HomeMy WebLinkAboutWCA-05-02City of
R id ic
DFYFi
107 1
TO: Case File WCA-05-02
FROM: Lauren Mikulak, Planner I uW--
DATE: January 10, 2013
Case No. WCA-05-02 was created in March 2005 for the purpose of amending Section 5-45 of
the City Code and Section 26-110 which conflicted in regards to public improvements
requirements.
This issued was addressed through Case No. ZOA- I I -11 and approved by Ordinance No. 1503.
Case No. WCA-05-02 is hereby withdrawn by staff and closed.
City of
CON, & AENT ��ge
TO: Community Development Department, Planning Staff
FROM: Lauren Mikulak, planner I
DATE: January 31, 201
SUBJECT: Case No. WCA-05-02 Public Improvements
This memo serves to surnmarize the history of Case No. WCA-05-02 which relates to public
improvements. The case file was created ill March 2005 and is currently still active.
Purpose:
The case was initiated to arnend Section 5-45 of the City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Code
because the Code of Laws contains conflicting regulations related to public unprovernent
requirements:
- Section 26-110 (adopted 2001) requires public improvements without limitation in
connection with the approval of any site development
- Section 5-45 (adopted 1996) requires public improvements in connection with building
permits, but has specific limitations
History:
In 2004, revisions to Section 5-45 appear to have been discussed internally at Micro Dcv
meetings and with City Attorney Jerry Dahl. In 2005, the case file was created and the issue was
discussed at several City Council Study Sessions:
,Januat-v 31, 2005 Conflicting regulations were presented
Revised Section 5-45 was presented
Council directed staff to present alternatives in a future study session
jI/1qy 2, 2005 Three basic alternatives were presented
Staff conveyed the need for overall policy direction from Council
Council directed staffto create a map of public unproverrient conditions
Aug 15, 2005 Staff presented criteria used to exempt streets from public improvements
Staff recommended exempting entire subdivisions, not street segments
There is no indication (in minutes or memos) that Council provided any clear policy direction
during these three study sessions. There is also no indication in the case file of any continued
revisions to Section 5-45 after January 2005,
Policy Issues:
The staff mernos from the City Council Study sessions identify several basic policy questions that
still need to be answered:
- Who should pay for public improvements? (Those who benefit, the City at large, or
son combination of the two?)
- Should every street in the City have curb, gutter and sidewalk?
- Should there be a public subsidy for improvements, depending on the size or type of
development?
The memos also raise several other specific considerations:
- Should installation of curb, gutter., and sidewalk (or escrow) be required for ally new
residential structure, even on a street currently without curb and gutter?
- Should residential remodels should be exempt'?
- Should any commercial remodels be exempt? Public improvements need to be required
when a change in use warrants them, even the remodel itself is a minor project.
- Should the appeal process be connected to the building permit?
- The current escrow system is can and not worth the time to administer it,
- Construction may not be ficasible or practical with all new construction,
- Payment in lieu of construction has drawbacks.
- Chapter 10 cnipowers the City Council to create special or local improvement districts
for the construction of sidewalks, drainage, and storm sewer systems,
Public Improvements
2001 New Chapter 26 adopted
Section 26-11,0 enabled City to require public improvements in
Source: connection with the approval of any site development, without
Jan 24, 2005 Memo limitation
• Ch 26 has two ways to guarantee public improvements. subdivision
improvement agreement (SIA) and security (letter of credit) or a
development covenant (promise to pay) in the future
• Code enables City to require funds be put in escrow when requiring a
development contract
2002
Legal Opinion
Jerry Dahl's legal opinion is summarized in a August 1, 2002 nierno
(see case file)
2004
Section 5-45 revised in Micro Dev
* Received comments from Jerry Dahl
Source: Case file
• Redline copies are in case file
,January 31, 2005
----------- — ------
City Council Study Session, Item 2
• Issue was presented: Ch 26 (adopted 2001) conflicts with Section 5-45
Source:
(adopted 1996); section 5-45 establishes limitations on public
Laserfiche
improvement requirements; also there deficiencies with 5-45
City Clerk 4
• A revised Section 5-45 was presented; last revision that is in the case
CC Agendas 4
file
Jan 24
• Staff was directed "to investigate the possible exemption of curb,
gutter, and sidewalks in the City" (stated in Aug 15 Memo)
• Staff was directed "to look at alternatives and present them at as future
study session" (Apr 27 Memo)
• No typed minutes exist from this study session in laserfiche
(handwritten on p. 24, no details)
Other Considerations:
• Revision requires installation ofcurb, gutter, and sidewalk (or escrow)
for any new residential structure, even on as street currently without
curt) and gutter
• Residential remodels should be exempt
• Commercial remodels should not all be exempt; need to be able to
require public improvements when warranted for change in use even if
a commercial remodel is minor
• Should the appeal process be connected to the building permit?
