Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session Agenda Packet 08-19-19STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO August 19, 2019 6:30 p.m. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Sara Spaulding, Public Information Officer 303-235-2877 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. Citizen Comment on Agenda Items 1.Youth Vaping/Tobacco Use Overview 2.Delegation of Private Activity Bond Cap to Jefferson County HousingAuthority 3.Right-of-Way Acquisition and Eminent Domain 101 4. Residential-One (R-1) Zone District Accessory Structure Setbacks 5.Staff Report(s) 6.Elected Officials’ Report(s) ADJOURNMENT Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Marianne Schilling, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: August 19, 2019 SUBJECT: Youth Vaping/Tobacco Use Overview At the request of Councilmembers Weaver and Hoppe and Mayor Starker, Jefferson County Public Health (JCPH) will be providing an overview of youth vaping and tobacco use in Wheat Ridge. This presentation will cover the increased usage by Jefferson County and Wheat Ridge youth, the effect of nicotine-related waste on the environment and the region’s current efforts to reduce vaping and tobacco use. Additionally, JCPH will discuss policies that several Jefferson County peer municipalities have adopted in order to reduce youth tobacco usage. These options include: •Increasing the age of sale for tobacco-related products (Edgewater) •Tobacco retailer licensing (Edgewater, Lakewood, Golden) Enclosed are infographics and fact sheets provided by JCPH. The purpose of the August 19 study session is to provide information regarding youth vaping/tobacco use. Council may provide direction for Staff regarding next steps. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Wheat Ridge Tobacco Use Fact Sheet 2. 2017 HKCS Colorado Youth Tobacco Use 3.CDPHE Retailer Licensing Fact Sheet4. STEPP T21 Infographic5. STEPP Flavor Ban Infographic6.California Compliance Rates Item No. 1 Reducing Youth Access to and Use of Tobacco in Wheat Ridge, Colorado Youth Tobacco Use •Almost 90% of all regular smokers begin smoking at or before age 18. 1 •The 2017 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey indicated that among high school students in Colorado: 27% use e-cigarettes, 7.2% smoke cigarettes, 5.9% smoke cigars/cigarillos/little cigars, and 3.1% use chew. 2 •E-cigarettes are now the most commonly used tobacco product among youth. 3 •Current e-cigarette use among high school students nearly doubled from 2017-2018. 3 Youth Access to Tobacco in the Retail Setting •Two out of three Colorado youth, under the age of 18, who attempted to buy tobacco products at a retail establishment were successful. 2 •Over half (55%) of Colorado high school students under the age of 18 reported that it is easy or very easy to get tobacco products. 2 •A study conducted by UC Denver in Colorado reported a sales to minor violation rate of 25.3%. 4 •Teenage store clerks are a major source of tobacco products for high school age smokers. 5 How the Tobacco Industry Uses the Retail Environment •Pervasive retail tobacco promotional practices, including product and advertising placement and pricing tactics, known to influence youth towards using tobacco products, contribute to increased initiation, experimentation and regular smoking. 6 •Big Tobacco now spends more than 95 percent of its $9 billion marketing budget to advertise and promote their products in convenience stores, gas stations and other retail outlets. 7 o Note: Two-thirds of middle school students visit a convenience store, small grocery, or liquor store at least once a week, and weekly or more frequent exposure to retail tobacco marketing has been associated with a 50% increase in the odds of ever smoking. 8 •Tobacco products are advertised most heavily in stores where adolescents shop. 8 •The tobacco industry continues to market and sell products that are appealing to youth in sweet flavors at cheap prices. Gaps in the FDA and State Laws •Existing federal and state law, including the final deeming regulations from the FDA, do not require: o tobacco retailers to have a license to sell tobacco. o suspension or revocation of ability to sell tobacco by retailers that repeatedly break tobacco-related laws o prohibition of self-service displays of cigars and e-cigarettes. o prohibition of flavors for smokeless tobacco, cigars and e-cigarettes. More Information www.TobaccoFreeJeffco.com/Youth | email: tobaccofree@jeffco.us | phone: 303-275-7558 ATTACHMENT 1 Best Practices and Proposed Solutions •Requiring a license to sell tobacco is essential to youth tobacco prevention: o Licensing is a proven approach to increasing and enforcing restrictions on illegal sales and other known youth-targeted promotional, product placement and pricing tactics. 9 o Licensing is a common-sense approach to ensure that retailers operate legally, ethically and responsibly when it comes to preventing illegal tobacco sales to kids. 10 o Local tobacco retail licensing programs that include retailer fees high enough to pay for enforcement have been shown to be the most effective policy at reducing illegal sales by merchants. 11 o Licensing empowers communities to better respond at a local level to the changing landscape of tobacco issues. o Licensing creates a level playing field for all members of the business community by ensuring they are following the law and being held to the same standards. •Minimum recommended provisions in a tobacco retail license include: o Language that states that a violation of any federal, state or local tobacco law is a violation of the retail license o Increase clerk age to sell tobacco to 18 o Prohibit self-service of all tobacco/nicotine products and paraphernalia o No admittance under 18 in tobacco business o Limit location and number of tobacco retailers (near schools, for example) •Cutting edge tobacco retail policy options: o Raise minimum age to purchase tobacco to 21 o Set minimum package size o Increase the price of tobacco products and/or set minimum price thresholds o Prohibit retailers from redeeming tobacco coupons and offering discounts o Prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products o Include other paraphernalia, such as pipes and rolling papers, to be covered by law Communities with Tobacco Retail Licensing Laws •Twelve Colorado communities have tobacco retail licensing laws: Aspen, Basalt, Avon, Edgewater, Fountain, Golden, La Junta, Lakewood, Manitou Springs, Pueblo, Rocky Ford, and Steamboat Springs. •~ 900 communities nationwide have adopted local tobacco retail licensing policies. 12 Residents Support It Among Wheat Ridge* Residents… •89% believe that youth e-cig/vapes use is a health concern •83% believe that tobacco companies market their products to youth. •76% believe that where tobacco is displayed/sold inside a retail store can encourage youth tobacco use. •77% believe that tobacco advertising in retail stores can encourage youth tobacco use. •73% believe that cheaper / lower priced tobacco products can encourage youth tobacco use. Wheat Ridge residents mistakenly think… Wheat Ridge residents support… 77% 41% think that retailers are already required to have a license to sell tobacco, when in fact this is not the case. think that it is illegal for youth under 18 to sell tobacco products when working in a retail store, when in fact this is not the case. 72% 83% support requiring retailers to have a license to sell tobacco products. support requiring that a retail clerk who is selling tobacco be 18 years of age or older. *Results based on 2018 National Research Center Household Survey conducted in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. References: 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014. Printed with corrections, January 2014. 