HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/2006
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
City Council Chambers
7500 W. 29th Ave.
November 6. 2006
6:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Item 1.
Item 2.
Item 3.
Item 4.
Item 5.
Staff Reports
a) Resolution Methamphetamine Clean-up Type /I
b) Radio System - Signal Amplifier at Wheat Ridge
Middle School Type /I
c) Proposed Police Mobile Incident Command Post Type
/I
Outside Agency Reports
Furnace & Shingles Code (Joint Meeting with Building Code
Advisory Board) Type I
Council Bill 38-2006 - An Ordinance Adopting the National
Electrical Code 2005, NFPA 70: National Electric Code Type /I
Regulation of Social Clubs Type /I
Code Enforcement Administrative Hearings Type I
Leader's Guide 2005 Summary ReportlMayor and City Council/Wheat Ridge, Colorado
Work Session Typology
~ WORK SESSION WORK SESSION WORK SESSION
TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III
PRE-REPORT DRAFT REPORTS BRIEFING
--~,----~--=.."- ------.~------~--_.__.- -.--,-----' ~"-~- - ------_.~--_.__.- ---
Provide direction and Refine proposed reports and Brief Mayor and City
guidance on major
issues before staff recommendations prior to Council on major issues,
analysis and report formal presentation and upcoming opportunities
preparation. action. and operational matters.
-~-- '-_.._--- -~--_...- .- ------------------ -------------------- --_._--_._._---~
TOPICS: TOPICS: TOPICS:
1. Define the Problems 1. Present Background 1. Present Background i
Information
~
- 2. Identify Issues 2. Review and Highlights of 2. Discuss Topics i.
Analysis and Options
~, ! Establish Parameters 3. Review and Refine 3. Explore City's Role or
3.
and Guidelines Recommendations Need for Action
4. Focus on Possible
Outcomes
4. Finalize Desired Goals
and Outcomes
4. Focus on Overall Policy
Direction and Guidelines
5. Outline Process and
Possible Next Steps
5. Outline Next Steps
I
6. Decide Whether or
Not Worth Pursuing
i"I'~"';';;'-'-111
I
Copyright@ 2005: Lyle Smnek Associates, Inc.
05-MAR-53
Section XI - Page 1
Study Session
November 6, 2006
Item 1 a.
WHEAT RIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Mayor Jerry DiTullio and City Council
Randy Young, City Mana~ r'l3r
Daniel Brennan, Chief of Police ~ v
VIA:
DATE:
October 31, 2006
SUBJECT: Designation of the Jefferson County Department of Health and
Environment as the Governing Body to Oversee
Methamphetamine Lab Cleanup
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
House Bill 04-1182 has mandated that property that has been contaminated due
to the presence of an illegal, clandestine methamphetamine lab be cleaned up
and that property owners who comply with cleanup standards be immune from
future lawsuits. The law left open how property owners would receive applicable
cleanup information and what agency would maintain cleanup records. The law
made a provision that a "Governing Body" could be designated. The Jefferson
County Department of Health and Environment (JCDHE) has written standards
compliant with the law and is asking for the City of Wheat Ridge to pass a
resolution designating the JCDHE as the governing body for all of Jefferson
County.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES:
Colorado State law 25-18.5 states that the "Governing Body" of the jurisdiction
where a property contaminated by methamphetamine production is located is to
be designated by the City Council. If no such designation is made, the governing
body is to be the Department of Health, the Building Department and the Law
Enforcement Agency with jurisdiction over the property in question. Over the
past year, the JCDHE has worked with agencies including the West Metro Drug
Task Force to develop cleanup standards as well as record keeping standards.
The JCDHE has volunteered to be the governing body as described in 25-18.5.
JCDHE Memorandum
October 31, 2006
Page 2
In addition, the JCDHE has developed resources for use by affected property
owners including informational publications, answers to frequently asked
questions and lists of recognized cleanup companies. They have established
protocols for the reporting of contaminated properties, placarding of such
properties and inspection and certification of cleaned properties.
The JCDHE is now ready to handle the administration and record keeping duties
associated with the provisions of 25-18.5
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No financial impact is anticipated to affect the City of Wheat Ridge. The JCDHE,
citing the reduced number of methamphetamine labs operating within the county
does not anticipate charging fees to any property owners effected.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City of Wheat Ridge can designate a different governing body. In order to
comply with the law, it must be the Department of Health, Building Department or
Law Enforcement Agency with jurisdiction over the property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends designating the JCDHE as the governing body over
methamphetamine lab cleanup as described in 25-18.5 by City Council
Resolution.
Prepared by: Dave Pickett, Interim Commander
St~~y Session
November 6, 2006
Item 1 b.
WHEAT RIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Mayor Jerry DiTullio and City Council
Randy Young, City Manage~
Daniel Brennan, Chief of Police ~J
VIA:
DATE:
October 31, 2006
SUBJECT: Radio System Signal Amplifier at Wheat Ridge Middle School
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Because of location, design, and building materials utilized in construction,
Wheat Ridge Middle School, located at 7101 West 38th Avenue, is not conducive
to adequate radio signal penetration. A radio signal amplification system, known
as a BOA (bi-directional amplification) will increase the signal, allowing radio
reception into and out from the building.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES:
Prior to 2006 the city's public safety radio system, utilized by the police
department and the Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District, was located on the
tower at the municipal building at 7500 West 29th Avenue. This location enabled
the radio signal to penetrate Wheat Ridge Middle School because it was in close
proximity to the tower. Other buildings within the city, especially on the west
side, could not receive adequate signal strength.
Signal strength in buildings can be affected by one or more of the following:
. Proximity to the Site
. Transmission Power
. Topography
. Building Materials
. Building Design
. Barriers
. Foliage
. Weather
. Interference
Memorandum BOA at Wheat Ridge Middle School
October 31, 2006
Page 2
Since 2004, the City has placed BOAs in Wheat Senior High School, Everett
Middle School, Lutheran Hospital Emergency Room, and the Wheat Ridge
Recreation Center. The radio signal strength in each of these locations was
severely degraded by at least half due to the previously mentioned items.
In 2006, the City of Wheat Ridge, in partnership with the West Metro Fire
Protection District, began constructing a radio site on Mt. Morrison, southwest of
the city, which also allows the city the use of the Lakewood's site on Green
Mountain. Both of these locations are at a considerably higher ground level than
the antenna at the city building. This higher elevation has improved outdoor
signal coverage which was a major problem because of the city's topography.
Signal coverage inside buildings has been affected as well because the
transmission site(s) are now located at a greater distance. The buildings on the
west side of the city have better indoor coverage and the signal has degraded in
buildings situated on the east end.
The signal inside Wheat Ridge Middle School is primarily affected by:
. Proximity to the new site
. Building Design
. Building Materials
The police department is reassigning School Resource Officers to the high
school and middle schools. The ability for these officers to communicate with
dispatch and other department personnel is of vital importance in day to day
operations as well as during emergency situations, as has occurred in recent
events, involving children's safety at schools.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Three of the four previous BDA installations were at facilities other than city
property. Two were completed at R-1 district schools and one at Lutheran
Hospital and were 100% funded by the City. At the time of these installations, the
school district and Lutheran were unable to commit funds; however the City
considered it important enough to commit funding to these projects. The costs
for these projects were:
. Wheat Ridge Senior High School
. Everett Middle School
. Lutheran Hospital ER
$32,849.00
$22,504.00
$29,505.00
Memorandum BOA at Wheat Ridge Middle School
October 31 , 2006
Page 3
The estimated cost for the BOA for Wheat Ridge Middle School is approximately
$35,000.00 based on the size and design of the building, as compared to the
Senior High School. There will be a bid process to establish system design and
cost.
The City currently has funding from the original radio project's reserves to
complete this project.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Operate without a BOA installation in the school.
2. Budget for a BOA in future years.
3. Investigate additional/other funding sources.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Staff recommends implementing the BDA project utilizing existing city
funds from the radio project reserves.
Prepared by: Wade Hammond, Commander
Study Session
November 6, 2006
Item 1 c.
