Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session Packet 03/01/2010 STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO City Council Chambers 7500 W. 29th Ave. March 1. 2010 6:30 p.m. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA . .L Staff/Council Report(s) ~ Legislative Forum ;L Mayor's Building Code Task Force Recommendations 4. Perko Acquisition -9160 W. 44th Ave. •• • _ • City of. ·~WheatRL..dge ~OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Memorandum TO: City Council FROM: Mayor DiTullio DATE: February 16, 20 I 0 SUBJECT: Mayor's Task Force on Adoption of2006 I-Codes At the City Council Meeting on October 26, 2009, City Council passed a motion that the Mayor's Office create a Task Force of Citizens, Contractors and Elected Officials to review the Building Code changes that are being proposed by the City's Building Department. The Task Force recommendations were to be forwarded to Council by March 1,2010. The Task Force met on January 12, 2010, and consisted of the following members: • Mayor DiTullio • Davis B. Reinhart, Council Member, District UMayor pro tern • Dean Gokey, Contractor/former Wheat Ridge Council Member • Lou Ficco, Wheat Ridge Builder/Property Owner • Ted Terranova, Owner-Aaark Heating/Former Arvada Council Member • Kelly Brooks, Fire Marshal-Wheat Ridge Fire Department • Steve Steigleder, Deputy Fire Marshal, representing Sparky Shriver, Fire Marshal-Arvada Fire District • • John Marriott, Chair-Wheat Ridge Business District/Wheat Ridge Business Owner • Steve Thomas, President, Colorado Code Consulting, LLC City Staff Representative -Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director Included in this packet, as an attachment, is a listing of the Building Code Adoption Issues, which were voted on and recommended to be presented to the City Council. /jd , . , ~' • ~ City of • '~Wheat&"dge ~OMMUNI1Y DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Memorandum Mayor and City Council Randy Young, ~ager and Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director February 19,2010 Staff report on recommendations by Mayor's Task Force on Adoption of 2006 I-Codes and associated building division policies In November of 2008, Building Division staff prepared and published recommended amendments to the 2006 version of the International Codes. The amendments proposed by staff were reviewed during an external assessment of the Division and were generally recommended for adoption as written, with some minor amendments. An ordinance containing those amendments was submitted to City Council for approval as an ordinance at public hearing on October 26,2009, at which time the ordinance was postponed indefinitely. Additionally, a motion was introduced and adopted directing the Mayor's office to appoint a Task Force to further review the 2006 Codes and associated amendments and make recommendations back to the full Council no later than March 1, 2010. Steve Thomas of Colorado Code Consultants (CCC) provided technical support to the Task Force in reviewing the 2006 Codes as well as some building division policies and made recommendations for consideration by the Task Force. The Task Force was presented those recommendations in early January and the group met on January 12,2010. The Mayor's Task Force prepared and distributed its recommendations on January 22,2010. In the PowerPoint presentation included in the study session packet, which will be presented at the March 1 session, each of the Mayor's Task Force recommendations is stated. City Council previously received the full report prepared by Mr. Thomas, which included a discussion of the pros and cons of different approaches on each issue and his recommended approach. Staff appreciates the time and thoughtfulness members of the Mayor's Task Force expended in reviewing the issues identified for their consideration. We respect the recommendations that are being forwarded for City Council consideration. Without speaking for the Task Force, we would observe that the general intent of their recommendations would be to reduce the regulatory burden imposed on property owners and contractors relative to enforcement of the City's building codes and ordinances. Following are additional staff thoughts and observations on the recommendations being forwarded by the Task Force. Staff Report on Mayor's Task Force on 2006 I-Codes February 19, 2010 Page 2 Slide #3 -Planning Permits Task Force Recommendation: Eliminate the proposed requirement for planning permits and transfer enforcement over to a complaint basis or observation by code enforcement personnel. "Planning permits", in lieu of building permits, were proposed in order to verify compliance with various requirements set forth in the Chapter 26 (zoning and development) of the Municipal Code for sheds, fences, decks, and concrete/paving. These types of projects are otherwise exempt from permit by the 2006 International Codes. Planning permits were also proposed with a low flat fee in an effort to reduce current permit costs associated with these types of projects. The long-standing policy has been to issue building permits for many of these projects based on certain thresholds, some codified, some not, with the required permits subject to standard building permit fees. The issuance of standard building permits for these types of projects often resulted in relatively high fees and was in conflict with language contained within the adopted building codes concerning work exempt from permit. Elimination of the proposed planning permits and shifting of enforcement to a complaint basis by code enforcement personnel will require that violations of regulations such as setbacks (accessory structures), site triangles (fences) and grading/drainage/landscaping (construction of parking facilities) be addressed after work has been completed. We acknowledge that the requirement to obtain a "planning permit" creates some amount of inconvenience and possibly minor cost for the property owner/contractor doing the work. However, it is important to note that the after the fact code enforcement approach also presents challenges. Corrective work to bring work into compliance can be very difficult and can cause a homeowner's project to become more expensive and complicated than it would have been, to simply apply for and receive a permit to do the work. Slide #4 -Siding Permits Task Force Recommendation: Exempt replacement of exterior siding for the purpose of maintenance from a permit when the amount of siding being replaced is less than 35 percent of the wall area for each type of material and the work does not include the relocation of electrical or gas utilities. The Task Force acknowledged that the review and inspection of exterior siding/cladding materials is an important construction issue and there is benefit to the future integrity of a structure in reviewing the installation for building code compliance. The intent of the 35% trigger point for requiring a permit was to allow a reasonable amount of repair work to take place without having the burden of obtaining a permit for that work. The practical enforcement of the 35% standard staff believes will present some enforcement challenges. The onus of determining whether the 35% trigger has been reached will initially be on the property owner /contractor doing the work. However, if an inspector witnesses work being completed in the field or we receive a complaint of work being done without permit, the burden of determining whether the 35% trigger has been reached will be placed back on the City. It may be challenging to make that determination after work has been partially or fully completed. The potential for inconsistent enforcement of the permitting and inspection requirements will exist and it is certainly a priority of the building division to be consistent among