 343,731 $0.25181 $86,554 $6,875 $93,429 $299,016
13 341,188 $0 .25433 $86,773 $6,824 $93,597 $392,613
14 338,645 $0.25687 $86,987 $6,773 $93,760 $486,374
15 336,103 $0.25430 $85,471 $6,722 $92,193 $578,567
16 333,560 $0.25176 $83,976 $6,671 $90,647 $669,214
17 331,017 $0.24924 $82,503 $6,620 $89,123 $758,337
18 328,474 $0.24675 $81,050 $6,569 $87,620 $845,957
19 325,931 $0.24428 $79,618 $6,519 $86,137 $932,094
20 323,388 $0.24184 $78,207 $6,468 $84,675 $1,016,769
Yrs 1-20 6,950,906 $1,654,379 $139,018 $1,793,397 $1,016,769
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
CEC-Financing scenarios
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator Varies Panels 972
Bill Credit Rate $0.20065 Watts 228,420
Class of Service SG/C/R Net Purchase Price $776,628
REC Rate $0.02 Cumulative Savings $786,597
Down Payment $0.00 Interest Rate 5.50%
Term 10years Loan Payment $1,006,800
Projected
Output Credit Est. Bill Est. REC Cumulative
Year (kWh} Rate Credits Payments Est. Total Savings Loan Payment Savings
1 371,702 $0.20065 $74,582 $7,434 $82,016 ($100,680) ($18,664)
2 369,159 $0.20667 $76,294 $7,383 $83,677 ($100,680) ($35,667)
3 366,617 $0.21287 $78,042 $7,332 $85,374 ($100,680) ($50,973)
4 364,074 $0.21926 $79,825 $7,281 $87,107 ($100,680) ($64,546)
5 361,531 $0.22583 $81,646 $7,231 $88,876 ($100,680) ($76,350)
6 358,988 $0.23261 $83,504 $7,180 $90,683 ($100,680) ($86,346)
7 356,445 $0.23959 $85,399 $7,129 $92 ,528 ($100,680) ($94,498)
8 353,902 $0.24198 $85,638 $7,078 $92,716 ($100,680) ($102,462)
9 351,360 $0.24440 $85,873 $7,027 $92,900 ($100,680) ($110,242)
10 348,817 $0.24685 $86,104 $6,976 $93,081 ($100,680) ($117,841)
11 346,274 $0.24931 $86,331 $6,925 $93,257 $0 ($24,584)
12 343,731 $0.25181 $86,554 $6,875 $93,429 $0 $68,844
13 341,188 $0.25433 $86,773 $6,824 $93,597 $0 $162,441
14 338,645 $0.25687 $86,987 $6,773 $93,760 $0 $256,202
15 336,103 $0.25430 $85,471 $6,722 $92,193 $0 $348,395
16 333,560 $0.25176 $83 ,976 $6,671 $90,647 $0 $439,042
17 331,017 $0.24924 $82,503 $6,620 $89,123 $0 $528,165
18 328,474 $0.24675 $81 ,050 $6,569 $87,620 $0 $615,785
19 325,931 $0.24428 $79,618 $6,519 $86,137 $0 $701,922
20 323,388 $0.24184 $78,207 $6,468 $84,675 $0 $786,597
Yrs 1-20 6,950,906 $1,654,379 $139,018 $1,793,397 ($1,006,800) $786,597
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator Var ies Panels 972
Bill Credit Rate $0 .20065 Watts 228,420
Class of Service SG/C/R Net Purchase Price $776,628
REC Rate $0 .02 Cumulative Savings $762,807
Down Payment $0 .00 Interest Rate 4.00%
Term 15 years Loan Payment $1,030,590
Projected
Output Credit Est. Bill Est. REC Cumulative
Year (kWh) Rate Credits Payments Est. Total Savings Loan Payment Savings
1 371 ,702 $0.20065 $74 ,582 $7,434 $82 ,016 ($68,706) $13 ,3 10
2 369,159 $0 .20667 $76 ,294 $7 ,383 $83 ,677 ($68,706) $28 ,281
3 366 ,617 $0 .21287 $78,042 $7 ,332 $85 ,374 ($68,706) $44 ,949
4 364 ,074 $0 .21926 $79,825 $7 ,281 $87,107 ($68,706) $63 ,350