2. The Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, 2015-2017. 3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2018 National Youth Tobacco Survey Finds Cause for Concern. November, 2018.https://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/PublicHealthEducation/ProtectingKidsfromTobacco/ucm405173 .htm 4. Brief Report: Arnold H. Levinson and Jennifer L. Patnaik, A Practical Way to Estimate Retail Tobacco Sales Violation Rates More Accurately Nicotine Tob Res (2013) 15 (11): 1952-1955 first published online July 1, 2013 doi:10.1093/ntr/ntt084 5. DiFranza JR, Coleman M. Sources of Tobacco for Youths in Communities with Strong Enforcement of Youth Access Laws. Tobacco Control, 10:323-328, 2001. 6. Trends In Tobacco Industry Marketing – Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0156.pdf 7. U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Cigarette Report for 2014/Smokeless Tobacco Report for 2014 8. Henriksen, L, et al., “Association of retail tobacco marketing with adolescent smoking,” American Journal of Public Health, 94(12):2081-3, 2004. 9. McLaughlin I. License to Kill?: Tobacco Retailer Licensing as an Effective Enforcement Tool. Tobacco Control Legal Consortium, 2010. 10. STORE: Strategic Tobacco Retail Effort. Talking Points: Retailer Licensing. 11. The Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing: Tobacco Retail Licensing Reduces Tobacco Sales to Minors: Six Arguments for Enforcement. February 2005. 12. ANR Foundation U.S. Tobacco Control Laws Database©, 3/22/16, Copyright 1998 - 2016 American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. Updated 6-10-19 COLORADO YOUTH TOBACCO USE 2017DATA BRIEF The Healthy Kids Colorado Survey is the state’s only comprehensive survey on the health and well-being of young people. In 2017, the survey sampled approximately 56,000 youth from 190 randomly selected middle and high schools statewide. The voluntary, biennial survey collects a wide range of health and behavioral information that helps public, private and community organizations better under- stand the youth they serve and support them in making healthy choices. The data below represents high school youth. E-CIGARETTES ARE THE SECOND MOST TRIED SUBSTANCE AMONG COLORADO YOUTH Have used substances at least once in their life. 59% 44% 35% 16% *Does not include marijuana Alcohol E-cigarettes* Marijuana Cigarettes CURRENT USE OF E-CIGARETTES BY GRADE 18%9th 25%10th 32%11th 34%12th CURRENT USE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS 7%Cigarettes 14% Any tobacco product (except e-cigarettes: cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, snus, hookah, pipe, or bidis) 27%E-cigarettes 33% Any tobacco product (including e-cigarettes) *All tobacco products including cigarettes, chew, e-cigarettes, hookah, cigars and others TOBACCO USE33% of Colorado youth are using nicotine.* Among all Colorado youthRISK PERCEPTION AND ACCESS DO YOUTH THINK: Smoking is risky?87% Vaping is risky?50%It’s easy to get cigarettes?56% LEARN MORE: For more information and complete survey data, visit healthykidscolo.org. It’s easy to get e-cigarettes?58% Are cigarette smokers trying to quit? 46% YES Are youth exposed to secondhand smoke or vapor at home? 20% YES “YES” ATTACHMENT 2 COLORADO YOUTH TOBACCO USE 2017DATA BRIEF LEARN MORE: For more information and complete survey data, visit healthykidscolo.org. ADULTS CAN HELP PREVENT YOUTH E-CIGARETTE USE HEALTH DISPARITIES Demographic breakdown of tobacco users. CDPHE acknowledges that social, economic and environmental inequities result in adverse health outcomes and have a greater impact than individual choices. Reducing health disparities through systems change can help improve opportunities for all Coloradans. 27% 31% 32% 44% CIGARETTE E-CIGARETTE 6% 17% 15% 33% Heterosexual Gay or Lesbian Bisexual Transgender CURRENT USE BY SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY 17% 17% 25% 29% 33% 31% 30% CIGARETTE E-CIGARETTE 5% 3% 7% 7% 19% 10% 11% Black Asian Hispanic White Pacific Islander American Indian Multiracial CURRENT USE BY RACE / ETHNICITY Have ever used an e-cigarette Currently use an e-cigarette Have ever smoked a cigarette Currently smoke cigarettes CIGARETTE SMOKING AND VAPING TRENDS 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2013 2015 2017 *E-cigarette questions added to the 2015 survey. 22%20% 16% 46%44% 26%27% 11%9%7% FAMILY RULES Youth who have clear family rules are 39% LESS likely to vape. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Youth whose parents know where they are and who they are with are 49% LESS likely to vape. EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES Youth who participate are 12% LESS likely to vape. SCHOOL SAFETY Youth who feel safe at school are 28% LESS likely to vape. TALKING WITH PARENTS Youth who can ask a parent for help are 31% LESS likely to vape. CURFEW Youth whose parents know if they don’t come home on time are 38% LESS likely to vape. SKIPPING SCHOOL Youth who did not skip school in the past month are 52% LESS likely to vape. CHEW LICENSING TOBACCO RETAILERS LOCALLY Protecting kids, protecting business CURRENT LAWS DESIGNED TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM THE ILLEGAL SALE OF TOBACCO ARE NOT WORKING. Enforcement paired with meaningful penalties – such as license suspension and revocation – motivates tobacco retailers to comply with the laws.4 A small annual licensing fee helps ensure ALL retailers follow the law.3 In Colorado, local licenses are required to sell goods ranging from marijuana and alcohol to ice and Christmas trees. Yet there is no license required to sell the deadliest consumer product – tobacco. 1 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey. (2015). Retrieved July 2016 from http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/PublicHealth/community/CEPEG/UnifYouth/Pages/HealthyKidsSurvey.aspx 2 KM: Gray, B., Chaloupka, FJ. (2003). State Policies and Community Characteristics Affect Tobacco Sales to Minors? An Analysis of over 100,000 FDA Compliance Checks,” Policy Forum 16(1). 3 Data compiled from retailer self-report of average monthly revenue from sale of tobacco in three Colorado cities. CSPH Training and TA Team, September 2016. 4 Point of Sale Strategies a Tobacco Control Guide. (2014). Retrieved September 20, 2016, from publichealthlawcenter.org HOW CAN WE PROTECT YOUTH IN OUR COMMUNITY? TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSING 68 PERCENT SALE68% of youth who attempt to buy tobacco products are sold tobacco illegally.1 Tobacco retailers in jurisdictions with weaker enforcement are more likely to sell tobacco to minors than those that require licensing and enforce the law.2 Certified Signature LICENSE TO SELL ATTACHMENT 3 One in three Colorado high school students use tobacco. Vaping’s rising popularity among youth threatens to completely erase decades of progress to reduce nicotine and tobacco addiction. 