May 2, 2005 City Council Study Session, Item 3
# Presented policy considerations and three alternatives
Source: * Minutes state that: "Direction was given to come back to Council with
Lasert I iche 4 a draft map identifying the various conditions of public iinprovernents
O
City erk --> through the City."
CC Agendas -->
0 Minutes do not indicate that the Council responded to any of the policy
May -2
issues or considerations
Major policy issues raised in the memo:
• Who should pay for public irnprovernents? Those who bcricfit. the
City at large,, or some combination? Exempting all construction from
public improvernent requi•enients burdens all taxpayers.
• Should every street in the City have curt), gutter and sidewalk"
• Should there be a public subsidy depending on the size or type of
development'.
Other considerations:
• The current escrow system is curnbersome and not kvorth the time to
administer it
• ConstrUCtiOJI may not be feasible or practical with all new construction
• Payment in lieu of construction has drawbacks
• Chapter 10 empowers the City Council to create special or local
improvement districts for the construction of sidewalks, drainage, and
storm sewer systems
2005 say the Aug 15 SS minutes were approved, but they (to not appear
in the file
There is no further mention of this code amendment (searched CC' documents and PC folder).
Alternatives presented: (with pros and cons)
1. Require construction or payment in lieu of construction of public
improvements
2. Escrow funds for a period of years to provide funding ot'public
improvements
3. Do not require iinproveirients
August 15, 2005
City Council Study Session, Item 5
• Staff evaluated criteria that could be used to exempt public
Source:
improvement requirements (rural, large lots, little peel traffic). two
Lasertiche
criteria:
City Clerk
- 75% of lots or parcels abutting a street block are renter than
CC Aocndas
15,000 sqft and zoned either single-family residential or ag
4,
Au, 1>
- Street must be a local street (class 7 or 8) with avcrage daily
traffic of less than 1000 vehicles day
• A map was presented showing the streets which inco the critcria and
would therefore be exempt; it is not in the case file
• Recommended exempting entire Subdivisions, not isolated street
segments
• There are no minutes from this meeting; the Minutes 1'rorn Scpt 19,
2005 say the Aug 15 SS minutes were approved, but they (to not appear
in the file
There is no further mention of this code amendment (searched CC' documents and PC folder).
City • Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
Memorandum
TO- Randy Young, City Manager
1 1 111, i 1 F 11 � Ipiil�� ��
I A 1 1 1 1
DATE:
QVIMUM312M=
These Chapter
• provisions are in conflict with a provision in Chapter 5 (Buildings and Building
Regulations). Section 5-45, adopted in 1996, enables the City to require public improvements in
connection with issuing a building permit; however, there are limitations on what can be required.
These limitations are:
1. There must be specific adverse effects created by the proposed construction to warrant the
improvements.
2. Installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks mid related road improvements may ng! be required
where:
w.. ,.y
a 7 cy
a. Less than half of the properties • both sides of the street extending 500 feet from t1i
property in question have curbs, gutters and sidewalks, or
b. The installation would be impractical, economically unfeasible or not in the best
interest of the city.
3. In no event shall installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks be required if the cost of
installation exceeds 10% of the building permit value. If in excess of 10%, or if the City
decides the improvements can be placed at a later date, an escrow (either 10% or the actual
cost if under 10%) is required to be deposited with the City.
4. If an escrow is required, a development agreement is required which remains in effect for 10
years.
5. The installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk is not required nor allowed on any street
designated as exempt in the comprehensive plan.
What Exactly are the Requirements?