5 361,531 $0 .22583 $81 ,646 $7 ,231 $88 ,876 ($68,706) $83 ,520
6 358,988 $0 .23261 $83 ,504 $7,180 $90,683 ($68,706) $105,498
7 356,445 $0.23959 $85 ,399 $7,129 $92,528 ($68,706) $129,320
8 353,902 $0.24198 $85 ,638 $7,078 $92,716 ($68,706) $153,330
9 351,360 $0.24440 $85 ,873 $7 ,027 $92 ,900 ($68,706) $177,524
10 348,817 $0.24685 $86,104 $6,976 $93,081 ($68,706) $201,899
11 346 ,274 $0 .24931 $86,331 $6,925 $93,257 ($68,706) $226,450
12 343 ,731 $0.25181 $86 ,554 $6,875 $93,429 ($68,706) $251,172
13 341 ,188 $0 .25433 $86 ,773 $6 ,824 $93 ,597 ($68,706) $276,063
14 338,645 $0 .25687 $86 ,987 $6,773 $93,760 ($68,706) $301,118
15 336,103 $0 .25430 $85,471 $6,722 $92 ,193 ($68,706) $324 ,605
16 333 ,560 $0.25176 $83 ,976 $6,671 $90,647 so $415,252
17 331 ,017 $0 .24924 $82 ,503 $6,620 $89 ,123 so $504 ,375
18 328,474 $0 .24675 $81 ,050 $6,569 $87 ,620 so $591,995
19 325 ,931 $0.24428 $79 ,618 $6,519 $86,137 $0 $678,132
20 323 ,388 $0.24184 $78,207 $6,468 $84 ,675 $0 $762,807
Yrs 1-20 6,950,906 $1,654,379 $139,018 $1,793,397 ($1,030,590) $762,807
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
SunShare
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator Varies
Bill Credit Rate $0.13300 Watts 308,000
Class of Service SG/C/R Initial SSA price ($/kWh) $0.12
REC Rate $0.00 Cumulative Savings ($10,165)
SunShare
Projected Credit Est. Bill Sun Share PPA Cumulative
Year Output (kWh) Rate Credits SSA Price Payments Est. Total Savings Savings
1 554,400 $0.13300 $73,735 $0.120 $66,528 $7,207 $7,207
2 551,628 $0.13699 $75,568 $0.123 $68,115 $7,452 $14,660
3 548,870 $0.14110 $77,445 $0.127 $69,740 $7,705 $22,365
4 546,126 $0.14533 $79,370 $0.131 $71,404 $7,966 $30,331
5 543,395 $0.14969 $81,342 $0.135 $73,107 $8,235 $38,567
6 540,678 $0.15418 $83,364 $0.138 $74,851 $8,513 $47,080
7 537,975 $0.15881 $85,435 $0.142 $76,636 $8,799 $55,878
8 535,285 $0.16040 $85,858 $0.147 $78,465 $7,393 $63,272
9 532,608 $0.16200 $86,283 $0.151 $80,336 $5,947 $69,219
10 529,945 $0 .16362 $86,710 $0 .155 $82,253 $4,457 $73,676
11 527,296 $0.16526 $87,139 $0.160 $84,215 $2,924 $76,600
12 524,659 $0.16691 $87,571 $0.164 $86,224 $1,347 $77,947
13 522,036 $0 .16858 $88,004 $0.169 $88,281 ($277) $77,671
14 519,426 $0.17026 $88,440 $0.174 $90,387 ($1,947) $75,724
15 516,829 $0.16856 $87,118 $0.179 $92,543 ($5,425) $70,299
16 514,244 $0.16688 $85,815 $0.184 $94,750 ($8,935) $61,364
17 511,673 $0 .16521 $84,532 $0.190 $97,011 ($12,478) $48,885
18 509,115 $0 .16356 $83,269 $0.195 $99,325 ($16,056) $32,829
19 506,569 $0.16192 $82,024 $0.201 $101,694 ($19,671) $13,158
20 504,036 $0 .16030 $80,797 $0.207 $104,120 ($23,323) ($10,165)
Yrs 1·20 10,576,792 $1,669,820 $1,679,984 ($10,165) ($10,165)
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
Attachment E: Comparison of net electricity costs data
CEC
ESTIMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
8111 Credit Escalator 4.80% Panels 972