1 RAISE THE AGE OF TOBACCO SALES TO 21 1 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey. (2017). Retrieved July 2018 from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/hkcs 2 Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2016, from http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/factsheet.html 3 Calculated based on data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)’s public online data analysis system (PDAS), National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2016, https://pdas.samh-sa.gov/#/survey/NSDUH-2016-DS0001 4 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey. (2017). Retrieved July 2018 from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/hkcs 5 Kessel Schneider S, Buka SL, Dash K, et al “Community reductions in youth smoking after raising the minimum tobacco sales age to 21 Tobacco Control” 2016;25:355-359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocon-trol-2014-052207 Nearly 90% of adult cigarette smokers first tried tobacco before the age of 18 and nearly 95% by the age of 21. WHEN PAIRED WITH A STRONG RETAILER LICENSING ORDINANCE, RAISING THE MINIMUM LEGAL SALE AGE TO 21 WILL HELP SAVE LIVES. 18 YEARS OLD SALE There is evidence that raising the minimum legal sale age prevents youth use: The rate of youth smoking decreased by nearly 50% in Needham, MA within five years of raising the age to 21. 4 5 32 Current laws aren’t enough. The legal age to purchase tobacco in most Colorado communities is 18 years old, but 56% of high school students think it’s easy to get cigarettes and 58% think it’s easy to get e-cigarettes. Certied Signure LICENSE TO SELL Certied Signure TOBACCO 21 ATTACHMENT 4 More than a dozen states and 475+ cities have raised the legal sale age for tobacco to 21. Service members between 18 and 21 deserve the same protections as their civilian counterparts from tobacco addiction. Of current smokers in the military, 38% report they began after joining the service.6 As of June 2019, Colorado city and town councils in Aspen, Basalt, Edgewater and Snowmass Village have added a provision raising the minimum legal sales age to 21 to their tobacco retail licensing law. Certied Signure LICENSE TO SELL Certied Signure TOBACCO 21 18-21 475+ cities Raising the minimum legal sales age should be done in conjunction with retailer licensing in order to provide enforcement and have the greatest impact on reducing youth access to tobacco. 1 Secretary of Defense Ash Carter April 2016 Policy Memorandum 16-001. Department of Defense Tobacco Policy. Available at http://www.med.navy.mil/sites/nmcphc/Documents/health-promotion-wellness/ tobacco-free-living/INCOMING-CARTER-Tobacco-Policy-Memo.pdf; accessed December 20, 2016. www.tobaccofreeco.org/tobacco21 Most youth who use flavored tobacco say that they would stop using tobacco products altogether if they couldn’t get them in flavors. 3 RESTRICT FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO PROTECT YOUTH 1 Villanti AC, Mowery PD, Delnevo CD, et al. "Changes in the prevalence and correlates of menthol cigarette use in the USA, 2004-2014." https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/25/Sup- pl_2/ii14.full.pdf 2 Ambrose, BK, et al., “Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among US Youth Aged 12 – 17 Years, 2013 – 2014,” JAMA. 2015;314 (17):1871 1873. 3 Harrell MB, Loukas A, Jackson CD, et al. Flavored Tobacco Product Use among Youth and Young Adults: What if Flavors Didn’t Exist? Tob Regul Sci 2017;3:168–73. 4 Family Smoking and Prevention Act. Retrieved June 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/1256 5 Giovino GA, Villanti AC, Mowery PD et al. Differential Trends in Cigarette Smoking in the USA: Is Menthol Slowing Progress? Tobacco Control, doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051159, August 30, 2013 [cited 2018 Jun 12]. 6 Ribisl KM, D’Angelo H, Feld AL, et al. Disparities in tobacco marketing and product availability at the point of sale: Results of a national study. Prev Med 2017;105:381–8. 7 Sanders-Jackson A, Parikh NM, Schleicher NC, et al. Convenience store visits by US adolescents: Rationale for healthier retail environments. Health Place 2015;34:63–6. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 bans flavored cigarettes, but menthol cigarettes and flavored chewing tobacco and e-juices are not included. 4 1 Vape products sold in flavors like gummy bear, cotton candy, mango and mint appeal to young people and are often marketed in kid-friendly packaging. CANDY FLAVORS AREN’T THE ONLY ISSUE: NEARLY 9 IN 10 AFRICAN-AMERICAN SMOKERS AGED 12 AND OLDER USE MENTHOL CIGARETTES. 5 MARKET THEGROCERY TODAY, FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS ARE WIDELY AVAILABLE AND MARKETED IN CONVENIENCE STORES FREQUENTLY VISITED BY YOUTH. 6, 7 At least two-thirds of youth tobacco users report using tobacco products “because they come in flavors I like.” 2 Menthol cigarette use among current smokers in the U.S. by age (2012-2014) Ages 12-17 Ages 18-25 Ages 26-34 Ages 35-49 Ages 50+ 53.9% 50.0% 43.9% 32.3% 32.9% ATTACHMENT 5 8 CDC, Progress Erased: Youth TObacco Use Increased During 2017-2018. Press Release. Feb 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/p0211-youth-tobacco-use-increased.html 9 Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. “States and Localities That Have Restricted the Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products.” https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/factsheets/0398.pdf There is support for flavor restrictions. At least two states and more than 180 communities have passed restrictions on the sale of flavored tobacco products. In June 2019, the city of Aspen passed an ordinance that banned the sale of all flavored tobacco products including mint and menthol. 9 Certied Signure LICENSE TO SELL Certied Signure FLAVOR RESTRICTIONS Prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products is a proven strategy recommended by the CDC to reduce youth initiation and use. 8 www.tobaccofreeco.org/retailerlicensing YEAR JUNE THROUGH RETAIL LICENSING ORDINANCES, LOCAL COMMUNITIES CAN CLOSE THE GAPS IN STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS TO PROTECT YOUTH AND BAN ALL FLAVORS. Tobacco Retailer Licensing Is Effective @ 2013 California Department of Public Health The Center for Tobacco Policy & Organizing | American Lung Association in California 1531 I Street, Suite 201, Sacramento, CA 95814 | Phone: (916) 554.5864 | Fax: (916) 442.8585 ©2018. California Department of Public Health. Funded under contract #14-10013. CENTER4TOBACCOPOLICY.ORG LUNG.ORG/CALIFORNIA In California, 144 communities have adopted strong local tobacco retailer licensing ordinances in an effort to reduce illegal sales of tobacco products to minors. That includes the following four components: • License that all retailers must obtain in order to sell tobacco products and that must be renewed annually. • A fee set high enough to sufficiently fund an effective program including administration of the program and enforcement efforts. An enforcement plan, that includes compliance checks, should be clearly stated. • Coordination of tobacco regulations so that a violation of any existing local, state or federal tobacco regulation violates the license. • A financial deterrent through fines and penalties including the suspension and revocation of the license. Fines and penalties should be outlined in the ordinance. The table below lists illegal sales rates to minors before and after a strong licensing law was enacted. These sales rates were determined by youth tobacco purchase surveys administered