all property owners and contractors in how we enforce our codes and policies. There is also the potential for a property owner to use the 35% threshold incrementally over an undetermined period of time to do a full siding replacement exempt from permitting and 2 Staff Report on Mayor's Task Force on 2006 I-Codes February 19, 2010 Page 3 inspection. If Council is supportive of the recommendation to exempt exterior siding from permit, given some of the administrative challenges in enforcing a percentage trigger point for exempting some siding work from permits, it might be more appropriate to simply exempt all exterior siding from permitting, except for new construction. Slide #S -Window Replacements Task Force Recommendation: Amend the code to exempt window replacements from a permit as long as the size of the window does not change and the window is not an emergency escape and rescue opemng. Deletion of the requirement for window permits will prohibit the Building Division from verifying compliance with adopted energy code requirements and could affect eligibility for State and Federal program grants which typically require mlmicipal compliance with energy conservation codes. Staff also does at times receive complaints from property owners concerning improper installation resulting in poor operation and air and water infiltration. The City will no longer be able to address those installation issues for property owners as that would become a civil matter between a property owner and their contractor. Slide #6 -Toilet Facilities in Commercial Uses Task Force Recommendation: Amend the code to increase the number of occupants needed before separate sex toilet facilities are required (see new proposed chart) Staff agrees that an amendment to the facilities table contained in the codes is acceptable. The approach being proposed includes some fairly significant reductions for certain uses, such as restaurants and essentially represents a market based approach to providing restroom facilities. Slide #7 -Ice and Water Shield Task Force Recommendation: Maintain the current code requirement to require the ice-barrier and include language not requiring ice-barrier over unheated areas. Staff concurs with the recommendations of the Task Force. Slide #8 -Roof Replacement Inspections Inspections Task Force Recommendation: Revise the policy to only require a final inspection of the roof system. Data from the past seven months indicates that more than half of all inspections conducted at the mid point of roof installation (midroof inspection) are not passed based on code violations such as: improper or incomplete installation of ice and water shield; flashing deficiencies and shingle nailing deficiencies. Elimination of this inspection would in most instances make if difficult for the Building Division to verify the complete and proper installation of ice and water shield. Additionally, inspections conducted after completion of the roof installation that reveal deficiencies in the installation of flashing or shingles would likely required that part or all of the roof covering be removed to correct the deficiency. Currently, identified deficiencies in these areas are addressed during the mid roof inspection and can be repaired with removal of little or no roof covering. 3 Staff Report on Mayor's Task Force on 2006 I-Codes February 19, 20 I 0 Page 4 Many municipalities on the Front Range conduct midroof inspections, and several have recently added the mid roof inspection requirement due to the high number of deficiencies being discovered at the time of final inspection and the difficulties and expense encountered in correcting these deficiencies after the completion of the project. We recognize and acknowledge that the midroof inspection creates some level of inconvenience to the contractor or property owner doing the work. However, we believe it also represents a high level of value added to the property owner at no additional cost. Slide #9 -Egress Window Requirements Task Force Recommendation: Maintain the current policy regarding egress window installation and codify the requirements. Staff concurs with the recommendations of the Task Force. Slide #10 -Furnace Efficiency Requirements Task Force Recommendation: Maintain the current policy that high-efficiency appliances are not required. Staff concurs with the recommendations of the Task Force. Slide #1 1 -Existing Multi-Family Building Inspections Task Force Recommendation: Support and continue the suspension of the proactive enforcement of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) pending further research and discussion. Staff concurs with the recommendations of the Task Force. Slide #12 -Multi-Family Dwelling Inspections Fee Schedule Task Force Recommendation: Support and continue the suspension of the proactive enforcement of the [PMC pending further research and discussion. Staff concurs with the recommendations of the Task Force and would recommend that adoption of the 2006 IPMC be deferred until the multi-family propelty maintenance and inspection program can be further reviewed. Slide #13 -Contractor Licensing For Multi-Family Building Owners Task Force Recommendation: Revise the contractor license ordinance to allow owners of multifamily buildings to do work on their own buildings without requiring the owner owner to be a licensed contractor. All work that requires a permit would still require the permits to be pulled. State statutes require that plumbing and electrical work is performed by state licensed and registered contractors, and the Building Division has been consistent in its compliance with these statutes for many years. A large portion of the work performed by multi-family structure owners is not physically performed by them, but is performed by their employees and subcontractor labor. Many of the multi-family structure owners do not live in these structures, and current ordinances require that homeowner personally do all of the work and live in the structure on which they perform the work. Staff acknowledges that many multi-family property owners are familiar with building codes 4 Staff Report on Mayor's Task Force on 2006 [-Codes February 19, 2010 Page 5 and will complete code compliant work. However, during the previously authorized multi-family inspection program, inspectors discovered large amounts of non-compliant and in several instances life-threatening work that was performed without permit, without inspection, and presumably by persons not qualified in the field of work performed. There is certainly some level of risk that in going with the Task Force recommendation to exempt this work from permit, that work will be completed in a non code compliant manner, with the potential to create dangerous conditions for building occupants. It is important to note that current policy does allow for various types of minor repair work, including plumbing and electric repair to be done by multi-family owners without permit or license. The Building Division believes that it would be inconsistent with the intent of the adopted codes and State and Municipa[ ordinances, and potentially dangerous to the occupants, to require contractors to obtain a license to perform work for owners of single-family and commercial structures but allow owners and employees and subcontractors of multi-family structure owners to perform as unlicensed contractors. [f plumbing or electrical work is performed by individuals not licensed by the state in any structure other than a [ or 2-family structure, that would also be a violation of State statutes. [t is the recommendation of staff that the current contractor licensing requirements be maintained as written. Slide #14 -Contractor License Insurance Task Force Recommendation: Amend the contractor license regulations to eliminate the requirement for insurance. Contractor