WHEAT RIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Mayor Jerry DiTullio and City Council
Randy Young, City Manage~
Dan Brennan, Chief of Police Q@-
October 31, 2006
VIA:
DATE:
SUBJECT: Staff Report: Proposed Police Mobile Incident Command Post
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
It is the goal of the Wheat Ridge Police Department to establish an emergency
preparedness management plan that will ensure that the City is prepared to
respond to, and recover from, all natural and man-made emergencies. The
police department will provide the leadership and support to reduce the loss of
life and property through an all-hazards emergency management program of
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.
In the event of an emergency, the police department must be able to respond
with the appropriate resources to address the issue not only at a designated
Emergency Operations Center (EOC), but also at the scene. One important
component of that on-scene response is the establishment of a Police Mobile
Command Post with the self-contained ability to operate both independently and
in a partnership with the Wheat Ridge Police Communications Center and the
newly formed Joint Emergency Operations Center located in the City of
Lakewood.
The City of Wheat Ridge does not currently have a vehicle with the necessary
equipment to establish an incident command post as previously described.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES:
An emergency incident is an occurrence, either caused by humans or natural
phenomenon, which requires response actions to prevent or minimize loss of life
or damage to property and/or the environment.
Examples of emergency incidents include:
. Natural disasters, such as tornadoes, floods, ice storms, or earthquakes.
. Human and animal disease outbreaks.
. Search and rescue missions.
. Hazardous materials incidents.
. Criminal acts and crime scene investigations.
. Terrorist incidents, including the use of weapons of mass destruction.
. National Special Security Events, such as VIP visits or conventions.
. Other planned events, such as parades, festivals, or demonstrations.
. Fire, both structural and open space.
The Mobile Command Post is the location. from which the Incident Commander
oversees all on-scene incident operations. The best practices model for
Command Post is a self~contained vehicle equipped with the necessary
resources that can be positioned outside of the present and potential hazard
zone but close enough to the incident to maintain command.
Communications and Emergency Management are synonymous. Each
emergency incident has its own unique requirements. This means that the police
department; entrusted with the responsibility to protect the citizens of Wheat
Ridge during times of need, must remain flexible. Communication is usually the
key element, as well as the most difficult element, to insure during disasters. It
is important for the police department to be able to maintain communications
during emergencies.
Besides emergency incidents, this proposed Command Post could be used very
effectively in other planned events such as parades, festivals, or any event that
could operate as a free-standing dispatch center that take the pressure off of the
Communications Center by handling the on-scene event while the
Communication Center handles the regular duties of 911 operations and
dispatching.
FINANCIAL IMPACT (Relative Facts):
The police department currently has a vehicle that could be converted relatively
easy to a Command Post. This vehicle is a 2001 GMC van that was previously
used as an on-scene forensic evidence collection vehicle. Since the police
department has established a partnership with the Lakewood Police Department
to form a regional system evidence and laboratory analysis, this vehicle can now
be used for a more general and useful purpose as a Command Post. The design
of this van is well suited for this proposed purpose; however, it would require
some structural alterations and equipment additions to transform it into the
Command Post of the community's needs.
The remodel of the interior of the van would involve the removal of some existing
cabinetry and bench seating and the building of a custom two-person
communications center with wiring, computer installs, desktop workstations,
lighting, screens, keyboards, and power supply system.
In addition, radio equipment costs would include computers, mobile radios,
mobile/satellite phones, and desktop console.
Rough estimates for the project are $13,000 for the remodel and $33,000 for the
equipment for an approximate total of $46,000. Professional estimates have yet
to be obtained to be entirely accurate on this proposed cost.
No additional funds are expected at this time to complete this project. The police
department currently has funds that were set aside for the implementation of the
new police radio system that can be used for this project. These funds must be
used before the end of year.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
1. Operate the described vehicle as it is currently equipped, as an
extremely limited purpose Command Post
2. Budget for such a vehicle in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends using existing budgeted funds to remodel and equip an
existing police department vehicle as a Command Post multi-functioning
vehicle.
Prepared by Jim Lorentz
~
,
41
- ,
, 5Kr5n Nt.
BeNcH .5ar
cilA.~~1E;tJ'i t7
I'D I
~/Ne;~
'f"
~(2.c ~ ~ ?~/;'I
.,. ,,' ,- ..
~(UetS
b'
~ --"..,.-~ '-".
N6"~ 2 -"&RSo,J
~\~ ~~ c...o~ SD'-C
/\
,....- "
, \
\
"~ -j
~- .....
\
, \
~,,,,.j
..J
--
'........
!
I f
~_~__,l__"""_ ",."__~"_.~",,",._"_~.._,~~."~".~~~~~ ,- ~
( ---,", -~ ..,-
Vk r --,
\
,.
\ \ I
\ \
\
-
.
< \
III
\ .
-
~
\
\ \
I
.
-
-rr
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Chadley Root, Building C.B.O. ~.Iff---
FROM:
SUBJECT: 110 mph Shingles & 90% Furnaces
DATE: October 27,2006
The City adopted the 2003 International Building Codes (mC) in December 2004. The codes went
into effect January 2005. The Prescriptive Energy Code, adopted at the same time, was adopted as
an alternative code to the 2003 International Energy Conservation Code (IECe). The IECC sets
standards for energy conservation and is referenced in all of the other codes. Following this
memorandum is a chart showing the requirements of other cities in the metro area for shingles and
heating systems. Requiring roofing materials to meet local wind conditions and requiring energy
efficiency are two components of providing quality housing stock in the community.
Shingles
A 90 mph sustained wind load has been used in previous codes as the construction requirement
applicable in Wheat Ridge. The mc adopted the 3-second wind gust standard and most of Colorado
is shown as being in the 90 mph 3-second wind gust area, noting that the Front Range is in a special
wind region. In 2005 a wind study was conducted by CPP Wind Engineering Consultants at the
request of many of the Front Range cities. According to this wind study, half of the City of Wheat
Ridge is in the 110 mph 3-second wind gust zone. (See Attachment A.) The 90 mph sustained and
110 3-second wind gust requirement are actually equivalent measures.
Attachment AA is information that the City of Broomfield has prepared to provide information about
the requirements for the 110 MPH 3 second wind gust. There have been many Wheat Ridge homes
that have had roof damage due to high winds and even the Public Works shops have had shingles
damaged due to high winds. When the mc was written and started using the 3-second wind gust
requirement, many shingles had not yet been tested for this requirement. Testing has now been
conducted and there is a large selection of roofing products that meet the 110 mph 3 second wind
gust. (See Attachment A.)
Options
. Stay with the 110 mph requirement citywide.
. Create two different wind zones (110 and 100 mph) for different areas of the City.
. Reduce the requirement to 100 mph, or some other wind speed, citywide.
I:\Building\Code changes\Shingles & Furnaces CC 55 Memo.doc
90% Furnaces
The IECC requires that any additions, alterations or repairs to building mechanical systems, among
other systems, requires conformance with the provisions of the IECC. This requires the performance
of RES check or COMcheck for heating system replacements in residential or commercial structures.
REScheck and COMcheck are basically energy conservation audits of a-structure. Although this is a
fairly simple procedure, some residents might not have the information (such as U-values of
windows or R-values of insulation) to provide an accurate result. Combined with the age of much of
the housing stock in the City, it was reasonable to assume that most homes would need the 90%
efficient heating system. To save residents the trouble of performing the REScheck, the Prescriptive
Energy Code was adopted to require the use of 90% heating systems.
The 90% heating system is the requirement only if a REScheck or COMcheck is not performed on
the structure. Installation of an 80% system would require completion of RES check or COMcheck
to show that the building meets minimal energy standards of the IECC. We have had many owners
use REScheck and COMcheck to lower the requirement for their heating system down to an 80%. In
instances where REScheck indicates a 90% heating system is needed to pass, but installation of a
90% appliance is difficult or impossible due to the location of the heating system room, the building
division will issue a "hardship" permit allowing an 80% heating system.
A survey of other communities shows that most jurisdictions have adopted the IECC and are using
REScheck and COMcheck. (Refer to the table following this memorandum.) Our Prescriptive
Energy Code establishes 90% as the standard, but also allows an owner to use the REScheck process
and allows the use of 80% systems in cases of hardship. This provides owners and the contracting
community several options.
Some of the controversy surround 90% heating systems concerns the cost of the higher efficiency
furnaces. As shown in Attachment B, the cost difference between the 80% and 90% furnaces ranges
from $300 to $500 according to information obtained from distributors.