by local agencies. It is important to note that results from the youth tobacco purchase surveys have a number of different factors that influence change. Results from these surveys are somewhat dependent on certain factors that differ in each community, such as the age of the youth and the number of stores surveyed. Furthermore, other factors that could impact these rates include statewide laws, other city policies, or statewide or national media campaigns. The data below shows that these decreases occur after a tobacco retailer license has been established. The results overwhelmingly demonstrate that local tobacco retailer licensing ordinances with strong enforcement provisions are effective. Rates of illegal tobacco sales to minors have decreased, often significantly, in all municipalities with a strong tobacco retailer licensing ordinance where there is before and after youth sales rate data available. However, a licensing ordinance by itself will not automatically decrease sales rates; proper education and enforcement about the local ordinance and state youth access laws are always needed. Before and after youth sales rate data is available for the following 41 California communities with strong licensing ordinances- Banning, Baldwin Park, Beaumont, Berkeley, Burbank, Calabasas, Carpentaria, Coachella, Contra Costa County, Corona, Davis, Delano, Desert Hot Springs, El Cajon, Elk Grove, Goleta, Grass Valley, Grover Beach, Kern County, La Canada Flintridge, Los Angeles County, Morgan Hill, Murrieta, Norco, Oroville, Pasadena, Riverside, Rosemead, Sacramento, Sacramento County, San Fernando, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County, Sonoma County, Tehachapi, Vista, Winters, Woodland, and Yolo County. For more resources on these ordinances, including the Matrix of Strong Local Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinances with policy and enforcement details for every strong ordinance in the state, visit: www.Center4TobaccoPolicy.org For model tobacco retailer licensing ordinance language, visit ChangeLab Solutions at changelabsolutions.org SEPTEMBER 2018 ATTACHMENT 6 THE CENTER FOR TOBACCO POLICY & ORGANIZING Page 2 of 2 The Center for Tobacco Policy & Organizing | American Lung Association in California 1531 I Street, Suite 201, Sacramento, CA 95814 | Phone: (916) 554.5864 | Fax: (916) 442.8585 ©2018. California Department of Public Health. Funded under contract #14-10013. CENTER4TOBACCOPOLICY.ORG LUNG.ORG/CALIFORNIA Table of youth sales rates before and after the adoption of a strong tobacco retailer licensing ordinance City/County Date Passed Annual Fee Youth Sales RateBefore Ordinance Most RecentYouth Sales Rate Banning August 2006 $350 77%21% Baldwin Park October 2008 $342 34%9% Beaumont December 2006 $350 63%20% Berkeley December 2002 $427*38%4.2% Burbank February 2007 $235 26.7%5% Calabasas June 2009 $0*30.8%5% Carpentaria April 2012 $379 26%7% Coachella July 2009 $350 69%11% Contra Costa County January 2003 $160*37%13% Corona October 2005 $350 50%17% Davis August 2007 $377 30.5%12% Delano June 2008 $165 23%5.6% Desert Hot Springs August 2007 $350 48%4% El Cajon June 2004 $698 40%1% Elk Grove September 2004 $270 17%16.7% Goleta May 2014 $534 21%7% Grass Valley November 2009 $100 27%0% Grover Beach September 2005 $244 46%17% Kern County November 2006 $165 34%13.3% La Canada Flintridge June 2009 $50*47.1%0% Los Angeles County December 2007 $235 30.6%8% Morgan Hill April 2014 $125 15%0% Murrieta May 2006 $350 31%7% Norco March 2006 $350 40%6% Oroville March 2013 $30 22.6%0% Pasadena January 2004 $225 29%0% Riverside May 2006 $350 65%31% Rosemead July 2017 $235 32%22% Sacramento March 2004 $324 27%15.1% Sacramento County May 2004 $287 21%7.1% San Fernando October 2008 $250 38.5%3% San Francisco November 2003 $175*22.3%13.4% San Luis Obispo August 2003 $255 17%13% San Luis Obispo County October 2008 $342 33.3%5% Santa Barbara County November 2010 $235 21%3% Sonoma County April 2016 $350 18.4%1.3% Tehachapi February 2007 $165 8%16.7% Vista May 2005 $250 39%1.9% Winters January 2016 $377 47%19% Woodland June 2015 $377 32%8% Yolo County May 2006 $377 28%7.8% *City or County fee does not fully cover administration and enforcement of the tobacco-retailer license. Rather, the fee is supplemental with another stable source of funds, such as the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) funds or general funds. See the Center’s Matrix of Strong Local Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinances for full details about the administration and enforcement of these ordinances. Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick Goff, City Manager DATE: August 19, 2019 SUBJECT: Delegation of Private Activity Bond Cap to Jefferson County Housing Authority ISSUE: The City of Wheat Ridge has received an allocation of $1,667,715 for the purpose of issuing Private Activity Bonds (PABs) in 2019 under the state ceiling imposed by the Tax Reform Act of 1987. Staff recommends assigning the City’s allocation to Metro West Housing Solutions which has agreed to issue PABs for the renovation of the Caesar Square Apartments owned and operated by the Jefferson County Housing Authority. PRIOR ACTION: The City of Wheat Ridge has traditionally assigned the City’s PAB allocation to either CHFA or the Metro Mayors Caucus for single family mortgage revenue bonds. The last allocation assignment was approved in 2011 to CHFA. Since 2011, neither CHFA nor the Metro Mayors Caucus were accepting applications for allocations because of the decline in the financial markets and the impact that has had on investor interest in PAB. Between 2012 and 2018, the City’s allocation was relinquished to the statewide balance for distribution to applicants by the Department of Local Affairs. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact to the City of Wheat Ridge. However, injecting PAB capital into the community has a direct impact on real estate, construction, and financial markets by stimulating economic activity and jobs. BACKGROUND: PABs are tax exempt bonds designed to offer low-cost financing to private sector borrowers for projects that create jobs and expand the tax bases of local communities. PABs may be used to finance a broad array of community development projects including housing, manufacturing, higher education, infrastructure, and environmental projects. The bonding authority which allows the issuance of PABs is Volume Cap, created under the federal Tax Reform Act of 1986. The federal government allocates a maximum amount of Volume Cap use to each state annually, based on population. Per Colorado statute, the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) administers the state’s allocation of Volume Cap. Under the statute, 50 percent of Colorado’s allocation is given to five statewide authorities, with DOLA deciding the proportional allocation of each. Item No. 2 Delegation of Private Activity Bond Cap Page 2 As a political subdivision of the state and an authority, CHFA is eligible to receive an allocation of Volume Cap, which it uses to issue tax exempt bonds throughout Colorado. CHFA uses its annual allocation to issue tax exempt bonds for single family mortgages, multifamily rental developments, manufacturers, and mortgage credit certificates. The remaining 50 percent of annual Volume Cap is allocated to local issuing authorities. A local issuing authority consists of “any city, town, county, or city and county which has a population in any year which would result in the local issuing authority having any allocation of the state ceiling in excess of one million dollars” (CRS 24-32-1702-8). After allocating Volume Cap to local issuing authorities, any remaining balance becomes available by application to the statewide balance. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends assigning the City’s PAB allocation to Metro West Housing Solutions for the renovation of the Caesar Square Apartments in Wheat Ridge. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memo from JCHA 2. Caesar Square Renovation Plans Request for Private Activity Bond (PAB) Cap Caesar Square Apartments Renovation 1 The Jefferson County Housing Authority (JCHA) is the housing authority serving Colorado’s 774 square mile Jefferson County, located just to the west of Denver. JCHA provides housing opportunities including affordable units, voucher administration, single family rehab, and new development in both incorporated and unincorporated areas of Jefferson County. Our mission is to create vibrant, stable communities in areas of opportunity, via bold and strategic initiatives, and to provide families and individuals with housing options driven by compassion and respect throughout Jefferson County. JCHA’s portfolio includes 21 rental properties with 1200+ units. Caesar Square Apartments is a 108-unit multifamily rental community owned and operated by JCHA, located at 9235-9355 W 48th Ave in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Caesar Square includes 5 buildings, built from 1970 to 1973, on approximately 5 acres. JCHA has identified Caesar Square as one of the properties in our portfolio with a significant need for reinvestment. JCHA plans to utilize equity generated with 4% Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and Private Activity Bond (PAB) debt to finance approximately $6M in renovations to the property. A LIHTC allocation is contingent upon securing adequate PAB cap assignment. JCHA is currently working with a local architect, Studio 646, to finalize a scope of work based on our $6M renovation budget. Improvements to the property are anticipated to include: •Major systems repairs, including structural and electrical, to secure the long-term health and safety of residents, reduce ongoing maintenance/repair expenses, and maximize energy efficiency •Better service to disabled residents via the creation of 6 fully accessible units, step-free unit access, and improvements to the accessibility of common amenities. •Addition of a new community center building which will include a fully accessible leasing office, laundry, community space, and outdoor gathering and play areas •Reconfiguration of parking areas, drive lanes, and landscaped areas to enhance safety and security of residents and neighbors and to build sense of place and community identity ATTACHMENT 1 Request for Private Activity Bond (PAB) Cap Caesar Square Apartments Renovation 2 In order to support the 4% LIHTC that will finance these reinvestments, JCHA requests that the City of Wheat Ridge assign its 2019 Private Activity Bond (PAB) cap of $1,667,715 to Metro West Housing Solutions, which has agreed to issue PABs for this transaction. The City’s support of this project will directly impact the 108 households who currently reside at Caesar Square Apartments, who will benefit from a significantly improved quality of life and an enhanced sense of safety and security. In addition to the immediate impact on Caesar Square’s existing households, this reinvestment will allow JCHA to secure the long term affordability of all 108 units at Caesar Square. While JCHA keeps rents affordable at all of our properties as a matter of policy, Caesar Square has never had a recorded rent restriction or income qualification. Through this refinancing, JCHA will secure all 108 units for households earning no more than 60% of Area Median Income. By doing so, we will create a long-term, high quality affordable asset in the heart of Wheat Ridge that will serve as a welcoming place to call home for lower-income Wheat Ridge residents for decades to come. # of people in household 1 2 3 4 60% AMI income limit $39,000 $44,580 $50,160 $55,680 Unit type 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed total # of units 37 69 2 108 unit size 547-733 sf 695-790 sf 1,525 sf proposed rent $1,044 $1,254 $1,448 CAESAR SQUARE APARTMENTS 9235-9355 W 48th Ave, Wheat Ridge Unit mix Income limits Renovation Plans Project timeline Q1 2020 Close financing & start construction Summer 2021 Renovations completed 7490 West 45th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Phone: 303.422.8600 ∙Fax: 303.422.3229 Admin. Fax 720.974.5808 ∙ Colorado Relay 711 Web: www.jcha.org ∙ Contact: lrosendahl@jcha.org Development financing Sources Permanent mortgage $6,800,000 Capital Magnet Funds $700,000 LIHTC Equity $5,700,000 Deferred Developer Fee $765,000 JCHA Seller Loan $9,237,000 TOTAL $23,202,000 Uses Land and Building $12,000,000 Construction Hard Costs $6,200,000 Soft Costs $3,322,000 Developer Fee $1,680,000 TOTAL $23,202,000 Scope of renovations anticipated to include: Major systems repairs New community center, leasing office, and resident gathering areas Landscaping and site plan improvements to improve safety and security Improvements to unit interiors and building common areas JCHA intends to keep current residents in place throughout renovation Approximately one third of current residents are Housing Choice Voucher holders ATTACHMENT 2 Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Steve Nguyen, Engineering Manager Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Mark Westberg, Project Supervisor DATE: August 9, 2019 (for the August 19 Study Session) SUBJECT: ROW Acquisition and Eminent Domain 101 ISSUE: On January 14, 2019, Council authorized staff to acquire right-of-way (ROW) for both the Wadsworth Boulevard widening and the Wheat Ridge · Ward Station street projects. Staff had requested that the ROW resolution include the ability to use the City’s power of eminent domain, if necessary, to accomplish the necessary ROW acquisitions. At that time, Council did not feel comfortable with authorizing staff to use eminent domain and so that ability was not included in the Council action. Acquisition is proceeding at the station area and towards the end of next month, notice of intents to purchase land will be sent to over 60 property owners affected by the Wadsworth widening. With this upcoming mailing, it is possible that Councilmembers will be contacted by constituents on this topic, and the purpose of the August 19 study session is to provide a resource and education on the typical ROW acquisition process and eminent domain. At the study session, staff will be joined by the City’s ROW consultant for both projects to explain what eminent domain is and isn’t, when and how it is used as a tool to keep projects moving forward to construction, who pays what, and what happens if it is not used. DISCUSSION: On December 10, 2018, Council approved a contract for ROW acquisition services with HDR, Inc. to prepare ROW plans and acquire the necessary ROW to construct both projects. Greg Jamieson, the project manager for HDR and previously with CDOT, has many years of experience in acquiring ROW for local, state, and federally funded projects. In order for staff and HDR to proceed with the acquisitions that are necessary for both projects, Council approved a resolution authorizing