Bill Credit Rate $0.20065 Watu 228,420
Class of Service SG/C/R Net Purchase Price $776,628
REC Rate $0.02 Cumulative Savin1s $1 ,594,720
Xcel Electric Rate $0.30 Xcel Electric Rate Escalator 4.80%
Estimated Xed Total Net Cost
100% Credit Est.llll Est. REC Cumulative Estlmot40d En~rgy Cost Estimat~d Xcel Cost after BiU (includes payment to
Year kWh R.te Credits Payments Est. Total Savincs Sa vines X«l Rate without Solar Credits and RECs are Appli~d CEC and Xed)
I 371 ,702 $0.20065 574,582 57,434 582,016 (5694 ,612) s 0.30000 s 11 1,5 10.60 s 29 .4')4 .55 s 80(,,122.55
2 369,159 50.21028 577 ,627 $7,383 $85,010 ($609,602) s 0.31440 s 11 6.063 .59 s 3 1,053.21 s 31,053.21
3 366,617 $0.22037 $80,793 $7,332 $88,125 ($521 ,476) s 0.32949 s 120.-97 .07 s 32.671.62 s 32.67 1.62
4 364,074 $0.23095 $84 ,084 $7,281 591 ,365 ($430,111) s 0.3453 1 s 125.7 17 .22 s 34.351.87 s 34,35 1.87
5 361,531 50.24204 $87,504 $7,231 $94,735 ($335,376) s 0.36188 s 130.831.311 s 36,0'X>.r s 3<>,096 .37
6 358,988 $0.25366 $91 ,060 57,180 $98,239 ($237,136) s o.r925 s 13(.,146 .85 s 37,907.54 s 37 ,907 .54
7 356,445 50.26583 594 ,754 $7,129 $101,883 ($135,253) s 0 .. 39-46 s 14 1,6 _1.1 _ s 39,78- .8-s 39.787 .87
8 353,902 $0.27859 $98,594 $7 ,078 $105,672 ($29.581) s 0.41653 s 14"'.4 12.14 s 41 ,739 .95 s 4 1,739.95
9 351 ,360 $0.29196 $102,584 $7,027 $109,612 $80,031 s 0.43<>53 s 153,r8.27 s 43,-66.57 s 43,766.57
10 348,817 $0.30598 $106,730 56,976 $113,707 $193,738 s 0.45-48 s 159,577.05 s 45 .8-0.26 s 45,8-0.26
11 346,274 $0.32067 $111,038 $6,925 $117,964 $311 ,701 s 0.4-944 s I M.OI -.54 s 48,053 .99 s 48.053.99
12 343,731 $0.33606 $115,513 56,875 $122 ,388 $434,089 s 0.50245 s 1-2.708.64 s 50.)20.72 s 50.320.72
13 341,188 $0.35219 $120,162 $6,824 $126,986 $561 ,075 s 0.52657 s 179,659.59 s 52 .673.5 1 s 52.673.51
14 338,645 $0.36909 $124,992 $6,773 $131,764 $692 ,839 s 0.55185 s 186,879.90 s 55.11 5.49 s 55 ,11 5.4 9
15 336,103 $0.38681 $130,008 $6,722 $136,730 $829,569 s o.s-833 s 194.380.0 1 s 57,650.12 s 57,650.12
16 333,560 $0.40538 $135,217 $6,671 $141,889 $971 ,458 s 0.60609 s 202.1(>8 .95 s 60,280.42 s 60.280.4 2
17 331,017 $0.42483 $140,627 $6,620 $147,248 $1 ,118,706 s 0.635 19 s 210,257 .7 8 s 63,010.03 s 63 .010.03
18 328,474 $0.44523 $146,245 56,569 $152,815 $1,271,520 s 0.66568 s 218.657 .34 s 65.842.54 s 65 .842.54
19 325,931 $0.46660 $152,079 56,519 $158,597 $1 ,430,118 s 0.69763 s 22-.3711 .82 s 68,78 1.67 s 68,78 1.67
20 323,388 $0.48899 $158,135 $6,468 $164,603 $1 ,594,720 s o.-31 11 s 236,433.78 s -1 .83 1.23 s 71,83 1.23
Yrs 1·20 6,950,906 SZ.Z32,330 $139,011 SU71,341 $1,594,720 s 0.7530 s 3,337,647.69 S%6.300 $1,742,928
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
ESTlMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
8111 Credit Escalator Varies Panels
8111 Credit Rate 50.20065 Watts
Oass of Service SG/C/R Net Purchase Price
REC Rate $0.02 Cumulative Savlncs
Xcel Electric Rate 50.30 Xcel Electric Rate Escalator