licensing insurance is one of fTIany tools used to assist the City in licensing more reputable firms and protecting the citizens of the City of Wheat Ridge. We receive few complaints from contractors regarding the requirement for insurance. The recommendation of the Task Force shifts the burden of verifying that a contractor has insurance from the City to property owners. Slide #15 -Permit Fee Schedule Task Force Recommendation: Adopt the fee schedule (base fee of $23.50) proposed by the staff for permits and plan reviews with the deletion of planning permits (Slide #3). The current base permit fee is $30.50. The recommendation of the Task Force would bring Wheat Ridge's fee schedule down to one of the lowest in the Denver Metro area. The reduction has a projected annual revenue impact of between $[00,000 and $[50,000, which is a policy matter for City Council consideration. As an alternative, Staff had previously proposed a based fee of $26.50, which we felt would achieve the goal of bringing Wheat Ridge into the lowest quartile ofmunicipa[ permit fees, but have less of a revenue impact on the City. Slide #16 -F[oodplain Permit Fees Task Force Recommendation: Revise the fee schedule for floodplain permit to reflect the time needed for reviewing submittals with a cap of$300 for Class [Exemptions-Non-human human buildings and $840 for human occupancy. 5 Staff Report on Mayor's Task Force on 2006 I-Codes February 19,2010 Page 6 These fees are under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department. The Public Works Director has prepared a memo (attached) with a slightly different approach, which would establish new flat fees for different types of work in the floodplain, including reduced fees for minor work in the floodplain, such as fences and sheds. These proposed fees are intended to represent staffs best estimate of actual costs based on the typical amount of time spent on these projects. While it is certainly possible to administer a fee based on actual hours worked, Public Works does not currently administer any other fees in that manner, so the proposed approach from the Task Force would be somewhat of a departure from how other development fees are structured in the City. Slide #17 -Stop Work Order Policy Task Force Recommendation: Develop a written policy regarding the issuance of stop work orders. Staff concurs with the recommendation of the Task Force to maintain the current policy (see attached report from CCC for description) and create a written document outlining that policy. Slide #18 -Code Diagrams and Handouts Task Force Recommendations: Maintain the current building guides and provide a link on the City website to the CCICC page to download the handouts. Staff recommends providing current handouts after modification as necessary to reflect proposed code and policy amendments. A link to the CCICC has been available on the City website since December of2008, and shall be maintained. Slide #19 -Revenue Generating Aspect Task Force Recommendations: Maintain ,the proposed fee schedule (Slide #15). Slide #20 -Ladder Policy for Roof Replacement Inspections Task Force Recommendation: Maintain policy that the contractor must provide a ladder and consider a call-ahead program for roof inspections. Staff concurs with the recommendation of the Task Force. A call-ahead program is in place and was initiated at the end of January of this year. Slide #21-Ventilation Requirements Task Force Recommendations: Amend the 2006lMC to include the ventilation rates of the 2009 IMC. Staff concurs with the recommendation of the Task Force. Slide #22 -General Permits vs. Specific Trade Permits Task Force Recommendation: Maintain the current General Permit policy. Staff concurs with the recommendation of the Task Force. 6 Staff Report on Mayor's Task Force on 2006 I-Codes February 19, 2010 Page 7 Slide #23 -Changes to Plans Task Force Recommendation: Develop a written policy regarding changes to approved drawings -Minor changes may be approved in field, Major changes must be submitted to Building Division. Staff concurs with the recommendation of the Task Force to maintain current policy and create a written document outlining that policy. 7 • • _ • City of "rPrWheatRL-dge ~PUBLIC WORKS Memorandum TO: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Tim Paranto, Director of Public Works DATE: January 14, 20 I 0 SUBJECT: Floodplain Permit Application Fees As requested, [ have prepared an expanded table of fees that may be appropriate for Class [ and Class II Special Exception Permits. Class I Special Exception Permit Applications Application Fee Construction of a fence, less than or equal to 200 feet in length $100.00 Construction of a fence, greater than 200 feet in length $200.00 Construction of a fence with a break-away design $500.00 Construction of a shed or deck $100.00 Construction of a detached garage $200.00 Construction of an addition to a habitable structure $800.00 Earth fill, less than or equal to SOO cubic yards $800.00 Earth fill, greater than 500 cubic yards $2,000.00 All other structures-fee to be determined by estimating processing expenses Class II Special Exception Permit Applications Construction of a habitable structure $$1,000.00 ~o, WlieatRJ9gc D The following issues were discussed by Mayor DiTullio and Ken Johnstone on November 20. 2009 What is the purpose of the planning permits issued by the i Can the building code be amended to provide a higher number of a Should ice-dam protection be required a Is it necessary to do mult iple inspect ions on What should the -.-_-------- D Should furnace efficiency ratings be What type of fee schedule could be 1--ad-opted for multiple ~~m~ ~ D What is the purpose of contractor license How does the proposed fee schedule compare to the building division assessment Is the current fee schedule for Oood plain I Is there a policy on the issuance of stop work orders: or should there be? Are there additional diagrams and/or handouts that can be distributed to "n~l< I ,m,h N"'~<nt",1 r."o, ~"" ~ '4'1" ," a Is the building division perceived as a revenue generating department; or should it be a r.eak.~.tion''-_______ --j • R.e-~ w~. f..I..I.·..,. . '. ........... Q What should the policy regarding ladders be for Q Is there a more reasonable standard for ~~~~~ ~ D Is there a difference between general permits and specific trade permits? Attachment 1 2006 Table 1-A -Building Permit Fees Total Valuation Fee $1.00 to $500.00 $23.50 $501 .00 -$2,000.00 $23.50 for the first $500.00 plus $3.05 for each additional $100.00, or fraction thereof, to and includinq $2,000.00. $2,001 -$25,000.00 $69.25 for the first $2,000 plus $14.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00. $25,001.00 -$50,000.00 $391 .25 for the first $25,000.00 plus $10.10 for each additional $1 ,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00. $50,001 .00 -$100,000.00 $643.75 for the fi rst $50,000 plus $7.00 for each additional $1 ,000.00, or fractions thereof, to and including $100,000.00. $100,001.00 -$500,000.00 $993.75 for the first $100,000.00 plus $5.60 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and inciuding$500,000.00. $500,001 .00 -$1 ,000,000.00 $3233.75 for the first $500,000.00 plus $4.75 for each additional $1 ,000.00, or fractional thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00. $1 ,000,001 .00 and up $5608.75 for for the first $1 ,000,000.00 plus $3.15 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof. Other fees: 1. Re-inspection fee (1 hour minimum) 2. Inspections outside normal business hours (2 hour minimum) $60.00/hour (1) $60.00/hour (1) 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (1 hour minimum) $60.00/Hour (1) 4. Standard plan review fees due at time of application 5. Additional review of plan revisions/changes (2 hour minimum) 6. Use of outside