the acquisition of ROW on Council’s behalf. The resolution also authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to accept the ROW on behalf of Council. Item No. 3 ROW Acquisition and Eminent Domain 101 August 19, 2019 Page 2 For the Wadsworth project, since federal funding is involved, the ROW acquisition must follow the lengthy federal process. The process for the Ward TOD street projects is somewhat easier, but must still comply with State statutes. Both of these processes will likely take more than 12 months to complete. ROW Acquisition Process The ROW acquisition process, whether federally funded or not, typically follows these discrete steps: 1. Notice of Intent (NOI) – After determining the amount of necessary ROW, an NOI to acquire is submitted to the landowners. If the initial estimated value of an acquisition is $5,000 or more, State statute requires that the landowners be notified of their right to get an appraisal. The City is required to reimburse the landowner if the appraisal is submitted to the City for review within 90 days of the notification and if the appraisal meets certain standard appraisal practices. The notification is typically submitted as a part of the NOI. 2. Just Compensation – Just compensation is defined as the value of the ROW acquired, plus any damages to the reminder of the property due to the acquisition of the ROW. For higher value parcels, generally greater than $25,000, licensed appraisers are used. For lower value parcels, an experienced ROW professional can determine the just compensation. When federal funds are involved, the appraisals are reviewed by a second certified appraiser, typically CDOT staff, to determine the fair market value (FMV). 3. Initial Offer Packets – After the FMVs are determined, initial offer packets are prepared and submitted to the landowners. During the initial round of negotiations, real estate specialists contact and meet with the landowners as often as necessary to answer questions, provide additional information, and discuss any concerns. 4. Initial Negotiations – Substantial energy and effort is made to get a consensual agreement during the initial negotiations. The effort expended during the initial negotiations helps to keep the project on schedule, reduce consultant and ROW costs, and to satisfy the State statute that requires that “good faith negotiations” be done before eminent domain can be used. 5. Incentives – For both the Wadsworth Boulevard widening and Ward TOD projects, the City is also using an incentive program which is an increasingly common practice. An incentive is money that is added to the FMV that the landowner will receive if they accept the initial offer within 30 days. For lower cost acquisitions, the incentive is typically a set amount. For higher cost acquisitions, the incentive may be a percentage of the acquisition based on a sliding scale. This program helps to keep the project on schedule and reduces consultant costs by reducing the amount of time spent negotiating. This program also tends to limit the number of potential eminent domain cases. 6. Counteroffers – If the landowners present a counteroffer with valid arguments, with or without an appraisal, that the just compensation needs to be higher, then those arguments will be considered during the ongoing negotiations. ROW Acquisition and Eminent Domain 101 August 19, 2019 Page 3 7. Final Offer – If the initial negotiations are not successful within a reasonable period of time, typically eight weeks, a final offer is sent to the landowner. The final offer advises the landowner that the City will continue negotiations for two more weeks and that if no agreement is reached, the City may use its power of eminent domain. 8. Last and Final Offer – If the final offer negotiations are not successful, typically a last and final offer is made in an attempt to avoid filing an eminent domain petition. 9. Council Action – If the last and final offer is not accepted, then the next step depends on whether Council has previously authorized eminent domain. a. If previously authorized, then Council would be briefed by staff at a study session of the status of all of the acquisitions and of any outstanding acquisitions that might need to have an eminent domain petition filed on. b. If not previously authorized, then staff will ask Council at a public meeting to approve a resolution for the authority to file eminent domain on specific affected properties. Eminent Domain What is it? While eminent domain may have a negative stigma, it is simply a judicial process in which a neutral third party determines a property owner’s just compensation when the City requires ROW to benefit the general public interest. While staff acknowledges that eminent domain is a “tool of last resort”, it is a tool that is occasionally needed at times in implementing public infrastructure projects. What isn’t it? Eminent domain is often thought of as the City “taking” private property for a project. However, the City is prohibited by the state and federal constitutions (Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution; Article II, Section 15 of the Colorado Constitution) from “taking” property. The City, must acquire property for a project by paying just compensation. Eminent domain does not decide whether or not the ROW will be acquired. That decision is made during project development, when the location and amount of needed ROW is determined. The only decision at hand during eminent domain is the just compensation. When is eminent domain used? Eminent domain is most often used in the following scenarios: 1. Uncooperative Landowner – If the City and the landowner cannot agree on the just compensation amount, the eminent domain process decides that amount. If a case moves to eminent domain, the City Attorney will often contact the landowner and make one last attempt to reach an agreement. ROW Acquisition and Eminent Domain 101 August 19, 2019 Page 4 Even when a petition is filed, a settlement is often reached by negotiations between the attorneys before the trial date. In HDR’s (the City’s ROW consultant) experience, the majority of the acquisitions are resolved voluntarily, and eminent domain only needs to be pursued about 20% of the time. Of the cases that are pursued, virtually all are settled before trial, with less than 1% being resolved in a valuation trial. 2. Unresponsive Landowners – With large corporations, it is sometimes difficult to find the right person within the organization who is empowered and willing to negotiate the acquisition. In these cases, filing an eminent domain petition and getting their attorneys involved is often the only way to get the correct contact to negotiate the acquisition. 3. Absentee Landowners – This scenario is rare, but there have been cases in which a landowner cannot be found by normal means or the landowner has died or may no longer exist as an entity. Eminent domain is used to obtain the ROW through court action. 