There is also a difference in the venting requirements between the two systems that can result in a
difference in cost, but in most cases, new venting must be provided whether an 80% or 90% furnace
is installed. The venting requirement for a 90% system is plastic PVC pipe vented directly to the
outside. In most cases the existing vent system cannot be used for a 90% system unless the furnace
is the only appliance using the vent stack. (Usually the hot water heater shares the stack.) The 90%
systems are very efficient and condensate moisture (one by-product of burning natural gas) which
must drain to a floor drain or drain line, such as the washing machine drain. The 80% system can
typically use the existing vent stack, but must be supplied with "make up air" under the mechanical
code. "Make up air" is air that is used by the appliance for combustion of the gas. Most of the
existing older homes in Wheat Ridge do not have venting for "make up air," so additional venting
must be installed when an 80% system is installed. Attachment BB is a diagram showing venting
requirements for the two different systems.
Options
. Repeal adoption ofthe IECe. This would eliminate the option of RES check or COM check
and there would not be a standard for hearting systems or other energy conservation items
I:\Building\Code changes\5hingles & Furnaces CC 55 Memo,doc
Citv: Roofina Rea. Note: Furnace Rea. Note: Presc. Enerav Code
2 layer max; Req. Manf. Warranty or 2003 IECC; 2003 Presc.
Exposure B; 110 80% & 90%
1 Wheat Ridge MPH 3-sec wind ASTM testing (3161 Type effic. New and replacement Energy Code;
gust F) REScheck; COMcheck
Adopting 2006 I-codes
2 Englewood 90 MPH sustained 1/2007 - @ that point it will Adopting 2006 IBC - Jan t J 2007
/ 2 layers change to 110 MPH 3-sec 2007 0 come an
gust
2003 IECC- allow
Arapahoe 105 MPH 3-sec 2003 IBC 80% & 90% REScheck, COMcheck - 2003 IECC: REScheck;
3 County wind gust some may need 90% to COMcheck
pass REScheck.
IRC Table N 1103.1.
Boulder 90 MPH t. d R904 and R 905. If high 2000 IECC; REScheck;
sus ame . d ft' th d Yc
4 County /21 win as enlng me 0 s 80% & 9000 COMcheck
ayers .
are applicable we require
it.
REScheck. You will
Aspen I Pitkin notice that the "high" Efficient Building
5 County 2003 IRC / IBC 80% & 90% efficiency boilers in Program; REScheck.
this table are 90%.
"Point system"
90% AFUE wi ~UUj IK<"; prescriptive
F t r U code w/ additition on
Larimer enes ra Ion - 900/1 AFUE I 2003 IRC prescriptive
6 2003 IRC prescriptive code factor 0.50, F 0 t . Wu f
County T R 38 enes ratIon - actor code
cel mg -, 0 50 T R 38 d
d II R-13 . ,cel mg - ,an
an wa s . ,^,~IIc:: R-1 ~
Citv: Roofina Rea. .Note: Furnace Rea. t'Jote: Presc. Enerav Code
trade off method of
7 Thornton compliance per REScheck
REScheck.
8 Telluride 70 MPH sustained 80% Green code gives BIG Yes
points for 90%.
9 Johnstown 80% Lower R-values require Y
a 90% AFUE es
-
-
10 San Miguel 90% AFUE Presc. Energy Code;
County Green Building
ASTM 3161 modified 110 80% & 90%
11 Northglenn 110 MPH certification - inspector
verified @ inspection. AFUE
On new construction, it is
85 mph exposure based on the REScheck
No req. on and what efficiency rating is
Cwind a 6 nail pattern, and a used on that furnace to
12 Castle Rock requirement (110 mid roof inspection to replacement meet that house package. REScheck
mph 3 second verify the nailing pattern. only on new "It is rare to see a house
gust) construction pass the 2003 Res Check
with less than a 90%
AFUE furnace."
City RoofinQ ReQ.. Note: Furnace ReQ~ Note: Presc. Enerav Code
2003 IRC: ASTM 3161 Have Presc. Energy
13 Arvada no requirements testing (warranty - useless). 80% & 90% must prove that it will Code. (Adopting 1/1/07:
except bldg code "Look @ what has been AFUE work for energy code 2006 IECC /IRC)
working for 50 Yrs"
14 Golden 100 MPH; total of 2 1997 UBC No req. No energy code.
overlays allowed.
15 Fredrick 90 MPH sustained wish they would've worded 90% AFUE
wind load 110 MPH 3-sec wind gust
16 Brighton No req. 2003 IMC
require something from the
Bennett 110 MPH 3-sec manufacturer for No req. Have not adopted any
17 wind gust compliance with the energy codes
adopted wind speed
REScheck; manual J
6 nail - 105 MPH 3- 80% & 90% (not rpts (8th edition); (test
18 Parker sec wind gust enforced on all houses - design @ 8"
replacement) ht. run. CFM flows/duct
leakaqe)
-
3 layers/ 3-tab, manfuct.
No spec. 4 nail: Requirements. No overlay whichever they choose New construction;
19 Lakewood exposure C; 100 on dimensionals; No 80% or 90%
MPH 3-sec gust ice/water & edgemetal on existing structures RES/COMcheck
eaves & rakes
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0'i -
2003 \RG I \BG I \E.GG 2003 \E.GG
2~ oellver
.. J..__- ~
------
Note:
sust3\oed - V,Hod gust - \eC
ueC -
"\05 Mpr\ 3-sec
55 Mpr\ w\nd gust
'\ '\ 0 MPH 3-see
90 MPH W\od gust
Note"
~
-4
~
i
I
;....t
p
'--
-~
-_.
=~.-
\.:
- .~~..;..w'"...",'~.,
:~~~~~~~::,:~.::,~.:,:,,-,
'J,.\~.
2
3
CSU Main CaJl"'(lU&. CO
1050512W 403ot35N
..
f 140
"';120
i 100
..
; 80
" 60
4()
.2
CSU M... Campus, CO
10505 12W 4()34 35N
V5Q.< 104 VSOO'I25 mjl/l ....
^n<:mElePcOll'Io 10m .... ~
~:~ 100 500 I~
180
100
} 140
I- 12Q
100
. ""
.J 60
:===:::,om ~....
--t....
40 ~25 ~ 100
500 1000
-2 0 2 6
Reduwd v..riate fw f'ype I Ex...."'" V.tue OiCflOulon
Roducod Valla" let Typo I ex...... Val.. _buIIon
110
~ 110 CSU Main c.'V1'IPUS. CO
_ D.....') ~ 1'I"le.'I&vred .:c An.em Eiev -, 66 and 00 it
j 100
I '"
80
I 70
~ :
1960
N~V
a
~
.c 120
: 110 CSU .....n Campus, CO
= 100 Data as m(oaI$umd at .A.nem Elev -= 68 it
"
-= 90
.
~ ao
.
~ 70
~ 00
=> 50
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
f'no
1980
1900
2000
10'0
Vel..