111m' Credit Est. 811 Est. REC
Ye..-kWh Rate er.dlts P-vments Est. Total smncs
1 371 ,702 $0 .20065 $74 ,582 $7 ,434 $82 ,016
2 369,1$9 50.20667 $76,294 $7,383 $83,677
3 366,617 50.21287 $78,042 $7,332 $85,374
4 364,074 50 .21926 $79,825 $7,281 $87,107
5 361 ,531 $0.22583 $81 ,646 $7,231 $88,876
6 358,988 $0 .23261 $83,504 $7,180 $90,683
7 356,445 50.23959 $85,399 $7,129 $92,528
8 353 ,902 50.24198 $85,638 $7,078 $92 ,716
9 351 ,360 50.24440 $85,873 $7,027 $92 ,900
10 348,817 50.24685 $86,104 $6,976 $93,081
11 346,274 50.24931 $86,331 $6 ,925 $93,257
12 343,731 50.25181 $86,554 $6,875 $93,429
13 341.188 50.25433 $86,773 $6,824 $93,597
14 338,645 $0 .25687 $86,987 $6,773 $93 ,760
15 336,103 50.25430 $85,471 $6,722 $92 ,193
16 333,560 50.25176 $83,976 $6,671 $90,647
17 331 ,017 50.24924 $82 .503 $6,620 $89,123
18 328,474 $0.24675 $81 ,050 $6,569 $87,620
19 325 ,931 $0.24428 $79,618 $6,519 $86,137
20 323 ,388 50.24184 $78,207 $6,468 $84,675
Yn1-ZO 6,950,906 $1,654,379 $139,011 $1,793,397
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
972
228 ,42 0
$776,628
$1 ,016,769 .
3.00%
Cumulative
Savtncs
($694,612)
($610,935)
($525,561)
($438,454)
($349,578)
($258,894)
($166,366)
($73.650)
$19,250
$112 ,331
$205,588
$299,016
$392,613
$486,374
$578,567
$669,214
$758,337
$845,957
$932 ,094
$1 ,016,769
$1,016,769
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.()
.()
.()
.()
.()
.()
&tim a ted
Xcel Ratr
s 0.30000
s 0.30900
s 0.31827
s 0.32782
s 0.33765
s 0.3477 8
s 0.35822
s 0.36896
s 0.38003
s 0.39143
s 0.4031 7
s 0.41527
s 0.42 77 3
s 0.44056
s 0.453 78
s 0.46739
s 0.48141
s 0.49585
s 0.51073
s 0.5 2605
$ 0.5418
E1tlmated Xed Total Net Cost
EnergyCo11 Ettimated Xed Coli alter Bill (indudea payment to
without Solar Credits and REC1 are AppUed CECandXul)
s 11 1.510.60 s 29,494 .55 s 806.122 .55
s 11 4,070.13 s 30.393 .05 s 30.393 .05
s 116,683 .18 s 31.30924 s 31,30924
s 119.350.05 s 32,243 .28 s 32.24328
s 122.07 1.90 s 33,195 .52 s 33.195 .52
s 124 ,849.64 s 34,166.28 s 34,166.28
s 127.684 .19 s 35,155.85 s 35.155 .85
s 130.576 .45 s 37,860 .33 s 37 ,860 .33
s 133.527.70 s 40,627 .31 s 40 ,627 .31
s 136.538.12 s 43,457.59 s 43.457 .59
s 139,608.99 s 46.352 .29 s 46,352 .29
s 142,741.23 s 49.3 12.42 s 49,312.42
s 145,935.75 s 52.339 .01 s 52.339 .01
s 149.193.48 s 55,433 .09 s 55.433 .09
s 152,515.78 s 60.322.54 s 60,322.54
s 155,902.68 s 65.255 .23 s 65.255 .23
s 159,355.53 s 70.232.52 s 70,232 .52
s 162.875.24 s 75.255 .60 s 75.255.60
s 166,462.71 s 80.325 .63 s 80.325.63
s 170.118.84 s 85,443 .80 s 85 ,443 .80
$ 2,781,572.21 $98 8,1 75 $1,764,803
SunShare
ESnMATED POWER PRODUCTION AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Esc alator 5.00%
Bill Credit Rate $0.13300 W atu 308,000
Oass of Service SG/C/R Initial SSA p rice ($/kWh) $0.12
REC Rate $0.00 Cu mulative Savinc• $627,147
Xcel Elect ric Rate $0.17 Xcel Electric Rate Escalat or 5.00"
Estim ated Xcel To tal Net Co11