4. Other Interested Parties – Acquisition negotiations are between the City and the landowner. Once an agreement with the landowner is reached, the landowner often needs to obtain approval from any other party that has an interest in the property. If the landowner has not involved the other parties in the negotiations, occasionally an interested party, like a major tenant at a shopping center or a mortgage holder on the property, won’t agree with the landowner’s negotiated agreement. Eminent domain is used to obtain the ROW through court action. How is eminent domain used? Eminent domain is used as a tool to prevent unnecessary delays in the project schedule by resolving any outstanding necessary ROW acquisitions for a project. This becomes critical on projects with federal and bond funding due to the deadlines imposed by the funding. The eminent domain process is as follows: 1. Eminent Domain Petition – The City Attorney prepares and files a petition. Any person or entity with an interest in the property is listed as a party to the petition which is then served on all parties and published. 2. Immediate Possession Hearing – An immediate possession (IP) hearing is then scheduled, which can be done within 30 days of the service of the petition. During the hearing, the City would then have to prove certain elements at the hearing in order to be awarded an order of possession. One of those elements is that the City has satisfied the “good faith negotiations” requirement. 3. Order of Possession – The City would pay an estimate of the just compensation to the landowner and would then be allowed to proceed with construction. Again, the eminent domain process determines the just compensation, not whether the acquisition moves forward. ROW Acquisition and Eminent Domain 101 August 19, 2019 Page 5 4. Valuation Trial – This is a court trial to determine the just compensation for the acquired ROW. The landowner has the choice of choosing either a jury trial or to have the case heard before a three person Commission appointed by a judge. The process for a valuation trial is typically as follows: a. City’s appraiser testifies to their estimate of just compensation. b. Landowner’s appraiser testifies to their estimate of just compensation. c. Jury or Commission determines the final just compensation or award. d. Court enters a rule and order conveying the parcels to the City after it pays the award to the landowner. Who pays for what? Eminent domain can be a costly process for the City to undertake and potentially for landowners. The costs are typically borne by the various parties as follows: 1. City pays for the ROW consultant time, City Attorney’s fees, and the preparation of any exhibits or other costs necessary to present the City’s case. 2. City pays for all of the court costs, including the cost of a court reporter, Commission’s fee, costs for copies and exhibits, etc. 3. Landowner pays for their attorney’s fees up front. State statute requires that the City reimburse the landowner’s attorney’s fees if the award from the trial is 30% higher than the last written offer from the City. What happens if eminent domain isn’t authorized? If using the City’s power of eminent domain is not authorized, there are three possible outcomes: 1. Overpay the uncooperative landowners – This option has the following perception and budget implications: a. Fairness to the other landowners that were cooperative with the City in acquiring the ROW. b. Paying substantially more than the just compensation is not a good use of taxpayer dollars. c. Unnecessarily increases the ROW costs. 2. Redesign the project around such landowners – This option has the following perception, schedule, and budget implications: a. Avoiding one property will likely cause additional impacts to other properties. This may require renegotiation for ROW acquisitions that have already been completed. Again, this may give the impression that more cooperative landowners are being treated unfairly because of the uncooperative landowner. b. Redesign will delay the project with having to redo work that has already been completed, especially since the redesign will likely affect a much larger area then just the one property. This will likely delay the project by several months or more. ROW Acquisition and Eminent Domain 101 August 19, 2019 Page 6 c. For federally funded projects, a re-evaluation of the environmental impacts will likely need to be done. This will likely delay the project by at least one year, but potentially longer. d. Any of the above schedule delays could jeopardize the project funding, especially for federally funded projects. e. Redesign will increase the consultant costs by potentially requiring additional survey, design, environmental, and acquisition work. 3. Abandon and not build the project – This option has the following perception and budget impacts: a. A no action alternative fails to address the public purpose of the project. b. All project expenditures, including project funding and taxpayer funds, are irrecoverable costs. NEXT STEPS: The main purpose of the August 19 study session is to discuss the acquisition and eminent domain procedures and answer any questions Council may have. Council will also be asked if there is consensus to reaffirm the prior decision on eminent domain or if there is consensus to reconsider authorizing the use of eminent domain for the ROW acquisitions for the Wadsworth Boulevard widening and Ward TOD projects. Memorandum TO: City Council and Mayor THROUGH: Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Zareen Tasneem, Planner I DATE: August 6, 2019 (for the August 19, 2019 study session) SUBJECT: Residential-One (R-1) Zone District Accessory Structure Setbacks ISSUE: In 2009, the City of Wheat Ridge’s residential development standards were modified in the Zoning and Development Code (Chapter 26 of the City’s Code of Laws, or the Code). As a result, side and rear setbacks for accessory structures are now 5 to 10 feet in most residential zone districts. However, there was a conscious policy decision at the time to not change the Residential-One (R-1) standards, which require 15-foot side and rear yard setbacks for all structures. The R-1 zone district is the City’s largest lot, single-family zone district requiring a minimum lot area of 12,500 square feet (0.25 acre) and lot width of 100 feet. The purpose and intent of this zone district is to provide high quality, safe, quiet, and stable low-density residential neighborhoods, and to prohibit activities of any nature which are incompatible with the low-density residential character. Several requests have been received from property owners for City Council to consider the option of a code amendment to reduce setbacks for accessory structures in the R-1 zone district. BACKGROUND: Current City Regulations In residential zone districts, setbacks are established for primary and accessory structures. Accessory structures are defined as major or minor. This distinction between major and minor depends on the size and height of the structure. In general, a garage or carport is often classified as a major accessory structure, where as a shed or gazebo is often classified as a minor accessory structure. As mentioned above, the minimum side yard and rear yard setback for both major and minor accessory structures in the R-1 zone district is 15 feet. In all other residential zone districts, the setbacks for an accessory structure is less. The setbacks for a minor accessory structure are 5 feet in all other residential zone districts. For major accessory structures, setbacks range from 5 to 10 feet and can be based on height. Refer to Exhibit A for side and rear yard setbacks for accessory structures in residential zone districts. Item No. 4 R-1 Accessory Structure Setback Requirements August 19, 2019 Page 2 Anecdotally, staff hears occasionally from property owners who are displeased with the impact of the 15-foot setbacks in R-1. This is more