1965
1990
Vear
Analysis - Summary of Type I Fit to Data
Statloo Name locatl()fl Rec<:<d Years 5lJ.yrspd 5lJO.yr spd (5lJO.yr! 5lJO.yr spd I
Data ITl(l/l '!f'!1 5lJ.yr)' 2 sQRT(1501
1 AERC _ 1060812 W 403542 N 1997.2004 6 83 101 '48 e3
2 B"'ley 1061930W 392215N 1995-2004 10 92 122 176 100
3 Bonner PeaIl Ranch _ '06 11 W 4044 N 1900-2004 15 96 112 130 91
4 BouIde< . downfONll _'06'530W 400'OON '963-1960 18 '29 160 154 131
5 NBs Table Mounla'n _'06 ,5 W 40 07 N 1965-1963 8 '26 ,57 157 128
6 NCAR Tallie M..... _,06'626W 395842N 1967-1963 13 ,62 ,89 137 154
7 Choslman Field _10608,6W 403526N 1991-2004 8 64 96 136 60
6 Coat Creek Canyoo 106 23 28 W 39 52 36 N 1965-2005 2' 96 110 13' 90
9 csu .....n C<Impus 60 ft. .'050512W 403435N 1964-2003 31 100 122 148 100
9a CSU .....n campus _ _,060612W 403435N 1964-1_ 23 104 '25 '43 102
9b CSU .....n GamtJus AlAo' _,060612W 403435N 1997-2004 9 10 8' 134 66
,0 GooIgetONlllake West _ 105 42 W 3943 N 200().2004 5 '43 175 '40 '43
, 1 GooIgetONll South _ ,06 42 W 3942 N ,995-2004 10 95 ,,6 150 95
'2 Jellco Aprl .,0507 W 3954 N '98"l.2004 19 116 14, 150 115
,3 Mines Peal< 10645 W 3948 N ,969-1975 1 '49 176 130 144
,4 ~ Ridge C., . ,06 32 W 4002 N ,966-1_ ,0 108 129 1.41 105
sE lIank <t ndge
15~Ridge[)'1 . '063701 W 400334N '966-2002 21 174 223 164 '82
2 6 km E CooIlnental [)j..oo
16 ~ Ridge 5_ .,053528W 4003 16N 1900-2002 10 '60 203 182 166
SadclIe 00 ~ Ridge
17 Red FealherRAW5 '0634 20 W 404753 N ,_2004 17 '37 172 158 '40
18 Rocky RalS . '05'3 W 3953 N '963-1911 8 '30 154 139 '26
19 Ru5he . '05 35 W 4042 N '992.2003 12 95 104 12' as
20 5'''''''''00 . East 00n\Ef slapl"'OO, lowrey, BUCkley '946-1_ 66 60 92 134 15
. 104 53 W 3946 N
2' sum",,1 V_' 10601 W 4035 N 1991-2004 ,. 64 96 ,35 80
. ~ sheltered by upwind trees C<' buildings A_~ , 45
. ~ eshmaled tom dogItallopo Olal>
4
1 Bailey
2 Bingham Hill (4 mi NW)
3 Blackhawk
4 Buckhorn Mtn (10.5 mi NW Masomjl/e)
5 Carter Lake
6 Castle Rock
7 Chefry Creek RoseMir
8 Coal Creek Canyon
9 Estes Park
10 Lafayette
11 Larkspur
12 L..,,,.,..,,;
13 Louisl.ille
14 Lowland Ski Area
15 Masonl.ille (6 mi N)
16 Monument (3.5 mj SW)
17 Rollinsl.ille
16 Squaw Mountain (4 mi S Idaho Spgs)
19 Sugartoal Mtn (which one not specifted)
20 Virginia Dale (7 mi NE)
21 Watkins
22 Wellington
23 Wond8f\U (8 mi SW Boulder)
Gust Speed
mph
63
116
120
125
107
65
85
104
121
120
59
100
100
100
125
115
124
112
127
97
92
98
119
1994
1999
1996
1998
1999
1996
1973
1999
1995
1999
2003
1999
1999
t999
1999
1981
1999
1995
1999
2000
2000
2000
1999
5
\...-.\.
\'~. -"'.
i ~. ....... \ ","""~,
. ,\ ......
, '~'.
r
"'?~r
1"
7
8
9
to
11
\2
13
14
15
"'.,';.,.-..,.,.. . ..,
.' .!iIHW !Wf~ 1_
;:;~~Hf;lf:::d !:)!J.o)!nJ!;!bIJ;:;.
.b~1J1JJ0 iJf;l10i1!;:; 0=:JJ:::nlJJy
17.0).0) !il~JJJ J[) H. -rill;:;
!;~t:J0!:)fY JJJ!;J!.H.J:J.o) Ihl!
ufJ';;iIJ !;UWJ!fjJ
0nJ;:;;:;hwd;:; ~IJd
1 II _I ~III
l6
17
Analysis
120
I::
J:
1 :
50
.2
CMstr1"lOW'l FIflkJ. co
10608 18W .to3526N ,
V50-ao.....V5O<P98..... .........-
AI'I811Efev:;; 10m ..,,"'"
~~ 50 lW
000 1000
o 2 .. 6
Reduced V.m" Jot Type I Ex....... VaM DI*,butfon
I :: . CM$lman Fidel, CO
1 100 OaIa as meaufOO at Aoem E lev lI< 10 m
I :
i:~.....
'9911 1$091 1* 1989 zooo 2001 2fJ02 0'003 2004 2005
Yo.
no
AERC Ft Collno. CO
1050812W oW3542N
V...83..... V5O()o'0'..... '"
A_~
. __ / '"_ 2~_~_1~".~ 500 1000
o 2 .. 6
..duc:ed Va""''' for Type I b....me Va'" O1*'butioIt
'"
",/
1':
J ~
J :
40
-2
;
"
h
I
~
1: AERC F. Col...o: co-
80 Oola.. meaIoUfm ill Anem E'ev -" 2 m
70
00
50
40 ___.
JO
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
V.ar
~.
2004 200S
2008
18
Analysis
'00
CSu .\tan Ca1'lpUS Al.At1tnatoo, co
105051'2W 403435N
"50~1O \/500:$1 n"lph
Anem ElGv=corr to 10 m
160
.''''
I" 120
100
l 00
60
.
--
~ ____~~;50-:00 500 1000
.~ 0 2 4 6
"-duced v.,.... for 1'ype I ex...... Value OI....bule>n
t:: CSU Man Caml>os ....""""00 CO
J 80 0tJt.a as mea&.urlld all Anem Eltlv '" to tn
t I.
.. 60
I 00
~ :
'99<
^ ~;OO:;40---
~ C::'~
'9!'i6
'996
zooo
=J
2004
v..,
no
110
I no
J~:
l ..
10
SOMer P.- Rancn. CO
t0511W 4044N ~"..
V5O:>98mphV5()r(ht'2mph "...,
.~~-
/~ 25 ~_ 100
60
-2
_~.'~
o 2: .. 6
"'clucltdVatt.. for fY9t I e....."'" Vatu. DI.nbutton
2006
I :: ~~~P~~Ranch, CO
J 140 D'-a as lT1eo.lISumd at ANm Elev -: unlloown
i lW
)': ~~-
~ '"
1965 1W.JlO 1005 ~ 2005
Y.a,
180
"
f .60
.140
i 120
..
: 100
.. 80
60
-2
N_Ridgeo.t 26kmECD /
~(6/0':::~="" ::'00 U
V5O= .74 V5Olr-223 ""'"
Anem Ele\c2 013 m
o 2 4 8
110....... Varia" lor 1',,0 I b"'_ Val.. D111r1....an
,,200
E 180 Ntwot R:.dge (). t. CO
J Data. fTl8iIlIumd
: 100
..
: 14C f\
~120
.
i 100
C; 80 .
:1
:I 60
1960 1970
;:;mPh
1980
1990
2000
VI.,
200 .
180 __s.......CO /
t 160 ,0631128W"'03,8N ,,;'
J VOOolllO V0000103 ""'" ,/
140 Aoem71ev':2.3m
120
l 100
80
80 T'" ~!50 100 .__~~.~
.2 0 of 8
ReCkKed Vana.. for 1Jpe I Ia........ Va.... CltlltOutlOn
8
I : I NMot Rdge Saddle. CO
oJ Oata at fne9lIured
j 'llO
j 140
I 120
100
! :
1988 1990 199'2 191M
.
-. 'Am -.-.-.
mUJ .....
~
2010
.-
V....
'998 2000
1002 :zo<M
19
Analysis
200 .
__C-' SE Ranll. co
1M 32 W 4002 N
~loa~129rnph
Anem E!e\oIIl) 7 m aI:lo\e trees ..--...- .-"
--
~5 50_~. 500 1000
o 2 .
Reduced Va"" for Type I bllrerne V..... Dietbutlon
11. 130
i!" 120 __C-'C<>mo.CQ
J ().al:a as lne<l5ldsd ;JI Anem E!tN '" 0 7 Il1 :bMt tfees
J 110
i '00
.. 90
I :
l
" 00
1'lO5
r--
^
I
1910
19T~
1980
Vear
.80
'00 ~,,:,":~~EF_CO
J~:: V50'I08V5OO=1..mph /---
Aoom Ehw=O.1 m aDo\e trees """"
.00 ___
1:~:50100
.2
500 1000
, .