Projected Credit Est. Bill SunShare Cumulative Eat ima t~ Energy Cost Estimated Xed Cost after (i ncludes p ayment to
Year Output (kWh) Rate Credits SSA Price SunShare PPA Pa yments Est. Total Savl~ Sa vl~ Xccl Rote wi thout Solar Bill Credits ore Applied SunShare and Xc el)
1 554 ,400 $0.13300 573,735 $0.120 $66,528 $7 ,207 $7,207 s O.i'()(lO s 94,248.00 s 20,5 i 2.80 s 87,040.80
2 551,628 $0.13965 $77,035 $0.123 $68,115 $8,920 $16,127 s 0.17850 s 98,4(>5.60 s 21,43<P5 s 89.545.77
3 548,870 $0.14663 $80,482 $0.127 $69,740 $10,742 $26,869 s 0.18"'43 s 102.8-1.96 s 22.3119 .7 8 s 92.129.7 1
4 546,126 $0.15396 $84,084 $0.131 $71 ,404 $12 ,680 $39,549 s O.i%80 s w-.475.48 s 23,391.72 s 94,795.30
5 543,395 $0.16166 $87,847 $0.135 $73,107 $14 ,740 $54,289 s 0.206(,4 s 1i2,285.0i s 24,438.'>0 s 97 ,545.4 i
6 540,678 $0.16975 $91,778 $0.138 $74,851 $16,927 $71 ,216 s 0.2169 -s 1i7,309.7(, s 25,532 .12 s 100,383.00
7 537,975 $0.17823 $95 ,885 $0.142 $76,636 $19,248 $90,464 s 0.22782 s 122.S59.r s 26,674 .69 s i03,311.13
8 535,285 $0.18714 $100,176 $0.147 $78 ,465 $21 ,711 $112,175 s 0.23921 s 128,043.91 s 27,8<>8 .38 s i06,332.98
9 532,608 $0.19650 $104,658 $0.151 $80,336 $24,322 $136,497 s 0.25 ii-s 133.--u-s 29,1 15.49 s i09,451.86
10 529,945 $0.20633 $109,342 $0.155 $82,253 $27,089 $163,586 s 0.26373 s 139.-60.25 s 30.4 18.4 i s 112.671.2 i
11 527,296 $0.21664 $114,235 $0.160 $84 ,215 $30,020 $193,606 s o.z-691 s 146,0 i4.52 s 3 i.'79.63 s 11 5,99 4.57
12 524,659 $0.22748 $119,347 $0.164 $86,224 $33,123 $226,729 s 0.29076 s i 52,548.6-s 33.201.77 s ii 9,425 .M
13 522,036 $0.23885 $124,688 $0.169 $88,281 $36,407 $263,136 s 0.30530 s 159,1-5.23 s 34,687 .55 s i22.968.3i
14 519,426 $0.25079 $130,267 $0.174 $90,387 $39,881 $303,017 s 0.32056 s 166.so-.r s 36.239.82 s 126,626.5 i
IS 516,829 $0.26333 $136,097 $0.179 $92,543 $43,554 $346,571 s 0.33659 s 1-3,958.4 7 s 37,861.55 s 130,404.4 2
16 514,244 $0.27650 $142,187 $0.184 $94,750 $47,437 $394,008 s 0.35342 s 18i.-43.11 s 39.555 .85 s 134,306.33
17 511,673 $0.29032 $148,550 $0.190 $97,011 $51 ,539 $445,547 s 0.37 i 09 s 189,8-6.11 s 4i,325.98 s 138,336.73
18 509,115 $0.30484 $155,198 $0.195 $99,325 $55,873 $501 ,420 s 0.38964 s i9ll,373.07 s 43,1 75.3 i s 142.500.26
19 506,569 $0.32008 $162,143 $0.201 $101 ,694 $60 ,449 $561 ,868 s 0.40913 s 207,250.26 s 45,107.41 s 146,801.75
20 504,036 $0.33608 $169,399 $0.207 $104 ,120 $65,278 $627,147 s 0.42')58 s 216,524 .7 1 s 47,125 .97 s 151,246.22
Yrs 1·20 10,576,792 $2,307,131 $1,679,984 $627,147 $627,147 s 0.4425 s 2,948,964.62 $641,833 $2,321 ,818
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
-
ESTlMATfD POWER PRODUcnON AND SAVINGS
Bill Credit Escalator Varies
Bill Credit Rate $0.13300 Watts 308,000
a ass of Service SG/C/R Initial SSA price ($/kWh) $0.12
REC Rate $0.00 Cumulative Savlncs ($10,165)
Xcel Electric Rate $0.17 Xcel Electric Rate Escalator 3.00%
E1timated Xed Total Net Coat I