consultants for plan review and/or inspections 7. For work initia ted prior to issuance of the required permit 8. For replacement permit/inspection record card 65% of permit fee $60.00/hour (1) Actual costs (2) Equal to the permit fee $25.00 (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) invotved (2) Actual costs including administrative and overhead costs 45 Fees for specific projects shall be as listed below: Sign Face Change Permit (per side) Demolition Permit Structure Moving Permit $ 15.00 $ 75.00 $100.00 plus bond Fees for specific projects shall be as listed below. in addition to use taxes based on project valuation: '*' ~ . Planning Permits as required by Section 105.2 Tp e.f~ ([ ofYIrremo.JWY) of the IRC and IBC Residential Fences Residential Furnace or Boiler Replacement New Residential Furnace or Boiler installation (non-replacement) Residential Air-Conditioning Residential Water heater replacement Backflow device for Residential l,a wn irrigation Residential Evaporative Coolers Residential Hot Tubs and Above-Ground Pools .. Prices are exclusive of applicable use taxes based on valuation 46 $ 35.00' $ 35.00' $ 40.00' $100.00' $ 60.00' $ 40.00' $ 40.00' $ 40.00' $ 60.00' NO. CLASSIFICATION 1 Assembly (see Sections 403.2, 403.4 and 403.4.1) TABLE 403.1 MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PLUMBING FIXTURES a (See Sections 403.2 and 403.3) SEPARATE SEX FACILITIES REQUIRED WHEN OCCUPANT LOAD OCCUPANCY DESCRIPTION EXCEEDS A-1 Theaters and other buildings 65 for the performing arts and motion pictures A-2 Nightclubs, bars, taverns, 40 dance halls and buildings for similar purposes Restaurants, banquet halls and 75 food courts A-3 Auditoriums without permanent 65 seating, art galleries, exhibition halls, museums, lecture halls, libraries, arcades and gymnasiums Passenger terminals and 250 transportation facilities Places of worship and other 75 reliQious services A-4 Coliseums, arenas, skating 40 rinks, pools and tennis courts for indoor sporting events and activities WATER CLOSETS (URINALS SEE SECTION 419.2) MALE FEMALE 1 per 125 1 per 65 1 per 40 1 per 40 1 per 75 1 per 75 1 per 125 1 per 65 1 per 500 1 per 500 1 per 150 1 per 75 1 per 75 for the 1 per 40 for the first 1,500 and 1 first 1,500 and per 120 for the 1 per 60 for the remainder remainder exceeding exceeding 1,500 1,500 A-5 Stadiums, amusement parks, 40 1 per 75 for the 1 per 40 for the bleachers and grandstands for first 1,500 and 1 first 1,500 and outdoor sporting events and per 120 for the 1 per 60 for the activities remainder remainder exceeding exceeding 1,500 1,500 2 Business B Buildings for the transaction of 25 1 per 25 for the first 50 and 1 per business, professional 50 for the remainder exceeding 50 services, other services involving merchandise, office buildings, banks, light industrial and similar uses 3 Educational E Educational facilities 50 1 per 50 4 Factory and F-1 & F-2 Structures in which occupants 100 1 per 100 industrial are engaged iR work fabricating, assembly or processing of products or materials 5 Institutional 1-1 Residential care 10 1 per 10 1-2 Hospitals, ambulatory nursing home patients b NA 1 per room C Employees, other than residential care b 25 1 per 25 Visitors, other than residential 75 1 per 75 care 1-3 Prisons 0 NA 1 per cell 1-3 Reformatories, detention 15 1 per 15 centers, and correctional centers b 1-4 Adult day care and child care 15 1 per 15 6 Mercantile (see M Retail stores, service stations, 250 1 per 500 Sections 403.2, shops, sales rooms, markets 403.4, 403.4.1 and shopping centers and 403.4.2) 7 Residential R-1 Hotels, motels, boarding NA 1 per sleeping unit houses (transient) R-2 Dormitories, fraternities, 10 1 per 10 sororities and boarding houses (not transient) R-2 Apartment house NA 1 per dwelling unit R-3 One-and two-family dwellings NA 1 per dwelling unit R-4 Residential care/assisted living 10 1 per 10 facilities 8 Storage (see S-1 Structures for the storage of 100 1 per 100 Sections 403.2, S-2 goods, warehouses, 403.4 and storehouse and freight depots. 403.4.1 ) Low and Moderate Hazard. Footnotes to remain unchanged. Colorado Code Consulting, L.L.C. Main Office 4610 5 Ulster Street Suite 150 Denver, CO 80237 (303) 400-6564 Fax: (303) 693-0630 Northern Office 811 Fourth Street Berthoud, CO 80513 (303) 895-9988 Fax: (970) 532-2789 City of Wheat Ridge Mayor's Task Force Building Code Adoption Issues Mountain Office 152 Larson lane PO Box 1261 Frisco, CO 80443 (303) 591-9258 Fax: (970) 668-0862 The following issues were developed by Steve Thomas with Colorado Code Consulting, LLC from discussions with Mayor DiTullio, Randy Young and Ken Johnstone on November 20,2009. Each of the issues was presented to a task force appointed by the Mayor on January 12, 2010. The task force discussed each issue and voted on a recommendation to be presented to the City Council. 1) Need for planning permits a) What is the purpose of the planning permits issued by the community development department? Are these permits necessary? i) Background (1) Planning permits are charged for projects that do not require a building permit such as fences, sheds, sidewalks and driveways. Only the planning department reviews the plans for compliance with applicable setbacks and zoning requirements. The building division does not review any plan~ for this type of work. ii) Recommendation (1) Eliminate requirement for planning permits and transfer enforcement over to a complaint basis or observation by code enforcement personnel. This would possibly defer enforcement to after the work has been completed. 2) Need for siding permits a) Permits were not required for replacing siding on a existing home in the past. They are now required. What is the purpose ofthe permits and are they necessary? i) Background (1) Permits are required for replacing siding of existing structures. This is defined as a repair in the 2006 IRC and Section 105.1 requires that a permit be obtained for any repair that is not listed in Section 105.2, Work Exempt from Permit. Permits are required to ensure the proper installation of the exterior cladding of a building by conducting inspections on the installation. ii) Recommendation (1) Amend the code to exempt replacement of exterior cladding for the purpose of maintenance from a permit when the amount of cladding being replaced is less than 35% of the wall area for each type of material and the work does not include the relocation of electrical or gas utilities. Building Code Adoption Issues 3) Need for window replacement permits a) Permits were not required for window replacements in a home in the past. They are now required. What is the purpose of the permits and are they necessary? i) Background 1/5/10 (1) The purpose of permits for window replacement is to ensure that the code requirements be met. Those requirements include safety glazing requirements, minimum ventilation opening size and egress requirements. Egress window requirements will be discussed later. The code only requires a permit if the entire window assembly, including the frame and glazing, is replaced. It does not require a permit for the replacement of only the glazing. However, the replacement must still comply with the code. ii) Recommendation (1) Amend the code to exempt window replacements from a permit as long as the size of the window does not change and the window is not an emergency escape and rescue opening. 