Reduced Va'.... for type I ex....... Vatu. OI*iltutton
i. 110
if '00 N__C-,.:o.m.CQ
i 00 Dalla as ~Ufod at Aoom E'8'lI ::: 0 T m iJI:lIoo4 tlees
i: r Al V
I 60
II 50
:5 '0
1965 191;0 1970 191;0 '990 2000
V..,
2010
Analysis
.
220
200
'100
J::
, '20
d '''''
80
-2
O'"i" Il.1keW_tCO
100 <2 W 3943 N
-
V!l()I'048rrf)hV!SO()a115""" ~
A~::::-: : :00 500 .000
o 2 .. 6
Rl!dIIcId Vari'" .. Type I &....... Va'''' Dl*illlutiote
! ~: (j;. late.Welf. CO
.. 1.tO Dala aa maraaUftld at Mom Elev >I uokOOWl'J
't .30
I :~
100
~ 90
1999 2000
-------/
2001
2002
2003
200<
v..,
180
11. 160
I!' ...,
J" 'ZO
100
1 :
'0
<'-- ,_,. Sooh,CO
t05.t2W 39.t2N
15O'~_"5OO>11._
Ansn elev " 10m? ~--
--
~20 50 100
500 1000
-,
o 2 .. 6
__d V.rIolo lor Typo IE'....... v..... 01-'
2005
\ ;~~ I.~~,~~~CO"_..___________ ....
1100 .t%U as meae~_.1I Aoem Esev,. to m?
lEnn~_
50 .._n__m__
199<1 ,_ 1996 2000 2002
V.a,
2006
~
2004
20
Analysis
2CO
,..
} 160
}"4<I
'20
1 100
..
60
-2
_., co
1a! l!530W 4001 OON ",..,.
V3():of29mpyV~"'f60mph ~
A~~:oo ~ I~
o .
IIItduced Valla. for Type I Ed..,.. Value OIaibutlon
li. ,..
e UiQ BouIdef D;Mnt(Ml('l, CO
J Dalia.as. rT'leIMured at AI'Iem Elew '" unkflO'oWfl
J 14<1
H~
1960 ,~ 19lQ 1975 19rW
V..r
220
2CO
l U.,
.160
.i''''
l 120
100
ao
-2
_NCAR. CO
1051826W 395842N "'"
V50"62""",V500-'89""'" -" ~
-"
A~
r. 25 50 100 500 1000
o "2 " IS
Reduced V.rI.. for Type I EJltreme v..... OI....tMIoft
1966
{220
e 200 Bout1i!lf" NCAR CO
J Oafa.. measul1ld at Aoem €Iev" uoknorMl
J 180
" '60
1 140
"i
11 '20
i 100
~ ..
1965
'9M
vi
..
.
~..
1970
1915
,_
v...,
Analysis
,..
j8ou1dor NBS T_ -.;n. co .
1<10- .....
I 1M lSW -4007N /'
. 140 V~" 126 mpf'l '1500:::151 r~ ",.
I:: A,,""~""''''' -"
1 .. ·
60 .
T: 25 50 '00
4<1.
-2
500 ,~
o 2 .
Reduced Vari... .... Type I bu.me v..... Ot*ibudon
,:: rib;d;~~__!~_~~~OO---
'i OaIa.. meatured at Anom El&;,.. lJl"dc,nQwf'l
" 14<1
" 120
I 100
I: \--- ~
1960 1965 1910 '~75 1980
v..,
130
120
1110
Jt:
1 eo
70
Cool Cn>eI< oonyon. co
IMn~W~~~N ~
V5001l6""",V500.110""", ~
A"""'EI""'38~ -"
~- T. 2~ ~ fOO ~ 1000
60'
.2
o 2 " 6
Aoducod v...... fo< TvlIO I fa....... v..... Illlllri_
t:: CootCreeft_~Qll co
J Oat,) ~ llMlIaIured at Anent fleV 1! 38 ft
J '00
l:-'-~-
~ :
1geO 19ft5 1000 19l}5 2000 2OO!S
y..,
20'0
21
Analysis
'00 . 200
HIll JMlco AifllOlt. co '00 Rocky FlaIs co
.'''' 10501W 39-;4N ..... .1lI11 10513W 3953N
\/5l)2118mpflV500:tt411f1)tl ",... ~ V5IP130 "1)h V5O()o: 15.4 moh --.....
J 120 ._~..... J: Anem EIeY ~ COlT to 101'0 ",... ".
100 ~5 ~ 100
! 00 ! '00
60 r-", 2'.l 50 tOO ~ '000 eo ~ '000
'" -
.2 0 2 4 6
ReduCild V.ri... _ Type I e.nme V.W Ol*Ibution
i '00 -.,A'llO'1CO
160 Data ~ mealUfed at .nero EIe\I :: 20 II:
1,..
i '20
I'~~
1980 1985 19!';1O 1m 2000
Vear
60
~ .
Reduced Va"'" '" Type I b.lAme Value Ot*ibuIIM
2005
i '80 _ky '''''s. CO
..r 160 Odt..clS l'I"leMurod dI AnUll Elw.: 20 It
j ''''
1'20
"1'0000 --- \ ~
~.. V
~ :
1960 1965 191Q 1975
'''"''
v..,
Analysis
'80
RedFeatherRAWS co ~
1M3420W 4041~N ./ ~ ~
''''"737'''''''VOOO'112''''''' .....
"nero flew '" unknown
.
T- 25 50 100
'00
.''''
J' .20
'00
l 80
60
~ 1000
'"
.2 0 2 ..
,. v....... tor Ty.,. I e._me VIM 0I*tbutt0n
i. '00
f Red Feather RAWS. CO
J 160 Data as meeaured .. Anem EI~-;~_
J '40
1'20 A-
)': )m~ .~
~ ",. _~m
1985 1990 2OOO:2'OCla
'30
'20
.11.
J':
J :
RwtlC,CO
1063.")W 4042N
V5Il="""",,,V""""04_ __-
A"""':;::'-- _-
'______...._ ~ --!: -3~ ~ 100
~-~~
60
,2
o 2 4 6
RedItUd Vari... tor Type lEx........ ViNe Di*itMIIIOft
I:: Rust>c. CO
J 110 Dat~ at. .,..\dd .. Anem EIW. 10 m7
J ':
100 ~
J ~900 '992 ._ .996 .998 2000 2002
V.,t
2004
22
Analysis
200
Mines Peak, co
fi .80
I::
1 120
100
I
.06 <Ill W 39 48 N "....- _
VroJl149Vi5QO:r118moh ,..., ......
-~
.
80
.2
T. 25 50 '00
!500 1000
o 2 8
"'_d v....... ..."""," . b....... Va,... 01"'_
Cst
i '50
cJ ..00
1 '30
l..t.20
110
! ':
1968 1969 1970 1971
..._ Peak. CO
--"--~--".__.-
Oataas~Uf'Glt3lA4emEIev:a" 38 It
"'~............'.~'~
- -/.____n_________ -...---------.--
,on
V.ar
1'913 191. 1975 1916
.00
.'"
1.20
1':
, 80
" '"
B_,CO
,051930W 392215N ~
11<50-92 n1>/l 11500> 122 n1>/l "'" ~
Anern Elev- unkr'll:;Mf'l ~
~25 50 tOO
20
-2
!500 1000
o .
_deiced V."a. lot 1')'pe tern.... ValUII Ofillribullon
'Ii 100,.,
r Bailey. co
I' 80 Oia-. ~ured at A;;m-EteY.~-~~
"
HV\~
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
2008
Vear
Analysis
.
50
.00
-2
500 1000
o 2 .. 8
RetNold Varia.. "" Type , lb....... Va'''' o."bu8On
J
1
~l
;
110
.00 ~-:':"'..: ~B=_...
90
811
:=:~
OIl
1940 ._ ,_ '970 1980 1990
V.ar
:>
........- Staplelon -&--l..orMvw AF8 ...... Buc/liley Field
120
110
If 00
J:
J 10
80
50
.2
820 S S......... View" CoIotls. CO
10601W 4035N
150.8tn1>/l"!lOOoll8n1>/l ~-
A~;;;:::: :00 !500 .000
o 2 . 6
_d Va_ lor tnoo , ltlt...... Va"" 1lIItII_
2000
I:: e20SS~VtfNlFICoI1ns,CO
J Oata. mealured.at Anern EIsw-- '0 m
J tOO
t 90
.. 80
I~~
1990 1995 2000
V..,
2005
23
, Asphalt
Shingles
and
High Wind
Tim Pate
City & County of
Broomfield
The 2003 IBC and 2003 IRC have provisions that regulate ,
asphalt shingles being installed in "high.wind areas. (110 mph '
or greater). Numer~us i.urisd!ctions wit~m the.front range ?f
Colorado fall into this hIgh wmd area wIth theIr adopted wind
design being 110 mph or greater. There ap~ears to be n:~ch
confusion about what the Code.s are re~ulatlng and r~qumng.