Projected Credit Est. Bll SunSNre Cumulative Earimared Energy Cost Estimated Xed Cott after (include~ payment to
Yew Output (kWh) Rate Crtlcllts SSAPrtce SunSNre PPA Plym-Est. Total Savlnp Savlnp Xc:ci!Utc: without Solar Bill Crc:di11 arc: Applied SunShare and Xcel)
l 5$4 ,400 $0.13300 $73 ,735 $0.120 $66,528 $7,207 $7,207 s 0.17000 s 94,248.00 s 20,512.80 5 87,040.80
2 551 ,628 $0.13699 $75 ,568 $0.123 $68,115 $7,452 $14,660 s 0.17510 s 96,590.06 s 21,022.54 s 89,1 37.57
3 S48,870 $0.14110 $77,445 $0.127 $69,740 $7,705 $22,365 s 0.18035 s 98,990.35 s 21,544.96 s 91,284.89
4 $46,126 $0.14533 $79,370 $0.131 $71 ,404 $7,9 66 $30,331 s 0.18576 s 101,450.26 s 22,080.35 s 93,483.92
5 $43,395 $0.14969 $81,342 $0.135 $73.107 $8,235 $38,567 s 0.19134 s 103,971.10 s 22,629.05 s 95,735.95
6 540,678 $0.1$418 $83 ,364 $0.138 $74,851 $8,513 $47,080 s 0 .19~08 s 106,554.99 s 23,191.38 s 98.042.25
7 537,975 $0.15881 $85 ,435 $0.142 $76,636 $8,799 $55,878 s 0.20299 s 109.202.88 s 23,-67 .69 s 100,404.12
8 535,285 $0.16040 $85,858 $0.147 $78,465 $7,393 $63,272 s 0.20908 s 111,916.57 s 26,058 .47 s 104,523.07
9 532 ,608 $0.16200 $86 ,283 $0.151 580,336 $5,947 $69 ,219 s 0.21535 s 114,697.-o s 28,414 .60 s 108,750.98
10 529,945 $0.16362 $86,710 $0.155 $82,253 $4,457 $73 ,676 s 0.22181 s 11 7,547.93 s 30,837 .74 s 113,090.54
11 527 ,296 $0.16526 $87,139 $0.160 $84,215 $2 ,924 $76,600 s 0.2284-s 120.469.00 s 33,329 .59 s 117.544 .53
12 524,659 $0.16691 $87 ,571 $0.164 $86,224 $1 ,347 $77,94 7 s 0.23532 s 123,462.66 s 35,891.90 s 122.1 15.79
13 522 ,036 $0.16858 $88,004 $0.169 $88,281 ($277) $77,671 s 0.24238 s 126,530.70 s 38,526.48 s 126.807.23
14 519,426 $0.17026 $88,440 $0.174 $90,387 ($1 ,947) $75,724 s 0.24%5 s 129.674 .99 s 41,235 .14 s 131,621.84
15 516,829 $0.16856 $87,118 $0.179 $92,$43 ($5 ,425) $70,299 s 0.25714 s 132,897.4 1 s 45,779.74 s 138,322.6 1
16 514 ,244 $0.16688 $85 ,815 $0.184 $94,7$0 ($8,935) $61,364 s 0.26485 s 136,199.91 s 50,384.65 s 145,135.13
17 511 ,673 $0.16521 $84 ,532 $0.190 $97,011 ($12,478) $48,885 s 0.27280 s 139,584.48 s 55,052.16 s 152,062.9 1
18 509,115 $0.16356 $83 ,269 $0.195 $99,325 ($16,056) $32 ,829 s 0.28098 s 143,053.16 s 59,784.59 s 159,109.53
19 $06,.569 $0.16192 $82 ,024 $0.201 $101 ,694 ($19,671) $13,158 s 0.28941 s 146,608.03 s (>4,584 .33 s 166.278.67
20 504,036 $0.16030 $80,797 $0.207 $104,120 ($23,323) ($10,165) s 0.29810 s 150,251.24 s 69,453.79 s 173,574.05
Yrs 1·20 10,576,792 $1,669.120 $1,679,914 ($10,165) -. ($10,16$) s 0.3070 s 2,403,901.63 $73 4,0 82 $2,414,066
Analysis of Solar Garden Proposals
Proposed 2015 Legislative Program budget
September 2, 2014
Page 2
Program/Event/ Agency
Kite Festival
Active Transportation Advisory Team
SRC Circulator Bus
Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC)
Jeffco Schools Outdoor Lab
Jeffco Action Center Capital Campaign
Feed the Future Backpack Program
Exempla Lutheran Leaves of Hope
WR High School Farmers 5000