4) Provide options to address number of toilet facilities needed in a commercial use a) Can the building code be amended to provide a higher number of occupants that can be provided with a single toilet room? i) Background (1) The current building and plumbing code requires separate toilet facilities for each sex when a retail store has an occupant load of more than 50, or when any other occupancy has a total occupant load or more than 15. This has created some hardships on past projects by requiring separate facilities that then have to comply with the accessibility requirements. ii) Recommendation (1) Amend the building and plumbing code to increase the number of occupants needed before separate sex toilet facilities are required. j 5) Need for ice & water shield roof underlayment requirements in Wheat Ridge a) Should ice-dam protection be required in Wheat Ridge? i) Background (1) The IRC states that where there has been a history of local damage from the effects of ice damming, an ice barrier underlayment must be provided. This requirement is based on many of the roofing materials manufacturer's instructions. The purpose of the icebarrier is to prevent water leaking into the home where water from melting snow draining from a sloped roof freezes at the eave and gutter. The freezing water forms a dam and the water backs up under the shingles and enters the home. The IBC has similar requirements. The Denver metro area does have a history of ice-damming. It does not occur every year, but it does occur. Most, but not all jurisdictions in the Denver area require the ice-barrier. ii) Recommendation (1) Maintain current code requirement to require the ice-barrier. (a) Amend the code to include language to not require an ice-barrier over unheated portions of a building. 6) Department policy for multiple inspections of roof replacement installations. Page 2 of 8 Building Code Adoption Issues 1/5/10 a) Is it necessary to do multiple inspections on roof replacement projects? i) Background (1) The current policy of the department is to conduct 2-3 different inspections depending on the type of roof system being installed and the type of roof decking. They are conducting a roof sheathing inspection to ensure the roof sheathing is sound and capable of supporting the roof system being installed. They are also checking to make sure the sheathing is solid enough so the proper attachment of the roof system can be accomplished. The second inspection is called a mid-roof inspection. This inspection involves the observation of the roof system being installed per the code and manufacturer's installation standards. This inspection ensures that the proper numbers of fasteners are installed to hold the system down during high winds. For example, Wheat Ridge requires 6 nails per asphalt shingle to ensure that he shingles stay in place. The third inspection is the final inspection to confirm that the roof is complete and all installation and flashing details are complete. ii) Recommendation (1) Revise the policy to only require a final inspection of the roof system. 7) Egress window requirements for window replacements a) What should the policy/code regarding the egress opening requirements for the replacement of windows be? i) Background (1) Egress windows are required to be installed in all sleeping rooms and basements of a single family dwelling. They are used for emergency egress and rescue during a fire in a home. They are also used by fire fighters to escape if they become trapped during a fire. Egress windows must have a clear opening of at least 5.7 square feet so a fire fighter can get through the window. (2) The current policy regarding egress windows is: (a) New basement finish~s -An egress window must be installed within a newly finished basement. If a bedroom(s) is constructed as part of the basement finish, the egress window must be located in each of the sleeping room(s) s) (b) New bedroom added -An egress window must be installed anytime a bedroom is added to a dwelling. (c) Window replacement -If a window in a sleeping room or a previously finished basement is replaced, the window must be at least the same size as the existing window. The size of the window cannot be reduced from what is existing. ii) Recommendation (1) Maintain the current policy regarding egress window installations & amend the code to reflect the current policy requirements. 8) Furnace efficiency requirements a) Should furnace efficiency ratings be required? i) Background (1) Past building division staff apparently required high efficiency furnaces and appliances be installed in homes. Neither the current 2003 nor the proposed 2006 IRC require that high-efficiency appliances be installed. The current building division staff is not requiring that such appliance be installed. The only appliance efficiency standards are Page 3 of 8 Building Code Adoption Issues 1/5/10 located in the Energy Code and they are identical to the federal mandated efficiency standards. Those standards only apply to non-residential uses. ii) Recommendation (1) Maintain the current policy that high-efficiency appliances are not required. 9) Inspection requirements for existing multi-family dwelling buildings a) Are there ways to limit the number of inspections conducted on existing multi-family buildings and still ensure compliance with the city's housing code? i) Background (1) At the council's direction, the building division undertook a limited housing code inspection program for existing multi-family developments. They gave apartment owners 4-6 week notice that the buildings would be inspected and tried to schedule the inspections. The program is currently under review based on the Mayor's task force. All other multi-family inspections are done on a complaint basis only. ii) Recommendation (1) Support and continue the suspension on the proactive enforcement of the International Property Maintenance Code pending further research and discussions. 10) Fee schedule for inspections of multi-family dwelling buildings a) What type of fee schedule could be adopted for multiple inspections of existing multi-family buildings i) Background (1) There are no current fees charged for the multi-family inspection program. Therefore, the existing fees collected by the building division covers the cost of the program. It has been suggested that a fee schedule be developed to create an incentive to the apartment owners to maintain their buildings. ii) Recommendation , (1) Support and continue the suspension on the proactive enforcement of the International Property Maintenance Code pending further research and discussions. 11) Contractor licensing requirements for multi-family building owners a) Are there ways to address multi-family building owners to do maintenance work without having to hire a licensed contractor? i) Background (1) The current contractor license regulation requires a person who is performing work controlled by the regulation to be licensed. Such work includes anything that would require a building permit. Normal maintenance work on a building which does not require a building permit is not required to be done by a licensed contractor. This work can be done by the property owner or their maintenance staff. For work that does require a permit, the apartment owner is required to take a test; meet minimum qualification requirements; and show that they have current worker's compensation and liability insurance. Insurance issues will be discussed in the next item. ii) Recommendation (1) Revise the contractor license ordinance to permit owners of multi-family buildings to do work on their own buildings without requiring the owner to be a licensed contractor. All work that requires a permit would still require the permits to be pulled by the owner. Page 4 of 8 Building Code Adoption Issues 1/5/10 12) Contractor license insurance requirements a) What is the purpose of contractor license insurance requirements and are they necessary? i) Background (1) The contractor license regulations require contractors to show that they have current worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance. The purpose of this requirement is consumer protection. ii) Recommendation (1) Amend the contractor license regulations to eliminate the requirement for insurance. 