2003 IRe Section R904.1 requires that roof assembhes shall
be applied in accordan~e ~jth this .char;,ter and the . '
manufacturer's installatIon instructIons. 2003 IRC Section
H905.2.6 requires that "Asphalt shingles shall have the
minimum number of fasteners required by the manufacturer.
For roofs located where the basic wind speed per Figure
R301.2(4) is 110 mph or greater, special methods of
fastening are required. Special fastening meth?ds shall be
tested in accordance with ASTM 0 3161, modIfied to use a '
wind speed of 110 mph." . . . .
2000 IRC Section R905.2.6 reqUired a minImum of SIX
fasteners per shingle when locatedwithTrrttre special wind
zone per Figure R301.2(4) including the Front Range of
Colorado. There was a successful Code change (RB91-01)
which changed this prescriptive requirement of six fasteners
to the present wording requiring confonnance with ASTM 0
3161 modified to use a wind speed of 110 mph. The
prop~nent's reason sta~ed "T~ere is no b~sis i~ sci.ence or
any testing demonstrating shingles wIth SIX ocllls WIll
withstand the wind speeds stipulated by the Code. In fact, a
tested assembly may only require four nails per shingle.
Section R301.2.1 requires all "buildings and portions thereof
to meet the wind load design criteria of Chapter 3. There is no
justification for allowing exceptio~s for one type of roofing
material while all others are requIred to prove they meet the
wind load criteria of the Code.'
There was a successful Code change (R8236-03/04) in
Nashville which added the wording" Asphalt shingle wrappers
shall bear a label indicating compliance with ASTM 0 3161
Class F.' The reason from proponent was". . .At this time,
several manufacturers who have products that pass the
requirement (complying with ASTM 0 3161, as modified to
110 mph) do not label their products to Il1dlcate conformance
to the standard specified in Section R905.2.6. In order for
building officials, consumers, roofers, suppliers, etc. to be
able to properly identify an approved product, the asphalt
shingle wrappers should be labeled to e~sure coo:phanCB
with the provisions of thelRC for hIgh wmd areas.
The following is an explanation of ASTM 03161 - 03b from
Mike Noone, Chainnan, ASTM Subcommittee 008-02 which
oversees the ASTM 03161 test:
"ASTM 03161 is the primary wind test method used in the
asphalt shingle industry for certification of compliance to code
requirements. The method is used by Underwriter laboratories
and other Test labs to give manufacturers an independent
assessment of their products. It has existed, and been used
successfully ,for many years.
The Test Requirements are that the fan-induced wind is applied
at the designated test velocity for the entire duration of the test
- i.e. for 2 hours, or until failure occurs. The time involved is
obviously much greater that 3 seconds, and relates to a
continuous exposure to the stated velocity.
The Current version of ASTM 03161 (03161 -Q3b)
has three Classes:
Class" A" denotes Passing the test at 60 mph
Class "0' denotes Passing the test at 90 mph .
Class"F" denotes Passing the test at 110 mph.
Shingles manufacturers indicate the "Class' for a specific
shingle design on their wrappers and in their literature. Shingle
Manufacturers give wind resistance warranties which are
related to the Class that the shingles have been certified to
"Pass:
The Manufacturers Warranty is a separate issue from the
"Technical" aspects of the Test Methods and the Codes. In fact.
Warranty Issues are NOT pennitted to enter into any of the .
discussions at ASTM. A Manufacturer Jssues a "Limited Wind
Warranty. specific to its shingles. The wording and precise
conditions of applicability, differ from one Manufacturer to
another: ALL Manufacturers require that the products be
applied in strict accordance with their application instructions
(on every package). Misapplication and poor workmanship, are
major causes of shingle "Slow-ofts." Of course, shingles rely on
their self-sealing adhesive mechanism to be effective, and therE
are frequently "issues' when the shingles have not had
sufficient time at temperature for the sealant to activate. The
03161 test requires that the shingles are fully sealed before
testing.
The "MPH' velocity referred to in 03161 is strictly the
"TEST VELOCITY." It is held constant for 2 hours. Technically
this velocity is not identical to either the "fastest mile" or the "3
second gusf in a wind. However, since it is the velocity that the
shingles are exposed to for a full 2 hours, it is in fact,
appropriate to describe a 03161 - Class "F as 'equivalent to
passing both a 3 second gust of 110 mph and a fastest mile of
110 mph:
Colorado Chapter ICC
Page 3 of 4
~\.
-4'"
'P!'
q
c:
11\\
~"
01\
* septe\1\ber 2006
anufacturesI distribUWl ~
cost differences from furnace m c t cost ~
~ ~ ~ e Oille'eoee ~
gO'/. eo'/. eo'lo ~ ~ ~ ~~~
~ ~ ~ ~~~~ 1991S ~ ~ ~ 199- ~ .
~ $400..$500
-
j\mana
Burcll & $447.00
j\SSOC' $380.00
CO jones
com1ort
products
com1ort Air $408.86 $4'16.45
contractor $502.53 $9~8.98
suppl)' $473.4~ $882.27 -
oenver $583.06 $772.45 $872.56
\{\iinan $5~9.00 $'347.08 $322.96
$990.08 $833.~0 $~ ,~56.06
Empire Gas $643.00
FerguSon
\-\eating $464.08
$535,92 $ ~ ,000.00
G\ saunders $327.'15 $4'14.90
$562.9 5 $890.~0 $590 AO $~ ,005.30
Grainger $389.02 $429.27
Gustane $54 ~ A 6 $558.53 $930A8 $987.80
$420.00 ~~
Larson $400.00 \
\ $406.83
\-\ercules \ ~ ."A A'? $35'1.4'1 $423.'18
Average cost O\fference.
a
.-\
~
i
I
~
,
!J~
COMBUSTION 1
AIR INTAKE ~ ~
~~
j
1
EXTERIOR WALL T'
oJ
HEAT
I EXCHANGER
r. '\
/'
I
!
(
~
"
I
g~~~~~ION /
Figure G2407.1 (2)
DIRECT-VENT APPLIANCE
90%
SgskM
'Re~u'IV=M~"'T$ Fo~ aoolO
407.6 (304.6) Outdoor combustion air. Outdoor comb us,-
1 air shall be provided through opening(s) to the {Jutdoors in
ordance with Section G2407.6.1 or G2407.6.2. The mini-
m dimension of air openings shall be not less than3inches
nun).
G2407.6.1 (304.6.1) Two-permanent-openings method.
Two permanent openings, one Commencing within 12
inches (305 mm) of the top and one commencing within 12
inches (305 mm) of the bottom of the enclosure, shall be
provided. The openings shall communicate directly, or by
ducts, with the outdoors or spaces that freely communicate
with the outdoors.
Where directly communicating with the outdoors, or
where communicating with the outdoors through vertical
ducts, each opening shall have a minimum free area of 1
square inch per 4,000 Btu/h (550 mm2/kWJ oftotalinputrat-,
in,'!; of all equipment in the enclosure [see Figures
EXHAUST OUTLET ~ if
/ EXHAUST
-
COMBUSTION AIR ~ ,r-, f
INTAKE PIPE _______
LI.,
VENT OUTLET / / -
COMBUSTION
AIR INTAKE
','I
~,)1f.
qo%
'S,s\-e.fY\
r-----, CATEGORY IV
I 1,/ HIGH-EFFICENCY
I, ~ (CONDENSING) FURNACE
..~J&' ~ . n SLAB
:2 r -, I
~."..............~.~....~...._........... ....... ..,
"<Z~~ ::::;::; \
y^ 7.E::::
. . ::::~ DIRECT-VENT
;z::. WATER HEATER
Figure G2407.1 (3)
DIRECT COMBUSTION AIR CONNECTION TO THE OUTDOORS
-- CHIMNEY OR GAS VENT
./ .