Arvada Food Bank
Family Tree
Jefferson County Mental Health*
General Table Sponsorships
Others
2015 Request 2014 Funding
$3,000 $3,000
$1,000 $0
$42,000 $30,000
$4,000 $4,000
$16 ,450 $10,000
$10 ,000 $10 ,000
$10 ,000 $10 ,000
$2 ,500 $2,500
TBD $2 ,500
TBD $2,500
$650 $650
TBD $0
TBD $3,000
??? ???
* The City has typically sponsored the annual fundraising event by purchasing a table for
$2 ,500
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Kite Festival Request
2. Active Transportation Advisory Team Request
3. Regional Air Quality Council Request
4. Jeffco Schools Outdoor Lab Request
lhmg
June 10, 2014
Dear, Joyce:
The Wheat Ridge Kite Flite Festival requests the following from the city of Wheat Ridge and Parks and
Recreation:
Sponsorship: We respectfully request a city sponsorship of 3,000. This will allow us to provide more
attractions, activities and advertising.
Pavilion: Anderson Park-Set up same as 2014 with waiver of rental fee.
City Assistance: We appreciated all the help we got from Keith Alcott, Joe and Devin and would hope to
receive the same level of support in 2015. The fire and police department's presence would also be
appreciated . We have been approached by the WR Police Department to combine their Child Safety
Fair, held the same day, with ours. We haven't had that conversation as yet but we are open to
combining the two.
Rain date: As you know we have reserved Saturday, April 25, 2015 for the second annual Wheat Ridge
Kite Flite Festival with Saturday, May 2 as a rain date. The committee voted to have a rain date each
year due to the amount of effort put into this event and the anticipated popularity it will have with our
residents. We realize a rain date impacts those two Saturdays for soccer and baseball and respectfully
request that any scheduled baseball games be scheduled before 11 AM when the Festival opens. We
also would like permission to open the baseball diamond to kite flying, if needed. We are going to
schedule a special time for the American Kite Association to hold a demonstration, as an attraction, on
the soccer field so the baseball diamond would only be used for overflow.
Kids Kite Crafting Class: Due to poor attendance at kids kite crafting classes held at various businesses
and the Active Adult Center, we propose a single day-of-event kite crafting class to be held at Anderson
Park in the Anderson Building. We realize Jazzercise is held from 8-9 AM on Saturdays followed by
Hardwood Hoopster classes. We propose setting up tables and chairs (rented from Celebration rental)
for an on-site class to be held from 9:30-11:30 AM on Saturday, April25. Even if the Kite Festival gets
rained or snowed out, this class would be held . We're hoping with this early request that Robin Lofton
who teaches the Hardwood Hoopsters classes can work around our request. We are also willing to pay
for a building attendant to be on site during those two hours.