The conflicting regulations create confusion for applicants and staff. The following deficiencies
the existing building section are noted: i
1. There are no streets designated as exempt in the current Comprehensive Plan.
2. Many owners argue the "economically unfeasible" issue, even if the cost is well below 10
of the value of the building permit. i
3. What are the specific adverse effects of an infill single family residential structure, or a
tenant finish in a commercial structure? The effects are minimal or difficult to quantify.
This requirement likely was written to require a nexus between the public improvements and
the impacts of the project
4. The 10% limitation rarely affects new residential or non-residential construction. Some
commercial building and site improvements (minor remodeling to accommodate another use
or paving a parking lot, for example) are minor and the installation of public improvements
may exceed the 10%. In such cases the public improvements cannot be required.
Community Development and Public Works staff members have discussed the two regulations at
length and are recommending a revision to the Chapter 5 provisions. The reasons for the
recommendation are several:
N
1) As opposed to the current provision, the regulation would apply evenly to new development;
minor permits would be exempt,
2) Deleting the 10 year time frarne to construct provides some funding to the City regardless •
when a street may be included in the capital investment program,
3) The 10% limitation, when imposed, leaves 90% • the cost of the public improvements to be
paid by the City, and the cost can be expected to escalate yearly,
4) Drainage is a problem citywide and water quality requirements make drainage an even more
crucial public improvement, and
Attached is a copy • the proposed revisions to Section 5-45. Deleted language is shown in
aVX1XVe+ET"-%'t1 and new language is shown in bold. Corresponding changes would need to be made in
Chapter 26, Article IV, Subdivision Regulations. The changes would consist of deleting the
provisions for development covenants and replacing them with legislation that enables the City to
require a payment in lieu of constructing improvements.
We are asking for direction from Council as to proceed with the changes to the regulations or not.
Some issues to consider:
1) This is a major change in policy. The changes would requi the installation of curb, gutter and
sidewalk for any new residential structure (or an escrow), even on a street currently without
curb and gutter.
2) Remodeling is a major question for staff. We need to be able to require public improvement
when warranted for changes in use in commercial areas. Some changes in use might crea I
N
0 •
3) Currently Chapter 5 allows an applicant to appeal a decision to require public improvements to
the Board of Adjustment. Should there be an appeal process in connection with building
permits? Applicants already have the ability to request a waiver of public improvements in the
subdivision process.
9
TO: Randy Young, City Managd
FROM: Tim Paranto, Director of Public Works
DATE: August 9, 2005
SUBJECT. Public Improvements Associated With Building Permit
At the January 31, 2005 City Council Study Session, Community Development Director Alan White
suggested several changes to the City Code relative to requirements for public improvements for new
construction. A copy of Mr. White's memorandum and a portion of the meeting minutes are attached.
The discussion at the Study Session included direction to Staff to investigate the possible exemption
of curb, gutter and sidewalk on some streets in the City
Staff has completed an evaluation of criteria to be used in determining the requirements of public
street improvements associated with building permits. The criteria are intended to identify residential
streets in areas that are rural in nature, having large lots and frontages and having little pedestrian
traffic. The criteria include:
75% of the lots or parcels abutting a street block are greater than 15,000 square feet and zoned
for either single farmly residential or agriculture. ( a street block is defined from intersection
I--
to intersection)
I The street must be a local street (class 7 or 8) with average daily traffic of less than 1000
vehicles per day
I am available to discuss this matter at your convenience.
a ,
Coal
.. to soft t l
7500 2f 5
Fax: 30523 us
Zor�%
UP&A eacA AQ,6U-
ck��k,
cvv� I S�, qk
-zc)^,t I
cAk'(A'-
EFLT#T#Wllgwz#n
- 11
TO: Planning Division, Public Works Staff
FROM: Jeff Bit, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: Local Street Exemptions
1 =
Local exempt streets were created in the City's Comprehensive Plan in 1987. Case No. WPA-87-2
established these exemptions, or "rural streets designations". This designation essentially eliminated
the requirement for installation (or funds in lieu) of curb, gutter and sidewalk at specific locations in
the future. A lot of discussion took place at multiple public hearings regarding the criteria and
process to be used to identify these exempt streets. The criteria ultimately used were as follows:
• Right-of-way width — Existing conditions to remain
• Traffic lanes — 2 lanes with a minimum of 12' width per lane
• Speed limit — 25 miles per hour
• Access conditions — Intersections are at grade with direct access to abutting property.