~~~
~ ~~
~
[' ===
,J
OUTLET AIR DUCT
r---
r-------'
<'
o INLET AIR DUCT
I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '
I I I I I I I---L
I I I I .,
~OO;6
sjskrn
1(e1\A'\ (eMeN, 'I"::>
DAt jVaK.e.. l.A P
A \ r rrolN'- ~
O(A.\-s~e.. ,
LJ.LVUJ., ~1.:"Lh).J..Vl'
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
Memorandum
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
~
Alan White, Community Development Director (jt,W
Adoption of 2005 NEC
SUBJECT:
DATE:
November 1,2006
The ordinance adopting the 2005 National Electrical Code was adopted on first reading and referred
to the November 6th Study Session prior to scheduling for 2nd reading. The reason for this was the
inclusion of an amendment requiring all wiring and conduit that is not used or abandoned to be
removed in its entirety.
The amendment is proposed for safety reasons. Inspectors, contractors working after rewiring work
is completed, and owners are at danger of shock if a contractor leaves wiring in a ceiling or wall that
is still "hot." Without removal, abandoned wiring can become ajumble of wires leading who knows
where and connecting to who knows what. Such a situation can be very confusing for future
contractors working on the same structure. In addition, abandoned wiring and sections of conduit
pose a risk to firefighters during a fire if walls or ceilings fail and the firefighter becomes entangled
in the wiring.
It was noted that this requirement would increase the cost of remodeling projects. While there is a
cost involved in the removal ofthe wiring, it is also true that there may be additional cost on the next
remodel project when the electrician tries to figure out what wires are truly abandoned, where they
come from, and what circuits they are tied to. In our experience, the non-removal of unused wiring
is more prevalent in commercial structures.
Options:
· Retain the amendment - require removal
· Delete the amendment - don't require removal
· Require removal of abandoned wiring and conduit in ceilings only
· Require removal in commercial and industrial structures only
1:\Building\Code changes\CC SS memo.doc
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOKEY
Council Bill No. 28-2006
Ordinance No.
Series of 2006
TITLE:
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE NATIONAL
ELECTRICAL CODE 2005, NFPA 70: NATIONAL
ELECTRIC CODE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE,
COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Section 5-77 National Electrical Code, Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby
amended as follows:
(a) Adopted. The National Electrical Code, ~ 2005 Edition, Copyright by the
National Fire Protection Association, Batterymarch Park, Quincy,
Massachusetts, 02269 is hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated
into this chapter as though fully set out herein as the electrical code for the
city, Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, such code is adopted in full,
including the index and annex contained therein. One copy of said National
Electrical Code shall be filed in the office of the clerk and may be inspected
during regular business hours.
(b) Amendments. The National Electrical Code, adopted by this section is hereby
amended as follows (section numbers refer to section numbers of the National
Electrical Code):
Section Article 31 0.2(b) is amended by adding a new sentence to read:
"Aluminum conductors under size 8 are not allowed."
Section 331.12, "~ses Not Pe::::it:-e:i,":::: af3.ended by the addition of the
following ?~fagrapt ~
"{R) :s~se types zag ::at ~E ase:i i:: CCj'-gFO''':;; :\, 9, z,f; ~, ~, M, E 9R
p~ ~ c::::::-a;;a:l:::Y (as defines ~j' fue U:::fe.-s: ~-aE:iing COdE, 1~1)7 Editiro)."
Article 517.2 Definitions is amended by adding a new sentence under the
definition for Health Care Facilities that states: Health Care facilities shall
include Hospices.
Article 300.1 Scope (A) All Wiring Installation is modified to read as follows:
300.1 Scope (A) All Wiring Installation. This article covers wiring methods
for all wiring installations unless modified by other articles. All wiring and
conduit that is not used or abandoned shall be removed in its entirety.
1
(c) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide minimum standards to
safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and
controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy,
location and maintenance of all buildings, structures and utilities and certain
equipment specifically regulated herein.
(d) Electrical permit fees. Electrical permit fees shall be as follows: All fees shall
be computed on the dollar value of the electrical installation, including time
and material (total cost to the customer) and such fees shall be computed
based upon Section 107 and Table I-A City of Wheat Ridge building permit
fees ef.tft:: U::ii;)F..:l Suilding Code at time of obtaining the permit.
( e) Items of work for which a permit is required under this chapter which are
commenced before a permit is secured shall be assessed fees for permits in
triple amounts prescribed in the permit's fee schedule. This penalty shall be in
addition the investigation fee referenced in section 107.5.1 of the Uniform
Building Code.
Section 2. Safetv Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that
this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge,
that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this
ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of
public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the ordinance
bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained.
Section 3. Severabilitv: Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, subsection or
clause of this ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the
validity of the remaining section, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby.
All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final
publication.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on this
23rd day of October, 2006, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation
in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for_
. at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West
29th A venue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a
vote of to , this day of . 2006
2
SIGNED by the Mayor on this
ATTEST:
Pamela Y. Anderson, City Clerk
1 st Publication:
2nd Publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript
Effective Date:
day of
,2006
JERRY DITULLIO, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM
GERALD DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY
3
~Tuvr ~~~~iUl'l
November 6, 2006
Item 4.
WHEAT RIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Mayor Jerry Di Tullio and City Council ~
Daniel Brennan, Chief of Police fQ6(
Alan White, Director Community Development ~
TO:
DATE:
November 1, 2006
SUBJECT: Regulation of Social Clubs
The Police Department and Community Development have been responding to
numerous nuisance type complaints at various social clubs; particularly those
that are in close proximity to residential areas. Specifically, the police
department handles calls for service involving crime related issues, order
maintenance (behavior) problems and traffic complaints resulting from increased
vehicle traffic when the social club is open for business. The fire department can
be impacted as well when social clubs exceed their occupancy limits.
Staff members from Community Development and the Police Department met
with representatives from the City Attorney's office to discuss strategies that
would proactively address community concerns regarding social clubs. A
memorandum from the City Attorney's office detailing two regulatory proposals is
attached for your review.
MURRAY
DAHL
KUEGHENMEISTI2R
RENAUD LLP
. 2401 15th Street Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone 303.49:3_6670 FRJC 303.477_0965
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor DiTullio, Wheat Ridge City Council Members
FROM:
Gerald E. Dahl, Debra S. Kalish, City Attorney's Office
DATE:
July 17, 2006
RE:
Regulation of Social Clubs
Because of an increase in nuisance-type complaints at various social clubs in the City,
City staff has been reviewing methods of regulating these clubs. This memo will
provide you with an overview of the regulatory methods available for your consideration.
I. Zoning Changes
Part of the reason that complaints have been made about social clubs is their proximity
to and incompatibility with residences. The nature of these complaints include concerns
about crime, order maintenance (behavior) issues, and traffic problems brought about
by the proximity of social clubs to established residential neighborhoods. In order to
avoid future siting of social clubs in similar locations, staff has discussed the possibility
of revising the zoning code in three different ways:
· Allowing social clubs in industrial zone districts only
· Requiring a special use review before a social club could located in a zone district
· Prohibiting social clubs from being within some distance (1 block, 500 feet, 1000
feet) of residences
There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach.
Modifying the code to allow social clubs only in industrial zone districts is the easiest
approach to administer. If approved, there would then be only certain areas within the
City in which social clubs could operate. Industrial zone districts tend to be well-
separated from residential districts by distance and/or by major arterial streets. The
disadvantages to this approach may be the lack of discretion regarding whether to allow
a particular club in a particular location and the inability to attach conditions regulating
the conduct of the business in its particular location. This latter drawback could be
addressed if this approach was accompanied by a licensing requirement.
Requiring special use review would eliminate the lack of discretion in the "industrial
zone district only" approach, but then is consequently qlso an approach that is harder to
administer. An application must be filed; the applicant must hold a neighborhood input
meeting about the use; and the application must be referred to affected public agencies
for review and comment. Special uses can be approved administratively, but the public
interest might be better served if such uses automatically required a public hearing.
The special use permit can be revoked if there are violations of conditions of approval,
which could include hours of operation, staff requirements, and other elements
discussed below under licensing.