The idea is for the kids to create their kite and immediately fly it for the judging on whichever Saturday
the Festival is held . We are concerned that the Pavilion will be too chilly and possibly too windy early in
the morning for little kids . Teller Street Gallery will still hold its classes in 2015. This year one was private
and the other was public.
Attachment 1
Joyce, if there is any area that needs clarification, please let me know.
Thanks for supporting the WR Kite Flite Festival. Ron and I look forward to exploring the above requests
at your convenience and are available to meet with you.
Sincerely,
2015 Budget Request
Prepared for: Patrick Goff, City Manager
Prepared by: Rachel Hultin, Wheat Ridge Active Transportation Advisory Team Officer
August 12, 2014
Dean Mr. Goff,
As you and your staff prepare the 2015 Budget, we ask that you consider $1000 to fund education and outreach
for the Wheat Ridge Active Transportation Advisory Team . We are a citizen-led organizations that collaborates
with city staff, elected leaders, partner organizations and individuals to identify, develop and implement active trans-
portation facilities by using policies, planning documents, regulations, data and community input. We engage our
community in education, awareness and encouragement around active transportation including, but not limited to:
walking, cycling and transit connections.
We hold quarterly meetings open to the general public to update them on current and proposed initiatives. We also
engage in social media and event outreach to inform the community about opportunities to support active transporta-
tion investment and to participate in healthy community activities . In 2015, we plan to implement a "Shared Road"
campaign to educate all users on the laws and the courtesies of multi-modal use . We'd also like to engage school
leaders in Walk to School and Bike to School events to encourage active transportation by our youngest and most
energetic citizens!
Supporting the WR ATATs will enable us to more effectively engage, educate and inspire individual citizens
around the benefits of walking, cycling and riding transit.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. On behalf of the ATAT officers and
our community of 300 supporters, we thank you for your consideration and for thoughtful leadership in creating a
healthy, vibrant Wheat Ridge.
Best,
Rachel Hultin, ATAT officer
wratat@gmail.com
cc: Mayor Joyce Jay, George Pond [DistIll], Adam Wylie [ATAT], Charlie Myers [ATAT], David Kueter [ATAT]
Attachment 2
citizens on the effects and solutions regarding ozone pollution. As such, we have
developed a Local Government Air Quality Toolkit that gives staff and local elected
officials information on local strategies to improve air quality .
While ozone will continue to be our top priority, we are also expanding our work to
reduce the harmful effects of motor vehicles emissions through our Clean Air Fleets
program . Motor vehicles are a prime contributor to ozone and our other air quality
problems . As part of this program we have already cleaned up nearly 2,000 diesel
vehicles and have leveraged nearly $15 million in federal and private grants to support
these efforts . Many local government fleets have benefited from this effort and we look
forward to continuing to work with your public works and fleet maintenance staff on
future projects .
A major new effort the RAQC will embark upon later this year will be a four-year program
to expand the use of clean alternative fuels (CNG, LNG, propane and electric) in
medium-and heavy-duty fleets throughout the region . This is part of the Governor's Alt
Fuels Colorado project that the RAQC is implementing in cooperation with the Colorado
Energy Office . Over the next four years $30 million will be directed to expanding the
alternative fuels infrastructure throughout the state and supporting the purchase of
alternative fueled vehicles along the Front Range . This program will augment our
current program with CEO to provide grants for electric vehicle purchases and charging
infrastructure.
Finally , the RAQC continues to receive strong support and input from local governments
for its air quality planning efforts . This year we received funding from over 20 local
jurisdictions . Local government involvement is critical to our success and we look
forward to your continued participation in our regional air quality program . Our staff can
also be a valuable resource for local governments that are considering air quality
initiatives and programs.
If you or your staff need additional information regarding our funding request, please do
not hesitate to contact me . We appreciate your support and we hope to hear from you
as your budget discussions progress .
Sincerely,
L~~
Executive Director
(