13) Compare proposed fee schedule to previous building division assessment fee a) How does the proposed fee schedule compare to the building division assessment done earlier this year? i) Background (1) The evaluation of the building division done by this office compared the building permit fee schedules of a number of jurisdictions in the metropolitan Denver area. That comparison found that Wheat Ridge ranked highest in the building permit fees and plan review fees, but in the middle of the group for total fees collected on projects. The building division submitted multiple fee schedules to city council for their consideration. The council chose a fee schedule that is lower than the average and the mean fees noted in the evaluation. A spreadsheet has been included at the end of this report showing the current and proposed fees compared to the average and mean amounts calculated in the evaluation. The proposed fees fall within the bottom of the fees noted in the evaluation. ii) Recommendation (1) Adopt the fee schedule (base fee of $23.50) proposed by the staff for permits and plan reviews with the deletion of planning permits. The recommended fee schedule with a base fee of $23.50 was originally proposed by CCC to city staff. 14) Fee schedule for flood plains a) Is the current fee schedule for flood plain reviews reasonable? i) Background (1) The current fees for a flood plain permit is $300 for structures used for non-human occupancy and $840 for structures used for human occupancy. (2) Flood plain permits are reviewed by the public works department. The purpose of the review is to ensure that structures are not placed in a position that would affect the flood plain. It is also done to confirm that the damage to the structure is limited if a flood occurs. (3) In order for the citizens of Wheat Ridge to get flood insurance on their homes, the city must adopt flood plain regulations and ensure that construction in these areas does not adversely affect the flood areas. (4) The time needed to review flood plain permits varies depending on the size and complexity of the project. The public works department provided the following information regarding the review times. Class I Special Exceptions Structures for non-human occupancy (fences, sheds, etc) 1-20 hours Page 5 of 8 Building Code Adoption Issues Structures for human occupancy (house additions) Fill in floodplain 1/5/10 2-20 hours 10-30 hours Class II Special Exceptions (requires approval by Board of Adjustment) Structures for human occupancy 15-40 hours ii) Recommendation (1) Revise the fee schedule for flood plain permit to reflect the time needed for reviewing submittals with a cap of $300 for Class I Exemptions -Non-human buildings and $840 for human occupancy. 15) Stop work order policy a) Is there a policy on the issuance of stop work orders; or should there be? i) Background (1) This issue was addressed in our evaluation of the department last year. Stop work orders are issued when work is being done without a building permit or in violation of the code. The building division has instituted the recommendations of the report regarding stop work orders. It is our understanding that the building official is the only person authorized to issue a stop work order after being notified by the inspector in the field. Many Many homeowners and contractors are not aware that they need a permit for the work they are doing. Therefore, before a stop work order is issued, the person doing the work is given a chance to rectify the problem within a very short and specific time. In emergency situations or with repeat offenders, the stop work order may be issued immediately ii) Recommendation (1) Develop a written policy regarding the issuance of stop work orders. 16) Code diagrams and handouts a) Are there additional diagrams ang/or handouts that can be distributed to help homeowners understand the code better? i) Background (1) The building division currently distributes building guides produced by the Colorado Chapter of the International Code Council (CCICC). These handouts provide instructions and diagrams for constructing a deck, patio cover, patio enclosure, garage, pole barn, addition, roofing and basement finish. They are available for download at http://www.coloradochaptericc.org/buildguides.htm . (2) The International Residential Code (IRC) has several diagrams showing how code compliance can be obtained. The codes are available to the public for viewing at the building division. The staff is also available to answer questions that homeowners have regarding the work they are doing. ii) Recommendation (1) Maintain the current building guides. (2) Provide a link on the City website to the CCICC page to download the handouts. 17) Revenue generating aspect of building division a) Is the building division perceived as a revenue generating department; or should it be a breakeven operation? i) Background Page 6 of 8 Building Code Adoption Issues 1/5/10 (1) The building division collects building permit fees, plan review fees and use tax on construction projects in the city. The building permit and plan review fees are intended to cover the cost of the operation of the community development department and associated services provided during the construction of a project. Some of the fees also cover the time spent by the administration department to oversee the operations of the Community Development. The use tax is a tax similar to sa les tax on the materials used in the construction process. It is paid up front with the building permit. All of these fees are deposited in the city's general fund account are intended to support genera l government services. (2) The community development department must submit a budget to City Council for their approval. The budget includes the fees collected for permits. According to the 2009 adopted budget, the 2009 revenue budget for the department was as follows: Contractor's License $$75,000.00 Building Permits $542,528.00 Plan Review Fees $351,350.00 Total $968,878.00 The total 2008 estimated expenditures for the same period was $1,857,492.00. It appears that just over $1 million of the expenditures were for economic development leaving $851,649.00 as the cost to run the Community Development Department. Therefore, the fees that are collected cover the cost of the operation of the department, plus the fees assist in subsid izing the economic development of the city for approximately $100,000.00. ii) Recommendation (1) Maintain the proposed permit fee schedule. 18) Department policy regarding ladders for roof replacement inspections a) What should the policy regarding ladders be for roof inspections? i) Background I (1) The current policy requires roofing contractors to provide an approved ladder for inspections. The ladders must be in place for the inspection and made available to the inspector. (2) The alternative is for the inspectors to carry a ladder on their trucks and access the roof. ii) Recommendation (1) Maintain policy that the contractor must provide a ladder for roof inspections & consider a call-ahead program. 