Prohibiting social clubs within a certain distance of residences has the advantage of
directly addresses the problem of incompatible uses, but because of the City's current
zone district configuration, may have the same effect as allowing them only in industrial
zone districts, depending upon the distance selected.
Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages. Bear in mind that the
zoning approach to regulating social clubs applies only to those social clubs that are not
currently in existence. Currently existing clubs would become legal, nonconforming
uses in their present locations if one of these options is adopted, which would prohibit
them from expanding in their present location, but would not require them to close or
provide for any other regulation.
2. Licensing
In order to regulate existina social clubs within the City, staff has discussed the
possibility of creating a licensing scheme similar to that of businesses that sell liquor,
nightclubs or adult businesses. These licensing requirements would, of course, apply to
future social clubs as well. As you know, social clubs are not required to have liquor
licenses since alcohol on the premises is not sold, but rather is shared. Creating a
licensing scheme for entities where liquor is served, but which are not required to have
a liquor license, could give the City a similar level of control over how those operations
are run as well as the power to revoke a license if such entities are run without regard to
the City's regulations. Hours of operation, staffing requirements, prohibition of
disorderly conduct and reporting requirements could be elements of such a licensing
approach.
2
Study Session
November 6, 2006
Item 5.
WHEATRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor Jerry DiTullio and City Council
Daniel Brennan, Chief of Police ~
Randy Young, City Manager
VIA:
FROM:
Wade Hammond, Commander
Support Services Bureau
Rollie Inskeep, Supervisor
Community Services Unit
DATE: November 1,2006
SUBJECT: Administrative Hearing Process
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The issues surrounding the enforcement of nuisance abatement in our
community has been challenging for a variety of reasons. Numerous efforts have
been made over the years in an attempt to make the City's response to nuisance
related issues more effective. Workload demands and community expectations
regarding nuisance enforcement caused the Police Department to begin looking
at alternative methods for handling nuisance enforcement. Personnel from the
Police Department, Community Services Unit, Community Development,
Municipal Court and the City Prosecutor have researched taking our current
nuisance enforcement process from a "criminal ordinance" model to an
"administrative hearing" model.
Based on our findings we recommend de-criminalizing the current process, and
developing an administrative hearing process. This would result in a faster and
more effective method of dealing with violations of the municipal code. The
process will not be an instant cure for the diverse issues, surrounding nuisance
enforcement but offers an avenue for the average citizen to come into
compliance faster and have a more positive relationship with the City and its
staff.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES:
In 2001, most of the enforcement of the City Nuisance Ordinances was
transferred to the Police Department. At that time, the Animal and Parks Unit
had a total of four (4) officers and a supervisor. In 2005, the unit was renamed
the Community Services Unit. The unit is currently staffed with four (4)
Community Service Officers (CSO) and a supervisor, plus one over-hire position.
For background information, the following numbers reflect the amount of time the
staff dedicates to code related issues:
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006/Sept.
Total Calls For Service
4,026
6,119
3,943
4,037
3,971
Code Related Calls
1 ,470
3,193
1,736
1,634
1,647
Percentage
37%
52%
44%
41%
42%
Under the current method of operation, a CSO will respond to a property that is in
violation of a nuisance ordinance and issue a written warning to the property
owner or a renter. That party is given 10 days to bring the property into voluntary
compliance. After the ten day waiting period, the CSO has the discretionary
option of working with the party if some progress has been made or issue a
misdemeanor summons to City court. This process may take several weeks to
several months to obtain compliance. Attached is a flow chart that describes the
process. Many hours are spent by staff in an effort to achieve compliance and
some still result in the issuance of a criminal summons when the property is not
in compliance. In some cases, the property in question has to be abated at an
initial cost to the city. The time involved in this process not only frustrates the
staff involved but also the surrounding neighbors and the property owner.
If the property is abated, the party responsible for the property is given 30 days to
pay for the cost of the clean up, including an administrative cost of 15% of the
cost of clean up. If the issue is not resolved at this point, the property has a
property lien placed on it with the Jefferson County Assessor.
With the development of an administrative hearing model, the process would be
greatly expedited. Several communities have developed this process to meet
their needs and have found it to be an effect1ve tool in dealing with code
violations. Staff has researched similar administrative hearing processes from
Denver, Aurora, and Craig, CO.
Conceptually the proposed Administrative Hearing process would be structured
as follows:
~ Violation would be from citizen complainant or officer initiated;
~ CSO would issue an administrative summons to the violator;
~ No warning would be issued;
~ CSO would photograph the violations;
~ CSO would notify the court clerk;
~ Violator would have 10-days to come into compliance;
~ Primary CSO would recheck the property for compliance and if not
corrected the property would be abated using the existing process;
~ The responsible party would be sent a bill which would include the cost of
the abatement, cost of time involved for the city employees, and the fine;
~ The responsible party would have 30-days to pay the bill or the property
would have a property lien placed against it;
~ Fines are preset and determined by other violations if any;
~ During the first five days after receiving the summons, the violator could
contest the charge and request a hearing;
~ Hearing would be held no later than fourteen days from the initial
summons being issued;
~ If the violator continues to be a problem, a criminal summons could be
issued after the third violation.
Depending on the volume of requested hearings, an Administrative Hearing
Officer could be scheduled on a weekly basis for Monday, Wednesday, Friday or
for Tuesday or Thursday. A court clerk is not required to be present as the
Administrative Hearing Officer would tape record the hearing.
City Staff recommends a progressive fine schedule. If abatement is necessary,
the violator pays for the abatement plus 20% for administrative costs. If this is
not paid by the violator, a property lien will be placed against the property.
Prior to this system going into effect, a strong educational component would be
recommended to minimize the cultural change on the community. This
educational component would aid in reducing the number of abatements.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Other jurisdictions are seeing a significant increase in compliance with this
system. The current model used by the City for nuisance abatement taxes the
available personnel resources we have. City staff believes that re-visits or
compliance checks will be reduced with this new model.
City staff believes we will be adding to the workload of the Municipal courts and
the Finance Division. It is difficult to project the impact at this time; however, staff
anticipates an impact and the potential for recommending an additional person(s)
in the future in the Courts and/or Finance Division depends on the actual impact
of this new program.
There is also an impact to the budget for abating properties. In 2006,
approximately $18,447 has been spent for property abatement. In 2007, $25,000
has been budgeted for abatements. We would recommend evaluating budget
abatement dollars in 2007 and coming forward to City Council with any budget
supplemental in 2007.
The cost of an Administrative Hearing Officer is projected to be $55-$65 per hour
for approximately 20 hours per month, or $15,600 a year. Staff recommends
using money collected from fines to pay for additional costs to run this program.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
1. Maintain the current nuisance abatement model.
2. Continue to seek other methods of nuisance enforcement.
3. Add manpower to deal with the current structure and to increase the ability
to be proactive.
RECOMMENDATION:
We feel the administrative hearing process is worthwhile and would provide for a
more effective and efficient process in handling nuisance related issues in our
community. Staff requests that City Council approve moving forward with
implementing an Administrative Hearing process. Based on City Council's
recommendations and direction, our staff will work with the City Attorney and
other City Departments to implement this process.
Current Process to Enforce
Municipal Code Violation
Municipal Code
Violation
10 days
..,
(Property in L
Compliance).... Property Recheck
CSO chooses
to work with
Cooperative
citizen
t
{ Property in }
Compliance
i
~
45 days to Court
Hearing
I
...
( Guilty Plea/fine)
Up to 21 days
Time dependant on
Vendor availability
v
.
Abatement
Trial
May take 3 months
from time of
summons
..
..,
(Collect Costs or\
\:ein on property)
...
( Not GUitly) (GUilty\fine)
10 days
..,
~ Propertyin )
Property Recheck ~ Compliance
45 days to Court
Hearing
~
....
Court Process,
Guilty/not guilty
~
From the time a violation is
reported it can take up to 55
days, or longer if person
requests trial, to complete the
process. It may take even
longer if CSO chooses to work
with the citizen.
5 days
7 to 14 days
'Y
Administrative
Hearing
...
( Appeal Won )
Proposed Administrative Hearing
Process
Municipal Code
Violation
...
Abatement
. Owner assessed 0(
fine + costs
..-
(Compliance )
Fines + Costs
'Y
(Collect Costs or )
Lien on Property
1
Absentee Property
Owner/Certified
Letter
Up to 21 days