• Traffic characteristics — Access to abutting property is • drive way approaches. Occasional
parking may be allowed if there is adequate width, otherwise parking is panned.
• Planning characteristics — Same as local streets.
Attached are notes from the discussion for the criteria. Consideration was also given to traffic
counts (both pedestrian and vehicular), density in the surrounding area, 100% concurrency among
property owners, and drainage considerations. More information is available within the case file,
W A -8? -2
•
WW
2
f�l
D
Imu
4
I
Page V-20 - STREET CLASSIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS
w !
Local Exempt •' " of •
carry very
low volumes of - and normally are appropriate
w w a- neighborhoods Lo
borhoods and provide access from a
destination within the neighborhood • the higher
It is the intent of d those designated
® semi-rural o f neighborhood be maintained !-
providing w reconstruction to the street's
d condition. •
P••" DESIGN
Traffic Characteristics - Access way to abutting property by drive
approaches. Occasional parking
Planning adeq uate width, otherwise parking is panned.
local
u1 .
e : M V tai 0
G"
rv�
O: Planning t"rrmi =lon
PQ Case Nun. WP - £lit - 1 and WPA -"H 2
x�
fir► December 14, 1937, Ci Ly Counc approved an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan (Cane No. tatPA-F17-2) for a new stioet
c "Ex l oc a l st a re stioets w hi ch are
exempt from Section 5-94.1 of the Cod" of Laww that is, th(:,
Installation of curt?, gut. t or and n idpwalk shalt nt be requ
�
upon
i ssuance of a b"i ldinq pe *rmi t , hus maim ainirq the historic
character of ap area.
4 ..r.
At-the &P only nix .arc an within the City were de signtated
,P "oxempt " as indic,rRated an Exhibi L 'A' ." I was determined that.
'A ». \
once per year, at they .iidr�" al Comprehensive flan review in
January, applications for axeApt stratus would be reviewed.
At the M ar c h ?, 1 988 iseol ing, Plannin Commissi revi the
a
Public Works Department's suggested criteria for approving exempt
status. The criteria in as follows:
1. They petitioned segment: is currently designated as a
"local street" on the Comprehensive Plan for the City'.
No curia, gutter sand /or sidewalk currently exists on the
petitioned segment i. n question nor further s-Cmant of r
through local street.
. No future Capi.t:al. Improvement drainage projects are
required in the area; that is, no drainage problems c °:xi st in
the area of the - Kitione�d segment.
R.
.
g
4. Traffic counts do not exceed 200 vehicles per dal on the
petitioned segment.
. There is 100 concurrence of property owne ,_fronting
along that portion of the street.
SUGGESTED '" •'' "
RURAL DESIGNATION
TO: City Council
FROM: Alan White, Community Development Director
Tim Paranto, Public Works Director
M
The Larger Issue — Who Should Pay for Public Improvements?
It is difficult for staff to develop alternatives without the overall policy being decided. The question
that needs to be answered is: Who should pay for public improvements — those who benefit, or the
City at large? Or is there some combination of the two?
Policy Considerations
There are three basic alternatives:
2. Escrow funds for a period • years to provide funding of public improvements
3. Do not require the improvements
M• �
Alternative I raises the question of equity. Currently, someone building a new house must pay while
the rest of the block has improvements installed as part of a future City capital project. There are
practical difficulties in constructing improvements when they don't connect to any other
improvements. If the City were to embark on a program of construction by assessment of costs
through special improvement districts, equity would be maintained.
Alternative 2 is the system we are under now. The same equity issue arises in the event the City
ever uses the escrowed funds. City staff has to monitor the escrow for up to ten years. Owners are
extremely upset when they are told they won't receive any interest on the funds deposited with the
City.
Alternative 3 lets new construction off the hook. There may be sizeable impacts of a new
development, and for the City to construct the improvements is unfair to the taxpayers and, with
larger projects, unrealistic. The 500-foot measurement to exempt properties is, as far as we can tell,
arbitrary.