often associated with sheds than garages. In the last 10 years, out of 156 variance applications, 8 variances have been processed in relation to R-1 side and/or rear yard setbacks. Neighboring Cities’ Regulations Below is a summary of setback regulations in other jurisdictions’ largest or most similar residential zone district as they pertain to side and rear yard setbacks for accessory structures. This information is also summarized in table form in Exhibit B. Lakewood In the City of Lakewood, for the zone district similar to Wheat Ridge’s R-1 zone district, accessory structures have a minimum side and rear yard setback of 5 feet. However, if the accessory structure is “large” (i.e. length greater than 32 feet or height greater than 12 feet1), then the primary structure’s setbacks apply or a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet and a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet. These regulations are less restrictive than R-1 and more similar to Wheat Ridge’s other residential zone districts. Arvada For all zone districts, the City of Arvada requires accessory structures to follow the required setbacks of the primary structure. In the comparable Residential Estate zone district in Arvada, this means a minimum 15-foot setback for both the side and rear yard setbacks. One exception is accessory “mini-structures,” which are allowed to be erected in the minimum setback areas, but not in the front yard setback or on easements. Accessory mini-structures include playhouses, gazebos, and small storage sheds and is analogous to Wheat Ridge’s minor accessory structure category. Compared to this approach, our R-1 major accessory setbacks are similar, but the minor accessory setbacks in R-1 are severely more restrictive. Englewood In the City of Englewood, the largest single-family zone district has a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet. Accordingly, the minimum side yard and rear yard setback requirements for accessory structures are generally 5 feet, with exceptions made if the entrance to a carport or detached garage faces an alley or the side lot line. Because of difference in lot size, it’s hard to make a direct comparison. Edgewater In an analogous zone district in the City of Edgewater, the minimum side yard setback is the same for all structures (15 feet), while the minimum rear yard setback is 10 feet for accessory structures. These regulations are consistent with the current regulations in Wheat Ridge, with a slightly less stringent rear yard setback. 1 Height is measured at mid-roof for pitched roofs. R-1 Accessory Structure Setback Requirements August 19, 2019 Page 3 Golden Accessory structures in any residential zone districts in the City of Golden may have side and rear yard setbacks of 5 feet from the property line. While this is similar to the setback standards for accessory structures in the R-1C zone district in Wheat Ridge, the largest single-family zone district in Golden has a minimum lot size of only 9,000 square feet, thus making a comparison is difficult. Denver In Denver, setbacks for accessory structures are based on how they are situated on the lot. For example, if the structure is situated entirely in the rear 35% of the lot, then the side yard setback is 0 feet, otherwise side yard setback is 5 feet. Similarly, if there is no alley in the rear of the lot, then the rear yard setback is 5 feet; if there is an alley and the doors of the structure face the alley, then the rear setback is also 5 feet, if they do not, then the setback is 0 feet. Although side and rear yard setback requirements are more permissive in Denver than in Wheat Ridge, they also have more context-sensitive regulations attached to them. SUMMARY: Results of the code analysis comparing the City’s regulations versus those of our neighboring municipalities show that Wheat Ridge’s R-1 setback requirements for accessory structures are generally more restrictive than those of neighboring municipalities. Most other municipalities have an allowance of 5 feet for the side and rear yard setbacks; in some instances, some even allow a 0-foot setback. That said, there are few comparable R-1 zone districts in neighboring municipalities and setbacks can be a defining feature of neighborhood character and unique among municipalities and zone districts. The pattern that emerges most clearly is that other communities and, in fact, most zone districts in Wheat Ridge have different setback requirements for major versus minor accessory structures. NEXT STEPS: Staff is seeking Council’s input regarding whether or not there is any desire to modify the Code regulations related to the minimum setback requirements for minor and/or major accessory structures in the R-1 zone district. If Council considers the existing setback requirements to be too onerous for minor accessory structures (e.g. sheds), which are already limited to 10 feet in height, it may be reasonable to reduce those setbacks. For example, a minimum setback of 5 or 10 feet instead of the existing 15. If Council also considers the existing setback requirements to be too onerous for major accessory structures (e.g. detached garages), it may be reasonable to make those setback requirements dependent on height like in other residential zone districts in Wheat Ridge. For example, a minimum setback of 10 feet if less than 10 feet in height and a minimum setback of 15 feet if over 10 feet in height. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit A – Accessory Structure Setbacks in Residential Zone Districts 2. Exhibit B – Comparative Accessory Structure Setbacks with Neighboring Municipalities Minimum Side Yard Setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback Major 15'15' Minor 15'15' Major 5' if ≤10' in height, 10' if >10' in height 5' if ≤10' in height, 10' if > 10' in height Minor 5'5' Major 5'5' if ≤10' in height, 10' if >10' in height Minor 5'5' Major 5'5' Minor 5'5' Major 5'5' if ≤10' in height, 10' if >10' in height Minor 5'5' Major 5'5' if ≤10' in height, 10' if >10' in height Minor 5'5' Major 5'5' if ≤10' in height, 10' if >10' in height Minor 5'5' Major 5'5' if ≤10' in height, 10' if >10' in height Minor 5'5' Residential-Two A (R-2A) Residential-Three (R-3) Residential- Three A (R-3A) Exhibit A: Accessory Structure Setbacks in Residential Zone Districts Residential-One A (R-1A) Residential-One B (R-1B) Residential-One C (R-1C) Residential-Two (R-2) Residential-One (R-1) ATTACHMENT 1 Municipality Zone District Name Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width Accessory Structure Type Minimum Side Yard Setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback Major 15'15' Minor 15'15' Major 10’15’ Minor 5'5' Major 15'15' Minor 0'0' Englewood Residential One A (R-1-A)9,000 sf 75'All 5' 5'; 6’ if entrance to carport or detached garage faces alley; 3’ if entrance to carport or detached garage faces side lot line Edgewater Residential A (R-A)12,500 sf 100'All 15'10’ Golden Residential Estate (RE)9,000 sf 75'All 5'5' Denver Suburban Single Unit 12,000 (S-SU-I)12,000 sf 62.5'All 0' if structure entirely in rear 35% of lot; 5’ if structure not entirely in rear 35% of lot 5' if no alley; 5’ if doors face alley; 0’ if doors do not face alley 100' Exhibit B: Comparative Accessory Structure Setbacks with Neighboring Municipalities Residential-One (R-1) Large Lot Residential (R-1-12) Residential Estate (R-E) 12,500 sf 100' 12,500 sf 100' 12,500 sf Lakewood Arvada Wheat Ridge ATTACHMENT 2