19) Ventilation requirements in the International Mechanical Code a) Is there a more reasonable standard for ventilation requirements in the IMe? i) Background (1) The 2003 International Mechanical Code (IMC) has specific requirements for outside air ventilation in buildings. When a change of occupancy is made to a building, the new requirements must be met. These are sometimes very costly and onerous on the owner of the building. (2) The 2009 IMC has revised the ventilation requirements to a less restrictive and costly amount. The city could amend the 2006 IMC to include the requirements in the 2009 IMe. ii) Recommendation Page 7 of 8 Building Code Adoption Issues 1/5/10 (1) Amend the 2006 IMC to reflect the ventilation rates of the 2009 IMe. 20) Policy and difference in general permits vs. Specific trade permits a) Is there a difference between general permits and specific trade permits? i) Background (1) Some departments issue separate permits for each specific trade. For example, they issue a building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical permit separately. (2) The current procedure is that a general building permit is issued for each project that includes all trades under the same permit. ii) Recommendation (1) Maintain the current policy only requiring a general building permit for all work. 21) Department policy regarding changes to plans a) Should there be a written policy regarding how changes to plans are handled by the building division? i) Background (1) The codes require that any change to the approved plans be reviewed by the building department. Every project has revisions to the plans during the construction phase. The current policy is to handle changes on a case by case basis. Minor changes are reviewed by the inspector in the field. If a major change is made, the plans must be revised and submitted for review. The building division makes a decision on which changes are minor and which are major. The 2006 IBC has the following language regarding amended plans: "Work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents, and any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the approved construction documents shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of construction documents" I ii) Recommendation (1) Develop a written policy regarding changes to approved drawings. (a) Minor changes may be approved in field. (b) Major changes must be submitted to building division. Page 8 of8 , . , , _ r City of '~WheatB-L-dge ~ARKS AND RECREATION TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Memorandum Mayor and City Council Randy Young, ~ager Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director February 16, 2010 (for March IS' Study Session) Acquisition of Perko parcel contiguous to Anderson Park The owner of the property located at 9160 West 44'h Avenue has contacted the City regarding possible interest in purchasing this property. One of the two tenants currently leasing the property is vacating by May, and the owner would like to sell the property within the next few months. The owner does not wish to find a new tenant and encumber the property with a lease. The Perko property is contiguous to Anderson Park. The south and east property lines of the parcel border the park, with property frontage on 44'h Avenue (see attached map). Amenities in the park include the outdoor swimming pool, the Anderson Community Center, a skate board park, baseball field, soccer field, access to the Clear Creek Trail, and two picnic shelters. The Parks Operation Shops and Park Administrative Offices are also located within the park and adjacent to the property. This property has long been of interest to the Parks and Recreation Department due to the location of the parcel and the type of structure, which is suitable to an operations shop function, located on the property. Future Use The Parks and Recreation Master Plan (see attached) defines the need to expand and update Anderson Park. Goals outlined in the plan include updating and completing an individual master plan for Anderson Park. As the City grew, trends changed and when new amenities were added to the park system to meet the needs of residents, the majority of these new amenities were placed in Anderson Park. There are now too many activities and amenities in too small of an area to provide a quality experience for park users. The acquisition of this parcel would meet the long term needs of the Master Plan recommendations for this park (see attached Master Plan sheets). Acquisition of Perko Parcel February 16, 2010 Page 2 The Parks Administration Office and the Parks Operation Shops are also located contiguous to the property. The structure located on the proposed acquisition property would meet the short term goal of expanding the Parks Operation Shops, which does not meet current maintenance needs. The current Parks Operation Shops is the original temporary building constructed in 1970 shortly after the City incorporated. The parking area, yard, staff areas, storage and offices are all inadequate. Park amenities have expanded to the point that the maintenance yard borders the outdoor swimming pool fence and pool picnic shelter. The City has completed a Master Plan for a new combined Parks and Public Works Facility to be located at the current Public Works Shops site. Until funding is available to complete this proposed project, the use of the structure on the proposed property would be very beneficial to the parks maintenance operation. [f the new combined facility can eventually be funded, the parcel would become part of Anderson Park, and the building would no longer be needed. The Department will have the additional land to move forward with the Master Plan for the Anderson Park renovation. Funding The City of Wheat Ridge purchased and funded 100% of three parcels of Open Space in [998 using their attributable share of Open Space Funds. These purchases totaled $524,589 and are eligible for use by the City as their matching share (25%) to match bond funds. Therefore, the acquisition of this parcel is eligible for 100% funding by Jefferson County Open Space Bond funds without a matching share from the City Open Space Fund. Action Consensus to place a resolution supporting the Perko property located 9[60 West 44th Avenue as a high priority acquisition for the City of Wheat Ridge and further approving that Jefferson County Open Space proceed with obtaining an appraisal. 2 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTERPLAN I NOVEMBER 2006 EDAW COM City of Wheat Ridge Pari<s and Recreation Master Plan Anderson Park. Community Parks Community parks are larger parks that serve the entire community. They should be equitably distributed throughout the city and easily accessible by all residents. Ideally, they should also be connected via the core commuter off-street trail system to reduce the need to drive to the park. Sports complexes are also often associated with community parks. These are typically parks or areas of community parks that have dedicated sport facilities available for use to the entire community. While many community parks contain sports complexes, not all sports complexes are a part of a community park or contain park-like facilities. In Wheat Ridge, both existing community parks have a different character. For example, Anderson Park is the showpiece of the Wheat Ridge park system with a variety of facilities, amenities, and terrain, including the city's only outdoor pool. Anderson Park is also home to the city's annual Carnation Festival held each August, and home to a community center, some park offices, and a skatepark. Prospect Park has many similar features to Anderson Park, however, it is slightly larger and is divided into two distinct sections. Anderson Park Anderson Park is located on the south side of 44'" Avenue at Field Street intersection and is 27 acres in size. The park contains 2 baseball/softball fields, 2 soccer/lacrosse fields, 2 basketball courts, a skate park, in-line hockey rink, playground, picnic shelters, restrooms, barbeques, seasonal concessions, and drinking fountains. Anderson Park is also home to the Anderson Pool, the city's only' outdoor swimming facility, and the Anderson Building, which is (1rogrammed for selected indoor fitness programs. Anderson Park is located along the Wheat Ridge 3 reenbelt and the Clear Creek trail, offering visitors numerous options for natural resource-based recreation, such as walking, hiking, wildlife viewing, and bicy.cling. The park is also home to communitywide events, such as as the annual Carnation Festival held each Augu'st and hosted by the Carnation Festival Committee. The Parks, ForestrY., and O(1en Space Division offices and maintenance shop are also located at Anderson Park Many' of the facilities at Anderson Park are in good (1hy'sical condition, including the restrooms, playgrounds, and rental shelters. However, many other facilities are beginning to deteriorate. The outdoor pool needs replaced or refurbished, and an evaluation and feasibility study' was conducted for this purpose in 2004. The in-line hockey rink is not currently regulation size and needs resurfaced. The skate park is also somewhat undersized and should be relocated to a more centralized location outside of the park. Other elements of the park also need addressed, including the aging irrigation system, erosion of the bank along Clear Creek and adjacent ditches, and the overall lay.0ut of ~arking . Lastly', the Anderson Building should be remodeled or replaced in 2·20 Chapter Two City of Wheat Ridge Parks and Recreation Master Plan overflow fitness activities that cannot be accommodated in the main Recreation Center. However, it is undersized, the amenities are outdated and deteriorating and, as such, it does not adequately serve users. In general, Anderson Park would greatly benefit from an individual master plan that addresses the overall purpose and function of the park relative to other city parks and facilities; the location and desirability of a new or upgraded pool and skate park; and the overall layout of recreational facilities and parking within the park itself. Prospect Park Prospect Park is located at the corner of West 44th Avenue and Robb Street and is approximately 39 acres in size. The park contains 2 baseball/softball fields, 1 football field , 1 basketball court, 1 tennis court, playgrounds, picnic shelters, 2 restrooms, seasonal concessions, barbeques, drinking fountains and horseshoe pits. Prospect Park is also located along the Wheat Ridge Greenbelt and Clear Creek trail, offering numerous opportunities for natural resource-based recreation. These opportunities include walking, hiking, biking, and wildlife viewing . Prospect Lake, located at the rear of the park, divides the park into two units. Across the lake is the Prospect Park annex, which offers a Habitat Garden, soft surface trail, playground and picnic shelter. Fishing is also available along the banks of Prospect Lake. The Parks and Recreation Department also maintains the Berbert House, which is located in front of the park alqng West 44th Avenue. Currently, the residence is only used for storage. Overall, many of the park amenities are in good physical condition, including the playgrounds, picnic shelter, and restrooms, and there is adequate ADA access throughout. Lighting upgrades have been added at the ballfields, and the tennis court located here is the only city-owned and maintained court west of Kipling Street. The pedestrian crossing across 44th Avenue leading to the park needs enhanced as it is not adequately marked for such a busy thoroughfare. Currently, the park is not organized well to handle large citywide events. A master plan should be created for the park illustrating how Prospect Park may become a new community festival and cultural focal point within Wheat Ridge. The park should also be integrated into the larger Orchard District Sub-area Plan that is currently being developed. Prospect Pari< Prospect Lake Existing Resources, Standards, Level of Service 2·21 City of Wheat Ridge Pa"s and Recreation Master Ptan Table 5.2 summarizes initial projects proposed in this plan for inclusion in the city's park and recreation system, and provides estimated costs associated with each project. Costs are estimated in 2006 dollars and will need to be adjusted relative to inflation as time progresses. They are listed in the order described in Chapter Four, which does not imply an order of priority. If implemented in their entirety, all recommended projects within this plan would cost approximately $42 million. The priority projects alone, as identified by the TAC and Parks and Recreation Commission, would cost approximately $34 million. Currently, the Parks and Recreation Department receives approximately $800,000 per year for new projects, project upgrades, and project maintenance. If current funding streams were to continue at the same rate over the next 15 years (the anticipated life of this plan), total available revenue for future projects would be approximately $12 million. This amount would only be capable of funding roughly one-fourth of all proposed projects and would leave a potential budget shortfall of $31 million. Therefore, it is recommended that the City of Wheat Ridge immediately begin to pursue additional funding mechanisms for development of future park and recreation projects. Table 5.2 Proposed Project Summary and Estimated Costs Size Proposed Cost Description Name Classification Develop Existing Park Sites • Prepare site master plan and 44" and construction documents. Kendall 2 acres Neighborllood $500,000 • Neighborhood park needed to provide parkland to underserved area. I • Prepare site master plan and Einarsen construction documents. Property 8.3 acres Neighborllood $2,200,000 • Neighborhood park needed to provide parkland to underserved area. New Parkland and/or Amenities Between 32"" • Neighborllood park needed to -3d", west of NIA Neighborllood $1,000,000 provide parkland to underserved Wadsworth area. Northwest • Construct neighborhood park in Sub-Area NIA Neighborhood $0 conjunction with future RTD Light Rail mixed-use development. Major Park/Facility Rede.lgn • Prepare renovation master plan for park. • T rans;tion park to a rnultigenerational family activny park. Anderson • Remove Anderson Recreation Park 27 acres Communny $12,000,000 Building and relocate activnies to Wheat Ridge Recreation Center (expansion recommended). • Remove or upgrade pool and replace wtth competnion pool and splash park. • Remove from park inventory and Johnson Park 4 acres Open Space $200,000 transition into established greenbelt acreage. Implementation 5·5 City of Wheat Ridge ParKs and Recreation Master Plan c. Implementation Actions The following are specific actions that should be considered by the Wheat Ridge Parks and Recreation staff, which may assist in the implementation of the proposed projects. The actions are organized into planning, upgrades and maintenance, administrative and management, and funding categories, and are not listed in order of priority. Management/Planning Actions • Work with the Community Development Department and developers in the acquisition of parkland and trail corridors associated with any new residential development. Identify specific parcels that are key to neighborhood park development in underserved areas. • Develop master plans and construction documents for Anderson Park, Prospect Park, and Baugh House/Historic Park, and the Recreation Center expansion. Include management plans as part of master plans. • Develop improvement plans for school parks, in conjunction with the school district, and with neighborhood input as appropriate. 44111 and Kendall Park Site • Develop site master plans and construction documents for 44th and Kendall and Einarsen property parks. , ~ --• Update and clarify park impact fees and land dedication ordinances to cover the cost of design and construction of parks for new residents, as well as accommodate for land needs for neighborhood parks. • Conduct planning processes and prepare design documents for neighborhood park upgrades. Include management plans as part of master plans. • Work with the Public Works Department to upgrade pedestrian and bicycle connectivity in neighborhoods. ,. -I~~-:";-' ~ •• r-",. ~_:~ -oj ,: --i.:::~--;. .. ..,..-«-,;--Einar.;en property Implementation 5-9 Perko, 9160 W. 44th Avenue, Wheat Ridge