Recommended Action
Chief Brennan presented background, current policies and procedures, and proposed
alternatives for a Community Graffiti Response Plan The alternatives included
coordination across departments for reporting • graffiti • rights-of way, parks, and
greenbelts, prevention programs, a graffiti hot-line, and potential out-sourcing of graffiti
clean-up Discussion followed
Direction was given to proceed with the graffiti hot-line and education piece but not to
pursue out-sourcing of graffiti clean-up at this time
The meeting was recessed at 7 50 p m The meeting resumed at 8 00 p m Chi
Brennan did not return
I
Alan White, Community Development Director, and Tim Paranto, Public Works Director,
presented the staff report on this item This issue resolved around the conflicting
regulations in Chapter 5 and Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws regarding what the City
can require for the construction of public improvements
Ow
RIPMAX
rough the City
i pir ; i p
Tim Paranto, Public Works Director, presented the staff report on this item He detailed
the review and amendments to the Fleet Replacement Schedule and Service Intervals
and the recommendation of staff regarding the policy
Discussion followed and direction was given to proceed with the policy as
recommended
Item 5. Discussion of June Town Meeting
Mr Schutz and Mrs Rotola presented the draft Town Meeting Agenda and discussion
followed Assignments were given to Council members for topics
----------------
Pamela Y Anderson, City Clerk
AP BY-GMe--C�UNCUV-��ay-t6-,-2GOt)--BrA-VOTE-GF----ro
Right-of-way dedication can only be required if public improvements are required to mitigate the
impacts caused by the project.
Requiring improvements is made difficult by not having design plans for the various corridors. If we
know what we want installed where, we can require
3. Streetscape Escrows: The City currently does not have the aby to collect fees in lieu of requiri
construction of streetscape improvements. The ability to do this would need to be created through
legislation. This can be done administratively as an appendix to the Streetseape Manual, Such
escrow monies could be kept in perpetuity and ■ not need to be treated as if they were impact fees.
4. Landscape Easements: Landscape easements can only be obtained when streetscape elements
are required to be constructed or, when the legislation is in place, or escrowed.
5.
Panes Action:
B. PWAC endorsed an amendment to Chapter 26 to modify the 50% rule and the creation of
legislation to enable the collection of streetscape escrows.
C, Adopt the Wadsworth Boulevard Corridor Plan as legislation so that plan elements can be
required of any development along Wadsworth regardless of impact.
C:\Dmuments and SetfingsWah\My Documnts\WPRes\1*1EMOS\pubIic improve=nts,wpd
k
YYWIY
p
ll�
E
ca
>
tj
0
z
,4
>
I
SA
vi
mo
al
k
YYWIY
p
ll�
E
ca
>
tj
0
z
,4
>
I
SA
vi
mo
k
YYWIY
p
ll�
E
ca
>
tj
0
z
,4
>
I
SA
vi
` 1 City of Ri LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
COMMUNt7Y DEVELOPMENT
Case No. �� Date Received 3/812005.
Related Cases Case Planner
(White
Case Description
Amend Section 5.45 concerning public improvements
Name i City of Wheat Ridge Name. �—
Phone
Address City
6 State Zip
arvrrer /AAWMU&w
Name Name ���
Phone
Address I City
State Zip
Name Name
Phone r
Address I ' City ��
State . Zip .._..�
Address Street
City) St t Ezip
Location Description Citywide
I Project Name
Parcel No. Qtr Section I
j District No
R&Vk vs
Pre-App Date j , Neighborhood Meeting Date F
App No:
Review Type Review Body Review. Date Disposition
Comments
Report
lRrst Reading — in
CC Fr.-
vvjp— Izw
Case Disposition
Conditions of Approval
Disposition Date
Notes Closed due to inactivity
Status .Closed
Storage:
Res# Ord #�.
Case No.: WCA0502
Quarter Section Map No.:
App: Last Name: itywide
Related Cases:
App: First Name:
Case History:
Amend Section 5-45
concerning public
Owner: Last Name:
Improvements ...
Owner: First Name:
App Address:`"
Review Body:
City, State Zip:
App: Phone:"
APN:
Owner Address:
2nd Review Body:
JEC. 4111!05 (istj
City /State /Zip:
2nd Review Date:
Owner Phone:
Decision- making Body:
PC
Project Address:
Approval /Denial Date:
Street Name:
city/state, Zip:
ResolOrdinance No.:
Case Disposition:
Project Planner: White
File Location: dive
Notes:
Follow -Up:
Date Received: /512005
Pre-AppDate: